We can debate and argue until the cows come home. Fact of the matter is, for the most part, we are not scientists of any scientific field. Thus, the video stands on its own merits. Eventually, there will be one/many conclusive satisfying theory. The theory of evolution paved way for intelligent design, which will pave way for who-knows-what in the coming centuries. What makes life interesting to me is not the conclusions, but rather the journey to end. Please treat each other with proper respec
The universe is spontaneous, disordered, and that is favourable. but to say the a spontaneous reaction b/w atoms and particles created life is plain stupid. Something had to come from somewhere. U cannot produce order from disorder just like you cannot produce peace from war.Saying that the universe was created by some magical reaction millions of years ago is simply stupid. That's like saying the IPHONE just appeared. look at how fascinating the iphone is, a genius had to create that blueprint
To me, the largest problem with this theory is...what intellegance could have intelegantly designed the intelegance that intelagently designed the flagellum for example.
I have dyslexia, please don't comment on the poor spelling...
DNA does not contain information, just like the bits in our computers are not 0s and 1s. We look at the patterns within DNA and create information based on those pattens to make sense of them.
HAHA! Laughable! They say the complexity of the bacteria is so unexplainable, that they must of been "created". HAHA! That is just an easy way out and a quick answer to something that cannot be explained by ignorant creationists (all of them ignorant). Life didn't need intelligence behind it to begin. Just because we use our intelligence to create things, doesn't give anyone the right to assume that therefore an intelligence must of created life. Get over it and move on, God does not exist FACT
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
So if you have evolution without abiogenesis then you have a mechanism with no origin. For evolution to occur you must have life, hence abiogenesis is the origin of evolution which therefore means for an ATHESIST NATURALIST it is an integral part of their beliefs.
@Gilbertus1986 Nope. As I said, as far as evolution is concerned, it doesn't matter whether life originated via abiogenesis, panspermia, or some magic man breathing on some clay. What you don't seem to understand is that evolution isn't meant to explain how life originated, just how it developed once it did exist.
Evolutionist need to prove: Mechanisms and processes of the evolution of life forms from A- Z. They have to study and understand everything about life as deep as they could and explain how does it originated,how does it started, what are the mechanisms, creating possibilities, predict, guess and on and on and on.
@gameofman Not entirely true. Evolution doesn't have to explain how life originated any more than it has to explain how the universe originated. Evolution is only meant to explain how life developed once it was already around, so as far as its concerned, it doesn't matter whether life originated via abiogenesis, panspermia, or some magic man breathing into clay.
Also, evolutionary theory already does most of that.
@ArcanaKnight I see. It is interesting to have different view about evolution itself. I wonder how this perspective would be shared and widely accepted by the evolutionist community, considering they are still experimenting the origin of life. You said "magic man breathing into clay", are you suggesting the possibility of creationism?
@gameofman The research into the origin of life is an entirely different field of research called abiogenesis; its not even in the same field.
"are you suggesting the possibility of creationism" No, I was using it as an example of the many ideas of how life originated on Earth as part of my explanation about how none of them have any bearing on the scientific theory which explains the development of life on earth.
@ArcanaKnight Then the evolutionist deemed abiogenesis and evolution are entirely two different field, while the creationist view them as the extension of one to the other. Then, if there is God, it must be the "cause" of the physical law or any law that govern our universe. Be it superstitious or scientific. After all, there are people who cannot live Godless life. LOL
@gameofman It really doesn't really matter how creationists view them, it doesn't change the fact that abiogenesis is the study of how life arose, and evolution is just the study of how life developed.
The second part of your post relies upon the unproven assumption that there is a god. The universe also doesn't need some being to be the "cause" of the physical laws because they're nothing but descriptive constructs that we've made up to help us understand reality and how it works.
Creationist need to prove: Complexity and sophistication in life forms that are only possible by the intervention of some kind of intelligent forces. They have to study and understand everything about life as deep as they could without worrying or thinking how does it originated. Flagellum motor? So what? It is intelligent design.
The entire intelligent design/creationism argument essentially boils down to "I don't understand how something like that could have come about naturally, so it must have been god"; there's no actual evidence and a heavy reliance on logical fallacies. ID is just creationism put through a word-replace program.
Abyssmally bad lesson. No evidence either for Evolution or ID. If ID proponents use this as any kind of basis for their twisted ideas then they are sadder than they appear. From disparaging the Theory of Evolution, they have eventually had to admit defeat in the face of overwhelming evidence. Instead of applying the same standards of evidence to their own religions, they have simply incorpoarated it into their hocus pocus by adding on 'God'. Any teaching of ID in Biology classes is child abuse.
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped and brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
The only reason nucleic acids resemble information is that only the sequences that ultimately replicate persist; virtually all other possible sequences assembled by chance (‘gibberish’) do not. DNA’s sequence and its ultimate replication (persistence) are interdependent, which makes it rather probable, not improbable, that it should have a specific pattern. The ‘criteria for intelligent design’ are not met.
No one as of yet has a thorough understanding of how cells or their elaborate machinery such as flagella first came into existence. It may well have been creation. But the hasty conclusion that such structures are irreducibly complex (and therefore must have been divinely created) cannot be tested or demonstrated. How is that scientific?
Argumentum ad populus and appeal to authority... These won't help you here my friend.
Evolutionary "scientists" have a vested interest, (and thus bias) in calling ID "unscientific", hence of course they would claim that, since ID challenges their "theory" which is (for most of them) the be-all-end-all of their degree.
@Gilbertus1986 "Evolutionary 'scientists' have a vested interest, (and thus bias) in calling ID 'unscientific'" You're forgetting though that even its own proponents have agreed that ID isn't scientific. You're also ignoring WHY it is that all these people agree it isn't science; one big reason is that it makes no testable predictions. Saying "Designer did it" is no more testable an explanation than classic creationists saying "God did it", therefore its not science.
Which ID'sts claim ID isn't science, (please support this claim)
ID makes the same kind of predictions that evolution does, (actually better ones than evolution since half of the "predictions" evolution makes are made After the Fact, and if it isn't predicted then it has an ad hoc explaination to explain it away- like living fossils / the gene tree showing inconsistencies with the phylogeny tree)
ID predicts that life will show evidence of complexity and a guiding purpose
@Gilbertus1986 "Which ID'sts claim ID isn't science" It was Behe himself who said it, during the Kitzmiller trial.
"ID predicts that life will show evidence of complexity and a guiding purpose" So what exactly is this "guiding purpose", and where is the evidence of it? Also, "predicting" complexity falls into the same category of the type of predictions that you claim makes up half the ones evolution makes (predicting after the fact).
@Gilbertus1986 "DNA is evidence of intelligence" No its not.
"information is ONLY ever known to come from intelligence" That's not true; we already know how nucleotides and polynucleotides form naturally, and we have evidence showing that evolutionary processes add information to the genome naturally too.
Relevant section of transcript from the Kitzmiller trial: tinyurlDOTcom/763jq (look for the mention of astrology).
CONT "DNA contains information" No it doesn't, at least not in the sense you and creationists like you are referring to. DNA is a complex polymer built from 4 basic monomeric units that can be arranged in specific sequences to form unique structures; they're nothing more than complex chemicals with equally complex chemical properties within the context of a cell.
"Information is ONLY ever known to come from intelligence" The classical definition of information, yes, but DNA may be different. This is a fallacy, since i have never seen any proof of that. In fact, i don't expect that to happen, since information is an abstract concept created by man. When we say that DNA contains information, what we mean is that the chemical activity of the cell is conditioned by the structure of the DNA, more precisely, by each gene.
@Gilbertus1986 It is us, humans, that interpret this translation as information but it is not the same thing as the information stored in a computer created by man. So, i think that argument does not apply.
Well then I watched all seven parts with an open mind, as always. But I haven't found one proof for the theory of I.D. Correct me if I'm wrong but the only reason this is still a thing is that it shows the gaps of our scientific research. Humans are just a very young race (in comparisson to our planet) and things are getting complexer not easier with the progress of research. Yet I don't see that our lack of knowledge is evidence to believe that everything was created by a higher sentient being.
What a terrible propaganda title. Scientists have not "proven" I.D. The current overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is not in favor of I.D.
@ptmakanga For future reference, if you're replying to someone, especially if you're asking a question, you should click "Reply" next to their post so that they will aware of your question.
A great source is the book "Why Intelligent Design Fails"; it explains in detail the problems are with the arguments ID proponents use, including Dembski's specified complexity. You could also look at talkorigins, that site has a large collection of articles refuting creationist's claims such as this.
clearly, richarddisdorky you were not listening. I think the arguments presented here are plausible. The issue of improbability and specification serving as an indicator for design makes total sense. Darmin is in real big trouble!
@ptmakanga All the arguments in these videos have been refuted, many repeatedly so, including the two you pointed out. "Specification" is not an indicator for design; ID/creationists have failed to come up with a valid method of objectively determining design, so far they have nothing but what boils down to subjective opinions.
‘Evolution of Biological Information’, Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research, Oxford University, July 2000.
'In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.'
@gamesbok Listen. Just because a human on Earth today decides that something isnt science (because its not convinient for them) doesnt change the theory at all, You can classify it however you want, its still the same theory.
@CarloOnU2ube Well, it isn't actually a theory as it's not falsifiable. How you conclude that an active Lutherian and Bush appointed judge might find it inconvenient escapes me.
@CarloOnU2ube "just because a human on Earth today decides something isn't science..." First of all, its not just one human; aside from that judge, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and even the Vatican's chief astronomer have all agreed that ID isn't science. Secondly, you're completely ignoring WHY they're all saying that its not science; they say its not science mainly because its claims are completely untestable.
@ArcanaKnight HAHA oh so evolution IS testable? give me a break. One human, or more, its still not the standard of truth, and even if it wasnt science its stilll the same theory.
@CarloOnU2ube "One human, or more, its still not the standard of truth" Even its own proponents have admitted that for ID to be science, the definition would have to be expanded so much that other pseudosciences like astrology would also be considered science. And you're still ignoring WHY it is all these people agree that ID isn't science.
The "arguments" in this video, while convincing to a layperson like yourself, are clearly fundamentally flawed to anyone with familiarity of the subject.
No proof here. The title is a lie. Simply saying something is really complex so it must be designed is a belief system not science. Science has no need or place for beliefs.
randomness doesn't produce intelligence? is this guy on drugs? everything is information. even nothing itself is information. how the f*** did this moron not get slapped in the face for the bullshit he's spewing?
@gmacyhwh "And besides I know God exists he talks to me. You talk to him and he will talk to you."
Evolutionary theory and god are not a mutually exclusive. Having conversations with unseen entities and evolutionary theory are also NOT mutually exclusive. Since you have clearly studied the cell and have thought about this, how does the cell work functioning contrast with evolutionary theory?
thy cant explain the outcomes from natural laws... and?... none of these guys are not to bright.. and most of them are rejects involved with pseudo sciences... presumption lads is the mother of all ****ups!!! .. i dunno... I cant explain it so a person must of made it jebus people are mentally lazy... understand more on physics then you'll get it!!!
Waste of time this video. This is pseudo science denying all the existing evidence. I wonder which religious organisation sponsored this absurd program.
funny how the religious will say that nothing came from nothing and ask us what came before the big bang and yet wont answer; what made god? what was there before god? How did god come to exsist? They will say just have faith and I will say.... wait as in time im sure we ( scientests)will find the answers or at least the understanding. I suspect the answer to god being created will be the same answer in which no doubt you would not be able too answer today or tomorrow.
@stonewall1888 funny how the religious will say that nothing came from nothing and ask us what came before the big bang
____
If you will still persist in your ignorance at least assure me as to when this *big bang* created itself-whether it did it before it came into existence, or afterwards?
If you say afterwards, your assertion is absurd. Because it is impossible for a thing to create its own self when it was already created.
The purpose of your assertion would be that the *big bang* made itself twice. It would mean that its first endeavours consisted in creating itself, and when it was quite ready and created, it created itself again. This is the most *absurd* and impossible theory-the acquisition of what is already acquired.
If you say that it created itself before it came into existence, it is really *stupid*. Because it was absolutely nothing before it came into existence.
How is it possible for a non-existing thing to create another thing (*big bang*) ? You consider my belief in an existing thing (God) that creates another non-existing thing (*big bang*) as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing,(*big bang*) as absurd and stupid.
Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational.?
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth (Universe) were joined together as one unit (atom) of creation, before we clove (exploded) them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
In several languages, there are two types of plurals, one is a plural of numbers to refer to something that occurs in a quantity of more than one. The other plural is a plural of respect.
a. In the English language, the Queen of England refers to herself as ‘We’ instead of ‘I’. This is known as the ‘royal plural’.
@eduardtube1980 b. Rajiv Gandhi, the ex-Prime Minister of India used to say in Hindi "Hum dekhna chahte hain". "We want to see." ‘Hum’ means ‘We’ which is again a royal plural in Hindi.
c. Similarly in Arabic, when Allaah refers to Himself in the Qur’an, He often uses Nahnu meaning ‘We’. It does not indicate plural of number but plural of respect.
@eduardtube1980 Q...Does Islam believe in several Gods because the Qur’an uses the word ‘We’ when God speaks in the Qur’an?
Answer:
Islam is a strictly monotheistic religion. It believes in and adheres to uncompromising monotheism. It believes that God is one, and unique in His attributes. In the Qur’an, God often refers to Himself using the word ‘We’. But this does not mean that Islam believes in the existence of more than one God.
@eduardtube1980 "We" is a plural of respect, not number. Just like speaking Spanish or Italian or other languages of the world, you address elders in the plural for respect.).
In swedish language, One old man or woman can be adresses as NI (plural) instead of DU (singular) to show your respect.
Forgive me for not answering. If intelligent man in all his glory came from the big bang and Darwin theory, if that were the truth, is it possible that such a person in some distant time emerged and discovered how to subject the universe to his will and thus emerged as God? Does this offend you? Molecules = man= and evolved as god? Is it really that illogical according to your logic.
"To die would be quite an adventure", but if someone is healed beyond medical explanation that is interesting, however that person will still die. If death is the end, then there's no cause for concern on who lives and dies, right? Still I think this is a matter if life experience and opinion. I repect your rebuttals. Do you believe in a possibility of a higher intelligent power?
@EzmuzeIDOL Do you belive in answering a question? Every living thing dies; im not sure what your point is?
Thats evolution working and I would considr death as death and not an adventure. You seem to along with other religious followers that death is more importent than life.
Again can you answer = , so with that god has selected only a few to be cured and the rest are left to their fate.In which way does that sound such a loving god in where he can select a few and leave the the rest to die??
@EzmuzeIDOL Again why do we have a god who plays a lottery on who lives.
Walk into every cancer ward in every hospital & say to each patient = If this hospoital cant cure you then MAYBE god will let one of you live. So lets say by chance god picks one; then y not cure them all. Would that not be a miracle if he cured them all and says " Behold I am the light" Would we not then have our evidence, would we not rejoice..nah, better just pick one its easier to call that a miracle.
Seriously tiny little primordial molecules rollin into complex patterns all on there own, and then into eyes, teeth, heart, finger nails, ears, and an intelligent being capable of reproduction with it's own species? What a crock of crab. Ever rebuilt a car engine? It takes intelligence, an won't happen on it's own. As if saying "billions of years ago" makes it plausible, come on. If I smash my watch and bury it in a steel box, a billon years from now the watch will still be smashed, not reass
Churches? The catholic church suppressed the advances of science,- Galileo. I'm not catholic nor am I ignorant to the fact that people have been healed by faith (use google yourself) however I never said science and medical attention should bit be used in the process of healing. Do you deny the plausibility that people have been healed hen nothing else medically can be done? And how lame to use all caps, grr.
@EzmuzeIDOL I used caps as it makes me angry. Going by your logic that people have been healed when nothing medicaly can be done, so with that god has selected only a few to be cured and the rest are left to thier fate.In which way does sound such a loving god in where he can select a few and leave the to die??????? Would love an answer
Why does this video need to breakdown DNA to say there is a god = why are they so focused on this? Is it due to we can put a correct age on our planet. Is it we can look at evoulotion with open eyes. Is it most scholars can not find any evidence on jesus.
I could go on, what im basicaly saying is that this video is clutching straws, to stop free thinking, to control those who have doubts or question what they read.
Ok...not sure how this is an explanation for medically documented cases in the feild of medecine? But I appreciate your skepticism, and admittedly dramatic retospect on actual incidents of healing is plausible, but not a purposeful examinaion of the aforementioned medical mysteries where faith was applied.
Proof of a God? Not my job or burden. However the world is proof, the rotation of it's axis and the animal kingdom, etc. How do we scientifically account for the many, many faith healings? Restored sight to blind, lame walking again, something going on here.
@EzmuzeIDOL "How do we account for the many, many faith healings" Its mainly a combination of fraud, coincidence, and exaggeration in the retelling of stories of such events.
@EzmuzeIDOL NAME ONE CASE IN WHICH i CAN READ IN WHERE A FAITH HEALER RESTORED FULL VISION TO A REGISTERD BLIND PERSON!!! INFACT DO A LIST.
ENLIGHTMENT CAME FROM THOSE WHO QUESTIONED THEIR FAITH AND SEEKED ANSWERS THAT WERE NOT IN THE BIBLE. BE HONEST IF CHURCHES GOT AWAY WITH SUPRESSING FREE THINKING THEN WE WOULD ALL BE PRAYING TO THE ALMIGHTY
DNA instructions on molecules, this shatters darwins theory. Anger from those who disagree or hate intelligent Design, are unable to logically accept this scientific proof. Too bad anger won't change the facts of these videos. And one says these are lies, what do you have to hide, perhaps the metaphysical world is going to be scientifically discovered soon?
im sorry but you religious cunts had no idea bacteria exsisted on your hands until the late 18th century when a sceintist proved that many women died after pregnecy due to doctors working from one case to the other without washing his hands.
Why did the bible not give those simple instructions on germs???? Of course it wouldnt as religion did not include radical thinking.
"I can't imagine a world where I have to make sense of it myself. I need a superior authority to give me a sense to believe in" Thats practically what that guy says.
Seriously? ID preferable, because EoT and independant thinking are SCARY? Do we really want to listen to people who need an authority themselves?
People like that are just plain blind, because they see only "chaos" in something that has no "boss" and instead, self organization.
"We know at present, that there is no naturalistic explanation, no natural cause, that produces information"
Wrong. The early stages of Biogenesis have been reproduced in tests years ago. The early atmosphere of the earth had all elements and simple molekules to create the first steps of life. and from there on, self organization can indeed create basic, random information. between the beginning of the oceans to the cambrian explosions there was more than enough time for self organization.
True Christian faith is based on inner spiritual experiences of God and Jesus and on God's word, so a true Christian does not need Intelligent Design. Actually, a true Christian does not trust anything in the world except if he absolutely must trust something. I think however that the world is a better place if there is some opposition to such lies as Evolution, so in my channel's playlist Creation vs Evolution I have collected the best creationist videos available on YouTube. Welcome to watch!
Lightning is not comparable. Maybe if novels or symphonies were written in the sky by lightning it would be. Lightning is basically random, not driven by instructions like like we see in biology.
@ItssBrian It is comparable because you were making an argument that it is designed because its CURRENTLY beyond our understanding (which isn't completely true btw), and at one time lightning was also included in that category; I could just as easily have referenced pretty much any other natural phenomena that we currently understand because at one point we didn't and it was attributed to the gods. Yours is still an argument from incredulity, regardless of whether you think the analogy is good
@ArcanaKnight That's not at all the argument I was making. You completely misunderstood. My argument is that the one who designed it is more intelligent than we are. I never said we would never be able to understand how things work or that it's designed because we don't understand it. We see other evidences (like the informational system) that show intelligence. Our lack of understanding only draws us to conclude that the already established intelligence is greater than ours.
@ItssBrian "My argument is that the one who designed it is more intelligent than we are" And how do you know that it was designed in the first place? You're making assumptions about a Designer when it hasn't even been shown that such a designer exists, or that there is even anything that can't be accounted for using entirely natural processes.
@ArcanaKnight I have a question for you though. Do you know where I can find out how they set up RNA experiments? I've looked at the article you site provided, and it seems to talk a lot about their achievements, but not so much on how they've set up the experiment. I would very much like to know how these nucleotides were created, and the conditions of the environment in which they reacted with each other.
We know intelligence exists, we have knowledge and experience with what intelligence produces, and we have other things we know were designed to compare bio-mechanics to.
@ItssBrian We only know about the existence of human intelligence and our only experience is with the products of human intelligence; that is a very important distinction. We know nothing about the abilities, parameters, or even intentions of the IDer's supposed Designer (something we do know when looking for the products of human intelligence); you're also ignoring the distinction between artificial and natural design that allows scientists to determine the products of human design.
@ArcanaKnight We don't need to know the ability, parameters, or intentions to determine that intelligence was involved. And we have experience with natural design as we observe the results every day. You're also ignoring the similarities between "artificial" and natural design. Structures within natural design are extremely similar to human designed structures, the difference is that the natural design is more complex. It's beyond human intelligence.
@ItssBrian "the difference is that the natural design is more complex" One problem with that is that complexity =/= design. We find complex things which we know were made via entirely natural processes like erosion, and simple things that were designed by humans. In fact simplicity, not complexity, is the goal of human designs; engineers work to make things as simple as possible.
"It's beyond human intelligence." This is the very definition of an argument from incredulity.
@ArcanaKnight "In fact simplicity, not complexity, is the goal of human designs; engineers work to make things as simple as possible." That's a misrepresentation. The goal is to make things more efficient, which is often related, but still a different goal. Machines in nature are mostly complex, but efficient. They're not composed of a bunch of rube goldberg machines.
It's beyond human intelligence in the sense that we don't understand all of bio mechanics, and we can't create it.
@ItssBrian "It's beyond human intelligence in the sense that we don't understand all of bio mechanics, and we can't create it." That's still the definition of an argument from incredulity. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that someone else doesn't or that we never will, nor does something being beyond our current understanding mean that some intelligence is behind it. It used to be that we didn't understand lightning, but that doesn't mean it was caused by some intelligence.
@ArcanaKnight But we don't see principles of design in lightning like we do in biology. And if an intelligent designer made these systems thousands of years ago and humans still can't figure it out, that obviously shows superior intelligence. Just because we could eventually figure out how something works that He made thousands of years ago doesn't mean our intelligence is on par with His.
@ItssBrian "we don't see principles of design in lightning like we do in biology" So exactly what are these "principles of design"?
"...made these systems thousands of years ago and humans still can't figure it out, that obviously shows superior intelligence" That's still just an argument from incredulity. You also missed the point: its not that we could figure out how it was designed some day, its that we could figure out exactly how nature does it, just as we did with lightning.
@ArcanaKnight "One problem with that is that complexity =/= design." This is true.Complexity is only the first part of the argument.The other half is independent specification.For instance,we would not attribute the faces on mount Rushmore to erosion,because they closely match an independent pattern,namely the faces of 5 presidents.Of cause a simple pattern can be matched by nature,such as the face on mars.The more accurate and complex the matching pattern,the less likely to be coincidence
@Hannodb1961 "The other half is independent specification" Just to be perfectly clear (I don't want to make incorrect assumptions about your argument), what exactly do you mean by specification, and how is it independent?
@ArcanaKnight Well, I think Stephen Meyer explains it better than I can, but it has to do with the fact that the arrangement of the parts has significance beyond the parts themselves and their underlying processes. For instance "Meaning" is just as complex as "Efsogmtisf", but the latter don't specify anything, while the first conforms to an independent specification that goes beyond mere ink on paper.
@Hannodb1961 Like Dembski, Meyer HAS no rigorous definition of specified information; its remained ambiguous and constantly changes to suit whatever its proponents' arguments are at the moment (which is probably why its also had no impact on real informatics research). Also like Dembski, Meyer's concept of specified complexity essentially boils down to a god-of-the-gaps argument (with a bit of Texas sharpshooter thrown in).
To put it another way, erosion has no preconceived idea of what shape it wants to create. The final shape, though complex, is nothing more than the result of necessity and change: The hardness and topography of the rock and the eroding agent. The shape carries no meaning beyond itself and how it was formed. The Spinx, however conforms to a human shape, which is a specification that exist beyond the natural processes that might've produced it, therefore everyone infers design.
@ArcanaKnight Ofcause, there is a gray zone. Because the face on mars was very vague, it was possible for nature to produce the specification by change, because the specification wasn't very strong. However, if the second probe took a picture of the mountain, and we got a picture as crystal clear as the face of the swinx, then that would certainly have gotten everybody's attention. So, a very close match of a highly complex, independent specification indicates design/information.
@Hannodb1961 Have you actually seen the face of the sphinx? Its not really any clearer than those found to have been carved by entirely natural processes. This is one of the problems with your idea of "specified" information; it has no rigorous definition, so offers no objective method of differentiating between similar things that we know was made by humans and something known to have been made by natural processes. CONT
CONT This means that everything essentially boils down to a subjective opinion about whether it was designed or not. Another is that is only able to "detect" design that strongly parallels human design, making it scientifically worthless. It's like having an assay which can only detect signal from the positive control.
@ArcanaKnight Well, I find the definition quite clear enough. However I'm not trying to convince you of the argument. I'm simply pointing out that no one is saying that mere complexity indicates design.
@Hannodb1961 And I'm simply pointing out that creationist claims regarding so-called "specified complexity" have no rigorous definition, that its not an objective method of determining design, and that its essentially just a mixture of logical fallacies.
Also, even though it may not be what you're saying, that actually was exactly what Brian was saying.
@ArcanaKnight Well, you've failed in that objective. There is nothing unclear or vague about specificity, especially when it is applied to sequences such as text or DNA: Sequences makes it possible to calculate exactly how tight the specification needs to be before it looses function. Of cause, Darwinists don't like working with math, because it has a tenancy to make their theory seems ridiculous.
@Hannodb1961 Actually, Meyer's "specified information" fails mathematically as well. You forget that information theory is its own branch of investigation, completely independent of biology and the ToE, yet the creationist's claims of specified information have completely failed to find any place in this field either. Meyer's claims have been criticized by biologists and mathematicians alike for its many faults: tinyurlDOTcom/3rb3v6x
@ArcanaKnight I have yet to find a criticism(Including from the RNA world people)of SITC which was not already dealt with in the book.Anyway, I was not arguing with you about the merits of the argument, I was simply correcting you on the content of the argument. The fact that you are picking a fight where non existed already tells me you are one of those evangelical Darwinists who do not want people to even consider the possibility of ID. I am in no mood for another fruitless debate, thanks you.
@ArcanaKnight Last post, I promise. Suppose you're a mountaineer preparing to climb mount Everest, and you come across a 2 meter pile of dirt, you will not think much of it. If it vaguely looks like Mt. Everest, you'll write it down as coincidence. But if it looks exactly like mount Everest, and you can identify every hill and valley, you will infer someone made it as a map. That's because its complexity closely matches an independent specification, namely, Mount Everest.
@ArcanaKnight My point is that it's a lot like human intelligence, only better. We identify it as intelligence that created something the we cannot create. In other words, beyond our intelligence. I never said it was designed because it is complex. We know it's designed because it's complex, uniform, efficient, and balanced.
@ItssBrian "We know it's designed because it's complex, uniform, efficient, and balanced" What exactly do you mean by balanced and uniform? Your judgement of efficiency is also rather subjective since most natural "designs" are quite full of redumdancies, unnecessary parts, etc.; it also ignores any natural processes by which such efficiency could have been produced. And again, complexity doesn't automatically indicate intellitgence was involved.
@tabligh That was my fault I suppose for thinking you might actually respond with something about what I was talking about. I knew that you don't actually read those replies and instead use them as an excuse to copy/paste your off-topic creationist talking points, but I still responded to your post anyway. I really have to stop feeding these trolls.
@MrAristotelianattic About multiple designers etc. You're not proving anything here considering we can't comprehend HOW God works at all. If he was created, he wouldn't be God.
"No natural cause that produces information" Except that we have observed increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, novel genetic material, and novel genetically-regulated abilities, so by any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve.
@ArcanaKnight fantastic argument on evolution. creationist often bring up the kind of animal instead of specie. for there to be a kind of animal unchangeable, there has to be a genetic sequence that is unchangeable, by mean of natural selection and mutations. weather by insertion, deletion or recombination of genetic variation, genes r naturally changed to self improve. the kinds argument is bull. i find using this argument silence a lot of them
@kissntellen Many new questions in regard to almost every principle mentioned by Darwin have arisen. For example, it is asked whether the appearance of a new organ or for that matter any other organic change, always results from the use of that organ and the attempt to adapt it to one's environment or it may be due to mutation or any other cause?
The acquired qualities are hereditable as a principle or genetic investigations have rejected this theory?
@1tabligh And? A sign of a good theory is that it leads to further research (one of the reasons why "goddidit" isn't a good answer), and new discoveries usually lead to new avenues of inquiry. Also, just putting a question mark at the end of your statements doesn't actually make it a question.
@ArcanaKnight ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF QUIBBLING IN VAIN!
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
How do deluded and duped atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?
The organic changes, whatever may be their cause, are always aimed at survival and evolution or sometimes they may be due to the inconsistency with the environmental conditions and may culminate in death and extinction?
Natural selection is or is not like artificial selection which leads the existing generation to evolution?
"...There is no natural cause that produces information..."
Oh, damn, I hope segments of chromosomes, never duplicate, because that would immediately invalidate this guy's hypothesis. Oh, no, THEY DO? And it results in genes with new functions some of the time? Wow, and this is common knowledge? This guy must be either knowingly lying to us or unfamiliar with the field he claims to be an expert in. What a hack!
i have a problem with people who say jus because something seems to have a designer then it must, it is a crude assumption. i agree, its hard to believe that me and all that exist, came accidently and seems designed. ud be stupid to say it duznt. but the only thing harder to accept is that such a complex being could exist, a being that after all Created Everything. imagine, physically, how it could Create something out of nothing. weigh the 2 and ask which is more likely??creation or evolution??
@skubersteve24 God is startlingly simply in his nature. A mind without a body. God is actually nothing in terms of his consistency. He is immaterial. He isn't more complex than his creation.
@ThomasWinkworth i want to say thankyou to both you and mr.skubersteve24 for such a informatived and intellegent debate.most of the people on youtube could take a page or two from the both of you on how to have one with out reverting to name calling or use language inapropreate to the debate. so once again i thankyou
@skubersteve24 God wasn't created. He existed before time and matter and space because he created it all. There are two options: Either God has existed for eternity, or the universe has existed for eternity. Both of which humans cannot fully comprehend. Something cannot come from nothing. It has NEVER been observed.
@skubersteve24 God is not preceded. He is the creator of the universe; not just the matter withing the universe, but the laws which uphold the universe such as time and gravity.
@ItssBrian to claim a conscious being is not preceded by anything as a Fact, to me, is unhelpful. no one can prove gods non existence, true, but also no one can prove his existence either. if nobody can prove to me that fairies exist then i will assume they dont. my point is assumption Without knowledge promotes delusions of grandeur. its takes arrogance, not faith, to come to the conclusion that a Creator Does Exist. if you believe in god, then u Have to believe in UFOs, Fairies, Bigfoot etc.
@skubersteve24 I didn't claim it as a fact. A fact is something that can be proven. I do however claim it as truth. If I stood up and did 3 jumping jacks right now I would never be able to prove that I did so later, but that doesn't make it any less true. Factuality and truth are not synonymous. We can neither prove, nor disprove the existence of God. What we can do is examine the evidence which is presented clearly here and come to the logical conclusion that God exists and is active.
@ItssBrian well actually there are methods u could use to prove you did 3 jumping jacks, such as witnesses, video footage. thats evidence that proves there is Truth/Factuality in your claim. If u claim something to be True then u are stating you know it Factually. There are no methods that you or nebody can use to prove Gods existence is True or Fact. The Fact is there is No evidence to examine. There is only the assumption that there is.
@ItssBrian Truth: conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
@skubersteve24 Way to copy and paste the first definition on dictionary. com. Look at the second and third definitions. Besides, that wasn't even my main point. You're still ignoring the evidence presented the the videos.
@ItssBrian i did in fact address the points in the video. its not evidence. the ASSUMPTION that complexity PROVES a creator promotes delusion of grandeur, as the whole argument is flawed. and seeing that your using the english language, i think you need to take a look at the definitions of Truth and Fact without lying to yourself. theyre synonomous, Fact./Truth. this produces no evidence. only assumption which stems from the arrogance of discredited researchers. google their names.
@skubersteve24 It is evidence. It's not just complexity, it's irreducible complexity, uniformity, and efficiency. By every measure one can use to determine intelligent design we see intelligent design in bio-mechanics. As for the semantics, fact and truth are not always synonymous. Fact is always truth, but truth is not always fact (as defined by definition 3. on dictionary. com, definition 2. of the World English dictionary, and illustrated by my former analogy)
@ItssBrian Irreducible Complexity is nothing more than a god-of-the-gaps argument; pretty much every single supposed example of IC has also been refuted almost as soon as it was made. IDers don't have an objective method of determining design; most claims of design end up being little more than a subjective opinion.
@ArcanaKnight So you're saying that intelligent design is impossible to determine? Do you believe pyramids were built by earthquakes to? (or just possibly built by earthquakes or something of the like) You honestly believe that intelligent design is unidentifiable? And you have nothing to back up your statement of IC being refute it. You say it has been refuted, but you offer no examples, no logic, no sources, and no references.
@ItssBrian No, I'm not saying its impossible, I'm just saying that nobody has come up with an objective method of determining design yet. Using man-made examples like the pyramids to try to prove design in nature is a faulty analogy; we have evidence humans exist, we have knowledge and experience with how they make things, and we have other things we know they've made to compare it to.
CONT As for the IC examples being refuted, you could even do a search here on youtube alone and find a dozen videos debunking whichever supposed example of IC you're thinking of. If you want something more specific, then just pick the one supposed example of IC you think is the best, and I'll provide the refutation of it. If you want a resounding review and refutation of IC, you should read the decision from the Dover trial because it goes into detail regarding the failures of Behe and IC.
to say complexity needs a creator isnt logical. if all this is so complex then imagine the complexity of a god that can exist outside of time. now he gave us purpose, so god purposeful. now god exists outside of time and space, no beginning no end, with intent. now god must have consciously decided to create the universe, meaning he had a conscious purpose that began with intent to and ended with the action. yet there is no beginning or end. duznt make sense. our existence proves god absence.
@skubersteve24 "our existence proves god absence" Not really, its just evidence against that line of flawed reasoning. If there is a god though, it would at least be evidence that it is more of an absentee god instead of the hands-on god usually depicted in most religious texts.
@ArcanaKnight to prove a god exists and that it created the universe, is to prove a purposeful god. a god with a motive. i come into contact, more, with the religous mind who r often people who say god always existed becoz he is outside of all laws which, i think, the god they assume they have evidence For. however, a god that came into a conscious state gradually over time?? which then created life?...well id have a hard time refuting that...
Then - as an intelligent being, I have within me information. That information is what directed my structure as an animal, yes? It seems that from our "knowledge base" that all intelligence about which we "know" has within it information responsible for directing its composition, yes? Then the Designer (god) must have information within him directing his composition. Therefore, another designer must have designed him (god). And then another designer... etc.. etc...
We can debate and argue until the cows come home. Fact of the matter is, for the most part, we are not scientists of any scientific field. Thus, the video stands on its own merits. Eventually, there will be one/many conclusive satisfying theory. The theory of evolution paved way for intelligent design, which will pave way for who-knows-what in the coming centuries. What makes life interesting to me is not the conclusions, but rather the journey to end. Please treat each other with proper respec
MrHouth 14 hours ago
Hmmm . . . Guy believes in a creator, and assumes that instead of chance and how things genuinely work, then DNA must be evidence of said creator.
That's choosing a conclusion and ignoring the evidence contrary. It's no wonder why there's no scientific paper supporting such.
crazyinsane500 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The universe is spontaneous, disordered, and that is favourable. but to say the a spontaneous reaction b/w atoms and particles created life is plain stupid. Something had to come from somewhere. U cannot produce order from disorder just like you cannot produce peace from war.Saying that the universe was created by some magical reaction millions of years ago is simply stupid. That's like saying the IPHONE just appeared. look at how fascinating the iphone is, a genius had to create that blueprint
BestMusic2012 1 week ago
To me, the largest problem with this theory is...what intellegance could have intelegantly designed the intelegance that intelagently designed the flagellum for example.
I have dyslexia, please don't comment on the poor spelling...
Dickified 1 week ago
No ratings allowed ?
Why ?
Because they are full of shite.
tellnet 2 weeks ago
@tellnet I wish i could thumbs up :(
Dickified 1 week ago
DNA does not contain information, just like the bits in our computers are not 0s and 1s. We look at the patterns within DNA and create information based on those pattens to make sense of them.
UNIT301092203 2 weeks ago
HAHA! Laughable! They say the complexity of the bacteria is so unexplainable, that they must of been "created". HAHA! That is just an easy way out and a quick answer to something that cannot be explained by ignorant creationists (all of them ignorant). Life didn't need intelligence behind it to begin. Just because we use our intelligence to create things, doesn't give anyone the right to assume that therefore an intelligence must of created life. Get over it and move on, God does not exist FACT
pompeycharlie 2 weeks ago
SO where's the proof, all I see are the same old lame arguments, there is no proof in this video, it is false advertising
derekKmartin 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for the ID proponent.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS ADMITS TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
SEARCH: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
VIEW: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
WATCH: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
KNOW: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
SHARE: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
Dawkins: Civilisation with high level of technology from elsewhere in universe seeded self replicating molecules on this planet?
mat2112moneychangers 1 month ago
So if you have evolution without abiogenesis then you have a mechanism with no origin. For evolution to occur you must have life, hence abiogenesis is the origin of evolution which therefore means for an ATHESIST NATURALIST it is an integral part of their beliefs.
Gilbertus1986 2 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 Nope. As I said, as far as evolution is concerned, it doesn't matter whether life originated via abiogenesis, panspermia, or some magic man breathing on some clay. What you don't seem to understand is that evolution isn't meant to explain how life originated, just how it developed once it did exist.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
Evolutionist need to prove: Mechanisms and processes of the evolution of life forms from A- Z. They have to study and understand everything about life as deep as they could and explain how does it originated,how does it started, what are the mechanisms, creating possibilities, predict, guess and on and on and on.
gameofman 2 months ago in playlist More videos from VipChannel
@gameofman Not entirely true. Evolution doesn't have to explain how life originated any more than it has to explain how the universe originated. Evolution is only meant to explain how life developed once it was already around, so as far as its concerned, it doesn't matter whether life originated via abiogenesis, panspermia, or some magic man breathing into clay.
Also, evolutionary theory already does most of that.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@ArcanaKnight I see. It is interesting to have different view about evolution itself. I wonder how this perspective would be shared and widely accepted by the evolutionist community, considering they are still experimenting the origin of life. You said "magic man breathing into clay", are you suggesting the possibility of creationism?
gameofman 2 months ago
@gameofman The research into the origin of life is an entirely different field of research called abiogenesis; its not even in the same field.
"are you suggesting the possibility of creationism" No, I was using it as an example of the many ideas of how life originated on Earth as part of my explanation about how none of them have any bearing on the scientific theory which explains the development of life on earth.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Then the evolutionist deemed abiogenesis and evolution are entirely two different field, while the creationist view them as the extension of one to the other. Then, if there is God, it must be the "cause" of the physical law or any law that govern our universe. Be it superstitious or scientific. After all, there are people who cannot live Godless life. LOL
gameofman 2 months ago
@gameofman It really doesn't really matter how creationists view them, it doesn't change the fact that abiogenesis is the study of how life arose, and evolution is just the study of how life developed.
The second part of your post relies upon the unproven assumption that there is a god. The universe also doesn't need some being to be the "cause" of the physical laws because they're nothing but descriptive constructs that we've made up to help us understand reality and how it works.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
Creationist need to prove: Complexity and sophistication in life forms that are only possible by the intervention of some kind of intelligent forces. They have to study and understand everything about life as deep as they could without worrying or thinking how does it originated. Flagellum motor? So what? It is intelligent design.
gameofman 2 months ago in playlist More videos from VipChannel
The entire intelligent design/creationism argument essentially boils down to "I don't understand how something like that could have come about naturally, so it must have been god"; there's no actual evidence and a heavy reliance on logical fallacies. ID is just creationism put through a word-replace program.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
"Comprehensive scientific case"
Really? Is it because these "guys" have published less than a handful of papers since the 90s?
Is it because they keep repeatedly losing in courts?
I say humbug. Their case is based on plain crackpottery.
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
I thought that was awsome
thinkagainism 3 months ago
Abyssmally bad lesson. No evidence either for Evolution or ID. If ID proponents use this as any kind of basis for their twisted ideas then they are sadder than they appear. From disparaging the Theory of Evolution, they have eventually had to admit defeat in the face of overwhelming evidence. Instead of applying the same standards of evidence to their own religions, they have simply incorpoarated it into their hocus pocus by adding on 'God'. Any teaching of ID in Biology classes is child abuse.
joooo2002 3 months ago
@joooo2002 The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 3 months ago
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped and brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 3 months ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 3 months ago
The only reason nucleic acids resemble information is that only the sequences that ultimately replicate persist; virtually all other possible sequences assembled by chance (‘gibberish’) do not. DNA’s sequence and its ultimate replication (persistence) are interdependent, which makes it rather probable, not improbable, that it should have a specific pattern. The ‘criteria for intelligent design’ are not met.
nitroboy756 3 months ago
No one as of yet has a thorough understanding of how cells or their elaborate machinery such as flagella first came into existence. It may well have been creation. But the hasty conclusion that such structures are irreducibly complex (and therefore must have been divinely created) cannot be tested or demonstrated. How is that scientific?
nitroboy756 3 months ago
Argumentum ad populus and appeal to authority... These won't help you here my friend.
Evolutionary "scientists" have a vested interest, (and thus bias) in calling ID "unscientific", hence of course they would claim that, since ID challenges their "theory" which is (for most of them) the be-all-end-all of their degree.
Gilbertus1986 4 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 "Evolutionary 'scientists' have a vested interest, (and thus bias) in calling ID 'unscientific'" You're forgetting though that even its own proponents have agreed that ID isn't scientific. You're also ignoring WHY it is that all these people agree it isn't science; one big reason is that it makes no testable predictions. Saying "Designer did it" is no more testable an explanation than classic creationists saying "God did it", therefore its not science.
ArcanaKnight 4 months ago
@ArcanaKnight
Which ID'sts claim ID isn't science, (please support this claim)
ID makes the same kind of predictions that evolution does, (actually better ones than evolution since half of the "predictions" evolution makes are made After the Fact, and if it isn't predicted then it has an ad hoc explaination to explain it away- like living fossils / the gene tree showing inconsistencies with the phylogeny tree)
ID predicts that life will show evidence of complexity and a guiding purpose
Gilbertus1986 4 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 "Which ID'sts claim ID isn't science" It was Behe himself who said it, during the Kitzmiller trial.
"ID predicts that life will show evidence of complexity and a guiding purpose" So what exactly is this "guiding purpose", and where is the evidence of it? Also, "predicting" complexity falls into the same category of the type of predictions that you claim makes up half the ones evolution makes (predicting after the fact).
ArcanaKnight 4 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Please provide a link to this trial
DNA is evidence of intelligence.
DNA contains information
Information is ONLY ever known to come from intelligence
Therefore we infer intelligence created DNA, (much like how you infer similarities = evolution)
What is this intelligence, it definately isn't random chance.
Gilbertus1986 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gilbertus1986 "DNA is evidence of intelligence" No its not.
"information is ONLY ever known to come from intelligence" That's not true; we already know how nucleotides and polynucleotides form naturally, and we have evidence showing that evolutionary processes add information to the genome naturally too.
Relevant section of transcript from the Kitzmiller trial: tinyurlDOTcom/763jq (look for the mention of astrology).
ArcanaKnight 4 months ago
CONT "DNA contains information" No it doesn't, at least not in the sense you and creationists like you are referring to. DNA is a complex polymer built from 4 basic monomeric units that can be arranged in specific sequences to form unique structures; they're nothing more than complex chemicals with equally complex chemical properties within the context of a cell.
watch?v=12KR5pIRSa0&feature=feedu
ArcanaKnight 4 months ago
"Information is ONLY ever known to come from intelligence" The classical definition of information, yes, but DNA may be different. This is a fallacy, since i have never seen any proof of that. In fact, i don't expect that to happen, since information is an abstract concept created by man. When we say that DNA contains information, what we mean is that the chemical activity of the cell is conditioned by the structure of the DNA, more precisely, by each gene.
raviept 3 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 It is us, humans, that interpret this translation as information but it is not the same thing as the information stored in a computer created by man. So, i think that argument does not apply.
raviept 3 months ago
This video would have be down-rated into pure red.
If you actually care about truth & science just ignore this video.
If you are a creationist in search of affirmation of your delusional
believes this video is for you.
unamaxify 4 months ago
Well then I watched all seven parts with an open mind, as always. But I haven't found one proof for the theory of I.D. Correct me if I'm wrong but the only reason this is still a thing is that it shows the gaps of our scientific research. Humans are just a very young race (in comparisson to our planet) and things are getting complexer not easier with the progress of research. Yet I don't see that our lack of knowledge is evidence to believe that everything was created by a higher sentient being.
Sinrathiell 4 months ago
What a terrible propaganda title. Scientists have not "proven" I.D. The current overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is not in favor of I.D.
Fand421 4 months ago
Good job on limiting our expression by disabling the ratings. Not confident in your argument?
314Aurelius 5 months ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
drowninplasma 5 months ago
@arcanaknight May you please point me to some sources?
ptmakanga 5 months ago
@ptmakanga For future reference, if you're replying to someone, especially if you're asking a question, you should click "Reply" next to their post so that they will aware of your question.
A great source is the book "Why Intelligent Design Fails"; it explains in detail the problems are with the arguments ID proponents use, including Dembski's specified complexity. You could also look at talkorigins, that site has a large collection of articles refuting creationist's claims such as this.
ArcanaKnight 5 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Thanks for that, will read these.
ptmakanga 5 months ago
clearly, richarddisdorky you were not listening. I think the arguments presented here are plausible. The issue of improbability and specification serving as an indicator for design makes total sense. Darmin is in real big trouble!
ptmakanga 5 months ago
@ptmakanga All the arguments in these videos have been refuted, many repeatedly so, including the two you pointed out. "Specification" is not an indicator for design; ID/creationists have failed to come up with a valid method of objectively determining design, so far they have nothing but what boils down to subjective opinions.
ArcanaKnight 5 months ago
@ptmakanga No he isn't.
‘Evolution of Biological Information’, Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research, Oxford University, July 2000.
'In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.'
Judge John E. Jones
Kitzmuller v Dover Area School District
gamesbok 4 months ago
@gamesbok Listen. Just because a human on Earth today decides that something isnt science (because its not convinient for them) doesnt change the theory at all, You can classify it however you want, its still the same theory.
CarloOnU2ube 4 months ago in playlist CarloOnU2ube's Favorited Videos
@CarloOnU2ube Well, it isn't actually a theory as it's not falsifiable. How you conclude that an active Lutherian and Bush appointed judge might find it inconvenient escapes me.
gamesbok 4 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube "just because a human on Earth today decides something isn't science..." First of all, its not just one human; aside from that judge, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and even the Vatican's chief astronomer have all agreed that ID isn't science. Secondly, you're completely ignoring WHY they're all saying that its not science; they say its not science mainly because its claims are completely untestable.
ArcanaKnight 4 months ago
@ArcanaKnight HAHA oh so evolution IS testable? give me a break. One human, or more, its still not the standard of truth, and even if it wasnt science its stilll the same theory.
CarloOnU2ube 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarloOnU2ube "One human, or more, its still not the standard of truth" Even its own proponents have admitted that for ID to be science, the definition would have to be expanded so much that other pseudosciences like astrology would also be considered science. And you're still ignoring WHY it is all these people agree that ID isn't science.
The "arguments" in this video, while convincing to a layperson like yourself, are clearly fundamentally flawed to anyone with familiarity of the subject.
ArcanaKnight 4 months ago
No proof here. The title is a lie. Simply saying something is really complex so it must be designed is a belief system not science. Science has no need or place for beliefs.
Richardisdorky 5 months ago
Comment removed
Richardisdorky 5 months ago
Evolution is the BIGGEST joke EVER...
sfyr 5 months ago
randomness doesn't produce intelligence? is this guy on drugs? everything is information. even nothing itself is information. how the f*** did this moron not get slapped in the face for the bullshit he's spewing?
aznmaplemaster 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gmacyhwh "And besides I know God exists he talks to me. You talk to him and he will talk to you."
Evolutionary theory and god are not a mutually exclusive. Having conversations with unseen entities and evolutionary theory are also NOT mutually exclusive. Since you have clearly studied the cell and have thought about this, how does the cell work functioning contrast with evolutionary theory?
blaisingm 5 months ago
What a load of numpty arguments in the comments section.
thespacialone 5 months ago
thy cant explain the outcomes from natural laws... and?... none of these guys are not to bright.. and most of them are rejects involved with pseudo sciences... presumption lads is the mother of all ****ups!!! .. i dunno... I cant explain it so a person must of made it jebus people are mentally lazy... understand more on physics then you'll get it!!!
jammapcb 6 months ago
bollox!
jammapcb 6 months ago
Waste of time this video. This is pseudo science denying all the existing evidence. I wonder which religious organisation sponsored this absurd program.
bartviss3r 6 months ago
funny how the religious will say that nothing came from nothing and ask us what came before the big bang and yet wont answer; what made god? what was there before god? How did god come to exsist? They will say just have faith and I will say.... wait as in time im sure we ( scientests)will find the answers or at least the understanding. I suspect the answer to god being created will be the same answer in which no doubt you would not be able too answer today or tomorrow.
stonewall1888 6 months ago
@stonewall1888 funny how the religious will say that nothing came from nothing and ask us what came before the big bang
____
If you will still persist in your ignorance at least assure me as to when this *big bang* created itself-whether it did it before it came into existence, or afterwards?
If you say afterwards, your assertion is absurd. Because it is impossible for a thing to create its own self when it was already created.
1tabligh 2 months ago
The purpose of your assertion would be that the *big bang* made itself twice. It would mean that its first endeavours consisted in creating itself, and when it was quite ready and created, it created itself again. This is the most *absurd* and impossible theory-the acquisition of what is already acquired.
If you say that it created itself before it came into existence, it is really *stupid*. Because it was absolutely nothing before it came into existence.
1tabligh 2 months ago
How is it possible for a non-existing thing to create another thing (*big bang*) ? You consider my belief in an existing thing (God) that creates another non-existing thing (*big bang*) as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing,(*big bang*) as absurd and stupid.
Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational.?
1tabligh 2 months ago
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth (Universe) were joined together as one unit (atom) of creation, before we clove (exploded) them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
The Quran 21:30
1tabligh 2 months ago
Hi @1tabligh, if Allah created the universe, who is "We" in that verse?
eduardtube1980 3 weeks ago
@eduardtube1980 if Allah created the universe, who is "We" in that verse?
___
Arabic language has two types of plural 1, plural of numbers 2, plural of respect like in swedish and hindi etc.
"We" in that verse?" is in plural of respect for ONE God ONLY.
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@eduardtube1980 Two types of plural
In several languages, there are two types of plurals, one is a plural of numbers to refer to something that occurs in a quantity of more than one. The other plural is a plural of respect.
a. In the English language, the Queen of England refers to herself as ‘We’ instead of ‘I’. This is known as the ‘royal plural’.
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@eduardtube1980 b. Rajiv Gandhi, the ex-Prime Minister of India used to say in Hindi "Hum dekhna chahte hain". "We want to see." ‘Hum’ means ‘We’ which is again a royal plural in Hindi.
c. Similarly in Arabic, when Allaah refers to Himself in the Qur’an, He often uses Nahnu meaning ‘We’. It does not indicate plural of number but plural of respect.
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@eduardtube1980 Q...Does Islam believe in several Gods because the Qur’an uses the word ‘We’ when God speaks in the Qur’an?
Answer:
Islam is a strictly monotheistic religion. It believes in and adheres to uncompromising monotheism. It believes that God is one, and unique in His attributes. In the Qur’an, God often refers to Himself using the word ‘We’. But this does not mean that Islam believes in the existence of more than one God.
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@eduardtube1980 "We" is a plural of respect, not number. Just like speaking Spanish or Italian or other languages of the world, you address elders in the plural for respect.).
In swedish language, One old man or woman can be adresses as NI (plural) instead of DU (singular) to show your respect.
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@1tabligh I see. Thank you for the clear explanation. That is very well appreciated. :)
eduardtube1980 3 weeks ago
@eduardtube1980 Thank you for the clear explanation. That is very well appreciated. :)
___
You are welcome my friend.
Take care!
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@stonewall1888
Forgive me for not answering. If intelligent man in all his glory came from the big bang and Darwin theory, if that were the truth, is it possible that such a person in some distant time emerged and discovered how to subject the universe to his will and thus emerged as God? Does this offend you? Molecules = man= and evolved as god? Is it really that illogical according to your logic.
EzmuzeIDOL 6 months ago
@EzmuzeIDOL So what became befor god?
stonewall1888 6 months ago
@stonewall1888
"To die would be quite an adventure", but if someone is healed beyond medical explanation that is interesting, however that person will still die. If death is the end, then there's no cause for concern on who lives and dies, right? Still I think this is a matter if life experience and opinion. I repect your rebuttals. Do you believe in a possibility of a higher intelligent power?
EzmuzeIDOL 6 months ago
@EzmuzeIDOL Do you belive in answering a question? Every living thing dies; im not sure what your point is?
Thats evolution working and I would considr death as death and not an adventure. You seem to along with other religious followers that death is more importent than life.
Again can you answer = , so with that god has selected only a few to be cured and the rest are left to their fate.In which way does that sound such a loving god in where he can select a few and leave the the rest to die??
stonewall1888 6 months ago
@EzmuzeIDOL Again why do we have a god who plays a lottery on who lives.
Walk into every cancer ward in every hospital & say to each patient = If this hospoital cant cure you then MAYBE god will let one of you live. So lets say by chance god picks one; then y not cure them all. Would that not be a miracle if he cured them all and says " Behold I am the light" Would we not then have our evidence, would we not rejoice..nah, better just pick one its easier to call that a miracle.
stonewall1888 6 months ago
Seriously tiny little primordial molecules rollin into complex patterns all on there own, and then into eyes, teeth, heart, finger nails, ears, and an intelligent being capable of reproduction with it's own species? What a crock of crab. Ever rebuilt a car engine? It takes intelligence, an won't happen on it's own. As if saying "billions of years ago" makes it plausible, come on. If I smash my watch and bury it in a steel box, a billon years from now the watch will still be smashed, not reass
EzmuzeIDOL 6 months ago
@stonewall88
Churches? The catholic church suppressed the advances of science,- Galileo. I'm not catholic nor am I ignorant to the fact that people have been healed by faith (use google yourself) however I never said science and medical attention should bit be used in the process of healing. Do you deny the plausibility that people have been healed hen nothing else medically can be done? And how lame to use all caps, grr.
EzmuzeIDOL 6 months ago
@EzmuzeIDOL I used caps as it makes me angry. Going by your logic that people have been healed when nothing medicaly can be done, so with that god has selected only a few to be cured and the rest are left to thier fate.In which way does sound such a loving god in where he can select a few and leave the to die??????? Would love an answer
stonewall1888 6 months ago
Why does this video need to breakdown DNA to say there is a god = why are they so focused on this? Is it due to we can put a correct age on our planet. Is it we can look at evoulotion with open eyes. Is it most scholars can not find any evidence on jesus.
I could go on, what im basicaly saying is that this video is clutching straws, to stop free thinking, to control those who have doubts or question what they read.
stonewall1888 6 months ago
@ArcanaKnight
Ok...not sure how this is an explanation for medically documented cases in the feild of medecine? But I appreciate your skepticism, and admittedly dramatic retospect on actual incidents of healing is plausible, but not a purposeful examinaion of the aforementioned medical mysteries where faith was applied.
EzmuzeIDOL 6 months ago
Proof of a God? Not my job or burden. However the world is proof, the rotation of it's axis and the animal kingdom, etc. How do we scientifically account for the many, many faith healings? Restored sight to blind, lame walking again, something going on here.
EzmuzeIDOL 6 months ago
@EzmuzeIDOL "How do we account for the many, many faith healings" Its mainly a combination of fraud, coincidence, and exaggeration in the retelling of stories of such events.
ArcanaKnight 6 months ago
@EzmuzeIDOL NAME ONE CASE IN WHICH i CAN READ IN WHERE A FAITH HEALER RESTORED FULL VISION TO A REGISTERD BLIND PERSON!!! INFACT DO A LIST.
ENLIGHTMENT CAME FROM THOSE WHO QUESTIONED THEIR FAITH AND SEEKED ANSWERS THAT WERE NOT IN THE BIBLE. BE HONEST IF CHURCHES GOT AWAY WITH SUPRESSING FREE THINKING THEN WE WOULD ALL BE PRAYING TO THE ALMIGHTY
stonewall1888 6 months ago
DNA instructions on molecules, this shatters darwins theory. Anger from those who disagree or hate intelligent Design, are unable to logically accept this scientific proof. Too bad anger won't change the facts of these videos. And one says these are lies, what do you have to hide, perhaps the metaphysical world is going to be scientifically discovered soon?
EzmuzeIDOL 6 months ago
im sorry but you religious cunts had no idea bacteria exsisted on your hands until the late 18th century when a sceintist proved that many women died after pregnecy due to doctors working from one case to the other without washing his hands.
Why did the bible not give those simple instructions on germs???? Of course it wouldnt as religion did not include radical thinking.
stonewall1888 6 months ago
3.45: great passage:
"I can't imagine a world where I have to make sense of it myself. I need a superior authority to give me a sense to believe in" Thats practically what that guy says.
Seriously? ID preferable, because EoT and independant thinking are SCARY? Do we really want to listen to people who need an authority themselves?
People like that are just plain blind, because they see only "chaos" in something that has no "boss" and instead, self organization.
trimont42 6 months ago
"We know at present, that there is no naturalistic explanation, no natural cause, that produces information"
Wrong. The early stages of Biogenesis have been reproduced in tests years ago. The early atmosphere of the earth had all elements and simple molekules to create the first steps of life. and from there on, self organization can indeed create basic, random information. between the beginning of the oceans to the cambrian explosions there was more than enough time for self organization.
trimont42 6 months ago
They haven't proven anything. Please stop putting up lies. That's what this is. A lie.
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
True Christian faith is based on inner spiritual experiences of God and Jesus and on God's word, so a true Christian does not need Intelligent Design. Actually, a true Christian does not trust anything in the world except if he absolutely must trust something. I think however that the world is a better place if there is some opposition to such lies as Evolution, so in my channel's playlist Creation vs Evolution I have collected the best creationist videos available on YouTube. Welcome to watch!
mikilavush 7 months ago
Lightning is not comparable. Maybe if novels or symphonies were written in the sky by lightning it would be. Lightning is basically random, not driven by instructions like like we see in biology.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian It is comparable because you were making an argument that it is designed because its CURRENTLY beyond our understanding (which isn't completely true btw), and at one time lightning was also included in that category; I could just as easily have referenced pretty much any other natural phenomena that we currently understand because at one point we didn't and it was attributed to the gods. Yours is still an argument from incredulity, regardless of whether you think the analogy is good
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight That's not at all the argument I was making. You completely misunderstood. My argument is that the one who designed it is more intelligent than we are. I never said we would never be able to understand how things work or that it's designed because we don't understand it. We see other evidences (like the informational system) that show intelligence. Our lack of understanding only draws us to conclude that the already established intelligence is greater than ours.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
Comment removed
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ItssBrian "My argument is that the one who designed it is more intelligent than we are" And how do you know that it was designed in the first place? You're making assumptions about a Designer when it hasn't even been shown that such a designer exists, or that there is even anything that can't be accounted for using entirely natural processes.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight I have a question for you though. Do you know where I can find out how they set up RNA experiments? I've looked at the article you site provided, and it seems to talk a lot about their achievements, but not so much on how they've set up the experiment. I would very much like to know how these nucleotides were created, and the conditions of the environment in which they reacted with each other.
Hannodb1961 7 months ago
We know intelligence exists, we have knowledge and experience with what intelligence produces, and we have other things we know were designed to compare bio-mechanics to.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian We only know about the existence of human intelligence and our only experience is with the products of human intelligence; that is a very important distinction. We know nothing about the abilities, parameters, or even intentions of the IDer's supposed Designer (something we do know when looking for the products of human intelligence); you're also ignoring the distinction between artificial and natural design that allows scientists to determine the products of human design.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight We don't need to know the ability, parameters, or intentions to determine that intelligence was involved. And we have experience with natural design as we observe the results every day. You're also ignoring the similarities between "artificial" and natural design. Structures within natural design are extremely similar to human designed structures, the difference is that the natural design is more complex. It's beyond human intelligence.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian "the difference is that the natural design is more complex" One problem with that is that complexity =/= design. We find complex things which we know were made via entirely natural processes like erosion, and simple things that were designed by humans. In fact simplicity, not complexity, is the goal of human designs; engineers work to make things as simple as possible.
"It's beyond human intelligence." This is the very definition of an argument from incredulity.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight "In fact simplicity, not complexity, is the goal of human designs; engineers work to make things as simple as possible." That's a misrepresentation. The goal is to make things more efficient, which is often related, but still a different goal. Machines in nature are mostly complex, but efficient. They're not composed of a bunch of rube goldberg machines.
It's beyond human intelligence in the sense that we don't understand all of bio mechanics, and we can't create it.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian "It's beyond human intelligence in the sense that we don't understand all of bio mechanics, and we can't create it." That's still the definition of an argument from incredulity. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that someone else doesn't or that we never will, nor does something being beyond our current understanding mean that some intelligence is behind it. It used to be that we didn't understand lightning, but that doesn't mean it was caused by some intelligence.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight But we don't see principles of design in lightning like we do in biology. And if an intelligent designer made these systems thousands of years ago and humans still can't figure it out, that obviously shows superior intelligence. Just because we could eventually figure out how something works that He made thousands of years ago doesn't mean our intelligence is on par with His.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian "we don't see principles of design in lightning like we do in biology" So exactly what are these "principles of design"?
"...made these systems thousands of years ago and humans still can't figure it out, that obviously shows superior intelligence" That's still just an argument from incredulity. You also missed the point: its not that we could figure out how it was designed some day, its that we could figure out exactly how nature does it, just as we did with lightning.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight "One problem with that is that complexity =/= design." This is true.Complexity is only the first part of the argument.The other half is independent specification.For instance,we would not attribute the faces on mount Rushmore to erosion,because they closely match an independent pattern,namely the faces of 5 presidents.Of cause a simple pattern can be matched by nature,such as the face on mars.The more accurate and complex the matching pattern,the less likely to be coincidence
Hannodb1961 7 months ago
@Hannodb1961 "The other half is independent specification" Just to be perfectly clear (I don't want to make incorrect assumptions about your argument), what exactly do you mean by specification, and how is it independent?
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Well, I think Stephen Meyer explains it better than I can, but it has to do with the fact that the arrangement of the parts has significance beyond the parts themselves and their underlying processes. For instance "Meaning" is just as complex as "Efsogmtisf", but the latter don't specify anything, while the first conforms to an independent specification that goes beyond mere ink on paper.
Hannodb1961 7 months ago
@Hannodb1961 Like Dembski, Meyer HAS no rigorous definition of specified information; its remained ambiguous and constantly changes to suit whatever its proponents' arguments are at the moment (which is probably why its also had no impact on real informatics research). Also like Dembski, Meyer's concept of specified complexity essentially boils down to a god-of-the-gaps argument (with a bit of Texas sharpshooter thrown in).
tinyurlDOTcom/5uvubsa
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
To put it another way, erosion has no preconceived idea of what shape it wants to create. The final shape, though complex, is nothing more than the result of necessity and change: The hardness and topography of the rock and the eroding agent. The shape carries no meaning beyond itself and how it was formed. The Spinx, however conforms to a human shape, which is a specification that exist beyond the natural processes that might've produced it, therefore everyone infers design.
Hannodb1961 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Ofcause, there is a gray zone. Because the face on mars was very vague, it was possible for nature to produce the specification by change, because the specification wasn't very strong. However, if the second probe took a picture of the mountain, and we got a picture as crystal clear as the face of the swinx, then that would certainly have gotten everybody's attention. So, a very close match of a highly complex, independent specification indicates design/information.
Hannodb1961 7 months ago
@Hannodb1961 Have you actually seen the face of the sphinx? Its not really any clearer than those found to have been carved by entirely natural processes. This is one of the problems with your idea of "specified" information; it has no rigorous definition, so offers no objective method of differentiating between similar things that we know was made by humans and something known to have been made by natural processes. CONT
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
CONT This means that everything essentially boils down to a subjective opinion about whether it was designed or not. Another is that is only able to "detect" design that strongly parallels human design, making it scientifically worthless. It's like having an assay which can only detect signal from the positive control.
tinyurlDOTcom/6jxndrp
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Well, I find the definition quite clear enough. However I'm not trying to convince you of the argument. I'm simply pointing out that no one is saying that mere complexity indicates design.
Hannodb1961 7 months ago
@Hannodb1961 And I'm simply pointing out that creationist claims regarding so-called "specified complexity" have no rigorous definition, that its not an objective method of determining design, and that its essentially just a mixture of logical fallacies.
Also, even though it may not be what you're saying, that actually was exactly what Brian was saying.
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Well, you've failed in that objective. There is nothing unclear or vague about specificity, especially when it is applied to sequences such as text or DNA: Sequences makes it possible to calculate exactly how tight the specification needs to be before it looses function. Of cause, Darwinists don't like working with math, because it has a tenancy to make their theory seems ridiculous.
Hannodb1961 7 months ago
@Hannodb1961 Actually, Meyer's "specified information" fails mathematically as well. You forget that information theory is its own branch of investigation, completely independent of biology and the ToE, yet the creationist's claims of specified information have completely failed to find any place in this field either. Meyer's claims have been criticized by biologists and mathematicians alike for its many faults: tinyurlDOTcom/3rb3v6x
tinyurlDOTcom/3hltxvc
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight I have yet to find a criticism(Including from the RNA world people)of SITC which was not already dealt with in the book.Anyway, I was not arguing with you about the merits of the argument, I was simply correcting you on the content of the argument. The fact that you are picking a fight where non existed already tells me you are one of those evangelical Darwinists who do not want people to even consider the possibility of ID. I am in no mood for another fruitless debate, thanks you.
Hannodb1961 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Last post, I promise. Suppose you're a mountaineer preparing to climb mount Everest, and you come across a 2 meter pile of dirt, you will not think much of it. If it vaguely looks like Mt. Everest, you'll write it down as coincidence. But if it looks exactly like mount Everest, and you can identify every hill and valley, you will infer someone made it as a map. That's because its complexity closely matches an independent specification, namely, Mount Everest.
Hannodb1961 7 months ago
@ArcanaKnight My point is that it's a lot like human intelligence, only better. We identify it as intelligence that created something the we cannot create. In other words, beyond our intelligence. I never said it was designed because it is complex. We know it's designed because it's complex, uniform, efficient, and balanced.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian "We know it's designed because it's complex, uniform, efficient, and balanced" What exactly do you mean by balanced and uniform? Your judgement of efficiency is also rather subjective since most natural "designs" are quite full of redumdancies, unnecessary parts, etc.; it also ignores any natural processes by which such efficiency could have been produced. And again, complexity doesn't automatically indicate intellitgence was involved.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@tabligh That was my fault I suppose for thinking you might actually respond with something about what I was talking about. I knew that you don't actually read those replies and instead use them as an excuse to copy/paste your off-topic creationist talking points, but I still responded to your post anyway. I really have to stop feeding these trolls.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
Saw this when I was in school a few years ago, looked up some of the claims, its bollix
SolarGrooving 8 months ago
DNA isn't information, it's a chemical reaction.
maskofsan1ty 9 months ago
@maskofsan1ty Books aren't information. They're paper.
ItssBrian 7 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic About multiple designers etc. You're not proving anything here considering we can't comprehend HOW God works at all. If he was created, he wouldn't be God.
kbawesome101 9 months ago
"No natural cause that produces information" Except that we have observed increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, novel genetic material, and novel genetically-regulated abilities, so by any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight fantastic argument on evolution. creationist often bring up the kind of animal instead of specie. for there to be a kind of animal unchangeable, there has to be a genetic sequence that is unchangeable, by mean of natural selection and mutations. weather by insertion, deletion or recombination of genetic variation, genes r naturally changed to self improve. the kinds argument is bull. i find using this argument silence a lot of them
kissntellen 9 months ago
@kissntellen Many new questions in regard to almost every principle mentioned by Darwin have arisen. For example, it is asked whether the appearance of a new organ or for that matter any other organic change, always results from the use of that organ and the attempt to adapt it to one's environment or it may be due to mutation or any other cause?
The acquired qualities are hereditable as a principle or genetic investigations have rejected this theory?
1tabligh 8 months ago
@1tabligh And? A sign of a good theory is that it leads to further research (one of the reasons why "goddidit" isn't a good answer), and new discoveries usually lead to new avenues of inquiry. Also, just putting a question mark at the end of your statements doesn't actually make it a question.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF QUIBBLING IN VAIN!
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
How do deluded and duped atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?
1tabligh 8 months ago
The organic changes, whatever may be their cause, are always aimed at survival and evolution or sometimes they may be due to the inconsistency with the environmental conditions and may culminate in death and extinction?
Natural selection is or is not like artificial selection which leads the existing generation to evolution?
1tabligh 8 months ago
"...There is no natural cause that produces information..."
Oh, damn, I hope segments of chromosomes, never duplicate, because that would immediately invalidate this guy's hypothesis. Oh, no, THEY DO? And it results in genes with new functions some of the time? Wow, and this is common knowledge? This guy must be either knowingly lying to us or unfamiliar with the field he claims to be an expert in. What a hack!
dhicks3 9 months ago
to say a being exists that is capable of creating a universe is far more unlikely to be true than any other theory ive heard.
skubersteve24 10 months ago
@skubersteve24 to say that the expansion of the universe creates matter is unlikely... unlikely things exist...
ThomasWinkworth 10 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth unlikely compared to??
skubersteve24 10 months ago
@skubersteve24 Unless it's already true. Then it's 100% likely.
ItssBrian 7 months ago
Jesus Christ Is God
1. Jesus Christ fulfills over 2-0-0 Old Testament Messianic Prophecies ( Isaiah 9:6-7; etc.) Google Messianic Prophecies fulfilled by Jesus.
2. Jesus Christ makes 30 “I AM” statements in the Gospel of John.
a. “… for unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins.” (John 8:24)
Check the Gospel of John in the New Testament.
3. 17 Secular sources confirm that Jesus Christ walked the earth (Celsus, Tacitus, Lucian, etc.) Google Secular sources for Jesus.
GsliMaIiy 10 months ago
i have a problem with people who say jus because something seems to have a designer then it must, it is a crude assumption. i agree, its hard to believe that me and all that exist, came accidently and seems designed. ud be stupid to say it duznt. but the only thing harder to accept is that such a complex being could exist, a being that after all Created Everything. imagine, physically, how it could Create something out of nothing. weigh the 2 and ask which is more likely??creation or evolution??
skubersteve24 10 months ago
@skubersteve24 Creation is more likely.
TruthSeekingOne 10 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne and thats why intelligent conversations with creationists is impossible.
skubersteve24 10 months ago
@skubersteve24 God is startlingly simply in his nature. A mind without a body. God is actually nothing in terms of his consistency. He is immaterial. He isn't more complex than his creation.
ThomasWinkworth 10 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth i want to say thankyou to both you and mr.skubersteve24 for such a informatived and intellegent debate.most of the people on youtube could take a page or two from the both of you on how to have one with out reverting to name calling or use language inapropreate to the debate. so once again i thankyou
shannon123933 9 months ago
@skubersteve24 The alternative is that everything came from nothing.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian Including god as claimed by creationists. Nothing can precede nothing.
skubersteve24 8 months ago
@skubersteve24 God wasn't created. He existed before time and matter and space because he created it all. There are two options: Either God has existed for eternity, or the universe has existed for eternity. Both of which humans cannot fully comprehend. Something cannot come from nothing. It has NEVER been observed.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@skubersteve24 God is not preceded. He is the creator of the universe; not just the matter withing the universe, but the laws which uphold the universe such as time and gravity.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian to claim a conscious being is not preceded by anything as a Fact, to me, is unhelpful. no one can prove gods non existence, true, but also no one can prove his existence either. if nobody can prove to me that fairies exist then i will assume they dont. my point is assumption Without knowledge promotes delusions of grandeur. its takes arrogance, not faith, to come to the conclusion that a Creator Does Exist. if you believe in god, then u Have to believe in UFOs, Fairies, Bigfoot etc.
skubersteve24 8 months ago
@skubersteve24 I didn't claim it as a fact. A fact is something that can be proven. I do however claim it as truth. If I stood up and did 3 jumping jacks right now I would never be able to prove that I did so later, but that doesn't make it any less true. Factuality and truth are not synonymous. We can neither prove, nor disprove the existence of God. What we can do is examine the evidence which is presented clearly here and come to the logical conclusion that God exists and is active.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian well actually there are methods u could use to prove you did 3 jumping jacks, such as witnesses, video footage. thats evidence that proves there is Truth/Factuality in your claim. If u claim something to be True then u are stating you know it Factually. There are no methods that you or nebody can use to prove Gods existence is True or Fact. The Fact is there is No evidence to examine. There is only the assumption that there is.
skubersteve24 8 months ago
@ItssBrian Truth: conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
skubersteve24 8 months ago
@skubersteve24 Way to copy and paste the first definition on dictionary. com. Look at the second and third definitions. Besides, that wasn't even my main point. You're still ignoring the evidence presented the the videos.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian i did in fact address the points in the video. its not evidence. the ASSUMPTION that complexity PROVES a creator promotes delusion of grandeur, as the whole argument is flawed. and seeing that your using the english language, i think you need to take a look at the definitions of Truth and Fact without lying to yourself. theyre synonomous, Fact./Truth. this produces no evidence. only assumption which stems from the arrogance of discredited researchers. google their names.
skubersteve24 8 months ago
@skubersteve24 It is evidence. It's not just complexity, it's irreducible complexity, uniformity, and efficiency. By every measure one can use to determine intelligent design we see intelligent design in bio-mechanics. As for the semantics, fact and truth are not always synonymous. Fact is always truth, but truth is not always fact (as defined by definition 3. on dictionary. com, definition 2. of the World English dictionary, and illustrated by my former analogy)
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian Irreducible Complexity is nothing more than a god-of-the-gaps argument; pretty much every single supposed example of IC has also been refuted almost as soon as it was made. IDers don't have an objective method of determining design; most claims of design end up being little more than a subjective opinion.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight So you're saying that intelligent design is impossible to determine? Do you believe pyramids were built by earthquakes to? (or just possibly built by earthquakes or something of the like) You honestly believe that intelligent design is unidentifiable? And you have nothing to back up your statement of IC being refute it. You say it has been refuted, but you offer no examples, no logic, no sources, and no references.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian No, I'm not saying its impossible, I'm just saying that nobody has come up with an objective method of determining design yet. Using man-made examples like the pyramids to try to prove design in nature is a faulty analogy; we have evidence humans exist, we have knowledge and experience with how they make things, and we have other things we know they've made to compare it to.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
CONT As for the IC examples being refuted, you could even do a search here on youtube alone and find a dozen videos debunking whichever supposed example of IC you're thinking of. If you want something more specific, then just pick the one supposed example of IC you think is the best, and I'll provide the refutation of it. If you want a resounding review and refutation of IC, you should read the decision from the Dover trial because it goes into detail regarding the failures of Behe and IC.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
to say complexity needs a creator isnt logical. if all this is so complex then imagine the complexity of a god that can exist outside of time. now he gave us purpose, so god purposeful. now god exists outside of time and space, no beginning no end, with intent. now god must have consciously decided to create the universe, meaning he had a conscious purpose that began with intent to and ended with the action. yet there is no beginning or end. duznt make sense. our existence proves god absence.
skubersteve24 10 months ago
@skubersteve24 "our existence proves god absence" Not really, its just evidence against that line of flawed reasoning. If there is a god though, it would at least be evidence that it is more of an absentee god instead of the hands-on god usually depicted in most religious texts.
ArcanaKnight 10 months ago
@ArcanaKnight to prove a god exists and that it created the universe, is to prove a purposeful god. a god with a motive. i come into contact, more, with the religous mind who r often people who say god always existed becoz he is outside of all laws which, i think, the god they assume they have evidence For. however, a god that came into a conscious state gradually over time?? which then created life?...well id have a hard time refuting that...
skubersteve24 10 months ago
Then - as an intelligent being, I have within me information. That information is what directed my structure as an animal, yes? It seems that from our "knowledge base" that all intelligence about which we "know" has within it information responsible for directing its composition, yes? Then the Designer (god) must have information within him directing his composition. Therefore, another designer must have designed him (god). And then another designer... etc.. etc...
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago