I've seen the rest of this conversation, and it is perfectly clear that what Dawkins is saying is that IF intelligent design were true, we might expect to find some kind of signature, and that if we found that signature it would only be evidence of an intelligence greater than ours, it could be aliens or magic pixies just as well as it could be God.
Stein is deceitful or deceived, and if you believe him on this issue, you are deceived as well.
You don't understand the problem with Dawkins claiming the letters he gets as scientific proof that people feel liberated once their belief in God has been destroyed?
I was'nt aware that Dawkins had claimed SCIENTIFIC proof from letters he recieved. I expect he is taking people at their word, in the same way I'm willing to believe you, when you claim to be a christian!
I still don't get your point.
ID is NOT a Scientific theory, evolution IS. That means evolution has and continues to be tested to the highest possible degree and has still not been falsefied.
Irreducible complexity remains unproven including the flogella.
The title of this video (however unfinished it may be) seems to imply that Richard Dawkins is admitting something, which is a sense he is, he's admitting that he does not believe in intelligent design. Anyone misled to believe otherwise by this video or anything else is frankly moronic and should pick up any of Dawkins' books and see that here he was bending over backwards to portray a view which he himself doesn't adhere to.
You seem to forget that Richard Dawkins has books to sell and his academic creditials as the guru of evolution and atheism.
Money and standing in his little world of make believe is what he has tried to back-track about. Dawkins is meaningless in the world of reality and got his anus caught for a few seconds.
@onycho1 did you not watch the whole thing? how about watching it from about 2 minutes earlier where he outlines that he's speaking in the context of aliens that would have evolved by natural means and then possibly planted the seeds for life on earth. It was all hypothetical. Wow I can't believe the quote mining.
You also are making statements about this movie clip of which no proof or evidence that Dawkins was tricked into making his real beliefs about some 'wisdom' out there which could be responsible for all this merry mishap humans call existence.
When you use the 'chicken and egg' arguement, you will always lose for no one knows how exponential complexity formed from some unknown 'chance laws of nature..'
Dawkins like Obama had to backtrack on his statement proving fraud on both their parts.
Let's put aside the science vs. religion argument for the moment.
Mr. Dawkins is saying one thing. The video has been edited by Ben Stein to make it look like Mr. Dawkins is saying something completely different.
Whether Mr. Dawkins' ideas about evolution are right or wrong doesn't matter. The fact still remains that his views are being misrepresented here. And, no matter what you think about the theory of evolution, misrepresenting someone's views is dishonest and it's morally wrong.
You have accused me of misrepresenting Richard Dawkin's statements and now you accuse Ben Stein misrepesenting, altering or taking his words out of context requires more than your personal opinion.
Unless you can provide proof of such nonsense, you are the one making statements with absolutely no proof whatsoever. Neither Ben Stein or I have any reason to prove Dawkins a fraud. Dawkins uses his own logic to make fine cloth of the ether.
When you have some proof of your statements, return.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's really funny to see that people like Dawkins claim to be individualists, and a lot of his fans also make that claim. Yet the responses to someone openly criticizing him, spark and fuel anger amongst his fans leading them to leave hateful comments and low ratings? Is Dawkins of any blood relation to them? Or did he perhaps do something heroic most of us missed? Or is Dawkins just their anti Christ pope? As you atheists always say, THINK FOR YOURSELVES and do not let Dawkins think for you!
For some ignorance is bliss. People like Dawkins and our friend, me thuselah99 are ABSOLUTELY SURE that everything is an accidnet of materialism or to prove one's point, statments just have to be taken out of context.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO TRUTH FOR MAN'S MIND IS FINITE and there is no way to know with certainty anything without infinite wisdom.
You're right. Our minds are finite and we can never be absolutely certain about anything. Pretty much every scientist in the world would agree with that.
But what does that have to do with the fact that this clip has been manipulated to misrepresent what Mr. Dawkins is saying?
He's saying one thing, you've made it look like he's saying another. Where I come from, that's called lying. Maybe you have a different explanation?
I'm genuinely not sure if you're deliberately lying or if you actually believe your own lies, but it's obvious to any disinterested observer that Dawkins' statement has been taken out of context in this video.
In either case, you are a thoroughly dishonest person, and if you have any decency at all you should feel deeply ashamed of yourself. But I doubt you do.
It's right there in black and white, for everyone to see. But if you go back and read the whole post, you will see that in its original context, you were actually saying something quite different.
The only point I'm making is that it's very easy to misrepresent someone's views by quoting them out of context - which is what has been done to Mr. Dawkins in this video.
Yes you can take me or anyone out of context but neither I nor Ben Stein has taken anything out of context from a man who has a book and reputation to sell for cash.
The fact that Dawkins tongue slipped when Stein posed his question is really not in dispute. The only point your trying to make is that some people can take something out of context or simply hear what they want or do not want to hear.
There was no intent on my part to take Dawkin's own statement out of context. I really don't care what he thinks or says for he has no idea of anything, just like you and I.
Typos and grammatical mishaps seem to be your only issue instead of content.
I've read your last 2 posts over and over and I don't know if English is your second language, but I really can't figure out what you're trying to say here, or how it relates to what I wrote in my last post.
To clarify, I have pulled 3 quotes from your previous posts and removed these quotes from their original contexts to misrepresent your views, in order to demonstrate the technique that either you or Ben Stein (or both) has used in this video, to highlight how dishonest this technique is.
I see your still back on attempting to prove evolution by taking Richard Dawkin's stataements out of context or truth distortion.
Sorry Meththusla but making absolute statements about anything including evolution proves you have no knowledge about the vageries of the scientific thought or method.
I am old enough to remember the proven scientific views of the 1970s that we were headed for an ice age, and due to population growth the Earth was going to run out of food.
Now the closed subjectd of Al Gore is creating flatus from his beans creating 'Al Gore' man made climate changes. Dawkin's has his personal opinion which is not based on science or anything else.
Please stop beating everyone over the head with PROVEN SCIENCE until there is one.
this isn't even the whole sentence. he's talking about a hypothetical situation involving life on earth being triggered by an ancient alien race who would had to have evolved through darwinian means.
So you saw the entire movie Expelled? Sorry but your guess that he was talking hypothetically involving life on earth being triggered by aliens does make any since whatsoever. For he would have to explain how the aliens evolved from chaotic star dust, etc, etc.
No he actually said the entire sentence and in context. I enjoyed the movie and understood the great Richar Dawkins to actually say that there might be an intelligence out there... he was referring to ID in a moment of speaking reality
i have seen this particular scene from expelled here on youtube, right before i watched this clip from it. this is not the whole quotation.
his whole point is that even though the possibility that "we" may have been created - the race that created us would have evolved through darwinian means.
You sir are a fool. I saw the entire movie and the segment was not taken out of context or modified. Richard Dawkins made a statement which seemed out of character but Ben Stein retorted with a question that cleared up his sudden admission as truth. This atheist biologist is not without reason even though his standing in the academic community and his book sales depends on his rigid dogma. "The race that created us" need to have been created and not made from chaotic energy. But you are in a box
it IS out of context. you are lying and you know it.
this clip implies that dawkins accepts intelligent design as a possibility. the full interview does not. in the full interview stein gets his arse handed to him.
First of all there are no absolutes such as dishonesty on or for the behalf of the author.
How in the world would you know what Richard Dawkins was thining when he slipped and for a few seconds revealed his true self. Dawkins has a book and place in his closed mind academia to maintain.
When you become a mind reader, let the rest of it on your take of the future and what morons repeat with such certainty.
I can quite happily understand the actual context of this clip, i can understand how scientists, like Dawkins reply to questions like, "Is there any possibility that intellegence created life?" and i understand the way that you are portraying this clip.
I think that you understand those things too, but are un-willing to be honest. Or maybe you dont understand, in which case i can tell you, this clip with its description is misleading.
Your certainty of the clip being out of context is certainly very reassuring. Your knowledge of 'the evolutionary process from another origin of this evolutionary process ' must put you as the only one on earth that absoltuely knows, see and then realize your uniqueness.
You quite happily understand the context of this clip but don't seem to understand why it happened at all must make you a seer of all knowledge.
... I think you are a very confused person. You havent understood a single thing ive said, and you seem not to understand how dishonest this clip actually is.
I guess its kind of funny, ive had a few laughs at your expense. But what you really need to understand is.... well everything lol
But one thing that wont be a waste of time will be to attempt to understand how misleading this clip is.
Thats all i was trying to show you before.
This clip makes it seem that Dawkins believes that intelligent design is a valid pursuit of science, which is doubtful. And some people may understand it as such, they may not know that this clip is taken out of context.
p.s. Thanks for not censuring my comments like many other's would.
The point of Richard Dawkins' statement is that he is certain that 1) evolution is a real phenomena and 2) there is no Intelligent Design.
The question remains 'if evolution is valid' then what made evolution in whatever you want to call or define it?
I don't believe in a generic god or diety but simply a pure intelligent designer who made everything including gravity, time, matter, life forms, etc. Call me a theist if you want, but the question remains unanswered
All finite things are created or formed. Evolution, photons or anything else are simply finite. By definition, infinite design or wisdom is infinite.
Dawkins is simply a finite being with his eloquent use of the English language. His matter or materialism being the source of everything is ridiculous on its face.
lol worst out of context clip ever. he's answering a question on taht extremely small chance that there is a designer for our world, and he further states that it would have to be beings themselves evolved from evolution, though earlier than us, taht "seeded" us. he's not in any way saying he believes this to be true, he's merely stating it as an umprobable but not excludable minor possibility.
The words of Richard Dawkins are not the all of cumulative knowledge. He is a just a man that believes matter (materialism) thinks and lives.
There are no absolutes and Richard Dawkins thoughts in his books and words are based on what he believes. His ideations are as meaningless as anyone else for the fact is no one knows anything for certain.
I really can't be bothered to get into the whole religion debate as most people have there minds fairly made up about the whole thing.
However i will defend Dawkins on one point. If you were to read his book, which i seriously doubt you have, he states clearly that it would be ridiculous for an atheist to asert there is cerianly no god however he reason, very well, that it is almost certain.
So you taking him out of context really hasn't proven anything.
Actually that isn't true. I saw the entire movie and Dawkins made a relationship between biochemistry and molecular activity and an intelligence created somewhere out there.
Many people would like Dawkins to have been talking about ETs but he didn't. For you see someone would have had to create aliens from Mars as well.
"Many people would like Dawkins to have been talking about ETs but he didn't. For you see *someONE* would have had to create aliens from Mars as well."
Or someTHING. That's the point. Suppose you find evidence of intelligent design. That doesn't prove that God did it. It would just prove biologists wrong about evolution. In searching for the designer's identity, we may discover it to be aliens. But the aliens would have had to come about due to someTHING. But that doesn't mean it has to be God.
You are now beginning to think instead of instinctively knee jerk. 'If evidence is found of intelligent design' that does not prove that a god did it for there are many gods (sun, moon, fire, monkey, Jesus, water, Vishnu, etc) out there.
Aliens are not infinite, ergo cannot be the orignial creator of life or their own lives. But an infinite (meaning: always now) designer for reasons unknown could have created this reality.
How many infinite things do we know about? I was thinking (like I always do), is it even possible to create something that is infinite? I got into a conversation with an elder at my old church about our "souls" and I am thinking, if our souls actually do live on eternally - then wouldn't they HAVE to have been around before we were born? After all, eternal does mean NO BEGINNING and NO END. I dunno, just something new I am throwing around the ol' brain pan. What do you think?
Infinite things we know can be described with several meanings. If you describe Pi to its end is infinite. But as I believe, infinite has no past or future for all time is simply now. We humans appear to be living along a time spectrum, experiencing our surroundings, are aware, think and make choices. I feel that all of us are in a very complex holographic point in NOW which passes quickly with only free will as our point of reality.
The movie - What the Bleep Do We Know? has some of concepts that I share. Type in - What the Bleep Do We Know? for a short preview of the movie if you haven't seen it already.
I believe that there is an ultimate wisdom which is the fount or source of everything which is always now. We really live in infinity but can only see what our inner eye interprets as reality.
Found a very funny version of Richard Dawkins' parody. Type the words - The Dawkins Delusion into your YouTube search. The Dawkins rational for his position is satirized.
debating with those who have no knowledge of the subject is a waste of my time. It makes the informed truly frustrated when science is not known to those who post on this site.
For those new to Dawkins, here's what he's saying:
"Suppose you find evidence of intelligent design for life as we know it on our planet. That doesn't answer the question of the ultimate origin of complexity. To state that anything from God to aliens is responsible for life on our planet is only answering the question with the question as an answer. Where did complexity come from? Complexity. It doesn't solve anything, so it's a weak and flawed argument."
Dawkins is not a new or significant person with any special ideas or theories. What he said has no resemblance to the ultimate truth. You believe that complexity has no proof of its being irreducible reality becomes a moot point.
There is no proof for anything; fact or theory. Each individual perception of their point of reference of a universe or everything around oneself is no proof or answer to the ultimate question.
As the movie title says, "What the BLEEP is this."
"Abiogenesis, horizontal gene transfer, then evolution."
Sorry but the egg didn't design itself to be chicken fruit. Neither did tubules arrange themselves in any horizontal or vertical gene transfer. Evolution is a process not a cause and abiogenesis is absurd on its face.
"Sorry but the egg didn't design itself to be chicken fruit."
You and design. Where's the evidence?
"Neither did tubules arrange themselves in any horizontal or vertical gene transfer."
Please, man. I'm begging you. Wikipedia.
"Evolution is a process not a cause..."
Don't mistake "here's where humans came from" with "here's where all life came from." Life is a product of abiogenesis. Humanity is a product of evolution.
Experiments in abiogenesis show that life can be made from non-life.
You ask where is the evidence. The evidence is always obvious to our finite human senses.
Please man, Wikipedia is the product of just anyone with an opinion. If I choose to contribute to this Internet site, it will become proof for people like yourself.
You say 'Life is a product of abiogenesis and humanity is a product of evolution.' While I can post to Wikipedia that abiodenesis is a product of Fred Frankenstein making LIFE arise from dead matter
Miller Urey used intelligent design to create circumstances they thought existed on the early earth. The formation of basic amino acids became a scientific joke chemistry trick and were light years from actually forming LIFE.
If you want another real enigma, type the words DNA Nebula into your address line. Science wanting to remove ID from the picture quickly dismissed this anomaly as a nearby dark hole (300 light years away) sending gravity out to twist and turn
a 30 light year long amorphous mass of gas, planets and space dust into a replica of the common template of all life forms on earth.
Something resembling DNA, 80 light years long forming a double helix with cross bars right out there in our universe. How's that for a real experiment?
Scientists also explained away the radiance of the all pervasive interference patterns coming from everywhere with no origin. No ID here as the radicance spectrum was nothing more than a remnant of the Big Bang.
Is that your educated guess? Abiogenesis, evolution and random order from disorder must exist because some scientists need to protect their turf.
I have no idea why the template of life forms on earth that is 30 light years long appears from non-evolution forces is here. But deserves study instead of keeping unacceptable thinking not approved by most scientists for personal reasons.
Sounds reasonable not to think about the WHY of such a remarkable finding to me.
"Abiogenesis, evolution and random order from disorder must exist because some scientists need to protect their turf."
"Big Science" doesn't exist. There's good science and junk science. Good science is, "I don't know, so let's look at the facts and see what we can conclude from theme." Bad science is, "I don't understand because it's so hard. Therefore, God must have done it."
Actually, Bad Science isn't even an appropriate term. It's not NOT science.
So good and bad science is you your problem. Big good science asks questions by scientific methodology but is limited to theories and facts that agree with preconceived concepts like evolution or vibrating strings. Then you find BAD science that asks only for investigation into unapproved physical findings that conflict and/or contradict approved good science theory.
Hell you shouldn't call evidence of ID science at all as it might place GOOD science into irrelevancy. You are so predictable.
If there have been experiments conducted that validate intelligent design, then the results of those experiments should be put-up for peer review. Who wouldn't want to say, "I was there on the day that evolution was shown to be unscientific?" It'd be one of the most prominent scientific discoveries of this century. Scientists make their careers on disproving something. Big Science is an invention of dull-minded nincompoops who know nothing about science.
ID will never really hold up for a number of different reasons, one of the biggest problems is trying to gain a foothold in science classes without being put under the gauntlet that is scientific peer review. Instead, proponents of ID have chosen to bypass the peer review and go straight to the school boards... selling the same ideas creationist attempted to sell in the 60s with a nice new name tag - Intelligent Design. This is no different than if Scientology tried to get in classrooms.
And scientists, the scientific method and science will never hold up for any number of different reasons. Teaching science in classrooms in tantamount to teaching Alice in Wonderland as fact. One scientist peer reviewing other scientists who have no more absolute abilities than another is mental masturbation.
Science is taught in schools because there is a need to fill gaps in the hours of the day. The science of flat earth theory was absolute in its day but today nothing is absolute.
People like you give me some amusing and delightful periods in what is a cloudy day. like the church who vilified free scientific thought, the (church) of science keeps scientists from pursuing free thought and inquiry. Actually the scientific community that excommunicates scientists from thinking something other than within fixed boundaries of no other inquiry into other areas of investigation are dwindling in number.
One such scientist is Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D. who is an MIT physicist who recently chose to investigate "The Science of God". Dr. Schroeder is now one of many well-known and reputable scientists who are investigating that which is thought to be untouchable by the scientific community. If you would like to see some of Dr. Schroeder's proofs of ID simply go to Google videos and type in being words - The Science of God - Dr. Gerald Schroeder.
Dr. Schroeder has written several books on this subject. You also might go to Google videos and type - Beyond Intelligent Design - the Scientific Case for a Creator.
There is excuse for forbidding inquiry into any hypothesis simply because some scientists want to believe no evidence or facts exist with which to investigate scientifically.
Id love to. My internet access is currently spotty (vacationing on the farm over the holidays) send me a personal message with any links you would like me to watch. I have watched "No Intelligence Allowed" and wrote an extensive review. If you would like to exchange opinions/ideas, I've got some for you too!
There is no way you can actually believe that. You either are ignoring or have no understanding of how science works... Filling in the grey areas of scientific understanding with "GOD DID IT" if foolish and would merely serve as a bookmarker to go back to once the real answer is discovered. As for the nature of absolutes, there is no way of knowing the true absolute of anything, all you can do is look at the evidence at hand and formulate a logical answer, not hope on smoke and mirrors.
There is any way that you can actually know anything about this topic. You're foolish and without the vaguest idea of science's progress to this date. You don't belong in this discussion as you are much like a kindergarten child talking about particle physics.
After reviewing many of your video's and seeing the overwhelming response most people seem to have towards your pseudo science bs you seem to subscribe to... I take comfort in knowing that I do in fact know more about this subject than you and see that many of your viewers feel the same way I do - See above for rating. Have fun attempting to bring mankind back to the dark ages.
It must be great to know all and see all... You are not qualified to understand QM and its implications. By the way, a consensus of my viewers do not make a fact or do they validate believing in nonsense.
My ratings have absolutely no meaning for they are as knowledgeable as you.
Have fun keeping yourself in the dark ages of science eons ago.
Don't reply until you are able to discuss things of which you have nothing to contribute. TA TA
I never said I was all knowing or all seeing nor implied it. And your right, viewer oppinion doesn't discredit your beliefs fully. I do however have a good understanding of quantum mechanics. Being that the leading researchers in the field are not with you on it proving ID, I really don't see how you find yourself qualified to imply that it does. Where is creation found in QM that makes you believe in a grand designer? Please don't direct me to Ben Steins video.
You are funny indeed. As there were no witnesses to the primordial molten earth and suddenly the appearance of water merits all the evidence that Miller Urey found in old movies.
Science is wanting evidence that would end the quest anything but a natural selection/evolution causation. The implications of knowing the truth would end the need for scientists to discover that which has been evident for centuries.
There is a reason that we somehow exist in some form for reasons unknown.
Science has always required certain religious beliefs as Einstein and many of his contemporaries have stated. Religion is now requiring science to validate what has been present for centuries.
Evolution remains unproven and is only a belief that it actually occurred is without any evidence. As you said, someday there will be new thinkers and scientists who will find that evolution and the earth resting on the back of a turtle are equally fictitious.
As far as future scientists goes, I only said that they might one day put our scientists to shame.
That may mean a number of things. Pasteurization would be an example of a scientific process that has stood the test of time. Likewise, evolution (the very idea of which is older than Jesus) has yet still stood the test of time, and may do so in the future. Understanding of it may progress far beyond that which is already known (I particularly suspect so because it is constantly scrutinized).
And people, seeing that you're not citing sources, will change it back.
That's the difference between wikipedia and youtube. Wiki is regulated by people with knowledge. Youtube is regulated by people with itchy mouse fingers and a flag option.
Also, if the evidence WERE obvious, then there would be a vastly different worldview in the scientific community. There's not. You know why? Because bunk doesn't stand against the peer review process.
I never said it was peer reviewed. I said it was edited by people who know things. When I look at a well-written wiki article citing sources out the wazoo, and a youtube video of Ben Stein being an asshat, guess who's words I'm taking more seriously?
People who know some things? Sources from where and who cited out the wazoo?
A video of the words being said by those involved is worth a 1000 well cited and review by unknown people.
Folks who contribute to Wiki canntot all be reviewed by experts who are qualified to validate the statements within. Ben Stein is an ethical and moral thinker who honestly made this movie not to discredit Dawkins but to expose academic hypocrisy. No intelligence allowed unless the academic thinks for himself.
You are using those big scientific terms again like booby. You haven't the vaguest idea of what you are talking about but feel free to make judgements on what others tell you are not worthy of investigation.
I have much more important things to do than discuss science with someone with no knowledge or understanding.
"You are using those big scientific terms again like booby. You haven't the vaguest idea of what you are talking about but feel free to make judgements on what others tell you are not worthy of investigation."
Unless you've proved beyond a reasonable doubt through experimentation that ID is a legitimate explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, then "making judgments on what others tell you" is all you and Ben Stein are doing.
So you think that evolution was designed by changing environments?
Changing environments always leads to entropy. The laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with self causation or replicating LIFE (not understood except by Dawkins). He stated that all LIFE, consciousness, awareness and the soul are nothing more nor less than materialism. He always gives himself an out by his preface 'In my own opinion.'
Entropy is the slow, eventual heat-death of the universe. This planet is (as yet, anyway) unaffected by it. Life on this planet is dependent solely on whether or not there is a sun.
There is one. We're cool.
As for the existence of souls, there is no evidence for them, so it's not reasonable to believe they exist.
Of course, consciousness is a product of "materialism." All it takes is Alzheimer's Disease to show you that the concept of a perpetual self beyond the brain is not reasonable.
Actually entropy is a measure of the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system. Life on this planet is also dependent on an infinite number of events occurring at the same time and in the correct order. No logic here.
How do you know that the inner eye (perpetual self) is not somewhere in Alzheimer's or autism or coma or death? The concept of the soul is man's description of that same self in relationship to our solid environment.
Are you saying with direct knowledge that life hasn't occurred on Venus? What if I told you that there is no Venus planet and that this universe exists only as an illusion or holograph? Why it seems I'm also saying that this premise is reasonable to believe it. For I have real personal evidence of this phenomena just as you have evidence of abiogenesis. I said the concept of the soul is man's (OUR) description of our relationship to our environment.
Nope. No problems. Except that I'm not arguing an attempt to understand the existence of a deity. I'm arguing that evolution occurred, and that it did so without a need for divine guidance.
You call it Divine Guidance while I prefer to name it Intelligent Design.
To date there is no evidence for a blueprint of evolution as there are no known transitional forms found as yet. I might just as well say that all things we see with our senses appeared instantaneously while some disappeared at the same instant. This would require Infintite Wisdom blueprint just as any evolution process would need.
Molecular phylogeny or molecular sequencing no more illustrates the evolutionary history of molecules or host organisms than Mars is made of green cheese. Wikipedia is not a good source of knowledge for anything.
The transitional or intermediate evidence for evolution proves nothing for the instantaneous appearance of these same fossil life forms could also be just as valid.
Remember there were no eye witnesses to these events.
If nothing that I know or experience is real, it makes no difference to me. I'm operating under the idea that everything I experience, even the knowledge presented by others that may or may not exist, exists, regardless of whether or not it actually exists.
That said, whether you call your self "consciousness," "self," or "soul," the meaning (man's description of our relationship to our environment) is the same. I don't argue with you on that point, except in the words I choose to use.
We all operate on our senses input to interpret a real existence. The latest of man's sciences, QM states that all we have to live in is 'uncertainty' or that nothing exists unless observed by our limited senses. This solid world universe is therefore present only when the inner "I" perceives them as real. That would make all of us connected together in one point somewhere instead of a giant universe with a border and a non-universe on the other side of the border.
And I am concerned with whether or not my beliefs are true. Therefore, I only believe in things that I know can or have been observed. Again, molecular phylogeny. It's an entire scientific field that wouldn't exist if evolution by natural selection weren't a part of reality.
Actually, let me add to my last comment regarding belief:
No. We don't all choose what to believe. When I was a child, I believed in God. I believed it only because I was raised with the idea that disbelief wasn't even an option. Since then, my beliefs have changed. Not because I "chose" to believe something else, but because I realized that what I believed was inconsistent with reality.
I choose to believe that there are no infinite number of coincidences that just happened to form LIFE and all that we perceive. I believe that these limitless coincidences are inconsistent with reality.
Unless you are a licensed medical psychiatrist, any diagnosis of my medical status is worthless.
Having minored in theoretical physics it appears that you are having difficulty with understanding current QM theory.
Maybe you should read some basics in this area before you accept the reality you visualize from the input of your personal senses. You do not have mental problems but simply are thinking like a Down Syndrome who mainly have concrete thinking problems.
"There is no proof for anything; fact or theory. Each individual perception of their point of reference of a universe or everything around oneself is no proof or answer to the ultimate question."
Then what's the point of the video? If there's no proof of anything, then why present a misrepresentation of Dawkins as though he were saying, "Yes, there's proof of intelligent design," when, by your own admission, there's not?
He's right because he's got the evidence to back up his claims. Again, read The God Delusion, and you'll see that my summary of his viewpoint is exactly what he was attempting to explain to Ben Stein.
Also, by the by, the laws of thermodynamics don't refute evolutionary biology.
"Dawkins isn't right because "Dawkins said it." He's right because he's got the evidence to back up his claims."
Dawkins has evidence?
The Ancestors Tale by Dawkins (page 467468), he says, "Heredity began as a lucky initiation of an autocatalytic, or otherwise self-regenerating, process. It immediately took off and spread like a fire, eventually leading to natural selection and all that was to follow."
So for Dawkins, the initial replicator that kicks it all off is self-causing. I postulate, like Aristotle, that this line of reasoning does not conform to the laws of logic and must therefore be discarded. God (immaterial and unmovable) is the initial cause. What its purpose is is indeed another argument. Applying the method of the physical sciences will not answer the question "is God a delusion?" Only logic will answer that and it is purely a cognitive process of logical deduction.
"So for Dawkins, the initial replicator that kicks it all off is self-causing."
Change "Dawkins" to "scientists," and you got a pretty good idea.
Suppose, then, that God is the initial cause? What is logical about adding something to the equation of life that is not necessary and is, in itself, inexplicable?
"Can I make that ALL, some or a few scientists that agree with this illogical premise?"
Most. At least in the field of biology. And sure, science changes. Aristotle was a brilliant guy, but he just didn't have the resources of modern-day scientists. Hopefully, most future scientists will one day put guys like Dawkins to shame.
"Define materialism LIFE for us."
By the all-caps LIFE, I'm guessing you mean the meaning of life. Essentially, life is living and being happy with those you love.
Thanks for your perspective that 'most' scientists believe in non-logical observations with human senses.
Just like your statement that someday a modern day scientist will have resources unknown today that will disprove all ideations of abiogenesis or evolution or material consciousness.
Good try but I asked you to define LIFE and not life experiences. When the first living cell appeared in our awareness, did its LIFE evolve by abiogenesis or natural selection?
"Thanks for your perspective that 'most' scientists believe in non-logical observations with human senses."
What about living material appearing from non-living material is "non-logical?"
I never said that "all ideations of abiogenesis or evolution or material consciousness" will be disproved. Hell, for all that was known, the discovery of DNA could've kicked Darwin's ideas to the side. But it didn't. It gave people a better understanding.
Did the discovery of DNA really give mankind a better understanding of Darwin's ideas? DNA itself would have had to therefore evolve by some transitional or intermediate form of condensed energy/matter by force or forces unknown.
I love your definition of LIFE. Live and be merry = LIFE in the fast zone.
Could LIFE be nothing more than awareness, consciousness or making choices instead of living in the fast lane, eating, sleeping, excreting, expectorating or dying into nothingness?
Could life be a gift? Remember that you are the big winner in our realm of experience as you won the swimming race as the one winner out of approx 3 million swimmers trying to get to your mother's ova.
"Could LIFE be nothing more than awareness, consciousness or making choices instead of living in the fast lane, eating, sleeping, excreting, expectorating or dying into nothingness?"
You forgot loving and hating, too.
"Could life be a gift?"
Yes. From our parents. So why not tell them you love them right now?
It's understood quite well, and that understanding grows every year.
"It is not the how that interests me but the WHY."
I told you. Love, hate, friends, family, babies, dogs, kittens, trees, PB&J sandwiches, etc. Life itself IS the thing. If you're spending your entire life looking up at the sky and saying, "WHY?!?!" then you're missing out on the answer.
Now you are getting plane silly with innane responses.
Natural selection, flat earth thinking and evolution in respect to evolution is no longer valid. Your responses are getting less interesting and further discourse is silly.
So life, being on a planet suitable enough for it to happen, happened. Then it, being on a planet suitable enough for it to continue, continued.
The environment is the cause. Not a divine, couldn't-have-happened-at-all-without-it intervention. If it had been some other planet, this text-based conversation wouldn't have happened.
But we are lucky insofar as this was (and is) the planet where life is possible.
Quote mining taken out of context, brilliant.
I've seen the rest of this conversation, and it is perfectly clear that what Dawkins is saying is that IF intelligent design were true, we might expect to find some kind of signature, and that if we found that signature it would only be evidence of an intelligence greater than ours, it could be aliens or magic pixies just as well as it could be God.
Stein is deceitful or deceived, and if you believe him on this issue, you are deceived as well.
Applemangh 10 months ago
"Admit"!!!!!!!!!!!????????
Ask almost any atheist the same question and we will all "admit" in the same way Dawkins did!
So?
acme181169 2 years ago
You might want to watch the entire interview.
ivlfounder 2 years ago
So whats your point?
acme181169 2 years ago
You didn't learn anything?
ivlfounder 2 years ago
Is there anything to learn from Ben Stein?
acme181169 2 years ago
Well from watching the interview one can learn from Stein that Dawkins has lost his grip on science and is now losing his grip on reality.
ivlfounder 2 years ago
rofl!! Yeah right!
acme181169 2 years ago
That Dawkins would claim the letters he gets as scientific proof is funny and sad at the same time.
ivlfounder 2 years ago
You're making about as much sense as christian science now!
acme181169 2 years ago
What part of my post didn't you understand?
ivlfounder 2 years ago
All of it!
acme181169 2 years ago
You don't understand the problem with Dawkins claiming the letters he gets as scientific proof that people feel liberated once their belief in God has been destroyed?
ivlfounder 2 years ago
I was'nt aware that Dawkins had claimed SCIENTIFIC proof from letters he recieved. I expect he is taking people at their word, in the same way I'm willing to believe you, when you claim to be a christian!
I still don't get your point.
ID is NOT a Scientific theory, evolution IS. That means evolution has and continues to be tested to the highest possible degree and has still not been falsefied.
Irreducible complexity remains unproven including the flogella.
acme181169 2 years ago
He was ask for scientific proof of his claim and he tried to claim the letters as proof.
ivlfounder 2 years ago
Why do you NEED proof of your god? I thought christians enjoy the 'test' of faith!
If you had indisputable evidence of god would you still want or need faith?
Would'nt evidence kind of fuck the whole religous thing up? I think theists should be careful what they wish for!
The gaps are getting ever smaller!
acme181169 2 years ago
I don't recall having said I needed proof of God.
As for the God of the Gaps talk you may not know this but usually when a scientist makes a discovery it raises more questions than it answers.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
oh quote mining, you beautiful bastard
Piersmaru 2 years ago
totally taken out of context of course. He was taking about aliens not god.
24foxstar 2 years ago
BOO'YAH!!!!!!!
MasterPhil175 2 years ago
The title of this video (however unfinished it may be) seems to imply that Richard Dawkins is admitting something, which is a sense he is, he's admitting that he does not believe in intelligent design. Anyone misled to believe otherwise by this video or anything else is frankly moronic and should pick up any of Dawkins' books and see that here he was bending over backwards to portray a view which he himself doesn't adhere to.
sinksinkswim 2 years ago
You seem to forget that Richard Dawkins has books to sell and his academic creditials as the guru of evolution and atheism.
Money and standing in his little world of make believe is what he has tried to back-track about. Dawkins is meaningless in the world of reality and got his anus caught for a few seconds.
onycho1 2 years ago
@onycho1 did you not watch the whole thing? how about watching it from about 2 minutes earlier where he outlines that he's speaking in the context of aliens that would have evolved by natural means and then possibly planted the seeds for life on earth. It was all hypothetical. Wow I can't believe the quote mining.
systematic101 2 years ago
@onycho1 what a moronic statement
riddletron 1 year ago
You also are making statements about this movie clip of which no proof or evidence that Dawkins was tricked into making his real beliefs about some 'wisdom' out there which could be responsible for all this merry mishap humans call existence.
When you use the 'chicken and egg' arguement, you will always lose for no one knows how exponential complexity formed from some unknown 'chance laws of nature..'
Dawkins like Obama had to backtrack on his statement proving fraud on both their parts.
onycho1 2 years ago
Let's put aside the science vs. religion argument for the moment.
Mr. Dawkins is saying one thing. The video has been edited by Ben Stein to make it look like Mr. Dawkins is saying something completely different.
Whether Mr. Dawkins' ideas about evolution are right or wrong doesn't matter. The fact still remains that his views are being misrepresented here. And, no matter what you think about the theory of evolution, misrepresenting someone's views is dishonest and it's morally wrong.
methuselah99 2 years ago 3
You have accused me of misrepresenting Richard Dawkin's statements and now you accuse Ben Stein misrepesenting, altering or taking his words out of context requires more than your personal opinion.
Unless you can provide proof of such nonsense, you are the one making statements with absolutely no proof whatsoever. Neither Ben Stein or I have any reason to prove Dawkins a fraud. Dawkins uses his own logic to make fine cloth of the ether.
When you have some proof of your statements, return.
onycho1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's really funny to see that people like Dawkins claim to be individualists, and a lot of his fans also make that claim. Yet the responses to someone openly criticizing him, spark and fuel anger amongst his fans leading them to leave hateful comments and low ratings? Is Dawkins of any blood relation to them? Or did he perhaps do something heroic most of us missed? Or is Dawkins just their anti Christ pope? As you atheists always say, THINK FOR YOURSELVES and do not let Dawkins think for you!
TheIncredibletruth 2 years ago
For some ignorance is bliss. People like Dawkins and our friend, me thuselah99 are ABSOLUTELY SURE that everything is an accidnet of materialism or to prove one's point, statments just have to be taken out of context.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO TRUTH FOR MAN'S MIND IS FINITE and there is no way to know with certainty anything without infinite wisdom.
onycho1 2 years ago
You're right. Our minds are finite and we can never be absolutely certain about anything. Pretty much every scientist in the world would agree with that.
But what does that have to do with the fact that this clip has been manipulated to misrepresent what Mr. Dawkins is saying?
He's saying one thing, you've made it look like he's saying another. Where I come from, that's called lying. Maybe you have a different explanation?
methuselah99 2 years ago
I'm genuinely not sure if you're deliberately lying or if you actually believe your own lies, but it's obvious to any disinterested observer that Dawkins' statement has been taken out of context in this video.
In either case, you are a thoroughly dishonest person, and if you have any decency at all you should feel deeply ashamed of yourself. But I doubt you do.
Goodbye.
methuselah99 2 years ago
In one of your previous posts, you said:
"there is no Intelligent Design"
It's right there in black and white, for everyone to see. But if you go back and read the whole post, you will see that in its original context, you were actually saying something quite different.
The only point I'm making is that it's very easy to misrepresent someone's views by quoting them out of context - which is what has been done to Mr. Dawkins in this video.
If you deny this, then you are very dishonest.
methuselah99 2 years ago
Yes you can take me or anyone out of context but neither I nor Ben Stein has taken anything out of context from a man who has a book and reputation to sell for cash.
The fact that Dawkins tongue slipped when Stein posed his question is really not in dispute. The only point your trying to make is that some people can take something out of context or simply hear what they want or do not want to hear.
So listen carefully.....
onycho1 2 years ago
There was no intent on my part to take Dawkin's own statement out of context. I really don't care what he thinks or says for he has no idea of anything, just like you and I.
Typos and grammatical mishaps seem to be your only issue instead of content.
onycho1 2 years ago
I've read your last 2 posts over and over and I don't know if English is your second language, but I really can't figure out what you're trying to say here, or how it relates to what I wrote in my last post.
To clarify, I have pulled 3 quotes from your previous posts and removed these quotes from their original contexts to misrepresent your views, in order to demonstrate the technique that either you or Ben Stein (or both) has used in this video, to highlight how dishonest this technique is.
methuselah99 2 years ago
Anti-Evolutionist Theist Admits Evolution is True!!
"evolution is a real phenomena" - onycho1
"there is no Intelligent Design." - onycho1
"evolution is valid" - onycho1
You see, we can all quote people out of context and distort the truth if we want to. It's really not a difficult thing to do.
methuselah99 2 years ago
I see your still back on attempting to prove evolution by taking Richard Dawkin's stataements out of context or truth distortion.
Sorry Meththusla but making absolute statements about anything including evolution proves you have no knowledge about the vageries of the scientific thought or method.
I am old enough to remember the proven scientific views of the 1970s that we were headed for an ice age, and due to population growth the Earth was going to run out of food.
onycho1 2 years ago
Now the closed subjectd of Al Gore is creating flatus from his beans creating 'Al Gore' man made climate changes. Dawkin's has his personal opinion which is not based on science or anything else.
Please stop beating everyone over the head with PROVEN SCIENCE until there is one.
onycho1 2 years ago
quote mining.
propogandists love using this.
sinical10 2 years ago 10
this isn't even the whole sentence. he's talking about a hypothetical situation involving life on earth being triggered by an ancient alien race who would had to have evolved through darwinian means.
but you already knew that didn't you?
matafuko 2 years ago 2
So you saw the entire movie Expelled? Sorry but your guess that he was talking hypothetically involving life on earth being triggered by aliens does make any since whatsoever. For he would have to explain how the aliens evolved from chaotic star dust, etc, etc.
No he actually said the entire sentence and in context. I enjoyed the movie and understood the great Richar Dawkins to actually say that there might be an intelligence out there... he was referring to ID in a moment of speaking reality
onycho1 2 years ago
i have seen this particular scene from expelled here on youtube, right before i watched this clip from it. this is not the whole quotation.
his whole point is that even though the possibility that "we" may have been created - the race that created us would have evolved through darwinian means.
you knew that too.
you, sir, are a liar.
matafuko 2 years ago 2
You sir are a fool. I saw the entire movie and the segment was not taken out of context or modified. Richard Dawkins made a statement which seemed out of character but Ben Stein retorted with a question that cleared up his sudden admission as truth. This atheist biologist is not without reason even though his standing in the academic community and his book sales depends on his rigid dogma. "The race that created us" need to have been created and not made from chaotic energy. But you are in a box
onycho1 2 years ago
it IS out of context. you are lying and you know it.
this clip implies that dawkins accepts intelligent design as a possibility. the full interview does not. in the full interview stein gets his arse handed to him.
this is a dishonest representation.
matafuko 2 years ago
lol. This shows absolute dishonesty on the behalf of the author of this video.
PygmyLepper 3 years ago
You are a joke.
First of all there are no absolutes such as dishonesty on or for the behalf of the author.
How in the world would you know what Richard Dawkins was thining when he slipped and for a few seconds revealed his true self. Dawkins has a book and place in his closed mind academia to maintain.
When you become a mind reader, let the rest of it on your take of the future and what morons repeat with such certainty.
onycho1 3 years ago
I can quite happily understand the actual context of this clip, i can understand how scientists, like Dawkins reply to questions like, "Is there any possibility that intellegence created life?" and i understand the way that you are portraying this clip.
I think that you understand those things too, but are un-willing to be honest. Or maybe you dont understand, in which case i can tell you, this clip with its description is misleading.
PygmyLepper 3 years ago
Your certainty of the clip being out of context is certainly very reassuring. Your knowledge of 'the evolutionary process from another origin of this evolutionary process ' must put you as the only one on earth that absoltuely knows, see and then realize your uniqueness.
You quite happily understand the context of this clip but don't seem to understand why it happened at all must make you a seer of all knowledge.
onycho1 3 years ago
... I think you are a very confused person. You havent understood a single thing ive said, and you seem not to understand how dishonest this clip actually is.
I guess its kind of funny, ive had a few laughs at your expense. But what you really need to understand is.... well everything lol
PygmyLepper 3 years ago
I think that further discussion with an anacephalic is a waste of my valuable time.
onycho1 3 years ago
Fair enough.
But one thing that wont be a waste of time will be to attempt to understand how misleading this clip is.
Thats all i was trying to show you before.
This clip makes it seem that Dawkins believes that intelligent design is a valid pursuit of science, which is doubtful. And some people may understand it as such, they may not know that this clip is taken out of context.
p.s. Thanks for not censuring my comments like many other's would.
PygmyLepper 3 years ago
Your question is excellent.
The point of Richard Dawkins' statement is that he is certain that 1) evolution is a real phenomena and 2) there is no Intelligent Design.
The question remains 'if evolution is valid' then what made evolution in whatever you want to call or define it?
I don't believe in a generic god or diety but simply a pure intelligent designer who made everything including gravity, time, matter, life forms, etc. Call me a theist if you want, but the question remains unanswered
onycho1 3 years ago
All finite things are created or formed. Evolution, photons or anything else are simply finite. By definition, infinite design or wisdom is infinite.
Dawkins is simply a finite being with his eloquent use of the English language. His matter or materialism being the source of everything is ridiculous on its face.
onycho1 3 years ago
lol worst out of context clip ever. he's answering a question on taht extremely small chance that there is a designer for our world, and he further states that it would have to be beings themselves evolved from evolution, though earlier than us, taht "seeded" us. he's not in any way saying he believes this to be true, he's merely stating it as an umprobable but not excludable minor possibility.
BIasphemer 3 years ago
The words of Richard Dawkins are not the all of cumulative knowledge. He is a just a man that believes matter (materialism) thinks and lives.
There are no absolutes and Richard Dawkins thoughts in his books and words are based on what he believes. His ideations are as meaningless as anyone else for the fact is no one knows anything for certain.
Dawkins is a moron.
onycho1 3 years ago
Then I guess you don't know for certain that Dawkins is a moron.
BIasphemer 3 years ago
I really can't be bothered to get into the whole religion debate as most people have there minds fairly made up about the whole thing.
However i will defend Dawkins on one point. If you were to read his book, which i seriously doubt you have, he states clearly that it would be ridiculous for an atheist to asert there is cerianly no god however he reason, very well, that it is almost certain.
So you taking him out of context really hasn't proven anything.
Also are you a theist or a sceptic?
gaiushallivar 3 years ago
But Dawkins talked about more intelligent beings in the universe, not God. You cut off the interview before he got to that. Thats dishonest of you.
Svankmajer 3 years ago
Actually that isn't true. I saw the entire movie and Dawkins made a relationship between biochemistry and molecular activity and an intelligence created somewhere out there.
Many people would like Dawkins to have been talking about ETs but he didn't. For you see someone would have had to create aliens from Mars as well.
onycho1 3 years ago
"Many people would like Dawkins to have been talking about ETs but he didn't. For you see *someONE* would have had to create aliens from Mars as well."
Or someTHING. That's the point. Suppose you find evidence of intelligent design. That doesn't prove that God did it. It would just prove biologists wrong about evolution. In searching for the designer's identity, we may discover it to be aliens. But the aliens would have had to come about due to someTHING. But that doesn't mean it has to be God.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
"Or someTHING"
You are now beginning to think instead of instinctively knee jerk. 'If evidence is found of intelligent design' that does not prove that a god did it for there are many gods (sun, moon, fire, monkey, Jesus, water, Vishnu, etc) out there.
Aliens are not infinite, ergo cannot be the orignial creator of life or their own lives. But an infinite (meaning: always now) designer for reasons unknown could have created this reality.
So an infinite designer need not be a god thing.
onycho1 3 years ago
How many infinite things do we know about? I was thinking (like I always do), is it even possible to create something that is infinite? I got into a conversation with an elder at my old church about our "souls" and I am thinking, if our souls actually do live on eternally - then wouldn't they HAVE to have been around before we were born? After all, eternal does mean NO BEGINNING and NO END. I dunno, just something new I am throwing around the ol' brain pan. What do you think?
mezu8 3 years ago
Infinite things we know can be described with several meanings. If you describe Pi to its end is infinite. But as I believe, infinite has no past or future for all time is simply now. We humans appear to be living along a time spectrum, experiencing our surroundings, are aware, think and make choices. I feel that all of us are in a very complex holographic point in NOW which passes quickly with only free will as our point of reality.
onycho1 3 years ago
The movie - What the Bleep Do We Know? has some of concepts that I share. Type in - What the Bleep Do We Know? for a short preview of the movie if you haven't seen it already.
I believe that there is an ultimate wisdom which is the fount or source of everything which is always now. We really live in infinity but can only see what our inner eye interprets as reality.
onycho1 3 years ago
Found a very funny version of Richard Dawkins' parody. Type the words - The Dawkins Delusion into your YouTube search. The Dawkins rational for his position is satirized.
onycho1 3 years ago
way to pick and choose and take something completely out of context. Shame on whomever posted this.
mezu8 3 years ago
This is no different than what countless creationist have done time and time again...
adsensus 3 years ago
"It makes the informed truly frustrated when science is not known to those who post on this site."
Physician, heal thyself.
methuselah99 3 years ago
onycho1 gets beaten again.
methuselah99 3 years ago
debating with those who have no knowledge of the subject is a waste of my time. It makes the informed truly frustrated when science is not known to those who post on this site.
onycho1 3 years ago
yes of course if noone dosent agree with you darwinist fools they know nothing the same can be said about you that you know nothing lol.
bradandnicole 3 years ago
Who is noone? Do you really know nothing lol?
onycho1 3 years ago
For those new to Dawkins, here's what he's saying:
"Suppose you find evidence of intelligent design for life as we know it on our planet. That doesn't answer the question of the ultimate origin of complexity. To state that anything from God to aliens is responsible for life on our planet is only answering the question with the question as an answer. Where did complexity come from? Complexity. It doesn't solve anything, so it's a weak and flawed argument."
jakebreaker 3 years ago
Also, I forgot to mention that it's a moot point anyhow, as there's no evidence in living organisms of intelligent design.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
Dawkins is not a new or significant person with any special ideas or theories. What he said has no resemblance to the ultimate truth. You believe that complexity has no proof of its being irreducible reality becomes a moot point.
There is no proof for anything; fact or theory. Each individual perception of their point of reference of a universe or everything around oneself is no proof or answer to the ultimate question.
As the movie title says, "What the BLEEP is this."
onycho1 3 years ago
It just depends on how far down this rabbit hole one wants to travel.
Complexity itself is a proof of Intelligent Design for there is no amount of time or happy mishaps that can randomly form into complexity.
These concepts have been thought of for eons but mankind cannot accept the fact that star dust can think of complexity at all.
Does matter exist or does it matter at all?
onycho1 3 years ago
"Complexity itself is a proof of Intelligent Design for there is no amount of time or happy mishaps that can randomly form into complexity."
The opposite of design isn't chance.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
"The opposite of design isn't chance."
Then what is the opposite of design? And don't give me that ole crap about 'natural selection' which is truly Intelligent Design.
onycho1 3 years ago
In this context, the opposite of design is evolution.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
Actually, to be fair, it's really more like:
Abiogenesis, horizontal gene transfer, then evolution.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
"Abiogenesis, horizontal gene transfer, then evolution."
Sorry but the egg didn't design itself to be chicken fruit. Neither did tubules arrange themselves in any horizontal or vertical gene transfer. Evolution is a process not a cause and abiogenesis is absurd on its face.
onycho1 3 years ago
"Sorry but the egg didn't design itself to be chicken fruit."
You and design. Where's the evidence?
"Neither did tubules arrange themselves in any horizontal or vertical gene transfer."
Please, man. I'm begging you. Wikipedia.
"Evolution is a process not a cause..."
Don't mistake "here's where humans came from" with "here's where all life came from." Life is a product of abiogenesis. Humanity is a product of evolution.
Experiments in abiogenesis show that life can be made from non-life.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
You ask where is the evidence. The evidence is always obvious to our finite human senses.
Please man, Wikipedia is the product of just anyone with an opinion. If I choose to contribute to this Internet site, it will become proof for people like yourself.
You say 'Life is a product of abiogenesis and humanity is a product of evolution.' While I can post to Wikipedia that abiodenesis is a product of Fred Frankenstein making LIFE arise from dead matter
onycho1 3 years ago
and evolution is a product of Intelligent Design. Then others will quote my statement as evidence and fact.
Experiments in abiogenesis have shown nothing.
Give just one example of such an experiment.
onycho1 3 years ago
"Give just one example of such an experiment."
Miller-Urey shows that amino acids can form in an early-Earth environment.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
You are joking aren't you?
Miller Urey used intelligent design to create circumstances they thought existed on the early earth. The formation of basic amino acids became a scientific joke chemistry trick and were light years from actually forming LIFE.
If you want another real enigma, type the words DNA Nebula into your address line. Science wanting to remove ID from the picture quickly dismissed this anomaly as a nearby dark hole (300 light years away) sending gravity out to twist and turn
onycho1 3 years ago
a 30 light year long amorphous mass of gas, planets and space dust into a replica of the common template of all life forms on earth.
Something resembling DNA, 80 light years long forming a double helix with cross bars right out there in our universe. How's that for a real experiment?
Scientists also explained away the radiance of the all pervasive interference patterns coming from everywhere with no origin. No ID here as the radicance spectrum was nothing more than a remnant of the Big Bang.
onycho1 3 years ago
There's no ID anywhere.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
Is that your educated guess? Abiogenesis, evolution and random order from disorder must exist because some scientists need to protect their turf.
I have no idea why the template of life forms on earth that is 30 light years long appears from non-evolution forces is here. But deserves study instead of keeping unacceptable thinking not approved by most scientists for personal reasons.
Sounds reasonable not to think about the WHY of such a remarkable finding to me.
onycho1 3 years ago
"Abiogenesis, evolution and random order from disorder must exist because some scientists need to protect their turf."
"Big Science" doesn't exist. There's good science and junk science. Good science is, "I don't know, so let's look at the facts and see what we can conclude from theme." Bad science is, "I don't understand because it's so hard. Therefore, God must have done it."
Actually, Bad Science isn't even an appropriate term. It's not NOT science.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
So good and bad science is you your problem. Big good science asks questions by scientific methodology but is limited to theories and facts that agree with preconceived concepts like evolution or vibrating strings. Then you find BAD science that asks only for investigation into unapproved physical findings that conflict and/or contradict approved good science theory.
Hell you shouldn't call evidence of ID science at all as it might place GOOD science into irrelevancy. You are so predictable.
onycho1 3 years ago
If there have been experiments conducted that validate intelligent design, then the results of those experiments should be put-up for peer review. Who wouldn't want to say, "I was there on the day that evolution was shown to be unscientific?" It'd be one of the most prominent scientific discoveries of this century. Scientists make their careers on disproving something. Big Science is an invention of dull-minded nincompoops who know nothing about science.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
ID will never really hold up for a number of different reasons, one of the biggest problems is trying to gain a foothold in science classes without being put under the gauntlet that is scientific peer review. Instead, proponents of ID have chosen to bypass the peer review and go straight to the school boards... selling the same ideas creationist attempted to sell in the 60s with a nice new name tag - Intelligent Design. This is no different than if Scientology tried to get in classrooms.
adsensus 3 years ago
And scientists, the scientific method and science will never hold up for any number of different reasons. Teaching science in classrooms in tantamount to teaching Alice in Wonderland as fact. One scientist peer reviewing other scientists who have no more absolute abilities than another is mental masturbation.
Science is taught in schools because there is a need to fill gaps in the hours of the day. The science of flat earth theory was absolute in its day but today nothing is absolute.
onycho1 3 years ago
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
The science of flat earth theory was absolute because the church kept killing scientists who pursued free thought an inquiry.
Put some actual thought into your comments before hitting "Post Comment" please.
mezu8 3 years ago
People like you give me some amusing and delightful periods in what is a cloudy day. like the church who vilified free scientific thought, the (church) of science keeps scientists from pursuing free thought and inquiry. Actually the scientific community that excommunicates scientists from thinking something other than within fixed boundaries of no other inquiry into other areas of investigation are dwindling in number.
onycho1 3 years ago
One such scientist is Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D. who is an MIT physicist who recently chose to investigate "The Science of God". Dr. Schroeder is now one of many well-known and reputable scientists who are investigating that which is thought to be untouchable by the scientific community. If you would like to see some of Dr. Schroeder's proofs of ID simply go to Google videos and type in being words - The Science of God - Dr. Gerald Schroeder.
Please think instead of closing your mind.
onycho1 3 years ago
Dr. Schroeder has written several books on this subject. You also might go to Google videos and type - Beyond Intelligent Design - the Scientific Case for a Creator.
There is excuse for forbidding inquiry into any hypothesis simply because some scientists want to believe no evidence or facts exist with which to investigate scientifically.
onycho1 3 years ago
Id love to. My internet access is currently spotty (vacationing on the farm over the holidays) send me a personal message with any links you would like me to watch. I have watched "No Intelligence Allowed" and wrote an extensive review. If you would like to exchange opinions/ideas, I've got some for you too!
mezu8 3 years ago
There is no way you can actually believe that. You either are ignoring or have no understanding of how science works... Filling in the grey areas of scientific understanding with "GOD DID IT" if foolish and would merely serve as a bookmarker to go back to once the real answer is discovered. As for the nature of absolutes, there is no way of knowing the true absolute of anything, all you can do is look at the evidence at hand and formulate a logical answer, not hope on smoke and mirrors.
adsensus 3 years ago
There is any way that you can actually know anything about this topic. You're foolish and without the vaguest idea of science's progress to this date. You don't belong in this discussion as you are much like a kindergarten child talking about particle physics.
Don't bother replying.
onycho1 3 years ago
After reviewing many of your video's and seeing the overwhelming response most people seem to have towards your pseudo science bs you seem to subscribe to... I take comfort in knowing that I do in fact know more about this subject than you and see that many of your viewers feel the same way I do - See above for rating. Have fun attempting to bring mankind back to the dark ages.
adsensus 3 years ago
It must be great to know all and see all... You are not qualified to understand QM and its implications. By the way, a consensus of my viewers do not make a fact or do they validate believing in nonsense.
My ratings have absolutely no meaning for they are as knowledgeable as you.
Have fun keeping yourself in the dark ages of science eons ago.
Don't reply until you are able to discuss things of which you have nothing to contribute. TA TA
onycho1 3 years ago
I never said I was all knowing or all seeing nor implied it. And your right, viewer oppinion doesn't discredit your beliefs fully. I do however have a good understanding of quantum mechanics. Being that the leading researchers in the field are not with you on it proving ID, I really don't see how you find yourself qualified to imply that it does. Where is creation found in QM that makes you believe in a grand designer? Please don't direct me to Ben Steins video.
adsensus 3 years ago
"used intelligent design"
Having a mix of natural stuffs and adding heat to it doesn't take intelligence in an environment where said mixes and heat are common.
"circumstances they thought existed on the early earth"
Circumstances they thought existed due to evidence.
Science isn't "wanting to remove ID from the picture." It's wanting evidence.
There's a reason why "God did it" isn't accepted. "God did it" can only be taken as a hypothesis. A bad one, too, because it can't be tested.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
You are funny indeed. As there were no witnesses to the primordial molten earth and suddenly the appearance of water merits all the evidence that Miller Urey found in old movies.
Science is wanting evidence that would end the quest anything but a natural selection/evolution causation. The implications of knowing the truth would end the need for scientists to discover that which has been evident for centuries.
There is a reason that we somehow exist in some form for reasons unknown.
onycho1 3 years ago
There were no witnesses for ID, either. So, what do we have to go on from here? Evidence.
"That which has been evident for centuries?" If it weren't for science, you wouldn't be reading this.
"There is a reason that we somehow exist in some form..."
Yes. Evolution.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
Science has always required certain religious beliefs as Einstein and many of his contemporaries have stated. Religion is now requiring science to validate what has been present for centuries.
Evolution remains unproven and is only a belief that it actually occurred is without any evidence. As you said, someday there will be new thinkers and scientists who will find that evolution and the earth resting on the back of a turtle are equally fictitious.
onycho1 3 years ago
"Science has always required..."
A curious mind. Nothing more.
"Evolution remains..."
Proved by years of genetic and archaeological research.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
Also, if I might mention, YouTube users DonExodus2 and AronRa have excellent videos regarding creationism.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
As far as future scientists goes, I only said that they might one day put our scientists to shame.
That may mean a number of things. Pasteurization would be an example of a scientific process that has stood the test of time. Likewise, evolution (the very idea of which is older than Jesus) has yet still stood the test of time, and may do so in the future. Understanding of it may progress far beyond that which is already known (I particularly suspect so because it is constantly scrutinized).
jakebreaker 3 years ago
And people, seeing that you're not citing sources, will change it back.
That's the difference between wikipedia and youtube. Wiki is regulated by people with knowledge. Youtube is regulated by people with itchy mouse fingers and a flag option.
Also, if the evidence WERE obvious, then there would be a vastly different worldview in the scientific community. There's not. You know why? Because bunk doesn't stand against the peer review process.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
The difference between Wikipedia and YouTube...
from Wiki - "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world; anyone can edit it."
Wikipedia sounds a lot like YouTube which is also regulated by ordinary folks with itchy finger and a desire to post their very own opinions.
You say that Wiki is peer reviewed? Really....
onycho1 3 years ago
The difference between Wiki and YouTube:
I never said it was peer reviewed. I said it was edited by people who know things. When I look at a well-written wiki article citing sources out the wazoo, and a youtube video of Ben Stein being an asshat, guess who's words I'm taking more seriously?
jakebreaker 3 years ago
People who know some things? Sources from where and who cited out the wazoo?
A video of the words being said by those involved is worth a 1000 well cited and review by unknown people.
Folks who contribute to Wiki canntot all be reviewed by experts who are qualified to validate the statements within. Ben Stein is an ethical and moral thinker who honestly made this movie not to discredit Dawkins but to expose academic hypocrisy. No intelligence allowed unless the academic thinks for himself.
onycho1 3 years ago
"People who know some things? Sources from where and who cited out the wazoo?"
The wiki for evolution alone is a good example.
"A video of the words being said by those involved..."
My first comment to this video demonstrated exactly what Dawkins was putting forward.
"Ben Stein is..."
A booby.
"No intelligence allowed unless the academic thinks for himself."
Standing up to years of research in multiple fields with "I have faith" isn't science and shouldn't be taught in science classes.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
You are using those big scientific terms again like booby. You haven't the vaguest idea of what you are talking about but feel free to make judgements on what others tell you are not worthy of investigation.
I have much more important things to do than discuss science with someone with no knowledge or understanding.
Ta Ta
onycho1 3 years ago
"You are using those big scientific terms again like booby. You haven't the vaguest idea of what you are talking about but feel free to make judgements on what others tell you are not worthy of investigation."
Unless you've proved beyond a reasonable doubt through experimentation that ID is a legitimate explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, then "making judgments on what others tell you" is all you and Ben Stein are doing.
Hasta la vista, baby.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
"In this context, the opposite of design is evolution."
What? In the immortal words of Ben Stein, 'what designed evolution?'
onycho1 3 years ago
"What designed evolution?"
Changing environments.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
So you think that evolution was designed by changing environments?
Changing environments always leads to entropy. The laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with self causation or replicating LIFE (not understood except by Dawkins). He stated that all LIFE, consciousness, awareness and the soul are nothing more nor less than materialism. He always gives himself an out by his preface 'In my own opinion.'
onycho1 3 years ago
Entropy is the slow, eventual heat-death of the universe. This planet is (as yet, anyway) unaffected by it. Life on this planet is dependent solely on whether or not there is a sun.
There is one. We're cool.
As for the existence of souls, there is no evidence for them, so it's not reasonable to believe they exist.
Of course, consciousness is a product of "materialism." All it takes is Alzheimer's Disease to show you that the concept of a perpetual self beyond the brain is not reasonable.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
Actually entropy is a measure of the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system. Life on this planet is also dependent on an infinite number of events occurring at the same time and in the correct order. No logic here.
How do you know that the inner eye (perpetual self) is not somewhere in Alzheimer's or autism or coma or death? The concept of the soul is man's description of that same self in relationship to our solid environment.
onycho1 3 years ago
LIFE cannot be defined in any terms we understand for no one has any idea of what life entails.
Materialism cannot think or the table in front of you can also think for both are made of the same matter/energy.
onycho1 3 years ago
"Life on this planet is also dependent on an infinite number of events occurring at the same time and in the correct order."
Which is why it hasn't happened on Venus.
"How do you know that the inner eye is not somewhere in Alzheimer's or autism or coma or death?"
I'm not making a claim of knowledge. I'm only saying it's unreasonable to believe it.
"The concept of the soul is man's description of that same self in relationship to our solid environment."
So, consciousness? No problem wit dat.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
"Which is why it hasn't happened on Venus."
Are you saying with direct knowledge that life hasn't occurred on Venus? What if I told you that there is no Venus planet and that this universe exists only as an illusion or holograph? Why it seems I'm also saying that this premise is reasonable to believe it. For I have real personal evidence of this phenomena just as you have evidence of abiogenesis. I said the concept of the soul is man's (OUR) description of our relationship to our environment.
onycho1 3 years ago
But that is based on our finite ability to understand that which cannot be understood. Do you have a problem with 'dat'?
onycho1 3 years ago
Nope. No problems. Except that I'm not arguing an attempt to understand the existence of a deity. I'm arguing that evolution occurred, and that it did so without a need for divine guidance.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
You call it Divine Guidance while I prefer to name it Intelligent Design.
To date there is no evidence for a blueprint of evolution as there are no known transitional forms found as yet. I might just as well say that all things we see with our senses appeared instantaneously while some disappeared at the same instant. This would require Infintite Wisdom blueprint just as any evolution process would need.
onycho1 3 years ago
"To date there is no evidence for a blueprint of evolution..."
Molecular phylogeny.
"... as there are no known transitional forms found as yet."
"List of transitional fossils" + wiki = answer to that statement
jakebreaker 3 years ago
Molecular phylogeny or molecular sequencing no more illustrates the evolutionary history of molecules or host organisms than Mars is made of green cheese. Wikipedia is not a good source of knowledge for anything.
The transitional or intermediate evidence for evolution proves nothing for the instantaneous appearance of these same fossil life forms could also be just as valid.
Remember there were no eye witnesses to these events.
onycho1 3 years ago
Well done, then. I have nothing to add.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
If nothing that I know or experience is real, it makes no difference to me. I'm operating under the idea that everything I experience, even the knowledge presented by others that may or may not exist, exists, regardless of whether or not it actually exists.
That said, whether you call your self "consciousness," "self," or "soul," the meaning (man's description of our relationship to our environment) is the same. I don't argue with you on that point, except in the words I choose to use.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
We all operate on our senses input to interpret a real existence. The latest of man's sciences, QM states that all we have to live in is 'uncertainty' or that nothing exists unless observed by our limited senses. This solid world universe is therefore present only when the inner "I" perceives them as real. That would make all of us connected together in one point somewhere instead of a giant universe with a border and a non-universe on the other side of the border.
We all choose what to believe.
onycho1 3 years ago
"We all choose what to believe."
And I am concerned with whether or not my beliefs are true. Therefore, I only believe in things that I know can or have been observed. Again, molecular phylogeny. It's an entire scientific field that wouldn't exist if evolution by natural selection weren't a part of reality.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
Actually, let me add to my last comment regarding belief:
No. We don't all choose what to believe. When I was a child, I believed in God. I believed it only because I was raised with the idea that disbelief wasn't even an option. Since then, my beliefs have changed. Not because I "chose" to believe something else, but because I realized that what I believed was inconsistent with reality.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
Good for you.
I choose to believe that there are no infinite number of coincidences that just happened to form LIFE and all that we perceive. I believe that these limitless coincidences are inconsistent with reality.
onycho1 3 years ago
"I choose to believe..."
You believe it because I sincerely think you have mental problems. You have a hard time dealing with the concept of reality.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
Unless you are a licensed medical psychiatrist, any diagnosis of my medical status is worthless.
Having minored in theoretical physics it appears that you are having difficulty with understanding current QM theory.
Maybe you should read some basics in this area before you accept the reality you visualize from the input of your personal senses. You do not have mental problems but simply are thinking like a Down Syndrome who mainly have concrete thinking problems.
onycho1 3 years ago
"Unless you are a licensed medical psychiatrist, any diagnosis of my medical status is worthless."
True. But I can speculate.
"Having minored in theoretical physics..."
Maybe you should've minored in biology instead.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
"There is no proof for anything; fact or theory. Each individual perception of their point of reference of a universe or everything around oneself is no proof or answer to the ultimate question."
Then what's the point of the video? If there's no proof of anything, then why present a misrepresentation of Dawkins as though he were saying, "Yes, there's proof of intelligent design," when, by your own admission, there's not?
jakebreaker 3 years ago
The point of the video was the high one himself, Richard Dawkins, guru of materialism, evolution and atheism admitting an intelligence out there.
I said the proof of Intelligent Design is the obvious evidence of irreducible complexity where entropy in a closed system organizes without design.
Complexity just 'don't' happen that way....
Which came first, entropy or complexity?
Answer- neither.
onycho1 3 years ago
Guru? I think you don't understand.
Dawkins isn't right because "Dawkins said it."
He's right because he's got the evidence to back up his claims. Again, read The God Delusion, and you'll see that my summary of his viewpoint is exactly what he was attempting to explain to Ben Stein.
Also, by the by, the laws of thermodynamics don't refute evolutionary biology.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
"Again?" I suppose I never told you to read it in the first place.
Still, though, I highly suggest that you do.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
"Dawkins isn't right because "Dawkins said it." He's right because he's got the evidence to back up his claims."
Dawkins has evidence?
The Ancestors Tale by Dawkins (page 467468), he says, "Heredity began as a lucky initiation of an autocatalytic, or otherwise self-regenerating, process. It immediately took off and spread like a fire, eventually leading to natural selection and all that was to follow."
onycho1 3 years ago
So for Dawkins, the initial replicator that kicks it all off is self-causing. I postulate, like Aristotle, that this line of reasoning does not conform to the laws of logic and must therefore be discarded. God (immaterial and unmovable) is the initial cause. What its purpose is is indeed another argument. Applying the method of the physical sciences will not answer the question "is God a delusion?" Only logic will answer that and it is purely a cognitive process of logical deduction.
onycho1 3 years ago
"So for Dawkins, the initial replicator that kicks it all off is self-causing."
Change "Dawkins" to "scientists," and you got a pretty good idea.
Suppose, then, that God is the initial cause? What is logical about adding something to the equation of life that is not necessary and is, in itself, inexplicable?
jakebreaker 3 years ago
"Change "Dawkins" to "scientists," and you got a pretty good idea."
Can I make that ALL, some or a few scientists that agree with this illogical premise? Aristotle cannot be counted in that number.
Inexplicable is neither fact nor logical about any equation of anything.
Define materialism LIFE for us.
onycho1 3 years ago
"Can I make that ALL, some or a few scientists that agree with this illogical premise?"
Most. At least in the field of biology. And sure, science changes. Aristotle was a brilliant guy, but he just didn't have the resources of modern-day scientists. Hopefully, most future scientists will one day put guys like Dawkins to shame.
"Define materialism LIFE for us."
By the all-caps LIFE, I'm guessing you mean the meaning of life. Essentially, life is living and being happy with those you love.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
Thanks for your perspective that 'most' scientists believe in non-logical observations with human senses.
Just like your statement that someday a modern day scientist will have resources unknown today that will disprove all ideations of abiogenesis or evolution or material consciousness.
Good try but I asked you to define LIFE and not life experiences. When the first living cell appeared in our awareness, did its LIFE evolve by abiogenesis or natural selection?
onycho1 3 years ago
"Thanks for your perspective that 'most' scientists believe in non-logical observations with human senses."
What about living material appearing from non-living material is "non-logical?"
I never said that "all ideations of abiogenesis or evolution or material consciousness" will be disproved. Hell, for all that was known, the discovery of DNA could've kicked Darwin's ideas to the side. But it didn't. It gave people a better understanding.
I gave you a meaning of life. Live.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
Did the discovery of DNA really give mankind a better understanding of Darwin's ideas? DNA itself would have had to therefore evolve by some transitional or intermediate form of condensed energy/matter by force or forces unknown.
I love your definition of LIFE. Live and be merry = LIFE in the fast zone.
onycho1 3 years ago
LIFE in the fast lane. Everyday. All the time.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
Could LIFE be nothing more than awareness, consciousness or making choices instead of living in the fast lane, eating, sleeping, excreting, expectorating or dying into nothingness?
Could life be a gift? Remember that you are the big winner in our realm of experience as you won the swimming race as the one winner out of approx 3 million swimmers trying to get to your mother's ova.
You should get a gold medal.
onycho1 3 years ago
"Could LIFE be nothing more than awareness, consciousness or making choices instead of living in the fast lane, eating, sleeping, excreting, expectorating or dying into nothingness?"
You forgot loving and hating, too.
"Could life be a gift?"
Yes. From our parents. So why not tell them you love them right now?
jakebreaker 3 years ago
Avoiding the question and replying with nonsense indicates thinking on a first grade level.
Life is not understood but nevertheless and for whatever reason, our self awareness and conscious free will choice is a gift.
I am not privy to the reason and neither is the world of science. It is not the how that interests me but the WHY.
Why are we here? Pure chance or is there rhyme to this quandry?
onycho1 3 years ago
"Life is not understood..."
It's understood quite well, and that understanding grows every year.
"It is not the how that interests me but the WHY."
I told you. Love, hate, friends, family, babies, dogs, kittens, trees, PB&J sandwiches, etc. Life itself IS the thing. If you're spending your entire life looking up at the sky and saying, "WHY?!?!" then you're missing out on the answer.
It's all around you.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
"Did the discovery of DNA really give mankind a better understanding of Darwin's ideas?"
Yes.
"forces unknown."
Natural selection. Evolution in response to the environment.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
Now you are getting plane silly with innane responses.
Natural selection, flat earth thinking and evolution in respect to evolution is no longer valid. Your responses are getting less interesting and further discourse is silly.
onycho1 3 years ago
"Natural selection, flat earth thinking and evolution in respect to evolution is no longer valid."
What?
Flat Earth thinking came with Godly thinking. Not scientific thinking.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
"Your responses are getting less interesting and further discourse is silly."
I'll keep refuting your nonsense until you either ban me or stop responding.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
So life, being on a planet suitable enough for it to happen, happened. Then it, being on a planet suitable enough for it to continue, continued.
The environment is the cause. Not a divine, couldn't-have-happened-at-all-without-it intervention. If it had been some other planet, this text-based conversation wouldn't have happened.
But we are lucky insofar as this was (and is) the planet where life is possible.
jakebreaker 3 years ago
"The environment is the cause."
What environment caused anything and where did environment arise?
Infinite is always NOW and your ability to think of possibilities is finite and lives in man's creation of a thing called TIME.
Do you believe in Santa Claus and his environment?
onycho1 3 years ago
Environment causes rainstorms, and it arises from natural forces such as heat, moisture, motion, gravity, etc.
As for St. Nick, I don't believe in him. But I do believe in the North Pole.
jakebreaker 3 years ago