Krauss is right on the money. Intelligent design is nothing more than creationism clocked as science. Unfortunately for them, there is nothing intelligent about it. Having an imaginary celestial dictator and hearing voices in one's head is a serious mental illness. These people are a danger to themselves and more importantly to civilization at large.
According to Krauss Nothing is really Something much more than nothing. Moreover, the entire cosmic sum of what comes out of something, that is really much more than nothing, cannot sustain itself, as the universe finally runs down to an ultimate state of maximum entropy and heat death, where it can do absolutely nothing. Meaning, that everything that is popping in and out of existence at a quantum level is an "effect" and not self-existing, nor it's own cause. Thus, "In the beginning God"
The process of evolution is a fact. Populations of organisms can and will adapt to selective pressure. This is most evident from microbial resistance against antibiotics and human driven evolution like agricultural and dog breeding. The latter are most familiar because we select for the most useful and flamboyant traits for us. What isn't known as fact is what drives evolution naturally, because there are so many things that can influence survival and reproduction. Con’d
You may think it's survival of the fittest, and yes, that's often quoted, but WHAT is fitness? It's not as simple as "social Darwinism" where the most selfish survive. Why? Because it's clearly evident that many social species including humans benefit from a level of altruism and community. Evolution is a lot more complicated, but every researcher in the field has already accepted that evolution occurs.
"My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them."
Behe is perhaps the dumbest PhD on earth. His testimony in the Dover trial pretty much said it all. He looked like the total fool that he is. Too bad he is tenured, Lehigh Univ. would love to can him.
How some one with a phd can be a creationist I just don't understand. He is obviously smart, but holy shit, he must have serious issues with being honest with himself or something.
Oh I understand, I guess. It's just... I would like to expect more from humanity. I think if I accepted it I would lose ALL faith in humanity and have to join the Taliban lol.
Well Krauss bit his own foot. He said there are no scientific articles on ID but he was wrong, then, and now. He also admitted that he has no problem with Newtons theories being questioned, unfortunately he made the point for his adversary and didn't even realize it. If Newtonian physics can be challenged then why not Neo Darwinism? Krauss has also lectured about Mtheory which isn't even a theory & 0 evidence and is not even testable at this time if it ever will be. Talk about hypocrisy.
The intellectual scientist just need to stop debating these idiots, it just gives them credibility when they should have absolutely none. Good thing Richard Dawkins has said he will no longer debate creationist. All other scientist should follow that trend.
Behe must be doing something right if all you looney evolutionists are hating on him so much. You have no way to dispute his findings intellectually so you are reduced to name calling.
@outlaw87100 What if I showed you that ID does make predictions and that those predictions have been met them? Would you then consider ID science? And what if I pointed out all the failed predictions of Neo Darwinism/ The modern synthesis, would you then call it non scientific? Lets put your statement to the test.
@benthemiester Ok, tell me the prediction that ID makes.. Saying something is so complex that it had to be created is NOT a prediction. ID isn't science.
@outlaw87100 Before I accept your challenge let me just say, I think your looking at it the wrong way. When a forensic expert comes on the seen of a murder he looks for intelligent causation, even in the case where the intelligent agent is a criminal. In fact the science of of archeology could not exist without inferring an intelligent agent was responsible. I.e some intel agent was needed to build the pyramids. It is not unreasonable to infer intelligents to integrated and specified complexity.
@outlaw87100 Pyramids. Of course not, they do not have the integrated complexity nor the reams & reams of digital encoded information or nano nana machinery that we have in our genome. We"re much more complicated than any pyramid. No 1 has ever been able to provide empirical data confirming abiogenesis. The Journal Life which is a peer reviewed university level journal just printed an article entitle Is Life Unique? Its free you should read it. It says the same thing Behe and others are saying.
@benthemiester But everything you've just said is wrong, except junk DNA.. Irreducible complexity is rubbish. Which is why it lost at the supreme court.
@outlaw87100 Dover was about having a sticker placed on a book telling kids to think critically about all theories and that if any were interested in an alternative view there was a book in the school library & that students could check out and read at home with parent If they wanted. Jones did not rule on IC. They're not qualified scientist. This question is being sorted out in academia. Even Eugenie Scott of the NSCE admits in irreducible complexity & she was a consultant for the plaintiff.
@outlaw87100 She doesn't believes in intelligent design but admits IC systems exist, She believes nature is sufficient explanation. Scott is an atheist & anti intelligent design who gets paid large sums of $ for speaking engagements for advocating neo Darwinism. This is her gravy train. According to Michael Zimmerman she is the brain child of the "Clergy Letter Project" Which makes her a hypocrite. It seems she doesn't mind if religion gets involved as long as religion endorses neo Darwinism.
@benthemiester And the IDers dont get MILLIONS from the templeton foundation? They dont receive cash from preachers and churches? If you say no, then you're caught in a huge lie lol.
@outlaw87100 The Discovery Institute does receive donations as does the NCSE whom Scott is the director of. I was peaking of speaking engagements, and many IDer have to fund raise to cover cost of auditorium etc. or have to pay on there own dime. Many of them give free lectures. The highest profile speakers only make $1000 Thats nothing compared to Scotts gravy train. So will you admit you are wrong about IC who even Scott admits to as real scientific component of Intelligent design?
@outlaw87100 In video...."Irreducible Complexity and Flagella - Deconstructing ID"
After ranting that IC is BS. She goes on to admits that "IC is True by definition" She also lied and said that you can take many parts away from the BF and it will still work. This not true. If you take even one part away it will not function.
@outlaw87100 I actually said integrated and specified complexity, but I would also add in Irreducible complexity. If you have any scientific data that can dispute it then Im all ears. Miller tried, but he has come up short.Yet people always try to parrot him yet cant even explain the details involved. You have to understand IC before you can argue it. I can break down miller argument with simple logic and do it in a away thats easy to understand.
@outlaw87100 I may add that biologist are now using design theorist and theories to help them better understand the field of bioinformatics. "Systems Biology using Axiomatic Design and Complexity Theory" MIT.
@outlaw87100 Neither is the big bang. Evolution is not empirical science. Both creation and evolution are both forensic sciences dealing with past singularities. If the observable evidence is consistent with genesis creation than yes it is science. The founders in almost every area of modern science believed in creation. Before and after darwin..
@TheChrisx88 how was there "founder" after Darwin? Dumbassery right off the bat. A lot of assertions there, no substance. You prove your own stupidity with your comments. We just have point and laugh.
@outlaw87100 BACTERIOLOGY - LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) CALCULUS - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) CELESTIAL MECHANICS - JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) CHEMISTRY - ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) COMPARATIVE ANATOMY - GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832) COMPUTER SCIENCE - CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS - LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) DYNAMICS - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) ELECTRONICS - JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945) ELECTRODYNAMICS - JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
I got your little message. If you actually thought I was going to read your 50 pages of copy+pasted babble from your favorite creationists websites you have wrong man. Save that for your church group buddy.
@TheChrisx88 "I think i'll just name every scientist who was pre Darwin. That means they had never heard of evolution. Think about it. Oops, creationists don't think, my mistake. Pull your head outta gods ass and think for yourself son. Put down the creationist books and read some science. Ya might learn somethin
Discovery Institute and everything connected to it (like "Illustra Media" that produces their ID propaganda movies) are just crying that noone are taking them seriously. Behe belongs to that brainwashed propaganda machine.
He wasn't saying Dawkins agreed with him. Dawkins was making the point that design is a natural inference, but Darwin showed that it was a wrong inference, because the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection leads to the 'appearance' of design. What Behe was saying was, that if the ability of that mechanism to give said appearance is in doubt, then the inference of *actual* design becomes reasonable again.
If we go with Behe's ideas we must enlarge the high school science programs to include Astrology, Alchemy, Telepathy and dozens of other crackpot ideas.
Behe represent very well the abrahamic religions. He is all about dishonesty and the visceral urge to convert everybody into his religions. Behe refuses to answer 'who is this Intelligent Designer' because his answer is the abrahamic God and he knows that his creationist propaganda will have no place at schools.
Creationism is NOT an scientific theory, its abrahamic religious bullshit.
That was indeed a quote from Dawkins. He believes that nature appears to be designed but that the design is only apparent, not real. The argument is now over whether the apparent design can be explained by natural forces or supernatural forces.
if we teach creationism or intelligent design in schools which i not scientific fact...then whats to keep us from telling them whatever the teacher decides to tell thewm
say we have a teacher that doesnt believe the hallocaust ever happened then we will have kids growing up thinking its a lie
hell lets tell them that WWII happened on the moon
"everybody says it appears to be designed..." WOW, Behe is compelling, rofl. He is obviously making money doing this for all the christians. He knows he is wrong but is milking the cow as long as he can until religion has to let go of yet another falsehood like they have done dozens of times in the past.
The absurdity of religion in America is a worthless sandbag that's slowing the progress of technological advancement that created the prosperity that we're losing today. I can't imagine raising my kids in the shell of a great country that became overrun by a population of recessive genes that couldn't accept evolution.
@MikeDeFi to say that technological advancement will slow down from not accepting evolution doesnt really make anysense. Tv video games engines internet etc have nothing to do with evolution.
@92xtaylor I'm not talking about evolution itself. I'm talking about the difference between the kind of people who get it, and the rest of the country can be led to believe that intelligent design is an actual subject. When half the country doesn't know that the earth revolves around the sun in a year, then half the country are people who are too uneducated to make the advances that require more than a high school diploma.
@92xtaylor It's not the fact of not accepting evolution that stands in the way of technological progress it's the lack of critical thinking and logic that leads to that conclusion. As Krauss points out here - the IDers, as exemplified by Behe - try and bypass proper science and logical testing to get a faith-based proposal through (because it doesn't stand up to proper testing). An inherent suspension of logic is an inherent inability to be able to program game engines or anything else.
Krauss's argument is basically circular. To paraphrase: "ID isn't science so we don't allow discussion of it in academic journals, but no one will take ID seriously until it is discussed in academic journals."
In a sense. But ID really isn't science. And until it becomes that there's really no reason to treat it with equal merit to things discussed in academic journals.
Ridiculous. Intelligent design has absolutely zero, let me repeat, zero evidence supporting it. In order for anything to be published in respected scientific journals, there needs to be a wealth of data and information supporting a theory, claim, or hypothesis. ID has no data, no supportive information and thus will never be in reputable scientific journals. An empty idea has no place in rigorous scientific reporting.
@Florentius Krauss isn't saying that it shouldn't be in journals, only that it hasn't been. In order to be considered a viable hypothisis a prediction needs to be made that is verifiable through experiment or observation. It doesn't, hence it cannot be considered science. In the Dover v Kitzmiller trial ID advocates tried to redefine science to avoid the predictive requirement. It is a joke amongst people who understand science.
Creationists are experts on quote-mining. They mix up lines and leave out words so that they can make legitimate main stream scientists appear to say the exact opposite of what they really said.
@hudfadz I was kidding.. I have no problem with Behe as a scientist. But, he's being dishonest by claiming that bacterial flagellar motors are irreducibly complex.. to simply say something is so complex that we cant understand it is NOT science... saying "gods ways are higher than ours" is NOT SCIENCE..
I love how this is so laughable that Lawrence Krauss isn't even mad or upset. But smiling. It must be hard for such people, who know so much more than the average person, to not burst out laughing at what people like Michael Behe say. Researching a single page on the topic would reveal a better understanding. I can not believe he quoted Dawkins for design. Just wow.
@5jimbo5 Woah??? How am I the new-world-order guy when you're the one who wants to indoctrinate children to be anti-gay, anti-drugs, anti-science and reduce their education to make them little but able to fulfil a practical task, whilst giving them a single system of belief???
I don't believe in any order. I believe people are inherently wonderful and we should allow them to grow freely. You're the propagator of the new world order and you don't even realize it. God have mercy on your soul.
@5jimbo5 well no i didn't really. you just misunderstand what I'm actually saying. i didn't imply you actively support all these views. I just meant that, achieving your narrow-minded goal of parent focussed education would automatically give rise to ideas like these in the classroom. I was trying to make you aware of your ignorance about that.
and no, people like you, who can't reconcile their religious believes with science, are the reason children get home schooled.
@5jimbo5 ok, so you want parents to be able to decide what their kids learn regardless whether or not it has been scientificly verified or shown to be true in any other way.
Just to elaborate on this, as long as parents want it, you would have no problem with schools teaching that the holocaust never happened, that Chairman Mao and Stalin were nice loving people, that the world is flat, that black people are inferior and that jews are secretly lizards and rule the world (all actual beliefs)
@5jimbo5 ok, so just to be clear, whether or not it is scientific, you want it to be taught in school. isn't that what you said in your last comment.
@5jimbo5 Did you even read my comment or are literally just posting every piece of bullshit that just so happens to be on your mind???
I said, if there is an actual issue with the peer review process concerning ID (which I doubt) they should debate that. They should NOT circumvent the established scientific process and teach kids what ever they want!
Long agoo, a lot of mystical schools thought of science as the proof of devine existence. I personally am a science fanatic :-) I believe there is a 'greater mind' at work here, and i believe we are a representation of that 'infinite mind's' "infinite thoughts". But to attribute human characteristics to that infinite devine, and assume it gives a crap about our lousy little meaningless existence... that's something only humans can invent ;) Hence i dislike any form of religion.
@devilzown11 I go a step further and believe that the infinite mind is in itself attributing human characteristics onto nature. But hey, whatever floats your boat, at least you're not a theist.
Why do we give Behe a professor title? you need to be above average intelligent to be a professor, he is waaaaaaay below average. Religion doesnt mix with science, they said it themselves. But use it when it can be twisted with close to no intelligent thought to "prove" God. When will ppl understand that you cannot prove fiction, just like the cosmic teapot, all you can do is pander around in ridicilous thoughts
Dayum!!! Lawrence f'd him up! His best point was that Behe wants to skip all the intermediary steps, no peer review, just straight to the classrooms as if this particular "science" was immune to criticism and peer review and the other scrutiny that all the other REAL sciences are subject to.
If Lawrence Krauss is so smart, why does he bring up snow flakes in the context of the information processing design of life? He really doesn't seem to grasp the fact that the origin of life, and even the variety of life, is a huge mystery.
So you're saying if he doesn't answer and explain the origin and the reasons for lifes variety completely to your satisfaction, then any other known facts on Evolution can be dismissed?
If you had watched the video you'd have heard his explanation. Lawrence Krauss's intelligence is greater than a flea, to the same degree that flea is smarter than you.
he twisted dawkins's words. what a prick. anyone who knows dawkins and has heard him say that can clearly hear in his tone of voice (and what he says before and after it in context) that there is no "debate" whatsoever. prick. idiot.
People forget there is a huuuge hole between deism and theism.
Evidence of a designer is no more a proof of any current religion than evidence of telekinesis is proof for Harry Potter.
Intelligent design would justify Islam as much as Christianity, but that would not matter to christians as they would should "We were right all along"
"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin. While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
@ajkoz9393 You are a prime example of why we need more emphasis on education in this country. Please pick up a book and study before you make such a comment. A fish never just "spontaneously sprouted legs" and walked onto land. It happened by way of small, incremental changes, over billions of years. Is it hard for you to believe a Pug or Poodle was once a Wolf? Selective breeding accomplished this in hundreds of years, so try to fathom what billions can do with natural selection.
@kingwillie206 okay, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't sum fish have to have a genetic mutaion which enabled it to grow legs and walk on land? If this is true, then there was the very first fish, a pioneer of sorts, that grew legs and had the courage and tenacity to meander onto the land. My only question is, how did this fish breathe?
@ajkoz9393 don't expect a satisfactory answer to that particular question. It's practically unintelligible. Look up Dunning-Kruger Effect and then go learn about natural selection and the rest of evolutionary theory to actually understand what it is. There was no "first fish", at least in the sense that you are taling about. Natural selection is best thought of as acting on populations not individuals. Marine mammals ancestors were all terrestrial. Environmental pressures drove them into the sea
@ajkoz9393 It's called adaptation. All genetic mutations start out random, but those that are beneficial to an organism's success in their environment are directly selected for and quickly perpetuate throughout the population, providing a uniform, traceable signature. We have many different living examples of fish in existence today, showing different stages of the evolutionary process. Take the African Lung fish or the Chinese Snakehead for example.
I still can't imagine that there are people who access to the internet who know so little, so astoundingly little about evolutionary theory that they'd make such an asinine statement as, "the first fish that just spontaneously sprouted legs and walked...."
I did a test. Using google, it took me 14 seconds to locate information that would cure you of the ignorance that caused you to type such a foolish thing on the internet for countless people to see.
krauss just laughing at behe for the stupid shit he's sayin! ID?? please please you idiot god believers....stop your nonsense and all your heavenly crap! stop trying to live after you die!!!
@ajkoz9393 "socrates makes a profound argument for the existence of the soul" well now then....i guess there is a "soul" after all! let's us now prove it once and for all shall we!? shoot yourself in the head...then have your soul come back let the whole world know the soul does exist!! ...then visit me afterwards and scare the crap out of me!
@Mcygee really!? i guess we can just take their word for it! you know my uncle told me he saw a half man half eel when he was fishing in lake geneva. I know it's true...my uncle says so! hey...shoot yourself in the head and have your soul come back and scare the crap out of my uncle!...i think he's full of shyt!
@planetofthescums first of all...i am "unsure" and not only unsure but I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN I DIE! ..and i do not claim to know what happens when i die nor do i claim anything about souls, heaven, hell, and all other religious nonsense alike...UNLIKE the gawd believers who claims certainty about what happens when a person dies. I do know that...when i die....I'M DEAD! ..i won't be breathing, opening and closing my eyes, my body will decay and be eaten by worms!..unless I'm jesus! LOL!
@mytv80 Modern observers have seen people return to life after what we call death has occured. It is part of a medical procedure. There is also Cryogenics.
You do not claim to know what happens after you die but you did tell people to stop trying to live. So you made a claim, without knowledge, affecting a person's death. Case in point, perhaps we should be concerned whether or not we are cremating ourselves if some activity goes on after death.
@planetofthescums modern observers? what is that exactly? haha. so after death they came back to life...and so??? meaning what exactly about the "soul"? that is what we are discussing here right..the "soul" and not simply physical death. What about cryogenics?? lol. Yes, i said after death stop trying to live...because brainwashed christians, claims religious nonsense about souls, heaven hell and gods! Unless you have EVIDENCE about ridiculous claims about this...do you??? ..Share the world pls.
@planetofthescums Heaven cannot be verified. An unknowable cannot be verified. Unless you can. Can you verify "heaven"? So actually heaven is neither true nor false....But for me personally...YES, HEAVEN IS FALSE! I would say 99.9999999 % false. And my uncertainty is only due to the fact that I don't know either wether a Seven Headed Demon exist. I would also extend that Soul is false, gods are false, virgin births, jesus, talking snakes, sins, & any and all other religious claims and nonsense.
@mytv80 Cryongenicists freeze people so they won't decompose, and stop blood flow without damaging structures of the brain; so they can later be revived.
A 61 year old woman in Delware, a few years ago, was found alive in the morgue. She had been declared dead after modern equipment failed to detect a pulse.
Telling someone to stop trying to live after you die, doesn't make much sense.
2K years ago people would be called dead who we now know were still alive.
@planetofthescums again..what about cryogenics? im talking about religious claims. and if cryogenics works, it's because of science. And the woman from delaware who came back after being pronounced dead..what about it? yes, i think the human body is amazing! again, im not talking about physical death. my statement was about souls in regards to "eternal life" not physcal death.
@mytv80 She died. She lived after she died. I die. Can I come back to life? After a certain point is the answer no? At what point is the answer no? What needs to be damaged beyond repair for me to die? Is anything ever beyond repair? What needs to be created for life? Are we reincarnated? Is each new life unique? Can I never experience life again after I die? Why is the experience of life so singular? Can our direct experience go beyond just ourselves?
@mytv80 Watch a screen, you know it is only an image, but you know it was once real. Parts of your mind are fully convinced its real and your mind may disturb you enough; turn it off.
You might get different reports of even a common experience. How do you decide after we die it is like a gap between sleep and dreams and not a flood of reality washing over us?
You have no idea. Maybe people learn to ignore parts of the brain which lie to us; and go beyond reality to see the afterlife.
@mytv80 Maybe they just think they do. Give me a definitive reason why you believe what you do. Tell me what you believe and why you believe it.
We do have a brain that can be switched on and off, like the screen. We only imagine time does not pass between sleep and dreams, but it does pass by. There is reality after death, and during sleep whether or not we experience it.
What is necessary for the mind to emerge, does consciousness exist in every brain, in how simple a brain can it exist?
@planetofthescums I do not believe in christian god or muslim god or hindu gods or any other gods for the simple reason that there are too many ridiculous claims. besides the fact that it has no evidence. and so many other reasons. religion and gods are the cause of suffering and retardation of human progress. I believe in Empirical Evidence which religion has none. I don't believe in silly nonsense claims of souls, heaven, and gods. Isn't 100 yrs of living enough? Eternal life not needed.
@mytv80 Surely Gods are not causing suffering since they don't exist. How does religion cause suffering? Religion is written word, not very good knowledge or truthful as science can bring, but I claim life was improved by the practice; the moral philosophy of religion. I am not a historian, so I am consider your idea plausible but would like to know how religion can cause suffering. Is a baptism suffering, attending church, wasting food on the altar, sacrificing virgins, what specifically?
@planetofthescums Gods don't exist??? tell that to the people that practice "faith"! go to the middle east and try saying that. They'll send your body back in the US in pieces. And you're telling me that religion or gods don't cause suffering??? and life improved by the practice of it??? you don't have any idea of what you're talking about.
@planetofthescums lol. you must live in Disney! ahaha! why don't you try it my friend. go to the middle east and say Allah the camel god don't exist. Before you do..make sure your affairs are in order...because your coming back unrecognizable and in pieces...and that's if youre lucky! Ahahaha! Say hello to Mickey Mouse for me ok.
@planetscums let me ask you..how many people are killed for APOSTASY back then...and NOW still??? How many children are killed because their RELIGION brands them as WITCHES back then....and NOW still??? And you're telling me life is improved by the practice of moral philosophy of religion??? Please answer because you haven't answered any of my questions from the very beginning of my posts. All you do is preach unrealistic and religious nonsense.
@mytv80 The brain and the observer seem to be one and the same. It makes no difference to me what the answer is, but not having the answer makes me wonder why you are so convinced afterlife must be false.
So I must know what you know that convinces you of this. I can understand not wanting to believe in arbitrary unproven dreams of other people, but why don't you believe them?
@planetofthescums im convinced an "afterlife" must be false for the same reason im convinced that "blue smurfs" are false...pink unicorns are false...seven headed three tail demons are false. "Souls" are unknowable plain and simple. The concept is silly to me. I wish Super Man exist & i wish it was me..but it's silly to think that. Soul is a grown up fantasy..heaven and all those silly nonsense. I don't know what else to tell you.
5:45
It sounds to me as if he is trying to take away the power of the scientific method. It's simply ridiculous
ScientificBob 8 hours ago
Krauss is right on the money. Intelligent design is nothing more than creationism clocked as science. Unfortunately for them, there is nothing intelligent about it. Having an imaginary celestial dictator and hearing voices in one's head is a serious mental illness. These people are a danger to themselves and more importantly to civilization at large.
saburius 1 day ago
We design because we're inspired by Nature; design evolved from Nature.
End of discussion. You're welcome.
ajboyer 3 days ago
@ajboyer Wow, wonderful point. That is very true!
dt28469 1 day ago
According to Krauss Nothing is really Something much more than nothing. Moreover, the entire cosmic sum of what comes out of something, that is really much more than nothing, cannot sustain itself, as the universe finally runs down to an ultimate state of maximum entropy and heat death, where it can do absolutely nothing. Meaning, that everything that is popping in and out of existence at a quantum level is an "effect" and not self-existing, nor it's own cause. Thus, "In the beginning God"
heiningerjohn 6 days ago
@heiningerjohn non sequitur + strawman=fail
AestusL4 3 days ago
@heiningerjohn You are so deep that you converted me to the american variant of christianity.
Nederlanderization 3 days ago
@heiningerjohn "everything that is popping in and out of existence at a quantum level is an "effect" and not self-existing"
Nope. Those are actually true random events. Laws of causality don't really apply at a quantum level.
"Thus, "In the beginning God"" non sequiter. And a quite stupid one at that.
ScientificBob 7 hours ago
The process of evolution is a fact. Populations of organisms can and will adapt to selective pressure. This is most evident from microbial resistance against antibiotics and human driven evolution like agricultural and dog breeding. The latter are most familiar because we select for the most useful and flamboyant traits for us. What isn't known as fact is what drives evolution naturally, because there are so many things that can influence survival and reproduction. Con’d
illywacker1 1 week ago
You may think it's survival of the fittest, and yes, that's often quoted, but WHAT is fitness? It's not as simple as "social Darwinism" where the most selfish survive. Why? Because it's clearly evident that many social species including humans benefit from a level of altruism and community. Evolution is a lot more complicated, but every researcher in the field has already accepted that evolution occurs.
illywacker1 1 week ago
I'm a first-year biology student and I can absolutely refute this Behe fellow! C'mon! What silliness!
lewisbreland 2 weeks ago
This is on Behe's faculty page, ROFL.
"My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them."
ultim4t32 2 weeks ago 2
Behe is perhaps the dumbest PhD on earth. His testimony in the Dover trial pretty much said it all. He looked like the total fool that he is. Too bad he is tenured, Lehigh Univ. would love to can him.
ultim4t32 2 weeks ago
How some one with a phd can be a creationist I just don't understand. He is obviously smart, but holy shit, he must have serious issues with being honest with himself or something.
superwowie111 3 weeks ago
@superwowie111 why cant you understand this exactly?
TheChrisx88 2 weeks ago
@TheChrisx88
Oh I understand, I guess. It's just... I would like to expect more from humanity. I think if I accepted it I would lose ALL faith in humanity and have to join the Taliban lol.
superwowie111 2 weeks ago
Well Krauss bit his own foot. He said there are no scientific articles on ID but he was wrong, then, and now. He also admitted that he has no problem with Newtons theories being questioned, unfortunately he made the point for his adversary and didn't even realize it. If Newtonian physics can be challenged then why not Neo Darwinism? Krauss has also lectured about Mtheory which isn't even a theory & 0 evidence and is not even testable at this time if it ever will be. Talk about hypocrisy.
benthemiester 3 weeks ago in playlist cosmology
The intellectual scientist just need to stop debating these idiots, it just gives them credibility when they should have absolutely none. Good thing Richard Dawkins has said he will no longer debate creationist. All other scientist should follow that trend.
Jtosar77 3 weeks ago
Behe must be doing something right if all you looney evolutionists are hating on him so much. You have no way to dispute his findings intellectually so you are reduced to name calling.
Moralityman 1 month ago
@Moralityman Krauss did a good enough job destroying his candy ass.. Intelligent design makes NO PREDICTIONS... god did it is NOT SCIENCE!
outlaw87100 4 weeks ago
@outlaw87100 What if I showed you that ID does make predictions and that those predictions have been met them? Would you then consider ID science? And what if I pointed out all the failed predictions of Neo Darwinism/ The modern synthesis, would you then call it non scientific? Lets put your statement to the test.
benthemiester 3 weeks ago in playlist cosmology
@benthemiester Ok, tell me the prediction that ID makes.. Saying something is so complex that it had to be created is NOT a prediction. ID isn't science.
outlaw87100 3 weeks ago
@outlaw87100 Before I accept your challenge let me just say, I think your looking at it the wrong way. When a forensic expert comes on the seen of a murder he looks for intelligent causation, even in the case where the intelligent agent is a criminal. In fact the science of of archeology could not exist without inferring an intelligent agent was responsible. I.e some intel agent was needed to build the pyramids. It is not unreasonable to infer intelligents to integrated and specified complexity.
benthemiester 3 weeks ago
@benthemiester Pyramids dont reproduce!!!
outlaw87100 2 weeks ago
@outlaw87100 Pyramids. Of course not, they do not have the integrated complexity nor the reams & reams of digital encoded information or nano nana machinery that we have in our genome. We"re much more complicated than any pyramid. No 1 has ever been able to provide empirical data confirming abiogenesis. The Journal Life which is a peer reviewed university level journal just printed an article entitle Is Life Unique? Its free you should read it. It says the same thing Behe and others are saying.
benthemiester 2 weeks ago
@benthemiester LOL where why dont you post a link to this?
outlaw87100 2 weeks ago
@outlaw87100 A link to what? I'm glad I could make you LOL. Its always better to LOL than cry outlaw.
benthemiester 2 weeks ago
@outlaw87100 (1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".
benthemiester 3 weeks ago
@benthemiester But everything you've just said is wrong, except junk DNA.. Irreducible complexity is rubbish. Which is why it lost at the supreme court.
outlaw87100 2 weeks ago
@outlaw87100 Dover was about having a sticker placed on a book telling kids to think critically about all theories and that if any were interested in an alternative view there was a book in the school library & that students could check out and read at home with parent If they wanted. Jones did not rule on IC. They're not qualified scientist. This question is being sorted out in academia. Even Eugenie Scott of the NSCE admits in irreducible complexity & she was a consultant for the plaintiff.
benthemiester 2 weeks ago
@benthemiester How does that prove God??? Saying "God did it" doesnt prove anything.
outlaw87100 2 weeks ago
@benthemiester I've NEVER seen where she agreed with IC... Dr. Scott is an AGNOSTIC who has valiantly fought the ID agenda.. prove it or shove it.
outlaw87100 2 weeks ago
@outlaw87100 She doesn't believes in intelligent design but admits IC systems exist, She believes nature is sufficient explanation. Scott is an atheist & anti intelligent design who gets paid large sums of $ for speaking engagements for advocating neo Darwinism. This is her gravy train. According to Michael Zimmerman she is the brain child of the "Clergy Letter Project" Which makes her a hypocrite. It seems she doesn't mind if religion gets involved as long as religion endorses neo Darwinism.
benthemiester 2 weeks ago
@benthemiester And the IDers dont get MILLIONS from the templeton foundation? They dont receive cash from preachers and churches? If you say no, then you're caught in a huge lie lol.
outlaw87100 2 weeks ago
@outlaw87100 The Discovery Institute does receive donations as does the NCSE whom Scott is the director of. I was peaking of speaking engagements, and many IDer have to fund raise to cover cost of auditorium etc. or have to pay on there own dime. Many of them give free lectures. The highest profile speakers only make $1000 Thats nothing compared to Scotts gravy train. So will you admit you are wrong about IC who even Scott admits to as real scientific component of Intelligent design?
benthemiester 2 weeks ago
@outlaw87100 In video...."Irreducible Complexity and Flagella - Deconstructing ID"
After ranting that IC is BS. She goes on to admits that "IC is True by definition" She also lied and said that you can take many parts away from the BF and it will still work. This not true. If you take even one part away it will not function.
Ok now maybe you can be the one to shut up.
benthemiester 2 weeks ago
@outlaw87100 I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you said prove it or shut up, but you actually said "prove it or shove it"
So let me correct myself. I just proved it and shoved it. How does it feel? Did you like it?
benthemiester 2 weeks ago
@outlaw87100 I actually said integrated and specified complexity, but I would also add in Irreducible complexity. If you have any scientific data that can dispute it then Im all ears. Miller tried, but he has come up short.Yet people always try to parrot him yet cant even explain the details involved. You have to understand IC before you can argue it. I can break down miller argument with simple logic and do it in a away thats easy to understand.
benthemiester 2 weeks ago
@outlaw87100 I may add that biologist are now using design theorist and theories to help them better understand the field of bioinformatics. "Systems Biology using Axiomatic Design and Complexity Theory" MIT.
benthemiester 3 weeks ago
@outlaw87100 Neither is the big bang. Evolution is not empirical science. Both creation and evolution are both forensic sciences dealing with past singularities. If the observable evidence is consistent with genesis creation than yes it is science. The founders in almost every area of modern science believed in creation. Before and after darwin..
TheChrisx88 2 weeks ago
@TheChrisx88 - Idiot. Evolution is based upon empirical data.
farrell2k 1 week ago
@TheChrisx88 how was there "founder" after Darwin? Dumbassery right off the bat. A lot of assertions there, no substance. You prove your own stupidity with your comments. We just have point and laugh.
yogurtking 1 week ago
@TheChrisx88 Oh good god, reading your posts makes me laugh. "Evolution is not empirical science".
"If the observable evidence is consistent with genesis creation then it is science." Oh God, make it stop. My ribs.
Cyllid 1 week ago
TheChrisx88 2 weeks ago
@outlaw87100 ENERGETICS - LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS - HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY - MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS - GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY - WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS - ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS - GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
TheChrisx88 2 weeks ago
@outlaw87100
MODEL ANALYSIS - LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY - JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY -BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY - MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY - DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
TheChrisx88 2 weeks ago
@outlaw87100 Are you saying these guys were not scientists?
TheChrisx88 2 weeks ago
@TheChrisx88 how many of them were PRE DARWIN DUMBASS
outlaw87100 2 weeks ago
@TheChrisx88
I got your little message. If you actually thought I was going to read your 50 pages of copy+pasted babble from your favorite creationists websites you have wrong man. Save that for your church group buddy.
superwowie111 2 weeks ago
@TheChrisx88 "I think i'll just name every scientist who was pre Darwin. That means they had never heard of evolution. Think about it. Oops, creationists don't think, my mistake. Pull your head outta gods ass and think for yourself son. Put down the creationist books and read some science. Ya might learn somethin
outlaw87100 2 weeks ago
@Moralityman Did you even watch the video?
TheDamnIrish 3 weeks ago
This guy has a position in a university?????
dm1121ww 1 month ago
@dm1121ww he most likely has tenure...:-(
UtopiaMinor666 1 month ago
@dm1121ww he is brilliant
GetTheFaCtss 4 weeks ago
Behe is a complete moron and professional ass clown
Kaiser333333 1 month ago
Damn, this behe person is most likely the biggest imbecile ive seen, got balls for saying such stupid things publicly tho.
Intelligent design is for complete ignorant morons, sorry for not softening the words, stupidity is stupid, not my fault.
TheAllien111 1 month ago
Discovery Institute and everything connected to it (like "Illustra Media" that produces their ID propaganda movies) are just crying that noone are taking them seriously. Behe belongs to that brainwashed propaganda machine.
icchiism 1 month ago
I don't see how Dr. Behe can live with himself...
sunofwill 1 month ago
Come on! Dawkins? The quote doesn't even support what Behe is saying!
Fjordgnu 1 month ago
@Fjordgnu
He wasn't saying Dawkins agreed with him. Dawkins was making the point that design is a natural inference, but Darwin showed that it was a wrong inference, because the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection leads to the 'appearance' of design. What Behe was saying was, that if the ability of that mechanism to give said appearance is in doubt, then the inference of *actual* design becomes reasonable again.
gerontodon 1 month ago
"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace" - John Lennon, Imagine
wildreams 1 month ago
Does the interview barely open his mouth when he talks, or is it just me?
TimofAwsome 1 month ago
If we go with Behe's ideas we must enlarge the high school science programs to include Astrology, Alchemy, Telepathy and dozens of other crackpot ideas.
db9man2005 1 month ago
total misleading quote of dawkins
Der3k7r 2 months ago 2
Behe represent very well the abrahamic religions. He is all about dishonesty and the visceral urge to convert everybody into his religions. Behe refuses to answer 'who is this Intelligent Designer' because his answer is the abrahamic God and he knows that his creationist propaganda will have no place at schools.
Creationism is NOT an scientific theory, its abrahamic religious bullshit.
Fuck Michael Behe and fuck all creatards.
ZZzzzzzWhat 2 months ago in playlist untelligent design
That was indeed a quote from Dawkins. He believes that nature appears to be designed but that the design is only apparent, not real. The argument is now over whether the apparent design can be explained by natural forces or supernatural forces.
CJNecros 2 months ago
Comment removed
akela6567 2 months ago
yes he did it:)
esraretin 2 months ago
Religion is not solid. It can muster up a million different viewpoints and ideas. It's a bad idea to teach it in schools.
hubbabubbarubbalubba 2 months ago
if we teach creationism or intelligent design in schools which i not scientific fact...then whats to keep us from telling them whatever the teacher decides to tell thewm
say we have a teacher that doesnt believe the hallocaust ever happened then we will have kids growing up thinking its a lie
hell lets tell them that WWII happened on the moon
coltsrule5150 2 months ago
Why the fuck would anyone debate Lawrence Krauss??? He'll dominate you!
aqouby 2 months ago
"everybody says it appears to be designed..." WOW, Behe is compelling, rofl. He is obviously making money doing this for all the christians. He knows he is wrong but is milking the cow as long as he can until religion has to let go of yet another falsehood like they have done dozens of times in the past.
ultim4t32 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is intelligent design a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in school?
Does the theory of intelligent design necessitate a rational debate by intelligible people?
myjonnyBB 2 months ago
Comment removed
myjonnyBB 2 months ago
It isn't a marketing campain. I.D. is a philosophy, no different than neo-darwinian atheistim.
chris7777777777777 2 months ago
@chris7777777777777 wha?
spinynorman1982 2 months ago
The absurdity of religion in America is a worthless sandbag that's slowing the progress of technological advancement that created the prosperity that we're losing today. I can't imagine raising my kids in the shell of a great country that became overrun by a population of recessive genes that couldn't accept evolution.
MikeDeFi 3 months ago
@MikeDeFi How would technological advancement slow down by people who dont except evolution?
92xtaylor 3 months ago
@92xtaylor Because the people who don't, can't, won't accept evolution are most likely not contributing much to science and technology.
MikeDeFi 3 months ago
@MikeDeFi to say that technological advancement will slow down from not accepting evolution doesnt really make anysense. Tv video games engines internet etc have nothing to do with evolution.
92xtaylor 3 months ago
@92xtaylor I'm not talking about evolution itself. I'm talking about the difference between the kind of people who get it, and the rest of the country can be led to believe that intelligent design is an actual subject. When half the country doesn't know that the earth revolves around the sun in a year, then half the country are people who are too uneducated to make the advances that require more than a high school diploma.
MikeDeFi 2 months ago
@92xtaylor It's not the fact of not accepting evolution that stands in the way of technological progress it's the lack of critical thinking and logic that leads to that conclusion. As Krauss points out here - the IDers, as exemplified by Behe - try and bypass proper science and logical testing to get a faith-based proposal through (because it doesn't stand up to proper testing). An inherent suspension of logic is an inherent inability to be able to program game engines or anything else.
COEXISTential 2 months ago
evolutionists always get the last word. If they don't get it in the debate, they get it in the classroom, media, tv shows, or movies.
finxoner 3 months ago
@finxoner That's because they've done the long, hard work to validate their positions scientifically, as opposed to relying on mythologies.
n52nimbus 3 months ago
@finxoner A good thing too, as they're right.
Superphilipp 3 months ago
Krauss's argument is basically circular. To paraphrase: "ID isn't science so we don't allow discussion of it in academic journals, but no one will take ID seriously until it is discussed in academic journals."
Florentius 3 months ago
@Florentius
In a sense. But ID really isn't science. And until it becomes that there's really no reason to treat it with equal merit to things discussed in academic journals.
Vire70 3 months ago
@Florentius Krauss argument is there's no fucking evidence for ID. So it should be treated as a fairy story that only a retard would belive
Paumonsu 3 months ago
@Florentius
Ridiculous. Intelligent design has absolutely zero, let me repeat, zero evidence supporting it. In order for anything to be published in respected scientific journals, there needs to be a wealth of data and information supporting a theory, claim, or hypothesis. ID has no data, no supportive information and thus will never be in reputable scientific journals. An empty idea has no place in rigorous scientific reporting.
vincejohnm 3 months ago
@Florentius Krauss isn't saying that it shouldn't be in journals, only that it hasn't been. In order to be considered a viable hypothisis a prediction needs to be made that is verifiable through experiment or observation. It doesn't, hence it cannot be considered science. In the Dover v Kitzmiller trial ID advocates tried to redefine science to avoid the predictive requirement. It is a joke amongst people who understand science.
AussieAtheist1 2 months ago
Kudos to Krauss.
angeluomo 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Creationists are experts on quote-mining. They mix up lines and leave out words so that they can make legitimate main stream scientists appear to say the exact opposite of what they really said.
rlwemm 3 months ago
Comment removed
rlwemm 3 months ago
How can Behe say what he does without feeling stupid?
Hornadayfan 3 months ago 6
@Hornadayfan That requires faith
andylite1 1 month ago in playlist More videos from scragar
@Hornadayfan Maybe he just does it for the money.. He doesnt even come off like he truly believes this BS.. or maybe he does.
outlaw87100 3 weeks ago
Behe should have his Phd revoked and fired from Lehigh Univ
outlaw87100 3 months ago 3
@outlaw87100
Yeah for sure, very typical atheist move, delete creationists, that ids exactly what he is saying here.
hudfadz 3 months ago
@hudfadz I was kidding.. I have no problem with Behe as a scientist. But, he's being dishonest by claiming that bacterial flagellar motors are irreducibly complex.. to simply say something is so complex that we cant understand it is NOT science... saying "gods ways are higher than ours" is NOT SCIENCE..
outlaw87100 3 months ago
I love how this is so laughable that Lawrence Krauss isn't even mad or upset. But smiling. It must be hard for such people, who know so much more than the average person, to not burst out laughing at what people like Michael Behe say. Researching a single page on the topic would reveal a better understanding. I can not believe he quoted Dawkins for design. Just wow.
JDoucette 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ID is for dummies who cant think.
dickhead2905 3 months ago
@5jimbo5 Woah??? How am I the new-world-order guy when you're the one who wants to indoctrinate children to be anti-gay, anti-drugs, anti-science and reduce their education to make them little but able to fulfil a practical task, whilst giving them a single system of belief???
I don't believe in any order. I believe people are inherently wonderful and we should allow them to grow freely. You're the propagator of the new world order and you don't even realize it. God have mercy on your soul.
ASKaPHYSICIST 3 months ago
@5jimbo5 well no i didn't really. you just misunderstand what I'm actually saying. i didn't imply you actively support all these views. I just meant that, achieving your narrow-minded goal of parent focussed education would automatically give rise to ideas like these in the classroom. I was trying to make you aware of your ignorance about that.
and no, people like you, who can't reconcile their religious believes with science, are the reason children get home schooled.
ASKaPHYSICIST 3 months ago
@5jimbo5 ok, so you want parents to be able to decide what their kids learn regardless whether or not it has been scientificly verified or shown to be true in any other way.
Just to elaborate on this, as long as parents want it, you would have no problem with schools teaching that the holocaust never happened, that Chairman Mao and Stalin were nice loving people, that the world is flat, that black people are inferior and that jews are secretly lizards and rule the world (all actual beliefs)
ASKaPHYSICIST 3 months ago
@5jimbo5 ok, so just to be clear, whether or not it is scientific, you want it to be taught in school. isn't that what you said in your last comment.
ASKaPHYSICIST 3 months ago
@tnafguy
Le sigh, guess some people are just a lost cause. What great fortunate that those of your ilk are a dying breed.
CaptainSmallFoot 3 months ago
@5jimbo5 So you agree that ID is not science?
ASKaPHYSICIST 3 months ago
@5jimbo5 Did you even read my comment or are literally just posting every piece of bullshit that just so happens to be on your mind???
I said, if there is an actual issue with the peer review process concerning ID (which I doubt) they should debate that. They should NOT circumvent the established scientific process and teach kids what ever they want!
ASKaPHYSICIST 3 months ago
@5jimbo5 So instead of debating about whether or not it should go into journals they just go ahead and introduce it in schools ... classic ID logic.
ASKaPHYSICIST 3 months ago
I can't believe this douche quote minded Dawkins.
mzyzer19 4 months ago
Long agoo, a lot of mystical schools thought of science as the proof of devine existence. I personally am a science fanatic :-) I believe there is a 'greater mind' at work here, and i believe we are a representation of that 'infinite mind's' "infinite thoughts". But to attribute human characteristics to that infinite devine, and assume it gives a crap about our lousy little meaningless existence... that's something only humans can invent ;) Hence i dislike any form of religion.
devilzown11 4 months ago
@devilzown11 I go a step further and believe that the infinite mind is in itself attributing human characteristics onto nature. But hey, whatever floats your boat, at least you're not a theist.
russellrummage 3 months ago
Why do we give Behe a professor title? you need to be above average intelligent to be a professor, he is waaaaaaay below average. Religion doesnt mix with science, they said it themselves. But use it when it can be twisted with close to no intelligent thought to "prove" God. When will ppl understand that you cannot prove fiction, just like the cosmic teapot, all you can do is pander around in ridicilous thoughts
TheAllien111 4 months ago
@TheAllien111 I agree tbh. 'Things appear to be so, so they likely are so'? how desperate can you get to debate from such a point of view :/
devilzown11 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who is the Designer of the Universe? = 2334 (clock gematria)
God = 234 (clock)
Who invented Science? = 234 (clock)
What is the Number of Yehoshau HaMashiach = 2340 (clock gem.)
-->Jesus the Messiah
The Intelligent Designer = 301 (clock)
3:01 PM = 15:01
One, Eight, Two = 151 (clock)
--->Lord Jesus Christ = 182 (clock)
ClockNumerology 4 months ago
You don't need to take a side to realize Behe got fucked up
Johnf85 4 months ago 2
Dayum!!! Lawrence f'd him up! His best point was that Behe wants to skip all the intermediary steps, no peer review, just straight to the classrooms as if this particular "science" was immune to criticism and peer review and the other scrutiny that all the other REAL sciences are subject to.
Johnf85 4 months ago
i think michael behe is not that dumb about evolution i think hes doing this to get a shit load of money!! i think hes punking us!!!!
iyot1020 4 months ago
If Lawrence Krauss is so smart, why does he bring up snow flakes in the context of the information processing design of life? He really doesn't seem to grasp the fact that the origin of life, and even the variety of life, is a huge mystery.
markaurelius61 4 months ago
@markaurelius61
So you're saying if he doesn't answer and explain the origin and the reasons for lifes variety completely to your satisfaction, then any other known facts on Evolution can be dismissed?
If you had watched the video you'd have heard his explanation. Lawrence Krauss's intelligence is greater than a flea, to the same degree that flea is smarter than you.
EvolBob1 4 months ago
anyone who is going to "debate" Lawrence Krauss is going to get his head handed to him
MyMomSaysSo 4 months ago
bi-ology
RobotShark55 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did he just quote Dawkins for design? WTF
khoops66 4 months ago
Did he just quote Dawkins for design? WTF
khoops66 4 months ago 19
@khoops66 LOL. Wow.
JDoucette 3 months ago
@khoops66
What he did is what the ID people always do - quote mining. If he'd gone on to what Dawkin's said afterwards it would destroy his own position.
I love Krauss.
babyshambler 2 months ago
he twisted dawkins's words. what a prick. anyone who knows dawkins and has heard him say that can clearly hear in his tone of voice (and what he says before and after it in context) that there is no "debate" whatsoever. prick. idiot.
gnarctopus 5 months ago
People forget there is a huuuge hole between deism and theism.
Evidence of a designer is no more a proof of any current religion than evidence of telekinesis is proof for Harry Potter.
Intelligent design would justify Islam as much as Christianity, but that would not matter to christians as they would should "We were right all along"
Jeri321 5 months ago
Behe is a lying fucking fool.
ReligionIsBULLSHlT 5 months ago
"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin. While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
gamesbok 5 months ago
Fear?
planetofthescums 5 months ago
I still can't imagine the first fish that just spontaneously sprouted legs and walked onto the land. Maybe its just me...
ajkoz9393 5 months ago
@ajkoz9393 You are a prime example of why we need more emphasis on education in this country. Please pick up a book and study before you make such a comment. A fish never just "spontaneously sprouted legs" and walked onto land. It happened by way of small, incremental changes, over billions of years. Is it hard for you to believe a Pug or Poodle was once a Wolf? Selective breeding accomplished this in hundreds of years, so try to fathom what billions can do with natural selection.
kingwillie206 5 months ago
@kingwillie206 okay, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't sum fish have to have a genetic mutaion which enabled it to grow legs and walk on land? If this is true, then there was the very first fish, a pioneer of sorts, that grew legs and had the courage and tenacity to meander onto the land. My only question is, how did this fish breathe?
ajkoz9393 3 months ago
@ajkoz9393 don't expect a satisfactory answer to that particular question. It's practically unintelligible. Look up Dunning-Kruger Effect and then go learn about natural selection and the rest of evolutionary theory to actually understand what it is. There was no "first fish", at least in the sense that you are taling about. Natural selection is best thought of as acting on populations not individuals. Marine mammals ancestors were all terrestrial. Environmental pressures drove them into the sea
EatCarlSagan 3 months ago
@ajkoz9393 It's called adaptation. All genetic mutations start out random, but those that are beneficial to an organism's success in their environment are directly selected for and quickly perpetuate throughout the population, providing a uniform, traceable signature. We have many different living examples of fish in existence today, showing different stages of the evolutionary process. Take the African Lung fish or the Chinese Snakehead for example.
kingwillie206 3 months ago
@ajkoz9393
I still can't imagine that there are people who access to the internet who know so little, so astoundingly little about evolutionary theory that they'd make such an asinine statement as, "the first fish that just spontaneously sprouted legs and walked...."
I did a test. Using google, it took me 14 seconds to locate information that would cure you of the ignorance that caused you to type such a foolish thing on the internet for countless people to see.
CaptainSmallFoot 5 months ago 6
krauss just laughing at behe for the stupid shit he's sayin! ID?? please please you idiot god believers....stop your nonsense and all your heavenly crap! stop trying to live after you die!!!
mytv80 5 months ago
@mytv80 please read plado's apology..socrates makes a profound argument for the existence of the soul.
ajkoz9393 5 months ago
@ajkoz9393 "socrates makes a profound argument for the existence of the soul" well now then....i guess there is a "soul" after all! let's us now prove it once and for all shall we!? shoot yourself in the head...then have your soul come back let the whole world know the soul does exist!! ...then visit me afterwards and scare the crap out of me!
mytv80 5 months ago
@mytv80 Actually that does happen. Watch "I Survived: Beyond and Back" on Biography sometime.
Mcygee 5 months ago
@Mcygee really!? i guess we can just take their word for it! you know my uncle told me he saw a half man half eel when he was fishing in lake geneva. I know it's true...my uncle says so! hey...shoot yourself in the head and have your soul come back and scare the crap out of my uncle!...i think he's full of shyt!
mytv80 5 months ago
@mytv80 Actually that does happen. Watch "I Survived: Beyond and Back" on Biography sometime.
Mcygee 5 months ago
@mytv80 Actually that does happen. Watch "I Survived: Beyond and Back" on Biography sometime.
Mcygee 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mytv80 I think you are as unsure about what happens after you die as anyone.
planetofthescums 5 months ago
@planetofthescums first of all...i am "unsure" and not only unsure but I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN I DIE! ..and i do not claim to know what happens when i die nor do i claim anything about souls, heaven, hell, and all other religious nonsense alike...UNLIKE the gawd believers who claims certainty about what happens when a person dies. I do know that...when i die....I'M DEAD! ..i won't be breathing, opening and closing my eyes, my body will decay and be eaten by worms!..unless I'm jesus! LOL!
mytv80 5 months ago
@mytv80 Modern observers have seen people return to life after what we call death has occured. It is part of a medical procedure. There is also Cryogenics.
You do not claim to know what happens after you die but you did tell people to stop trying to live. So you made a claim, without knowledge, affecting a person's death. Case in point, perhaps we should be concerned whether or not we are cremating ourselves if some activity goes on after death.
Do you still claim to know that heaven is false?
planetofthescums 5 months ago
@planetofthescums modern observers? what is that exactly? haha. so after death they came back to life...and so??? meaning what exactly about the "soul"? that is what we are discussing here right..the "soul" and not simply physical death. What about cryogenics?? lol. Yes, i said after death stop trying to live...because brainwashed christians, claims religious nonsense about souls, heaven hell and gods! Unless you have EVIDENCE about ridiculous claims about this...do you??? ..Share the world pls.
mytv80 5 months ago
@planetofthescums Heaven cannot be verified. An unknowable cannot be verified. Unless you can. Can you verify "heaven"? So actually heaven is neither true nor false....But for me personally...YES, HEAVEN IS FALSE! I would say 99.9999999 % false. And my uncertainty is only due to the fact that I don't know either wether a Seven Headed Demon exist. I would also extend that Soul is false, gods are false, virgin births, jesus, talking snakes, sins, & any and all other religious claims and nonsense.
mytv80 5 months ago
@mytv80 Cryongenicists freeze people so they won't decompose, and stop blood flow without damaging structures of the brain; so they can later be revived.
A 61 year old woman in Delware, a few years ago, was found alive in the morgue. She had been declared dead after modern equipment failed to detect a pulse.
Telling someone to stop trying to live after you die, doesn't make much sense.
2K years ago people would be called dead who we now know were still alive.
planetofthescums 5 months ago
@planetofthescums again..what about cryogenics? im talking about religious claims. and if cryogenics works, it's because of science. And the woman from delaware who came back after being pronounced dead..what about it? yes, i think the human body is amazing! again, im not talking about physical death. my statement was about souls in regards to "eternal life" not physcal death.
mytv80 5 months ago
@mytv80 She died. She lived after she died. I die. Can I come back to life? After a certain point is the answer no? At what point is the answer no? What needs to be damaged beyond repair for me to die? Is anything ever beyond repair? What needs to be created for life? Are we reincarnated? Is each new life unique? Can I never experience life again after I die? Why is the experience of life so singular? Can our direct experience go beyond just ourselves?
planetofthescums 5 months ago
@mytv80 People clearly have seen death and returned to life afterwards, so there is that evidence. Some people literally know life after death.
I certainly don't believe people are lying.
Reports of seeing an afterlife make perfect sense to me.
When you return from death you are asleep and you dream.
Consider your own dreaming, how can you be certain that a dream is just a dream?
Can you know how much time was involved in a dream, what part of the dream is really a dream and what is a memory?
planetofthescums 5 months ago
@mytv80 Watch a screen, you know it is only an image, but you know it was once real. Parts of your mind are fully convinced its real and your mind may disturb you enough; turn it off.
You might get different reports of even a common experience. How do you decide after we die it is like a gap between sleep and dreams and not a flood of reality washing over us?
You have no idea. Maybe people learn to ignore parts of the brain which lie to us; and go beyond reality to see the afterlife.
planetofthescums 5 months ago
@mytv80 Maybe they just think they do. Give me a definitive reason why you believe what you do. Tell me what you believe and why you believe it.
We do have a brain that can be switched on and off, like the screen. We only imagine time does not pass between sleep and dreams, but it does pass by. There is reality after death, and during sleep whether or not we experience it.
What is necessary for the mind to emerge, does consciousness exist in every brain, in how simple a brain can it exist?
planetofthescums 5 months ago
@planetofthescums I do not believe in christian god or muslim god or hindu gods or any other gods for the simple reason that there are too many ridiculous claims. besides the fact that it has no evidence. and so many other reasons. religion and gods are the cause of suffering and retardation of human progress. I believe in Empirical Evidence which religion has none. I don't believe in silly nonsense claims of souls, heaven, and gods. Isn't 100 yrs of living enough? Eternal life not needed.
mytv80 5 months ago
@mytv80 Surely Gods are not causing suffering since they don't exist. How does religion cause suffering? Religion is written word, not very good knowledge or truthful as science can bring, but I claim life was improved by the practice; the moral philosophy of religion. I am not a historian, so I am consider your idea plausible but would like to know how religion can cause suffering. Is a baptism suffering, attending church, wasting food on the altar, sacrificing virgins, what specifically?
planetofthescums 5 months ago
@planetofthescums Gods don't exist??? tell that to the people that practice "faith"! go to the middle east and try saying that. They'll send your body back in the US in pieces. And you're telling me that religion or gods don't cause suffering??? and life improved by the practice of it??? you don't have any idea of what you're talking about.
mytv80 5 months ago
@mytv80 You stereotype people from the middle east by saying they would murder me. It's nonsense.
planetofthescums 5 months ago
@planetofthescums lol. you must live in Disney! ahaha! why don't you try it my friend. go to the middle east and say Allah the camel god don't exist. Before you do..make sure your affairs are in order...because your coming back unrecognizable and in pieces...and that's if youre lucky! Ahahaha! Say hello to Mickey Mouse for me ok.
mytv80 5 months ago
@planetscums let me ask you..how many people are killed for APOSTASY back then...and NOW still??? How many children are killed because their RELIGION brands them as WITCHES back then....and NOW still??? And you're telling me life is improved by the practice of moral philosophy of religion??? Please answer because you haven't answered any of my questions from the very beginning of my posts. All you do is preach unrealistic and religious nonsense.
mytv80 5 months ago
@mytv80 The brain and the observer seem to be one and the same. It makes no difference to me what the answer is, but not having the answer makes me wonder why you are so convinced afterlife must be false.
So I must know what you know that convinces you of this. I can understand not wanting to believe in arbitrary unproven dreams of other people, but why don't you believe them?
planetofthescums 5 months ago
@planetofthescums im convinced an "afterlife" must be false for the same reason im convinced that "blue smurfs" are false...pink unicorns are false...seven headed three tail demons are false. "Souls" are unknowable plain and simple. The concept is silly to me. I wish Super Man exist & i wish it was me..but it's silly to think that. Soul is a grown up fantasy..heaven and all those silly nonsense. I don't know what else to tell you.
mytv80 5 months ago
@mytv80 We can see what happens to a corpse as it falls apart and the person disappears.
People can experience death and go on living.
People have memory and can hypothesize in the mind with their imagination.
Sometimes this imagination is controlled by an invisible hand working within the mind.
Control independent of our conscious effort and we can see another story worked out.
As in an elaborate dream. We do not plan the dream, it is in our mind, created by something else at work in the mind.
planetofthescums 5 months ago