Bergman just seems confused. He seems to base his beliefs on emotion more than anything. Just because science doesn't have all the answers, it doesn't lend any credence to the supposed truth of theism.
Most Darwinian evolutionists have no idea the theory has already been falsified. The ultra conserved elements (UCE) have falsified it. Methodological naturalism (no intelligent designer needed) predicts the entire system must evolve, yet all species and all cells have elements that can not evolve. The ribosomes alone is 100% conserved.
How does a theory that predicts all species evolved, explain a myriad of conserved functional elements in all species that can not evolve?.
@toobsucker Dude, you are either a troll, or really ignorant. The best of the best, evolutionary scientists, who dedicate their entire lives to study this, disagree with you, and with whomever the idiot is that wrote what you read to form your views. There are no Darwinian Evolutionists, just as there are no Newtonian gravitationalists. Knowledge of evolution has been enhanced by millions of man-hours over the last 150 years. It has NOT been falsified. You speak bs, my friend.
@stopt1me "The best of the best, evolutionary scientists, who dedicate their entire lives to study this, disagree with you"
Of course they do, they ASSUMED all species were capable of radical changes 150 years ago, today molecular biology is proving this to be not the case, the genome is highly conserved thus the sequences that code for it, and the reason for the endless stasis in the fossil record quotes.
Google "The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution"
@stopt1me "There are no Darwinian Evolutionists, just as there are no Newtonian gravitationalists"
Incorrect. Darwinian evolutionists ASSUMED 150 year ago the minor variants observed would accumulate into large changes, we now know they do not. They come from highly conserved variants that are selected for by a sophisticated adaptation mechanism influence by the environment.
Molecular biology is now well aware the "evolution": observed is bound within family groups.
@toobsucker I would just like to make it known that I am hereafter going to refer to myself as a Newtonian Gravitationalist (unless, of course, we're dealing with relativistic issues, in which case I'll totally be a turncoat).
@integralmath "I'm fairly certain that the experts in the field would be among the first to notice such a show-stopper as that"
They have noticed it. The Altenberg 16 meeting was meeting to discuss a dead theory. Science is well aware the selection of randomness is not the mechanisms for evolution. "Evolution" is a sophisticated environmentally induced adaptation mechanism that intelligently selects from a storehouse of limited slight variants
You actually think these men with massive egos that spend an enormous amount of time trying to prove the creationists wrong while simultaneously parroting "I.D. IS NOT SCIENCE" want to wake up to the headline news
"The Creationists Were Right The Whole Time!"
And have their intellectual abilities put on public display for the whole world to see?
@integralmath "I would just like to make it known that I am hereafter going to refer to myself as a Newtonian Gravitationalist"
Newton didn't predict gravity could do myriads of things it had never been observed to do. If Newton had proposed gravity could do the logically ridiculous, and people actually believed it, they would be called Newtonian Gravitationalist..
The only "evolution" that we observed is the selection of preloaded variants, selection is reducing variations
@stopt1me "It has NOT been falsified. You speak bs, my friend."
Darwinian evolution (all life coming from a single source cell) has been thoroughly falsified. The ultra conserved elements (UCE) have falsified it Most proteins are not effected by evolutionary mechanisms, they are "conserved". And if they do "evolve" they cause disease. The phylogenetic tress do not match, the fossil record is all stasis & sudden appearance. The molecular clock is falsified, and "JUNK DNA" is not junk
@toobsucker Brother, you must be a Kent Hovind disciple. He also said men lived tp 900 years of age 6000 years ago because the atmosphere was different. Guess what? We have written history going back further. Fossils are stasis? Demonstrably untrue. There are literally thousands of examples of many, many, many intermediate forms. I would be willing to bet that you lack any meaningful education beyond high school, especially in the sciences. This makes you an easy target for junk science.
@stopt1me "Fossils are stasis? Demonstrably untrue"
You are completely blind to the truth because science does not allow the problems with evolution to be taught
"The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution" Koonin EV., pubmed
"the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable"
@toobsucker You ignored my question about your lack of science education. Does that mean I was right in assuming you have no science education beyond highschool?
Principal "types" often appeared "quickly" when compared to others, but that "quickly" spanned 70-80 million years in the case of the Cambrian Explosion.
You are quote mining Koonin, who also writes “the evidence in support of [Universal Common Ancestry] provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming.”
@stopt1me "You are quote mining Koonin, who also writes “the evidence in support of [Universal Common Ancestry] provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming.”
The same Koonin that said
"Five years ago, we were very confident and arrogant in our ignorance...''Now we are starting to see the true complexity of life" [Tree of Life Turns Out to Have Surprisingly Complex Roots: NY times]
That Koonin?
ALL human models converge on our MRCA from both parents at less than 6000yrs
@stopt1me "You ignored my question about your lack of science education. Does that mean I was right in assuming you have no science education beyond highschool?"
No. I have plenty of science education, it is the dogmatic indoctrinations I have not taken part in. Why do you keep bringing up my credentials?
You have not addressed any of the issues. Just address the issues at hand please and stop concerning yourself with the level of indoctrination I have
@toobsucker I continue to QUESTION your credentials because you appear to me to be simply quoting some apologetic writing. A good example is your latest on MRCA. It is clear that the last detectable common ancestor says nothing about those that came before and are no longer detectable. It has nothing to do with how long we have been on the earth, or from what we evolved. We have common genes with virtually all living creatures.
Again, any post high school science classes? Degree?
"Besides dating our most recent common ancestor, Rohde's team also calculates that in 5,400 BC everyone alive was either an ancestor of all of humanity, or of nobody alive today. The researchers call this the 'identical ancestors' point: the time before which all the family trees of people today are composed of exactly the same individuals"
"Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans" Douglas L. T. Rohde
"In particular, the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just A FEW THOUSAND YEARS AGO in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has EXACTLY THE SAME SET genealogical ancestors."
All the evidence converges on a Adam & Eve story 6000 years ago. Deal the with evidence
@toobsucker The Adam and Eve story is VERY explicit that they were the FIRST humans. Why do you quote the bible in one post and reject it ("I believe in a race before Adam & Eve")? If you believe the bible, you MUST be a young earth creationist. Otherwise, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
@stopt1me "A good example is your latest on MRCA. It is clear that the last detectable common ancestor says nothing about those that came before and are no longer detectable"
Your missing the point, which is the data supports the creationism story 6000 years ago. The male and female ancestors of everyone alive today appeared suddenly 6000 years ago. And any "humanoids" that lived before 6000 years ago (I believe they existed) have no relation to anyone alive today.
@stopt1me "The Adam and Eve story is VERY explicit that they were the FIRST humans....If you believe the bible, you MUST be a young earth creationist'
You know nothing about the bible. Show me in the bible where it says the universe or earth is 6000-10,000 years old. It does not exist. It says Adam & Eve were created 5700 years ago, and the early churches falsely assumed this date for the creation of the earth. There are many false doctrines in the churches
"Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans" Douglas L. T. Rohde
"...the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just A FEW [3000] THOUSAND YEARS AGO in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, EACH PRESENT DAY HUMAN HAS EXACTLY THE SAME SET OF GENEALOGICAL ANCESTORS"
Therefore 6000 years ago genetic human ancestry ends.
@stopt1me "I continue to QUESTION your credentials because you appear to me to be simply quoting some apologetic writing"
And you seem to be dogging the issues. The papers I have hanging on my wall do not ensure truth, If I have a 3rd grade education or five degrees has no relevance to the questions I'M asking you. In fact since you are the one being asked the questions, it is your credentials that should be in question. And I could care less about them, Just answer my questions
@stopt1me "Guess what? We have written history going back further"
I never said I was a young earth creationist. I believe in a race before Adam & Eve, Solomon spoke of them in Ecc. That race (age) was destroyed by a flood before God created Adam & Eve. However the MRCA supports the Adam & Eve story
"Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans" Nature 431, 562-566
"the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago in these models"
@toobsucker Go to National Geographic genome project. You will see clearly that the haplotype models go back OVER 50,000 years. Why are you spouting this drivel? Why do you believe this stuff, proposed by people who most often had degrees in philosophy or theology or “theological education”?
"Recent common ancestors of all present-day individuals" Advances in Applied Probability, 31: 1002-1026
"This paper studies a two-parent analog of the Wright-Fisher model that defines ancestry using both parents...all individuals who have any descendants among the present-day individuals are actually ancestors of all present-day individuals"
All humans alive today came from the same two people less than 6000 years ago. The truth could bite you and you would not see it
@stopt1me "I would be willing to bet that you lack any meaningful education beyond high school, especially in the sciences"
You bet wrong.
If Darwinian evolution (all life form a single cell) is true, it should be able to explain the conserved (DO NOT EVOLVE) elements. The genome is littered with proteins that can not evolve. The ribosomes are 100% conserved in all species. It can not be changed (evolve) at all without destroying function.
@stopt1me "Fossils are stasis? Demonstrably untrue"
Also I suggest you search for "fossil record quotes", bearfabrique is a good one.
The fossil record quotes for stasis are endless. Anyone that says the fossil record shows Darwinian evolution proves how little he knows about the fossil record
And we have living fossils that have not evolved AT ALL from 3.5 billion years ago and all through Cambrian. Species do not evolve like predicted, why do you think Gould invented P.E.?
@stopt1me "Guess what? We have written history going back further"
Also even though I am a old earth creationist, there is no recorded history before 6000 year ago. The oldest "recorded" history is less than 6000 years old.
@toobsucker most of them aren't aware it's been falsified for one very conspicuous reason: it hasn't been. I'm fairly certain that the experts in the field would be among the first to notice such a show-stopper as that.
@integralma"most of them aren't aware it's been falsified for one very conspicuous reason: it hasn't been"
Every prediction Darwinian evolution has made has been repeatedly falsified. Darwin's tree of life prediction is not even close. The base of the tree (Cambrian) has greater diversity than today. The phylogenetic relationships do not match at all, HGT is being used as the excuse for the "mangled bush of life"
And the functional conserved elements thoroughly falsify evolution
@IDScience well, there you seem to have a problem with history. No one suggests the Cambrian is 'the base' of the 'tree of life'. For one, it's not a 'tree of life'; it's more of a bush looking jobby. For two, pre-Cambrian life would be further down it than Cambrian life for obvious reasons. The remainder of your mental droppings here are not an improvement over your opening salvo.
@integralmath "well, there you seem to have a problem with history. No one suggests the Cambrian is 'the base' of the 'tree of life"
All of evolutionary science does, there is virtually nothing below Cambrian. And there was greater genetic diversity in Cambrian than now, the opposite of what is predicted. Darwinian evolution is not allowed to be falsified, because I.D. is the only other alternative. Science will invent a turbo charged P.E. before they let go of Darwinian evolution
@IDScience What makes you think ID is the only alternative? Just because you don't know the answer to something doesn't mean you can plug in "god" for the answer. Why aren't you comfortable with simply saying "I don't know the answer to this yet?"
@bchimself "What makes you think ID is the only alternative?"
Several reasons. You can not name a rational third hypothesis. An intelligence has shown the ability to arrange DNA sequences to achieve a specific result. And the cells prove to have machines that work identically to our intelligently designed machines.
And if you say "I don't know" how can you then say you know it was not intelligently designed?. Your logic does not follow. Atheism is based in philosophy not logic
@IDScience do not confuse atheism with science; they aren't the same thing. This is simply a category error on your part. Further, it is not a properly scientific claim that ID is an alternative to any scientific theory, for it's not even a coherent proposition, let alone an explanatory framework.
Also, you seem not to understand that logic is, itself, philosophy; it's one of the 4 major branches of philosophy.
@integralmath "you seem not to understand that logic is, itself, philosophy; it's one of the 4 major branches of philosophy"
Right I meant metaphysical. Atheists reasoning for rejecting God is metaphysically based. Logic has no reason to limit the knowledge level of all sentient life, just as logic has no reason to limit unimaginably large numbers from existing.
Atheism does not follow rules of logic. Atheism is based in a metaphysical position of what is NOT known.
@IDScience life is a feature of this universe; to posit life elsewhere is a statement unsupported by all evidence yet discovered. Thus, the claim that sentient life exists independently of this universe is rank conjecture, and is immediately dismissed as such - no further discussion is necessary on this point.
@IDScience science doesn't disagree with me. As I said, anything that interacts with the physical world leaves behind signs of influence. So, if your god interacts, that's by definition in the realm of science to investigate. So, again, you're free to posit a god that doesn't interact, but that's indistinguishable from non-existent. Your being obtuse on this straightforward proposition does no work to improve your vacuous claim.
@integralmath "So, again, you're free to posit a god that doesn't interact'
I have indirect evidence he does interact. The phenomenal complexity and machine like qualities of the cell. the intrinsic value placed in a DNA sequence. The artistic beauty of the world. And the fine tuning of the frozen constants all point to a grand designer.
Just as if we found many rows of perfect stone pyramids on mars we can deduce a designer did interact with mars at one point in time
@IDScience if you claim you have indirect evidence of his/hers/its interference, then you've ceded that a god in principle isn't anathema to science. Indeed, you've admitted, explicitly, that such a god is within the realm of science, thus mooting your earlier non-objections. Moving on from there, you have no such evidence; you have an assertion and nothing more. There is nothing whatever to the proposition than a constant is necessarily in want of a constant maker.
@integralmath "if you claim you have indirect evidence.. then you've ceded that a god in principle isn't anathema to science. Indeed, you've admitted, explicitly that such a god is within the realm of science"
No because the person of God can't be empirically proven, a superior intelligence can be proven. Science has no business identifying the designer of life because it is impossible to verify, just as it would be impossible to verify the identify of the designer of the pyramids
@IDScience you're an idiot. You simply may not claim simultaneously that your god interacts and is therefore testable and that he's not testable. As it happens, we can identify within certain error bounds the designers of the pyramids.
@integralmath "you're an idiot. You simply may not claim simultaneously that your god interacts and is therefore testable and that he's not testable"
And your a little slow in comprehension. I have made my self clear science should not under any circumstances identify the designer as God unless he is verifiable. Intelligent design is verifiable . Science refuses to look at the blatant evidence for design because that opens a metaphysical bag of worms for them
@integralmath "we can identify within certain error bounds the designers of the pyramids. "
You would have no way what so ever to verify the identity of the designer of the pyramids. The only thing that could be accurately verified would be the minimal intelligence level needed to build them.
The identity of the designer would be subjective philosophy
@IDScience you are again demonstrating a perfect ignorance of what constitutes philosophy. Further, you are demonstrating a nearly perfect ignorance of science, and archaeology. We're done here; I don't have time to teach you a remedial course in, well, grade school.
That said the most rational philosophical position to take is the designer is God because of the extent of the evidence for design in the universe. So if I.D. was verified most rational scientists would have faith the designer was God. But science its self can not identify the designer, so should refrain from trying to do so.
This is the main problem in science today, it attempts to answer questions it has no way to verify .
“[F]or many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion ... [A]t some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things come what may." Ruse, Michael The New Antievolutionism," February, 1993, Boston, MA.,
"[W]e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Lewontin, Richard
“If there is one rule, one criterion that makes an idea scientific, it is that it must invoke naturalistic explanations for phenomena … it’s simply a matter of definition—of what is science, and what is not.”
(Eldredge, Niles, 1982, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press)
@integralmat "the claim that sentient life exists independently of this universe is rank conjecture, and is immediately dismissed as such"
Quantum physics dictates otherwise. There are many good videos on youtube on quantum consciousness. Here is one "SSE Talks - Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness 1/4"
Without a conscious observer the universe could not exist. Quantum physicists are now understanding without a conscious observer existing first, no observable reality could exist
@integralmath "do not confuse atheism with science; they aren't the same thing"
They are identical. Science has established all hypotheses must reject God as a mechanism
"Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural." Richard E. Dickerson
@IDScience they are not in any sense identical. Science is not in principle opposed to a god conjecture; it just seems to be the case that all available evidence makes all conjectured gods demonstrably untrue. Every process that interacts with physical matter leaves behind a trace of its influence. You may well want to posit a non-interacting god, but that god is indistinguishable from which doesn't exist. You're welcome to your imagination though.
@integralmath "it is not a properly scientific claim that ID is an alternative to any scientific theory, for it's not even a coherent proposition"
I.D. is the only coherent proposition there is for the origins of the highly conserved cell factory. A single celled organism could be programmed to be virtually any species imaginable simply by programing the DNA sequences
The selection of the luckiest randomness can never compete with intelligent foresight. This should be obvious
Why is PZ Myers having such a difficult time grasping the mechanisms of intelligent design. The mechanisms are the same ones used by Craig Venter and George Church, those mechanisms are a mind + intelligent foresight + the ability to arrange DNA sequences.
The problem here is we have too many liberal philosophers in evolutionary science and not enough engineers. Bruce Alberts, former head of the NAS said biology must incorporate design engineering principles to get the the "next level"
Mr. Bergman states "Hopefully we WILL, eventually have a research body which we can use to support our conclusions". WHY teach anything that does not have a body of research to show it is true? You cut your own cord there, Sir.
@stopt1me "The third hypothesis is "we don't know". That's actually where we started; we don't know. Then we possed some hypotheses, like god, natural forces, aliens, deism, etc. The best current fit, which is really not in question, is evolution"
We don't know is not a hypothesis for the origins of life & species. You could not produce a third hypothesis because a valid third hypothesis can not exist. If Darwinian evolution (not evolutionary change) is falsified, I.D. must be true.
@toobsucker I named a 3rd hypothesis above. Don't waste peoples time; read moe carefully. I posited "Aliens". Here is a 4th. Think carefully before you reply. A 4th hypothesis is that a machine created life in our universe which then evolved. It was a machine without intelligence, simply constructed physically to interact with matter, resulting in combining it properly to start life. This machine, as I say, was not intelligent. Again, just physical shaped to create early life.
@stopt1me "a machine created life in our universe which then evolved"
You can't possibly believe this to be a rational third hypothesis. You now realize you must accept the logically ridiculous before you accept I.D. because you have painted yourself into a theoretical corner by establishing I.D. is not science.
I have no doubt what so ever the atheist would accept the invisible flying spaghetti monster as the designer before they would God. Your logic shuts down when pondering God
@toobsucker Sorry, you didn't seem to make any cogent point about my hypothesis other than you don't believe that I can believe it. What is your point about my hypothesis?
@stopt1me "you didn't seem to make any cogent point about my hypothesis other than you don't believe that I can believe it. What is your point about my hypothesis?"
Secondly I can not even take the "machine created life" hypothesis seriously. No scientists would either. Your machine is an invalid third hypothesis to keep from admitting a valid third hypothesis for the origins of life does not exist.
Why don't you just admit what should be logically obvious
@stopt1me "you didn't seem to make any cogent point about my hypothesis other than you don't believe that I can believe it. What is your point about my hypothesis?"
The point is a machine that created life still needs a explanation just as God does. At least God could have evolved having forever to do so, how do you explain the machines existence?
A machine that created life is a "God" you don't have to obey, ALL you care about is having a creator you don't have to answer to
False dichotomy there, Mr. Bergman. Disproving evolution has no bearing on the truth (i.e. does not prove or support in any way) intelligent design. Proof or support of any theory REQUIRES evidence FOR that theory, not against another theory.
@stopt1me "False dichotomy there, Mr. Bergman. Disproving evolution has no bearing on the truth (i.e. does not prove or support in any way) intelligent design"
Of course it does. The species/cell were either a result of chemical reactions and natural non cognitive forces or they were the result of a sentient intelligent designer. It is impossible for there to be a rational third hypothesis.
If you believe me to be wrong, then name the third hypothesis.
@toobsucker The third hypothesis is "we don't know". That's actually where we started; we don't know. Then we posed some hypotheses, like god, natural forces, aliens, deism, etc. The best current fit, is evolution. It is falsifiable and predictive, but has not been falsified. Intelligent design is also falsifiable, and has been effectively falsified, and by Christians and Atheists alike. "We don't know" is a valid answer. Accept that, and you will have a more realistic view.
"I'd like to meet a young lady that consists of a singe quark." WTF is that?? The amazing thing is that he can spew this with a straight face. I wonder if PZ was thinking he was on some hidden video show or if he was getting punk'd.
I love how Jerry Bergman talks about going to that atheist group and how wrong it was of them to judge Christianity on only the bad it's done when he does just that with the atheist group! He blatantly pigeonholes all of atheists as a group that just bickers about the bad parts of Christianity. He tries to redeem himself by admitting that he's not sure if all atheists are like that or not, but that that was his experience, but I think it's obvious what he was trying to say. Hypocrite.
I didn`t here him pigeon hole all atheists at all. All I see in these comments is false accusations and derision. Can it be that some people are so incapable of hearing the other side of the argument without feeling the need to mock and try to discredit their opponents with unmerited direct insults.? Some Darwinists and Evolutionists are just like Fundamentalist zealous devout followers of the religion of non belief. Childishness or a kind of fascism
It's pretty transparent that Bergman's intent is to push aside real scientific process with imagination and opinion. He demonstrates this not just by trying to redefine how a theory is tested, but he tries to discredit science as being a tool of evil by trying to align German scientists with the Nazi party. He couples this with his stories of being shunned from the scientific community as if it was based upon his religious beliefs rather than he was not actually teaching science. Dishonesty.
Bergman teaches at my college and he is an idiot. They cannot fire him over his lawsuit over religious discrimination. So I refuse to take any science classes. I will wait til I transfer...Hes a douche!
I think PZ refers back to this debate later on by summarizing ID presentations like so: "Complexity complexity complexity complexity complexity complexity. Therefore design."
Arguing that atoms and particles are irreducibly complex... I find myself torn between ridicule being the only weapon against unintelligible propositions and the desire to just flat out debunk him.
And why does he waste 10+ minutes of our time giving us his fucking life story? I don't care about his fucking childhood or who his fucking parents were; I guess he's just making an early excuse for why he'll be found to be an ignorant loon.
And why, if he's so well acquainted with her, can't he spell Madalyn Murray O'Hair?
@shaxanth27 I think his life story makes a lot of sense given the direction of his arguments, I don't see any fault in him trying to introduce himself and it's the only thing that helped give me some scope on how formed such bizarre beliefs.
Bergman's claims that schools that teach Creationism have better students than those that teach evolution is misleading. The standardized tests don't test on a student's knowledge of evolution, therefore the lack of teaching evolution would have no influence on their ability to do well on said tests. H also mentioned that they followed the students as they went on to universities like Liberty University, which is still misleading since that university and others are just diploma mills.
Notice 10 minutes into Bergman's introduction how he said that through the scientific method he stopped recognizing the fact of evolution, in his own words, "given my definition." Remember his definition from the very beginning of the introduction? The most clear definition he provided was the stupid goo joke. The rest of it was just a dodgy and confusing diatribe against evolution.
This guy is fucking ridiculous.. The world would be a better place without Christians, absolutely, itd require that everyone 'believe' based on whats evident and true, instead of just fancying what sounds pleasant. This guy didn't deserve a any sort of debate.
A Carbon atom is not irreducibly complex. If you remove a proton from the Carbon atom it does not stop working, it actually works perfectly, as a Boron atom.
@sdohmi But his definition of irreducible complexity is if you remove a proton from a carbon atom, it is no longer a carbon atom. And that is both obvious and very very stupid.
Thank goodness not everyone thinks like Bergman. Does he not realize that all current medicine was once theoretical/experimental, or is he just being intentionally misleading?
Wow, this guy is a complete idiot. Everything is irreducibly complex ? He obviously has no idea what it means. He ought to have apologized to the audience for insulting their intelligence after this debate, having shit upon them like that.
It's probably been said before, but the creationist won all he could win just by sharing a stage with a proper biology professor. It doesn't matter his arguments were crap. This debate also looks a lot better on his resume than on PZs.
Wow, I really don't get how a cancer specialist could be an ID proponent. Isn't the way that cancers can adapt through mutation to become resistant to chemotherapy one of the easiest ways to see beneficial mutations? Beneficial to the cancer cell, of course, not the individual, but a cancer adapting to therapy is evolution on a microscopic scale itself, also.
And how the hell can he say he isn't concerned with theories but with "what works"? If you don't understand how a cancer grows, how it gets blood vessels to supply it with nutrients for instance, how can you hope to find a new way of attacking the cancer?
@captaindisguise Ha ha, yeah, that was so retarded! He basically seemed to be saying that anything that is composed of other things is irreducible complex, which is pretty much everything in the bloody universe. Therefore god.
What an interminable bore. Even skipping the bulk of Bergman's speeches, I can't watch this in less than 4 installments, and I'm no stranger to 2 hour debates.
Though it would look even better if 72 pixels were cropped on the left and right and 56 on the top and bottom, regarding the 480p version which I downloaded.
@OldFuck1864: if you knew how inept I am with editing software, and how long it took me to do this, you'd be as fucking impressed as I am that pushing the play button actually makes it go. =^_^=
There is no debate about intelligent design and evolution. Evolution is fact. Intelligent design is a fantasy for drooling morons like Bergman.
If I was in the audience I would have asked Bergman: Why don't you have the decency to admit intelligent design is nothing more than a childish belief in magic? Why don't you admit you're invoking magic when you invoke design?
Bergman doesn't admit ID = magic because he's a coward and a liar.
Excellent job with the audio integralmath. I had time this evening to watch the whole thing, and was not impressed at all with anything Bergman said. As factually bankrupt the 'leaders' of the ID movement are, I suspect even they face-palmed at his definitions and attempts at a defense. I imagine Behe cringed every time Bergman tried to pull his name into this!
@LithodidMan: thanks, Therationalizer taught me how to use the programs to do it. And I'm a slow learner! Well, in some fields anyway.
Alas, I can promise you the good I've done in the world by improving the audio here will be quickly overshadowed by the current nontroversy happening over on Pharyngula. Apparently, I hate women and actively contribute to their being raped! Film at 11. =^_^=
Bergman gave the best defense of ID that i have ever heard.. Unfortunately it was still complete bullshit. He brings up irrelevant things such as atheists views and the complex machine analogy etc. He brings up the discrimination argument to avoid the fact that ID is crap. The papers argument is a lie. Bergman is slightly more enlightened than William Craig; which is not saying a whole lot
About this nonsens with irreducible complexity and atoms. Here's a couple of easy answers, in case you get caught off-guard by a would-be ID-debater:
1) elementary particles (quarks, electrons) are *not* complex. That's why we call them "elementary'! There is no parts in elementary particules you can remove.
2) atoms are not irreducibly complex: if you remove one proton from Carbon, you get Boron, an atom that "works".
An atomic ion is an atom. A Boron anion is a functional atom, not a broken carbon like the speaker was implying. Hence, an atom is not irreducibly complex. (And is not complex in the first place anyway.) That was my point, don't get distracted by the terminology.
@Titousensei: silly you - this reality and all you're living in. Don't you know the counterargument? What if I take away another proton? And then another? And then another? What if I take away 700? Checkmate!
You cannot win that crowd. It's not just that they don't know the right answer - they don't know that they don't know the right answer. Or even answer somewhere in the same area code as the right answer.
Ahah! But the goal is not to convince person using this kind of arguments. The goal is to show to the people listening, whom might be on the fence, that this person is wrong. If you can do that with one or two convincing and simple sentences, just a couple of times, you show that your position is reasonable, and the other person's position doesn't hold. That's the goal of these debates. Cheers :-)
Well of course it's not irreducibly complex, after all a boron anion is still capable of making covalent bonds and such, it just has a negative charge. I should have been a bit more clear.
Bs. I guess they teach the definition of "vestige" year 31 then huh?
Does anyone here actually buy the idea that he did thirty yrs research without knowing such a basic bio definition. I mean this is freshman high school info he does not understand...
@GallusSapien: well, I'm not saying he's a liar, or poorly educated. But I will note all of his degrees come from a certain place that was shut down by the government for giving out degrees for a prearranged amount of money.
The sad thing about this debate is that these comments make me feel that, as much as I want to listen to PZ, listening to it would be an exasperating waste of my time. Would that the ID proponents only have fewer buffoons as their standard bearers.
@ZackFlapjack: actually, there's a great part in there where PZ takes over arguing Bergman's position to help the dumbass out. You just know he felt dirty.
What a lying sack. I have researched evolution for years and never once come across a single article paper book debate or any other medium anywhere ever where anything was answer with the phrase "it just evolved that way" he's full of crap.
PZ Myers best comment of the night: 56:30
edricnavigator 1 week ago
Where in the hell do they make people like this Bergman guy? What a boof!
MrKeenoRossi 1 month ago
Bergman just seems confused. He seems to base his beliefs on emotion more than anything. Just because science doesn't have all the answers, it doesn't lend any credence to the supposed truth of theism.
MrKeenoRossi 1 month ago
Most Darwinian evolutionists have no idea the theory has already been falsified. The ultra conserved elements (UCE) have falsified it. Methodological naturalism (no intelligent designer needed) predicts the entire system must evolve, yet all species and all cells have elements that can not evolve. The ribosomes alone is 100% conserved.
How does a theory that predicts all species evolved, explain a myriad of conserved functional elements in all species that can not evolve?.
toobsucker 1 month ago
@toobsucker Dude, you are either a troll, or really ignorant. The best of the best, evolutionary scientists, who dedicate their entire lives to study this, disagree with you, and with whomever the idiot is that wrote what you read to form your views. There are no Darwinian Evolutionists, just as there are no Newtonian gravitationalists. Knowledge of evolution has been enhanced by millions of man-hours over the last 150 years. It has NOT been falsified. You speak bs, my friend.
stopt1me 1 month ago
@stopt1me "The best of the best, evolutionary scientists, who dedicate their entire lives to study this, disagree with you"
Of course they do, they ASSUMED all species were capable of radical changes 150 years ago, today molecular biology is proving this to be not the case, the genome is highly conserved thus the sequences that code for it, and the reason for the endless stasis in the fossil record quotes.
Google "The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution"
toobsucker 1 month ago
@stopt1me "There are no Darwinian Evolutionists, just as there are no Newtonian gravitationalists"
Incorrect. Darwinian evolutionists ASSUMED 150 year ago the minor variants observed would accumulate into large changes, we now know they do not. They come from highly conserved variants that are selected for by a sophisticated adaptation mechanism influence by the environment.
Molecular biology is now well aware the "evolution": observed is bound within family groups.
toobsucker 1 month ago
@toobsucker I would just like to make it known that I am hereafter going to refer to myself as a Newtonian Gravitationalist (unless, of course, we're dealing with relativistic issues, in which case I'll totally be a turncoat).
integralmath 1 week ago
Comment removed
IDScience 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@integralmath "I'm fairly certain that the experts in the field would be among the first to notice such a show-stopper as that"
They have noticed it. The Altenberg 16 meeting was meeting to discuss a dead theory. Science is well aware the selection of randomness is not the mechanisms for evolution. "Evolution" is a sophisticated environmentally induced adaptation mechanism that intelligently selects from a storehouse of limited slight variants
IDScience 1 week ago
Comment removed
IDScience 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@integralmath
Your not even in touch with reality here.
You actually think these men with massive egos that spend an enormous amount of time trying to prove the creationists wrong while simultaneously parroting "I.D. IS NOT SCIENCE" want to wake up to the headline news
"The Creationists Were Right The Whole Time!"
And have their intellectual abilities put on public display for the whole world to see?
Not happening anytime soon
IDScience 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@integralmath "I would just like to make it known that I am hereafter going to refer to myself as a Newtonian Gravitationalist"
Newton didn't predict gravity could do myriads of things it had never been observed to do. If Newton had proposed gravity could do the logically ridiculous, and people actually believed it, they would be called Newtonian Gravitationalist..
The only "evolution" that we observed is the selection of preloaded variants, selection is reducing variations
IDScience 1 week ago
@stopt1me "It has NOT been falsified. You speak bs, my friend."
Darwinian evolution (all life coming from a single source cell) has been thoroughly falsified. The ultra conserved elements (UCE) have falsified it Most proteins are not effected by evolutionary mechanisms, they are "conserved". And if they do "evolve" they cause disease. The phylogenetic tress do not match, the fossil record is all stasis & sudden appearance. The molecular clock is falsified, and "JUNK DNA" is not junk
toobsucker 1 month ago
@toobsucker Brother, you must be a Kent Hovind disciple. He also said men lived tp 900 years of age 6000 years ago because the atmosphere was different. Guess what? We have written history going back further. Fossils are stasis? Demonstrably untrue. There are literally thousands of examples of many, many, many intermediate forms. I would be willing to bet that you lack any meaningful education beyond high school, especially in the sciences. This makes you an easy target for junk science.
stopt1me 3 weeks ago
@stopt1me "Fossils are stasis? Demonstrably untrue"
You are completely blind to the truth because science does not allow the problems with evolution to be taught
"The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution" Koonin EV., pubmed
"the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable"
toobsucker 3 weeks ago
@toobsucker You ignored my question about your lack of science education. Does that mean I was right in assuming you have no science education beyond highschool?
Principal "types" often appeared "quickly" when compared to others, but that "quickly" spanned 70-80 million years in the case of the Cambrian Explosion.
You are quote mining Koonin, who also writes “the evidence in support of [Universal Common Ancestry] provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming.”
Please get educated
stopt1me 3 weeks ago
@stopt1me "You are quote mining Koonin, who also writes “the evidence in support of [Universal Common Ancestry] provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming.”
The same Koonin that said
"Five years ago, we were very confident and arrogant in our ignorance...''Now we are starting to see the true complexity of life" [Tree of Life Turns Out to Have Surprisingly Complex Roots: NY times]
That Koonin?
ALL human models converge on our MRCA from both parents at less than 6000yrs
toobsucker 3 weeks ago
@stopt1me "You ignored my question about your lack of science education. Does that mean I was right in assuming you have no science education beyond highschool?"
No. I have plenty of science education, it is the dogmatic indoctrinations I have not taken part in. Why do you keep bringing up my credentials?
You have not addressed any of the issues. Just address the issues at hand please and stop concerning yourself with the level of indoctrination I have
toobsucker 3 weeks ago
@toobsucker I continue to QUESTION your credentials because you appear to me to be simply quoting some apologetic writing. A good example is your latest on MRCA. It is clear that the last detectable common ancestor says nothing about those that came before and are no longer detectable. It has nothing to do with how long we have been on the earth, or from what we evolved. We have common genes with virtually all living creatures.
Again, any post high school science classes? Degree?
stopt1me 3 weeks ago
@stopt1me "Please get educated"
I suggest you do the same
"Human populations are tightly interwoven" Nature
"Besides dating our most recent common ancestor, Rohde's team also calculates that in 5,400 BC everyone alive was either an ancestor of all of humanity, or of nobody alive today. The researchers call this the 'identical ancestors' point: the time before which all the family trees of people today are composed of exactly the same individuals"
Just a bizarre coincidence?
toobsucker 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
toobsucker 3 weeks ago
@stopt1me
"Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans" Douglas L. T. Rohde
"In particular, the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just A FEW THOUSAND YEARS AGO in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has EXACTLY THE SAME SET genealogical ancestors."
All the evidence converges on a Adam & Eve story 6000 years ago. Deal the with evidence
toobsucker 3 weeks ago
@toobsucker The Adam and Eve story is VERY explicit that they were the FIRST humans. Why do you quote the bible in one post and reject it ("I believe in a race before Adam & Eve")? If you believe the bible, you MUST be a young earth creationist. Otherwise, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
stopt1me 3 weeks ago
@stopt1me "A good example is your latest on MRCA. It is clear that the last detectable common ancestor says nothing about those that came before and are no longer detectable"
Your missing the point, which is the data supports the creationism story 6000 years ago. The male and female ancestors of everyone alive today appeared suddenly 6000 years ago. And any "humanoids" that lived before 6000 years ago (I believe they existed) have no relation to anyone alive today.
This is the point
toobsucker 3 weeks ago
@stopt1me "The Adam and Eve story is VERY explicit that they were the FIRST humans....If you believe the bible, you MUST be a young earth creationist'
You know nothing about the bible. Show me in the bible where it says the universe or earth is 6000-10,000 years old. It does not exist. It says Adam & Eve were created 5700 years ago, and the early churches falsely assumed this date for the creation of the earth. There are many false doctrines in the churches
toobsucker 3 weeks ago
@toobsucker It was counted backwards by some church tard.
And, we know humans have been around longer than 5700 years, so you're still retarded
OpRedDawn 2 weeks ago
@OpRedDawn
Time for you to study real science
"Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans" Douglas L. T. Rohde
"...the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just A FEW [3000] THOUSAND YEARS AGO in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, EACH PRESENT DAY HUMAN HAS EXACTLY THE SAME SET OF GENEALOGICAL ANCESTORS"
Therefore 6000 years ago genetic human ancestry ends.
toobsucker 2 weeks ago
@toobsucker ah, you're trolling. I'll move along then
OpRedDawn 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OpRedDawn "ah, you're trolling. I'll move along then"
That is your best move. Smart man
toobsucker 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stopt1me "I continue to QUESTION your credentials because you appear to me to be simply quoting some apologetic writing"
And you seem to be dogging the issues. The papers I have hanging on my wall do not ensure truth, If I have a 3rd grade education or five degrees has no relevance to the questions I'M asking you. In fact since you are the one being asked the questions, it is your credentials that should be in question. And I could care less about them, Just answer my questions
toobsucker 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
toobsucker 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stopt1me "The Adam and Eve story is VERY explicit that they were the FIRST humans"
Incorrect they were the first "Aw Dawm" the Hebrew name for our species, Both Adam & Eve were called Adam
Gen_5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
There was another species before us
Ecc 1:10 Is there a thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been long ago, in the ages which were before us [humans]
toobsucker 3 weeks ago
@stopt1me "Guess what? We have written history going back further"
I never said I was a young earth creationist. I believe in a race before Adam & Eve, Solomon spoke of them in Ecc. That race (age) was destroyed by a flood before God created Adam & Eve. However the MRCA supports the Adam & Eve story
"Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans" Nature 431, 562-566
"the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago in these models"
toobsucker 3 weeks ago
@toobsucker Go to National Geographic genome project. You will see clearly that the haplotype models go back OVER 50,000 years. Why are you spouting this drivel? Why do you believe this stuff, proposed by people who most often had degrees in philosophy or theology or “theological education”?
stopt1me 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stopt1me
"Recent common ancestors of all present-day individuals" Advances in Applied Probability, 31: 1002-1026
"This paper studies a two-parent analog of the Wright-Fisher model that defines ancestry using both parents...all individuals who have any descendants among the present-day individuals are actually ancestors of all present-day individuals"
All humans alive today came from the same two people less than 6000 years ago. The truth could bite you and you would not see it
toobsucker 3 weeks ago
@stopt1me "I would be willing to bet that you lack any meaningful education beyond high school, especially in the sciences"
You bet wrong.
If Darwinian evolution (all life form a single cell) is true, it should be able to explain the conserved (DO NOT EVOLVE) elements. The genome is littered with proteins that can not evolve. The ribosomes are 100% conserved in all species. It can not be changed (evolve) at all without destroying function.
How does evolution explain this?
toobsucker 3 weeks ago
@toobsucker What are your credentials?
stopt1me 3 weeks ago
@toobsucker Third request...please state your post high school education. Thank you.
stopt1me 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
toobsucker 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stopt1me "Fossils are stasis? Demonstrably untrue"
Also I suggest you search for "fossil record quotes", bearfabrique is a good one.
The fossil record quotes for stasis are endless. Anyone that says the fossil record shows Darwinian evolution proves how little he knows about the fossil record
And we have living fossils that have not evolved AT ALL from 3.5 billion years ago and all through Cambrian. Species do not evolve like predicted, why do you think Gould invented P.E.?
toobsucker 3 weeks ago
@stopt1me "Guess what? We have written history going back further"
Also even though I am a old earth creationist, there is no recorded history before 6000 year ago. The oldest "recorded" history is less than 6000 years old.
Cave paintings are not recorded history.
toobsucker 3 weeks ago
@toobsucker most of them aren't aware it's been falsified for one very conspicuous reason: it hasn't been. I'm fairly certain that the experts in the field would be among the first to notice such a show-stopper as that.
integralmath 1 week ago
@integralma"most of them aren't aware it's been falsified for one very conspicuous reason: it hasn't been"
Every prediction Darwinian evolution has made has been repeatedly falsified. Darwin's tree of life prediction is not even close. The base of the tree (Cambrian) has greater diversity than today. The phylogenetic relationships do not match at all, HGT is being used as the excuse for the "mangled bush of life"
And the functional conserved elements thoroughly falsify evolution
IDScience 1 week ago
@IDScience well, there you seem to have a problem with history. No one suggests the Cambrian is 'the base' of the 'tree of life'. For one, it's not a 'tree of life'; it's more of a bush looking jobby. For two, pre-Cambrian life would be further down it than Cambrian life for obvious reasons. The remainder of your mental droppings here are not an improvement over your opening salvo.
integralmath 1 week ago
@integralmath "well, there you seem to have a problem with history. No one suggests the Cambrian is 'the base' of the 'tree of life"
All of evolutionary science does, there is virtually nothing below Cambrian. And there was greater genetic diversity in Cambrian than now, the opposite of what is predicted. Darwinian evolution is not allowed to be falsified, because I.D. is the only other alternative. Science will invent a turbo charged P.E. before they let go of Darwinian evolution
IDScience 1 week ago
@IDScience if by 'virtually' nothing you mean the 3.5 billion years of life which preceded the Cambrian, then sure.
integralmath 1 week ago
@IDScience What makes you think ID is the only alternative? Just because you don't know the answer to something doesn't mean you can plug in "god" for the answer. Why aren't you comfortable with simply saying "I don't know the answer to this yet?"
bchimself 1 week ago
@bchimself "What makes you think ID is the only alternative?"
Several reasons. You can not name a rational third hypothesis. An intelligence has shown the ability to arrange DNA sequences to achieve a specific result. And the cells prove to have machines that work identically to our intelligently designed machines.
And if you say "I don't know" how can you then say you know it was not intelligently designed?. Your logic does not follow. Atheism is based in philosophy not logic
IDScience 1 week ago
@IDScience do not confuse atheism with science; they aren't the same thing. This is simply a category error on your part. Further, it is not a properly scientific claim that ID is an alternative to any scientific theory, for it's not even a coherent proposition, let alone an explanatory framework.
Also, you seem not to understand that logic is, itself, philosophy; it's one of the 4 major branches of philosophy.
integralmath 1 week ago
@integralmath "you seem not to understand that logic is, itself, philosophy; it's one of the 4 major branches of philosophy"
Right I meant metaphysical. Atheists reasoning for rejecting God is metaphysically based. Logic has no reason to limit the knowledge level of all sentient life, just as logic has no reason to limit unimaginably large numbers from existing.
Atheism does not follow rules of logic. Atheism is based in a metaphysical position of what is NOT known.
IDScience 1 week ago
@IDScience life is a feature of this universe; to posit life elsewhere is a statement unsupported by all evidence yet discovered. Thus, the claim that sentient life exists independently of this universe is rank conjecture, and is immediately dismissed as such - no further discussion is necessary on this point.
integralmath 1 week ago
@integralmath "Science is not in principle opposed to a god conjecture"
Science disagrees with you
“The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes. ... The theory of evolution is one of these explanations.”
(Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy Press, 1998, pg. 42
IDScience 1 week ago
@IDScience science doesn't disagree with me. As I said, anything that interacts with the physical world leaves behind signs of influence. So, if your god interacts, that's by definition in the realm of science to investigate. So, again, you're free to posit a god that doesn't interact, but that's indistinguishable from non-existent. Your being obtuse on this straightforward proposition does no work to improve your vacuous claim.
integralmath 1 week ago
@integralmath "So, again, you're free to posit a god that doesn't interact'
I have indirect evidence he does interact. The phenomenal complexity and machine like qualities of the cell. the intrinsic value placed in a DNA sequence. The artistic beauty of the world. And the fine tuning of the frozen constants all point to a grand designer.
Just as if we found many rows of perfect stone pyramids on mars we can deduce a designer did interact with mars at one point in time
IDScience 1 week ago
@IDScience if you claim you have indirect evidence of his/hers/its interference, then you've ceded that a god in principle isn't anathema to science. Indeed, you've admitted, explicitly, that such a god is within the realm of science, thus mooting your earlier non-objections. Moving on from there, you have no such evidence; you have an assertion and nothing more. There is nothing whatever to the proposition than a constant is necessarily in want of a constant maker.
integralmath 1 week ago
@integralmath "if you claim you have indirect evidence.. then you've ceded that a god in principle isn't anathema to science. Indeed, you've admitted, explicitly that such a god is within the realm of science"
No because the person of God can't be empirically proven, a superior intelligence can be proven. Science has no business identifying the designer of life because it is impossible to verify, just as it would be impossible to verify the identify of the designer of the pyramids
IDScience 6 days ago
@IDScience you're an idiot. You simply may not claim simultaneously that your god interacts and is therefore testable and that he's not testable. As it happens, we can identify within certain error bounds the designers of the pyramids.
integralmath 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@integralmath "you're an idiot. You simply may not claim simultaneously that your god interacts and is therefore testable and that he's not testable"
And your a little slow in comprehension. I have made my self clear science should not under any circumstances identify the designer as God unless he is verifiable. Intelligent design is verifiable . Science refuses to look at the blatant evidence for design because that opens a metaphysical bag of worms for them
IDScience 6 days ago
@integralmath "we can identify within certain error bounds the designers of the pyramids. "
You would have no way what so ever to verify the identity of the designer of the pyramids. The only thing that could be accurately verified would be the minimal intelligence level needed to build them.
The identity of the designer would be subjective philosophy
IDScience 6 days ago
@IDScience you are again demonstrating a perfect ignorance of what constitutes philosophy. Further, you are demonstrating a nearly perfect ignorance of science, and archaeology. We're done here; I don't have time to teach you a remedial course in, well, grade school.
integralmath 6 days ago
Comment removed
IDScience 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@integralmath
That said the most rational philosophical position to take is the designer is God because of the extent of the evidence for design in the universe. So if I.D. was verified most rational scientists would have faith the designer was God. But science its self can not identify the designer, so should refrain from trying to do so.
This is the main problem in science today, it attempts to answer questions it has no way to verify .
IDScience 6 days ago
@integralmath
“[F]or many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion ... [A]t some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things come what may." Ruse, Michael The New Antievolutionism," February, 1993, Boston, MA.,
IDScience 1 week ago
@integralmath
"[W]e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Lewontin, Richard
IDScience 1 week ago
@integralmath
“If there is one rule, one criterion that makes an idea scientific, it is that it must invoke naturalistic explanations for phenomena … it’s simply a matter of definition—of what is science, and what is not.”
(Eldredge, Niles, 1982, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press)
IDScience 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@integralmat "the claim that sentient life exists independently of this universe is rank conjecture, and is immediately dismissed as such"
Quantum physics dictates otherwise. There are many good videos on youtube on quantum consciousness. Here is one "SSE Talks - Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness 1/4"
Without a conscious observer the universe could not exist. Quantum physicists are now understanding without a conscious observer existing first, no observable reality could exist
IDScience 1 week ago
Comment removed
IDScience 1 week ago
@integralmath "do not confuse atheism with science; they aren't the same thing"
They are identical. Science has established all hypotheses must reject God as a mechanism
"Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural." Richard E. Dickerson
IDScience 1 week ago
@IDScience they are not in any sense identical. Science is not in principle opposed to a god conjecture; it just seems to be the case that all available evidence makes all conjectured gods demonstrably untrue. Every process that interacts with physical matter leaves behind a trace of its influence. You may well want to posit a non-interacting god, but that god is indistinguishable from which doesn't exist. You're welcome to your imagination though.
integralmath 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@integralmath "it is not a properly scientific claim that ID is an alternative to any scientific theory, for it's not even a coherent proposition"
I.D. is the only coherent proposition there is for the origins of the highly conserved cell factory. A single celled organism could be programmed to be virtually any species imaginable simply by programing the DNA sequences
The selection of the luckiest randomness can never compete with intelligent foresight. This should be obvious
IDScience 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why is PZ Myers having such a difficult time grasping the mechanisms of intelligent design. The mechanisms are the same ones used by Craig Venter and George Church, those mechanisms are a mind + intelligent foresight + the ability to arrange DNA sequences.
The problem here is we have too many liberal philosophers in evolutionary science and not enough engineers. Bruce Alberts, former head of the NAS said biology must incorporate design engineering principles to get the the "next level"
toobsucker 1 month ago
Comment removed
toobsucker 1 month ago
Mr. Bergman states "Hopefully we WILL, eventually have a research body which we can use to support our conclusions". WHY teach anything that does not have a body of research to show it is true? You cut your own cord there, Sir.
stopt1me 1 month ago
@stopt1me "The third hypothesis is "we don't know". That's actually where we started; we don't know. Then we possed some hypotheses, like god, natural forces, aliens, deism, etc. The best current fit, which is really not in question, is evolution"
We don't know is not a hypothesis for the origins of life & species. You could not produce a third hypothesis because a valid third hypothesis can not exist. If Darwinian evolution (not evolutionary change) is falsified, I.D. must be true.
toobsucker 1 month ago
@toobsucker I named a 3rd hypothesis above. Don't waste peoples time; read moe carefully. I posited "Aliens". Here is a 4th. Think carefully before you reply. A 4th hypothesis is that a machine created life in our universe which then evolved. It was a machine without intelligence, simply constructed physically to interact with matter, resulting in combining it properly to start life. This machine, as I say, was not intelligent. Again, just physical shaped to create early life.
stopt1me 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stopt1me "I named a 3rd hypothesis above. Don't waste peoples time; read moe carefully"
Which you deleted, I had to go into my trash email to retrieve your post.
"Then we possed some hypotheses, like god, natural forces, aliens, deism, etc."
Aliens and deism is still I.D. Then you actually said
"a machine created life in our universe which then evolved"
I said a "rational" third hypothesis. You do realize you have left the realm of rational thought now into the absurd?
toobsucker 1 month ago
@stopt1me "a machine created life in our universe which then evolved"
You can't possibly believe this to be a rational third hypothesis. You now realize you must accept the logically ridiculous before you accept I.D. because you have painted yourself into a theoretical corner by establishing I.D. is not science.
I have no doubt what so ever the atheist would accept the invisible flying spaghetti monster as the designer before they would God. Your logic shuts down when pondering God
toobsucker 1 month ago
@toobsucker Sorry, you didn't seem to make any cogent point about my hypothesis other than you don't believe that I can believe it. What is your point about my hypothesis?
Thank you.
stopt1me 1 month ago
Comment removed
toobsucker 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stopt1me "you didn't seem to make any cogent point about my hypothesis other than you don't believe that I can believe it. What is your point about my hypothesis?"
Secondly I can not even take the "machine created life" hypothesis seriously. No scientists would either. Your machine is an invalid third hypothesis to keep from admitting a valid third hypothesis for the origins of life does not exist.
Why don't you just admit what should be logically obvious
toobsucker 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stopt1me "you didn't seem to make any cogent point about my hypothesis other than you don't believe that I can believe it. What is your point about my hypothesis?"
The point is a machine that created life still needs a explanation just as God does. At least God could have evolved having forever to do so, how do you explain the machines existence?
A machine that created life is a "God" you don't have to obey, ALL you care about is having a creator you don't have to answer to
toobsucker 1 month ago
False dichotomy there, Mr. Bergman. Disproving evolution has no bearing on the truth (i.e. does not prove or support in any way) intelligent design. Proof or support of any theory REQUIRES evidence FOR that theory, not against another theory.
stopt1me 1 month ago
@stopt1me "False dichotomy there, Mr. Bergman. Disproving evolution has no bearing on the truth (i.e. does not prove or support in any way) intelligent design"
Of course it does. The species/cell were either a result of chemical reactions and natural non cognitive forces or they were the result of a sentient intelligent designer. It is impossible for there to be a rational third hypothesis.
If you believe me to be wrong, then name the third hypothesis.
toobsucker 1 month ago
Comment removed
stopt1me 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker The third hypothesis is "we don't know". That's actually where we started; we don't know. Then we posed some hypotheses, like god, natural forces, aliens, deism, etc. The best current fit, is evolution. It is falsifiable and predictive, but has not been falsified. Intelligent design is also falsifiable, and has been effectively falsified, and by Christians and Atheists alike. "We don't know" is a valid answer. Accept that, and you will have a more realistic view.
stopt1me 1 month ago
"I'd like to meet a young lady that consists of a singe quark." WTF is that?? The amazing thing is that he can spew this with a straight face. I wonder if PZ was thinking he was on some hidden video show or if he was getting punk'd.
gigisdad 1 month ago
I thought I found a tool mark but it was just my anus...
bdrasin 2 months ago
Oh i just love his definition of irreducible complexity.
nojuggernaut 2 months ago
That's a resounding no then. Science for the win.
Bhags7 2 months ago
Where did the universe come from is not a problem for evolutionary biology. Its a problem of Physics. I doubt Bergman can even define evolution.
OptimalElement 2 months ago
I love how Jerry Bergman talks about going to that atheist group and how wrong it was of them to judge Christianity on only the bad it's done when he does just that with the atheist group! He blatantly pigeonholes all of atheists as a group that just bickers about the bad parts of Christianity. He tries to redeem himself by admitting that he's not sure if all atheists are like that or not, but that that was his experience, but I think it's obvious what he was trying to say. Hypocrite.
frightenedsoul 3 months ago
@frightenedsoul
I didn`t here him pigeon hole all atheists at all. All I see in these comments is false accusations and derision. Can it be that some people are so incapable of hearing the other side of the argument without feeling the need to mock and try to discredit their opponents with unmerited direct insults.? Some Darwinists and Evolutionists are just like Fundamentalist zealous devout followers of the religion of non belief. Childishness or a kind of fascism
FeignofCordor 1 month ago
@FeignofCordor lol
frightenedsoul 1 month ago
It's pretty transparent that Bergman's intent is to push aside real scientific process with imagination and opinion. He demonstrates this not just by trying to redefine how a theory is tested, but he tries to discredit science as being a tool of evil by trying to align German scientists with the Nazi party. He couples this with his stories of being shunned from the scientific community as if it was based upon his religious beliefs rather than he was not actually teaching science. Dishonesty.
Tunnelfish2 3 months ago
Bergman teaches at my college and he is an idiot. They cannot fire him over his lawsuit over religious discrimination. So I refuse to take any science classes. I will wait til I transfer...Hes a douche!
Blackironification 3 months ago
I think PZ refers back to this debate later on by summarizing ID presentations like so: "Complexity complexity complexity complexity complexity complexity. Therefore design."
MrARock001 3 months ago
Arguing that atoms and particles are irreducibly complex... I find myself torn between ridicule being the only weapon against unintelligible propositions and the desire to just flat out debunk him.
Can anyone take this line of reasoning seriously?
sphires 4 months ago
Cancer will never be beaten with charlatans like this fighting it
shaxanth27 4 months ago
And why does he waste 10+ minutes of our time giving us his fucking life story? I don't care about his fucking childhood or who his fucking parents were; I guess he's just making an early excuse for why he'll be found to be an ignorant loon.
And why, if he's so well acquainted with her, can't he spell Madalyn Murray O'Hair?
shaxanth27 4 months ago
@shaxanth27 I think his life story makes a lot of sense given the direction of his arguments, I don't see any fault in him trying to introduce himself and it's the only thing that helped give me some scope on how formed such bizarre beliefs.
sphires 4 months ago
Damn, he does not sound like a Ph.D in biology... (Jerry that is)
stoolsboy 5 months ago
104:20 - What the fucking shit?!
BoozyBeggar 6 months ago 2
Bergman's claims that schools that teach Creationism have better students than those that teach evolution is misleading. The standardized tests don't test on a student's knowledge of evolution, therefore the lack of teaching evolution would have no influence on their ability to do well on said tests. H also mentioned that they followed the students as they went on to universities like Liberty University, which is still misleading since that university and others are just diploma mills.
Ceenymeeny 6 months ago
Notice 10 minutes into Bergman's introduction how he said that through the scientific method he stopped recognizing the fact of evolution, in his own words, "given my definition." Remember his definition from the very beginning of the introduction? The most clear definition he provided was the stupid goo joke. The rest of it was just a dodgy and confusing diatribe against evolution.
Ceenymeeny 6 months ago 2
PZ is such a patient and nice man.
Slacktoo 6 months ago 7
This guy is fucking ridiculous.. The world would be a better place without Christians, absolutely, itd require that everyone 'believe' based on whats evident and true, instead of just fancying what sounds pleasant. This guy didn't deserve a any sort of debate.
wrongfire 6 months ago
A Carbon atom is not irreducibly complex. If you remove a proton from the Carbon atom it does not stop working, it actually works perfectly, as a Boron atom.
sdohmi 7 months ago 8
@sdohmi But his definition of irreducible complexity is if you remove a proton from a carbon atom, it is no longer a carbon atom. And that is both obvious and very very stupid.
diekerze 2 months ago
Comment removed
uruson 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sdohmi Ignoring isotopes, wouldn't that be a Boron ion?
And yes, I'm very picky >:-l
uruson 3 weeks ago
I kept waiting for that guy giving the introduction to say "We represent the lollipop guild"
jonisaok 7 months ago
Bergman has got to be on drugs or sniffing too much spray paint.
Man Made god, Not, god Made Man - Bergman's statements are further proof that believing in invisible "Sky Daddies" destroys Brain Cells....
stevethul1 7 months ago
Thank goodness not everyone thinks like Bergman. Does he not realize that all current medicine was once theoretical/experimental, or is he just being intentionally misleading?
MercuryShining 7 months ago
@MercuryShining
It might be of benefit to humanity if he didn't believe in science in it's entirety and just went to live in a barn like an Amish.
KaelHunter 7 months ago
Wow, this guy is a complete idiot. Everything is irreducibly complex ? He obviously has no idea what it means. He ought to have apologized to the audience for insulting their intelligence after this debate, having shit upon them like that.
sogghartha 7 months ago
It's probably been said before, but the creationist won all he could win just by sharing a stage with a proper biology professor. It doesn't matter his arguments were crap. This debate also looks a lot better on his resume than on PZs.
Doctorasul 8 months ago 2
Theology: the Study of God.
Unicornology: the Study of Unicorns.
Science?
Check Mate.
razzlefrog 8 months ago
Myers is wrong! The crocoduck on his tie proves him wrong! Oh, the irony!
unocanhas 8 months ago
Wow, I really don't get how a cancer specialist could be an ID proponent. Isn't the way that cancers can adapt through mutation to become resistant to chemotherapy one of the easiest ways to see beneficial mutations? Beneficial to the cancer cell, of course, not the individual, but a cancer adapting to therapy is evolution on a microscopic scale itself, also.
gagaplex 8 months ago 4
And how the hell can he say he isn't concerned with theories but with "what works"? If you don't understand how a cancer grows, how it gets blood vessels to supply it with nutrients for instance, how can you hope to find a new way of attacking the cancer?
gagaplex 8 months ago
@gagaplex: well, the answer is no more complex than "he's an idiot."
integralmath 8 months ago 3
@gagaplex: I can promise you that he's not a cancer expert. He is wholly unlettered.
integralmath 8 months ago
Comment removed
moh490234890238490 8 months ago
When/where did this debate take place?
StatueOfMike 8 months ago
The moderator was really awesome
captaindisguise 8 months ago
@1:24:00 The girl is really dumb....i hope it is only a coincidence that she is a blonde
captaindisguise 8 months ago
@40:20 "periodic table is irreducibly complex ... Carbon-12 needs 6 protons and 6 electrons therefore carbon-12 is irreducibly complex"
Couldnt stop laughing at this. If it had a different number of protons, it would simply be a different element...wow, this guy is a freaking moron
captaindisguise 8 months ago
@captaindisguise Ha ha, yeah, that was so retarded! He basically seemed to be saying that anything that is composed of other things is irreducible complex, which is pretty much everything in the bloody universe. Therefore god.
kjrandom 8 months ago 3
What an interminable bore. Even skipping the bulk of Bergman's speeches, I can't watch this in less than 4 installments, and I'm no stranger to 2 hour debates.
kmaglion 8 months ago
@kmaglion: go tell it to PZ on Pharyngula.
integralmath 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks for the upload!
Though it would look even better if 72 pixels were cropped on the left and right and 56 on the top and bottom, regarding the 480p version which I downloaded.
OldFuck1864 8 months ago
@OldFuck1864: if you knew how inept I am with editing software, and how long it took me to do this, you'd be as fucking impressed as I am that pushing the play button actually makes it go. =^_^=
integralmath 8 months ago
Comment removed
OldFuck1864 8 months ago
Why can't I get the image of Prof. Frink out of my mind????
sr22gts 8 months ago
There is no debate about intelligent design and evolution. Evolution is fact. Intelligent design is a fantasy for drooling morons like Bergman.
If I was in the audience I would have asked Bergman: Why don't you have the decency to admit intelligent design is nothing more than a childish belief in magic? Why don't you admit you're invoking magic when you invoke design?
Bergman doesn't admit ID = magic because he's a coward and a liar.
darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com
bobx2x2 8 months ago
Excellent job with the audio integralmath. I had time this evening to watch the whole thing, and was not impressed at all with anything Bergman said. As factually bankrupt the 'leaders' of the ID movement are, I suspect even they face-palmed at his definitions and attempts at a defense. I imagine Behe cringed every time Bergman tried to pull his name into this!
LithodidMan 8 months ago
@LithodidMan: thanks, Therationalizer taught me how to use the programs to do it. And I'm a slow learner! Well, in some fields anyway.
Alas, I can promise you the good I've done in the world by improving the audio here will be quickly overshadowed by the current nontroversy happening over on Pharyngula. Apparently, I hate women and actively contribute to their being raped! Film at 11. =^_^=
integralmath 8 months ago
Bergman gave the best defense of ID that i have ever heard.. Unfortunately it was still complete bullshit. He brings up irrelevant things such as atheists views and the complex machine analogy etc. He brings up the discrimination argument to avoid the fact that ID is crap. The papers argument is a lie. Bergman is slightly more enlightened than William Craig; which is not saying a whole lot
MVT44 8 months ago
I wish I could walk up and slap Bergman every time he says something stupid.
drnekodr 8 months ago 2
@drnekodr that's a lot of times..... need help?
alinaysa 8 months ago
Carbon is irreducibly complex?.... is this guy an idiot?
drnekodr 8 months ago 3
@drnekodr Of course it's irreducibly complex. If, for example, you took away one of it's protons what use would it be?
And don't say Boron - I don't believe in the existence of Boron.
mcnerneyd 8 months ago
@mcnerneyd: that's just a mistranslation. It's actually a moron; that's what it decays into. You're welcome.
integralmath 8 months ago
@drnekodr
No, he just failed physics, chemistry AND biology, that or he's completely disingenuous.
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
"intolerance against people who [are incompetent]"
thisnameisuniq 8 months ago 2
PZ = WIN
jssherrard 8 months ago 3
About this nonsens with irreducible complexity and atoms. Here's a couple of easy answers, in case you get caught off-guard by a would-be ID-debater:
1) elementary particles (quarks, electrons) are *not* complex. That's why we call them "elementary'! There is no parts in elementary particules you can remove.
2) atoms are not irreducibly complex: if you remove one proton from Carbon, you get Boron, an atom that "works".
Titousensei 8 months ago 2
@Titousensei
Actually if you remove a proton from any carbon atom you are left with a Boron anion and not an atom.
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree
An atomic ion is an atom. A Boron anion is a functional atom, not a broken carbon like the speaker was implying. Hence, an atom is not irreducibly complex. (And is not complex in the first place anyway.) That was my point, don't get distracted by the terminology.
Titousensei 8 months ago
@Titousensei: silly you - this reality and all you're living in. Don't you know the counterargument? What if I take away another proton? And then another? And then another? What if I take away 700? Checkmate!
You cannot win that crowd. It's not just that they don't know the right answer - they don't know that they don't know the right answer. Or even answer somewhere in the same area code as the right answer.
integralmath 8 months ago
@integralmath
Ahah! But the goal is not to convince person using this kind of arguments. The goal is to show to the people listening, whom might be on the fence, that this person is wrong. If you can do that with one or two convincing and simple sentences, just a couple of times, you show that your position is reasonable, and the other person's position doesn't hold. That's the goal of these debates. Cheers :-)
Titousensei 8 months ago
@Titousensei
Well of course it's not irreducibly complex, after all a boron anion is still capable of making covalent bonds and such, it just has a negative charge. I should have been a bit more clear.
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
"I've spent 30 years studying in this area"
Bs. I guess they teach the definition of "vestige" year 31 then huh?
Does anyone here actually buy the idea that he did thirty yrs research without knowing such a basic bio definition. I mean this is freshman high school info he does not understand...
GallusSapien 8 months ago
@GallusSapien: well, I'm not saying he's a liar, or poorly educated. But I will note all of his degrees come from a certain place that was shut down by the government for giving out degrees for a prearranged amount of money.
integralmath 8 months ago
The sad thing about this debate is that these comments make me feel that, as much as I want to listen to PZ, listening to it would be an exasperating waste of my time. Would that the ID proponents only have fewer buffoons as their standard bearers.
PZ's a peacock! He's gotta fly!
ZackFlapjack 8 months ago
@ZackFlapjack: actually, there's a great part in there where PZ takes over arguing Bergman's position to help the dumbass out. You just know he felt dirty.
integralmath 8 months ago 5
"Atheism is a religion" and "irreducible complexity" are those really his best arguments.
I've seen wet tissue paper with more structure and stability than these repeatedly bulldozed none arguments.
If anyone has an doubts about where Atheism stands I've drawn a helpful little picture:
anony . ws / di-VIGI .png
Not knowing things isn't a bad thing. Being willfully ignorant in this day and age most certainly is.
As for "Irreducible complexity" Over to PZ... Tear him apart Mr.Myers...
KaelHunter 8 months ago 3
@KaelHunter: no, they get better. Not to spoil the whole thing, but Hitler makes a cameo.
integralmath 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@integralmath
*Facepalm*
You just can't have a rational debate with this level of willful stupidity.
KaelHunter 7 months ago
What a lying sack. I have researched evolution for years and never once come across a single article paper book debate or any other medium anywhere ever where anything was answer with the phrase "it just evolved that way" he's full of crap.
GallusSapien 8 months ago