I agree, the whole creationist or intelligent design upsurging here against evolution, is an infiltration from political parties from the top, wishing to keep people biblical and stupid, so that they can earn votes. This way they keep religion as something relevant, and further use it to manage the country, -making issues such as gay marriage and abortion still relevant, and which defense by voting for the progressive party will send them to hell. Why else would people for for republicans? Fear.
On the topic of dogs descending from wolves, believe it or not but I just recently read a book saying that they descended from some other dingo-like canine and not the gray wolf. Despite the fact that there is no physical or genetical evidence for this, Quite the contrary. As far as I know this "new" theory (it's actually old but got a new costume) is based on the assumption that when feral domestic animals return to their original shape. Of course that is not how evolution works.
I didn't see any debunking. I did notice that the first three sections on cosmology, chemical and the origin of life itself were avoided. I Wonder why?
Then we have helacyton gartleri wheeled in as evidence of evolution!!!! Why not use the more common reference of cancer? This is horizontal gene transfer and no new genes are added. As for it being a new species that is still being debated. Typical evolution tripe.
Going off of TheHomelessCripple's comment about the illusion of conciousness.. does anyone think its possible for super fast future quantum computeres to develope a conciousness.. or would the lack of sensory information from the millions upon millions of nerves in biological body make this sort of impossible?
@bownimrod all matter is non-living. quarks and atoms aren't capable of metabolism or reproduction let alone conscious thought. The only thing that is important for life (and evolution) are, organic molecules and amino-acids and water.
Your consciousness and sense of "being alive" is an illusion created by electro-chemical signals firing neurons in your brain, lighting it up in a firestorm of sensation, and your memory storing and assigning meaning to familiar stimuli and patterns.
If in the near future with the LHC we can determine that our notion of reality is simply a vast expanse of vibrations then maybe we can accept the idea that everything we experience was brought into existence through the spoken word of God. (in the beginning was the WORD) . john 1:1 & 1 john 1:1
I thought canine domestication was only about 4,000 years old. Or is that only as pets? I know horses WEREN'T domesticated yet, ferrets, 5000 years ago, were the first domesticated pet. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'll check the source at the end (convenient things, sources) when I finish up the vid.
I wouldn't I'd mock it aloud and recite from memory the corrections to these stupid claims that are now burned into my skull from constantly encountering.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Mankind proves its is separate from the animal kingdom by the simple fact that it destroys its own environment on which it depends. This simple yet profound reality is evidence that evolution is a joke. mankind's inherent selfishness will never allow us to overcome our greed and hence deliver ourselves from ultimate self destruction.
Only those who understand this will escape the grand delusion that is coming upon the world and be delivered from catastrophe.
its seems to me that mankind has become so proud and arrogant that we are blinded by our own intelligence. (cancer 50 years later by far worse than it ever was is 1 example of our futility). what is more interesting to me is that these same scientists who preach evolution dont even follow its tenets. why bother fighting cancer let nature run its course.
I still only have a vague conception of what you are trying to say ... its clearly very very poorly thought out. Only someone so horribly ignorant would make such silly comments.
yes and your contribution has been so very enlightening. you are master at mental masturbation, please share some some more of your superior intellect.
@go2mark But creationists, who believe the Earth and all the universe was created just for them, and reject all the evidence discovered by hard working scientists, are not being proud and arrogant?
@go2mark: At a minimum, you don't know much about cancer. "Nature running it's own course" with cancer is just about 99% fatal within three years, though there are a few cancers that can develop slowly without symptoms for a long time, like prostate cancer. In the end, they're just about all fatal.
Unfortunately, we scientists seem to be stuck with the term "Big Bang", which is very misleading. It was not an explosion, but an expansion of Space-Time. It's probably too late to stop using that term, so the best we can hope for is to educate a few as to what it really means. Too bad some people wont bother to learn what a theory really is before trying to "refute" it.
yes expansion of space time makes it so much clearer, ty for clearing that up. and of course you have an explanation of what caused space time to exist ? or should we just assume it did to make it easier for all of us to understand. maybe the back of a turtle theory ?
@myodoc42 agreed. most people don't understand what a 'theory' versus hypothesis is. Theories are models that explain underlying observations and evolution theory has not only explained observations, but has predicted countless future observations. Its funny to hear people say 'evolution is just a theory'. Yes, and so is Addition theory which is a part of Math theory. LoL
@myodoc42: Well, a theory has to be called something, and the pithier the better. In the case of the Big Bang, where the necessity of it having occurred is pretty much open-and-shut, but the theory about what it was and how it actually happened is still in the works, its best to leave it be, I think. Hoyle wasn't far off, but his argument that it was a creationist theory, as opposed to steady state, was pretty ironic.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't know you at all, but I bet you want to debunk this documentary's evidence (which has NO FLAW as I find) all boils down to SOME message that goes against your lifestyle, not your "science".
CREATION (Genesis) => Meaning of Life, Standards, Marriage, Laws, Absolute Truth, Absolute Logic, Orphanages, Hospitals, Gospel, God's Word
EVOLUTION => Abortion, School Violence, Communism, Humanism, Nazism, Racism, Rejection of Israel as God's chosen country [since there is no God], Secular Lifestyle, Secular Media, Premarital Sex, Pornography, Homosexual Behavior, Lawlessness, Man's Opinion
I'm enjoying all these debunkings, but one thing I still dont understand is the logical disconnection that concludes the alternative false dilemma is the Christian God (without a shred of evidence to support their claims except for an axiom with a very unreliable history called the Bible).
Even if creationist succeeded in debunking science (and they havent), there is still no valid reason to believe the God of the Bible created the universe. Debunking science doesnt enhance other alternatives
"Brainwashed" to believe in evolution. Go figure. Yep, nothing invalidates the opponent's position by stamping it with the words "brainwashing," does it?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LOL! The 1983 Science issue in question used that drawing to get people to buy the magazine! IT'S THE COVER PICTURE!!
Shame, shame, shame on them for propagating something as "science," that has zero basis in true science. It's total deception. But I'm sure they sold a few mags, so I guess it's ok, right? *sigh*
I do not look at the cover of a magazine for science. Sorry. No reasonable person does. Magazines use artists interpretations to sell their magazine. This is well known. Why not actually look at the article itself for science and not the cover of the magazine?
I always enjoy people who try to make a mountain out of a molehill because they have nothing better to offer.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Looking4Coffee,
You can spin this any way you want, but the bottom line is that the drawing in Science was deceptive. It was meant to pain a mental image to the reader of a whale "transition," that had ZERO basis in fact. That is deception regardless of the disclaimer.
The disclaimer is misleading. The drawing wasn't taken from a "skull." It was taken from 7 TEETH & three other small skull BONES. It takes a real IMAGINATION to come up with an flippered "transition" from such evidence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Looking4Coffee: "...You know what it says next to the image. "known only from skull"."
Then the question begs to be answered, why would a "prestigious" science publication like Science publish a drawing that had nothing to do with science & all to do with a complete fabrication of an artist's mind? Furthermore, it is logical to assume that the artist was TOLD by a scientist what the animal "may have looked like." Again, a total fairytale, as the bones in 2001 proved. So much for science.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Evolution is not a science. It is a theory. It does not follow the laws of scientific investigation and does not base its conclusions on the observable evidence. Instead it is just a faith based system, a false religion that relies on faith to support its argument. Everytime you ask a priest from this religion (who preach from their pulpits to the young gullible minds in the universities) to answer a question of where the first pine cone came from they just ignore it and instead call you names.
This author of this supposed debunking has not proven anything wrong. He is trying to guide others into his own folly. As many have been lead down the road of destruction because instead of using their own intellect to perceive the truth they have chosen to let others lead them. It is the blind leading the blind into the ditch. God says "that the fool says in his heart there is no God "(Ps 14:1). This is because the evidence of intelligent design of the Creator is overwhelming.
This is a typical answer from the ones who don't have an answer. Trying your best to deflect the question. The answer though is very simple and follows any logical train of thought. It came from a Creator God who made it and everything else in the universe. But it is still the only anwer that has any evidence behind it and is logical. It really doesnt show much brain power to argue ones point by name calling. It shows a real imaturity and lack of facts.
These guys who are trying to debunk this video (probably a couple of spun up college kids who have just been indoctrinated by professors teaching there religion of evolution) are blind to the facts because they they have closed minds and are unwilling or unable to see the real evidence that surrounds them in this world. Like were did the first pine cone come from. I don't know of any PHd that has been able to answer that simple question with an answer that is back up with logic, and evidence.
The people who view this debunking need to view another video that I believe is available online called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" by Illustra Media. This so called "debunking" is a joke. No facts to defend against the fallacy evolution from species to species.
This supposed debunking of the " A Question of Origins" video it appears was done not by someone who thinks with logic and reason but obviously one who has a hidden agenda to hide what are the true facts and evidence of evolution ( i.e. there are very few facts that support evolution and it is not a science as many of the priest of the evolution religion dogmatically stat that it is).
I don't know if anyone's mentioned it yet, but it's probably worth pointing out that the DNA molecule pictured at 2:07 is turning in the wrong direction. DNA is a right-handed helix and what's pictured is a left handed helix.
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." ---Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University
At least SOME evolutionists are willing to be honest. BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE SCIENCE, BECAUSE TRUE SCIENCE EXAMINES THE EVIDENCE AND TREATS THE RESULTS HONESTLY EVEN IF THEY DON'T LINE UP WITH ONE'S PRECONCEIVED WORLDVIEW.
Evolutionists MUST protect their theory at all costs, regardless of the truth.
Did some quick research. Come to find out that the "neutral mutations" argument is controversial and not accepted by all or even the majority of evolutionists. It's dishonest of you to correct the creationists with a theory that you're claiming is common knowledge, but in reality is not commonly accepted.
Sorry, but you're simply wrong. MOST mutations are bad. And even if I give your idea the benefit of the doubt, you need ADVANTAGEOUS mutations for evolution to be true as defined. Such a notion is silly to logical observers. Evolution never happened.
A simple google search would prove you wrong. Penicillin resistance, nylon digestion, the recent swine flu human- human transfer... All are NEW mutations, all are advantagous to the organism.
The truth is out there, but yet you refuse to search it.
Furthermore, let me remind you that crying "Straw man, Straw man," does not make it so.
The bottom line is that a naturalistic position of matter coming from non-matter (which is against the laws of the universe) & life from non-life (impossible with out a Creator) is the greatest example of self-deception on earth. But hey, admitting a Creator means accountability to Him, and someone bent on unbelieving will buy into ANYTHING to silence their conscience.
So, G-d broke the laws of the universe?? I mean he poofed some stuff into existence by speaking. Are G-d's words made of matter? If not then G-d made matter from non-matter. Why even bother making universal laws if he were just going to break them? Also I would like to know what evidence you are using by saying that life cannot come form non-life it would drastically change a few fields of science and you should publish a paper on it immediately! Oh and what about viruses, living or not??
Why do you think God has to be bound the laws of the universe when He created it and is obviously outside of it? It makes logical sense that He is not bound the laws he created, nor should he be. He's God.
Define life and then discuss life from non-life. Easy to twist all kinds of probabilities if we're working from two different views.
"Why do you think God has to be bound the laws of the universe when He created it and is obviously outside of it? It makes logical sense that He is not bound the laws he created, nor should he be. He's God."
No it makes logical sense that something occurred that itself is not subject to causality but resulted in a universe which is.
What isn't logical is that all your arguments are based on the assumption that it has to be a conscious, all knowing, all seeing, and all powerful being.
You say this, but then you hold to an idea that the universe created itself, which flies into the face of the very laws we know exist (like the 1st Law of Thermodynamics).
You tell me which is more logical: looking at the evidence, recognizing the design, and coming to the conclusion that there must have been a Designer, or believing it all created itself, a BELIEF (faith) that has ZERO scientific support? You tell me which one is more logically based on BLIND FAITH. I think it's obvious.
"You say this, but then you hold to an idea that the universe created itself, which flies into the face of the very laws we know exist (like the 1st Law of Thermodynamics). "
So your argument is that because it breaks the laws of thermodynamics that it is ridiculous, and yet you argue that it was designed by a god that itself breaks those very same laws.
So which is it sir, something cannot break the laws of thermodynamics or something can? Your conclusion contradicts your premise.
500 years from now two men find a watch buried in the sand in South Dakota. Both examine the same evidence, but both come to different conclusions. One says it looks designed, so therefore there must be a designer. The other is convinced, based on his prior education, that the design is just an apparition and concludes it not designed. "It's really not what is APPEARS to be," he says.
What position does logic take and which man has more of the onus on him?
"What position does logic take and which man has more of the onus on him?"
Logic dictates that a clock is an inorganic object that doesn't undergo any processes resembling those that life is subject to, particularly anything resembling mitosis and meiosis. Therefore the analogy is flawed on a fundamental level. Also it's a straw man as I am not the one that is rejecting all the evidence that has actually been subjected to peer review in favor of something that hasn't AND you IGNORED my argument
You missed the point. I used a watch to demonstrate DESIGN. The issue is not organic or inorganic. There is PLENTY of obvious design in life, and some of man's greatest inventions resemble organic design (like sonar). The issue is that there are parts of the evidence that MUST be ignored from an evolutionary worldview. That's intellectual dishonesty. Watch the DVD Expelled by Ben Stein & be educated.
The peer review argument is bogus. It's an exclusive "club" run by evolutionists.
"You missed the point. I used a watch to demonstrate DESIGN. The issue is not organic or inorganic. There is PLENTY of obvious design in life, "
No YOU miss the point that so far you have made arguments which consist of things I've already heard, already investigated, and already identified the various fallacies inherent within them.
Which is why when you use such an overused one like that I can point out why it's not logically valid in short order and then watch you ignore that fact.
Yes, I'm sure in your 25 years of life you've thoroughly exposed all there is to know about the faults of creationism, and, within the same limited amount of educational time you have proven the great & grand merits of Darwinian evolution. I'm sure you'd put to shame all those "pretend" scientists on the creation side, right? (sigh.)
Look, I don't mean to call you an idiot, for I don't believe you are. But I get tired of the arrogance. It's all to obvious. Post your learning if you dare.
"Yes, I'm sure in your 25 years of life you've thoroughly exposed all there is to know about the faults of creationism, and, within the same limited amount of educational time you have proven the great & grand merits of Darwinian evolution. I'm sure you'd put to shame all those "pretend" scientists on the creation side, right? (sigh.)"
I'm 25 and therefore everything I say is rendered invalid and unsound? At least in my 25 years I learned what "ad hominem" means...
Who said "EVERYTHING you say is invalid and unsound"? You've put words in my mouth, which I never even implied.
There is no personal attack on you other than your arrogance in basically claiming to have exhausted the issue. Man, you're only 25! You should have the common sense & humility to recognize that a lot of what you perceive about life may be wrong.
Yes, at 25 you may have some things to say. No one will take that from you. But your part is to remember that you're still ONLY 25.
"There is no personal attack on you other than your arrogance in basically claiming to have exhausted the issue. Man, you're only 25! You should have the common sense & humility to recognize that a lot of what you perceive about life may be wrong."
Please go on, get it all out, every last criticism you can make based on my age. Be as creative about it as you like, unfortunately it does absolutely nothing to advance your position and everything to garner you disrespect.
LOL. You're right, we should all consider you omnipotent at 25 years old. Oh, the misguided zeal of youth! Do you even read what I said? You have a martyr complex, but you can't get that from my comments. Nice try, though.
"Look, I don't mean to call you an idiot, for I don't believe you are. But I get tired of the arrogance. It's all to obvious. Post your learning if you dare."
My arrogance is obvious? So far you've suggested I'm too stupid to not be confused by a detailed definition of "new information" and that my age indicates that I don't know what I am talking about.
Then you suggest I am the truly arrogant one?
You and your bait bag of fallacious rhetoric can go find someone else to try and hook.
I've said nor implied NO such things and you can't even begin to prove otherwise. I even clearly said that I didn't think you an idiot. But that's how you've taken it, unfortunately.
I asked you to post your learning. Do you have a science degree? a Ph. D.?
I'm simply trying to point out that there are thousands of brilliant scientists who absolutely disagree with you & your position. Your claim that you've thoroughly studied the issue and exposed all the fallacies of creationism. But in so doing, you also condemn the work of some very qualified scientists, and pretend to know more than they do.
I just wanted to see if you at least have a degree in science before you propose to challenge those who do. I think your comments provided the answer.
"I'm simply trying to point out that there are thousands of brilliant scientists who absolutely disagree with you & your position."
And tens of thousands more who not only agree with my position, but demonstrate time and again that those who agree with yours have yet to produce a single piece of irrefutable evidence, and very rarely stop using arguments which have already been refuted.
Also sir, my answer neither indicated that I have nor indicated that I lack a post secondary education.
Your reason for questioning my credentials as stated "I just wanted to see if you at least have a degree in science before you propose to challenge those who do." is rather funny considering that I doubt that you have a degree in evolutionary biology yourself, nor did I care if you did or not until you made such a hypocritical statement as that.
I never claimed to have a degree in science. I also said that I was not a scientist. But I posted plenty of searchable articles from very qualified scientists. How many did you read?
"You mean "choose to ignore the evidence." That's more accurate. "
No logically refute the evidence (which oft takes the form of an argument lacking any testable predictions and thus not open to proper falsification in the first place), the act of ignorance comes on the part of those who would choose not to respond to the critique of their argument and instead continue to repeat it as if no one will notice, or worse, refuses to voluntarily receive and address critique in the first place.
I find it funny that "irrefutable evidence" depends on which side of the fence you're on.
Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. If you took anything I said to be offensive, I apologize. It was never intended to be. Just good, hearty debate.
BTW, I'm 42--a long way from 25. I don't put down your age. I see it for what it is. I simply ask you to keep your options open. For sooner than later God will put you in a life situation that he desires will draw you to him.
"I find it funny that "irrefutable evidence" depends on which side of the fence you're on."
And yet still depends on a lack of valid/sound refutation to be true, tho perhaps irrefutable is a strong word, rather not as yet refutable, or as yet unrefuted. So no, it does not depend on "which side of the fence you're on."
"BTW, I'm 42--a long way from 25. I don't put down your age. I see it for what it is."
It's what you are suggesting it is that is necessarily a putdown.
I know people 10 years my junior who already have a far superior grasp of x86 pc architecture than I do, despite my having the greater amount of hands-on experience. Knowledge and intelligence are not dependent on emotional maturity nor are they dependent on long term experience.
But both experience and maturity play into the big picture, and you won't understand that until your 20 years older than you are now. I'm not implying that all 40 year olds are wise and mature. Many are not. But when one is then someone his minor should give him respect and attention. But our day is not a day of respect and humility is it? Everyone has the funny idea that somehow their ideas and lifestyles have value just because they choose them to label them as such. That's not so.
"But both experience and maturity play into the big picture, and you won't understand that until your 20 years older than you are now. I'm not implying that all 40 year olds are wise and mature."
The implication being that I should take you on your word that you are one rather than basing my evaluation on your arguments and demeanor?
I am sorry sir, knowledge and intellect, and a grasp of fact are not dependent on long term life experience because all three are NOT SUBJECTIVE.
Scratch that, knoweldge can be subjective, however establishing that what someone knows to be true is in fact true requires arguments based on objective observation.
oh well, I will leave off with saying that I do not argue that god is an impossibility or even necessarily an improbability. What I do argue is that there has not been any objective evidence provided which either establishes the that a god is extant or isn't extant.
Nor any objective method of determining what the characteristics of that god are if it exists.
Therefore there is no objective reason to think that that god wouldn't create a universer that is self-determining.
The bible tells me so is not sufficient I have a book that tells me all about why I should believe in the olympian god's and despite the fact they have fallen out of favor they still have just as much evidence for their existence as the god you say exists does. Which is to say there is plenty of subjective arguments to establish their existence but a persistent lack of objective ones.
Well, all I can say is that when you're 42 I hope you'll say, "You know, that guy on YouTube all those years ago had a point." You can't understand what I'm trying to say any more than I could understand someone who is 62 saying the same things to me.
Stiff things break when they are shaken. All I'm saying to you is have the humility and maturity now to be open minded, otherwise when the trials of life come in like a flood, and they will, then you'll be able to bend and not break.
"You can't understand what I'm trying to say any more than I could understand someone who is 62 saying the same things to me. "
Again, are you asserting that this knowledge can only be obtained by living a specific amount of time? So anyone that agrees with you but is younger than you is lying if they say they understand it? That's the logical extension of you assertion, that anyone younger than you is incapable of having the same understanding of the subject as you.
I'm implying no such thing, nor do I believe anything like you've claimed. But it is true that older people, in general, have a greater understanding of how life works--good and bad--than those younger.
There is a BIG difference between book knowledge and experience, and some experiences can only be learned by age. That's just reality, so it's silly to argue this issue any longer.
One last question before we end this clearly futile exchange.
You assert that sooner rather than later god will put me in a life situration that he desires will draw me to him.
So should this life situation never occur and I pass away without any attempt by god to draw me to him, would it then be God's fault that I did not believe in him because he chose not to reveal himself to me as you seem to be suggesting he has done to you?
Would it be fair that he reveals himself to you and not me?
If it panned out as you state, then you'd have a valid argument. But the god you describe is not the God of the Bible. Jesus Christ, who is God, died for ALL humans, including you. It makes sense that if He is your Creator that He would care for your well-being. But, he also gives you a free will to choose and he will never violate that free will. If you stand condemned and hell-bound before God some day it won't be his fault. You're being warned right now.
Warned that god loves me so much that if I fail him, he will condemn me to pain and suffering for all of eternity.
The reason I do not speak of the god of the bible is because that particular brand of god is fraught with far more contradictions than just the concept of there being a god is on its own. Or because the followers of the various abrahamic religions all use the exact same arguments for why their's is the RIGHT one.
I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with the god you are describing. The God is know is nothing like you describe. Where do you get the ideas about the god you're talking about? What source, I mean?
I wouldn't give you two cents for followers of a religion they didn't believe was right. Otherwise, why are they following that particular religion? It's nonsensical. EVERY religion, "Abrahamic" or not, believes they have exclusive truth. Even the religion of secular humanism.
LOL! Well, I made it to 2:57 before I had to stop. I'd sure love to see you debate any of the men on the Origins video. Your "Straw Man #1" provides just the information we need to reject the theory you cling to. For evolution to be true you must have ADVANTAGEOUS mutations. If what you're saying is true (which I don't think it is) and they are neutral, then evolution never happened.
Evolution is a lie & a fairy-tale for the intellectual fools who reject the obvious evidence for a Creator.
Mutations have no prevoius agenda, no intent, no goal in their existance. Be it from gamma rays to DDT, it's a change in the DNA. RANDOM. Uncontrollable. 9 out of 10 cases it's bad or neutral, but sometimes it's beneficial for the organism.
What is the "advancing" agent is the natural selection. Oganisms with advantageous mutations will have a better life and give more offspring than those without. What defines an advantageous mutation is the environment.
So you're putting all your faith (that's what it is) in 10% bad mutations to explain the origin of complex life? Are you serious?
Sorry, but there is zero scientific evidence that natural selection "advances" anything. It never has and never will. To "advance" you need NEW INFORMATION, and natural selection, nor any other mechanism, does that. Yet it's absolutely required for a Darwinian worldview. You walk in blind faith, friend.
If you define it as a novel gene then this has been observed (Culex p. molestus presents a wonderful example).
If you define it as an increase in the total amount of information in the genome well then. EUREKA POLYPLOIDY is but one of the observed processes that result in that very thing.
Or perhaps it is something else. Please do give us the definitive description of what would constitute "new information."
I won't make it that complicated (it tends to confuse those who may be swayed away from common sense by big terms). If you want to get a WHALE from a WOLF, you need the mutations, and natural selection, to provide all the intermediate steps from wolf to whale. New "whale" information is needed which wasn't previously there. That, sir, has NEVER, ever been observed in any living thing. It's not science. It's belief. It's total faith.
Please, define to me "information". Is it the length (or extension thereof) of the DNA? Is it the replacement of junk DNA with useful DNA?
Both cases HAS been observed. Insertion mutations are well documented, as are new genes occuring. Take for instance nylon digesting bacteriae. They cannot possibly have survived pre-1930, and yet they exist (and thrive).
If that does not qualify as "new information", the digenstion of nylon, please give an example of what will.
Thank you for not only refusing to give a definitive description of what "new information" means, but also for suggesting in your excuse that it was because your readers might be too stupid to understand it
You need mutations, yes, novel mutations in organisms have been observed. For example novel genes for pesticide resistance in Culex P. Molestus.varieties, two varieties of bacteria that have mutated two different genes for digesting nylon (one in the wild one in a lab), and many others.
Now i'll give you an example of how you could properly falsify the claim that those mutations can accumulate over time until the particular animal has little resemblance to the ancestral species and is genetically incompatible to mate with them and produce both viable and fertile offspring.
That example is:
Find, document, and explain the mechanism which prevents the genome from accumulating mutations over time, or prevents the species specific genes from mutating and submit it for peer review.
Mutations eliminate traits, they don't produce new features (like for feathers before they existed). They are not the answer to the necessary addition of new genetic instructions, which are necessary for the evolutionary model to be true.
The issue is not stupid readers, but a worldview called evolution that refuses to look at ALL the evidence honestly. Remember, the issue is not new traits, but new information. That has NEVER been observed in science. It's all faith.
How do you KNOW it's new information and that it wasn't already built into the genetic code? In the end, no matter what you claim, they will ALWAYS be mosquitoes & nothing more. And if this small, grasping-for-anything-you-can-find example is your "proof," I'm sorry, but I'm not sold. If Darwin was right then examples should abound everywhere, but they don't.
An evolutionary worldview requires new genetic information on a very GRAND scale, for which there is no evidence.
"How do you KNOW it's new information and that it wasn't already built into the genetic code? "
BECAUSE WE HAVE THE PARENT POPULATION THAT THEY WERE OBSERVED TO HAVE BRANCHED OFF FROM. THE PARENT POPULATION LACKS THAT PARTICULAR SEQUENCE OF GENES, IT HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED TO HAVE IT. IT ONLY APPEARED IN THE OFFSHOOT SPECIES. YOU WOULD KNOW THIS IF YOU ACTUALLY EVEN :LOOKED UP MY EXAMPLES.
"In the end, no matter what you claim, they will ALWAYS be mosquitoes & nothing more. "
Thank you for establishing that no matter what happens, you will find some way of moving the goal posts so that you never have to even consider the evidence being provided.
"And if this small, grasping-for-anything-you-can- find example is your "proof," I'm sorry, but I'm not sold."
If you had even once bothered to look up whats being discussed outside of creationist websites notorious for misinformation, you would realize that the examples being given here just scratch the surface of the body of evidence, not represent it's entirety.
Go to pubmed and look up evolution, rather than relying on websites that NEVER print a retraction upon being refuted.
Have you ever read evolutionary GENETICIST Richard Lewontin's famous comments which illustrates the philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of what the evidence says?
Here is part of his statement: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs..."
You can Google the rest. Do you claim him to be in error? How so?
The issue is not goal posts, but a willingness to be honest with the evidence.
Here is part of his statement: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs..."
Context please, I need context, or should I just go look it up on Collapse of a Texas Quote Mine? I am almost positive that's one of the many statements included in their list of statements purposefully quoted out of context in order to misrepresent what was actually being said. So please, CONTEXT, whats the name of thew article in what publication that the quote is from?
I am reading the article right now, I will admit that i jumped ahead and read the relevant paragraph as well as the one just prior and just after. Now I am reading the entire article in order to garner a complete understanding of the context as from those two paragraphs alone I have already gotten the impression that what you intended for me to garner from it is not what the author intended.
I'm all for context, but some statements stand alone. Lewontin's is one of those statements. But I can see why what he said would make you uncomfortable. But is he right or insane?
"'m all for context, but some statements stand alone. Lewontin's is one of those statements."
My turn to use mildly insulting statements.
I can see why that statement actually having direct relation to the context it was being used in would make you uncomfortable.
Especially so when it makes it clear that it's not meant as a rejection of scientific methodology but rather an explanation of the difficulties and failings in disseminating scientific knowledge to those unfamiliar with its basis.
Say what you want, but when a person says, "...because we 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..." those words stand on their own. I really don't see the so-called "explanation" you claim to see.
Do you understand that anything that happens in the universe is considered material? So if an immaterial god had an effect on the universe then that effect would be observed and there would be no material cause that could be found for it.
Read the example of "Newton's Ploy." In this example the scientist does what materialism forbids doing and we find out exactly why it is a bad idea to do it.
Newton find's a hole in his theory, an element he does not understand, and concludes that it must be the result of God directly intervening on the universe's affairs.
Later the mechanism that Newton was missing to (continued)
explain the systems balance was explained. The stop-gap answer of direct intervention did nothing to encourage others to keep looking for that mechanism and if simply accepted as a given would have hindered us from improving upon our model of gravity. No improvements to the accuracy of the model were observed when direct intervention was the explanation.
That is why scientific materialism has nothing to say about the supernatural and is not given to accept a supernatural explanation. It was seen as having both a negative impact on the public perception of science to first make claims about what god does, and then to disprove that claim by finding a natural cause, and a negative impact on the progressive improvement of our understanding of the universe.
"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, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated"
What do you think is being referred to by uninitiated when you read the quote without context?
Because when you read the rest of the article it becomes clear that he is referring to those who lack a working knowledge of the process that lead to those theories They lack an understanding of the more complex details and therefore are mystified by the theories being presented, and by the methodology of scientific materialism. He even explains that the same difficulty is found in exchanges of information between specialist fields where both parties lack that knowledge in the others field.
What would you expect to observe if there was a Creator?
As for a material cause, no such thing has been truly found. It's all guesswork, which is believed as fact (unfortunately) by millions of people who don't take the time to think it through. Getting matter from nothing scientifically is virtually impossible, especially when one considers that it goes against an established law of the universe. According to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics matter can't be created or destroyed.
And we come back to this again. The claim that the beginning of the universe could not be random or out of nothing because the laws of the universe itself say that does not happen. The argument that overlooks several things. First that you are claiming right now that something exists that had no beginning and is not subject to the laws of the universe and that you have some special miraculous knowledge of its characteristics.
You are saying that what caused the universe exists separately from it, is not subject to its laws, and has all the characteristics of what you call "God."
But you are also saying that any other cause that is suggested which is separate from the universe which is not described as sharing these characteristics you are convinced it should have is suddenly subject to those laws.
Finally, the classical model of physics breaks down in the first fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second of the universe. The laws we observed and explained with scientific materialism(something you appear to condemn until it says something you feel supports your conclusion) don't seem to work properly, that's why we have theoretical physics like quantum mechanics to try and explain how things worked in the first modicum of time.
Now as we are back once again to you trying to establish that there is some event that caused the universe to exists and then declare that that cause absolutely must have all the characteristics of the particular god you believe in or else it defies the laws of physics that those characteristics themselves defy, I think perhaps its best to leave off here. I tend to end an argument when it makes it all the way back to its beginning as it shows there has been no progress made either way.
I think it's obvious that some event caused the universe to exist. My worldview, based on years of study & research, has led me to conclude that a Creator--& specifically the God of the Bible--made the universe & all life. I also believe the evidence we all have available to us confirms this worldview.
You believe that the "beginning" came about by itself. But you have no real science to back it up, because universal laws forbid it. So you live by faith, too. Time will tell who's right.
"You believe that the "beginning" came about by itself"
And since you haven't given any explanation for how that God came about, therefore you must think that god came about by itself. Which breaks the universal laws you keep telling me any answer I give must inherently obey.
I don't need to give an explanation. It's not possible. But I don't have a problem with faith. It's an aspect of my belief. The Bible itself doesn't attempt to prove God. It simply states it as fact. The choice to believe lies with the reader. I choose to believe, & I also believe that the Bible has been backed by history & archeology.
But faith is not an option for you (although it IS faith). So if you're going to claim as fact the "Big Bang" you must prove it without the Supernatural.
"The Bible itself doesn't attempt to prove God. It simply states it as fact. "
And that is why it is faith and science is not.
Your book says "this is a fact" and doesn't attempt to prove it by providing empirical evidence.
When science says "this is a fact" they make the effort to establish why it considered a fact, what evidence supports it. And if none if found, or evidence contrary to that claim is found, it is discarded.
Faith says to flat out reject contrary evidence, science doesn't.
Which by the way is exactly why the current model of evolution is not the same model that Darwin built. Evidence was found that contradicted some of it's hypotheses, which required those hypotheses be discarded and if possible new ones be formed which account for that new evidence as well.
Evolution itself is built on 2 core hypotheses with many many peripheral hypotheses. Those 2 are mutation and natural selection. The evidence has yet to contradict them, only support.
Whereas peripheral hypotheses such as Darwin's hypotheses about what the smallest unit of life was made of did not stand up to the evidence. Sure we found the smallest unit of life, but it bears little resemblance to what he described, so we have discarded that hypothesis and formed a new one which explains the evidence and continues to be testable and is therefore open to being verified or falsified as new evidence comes to light.
But even with quantum physics there is no CERTAINTY to the conclusions. There were no observers. So in the end, BOTH worldviews rely on faith, not science. You have to admit this as uncomfortable as it may seem.
"You have to admit this as uncomfortable as it may seem."
No I don't as it appears you are saying that since no one can go back in time and directly observe the events that no one can with any degree of certainty say what has happened. This would only be true if there was absolutely no such thing as indirect observation or mathematical proofs.
So in being consistent with what you've said you don't believe the Big Bang is a fact, right? And you have to also admit that those who do teach and believe it as fact ultimately do so by faith. Because, as you said, there's no way to know for sure.
So you're willing to admit that an element of faith is involved in a materialistic worldview?
"So in being consistent with what you've said you don't believe the Big Bang is a fact, right? "
Except that the big bang theory is about universal expansion and therefore wasn't what I was talking about.
You have to go to quantum mechanics to find theories on that and they rely on mathematical proofs as evidence, as well as testing predictions that can be made using that theory.
For instance the big bang model predicted cosmic background radiation, and then we found that radiation.
Quantum Mechanics predicted Bose-Einstein condensates prior to one being formed in a lab and predicted some of its properties.
The ability to create a prediction based on the model you have created which is testable and therefore can be verified is important because if it tests true it is evidence that the model has a useful degree of accuracy. If it's predictions fall through that helps identify and eliminate inaccuracies.
Can you provide mathematical proofs for god? Testable predictions?
Hey, I know a way to test if the "Big Bang" happened. Just blow up a printing shop & see if, after the dust settles, you find a complete dictionary. Or, drop all the supplies needed to build a house from Pluto (I'm giving you TIME, which is the hero, right?), and see if the house is complete at the bottom. Show me order and design from explosions & I'll believe it.
You should watch on YouTube: "Who Designed the Designer?: a response to Richard Dawkins." Dr. Craig is an excellent apologist.
"Hey, I know a way to test if the "Big Bang" happened."
No you don't as you appear to have confused the expansion of space for being exactly the same as a combustion reaction. Your second suggestion is even more better for attempting to replace physics and complex chemistry with a prefab house.
What part of the house is the analogue for subatomic particles? Where is the analog for chemical reactions? For gravity? For fusion?
You are rejecting a theory based on your inability to understand it.
This conversation is futile, you rarely even so much as acknowledge when I've asked you a question and seemingly ignore it when I answer yours and haven't agreed with you in doing so.
Oh and as for explosions producing something that is ordered? You do realize that explosions are chemical reactions and that chemical reactions can form stable compounds that are different from those that were in the fuel being consumed right?
They sure do tend to attach freed carbon atoms to two oxygen atoms.
Correction, some explosions are chemical reactions, not all. You can also generate what can be referred to as an explosion by rapidly decompressing a highly compressed substance.
Of course, the question then jumps up as big as the universe: where did the chemicals come from? Of, if you don't need them as you imply here, where did the substance come from? Something from nothing is a big, big problem if you take out the Supernatural.
We're not talking about explosions forming so-called stable compounds. We are talking about it forming order and amazing complexity. Debris from explosions all turn the same way. Yet, you have some planets during the opposite way of others, and some moons orbiting the opposite way from their planets. I could go on and on and on. Do you want to even touch the mathematical probabilities of earth being where it is to sustain life? It's pretty much zero. It has to be created, like it or not.
"Debris from explosions all turn the same way. Yet, you have some planets during the opposite way of others, and some moons orbiting the opposite way from their planets. I could go on and on and on."
Yes and like those arguments there I could go on and on with the already existing refutations of them that you've likely already seen and chosen to ignore.
This is futile.
Science leaves declaring the unexplained as being caused by the supernatural to the theologists for reasons I have explained.
I have no wish to continue this argument, and will not do so. Neither of us has been able to effectively gain any ground in the others mind and there appears to be very little hope that that will change.
Have yourself a good day/week/month/year/existence.
And in the end of this debate where are we left? We could go on ad nauseum posting our "proofs."
One thing I do know is this: if you are right & there is no God, then we'll just die & that's the end. BUT, if the Bible is right & there is a God & you refuse to get right with him before you take your last breath, the consequences will be ETERNAL damnation. I don't wish that on you or anyone else. Bottom line: your eternity rests on the certainty of your beliefs. You better be right.
I agree, the whole creationist or intelligent design upsurging here against evolution, is an infiltration from political parties from the top, wishing to keep people biblical and stupid, so that they can earn votes. This way they keep religion as something relevant, and further use it to manage the country, -making issues such as gay marriage and abortion still relevant, and which defense by voting for the progressive party will send them to hell. Why else would people for for republicans? Fear.
kvlo1986 3 months ago
On the topic of dogs descending from wolves, believe it or not but I just recently read a book saying that they descended from some other dingo-like canine and not the gray wolf. Despite the fact that there is no physical or genetical evidence for this, Quite the contrary. As far as I know this "new" theory (it's actually old but got a new costume) is based on the assumption that when feral domestic animals return to their original shape. Of course that is not how evolution works.
inotaishu1 5 months ago
A lie is a mutation of the Truth!
Scientist (secular ones) know how to promote a mutation very welll...
...especially when their research are maintained by companies linked to terrorist financier illuminati
marcelobetel 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marcelobetel ''are maintained by companies linked to terrorist financier illuminati''
Give us a hint, please name one company please.
gregrutz 5 months ago
I didn't see any debunking. I did notice that the first three sections on cosmology, chemical and the origin of life itself were avoided. I Wonder why?
Then we have helacyton gartleri wheeled in as evidence of evolution!!!! Why not use the more common reference of cancer? This is horizontal gene transfer and no new genes are added. As for it being a new species that is still being debated. Typical evolution tripe.
Forceofbubbles 10 months ago
Going off of TheHomelessCripple's comment about the illusion of conciousness.. does anyone think its possible for super fast future quantum computeres to develope a conciousness.. or would the lack of sensory information from the millions upon millions of nerves in biological body make this sort of impossible?
jordanBLP1 1 year ago
What a great video, to bad some moron had to ruin it with his comments
mironyuk 1 year ago
If Non-Living matter cannot undergo evolution, then how did life start?
bownimrod 1 year ago
@bownimrod all matter is non-living. quarks and atoms aren't capable of metabolism or reproduction let alone conscious thought. The only thing that is important for life (and evolution) are, organic molecules and amino-acids and water.
Your consciousness and sense of "being alive" is an illusion created by electro-chemical signals firing neurons in your brain, lighting it up in a firestorm of sensation, and your memory storing and assigning meaning to familiar stimuli and patterns.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
@TheHomelessCripple I like the second part of your comment.. makes your realize how amazing mother nature really is
jordanBLP1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jordanBLP1 thanks :)
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
If in the near future with the LHC we can determine that our notion of reality is simply a vast expanse of vibrations then maybe we can accept the idea that everything we experience was brought into existence through the spoken word of God. (in the beginning was the WORD) . john 1:1 & 1 john 1:1
go2mark 1 year ago
I thought canine domestication was only about 4,000 years old. Or is that only as pets? I know horses WEREN'T domesticated yet, ferrets, 5000 years ago, were the first domesticated pet. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'll check the source at the end (convenient things, sources) when I finish up the vid.
Muchodelcrazy 1 year ago
i'm always amazed at these creationist videos.
If i was in a class room that played something like this, i'd get up and leave.
Nice job with the debunking.
Snoot501 2 years ago
haha we watch a question of origins in my grade 12 bio class, we also watched it in grade 11 bio.....
Soberum 2 years ago
I wouldn't I'd mock it aloud and recite from memory the corrections to these stupid claims that are now burned into my skull from constantly encountering.
Muchodelcrazy 1 year ago
My my, djar67, what are these little numbers on your notes?
Citations? Sources? Such a wild departure from the Creationist method!
FiverBeyond 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Mankind proves its is separate from the animal kingdom by the simple fact that it destroys its own environment on which it depends. This simple yet profound reality is evidence that evolution is a joke. mankind's inherent selfishness will never allow us to overcome our greed and hence deliver ourselves from ultimate self destruction.
Only those who understand this will escape the grand delusion that is coming upon the world and be delivered from catastrophe.
go2mark 2 years ago
that is the dumbest 'argument' Ive read in weeks. How is your nonsense 'evidence' against evolution:
SupremeChimp 2 years ago
its seems to me that mankind has become so proud and arrogant that we are blinded by our own intelligence. (cancer 50 years later by far worse than it ever was is 1 example of our futility). what is more interesting to me is that these same scientists who preach evolution dont even follow its tenets. why bother fighting cancer let nature run its course.
go2mark 2 years ago
I still only have a vague conception of what you are trying to say ... its clearly very very poorly thought out. Only someone so horribly ignorant would make such silly comments.
SupremeChimp 2 years ago
yes and your contribution has been so very enlightening. you are master at mental masturbation, please share some some more of your superior intellect.
go2mark 2 years ago
@go2mark But creationists, who believe the Earth and all the universe was created just for them, and reject all the evidence discovered by hard working scientists, are not being proud and arrogant?
ebullock43 2 years ago
yes they are. and your point is ?
go2mark 2 years ago
My point is obvious. I think most readers get it.
ebullock43 2 years ago
great i am glad we have that clear to everyone.
go2mark 2 years ago
@go2mark: At a minimum, you don't know much about cancer. "Nature running it's own course" with cancer is just about 99% fatal within three years, though there are a few cancers that can develop slowly without symptoms for a long time, like prostate cancer. In the end, they're just about all fatal.
puncheex 1 year ago
Unfortunately, we scientists seem to be stuck with the term "Big Bang", which is very misleading. It was not an explosion, but an expansion of Space-Time. It's probably too late to stop using that term, so the best we can hope for is to educate a few as to what it really means. Too bad some people wont bother to learn what a theory really is before trying to "refute" it.
myodoc42 2 years ago 7
The term was originally coined by Fred Hoyle as a derogatory term as he was advocating a "steady state" universe model.
djarm67 2 years ago
yes expansion of space time makes it so much clearer, ty for clearing that up. and of course you have an explanation of what caused space time to exist ? or should we just assume it did to make it easier for all of us to understand. maybe the back of a turtle theory ?
go2mark 2 years ago
@myodoc42 agreed. most people don't understand what a 'theory' versus hypothesis is. Theories are models that explain underlying observations and evolution theory has not only explained observations, but has predicted countless future observations. Its funny to hear people say 'evolution is just a theory'. Yes, and so is Addition theory which is a part of Math theory. LoL
lasertuber 1 year ago
@myodoc42: Well, a theory has to be called something, and the pithier the better. In the case of the Big Bang, where the necessity of it having occurred is pretty much open-and-shut, but the theory about what it was and how it actually happened is still in the works, its best to leave it be, I think. Hoyle wasn't far off, but his argument that it was a creationist theory, as opposed to steady state, was pretty ironic.
puncheex 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't know you at all, but I bet you want to debunk this documentary's evidence (which has NO FLAW as I find) all boils down to SOME message that goes against your lifestyle, not your "science".
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Quit posting these lies.
You can't debunk Truth.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Different education:
CREATION (Genesis) => Meaning of Life, Standards, Marriage, Laws, Absolute Truth, Absolute Logic, Orphanages, Hospitals, Gospel, God's Word
EVOLUTION => Abortion, School Violence, Communism, Humanism, Nazism, Racism, Rejection of Israel as God's chosen country [since there is no God], Secular Lifestyle, Secular Media, Premarital Sex, Pornography, Homosexual Behavior, Lawlessness, Man's Opinion
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
I see so we are evolving all the time are we?
Into creatures riddled with cancer, spot on.
rua2l 2 years ago
Cancer is more of a side effect of the artificial environment produced by humans' intelligence.
2Cense 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ok, so scientists agree:
1) Evolution is responsible for all species
2) All species always existed as their species, except when they did not
3) Just before they stopped being their species, they were in some transitive phase, like a half-assed bird, which explains why it died.
4) we are still looking for half-assed birds.
5) The fossil records prove our DNA evidence for species that always existed, except that they stopped for reasons mentioned earlier.
6) Mix Macro-and Micro arguments.
colec001 2 years ago
I see here this form
What is this... hmmm half straw, half man... it's some sort of strawman
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
Did you get votebotted? Your videos are great but have low ratings.
JESUSCHRYStLERdaKING 2 years ago 8
Of course they get votebotted. Religious people are dishonest by nature.
morganbath 2 years ago 7
Hey now. We're not all dishonest by nature. :P
Commandment 11 - Thou shalt not votebot.
farsight001 2 years ago
Actually, that would be the 614th commandment, but now I'm just nit-picking.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
For me the utter sleaziness of the creationists prove evolution beyond reasonable doubt!
tonb3rry3 2 years ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm enjoying all these debunkings, but one thing I still dont understand is the logical disconnection that concludes the alternative false dilemma is the Christian God (without a shred of evidence to support their claims except for an axiom with a very unreliable history called the Bible).
Even if creationist succeeded in debunking science (and they havent), there is still no valid reason to believe the God of the Bible created the universe. Debunking science doesnt enhance other alternatives
themanuman 2 years ago 4
I can see alot of your videos have been vote-botted.
TwilightAronXD 2 years ago
"Brainwashed" to believe in evolution. Go figure. Yep, nothing invalidates the opponent's position by stamping it with the words "brainwashing," does it?
CommanderSquidlet 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL! The 1983 Science issue in question used that drawing to get people to buy the magazine! IT'S THE COVER PICTURE!!
Shame, shame, shame on them for propagating something as "science," that has zero basis in true science. It's total deception. But I'm sure they sold a few mags, so I guess it's ok, right? *sigh*
I thought we were dealing with science here?
abigailmiller 2 years ago
*facepalm*
I do not look at the cover of a magazine for science. Sorry. No reasonable person does. Magazines use artists interpretations to sell their magazine. This is well known. Why not actually look at the article itself for science and not the cover of the magazine?
I always enjoy people who try to make a mountain out of a molehill because they have nothing better to offer.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago 18
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Looking4Coffee,
You can spin this any way you want, but the bottom line is that the drawing in Science was deceptive. It was meant to pain a mental image to the reader of a whale "transition," that had ZERO basis in fact. That is deception regardless of the disclaimer.
The disclaimer is misleading. The drawing wasn't taken from a "skull." It was taken from 7 TEETH & three other small skull BONES. It takes a real IMAGINATION to come up with an flippered "transition" from such evidence.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Looking4Coffee: "...You know what it says next to the image. "known only from skull"."
Then the question begs to be answered, why would a "prestigious" science publication like Science publish a drawing that had nothing to do with science & all to do with a complete fabrication of an artist's mind? Furthermore, it is logical to assume that the artist was TOLD by a scientist what the animal "may have looked like." Again, a total fairytale, as the bones in 2001 proved. So much for science.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution is not a science. It is a theory. It does not follow the laws of scientific investigation and does not base its conclusions on the observable evidence. Instead it is just a faith based system, a false religion that relies on faith to support its argument. Everytime you ask a priest from this religion (who preach from their pulpits to the young gullible minds in the universities) to answer a question of where the first pine cone came from they just ignore it and instead call you names.
goodins2020 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This author of this supposed debunking has not proven anything wrong. He is trying to guide others into his own folly. As many have been lead down the road of destruction because instead of using their own intellect to perceive the truth they have chosen to let others lead them. It is the blind leading the blind into the ditch. God says "that the fool says in his heart there is no God "(Ps 14:1). This is because the evidence of intelligent design of the Creator is overwhelming.
goodins2020 2 years ago
Comment removed
goodins2020 2 years ago
This is a typical answer from the ones who don't have an answer. Trying your best to deflect the question. The answer though is very simple and follows any logical train of thought. It came from a Creator God who made it and everything else in the universe. But it is still the only anwer that has any evidence behind it and is logical. It really doesnt show much brain power to argue ones point by name calling. It shows a real imaturity and lack of facts.
goodins2020 2 years ago
These guys who are trying to debunk this video (probably a couple of spun up college kids who have just been indoctrinated by professors teaching there religion of evolution) are blind to the facts because they they have closed minds and are unwilling or unable to see the real evidence that surrounds them in this world. Like were did the first pine cone come from. I don't know of any PHd that has been able to answer that simple question with an answer that is back up with logic, and evidence.
goodins2020 2 years ago
"Like were did the first pine cone come from."
Hmm... the first pine cone? I don't know. Evolution must be wrong, and intelligent design correct by default.
You should thank me in your speech when you pick up your Nobel Prize -- you brainiac, you.
Leehofooks 2 years ago 3
The people who view this debunking need to view another video that I believe is available online called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" by Illustra Media. This so called "debunking" is a joke. No facts to defend against the fallacy evolution from species to species.
goodins2020 2 years ago
Comment removed
goodins2020 2 years ago
This supposed debunking of the " A Question of Origins" video it appears was done not by someone who thinks with logic and reason but obviously one who has a hidden agenda to hide what are the true facts and evidence of evolution ( i.e. there are very few facts that support evolution and it is not a science as many of the priest of the evolution religion dogmatically stat that it is).
goodins2020 2 years ago
I don't know if anyone's mentioned it yet, but it's probably worth pointing out that the DNA molecule pictured at 2:07 is turning in the wrong direction. DNA is a right-handed helix and what's pictured is a left handed helix.
RealityMonitor 2 years ago
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." ---Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University
At least SOME evolutionists are willing to be honest. BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE SCIENCE, BECAUSE TRUE SCIENCE EXAMINES THE EVIDENCE AND TREATS THE RESULTS HONESTLY EVEN IF THEY DON'T LINE UP WITH ONE'S PRECONCEIVED WORLDVIEW.
Evolutionists MUST protect their theory at all costs, regardless of the truth.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
LOL 6:30 calling it like it is
kyebean 2 years ago
Did some quick research. Come to find out that the "neutral mutations" argument is controversial and not accepted by all or even the majority of evolutionists. It's dishonest of you to correct the creationists with a theory that you're claiming is common knowledge, but in reality is not commonly accepted.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
Yes it is. Research better.
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
Sorry, but you're simply wrong. MOST mutations are bad. And even if I give your idea the benefit of the doubt, you need ADVANTAGEOUS mutations for evolution to be true as defined. Such a notion is silly to logical observers. Evolution never happened.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
Then you have clearly misunderstood logic.
A simple google search would prove you wrong. Penicillin resistance, nylon digestion, the recent swine flu human- human transfer... All are NEW mutations, all are advantagous to the organism.
The truth is out there, but yet you refuse to search it.
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
Furthermore, let me remind you that crying "Straw man, Straw man," does not make it so.
The bottom line is that a naturalistic position of matter coming from non-matter (which is against the laws of the universe) & life from non-life (impossible with out a Creator) is the greatest example of self-deception on earth. But hey, admitting a Creator means accountability to Him, and someone bent on unbelieving will buy into ANYTHING to silence their conscience.
"In the beginning GOD created..."
pmiller1967 2 years ago
pmiller1967 go easy on the atheists, will ya? No need to bugger them, as they are fucking themselves.
ZotDudot7 2 years ago
So, G-d broke the laws of the universe?? I mean he poofed some stuff into existence by speaking. Are G-d's words made of matter? If not then G-d made matter from non-matter. Why even bother making universal laws if he were just going to break them? Also I would like to know what evidence you are using by saying that life cannot come form non-life it would drastically change a few fields of science and you should publish a paper on it immediately! Oh and what about viruses, living or not??
sinbien336 2 years ago
Why do you think God has to be bound the laws of the universe when He created it and is obviously outside of it? It makes logical sense that He is not bound the laws he created, nor should he be. He's God.
Define life and then discuss life from non-life. Easy to twist all kinds of probabilities if we're working from two different views.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"Why do you think God has to be bound the laws of the universe when He created it and is obviously outside of it? It makes logical sense that He is not bound the laws he created, nor should he be. He's God."
No it makes logical sense that something occurred that itself is not subject to causality but resulted in a universe which is.
What isn't logical is that all your arguments are based on the assumption that it has to be a conscious, all knowing, all seeing, and all powerful being.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
You say this, but then you hold to an idea that the universe created itself, which flies into the face of the very laws we know exist (like the 1st Law of Thermodynamics).
You tell me which is more logical: looking at the evidence, recognizing the design, and coming to the conclusion that there must have been a Designer, or believing it all created itself, a BELIEF (faith) that has ZERO scientific support? You tell me which one is more logically based on BLIND FAITH. I think it's obvious.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"You say this, but then you hold to an idea that the universe created itself, which flies into the face of the very laws we know exist (like the 1st Law of Thermodynamics). "
So your argument is that because it breaks the laws of thermodynamics that it is ridiculous, and yet you argue that it was designed by a god that itself breaks those very same laws.
So which is it sir, something cannot break the laws of thermodynamics or something can? Your conclusion contradicts your premise.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
500 years from now two men find a watch buried in the sand in South Dakota. Both examine the same evidence, but both come to different conclusions. One says it looks designed, so therefore there must be a designer. The other is convinced, based on his prior education, that the design is just an apparition and concludes it not designed. "It's really not what is APPEARS to be," he says.
What position does logic take and which man has more of the onus on him?
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"What position does logic take and which man has more of the onus on him?"
Logic dictates that a clock is an inorganic object that doesn't undergo any processes resembling those that life is subject to, particularly anything resembling mitosis and meiosis. Therefore the analogy is flawed on a fundamental level. Also it's a straw man as I am not the one that is rejecting all the evidence that has actually been subjected to peer review in favor of something that hasn't AND you IGNORED my argument
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Now sir, which is it? Is it impossible for something to defy the laws of physics and therefore your god is bound by them?
Or is it possible for something to defy the laws of physics?
JebusGeist 2 years ago
You missed the point. I used a watch to demonstrate DESIGN. The issue is not organic or inorganic. There is PLENTY of obvious design in life, and some of man's greatest inventions resemble organic design (like sonar). The issue is that there are parts of the evidence that MUST be ignored from an evolutionary worldview. That's intellectual dishonesty. Watch the DVD Expelled by Ben Stein & be educated.
The peer review argument is bogus. It's an exclusive "club" run by evolutionists.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"You missed the point. I used a watch to demonstrate DESIGN. The issue is not organic or inorganic. There is PLENTY of obvious design in life, "
No YOU miss the point that so far you have made arguments which consist of things I've already heard, already investigated, and already identified the various fallacies inherent within them.
Which is why when you use such an overused one like that I can point out why it's not logically valid in short order and then watch you ignore that fact.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Yes, I'm sure in your 25 years of life you've thoroughly exposed all there is to know about the faults of creationism, and, within the same limited amount of educational time you have proven the great & grand merits of Darwinian evolution. I'm sure you'd put to shame all those "pretend" scientists on the creation side, right? (sigh.)
Look, I don't mean to call you an idiot, for I don't believe you are. But I get tired of the arrogance. It's all to obvious. Post your learning if you dare.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"Yes, I'm sure in your 25 years of life you've thoroughly exposed all there is to know about the faults of creationism, and, within the same limited amount of educational time you have proven the great & grand merits of Darwinian evolution. I'm sure you'd put to shame all those "pretend" scientists on the creation side, right? (sigh.)"
I'm 25 and therefore everything I say is rendered invalid and unsound? At least in my 25 years I learned what "ad hominem" means...
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Who said "EVERYTHING you say is invalid and unsound"? You've put words in my mouth, which I never even implied.
There is no personal attack on you other than your arrogance in basically claiming to have exhausted the issue. Man, you're only 25! You should have the common sense & humility to recognize that a lot of what you perceive about life may be wrong.
Yes, at 25 you may have some things to say. No one will take that from you. But your part is to remember that you're still ONLY 25.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"There is no personal attack on you other than your arrogance in basically claiming to have exhausted the issue. Man, you're only 25! You should have the common sense & humility to recognize that a lot of what you perceive about life may be wrong."
Please go on, get it all out, every last criticism you can make based on my age. Be as creative about it as you like, unfortunately it does absolutely nothing to advance your position and everything to garner you disrespect.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
LOL. You're right, we should all consider you omnipotent at 25 years old. Oh, the misguided zeal of youth! Do you even read what I said? You have a martyr complex, but you can't get that from my comments. Nice try, though.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"Look, I don't mean to call you an idiot, for I don't believe you are. But I get tired of the arrogance. It's all to obvious. Post your learning if you dare."
My arrogance is obvious? So far you've suggested I'm too stupid to not be confused by a detailed definition of "new information" and that my age indicates that I don't know what I am talking about.
Then you suggest I am the truly arrogant one?
You and your bait bag of fallacious rhetoric can go find someone else to try and hook.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
I've said nor implied NO such things and you can't even begin to prove otherwise. I even clearly said that I didn't think you an idiot. But that's how you've taken it, unfortunately.
I asked you to post your learning. Do you have a science degree? a Ph. D.?
pmiller1967 2 years ago
Perhaps I have a degree, perhaps I don't. Would you have any method of confirming or denying any claim of academic achievement that I make?
Also, what's the purpose in this line of questioning? What exactly is it your suggesting that knowledge of my post secondary education will indicate?
That I am somehow more credible? That what I say is somehow more valid than if the same thing were being said by someone lacking those degrees?
Or what?
JebusGeist 2 years ago
I'm simply trying to point out that there are thousands of brilliant scientists who absolutely disagree with you & your position. Your claim that you've thoroughly studied the issue and exposed all the fallacies of creationism. But in so doing, you also condemn the work of some very qualified scientists, and pretend to know more than they do.
I just wanted to see if you at least have a degree in science before you propose to challenge those who do. I think your comments provided the answer.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"I'm simply trying to point out that there are thousands of brilliant scientists who absolutely disagree with you & your position."
And tens of thousands more who not only agree with my position, but demonstrate time and again that those who agree with yours have yet to produce a single piece of irrefutable evidence, and very rarely stop using arguments which have already been refuted.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Also sir, my answer neither indicated that I have nor indicated that I lack a post secondary education.
Your reason for questioning my credentials as stated "I just wanted to see if you at least have a degree in science before you propose to challenge those who do." is rather funny considering that I doubt that you have a degree in evolutionary biology yourself, nor did I care if you did or not until you made such a hypocritical statement as that.
it seems veiled insult is your speciality.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
I never claimed to have a degree in science. I also said that I was not a scientist. But I posted plenty of searchable articles from very qualified scientists. How many did you read?
pmiller1967 2 years ago
You mean "choose to ignore the evidence." That's more accurate.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"You mean "choose to ignore the evidence." That's more accurate. "
No logically refute the evidence (which oft takes the form of an argument lacking any testable predictions and thus not open to proper falsification in the first place), the act of ignorance comes on the part of those who would choose not to respond to the critique of their argument and instead continue to repeat it as if no one will notice, or worse, refuses to voluntarily receive and address critique in the first place.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
I find it funny that "irrefutable evidence" depends on which side of the fence you're on.
Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. If you took anything I said to be offensive, I apologize. It was never intended to be. Just good, hearty debate.
BTW, I'm 42--a long way from 25. I don't put down your age. I see it for what it is. I simply ask you to keep your options open. For sooner than later God will put you in a life situation that he desires will draw you to him.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"I find it funny that "irrefutable evidence" depends on which side of the fence you're on."
And yet still depends on a lack of valid/sound refutation to be true, tho perhaps irrefutable is a strong word, rather not as yet refutable, or as yet unrefuted. So no, it does not depend on "which side of the fence you're on."
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"BTW, I'm 42--a long way from 25. I don't put down your age. I see it for what it is."
It's what you are suggesting it is that is necessarily a putdown.
I know people 10 years my junior who already have a far superior grasp of x86 pc architecture than I do, despite my having the greater amount of hands-on experience. Knowledge and intelligence are not dependent on emotional maturity nor are they dependent on long term experience.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
But both experience and maturity play into the big picture, and you won't understand that until your 20 years older than you are now. I'm not implying that all 40 year olds are wise and mature. Many are not. But when one is then someone his minor should give him respect and attention. But our day is not a day of respect and humility is it? Everyone has the funny idea that somehow their ideas and lifestyles have value just because they choose them to label them as such. That's not so.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"But both experience and maturity play into the big picture, and you won't understand that until your 20 years older than you are now. I'm not implying that all 40 year olds are wise and mature."
The implication being that I should take you on your word that you are one rather than basing my evaluation on your arguments and demeanor?
I am sorry sir, knowledge and intellect, and a grasp of fact are not dependent on long term life experience because all three are NOT SUBJECTIVE.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Scratch that, knoweldge can be subjective, however establishing that what someone knows to be true is in fact true requires arguments based on objective observation.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
oh well, I will leave off with saying that I do not argue that god is an impossibility or even necessarily an improbability. What I do argue is that there has not been any objective evidence provided which either establishes the that a god is extant or isn't extant.
Nor any objective method of determining what the characteristics of that god are if it exists.
Therefore there is no objective reason to think that that god wouldn't create a universer that is self-determining.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
The bible tells me so is not sufficient I have a book that tells me all about why I should believe in the olympian god's and despite the fact they have fallen out of favor they still have just as much evidence for their existence as the god you say exists does. Which is to say there is plenty of subjective arguments to establish their existence but a persistent lack of objective ones.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Well, all I can say is that when you're 42 I hope you'll say, "You know, that guy on YouTube all those years ago had a point." You can't understand what I'm trying to say any more than I could understand someone who is 62 saying the same things to me.
Stiff things break when they are shaken. All I'm saying to you is have the humility and maturity now to be open minded, otherwise when the trials of life come in like a flood, and they will, then you'll be able to bend and not break.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"You can't understand what I'm trying to say any more than I could understand someone who is 62 saying the same things to me. "
Again, are you asserting that this knowledge can only be obtained by living a specific amount of time? So anyone that agrees with you but is younger than you is lying if they say they understand it? That's the logical extension of you assertion, that anyone younger than you is incapable of having the same understanding of the subject as you.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
I'm implying no such thing, nor do I believe anything like you've claimed. But it is true that older people, in general, have a greater understanding of how life works--good and bad--than those younger.
There is a BIG difference between book knowledge and experience, and some experiences can only be learned by age. That's just reality, so it's silly to argue this issue any longer.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
One last question before we end this clearly futile exchange.
You assert that sooner rather than later god will put me in a life situration that he desires will draw me to him.
So should this life situation never occur and I pass away without any attempt by god to draw me to him, would it then be God's fault that I did not believe in him because he chose not to reveal himself to me as you seem to be suggesting he has done to you?
Would it be fair that he reveals himself to you and not me?
JebusGeist 2 years ago
If it panned out as you state, then you'd have a valid argument. But the god you describe is not the God of the Bible. Jesus Christ, who is God, died for ALL humans, including you. It makes sense that if He is your Creator that He would care for your well-being. But, he also gives you a free will to choose and he will never violate that free will. If you stand condemned and hell-bound before God some day it won't be his fault. You're being warned right now.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
Oh yes, I am being warned.
Warned that god loves me so much that if I fail him, he will condemn me to pain and suffering for all of eternity.
The reason I do not speak of the god of the bible is because that particular brand of god is fraught with far more contradictions than just the concept of there being a god is on its own. Or because the followers of the various abrahamic religions all use the exact same arguments for why their's is the RIGHT one.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with the god you are describing. The God is know is nothing like you describe. Where do you get the ideas about the god you're talking about? What source, I mean?
I wouldn't give you two cents for followers of a religion they didn't believe was right. Otherwise, why are they following that particular religion? It's nonsensical. EVERY religion, "Abrahamic" or not, believes they have exclusive truth. Even the religion of secular humanism.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
LOL! Well, I made it to 2:57 before I had to stop. I'd sure love to see you debate any of the men on the Origins video. Your "Straw Man #1" provides just the information we need to reject the theory you cling to. For evolution to be true you must have ADVANTAGEOUS mutations. If what you're saying is true (which I don't think it is) and they are neutral, then evolution never happened.
Evolution is a lie & a fairy-tale for the intellectual fools who reject the obvious evidence for a Creator.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
*facepalm*
Mutations have no prevoius agenda, no intent, no goal in their existance. Be it from gamma rays to DDT, it's a change in the DNA. RANDOM. Uncontrollable. 9 out of 10 cases it's bad or neutral, but sometimes it's beneficial for the organism.
What is the "advancing" agent is the natural selection. Oganisms with advantageous mutations will have a better life and give more offspring than those without. What defines an advantageous mutation is the environment.
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
So you're putting all your faith (that's what it is) in 10% bad mutations to explain the origin of complex life? Are you serious?
Sorry, but there is zero scientific evidence that natural selection "advances" anything. It never has and never will. To "advance" you need NEW INFORMATION, and natural selection, nor any other mechanism, does that. Yet it's absolutely required for a Darwinian worldview. You walk in blind faith, friend.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"To "advance" you need NEW INFORMATION"
Define new information please.
If you define it as a novel gene then this has been observed (Culex p. molestus presents a wonderful example).
If you define it as an increase in the total amount of information in the genome well then. EUREKA POLYPLOIDY is but one of the observed processes that result in that very thing.
Or perhaps it is something else. Please do give us the definitive description of what would constitute "new information."
JebusGeist 2 years ago
I won't make it that complicated (it tends to confuse those who may be swayed away from common sense by big terms). If you want to get a WHALE from a WOLF, you need the mutations, and natural selection, to provide all the intermediate steps from wolf to whale. New "whale" information is needed which wasn't previously there. That, sir, has NEVER, ever been observed in any living thing. It's not science. It's belief. It's total faith.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
Please, define to me "information". Is it the length (or extension thereof) of the DNA? Is it the replacement of junk DNA with useful DNA?
Both cases HAS been observed. Insertion mutations are well documented, as are new genes occuring. Take for instance nylon digesting bacteriae. They cannot possibly have survived pre-1930, and yet they exist (and thrive).
If that does not qualify as "new information", the digenstion of nylon, please give an example of what will.
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
Thank you for not only refusing to give a definitive description of what "new information" means, but also for suggesting in your excuse that it was because your readers might be too stupid to understand it
You need mutations, yes, novel mutations in organisms have been observed. For example novel genes for pesticide resistance in Culex P. Molestus.varieties, two varieties of bacteria that have mutated two different genes for digesting nylon (one in the wild one in a lab), and many others.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Now i'll give you an example of how you could properly falsify the claim that those mutations can accumulate over time until the particular animal has little resemblance to the ancestral species and is genetically incompatible to mate with them and produce both viable and fertile offspring.
That example is:
Find, document, and explain the mechanism which prevents the genome from accumulating mutations over time, or prevents the species specific genes from mutating and submit it for peer review.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Mutations eliminate traits, they don't produce new features (like for feathers before they existed). They are not the answer to the necessary addition of new genetic instructions, which are necessary for the evolutionary model to be true.
The issue is not stupid readers, but a worldview called evolution that refuses to look at ALL the evidence honestly. Remember, the issue is not new traits, but new information. That has NEVER been observed in science. It's all faith.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"Mutations eliminate traits, they don't produce new features (like for feathers before they existed). "
Culex P. Molestus has genes for pesticide resistance.
The gene sequences for that pesticide resistance have never been observed in the ancestral Culex P. Pipiens populations.
That means it's both NEW information and produced a NEW trait, not eliminated one.
Your continued insistence that it never happens illustrates that you likely do not properly investigate the examples being given.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
How do you KNOW it's new information and that it wasn't already built into the genetic code? In the end, no matter what you claim, they will ALWAYS be mosquitoes & nothing more. And if this small, grasping-for-anything-you-can-find example is your "proof," I'm sorry, but I'm not sold. If Darwin was right then examples should abound everywhere, but they don't.
An evolutionary worldview requires new genetic information on a very GRAND scale, for which there is no evidence.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"How do you KNOW it's new information and that it wasn't already built into the genetic code? "
BECAUSE WE HAVE THE PARENT POPULATION THAT THEY WERE OBSERVED TO HAVE BRANCHED OFF FROM. THE PARENT POPULATION LACKS THAT PARTICULAR SEQUENCE OF GENES, IT HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED TO HAVE IT. IT ONLY APPEARED IN THE OFFSHOOT SPECIES. YOU WOULD KNOW THIS IF YOU ACTUALLY EVEN :LOOKED UP MY EXAMPLES.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"In the end, no matter what you claim, they will ALWAYS be mosquitoes & nothing more. "
Thank you for establishing that no matter what happens, you will find some way of moving the goal posts so that you never have to even consider the evidence being provided.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"And if this small, grasping-for-anything-you-can- find example is your "proof," I'm sorry, but I'm not sold."
If you had even once bothered to look up whats being discussed outside of creationist websites notorious for misinformation, you would realize that the examples being given here just scratch the surface of the body of evidence, not represent it's entirety.
Go to pubmed and look up evolution, rather than relying on websites that NEVER print a retraction upon being refuted.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
You're kidding, right?
Have you ever read evolutionary GENETICIST Richard Lewontin's famous comments which illustrates the philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of what the evidence says?
Here is part of his statement: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs..."
You can Google the rest. Do you claim him to be in error? How so?
The issue is not goal posts, but a willingness to be honest with the evidence.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
Here is part of his statement: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs..."
Context please, I need context, or should I just go look it up on Collapse of a Texas Quote Mine? I am almost positive that's one of the many statements included in their list of statements purposefully quoted out of context in order to misrepresent what was actually being said. So please, CONTEXT, whats the name of thew article in what publication that the quote is from?
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997.
Feel free to look it up yourself.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
I am reading the article right now, I will admit that i jumped ahead and read the relevant paragraph as well as the one just prior and just after. Now I am reading the entire article in order to garner a complete understanding of the context as from those two paragraphs alone I have already gotten the impression that what you intended for me to garner from it is not what the author intended.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
I'm all for context, but some statements stand alone. Lewontin's is one of those statements. But I can see why what he said would make you uncomfortable. But is he right or insane?
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"'m all for context, but some statements stand alone. Lewontin's is one of those statements."
My turn to use mildly insulting statements.
I can see why that statement actually having direct relation to the context it was being used in would make you uncomfortable.
Especially so when it makes it clear that it's not meant as a rejection of scientific methodology but rather an explanation of the difficulties and failings in disseminating scientific knowledge to those unfamiliar with its basis.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Say what you want, but when a person says, "...because we 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..." those words stand on their own. I really don't see the so-called "explanation" you claim to see.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
Question:
Do you know what scientific materialism is?
Do you understand that anything that happens in the universe is considered material? So if an immaterial god had an effect on the universe then that effect would be observed and there would be no material cause that could be found for it.
(continued)
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Read the example of "Newton's Ploy." In this example the scientist does what materialism forbids doing and we find out exactly why it is a bad idea to do it.
Newton find's a hole in his theory, an element he does not understand, and concludes that it must be the result of God directly intervening on the universe's affairs.
Later the mechanism that Newton was missing to (continued)
JebusGeist 2 years ago
explain the systems balance was explained. The stop-gap answer of direct intervention did nothing to encourage others to keep looking for that mechanism and if simply accepted as a given would have hindered us from improving upon our model of gravity. No improvements to the accuracy of the model were observed when direct intervention was the explanation.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
That is why scientific materialism has nothing to say about the supernatural and is not given to accept a supernatural explanation. It was seen as having both a negative impact on the public perception of science to first make claims about what god does, and then to disprove that claim by finding a natural cause, and a negative impact on the progressive improvement of our understanding of the universe.
(continued)
JebusGeist 2 years ago
"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, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated"
What do you think is being referred to by uninitiated when you read the quote without context?
(continued)
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Because when you read the rest of the article it becomes clear that he is referring to those who lack a working knowledge of the process that lead to those theories They lack an understanding of the more complex details and therefore are mystified by the theories being presented, and by the methodology of scientific materialism. He even explains that the same difficulty is found in exchanges of information between specialist fields where both parties lack that knowledge in the others field.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
What would you expect to observe if there was a Creator?
As for a material cause, no such thing has been truly found. It's all guesswork, which is believed as fact (unfortunately) by millions of people who don't take the time to think it through. Getting matter from nothing scientifically is virtually impossible, especially when one considers that it goes against an established law of the universe. According to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics matter can't be created or destroyed.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
And we come back to this again. The claim that the beginning of the universe could not be random or out of nothing because the laws of the universe itself say that does not happen. The argument that overlooks several things. First that you are claiming right now that something exists that had no beginning and is not subject to the laws of the universe and that you have some special miraculous knowledge of its characteristics.
(continued)
JebusGeist 2 years ago
You are saying that what caused the universe exists separately from it, is not subject to its laws, and has all the characteristics of what you call "God."
But you are also saying that any other cause that is suggested which is separate from the universe which is not described as sharing these characteristics you are convinced it should have is suddenly subject to those laws.
(continued)
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Finally, the classical model of physics breaks down in the first fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second of the universe. The laws we observed and explained with scientific materialism(something you appear to condemn until it says something you feel supports your conclusion) don't seem to work properly, that's why we have theoretical physics like quantum mechanics to try and explain how things worked in the first modicum of time.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Now as we are back once again to you trying to establish that there is some event that caused the universe to exists and then declare that that cause absolutely must have all the characteristics of the particular god you believe in or else it defies the laws of physics that those characteristics themselves defy, I think perhaps its best to leave off here. I tend to end an argument when it makes it all the way back to its beginning as it shows there has been no progress made either way.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
I think it's obvious that some event caused the universe to exist. My worldview, based on years of study & research, has led me to conclude that a Creator--& specifically the God of the Bible--made the universe & all life. I also believe the evidence we all have available to us confirms this worldview.
You believe that the "beginning" came about by itself. But you have no real science to back it up, because universal laws forbid it. So you live by faith, too. Time will tell who's right.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"You believe that the "beginning" came about by itself"
And since you haven't given any explanation for how that God came about, therefore you must think that god came about by itself. Which breaks the universal laws you keep telling me any answer I give must inherently obey.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
I don't need to give an explanation. It's not possible. But I don't have a problem with faith. It's an aspect of my belief. The Bible itself doesn't attempt to prove God. It simply states it as fact. The choice to believe lies with the reader. I choose to believe, & I also believe that the Bible has been backed by history & archeology.
But faith is not an option for you (although it IS faith). So if you're going to claim as fact the "Big Bang" you must prove it without the Supernatural.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"The Bible itself doesn't attempt to prove God. It simply states it as fact. "
And that is why it is faith and science is not.
Your book says "this is a fact" and doesn't attempt to prove it by providing empirical evidence.
When science says "this is a fact" they make the effort to establish why it considered a fact, what evidence supports it. And if none if found, or evidence contrary to that claim is found, it is discarded.
Faith says to flat out reject contrary evidence, science doesn't.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Which by the way is exactly why the current model of evolution is not the same model that Darwin built. Evidence was found that contradicted some of it's hypotheses, which required those hypotheses be discarded and if possible new ones be formed which account for that new evidence as well.
Evolution itself is built on 2 core hypotheses with many many peripheral hypotheses. Those 2 are mutation and natural selection. The evidence has yet to contradict them, only support.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Whereas peripheral hypotheses such as Darwin's hypotheses about what the smallest unit of life was made of did not stand up to the evidence. Sure we found the smallest unit of life, but it bears little resemblance to what he described, so we have discarded that hypothesis and formed a new one which explains the evidence and continues to be testable and is therefore open to being verified or falsified as new evidence comes to light.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
But even with quantum physics there is no CERTAINTY to the conclusions. There were no observers. So in the end, BOTH worldviews rely on faith, not science. You have to admit this as uncomfortable as it may seem.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"You have to admit this as uncomfortable as it may seem."
No I don't as it appears you are saying that since no one can go back in time and directly observe the events that no one can with any degree of certainty say what has happened. This would only be true if there was absolutely no such thing as indirect observation or mathematical proofs.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
So in being consistent with what you've said you don't believe the Big Bang is a fact, right? And you have to also admit that those who do teach and believe it as fact ultimately do so by faith. Because, as you said, there's no way to know for sure.
So you're willing to admit that an element of faith is involved in a materialistic worldview?
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"So in being consistent with what you've said you don't believe the Big Bang is a fact, right? "
Except that the big bang theory is about universal expansion and therefore wasn't what I was talking about.
You have to go to quantum mechanics to find theories on that and they rely on mathematical proofs as evidence, as well as testing predictions that can be made using that theory.
For instance the big bang model predicted cosmic background radiation, and then we found that radiation.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Quantum Mechanics predicted Bose-Einstein condensates prior to one being formed in a lab and predicted some of its properties.
The ability to create a prediction based on the model you have created which is testable and therefore can be verified is important because if it tests true it is evidence that the model has a useful degree of accuracy. If it's predictions fall through that helps identify and eliminate inaccuracies.
Can you provide mathematical proofs for god? Testable predictions?
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Hey, I know a way to test if the "Big Bang" happened. Just blow up a printing shop & see if, after the dust settles, you find a complete dictionary. Or, drop all the supplies needed to build a house from Pluto (I'm giving you TIME, which is the hero, right?), and see if the house is complete at the bottom. Show me order and design from explosions & I'll believe it.
You should watch on YouTube: "Who Designed the Designer?: a response to Richard Dawkins." Dr. Craig is an excellent apologist.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"Hey, I know a way to test if the "Big Bang" happened."
No you don't as you appear to have confused the expansion of space for being exactly the same as a combustion reaction. Your second suggestion is even more better for attempting to replace physics and complex chemistry with a prefab house.
What part of the house is the analogue for subatomic particles? Where is the analog for chemical reactions? For gravity? For fusion?
You are rejecting a theory based on your inability to understand it.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
This conversation is futile, you rarely even so much as acknowledge when I've asked you a question and seemingly ignore it when I answer yours and haven't agreed with you in doing so.
Oh and as for explosions producing something that is ordered? You do realize that explosions are chemical reactions and that chemical reactions can form stable compounds that are different from those that were in the fuel being consumed right?
They sure do tend to attach freed carbon atoms to two oxygen atoms.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Correction, some explosions are chemical reactions, not all. You can also generate what can be referred to as an explosion by rapidly decompressing a highly compressed substance.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
Of course, the question then jumps up as big as the universe: where did the chemicals come from? Of, if you don't need them as you imply here, where did the substance come from? Something from nothing is a big, big problem if you take out the Supernatural.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
We're not talking about explosions forming so-called stable compounds. We are talking about it forming order and amazing complexity. Debris from explosions all turn the same way. Yet, you have some planets during the opposite way of others, and some moons orbiting the opposite way from their planets. I could go on and on and on. Do you want to even touch the mathematical probabilities of earth being where it is to sustain life? It's pretty much zero. It has to be created, like it or not.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
"Debris from explosions all turn the same way. Yet, you have some planets during the opposite way of others, and some moons orbiting the opposite way from their planets. I could go on and on and on."
Yes and like those arguments there I could go on and on with the already existing refutations of them that you've likely already seen and chosen to ignore.
This is futile.
Science leaves declaring the unexplained as being caused by the supernatural to the theologists for reasons I have explained.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
I have no wish to continue this argument, and will not do so. Neither of us has been able to effectively gain any ground in the others mind and there appears to be very little hope that that will change.
Have yourself a good day/week/month/year/existence.
JebusGeist 2 years ago
And in the end of this debate where are we left? We could go on ad nauseum posting our "proofs."
One thing I do know is this: if you are right & there is no God, then we'll just die & that's the end. BUT, if the Bible is right & there is a God & you refuse to get right with him before you take your last breath, the consequences will be ETERNAL damnation. I don't wish that on you or anyone else. Bottom line: your eternity rests on the certainty of your beliefs. You better be right.
pmiller1967 2 years ago