@adman123 ""I reject absolute certainty across the board."
That's humor."
Actually, I think you are mistaking the concept of "certainty" with "across the board". The concept "across the board" simply means " in all circumstances" or "always" whereas "certainty" means a firm conviction with regards to veracity.
If the christian god, or any god, exists one would expect to see direct evidence, but there is none. Behe had the opportunity to make his case for ID at the Dover trial, and failed miserably. ID supporters want to redefine the rules of science to include the "supernatural" because actual science doesn't support any of their claims. The "Wedge Document" is the smoking gun that proves that the goal of ID advocates is to replace science with religious dogma, knowledge with ignorance.
I love when morons try to jumble a lot of science vocab together to try & mimic intellect. If you try this hard at deception ( which takes some smarts ), why not go ahead and to the real research and critically think. Stop the madness, in lame man's term, using a lot of big words do not make you smart, especially when you don't even really know what they ( the words ) mean. This only works when you talk to stupid people.LMAO..he is making me laugh so hard with this word deception dance.
I think a lot of the problem here is that humans took most of their designs from nature, which had already come up with a lot of great mechanisms on its own.
So because we designed based on the workings of nature, we assume that nature looks designed.
True. That, and without an explanation for how the world could become so complex (evolution), some people would use an argument from ignorance to claim it is impossible.
When I have children, if the school ever tries to teach them the theory of "intelligent design" I will march right over there and embarass the hell out of the teacher in front of the whole class.
A bird functions kinda like a plane, so then a bird was intelligently designed? A brain works like a computer, so it's designed? A flagellum functions like a motor, design? You could make anything and compare it to something in nature. They would like to say that God designed everything (unfalsifiable) but don't claim this because they are dishonest and want to give the appearance of being open minded. Design can be identified because we can compare it to what's in nature (not designed). Duh.
@kakureru I don't think he's all that smart, onehe allowed the glasses to bypass all the logic when he was looking up the jargon needed to try & trick people with word play. I don't even think he tried to understand the arguement from both side. He set out to find things to prove what he wanted to believe rather than actually reveiwing evidence that's clearly out there for him. He's a fraud. Most con artist are a little smarter than most, which is not that hard in this society.
irreducible complexity yet again. michael behe is a dumbass. when will people stop regurgitating his crap. his own university (Lehigh) issued a statement to disown him.
"It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific." read the whole quote, it's devastating.
OK- This guy's entire point is that nothing can look "designed" without being created by an intelligent entity. Because if he admits that it is possible for things to appear designed without having actually been designed, the cards fall. Why did he need 1000 quotes to assert that things that look designed must be designed?
When will christian creationists learn that intelligent design is NOT a case for Jesus Christ, God or the Bible. It may be a case for what we would call a "god" but it leaves every other religion as well as none of them as possible conclusions. Christian creationists go from a smart SOUNDING arguement to "Read this book of bullshit, kids."
Here's the bottom line: You don't have to "believe" in evolution to be an atheist. You don't have to be a scientist, or to even understand science, to be an atheist. And here's some common sense: IF there is a creator of this vast, incredibly massive universe, it was very definitely NOT created by the tiny narcissistic, ignorant, hateful, war loving, child killing, genocidal psychotic maniac called Yahweh/Jesus you find in the the Bible. Earthlings discovering god? That's too fucking funny!
"Motor" and "language" are metaphors that scientists occasionally use to illuminate what they are saying. The caller's calling DNA and biological cells a literal language/machine is laughably ignorant.
when they say no time existed before the big bang... they don't mean that literally per se , it just means that they don't know whats b4 that point and saying time just is a moot point so they don't acknowledge it bc thats a positive claim about thee unknown.
If the definition of iredusable complexity is, that a system with one part missing couldn't work in the way it does now (and not that the other parts wouldn't work as something else) than irredusable complexity would also be an argument for evolution... therefore making it completly useless for that argument.
Damn right. The whole intelligent design AND fine tuning arguments are clearly ridiculous- we can see a universe of billions and billions of light years across and we know of 1 single planet with life on it. If we were the only planet in existence, they might have a point. In reality, it just looks like a cosmic accident.
While I agree with the veiws of the hosts, this is the forst time I have seen THEM fuel a hostile exchange. I am disapointed.
While the caller is wrong, he was presenting cited arguments in a calm manner and should have been regarded in kind.
Bill Gates for example, the idea of veiwing DNA as similar to computer code IS a viable source, it can be easily countered but he was using a correct source, a computere expert for a programing reference
IC is unfalsifiable because you can't know when something is IC. Search for a post called "The Problem with Irreducibly Complexity" on the Good Math Bad Math blog.
@LBromoHojo Behe´s IC isn´t unfalsifiable, its just completely meaningless. Functions change all the time and so there is no point in saying something is IC. Its an arbitrary distinction that cannot be justified. This doesn´t mean there aren´t any unfalsifiable definitions of IC, but his isn´t one of them. In his terminology the flagellum is still IC, even though its no problem for evolution, because if you take a part away, it no longer maintains its function as a motor. Falsifiable but useless
@sharkjack The what definition of IC is falsifiable? I have yet to hear one that is and even if they produce one, they still need to test it before it is acceptable science. In all the years they have kept using this bs argument they have yet to produce evidence to support their claims like actual science does.
@vnorthru You can show something to be irreducibly complex (according to Behe's definition) by showing that if you take away one part it loses its current function. This is true for the bacterial flagellum and loads of other things. This is testable. You can demonstrate that the flagellum loses its ability to move the bacteria if you take out one of the proteins its made up of. IC is useless for ID because current function is a meaningless concept in evolution.
@sharkjack You have a point, if you keep to that strict definition of IC it's falsifiable, but also it's completely useless. I have yet to hear any definition of IC that would make it useful to ID that is falsifiable. ID is pseudoscience and complete bullshit.
If we're FORCED to accept ID as a truth, will we have to accept the possibility of aliens, time travelers or time traveling aliens as well? I’m afraid so. Because these are examples intelligent designers or possible intelligent designers. (We are experimenting on recreating the big bang and we are experimenting on time travel. So it is possible we have already found the answers to these dilemmas and have already created the universe ourselves). Let’s fling this crap at the monkeys. toodles
It's hard for people to think of their own convictions as unreasoned or unreasonable. I sometimes catch myself in arguing a position that I realise I might not be able to support.
@TheAtheistExperience no its one of stephen Hawkings theories, and I'm sure I corrected band to bang, but whatever maybe youtube dident update it or something.
@MrNerdyBrit ofcourse time did exsist it always has its not possible for it to not have exsisted before the big bang because how would the big bang have even came to happen. Maybe clocks did not exsist but time did.
If all mass of the universe would be located at one point with no room, time would be "bended" (don't know the exact english term for it) so much that it would seem it doesn't exist.
Not at all, plenty of physicists think time might have came into being at the big bang. You have to realise that these areas of physics are deeply theoretical and counter-intuitive. Saying "it doesn't make sense" just isn't a valid argument. Why would the big bang have to have been caused by something "before"? Also, there's the possibility there was some other type of causal chain that lead to the big bang (that was completely different from what we call "time").
@GodTheHypothesis Its not possible for there to have not been any time as no series or chain of events could take place if there was nothing exsisting and no time. What would make this happen? If anything made anything happen it would require time and things exsisting before the big bang.
You can't just decide what's possible or not. Before quantum theory was developed, most people would've said it was impossible for a particle to be in 2 places at once. We're limited by human intuition in these matters. As I said, there could have been a different kind of time (i.e not described by our current laws) before the big bang and then our current spacetime came into being from that previous existence. Well sometimes things do just happen- virtual particles for one.
By the caller's definition, then the caller is right since his definition is rather loose. There exists things that are partially designed since we have already made changes in labs where we replace parts of genes in bacterial and rats for experimental purposes. If it's only a matter of degree, anything we do to change genes is ID.
Why was this guy given so much airtime? The first quote shows that ID obviously isn't scientific, the second is one of Behe's self-pwning statements. Pathetic (the caller's argument, that is).
4. He somewhat listens to what the hosts say and sort of responds
5. He is willing to not jump from point a to c to z and back to b to avoid being cornered
Finding a person with even the first two qualities is rare on this show. Besides he represented the beliefs of quite a lot of christians fairly well so it also demonstrates atheist can have civil debates about these issues to other christians.
@sharkjack I won't argue with you on that. That said, one could have simply pointed out the above points in my post and possibly shortened the debate greatly, leaving time for other questions.
Isn't asking 'What is complex?' in nature, a bit like asking 'what is big?' on a universal scale.. The Earth is big, but it's small compared to the Sun, and the Sun is nothing compared to the Milky Way, and the.. etc.
Complexity/simplicity is not something inherent in reality. Complexity/simplicity is only in mental processing. Typing is very simple for me. When I was 3, typing was very complex to me. The keyboard is exactly the same, English is the same, the letters are the same, etc. The simplicity or complexity WAS NOT in reality, it was in my mental process of reality. (I can still remember FEELING it must be impossible to type fluently, even seeing others do it. And my feeling was wrong.)
i like how when he said he wanted to make a case for intelligent design, they didn't scoff at him but said "okay" in a nice way. this is how we need to act in order for people to listen to us - positive, pleasant, and polite.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even inheriting a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
“VESTIGIAL” A USELESS ARGUMENT: At one time dozens of structures in the human body were considered vestigial until our knowledge about them increased and we realized they weren’t vestigial, after all. It’s now been published that so-called “Junk DNA” isn’t junk, after all. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). Read my article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations that have survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
DEBATE IS NOT OVER. In Darwin's time not enough science was known to refute macro-evolution. There was no understanding of genetics. Darwin thought the cell was just a simple glob. No one knew about DNA, RNA, proteins. Modern evolutionists now know, but the theory is entrenched as gospel and a lot of personal motives are at stake as well. Just saying that something evolved doesn't make it so! Read my article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature can only work with the "cards" it has. Nature is not a genetic engineer! It can't invent new genes. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NOT EVEN ALL EVOLUTIONISTS agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creatures. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with fins evolving into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even inheriting a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
@Mogley52 all your messages have been marked as spam but if you aren't some copy+paste advertising bot I'd be happy to talk about where you went wrong with all of these points (for example, apes are comfortable how they walk where they live, around trees, but as grasslands evolved a few million years ago population on the edge of the forests would exploit new food sources in the new flat habitat, where their posture is no longer ideal)
“VESTIGIAL” A USELESS ARGUMENT: At one time dozens of structures in the human body were considered vestigial until our knowledge about them increased and we realized they weren’t vestigial, after all. It’s now been published that so-called “Junk DNA” isn’t junk, after all. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). Read my article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
@pochopaz7381 "No one knows". So true. We, collectively, only know what we "know" and we don't know what we "don't know". There should be concern amongst the shrewdest of scientists to assert that what we know is all that can be known. Would you not agree? I mean I know that I was born on a certain day because there is a recorded fact in the form of a birth certificate and public record, however when I die, I don't know what happens to me. more...
If biological functions can't change according to Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument, all living things would look like a flagellum today. All ID supporters are morons.
All arguments for ID essentially boil down to a "god of the gaps" argument. They can't figure out how a cell came to produce a certain protein, therefore god done it. They can't imagine a bacterium evolving a flagellum, therefore gone done it. 4 centuries ago theists said the same thing about earthquakes, rainbows and lightning.
@ebullock43 I saw your reply "Evidence indicates you are dead, game over. The chemicals in your body break down, and go back into the environment." Not sure why you removed it, but I agree that what we "observe" is the physical breakdown of chemicals that make up the physical body we see. But what we do not know or see is what happens to the personality or "life force" (sorry I don't have a better phrase at this point that propels our personality and character (emotion, intellect, soul).
@ckhm1st but we do know that those things which collectively make up what we call our life force or soul (emotion, intellect etc.), are products of those same physical, chemical systems that break down at death.
by changing or damaging the brain chemistry you can drastically alter emotion and intellect, like... if there was a soul doing all the feeling, then we couldn't reproduce emotional states by playing with brain chemistry and electronics.
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure how we "know" that our intellect and emotion are purely physical or derived from the physical attributes attributed to chemical processes that make up the physical body. One could assert that the opposite is true, i.e. that the chemical processes is a result of higher order processes not evident purely in what we can see or understand. More...
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke continued from ckhm1st... What we do understand (not sure we know or have evidence of this either) is that certain amino acids, proteins, etc are involved in keeping those brain centers functioning and interactive. For example, we can all describe "what" happens during the photosynthesis process in plants, however what we cannot evidentially explain is what actually drives that process. more...
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke ...outside the chemical observations and "fact of" the process occurring. As I understand, science has determined all the chemical "ingredients" of a cell and still not cause that cell to "come alive" - implying that we do not yet know "all" cellular "ingredients". Hmmmm...
@ckhm1st what cell to come alive? having a complete understanding of the chemistry of a cell doesn't mean we have one built from scratch and are waiting for it to come alive - if we could replicate a cell perfectly, it would be alive! cells do it all the time, replication.
Do you then consider all cells to have souls? because we are just huge civilizations of cells, wouldn't it suck to die, and who you are disintegrates, each cell going to heaven individually :P
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Apologies for any confusion. Your statement is my point exactly in that knowing the composition of something does not mean we can explain or know how to construct it. There are unknown, inexplicable (unproved), non-evidential (wrt to our 5 basic senses) processes / activities that cause life and living to be and to "happen".
And I did not mean to insinuate that a multi-cell organism is multiple living organisms (LoL).
@ckhm1st I'm not an expert in botony, or chemistry, so I can't point you to the exact information about what drives life processes like photosynthesis or brain chemistry. But I'm pretty sure it's out there, if you care to honestly study up on the subject. Scientists have made incredible discoveries in the last several decades. But you might have to do a lot of study to understand what they have learned. You're making a "god of the gaps" argument and the gaps may be much smaller than you realize.
@ebullock43 Nope. No argument here. Only making observations. Whatever you (or anyone) calls it, god, the matrix or whatever, what is clear is that there are things that are just not known to humans. Striving will continue and I suspect that the old proverb is true - "the more you know, the more you realize you don't know."
@ckhm1st "Whatever you... calls it, god, the matrix or whatever..." I simply call it ignorance. There may be gaps in our knowledge of physics or biology, but it's a huge assumption to think those gaps are filled by something supernatural. People used to see the supernatural in lightning and rainbows, but now we know they were just ignorant and superstitious.
@ebullock43 Seems that you have become the "god" of the gap yourself. You've concluded that biology or physics (sciences based on unprovable laws called postulates or axioms, i.e .accepted as truth) can fill that knowledge "gap" & account for the ignorance of those who won't agree with what you've concluded. Ignorance is so often its own sponsor. Why a 100+ years ago, folks were sure that matter could neither be created nor destroyed and that the speed of light was the universal speed limit.
@ckhm1st I have "become the 'god' of the gap? What does that even mean? Biology and physics are not "based on unprovable laws." That assertion reflects a gross misconception about science. Do you think scientific theories are just hunches without supporting evidence? Do you think knowledge is just a matter of opinion? Didn't you ever use the scientific method in high school science classes? Do you care at all if your beliefs are true?
@ebullock43 "become the 'god of the gap' - means? Just reread your post. Seems you've concluded that the science in which you have confidence (faith) will eventually uncover every unknown. Scientific and mathematical theories or theorems can certainly be "proved" but rely on postulates or axioms that cannot be proved but rather are accepted based on no observances that "violate" them.
@ckhm1st I HAVE concluded that all of the gaps in our knowledge probably have natural explanations, because this has been the case on everything discovered since the Renaisance. There has not been a single discovery of a supernatural cause for anything. That's not faith. Show me a REAL supernatural cause, backed by evidence and I will consider it. You, on the other hand, have unquestioning faith and no amount of evidence will dissuade you.
@ebullock43 Consider your statement "I HAVE (all caps rage?) that all of the gaps in our knowledge "probably" have..." Probably - have a probability - not certainty? Hmmmm. "Show me a REAL supernatural cause for everything..." I cannot (will not) try to prove any supernatural thing - you have to investigate and make your own determination. The choice is yours.
@ckhm1st You are inconsistant. You accuse me of having "faith" in science and when I assert that I don't have unquestioning "faith" and require evidence, you imply that my lack of certainty is somehow a weakness. I suppose, in your mind, clinging blindly to a silly belief and ignoring all contrary evidence is a strength.
@ebullock43 Nope. I'm both "consistent" and coherent. Why? Because I understand that I don't understand it all. That what we see and hear and touch is not all that there is. "Silly belief" - nope - wait for it - faith (evidence of the unseen). You know - you see it too. Oh but you are unwilling to believe without "your definition" of evidence.
@ckhm1st Of course you can't show me a supernatural cause for anything. I have investigated and concluded that everyone who makes supernatural claims is either a fraud, or gullible. My determination is that there is no Santa Claus, and there is no god.
@ebullock43 You have "investigated" and concluded... How unfortunately inept and incomplete. Simple test - again - tell me what will happen to you when you die? Wait - please don't say "why I cease to exist" because then I say "what does that mean"? Does ceasing to exist mean existing nevermore - total annihilation or do you become energy based on the law of the conservation of energy and matter.
@ckhm1st Why would someone "become energy based on the law of the conservation of energy and matter"? The molecules in my body will simply re-arrange into something else. The "life force" you talk about is just the chemical energy my body produces from food and oxygen. When I'm dead it will stop, like a car running out of gas.
@ckhm1st "Scientific... theories or theorems can certainly be "proved" but rely on postulates or axioms that cannot be proved but rather are accepted based on no observances that "violate" them." Theories can only be disproved. If they are not true, they can be disproved. If they are true, they cannot be disproved. Axioms are mathematical statements that are accepted without proof. Can you tell me what axiom is part of Evolution?
@ebullock43 Evolution - has no axiom as evolution is not a theory. It is simply a human (natural) philosophical attempt to explain what one cannot (naturally). Evo does not truly tell us (with consistency) how it all began nor how it has all become.
@ckhm1st Who are you to dictate what is and isn't a theory? You don't even know what Evolution models and predicts. Look up the word theory in the dictionary.
Evolution is the unifying theory of all biological fields. It explains the diversity of life. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. If Evolution wasn't true, it would have been disproved by now. Creationism, on the other hand, has been soundly disproved.
@ebullock43 From Wordnet 2.0: theory of evolution - n: (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals; sun: theory of organic evolution)
From Wikipedia: Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals.
But I challenged you to look up the word theory.
From Dictionarydotcom: Theory - n: a coherent group of tested general propositions commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.
@ebullock43 From the Moby Thesaurus - Words for "axiom" a belief, a priori principle, a priori truth, absolute fact, accepted fact, actual fact, admitted fact, affirmation, ana, analects, aphorism, apothegm, apriorism, article of faith, assertion, assumed position, golden saying, gravamen, ground, guesswork, hard fact, hypothesis, hypothesis ad hoc, indisputable fact, inescapable fact, inference, inner essence, kernel, law, lemma --- oops! There's that word "law". See it?
@ckhm1st LOL Your trying to make your case with a thesaurus? When discussing science you can't just use axiom and law interchangeably. It's a neat trick you're trying. Calling a law an axiom and then dismissing it because and axiom is just accepted without question, thus implying that scientific laws are just accepted without question. But scientific laws are not axioms and are not accepted without question.
@ebullock43 BTW, theories or theorems use the format If - then where if formulates a hypothesis (a precondition) and then establishes the conclusion. The conclusion is necessarily and intrinsically linked to the hypothesis or control environment / group. I have used the scientific method to make certain conclusions about very specific if's (control environment or precondition). Please tell me you don't believe that all of science is based on conclusive observances and/or proofs.
@ckhm1st You mean hypothesis. A hypothesis can be described as an If-Then statement. A hypothesis is not the same thing as a theory. Theories incorporate hypothesis that have been successfully proven through experimentation. I would like very much to see you describe Evolution with an IF-Then statement.
@ckhm1st Facepalm... We aren't discussing mathematics here. We are discussing science. Theories are only proven in mathematics. Has the theory of gravity been proven? Has germ theory been proven? Scientific theories can only be disproved. Lamarkism has been disproved. The geocentric theory of the solar system has been disproved. Phlogiston theory has been disproved. Creationism theory has been soundly disproved.
@ebullock43 smh - Mathematics is indeed a science. The Law of Gravitational Attraction is that - a law (axiom). Theories are formulated and updated as new evidence is discovered. Updated means changed (LoL). And yes theories are disproved all the time.
@ckhm1st Correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge it is still generally accepted that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, and the speed of light is the universal speed limit. Are you asserting otherwise? Please cite your sources because both these assertions are totally new to me.
@ebullock43 No correction with energy / matter interchange, but initially, there was simply the"law" (never proved but simply accepted) that matter was preserved. The theory of special relativity preserved energy / matter separately and the general theory of relativity produced the interchangeability of the two, i.e the conservation of matter became the conservation of matter and energy. Dude there are so many changes to that "law" over time when will we know "science" got it all right?
@ckhm1st "Dude there are so many changes to that "law" over time when will we know "science" got it all right?" So your stance is you refuse to learn any science until you know for sure science is done making discoveries? Turn off the computer and get out the horse and buggy General Ludd! Good luck on that Dark Ages lifestyle.
@ckhm1st It is your stance. You asserted that science can't be trusted because it changes with new discoveries. Your happy to enjoy the benefits of science, like modern medicine and the internet, but you don't want to learn how any of it works and you disrespect all the hard work scientists put into making discoveries.
@ckhm1st Conservation of matter and energy was never "simply accepted." After a repeated, rigorous experimentation that showed it was true, It was accepted. There haven't been any changes to the law. Conservation of matter and energy still holds true. You are free to disprove it, if you think it's untrue and just been assumed.
I'm getting the impression you've had a true "creationist" education (indoctrination). You really don't understand science, but you think you do.
@ebullock43 Yes it has been accepted as true and not provable. That's why it's call the Law of conservation of energy and matter. It is an axiom. Experimentation can somewhat affirm that law, but never prove it because it cannot be bounded (on no I'm starting to elevate this law to the realm of the supernatural - LoL).
@ckhm1st Again, a law is not an axiom. They are not the same thing. You say a law can never be proven because "it cannot be bounded." What does that even mean? Your rants are becoming even more incoherent.
@ckhm1st "When will we know that science has it right?" When will we know religion has it right? Religion had it wrong on the shape of world, the configuration of the solar system, what stars are, where the moon gets its light, what causes disease, where rain comes from, what causes rainbows. Now you expect me to deny the evidence and believe creationism because "we don't know what happens to us when we die"? That's a powerful argument you make there.
@Gadfly50 "Religion had it wrong..." Nope... Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".
Nope - I don't expect you to believe creationism rather I won't to understand your basis or bases for evolution.
@ckhm1st And what about the Helios-centered universe? What stars are? Where the moon gets its light? What causes disease, rain, rainbows? The bible was wrong about all those things. Also, the fact that medieval scholars could accept a spherical earth, even though the bible describes it as flat, just shows that medieval scholars were less dogmatic then modern creationists.
...however, those same Christian scholars believed that the sky was a solid dome that moved around the Earth, upon which the sun, moon, and stars were fixed. That particular perception lasted right up through the Reformation; Martin Luther went on at length about the "false science" of heliocentrism and how it contradicted the plain and infallibly accurate Biblical account of a solid sky.
@ebullock43 The "speed limit of the universe" or the speed of light... This one is very interesting in that the "theory" of relativity (hasn't been conclusively "proven" by the way) assertion holds true only if we believe that space cannot be "bent" or curved in the context of time like folks "theorize" about black holes. Dude, it is, indeed, ALL relative!
@ckhm1st Einstein's theory holds that matter curves space. Experiments have shown this idea is correct. This is yet another example of how you're spouting strong opinions about a subject that you are largely ignorant of.
As I said earlier, you can only disprove a theory. There has been nearly a century of repeated experiments, and, so far, nothing has been found to travel faster than 299,792,458 meter per second. But feel free to prove Einstein wrong if you can.
@ckhm1st "It is just that 'a theory.'" You still think a scientific theory is just a guess?
I said curves space. Light travels in a straight line, but experiments have shown that light bends as it travels close to massive objects like the sun. You said that Einstein's theory said that space is not curved. You were wrong, yet again.
@ckhm1st Facepalm... It's not an axiom. Look up axiom in the dictionary. An axiom is accepted as a given in mathematics. A law is not accepted as a given. A law has been tested and found to be true. Your use of the word axiom is incorrect.
@ebullock43 Axiom and law are interchangeable. Back to that thesaurus. It's not my use of the word axiom, it is the dictionary definition and thesaurus use of the word axiom. Take your beef to those authoritative sources please (LoL).
You aren't using a dictionary, you're using a thesaurus. You're taking a synonym for the non-scientific use of the word and applying to the scientific word.
But prove me wrong. Give me a quote from a valid scientific text book or article where they use the word axiom to describe a law. Or where they explain that law and axiom are interchangeable. Just not a creationist text because they are all notorious liars. If you can do that I will admit that I am wrong.
"I reject absolute certainty across the board."
That's humor.
adman123 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@adman123 ""I reject absolute certainty across the board."
That's humor."
Actually, I think you are mistaking the concept of "certainty" with "across the board". The concept "across the board" simply means " in all circumstances" or "always" whereas "certainty" means a firm conviction with regards to veracity.
iridescentsquids 1 day ago
This caller is obviously a very smart guy....why is he clinging so desperately to this mythology??? Why not just accept the reality?
55chh 6 days ago
If the christian god, or any god, exists one would expect to see direct evidence, but there is none. Behe had the opportunity to make his case for ID at the Dover trial, and failed miserably. ID supporters want to redefine the rules of science to include the "supernatural" because actual science doesn't support any of their claims. The "Wedge Document" is the smoking gun that proves that the goal of ID advocates is to replace science with religious dogma, knowledge with ignorance.
YY4Me133 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great page for atheists... go here and see all the contradictions in the Bible and how many times it is wrong. Dare to read. Amazingbibledotorg
spiegeltn 2 weeks ago
Existence is temporal. Meaning if you define "god" as "outside of time and space", you have just described a nonexistent entity by definition.
drche420 2 weeks ago
98% of every species that has ever lived on the planet has become extinct. Some design!
The brain inside this callers head, some design.
elgar104 2 weeks ago
I love when morons try to jumble a lot of science vocab together to try & mimic intellect. If you try this hard at deception ( which takes some smarts ), why not go ahead and to the real research and critically think. Stop the madness, in lame man's term, using a lot of big words do not make you smart, especially when you don't even really know what they ( the words ) mean. This only works when you talk to stupid people.LMAO..he is making me laugh so hard with this word deception dance.
sdacrowe 3 weeks ago
I think a lot of the problem here is that humans took most of their designs from nature, which had already come up with a lot of great mechanisms on its own.
So because we designed based on the workings of nature, we assume that nature looks designed.
ScarsFTW 3 weeks ago
@ScarsFTW
True. That, and without an explanation for how the world could become so complex (evolution), some people would use an argument from ignorance to claim it is impossible.
drche420 2 weeks ago
When I have children, if the school ever tries to teach them the theory of "intelligent design" I will march right over there and embarass the hell out of the teacher in front of the whole class.
ehandkz 1 month ago 3
A bird functions kinda like a plane, so then a bird was intelligently designed? A brain works like a computer, so it's designed? A flagellum functions like a motor, design? You could make anything and compare it to something in nature. They would like to say that God designed everything (unfalsifiable) but don't claim this because they are dishonest and want to give the appearance of being open minded. Design can be identified because we can compare it to what's in nature (not designed). Duh.
skurys 1 month ago
I know what I can do!
Ill go on public media and prove once and
for all that im a complete retard!
the shame in the situation is that this guy
is obviously smart but has has his intelligence
filtered out by "god glasses:"
ohwell
kakureru 1 month ago
@kakureru I don't think he's all that smart, onehe allowed the glasses to bypass all the logic when he was looking up the jargon needed to try & trick people with word play. I don't even think he tried to understand the arguement from both side. He set out to find things to prove what he wanted to believe rather than actually reveiwing evidence that's clearly out there for him. He's a fraud. Most con artist are a little smarter than most, which is not that hard in this society.
sdacrowe 3 weeks ago
@Gaybykersonacid If Odin wAs an unfair killer He could wipe out all the christians now.
He wants everyone to have the same chance to change their mind.
So anyone that tries to disprove Odin is foolish . The runestones doesn't exist
If Odin doesn't .the runestones will still be here after we die.
See what i did there?
Btw, you might want to check your spelling a little ;)
GronTheMighty 1 month ago
Virginia's full of mouth-breathers.
ProblemHonorStudent 2 months ago
irreducible complexity yet again. michael behe is a dumbass. when will people stop regurgitating his crap. his own university (Lehigh) issued a statement to disown him.
"It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific." read the whole quote, it's devastating.
then read some real science:
J Hum Evol. 1997 Feb-Mar;32(2-3):289-322
castelgandalf 2 months ago
Is it just me, or do creationists seem to "answer" questions in similar ways to politicians?
DemePoole 2 months ago
bacterium flagelum blah blah blah
Atheist603 2 months ago
OK- This guy's entire point is that nothing can look "designed" without being created by an intelligent entity. Because if he admits that it is possible for things to appear designed without having actually been designed, the cards fall. Why did he need 1000 quotes to assert that things that look designed must be designed?
rrpostalagain 2 months ago
When will christian creationists learn that intelligent design is NOT a case for Jesus Christ, God or the Bible. It may be a case for what we would call a "god" but it leaves every other religion as well as none of them as possible conclusions. Christian creationists go from a smart SOUNDING arguement to "Read this book of bullshit, kids."
LegendThriller92 2 months ago
35:49
What.
Why is that picture their "picture lost" screen?
gimmethegepgun 2 months ago
@gimmethegepgun
- "What. Why is that picture their 'picture lost' screen?"
It's fake, but funnier than a completely black screen.
TheAtheistExperience 1 month ago
This caller is officially the most obnoxious person ever in existence.
TiagoBLucas 2 months ago
Here's the bottom line: You don't have to "believe" in evolution to be an atheist. You don't have to be a scientist, or to even understand science, to be an atheist. And here's some common sense: IF there is a creator of this vast, incredibly massive universe, it was very definitely NOT created by the tiny narcissistic, ignorant, hateful, war loving, child killing, genocidal psychotic maniac called Yahweh/Jesus you find in the the Bible. Earthlings discovering god? That's too fucking funny!
politicoochie09 2 months ago 18
@politicoochie09 Bravo, well put.
zenun7 1 month ago
@politicoochie09 Just because Yahweh is a terrible character does not mean he does not exist. He could exist and be terrible.
jacobbubble2 1 month ago
@politicoochie09 Very good!
Could not have said it better myself..
SlashDotDash121 6 days ago
The caller's last statement paraphrased: Don't confuse me with facts! My mind is made up!
Kailoa36 3 months ago
"Motor" and "language" are metaphors that scientists occasionally use to illuminate what they are saying. The caller's calling DNA and biological cells a literal language/machine is laughably ignorant.
Kailoa36 3 months ago
"Intelligent Design" was invented by an attorney, Philip E. Johnson, not a scientist, not even by a so-called scientist.
Kailoa36 3 months ago
@Kailoa36 Doesn't matter who put the idea forward, could have been Einstein, doesn't make it any less wrong
RobBrooksMusic 2 months ago
when they say no time existed before the big bang... they don't mean that literally per se , it just means that they don't know whats b4 that point and saying time just is a moot point so they don't acknowledge it bc thats a positive claim about thee unknown.
screat 3 months ago
If the definition of iredusable complexity is, that a system with one part missing couldn't work in the way it does now (and not that the other parts wouldn't work as something else) than irredusable complexity would also be an argument for evolution... therefore making it completly useless for that argument.
TheTruggsess 3 months ago
the universe could be intelligently designed. It's just that humans (or living things in general) are not an important feature of this design.
hardinmichael1981 3 months ago
This flagellum thing makes me laugh.
PiskieBenWa 3 months ago
@chirectomy the whole universe is fading into chaos. ever heard of entropy? that's a thermodynamics law. nature isn't perfect AT ALL. nice comment (:
AtheistAwesomeness 3 months ago
@chirectomy
Damn right. The whole intelligent design AND fine tuning arguments are clearly ridiculous- we can see a universe of billions and billions of light years across and we know of 1 single planet with life on it. If we were the only planet in existence, they might have a point. In reality, it just looks like a cosmic accident.
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
35:49 hehehehehe
xebek 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
While I agree with the veiws of the hosts, this is the forst time I have seen THEM fuel a hostile exchange. I am disapointed.
While the caller is wrong, he was presenting cited arguments in a calm manner and should have been regarded in kind.
Bill Gates for example, the idea of veiwing DNA as similar to computer code IS a viable source, it can be easily countered but he was using a correct source, a computere expert for a programing reference
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
IC is unfalsifiable because you can't know when something is IC. Search for a post called "The Problem with Irreducibly Complexity" on the Good Math Bad Math blog.
LBromoHojo 4 months ago
@LBromoHojo Behe´s IC isn´t unfalsifiable, its just completely meaningless. Functions change all the time and so there is no point in saying something is IC. Its an arbitrary distinction that cannot be justified. This doesn´t mean there aren´t any unfalsifiable definitions of IC, but his isn´t one of them. In his terminology the flagellum is still IC, even though its no problem for evolution, because if you take a part away, it no longer maintains its function as a motor. Falsifiable but useless
sharkjack 4 months ago
@sharkjack The what definition of IC is falsifiable? I have yet to hear one that is and even if they produce one, they still need to test it before it is acceptable science. In all the years they have kept using this bs argument they have yet to produce evidence to support their claims like actual science does.
vnorthru 4 months ago
@vnorthru You can show something to be irreducibly complex (according to Behe's definition) by showing that if you take away one part it loses its current function. This is true for the bacterial flagellum and loads of other things. This is testable. You can demonstrate that the flagellum loses its ability to move the bacteria if you take out one of the proteins its made up of. IC is useless for ID because current function is a meaningless concept in evolution.
sharkjack 4 months ago
@sharkjack You have a point, if you keep to that strict definition of IC it's falsifiable, but also it's completely useless. I have yet to hear any definition of IC that would make it useful to ID that is falsifiable. ID is pseudoscience and complete bullshit.
vnorthru 4 months ago
If we're FORCED to accept ID as a truth, will we have to accept the possibility of aliens, time travelers or time traveling aliens as well? I’m afraid so. Because these are examples intelligent designers or possible intelligent designers. (We are experimenting on recreating the big bang and we are experimenting on time travel. So it is possible we have already found the answers to these dilemmas and have already created the universe ourselves). Let’s fling this crap at the monkeys. toodles
EatMAndSml 4 months ago
lmao 35:49 I had no idea Basement Jaxx used Michael Behe for the cover of Rooty.
stramster1 4 months ago
It's hard for people to think of their own convictions as unreasoned or unreasonable. I sometimes catch myself in arguing a position that I realise I might not be able to support.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
before the big band time did not exsist, so it leaves no room for god.
MrNerdyBrit 4 months ago 3
@MrNerdyBrit
- "before the big band time did not exsist, so it leaves no room for god."
Are you referring to the Glenn Miller-Urey experiment...?
Never mind, but I think you meant Big Bang. :)
TheAtheistExperience 4 months ago 24
@TheAtheistExperience no its one of stephen Hawkings theories, and I'm sure I corrected band to bang, but whatever maybe youtube dident update it or something.
MrNerdyBrit 4 months ago
@TheAtheistExperience rofl
stramster1 4 months ago
@TheAtheistExperience ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
MrFungus420 4 months ago
@TheAtheistExperience lol
RobBrooksMusic 2 months ago
@MrNerdyBrit ofcourse time did exsist it always has its not possible for it to not have exsisted before the big bang because how would the big bang have even came to happen. Maybe clocks did not exsist but time did.
wwechamp7 4 months ago
@wwechamp7
If all mass of the universe would be located at one point with no room, time would be "bended" (don't know the exact english term for it) so much that it would seem it doesn't exist.
wurstbeard 4 months ago
@wwechamp7
Not at all, plenty of physicists think time might have came into being at the big bang. You have to realise that these areas of physics are deeply theoretical and counter-intuitive. Saying "it doesn't make sense" just isn't a valid argument. Why would the big bang have to have been caused by something "before"? Also, there's the possibility there was some other type of causal chain that lead to the big bang (that was completely different from what we call "time").
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis Its not possible for there to have not been any time as no series or chain of events could take place if there was nothing exsisting and no time. What would make this happen? If anything made anything happen it would require time and things exsisting before the big bang.
wwechamp7 3 months ago
@wwechamp7
You can't just decide what's possible or not. Before quantum theory was developed, most people would've said it was impossible for a particle to be in 2 places at once. We're limited by human intuition in these matters. As I said, there could have been a different kind of time (i.e not described by our current laws) before the big bang and then our current spacetime came into being from that previous existence. Well sometimes things do just happen- virtual particles for one.
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis the quantum world is very crazy my friend lol
wwechamp7 3 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis Things dont just happen everything is a reaction to something else taking place.
wwechamp7 3 months ago
@MrNerdyBrit And the' big band 'was .....Led Zepplin! -Only kidding Thumbs up
Lennon4ever1 3 months ago
you guys are amazingly patient. You get a kick out of this ?
claudelebel55 5 months ago
By the caller's definition, then the caller is right since his definition is rather loose. There exists things that are partially designed since we have already made changes in labs where we replace parts of genes in bacterial and rats for experimental purposes. If it's only a matter of degree, anything we do to change genes is ID.
ddrddrddrddr 5 months ago
Under Behe's definition, all life forms are like Jenga towers.
MunkyDrag0n 5 months ago
Why was this guy given so much airtime? The first quote shows that ID obviously isn't scientific, the second is one of Behe's self-pwning statements. Pathetic (the caller's argument, that is).
Oirishmartin 5 months ago
@Oirishmartin
1. He is a christian
2. He is willing to actually debate
3. He lets the hosts speak
4. He somewhat listens to what the hosts say and sort of responds
5. He is willing to not jump from point a to c to z and back to b to avoid being cornered
Finding a person with even the first two qualities is rare on this show. Besides he represented the beliefs of quite a lot of christians fairly well so it also demonstrates atheist can have civil debates about these issues to other christians.
sharkjack 4 months ago
@sharkjack I won't argue with you on that. That said, one could have simply pointed out the above points in my post and possibly shortened the debate greatly, leaving time for other questions.
Oirishmartin 4 months ago
Isn't asking 'What is complex?' in nature, a bit like asking 'what is big?' on a universal scale.. The Earth is big, but it's small compared to the Sun, and the Sun is nothing compared to the Milky Way, and the.. etc.
Mirata87 6 months ago
@DoctorLipsh1ts They got pissed by the end because this guy had taken 40min of their show.
CipherMind117 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I Felt in Love with the story Line..
P90xFitnessExpert 6 months ago
Complexity/simplicity is not something inherent in reality. Complexity/simplicity is only in mental processing. Typing is very simple for me. When I was 3, typing was very complex to me. The keyboard is exactly the same, English is the same, the letters are the same, etc. The simplicity or complexity WAS NOT in reality, it was in my mental process of reality. (I can still remember FEELING it must be impossible to type fluently, even seeing others do it. And my feeling was wrong.)
greyeyed123 6 months ago
I Felt in Love with the story Line..
MemoryFoamMattres100 6 months ago
i take that back, they were being assholes to him at the end haha.
DoctorLipsh1ts 6 months ago
Comment removed
DoctorLipsh1ts 6 months ago
i like how when he said he wanted to make a case for intelligent design, they didn't scoff at him but said "okay" in a nice way. this is how we need to act in order for people to listen to us - positive, pleasant, and polite.
DoctorLipsh1ts 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even inheriting a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“VESTIGIAL” A USELESS ARGUMENT: At one time dozens of structures in the human body were considered vestigial until our knowledge about them increased and we realized they weren’t vestigial, after all. It’s now been published that so-called “Junk DNA” isn’t junk, after all. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). Read my article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 6 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 6 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations that have survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 6 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DEBATE IS NOT OVER. In Darwin's time not enough science was known to refute macro-evolution. There was no understanding of genetics. Darwin thought the cell was just a simple glob. No one knew about DNA, RNA, proteins. Modern evolutionists now know, but the theory is entrenched as gospel and a lot of personal motives are at stake as well. Just saying that something evolved doesn't make it so! Read my article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature can only work with the "cards" it has. Nature is not a genetic engineer! It can't invent new genes. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NOT EVEN ALL EVOLUTIONISTS agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creatures. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with fins evolving into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even inheriting a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52 all your messages have been marked as spam but if you aren't some copy+paste advertising bot I'd be happy to talk about where you went wrong with all of these points (for example, apes are comfortable how they walk where they live, around trees, but as grasslands evolved a few million years ago population on the edge of the forests would exploit new food sources in the new flat habitat, where their posture is no longer ideal)
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 6 months ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke amen brother.
ebullock43 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“VESTIGIAL” A USELESS ARGUMENT: At one time dozens of structures in the human body were considered vestigial until our knowledge about them increased and we realized they weren’t vestigial, after all. It’s now been published that so-called “Junk DNA” isn’t junk, after all. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). Read my article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
this guys a bit gullible but a good talker! good polite debater
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 6 months ago
didnt bacterial flagellum evolved/expated from a type 3 secretion system?
atulawasthi1 6 months ago
@ckhm1st No one knows
pochopaz7381 6 months ago
@pochopaz7381 "No one knows". So true. We, collectively, only know what we "know" and we don't know what we "don't know". There should be concern amongst the shrewdest of scientists to assert that what we know is all that can be known. Would you not agree? I mean I know that I was born on a certain day because there is a recorded fact in the form of a birth certificate and public record, however when I die, I don't know what happens to me. more...
ckhm1st 6 months ago
There is no creatoduck!
pochopaz7381 6 months ago
That is soo stupid! If inteligent designers comes from creationists why are there still creationists?
pochopaz7381 6 months ago
If biological functions can't change according to Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument, all living things would look like a flagellum today. All ID supporters are morons.
gupsphoo 6 months ago
All arguments for ID essentially boil down to a "god of the gaps" argument. They can't figure out how a cell came to produce a certain protein, therefore god done it. They can't imagine a bacterium evolving a flagellum, therefore gone done it. 4 centuries ago theists said the same thing about earthquakes, rainbows and lightning.
ebullock43 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What happens when you die?
ckhm1st 6 months ago
Comment removed
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 I saw your reply "Evidence indicates you are dead, game over. The chemicals in your body break down, and go back into the environment." Not sure why you removed it, but I agree that what we "observe" is the physical breakdown of chemicals that make up the physical body we see. But what we do not know or see is what happens to the personality or "life force" (sorry I don't have a better phrase at this point that propels our personality and character (emotion, intellect, soul).
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st but we do know that those things which collectively make up what we call our life force or soul (emotion, intellect etc.), are products of those same physical, chemical systems that break down at death.
by changing or damaging the brain chemistry you can drastically alter emotion and intellect, like... if there was a soul doing all the feeling, then we couldn't reproduce emotional states by playing with brain chemistry and electronics.
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 6 months ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure how we "know" that our intellect and emotion are purely physical or derived from the physical attributes attributed to chemical processes that make up the physical body. One could assert that the opposite is true, i.e. that the chemical processes is a result of higher order processes not evident purely in what we can see or understand. More...
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke continued from ckhm1st... What we do understand (not sure we know or have evidence of this either) is that certain amino acids, proteins, etc are involved in keeping those brain centers functioning and interactive. For example, we can all describe "what" happens during the photosynthesis process in plants, however what we cannot evidentially explain is what actually drives that process. more...
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke ...outside the chemical observations and "fact of" the process occurring. As I understand, science has determined all the chemical "ingredients" of a cell and still not cause that cell to "come alive" - implying that we do not yet know "all" cellular "ingredients". Hmmmm...
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st what cell to come alive? having a complete understanding of the chemistry of a cell doesn't mean we have one built from scratch and are waiting for it to come alive - if we could replicate a cell perfectly, it would be alive! cells do it all the time, replication.
Do you then consider all cells to have souls? because we are just huge civilizations of cells, wouldn't it suck to die, and who you are disintegrates, each cell going to heaven individually :P
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 6 months ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Apologies for any confusion. Your statement is my point exactly in that knowing the composition of something does not mean we can explain or know how to construct it. There are unknown, inexplicable (unproved), non-evidential (wrt to our 5 basic senses) processes / activities that cause life and living to be and to "happen".
And I did not mean to insinuate that a multi-cell organism is multiple living organisms (LoL).
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st I'm not an expert in botony, or chemistry, so I can't point you to the exact information about what drives life processes like photosynthesis or brain chemistry. But I'm pretty sure it's out there, if you care to honestly study up on the subject. Scientists have made incredible discoveries in the last several decades. But you might have to do a lot of study to understand what they have learned. You're making a "god of the gaps" argument and the gaps may be much smaller than you realize.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 Nope. No argument here. Only making observations. Whatever you (or anyone) calls it, god, the matrix or whatever, what is clear is that there are things that are just not known to humans. Striving will continue and I suspect that the old proverb is true - "the more you know, the more you realize you don't know."
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st "Whatever you... calls it, god, the matrix or whatever..." I simply call it ignorance. There may be gaps in our knowledge of physics or biology, but it's a huge assumption to think those gaps are filled by something supernatural. People used to see the supernatural in lightning and rainbows, but now we know they were just ignorant and superstitious.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 Seems that you have become the "god" of the gap yourself. You've concluded that biology or physics (sciences based on unprovable laws called postulates or axioms, i.e .accepted as truth) can fill that knowledge "gap" & account for the ignorance of those who won't agree with what you've concluded. Ignorance is so often its own sponsor. Why a 100+ years ago, folks were sure that matter could neither be created nor destroyed and that the speed of light was the universal speed limit.
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st I have "become the 'god' of the gap? What does that even mean? Biology and physics are not "based on unprovable laws." That assertion reflects a gross misconception about science. Do you think scientific theories are just hunches without supporting evidence? Do you think knowledge is just a matter of opinion? Didn't you ever use the scientific method in high school science classes? Do you care at all if your beliefs are true?
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 "become the 'god of the gap' - means? Just reread your post. Seems you've concluded that the science in which you have confidence (faith) will eventually uncover every unknown. Scientific and mathematical theories or theorems can certainly be "proved" but rely on postulates or axioms that cannot be proved but rather are accepted based on no observances that "violate" them.
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st I HAVE concluded that all of the gaps in our knowledge probably have natural explanations, because this has been the case on everything discovered since the Renaisance. There has not been a single discovery of a supernatural cause for anything. That's not faith. Show me a REAL supernatural cause, backed by evidence and I will consider it. You, on the other hand, have unquestioning faith and no amount of evidence will dissuade you.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 Consider your statement "I HAVE (all caps rage?) that all of the gaps in our knowledge "probably" have..." Probably - have a probability - not certainty? Hmmmm. "Show me a REAL supernatural cause for everything..." I cannot (will not) try to prove any supernatural thing - you have to investigate and make your own determination. The choice is yours.
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st You are inconsistant. You accuse me of having "faith" in science and when I assert that I don't have unquestioning "faith" and require evidence, you imply that my lack of certainty is somehow a weakness. I suppose, in your mind, clinging blindly to a silly belief and ignoring all contrary evidence is a strength.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 Nope. I'm both "consistent" and coherent. Why? Because I understand that I don't understand it all. That what we see and hear and touch is not all that there is. "Silly belief" - nope - wait for it - faith (evidence of the unseen). You know - you see it too. Oh but you are unwilling to believe without "your definition" of evidence.
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st "You know - you see it too."
Uh, no I don't. You just believe you see what you want to see. You can't even describe what you claim. I see no evidence for any deity.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ckhm1st Of course you can't show me a supernatural cause for anything. I have investigated and concluded that everyone who makes supernatural claims is either a fraud, or gullible. My determination is that there is no Santa Claus, and there is no god.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 You have "investigated" and concluded... How unfortunately inept and incomplete. Simple test - again - tell me what will happen to you when you die? Wait - please don't say "why I cease to exist" because then I say "what does that mean"? Does ceasing to exist mean existing nevermore - total annihilation or do you become energy based on the law of the conservation of energy and matter.
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st Why would someone "become energy based on the law of the conservation of energy and matter"? The molecules in my body will simply re-arrange into something else. The "life force" you talk about is just the chemical energy my body produces from food and oxygen. When I'm dead it will stop, like a car running out of gas.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ckhm1st "Scientific... theories or theorems can certainly be "proved" but rely on postulates or axioms that cannot be proved but rather are accepted based on no observances that "violate" them." Theories can only be disproved. If they are not true, they can be disproved. If they are true, they cannot be disproved. Axioms are mathematical statements that are accepted without proof. Can you tell me what axiom is part of Evolution?
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 Evolution - has no axiom as evolution is not a theory. It is simply a human (natural) philosophical attempt to explain what one cannot (naturally). Evo does not truly tell us (with consistency) how it all began nor how it has all become.
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st Who are you to dictate what is and isn't a theory? You don't even know what Evolution models and predicts. Look up the word theory in the dictionary.
Evolution is the unifying theory of all biological fields. It explains the diversity of life. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. If Evolution wasn't true, it would have been disproved by now. Creationism, on the other hand, has been soundly disproved.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 From Wordnet 2.0: theory of evolution - n: (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals; sun: theory of organic evolution)
Maybe you know better than WordNet?
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st
Actually, I do.
From Wikipedia: Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals.
But I challenged you to look up the word theory.
From Dictionarydotcom: Theory - n: a coherent group of tested general propositions commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ckhm1st I see WordNet is a Xian source. No wonder the definition is so inaccurate. What are you going to do next, cite whale . to?
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 From the Moby Thesaurus - Words for "axiom" a belief, a priori principle, a priori truth, absolute fact, accepted fact, actual fact, admitted fact, affirmation, ana, analects, aphorism, apothegm, apriorism, article of faith, assertion, assumed position, golden saying, gravamen, ground, guesswork, hard fact, hypothesis, hypothesis ad hoc, indisputable fact, inescapable fact, inference, inner essence, kernel, law, lemma --- oops! There's that word "law". See it?
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st LOL Your trying to make your case with a thesaurus? When discussing science you can't just use axiom and law interchangeably. It's a neat trick you're trying. Calling a law an axiom and then dismissing it because and axiom is just accepted without question, thus implying that scientific laws are just accepted without question. But scientific laws are not axioms and are not accepted without question.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 BTW, theories or theorems use the format If - then where if formulates a hypothesis (a precondition) and then establishes the conclusion. The conclusion is necessarily and intrinsically linked to the hypothesis or control environment / group. I have used the scientific method to make certain conclusions about very specific if's (control environment or precondition). Please tell me you don't believe that all of science is based on conclusive observances and/or proofs.
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st You mean hypothesis. A hypothesis can be described as an If-Then statement. A hypothesis is not the same thing as a theory. Theories incorporate hypothesis that have been successfully proven through experimentation. I would like very much to see you describe Evolution with an IF-Then statement.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 Hypothesis - yes that is what the reply states "h-y-p-o-t-h-e-s-i-s" (???)...
Mathematical theorems are indeed theories and are constantly being "proven". Just ask a college math major.
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st Facepalm... We aren't discussing mathematics here. We are discussing science. Theories are only proven in mathematics. Has the theory of gravity been proven? Has germ theory been proven? Scientific theories can only be disproved. Lamarkism has been disproved. The geocentric theory of the solar system has been disproved. Phlogiston theory has been disproved. Creationism theory has been soundly disproved.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 smh - Mathematics is indeed a science. The Law of Gravitational Attraction is that - a law (axiom). Theories are formulated and updated as new evidence is discovered. Updated means changed (LoL). And yes theories are disproved all the time.
ckhm1st 6 months ago
You are the only person I have ever heard equate scientific laws with mathematical axioms. But then I don't read creationist propaganda.
So tell me, what is the "axiom" of Newton's gravitational law? What is that is just assumed to be true?
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ckhm1st Dodging the question. Describe Evolution with and If-Then statement.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ckhm1st Correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge it is still generally accepted that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, and the speed of light is the universal speed limit. Are you asserting otherwise? Please cite your sources because both these assertions are totally new to me.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 No correction with energy / matter interchange, but initially, there was simply the"law" (never proved but simply accepted) that matter was preserved. The theory of special relativity preserved energy / matter separately and the general theory of relativity produced the interchangeability of the two, i.e the conservation of matter became the conservation of matter and energy. Dude there are so many changes to that "law" over time when will we know "science" got it all right?
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st "Dude there are so many changes to that "law" over time when will we know "science" got it all right?" So your stance is you refuse to learn any science until you know for sure science is done making discoveries? Turn off the computer and get out the horse and buggy General Ludd! Good luck on that Dark Ages lifestyle.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 Nope not my stance.
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st It is your stance. You asserted that science can't be trusted because it changes with new discoveries. Your happy to enjoy the benefits of science, like modern medicine and the internet, but you don't want to learn how any of it works and you disrespect all the hard work scientists put into making discoveries.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ckhm1st Conservation of matter and energy was never "simply accepted." After a repeated, rigorous experimentation that showed it was true, It was accepted. There haven't been any changes to the law. Conservation of matter and energy still holds true. You are free to disprove it, if you think it's untrue and just been assumed.
I'm getting the impression you've had a true "creationist" education (indoctrination). You really don't understand science, but you think you do.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 Yes it has been accepted as true and not provable. That's why it's call the Law of conservation of energy and matter. It is an axiom. Experimentation can somewhat affirm that law, but never prove it because it cannot be bounded (on no I'm starting to elevate this law to the realm of the supernatural - LoL).
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st Again, a law is not an axiom. They are not the same thing. You say a law can never be proven because "it cannot be bounded." What does that even mean? Your rants are becoming even more incoherent.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ckhm1st "When will we know that science has it right?" When will we know religion has it right? Religion had it wrong on the shape of world, the configuration of the solar system, what stars are, where the moon gets its light, what causes disease, where rain comes from, what causes rainbows. Now you expect me to deny the evidence and believe creationism because "we don't know what happens to us when we die"? That's a powerful argument you make there.
Gadfly50 6 months ago
@Gadfly50 "Religion had it wrong..." Nope... Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".
Nope - I don't expect you to believe creationism rather I won't to understand your basis or bases for evolution.
ckhm1st 5 months ago
@ckhm1st And what about the Helios-centered universe? What stars are? Where the moon gets its light? What causes disease, rain, rainbows? The bible was wrong about all those things. Also, the fact that medieval scholars could accept a spherical earth, even though the bible describes it as flat, just shows that medieval scholars were less dogmatic then modern creationists.
Gadfly50 5 months ago
@ckhm1st
...however, those same Christian scholars believed that the sky was a solid dome that moved around the Earth, upon which the sun, moon, and stars were fixed. That particular perception lasted right up through the Reformation; Martin Luther went on at length about the "false science" of heliocentrism and how it contradicted the plain and infallibly accurate Biblical account of a solid sky.
brpierce 5 months ago
@ebullock43 The "speed limit of the universe" or the speed of light... This one is very interesting in that the "theory" of relativity (hasn't been conclusively "proven" by the way) assertion holds true only if we believe that space cannot be "bent" or curved in the context of time like folks "theorize" about black holes. Dude, it is, indeed, ALL relative!
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st Einstein's theory holds that matter curves space. Experiments have shown this idea is correct. This is yet another example of how you're spouting strong opinions about a subject that you are largely ignorant of.
As I said earlier, you can only disprove a theory. There has been nearly a century of repeated experiments, and, so far, nothing has been found to travel faster than 299,792,458 meter per second. But feel free to prove Einstein wrong if you can.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 Einstein's "theory" - exactly. It is just that "a theory". Proven that "matter cures space" (??)
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st "It is just that 'a theory.'" You still think a scientific theory is just a guess?
I said curves space. Light travels in a straight line, but experiments have shown that light bends as it travels close to massive objects like the sun. You said that Einstein's theory said that space is not curved. You were wrong, yet again.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 No correction. Accepted but not proven. That's why it's referred to as the "law" (axiom) of conservation of energy and matter.
ckhm1st 6 months ago
@ckhm1st Facepalm... It's not an axiom. Look up axiom in the dictionary. An axiom is accepted as a given in mathematics. A law is not accepted as a given. A law has been tested and found to be true. Your use of the word axiom is incorrect.
ebullock43 6 months ago
@ebullock43 Axiom and law are interchangeable. Back to that thesaurus. It's not my use of the word axiom, it is the dictionary definition and thesaurus use of the word axiom. Take your beef to those authoritative sources please (LoL).
ckhm1st 6 months ago
You aren't using a dictionary, you're using a thesaurus. You're taking a synonym for the non-scientific use of the word and applying to the scientific word.
But prove me wrong. Give me a quote from a valid scientific text book or article where they use the word axiom to describe a law. Or where they explain that law and axiom are interchangeable. Just not a creationist text because they are all notorious liars. If you can do that I will admit that I am wrong.
ebullock43 6 months ago