An "I.D. fan"? He stated in this presentation that he doesn't know of I.D. is warranted or not. That's not exactly being a fan of the idea. You're welcome concerning the upload.
@mojorhythm Don't stop watching at the first vid ! He explains in the rest of it his claim for Darwinian mechanisms being inadequate to explain all life forms from a common ancestor. He basically uses Ayala's argument against him, by the example of mutating bacteria producing so *little* adaptation across untold mutations and generations.
@horsie111 I watched the whole thing ages ago. Craig is a moron. If you want observed, documented, countless examples of evolution in action (mutation, selection, drift etc), all you have to do is go to Nature, New Scientist or any other science journal/magazine and use their search bar. Sure, the examples are small in extent, but that is the point of extrapolation. Like I said, Craig has absolutely no right whatsoever to attack Darwinian evolution on the basis of the extrapolation alone.
I love how Craig tries to limit the debate to an area where he can apply his silly reasoning.
Right from the word go he deceives people by defining ID as a theory, which it can't be as a theory is based on reproducible experiments and evidence or even proof.
So a lottery win is improbable and thus impossible. Last week a child fell from a 5th floor balcony and was unhurt. Improbable and thus impossible. If someone says: God saved it, I ask: who pushed it?
@gorilla199uncensored - When all you can do is resort to name calling, bashing another person, and invoking the ad hominem fallacy it shows how weak you are as a debater. If we're going to debate on intelligent design vs darwinian evolution, it is important to stick to the topics of each side and not rabbit trail to attacking the motives or personal beliefs of the proponents of either theory.
ID is such crap. Demski's filter is useless since the quantities he is asking for are unknown and indeed cannot be known. It is not a theory and contrary to its proponents is ONLY used against biology. If asked how it applies to SETI, you would get get some silly argument but no concrete theory backed up by facts.
@eddie this is not an argument. don't waste your time for spamming
@cero It can be tested because it make some predictions, that if intelligent agent designed entire universe, we will find out the use of currently alleged defects in nature, like "junk dna", or retina design. If it is found that most of it are incorrect then we can conclude that it is most likely false.
It has and the people who use science to evaluate it say its religious crap. Which ahs already been proven in court, they even have the transitional form from creationism to IDism.
This is not an argument, you even did not mention about what criteria that were used and why ID does not . I supposed you are educated enough to articulate it without mentioning someone's opinion to justify your belief.
I am waiting for the outcome for California Science Centre case, and should IDer won the case, I can say to you that it has been proven that evolution is crap. But it is not argument either
Oh sorry I didnt supply the tones of research it wont fit in here! You idiot.
I dont know the case, but its one that lets ID be taught, that doesnt disprove the mountains of evidence that prove evolution, it just proves that one judge is biased by his religion and it will be over turned.
Id was proven crap long before the court case which just proves its renaming creationism.
"Harvard teaches Biblical history as factual" They do not teach Creation The ark tower of bable As reality, as their is no evidence it. "whether the Ark is real is up to the Professor" Ah REALLY? NO! AMAZINGLY REALITY DOES NOT CHANGE TO SUIT EVERYONES PERSONAL BASLESS BELIEFS! ITS NOT UP TO THE PROFIESSOR IF IT IS TRUE OR NOT! I asked you to ask harvard if they taught the ark as reality! You didnt as you know they do not!
Not all you still have some who lie for their religion including john wells,
(he also accepts human chimp common desent) But then lies claiming MOST creatures appeared in their current form at the cambiran time.
Which contradicts the evidnece!
Anyway it doesnt matter what the bible pretenders say, the fact is even the biggest liars for your religion, wont try to defend the bible creation story as THEY KNOW ITS WRONG!
Just think about it, how long would it take to build such and ark and load it so that each animal would fit into it. More so, given the rate of birth complications present in the natural world, it would be unreasonable and illogical to only load one pair of each animal.
The bible is full of literary contradictions, however this isn't a problem if one accepts that say in the instance of the gospel's the writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had scribes to help them write stuff down (as was the tradition of the culture at the time.)
It is like having four journalists covering a soccer match. There will be discrepancies in the reporting and some gaps will be left out cause nothing interesting happened. However, the spine of each story will match up.
If your so retarded you cnat even reliase i said most NEVER all. No wonder you believe such dumb things! "if you have none then you're just a liar" No I stated a fact I dont need to suppply references for anything. "argue with Christian" HE LIKE MOST XTOANS DISSAGREES WITH YOU. MOST XTIANS ACCEPT THE LIES CONTRADICTIONS etc in the bible. You are in the fundie minority. You know fundies are the minority?
Also show as in intelligence/education level increases belief in god decreases!
You god is dying out, USA is very backward, europe is giving up on pretending your god is real in droves. Countries that where 90% xtians at the end of WW2 are now 85% atheist.
Even if all the ass hats as the di didnt accpt the fact, they are still wrong. Their is various videos etc of them admitting the truth. Eg BEHE (The only one who had the guts to even to try and defend id in court) accepts it.
"Yes, I KNOW who he is"
You didnt before, the fact you dont go and hang out at his house has nothing to do with the fact he has admitted
EVOLUTION IS FACT, including chimp human common ancestor
Whether the wordsearch is designed is or not is purely a subjective opinion. Science deals with objective reality so being subjective about a field in science is not doing science. Science needs precision, not vagueness,and the criterion for design is far too vague.
Im not going to spoon you simple science as your an ignorant creationist out to lie, ill tell you to read a science book, which is where you need to go!
Wheres your definition of kind as compatable with the bible?
Do you know most of the bible pretenders at the discovery instuitute (The people who renamed creationism id) accept teh fact of common desent of man and chimp?
Dont worry about the catholics denying the bible, most of the discovery institute does! LOL
I did not say that the Bible is wrong, but that it is wrongly interpreted. Certain parts require litteral interpretation according to the context, all the Gospels, others like the Book of Revelation are not meant to be litterally interpreted. Others books of the Bible fall between the two categories. Genesis is very general, so it fits easily with all scientific theories. Genesis was never meant to be science and to tell HOW the creation took place. it just says WHO (God) made the creation
No the bible claimming the tower of bable, the ark etc etc etc is real is a valid attack as its not, no matter if tards are going to pretend their bible is true even tho its been proven to be not crediable.
My your ignorance on the evidence for evolution goes without saying but that comment shows it!
The fossils alone prove they where not created all at the same time!
Yes it does, it says Pi =3 your god doesnt know maths much either it says alot of wrong things, and theirs no evidence their is a god let alone that version.
When you say something couldn't have come about through natural means you're dealing with science, because we can actually test it. Again, WLC is shady with how he deals with evolution, he wants it both ways. In his debate with victor stenger he said that if evolution is false, it's evidence for god and if it is true it's evidence for god too, please!
I would also like to know his stand regarding evolution, sometimes he sounds like he accepts it, somethings he doesn't.
Wow, what a jerk. Dawkins does not accept ID because it's no evidence behind it, not because its apparent consequences.
The one who is purposely obtuse is mr craig, you really have to be blind to deny evolution, and it's hypocritical when he accepts things like the big bang just because they help his cosmological argument and discards things like the multiverse saying they're not supported by evidence but when debating biology he turns to the fringe, to ID, how very convenient mr craig.
First of all this wasn't a debate about evolution. Craig specifically said he wouldn't be attacking the merits of evolution itself but instead the darwinian mechanisms. Secondly, Dawkins has rejected ID for anti-religious/metaphyscial reasons. For example, in his interview with Hugh Hewitt, he stated that ID is "creationism" and therefore not science and hence he rejects it. That's clearly an anti-religious reason.
No, I mean the darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. There's a big difference between those mechanisms and that of the simplistic phrase "survival of the fittest". Scientists will even tell you that.
"Are you claiming it is not?"
Yes, most definitely. Understood properly, intelligent design is no more creationism than is the belief that a laptop computer is designed.
ID is a term made up when creationism (religion) was banned from schools, due to its breach of the USA constituion (How mice of them to try and break the constitution)
They even have the transitional form inbetween creationism and ID, as proven in court!
It's irrelevant whether ID was originally a term to describe creationism in schools or not. Academic ID theorists today maintain that ID is simply about justifiable inferences to an intelligent designer. Even if if ID is semantically equivalent to creationism it doesn't refute what ID theorists argue, since their arguments have nothing to do with creationism.
In reality, we all believe in intelligent design (laptops, cars, houses etc etc). The question is whether it's justified in biology.
It is a fact that both some Christians and some atheists think that the Bible actually says (or that we can infer from the text of the Bible) that the earth was created 4004 years BC, but both are wrong. The number of Christian believing that the earth is 4004 years is a minority, this does not represent the opinion of the Catholic Church of the Christian Orthodox Church and of most Protestant denominations
And again, discussing darwinian mechanism he turns to the fringe but when someone brings up a theory that goes agains his arguments he discards it because it's not part of the consensus, consistency my friend.
That's not an anti-religious reason, have you read any of dawkins books? he lays it down clearly why creationism and ID are not science, he doesn't say "because it's religion", it's because both lack explanatory power and are not supported by evidence.
How is it a fringe? Even Dr. Ayala would agree that there's debate among scientists about the mechanisms that drive evolution. I think you're again confusing the fact of evolution with the mechanisms that drive it.
And Dawkin's answer in that interview is most definitely an anti-religious reason. The statement that ID is creationism is obviously an anti-religious reason. Have you even read his books? Here's a direct quote:
"(ID is) not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one" --RD
ID is a fringe, yes there is debate about the mechanisms that drive evolution, there is no debate about ID, at least not outside the minds of ID proponents.
Yes, he said it's a religious argument and he's right, he's also explained countless times why it is not scientific, with scientific reasons, if you wanna pretend all that never happened go ahead.
Yes, and the statement that ID is a religious argument is itself an anti-religious reason, which is the point! And by all means, please enlighten me about Dawkins. Where has Dawkins given scientific reasons against it?
As for ID, yes it is a fringe, but you initially said that Craig's discussion on the mechanisms were a fringe. Don't change your statement.
Read his latest book, for starters. and it's not an anti-religious reason, he says it's creationism and not science because creationism has been proven to be unscientific.
You need to read my initial comment again this is what I said
"but when debating biology he turns to the fringe, to ID,"
That's really beside the point. The point isn't whether intelligent is science. The point is whether it's true or not. There are many things that can't be demonstrated scientifically and yet we would all still believe in them (ie. logic, the external world, ethical/moral truths etc).
In any case, Dawkins doesn't give scientific reasons against ID. He thinks it's equivalent to creationism and hence dismisses, which is again an anti-metaphysical reason.
Absolutely. I gave two sources that has him explicitly making anti-metaphysical reasons. Unlike you, I've read his books and I'm very confident in exactly what he says. You, on the other hand, have still yet to provide any of those supposed "scientific reasons" that I asked you to produce from Dawkins.
Then you really haven't read his books on biology or watched his lectures or interviews.
Let's see if you get it this time, he said it's creationism therefore not science because creationism is not science, not because he rejects religion as you make it out to be. Saying creationism is not science is not a teological statement but a scientific one.
Again, I'm still waiting for those quotes from you. Please quote Dawkins directly on this. Saying that creationism is not science is not itself a science argument. A science argument against ID is using the methods of science to refute the position. Simply saying creationism is not science does nothing to invalidate ID, even if it turns out to be true that ID isn't science. The fundamental point here is that Dawkins dismisses the entire validity of ID because of his dislike of creationism.
I do not have any quotes from dawkins saying " I reject ID for scientific reasons" I also don't have a quote from him saying "cows do not fly". It is obvious to anyone who has reas his books why he rejects creationism and ID, you can think whatever you want.
About your second point, yes, no everything can be proved by science, but isn't that the whole point of the ID movement? plus when you deal with biology you're making scientific statements.
I wonder why? Could it be because you don't actually know what ID theory is?
No, I do not think the world is 6000 years old. To be honest, I hate it when people ask me this question. It's an insult to my intelligence to suggest that I could possibly believe such a thing.
As for evolution, I take it as an established scientific fact.
Surprised? Well believe it or not, ID theory is fully compatible with both the age of the Universe and evolution.
There is nowhere in hte Bible the 600 years old earth (or world) it is a wrong theory developed during the middle age by monkswhich has no basis in hte Bible, just read every word of the Bible and you will see.
I wrote a typo, I meant 6000 (six thousand years) not 600 (six hundred) but you understood what I meant. Yes the 4004 BC date was the addition of various genealogies by monks much after the Bible was written. All these calculations were wrong anyway, because genealogies were not meant in the Bible to be complete and accurate. Moreover the Bible says also that one day for God is like thousands of years for man.
I wrote a typo, I meant 6000 (six thousand years) not 600 (six hundred) but you understood what I meant. Yes the 4004 BC date was the addition of various genealogies by monks much after the Bible was written. All these calculations were wrong anyway, because genealogies were not meant in the Bible to be complete and accurate. Moreover the Bible says also that one day for God is like thousands of years for man. If we refer to the Bible we shall not include therein, words which are not in there
In fact the Bible in Genesis Chapter 1, verse 11 (for plants and trees) verse 20 (for fishes) and verse 24 (for animal living on land) clearly points to evolution according to Darwin. Moreover the mechanisms of darwinism and intellectual design are not incompatible but could work together.
ID theory is not creationism, at least not the academic definition of it defended by its proponents today. Even if it was, it would do nothing to answer the question of whether an intelligent designer was justified in the field of biology. Please keep these two issues separate.
Nowhere does the Bible state the world is 6000 years old. You're reading between the lines
I'm agnostic about ID. I've stated that a few times already. It may or may not be justified in abiogenesis/evolution. Don't know
So if some court today were to judge that evolution was just an attempt by scientists to disprove God would you then accept it? I doubt it. None of this answers whether an intelligent design inference is warranted in biology. As I said before, this is a separate issue. You're arguing about the label. This debate is about the merit of design inferences which has nothing to do with creationism anymore than the belief that an intelligent designer designed your laptop or car is creationism.
Also if you think ID theory really is creationism then you don't have a clue about what ID theorists like Demiski, Denton, Behe, etc argue. As I said before, all of us accept intelligent design when it comes to laptops, cars, houses etc. We don't call that creationism so why call it creationism when it comes to the ID theory, which tries to use the very same principles. If that's creationism, then you better be prepared to consistently say your a creationist because you believe cars are designed
I never said God intelligently designs certain things. I specifically said I don't know if he does (apart from him creating the Universe and it's laws). Whether certain aspects of biology or nature are best explained by an intervening intelligent designer or by natural forces alone I don't know. That's my position.
By the way, could you please take a step back from your own bias. Many of your comments reek of emotionally loaded language which I think clouds your objectivity on this issue.
ALL the evidence points to evolution, alot of it outrightly contradicts the ceration claim.
"objectivity on this issue. "
I have no objectivity on the issuse you do!
If they had evidence it was designed/creation I would accept it.
You on the other started with the answer (from your baseless belief) in a primative story book and will stick to that aslong as your keep pretending its real,
No one is disputing evolution here. I'm surprised you're still stuck on that point. The issue isn't whether evolution happened. Evolution is a fact as I already stated. The real issue here is the forces that drive evolution. Is it natural selection operating on unguided random mutations or is it intelligent design or perhaps both? That's the issue. I'm suggesting intelligent design may be a viable (not true) solution worth investigating. This is the same position Craig argued in the debate.
You keep making me repeat myself. Once again, I'm agnostic on intelligent design. I happen to believe in God but that really has nothing to do with intelligent design as I already defined it. You keep meshing everything together and not recognizing the important distinctions.
The problem with intelligent design is how does one actually determine if something has been designed. How can you prove scientifically that this sentence was designed by a *cough* intelligent person (I'm not!). If you've ever seen a word search then that should help visualise it. The question is how can you tell the difference between a deliberately designed wordsearch, or a random array of letters that just happened to create a valid wordsearch.
Thanks for the response. I agree the question is over the detectability of design in nature. This is one of the reasons I haven't embraced ID yet. In the case of biology it's not black and white. The processes, as I seem them, could go both ways.
And yes, evolution isn't random. I never said it was. I said the mutations are random.
How can anyone call ID a theory, it is a pathetic hypothesis at it's best . . .
hughc023 2 months ago
Part 1. Typical creationist nonsense. They have nothing of value to say to support ID so all they do is attack evolutionary theory.
No matter how many times they say "ID Theory" it is not a theory, it has no predictive power so what use is it?
Aydosh1991 6 months ago
Oh great!
Thanks for posting this...
Craig's an I.D. fan as well.
It just keeps getting better.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122
An "I.D. fan"? He stated in this presentation that he doesn't know of I.D. is warranted or not. That's not exactly being a fan of the idea. You're welcome concerning the upload.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 ... Yes.. obviously he enjoys spending his time debating in support of concepts that he doubts the viability of???
But you do have some good uploads...drcraigvideos has way more though.
it makes life easier for me.
Roper122 1 year ago
Dr Craig seems to be discombobulated by how scientists engage in an enormous extrapolation of Darwinian mechanisms to explain life's history.
Craig is using a $%&*#@$ DOUBLE STANDARD (typical evangelist).
The Big Bang theory, which Craig has a philosophical hard-on for, conducts F&*#$NG ENORMOUS REVERSE TIME EXTRAPOLATIONS FROM PRESENT DATA.
Plate Tectonics, which Craig clearly has no problems with, conducts F%$%&NG ENORMOUS EXTRAPOLATIONS FROM PRESENT DATA.
Spurious argument methinks!
mojorhythm 1 year ago
@mojorhythm Don't stop watching at the first vid ! He explains in the rest of it his claim for Darwinian mechanisms being inadequate to explain all life forms from a common ancestor. He basically uses Ayala's argument against him, by the example of mutating bacteria producing so *little* adaptation across untold mutations and generations.
horsie111 1 year ago
@horsie111 I watched the whole thing ages ago. Craig is a moron. If you want observed, documented, countless examples of evolution in action (mutation, selection, drift etc), all you have to do is go to Nature, New Scientist or any other science journal/magazine and use their search bar. Sure, the examples are small in extent, but that is the point of extrapolation. Like I said, Craig has absolutely no right whatsoever to attack Darwinian evolution on the basis of the extrapolation alone.
mojorhythm 1 year ago
i'd like to see a practical application for intelligent design... it's creationism in a cheap tuxedo
lukeism2 1 year ago
I love how Craig tries to limit the debate to an area where he can apply his silly reasoning.
Right from the word go he deceives people by defining ID as a theory, which it can't be as a theory is based on reproducible experiments and evidence or even proof.
So a lottery win is improbable and thus impossible. Last week a child fell from a 5th floor balcony and was unhurt. Improbable and thus impossible. If someone says: God saved it, I ask: who pushed it?
Is Darwinism the opposite of Godism?
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
i'd love to see william lane craigs ideas peer reviewed. goddidit.
lukeism2 1 year ago
@gorilla199uncensored - When all you can do is resort to name calling, bashing another person, and invoking the ad hominem fallacy it shows how weak you are as a debater. If we're going to debate on intelligent design vs darwinian evolution, it is important to stick to the topics of each side and not rabbit trail to attacking the motives or personal beliefs of the proponents of either theory.
seattlefs 1 year ago
ID is such crap. Demski's filter is useless since the quantities he is asking for are unknown and indeed cannot be known. It is not a theory and contrary to its proponents is ONLY used against biology. If asked how it applies to SETI, you would get get some silly argument but no concrete theory backed up by facts.
madzyzome 2 years ago
Completely correct, except they make up ID because they already are pretending in their prefered version of a big space daddy.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
@eddie this is not an argument. don't waste your time for spamming
@cero It can be tested because it make some predictions, that if intelligent agent designed entire universe, we will find out the use of currently alleged defects in nature, like "junk dna", or retina design. If it is found that most of it are incorrect then we can conclude that it is most likely false.
edwin2028 2 years ago
"It can be tested"
It has and the people who use science to evaluate it say its religious crap. Which ahs already been proven in court, they even have the transitional form from creationism to IDism.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
This is not an argument, you even did not mention about what criteria that were used and why ID does not . I supposed you are educated enough to articulate it without mentioning someone's opinion to justify your belief.
I am waiting for the outcome for California Science Centre case, and should IDer won the case, I can say to you that it has been proven that evolution is crap. But it is not argument either
edwin2028 2 years ago
"you even did not mention"
Oh sorry I didnt supply the tones of research it wont fit in here! You idiot.
I dont know the case, but its one that lets ID be taught, that doesnt disprove the mountains of evidence that prove evolution, it just proves that one judge is biased by his religion and it will be over turned.
Id was proven crap long before the court case which just proves its renaming creationism.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
WOW desrimination against Id, so its discrimination to tell the truth and not show lying religious films.
The science centre is interested in science and not religion thats why they decided not to show the creation film.
so the discover institute is just bitching to get documents that have nothing to do with them.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
ID a theory? How can we falsify such a theory
cero86 2 years ago
Its not a scientific theory its a theory like "my god did it" or the "elves keep keep stealing my sock theory"
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago 2
So Demski claims his god needs a creator(his definition of id), so who was that?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Why am i NOT surprise you cant define Ad-Hom correctly?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
LOL
Me using a word, that your so uneducated you think doesnt exist means im not educated! LOL YES SURE!
Tho its the same claim you make for experts who prove your story book wrong!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"Yes, it's even used and inhabited by our U.S. Military ."
LOL Since yesterday, as yesterday you said they hadent found it, but they might!
LOL IF YOUR GOING TO LIE TRY TO KEEP CONSISTENT!
Creationist dictionary try a real one!
LOL What did I do that was an ad-hom? Your the one who has done them.
BTW DEFINE AD-HOM!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"They teach it as part of history"
Harvard teach the tower and ark as history? YOU DIDNT EVEN ASK IT AS I ASKED!
Its in iraq? Really LOL More baseless cliams!
" because some Atheist says theirs no God doesn't make it true. "
thansk for documenting how dumb you are try looking up atheist when you look up learnt in a dictionary!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Your just an idiot I guess thats why you just keep saying good bye and your not going to reply but keep doing it. Your such an idiot!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Learnt dioesnt exist?
TRY READING A DICTIONARY YOU FOOL!
"Nothing but excuses and ad-hominems. "
OH right yes, you dont know what ad-hominem means!
Even if i did spell somthing wrong, doesnt mean your right you idiot!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
". You're saying that NO professors at all believe in the Ark?"
Gee your dumb, the question was does HArvard, Yale teach the ark, tower of babale as fact.
Just becasue some history teacher is abible pretender doesnt make it true!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"don't want to believe in God, because you are an immoral person"
If your god was true I would accept it.
How am I immoral?
Xtians are immoral, as they can do anything and it doesnt matter because god already forgave them!
My morrals matter to me and my society.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"I did prove you wrong"
LOL no you made a basless claim
FIRST saying
One city in the bible was actually real
(Not that it proves talking snakes)
Now you claim some professors of history believe the ark fairy tales.
Im sure their is such bible pretenders working in sheltered religious schools.
YOU DID NO EMAIL TEH HISTORY DEPS OF HARVARD AND YALE AND GET THEM TO STATE THE SRK WAS REAL
BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT WAS NO!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
No what somone else learnt is not your learning credentials, not that philosophy is any use.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"Professors do not say.."The Ark of Noah is fact." "
LOL so you claim.
You didnt email the History of Yale and Harvard as requested to prove your point!
Becuase you knew they do not teach such crap as truth as it is not.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Well your just retarded (As already proven) If you cnat work out my page, you stupid fool.
But run and block me, becasue you cant prove me wrong as you claim and you know Harvard and Yale will tell you
YOU ARE WRONG!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Yuo can still prove me wrong, emailt eh heads of Hardvard and Yale History departments and ask them
DO YOU TEACH NAOHS ARK AS A FACT?
Just do that then when they reply yes you can tell me im wrong!
Or dont email them as you know its crap so they dont teach the fairy tales.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"gave him my learning credentials"
Oh great more creationist logic, your fathers credentials, make you as qualified as him ont he subject!
LOL NO THEY DONT!
Philosophy anyway hasnt got anything to do with it! Anyway.
Whast the point of bring up your fathers irrelivant credentials? You where trying to use them to support your claims, stupidly enuff.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"don't stick your nose in others I have"
Well if you are going to prove creation by claiming your dads a philospher
THEN ILL TELL YOU YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"Yup, I have"
LOL did not ask the questions I said, the ones you wnated to prove!
THATS BECAUSE YOU KNOW ITS NOT TRUE ALSO THEY DONT TEACH IT AT UNI!
SO DOES HARVARD TEACH THE ARK AS REAL?
YES OR NO?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"not EVERY animal was in the Ark"
So explain what animals where on the ark, and what was not required (by example) (Totally ignoring no bible reference for it offcourse)
BTW It doesnt matter that your dad studied philosophy, doesnt even matter if he studied SOMTHING RELIVANT!
Doensnt matter if you studied anything. IT DOESNT OVERTURN THE PROVEN KNOWLEDEGE OF THE EXPERTS!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"I've done it, why don't you?"
NO YOU DIDNT
YOU DIDNT ASK IF THEY TEACH THE ARK AND TOWER OF BABLE AS HISTORY.
WHICH IS WHAT I ASKED.
All you come back with is one town int he bible was real!
LOL FAIL!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"Not all experts in the field do"
Not all you still have some who lie for their religion including john wells,
(he also accepts human chimp common desent) But then lies claiming MOST creatures appeared in their current form at the cambiran time.
Which contradicts the evidnece!
Anyway it doesnt matter what the bible pretenders say, the fact is even the biggest liars for your religion, wont try to defend the bible creation story as THEY KNOW ITS WRONG!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"Behe, does"
See you do know somthings.
"and that's fine"
So behes denial of the bible, saying its wrong is fine with you?
Hmmm, you like to pretend creation fairy tale in the bible is true, now your fine with it beiong wrong!
MAKE UP YOUR MIND!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
There was no Ark, historians will never find it.
Just think about it, how long would it take to build such and ark and load it so that each animal would fit into it. More so, given the rate of birth complications present in the natural world, it would be unreasonable and illogical to only load one pair of each animal.
MaltyT 2 years ago
"Just think about it"
Religion is not about thinking, its about the opposite, denying reality, even deny what the bible says when it becomes impossible to defend any more.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
" I proved you wrong there"
No you didnt you didnt even ask
DO THEY TEACH THE ARK AS REAL!
DID YOU?
Thats what I said and you faile dot even them the question.
now you claim one city in the bible is real
WHO CARES!
It doesnt mean unicorns and talking donkeys and talking snakes are real!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"That was a little over what 3 months ago? "
WELL DO WHAT I HAVE ASKED YOU REPEATYEDLY
EMAIL HARVARD YALE
ASK THEM IF THE ARK WAS TRUE!
Do that and prove yoru claim they teach it as fact! (but you know its a lie of yours)
"I've proven you wrong many times"
Oh the good old I win your wrong as you like to do!
What have your proven me wrong on?
WHERES YOUR DEFINITION OF WHAT DARWINIAN MECHANIS ARE!
That I keep asking for!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
What are you on about?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"I'm asking for your evidence"
Im not going to go dig up quotes for peoples who opinion i dont care about.
Behe for one accepts human chimp common ancestory (hes the only discovery institute clown who wasnt too afraid to try and defend it in court)
Even if the bible pretending idiots at di dont accept the fact, the experts in the field do!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"I have backed them up"
LOL by what claiming some unkopwn person who supposidly works at harvard agress with some of the bible?
Does he state the ark was real?
Whats his
name
position
department and email address?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
The bible is full of literary contradictions, however this isn't a problem if one accepts that say in the instance of the gospel's the writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had scribes to help them write stuff down (as was the tradition of the culture at the time.)
It is like having four journalists covering a soccer match. There will be discrepancies in the reporting and some gaps will be left out cause nothing interesting happened. However, the spine of each story will match up.
MaltyT 2 years ago
"he "it" of the majority"
I liketo tell the fundies they are in the minorty,even tho they will deny this fact.
"There will be discrepancies in the reporting "
Yes but the bible has terrible contradictions such all knowing god and the not all knowing god etc.
"this isn't a problem"
Accept for the fact, their is no reason to believe any of it especially given so much of it wrong.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Damn, Youtube doesn't allow edits :-(
Meant to say
"Don't paint everyone with the same brush."
:o
MaltyT 2 years ago
BTW history is history not science. Not that history even claims the ark and other bible fairy tales it denies them!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
@gorilla199uncensored
The bible is regarded as a literary text consisting of poetry,songs,allegories etc.
Parts of it aren't meant to be taken as historic text, these includes the tales of the ark.
Yes, admittingly there are some Christians that think it is a kind of scientific textbook - the majority don't.
So please don't slate everyone with the same sword.
MaltyT 2 years ago
"Parts of it aren't meant to be taken as historic text"
So you claim, fundies on the other say your are wrong and its a fact..
I dont I told him the majority accept the bible is fully of contradictions, absurdities, fairy tales and the vialness of your god.
Which makes for two questions
1) Why do you believe any of it
2) Why would you want to follow such a vial god
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
@gorilla199uncensored
1) I don't believe any of it, but the "it" you are referring to, isn't the "it" of the majority.
2) I don't follow any God, nor do I think one exists.
MaltyT 2 years ago
" I called them. :) "
THEIR NAMES
POSITION
UNIVERSITY
DID THEY SAY THE ARK WAS TRUE?
(Which is what I reuested)
You can prove me wrong by supplying this info.
So prove me wrong!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"signs of an educational level increase"
Research companies including the morgan gallop (the ones you quoted) have done it many times.
ITs just another fact you dont like.
Education/intelligence increases belief in god decreases.
MENSA even banned surveying religion because the fact so few members where god pretenders was just too hot a subject int he USA!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"if in fact he does"
Just read his comments, the reason why he accepts the truth doesnt matter. Just he says yoru wrong.
"have not refuted any of mine"
Refute what?
You have nothing to refute.
The bible is true because it mentions a real place?
THATS YOUR PROOF! LOL FAIL!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"That makes no sense "Most never all". "
AH NO
MOST of the DI clowns accept the fact of common desent of man and chimp as does christianjr4 NOT all of them, thats why I /NEVER SAID ALL OF THEM!
"not by Darwinian means"
AS I ALREADY ASKED!
Define what mean!
"Evidence please. "
Keep denying the truth, its a know fact most xtians accept the fact of eovlution.
Im not going to prove 2 + 2 = 4 to somone who just denies it.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
you said you dont know who he is.
I stated its his video
Then you claim you dont know him because hes not a friend.
You where just covering because you didnt realise its his video.
"Darwinian means"
Really explain what they are plz :)
"Jericho"
WOW your bible names a place that actually exists, so its true?
LOL THATS THE BEST YOU HAVE? FAIL
I THOUGHT HANSEL AND GRETEL WASNT REAL, THAT USES A REAL PLACE! LOL
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"IN fact, I've spoken to professors at Harvard and Yale "
Really, wheres your email from the head of history department with his stating if the ark was real or not?
Biology department proves it didnt happen.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
" 2008 Gallup Poll "
Also show as in intelligence/education level increases belief in god decreases!
You god is dying out, USA is very backward, europe is giving up on pretending your god is real in droves. Countries that where 90% xtians at the end of WW2 are now 85% atheist.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"Religious history as well, and since History is considered a science"
Ah no religion is religion ( A BASELESS BELIEF) if it was science they could prove which one was real! LOL
Now what I asked was for you to contact Harvard etc and ask them if they teach the ark fairy tale. (So you could prove me and yourself right)
Did you email them and ask them if they teach the ark fairy tale as real?
NO BECAUSE YOU KNOW ITS NOT TRUE THAT WHY THEY DONT TEACH IT!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Hmm heres one of yoru claims....
"Science proves a creator"
FUNNY how no university teach that!
Oh thats right they are about the truth, unless they are religious "unis"
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Even if all the ass hats as the di didnt accpt the fact, they are still wrong. Their is various videos etc of them admitting the truth. Eg BEHE (The only one who had the guts to even to try and defend id in court) accepts it.
"Yes, I KNOW who he is"
You didnt before, the fact you dont go and hang out at his house has nothing to do with the fact he has admitted
EVOLUTION IS FACT, including chimp human common ancestor
The ark is BS
Tower of bable is BS
etc etc
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"He states He is everlasting."
WOW who cna argue with a quopte form the primative bronze age story book full of contradtions, absurdity and just wrong!
Theres no need too, its worthless claim speaks for its self!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Give what you didnt ask for anything yet again!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
So demskis claim of what id is, means god needs an designer more than man does.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Most xtians accept the fact of evolution, even most of the discovery iinstitute who renamed creationism ID accept the common desent of man and chimp.
Ah hes the guy who put this video up you idiot!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
christianjr4 denies the bibles cretqaion myth, he accepts man and chimps evolved from a common ancestor and doesnt believe in the ark.
Just like the majority of xtians.
So is he xtians since he denies alot of the bible?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"you gave none. "
AS I TOLD YOU
THE VIDEO IS IN MY FAVORITES!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Ran out of room..
Whether the wordsearch is designed is or not is purely a subjective opinion. Science deals with objective reality so being subjective about a field in science is not doing science. Science needs precision, not vagueness,and the criterion for design is far too vague.
MaltyT 2 years ago
No your not as the other person pointed out. If you cant understand that your either stupid or lying or both.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
sources for what?
state them!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
LOL What Have you backed up?
What havent I backed up?
Im not going to spoon you simple science as your an ignorant creationist out to lie, ill tell you to read a science book, which is where you need to go!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"Wrong,"
NO
You claimed all apes are humans, which is NOT true!
Read a science book and prove yourself werong!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Humans sharing a sommon Ancestor with Apes does not mean humans are apes.
Eitherway,
Logic such as "Humans are apes ergo apes are human" is fallacious.
This is identical to:
"All men are Humans, Mary is human ergo Mary is a man."
MaltyT 2 years ago
Hes a retarded theist, appprently he cant understand t6hat carrots being a vegetable doesnt mean all vegetavbles are carrots.
Or atleast when he tries to apply it to evolution.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"believe that we descended from an ape like ancestor"
I have not said either way, as your question doesnt make any sence, I have no idea what you think you are asking.
Im sure you have no idea what you are trying to ask tho!
"Humans are apes, and so with that apes are humans right? "
Are you retarded?
You must be to think that!
OR just being retarded for your religion.
Carrots are vegetables so all vegtables are carrots! LOL thats the stupid thing you claim.
Wake up!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"so then apes would be humans"
no you dumb ass bible pretender cant you understand simple english.
Oh thats right you need to lie for your religion.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"how you believe a so called "creationist""
Ah what do you mean?
You didnt explain why the creationists couldnt decide dif somthing was human or not.
Or why a cerationist would say human, then change to ape.
Why cant they decide if its human or ape, since they dependant on tehm being one and not the other.
But they stuffed up and admitted its both! :)
LISTEN Humans are apes!
You are a science illiterate...
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Theirs a video on it in my favorites.
"if they are confused"
SO its not confused when one creationist says its human then says its ape?
Or when creationists contradict each other?
LOL
No confusion! Yer more pretending things are not as they are in reality....
Keep lying for jesus, even for the things most xtians will admit are not true int he bible! LOL
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"I don't know why their confused"
how can they be confused over if somthing is human or ape?
Do you get confused between an apple and a dog?
Only things that are extremely similar right?
"was it an ape, or was it human? "
humans are apes.
humans desended from a non human ape.
Thats why their is no human fossils before 1 million years ago.
none from 4000 million years before then until then...... Whys that?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Really which ones didnt need to be taken on the ark?
No what about the Kinds=species that we know evolved in recent times?
Where did they come from?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"SO YOU ANSWER IT PLEASE. :) "
Answer what?
Ill answer as soon as you tell me why the creationists confussed over wether its huamn or ape!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
I love it
"I wont show you why its valid"
Ill just say the arguments against it are not valid......
Guess what!
that doenst make it true!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
No I asked you why creationisist would get so confused.
You refuse to answer as your only answer is the one you dont want to say!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
You define kind as species?
So their was millions of species on the ark ! LOL
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Doesnt matter.
the fact is what does it mean when creationists cant agree if somthing is human or ape?
thats what im asking you..
Care to answer or keep running?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
" Even a 5yr old knows what a kind is."
So why did you avoid the question.
ANSWER IT!
DEFINE KIND!
As used in the bbile.
"Discovery Institute"
Yes most of those bible pretenders accept the fact of common decent of man and chimp.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"an ape is human?? "
No the creationist said it was an ape then said it was a human, another said it was ape and another cretaionist said it was human.
The creationist are confused ones, they cant get their lies straight
"was it an ape or a human "
Well the creationisnst couldnt decide!
Or they decided then changed their mind!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Go to a mathamatician for biology?
Who do you go to for surgery?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Wheres your definition of kind as compatable with the bible?
Do you know most of the bible pretenders at the discovery instuitute (The people who renamed creationism id) accept teh fact of common desent of man and chimp?
Dont worry about the catholics denying the bible, most of the discovery institute does! LOL
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"an APE like ancestor in which you can't decide if it was an ape or not?"
Say like an ape that one creationis is human and another says its human?
Or an ape that a creationist says it ape then says its human?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"Evolution a slow gradual change."
Possibly.
"We evolved from one species to another. "
They knew that before darwin.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Just for a laff
Explain the difference between evolution and darwinian
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Like most xtians they accept the fact of evolution as proven by science.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"into something other than it's kind."
Actually evolution doesnt say they evolve into somthing that not their kind.
OH what do you mena by kind?
Provide meaning of kind that is compatable with the bible :)
" true age of the earth"
Noting to do with age of earth, thanks for sharing your abundant ignorance yet again tho.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
No they accept the fact of evolution as proven by the theory.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"The fossils alone do not prove anything"
You said thats all evolution is.
No fossils out of place out the 10s of muillions on the ones found, none dated to the wrong time.
No mammal before they evolved!
No Elephant before they evolved.
Not one fossil from the 4 billion previous years of any mammal!
"To an engineer 10 could be anywhere from 29.5 to 30.5"
LOL now your trying to say 10 doesnt equall ten LOL FAIL
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
So demski claims your god was created, he was but by man.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
I did not say that the Bible is wrong, but that it is wrongly interpreted. Certain parts require litteral interpretation according to the context, all the Gospels, others like the Book of Revelation are not meant to be litterally interpreted. Others books of the Bible fall between the two categories. Genesis is very general, so it fits easily with all scientific theories. Genesis was never meant to be science and to tell HOW the creation took place. it just says WHO (God) made the creation
Genghiskhan52 2 years ago
"but that it is wrongly interpreted."
When lame excuses are not appplied.
bible says god is all knowing and also he is not all knowing.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"ad hominem attacks. "
No the bible claimming the tower of bable, the ark etc etc etc is real is a valid attack as its not, no matter if tards are going to pretend their bible is true even tho its been proven to be not crediable.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"There are no contradictions"
LOL yes the good old hands over the ears and eyes dsayign no no no doesnt chantge the truth!
"the earth will end"
Bible says earth will last forever
"understanding."
Whast their to understand
God claims the earth will last forever
THIS IS WRONG!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"all you have are the bones of a dead animal"
My your ignorance on the evidence for evolution goes without saying but that comment shows it!
The fossils alone prove they where not created all at the same time!
Yes it does, it says Pi =3 your god doesnt know maths much either it says alot of wrong things, and theirs no evidence their is a god let alone that version.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"Archeology proves the accuracy of the Bible"
Ah no the fossils never exist before the animal evolved, no modern animals dated with the animals from 100, 500, 1000 million yeras ago.
"Tower of Babel has been found,"
LOL yer sure!
Heaven is in the clouds. THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"Christ dying for our sins is not a metaphor"
So you claim, theres no reason that part of your baseless belief is correct when the bible is full on wrong, contradictions and fairy tales.
"says that "ALL THINGS WILL PASS AWAY." "
Alkso says THE EARTH WILL LAST FOREVER!
So yet another contradition.
No surprising when gods own book says he is all powerfull and all knowing, then says HE IS NOT!
Thats not much of a selling poitn for a god is it.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
When you say something couldn't have come about through natural means you're dealing with science, because we can actually test it. Again, WLC is shady with how he deals with evolution, he wants it both ways. In his debate with victor stenger he said that if evolution is false, it's evidence for god and if it is true it's evidence for god too, please!
I would also like to know his stand regarding evolution, sometimes he sounds like he accepts it, somethings he doesn't.
DarwinsOtherTheory 2 years ago
"he used a metaphor"
Great so maybe jesus duying for your sins is a metaphor, maybe the ark is a methaphor. You just tiold me I cnat believe what the bible says!
BTW the bible also claims,
Sun travels back to where it came from (after going across sky)
The earth doesnt move? (AH NO)
The earth will last forever? (NO the sun will destory it)
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"age of the earth."
Simple maths, the age of adam when son born, etc etc till jesus!
"Science is currently searching "
Ah no!
So its not one of the 9-12 already found?
Thats because DNA proves NO ARK!
"The Tower of Babel"
No massive pile of rubbls is their, let alone the fact the first couple feet would be far more work than the great pyramid!
poor god scared of them getting to heaven?
the bible says heaven in the sky, the clouds as people thought.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Great so by demskis standard, your god was designed, but by who?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Wow, what a jerk. Dawkins does not accept ID because it's no evidence behind it, not because its apparent consequences.
The one who is purposely obtuse is mr craig, you really have to be blind to deny evolution, and it's hypocritical when he accepts things like the big bang just because they help his cosmological argument and discards things like the multiverse saying they're not supported by evidence but when debating biology he turns to the fringe, to ID, how very convenient mr craig.
DarwinsOtherTheory 2 years ago
First of all this wasn't a debate about evolution. Craig specifically said he wouldn't be attacking the merits of evolution itself but instead the darwinian mechanisms. Secondly, Dawkins has rejected ID for anti-religious/metaphyscial reasons. For example, in his interview with Hugh Hewitt, he stated that ID is "creationism" and therefore not science and hence he rejects it. That's clearly an anti-religious reason.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"darwinian mechanisms"
You mean that stupid idea, the best suited to survive are more likely to survive?
"he stated that ID is "creationism" "
Are you claiming it is not?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
No, I mean the darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. There's a big difference between those mechanisms and that of the simplistic phrase "survival of the fittest". Scientists will even tell you that.
"Are you claiming it is not?"
Yes, most definitely. Understood properly, intelligent design is no more creationism than is the belief that a laptop computer is designed.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
" intelligent design is no more creationism"
ID is a term made up when creationism (religion) was banned from schools, due to its breach of the USA constituion (How mice of them to try and break the constitution)
They even have the transitional form inbetween creationism and ID, as proven in court!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
It's irrelevant whether ID was originally a term to describe creationism in schools or not. Academic ID theorists today maintain that ID is simply about justifiable inferences to an intelligent designer. Even if if ID is semantically equivalent to creationism it doesn't refute what ID theorists argue, since their arguments have nothing to do with creationism.
In reality, we all believe in intelligent design (laptops, cars, houses etc etc). The question is whether it's justified in biology.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
" ID was originally a term to describe creationism"
They had creationism,
The court made a ruling against creationism
They replaced creationism with ID in every place it was in the book pandas and people!
"nothing to do with creationism."
ID has nothing to do with creationism?
Hmmm apart from being the same thing
IF it has a designer
Thats the creator!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
It is a fact that both some Christians and some atheists think that the Bible actually says (or that we can infer from the text of the Bible) that the earth was created 4004 years BC, but both are wrong. The number of Christian believing that the earth is 4004 years is a minority, this does not represent the opinion of the Catholic Church of the Christian Orthodox Church and of most Protestant denominations
Genghiskhan52 2 years ago
"Catholic Church "
They accept the fact of evolution and that the bible is wrong on creation!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"genealogies were not meant in the Bible to be complete and accurate."
Yet again you keep telling me the bvible is wrong on so many things, then claim you know other things (with no evidence is real)
No lawyer would use the bible as a witness in court it would just destroy the case as it is not crediable.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"William Lane Craig"
What are his qualifications?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Wheaton College — B. A. Communications, high honors1971
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School — M. A. Philosophy of Religion, summa cum laude1975
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School — M. A. Church History, summa cum laude1975
University of Birmingham, England — Ph.D. Philosophy1977
Universität München, Germany — D. Theol. Theology1984
Epydemic2020 2 years ago 3
So he knows about religion (What a waste of time)
And nothing about anything real, including biology!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
what a person knows is not determined by what degrees they hold., but it appears that he is not "formally" educated in biology.
He does have a Ph.D. in philosophy. I think that qualifies as "real".
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Philosophy is bs
But he is not the person to ask on evolution, which is why he ahs on idea about the overwhelming proof of evolution.
Oh thats right he just ignores it because of his baseless bleif.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
So how much reality do you like with your religion?
6000 year earth as the bible claims?
Ark fairy tale?
tower of bable?
Guess you just deny the flat earth on 4 pillars that the sun goes around and that the sun wont destroy eventually?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Can you link me to the verse that says the Bible is 6000 years old? I seemed to have missed that one.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
The maths, the geneology from adam to jesus. The fundies tell me its correct as the bible is 100% accurate (LOL)
Even with their excuse the 2 geneologies are different (They claim one is marys for no reason)
Mary turns out o be 240 yeras older than gay joe.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
And again, discussing darwinian mechanism he turns to the fringe but when someone brings up a theory that goes agains his arguments he discards it because it's not part of the consensus, consistency my friend.
That's not an anti-religious reason, have you read any of dawkins books? he lays it down clearly why creationism and ID are not science, he doesn't say "because it's religion", it's because both lack explanatory power and are not supported by evidence.
DarwinsOtherTheory 2 years ago
How is it a fringe? Even Dr. Ayala would agree that there's debate among scientists about the mechanisms that drive evolution. I think you're again confusing the fact of evolution with the mechanisms that drive it.
And Dawkin's answer in that interview is most definitely an anti-religious reason. The statement that ID is creationism is obviously an anti-religious reason. Have you even read his books? Here's a direct quote:
"(ID is) not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one" --RD
Christianjr4 2 years ago
ID is a fringe, yes there is debate about the mechanisms that drive evolution, there is no debate about ID, at least not outside the minds of ID proponents.
Yes, he said it's a religious argument and he's right, he's also explained countless times why it is not scientific, with scientific reasons, if you wanna pretend all that never happened go ahead.
DarwinsOtherTheory 2 years ago
"Yes, he said it's a religious argument"
Yes, and the statement that ID is a religious argument is itself an anti-religious reason, which is the point! And by all means, please enlighten me about Dawkins. Where has Dawkins given scientific reasons against it?
As for ID, yes it is a fringe, but you initially said that Craig's discussion on the mechanisms were a fringe. Don't change your statement.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Read his latest book, for starters. and it's not an anti-religious reason, he says it's creationism and not science because creationism has been proven to be unscientific.
You need to read my initial comment again this is what I said
"but when debating biology he turns to the fringe, to ID,"
Can't be clearer than that.
DarwinsOtherTheory 2 years ago
"given scientific reasons against it?"
How about the fact its not science
It starts with the answer
Then trys to prove it
OH all the evidence contradicts creation.
Whats craigs qualifications?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"How about the fact its not science"
That's really beside the point. The point isn't whether intelligent is science. The point is whether it's true or not. There are many things that can't be demonstrated scientifically and yet we would all still believe in them (ie. logic, the external world, ethical/moral truths etc).
In any case, Dawkins doesn't give scientific reasons against ID. He thinks it's equivalent to creationism and hence dismisses, which is again an anti-metaphysical reason.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Still saying dawkins rejects ID because of metaphysical reasons? man you're dense.
DarwinsOtherTheory 2 years ago
Absolutely. I gave two sources that has him explicitly making anti-metaphysical reasons. Unlike you, I've read his books and I'm very confident in exactly what he says. You, on the other hand, have still yet to provide any of those supposed "scientific reasons" that I asked you to produce from Dawkins.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Then you really haven't read his books on biology or watched his lectures or interviews.
Let's see if you get it this time, he said it's creationism therefore not science because creationism is not science, not because he rejects religion as you make it out to be. Saying creationism is not science is not a teological statement but a scientific one.
DarwinsOtherTheory 2 years ago
Again, I'm still waiting for those quotes from you. Please quote Dawkins directly on this. Saying that creationism is not science is not itself a science argument. A science argument against ID is using the methods of science to refute the position. Simply saying creationism is not science does nothing to invalidate ID, even if it turns out to be true that ID isn't science. The fundamental point here is that Dawkins dismisses the entire validity of ID because of his dislike of creationism.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Creationism/ID ignores all the evidence which supports evolution etc.
It is not science, it ignores the evidence!
tho the main ID group (which lane is a leader) most dont have a problem with man and chimps common desent. (They know its stupid to deny it)
Creationism, starts with My god did it.
Now lets say things where designed.
Humans are designed
Then your god needs a designer even more than we do!
The
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
I do not have any quotes from dawkins saying " I reject ID for scientific reasons" I also don't have a quote from him saying "cows do not fly". It is obvious to anyone who has reas his books why he rejects creationism and ID, you can think whatever you want.
About your second point, yes, no everything can be proved by science, but isn't that the whole point of the ID movement? plus when you deal with biology you're making scientific statements.
DarwinsOtherTheory 2 years ago
Im not sure what your beliefs are
So you dont accept the common desent of man and chimp?
You think the world is 6000 years old?
Think the ark was real?
4400 years ago as the bible says?
Evolution is a consipracy (started by xtians) to disprove their religion? Or everyone in biology is retarded so they dont realise they are wrong?
Or what?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"Im not sure what your beliefs are"
I wonder why? Could it be because you don't actually know what ID theory is?
No, I do not think the world is 6000 years old. To be honest, I hate it when people ask me this question. It's an insult to my intelligence to suggest that I could possibly believe such a thing.
As for evolution, I take it as an established scientific fact.
Surprised? Well believe it or not, ID theory is fully compatible with both the age of the Universe and evolution.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"ID theory is"
Its the renaming of creationism, Eg a God (NOT any god, my god offcourse)
Easy to come to the answer when you start with it.
Well the bible says 6000 years (but as you know its full of crap)
So accept evolution and admit the bible is wrong on creationism.
"ID theory (an idea) is fully compatible"
Great so you wouldnt apply it to anything alive today as it evolved.
You would apply it to first life 4 billion years ago only?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
There is nowhere in hte Bible the 600 years old earth (or world) it is a wrong theory developed during the middle age by monkswhich has no basis in hte Bible, just read every word of the Bible and you will see.
Genghiskhan52 2 years ago
geneology from adam to jesus is 4004 years
the fact you deny its good you accept the bible is wrong.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
I wrote a typo, I meant 6000 (six thousand years) not 600 (six hundred) but you understood what I meant. Yes the 4004 BC date was the addition of various genealogies by monks much after the Bible was written. All these calculations were wrong anyway, because genealogies were not meant in the Bible to be complete and accurate. Moreover the Bible says also that one day for God is like thousands of years for man.
Genghiskhan52 2 years ago
I wrote a typo, I meant 6000 (six thousand years) not 600 (six hundred) but you understood what I meant. Yes the 4004 BC date was the addition of various genealogies by monks much after the Bible was written. All these calculations were wrong anyway, because genealogies were not meant in the Bible to be complete and accurate. Moreover the Bible says also that one day for God is like thousands of years for man. If we refer to the Bible we shall not include therein, words which are not in there
Genghiskhan52 2 years ago
In fact the Bible in Genesis Chapter 1, verse 11 (for plants and trees) verse 20 (for fishes) and verse 24 (for animal living on land) clearly points to evolution according to Darwin. Moreover the mechanisms of darwinism and intellectual design are not incompatible but could work together.
Genghiskhan52 2 years ago
"clearly points to evolution according to Darwin."
Great you even deny what the bible says about creation... because you knwo its wrong.
"intellectual design "
As in gods fiddling aweay making evolution happen?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
ID theory is not creationism, at least not the academic definition of it defended by its proponents today. Even if it was, it would do nothing to answer the question of whether an intelligent designer was justified in the field of biology. Please keep these two issues separate.
Nowhere does the Bible state the world is 6000 years old. You're reading between the lines
I'm agnostic about ID. I've stated that a few times already. It may or may not be justified in abiogenesis/evolution. Don't know
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"ID theory is not creationism"
Its been proven in court wether you accept the truth or not.
"its proponents today"
Exactly, they where told by court creationism is religion, they renamed creationism ID and just pretend its designed, oh 3wait thats dcreationism.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
So if some court today were to judge that evolution was just an attempt by scientists to disprove God would you then accept it? I doubt it. None of this answers whether an intelligent design inference is warranted in biology. As I said before, this is a separate issue. You're arguing about the label. This debate is about the merit of design inferences which has nothing to do with creationism anymore than the belief that an intelligent designer designed your laptop or car is creationism.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
" whether an intelligent design inference is warranted"
Well thast simply answered does any educational institution teach ID? NO not unless they are religious!
THERES YOUR ANSWER!
Its not taught in unis becasue its crap.
you can prove me wrong, by emailling harvard, yale etc
Asking them why they teach ID! (YOU KNOW THEY DONT)
BTW if its intelligent design, its done by a retard.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Also if you think ID theory really is creationism then you don't have a clue about what ID theorists like Demiski, Denton, Behe, etc argue. As I said before, all of us accept intelligent design when it comes to laptops, cars, houses etc. We don't call that creationism so why call it creationism when it comes to the ID theory, which tries to use the very same principles. If that's creationism, then you better be prepared to consistently say your a creationist because you believe cars are designed
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"ID theory really is creationism"
Its is it was created when creationism was found to be against the constituion, so they got the book people and pandas
Just changed creation to intelligent design.
Didnt change what the book said, just the word
CREATION TO INRTELLIGENT DESIGN!
So since snow flakes are obviously intelligent designed.
Your god is their making evry single one?
Since the sequence of atoms is even more improbable god put each one in place personally?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
I never said God intelligently designs certain things. I specifically said I don't know if he does (apart from him creating the Universe and it's laws). Whether certain aspects of biology or nature are best explained by an intervening intelligent designer or by natural forces alone I don't know. That's my position.
By the way, could you please take a step back from your own bias. Many of your comments reek of emotionally loaded language which I think clouds your objectivity on this issue.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"by natural forces alone "
ALL the evidence points to evolution, alot of it outrightly contradicts the ceration claim.
"objectivity on this issue. "
I have no objectivity on the issuse you do!
If they had evidence it was designed/creation I would accept it.
You on the other started with the answer (from your baseless belief) in a primative story book and will stick to that aslong as your keep pretending its real,
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
No one is disputing evolution here. I'm surprised you're still stuck on that point. The issue isn't whether evolution happened. Evolution is a fact as I already stated. The real issue here is the forces that drive evolution. Is it natural selection operating on unguided random mutations or is it intelligent design or perhaps both? That's the issue. I'm suggesting intelligent design may be a viable (not true) solution worth investigating. This is the same position Craig argued in the debate.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"No one is disputing evolution here"
Litrchspeil along with the other fundies do.
"is it intelligent design"
Do you have a bible reference for that?
So you dont try to defend the bible on the ark, creation of man, or the tower of bable etc etc?
"worth investigating"
Its been investigated and proven to have no basis.
You might as well be claiming, an intelligent designer god controlled every card turn and dice roll in history.
no reason to blame god or micky mouse.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"I have no objectivity on the issuse you do!"
Do you even know what the word objectivity means?
"You on the other started with the answer"
You keep making me repeat myself. Once again, I'm agnostic on intelligent design. I happen to believe in God but that really has nothing to do with intelligent design as I already defined it. You keep meshing everything together and not recognizing the important distinctions.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"word objectivity means?"
Ah yes, ill accept facts what ever they mean.
You ont he other hand will deny things that contradict your religion!
" I happen to believe in God "
Oh right you believe your god did it (the answer you decided before the question was even asked)
That has nothing to do with the question.
Just like they renamed creation ID already knowing their god did it.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
@Christianjr4
The problem with intelligent design is how does one actually determine if something has been designed. How can you prove scientifically that this sentence was designed by a *cough* intelligent person (I'm not!). If you've ever seen a word search then that should help visualise it. The question is how can you tell the difference between a deliberately designed wordsearch, or a random array of letters that just happened to create a valid wordsearch.
Btw evolution is not random!
MaltyT 2 years ago
Hi MaltyT,
Thanks for the response. I agree the question is over the detectability of design in nature. This is one of the reasons I haven't embraced ID yet. In the case of biology it's not black and white. The processes, as I seem them, could go both ways.
And yes, evolution isn't random. I never said it was. I said the mutations are random.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"mutations are random. "
So if you accept random mutations, then where is the design part?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago