Intelligence to get it to where it is now. So how could dna form anything if it was not in anything in the first place so we know organic life and dna had to be around at the same time in order to produce life but how if neither one can be called life with out them being made as one whole unit because dna has to be in something to star to create a life form. Without the vessel its useless it makes nothing and cant replucate anything with out being in it first
@cjguitarist100 And how do all your unaswered questions add one iota of probability to creation ? Science is in it`s infancy. Modern science is hardly 2 centennia old. You want all the questions answered in 2012 ? The more science advances, the more questions there seem to be . Religion is at the heels of science, always finding gaps in our knowledge to prop up their faith, for which they can`t provide any evidence.
@ndzoko or maybe the more science advances, the more it validates ID-
consider that 'scientists' claimed that the Universe was static- eternal- mocking the idea of a 'creation event' until a theist discovered the Big Bang...
@GuyThreepwoody No sir, just the opposite, The more science advances the more god is cornered. . I believe it is your bible which states that the world is immovable, and maybe scientists a few hundred years ago, said the same thing. But science discovers the truth sooner or later. Yes, a theist discovered the Big-Bang, yet ,most believers stick to Genesis.
@GuyThreepwoody LOL, whatever, 1) Your fellow believers of that time threatened to kill him, unless he would reject what now you quote you mor**! 2) Today Galileo would not be able to compete even with undergrad astronomers dude. Science moved on, ya know? Thats your dishonesty, if you like the thinking of that age, why don't you use the technology, and medicine of that age? If you wanna ignore all the rest we learned in the meantime, why do you use it everyday to live better?
@ONESPECIES 1: the worst they ever did was put him under house arrest in a posh condo...
2:Galileo is an example of scientific method versus institutionalized 'science' The Catholic church was considered a scientific authority, the most educated men, best libraries, best observatories even- tech. has changed- bias in interpretation of observations has not.
observations have validated humanity's faith in a higher purpose, creation event, fine tuning, miracle of life etc etc..
@GuyThreepwoody One applicable piece of Intelligent Design would be enough to prove we need to rethink about it. Such an example would be, an Intelligent Design proponent predicting something better than an Evolutionary Biologist, having it confirmed, and then provide a mechanism for his prediction. The rest is just cheap talk. If ID is progressing, then truly they should be able to make something with it by now.
@ONESPECIES Just like the 'creation event' predicition that was validated-
ID always predicted that life could not possibly have created itself on Earth. After decades of failing to reproduce this, far less show how it could have happened accidentaly- 'scientists' are beginning to conceed it may not have (seeded by asteroids etc)
So there's two pretty clear predictions considering the inherent difficulty of the subject.
any evidence for self creating universes or life yet- or just faith?
@GuyThreepwoody Evolution does not speak about the Origin of matter, but of the origin of Biodiversity. Intelligent desing tries the same thing. ID does not offer a genesis account. Therefore, you need to connect the Bible Account with the ID account to have a complete story. This clearly shows that ID is a religious relic, specifically made to misinfrom about Evolution, and not the offspring of a Scientific breakthrough, since it is unrelated and incompatible with any Scientific Theorie. Bye
@ONESPECIES That's one subjective interpretation, and to label people with differing views from yours as 'dishonest' is another symptom of ideological slant. I think most people are intelligent and want to know the truth on both sides, but as in the noted examples, this academic bias against ID often leads science astray.
I say forget the bias on both sides and look at the evidence uncovered- there WAS a creation event, the universe IS finely tuned for life to exist etc
@GuyThreepwoody Hey hey easy tiger. "Dishonest" refers to a simple objectively dishonest act of ID proponents. Accusing Evolutionary Biology of not having met some standards, while they never meet those standards themselves. And I said to you, let me see an ID proponent, produce something with his knowledge in a lab, like a biologist does, like Venter for example. For now all you present is talk. So there is no bias, there is a real issue, of ID offering nothing above its competition. Sorry.
@ONESPECIES 'Made to misinform' sounds like an accusation of dishonesty- if it wasn't intended that way- then sorry- that's a communication issue...
Nothing in a lab has demonstrated how life or the Universe could possibly have created itself. zero evidence- so that's a wash at the very least What we do have is a lot of remarkable sophistication and fine tuning that demands explanation, involvment of purposeful intent would account for this better than it's 'competition' of 'fluke'
@GuyThreepwoody Dude, a Judge in the court of Law, witnessed and confirmed, the fact that a popular ID handbook, was just an old Creationist manual, with word replacement from Creationism to Intelligent Design. ID proponents are not just casually dishonest, they live for being dishonest. Sorry, can't just pull my eyes out, so I can ignore this. Science branches rise from the need to canonize and unify amounting knowledge in a field of study. ID rose from the fall of Creationism. No science need.
@ONESPECIES different uses of the term obviously- but I think it's fair to say- the lowest common denomenator is belief in an intelligent, purposeful creator- the intelligent design of the Universe- I could also point to classic blunders of science- static Universe, Piltdown man, global cooling/warming etc- but i wouldn't tar all scientists with the same brush...
@GuyThreepwoody Nothing ever has demonstrated how , when or why, the creator(supposedly) created life and the universe. Nothing created itself. Something must have existed from all eternity. And that is just the most accepted, logic hypothesis. It is no dogma. Science doe not claim with 100 % certainty that
@ndzoko OK- so that's even then- what's not even is the ablity of intelligent purpose versus blind accident to account for all the sophistication and fine tuning of the Universe.
something existing for eternity with no self explanation is as much a logical paradox as something from nothing is it not?
@GuyThreepwoody Where is that fine tuning you claim to exist. Did you ever see what happens in space ? . Look in our own backyard ? Do you call order, the 2 million(big and small) wayward asteroids and metiorites , threatening our very existence ? Where is the order in the weather pattern ? Where is the order in plate tectonics ? Where is the order, when 4,500,000 stilbirths happen every year ? When 5,000,000 children die in the first year ?
@ndzoko asteroids are a necessary ingredient of planet formation- & delivery of elements to allow for life to exist.The perfect number hit Earth to give us the perfect amount of water- I’d call that fine tuning sure- a massive satellite moon to stabilize climate and Gas giant to shield from more/larger collisions? mutations , bacteria, again some play some necessary role that we can easily identify-
and sure, some we can’t yet- but science increasingly reveals all nature has some purpose yes?
@ndzoko The laws of nature, most cosmologists/physicists- acknowledge the very precise composition of the singularity- which if altered in the most infinitesimal way- would have resulted in a dark cold lifeless blob-
This is what gave rise to Multiverse theories- that only a vast or infinite number of random states of physics could account for the improbable perfection of this one…
@GuyThreepwoody I see order in the laws governing the universe(s).Otherwise we wouldn`t be here. But the desorder you find on earth is most probably present on a grander scale in he universe(s)
@ndzoko right, andit's the same observation we all make- of order- and I think your question might actually work better in reverse: where is this disorder you refer too? negative experience- pain, fear serve a purpose, as does mutation, bacteria- who would have thought something as randomly destructive as asteroids would be vital to life on Earth? so what is there we can definitly say serves utterly no good purpose? and if there is no such thing- what might that imply?!
@GuyThreepwoody There is nothing in this world that is 100% good or 100% bad. The only criteria for good and bad is the generally accepted concenpt of good and bad. Hardly anybody will argue that earhquakes are good. And yes you can find somewhere a positive effect of earthquakes. And if you reject common sense, we can discuss ad nauseam the definitions of good and bad
@ndzoko Agree there- very hard to nail down 'good' and 'bad' and draw conclusions- but I meant 'good purpose' more in the sense of 'practical purpose' . Plate techtonics are very much part of the living earth- the Amazon/ Indian jungle etc would not have thrived without massive year round stores of water from mountain ranges- and in turn- it's due to continents floating on molten rock that allows the metallic core to spin and generate a magnetic field- without which we'd be nuked by the sun...
@GuyThreepwoody just one example of course, and this is subjective, but it just doesn't look like an entirely random pointless state of reality- that we merely adapted to make the best of... at every turn- we uncover 'purpose' from meteor strikes to quantum physics- I don't think we have enough evidence of any accidental mechanism that can rule out this apparent purpose simply being what it looks like. but talking of purpose- got to do something more constructive- thanks for the civil exchange
@ndzoko The laws of nature, most cosmologists/physicists- acknowledge the very precise composition of the singularity- which if altered in the most infinitesimal way- would have resulted in a dark cold lifeless blob-
This is what gave rise to Multiverse theories- that only a vast or infinite number of random states of physics could account for the improbable perfection of this one…
@GuyThreepwoody Nothing ever has demonstrated how , when or why, the creator(supposedly) created life and the universe. Nothing created itself. Something must have existed from all eternity. And that is just the most accepted, logical hypothesis. It is no dogma. Science does not claim with 100 % certainty that`s the way it came to be, unlike religion which claims with `100% certainty how it all came about and that ,without a shred of evidence
@ONESPECIES 'Made to misinform' sounds like an accusation of dishonesty- if it wasn't intended that way- then sorry- that's a communication issue...
Nothing in a lab has demonstrated how life or the Universe could possibly have created itself. zero evidence- so that's a wash at the very least What we do have is a lot of remarkable sophistication and fine tuning that demands explanation, involvment of purposeful intent would account for this better than it's 'competition' of 'fluke'
@cjguitarist100 Forget about DNA, let us use observable facts. A couple of exemples. If there is an intelligent designer, creator of life, than tell me why this intelligent creator, creates life and destroys it even before birth. 4,500,000 stillbirths a year worldwide. Why did this intelligent designer leave about 2 million(big and small) meteorites and asteroids in wayward trajectories threatening our very existence ?
What it does so some one or something had to make both of them in order to work as one. So dna had to get its information from someone with knowledge of what it had to make and placed into something organic in order to produce the life it was suppose to make. So dna had to be created by something with knowledge of it and what it does. Just as the car was made with knowledge and then the blueprint the dna was made to replucate it. We all know the car did not exist prior to that it took
And what did dna evolve from we know dna needs a life form to survive other wise its useless. So what came first the dna or the bacteria the bacteria could not have got here with out dna first and dna could not have gotten here with out being placed in something alive because remember at this point in time everything as we know it is inorganice meaning not living like rocks and dirt so this means they had to be around at the same time but how did it get in to the vessel to make that thing do
So in order for dna to work its magic it had to be placed in a vessel so to say in order for the dna to replucate that design so how could dna produce anything if it wasnt in place at the time we know dna itself if taking out of something is useless the dna dies. And cant replucate its self with out a host and we know dna does not produce a life form by its self it would need the blueprint in this case the body. And how did the dna get its information to produce something it has no knowledge of
This video is stupid does not disprove intelligent design at all there had to be someone or something to make the blue print become possible. with out intelligence means supernatural something with out meaning so how did dna get all the information without being planted in something to repeat the design. and dna had to have a programmer in order to build what it makes for instance the car did not appear out of no where nor did we or dna you cant get organic life out of inorganic life
@cjguitarist100 . and dna had to have a programmer in order to build what it makes for instance the car did not appear out of no where nor did we or dna you cant get organic life out of inorganic life .>> To make such a claim is to claim that youhave knowledge of all the processes that ever happened in the worlds` 5 billion year history. Congratulations. !
Look at any argument from theists. They don't care about reality. They don't care about the fact that any designer (human, ant...) that ever lived "designed" only because events, uncontrolled by said designer, influenced reality in such a way that the design/object/event was made to happen.
You have no choice to be who you are. As Sam Harris said, the illusion of free will is itself an illusion. Observe yourself and see the non-free will you have. Now consider how that invalidates design.
This only proves what I've been thinking myself for a long time now (and have only heard it said once by 1 random scientist, in 1 random interview on a random show a long time ago); the debate of nature vs. design is a philosophical one...as in that it pertains to the foundational axioms a person holds about reality.
A person can only be satisfied with the answer "design" if he believes in free will, which is an illogical concept. To me the design idea is doomed from the start. It's nonsense.
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
@ONESPECIES I like your example of car evolution. I always use the evolution of the ipad, starting with two pebbles, then becoming a handful, then an abacus, then a primitive calculation which to up an entire room, to a smaller calculator, to a primitive computer that took up a whole room, to a normal computer,to a laptop,to a netbook,to an ipad...Intelligent designotards,have not got the brain capacity to see things the way they really are, to see real patterns in the way the world goes round
Look up the work from Stanley Miller. Anything created by man is intelligent design and it's evolution is just a re-design. The building blocks of life cannot be created without DNA and DNA cannot be created without the building blocks of life. Cars, houses and other Intelligently designed objects can't be used to debunk the process by which they are made. Chicken or the Egg...
@Waspitor I wish he was alive and watched the video. He might have reconsidered, as I easily proved that not all human products are products of design, and certainly redisign is too poor a word to describe the amalgam of chance, observation and association of new roles to old objects. that go into the process of production. You seem to repeat debunked assertions, so I can;t really do anything about that. The internet is flooded with informational videos, of how dna itself came to be.
What? Different car designs, different house designs do not make these items not cars or houses nor does their difference deny their designer. This is one of the most lame arguments that I have seen yet. Learn about my God, gain faith, live abundantly in joy and peace.
@MrItchyElbow Why learn about 'your God'? Who is to say that is the real God if such a thing exists, which is highly unlikely. Don't you ever wonder who designed the designer of us? Must have been an even better one, then who designed that? Then that, then that? You can't answer, because you don't want to think about it, because you know deep down it's insane. You should learn about reality. Experience the world, travel, and open your eyes to the amazing natural world you live in.
@tool2342 Why learn about my God, because all other gods bow down to my God. Why learn about my God, he will give you abundant life, peace, joy. Why learn about my God, because you will learn how to live your life in a way that is pleasing to him. Why learn about my God, because he will forgive you if you accept his Son Jesus as your savior. Why learn about my God, because you will no longer have to wonder how the world was made, you'll know.
@MrItchyElbow Who designed the designer?, you need to look at all the refutations that are out there for that particular argument. Dawkins tried that and got shot down, why do you think that your asking the same question is any different? As far as thinking about it, I have and know that the creator is not created. The creator is timeless, from time immemorial to time immemorial. You think about that, if you can. Experience the world, you mean see the wonders of the world?
@MrItchyElbow Forgive me for what? I haven't done anything wrong. No I won't have to stop wondering, because I already wonder where you think this being came from, so you think if I suddenly started to believe that would go away? No, it would just annoy me. I don't want abundant life, I happy with this earthly one. I have peace and joy. I know how to live. And about other Gods bowing down to yours, yeah cuz the Vikings or the Romans or the Greeks didn't think that about theirs did they?
@DrEvolutionQuest Just a side-note: I agree, breads themselves, don't reproduce or mutate. But the idea and design of them do. It is the evolution of the "meme" of the bread. So mutation are mistakes or random changes to recipes or processes and reproduction is the act of making more bread. Therefore, one could argue (much like in this video) that evolution (in a meme-like fashion) does happen for all sorts of designed objects.. Anyway, I'm sure you were conveying other meaning to MrDunsapy.. :)
@DrEvolutionQuest Yes but bread needs to be designed. So if you go to a cell for instance, who programed the first DNA? Who programed the heredity into that first DNA? If life just happened, where did heredity come from? Mutations come from what the host already has. So a cell that has no nerves or bones or heart materials in it, where did these come from? Mutations do not account for that. Also mutations do not make new animals.
@MrDunsapy Now, evolution has little or nothing to say of the origin of life. It is the idea of origin of species. If we suppose simple lifeforms _somehow_ came to be, evolution does a pretty nice job explaining how these simple forms could've transformed into all these different species. So as far as I am concerned, ID of life is as relevant to complexity of life as god to the big bang. It may be that something started it, but there is no evidence of any kind of these intelligent creators..
@ttcmp0 "evolution' is a theory that doesn't even try to explain the start of life. It is a failing of theory, and the scientists that support it. You would still have to find out who that God is that started things off. How much did he influence the 'evolution' of life here. But that is not the 'evolution' the scientists are promoting.
The world is full of evidence, of a creator. Check out the DNA. How did the first life get programmed to work?
@MrDunsapy Hey listen, stop with this played out question bombardment. All you refer to has been responded to millions of times on youtube. Take the time and care to understand those responses who are pretty much similar, and then comment on those. Otherwise you are just boring and nonsensical. Also, find a video that promotes Evolution to say these things. Because this video does not explain why Evolution is true. It explains why the basic philosophy behind Intelligent Design is FALSE. Cheers.
Loved it! Especially for it was so neat and clean. No unnecessary classical ID refutations. Just plain description on how evolution can be applied to these so called "designed" objects. *Like+favourite+subscribe*
@MrDunsapy Did you somehow miss the main point of the video? Was the nice sliced squared lump of bread designed in one go? No, the design of bread has evolved ever since the first type of flour was created, mixed with water and cooked over fire? The classic bread, you seem to be referring to, did indeed evolve (albeit not by the same mechanisms as life). It was the motif/form/idea that evolved. Flour probably too "evolved" and the methods of cooking over fire.
@MrDunsapy First, I want to say that using standard English grammar, I cannot parse your sentence.. But aside from that, I guess you are saying that "changes" imply "creation", right?
Well, here is a hypothetical: When I see a natural phenomenon occur, and decide it would be nice if I would repeat that. Is it creation? And what bearing has this on some omnipotent creator?
Else, if I misinterpreted your comment, please clarify. I am genuinely interested in knowing what you think about this.
@ttcmp0 Yea I was just going out the door when I wrote this.
You used the word 'evolve' with intelligent change. Most 'evolutionists' I've talked to don't like to equate 'evolution' with intelligence. (God) And if God is any part of it , it is creation.
@MrDunsapy What god? Now.. I'm pretty sure most 'evolutionists' (as if I am a 'gravitationalist' or 'atomicist'..) are not equating evolution with ID. Evolution is an explanation of mechanisms we see in nature, whereas god is a excuse for not having one. I don't believe there is a god. Now, this video explicitly destroys one of the most popular claims by ID advocates. If you want to debate existance of god or validity of evolution, I'd suggest another venue, as ONESPECIES has pointed out to you.
@ttcmp0 Granted, the scientists do not know what a species is, they have at least 2 dozen interpretations on that. Now here is another one. Why use the word species at all? Why not just say all life.
@MrDunsapy While there is no single definition agreed upon, this does not mean they can't be used for specific purposes, and they can be really useful (which, by the way, cannot be said of any ID theory I've heard of).. The definitions I've heard are all pretty much similar. Anyway, this discussion falls way beyond the scope of the video.
@ttcmp0@ttcmp0@ttcmp0 The sceinitst can use what they like.But they should not use what they classified themselves as any kind of authority, in it's use.. They don't know all the life that is here on the earth now. Also by classifying life into species they are telling us there is a distinction between differnt life forms. Which supports the creation statement of 'kinds' of life. For example 'mankind'. Are they really saying that the creation accounts are correct?
@MrDunsapy Why not? Scientist spend their life finding explanations. How can you discard verifiable claims made by them? Scientist are not claiming that "species" is something physical. It is only a (rather crude, one might even add) classification system. Mentioning bible-like "kinds" only tells me to stop wasting my time here.
Least you are ready to educate your self on how science works and what the theory of evolution is saying. Besides, as I've often mentioned, you are way off topic here..
@MrDunsapy (one last reply..) Well of course they made it up!! Wait few thousand years and the finches might not be able to reproduce with finches from other parts of the world. Then they are a different species (by one definition..). Give humans few thousand years to evolve and we might have a different species from BC humans. You seem quite ignorant of many facts of evolution. Now go and read, instead of wasting your and others time here.. I'm done here..
@ttcmp0 But you see you no evidence of that. Neither do the scientists. I could also say in few thousand years they maybe able mate as usual. But the evidence we actually have , says that a human can mate with a human. It is not scientific to make up your own scenarios.
@ttcmp0 The reason is that they make up a classification of a species. Now when Darwin’s Finches for example change a little, they say they ‘evolved’. But the reality is that they are still Finches. It is only their classification that is involved. Yet at the same time they don't do that to humans. We don't have different species of humans. So this really is the scientists doing a snow job on people
For some reason this video makes me think of the Greek concept of 'ideal forms' that exist beyond reality. I.e. all eyes are based upon the ideal form, like chairs and, yes, houses. Maybe those heathen Greeks were on to something?
@CardboardBox13013 Greeks were right about a lot of stuff, especially their atom concept was impressive. However the concept of Ideal forms stands half way through if you ask me. It can be interpreted as "All forms obey natural laws, therefore some forms that serve those laws, are standard and Universal". Thats like saying Forms=Niches. However it can also be interpreted to mean that all forms are pre designed by intelligence, which is observably not the case.
@LittleDirtyBlonde23 And now its time to flush you down the toilette. If noses is your problem in the world then to the sewers!!!! Say hi to the gators.
ID is just a "persistent" idea. Ha, yea why do you think that is? Because it is correct. Or maybe we could say in Darwinian terms that it "persists" because it is the stronger theory. Darwinism however is false because it could never prove that the fine tuning of the universe, chemistry, and physics could come out of nothing- nor that biologica development though genetic variation could have happened by chance. All we see came out of nothing and happened by chance! Very scientific.
@frost122585 it could never prove that the fine tuning of the universe, chemistry, and physics could come out of nothing......
because he never tried to, that is outside his field, and his theory does not even go there. His theory merely explains a observation variation in living organisms. and has been proven over and over again on several levels.
Okay, so we see several different houses. Why does it matter that they are different or made at different times? No matter which house we look at, we immediately know that they were 1) constructed and 2) made by an intelligent agent, not natural forces. Even if someone had never seen any of these things before, they would immediately know that someone had made it. The video never really answers that. I'm not certain you represented the design argument accurately.
@bereantrb The design argument is not represented accurately by its proponents either. While the intelligent creator could be anything from a super computer, to multiple gods, they insist its one unique biblical god designer. So At least I prove nothing has one designer and nothing is produced without observation of prior natural phenomena or constructs. However I also show how all our endeavors are gradual like Evolution, denying the ID philosophy.I sufficiently show that "design" is evolving.
@bereantrb I would say I am on point. In this video as I said in the beginning I am dealing with the philosophical base of ID not the biology arguments which so many youtubers have done already successfully. I show how there is actually no irreducible complexity in what we produce,and that objects evolve through time, changing to meet new needs, or doing completely new stuff with the same structure. I also show there is never one designer but a big process. And that is most of ID's "philosophy".
@bereantrb the point is that just because we can say some house was constructed by some people, it tells us nothing at all about houses; and examining a single house or even just a few ignores the immense evolving history of the concept of a house (or dwelling). this is analogous to life, where even if life was "created" that is practically useless and gets us nowhere scientifically. it is an extremely (and in the case of ID intentionally) narrow point of view that ignores the big picture.
Thanks for the upload. Along with the recommended channels you mention, I have to say 'Qualiasoup' and 'Theramin Trees' are also excellent channels for discourse and dissemination on this subject. Peace.
It appears that intelligence then, drives both biological evolution as well as the evolution of human ideas, as evolution of both responds to uitility, necessity, availability of technology and resources. Pretty clever, those bio creatures, plant/animal etc.
@JoEEll2233 No, it appears the mechanism humans have to identify patterns is running way rampant, to the point some can not attribute cause to effect anymore.
@JoEEll2233 Lets take it from scratch. You said "It appears that intelligence then, drives both biological evolution as well as the evolution of human ideas". Care to elaborate? Because the point made is actually that progression or evolution is the link not intelligence.
@OneSpecies Fantastic Argument!!! Nail. Coffin. Irreducible Complexity. I never even conceived of crafting this utter Refutation of ID in such an obvious and crafty way. I will be stealing your argument (with all due credit given of course) to cudgel the next Ignoramus Dei that poses the Design Desginer fallacy. Thanks for the ammunition. I feel i have evolved a little after watching this video.
@PhalanxPerception Name anything that is so complex that it a. must have been designed and b. has no precursor whatsoever. I'll give you a hint. The answer to this question is not humans, not copy paper, not gramophones, not the sun, not newton's theory of gravity, not electromagnet radiation radiating from an excited electron, not oxygen, not grass, not shoe laces... Even the universe in its current state has a precursor (the universe one plank time ago). Go ahead. Name anything!
Just read it. Huge bunch of bullshit. I happen to be an evolutionary biologist and there is absolutely no "war" among biologists. There is not even a conflict between Neo-Darwinism and Punctuated Equilibrium, as both aspects are accepted under modern evolutionary synthesis.
Or to say it more plainly: No "Neo-darwinist" (if there even is such thing) opposes the theory of punctuated equilibrium and vice versa.
@Mogley52 what you're referring to is biased media sensationalism. There's some debate about punctuated equilibrium, yes, but it's not a war - events of rapid evolution may contradict certain mechanisms within Darwin's theory, but DON'T contradict natural selection per se and even Darwin himself had said so. Also punctuated equilibrium isn't a different theory - it's just a part of current theory! Have your facts straightened.
Evolutionists like to use the analogy of the incomplete mouse trap. Of course, an incomplete mouse trap can last a long time until its human DESIGNER completes it. However, a partially-evolved cell, if it ever got to that point, would quickly disintegrate in the real world. It cannot wait for chance to finish or complete it and then make it living!
@Mogley52 You might want to check your facts again, between copy/pasting this comment on multiple video's, because that analogy was coined by Behe to support your I.C. argument and it fails on many points. The first you point out yourself, it's a HUMAN construct, not a replicating system, and as such, does not construct itself as a mousetrap. Secondly there's no such thing as a partially evolved cell, nor any other organisms, since evolution does not have a end goal.
@Mogley52 Nope, no "evolutionist" uses this analogy. Only stupid creationists do.
Moreover: Also "partially evolved" cells could exist, as all you need for a cell is primarily a semi-permeable membrane (which can spontaneously form out of lipids in water), a simple metabolism, and as a next step an information carrier like RNA / DNA to regulate the metabolism. Growth could at first just occur statistically by incorporating more lipids, until the "cell" devides. From there on Evolution takes it.
@Mogley52 WTH do you mean partially evolved? You still do not get it? Biology has no end product in mind? All organisms are evolved and capable to carry all the tasks they are supposed to survive in their environment. Evolution will bring on the new features they need when they need them, and remove the ones they do not need when they do not need them. A cell without a nucleus could cope with its tasks in life. But you wont find humans with cells without nucleus. So Boo Hoo at this argument.
@ONESPECIES Ridiculous Analogy! You unwittingly substituted mans intellect in place of the unconscious mechanism of evolution that you are trying to show is not guided by intelligence, PRICELESS! The engine that drives change in your analogy is observable, intelligent, and with purpose not random chance. Great argument for ID. Not to mention you completely ignore the origin of the inventions. Using a tree as a wheel also falls short, It was Intelligence that recognized and applied its use!
@PhalanxPerception Just when you think a person cannot reach any deeper point of retardness, someone like you appears. Yes, information can be added by chromosome duplication. That process is observed by understanding DNA, as well as seeing it happening in fossils. Most of the arguments creationists present are either misconceptions, or pure ignorance
The amount of science that you would have to ignore and the amount of assumptions based on faith you need to make for ID to work is beyond measure
@1MadVirus1 "You need to spend a little more time in the biology lab Jr."
Not that I expected any decent answer from you, but I need to spend more time in a biology lab because?..
I just love how you creationists think that by reading a quick article or two on some creationist website, you gain more knowledge than all the biology professors who have spent their entire lives studying a subject.
"LOL, No need to respond. Thanks for the laugh"
You ARE a retard, and an arrogant one. You're welcome
@ONESPECIES Show me an example of new information information being added without outside intellect being involved. Its one hell of a jump to go from a log roles to complex life. Get real! You can use a corn cob to wipe your butt, but that doesn't prove evolution is possible or even plausible for that matter.
@PhalanxPerception Me Get Real? You get real or get something else to do. The example is in the EYE the human eye. Get it? It all started from one gene for one type of photosensitive cell.That evolved into 3 for color vision (3 colors) and one for night vision. There you go. Besides,get serious,can't discuss honestly? This video debases the philosophical basis of Intelligent Design. Its not the job of this video to prove Evolution or anything else. Do you a comment on this theme?
@ONESPECIES Your analogy is false, therefore it doesn't prove intelligent design false, thats your claim ID destroyed. Second just saying it all started from one gene is no more scientifically based than God created everything. You have nothing more than a belief in a process that is neither been observed, tested or repeated. Nor is there any reason to assume we can know. And if anything your analogy supports ID.
@PhalanxPerception There is solid evidence on the one gene. Your knowledge seems inexistent. You are preposterously ignorant. I have no time for that. Sorry.
@ONESPECIES correct you are...except that full functioning erythrocytes are anucleated (fine point I know)...problem with most that think like Mogley52 is that they view a 'less-evolved cell' as a 'partially-evolved cell' and refuse to see that there is a massive difference btwn the two...great video...only problem I had was you not directing viewers to Thunderf00t's and DonExodus's channel in the beginning...their series on evolution are top notch too...keep up the good work...thanks!
Except, it is still not fair to compare nature and our own creations. Processes are similar but we do put intelligence into the "design" process. Nature works by mere action/reaction and adaptation.
@FallofDarkness55 Yes if you think of Natural Selection as a blind watchmaker, devoid of Intelligence but not devoid of good results, probably yes. If you think of it as a purposeful sentient entity...its not.
@FallofDarkness55 The reason for that is the evangelical base behind the "ID idea" which has nothing to do with objective science. You can think of Nature as some kind of God to us. Because, that's really the essence of existence. The manifestation of non-zero energy. Few simple equations and ongoing process to fall back into the equilibrium. That is Nature - the blind watchmaker. If you think it is intelligent you are a fool.
Question: Is your presentation video, supposedly a refutation of the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, designed for a specific purpose? If the obvious answer to that question is 'Yes,' then you have refuted your refutation.
@randomuseronthenet Boo Hoo What a poor argument... So I visit the toilette every few hours... Does the intelligent Designer visit the toilette too? I scratched my head, an action designed to tackle itchiness on the Head, does the Intelligent Designer do that? Dogs fuck their toys, an action designed to offer autoerotic pleasure, is the Intelligent Designer fucking his toys? My socks smell after jogging, clearly an event designed to make me wash them. Does the Intelligent Designer wear socks?
@randomuseronthenet "scientific" theory? Really? Last time I checked there is a consensus on 'intelligent design' not being a scientific theory !!!You are full of it!
You have not destroyed I.D. What you have done is that you have proved that the variation that we see is the result of a Creator. One Creator, many variations of the creatures. You guys....hehe. I'm not an ID'er, I'm a Creationist. Thanks for the laugh.
@compgrad1 Hilarious, thanks for the laugh too. Its always nice to watch Creationist fail in Action. Jumping from any premise straight to the God conclusion is simply entertaining. My socks smell bad after jogging. God did it, Intelligent Design, at work!
That's completely different. Natural selection has no intelligence. It is supposed design complex machines without intelligence.
Acquiring knowledge from prior generations and using it to design more complex machinery is still an intelligent mind using information to design something. Your claims is that the information can make them selves. I'm not ready to buy that. Even the first man would be able to design something relatively complex.
@Drzata The first man was barely able to find a use for sharp rocks. Complexity was achieved many generations later. "Natural selection has no intelligence". Well thats were you fail. Natural selection does not need intelligence. It is the antagonistic and selective pressures the environment puts organisms through. A time scale of 3 billion years matches well with random mutations guided by natural selection. It does not rhyme with an "Intelligent Designer" though. Unless he is unintelligent.
I didn't miss the point. They learned the process little by little over many generations and used their intelligent to carry on small amounts of information from generation to generation to be able to design more and more complicated machinery. That's prove for ID in my opinion.
@Drzata Well sorry to spoil it for you, but this what you described is proof that the current claims of ID are false. If we have never witnessed a human designer, that works without using prior knowledge, how can ID proponents make the extrapolation that such a designer exists? If a "Designer" had to adapt mechanisms and materials "he" already found in working order, then "he" is not much different than Natural selection, and he does not require any Intelligence if it took him 3 billion years!
Lol. This is rediculous. You don't think there were any people designing the cars? and the wheels? This is an intelligent directed process. This proves ID.
@Drzata You completely missed all the points made, and the opportunity to think about them. But since you are interested in car designers, please do go ask them what goes into designing a car. Ask them if car design is something someone pulls out of his ass or if it is something someone bases on decades or centuries of an evolving knowledge base. And by car design we mean all of it, not just the shape of the hood.
The flint rock had to have notches in it to hold it to the arrow shaft. It had to have a shaft attached to it. It had to have fins attached in the back to guide it. A tree on its own is not able to transport anything. Even without branches and roots, it cannot place itself under an object or take the object anywhere intended. Such a total fail!
@JungleJargon However Hard you try, you can not deny that these "inventions" were actually observations of naturally occurring phenomenons. And thats what you fail to realize. In any case, early Humans did not design anything. They learned by observation and accident. IF you are ready to accept that "An intelligent creator agency" does things by observing already existing structures and by accident, then it is not Intelligent Design anymore. It is an Intelligent Assistant Sidekick.
@ONESPECIES Every lesser function has a known or unknown maker. If it has a function, it has a maker. The same is true for greater nano functions and the utilization of quantum physics to accomplish an intended end that also happens to be useful for other life cycles. If "early humans" used a log, it was intended.
The universe was all created with ultra intelligence, wisdom, knowledg and understanding. Most of the most common elements are working nanomachine parts inside of us. It's all design.
(No object ever designed, made or assembled itself to work with a pupose without preexisting information to order it.)
Such a fail! No function ever existed without having a maker.
The tree log itself is by design appropriated by an intelligence.
Trial and error is not evolution because there is a limit to what the genome is able to do. It cannot work magic. It cannot do what it does not have orders to do.
Such a fail! It is not only design, it is about function. there is no function without making function because function has an intended result.
The function of hydrogen alone shows the entire universe and all matter in it has a Maker who is not made of matter Himself. We know He exists because of the function that most of the most common elements have in life forms.
Such a fail!
All other lesser functions have a maker so the greater functions in nature also have a Maker.
@JungleJargon So why don't you invite the lesser creators and the higher ones, so we can all have tea, and talk about stuff we can not possibly verify?
@ONESPECIES The functions have already been verified. It shows us there is One Creator of all matter since all matter is derived from hydrogen which obeys preexisting orders inside of us as intended.
@JungleJargon Yeah Right. Why don't you read some cosmology and astronomy Books, and maybe then you get a bit of a more complete image. And in the mean time, please do learn the difference between a stretched extrapolation and a verification. Otherwise you can never have a truly serious conversation. To give you an Idea, the nature of the Solar System has been verified. To say that an emergent world like our our own was instead made by an intelligent agent, has not been verified. So.....
this is true... its called EVOLUTION... its not a theory, its a FACT...
Dragorpion777 6 days ago
You have just arrived at the meme theory.
itsjustameme 1 week ago
Intelligence to get it to where it is now. So how could dna form anything if it was not in anything in the first place so we know organic life and dna had to be around at the same time in order to produce life but how if neither one can be called life with out them being made as one whole unit because dna has to be in something to star to create a life form. Without the vessel its useless it makes nothing and cant replucate anything with out being in it first
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
@cjguitarist100 And how do all your unaswered questions add one iota of probability to creation ? Science is in it`s infancy. Modern science is hardly 2 centennia old. You want all the questions answered in 2012 ? The more science advances, the more questions there seem to be . Religion is at the heels of science, always finding gaps in our knowledge to prop up their faith, for which they can`t provide any evidence.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko or maybe the more science advances, the more it validates ID-
consider that 'scientists' claimed that the Universe was static- eternal- mocking the idea of a 'creation event' until a theist discovered the Big Bang...
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody No sir, just the opposite, The more science advances the more god is cornered. . I believe it is your bible which states that the world is immovable, and maybe scientists a few hundred years ago, said the same thing. But science discovers the truth sooner or later. Yes, a theist discovered the Big-Bang, yet ,most believers stick to Genesis.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko cornered, or to put it another way getting ever closer to the creator?, "Nature is the executer of God's laws" as Galileo said!
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody LOL, whatever, 1) Your fellow believers of that time threatened to kill him, unless he would reject what now you quote you mor**! 2) Today Galileo would not be able to compete even with undergrad astronomers dude. Science moved on, ya know? Thats your dishonesty, if you like the thinking of that age, why don't you use the technology, and medicine of that age? If you wanna ignore all the rest we learned in the meantime, why do you use it everyday to live better?
ONESPECIES 1 month ago
@ONESPECIES 1: the worst they ever did was put him under house arrest in a posh condo...
2:Galileo is an example of scientific method versus institutionalized 'science' The Catholic church was considered a scientific authority, the most educated men, best libraries, best observatories even- tech. has changed- bias in interpretation of observations has not.
observations have validated humanity's faith in a higher purpose, creation event, fine tuning, miracle of life etc etc..
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody One applicable piece of Intelligent Design would be enough to prove we need to rethink about it. Such an example would be, an Intelligent Design proponent predicting something better than an Evolutionary Biologist, having it confirmed, and then provide a mechanism for his prediction. The rest is just cheap talk. If ID is progressing, then truly they should be able to make something with it by now.
ONESPECIES 1 month ago
@ONESPECIES Just like the 'creation event' predicition that was validated-
ID always predicted that life could not possibly have created itself on Earth. After decades of failing to reproduce this, far less show how it could have happened accidentaly- 'scientists' are beginning to conceed it may not have (seeded by asteroids etc)
So there's two pretty clear predictions considering the inherent difficulty of the subject.
any evidence for self creating universes or life yet- or just faith?
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody Evolution does not speak about the Origin of matter, but of the origin of Biodiversity. Intelligent desing tries the same thing. ID does not offer a genesis account. Therefore, you need to connect the Bible Account with the ID account to have a complete story. This clearly shows that ID is a religious relic, specifically made to misinfrom about Evolution, and not the offspring of a Scientific breakthrough, since it is unrelated and incompatible with any Scientific Theorie. Bye
ONESPECIES 1 month ago
@ONESPECIES That's one subjective interpretation, and to label people with differing views from yours as 'dishonest' is another symptom of ideological slant. I think most people are intelligent and want to know the truth on both sides, but as in the noted examples, this academic bias against ID often leads science astray.
I say forget the bias on both sides and look at the evidence uncovered- there WAS a creation event, the universe IS finely tuned for life to exist etc
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody Hey hey easy tiger. "Dishonest" refers to a simple objectively dishonest act of ID proponents. Accusing Evolutionary Biology of not having met some standards, while they never meet those standards themselves. And I said to you, let me see an ID proponent, produce something with his knowledge in a lab, like a biologist does, like Venter for example. For now all you present is talk. So there is no bias, there is a real issue, of ID offering nothing above its competition. Sorry.
ONESPECIES 1 month ago
@ONESPECIES 'Made to misinform' sounds like an accusation of dishonesty- if it wasn't intended that way- then sorry- that's a communication issue...
Nothing in a lab has demonstrated how life or the Universe could possibly have created itself. zero evidence- so that's a wash at the very least What we do have is a lot of remarkable sophistication and fine tuning that demands explanation, involvment of purposeful intent would account for this better than it's 'competition' of 'fluke'
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody Dude, a Judge in the court of Law, witnessed and confirmed, the fact that a popular ID handbook, was just an old Creationist manual, with word replacement from Creationism to Intelligent Design. ID proponents are not just casually dishonest, they live for being dishonest. Sorry, can't just pull my eyes out, so I can ignore this. Science branches rise from the need to canonize and unify amounting knowledge in a field of study. ID rose from the fall of Creationism. No science need.
ONESPECIES 1 month ago
@ONESPECIES different uses of the term obviously- but I think it's fair to say- the lowest common denomenator is belief in an intelligent, purposeful creator- the intelligent design of the Universe- I could also point to classic blunders of science- static Universe, Piltdown man, global cooling/warming etc- but i wouldn't tar all scientists with the same brush...
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody Nothing ever has demonstrated how , when or why, the creator(supposedly) created life and the universe. Nothing created itself. Something must have existed from all eternity. And that is just the most accepted, logic hypothesis. It is no dogma. Science doe not claim with 100 % certainty that
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko OK- so that's even then- what's not even is the ablity of intelligent purpose versus blind accident to account for all the sophistication and fine tuning of the Universe.
something existing for eternity with no self explanation is as much a logical paradox as something from nothing is it not?
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody Where is that fine tuning you claim to exist. Did you ever see what happens in space ? . Look in our own backyard ? Do you call order, the 2 million(big and small) wayward asteroids and metiorites , threatening our very existence ? Where is the order in the weather pattern ? Where is the order in plate tectonics ? Where is the order, when 4,500,000 stilbirths happen every year ? When 5,000,000 children die in the first year ?
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko asteroids are a necessary ingredient of planet formation- & delivery of elements to allow for life to exist.The perfect number hit Earth to give us the perfect amount of water- I’d call that fine tuning sure- a massive satellite moon to stabilize climate and Gas giant to shield from more/larger collisions? mutations , bacteria, again some play some necessary role that we can easily identify-
and sure, some we can’t yet- but science increasingly reveals all nature has some purpose yes?
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@ndzoko The laws of nature, most cosmologists/physicists- acknowledge the very precise composition of the singularity- which if altered in the most infinitesimal way- would have resulted in a dark cold lifeless blob-
This is what gave rise to Multiverse theories- that only a vast or infinite number of random states of physics could account for the improbable perfection of this one…
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody I see order in the laws governing the universe(s).Otherwise we wouldn`t be here. But the desorder you find on earth is most probably present on a grander scale in he universe(s)
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko right, andit's the same observation we all make- of order- and I think your question might actually work better in reverse: where is this disorder you refer too? negative experience- pain, fear serve a purpose, as does mutation, bacteria- who would have thought something as randomly destructive as asteroids would be vital to life on Earth? so what is there we can definitly say serves utterly no good purpose? and if there is no such thing- what might that imply?!
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody There is nothing in this world that is 100% good or 100% bad. The only criteria for good and bad is the generally accepted concenpt of good and bad. Hardly anybody will argue that earhquakes are good. And yes you can find somewhere a positive effect of earthquakes. And if you reject common sense, we can discuss ad nauseam the definitions of good and bad
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko Agree there- very hard to nail down 'good' and 'bad' and draw conclusions- but I meant 'good purpose' more in the sense of 'practical purpose' . Plate techtonics are very much part of the living earth- the Amazon/ Indian jungle etc would not have thrived without massive year round stores of water from mountain ranges- and in turn- it's due to continents floating on molten rock that allows the metallic core to spin and generate a magnetic field- without which we'd be nuked by the sun...
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody just one example of course, and this is subjective, but it just doesn't look like an entirely random pointless state of reality- that we merely adapted to make the best of... at every turn- we uncover 'purpose' from meteor strikes to quantum physics- I don't think we have enough evidence of any accidental mechanism that can rule out this apparent purpose simply being what it looks like. but talking of purpose- got to do something more constructive- thanks for the civil exchange
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody You mean, this OMNIPOTENT god is bound by the limitations of his own creation , by human science ?
ndzoko 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndzoko The laws of nature, most cosmologists/physicists- acknowledge the very precise composition of the singularity- which if altered in the most infinitesimal way- would have resulted in a dark cold lifeless blob-
This is what gave rise to Multiverse theories- that only a vast or infinite number of random states of physics could account for the improbable perfection of this one…
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody Nothing ever has demonstrated how , when or why, the creator(supposedly) created life and the universe. Nothing created itself. Something must have existed from all eternity. And that is just the most accepted, logical hypothesis. It is no dogma. Science does not claim with 100 % certainty that`s the way it came to be, unlike religion which claims with `100% certainty how it all came about and that ,without a shred of evidence
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ONESPECIES 'Made to misinform' sounds like an accusation of dishonesty- if it wasn't intended that way- then sorry- that's a communication issue...
Nothing in a lab has demonstrated how life or the Universe could possibly have created itself. zero evidence- so that's a wash at the very least What we do have is a lot of remarkable sophistication and fine tuning that demands explanation, involvment of purposeful intent would account for this better than it's 'competition' of 'fluke'
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@cjguitarist100 Forget about DNA, let us use observable facts. A couple of exemples. If there is an intelligent designer, creator of life, than tell me why this intelligent creator, creates life and destroys it even before birth. 4,500,000 stillbirths a year worldwide. Why did this intelligent designer leave about 2 million(big and small) meteorites and asteroids in wayward trajectories threatening our very existence ?
ndzoko 1 month ago
What it does so some one or something had to make both of them in order to work as one. So dna had to get its information from someone with knowledge of what it had to make and placed into something organic in order to produce the life it was suppose to make. So dna had to be created by something with knowledge of it and what it does. Just as the car was made with knowledge and then the blueprint the dna was made to replucate it. We all know the car did not exist prior to that it took
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
And what did dna evolve from we know dna needs a life form to survive other wise its useless. So what came first the dna or the bacteria the bacteria could not have got here with out dna first and dna could not have gotten here with out being placed in something alive because remember at this point in time everything as we know it is inorganice meaning not living like rocks and dirt so this means they had to be around at the same time but how did it get in to the vessel to make that thing do
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
So in order for dna to work its magic it had to be placed in a vessel so to say in order for the dna to replucate that design so how could dna produce anything if it wasnt in place at the time we know dna itself if taking out of something is useless the dna dies. And cant replucate its self with out a host and we know dna does not produce a life form by its self it would need the blueprint in this case the body. And how did the dna get its information to produce something it has no knowledge of
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
This video is stupid does not disprove intelligent design at all there had to be someone or something to make the blue print become possible. with out intelligence means supernatural something with out meaning so how did dna get all the information without being planted in something to repeat the design. and dna had to have a programmer in order to build what it makes for instance the car did not appear out of no where nor did we or dna you cant get organic life out of inorganic life
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
@cjguitarist100 . and dna had to have a programmer in order to build what it makes for instance the car did not appear out of no where nor did we or dna you cant get organic life out of inorganic life .>> To make such a claim is to claim that youhave knowledge of all the processes that ever happened in the worlds` 5 billion year history. Congratulations. !
ndzoko 1 month ago
Look at any argument from theists. They don't care about reality. They don't care about the fact that any designer (human, ant...) that ever lived "designed" only because events, uncontrolled by said designer, influenced reality in such a way that the design/object/event was made to happen.
You have no choice to be who you are. As Sam Harris said, the illusion of free will is itself an illusion. Observe yourself and see the non-free will you have. Now consider how that invalidates design.
badblueman 1 month ago
This only proves what I've been thinking myself for a long time now (and have only heard it said once by 1 random scientist, in 1 random interview on a random show a long time ago); the debate of nature vs. design is a philosophical one...as in that it pertains to the foundational axioms a person holds about reality.
A person can only be satisfied with the answer "design" if he believes in free will, which is an illogical concept. To me the design idea is doomed from the start. It's nonsense.
badblueman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The atheist Delusion!
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@ONESPECIES I like your example of car evolution. I always use the evolution of the ipad, starting with two pebbles, then becoming a handful, then an abacus, then a primitive calculation which to up an entire room, to a smaller calculator, to a primitive computer that took up a whole room, to a normal computer,to a laptop,to a netbook,to an ipad...Intelligent designotards,have not got the brain capacity to see things the way they really are, to see real patterns in the way the world goes round
tool2342 2 months ago
@tool2342 Truly, they can not follow the progression of things over time.
ONESPECIES 1 month ago
Look up the work from Stanley Miller. Anything created by man is intelligent design and it's evolution is just a re-design. The building blocks of life cannot be created without DNA and DNA cannot be created without the building blocks of life. Cars, houses and other Intelligently designed objects can't be used to debunk the process by which they are made. Chicken or the Egg...
Waspitor 2 months ago
@Waspitor I wish he was alive and watched the video. He might have reconsidered, as I easily proved that not all human products are products of design, and certainly redisign is too poor a word to describe the amalgam of chance, observation and association of new roles to old objects. that go into the process of production. You seem to repeat debunked assertions, so I can;t really do anything about that. The internet is flooded with informational videos, of how dna itself came to be.
ONESPECIES 2 months ago
What? Different car designs, different house designs do not make these items not cars or houses nor does their difference deny their designer. This is one of the most lame arguments that I have seen yet. Learn about my God, gain faith, live abundantly in joy and peace.
MrItchyElbow 2 months ago
@MrItchyElbow Why learn about 'your God'? Who is to say that is the real God if such a thing exists, which is highly unlikely. Don't you ever wonder who designed the designer of us? Must have been an even better one, then who designed that? Then that, then that? You can't answer, because you don't want to think about it, because you know deep down it's insane. You should learn about reality. Experience the world, travel, and open your eyes to the amazing natural world you live in.
tool2342 2 months ago
@tool2342 Why learn about my God, because all other gods bow down to my God. Why learn about my God, he will give you abundant life, peace, joy. Why learn about my God, because you will learn how to live your life in a way that is pleasing to him. Why learn about my God, because he will forgive you if you accept his Son Jesus as your savior. Why learn about my God, because you will no longer have to wonder how the world was made, you'll know.
MrItchyElbow 2 months ago
@MrItchyElbow Who designed the designer?, you need to look at all the refutations that are out there for that particular argument. Dawkins tried that and got shot down, why do you think that your asking the same question is any different? As far as thinking about it, I have and know that the creator is not created. The creator is timeless, from time immemorial to time immemorial. You think about that, if you can. Experience the world, you mean see the wonders of the world?
MrItchyElbow 2 months ago
@MrItchyElbow Oh wait not the wonders of the world, the REAL world. I live in the real world.
MrItchyElbow 2 months ago
@MrItchyElbow Forgive me for what? I haven't done anything wrong. No I won't have to stop wondering, because I already wonder where you think this being came from, so you think if I suddenly started to believe that would go away? No, it would just annoy me. I don't want abundant life, I happy with this earthly one. I have peace and joy. I know how to live. And about other Gods bowing down to yours, yeah cuz the Vikings or the Romans or the Greeks didn't think that about theirs did they?
tool2342 2 months ago
@tool2342 Oh well, you will just have to learn the hard way. Have a nice life.
MrItchyElbow 2 months ago
@DrEvolutionQuest Just a side-note: I agree, breads themselves, don't reproduce or mutate. But the idea and design of them do. It is the evolution of the "meme" of the bread. So mutation are mistakes or random changes to recipes or processes and reproduction is the act of making more bread. Therefore, one could argue (much like in this video) that evolution (in a meme-like fashion) does happen for all sorts of designed objects.. Anyway, I'm sure you were conveying other meaning to MrDunsapy.. :)
ttcmp0 3 months ago
@DrEvolutionQuest Yes but bread needs to be designed. So if you go to a cell for instance, who programed the first DNA? Who programed the heredity into that first DNA? If life just happened, where did heredity come from? Mutations come from what the host already has. So a cell that has no nerves or bones or heart materials in it, where did these come from? Mutations do not account for that. Also mutations do not make new animals.
MrDunsapy 3 months ago
@MrDunsapy Now, evolution has little or nothing to say of the origin of life. It is the idea of origin of species. If we suppose simple lifeforms _somehow_ came to be, evolution does a pretty nice job explaining how these simple forms could've transformed into all these different species. So as far as I am concerned, ID of life is as relevant to complexity of life as god to the big bang. It may be that something started it, but there is no evidence of any kind of these intelligent creators..
ttcmp0 3 months ago
@ttcmp0 "evolution' is a theory that doesn't even try to explain the start of life. It is a failing of theory, and the scientists that support it. You would still have to find out who that God is that started things off. How much did he influence the 'evolution' of life here. But that is not the 'evolution' the scientists are promoting.
The world is full of evidence, of a creator. Check out the DNA. How did the first life get programmed to work?
MrDunsapy 3 months ago
@MrDunsapy Hey listen, stop with this played out question bombardment. All you refer to has been responded to millions of times on youtube. Take the time and care to understand those responses who are pretty much similar, and then comment on those. Otherwise you are just boring and nonsensical. Also, find a video that promotes Evolution to say these things. Because this video does not explain why Evolution is true. It explains why the basic philosophy behind Intelligent Design is FALSE. Cheers.
ONESPECIES 3 months ago
Loved it! Especially for it was so neat and clean. No unnecessary classical ID refutations. Just plain description on how evolution can be applied to these so called "designed" objects. *Like+favourite+subscribe*
ttcmp0 4 months ago
@ttcmp0 Thank you I really appreciate the feedback! : )
ONESPECIES 4 months ago
If you really want to discuss this
Here is an example
You want a loaf of bread for dinner.
Do you wait around for billions of years for a loaf of bread to just be ready , and good to eat.
Or do you create (design) the bread?
You can theories on how a loaf of bread just could happen. After all the materials are here on the earth.
But you don't get bread without design.
Now because some do not know who the designer is, does not mean that life was not designed.
MrDunsapy 3 months ago
@MrDunsapy Did you somehow miss the main point of the video? Was the nice sliced squared lump of bread designed in one go? No, the design of bread has evolved ever since the first type of flour was created, mixed with water and cooked over fire? The classic bread, you seem to be referring to, did indeed evolve (albeit not by the same mechanisms as life). It was the motif/form/idea that evolved. Flour probably too "evolved" and the methods of cooking over fire.
ttcmp0 3 months ago
@ttcmp0 Did you notice you said 'evolved', this intelligence changing things. That is creation..
MrDunsapy 3 months ago
@MrDunsapy First, I want to say that using standard English grammar, I cannot parse your sentence.. But aside from that, I guess you are saying that "changes" imply "creation", right?
Well, here is a hypothetical: When I see a natural phenomenon occur, and decide it would be nice if I would repeat that. Is it creation? And what bearing has this on some omnipotent creator?
Else, if I misinterpreted your comment, please clarify. I am genuinely interested in knowing what you think about this.
ttcmp0 3 months ago
@ttcmp0 Yea I was just going out the door when I wrote this.
You used the word 'evolve' with intelligent change. Most 'evolutionists' I've talked to don't like to equate 'evolution' with intelligence. (God) And if God is any part of it , it is creation.
MrDunsapy 3 months ago
@MrDunsapy What god? Now.. I'm pretty sure most 'evolutionists' (as if I am a 'gravitationalist' or 'atomicist'..) are not equating evolution with ID. Evolution is an explanation of mechanisms we see in nature, whereas god is a excuse for not having one. I don't believe there is a god. Now, this video explicitly destroys one of the most popular claims by ID advocates. If you want to debate existance of god or validity of evolution, I'd suggest another venue, as ONESPECIES has pointed out to you.
ttcmp0 3 months ago
@ttcmp0 Granted, the scientists do not know what a species is, they have at least 2 dozen interpretations on that. Now here is another one. Why use the word species at all? Why not just say all life.
MrDunsapy 3 months ago
@MrDunsapy While there is no single definition agreed upon, this does not mean they can't be used for specific purposes, and they can be really useful (which, by the way, cannot be said of any ID theory I've heard of).. The definitions I've heard are all pretty much similar. Anyway, this discussion falls way beyond the scope of the video.
ttcmp0 3 months ago
@ttcmp0 @ttcmp0 @ttcmp0 The sceinitst can use what they like.But they should not use what they classified themselves as any kind of authority, in it's use.. They don't know all the life that is here on the earth now. Also by classifying life into species they are telling us there is a distinction between differnt life forms. Which supports the creation statement of 'kinds' of life. For example 'mankind'. Are they really saying that the creation accounts are correct?
MrDunsapy 3 months ago
@MrDunsapy Why not? Scientist spend their life finding explanations. How can you discard verifiable claims made by them? Scientist are not claiming that "species" is something physical. It is only a (rather crude, one might even add) classification system. Mentioning bible-like "kinds" only tells me to stop wasting my time here.
Least you are ready to educate your self on how science works and what the theory of evolution is saying. Besides, as I've often mentioned, you are way off topic here..
ttcmp0 3 months ago
Comment removed
MrDunsapy 3 months ago
@MrDunsapy (one last reply..) Well of course they made it up!! Wait few thousand years and the finches might not be able to reproduce with finches from other parts of the world. Then they are a different species (by one definition..). Give humans few thousand years to evolve and we might have a different species from BC humans. You seem quite ignorant of many facts of evolution. Now go and read, instead of wasting your and others time here.. I'm done here..
ttcmp0 3 months ago
@ttcmp0 But you see you no evidence of that. Neither do the scientists. I could also say in few thousand years they maybe able mate as usual. But the evidence we actually have , says that a human can mate with a human. It is not scientific to make up your own scenarios.
MrDunsapy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ttcmp0 The reason is that they make up a classification of a species. Now when Darwin’s Finches for example change a little, they say they ‘evolved’. But the reality is that they are still Finches. It is only their classification that is involved. Yet at the same time they don't do that to humans. We don't have different species of humans. So this really is the scientists doing a snow job on people
MrDunsapy 3 months ago
For some reason this video makes me think of the Greek concept of 'ideal forms' that exist beyond reality. I.e. all eyes are based upon the ideal form, like chairs and, yes, houses. Maybe those heathen Greeks were on to something?
CardboardBox13013 4 months ago in playlist Liked
@CardboardBox13013 Greeks were right about a lot of stuff, especially their atom concept was impressive. However the concept of Ideal forms stands half way through if you ask me. It can be interpreted as "All forms obey natural laws, therefore some forms that serve those laws, are standard and Universal". Thats like saying Forms=Niches. However it can also be interpreted to mean that all forms are pre designed by intelligence, which is observably not the case.
ONESPECIES 4 months ago
therer wrong , im right and its a fact, now lets talk about it! BHAHAHAHAHAHA!
truthseeker010101 4 months ago
@LittleDirtyBlonde23 And now its time to flush you down the toilette. If noses is your problem in the world then to the sewers!!!! Say hi to the gators.
ONESPECIES 4 months ago
ID is just a "persistent" idea. Ha, yea why do you think that is? Because it is correct. Or maybe we could say in Darwinian terms that it "persists" because it is the stronger theory. Darwinism however is false because it could never prove that the fine tuning of the universe, chemistry, and physics could come out of nothing- nor that biologica development though genetic variation could have happened by chance. All we see came out of nothing and happened by chance! Very scientific.
frost122585 4 months ago
@frost122585 Everything you refer to has been debunked. Welcome to the internetz!
ONESPECIES 4 months ago 9
@ONESPECIES
girlfriend much?
MatzoRocks 3 months ago
@frost122585 it could never prove that the fine tuning of the universe, chemistry, and physics could come out of nothing......
because he never tried to, that is outside his field, and his theory does not even go there. His theory merely explains a observation variation in living organisms. and has been proven over and over again on several levels.
Aanthanur 4 months ago
Okay, so we see several different houses. Why does it matter that they are different or made at different times? No matter which house we look at, we immediately know that they were 1) constructed and 2) made by an intelligent agent, not natural forces. Even if someone had never seen any of these things before, they would immediately know that someone had made it. The video never really answers that. I'm not certain you represented the design argument accurately.
bereantrb 4 months ago
@bereantrb The design argument is not represented accurately by its proponents either. While the intelligent creator could be anything from a super computer, to multiple gods, they insist its one unique biblical god designer. So At least I prove nothing has one designer and nothing is produced without observation of prior natural phenomena or constructs. However I also show how all our endeavors are gradual like Evolution, denying the ID philosophy.I sufficiently show that "design" is evolving.
ONESPECIES 4 months ago 2
@ONESPECIES It still misses the point, but thanks for the reply. Anyway, nice job in putting together the video.
bereantrb 4 months ago
@bereantrb I would say I am on point. In this video as I said in the beginning I am dealing with the philosophical base of ID not the biology arguments which so many youtubers have done already successfully. I show how there is actually no irreducible complexity in what we produce,and that objects evolve through time, changing to meet new needs, or doing completely new stuff with the same structure. I also show there is never one designer but a big process. And that is most of ID's "philosophy".
ONESPECIES 4 months ago
@bereantrb the point is that just because we can say some house was constructed by some people, it tells us nothing at all about houses; and examining a single house or even just a few ignores the immense evolving history of the concept of a house (or dwelling). this is analogous to life, where even if life was "created" that is practically useless and gets us nowhere scientifically. it is an extremely (and in the case of ID intentionally) narrow point of view that ignores the big picture.
Sahuagin 4 months ago
great stuff mate, thanks for your efforts
psycho3968 4 months ago
@psycho3968 Thanks! Cheers!
ONESPECIES 4 months ago
Thanks for the upload. Along with the recommended channels you mention, I have to say 'Qualiasoup' and 'Theramin Trees' are also excellent channels for discourse and dissemination on this subject. Peace.
MrEmpathicus 4 months ago
@MrEmpathicus Thanks for the feedback! Cheers!
ONESPECIES 4 months ago
Brilliant vid :)
AussieNaturalist 5 months ago
@AussieNaturalist Thanks you very much!! :)
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
It appears that intelligence then, drives both biological evolution as well as the evolution of human ideas, as evolution of both responds to uitility, necessity, availability of technology and resources. Pretty clever, those bio creatures, plant/animal etc.
JoEEll2233 5 months ago
@JoEEll2233 No, it appears the mechanism humans have to identify patterns is running way rampant, to the point some can not attribute cause to effect anymore.
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
@ONESPECIES ???
JoEEll2233 5 months ago
@JoEEll2233 Lets take it from scratch. You said "It appears that intelligence then, drives both biological evolution as well as the evolution of human ideas". Care to elaborate? Because the point made is actually that progression or evolution is the link not intelligence.
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
@DrEvolutionQuest Not at all go Ahead, and drop my channel in the description! My pleasure.
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
@OneSpecies Fantastic Argument!!! Nail. Coffin. Irreducible Complexity. I never even conceived of crafting this utter Refutation of ID in such an obvious and crafty way. I will be stealing your argument (with all due credit given of course) to cudgel the next Ignoramus Dei that poses the Design Desginer fallacy. Thanks for the ammunition. I feel i have evolved a little after watching this video.
greiteneis 6 months ago
@greiteneis I am only Glad to help! I appreciate the feedback very much!
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception Name anything that is so complex that it a. must have been designed and b. has no precursor whatsoever. I'll give you a hint. The answer to this question is not humans, not copy paper, not gramophones, not the sun, not newton's theory of gravity, not electromagnet radiation radiating from an excited electron, not oxygen, not grass, not shoe laces... Even the universe in its current state has a precursor (the universe one plank time ago). Go ahead. Name anything!
greiteneis 6 months ago
Wouw, that is a great point! And a great video! :)
1MadVirus1 6 months ago
@1MadVirus1 Thanks for the feedback!
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
Guys watch the video with the transcribe audio
wigahiga500 6 months ago
@wigahiga500 Hey thats not fair :P
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
Greece always produce the best thinker!
jojoinhere 6 months ago
@jojoinhere I feel very flattered. Lets just say we have not lost the Greek Edge yet. ; )
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
Must read article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS. Just google the title.
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52 Oh Really? Any casualties yet? ROFL... The top result is from Prada. Their other articles are about aliens....
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@Mogley52:
"Must read article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS"
Just read it. Huge bunch of bullshit. I happen to be an evolutionary biologist and there is absolutely no "war" among biologists. There is not even a conflict between Neo-Darwinism and Punctuated Equilibrium, as both aspects are accepted under modern evolutionary synthesis.
Or to say it more plainly: No "Neo-darwinist" (if there even is such thing) opposes the theory of punctuated equilibrium and vice versa.
NiriuqK 6 months ago
@NiriuqK So I bought my grenades and mortar for nothing? Aw shoot. I thought we was having a war! XD hahahhaha
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES
Not necessarily. There's a place called "Creation Ministries International", which would probably make a nice target for your mortar and grenades ;-)
NiriuqK 6 months ago
@NiriuqK And he blinked knowingly!
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES
"Nudge-nudge, know what I mean? Say no more!" ;)
NiriuqK 6 months ago
@Mogley52 what you're referring to is biased media sensationalism. There's some debate about punctuated equilibrium, yes, but it's not a war - events of rapid evolution may contradict certain mechanisms within Darwin's theory, but DON'T contradict natural selection per se and even Darwin himself had said so. Also punctuated equilibrium isn't a different theory - it's just a part of current theory! Have your facts straightened.
MidnightTea7 6 months ago
Evolutionists like to use the analogy of the incomplete mouse trap. Of course, an incomplete mouse trap can last a long time until its human DESIGNER completes it. However, a partially-evolved cell, if it ever got to that point, would quickly disintegrate in the real world. It cannot wait for chance to finish or complete it and then make it living!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about do you?
PinkYui16 6 months ago
@Mogley52 You might want to check your facts again, between copy/pasting this comment on multiple video's, because that analogy was coined by Behe to support your I.C. argument and it fails on many points. The first you point out yourself, it's a HUMAN construct, not a replicating system, and as such, does not construct itself as a mousetrap. Secondly there's no such thing as a partially evolved cell, nor any other organisms, since evolution does not have a end goal.
DodoPandemic 6 months ago
@DodoPandemic "....and as such, does not construct itself as a mousetrap." I meant as a cell.
DodoPandemic 6 months ago
@Mogley52 Nope, no "evolutionist" uses this analogy. Only stupid creationists do.
Moreover: Also "partially evolved" cells could exist, as all you need for a cell is primarily a semi-permeable membrane (which can spontaneously form out of lipids in water), a simple metabolism, and as a next step an information carrier like RNA / DNA to regulate the metabolism. Growth could at first just occur statistically by incorporating more lipids, until the "cell" devides. From there on Evolution takes it.
NiriuqK 6 months ago
@Mogley52 WTH do you mean partially evolved? You still do not get it? Biology has no end product in mind? All organisms are evolved and capable to carry all the tasks they are supposed to survive in their environment. Evolution will bring on the new features they need when they need them, and remove the ones they do not need when they do not need them. A cell without a nucleus could cope with its tasks in life. But you wont find humans with cells without nucleus. So Boo Hoo at this argument.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES Ridiculous Analogy! You unwittingly substituted mans intellect in place of the unconscious mechanism of evolution that you are trying to show is not guided by intelligence, PRICELESS! The engine that drives change in your analogy is observable, intelligent, and with purpose not random chance. Great argument for ID. Not to mention you completely ignore the origin of the inventions. Using a tree as a wheel also falls short, It was Intelligence that recognized and applied its use!
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception Just when you think a person cannot reach any deeper point of retardness, someone like you appears. Yes, information can be added by chromosome duplication. That process is observed by understanding DNA, as well as seeing it happening in fossils. Most of the arguments creationists present are either misconceptions, or pure ignorance
The amount of science that you would have to ignore and the amount of assumptions based on faith you need to make for ID to work is beyond measure
1MadVirus1 6 months ago
@1MadVirus1 "You need to spend a little more time in the biology lab Jr."
Not that I expected any decent answer from you, but I need to spend more time in a biology lab because?..
I just love how you creationists think that by reading a quick article or two on some creationist website, you gain more knowledge than all the biology professors who have spent their entire lives studying a subject.
"LOL, No need to respond. Thanks for the laugh"
You ARE a retard, and an arrogant one. You're welcome
1MadVirus1 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES Show me an example of new information information being added without outside intellect being involved. Its one hell of a jump to go from a log roles to complex life. Get real! You can use a corn cob to wipe your butt, but that doesn't prove evolution is possible or even plausible for that matter.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception Me Get Real? You get real or get something else to do. The example is in the EYE the human eye. Get it? It all started from one gene for one type of photosensitive cell.That evolved into 3 for color vision (3 colors) and one for night vision. There you go. Besides,get serious,can't discuss honestly? This video debases the philosophical basis of Intelligent Design. Its not the job of this video to prove Evolution or anything else. Do you a comment on this theme?
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES Your analogy is false, therefore it doesn't prove intelligent design false, thats your claim ID destroyed. Second just saying it all started from one gene is no more scientifically based than God created everything. You have nothing more than a belief in a process that is neither been observed, tested or repeated. Nor is there any reason to assume we can know. And if anything your analogy supports ID.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception There is solid evidence on the one gene. Your knowledge seems inexistent. You are preposterously ignorant. I have no time for that. Sorry.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES correct you are...except that full functioning erythrocytes are anucleated (fine point I know)...problem with most that think like Mogley52 is that they view a 'less-evolved cell' as a 'partially-evolved cell' and refuse to see that there is a massive difference btwn the two...great video...only problem I had was you not directing viewers to Thunderf00t's and DonExodus's channel in the beginning...their series on evolution are top notch too...keep up the good work...thanks!
drfitnessnow 6 months ago
@drfitnessnow Thanks for the feedback and the correction! As for the channels, I believe I gave a good head start.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
Love it love it love it!!!!!!
Except, it is still not fair to compare nature and our own creations. Processes are similar but we do put intelligence into the "design" process. Nature works by mere action/reaction and adaptation.
SuperMemzzz 6 months ago
Dancing house in Prague. Wow, I like.
But can you or anyone else tell me what house is the third one from the right at 2:52.
Bishop38f8 6 months ago
@Bishop38f8 Thanks! I don't really know how that one is called though....
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
in some ways i think evolution is the "intelligent design". i don't know why evolution and intelligent design are usually exclusive from one another.
FallofDarkness55 6 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 Yes if you think of Natural Selection as a blind watchmaker, devoid of Intelligence but not devoid of good results, probably yes. If you think of it as a purposeful sentient entity...its not.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 The reason for that is the evangelical base behind the "ID idea" which has nothing to do with objective science. You can think of Nature as some kind of God to us. Because, that's really the essence of existence. The manifestation of non-zero energy. Few simple equations and ongoing process to fall back into the equilibrium. That is Nature - the blind watchmaker. If you think it is intelligent you are a fool.
CreativeVisionary92 6 months ago
Question: Is your presentation video, supposedly a refutation of the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, designed for a specific purpose? If the obvious answer to that question is 'Yes,' then you have refuted your refutation.
Thanks for playing, try again later.
randomuseronthenet 7 months ago
@randomuseronthenet Boo Hoo What a poor argument... So I visit the toilette every few hours... Does the intelligent Designer visit the toilette too? I scratched my head, an action designed to tackle itchiness on the Head, does the Intelligent Designer do that? Dogs fuck their toys, an action designed to offer autoerotic pleasure, is the Intelligent Designer fucking his toys? My socks smell after jogging, clearly an event designed to make me wash them. Does the Intelligent Designer wear socks?
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
@ONESPECIES I think the "Intelligent Designer" wishes not to disclose his/her/its (neuter) private affairs, Mr. Redundant Man.
randomuseronthenet 7 months ago
@randomuseronthenet Exactly my point, the only designer out there is the projection of your brain.
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
@randomuseronthenet "scientific" theory? Really? Last time I checked there is a consensus on 'intelligent design' not being a scientific theory !!!You are full of it!
SuperMemzzz 6 months ago
You have not destroyed I.D. What you have done is that you have proved that the variation that we see is the result of a Creator. One Creator, many variations of the creatures. You guys....hehe. I'm not an ID'er, I'm a Creationist. Thanks for the laugh.
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 Hilarious, thanks for the laugh too. Its always nice to watch Creationist fail in Action. Jumping from any premise straight to the God conclusion is simply entertaining. My socks smell bad after jogging. God did it, Intelligent Design, at work!
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
@compgrad1
You are destroyed on a regular basis.
I've personally kicked your ass on more than one occasion....
odinata 7 months ago
The cowards at Discovery Institute channel failed to accept this as a video response after 10 days of waiting.
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
That's completely different. Natural selection has no intelligence. It is supposed design complex machines without intelligence.
Acquiring knowledge from prior generations and using it to design more complex machinery is still an intelligent mind using information to design something. Your claims is that the information can make them selves. I'm not ready to buy that. Even the first man would be able to design something relatively complex.
Drzata 7 months ago
@Drzata The first man was barely able to find a use for sharp rocks. Complexity was achieved many generations later. "Natural selection has no intelligence". Well thats were you fail. Natural selection does not need intelligence. It is the antagonistic and selective pressures the environment puts organisms through. A time scale of 3 billion years matches well with random mutations guided by natural selection. It does not rhyme with an "Intelligent Designer" though. Unless he is unintelligent.
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
I didn't miss the point. They learned the process little by little over many generations and used their intelligent to carry on small amounts of information from generation to generation to be able to design more and more complicated machinery. That's prove for ID in my opinion.
Drzata 7 months ago
@Drzata Well sorry to spoil it for you, but this what you described is proof that the current claims of ID are false. If we have never witnessed a human designer, that works without using prior knowledge, how can ID proponents make the extrapolation that such a designer exists? If a "Designer" had to adapt mechanisms and materials "he" already found in working order, then "he" is not much different than Natural selection, and he does not require any Intelligence if it took him 3 billion years!
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
Lol. This is rediculous. You don't think there were any people designing the cars? and the wheels? This is an intelligent directed process. This proves ID.
Drzata 7 months ago
@Drzata You completely missed all the points made, and the opportunity to think about them. But since you are interested in car designers, please do go ask them what goes into designing a car. Ask them if car design is something someone pulls out of his ass or if it is something someone bases on decades or centuries of an evolving knowledge base. And by car design we mean all of it, not just the shape of the hood.
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
The flint rock had to have notches in it to hold it to the arrow shaft. It had to have a shaft attached to it. It had to have fins attached in the back to guide it. A tree on its own is not able to transport anything. Even without branches and roots, it cannot place itself under an object or take the object anywhere intended. Such a total fail!
JungleJargon 8 months ago
@JungleJargon However Hard you try, you can not deny that these "inventions" were actually observations of naturally occurring phenomenons. And thats what you fail to realize. In any case, early Humans did not design anything. They learned by observation and accident. IF you are ready to accept that "An intelligent creator agency" does things by observing already existing structures and by accident, then it is not Intelligent Design anymore. It is an Intelligent Assistant Sidekick.
ONESPECIES 8 months ago
@ONESPECIES Every lesser function has a known or unknown maker. If it has a function, it has a maker. The same is true for greater nano functions and the utilization of quantum physics to accomplish an intended end that also happens to be useful for other life cycles. If "early humans" used a log, it was intended.
The universe was all created with ultra intelligence, wisdom, knowledg and understanding. Most of the most common elements are working nanomachine parts inside of us. It's all design.
JungleJargon 8 months ago
@ONESPECIES (The Maker of all matter is not made of matter Himself.)
JungleJargon 8 months ago
@JungleJargon Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence. Otherwise it is just a splendid personal belief. Cheers.
ONESPECIES 8 months ago
@JungleJargon
Why would i believe in your religious creationism, if you can't explain AB resistance or Plant speciation without using evolution theory?
transtlantic 7 months ago
(No object ever designed, made or assembled itself to work with a pupose without preexisting information to order it.)
Such a fail! No function ever existed without having a maker.
The tree log itself is by design appropriated by an intelligence.
Trial and error is not evolution because there is a limit to what the genome is able to do. It cannot work magic. It cannot do what it does not have orders to do.
JungleJargon 8 months ago
Such a fail! It is not only design, it is about function. there is no function without making function because function has an intended result.
The function of hydrogen alone shows the entire universe and all matter in it has a Maker who is not made of matter Himself. We know He exists because of the function that most of the most common elements have in life forms.
Such a fail!
All other lesser functions have a maker so the greater functions in nature also have a Maker.
JungleJargon 8 months ago
@JungleJargon Your entire existence is a fail.
Drgamedood 7 months ago
@JungleJargon So why don't you invite the lesser creators and the higher ones, so we can all have tea, and talk about stuff we can not possibly verify?
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
@ONESPECIES The functions have already been verified. It shows us there is One Creator of all matter since all matter is derived from hydrogen which obeys preexisting orders inside of us as intended.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon Yeah Right. Why don't you read some cosmology and astronomy Books, and maybe then you get a bit of a more complete image. And in the mean time, please do learn the difference between a stretched extrapolation and a verification. Otherwise you can never have a truly serious conversation. To give you an Idea, the nature of the Solar System has been verified. To say that an emergent world like our our own was instead made by an intelligent agent, has not been verified. So.....
ONESPECIES 7 months ago