Wow, Miller really told Behe "what for" about irreducible complexity, didn't he? If you can find any use for the parts of something that is irreducibly complex it isn't really irreducibly complex after all. Therefore, if you can make a paperweight out of broken mousetrap or a spitwad launcher if its spring still works, then the fact that it can't catch mice doesn't matter any more. Wow!
"Promoting their religion" How's that? Were they promoting Baptist teaching? How about Catholic? Even Christian beliefs--were they promoting those? Ah, the only one (singular) they were trouncing was atheistic naturalism--because they were questioning the efficacy of the science behind evolutionary theory. Did they have a religious motivation for this? Sure. Does Dawkins have a religious reason for promoting Evolution? Sure.
So what. It's a scientific debate, folks. Science.
@MorganMarvinson no its not my friend. it is poseudoscience vs real science, the posedoscience lost. and yes they where promoting religius creation story, and that is enugh.
@MorganMarvinson For once, being specific about WHICH "supernatural intelligence" they refer to in Intelligent Design. Referring to a specific god of a specific religion is one of the reasons why Intelligent Design is a theory made to promote religion not science.
@daangelo29 For some reason you think connecting the design of nature with its designer is not science. Any other invention is usually remembered in connection with its inventor. Why not the fabulous and exquisite design of nature?
Is it that you think brilliant design should remain anonymous or that it should be attributed to non-intelligent designers for it to be considered REAL science? Such a thought is an example of philosophical naturalism--not science.
When I said being specific about the designer, I was also asking WHICH designer? Yahweh? Allah? Imra? That would also lead to the question, which designer of which RELIGION? Apparently you can't go to the topic of Intelligent Design without answering these questions.
Also, I said ID is not a "scientific theory" because it involves something unobservable (the invisible designer). You can't call it a "theory" in the realm of science if one of the things that supports it is unobservable.
@daangelo29 "specific about the designer" Design certainly implies a designer. A few years ago I bought a Toyota van for my family (and still have it). It was so well made (compared to other cars I had owned) that I marveled at how much thought went into it. I do not know whether the designer was named Fujiyama or Yakamoto or even Toyota, but the wonderful design told me it had a designer.
My inference was logical and scientific. WHO the designer was, was another question.
@MorganMarvinson No, it's not the design that tells you there's a designer, it's the fact that you know cars are made by people. You know there are car companies that do this. You know there are facotries that pump these cars out.
This is such a silly argument, really. Paley's Watchmaker is one of the biggest logical absurdities in philosophy.
@BigLundi I accept that you think this is absurd, but investigation doesn't always begin with knowledge of a cause. In considering design, one doesn't have to have seen it being built or had prior knowledge to infer by its interworking parts and systems that it required forethought and not simply chance to come into existence.
From my point of view, assuming self-assembly or assembly by non-directed processes is more absurd, yet I know many intelligent people that swallow the story as credible.
@MorganMarvinson Firstly, you're talking about abiogenesis, which has been shown to be possible to happen naturally. Secondly, we do NOT infer design from complexity. It just DOES NOT FOLLOW. The reason we know paintings are painted is because people paint paintings. We know watches are made because we know people make watches. And we know cars are built because we know people make cars.
There is NO instance of ANY of these things occurring naturally. Evolution, however ,is a fact.
@BigLundi "you're talking about abiogenesis, which has been shown to be possible to happen naturally." I have a hard time holding a conversation with "true believers" who spout their beliefs without actual scientific evidence.
Yes, there are things we have seen being created. We certainly know their source--and that is all the more reason to infer an intelligent source for the things we haven't seen being created, which require blind faith to assume could come about without forethought.
@MorganMarvinson No, it's not, and it doesn't. You haven't even demonstrated such a thing.
Biological creatures are shown to replicate themselves, and broken down on a molecular level, what makes up these self replicating self changing mechanisms CAN be shown to occur in nature, as with the Miller-Urey experiment, and many more since then. Yes, I know, the Miller-Urey expriemnt didn't make 'life' but it showed one of the steps can happen totaly naturally.
@BigLundi "Biological creatures are shown to replicate themselves" That is correct and that is all. Replication isn't evolution.
The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that amino acids naturally combine and naturally separate unless artificially protected. And you are correct, it didn't make life.
I can see engaging a "true believer" is a mistake. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. That would be you. You have not demonstrated support for either abiogenesis or evolution.
@MorganMarvinson Yes I have. And you've accepted it. You've accepted amino acids can occur on their own, that's evidence that abiogenesis is plausible. Deny that all you want, I'm not arging that point anymore, as you've already conceded it. Also, you failed to comment on Gene Duplication(which is the increasing of information in the genome through replication of DNA and combinations) and, not ONLY do biological creatures show to replicate themselves, but they also show to CHANGE themselves.
@BigLundi "Evolution, however is a fact." Again, you demonstrate what kind of "true believer" you are. Evolution from a single common ancestor requires uphill construction of DNA that is never seen in nature. Downhill genetic deconstruction that leads to speciation goes the wrong direction to support the inference of common origin. Evolution is an inference based on hypothetical evidence or, at best, it is a research programme. No honest investigator claims it is fact.
@MorganMarvinson Really? Gene Duplication isn't observed? Again, you demonstrate that you just don't know the science.
Change over time, which is evolution, is a fact. We observe it day in and day out. Speciation is observed, changes in biological structure over time is observed. These are facts. Evolution is a fact. It takes no faith whatsoever to believe these things.
@BigLundi This is a free country, so you are entitled to your beliefs and can express them freely, but please excuse me if I don't take any more time reading your statements of faith in evolution.
@MorganMarvinson That's cool. I'll go ahead and accept what evidence shows, and you can go ahead and ignore it all and think less of those who choose to do so. I have no faith in evolution, you didn't show in any way that I did, and your condescending leaving statement just illustrates your own ignorance.
@BigLundi What evidence says life came from non-life by itself? There is no evidence--only belief that it did. Freely associating and disassociating amino acids is not evidence of life coming spontaneously from non-life. What evidence is there that simple life developed into complex? No evidence, just inference. Until you face the fact that it isn't evidence but your desire that it be true that fuels your acceptance of the theory, you will go around wasting a lot of time--including your own.
@MorganMarvinson Evidence says it's possible. Again, you keep talking about abiogenesis even thoughyou're referring to the validity of evolution, both of which are not the same thing. Do you just completely ignore what the science says? I at least read the bible before criticizing it, read a biology textbook or something.
I don't even BELIEVE in evolution. I just accept it as the best explanation of the availiable facts. If you have a better explanation, give it.
@BigLundi "I just accept it as the best explanation" Yea, one person told me it's sort of like accepting the news that you have terminal cancer. It isn't something that you particularly want to "believe," but you resign yourself to it and try to make the best of life.
"A better explanation" The evidence for design is all around you. Depending on your willingness or lack of willingness to consider it, it will either grab your thought processes or slip right past you like water on a duck's back.
@BigLundi " What would be an example of something that isn't designed?" a lump of clay, a pile of leaves, a grease spot on your garage floor, an eroded underwater archway. Do you need more?
@MorganMarvinson None of those count. You believe the lump of clay is designed, you believe the pile of leaves is designed, you believe what makes the grease on the garage floor is designed, you believe the archway is designed.
The logical conclusion of the, "Look at the design, it's evident' argument, or in other words, Paley's Watchmaker, is when you walk through a forest and find a watch, you're actually walking through a forest of watches, and picking up a specific watch.
@BigLundi Sure they count. The lump of clay is not the result of intelligent design; it is the result of laws of cohesion. The leaf may be designed, but the pile of leaves is the result of gravity when the leaves fell from the tree. Grease may hold together because of the laws of its specific viscosity, but the oil spill is certainly not what the intelligent owner of the car designed that the oil do. Neither can you implicate the oil refiner for the spill. The archway came from erosion.
@MorganMarvinson Ah, so it's not the OBJECTS that aren't designed, just their placement. I asked for an example of an undesigned OBJECT. You gave me none of that.
@BigLundi "I asked for an example of an undesigned OBJECT." With all due respect, no you didn't. You asked me for "something that isn't designed" I listed several "somethings"--somethings that illustrate non-design.
@BigLundi Were the lump of clay shaped into a useful pitcher, that would be design. Were the leaves arranged to make the face of Walt Whitman or the grease spot like the face of Dale Ernhardt, that would be design. Were the archway etched with shapes of Grecian deities, that would be design.
The reframing of reality in your mind keeps you from seeing specified complexity as different from general complexity. Though there is no forest of watches, except in storybooks, design is all around.
@MorganMarvinson Out of everything that you think is designed, which would include everything in existence, as you believe everything in nature is designed, and anything we make is designed, HOW do you differentiate between something that's designed, and something that is NOT designed?
If you come across a rubber ball, and a rock, which one's designed and which one's not? In your ideology, they both are, even though the ball is FAR simpler than the rock, so it's not complexity, obviously.
@BigLundi To answer your question, you might check into the concept of "specified complexity." The ball is constrained in a number of ways that the rock is not. All of its parts are built with relation to the whole. If air filled, it has a valve to let air in and keep it in. If not, it has a specific density all the way through that allows it to bounce uniformly. It is a discreet object with a specific function.
A rock is a broken off piece of something else with complex but random composition.
@MorganMarvinson Break open a rock, the inside is far more designed than anything in a rubber ball.
Here's the thing, evolution explains why things are complex, why things appear designed, but you don't accept it. WHY don't you accept it, outside of religious reasons.
@MorganMarvinson And besides ANY of that, we have this little problem with the saying that there was an 'intelligent designer'. Firstly, that designer is inevitably God. Second, there is NO explanation as to HOW these designs were designed, outside of saying 'magic'. Can you describe the mechanisms of the design? Can you describe the proces of HOW something gets designed? We CAN describe the mechanisms and how things evolve, AND show evidence of said things, That's why I accept Evolution.
@BigLundi "inevitably God. Actually, Crick and Dawkins could see an alien intelligent designer, but why would God being the designer be a problem?
"NO explanation as to HOW these designs were designed" I use all kinds of things I don't know how they were designed.
"Can you describe the process of HOW something gets designed?" You have the same problem. RM, which has no foresight, can't design a molecular machine. Organisms are loaded with thousands of them.
@MorganMarvinson Unlike you, I can give a detailed reasoning and detailed explanation of how gene duplication works, and how this can lead to more complex creatures, or just plain different species. Evolution explains why our chromosomes are so similar to other apes than other animals. It explains Atavisms. It explains ERV's, transitional fossils, it makes predictions we can test, and USE in medical science.
What can Intelligent Design explain, other than, "It looks designed, so it is."?
@BigLundi It "explains" until it doesn't. Evolutionary theorists resort to a lot of AD HOC explanations because reality doesn't like to behave according to evolutionary theory.
"USE in medical science" I'm afraid you are repeating something you have heard that isn't so. In fact, directors of research have stated that evolution is not essential to what they do. In reality, it is design that is studied in the lab. Design is fundamental to understanding the functionality of organisms.
@MorganMarvinson What DOESN'T behave according to evolutionary theory? And why do you think it doesn't?
And most biologists like to say that nothing makes sense in biology without evolution. I don't care what some directors have to say. I have SEEN evolutionary theory used to trat ME, specifically. I have seen them say, "We don't know what virus is causing this, but what we're going to do is use its apparent traits, place it on the evolutionary tree, and treat it like that." It worked.
@BigLundi There is no gradual path of development of organisms--fossil evidence shows erratic jumps, if they are jumps at all; there is no real world evidence of new molecular machines being built within the organism; genetic philogeny reads differently depending on the gene.
"like to say" Yeah, I know what they like to say, but practically evolution doesn't have anything to do with their research.
I'm glad your virus was treatable. What does a virus have to do with evolution's "tree of life"?
Yeah, which has been explained. It's called 'punctuated equilibrium'. Also, it's spelled phylogeny. The phylogeny of all living things is as it is BECAUSE of Evolution, you know this right? The use of Evolutionary Theory is how we define new species, it's how we define old species. Before Darwin, a finch was just a finch, no matter how different it got.
@BigLundi "Punctuated equilibrium" is the statement of a problem--not the explanation of a process.
"Phylogeny." Got it.
The phylogeny of living things is because humans thought they could easily link things into a hierarchical tree. Turns out it hasn't been so easy. They've rewritten the tree hundreds of times based on the guesswork of taxonomy and recently come to the conclusion that it isn't ONE tree but several trees, and the branches are intertwined with large gaps at every level.
@MorganMarvinson It's much more effective than how it was before. As I've already said, before they didn't care how much animals varied, they were very much like creationists and their 'kinds' definition, "Does it look like a bird? Well that's what it is." It's over general, and useless. Evolution's tree has helped us greatly to define species specifically and usefully. And it is one tree, there's a gigantic map showing this. You ARE aware even Behe believes in Common Descent right?
@MorganMarvinson It's much more effective than how it was before; as I've already said, before they didn't care how much animals varied, they were very much like creationists and their 'kinds' definition, "Does it look like a bird? Well that's what it is," It's over general, and useless. Evolution's tree has helped us greatly to define species specifically and usefully. And it is one tree, there's a gigantic map showing this. You ARE aware even Behe believes in Common Descent right?
@MorganMarvinson As far as viruses having to do wit hthe tree of life. I already explained, Evolution is how we define phylogeny. We come up with specific species traits that are particular to organisms. The easiest way to define a new virus is by looking at its traits, and comparing them to other viruses, to see what it evolved from, and putting it on the tree in order to test to see if it's right, and if it is, we then have a better idea as to how to treat said virus.
@BigLundi "I can give a detailed reasoning and detailed explanation of how gene duplication works, and how this can lead to more complex creatures" You have a good imagination. But reality doesn't work like your imagination. There is no evidence for uphill development. All the "poster children" of evolution lose information. Duplicated genes don't hang around long enough to accidentally be transformed into integrated programming code that adds new molecular machines. This is fantasy.
@MorganMarvinson Yes there is. We see speciation occur every day. Duplicated genes add information all the time, and it happens so often and so much at a time, that the majority of the time, it does nothing.
The fact is, you didn't refute any of my examples of atavisms, or ERV's. "Intelligent Design" hasn't given us any advancements. Evolution has. All "Intelligent Design" can say about anything is, "That's too complex to evolve." And that's....all it can say. What USE does ID have?
@BigLundi Evolution requires new molecular machines to develop from simple to complex. We never see that happen. Never. Speciation occurs as organism populations lose genetic information. This would never get you from simple life to complex.
Scientists study nature as something that can be rationally understood--ergo, design. They recognize structures that have all the signs of amazing and exquisite design and then quickly run into the evolutionary loony room and say it just happened.
@MorganMarvinson Really? We never see dogs getting bigger? We never see new chemicals be introduced in the makeup of plants? We never see additional traits added onto things?
Sorry, but we do.
So you define 'design' to mean something that can be rationally understood?
You are fully aware that evolution doesn't state that everything just happened you disengenuous douche. You are WELL aware evoluton isn't pure random chance, there IS a guide, it's called nature.
@MorganMarvinson "Artificial gene selection isn't evolution" Yes it is.
It's not good at culling out monsters, monster s can't breed in the first place, it's good at keeping those that are best suited to their enviornment...I.E. NATURE.
@BigLundi The projection of "junk DNA" was based on the assumptions of directionless evolution. Now evolutionary theorists are having to eat crow as what was once called "junk" is now being seen as crucial to gene expression. "Evolution of the gaps" gets smaller and smaller.
We can painfully go through a discussion of atavisms and ERVs if you have the endurance to do so. I've done it several times here before. But you likely don't even know where a virus originates, much less ancient viruses.
@MorganMarvinson Oh jeez, please don't tell me that bullshit argument. I'm sure you have no idea how to refute atavisms, but went ahead and looked up how to refute ERV's on the Discovery Instittue's website, or around Youtube plenty. Sorry, but I've ALSO seen these arguments, AND the refutations of them, so don't even try. The ONLY thing you're capable of doing is attacking evolution, you haven't put forth a single use of Intelligent Design, or its mechanisms, or ANYTHING.
@BigLundi It's ERVs--not ERV's (the second is possessive). And, no, you apparently haven't read my refutation of ERVs because it didn't come from the Discovery "Istittue" (we could get that new language started based on random typing errors ... ;). It came from reading and thinking about the nature of viruses. So where DO viruses come from when they can't reproduce without a host?
@MorganMarvinson We judge theories by the predictions they make, and if they pass the tests or not. ID hasn't passed the tests, evolution has. What more can we say? The evidence matches evolution.
What you're doing is saying 'it looks designed, so obviously it is'.
The fact is, just because something looks like something, doesn't mean it is. The sun looks like it rises and sets, it doesn't. Science usually DOES find counter intuitive things to be true.
@BigLundi Come on! Get off your high evolutionary horse, Lundi. Evolution keeps failing the tests and has to be rewritten time and time again. So why do people believe? Is it because of the wonderful explanatory power of evolutionary theory. They didn't even know how a cell worked when they first swallowed Darwin's placebo. People believe evolution because it PRETENDS to explain things, but it is far too general a theory to really explain anything. There are no metrics, no real predictions.
@MorganMarvinson Really? Explain why our chromosomes match the apes then. Explain atavisms. Explain ERV's. These things are explained through evolution. Intelligent Design makes no comment on them whatsoever.
@BigLundi "The sun looks like it rises and sets." What is a "rise" and a "set"? If it doesn't "rise" and "set," why then do we still have sunrise and sunset tables?
@BigLundi It seems to me that the sun is a whole lot bigger than we are. It seems to me that it's a whole lot easier to consider that we're doing the moving.
"Things aren't always as they seem."
On that basis you want me to discard reality and embrace the theory that postulates that "the eye evolved independently many times." My eye! Spielberg and Disney couldn't come up with a better fantasy!
@MorganMarvinson No, not discard reality, EMBRACE reality. Darwin himself said that he's well aware how far fetched the idea that somethign so complex as the human eye evolved over a course of many years sounds absolutely absurd to our common sense, but in reality, evidence tells us it's far more likely than any common sense might tell us. What I'm telling you to do is dont rely on common sense to be your guide through science. Science, by nature, discovers the counter intuitive.
@MorganMarvinson Evolution wouldn't have BECOME a Theory unless it was based in fact. What you seem to be saying is that the only reason it's perpetuated as true is because of some philosophical bias, which is demonstrably untrue.
@BigLundi "Evolution wouldn't have BECOME a Theory unless it was based in fact." Dinosaur feathers! Darwin didn't know the first thing about genetics, and yet people willingly swallowed his anti-deist placebo. It became a theory without any sound basis. He predicted thousands of transitions, which Gould frankly admitted do not exist. It became a theory because people wanted an alternative to God. So they glibly jumped on the bandwagon with only the intuitive notion of Natural Selection. Fact!
@MorganMarvinson You ARE aware Evolution was around for a much longer time since before Darwin, right?
The FACT is that things change over time. This is inarguable fact. Young earth creationists agree with that. All Darwin did was explain how this happens, and made a few predictions. And his predictions passed the tests.
@BigLundi "The FACT that things change over time. This is inarguable fact." Well, yeah. But that doesn't say one thing can eventually swap body plans.
You misspell words, like "evoltuion" in a previous post. So let's harness the power of misspelling to create a new language. What do you say? Makes as much sense as thinking copy errors will create useful body plan changes if given enough time. (Even if it could, the fossil record says that time was NOT unlimited but was tightly constrained.)
@MorganMarvinson "Well yeah, but that doesn't say one thing can eventually swap body plans" Nobody's saying they do. And thanks for admitting you believe evolution is a fact as well.
The fossil record doesn't say 'time' was tightly constrained you silly, it says that life originated somewhere areound 3.5 billion years ago. What's 'tightly constrained' about it?
Also, you ARE aware that that's one way that languages can evolve right? Or do you think English always existed?
@BigLundi "You ARE aware Evolution was around for a much longer time since before Darwin, right?" Sure, and it was based on a proper understanding of the cell and genetics, right? Wrong, it was a philosophical position ... as it is today.
@MorganMarvinson You have yet to provide a single item that would be undesigned, the only things you bring up are STATES of matter, or LOCATIONS of matter, but not a single item itself that is not designed, nor even how we would differentiate between something that is designed, as opposed to something that is not.
When you say, "The evidence of design is all around you" you show that you think EVERYTHING is designed, and that's unscientific. It's unfalsifiable, and untestable.
@BigLundi Things don't invent themselves. Specified complexity doesn't invent itself. Life doesn't originate without life. The complexity of a crystal is a lower energy state, based on its molecular configuration. Specified complexity is a mark of intelligence and information. Without DNA, you would not be--that's information, not molecular self-assembly
@BigLundi "Evidence tells us that it is quite possible to happen" Cross your fingers, rub your lucky rabbit's foot and those pesky amino acids that disassociate as quickly as they associate just might stay together long enough to organize themselves into something that can eat and reproduce itself.
Come on now! Close your eyes now and say the magic words: "Abiogenesis, abiogenesis--it just might work." Louder now! "Abiogenesis, abiogenesis--it just might work!" Say it like you mean it! "Abi...
@MorganMarvinson "Pesky amino acids" you mean the things that we WANT?
What does abiogenesis have to do with this anyhow? I'm arguing about Evolution, not abiogenesis.
You realy think Miller-Urey was the only success? You really think they're the only ones to do this experiment and produce results? Experiments have gotten more specific, and more successful ever since. I have an EXTENSIVE list of scientists that have published books and peer reviewed articles on the subject.
@BigLundi The laws were designed; quantum physics was designed; procreation was designed; the eye was designed; DNA was designed; the structure of atoms was designed; the architecture of your brain was designed. And because they were designed, they do what they were designed to do.
But messes and denigration of order aren't designed. They just happen ... according to basic laws of physics--like the second law of thermodynamics.
@MorganMarvinson "Quantum physics were designed" Wow, if that's true that's a hell of a bad design. A level of existence where physical laws just don't apply? Where much of our research is based on speculation?
You have a lot of assertions, yet no evidence for these assertions, you say a bunch of things were designed...why? Because they LOOK designed to you? IS that your only reason?
Please tell me you don't think Evolution goes against the second law of thermodynamics...
@MorganMarvinson To deny evolution is to deny the observations we've made that make it completely valid.
Where we've observed Pye-dogs evolve into chihuaha's,dachsunds and great danes. Weed evolving into broccoli, cauliflower, and cabbage. Wild fruit filled with hard seeds evolve into the banana's we eat today, and all of this in about six thousand years alone. Life originated 3.5 billion years ago, think about the level of evolution capable in that amount of time.
@BigLundi You're right. "Evoltuion," "Evolution," "Evoltuition"--they're all pretty bland. The one I really like is "evilution," which is the conflation of "evil" and "convolution." The two terms pretty well sum up how you have to view reality to accept that organisms of exquisite design came about by those paragons of innovation: natural laws that don't create but just keep things going, an "author" who writes by making mistakes, a non-interfacing environment, and an "editor" called Death.
@BigLundi Nice deflection. Evolution exists because of human inference, creating something for which there is no evidence. It is NEVER "right in front of you." We never see the upward building from simple to complex. We never see variation progressing toward greater complexity.
But, the imaginary is in your head, and you're stuck with it ... unless you ask for deliverance--that creative "author" who writes by making mistakes ...
@MorganMarvinson There is evidence, you just don't accept it as evidence for evolution. You even RECOGNIZE evolution, you just don't use the word evolution, because you have a personal bias against the word.
Your percieved design argument has still not given any results, it stil doesn't have any biological scientific peer reviewed papers, it doesn't describe any processes or anything.
7:51-8:34 I can't believe his argument stood! Never being able to replicate the card order again is impossible, I agree. What I can't believe is the fact that nothing was accomplished, i.e. how do we know that the "order of cards" the first time was the recipe for creating life. I believe in Creation Science, there is no one responsible for life except for God Himself. Andd... the fact that some parts of the flagella are "hanging around" doesn't mean they'll assemble themselves.
That's like saying the germ theory of disease is a religion - it's nonsense.
>"evolution is failing a part "
Whoever told you this, is extremely uneducated or lying for god. Actually, evo is one of the best supported scientific theories we have, and every bit of biological evidence adds more support.
>"many evidences being discussed against this"
Sure - by peopple who can't stand, that their belief system is not reflected by reality.
oh no! they're gonna teach kids both sides of an argument and ask them to think for themselves, this is crazy!!! evolution is scared of the truth, thats why its so defensive cos it knows when shown both sides people choose God!
Don't confuse scientific validity with free speech. The theory of evolution has gone through a rigorous peer review process for 150 in the scientific community. Creationists seek to bypass this whole process and teach something that a reputable scientific journal has even agreed to publish anything on. Teaching "both sides" would be the opposite of fair.
Teaching all sides of an argument is an education, teaching one side is indoctrination. One way the British education system differs from the American
Correct, but my biology teacher did not presented evolution as fact and my physics teacher discussed the need for a designer. Any way I was defiantly taught the Muslim creation story in RE. My original point was that people should be shown all sides of an argument and allowed to make up there own mind, the difference between education and indoctrination.
My original point was whats the harm in teaching people different points of view and allowing then to make up their own mind? I dont see why any rational person would object to that. And you want to tell my science teacher how to think? Why dont you start by calling up Allan Sandage.
Because it is harmful and confusing to teach someone.
"The earth floats through space. However there are some people who think we are completely wrong and the earth is flat and sits on the back of a giant turtle. Both theories are possible so you decide"
The reason why they are being taught is because they don't know enough about the theories to make an informed decision yet, so it is the duty of the teacher to guide them to the best theory that explains the most. Afterwards they can decide.
Ok, but why do we still teach kids about Horse evolution, the peppered moth, the Miller experiment and the residual pelvis of whales. Do we really need to lie to kids to help them make informed decisions? You obviously dont believe in these examples, so why are we still teaching them to our kids?
Thats a fair comment but the fact is kids are still being taught lies and its these lies that form the foundations of their opinions, if you want to go on and study molecular biology thats fine but your average kids education stops at 16. You can understand why a creationist could get annoyed, this is not science its political indoctrination, if its not, then why lie?
I have noticed that a common tactic ID proponents use is to show text books from the 80's and even early 90's and point to them and say. "See they are teaching embryo's have gills"
Well we have come a long way since the 80's I can assure you.
If you want the text books to be updated to current facts, then I agree with you a million percent. Sadly most schools don't have the funding to buy new books. But I agree, schools should have the newest most up to date books.
Is there a supernatural God?..or is the energy behind life and behind our universe a natural creative energy...I believe the evolutionary process of natural selection are also guided by a natural energy of our cosmos....how about mathematical proof? Search videos by superwhuffo1
Not really, that's because you are not getting the point.
Creationism is not stupid bc Bush supports it, Creationism is stupid by itself.. So there is no surprise that an idiot that knows nothing about science supports a stupid non-scientific idea. That's it.
@cperez1000 Sure OK. Can you please tell me how life started? and cite empirical experiment to prove it. If you cant do it then, I would be very careful using the word stupid. I'm not talking about Bush who I dont care for anyway. Like I said if before, if you can prove how life started then I will not be able to think of you as a stupid person. Unless of course you said something that you couldn't back up.
@gamesbok I dont believe Marx was stupid, but it is true he also believed in Darwinism. I dont think calling others stupid just because they dont believe as you do is the right course to take, but to each his own, I guess.
@gamesbok It is true Stalin supported Lysenkoism & renounced Mendelian genetics, but this has nothing to do with Darwin, & especially at a time when Mendelian genetics was still being rediscovered & tested after being ignored by evolutionist for more than 50 years. It was because of Darwin who he learned about as a older teen that he thought he had been lied to about God. In spite of of Hitlers catholic pandering, he despised Christianity as his private letters demonstrate & supported Eugenics.
I love the way that after Miller presented his arguement that the flagellum was not irreducably complex, Behe's comeback outside the court was..."the evidence...just suggests that it was designed"...hahah. It JUST does.
The math part is the silliest part of all. Desmsky is either an amazingly dumb mathematician or a dishonest one. What are the odds that the six members of my family would have the birthdays they do? The answer is 1/365^6. Or more specifically .00000000000004229%. Oh my god, that is impossible. It couldn't have happened! Even a high school student can see the problem with this logic.
Oh yes. I was replying to the person who ridiculed Miller for saying "A theory that explains everything in fact explains nothing." If you couldn't figure that out.
In response to there card aknowledge, that being dealt "this hand" is so improbable yet it happened....as chanceful as it is for the exact existence to be, well, existent, that chances of getting A hand is 100%. Point, failed.
The chance of every molecule being in its oposition in a small rock it so minute (Smaller than the chance of humans evolving) but you dont see them claiming god must have put every molecule of each stone in place. Let alone how each atom of water is positioned in the oceans/seas!
Just saying how ID is so misleading when saying chance, probaility. Theres no go god going around making the rocks, even tho they are far less probable than the human, which they think must be created by a god.
Your first comment is also misunderstanding probalility.
If you said you wanted a certain order for the billion cards you pull from a deck (BEFORE) you do it and it comes out the same as predicted then thats 52 to the power billion.
Your comment about the cards being 100% also applys to the universe, whats the chance we have somthing 100% its what we have here now.
Its 1 as there will be an answer, as you didnt specifiy anything you just got a result.
I didn't misunderstand; I just worded my point badly.
What I was trying to say is that even if this rare hand wasn't dealt, there would still be a hand of something. And that hand of something would still be rare itself. Kind of like the lottery; It's rare to win, but somebody does it. So this concept of it being improbable to get this "hand" could be said about any other hand we could've gotten either. If we didn't have this hand, we would have another hand, and it would be just as improbable.
As with the cards we are after the results and go this is what happened isnt that amzaing. Whats the probalility of that.
Like cards and evolution the probalility of each as it turned out is low.
As you say tho the probalility of soms result of the billions of cards is 1. The same for evolution, there must be a reslut, this is it, its not special. Its just the way it is like the cards.
Only US can have a president like bush and in US teachers can teach ID in science class. Yet Americans become angry when others call them stupid. Ofcourse not all of them are stupid but they surely harbour a big number of them in the country.
Where's #5+??
artman2oo3 5 months ago
Kennith Miller is like Batman in this video.
I love that guy.
LiveTheWild 11 months ago
Kenneth Miller is officially my new hero.
daangelo29 1 year ago
"We have a calling from beyond the stars" - Proof that Bush can actually be "higher" than a sky.
vinniechan 1 year ago
The intelligent design is a truly the KILLER of EVOLUTION MYTH .
algadykhalifa 1 year ago
Ken Miller is my new hero.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
giving atention to creationist is like giving atention to a troll.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
Wow, Miller really told Behe "what for" about irreducible complexity, didn't he? If you can find any use for the parts of something that is irreducibly complex it isn't really irreducibly complex after all. Therefore, if you can make a paperweight out of broken mousetrap or a spitwad launcher if its spring still works, then the fact that it can't catch mice doesn't matter any more. Wow!
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
"Promoting their religion" How's that? Were they promoting Baptist teaching? How about Catholic? Even Christian beliefs--were they promoting those? Ah, the only one (singular) they were trouncing was atheistic naturalism--because they were questioning the efficacy of the science behind evolutionary theory. Did they have a religious motivation for this? Sure. Does Dawkins have a religious reason for promoting Evolution? Sure.
So what. It's a scientific debate, folks. Science.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago 2
@MorganMarvinson no its not my friend. it is poseudoscience vs real science, the posedoscience lost. and yes they where promoting religius creation story, and that is enugh.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson For once, being specific about WHICH "supernatural intelligence" they refer to in Intelligent Design. Referring to a specific god of a specific religion is one of the reasons why Intelligent Design is a theory made to promote religion not science.
daangelo29 1 year ago
@daangelo29 For some reason you think connecting the design of nature with its designer is not science. Any other invention is usually remembered in connection with its inventor. Why not the fabulous and exquisite design of nature?
Is it that you think brilliant design should remain anonymous or that it should be attributed to non-intelligent designers for it to be considered REAL science? Such a thought is an example of philosophical naturalism--not science.
MorganMarvinson 11 months ago
Comment removed
daangelo29 11 months ago
When I said being specific about the designer, I was also asking WHICH designer? Yahweh? Allah? Imra? That would also lead to the question, which designer of which RELIGION? Apparently you can't go to the topic of Intelligent Design without answering these questions.
Also, I said ID is not a "scientific theory" because it involves something unobservable (the invisible designer). You can't call it a "theory" in the realm of science if one of the things that supports it is unobservable.
daangelo29 11 months ago
@daangelo29 "specific about the designer" Design certainly implies a designer. A few years ago I bought a Toyota van for my family (and still have it). It was so well made (compared to other cars I had owned) that I marveled at how much thought went into it. I do not know whether the designer was named Fujiyama or Yakamoto or even Toyota, but the wonderful design told me it had a designer.
My inference was logical and scientific. WHO the designer was, was another question.
MorganMarvinson 11 months ago
@MorganMarvinson No, it's not the design that tells you there's a designer, it's the fact that you know cars are made by people. You know there are car companies that do this. You know there are facotries that pump these cars out.
This is such a silly argument, really. Paley's Watchmaker is one of the biggest logical absurdities in philosophy.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi I accept that you think this is absurd, but investigation doesn't always begin with knowledge of a cause. In considering design, one doesn't have to have seen it being built or had prior knowledge to infer by its interworking parts and systems that it required forethought and not simply chance to come into existence.
From my point of view, assuming self-assembly or assembly by non-directed processes is more absurd, yet I know many intelligent people that swallow the story as credible.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Firstly, you're talking about abiogenesis, which has been shown to be possible to happen naturally. Secondly, we do NOT infer design from complexity. It just DOES NOT FOLLOW. The reason we know paintings are painted is because people paint paintings. We know watches are made because we know people make watches. And we know cars are built because we know people make cars.
There is NO instance of ANY of these things occurring naturally. Evolution, however ,is a fact.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi "you're talking about abiogenesis, which has been shown to be possible to happen naturally." I have a hard time holding a conversation with "true believers" who spout their beliefs without actual scientific evidence.
Yes, there are things we have seen being created. We certainly know their source--and that is all the more reason to infer an intelligent source for the things we haven't seen being created, which require blind faith to assume could come about without forethought.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson No, it's not, and it doesn't. You haven't even demonstrated such a thing.
Biological creatures are shown to replicate themselves, and broken down on a molecular level, what makes up these self replicating self changing mechanisms CAN be shown to occur in nature, as with the Miller-Urey experiment, and many more since then. Yes, I know, the Miller-Urey expriemnt didn't make 'life' but it showed one of the steps can happen totaly naturally.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi "Biological creatures are shown to replicate themselves" That is correct and that is all. Replication isn't evolution.
The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that amino acids naturally combine and naturally separate unless artificially protected. And you are correct, it didn't make life.
I can see engaging a "true believer" is a mistake. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. That would be you. You have not demonstrated support for either abiogenesis or evolution.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Yes I have. And you've accepted it. You've accepted amino acids can occur on their own, that's evidence that abiogenesis is plausible. Deny that all you want, I'm not arging that point anymore, as you've already conceded it. Also, you failed to comment on Gene Duplication(which is the increasing of information in the genome through replication of DNA and combinations) and, not ONLY do biological creatures show to replicate themselves, but they also show to CHANGE themselves.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi "Evolution, however is a fact." Again, you demonstrate what kind of "true believer" you are. Evolution from a single common ancestor requires uphill construction of DNA that is never seen in nature. Downhill genetic deconstruction that leads to speciation goes the wrong direction to support the inference of common origin. Evolution is an inference based on hypothetical evidence or, at best, it is a research programme. No honest investigator claims it is fact.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Really? Gene Duplication isn't observed? Again, you demonstrate that you just don't know the science.
Change over time, which is evolution, is a fact. We observe it day in and day out. Speciation is observed, changes in biological structure over time is observed. These are facts. Evolution is a fact. It takes no faith whatsoever to believe these things.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi This is a free country, so you are entitled to your beliefs and can express them freely, but please excuse me if I don't take any more time reading your statements of faith in evolution.
Blessings.
Morgan
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson That's cool. I'll go ahead and accept what evidence shows, and you can go ahead and ignore it all and think less of those who choose to do so. I have no faith in evolution, you didn't show in any way that I did, and your condescending leaving statement just illustrates your own ignorance.
Don't need blessings.
Big
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi What evidence says life came from non-life by itself? There is no evidence--only belief that it did. Freely associating and disassociating amino acids is not evidence of life coming spontaneously from non-life. What evidence is there that simple life developed into complex? No evidence, just inference. Until you face the fact that it isn't evidence but your desire that it be true that fuels your acceptance of the theory, you will go around wasting a lot of time--including your own.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Evidence says it's possible. Again, you keep talking about abiogenesis even thoughyou're referring to the validity of evolution, both of which are not the same thing. Do you just completely ignore what the science says? I at least read the bible before criticizing it, read a biology textbook or something.
I don't even BELIEVE in evolution. I just accept it as the best explanation of the availiable facts. If you have a better explanation, give it.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi "I just accept it as the best explanation" Yea, one person told me it's sort of like accepting the news that you have terminal cancer. It isn't something that you particularly want to "believe," but you resign yourself to it and try to make the best of life.
"A better explanation" The evidence for design is all around you. Depending on your willingness or lack of willingness to consider it, it will either grab your thought processes or slip right past you like water on a duck's back.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson "The evidence for design is all around you"
Ok, now here's the problem with the design arguemtn. Let me ask you. What would be an example of something that isn't designed?
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi " What would be an example of something that isn't designed?" a lump of clay, a pile of leaves, a grease spot on your garage floor, an eroded underwater archway. Do you need more?
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson None of those count. You believe the lump of clay is designed, you believe the pile of leaves is designed, you believe what makes the grease on the garage floor is designed, you believe the archway is designed.
The logical conclusion of the, "Look at the design, it's evident' argument, or in other words, Paley's Watchmaker, is when you walk through a forest and find a watch, you're actually walking through a forest of watches, and picking up a specific watch.
BigLundi 7 months ago
1/2
@BigLundi Sure they count. The lump of clay is not the result of intelligent design; it is the result of laws of cohesion. The leaf may be designed, but the pile of leaves is the result of gravity when the leaves fell from the tree. Grease may hold together because of the laws of its specific viscosity, but the oil spill is certainly not what the intelligent owner of the car designed that the oil do. Neither can you implicate the oil refiner for the spill. The archway came from erosion.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Ah, so it's not the OBJECTS that aren't designed, just their placement. I asked for an example of an undesigned OBJECT. You gave me none of that.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi "I asked for an example of an undesigned OBJECT." With all due respect, no you didn't. You asked me for "something that isn't designed" I listed several "somethings"--somethings that illustrate non-design.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
2/2
@BigLundi Were the lump of clay shaped into a useful pitcher, that would be design. Were the leaves arranged to make the face of Walt Whitman or the grease spot like the face of Dale Ernhardt, that would be design. Were the archway etched with shapes of Grecian deities, that would be design.
The reframing of reality in your mind keeps you from seeing specified complexity as different from general complexity. Though there is no forest of watches, except in storybooks, design is all around.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Out of everything that you think is designed, which would include everything in existence, as you believe everything in nature is designed, and anything we make is designed, HOW do you differentiate between something that's designed, and something that is NOT designed?
If you come across a rubber ball, and a rock, which one's designed and which one's not? In your ideology, they both are, even though the ball is FAR simpler than the rock, so it's not complexity, obviously.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi To answer your question, you might check into the concept of "specified complexity." The ball is constrained in a number of ways that the rock is not. All of its parts are built with relation to the whole. If air filled, it has a valve to let air in and keep it in. If not, it has a specific density all the way through that allows it to bounce uniformly. It is a discreet object with a specific function.
A rock is a broken off piece of something else with complex but random composition.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Break open a rock, the inside is far more designed than anything in a rubber ball.
Here's the thing, evolution explains why things are complex, why things appear designed, but you don't accept it. WHY don't you accept it, outside of religious reasons.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson And besides ANY of that, we have this little problem with the saying that there was an 'intelligent designer'. Firstly, that designer is inevitably God. Second, there is NO explanation as to HOW these designs were designed, outside of saying 'magic'. Can you describe the mechanisms of the design? Can you describe the proces of HOW something gets designed? We CAN describe the mechanisms and how things evolve, AND show evidence of said things, That's why I accept Evolution.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi "inevitably God. Actually, Crick and Dawkins could see an alien intelligent designer, but why would God being the designer be a problem?
"NO explanation as to HOW these designs were designed" I use all kinds of things I don't know how they were designed.
"Can you describe the process of HOW something gets designed?" You have the same problem. RM, which has no foresight, can't design a molecular machine. Organisms are loaded with thousands of them.
"That's why I accept Evolution." Sure.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Unlike you, I can give a detailed reasoning and detailed explanation of how gene duplication works, and how this can lead to more complex creatures, or just plain different species. Evolution explains why our chromosomes are so similar to other apes than other animals. It explains Atavisms. It explains ERV's, transitional fossils, it makes predictions we can test, and USE in medical science.
What can Intelligent Design explain, other than, "It looks designed, so it is."?
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi It "explains" until it doesn't. Evolutionary theorists resort to a lot of AD HOC explanations because reality doesn't like to behave according to evolutionary theory.
"USE in medical science" I'm afraid you are repeating something you have heard that isn't so. In fact, directors of research have stated that evolution is not essential to what they do. In reality, it is design that is studied in the lab. Design is fundamental to understanding the functionality of organisms.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson What DOESN'T behave according to evolutionary theory? And why do you think it doesn't?
And most biologists like to say that nothing makes sense in biology without evolution. I don't care what some directors have to say. I have SEEN evolutionary theory used to trat ME, specifically. I have seen them say, "We don't know what virus is causing this, but what we're going to do is use its apparent traits, place it on the evolutionary tree, and treat it like that." It worked.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi There is no gradual path of development of organisms--fossil evidence shows erratic jumps, if they are jumps at all; there is no real world evidence of new molecular machines being built within the organism; genetic philogeny reads differently depending on the gene.
"like to say" Yeah, I know what they like to say, but practically evolution doesn't have anything to do with their research.
I'm glad your virus was treatable. What does a virus have to do with evolution's "tree of life"?
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson "fossil evidence shows erratic jumps'
Yeah, which has been explained. It's called 'punctuated equilibrium'. Also, it's spelled phylogeny. The phylogeny of all living things is as it is BECAUSE of Evolution, you know this right? The use of Evolutionary Theory is how we define new species, it's how we define old species. Before Darwin, a finch was just a finch, no matter how different it got.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi "Punctuated equilibrium" is the statement of a problem--not the explanation of a process.
"Phylogeny." Got it.
The phylogeny of living things is because humans thought they could easily link things into a hierarchical tree. Turns out it hasn't been so easy. They've rewritten the tree hundreds of times based on the guesswork of taxonomy and recently come to the conclusion that it isn't ONE tree but several trees, and the branches are intertwined with large gaps at every level.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson It's much more effective than how it was before. As I've already said, before they didn't care how much animals varied, they were very much like creationists and their 'kinds' definition, "Does it look like a bird? Well that's what it is." It's over general, and useless. Evolution's tree has helped us greatly to define species specifically and usefully. And it is one tree, there's a gigantic map showing this. You ARE aware even Behe believes in Common Descent right?
BigLundi 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson It's much more effective than how it was before; as I've already said, before they didn't care how much animals varied, they were very much like creationists and their 'kinds' definition, "Does it look like a bird? Well that's what it is," It's over general, and useless. Evolution's tree has helped us greatly to define species specifically and usefully. And it is one tree, there's a gigantic map showing this. You ARE aware even Behe believes in Common Descent right?
BigLundi 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson As far as viruses having to do wit hthe tree of life. I already explained, Evolution is how we define phylogeny. We come up with specific species traits that are particular to organisms. The easiest way to define a new virus is by looking at its traits, and comparing them to other viruses, to see what it evolved from, and putting it on the tree in order to test to see if it's right, and if it is, we then have a better idea as to how to treat said virus.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi "I can give a detailed reasoning and detailed explanation of how gene duplication works, and how this can lead to more complex creatures" You have a good imagination. But reality doesn't work like your imagination. There is no evidence for uphill development. All the "poster children" of evolution lose information. Duplicated genes don't hang around long enough to accidentally be transformed into integrated programming code that adds new molecular machines. This is fantasy.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Yes there is. We see speciation occur every day. Duplicated genes add information all the time, and it happens so often and so much at a time, that the majority of the time, it does nothing.
The fact is, you didn't refute any of my examples of atavisms, or ERV's. "Intelligent Design" hasn't given us any advancements. Evolution has. All "Intelligent Design" can say about anything is, "That's too complex to evolve." And that's....all it can say. What USE does ID have?
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi Evolution requires new molecular machines to develop from simple to complex. We never see that happen. Never. Speciation occurs as organism populations lose genetic information. This would never get you from simple life to complex.
Scientists study nature as something that can be rationally understood--ergo, design. They recognize structures that have all the signs of amazing and exquisite design and then quickly run into the evolutionary loony room and say it just happened.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Really? We never see dogs getting bigger? We never see new chemicals be introduced in the makeup of plants? We never see additional traits added onto things?
Sorry, but we do.
So you define 'design' to mean something that can be rationally understood?
You are fully aware that evolution doesn't state that everything just happened you disengenuous douche. You are WELL aware evoluton isn't pure random chance, there IS a guide, it's called nature.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi "dogs getting bigger" Like Clifford, right? Artificial gene selection isn't evolution.
Nature isn't intelligent. Natural Selection is very good at culling out monsters.
My big toe has a GUIDE when I try walking around with the lights out--it's called the foot of the bed.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson "Artificial gene selection isn't evolution" Yes it is.
It's not good at culling out monsters, monster s can't breed in the first place, it's good at keeping those that are best suited to their enviornment...I.E. NATURE.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi The projection of "junk DNA" was based on the assumptions of directionless evolution. Now evolutionary theorists are having to eat crow as what was once called "junk" is now being seen as crucial to gene expression. "Evolution of the gaps" gets smaller and smaller.
We can painfully go through a discussion of atavisms and ERVs if you have the endurance to do so. I've done it several times here before. But you likely don't even know where a virus originates, much less ancient viruses.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Oh jeez, please don't tell me that bullshit argument. I'm sure you have no idea how to refute atavisms, but went ahead and looked up how to refute ERV's on the Discovery Instittue's website, or around Youtube plenty. Sorry, but I've ALSO seen these arguments, AND the refutations of them, so don't even try. The ONLY thing you're capable of doing is attacking evolution, you haven't put forth a single use of Intelligent Design, or its mechanisms, or ANYTHING.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi It's ERVs--not ERV's (the second is possessive). And, no, you apparently haven't read my refutation of ERVs because it didn't come from the Discovery "Istittue" (we could get that new language started based on random typing errors ... ;). It came from reading and thinking about the nature of viruses. So where DO viruses come from when they can't reproduce without a host?
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson We judge theories by the predictions they make, and if they pass the tests or not. ID hasn't passed the tests, evolution has. What more can we say? The evidence matches evolution.
What you're doing is saying 'it looks designed, so obviously it is'.
The fact is, just because something looks like something, doesn't mean it is. The sun looks like it rises and sets, it doesn't. Science usually DOES find counter intuitive things to be true.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi Come on! Get off your high evolutionary horse, Lundi. Evolution keeps failing the tests and has to be rewritten time and time again. So why do people believe? Is it because of the wonderful explanatory power of evolutionary theory. They didn't even know how a cell worked when they first swallowed Darwin's placebo. People believe evolution because it PRETENDS to explain things, but it is far too general a theory to really explain anything. There are no metrics, no real predictions.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Really? Explain why our chromosomes match the apes then. Explain atavisms. Explain ERV's. These things are explained through evolution. Intelligent Design makes no comment on them whatsoever.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi "The sun looks like it rises and sets." What is a "rise" and a "set"? If it doesn't "rise" and "set," why then do we still have sunrise and sunset tables?
Specified complexity IS.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Does the sun move around the earth? No. Yet when we just look at it, it looks like it does.
Things aren't always as they seem.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi It seems to me that the sun is a whole lot bigger than we are. It seems to me that it's a whole lot easier to consider that we're doing the moving.
"Things aren't always as they seem."
On that basis you want me to discard reality and embrace the theory that postulates that "the eye evolved independently many times." My eye! Spielberg and Disney couldn't come up with a better fantasy!
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson No, not discard reality, EMBRACE reality. Darwin himself said that he's well aware how far fetched the idea that somethign so complex as the human eye evolved over a course of many years sounds absolutely absurd to our common sense, but in reality, evidence tells us it's far more likely than any common sense might tell us. What I'm telling you to do is dont rely on common sense to be your guide through science. Science, by nature, discovers the counter intuitive.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Evolution wouldn't have BECOME a Theory unless it was based in fact. What you seem to be saying is that the only reason it's perpetuated as true is because of some philosophical bias, which is demonstrably untrue.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi "Evolution wouldn't have BECOME a Theory unless it was based in fact." Dinosaur feathers! Darwin didn't know the first thing about genetics, and yet people willingly swallowed his anti-deist placebo. It became a theory without any sound basis. He predicted thousands of transitions, which Gould frankly admitted do not exist. It became a theory because people wanted an alternative to God. So they glibly jumped on the bandwagon with only the intuitive notion of Natural Selection. Fact!
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson You ARE aware Evolution was around for a much longer time since before Darwin, right?
The FACT is that things change over time. This is inarguable fact. Young earth creationists agree with that. All Darwin did was explain how this happens, and made a few predictions. And his predictions passed the tests.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi "The FACT that things change over time. This is inarguable fact." Well, yeah. But that doesn't say one thing can eventually swap body plans.
You misspell words, like "evoltuion" in a previous post. So let's harness the power of misspelling to create a new language. What do you say? Makes as much sense as thinking copy errors will create useful body plan changes if given enough time. (Even if it could, the fossil record says that time was NOT unlimited but was tightly constrained.)
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson "Well yeah, but that doesn't say one thing can eventually swap body plans" Nobody's saying they do. And thanks for admitting you believe evolution is a fact as well.
The fossil record doesn't say 'time' was tightly constrained you silly, it says that life originated somewhere areound 3.5 billion years ago. What's 'tightly constrained' about it?
Also, you ARE aware that that's one way that languages can evolve right? Or do you think English always existed?
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi "You ARE aware Evolution was around for a much longer time since before Darwin, right?" Sure, and it was based on a proper understanding of the cell and genetics, right? Wrong, it was a philosophical position ... as it is today.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson You have yet to provide a single item that would be undesigned, the only things you bring up are STATES of matter, or LOCATIONS of matter, but not a single item itself that is not designed, nor even how we would differentiate between something that is designed, as opposed to something that is not.
When you say, "The evidence of design is all around you" you show that you think EVERYTHING is designed, and that's unscientific. It's unfalsifiable, and untestable.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi Things don't invent themselves. Specified complexity doesn't invent itself. Life doesn't originate without life. The complexity of a crystal is a lower energy state, based on its molecular configuration. Specified complexity is a mark of intelligence and information. Without DNA, you would not be--that's information, not molecular self-assembly
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Yeah, that's what our intuition would tell us. However evidence tells us that it is quite possible to happen.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi "Evidence tells us that it is quite possible to happen" Cross your fingers, rub your lucky rabbit's foot and those pesky amino acids that disassociate as quickly as they associate just might stay together long enough to organize themselves into something that can eat and reproduce itself.
Come on now! Close your eyes now and say the magic words: "Abiogenesis, abiogenesis--it just might work." Louder now! "Abiogenesis, abiogenesis--it just might work!" Say it like you mean it! "Abi...
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson "Pesky amino acids" you mean the things that we WANT?
What does abiogenesis have to do with this anyhow? I'm arguing about Evolution, not abiogenesis.
You realy think Miller-Urey was the only success? You really think they're the only ones to do this experiment and produce results? Experiments have gotten more specific, and more successful ever since. I have an EXTENSIVE list of scientists that have published books and peer reviewed articles on the subject.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi "EXTENSIVE list of scientists" and amino acids still disassociate as easily as the associate. Life is still as elusive as it ever was.
"What does abiogenesis have to do with this anyhow?"
(Just a little reminder how we got HERE--in this discussion, that is.)
Morgan: Without DNA, you would not be--that's information, not molecular self-assembly.
BigLundi: "Yeah, that's what our intuition would tell us."
Not your most illuminating response.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@BigLundi The laws were designed; quantum physics was designed; procreation was designed; the eye was designed; DNA was designed; the structure of atoms was designed; the architecture of your brain was designed. And because they were designed, they do what they were designed to do.
But messes and denigration of order aren't designed. They just happen ... according to basic laws of physics--like the second law of thermodynamics.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson "Quantum physics were designed" Wow, if that's true that's a hell of a bad design. A level of existence where physical laws just don't apply? Where much of our research is based on speculation?
You have a lot of assertions, yet no evidence for these assertions, you say a bunch of things were designed...why? Because they LOOK designed to you? IS that your only reason?
Please tell me you don't think Evolution goes against the second law of thermodynamics...
BigLundi 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson To deny evolution is to deny the observations we've made that make it completely valid.
Where we've observed Pye-dogs evolve into chihuaha's,dachsunds and great danes. Weed evolving into broccoli, cauliflower, and cabbage. Wild fruit filled with hard seeds evolve into the banana's we eat today, and all of this in about six thousand years alone. Life originated 3.5 billion years ago, think about the level of evolution capable in that amount of time.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi "evolve ... evolving ... evolve ..." Selective breeding is not evolution. I think you studied that in biology--or at least you should have.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Yes it is. Though you wouldn't want it to because, well, you don't like the term 'evoltuion' obviously.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi You're right. "Evoltuion," "Evolution," "Evoltuition"--they're all pretty bland. The one I really like is "evilution," which is the conflation of "evil" and "convolution." The two terms pretty well sum up how you have to view reality to accept that organisms of exquisite design came about by those paragons of innovation: natural laws that don't create but just keep things going, an "author" who writes by making mistakes, a non-interfacing environment, and an "editor" called Death.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Yup, you just don't like evolution, so even if it's right in front of you, you'll downright deny it. Thanks for admitting it.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi Nice deflection. Evolution exists because of human inference, creating something for which there is no evidence. It is NEVER "right in front of you." We never see the upward building from simple to complex. We never see variation progressing toward greater complexity.
But, the imaginary is in your head, and you're stuck with it ... unless you ask for deliverance--that creative "author" who writes by making mistakes ...
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson There is evidence, you just don't accept it as evidence for evolution. You even RECOGNIZE evolution, you just don't use the word evolution, because you have a personal bias against the word.
Your percieved design argument has still not given any results, it stil doesn't have any biological scientific peer reviewed papers, it doesn't describe any processes or anything.
BigLundi 7 months ago
7:51-8:34 I can't believe his argument stood! Never being able to replicate the card order again is impossible, I agree. What I can't believe is the fact that nothing was accomplished, i.e. how do we know that the "order of cards" the first time was the recipe for creating life. I believe in Creation Science, there is no one responsible for life except for God Himself. Andd... the fact that some parts of the flagella are "hanging around" doesn't mean they'll assemble themselves.
compgrad1 1 year ago
@compgrad1
you are doing a Hoyle's falacy.
and your belief in creation science is something stupid. 1) because there is no such science 2) because it's baseless.
God has no evidence for, ergo it doesn't exist.
as simple as that.
"doesn't mean they'll assemble themselves"- also doesn't mean they won't. and they did. try finish the third grade first, you retard.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic Did you read and try to follow my logical path of the argument? It doesn't seem like it.
compgrad1 1 year ago
@compgrad1
you haven't presented any kind of logical path.
You believe in vampires, fairies and the earth is 6000 years old.
seriously...get an education.
transtlantic 1 year ago
Ken Miller kicks ass. Enough said.
lapkine77 1 year ago 2
"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." Ashley Montagu
arizonaviking 1 year ago 2
Earths shape - oblate spheroid of course , you arent one of those round earthers or worse flat earthers are you ?
Id advocates need to search for fossil bunnies in precambrian strata.
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
Let's teach both sides on :
The Holocaust
Evolution
Earth's Shape
Astrology
American Slavery
The Civil War
Teach the controversy!
ClamCrunchy 1 year ago
Great post.
qwertykiwi 1 year ago
"We have a calling from beyond the stars" Damn how is this guy not in a straitjacket and put away?
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol , the new religion called evolution is failing a part , many evidences being discussed against this new smi-religion non scientific theory.
0000000NoName0000000 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>"the new religion called evolution"
That's like saying the germ theory of disease is a religion - it's nonsense.
>"evolution is failing a part "
Whoever told you this, is extremely uneducated or lying for god. Actually, evo is one of the best supported scientific theories we have, and every bit of biological evidence adds more support.
>"many evidences being discussed against this"
Sure - by peopple who can't stand, that their belief system is not reflected by reality.
smarthandsomeguy 2 years ago 3
Ken miller is the biggest threat to ID!
questionsamson 2 years ago
@questionsamson The truth is the biggest threat to ID.
lewisner 2 years ago 5
FCK yea science ftw =P
zikzell 2 years ago 4
Ok, when was Earnst Haeckel's fraud exposed?
jimboturner 2 years ago
oh no! they're gonna teach kids both sides of an argument and ask them to think for themselves, this is crazy!!! evolution is scared of the truth, thats why its so defensive cos it knows when shown both sides people choose God!
jimboturner 2 years ago
Don't confuse scientific validity with free speech. The theory of evolution has gone through a rigorous peer review process for 150 in the scientific community. Creationists seek to bypass this whole process and teach something that a reputable scientific journal has even agreed to publish anything on. Teaching "both sides" would be the opposite of fair.
Mercenary1706 2 years ago 2
Well, I guess we should teach the muslim creation story two huh?
pointmanzero 2 years ago
Teaching all sides of an argument is an education, teaching one side is indoctrination. One way the British education system differs from the American
jimboturner 2 years ago
The British don't teach intelligent design.
pointmanzero 2 years ago
Correct, but my biology teacher did not presented evolution as fact and my physics teacher discussed the need for a designer. Any way I was defiantly taught the Muslim creation story in RE. My original point was that people should be shown all sides of an argument and allowed to make up there own mind, the difference between education and indoctrination.
jimboturner 2 years ago
but "magic man done it...maybe" is not a side. It's not even a theory.
Evolution was taught to me in science class as a scientific theory. Not as a indisputable fact.
So I don't get the issue. If you want to know what the bible says about creation then go to church.
pointmanzero 2 years ago
And who was your physics professor?
I would like to call him and tell him he should stick to physics.
pointmanzero 2 years ago
My original point was whats the harm in teaching people different points of view and allowing then to make up their own mind? I dont see why any rational person would object to that. And you want to tell my science teacher how to think? Why dont you start by calling up Allan Sandage.
jimboturner 2 years ago
Because it is harmful and confusing to teach someone.
"The earth floats through space. However there are some people who think we are completely wrong and the earth is flat and sits on the back of a giant turtle. Both theories are possible so you decide"
The reason why they are being taught is because they don't know enough about the theories to make an informed decision yet, so it is the duty of the teacher to guide them to the best theory that explains the most. Afterwards they can decide.
pointmanzero 2 years ago
Ok, but why do we still teach kids about Horse evolution, the peppered moth, the Miller experiment and the residual pelvis of whales. Do we really need to lie to kids to help them make informed decisions? You obviously dont believe in these examples, so why are we still teaching them to our kids?
jimboturner 2 years ago
I'm not aware that we are.
My wife taught evolution on the college level and she never taught any of that stuff.
Her focus was on molecular biology, which has WAY more evidence to support it than any fossil record.
pointmanzero 2 years ago 4
Thats a fair comment but the fact is kids are still being taught lies and its these lies that form the foundations of their opinions, if you want to go on and study molecular biology thats fine but your average kids education stops at 16. You can understand why a creationist could get annoyed, this is not science its political indoctrination, if its not, then why lie?
jimboturner 2 years ago
I have noticed that a common tactic ID proponents use is to show text books from the 80's and even early 90's and point to them and say. "See they are teaching embryo's have gills"
Well we have come a long way since the 80's I can assure you.
If you want the text books to be updated to current facts, then I agree with you a million percent. Sadly most schools don't have the funding to buy new books. But I agree, schools should have the newest most up to date books.
pointmanzero 2 years ago 2
@jimboturner Which lies?
lewisner 2 years ago
Because science deals in facts.
The kids need to be educated - clear advice on what is currently known to be true.
There is no controversy in the basic fact of evolution among scientists.
If there were - a scientist would make a discovery that contradicts evolution and give a detailed report that other scientists would peer review.
No evidence-based contradiction of evolution has ever been submitted by a scientist in 150 years.
jazzx251 2 years ago 2
I like how Ken Miller a biologist, understands probability more then a mathematician. I wonder what deploma mill Demsky got his degree at.
clokwerk1945 2 years ago 2
Wow. Fox news reporter saying "Its not the first time Evolution has been put on trial."
Go figure. A fox news reporter fudging reality. Creationism was on trial here. Not evolution.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago 23
"recieved the backing of president George W. Buuschh"
XD
yashatono 2 years ago
Thunderf00t owned the chance-argument.
Ludde365 2 years ago 3
"We have a calling from beyond the stars!", said stupid creationist, George Bush.
Ludde365 2 years ago 3
If a great mind like George Bush believes in it then it MUST be true. That's all the evidence we need!!!
kusalaviro 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Is there a supernatural God?..or is the energy behind life and behind our universe a natural creative energy...I believe the evolutionary process of natural selection are also guided by a natural energy of our cosmos....how about mathematical proof? Search videos by superwhuffo1
superwhuffo1 3 years ago
A mathematician who never studied basic probability? Or is he just being deceitful on purpose? Shame on Demsky.
RyeItGrrl 3 years ago 7
Yes he's just being deceitful.
kusalaviro 2 years ago 2
I'm sooooo embarrassed I live in a country that actually gave these crackpots the time of day, let alone a day in court. Fucking ID nutjobs.
cowdragon 3 years ago 3
Try not to use the term "creationist" a better term is "evolution denier".
bigfilmhat 3 years ago 5
Wow. What a surprise. The great scientist George Bush support Creationism.
:S
cperez1000 3 years ago 31
George Bush is a skull and bones men, hes not christian nor an evolutionist
why don't you find out what skull and bones really believe in.
godscuttingyoudown 3 years ago
George Bush is actually quite devout.
You're just a dick to deny other people's religiosity.
Kotszu 3 years ago 2
rofl *sarcastic* but hes such a great mind!
bigblakblob2 2 years ago
@cperez1000 Stalin, Marx and Hitler supported Darwinism. Yeah what a surprise.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester,
So? Some vegetarians support it too... Do you have anything to say about them?
cperez1000 10 months ago
@cperez1000 No I think you made my point for me. Que fuera fácil.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester,
Not really, that's because you are not getting the point.
Creationism is not stupid bc Bush supports it, Creationism is stupid by itself.. So there is no surprise that an idiot that knows nothing about science supports a stupid non-scientific idea. That's it.
cperez1000 10 months ago
@cperez1000 Sure OK. Can you please tell me how life started? and cite empirical experiment to prove it. If you cant do it then, I would be very careful using the word stupid. I'm not talking about Bush who I dont care for anyway. Like I said if before, if you can prove how life started then I will not be able to think of you as a stupid person. Unless of course you said something that you couldn't back up.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester Both Stalin and Hitler opposed Darwin. Marx wasn't stupid, so I suppose he supported Darwin.
gamesbok 9 months ago
Comment removed
benthemiester 9 months ago
@gamesbok I dont believe Marx was stupid, but it is true he also believed in Darwinism. I dont think calling others stupid just because they dont believe as you do is the right course to take, but to each his own, I guess.
benthemiester 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gamesbok It is true Stalin supported Lysenkoism & renounced Mendelian genetics, but this has nothing to do with Darwin, & especially at a time when Mendelian genetics was still being rediscovered & tested after being ignored by evolutionist for more than 50 years. It was because of Darwin who he learned about as a older teen that he thought he had been lied to about God. In spite of of Hitlers catholic pandering, he despised Christianity as his private letters demonstrate & supported Eugenics.
benthemiester 9 months ago
"In 2005 Intelligent Design received the backing of President George W Bush" So another hit to I.D.
lol then the banjo music plays.
ectogambit 3 years ago
The religious are the biggest liars the world has ever known.
bonangusacdc 3 years ago 3
George Bush is such an idiot!
rakshamg 3 years ago 4
I love the way that after Miller presented his arguement that the flagellum was not irreducably complex, Behe's comeback outside the court was..."the evidence...just suggests that it was designed"...hahah. It JUST does.
Tradd9 3 years ago 2
The flagellum argument is so embarrassingly stupid it just proves that not one of these morons has even cracked a science book in their lives.
LilaMae217 3 years ago 2
"god has a plan"
yeah, he plans never to give proof of himself and to be created by man....
oh wait.
lifeisgummo 3 years ago 2
I love the way they call it a contraversey. There is none. None at all. ID got owned and owned good!
bonangusacdc 3 years ago 3
The only disagreement about evoloution is about the speed of the process.
EarlFaulk 3 years ago
The math part is the silliest part of all. Desmsky is either an amazingly dumb mathematician or a dishonest one. What are the odds that the six members of my family would have the birthdays they do? The answer is 1/365^6. Or more specifically .00000000000004229%. Oh my god, that is impossible. It couldn't have happened! Even a high school student can see the problem with this logic.
dookdawg214 3 years ago 6
Oh yes. I was replying to the person who ridiculed Miller for saying "A theory that explains everything in fact explains nothing." If you couldn't figure that out.
shufantz 3 years ago
"We have a calling from beyond the stars..."
I cringed so badly when Bush said that. Then I laughed. Looooong and hard. I missed the rest of the speech.
DeadlyChinchilla 3 years ago 2
Stop commenting, creationists.
You're fucking stupid beyond words and not a one of you is scientifically literate.
Go hump your Bible until you have some proof.
Theworldiswonderful 3 years ago
In response to there card aknowledge, that being dealt "this hand" is so improbable yet it happened....as chanceful as it is for the exact existence to be, well, existent, that chances of getting A hand is 100%. Point, failed.
MacabreTurtle 3 years ago
The chance of every molecule being in its oposition in a small rock it so minute (Smaller than the chance of humans evolving) but you dont see them claiming god must have put every molecule of each stone in place. Let alone how each atom of water is positioned in the oceans/seas!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
I can't tell what you're for or against. lol.
MacabreTurtle 3 years ago
Just saying how ID is so misleading when saying chance, probaility. Theres no go god going around making the rocks, even tho they are far less probable than the human, which they think must be created by a god.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Ok. I get you.
MacabreTurtle 3 years ago
Your first comment is also misunderstanding probalility.
If you said you wanted a certain order for the billion cards you pull from a deck (BEFORE) you do it and it comes out the same as predicted then thats 52 to the power billion.
Your comment about the cards being 100% also applys to the universe, whats the chance we have somthing 100% its what we have here now.
Its 1 as there will be an answer, as you didnt specifiy anything you just got a result.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
I didn't misunderstand; I just worded my point badly.
What I was trying to say is that even if this rare hand wasn't dealt, there would still be a hand of something. And that hand of something would still be rare itself. Kind of like the lottery; It's rare to win, but somebody does it. So this concept of it being improbable to get this "hand" could be said about any other hand we could've gotten either. If we didn't have this hand, we would have another hand, and it would be just as improbable.
MacabreTurtle 3 years ago
Yes and the same thing goes for evolution.
As with the cards we are after the results and go this is what happened isnt that amzaing. Whats the probalility of that.
Like cards and evolution the probalility of each as it turned out is low.
As you say tho the probalility of soms result of the billions of cards is 1. The same for evolution, there must be a reslut, this is it, its not special. Its just the way it is like the cards.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Wait... so are we on the same side then? I severely lost track of what we were both trying to prove...
MacabreTurtle 3 years ago
Yes I am an atheist, The probability question of billions of cards or humans existing is 1 out 1 when we work out probability at this point aftre it.
Anyway a rock is far more improbable than a human, let alone an ocean.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Yes I am an atheist, The probability question of billions of cards or humans existing is 1 out 1 when we work out probability at this point aftre it.
Anyway a rock is far more improbable than a human, let alone an ocean.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Only US can have a president like bush and in US teachers can teach ID in science class. Yet Americans become angry when others call them stupid. Ofcourse not all of them are stupid but they surely harbour a big number of them in the country.
justawordaway 4 years ago 3