ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
@Mogley52 "how did the cell originate when there was no directing code." it didnt likely start as a fully functional cell dude, try a simple self replicating molecule, something like RNA would do the trick.
You heard people say- "it will never be found", "it ain't true", "it just can't be".
I'm here to tell you these People are WRONG- I found it. Using Google Earth -
I found God's Watermarks of the REAL Garden of Eden. Look at my Channel and see the Video I made of it. I didn't point all of it out either- there are many things still hid for you to find. I even found 3 picture's of God. Come see.
Your argument for it not being god is unsupported. Its not tought because of the flying spaghetti monster, your reasoning for it is its not tough because its not tough. And therefore your not doing anything better to support evolution or disprove ID.
@toobsucker If you could find scientific evidence against evolution (which I doubt you could) that still doesn't give any positive evidence for creationism, it would just mean that they were both wrong. But all the scientific evidence points towards evolution via natural selection and against the ancient myth of creationism so it's a moot point.
@toobsucker There is a difference between natural occurrences shaping the world and animals designing things to suit their needs. If you don't understand the difference, no wonder you believe in fairy tales! And you do realize that Lemmings don't commit mass suicide, right? That was a myth solidified in the public's mind by the Disney "documentary" White Wilderness, who's crew launched them off the cliff with a turntable. Get your facts straight before you post or you just look like an idiot.
@TheSkeptical "There is a difference between natural occurrences shaping the world and animals designing things to suit their needs"
Your problem is you have no evidence of natural occurrences shaping the world. You assume it without evidence. Your theory of atheistic evolution requires 100% of the biological system to be subject to change. But your GLARING problem is most of the genome (UCE) is not subject to evolutionary mechanism. I understand the lemmings, you missed the point completely
@toobsucker Um, no evidence that natural events shape the world? Are you fucking kidding me? So erosion doesn't exist? No, I don't assume things without evidence, that's what presuppostionalists like you do. You just use deductive reasoning to find anything that seems to back up your "magic created everything" fairy tale without ever trying to prove your god hypothesis wrong. You should study biology before you make idiotic claims like "most of the genome is not subject to evolutionary change".
Logic & reason dictates there can not be a third hypothesis. And the fact that you can not produce a third viable alternative solidifies it. And magic had nothing to do with the creation of the universe & life. All that is needed to design and build a universe with life in it is an intelligence capable of it. And of course you can give me no valid reason why a "God-like" intelligence can not exist.
@TheSkepticalApe "You should study biology before you make idiotic claims like "most of the genome is not subject to evolutionary change".
You need to study issues before you take up a debate on them. All species have UCE that are known to be evolutionary frozen
"These ultra-conserved elements are long, they evolved rather rapidly, and they are now evolutionarily frozen. We don't know of a biomolecular mechanism that would explain them," Professor David Haussler
@McTaggStar: I have done a very good job of thinking these things through for myself, thanks. Science designing a cell intelligently does certainly not mean that intelligent design is a rational hypothesis. Scientists can already synthesize pharmaceuticals that mimic biochemical pathways in the body in order to treat biochemical deficiencies - the fact that scientists can do that does not lend support to the ID hypothesis. Just because something CAN be designed intelligently does not mean that
@McTaggStar: I have done a very good job of thinking these things through for myself, thanks. Science designing a cell intelligently does certainly not mean that intelligent design is a rational hypothesis. Scientists can already synthesize pharmaceuticals that mimic biochemical pathways in the body in order to treat biochemical deficiencies - the fact that scientists can do that does not lend support to the ID hypothesis. Just because something CAN be designed intelligently does not mean that
@toobsucker Just because no one yet has proposed an alternate model doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You are assuming that every option has already been proposed, which is an idiotic position to hold. But then again, you believe in magic creating the universe, so I shouldn't be surprised.
@TheSkepticalApe "Um, no evidence that natural events shape the world? Are you fucking kidding me? So erosion doesn't exist?"
I believe erosion has been unofficially ruled out as a candidate for the origins of the cell. Magic is not needed to create the conditions for life, only an intelligence capable of it. Why is it you equate a simply understood concept as "magic".
You must equate I.D. as magic or your arguments fall apart. And Venter has said science will soon I.D. a cell.
DID APES EVOLVE FROM DOGS? According to evolutionary theory, apes, monkeys, and lemurs evolved from a four-legged-pawed dog-like creature. There's no real evidence for this anymore than there's evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature. Fossils that have been used to support human evolution, for example, have ultimately been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not human and non-human. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T CREATE. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. It only operates once there is life and reproduction and not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. Natural selection is a passive process, not a creative process. The real issue is not natural selection but what biological variations are possible in nature. Read my Internet article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
BLIND WATCHMAKER IS NO ARGUMENT. DNA sequence isn't like a watch. Even if the parts of a watch come together by chance, that doesn't mean the parts could be produced by chance. An incomplete watch can last a long time until its human DESIGNER completes it. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read my Internet article HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
@Mogley52 Oh Mogley52, you're back with your strawman arguments against science again, huh kook? You do realize that natural selection isn't chance right? Your supposed argument hinges on a completely ignorant misrepresentation of evolution via natural selection and by spouting it off it makes you look like a one tooth yokel.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
@Mogley52 So you've never heard of Quantum Physics huh? Because according to quantum physics, pairs of oppositely charged particles DO come into existence for finite periods of time from nothing. It may be hard for your creanderthal brain to grasp this, but no supernatural JuJu magic was needed.
Imagine a fish with part fins, part feet with fins evolving into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
@Mogley52 Um Mogley52, you have heard of walking, or ambulatory, fish like the Mudskipper, the Climbing gourami, the Walking Catfish and closely related amphibians such as the Axolotl, right? Because they show that you didn't do your biology homework before you started spouting this whole ignorant "there are no fish such as the ones mentioned above anywhere" line. Uneducated creationists are so cute... they think they're people!
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
I'd disagree with one of your premises here. It's possible that the aliens aren't IC or Something like that, We do know that undesigned life-forms can exist, We are demonstrably undesigned after-all ;)
Proof that evolutionism is nonsense. We don't even have nearly enough actual verifiable human history to account for any significant evolution.
The function of hydrogen working inside of us along with some twenty additional elements shows that the entire universe made of hydrogen and derivatives has the same Maker as we do because of its function working inside of us according to a preexisting word written in and by the function of common essential elements.
well, i thought about it..and aliens does sound far fetched..where would they ever come from?...yeap,super aliens..and where would they come from..more super aliens..it does sound stupid.it must be god...except,where did he come from?...yeap,super gods..and where did they come from...etc...sounds pretty stupid also..i know, god has always been..well then so has evolution or aliens..see,it's all stupid..or maybe it's just us,assuming we can even comprehend life..yeap,that is what is really stupid
Are you saying that US law forbids the teaching to children of any idea that is compatible with the notion that an intelligent supernatural agent of some kind exists?
Really? That situation would mean, would it not, that only the philosophy of atheism can be lawfully taught to children. Really?
Does that mean that evolutionary biology could be taught in schools to children, as long as a disclaimer is made that such teachings cannot be considered to be compatible with any religious ideas?
@tubewatch59 "Are you saying that US law forbids the teaching to children of any idea that is compatible with the notion that an intelligent supernatural agent of some kind exists?" In a science classroom, yes. In a philosophy or world religions class, no.
"That situation would mean, would it not, that only the philosophy of atheism can be lawfully taught to children." No. Science makes no comment about gods, either way.
I agree with everything that Behe said (and which you reported to us).
But in what way is this relevant to the teaching of religion in schools?
Which religious version of creationism does ID require to be taught? ID doesn't specify which religion is associated (if any) with the (likely) supernatural intelligent agent.
As you well know, ID doesn't specify any particular religion. ID is compatible with most religions, but so is the teaching of evolutionary biology according to the NCSE.
@tubewatch59 "ID doesn't specify any particular religion" Wrong. The Discovery Institute, which is the main organization trying to push the Intelligent Design movement, has a 20 year plan that they call "The Wedge." You can read it on their website. On page 16, under the section "FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES: 5. Spiritual and Cultural Renewal" it says, "Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation."
They are directly advocating for the Christian religion.
The point is the DI can't advocate religion in science class.
Whether they advocate Christinaity outside of the science class or not is up to them, and is fully legal, as you well know. After all, most of the people who follow cdk007's channel probably advocate for atheism. You all have your own versions of "The Wedge" document. You hope to (and have succeeded rather well) in convincing many that natural causes fully explain origins. ID highlights the flaws in that program.
@tubewatch59 "The point is the DI can't advocate religion in science class." But they do anyway.
"You all have your own versions of "The Wedge" document." It's not my version of The Wedge. It is the one found on the Discovery Institute's website.
"How does the science of ID advocate specifically for Christinaity?" That's the thing; ID isn't based on science. It is an Argument from Ignorance fallacy. You pointed this out yourself.
Give me an example of how the DI advocate a PARTICULAR RELIGION in science class.
The "Wedge Document" is a kind of action plan for desired cultural change. Newsflash, we have many advocacy groups driven by various motivations desiring change. You're doing exactly that right now. Am I claiming that your right to push forward your ideas of naturalism and atheism is invalid and must be outlawed? Certainly not. Why react that way to the DI? They have a right to their agenda.
@tubewatch59 "ID highlights the flaws in that program." Misrepresenting data, assigning probabilities as non-sequiturs, and claiming that irreducibly complex structures could not have evolved without supernatural guidance is not a highlight of flaws, it is a deliberately dishonest act. All ID says is, "we don't think it could be natural, therefore it must be designed." What about a natural process we have not yet discovered? The ID position is the Argument from Ignorance in spades.
If you want to discuss the validity of ID's challenge to naturalism, we can go through some specifics. But as usual I note that you are claiming that whoever disagrees with your point of view is "lying".
The readers could care less about yet another baseless allegation of corrupt conduct of those with whom you disagree. It's a tired tactic that got old long ago. If you insist on calling those with whom you disagree liars, then prove it.
I removed a prior response in which I wrongly assumed you were exhibiting a double standard. But I don't think you are aware of my position and so my mistaken response was unjustified.
Let me make clear that I don't consider the "inference to ID" as something we can consider as "fully verified science". That is because we would actually need to observe the designer scientifically before we could say that was verified. On the other hand, you're in virtually the same boat as us.
You said that (accusations of dishonesty aside) we should not make the inference to ID to explain what nature seemhingly cannot explain. You said that was the case, because in the future, further research might uncover a natural explanation that does in fact explain what we are ignorant of now. And thus you charged that the inference to ID is merely an argument from ignorance. I believe that is your position on that, correct?
Your allegations of the inference to ID being an argument from ignorance, might be slightly valid IF we were claiming that the ID inference really is 100% verifed scientific fact. But of course it isn't is it. It's rather an inference justified on various lines of evidence, but it is after all, an inference, not an observation.
However, so is the naturalistic inference. Your side is a long way from having verified it's various inferences and assumptions.
@tubewatch59 "Your side is a long way from having verified it's various inferences and assumptions." So you're ignoring all evidence gathered from genetics, phylogentic studies, ERVs, chromosome fusion, comparative anatomy, microbiology, and geologic evidence. You consider over 280,000 peer-reviewed articles confirming evolution, of which over 1,500 deal with direct evidence of common descent alone. Exactly how do you conclude it is "a long way from verified?"
As for the evidence of the 280,000 papers, you have to remember that the number of papers has more to do with the numbers of scientists x the time they have been authoring papers on evolution. But as for the evidence, some of it is convincing, and some of it not so much. In addition you'll find that the same evidence is often quoted in support of both viewpoints. I've seen that happen often. But at least some evidences support one side and argue strongly against the other.
Since both arguments are inferences (not based on actual observational confirmations of the key assumptions / axioms of each worldview) I must point out that when you criticize the inference to ID as being an "argument from ignorance" you're then shooting yourself with the same line of reasoning (viewed from the other perspective).
To claim unknown natural processes will explain our current ignorance, is to concede that you're using an "argument from hope and faith (in nature)!"
@tubewatch59 I don't claim that unknown natural processes will explain our current ignorance. I am fully willing to admit that not everything is known in biology yet. However, that does not, in any way, justify imposing an explanation until one is known. ID does impose an explanation without justification.
I agree. So for people who are "not imposing an explanation", what is with your (later) statement that "imposes an explanation" by claiming that my saying naturalism isn't fully verified, I'm ignoring all "the facts" that demonstrate it is? Or it sure seems you're claiming verification.
I'm saying that various people have different opinions, but in origins nobody really knows for sure. In that case, it isn't wrong to consider ID (or naturalism too) as legitimate possibilities.
You said that ID imposes an explanation without justification. How does it impose an explanation any more than naturalism does? Both are valid possibilities and must be evaluated in the light of the evidence.
Here's my "trick question" for you. What would suffice to convince you that naturalism was really true? And what would suffice to convince you that ID was really true?
@tubewatch59 The answer for both is the same: demonstrable evidence defending that position. Evolution by natural selection has it; ID does not. I agree that ID could, at some point, have evidence to back it up. At the moment, however, there is not a single paper in the scientific literature demonstrating natural selection failed to predict an observation, nor is there a single paper demonstrating that there must be a designer.
You say that evolution by natural selection "has the evidence" and that ID does not (have even one paper providing evidence in support of it's position).
That is an all encompassing position that you're taking! Forgive me for being cynical, but it seems in order to defend such a strong position, you'd be needing in reserve some very general principle guaranteed to render naturalism as the winner (always) in any argument.
What kinds of things could NS possibly fail to predict?
I'm not meaning to be picky, but don't you think that NS would have had to have failed a prediction or two at SOME points along the way, in order for scientists to be capable of modifying their ideas about it somewhat. That is part of science. The ability to make a prediction, have it proven wrong, and then apply modifications to that theory in the light of that falsification which taught them that their initial predictions (ideas about NS) were actually errors.
@tubewatch59 "don't you think that NS would have had to have failed a prediction or two at SOME points along the way, in order for scientists to be capable of modifying their ideas about it somewhat. That is part of science." Yes, the theory of evolution has changed over time based on evidence. Darwin's idea that changes must take place over long periods of time was shown to be flawed by Gould's experiments that confirmed punctuated equilibrium.
eg. Natural Selection is "the survival of the fittest". To make a simple prediction based on the validity of natural selection, we could make the prediction that "the fittest will survive". What could falsify that? Well, we could say that in order to falsify "the survival of the fittest" we could put forward the possibility of observing at some point, a case where "the fittest did not survive" which may include the idea that "some non-fittest survived". Has this never happenned?
@tubewatch59 First, natural selection says that an organism that is more suited to its environment is more likely to survive, not that the fittest creature won't be killed off by other factors. cdk007 did a video on this a while back, linked here:
/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s
Second, saying "the fittest did not survive" and that "some of the non-fittest survived" are not the same thing. This is a false equivocation. Some of the non-fittest survived does not mean the fit did not survive also.
I was just throwing ideas around. In a simple way (but in a kind of silly way) I did falsify a naiive understanding of NS. That was my point. If we take something that is generally true, but then make naiive and unjustifiable predictions based on our misunderstanding of it, then we'll see our predictions falsified.
But you already showed that you're prepared to allow this, as in your NS versus PE response.
NS however (as PE demonstrated) leaves many unanswered questions.
We also have to be on the guard against making simple statements in support of a generally true principle, which have little to do with the issue in question.
eg. I could Newtons laws generally predict that objects will fall to earth. And they do. But the issue at hand might be - is Newtonian or Relativistic mechanics more correct? Newtonian mechanics can be valid in both schemes.
Similarly, that NS (sometimes) works, doesn't answer the mystery of life. How did it happen?
@tubewatch59 "How did it happen?" If you mean how did abiogenesis happen? We don't know yet. We have excellent data and observation showing how protocells could spontaneously form in the pre-biotic earth environment. We have direct observation of the emergence of novel genetic sequences simply from random combinations. Again, abiogenesis theories are far from concrete, but that does not mean it is completely void of evidence in support of it.
I also wanted to reiterate on this particular video. cdk007 says in his blurb that he's sick of seeing people claim that ID and creationism are separate when they're not. He goes on to say ... "That (IDists claim) you can teach ID in schools without violating the separation of church and state. Well, sorry, they are the same, and this simple proof shows how"
His claim is - that to allow that SOME supernatural creator exists, violates the separation of church and state.
@tubewatch59 If there comes a time when there is evidence of anything supernatural, I would be all for teaching that supernatural creators exist. However, as of yet, there is no evidence for anything supernatural. James Randi is waiting patiently for someone to come forward with demonstrable evidence that there is anything supernatural, and so is the rest of the scientific community. The discovery of the supernatural would be Nobel Prize winning material without competition.
Direct evidence for the supernatural exists (if one is prepared to allow that eye witnesses who claim to have observed the supernatural) but understandably cannot be considered as scientific evidence.
However there can also be indirect evidence of the supernatural. Though we can only claim that we have indirect evidence of intelligence at work, and then infer (as Behe does) that the most reasonable context for that intelligence, is to attribute supernatural properties to it.
@tubewatch59 "if one is prepared to allow that eye witnesses who claim to have observed the supernatural" You know just as well as I do that anecdotal evidence doesn't work because everyone claims different things. There are people who claim to have seen, or to be, Jesus. Some claim to have spoken directly to and sat with each of the Egyptian and Greek gods in modern times. Evidence, in the scientific sence, must be demonstrable independent of who observes it.
@tubewatch59 What indirect evidence of intelligence at work do you think there is? How do you know that it was derived by an intelligence?
All of Behe's assumptions with regard to an intelligence, at least the ones I've seen, are claims that fit the model, "I don't see how it could have occurred naturally, therefore it must be supernatural." This is no different from when ancient people saw lightning and couldn't think of a natural cause, so they assumed a supernatural one.
It's a particular class of conditions that indicate intelligence is at work.
I'm running out of time so I will refer you to Dembski's exp[lanatory filter (I'll go over it later on) which is a way to successively progress from attribution of natural causes, into conditions which make it infeasible for natural causes to explain. The explanatory filter (EF) assumes natural causes at first, and then applies conditions to progress to a confidence that something requires intelligence.
@tubewatch59 And Dembski hasn't published any of these findings in the scientific literature because...? That's how every theory in science works; it only stands as long as every piece of evidence related to that theory confirms the theory true. Just one counter-example is enough to require the theory to be revised. The revision you're advocating is severe enough to require a complete dismissal of the current theory, which is fine, but it's odd that it is still used exclusively if it is invalid
I believe Dembski does publish papers. Like Behe, some of them do actually manage to pass peer review. In any case, if Dembski hadn't mentioned origins and ID, what he says regarding the EF is uncontroversial. He's merely formalized what had been done for centuries by policeman and investigators of various kinds. His EF looks at the characteristics of a phenomena and provides the general guidelines for a followup investigation to attempt to determine: nature, or intelligence.
Remeber that Dembski's EF isn't some magic oracle. It can only make use of available knowledge.
I have heard people (well respected people) criticize the EF on the grounds that whereas today it might implicate intelligence as the cause, tomorrow it could implicate nature, providing some discovery was made that changed "the prognosis". Thus they complain that Dembski's EF is useless.
But that's a ridiculous complaint! Science ALWAYS changes, if new discoveries warrant it.
"Intelligent falling" for example never passes Demski's EF. Falling is always a motion that follows a mathematical curve. Being a lawlike process it has all of the hallmarks of nature. Nothing about falling makes one suspect that it has anything to do with ID.
Intelligence may be involved! If a randomly oriented guns bullets always tend to fall onto/near a distant target (but no natural law forces the rifle to point at the target) then we may suspect A SHOOTER aimed the gun.
@tubewatch59 Like cdk007 also points out, problems with one theory does not count as evidence for another. As I mentioned before, I've yet to see any evidence that indicates that a supernatural creative force or forces must be involved, nor has any such paper shown its face in the scientific literature. This is why creationism is called, in discussions like this, an Appeal to Ignorance. "Since evoluiton is not flawless, I can impose a supernatural answer without evidence and call it justified
If life can form naturally, then (obviously, for reasons to be explained) it can also be originated via intelligence.
Note: Anything that mindless natural processes can do, can be superceded (if enough material resources are available) and improved upon by processes involving intelligence. Do you agree? Another way to say that is, whatever mindless natural forces can create, engineering can in principle improve on.
@tubewatch59 Yes, it is of course possible that an intelligence did what a non-intelligence could do. At no time do I, nor any part of science, rule out all possibility that supernatural things exist. The problem comes from Occam's Razor in that case. Why assume a supernatural cause if a natural cause is sufficient? I do not want people to stop looking for supernatural things. I think it would be cool if the supernatural was confirmed, but until it is, natural causes seems most plausible.
Why assume a supernatural cause if a natural cause is sufficient?
You don't. But (obviously) the natural cause must actually be sufficient, or else you are entitled to assume it's more likely than not that intelligence was at work. That is what the debate is all about. The sufficency of natural causes. That was Darwin's aim, to show that was the case. He convinced many many people they were sufficient. But many objections remain unsolved, and new objections have appeared.
So the more difficult process is going to be the natural one. If natural processes are capable of originating life and / or evolving it from first life to what exists now, then the same can be far more directly achieved via the addition of engineering. Because that opens up the processes of planning, goals, the capability of assembly before functional operation, etc. etc. Engineering (another term for ID) opens up a whole new world of possibilities, beyond mindless nature alone.
@tubewatch59 The problem with the Engineering idea is that there is no evidence that indicates a goal, planning or assembly of parts before function.
Every example of evolution demonstrates an undirected, not goal oriented, process.
There is no example of any creature anywhere with parts assembled as if building towards something greater without function. This is the problem with the irreducible complexity argument; it claims engineering when all evidence indicates no need for engineering.
I'd disagree with you on that. I'd say the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side that nature looks like it was engineered. The few things that don't seem to be engineered (ERV's etc.) are vastly outnumbered for example, protein machines doing things that defy a mindless origin. Proteins are not as one guy said on youtube - "floppy sloppy crap"! Heh heh. Far from it. What we see in the cell are mindboggling examples of automated precision robotics and information processing...
I said overwhelming evidence that nature was engineered. I meant life, because there are many things in nature outside of life that DO NOT look as if they were engineered. For example, tornados & hurricanes do not look as if they are engineered. They are lawlike processes that can be described by equations of motion. And we can generate them (or their simulated equivalents) using computational fluid mechanics. They'd drop out of Dembski's explanatory filter.
@tubewatch59 "protein machines doing things that defy a mindless origin." Which one(s) do you think defy a mindless origin? We know the evolution of most of the protein machinery within a cell, and which order they came into being. Most of this is explained in brief in cdk007's origins series. They work as precision robotics now because the cell has had over 3 billion years to get it right through trial and error. Guess and check is the method we see via the evidence as what nature used.
So we can say that LIFE EXISTS (incredible insight demonstrated there - ha ha :-)
We do find much evidence showing the difficulties with a natural origin of life and / or it's evolution. These difficulties, are directly related to the problems that natural processes have versus ID processes, since they can't take advantage of the capabilities that engineering adds to nature = planning, assembly while nonfunctional, goals, a specific purpose "in mind" for the system, etc.
@tubewatch59 "We do find much evidence showing the difficulties with a natural origin of life and / or it's evolution." What would you say is/are the best example/s of this evidence?
So you know, problems with mindless natural processes (since either mindless natural processes or processes also involving engineering - only these two general possibilities can explain the existence of life) can be taken as support (though obviously not proof) for engineering (ID) processes.
In short, engineering processes have far more explanatory power than natural processes. (Though it's always worthwhile to attempt to find natural processes that do explain systems!)
But by taking that position, he's actually saying that the separation of church and state must mean that nothing can be taught (in a government run institution) that is compatible with a religious belief.
The idea that a supernatural being (a being capable of adjusting natural laws, and the originator of those laws) is compatible with most religions you'd care to name, but that the teaching that some kind of God may exist, does not mean separation of church and state is breached.
@tubewatch59 I agree that god may exist. That's not the issue. The issue is that we have no rational reason to impose that a supernatural being or set of beings exist. Until there is, it is irresponsible, from a scientific point of view, to say that this supernatural source or sources is the cause of something. It promotes investigation into finding the supernatural, which I fully encourage.
I agree there. The supernatural isn't within science. We leave that up to peoples opinions and consider something more scientific, such as design detection. Don't forget also that in science we often use likelihoods as well as certainties. Remember that what Behe claimed (and that I agree with) in the statements at the start of this video, are not science (you can't prove them) but are application of common sense to origins. But ID detects intelligence, not the supernatural.
It's quite legitimate to reply that you'd have to "observe God creating life and designing higher life" to finally prove or verify ID. But heres the rub. Would you hold naturalism to the same standards before you considered it fully verified or proven (naturalism with respect to the origin and evolution of alife that is). Would you allow that to prove naturalism you'd have to observe abiogenesis & the evolution of IC protein machines? And in the meantime regard both as possible?
@tubewatch59 Of course ID is "possible." It's also "possible" that we experience "intelligent falling" instead of just the natural phenomenon we call gravity. It's "possible" we were visited by aliens. However, certain possibilities are reasonable to entertain in light of current observation and others are not.
I agree that until we have an observation of abiogenesis, which has been studied intensely in Szostak's Labs, abiogenesis is not yet a solid theory, nor do I treat it as such.
I am glad you take that position on abiogenesis. I'm sure you personally believe it to be true, but you're admitting that it isn't yet a solid theory. Good for you. Some people I've talked to couldn't bring themselves to even admit that, because (in my opinion) they likely felt squeamish about giving any ground at all to a creationist! Hmm. Remember that creationist or atheist, by simply admitting a clear truth, you are aren't ceding anything worth worrying about.
@tubewatch59 "Since both arguments are inferences (not based on actual observational confirmations of the key assumptions / axioms of each worldview)" If by "both arguments" you refer to Intelligent Design and evolution by natural selection, then you are wrong. Natural selection has been observed, confirmed and analyzed. There is not, however, any observation of who or what the "designer" is or was.
All you have to do in asking how Intelligent design could advocate for Christianity ios to ask - How does the science of ID advocate specifically for Christinaity?
If you can give me a convincing answer to that question, I'll accept your charge. But I'll bet that I can easily refute any answer you or anybody else can give. But if you can answer my question, then go ahead. I'd be genuinely curious to know how ID could advocate specifically for Christianity (or Islam, etc.)
@tubewatch59 "But in what way is this relevant to the teaching of religion in schools?" ID isn't about teaching religion in schools. It is about teaching religion in a science classroom.
No. ID is about pointing out in the science class, what nature (mindless natural processes) likely can or cannot achieve with respect to origins. ID is compatible with religion, but doesn't teach religion. But (according to the NCSE) evolutionary biology is also quite compatible with religion. But we don't find problems with religion being taught in evolutionary biology do we! So why ban ID? Students must go outside of science class in order to learn about religion.
@tubewatch59 "But we don't find problems with religion being taught in evolutionary biology do we!" There isn't religion being taught in evolutionary biology. Stop stating non-sequiturs.
"And evolution doesn't explain biology," LOL. What a lie! Evolution Theory is the governing scientific framework upon which all modern biological, medical and genetic research is based. Scientific Theories, by definition, explain the sciences through predictive models.
Actually I "lied". There are the odd cases where some science teachers "powerfully preached" the philosophy of atheism to their students. Bad teachers!
You can drop the single cell to all life baggage of evolutionary biology, and what would be left is the genuine science of observed biology - "evolution as it is" - not - "as we want it" - that organisms are capable of undergoing some inheritable change in response to environmental change. The rest belongs in philosophy class.
So, give me an example of how the the concept of intelligent design is advocating Christianity in particular, or any other religion in particular, in the science class?
US law decided we can't preach a particular religon in state schools. Theists had to comply with the law, and must stop advocating particular religions in state schools. This prevents state advocacy of particular religion(s). But you want, freedom from all religion! But your goal isn't part of US law. Kapish?
It's not just about maintaining the separation of church and state (which is a good policy). It's about (they hope) convincing students that they don't need to bother with learning about any religion anywhere else!
Today, biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
Today, some biologists disagree over what evolution is capable of doing. No biologists question whether or not evolution exists. Evolution is a fact, in the same way that graffiti on the streets is a fact. And evolution doesn't explain biology, kind of like how graffiti doesn't explain architecture.
The Apostle Peter warned true believers in Jesus Christ that in the last days there would be those who would be willfully ignorant in other words dumb on purpose and they would deny that the Lord created all things in the heavens and under the heavens, Second Peter 3:4-5. These same people would also deny the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Second Peter 3:3-4 and this would actually be a proof that we are in the days of His return.
Just curious...why cant both sides be right? Who's to say that there cant be traces of both, maybe god created this universe as a garden or project and it did start to evolve per his plan and it truly is perfect in the words of einstein himself, because as chaotic as things could have been everything is pretty much perfect, so we evolved from basic elements and then god gave us consciousness? I try to take the best from both sides and make it work, any opinions? Theres no proof for either
The founding fathers never intended for us to not be able to talk about God in public schools. Separation of church and state was only to keep the catholic church from telling us how to worship God. And Evolution is a religion because too much of your "evidence" has been proven to support creation NOT evolution and scientists are know to bend and even fake evidence to fit there THEORY. Yes, it is a theory that people base their lives on therefore it is a religion.
People aren’t allowed to talk about god in public schools? What a despicable lie. The law states that federal dollars cannot be devoted to PROMOTING a religious doctrine. Drop the persecution complex and grow up.
Evolution is just as equally supported as gravity. It has survived the gauntlet of peer review and objective evidence that creationism has despicably been trying and failing to sneak around for years.
You know what’s a theory? Atoms, plate tectonics, germs, and relativity. PWNED.
Revelation 10:11 And they say to me(John), "You must prophesy again with regard to peoples and nations and tongues and many kings."
Is John one of the witnesses?
Check out my favs, especially the one about the stars found in the bible. Pics in those videos of the Sun Moon and Stars are authentic and the end time is drawing. The stars seem to be 11 then 12 and then definitely7. Check out these symbols and signs from heaven.
One last thing for today. Creationism is a study I indulge my self to on occasion because of it's curiosity. As two objects retain similar properties thy can be linked in a characteristic. That is in my opinion, that Darwinian-ism is to evolution as Creationism is to Christianity. Though the objects of comparison may not be exactly paralleled. As I do believe in the scriptures, I see flaws in creationism, as the latter is by man. Seeking truth is understanding what properties align.
As I have no doubt there will be sharp rebuttals regarding the scriptures. Allow me if I may to explain. The Bible (I prefer King James) can be interpenetrated literally. Any who understand how to read any literary work can see that one can understand the authors motives by reading all the text. Not by picking and choosing. This method has been successfully used for thousands of years. And why is it that now, that method is suddenly questioned? Or is it the dislike of the work?
Indeed. But do not confuse, or redirect my words as you have attempted to do so. This destruction is the direct result, as having been seen historically is the religion of self indulgence. The Doctrine of the Bible that I hold to does no such thing. As it has been exhaustively stated on numerous occasion, the scriptures do not favor the person, nor a religion. It does however Explain mankind condition well, and shows a clear way to correct that. Not from war nor strife. But belief.
aburling7 Treasonous delusions. That is a very serious accusation. You believe these men are betraying there Country? Do you hear the resonance of your words? A country that was founded on personal freedoms, and the right to express ones beliefs, and you call it treason? You sir are committing treason. To betray that which is the foundation of our country. Is that not treason? It is a shame that your view has clouded your ability to understand your own words, and the continuum thereof.
@MWarnkegwg Try to read within the context of the conversation. Treasonous by both denying and betraying the SCIENTIFIC ENDEAVOR. So your rant was pointless.
Rationality belongs to the cool observer. But because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason, but faith. And this faith relies upon necessary illusion and emotionally potent over-simplifications which have to be provide by the myth-makers... the cool observers.
aburling7 What is a credible thinker? One who can think inside the box One who can see only that to which is plainly visible, and make assumptions based on a fraction of the evidence and possibilities? This is what passes for science now? Your stance is one of those who would accept spontaneous generation because it's the only posit that fits the idealism. Such closed stance idealism is what propelled mankind into the dark ages. One that was spearheaded by the Pope himself.
@MWarnkegwg That is EXACTLY what passes for science. That's why it's called science. Because it relies on testable observation. In truth nothing else matters. Because once you think that old books and superstitions are to be taken seriously, then you open the door for every other occult to want their claims taken seriously. So science is the 'authority" on what can be taught as TRUTH.
FYI, It isreligious ignorance that propelled mankind into the dark ages. With god ANY behavior is justifiable.
Ron Wyatt discovered Noah's Ark you can check his videos out right here on youtube. He also diescovered the Red Sea Crossing site, the route of the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, Zedekiah's Cave, Mount Sinai and the Ark of the Covenant. Now, please understand this, Satan is working overtime to try to debunk these discoveries and his sheep won't even consider checking them out. I post this so those who are seeking and not Satan's sheep will have the opportunity to see. Merry Christmas
"The truth shall set you free" Why does the Bible say that? because in scientific terms, I have tested, retested, and cross referenced this ideal more times than I can remember. It rings true.... every time. May the truth be your guide. Fear is an enemy of reason.
If there is no Architect and we're all just a product of some cosmic crapgame, why is everything around us so perfectly designed? Consider: If the distance of the Earth from the sun is farther or closer than what it is, earth couldn't have been capable of supporting life. Or the planet's gases could have been similar to that of Jupiter's. The complexity of the human body shows evidence of intricate design. Heck, your nose could've evolved just around the butt area if it wasn't for God. ^_^
Of all your videos I've watched so far, this tendentious and oversimplified argument is the weakest. The real deconstruction of ID is not in presenting three possibilities, but in showing why hybrid theories based on combinations of the theories don't even hold water.
hmmmmm. Wasn't that Copernicus? And what difference does that make? The point is there were and ARE some incredibly smart people who believe in God and Christ. Your question was directed in that area. As a rebuttal, it is a proven fact that following popular opinion, OR 'smart' people is not the conclusive way to find truth. Try as I've said before using logic, reason, observation. Those are the tools of the scientific method.
@MWarnkegwg you deserve examples. That is just. Behe, Geisler, Huse, Strobel. And of course CS Lewis, who is passed on, but still an credible example of an intelligent man, and an exceptionally credible thinker.
if you've the courage to seek truth no matter what the cost, then start with these. You've have clearly seen 1 side of this argument, try the other, or you don't have the entire picture
@MWarnkegwg None you listed are "exceptionally credible thinkers". Each have taken the information provided to mankind by the scientific methodology, along with the beautiful explanation for our existence and have twisted it into something superstitious and unscientific and have attempted to rob man of his genius and degrade the human endeavor by positing otherworldly and unfounded causes. That is not credible thinking nor do these men deserve praise for their treasonous delusions.
@As were others within the Hierarchy of the echelon of the Catholic church. Now here me well. It is necessary to clarify, as what appears contradictory here, is actually the concerns express by many, that this trend is propelling mankind into a state of virtual slavery. That to bow to narrow minded, one sided ideals, is precisely what has caused great destruction to mankind, and will again. To know what I am saying, see the parallels of what is to what once was, and it will become clear.
@MWarnkegwg you are absolutely correct. that is a perfect description of religion; "that this trend (religion) is propelling mankind into a state of virtual slavery (and murderous division). That to bow to narrow minded, one sided ideals (such as are in the bible), is precisely what has caused great destruction to mankind, and will again".
really informative and interesting
TheKcsmithy 5 days ago
This is a great video
samjenkinssam 6 days ago
i enjoyed this vid
thejameskan 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 month ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 1 month ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 1 month ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 1 month ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 1 month ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 1 month ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 1 month ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@Mogley52 "how did the cell originate when there was no directing code." it didnt likely start as a fully functional cell dude, try a simple self replicating molecule, something like RNA would do the trick.
Oddessuss 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You heard people say- "it will never be found", "it ain't true", "it just can't be".
I'm here to tell you these People are WRONG- I found it. Using Google Earth -
I found God's Watermarks of the REAL Garden of Eden. Look at my Channel and see the Video I made of it. I didn't point all of it out either- there are many things still hid for you to find. I even found 3 picture's of God. Come see.
downyourtube 2 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
fuckin' a, ccr
SquatterBag 4 months ago
Infinite regression. It's like magic!
petphotog 4 months ago
Your argument for it not being god is unsupported. Its not tought because of the flying spaghetti monster, your reasoning for it is its not tough because its not tough. And therefore your not doing anything better to support evolution or disprove ID.
fu11fu 4 months ago
Proving evolution wrong does not prove I.D. right?
Someone give me a third rational hypothesis.
toobsucker 4 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@toobsucker If you could find scientific evidence against evolution (which I doubt you could) that still doesn't give any positive evidence for creationism, it would just mean that they were both wrong. But all the scientific evidence points towards evolution via natural selection and against the ancient myth of creationism so it's a moot point.
TheSkepticalApe 4 months ago
@toobsucker: ID ISN'T a rational hypothesis - it isn't scientific - it is unfalsifiable. Learn something about dichotomies.
McTaggStar 4 months ago
@McTaggStar "ID ISN'T a rational hypothesis - it isn't scientific - it is unfalsifiable. Learn something about dichotomies'
Your blind to reality.
I.D. is practiced by science. Craig Venter said in Feb 2011 science will soon intelligently design a cell. The atheists in science are lying to you.
Start thinking for your self instead of parroting what you hear other atheists say, all you guys are like lemmings following each other over a cliff
toobsucker 4 months ago
Comment removed
toobsucker 4 months ago
@toobsucker There is a difference between natural occurrences shaping the world and animals designing things to suit their needs. If you don't understand the difference, no wonder you believe in fairy tales! And you do realize that Lemmings don't commit mass suicide, right? That was a myth solidified in the public's mind by the Disney "documentary" White Wilderness, who's crew launched them off the cliff with a turntable. Get your facts straight before you post or you just look like an idiot.
TheSkepticalApe 3 months ago
@TheSkeptical "There is a difference between natural occurrences shaping the world and animals designing things to suit their needs"
Your problem is you have no evidence of natural occurrences shaping the world. You assume it without evidence. Your theory of atheistic evolution requires 100% of the biological system to be subject to change. But your GLARING problem is most of the genome (UCE) is not subject to evolutionary mechanism. I understand the lemmings, you missed the point completely
toobsucker 3 months ago
@toobsucker Um, no evidence that natural events shape the world? Are you fucking kidding me? So erosion doesn't exist? No, I don't assume things without evidence, that's what presuppostionalists like you do. You just use deductive reasoning to find anything that seems to back up your "magic created everything" fairy tale without ever trying to prove your god hypothesis wrong. You should study biology before you make idiotic claims like "most of the genome is not subject to evolutionary change".
TheSkepticalApe 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalApe
Logic & reason dictates there can not be a third hypothesis. And the fact that you can not produce a third viable alternative solidifies it. And magic had nothing to do with the creation of the universe & life. All that is needed to design and build a universe with life in it is an intelligence capable of it. And of course you can give me no valid reason why a "God-like" intelligence can not exist.
toobsucker 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSkepticalApe "You should study biology before you make idiotic claims like "most of the genome is not subject to evolutionary change".
You need to study issues before you take up a debate on them. All species have UCE that are known to be evolutionary frozen
"These ultra-conserved elements are long, they evolved rather rapidly, and they are now evolutionarily frozen. We don't know of a biomolecular mechanism that would explain them," Professor David Haussler
toobsucker 3 months ago
Comment removed
toobsucker 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSkepticalApe "Science designing a cell intelligently does certainly not mean that intelligent design is a rational hypothesis."
That is LOL logic. "Intelligently designed" does not equal "designed intelligently".
What tells me your a flaming liberal?
toobsucker 3 months ago
@McTaggStar: I have done a very good job of thinking these things through for myself, thanks. Science designing a cell intelligently does certainly not mean that intelligent design is a rational hypothesis. Scientists can already synthesize pharmaceuticals that mimic biochemical pathways in the body in order to treat biochemical deficiencies - the fact that scientists can do that does not lend support to the ID hypothesis. Just because something CAN be designed intelligently does not mean that
McTaggStar 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@McTaggStar: I have done a very good job of thinking these things through for myself, thanks. Science designing a cell intelligently does certainly not mean that intelligent design is a rational hypothesis. Scientists can already synthesize pharmaceuticals that mimic biochemical pathways in the body in order to treat biochemical deficiencies - the fact that scientists can do that does not lend support to the ID hypothesis. Just because something CAN be designed intelligently does not mean that
McTaggStar 4 months ago
@toobsucker Just because no one yet has proposed an alternate model doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You are assuming that every option has already been proposed, which is an idiotic position to hold. But then again, you believe in magic creating the universe, so I shouldn't be surprised.
TheSkepticalApe 3 months ago
Comment removed
toobsucker 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalApe "Um, no evidence that natural events shape the world? Are you fucking kidding me? So erosion doesn't exist?"
I believe erosion has been unofficially ruled out as a candidate for the origins of the cell. Magic is not needed to create the conditions for life, only an intelligence capable of it. Why is it you equate a simply understood concept as "magic".
You must equate I.D. as magic or your arguments fall apart. And Venter has said science will soon I.D. a cell.
toobsucker 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DID APES EVOLVE FROM DOGS? According to evolutionary theory, apes, monkeys, and lemurs evolved from a four-legged-pawed dog-like creature. There's no real evidence for this anymore than there's evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature. Fossils that have been used to support human evolution, for example, have ultimately been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not human and non-human. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T CREATE. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. It only operates once there is life and reproduction and not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. Natural selection is a passive process, not a creative process. The real issue is not natural selection but what biological variations are possible in nature. Read my Internet article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
BLIND WATCHMAKER IS NO ARGUMENT. DNA sequence isn't like a watch. Even if the parts of a watch come together by chance, that doesn't mean the parts could be produced by chance. An incomplete watch can last a long time until its human DESIGNER completes it. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read my Internet article HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 Oh Mogley52, you're back with your strawman arguments against science again, huh kook? You do realize that natural selection isn't chance right? Your supposed argument hinges on a completely ignorant misrepresentation of evolution via natural selection and by spouting it off it makes you look like a one tooth yokel.
TheSkepticalApe 4 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 5 months ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 So you've never heard of Quantum Physics huh? Because according to quantum physics, pairs of oppositely charged particles DO come into existence for finite periods of time from nothing. It may be hard for your creanderthal brain to grasp this, but no supernatural JuJu magic was needed.
TheSkepticalApe 4 months ago
Imagine a fish with part fins, part feet with fins evolving into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@Mogley52 Um Mogley52, you have heard of walking, or ambulatory, fish like the Mudskipper, the Climbing gourami, the Walking Catfish and closely related amphibians such as the Axolotl, right? Because they show that you didn't do your biology homework before you started spouting this whole ignorant "there are no fish such as the ones mentioned above anywhere" line. Uneducated creationists are so cute... they think they're people!
TheSkepticalApe 4 months ago
@TheSkepticalApe Don't forget fish with lungs! But he wont want to hear that!
swiftpawsharpclaw 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
I'd disagree with one of your premises here. It's possible that the aliens aren't IC or Something like that, We do know that undesigned life-forms can exist, We are demonstrably undesigned after-all ;)
ThePuppyTurtle 5 months ago
Proof that evolutionism is nonsense. We don't even have nearly enough actual verifiable human history to account for any significant evolution.
The function of hydrogen working inside of us along with some twenty additional elements shows that the entire universe made of hydrogen and derivatives has the same Maker as we do because of its function working inside of us according to a preexisting word written in and by the function of common essential elements.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon lol wut?
FeLiNe418 6 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@FeLiNe418 You are he one not saying anything.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon
Why should i believe in your religious creationism, if you can't explain AB resistance or Plant speciation without using evolution theory?
transtlantic 6 months ago
The only ID i believe is ID Software
stroggcat 7 months ago
well, i thought about it..and aliens does sound far fetched..where would they ever come from?...yeap,super aliens..and where would they come from..more super aliens..it does sound stupid.it must be god...except,where did he come from?...yeap,super gods..and where did they come from...etc...sounds pretty stupid also..i know, god has always been..well then so has evolution or aliens..see,it's all stupid..or maybe it's just us,assuming we can even comprehend life..yeap,that is what is really stupid
xfactorb25222 8 months ago
fuck yeah creedence
PinkFloydrulez 8 months ago
Are you saying that US law forbids the teaching to children of any idea that is compatible with the notion that an intelligent supernatural agent of some kind exists?
Really? That situation would mean, would it not, that only the philosophy of atheism can be lawfully taught to children. Really?
Does that mean that evolutionary biology could be taught in schools to children, as long as a disclaimer is made that such teachings cannot be considered to be compatible with any religious ideas?
tubewatch59 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tubewatch59 "Are you saying that US law forbids the teaching to children of any idea that is compatible with the notion that an intelligent supernatural agent of some kind exists?" In a science classroom, yes. In a philosophy or world religions class, no.
"That situation would mean, would it not, that only the philosophy of atheism can be lawfully taught to children." No. Science makes no comment about gods, either way.
lhvinny 8 months ago
I agree with everything that Behe said (and which you reported to us).
But in what way is this relevant to the teaching of religion in schools?
Which religious version of creationism does ID require to be taught? ID doesn't specify which religion is associated (if any) with the (likely) supernatural intelligent agent.
As you well know, ID doesn't specify any particular religion. ID is compatible with most religions, but so is the teaching of evolutionary biology according to the NCSE.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 "ID doesn't specify any particular religion" Wrong. The Discovery Institute, which is the main organization trying to push the Intelligent Design movement, has a 20 year plan that they call "The Wedge." You can read it on their website. On page 16, under the section "FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES: 5. Spiritual and Cultural Renewal" it says, "Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation."
They are directly advocating for the Christian religion.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
The point is the DI can't advocate religion in science class.
Whether they advocate Christinaity outside of the science class or not is up to them, and is fully legal, as you well know. After all, most of the people who follow cdk007's channel probably advocate for atheism. You all have your own versions of "The Wedge" document. You hope to (and have succeeded rather well) in convincing many that natural causes fully explain origins. ID highlights the flaws in that program.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 "The point is the DI can't advocate religion in science class." But they do anyway.
"You all have your own versions of "The Wedge" document." It's not my version of The Wedge. It is the one found on the Discovery Institute's website.
"How does the science of ID advocate specifically for Christinaity?" That's the thing; ID isn't based on science. It is an Argument from Ignorance fallacy. You pointed this out yourself.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
Give me an example of how the DI advocate a PARTICULAR RELIGION in science class.
The "Wedge Document" is a kind of action plan for desired cultural change. Newsflash, we have many advocacy groups driven by various motivations desiring change. You're doing exactly that right now. Am I claiming that your right to push forward your ideas of naturalism and atheism is invalid and must be outlawed? Certainly not. Why react that way to the DI? They have a right to their agenda.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 "ID highlights the flaws in that program." Misrepresenting data, assigning probabilities as non-sequiturs, and claiming that irreducibly complex structures could not have evolved without supernatural guidance is not a highlight of flaws, it is a deliberately dishonest act. All ID says is, "we don't think it could be natural, therefore it must be designed." What about a natural process we have not yet discovered? The ID position is the Argument from Ignorance in spades.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
If you want to discuss the validity of ID's challenge to naturalism, we can go through some specifics. But as usual I note that you are claiming that whoever disagrees with your point of view is "lying".
The readers could care less about yet another baseless allegation of corrupt conduct of those with whom you disagree. It's a tired tactic that got old long ago. If you insist on calling those with whom you disagree liars, then prove it.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
Comment removed
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@lhvinny
I removed a prior response in which I wrongly assumed you were exhibiting a double standard. But I don't think you are aware of my position and so my mistaken response was unjustified.
Let me make clear that I don't consider the "inference to ID" as something we can consider as "fully verified science". That is because we would actually need to observe the designer scientifically before we could say that was verified. On the other hand, you're in virtually the same boat as us.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@lhvinny
This is my point:
You said that (accusations of dishonesty aside) we should not make the inference to ID to explain what nature seemhingly cannot explain. You said that was the case, because in the future, further research might uncover a natural explanation that does in fact explain what we are ignorant of now. And thus you charged that the inference to ID is merely an argument from ignorance. I believe that is your position on that, correct?
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@lhvinny
Your allegations of the inference to ID being an argument from ignorance, might be slightly valid IF we were claiming that the ID inference really is 100% verifed scientific fact. But of course it isn't is it. It's rather an inference justified on various lines of evidence, but it is after all, an inference, not an observation.
However, so is the naturalistic inference. Your side is a long way from having verified it's various inferences and assumptions.
Both are beliefs!
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 "Your side is a long way from having verified it's various inferences and assumptions." So you're ignoring all evidence gathered from genetics, phylogentic studies, ERVs, chromosome fusion, comparative anatomy, microbiology, and geologic evidence. You consider over 280,000 peer-reviewed articles confirming evolution, of which over 1,500 deal with direct evidence of common descent alone. Exactly how do you conclude it is "a long way from verified?"
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny Forgot citation: The 280,000 articles can be found on pubmed dot gov
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
As for the evidence of the 280,000 papers, you have to remember that the number of papers has more to do with the numbers of scientists x the time they have been authoring papers on evolution. But as for the evidence, some of it is convincing, and some of it not so much. In addition you'll find that the same evidence is often quoted in support of both viewpoints. I've seen that happen often. But at least some evidences support one side and argue strongly against the other.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@lhvinny
Since both arguments are inferences (not based on actual observational confirmations of the key assumptions / axioms of each worldview) I must point out that when you criticize the inference to ID as being an "argument from ignorance" you're then shooting yourself with the same line of reasoning (viewed from the other perspective).
To claim unknown natural processes will explain our current ignorance, is to concede that you're using an "argument from hope and faith (in nature)!"
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 I don't claim that unknown natural processes will explain our current ignorance. I am fully willing to admit that not everything is known in biology yet. However, that does not, in any way, justify imposing an explanation until one is known. ID does impose an explanation without justification.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
I agree. So for people who are "not imposing an explanation", what is with your (later) statement that "imposes an explanation" by claiming that my saying naturalism isn't fully verified, I'm ignoring all "the facts" that demonstrate it is? Or it sure seems you're claiming verification.
I'm saying that various people have different opinions, but in origins nobody really knows for sure. In that case, it isn't wrong to consider ID (or naturalism too) as legitimate possibilities.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@lhvinny
You said that ID imposes an explanation without justification. How does it impose an explanation any more than naturalism does? Both are valid possibilities and must be evaluated in the light of the evidence.
Here's my "trick question" for you. What would suffice to convince you that naturalism was really true? And what would suffice to convince you that ID was really true?
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 The answer for both is the same: demonstrable evidence defending that position. Evolution by natural selection has it; ID does not. I agree that ID could, at some point, have evidence to back it up. At the moment, however, there is not a single paper in the scientific literature demonstrating natural selection failed to predict an observation, nor is there a single paper demonstrating that there must be a designer.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
You say that evolution by natural selection "has the evidence" and that ID does not (have even one paper providing evidence in support of it's position).
That is an all encompassing position that you're taking! Forgive me for being cynical, but it seems in order to defend such a strong position, you'd be needing in reserve some very general principle guaranteed to render naturalism as the winner (always) in any argument.
What kinds of things could NS possibly fail to predict?
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 There are multiple ways that evolution by natural selection could be falsified. Some examples include:
1) Find a fossilized mammal in the Pre-Cambrian geologic layer
2) The emergence of a new genetic trait in a daughter population without any evolutionary precursors
3) A dog giving birth to a cat
4) An offspring no longer having one of the many ERVs found in its parent genome
Natural selection may not always be the winner, but it will only lose if based on evidence.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
I'm not meaning to be picky, but don't you think that NS would have had to have failed a prediction or two at SOME points along the way, in order for scientists to be capable of modifying their ideas about it somewhat. That is part of science. The ability to make a prediction, have it proven wrong, and then apply modifications to that theory in the light of that falsification which taught them that their initial predictions (ideas about NS) were actually errors.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 "don't you think that NS would have had to have failed a prediction or two at SOME points along the way, in order for scientists to be capable of modifying their ideas about it somewhat. That is part of science." Yes, the theory of evolution has changed over time based on evidence. Darwin's idea that changes must take place over long periods of time was shown to be flawed by Gould's experiments that confirmed punctuated equilibrium.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
eg. Natural Selection is "the survival of the fittest". To make a simple prediction based on the validity of natural selection, we could make the prediction that "the fittest will survive". What could falsify that? Well, we could say that in order to falsify "the survival of the fittest" we could put forward the possibility of observing at some point, a case where "the fittest did not survive" which may include the idea that "some non-fittest survived". Has this never happenned?
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 First, natural selection says that an organism that is more suited to its environment is more likely to survive, not that the fittest creature won't be killed off by other factors. cdk007 did a video on this a while back, linked here:
/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s
Second, saying "the fittest did not survive" and that "some of the non-fittest survived" are not the same thing. This is a false equivocation. Some of the non-fittest survived does not mean the fit did not survive also.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
I was just throwing ideas around. In a simple way (but in a kind of silly way) I did falsify a naiive understanding of NS. That was my point. If we take something that is generally true, but then make naiive and unjustifiable predictions based on our misunderstanding of it, then we'll see our predictions falsified.
But you already showed that you're prepared to allow this, as in your NS versus PE response.
NS however (as PE demonstrated) leaves many unanswered questions.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@lhvinny
We also have to be on the guard against making simple statements in support of a generally true principle, which have little to do with the issue in question.
eg. I could Newtons laws generally predict that objects will fall to earth. And they do. But the issue at hand might be - is Newtonian or Relativistic mechanics more correct? Newtonian mechanics can be valid in both schemes.
Similarly, that NS (sometimes) works, doesn't answer the mystery of life. How did it happen?
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 "How did it happen?" If you mean how did abiogenesis happen? We don't know yet. We have excellent data and observation showing how protocells could spontaneously form in the pre-biotic earth environment. We have direct observation of the emergence of novel genetic sequences simply from random combinations. Again, abiogenesis theories are far from concrete, but that does not mean it is completely void of evidence in support of it.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
I also wanted to reiterate on this particular video. cdk007 says in his blurb that he's sick of seeing people claim that ID and creationism are separate when they're not. He goes on to say ... "That (IDists claim) you can teach ID in schools without violating the separation of church and state. Well, sorry, they are the same, and this simple proof shows how"
His claim is - that to allow that SOME supernatural creator exists, violates the separation of church and state.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 If there comes a time when there is evidence of anything supernatural, I would be all for teaching that supernatural creators exist. However, as of yet, there is no evidence for anything supernatural. James Randi is waiting patiently for someone to come forward with demonstrable evidence that there is anything supernatural, and so is the rest of the scientific community. The discovery of the supernatural would be Nobel Prize winning material without competition.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
Direct evidence for the supernatural exists (if one is prepared to allow that eye witnesses who claim to have observed the supernatural) but understandably cannot be considered as scientific evidence.
However there can also be indirect evidence of the supernatural. Though we can only claim that we have indirect evidence of intelligence at work, and then infer (as Behe does) that the most reasonable context for that intelligence, is to attribute supernatural properties to it.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 "if one is prepared to allow that eye witnesses who claim to have observed the supernatural" You know just as well as I do that anecdotal evidence doesn't work because everyone claims different things. There are people who claim to have seen, or to be, Jesus. Some claim to have spoken directly to and sat with each of the Egyptian and Greek gods in modern times. Evidence, in the scientific sence, must be demonstrable independent of who observes it.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 What indirect evidence of intelligence at work do you think there is? How do you know that it was derived by an intelligence?
All of Behe's assumptions with regard to an intelligence, at least the ones I've seen, are claims that fit the model, "I don't see how it could have occurred naturally, therefore it must be supernatural." This is no different from when ancient people saw lightning and couldn't think of a natural cause, so they assumed a supernatural one.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
It's a particular class of conditions that indicate intelligence is at work.
I'm running out of time so I will refer you to Dembski's exp[lanatory filter (I'll go over it later on) which is a way to successively progress from attribution of natural causes, into conditions which make it infeasible for natural causes to explain. The explanatory filter (EF) assumes natural causes at first, and then applies conditions to progress to a confidence that something requires intelligence.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 And Dembski hasn't published any of these findings in the scientific literature because...? That's how every theory in science works; it only stands as long as every piece of evidence related to that theory confirms the theory true. Just one counter-example is enough to require the theory to be revised. The revision you're advocating is severe enough to require a complete dismissal of the current theory, which is fine, but it's odd that it is still used exclusively if it is invalid
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
I believe Dembski does publish papers. Like Behe, some of them do actually manage to pass peer review. In any case, if Dembski hadn't mentioned origins and ID, what he says regarding the EF is uncontroversial. He's merely formalized what had been done for centuries by policeman and investigators of various kinds. His EF looks at the characteristics of a phenomena and provides the general guidelines for a followup investigation to attempt to determine: nature, or intelligence.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@lhvinny
Remeber that Dembski's EF isn't some magic oracle. It can only make use of available knowledge.
I have heard people (well respected people) criticize the EF on the grounds that whereas today it might implicate intelligence as the cause, tomorrow it could implicate nature, providing some discovery was made that changed "the prognosis". Thus they complain that Dembski's EF is useless.
But that's a ridiculous complaint! Science ALWAYS changes, if new discoveries warrant it.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@lhvinny
"Intelligent falling" for example never passes Demski's EF. Falling is always a motion that follows a mathematical curve. Being a lawlike process it has all of the hallmarks of nature. Nothing about falling makes one suspect that it has anything to do with ID.
Intelligence may be involved! If a randomly oriented guns bullets always tend to fall onto/near a distant target (but no natural law forces the rifle to point at the target) then we may suspect A SHOOTER aimed the gun.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 Like cdk007 also points out, problems with one theory does not count as evidence for another. As I mentioned before, I've yet to see any evidence that indicates that a supernatural creative force or forces must be involved, nor has any such paper shown its face in the scientific literature. This is why creationism is called, in discussions like this, an Appeal to Ignorance. "Since evoluiton is not flawless, I can impose a supernatural answer without evidence and call it justified
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
Why wouldn't evidence against one naturalism count as evidence for ID? Think why cdk007 is wrong on this.
Firstly, there are only these two possibilities (though each is very general).
(1) Mindless natural processes alone (thus involving no intelligence or planning) are sufficient to explain the origin and evolution of life.
(2) Processes that do incorporate intelligence, are sufficient to explain the origin of life.
Think about cdk007's claim in regards to this.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 "Why wouldn't evidence against one naturalism count as evidence for ID?" Because that is the definition of the argument from ignorance.
If naturalism isn't correct, then house pixies must have done it!
If naturalism isn't correct, then the genes decide on their own to form life!
Rejection of one idea does NOT constitute any evidence for any particular other cause.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
Firstly both may be correct.
If life can form naturally, then (obviously, for reasons to be explained) it can also be originated via intelligence.
Note: Anything that mindless natural processes can do, can be superceded (if enough material resources are available) and improved upon by processes involving intelligence. Do you agree? Another way to say that is, whatever mindless natural forces can create, engineering can in principle improve on.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 Yes, it is of course possible that an intelligence did what a non-intelligence could do. At no time do I, nor any part of science, rule out all possibility that supernatural things exist. The problem comes from Occam's Razor in that case. Why assume a supernatural cause if a natural cause is sufficient? I do not want people to stop looking for supernatural things. I think it would be cool if the supernatural was confirmed, but until it is, natural causes seems most plausible.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
Why assume a supernatural cause if a natural cause is sufficient?
You don't. But (obviously) the natural cause must actually be sufficient, or else you are entitled to assume it's more likely than not that intelligence was at work. That is what the debate is all about. The sufficency of natural causes. That was Darwin's aim, to show that was the case. He convinced many many people they were sufficient. But many objections remain unsolved, and new objections have appeared.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@lhvinny
So the more difficult process is going to be the natural one. If natural processes are capable of originating life and / or evolving it from first life to what exists now, then the same can be far more directly achieved via the addition of engineering. Because that opens up the processes of planning, goals, the capability of assembly before functional operation, etc. etc. Engineering (another term for ID) opens up a whole new world of possibilities, beyond mindless nature alone.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 The problem with the Engineering idea is that there is no evidence that indicates a goal, planning or assembly of parts before function.
Every example of evolution demonstrates an undirected, not goal oriented, process.
There is no example of any creature anywhere with parts assembled as if building towards something greater without function. This is the problem with the irreducible complexity argument; it claims engineering when all evidence indicates no need for engineering.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
I'd disagree with you on that. I'd say the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side that nature looks like it was engineered. The few things that don't seem to be engineered (ERV's etc.) are vastly outnumbered for example, protein machines doing things that defy a mindless origin. Proteins are not as one guy said on youtube - "floppy sloppy crap"! Heh heh. Far from it. What we see in the cell are mindboggling examples of automated precision robotics and information processing...
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59
I said overwhelming evidence that nature was engineered. I meant life, because there are many things in nature outside of life that DO NOT look as if they were engineered. For example, tornados & hurricanes do not look as if they are engineered. They are lawlike processes that can be described by equations of motion. And we can generate them (or their simulated equivalents) using computational fluid mechanics. They'd drop out of Dembski's explanatory filter.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tubewatch59 "protein machines doing things that defy a mindless origin." Which one(s) do you think defy a mindless origin? We know the evolution of most of the protein machinery within a cell, and which order they came into being. Most of this is explained in brief in cdk007's origins series. They work as precision robotics now because the cell has had over 3 billion years to get it right through trial and error. Guess and check is the method we see via the evidence as what nature used.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
So we can say that LIFE EXISTS (incredible insight demonstrated there - ha ha :-)
We do find much evidence showing the difficulties with a natural origin of life and / or it's evolution. These difficulties, are directly related to the problems that natural processes have versus ID processes, since they can't take advantage of the capabilities that engineering adds to nature = planning, assembly while nonfunctional, goals, a specific purpose "in mind" for the system, etc.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tubewatch59 "We do find much evidence showing the difficulties with a natural origin of life and / or it's evolution." What would you say is/are the best example/s of this evidence?
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
So you know, problems with mindless natural processes (since either mindless natural processes or processes also involving engineering - only these two general possibilities can explain the existence of life) can be taken as support (though obviously not proof) for engineering (ID) processes.
In short, engineering processes have far more explanatory power than natural processes. (Though it's always worthwhile to attempt to find natural processes that do explain systems!)
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@lhvinny
But by taking that position, he's actually saying that the separation of church and state must mean that nothing can be taught (in a government run institution) that is compatible with a religious belief.
The idea that a supernatural being (a being capable of adjusting natural laws, and the originator of those laws) is compatible with most religions you'd care to name, but that the teaching that some kind of God may exist, does not mean separation of church and state is breached.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@lhvinny
The following is from wikipedia:
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit:
1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or
2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another.
...
The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, ...
Can you see, the idea that "God may exist", is irrelevant to the establishment clause?
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 I agree that god may exist. That's not the issue. The issue is that we have no rational reason to impose that a supernatural being or set of beings exist. Until there is, it is irresponsible, from a scientific point of view, to say that this supernatural source or sources is the cause of something. It promotes investigation into finding the supernatural, which I fully encourage.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
I agree there. The supernatural isn't within science. We leave that up to peoples opinions and consider something more scientific, such as design detection. Don't forget also that in science we often use likelihoods as well as certainties. Remember that what Behe claimed (and that I agree with) in the statements at the start of this video, are not science (you can't prove them) but are application of common sense to origins. But ID detects intelligence, not the supernatural.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@lhvinny
It's quite legitimate to reply that you'd have to "observe God creating life and designing higher life" to finally prove or verify ID. But heres the rub. Would you hold naturalism to the same standards before you considered it fully verified or proven (naturalism with respect to the origin and evolution of alife that is). Would you allow that to prove naturalism you'd have to observe abiogenesis & the evolution of IC protein machines? And in the meantime regard both as possible?
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 Of course ID is "possible." It's also "possible" that we experience "intelligent falling" instead of just the natural phenomenon we call gravity. It's "possible" we were visited by aliens. However, certain possibilities are reasonable to entertain in light of current observation and others are not.
I agree that until we have an observation of abiogenesis, which has been studied intensely in Szostak's Labs, abiogenesis is not yet a solid theory, nor do I treat it as such.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
I am glad you take that position on abiogenesis. I'm sure you personally believe it to be true, but you're admitting that it isn't yet a solid theory. Good for you. Some people I've talked to couldn't bring themselves to even admit that, because (in my opinion) they likely felt squeamish about giving any ground at all to a creationist! Hmm. Remember that creationist or atheist, by simply admitting a clear truth, you are aren't ceding anything worth worrying about.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 "Since both arguments are inferences (not based on actual observational confirmations of the key assumptions / axioms of each worldview)" If by "both arguments" you refer to Intelligent Design and evolution by natural selection, then you are wrong. Natural selection has been observed, confirmed and analyzed. There is not, however, any observation of who or what the "designer" is or was.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
All you have to do in asking how Intelligent design could advocate for Christianity ios to ask - How does the science of ID advocate specifically for Christinaity?
If you can give me a convincing answer to that question, I'll accept your charge. But I'll bet that I can easily refute any answer you or anybody else can give. But if you can answer my question, then go ahead. I'd be genuinely curious to know how ID could advocate specifically for Christianity (or Islam, etc.)
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 "But in what way is this relevant to the teaching of religion in schools?" ID isn't about teaching religion in schools. It is about teaching religion in a science classroom.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
No. ID is about pointing out in the science class, what nature (mindless natural processes) likely can or cannot achieve with respect to origins. ID is compatible with religion, but doesn't teach religion. But (according to the NCSE) evolutionary biology is also quite compatible with religion. But we don't find problems with religion being taught in evolutionary biology do we! So why ban ID? Students must go outside of science class in order to learn about religion.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@tubewatch59 "But we don't find problems with religion being taught in evolutionary biology do we!" There isn't religion being taught in evolutionary biology. Stop stating non-sequiturs.
"And evolution doesn't explain biology," LOL. What a lie! Evolution Theory is the governing scientific framework upon which all modern biological, medical and genetic research is based. Scientific Theories, by definition, explain the sciences through predictive models.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny
Actually I "lied". There are the odd cases where some science teachers "powerfully preached" the philosophy of atheism to their students. Bad teachers!
You can drop the single cell to all life baggage of evolutionary biology, and what would be left is the genuine science of observed biology - "evolution as it is" - not - "as we want it" - that organisms are capable of undergoing some inheritable change in response to environmental change. The rest belongs in philosophy class.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@lhvinny
So, give me an example of how the the concept of intelligent design is advocating Christianity in particular, or any other religion in particular, in the science class?
US law decided we can't preach a particular religon in state schools. Theists had to comply with the law, and must stop advocating particular religions in state schools. This prevents state advocacy of particular religion(s). But you want, freedom from all religion! But your goal isn't part of US law. Kapish?
tubewatch59 8 months ago
@lhvinny
It's not just about maintaining the separation of church and state (which is a good policy). It's about (they hope) convincing students that they don't need to bother with learning about any religion anywhere else!
tubewatch59 8 months ago
Today, biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
AtheistSongs 8 months ago
@AtheistSongs
Today, some biologists disagree over what evolution is capable of doing. No biologists question whether or not evolution exists. Evolution is a fact, in the same way that graffiti on the streets is a fact. And evolution doesn't explain biology, kind of like how graffiti doesn't explain architecture.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
Both evolution and creation are wrong. Just see my upcoming videos.
MrIntelligentdesign 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Apostle Peter warned true believers in Jesus Christ that in the last days there would be those who would be willfully ignorant in other words dumb on purpose and they would deny that the Lord created all things in the heavens and under the heavens, Second Peter 3:4-5. These same people would also deny the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Second Peter 3:3-4 and this would actually be a proof that we are in the days of His return.
stealthblack6 9 months ago
Just curious...why cant both sides be right? Who's to say that there cant be traces of both, maybe god created this universe as a garden or project and it did start to evolve per his plan and it truly is perfect in the words of einstein himself, because as chaotic as things could have been everything is pretty much perfect, so we evolved from basic elements and then god gave us consciousness? I try to take the best from both sides and make it work, any opinions? Theres no proof for either
Soulburner305 9 months ago
@Soulburner305
Did you just say there's no proof for evolution??
squallz13 9 months ago
The founding fathers never intended for us to not be able to talk about God in public schools. Separation of church and state was only to keep the catholic church from telling us how to worship God. And Evolution is a religion because too much of your "evidence" has been proven to support creation NOT evolution and scientists are know to bend and even fake evidence to fit there THEORY. Yes, it is a theory that people base their lives on therefore it is a religion.
stephluvzrock 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stephluvzrock There is no evidence to support creation, none.
gamesbok 9 months ago
People aren’t allowed to talk about god in public schools? What a despicable lie. The law states that federal dollars cannot be devoted to PROMOTING a religious doctrine. Drop the persecution complex and grow up.
Evolution is just as equally supported as gravity. It has survived the gauntlet of peer review and objective evidence that creationism has despicably been trying and failing to sneak around for years.
You know what’s a theory? Atoms, plate tectonics, germs, and relativity. PWNED.
Ebrainiac1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Revelation 10:11 And they say to me(John), "You must prophesy again with regard to peoples and nations and tongues and many kings."
Is John one of the witnesses?
Check out my favs, especially the one about the stars found in the bible. Pics in those videos of the Sun Moon and Stars are authentic and the end time is drawing. The stars seem to be 11 then 12 and then definitely7. Check out these symbols and signs from heaven.
themiraclesonearth 11 months ago
Comment removed
MWarnkegwg 1 year ago
One last thing for today. Creationism is a study I indulge my self to on occasion because of it's curiosity. As two objects retain similar properties thy can be linked in a characteristic. That is in my opinion, that Darwinian-ism is to evolution as Creationism is to Christianity. Though the objects of comparison may not be exactly paralleled. As I do believe in the scriptures, I see flaws in creationism, as the latter is by man. Seeking truth is understanding what properties align.
MWarnkegwg 1 year ago
@MWarnkegwg If you seek truth, then throw out the bible. Concentrate on reality.
fmanh 1 year ago
As I have no doubt there will be sharp rebuttals regarding the scriptures. Allow me if I may to explain. The Bible (I prefer King James) can be interpenetrated literally. Any who understand how to read any literary work can see that one can understand the authors motives by reading all the text. Not by picking and choosing. This method has been successfully used for thousands of years. And why is it that now, that method is suddenly questioned? Or is it the dislike of the work?
MWarnkegwg 1 year ago
Indeed. But do not confuse, or redirect my words as you have attempted to do so. This destruction is the direct result, as having been seen historically is the religion of self indulgence. The Doctrine of the Bible that I hold to does no such thing. As it has been exhaustively stated on numerous occasion, the scriptures do not favor the person, nor a religion. It does however Explain mankind condition well, and shows a clear way to correct that. Not from war nor strife. But belief.
MWarnkegwg 1 year ago
aburling7 Treasonous delusions. That is a very serious accusation. You believe these men are betraying there Country? Do you hear the resonance of your words? A country that was founded on personal freedoms, and the right to express ones beliefs, and you call it treason? You sir are committing treason. To betray that which is the foundation of our country. Is that not treason? It is a shame that your view has clouded your ability to understand your own words, and the continuum thereof.
MWarnkegwg 1 year ago
@MWarnkegwg Try to read within the context of the conversation. Treasonous by both denying and betraying the SCIENTIFIC ENDEAVOR. So your rant was pointless.
aburling7 1 year ago
Respond to this video...
Rationality belongs to the cool observer. But because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason, but faith. And this faith relies upon necessary illusion and emotionally potent over-simplifications which have to be provide by the myth-makers... the cool observers.
-Rynhold Neebler-
aburling7 1 year ago
aburling7 What is a credible thinker? One who can think inside the box One who can see only that to which is plainly visible, and make assumptions based on a fraction of the evidence and possibilities? This is what passes for science now? Your stance is one of those who would accept spontaneous generation because it's the only posit that fits the idealism. Such closed stance idealism is what propelled mankind into the dark ages. One that was spearheaded by the Pope himself.
MWarnkegwg 1 year ago
@MWarnkegwg That is EXACTLY what passes for science. That's why it's called science. Because it relies on testable observation. In truth nothing else matters. Because once you think that old books and superstitions are to be taken seriously, then you open the door for every other occult to want their claims taken seriously. So science is the 'authority" on what can be taught as TRUTH.
FYI, It isreligious ignorance that propelled mankind into the dark ages. With god ANY behavior is justifiable.
aburling7 1 year ago
on a random note nice music
justdidthistocommen1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Wyatt discovered Noah's Ark you can check his videos out right here on youtube. He also diescovered the Red Sea Crossing site, the route of the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, Zedekiah's Cave, Mount Sinai and the Ark of the Covenant. Now, please understand this, Satan is working overtime to try to debunk these discoveries and his sheep won't even consider checking them out. I post this so those who are seeking and not Satan's sheep will have the opportunity to see. Merry Christmas
thechessstick 1 year ago
Modus Pwnens
WouldbeSage 1 year ago
"The truth shall set you free" Why does the Bible say that? because in scientific terms, I have tested, retested, and cross referenced this ideal more times than I can remember. It rings true.... every time. May the truth be your guide. Fear is an enemy of reason.
MWarnkegwg 1 year ago
GO AQUA TEEN HUNGER FORCE!!!!
hike132 1 year ago
ofcourse inteligent desing is creatiosim. its the same thing.
gulbirk 1 year ago
LOL...what fucking shit.... LOSER
neopreneca 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If there is no Architect and we're all just a product of some cosmic crapgame, why is everything around us so perfectly designed? Consider: If the distance of the Earth from the sun is farther or closer than what it is, earth couldn't have been capable of supporting life. Or the planet's gases could have been similar to that of Jupiter's. The complexity of the human body shows evidence of intricate design. Heck, your nose could've evolved just around the butt area if it wasn't for God. ^_^
ryansilverchair 1 year ago
it show id is rubbish and a lie spread by christains
dogboygb 1 year ago
haaaa thats how I've always thought about it
Halo2isgay87 1 year ago
Good point, well said.
peterloohunt 1 year ago
Don't feed the...umm...sheep?
Wububub 1 year ago
Of all your videos I've watched so far, this tendentious and oversimplified argument is the weakest. The real deconstruction of ID is not in presenting three possibilities, but in showing why hybrid theories based on combinations of the theories don't even hold water.
NealKlein 1 year ago
ID is the conclusion of the advanced minds.
if you apply your reasoning to 'science', there wouldn't be any science .
think about it yourself, but try to reason deeper.
stefenski 1 year ago
@stefenski theists are the dumbest ppl in the world, how are the advanced?
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
@FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7
really? hmmmmm. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton. I think you got your facts mixed up.
MWarnkegwg 1 year ago
@MWarnkegwg "galileo" was put on house arrest for life and threatened with torture because he went against the bible.
stop cherry picking from hundreds of years ago.
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
@FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7
hmmmmm. Wasn't that Copernicus? And what difference does that make? The point is there were and ARE some incredibly smart people who believe in God and Christ. Your question was directed in that area. As a rebuttal, it is a proven fact that following popular opinion, OR 'smart' people is not the conclusive way to find truth. Try as I've said before using logic, reason, observation. Those are the tools of the scientific method.
MWarnkegwg 1 year ago
@MWarnkegwg you deserve examples. That is just. Behe, Geisler, Huse, Strobel. And of course CS Lewis, who is passed on, but still an credible example of an intelligent man, and an exceptionally credible thinker.
if you've the courage to seek truth no matter what the cost, then start with these. You've have clearly seen 1 side of this argument, try the other, or you don't have the entire picture
MWarnkegwg 1 year ago
@MWarnkegwg None you listed are "exceptionally credible thinkers". Each have taken the information provided to mankind by the scientific methodology, along with the beautiful explanation for our existence and have twisted it into something superstitious and unscientific and have attempted to rob man of his genius and degrade the human endeavor by positing otherworldly and unfounded causes. That is not credible thinking nor do these men deserve praise for their treasonous delusions.
aburling7 1 year ago
@As were others within the Hierarchy of the echelon of the Catholic church. Now here me well. It is necessary to clarify, as what appears contradictory here, is actually the concerns express by many, that this trend is propelling mankind into a state of virtual slavery. That to bow to narrow minded, one sided ideals, is precisely what has caused great destruction to mankind, and will again. To know what I am saying, see the parallels of what is to what once was, and it will become clear.
MWarnkegwg 1 year ago
@MWarnkegwg you are absolutely correct. that is a perfect description of religion; "that this trend (religion) is propelling mankind into a state of virtual slavery (and murderous division). That to bow to narrow minded, one sided ideals (such as are in the bible), is precisely what has caused great destruction to mankind, and will again".
Very well said.
aburling7 1 year ago