@Oreceo Good argument, if god did not need a designer, and he exists , then we have proof positive that complex intelligent existence does not need a designer so no god needed to design us.
Wells complains that scientists who claim ID loose their jobs and are discriminated against. If an astronomer insisted the sun went around the earth despite all the evidence you would have to fire him for incompetence. He is unable to objectively weigh the evidence - a fundamental job requirement. . Why would a university have to employ a man that demonstrates incompetence in his chosen field?
Shermer nicely dodged the question from the audience member about if "Darwinism is a result of Atheistic thought?", and that is a very important question from a scientific point of view. If you are atheistic it is likely to believe Darwinism is true, and thus all other possible explanations are rendered unconsidered and false by default.
@logicCplusplus You continue to contribute nothing of value and the claims you do attempt to make are only backed up by your opinion. Not good enough I'm afraid.
I'm afraid my claims are completely backed up by evidence in molecular biology. For protein domains for example, homology of each protein is less than 10-15 percent, you know what that means? That means that each and every single protein is a distinct engineering marvel from translation to transcription to the protein folding process, and yet are completely interdependent on each other to work correctly.
@logicCplusplus Lol that statement is true, that means species cannot evolve from 1 to another. Organisms vary from 1 or chromosomes to few hundred. How did that happen?
"If you are atheistic it is likely to believe Darwinism is true, and thus all other possible explanations are rendered unconsidered and false by default."
Where is your evidence for this, particularly the latter part?
As for mutations, Random Variations, there is minimal verified 66.66...% chance a mutation will be detrimental, that means Darwinian Evolution is now obsolete to even consider itself a "creator" of bio-information based systems. Natural Selection of course, only works after the random variation takes place, so it will select more deleterious mutations which results in nothing more than genetic entropy.
@logicCplusplus Where on earth do you get your 'facts' from? I don't even know where to start with this spatter gun of rambling claims... Lets put aside the 'evidence' for the moment; what do you claim IS the explanation for the varied and complex life on earth and over what period of time do you claim this has taken place?
@logicCplusplus No he clearly said that you can believe in god and evolution - like Pope John Paul II for example, and then honestly explains that ,many scientists are not theists. Could it be that the more you know about the universe the less likely you are to think it was brought about by magic?
Humans know roughly 1 percent of what there is to know about the universe, could it be that the more arrogant you are the more likely you think you know more than we currently know?
Tell me, what isn't magical/supernatural about the universe? Have you opened up your eyes lately?
01:02 ... and i suppose mathematicians "impose" their "views" of mathematics on the education system? Laughable but disturbing that an academic would argue in thay way.
"alternate theory or no, darwinism is false" hahaha i love it. they're like little kids stomping their feet saying "gravity is false! superman can fly, therefore gravity is false!" I'm so glad we're progressing slowly to the point where they're not taken seriously.
The discovery institute has campaigned for the teaching of id in the past. Now they simply try mislead people into not believing in evolution. They don't have a valid scientific theory. They just want to promote a religious world view
@beefygoblin But you could not care less about the government imposed indoctrination of Darwinism on hapless children and outlawing all critical examination of the fanciful conjecture that is corruptly accepted as evidence of evolutionism.
It's a shame that Wells appeared quite nervous during his speech. The problem it seems here to me, is that you have an experienced charismatic presenter (shermer) versus a more reserved scientist with less experience in public speaking. This does not discredit his arguments, to his favour. The first two audience questions, his answers were excellent. Tho it can be argued that the questions were ill concieved and therefore easy marks.
The fact is, if you can demonstrate that the entire of evolution is false, and that you have an adequate theory in its stead, you're in line for a Nobel Prize.
Notice how this man didn't do either. I suspect he will not take this unique opportunity to properly refute evolution nor detail his own theory. It's about as scientific as other assumptions of causal agency, like 'clouds rain to make trees less thirsty', and 'rocks exist for animals to scratch themselves when they're itchy'.
I would also recommend finding a youtube video called "Ken Miller on Intelligent Design" for anyone who thinks ID is valid as well as looking up "Dover trial" on wikipedia and watching "Judgement day, Intelligent Design gets it´s day in court" on youtube. ID is really religion disguised as science. Look up "Wedge strategy" on wikipedia if you don´t believe that.
Wells is simply a liar. Contrary to what he says, there is abundant scientific evidence for evolution, coming from taxonomy, palientology, biochemistry, microbiology etc. The scientific consensus on evolution is almost 100% for it. Human chromosome 2 is one very good example of scientific evidence for evolution. People who doubt this, start looking up evolution, intelligent design, human chromosome 2 and scientific consensus on evolution on wikipedia.
Johnathan Wells was financied by Reverend Moon to obtain his science education for the specific reason to attack evolution. "His holy Father" paid for Johnathans college degrees to fight science !
What a bunch of slippery, sleazy, lying bastards the Discovery Institute is. No one belonging to it has any integrity, they will do anything to push their agenda, they have no scruples.
Why don't you write them, talk to them, read their literature? They aren't even in the same class of sleaziness as Shermer and Skeptic Magazine people are. But you, like most of these dip shits on here are just cheerleaders for the people who support the world view that makes them comfortable.
@BillKiernan haha... u mad huh ?? The truth is being revealed my brotha !!!! Wells speaks the truth !!! You my friend are heavily brainwashed !!! Brainwashing happens, so i dont blame you... Peace
@BillKiernan You wouldn't know integrity if you fell over it. The people in the discovery institute have more integrity in their little finger than you have in your whole body.
@jeepsterrr like when they outright lie about editing a creationist textbook to turn it into an "intelligent design" textbook, and then bail out of the trial before they get caught in the lie? yes, the pinnacle of integrity. luckily the courts see through it.
@BillKiernan What the hell are you talking about? The man has a PhD from UC Berkley he didn't spread propaganda, he argued using scientific facts. If you don't agree cite his argument and comment on it. Or the problem is you never went past 10th grade science.
Well, what about Newtonian gravity? It makes some gross inaccuracies like in the case of the Voyager Anomaly and things that have been better explained by relativity and quantum physics. But we can't dump any of this because it's the BEST we have.
"In Science, one is not required to propose an alternate theory in order to falsify a theory. "
You have to propose an alternative theory when the theory you seek to falsify still has large explanatory power. If you want to falsify evolutionary theory, you will still have to explain why the evidence fits the theory so well as it does.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why do Darwinistys always ask the question of: where did the designer come from? Intelligent design is the inference of design made due to the existence of extensive complexity and order in the entirety of the natural world. The designer does not have to be explained. If you were to ask me, I would say the God of the Bible - the immaterial, vast intelligence by whom all order, magnitude and specific complexity is achieved. What matters is that Darwinism is wrong. Not adaptational "evolution".
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What we have to realise is that Darwinism is as much a metaphysical claim as that of God the creator. People wrongly get the impression that evolution (the word has many different meanings) and Darwinism are one and the same. They're not.
I wonder if it's because you understand the processes involved and reject them, or that you're undereducated and have a primitive world-view that rejects reality in favor of wishful thinking.
Scientist ask that question because ID begs the question. The idea behind the theory of design is that the world and universe is so complex it necessitates an intelligent designer. Well that emperically implies that the designer is intelligent and complex and thus by you guys on admission needs to have a designer. Its a logical question. Why is it so hard to understand that?
What matters is that our understanding of the evolution of life is the reason we have been able to learn so much about biology in the last hundred years.
Evolutionary theory has practical applications that work because it is true. If it wasn't true it wouldn't be a big deal. There is a reason that 99% of biologists accept evolution (actual figures from multiple polls).
Even the educated clergy members understand that it is true. Look up "The clergy Letter Project" to see for yourself.
Whart the hell is "Darwinism" thats like me saying "Genesisism" do you mean Evolution? The problem isn't "God" it's Dogma, you believe in the same god the Muslims and the Jews believe in and *chuckle* the Mormons believe in.
First you look at the evidence then come up with the a hypothosis, test your hypothosis, then postulate a Theory..not
Come up with a theory and try to find evidence to support it and refute the mountain of evidence that refutes your BS = Guessing/Fairy tales
Because it is fallacious, it 'begs the question'. There is no scientific benefit to Intelligent design because without any understanding of the designer you can't make useful predictions that can be tested and you can't make inferences that could be helpful in making discoveries. A designer is a cop out, it is far more wrong then darwinism could ever be cause it simply doesn't explain anything. Saying God did it is useless, unless you can say how god did it.
Proving small parts of evolution wrong(and I would argue that ID'ers aren't actually proving these things wrong, most of the time they make fallacious arguments) doesn't negate the facts and certainly doesn't offer proof of a designer.
And even if you could prove a designer who is to say it isn't a space alien, or a flying spaghetti monster.
Evolution is the best structure in place to explain the FACTS. It creates a structure that explains the natural world through natural observable means.
They aren't obligated to propose an alternate theory because all theories of origins are philosophical, biased, and not provable. He is simply saying that the theory of evolution is certainly not proven as a fact and that we shouldn't teach it as such in schools. It has never been necessary in biology to make the claim that we evolved from simpler organisms.
This is one of the reasons why I get angry with people who argue for evolution. they have no concrete definition of the word. "a change in a population over time"
It's such a generic statement. Those who are against evolution are opposed to the idea that one kind of animal can change into a completely different one over time. this "speciation" you speak of is just changes in the distribution of genes that are already there. A donkey and a horse are still the same kind of animal.
a donkey and horse are not the same animal. if they were a mule, the product of a donkey and horse, would not be sterile( can't have kids). no one says a dog can turn in to a fish. the term evolution means a change in the frequency of alleles over time. this takes massive amounts of time maybe your imperfect brain can't presive vast amounts of time. i bet you dont think the big bang theory is true. im a 11th grader that has taken 2 biology classes go to college and learn.
ha. go fuck yourself. you think you're so smart, don't you. ur just a little pisstwat junior who doesn't know shit and believes every fucking thing they teach in school. Not all mules are sterile. most are, but not ALL. They do share a common ancestor, making them the same kind of animal. humans can't even have kids with monkeys. no common ancestor at all. And don't try to pull that "similar DNA" shit. Because there's a much bigger difference between the two than you think.
besides, this video is talking about the evolution that is being taught in schools, which is a theory of ORIGINS, so your argument is irrelevent anyway.
When one says 'gravity' is a fact and a theory, the FACT part is that things fall towards things with more mass. The THEORY part is not necessarily proven (I.E. Why and how this is so)
Evolution is fact and theory. The fact is that organisms speciate - there is no debate about this - mutations + natural selection + some other factors make this so. That is the theory part, maybe there are factors still hidden, but organisms DO speciate (Evolve)
I refuse to call variations within a species "evolution" because my definition of evolution involves an entire world view that is supposed to explain how we as humans got here. I do not deny bounded variations, but I do deny the ability of random mutation coupled with natural selection to produce any significant changes in a population, such as a dinosaur becoming a bird. Too much organization and direction is needed to conduct these changes. stevebee92653 addresses the specifics of this.
DNA is a molecule, meaning that it is a material thing that can be tweaked by various physical phenomena, ie mutations WILL occur from physically natural processes, ie. NEW information WILL be introduced into the species. Some of those mutations will be favorable in the environment, some non favorable. Thus natural selection of those mutations WILL occur. Thus the species WILL change due to NEW information. More time means more change thus macro-evolution by any reasonable definition WILL occur.
You just don't get it. First of all, no new DNA is ever added. At least if it is, it's never beneficial and the organism dies off.
Most mutations will weaken an organism, so it's more likely to die off than to evolve. And we have no proof that ANYTHING evolved into a different kind of animal or plant. All that we can observe is bounded variation. And even if we could prove otherwise, that still doesn't prove that we came from some other kind of animal millions of years ago.
new DNA is ever created. new forms based on the same template are made. if a single base pair is changed that is a mutation. EVERY single human on the planet has at least one mutation in there DNA. most mutations are neutral. a diasease common among blacks is sickle cell anemia. it is caused by a point mutation in the DNA. my siblings have it and you are problaby saying see that mutation caused a diasease but they are immune to malaria which is prevalent in west Africa same place SCA originated
You don't get it. Information is a specification that limits uncertainty. Having a specific DNA sequence with a different base pair than that in another organism, then that codes for a different protein, and is thus different information. Having one member of a species' DNA altered by some ionizing radiation to change the base pair will lead to a different proteins coded, thus different certainty, thus is different information, or new information that was added by physical mutation.
Step 2: "At least if it is, it's never beneficial" - it is occasionally beneficial
Step 3: "Most mutations will weaken an organism" - From Never beneficial to only most? Nevermind. You are correct, most will weaken an organism. Those that are sufficiently weakened do not reproduce and that mutation is removed from the gene pool. The process is self correcting.
I'm done arguing with people on this issue for the time being. evolution, at least when used to create a significantly different organism, has a vertical wall to climb with next to no footholds. This is partially why I disbelieve in macro-evolution.
@TheNamesBettyNyahhh I would actually disagree with the premise of point 3. most mutations are not negative, but inert. if you tally your base pairs, and the base pairs of your mother and father comparatively, you will find that mostly you are a combination of your mother and father's genetic makeup. you will not be 100% composed of them though. you have in the realm of 200 mutations, and i would wager that none of them weaken you :)
@logicCplusplus Dude - you will have to try a lot harder than that to convince me - if indeed that is your goal. If you can't understand how evolution by natural selection works then that is just your problem. There is a wealth of readily available information for anyone that does want to understand it (providing you have the patience, an open mind and the mental facility to grasp the idea) so I will not spend my time explaining it to you. Besides, YouTube comments are not exactly the...
Complete and utter garbage. I have read Evolutionary literature since I was 15 years old and have written several Evolutionary algorithms. It is your understanding of Evolution that is impaired I'm afraid if you think that NS & RM is even remotely capable of generating the interdependent and diverse systems witnessed in molecular biology in the past 20-30 years. Evolutionists are not engineers I'm sorry to say.
@logicCplusplus ... ideal forum for teaching evolutionary theory, even at a basic level. Like I say though - if you don't get it, that is entirely your problem. What, may I ask, is your explanation for the diversity of life on this planet? You have made a lot of hasty comments but have provided no counter argument, no evidence for your claims and no weight to your criticisms.
Okay, can you explain to me WHY YOU THINK that Darwinian Evolution (note the "Darwinian" part) is even remotely capable of generating the complex functional specified information in Biology?
If you would like to have any sort of conversation, then you can start by answering this question.
@logicCplusplus I thought that I had been entirely clear that I have no desire whatsoever to convince you of evolution by natural selection - I do not care how misguided you are. I merely responded to your juvenile malice. If you have indeed been studying it since you were 15 and are still unable to comprehend it then what chance - should I possess the inclination to do so - would I have to help in your education. If you're so much smarter than all the rest of the evolutionary biologists then
@logicCplusplus I do indeed look forward to reading your peer reviewed paper instead of YouTube rantings. My sources for my convictions are all widely available - if you have another theory to espouse I will gladly take a look at it but until then please keep your toys in the pram.
No need to provide "hundreds of sources". You need to explain WHY YOU THINK Darwinian Evolution produces complex functional specified information, because that is indeed the heart of the problem. If you need "hundreds of sources", then you have not learned anything except dwelled under that which you merely perceive to be correct.
@logicCplusplus I don't need to do anything for you, let alone explain myself to you. I stated very clearly that I do not care what you do or don't believe. I have already provided one source to you - Talk Origins. So unless you have an alternative hypothesis to offer me I suggest you cut the shit as you're coming across as a bit of a repetitive tool.
@TheNamesBettyNyahhh I can argue with you, an organism cannot produce an offspring with different number of chromosomes and still be viable and fertile. Example: down syndrome, the child has 1 extra chromosomes and he/she is not viable and cannot reproduce healthy offspring. Having an extra/less number of chromosomes are characterized as disorders in biology and all have specific names.
evolution explains the process by which humans came about just not directly. evolution isn't just for humans. your definition of evolution is just wrong and is not represented by science. pick up a science book please. google evolution and DON'T go to answers in gensis try talk origins
It's no use talking to a fool who thinks he knows everything.
The theory of evolution, as it is completely stated in the textbooks, is a load of horse shit that has not been, and will never be, proven. Abiogenesis is a joke. And the "fossil record" is almost just as bad. We've never seen a convincing list of transitional fossils and even if you found one that looks valid, it's still just a bunch of bones with no flesh and no proof.
The mechanism for mutations has no bounds. The amount of change to any specific permutation of base pairs in any DNA segment can change according to physical reasons, and number of times.
There is no bound to the amount of times that UV radiation can break one of the base pairs off, and allow another base pair to take its place.
I find it hilarious how creationists insist that their claims are not based on any religious literature, but at the end of the day they derive their beliefs straight from the bible. Riddle me that!
Lol! I agree, but in many debates, the I.D. side is full of energy and the evolution side is full of boring old men. Have you seen any debates involving Kent Hovind? He's like a person who's loaded full of the kinds of prescription stimulants used to treat ADD.
Intelligent Design people seem like insufferable whiners to me. Are they having a tough time getting their ideas to be taken seriously because their ideas are useless shit? Such a shame. Maybe they could provide some sort of benefit to society by going into engineering.
if you asserted 2 + 2 = red. I would be justified in saying that your assertion is wrong just because your answer isn't a number. I don't have to supply the answer to assert yours is wrong.
WE DON'T KNOW! Read the bible! DARWIN IS WRONG, I'M right, because Bible says so, Bible doesn't require these questions that we ask from scientists, like, "there's no evidence", "Eye is complex(but Eagles see better)"...
I laugh at creationists, you're mockery to human kind. You praise "god did it". We praise how he did it(if he exists). You're fighting against your own stupidity.
Yeah, that was a particularly weak response by Welles. The naturalistic explanation suggests that matter/energy is eternal, and the religious standpoint assumes that god has always existed. The thing is, we have evidence that matter/energy exist now, whereas we have no evidence that "god" has ever existed.
Moreover, matter is a relatively simple phenomenon while "god" would have to be an infinitely complex one. It's idiotic to suggest a complex solution in order to explain a simple phenomenon.
The laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with evolution - this is a typical creationist canard, based on pure ignorance.
And I don't need to show evidence that god doesn't exist, just like I don't need to show evidence that Unicorns don't exist - if you are going to claim that they DO exist, then YOU need to provide evidence. The default position on all such claims is to reject them until sufficient evidence is available.
It is easy to say that the laws of therodynamics have nothing to do evolution. The reality is far different. Go back to drinking your government kool-aid.
lol. Are you retarded? What the hell does the government have to do with thermodynamics?
Seriously, pull your head out of your ass and lay out a logical argument if you want to be taken seriously. Anyone with an actual understanding of the laws of thermodynamics would know that they deal with entropy in closed systems, which has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
Feel free to explain why you think entropy and evolution are related. I could use a good laugh.
"how are the schools funded? who controls most educational institutions?"
You do.
"The first doesn't deal with entropy but the conservation of energy."
Entropy and conservation of energy are closely related, but if you want to be picky, fine, thanks for the correction. Now are you planning on explaining what it has to do with evolution, or are you just going to go off on a tangent about school funding?
Actually, I don't. The education system is controlled by the same group of people who control our government. Read Jim Marr's book Rule by Secrecy and also read the Deliberate Dumbing Down of America.
Why don't you just admit that you have no idea WTF you're talking about? You picked up a creationist talking-point about thermodynamics out of some whacked-out website, and now you're simply repeating it without understanding it, hoping that nobody will challenge you on it.
At least if you were honest enough to admit it, I might have a little bit of respect for you.
So I am not permitted to make use of other resources?
And your point is ripped straight from many evolutionists websites (I have read them). The point is that I am using resources as references. It is perfectly fine to quote information from other sources so long as I give credit to the source.
"The point is that I am using resources as references"
No, the point is that you're repeating something you read on a website of dubious credibility, without bothering to do any real research. I guess you thought to yourself: "If it's on da interwebs, it MUST be true!".
"It is perfectly fine to quote information from other sources so long as I give credit to the source"
But you didn't. And you shouldn't repeat things which you haven't researched, and which you clearly don't understand.
Ah, yes, that's the rub. The whole reason that religion, paranormal beliefs, and conspiracy theories exist, is because most people are overly credulous and unable to discern between credible and unreliable sources. It's not something that I can teach you in a 500 character comment.
Good rule of thumb in this case: if someone is saying that a scientific theory contravenes scientific laws, they're probably full of shit.
No, my friend, this conversation will go nowhere because you, by your own admission, are unable to discern credible sources from other nonsense.
Anyway, all I asked you to do was explain how evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics. It's your own damn claim - why can't you defend it?
And how dare you accuse me of judging information I haven't read, when you are the one making proclamations about two separate scientific principles without understanding either of them?
Who created the "creator"? If the universe is somehow infinite in size, scope, mass, etc., isn't the universe infinite in age as well? Is there intelligent life on other galaxies, and who created that life? If there was a creator who began life as a whole throughout the universe whenever he chose, couldn't life just inexplicably end at any moment somewhere throughout the universe?
Very convienient. By definition youre right, therefore youre right. This is not a sane or even useful argument. We could all come up with ANY explanation we like that by definition are right. This doesnt make them true.
In essence what youre doing is saying "something needs to be eternal, im saying my answer is eternal but you cant. Its mine and you cant have it". This isnt an argument, its a tantrum
My point exactly. Just because you define something doesnt make it so. I could define my invisible friend to be invisible but green. This doesnt make it real, invisible OR green
As I said, its a circular argument to define something and then prove it using that definition. You talk of logic but your whole point is based on a most basic logical fallacy, circular reasoning. You need to do better than that to convince me to stop torturing wafers
I dont really understand why europe and the us putting this on the top controversy?!?Japan, korea, and anyother asian country believe in evoluiton. My guess is that american just love GOD too much.
Europe? In Europe religion has a pretty low meaning.
Acutally in many lands people laugh at those who actually dare to say I believe in god (LOL YOU BELIEVE IN AN INVISIBLE DADY IN THE SKY)... Even many of those who go to church and so...
A preacher once said: Slovenia is out of 85% cristians, we have to keep together and make more stuff... (forgot what exactly).
And I thought: Yeah? Well how many of those 85% are here unwilingly? Like me...
The data fits intelligent agency. Prove it wrong, and you'll have falsified Intelligent Design and have fame, fortune, and many awards coming your way.
The argument against I.D. seems to go like this: Life can't be the result of intelligence because it can't be the result of intelligence.
That wont cut it boys and girls. Keep your world view out of science, and don't be afraid to follow the evidence.
@Oreceo Good argument, if god did not need a designer, and he exists , then we have proof positive that complex intelligent existence does not need a designer so no god needed to design us.
faircompetition1 2 months ago
Wells complains that scientists who claim ID loose their jobs and are discriminated against. If an astronomer insisted the sun went around the earth despite all the evidence you would have to fire him for incompetence. He is unable to objectively weigh the evidence - a fundamental job requirement. . Why would a university have to employ a man that demonstrates incompetence in his chosen field?
faircompetition1 2 months ago
Shermer nicely dodged the question from the audience member about if "Darwinism is a result of Atheistic thought?", and that is a very important question from a scientific point of view. If you are atheistic it is likely to believe Darwinism is true, and thus all other possible explanations are rendered unconsidered and false by default.
logicCplusplus 3 months ago
@logicCplusplus You continue to contribute nothing of value and the claims you do attempt to make are only backed up by your opinion. Not good enough I'm afraid.
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 2 months ago
@TheNamesBettyNyahhh
I'm afraid my claims are completely backed up by evidence in molecular biology. For protein domains for example, homology of each protein is less than 10-15 percent, you know what that means? That means that each and every single protein is a distinct engineering marvel from translation to transcription to the protein folding process, and yet are completely interdependent on each other to work correctly.
logicCplusplus 2 months ago
@logicCplusplus Lol that statement is true, that means species cannot evolve from 1 to another. Organisms vary from 1 or chromosomes to few hundred. How did that happen?
TheRightThinker 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@logicCplusplus The claim that I was referring to was:
"If you are atheistic it is likely to believe Darwinism is true, and thus all other possible explanations are rendered unconsidered and false by default."
Where is your evidence for this, particularly the latter part?
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 2 months ago
@TheNamesBettyNyahhh
As for mutations, Random Variations, there is minimal verified 66.66...% chance a mutation will be detrimental, that means Darwinian Evolution is now obsolete to even consider itself a "creator" of bio-information based systems. Natural Selection of course, only works after the random variation takes place, so it will select more deleterious mutations which results in nothing more than genetic entropy.
logicCplusplus 2 months ago
@logicCplusplus Where on earth do you get your 'facts' from? I don't even know where to start with this spatter gun of rambling claims... Lets put aside the 'evidence' for the moment; what do you claim IS the explanation for the varied and complex life on earth and over what period of time do you claim this has taken place?
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 2 months ago
@logicCplusplus No he clearly said that you can believe in god and evolution - like Pope John Paul II for example, and then honestly explains that ,many scientists are not theists. Could it be that the more you know about the universe the less likely you are to think it was brought about by magic?
faircompetition1 2 months ago
@faircompetition1
Humans know roughly 1 percent of what there is to know about the universe, could it be that the more arrogant you are the more likely you think you know more than we currently know?
Tell me, what isn't magical/supernatural about the universe? Have you opened up your eyes lately?
logicCplusplus 2 months ago
Love Shermer's nod and smile at 9:10
aaqucnaona94 4 months ago
The very first question tore a big hole in everything that Wells said.
aaqucnaona94 4 months ago
Shermer ought to present him the Darwin Awards [the spectic society's darwin award].
aaqucnaona94 4 months ago
god, ET or matter. we can prove matter exists
kelbykross1 5 months ago
@jeepsterr Should we really let them call it "The Discovery Institute" when they don't "discover" anything?
Ematched 6 months ago 2
@Ematched kind of 1984 double speak isn't it
faircompetition1 2 months ago
01:02 ... and i suppose mathematicians "impose" their "views" of mathematics on the education system? Laughable but disturbing that an academic would argue in thay way.
brostelio 11 months ago
"alternate theory or no, darwinism is false" hahaha i love it. they're like little kids stomping their feet saying "gravity is false! superman can fly, therefore gravity is false!" I'm so glad we're progressing slowly to the point where they're not taken seriously.
BillKiernan 11 months ago
man what a lier Jonathan Wells is
Basically the evil man want to maintain ignorate base of Tea Parties
JerezJulio 1 year ago
man waht a lier Jonathan Wells is
JerezJulio 1 year ago
The discovery institute has campaigned for the teaching of id in the past. Now they simply try mislead people into not believing in evolution. They don't have a valid scientific theory. They just want to promote a religious world view
beefygoblin 1 year ago
@beefygoblin But you could not care less about the government imposed indoctrination of Darwinism on hapless children and outlawing all critical examination of the fanciful conjecture that is corruptly accepted as evidence of evolutionism.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@RussianPunch "that is corruptly accepted as evidence of evolutionism" fucking idiot.
BillKiernan 11 months ago
It's a shame that Wells appeared quite nervous during his speech. The problem it seems here to me, is that you have an experienced charismatic presenter (shermer) versus a more reserved scientist with less experience in public speaking. This does not discredit his arguments, to his favour. The first two audience questions, his answers were excellent. Tho it can be argued that the questions were ill concieved and therefore easy marks.
whisper012 1 year ago
Evolution is not a theory....
Wii60Fanb0y 1 year ago
Wha does Creationism include? Astrology, Alchemy, and 3rd hour wishful thinking?
dreasonable 1 year ago
Why don't scientist just quit! There is no way anyone can figure out how everything started by using science, the answer is not scientific.
It's way beyond any scientific method.
For God sake Just Stop and go figure out a cure for serious ailments, cancer, acne, etc. That would be really useful!
1982witchcraft 1 year ago
@1982witchcraft That's the attitude to take! It's too difficult, let's forget about it and tackle serious aliments... Don't be absurd.
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 1 year ago
matter is eternal - that seems like a valid point. maybe the only thing that I will go with...
AIMANALI 1 year ago
The fact is, if you can demonstrate that the entire of evolution is false, and that you have an adequate theory in its stead, you're in line for a Nobel Prize.
Notice how this man didn't do either. I suspect he will not take this unique opportunity to properly refute evolution nor detail his own theory. It's about as scientific as other assumptions of causal agency, like 'clouds rain to make trees less thirsty', and 'rocks exist for animals to scratch themselves when they're itchy'.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
I would also recommend finding a youtube video called "Ken Miller on Intelligent Design" for anyone who thinks ID is valid as well as looking up "Dover trial" on wikipedia and watching "Judgement day, Intelligent Design gets it´s day in court" on youtube. ID is really religion disguised as science. Look up "Wedge strategy" on wikipedia if you don´t believe that.
rokkvi1 1 year ago 3
Wells is simply a liar. Contrary to what he says, there is abundant scientific evidence for evolution, coming from taxonomy, palientology, biochemistry, microbiology etc. The scientific consensus on evolution is almost 100% for it. Human chromosome 2 is one very good example of scientific evidence for evolution. People who doubt this, start looking up evolution, intelligent design, human chromosome 2 and scientific consensus on evolution on wikipedia.
rokkvi1 1 year ago
This wells guy is an out-and-out fucking liar.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
@Skindoggiedog no shermer is full of shit..we are nothing but complex bacteria ..ok right..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv You obviously don't understand. Best to stay out of the argument if you're completely ignorant of the subject matter.
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 1 year ago
God, alien or matter. Well, the first two must be made of the third.
MoveOrder 1 year ago
Johnathan Wells was financied by Reverend Moon to obtain his science education for the specific reason to attack evolution. "His holy Father" paid for Johnathans college degrees to fight science !
flyingscience 2 years ago
Wow, Wells cites ACLU involvement in the Dover case while speaking at the economically conservative Cato Institute. Who's politicizing what now?
The Discovery institute, what a joke.
NoRegretsForOurYouth 2 years ago 2
What a bunch of slippery, sleazy, lying bastards the Discovery Institute is. No one belonging to it has any integrity, they will do anything to push their agenda, they have no scruples.
BillKiernan 2 years ago 29
@BillKiernan
Why don't you write them, talk to them, read their literature? They aren't even in the same class of sleaziness as Shermer and Skeptic Magazine people are. But you, like most of these dip shits on here are just cheerleaders for the people who support the world view that makes them comfortable.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision "Why don't you write them, talk to them, read their literature?" Why don't you stop assuming i haven't done the things you list?
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan
It wasn't an assumption, it was a suggestion.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@BillKiernan haha... u mad huh ?? The truth is being revealed my brotha !!!! Wells speaks the truth !!! You my friend are heavily brainwashed !!! Brainwashing happens, so i dont blame you... Peace
heightboosting 11 months ago
@heightboosting "You my friend are heavily brainwashed" yeah my bad. i should accept things like noah's ark and women being made from men's ribs....
BillKiernan 11 months ago 2
@BillKiernan You wouldn't know integrity if you fell over it. The people in the discovery institute have more integrity in their little finger than you have in your whole body.
jeepsterrr 6 months ago
@jeepsterrr like when they outright lie about editing a creationist textbook to turn it into an "intelligent design" textbook, and then bail out of the trial before they get caught in the lie? yes, the pinnacle of integrity. luckily the courts see through it.
BillKiernan 6 months ago
@BillKiernan
What are the lying about specifically?
You Darwinian nitwits make me laugh, you're arrogance is strong but your logic is all fucked up.
logicCplusplus 3 months ago
@BillKiernan What the hell are you talking about? The man has a PhD from UC Berkley he didn't spread propaganda, he argued using scientific facts. If you don't agree cite his argument and comment on it. Or the problem is you never went past 10th grade science.
TheRightThinker 3 months ago
@TheRightThinker a creatard/ID fan trying to play the "I know more about science than you" card. How cute.
BillKiernan 3 months ago
@BillKiernan What the hell are you talking about? if you have a scientific argument, present it or shut the hell up
TheRightThinker 3 months ago
3:46
EPIC FAIL!
Daruqe 2 years ago
@Daruqe
Wells is absolutely correct.
In Science, one is not required to propose an alternate theory in order to falsify a theory.
Ianmcgregorable 2 years ago
Well, what about Newtonian gravity? It makes some gross inaccuracies like in the case of the Voyager Anomaly and things that have been better explained by relativity and quantum physics. But we can't dump any of this because it's the BEST we have.
Daruqe 2 years ago
@Daruqe there is the hypothesis of Intelligent Falling :)
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
@Ianmcgregorable
that's true, to falsify a theory all that is needed is one instance in experimentation that shows the theory's predictions to be false.
With evolution, that has NEVER happened at all !
Therefore, it is still standing and probably always will.
WisdomVendor 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ianmcgregorable
"In Science, one is not required to propose an alternate theory in order to falsify a theory. "
You have to propose an alternative theory when the theory you seek to falsify still has large explanatory power. If you want to falsify evolutionary theory, you will still have to explain why the evidence fits the theory so well as it does.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why do Darwinistys always ask the question of: where did the designer come from? Intelligent design is the inference of design made due to the existence of extensive complexity and order in the entirety of the natural world. The designer does not have to be explained. If you were to ask me, I would say the God of the Bible - the immaterial, vast intelligence by whom all order, magnitude and specific complexity is achieved. What matters is that Darwinism is wrong. Not adaptational "evolution".
athlete117 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What we have to realise is that Darwinism is as much a metaphysical claim as that of God the creator. People wrongly get the impression that evolution (the word has many different meanings) and Darwinism are one and the same. They're not.
athlete117 2 years ago
Yeah, probably because there's no such thing as "Darwinism."
Daruqe 2 years ago 3
@Daruqe evolution is bullshit
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@5tonyvvvv - "evolution is bullshit"
I wonder if it's because you understand the processes involved and reject them, or that you're undereducated and have a primitive world-view that rejects reality in favor of wishful thinking.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
the reason we always ask, where did the designer come from, is because that is next question
The apple falls from the tree
Would you act all high and mighty when that person asks, "Why does it fall?"
Where did it come from? The Designer did it
Ok, check, problem solved. But now we this designer, where did it come from?
Its the next question. Its the next logical question
And it doesn't solve anything, all it says, is don't solve that.
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago 3
Scientist ask that question because ID begs the question. The idea behind the theory of design is that the world and universe is so complex it necessitates an intelligent designer. Well that emperically implies that the designer is intelligent and complex and thus by you guys on admission needs to have a designer. Its a logical question. Why is it so hard to understand that?
Leones44 2 years ago
What matters is that our understanding of the evolution of life is the reason we have been able to learn so much about biology in the last hundred years.
Evolutionary theory has practical applications that work because it is true. If it wasn't true it wouldn't be a big deal. There is a reason that 99% of biologists accept evolution (actual figures from multiple polls).
Even the educated clergy members understand that it is true. Look up "The clergy Letter Project" to see for yourself.
jimbrown257 2 years ago
Whart the hell is "Darwinism" thats like me saying "Genesisism" do you mean Evolution? The problem isn't "God" it's Dogma, you believe in the same god the Muslims and the Jews believe in and *chuckle* the Mormons believe in.
First you look at the evidence then come up with the a hypothosis, test your hypothosis, then postulate a Theory..not
Come up with a theory and try to find evidence to support it and refute the mountain of evidence that refutes your BS = Guessing/Fairy tales
Cougar139tweak 2 years ago
Because it is fallacious, it 'begs the question'. There is no scientific benefit to Intelligent design because without any understanding of the designer you can't make useful predictions that can be tested and you can't make inferences that could be helpful in making discoveries. A designer is a cop out, it is far more wrong then darwinism could ever be cause it simply doesn't explain anything. Saying God did it is useless, unless you can say how god did it.
yeroptok 2 years ago
if there is a designer only the designer would know the questions to how he created these thinggs it isnt a cop out thats just the way it is.
KOKID83 2 years ago
Proving small parts of evolution wrong(and I would argue that ID'ers aren't actually proving these things wrong, most of the time they make fallacious arguments) doesn't negate the facts and certainly doesn't offer proof of a designer.
And even if you could prove a designer who is to say it isn't a space alien, or a flying spaghetti monster.
Evolution is the best structure in place to explain the FACTS. It creates a structure that explains the natural world through natural observable means.
yeroptok 2 years ago
wells is an idiot. i think people need to look up the definition of a religion. then look at the results of experimentation and observation
BigMac2145 2 years ago 2
Who's running the camera, the Roaming Nome? Lock it down dude!
1pt21jigawatt 2 years ago 2
Wells did exactly what Shermer said he would - just poked holes in evolution theory, he doesn't advance any new theory.
versanil 2 years ago
They aren't obligated to propose an alternate theory because all theories of origins are philosophical, biased, and not provable. He is simply saying that the theory of evolution is certainly not proven as a fact and that we shouldn't teach it as such in schools. It has never been necessary in biology to make the claim that we evolved from simpler organisms.
ThePerrynator 2 years ago
Speciation has been tested and replicated though.
And evolution doesn't limit itself to your claim of "...**We** evolved from simpler organisms"
AR333 2 years ago
This is one of the reasons why I get angry with people who argue for evolution. they have no concrete definition of the word. "a change in a population over time"
It's such a generic statement. Those who are against evolution are opposed to the idea that one kind of animal can change into a completely different one over time. this "speciation" you speak of is just changes in the distribution of genes that are already there. A donkey and a horse are still the same kind of animal.
ThePerrynator 2 years ago
a donkey and horse are not the same animal. if they were a mule, the product of a donkey and horse, would not be sterile( can't have kids). no one says a dog can turn in to a fish. the term evolution means a change in the frequency of alleles over time. this takes massive amounts of time maybe your imperfect brain can't presive vast amounts of time. i bet you dont think the big bang theory is true. im a 11th grader that has taken 2 biology classes go to college and learn.
buginwater 2 years ago
ha. go fuck yourself. you think you're so smart, don't you. ur just a little pisstwat junior who doesn't know shit and believes every fucking thing they teach in school. Not all mules are sterile. most are, but not ALL. They do share a common ancestor, making them the same kind of animal. humans can't even have kids with monkeys. no common ancestor at all. And don't try to pull that "similar DNA" shit. Because there's a much bigger difference between the two than you think.
ThePerrynator 2 years ago
for being a kid, you are pretty smart
nice work
Piersmaru 2 years ago
besides, this video is talking about the evolution that is being taught in schools, which is a theory of ORIGINS, so your argument is irrelevent anyway.
ThePerrynator 2 years ago
wrong evolution is not a theory of origins. abiogenisis is the theory of how life started. evolution explains how life came to be after it started.
buginwater 2 years ago
Again you miss the point.
When one says 'gravity' is a fact and a theory, the FACT part is that things fall towards things with more mass. The THEORY part is not necessarily proven (I.E. Why and how this is so)
Evolution is fact and theory. The fact is that organisms speciate - there is no debate about this - mutations + natural selection + some other factors make this so. That is the theory part, maybe there are factors still hidden, but organisms DO speciate (Evolve)
AR333 2 years ago
I refuse to call variations within a species "evolution" because my definition of evolution involves an entire world view that is supposed to explain how we as humans got here. I do not deny bounded variations, but I do deny the ability of random mutation coupled with natural selection to produce any significant changes in a population, such as a dinosaur becoming a bird. Too much organization and direction is needed to conduct these changes. stevebee92653 addresses the specifics of this.
ThePerrynator 2 years ago
First - evolution is not a worldview
Second - your term of 'bounded variations' is sappy terminology at best, and is just as vague as 'new information' or 'kinds' of animals
Third - Speciation IS change in a population.
Fourth - Dinosaurs to birds is a complete straw man that again** misses the point, if you mean it in the sense of dinos giving birth to birds.
Fifth - direction is required in a sense, but it is the environment that decides which mutations are favored and to be selected
AR333 2 years ago
DNA is a molecule, meaning that it is a material thing that can be tweaked by various physical phenomena, ie mutations WILL occur from physically natural processes, ie. NEW information WILL be introduced into the species. Some of those mutations will be favorable in the environment, some non favorable. Thus natural selection of those mutations WILL occur. Thus the species WILL change due to NEW information. More time means more change thus macro-evolution by any reasonable definition WILL occur.
ainefairygoddess 2 years ago
You just don't get it. First of all, no new DNA is ever added. At least if it is, it's never beneficial and the organism dies off.
Most mutations will weaken an organism, so it's more likely to die off than to evolve. And we have no proof that ANYTHING evolved into a different kind of animal or plant. All that we can observe is bounded variation. And even if we could prove otherwise, that still doesn't prove that we came from some other kind of animal millions of years ago.
ThePerrynator 2 years ago
new DNA is ever created. new forms based on the same template are made. if a single base pair is changed that is a mutation. EVERY single human on the planet has at least one mutation in there DNA. most mutations are neutral. a diasease common among blacks is sickle cell anemia. it is caused by a point mutation in the DNA. my siblings have it and you are problaby saying see that mutation caused a diasease but they are immune to malaria which is prevalent in west Africa same place SCA originated
buginwater 2 years ago
You don't get it. Information is a specification that limits uncertainty. Having a specific DNA sequence with a different base pair than that in another organism, then that codes for a different protein, and is thus different information. Having one member of a species' DNA altered by some ionizing radiation to change the base pair will lead to a different proteins coded, thus different certainty, thus is different information, or new information that was added by physical mutation.
ainefairygoddess 2 years ago
Let's look at your argument here.
Step 1: "no new DNA is ever added" - yes it is
Step 2: "At least if it is, it's never beneficial" - it is occasionally beneficial
Step 3: "Most mutations will weaken an organism" - From Never beneficial to only most? Nevermind. You are correct, most will weaken an organism. Those that are sufficiently weakened do not reproduce and that mutation is removed from the gene pool. The process is self correcting.
Hope that helps.
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 2 years ago 21
I'm done arguing with people on this issue for the time being. evolution, at least when used to create a significantly different organism, has a vertical wall to climb with next to no footholds. This is partially why I disbelieve in macro-evolution.
ThePerrynator 2 years ago
@TheNamesBettyNyahhh totaly agree
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@5tonyvvvv - "@TheNamesBettyNyahhh totaly agree"
Read what TheNamesBettyNyahhh said again. And again. And again.
Until you understand it.
If you still can't, do some research and educate yourself until you are able to.
Saying "Birds can't fly" doesn't make birds crash to the ground. It shows that your version of reality is, quite simply, wrong.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
@TheNamesBettyNyahhh I would actually disagree with the premise of point 3. most mutations are not negative, but inert. if you tally your base pairs, and the base pairs of your mother and father comparatively, you will find that mostly you are a combination of your mother and father's genetic makeup. you will not be 100% composed of them though. you have in the realm of 200 mutations, and i would wager that none of them weaken you :)
Neeboopsh 1 year ago
@Neeboopsh I stand corrected. Thanks for that.
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 1 year ago
@TheNamesBettyNyahhh
Darwinian Evolution is a complete joke.
Anyone who thinks that Darwinian Evolutionary mechanism can produce function in the first place is a complete jackass of the highest order.
logicCplusplus 3 months ago
@logicCplusplus Dude - you will have to try a lot harder than that to convince me - if indeed that is your goal. If you can't understand how evolution by natural selection works then that is just your problem. There is a wealth of readily available information for anyone that does want to understand it (providing you have the patience, an open mind and the mental facility to grasp the idea) so I will not spend my time explaining it to you. Besides, YouTube comments are not exactly the...
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 3 months ago
@TheNamesBettyNyahhh
Complete and utter garbage. I have read Evolutionary literature since I was 15 years old and have written several Evolutionary algorithms. It is your understanding of Evolution that is impaired I'm afraid if you think that NS & RM is even remotely capable of generating the interdependent and diverse systems witnessed in molecular biology in the past 20-30 years. Evolutionists are not engineers I'm sorry to say.
logicCplusplus 3 months ago
@logicCplusplus ... ideal forum for teaching evolutionary theory, even at a basic level. Like I say though - if you don't get it, that is entirely your problem. What, may I ask, is your explanation for the diversity of life on this planet? You have made a lot of hasty comments but have provided no counter argument, no evidence for your claims and no weight to your criticisms.
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 3 months ago
@TheNamesBettyNyahhh
Okay, can you explain to me WHY YOU THINK that Darwinian Evolution (note the "Darwinian" part) is even remotely capable of generating the complex functional specified information in Biology?
If you would like to have any sort of conversation, then you can start by answering this question.
logicCplusplus 3 months ago
@logicCplusplus I thought that I had been entirely clear that I have no desire whatsoever to convince you of evolution by natural selection - I do not care how misguided you are. I merely responded to your juvenile malice. If you have indeed been studying it since you were 15 and are still unable to comprehend it then what chance - should I possess the inclination to do so - would I have to help in your education. If you're so much smarter than all the rest of the evolutionary biologists then
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 3 months ago
@logicCplusplus I do indeed look forward to reading your peer reviewed paper instead of YouTube rantings. My sources for my convictions are all widely available - if you have another theory to espouse I will gladly take a look at it but until then please keep your toys in the pram.
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 3 months ago
@TheNamesBettyNyahhh
No need to provide "hundreds of sources". You need to explain WHY YOU THINK Darwinian Evolution produces complex functional specified information, because that is indeed the heart of the problem. If you need "hundreds of sources", then you have not learned anything except dwelled under that which you merely perceive to be correct.
logicCplusplus 3 months ago
@logicCplusplus I don't need to do anything for you, let alone explain myself to you. I stated very clearly that I do not care what you do or don't believe. I have already provided one source to you - Talk Origins. So unless you have an alternative hypothesis to offer me I suggest you cut the shit as you're coming across as a bit of a repetitive tool.
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 3 months ago
@TheNamesBettyNyahhh I can argue with you, an organism cannot produce an offspring with different number of chromosomes and still be viable and fertile. Example: down syndrome, the child has 1 extra chromosomes and he/she is not viable and cannot reproduce healthy offspring. Having an extra/less number of chromosomes are characterized as disorders in biology and all have specific names.
TheRightThinker 3 months ago
@TheRightThinker And what does that statement, true or not, have to do with anything? Do you have a point?
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 2 months ago
evolution explains the process by which humans came about just not directly. evolution isn't just for humans. your definition of evolution is just wrong and is not represented by science. pick up a science book please. google evolution and DON'T go to answers in gensis try talk origins
buginwater 2 years ago 3
It's no use talking to a fool who thinks he knows everything.
The theory of evolution, as it is completely stated in the textbooks, is a load of horse shit that has not been, and will never be, proven. Abiogenesis is a joke. And the "fossil record" is almost just as bad. We've never seen a convincing list of transitional fossils and even if you found one that looks valid, it's still just a bunch of bones with no flesh and no proof.
ThePerrynator 2 years ago
If evolution is horse shit, then why can bacteria digest nylon?
ainefairygoddess 2 years ago
If dolphins are so smart, then why do they live in igloos?
What you're talking about is much different than one species changing into another. You're talking about a bounded variation.
ThePerrynator 2 years ago
What is bounded variation???
There is no such thing as bounded variation.
The mechanism for mutations has no bounds. The amount of change to any specific permutation of base pairs in any DNA segment can change according to physical reasons, and number of times.
There is no bound to the amount of times that UV radiation can break one of the base pairs off, and allow another base pair to take its place.
Where is the bound?
ainefairygoddess 2 years ago 3
I find it hilarious how creationists insist that their claims are not based on any religious literature, but at the end of the day they derive their beliefs straight from the bible. Riddle me that!
Shutitup18 2 years ago
Wells is super dynamic out there. His speaking voice carries all the excitement and energy of a potato smacking against a wall.
ProverbsandPrisons 2 years ago
Lol! I agree, but in many debates, the I.D. side is full of energy and the evolution side is full of boring old men. Have you seen any debates involving Kent Hovind? He's like a person who's loaded full of the kinds of prescription stimulants used to treat ADD.
ThePerrynator 2 years ago
Wells, great outline!
SocialScruples 2 years ago
Shermer was right on at about 7:18
jackdav34 2 years ago
I'm actually really impressed by this I.D. guy. I think he put up some reasonable arguements considering his position.
Ender4567 2 years ago
Intelligent Design people seem like insufferable whiners to me. Are they having a tough time getting their ideas to be taken seriously because their ideas are useless shit? Such a shame. Maybe they could provide some sort of benefit to society by going into engineering.
tattootomorrow 3 years ago 2
You an engineer?
cas343 3 years ago
There really are no holes in the modern theory of evolution that in any way invalidate it.
Shermer shouldve corrected this guys hilarious misunderstanding of the process.
danwarb1 3 years ago
These evolution vs creation debates all seem to be along the lines of:
Evolutionist: Theres lots of evidence for evolution and we have a good (though incomplete) idea of how it works
Creationist: Heres something (eye, flagella, etc) that evolution can't explain so it cant be true.
What I can't find is one where the creationist is prepared to come out and say "and in fact what happened is the world was made in 7 days by God"
Voyeuristic - but I just want to see someone SAY IT!
Deneb1968 3 years ago
speaking as a creationist ...
if you asserted 2 + 2 = red. I would be justified in saying that your assertion is wrong just because your answer isn't a number. I don't have to supply the answer to assert yours is wrong.
trenton1980 3 years ago
Why does the octopus have a completely different eye compared to tetrapods? Could it be that it independently evolved?
okapitheif 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I predict the end of fundamentalist christianity is near.
The mantle of ignorance they support with young earth and denial of evolution is an untennable assertion.
Eventually nature will take its course and eliminate the weaker(dumber) of the species.
Christianity's days are numbered, and not a mintue too soon I might add.
Good riddance.
judoyodan 3 years ago
Intelligent design:
Intelligence created things.
-How and why?
WE DON'T KNOW! Read the bible! DARWIN IS WRONG, I'M right, because Bible says so, Bible doesn't require these questions that we ask from scientists, like, "there's no evidence", "Eye is complex(but Eagles see better)"...
I laugh at creationists, you're mockery to human kind. You praise "god did it". We praise how he did it(if he exists). You're fighting against your own stupidity.
okkima 3 years ago
lolz i think the old white hair guy on at 9:00 just bommbed creatism!!! if there was a actucl creator then can we use sience to prove it? lolx
bbvoxlover 3 years ago
Listen to Jonathan Wells statement about this at 5:20. Darwinists believe in eternal matter, creationists believe in the eternal God.
fishslab 3 years ago
Yeah, that was a particularly weak response by Welles. The naturalistic explanation suggests that matter/energy is eternal, and the religious standpoint assumes that god has always existed. The thing is, we have evidence that matter/energy exist now, whereas we have no evidence that "god" has ever existed.
Moreover, matter is a relatively simple phenomenon while "god" would have to be an infinitely complex one. It's idiotic to suggest a complex solution in order to explain a simple phenomenon.
c6gunner 3 years ago
c6gunner, How do you explain your view in light of the First Law of Thermodyanics?
Btw, You have no evidence that God doesn't. We do have evidence that creation account in the scriptures is accurate.
fishslab 3 years ago
The laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with evolution - this is a typical creationist canard, based on pure ignorance.
And I don't need to show evidence that god doesn't exist, just like I don't need to show evidence that Unicorns don't exist - if you are going to claim that they DO exist, then YOU need to provide evidence. The default position on all such claims is to reject them until sufficient evidence is available.
c6gunner 3 years ago
It is easy to say that the laws of therodynamics have nothing to do evolution. The reality is far different. Go back to drinking your government kool-aid.
fishslab 3 years ago
lol. Are you retarded? What the hell does the government have to do with thermodynamics?
Seriously, pull your head out of your ass and lay out a logical argument if you want to be taken seriously. Anyone with an actual understanding of the laws of thermodynamics would know that they deal with entropy in closed systems, which has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
Feel free to explain why you think entropy and evolution are related. I could use a good laugh.
c6gunner 3 years ago
c6gunner, tell me...how are the schools funded? who controls most educational institutions?
The first doesn't deal with entropy but the conservation of energy.
fishslab 3 years ago
"how are the schools funded? who controls most educational institutions?"
You do.
"The first doesn't deal with entropy but the conservation of energy."
Entropy and conservation of energy are closely related, but if you want to be picky, fine, thanks for the correction. Now are you planning on explaining what it has to do with evolution, or are you just going to go off on a tangent about school funding?
c6gunner 3 years ago
Actually, I don't. The education system is controlled by the same group of people who control our government. Read Jim Marr's book Rule by Secrecy and also read the Deliberate Dumbing Down of America.
fishslab 3 years ago
BOOM! That was my irony meter going up in smoke.
okapitheif 3 years ago
The universe is a closed system.
fishslab 3 years ago
"The universe is a closed system."
Wow, REALLY?? No way! Thanks, Captain Obvious!
Why don't you just admit that you have no idea WTF you're talking about? You picked up a creationist talking-point about thermodynamics out of some whacked-out website, and now you're simply repeating it without understanding it, hoping that nobody will challenge you on it.
At least if you were honest enough to admit it, I might have a little bit of respect for you.
c6gunner 3 years ago
So I am not permitted to make use of other resources?
And your point is ripped straight from many evolutionists websites (I have read them). The point is that I am using resources as references. It is perfectly fine to quote information from other sources so long as I give credit to the source.
fishslab 3 years ago
"The point is that I am using resources as references"
No, the point is that you're repeating something you read on a website of dubious credibility, without bothering to do any real research. I guess you thought to yourself: "If it's on da interwebs, it MUST be true!".
"It is perfectly fine to quote information from other sources so long as I give credit to the source"
But you didn't. And you shouldn't repeat things which you haven't researched, and which you clearly don't understand.
c6gunner 3 years ago
And what might your sources be, sir? How do you determine what is credible or not? I guess if it doesn't agree with evolution it isn't credible.
fishslab 3 years ago
"How do you determine what is credible or not?"
Ah, yes, that's the rub. The whole reason that religion, paranormal beliefs, and conspiracy theories exist, is because most people are overly credulous and unable to discern between credible and unreliable sources. It's not something that I can teach you in a 500 character comment.
Good rule of thumb in this case: if someone is saying that a scientific theory contravenes scientific laws, they're probably full of shit.
c6gunner 3 years ago
Hmm...kind of like evolutionists? Remember that evolution is a theory but many evolutionists purport it to be fact.
fishslab 3 years ago
I can see that this discussion will go nowhere because you are so wiling to judge information you have not read.
fishslab 3 years ago
lol
No, my friend, this conversation will go nowhere because you, by your own admission, are unable to discern credible sources from other nonsense.
Anyway, all I asked you to do was explain how evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics. It's your own damn claim - why can't you defend it?
And how dare you accuse me of judging information I haven't read, when you are the one making proclamations about two separate scientific principles without understanding either of them?
c6gunner 3 years ago
That guy asking questions in blue shirt is my new idol!
zazhaftw 3 years ago 2
What the hell is a Darwinist? Is there a 1st Evolutionary Church of Darwin?
It is a scientific theory, not a religion.
dinkypoopstick 3 years ago
Who created the "creator"? If the universe is somehow infinite in size, scope, mass, etc., isn't the universe infinite in age as well? Is there intelligent life on other galaxies, and who created that life? If there was a creator who began life as a whole throughout the universe whenever he chose, couldn't life just inexplicably end at any moment somewhere throughout the universe?
cocainecafe 3 years ago
Who created the "creator"?
That question is nonsensical, God by definition does not need to be created, he is eternal. "Look it up"
When I was a child I asked questions like, what came before that? and that? and that?
Nothing came before God, he is the uncaused power that caused everything else.
There is no other answer for the existence of everything.
0+0=0
God+0=everything
HolyRevelation 3 years ago
Very convienient. By definition youre right, therefore youre right. This is not a sane or even useful argument. We could all come up with ANY explanation we like that by definition are right. This doesnt make them true.
In essence what youre doing is saying "something needs to be eternal, im saying my answer is eternal but you cant. Its mine and you cant have it". This isnt an argument, its a tantrum
irishmauddib 3 years ago
We could all come up with ANY explanation we like that by definition are right.
Go look up the definition of God, he is eternal.
I didn't make up the definition of God, I found it in the Dictionary.
If you want to believe that everything came from nothing, that fine.
Im only trying to answer this question by using logic and reasoning.
I don't have enough blind faith to believe what you believe. That there is no God, purpose or meaning for our existence.
HolyRevelation 3 years ago
irishmauddib, why does anything exist?
HolyRevelation 3 years ago
Dont know. No one does yet. Whats your point?
irishmauddib 3 years ago
I just made my point, thanks
HolyRevelation 3 years ago
So there is no point to your question then? So why ask it?
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Yes you do know, your just to self deceived to say it, so I'll say it for you.
By your world view, there is no purpose or meaning for the existence of anything.
Everything happened for no reason and all of existence is pointless.
You clame that I am the illogical one but you don't even know why your here.
If all of existence is pointless, why do you even care what people believe and why should I care what anyone thinks?
Nothing matter anyway right?
HolyRevelation 3 years ago
"look up the definition of God, he is eternal"
My point exactly. Just because you define something doesnt make it so. I could define my invisible friend to be invisible but green. This doesnt make it real, invisible OR green
As I said, its a circular argument to define something and then prove it using that definition. You talk of logic but your whole point is based on a most basic logical fallacy, circular reasoning. You need to do better than that to convince me to stop torturing wafers
irishmauddib 3 years ago
So that's where God's been hiding: the dictionary!
Coruscator 3 years ago
Ha, that was great that you quoted a dictionary for your argument! Socrates would be proud
1974freud 3 years ago
(you quoted a dictionary)
1974freud,
Yes I did, some people should try picking a dictionary up sometime and reading it.
I don't make up my own definitions of things like some people on here, I break out the dictionary and look things up.
If a God really exists, this God would have to be eternal.
That's not just my opinion either, these are the facts, go look up God and see for yourself.
Just because an idiot makes a claims, doesn't make it true, he must produce some evidence.
HolyRevelation 3 years ago
Just b/c someone used a method of debating that you disagree with, it does not follow that their argument is invalid.
fishslab 3 years ago
I dont really understand why europe and the us putting this on the top controversy?!?Japan, korea, and anyother asian country believe in evoluiton. My guess is that american just love GOD too much.
bbvoxlover 3 years ago
Europe? In Europe religion has a pretty low meaning.
Acutally in many lands people laugh at those who actually dare to say I believe in god (LOL YOU BELIEVE IN AN INVISIBLE DADY IN THE SKY)... Even many of those who go to church and so...
A preacher once said: Slovenia is out of 85% cristians, we have to keep together and make more stuff... (forgot what exactly).
And I thought: Yeah? Well how many of those 85% are here unwilingly? Like me...
nomineZERO 3 years ago
lols im already laughing at who ever say that god craet everything.....
bbvoxlover 3 years ago
not obligated to propose an alternate theory...how fucking convenient...what a waste of an intelligent brain...
gerbs96 3 years ago 2
The data fits intelligent agency. Prove it wrong, and you'll have falsified Intelligent Design and have fame, fortune, and many awards coming your way.
The argument against I.D. seems to go like this: Life can't be the result of intelligence because it can't be the result of intelligence.
That wont cut it boys and girls. Keep your world view out of science, and don't be afraid to follow the evidence.
TheJaredJammer 3 years ago