No need to the worry the jury they'll probably take care of themselves.The Discovery Intstitute is just a pathetic group of half ass wanna be scientists who couldn't make it in the real scientific community.They have no Honor ..no Dignity and can only lie to and decieve other Creationists ...anyone that gives credence to anything they say is chump and an idiot.They are just plain SAD.
@Atharkas How can you assure 100 percent that reality is what you consider to be reality ? I know that knowledge can be limited for many cases. Yet, you assure that your decoding of limited information is superior and somehow your theory of evolution becomes the law of science. You do this by affirming that your bias gathering of facts is somehow truth. I think i will reserve patience. Please watch the video i favored...then respond with questions that are not just to contradict and show stupid.
"somehow your theory of evolution becomes the law of science"
Evolution is a scientific theory. Do you even know what that is?
And seriously, stop denying reality (reality is what is around us, what is observable, testable. Your fictional character is not part of it until you present conclusive evidence that it exist.
I know thinking is not the strong points of deity believers, but perhaps you should try it.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. But reading through the response from the DI, sounded something like this.
We're not going to answer your challenge, since we can't find a designed gene. But don't worry, we'll still say that this is evidence of a common designer, for reasons we won't go into...
Now let's talk about Behe, and irreducible complexity, despite it having been destroyed at the dover trial, which we chickened out of....
Think thats a fair summation for people not wanting the read it all
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
You completely misinterpreted what ID is saying. They are not saying that genes don't have an evolutionary history. They are saying that an intelligent designer is responsible for the occurrence of specified complex information. And it is the best explanation because it is the only hypothesis that meets casual adequacy and casual existence.
The chance that a 150 amino acid protein will form a specified function role is 10 to the power 164. I would go on further but the i ran out of characters.
I am not a christian for one (not that you accused me of one). And I recommend reading Stephen C. Meyer's book "Signature in the Cell". That will answer your question.
"The chance that a 150 amino acid protein will form a specified function role is 10 to the power 164. I would go on further but the i ran out of characters."
Argument from incredulity. One thing you aren't keeping in mind is that the chance you cited still has a "1 in," meaning it's possible. You're just saying that "It's possible but not probable" and attempting to equate that with "It couldn't have happened that way."
That is an argument from chance which is not a satisfactory answer as it is the most improbable answer. Second of all, it is highly improbable that one specified functional role would arise out of chance let alone the amount that is in reality arising. This leads the chance hypothesis hard to swallow down, and illogical.
"Discovery Institute" a truly repugnant, disingenuous (word was invented for this organisation), cynical, dishonest group of charlatans who serve no conceivable purpose other than push the political agenda of their shady benefactors. If there ever was a more dark, conspiritorial and dangerous group it is this unpleasant manifestation of superstitious nuts. Third rate academics and scientists prostituting their inferior credentials for mammon.
Interestingly, using the ID position on modification in design we would have to conclude that when a child is born with some horrible genetic anomaly which makes them live a shriveled, short life in horrible agony incapable of developing consciousness beyond that of a child... that it was on PURPOSE. Either they are judged on that run which is cruel, or they are not and are given another go around in which case it is even more fucked up!
Were all those Corvettes really designed by the same designer?? Or.... By different designers employed by the same company ?
Either way, I'm sure that Brunel didn't design every bridge ever built.
So, maybe apes and fish have different designers - Intelligent ones, of course, unlike the twit responsible for the design of Creationists and other assorted Fundies.
Point me to one contribution that its made in science that has any impact on our understanding of the natural world? What *theory* has it produced. Keeping in mind the term *theory* as used in science.
Point me to one contribution that its made in science that has any impact on our understanding of the natural world? What *theory* has it produced. Keeping in mind the term *theory* as used in science.
Interesting that if life sprung up so easily, then it must be simple to produce in a test tube. Why haven't the evolutionists done the ultimate to prove their point and create a lifeform that is capable of reproduction?
@nutty01 Yeah, you got any suggestions. The book that proves that I had to artificially produce conditions to make life, thereby proving that life needed to be created. Where can I find that book.
Who said life sprung up easily? It had a about billion years to arise in an earth-sized test tube. This is still discounting other planets with similar conditions where life didn't turn up, which also belong in the equation. A lab and a test tube are nothing compared to this, and the fact that we've thus far been unable to reproduce it in some decades or so proves exactly nothing.
To see how far we've progressed, check out Craig Venter: watch?v=nKZ-GjSaqgo
@dragondoubt Nope. Firstly you'd need to wait millions of years. Secondly you'd need a test tube the size of the planet's oceans.
Also, we can create a lifeform that's capable of reproduction. They are called babies. That's how evolution works, hundred or thousands of generation of tiny changes. Even small things like noses or other facial features are signs of evolution, though all humans are still part of the same species (currently). Segregation (nations, for example) is part of this.
creationism = another way to put religion back in schools religion is no more than fairy tale but because of these idiot christians to hit kids, 6 days a week instead of 1 our kids will be dumber if this makes its way into school, most people dont believe in creationism is why its not there now.
Bridges? Corvettes? Somehow like living things and therefore living things must be intelligently designed for the same reasons? Excuse me? Dear FSM, these people aren't even comparing apples to oranges, they're comparing apples to Coke cans! That's not even remotely rational, that's insane.
What truly put nails to the coffin for ID is not the similarities among organisms, but the shared derived traits among organisms that display nested hierarchy as predicted precisely by theory of evolution. If we look at genomic sequences of all organisms sequenced, we find that the shared derived sequences can be produced only if traits originated from a set of common ancestors.
Sadly, creationists lack any understanding of genetics, and they often leave such fact out of their thought process.
Humans have had a profound impact on biological design - just look at the diversity among domestic dogs. This impact is increasing rapidly with the manipulation of genes. Does this mean that the great designer is losing control?
When creationists and ID proponents talk about same design = same designer, they are not talking about relationships of parents and children. They mean that since "most" lifeforms share similarities with other creatures, there must be a common designer.
Mammals all produce milk and have live young (except for monotremes) = God. Pandas and people each have 2 eyes. Therefore, God. Everything poops = God. Etc..
You do know that I'm not standing up for creationism, right? I'm just stating how they think. Don't worry, there's at least one other person that didn't pick up on my sarcasm in the second paragraph.
I don't think God could do anything. He doesn't exist.
wow.. bringing ID down to a parent level on the ideas of how life is created is brillant. perhaps another interesting arguement would be why more complex living things like humans never appeared before.. ohh.. say snails? or worms? or.. why no birds before there were mushrooms in the historical records of the earth's crust.
The thing is that what they describe as a designer modifying every generation sounds to me as though they are arguing that a designer is responsible for evolution, not that evolution doesnt occur (though why you need a designer is still a mystery)
They need a designer because they don't understand what new information is, or that all changes, mutations, deletions, and duplications represent new information that changes how an organism functions, mutates, and how its genes are distributed in the population. Since they can't comprehend new information arising spontaneously through the recording of random noise passing through the filter of natural selection, they have to assume some magical force is tampering with chance to insert it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This video may have been filed under science and technology, but it is more about he said she said, and cultural wars, in fact most of the vids I have seen by thunderfoot have been hit pieces. It doesn't take an expert to mark the science and technology box when uploading videos.
I wouldn't call these "hit pieces", I feel TFoot is educating people and revealing some of the garbage that certain evangelicals are dumping into the heads of their flocks in order to manipulate them. The misinformation and ignorance spread by these people can actually cause harm. That's why lying is wrong after all. I just wish his words reached the "flock", but I fear that it doesn't. In a perfect word Benny Hinn etc... would be out of business and in jail.
At 7:21 he is lying and knows it! His eyes close just as he says "Intelligent agent of some kind". Hmm.... he might just as well have been saying, "I did not have sex with that woman"... it has the same level of veracity.
The Corvette is a horrible analogy for the evolution or 'modifications' of a living thing. There are too many variables in that argument. For one the designers of the 1953 Corvette may not have been the same people that designed the 1954 model and so on.
This is a good argument, but not the best. I would have went with explaining that DNA is what is known biologically as a degenerate code, in that there is not a 1 to 1 relationship in the coding for protein. Therefore changes can occur which do not affect functionality.
Universal law of intelligence? That seems new to me. Have you already published your article in Nature, or is it still in press? I'm interested in your research methods and results. Weird I haven't heard anything about this. If you were right you would expect it to be front page news...
funny how you showed Pharyngula in the midst of all those links, it really stands out, not as a source for science but as a source for religion - atheism
you made it that way, not me. Preaching about not-believing is just the inverse of not preaching and believing. Not-preaching and not-believing is not relgiion. When you have either or you have relgiion,simple as that. If you don't get the logic then perhaps I will write a program for you
I suggest you look up the definitions for religion and preaching. A person is religious if he believes in a supernatural power. No preaching has to be involved. And I'm not preaching anyway. I am waiting to be convinced.
I do not believe in unicorns. Is this a religious statement?
As a theist I happen not to believe in unicorns. Apparently it has been too much Richard Dumbkins for you. The FSM, thor, God, are all just names with no meaning behind them. The meaning is determined by faith, when you start to define terms such as what God is, you are stepping outside the boundaries of faith. Got that? You aren't waiting to be convinced, you already are convinced. Preaching about the non-existence of God is religion, manifested through arrogance and hate.
Please define faith. And please prove to me that FSM, thor and god are just names without meaning without faith. Please tell me why faith is prefered for anything else. And tell me how you know that I'm already convinced.
I never said god didn't existed; neither do I claim that. I think it is arrogant to state that another person is arrogant just because he does not believe the same thing as you. And I do not hate you nor anyone else. And who is Richard Dumkins? Never heard of him/her.
No, its not a religious statement if you keep it to yourself. If you preach it you may not be religious but what you do in effect is religion. Imagine a person who was not Christian yet preached that the world was going to end in 2012, well that would be a religious statement to those who don't believe it. Atheism as well is a religious, not believing in unicorns and demanding evidence for unicorns at the same time is religious. Intelligent Design, however is entirely different in that respect.
If a person is believing the worlds ends in 2012, he/she can convince me, with evidence. I don't see how that is religious. Making a statement about the world is not religious. It can be. But it's mostly not. I am not demanding evidence for unicorns. I'm just stating not to believe in them. Asking for evidence is not religious.
Why is ID different from your definitions? And why is it relevant?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Its different because I don't need ID to tell me there is design and purpose in the universe. If you can't see design and purpose for what it is, then you are mentally insane. 1 + 1 = 2 in base 10 notation, ofcourse
logicCplusplus: What do you mean, Thor is just a name with no meaning behind it? Just a hint, read "Heimskringla", before you proceed. Unlike in the Bible, this story predicts an end to the present world, then a new beginning. There's also less immorality than in the Bible, like slavery, genocide and so on.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't need to read Heimskrigla at all. Neither do I need to read the Bible to believe in God. If there was no Bible (whats a Bible?), I would still believe in God, the fact is that no mentally sane individual does not believe in God. If you don't get 1 + 1 = 2 then you are mentally insane/ill. Thats right, I believe in the FSM, thor and all the lighting Gods out there. Multiple designers sounds good to me, want some sprinkles on top?
I believe that you are confusing the definition of religion with the definition of a worldview. A religion typically deals with a god or gods and always deals with faith. Please, pick up a dictionary and look up definitions before you ever make yourself publicly look this ignorant. You are doing yourself no favors.
It would seem that the earth was put together by natural processes of solar system formation. These processes are most probably going on throughout the universe, as is the formation of life in supportable environments.
I am not an expert in Corvettology, but I am going to make an assertion on the evolution of Corvettes based on observation. Ahem!
There are noticeably different designs between the C2 and C3 model Corvettes, so much so, that someone that was introduced to the two vehicles for the 1st time, might believe they were different cars. It would would be fair, then, to assert that the two cars had different designers.
@Greed770 When I was challenged with the watch, Sony DV recorder (she said if you see that you know it is from Sony), I responded: do you ever see two DV have sexual intercourse and give birth to baby DVs ? Can you cross a DV from Canon and Sony and have the best of both ? Where are the genitals of the DV recorders ? .....After that the Creationists is silenced.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are no different than the creationists. Your creators are natural forces. You exist for no other reason than anything else(ie: a rock). Conditions given, atoms form. Period.
This is not in response to anyone, but a general comment on the atheist point of view. How can one assume the 'hard' atheist position and claim rational thought as well?
Ocham's Razor? Wm Occam was a philosopher who 'assumed' too much. Regardless, eliminating any other life forms doesn't simplify things one iota.
Dawkins borrows from Hume & Russell, and loves to quote Occam. Hutchins merely attacks religion.
By the way, Shermer has admitted publicly to the 'soft' position. Want a link?
"How can one assume the 'hard' atheist position and claim rational thought as well?"
Rather than take a big stick to my particular side of that dead horse would be useless, don't you think? We both think the other holds idiotic beliefs, and neither of us is going to be persuaded by the other.
The concept of evil is 'man determined', varies with societies, and is highly subjective. But since it's used as an argument for and against religion, it needs at least a passing mention.
But is it relevant to the case for biologic design? Not really, unless you want to argue for or against based on morality.
The crux of the 'desgner' question isn't about religious dogma, or moral issues alone. I focus on the emperical evidences; complexity, synergy of systems, and certain aesthetic features.
This would explain preditor/ prey, and parasite/ host. Competion among evolving bioforms would be intetional in that case.
The case for subobtimal designs is similar. Why should bioforms be perfect? Or w/o challenges? Life may be intended to be competive & challanging. There's no logic in assuming a Utopian existence.
Finally the case for evil as opposed to good. That just puts a finer point on the 'free will' theologic hypothesis. How could there not be so called 'evil', given 'free choice'?
I see your point. True, we share a lineage with reptiles and fish, but my take on that differs with the mainstream view.
I view biologc design as incremental over vast time, but rather than fed by mutational alterations, I see speciaion as directed. Mechanism? Gene tweaking by entities, perhaps competitively, perhaps coordinated. If omnipotency were involved, time periods would be much shorter. An overseeing entity may have directed the efforts, but it was obviously a group effort.
Sorry, but there's nothing "obvious" about the hypothesis that not just one supernatural entity, but a group of them, directed speciation. Oh, and they may be omnipotent, too.
Just as an example, why would any possibly omnipotent supernatural being give a flying hot dog about fruit fly speciation, something which has been OBSERVED several times in several different ways.
Do a search for "Drosophila Speciation" if you want to learn more.
Omnipotence/ omnicient are outdated, arcane terms, and without substantiation. They're as useless to logical thot as the term 'infinity', which depending on whether applied to time, number, or distance have differing meanings, none proven.
Regarding drosophilia; I've read up on the various research over the last ten years, and can answer any questions YOU might have regarding.
By the way, Mayr's allotropic & sympatric speciation do NOT verify evoluton.
On a related note, what evidence would you require to "verify evolution" - over and above the gigantic mountains of evidence that already exists? Give me something specific, come on...
Research into origins is ongoing. My objection to the consideration by mainstream science that evolution, as postulated, is absolute fact. The caveat is the method of radical change.
As an engineer, and having studied cellular biology and genetic coding (on a cursory level at this time), I have determined that Intelligent Design is more likely than purely naturl processes.
Regarding specifics .. there is no quick answer. I see lineages as having occured. I question the method(s) of change.
"My objection to the consideration by mainstream science that evolution, as postulated, is absolute fact."
Wrong, plain and simple. Evolution is not considered to be a fact. Evolution is considered to be a scientific theory - a naturalistic system which explains the known facts and evidence.
Intelligent Design is not naturalistic - it assumes a supernatural explanation for evidence which can be explained by natural causes. Stage magic COULD have a supernatural explanation, too, but it doesn't
Of course it isn't 'fact', nothing within science is, but I stand by the 'fact' that many (in and out of science) *regard* it as such. I hear it all the time. Search 'evolution' and "absolute fact" for confirmation (10,700 hits).
They generally state that it is "based on facts", then extend that to imply that it IS fact. The problem lies in extrapolations of the facts, the assumption that causation is via totally natural processes, the fly in the ointment. Sure, the word 'fact' is over-used.
THE ONLY WAY SCIENCE WORKS IS BY STARTING WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE IS NO SUPERNATURAL FORCES HELPING IT. PERIOD.
As has been repeated until EVERYONE is sick of it:
"God did it" is NOT an acceptable conclusion in any branch of science. It does not answer any questions, it does not increase our knowledge.
By suggesting that the supernatural is a cause, you open the door to pseudo-science, fairy tales, and superstition - all of which have absolutely NO PLACE in science.
I don't believe in the supernatural, nor have ever stated, "I dunno, god-did-it". If he's out there, he/they/it does not interfere or intervene. If so, why the tsunami? ;~)
No, we are definitely free agents.
And no, god-didn't-do-it.
But there ARE cosmic entities 'out there', and not that far away. But we are allowed free enterprise down here.
I'm getting tired of pointing out your bad ideas. There's nothing new here, just a rehashing of the usual drivel. No proof, no empirical evidence, just you putting an ID/metaphysical spin on certain cherry-picked hypotheses. It's just getting boring.
I'm not going to answer this crap from you anymore, so you'll "win" by getting the last word in. Doesn't mean you're in the same galaxy as being right.
Tha's fine with me. It's not you, with your chosen mindset that I seek to provide insight to. It's the lurkers that may be indecisive. Your spin or mine, it's their choice.
"why would .. supernatural being .. [care about] fruit fllys?"
Why are there 350,000 species of beethes? And why did worms and insects predate man?
Maybe we're not as important as a species as some think. I view all biologic life as important. If not to us, then perhaps to other entities.
Further, if bioforms are vehicles for a spirit entity to inhabit, and there is empiric evidence of this, then earlier, simpler forms were just that; excursionary vehicles for an earthbound experience.
"Further, if bioforms are vehicles for a spirit entity to inhabit, and there is empiric evidence of this, then earlier, simpler forms were just that; excursionary vehicles for an earthbound experience."
Care to share this empirical evidence? This could be the breakthrough of the century! Absolute proof that a soul exists? Expect a Nobel prize and a write-up on the front page of every newspaper in the world!
I think you'll admit there's evidence of consciousness being external to the body. OOB experiences are numerous, and by people with no agendas to further by lying about it. I feel that science denies the possibility carte blanche due to the problems it might cause.
Not only that, Christian and Moslem religions would be at odds, since it differs from scriptural accounts.
Science will probably never accept "dualism", but the evidence DOES support it. So just keep it aside as 'personal data'.
This isn't empirical evidence. By even suggesting that it is, you make yourself look foolish.
And I don't have to "admit there's evidence of consciousness being external to the body", just like I don't have to admit to "evidence" of the existence of any god. The problem there is the same problem with ID - not one damn part of it is independently testable or verifiable.
Science doesn't deny the possibility for any other reason than that.
Actually, there have been double blind tests to confirm spirit/body duality. But mainstream science won't acknowlege it.
Michael Shermer volunteered for an OOB test, and has mixed feelings regarding the result. On youtube at 'shermer out of body'
Anyone that wants to can experiment on their own in that area. I did it over a two year period (age 20-22), but I won't recommend it or go into details.
It was real enough to convince me of the so-called duality.
I think you need to go watch that Shermer video again. The study, being done at a university in Canada, uses strong electromagnetic forces to affect certain parts of the brain. More of a study of neuroscience than of anything else, especially anything paranormal or supernatural.
Another way to put it is if you ask volunteers to describe what they see while under the effects of a hallucinogen, you are working on how the drug affects the brain, not whether what they see is real.
alright, if your so set on this, give me the link to the site where you got this information or the data itself and then i'll make my decision and my opinion
I'm not set on anything, and am skeptical of ALL dogmatic claims. That said, and my evidences go to the Beatle era, when I did my own empiric tests of the spirit realm.
While I can't explain or define it, I know for a fact it's there. Doing garage band sessions, and with a catalyst, I was able to peek into it. It's a semi-hidden realm, but real.
Do your own research, then make your own decisions, but it might take U awhile. (I'm pushing 70 soon). Bottom line: We're not alone in the cosmos.
So you basically loaded up on psychotropic drugs on a regular basis, and conclude, from your sensory experiences while your brain was fucked up chemically, that we are not alone in the universe.
What on earth makes you think those experiences have anything to do with what's real? You're aware that all kinds of strange experiences can be manufactured by poking people's brains with electrodes right?
I discovered that a certain constituent not only removed an inhibitory shield to allowing perception of a parallel dimension, but that it apparently also gave 'permission' for an entity of that dimension to interact.
The double-blind type 'trick' I performed, was to only pretend to snort it, and guess what. The room changed, and a corner of that realm was revealed to me.
I ran empirical tests over a two year period, verifying my findings.
not bad work, kinda long though, but then again, it's better than delivering everything we make
i work as an Over-the-phone sales rep for Schecter, and can honestly say that just having the limiteds we have now in stock has kept me after normal hours for the last two weeks. the saving grace though, that the over the phone reps don't have such a restrictive dress code like our more "traditional" brethren. plus, travel these days is a bitch
Religionists like Ken Ham would be all over me for saying that man is just one of many. It's also possible that hominids 'are' more important, but were simply late arrivals in the cosmos.
We are more than human bioforms, however, and that's actually good news. But are we accountable? Is salvation requisite? That is a faith based decision, and which religion to choose would be another personal decision.
Regarding goals and cosmic realities .. wait awhile. You'll find out ...
You're refering to the discounted idea (Ernst Haeckel) that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". While it might appear that the evolutionary process was being duplicated during embryogenesis, that is not currently an accepted theory.
Hox genes direct the process of cell division and organ placement, rather than an evolutionary process, or a process that mimics evolution. I don't see your point.
The complexity of the embryo 'assemby line' is indeed evidence of a ID in the distant past.
You know what's the problem with creationist arguments? They compare things such as cars that can't reproduce with organisms like dogs that can reproduce.
This analogy is also a dead giveaway that the creationist your debating with isn't the brightest tool in the shed.
Designed object can be compared, whether biologic or other. The embryo process is itself an automated assembly line, which grows organs, moves them around, and integrates them as req'd. We now have automated ass'y lines, but of course, none as complex.
Embryogenesis is evidence of a designer, do to the precision with which it must function.? It sometimes fails, and (hopefully) the embryo is aborted.
The chance that embryology, and sexual selection evolved from lesser forms is miniscule.
An assembly line is parts getting together to form a finishing product.True the birth process is a little similar.I think you mean natural selection.
Again,you cant prove a negetive.Evolution has just a good chance,even better in fact to be fact against the design theory.The design theory has no conclusive,even miniscule piece of info.Evolution doesnt have complete evidence but it does have the evidence it needs to support the theory,
I'm ashamed of Thunderf00t for making this argument. He's so smart and inspirational, but this one instance is wrong. The discovery institute is arguing that a designer created a being that can reproduce, thus the paternity tests would still be valid. The reason why their dismissal of homology is wrong is because of the percent of homology found in DNA with no function (About 98% I believe) No designer would have a reason to still add worthless homology
At [5:38] ".. organisms pass on DNA with modification, It is a central 'tenent' of biologic reproduction that .. "
The word 'tenent', also used in the Hovind interview, is listed as an alternate to 'tenet' on a couple dictionary sources online. 'Tenet' is the much more widely used term however.
On the other hand, since that statement 'resides' within the evolutionary paradigm, I guess you could call it a tenant. ;~)
Could be local usage, since I hear 'tenent' for 'tenet' more from the UK.
Well that is a false argument, for example the evidence contradicting the idea that smoking was harmful to health was found years latter ! Nothing contradicing it is the the same as verifiiening it ! John
Considering that no research on tobacco was done when it was found and used as medicine several hundreds of years ago, your choice of example tells much of your ignorance.
We know DNA, we know of genes, we have seen new genes forming, and fuck, we have copied the same method found in nature to make new genes ourselves!
Its a shame you resort ot name calling 'ignorent' really encourages open and honest debate ! ( Not )
Also my example re smoking, was deisgned to show the flaw in your argmument, the confusion you made between there being no evidence' used to justify 'verification'. Perhaps you are not use to analogy !
I Glad you conceded the Philosopy point ! ( Concession is as good as an apology !)
Its difficult to debate here, not enough space ! Paradimes in science change ! evolution is a paradim
Name calling? "Ignorant" means someone lacking knowledge of given subject, in this case it is fitting description, as you seem to lack the knowledge of what "ignorant" means...
Your analogy sucks, for the reasons I stated. One is well researched and the other wasn't, they are not on equal footing.
well iv obviously rattled your cage ! Oh Dear ! But you have conceded the philosopy point, ( that you called ignorent) so I was not so ignorant after all ! The map is not the terriritory ! Evolution and ID are maps !
He can make something for a special occasion or something for everyday use from the same lump of clay. If God wants to demonstrate his anger and reveal his power, he can do it. But can't he be extremely patient with people who are objects of his anger because they are headed for destruction? Can't God also reveal the riches of his glory to people who are objects of his mercy and who he had already prepared for glory? This is what God did for us whom he called-whether we are Jews or not.
all of the stuff you mention do not falify or verify materialist evolution. Evolution is a framework of understanding from which to interpret the evidence. Other frameworks of understanding can interpret the evidence just as well ! Intellegant design, organism adaptablility,trates mayimply ancestrory outside the species, or they may imply a common designer, either way neither evolution of Intellegant design are verified or falsified. I wish there were some honesty from all sides !
I think this is stupid. How can we even compare man crafting a car and god creating people to the millions of years of a single celled organism? WHAT?!?
you have missed the point entirly ! See my earlier post. He was simply saying that common charactersits can be explained through design. And he is right they can be. They can also be explained through materialist evolution. Both are frameworks of understanding. Nothing more - nothing less. Neither are falsifiable according to the falsification principle. ( Karl Popper).
"Both are frameworks of understanding. Nothing more - nothing less. Neither are falsifiable according to the falsification principle."
No, you are wrong.
Theory of evolution is scientific theory, model of explanation. Like I told you before, every mechanism of evolution is observable and testable and evidence confirms it, we haven't found anything contradicting it.
Also, stop with your mixing of terminology, "materialist evolution". It only speaks of your own ignorance.
No True, there are many evolutionists who hold a philosophicle framework of materialism. Also no one has observed the mechanisms of evolution in action ! It is common ground for example, that re-mixing the gene pool prroduces a hugh variation in species, but does not accound for the belief in a common ancester to different species. No we have not seen macro evolution in action. And if you deny many ( not all) evolutionits hold to materialism, you do no know your philosopy !
"there are many evolutionists who hold a philosophicle framework of materialism."
And majority of christians who don't, but have no problems with evolution either.
"Also no one has observed the mechanisms of evolution in action !"
Do you even know what you are talking about?
Mutation change the order of bases in genome, natural selection selects the beneficial ones and speciation creates reproductive barriers, and accumulative change does the rest.
I think this is missing the point ! Of course we are more complex than cars ! he was mking a simple point, that similarity of certain characteristics can be exploained be design rather than evolution. No More No less. Once a living organisn repreduces it passes on its gens, Similrity of design of differnet living organisms, that reproduce, does not contradict Science, or paternity !
Ahh Karl you are invoking Popper and the falsification Principle. Tell me then how is the belief that evolution is the casue of certain characteristics falsifiable according to that principle ? If not - its not science !
evolution is testable ? Well really, who has tested the idea that two different species evolved from a common ancester ? WHo has observed it ? Evolution theroy is a framework of understanding, nothing more nothing less !
It's incredibly disingenuous anyway to say that specific evidence is merely equal to both theories. Descent with modification entails a process, whether it be natural or an engineer. God, in all of his infinite wisdom, has no need of a process. There is no such thing as progress for a supposedly perfect being (unless, of course, God isn't perfect, which Christians wouldn't admit). After all, God can do anything. He didn't have to create many animals. Or he could have created species of fish...
...so wildly divergent that evolution of one to another at first glance becomes impossible. If I remember correctly, one of Darwin's first tenets was descent with modification. The evidence there is so strong that it led him along the correct path before DNA was even discovered. If it looks modified, then it probably is. To act like this evidence isn't a blow to ID is absurd. Of course, ID posits nothing and makes no predictions. It's just antithetical to evolution no matter the evidence.
Who needs science, logic, reason, rationale and known laws by which we can make progress? Better to have a 'poof' God did it magical wonderland where the only limitations are human imagination. I just climbed of my flying Unicorn and battled the Cyclops for the hand of my Valkyrie maiden. My friend Thor used his magical hammer to defeat the Ice Giants and we are off to Valhalla for beers with Odin. Its true and I defy you to disprove it. You can't, then its obviously true, check and mate.....
It would seem that the general argument for Genetic Design being "as likely" as Genetic Evolution is similar to an argument that, from simple observation, it is "as likely" that the Sun orbits the Earth as that the Earth orbits the Sun. However, only one is correct...
The answer to the Earth - Sun debate was the existence of other observations. The as likely argument changed to a not as likely conclusion through a preponderance of the evidence. This is the way to address the designer issue, too.
Evidence includes uses of evolution by organizations such as the CDC and WHO. Further evidence from genetic similarities- like between humans and bananas, evidence from the successes of genetic engineering. I am sure there are many more instances...
The Discovery Institute? Were they not the people who tried to date dacite rocks from Mt. St Helens by potassium-argon, a method known since the 1960s to be unsuitable for recently formed rocks? Was that deliberate?
Were they not the "wedge" document people?
Didn't they crow about Judge Jones being Catholic and then change their tune when the school board in Dover PA lost their case? Didn't they duck out of supplying witnesses?
No need to the worry the jury they'll probably take care of themselves.The Discovery Intstitute is just a pathetic group of half ass wanna be scientists who couldn't make it in the real scientific community.They have no Honor ..no Dignity and can only lie to and decieve other Creationists ...anyone that gives credence to anything they say is chump and an idiot.They are just plain SAD.
copycoonie 2 months ago
Thes vidio iz fule ov lize
Entropy56 3 months ago
thunder foot you deny facts and logic...why the arrogance...do you hate the idea od creation that much.
Flash02021990 3 months ago
@Flash02021990
Actually, "creation" defies logic and facts. Why the arrogance? Do you hate reality that much?
Atharkas 3 months ago
@Atharkas How can you assure 100 percent that reality is what you consider to be reality ? I know that knowledge can be limited for many cases. Yet, you assure that your decoding of limited information is superior and somehow your theory of evolution becomes the law of science. You do this by affirming that your bias gathering of facts is somehow truth. I think i will reserve patience. Please watch the video i favored...then respond with questions that are not just to contradict and show stupid.
Flash02021990 3 months ago
@Flash02021990
"somehow your theory of evolution becomes the law of science"
Evolution is a scientific theory. Do you even know what that is?
And seriously, stop denying reality (reality is what is around us, what is observable, testable. Your fictional character is not part of it until you present conclusive evidence that it exist.
I know thinking is not the strong points of deity believers, but perhaps you should try it.
Atharkas 3 months ago
Please correct me if I'm wrong. But reading through the response from the DI, sounded something like this.
We're not going to answer your challenge, since we can't find a designed gene. But don't worry, we'll still say that this is evidence of a common designer, for reasons we won't go into...
Now let's talk about Behe, and irreducible complexity, despite it having been destroyed at the dover trial, which we chickened out of....
Think thats a fair summation for people not wanting the read it all
Craigmw45 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Thunderfoot is my hero.
chrishwk 5 months ago
You completely misinterpreted what ID is saying. They are not saying that genes don't have an evolutionary history. They are saying that an intelligent designer is responsible for the occurrence of specified complex information. And it is the best explanation because it is the only hypothesis that meets casual adequacy and casual existence.
The chance that a 150 amino acid protein will form a specified function role is 10 to the power 164. I would go on further but the i ran out of characters.
TheBeardedMan01 6 months ago
@TheBeardedMan01 If you have to interpret your "science" then why call it a science when it applies just as fluidly as interpreting the bible?
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 4 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD
I am not a christian for one (not that you accused me of one). And I recommend reading Stephen C. Meyer's book "Signature in the Cell". That will answer your question.
TheBeardedMan01 3 months ago
@TheBeardedMan01
"They are saying that an intelligent designer is responsible for the occurrence of specified complex information."
And they are so wrong it's not funny anymore.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Okay if they are so wrong please show me how, rather, than a statement that they are wrong.
TheBeardedMan01 3 months ago
@TheBeardedMan01
"Okay if they are so wrong please show me how"
There is no such thing as specified complex information in biology.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@TheBeardedMan01
"The chance that a 150 amino acid protein will form a specified function role is 10 to the power 164. I would go on further but the i ran out of characters."
Argument from incredulity. One thing you aren't keeping in mind is that the chance you cited still has a "1 in," meaning it's possible. You're just saying that "It's possible but not probable" and attempting to equate that with "It couldn't have happened that way."
SeruQuik 4 months ago
@SeruQuik
That is an argument from chance which is not a satisfactory answer as it is the most improbable answer. Second of all, it is highly improbable that one specified functional role would arise out of chance let alone the amount that is in reality arising. This leads the chance hypothesis hard to swallow down, and illogical.
TheBeardedMan01 3 months ago
@TheBeardedMan01
"This leads the chance hypothesis hard to swallow down, and illogical."
Evolution is not a random process.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
So this guy claims a strawman argument against common desent with an ad hominen attack on Dembski based on his views of aids @. 3.56
grfield1 7 months ago
i know it doesnt matter and i could be wrong but im pretty sure corvettes dont all have the same designers.
SuperPimpjj 9 months ago
after seeing this millions of upset maury dads are organizing to have paternity testing outlawed
Bleakillusion 10 months ago
"The Discovery Institute"... "The Flat-Earth Society... "The Institute for the study of Unicorns & fire-breathing Dragons" ...same thing.
orangemod 11 months ago
"Discovery Institute" a truly repugnant, disingenuous (word was invented for this organisation), cynical, dishonest group of charlatans who serve no conceivable purpose other than push the political agenda of their shady benefactors. If there ever was a more dark, conspiritorial and dangerous group it is this unpleasant manifestation of superstitious nuts. Third rate academics and scientists prostituting their inferior credentials for mammon.
vohshkab 1 year ago 5
Interestingly, using the ID position on modification in design we would have to conclude that when a child is born with some horrible genetic anomaly which makes them live a shriveled, short life in horrible agony incapable of developing consciousness beyond that of a child... that it was on PURPOSE. Either they are judged on that run which is cruel, or they are not and are given another go around in which case it is even more fucked up!
Phage0070 1 year ago
They often stop short of testing their ideas -- only observation plus inference.
yellowlynx 1 year ago
Were all those Corvettes really designed by the same designer?? Or.... By different designers employed by the same company ?
Either way, I'm sure that Brunel didn't design every bridge ever built.
So, maybe apes and fish have different designers - Intelligent ones, of course, unlike the twit responsible for the design of Creationists and other assorted Fundies.
RoadRunnerLaser 1 year ago
ID = The new wave of the future in science ;p
TheLastHeroofYT 1 year ago
@TheLastHeroofYT ID = the death of science.
Point me to one contribution that its made in science that has any impact on our understanding of the natural world? What *theory* has it produced. Keeping in mind the term *theory* as used in science.
csadler 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@csadler Evolution = the death of science.
Point me to one contribution that its made in science that has any impact on our understanding of the natural world? What *theory* has it produced. Keeping in mind the term *theory* as used in science.
TheLastHeroofYT 1 year ago
Interesting that if life sprung up so easily, then it must be simple to produce in a test tube. Why haven't the evolutionists done the ultimate to prove their point and create a lifeform that is capable of reproduction?
dragondoubt 1 year ago
@dragondoubt read a book
nutty01 1 year ago
@nutty01 Yeah, you got any suggestions. The book that proves that I had to artificially produce conditions to make life, thereby proving that life needed to be created. Where can I find that book.
dragondoubt 1 year ago
@dragondoubt
Who said life sprung up easily? It had a about billion years to arise in an earth-sized test tube. This is still discounting other planets with similar conditions where life didn't turn up, which also belong in the equation. A lab and a test tube are nothing compared to this, and the fact that we've thus far been unable to reproduce it in some decades or so proves exactly nothing.
To see how far we've progressed, check out Craig Venter: watch?v=nKZ-GjSaqgo
Yahntia 1 year ago 4
@dragondoubt Nope. Firstly you'd need to wait millions of years. Secondly you'd need a test tube the size of the planet's oceans.
Also, we can create a lifeform that's capable of reproduction. They are called babies. That's how evolution works, hundred or thousands of generation of tiny changes. Even small things like noses or other facial features are signs of evolution, though all humans are still part of the same species (currently). Segregation (nations, for example) is part of this.
andromidius 1 year ago
creationism = another way to put religion back in schools religion is no more than fairy tale but because of these idiot christians to hit kids, 6 days a week instead of 1 our kids will be dumber if this makes its way into school, most people dont believe in creationism is why its not there now.
mchlbln 1 year ago
Bridges? Corvettes? Somehow like living things and therefore living things must be intelligently designed for the same reasons? Excuse me? Dear FSM, these people aren't even comparing apples to oranges, they're comparing apples to Coke cans! That's not even remotely rational, that's insane.
craigore 1 year ago
@craigore lmao
tupacalypse88 1 year ago
my favorite part of the grad student vs kent hovind is when he says
common designer, so why do insects have six legs do they have a different designer?
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
What truly put nails to the coffin for ID is not the similarities among organisms, but the shared derived traits among organisms that display nested hierarchy as predicted precisely by theory of evolution. If we look at genomic sequences of all organisms sequenced, we find that the shared derived sequences can be produced only if traits originated from a set of common ancestors.
Sadly, creationists lack any understanding of genetics, and they often leave such fact out of their thought process.
JaMoond 1 year ago
Humans have had a profound impact on biological design - just look at the diversity among domestic dogs. This impact is increasing rapidly with the manipulation of genes. Does this mean that the great designer is losing control?
glazinq 1 year ago
If they're going to use that reasoning, it would be:
Various companies produce different vehicles that compete.
There are various different kinds of animal that compete.
Therefore there are various rival creators.
TimJMorrison 1 year ago
"Pandas and people each have 2 eyes. Therefore, God. Everything poops = God. "
I'm going to keep this one, lol! This is classic!
TheFifthGreatApe 2 years ago
Comment removed
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago
When creationists and ID proponents talk about same design = same designer, they are not talking about relationships of parents and children. They mean that since "most" lifeforms share similarities with other creatures, there must be a common designer.
Mammals all produce milk and have live young (except for monotremes) = God. Pandas and people each have 2 eyes. Therefore, God. Everything poops = God. Etc..
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So you are saying God couldn't come up with designs fast enough to make things more different?
Plants and animals use the same DNA, couldn't God make that a different code.
Or make an animal the uses right hand sugars.
gregrutz 2 years ago
You do know that I'm not standing up for creationism, right? I'm just stating how they think. Don't worry, there's at least one other person that didn't pick up on my sarcasm in the second paragraph.
I don't think God could do anything. He doesn't exist.
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago
Comment removed
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago
Comment removed
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago
Comment removed
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago
I have just learned that one can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. I am, apparently, the later.
Why is it that some people search for a title to define themselves?
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago
Comment removed
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago
wow.. bringing ID down to a parent level on the ideas of how life is created is brillant. perhaps another interesting arguement would be why more complex living things like humans never appeared before.. ohh.. say snails? or worms? or.. why no birds before there were mushrooms in the historical records of the earth's crust.
twylightsky2007 2 years ago
The thing is that what they describe as a designer modifying every generation sounds to me as though they are arguing that a designer is responsible for evolution, not that evolution doesnt occur (though why you need a designer is still a mystery)
Davnios 2 years ago
They need a designer because they don't understand what new information is, or that all changes, mutations, deletions, and duplications represent new information that changes how an organism functions, mutates, and how its genes are distributed in the population. Since they can't comprehend new information arising spontaneously through the recording of random noise passing through the filter of natural selection, they have to assume some magical force is tampering with chance to insert it.
rkyeun 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This video may have been filed under science and technology, but it is more about he said she said, and cultural wars, in fact most of the vids I have seen by thunderfoot have been hit pieces. It doesn't take an expert to mark the science and technology box when uploading videos.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I wouldn't call these "hit pieces", I feel TFoot is educating people and revealing some of the garbage that certain evangelicals are dumping into the heads of their flocks in order to manipulate them. The misinformation and ignorance spread by these people can actually cause harm. That's why lying is wrong after all. I just wish his words reached the "flock", but I fear that it doesn't. In a perfect word Benny Hinn etc... would be out of business and in jail.
jloiterer 2 years ago
thor is still worshipped look up pagan religions
excandersham 2 years ago
Wow, but is body language is a dead give-away?!
At 7:21 he is lying and knows it! His eyes close just as he says "Intelligent agent of some kind". Hmm.... he might just as well have been saying, "I did not have sex with that woman"... it has the same level of veracity.
effyleven 2 years ago
omg why do all motorcycles have a 2 wheels, because the have a common designer. No because if the didn't, the would no longer be motorcycle.
fireflygirl246 2 years ago
The Corvette is a horrible analogy for the evolution or 'modifications' of a living thing. There are too many variables in that argument. For one the designers of the 1953 Corvette may not have been the same people that designed the 1954 model and so on.
MrMRmik 2 years ago
Another brilliant vid on the stupidity of creatio....... I'm sorry, Intelligent Design.
whydoyouwanttoknow 2 years ago 38
@whydoyouwanttoknow or cdesign proponentists :)
Ant42Lee 8 months ago
This is a good argument, but not the best. I would have went with explaining that DNA is what is known biologically as a degenerate code, in that there is not a 1 to 1 relationship in the coding for protein. Therefore changes can occur which do not affect functionality.
Pyrolonn 2 years ago
We have already the universal law of intelligence (ULI). ToE is already old and obsolete.
w3 interrelation-theory com
interrelation 2 years ago
Universal law of intelligence? That seems new to me. Have you already published your article in Nature, or is it still in press? I'm interested in your research methods and results. Weird I haven't heard anything about this. If you were right you would expect it to be front page news...
maartenjohannes 2 years ago
funny how you showed Pharyngula in the midst of all those links, it really stands out, not as a source for science but as a source for religion - atheism
logicCplusplus 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheism isn't a religion.
ArtOfPhire 2 years ago
So not believing in Thor is a religion?
maartenjohannes 2 years ago
you made it that way, not me. Preaching about not-believing is just the inverse of not preaching and believing. Not-preaching and not-believing is not relgiion. When you have either or you have relgiion,simple as that. If you don't get the logic then perhaps I will write a program for you
logicCplusplus 2 years ago
I suggest you look up the definitions for religion and preaching. A person is religious if he believes in a supernatural power. No preaching has to be involved. And I'm not preaching anyway. I am waiting to be convinced.
I do not believe in unicorns. Is this a religious statement?
maartenjohannes 2 years ago
As a theist I happen not to believe in unicorns. Apparently it has been too much Richard Dumbkins for you. The FSM, thor, God, are all just names with no meaning behind them. The meaning is determined by faith, when you start to define terms such as what God is, you are stepping outside the boundaries of faith. Got that? You aren't waiting to be convinced, you already are convinced. Preaching about the non-existence of God is religion, manifested through arrogance and hate.
logicCplusplus 2 years ago
Please define faith. And please prove to me that FSM, thor and god are just names without meaning without faith. Please tell me why faith is prefered for anything else. And tell me how you know that I'm already convinced.
I never said god didn't existed; neither do I claim that. I think it is arrogant to state that another person is arrogant just because he does not believe the same thing as you. And I do not hate you nor anyone else. And who is Richard Dumkins? Never heard of him/her.
maartenjohannes 2 years ago
Just a correction: where I say to prove something, I mean provide some evidence. (almost) Nothing is provable...
maartenjohannes 2 years ago
No, its not a religious statement if you keep it to yourself. If you preach it you may not be religious but what you do in effect is religion. Imagine a person who was not Christian yet preached that the world was going to end in 2012, well that would be a religious statement to those who don't believe it. Atheism as well is a religious, not believing in unicorns and demanding evidence for unicorns at the same time is religious. Intelligent Design, however is entirely different in that respect.
logicCplusplus 2 years ago
If a person is believing the worlds ends in 2012, he/she can convince me, with evidence. I don't see how that is religious. Making a statement about the world is not religious. It can be. But it's mostly not. I am not demanding evidence for unicorns. I'm just stating not to believe in them. Asking for evidence is not religious.
Why is ID different from your definitions? And why is it relevant?
maartenjohannes 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Its different because I don't need ID to tell me there is design and purpose in the universe. If you can't see design and purpose for what it is, then you are mentally insane. 1 + 1 = 2 in base 10 notation, ofcourse
logicCplusplus 2 years ago
logicCplusplus: What do you mean, Thor is just a name with no meaning behind it? Just a hint, read "Heimskringla", before you proceed. Unlike in the Bible, this story predicts an end to the present world, then a new beginning. There's also less immorality than in the Bible, like slavery, genocide and so on.
Orkaney 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't need to read Heimskrigla at all. Neither do I need to read the Bible to believe in God. If there was no Bible (whats a Bible?), I would still believe in God, the fact is that no mentally sane individual does not believe in God. If you don't get 1 + 1 = 2 then you are mentally insane/ill. Thats right, I believe in the FSM, thor and all the lighting Gods out there. Multiple designers sounds good to me, want some sprinkles on top?
logicCplusplus 2 years ago
logicCplusplus: Seems you're a bit wrong here, on several accounts. Let me correct you.
Believing in gods has to do with many things, including sanity. If you hear voices or see things not really there, it's called hallucinations.
1 + 1 is actually 3, on large values of 1.
I have no problem reading the Bible and not believe in the gods mentioned there.
Bashing something you have no knowledge about is just childish and dishonest.
Orkaney 2 years ago
O RLY? No mentally sane individual does not believe in God? Better publish your brilliant argument:
1. 1 + 1 = 2
2. Therefore God exists.
Gnickk 2 years ago
I believe that you are confusing the definition of religion with the definition of a worldview. A religion typically deals with a god or gods and always deals with faith. Please, pick up a dictionary and look up definitions before you ever make yourself publicly look this ignorant. You are doing yourself no favors.
claytonemoorejr 2 years ago
It would seem that the earth was put together by natural processes of solar system formation. These processes are most probably going on throughout the universe, as is the formation of life in supportable environments.
gjsterp 2 years ago
I am not an expert in Corvettology, but I am going to make an assertion on the evolution of Corvettes based on observation. Ahem!
There are noticeably different designs between the C2 and C3 model Corvettes, so much so, that someone that was introduced to the two vehicles for the 1st time, might believe they were different cars. It would would be fair, then, to assert that the two cars had different designers.
Please test my hypotheses and report in Science.
DogOfTheSpag 2 years ago
Bravo Thunderf00t, Bravo!!!
ElfGhostX 2 years ago
Did you just say that this guy denies that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS?
What's another cause?
seanbrockest 2 years ago
surly the covet argment is gided evlsion
hens0w 2 years ago
haha, a bridge is a horrible analogy to humans because they don't reproduce. best quote in history
Greed770 2 years ago 43
@Greed770 When I was challenged with the watch, Sony DV recorder (she said if you see that you know it is from Sony), I responded: do you ever see two DV have sexual intercourse and give birth to baby DVs ? Can you cross a DV from Canon and Sony and have the best of both ? Where are the genitals of the DV recorders ? .....After that the Creationists is silenced.
yellowlynx 1 year ago
@Greed770 bridge sex lol
Hypastpist 1 year ago
@Greed770 Great, now you've got me in the mood for some hot bridge-on-bridge action! Thanks...
SoggyPoridge 9 months ago
anyone else bothered by the name of this group?
Discovery Institute to Discover? isn't that REALLY redundant?
I don't know if it's important or even relevant...but it's certainly something that's been bugging me since i heard of it
SkylerFlamemaster 2 years ago
the name is "Discovery institute" and the title of the video was "Challenging the discovery institute...to discover".....
Falloutmoon 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are no different than the creationists. Your creators are natural forces. You exist for no other reason than anything else(ie: a rock). Conditions given, atoms form. Period.
daeamarth 2 years ago
If there were any evidence for ID, we'd have heard something by now.
Ozzyman200 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yes.. the offspring of a family has a common designer.. in this example - the parents - and further up the chain - a creator.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
And your proof of this?
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And this is based off of...?
rba718 2 years ago
This is not in response to anyone, but a general comment on the atheist point of view. How can one assume the 'hard' atheist position and claim rational thought as well?
Ocham's Razor? Wm Occam was a philosopher who 'assumed' too much. Regardless, eliminating any other life forms doesn't simplify things one iota.
Dawkins borrows from Hume & Russell, and loves to quote Occam. Hutchins merely attacks religion.
By the way, Shermer has admitted publicly to the 'soft' position. Want a link?
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
"How can one assume the 'hard' atheist position and claim rational thought as well?"
Rather than take a big stick to my particular side of that dead horse would be useless, don't you think? We both think the other holds idiotic beliefs, and neither of us is going to be persuaded by the other.
LapsedOptimist 2 years ago
The concept of evil is 'man determined', varies with societies, and is highly subjective. But since it's used as an argument for and against religion, it needs at least a passing mention.
But is it relevant to the case for biologic design? Not really, unless you want to argue for or against based on morality.
The crux of the 'desgner' question isn't about religious dogma, or moral issues alone. I focus on the emperical evidences; complexity, synergy of systems, and certain aesthetic features.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
This would explain preditor/ prey, and parasite/ host. Competion among evolving bioforms would be intetional in that case.
The case for subobtimal designs is similar. Why should bioforms be perfect? Or w/o challenges? Life may be intended to be competive & challanging. There's no logic in assuming a Utopian existence.
Finally the case for evil as opposed to good. That just puts a finer point on the 'free will' theologic hypothesis. How could there not be so called 'evil', given 'free choice'?
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
I see your point. True, we share a lineage with reptiles and fish, but my take on that differs with the mainstream view.
I view biologc design as incremental over vast time, but rather than fed by mutational alterations, I see speciaion as directed. Mechanism? Gene tweaking by entities, perhaps competitively, perhaps coordinated. If omnipotency were involved, time periods would be much shorter. An overseeing entity may have directed the efforts, but it was obviously a group effort.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
Sorry, but there's nothing "obvious" about the hypothesis that not just one supernatural entity, but a group of them, directed speciation. Oh, and they may be omnipotent, too.
Just as an example, why would any possibly omnipotent supernatural being give a flying hot dog about fruit fly speciation, something which has been OBSERVED several times in several different ways.
Do a search for "Drosophila Speciation" if you want to learn more.
LapsedOptimist 2 years ago
"Oh, and they may be omnipotent, too."
Omnipotence/ omnicient are outdated, arcane terms, and without substantiation. They're as useless to logical thot as the term 'infinity', which depending on whether applied to time, number, or distance have differing meanings, none proven.
Regarding drosophilia; I've read up on the various research over the last ten years, and can answer any questions YOU might have regarding.
By the way, Mayr's allotropic & sympatric speciation do NOT verify evoluton.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
first off, you used it first, so I thought I could too.
"Gene tweaking by entities, perhaps competitively, perhaps coordinated. If omnipotency were involved, time periods would be much shorter."
Second, here's my question on Drosophilia (again):
"why would any possibly omnipotent supernatural being give a flying hot dog about fruit fly speciation [?]"
The logical assumption can be made that if the beings are directing changes, there is a goal. They are not doing it for no reason.
LapsedOptimist 2 years ago
On a related note, what evidence would you require to "verify evolution" - over and above the gigantic mountains of evidence that already exists? Give me something specific, come on...
LapsedOptimist 2 years ago
Research into origins is ongoing. My objection to the consideration by mainstream science that evolution, as postulated, is absolute fact. The caveat is the method of radical change.
As an engineer, and having studied cellular biology and genetic coding (on a cursory level at this time), I have determined that Intelligent Design is more likely than purely naturl processes.
Regarding specifics .. there is no quick answer. I see lineages as having occured. I question the method(s) of change.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
"My objection to the consideration by mainstream science that evolution, as postulated, is absolute fact."
Wrong, plain and simple. Evolution is not considered to be a fact. Evolution is considered to be a scientific theory - a naturalistic system which explains the known facts and evidence.
Intelligent Design is not naturalistic - it assumes a supernatural explanation for evidence which can be explained by natural causes. Stage magic COULD have a supernatural explanation, too, but it doesn't
LapsedOptimist 2 years ago
Of course it isn't 'fact', nothing within science is, but I stand by the 'fact' that many (in and out of science) *regard* it as such. I hear it all the time. Search 'evolution' and "absolute fact" for confirmation (10,700 hits).
They generally state that it is "based on facts", then extend that to imply that it IS fact. The problem lies in extrapolations of the facts, the assumption that causation is via totally natural processes, the fly in the ointment. Sure, the word 'fact' is over-used.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
THE ONLY WAY SCIENCE WORKS IS BY STARTING WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE IS NO SUPERNATURAL FORCES HELPING IT. PERIOD.
As has been repeated until EVERYONE is sick of it:
"God did it" is NOT an acceptable conclusion in any branch of science. It does not answer any questions, it does not increase our knowledge.
By suggesting that the supernatural is a cause, you open the door to pseudo-science, fairy tales, and superstition - all of which have absolutely NO PLACE in science.
LapsedOptimist 2 years ago
I don't believe in the supernatural, nor have ever stated, "I dunno, god-did-it". If he's out there, he/they/it does not interfere or intervene. If so, why the tsunami? ;~)
No, we are definitely free agents.
And no, god-didn't-do-it.
But there ARE cosmic entities 'out there', and not that far away. But we are allowed free enterprise down here.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
I'm getting tired of pointing out your bad ideas. There's nothing new here, just a rehashing of the usual drivel. No proof, no empirical evidence, just you putting an ID/metaphysical spin on certain cherry-picked hypotheses. It's just getting boring.
I'm not going to answer this crap from you anymore, so you'll "win" by getting the last word in. Doesn't mean you're in the same galaxy as being right.
LapsedOptimist 2 years ago
Tha's fine with me. It's not you, with your chosen mindset that I seek to provide insight to. It's the lurkers that may be indecisive. Your spin or mine, it's their choice.
See ya ...
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
"why would .. supernatural being .. [care about] fruit fllys?"
Why are there 350,000 species of beethes? And why did worms and insects predate man?
Maybe we're not as important as a species as some think. I view all biologic life as important. If not to us, then perhaps to other entities.
Further, if bioforms are vehicles for a spirit entity to inhabit, and there is empiric evidence of this, then earlier, simpler forms were just that; excursionary vehicles for an earthbound experience.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
"Further, if bioforms are vehicles for a spirit entity to inhabit, and there is empiric evidence of this, then earlier, simpler forms were just that; excursionary vehicles for an earthbound experience."
Care to share this empirical evidence? This could be the breakthrough of the century! Absolute proof that a soul exists? Expect a Nobel prize and a write-up on the front page of every newspaper in the world!
LapsedOptimist 2 years ago
I think you'll admit there's evidence of consciousness being external to the body. OOB experiences are numerous, and by people with no agendas to further by lying about it. I feel that science denies the possibility carte blanche due to the problems it might cause.
Not only that, Christian and Moslem religions would be at odds, since it differs from scriptural accounts.
Science will probably never accept "dualism", but the evidence DOES support it. So just keep it aside as 'personal data'.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
This isn't empirical evidence. By even suggesting that it is, you make yourself look foolish.
And I don't have to "admit there's evidence of consciousness being external to the body", just like I don't have to admit to "evidence" of the existence of any god. The problem there is the same problem with ID - not one damn part of it is independently testable or verifiable.
Science doesn't deny the possibility for any other reason than that.
LapsedOptimist 2 years ago 3
Actually, there have been double blind tests to confirm spirit/body duality. But mainstream science won't acknowlege it.
Michael Shermer volunteered for an OOB test, and has mixed feelings regarding the result. On youtube at 'shermer out of body'
Anyone that wants to can experiment on their own in that area. I did it over a two year period (age 20-22), but I won't recommend it or go into details.
It was real enough to convince me of the so-called duality.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
I think you need to go watch that Shermer video again. The study, being done at a university in Canada, uses strong electromagnetic forces to affect certain parts of the brain. More of a study of neuroscience than of anything else, especially anything paranormal or supernatural.
Another way to put it is if you ask volunteers to describe what they see while under the effects of a hallucinogen, you are working on how the drug affects the brain, not whether what they see is real.
LapsedOptimist 2 years ago 3
alright, if your so set on this, give me the link to the site where you got this information or the data itself and then i'll make my decision and my opinion
SkylerFlamemaster 2 years ago
I'm not set on anything, and am skeptical of ALL dogmatic claims. That said, and my evidences go to the Beatle era, when I did my own empiric tests of the spirit realm.
While I can't explain or define it, I know for a fact it's there. Doing garage band sessions, and with a catalyst, I was able to peek into it. It's a semi-hidden realm, but real.
Do your own research, then make your own decisions, but it might take U awhile. (I'm pushing 70 soon). Bottom line: We're not alone in the cosmos.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
So you basically loaded up on psychotropic drugs on a regular basis, and conclude, from your sensory experiences while your brain was fucked up chemically, that we are not alone in the universe.
What on earth makes you think those experiences have anything to do with what's real? You're aware that all kinds of strange experiences can be manufactured by poking people's brains with electrodes right?
Gnomefro 2 years ago 2
You're blowing smoke, w/o any direct knowlege.
I discovered that a certain constituent not only removed an inhibitory shield to allowing perception of a parallel dimension, but that it apparently also gave 'permission' for an entity of that dimension to interact.
The double-blind type 'trick' I performed, was to only pretend to snort it, and guess what. The room changed, and a corner of that realm was revealed to me.
I ran empirical tests over a two year period, verifying my findings.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
So you work for Schecter? I worked in the repair dept of Fender, knew Leo F, and worked on Beach Boy's axes and amps. Great guys, but druggies.
But then, so was I ...
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
good times, eh?
not bad work, kinda long though, but then again, it's better than delivering everything we make
i work as an Over-the-phone sales rep for Schecter, and can honestly say that just having the limiteds we have now in stock has kept me after normal hours for the last two weeks. the saving grace though, that the over the phone reps don't have such a restrictive dress code like our more "traditional" brethren. plus, travel these days is a bitch
SkylerFlamemaster 2 years ago
Religionists like Ken Ham would be all over me for saying that man is just one of many. It's also possible that hominids 'are' more important, but were simply late arrivals in the cosmos.
We are more than human bioforms, however, and that's actually good news. But are we accountable? Is salvation requisite? That is a faith based decision, and which religion to choose would be another personal decision.
Regarding goals and cosmic realities .. wait awhile. You'll find out ...
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
"But are we accountable? Is salvation requisite? That is a faith based decision, and which religion to choose would be another personal decision."
This seems like a cop-out to me. And it doesn't agree much with:
"Maybe we're not as important as a species as some think. I view all biologic life as important. If not to us, then perhaps to other entities."
It must hurt after a while to straddle the fence like that.
LapsedOptimist 2 years ago
You're refering to the discounted idea (Ernst Haeckel) that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". While it might appear that the evolutionary process was being duplicated during embryogenesis, that is not currently an accepted theory.
Hox genes direct the process of cell division and organ placement, rather than an evolutionary process, or a process that mimics evolution. I don't see your point.
The complexity of the embryo 'assemby line' is indeed evidence of a ID in the distant past.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
People!!After you watch this vid,click on the annotation!!!Its a funny way to see kent hovind get pwned.Trust me,biggest fail for hovind on earth.
DarkZerkerX 2 years ago
You know what's the problem with creationist arguments? They compare things such as cars that can't reproduce with organisms like dogs that can reproduce.
This analogy is also a dead giveaway that the creationist your debating with isn't the brightest tool in the shed.
DarkZerkerX 2 years ago
Comment removed
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
Designed object can be compared, whether biologic or other. The embryo process is itself an automated assembly line, which grows organs, moves them around, and integrates them as req'd. We now have automated ass'y lines, but of course, none as complex.
Embryogenesis is evidence of a designer, do to the precision with which it must function.? It sometimes fails, and (hopefully) the embryo is aborted.
The chance that embryology, and sexual selection evolved from lesser forms is miniscule.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
An assembly line is parts getting together to form a finishing product.True the birth process is a little similar.I think you mean natural selection.
Again,you cant prove a negetive.Evolution has just a good chance,even better in fact to be fact against the design theory.The design theory has no conclusive,even miniscule piece of info.Evolution doesnt have complete evidence but it does have the evidence it needs to support the theory,
DarkZerkerX 2 years ago
As always, well done. I could listen to Thunderf00t all day.
8582Dave 2 years ago
Thunderf00t deserves to be in the top 100 best subscribed with Nigahiga and Fred.
DarkZerkerX 2 years ago
I'm ashamed of Thunderf00t for making this argument. He's so smart and inspirational, but this one instance is wrong. The discovery institute is arguing that a designer created a being that can reproduce, thus the paternity tests would still be valid. The reason why their dismissal of homology is wrong is because of the percent of homology found in DNA with no function (About 98% I believe) No designer would have a reason to still add worthless homology
HeWhomIAm 2 years ago
At [5:38] ".. organisms pass on DNA with modification, It is a central 'tenent' of biologic reproduction that .. "
The word 'tenent', also used in the Hovind interview, is listed as an alternate to 'tenet' on a couple dictionary sources online. 'Tenet' is the much more widely used term however.
On the other hand, since that statement 'resides' within the evolutionary paradigm, I guess you could call it a tenant. ;~)
Could be local usage, since I hear 'tenent' for 'tenet' more from the UK.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
we haven't found anything contradicting it.
Well that is a false argument, for example the evidence contradicting the idea that smoking was harmful to health was found years latter ! Nothing contradicing it is the the same as verifiiening it ! John
ironjohnlad 2 years ago
"Well that is a false argument..."
Considering that no research on tobacco was done when it was found and used as medicine several hundreds of years ago, your choice of example tells much of your ignorance.
We know DNA, we know of genes, we have seen new genes forming, and fuck, we have copied the same method found in nature to make new genes ourselves!
Yet you claim it to be impossible...
IamOutOfNames 2 years ago
Its a shame you resort ot name calling 'ignorent' really encourages open and honest debate ! ( Not )
Also my example re smoking, was deisgned to show the flaw in your argmument, the confusion you made between there being no evidence' used to justify 'verification'. Perhaps you are not use to analogy !
I Glad you conceded the Philosopy point ! ( Concession is as good as an apology !)
Its difficult to debate here, not enough space ! Paradimes in science change ! evolution is a paradim
ironjohnlad 2 years ago
Name calling? "Ignorant" means someone lacking knowledge of given subject, in this case it is fitting description, as you seem to lack the knowledge of what "ignorant" means...
Your analogy sucks, for the reasons I stated. One is well researched and the other wasn't, they are not on equal footing.
IamOutOfNames 2 years ago
well iv obviously rattled your cage ! Oh Dear ! But you have conceded the philosopy point, ( that you called ignorent) so I was not so ignorant after all ! The map is not the terriritory ! Evolution and ID are maps !
ironjohnlad 2 years ago
He can make something for a special occasion or something for everyday use from the same lump of clay. If God wants to demonstrate his anger and reveal his power, he can do it. But can't he be extremely patient with people who are objects of his anger because they are headed for destruction? Can't God also reveal the riches of his glory to people who are objects of his mercy and who he had already prepared for glory? This is what God did for us whom he called-whether we are Jews or not.
valu777 2 years ago
all of the stuff you mention do not falify or verify materialist evolution. Evolution is a framework of understanding from which to interpret the evidence. Other frameworks of understanding can interpret the evidence just as well ! Intellegant design, organism adaptablility,trates mayimply ancestrory outside the species, or they may imply a common designer, either way neither evolution of Intellegant design are verified or falsified. I wish there were some honesty from all sides !
ironjohnlad 2 years ago
Kent Hovind is an idiot. All motorcycles have two wheels because otherwise they are a thing called ''cars'.
moekelok 2 years ago 2
I think this is stupid. How can we even compare man crafting a car and god creating people to the millions of years of a single celled organism? WHAT?!?
gnetix79 2 years ago
you have missed the point entirly ! See my earlier post. He was simply saying that common charactersits can be explained through design. And he is right they can be. They can also be explained through materialist evolution. Both are frameworks of understanding. Nothing more - nothing less. Neither are falsifiable according to the falsification principle. ( Karl Popper).
ironjohnlad 2 years ago
You didn't click on this video because you wanted to watch it, did you?
Sh0nin 2 years ago
"Both are frameworks of understanding. Nothing more - nothing less. Neither are falsifiable according to the falsification principle."
No, you are wrong.
Theory of evolution is scientific theory, model of explanation. Like I told you before, every mechanism of evolution is observable and testable and evidence confirms it, we haven't found anything contradicting it.
Also, stop with your mixing of terminology, "materialist evolution". It only speaks of your own ignorance.
IamOutOfNames 2 years ago
No True, there are many evolutionists who hold a philosophicle framework of materialism. Also no one has observed the mechanisms of evolution in action ! It is common ground for example, that re-mixing the gene pool prroduces a hugh variation in species, but does not accound for the belief in a common ancester to different species. No we have not seen macro evolution in action. And if you deny many ( not all) evolutionits hold to materialism, you do no know your philosopy !
ironjohnlad 2 years ago
"there are many evolutionists who hold a philosophicle framework of materialism."
And majority of christians who don't, but have no problems with evolution either.
"Also no one has observed the mechanisms of evolution in action !"
Do you even know what you are talking about?
Mutation change the order of bases in genome, natural selection selects the beneficial ones and speciation creates reproductive barriers, and accumulative change does the rest.
We have tested it all!
IamOutOfNames 2 years ago
Someone complains about fallacies and then makes an irrelevant ad-hominem attack?
Alternate2GOP 2 years ago
I think this is missing the point ! Of course we are more complex than cars ! he was mking a simple point, that similarity of certain characteristics can be exploained be design rather than evolution. No More No less. Once a living organisn repreduces it passes on its gens, Similrity of design of differnet living organisms, that reproduce, does not contradict Science, or paternity !
ironjohnlad 2 years ago
"...similarity of certain characteristics can be exploained be design rather than evolution."
So can differences. Actually, you can explain anything with design, simply say: "God-", I mean, "Intelligent Designer did it", and that's it.
It's not falsifiable, by it's definition, it's not science.
IamOutOfNames 2 years ago 2
Ahh Karl you are invoking Popper and the falsification Principle. Tell me then how is the belief that evolution is the casue of certain characteristics falsifiable according to that principle ? If not - its not science !
ironjohnlad 2 years ago
Who's Karl?
"Tell me then how is the belief that evolution is the casue of certain characteristics falsifiable according to that principle ?"
Let's see...
We can observe and test every single mechanism of evolution, and they are so well documented that creationist denial is ridicules at this point.
Everything that makes evolution happen can be observed and tested, nothing that would "stop" it has been found, there are no "limits" to DNA.
Evolution is testable, everything of it.
IamOutOfNames 2 years ago
Ahh, Karl Popper!
*facepalm*
IamOutOfNames 2 years ago
evolution is testable ? Well really, who has tested the idea that two different species evolved from a common ancester ? WHo has observed it ? Evolution theroy is a framework of understanding, nothing more nothing less !
ironjohnlad 2 years ago
stop bashing lawyers!
superfisto 2 years ago
If it weren't for lawyers, I think we could have invented a universal symbolic representation of reality.
Really.
IamOutOfNames 2 years ago
It's interesting that the DI is posing the same arguements posed by the creationists like Kent Hovind. Watch around 5:20 of the following:
watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k
adkinsjr 2 years ago
Mirroring! T-f00t, if you are against this being mirrored, PM me and I will take it down.
-Modias
InModiasWeTrust 2 years ago
It's incredibly disingenuous anyway to say that specific evidence is merely equal to both theories. Descent with modification entails a process, whether it be natural or an engineer. God, in all of his infinite wisdom, has no need of a process. There is no such thing as progress for a supposedly perfect being (unless, of course, God isn't perfect, which Christians wouldn't admit). After all, God can do anything. He didn't have to create many animals. Or he could have created species of fish...
blue0372 2 years ago 2
...so wildly divergent that evolution of one to another at first glance becomes impossible. If I remember correctly, one of Darwin's first tenets was descent with modification. The evidence there is so strong that it led him along the correct path before DNA was even discovered. If it looks modified, then it probably is. To act like this evidence isn't a blow to ID is absurd. Of course, ID posits nothing and makes no predictions. It's just antithetical to evolution no matter the evidence.
blue0372 2 years ago 2
"If I remember correctly, one of Darwin's first tenets was descent with modification."
And I think that's still one of the best definitions for evolution ever.
Simple enough, and encompasses it all.
IamOutOfNames 2 years ago 3
Who needs science, logic, reason, rationale and known laws by which we can make progress? Better to have a 'poof' God did it magical wonderland where the only limitations are human imagination. I just climbed of my flying Unicorn and battled the Cyclops for the hand of my Valkyrie maiden. My friend Thor used his magical hammer to defeat the Ice Giants and we are off to Valhalla for beers with Odin. Its true and I defy you to disprove it. You can't, then its obviously true, check and mate.....
ColoradoTick 2 years ago 2
It would seem that the general argument for Genetic Design being "as likely" as Genetic Evolution is similar to an argument that, from simple observation, it is "as likely" that the Sun orbits the Earth as that the Earth orbits the Sun. However, only one is correct...
apeek7 2 years ago
then the question would be, WHAT WOULD PROVE to be NON-designed? If nothing, than design is meaningless, if something, I'd like to see what it is
funwjoshnjenn 2 years ago
The answer to the Earth - Sun debate was the existence of other observations. The as likely argument changed to a not as likely conclusion through a preponderance of the evidence. This is the way to address the designer issue, too.
Evidence includes uses of evolution by organizations such as the CDC and WHO. Further evidence from genetic similarities- like between humans and bananas, evidence from the successes of genetic engineering. I am sure there are many more instances...
apeek7 2 years ago
The Discovery Institute? Were they not the people who tried to date dacite rocks from Mt. St Helens by potassium-argon, a method known since the 1960s to be unsuitable for recently formed rocks? Was that deliberate?
Were they not the "wedge" document people?
Didn't they crow about Judge Jones being Catholic and then change their tune when the school board in Dover PA lost their case? Didn't they duck out of supplying witnesses?
Credibility Factor = Zero
Palifiox 2 years ago