This almost sounds like the bishops and church leaders who tried to discredit scientific theories and discoveries of the past. Don't question our new authorities, they might get mad at us and tell us we are stupid. They will try to beat you into submission or better yet try to convince everyone else you are a quack. No evidence just assertions.
In a civilized society, freedom of speech overrides anyone's right to be offended. You're offended? Tough. Maybe you should look at why you're being offended. Only in countries that are controlled by Muslims is freedom of speech denied to citizens. North Americans and Europeans need to guard their freedoms from Islam and its leaders.
this is insulting for Liberty to have this. My dad is a graduate of Boston College, a jesuit university specializing in science, and he is a chemist with a PhD from MIT. it's just appalling.
How was his answer brilliant? The only sound argument in 4 minutes was that the age of these stones near the fossils can be estimated via radioactive methods. Btw, several radioactive methods still don't make it a toolbox. Even if different tracers are used, it remains ONE method. The evolutionist standpoint might be stronger if other tracing methods in their toolbox were as reliable as the radioactive ones. In the end, none of us can really now how old earth really is.
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible. Papacy cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
@SpencerBenedict2nd i assume u mean i have failed because i am a secular humanist, but really i am a agnostic, secular humanist, fundamentalist, spiritualist, atheist... im still seeking.. i read all the conspiracy books long ago... but no one can claim to have all the truth.. so i search, and seek..for truth, meaning, and purpose.. do i believe in god? , i doubt one exist.. but i can't be sure... . peace my brother
@yosef59 Actually, your self proclaimed title that i was denouncing was "seeker of truth". It is in this venture that thus far, i see you have "failed miserably".
In your long list of recent titles you claim to be both "agnostic" and "atheist". This is contradictory. You can only be one or the other, not both.
Some advice in truth seeking the existence of God, and/or Bible 'validity' - Beware of the multitude of Jesuit 'Council of Trent' stumbling blocks strewn about everyones Path to Truth.
@SpencerBenedict2nd . i mean really? who gives a damn about the vatican counil's and what they decided in the 1500's? , the bible is myth. pure and simple.. religion is false. and a disease of the mind.. its all about power and $.. i am an agnostic atheist because i do not believe in the yahweh/jesus myth.. just a little study will tell you these are myths.. dead gods from long ago..but , i hold a small reserve, that there may be some god.., who knows?
@yosef59 " i am an agnostic atheist because i..."-yosef59
>Haven't i already informed you that one, even with reservations, can not be both agnostic and an atheist? Now go look up the definition of "AGNOSTIC", silly. Your are either one or the other, NOT BOTH, so make up your mind and stick with either label until you know better.
"... who knows?"-yosef59
>The more intelligently inclined of the human race created in Gods image, that's "who".
@SpencerBenedict2nd atheism and agnosticism both answer completely seperate questions and it is possible to be both, and most atheists are in fact agnostic as well. theres the question, does god exist? if you answer "i dont know" you are agnostic. to the question do you believe in god? you have to answer yes or no. and if you answer no, you are an atheist. most atheists do not believe in god but do acknowledge they dont really know if he exists or not.
Dawkins doesn't know how old the earth is because he wasn't there when God created it. He uses flawed radiometric dating methods to try and figure out the past by looking at the present. Common good sense will tell you this isn't accurate. Evolution is a sham and the people that follow it are even worse.
@TKZ100 You are as simpleminded as they come...Moses himself was there when God almighty HIMSELF wrote the ten commandments. The Disciples [later known as the apostles] SEEN JESUS CHRIST himself perform Miracles while preaching the truth and Raised from the dead after calvary! All these men have given their account of the truth!
@Miracles97 And you believed all that, just because it said so in a book! My, how fun it must be to have no bullshit detector, and believe such fanciful stories.
@matt25568 It is a softball question, but I don't think it's a plant. I watched the whole 1:30:00+ lecture and MOST of the questions from the audience came from Liberty University students who trekked over to Randolph Macon College for the lecture. Brilliant answer though.
@matt25568 It is a softball question, but I don't think it's a plant. I watched the whole 1:30:00+ lecture and MOST of the questions from the audience came from Liberty University students who trekked over to Randolph Macon College for the lecture. Brilliant answer though.
@jupitercrash07 "Richard Dawkins knows the age of the Earth because he was alive billions of years ago"
Well do you believe that Australia exists if you've never been there?
You don't need to witness something to know it's true, you just have to look at the evidence and if it all says the Earth is billions of years old then it most probably (DEFINTELY in this case) IS! 4.7 billion years from memory and that means NOT 4.6 and NOT 4.8. It's been nailed down.
Creationists have the same amount of credibility as scientologists with only one minor difference... Chances are good aliens may be out there right now! The universe is IMMENSE; enough room for zillions of pieces of extra terrestrial real estate. At this time, God is confined to a 3 pound organ within the skull indefinitely.
As an atheist, if you have led a morally good life, then who cares about whether you believe in God or not. Assume God exists. When you die, is God going to punish you because you went to school, and learnt about science, and the world around us? The evidence is that there is no God, so God surely can't be holding our non belief in him to condemn us to everlasting pain and suffering. That is a very narcissistic, egotistical and cruel God. Where is the love and forgiveness the church go on about?
@martythamoose He is not AT Liberty University but at the nearby randolph macon women's college. Although several Liberty university´s stundents and teachers are there for the lecture and had asked questions during the evening.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
he can't refute creationism because in order to refute creationism, other questions need to be addressed and there are no answers for. Until then, no one could disprove creationism. Take a lesson from the stoic philosopher Cicero who saw intelligent design in the stars.
if there is no way to prove the existence of God, please explain how stars form and where the energy came from to initiate the Big Bang. No matter what, energy had to come from somewhere to start any process so where did it come from?
What you expect people to tell you. This information is in every science book, go to a museum, google. it. Don't be intellectually lazy and expect someone to tell you about it when you can get it on your own
really? cuz nothing out there will answer my simple question. Where did the energy come from to initiate the Big Bang. For the law of the conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor distroyed. As long as this law exists no athiest will ever be able to answer the question of where the energy came from. It produces and unending question of where did the energy come from? If you could answer this be my guest. but if not, don't attribute intellectual laziness on my part.
Intelectual laziness is assuming things you really don't know about, I don't know where energy comes from but that doesn't mean I'm going to assume some divinne being did it.
just so you know, that comment goes both ways... who's saying that a divine being didn't create the world as we know it? Just read Habermas and and Flew, their conversation, and formulate an idea yourself. If there is no god, explain miracles, explain the rising of the dead. But hey, if god does not exist, we both lose, but if he does (and i know he does) then i win and you lose. Another good person to read would be C.S. Lewis, a philosopher. Because the God question is a metaphysical question
Simple they didn happen, and what would we both lose if there is no god. And if your so what do you do for the rest of your eternal afterlife, what can you do.
Well that's consistent with a naturalistic view. what would we both lose, everything, i like the probibility of being a theist, because then i have the best of both worlds. if im right, i win, if not we all lose. I believe in God, and I haven't found one reason not to! Big Bang hasn't dissuaded me. Evolution hasn't proven itself to be 100% correct. So scientific fact has proven that God does not exist. The question of God's existence is a philosophical question, a metaphysical question.
still didn't answer my question, and a rapid expansion that had a temperature in the trillions does not stress belief in a god even a little bit. Odd that I have to believe in your god not to lose something. Regardless of whether I believe in him or not it shouldn't matter. Metaphysics is the human interpretation of nature, regardless if you existed or ceased to exist it still keep on going.
what caused the rapid expansion. energy just doesn't begin to exist. As far as the afterlife, I go to heaven and spend eternity with my God who died on the cross for my sins. That is my belief. you are free to hold your own. I respect that but that doesn't mean i agree with it or cannot debate on it. Metaphysics is just as important for the issue as science is. Science cannot account for the dead coming back to life, or people being spontaneously healed or near-death experiences.
@libertywarrior13 "Science cannot account for the dead coming back to life or people being spontaneously healed or near-death experiences". Had you ever read anything from darwin you would never have said this. Spontaneous mutation and anomaly is literally the basis of the theory as far as the healing goes. I personally have never seen anyone come back from the dead and neither have you quite simply it's a lie and if it isn't it certainly is quite rare isn't it?
@Blackened619 And you would think that if god had the ability to heal people he would certainly use it frequently enough so as not to be debatable. But frankly all the things you have listed have been explained by science. Now regardless of whether these explanations are true or not you were not aware of them. Meaning you did no research. But more importantly meaning that your statement is untrue. Untrue statements are quite common in religious circles.
Spontanious healing (im guessing you mean people who are very sick and then suddently are well). That one is easy. What do you call it when someone suddently gets sick? Something people did'nt expect happende, but it happened.
And near-death experiences have been explained in debt and are acocunted for, look it up.
I don't think finding out how the universe could create itself is beyond the realm of science. Perhaps right now, yes but not the future.
I don't think the idea of God is fantasy. God has been with man as long as he has existed. It's undeniable that there is something to the idea. I seriously doubt the experience of God can be categorized into imagination, delusion and fantasy. Especially when one studies the phenomenon of near death experiences.
I'd become an atheist if it could be demonstrated how the universe could naturally create itself, and if Abio-genesis became a well supported incontrovertible theory.
I'm gonna level with you. I actually want to be an atheist. You may not believe me but its true. It is just too far out of the reach of my logic to concluded that this universe is not designed. With the fine tuning of the constants and all that stuff I've said before there is just no way it's a cosmic coincidence.
What else do we need to know? In my opinion there is more than enough evidence to reasonably conclude there is a designer of some kind. (Not proof mind you.) What would convince you?
The problem with design flaws and purpose is no one can really say what the full "Purpose" would be. There could be more than one purpose. The supposed flaws could actually have a purpose. And yes everything I just said is guesses off the top of my head. If I cannot prove there was a designer then I certainly cannot prove what the purposes of the design were. I'm just saying the argument based on perception can go both ways.
If you say that the things about the universe that look designed only LOOK designed then wouldn't the same logic apply to the things you call "Design flaws?"
I think you're wrong about there not being evidence for a designer the real problem is the evidence hasn't convinced you. If that's your position that's fine. There is no evidence for your position because you're position is a negative. Just like there's no evidence for there not being fairies.
I guess what I am missing is how it is just as logical to assume there was no creator then there was one? I understand that we don't know for sure but in what ways does the evidence point to no creator rather than there is one. I don't think that because we don't know that somehow means the evidence points equally in both directions. What evidence suggests there is no designer?
Just because there are more questions about an answer does not stop it from being the best answer. Imagine if that had stopped Darwin from believing the theory of evolution. Imagine if he said because I cannot say how non-life becomes life evolution is impossible.
It's as if two computer programs started arguing about whether or not man existed. The computers, using only the resources available to them in their cyber world, could never prove man existed. One argues in favor of man, but then the other says "Yeah but where did man come from?" Just because the computer cannot explain the origins or nature of man does not make him any less correct that man does indeed exist.
Again it is you not I who are making the leap of this designer is a 'magical all-powerful entity' and I will say what I said before just because we do not know the nature of the designer does not negate the evidence in favor of one. Yes it would raise those questions but because we can't answer those questions doesn't mean a designer in some form is not the answer.
I'm not saying it does MEAN there is a designer. I'm saying a designer is a more probable and more logical conclusion. I agree it's not proof. You keep saying a designer is not more logical. Please tell me why your atheistic position makes more sense than my position of a designer.
You're absolutely right that whatever created the universe was either intelligent or unintelligent. The reason it's more logical to conclude it was intelligent is because of the organization and complexity of the universe. And the apparent fine tuning of the constants like light, gravity ect. Not to mention the amazing information containing instruction booklet called DNA. These are just a few of the things that all point to our universe being created by intelligence not by accident.
I am saying I don't know. I'm also saying I think the evidence POINTS to a designer more than no designer.
I think you may have misread my last post. In response to your statement 'show the evidence God is capable of creating.' My answer was simply if the universe is not able to create itself then the only other choice is it had a creator. (This only works if we know the universe can't create itself.)
"So show me the evidence that god is capable of creating it"
I think the best answer to that is, the universe exists... That is fact. If the universe is not capable of creating and sustaining itself, there is no other choice than it must have been created and is being sustained by an outside force. If the universe cannot create itself the only other choice is there is a creator.
I know that last post kind of sounds like the "God of the gaps" thing but I don't mean it that way. I just mean, based on the evidence we have now, a designer seems like the best answer. But in the interest of the pursuit of knowledge and open mindedness that may not be the final answer.
I will agree we don't know where the universe came from, but wouldn't you say the most logical conclusion, based on the evidence available now, is that it was designed? Keep in mind I'm not commenting on the nature or "magical properties" of said designer, just that a designer seems to be the most logical answer. If we were to unearth evidence that shows a universe as organized and complex as ours is fully capable of creating and sustaining itself I would change my opinion.
There is no absolute proof George Bush cheated when getting elected, but we believe it because thats what MUST have happened. (LOL Joke Sorry if you like Bush.) I really just dont see how people can look at what we know about the universe and about life and not say the most logical conclusion is its designed.
We believe stuff we dont have proof for all the time. There is no absolute PROOF J Caesar. Existed but we believe it because thats where the most logical interpretation of the evidence takes us. There is no Absolute proof there was a big bang but we believe it because thats the most logical interpretation of the evidence.
"I simply see no reason to do so anymore due to this lack of evidence."
It's really hard for me to understand these types of statements from Atheist'. There is a mountain of evidence in favor of God. None of it is proof and there are always ways to explain the evidence away or have another interpretation of it. From a philosophical standpoint it is almost impossible to PROVE anything.
Mostly I think that people only say there is no designer because they don't want there to be one. If this is not true of you I apologize for the generalization. It's a good question to ask yourself though. Do I not WANT there to be a designer, or more specifically a God?
"Is it really more logical to assume such an entity exists than to admit that we don't know?"
I think perhaps it is more logical to assume a designer exists, but we don't know the nature of the designer. The nature of the desidner, at this point, is purely belief and cannot be proven. I could give you all the reasons I beleive it is the Christian God but that would take a very long time.
But you must realize that now YOU are assuming the designer is a loving benevolent God. My position is still only that the universe shows evidence of a designer. I'm not necessarily commenting on the character or perfection of this designer (Though I do have my beliefs.) Maybe the designer isn't perfect. Maybe it's alien. It still makes more sense than this all being the result of a random cosmic burp and a few billion amazing coincidences later here we are.
"Evolution is not a perfect process and as such, its 'designs' are not perfect, but why can't we expect those of such a benevolent creator to be anything less than perfect?"
The Christian answer is usually along the lines of we live in a fallen world God has removed his hand of perfection due to our sin. Of course that's not science but we already know science doesn't tell us everything, nor should we base our belief system purely on scientific facts.
Natural Selection can do only one thing... Select. It does not create. Evolution and atheistic evolution depend on mutations. Otherwise life could not have reached this level of complexity. Things must randomly mutate in order to reach the next level. If you want to believe it's all random I can't stop you. But like I said a good detective knows...
"yet when thousands of genetic mutations are appearing over millions of years, the odds that one of them will pertain to its detection dramatically increase."
Every good detective knows when you start having multiple coincidences, they arent coincidences. Think of the number of random mutations would have to occur to get to where we were millions of years ago, let alone today.
I never said it was. Atheism isn't either by the way. I'm only trying to argue that the universe makes more sense if we view it as though it were designed.
Mutations are one of the best indicators of intelligence behind evolution. Why does something just randomly mutate cells that can receive and interpret light and sound waves? Doesn't it kinda seem like something out there knew light and sound waves existed? Otherwise why is simple life mutating these things? Again it's just too much of a coincidence to logically conclude theres no intelligence behind it. Light sensitive cells are just one of millions of these kinds of examples.
"In light of these and countless other examples, it's obvious that external intelligence is not a requirement for the creation of complexity."
The example of the dunes is an example of nature producing a pattern. Whatever the other countless examples are, this does not show that intelligence is not a requirement for complexity. It only shows intelligence is not a requirement for patterns. It in no way discredits the view of the complexity of the universe requiring a designer.
In regards to DNA, the premise is that is it designed by an intelligence because it contains information. Therefore if it builds on itself, it is not an example of information coming from forces outside of intelligence.
I do realize belief in God isn't science. Rather it is a conclusion reached by observation of science.
If you dont mind my asking, what is it about the universe and the complexity of life in general that leads you to the conclusion there is no intelligence behind it?
Grains of sand forming dunes ins't really order. Thats kind of like saying when the glass falls on the pavement it looks pretty and thats order. Also mutations come from a system of infromation called DNA. They are not from chaos. To correct myself a bit, nature is capibal of producing patterens but not information. Information comes from an intellegence.
Again I say I cannot prove where God came from. I personally believe he is without begining or end. But I also say that just because we cannot prove what God is, that has no bearing on weather or not the universe is designed. Its the same principal as evolution and abiogenesis. Abiogen is an unproven hypothesis. Just because we cannot say for certain how life got started doesn't mean evolution is false. It's not an additional step it is a possible explanation of why things are the way they are.
"With regards to the cosmic lottery, if you combine near-infinite amounts of time, space, and variables, eventually the most seemingly improbable scenarios are likely to occur."
That right there, to me, is way more of a leap in logic than 'God did it.' I could drop a glass cup onto cement an infinite number of times and it would never fall into an ordered assembly. You simply cannot get order from chaos. That is why the universe with no designer makes no sense.
Science isn't almighty. 2+2=4. Can you prove to me scientifically that you knew that answer before you read it? No you can't. But practically we both know you did. As you said just because God doesn't exist scientifically doesn't mean he doesn't exist. And I think the evidence we can observe clearly points to a designer.
"but if you're going to tell me that your belief is fact, you must defend this claim scientifically."
I never said my belief was fact. I am only trying to point out the universe makes more sense if we look at it as though it were designed. If it wasn't then we won the cosmic lottery.
"The only intellectually honest thing to do here is to admit that we plainly don't know where the universe came from, rather than fill the gap in our knowledge with unscientific mysticism."
What an unscientific thing to say. Science thrives on the unknown. The idea that the universe may have a designer is a solid hypothesis and does have ways to be falsified. Ken Miller and Francis Collins (Both leads on the genome project) believe in a designer.
The nature of the designer is not scientific because it cant be tested. It is another question. Science can only test what we can observe so it is limited. Our universe must have had an outside source to begin it. Science can't test things outside our universe.
"you MUST find an objective, evidence-based, and logical explanation for why this being requires no beginning."
You're combining two answers that were meant to be separate. God's eternal nature is not scientific I agree. There is no way to test it with the scientific method. ID says the universe has a designer. This alone does not comment on who, or what designed it. This hypothesis is based on the fact that we observe order, design and complexity in all aspects of our universe.
Secondly, though you rightly point out that a cause and effect system cannot exist without being set into motion by an outside source, you make a radical assertion that an intelligent designer must have been the 'culprit'.
No I dont. I base the designer idea on the fact that the universe looks designed. It is not a leap in logic. It is not proven but it is not a leap in logic.
The question also misunderstands most theists concept of God. God is often described as eternal without beginning or end. He does not require a creator or a beginning. Our universe had a beginning. Everything we know of within our universe is based on a cause and effect system. A cause and effect system cannot exist without being set in motion by a source outside of the system. Because our universe shows evidence of order and design it is more logical to assume it was created by intelligence.
This question is as relevant to Intelligent Design as abiogenesis is to evolution. This universe shows clear evidence of design. Where that designer came from, and who or what he/it is is a completely different idea and in no way discredits the evidence for a designer.
Why do people like Dawkins so much. He doesn't even answer the guys question or refute Creationism. He just assumes his world veiw is correct and shows how wrong creationist are because HE must be right.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Evolution is a theory, an idea. There is no known method to test it. Just cause my view is different doesn't mean anyone has to thumb down my comment due to an objection. That behavior is ignorant as me refuting facts. Which I don't refute facts when they can be proven.
Theory in science can also mean a plausible hypothesis with explanatory power with support in the facts. A hypotesis can be testable in principle (and that would be sufficient to regard it as scientific, whether it might subsequently turn out to be wrong) and yet not testable in practice. With regard to ID we are talking about a historical occurrence at some very remote time in the past. How do you test for that?
In other words, it only makes sense to talk about testability or falsifiability with regard to a characteristic of science when the subject matter is susceptible to such test or falsification. The test of the theory of intelligent design would be whether intelligent beings can design life. I don't think we are actually very fasr from that. I wouldn't be surprised if scientists soon were able to create self-replicating quasi-biiological structures from scratch. Would that be life? Don't discard.
smburney: "he is still majorly 'among friends.'" As are most people when they give speeches. What's your point? This is a doubly silly criticism considering that the Liberty students have chosen to go to a school that cocoons them in a population who share their narrow worldview almost entirely.
I know this has probably been said a thousand times but this is not Liberty University, as is made quite apparent at the beginning of the video, it was held at the highly liberal and largely Dawkins-supporting Randolph Macon College which was, at the time, an all women's college that is approximately 2 and 1/2 hours away, nice try though, its easy for an intellectual to trash the opposition in the presence of friends which I would say is rather childish of him
"its easy for an intellectual to trash the opposition in the presence of friends which I would say is rather childish of him"
1) There were students from Liberty U there, so he's not just "among friends." And he let them speak and answered their questions forthrightly.
2) Even if the above weren't the case, what is Dawkins supposed to do when people ask him questions about Liberty U? Say "I can't answer that unless I'm at Liberty itself?" When was the last time they invited him to speak there?
Only 2 people attending can be concluded to be from Liberty and unless you have solid evidence otherwise then he is still majorly "among friends." Dawkins has been invited to Liberty, actually. Liberty invites many people that may not agree with their doctrines and I happen to know Dawkins was one of them. I have no problem with him answering questions about Liberty or any other school, but when he lowers himself to the level of ad populums and childish insults I do have a problem.
And, smburney, please point out the "ad populums" and "childish insults" in what Dawkins says here. I heard none, just criticisms that some find uncomfortably forthright. Dawkins critics love doing this: no matter how calm and reasoned he is in his remarks, just keep complaining loudly that he's "insulting" & "intolerant" - repeat it enough and you can get a lot of people to buy it, especially in the U.S., where people are used to giving great deference to religious sensibilities.
I didn't realize this was merely a portion of the video. I am referring to his comments in this entire speaking session which is also available on youtube. He comments that the fully accredited science programs at Liberty are a joke and in this segment he says the school is not a "proper university."
That science education at Liberty University is compromised by blatant fictions dictated by religious doctrine; and that its mission is one of religious/political indoctrination, rather than the open but rigorous inquiry expected of a modern university, are both matters of fact, not opinion.
That liberal science education is compromised by naturalistic presuppositionalism dictated by materialist philosophy; and that its mission is one of militant atheistic indoctrination, rather than the open but rigorous inquiry expected of a modern university, are both matters of fact, not opinion, see, I can do it too
Naturalistic methodology in science is dictated by centuries of hard-won experience which show that it works for getting answers and producing practical results, where supernatural explanations are a dead end. Almost all of the many scientists who are personally religious recognize this fact and use naturalistic methodology in their science... because it works. No philosophical presuppositions or anti-religious agenda required.
When a university teaches students that dinosaurs were here 3000 years ago, that university IS a joke. That's not an insult, it's a fact, and if the students really care for their education then going to a proper University is a very good advice.
Great video, but terrible title. Would you please change it? It gives the impression that Dawkins is actually speaking at (@) Liberty. No respectable scientist would touch Liberty with a 4.5 billion-foot pole. (He's at Randolph-Macon Women's College and kept getting douchebag questions from the IDiots that attend Liberty "University").
He didnt say anything that carried any weight. You cant just bow down to everything this guy says just because he is an "expert". He just said used radio dating methods which are fallible. Attacking liberty university did no good. Its simply a distasteful bit of humor to try and make the school sound unintelligent.
he wasnt trying to make an argument about it he was trying to shed light on the fact that the world isnt 6000 years old like the majority of people in america (christians) think it is. he has every right to dispell a college for teaching nonsense to a school. and its not just him saying this but the whole sientific community does as well
That's because they are unintelligent as anyone with a basic understanding of nuclear physics will tell you. It's not even hard stuff. It's taught at GCSE level in Britain, nevermind the degree level.
Listening to Dawkins slam them into the ground gives me hope for humanity.
One question for theists out there. How can you reconcile the fact that you are trying to PROVE something you ADMIT REQUIRES FAITH?
I mean that should be the very definition of oxymoron. Either God can be proved, and you DO NOT REQUIRE FAITH to believe in him. Or god cannot be proved and DOES REQUIRE FAITH to believe. So which is it? You don't get both.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You ask if God can be proved but there is no known method to test it. You can't disprove God, nor can you prove God through man made devices. Evolution requires faith as well, due to the fact there is no known scientific method to prove or disprove it occurs. People don't like the label of evolution to require faith, but it does since it mainly relies on peoples ideas with no facts behind them.
If evolution were simply a hypthesis, then your statement would be correct, but evolution is more than a hypothesis, it is a theory. Which means that it was conceived using "the scientific method". I suggest you watch a few videos so you can understand what the scientific method is.
In short
Observation because hypothesis. This hypthesis is tested, rigorously. If the results stand up to the hypthesis then it may in fact be a theory. But before it can be published, it must undergo peer review.
Evolution is pseudoscience since it can't be proven nor tested to be true or falsified. Every argument to support evolution is just a person's guess on how things happened.
So what you're saying is that it's possible to walk from my computer to the kitchen but absolutely impossible to walk from my front door to the house just across the street?
... or by making further observations and collecting further evidence and seeing if the observations and evidence fit with the hypothesis. Which has been done countless times for the theory of evolution without finding anything that contradicts its, which is why almost every scientist on earth accepts it.
Your description of the scientific method is fatally oversimplified.
Scientists don't need to be told that cause it's obvious. We have yet to see plant or animal change completely from one type of species into a new one. Until it can be proven with the scientific method then I don't believe in it. Simple as that.
Halo2100 - Contrary to your blithe assertion, this isn't at all "obvious" to scientists, almost none of whom agree with your assertion. And it takes thousands of generations for a species of plant or animal to turn into something very different, so of course no individual human has seen it happen. What a silly objection. And as has already been pointed out more than once, your idea of the scientific method is, to put it kindly, faulty.
Actually it's not faulty cause I took it from a educational website that states the scientific method. You can find it anywhere and everywhere. So if you think it's faulty take it up to the scientists who support it and the government education system.
"it's not faulty cause I took it from a educational website that states the scientific method." You should give credit when you quote from books or websites, to avoid plagiarism.
The description you quoted is terribly oversimplified. I'd take it up with the website, if anyone. I got my description from years of reading the writings of scientists who described it much better. Which just re-emphasizes that your understanding of the matter is shallow and incomplete. Learn some more.
"This is what I found on wikipedia." Ah, the gold standard for scientific information.
You keep relying on oversimplified definitions pulled from non-scientific sources, as if they refute the enormous body of work on evolution done by actual scientists.
Try looking at some blogs by working researchers, or research in journals like Nature & Science to see how step 4 is applied to evolution, all the time. Genetic analysis is one rich area for laboratory experiments testing evolutionary ideas.
Since your so well educated in the scientific field why don't you reference the specific journals that show how the scientific method is applied to the theory of evolution.
So you admit to not knowing what these journals are or what they say? I named two of them above - they publish evolution-related research all the time, are well known and easily available online or on many newsstands. Nature published the famous recent discovery of Tiktaalik roseae, the extinct fish ancestor that was found exactly where previous knowledge of fish evolution had predicted it would be found - a fine example of evolutionary ideas being tested successfully.
Or check out "This Week in Evolution," a blog by a scientist that summarizes and explains new scientific papers on evolution for laypeople like you and me.
And I'm not "well educated" in science in any formal way - I'm simply a curious person who tries to keep up with what's going on. And who's sensible and humble enough not to claim I know all about a scientific field without checking out what the actual scientists say about it first. Try it.
There are over 17,000,000 peer-reviewed articles on PubMed attesting to medical studies that REQUIRE EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE for them to be valid. Get fucking reading.
There is. Separate a culture of E. Coli bacteria and expose them to different "stressful" environmental conditions (e.g. shortage of food but availability of an alternative energy source which they can only use after evolving).
Then wait. Wait, wait, wait. wait. some years.
Notice that the two separated strands are genetically different and might have adapted to the new environment.
Nope, is enough with some days depending on what kind of differences you are testing. The other thing is than bacteria has a several higher orders of magnitude of capability to adapt than a multicelular organism. And if you add the critical point than each generation can last a couple of minutes enhances in a enormous way their capability to adapt. Then again, if you are thinking on the arising of novel qualities, then the main issue is how
This almost sounds like the bishops and church leaders who tried to discredit scientific theories and discoveries of the past. Don't question our new authorities, they might get mad at us and tell us we are stupid. They will try to beat you into submission or better yet try to convince everyone else you are a quack. No evidence just assertions.
jmwilli9 1 month ago
In a civilized society, freedom of speech overrides anyone's right to be offended. You're offended? Tough. Maybe you should look at why you're being offended. Only in countries that are controlled by Muslims is freedom of speech denied to citizens. North Americans and Europeans need to guard their freedoms from Islam and its leaders.
ghostframer 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is insulting for Liberty to have this. My dad is a graduate of Boston College, a jesuit university specializing in science, and he is a chemist with a PhD from MIT. it's just appalling.
kubrox91 2 months ago
Comment removed
kubrox91 2 months ago
How was his answer brilliant? The only sound argument in 4 minutes was that the age of these stones near the fossils can be estimated via radioactive methods. Btw, several radioactive methods still don't make it a toolbox. Even if different tracers are used, it remains ONE method. The evolutionist standpoint might be stronger if other tracing methods in their toolbox were as reliable as the radioactive ones. In the end, none of us can really now how old earth really is.
JasminGermany 4 months ago
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible. Papacy cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd .. wow. truly a deluded , mixed up mind.. religion is so sad.. how it messes peoples minds up..
yosef59 4 months ago
@yosef59 I provide truth for those searching for it.
Some of the universal truths which i supply are inconvenient for many.
What folks decide to do with Truth once confronted with it, is of course completely up to the individual and matters not to me.
"About Me: secular humanist. . fitness nut.. seeker of truth"-yosef59
FYI... In one of these you've failed miserably. Apparently you know nothing of the agenda set forth in Rome's Council of Trent Counter Reformation.
Hope this helps. peace
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd i assume u mean i have failed because i am a secular humanist, but really i am a agnostic, secular humanist, fundamentalist, spiritualist, atheist... im still seeking.. i read all the conspiracy books long ago... but no one can claim to have all the truth.. so i search, and seek..for truth, meaning, and purpose.. do i believe in god? , i doubt one exist.. but i can't be sure... . peace my brother
yosef59 4 months ago
@yosef59 Actually, your self proclaimed title that i was denouncing was "seeker of truth". It is in this venture that thus far, i see you have "failed miserably".
In your long list of recent titles you claim to be both "agnostic" and "atheist". This is contradictory. You can only be one or the other, not both.
Some advice in truth seeking the existence of God, and/or Bible 'validity' - Beware of the multitude of Jesuit 'Council of Trent' stumbling blocks strewn about everyones Path to Truth.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd . i mean really? who gives a damn about the vatican counil's and what they decided in the 1500's? , the bible is myth. pure and simple.. religion is false. and a disease of the mind.. its all about power and $.. i am an agnostic atheist because i do not believe in the yahweh/jesus myth.. just a little study will tell you these are myths.. dead gods from long ago..but , i hold a small reserve, that there may be some god.., who knows?
yosef59 4 months ago
@yosef59 " i am an agnostic atheist because i..."-yosef59
>Haven't i already informed you that one, even with reservations, can not be both agnostic and an atheist? Now go look up the definition of "AGNOSTIC", silly. Your are either one or the other, NOT BOTH, so make up your mind and stick with either label until you know better.
"... who knows?"-yosef59
>The more intelligently inclined of the human race created in Gods image, that's "who".
Rome's Council of Trent is the CRUX of it, dummy.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd atheism and agnosticism both answer completely seperate questions and it is possible to be both, and most atheists are in fact agnostic as well. theres the question, does god exist? if you answer "i dont know" you are agnostic. to the question do you believe in god? you have to answer yes or no. and if you answer no, you are an atheist. most atheists do not believe in god but do acknowledge they dont really know if he exists or not.
Keldrath 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Keldrath Thank you for taking the time to provide your explanation.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
a great scientist, a great writer and an even greater man.
ThreeLions89 7 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
foxnews(.)com/opinion/2011/07/27/does-cross-belong-at-11-memorial-site Vote!
Reaperlastfm 7 months ago
He wasn't at Liberty University here, he was at Randolph Macon Woman's College.
Webbess10 9 months ago 2
Evolution has cake, Creationism has lies.
HidekiAdam 9 months ago 2
Dawkins doesn't know how old the earth is because he wasn't there when God created it. He uses flawed radiometric dating methods to try and figure out the past by looking at the present. Common good sense will tell you this isn't accurate. Evolution is a sham and the people that follow it are even worse.
3233135151 10 months ago
@3233135151 i promise you that whatever you think is "right," is equally a "sham" and as absurd as evolution.
thedenver 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thedenver It isn't because The Lord of Lord's King of Kings has already been proven.
3233135151 10 months ago
@3233135151 And the guys who wrote the Bible that you look to for guidance? They weren't there, either. No one was. BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
TKZ100 7 months ago
@TKZ100 You are as simpleminded as they come...Moses himself was there when God almighty HIMSELF wrote the ten commandments. The Disciples [later known as the apostles] SEEN JESUS CHRIST himself perform Miracles while preaching the truth and Raised from the dead after calvary! All these men have given their account of the truth!
Miracles97 7 months ago
@Miracles97 And you believed all that, just because it said so in a book! My, how fun it must be to have no bullshit detector, and believe such fanciful stories.
TKZ100 7 months ago
@Miracles97 Retard.
grayziehobbes 5 months ago
@3233135151 Retard.
grayziehobbes 5 months ago
@matt25568 It is a softball question, but I don't think it's a plant. I watched the whole 1:30:00+ lecture and MOST of the questions from the audience came from Liberty University students who trekked over to Randolph Macon College for the lecture. Brilliant answer though.
BabyMcKenna 1 year ago
@matt25568 It is a softball question, but I don't think it's a plant. I watched the whole 1:30:00+ lecture and MOST of the questions from the audience came from Liberty University students who trekked over to Randolph Macon College for the lecture. Brilliant answer though.
BabyMcKenna 1 year ago
Richard Dawkins knows the age of the Earth because he was alive billions of years ago.
jupitercrash07 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jupitercrash07 "Richard Dawkins knows the age of the Earth because he was alive billions of years ago"
Well do you believe that Australia exists if you've never been there?
You don't need to witness something to know it's true, you just have to look at the evidence and if it all says the Earth is billions of years old then it most probably (DEFINTELY in this case) IS! 4.7 billion years from memory and that means NOT 4.6 and NOT 4.8. It's been nailed down.
warren52nz 1 year ago
@jupitercrash07 Hmmm you are right, Richard Dawkins may actually be god!
s5b678 1 year ago
Creationists have the same amount of credibility as scientologists with only one minor difference... Chances are good aliens may be out there right now! The universe is IMMENSE; enough room for zillions of pieces of extra terrestrial real estate. At this time, God is confined to a 3 pound organ within the skull indefinitely.
Schragmeister 1 year ago 21
As an atheist, if you have led a morally good life, then who cares about whether you believe in God or not. Assume God exists. When you die, is God going to punish you because you went to school, and learnt about science, and the world around us? The evidence is that there is no God, so God surely can't be holding our non belief in him to condemn us to everlasting pain and suffering. That is a very narcissistic, egotistical and cruel God. Where is the love and forgiveness the church go on about?
DaiJonesful 1 year ago 20
@DaiJonesful could not have said it better
yosef59 4 months ago
Wait, why are they clapping? He just dissed them and their school on national TV...
martythamoose 2 years ago
@martythamoose he's not at Liberty University, he's at randolph macon women's college. It's on the podium.
perchedeagle2 2 years ago
@martythamoose He is not AT Liberty University but at the nearby randolph macon women's college. Although several Liberty university´s stundents and teachers are there for the lecture and had asked questions during the evening.
kolsyrade 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
he can't refute creationism because in order to refute creationism, other questions need to be addressed and there are no answers for. Until then, no one could disprove creationism. Take a lesson from the stoic philosopher Cicero who saw intelligent design in the stars.
libertywarrior13 2 years ago
ever wonder why you got -6
hvutrong 2 years ago
who cares? I don't
libertywarrior13 2 years ago
well then how do you feel about the God of the Israelites who had no depiction among them.
libertywarrior13 2 years ago
if there is no way to prove the existence of God, please explain how stars form and where the energy came from to initiate the Big Bang. No matter what, energy had to come from somewhere to start any process so where did it come from?
libertywarrior13 2 years ago
What you expect people to tell you. This information is in every science book, go to a museum, google. it. Don't be intellectually lazy and expect someone to tell you about it when you can get it on your own
slicingwater 2 years ago
really? cuz nothing out there will answer my simple question. Where did the energy come from to initiate the Big Bang. For the law of the conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor distroyed. As long as this law exists no athiest will ever be able to answer the question of where the energy came from. It produces and unending question of where did the energy come from? If you could answer this be my guest. but if not, don't attribute intellectual laziness on my part.
libertywarrior13 2 years ago
Intelectual laziness is assuming things you really don't know about, I don't know where energy comes from but that doesn't mean I'm going to assume some divinne being did it.
slicingwater 2 years ago
just so you know, that comment goes both ways... who's saying that a divine being didn't create the world as we know it? Just read Habermas and and Flew, their conversation, and formulate an idea yourself. If there is no god, explain miracles, explain the rising of the dead. But hey, if god does not exist, we both lose, but if he does (and i know he does) then i win and you lose. Another good person to read would be C.S. Lewis, a philosopher. Because the God question is a metaphysical question
libertywarrior13 2 years ago
Simple they didn happen, and what would we both lose if there is no god. And if your so what do you do for the rest of your eternal afterlife, what can you do.
slicingwater 2 years ago
Well that's consistent with a naturalistic view. what would we both lose, everything, i like the probibility of being a theist, because then i have the best of both worlds. if im right, i win, if not we all lose. I believe in God, and I haven't found one reason not to! Big Bang hasn't dissuaded me. Evolution hasn't proven itself to be 100% correct. So scientific fact has proven that God does not exist. The question of God's existence is a philosophical question, a metaphysical question.
libertywarrior13 2 years ago
still didn't answer my question, and a rapid expansion that had a temperature in the trillions does not stress belief in a god even a little bit. Odd that I have to believe in your god not to lose something. Regardless of whether I believe in him or not it shouldn't matter. Metaphysics is the human interpretation of nature, regardless if you existed or ceased to exist it still keep on going.
slicingwater 2 years ago
what caused the rapid expansion. energy just doesn't begin to exist. As far as the afterlife, I go to heaven and spend eternity with my God who died on the cross for my sins. That is my belief. you are free to hold your own. I respect that but that doesn't mean i agree with it or cannot debate on it. Metaphysics is just as important for the issue as science is. Science cannot account for the dead coming back to life, or people being spontaneously healed or near-death experiences.
libertywarrior13 2 years ago
Theorectically Dark energy, as for where it came from I don't know.
slicingwater 2 years ago
@libertywarrior13 "Science cannot account for the dead coming back to life or people being spontaneously healed or near-death experiences". Had you ever read anything from darwin you would never have said this. Spontaneous mutation and anomaly is literally the basis of the theory as far as the healing goes. I personally have never seen anyone come back from the dead and neither have you quite simply it's a lie and if it isn't it certainly is quite rare isn't it?
Blackened619 1 year ago
@Blackened619 And you would think that if god had the ability to heal people he would certainly use it frequently enough so as not to be debatable. But frankly all the things you have listed have been explained by science. Now regardless of whether these explanations are true or not you were not aware of them. Meaning you did no research. But more importantly meaning that your statement is untrue. Untrue statements are quite common in religious circles.
Blackened619 1 year ago
@libertywarrior13 Dead people coming back to life? They dont.
Spontanious healing (im guessing you mean people who are very sick and then suddently are well). That one is easy. What do you call it when someone suddently gets sick? Something people did'nt expect happende, but it happened.
And near-death experiences have been explained in debt and are acocunted for, look it up.
Anymore questions?
Zipzap220 1 year ago
This is filmed at Randolph-Macon Womans College not Liberty (brain wash society), those fools just crashed it, and he owned them so sweetly.
The entire video is on Google, you should check it out if you have not seen it.
pranays 2 years ago
Okay so which explanation requires more faith?
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
I don't think finding out how the universe could create itself is beyond the realm of science. Perhaps right now, yes but not the future.
I don't think the idea of God is fantasy. God has been with man as long as he has existed. It's undeniable that there is something to the idea. I seriously doubt the experience of God can be categorized into imagination, delusion and fantasy. Especially when one studies the phenomenon of near death experiences.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
I'd become an atheist if it could be demonstrated how the universe could naturally create itself, and if Abio-genesis became a well supported incontrovertible theory.
I'm gonna level with you. I actually want to be an atheist. You may not believe me but its true. It is just too far out of the reach of my logic to concluded that this universe is not designed. With the fine tuning of the constants and all that stuff I've said before there is just no way it's a cosmic coincidence.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
Read
"The Atheist Universe" By David Mills
your wish will be completed of becaming an atheist
MrImrizwan 2 years ago
Comment removed
libertywarrior13 2 years ago
my wish? i know where i stand, scientifically and philosophically, no one can disprove the existence of God.
libertywarrior13 2 years ago
Read about Antony Flew, Atheism doesn't hold up philosophically...
libertywarrior13 2 years ago
So are you saying nothing will convince you there is a God or just a designer of some kind? There are things that could sway me to change my belief.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
What else do we need to know? In my opinion there is more than enough evidence to reasonably conclude there is a designer of some kind. (Not proof mind you.) What would convince you?
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
The problem with design flaws and purpose is no one can really say what the full "Purpose" would be. There could be more than one purpose. The supposed flaws could actually have a purpose. And yes everything I just said is guesses off the top of my head. If I cannot prove there was a designer then I certainly cannot prove what the purposes of the design were. I'm just saying the argument based on perception can go both ways.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
If you say that the things about the universe that look designed only LOOK designed then wouldn't the same logic apply to the things you call "Design flaws?"
I think you're wrong about there not being evidence for a designer the real problem is the evidence hasn't convinced you. If that's your position that's fine. There is no evidence for your position because you're position is a negative. Just like there's no evidence for there not being fairies.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
I guess what I am missing is how it is just as logical to assume there was no creator then there was one? I understand that we don't know for sure but in what ways does the evidence point to no creator rather than there is one. I don't think that because we don't know that somehow means the evidence points equally in both directions. What evidence suggests there is no designer?
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
Just because there are more questions about an answer does not stop it from being the best answer. Imagine if that had stopped Darwin from believing the theory of evolution. Imagine if he said because I cannot say how non-life becomes life evolution is impossible.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
It's as if two computer programs started arguing about whether or not man existed. The computers, using only the resources available to them in their cyber world, could never prove man existed. One argues in favor of man, but then the other says "Yeah but where did man come from?" Just because the computer cannot explain the origins or nature of man does not make him any less correct that man does indeed exist.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
Again it is you not I who are making the leap of this designer is a 'magical all-powerful entity' and I will say what I said before just because we do not know the nature of the designer does not negate the evidence in favor of one. Yes it would raise those questions but because we can't answer those questions doesn't mean a designer in some form is not the answer.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
I'm not saying it does MEAN there is a designer. I'm saying a designer is a more probable and more logical conclusion. I agree it's not proof. You keep saying a designer is not more logical. Please tell me why your atheistic position makes more sense than my position of a designer.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
You're absolutely right that whatever created the universe was either intelligent or unintelligent. The reason it's more logical to conclude it was intelligent is because of the organization and complexity of the universe. And the apparent fine tuning of the constants like light, gravity ect. Not to mention the amazing information containing instruction booklet called DNA. These are just a few of the things that all point to our universe being created by intelligence not by accident.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
We don't necessarily need to know how the creator made the universe. If we know it can't make itself it must have been made somehow.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
I am saying I don't know. I'm also saying I think the evidence POINTS to a designer more than no designer.
I think you may have misread my last post. In response to your statement 'show the evidence God is capable of creating.' My answer was simply if the universe is not able to create itself then the only other choice is it had a creator. (This only works if we know the universe can't create itself.)
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
"So show me the evidence that god is capable of creating it"
I think the best answer to that is, the universe exists... That is fact. If the universe is not capable of creating and sustaining itself, there is no other choice than it must have been created and is being sustained by an outside force. If the universe cannot create itself the only other choice is there is a creator.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
I know that last post kind of sounds like the "God of the gaps" thing but I don't mean it that way. I just mean, based on the evidence we have now, a designer seems like the best answer. But in the interest of the pursuit of knowledge and open mindedness that may not be the final answer.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
I will agree we don't know where the universe came from, but wouldn't you say the most logical conclusion, based on the evidence available now, is that it was designed? Keep in mind I'm not commenting on the nature or "magical properties" of said designer, just that a designer seems to be the most logical answer. If we were to unearth evidence that shows a universe as organized and complex as ours is fully capable of creating and sustaining itself I would change my opinion.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
There is no absolute proof George Bush cheated when getting elected, but we believe it because thats what MUST have happened. (LOL Joke Sorry if you like Bush.) I really just dont see how people can look at what we know about the universe and about life and not say the most logical conclusion is its designed.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
We believe stuff we dont have proof for all the time. There is no absolute PROOF J Caesar. Existed but we believe it because thats where the most logical interpretation of the evidence takes us. There is no Absolute proof there was a big bang but we believe it because thats the most logical interpretation of the evidence.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
"I simply see no reason to do so anymore due to this lack of evidence."
It's really hard for me to understand these types of statements from Atheist'. There is a mountain of evidence in favor of God. None of it is proof and there are always ways to explain the evidence away or have another interpretation of it. From a philosophical standpoint it is almost impossible to PROVE anything.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
Mostly I think that people only say there is no designer because they don't want there to be one. If this is not true of you I apologize for the generalization. It's a good question to ask yourself though. Do I not WANT there to be a designer, or more specifically a God?
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
"Is it really more logical to assume such an entity exists than to admit that we don't know?"
I think perhaps it is more logical to assume a designer exists, but we don't know the nature of the designer. The nature of the desidner, at this point, is purely belief and cannot be proven. I could give you all the reasons I beleive it is the Christian God but that would take a very long time.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
But you must realize that now YOU are assuming the designer is a loving benevolent God. My position is still only that the universe shows evidence of a designer. I'm not necessarily commenting on the character or perfection of this designer (Though I do have my beliefs.) Maybe the designer isn't perfect. Maybe it's alien. It still makes more sense than this all being the result of a random cosmic burp and a few billion amazing coincidences later here we are.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
"Evolution is not a perfect process and as such, its 'designs' are not perfect, but why can't we expect those of such a benevolent creator to be anything less than perfect?"
The Christian answer is usually along the lines of we live in a fallen world God has removed his hand of perfection due to our sin. Of course that's not science but we already know science doesn't tell us everything, nor should we base our belief system purely on scientific facts.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
Natural Selection can do only one thing... Select. It does not create. Evolution and atheistic evolution depend on mutations. Otherwise life could not have reached this level of complexity. Things must randomly mutate in order to reach the next level. If you want to believe it's all random I can't stop you. But like I said a good detective knows...
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
"yet when thousands of genetic mutations are appearing over millions of years, the odds that one of them will pertain to its detection dramatically increase."
Every good detective knows when you start having multiple coincidences, they arent coincidences. Think of the number of random mutations would have to occur to get to where we were millions of years ago, let alone today.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
"but it's not a scientific viewpoint itself."
I never said it was. Atheism isn't either by the way. I'm only trying to argue that the universe makes more sense if we view it as though it were designed.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
Mutations are one of the best indicators of intelligence behind evolution. Why does something just randomly mutate cells that can receive and interpret light and sound waves? Doesn't it kinda seem like something out there knew light and sound waves existed? Otherwise why is simple life mutating these things? Again it's just too much of a coincidence to logically conclude theres no intelligence behind it. Light sensitive cells are just one of millions of these kinds of examples.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
I think dawkins pwned liberty university more than ID
muetter 2 years ago
"In light of these and countless other examples, it's obvious that external intelligence is not a requirement for the creation of complexity."
The example of the dunes is an example of nature producing a pattern. Whatever the other countless examples are, this does not show that intelligence is not a requirement for complexity. It only shows intelligence is not a requirement for patterns. It in no way discredits the view of the complexity of the universe requiring a designer.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
In regards to DNA, the premise is that is it designed by an intelligence because it contains information. Therefore if it builds on itself, it is not an example of information coming from forces outside of intelligence.
I do realize belief in God isn't science. Rather it is a conclusion reached by observation of science.
If you dont mind my asking, what is it about the universe and the complexity of life in general that leads you to the conclusion there is no intelligence behind it?
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
Grains of sand forming dunes ins't really order. Thats kind of like saying when the glass falls on the pavement it looks pretty and thats order. Also mutations come from a system of infromation called DNA. They are not from chaos. To correct myself a bit, nature is capibal of producing patterens but not information. Information comes from an intellegence.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
Again I say I cannot prove where God came from. I personally believe he is without begining or end. But I also say that just because we cannot prove what God is, that has no bearing on weather or not the universe is designed. Its the same principal as evolution and abiogenesis. Abiogen is an unproven hypothesis. Just because we cannot say for certain how life got started doesn't mean evolution is false. It's not an additional step it is a possible explanation of why things are the way they are.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
"With regards to the cosmic lottery, if you combine near-infinite amounts of time, space, and variables, eventually the most seemingly improbable scenarios are likely to occur."
That right there, to me, is way more of a leap in logic than 'God did it.' I could drop a glass cup onto cement an infinite number of times and it would never fall into an ordered assembly. You simply cannot get order from chaos. That is why the universe with no designer makes no sense.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
Science isn't almighty. 2+2=4. Can you prove to me scientifically that you knew that answer before you read it? No you can't. But practically we both know you did. As you said just because God doesn't exist scientifically doesn't mean he doesn't exist. And I think the evidence we can observe clearly points to a designer.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
"but if you're going to tell me that your belief is fact, you must defend this claim scientifically."
I never said my belief was fact. I am only trying to point out the universe makes more sense if we look at it as though it were designed. If it wasn't then we won the cosmic lottery.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
"The only intellectually honest thing to do here is to admit that we plainly don't know where the universe came from, rather than fill the gap in our knowledge with unscientific mysticism."
What an unscientific thing to say. Science thrives on the unknown. The idea that the universe may have a designer is a solid hypothesis and does have ways to be falsified. Ken Miller and Francis Collins (Both leads on the genome project) believe in a designer.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
The nature of the designer is not scientific because it cant be tested. It is another question. Science can only test what we can observe so it is limited. Our universe must have had an outside source to begin it. Science can't test things outside our universe.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
"you MUST find an objective, evidence-based, and logical explanation for why this being requires no beginning."
You're combining two answers that were meant to be separate. God's eternal nature is not scientific I agree. There is no way to test it with the scientific method. ID says the universe has a designer. This alone does not comment on who, or what designed it. This hypothesis is based on the fact that we observe order, design and complexity in all aspects of our universe.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
Secondly, though you rightly point out that a cause and effect system cannot exist without being set into motion by an outside source, you make a radical assertion that an intelligent designer must have been the 'culprit'.
No I dont. I base the designer idea on the fact that the universe looks designed. It is not a leap in logic. It is not proven but it is not a leap in logic.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
The question also misunderstands most theists concept of God. God is often described as eternal without beginning or end. He does not require a creator or a beginning. Our universe had a beginning. Everything we know of within our universe is based on a cause and effect system. A cause and effect system cannot exist without being set in motion by a source outside of the system. Because our universe shows evidence of order and design it is more logical to assume it was created by intelligence.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
"Where did he come from."
This question is as relevant to Intelligent Design as abiogenesis is to evolution. This universe shows clear evidence of design. Where that designer came from, and who or what he/it is is a completely different idea and in no way discredits the evidence for a designer.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
About as astronomical as our universe randomly falling together without a designer?
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
Why do people like Dawkins so much. He doesn't even answer the guys question or refute Creationism. He just assumes his world veiw is correct and shows how wrong creationist are because HE must be right.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
This has nothing to do with ID. It's just about putting down young-earth creationism.
erikmartin2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution is a theory, an idea. There is no known method to test it. Just cause my view is different doesn't mean anyone has to thumb down my comment due to an objection. That behavior is ignorant as me refuting facts. Which I don't refute facts when they can be proven.
Halo2100 2 years ago
Who makes the medicine you take?
jimmydoolittle22 2 years ago
Theory in science does NOT mean "hunch, guess, idea", it means: "Something that consistently explains every observation in the field".
lagerbaer 2 years ago 5
Theory in science can also mean a plausible hypothesis with explanatory power with support in the facts. A hypotesis can be testable in principle (and that would be sufficient to regard it as scientific, whether it might subsequently turn out to be wrong) and yet not testable in practice. With regard to ID we are talking about a historical occurrence at some very remote time in the past. How do you test for that?
anselmiano 2 years ago
In other words, it only makes sense to talk about testability or falsifiability with regard to a characteristic of science when the subject matter is susceptible to such test or falsification. The test of the theory of intelligent design would be whether intelligent beings can design life. I don't think we are actually very fasr from that. I wouldn't be surprised if scientists soon were able to create self-replicating quasi-biiological structures from scratch. Would that be life? Don't discard.
anselmiano 2 years ago
halo you dont actually know what theory means. it is not the same as a hypothesis.
"a theory, an idea" no.
an idea is more like a philosophy such as religion. the god hypothesis.
spunkternal 2 years ago
smburney: "he is still majorly 'among friends.'" As are most people when they give speeches. What's your point? This is a doubly silly criticism considering that the Liberty students have chosen to go to a school that cocoons them in a population who share their narrow worldview almost entirely.
yohei72 2 years ago
I know this has probably been said a thousand times but this is not Liberty University, as is made quite apparent at the beginning of the video, it was held at the highly liberal and largely Dawkins-supporting Randolph Macon College which was, at the time, an all women's college that is approximately 2 and 1/2 hours away, nice try though, its easy for an intellectual to trash the opposition in the presence of friends which I would say is rather childish of him
smburney 2 years ago
"its easy for an intellectual to trash the opposition in the presence of friends which I would say is rather childish of him"
1) There were students from Liberty U there, so he's not just "among friends." And he let them speak and answered their questions forthrightly.
2) Even if the above weren't the case, what is Dawkins supposed to do when people ask him questions about Liberty U? Say "I can't answer that unless I'm at Liberty itself?" When was the last time they invited him to speak there?
yohei72 2 years ago
Only 2 people attending can be concluded to be from Liberty and unless you have solid evidence otherwise then he is still majorly "among friends." Dawkins has been invited to Liberty, actually. Liberty invites many people that may not agree with their doctrines and I happen to know Dawkins was one of them. I have no problem with him answering questions about Liberty or any other school, but when he lowers himself to the level of ad populums and childish insults I do have a problem.
smburney 2 years ago
And, smburney, please point out the "ad populums" and "childish insults" in what Dawkins says here. I heard none, just criticisms that some find uncomfortably forthright. Dawkins critics love doing this: no matter how calm and reasoned he is in his remarks, just keep complaining loudly that he's "insulting" & "intolerant" - repeat it enough and you can get a lot of people to buy it, especially in the U.S., where people are used to giving great deference to religious sensibilities.
yohei72 2 years ago
I didn't realize this was merely a portion of the video. I am referring to his comments in this entire speaking session which is also available on youtube. He comments that the fully accredited science programs at Liberty are a joke and in this segment he says the school is not a "proper university."
smburney 2 years ago
"He comments that the fully accredited science programs at Liberty are a joke and in this segment he says the school is not a "proper university.""
One man's "insult" is another man's "widely acknowledged fact," I guess.
yohei72 2 years ago 2
change "fact" to "opinion" and I concur
smburney 2 years ago
That science education at Liberty University is compromised by blatant fictions dictated by religious doctrine; and that its mission is one of religious/political indoctrination, rather than the open but rigorous inquiry expected of a modern university, are both matters of fact, not opinion.
yohei72 2 years ago
That liberal science education is compromised by naturalistic presuppositionalism dictated by materialist philosophy; and that its mission is one of militant atheistic indoctrination, rather than the open but rigorous inquiry expected of a modern university, are both matters of fact, not opinion, see, I can do it too
smburney 2 years ago
Naturalistic methodology in science is dictated by centuries of hard-won experience which show that it works for getting answers and producing practical results, where supernatural explanations are a dead end. Almost all of the many scientists who are personally religious recognize this fact and use naturalistic methodology in their science... because it works. No philosophical presuppositions or anti-religious agenda required.
yohei72 2 years ago 2
Naturalistic, materialistic science WORKS. Prayer doesn't. I think I know which one I'm going to stick with.
FreePlay 2 years ago
When a university teaches students that dinosaurs were here 3000 years ago, that university IS a joke. That's not an insult, it's a fact, and if the students really care for their education then going to a proper University is a very good advice.
oneeyednarn 2 years ago 2
prove to me that they weren't
smburney 2 years ago
Prove to us that Julius Caesar existed.
yohei72 2 years ago
There is not a single dating method - even the ones used for short-range-only dating - that will date ANY dinosaur fossils to 3,000 years.
FreePlay 2 years ago
Great video, but terrible title. Would you please change it? It gives the impression that Dawkins is actually speaking at (@) Liberty. No respectable scientist would touch Liberty with a 4.5 billion-foot pole. (He's at Randolph-Macon Women's College and kept getting douchebag questions from the IDiots that attend Liberty "University").
sqmuth 2 years ago
That was a beautiful takedown... I'm almost in tears.
PuttingOnTheFoil 2 years ago
I find it interesting that Liberty school seal has a burning book on it.
momentofsciencetx 2 years ago
BOO-YA! Liberty is a JOKE! if I received a degree from there, I would never admit it! maybe I would just kill myself and do the world a favor.
acb13222 3 years ago 21
Haha, give me Liberty or give me death!
Death is better than Liberty University.
jessie74 3 years ago 17
This has been flagged as spam show
He didnt say anything that carried any weight. You cant just bow down to everything this guy says just because he is an "expert". He just said used radio dating methods which are fallible. Attacking liberty university did no good. Its simply a distasteful bit of humor to try and make the school sound unintelligent.
unknownfilmmaker 3 years ago
he wasnt trying to make an argument about it he was trying to shed light on the fact that the world isnt 6000 years old like the majority of people in america (christians) think it is. he has every right to dispell a college for teaching nonsense to a school. and its not just him saying this but the whole sientific community does as well
obxhelga 3 years ago 17
That's because they are unintelligent as anyone with a basic understanding of nuclear physics will tell you. It's not even hard stuff. It's taught at GCSE level in Britain, nevermind the degree level.
Listening to Dawkins slam them into the ground gives me hope for humanity.
Gokukillaah 3 years ago 16
You're right. It is distasteful to attack Liberty University, in the exact same way it's distasteful to attack the mentally retarded.
WitnessmyPerfectio 2 years ago
uber pwnage
just2w4tch 3 years ago 2
One question for theists out there. How can you reconcile the fact that you are trying to PROVE something you ADMIT REQUIRES FAITH?
I mean that should be the very definition of oxymoron. Either God can be proved, and you DO NOT REQUIRE FAITH to believe in him. Or god cannot be proved and DOES REQUIRE FAITH to believe. So which is it? You don't get both.
Seldona 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You ask if God can be proved but there is no known method to test it. You can't disprove God, nor can you prove God through man made devices. Evolution requires faith as well, due to the fact there is no known scientific method to prove or disprove it occurs. People don't like the label of evolution to require faith, but it does since it mainly relies on peoples ideas with no facts behind them.
Halo2100 3 years ago
If evolution were simply a hypthesis, then your statement would be correct, but evolution is more than a hypothesis, it is a theory. Which means that it was conceived using "the scientific method". I suggest you watch a few videos so you can understand what the scientific method is.
In short
Observation because hypothesis. This hypthesis is tested, rigorously. If the results stand up to the hypthesis then it may in fact be a theory. But before it can be published, it must undergo peer review.
datalorez 3 years ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution is pseudoscience since it can't be proven nor tested to be true or falsified. Every argument to support evolution is just a person's guess on how things happened.
Halo2100 3 years ago
watch?v=g7Ctl9nzEqs please watch this video so that you can understand what a theory is, and how the scientific method works.
Evolution has been proven, it is accepted as true within the scientific community.
datalorez 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The steps of the scientific method are to:
*Ask a Question
*Do Background Research
*Construct a Hypothesis
*Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
*Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
*Communicate Your Results
Ok, they can construct a hypothesis, but they have no way to test macroevolution.
Halo2100 3 years ago
Macri and Micro evolution are the same things, only creationists insit they're different. The only difference is the scale.
And, if macro evolution is when speciation has occured, then again i point you to observed instances of it.
sammyman2210 3 years ago 2
So what you're saying is that it's possible to walk from my computer to the kitchen but absolutely impossible to walk from my front door to the house just across the street?
Makes perfect sense for a creationist.
WitnessmyPerfectio 2 years ago 2
"Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment"
... or by making further observations and collecting further evidence and seeing if the observations and evidence fit with the hypothesis. Which has been done countless times for the theory of evolution without finding anything that contradicts its, which is why almost every scientist on earth accepts it.
Your description of the scientific method is fatally oversimplified.
yohei72 2 years ago
"Evolution is pseudoscience since it can't be proven nor tested to be true or falsified."
Evolution can certainly be falsified. Find a giraffe buried next to a triceratops!
whovian1971 2 years ago 4
"Every argument to support evolution is just a person's guess on how things happened."
Yes, and every assertion about the history of the Roman Empire is just a guess.
yohei72 2 years ago
"Evolution requires faith as well, due to the fact there is no known scientific method to prove or disprove it occurs."
Holy cow, really?! Have you told any actual scientists yet? They'll be stunned! They should know about this, pronto!
yohei72 2 years ago
Ignorance never fails to impress
Evolution is a VERIFIED FACT, atleast know that
ZeusPR 2 years ago
Please enlighten those with the facts, and the method used of proving those facts.
Halo2100 2 years ago
Scientists don't need to be told that cause it's obvious. We have yet to see plant or animal change completely from one type of species into a new one. Until it can be proven with the scientific method then I don't believe in it. Simple as that.
Halo2100 2 years ago
Halo2100 - Contrary to your blithe assertion, this isn't at all "obvious" to scientists, almost none of whom agree with your assertion. And it takes thousands of generations for a species of plant or animal to turn into something very different, so of course no individual human has seen it happen. What a silly objection. And as has already been pointed out more than once, your idea of the scientific method is, to put it kindly, faulty.
yohei72 2 years ago
Actually it's not faulty cause I took it from a educational website that states the scientific method. You can find it anywhere and everywhere. So if you think it's faulty take it up to the scientists who support it and the government education system.
Halo2100 2 years ago
"it's not faulty cause I took it from a educational website that states the scientific method." You should give credit when you quote from books or websites, to avoid plagiarism.
The description you quoted is terribly oversimplified. I'd take it up with the website, if anyone. I got my description from years of reading the writings of scientists who described it much better. Which just re-emphasizes that your understanding of the matter is shallow and incomplete. Learn some more.
yohei72 2 years ago
This is what I found on wikipedia. Again it shows what I originally posted.
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7.Publish results
8.Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
By this method there is no way to test evolution.
Halo2100 2 years ago
"This is what I found on wikipedia." Ah, the gold standard for scientific information.
You keep relying on oversimplified definitions pulled from non-scientific sources, as if they refute the enormous body of work on evolution done by actual scientists.
Try looking at some blogs by working researchers, or research in journals like Nature & Science to see how step 4 is applied to evolution, all the time. Genetic analysis is one rich area for laboratory experiments testing evolutionary ideas.
yohei72 2 years ago 3
Since your so well educated in the scientific field why don't you reference the specific journals that show how the scientific method is applied to the theory of evolution.
Halo2100 2 years ago
So you admit to not knowing what these journals are or what they say? I named two of them above - they publish evolution-related research all the time, are well known and easily available online or on many newsstands. Nature published the famous recent discovery of Tiktaalik roseae, the extinct fish ancestor that was found exactly where previous knowledge of fish evolution had predicted it would be found - a fine example of evolutionary ideas being tested successfully.
yohei72 2 years ago
Or check out "This Week in Evolution," a blog by a scientist that summarizes and explains new scientific papers on evolution for laypeople like you and me.
And I'm not "well educated" in science in any formal way - I'm simply a curious person who tries to keep up with what's going on. And who's sensible and humble enough not to claim I know all about a scientific field without checking out what the actual scientists say about it first. Try it.
yohei72 2 years ago
There are over 17,000,000 peer-reviewed articles on PubMed attesting to medical studies that REQUIRE EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE for them to be valid. Get fucking reading.
FreePlay 2 years ago 3
There is. Separate a culture of E. Coli bacteria and expose them to different "stressful" environmental conditions (e.g. shortage of food but availability of an alternative energy source which they can only use after evolving).
Then wait. Wait, wait, wait. wait. some years.
Notice that the two separated strands are genetically different and might have adapted to the new environment.
lagerbaer 2 years ago 3
Nope, is enough with some days depending on what kind of differences you are testing. The other thing is than bacteria has a several higher orders of magnitude of capability to adapt than a multicelular organism. And if you add the critical point than each generation can last a couple of minutes enhances in a enormous way their capability to adapt. Then again, if you are thinking on the arising of novel qualities, then the main issue is how