That would mean for example that those bones in the forearm and wrist may have been better able to withstand falls by either being stronger or more flexible.A perfect human would also have perfect reflexes and be able to avoid most falls.Then there is the bodys ability to heal.Imagine how well that would work in a perfect human. The point most anti theists seem to miss is that theists believe original man was created perfect.
With all due respect to the doctor i think the example of the bones in the forearm breaking is very poorly though out.If you are arguing with any theist you need to recognize that theists do not believe the human body is optimally designed now.Humans today are the product of generation after generation of hereditary imperfection.The original humans according to theists were created perfect.cont-
Natural selection actually makes the body damn near perfect for what it has to do to survive. If you think something looks badly "designed" it is down to other reasons.
Dr George Marshall, an eye-disease researcher from the University of Glasgow, Scotland MUST watch his YouTube video : DAWKINS´S POOR EYE DESIGN NONSENSE EXPOSED !! - PART 1"
Biologists try to gain scientific understanding by observing nature and conjuring up a hypnothesis of how things work. They design experiments to test their ideas. By necessity, deriving the hypnothesis and designing the experiments require scientists to "think" how a cell or another living organism carries out its life. Applying these "human" solutions, i.e. a human view of resloving biologies mysteries, automatically makes scientists guilty of anthropomorphizing.
@livingdeadgrl18 Dr George Marshall, an eye-disease researcher from the University of Glasgow, Scotland MUST watch his YouTube video : DAWKINS´S POOR EYE DESIGN NONSENSE EXPOSED !! - PART 1"
This is brilliant! We don't have ducks in this field. That's right Randolf, we don't. It does walk like a duck though. Yes yes it does. And it smells like a duck too. Most certainly does, but we don't have ducks here remember. I know but it even quacks like a duck. We really shouldn't be surprised though that it has ALL the attributes and constitution of a duck, but isn't. Hmm, we really should give it another name hey? Yes, how about we call it a Quack? OH Richard, Your brilliant once again.
You do realize that the tripe you believe in has been forced into your brain since your childhood.... It is not design. It is not design. it is not design. It is not design. It is not design. it is not design. It is not design. It is not design. it is not design. It is not design. It is not design. it is not design. I am not brainwashing you. I am not brainwashing you. It only "appears" to be design. It only " appears" to be design. It only "appears" to be design. I am not brainwashed....am I?
evolution is 100% absolute fact, You can tell that humans came from apes look at creationists they are as ape like as you can get a banana has more intelligence than a creationist. Anyway, great video!!!
@davidmorrison09 you must learn to use punctuation correctly, before commenting again on the internet. should you complete this task, people will be more likely to understand you and take you seriously. godspeed.
I guess it's all in how you look at things. He probably has a negative take on everything I see as an amazing miracle. What I'd call an incredible, astonishing, breathtaking thing of beauty, he sees as a terribly flawed mechanical device developed throuh random evolution. Yet, this same smart ass probably can't change the oil in his own car.
@Makle84 because i have yet to hear anything logical to discredit creative design in species. I think even Evolution is a form of intelligent design. The chance of macro-evolution occurring is a miracle same as creation. Yet atheists do not believe in miracles! why are we here rather then not here at all?
Arguments citing the imperfection of biological designs are completely irrelevant. Intelligent Design doesn't say that the intelligence was perfect, only that intelligence was involved.
That said, the example this doctor gives is quite silly, too. He claims that the fibula and tibia are poorly designed because they break when you fall off a skateboard. In his next breath, however, he explains how much flexibility and dexterity this design provides us. Is he even listening to himself?
”I'm using the word `design` over and over again. I can see why other people do. It is very hard to find another word to refer to this mechanisms that work so well."
"Once and for all: it looks like designed. Natural selection produces a powerful illusion of design."
Why do they keep repeating this allegations? This is the answer: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." -Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister
@frankz00 There are well designed cars and badly designed cars. I can recognize those differences, yet I have no skillset that would allow me to design a car better than the worst car ever. It therefore is logical that no person on earth (yet) might have the skillset that would allow them to design an android that rivals a human being. Just because you can observe something doesn't mean you can replicate it.
dawkins is the most pathetic so-called scientist i've ever seen. not only he's promoting a lie (evolution) but he's also doubting everything he says about it too. I tell you guys one thing, this dude dawkins reeeaaallly wish he was courageous enough to admit that evolution is a lie.
dawkins, we will welcome you with open arms if you bravely admit the evolution lie. No Christian will condemn you for confessing and repenting. Consider it as your greatest act for yourself and for everyone else
i do have doctrines i believe in. do you? i hope you do, and not just floating around in the ocean of lies that these fools like dawkins swim in!!!!!!!
@sthcrox You do realize that the tripe you believe in has been forced into your brain since your childhood? The only way you can live a normal human life is by leaving the church and start learning about the amazing natural world we live in. Please don't waste your only life on believing in stories made up by man a long time ago for the purpose of controlling the massive amount of idiots that existed and still do.
i have told yu the Truth. It is worth your soul to look into Jesus seriously. I wish yu did, even once, but yu've got to seek Him with all your heart. That's why you haven't found HIm bcause yu come in with a BIASED mind. God does not need yu for His existence, but He has enough love for you to create a way for you, if you choose it yu will live. it's yor choice.
@sthcrox You got it fellow brother or sister, all this crap against God's existence is the devil at work confusing and distracting people. Anyboy would have to be a FOOL according to the Bible to say to himself "there is no god". Creation screams very loudly into our hearts that He is real, powerful, awesome, and worthy of our attention. Nothing cant be made by nothing, simple logic. I pity brilliant scientists such as Carl Sagan who didn't believe even though God showed him, pity and shame!
Before i check your intention, i'll see what you write: your choice of words is enough to make me hate the doctrine you follow.
I'm seeking God's righteousness, purity, perfection, His kingdom, and His glory. The tone of your response exposes exactly what your beliefs have made you: Without God you are prideful, puffed-up, talk down to Christianity (which you have no understanding of)...etc..You see why your view is pitiful?
consider the perfect work done by Christ on the cross...
@zalmanusa Tell me. What's a normal human life? Who are you to decide what a normal human life is? Normal to many people is Christianity, normal to others is Buddhism, normal to yet others is Satanism. Please don't be so close-minded in your thinking and start considering everyone who believes in something supernatural to be abnormal... And idiots? Again, who are you to judge who the 'idiots' are? You, and whoever liked the post, are such narrow-minded people.
@zalmanusa You do believe that the "you coming from a rock" theory has been conditioned into your mind since childhood? age of 4 or 5... do some research on child development and brain development first dino book yippe "dinosuars they lived millions of years ago.." Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”. Adolf Hitler
@909Kunfused909 They tell it to us because it is fact, they used to do it that we were all created by god (19th century) and then realized, with all the confirming and aiding research, that this conclusion is stupid. So hence dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago. Why turn this into a moral argument? You've lost upon doing that.
what would it be like when you find out that your 'proof, logic and common sense' are misleading you? what would you say when you'll find out you have been looking in the WRONG place (i.e, your almighty 'Self')? what would you do when you find out it is too late for you to try to fix anything?
the selection process itself points to intelligence.
Why do certain species survive and others don't? Why is the universe structured with laws that guide the process? Why is there ANY purpose to this instead of just random chaos?
@BrokHomz writes: "Why do certain species survive and others don't? Why is the universe structured with laws that guide the process? Why is there ANY purpose to this instead of just random chaos? Duh....because there is intelligence."
Those are fantastically excellent questions. But between your questions and your short answer, there would need to be years/decades (centuries?) of scientific exploration to arrive at such a definitive answer. Science isn't "if I write it down then it's true".
its just plain to me. there is no debate. none needed. and the fact someone questions the existence of God, makes me question their sanity.
To deny God, means you have to first acknowledge God.
Why the heck, would humans...born from "random chemicals" just randomly make up a belief in a creator, when there isn't one. And then hold on to these beliefs until present day?! That makes no sense at all. It is very logical to believe in God on the other hand. It is plain to us.
Welcome to the realm of faith sir. At least my faith make logical sense, and leaves one with a sense of purpose and value. Where as your says, we are nothing but dirt. And I KNOW, deep down you don't believe that. Why?! Because I think you would object to me or someone else killing you or someone in your family. If you really believe what you do, let a serial killer take your life. Go ahead.
@BrokHomz "At least my faith make logical sense"<fail. You believe in god because you want to be worth something? Lol religion is arrogance parading as humilty.
Arrogant about what? We claim that we are sinners, who are saved solely upon the grace of God. We don't even claim to be the ones who FIRST desire to be saved. It is all God, not us. Lest any man should boast!
To be honest, if I truly believed what you claim to believe (that there is no God or purpose). I would find out where you live right now, travel there and kill you, just for the fun of it.
Why? Becuase in your worldview there is NO right and wrong. So therefore, by what authority can you really condemn those actions? You already ruled him out.
Luckily I happen to believe in God, and know there is a judgment day.
SEARCH "cruel logic" on youtube and watch it, to get my point.
@BrokHomz Stop embarrassing yourself. If you only reason you are not evil is because you fear judgement from your imaginary friend, then you are a sick man that needs to be locked up.
we are all sick. my worldview addresses that. You think your good in God sight because you don't have an urge to kill someone. hahahhahahahha, You are FAR from good, just like the rest of us.
Well if you want my answer, you have to first assume that the bible is God's word, and that it is infallible. Once you get passed that, we read about the fall of man in the garden of Eden. Murder happened in just the SECOND generation of humanity.
Since then, we have fallen from grace. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
@BrokHomz "you have to assume that the bible is God's word, and that it is infallible". Do you know why you believe that? It's because your parents forced that shit into your head since the day you were born.
thats HOW I heard about Jesus. But that didn't make me believe. I am actually a very rebellious person at heart.
Your REALLY think, I couldn't just say "screw you mom and dad, I don't believe this!"? Come on. Now your questioning my intelligence. I can make my own decisions thank you.
This is MY belief, I made the call, and I am sticking with it.
I could say that atheism/evolution was forced into your head by public schools.
@BrokHomz Lol you keep refering to my beliefs, my world view etc. Although i have not mentioned anything about beliefs or world views. So basically you are argueing on grounds you dont no exist.
I am showing you how self-refuting your worldview is. I don't have to debate you. Reality already confirms that you are wrong.
For you to claim that "THERE IS NO GOD", you would first have to know EVERYTHING about the whole cosmos. But if you knew that, that would make you God. You can't escape his reality, quit trying to suppress the truth. Not only do I knew you believe in God, but one day you will bow before Jesus. And you know it as well.
@BrokHomz Let me ask you this: If you were born in Afghanistan, into a Muslim family, do you think you would be a Christian? What about being born into a Hindu family in India? The answer is no. If you were born in Afghanistan you would be a Muslim, if you were born in India you would be a Hindu. If you were born in Classical Greece, you would believe is Zeus and Apollo. You happen to be born into a Christian family, i assume is in America (I could be wrong), and as a result are christian.
@BrokHomz You keep refering to my beliefs, my world view etc. None of which i have even mentioned. So basically, you are argueing on grounds you dont know exist.
@BrokHomz Bahahahaha!!!! I just read one of your previous comments. And by that logic every single religion is true aswell as Lord of the Rings and every other piece of Fictitious literature.
Bible says: If your child is disrespectful, stone him to death in front of the town.
Bible says: Slaves are just fine.
Bible says: Kill wives who are not virgins on their wedding night.
Using the bible to prove any point is the stupidest thing you can do. It's a disturbing collection of fairy tails combined with spoken history; it's utter shit. Please understand this and refrain from using the bible as a credible source in the future.
@sthcrox you are welcome, good sir for sharing your insights on the biblical nonesense,contrary to what actually an educated people would say . remember, corinthians 7:1
@eat666shit Dr George Marshall, an eye-disease researcher from the University of Glasgow, Scotland MUST watch his YouTube video : DAWKINS´S POOR EYE DESIGN NONSENSE EXPOSED !! - PART 1"
@eat666shit "Anyone thinking the eye is wired backwards is ignorant of the human eye." Dr George Marshall, an eye-disease researcher from the University of Glasgow, Scotland
@eat666shit Dr George Marshall, an eye-disease researcher from the University of Glasgow, Scotland MUST watch his YouTube video : DAWKINS´S POOR EYE DESIGN NONSENSE EXPOSED !! - PART 1"
@lightbrownpoop the reason darwin used the term selection was to show the parallels between how humans and nature effect species. In the beginning of Origin, which you should really read before commenting on evolution, Darwin talks about domestication. People have been changing species over thousands of years by allowing the animals and plants with the most desirable traits to reproduce. Nature does the same thing. Depending on the environment, certain traits will increase or reduce your ab
@Rockster969 select means to choose in preference to another or others; pick out. why use an oxymoron term like natural selection then? nature doesn't have the ability to select anything.
@Rockster969 in his search for extraterrestial intelligence, Carl Sagan said all we need is one message with information in it from outer space and we'd be able to recognize the presence of intelligence. we won't even need to translate the message, he said; we'll just recognize the presence of intelligence. when it suits the atheist, only intelligence can explain intelligibility, but when it's discomforting, primordial self-existent soup will do. they cannot hide their prejudices.
Wow - somehow the cells knew the wrist had to rotate and they communicated with each other.....perhaps they should document the empirical evidence when the cells decided to apply these changes ...Oh lets see....they need billions of years and maybe more billions of years..no no we wouldn't see these smart cells talking to each other..'we need to totate the wrist so lets make the wrist bone thinner'. THese guys are so smart that they have become stupid.
« somehow the cells knew the wrist had to rotate and they communicated with each other »
No. Somehow the organisms that had a particular feature were better at passing on their genes, which caused the trait to spread throughout the population.
@hypermite01 That's pretty funny. I'm not kidding. I actually laughed pretty hard when I read that. "Of COURSE! Let's accuse atheists of ANOTHER thing that I do that pisses them off!"
The whole time this guy talks about how poorly designed the arm is, yet never gives an example of a better design. I agree that the whole body seems to be made with trade offs, because that's how they best work. Basically it comes right down to this, atheist look at the body and say it's a bad "design" with some good side effects. Where as creationist say it's a good design with some bad side effects. We both examine the same evidence, we just come up with different answers. That's science.
Good day. I believe that tradeoffs are the deal on various organs usually criticized by the non-theists. Take a racing car. People say it's "designed with no compromises". That's supposed to be a good and impressive thing. But it basically means that for just about all kinds of motoring (with the exception of racing) a race car is - poorly designed. A good designer will build a system having many compromises, so it performs pretty well in many diverse environments.
But what is the question to life? I reckon the question to life is - why are you misbehaving? The answer to life is thus - Sit down and be quiet! (Life should be seen but not heard).
On this, statement, life stands.
The answer to the above formula (via logical inference) is thus a family of responses typified by the string saying (in human English format) = "Shhh! Behave."
Am I right, am I right? Say yes, go on, go on! Please please (I'll pay you!)
@tubewatch59 Excuse e moi? You dare mock my molecular theories? Tsk tsk. I shall report your...uh...unitelectual designness to my molecula biology professor!! You sir, are a sonovagun!!! Good day!
I've seen an awful lot of confidence in the power of nature - that was totally unwarranted. People believe in what suits them for the most part. Not believing in God suits a good many people. It's not that people would like to believe in God, but face the "hard truth". It's rather, that people see atheism as a way to be liberated from constraints that they find unpleasant.
Anyhow, lets see what science turns up. I'm all for continuing research into origins.
@tubewatch59 "..people see atheism as a way to be liberated from constraints that they find unpleasant."
What? I know that I'm going to die. If I believed what I "wanted" to believe, I would come up with my own religion, where I get to live forever. Or, since you've already done that, I could just become a Christian. I'm not an atheist because it's "easy", I'm an atheist because it's logical.
On the contrary. You doubt that everlasting life is possible, and you wish to be free of the constraints on behaviour laid out by systems of thought that do hold to such ideas. And you want to be free of such constraints. You already invented a religion to be free of such constraints. It's the old religion. Nature worship. You assume without evidence that nature MUST explain all that cannot be yet understood. That's quite a leap of faith, given what it must explain!
@tubewatch59 You are trying to tell me what I'm thinking, and you are wrong. I should know that I would love it if an afterlife made any sense at all. I see no constraints in the bible that Christians follow that I don't, besides belief in JESUS.
I don't think it a leap of faith at all to say that nature can explain nature. I do, however, think it quite a leap of faith to believe that I will magicallly live on after I die, and that your god, one out of hundreds, exists.
I do feel lonely, like a scarecrow blowing in the dry and windy field. But hey, I get to see some nice sunsets and sunrises! :-)
Seriously though, it is the atheistic people who likely feel the most lonely. They must endure living without hope. "Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
But it is possible for agnostics to accept the ID worldview as well. Not every nonreligious person rejects the ID woldview.
Our version of "skewing" is to invoke an unobserved "intelligent designer" to fill in the gaps in capability of what is observed in nature. ie. if nature cannot seem to oiginate this or that system, then we tentatively invoke an agent that is capable of creating such systems.
On the other hand, naturalists "skew" what is known about nature. They must believe that nature is capable of originating technology, when nature is observed to be grossly incapable of such feats.
As I've been mentioning to 10% Atheist, there isn't much in the way of verification for your beliefs about origins either. You people must believe thiongs about chemistry and information science that are laugh out loud ridiculous. You do a lot of skewing of the way the world is yourselves. The skewing that IDists do is arguably more reasonable than naturalistic skewing. Why?
When I say evolution is a belief, I mean macroevolution and related phenomena like abiogenesis (ABGN).
While in a sense ABGN is different to macroevolution, in the naturalistic paradigm it is something that is not optional. Without ABGN, we wouldn't be here (if naturalism is true). So, all naturalists MUST believe that some kind of ABGN took place. But there's not yet much evidence that such a thing is even possible. It's a belief in the absence of (enough) evidence!
@tubewatch59 "When I say evolution is a belief, I mean macroevolution and related phenomena like abiogeneis."
Abiogenesis is not evolution. They are completely separate theories. Macroevolution has been observed, abiogenesis hasn't. By the way, if you can observe something, it isn't a belief.
Microevolution isn't a belief, it's a fact, because as you said, it's been observed. What hasn't been observed is the kind of evolution that would need to happen in order to take the first life forms and invent the genetic code along with all it's protein and RNA systems, and also evolve multicellular organisms with special organs and cell types etc. That hasn't been observed. It's a belief about what happenned based on the naturalistic worldview. And vica versa for ID.
@tubewatch59 Nont only microevolution, but macroevolution have been observed. Look up the Hawthorn Fly. There are websites with lists of instances of observed macroevolution. You are correct in saying that the kind of evolution required for the first life forms to develop DNA and RNA has never been observed, and likely never will be. However, we have evidence of evolution, and all ID has is: "I think that evolution is wrong, so my personal interpretation of the bible must be right."
Well sure we have evidence of microevolution. Macroevolution that occurred is many orders beyond speciation events such as the Hawthorn fly, the London underground mosquito and others. In fact the evidence has been mounting for a while that such speciation events happen quickly. ut it's limited and doesn't begin to explain the neccessary larger additions of new systems that must have happenned if macroevolution were true. Even fruit flies don't show this kind of change.
Speciation is a form of macroevolution. Ask any biologist, and they will tell you that speciation is macroevolution. Creationists tend to use a "strategically elastic" definition of macroevolution, but it is actually defined as a scale of analysis of evolution in separate gene pools. Speciation results in two separate gene pools. The evidence IS mounting that speciation events tend to happen quickly: punctuated equilibrium. Finally, evolution says that new systems DON'T spontaneously appear.
Punctuated equilibrium is that branch of evolution that decided that new systems must indeed spontaneously appear. They have to because gradualism in principle cannot explain how selection for new systems can take place. It might if new systems (ie. having new function unrelated to what has gone on beforehad) were plentiful and could be often found by accident via mutations. But we now know that save for the simplest of cases this is far (very far) from being true.
@tubewatch59 Wow. "Punctuated equilibrium is that branch of evolution that decided that new systems must indeed spontaneously appear." If you had made an argument, I would refute it. I don't have anything to refute. Evolutionary theory states, quite clearly, that nothing spontaneously appears. Punctuated equilibrium is just what it sounds like-relatively little change occuring, punctuated by relatively rapid speciation.
Sometime, if you have the time, check out a paper by Douglas Axe called: "The case against a darwinian origin of protein folds" for a survey of some of the difficulties posed by the idea that proteins evolved naturally.
However, don't forget that not only is abiogenesis a belief, it absolutely has to be true in the naturalistic worldview. Without abiogenesis, life cannot exist (if one has rejected the ID option). So since evolution requires life to even get going, not only is macroevolution an unobserved belief, but it in turn rests on the foundation of abiogenesis which is another unobserved belief. They're different, but evolution depends on abiogenesis having already happenned.
@tubewatch59 "Without abiogenesis, life cannot exist..."
Not necessarily. There are several theories apart from abiogenesis and ID, such as panspermia. There are also many theories within abiogenesis. Keep in mind, amino acids have been created in the lab, in conditions that match our current understanding of early earth, and self-replicating molecules have also been created in the lab. On top of that, I recommend looking up Protobionts.
But panspermia is either ID or more (unobserved) abiogenesis ultimately. Protobionts and the various theories are all interesting and will aid chemical and biotechnology no doubt. Their research is encouraged. I thik you'll find over time though that what will be found out is that these kinds of systems do not develop naturally, but only time and lots of research will tell us if thats the case. Until then though the IDists have a reasonable (but tentative) point.
Therefore, the naturalistic worldview is just as belief oriented as is the ID worldview. Both are scientific in nature, yet unverified (neither God nor abiogenesis nor macroevolution have been observed by modern man in the lab.) and thus adherents to either view must at some point "believe" without verification, based on a judgement they make on the likelihood that the view they've subscribed to is correct.
A truly objective scientist would be neutral w.r.t. origins.
I've argued consistently against abiogenesis and macroevolution on various grounds, but I've tried to avoid using the word zero evidence. Did I? If so, I shouldn't have. There is usually always some indirect evidence of this or that theory, otherwise people wouldn't be followers.
So even as there exists some evidence for macroevolution and abiogeesis, so also there is indirect evidence for ID as well...
The indirect evidnce for abiogenesis and macroevolution is things like similarity patterns in DNA such as homology - the observation that microevolution occurs (and thus that we can extrapolate to macroevolution), claims of junk DNA being an expected result of evolution (including ERV's, pseudogenes) and others.
ID compares human technology to biology and sees similarities. It looks at the difficulties involved in nature being able to do what is claimed for it...
(cont.) - this includes things like irreducible complexity, and difficulties associated with protein evolution, and the evolution of multi-protein machines - (again, it's advanced technology which seems to require an intelligence to build). ID notes that the tree hierachical patterns are not strict as was originally thought, but that the gene phylogenies (including animals genes) have differing phylogenetic trees (thus negating a previous argument against ID & for CD)...
@tubewatch59 Irreducible complexity? Who are you, Michael Behe? I thought that everybody had sort of abandoned irreducible complexity a couple of years after Behe published his book "Darwin's Black Box" (known jokingly as "Behe's Empty Box") and essentially revealed all of the bias and all of the fallacies.
That would mean for example that those bones in the forearm and wrist may have been better able to withstand falls by either being stronger or more flexible.A perfect human would also have perfect reflexes and be able to avoid most falls.Then there is the bodys ability to heal.Imagine how well that would work in a perfect human. The point most anti theists seem to miss is that theists believe original man was created perfect.
pestmanpat 1 week ago
With all due respect to the doctor i think the example of the bones in the forearm breaking is very poorly though out.If you are arguing with any theist you need to recognize that theists do not believe the human body is optimally designed now.Humans today are the product of generation after generation of hereditary imperfection.The original humans according to theists were created perfect.cont-
pestmanpat 1 week ago
Natural selection actually makes the body damn near perfect for what it has to do to survive. If you think something looks badly "designed" it is down to other reasons.
Triipticz 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr George Marshall, an eye-disease researcher from the University of Glasgow, Scotland MUST watch his YouTube video : DAWKINS´S POOR EYE DESIGN NONSENSE EXPOSED !! - PART 1"
6630mcdo 1 month ago
I'd love to get Richard Dawkins to talk to my mom. She simply doesn't get evolution.
NorthCitySider 2 months ago
This is brilliant, I never thought of the immune system in that way. How ingenious. This is the kind of thing I love to learn about.
GuacamoleKun 3 months ago
Biologists try to gain scientific understanding by observing nature and conjuring up a hypnothesis of how things work. They design experiments to test their ideas. By necessity, deriving the hypnothesis and designing the experiments require scientists to "think" how a cell or another living organism carries out its life. Applying these "human" solutions, i.e. a human view of resloving biologies mysteries, automatically makes scientists guilty of anthropomorphizing.
lightbrownpoop 3 months ago
So fascinating watching two intelligent people speak.
livingdeadgrl18 3 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@livingdeadgrl18 Dr George Marshall, an eye-disease researcher from the University of Glasgow, Scotland MUST watch his YouTube video : DAWKINS´S POOR EYE DESIGN NONSENSE EXPOSED !! - PART 1"
6630mcdo 1 month ago
This is brilliant! We don't have ducks in this field. That's right Randolf, we don't. It does walk like a duck though. Yes yes it does. And it smells like a duck too. Most certainly does, but we don't have ducks here remember. I know but it even quacks like a duck. We really shouldn't be surprised though that it has ALL the attributes and constitution of a duck, but isn't. Hmm, we really should give it another name hey? Yes, how about we call it a Quack? OH Richard, Your brilliant once again.
AlainSta60 4 months ago
You do realize that the tripe you believe in has been forced into your brain since your childhood.... It is not design. It is not design. it is not design. It is not design. It is not design. it is not design. It is not design. It is not design. it is not design. It is not design. It is not design. it is not design. I am not brainwashing you. I am not brainwashing you. It only "appears" to be design. It only " appears" to be design. It only "appears" to be design. I am not brainwashed....am I?
AlainSta60 5 months ago
it could be arguable that by "designed" we were designed by the environment and natural selection.
Valtyr86 5 months ago
evolution is 100% absolute fact, You can tell that humans came from apes look at creationists they are as ape like as you can get a banana has more intelligence than a creationist. Anyway, great video!!!
davidmorrison09 5 months ago
@davidmorrison09 you must learn to use punctuation correctly, before commenting again on the internet. should you complete this task, people will be more likely to understand you and take you seriously. godspeed.
fdota 3 months ago
Its been a while since I saw it but I remember thinking it ended being a better argument for the amazing adaptability and design of the human body.
MrLitigator1 6 months ago
he's a psychologist not a real doctor
celal777 6 months ago
@celal777 and what are you?
Omnislash2000 3 months ago
This started off as arguing poor design of the human body and natural selection...it didn't end that way
MrLitigator1 6 months ago in playlist richard dawkins part 1
@MrLitigator1
In what way did it end for you?
June28July 6 months ago
How the hell could I have missed this series!?
NBM397 7 months ago
I guess it's all in how you look at things. He probably has a negative take on everything I see as an amazing miracle. What I'd call an incredible, astonishing, breathtaking thing of beauty, he sees as a terribly flawed mechanical device developed throuh random evolution. Yet, this same smart ass probably can't change the oil in his own car.
moosiklvr30 7 months ago
The more dawkings videos i watch, the more i feel convicted to believing in intelligent design.
Makle84 7 months ago
@Makle84
Care to elaborate?
June28July 6 months ago
@Makle84 because i have yet to hear anything logical to discredit creative design in species. I think even Evolution is a form of intelligent design. The chance of macro-evolution occurring is a miracle same as creation. Yet atheists do not believe in miracles! why are we here rather then not here at all?
Makle84 6 months ago
DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN!!!!!!!!!!!!
Makle84 7 months ago
Arguments citing the imperfection of biological designs are completely irrelevant. Intelligent Design doesn't say that the intelligence was perfect, only that intelligence was involved.
That said, the example this doctor gives is quite silly, too. He claims that the fibula and tibia are poorly designed because they break when you fall off a skateboard. In his next breath, however, he explains how much flexibility and dexterity this design provides us. Is he even listening to himself?
SnoopyDaniels 7 months ago
”I'm using the word `design` over and over again. I can see why other people do. It is very hard to find another word to refer to this mechanisms that work so well."
"Once and for all: it looks like designed. Natural selection produces a powerful illusion of design."
Why do they keep repeating this allegations? This is the answer: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." -Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister
vitea2 8 months ago
Is Intelligent design responsible for Ambras Syndrome ? If so not very intelligent.
zegthuszag 8 months ago
Damn, I hate these "scientists" with white lab coats running around with test tubes. That's not my style, I'm a theoretical man.
ignatei 11 months ago
this guy is foolish to not even give a chance there is a god
blazinmic55 11 months ago
@blazinmic55 No, he accepts the possibility.
Grimmjow567 11 months ago
@blazinmic55 he does, it ends up to deism.
skydome29 9 months ago
Science (scire: to know) is and will never be more than knowledge that can registered by the human senses: taste, touch, see, hear and smell.
procommenter 1 year ago
@procommenter No, science is also largely based on mathematics.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
why do you have this series called Intelligent Design
Trbitt213 1 year ago
nice video of beavis and butthead. thanks :)
gerinja 1 year ago
I think his assertion that the human body is badly designed is idiotic. If it's so badly designed why don't we have better designed androids?
frankz00 1 year ago
@frankz00 There are well designed cars and badly designed cars. I can recognize those differences, yet I have no skillset that would allow me to design a car better than the worst car ever. It therefore is logical that no person on earth (yet) might have the skillset that would allow them to design an android that rivals a human being. Just because you can observe something doesn't mean you can replicate it.
zerobeat18 1 year ago
dawkins is the most pathetic so-called scientist i've ever seen. not only he's promoting a lie (evolution) but he's also doubting everything he says about it too. I tell you guys one thing, this dude dawkins reeeaaallly wish he was courageous enough to admit that evolution is a lie.
dawkins, we will welcome you with open arms if you bravely admit the evolution lie. No Christian will condemn you for confessing and repenting. Consider it as your greatest act for yourself and for everyone else
sthcrox 1 year ago
@sthcrox Indoctrinated freak.
zalmanusa 1 year ago
@zalmanusa
i do have doctrines i believe in. do you? i hope you do, and not just floating around in the ocean of lies that these fools like dawkins swim in!!!!!!!
pathetic and laughable
sthcrox 1 year ago
@sthcrox You do realize that the tripe you believe in has been forced into your brain since your childhood? The only way you can live a normal human life is by leaving the church and start learning about the amazing natural world we live in. Please don't waste your only life on believing in stories made up by man a long time ago for the purpose of controlling the massive amount of idiots that existed and still do.
zalmanusa 1 year ago 52
@zalmanusa
i have told yu the Truth. It is worth your soul to look into Jesus seriously. I wish yu did, even once, but yu've got to seek Him with all your heart. That's why you haven't found HIm bcause yu come in with a BIASED mind. God does not need yu for His existence, but He has enough love for you to create a way for you, if you choose it yu will live. it's yor choice.
enough said.
sthcrox 1 year ago
@sthcrox You got it fellow brother or sister, all this crap against God's existence is the devil at work confusing and distracting people. Anyboy would have to be a FOOL according to the Bible to say to himself "there is no god". Creation screams very loudly into our hearts that He is real, powerful, awesome, and worthy of our attention. Nothing cant be made by nothing, simple logic. I pity brilliant scientists such as Carl Sagan who didn't believe even though God showed him, pity and shame!
79agp 1 year ago
@zalmanusa
Before i check your intention, i'll see what you write: your choice of words is enough to make me hate the doctrine you follow.
I'm seeking God's righteousness, purity, perfection, His kingdom, and His glory. The tone of your response exposes exactly what your beliefs have made you: Without God you are prideful, puffed-up, talk down to Christianity (which you have no understanding of)...etc..You see why your view is pitiful?
consider the perfect work done by Christ on the cross...
sthcrox 1 year ago
@zalmanusa Tell me. What's a normal human life? Who are you to decide what a normal human life is? Normal to many people is Christianity, normal to others is Buddhism, normal to yet others is Satanism. Please don't be so close-minded in your thinking and start considering everyone who believes in something supernatural to be abnormal... And idiots? Again, who are you to judge who the 'idiots' are? You, and whoever liked the post, are such narrow-minded people.
ffanarchist 11 months ago
@zalmanusa You do believe that the "you coming from a rock" theory has been conditioned into your mind since childhood? age of 4 or 5... do some research on child development and brain development first dino book yippe "dinosuars they lived millions of years ago.." Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”. Adolf Hitler
909Kunfused909 10 months ago
@909Kunfused909 They tell it to us because it is fact, they used to do it that we were all created by god (19th century) and then realized, with all the confirming and aiding research, that this conclusion is stupid. So hence dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago. Why turn this into a moral argument? You've lost upon doing that.
skydome29 9 months ago
@sthcrox fucktard
mikesomething 1 year ago
@mikesomething
repent of your sins and you will live, cos you are on a downward slide right now.
sthcrox 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sthcrox hindu is the real religion
all you christians are going straight to hell, where you will be fucked by animals for eternity
mikesomething 1 year ago
@sthcrox I feel sorry for you. You are unable to enjoy this world with a free mind. You are just a brainwashed child.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@Grimmjow567
please don't feel sorry for me...please...WEEP for yourself...weep for yourself..for i know where I am going, following my Lord Jesus Christ.
But you! Oh, you. Where are you going to be? Repent or you will be condemned.
sthcrox 1 year ago
@sthcrox It's very disappointing to see people like you. What reason do you have to believe what you say?
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@Grimmjow567
disappointed? what reason do you have not to believe?
sthcrox 1 year ago
@sthcrox Proof, Logic and common sense.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@Grimmjow567
what would it be like when you find out that your 'proof, logic and common sense' are misleading you? what would you say when you'll find out you have been looking in the WRONG place (i.e, your almighty 'Self')? what would you do when you find out it is too late for you to try to fix anything?
what a humongous headache it will be, won't it?
sthcrox 1 year ago
@sthcrox Not really.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@Grimmjow567
bye!
sthcrox 1 year ago
even IF it was all just "natural selection"
the selection process itself points to intelligence.
Why do certain species survive and others don't? Why is the universe structured with laws that guide the process? Why is there ANY purpose to this instead of just random chaos?
Duh....because there is intelligence.
BrokHomz 1 year ago
@BrokHomz writes: "Why do certain species survive and others don't? Why is the universe structured with laws that guide the process? Why is there ANY purpose to this instead of just random chaos? Duh....because there is intelligence."
Those are fantastically excellent questions. But between your questions and your short answer, there would need to be years/decades (centuries?) of scientific exploration to arrive at such a definitive answer. Science isn't "if I write it down then it's true".
zerobeat18 1 year ago
@zerobeat18
its just plain to me. there is no debate. none needed. and the fact someone questions the existence of God, makes me question their sanity.
To deny God, means you have to first acknowledge God.
Why the heck, would humans...born from "random chemicals" just randomly make up a belief in a creator, when there isn't one. And then hold on to these beliefs until present day?! That makes no sense at all. It is very logical to believe in God on the other hand. It is plain to us.
BrokHomz 1 year ago
@BrokHomz God was created to fill the gaps of knowledge.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@Grimmjow567
and how do you possibly know this?
you don't. That is what you call an assumption.
Welcome to the realm of faith sir. At least my faith make logical sense, and leaves one with a sense of purpose and value. Where as your says, we are nothing but dirt. And I KNOW, deep down you don't believe that. Why?! Because I think you would object to me or someone else killing you or someone in your family. If you really believe what you do, let a serial killer take your life. Go ahead.
BrokHomz 1 year ago
@BrokHomz "At least my faith make logical sense"<fail. You believe in god because you want to be worth something? Lol religion is arrogance parading as humilty.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@Grimmjow567
not.
Arrogant about what? We claim that we are sinners, who are saved solely upon the grace of God. We don't even claim to be the ones who FIRST desire to be saved. It is all God, not us. Lest any man should boast!
BrokHomz 1 year ago
@BrokHomz And let me ask you this: Why do you think it is wrong to kill people?
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@Grimmjow567
To be honest, if I truly believed what you claim to believe (that there is no God or purpose). I would find out where you live right now, travel there and kill you, just for the fun of it.
Why? Becuase in your worldview there is NO right and wrong. So therefore, by what authority can you really condemn those actions? You already ruled him out.
Luckily I happen to believe in God, and know there is a judgment day.
SEARCH "cruel logic" on youtube and watch it, to get my point.
BrokHomz 1 year ago
@BrokHomz Stop embarrassing yourself. If you only reason you are not evil is because you fear judgement from your imaginary friend, then you are a sick man that needs to be locked up.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@Grimmjow567
we are all sick. my worldview addresses that. You think your good in God sight because you don't have an urge to kill someone. hahahhahahahha, You are FAR from good, just like the rest of us.
Yes, you need God too. Just like I did.
BrokHomz 1 year ago
@BrokHomz Please elaborate as to why we are all sick.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@Grimmjow567
Well if you want my answer, you have to first assume that the bible is God's word, and that it is infallible. Once you get passed that, we read about the fall of man in the garden of Eden. Murder happened in just the SECOND generation of humanity.
Since then, we have fallen from grace. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
BrokHomz 1 year ago
@BrokHomz "you have to assume that the bible is God's word, and that it is infallible". Do you know why you believe that? It's because your parents forced that shit into your head since the day you were born.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@Grimmjow567
thats HOW I heard about Jesus. But that didn't make me believe. I am actually a very rebellious person at heart.
Your REALLY think, I couldn't just say "screw you mom and dad, I don't believe this!"? Come on. Now your questioning my intelligence. I can make my own decisions thank you.
This is MY belief, I made the call, and I am sticking with it.
I could say that atheism/evolution was forced into your head by public schools.
BrokHomz 1 year ago
@BrokHomz Lol athiesm cant be forced into your head. It is simply a lack of belief.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@BrokHomz How the fuck is a video about a psychopath at all relevent to your point?
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@Grimmjow567
There is no psychopaths in your worldview. Everything is permissable, and nothing is wrong....or right...but not wrong.
There are is no intrinsic value to human life, and ultimately there is no free will. So you can't claim that he was a psychopath.
Besides, that is VERY intolerant of you.
BrokHomz 1 year ago
@BrokHomz You claim that without religion there is no morality. What are your grounds for that arguement?
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@Grimmjow567
Morality doesn't exist.
How can it?
On what grounds would you force your values onto another person?
If there is no God, there is no objective truth. Therefore NOTHING can be moral. It is what it is.
BrokHomz 1 year ago
@BrokHomz Morality comes from empathy, which come from intelligence.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@Grimmjow567
which came from?
BrokHomz 1 year ago
@BrokHomz Sorry i dont understand which comment your refering to with "which came from?".
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@BrokHomz Lol you keep refering to my beliefs, my world view etc. Although i have not mentioned anything about beliefs or world views. So basically you are argueing on grounds you dont no exist.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@Grimmjow567
Yeah, its a technique.
I am showing you how self-refuting your worldview is. I don't have to debate you. Reality already confirms that you are wrong.
For you to claim that "THERE IS NO GOD", you would first have to know EVERYTHING about the whole cosmos. But if you knew that, that would make you God. You can't escape his reality, quit trying to suppress the truth. Not only do I knew you believe in God, but one day you will bow before Jesus. And you know it as well.
BrokHomz 1 year ago
@BrokHomz When did i ever say there is no god?
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@Grimmjow567
Then where are you disagreeing?
BrokHomz 1 year ago
Comment removed
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@BrokHomz I am disagreeing because you are a brainwashed dumbfuck Christian. You dont need to be Christian to believe in god.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@Grimmjow567
No you don't.
But you need to be a Christian to believe in the TRUE God. That is the difference.
I'M the brainwashed one?!
BrokHomz 1 year ago
@BrokHomz Again with the spurting out of the narrow minded shit. The is an overwhelming amount of evidence against the christian god.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@BrokHomz And if morality doesnt come from intelligence and understanding, then why does a child expreience moral confusion?
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@Grimmjow567
children get TAUGHT what is right and wrong. But they also have a God-given conscience.
BrokHomz 1 year ago
@BrokHomz Conscience come from empathy. I stated this before.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@BrokHomz Let me ask you this: If you were born in Afghanistan, into a Muslim family, do you think you would be a Christian? What about being born into a Hindu family in India? The answer is no. If you were born in Afghanistan you would be a Muslim, if you were born in India you would be a Hindu. If you were born in Classical Greece, you would believe is Zeus and Apollo. You happen to be born into a Christian family, i assume is in America (I could be wrong), and as a result are christian.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
This kind of forces you to conclude one of two things, they're either all right, or they're all wrong.
KittenKiller 11 months ago
@KittenKiller Exactly.
Grimmjow567 11 months ago
@BrokHomz You keep refering to my beliefs, my world view etc. None of which i have even mentioned. So basically, you are argueing on grounds you dont know exist.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@BrokHomz Bahahahaha!!!! I just read one of your previous comments. And by that logic every single religion is true aswell as Lord of the Rings and every other piece of Fictitious literature.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
lol....they are giving more and more credit to ID then I would ever expect! wow awesome guys.
ID ftw!
BrokHomz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
click my name and see the future of tomorrow
blitzboy13 1 year ago
Bible says: The FOOL says in his heart that there is no God.
sthcrox 1 year ago
Bible says: If your child is disrespectful, stone him to death in front of the town.
Bible says: Slaves are just fine.
Bible says: Kill wives who are not virgins on their wedding night.
Using the bible to prove any point is the stupidest thing you can do. It's a disturbing collection of fairy tails combined with spoken history; it's utter shit. Please understand this and refrain from using the bible as a credible source in the future.
dbzphish84 1 year ago
@dbzphish84
like i said, the FOOL says in his hear that there is no God. Aren't you a FOOL too?
sthcrox 1 year ago
@sthcrox No, but you're just another religious sheep. No point in arguing with anyone who doesn't think for themselves.
dbzphish84 1 year ago
@dbzphish84
Just as I said. Go figure it out. It will be for your own good. Cheers.
sthcrox 1 year ago
@dbzphish84 I don't think you've taken a look at the bible in it's own context. Try it, things make sense when you do.
SupremoHumberto 1 year ago
@sthcrox Bible says also " It is good for a man not to TOUCH a woman (1 Cor. 7:1)"
please do us a favor and follow the bible by not reproducing yourself.... :/
eat666shit 1 year ago 23
@eat666shit
just as your name says, you ARE eatshit666. thanks for nothing.
sthcrox 1 year ago
@sthcrox you are welcome, good sir for sharing your insights on the biblical nonesense,contrary to what actually an educated people would say . remember, corinthians 7:1
eat666shit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eat666shit Dr George Marshall, an eye-disease researcher from the University of Glasgow, Scotland MUST watch his YouTube video : DAWKINS´S POOR EYE DESIGN NONSENSE EXPOSED !! - PART 1"
6630mcdo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eat666shit "Anyone thinking the eye is wired backwards is ignorant of the human eye." Dr George Marshall, an eye-disease researcher from the University of Glasgow, Scotland
6630mcdo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eat666shit Dr George Marshall, an eye-disease researcher from the University of Glasgow, Scotland MUST watch his YouTube video : DAWKINS´S POOR EYE DESIGN NONSENSE EXPOSED !! - PART 1"
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@sthcrox
Good that my hart only pumps blood than.
klootzakisme 1 year ago
Is it just me...or did they just give a great argument for design?
VeryImagesozo 1 year ago
@VeryImagesozo just u bro
Brafmah 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop the reason darwin used the term selection was to show the parallels between how humans and nature effect species. In the beginning of Origin, which you should really read before commenting on evolution, Darwin talks about domestication. People have been changing species over thousands of years by allowing the animals and plants with the most desirable traits to reproduce. Nature does the same thing. Depending on the environment, certain traits will increase or reduce your ab
Fulcrum26 1 year ago
A Psychologist is not a Medical Doctor, so why is He commenting on the subject?
I don't know of an american MD who has not taken Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy as a pre-med student. OH! I forgot; Neese isn't an MD.
tnyrb444b 1 year ago
how does nature select something? in order to 'select' something, you need an intelligent agent doing the selecting. selection involves a choice.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop did you watch this at all?
me86680 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop
This is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read in awhile.
newloser 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop Read a fucking book or two, most 15 year olds know this
Rockster969 1 year ago
@Rockster969 select means to choose in preference to another or others; pick out. why use an oxymoron term like natural selection then? nature doesn't have the ability to select anything.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
@Rockster969 in his search for extraterrestial intelligence, Carl Sagan said all we need is one message with information in it from outer space and we'd be able to recognize the presence of intelligence. we won't even need to translate the message, he said; we'll just recognize the presence of intelligence. when it suits the atheist, only intelligence can explain intelligibility, but when it's discomforting, primordial self-existent soup will do. they cannot hide their prejudices.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
@Rockster969 belief in a creator does not hinge on how he created.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop That is just so ignorant. You couldn't be more wrong.
SpeshDJ 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop Whoa, it's like you're commenting on the phrase "natural selection" without knowing one iota of what it refers to.
zerobeat18 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
find good Latino girl rockmycity.info
hauiakks 1 year ago
Depends how far back you want to go with this!!! Natural selection itself is a form of design.... what designed natural selection?
consono1 1 year ago
@consono1 I agree. It's just infinite regress.
Theonusisonthebeliev 1 year ago
Of course we are designed, by nature! Theres no problem saying design lol.
kimflie 1 year ago
@kimflie Except design implies consciousness.
Theonusisonthebeliev 1 year ago
this Doctor need s brain
drshamast 1 year ago
Wow - somehow the cells knew the wrist had to rotate and they communicated with each other.....perhaps they should document the empirical evidence when the cells decided to apply these changes ...Oh lets see....they need billions of years and maybe more billions of years..no no we wouldn't see these smart cells talking to each other..'we need to totate the wrist so lets make the wrist bone thinner'. THese guys are so smart that they have become stupid.
whiteliketar 1 year ago
« somehow the cells knew the wrist had to rotate and they communicated with each other »
No. Somehow the organisms that had a particular feature were better at passing on their genes, which caused the trait to spread throughout the population.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
Hey Dawkins, let's change the meaning of words so they best fit our world view. lol
hypermite01 1 year ago
@hypermite01 That's pretty funny. I'm not kidding. I actually laughed pretty hard when I read that. "Of COURSE! Let's accuse atheists of ANOTHER thing that I do that pisses them off!"
10percentAtheist 1 year ago
The whole time this guy talks about how poorly designed the arm is, yet never gives an example of a better design. I agree that the whole body seems to be made with trade offs, because that's how they best work. Basically it comes right down to this, atheist look at the body and say it's a bad "design" with some good side effects. Where as creationist say it's a good design with some bad side effects. We both examine the same evidence, we just come up with different answers. That's science.
ConservativeLady0601 1 year ago
@ConservativeLady0601
Good day. I believe that tradeoffs are the deal on various organs usually criticized by the non-theists. Take a racing car. People say it's "designed with no compromises". That's supposed to be a good and impressive thing. But it basically means that for just about all kinds of motoring (with the exception of racing) a race car is - poorly designed. A good designer will build a system having many compromises, so it performs pretty well in many diverse environments.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
¼ÅΣ×327äß÷†56§£±³£»¢×Åß¾23.3336=
If you answer this formula, you will than know the answer to life and how we came to be.
flamnjon6969 1 year ago
@flamnjon6969
But what is the question to life? I reckon the question to life is - why are you misbehaving? The answer to life is thus - Sit down and be quiet! (Life should be seen but not heard).
On this, statement, life stands.
The answer to the above formula (via logical inference) is thus a family of responses typified by the string saying (in human English format) = "Shhh! Behave."
Am I right, am I right? Say yes, go on, go on! Please please (I'll pay you!)
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 Excuse e moi? You dare mock my molecular theories? Tsk tsk. I shall report your...uh...unitelectual designness to my molecula biology professor!! You sir, are a sonovagun!!! Good day!
flamnjon6969 1 year ago
@flamnjon6969
No! Really, I was just kidding. I never meant a word. Don't report me PLEEEAASSEEEE!!!!
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 I said good day.
flamnjon6969 1 year ago
@flamnjon6969
Good day to you too! :-)
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@EvolvedSkeptic
I've seen an awful lot of confidence in the power of nature - that was totally unwarranted. People believe in what suits them for the most part. Not believing in God suits a good many people. It's not that people would like to believe in God, but face the "hard truth". It's rather, that people see atheism as a way to be liberated from constraints that they find unpleasant.
Anyhow, lets see what science turns up. I'm all for continuing research into origins.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 "..people see atheism as a way to be liberated from constraints that they find unpleasant."
What? I know that I'm going to die. If I believed what I "wanted" to believe, I would come up with my own religion, where I get to live forever. Or, since you've already done that, I could just become a Christian. I'm not an atheist because it's "easy", I'm an atheist because it's logical.
10percentAtheist 1 year ago
@10percentAtheist
On the contrary. You doubt that everlasting life is possible, and you wish to be free of the constraints on behaviour laid out by systems of thought that do hold to such ideas. And you want to be free of such constraints. You already invented a religion to be free of such constraints. It's the old religion. Nature worship. You assume without evidence that nature MUST explain all that cannot be yet understood. That's quite a leap of faith, given what it must explain!
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 You are trying to tell me what I'm thinking, and you are wrong. I should know that I would love it if an afterlife made any sense at all. I see no constraints in the bible that Christians follow that I don't, besides belief in JESUS.
I don't think it a leap of faith at all to say that nature can explain nature. I do, however, think it quite a leap of faith to believe that I will magicallly live on after I die, and that your god, one out of hundreds, exists.
10percentAtheist 1 year ago
@EvolvedSkeptic
I do feel lonely, like a scarecrow blowing in the dry and windy field. But hey, I get to see some nice sunsets and sunrises! :-)
Seriously though, it is the atheistic people who likely feel the most lonely. They must endure living without hope. "Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
But it is possible for agnostics to accept the ID worldview as well. Not every nonreligious person rejects the ID woldview.
Anyhow, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@EvolvedSkeptic
Our version of "skewing" is to invoke an unobserved "intelligent designer" to fill in the gaps in capability of what is observed in nature. ie. if nature cannot seem to oiginate this or that system, then we tentatively invoke an agent that is capable of creating such systems.
On the other hand, naturalists "skew" what is known about nature. They must believe that nature is capable of originating technology, when nature is observed to be grossly incapable of such feats.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@EvolvedSkeptic
As I've been mentioning to 10% Atheist, there isn't much in the way of verification for your beliefs about origins either. You people must believe thiongs about chemistry and information science that are laugh out loud ridiculous. You do a lot of skewing of the way the world is yourselves. The skewing that IDists do is arguably more reasonable than naturalistic skewing. Why?
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@EvolvedSkeptic
When I say evolution is a belief, I mean macroevolution and related phenomena like abiogenesis (ABGN).
While in a sense ABGN is different to macroevolution, in the naturalistic paradigm it is something that is not optional. Without ABGN, we wouldn't be here (if naturalism is true). So, all naturalists MUST believe that some kind of ABGN took place. But there's not yet much evidence that such a thing is even possible. It's a belief in the absence of (enough) evidence!
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 "When I say evolution is a belief, I mean macroevolution and related phenomena like abiogeneis."
Abiogenesis is not evolution. They are completely separate theories. Macroevolution has been observed, abiogenesis hasn't. By the way, if you can observe something, it isn't a belief.
10percentAtheist 1 year ago
@10percentAtheist
Microevolution isn't a belief, it's a fact, because as you said, it's been observed. What hasn't been observed is the kind of evolution that would need to happen in order to take the first life forms and invent the genetic code along with all it's protein and RNA systems, and also evolve multicellular organisms with special organs and cell types etc. That hasn't been observed. It's a belief about what happenned based on the naturalistic worldview. And vica versa for ID.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 Nont only microevolution, but macroevolution have been observed. Look up the Hawthorn Fly. There are websites with lists of instances of observed macroevolution. You are correct in saying that the kind of evolution required for the first life forms to develop DNA and RNA has never been observed, and likely never will be. However, we have evidence of evolution, and all ID has is: "I think that evolution is wrong, so my personal interpretation of the bible must be right."
10percentAtheist 1 year ago
@10percentAtheist
Well sure we have evidence of microevolution. Macroevolution that occurred is many orders beyond speciation events such as the Hawthorn fly, the London underground mosquito and others. In fact the evidence has been mounting for a while that such speciation events happen quickly. ut it's limited and doesn't begin to explain the neccessary larger additions of new systems that must have happenned if macroevolution were true. Even fruit flies don't show this kind of change.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
Speciation is a form of macroevolution. Ask any biologist, and they will tell you that speciation is macroevolution. Creationists tend to use a "strategically elastic" definition of macroevolution, but it is actually defined as a scale of analysis of evolution in separate gene pools. Speciation results in two separate gene pools. The evidence IS mounting that speciation events tend to happen quickly: punctuated equilibrium. Finally, evolution says that new systems DON'T spontaneously appear.
10percentAtheist 1 year ago
@10percentAtheist
Punctuated equilibrium is that branch of evolution that decided that new systems must indeed spontaneously appear. They have to because gradualism in principle cannot explain how selection for new systems can take place. It might if new systems (ie. having new function unrelated to what has gone on beforehad) were plentiful and could be often found by accident via mutations. But we now know that save for the simplest of cases this is far (very far) from being true.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 Wow. "Punctuated equilibrium is that branch of evolution that decided that new systems must indeed spontaneously appear." If you had made an argument, I would refute it. I don't have anything to refute. Evolutionary theory states, quite clearly, that nothing spontaneously appears. Punctuated equilibrium is just what it sounds like-relatively little change occuring, punctuated by relatively rapid speciation.
10percentAtheist 1 year ago
@10percentAtheist
Sometime, if you have the time, check out a paper by Douglas Axe called: "The case against a darwinian origin of protein folds" for a survey of some of the difficulties posed by the idea that proteins evolved naturally.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@10percentAtheist
However, don't forget that not only is abiogenesis a belief, it absolutely has to be true in the naturalistic worldview. Without abiogenesis, life cannot exist (if one has rejected the ID option). So since evolution requires life to even get going, not only is macroevolution an unobserved belief, but it in turn rests on the foundation of abiogenesis which is another unobserved belief. They're different, but evolution depends on abiogenesis having already happenned.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 "Without abiogenesis, life cannot exist..."
Not necessarily. There are several theories apart from abiogenesis and ID, such as panspermia. There are also many theories within abiogenesis. Keep in mind, amino acids have been created in the lab, in conditions that match our current understanding of early earth, and self-replicating molecules have also been created in the lab. On top of that, I recommend looking up Protobionts.
10percentAtheist 1 year ago
@10percentAtheist
But panspermia is either ID or more (unobserved) abiogenesis ultimately. Protobionts and the various theories are all interesting and will aid chemical and biotechnology no doubt. Their research is encouraged. I thik you'll find over time though that what will be found out is that these kinds of systems do not develop naturally, but only time and lots of research will tell us if thats the case. Until then though the IDists have a reasonable (but tentative) point.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@10percentAtheist
Therefore, the naturalistic worldview is just as belief oriented as is the ID worldview. Both are scientific in nature, yet unverified (neither God nor abiogenesis nor macroevolution have been observed by modern man in the lab.) and thus adherents to either view must at some point "believe" without verification, based on a judgement they make on the likelihood that the view they've subscribed to is correct.
A truly objective scientist would be neutral w.r.t. origins.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 ID is scientific? Is there any evidence for it?
10percentAtheist 1 year ago
@10percentAtheist
I've argued consistently against abiogenesis and macroevolution on various grounds, but I've tried to avoid using the word zero evidence. Did I? If so, I shouldn't have. There is usually always some indirect evidence of this or that theory, otherwise people wouldn't be followers.
So even as there exists some evidence for macroevolution and abiogeesis, so also there is indirect evidence for ID as well...
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@10percentAtheist
The indirect evidnce for abiogenesis and macroevolution is things like similarity patterns in DNA such as homology - the observation that microevolution occurs (and thus that we can extrapolate to macroevolution), claims of junk DNA being an expected result of evolution (including ERV's, pseudogenes) and others.
ID compares human technology to biology and sees similarities. It looks at the difficulties involved in nature being able to do what is claimed for it...
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@10percentAtheist
(cont.) - this includes things like irreducible complexity, and difficulties associated with protein evolution, and the evolution of multi-protein machines - (again, it's advanced technology which seems to require an intelligence to build). ID notes that the tree hierachical patterns are not strict as was originally thought, but that the gene phylogenies (including animals genes) have differing phylogenetic trees (thus negating a previous argument against ID & for CD)...
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 Irreducible complexity? Who are you, Michael Behe? I thought that everybody had sort of abandoned irreducible complexity a couple of years after Behe published his book "Darwin's Black Box" (known jokingly as "Behe's Empty Box") and essentially revealed all of the bias and all of the fallacies.
10percentAtheist 1 year ago
@10percentAtheist
Irreducible complexity is one of the ID concepts that has never been disproved. Want to debate it?
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 Sure. I'll debate irreducible complexity. Name one irreducibly complex system.
10percentAtheist 1 year ago
@10percentAtheist
Many systems would be IC. But lets go back to the well known example. The flagellum is irreducibly complex. It's never been shown not to be.
tubewatch59 1 year ago