Michael Shermer Jonathan Wells Evolution Debate [2 of 7]

[pitziil]

A zen master with just a koan will make this guy stop being an skeptic.

[thewarriorsrok]

@pitziil No, anyone with some evidence will ease his skepticism slightly.

[semitope]

When he says "replace it with something" he knows very well the alternative is the very thing that people seem to hate admitting.

[semitope]

Utterly disappointed in humans right now. So much rubbish in what he is saying

[revo1974]

It may be true that an intelligent agent(s) designed our Universe and there is much circumstantial evidence for this. The notion that the Universe is only six or seven thousand years old or that this agent(s) is meddling within it via magic is both absurd and baseless.

[Galmozzi99]

Shermer is prone to these arguments which rely on the ignorance of his cheerleaders. In an email exchange with me he also claimed the following about David Berlinski "evolution, a subject of which he has no training and knows next to nothing about." Shermer fails to consider Berlinki's degrees in molecular biology & mathematics to be relevant but considers his own limited background in only psychology to make him an expert. Typical.

[heightboosting]

Shermer is speculating to the highest degree possible !!! Shermer`s reasoning is philosophically flawed and biased... William lane craig would laugh at him all day long

[nergvol]

Shermer enlightens.............thankyo­u

[pumpstations]

Cancer is irreducibly complex. Therefor god made it and intended for the creationist to accept whatever their fate is if they get it. The scientist on the other hand,

God forgives those who invented what they need. - Lillian Hellman

[joraynas]

If the great Champion of Atheism and Great Intellect Antony Flew changed his mind after many decades of Atheism and came to the conclusion: There is a God! Then who could be next? Dawkins or Shermer perhaps? Flew was THE Atheist of the later part of the 20th century. (Dawkins was greatly influenced by Flew!! )So If Flew came to the Conclusion there is a God, entirely based on Scientific discoveries, people should pause and consider, could Darwinism be wrong? Cause there is clear evidence for ID

[revo1974]

@joraynas

Flew became a deist not a theist and deism is the belief in a creator(s) not necessarily a god(s). Deism suggests there is evidence for ID as in the entire Universe was intelligent.y designed, it doesn't suggest that this creator meddles within the Universe via magic.

[zenithar6666]

WHAT!

[GlobalDating]

My God. Shermer is no critical thinker at all. He is annoying and full of fallacies, straw mans, subjective opinions, etc. and starts with fixed assumptions. He is no truth seeker. He is not even a bright guy. He probably could not even beat the computer at chess on level 1. He has that typical ignorant look that newscasters like Anderson Cooper have that says "Everything outside he box is bullshit" on their face, which is the total antithesis of truth and logic and freethinking.

[zenithar6666]

true, its unfortunate we have such closed minds among science

[MrSchnuffs]

@GlobalDating The only potential fallacy I noticed was the ad hominem directed at Wells. A straw man fallacy is presenting an over simplified version of someone elses position, and that did not happen. You're also equating a fixed assumption to a fixed position. As this is a debate with two sides, one must start with a position. If you are against this then you are also against the other "fixed assumption" of intelligent design, which actually is an assumption by the way.

[Fishqueen1972]

@GlobalDating Since humans have used the God of the Gaps explanation throughout human history when they did not know something. It would be people like Darwin, Shermer, & people who are willing to accept naturalistic explanations or simply admitting "I don't know" who are the ones thinking outside the box. It is easy to simply say, I don't know so that means God did it.

[Lightmane321]

The fact that Wells is a follower of Moon is a scary scary thought.

Amazing how that man has brainwashed so many, and they call him father.

They also believe that he's the fulfillment of the 2nd. coming too.

need I go on?

[tetrahydroscope]

Shermer is kind of a shit talker...

[lifeandphilosophy]

Nice opening, Shermer. Good luck Jon!

[1982witchcraft]

Why don't scientist just quit! There is no way anyone can figure out how everything started by using science, the answer is not scientific.

It's way beyond any scientific method.

For God sake Just Stop and go figure out a cure for serious ailments, cancer, acne, etc. That would be really useful!

[slantythecamel]

@1982witchcraft Please provide evidence to support your claim that "there is no way anyone can figure out how everything started by using science.."

Otherwise you're talking out of your rear orifice.

[Entropy56]

Can anyone think of an alternative use for a smelly asshole other than for taking a shit?

[Sigil23]

I have such a man-crush on Shermer.

[SilentViolins]

Wow. That opening statement was fanTAStic.

[MorganMarvinson]

He already had the solution?

"To suppose that the eye ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

He goes on "if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, EACH GRADE being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist ... then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection ..."

The answer to his "if" is that it cannot.

[athlete117]

You can hear Shermer's hatred for God dripping through in this part of the debate.

[Leones44]

I think its just his irritation with people insisting on being irrational and delusional.

[rddaos]

Intelligent design is supported by no evidence, it makes no useful predictions, is not testable, and adds nothing to science. This is why the creationists who cannot get published want to bypass peer review and go straight to textbooks.

[immapwner]

doesn't make sense how fish could make lungs and grow feathers and make wings. macro evolution (not micro) has absolutly no evidence backing it up. give me an example and I'll retract that statement.

[ainefairygoddess]

By your statement, are you implying that the changes are expected to happen in one generation? Because macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution plus time, ie. small change plus small change plus small change... equals big change.

[ibangedyourmomlastnt]

immabwner? Good job detective dipshit. Now bag my groceries.

[Dreammotive]

Well we can learn a lot by observing that rather than answering your question you simply get your comment voted down. Evolutionists have long used censorship as a weapon when they can't answer a challenge. Modern ID proponents destroy the evos in debate so they fight to keep them censored and unpublished

[jimbrown257]

Modern ID proponents??

Like it's come so far and done so much for science since this video.

And you are saying evolutionary scientists censorship the Discovery Institute and not the other way around? Are you familiar with some of there tactics?

[Dreammotive]

"Modern ID proponents?"

Yes, do you live in a cave? They're all over the place.

And I dont know if evolutionists have censored the Disc. Inst. specifically but the numerous cases of censoring ID is staggering.

"Where was the Discovery Institute during the Dover Trial?"

I dont know, ask them.

[jimbrown257]

Here's the thing about science; you can cry all you want about conspiracies against your work but really all that matters is what your ideas can produce. You might not like the idea of evolution but our understanding of it is the entire reason we have made so much progress in biological areas in recent times.

ID has done nothing. Can you name anything they have accomplished?

[snowflakeeel]

"...we have made so much progress in biological areas in recent times."

Evolution has contributed absolutely nothing to biology. There's nothing in science that humans can benefit from that is based on the theory of macro-evolution. ID is in the same boat. It has done everything that evolution has, which is to offer an explanation of how things came to be but so far nothing more.

[jimbrown257]

Do you want me to tell you why our understanding of evolution (macro or micro, it is the same thing despite what convicted conman "Dr." Kent Hovind says) is the backbone of modern biology or are you a young earth creationist and completely beyond any rational discussion?

[Dreammotive]

well i tried to respond to this but yet again, the stupidest site of all time, youtube, is arbitrarily barring me from posting what i wanted to say. Maybe one day there will be a site were people can have free speech.

[heightboosting]

@jimbrown257 Are you crazy ?? Micro evolution is completely different from macro evolution which has NEVER been demonstrated in our lifetime.... You have a lot of faith in pure speculation, assumptions which cannot be proven whatsoever !!!!!! You have been heavily brainwashed in school... And it will take a few decaded before you come to grasp reality !!!! Kent hovind would annihilate you in a debate and you know it !!!! If you cannot debate him in real life attack his character..

[revo1974]

@heightboosting

Has anyone EVER witnessed a living organism pop into existence via magic by god? No!

Micro evolution is macro evolution, just on a smaller time scale.

[semitope]

@revo1974 microevolution is not macroevolution. What you are saying is the same as me assuming, after seeing a car driving around and corner and past me, that the car drove across and ocean to get there. The only reason evolution exists is to counter the obvious evidence of God in nature. Dawkins says that, this guy said that. "Evolution has given us a way to think otherwise." this is all so damn stupid how willing people are about explaining God away that they make up BS

[revo1974]

@semitope

The evidence for evolution is very powerful. The evidence of living organisms popping into existence via magic is non-existent.

Theistic gods are all myths.

[semitope]

@revo1974 Yeah, its usually said to be very powerful. Till someone with sense starts to question them one by one and reveal them as the lies they are. ?v=FwsPfspq4CQ Pretty sure you can find several more videos to enlighten yourself on this evidence

[cyranothe2nd]

ROFL! Fail. But I guess 1. being the entire foundation of biology is unimportant and that 2. knowledge of where we came from is unimportant as well. By your lights, history, english literature and philosophy must be equally as unimportant, huh? After all, the "contribute absolutely nothing" to anything tangible. But wait, you are even more fail than that! Germ theory, genetics, food production--none of these things happen without evolution. Not to mention knocking out major justifications for

[cyranothe2nd]

Cont: racism and sexism. That's another thing evolution is done--prove that we are all the SAME race. Oh, and there's computer science. You know that thing you're typing on right now? Thanks to evolution. Why don't read something before making completely asinine claims on the internet. Or is reading one of those things that you deem as useless, like evolution. P.S> "God dun it" is NOT a scientific theory. It is not falsifiable.

[cyranothe2nd]

Sorry, these last two posts were @ Snowflakeel down there.

[snowflakeeel]

Well despite your rolling on the floor with laughter you have failed to mention anything that evolution has contributed to science. All your examples are based upon micro-evolution, which itself is part of the creation theory so we could easily say that creation science provided us with those things as well. The bible also clearly teaches that all mankind is of the same race so we dont need evolution for that lesson.

[cyranothe2nd]

@snowflakeel

There is no difference between micro- and macro- evolution. Those are just creationist canards. And your assertion is useless. It's like saying, "What has gravity contributed to science?" Evolution is the BASIS for biology, just as gravity is the basis for physics. And AGAIN, medicine, genetics, computer science--these exist in large part because of our understanding of evolution. Just as we flew to the moon because of our understanding of gravity.

[snowflakeeel]

There is one HUGE difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro has been observed and macro has not. Evolution is not the basis for biology, as biology can be well understood without invoking a needless set of false speculations about origins. Gravity is not comparable to evolution. As it can be tested directly and has been proven to exist. Evolution has never passed nor been subjected to any test which might prove it.

[Daruqe]

Look up "observed instances of speciation." There are PLENTY.

[snowflakeeel]

Breeding wolves to eventually become great danes and chihuahuas is not even remote evidence that oranges and horses have a common ancestor. Just because you have variation to the point of sexual incompatibility, it does not open the doors to limitless change. That is always an implied idea that only exists in the minds of non-scientific evolutionists.

[Daruqe]

If we had to observe every single phenomenon, most of scientific research wouldn't exist. The force of gravity, while its effects can, cannot be observed. It's an inference of the observed effects of matter attracting matter. Evolution, actually, one-ups gravity in this sense as we can see the forces of evolution (mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow) in nature as well as its effects (the diversity of life). Science cannot work without inferences.

[snowflakeeel]

Gravity itself is nothing if not a force, so it can be observed directly time and time again. The force is what it is so observing its force is observing gravity. Again the observations you refer to for evolution are minor changes brought about by shifts in genetic preference to already existing and available gene codes. There is NO reason to infer that this allows 1 gene set to evolve into another.

[Daruqe]

Have you heard of insertions? Observed mutations in which bases are inserted randomly within the genetic code. And duplications? In which existing genetic material is duplicated within the same strand.

Unless you've seen the ground growing arms and pulling stuff to the ground with them, I think we can both agree that the force of gravity is invisible.

[snowflakeeel]

Yes, and I wait for your point.

Did i say gravity was visible? No, but it is directly observable. If sight can not directly sense it then feel can. Just do a few pull-ups and you have directly experienced it through feel.

[Daruqe]

Yeah, I already made my point: we can observe the forces of evolution directly, but not gravity's, yet we KNOW gravity is the best explanation thus far for the behavior of matter (even though it has its problems), and evolution is an even better explanation for the diversity of life.

[snowflakeeel]

Except that the forces of evolution have not been observed directly. The only observed thing is variation and/or mutation within a pre-existing gene pool. There has never been observed a creation of a new set of genes coming from another.

[Daruqe]

that's evolution

[snowflakeeel]

Ah, then we have no disagreement. Because if variation among type is all there is than your theory fits perfectly into the scope of young earth creationism.

[boneshelley]

Yes there is, we observe this every day. There were no mammals in the fossil records as little as 85 million yrs. ago, yet today mammals are very numerous. The reason we don't observe this directly is it takes millions of years. Something creationist can't seem to comprehend is the time scales involved. It is the same with the universe, god belivers just don't understand the size and distances involved. One look at the Hubble ultra deep field convinced me there is no god.

[snowflakeeel]

LOL boneshelley. god believers dont understand the size of the universe. Haha, if anything theists are more aware of the greatness of the universe. Believing in God makes things more complex, not less. You have no idea what fossils were around 85 million years ago, or even if the earth existed in a form suitable to life. Your circular reasoning that fossils identify rock ages that identify fossil ages is not science. One look at any photo of untouched nature is absolute proof of God's existence

[boneshelley]

If you don't believe in the proven science of fossil dating you are truly lost. I do have an idea what fossils were around 85 million yrs. ago, thats called science. Would you deny the age of the obsevable universe is approx. 13.7 billion yrs? Or the age of the earth as approx. 4.5 billion yrs. and has been habital for some form life for 4 billion yrs. Surely your not going to tell me life has only existed for 6000 yrs.

[snowflakeeel]

The proven science of fossil dating? LOL. Fossils are dated by determining the age of the rock layers in which they are found. The age of the rock layers is determined by the fossils that they contain. If you believe that is science then you are truly lost. The age of the universe could be anything. You're assuming that forces have always worked the same way they do today in order to get that age. Thats NOT scientific to assume. No age has ever come close to being proven scientifically.

[boneshelley]

You should really do a little research. -i.e. Zercon dating.

[snowflakeeel]

All of your supposed dating methods are based on at least 2 unwarranted assumptions. 1st- that the earth is already very old. 2nd- that decay rates have been constant for all of history. And its spelled zircon. You might want to research the basic spelling before you go telling me i need to research.

[boneshelley]

So what do you find about zircon dating that causes you to not belive that the earth is approx. 4.5 billion yrs. old. Just for arguments sake let's give it a margin of error of 50%. That's still 2.25 billion to 6.75 billion. It seems a far cry from the 6000 yrs. put forth in the bible. As with most things written in the bible 5 mins. of reaserch shows it to be grossly fictional. You must remember, it was wrote by bronze age people. Would you live your life as they did.

[snowflakeeel]

The problem is that there is no reason to assume that zircon dating is accurate because you are assuming natural processes and decay rates have always remained the same throughout time. That is NOT a scientific assumption, it is an arbitrary one. I cant say how old the earth is based on scientific research. No one has produced any conclusive evidence as to the age of the earth or the universe.

[boneshelley]

Do you have any evidence at all that the earth is not old. Any astronomer will tell you from the evidence that is seen through a telescope that the earth is old. (billions of yrs.) Everything that we see and test (that's called science) shows the rate of decay to be constant. I ASSUME NOTHING!!! and yes I am a terrible at spelling, but it does not diminish the validity of my facts.

[snowflakeeel]

Wrong, I know of some astronomers who will say that the earth is NOT old. Of course the decay rate is constant, because we are measuring it in our present time. I dont dispute that, but what you're assuming is that the decay rate has always been constant, and that is something no scientist has yet been able to disprove. And yeah, forget about spelling, i know that doesnt mean you're ignorant just dont try to act like i am before you even know me.

[boneshelley]

Yes you probably can find an astronomer that does say the earth is not old, but 99.8% will say it is very old. I have no doubt I could find someone who still thinks the world is flat, that does not prove it is. What you are not considering is the sheer volume of evidence. Radioactive decay is constant, there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. Your argument has no validity.

[snowflakeeel]

I doubt your statistic on astronomers. Give me a source or i have no choice but to assume it's false. You will not find any adult in a civilized nation who believes the world is flat. However you will find several million who believe it is young. Enormous difference, incomparable. Even if we assume that decay rates have remained constant, we must also assume that levels of a given element have always been the same through history, or starting with the same amount to count down from: not science

[boneshelley]

Your the one contending the earth is not old should it not be you that supplies the names of astronomers that say the earth is not old. How do you explain the flat earth society. Several million religious people(saying the earth is young) doesn't make that much differance compared to several billion saying the earth is old. (supported by all the avalible evidence) The only evidence for a young earth is religious manuscripts. (bible, qur'an ect.)

[snowflakeeel]

Dr. Jason Lisle is the most prominent I think. I saw a list somewhere of hundreds of Doctorates who accept YEC. Cant find it right now. The flat earth society is an obvious joke which is actually poking fun at YECs. Anyways science is not a popularity contest. Logic is logic no matter how many accept it. The bible is historical evidence for a young earth. But there is loads of scientific evidence as well. Check out answers in Genesis website and look at some of their stuff.

[boneshelley]

@snowflakeeel Ah! but science is a popularity contest, in that when you have 93% of scientist saying the earth is old and only 7% saying it is young, and they all have access to the same info. You are correct Logic is Logic. What seems more logical, the vast majority of the brighest minds in the world are wrong, or the bible(wrote by bronze age goat hearders) is wrong. How do you consider the bible to be historicaly correct of a young earth. After 46yrs. I can find no data for young earth.

[snowflakeeel]

The reason why i KNOW that science can not be a popularity contest is because we know that the vast majority has been wrong in the past. Even the recent past as the global warming scam has been overturned when the majority believed in that too. And the comparison is not between scientists and goat herders, it is scientist to scientist. The bible is historical evidence for a young earth, not scientific. please note that I have already admitted the difference.

[boneshelley]

So how do you contend that the bible is historic evidence? I'm assuming you have added up the ages of the proggression of peopole listed in the bible. That is not evidence! A work of fiction created by monks and religious scholars can in no way be considerd evidence. To be evidence it must be corraborated by other evidence. Global warming has not been overturned! As is evident in the climactic changes we are seeing today. Retreating gaciers, a thawing arctic, ice sheets melting ect.

[snowflakeeel]

The bible is historic evidence where the authors wrote it in that context. There is poetry, parables, etc. But there are specific books where keeping an account of things was the main goal and that is the obvious purpose for many of the books. After establishing that fact we judge the credibility of the authors and how it fits into the rest of history and come to conclusion on its likelihood. Some of us are convinced by the evidence while others are not.

[snowflakeeel]

A book is not considered fiction if it happens to not be true. Fiction is determined by the intent of the author: to create something from the imagination or to record an historical event. It is clear that the authors of the bible believed they were recording history. Wether they were correct is a different debate but we must accept what they have written as evidence because it is a human testimony just like what is accepted in the court of law. Dont like gl. warming? Then take flat-earthers.

[boneshelley]

Could you please name some of the scientific evidence for a young earth. I find this the most intriguing statement you have made so far. Could it be fossils (no), could it be carbon dating(no), could it be zircon dating (no), could it be stratification of the earths crust (no), could it be continental drift (no) could it be red shift as seen through the light spectum (no). Perhaps you have evidence that the scientific community does not have access to? I'm very curious.

[Cougar139tweak]

I hope you are kidding, Just look at the potential use of retro viruses to attack cancer cells, remember that generations are a factor on evolutionary shifts, ie many generations = more mutations. Nature works on a long timescale, the more complex the longer to "change" and the smaller the step. Look up the HardyWeinberg principle, it will depen your understanding of outside forces on genetics. Change in enviroment = Change in organisms ie Stasis = Stasis

[snowflakeeel]

Viruses may or may not be used to attack cancer cells. But they would do so wether or not evolution had taken place. Your speculations about long timescales are only speculations.

[jimbrown257]

Where was the Discovery Institute during the Dover Trial? Isn't it funny how Wells and Dembski dropped out the day before they had the chance to defend ID in court?

[cyranothe2nd]

LOL! So true. I find it hilarious that most advocates of ID are right-wing capitalists but yet they are advocating intellectual socialism in science--all ideas have to be equally considered, not matter how ridiculous, as opposed to the current paradigm-that good ideas rise to the top through repeated test and exposure to refutation.

[JAMRAND]

strawman alert

nobody is asking to stop searching for answers .Plz keep looking for answers.

But a wing does not need a skeleton to give warmth the down is sufficient and better than a wing since the extremitty

is more vulnerable to cold.

Good theory but i just shot it down.

[THISISNOTINUSE]

I'm always impressed by how down to earth and accessible Shermer is. He should be the go-to guy to defend evolution, rather than Dawkins, if we expect to win anyone over to the side of reason.

Thanks for posting the vid. I didn't even know there was a cspan3. "The tres"

[judoyodan]

I predict the end of fundamentalist christianity is near.

The mantle of ignorance they support with young earth and denial of evolution is an untennable assertion.

Eventually nature will take its course and eliminate the weaker(dumber) of the species.

Christianity's days are numbered, and not a mintue too soon I might add.

Good riddance.

[Rarnabybudge]

Most Christians aren't fundamentalists. Most of us have no trouble reconciling faith in God with the scientific investigation of the universe through reason, experiment and observation. Please don't put us all in the same bucket.

[Nades129]

christ fundamentalists are not dominant in the christian population, I think they just get more attention than other christians because of their lunacy.

[jackdav34]

I hope you're right, but I don't think it will ever go.

[gold95]

Shermer is a moron. He just talks without any substance. you should be sceptic of HIM.

[c6gunner]

Thank you for that insightful commentary, "gold95". The sole reason I come to youtube is so that I can read such incredibly detailed refutations penned by intellectual giants such as yourself. Keep up the good work!

[gold95]

I'm glad I could be of some assistance. And, if you do not mind, I would like to add what a wonderful contribution you are yourself to this whole youtube phenomenon, and what extraordinary insight and wisdom you provide. We should all be so lucky to share such profound sagacity, coupled with a keen sense of delightful warmth and love.

If only they give out more Nobel awards, you certainly must be a priority candidate. I wish you the best of luck sir.

[c6gunner]

Why, thank you, my good man. I should mention, at this point in time, that I am an MD specializing in craniorectal extraction and gorm injections. I would be more than happy to treat you, free of charge, at your earliest convenience. Just let me know!

[gold95]

No, thank YOU! You deserve all the gratitude. You are the one using your brain at fullest capcity with answers to the complexity of life.

At this point in time I should mention that I am a Psychologist specializing in treating people with delusional schizophrenia, more precisely patients with voices of past monkeys, visions of tails, striking imaginative pictures of no hope, feeling of worthlessness and complete breakdown of any moral compass. I would be happy to treat you for free.

[wrestlingfan110]

wow ! gold95 my man, you're the man !

May God bless you, not only for outsmart c6gunner, but also for the work you do, may God bless you for all the good work you do for these people.

And i didn't mean that in a sarcastic way mr c6gunner, you're stupid, almost satanic, look in the mirror and say baalzebub, the name whould fit you.

[steve0281]

Yet another Darwinist "just-so" story...

[mooneez]

Jonathan Wells is a follower of Unification Church leader Sun Myung-Moon. He has written that Moon's teachings, as well as his own studies and prayers, convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism.

[Coruscator]

This is a superb opening from Shermer, one of the best I've seen him deliver. He really offers the other guy no quarter.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@Coruscator

"Fiction is determined by the intent of the author"

No, it isn't. A deluded author may still believe that his story is true, but if it isn't it's still fiction.

[mistereveready]

@MomoTheBellyDancer also since the authors are dead, we can't determine if their motives were to mislead, or what. also who is the one considering what is fiction is subjective. so even if snowflakeel was right about what is fiction, it is not clear that those who wrote it actually believed. especially taking into account poes law.

[RandomChance7]

You have given zero examples. Your "commandeered" assets are naught else but pure speculation and the only one that you even bothered to get specific about - the TTSS - I have made a claim rooted in deductive logic that I will be happy to back up. I await the same from you.

May I suggest that if you wish to have a substantive discussion, you refrain from feigning offense and get down to the nitty gritty? Feel free to hit me with a PM on my home page.

[irishmauddib]

love the tactic of making new comments instead of hitting reply. I guess you hope that I wouldnt see the resply

Lies follow this as I gave 2 examples. You just decide to ignore 1 by making up out of nowhere that the timeline doesnt allow it. Please cite the papers backing up this lie.

You cannot refute examples just by declaring them wrong and then lying that your antagonist has provided zero examples when in fact he has supplied 2.

If you have to lie to support your point, withdraw

[RandomChance7]

In defending "scinece," Shermer has 15 minutes to make a case yet there is absolutely no science whatsoever in any of these 15 minutes. "A half wing could have been a thermal device"? Please? A half a brain, then, must be Michael Shermer. Talk about naturalism of the gaps!!!

[generationalist]

RC7 Regarding the wing being a thermal device. Shermer was quoting "Origin of Species". As for the insipid half a brain comment you might want to read up on something called a corpus callosum it's that bit-o brain tissue that connects 2 half brains. So to answer your juvenile question 1/2 a brain = 1/2 OF 1 BRAIN. Your ignorance is expressed clearly as you do NOT recognize a rudimentary argument put forth by Darwin instead of Shermer. You need to read Origin of Species BEFORE you debate it!!!

[RandomChance7]

Shermer can quote whomever he wishes. In a debate format where that quote serves as a springboard for a supposed scientific point, it is worth pointing out that such a "point" is naught else but pure speculation; not science, and whether the argument was originated by Darwin, Shermer, or Homer Simpson, it was advanced here by Shermer.

The half-brain thing was obviously nothing more than a joke. Man, you militant darwinists sure are uptight these days!

[generationalist]

Uptight? I am mocking your ignorance and you did not get that either. So sad. I fully understood that you were calling Shermer a half wit. The words I used were "insipid" and "juvenile" and should have been the clue. Those are words of mockery. Insipid is to lack taste, zest, zeal...another words your comment is dull NOT witty. Juvenility speaks for itself. Let me know when you finish "Origin of Species" I won't hold my breath (said mockingly). I blow my nose at you (said with a juvenile tone).

[RandomChance7]

let me add the inability to rise above the level of sophomoric ad-hominem to uptight.

Here's a better idea: I am always willing to have a conversation, but have no time to listen to boorish condescending monologue. If you ever decide that you're up for an actual conversation, you can get in touch with me. Otherwise, I'll just leave you to revel in your mental masturbations

[generationalist]

Touche. You have a good command of the english language and an understanding of critical analysis. I stand humbled and apologize for the boorish insults.

Fair enough, I'll concede that Shermer did present a hypothesis as an opening to his arguments instead of an established theory. That still establishes a foundation for a scientific argument albeit a weak one. Are you proposing a stronger - or - alternate argument? Thank you RC7

[RandomChance7]

Wow! Apology gratefully accepted and allow me to apologize for getting this conversation off on the wrong foot. I would be very interested in exploring this debate with you in a respectful manner with the complete understanding that you and I are coming from opposite ends. May I pm you?

[irishmauddib]

"no time to listen to boorish condescending monologue"

And accusing your antagonists as having half a brain is not boorish? Condescending? Come now, its not one rule for you and one rule for everyone else. Some decorum please. Live up to your own standards here!

[malcolmeat]

Your attack has absolutely no merit. Shermer mentions cases where wings evolved from flight enablers to be a swimming apparatus. If you wish to learn more, you may want to try reading up on bird evolution.

[irishmauddib]

malcolmeat I think you will find RandomChance7 replied to me here but called to you also. You will not have gotten an email to say he was replying to you. Its a common you tube tactic to reply to someone else so that the person you want to talk to will never know. Its a bit dishonest if you ask me so I thought Id give you a heads up.

[irishmauddib]

Im afraid the wing comment is scientific. The commandeering of assets for other functions is a common aspect of evolutionary theory. We see this in everything from wings and eyes down to the lower things like bacterial flagellum.

One part of a structure being used as part of another structure with a completely different function is a core scientific principle in natural selection.

The whole attitude of "Half and eye" or "half a wing" are a complete misrepresentation of this position

[RandomChance7]

Malcolmeat and Irishmauddib...

perhaps either of you can provide me with one concrete example of what you are talking about? just one. Not, mind you, one "just-so" story; but an actual example where what you have asserted has demonstrably happened. I made an observation, not an attack and for the second time now - the half a brain thing was a joke.

And again, you darwininst fellows continue to be awfully touchy!

[irishmauddib]

what is it you want an example of exactly? One structure being used as part of another? Ive 100s of such examples so not sure which to give you.

The Bacterial flagelum is probably a good example as it is one the ID side tried to use until it was shown to be wrong.

An item called "Type III secretory system" was taken and used as part of the Bacterial flagelum. This is an example of what I mean by "commandeering of assets"

Blood clotting agents are another good example.

[irishmauddib]

Also I speak and act for myself and myself only. Do not extrapolate the things I say to a group as a whole. *I* am touchy when someone has no points so they smokescreen that with insults and demeaning comments. That is me and me alone. Do not extrapolate that with a generalised comment about all people who accept the same views as I do.

Having said that if you have any more questions about the example I gave then do not hesitate to ask.

[RandomChance7]

Hi irishmauddib. May I clarify more than one thing? First, your post to Malcommeat smacked of condescension. No slight was intended. That it was automatically inferred betrays an unreciprocated anger you harbor towards me. Here's what I want: one of those 100s of examples you claim to have. As for the TTSS, it did not come around until millions of years after the BF, so if anything you have offered an example of devolution which makes a lot of sense. Be touchy if you wish

[AtheistIreland]

Please do not imply tone where none is intended. It is dishonest. You tube emails a person you reply to, in order to let them know they have been replied to.

Your tactic of replying to me but addressing him means that he will not know there was a reply to him addressed to him. This is not fair.

My post to him was intended ONLY to rectify this tactic on your part and ensure he is aware there is something for him to reply to if he wishes to do so.

Anything else you imply is fantasy.

[irishmauddib]

As you can see from my new user name we are setting up an association you can join and learn more about this.

However I have given you examples now and you have just ignored them by making up stuff. What you say is not true, sorry. Making stuff up does not make it real.

[Hydragurum]

Lol nice one bro! He's desperately trying to make it work. He has no justification or warrant for using the terms he's using in explication of his argument.

[BionicDance]

Wow...when Michael Shermer finished talking, I had to fight the urge to applaud while alone in my own apartment where no one could hear.

All I can say is, "Damn skippy!"

[irishmauddib]

Our paths seem to keep crossing Bionic :) Hi again! :)

[fuinasreena]

this guys is babbling.

[irishmauddib]

Yours grammars is craps.

[Hydragurum]

Shermer's argumentation is sophomoric. "Nature" in the sense of the realm of man's physical experience has no concept of purpose or design; to stipulate as he does that e.g. certain structures aren't used for specific purposes is to assume that they have any purpose to begin with in which case we must ask where does anyone get the idea of purpose and design from a process which for all practical purposes is blind, mindless and unguided? Purpose is reflective of design and undermines his thesis.

[rickadlib]

Not quite. In evolution, purpose emerges due to interactions of organisms/systems w. each other. If, over the course of millenia, the climate in an animal's habitat goes from warm to cold, the members of that species with progressively thicker coats are the ones who will be more likely to survive and reproduce. The PURPOSE of the thick coat is to keep the animal warm. But no design is ever invoked in the theory, as it's unecessary. The postulate "purpose is reflective of design" is false.

[Hydragurum]

Not at all. Purpose is indicative of intention. Intention presupposes a conscious, sentient agent with volition to intend something; it's a mental state, and hence indicates a designing agency. Over the course of a millenia, what happens just happens; its a purely contingent state of affairs with no ultimate plan or purpose. There is no purpose behind it because again, purpose is indicative of intention. Who or what INTENDS the thick coat to keep the animal warm? Purpose IS reflective of design.

[tapiwakay]

You put that very well. Nice work!

[Hydragurum]

Thanks, bro... the Lord Reigns!

[ProverbsandPrisons]

As opposed to what? Without some God-designer we'd all be bumping into walls and freezing to death?

This is why we get frustrated with this shallow, crude argument from design. You can't think your way out of that church pew. Life without some functional compatibility with its environment goes extinct. Who or what INTENDED for the 99% of all species to die out? Does that sound like intention to you?

I'd wait for your response, but I know you don't have one.

[Hydragurum]

Ignoring the strawman and ad hominem there really is nothing to touch on. I don't deny that life without functional compatibility with its environment goes extinct... the problem to be addressed is how natural processes can produce such functional compatibility when such processes aren't conscious or sentient and the only mechanisms by which to introduce any kind of change have largely been found to require intelligence (e.g. genetic engineering) or else largely detrimental (e.g. mutations).

[Hydragurum]

Further your position is philosophically absurd. You espouse a view that holds that man is essentially physical substance. Explain how natural processes operating on solely physical substance can account for the mental, conscious, and rational categories man possesses which exhibit nonnatural qualities? Further explain how the physical brain of man which is not universal in the scope of its experience or absolute in its accuracy apprehends conceptual, absolute, and universal principles of logic.

[ProverbsandPrisons]

I will answer your (valid, and interesting) questions WHEN YOU ACTUALLY ANSWER MINE. What kind of designer would bring about the absolute end of 99% of its/his/her species? What adjectives would you use to describe that designer?

Before you answer me, STOP and think about whether you're addressing my question. I'm not going to get knocked off track because you're unable or unwilling to focus on the issue I raised.

[Hydragurum]

Yeah because you didn't make any other statements that required addressing right? What adjectives would I use? Rightous, since none are justified in God's sight apart from Christ and all deserve destruction; Gracious since He spared a remnant. And your question is misplaced. It is not necessary that a designer be unable to destroy its own creation; where is the logical connect there? We're not told. God does whatever He wills (Ps. 115:3) and there is none that can correct Him (Job 40:1,7-8).

[ProverbsandPrisons]

Nice Bible verses, too bad they don't answer anything.

My original comment was in response to you saying that good design is reflective of teleology. So I asked you what purpose or intent is behind the unambiguously "bad" designs that have died in out in grotesque disproportion to those that have survived. If you had answered that the designing process must be something blind beyond a few generations (AKA natural selection***BEHOLD, the connection!) then you would have been right.

[Hydragurum]

No... my point was that ANY design (teleology) at all is reflective of an intelligent agent. You cannot prove any design at all on your view of looking at things because design implies an active, conscious intelligence which you categorically deny. And you're misunderstanding your own objection. Your objection was to God's purpose in destroying what he created (pertinent to God's providential plan), not that what he created had anything wrong in their design plans (pertinent to . teleology).

[ProverbsandPrisons]

You're rambling and wrong.

If you're saying that what you call teleology means design without exception, then you've called off the debate and I might as well be debating the wall instead. As for misunderstanding my objection, that's all you, my friend. My point is that the designing process is manifestly short-sighted and lacking any eminent intelligence . The idea that those attributes can be applied to anything approaching your concept of a god is what I object to. Get it right.

[Hydragurum]

That's the typical response I get from atheists when they can't answer arguments. I haven't called off any debate; my point is that you cannot even talk about any design on YOUR way of looking at things. Design PERIOD, good or bad, is a notion that YOUR worldview CANT account for. Even computers with BAD designs have nevertheless back of them some intelligence accounting for it. I may as well be debating the wall because you cant admit to your own DOCUMENTED mistakes in light of clear refutation

[Hydragurum]

Now I'll show you where you're wrong.

You said: What kind of designer would bring about the absolute end of 99% of its/his/her species?

That question is NOT pertinent at all to evidences of design in nature, good or bad, i.e. teleology but is pertinent to Gods plan, Gen 6

Now you're saying: My point is that the designing process is manifestly short-sighted and lacking any eminent intelligence

Now you're shifting the focus to teleological concerns. You're equivocating AND lying. Smarten up man

[ProverbsandPrisons]

Seriously, can you hear yourself?

You just repeated the EXACT error I said you did, AGAIN. So, I'm not allowed to talk about design? Yeah, because that's different from what what I said.

Evolutionary theory is the accounting for life's design in the same way astronomy is the accounting for the cosmos' design, in the way that physics is the accounting for....so on and so on.

But you know what? Go on saying stupid shit that proves my points. Love it.

[Hydragurum]

Dude the more you talk the more you give me to hang you with. There's no point debating you; you can't see your own errors but pin them on me. Evolutionary theory posits that all life forms originated from aboriginal unicellular life via natural selection acting on sources of genetic variation. There is no PURPOSE in the origin

[Hydragurum]

That post got cut off

cont'd.

There is no purpose or design in the origin of living systems in the evolutionary mechanism stipulated, and hence there is no purpose or design in the outcome of the process. You're just not going to get a normative "ought" (pertinent to how living systems OUGHT to function, given their design plans) from statistically usual functioning (how they do function), which furnishes one with an "is." You wont get "ought" from "is." You have to prove that, but can't.

[rddaos]

Then instead of intelligent design, call it incompetent design.  The creationists who cannot get published look silly calling it intelligent design.

[skylockSC]

shermer is an idiot science dissproves science all the time if it didnt it wouldnt be science

[andrewwarmen]

lol, what?

[hanzo138]

I'm going to set out to destroy Newtonism

[derner22]

I don't like people who quote themselves...

[mrjimmbo]

He explained his basis for debate in a concise and elegant manner. It was not narcissistic in anyway.

[ultraviolet99]

You'd better get used to watching debates then, since scientists in particular often begin by reading passages from the arguments in their books.

[plimbuff]

agolosha, you misunderstood, Shermer never said RELEVANT. He said "Darwin was the only one who was RIGHT". You made a very stupid and irrelevant point.

[plimbuff]

agolosha, you misunderstood, Shermer never said RELEVANT. He said "Darwin was the only one who was RIGHT". You made a very stupid and irrelevant point.

[Prytanus]

Say that next time you go to the doctor. See if Marx will help you then.

[Antichrist4Life]

Shermer, man...what a writer...

[BayerLexan]

I think the strength of his writing is the down-to-earth language. He presents his argument so that even the less informed can see his view.

[bigalisme]

He's kinda pulling a Carl Sagan: Making science interesting to those who aren't familiar with it, making it seem less intimidating (because it is to some) and putting it all together in a way that extends to all types of people in a charismatic manner.