What this guy is talking about the irreducible complexity regarding the periodic table is utterly ignorant. It will not cease to be a form of carbon, because you remove some of his parts, in fact, it will remain carbon with different properties. Please someone correct me if i am wrong.
PZ is a hypocrite of the highest order. After spending much time and effort insulting his opponents and criticizing ID, he turns around and says that IDers are guilty of criticizing Neo Darwinism. He never even admits that even evo devo biologist are now criticizing and challenging the Neo Darwinian synthesis. He lied about there (not) being any published papers put out by IDer's. He demands to know how the designer did it, yet he feels no need to explain abiogenesis concerning his own theory.
@benthemiester you're an idiot. The claim isn't that there aren't published papers; it's that there aren't peer reviewed published papers in science journals by these whackjobs. And there aren't.
@integralmath U say there are no published papers in peer review Journals & publications, and your calling me an idiot? PZ Meyers is a liar & I can provide citations upon request, and I'm sure if I do, you will also do what PZ is famous for & change the goal post. While Darwinism does not deal with abiogenesis, it is not irrelevant to "evolution" which is a word that encompasses more that just the neo Darwinian synthesis, i.e.TOE. Its also called chemical evolution by believers in abiogenesis.
@benthemiester um, a fair reading what I read would return this as the output: The claim isn't that there aren't published papers; it's that there aren't peer reviewed published papers in science journals by these whackjobs
Evolution doesn't deal with abiogenesis because it's an irrelevant field to evolution. That isn't to say it's not a field worth studying; it just doesn't bear on how life changes once life exists.
@integralmath Would you like me to provide you the same published ID peer review articles that you and PZ claim to be non existent? You could have researched it yourself before you started calling people silly names.
@integralmath The citations have been posted on your forum PHPBB under new topic entitled Peer Review. On another note, I would also urge you to take a look at "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" dot org. Check out my video... Do We Need a New Theory of Evolution which is a further critique of the modern synthesis.
Peer-Reviewed Paper Argues that the Origin of Life Required "Purposeful Choices"
David L. Abel
Another recent paper that is not exactly a paper on ID but challenges evolutionary science and inaccurate evolution-education was submitted by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center, appearing in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings.
Now, in order for life to evolve, you need life. As of yet there is no theory of how life got started that works. If a person dies, why can't you just jump start him? What is life energy? So, how can you teach evolution without life? Really, evolution is a fragment of a whole in the story of life. It has no foundation.
@integralmath Really, you didn't answer anything, is that an indication of how much you have learned? Really, no foundation for evolution is quite a glaring omission, don't you think. I mean taking that life just started for granted and building the rest of the scenario, although I don't think that there is anything wrong with that, but thinking that you have all the answers? Really, God is the only complete answer you will ever find.
@MrItchyElbow You are a moron. Unfortunately, it is not possible to teach people who are determined not to learn. As the saying goes 'you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink'.
@ritchloui Is that your final answer? "You are a moron." Wow, I can get that from any 2 year old. Is that what you are, a 2 year old? However, I'll let you go on that since you have a limited mind. I on the other hand have learned a lot in the last week prior to your posting. I'm not as pessimistic about science finding life in a test tube as I was, but it still only proves that there was a designer or at the very least guidance.
If you have an image in your head but no paint with which to create it, the image doesn't qualify as a painting. If you have a hypothesis in your head but no evidence or data, the hypothesis does not qualify as theory or science.
It's not an insult to ID to say it isn't science, it's just a fact based on the definitions of the words.
It seems to me that irreducible complexity is the art of finessing the categorical definition of an object. Just because carbon-12 minus one proton or neutron (electrons are a different story) becomes something else does not mean it fails to exist. It reminds me of people who say "God is whatever the origin of the universe is (even if that means God is the universe itself) therefore God must exist."
If my phone breaks I can still use it as a paperweight on a windy day. Same goes for the appendix, it evolved to have a specific function. Now it does not have that function any more, it can still do other stuff, like store digestion bacteria. A secondary use. Why can't this idiot see this?
This idiot doesn't even understand what "irreducible complexity" is supposed to be. He's just giving examples of complexity (i.e. of things that are made up of more than one fundamental particle). What an absolute retard. I'm ashamed to be part of a species where individuals are so stupid as to fall for such nonsensical arguments.
Bergman is so irreducibly stupid that he single handedly changed the idea and intent of irreducible complexity from something that "could not happen naturally"i nto something that clearly comes from natural processes. He concentrated on "any part missing then it wont work." He rendered the idea useless for it's purpose: negating that variation and selection can produce life's stuff.
Why do non-venomous scarlet king snakes employ Batesian mimicry of poisonous coral snakes? "It evolved that way." NO! Predators from coral snake regions identify the markings of the coral snake and avoid attacking those snakes and risking injury; if other snakes in the region mimic this pattern, predators will avoid attacking them too. How do we know? We've tested the predictions of this hypothesis experimentally. It's much more than "God did it" or "evolution did it".
My introductory biology textbook for university is 1300 pages and evolution permeates the text in almost every chapter. Nothing in the book would make any fucking sense without the core theme of biological evolution, with population genetics that explain divergence and the heredity that explains the unity of life. Creationism is just bad grammar and I rarely find time to acknowledge its pathetic existence anymore.
@TheRationalizer: Well, back in the day, everyone who got an infected one pretty much died. Even now people die from its getting infected. So, there will be some who die who get it out, but not because of the taking it out bit. And, I'm sure, some will die during the operation because of malpractice. But at least almost everyone whose appendix goes tits up lives in the first world anyway. Go science!
@TheRationalizer: I don't think I said that. Indeed, I spoke about the subset of all people in the first world whose appendices go tits up. That says nothing about the larger group. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that - only 500 characters and all, you know!
@integralmath Oh, this guy is a diploma mill product? If so, that explains everything. In addition, I have to agree with which ever scientist, I think Dawkins, who say he will no longer debate IDists. Why give these people any floor to speak on?
@yourjunk420: yes, diploma mill all the way. Myers, Dawkins, most of the big names won't debate creationists. They'll still talk with them, but formal debates carry a certain prestige, and it makes it look as though there is actually a balanced controversy over the subject.
@jappud: yes, really. It was an enormous courtesy on behalf of PZ to go along with the farce by giving Bergman the fucking privilege of breathing the same air. PZ was even sufficiently polite to show up with notes on the topic to be discussed. As he noted in his review of the "debate", these were not needed.
@jappud Actually according to the last poll taken in 2010 80% of people in Aus. believe wholly in evolution, with 10% not believing and 10% not sure. I live here too and I've never heard of ID or anything like that to be taught at any level.
@jcwallac: that's how I roll! I try to give people an accurate picture of what's in a video. It was a rabid squirrel versus a very calm, well-mannered (and oddly nice guy - anyone else notice PZ is nice?!) teddy bear who politely took a shit on squirrel's notes, and then wiped his ass with the squirrel before heading out.
So he's arguing that everything is irreducibly complex. He doesn't seem to realize that this eliminates its value in undermining evolutionary theory.
The appendix does not have a clear function. There is a hypothesis as to some value it has. To my knowledge it has not been shown with certainty. It is also irrelevant as to whether an organ is vestigial.
So a carbon atom is irreducibly complex. But it's well documented how carbon forms in nature. So irreducibly complex things can form naturally without the help of a creator. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Bergman.
@jappud One incident out of how many, and you think he's not nice? Come on. He had infinitely more patience than this asswipe deserved. Or any of the other ignorant fools who willfully spout this bullshit.
The difference between the opening statements of the two parties:
Bergman spends 20 minutes pleading, rather desperately, for the audience to take him seriously by going over his irrelevant experiences with religion, his published work and his credentials, making a passing reference to his problems with the evolutionary model without elucidating too much.
Myers gets straight to the damn point, makes a more detailed and cogent argument, doesn't waste time with self-congratulation. Win.
"Schools that teach creationism the students are ahead"
Because there is barely anything to teach. But that still means that they'll fall behind the students who know about evolution when going into a different school or even to college or university. This guy doesn't have good critical thinking processes. Either that or he is near-sighted.
2011, and we debate with creationist lunacy. lets move on i say. we should front up religion and the harm it does to so many crippled minds.fighting on the wrong front.
The funny thing is I think he doesn't even understand the (faulty) irreducible complexity argument. How are quarks, leptons and bosons relevant to the idea that biological systems are irreducibly complex? How does this guy have a phd?
@antonc81: I think we should get a whole bunch of youtubers together to a collaboration video commending PZ for being, surprisingly, such a nice guy. I bet he never hears that!
@wristawareness: until you guys pointed that out I hadn't noticed. I couldn't watch it sitting at my computer. I have a natural, built-in aversion to bullshit. I try to stay away from it.
What the hell is wrong with America tell these creationist quacks to fuck off and find evidence for their theories LIKE EVERYONE ELSE has to before they are taken seriously.
If you take a neutron or proton out of carbon 12 you no longer have carbon 12. Well duh, you either have carbon 11(neutron), or boron 11. Actually wait an hour and the C11 will decay to B11 by its self.
Doesn't that blow his stupid assertion that C12 is irreducibly complex out of the water?
@Craigmw45: no, because if you take his irreducible complexity theory out of the water, it's no longer water . . . it's irreducibly complex you see . . .
@Craigmw45 His arguments don't even deserve to be shot at. This is depressing to listen to someone this fucking stupid. His analogy of atoms vs complex biological systems is fucking outright inaccurate. So was his remark about legs. I don't think I can listen to much more of this DVD, already don't feel well and I can only tolerate so much stupid w/o having the offender near enough to bitch slap, or at least call them a stupid mother fucker to their face.
@Craigmw45: no, of course not. Silly "science" believer you are. I'm sure you've missed a very important implication in his theory. Namely, it's Calvin Ball with everything.
@Craigmw45 Just silly word games. I literally got up and had to walk away from my computer when he said this. It's like saying two apples is irreducibly complex because when you take away one apple you no longer have two apples.
A carbon atom is irriducibly complex?! Wow, I can barely get my head around that. The atom is a continuum. The periodic table merely simplifies the abundances of isotopes we see in nature, and we apply names to common nuclei.
@Webofscience: fortunately, I don't have that problem. Bergman put no thought into what he was going to say, and I in turn put no thought into listening to it. =^_^=
@integralmath I disagree. He may have put much thought. into it, but is just a moron so what he thought was still hella wrong. I'd love to see Dawkin's horrified WTF face if he saw this. It would be so priceless that it should be put on a T-Shirt.
@zygrottwanger: I appreciate your not using the technical jargon for the "something else". Reminds of those MREs the military have. Inside is a water activated heating system in a bag - it has instructions. One is supposed to prop the bag upright against a "rock, or something else."
Bergman said in the first part he had 800 publications, while he knows another person with 600 publications. These are huge numbers. I really would be very curious to know what type of papers he's counting, or if he's not just pulling the number out of his rear end.
@thisnameisuniq: yeah. Prolific science contributors might put out 4 minor papers a year, a moderate to major paper every couple of years, and then whatever they put up on their blogs, or letters to the editor. The latter two don't count. Let's assume this guy is just a fucking trailblazer. He'll have had to have put out 20 papers a year since the day he was graduated to have that many. You'd expect a little better speech from a man that advanced.
@integralmath I bet it's easy to crank out the papers when you don't need to worry yourself with pesky things like "evidence" and "falsifiable hypotheses"
@thisnameisuniq "Bergman said in the first part he had 800 publication, I really would be very curious to know what type of papers he's counting,"
I did a quick google scholar search by author for J Bergman. It seems he's very prolific in writing about how evolutionists are racist nazi's. In fact evolution was one of the main factors in the Holocaust, according to him.
"Show me the lady who consists of a single quark". The very question is self-contradictory! This guy is mistaking "irreducibly complex" with "composite". Or something like that - in fact, I have no idea what he is on about. At least Behe makes sense, even if he is wrong.
@Slossius1983: not only a women made up of a single quark mind you. He goes on to point out that she wouldn't be able to reproduce. I'm sure the rub is in that little detail. I'll be submitting a proposal to one of his churches to get funding for this study the Establishment won't fund!
Given that the only redeeming qualities of even having video in this case is to keep the visual cortex occupied by noticing crowd size and watching the bearded, evil teddy bear's reactions during downtime, fixing a lag of 1/10th of a second is simply unnecessary.
I'm only just beginning part three and face-meets-palm is already a great success. I already feel my brain getting a stupidityburn.
I've come up with a possible remedy, though: SolarCane and vodka. I'll report on the results. Or not.
@Koliedrus: well, it's not like you could have solarcane without vodka. It's irreducibly complex you see . . .PZ might as well have had one of this zebra fish as his opponent in this "debate". At least the fish doesn't pretend to know anything - unlike this whackjob.
@IAJstea: I've actually been thinking about excising him and just having PZ's talk. PZ's half is a perfectly respectable lecture that would otherwise just appear to have the occasional non sequitur. I guess this guy thinks everything is irreducibly complex.
@Koliedrus: yeah. That's how it came from PZ to me. I don't have the equip to strip the audio and line it up. But if someone else does, I hope they download it from here or where PZ has it hosted and upload a better timed version.
It was extraordinarily kind of PZ to put these out for everyone to watch. I just happened to have gotten lucky with being the first to get them from him.
@NegativeNick: sorry, chief. I support without reservation or caveat the right of people to publicly advocate whatever dumbass idea they have. If he can be silenced, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to be silenced, or I shouldn't be able to be silenced.
As someone who is in a complexity class right now, I've never understood what on earth creationists mean when they talk about it.
jacobromu 2 weeks ago
What this guy is talking about the irreducible complexity regarding the periodic table is utterly ignorant. It will not cease to be a form of carbon, because you remove some of his parts, in fact, it will remain carbon with different properties. Please someone correct me if i am wrong.
hdfailure 1 month ago
PZ is a hypocrite of the highest order. After spending much time and effort insulting his opponents and criticizing ID, he turns around and says that IDers are guilty of criticizing Neo Darwinism. He never even admits that even evo devo biologist are now criticizing and challenging the Neo Darwinian synthesis. He lied about there (not) being any published papers put out by IDer's. He demands to know how the designer did it, yet he feels no need to explain abiogenesis concerning his own theory.
benthemiester 1 month ago
@benthemiester you're an idiot. The claim isn't that there aren't published papers; it's that there aren't peer reviewed published papers in science journals by these whackjobs. And there aren't.
Abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution.
integralmath 1 month ago
@integralmath U say there are no published papers in peer review Journals & publications, and your calling me an idiot? PZ Meyers is a liar & I can provide citations upon request, and I'm sure if I do, you will also do what PZ is famous for & change the goal post. While Darwinism does not deal with abiogenesis, it is not irrelevant to "evolution" which is a word that encompasses more that just the neo Darwinian synthesis, i.e.TOE. Its also called chemical evolution by believers in abiogenesis.
benthemiester 1 month ago
@benthemiester um, a fair reading what I read would return this as the output: The claim isn't that there aren't published papers; it's that there aren't peer reviewed published papers in science journals by these whackjobs
Evolution doesn't deal with abiogenesis because it's an irrelevant field to evolution. That isn't to say it's not a field worth studying; it just doesn't bear on how life changes once life exists.
integralmath 1 month ago
@integralmath Would you like me to provide you the same published ID peer review articles that you and PZ claim to be non existent? You could have researched it yourself before you started calling people silly names.
benthemiester 1 month ago
@benthemiester provided they appear in the scholarly journals entailed by his and my argument, certainly.
integralmath 1 month ago
@integralmath Where would you like me to send it to? Its much to large for this forum and youtube has changed there inbox format which really sucks.
benthemiester 1 month ago
@benthemiester as it happens, I own a web server with some forums (linked to on my profile page here). Anyone's free to use the forums . . .
integralmath 1 month ago
@integralmath The citations have been posted on your forum PHPBB under new topic entitled Peer Review. On another note, I would also urge you to take a look at "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" dot org. Check out my video... Do We Need a New Theory of Evolution which is a further critique of the modern synthesis.
benthemiester 1 month ago
@integralmath I forgot to add the most recent
Peer-Reviewed Paper Argues that the Origin of Life Required "Purposeful Choices"
David L. Abel
Another recent paper that is not exactly a paper on ID but challenges evolutionary science and inaccurate evolution-education was submitted by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center, appearing in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings.
benthemiester 1 month ago
Now, in order for life to evolve, you need life. As of yet there is no theory of how life got started that works. If a person dies, why can't you just jump start him? What is life energy? So, how can you teach evolution without life? Really, evolution is a fragment of a whole in the story of life. It has no foundation.
MrItchyElbow 2 months ago
@MrItchyElbow if a hard drive fails why can't you just jump start that with all of its data still intact? What is hard drive energy?
Anyone can ask stupid questions, but quite a few of us are savvy enough to learn about something thereby preventing the need to ask them.
integralmath 2 months ago
@integralmath Really, you didn't answer anything, is that an indication of how much you have learned? Really, no foundation for evolution is quite a glaring omission, don't you think. I mean taking that life just started for granted and building the rest of the scenario, although I don't think that there is anything wrong with that, but thinking that you have all the answers? Really, God is the only complete answer you will ever find.
MrItchyElbow 2 months ago
@MrItchyElbow You are a moron. Unfortunately, it is not possible to teach people who are determined not to learn. As the saying goes 'you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink'.
ritchloui 1 month ago
@ritchloui Is that your final answer? "You are a moron." Wow, I can get that from any 2 year old. Is that what you are, a 2 year old? However, I'll let you go on that since you have a limited mind. I on the other hand have learned a lot in the last week prior to your posting. I'm not as pessimistic about science finding life in a test tube as I was, but it still only proves that there was a designer or at the very least guidance.
MrItchyElbow 1 month ago
@MrItchyElbow No. I'm happy with my first dismissive response to you. If you wish to find out about anything then do so.
ritchloui 1 month ago
Jerry Bergman is a complete idiot. PZ Myers shouldnt debate him - it is a waste of time.
rpk58 5 months ago
If you have an image in your head but no paint with which to create it, the image doesn't qualify as a painting. If you have a hypothesis in your head but no evidence or data, the hypothesis does not qualify as theory or science.
It's not an insult to ID to say it isn't science, it's just a fact based on the definitions of the words.
GuacamoleKun 8 months ago
@GuacamoleKun it is however an insult to science when you call ID a science :D
Keitaro333 7 months ago
@Keitaro333 lol true.
GuacamoleKun 7 months ago
It seems to me that irreducible complexity is the art of finessing the categorical definition of an object. Just because carbon-12 minus one proton or neutron (electrons are a different story) becomes something else does not mean it fails to exist. It reminds me of people who say "God is whatever the origin of the universe is (even if that means God is the universe itself) therefore God must exist."
klutterkicker 8 months ago
If my phone breaks I can still use it as a paperweight on a windy day. Same goes for the appendix, it evolved to have a specific function. Now it does not have that function any more, it can still do other stuff, like store digestion bacteria. A secondary use. Why can't this idiot see this?
Grymyrk 8 months ago
This idiot doesn't even understand what "irreducible complexity" is supposed to be. He's just giving examples of complexity (i.e. of things that are made up of more than one fundamental particle). What an absolute retard. I'm ashamed to be part of a species where individuals are so stupid as to fall for such nonsensical arguments.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bergman is so irreducibly stupid that he single handedly changed the idea and intent of irreducible complexity from something that "could not happen naturally"i nto something that clearly comes from natural processes. He concentrated on "any part missing then it wont work." He rendered the idea useless for it's purpose: negating that variation and selection can produce life's stuff.
gaboentropy 8 months ago
Comment removed
gaboentropy 8 months ago
His point on irreducible complexity is really, really stupid. Perhaps he should've studied physics.
TupoyVolk 8 months ago
mahahahahahahahah @ 15:58 this idiot pawnd hiself...
chinamanspeakenlis 8 months ago
Why do non-venomous scarlet king snakes employ Batesian mimicry of poisonous coral snakes? "It evolved that way." NO! Predators from coral snake regions identify the markings of the coral snake and avoid attacking those snakes and risking injury; if other snakes in the region mimic this pattern, predators will avoid attacking them too. How do we know? We've tested the predictions of this hypothesis experimentally. It's much more than "God did it" or "evolution did it".
Rarae192 8 months ago
My introductory biology textbook for university is 1300 pages and evolution permeates the text in almost every chapter. Nothing in the book would make any fucking sense without the core theme of biological evolution, with population genetics that explain divergence and the heredity that explains the unity of life. Creationism is just bad grammar and I rarely find time to acknowledge its pathetic existence anymore.
Rarae192 8 months ago
This Bergman is playing a re-defining word game, creationist dishonesty at it's best
Tolrias 8 months ago
How many people die from having their appendix out?
How many people die from NOT having their appendix out?
Although I don't know the statistics, I suspect I know the implications.
TheRationalizer 8 months ago
@TheRationalizer: Well, back in the day, everyone who got an infected one pretty much died. Even now people die from its getting infected. So, there will be some who die who get it out, but not because of the taking it out bit. And, I'm sure, some will die during the operation because of malpractice. But at least almost everyone whose appendix goes tits up lives in the first world anyway. Go science!
integralmath 8 months ago 2
@integralmath
Most people that develop appendicitis live in the 1st world?
TheRationalizer 8 months ago
@TheRationalizer: I don't think I said that. Indeed, I spoke about the subset of all people in the first world whose appendices go tits up. That says nothing about the larger group. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that - only 500 characters and all, you know!
integralmath 8 months ago
LOL'd at the carbon example, how did he get a phd?
lianghaochen 8 months ago
@lianghaochen: a couple of spare dollars and a diploma mill can be quite an interesting structure.
integralmath 8 months ago
@integralmath Oh, this guy is a diploma mill product? If so, that explains everything. In addition, I have to agree with which ever scientist, I think Dawkins, who say he will no longer debate IDists. Why give these people any floor to speak on?
yourjunk420 7 months ago
@yourjunk420: yes, diploma mill all the way. Myers, Dawkins, most of the big names won't debate creationists. They'll still talk with them, but formal debates carry a certain prestige, and it makes it look as though there is actually a balanced controversy over the subject.
integralmath 7 months ago
@integralmath Precisely...
yourjunk420 7 months ago
@jappud: yes, really. It was an enormous courtesy on behalf of PZ to go along with the farce by giving Bergman the fucking privilege of breathing the same air. PZ was even sufficiently polite to show up with notes on the topic to be discussed. As he noted in his review of the "debate", these were not needed.
integralmath 8 months ago
25:37 Goodbye notes. Bergman's craziness is in a league of it's own.
Hooya2 8 months ago
Why is this guy stupid?
A: He evolved that way
B: God Farted
kragoon 8 months ago
@jappud Actually according to the last poll taken in 2010 80% of people in Aus. believe wholly in evolution, with 10% not believing and 10% not sure. I live here too and I've never heard of ID or anything like that to be taught at any level.
CDragnetti 8 months ago
@CDragnetti
"I've never heard of ID or anything like that to be taught at any level."
That's because Aus sent all their crazy people over to the USA. We were dumb enough to let them do what they wanted with the religious freedom thing.
KemaTheAtheist 8 months ago
Wow...you weren't exaggerating. This Jerry Bergman fellow really IS batshit crazy!
jcwallac 8 months ago 2
@jcwallac: that's how I roll! I try to give people an accurate picture of what's in a video. It was a rabid squirrel versus a very calm, well-mannered (and oddly nice guy - anyone else notice PZ is nice?!) teddy bear who politely took a shit on squirrel's notes, and then wiped his ass with the squirrel before heading out.
integralmath 8 months ago
So he's arguing that everything is irreducibly complex. He doesn't seem to realize that this eliminates its value in undermining evolutionary theory.
The appendix does not have a clear function. There is a hypothesis as to some value it has. To my knowledge it has not been shown with certainty. It is also irrelevant as to whether an organ is vestigial.
Maxdwolf 8 months ago
I can't believe that after more than 150 years, evolution is still trying to be disproved by the theist sector.
You would think that humanity would be more likely to side with evidence, facts, and testable data rather than a fairytale story book.
The "God dunnit" days need to be laid to rest if we as a race are to move forward.
FACTS >>> QUOTES
mbbm13 8 months ago 3
So a carbon atom is irreducibly complex. But it's well documented how carbon forms in nature. So irreducibly complex things can form naturally without the help of a creator. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Bergman.
Robotocracy 8 months ago
@jappud One incident out of how many, and you think he's not nice? Come on. He had infinitely more patience than this asswipe deserved. Or any of the other ignorant fools who willfully spout this bullshit.
Aquaria 8 months ago
What ,the fuck is Bergman talking about....?!
IsorethanB 8 months ago 6
@IsorethanB: if you can figure it out, you'll be one step ahead of Bergman.
integralmath 8 months ago 9
The difference between the opening statements of the two parties:
Bergman spends 20 minutes pleading, rather desperately, for the audience to take him seriously by going over his irrelevant experiences with religion, his published work and his credentials, making a passing reference to his problems with the evolutionary model without elucidating too much.
Myers gets straight to the damn point, makes a more detailed and cogent argument, doesn't waste time with self-congratulation. Win.
MeBeMat 8 months ago 3
"Schools that teach creationism the students are ahead"
Because there is barely anything to teach. But that still means that they'll fall behind the students who know about evolution when going into a different school or even to college or university. This guy doesn't have good critical thinking processes. Either that or he is near-sighted.
twilightguardian 8 months ago
2011, and we debate with creationist lunacy. lets move on i say. we should front up religion and the harm it does to so many crippled minds.fighting on the wrong front.
kram83au 8 months ago
The funny thing is I think he doesn't even understand the (faulty) irreducible complexity argument. How are quarks, leptons and bosons relevant to the idea that biological systems are irreducibly complex? How does this guy have a phd?
antonc81 8 months ago 2
@antonc81: he doesn't actually. He got it from a diploma mill. He's as much a doctor as Kent Hovind is a doctor who pays his taxes on time.
integralmath 8 months ago
@integralmath Oh thank goodness!... I was losing faith in the education system for a sec. lol.
Meanwhile the fact that PZ's forehead is not bloodied from continuous facepalming is a testament to his patience/discipline.
antonc81 8 months ago
@antonc81: I think we should get a whole bunch of youtubers together to a collaboration video commending PZ for being, surprisingly, such a nice guy. I bet he never hears that!
integralmath 8 months ago
PZ, rockin' the Crockoduck tie
wristawareness 8 months ago 8
@wristawareness Dammit, I just logged on to say the exact same thing. Damn you to hell.
Trynottoblink 8 months ago
@Trynottoblink Me too! This sucks ass. I though I was observant, but apparently not.
iconoclast135 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trynottoblink Me too! This sucks ass. I thought I was observant, but apparently not!
iconoclast135 8 months ago
@wristawareness: until you guys pointed that out I hadn't noticed. I couldn't watch it sitting at my computer. I have a natural, built-in aversion to bullshit. I try to stay away from it.
integralmath 8 months ago 2
That's who bergman reminds me of, grandpa Simpson.
tooyjfwn 8 months ago
The only thing missing from Bergmans presentation was him wearing a tin foil hat. Wow, the extent of this guys lunacy is breathtaking ......
plumdrix 8 months ago
@plumdrix: don't be too sure he wasn't wearing some magic underwear; it's just as effective . . .
integralmath 8 months ago 4
@integralmath
That would explain his facial expression at some times. His magical underwear is blocking the orifice he is usually pulling his information from.
plumdrix 8 months ago
@plumdrix: well, there's a lovely thought - thanks.
integralmath 8 months ago
@plumdrix The magic underwear makes anything it covers irreducibly convex.
flight1100 8 months ago 2
So, I made it to the one quarked woman and came to the conclusion I can stand no more of his lunacy. Did anyone make it all the way through? :P
TheMightyPatapon 8 months ago
@TheMightyPatapon: if Overlord Myers can endure it, you can too. May the horse be with you.
integralmath 8 months ago
@integralmath Haha, well you were right. Just needed to have a smoke break... and maybe a cold bear nearby for the rest.
TheMightyPatapon 8 months ago
I can't keep up with Bergman's train of thought.
GKCanman 8 months ago
@GKCanman: I think "thought" is too generous a description.
integralmath 8 months ago 2
After watching a bit more I realised Creationist = Liar
MrPoxman 8 months ago
PZ: "I have facts."
Jerry: "I have quotes."
JFREE360 8 months ago 61
@JFREE360:
PZ - I didn't make mine up.
Jerry - well I did!
integralmath 8 months ago 5
Why did PZ debate this idiot?
HConstantine 8 months ago 2
@HConstantine: he was young and carefree back in those days. He's more seasoned now.
integralmath 8 months ago
What the hell is wrong with America tell these creationist quacks to fuck off and find evidence for their theories LIKE EVERYONE ELSE has to before they are taken seriously.
MrPoxman 8 months ago
If you take a neutron or proton out of carbon 12 you no longer have carbon 12. Well duh, you either have carbon 11(neutron), or boron 11. Actually wait an hour and the C11 will decay to B11 by its self.
Doesn't that blow his stupid assertion that C12 is irreducibly complex out of the water?
Craigmw45 8 months ago 36
@Craigmw45: no, because if you take his irreducible complexity theory out of the water, it's no longer water . . . it's irreducibly complex you see . . .
integralmath 8 months ago
@Craigmw45 His arguments don't even deserve to be shot at. This is depressing to listen to someone this fucking stupid. His analogy of atoms vs complex biological systems is fucking outright inaccurate. So was his remark about legs. I don't think I can listen to much more of this DVD, already don't feel well and I can only tolerate so much stupid w/o having the offender near enough to bitch slap, or at least call them a stupid mother fucker to their face.
mistereveready 8 months ago
@Craigmw45: no, of course not. Silly "science" believer you are. I'm sure you've missed a very important implication in his theory. Namely, it's Calvin Ball with everything.
integralmath 8 months ago
@Craigmw45 Just silly word games. I literally got up and had to walk away from my computer when he said this. It's like saying two apples is irreducibly complex because when you take away one apple you no longer have two apples.
JonAmazon 8 months ago
FIRED FOR TEACHING THE PERIODIC TABLe
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 8 months ago
"radio, tv... all irreducibly complex"
Do they fall from the skies or what... What a joke...
Wrath0fKhan 8 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan: I've always kind of wanted to do one of these debates just so I can start making shit up as I go along too.
integralmath 8 months ago
Is it just me or does anyone else find Bergman's voice to be like finger nails on a chalk board.
mcrd2001 8 months ago 4
@mcrd2001: I can't hear him over the stupid that falls out of his trap. Sorry!
integralmath 8 months ago
Elements are irreducibly complex?!
Wha... huh?
billygutter01 8 months ago
A carbon atom is irriducibly complex?! Wow, I can barely get my head around that. The atom is a continuum. The periodic table merely simplifies the abundances of isotopes we see in nature, and we apply names to common nuclei.
Webofscience 8 months ago
@Webofscience: fortunately, I don't have that problem. Bergman put no thought into what he was going to say, and I in turn put no thought into listening to it. =^_^=
integralmath 8 months ago
@integralmath I disagree. He may have put much thought. into it, but is just a moron so what he thought was still hella wrong. I'd love to see Dawkin's horrified WTF face if he saw this. It would be so priceless that it should be put on a T-Shirt.
mistereveready 8 months ago
ROFL "If you have anything other than these things you don't have this particular thing!" No shit, it's called "something else."
zygrottwanger 8 months ago 2
@zygrottwanger: I appreciate your not using the technical jargon for the "something else". Reminds of those MREs the military have. Inside is a water activated heating system in a bag - it has instructions. One is supposed to prop the bag upright against a "rock, or something else."
integralmath 8 months ago
You can see PZ saying to himself "Must....not...facepalm...!!"
unclexbob 8 months ago
@unclexbob: I thought he looked like he was thinking, "fuck, I knew I should have been a physicist."
integralmath 8 months ago
Why did Jerry Bergman talk about himself for ten minutes rather then speak on the topic?
guidi2005 8 months ago
@guidi2005: the short version is that it's because he's an idiot. The long version is that he's an idiot and only he doesn't know it.
integralmath 8 months ago
Bergman said in the first part he had 800 publications, while he knows another person with 600 publications. These are huge numbers. I really would be very curious to know what type of papers he's counting, or if he's not just pulling the number out of his rear end.
thisnameisuniq 8 months ago
@thisnameisuniq: yeah. Prolific science contributors might put out 4 minor papers a year, a moderate to major paper every couple of years, and then whatever they put up on their blogs, or letters to the editor. The latter two don't count. Let's assume this guy is just a fucking trailblazer. He'll have had to have put out 20 papers a year since the day he was graduated to have that many. You'd expect a little better speech from a man that advanced.
integralmath 8 months ago
@integralmath I bet it's easy to crank out the papers when you don't need to worry yourself with pesky things like "evidence" and "falsifiable hypotheses"
asmiller21 8 months ago
@asmiller21: or coherent ideas, definitions of terms, staying on point . . .
integralmath 8 months ago
@thisnameisuniq On his website at AiG he lists about a dozen--most of them posts to web-pages.
HConstantine 8 months ago
@HConstantine: I'm shocked that his writings don't appear in academic journals! Shocked I tell you!
integralmath 8 months ago
@thisnameisuniq "Bergman said in the first part he had 800 publication, I really would be very curious to know what type of papers he's counting,"
I did a quick google scholar search by author for J Bergman. It seems he's very prolific in writing about how evolutionists are racist nazi's. In fact evolution was one of the main factors in the Holocaust, according to him.
Craigmw45 8 months ago
"Show me the lady who consists of a single quark". The very question is self-contradictory! This guy is mistaking "irreducibly complex" with "composite". Or something like that - in fact, I have no idea what he is on about. At least Behe makes sense, even if he is wrong.
Slossius1983 8 months ago
@Slossius1983: not only a women made up of a single quark mind you. He goes on to point out that she wouldn't be able to reproduce. I'm sure the rub is in that little detail. I'll be submitting a proposal to one of his churches to get funding for this study the Establishment won't fund!
integralmath 8 months ago
Given that the only redeeming qualities of even having video in this case is to keep the visual cortex occupied by noticing crowd size and watching the bearded, evil teddy bear's reactions during downtime, fixing a lag of 1/10th of a second is simply unnecessary.
I'm only just beginning part three and face-meets-palm is already a great success. I already feel my brain getting a stupidityburn.
I've come up with a possible remedy, though: SolarCane and vodka. I'll report on the results. Or not.
Koliedrus 8 months ago
@Koliedrus: well, it's not like you could have solarcane without vodka. It's irreducibly complex you see . . .PZ might as well have had one of this zebra fish as his opponent in this "debate". At least the fish doesn't pretend to know anything - unlike this whackjob.
integralmath 8 months ago
If we cut everything after the 15 minute mark (Bergman's parts), this could be a decent video.
IAJstea 8 months ago
@IAJstea: I've actually been thinking about excising him and just having PZ's talk. PZ's half is a perfectly respectable lecture that would otherwise just appear to have the occasional non sequitur. I guess this guy thinks everything is irreducibly complex.
integralmath 8 months ago
I had no idea that the ID proponentists were gay - all of them in the closet? Damn. Let's welcome them into the world!
And where are these "thousands" of ID papers? What peer-reviewed journals am I not reading?
integralmath 8 months ago
Audio lags a bit but that's just an observation; not a complaint.
Thanks for this.
Koliedrus 8 months ago
@Koliedrus: yeah. That's how it came from PZ to me. I don't have the equip to strip the audio and line it up. But if someone else does, I hope they download it from here or where PZ has it hosted and upload a better timed version.
It was extraordinarily kind of PZ to put these out for everyone to watch. I just happened to have gotten lucky with being the first to get them from him.
integralmath 8 months ago
I thought PZ didn't debate IDiots, or was that only Dawkins?
NegativeNick 8 months ago
@NegativeNick: Dawkins is the only one with the explicit rejection of giving creation apologists the time of day.
integralmath 8 months ago
@integralmath that really should change. I don't see any reason for giving these idiots any public forum.
NegativeNick 8 months ago
@NegativeNick: sorry, chief. I support without reservation or caveat the right of people to publicly advocate whatever dumbass idea they have. If he can be silenced, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to be silenced, or I shouldn't be able to be silenced.
integralmath 8 months ago