Debate Evolution Intelligent Design 2of8

[circusOFprecision]

Is it just me or is Ken Miller a complete and utter douche bag? No, he's a douche bag most certainly.

[ThomasWinkworth]

why do they go to all this effort to lie when they believe life is meaningless anyway... lol

[lp000028]

fuck tard

[maxfm83]

whats worst about these people is they think they're clever.... 

[scottpastry]

Miller just completely owned Behe....

[Buddythunder1]

Berlinski is attempting to criticise a theory he simply doesn't understand. This alone should be enough to highlight his religious motivations.

[hellohiuhu]

I can't understand Berlinski - he looks, sounds, and certainly displays an attitude of knowing exactly what he's talking about. But his questions about the 'scientific' theory' of evolution and his inability to understand why adaptations to certain environments would be favourable, make him look completely ridiculous.

[gcnengineer]

@hellohiuhu Yeah, I can see Berlinski lost you. What he said was the general priciple needs to hold true. We should be able to show from the record more than just a few evolutionary changes. It would be like calling my favorite football team a winning team beacuse I once saw a home game they won,......yet every out of town game they lose. The evolutionary record should show change in everything everywhere. It does not.

[hellohiuhu]

@gcnengineer

No it shouldn't, you fat bastard.

[gcnengineer]

@hellohiuhu LOL, well that was a solid arguement.

[jeff5102]

@gcnengineer so according to you, the evolutionary record should show ALL family trees of ALL animals of the WHOLE world over the last 100 million years, and report ALL changes that occur during that time?

Hilarious.

[gcnengineer]

@jeff5102 Yeah kid, if that leap in logic makes you happy, you go with it.

[jeff5102]

@gcnengineer I hope you realise that the Civil registry during the times of the dinosaurs was quite sloppy.

[gcnengineer]

@jeff5102 I hope you realize what sarcasm is, although it seems that you do not.

[jeff5102]

@gcnengineer I do know what sarcasm is. However, I prefer irony, understatement, and Monty Python-esqe absurditiy.

But please see the clips on Youtube concerning Anne Elk's theory on Brontosauruses. It would clarify a lot.

[gcnengineer]

@jeff5102 I have no idea what point you are trying to get across. You seem to think you have a solution to some problem, I'm not sure what problem though, you are trying to solve.

[jeff5102]

@gcnengineer Actually, we were discussing the heaviness of the burden of proof for evolution, but then you started a personal attack on me concerning my understanding of sarcasm. And unfortunately, I can only answer foolishness with foolishness

[gcnengineer]

@jeff5102 I probably started a personal attack on you based upon tardiness, absenteeism, and the foolish idea that one can carry on any sort of meaningful conversation when you wait two weeks to respond to my last post.

(Either that or I just wrote you off as an idiot like I'm doing now)

[jeff5102]

@gcnengineer Interesting. More foul mouthing. You are complaining that I wait 2 weeks before I react? Well, as a wise man said: "To last an eternity requires an eternity of preparation," and that is so true.

[gcnengineer]

@jeff5102 Foul mouthing LOL,....well it is sort of fun with you jeffypoo, since you're such a bore, I must entertain myself in some way. : )

[jeff5102]

@gcnengineer How sad. You think that THIS is entertaining?!? Poor guy. :(

[gcnengineer]

@jeff5102 Mildly, and only for a very brief moment, but yeah, you entertain me.

[MusicHypno]

Berlinski is a clown.

[properwired]

where are the 50 million year old fossils of poodles no 50 million year old poodles = evolution

[Ausare]

That's exactly what Berlinski is: another crocoduck guy, not a real scientist.

[properwired]

I do find it odd that there are no other monkeys that walk upright and have no fur but the peacock shows sexual selection would explain the fur loss in humans. Apart from evolution the only other theory is magic did it. Religion claims a fallen angel turned into a snake and then a goat beast if thats not evolution what the fuck is lol

[Ausare]

There have been plenty of bipedal primates, they're just all extinct. And I don't think there's a single vertebrate that doesn't display some kind of sexual selection.

[destine4hope]

@Ausare

I wasn't aware that you held the power to determine the qualifications of a real scientist.

[Ausare]

@destine: I'm a biologist, and my colleagues and I hold ourselves to a much higher standard of proof and truth than that guy. Listening to Berlinski talk, it almost sounds like he's never tried to learn anything about evolution.

[destine4hope]

I will still contend that being a biologist does not give you the qualifications to make such a conclusion. But I know why you might say that. He really isn't a scientist per se, but he should still be considered, and not be dismissed because he does not fit the mold of mainstream scientists. I do think that he is a brilliant rhetorician, of a sort, which CAN be like fogged window inhibiting anyone (and perhaps him) from seeing the truth.

[gcnengineer]

@destine4hope Yeah, well, read his bio and I think the "fog", or perhaps, "smoke" is coming from you. However, I suppose anyone can type in here how qualified they are to dismiss people who are actually invited to debate in such events.

[calderwis]

Berlinski, you twit!!! What will it take to convince you? Does the fossil record need to be locally homeomorphic to the real line for you to be satisfied, or will aleph null species suffice?

[924142707]

Dead bones do not prove that an animal dramatically changes his dna, creates an off spring that is a different creature and that this creature does the same. Bones prove that something died. Putting a lot of bones near each other and claiming they "evolved" magically, against commons sense and dna, is absurd, at best.

[tkdliron]

when was this

[spiderpig85]

9:52 I think that guy just died...

[ofinterest2007]

The design hypothesis is simply useless. I does nothing in advancing our knowledge. Whether something is designed or it just came to be through evolution, if we're going to advance our knowledge, then we still just roll up our sleeves and dig into figuring it out how it came about. Saying it was designed doesn't tell us 'how' it was designed. Hence, there's no reason to even bring the hypothesis in.

[thisisanaccount100]

Berlinsky is out of his league here. "Who among us will genuinely feel diminished?"

Sanity is not diminishing, even if its uncomfortable.

I am uncomfortable about the existence of viruses. I don't deny that they exist on that basis.

What an arrogant windbag.

[tat20001]

Berlinski is painful to listen to - I am embarrassed for him. If I hear one more request for more transitional fossils I may scream. How can they not realize that we are lucky to have found as many as we have? I guess I should be thankful they haven't requested a crocoduck.

[rkyeun]

But... but archosaur IS the crocoduck!

[charadester]

Berlinski doesn't know chordate from a reptile from a mammal. Why are these people allowed to even debate evolution? Why didn't they just go down to Wal-Mart and pick up a couple of shoppers in the sporting goods section? It's a waste of important researchers' time to argue with these megalomaniacs. They publish a book on 19th century socioeconomic theory or some other obscure subject, and suddenly they're God's gift to interpreting the fossil record.

[charadester]

Berlinski appears to enjoy argument for its own sake. He pretends that he cannot understand differential reproductive success due to variations selected by changing environments. If he couldn't comprehend that, he would be mentally incompetent to participate in this discussion. It is unfortunate that hard-working researchers like Scott and Miller have to give of their time to debate these self-indulgent orators who are only marketing conflict in order to sell another book.

[spiderpig85]

@charadester

Berlinski thinks "If I cannot understand it, no one can, because I am smarter than everyone".

This is typical Creationist thinking and does not belong in debate. Keep it on the facts and evolution has no debate...

[charadester]

@spiderpig85 Agreed. For a man who like to show off his superior logic and rational prowess, he sure errs horribly on the creation/evolution front. I believe we're working with a gigantic ego, and that's about it. Thanks for your comment, and keep thinking sensibly out there.

[reaguirre]

the bible is a myth

origin of species and descent of man are also myths

the structure of molecular biology is not mythical

ruse is a turd

berlinski is rockin harder than elvis

[tommyk77]

Thank you for backing my point. Physics and Biology are not the same.

Berlinski is comparing apples with oranges. Evolution has a massive arsenal of evidence backing it. He is asking, however, for something that biology cannot do. He asks for the prediction of a future adaptation. It's like asking for the next mutation in a virus. For that you would need to know every force at work, which is absurdly impossible and he knows it.

[ThePerrynator]

The evolutionists in this video are using cheap tactics. they try to rebut with irrelevant and vague responses. They miss the entire point of every main argument that an intelligent design advocate introduces to this debate. They muddle the entire playing field.

[charadester]

@ThePerrynator I'm not sure how the biologists could present more detailed information. They're referencing specific fossils, and well-supported principles backed up by classic experimental method. How detailed do you want them to be? On the other hand, Johnson, Behe, and Berlinski spend ALL of their time questioning actual data, but offer nothing of their own. That's not science. That's simply being contrary in order to gain a spotlight and delay progress.

[giliellthesecond]

Why do Creationists seem prone to interrupt their opponents so impolitely?

Seems like every time they're losing an argument they become abrasive.

[phalsebob]

Miller was nice enough to bring diagrams along for his opponents. That or his opponents are laughably predictable.

[tommyk77]

Berlinski is unbelievable. He's saying that the theory is not sufficient because it can't predict what adaption will arise. But is germ theory unreliable because it can't predict the next viral mutation? No! This is how biology works. A physicist can reproduce models because he/she isolates a physical law or laws, but biology is subjected to all the laws with infinite variables.

Berlinski's thesis is laughable

[charadester]

@tommyk77 I think you bring up good analogous situations. We don't kill meteorology because it missed the last snowstorm. I think we all should keep in mind that these ID folks are simply self-promoting. They don't have any interest in science at all.

[RuinSonic]

@tommyk77 Yeah, evolution is also a historical science as well. If you have to prove all the gaps within the historical record you'd be in a world of hurt as well.

[levonet33]

She Is not clever

[thakorian]

I just wanna facepalm whenever I hear berlinski talking. Significant morphological transitions? What part of the word "gradual" does he not understand?

[TainoRebelde]

as opposed to the advocates of darwininian evolution, who merely want to insert an undefined supernatural variable outside of any reasonable, verifiable, mathematical equation- with only rhetorical remarks and appealing to their own subjective incredulity? Please, if you want to bury your head into the sand, don't make others do the same.

[thakorian]

nice copy-paste with some words replaced. Thought it through or did you just do the same thing ID creationists did with 'of pandas and people'? Somehow I feel like I'm only feeding a troll, but what the heck.

[TainoRebelde]

Whenever a rational mind mirrors a delusional one in the attempt to demonstrate his/her mantra-infused mind...the "troll" accusation is always resorted to...

congratulations!

[firthio2]

What 'supernatural variable' are you referring to? 'with only rhetorical remarks and appealing to their own subjective incredulity'. haha, good one. Evolution proponents provide evidence, all the ID people do here is try and poke holes in Darwin's model. The evidence actually shows ID is wrong, or as Miller puts it, features an 'incompetent' designer. There are stil no decent examples of irreducible complexity that haven't been refuted by science.

[TainoRebelde]

You live under the delusion that only Darwinian Scientists are true scientists...

Science, is supposed to be based on reason, not dogma.

Actually, ID is the DEFAULT and OBVIOUS result of studying nature...it takes lots of hoops and "narratives" in order to sustain your thesis.

Bottom Line- the MATH does not line up- whether you like it or not... ha haha ha ha to you!

[firthio2]

'Science, is supposed to be based on reason, not dogma.' Thank you, so you agree ID isn't science then? 'You live under the delusion that only Darwinian Scientists are true scientists'. No, I live under the assumption that scientists who study properly and go through all the control means are more likely to reach the truth than those who just guess and dont substansiate their claims.

[TainoRebelde]

Oh look, another Darwinian trying to defend his faith!

"Thank you, so you agree ID isn't science then?"

I do not subscribe to ANY of the popular camps- like you do to Darwinism. You reject ID because of the "narrative" attached to it- but you have accepted the "narrative" of Darwinism...well, what you NOW call Darwinism.

NARRATIVE and THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD are two totally different things...but apparently you cannot tell them apart.

Mathematics does NOT LIE. Your Narrative- DOES NOT ADD UP.

[firthio2]

ID is not the default answer, 'I don't know' is default. Neither is it 'obvious', considering the huge pile of evidence against it. I notice you didn't answer my question before, should I assume you just made up the 'supernatural variable' you mentioned before to try to make your position more convincing? What 'math' are you referring to? If you believe in ID, could you suggest some evidence please? Not just 'it's obvious'.

[TainoRebelde]

Again- MATH does not lie. Such a fine-tuned universe cannot logically be the result of "random mutations" over a period of time, that MATHEMATICALLY has been proven to way supersede the very AGE of the Universe!!

Im not going to tit for tat with a Fundamentalist like yourself- start thinking out of the box, ok?

[firthio2]

You really should at least understand the basics of a scientific principle if you're going to try to debunk it or label people who agree with it as deluded in some way. No-one is saying the universe was made by random mutations, and if you think they are, this conversation is pointless because you don't know anything about what you're talking about. What is 'Darwinsim' exactly? How am I fundamentalist? You still haven't explained the supernatural variable, so we'll assume you made it up.

[TainoRebelde]

Riiiiiight.... the only ones who "understand" science..are, well, Darwinists!!!

That my friend, is a fallacy- a "no true Scotsman" in reverse! and a mantra you fundamentalist darwinians repeat to yourselves (and others) on a constant basis.

Now THATS a delusion!

[JetpackNinjaDinosaur]

I can't let this douchebag named Taino have the last word.

Taino you need to do a few things to support ID.

1. Show evidence. "Its obvious" is not evidence. If i say that you have a baboon brain and you disagree and i say "its obvious" am i correct because your a bumbling idiot?

2. Define this "supernatural variable" you speak of.

3. Support your argument that "Darwinism" is a faith and that those who disagree with ID presuppose that ID is wrong.

Thank you, have a nice day.

[tommyk77]

People who read up on the topic understand it. Stop with the straw men and grow some balls! Do the research, find the gaps and exploit them correctly. The problem is, those that actually research the theory find nothing to criticise without doing exactly what you did, which is making shit up and looking a fool. Either get your facts right or jog on

[Skoda130]

ID is founded by mysticists who want every mystery to remain a myserie. All they have is negativism and "gaps". The best joke is that they're are equally dependent of scientific progress for the emotional validity of their arguments.

In a negative sense, that is.

[charadester]

@TainoRebelde I disagree. How can anything be a default when it has no evidence to support it. That would make Thor, Shiva, Allah, and the Great Teapot orbiting the Earth right now as we speak, simply because a book has declared it. That's faith, not science. Spontaneous generation and alchemy need to be thrown in as well while we're at it.

[KillerHeroes]

Ken Miller and Eugenie Scott are awesome and Berlinski is so condescending, it's so delightful to see him get schooled by people who know what they're talking about.

[TainoRebelde]

I found this to be more akin to an Evolutionary inquisition, than a debate...

The fanaticism of Darwinism demonstrates a sectarian/religious adherence..

[thakorian]

as opposed to the advocates of intelligent design, who merely want to insert an undefined supernatural variable into the equation with only rhetoric remarks and appealing to their own subjective incredulity? Please, if you want to bury your head into the sand, don't make others do the same.

[JaggerBacardi]

Kenneth Miller = Batman!

[Mithcoriel]

That woman questioning Berlinski, was that Eugenie Scott?

[AuthenticPunkDance]

Berlinski can't understand that a woolly mammoth couldn't survive in a desert, and a fox couldn't survive in the Arctic? Some intellectual.

[FatalAnimal]

Ken Miller is the shit!

[Jesusmetalhead]

Yes.

[RaustBD]

were I to find god, I'd love to be like Ken miller, I'd hate to be like ken ham.

[Jesusmetalhead]

Yes.

[noinlair]

WTF is Berlinski talking about?

He is the embodiment of intellectual stonewalling.

[Hotjer]

Berlinski is very unmannered :/

[HumanStrategy]

Berlinski is a twit and has no idea what he is talking about.

[vohshkab]

@HumanStrategy Nor do we.

[TheRedneckAtheist]

David Dumbasski

[DarwinsChihuahua]

Why is Berlinski even allowed up there? I doubt any self-respecting scientist would even bother debating him now.

[Hooya2]

Lol I love Ken Miller... he totally owned them.