Sorry that's a bit blunt. I wanted to say something less provocative than "lame" but ran out of characters. Let's just say the concept of an eternal "condition" rather than an eternal "entity", as the explanation for the emergence of the universe at some point in/ just before time, seems to me to be a 2nd-best effort made necessary by the absolute imperative of not under any circumstances
conceding the possibility of the obvious alternative.
Seems improbable I know. But if that's not the case and they have an explanation for the emergence of life they're not advertising it.
I heard an interview with Mark Roberts - no it was a radio debate between him & Chris Hitchens - and he, or the host, stated that 40% of US scientists are theists. So it's not just I who hasn't heard of it.
They do have an explanation for the appearance of the universe which supposedly doesn't completely shred the cause & effect principle but it's pretty lame.
(without making sure they do not derive from) false assumptions.
Perhaps I could have reworded that bit about following celebrity atheists. I've been wading through Christopher Hitchens' and Richard Dawkins' books and that latest one by David Lewis-Williams, with mounting frustration at their, in my view, misconceptions.
I apologise if I've given offense. I'm not pretending to be smarter than these guys. I'm just the dumb kid who can see that the emperor's starkers.
So you think the majority of the world's scientists who actually study the universe their whole lives are just missing something? It's perhaps far more likely that once you really study these areas in an unbiased way, you tend to see that the illusion of the hand was just a product of our agency-seeking minds. That are easily fooled and often wrong.
Well to be honest dwb I'd have to say the only explanation I can find for people not seeing the hand of an eternal source involved in the production of the universe and the emergence of life is their not having thought it through from basic principles. And an explanation of such a talented thinker as ACG falling into that trap might be the ubiquitous willingness to stand of the shoulders of other talented people's findings, without making sure they do not derive from .....
Try giving up mind-altering substances for a while first - alcohol, pot, tobacco (maybe). I used to think the christian-wowser causality went forward; now I believe for many it's the reverse. I believe that alcohol e.g. interferes with the usual getting of wisdom that should happen after the brain's physical development is done.
Alcohol use is something else that's burgeoned since Darwin's time.
@bsktool How do you know that he is following the celebrity atheists, instead of coming to the conclusion himself (as you say you did with Christianity)? He seems like a very thoughtful man who would catch himself if he was only following a crowd. Just because your own opinions are in line with a certain group's opinions does not mean that you have not thought critically about the question.
And I suspect there are many other converts from atheism who could say the same about their own change of heart.
It was after I decided to address this subject which I'd been putting off most of my adult life that I realised I'd been overlooking a very obvious pointer.
And if you are as clever as you give every indication of being I expect you will also see it once you stop following the growing herd of celebrity atheists and put your mind to it too.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
I'm done with this sophistry and your disgusting debate tactics. You deliberately refuse to give away any of your ulterior motives which WILL frame the assumptive fallacies on which you base your argumentation, and that your sophistry is sophisticated and well rehearsed is of no consequence to its ultimate invalidity. I understand why Richard Dawkins will not "debate" with creationists, for their intellectual dishonesty makes it impossible to have a legitimate discussion with them.
I don't get atheism at all. Atheists say that atheism is scientific but then turn around and tell us that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. These are contradictory and illogical statements. So literally no rational person has any reason to believe that atheism is true.
Your perception of what atheists are and say is incorrect, so of course no rational person has any reason to believe the things that you think athiests are saying. Atheism is ONLY the lack of belief/disbelief in theistic god-concepts.
Evolution is not random, period.
And if "god" is your answer to these questions, you've still got to answer why "god"? If "god" is special and requires no cause, then its the same as saying that the universe/consciousness/etc require no cause.
@bjwilly69 Using the law of causality, which is a logical, natural and scientific law, I can determine that only life produces life. A cause cannot give its effect something it doesn't have. Non-life has no life, therefore, the cause of life cannot logically, naturally or scientifically be non-life.
Your assertion that only life produces life is not necessarily so. It's assumptive. At BEST you can say that as far as you are aware, non-living material has never been shown to produce living material. You would be unequivocally wrong (do some research on advances in abiogenesis of late).
Regardless you've entered yourself into an infinite regress - if non-life cannot produce life, & god is life, then what produced god, without specially pleading that god requires no cause.
Regardless, you entire "response" to "atheism" is a straw-man from the beginning. Instead of trying to "disprove" a position you've already decided is wrong without understanding the position correctly in the first place, educate yourself on the position, represent it correctly, and then see where you stand. Peace
@bjwilly69 I showed that the position is illogical by pointing out that it requires contradictory statements to be true. Unless, that is, you're trying to tell me that atheists believe that life (God) created the first life.
You're a sophist, and I'll not engage in such. I simply told you that you've misunderstood and misrepresented the position that you are attempting to refute, an unequivocal case of straw-manning. Your response is to continue the same argument again, and randomly, unjustifiable, insert a specially-plead non-sequitur of God as being life, except that god allegedly exists beyond nature. So you've conflated two contradictory positions in your rebuttal, making you a hypocrite too.
@bjwilly69 My response is that atheism doesn't cohere with the law of causality, therefore, it's rational for me to say that atheism is illogical, unnatural and unscientific as the law of causality is a logical, natural and scientific law. I'm not misrepresenting atheism by saying that atheists believe that non-life created the first life. That's what they believe. I've noticed how you haven't directly disputed this.
But god doesn't cohere with the law of causality either. You must specially plead his case for existing without a cause, all assertions that are by definition, beyond the purview of your knowledge capabilities, hence you being a sophist. You are misrepresenting atheists directly in saying that "non-life created life" because atheists do not say such. "Create" implies sentience. You're wrong. And now you're telling people what they believe? You are DRIPPING fallacy, sophist.
@bjwilly69 "But god doesn't cohere with the law of causality either." Actually, he does. The law states that each effect has its cause. God isn't an effect, therefore, he needs no cause. I also said the law of causality is a NATURAL law and God is a supernatural being. Supernatural means that God exists outside of the natural laws meaning he is not bound to them as he created them. So God is indeed compatible with the law of causality.
It's all special pleading - the beauty of the god argument is that none of the standards you apply to everything else apply to god. It's ambiguous incoherence as a concept is in and of itself its greatest strength.
But regardless of everything, it's intellectual dishonest. Your assertions reliant on god are speculative and best, and I'm being VERY generous.
Supernatural is a concept that is by definition unprovable. It's inclusion as a legitimate concept is fallacious.
"God exists outside of the natural laws ... he created them"
Prove, validate and justify any of these assertions as legitimate and we'll talk. Otherwise you are simply overstepping the boundaries of your potential knowledge, intrinsically and by definitions set forth by you, and if such is the case (it is), then you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty. It's better to say you don't know. You don't.
@bjwilly69 I'll sum it up this way. 1 Something exists. 2. You do not get something from nothing. 3. Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists. 4. The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator. 5. Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe. 6. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.
1. is technically a presumption that cannot be proved (existentially), but I'll grant it because it's a working presumption we simply must accept in order to converse at all.
2. is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and is dependent on definitions/interpretation.
3. is a fallacy, but I'll skip that one.
4. False dichotomy and presumptuous.
5. Science HAS NOT disproved the concept of an eternal universe. Maybe THIS one, multi-verse theory remains.
@bjwilly69 1. You didn't dispute. 2. Obviously true as nothing creates nothing. 3. Not a fallacy at all but is philosophically and scientifically true. 4. You need to provide a 3rd explanation for it to be a false dichotomy. 5. Science has proven the universe had a beginning. There's also no evidence for the multi-verse theory which is a made up theory. 6. Not fallacious and I won't elaborate any further because you didn't elaborate at all.
2. Nothing creates nothing, but you still presume creation at all. Why can't matter simply "be"? Why is an eternal sum of matter from which this universe was created logically fallacious? Why is the existence of a supernatural being beyond everything available to us the "logical conclusion?
5. Science has all but proved that THIS universe had a beginning.
Your dismissal of multi-verse theory is a ironic, there's no evidence for god (a made up theory) either - they're both postulates.
@bjwilly69 2. Nothing comes out of nothing. Nothing causes nothing. You do not get something from nothing. Matter exists within the universe along with space, time and energy. The universe began to exist, therefore, matter began to exist and is not eternal.
5. The 2nd law of thermodynamics, the expansion of the universe, the radiation echo from the Big Bang, galaxy seeds and Einstein's theory of relativity all prove the universe had a beginning.
Technically you cannot definitively say that nothing comes out of nothing nor that definitively something has not existed infinitely. It's not possible. You can make a logical inference, but you cannot say it definitively. It's the same intellectual dishonesty I've identified and you've avoided addressing consistently.
Your point MUST intrinsically assume THIS universe only. Those proofs apply to THIS universe, as we understand it from our perspective.
@bjwilly69 I'm completely changing the subject of this debate because you obviously don't get it. Let's talk about the origin of life. Where did the first life come from?
I disagree with your assertions as being valid premises so I "obviously don't get it". The arrogance is astounding. I "get" your argument, I just disagree with the assumptions it requires in order to appear valid. And more fundamentally I disagree with the nature of the assertions you make as being necessarily true. They're entirely plausibly subject to a range of ignorance and cognitive failures that you refuse to address as being possible
You've not answered a ton of my questions either. Why is that?
Are you a deist? What is the god you pose as an answer? On what grounds is this answer more justified than say, aliens from another dimension, or an even greater "universe-like" level of reality, in which our universe is merely a scientific experiment, where said aliens would by all accounts take on every description of "god" in its interactions with us you've made. Why is the multiverse theory inconceivable?
@bjwilly69 "Why is the multiverse theory inconceivable?" There's literally no evidence for it and who built the cosmic generator that caused all of these universes? Atheists constantly accuse theists of having blind faith, then they immediately turn around and ask why theories that have no evidence to support them are implausible. You would have to be blind not to see the double standard you're using here.
You're a hypocrite; there's literally no evidence for god either. By definition you cannot know of such, because god exists beyond a plane of existence you exist on, according to your definition.
I don't have faith in the theory at all. I merely propose it as a possibility. Remember, I'm not pretending to know things I do not. I've UNEQUIVOCALLY claimed ignorance where you claim conclusions that are rhetorical inferences from (at times presumptive) applications of logic.
@bjwilly69 "You're a hypocrite; there's literally no evidence for god either." The fact that life exists is evidence for God. We're back to the basic, simple, common sense law of causality. A cause can't give its effect something it doesn't have. So where did the first life come from?
Abiogenesis. Do we HAVE to go over this again. You should stick to the causality argument for existence entirely, for its still an ambiguous area of study. Life CAN arise from inanimate material, at least potentially, your incredulity at such IS NOT an argument against it. We KNOW complexity arises from less complex states as a result of natural processes so this is PERFECTLY consistent with scientific knowledge.
Life existing is NOT evidence for god. It's evidence for life.
@bjwilly69 You're just typing sentences and presenting no facts. You're TELLING me that abiogenesis is true. Why don't you SHOW me that abiogenesis is true using facts? "We KNOW complexity arises from less complex states as a result of natural processes so this is PERFECTLY consistent with scientific knowledge." This another baseless statement. Provide some actual evidence and not your own opinions.
I'm assuming, incorrectly, that you are up to date in your research on the subject, given your instant dismissal of such. Gerald Joyce of the Skripps Research Institute is responsible for leading the team making the latest developments. It's in its early stages, but the results are becoming clear.
My complexity statement is a description of evolution. How do you not see that? Complexity arises by natural processes from less complex states. The ESSENCE of evolutionary theory.
@bjwilly69 There is no single theory for how non-life created life. There are multiple theories. So saying "Abiogenesis is true." is such a vague statement that there's no way I can respond to it. Which theory of abiogenesis is true?
What is the natural mechanism that adds information to these organisms that makes them more and more complex? Again, there are multiple theories that explain the complexity of life.
I didn't. Period. I posed it as a potential answer that doesn't require the special pleading of the existence of god for how life "arose" from non-life materials in existence. That we have replicated at least a part of this process in a lab proves its validity. How it works is yet to be determined & understood.
That does however relinquish the potential necessity of a "creator" back to existence itself, rather than life specifically.
I've already stated this point EXPLICITLY in our conversation yesterday. You are CLEARLY not reading my points and rather rushing to rebuttals. Your demeanour has given your true intent & motives away, in so far as I can assume & your continued denial to answer my questions in attempt to flush out your beliefs behind your rhetorical conjecture highlight the truth of my perception.
Which monotheistic god-concept are you championing, behind your ambiguous language? Answer this point.
I'm trying to change the subject indeed, as you have done many times without any issue from me. Why do you presuppose your own dominion over this debate, to define where it can and cannot go? The arrogance you display is SHAMEFUL.
Furthermore, in identifying if you believe in a monotheistic god-concept like Yahweh (or the polytheistic Christian concept of Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit) will undeniably show to me (and others) what kind of motives you have in this debate.
@bjwilly69 Again, there is no need for me to state which god I believe in. It's irrelevant. I'm arguing that only life creates life. By the law of causality this is true. This is a simple, basic, common sense fact. An effect resembles its cause. Life does not resemble non-life. Therefore, non-life isn't the cause of life. Life does resemble life. Therefore, life is the cause of life. This debate is a waste of time. Face the facts. I quit. Goodbye.
BS. Absolute BS. I HAVE SHOWN YOU evidence from brand new studies in abiogenesis wherein from non-living material arose self-replicating cells. This is a basis of life that when evolution and all of its effects are applied to such, can logically form more complex life, ad infinitum to the complexity of today. You HAVE LOST the debate on the origins of life proving god. IT DOES NOT.
Reasserting your points from before does not make them so. Stop being so dishonest.
You cannot prove conclusively that life does not arise from non-life, I have shown you suggestive evidence to the contrary. Reasserting the law of causality DOES NOT refute the evidence of abiogenesis I have provided, thus the law of causality MAY potentially need redefining, as DOES and WILL happen within science consistently. Your NEED for absolutism in proving your point is the antithesis of science. You've FAILED henceforth in misunderstanding the philosophy of science.
Come on - just for fun, for my curiosity's sake, tell us which god-concept you believe in.
Just give in and tell us all that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light, the only way to get into heaven and deal with the consequences of the reality of your beliefs and their intrinsic effect on your perceptions and presumptions of the nature of reality, which by all means have a VASTLY important impact upon the nature and outcome of this debate.
And which god concept makes ALL the difference, for if its a deistic concept, then I will grant you more intellectual validity in your argumentation, for deism is a justifiable god-concept that does not contradict many other logical arguments over the existence of a theistic god, and is ambiguous enough to allow for almost infinite flexibility of characteristics. The Christian god concept flies in the face of reason in other areas of discourse - it's a comment on your epistemology.
You're a creationist troll, practising intransigence, seeped in sophistry & well versed in complex argumentation, rather than logical argumentation. You make countless, unscientific, unjustifiable claims & refuse to acknowledge such. You apply double standards, assume the high-ground, redefine terms as you choose, change subjects at will, but deny me all of those luxuries. You are hypocritical. You've only established your own delusional false sense of superiority. Congrats :)
@bjwilly69 Again, you're not identifying any type of abiogenesis. You haven't explained which theory of abiogenesis you think to be plausible. I can't disagree with you when I don't even know which theory you're talking about.
And you're displaying more ignorance of science here, because abiogenesis is the "action" or "mechanism", which can be proven factual as evolution and gravity have been. That I don't know which THEORY describes such accurately is beside the point to whether the mechanism exists and works, in the same way that the THEORY of Natural Selection or General Relativity could change or be replaced, but the FACTS of evolution and gravity which they describe will remain regardless.
The natural mechanism that we've proved builds complexity from less-complexity is evolution. If you are attempting to point towards WLC's argument that DNA cannot have information added to it and thus its being a "building-block" for the complexity of life must have had ALL the information present for all the complexity of life at the point of creation, then don't bother - this point is assumptive in nature and is a misrepresentation of the process of evolution.
@bjwilly69 I asked WHAT is this natural mechanism. You just rambled on about WLC's argument, which I wasn't even using. What is the mechanism that explains the complexity of life? Again, your argument is so vague that I can't say it's false because I don't even know what it is.
Again, like your previous comment, you've shown your only true intent is to claim any argument of mine false. It's blindingly obvious; you are here to refute refute refute, on any grounds and through any means necessary.
I'll not continue debating on your terms.
Answer my question about the nature of your beliefs, which monotheistic god-concept you are championing, otherwise I'll not engage in this sophistry and tiresome intellectual roundabout with you.
@bjwilly69 I'm not trying to claim your arguments are false. I'm trying to show that your arguments are false. But your arguments are so vague that there's literally no response that can be made against them. My terms are that you defend abiogenesis. I've been asking questions and you've run away from them. I've been trying to show that life is the true origin of life. So, again, it's irrelevant for me to say which god I believe in.
nonsense. The mechanism is evolution and specifically mutation, genetic recombination and gene-flow. I've stated this. I don't NEED to expand on it, it's common scientific knowledge that enjoys a consensus of the highest proportions in the relevant scientific fields.
It's not vague at all. You are just looking for more gaps, vigorously. Regardless of whether MY understanding contains gaps (it does), that evolution increases complexity & that abiogenesis works is the point.
@bjwilly69 Mutations don't add information to the genome. Mutations, whether they be point, inversion, insertion, deletion or frame shift mutations, don't add information to the genome. They lose it. So this mechanism doesn't work.
Mutations DO add information to the genome and the denial of such is CLASSIC creationist game-playing. This mechanism does work. Claim CB102: Mutations on talkorigins gives links.
I also gave you the name of the author of the latest work in abiogenesis. That IS me citing evidence. If you can't be bothered to read it, that's your problem. I've pointed you to it (Gerald Joyce - Skripps Research Inst.)
You CANNOT claim I've not given evidence. That's it. Denial is dishonest.
I'm also only telling you that Abiogenesis is a POTENTIAL answer. There are potentially others also.
This is why I will NOT grant you the status of scientific thinking, because you are looking for a DEFINITIVE answer to a question we're simply not ready to answer yet. You are DETERMINED to have god as the answer; in your fervor, you are ignoring your own fallacies.
The absolutist mindset is the antithesis of the scientific one. You are failing in seeking such.
@bjwilly69 I don't think abiogenesis is a potential answer because, yet again, it does not agree with the law of causality. We know that an effect resembles its cause. Life doesn't resemble non-life, so I don't admit that it's plausible for any type of abiogenesis is true. It's pretty much been scientifically proven by men like Louis Pasteur that even microscopic life only comes from life.
Pasteur died nearly 120 years ago. His research has been superseded by the absolutely ground-breaking and most up-to-date research in Abiogenesis I pointed you to yesterday that REFUTES Pasteur's findings. That you need to rely upon outdated scientific knowledge is tantamount to the debate-style you are employing.
Whether you admit that abiogenesis is plausible is IRRELEVANT. I pointed you to a study from last MONTH that refutes your point, your response is from 19th Century.
@bjwilly69 Your whole paragraph is pure nonsense. "absolutely ground-breaking and most up-to-date research in Abiogenesis" Where is the evidence for any of this reserach? You've presented NO evidence. Present some actual facts. You make statements again and again but you don't present any type of fact to back them up. Your whole paragraph can be labeled as your personal opinion due to the fact that there's not a single fact about abiogenesis in there.
@bjwilly69 4. An eternal something must exist or nothing would exist. Something always had to exist in order for anything to exist. 6. Once an eternal universe has been eliminated as a plausible explanation, it's rational to conclude that an eternal creator is the correct explanation as its the only explanation you're left with.
An eternal universe HAS NOT been eliminated, only the notion that THIS universe was eternal. Multiverse is a theory, but its not disproved nor eliminated, and an eternal endless loop cycle of big bangs and big contractions recycling matter fits with ALL the laws except causality, which COULD apply to everything except matter itself, for it is no LESS logical that everything existed eternally than to say that a supreme being existed supernaturally eternally to create existence.
@bjwilly69 6. God is the most perfect being in existence. If there were multiple gods, they would have to differ in some way. To differ from absolute perfection is to be less than absolute perfection. To be less than absolute perfection is to be less than God. To be less than God is to not be God, therefore, there can only be one God.
God is the most perfect being in existence IS A RHETORICAL assertion. You've no justification, it just sounds nice, and is a good "fit" to your chosen equation. Who says that the creator of the universe must be absolutely perfect? Why would multiple gods have to differ?
And AGAIN, which god are YOU referring to? You REFUSE to answer my questions, for they'll identify your underlying motives; to prove your particular monotheistic god-concept. Am I right?
@bjwilly69 "God is the most perfect being in existence IS A RHETORICAL assertion." It's a basic theological argument. But theology requires you to have a good understanding of philosophy. From what you've shown me, I have literally no reason to think you have a good understanding of philosophy. I'm switching to an argument that is so simple even children understand it. Where did the first life come from?
You're resorting to thinly veiled ad hominem? Fair enough ....
First life - abiogenesis. Scientifically all but proved. That you're unaware of such is indifferent to its reality. I've provided this answer, you've dismissed and ignored it based upon your own ignorance and incredulity. I'll not go through this again ... it's a legitimate field of science that has shown self-replicating material arise from inanimate material. Evolution is all that's required for life ...
@bjwilly69 Explain to me the process of abiogenesis. You're barely presenting you're arguments. You're not giving me any information whatsoever. You SAY it's true. But you haven't SHOWN it's true.
Let me give you a hint - a REAL scientist, and the intellectually honest position is to say that we don't know EXACTLY how the first example of life "came to be". Abiogenesis is a theory with distinct value, that is on its way to being proved in laboratories as we speak (recent developments show the arising of self-replicating organisms from inanimate materials within controlled chemical environments) but to state that god is therefore the cause is the antithesis of science.
You've also already proved your scientific illiteracy by misrepresenting evolution above. I notice you dropped that ball really quickly when I pounced on it. You went on to misrepresent the implications of abiogenesis, or at least displayed your ignorance of such areas of scientific discourse, and fallaciously attributed ALL of this to "atheism".
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, the denial of theistic god claims. NOTHING MORE. You've failed at every point. Go read more
@bjwilly69 I haven't seen any convincing reply from you. Non-life can't be the cause of life. But this is what is required to be true for atheistic evolution to be true. Where did the first life come from? From non-life? Of course not. Abiogenesis is incompatible with the law of causality meaning abiogenesis is logically, naturally and scientifically false because it goes against a logical, natural and scientific law.
I'm done with your sophistry. Your opinions on my replies are irrelevant. Your assertions that are unjustifiable are on repeat now. It's boring. You've been watching and mimicking WAY too much William Lane Craig.
Let me ask you. What is god? Which god? How do you know said god, and all of its characteristics you've so eagerly applied.
Your statement of Abiogenesis being incompatible assumes the absolution of the law of causality. A real scientist wouldn't be so hasty.
You harp on this point, without justifying it as a principle foundation. Then you deny Abiogenesis as incompatible with the law of causality you are so obsessed with, but you (clearly) haven't seen the latest advances in the area because like I pointed to & you ignored earlier, scientists HAVE seen inanimate material arise into self-replicating material in the right conditions. Apply evolution (logically) and the process of life begins.
All of this is really an argument of the god-of-the-gaps - you've jumped on what you perceive as scientific ignorance and are determined to inject god into this area. I've given you counter evidence AND shown you that god as a concept is presumptive to include and intellectually dishonest when compared to the option of stating "I'm/we're not sure ... yet". Your grasp of logic & science are only coherent in so far as they appear to justify your position, beyond that, sophistry.
@bjwilly69 I'm not using God to fill the gaps. I'm taking our current understanding of philosophy and science and using that understanding to draw the conclusion that God exists. The philosophical fact that an eternal "something" has to exist in order for anything else to exist and the scientific fact that the universe is not that eternal something allows me to rationally conclude that God is that eternal something.
I dealt with the presumptions contained within this response in my previous post.
You ARE still filling gaps with god because you are presuming the conclusive nature of current knowledge in order to establish gaps that may not exist in future. It is STILL fallacious to import the presumptive conclusion of something not established as valid and by definition beyond the abilities of human knowledge as an answer. You've NOT addressed the fact that its intellectually dishonest.
Just here to watch this for free until Grayling starts charging us £50 a second to the privilege. Where does ruthless profiteering and elitism fit into your enlightened Humanism and love of knowledge AC?
What science needs is a kick up the smartass from William Blake and the godtremblers need a night out with Edgar Allan Poe. Not one of the people on the so called world-wide-web has anything to posit but 'opinion'. Oops, there's another one.
deeply profound. I would love to have a conversation with this guy...to present some of my assertions and see how he picks them apart. Most of the people i talk to do not have any deep philosophical ideas to present....another words they would rather not think, but there is hope; they are not dead yet.
I am glad I found this video. My parents seem to think just the opposite of what has been explained in this video. Recently I have been told not to "argue" or present my view of things when they present theirs. I have also been told many times to just have faith in information I hear. Very helpful to kick the ass of suppressive fucktard influence. If only they could see this video and not reject the information immediately.
@poisonpixel I've heard that termed, "contempt prior to investigation". Someone just has contempt for something without properly getting the facts or doing their own research. Very counter-productive if you ask me.
Hi, If your an atheist as am I, please check out my channel, where I'll be assessing major issues our society is facing in terms of religion and basic ethics... As well as the occasional video game content as I am a bit of a gamer..
"The probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as
zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a
probability likely to be realised once in the whole universe. Otherwise, some metaphysical powers beyond our definition should have acted in its formation.
To accept the latter is not appropriate to the goals of science. We therefore
have to look into the first hypothesis."
This is what gives extra credit to evolution science
People who search for the cause of life on earth are divided in two categories, one who believe the existence of God and try to search the proof of His existence through science. The other ones who do not want to accept God and so search for evidences from science to support their faith.
@farzanatasneem You are a vulgar little piece of vermin scum to repost this message like the deluded zealot bullshit spammer that you are. I have already thoroughly refuted this bunch of BULLSHIT anybody who wishes to read my response is invited to do so and note this desperate deluded zealot that has failed to reason with the criticisms I have given, but nevertheless (like all creationists) repeats their ignorant delusional bullshit ad nauseum, respect or intellectual integrity notwithstanding.
@farzanatasneem "I refuted all your previous posts by my statements."
You are a deliberate, pathological, scum sucking little liar. You have not addressed the tiniest fraction of what I have nailed your ass to the wall with. The only replies you have made have been more baseless assertions. All you are doing is gainsaying and fabricating bullshit like the quote from Sir Arthur Keith, which was important, until I pointed out that he was an evolutionist, then you disowned him.
The reason you repeated the same post over is because you have had your ass handed to you in your hat and so you thought you would just cut your loses and re-post the same bullshit again. That post itself, to any intelligent person shows how dishonestly you think as you clearly admit that you decide what you believe FIRST then go searching for ways to confirm it. THAT IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS. Nothing you have said demonstrates this and you saying so doesn't make it true. YOU'RE A FUCKING LIAR
I have demonstrated you by my quotes that it is the decision of atheists too to take a stand and then examine the evidence as far as denial of creation is to be done
The only thing you have demonstrated is what a deluded ignoramus you are.
"Eye Evolution-It's Impossible"
You have not responded to anything I have criticized about your idiotic bullshit lies and you have no intention to do reasonable debate, so who do you think you are, to just foist yet another piece of deliberate disinformation from the creationist bullshit mill?
Did you bother to find out if this has been refuted by anybody? NO!
Do you realize what a hackneyed old warhorse this argument from irreducible complexity is? Why don't you go do some research as if you wanted to know if you might be wrong? You are doing nothing but spewing well refuted creationist propaganda and not addressing the abundant existing refutations which show this deliberate disinformation for what it is BULLSHIT!
If YOU think the eye is impossible why don't YOU present your arguments rather than just regurgitating hackneyed creationist propaganda? Anybody can post identifiers for videos and ignore the opposing argument. You do not demonstrate you UNDERSTAND anything by doing this, but that you are a mindless drone for creationist propaganda. Still, you do BELIEVE without reason a doctrine you are commanded to, so it figures.
I have already schooled you on the the argument from ignorance, that if you cant understand it it isn't possible. I have told you that just because you can't understand how something is possible, that doesn't mean it IS impossible. That is called the argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantum). You have not acknowledged this or demonstrated any UNDERSTANDING of your regurgitated propaganda. But that, as you have demonstrated, it is because you don't even want to know if you are mistaken.
I have also refuted your common failure to do nothing but make baseless assertions and pretend they should be self evident. You have provided no reason or rhyme to account for you 'thinking' and not responded to my criticism of this. I have also criticized your appeal to the false dichotomy, that pretends creationism is the only alternative to any natural process If it were unable to explain something. You have responded to none of this, because your religion is a willful devotion to ignorance.
Contrary to your claim to have addressed or refuted my criticisms, you have done NO SUCH THING! You have LIED and continue to LIE in accordance to taquiyya and your putrid doctrine of filthy stinking lying dogma. Your latest bullshit about the eye, is not only tired old, well refuted, Christian canard you are recycling for Allah (stinking vermin death be upon him) but you are repeating the same fallacies I have already pointed out: Baseless assertion, false dichotomy and argument from ignorance.
Do you really think I need to? Considering the amount of material I have digested on the creation evolution debate and the geriatric nature of this tired old warhorse, I have seen it refuted so many times that if each serving were a single point mutation towards my own ocular organs, I would have evolved three pairs of eyes by now. You might say, I could have eyes in the back of my head to see that old war horse sneaking up behind me. LOL
"It was given in response to the video od Richard Dawkins' and other evolutionists' videos which says that eye evolution is possible."
This is where you want me to say OH! well... That's different then. Clearly if they are responding to existing refutations, I might expect they are delivering a cogent counterargument. But how do I manage to feel so confident that this will not be any such valid counterargument? Why is it such a doodle, to predict a contrived pretense of poorly reasoned excuses?
The reason is because it is the very nature of the ID argument that is dishonest from the outset and as I have already noted, it IS motivated by the very same psychological incentives as the religious beliefs it seeks to justify with confirmation bias and ad hock excuses for preconceived dogma. What you need is a special argument from Koranic optical principals, that couldn't arise from 'Biblical' Intelligent design. Using flawed Christian ID theory is Irreducibly Deluded as it denies NS.
@farzanatasneem "You are trying to HIDE my posts, not refuting them off."
I should have realized it much earlier with the total brazen overtness of your stupidity and prejudice, but I had to check your channel to see how long you have been on youtube, to try to understand what would explain this stupid and precious statement. NO FUCKING WONDER. How typical. A fucking Muslim, desperate to take offense and screaming censorship, while doing everything to subvert open debate and evade criticism.
Seeing how long you have been here, it might have sunk into your thick fucking head by now, that on most channels that support balanced debate, it is not considered sporting to repeat yourself verbatim, especially where your comments have been reasonably and rationally refuted. When this happens, people tend to flag a comment as unnecessary spam. But being that you are Muslim, you probably don't think that anything outside of your ignorant self-serving theocratic prejudice applies to ASSHOLES.
@farzanatasneem "People who search for the cause of life on earth are divided in two categories, one who believe the existence of God and try to search the proof of His existence through science."
That's quite a good description of the wrong way to investigate anything. You are admitting you decide what you believe FIRST then go looking for your "PROOF" of it. That however could hardly be called a 'search for the cause of life', but merely a search for justification of preordained dogma.
"The other one who do not want to accept God and so search for evidences from science to support their faith."
The others you are referring would not prejudiced to assuming that there is any god to "accept". You are asserting another HUGE assumption. Your little imaginary friend has nothing to do with the REAL search for understandings about life. Biologists don't decide to study life BECAUSE they "do not want to accept God". How do you discount the motive 'because they want to understand it'?
The claim that scientists really only want to discover 'what is true' without preordained conclusions or dogma to prejudice their conclusions, is confirmed by their success at developing explanations that are consistent with evidence. That is also precisely why science is NOT 'faith' and why it succeeds at reaching agreement with reality. What you have described of the religious worldview, is the preordained dogma and prejudice based approach, that is characteristic of FAITH in spite of reality
Evolution is studied in the same way as any aspect of biological science and the same way as any other science. It is subject to scientific methodology, testable by agreement with evidence and subject to ruthless peer review. You have better explanations? Publish the research. The only way to reconcile the view that evolutionary biologists are not searching for understandings of the true nature of life, is to be ignorant of how science really works. That you have shown by your presumptions.
The two ways of looking at the world, including the 'cause of life', are divided along lines of dogma or accountability to evidence and reason. In one camp the 'god squad' go hunting for excuses in a manner to justify preordained conclusions, using confirmation bias and ad hock reasoning. In the other camp, it is evidence that is sought and explanations are tentative. theory is never considered 100% fact as you've asserted and always predisposed to falsification. Proof is for maths and alcohol.
The other important difference in the two worldviews, is the religious pretense at having comprehensive 'explanations'. They wish to pretend to know everything and have cut and dried, explanations even if those explanations don't ultimately explain anything. Admitting we don't understand many aspects of the world and working from what we DO have some understanding of, is not how religion does it. Religion pretends we had a complete explanation for everything that was written in the bronze age.
"Science" of evolution is devoted to proving Darwin was right. It is not in any way an objective science looking for answers. Information and testing is bent to prove the theory. The theory cannot be modified, even though supporters say it can be and is. There is simply no where to go from random mutations and natural selection.
@farzanatasneem ""Science" of evolution is devoted to proving Darwin was right."
You are spewing creationist rhetoric which a just total bullshit. If you want me to call you a liar I will. I have already told you that evolution is: "studied in the same way as any aspect of biological science and the same way as any other science. It is subject to scientific methodology, testable by agreement with evidence and subject to ruthless peer review."
What you are proposing is not just false, but idiotic and an insult to the hard devoted work of many thousands of biologist researchers that have studied evolution since Darwin. You are a lowlife toxic gutter maggot, liar and what you are spreading is total fucking bullshit. It is creationism that is the preconceived dogma constantly looking for ways to assert its bullshit that evolution is false. It's proponents have been caught out lying, fabricating evidence and such like for decades.
You yourself admit to how you "...believe the existence of God and try to search the proof of His existence through science." deciding what you believe first and then try to search for the ''proof''. I have already shown you this. That is the way a liar who wants to fabricate justifications for their bullshit would do things. The very doctrine you are upholding, is clearly predicated on something you must BELIEVE. logical Reason is never considered. It's a moral imperative to believe on faith.
I have studied the evolution/creation dispute for more than 15 years and I have read numerous books on this insidious scourge called creationism. The willful, fabrication, deception and outright LIES on the part of creationist leaders is obvious to anybody who scratches the surface. The whole deception is marketed at people who desperately want to believe something despite the evidence from nature despite reality. That is what religion is like in the first place, a believe or burn proposition.
Considering who is likely to be fabricating a conspiracy on the face of it religion holds all of the trump cards for a guilty verdict. A desperate motive, being discovered at the scene of the crime and being caught red handed on numerous occasions. Science is done the same way in biology as it is done in any science. It's fully accountable to evidence and ruthlessly peer reviewed. Conspiracy is simply inadmissible. What you have furnished is nothing more than baseless accusations and no motive.
[evolution] "It is not in any way an objective science looking for answers."
That is an assertion. You have not proffered any evidence to support this claim, but on the contrary it is an accusation which has be mooted by a band of bible thumping morons, who have been exposed over and over, from the fabricated man tracks at Paluxy River to the fabrication of 'Intelligent Design' from the ashes of creation science. It's just one lie after another. It's YOUR belief system that is NOT objective.
"Information and testing is bent to prove the theory. The theory cannot be modified, even though supporters say it can be and is."
That is exactly what happens. That is what is done by creationists to proliferate their vulgar ignorance based on biblical superstition and the conspiracy against biological evolution. It's the biblical literalist story of the bible particularly Genesis, that is taken as unalterable and that any evidence or conclusion to the contrary must be twisted to conform.
Again! I will point out that you yourself, have demonstrated your own admission of prejudice and bias for preconceived, preordained 'BELIEFS', that you openly profess to acquire and then go searching for ways to validate those preordained conclusions you call 'beliefs'. That is as dishonest as anything gets in terms of intellectual integrity, but at least you were honest enough (more like stupid enough) to admit it from the start. Science just DOES NOT and CAN NOT work that way. It's a DAMN LIE
"There is simply no where to go from random mutations and natural selection."
Now you are professing to be capable of comprehending science and the principals of evolution, as if your pathetic little statement, had the hope of undermining the combined wisdom and intellect of thousands of qualified biologists and over a century of hard earned knowledge. As if you wanted to know if you are mistaken and would have the balls to admit if you are wrong. YOU, are a just a pathetic insult to science.
I have personally comprehended evolution for quite a longtime now and the mechanisms that have been discovered appear to lead inevitably to species diversity. Darwin never had the benefit of such hindsight and the discovery of Mendelian inheritance factors had to await discovery and formal recognition via skeptical peer review as any discovery in science. It was clear from Darwin's work alone that speciation was a biological fact. Evolution as fact, has only been confirmed over and over since.
The pretense that there is any flaw in the proposed mechanisms of evolution actually gives the lie to your repulsive conspiracy. Anybody who bothers to attempt to understand those mechanisms can discover for themselves the way they explain an inevitable process that enables the inevitable process of species diversity. If that alone were a moot point, then it would simply mean, that the massive mountains of evidence, that evolution HAS happened would require explanation by some other mechanisms.
@farzanatasneem "Such an evolution does not change the genera or the phyla of those species."
You have absolutely NO understanding of evolution whatsoever and you are simply spouting retarded creationist bullshit. There is no such thing in respectable biology called 'micro-evolution' or 'macro-evolution' Evolution will occur and has occurred by the known processes. There is no mechanism that prevents speciation from happening and the same change by gradualistic divergence causes speciation.
Genera and Phyla are artificial man made classifications, so no natural process of the organic evolution can make any change that it makes any sense to call a change in genre or phylum. Bacteria are a poor subject to use in understanding speciation, because they are not sexually reproducing so species 'or reproductively isolated populations' suffer the same limitations of intangibility. In bacteria however there are MANY examples of new strains that have emerged in our life times.
Nevertheless you are still arguing from ignorance that just because YOU don't understand it, then it isn't true. The fact is that you don't want to understand it and you don't want it to be true. Even if you DID understand it I expect you would deny it and refuse to believe it because ABOVE ALL, as you have pointed out, you DO decide what you believe FIRST without reason, then search for excuses to prop up you ignorant beliefs afterward. You are indoctrinated into a delusion that forbids reason.
my god i could listen to him speak forever
Sh3rby 1 hour ago
On the topic of 'thinking,' a whole host of other 'modern' logic problems arise.
4micaman 1 month ago
Sorry that's a bit blunt. I wanted to say something less provocative than "lame" but ran out of characters. Let's just say the concept of an eternal "condition" rather than an eternal "entity", as the explanation for the emergence of the universe at some point in/ just before time, seems to me to be a 2nd-best effort made necessary by the absolute imperative of not under any circumstances
conceding the possibility of the obvious alternative.
Thanks for your post GTH by the way. Appreciated.
bsktool 2 months ago
Seems improbable I know. But if that's not the case and they have an explanation for the emergence of life they're not advertising it.
I heard an interview with Mark Roberts - no it was a radio debate between him & Chris Hitchens - and he, or the host, stated that 40% of US scientists are theists. So it's not just I who hasn't heard of it.
They do have an explanation for the appearance of the universe which supposedly doesn't completely shred the cause & effect principle but it's pretty lame.
bsktool 2 months ago
{cont from previous}
(without making sure they do not derive from) false assumptions.
Perhaps I could have reworded that bit about following celebrity atheists. I've been wading through Christopher Hitchens' and Richard Dawkins' books and that latest one by David Lewis-Williams, with mounting frustration at their, in my view, misconceptions.
I apologise if I've given offense. I'm not pretending to be smarter than these guys. I'm just the dumb kid who can see that the emperor's starkers.
bsktool 3 months ago
@bsktool
So you think the majority of the world's scientists who actually study the universe their whole lives are just missing something? It's perhaps far more likely that once you really study these areas in an unbiased way, you tend to see that the illusion of the hand was just a product of our agency-seeking minds. That are easily fooled and often wrong.
GodTheHypothesis 2 months ago
Well to be honest dwb I'd have to say the only explanation I can find for people not seeing the hand of an eternal source involved in the production of the universe and the emergence of life is their not having thought it through from basic principles. And an explanation of such a talented thinker as ACG falling into that trap might be the ubiquitous willingness to stand of the shoulders of other talented people's findings, without making sure they do not derive from .....
{continued next post}
bsktool 3 months ago
{#3. from previous...}
One tip I can give you from my own experience:
Try giving up mind-altering substances for a while first - alcohol, pot, tobacco (maybe). I used to think the christian-wowser causality went forward; now I believe for many it's the reverse. I believe that alcohol e.g. interferes with the usual getting of wisdom that should happen after the brain's physical development is done.
Alcohol use is something else that's burgeoned since Darwin's time.
Respectfully
Anthony Cook
bsktool 3 months ago
@bsktool How do you know that he is following the celebrity atheists, instead of coming to the conclusion himself (as you say you did with Christianity)? He seems like a very thoughtful man who would catch himself if he was only following a crowd. Just because your own opinions are in line with a certain group's opinions does not mean that you have not thought critically about the question.
dwbryant3 3 months ago
{cont from previous...}
And I suspect there are many other converts from atheism who could say the same about their own change of heart.
It was after I decided to address this subject which I'd been putting off most of my adult life that I realised I'd been overlooking a very obvious pointer.
And if you are as clever as you give every indication of being I expect you will also see it once you stop following the growing herd of celebrity atheists and put your mind to it too.
{please see next ...}
bsktool 3 months ago
Dear Anthony
You are very outspoken considering you do not know for sure that God, or if the title offends you, the eternal creator being, exists.
You also make a presumption in implying that theists, specifically christians, have all been influenced by propaganda from the distant past.
I concluded that God is real without believing, or disbelieving, what anyone else had to say on the subject or anything that is written in the bible.
{please see next post....}
bsktool 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
Thank you so much for sharing this. A wonderful and inspiring sharing from A.C. Grayling.
thedeeliciousplum 3 months ago
That is some epic hair.
zacthebold 3 months ago
Let's STOP talking about religion because it compared to the Federal Reserve is a 3, and the Feds a 10.
Let's critically think about the Federal Reserve and how it destroys the Economies of the world for their own gain.
DaBroskiBro 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins has gone off the rails:
search for Richard Dawkins and male privilege on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog.
Participating in flaming a woman because she dares to say 'don't objectify me at a conference'? Poorly done, Dawkins.
8yankee 4 months ago
I'm done with this sophistry and your disgusting debate tactics. You deliberately refuse to give away any of your ulterior motives which WILL frame the assumptive fallacies on which you base your argumentation, and that your sophistry is sophisticated and well rehearsed is of no consequence to its ultimate invalidity. I understand why Richard Dawkins will not "debate" with creationists, for their intellectual dishonesty makes it impossible to have a legitimate discussion with them.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
I don't get atheism at all. Atheists say that atheism is scientific but then turn around and tell us that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. These are contradictory and illogical statements. So literally no rational person has any reason to believe that atheism is true.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
Your perception of what atheists are and say is incorrect, so of course no rational person has any reason to believe the things that you think athiests are saying. Atheism is ONLY the lack of belief/disbelief in theistic god-concepts.
Evolution is not random, period.
And if "god" is your answer to these questions, you've still got to answer why "god"? If "god" is special and requires no cause, then its the same as saying that the universe/consciousness/etc require no cause.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 Using the law of causality, which is a logical, natural and scientific law, I can determine that only life produces life. A cause cannot give its effect something it doesn't have. Non-life has no life, therefore, the cause of life cannot logically, naturally or scientifically be non-life.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
Your assertion that only life produces life is not necessarily so. It's assumptive. At BEST you can say that as far as you are aware, non-living material has never been shown to produce living material. You would be unequivocally wrong (do some research on advances in abiogenesis of late).
Regardless you've entered yourself into an infinite regress - if non-life cannot produce life, & god is life, then what produced god, without specially pleading that god requires no cause.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
Regardless, you entire "response" to "atheism" is a straw-man from the beginning. Instead of trying to "disprove" a position you've already decided is wrong without understanding the position correctly in the first place, educate yourself on the position, represent it correctly, and then see where you stand. Peace
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 I showed that the position is illogical by pointing out that it requires contradictory statements to be true. Unless, that is, you're trying to tell me that atheists believe that life (God) created the first life.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
You're a sophist, and I'll not engage in such. I simply told you that you've misunderstood and misrepresented the position that you are attempting to refute, an unequivocal case of straw-manning. Your response is to continue the same argument again, and randomly, unjustifiable, insert a specially-plead non-sequitur of God as being life, except that god allegedly exists beyond nature. So you've conflated two contradictory positions in your rebuttal, making you a hypocrite too.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 My response is that atheism doesn't cohere with the law of causality, therefore, it's rational for me to say that atheism is illogical, unnatural and unscientific as the law of causality is a logical, natural and scientific law. I'm not misrepresenting atheism by saying that atheists believe that non-life created the first life. That's what they believe. I've noticed how you haven't directly disputed this.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
But god doesn't cohere with the law of causality either. You must specially plead his case for existing without a cause, all assertions that are by definition, beyond the purview of your knowledge capabilities, hence you being a sophist. You are misrepresenting atheists directly in saying that "non-life created life" because atheists do not say such. "Create" implies sentience. You're wrong. And now you're telling people what they believe? You are DRIPPING fallacy, sophist.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 "But god doesn't cohere with the law of causality either." Actually, he does. The law states that each effect has its cause. God isn't an effect, therefore, he needs no cause. I also said the law of causality is a NATURAL law and God is a supernatural being. Supernatural means that God exists outside of the natural laws meaning he is not bound to them as he created them. So God is indeed compatible with the law of causality.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
It's all special pleading - the beauty of the god argument is that none of the standards you apply to everything else apply to god. It's ambiguous incoherence as a concept is in and of itself its greatest strength.
But regardless of everything, it's intellectual dishonest. Your assertions reliant on god are speculative and best, and I'm being VERY generous.
Supernatural is a concept that is by definition unprovable. It's inclusion as a legitimate concept is fallacious.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
"God isn't an effect .. he needs no cause."
"God is a supernatural being"
"God exists outside of the natural laws ... he created them"
Prove, validate and justify any of these assertions as legitimate and we'll talk. Otherwise you are simply overstepping the boundaries of your potential knowledge, intrinsically and by definitions set forth by you, and if such is the case (it is), then you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty. It's better to say you don't know. You don't.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 I'll sum it up this way. 1 Something exists. 2. You do not get something from nothing. 3. Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists. 4. The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator. 5. Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe. 6. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
1. is technically a presumption that cannot be proved (existentially), but I'll grant it because it's a working presumption we simply must accept in order to converse at all.
2. is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and is dependent on definitions/interpretation.
3. is a fallacy, but I'll skip that one.
4. False dichotomy and presumptuous.
5. Science HAS NOT disproved the concept of an eternal universe. Maybe THIS one, multi-verse theory remains.
6. Obviously fallacious.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 1. You didn't dispute. 2. Obviously true as nothing creates nothing. 3. Not a fallacy at all but is philosophically and scientifically true. 4. You need to provide a 3rd explanation for it to be a false dichotomy. 5. Science has proven the universe had a beginning. There's also no evidence for the multi-verse theory which is a made up theory. 6. Not fallacious and I won't elaborate any further because you didn't elaborate at all.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
2. Nothing creates nothing, but you still presume creation at all. Why can't matter simply "be"? Why is an eternal sum of matter from which this universe was created logically fallacious? Why is the existence of a supernatural being beyond everything available to us the "logical conclusion?
5. Science has all but proved that THIS universe had a beginning.
Your dismissal of multi-verse theory is a ironic, there's no evidence for god (a made up theory) either - they're both postulates.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 2. Nothing comes out of nothing. Nothing causes nothing. You do not get something from nothing. Matter exists within the universe along with space, time and energy. The universe began to exist, therefore, matter began to exist and is not eternal.
5. The 2nd law of thermodynamics, the expansion of the universe, the radiation echo from the Big Bang, galaxy seeds and Einstein's theory of relativity all prove the universe had a beginning.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
Technically you cannot definitively say that nothing comes out of nothing nor that definitively something has not existed infinitely. It's not possible. You can make a logical inference, but you cannot say it definitively. It's the same intellectual dishonesty I've identified and you've avoided addressing consistently.
Your point MUST intrinsically assume THIS universe only. Those proofs apply to THIS universe, as we understand it from our perspective.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 I'm completely changing the subject of this debate because you obviously don't get it. Let's talk about the origin of life. Where did the first life come from?
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
I disagree with your assertions as being valid premises so I "obviously don't get it". The arrogance is astounding. I "get" your argument, I just disagree with the assumptions it requires in order to appear valid. And more fundamentally I disagree with the nature of the assertions you make as being necessarily true. They're entirely plausibly subject to a range of ignorance and cognitive failures that you refuse to address as being possible
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
You've not answered a ton of my questions either. Why is that?
Are you a deist? What is the god you pose as an answer? On what grounds is this answer more justified than say, aliens from another dimension, or an even greater "universe-like" level of reality, in which our universe is merely a scientific experiment, where said aliens would by all accounts take on every description of "god" in its interactions with us you've made. Why is the multiverse theory inconceivable?
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 "Why is the multiverse theory inconceivable?" There's literally no evidence for it and who built the cosmic generator that caused all of these universes? Atheists constantly accuse theists of having blind faith, then they immediately turn around and ask why theories that have no evidence to support them are implausible. You would have to be blind not to see the double standard you're using here.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
You're a hypocrite; there's literally no evidence for god either. By definition you cannot know of such, because god exists beyond a plane of existence you exist on, according to your definition.
I don't have faith in the theory at all. I merely propose it as a possibility. Remember, I'm not pretending to know things I do not. I've UNEQUIVOCALLY claimed ignorance where you claim conclusions that are rhetorical inferences from (at times presumptive) applications of logic.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 "You're a hypocrite; there's literally no evidence for god either." The fact that life exists is evidence for God. We're back to the basic, simple, common sense law of causality. A cause can't give its effect something it doesn't have. So where did the first life come from?
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
Abiogenesis. Do we HAVE to go over this again. You should stick to the causality argument for existence entirely, for its still an ambiguous area of study. Life CAN arise from inanimate material, at least potentially, your incredulity at such IS NOT an argument against it. We KNOW complexity arises from less complex states as a result of natural processes so this is PERFECTLY consistent with scientific knowledge.
Life existing is NOT evidence for god. It's evidence for life.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 You're just typing sentences and presenting no facts. You're TELLING me that abiogenesis is true. Why don't you SHOW me that abiogenesis is true using facts? "We KNOW complexity arises from less complex states as a result of natural processes so this is PERFECTLY consistent with scientific knowledge." This another baseless statement. Provide some actual evidence and not your own opinions.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
I'm assuming, incorrectly, that you are up to date in your research on the subject, given your instant dismissal of such. Gerald Joyce of the Skripps Research Institute is responsible for leading the team making the latest developments. It's in its early stages, but the results are becoming clear.
My complexity statement is a description of evolution. How do you not see that? Complexity arises by natural processes from less complex states. The ESSENCE of evolutionary theory.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 There is no single theory for how non-life created life. There are multiple theories. So saying "Abiogenesis is true." is such a vague statement that there's no way I can respond to it. Which theory of abiogenesis is true?
What is the natural mechanism that adds information to these organisms that makes them more and more complex? Again, there are multiple theories that explain the complexity of life.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
Wherein did I say "Abiogenesis is true."
I didn't. Period. I posed it as a potential answer that doesn't require the special pleading of the existence of god for how life "arose" from non-life materials in existence. That we have replicated at least a part of this process in a lab proves its validity. How it works is yet to be determined & understood.
That does however relinquish the potential necessity of a "creator" back to existence itself, rather than life specifically.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69
I've already stated this point EXPLICITLY in our conversation yesterday. You are CLEARLY not reading my points and rather rushing to rebuttals. Your demeanour has given your true intent & motives away, in so far as I can assume & your continued denial to answer my questions in attempt to flush out your beliefs behind your rhetorical conjecture highlight the truth of my perception.
Which monotheistic god-concept are you championing, behind your ambiguous language? Answer this point.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 You're trying to change the subject of the debate. Which god I believe in is irrelevant to the question of where the first life came from.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
I'm trying to change the subject indeed, as you have done many times without any issue from me. Why do you presuppose your own dominion over this debate, to define where it can and cannot go? The arrogance you display is SHAMEFUL.
Furthermore, in identifying if you believe in a monotheistic god-concept like Yahweh (or the polytheistic Christian concept of Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit) will undeniably show to me (and others) what kind of motives you have in this debate.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 Again, there is no need for me to state which god I believe in. It's irrelevant. I'm arguing that only life creates life. By the law of causality this is true. This is a simple, basic, common sense fact. An effect resembles its cause. Life does not resemble non-life. Therefore, non-life isn't the cause of life. Life does resemble life. Therefore, life is the cause of life. This debate is a waste of time. Face the facts. I quit. Goodbye.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
BS. Absolute BS. I HAVE SHOWN YOU evidence from brand new studies in abiogenesis wherein from non-living material arose self-replicating cells. This is a basis of life that when evolution and all of its effects are applied to such, can logically form more complex life, ad infinitum to the complexity of today. You HAVE LOST the debate on the origins of life proving god. IT DOES NOT.
Reasserting your points from before does not make them so. Stop being so dishonest.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
You cannot prove conclusively that life does not arise from non-life, I have shown you suggestive evidence to the contrary. Reasserting the law of causality DOES NOT refute the evidence of abiogenesis I have provided, thus the law of causality MAY potentially need redefining, as DOES and WILL happen within science consistently. Your NEED for absolutism in proving your point is the antithesis of science. You've FAILED henceforth in misunderstanding the philosophy of science.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
Come on - just for fun, for my curiosity's sake, tell us which god-concept you believe in.
Just give in and tell us all that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light, the only way to get into heaven and deal with the consequences of the reality of your beliefs and their intrinsic effect on your perceptions and presumptions of the nature of reality, which by all means have a VASTLY important impact upon the nature and outcome of this debate.
Stop being so pathetic & own up
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69
And which god concept makes ALL the difference, for if its a deistic concept, then I will grant you more intellectual validity in your argumentation, for deism is a justifiable god-concept that does not contradict many other logical arguments over the existence of a theistic god, and is ambiguous enough to allow for almost infinite flexibility of characteristics. The Christian god concept flies in the face of reason in other areas of discourse - it's a comment on your epistemology.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
You're a creationist troll, practising intransigence, seeped in sophistry & well versed in complex argumentation, rather than logical argumentation. You make countless, unscientific, unjustifiable claims & refuse to acknowledge such. You apply double standards, assume the high-ground, redefine terms as you choose, change subjects at will, but deny me all of those luxuries. You are hypocritical. You've only established your own delusional false sense of superiority. Congrats :)
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 great way with words ^^
lanceawatt 4 months ago
@bjwilly69 Again, you're not identifying any type of abiogenesis. You haven't explained which theory of abiogenesis you think to be plausible. I can't disagree with you when I don't even know which theory you're talking about.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
And you're displaying more ignorance of science here, because abiogenesis is the "action" or "mechanism", which can be proven factual as evolution and gravity have been. That I don't know which THEORY describes such accurately is beside the point to whether the mechanism exists and works, in the same way that the THEORY of Natural Selection or General Relativity could change or be replaced, but the FACTS of evolution and gravity which they describe will remain regardless.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
The natural mechanism that we've proved builds complexity from less-complexity is evolution. If you are attempting to point towards WLC's argument that DNA cannot have information added to it and thus its being a "building-block" for the complexity of life must have had ALL the information present for all the complexity of life at the point of creation, then don't bother - this point is assumptive in nature and is a misrepresentation of the process of evolution.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 I asked WHAT is this natural mechanism. You just rambled on about WLC's argument, which I wasn't even using. What is the mechanism that explains the complexity of life? Again, your argument is so vague that I can't say it's false because I don't even know what it is.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
Again, like your previous comment, you've shown your only true intent is to claim any argument of mine false. It's blindingly obvious; you are here to refute refute refute, on any grounds and through any means necessary.
I'll not continue debating on your terms.
Answer my question about the nature of your beliefs, which monotheistic god-concept you are championing, otherwise I'll not engage in this sophistry and tiresome intellectual roundabout with you.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 I'm not trying to claim your arguments are false. I'm trying to show that your arguments are false. But your arguments are so vague that there's literally no response that can be made against them. My terms are that you defend abiogenesis. I've been asking questions and you've run away from them. I've been trying to show that life is the true origin of life. So, again, it's irrelevant for me to say which god I believe in.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
nonsense. The mechanism is evolution and specifically mutation, genetic recombination and gene-flow. I've stated this. I don't NEED to expand on it, it's common scientific knowledge that enjoys a consensus of the highest proportions in the relevant scientific fields.
It's not vague at all. You are just looking for more gaps, vigorously. Regardless of whether MY understanding contains gaps (it does), that evolution increases complexity & that abiogenesis works is the point.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 Mutations don't add information to the genome. Mutations, whether they be point, inversion, insertion, deletion or frame shift mutations, don't add information to the genome. They lose it. So this mechanism doesn't work.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
Mutations DO add information to the genome and the denial of such is CLASSIC creationist game-playing. This mechanism does work. Claim CB102: Mutations on talkorigins gives links.
I also gave you the name of the author of the latest work in abiogenesis. That IS me citing evidence. If you can't be bothered to read it, that's your problem. I've pointed you to it (Gerald Joyce - Skripps Research Inst.)
You CANNOT claim I've not given evidence. That's it. Denial is dishonest.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
I'm also only telling you that Abiogenesis is a POTENTIAL answer. There are potentially others also.
This is why I will NOT grant you the status of scientific thinking, because you are looking for a DEFINITIVE answer to a question we're simply not ready to answer yet. You are DETERMINED to have god as the answer; in your fervor, you are ignoring your own fallacies.
The absolutist mindset is the antithesis of the scientific one. You are failing in seeking such.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 I don't think abiogenesis is a potential answer because, yet again, it does not agree with the law of causality. We know that an effect resembles its cause. Life doesn't resemble non-life, so I don't admit that it's plausible for any type of abiogenesis is true. It's pretty much been scientifically proven by men like Louis Pasteur that even microscopic life only comes from life.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
Pasteur died nearly 120 years ago. His research has been superseded by the absolutely ground-breaking and most up-to-date research in Abiogenesis I pointed you to yesterday that REFUTES Pasteur's findings. That you need to rely upon outdated scientific knowledge is tantamount to the debate-style you are employing.
Whether you admit that abiogenesis is plausible is IRRELEVANT. I pointed you to a study from last MONTH that refutes your point, your response is from 19th Century.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 Your whole paragraph is pure nonsense. "absolutely ground-breaking and most up-to-date research in Abiogenesis" Where is the evidence for any of this reserach? You've presented NO evidence. Present some actual facts. You make statements again and again but you don't present any type of fact to back them up. Your whole paragraph can be labeled as your personal opinion due to the fact that there's not a single fact about abiogenesis in there.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
4 and 6 are fallacious on the same grounds. You assume AN eternal creator. Why not 6? Or 423,089?
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 4. An eternal something must exist or nothing would exist. Something always had to exist in order for anything to exist. 6. Once an eternal universe has been eliminated as a plausible explanation, it's rational to conclude that an eternal creator is the correct explanation as its the only explanation you're left with.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
An eternal universe HAS NOT been eliminated, only the notion that THIS universe was eternal. Multiverse is a theory, but its not disproved nor eliminated, and an eternal endless loop cycle of big bangs and big contractions recycling matter fits with ALL the laws except causality, which COULD apply to everything except matter itself, for it is no LESS logical that everything existed eternally than to say that a supreme being existed supernaturally eternally to create existence.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 6. God is the most perfect being in existence. If there were multiple gods, they would have to differ in some way. To differ from absolute perfection is to be less than absolute perfection. To be less than absolute perfection is to be less than God. To be less than God is to not be God, therefore, there can only be one God.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
God is the most perfect being in existence IS A RHETORICAL assertion. You've no justification, it just sounds nice, and is a good "fit" to your chosen equation. Who says that the creator of the universe must be absolutely perfect? Why would multiple gods have to differ?
And AGAIN, which god are YOU referring to? You REFUSE to answer my questions, for they'll identify your underlying motives; to prove your particular monotheistic god-concept. Am I right?
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 "God is the most perfect being in existence IS A RHETORICAL assertion." It's a basic theological argument. But theology requires you to have a good understanding of philosophy. From what you've shown me, I have literally no reason to think you have a good understanding of philosophy. I'm switching to an argument that is so simple even children understand it. Where did the first life come from?
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
You're resorting to thinly veiled ad hominem? Fair enough ....
First life - abiogenesis. Scientifically all but proved. That you're unaware of such is indifferent to its reality. I've provided this answer, you've dismissed and ignored it based upon your own ignorance and incredulity. I'll not go through this again ... it's a legitimate field of science that has shown self-replicating material arise from inanimate material. Evolution is all that's required for life ...
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 Explain to me the process of abiogenesis. You're barely presenting you're arguments. You're not giving me any information whatsoever. You SAY it's true. But you haven't SHOWN it's true.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
Let me give you a hint - a REAL scientist, and the intellectually honest position is to say that we don't know EXACTLY how the first example of life "came to be". Abiogenesis is a theory with distinct value, that is on its way to being proved in laboratories as we speak (recent developments show the arising of self-replicating organisms from inanimate materials within controlled chemical environments) but to state that god is therefore the cause is the antithesis of science.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
You've also already proved your scientific illiteracy by misrepresenting evolution above. I notice you dropped that ball really quickly when I pounced on it. You went on to misrepresent the implications of abiogenesis, or at least displayed your ignorance of such areas of scientific discourse, and fallaciously attributed ALL of this to "atheism".
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, the denial of theistic god claims. NOTHING MORE. You've failed at every point. Go read more
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 I haven't seen any convincing reply from you. Non-life can't be the cause of life. But this is what is required to be true for atheistic evolution to be true. Where did the first life come from? From non-life? Of course not. Abiogenesis is incompatible with the law of causality meaning abiogenesis is logically, naturally and scientifically false because it goes against a logical, natural and scientific law.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
I'm done with your sophistry. Your opinions on my replies are irrelevant. Your assertions that are unjustifiable are on repeat now. It's boring. You've been watching and mimicking WAY too much William Lane Craig.
Let me ask you. What is god? Which god? How do you know said god, and all of its characteristics you've so eagerly applied.
Your statement of Abiogenesis being incompatible assumes the absolution of the law of causality. A real scientist wouldn't be so hasty.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
"Non-life can't be the cause of life."
You harp on this point, without justifying it as a principle foundation. Then you deny Abiogenesis as incompatible with the law of causality you are so obsessed with, but you (clearly) haven't seen the latest advances in the area because like I pointed to & you ignored earlier, scientists HAVE seen inanimate material arise into self-replicating material in the right conditions. Apply evolution (logically) and the process of life begins.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
All of this is really an argument of the god-of-the-gaps - you've jumped on what you perceive as scientific ignorance and are determined to inject god into this area. I've given you counter evidence AND shown you that god as a concept is presumptive to include and intellectually dishonest when compared to the option of stating "I'm/we're not sure ... yet". Your grasp of logic & science are only coherent in so far as they appear to justify your position, beyond that, sophistry.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
@bjwilly69 I'm not using God to fill the gaps. I'm taking our current understanding of philosophy and science and using that understanding to draw the conclusion that God exists. The philosophical fact that an eternal "something" has to exist in order for anything else to exist and the scientific fact that the universe is not that eternal something allows me to rationally conclude that God is that eternal something.
MakingSandwich1 5 months ago
@MakingSandwich1
I dealt with the presumptions contained within this response in my previous post.
You ARE still filling gaps with god because you are presuming the conclusive nature of current knowledge in order to establish gaps that may not exist in future. It is STILL fallacious to import the presumptive conclusion of something not established as valid and by definition beyond the abilities of human knowledge as an answer. You've NOT addressed the fact that its intellectually dishonest.
bjwilly69 5 months ago
Specious, self-regarding blather - is he a reptilian humanoid?
toobouncybyfar 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Find it very difficult to take these liberal platitudes from a this money-grubbing shyster.
54321zero 7 months ago
Comment removed
54321zero 7 months ago
Just here to watch this for free until Grayling starts charging us £50 a second to the privilege. Where does ruthless profiteering and elitism fit into your enlightened Humanism and love of knowledge AC?
WastedTourist 7 months ago 4
What science needs is a kick up the smartass from William Blake and the godtremblers need a night out with Edgar Allan Poe. Not one of the people on the so called world-wide-web has anything to posit but 'opinion'. Oops, there's another one.
zaroffhound 8 months ago
This man is a genius.
lewisbreland 9 months ago
Dawkins, Bennet, Harris, Hitchens, Degrass Tyson. Why are all the leading scientists/atheists dudes? Where are the ladies?
oldpiq 9 months ago
deeply profound. I would love to have a conversation with this guy...to present some of my assertions and see how he picks them apart. Most of the people i talk to do not have any deep philosophical ideas to present....another words they would rather not think, but there is hope; they are not dead yet.
dumaskhan 9 months ago
In other words, be selfish.
hdregmore 9 months ago
Are you a football being kicked around?
Honker66 9 months ago
Ends sentences with "you know" - symptomatic of a mediocrity of mind and therefore debatable credibility.
marapito 9 months ago
@marapito
Uses fragmented sentences with no subject and got off on the wrong foot with punctuation. Do shut up, Poppet.
dancheyne 9 months ago
this is perhaps the best advice anyone has ever given me.
Dathinkingman 11 months ago 2
@Dathinkingman heres some for free...sit still, clear your mind of everything. that's it.
zaroffhound 8 months ago
@zaroffhound thats from buddha ! :) thats good too.
Dathinkingman 8 months ago
i have a great deal of respect for this man.
YuTubeWeTube 11 months ago
@YuTubeWeTube This guy is my favourite spokesperson for the Positive Non-Belief Movement.
stoprainingonme 9 months ago
The value of the considered life, hence the value of education to allow you to pursue your goals and inform your decisions.
alecclews 1 year ago
How much more profunitity could a person squeeze into 2 and a quarter minutes?
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
I am glad I found this video. My parents seem to think just the opposite of what has been explained in this video. Recently I have been told not to "argue" or present my view of things when they present theirs. I have also been told many times to just have faith in information I hear. Very helpful to kick the ass of suppressive fucktard influence. If only they could see this video and not reject the information immediately.
poisonpixel 1 year ago 54
@poisonpixel lol suppresive fucktard....
nuitaridark 11 months ago
@poisonpixel Unless you are a 14 yo or younger, you should not be slamming your parents, especially online. Grow up. Your parents are people, too.
mgn5678 7 months ago
@mgn5678 Yes, mother.
pythor2 6 months ago
@poisonpixel I've heard that termed, "contempt prior to investigation". Someone just has contempt for something without properly getting the facts or doing their own research. Very counter-productive if you ask me.
23skeedoo 6 months ago
@poisonpixel Type adam deen the purpose of life on a great lecture on this.
WARNING might cause depression if you are an atheist!
Nazam44 4 months ago
Atheists #FTW
drche420 1 year ago 41
@drche420 Yes!!
rambul2007 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi, If your an atheist as am I, please check out my channel, where I'll be assessing major issues our society is facing in terms of religion and basic ethics... As well as the occasional video game content as I am a bit of a gamer..
I hope you'll check it out. Cheers, Mitchel
TIME4LOGIC 1 year ago
Comment removed
TIME4LOGIC 1 year ago
Comment removed
TIME4LOGIC 1 year ago
"The probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as
zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a
probability likely to be realised once in the whole universe. Otherwise, some metaphysical powers beyond our definition should have acted in its formation.
To accept the latter is not appropriate to the goals of science. We therefore
have to look into the first hypothesis."
This is what gives extra credit to evolution science
farzanatasneem 1 year ago
@farzanatasneem Argument from ignorance + false dichotomy
skepticoz 1 year ago
People who search for the cause of life on earth are divided in two categories, one who believe the existence of God and try to search the proof of His existence through science. The other ones who do not want to accept God and so search for evidences from science to support their faith.
farzanatasneem 1 year ago
@farzanatasneem You are a vulgar little piece of vermin scum to repost this message like the deluded zealot bullshit spammer that you are. I have already thoroughly refuted this bunch of BULLSHIT anybody who wishes to read my response is invited to do so and note this desperate deluded zealot that has failed to reason with the criticisms I have given, but nevertheless (like all creationists) repeats their ignorant delusional bullshit ad nauseum, respect or intellectual integrity notwithstanding.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz
I reposted this message which was NOT refuted by you.
I refuted all your previous posts by my statements.
You are trying to HIDE my posts, not refuting them off.
Scared for people to read through the truth.
The real intention of defending Evolution and reviving it again whenever it collapses
farzanatasneem 1 year ago
@farzanatasneem "I refuted all your previous posts by my statements."
You are a deliberate, pathological, scum sucking little liar. You have not addressed the tiniest fraction of what I have nailed your ass to the wall with. The only replies you have made have been more baseless assertions. All you are doing is gainsaying and fabricating bullshit like the quote from Sir Arthur Keith, which was important, until I pointed out that he was an evolutionist, then you disowned him.
skepticoz 1 year ago
The reason you repeated the same post over is because you have had your ass handed to you in your hat and so you thought you would just cut your loses and re-post the same bullshit again. That post itself, to any intelligent person shows how dishonestly you think as you clearly admit that you decide what you believe FIRST then go searching for ways to confirm it. THAT IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS. Nothing you have said demonstrates this and you saying so doesn't make it true. YOU'RE A FUCKING LIAR
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz
I have demonstrated you by my quotes that it is the decision of atheists too to take a stand and then examine the evidence as far as denial of creation is to be done
./watch?v=rRDAY39Zd9M&feature=related
Eye Evolution-It's Impossible
farzanatasneem 1 year ago
@farzanatasneem "I have demonstrated you..."
The only thing you have demonstrated is what a deluded ignoramus you are.
"Eye Evolution-It's Impossible"
You have not responded to anything I have criticized about your idiotic bullshit lies and you have no intention to do reasonable debate, so who do you think you are, to just foist yet another piece of deliberate disinformation from the creationist bullshit mill?
Did you bother to find out if this has been refuted by anybody? NO!
skepticoz 1 year ago
Do you realize what a hackneyed old warhorse this argument from irreducible complexity is? Why don't you go do some research as if you wanted to know if you might be wrong? You are doing nothing but spewing well refuted creationist propaganda and not addressing the abundant existing refutations which show this deliberate disinformation for what it is BULLSHIT!
skepticoz 1 year ago
watch?v=HTP6Pnjb4BI
watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA
watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ
watch?v=Stb9pQc9Kq0
If YOU think the eye is impossible why don't YOU present your arguments rather than just regurgitating hackneyed creationist propaganda? Anybody can post identifiers for videos and ignore the opposing argument. You do not demonstrate you UNDERSTAND anything by doing this, but that you are a mindless drone for creationist propaganda. Still, you do BELIEVE without reason a doctrine you are commanded to, so it figures.
skepticoz 1 year ago
I have already schooled you on the the argument from ignorance, that if you cant understand it it isn't possible. I have told you that just because you can't understand how something is possible, that doesn't mean it IS impossible. That is called the argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantum). You have not acknowledged this or demonstrated any UNDERSTANDING of your regurgitated propaganda. But that, as you have demonstrated, it is because you don't even want to know if you are mistaken.
skepticoz 1 year ago
I have also refuted your common failure to do nothing but make baseless assertions and pretend they should be self evident. You have provided no reason or rhyme to account for you 'thinking' and not responded to my criticism of this. I have also criticized your appeal to the false dichotomy, that pretends creationism is the only alternative to any natural process If it were unable to explain something. You have responded to none of this, because your religion is a willful devotion to ignorance.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Contrary to your claim to have addressed or refuted my criticisms, you have done NO SUCH THING! You have LIED and continue to LIE in accordance to taquiyya and your putrid doctrine of filthy stinking lying dogma. Your latest bullshit about the eye, is not only tired old, well refuted, Christian canard you are recycling for Allah (stinking vermin death be upon him) but you are repeating the same fallacies I have already pointed out: Baseless assertion, false dichotomy and argument from ignorance.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz
Did you watch the video that I quoted.
It was given in response to the video od Richard Dawkins' and other evolutionists' videos which says that eye evolution is possible.
They imagine eye to be representing as a ball which folds itself off and lo!
Behold!
An eye is formed.
What about the nerve supply and blood supply which should coincide with the development of that ball.
Besides,
All these stages are found only in molluscs and mollusc do not have a perfect eye
Why?
farzanatasneem 1 year ago
"What about the nerve supply"
Do You Think that an organism, its eye, and the supporting structures for that eye evolved seperately? No? I didn't think so.
"a ball which folds itself off and lo!"
The actual scenario they propose is a bit more complicated. But I guess you know that too.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor
Human body itself is an irreducible complexity !
farzanatasneem 1 year ago
""Human body itself is an irreducible complexity !"
There are two ways to define the term "irreducible complexity":
1. A complex structure, such that the removal of one part disables it from having a particular effect.
2. A structure that could not have come about through natural processes.
Which definition do you use?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@farzanatasneem "Did you watch the video that I quoted."
Do you really think I need to? Considering the amount of material I have digested on the creation evolution debate and the geriatric nature of this tired old warhorse, I have seen it refuted so many times that if each serving were a single point mutation towards my own ocular organs, I would have evolved three pairs of eyes by now. You might say, I could have eyes in the back of my head to see that old war horse sneaking up behind me. LOL
skepticoz 1 year ago
"It was given in response to the video od Richard Dawkins' and other evolutionists' videos which says that eye evolution is possible."
This is where you want me to say OH! well... That's different then. Clearly if they are responding to existing refutations, I might expect they are delivering a cogent counterargument. But how do I manage to feel so confident that this will not be any such valid counterargument? Why is it such a doodle, to predict a contrived pretense of poorly reasoned excuses?
skepticoz 1 year ago
The reason is because it is the very nature of the ID argument that is dishonest from the outset and as I have already noted, it IS motivated by the very same psychological incentives as the religious beliefs it seeks to justify with confirmation bias and ad hock excuses for preconceived dogma. What you need is a special argument from Koranic optical principals, that couldn't arise from 'Biblical' Intelligent design. Using flawed Christian ID theory is Irreducibly Deluded as it denies NS.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@farzanatasneem "You are trying to HIDE my posts, not refuting them off."
I should have realized it much earlier with the total brazen overtness of your stupidity and prejudice, but I had to check your channel to see how long you have been on youtube, to try to understand what would explain this stupid and precious statement. NO FUCKING WONDER. How typical. A fucking Muslim, desperate to take offense and screaming censorship, while doing everything to subvert open debate and evade criticism.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Seeing how long you have been here, it might have sunk into your thick fucking head by now, that on most channels that support balanced debate, it is not considered sporting to repeat yourself verbatim, especially where your comments have been reasonably and rationally refuted. When this happens, people tend to flag a comment as unnecessary spam. But being that you are Muslim, you probably don't think that anything outside of your ignorant self-serving theocratic prejudice applies to ASSHOLES.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Comment removed
skepticoz 1 year ago
@farzanatasneem "People who search for the cause of life on earth are divided in two categories, one who believe the existence of God and try to search the proof of His existence through science."
That's quite a good description of the wrong way to investigate anything. You are admitting you decide what you believe FIRST then go looking for your "PROOF" of it. That however could hardly be called a 'search for the cause of life', but merely a search for justification of preordained dogma.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Comment removed
skepticoz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The other one who do not want to accept God and so search for evidences from science to support their faith."
The others you are referring would not prejudiced to assuming that there is any god to "accept". You are asserting another HUGE assumption. Your little imaginary friend has nothing to do with the REAL search for understandings about life. Biologists don't decide to study life BECAUSE they "do not want to accept God". How do you discount the motive 'because they want to understand it'?
skepticoz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The claim that scientists really only want to discover 'what is true' without preordained conclusions or dogma to prejudice their conclusions, is confirmed by their success at developing explanations that are consistent with evidence. That is also precisely why science is NOT 'faith' and why it succeeds at reaching agreement with reality. What you have described of the religious worldview, is the preordained dogma and prejudice based approach, that is characteristic of FAITH in spite of reality
skepticoz 1 year ago
Evolution is studied in the same way as any aspect of biological science and the same way as any other science. It is subject to scientific methodology, testable by agreement with evidence and subject to ruthless peer review. You have better explanations? Publish the research. The only way to reconcile the view that evolutionary biologists are not searching for understandings of the true nature of life, is to be ignorant of how science really works. That you have shown by your presumptions.
skepticoz 1 year ago
The two ways of looking at the world, including the 'cause of life', are divided along lines of dogma or accountability to evidence and reason. In one camp the 'god squad' go hunting for excuses in a manner to justify preordained conclusions, using confirmation bias and ad hock reasoning. In the other camp, it is evidence that is sought and explanations are tentative. theory is never considered 100% fact as you've asserted and always predisposed to falsification. Proof is for maths and alcohol.
skepticoz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The other important difference in the two worldviews, is the religious pretense at having comprehensive 'explanations'. They wish to pretend to know everything and have cut and dried, explanations even if those explanations don't ultimately explain anything. Admitting we don't understand many aspects of the world and working from what we DO have some understanding of, is not how religion does it. Religion pretends we had a complete explanation for everything that was written in the bronze age.
skepticoz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
YOU REPLY:
"Science" of evolution is devoted to proving Darwin was right. It is not in any way an objective science looking for answers. Information and testing is bent to prove the theory. The theory cannot be modified, even though supporters say it can be and is. There is simply no where to go from random mutations and natural selection.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@farzanatasneem ""Science" of evolution is devoted to proving Darwin was right."
You are spewing creationist rhetoric which a just total bullshit. If you want me to call you a liar I will. I have already told you that evolution is: "studied in the same way as any aspect of biological science and the same way as any other science. It is subject to scientific methodology, testable by agreement with evidence and subject to ruthless peer review."
How could it be otherwise? Conspiracy theory?
skepticoz 1 year ago
What you are proposing is not just false, but idiotic and an insult to the hard devoted work of many thousands of biologist researchers that have studied evolution since Darwin. You are a lowlife toxic gutter maggot, liar and what you are spreading is total fucking bullshit. It is creationism that is the preconceived dogma constantly looking for ways to assert its bullshit that evolution is false. It's proponents have been caught out lying, fabricating evidence and such like for decades.
skepticoz 1 year ago
You yourself admit to how you "...believe the existence of God and try to search the proof of His existence through science." deciding what you believe first and then try to search for the ''proof''. I have already shown you this. That is the way a liar who wants to fabricate justifications for their bullshit would do things. The very doctrine you are upholding, is clearly predicated on something you must BELIEVE. logical Reason is never considered. It's a moral imperative to believe on faith.
skepticoz 1 year ago
I have studied the evolution/creation dispute for more than 15 years and I have read numerous books on this insidious scourge called creationism. The willful, fabrication, deception and outright LIES on the part of creationist leaders is obvious to anybody who scratches the surface. The whole deception is marketed at people who desperately want to believe something despite the evidence from nature despite reality. That is what religion is like in the first place, a believe or burn proposition.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Considering who is likely to be fabricating a conspiracy on the face of it religion holds all of the trump cards for a guilty verdict. A desperate motive, being discovered at the scene of the crime and being caught red handed on numerous occasions. Science is done the same way in biology as it is done in any science. It's fully accountable to evidence and ruthlessly peer reviewed. Conspiracy is simply inadmissible. What you have furnished is nothing more than baseless accusations and no motive.
skepticoz 1 year ago
[evolution] "It is not in any way an objective science looking for answers."
That is an assertion. You have not proffered any evidence to support this claim, but on the contrary it is an accusation which has be mooted by a band of bible thumping morons, who have been exposed over and over, from the fabricated man tracks at Paluxy River to the fabrication of 'Intelligent Design' from the ashes of creation science. It's just one lie after another. It's YOUR belief system that is NOT objective.
skepticoz 1 year ago
"Information and testing is bent to prove the theory. The theory cannot be modified, even though supporters say it can be and is."
That is exactly what happens. That is what is done by creationists to proliferate their vulgar ignorance based on biblical superstition and the conspiracy against biological evolution. It's the biblical literalist story of the bible particularly Genesis, that is taken as unalterable and that any evidence or conclusion to the contrary must be twisted to conform.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Again! I will point out that you yourself, have demonstrated your own admission of prejudice and bias for preconceived, preordained 'BELIEFS', that you openly profess to acquire and then go searching for ways to validate those preordained conclusions you call 'beliefs'. That is as dishonest as anything gets in terms of intellectual integrity, but at least you were honest enough (more like stupid enough) to admit it from the start. Science just DOES NOT and CAN NOT work that way. It's a DAMN LIE
skepticoz 1 year ago
"There is simply no where to go from random mutations and natural selection."
Now you are professing to be capable of comprehending science and the principals of evolution, as if your pathetic little statement, had the hope of undermining the combined wisdom and intellect of thousands of qualified biologists and over a century of hard earned knowledge. As if you wanted to know if you are mistaken and would have the balls to admit if you are wrong. YOU, are a just a pathetic insult to science.
skepticoz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have personally comprehended evolution for quite a longtime now and the mechanisms that have been discovered appear to lead inevitably to species diversity. Darwin never had the benefit of such hindsight and the discovery of Mendelian inheritance factors had to await discovery and formal recognition via skeptical peer review as any discovery in science. It was clear from Darwin's work alone that speciation was a biological fact. Evolution as fact, has only been confirmed over and over since.
skepticoz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The pretense that there is any flaw in the proposed mechanisms of evolution actually gives the lie to your repulsive conspiracy. Anybody who bothers to attempt to understand those mechanisms can discover for themselves the way they explain an inevitable process that enables the inevitable process of species diversity. If that alone were a moot point, then it would simply mean, that the massive mountains of evidence, that evolution HAS happened would require explanation by some other mechanisms.
skepticoz 1 year ago
@skepticoz
This is true about micro-evolution.
i.e. a bacteria can develop nylonase by evolution but it will remain a bacteria.
Evolution of this type is accepted by anyone who knows even a bit of science.
Such an evolution does not change the genera or the phyla of those species.
A bacterim remains a bacterium
farzanatasneem 1 year ago
@farzanatasneem "Such an evolution does not change the genera or the phyla of those species."
You have absolutely NO understanding of evolution whatsoever and you are simply spouting retarded creationist bullshit. There is no such thing in respectable biology called 'micro-evolution' or 'macro-evolution' Evolution will occur and has occurred by the known processes. There is no mechanism that prevents speciation from happening and the same change by gradualistic divergence causes speciation.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Genera and Phyla are artificial man made classifications, so no natural process of the organic evolution can make any change that it makes any sense to call a change in genre or phylum. Bacteria are a poor subject to use in understanding speciation, because they are not sexually reproducing so species 'or reproductively isolated populations' suffer the same limitations of intangibility. In bacteria however there are MANY examples of new strains that have emerged in our life times.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Nevertheless you are still arguing from ignorance that just because YOU don't understand it, then it isn't true. The fact is that you don't want to understand it and you don't want it to be true. Even if you DID understand it I expect you would deny it and refuse to believe it because ABOVE ALL, as you have pointed out, you DO decide what you believe FIRST without reason, then search for excuses to prop up you ignorant beliefs afterward. You are indoctrinated into a delusion that forbids reason.
skepticoz 1 year ago
Excellent speaker, no wasted words.
vascoe86 1 year ago