The very complexity and "design" that these morons see and claim as proof of god are actually proof against god. God is magical. He is supernatural. Why would he do things the hard way when he could have made all that messy science stuff unnecessary? Why create DNA? Why not just make life that doesn't require it? Why not just make creatures that can see without eyes? He can do anything. God doesn't just create things, but the underlying science, the laws of nature. Why do it the hard way?
This video is worse than poop. Any scientifically literate person would watch this video and throw up in their mouth. There is no basis for the argument being put forth. They're basically saying, "god made dna", by using as many big words as possible to confuse the fuck out of already retarded creationist morons. Also, there is no mathematical proof in this video. Just blabbering idiots.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
Everyone who believes in ID are simply too ignorant to believe that order was created in chaos, and as everyone else said, debunking one scientifically text does not by default prove their deity
@MrHeteroErectus You are fractally mistaken. Calling the hypothesis "Intelligent Design" begs the question, what/who is the intelligent designer? That is a question that must be addressed, and any failure to do so is an concession that ID is creationism with a new name, which was part of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision. ID is a worthless hypothesis outside of theology. It's unscientific and categorically misplaced.
the designer would have to be outside of time an space.how can anything exist prior to its own existance.i studied on both sides of the fence,as an agnostic an a believer.im so glad i chose the latter.it gives me hope.an the problem of good an evil is satisfied.atheist have no answer for evil.
all id people are idiots.that statement points to the real idiot.we just dont know for sure.but there appears to be design all over the universe.so the real idiot says all of the whole universe is all random an chance.no design or designer.we humans also were just pure chance,luck or whatever.
Oh and magic does not need a creator, therefor the scientific theory "magical design" does not propose a god and says that you should keep your religion out of science. Magical design people the real alternative to evolution. The evidence put forward by the ID movement is evidence for the scientific non religiously based theory of "magical design"
"identify the words as the products of intelligence" No, we identify it as the product of a stick or other sharp object carving into the sand. Intelligence is A not necessarily an direct agent in this processes, and B on itself intelligence doesn't do anything. So intelligent design explains nothing, therefor i purpose that the alternative to evolution should be "magical design".. If you don't have to explain the mechanism of your intelligent agent i don't have to explain my pure magical agent
@wheelie934 Actually, I have studied some developmental biology and it's genetics in vertebrates. Also, stop phrasing things as if they were impossible simply because you have not educated yourself.
Also, learn WHY brain neurons grow at such high rates. They do it since then they can form random connections to everything, in abundance. Then they are subjected to selection and only the cells with strong connections survive. So yes, I understand how it happens, and now you do too.
Oh, and btw, this is definitely an empirical method of understanding our universe. While it is not consensually accepted science, and perhaps isn't teh most refined abduction, it's still science. It's just stupid. :D
One of the better "evidences" of a ID, but still not fully buying it. Why? Because 1 obvious intelligent role is, if organisms choose to reproduce with other organisms or choose to reproduce with another specific organism rather than the rest than the intelligence is already there. Sure, I guess the argument could continue to go "But an organism must have gained intelligence from information i.e. ID"
To "infer" that there is a God is not and never has been Science. Also just because one can't explain something does not and never did prove the existance of a God. This is just a rehashing of the God of the Gaps arguement. Intelligent Design does not explain anything. These people have one answer for everything and that is "God did it!". Like a "one size fits all garment" that really doesn't fit anything.
I have yet to see a true mathematical proof this video's title suggested I'd find here. Contrary, I have an actual mathematical proof that evolution does work. Doesn't mean it has happened, it's just proof that evolution is a species generating function.
@followgood An invisible, telepathic superfriend who has magical powers, came from nowhere, and takes requests - and who demands belief without providing evidence that he exists? That's not an answer, it's superstition.
@ndrthrdr1 Invisible to us (now) yes, you are right.. Superfriend, yes you are right. Magical powers (if you want to put it that way), yes you are right. Take requests, yes you are right. Demands belief, yes only so you will not believe in evil. Read the Bible you will see it explains life so completely. Do it and be saved before its too late, God Bless.
@ndrthrdr1 The Universe, and all life in it, including intelligence to contemplate it, all spontaneously magiced itself into existence for no particular reason...... that's not even an attempt at an answer is it?
@GuyThreepwoody What makes you think that there used to be nothing except a being with magical powers, existing forever in this nothingness, who finally thought "Gee, I guess I'll make some stuff!" and magically "poofed" everything into existence?
Why do you assume that there used to be nothing? Let me guess. Religious indoctrination?
@ndrthrdr1 As opposed to which evidence based logical explanation for the Universe and life in it spontaneously creating itself for no reason? The first cause paradox applies moreso to ‘accidental’ casues
Magic is just what you don’t understand yet, as lightning was magic.
I was indoctrinated with atheism, but like most people, took an interest in finding an actual answer not just a rejection of an answer. I’d give you credit for thinking for yourself also
@GuyThreepwoody Chemical compounds form because the nature of chemicals causes them to have natural attraction to each other. Why does iron rust? What's the reason? Is this natural process occurring because a superhuman, supernatural being causing it to happen for some "reason"?
Amino acids have been observed forming naturally.
Lightning, rainbows and other natural phenomena were assumed to be the work of superbeings, until we learned that they occur naturally with no divine cause/reason.
@ndrthrdr1 Laws of nature generate patterns yes, so what generates laws so finely tuned that those patterns ultimately produce life intelligent enough to discover and ponder those laws? And is it just a mind blowing coincidence that this happened? If not, if it was done with intent and purpose, what laws do we know of that this would this violate?- that would cause us to reject the idea entirely?
@GuyThreepwoody Since the planet was here for maybe a billion years before the first simple life appeared, and billions of years before human life appeared, and since most of the planet is inhospitable for human life, and since virtually all of the space we've explored is totally inhospitable to any life at all, I would call that a far cry from finely tuned for life.
"Zillions" of microscopic locations in the sea for life to form, times "zillions" of moments, seems more likely than not to occur.
@ndrthrdr1 A Universe just big Enough to overcome all the staggering odds to create one species intelligent enough to ponder it‘s creation- would be part of the incredible fine tuning- zillions of dice throws don’t turn up a 7-
and research cannot even replicate the first replicator far less demonstrate how it may have happened accidentally given a googleplex years!
@GuyThreepwoody If life evolved on a planet with temperature ranges allowing for liquid water, it would evolve to survive in those conditions. It's not surprising that our planet can sustain the type of life that evolved here, because here is where it appeared.
Until very recently, we knew nothing about what happened even one million years ago - not even that Earth existed then. The fact that we don't yet know everything about what happened billions of years ago is hardly surprising.
@ndrthrdr1 Conditions on Earth are incredibly finely tuned, not just the water, but stability of the entire system.
the moon is one of the greatest improbabilities necessary for this stability. We know that life doesn’t just crop up in any given conditions, all the elements, factors, provided by the physics of the Universe have to align very precisely - the more complex the life, the more exacting the necessary conditions. And even with this, life is a mystery
@GuyThreepwoody We're discovering more and more planets, solar systems, and galaxies. There are stable systems throughout the Universe.. However, the stability is an illusion, since we see these things from the perspective of our extremely short lifetime time scale. Our sun, and apparently all stars, are formed, go through various stages, and "die". Our sun will be gone in "just" a few billion years, although Earth will be uninhabitable long before that happens. That's not finely tuned.
@ndrthrdr1 Again, a Universe that appears just large enough to create a single intelligent species, in a system that lasts just long enough for this to occur- would not be fine tuning?
it needs to be of a certain size, age, # of stars to create our system. How'd you design it? perfect conditions- life on every -planet instantly? one solar system in the entire Universe for eternity? what we have is just the most logical, elegant system- no more complex or simple, large or small, than needed
@GuyThreepwoody Actually, there are several intelligent species on our planet, and we don't yet know how many other planets have or had or will have life. We've only just begun to discover other planets. It's a new field of scientific investigation.
I would love to see what we will have discovered a hundred years from now. My guess is that it would be even more mind-blowing than it would have been for someone in 1911 to see what we know now.
@GuyThreepwoody "Conditions on Earth are incredibly finely tuned, not just the water, but stability of the entire system."--
The biosphere is extremely fragile and small (only ~0.5% of the planet). It's far away from being very stable; still nowadays natural disasters kill ten thousands of people every year and destroy large areas of biotopes killing a huge number of organisms. This planet is far away from being fine tuned for life, but life is more or less tuned to survive.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
I assume you are getting to the Regularity or Necessitarian Theories? At least it seems to me this may be where we may disagree. I'm no philosopher so I suspect you can argue your point better than I can. I do know both theories have pros and cons. As I have stated before, I must go with my subjective experiences.
Sorry, you can put as much lipstick on a pig as you wish... This is simply an embarrassment. They're not just a little bit wrong, almost everything they said is false.
@zubezack not you specifically, people who should know better like michio kaku. graviti is real, the law of universal gravitation, however, is a mental construct invented by a man, not a thing in itself which was waiting for someone to discover it....that's my only point, thus we could not be "bound by the laws of" anything any more than we could be bound by the works of shakespeare. the discussion seems interesting, i thought i'd put in my 2 cents. peace
Can either position be certain? No! If we had the answer then we would not be on here arguing our position. Those that are certain, don't waste their time on things they already know.(IMO)
I am in no way mocking your position. IMO we all eventually get to the same place. Is it God or the Laws of Nature which we are bound. Objectively we all arrive at this point if we are open minded. My subjective experiences are what I must consider. For me and my life, I am hopelessly Christian. I hope you find peace and truth in your journey as well!
They do have to make at least one assumption. That the "LAWS OF NATURE" exist on their own. Without any cause. Maybe we are looking at the same thing from a different point of view!
Anti-Theists are simply saying that there is no evidence to make us believe that there is a deity, so we will choose a life of progress instead of being held down with beliefs that do us no good. If you can prove to atheists one thing religion will bring them, that they cant find through science or nature, then I am sure they might consider listing to you.
Believing in the unknown brings me much more joy then believing in a deity.
@zubezack i understand i came in on somebody else's conversation, but i have a personal peeve with this: many prominent scientists commit the mistake of speaking about the "laws of nature" as something that exists on their own. the "laws of nature" are human creations used to explain the physical world as we observe it. before newton, there was gravity, but no 'law of gravity' know what i mean?
@TheThumper49 Atheism, which isn't a religion and has nothing to do with Darwin btw, isn't TRYING to explain anything. Science tries to explain things, and is our best way of doing that. The Bible saying 'magic man did it through magic', ALSO explains nothing, it just says 'God did it'.
His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter
@davidthmovies from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being.
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.
@davidthmovies From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange,
"Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are their own creators?" The Quran (52:36) "Have they created the heavens and the earth ? They have no certain belief in what they say" (52:37) Do they have a Lord other than God? No, it is not so; God is exalted above the partners they ascribe to him." (52:43) "Glorified be He in Whose hand is all sovereignty and Who has power over all things." (67:1)
@davidthmovies The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
Imprisoned as we are within the four walls of matter, we never encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident *not* arising from a cause. Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin.
What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things, in so wondrous, precise and orderly a fashion?
@1tabligh Again, I'd like to recommend you reading a good book about quantum physics.
Quantum mechanics teaches, that we can only predict the probabilities of future observations, based on laws of nature. What really happens depends only on chance. Nature doesn't work in a deterministic way.
@davidthmovies Can the order we perceive be the reflection of mere accident and happenstance? .
Any supposable phenomenon in the universe was submerged in the darkness of non-being before it assumed the form of being. It *cannot* pierce the darkness of non-being and step forth on the plain of being as an existent thing *until* the powerful hand of causality sets to work
@davidthmovies Acording to Christianity God created everything, that includes time. Meaning he created cause and effect and is therefore not bound by it, just as a computer program designer is not bound by the program he creates.
i'll also remember to ask him also why he liked the smell of burning flesh.
Numbers 28: 1 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Give this command to the Israelites. Tell them: ‘Bring me food offerings made by fire, for a smell that is pleasing to me, and be sure to bring them at the right time.’ 3 Say to them, ‘These are the offerings you must bring to the Lord: two male lambs, a year old, as a burnt offering each day.
Intelligence in design does not prove that we were created by god, might as well be aliens. ID is only made up trying to discredit evolution and explains nothing at all.
I do love how Dumbski gets up there and lies for his imaginary god (not that he can do anything else). He knows probability is not an arguement for anything, but the dumb people he lives off wouldnt know this fact anyone who did maths in year 8 should know.
Far more improbable things than evolution happen all the time.
@csmcmillion Everything around you is. Your computer needed a designer, your bed, your light, your chair, your car, your toilet, your t.v. so why, all of a sudden, would design limit itself to things we create? Why would everything need a designer and then all of a sudden plants, humans, the universe as a whole does not need a designer because it just exists from nothing. That is irrational. Maths even came to be through intelligence because we figured out everything has order and law.
@csmcmillion What is proof according to you then? dictionary: "Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement." What I said is substantial proof for the existence of intelligent design. God would not need a designer but you won't even come to terms with that because you don't even want to consider it so you're limiting yourself to your own presumptions which have no proof themselves. I am not "assuming" I am using evidence to support my point.
@misspiccola11 Have you ever actually taken a math class? You offered "Mathematical proof for Intelligent Design", so you should at least know what a mathematical proof is. I see no such thing in your video.
> Science itself confirms the existence of God
If that were the case, then most scientists (along with me) would conclude that God prob exists. But it is not the case. Your argument is an old one that in no constitutes proof. Google "Watchmaker analogy".
@misspiccola11 in the scientific community it has never embraced even the supposition of intelligent design. It is strictly mothballed. Why even if God did exist would the scientific community embrace it?? Because it is contrary to the purpose that science was set out to exempt i.e. the existence of God. If God did truly exist, we would find ourselves within the same debacle. Whenever a shard of evidence comes to light that disproves the existence of God it is praised and non-debatable.
@misspiccola11 Correct, the universe can be explained by the form of patterns. Patterns were formed at the beginning of the universe because if it didnt, we wouldnt be here. We dont know what existed before the universe, but many more may have emerged which didnt work as well as this universe and may or may not have produced intelligent life to think about it. If it did the universe ended and ours began, it comes down to this: Even if something was not one thing, it wouldnt mean it was the other
Ah, got it. God designed Down's syndrome, Parkinson's, Haemophilia, Neurofibromatosis, Klinefelter's, Turner's, Cri du Chat, Tay Sach's, Gaucher's, Fragile X, Thalasemia, Spherocytosis, Sickle Cell Anemia.....wait, i'm gonna run out of characters. The "Observation of the facts" would lead me to believe God is either stupid of evil.
@WSGAC Yes, indeed, I accept it. I think many of atheists do, we just haven't seen convincing evidence of his existence. I challenge this particular argument because of leads to what I believe is an illogical conclusion: Nature as evidence of a creator, I contend that the presence of these diseases are flaws in creation, thus the creator is either flawed or* malevolent. If so, I don't like him. I know I assumed an omniscient, all-powerful, creator. But I think these points can be debated.
@castelgandalf - Why are they flaws? Do you believe the universe should operate according to some moral principle which happens to reside in your person but not the universe? Where did that internal "value" originate, if the universe itself gives no hint of such a value? And if it originates in a flawed or malevolent creator, how is it your moral value has now surpassed the creator's? Might you not be a bit presumptuous, given your limited understanding and time in the universe?
-All of the diseases i mentioned are errors in DNA and they cause significant suffering in the people who have them.
-Yes I do. Furthermore I believe we all do have our own personal morality. I see it in believers when confronted by immoral parts of their holy books as they look for plausible ways to reject them.
-I believe most human beings are basically good and decent, know what hurts and that we ought not to do it to others, (with varying success).
@castelgandalf - errors in DNA are anything that cause significant suffering? But if there is no creator, then what you call an error is nothing but the amblings of DNA. Lots of suffering occurs, but why shouldn't it be so? You impose such terms as "error", "good", "bad" on things you don't like, but why should things be any different?
Morality: Maybe we all have our own personal morality, but if there is no creator then we're just talking preferences. In why care about how we should act?
Impose? I label things because we need words to describe them:
Junctional Epidermolysis Bullosa. children's skin blisters and falls off. They live in excruciating pain, die young. Medical books call it error and disease. ATCG in a chain. in a certain order gives you and me. change one, it gives something painful.
If there is a creator, then the amblings of DNA are errors?
Duncan Idaho "Why do you poke fun at me, m'Lord?"
God Emperor Leto Atreides II "I poke nothing at you except words."
@castelgandalf - But if there is no God, on what basis do you protest? To what do you appeal when you cry out, "It should not be this way?" The realm of nature is tooth and claw, destruction and mayhem. On what basis do give complaint? This is the order of nature. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. If there is no creator, then all things are permitted, and the human cry is met ultimately with silence. So get over yourself, and spare us the indignation. There is no ultimate good.
@WSGAC i do not protest "it should not be this way" i say "this is the way it is and we can learn to learn to live with it or believe the supernatural to feel better." recognizing that i do not like it i strive for something better than tooth and claw. tigers and humans also protect the young.
permitted? by whom? all things are possible, hence some human mothers kill their young. where is god in this? the human cry has always been met with silence. indignation? try realism.
@castelgandalf - But you do protest. Else your striving makes no sense. You're not just learning to live with it; your efforts are geared toward changing it..ie., alleviating suffering. But why? It seems to me learning to live with it is to simply accept it because it's not going to change. All ends in dust and ashes. Your attempts to alleviate are nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We are all going down, whether comfortable or in pain. Don't fool yourself.
-I'm an atheist (creator?). Many species have evolved social behavior. IChances of survival inacrease for a species whose members care for each other.
-Yes it is presumptuous. I'm comfortable with it because I reject the premise that evidence for the existence of god can be seen in nature, I don't presuppose his existence. DNA full of errors=insufficient evidence for god, so I try to be a good human for sake of species.
It's worthwhile the time to correspond with you. Peace.
@castelgandalf - What is goodness in a meaningless universe? There is no good, only preferences. There are no errors, only occurrences. Where do you get this value called "good" or "goodness"? It's a human construct, based on human preferences. Yet goodness points to something beyond the human being, something humans aspire to. But where is this good, and why do you seek it?
"If there is no God then all things are permitted." - Dostoevsky
@WSGAC even an amoeba seeks the light. I have seen hate and crime. I want the opposite. Isn't there a human chemotaxis? need an amoeba call it god?
right and wrong come from my imperfect parents. then i grow up and decide for myself. we try and fail and try again.
is gay marriage wrong? is abortion? what say god? who presumes to speak for him? our sense of "good" comes from him? why the controversy then? god hates fags? whence comes hate?
@castelgandalf - There is no good if the universe is all there is. Seriously now, point to anything in this universe that suggests there is such a thing called goodness. All is the product of randomness. You may not like Down's syndrome, Parkinson's, Sickle Cell Anemia..et.al., but again, why should it be different? Where do you get this idea that things should not be this way? This is how a meaningless universe operates. Amoebas seek light, and tigers eat their young. It's all the same.
@WSGAC patients suffer. doctors alleviate that suffering. that is something good. should or shouldn't don't come to play unless i believe there is a god.
if i'm a a starving orphan it's tough but i don't have to like it, i cry out in hunger, people tell me to shut up. i have to fend for myself.
only if i have parents i cry to them: you should feed me.
belief in god leads to complacency, ultimate justice or meaning will come to me from above.
@castelgandalf - But you say these things as if they are givens, and that it's just common sense to believe them. You say alleviating suffering is good, but what if someone else says the opposite? On what basis do say yours is the the right or good position? Ultimately you're going to have to base it solely on what benefits survival of the species. But you still haven't established why something is necessarily good. You simply assume it. Have you studied any in philosophy?
@Aldelirium Complexity forming goes against the basic principle of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Entropy and chaos form when nothing is guiding the universe. For example, compare a city to an uninhabited wilderness area, no one would go into a city and think it just came out of the ground from time, we would assume some people built it. Why would we look at this and assume these brilliant little creatures just form out of time even though they are extremely complex, more so than the city?
@snowmanbob101 lol you contradicted yourself in a single paragraph. compare the city to the widerness, the city becomes more complex as it is built. so it violates the second law of thermodinamycs amirite?
no because the second law of thermodynamics only applies to isolated sytems. neither the earth or the city are isolated. both receive matter and energy from outside sources.
@Aldelirium I am somewhat dismayed that you would put words in my paragraph like that. That quote is not in there at all, as anyone can see. The law works on all systems, because whether or not the system is receiving energy, unusable energy is still growing from the use of usable energy. Since there is only a finite amount of energy in the universe, order should turn to disorder, not the other way around. It should look like we started perfect, but ended up useless.
@Aldelirium No, they are not breaking the law because that law only refers to what happens when something is left to nature alone. Cities are built by intelligence, a force that takes objects and tears them away from there natural state and reshapes them into order, Take Mount Rushmore for instance, you wouldn't confuse it with a normal hill, because there is obvious design in Rushmore, and not a normal, natural hill.
@Aldelirium An intelligent being can counter-act the effects of the law, yes. If an empty plot of land was left alone, notice that no buildings pop up out of no where on it. Now, if someone came and wanted build something on it like a building (assuming they have the materials, time, and energy), a building gets built. So yes, nature leads to disorder, we counter-act it and create order.
It was perfectly scientifically appropriate to raise the possibility that life was designed. Taken as a very selective view limited to Earth and its history, it's entirely plausible given the intricacy of biological systems, which is why we have/had theories of xenobiological seeding or tampering. Expand the view, however, and the designer needs a designer.. and the cosmological argument is borderline absurd.
Behe's ideas, and ID, have been explored.... and scientifically REJECTED.
But these organisms come into being without an outer creator, but by natural process. So at what point did the designer create the imprint and set it in motion?
You can tear down Darwin all you want. To do so provides 0 (zero) proof for god concepts. If I disprove that you have a can of coca cola in your car, how much proof does that effort provide proof that I think there is a pepsi in your car. Zero. I would need to start again with theories and find demonstrable empirical scientific evidence. "god did it" has no evidence has zero weight sitting on its side of the scale. Dont be fooled by people who are afraid to die and need an imaginary friend. Sad
This vid.with it's handpicked scientists provides no mathematical proof of a designer whatsoever ! The problem is this : We are trying to comprehend the universe from the limits of a human mind ! Complexity of the universe is no reason to suppose there was a designer [even though it would SEEM that way]. What does the human mind know of the vastness and complexity of the universe? But it is unscientific to assume a designer to kick it off.
God as a Scientist ! The action, when the God of Everything, compressed the whole Universe into his palm, the scientists named ‘singular point’ And the action, when the God of Everything, opened his palm the scientists named ‘Big Bang’ Does evolution begin on big bang level ? At what step does consciousness begin? Does consciousness begin on big bang level ? What is our intellect ? We can see this practically : after ‘big bang‘ all Galaxies run away from us
couldnt watch all that. i dont understand the life after death thing. how can you live after you die? and why would i care what happens to me after i die?
Mathematical proof for intelligent design? No. It's a version of the old, and discredited, idea of finding a watch in a forest. Surely this proves there must be a watchmaker? No. Amongst others, Richard Dawkins has shown how that is a false analogy (The Blind Watchmaker).
I notice that the creator of the video has not had the courage to include the voices of any dissenting biologists
However, the Intelligence behind the Universe has posted a video on YouTube.
fun little tidbit. when bill gates refers to DNA being more complicated then a computer program he was in a biology class room. seems young BG had a teacher soooo boring that it turned him off from biology all together because it was too hard or "too complicated".
This "argument" completely misses the point. I am always amazed at how ridiculously proud can some "scientists" be of their lack of knowledge. Because this is the core of their argumentation: "we don't know what created DNA so the only explanation we can come up with is a supreme intelligence." Instead of giving a real explanation, they explain the thing with itself: intelligence created information, they say, while the real question of biology to be investigated should be just the opposite.
There's no "Science" here--only a lack of understanding. They are attempting to explain "life", something they cannot comprehend. (Neither can I) That is why G-d is described as "awesome" & "unknowable." Are they saying some big guy in the sky just "built" it all, the whole entire universe, and we are just part of some great experiment? (because to me, it could be nothing else, as i don't see the system as "perfect".)
again, yet another, because it's complex to us, it must be magic. No, seriously, that is the only possible answer... because it's the only possible one I can think of.
Again, instead of looking for patterns in the clouds, or chicken bones, or volcano eruptions, now it's dna.
Chicken Bones, Tea Leaves, or DNA, you are still looking for a pattern to apply your mysticism. It's inescapable fallacious logic.
This is retarded! How can a supposedly "scientist" not know anything about biology other than DNA lol. They compare biological processes with computer programs they're so wrong! It's chemistry guys! Come on! And he's just giving his opinion, not presenting evidence... sad sad. I'm so sad and disapointed my dad believed this crap man... :/
"They compare biological processes with computer programs they're so wrong! "
They start off with an analogy - which is well and good - but then they stick with the analogy past the point that it breaks down. They often come to confuse the analogy for the real thing itself.
every one of these post are stupidyou believe in dirt.
I believe in GOD,
SO WHO IS the REALIZITIC ONE
YOU cant even explain or make any dirt,no matter how much air we give you you all are just as stupid as darwin an all the rest that think this all come from chance,And evolution was started to make the people accept slavery anyway
to make people think they came from animal so they could justify enslaving people, so you are the problem with what is goin on in the world,with all the killin
@fisher99100 listen up dude, when you have a phenomena you can't explain why can't you just say you don't know? Can't you see how stupid it is to say that because you can't explain it, some dude has to have made it up with magic?
I'm not sure if you're trolling but if you're not, I can inform you that the christian god yahweh fully endorses slavery, you can look it up for yourself at Leviticus 25:44-46 (thats in the bible)
The very complexity and "design" that these morons see and claim as proof of god are actually proof against god. God is magical. He is supernatural. Why would he do things the hard way when he could have made all that messy science stuff unnecessary? Why create DNA? Why not just make life that doesn't require it? Why not just make creatures that can see without eyes? He can do anything. God doesn't just create things, but the underlying science, the laws of nature. Why do it the hard way?
VoiceOfReasonXXX 2 days ago
If we were so intelligently designed, then I don't think our engineer took the placement of our laryngeal nerve into consideration.
Netlocd 3 days ago
This video is worse than poop. Any scientifically literate person would watch this video and throw up in their mouth. There is no basis for the argument being put forth. They're basically saying, "god made dna", by using as many big words as possible to confuse the fuck out of already retarded creationist morons. Also, there is no mathematical proof in this video. Just blabbering idiots.
MrSsd1990 1 week ago
All evolutionists are stupid psychos.
ytambienroger 2 weeks ago
Raving made to believe an ape man can turn into a human lol.
ytambienroger 2 weeks ago
completely nonsensical whenever you start decomposing what is actually being said. no logic whatsoever.
drounal 2 weeks ago
Hebrews3v4. The more research done in this area, the more that mankind will back himself into a corner as the evidence mounts.
MyWagga 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for the ID proponent.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
RationalThinker1859 3 weeks ago
Everyone who believes in ID are simply too ignorant to believe that order was created in chaos, and as everyone else said, debunking one scientifically text does not by default prove their deity
tehaugva 1 month ago
@MrHeteroErectus You are fractally mistaken. Calling the hypothesis "Intelligent Design" begs the question, what/who is the intelligent designer? That is a question that must be addressed, and any failure to do so is an concession that ID is creationism with a new name, which was part of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision. ID is a worthless hypothesis outside of theology. It's unscientific and categorically misplaced.
Ematched 1 month ago
Mathematic proof? So where's the mathematics?
ar2de2em2 1 month ago
Raving mad!!!
ar2de2em2 1 month ago
the fool in his heart says there is no god.
MrBeefreetwo 1 month ago
the designer would have to be outside of time an space.how can anything exist prior to its own existance.i studied on both sides of the fence,as an agnostic an a believer.im so glad i chose the latter.it gives me hope.an the problem of good an evil is satisfied.atheist have no answer for evil.
MrBeefreetwo 1 month ago
all id people are idiots.that statement points to the real idiot.we just dont know for sure.but there appears to be design all over the universe.so the real idiot says all of the whole universe is all random an chance.no design or designer.we humans also were just pure chance,luck or whatever.
MrBeefreetwo 1 month ago
Oh and magic does not need a creator, therefor the scientific theory "magical design" does not propose a god and says that you should keep your religion out of science. Magical design people the real alternative to evolution. The evidence put forward by the ID movement is evidence for the scientific non religiously based theory of "magical design"
pegasusfreedom 1 month ago
"identify the words as the products of intelligence" No, we identify it as the product of a stick or other sharp object carving into the sand. Intelligence is A not necessarily an direct agent in this processes, and B on itself intelligence doesn't do anything. So intelligent design explains nothing, therefor i purpose that the alternative to evolution should be "magical design".. If you don't have to explain the mechanism of your intelligent agent i don't have to explain my pure magical agent
pegasusfreedom 1 month ago
What an idiot. Like all ID proponents.
Vire70 1 month ago
@wheelie934 Actually, I have studied some developmental biology and it's genetics in vertebrates. Also, stop phrasing things as if they were impossible simply because you have not educated yourself.
Also, learn WHY brain neurons grow at such high rates. They do it since then they can form random connections to everything, in abundance. Then they are subjected to selection and only the cells with strong connections survive. So yes, I understand how it happens, and now you do too.
N3CR1S 1 month ago
Oh, and btw, this is definitely an empirical method of understanding our universe. While it is not consensually accepted science, and perhaps isn't teh most refined abduction, it's still science. It's just stupid. :D
ExemplaryKhriss 1 month ago
I'm disappointed there was no mathematical proof. ): Come on bro, why you gotta tease me like that?
ExemplaryKhriss 1 month ago
One of the better "evidences" of a ID, but still not fully buying it. Why? Because 1 obvious intelligent role is, if organisms choose to reproduce with other organisms or choose to reproduce with another specific organism rather than the rest than the intelligence is already there. Sure, I guess the argument could continue to go "But an organism must have gained intelligence from information i.e. ID"
Comanglia 1 month ago
this is the worst logic ever... what intelegence created the designer? and "who" created the designer for the designer?
117DieHard 2 months ago
To "infer" that there is a God is not and never has been Science. Also just because one can't explain something does not and never did prove the existance of a God. This is just a rehashing of the God of the Gaps arguement. Intelligent Design does not explain anything. These people have one answer for everything and that is "God did it!". Like a "one size fits all garment" that really doesn't fit anything.
chairde 2 months ago
I have yet to see a true mathematical proof this video's title suggested I'd find here. Contrary, I have an actual mathematical proof that evolution does work. Doesn't mean it has happened, it's just proof that evolution is a species generating function.
FHomeBrew 2 months ago
Yes Intelligent design, GOD the only answer
followgood 2 months ago
@followgood An invisible, telepathic superfriend who has magical powers, came from nowhere, and takes requests - and who demands belief without providing evidence that he exists? That's not an answer, it's superstition.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Invisible to us (now) yes, you are right.. Superfriend, yes you are right. Magical powers (if you want to put it that way), yes you are right. Take requests, yes you are right. Demands belief, yes only so you will not believe in evil. Read the Bible you will see it explains life so completely. Do it and be saved before its too late, God Bless.
followgood 2 months ago
@followgood I've read the bible, was boring and comparable to mein kampf.
Boomboxpower 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 The Universe, and all life in it, including intelligence to contemplate it, all spontaneously magiced itself into existence for no particular reason...... that's not even an attempt at an answer is it?
GuyThreepwoody 2 months ago
@GuyThreepwoody What makes you think that there used to be nothing except a being with magical powers, existing forever in this nothingness, who finally thought "Gee, I guess I'll make some stuff!" and magically "poofed" everything into existence?
Why do you assume that there used to be nothing? Let me guess. Religious indoctrination?
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 As opposed to which evidence based logical explanation for the Universe and life in it spontaneously creating itself for no reason? The first cause paradox applies moreso to ‘accidental’ casues
Magic is just what you don’t understand yet, as lightning was magic.
I was indoctrinated with atheism, but like most people, took an interest in finding an actual answer not just a rejection of an answer. I’d give you credit for thinking for yourself also
GuyThreepwoody 2 months ago
@GuyThreepwoody Chemical compounds form because the nature of chemicals causes them to have natural attraction to each other. Why does iron rust? What's the reason? Is this natural process occurring because a superhuman, supernatural being causing it to happen for some "reason"?
Amino acids have been observed forming naturally.
Lightning, rainbows and other natural phenomena were assumed to be the work of superbeings, until we learned that they occur naturally with no divine cause/reason.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Laws of nature generate patterns yes, so what generates laws so finely tuned that those patterns ultimately produce life intelligent enough to discover and ponder those laws? And is it just a mind blowing coincidence that this happened? If not, if it was done with intent and purpose, what laws do we know of that this would this violate?- that would cause us to reject the idea entirely?
Nature is the executer of God's laws (Galileo)
GuyThreepwoody 2 months ago
@GuyThreepwoody Since the planet was here for maybe a billion years before the first simple life appeared, and billions of years before human life appeared, and since most of the planet is inhospitable for human life, and since virtually all of the space we've explored is totally inhospitable to any life at all, I would call that a far cry from finely tuned for life.
"Zillions" of microscopic locations in the sea for life to form, times "zillions" of moments, seems more likely than not to occur.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 A Universe just big Enough to overcome all the staggering odds to create one species intelligent enough to ponder it‘s creation- would be part of the incredible fine tuning- zillions of dice throws don’t turn up a 7-
and research cannot even replicate the first replicator far less demonstrate how it may have happened accidentally given a googleplex years!
GuyThreepwoody 2 months ago
@GuyThreepwoody If life evolved on a planet with temperature ranges allowing for liquid water, it would evolve to survive in those conditions. It's not surprising that our planet can sustain the type of life that evolved here, because here is where it appeared.
Until very recently, we knew nothing about what happened even one million years ago - not even that Earth existed then. The fact that we don't yet know everything about what happened billions of years ago is hardly surprising.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Conditions on Earth are incredibly finely tuned, not just the water, but stability of the entire system.
the moon is one of the greatest improbabilities necessary for this stability. We know that life doesn’t just crop up in any given conditions, all the elements, factors, provided by the physics of the Universe have to align very precisely - the more complex the life, the more exacting the necessary conditions. And even with this, life is a mystery
GuyThreepwoody 2 months ago
@GuyThreepwoody We're discovering more and more planets, solar systems, and galaxies. There are stable systems throughout the Universe.. However, the stability is an illusion, since we see these things from the perspective of our extremely short lifetime time scale. Our sun, and apparently all stars, are formed, go through various stages, and "die". Our sun will be gone in "just" a few billion years, although Earth will be uninhabitable long before that happens. That's not finely tuned.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Again, a Universe that appears just large enough to create a single intelligent species, in a system that lasts just long enough for this to occur- would not be fine tuning?
it needs to be of a certain size, age, # of stars to create our system. How'd you design it? perfect conditions- life on every -planet instantly? one solar system in the entire Universe for eternity? what we have is just the most logical, elegant system- no more complex or simple, large or small, than needed
GuyThreepwoody 2 months ago
@GuyThreepwoody Actually, there are several intelligent species on our planet, and we don't yet know how many other planets have or had or will have life. We've only just begun to discover other planets. It's a new field of scientific investigation.
I would love to see what we will have discovered a hundred years from now. My guess is that it would be even more mind-blowing than it would have been for someone in 1911 to see what we know now.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Oops! 1912. :)
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@GuyThreepwoody "Conditions on Earth are incredibly finely tuned, not just the water, but stability of the entire system."--
The biosphere is extremely fragile and small (only ~0.5% of the planet). It's far away from being very stable; still nowadays natural disasters kill ten thousands of people every year and destroy large areas of biotopes killing a huge number of organisms. This planet is far away from being fine tuned for life, but life is more or less tuned to survive.
MaluronLurette 2 months ago
Wow. Intelligent life has just discovered itself - again.
Hufflewaffle 2 months ago
I'm not into those theories, but it make sense what they're saying.
voltaspeeder17 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for the ID proponent.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
RationalThinker1859 2 months ago
I assume you are getting to the Regularity or Necessitarian Theories? At least it seems to me this may be where we may disagree. I'm no philosopher so I suspect you can argue your point better than I can. I do know both theories have pros and cons. As I have stated before, I must go with my subjective experiences.
zubezack 2 months ago
Sorry, you can put as much lipstick on a pig as you wish... This is simply an embarrassment. They're not just a little bit wrong, almost everything they said is false.
idunnononame 2 months ago
The laws I am referring to are not physical laws but totally abstract laws. Timeless and eternal laws that pre date our universe.
zubezack 2 months ago
@zubezack such as?
castelgandalf 2 months ago
However you want to look at it is fine with me. No need to get peeved. Just an observation...gravity is real!
zubezack 2 months ago
@zubezack not you specifically, people who should know better like michio kaku. graviti is real, the law of universal gravitation, however, is a mental construct invented by a man, not a thing in itself which was waiting for someone to discover it....that's my only point, thus we could not be "bound by the laws of" anything any more than we could be bound by the works of shakespeare. the discussion seems interesting, i thought i'd put in my 2 cents. peace
castelgandalf 2 months ago
Nothing from nothing yields nothing. Sounds logical to me! I wouldn't say it's a load of crap.
zubezack 2 months ago
Can either position be certain? No! If we had the answer then we would not be on here arguing our position. Those that are certain, don't waste their time on things they already know.(IMO)
zubezack 2 months ago
I am in no way mocking your position. IMO we all eventually get to the same place. Is it God or the Laws of Nature which we are bound. Objectively we all arrive at this point if we are open minded. My subjective experiences are what I must consider. For me and my life, I am hopelessly Christian. I hope you find peace and truth in your journey as well!
zubezack 3 months ago
They do have to make at least one assumption. That the "LAWS OF NATURE" exist on their own. Without any cause. Maybe we are looking at the same thing from a different point of view!
zubezack 3 months ago
@zubezack
Anti-Theists are simply saying that there is no evidence to make us believe that there is a deity, so we will choose a life of progress instead of being held down with beliefs that do us no good. If you can prove to atheists one thing religion will bring them, that they cant find through science or nature, then I am sure they might consider listing to you.
Believing in the unknown brings me much more joy then believing in a deity.
NeutralExistence 3 months ago
@zubezack i understand i came in on somebody else's conversation, but i have a personal peeve with this: many prominent scientists commit the mistake of speaking about the "laws of nature" as something that exists on their own. the "laws of nature" are human creations used to explain the physical world as we observe it. before newton, there was gravity, but no 'law of gravity' know what i mean?
castelgandalf 2 months ago
My bad! Maybe I just don't understand what many of them are trying to say.
zubezack 3 months ago
Atheist think the universe created itself from nothing! Why can't God?
zubezack 3 months ago
@zubezack That statement goes completely against science.
yet atheists can ignore this???, hahaha, i laugh at them and point them to this vid, just see how pissed off they get!.
85Aheadstix 2 months ago
@TheThumper49 Atheism, which isn't a religion and has nothing to do with Darwin btw, isn't TRYING to explain anything. Science tries to explain things, and is our best way of doing that. The Bible saying 'magic man did it through magic', ALSO explains nothing, it just says 'God did it'.
JaytheOstrich 3 months ago
These people are ignorant of the material they are handling. FAIL.
bryanttillman 3 months ago
@bryanttillman How so??
85Aheadstix 2 months ago
@TheThumper49 If in the beginning there was a God, where then did he come from?
Did he just come into existence by accident or did he have a father?
Btw, Darwin was no atheist...
davidthmovies 3 months ago
@davidthmovies Your assuming he was created???, God is infinite, the Alpha and omega, the first and last is he.
he is infinite.
85Aheadstix 2 months ago
@85Aheadstix That's the creationist point of view, yes.
But at the same time, they tell you that information has to come from a creator. Only intelligence produces information. Nothing comes from nothing.
Now that's of course a load of crap. But if you believe in it, then god must have been created as well.
davidthmovies 2 months ago
@davidthmovies then god must have been created as well.
___
Nope!
His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter
1tabligh 2 months ago
@davidthmovies from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being.
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@davidthmovies Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe.
But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: God is there.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@davidthmovies From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange,
1tabligh 2 months ago
and compounding with other bodies.
"Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are their own creators?" The Quran (52:36) "Have they created the heavens and the earth ? They have no certain belief in what they say" (52:37) Do they have a Lord other than God? No, it is not so; God is exalted above the partners they ascribe to him." (52:43) "Glorified be He in Whose hand is all sovereignty and Who has power over all things." (67:1)
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh No need to quote from the Quran, I don't believe in it anyway...
There is no scientific concept that forbids an increase of order.
In "nature", a continuous fluctuation between order and disorder (or rather higher and lower order)is omnipresent and can, of course, be observed.
Eventually, by chance, this leads to an evolutionary step, an advance towards higher states.
The development of life and intelligence is highly unlikely. Thats why no extraterrestrial life has been found.
davidthmovies 2 months ago
@davidthmovies The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Read about quantum physics. A scientific theory that refutes the principle of causality.
davidthmovies 2 months ago
Imprisoned as we are within the four walls of matter, we never encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident *not* arising from a cause. Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin.
What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things, in so wondrous, precise and orderly a fashion?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Again, I'd like to recommend you reading a good book about quantum physics.
Quantum mechanics teaches, that we can only predict the probabilities of future observations, based on laws of nature. What really happens depends only on chance. Nature doesn't work in a deterministic way.
davidthmovies 2 months ago
@davidthmovies Can the order we perceive be the reflection of mere accident and happenstance? .
Any supposable phenomenon in the universe was submerged in the darkness of non-being before it assumed the form of being. It *cannot* pierce the darkness of non-being and step forth on the plain of being as an existent thing *until* the powerful hand of causality sets to work
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Try to explain that with a god. Why would a god create all of the universe just for our earth?
Take into consideration, that the diameter of the universe is about 57923265306122448979 times the diameter of the earth.
davidthmovies 2 months ago
@davidthmovies Acording to Christianity God created everything, that includes time. Meaning he created cause and effect and is therefore not bound by it, just as a computer program designer is not bound by the program he creates.
96Trixstan 2 months ago
@96Trixstan Creationists tend to take the easy way :-)
Tough question: If god is omnipotent and omniscient, can he measure position and momentum of a particle at the same time?
davidthmovies 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@85Aheadstix "God is infinite, the Alpha and omega, the first and last is he' and you know this how?
vindelextreme 2 months ago
@TheThumper49
i'll also remember to ask him also why he liked the smell of burning flesh.
Numbers 28: 1 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Give this command to the Israelites. Tell them: ‘Bring me food offerings made by fire, for a smell that is pleasing to me, and be sure to bring them at the right time.’ 3 Say to them, ‘These are the offerings you must bring to the Lord: two male lambs, a year old, as a burnt offering each day.
castelgandalf 3 months ago
Intelligence in design does not prove that we were created by god, might as well be aliens. ID is only made up trying to discredit evolution and explains nothing at all.
hekama 3 months ago
30 seconds of video, cosmological argument... changing video...
cadonuno 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1) DNA is a coded information system.
2) Every coded information sytem we have ever observed has been designed.
3) Therefore, we have 100% inference, that DNA was designed.
Unless you can provide an example of a code that was not the product of design.
God has spoken.
CosmicfingerprintsDOTcom
nvutube7 3 months ago
I don't believe that anything can disprove God........you're confused
AppalachianKnight77 3 months ago
I do love how Dumbski gets up there and lies for his imaginary god (not that he can do anything else). He knows probability is not an arguement for anything, but the dumb people he lives off wouldnt know this fact anyone who did maths in year 8 should know.
Far more improbable things than evolution happen all the time.
gorilla199uncensored 3 months ago
I'm sorry, where's the proof?
csmcmillion 3 months ago
@csmcmillion Everything around you is. Your computer needed a designer, your bed, your light, your chair, your car, your toilet, your t.v. so why, all of a sudden, would design limit itself to things we create? Why would everything need a designer and then all of a sudden plants, humans, the universe as a whole does not need a designer because it just exists from nothing. That is irrational. Maths even came to be through intelligence because we figured out everything has order and law.
misspiccola11 3 months ago
@misspiccola11 > Everything around you is.
Uh, no. It might (in your view) be evidence, but it is not proof.
> Why would everything need a designer and then all of a sudden plants, humans, the universe as a whole does not need a designer
By that argument the designer also needs a designer.
> That is irrational.
What is irrational is assuming that anything we can't currently explain must be due to a supernatural force. This is the God-of-the-gaps fallacy.
csmcmillion 3 months ago
@csmcmillion What is proof according to you then? dictionary: "Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement." What I said is substantial proof for the existence of intelligent design. God would not need a designer but you won't even come to terms with that because you don't even want to consider it so you're limiting yourself to your own presumptions which have no proof themselves. I am not "assuming" I am using evidence to support my point.
misspiccola11 3 months ago
@misspiccola11 Have you ever actually taken a math class? You offered "Mathematical proof for Intelligent Design", so you should at least know what a mathematical proof is. I see no such thing in your video.
> Science itself confirms the existence of God
If that were the case, then most scientists (along with me) would conclude that God prob exists. But it is not the case. Your argument is an old one that in no constitutes proof. Google "Watchmaker analogy".
csmcmillion 3 months ago
@misspiccola11 in the scientific community it has never embraced even the supposition of intelligent design. It is strictly mothballed. Why even if God did exist would the scientific community embrace it?? Because it is contrary to the purpose that science was set out to exempt i.e. the existence of God. If God did truly exist, we would find ourselves within the same debacle. Whenever a shard of evidence comes to light that disproves the existence of God it is praised and non-debatable.
AppalachianKnight77 3 months ago
@AppalachianKnight77 Would you care to share this evidence that disproves the existence of God, please? =)
misspiccola11 3 months ago
@misspiccola11 Correct, the universe can be explained by the form of patterns. Patterns were formed at the beginning of the universe because if it didnt, we wouldnt be here. We dont know what existed before the universe, but many more may have emerged which didnt work as well as this universe and may or may not have produced intelligent life to think about it. If it did the universe ended and ours began, it comes down to this: Even if something was not one thing, it wouldnt mean it was the other
KawallaBair 3 months ago
Comment removed
misspiccola11 3 months ago
Law and order = rationality and reasoning which means intelligence. Otherwise, everything is chaos and irrational.
misspiccola11 3 months ago
Ah, got it. God designed Down's syndrome, Parkinson's, Haemophilia, Neurofibromatosis, Klinefelter's, Turner's, Cri du Chat, Tay Sach's, Gaucher's, Fragile X, Thalasemia, Spherocytosis, Sickle Cell Anemia.....wait, i'm gonna run out of characters. The "Observation of the facts" would lead me to believe God is either stupid of evil.
castelgandalf 4 months ago
@castelgandalf - So you concede the possibility for God's existence? You just don't like the one that may exist?
WSGAC 3 months ago
@WSGAC Yes, indeed, I accept it. I think many of atheists do, we just haven't seen convincing evidence of his existence. I challenge this particular argument because of leads to what I believe is an illogical conclusion: Nature as evidence of a creator, I contend that the presence of these diseases are flaws in creation, thus the creator is either flawed or* malevolent. If so, I don't like him. I know I assumed an omniscient, all-powerful, creator. But I think these points can be debated.
castelgandalf 3 months ago
@castelgandalf - Why are they flaws? Do you believe the universe should operate according to some moral principle which happens to reside in your person but not the universe? Where did that internal "value" originate, if the universe itself gives no hint of such a value? And if it originates in a flawed or malevolent creator, how is it your moral value has now surpassed the creator's? Might you not be a bit presumptuous, given your limited understanding and time in the universe?
WSGAC 3 months ago
@WSGAC Answer in order of the questions.
-All of the diseases i mentioned are errors in DNA and they cause significant suffering in the people who have them.
-Yes I do. Furthermore I believe we all do have our own personal morality. I see it in believers when confronted by immoral parts of their holy books as they look for plausible ways to reject them.
-I believe most human beings are basically good and decent, know what hurts and that we ought not to do it to others, (with varying success).
castelgandalf 3 months ago
@castelgandalf - errors in DNA are anything that cause significant suffering? But if there is no creator, then what you call an error is nothing but the amblings of DNA. Lots of suffering occurs, but why shouldn't it be so? You impose such terms as "error", "good", "bad" on things you don't like, but why should things be any different?
Morality: Maybe we all have our own personal morality, but if there is no creator then we're just talking preferences. In why care about how we should act?
WSGAC 3 months ago
@WSGAC
Impose? I label things because we need words to describe them:
Junctional Epidermolysis Bullosa. children's skin blisters and falls off. They live in excruciating pain, die young. Medical books call it error and disease. ATCG in a chain. in a certain order gives you and me. change one, it gives something painful.
If there is a creator, then the amblings of DNA are errors?
Duncan Idaho "Why do you poke fun at me, m'Lord?"
God Emperor Leto Atreides II "I poke nothing at you except words."
castelgandalf 3 months ago
@castelgandalf - But if there is no God, on what basis do you protest? To what do you appeal when you cry out, "It should not be this way?" The realm of nature is tooth and claw, destruction and mayhem. On what basis do give complaint? This is the order of nature. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. If there is no creator, then all things are permitted, and the human cry is met ultimately with silence. So get over yourself, and spare us the indignation. There is no ultimate good.
WSGAC 3 months ago
@WSGAC i do not protest "it should not be this way" i say "this is the way it is and we can learn to learn to live with it or believe the supernatural to feel better." recognizing that i do not like it i strive for something better than tooth and claw. tigers and humans also protect the young.
permitted? by whom? all things are possible, hence some human mothers kill their young. where is god in this? the human cry has always been met with silence. indignation? try realism.
castelgandalf 3 months ago
@castelgandalf - But you do protest. Else your striving makes no sense. You're not just learning to live with it; your efforts are geared toward changing it..ie., alleviating suffering. But why? It seems to me learning to live with it is to simply accept it because it's not going to change. All ends in dust and ashes. Your attempts to alleviate are nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We are all going down, whether comfortable or in pain. Don't fool yourself.
WSGAC 3 months ago
@WSGAC (cont)
-I'm an atheist (creator?). Many species have evolved social behavior. IChances of survival inacrease for a species whose members care for each other.
-Yes it is presumptuous. I'm comfortable with it because I reject the premise that evidence for the existence of god can be seen in nature, I don't presuppose his existence. DNA full of errors=insufficient evidence for god, so I try to be a good human for sake of species.
It's worthwhile the time to correspond with you. Peace.
castelgandalf 3 months ago
@castelgandalf - What is goodness in a meaningless universe? There is no good, only preferences. There are no errors, only occurrences. Where do you get this value called "good" or "goodness"? It's a human construct, based on human preferences. Yet goodness points to something beyond the human being, something humans aspire to. But where is this good, and why do you seek it?
"If there is no God then all things are permitted." - Dostoevsky
WSGAC 3 months ago
@WSGAC even an amoeba seeks the light. I have seen hate and crime. I want the opposite. Isn't there a human chemotaxis? need an amoeba call it god?
right and wrong come from my imperfect parents. then i grow up and decide for myself. we try and fail and try again.
is gay marriage wrong? is abortion? what say god? who presumes to speak for him? our sense of "good" comes from him? why the controversy then? god hates fags? whence comes hate?
picture a world without god. then open your eyes.
peace
castelgandalf 3 months ago
@castelgandalf - There is no good if the universe is all there is. Seriously now, point to anything in this universe that suggests there is such a thing called goodness. All is the product of randomness. You may not like Down's syndrome, Parkinson's, Sickle Cell Anemia..et.al., but again, why should it be different? Where do you get this idea that things should not be this way? This is how a meaningless universe operates. Amoebas seek light, and tigers eat their young. It's all the same.
WSGAC 3 months ago
@WSGAC patients suffer. doctors alleviate that suffering. that is something good. should or shouldn't don't come to play unless i believe there is a god.
if i'm a a starving orphan it's tough but i don't have to like it, i cry out in hunger, people tell me to shut up. i have to fend for myself.
only if i have parents i cry to them: you should feed me.
belief in god leads to complacency, ultimate justice or meaning will come to me from above.
as an atheist i am responsible for my own life.
castelgandalf 3 months ago
@castelgandalf - But you say these things as if they are givens, and that it's just common sense to believe them. You say alleviating suffering is good, but what if someone else says the opposite? On what basis do say yours is the the right or good position? Ultimately you're going to have to base it solely on what benefits survival of the species. But you still haven't established why something is necessarily good. You simply assume it. Have you studied any in philosophy?
WSGAC 3 months ago
complexity doesnt form by chance. it gradually builds up. check richard dawkins climbing mount improbable.
Aldelirium 4 months ago
@Aldelirium Complexity forming goes against the basic principle of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Entropy and chaos form when nothing is guiding the universe. For example, compare a city to an uninhabited wilderness area, no one would go into a city and think it just came out of the ground from time, we would assume some people built it. Why would we look at this and assume these brilliant little creatures just form out of time even though they are extremely complex, more so than the city?
snowmanbob101 4 months ago
@snowmanbob101 lol you contradicted yourself in a single paragraph. compare the city to the widerness, the city becomes more complex as it is built. so it violates the second law of thermodinamycs amirite?
no because the second law of thermodynamics only applies to isolated sytems. neither the earth or the city are isolated. both receive matter and energy from outside sources.
Aldelirium 4 months ago
@Aldelirium I am somewhat dismayed that you would put words in my paragraph like that. That quote is not in there at all, as anyone can see. The law works on all systems, because whether or not the system is receiving energy, unusable energy is still growing from the use of usable energy. Since there is only a finite amount of energy in the universe, order should turn to disorder, not the other way around. It should look like we started perfect, but ended up useless.
snowmanbob101 4 months ago
@snowmanbob101 then explain to me why cities grow more complex. are they violating the second law of thermodynamics too?
Aldelirium 4 months ago
@Aldelirium No, they are not breaking the law because that law only refers to what happens when something is left to nature alone. Cities are built by intelligence, a force that takes objects and tears them away from there natural state and reshapes them into order, Take Mount Rushmore for instance, you wouldn't confuse it with a normal hill, because there is obvious design in Rushmore, and not a normal, natural hill.
snowmanbob101 4 months ago
@snowmanbob101 oh ok. so intelligence violates the second law.
Aldelirium 4 months ago
@Aldelirium An intelligent being can counter-act the effects of the law, yes. If an empty plot of land was left alone, notice that no buildings pop up out of no where on it. Now, if someone came and wanted build something on it like a building (assuming they have the materials, time, and energy), a building gets built. So yes, nature leads to disorder, we counter-act it and create order.
snowmanbob101 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snowmanbob101 oh so we are not part of nature. bravo!
Aldelirium 4 months ago
374 dislikes? Complete morons...
logicCplusplus 4 months ago
It was perfectly scientifically appropriate to raise the possibility that life was designed. Taken as a very selective view limited to Earth and its history, it's entirely plausible given the intricacy of biological systems, which is why we have/had theories of xenobiological seeding or tampering. Expand the view, however, and the designer needs a designer.. and the cosmological argument is borderline absurd.
Behe's ideas, and ID, have been explored.... and scientifically REJECTED.
Move on.
Murchad99 4 months ago
But these organisms come into being without an outer creator, but by natural process. So at what point did the designer create the imprint and set it in motion?
SkippyZ1210 4 months ago
@4:40 Good sir, you don't know shit. ID people seem to like to mimic academic language, then proceed to march right over their own logic.
Starts by saying you can't prove a negative, then DOES JUST THAT.
And as to the SETI, ET's, primes et al, If Carl Sagan were here he would kick you in your stupid, fucking jesus loving dick.
Shameful. Go back to preaching fire and brimstone- you have no business here. Good day.
sevenoverthree 4 months ago 2
Atheism only appeals to the lowest base and homosexual
Seigu007 4 months ago
@Seigu007 All I heard was "blah, blah blah I'm a dirty tramp"
redrum41987 4 months ago
@redrum41987 I could tell you to go to hell... but we both know you're going there, first class.
The good news is you'll have plenty of company.
Cheers
Seigu007 4 months ago
@Seigu007 Wow a threat to send me to somewhere I do not believe in. Nice.
redrum41987 4 months ago
@redrum41987 thanks homosexual
Seigu007 4 months ago
@Seigu007 Not that I am but wtf do u care if people of the same sex have sex? homophobes are most likely a repressed homosexual.
redrum41987 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@redrum41987 Kudos for helping me prove my point. Now be a good howler monkey and climb back into your tree.
Seigu007 4 months ago
XCUSE ME, MR DEMSKY, STATISTICS POLICE HERE.
PLZ LIST UR DATAZ SO WE CAN CONFIRM UR FINDINZ
PLZ GIVE UZ UR SAMPLE SIZE, METHOD, SAMPLE MEAN, SAMPLE STANDARD DEVIATION, PROBABILITY MARGIN OF ERROR, AND CONFIDENZ INTERVAL
OH U HAZ NO DATA? U JUST DIVIDED NUMBER OF ATOMZ WIF NUMBER OF PROTIENZ? LOLZ DATS NOT STATISTICS.
TheDeistAngle 4 months ago
Hey look, reli-nonsense!
sonykroket 4 months ago
This entire video's argument collapses by not addressing who designed God.
thewetflarp 4 months ago
@thewetflarp DUH! Every Christian knows the answer to that: God the Father designed Jesus. I know the trinity is deep, but it isn't unintelligible.
ideologger 4 months ago
@ideologger By God I meant the father.
thewetflarp 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheists believe that objects made them what they are.
Evolution is an absolute disgrace to science.
Objects never order anything, mutations never order anything and natural selection will only select what has already been ordered.
Evolution is so irrational that it should be removed from all classrooms.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 4 months ago
You can tear down Darwin all you want. To do so provides 0 (zero) proof for god concepts. If I disprove that you have a can of coca cola in your car, how much proof does that effort provide proof that I think there is a pepsi in your car. Zero. I would need to start again with theories and find demonstrable empirical scientific evidence. "god did it" has no evidence has zero weight sitting on its side of the scale. Dont be fooled by people who are afraid to die and need an imaginary friend. Sad
699backstab 4 months ago
If god is an intelligent designer who hates gays, why didn't he make assholes round and dicks and pussies square?
GodsTalkingSnake 5 months ago
@GodsTalkingSnake Cuz gays would still try to put a square peg in a round whole
j919or 5 months ago
This vid.with it's handpicked scientists provides no mathematical proof of a designer whatsoever ! The problem is this : We are trying to comprehend the universe from the limits of a human mind ! Complexity of the universe is no reason to suppose there was a designer [even though it would SEEM that way]. What does the human mind know of the vastness and complexity of the universe? But it is unscientific to assume a designer to kick it off.
brindow1 5 months ago
The world will end in the year 2020. See the Aimed At America 1 video because there are too many parallels for this prophecy to be wrong!
vincent15641 5 months ago
socratus1 5 months ago
couldnt watch all that. i dont understand the life after death thing. how can you live after you die? and why would i care what happens to me after i die?
best496 5 months ago
I am thinking that god has exist. thanks for creating this holy good video!Q
flowewritharoma 5 months ago
This is such an egregious travesty from real science and human knowledge that it ia dumbfounding.
friedie1jeff 5 months ago
Mathematical proof for intelligent design? No. It's a version of the old, and discredited, idea of finding a watch in a forest. Surely this proves there must be a watchmaker? No. Amongst others, Richard Dawkins has shown how that is a false analogy (The Blind Watchmaker).
I notice that the creator of the video has not had the courage to include the voices of any dissenting biologists
However, the Intelligence behind the Universe has posted a video on YouTube.
See ' God says sorry. '
lacontrabasse 5 months ago
SMALL HEAD!
cdhendy414 5 months ago
fun little tidbit. when bill gates refers to DNA being more complicated then a computer program he was in a biology class room. seems young BG had a teacher soooo boring that it turned him off from biology all together because it was too hard or "too complicated".
KaijinDV 5 months ago
Is it really that difficult to google "mathematical proof"....
odinata 5 months ago
This "argument" completely misses the point. I am always amazed at how ridiculously proud can some "scientists" be of their lack of knowledge. Because this is the core of their argumentation: "we don't know what created DNA so the only explanation we can come up with is a supreme intelligence." Instead of giving a real explanation, they explain the thing with itself: intelligence created information, they say, while the real question of biology to be investigated should be just the opposite.
reticulum78 5 months ago
Check out the pattern of numbers in the Aimed At America 1 video. There are too many parallels for these Biblical patterns to be coincidence.
vincent15641 5 months ago
There's no "Science" here--only a lack of understanding. They are attempting to explain "life", something they cannot comprehend. (Neither can I) That is why G-d is described as "awesome" & "unknowable." Are they saying some big guy in the sky just "built" it all, the whole entire universe, and we are just part of some great experiment? (because to me, it could be nothing else, as i don't see the system as "perfect".)
liagarden 5 months ago
i just came here to dislike this crap,
have fun.
tilemacro 5 months ago
Religion masquerading as science. In other words, Creationism.
DNAunion 5 months ago
again, yet another, because it's complex to us, it must be magic. No, seriously, that is the only possible answer... because it's the only possible one I can think of.
Again, instead of looking for patterns in the clouds, or chicken bones, or volcano eruptions, now it's dna.
Chicken Bones, Tea Leaves, or DNA, you are still looking for a pattern to apply your mysticism. It's inescapable fallacious logic.
losghost 5 months ago
This is retarded! How can a supposedly "scientist" not know anything about biology other than DNA lol. They compare biological processes with computer programs they're so wrong! It's chemistry guys! Come on! And he's just giving his opinion, not presenting evidence... sad sad. I'm so sad and disapointed my dad believed this crap man... :/
TRYCLOPS1 6 months ago
@TRYCLOPS1
"They compare biological processes with computer programs they're so wrong! "
They start off with an analogy - which is well and good - but then they stick with the analogy past the point that it breaks down. They often come to confuse the analogy for the real thing itself.
DNAunion 5 months ago
every one of these post are stupidyou believe in dirt.
I believe in GOD,
SO WHO IS the REALIZITIC ONE
YOU cant even explain or make any dirt,no matter how much air we give you you all are just as stupid as darwin an all the rest that think this all come from chance,And evolution was started to make the people accept slavery anyway
to make people think they came from animal so they could justify enslaving people, so you are the problem with what is goin on in the world,with all the killin
fisher99100 6 months ago
@fisher99100 listen up dude, when you have a phenomena you can't explain why can't you just say you don't know? Can't you see how stupid it is to say that because you can't explain it, some dude has to have made it up with magic?
I'm not sure if you're trolling but if you're not, I can inform you that the christian god yahweh fully endorses slavery, you can look it up for yourself at Leviticus 25:44-46 (thats in the bible)
phpeni 6 months ago