Since you won't believe in intelligent design until you see our designer. You can see pictures of this designer in my latest (provisional) youtube. You will not be able to refute the logic that the designer possesses intelligence and I think you will have to concede that this spirit is indeed the designer. I don't think I mention the word "complexity" even once ;o)
@MsPerduta On another AAI vid you said youre not a christian, I took this to mean you are not religious oops, why try to hide youre dirty bible basher? I say this because religion has killed billions.
I can't understand the Bible it makes no sense to me. It does not mean I don't believe in a divine creator and it doesn't mean I bash bibles... BTW "bashing bibles" does that mean criticising or endorsing?
When someone can demonstrate to me how chance better accounts for objects/systems that exhibit profound order than design, I'll gladly reconsider my position.
PZ Meyers certainly won't be able to do it. He shoots himself in the foot at 12:45. The brick wall is exceedingly more organized than the disorganized wall of driftwood. Is life and the Universe more like the driftwood or the brick wall. Any student of science would say the later.
@revo1974 i think one way to think of biological systems, and the chance vs design argument, is rather than focus on evidence for chance, is evidence against design. Most biological systems exhibit such poor operation, that design is infeasible as an explanation; these include the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the eye, vestigial organs and human birthing amongst other systems that are needlessly complex and/or energy wasting. A thoughtful designer, in this case, would have flunked.
I am not religious and the idea of an omnipotent god that actively intervenes within the Universe designing things is as absurd to me as the most staunch atheist. With that said I believe a deistic creator(s)/creative force is a better explanation than a series of random events for the nature of our Universe.
Stars, planets, moons, elements, etc., are all a result of necessity. They are an inevitable consequence of the governing dynamics of our Universe. I believe we will....
How does molecular hardware get to write its own software, which is more complex than any that man has devised? Chance is a very poor explanation for this and its even a worse....
....explanation for the limited set of elegant, rational, mathematically precise governing laws, which through a great cosmic cycle transforms gas and dust into solar systems with planets that harbor living organism, some that are capable of building ships capable of taking them to other moons and planets.
@revo1974 (1) I think you will find that your philosophical standpoint is deism, rather than atheism, and I thought I should make that distinction. An atheist considers supernatural events to be irrational, which includes actions of an intelligent creator at any time. The appearance of the presence of “optimal” conditions and a creator of them, is an entirely human construct. It is logically built around the false notion that in the absence of evidence for a phenomenon, a supernatural
I know what philosophical standpoint I favor and I know what it means to be an atheist. You're confused about a few things so let me help you better understand.
A God of the gaps argument is created when someone uses a gap in scientific knowledge as evidence for the existence of god. I and other deists infer design based on what we do know, not what we do not. Knowledge with the aid of reasoning allows us to reach conclusion about what may be. ......
...Many of the worlds greatest free thinkers were deists of one sort or another, some include: Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Locke, Kant, Hume, Voltaire, Leibniz, Spinoza, Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, Planck, Einstein, Flew, Penrose, Davies and Kaku.
The word deism derives from the Latin word deus, which means god, however, deism is not necessarily the belief in a god or a supernatural entity, but only a creator(s), designer(s), grand architect, force, or any other suitable label. ...
...The basis for deism is the limited set of logical, elegant, mathematically precise laws that govern the Universe. Why not utter chaos? Why not a haphazard jumble of unrelated phenomena? Considering their nature we believe that a probable (not certain) unknown, undefined, non-personal creative force somehow played a role in their development.
Most physicists and cosmologists don't share Vic Stenger's views. In-fact, according to Paul Davies and Steven Weinberg there....
...is a consensus amongst physicists and cosmologists that the Universe in many respects is fine-tuned.
There is evidence emerging that suggests that life is not a freak accident, but instead an inevitable consequence of the governing dynamics of our Universe. Just as stars, planets, moons, elements and everything else we see in the Universe is a result of necessity, so too is life. Check out the following articles:
...Perhaps a multiverse does exist and all the universes within it have laws that make sentient life in one shape or form necessary too. Don't we mass produce things like cars, computers, televisions, telescopes, paintings, etc.? Why design one universe when you can design many?
@revo1974 (2) creative force is necessary, known as “God of the gaps”. The only reason this notion is propagated is that verifiable scientific evidence has not yet been provided, hence the “gap”.I find the many new theories surrounding multi-verse exciting, as it makes the assertion that many universes are created and destroyed, all with different cosmological constants. A consequence of this is that natural selection may only allow stable universes to exist, whilst unstable ones are..
@revo1974 (3) ..fleeting. We exist in a stable, and in one case, habitable universe, and to quote Victor Stenger, “The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe”. The fact is, we don’t know how these things occurred but that’s not a reason to attribute it to a creator. It seems to me that this point of view is “Hmm..we don’t know how that happened, let’s assume it was created for now”.I will think more about the origin of life, and get back to you.
@revo1974 If you can account for such poor designing by an omnipotent god then I would be glad to hear your arguments. In my opinion, if designed, then the grand designer would have to be prolifically incompetent at almost every level, especially for humans. I do think that PZ suffers a bit here, as he is also guilty of using an overextended metaphor, rather than relational evidence. If you wish for my discussions FOR chance, then let me know.
PZ Meyers is philosophically bankrupt. There is a distinction to be made between organized complexity and disorganized complexity.
Life is designed fool! It's designed by genetic code. DNA contains digital information, which provide assembly instructions for DESIGNING living organisms.
Complexity = bad argument for anything.
Order = good argument fro design
The Universe exhibits profound order, harmony and regularity, all attributes better explained by design than chance.
@revo1974 i would like to tackle your comments on DNA and genetics, as I am a currently a PhD student on the topic.Yes, DNA is a digital code, and at its most basic is a beautiful example of prolific organisation/order. But, it is not proof of designed organisation. Again, I call on the inconsistencies of the genetic code as a whole to prove my point. One third of the human genetic code is repetitive baggage from ~2b years of evolution, and only 3% of it is used to "make" an organism.
@revo1974 The logical conclusion here is that the genetic code is a marvellous example of order, but as a system for the transmission and as a blue-print for life it is energetically wasteful, and contains high amounts of spurious junk, that is a burden for the cell to carry as it serves no purpose. In a way, it is akin to a builder gold-plating all the steel used to construct a building.
@revo1974 evolution, and what you call "chance", has marvellously explained why the junk DNA is there, retroviruses (including HIV) insert their DNA code into your DNA code, and hijack it. This is faithfully passed on from cell to cell. These bits of viral DNA retain the ability to replicate and jump around, inserting themselves repetitively into the remaining DNA. Over a VERY long time, they have become the major element in the genetic code.
@revo1974 But...I digress to a very simple form of life without such baggage, such as one of the first living things on the planet. I would contend that DNA is the living thing here, as it only has to produce a "body" to transmit itself. Evolution and natural selection did the rest. Nevertheless, DNA only appears to be designed, with extra knowledge it quickly become clear that if so, it was very poorly designed, and is better explained a result of chance.
I dont understand why atheists respond with such rude attitudes. apparently they are the ones who need Jesus the most, but horridly, they refuse to accept him, instead they make assertions as if they have the capacity to conceive God entirely to disprove him. Toodles...
had the preservation of our lives been left up to darwinism in terms of us having animal given brains and/or are directly created from common ancestors of monkeys still within the 'animalia' understanding, and since i've proved 'gaining ability to think' is impossible from 'nonthinkers' we would be extinct. Atheism or simple Prideful knowledge, push these people to make erroneous claims of our creation or the creation of the universe. If you actually dissect their principls you will have a laugh
@chromeninjar3d You haven't proven anything you ridiculous buffoon. You don't even understand what it is you're attacking, no creature consciously decides to adapt, they just do it. We are not subject to natural selection pressures anymore, we evolved something better that strength thus that energy can be spent in other areas.
Do you really not understand migration either? You can stay put and compete or just go over there and run shit, simple.
@mehico33 Woah woah woah, why are you getting offended? I thought i was simply having a discussion, and now you blow up with such rash assertions? Animals indeed consciously adapt to something. IT is because of the unsuited lifestyles these animals live, which pushes them to adapt or migrate, however, you are asserting that the environment changes the animal... no sir, the animal changes in order to better himself with the environment, but since that's erroneous, darwinsim still stands.
@chromeninjar3d By the way, laminins are formed in chains, therefore their components are smaller than they are (lets be real here, they will probably find something even smaller when our instruments get better) so they are not the smallest particles. Ill bet you think its a holy cross right? You make so much raw assertion that you are incapable of backing up.
Humans are zoologically classified amongst the primates and rightfully so.
@mehico33 I said nothing about the holy cross, and obviously they will dissect and dissect until they find smaller particles, however, no man will ever find the smallest particle, it is infinitely factually impossible, therefore nature is a concept of inconceivable infinity, and your assertion that on at atomic level we are all the same, is dubbed incorrect by that. As for monkey-human similarity, there are no direct traits, therefore that classification is apparently foolish.
@chromeninjar3d As for brain evolution you'd be better off reading a few papers but ill try to give you the layman's understanding (as you seem to lack even that).
The brain of any mammal primarily orchestrates complex movement, but it also is the hub of all perceptive faculties, thus it rationalizes its surroundings. One instance of this is vision, the eyes capture the light that reflects off of surfaces and the brain compiles it into workable information allowing depth judgements etc
@mehico33 such capabilities of the animals are only basically essential. It does not rationalize it's surroundings, it simply associates or familiarize itself with it which develops into its niche. No animal can 'rationalize' anything, they just live off of instinct. to rationalize it is to be mentally omnipresent on the environment as a whole, rather than turfing. You are confusing animals with humans. and i do not think it's necessary to be so vile...
@chromeninjar3d In fact your claim that animals do not "rationalize" or "think" is more absurd than I first thought, look up an african hunting dog chase and behold the tactical forward thinking they display, look at the way elephants recognize and mourn over the remains of their ancient dead, they even have communal grave sites. These creatures clearly have intelligence, obviously not in the same league as our own but obviously more than simple nervous firings.
@mehico33 If you are surfacing an animal's ability to approach with stealth or as a pack to be evidence of rationalizing, that's a bad example. Let us look at a lion, they see a pack of Wildebeasts and chases after one only, often times, lions get killed by wildebeasts they weren't aware of, therefore, because of their foolish instincts, they were not able, like humans, to depict the total effects possible from their wild little episode. Had the lion done some rationalizing, it wouldn't get hurt
@chromeninjar3d You think I've been rude? Maybe christ camp is making you soft (that was rude). You play semantics, "the environment doesn't change the animal, the animal changes to suit the environment", There is no difference.
"It is infinitely factually impossible" More assertion, completely unfounded, it is illogical that biological components exist in an infinite number at all, let alone in infinite sizes. We are related to monkeys but are in fact apes (no tail), another mistake of yours.
@mehico33 If i came to your house and greeted you all by saying ''hey you dumb baffoons'' you would either think i have a comical audacity, or just plain disrespectful, so yes, you were being rude.. also when you said 'there is no difference'' actually, there is. I can consciously decide to put on a jacket, it is not the cold weather that puts the jacket on for me... What is the smallest particle? then what makes that up? you understand the concept? We are not apes, that is only an assertion.
@chromeninjar3d Matter is made of molecules which are made of atoms (your earlier point about laminins was so stupid), therefore we (being comprised of atoms) are related on an atomic level to all matter. The fact that atoms have smaller components of their own has no bearing on this fact.
You're now struggling to understand rationalization, to rationalise is to make sound from noise. Perhaps you are using it in a limited sense. In fact animals do make judgement calls based on information e.g...
@mehico33 You think rationalizing and familiarizing is the same thing? a yelp is by nature a noise, which is why animals instinctly react to distress calls. We may be related to all matter, yet we have life, you cannot define life, neither can you create life from non-living things. life was given by that which has life, or else new species or creatures would be created as we speak.. Why would reproduction even exists if mother nature is responsible for life creation? Think widely please.
@chromeninjar3d Hunting dogs will send an ambush party to set a trap further up the road, anticipating the reactions of their prey when the hunt begins. Will assess their options, will look for weaknesses, will not attack a large animal when easier prey is available.
A monkey is capable of learning tricks, recognizing that reward will follow.
Information is taken on board, they are not simply floating on a wave of frequencies. You lose.
@mehico33 an ambush party? Animals naturally fear that which is bigger than them, and also have a natural manipulating instinct for that which are smaller or relatively small. You never catch a pack of lions chasing a mother elephant when the baby elephant is around, because of this instinct; however, when no food is around, they will indeed kill the big one, not by rationalizing, but by instinct. learning tricks is the acknowledgment of patterns, therefore your argument is still naked..
@mehico33 If I even follow your logic, Darwinism would be a lie. Survival of the fittest states that animals that cannot adapt, die out, therefore they do not 'evolve' to fit the environment, they just die out, which is why only the fittest survive, or that which can migrate. Speaking of which, do you know why birds migrate? because they cannot take the cold, and they know they will never 'adapt' or 'evolve' into something that CAN indeed take the cold. Your argument is pure sophistry.
@chromeninjar3d You bring up beginning of life, nobody has that information and even so it would be irrelevant.
The birds(self defeating argument) you mention have already adapted, they can find new climates, they don't need blubber or fur as it would be detrimental to their lifestyle.
Ape is in fact a classification, one that we fit into, your egotism is shining through now.
If I say something stupid then call me stupid, as I did you, I won't cry about it.
@mehico33 Nobody has that information? Lol yet your own science pals formulate lies to suit their atheistic ego..- life from nonlife -? ridiculous much... well anyways, The birds DO NOT adapt, they simply LIVE or RESIDE in an envrionment that SUITS THEIR CHARACTERISTICS - this is why they migrate, don't assume rubbish. Only birds with blubber and such, are penguins; why? because they are SUITED FOR THAT ENVIRONMENT and need not to 'run away'.... simple as that.. eh? -_-
@chromeninjar3d You accuse sophistry at every chance however unjustly and yet you fail to produce a single cohesive argument of your own. So our main disagreement is "instinct vs rationality", reason (the active ingredient in rationality)is a versatile word, it cannot be denied that reason is observed in animals e.g. a monkey solving a puzzle. You mention that lions will take the baby elephant if it is available, this IS RATIONAL, they consciously assess potential prey and take the easiest
@mehico33 a cohesive argument? by that you mean, one that suits your paradigm? sure, no cohesive arguments from me then... however is it rational to pick the easier prey? sure, yes. However that is 'conscious rationality', done by us. Convenient rationality is rationality by nature (within the quick&eat retrospect). A cat would kill a bigger lizard by choice; does that debunk your 'size rationale'? Animals DO NOT wisely rationalize like you and I, they instinctively follow natural convenience
A cat will not actively hunt prey it doesn't believe it can handle and it makes this calculation. You have nothing, semantics at best "natural convenience"? lol, there is no distinction, we rationalize on the info at hand as does a lion.
You are the one pulling baseless assumption out of your ass and i am the idiot attempting to reason with the brick wall of wish thinking. Live in your delusion, whatever gets you to sleep at night.
@mehico33 "It makes this calculation"? Well that's stupid... Snakes hunt things that are way taller than them.... If your sleeping in the forest and an ant passes you, it will indeed bite you, even when you get up and try to leave the area, he will latch on, hoping to get you to his condo :D ... Natural convenience is what is an easy kill-&-eat target -_-. I am not pulling anything, you didnt even prove evolution or abiogenesis, you branch off with your unnecessary insults to gain spotlight..
@chromeninjar3d I didn't prove abiogenesis? No shit sherlock, I didn't realise I claimed to be a prize winning scientist. Ants are observed giving their lives for their colony as they are of a hive mind mentality, its not predatory instinct but a defense mechanism, similarly a bee will sacrifice itself via stinging to chase off predators.
A dog will obey its master due to its having learned that reward follows obedience and that punishment follows disobedience. Your ideas are utterly untenable
@mehico33 "No sh** sherlock" Then in like manner, you don't know what you're defending...? If there isn't a God, that means Abiogenesis would be left to be the only thing possible. Therefore you are defending something uncertain and unsupported, meaning your only running an endless race where you have no substantial claims of 'life without a God'. The memory of a dog, is essentially a memory of patterns. I don't recall rationalizing whether i should touch fire, given that i remember it burns..
@chromeninjar3d Abiogenesis is just a theory, you are asserting that it is the only possibility besides magic theory, based on what?
Im not defending it, I'm saying I won't claim to be able to prove it you dunce.
You don't recall rationalizing? How ridiculous, its a simple problem, an analogy: I don't recall knowing 1+1=2, I just recognize 2 objects when I see them by "natural convenience". This is obviously a stupid statement, your mind makes the calculation quickly thus you don't realize it.
@mehico33 lol! 1+1=1+1, (1+1), it is what we call a pair. The quantity/ numerical value of this pair has been given a name which is '2' meaning, a couple. 2+2=2+2=1+1+1+1 meaning "2 pairs, 2x(1+1)meaning "2x2" is what we call a quartet, named 4. Therefore your 1+1=2 only demonstrates that such a thing is a given, not a rationality -_-. If i give a stupid boy 1 banana plus another banana, i will have to teach him that since he has 1 in his hand, and 1 in the other, it is 2. PATTERNS!
@mehico33 You dont recognize quantities by 'natural convenience', that is a stupid thing to assert from my statement. -_-. Claiming that it isn't proved or that you cannot prove it, means that there isn't a proof for it, meaning you are defending something evidently baseless. Sorry, but you just hurt yourself. Calling me dunce? Lol but look at your response? I feel sorry for you :/
@chromeninjar3d I just apologized for that (apparently I should not have).
Here you are asserting that because I (a confessed layman) can't prove something or that because as of yet it hasn't been, therefore it cannot be. The reasoning of a true dunce.
Analogy, not example. The point (which you missed entirely) is that your mind makes the connection immediately as the problem is as trivial as can be. Admittedly a stupid analogy but no more stupid than "not to touch fire"
@mehico33 Sorry, I replied before i saw your apology... there is no "as of yet", because from the big bang, we clearly can say everything is nonliving, making it obvious that life (which is evident today) came from nonlife, and that is essentially the root of abiogenesis. Therefore there is no deeper root. sorry, but its dead pal.. but anyways as for the question "do you think we are superior to animals?" you haven't answered it yet. Oh and Don't touch fire..I remember, it burns!. lol -_-
@chromeninjar3d Penguins are exploiting a niche, similarly kiwis relinquished their wings as a perfectly good living was to be made on the ground. Simple "use it or lose it" principal.
You creationists love to pick on the opposition but lets explore your hypothesis, are you christian? If so do you also believe in noahs ark? How does magic theory address geographical dispensation? Ive always wondered.
@mehico33 wales have an unnecessary hipbone..... did they get rid of it? negative!. If i decide to not use my fingers, will they drop off? and if they drop off, will my sons & daughters come out fingerless because daddy didn't need 'em? Yes I believe in Noah's Ark - but how is a flood so dramatic to the point where you need to use it as a weapon? It is a flood and essentially that. Then came common reproduction, and then came the re-population...what is your point?
@chromeninjar3d My point is that to believe in the tale of noahs ark is to believe that the waters once covered all of the earths surfaces for 40 days and nights thus killing all life forms that could not fly or swim, how do you propose the kiwi (my favorite example, being a NZer) marched from Mt Arafat to an isolated land mass in the pacific ocean within the last 10 thousand years.
In fact vestigial organs are evidence for evolution but ill humor you ...CONT
@mehico33 No offense, but you have failed to think.. do you really believe Noah went in the ark with absolutely nothing to eat? Lol wherever the guy ended up, that is where he planted all that he planted with the food that he already had. -_-. Apes do not have tails, but given the fact that we have tailbones, isn't that a kick in the butt? Also, do you believe we are superior to animals? I will await your answer. answer wisely.
@chromeninjar3d CONT... stop using a muscle and it will rapidly deteriorate, noticeable over short periods (e.g.. rehabilitation of astronauts after return from space), imagine the compound effect over several generations. I trust you don't also dispute heredity. Troglobites have lost their sight and even the pigments in their skin.
@mehico33 Cont.. If a muscle rapidly deteriorate, does that mean it is now an imprint in your genes? Lol! please stop typing. If i stopp using my legs altogether, and i have human children, it is in their human dna to have legs and muscles and then decide to use it or not. Whatever your orignal physcality is, that is the trend that will repeat. Also can a habbit become a genetic imprint? Crack head mother having crack head daughter who's crackheaded by crackheaded genes? LOL no sir.
I haven't failed to think, you have failed to comprehend. I brought up Noahs ark because the idea that the creatures of earth spread out among the surface of the earth from one location in the middle east to reside in their current habitats(which apparently they were designed to live in) is ridiculous. Proven by the case of the kiwi, who evidently flew to new zealand then adapted to life on the ground
@mehico33 For you to assert that things evolved over time and spread out and gained new niches is just as stupid as you assert mine to be. Therefore you just self-destructed right before me, and i can only watch. God made them be able to live where ever he choose them to live. and it probably was only a concept of obedience, who knows, maybe God re-made original animals. But if you disagree, provide evidence of your claims, otherwise stop replying...
@chromeninjar3d Here comes the special pleading and false proclamations of victory. You have become the caricature of the crazy creationist. Yes he magically picked them up and put them all on their respective islands once the waters resided. Such pleading undermines the need and existence for/of any consistency in the universe/universal laws.
@mehico33 Did I say he did? Nope, Did I assert that I know exactly how the animals spread out? Nope. Are you here assuming that I know everything, to the point where you can ask questions and pretend that everything that i type will be the strong hand answer of christians? You most certainly are!.The only thing I admittingly do not fully understand is the spread of animals. But why don't you give proof of the kiwi bird flying down there and loosing its wings? I will wait :P
@chromeninjar3d I mentioned the kiwi because I happen to know creationism has no answer. Simply another nail in the coffin, theistic evolution is the only christian accounting that stands.
The argument was won over a century ago yet there are evidently still stragglers.
As regards your last silly comment, do you believe we live in The Matrix? Prove we don't, I await your answer. Proof is not realistic or necessary when evidence exists in abundance and when there is no opposing theory. CONT
@mehico33 Here you sound so nice and intelligent, yet you put me down on that pot board and call me a "troll" for speaking up against mind-altering drugs?? That is TERRIBLE! Nothing makes me madder than when someone puts me down and then I find out they are all nice and intelligent sounding elsehwere. If you're so nice and smart, then why don't you SUPPORT me in taking a stand against marijuana and alcohol?? You make it sound like I'm some kind of weirdo or something!! That is TERRIBLE!!!
@mehico33 Actually. "I HAVE NO ANSWER" - yet. Not "creationism". Remember, I am not Mr. Know it all, Therefore, taking my answer for the spread of animals and treating it as if I am the leader of the pack, is flawed. If you check the videos I debate on, you can see that i argue with a lot of atheists because each of them represent their side a bit differently - some more coherent and plausible. You should ask someone else about that, or wait until I find more information about spread of animals
@chromeninjar3d " Hi ...If there is a God then there is a hell a Satan.And so on No getting away from this point what so ever. So you are either going to heaven or going to hell this is what certainty of faith gets you ......YOU CAN KEEP IT, AND YOUR creationism too.
@mehico33 The ball was never in your courts in terms of "wining over a century ago". If you check on the videos, you see that Christians destroy atheists in almost every debate. More like 80% of them. Anyways, I take it you believe in the Big Bang? Therefore prove it because there is no substantial evidence. Do you believe in Evolution? Demonstrate it. Do you believe in abiogenesis, prove it without rambling unnecessarily with your flowered up paragraphs.
@chromeninjar3d CONT The major evidences for evolution are A) Similarities, family groupings B) Fossil evidence, most missing but not one out of place C) The observation of "microevolution"/adaptation during our lifetimes (also bacterial evolution) D) Vestigial organs E) Geographical dispensation.
Evidences for creation are A) Thus far unexplained complexities within cells B) "Information" in the genome C) Personal incredulity.
I think evolution is stronger, lets agree to disagree then.
@mehico33 Similarities? Not enough info. Fossils? Not enough info - not reliable. Microevolution? Don't you mean environmental replication or adaptive and patterned changes to accommodate with their niches? Are you asserting that Extremophiles were once regular pissed off bacteria? Where does emotions evolve from? Explain the capabilities of a thought. In step-by-step format, tell me "How to think"? Where do sexes originate? Why are there women? blacks? whites? etc..? Aren't we inferior? LOL!
@mehico33 In conclusion, It is indeed safer to agree to disagree. You cannot say i never warned you. But you have chosen a side that has no evidence as much as you claim mine lacks evidence. good night.
@chromeninjar3d I can answer some but not all of your questions because science is an ongoing journey and just because the answers aren't available now doesn't mean it wont be eventually.They are mapping the neuro-pathways now,There are theories that may or may not explain emotions you can think for your self.They know around the time sexes originated not how yet and skin take 100,000 years to change depending on the region and amount of sunlight that the people received.
@kosray1 I understand the "ongoing journey" thing you said. But knowledge is infinite, you simply can never know it all, meaning 300,000,000,000,000 years from now, man will not know it all. It is impossible to describe thoughts and "how to think" because those are abstract principles left only to the sight of the conscious/unconscious mind. They are not tangible, therefore their entirety will remain unknown. Surely they can explain the "why" and "how" but not the actual "thought"
@chromeninjar3d Science is a science it will take work to discover everything but just because something doesn't have a answer yet don't doubt it.We have only knew about galaxies,light speed,and some aspects of evolution for barley 100 years.So all i ask is research your questions with google and give it a chance.Science is truly the only way so far to describe the world and how it works until something better comes along or a similar variation of it.Gl
@kosray1 I have looked into these things. Searching them on google is old news, they simple lead you to website with outlooks stemmed off of the disbelief in God. I even know a positive agnostic guy who sais these things are equivalently ridiculous. I gave it a try, all christians gave it a try - we never got an answer, which is why I can probably predict that you will hear these questions in a debate sometimes later, or probably being discussed in some sort of tactic to disprove religion...
@chromeninjar3d Sorry, I shouldn't have resorted to name calling ("dunce") AGAIN lol, I just searched through like 40 pages of text for the names of the genetic mechanisms that alter change in phenotype (how external changes are manifested). Actually wikipedia has decent pages on Evolutionary Physiology and Phenotypic Plasticity, I couldn't dream of broaching the subjects here (I am a total layman)
All that can or has been passed down into any living organisms has to be directly attributed from the organisms that contains these trains itself. This is why humans can only reproduce and produce humans, why animals can only reproduce animals, evolution is altogether erroneous since copmlexity distribution is entirely dependent on the capacity of its distriutor. there will be no essential changes. Humans are physically the most inferior living things on this planet which is foolish to adapt to.
@HipHopWorldStar No, richard dawkins share the same lineage as monkeys, him and him alone. Let us look as far back as 1,000 BC, mankind has never changed, altered, or evolve so much as an extra tooth since then. Evolution is not a natural process, keep this in mind, it is an erroneous concept of adaptation over the years. It is simply a large-scale adaptation. but let us be wise, what animal would be so dumb to become so incapable of living in the wild as us by evolving into us? wise? no sir.
Every single thunder has a thunderer? The thunderer is lightning, the lightningers are positive and negatively charged particles.......... wanna try wind? the wind-ers are temperatures, the temperature-er is the sun or the center of the earth, or manmade heat. let us try earthquakes. earthquake-ers are plates, plate-er is the creater of plates. all of these lead back to God. You should have ran all the way with runaway metaphors instead of making atheists jokes. Good night.
@chromeninjar3d What is the god...erererer? Your ilk assert the existence of a super mind, one with a personality at that. And don't seem to think it has to be explained, so self satisfied, you have all the answers. As long as you pretend they make sense.
Deism is reasonable, perhaps there is some magical entity that intended all of this, but when you claim to know its name you fall right off. Also, you miss the point of the metaphor, lightning is not conscious/does not intend, isn't an "er"
@mehico33 senor, mira, there's endless questions God is the god'ererererer. We are the maifestations of such a divine god ( only by example ). Fact: there is no direct lineage or traceable claims of evolution even as far down to abiogenesis. And the cosmological studies are the manifestations of a hypothesized fantasy quantum land. I think these people play with the obvious. the big bang? try the initiation of creation "let there be light", like roman gods and other lames, it only parallels.
@mehico33 senor, mira, there's endless questions. God is the 'god-er'. We are the maifestations of such a divine god ( only by example ). Fact: there is no direct lineage or traceable claims of evolution even as far down to abiogenesis. And the cosmological studies are the manifestations of a hypothesized fantasy quantum land. I think these people play with the obvious. the big bang? try the initiation of creation "let there be light", like roman gods and other lames, it only parallels.
@mehico33 Also, in terms of your lightning conscious-subconscious intentions, lightning actually doesn't 'cause' thunder, thunders are the sound of lightning, earthquakes are the results of plate movements, wind is the result of of temperature, creation is the result of god's divine intentions. Let us try this. if i tell you i 'hate' you, can you disprove my 'hate' because you cannot put it in a bottle to scientifically test it's plausibility? in like manner, you cannot disprove the abstract.
@chromeninjar3d Evolution is a fact, as much as the fact that I am a human. Can I prove to you that I am human? Its a problem you'll have to solve on your own man, I don't have the time.
You make the same fallacy as ExiHyp, "the first cause is my personal god because it just is", I understand why. It would make an elegant explanation sure, but its no explanation at all, it has no explanatory power and in fact raises many more questions. We are safe to leave it alone until it has some substance.
@mehico33 Actually evolution is not a fact, error stands that first it was claims of being related to monkeys, now its earthworms... now they suggest cell communication to assume into the 'being' of an organ.. but you know what, you believe what you want, and it is indeed safer to leave it alone until it has some substance.
@mehico33 Smallest particls of human beings are laminins, not atoms.. and neither abiogenesis or the process of evolution can explain the diversion of races.. lol some monkeys stayed in africa, and some ran to the north?, also never was there an animal, or will there ever be an 'animal' that can think or 'rationalize', and these capabilities cannot be randomly imprinted in our genes; if this was possible, humans, over the long years we've been around, would have gained new capabilities.
@chromeninjar3d On a side note: "what animal would be so dumb as to become..."
Adaptation over evolutionary time is not intended by any individual creatures, its also not random chance. Perhaps happenstance in the big picture, but simply a process. You may want to look up newtonian law in addition to your study of biology.
If energy can be preserved it normally is (by consequence).
Our species has evolved something more efficient than physical strength, "higher" brain function (use it or lose it
@mehico33 hmm. i see a gap in your response. "evolutionary time is not intended by any individual creatures'' ?? what? lol, any adaptation or change by any animal is absolutely intended, and as a matter of fact, darwinism even goes against the possibility of any evolution, since only the most strapping or best suited always survives. if you are talking about climate changes, that is erroneous considering dinosaurs. No evolution has ever taken place, only minor adaptation.
A 'very complicated' long wall (of driftwood) that is 'complex' and 'cannot be denied'? Ha Ha Ha. I can't listen to this foolishness any longer .A fool says in his heart 'there is no god'.
24:30 what did he say there? "Evolution does it by chance?" Who the hell is the evolution and why does it anything? And where do those abilties to interact come from? who taught them to do that? This guy isnt reasonable his attempts to argue are just laughable. He contradicts himself every step of the way. 23:45 To carry out various functions, there is a complexity thats build in because they are trying to carry out fairly complex functions. Who the fuck are they? what PURPOSE do they have?
@ExiHyp You beg the question, evolution is a force/process. The same way combustion consumes fuel/oxygen and creates heat energy. "Who tells it to create heat? How does it know to consume oxygen?" You aren't reasonable and your attempts at logic are laughable, well they would be if they weren't so sad.
The thing with intention is that it must be intended, this requires consciousness. Processes are not conscious
Nothing is complicated EVERYTHING it's a pure conseguence of the base law of the universe:
action -> reaction
I put it in a simple way, the base of the universe is: 'That useful atom/particle can unite with me? Oh cool! let's do it! no wait... now there's a void here... another particle came, and between all of the suddounding are less intresting! let's head to unite with that one too!'
Nothing is random, random and "free will" it's only a enormously big math.
@TheIceThorn Complexity can be defined specifically, and things can have that property. If you want to advance a different definition that no object in the universe has, that's fine, but not particularly helpful. The ID people, however, never define their 'designness'... which is more what this talk is about.
@mcwhite001 complexity is a simple conseguence of semplicity combined with some more semplicity, no more and no less.
There's nothing 'designed' in the universe; in the nature there's NOTHING that's made with a single purpose. Even animal cells adapt when a human life begin. They start from a single cell that divides itself again and again and again then they specialize in what's needed to ensure the survival of the entire community of cells that we call 'body'.
@TheIceThorn shortening it: complexity is made from some simple things combined; design =/= complex cause it's create something with a purpose, a stone axe is designed but it's not something complex for example. Design do not needs or means complexity they're different things.
I'm always amazed that people like Myers are rarely given the recognition they deserve from the general public, or the Media, and morons like B.Spears, P.Hilton, and the great minutiae of celelbrities receive so much attention. AND, then it's the morons who criticize these great thinkers.
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.
drift wood is very bad example, ID proponents are talking about 'purposeful complexity' NOT any complicated things! when you see a purposeful complicated system you directly recognize the design, for example when you see a car engine, or this words in the beach "I love you" the same logic with the living things which are far more complicated!
« ID proponents are talking about 'purposeful complexity' »
Which is really begging the question. How do you establish whether something is "purposeful" or not? What objective quantification can there be for such a term? Likewise with "specified complexity": specified by whom, exactly? ID proponents are really good at this kind of circular argumentation.
@algadykhalifa The purpose of the driftwood example was to show that nature produces chaotic and random needlessly complex things, and that the hallmark of good design is simplicity, not complexity like the ID proponents claim.
Essentially, what is being put forth is a situation where a man cannot express an interest in a woman for fear of being branded a deviant. Sex, and by extension sexuality, are perfectly natural. From what I've read this guy just misread a situation and made a relatively non-threatening proposition, which the woman declined and everyone left the elevator unmolested - verbally or physically.
Is feminism about making females equal - a good thing - or giving them a privileged position?
A man showing interest - whether sexual or platonic - and politely inviting a woman to his room for a coffee is hardly rampant sexism.
If a woman asked me back to her room for coffee - again whether an implied invitation for sex or a mature conversation - I would, if disinterested, say 'no thank you' and that would be that. This is precisely what this woman apparently did.
On this blog the writer states 'Being alone in an elevator with a man late at night is uncomfortable' (cont)
This is essentially saying that women think all men are sexual predators, and are right to think so!
Now if the man had laid hands on the woman or made overtly sexual comments it would be assault, but he didn't. That's all Dawkins said.
Basically he is saying that men can't sexually objectify women, of course they shouldn't, but that women can - quite rightly, apparently - view all men as disgusting potential rapists. How is this fair, or equal?
Like working in ER trying to clean orifice of morbid obese woman, covered in huge fat rolls and maggots (literally) living underneath, when you do find the orifice it is covered in rotted filth and maggots. So soul of atheist is covered by huge inverted "fat rolls" of sin added to sin and compiled on sin and wickedness until their soul is rotted and obscured beneath a mountain of garbage and hate so even in hell their torment will be stretched over more nerves than an 'ordinary' sinner
@hobblehonker You obviously have serious personality issues and since I have learnt not to converse with the deranged I will not bother continuing this conversation.
@hobblehonker In Christianity, Pride is the original and most serious of the '7 deadly sins'. Wiki has this to say: "It is identified as a desire to be more important or attractive than others, failing to acknowledge the good work of others, and excessive love of self (especially holding self out of proper position toward God). Dante's definition was "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbour.""
If the bible is correct, you are heading straight downstairs after death.
The contentment of the simple childish answers which religion has created to explain the unkown deprives them of the resolve to learn about the beautiful naturalistic mechanisms beneath; what an object represents in terms of the harmony of science. It is the insatiably questioning mind which drives humanity forward - not the contentment in erroneous simple answers for the sake of comfort.
There was a lot wrong with the original version of SCOOBY DOO from 1969-- But one thing right with it was THE MONSTERS WERE NEVER REAL. Unfortunately, the characters on the show never learned that lesson, but more children's shows with a skeptical slant could help a lot in education.
100% of peer-reviewed papers in Iran are pro-Muslim. Does that make Islam true? LOL. You evolutionists and your little white-tower schools are a joke. Wake-up to what is really going on and repent while there is yet time. Don't be such spineless cowards in the war between God and Satan. Start thinking for yourselves for a change and stand like men!
@thechessstick Really? Point me in direction of one peer reviewed scientific journal from Iran that has an overt pro-Muslim bias. Scientific output grew 11 times faster in Iran than in the rest of the world in 2010, so this should be easy for you.
@Md2802 Again you miss the point. I will try to simplify it. These people are biased just like the evolutionists and uniformitarianists who rule academia are biased. Cheers...
@jimthebaptist67 Faith does not require evidence. Science does require evidence. There is no faith needed to accept the actuality of nature and the cosmos. Get your terms construed correctly before trying to make any claim whatsoever. Go on and keep believing in your 3400 year old scripture written by self proclaimed prophets during the bronze age who combined Pagan Gods to invent a new God of their own and then have that God go on to be changed again by more authors to become known as Yahweh.
Where is you “evidence” that something came from something its not.
I mean real evidence. Not artistic drawings with lots of imagination. Not a pile of bones you assume is related. Not homology that proves a common Designer.
@jimthebaptist67 You're an idiot that knows nothing about quantum mechanics. I suggest taking a high school physics course and referring "A Universe From Nothing" by Laurence Krauss lectures before talking about non-sense. He explains that a universe with 0 total energy spontaneously creates when certain conditions are met. While you're at it study biology, morphology, and read up on evolution and abiogenesis. I'll refer you to "Why Evolution Is True" lecture by Jerry Coyne as a start.
All the books and websites you want. But science is all about what you can see, test and observe. Please, I beg you, show me the evidence that something can come from nothing.
@jimthebaptist67 Watch "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss from this same meeting. On my computer it is the fourth video down on this page. The physics required is probably above your level, I know it is above mine. But the speaker does a good job explaining it for the layman.
Respond to this video... In less than 500 characters? You have got to be kidding. To understand you need to take some physics classes, and pass. What is neat about physics is that it is based on repeatable experimentation. If the results of an experiment are not repeatable then the experiment was probably bogus the first time around. That keeps fools from claiming a miracle happened.
@jimthebaptist67 Of course I can't. Not in only 500 words. But I did point you where to go to get your answer. It seems that you would rather wallow in your ignorance. Some people are too foolish to learn even when given a chance. You seem to be one of these.
@jimthebaptist67 You keep demonstrating to me how ignorant you are of cosmology. If you'd vaguely study it you'd know that the total energy of the universe is zero. What we know about quantum mechanics tells us that spontaneous creation is a common place and does not require supernatural divine intervention. Seriously, watch a lecture and you won't ask such redundant questions. All these debates boil down to me educating other people and it's nauseating. I could care less about your feelings lol
@jimthebaptist67 Hovind is an idiot of the order. The only people he can impress are those who have no education in science at all. His debate tactic is to spout a bunch of lies that would take hours to correct. It is relatively easy to lie and make up stories, it takes his opponent too much of his time to debunk all of his claims.
Hovind would never participate in a fair debate where an independent judge would require support of some sort for all of his claims.
@jimthebaptist67 It is obvious that you do not know what the truth is. In debates if you are shown to be wrong and then repeat the same claim in a later debate that is a lie. Or I suppose I could be kinder. Either Hovind is a liar or one of the world's biggest idiots. Since he does not think that the rules he claims were written by his invisible sky father (render unto Caesar that which is Caesar"s) I guess we can go with the idiot claim.
Since you won't believe in intelligent design until you see our designer. You can see pictures of this designer in my latest (provisional) youtube. You will not be able to refute the logic that the designer possesses intelligence and I think you will have to concede that this spirit is indeed the designer. I don't think I mention the word "complexity" even once ;o)
MsPerduta 5 days ago
@MsPerduta On another AAI vid you said youre not a christian, I took this to mean you are not religious oops, why try to hide youre dirty bible basher? I say this because religion has killed billions.
s4ur0n420 1 day ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet
@s4ur0n420
I can't understand the Bible it makes no sense to me. It does not mean I don't believe in a divine creator and it doesn't mean I bash bibles... BTW "bashing bibles" does that mean criticising or endorsing?
MsPerduta 1 day ago
lol! For some reason these lectures tend to be really funny! Who knew! :P
bowser5295 1 week ago
When someone can demonstrate to me how chance better accounts for objects/systems that exhibit profound order than design, I'll gladly reconsider my position.
PZ Meyers certainly won't be able to do it. He shoots himself in the foot at 12:45. The brick wall is exceedingly more organized than the disorganized wall of driftwood. Is life and the Universe more like the driftwood or the brick wall. Any student of science would say the later.
This the most self defeating lectures ever.
revo1974 3 weeks ago in playlist AAI 2009 Conference
@revo1974 i think one way to think of biological systems, and the chance vs design argument, is rather than focus on evidence for chance, is evidence against design. Most biological systems exhibit such poor operation, that design is infeasible as an explanation; these include the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the eye, vestigial organs and human birthing amongst other systems that are needlessly complex and/or energy wasting. A thoughtful designer, in this case, would have flunked.
keamy123 3 weeks ago
@keamy123
I am not religious and the idea of an omnipotent god that actively intervenes within the Universe designing things is as absurd to me as the most staunch atheist. With that said I believe a deistic creator(s)/creative force is a better explanation than a series of random events for the nature of our Universe.
Stars, planets, moons, elements, etc., are all a result of necessity. They are an inevitable consequence of the governing dynamics of our Universe. I believe we will....
revo1974 3 weeks ago
@keamy123
...confirm life is too. Check out these articles:
physicsforme(dot)wordpress(dot)com/2011/07/12/the-dna-code-is-life-written-into-the-laws-of-physics/
dsc.discovery(dot)com/space/im/origin-life-solar-system.html
ww w(dot)americanscientist(dot)org/issues/feature/2009/3/the-origin-of-life/1
How does molecular hardware get to write its own software, which is more complex than any that man has devised? Chance is a very poor explanation for this and its even a worse....
revo1974 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
keamy123 3 weeks ago
@keamy123
....explanation for the limited set of elegant, rational, mathematically precise governing laws, which through a great cosmic cycle transforms gas and dust into solar systems with planets that harbor living organism, some that are capable of building ships capable of taking them to other moons and planets.
revo1974 3 weeks ago
@revo1974 (1) I think you will find that your philosophical standpoint is deism, rather than atheism, and I thought I should make that distinction. An atheist considers supernatural events to be irrational, which includes actions of an intelligent creator at any time. The appearance of the presence of “optimal” conditions and a creator of them, is an entirely human construct. It is logically built around the false notion that in the absence of evidence for a phenomenon, a supernatural
keamy123 3 weeks ago
@keamy123
I know what philosophical standpoint I favor and I know what it means to be an atheist. You're confused about a few things so let me help you better understand.
A God of the gaps argument is created when someone uses a gap in scientific knowledge as evidence for the existence of god. I and other deists infer design based on what we do know, not what we do not. Knowledge with the aid of reasoning allows us to reach conclusion about what may be. ......
revo1974 3 weeks ago
@keamy123
...Many of the worlds greatest free thinkers were deists of one sort or another, some include: Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Locke, Kant, Hume, Voltaire, Leibniz, Spinoza, Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, Planck, Einstein, Flew, Penrose, Davies and Kaku.
The word deism derives from the Latin word deus, which means god, however, deism is not necessarily the belief in a god or a supernatural entity, but only a creator(s), designer(s), grand architect, force, or any other suitable label. ...
revo1974 3 weeks ago
@keamy123
...The basis for deism is the limited set of logical, elegant, mathematically precise laws that govern the Universe. Why not utter chaos? Why not a haphazard jumble of unrelated phenomena? Considering their nature we believe that a probable (not certain) unknown, undefined, non-personal creative force somehow played a role in their development.
Most physicists and cosmologists don't share Vic Stenger's views. In-fact, according to Paul Davies and Steven Weinberg there....
revo1974 3 weeks ago
@keamy123
...is a consensus amongst physicists and cosmologists that the Universe in many respects is fine-tuned.
There is evidence emerging that suggests that life is not a freak accident, but instead an inevitable consequence of the governing dynamics of our Universe. Just as stars, planets, moons, elements and everything else we see in the Universe is a result of necessity, so too is life. Check out the following articles:
........
revo1974 3 weeks ago
@keamy123
.... ww w(dot)riseearth(dot)com/2011/07/dna-code-is-life-written-into-laws-of.html
ww w(dot)physorg(dot)com/news148050302.html
dsc.discovery(dot)com/space/im/origin-life-solar-system.html
ww w(dot)americanscientist(dot)org/issues/feature/2009/3/the-origin-of-life/
If this hypothesis is confirmed and elevated to scientific theory then atheists are going to have to reevaluate their position. ....
revo1974 3 weeks ago
@keamy123
...Perhaps a multiverse does exist and all the universes within it have laws that make sentient life in one shape or form necessary too. Don't we mass produce things like cars, computers, televisions, telescopes, paintings, etc.? Why design one universe when you can design many?
revo1974 3 weeks ago
@revo1974 (2) creative force is necessary, known as “God of the gaps”. The only reason this notion is propagated is that verifiable scientific evidence has not yet been provided, hence the “gap”.I find the many new theories surrounding multi-verse exciting, as it makes the assertion that many universes are created and destroyed, all with different cosmological constants. A consequence of this is that natural selection may only allow stable universes to exist, whilst unstable ones are..
keamy123 3 weeks ago
@revo1974 (3) ..fleeting. We exist in a stable, and in one case, habitable universe, and to quote Victor Stenger, “The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe”. The fact is, we don’t know how these things occurred but that’s not a reason to attribute it to a creator. It seems to me that this point of view is “Hmm..we don’t know how that happened, let’s assume it was created for now”.I will think more about the origin of life, and get back to you.
keamy123 3 weeks ago
@revo1974 If you can account for such poor designing by an omnipotent god then I would be glad to hear your arguments. In my opinion, if designed, then the grand designer would have to be prolifically incompetent at almost every level, especially for humans. I do think that PZ suffers a bit here, as he is also guilty of using an overextended metaphor, rather than relational evidence. If you wish for my discussions FOR chance, then let me know.
keamy123 3 weeks ago
PZ Meyers is philosophically bankrupt. There is a distinction to be made between organized complexity and disorganized complexity.
Life is designed fool! It's designed by genetic code. DNA contains digital information, which provide assembly instructions for DESIGNING living organisms.
Complexity = bad argument for anything.
Order = good argument fro design
The Universe exhibits profound order, harmony and regularity, all attributes better explained by design than chance.
revo1974 3 weeks ago in playlist AAI 2009 Conference
@revo1974 i would like to tackle your comments on DNA and genetics, as I am a currently a PhD student on the topic.Yes, DNA is a digital code, and at its most basic is a beautiful example of prolific organisation/order. But, it is not proof of designed organisation. Again, I call on the inconsistencies of the genetic code as a whole to prove my point. One third of the human genetic code is repetitive baggage from ~2b years of evolution, and only 3% of it is used to "make" an organism.
keamy123 3 weeks ago
@revo1974 The logical conclusion here is that the genetic code is a marvellous example of order, but as a system for the transmission and as a blue-print for life it is energetically wasteful, and contains high amounts of spurious junk, that is a burden for the cell to carry as it serves no purpose. In a way, it is akin to a builder gold-plating all the steel used to construct a building.
keamy123 3 weeks ago
@revo1974 evolution, and what you call "chance", has marvellously explained why the junk DNA is there, retroviruses (including HIV) insert their DNA code into your DNA code, and hijack it. This is faithfully passed on from cell to cell. These bits of viral DNA retain the ability to replicate and jump around, inserting themselves repetitively into the remaining DNA. Over a VERY long time, they have become the major element in the genetic code.
keamy123 3 weeks ago
@revo1974 But...I digress to a very simple form of life without such baggage, such as one of the first living things on the planet. I would contend that DNA is the living thing here, as it only has to produce a "body" to transmit itself. Evolution and natural selection did the rest. Nevertheless, DNA only appears to be designed, with extra knowledge it quickly become clear that if so, it was very poorly designed, and is better explained a result of chance.
keamy123 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i'm really disappointed by the superficial argument made by this gus, a thunderer ? really ?
Sam10947 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
0:50 to 2:50, argument by incredulity. if u can't dismiss or address the complexity, then u don't go with the insignificant red herrings
Sam10947 4 weeks ago
ROTFLMAO
Design vs inevitability you mean.
TheMrgoku1985 1 month ago
God is a cunt and so is Jesus.
martyaus2905 1 month ago
I dont understand why atheists respond with such rude attitudes. apparently they are the ones who need Jesus the most, but horridly, they refuse to accept him, instead they make assertions as if they have the capacity to conceive God entirely to disprove him. Toodles...
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
had the preservation of our lives been left up to darwinism in terms of us having animal given brains and/or are directly created from common ancestors of monkeys still within the 'animalia' understanding, and since i've proved 'gaining ability to think' is impossible from 'nonthinkers' we would be extinct. Atheism or simple Prideful knowledge, push these people to make erroneous claims of our creation or the creation of the universe. If you actually dissect their principls you will have a laugh
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d You haven't proven anything you ridiculous buffoon. You don't even understand what it is you're attacking, no creature consciously decides to adapt, they just do it. We are not subject to natural selection pressures anymore, we evolved something better that strength thus that energy can be spent in other areas.
Do you really not understand migration either? You can stay put and compete or just go over there and run shit, simple.
mehico33 1 month ago
@mehico33 Woah woah woah, why are you getting offended? I thought i was simply having a discussion, and now you blow up with such rash assertions? Animals indeed consciously adapt to something. IT is because of the unsuited lifestyles these animals live, which pushes them to adapt or migrate, however, you are asserting that the environment changes the animal... no sir, the animal changes in order to better himself with the environment, but since that's erroneous, darwinsim still stands.
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d By the way, laminins are formed in chains, therefore their components are smaller than they are (lets be real here, they will probably find something even smaller when our instruments get better) so they are not the smallest particles. Ill bet you think its a holy cross right? You make so much raw assertion that you are incapable of backing up.
Humans are zoologically classified amongst the primates and rightfully so.
mehico33 1 month ago
@mehico33 I said nothing about the holy cross, and obviously they will dissect and dissect until they find smaller particles, however, no man will ever find the smallest particle, it is infinitely factually impossible, therefore nature is a concept of inconceivable infinity, and your assertion that on at atomic level we are all the same, is dubbed incorrect by that. As for monkey-human similarity, there are no direct traits, therefore that classification is apparently foolish.
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d As for brain evolution you'd be better off reading a few papers but ill try to give you the layman's understanding (as you seem to lack even that).
The brain of any mammal primarily orchestrates complex movement, but it also is the hub of all perceptive faculties, thus it rationalizes its surroundings. One instance of this is vision, the eyes capture the light that reflects off of surfaces and the brain compiles it into workable information allowing depth judgements etc
mehico33 1 month ago
@mehico33 such capabilities of the animals are only basically essential. It does not rationalize it's surroundings, it simply associates or familiarize itself with it which develops into its niche. No animal can 'rationalize' anything, they just live off of instinct. to rationalize it is to be mentally omnipresent on the environment as a whole, rather than turfing. You are confusing animals with humans. and i do not think it's necessary to be so vile...
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d In fact your claim that animals do not "rationalize" or "think" is more absurd than I first thought, look up an african hunting dog chase and behold the tactical forward thinking they display, look at the way elephants recognize and mourn over the remains of their ancient dead, they even have communal grave sites. These creatures clearly have intelligence, obviously not in the same league as our own but obviously more than simple nervous firings.
mehico33 1 month ago
@mehico33 If you are surfacing an animal's ability to approach with stealth or as a pack to be evidence of rationalizing, that's a bad example. Let us look at a lion, they see a pack of Wildebeasts and chases after one only, often times, lions get killed by wildebeasts they weren't aware of, therefore, because of their foolish instincts, they were not able, like humans, to depict the total effects possible from their wild little episode. Had the lion done some rationalizing, it wouldn't get hurt
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d You think I've been rude? Maybe christ camp is making you soft (that was rude). You play semantics, "the environment doesn't change the animal, the animal changes to suit the environment", There is no difference.
"It is infinitely factually impossible" More assertion, completely unfounded, it is illogical that biological components exist in an infinite number at all, let alone in infinite sizes. We are related to monkeys but are in fact apes (no tail), another mistake of yours.
mehico33 1 month ago
@mehico33 If i came to your house and greeted you all by saying ''hey you dumb baffoons'' you would either think i have a comical audacity, or just plain disrespectful, so yes, you were being rude.. also when you said 'there is no difference'' actually, there is. I can consciously decide to put on a jacket, it is not the cold weather that puts the jacket on for me... What is the smallest particle? then what makes that up? you understand the concept? We are not apes, that is only an assertion.
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d Matter is made of molecules which are made of atoms (your earlier point about laminins was so stupid), therefore we (being comprised of atoms) are related on an atomic level to all matter. The fact that atoms have smaller components of their own has no bearing on this fact.
You're now struggling to understand rationalization, to rationalise is to make sound from noise. Perhaps you are using it in a limited sense. In fact animals do make judgement calls based on information e.g...
mehico33 1 month ago
@mehico33 You think rationalizing and familiarizing is the same thing? a yelp is by nature a noise, which is why animals instinctly react to distress calls. We may be related to all matter, yet we have life, you cannot define life, neither can you create life from non-living things. life was given by that which has life, or else new species or creatures would be created as we speak.. Why would reproduction even exists if mother nature is responsible for life creation? Think widely please.
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d Hunting dogs will send an ambush party to set a trap further up the road, anticipating the reactions of their prey when the hunt begins. Will assess their options, will look for weaknesses, will not attack a large animal when easier prey is available.
A monkey is capable of learning tricks, recognizing that reward will follow.
Information is taken on board, they are not simply floating on a wave of frequencies. You lose.
mehico33 1 month ago
@mehico33 an ambush party? Animals naturally fear that which is bigger than them, and also have a natural manipulating instinct for that which are smaller or relatively small. You never catch a pack of lions chasing a mother elephant when the baby elephant is around, because of this instinct; however, when no food is around, they will indeed kill the big one, not by rationalizing, but by instinct. learning tricks is the acknowledgment of patterns, therefore your argument is still naked..
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@mehico33 If I even follow your logic, Darwinism would be a lie. Survival of the fittest states that animals that cannot adapt, die out, therefore they do not 'evolve' to fit the environment, they just die out, which is why only the fittest survive, or that which can migrate. Speaking of which, do you know why birds migrate? because they cannot take the cold, and they know they will never 'adapt' or 'evolve' into something that CAN indeed take the cold. Your argument is pure sophistry.
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d You bring up beginning of life, nobody has that information and even so it would be irrelevant.
The birds(self defeating argument) you mention have already adapted, they can find new climates, they don't need blubber or fur as it would be detrimental to their lifestyle.
Ape is in fact a classification, one that we fit into, your egotism is shining through now.
If I say something stupid then call me stupid, as I did you, I won't cry about it.
mehico33 4 weeks ago
@mehico33 Nobody has that information? Lol yet your own science pals formulate lies to suit their atheistic ego..- life from nonlife -? ridiculous much... well anyways, The birds DO NOT adapt, they simply LIVE or RESIDE in an envrionment that SUITS THEIR CHARACTERISTICS - this is why they migrate, don't assume rubbish. Only birds with blubber and such, are penguins; why? because they are SUITED FOR THAT ENVIRONMENT and need not to 'run away'.... simple as that.. eh? -_-
chromeninjar3d 3 weeks ago
@chromeninjar3d
Indeed.
We can also see that people are created because of how our hands are clearly perfectly designed to fit into our gloves.
UbiquitousChe 3 weeks ago
@chromeninjar3d You accuse sophistry at every chance however unjustly and yet you fail to produce a single cohesive argument of your own. So our main disagreement is "instinct vs rationality", reason (the active ingredient in rationality)is a versatile word, it cannot be denied that reason is observed in animals e.g. a monkey solving a puzzle. You mention that lions will take the baby elephant if it is available, this IS RATIONAL, they consciously assess potential prey and take the easiest
mehico33 4 weeks ago
@mehico33 a cohesive argument? by that you mean, one that suits your paradigm? sure, no cohesive arguments from me then... however is it rational to pick the easier prey? sure, yes. However that is 'conscious rationality', done by us. Convenient rationality is rationality by nature (within the quick&eat retrospect). A cat would kill a bigger lizard by choice; does that debunk your 'size rationale'? Animals DO NOT wisely rationalize like you and I, they instinctively follow natural convenience
chromeninjar3d 3 weeks ago
@chromeninjar3d And the "sciencephobe" reveals himself.
A cat will not actively hunt prey it doesn't believe it can handle and it makes this calculation. You have nothing, semantics at best "natural convenience"? lol, there is no distinction, we rationalize on the info at hand as does a lion.
You are the one pulling baseless assumption out of your ass and i am the idiot attempting to reason with the brick wall of wish thinking. Live in your delusion, whatever gets you to sleep at night.
mehico33 2 weeks ago
@mehico33 "It makes this calculation"? Well that's stupid... Snakes hunt things that are way taller than them.... If your sleeping in the forest and an ant passes you, it will indeed bite you, even when you get up and try to leave the area, he will latch on, hoping to get you to his condo :D ... Natural convenience is what is an easy kill-&-eat target -_-. I am not pulling anything, you didnt even prove evolution or abiogenesis, you branch off with your unnecessary insults to gain spotlight..
chromeninjar3d 2 weeks ago
@chromeninjar3d I didn't prove abiogenesis? No shit sherlock, I didn't realise I claimed to be a prize winning scientist. Ants are observed giving their lives for their colony as they are of a hive mind mentality, its not predatory instinct but a defense mechanism, similarly a bee will sacrifice itself via stinging to chase off predators.
A dog will obey its master due to its having learned that reward follows obedience and that punishment follows disobedience. Your ideas are utterly untenable
mehico33 2 weeks ago
@mehico33 "No sh** sherlock" Then in like manner, you don't know what you're defending...? If there isn't a God, that means Abiogenesis would be left to be the only thing possible. Therefore you are defending something uncertain and unsupported, meaning your only running an endless race where you have no substantial claims of 'life without a God'. The memory of a dog, is essentially a memory of patterns. I don't recall rationalizing whether i should touch fire, given that i remember it burns..
chromeninjar3d 2 weeks ago
@chromeninjar3d Abiogenesis is just a theory, you are asserting that it is the only possibility besides magic theory, based on what?
Im not defending it, I'm saying I won't claim to be able to prove it you dunce.
You don't recall rationalizing? How ridiculous, its a simple problem, an analogy: I don't recall knowing 1+1=2, I just recognize 2 objects when I see them by "natural convenience". This is obviously a stupid statement, your mind makes the calculation quickly thus you don't realize it.
mehico33 2 weeks ago
@mehico33 lol! 1+1=1+1, (1+1), it is what we call a pair. The quantity/ numerical value of this pair has been given a name which is '2' meaning, a couple. 2+2=2+2=1+1+1+1 meaning "2 pairs, 2x(1+1)meaning "2x2" is what we call a quartet, named 4. Therefore your 1+1=2 only demonstrates that such a thing is a given, not a rationality -_-. If i give a stupid boy 1 banana plus another banana, i will have to teach him that since he has 1 in his hand, and 1 in the other, it is 2. PATTERNS!
chromeninjar3d 2 weeks ago
@mehico33 You dont recognize quantities by 'natural convenience', that is a stupid thing to assert from my statement. -_-. Claiming that it isn't proved or that you cannot prove it, means that there isn't a proof for it, meaning you are defending something evidently baseless. Sorry, but you just hurt yourself. Calling me dunce? Lol but look at your response? I feel sorry for you :/
chromeninjar3d 2 weeks ago
@chromeninjar3d I just apologized for that (apparently I should not have).
Here you are asserting that because I (a confessed layman) can't prove something or that because as of yet it hasn't been, therefore it cannot be. The reasoning of a true dunce.
Analogy, not example. The point (which you missed entirely) is that your mind makes the connection immediately as the problem is as trivial as can be. Admittedly a stupid analogy but no more stupid than "not to touch fire"
mehico33 2 weeks ago
@mehico33 Sorry, I replied before i saw your apology... there is no "as of yet", because from the big bang, we clearly can say everything is nonliving, making it obvious that life (which is evident today) came from nonlife, and that is essentially the root of abiogenesis. Therefore there is no deeper root. sorry, but its dead pal.. but anyways as for the question "do you think we are superior to animals?" you haven't answered it yet. Oh and Don't touch fire..I remember, it burns!. lol -_-
chromeninjar3d 2 weeks ago
@chromeninjar3d Penguins are exploiting a niche, similarly kiwis relinquished their wings as a perfectly good living was to be made on the ground. Simple "use it or lose it" principal.
You creationists love to pick on the opposition but lets explore your hypothesis, are you christian? If so do you also believe in noahs ark? How does magic theory address geographical dispensation? Ive always wondered.
mehico33 2 weeks ago
@mehico33 wales have an unnecessary hipbone..... did they get rid of it? negative!. If i decide to not use my fingers, will they drop off? and if they drop off, will my sons & daughters come out fingerless because daddy didn't need 'em? Yes I believe in Noah's Ark - but how is a flood so dramatic to the point where you need to use it as a weapon? It is a flood and essentially that. Then came common reproduction, and then came the re-population...what is your point?
chromeninjar3d 2 weeks ago
@chromeninjar3d My point is that to believe in the tale of noahs ark is to believe that the waters once covered all of the earths surfaces for 40 days and nights thus killing all life forms that could not fly or swim, how do you propose the kiwi (my favorite example, being a NZer) marched from Mt Arafat to an isolated land mass in the pacific ocean within the last 10 thousand years.
In fact vestigial organs are evidence for evolution but ill humor you ...CONT
mehico33 2 weeks ago
@mehico33 No offense, but you have failed to think.. do you really believe Noah went in the ark with absolutely nothing to eat? Lol wherever the guy ended up, that is where he planted all that he planted with the food that he already had. -_-. Apes do not have tails, but given the fact that we have tailbones, isn't that a kick in the butt? Also, do you believe we are superior to animals? I will await your answer. answer wisely.
chromeninjar3d 2 weeks ago
@chromeninjar3d CONT... stop using a muscle and it will rapidly deteriorate, noticeable over short periods (e.g.. rehabilitation of astronauts after return from space), imagine the compound effect over several generations. I trust you don't also dispute heredity. Troglobites have lost their sight and even the pigments in their skin.
mehico33 2 weeks ago
@mehico33 Cont.. If a muscle rapidly deteriorate, does that mean it is now an imprint in your genes? Lol! please stop typing. If i stopp using my legs altogether, and i have human children, it is in their human dna to have legs and muscles and then decide to use it or not. Whatever your orignal physcality is, that is the trend that will repeat. Also can a habbit become a genetic imprint? Crack head mother having crack head daughter who's crackheaded by crackheaded genes? LOL no sir.
chromeninjar3d 2 weeks ago
I haven't failed to think, you have failed to comprehend. I brought up Noahs ark because the idea that the creatures of earth spread out among the surface of the earth from one location in the middle east to reside in their current habitats(which apparently they were designed to live in) is ridiculous. Proven by the case of the kiwi, who evidently flew to new zealand then adapted to life on the ground
mehico33 2 weeks ago
@mehico33 For you to assert that things evolved over time and spread out and gained new niches is just as stupid as you assert mine to be. Therefore you just self-destructed right before me, and i can only watch. God made them be able to live where ever he choose them to live. and it probably was only a concept of obedience, who knows, maybe God re-made original animals. But if you disagree, provide evidence of your claims, otherwise stop replying...
chromeninjar3d 2 weeks ago
@chromeninjar3d Here comes the special pleading and false proclamations of victory. You have become the caricature of the crazy creationist. Yes he magically picked them up and put them all on their respective islands once the waters resided. Such pleading undermines the need and existence for/of any consistency in the universe/universal laws.
mehico33 2 weeks ago
@mehico33 Did I say he did? Nope, Did I assert that I know exactly how the animals spread out? Nope. Are you here assuming that I know everything, to the point where you can ask questions and pretend that everything that i type will be the strong hand answer of christians? You most certainly are!.The only thing I admittingly do not fully understand is the spread of animals. But why don't you give proof of the kiwi bird flying down there and loosing its wings? I will wait :P
chromeninjar3d 2 weeks ago
@chromeninjar3d I mentioned the kiwi because I happen to know creationism has no answer. Simply another nail in the coffin, theistic evolution is the only christian accounting that stands.
The argument was won over a century ago yet there are evidently still stragglers.
As regards your last silly comment, do you believe we live in The Matrix? Prove we don't, I await your answer. Proof is not realistic or necessary when evidence exists in abundance and when there is no opposing theory. CONT
mehico33 2 weeks ago
@mehico33 Here you sound so nice and intelligent, yet you put me down on that pot board and call me a "troll" for speaking up against mind-altering drugs?? That is TERRIBLE! Nothing makes me madder than when someone puts me down and then I find out they are all nice and intelligent sounding elsehwere. If you're so nice and smart, then why don't you SUPPORT me in taking a stand against marijuana and alcohol?? You make it sound like I'm some kind of weirdo or something!! That is TERRIBLE!!!
cindybin2001 2 weeks ago
@mehico33 Actually. "I HAVE NO ANSWER" - yet. Not "creationism". Remember, I am not Mr. Know it all, Therefore, taking my answer for the spread of animals and treating it as if I am the leader of the pack, is flawed. If you check the videos I debate on, you can see that i argue with a lot of atheists because each of them represent their side a bit differently - some more coherent and plausible. You should ask someone else about that, or wait until I find more information about spread of animals
chromeninjar3d 2 weeks ago
@chromeninjar3d " Hi ...If there is a God then there is a hell a Satan.And so on No getting away from this point what so ever. So you are either going to heaven or going to hell this is what certainty of faith gets you ......YOU CAN KEEP IT, AND YOUR creationism too.
dereksewkumar07 1 day ago in playlist AAI 2009 Conference
@mehico33 The ball was never in your courts in terms of "wining over a century ago". If you check on the videos, you see that Christians destroy atheists in almost every debate. More like 80% of them. Anyways, I take it you believe in the Big Bang? Therefore prove it because there is no substantial evidence. Do you believe in Evolution? Demonstrate it. Do you believe in abiogenesis, prove it without rambling unnecessarily with your flowered up paragraphs.
chromeninjar3d 2 weeks ago
@chromeninjar3d CONT The major evidences for evolution are A) Similarities, family groupings B) Fossil evidence, most missing but not one out of place C) The observation of "microevolution"/adaptation during our lifetimes (also bacterial evolution) D) Vestigial organs E) Geographical dispensation.
Evidences for creation are A) Thus far unexplained complexities within cells B) "Information" in the genome C) Personal incredulity.
I think evolution is stronger, lets agree to disagree then.
mehico33 2 weeks ago
@mehico33 Similarities? Not enough info. Fossils? Not enough info - not reliable. Microevolution? Don't you mean environmental replication or adaptive and patterned changes to accommodate with their niches? Are you asserting that Extremophiles were once regular pissed off bacteria? Where does emotions evolve from? Explain the capabilities of a thought. In step-by-step format, tell me "How to think"? Where do sexes originate? Why are there women? blacks? whites? etc..? Aren't we inferior? LOL!
chromeninjar3d 2 weeks ago
@mehico33 In conclusion, It is indeed safer to agree to disagree. You cannot say i never warned you. But you have chosen a side that has no evidence as much as you claim mine lacks evidence. good night.
chromeninjar3d 2 weeks ago
@chromeninjar3d I can answer some but not all of your questions because science is an ongoing journey and just because the answers aren't available now doesn't mean it wont be eventually.They are mapping the neuro-pathways now,There are theories that may or may not explain emotions you can think for your self.They know around the time sexes originated not how yet and skin take 100,000 years to change depending on the region and amount of sunlight that the people received.
kosray1 2 weeks ago
@kosray1 I understand the "ongoing journey" thing you said. But knowledge is infinite, you simply can never know it all, meaning 300,000,000,000,000 years from now, man will not know it all. It is impossible to describe thoughts and "how to think" because those are abstract principles left only to the sight of the conscious/unconscious mind. They are not tangible, therefore their entirety will remain unknown. Surely they can explain the "why" and "how" but not the actual "thought"
chromeninjar3d 2 weeks ago
@chromeninjar3d Science is a science it will take work to discover everything but just because something doesn't have a answer yet don't doubt it.We have only knew about galaxies,light speed,and some aspects of evolution for barley 100 years.So all i ask is research your questions with google and give it a chance.Science is truly the only way so far to describe the world and how it works until something better comes along or a similar variation of it.Gl
kosray1 2 weeks ago
@kosray1 I have looked into these things. Searching them on google is old news, they simple lead you to website with outlooks stemmed off of the disbelief in God. I even know a positive agnostic guy who sais these things are equivalently ridiculous. I gave it a try, all christians gave it a try - we never got an answer, which is why I can probably predict that you will hear these questions in a debate sometimes later, or probably being discussed in some sort of tactic to disprove religion...
chromeninjar3d 2 weeks ago
@chromeninjar3d Sorry, I shouldn't have resorted to name calling ("dunce") AGAIN lol, I just searched through like 40 pages of text for the names of the genetic mechanisms that alter change in phenotype (how external changes are manifested). Actually wikipedia has decent pages on Evolutionary Physiology and Phenotypic Plasticity, I couldn't dream of broaching the subjects here (I am a total layman)
mehico33 2 weeks ago
All that can or has been passed down into any living organisms has to be directly attributed from the organisms that contains these trains itself. This is why humans can only reproduce and produce humans, why animals can only reproduce animals, evolution is altogether erroneous since copmlexity distribution is entirely dependent on the capacity of its distriutor. there will be no essential changes. Humans are physically the most inferior living things on this planet which is foolish to adapt to.
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
We actually did not come from monkeys. Monkeys are modern animals. We do, however, share the same ancestors as monkeys.
#richarddawkins
HipHopWorldStar 1 month ago
@HipHopWorldStar No, richard dawkins share the same lineage as monkeys, him and him alone. Let us look as far back as 1,000 BC, mankind has never changed, altered, or evolve so much as an extra tooth since then. Evolution is not a natural process, keep this in mind, it is an erroneous concept of adaptation over the years. It is simply a large-scale adaptation. but let us be wise, what animal would be so dumb to become so incapable of living in the wild as us by evolving into us? wise? no sir.
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
Every single thunder has a thunderer? The thunderer is lightning, the lightningers are positive and negatively charged particles.......... wanna try wind? the wind-ers are temperatures, the temperature-er is the sun or the center of the earth, or manmade heat. let us try earthquakes. earthquake-ers are plates, plate-er is the creater of plates. all of these lead back to God. You should have ran all the way with runaway metaphors instead of making atheists jokes. Good night.
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d What is the god...erererer? Your ilk assert the existence of a super mind, one with a personality at that. And don't seem to think it has to be explained, so self satisfied, you have all the answers. As long as you pretend they make sense.
Deism is reasonable, perhaps there is some magical entity that intended all of this, but when you claim to know its name you fall right off. Also, you miss the point of the metaphor, lightning is not conscious/does not intend, isn't an "er"
mehico33 1 month ago
@mehico33 senor, mira, there's endless questions God is the god'ererererer. We are the maifestations of such a divine god ( only by example ). Fact: there is no direct lineage or traceable claims of evolution even as far down to abiogenesis. And the cosmological studies are the manifestations of a hypothesized fantasy quantum land. I think these people play with the obvious. the big bang? try the initiation of creation "let there be light", like roman gods and other lames, it only parallels.
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@mehico33 senor, mira, there's endless questions. God is the 'god-er'. We are the maifestations of such a divine god ( only by example ). Fact: there is no direct lineage or traceable claims of evolution even as far down to abiogenesis. And the cosmological studies are the manifestations of a hypothesized fantasy quantum land. I think these people play with the obvious. the big bang? try the initiation of creation "let there be light", like roman gods and other lames, it only parallels.
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@mehico33 Also, in terms of your lightning conscious-subconscious intentions, lightning actually doesn't 'cause' thunder, thunders are the sound of lightning, earthquakes are the results of plate movements, wind is the result of of temperature, creation is the result of god's divine intentions. Let us try this. if i tell you i 'hate' you, can you disprove my 'hate' because you cannot put it in a bottle to scientifically test it's plausibility? in like manner, you cannot disprove the abstract.
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d Evolution is a fact, as much as the fact that I am a human. Can I prove to you that I am human? Its a problem you'll have to solve on your own man, I don't have the time.
You make the same fallacy as ExiHyp, "the first cause is my personal god because it just is", I understand why. It would make an elegant explanation sure, but its no explanation at all, it has no explanatory power and in fact raises many more questions. We are safe to leave it alone until it has some substance.
mehico33 1 month ago
@mehico33 Actually evolution is not a fact, error stands that first it was claims of being related to monkeys, now its earthworms... now they suggest cell communication to assume into the 'being' of an organ.. but you know what, you believe what you want, and it is indeed safer to leave it alone until it has some substance.
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d All life forms are related. If you find that hard to swallow get this, on the atomic level all matter is related. Welcome to science!
Evolution is our only explanation of diversity/complexity of life, its only competition being "Magic theory/creation" (no competition at all).
You don't seem to have any grasp of the depth of evidence that biologists are working with, a good book for novices is "The Greatest Show on Earth".
If your issue is "what is proof" then you are beyond help
mehico33 1 month ago
@mehico33 Smallest particls of human beings are laminins, not atoms.. and neither abiogenesis or the process of evolution can explain the diversion of races.. lol some monkeys stayed in africa, and some ran to the north?, also never was there an animal, or will there ever be an 'animal' that can think or 'rationalize', and these capabilities cannot be randomly imprinted in our genes; if this was possible, humans, over the long years we've been around, would have gained new capabilities.
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d On a side note: "what animal would be so dumb as to become..."
Adaptation over evolutionary time is not intended by any individual creatures, its also not random chance. Perhaps happenstance in the big picture, but simply a process. You may want to look up newtonian law in addition to your study of biology.
If energy can be preserved it normally is (by consequence).
Our species has evolved something more efficient than physical strength, "higher" brain function (use it or lose it
mehico33 1 month ago
@mehico33 hmm. i see a gap in your response. "evolutionary time is not intended by any individual creatures'' ?? what? lol, any adaptation or change by any animal is absolutely intended, and as a matter of fact, darwinism even goes against the possibility of any evolution, since only the most strapping or best suited always survives. if you are talking about climate changes, that is erroneous considering dinosaurs. No evolution has ever taken place, only minor adaptation.
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
to shut this guy up, click the snowflake button, look at the design of snows. if not by god how do snow flakes take that shape?
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
Speculation.
MontyBrith 1 month ago
A 'very complicated' long wall (of driftwood) that is 'complex' and 'cannot be denied'? Ha Ha Ha. I can't listen to this foolishness any longer .A fool says in his heart 'there is no god'.
ericarose1979 1 month ago
@ericarose1979
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”
- Seneca (Roman philosopher, mid-1st century AD)
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 the funny part is that is onloy aplicable in the most retarded country (no offense, its the truth tho) wich is the usa
ComAntNeLib 1 month ago
@ComAntNeLib Well considering I'm not American, no offense taken!
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 ahah it was directed to any american that read it.
ComAntNeLib 1 month ago
I love PZ Myers by he's speaks so scientificly its hard to follow sometimes :P
KillKrazy666 2 months ago
Thanks for uploading. Really interesting!
pnktronic 2 months ago
Look at his face at 24:15 he doesnt believe himself what he is saying. Hey thereafter you'll get a beer! Get a real job old man! srsly!
ExiHyp 2 months ago
24:30 what did he say there? "Evolution does it by chance?" Who the hell is the evolution and why does it anything? And where do those abilties to interact come from? who taught them to do that? This guy isnt reasonable his attempts to argue are just laughable. He contradicts himself every step of the way. 23:45 To carry out various functions, there is a complexity thats build in because they are trying to carry out fairly complex functions. Who the fuck are they? what PURPOSE do they have?
ExiHyp 2 months ago
@ExiHyp You beg the question, evolution is a force/process. The same way combustion consumes fuel/oxygen and creates heat energy. "Who tells it to create heat? How does it know to consume oxygen?" You aren't reasonable and your attempts at logic are laughable, well they would be if they weren't so sad.
The thing with intention is that it must be intended, this requires consciousness. Processes are not conscious
mehico33 1 month ago
Chance implies lack of intention behind the whole thing (life).
Design implies intention for everything that is.
Thats what the whole debate is about - ideology, point of view.
Please use your free will to decide whats better for you and the people around you.
ExiHyp 2 months ago
@ExiHyp You have it backwards: intention and purpose are inventions of evolution.
mcwhite001 2 months ago
Nothing is complicated EVERYTHING it's a pure conseguence of the base law of the universe:
action -> reaction
I put it in a simple way, the base of the universe is: 'That useful atom/particle can unite with me? Oh cool! let's do it! no wait... now there's a void here... another particle came, and between all of the suddounding are less intresting! let's head to unite with that one too!'
Nothing is random, random and "free will" it's only a enormously big math.
TheIceThorn 3 months ago in playlist AAI 2009 Conference
@TheIceThorn Complexity can be defined specifically, and things can have that property. If you want to advance a different definition that no object in the universe has, that's fine, but not particularly helpful. The ID people, however, never define their 'designness'... which is more what this talk is about.
mcwhite001 2 months ago
@mcwhite001 complexity is a simple conseguence of semplicity combined with some more semplicity, no more and no less.
There's nothing 'designed' in the universe; in the nature there's NOTHING that's made with a single purpose. Even animal cells adapt when a human life begin. They start from a single cell that divides itself again and again and again then they specialize in what's needed to ensure the survival of the entire community of cells that we call 'body'.
TheIceThorn 2 months ago
@TheIceThorn shortening it: complexity is made from some simple things combined; design =/= complex cause it's create something with a purpose, a stone axe is designed but it's not something complex for example. Design do not needs or means complexity they're different things.
TheIceThorn 2 months ago
I'm always amazed that people like Myers are rarely given the recognition they deserve from the general public, or the Media, and morons like B.Spears, P.Hilton, and the great minutiae of celelbrities receive so much attention. AND, then it's the morons who criticize these great thinkers.
gorwell97 3 months ago
Wow, this man was a ignorant person! He spoke of fallacious, yet he made many straw-man arguments!
6630mcdo 3 months ago
@6630mcdo: Can you be a bit more specific, please? Which strawman arguments did he make in your opinion?
SentientRaven 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
While I do agree with this guy (in the video) he doesn't make the best arguments.
Just not the most interesting speaker. If you're looking for good ammunition, there are better videos.
victordemise 3 months ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet
DEM GOPHERS W000000000000000T!
OpRedDawn 3 months ago
PZ Meyers FTW! MN FTW
OpRedDawn 3 months ago
yay for beer!
prezoftheworld 3 months ago 11
drift wood is very bad example, ID proponents are talking about 'purposeful complexity' NOT any complicated things! when you see a purposeful complicated system you directly recognize the design, for example when you see a car engine, or this words in the beach "I love you" the same logic with the living things which are far more complicated!
algadykhalifa 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« ID proponents are talking about 'purposeful complexity' »
Which is really begging the question. How do you establish whether something is "purposeful" or not? What objective quantification can there be for such a term? Likewise with "specified complexity": specified by whom, exactly? ID proponents are really good at this kind of circular argumentation.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
@algadykhalifa The purpose of the driftwood example was to show that nature produces chaotic and random needlessly complex things, and that the hallmark of good design is simplicity, not complexity like the ID proponents claim.
Ceenymeeny 4 months ago 2
@8yankee
Essentially, what is being put forth is a situation where a man cannot express an interest in a woman for fear of being branded a deviant. Sex, and by extension sexuality, are perfectly natural. From what I've read this guy just misread a situation and made a relatively non-threatening proposition, which the woman declined and everyone left the elevator unmolested - verbally or physically.
Is feminism about making females equal - a good thing - or giving them a privileged position?
Snarfoidosis 4 months ago 6
@Snarfoidosis Thank you!
TomSFox 1 month ago
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
@8yankee
A man showing interest - whether sexual or platonic - and politely inviting a woman to his room for a coffee is hardly rampant sexism.
If a woman asked me back to her room for coffee - again whether an implied invitation for sex or a mature conversation - I would, if disinterested, say 'no thank you' and that would be that. This is precisely what this woman apparently did.
On this blog the writer states 'Being alone in an elevator with a man late at night is uncomfortable' (cont)
Snarfoidosis 4 months ago
@8yankee (cont)
This is essentially saying that women think all men are sexual predators, and are right to think so!
Now if the man had laid hands on the woman or made overtly sexual comments it would be assault, but he didn't. That's all Dawkins said.
Basically he is saying that men can't sexually objectify women, of course they shouldn't, but that women can - quite rightly, apparently - view all men as disgusting potential rapists. How is this fair, or equal?
Poorly done, Plait.
Snarfoidosis 4 months ago
Like working in ER trying to clean orifice of morbid obese woman, covered in huge fat rolls and maggots (literally) living underneath, when you do find the orifice it is covered in rotted filth and maggots. So soul of atheist is covered by huge inverted "fat rolls" of sin added to sin and compiled on sin and wickedness until their soul is rotted and obscured beneath a mountain of garbage and hate so even in hell their torment will be stretched over more nerves than an 'ordinary' sinner
hobblehonker 4 months ago
@hobblehonker Nurse! Mr Hobblehonker's medication is wearing off!
mandolinic 4 months ago
@hobblehonker I hope you don't expect to be taken seriously!
mgneath 4 months ago
@mgneath
YOUR ANCESTORS SWING ON TREES AND CAME FROM SLIME. YES I TAKE THAT SHIT SERIOUSLY YOU STUPID FUCK?
hobblehonker 4 months ago
@hobblehonker You obviously have serious personality issues and since I have learnt not to converse with the deranged I will not bother continuing this conversation.
mgneath 4 months ago
Comment removed
Superslemmet 4 months ago in playlist AAI 2009 Conference
Comment removed
Superslemmet 4 months ago in playlist AAI 2009 Conference
@hobblehonker In Christianity, Pride is the original and most serious of the '7 deadly sins'. Wiki has this to say: "It is identified as a desire to be more important or attractive than others, failing to acknowledge the good work of others, and excessive love of self (especially holding self out of proper position toward God). Dante's definition was "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbour.""
If the bible is correct, you are heading straight downstairs after death.
Superslemmet 4 months ago in playlist AAI 2009 Conference
This has been flagged as spam show
The contentment of the simple childish answers which religion has created to explain the unkown deprives them of the resolve to learn about the beautiful naturalistic mechanisms beneath; what an object represents in terms of the harmony of science. It is the insatiably questioning mind which drives humanity forward - not the contentment in erroneous simple answers for the sake of comfort.
shinshoshine 5 months ago
There was a lot wrong with the original version of SCOOBY DOO from 1969-- But one thing right with it was THE MONSTERS WERE NEVER REAL. Unfortunately, the characters on the show never learned that lesson, but more children's shows with a skeptical slant could help a lot in education.
GoblinXXX 5 months ago
100% of peer-reviewed papers in Iran are pro-Muslim. Does that make Islam true? LOL. You evolutionists and your little white-tower schools are a joke. Wake-up to what is really going on and repent while there is yet time. Don't be such spineless cowards in the war between God and Satan. Start thinking for yourselves for a change and stand like men!
thechessstick 5 months ago
@thechessstick Really? Point me in direction of one peer reviewed scientific journal from Iran that has an overt pro-Muslim bias. Scientific output grew 11 times faster in Iran than in the rest of the world in 2010, so this should be easy for you.
Md2802 5 months ago
@Md2802 LOL. I meant religious works. LOL. Better luck next time. You really don't understand comparisons, do you?
thechessstick 5 months ago
@thechessstick Peer reviewed religious works? That's an oxymoron! Religious indoctrination is expected to be believed without evidence.
Md2802 5 months ago
@Md2802 Again you miss the point. I will try to simplify it. These people are biased just like the evolutionists and uniformitarianists who rule academia are biased. Cheers...
thechessstick 5 months ago
This is an atheists faith building sermon based on complexity, complexity....
jimthebaptist67 5 months ago
@jimthebaptist67 Faith does not require evidence. Science does require evidence. There is no faith needed to accept the actuality of nature and the cosmos. Get your terms construed correctly before trying to make any claim whatsoever. Go on and keep believing in your 3400 year old scripture written by self proclaimed prophets during the bronze age who combined Pagan Gods to invent a new God of their own and then have that God go on to be changed again by more authors to become known as Yahweh.
Rainbowsixoperator1 5 months ago
@Rainbowsixoperator1
So you walk by evidence and not by faith huh?
Where did time space and matter come from?
Where is you “evidence” that something came from something its not.
I mean real evidence. Not artistic drawings with lots of imagination. Not a pile of bones you assume is related. Not homology that proves a common Designer.
jimthebaptist67 5 months ago
@jimthebaptist67 Trying walking with your eyes closed and your ears covered, dude. Maybe while on PCP. That's walking on faith.
Muzzway 5 months ago
@jimthebaptist67 You're an idiot that knows nothing about quantum mechanics. I suggest taking a high school physics course and referring "A Universe From Nothing" by Laurence Krauss lectures before talking about non-sense. He explains that a universe with 0 total energy spontaneously creates when certain conditions are met. While you're at it study biology, morphology, and read up on evolution and abiogenesis. I'll refer you to "Why Evolution Is True" lecture by Jerry Coyne as a start.
Rainbowsixoperator1 5 months ago
@Rainbowsixoperator1
First off, calling names will never hurt me. lol
All the books and websites you want. But science is all about what you can see, test and observe. Please, I beg you, show me the evidence that something can come from nothing.
jimthebaptist67 5 months ago
@jimthebaptist67 Watch "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss from this same meeting. On my computer it is the fourth video down on this page. The physics required is probably above your level, I know it is above mine. But the speaker does a good job explaining it for the layman.
subductionzone 5 months ago
@subductionzone
Your arrogance is obnoxious.
Please come down of you intellectual high horse and explain it to me in your own words how it has been observed that something came from nothing.
jimthebaptist67 5 months ago
Respond to this video... In less than 500 characters? You have got to be kidding. To understand you need to take some physics classes, and pass. What is neat about physics is that it is based on repeatable experimentation. If the results of an experiment are not repeatable then the experiment was probably bogus the first time around. That keeps fools from claiming a miracle happened.
subductionzone 5 months ago 2
@subductionzone
Hahahahahaha!!
I will take that to mean you can't.
That was easy
jimthebaptist67 5 months ago
@jimthebaptist67 Of course I can't. Not in only 500 words. But I did point you where to go to get your answer. It seems that you would rather wallow in your ignorance. Some people are too foolish to learn even when given a chance. You seem to be one of these.
subductionzone 5 months ago
@jimthebaptist67 You keep demonstrating to me how ignorant you are of cosmology. If you'd vaguely study it you'd know that the total energy of the universe is zero. What we know about quantum mechanics tells us that spontaneous creation is a common place and does not require supernatural divine intervention. Seriously, watch a lecture and you won't ask such redundant questions. All these debates boil down to me educating other people and it's nauseating. I could care less about your feelings lol
Rainbowsixoperator1 5 months ago
I can make a pile of drift wood
Can PZ make a living cell?
jimthebaptist67 5 months ago
It's one thing to set up strawmen it's another thing to debate a "creationist"
He would not last two minutes with Kent Hovind.
Hovind would make PZ look like a first grader
jimthebaptist67 5 months ago
@jimthebaptist67 Hovind is an idiot of the order. The only people he can impress are those who have no education in science at all. His debate tactic is to spout a bunch of lies that would take hours to correct. It is relatively easy to lie and make up stories, it takes his opponent too much of his time to debunk all of his claims.
Hovind would never participate in a fair debate where an independent judge would require support of some sort for all of his claims.
subductionzone 5 months ago
@subductionzone
I’ve heard the “Hovind lies” excuse before by the Neo Darwinians and yet not a single one of Hovinds opponents has caught him in one. Hmmmm?
jimthebaptist67 5 months ago
@jimthebaptist67 It is obvious that you do not know what the truth is. In debates if you are shown to be wrong and then repeat the same claim in a later debate that is a lie. Or I suppose I could be kinder. Either Hovind is a liar or one of the world's biggest idiots. Since he does not think that the rules he claims were written by his invisible sky father (render unto Caesar that which is Caesar"s) I guess we can go with the idiot claim.
subductionzone 5 months ago
@subductionzone
I see you can address his tax issues by not his "lies"
Claims mean nothing unless you can prove him wrong
jimthebaptist67 5 months ago