I tak o to teoria praczki mozgow Dawkinsa upadla w gruzach. Czemu ? Nie ma zadnych argumentow na potwierdzenie swych tez."inna cywilizacja" A to czlowiek ZBYT skomplikowany na proces samoistny, a ktos "inteligetniejszy" nie ?^^ I tak o to, Pudelek Darwina zamienil sie w drwala, scinajacego drzewo ewolucji.
Pozdrawiam wszystkich FANATYCZNYCH ateistow oraz Chrzescijan.!
You know what's really unfortunate about being an atheist? If we're right, when we die, we won't get any gratification from having been right. And when Ben Stein dies, he won't exist. And he won't realize what an asshole he's been.
ok.....finally....that was a little painful to watch......in conclusion......none of the evidence that was presented in The Dover Trail was presented here.....i wonder why?
woot, ignorance only 30 seconds into the conversation... goddamn it Ben, 8 billion? holy shit, no wonder you think evolution says that life began by lightning striking a mud puddle...
Ben Stein is JAQing off (Just asking questions) and trying to make evolution look bad just because Dawkins is caught a bit off guard from a direct, non-scientific manner. There are too many grey areas in science to start JAQing off........same with conspiracy theory wacks masking their accusations behind "questions".
I found this documentary to be very frustrating. All they did is show people being upset that they can't say "Inellegent design" in their scientific papers. I would have liked to hear their proof or even their scientific theory as to why they believe there is intellegent design involved. And the demonizing of the theory of evolution only added to my frustration. I shouldn't believe in evolution because Hitler did? Bullshit! I should say- one shouldn't believe in God because Jim Jones did? no.
This movie reminds me of the Scopes Monkey Trial. In 1925 Tennesse's Butler Act made it unlawful to teach evolution in public schools, since it denies the creation story taught in the Bible. Biology teacher John Scopes was put on trial for teaching evolution to his students. Nearly a century later we have creationists playing the victim card and howling for not getting enough academic freedom. I bet if we went back to the days of the Scopes Trial, Ben Steins wouldn't have made this documentary.
@mylivingwater Correction, Evil Illusion, aka evolution, is a very clouded theory that confusses from knowing the truth, that God created the Heavens and Earth
leave religion out of this debate. this is squarely about dominance of religous beliefs. atheism is a religion and they are propagating their belief in evolution. the simple discussion to this is that can we not have a rational debate on science without being closed minded to anything that may seem contrary to us? can we not follow questions and theories and see where they lead? lets be open minded and look at the facts, knowing that ignorance lead to destruction. P.S. stop the hateful comments.
The theory that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created life is being rejected by mainstream science. I lost my job as a professor who speculates that life must have evolved of the noodley appendages of a spaghetti monster. We should have the academic freedom to teach this theory, in addition to Santa Claus, the Loch Ness Monster, and the Stork Theory as to the origins of life.
Every school student should read Dawkins "the blind watch maker"... The freedom of scientific enquiry is being supressed, says Ben.... The very nature of Creationism is opposition to skeptical enquiry... theyre world view is a result of stubbornly clinging to superstition when even their entire lives scientific effort proves otherwise...
@rickgigliotti It does make sense, but it still goes to the fact they even if we were created by aliens, they too had to have developed via some sort of system like Darwinism. But God taking a rib from Adam to make woman. Now that makes sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much sense.
....For those of you that are still clinging to the Iron Aged man's attempt at Science aka; religion, please watch: " Why I am no longer a christian " by Evid3nc3 on YouTube. This young man is extremely articulate and very well informed so grab your KJV and a Dictionary or better yet do a prayer to your creator asking that he temporarily allow you to use your intellect so that you may understand all the big words used in the video.
You my dear.... are in desperate need of proper education... its the 21st century... evolution is a fact... its not a theory... if ure one of those Christ Fans which i think u most probably are .... the old testament and the creationist corner stone of Adam and Eve is Fiction... The world is 6000 years old? Please check your head...
@rave02able Evolution is still very much a theory all ive heard evolutionists is could have and may have. But they have no evidence to back this up is transitional terms no species evolving at the moment nor is there physical evidence one is. You may say its fact but the real fact is that it is still a hotly debated theory then again with scientists these days it seems they already had it in their minds god didn't exist. Yet you seem to think this maybe this or maybe that is a answer.
@bigJ09z i think youre confusing evolution with metamorphosis, for each of which there is plenty of evidence, though they aren't the same. metamorphosis sees one animal change form within its life time (e.g. tadpole - frog). evolution by natural selection shows how an animal can be the direct ancestor of two different species (e.g. zebra and horse). no horse became a zebra or vice versa, they simply they share a common ancestor. This is NOT in debate, it is extremely well established
@20regan06 Well established....no maybe if your biased in terms of species and such there was no evolution. Adaption which isn't the same I buy but the theory of evolution has pretty scant evidence and no just because you say doesn't make it evidence. And no im not confusing them I don't tend to like being told that ive confused things and I honestly haven't confused them.
@bigJ09z thats right, don't believe it because someone else has said it to be true. That's called faith. What you should do is go and find out for yourself. I think what you'll find is that adaptations, as you agreed with, form the basis of evolution. It is because of adaptations that species become more complex and differ from one another. These adaptations give natural selection something real to work with. Does this start to make sense? Check out some Carl Sagan, he explains it nicely
@20regan06 You really really need to think before you say adaption and evolution are the same much less related. I have heard this before from other people it more annoy's for its stupidity hey go and check out so and so and so. Listen I have yet to find any evidence for evolution this coming from a person who likes actual science and not the dogma you speak of. So it only makes sense if into that dogmatism It certainly doesn't explain the complexity of Dendrotoxin and PhTx3....
@20regan06 You would have been wise to avoid trying to lecture about science much less species or animals. No I don't believe it because there is no proof or evidence of outside of well so and so evolved into so and so but there isn't any proof of that either. You know what one guy trying to prove evolution gave me as evidence?? A mud skipper nothing microscopic in nature not even anything transitional like your Zebra which isn't proof of much...it doesn't explain Taipoxin structure either.
@bigJ09z its funny that you bring up an extremely specific neurotoxin in a remote species of australian snake and say "Aha! got you!". well, how would you explain it? Evolutionary theory suggests that the neurotoxin would become increasingly potent in response to environmental demands, such as birds hunting these snakes. Anyway, the point is that the alternative explanation (I'm assuming you believe God made it?) doesn't even explain how my kettle boils water, let alone the intricacies of venom
@20regan06 Actually it does although i think you fail to understand why the intricacies are the way they are. How can I say this nicely to you evolutionary theory is a "theory" its not a "fact" although its treated as fact for who knows why. Yeah Dendrotoxin isn't actually from a Australian Elapidae its from a African species called Dendroaspis which have some of the most potent venom on the planet. Taipoxin is from a Australian Elapid family called Oxyuranus. Evolution can't explain everything
@bigJ09z the point is, you can say that evolutionary theory (or any other theory) has a lot of holes in it. but thats extremely childish unless you can provide an alternative explanation that does explain the same phenomena. but that explanation needs to do it more simply, explain more phenomena, needs to make fewer assumptions AND most crucially, needs to be falsifiable. to say "God did it" is not falsifiable, makes a huge amount of assumptions and is just plainly a poor explanation
@steelcicada1 Atheists represent! We need state atheism! Enforced Atheism. Let the rivers flow with the blood of many millions, without which state atheism has never occured!!!! viva REVOLUTION, RELIGION IS CHILD ABuSE
Very simple folks, these people are giving a stage to an illegimate issue that has no business even being mentioned within the Scientific community. By doing so they are revealing to their peers that they do not adhere to the scientific method. They deserve what they got. They can perform their qualitative " Lience " and produced their biased " Lientific " reports at Sunday school where they belong.
@thesupernovastar1234 Richard Dawkins said that it is possible, some where in the universe. A civilazation created a species in a lab and seeded it on another planet. Those creatures would have been intellegently designed by another species. He didnt say there was a god but that that from of ID could exist. I laugh at steins quote mining.
This is how I am currently seeing the situation: we got a HIDDEN/occult elite whose prophet said 'Do as Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the law' and they mean being satanic immoral selfish evil scum.
Howeverrr, they make sure to push through propaganda and coercion and violence to the MASSES that we have no will , are machines, and nature is a machine, and life and death are meaningless.
Both these sides suppress the Goddess. Ie., orthodox religions, the occult elite, and secular society suppr
@zezt 2--suppress the Goddess. The Goddess IS nature in all its magical depths. Like the Church persecuted and mass murdered the Wise Women who had the ancient knowledge of sacred plants so it continues now, that entheogens which can help us ecstatically remember Intelligent Design iin ACTION in nature are suppressed even MORE so than scientists wanting to research ID.
Found this doc extremely interesting and thought provoking.
Intelligent design seems to be present in pretty much all living things, but religion has perverted the idea of "god" such that people like me run in the complete opposite direction and declare ourselves Atheists because we want nothing to do with those gods.
but in the process we trade out all the magic and mystery that lies beyond the veil of our senses and this life.
Nice editing during the Dawkins interview, I thought Stein was half way inteligent on the clear eyes commercial but now that i hear him speaking he is just another brianwashed scumbag that relys on faith and not evidence.
"well you see richard the bible says its the word of god so its gotta be the word of god" Makes me fucking sick!
If the intellegent design people are right??...welll they better start working on something and not pullig the same old rubbish out of the bible!!//..
great video ben :) love it when there are few that will expose the truth to people!!! evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell and anyone who teaches it or prevents the religious from teaching creationism will not be able to escape the wrath of God.
ben stein makes a mistake in saying dawkins is open to intelligent design. dawkins simply proposes that aliens could have started life to begin with- this is not intelligent design, and it is entirely compatible with evolution.
intelligent design necessitates that organisms were created in their current forms, as it says that all life is designed for their specific habitats. dawkins is not open to this idea, and it is not compatible with evolution by natural selection.
@33LB Dawkins says you will find a signature of a designer. He admits there is a signature of a designer and goes with an alien theory? Thats absurd in the highest degree. Second, thats arguing in a circle because he has to account for the complexity of the alien's biology which then has to be explained by the same means. And so on and so forth.
@mrstevenjake22 dawkins did NOT propose intelligent design. intelligent design proposes that the diversity of organisms came about as a result of a design process, rather than evolution by natural selection- dawkins did NOT say that, and if you think otherwise, then you need to actually watch the video.
the alien's biology does not have to be explained by design- they could have evolved by darwinian means, and then designed life on earth. this is even stated in the video- did you watch it?
@mrstevenjake22 and lastly, dawkins did not admit there was a signature of a designer. he said he was simply *open to the possibility* that aliens seeded life on earth.
in future, you need to watch videos before you leave comments on them!
@33LB Seriously? YOU need to watch the video before YOU comment. Immediately after proposing his alien theory Dawkins says and i quote exactly "You might find evidence if you look at the details of our chemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer." Thats pretty clear cut. Again, the alien theory is circular logic so it cant even be put into the equation either.
yes, the key word is MIGHT. given the words dawkins uses, and the tone of his voice, he is obviously SPECULATING rather than making firm statements.
the alien theory is not circular because it could have evolved by darwinian means- i have already told you this! and dawkins has already said that in the video! and i have already told you that dawkins said that in the video!
let me guess- you were a failure in school because you lack the ability to listen?
@33LB It is circular because if darwinian means explained the complexity of our chemistry then there would be no need to invoke the possibility of any sort of a designer. Therefore, the aliens would be completely unnecessary. However, by including the aliens he would have to explain their complex chemistry by Darwinian means and then our complexity would be explained as well which would make no use of the aliens once again.
@mrstevenjake22 so you finally learned to read and seen my response after the second time?
you're assuming that what happens here must happen on all other planets. yes, there could have been aliens, and dawkins is open to that possibility. but aliens may not have been necessary- life could have started here by abiogenesis. and even if we were seeded here by aliens, then perhaps simple life on the alien planet was started by abiogenetic means, which evolved into complicated aliens.
@33LB Yes but in abiogenesis doesnt account for life either. You can start with amino acids but in order to get it to form to protiens even by chance is pretty much impossible, i believe they mentioned it in the movie. So aliens arent even necessary here because once again they cant be explained either and Dawkins is simply trying to avoid any signature of God in chemistry by producing a laughable alien theory.
@mrstevenjake22 yeah, this movie shows some really amateurish science. at one point they talk about proteins "being in the right order", but proteins aren't sequenced in any way- obviously they got confused between amino acids and proteins, and meant to say the amino acids must be in the "right order".
but anyway, amino acids don't fall into the perfect sequence by chance to form a protein- that's not how it works. the video "Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 8)" explains this better.
@mrstevenjake22 once again, dawkins was NOT admitting a designer was necessary. you seem to be completely misunderstanding the interaction that's taking place here. ben stein raised the issue of intelligent design, and dawkins simply went along with it as a POSSIBILITY, and suggested the idea that aliens could have started life.
@33LB I never said Dawkins said a designer was necessary, i simply quoted him. Second, it shows how close-minded he is that if intelligent design were true he would go with an alien theory. Which i showed to be circular and you have not refuted. Thats why you shifted gears again.
@mrstevenjake22 yes you did say that dawkins said a designer was necessary. you said " He admits there is a signature of a designer and goes with an alien theory?"
it would be unscientific to jump to the conclusion of "god" because there is no evidence to suggest that only the supernatural is the possible explanation. when i did my dissertation, at one stage i had to rationalise lab results which didnt make any sense. you know what would have happened if i wrote "god did it"? i wouldve failed.
@mrstevenjake22 it isnt circular, and i already refuted that many times.
"you're assuming that what happens here must happen on all other planets. yes, there could have been aliens, and dawkins is open to that possibility. but aliens may not have been necessary- life could have started here by abiogenesis. and even if we were seeded here by aliens, then perhaps simple life on the alien planet was started by abiogenetic means, which evolved into complicated aliens."
@33LB But abiogenesis has not yet accounted for the origin of life. Your key word is "could", and if abiogenesis is the answer then aliens are not needed. Therefore if it turns out there is evidence for a designer then aliens cannot explain it since they need to be explained as well. You havent refuted anything. And im not a creationist, I dont have anything against evolution i simply see all the flaws in it.
@mrstevenjake22 you're right in saying that the origin of life does not have a proper naturalistic explanation that does not invoke a designer. however, i will say this again- absence of evidence for abiogenesis, is not evidence that a designer created the first microorganisms. (which is also completely unproven). ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR HYPOTHESIS X IS NOT EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF HYPOTHESIS Y.
@33LB Thats why i said "If it turns out there is evidence" i never said there was evidence. And once again the alien theory does not hold up, and not by abiogenesis either.
@33LB I hope you realize that simply mentioning abiogenesis is not a "smoking gun" argument that proves darwinism and debunks design. Abiogenesis is a fable on its own right. What is curious here is the way darwinists try to dictate the mystery of life's origin in such a way that even if they need to invoke design / guidance it has to be green aliens and not the dreaded G-word.
@ShogunV nothing needs to be invoked, because evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. thus, evolutionists speculate about the origin of life just out of interest, and not because they HAVE to come up with an explanation.
the reason why aliens are sometimes suggested, is because it would be completely unscientific to jump to a supernatural conclusion. people once jumped to a supernatural conclusion for lightning, which later proved to be natural in origin.
@33LB But our entire physical universe had a metaphysical origin that does not conform to the laws of physics. So even if life on earth was the work of aliens and bound to laws of physics, they too will need to have their origins explained by physical means. Which puts us back to the main question of life's origin and does not solve any thing. And no matter how long you extend the loop of aliens creating aliens, a metaphysical cause will need to be the ultimate conclusion.
@ShogunV the universe may have had very bizarre origins which i surely wouldnt be able to understand (not being a cosmologist). however, i dont see why a naturalistic explanation for LIFE is not possible. it is perfectly forseeable that life could arise from the laws of chemistry, without invoking a "metaphysical" cause.
@33LB "it is perfectly forseeable that life could arise from the laws of chemistry"
How is it foreseeable when all materialistic explanations for life's origins either failed or utterly lack proof? And why do some darwinists invoke aliens if all you need is chemistry? There is much work to be done to prove abiogenesis and not just some wishful thinking. And it doesn't make you any more scientific to replace "God did it" with "chemistry did it".
@ShogunV maybe forseeable is the wrong word. i should say it's "possible" rather. there is no reason that life could not arise from laws of chemistry, as we know them today.
if you would actually read my comments (a challenging activity for a creationist, but please make an attempt) you would know that darwinists do not "invoke" aliens. they merely discuss and speculate about them if someone raises the possibility of life being seeded on earth, as richard dawkins does in this video.
@ShogunV you appear to have a seriously difficult time telling the difference between definite claims and speculation.
i am not saying life definitely arose from simple chemistry. i am speculating about it, and explaining to you that it is POSSIBLE, and thus, it would be silly to jump to the definite "god" conclusion. i don't know how life arose. no scientist knows how life arose. and contrary to what YOU think, you don't know how life arose. so stop making definite black and white claims.
@33LB I actually appreciate when a Darwinist admits that he is only speculating. But there are many speculative tales being used as "evidence" against God or design. A significant chunk of evolution is kept alive by pure speculation. Aside from abiogenesis, would you agree that a random mutation giving wings to a reptile or lungs to fish is also a speculation? In addition to playing guess work with fossils. Gould said it best: "these are just so stories".
@ShogunV well, most scientists would acknoweldge that there is not a proper explanation for the origin of life. they have various ideas, but none are conclusive.
it's important to understand what is meant by "design". the thing is that ID advocates claim that life AS IT EXISTS NOW was designed. evolution has disproven this. however, evolution cannot disprove INITIAL DESIGN AND SEEDING OF LIFE ON EARTH because evolution is not concerned with the ORIGIN of life.
@33LB If you don't know how life originated isn't that all the more reason for you to be open minded to all possibilities? Physicists employ metaphysics alot so why should the origin of life be an exception just because some atheist said so? I don't know about you, but most atheists oppose metaphysical origin for life mainly because of its religious implications, and they know it. The exact same way early atheists attacked the big bang just because it supported the idea of a created universe.
@ShogunV more open minded? haha- im the one who said that ANY explanation for the origin of life is speculation. the reason why i said you can't invoke "god" as the answer, is because "god", by definition, is a supernatural being who cannot be subject to any scientific investigation. and this is not something which i said. this is something that CHRISTIANS have decided. CHRISTIANS have defined god in such a way so that he cant be scientifically investigated, so quit complaining!
@33LB My point is: invoking a metaphysical origin may be out of the boundaries of science labs, but it does not escape the boundaries of human understanding and rationality. And it is much more logical and intuitive to conclude that the metaphysical cause is a personal agent with intelligence and plan (as is concluded from the vast information and design in life) than a non intelligent random cause. But again if you don't believe that way it's your choice.
@ShogunV "it is much more logical and intuitive to conclude that the metaphysical cause is a personal agent with intelligence and plan"
no it isnt, youre jumping to conclusions.
given the universe is a chaotic place, and mostly uninhabitable, and given the earth itself is also a hostile place to life (about 99.8% of all species have gone extinct), your belief that there is design in life and the universe is deeply unconvincing.
and lastly, life was caused by evolution, not "randomness".
@33LB I'm just saying that you gotta have a darwinist/materialist mindset to dismiss metaphysical origins in favor of dreamed up and highly improbable materialistic fables (ie abiogenesis). Physicists utilise metaphysical explanations for universal origin as well as sub atomic phenomena unexplainable by materialism. Excluding life's origin from metaphysics while utterly lacking a credible materialistic explanation is as philosophical as faith in God, and it doesn't make you any more scientific.
@ShogunV firstly, there is no way to investigate the supernatural. by definition, the supernatural can't be proven, so why is the supernatural even worth investigating if it can't be proven?
furthermore, it is deeply unscientific to say "X isn't possible, and therefore, Y must be the explanation". (x being abiogenesis and Y being god)- there could be another explanation which no one has thought of. ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR ONE HYPOTHESIS IS NOT EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF ANOTHER HYPOTHESIS.
@33LB "so why is the supernatural even worth investigating if it can't be proven?"
So I guess then we would have to silence any physicist or philosopher who dares touch the metaphysical and stunt our understanding of the universe's origin. Or let them talk about it as long as they dont mention "GOD". But my only question is: if we know nothing about the metaphysical, then what makes an atheist think that he knows better about which part of metaphysics to accept and which part to reject (ie God)
@ShogunV how is a scientist supposed to touch something which cannot be investigated scientifically? god is supposed to be OUTSIDE of the physical universe and thus, cannot be subject to any scientific investigation. (christians say this themselves)
science cannot make any comment to say that a god does exist, or does not exist. and anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand science.
atheists do not say that god *definitely* does not exist- they dont believe because they are unconvinced.
@33LB "science cannot make any comment to say that a god does exist, or does not exist. and anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand science"
That's a good point but I'd like to add to it: God & metaphysics may be outside of our current scientific experimental methodology, but certainly not outside of our intuition, intellect, and philosophy. And we certainly cannot limit our knowledge and beliefs to a closed box of hardcore empiricism that is limited by our available techs and means.
@ShogunV i freaking already answered your point about metaphysics. it would be nonsensical to invoke metaphysics to explain the origin of life in the physical universe.
since life originated WITHIN this universe, then it would have to be subject to the laws of physics as we know them! i am absolutely baffled as to why you are trying to resort to METAPHYSICAL explanations for CHEMICAL systems such as biological cells and building blocks.
@33LB The point I was making is that you cannot dismiss metaphysical explanation based on purely categorical reasoning with regard to a rigid definition of what constitutes scientific. Especially when philosophers of science agree that defining science is notoriously difficult. Now whether the design of life was purely metaphysical or physical, either case we see amble reason to believe in a guided design for life as we see in the information content of the DNA and the molecular machines.
@ShogunV there's the "information" argument again. you do realise the so-called "information" present in DNA in MODERN life forms is the product of selective-pressures causing changes in allele frequencies in the genome, right? you DO NOT need to invoke a designer to explain the complexities and information contained within MODERN DAY genomes. as for EARLY life forms, well, those may not even have had DNA and would have contained very little "information" at all.
@33LB It was never a question of allele frequencies or which genotype occurs more often. It is a question of how the information to build complex molecular machines originated in the first place, and how speculations with regard to creative random mutations remain inconclusive and purely imaginative.
- "complex" molecular machines didn't exist in the first place. they evolved from simpler machinery.
- currently, there is no life without DNA. but you're the one saying "complex" life cant arise by abiogenesis (which is correct) so it is reasonable to speculate that earlier life, which was certainly more simple, arose naturally. this "life" may have been something as simple as a self-replicating molecule.
@33LB And why do you speculate about some imaginary early life forms with no DNA? Our knowledge about life conclusively show that there is no life form without DNA information. Our knowledge of cause & effect relations also show us that complex information codes only come from intelligence. A proper scientific explanation should not depart from our known facts & observations in favor of inventing some outlandish scenario just to suit a certain theory or world view.
@33LB "since life originated WITHIN this universe, then it would have to be subject to the laws of physics as we know them"
And the physical universe has shown us that life can only come from life. The notion of spontaneous generation is extremely unconvincing and improbable and has been refuted since the days of Pasteur. Now we know that to build life we need information and complex systems to process it, not just simply a chemical soup.
@ShogunV "And the physical universe has shown us that life can only come from life."
no it hasn't. just because there are no firm, definite conclusions on abiogenesis does not mean it could not have happened. ONCE AGAIN, ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR ABIOGENESIS IS NOT EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE IDEA THAT LIFE MUST COME FROM LIFE.
you have a painful habit of jumping to conclusions (which have little evidence themselves) purely because there is a lack of evidence for alternatives!
@33LB " just because there are no firm, definite conclusions on abiogenesis does not mean it could not have happened"
Ok, so would it be more scientific to discard intuitive reasoning and repeatedly observable common facts such as how life always comes from life, how spontaneous generation is highly improbable, and how information can only come from intelligence, all in favor of some undemonstrated, outlandish, and improbable scenario with no firm definite conclusion such as abiogenesis?
@ShogunV sometimes it IS appropriate to discard intuitive reasoning. a prime example is quantum physics, which is COMPLETELY counter-intuitive to human thinking.
the rest of that comment is speculation. im trying to freaking reason with you here by suggesting that abiogenesis is a perfectly reasonable speculation. but you've got your fingers in your ears, arguing that it's completely impossible, because it's not compatible with YOUR personal religion.
@33LB "sometimes it IS appropriate to discard intuitive reasoning. a prime example is quantum physics"
Science never discards reason. Quantum mechanics is yet another REASONABLE model for explaining physics which supplements classical Einsteinian physics by doing a better job at explaining subatomic phenomena. Physicists also employ METAPHYSICS often to explain what cannot be explained by laws of physics.
So scientists go after any explanation that reason demands, including METAPHYSICS.
@ShogunV actually, quantum physics can be very counter-intuitive. so counter-intuitive, that one scientist said "if you think you understand quantum theory, then you don't understand quantum theory". the reason why it's so unreasonable is because human brains did not evolve to understand such ideas, but rather, to simply allow humans to cope with finding food and nailing women. thus, quantum physics seems bizarre and counter-intuitive all humans.
@33LB "abiogenesis is a perfectly reasonable speculation"
I hope you realize that it takes much more rigorous work to prove the notion of unguided chemical processes producing even the simplest form of life. Even Dean Kenyon, the founder of "biochemical predestination" (a theory favored by many darwinists) has rebuked his own theory in favor of intelligent design.
Just remember that it takes more than just a hopeful atheist exaggerating a desperate possibility that suits his worldview.
@ShogunV it really is impossible to reason with you. so you disblieve anything that hasn't been proven and contradicts your beliefs, eh? so dogmatic.
Dean Kenyon is not the one, single authority on science. science is about CONSENSUS. one person's opinion doesn't matter, even if he is a so-called expert.
@33LB "but you've got your fingers in your ears, arguing that it's completely impossible, because it's not compatible with YOUR personal religion"
I'm not the one who is fantasizing about an improbable, desperate, and inconclusive origin of life scenario just because it suits an atheistic worldview where any mention of design or God is being censored.
It is your defense of such unproven and inconclusive assertions that truly resembles a "personal religion"
@ShogunV fantasising? i don't care whether or not it happened, because even if abiogenesis was disproven, that would definitely NOT prove the existence of god. (yes, believe it or not, there are other religions than christianity). i thought i had already made it crystal clear that i am NOT defending abiogenesis as being a definite fact, but rather, a POSSIBILITY.
@ShogunV your posts contain so many arguments which are all difficult to address without extensive comments. anyway...
pasteur only showed that COMPLEX organisms can't arise spontaneously (yes, microbiological organisms are complex too). this does not rule out the possibility of much SIMPLE life arising naturally.
you're assuming that life billions of years ago is similar to today. life billions of years ago certainly would have been more primitive, so abiogenesis is still a viable possibility
@33LB " life billions of years ago certainly would have been more primitive, so abiogenesis is still a viable possibility"
If you take the simplest single-celled organism you can think of and put it in a test tube with ideal conditions for its life, then break it down to its component organelles & molecules. Do you think that they will come back together to produce a functional life again? NO it won't, yet you say that simple life can start from scratch outside of such ideal conditions.
@ShogunV once again, single-celled organisms are EXTREMELY complex. they are the product of billions of years of evolution just like you, so of course they are complicated and can't arise spontaneously.
modern cells, being the end-product of an evolutionary process, are likely to be extremely different from earlier life forms. earlier life forms would have been more simple. perhaps the earliest life form was just a self-replicating molecule.
@33LB I never claimed that life is outside of physical laws. The main argument is about whether it is guided physical design or unguided. The unguided side of the argument has totally failed to demonstrate how DNA information could arise without intelligence. That is because the ONLY cause of information is intelligence, ie it is guided design. Now whether the design was implemented physically or metaphysically, that we can only speculate.
@ShogunV "The unguided side of the argument has totally failed to demonstrate how DNA information could arise without intelligence."
evolution by natural selection causes a change in allele frequencies. you could think of that as a "change" in information. selective processes cause changes in the genome, and thus, changes within the so-called "information" contained within the genome. there is no designer needed- so why throw it in just to satisfy your monotheistic religion?
@33LB "evolution by natural selection causes a change in allele frequencies"
It is a common mistake for darwinists to extrapolate changes in allele frequencies into a potential for macroevolution. Macro requires the addition of new organ/function that did not exist before in the gene pool via supposedly unguided mechanisms. This new information is supposedly the work of random mutations, and this is where unguided darwinian explanations become problematic & inconclusive.
@ShogunV macroevolution is regarded as an observed fact in the scientific community. it is not extrapolated from the idea of changes in allele frequencies. RATHER, changes in allele frequencies is just one of the proposed ideas which CAUSES the observed fact of macroevolution.
the EXPLANATIONS (such as changes in allele frequencies) FOLLOW the observed fact of evolution.
@33LB Furthermore, you are sorely mistaken to think that a belief in God rests entirely on lack of materialist explanations. Because it has more to do with faith and intuitive reasoning based on signatures of design and information in living things and in the universe. The fact that some stubborn materialists opted for an anti-God mindset and exhausted their feeble materialistic explanations is just a bonus.
@33LB By the way, I'm not expecting you to be convinced of every thing I say. Whether you opt for a teleological explanations (God, design, purpose) or disteleological (randomness, chaos, godlessness), it is all a matter of choice. So do not be naive in claiming that empirical science compels you to go for disteleo, because the evidence for materialistic origins (abiogenesis & aliens) is utterly lacking in this 21st century age of information where materialism has been on the retreat.
@ShogunV this video and these comments have actually stimulated my mind a bit, my thinking around this topic has become rusty since i got tired of evolution-creation years ago. anyway...
to summarise- i dont think you can prove design scientifically. the evidence shows that life evolved, and thus, if there WAS a designer, it would only be in a general sense (eg. a guiding hand, or a designer who implemented the rules of the universe). you cant disprove evolution with design.
@33LB in the video clearly the man said he had no idea where life came from so clearly evolution didnt prove anything. it starts at where things already exist and doesnt explain HOW they came to be. they cant explain it without a creator. all they can to is guess.
@nikitty020 you're confused between evolution and abiogenesis, and this is a huge source of confusion for creationists.
evolution is the change of life over time. darwinian evolution is change of life due to pressures in the natural environment. intelligent design has not even come close to disproving this.
abiogenesis is the origin of life without prior life. there is no firm explanation for this. it is possible that the first microorganisms were "designed", but this is entirely speculation.
@nikitty020 well of course evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. why should it explain the origin of life if it has nothing to do with that? do you expect evolution to explain quantum mechanics as well?
they cant explain it... yet... but there was a time when people couldn't explain thunder.
@33LB "i dont think you can prove design scientifically. the evidence shows that life evolved"
The evidence for evolution is actually a grey area that is debatable on many fields be it fossils or genetics. Let us not forget that the proposed neodarwinian mechanisms are significantly lacking in adequate explanations for origins of complex life forms. Few darwinists were brave enough to concede that the notion of creative random mutations giving wings to reptile is just uncertain speculation.
@ShogunV the "debate" surrounding evolution, which you mentioned, is concerning the MECHANISMS of evolution, and the fine details of these mechanisms. it is also debatable which mechanisms are most significant, etc.
the observation that life changes over time, (ie. the observation, or idea, that life evolves) is not debated within the scientific community. virtually every academic believes life evolved (before you say it, that includes "macroevolution") there is debate about the mechanisms only
@33LB " the debate surrounding evolution is concerning the MECHANISMS of evolution"
True, the proposed unguided mechanisms failed to adequately explain the origin of complex biological systems. I hope you also understand that a demonstration of change over time is not a refutation of intelligent design nor can it be extrapolated to claim that the infusion of genetic info to produce the change was the handy work of random & unguided yet "creative" mutations.
@ShogunV "a demonstration of change over time is not a refutation of intelligent design"
when intelligent design advocates claim that evolution didn't happen (as many of them do), then observations of change over time DO refute that particular brand of intelligent design.
if one believes in a designer in a "broad" sense, that lends a "guiding hand" to evolution, then that brand of design is perfectly compatible with evolution. and indeed, some biologists and evolutionists hold this view.
@ShogunV "But how can macroevolution be considered a fact when the unguided neo darwinian mechanisms that supposedly produced it are debatable?"
do we need to understand the mechanisms of gravity to observe that gravity exists?
when you were a child, did you disbelieve gravity because you didn't know any mechanisms which explained it? so, do you need to definitely know how life changes, to simply observe that it does change? (and once again, i mean macroevolution)
@33LB "do we need to understand the mechanisms of gravity to observe that gravity exists"
So does this mean that you can explain how unguided processes can produce complex biological functions as simple as explaining what would happen to a ball released from a 20th floor window?
The analogy that darwinists love to draw between evolution and gravity is extremely oversimplifying.
@33LB "single-celled organisms are EXTREMELY complex. they are the product of billions of years of evolution....earliest life form was just a self-replicating molecule"
So you use the notion of an imaginary early life form as a proof for the evolution of single celled organisms. But this whole assertion of a simple early life form is based on the notion that evolution (of single-celled organisms) is a fact!!
@ShogunV "the notion of an imaginary early life form as a proof for the evolution of single celled organisms... based on the notion that evolution (of single-celled organisms) is a fact!!"
there is nothing circular about that. YOU'RE the one who says cells are too complex to have originated by abiogenesis, and scientists agree. thus, scientists propose that early life would logically have been more simple.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH PROPOSING THEORIES TO FIT DATA.
@33LB Your rejection of God & design is ultimately rooted in a faith in desperate possibilities (abiogenesis & creative mutations), but to comfort yourself you fall back on the assertion that evolution is a fact. And to defend this you'd definitely have to resort to darwinism. But when the weaknesses of darwinism are pointed out you side-step darwinism and fall back on the same old assertion that evolution is a fact.
So in the end it is a desperate loop of circular reasoning.
@ShogunV i didn't assert that evolution is a fact. you said it is debated within the scientific community, so i simply informed you that it is not. (only the mechanisms are lightly debated, but that's nothing significant). i would rather not explain WHY evolution is a fact as there are people who would do that much better than me.
there are no real "weaknesses" of darwinism. darwinism is not synonymous with abiogenesis- it's annoying to debate someone who doesn't understand the words he's using.
@33LB "YOU DO NOT NEED THE EXPLANATION TO OBSERVE THE FACT TO BEGIN WITH"
Again how would you prove macroevolution to be a fact without resorting to darwinism? Would a subjective interpretation of fossils offer a "proof"? And how would you prove that intelligent design is not needed to account for complex and specified molecular machines without resorting to a dreamed up and improbable dariwnian story? The entire notion of macroevolution seems to be tightly knit with darwinism.
@ShogunV "Again how would you prove macroevolution to be a fact without resorting to darwinism?"
*facepalm*
did i not already answer this? it is frustrating to talk to someone who ignores what i say.
the "fact" of evolution is observed through fossils, genetics, etc. scientists do not debate the "fact" of macroevolution, and it is accepted. this observation stands regardless of what mechanism (whether it is darwinism, or something else) is used to explain it.
@ShogunV "prove that intelligent design is not needed to account for... molecular machines "
occam's razor- most simple explanation is preferred. evolution by natural selection offers a concise, neat explanation for cells, and this explanation can be applied to other situations. believe it or not, evolutionary understanding is used within research to generate economically beneficial biotechnologies. intelligent design does not offer anything on top of evolution- it is a useless idea.
@ShogunV i think your problem is that you're getting confused between terms such as "darwinism" (a mechanism of evolution), "evolution" (regarded as fact in the scientific community), abiogenesis (life beginning without life, no scientific consensus), "intelligent design" (the belief that evolution cannot account for the complexity of life), and the "designer" which dawkins proposes (pure speculation that a designer may have started life).
it would help if you started using terms properly.
@33LB it is exactly like i said, side step "darwinism" & "abiogenesis" to fall back on "evolution is a fact". I don't think you'd spend all this time just to debate a FACT, but rather you stand for a certain philosophical atheistic view which you believe to be supported by facts including your overly repeated assertion "evolution is a fact".
@ShogunV i didn't side-step anything. i admitted that abiogenesis is not solid science. i only got into evolution when YOU brought it up, since you seem to like to use "evolution", "abiogenesis" and "darwinism" interchangeably. they are not.
atheism and evolution are independent. evolution does not support atheism (indeed, a substantial number of prominent evolutionists are christians). nor does atheism require an acceptance of evolution as fact.
I believe it was Dawkins who said that evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. But from your quote I take it that Dawkins does not represent you views, does he?
@ShogunV im not quite sure what dawkins means by that. dawkins is a smart guy, but i dont agree with him when he implies that it is difficult to reconcile evolution with religion. i know for a fact that a lot of prominent evolutionists are religious.
any religious person who takes scientific messages from the bible is a fool who does not understand his own religion. the bible clearly was not intended to be a work of science.
@33LB And before you go further define what you mean by "evolution" since it has become a mutli-meaning general term. Do you mean how life on earth in general has changed over history, or how life had common ancestry, or limited changes caused by changing allele frequencies? Keep in mind a proof for these notions does not automatically prove the "blind watchmaker" definition of how neo darwinian mechanisms (slection & crafty mutations) did it all.
@ShogunV when i say "evolution" im generally talking the mainstream, accepted view of evolution, which includes macroevolution. so changes in life and common ancestry, yes.
you're wrong in thinking that common ancestry and macroevolution are not accepted within the scientific community. they are regarded as much a fact as "microevolution".
you're not going to go into noah's ark with the "multiple parallel ancestors" thing, are you? not saying you will, but if so, then please dont.
@33LB "you're wrong in thinking that common ancestry and macroevolution are not accepted...they are regarded as much a fact as microevolution"
First, I never said they are not accepted. 2nd, this is a very generalised statement about the scientific community which I don't think that you are its authorized spokes person. In your mind it's scientists vs creationists but nothing is further from truth. There are many dissenting voices against neo darwinism even tho they believe in ancestry & macro.
yes, i know some scientists debate so-called "neo darwinism" (ie. one of the proposed mechanisms of evolution). i stated that. i also know that most believe in ancestry and macro. i stated that also. so what point were you trying to make in that post.
@33LB With everything you said you still remain vague about where you stand on the blind watchmaker idea. I already made it clear that this is my specific target. I also said that I don't care much about ancestry & change over time.
It is hard to judge from your comments whether you are an atheist, agnostic, or theistic evolutionist. So which one are you? Keep in mind that if you are an atheist then you are a believer in a blind watchmaker.
@ShogunV my religious views are of no concern to you, nor are they relevant to this discussion. if you're unclear about my religious beliefs, then i'll just accept it as a compliment, because i think that shows that my comments are balanced.
where do i stand on what caused evolution? i don't know, im not an evolutionist. all i know is that evolution did happen, and life has changed drastically over time. this is what most creationists would disagree with.
@33LB Yes your comments do seem to be balanced. But there are several misconceptions and misunderstandings of my arguments that I need to clear up.
And Im glad that you understand that a demonstration of change or hypothetical ancestry does not automatically prove that unguided darwinian mechanisms did it, so let's be clear on that.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads...Oyeah....
TheLalaGOD 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I tak o to teoria praczki mozgow Dawkinsa upadla w gruzach. Czemu ? Nie ma zadnych argumentow na potwierdzenie swych tez."inna cywilizacja" A to czlowiek ZBYT skomplikowany na proces samoistny, a ktos "inteligetniejszy" nie ?^^ I tak o to, Pudelek Darwina zamienil sie w drwala, scinajacego drzewo ewolucji.
Pozdrawiam wszystkich FANATYCZNYCH ateistow oraz Chrzescijan.!
<3
AvePerlik 3 weeks ago
You know what's really unfortunate about being an atheist? If we're right, when we die, we won't get any gratification from having been right. And when Ben Stein dies, he won't exist. And he won't realize what an asshole he's been.
Kruezoraxe 3 weeks ago
ok.....finally....that was a little painful to watch......in conclusion......none of the evidence that was presented in The Dover Trail was presented here.....i wonder why?
TheeJediSmurf 1 month ago
Dawkins will have been well illuminated for his stance. Ptiy he's such a rubbish liar though.
rudyell 1 month ago
woot, ignorance only 30 seconds into the conversation... goddamn it Ben, 8 billion? holy shit, no wonder you think evolution says that life began by lightning striking a mud puddle...
DannyIsaac1 2 months ago
Ben Stein is JAQing off (Just asking questions) and trying to make evolution look bad just because Dawkins is caught a bit off guard from a direct, non-scientific manner. There are too many grey areas in science to start JAQing off........same with conspiracy theory wacks masking their accusations behind "questions".
AceofDlamonds 2 months ago
I found this documentary to be very frustrating. All they did is show people being upset that they can't say "Inellegent design" in their scientific papers. I would have liked to hear their proof or even their scientific theory as to why they believe there is intellegent design involved. And the demonizing of the theory of evolution only added to my frustration. I shouldn't believe in evolution because Hitler did? Bullshit! I should say- one shouldn't believe in God because Jim Jones did? no.
kwb70652 2 months ago
This movie reminds me of the Scopes Monkey Trial. In 1925 Tennesse's Butler Act made it unlawful to teach evolution in public schools, since it denies the creation story taught in the Bible. Biology teacher John Scopes was put on trial for teaching evolution to his students. Nearly a century later we have creationists playing the victim card and howling for not getting enough academic freedom. I bet if we went back to the days of the Scopes Trial, Ben Steins wouldn't have made this documentary.
barbiquearea 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ben Stein's made Richard Dawkins look LIKE a monkey OOP'S! dId I say monkey LOL.
siicpaxsheechpaw 3 months ago
Comment removed
siicpaxsheechpaw 3 months ago
Is Dawkins still alive? Or is he learning reality the hard way now?
ClyneDDW 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Buthmasta
@ClyneDDW
What exactly is that supposed to mean? Seriously, say it.
AceofDlamonds 2 months ago
'There're 8 billion people in the world'...who the fuck is this Ben Stein guy think he is? What a complete imbecile.
MrSmashman1981 3 months ago
The religion on this conversation is the religion of evolution, because the truth is
God created the Heavens and Earth.
mylivingwater 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God created the Heavens and Earth, Genesis 1:1
mylivingwater 3 months ago
Higher intelligence
mylivingwater 3 months ago
A signature of a higher intelligence. You got it right Mr richard dawkins.
mylivingwater 3 months ago
Comment removed
RageOfTheTiger 3 months ago
Evil illusion aka evolution, is a clouded theory to know the truth, that God created the Heavens and Earth.
mylivingwater 3 months ago
@mylivingwater Correction, Evil Illusion, aka evolution, is a very clouded theory that confusses from knowing the truth, that God created the Heavens and Earth
mylivingwater 3 months ago
leave religion out of this debate. this is squarely about dominance of religous beliefs. atheism is a religion and they are propagating their belief in evolution. the simple discussion to this is that can we not have a rational debate on science without being closed minded to anything that may seem contrary to us? can we not follow questions and theories and see where they lead? lets be open minded and look at the facts, knowing that ignorance lead to destruction. P.S. stop the hateful comments.
MrJgkeeling 3 months ago
sOOOOOO aSOMEE!!!!
sardoggy 4 months ago
The theory that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created life is being rejected by mainstream science. I lost my job as a professor who speculates that life must have evolved of the noodley appendages of a spaghetti monster. We should have the academic freedom to teach this theory, in addition to Santa Claus, the Loch Ness Monster, and the Stork Theory as to the origins of life.
MisterMcKinney 5 months ago
Yea, fuck science!! Woot, woot!
Lol Ben Stein is an idiot.
CenkIsAdorable 5 months ago
Every school student should read Dawkins "the blind watch maker"... The freedom of scientific enquiry is being supressed, says Ben.... The very nature of Creationism is opposition to skeptical enquiry... theyre world view is a result of stubbornly clinging to superstition when even their entire lives scientific effort proves otherwise...
rave02able 5 months ago
Ben Stein is an idiot.
barnesen 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ben Stein is an idiot!!
chudoyudo17 5 months ago
Ben Stein is an idiot???
chudoyudo17 5 months ago
great part of the movie! "God wouldn't make us but aliens did..." That really makes sense
rickgigliotti 6 months ago
@rickgigliotti It does make sense, but it still goes to the fact they even if we were created by aliens, they too had to have developed via some sort of system like Darwinism. But God taking a rib from Adam to make woman. Now that makes sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much sense.
jmitterii2 6 months ago 3
The rib was Rubbed and from it sprung the beginnings of Eve,,, "He fucked his own Daughter"..
rave02able 5 months ago
we all wear masks.
Huddie87 7 months ago
....For those of you that are still clinging to the Iron Aged man's attempt at Science aka; religion, please watch: " Why I am no longer a christian " by Evid3nc3 on YouTube. This young man is extremely articulate and very well informed so grab your KJV and a Dictionary or better yet do a prayer to your creator asking that he temporarily allow you to use your intellect so that you may understand all the big words used in the video.
steelcicada1 7 months ago
@steelcicada1 Richard Dawkins is a sick fuck. If you don't realize that, you are a fool.
twombonu 6 months ago
@twombonu When did you meet him? Please qualify your remarks and I will most certainly take them under consideration. Thanks for warning me.
steelcicada1 6 months ago
@steelcicada1 You will find out in good time, when my novel comes out.
twombonu 6 months ago
You my dear.... are in desperate need of proper education... its the 21st century... evolution is a fact... its not a theory... if ure one of those Christ Fans which i think u most probably are .... the old testament and the creationist corner stone of Adam and Eve is Fiction... The world is 6000 years old? Please check your head...
rave02able 5 months ago
@rave02able You, my sweet, are not in a position to lecture me on anything.
twombonu 5 months ago
@rave02able Evolution is still very much a theory all ive heard evolutionists is could have and may have. But they have no evidence to back this up is transitional terms no species evolving at the moment nor is there physical evidence one is. You may say its fact but the real fact is that it is still a hotly debated theory then again with scientists these days it seems they already had it in their minds god didn't exist. Yet you seem to think this maybe this or maybe that is a answer.
bigJ09z 4 months ago
@bigJ09z i think youre confusing evolution with metamorphosis, for each of which there is plenty of evidence, though they aren't the same. metamorphosis sees one animal change form within its life time (e.g. tadpole - frog). evolution by natural selection shows how an animal can be the direct ancestor of two different species (e.g. zebra and horse). no horse became a zebra or vice versa, they simply they share a common ancestor. This is NOT in debate, it is extremely well established
20regan06 3 months ago
@20regan06 Well established....no maybe if your biased in terms of species and such there was no evolution. Adaption which isn't the same I buy but the theory of evolution has pretty scant evidence and no just because you say doesn't make it evidence. And no im not confusing them I don't tend to like being told that ive confused things and I honestly haven't confused them.
bigJ09z 3 months ago
@bigJ09z thats right, don't believe it because someone else has said it to be true. That's called faith. What you should do is go and find out for yourself. I think what you'll find is that adaptations, as you agreed with, form the basis of evolution. It is because of adaptations that species become more complex and differ from one another. These adaptations give natural selection something real to work with. Does this start to make sense? Check out some Carl Sagan, he explains it nicely
20regan06 3 months ago
@20regan06 You really really need to think before you say adaption and evolution are the same much less related. I have heard this before from other people it more annoy's for its stupidity hey go and check out so and so and so. Listen I have yet to find any evidence for evolution this coming from a person who likes actual science and not the dogma you speak of. So it only makes sense if into that dogmatism It certainly doesn't explain the complexity of Dendrotoxin and PhTx3....
bigJ09z 3 months ago
@20regan06 You would have been wise to avoid trying to lecture about science much less species or animals. No I don't believe it because there is no proof or evidence of outside of well so and so evolved into so and so but there isn't any proof of that either. You know what one guy trying to prove evolution gave me as evidence?? A mud skipper nothing microscopic in nature not even anything transitional like your Zebra which isn't proof of much...it doesn't explain Taipoxin structure either.
bigJ09z 3 months ago
@bigJ09z its funny that you bring up an extremely specific neurotoxin in a remote species of australian snake and say "Aha! got you!". well, how would you explain it? Evolutionary theory suggests that the neurotoxin would become increasingly potent in response to environmental demands, such as birds hunting these snakes. Anyway, the point is that the alternative explanation (I'm assuming you believe God made it?) doesn't even explain how my kettle boils water, let alone the intricacies of venom
20regan06 3 months ago
@20regan06 Actually it does although i think you fail to understand why the intricacies are the way they are. How can I say this nicely to you evolutionary theory is a "theory" its not a "fact" although its treated as fact for who knows why. Yeah Dendrotoxin isn't actually from a Australian Elapidae its from a African species called Dendroaspis which have some of the most potent venom on the planet. Taipoxin is from a Australian Elapid family called Oxyuranus. Evolution can't explain everything
bigJ09z 3 months ago
@bigJ09z the point is, you can say that evolutionary theory (or any other theory) has a lot of holes in it. but thats extremely childish unless you can provide an alternative explanation that does explain the same phenomena. but that explanation needs to do it more simply, explain more phenomena, needs to make fewer assumptions AND most crucially, needs to be falsifiable. to say "God did it" is not falsifiable, makes a huge amount of assumptions and is just plainly a poor explanation
20regan06 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steelcicada1 Atheists represent! We need state atheism! Enforced Atheism. Let the rivers flow with the blood of many millions, without which state atheism has never occured!!!! viva REVOLUTION, RELIGION IS CHILD ABuSE
fashklash 6 months ago
Very simple folks, these people are giving a stage to an illegimate issue that has no business even being mentioned within the Scientific community. By doing so they are revealing to their peers that they do not adhere to the scientific method. They deserve what they got. They can perform their qualitative " Lience " and produced their biased " Lientific " reports at Sunday school where they belong.
steelcicada1 7 months ago
wow he just admitted that there is a God *claps hope believes fully :))
thesupernovastar1234 7 months ago
@thesupernovastar1234 Richard Dawkins said that it is possible, some where in the universe. A civilazation created a species in a lab and seeded it on another planet. Those creatures would have been intellegently designed by another species. He didnt say there was a god but that that from of ID could exist. I laugh at steins quote mining.
Majoolwip 6 months ago
What a wonderful documentary, it's nice to know there are men and scientists turning their backs on the evolution propaganda.
chrism76 7 months ago
@chrism76 - This entire movie itself is nothing but poppy-cocky propaganda! Ben Stein is a moron!
BigFatHeretic 7 months ago
ID FTW
TheJosh1111111111111 7 months ago
This is how I am currently seeing the situation: we got a HIDDEN/occult elite whose prophet said 'Do as Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the law' and they mean being satanic immoral selfish evil scum.
Howeverrr, they make sure to push through propaganda and coercion and violence to the MASSES that we have no will , are machines, and nature is a machine, and life and death are meaningless.
Both these sides suppress the Goddess. Ie., orthodox religions, the occult elite, and secular society suppr
zezt 7 months ago
@zezt 2--suppress the Goddess. The Goddess IS nature in all its magical depths. Like the Church persecuted and mass murdered the Wise Women who had the ancient knowledge of sacred plants so it continues now, that entheogens which can help us ecstatically remember Intelligent Design iin ACTION in nature are suppressed even MORE so than scientists wanting to research ID.
zezt 7 months ago
Found this doc extremely interesting and thought provoking.
Intelligent design seems to be present in pretty much all living things, but religion has perverted the idea of "god" such that people like me run in the complete opposite direction and declare ourselves Atheists because we want nothing to do with those gods.
but in the process we trade out all the magic and mystery that lies beyond the veil of our senses and this life.
Iseeyoursoul 7 months ago
we have a scientific dictatorship
CoverFireHero 7 months ago
evolution mutation theories are strickly for fundings , not FACT
1billion1deaths1 7 months ago
The people who made this documentary are a disgrace to the human race
griffithstoby 7 months ago
i love how at 3:55 Ben Stein comely relies "well, i just wanted to be sure" Priceless! Lol
mikhailtsypan 7 months ago
Nice editing during the Dawkins interview, I thought Stein was half way inteligent on the clear eyes commercial but now that i hear him speaking he is just another brianwashed scumbag that relys on faith and not evidence.
"well you see richard the bible says its the word of god so its gotta be the word of god" Makes me fucking sick!
TouchMyHandHoles 7 months ago
If the intellegent design people are right??...welll they better start working on something and not pullig the same old rubbish out of the bible!!//..
trailerfitter2 7 months ago
great video ben :) love it when there are few that will expose the truth to people!!! evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell and anyone who teaches it or prevents the religious from teaching creationism will not be able to escape the wrath of God.
nikitty020 7 months ago
ben stein makes a mistake in saying dawkins is open to intelligent design. dawkins simply proposes that aliens could have started life to begin with- this is not intelligent design, and it is entirely compatible with evolution.
intelligent design necessitates that organisms were created in their current forms, as it says that all life is designed for their specific habitats. dawkins is not open to this idea, and it is not compatible with evolution by natural selection.
33LB 8 months ago
@33LB Dawkins says you will find a signature of a designer. He admits there is a signature of a designer and goes with an alien theory? Thats absurd in the highest degree. Second, thats arguing in a circle because he has to account for the complexity of the alien's biology which then has to be explained by the same means. And so on and so forth.
mrstevenjake22 8 months ago
@mrstevenjake22 dawkins did NOT propose intelligent design. intelligent design proposes that the diversity of organisms came about as a result of a design process, rather than evolution by natural selection- dawkins did NOT say that, and if you think otherwise, then you need to actually watch the video.
the alien's biology does not have to be explained by design- they could have evolved by darwinian means, and then designed life on earth. this is even stated in the video- did you watch it?
33LB 8 months ago
@mrstevenjake22 and lastly, dawkins did not admit there was a signature of a designer. he said he was simply *open to the possibility* that aliens seeded life on earth.
in future, you need to watch videos before you leave comments on them!
33LB 8 months ago
@33LB Seriously? YOU need to watch the video before YOU comment. Immediately after proposing his alien theory Dawkins says and i quote exactly "You might find evidence if you look at the details of our chemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer." Thats pretty clear cut. Again, the alien theory is circular logic so it cant even be put into the equation either.
mrstevenjake22 8 months ago
@mrstevenjake22 *facepalm*
yes, the key word is MIGHT. given the words dawkins uses, and the tone of his voice, he is obviously SPECULATING rather than making firm statements.
the alien theory is not circular because it could have evolved by darwinian means- i have already told you this! and dawkins has already said that in the video! and i have already told you that dawkins said that in the video!
let me guess- you were a failure in school because you lack the ability to listen?
33LB 8 months ago
@33LB It is circular because if darwinian means explained the complexity of our chemistry then there would be no need to invoke the possibility of any sort of a designer. Therefore, the aliens would be completely unnecessary. However, by including the aliens he would have to explain their complex chemistry by Darwinian means and then our complexity would be explained as well which would make no use of the aliens once again.
mrstevenjake22 8 months ago
@mrstevenjake22 so you finally learned to read and seen my response after the second time?
you're assuming that what happens here must happen on all other planets. yes, there could have been aliens, and dawkins is open to that possibility. but aliens may not have been necessary- life could have started here by abiogenesis. and even if we were seeded here by aliens, then perhaps simple life on the alien planet was started by abiogenetic means, which evolved into complicated aliens.
33LB 8 months ago
@33LB Yes but in abiogenesis doesnt account for life either. You can start with amino acids but in order to get it to form to protiens even by chance is pretty much impossible, i believe they mentioned it in the movie. So aliens arent even necessary here because once again they cant be explained either and Dawkins is simply trying to avoid any signature of God in chemistry by producing a laughable alien theory.
mrstevenjake22 7 months ago
@mrstevenjake22 yeah, this movie shows some really amateurish science. at one point they talk about proteins "being in the right order", but proteins aren't sequenced in any way- obviously they got confused between amino acids and proteins, and meant to say the amino acids must be in the "right order".
but anyway, amino acids don't fall into the perfect sequence by chance to form a protein- that's not how it works. the video "Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 8)" explains this better.
33LB 7 months ago
@mrstevenjake22 once again, dawkins was NOT admitting a designer was necessary. you seem to be completely misunderstanding the interaction that's taking place here. ben stein raised the issue of intelligent design, and dawkins simply went along with it as a POSSIBILITY, and suggested the idea that aliens could have started life.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB I never said Dawkins said a designer was necessary, i simply quoted him. Second, it shows how close-minded he is that if intelligent design were true he would go with an alien theory. Which i showed to be circular and you have not refuted. Thats why you shifted gears again.
mrstevenjake22 7 months ago
@mrstevenjake22 yes you did say that dawkins said a designer was necessary. you said " He admits there is a signature of a designer and goes with an alien theory?"
it would be unscientific to jump to the conclusion of "god" because there is no evidence to suggest that only the supernatural is the possible explanation. when i did my dissertation, at one stage i had to rationalise lab results which didnt make any sense. you know what would have happened if i wrote "god did it"? i wouldve failed.
33LB 7 months ago
@mrstevenjake22 it isnt circular, and i already refuted that many times.
"you're assuming that what happens here must happen on all other planets. yes, there could have been aliens, and dawkins is open to that possibility. but aliens may not have been necessary- life could have started here by abiogenesis. and even if we were seeded here by aliens, then perhaps simple life on the alien planet was started by abiogenetic means, which evolved into complicated aliens."
why cant creationists read?
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB But abiogenesis has not yet accounted for the origin of life. Your key word is "could", and if abiogenesis is the answer then aliens are not needed. Therefore if it turns out there is evidence for a designer then aliens cannot explain it since they need to be explained as well. You havent refuted anything. And im not a creationist, I dont have anything against evolution i simply see all the flaws in it.
mrstevenjake22 7 months ago
@mrstevenjake22 you're right in saying that the origin of life does not have a proper naturalistic explanation that does not invoke a designer. however, i will say this again- absence of evidence for abiogenesis, is not evidence that a designer created the first microorganisms. (which is also completely unproven). ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR HYPOTHESIS X IS NOT EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF HYPOTHESIS Y.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB Thats why i said "If it turns out there is evidence" i never said there was evidence. And once again the alien theory does not hold up, and not by abiogenesis either.
mrstevenjake22 7 months ago
@33LB I hope you realize that simply mentioning abiogenesis is not a "smoking gun" argument that proves darwinism and debunks design. Abiogenesis is a fable on its own right. What is curious here is the way darwinists try to dictate the mystery of life's origin in such a way that even if they need to invoke design / guidance it has to be green aliens and not the dreaded G-word.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV nothing needs to be invoked, because evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. thus, evolutionists speculate about the origin of life just out of interest, and not because they HAVE to come up with an explanation.
the reason why aliens are sometimes suggested, is because it would be completely unscientific to jump to a supernatural conclusion. people once jumped to a supernatural conclusion for lightning, which later proved to be natural in origin.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB But our entire physical universe had a metaphysical origin that does not conform to the laws of physics. So even if life on earth was the work of aliens and bound to laws of physics, they too will need to have their origins explained by physical means. Which puts us back to the main question of life's origin and does not solve any thing. And no matter how long you extend the loop of aliens creating aliens, a metaphysical cause will need to be the ultimate conclusion.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV the universe may have had very bizarre origins which i surely wouldnt be able to understand (not being a cosmologist). however, i dont see why a naturalistic explanation for LIFE is not possible. it is perfectly forseeable that life could arise from the laws of chemistry, without invoking a "metaphysical" cause.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB "it is perfectly forseeable that life could arise from the laws of chemistry"
How is it foreseeable when all materialistic explanations for life's origins either failed or utterly lack proof? And why do some darwinists invoke aliens if all you need is chemistry? There is much work to be done to prove abiogenesis and not just some wishful thinking. And it doesn't make you any more scientific to replace "God did it" with "chemistry did it".
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV maybe forseeable is the wrong word. i should say it's "possible" rather. there is no reason that life could not arise from laws of chemistry, as we know them today.
if you would actually read my comments (a challenging activity for a creationist, but please make an attempt) you would know that darwinists do not "invoke" aliens. they merely discuss and speculate about them if someone raises the possibility of life being seeded on earth, as richard dawkins does in this video.
33LB 7 months ago
@ShogunV you appear to have a seriously difficult time telling the difference between definite claims and speculation.
i am not saying life definitely arose from simple chemistry. i am speculating about it, and explaining to you that it is POSSIBLE, and thus, it would be silly to jump to the definite "god" conclusion. i don't know how life arose. no scientist knows how life arose. and contrary to what YOU think, you don't know how life arose. so stop making definite black and white claims.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB I actually appreciate when a Darwinist admits that he is only speculating. But there are many speculative tales being used as "evidence" against God or design. A significant chunk of evolution is kept alive by pure speculation. Aside from abiogenesis, would you agree that a random mutation giving wings to a reptile or lungs to fish is also a speculation? In addition to playing guess work with fossils. Gould said it best: "these are just so stories".
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV well, most scientists would acknoweldge that there is not a proper explanation for the origin of life. they have various ideas, but none are conclusive.
it's important to understand what is meant by "design". the thing is that ID advocates claim that life AS IT EXISTS NOW was designed. evolution has disproven this. however, evolution cannot disprove INITIAL DESIGN AND SEEDING OF LIFE ON EARTH because evolution is not concerned with the ORIGIN of life.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB If you don't know how life originated isn't that all the more reason for you to be open minded to all possibilities? Physicists employ metaphysics alot so why should the origin of life be an exception just because some atheist said so? I don't know about you, but most atheists oppose metaphysical origin for life mainly because of its religious implications, and they know it. The exact same way early atheists attacked the big bang just because it supported the idea of a created universe.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV more open minded? haha- im the one who said that ANY explanation for the origin of life is speculation. the reason why i said you can't invoke "god" as the answer, is because "god", by definition, is a supernatural being who cannot be subject to any scientific investigation. and this is not something which i said. this is something that CHRISTIANS have decided. CHRISTIANS have defined god in such a way so that he cant be scientifically investigated, so quit complaining!
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB My point is: invoking a metaphysical origin may be out of the boundaries of science labs, but it does not escape the boundaries of human understanding and rationality. And it is much more logical and intuitive to conclude that the metaphysical cause is a personal agent with intelligence and plan (as is concluded from the vast information and design in life) than a non intelligent random cause. But again if you don't believe that way it's your choice.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV "it is much more logical and intuitive to conclude that the metaphysical cause is a personal agent with intelligence and plan"
no it isnt, youre jumping to conclusions.
given the universe is a chaotic place, and mostly uninhabitable, and given the earth itself is also a hostile place to life (about 99.8% of all species have gone extinct), your belief that there is design in life and the universe is deeply unconvincing.
and lastly, life was caused by evolution, not "randomness".
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB I'm just saying that you gotta have a darwinist/materialist mindset to dismiss metaphysical origins in favor of dreamed up and highly improbable materialistic fables (ie abiogenesis). Physicists utilise metaphysical explanations for universal origin as well as sub atomic phenomena unexplainable by materialism. Excluding life's origin from metaphysics while utterly lacking a credible materialistic explanation is as philosophical as faith in God, and it doesn't make you any more scientific.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV firstly, there is no way to investigate the supernatural. by definition, the supernatural can't be proven, so why is the supernatural even worth investigating if it can't be proven?
furthermore, it is deeply unscientific to say "X isn't possible, and therefore, Y must be the explanation". (x being abiogenesis and Y being god)- there could be another explanation which no one has thought of. ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR ONE HYPOTHESIS IS NOT EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF ANOTHER HYPOTHESIS.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB "so why is the supernatural even worth investigating if it can't be proven?"
So I guess then we would have to silence any physicist or philosopher who dares touch the metaphysical and stunt our understanding of the universe's origin. Or let them talk about it as long as they dont mention "GOD". But my only question is: if we know nothing about the metaphysical, then what makes an atheist think that he knows better about which part of metaphysics to accept and which part to reject (ie God)
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV how is a scientist supposed to touch something which cannot be investigated scientifically? god is supposed to be OUTSIDE of the physical universe and thus, cannot be subject to any scientific investigation. (christians say this themselves)
science cannot make any comment to say that a god does exist, or does not exist. and anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand science.
atheists do not say that god *definitely* does not exist- they dont believe because they are unconvinced.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB "science cannot make any comment to say that a god does exist, or does not exist. and anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand science"
That's a good point but I'd like to add to it: God & metaphysics may be outside of our current scientific experimental methodology, but certainly not outside of our intuition, intellect, and philosophy. And we certainly cannot limit our knowledge and beliefs to a closed box of hardcore empiricism that is limited by our available techs and means.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV i freaking already answered your point about metaphysics. it would be nonsensical to invoke metaphysics to explain the origin of life in the physical universe.
since life originated WITHIN this universe, then it would have to be subject to the laws of physics as we know them! i am absolutely baffled as to why you are trying to resort to METAPHYSICAL explanations for CHEMICAL systems such as biological cells and building blocks.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB The point I was making is that you cannot dismiss metaphysical explanation based on purely categorical reasoning with regard to a rigid definition of what constitutes scientific. Especially when philosophers of science agree that defining science is notoriously difficult. Now whether the design of life was purely metaphysical or physical, either case we see amble reason to believe in a guided design for life as we see in the information content of the DNA and the molecular machines.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV there's the "information" argument again. you do realise the so-called "information" present in DNA in MODERN life forms is the product of selective-pressures causing changes in allele frequencies in the genome, right? you DO NOT need to invoke a designer to explain the complexities and information contained within MODERN DAY genomes. as for EARLY life forms, well, those may not even have had DNA and would have contained very little "information" at all.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB It was never a question of allele frequencies or which genotype occurs more often. It is a question of how the information to build complex molecular machines originated in the first place, and how speculations with regard to creative random mutations remain inconclusive and purely imaginative.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV there is so much in your comments!
- "complex" molecular machines didn't exist in the first place. they evolved from simpler machinery.
- currently, there is no life without DNA. but you're the one saying "complex" life cant arise by abiogenesis (which is correct) so it is reasonable to speculate that earlier life, which was certainly more simple, arose naturally. this "life" may have been something as simple as a self-replicating molecule.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB And why do you speculate about some imaginary early life forms with no DNA? Our knowledge about life conclusively show that there is no life form without DNA information. Our knowledge of cause & effect relations also show us that complex information codes only come from intelligence. A proper scientific explanation should not depart from our known facts & observations in favor of inventing some outlandish scenario just to suit a certain theory or world view.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@33LB "since life originated WITHIN this universe, then it would have to be subject to the laws of physics as we know them"
And the physical universe has shown us that life can only come from life. The notion of spontaneous generation is extremely unconvincing and improbable and has been refuted since the days of Pasteur. Now we know that to build life we need information and complex systems to process it, not just simply a chemical soup.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV "And the physical universe has shown us that life can only come from life."
no it hasn't. just because there are no firm, definite conclusions on abiogenesis does not mean it could not have happened. ONCE AGAIN, ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR ABIOGENESIS IS NOT EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE IDEA THAT LIFE MUST COME FROM LIFE.
you have a painful habit of jumping to conclusions (which have little evidence themselves) purely because there is a lack of evidence for alternatives!
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB " just because there are no firm, definite conclusions on abiogenesis does not mean it could not have happened"
Ok, so would it be more scientific to discard intuitive reasoning and repeatedly observable common facts such as how life always comes from life, how spontaneous generation is highly improbable, and how information can only come from intelligence, all in favor of some undemonstrated, outlandish, and improbable scenario with no firm definite conclusion such as abiogenesis?
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV sometimes it IS appropriate to discard intuitive reasoning. a prime example is quantum physics, which is COMPLETELY counter-intuitive to human thinking.
the rest of that comment is speculation. im trying to freaking reason with you here by suggesting that abiogenesis is a perfectly reasonable speculation. but you've got your fingers in your ears, arguing that it's completely impossible, because it's not compatible with YOUR personal religion.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB "sometimes it IS appropriate to discard intuitive reasoning. a prime example is quantum physics"
Science never discards reason. Quantum mechanics is yet another REASONABLE model for explaining physics which supplements classical Einsteinian physics by doing a better job at explaining subatomic phenomena. Physicists also employ METAPHYSICS often to explain what cannot be explained by laws of physics.
So scientists go after any explanation that reason demands, including METAPHYSICS.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV actually, quantum physics can be very counter-intuitive. so counter-intuitive, that one scientist said "if you think you understand quantum theory, then you don't understand quantum theory". the reason why it's so unreasonable is because human brains did not evolve to understand such ideas, but rather, to simply allow humans to cope with finding food and nailing women. thus, quantum physics seems bizarre and counter-intuitive all humans.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB "abiogenesis is a perfectly reasonable speculation"
I hope you realize that it takes much more rigorous work to prove the notion of unguided chemical processes producing even the simplest form of life. Even Dean Kenyon, the founder of "biochemical predestination" (a theory favored by many darwinists) has rebuked his own theory in favor of intelligent design.
Just remember that it takes more than just a hopeful atheist exaggerating a desperate possibility that suits his worldview.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV it really is impossible to reason with you. so you disblieve anything that hasn't been proven and contradicts your beliefs, eh? so dogmatic.
Dean Kenyon is not the one, single authority on science. science is about CONSENSUS. one person's opinion doesn't matter, even if he is a so-called expert.
33LB 7 months ago
Comment removed
ShogunV 7 months ago
@33LB "but you've got your fingers in your ears, arguing that it's completely impossible, because it's not compatible with YOUR personal religion"
I'm not the one who is fantasizing about an improbable, desperate, and inconclusive origin of life scenario just because it suits an atheistic worldview where any mention of design or God is being censored.
It is your defense of such unproven and inconclusive assertions that truly resembles a "personal religion"
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV fantasising? i don't care whether or not it happened, because even if abiogenesis was disproven, that would definitely NOT prove the existence of god. (yes, believe it or not, there are other religions than christianity). i thought i had already made it crystal clear that i am NOT defending abiogenesis as being a definite fact, but rather, a POSSIBILITY.
33LB 7 months ago
@ShogunV your posts contain so many arguments which are all difficult to address without extensive comments. anyway...
pasteur only showed that COMPLEX organisms can't arise spontaneously (yes, microbiological organisms are complex too). this does not rule out the possibility of much SIMPLE life arising naturally.
you're assuming that life billions of years ago is similar to today. life billions of years ago certainly would have been more primitive, so abiogenesis is still a viable possibility
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB " life billions of years ago certainly would have been more primitive, so abiogenesis is still a viable possibility"
If you take the simplest single-celled organism you can think of and put it in a test tube with ideal conditions for its life, then break it down to its component organelles & molecules. Do you think that they will come back together to produce a functional life again? NO it won't, yet you say that simple life can start from scratch outside of such ideal conditions.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV once again, single-celled organisms are EXTREMELY complex. they are the product of billions of years of evolution just like you, so of course they are complicated and can't arise spontaneously.
modern cells, being the end-product of an evolutionary process, are likely to be extremely different from earlier life forms. earlier life forms would have been more simple. perhaps the earliest life form was just a self-replicating molecule.
33LB 7 months ago
Comment removed
ShogunV 7 months ago
@33LB I never claimed that life is outside of physical laws. The main argument is about whether it is guided physical design or unguided. The unguided side of the argument has totally failed to demonstrate how DNA information could arise without intelligence. That is because the ONLY cause of information is intelligence, ie it is guided design. Now whether the design was implemented physically or metaphysically, that we can only speculate.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV "The unguided side of the argument has totally failed to demonstrate how DNA information could arise without intelligence."
evolution by natural selection causes a change in allele frequencies. you could think of that as a "change" in information. selective processes cause changes in the genome, and thus, changes within the so-called "information" contained within the genome. there is no designer needed- so why throw it in just to satisfy your monotheistic religion?
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB "evolution by natural selection causes a change in allele frequencies"
It is a common mistake for darwinists to extrapolate changes in allele frequencies into a potential for macroevolution. Macro requires the addition of new organ/function that did not exist before in the gene pool via supposedly unguided mechanisms. This new information is supposedly the work of random mutations, and this is where unguided darwinian explanations become problematic & inconclusive.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV macroevolution is regarded as an observed fact in the scientific community. it is not extrapolated from the idea of changes in allele frequencies. RATHER, changes in allele frequencies is just one of the proposed ideas which CAUSES the observed fact of macroevolution.
the EXPLANATIONS (such as changes in allele frequencies) FOLLOW the observed fact of evolution.
33LB 7 months ago
Comment removed
ShogunV 7 months ago
@33LB Furthermore, you are sorely mistaken to think that a belief in God rests entirely on lack of materialist explanations. Because it has more to do with faith and intuitive reasoning based on signatures of design and information in living things and in the universe. The fact that some stubborn materialists opted for an anti-God mindset and exhausted their feeble materialistic explanations is just a bonus.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@33LB By the way, I'm not expecting you to be convinced of every thing I say. Whether you opt for a teleological explanations (God, design, purpose) or disteleological (randomness, chaos, godlessness), it is all a matter of choice. So do not be naive in claiming that empirical science compels you to go for disteleo, because the evidence for materialistic origins (abiogenesis & aliens) is utterly lacking in this 21st century age of information where materialism has been on the retreat.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV this video and these comments have actually stimulated my mind a bit, my thinking around this topic has become rusty since i got tired of evolution-creation years ago. anyway...
to summarise- i dont think you can prove design scientifically. the evidence shows that life evolved, and thus, if there WAS a designer, it would only be in a general sense (eg. a guiding hand, or a designer who implemented the rules of the universe). you cant disprove evolution with design.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB in the video clearly the man said he had no idea where life came from so clearly evolution didnt prove anything. it starts at where things already exist and doesnt explain HOW they came to be. they cant explain it without a creator. all they can to is guess.
nikitty020 7 months ago
@nikitty020 you're confused between evolution and abiogenesis, and this is a huge source of confusion for creationists.
evolution is the change of life over time. darwinian evolution is change of life due to pressures in the natural environment. intelligent design has not even come close to disproving this.
abiogenesis is the origin of life without prior life. there is no firm explanation for this. it is possible that the first microorganisms were "designed", but this is entirely speculation.
33LB 7 months ago
@nikitty020 well of course evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. why should it explain the origin of life if it has nothing to do with that? do you expect evolution to explain quantum mechanics as well?
they cant explain it... yet... but there was a time when people couldn't explain thunder.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB "i dont think you can prove design scientifically. the evidence shows that life evolved"
The evidence for evolution is actually a grey area that is debatable on many fields be it fossils or genetics. Let us not forget that the proposed neodarwinian mechanisms are significantly lacking in adequate explanations for origins of complex life forms. Few darwinists were brave enough to concede that the notion of creative random mutations giving wings to reptile is just uncertain speculation.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV the "debate" surrounding evolution, which you mentioned, is concerning the MECHANISMS of evolution, and the fine details of these mechanisms. it is also debatable which mechanisms are most significant, etc.
the observation that life changes over time, (ie. the observation, or idea, that life evolves) is not debated within the scientific community. virtually every academic believes life evolved (before you say it, that includes "macroevolution") there is debate about the mechanisms only
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB " the debate surrounding evolution is concerning the MECHANISMS of evolution"
True, the proposed unguided mechanisms failed to adequately explain the origin of complex biological systems. I hope you also understand that a demonstration of change over time is not a refutation of intelligent design nor can it be extrapolated to claim that the infusion of genetic info to produce the change was the handy work of random & unguided yet "creative" mutations.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV "a demonstration of change over time is not a refutation of intelligent design"
when intelligent design advocates claim that evolution didn't happen (as many of them do), then observations of change over time DO refute that particular brand of intelligent design.
if one believes in a designer in a "broad" sense, that lends a "guiding hand" to evolution, then that brand of design is perfectly compatible with evolution. and indeed, some biologists and evolutionists hold this view.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB "every academic believes life evolved (before you say it, that includes "macroevolution")"
But how can macroevolution be considered a fact when the unguided neo darwinian mechanisms that supposedly produced it are debatable?
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV "But how can macroevolution be considered a fact when the unguided neo darwinian mechanisms that supposedly produced it are debatable?"
do we need to understand the mechanisms of gravity to observe that gravity exists?
when you were a child, did you disbelieve gravity because you didn't know any mechanisms which explained it? so, do you need to definitely know how life changes, to simply observe that it does change? (and once again, i mean macroevolution)
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB "do we need to understand the mechanisms of gravity to observe that gravity exists"
So does this mean that you can explain how unguided processes can produce complex biological functions as simple as explaining what would happen to a ball released from a 20th floor window?
The analogy that darwinists love to draw between evolution and gravity is extremely oversimplifying.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV "unguided processes can produce complex biological functions as simple as explaining what would happen to a ball released...?"
that has absolutely nothing to do with what i said. im trying to explain the differences between facts, and the explanations for those facts.
gravity is a fact. the explanation is einstein's theory of relativity etc.
evolution is a fact. the explanation is darwinian evolution etc.
YOU DO NOT NEED THE EXPLANATION TO OBSERVE THE FACT TO BEGIN WITH.
33LB 7 months ago
Comment removed
ShogunV 7 months ago
@33LB "single-celled organisms are EXTREMELY complex. they are the product of billions of years of evolution....earliest life form was just a self-replicating molecule"
So you use the notion of an imaginary early life form as a proof for the evolution of single celled organisms. But this whole assertion of a simple early life form is based on the notion that evolution (of single-celled organisms) is a fact!!
Sounds circular to me.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV "the notion of an imaginary early life form as a proof for the evolution of single celled organisms... based on the notion that evolution (of single-celled organisms) is a fact!!"
there is nothing circular about that. YOU'RE the one who says cells are too complex to have originated by abiogenesis, and scientists agree. thus, scientists propose that early life would logically have been more simple.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH PROPOSING THEORIES TO FIT DATA.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB Your rejection of God & design is ultimately rooted in a faith in desperate possibilities (abiogenesis & creative mutations), but to comfort yourself you fall back on the assertion that evolution is a fact. And to defend this you'd definitely have to resort to darwinism. But when the weaknesses of darwinism are pointed out you side-step darwinism and fall back on the same old assertion that evolution is a fact.
So in the end it is a desperate loop of circular reasoning.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV i didn't assert that evolution is a fact. you said it is debated within the scientific community, so i simply informed you that it is not. (only the mechanisms are lightly debated, but that's nothing significant). i would rather not explain WHY evolution is a fact as there are people who would do that much better than me.
there are no real "weaknesses" of darwinism. darwinism is not synonymous with abiogenesis- it's annoying to debate someone who doesn't understand the words he's using.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB "YOU DO NOT NEED THE EXPLANATION TO OBSERVE THE FACT TO BEGIN WITH"
Again how would you prove macroevolution to be a fact without resorting to darwinism? Would a subjective interpretation of fossils offer a "proof"? And how would you prove that intelligent design is not needed to account for complex and specified molecular machines without resorting to a dreamed up and improbable dariwnian story? The entire notion of macroevolution seems to be tightly knit with darwinism.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV "Again how would you prove macroevolution to be a fact without resorting to darwinism?"
*facepalm*
did i not already answer this? it is frustrating to talk to someone who ignores what i say.
the "fact" of evolution is observed through fossils, genetics, etc. scientists do not debate the "fact" of macroevolution, and it is accepted. this observation stands regardless of what mechanism (whether it is darwinism, or something else) is used to explain it.
33LB 7 months ago
@ShogunV "prove that intelligent design is not needed to account for... molecular machines "
occam's razor- most simple explanation is preferred. evolution by natural selection offers a concise, neat explanation for cells, and this explanation can be applied to other situations. believe it or not, evolutionary understanding is used within research to generate economically beneficial biotechnologies. intelligent design does not offer anything on top of evolution- it is a useless idea.
33LB 7 months ago
@ShogunV i think your problem is that you're getting confused between terms such as "darwinism" (a mechanism of evolution), "evolution" (regarded as fact in the scientific community), abiogenesis (life beginning without life, no scientific consensus), "intelligent design" (the belief that evolution cannot account for the complexity of life), and the "designer" which dawkins proposes (pure speculation that a designer may have started life).
it would help if you started using terms properly.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB it is exactly like i said, side step "darwinism" & "abiogenesis" to fall back on "evolution is a fact". I don't think you'd spend all this time just to debate a FACT, but rather you stand for a certain philosophical atheistic view which you believe to be supported by facts including your overly repeated assertion "evolution is a fact".
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV i didn't side-step anything. i admitted that abiogenesis is not solid science. i only got into evolution when YOU brought it up, since you seem to like to use "evolution", "abiogenesis" and "darwinism" interchangeably. they are not.
atheism and evolution are independent. evolution does not support atheism (indeed, a substantial number of prominent evolutionists are christians). nor does atheism require an acceptance of evolution as fact.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB "atheism and evolution are independent"
I believe it was Dawkins who said that evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. But from your quote I take it that Dawkins does not represent you views, does he?
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV im not quite sure what dawkins means by that. dawkins is a smart guy, but i dont agree with him when he implies that it is difficult to reconcile evolution with religion. i know for a fact that a lot of prominent evolutionists are religious.
any religious person who takes scientific messages from the bible is a fool who does not understand his own religion. the bible clearly was not intended to be a work of science.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB And before you go further define what you mean by "evolution" since it has become a mutli-meaning general term. Do you mean how life on earth in general has changed over history, or how life had common ancestry, or limited changes caused by changing allele frequencies? Keep in mind a proof for these notions does not automatically prove the "blind watchmaker" definition of how neo darwinian mechanisms (slection & crafty mutations) did it all.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV when i say "evolution" im generally talking the mainstream, accepted view of evolution, which includes macroevolution. so changes in life and common ancestry, yes.
you're wrong in thinking that common ancestry and macroevolution are not accepted within the scientific community. they are regarded as much a fact as "microevolution".
you're not going to go into noah's ark with the "multiple parallel ancestors" thing, are you? not saying you will, but if so, then please dont.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB "you're wrong in thinking that common ancestry and macroevolution are not accepted...they are regarded as much a fact as microevolution"
First, I never said they are not accepted. 2nd, this is a very generalised statement about the scientific community which I don't think that you are its authorized spokes person. In your mind it's scientists vs creationists but nothing is further from truth. There are many dissenting voices against neo darwinism even tho they believe in ancestry & macro.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV herro again. so many comments.
yes, i know some scientists debate so-called "neo darwinism" (ie. one of the proposed mechanisms of evolution). i stated that. i also know that most believe in ancestry and macro. i stated that also. so what point were you trying to make in that post.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB With everything you said you still remain vague about where you stand on the blind watchmaker idea. I already made it clear that this is my specific target. I also said that I don't care much about ancestry & change over time.
It is hard to judge from your comments whether you are an atheist, agnostic, or theistic evolutionist. So which one are you? Keep in mind that if you are an atheist then you are a believer in a blind watchmaker.
ShogunV 7 months ago
@ShogunV my religious views are of no concern to you, nor are they relevant to this discussion. if you're unclear about my religious beliefs, then i'll just accept it as a compliment, because i think that shows that my comments are balanced.
where do i stand on what caused evolution? i don't know, im not an evolutionist. all i know is that evolution did happen, and life has changed drastically over time. this is what most creationists would disagree with.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB Yes your comments do seem to be balanced. But there are several misconceptions and misunderstandings of my arguments that I need to clear up.
And Im glad that you understand that a demonstration of change or hypothetical ancestry does not automatically prove that unguided darwinian mechanisms did it, so let's be clear on that.
ShogunV 7 months ago