Darwin VS Design Dr. Stephen Meyer 2

[thejewishagnostic]

Stephen Meyer cant think of any proof for evolution can u

atavisms,homology,embriology ,natural selection ,speciation,ervs,summation

chromosone dna ,mitocondrial dna,fossil record,dna similarities ,phylogenetic tree,vestigal organs,ring species,artifical selection

[gregrutz]

"If those animals were there'' There aren't any bunnies in the Cambrian Period, they hadn't evolved yet. Thanks for pointing that out.

Everything in The Carbrian Period had a mom and a dad, just like today.

[gregrutz]

There are many Pre-Cambrian fossils. I don't think he even looked.

[granddad2002]

Meyer's makes an extra ordinary claim? I have no problem with that. I lived through great changes in the popularization of new discoveries in science (punctual equilibrium,

dinosaur endothermic physiology, the Alvarez hypothesis). And these things produced activity in research as well as debate. But debate didn't happen. Aside from the 'political footballing' and the mythical 'employee' status with the Smithsonian; Myers work is literary criticism + uncredited work+other people's property.

[gcnengineer]

Beware of people who claim Meyers has no interest in science. They have never read his works, and clearly do not understand evolution. They appear to think non-life evolves into life. A rather poor understanding of evolution, but a rather handy way for an atheist to promote atheistc ideas I suppose.

[charadester]

Beware of Meyer. He heads a crusade to impose Christian doctrine onto the entire world. He has NO interest in science and seeks only to secure his ticket to heaven....others be damned.  We often see this behavior among religious conservatives and fundamentalists. Evolution is simply a branch of science that interprets the overwhelming evidence of organismal change over vast periods of geologic time. It's obvious, it's abundant, and has passed more than 150 years of scientific scrutiny.

[fashklash]

@charadester haaha oh no! help the people are going to be decieved by christian propaganda! must ban all religion. like communist russia :/

[charadester]

@fashklash "Given the current and historical difficulty human philosophic systems have faced in accounting for truth as autonomous from revelation, scientists and philosophers might be most receptive to systems of thought that find their roots in Biblical theology." (Meyer, 1986. Scientific Tenets of Faith). Meyer was Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and coauthor of 'The Wedge' document, with the express goal of destroying evolutionary science. Case closed.

[fashklash]

@charadester What is this "wedge document"? Is it one of your play-hard conspiracy theories to get people to believe meyer is making fake experiments back in his lab? Do you realize that secularizing society takes away ppls basis for morals? Now to what extent will this negatively impact on society? You would argue thet it wouldn't because you're adamant on creating a communist russia with the ACLU. Judge Jones verdict was 90% ACLU transcript read verbatum. No conspiracy theories theree..

[charadester]

@fashklash Communist Russia? The ACLU? You may be making some irrational associations. Beer doesn't always lead to heroin. Check out Barbara Forrest's "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design". It's a good read, available on Amazon.com. It might be helpful in your understanding of the not so scientific motives of your heroes.

[gregrutz]

@fashklash Sorry your Bush appt. judge proved that ID is Creationism. Nice try to get religion in schools.

[gregrutz]

IF those animals were there, they would call it the Cambrian Period. IDiot.

[gregrutz]

PhD in history, no wonder he doesn't know what he is talking about.

He should study the history of life on earth.

[brock138]

"If you can preserve an embryo, you can preserve the animal, and if those animals were there, we should have found them." Wait... is he saying the animals didn't exist because we have evidence of their embryos, but not the grown animal? Where did the embryos come from?

[gcnengineer]

@brock138 LOL no brock I thought he said there were missing animals in your head where brains used to be hahaha. listen to it a few more times and you'll get what he meant buddy.

[ianfranklin1]

macro evolution will fail as a theory. It is a matter of time.

[kenthovindspimp]

"macro evolution will fail as a theory. It is a matter of time. "

You probably have absolutely no idea why this statement of yours is so incredibly funny, but indeed it is.

Thanks for making me laugh.

[MedicineWarrior]

1)DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

2)All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3)Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

I submit that this is evidence for God.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've refuted the evidence. All you need is one.

[kenthovindspimp]

YOu assert it's a code without defining what a code is. YOu assert that all codes, again without defining code, are created by a conscious mind. Then you conclude that, because your unsupported assertions are true, your conclusion must necessarily follow.

Then, as if you haven't already shown what a tool you are, you take the incredible leap beyond all of that of pinpointing the specific conscious mind that created that, yet again undefined, Code of yours.

continued...

[MedicineWarrior]

I apologize for assuming you would know what a code is. 1. Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a "writer" or "speaker") and a decoder (a "reader" or "listener") using agreed upon symbols. 2. DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's. 3. DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages.

[MedicineWarrior]

I do not need to prove that all codes are created by a conscious mind- I asked the initial question which was essentially "show me one code that was not created by a conscious mind"- so the ball is in your court. I assert that you will not find the sequence; original message > encoder > encoded message > decoder > decoded message, occuring naturally (that is without a conscious mind involved) - so it would reasonably follow that DNA was created by a mind. Cont>

[MedicineWarrior]

There is no reason to be specific either... I have logically explained a basis for a belief in an intelligence or purpose behind life- you can either accept that or reject it. In my opinion if one accepts the possibility of a God, is intellectually honest, not prideful and is willing to work with such a notion and pursue truth... the rest will take care of itself. No-one can convince you of anything.

[kenthovindspimp]

"I have logically explained a basis for a belief in an intelligence or purpose behind life."

You don't even know what logic is.

Logic is conclusion based on premise. Your premise of no natural code is based on a false defition of code, and willful ignorance to factual data that DNA is a code, um, found in nature.

[kenthovindspimp]

Your conclusion that is based on this fallacious information is, as such, illogical. therefore, not logical, therefore intellectually dishonest, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Pride??? not even sure where that came from.

Willingness to pursue a notion is noble, but when one finds facts that discredit ones notion, one should abandon it and not ignore the facts.

Notions of the supernatural are fine too, they just aren't science, aren't logical, and rely on faith...

[MedicineWarrior]

Its apparent that it is you that does not know what logic is.

[kenthovindspimp]

have a nice day. I can no longer help you out of the cave.

[TheJaredJammer]

Sorry kenthovindspimp, but it's you who's defending an invalidated 19th century relic. Darwinists are the new flat Earthers lol.

[kenthovindspimp]

Please point out the invalidity of this "19th century relic".

[jtoksa]

TheJaredJammer:

WHY DO YOU CENSOR COMMENTS ON ALL YOUR VIDEOS?

WHY DO YOU DISABLE THE RATINGS?

[weslyx]

"Sorry kenthovindspimp, but it's you who's defending an invalidated 19th century relic. Darwinists are the new flat Earthers lol. "

YES INDEED!! HEHE

[kenthovindspimp]

"I assert that you will not find the sequence; original message > encoder > encoded message > decoder > decoded message, occuring naturally"

You are denying the obvious. DNA is indeed a 'code' by which living organisms are comprised. You just won't admit that this process is natural. it's called willful ignorance. You chose to deny the obvious. No one can help you there.

[MedicineWarrior]

If it is purely natural- purely materialist- then there not only should be other like examples of such a thing but your "proof" that is totally natural should entail precise descriptions of how it was done naturally and also be able to do the same thing... from scratch... no such proof or science exists.

[DiggityDogg56]

It is done all the time. Culture a bacteria, modify it's environment and you will get a bacteria with a modified DNA to reflect that change in the environment. Heat tolerance, ability to digest a diffent sugar and so on.

[MedicineWarrior]

Right, you can also write an algorithm that writes an algorithm that writes an alogorithm- but there is ALWAYS an intellgence behind the first one. Whenever you can create a bacteria (which already contains codes) out of base chemicals without pre-existing codes from scratch- or create chemicals without elements to begin with- then you might have something.

[kenthovindspimp]

FALSE ANALOGY. please examine your logic and reasoning. examine every statement you made for critical error.

[jtoksa]

> DNA to reflect

> that change in the environment

Check out the E. coli long-term experimental evolution project.

They've been growing 12 initially identical strains of E. coli for 20 years. They were able to evolve a strain which uses citrite as nutrient, even though inability to use citrite is a defining characteristic of E.coli.

It needed three mutations, one initially neutral, which makes it "irreversibly complex". The bacteria didn't know this so they evolved it anyway :-)

[kenthovindspimp]

I know what "code" means, I just want you to specify what you mean by the term to prevent equivocation.

1. so code is communication; meaning there must be two sentient beings in existence, capable of communication, for their to be a code? what sentient mind was this communicator of yours "writing" or "speaking" to when they created the first strand of DNA? were there two sentient minds in the beginning, or more, fifty?

2. I'll answer this next.

3. similarity does not mean equality.

[kenthovindspimp]

2. Indeed, DNA is a code. It is, however, not a code as defined by you.

On to your next comment:

"I do not need to prove that all codes are created by a conscious mind"

"2)All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information."

Mixing up your own words. you should read what you have already written before biting y our own tongue off.

If you make a statement, you must prove it. simple as that.

[MedicineWarrior]

I said this:

"I do not need to prove that all codes are created by a conscious mind"

because I had already said this:

"2)All codes are created by a conscious mind; there IS NO natural process known to science that creates coded information."

I don't need "proof" when this is already known.

[DiggityDogg56]

The question at hand is can the natural selection of variation in organisms create and maintain information. If you can prove that this is impossible then you will have given a meaningful answer.

[MedicineWarrior]

What is known is that science has never shown natural processes to create and maintain symbolic information without pre-existing intelligence behind it- like a book or a computer program that writes itself. So, ther burden of proof would then lie with the assertion that such a thing is possible.

[kenthovindspimp]

I know what you said, and you are wrong. I really can't help you beyond what I've already told you. Your reasoning is flawed and will remain so no matter how many times you say it. If you think I haven't please reread my posts in context of yours and think.... yep, that's right, I actually am asking you to use your own mind and THINK.

[DiggityDogg56]

All human created codes have an abstraction layer. Language is an abstraction. You can change the symbols without changing the meaning. A rose is still a rose. This is how languages evolve. There is no abstraction layer in DNA. It is hardwired. The code is the hardware. No abstraction layer, no designer.

[weslyx]

DiggityDogg56...(All human created codes have an abstraction layer. Language is an abstraction. You can change the symbols without changing the meaning. A rose is still a rose. This is how languages evolve. There is no abstraction layer in DNA. It is hardwired. The code is the hardware. No abstraction layer, no designer.)

Sorry, but this reasoning is a bit too abstract to be taken seriously?!?!

[MedicineWarrior]

"I know what "code" means, I just want you to specify what you mean by the term to prevent equivocation."

B>S> apparently not

"Indeed, DNA is a code. It is, however, not a code as defined by you. "

That is the standard definition of science- not mine.

[kenthovindspimp]

so,

1. Define "Code"

2. Prove DNA is a code.

3. Show that All codes are created by conscious minds.

4. Show evidence to support that the conscious mind that created your code is who you say it is. Be specific though, Man has created over 4000 gods and you should specificy which one you are speaking about.

[Darwinsgift]

So you at least agree that life existed 535,000,000 years ago! .... That's a start I suppose! ... Now you only need to learn about the pre cambrian and you will see how oxygen in the atmosphere made the difference to the evolving species. ... learn about banded iron deposits and all will become clear! Remember the oldest fossil of bacteria is dated at 3.5 billion years!

[deadman1144]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha­hahaha embryos are 1000s times more likely fossilizes.

[Belluschi85]

those animals were not there because complex live arose only on the cambrian explosion. This can only mean one thing... evolution never took place, this fact alone crushes evolution.

[kenthovindspimp]

"this fact alone crushes evolution."

You would like that wouldn't you?

FUCKTARD!

[Belluschi85]

why dont u look for something called the CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION... before u open ur pussy to talk... cuz stinks

[kenthovindspimp]

triple dubya dot talkorigins dot org slash indexcc slash CC slash CC300 dot html

Already did, FUCKTARD!

check this also:

triple dubya dot stephenjaygould dot org slash library slash gould_fact-and-theory dot html

Please don't respond with idiocies until you have read this and done research for yourself.

[RichardC111165]

In 1914, the Burgess Shale formation was discovered in British Columbia, Canada. It yielded a huge variety of Cambrian fossils. These fossils sat at Harvard for many decades until they were re-examined in the 1980's. Why? Because they are so strange and they don't fit Darwinian theory. Actually they don't seem compatible with creationism either, unless God has a wacky sense of humor... Google "anomalocaris" which is Greek for "strange shrimp" (it was misidentified, to say the least!).

[evolutioncorrect242]

Therefore God made softbodied sponges on the first day, trilobites on day two, then he started using genetic drift and natural selection, and set the wheels in motion for evolution to do the rest for him, so that man would appear million and millions of years later? The gaps for God are getting smaller and smaller and smaller....

[mugsy8888]

Umm...he's debunking a theory that is used by scientists to rebut the fact of the Cambrian explosion. The point is that their reason why there aren't any complex creatures before this era doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

[dingorex]

Many soft bodied jellyfish are found they prove rapid deposition in sedimentary rock,Sedimentary rock layers have continuous spans across 100s of miles of US,containing little topsoil or bioturbation,if any,with many polystrate fossil trees,Mt St Helens is excellent starting place to see earth in microcosm.

[OzPhantom]

Excellent clip. Just one of many problems that the evolutioni cannot deal with.

[deadman1144]

yeah retarded creationists

[JDRedstone]

There is no point. We have found fossilized complex life from the pre-cambrian period anyway...and vid this explains nothing, it merely points out facts which real scientists are already aware of and studying while these guys just twiddle their thumbs saying 'God did it.'

[AtheistCitizen]

100+ yrs of search yields ONE fossil bed that was capable of soft-body preservation..OK so the conditions were right then & there..not at all other so far discovered..So your point is?

[ekabe]

i dont get it? The cambreian period was 543-490 mya... i dont see any points being made here.

[Waterman42069]

then you dont know what the 'cambreian" period was. It was a period in the fossil record, a period of 5 to 10 million years, when the fossils of every known creature today was found. No transition species up to that point or anything

[RichardC111165]

All of today's PHYLA, and several extinct ones, are found among the Cambrian fossils. By no means are all of today's SPECIES (creatures) found among Cambrian fossils. The reality is astounding enough; we have no need to exaggerate!

[sasuraal]

And your point is?