CHIMPS AND HUMANS TASTE DIFFERENT, according to a report in Nature, vol 440, p930, 13 April 2006. Every student of biology has probably participated in an experiment to see who can taste a chemical called PTC. The ability to taste this is genetically determined, with the tasting gene being dominant and the non-tasting being recessive. In 1939 three scientists Fisher, Ford and Huxley, tested apes for the ability to taste PTC and found the same variation in the ability to taste it
ID is creationism, and it was found to be creationism in court by the same people who created the term 'ID." Aside from that, and even making your assumption that ID is merely the appearance of an intelligence, you're ignoring the detailed, specific, and overwhelming majority of evidence which supports lineage. It's not whether you can put a single example in both cups, it's which cup has more tested examples in it.
dude, intelligent design will prove anything with 3 words: GOD DID IT. that's a cop-out. Try it: - Why are we on this planet: God did it - Why is the earth round: God did it - Why is the sky blue: God did it - Why are there millions of species of insects : God did it - Why do we have 8 fingers and 2 thumbs: God did it - why does my dog bark: God did it - why is it cold at the north pole: God did it - why are there 9 planets: God did it - why is the sun hot: God did it
I actually like your definition of ID. In this sense I think I'm also an ID-theorist. Not with some sort of deity as designer but I'd rather see evolution as an intelligent process itself. After all, it makes decisions: natural selection chooses designs that fit and rejects the ones that don't. I think ID, in this sense, shouldn't be promoted as an alternative theory but rather as a philosophical viewpoint that adds something to evolution.
no such thing as an ID theorist. What are the papers you have written that have been reviewed by any accredited university research institutions? as opposed to a church?
and what do you think about the Hindu version of intelligent design?
What I meant was I kind of agree with this vague definition of ID he gave, because I like to see evolution as an intelligent process. I haven't written any papers on it. If you paid attention to this video you know that according to npage85 ID "doesn't appeal to supernatural things". I'm not a creationist. If life is designed then why can't the designer be evolution? "[ID] might not even contradict evolution", thus said npage85.
Who knows? Who designed gravity? Who designed nuclear fusion? Do the designing processes of the universe need another special designer? Couldn't they just exist by default?
Then why does evolution need a designer? Is it because it isn't a force? Is it because I claim it to be intelligent? Does intelligence need a designer?
Where did I say I was planning on writing a science paper? I was only philosophizing about the definitions of intelligence and design and how this could be applied to evolution and life. After all, isn't that what this video is about?
ID doesnt have enough evidence to be a scientific theory, it's not even a credible hypothesis.
How ID works:
you observe a complex system and ASSUMING it was designed. they do not know the nature of the designer and do not consider other ways in which it could have occurred.
FAIL, the word hypothesis involves assumptions, your hypothesis IS an assumption.
this is roughly the equivalent of me saying that an antnest is evidence of invisible pink unicorns that create ant nests.
I see absolutely no reason for a common designer making us and apes so similar in chrosome count. Even if it were true, why the hell would the designer implement a fusion of 2 genes, leaving traces of times when the chromosomes werent fused, like centromers. You dont answer that. You assert your statements as if it is absolutely true that ID predicts chromosome fusion, but logical thinking would not lead to that conclusion. The fusion event still shouts out evolution....
I have yet to come across a prediction thats the same in evolution and ID, that HOLDS UP in the face of evidence and CONTEXT. But like Phoenix said, you first have to define information. Ice crystals 'look' designed, yet we know they arent. And your ID prediction for chromosome fusion is flawed in so many ways. E.g.: The capuchin monkey is in morphology close to the apes, yet has 54 chromosomes. Plants appearing the same can differ 8-fold in chrom. count. The argument does not hold up..
Ummm... "complex specified information" is much like creationist "kinds"... you can't pin down an ID proponent on any objective definition. So, no, it is not scientific.
As for the rest of this video, you made up an AD HOC explanation to claim that ID also predicted chromosomal fusion. Yet, we can look at many animals that are morphologically similar that have different numbers of chromosomes. So, no, ID did not predict chromosomal fusion, and furthermore no IDer ever claimed it DID until AFTER the evidence for this fusion came to light.
wait you just said everytime someone in a lab fails to create life it adds credence to the idea of an intelligent designer, doesn't it detract from it because the intelligent designer, you know the guy in a lab couldn't create life therefore an intelligent designer is less likely to be responsible, also your point with the cups, an intelligent design model would suggest that we have always existed in this form, it wouldn't need a fusion event so no it does not support intelligent design.
Hopefully this debate will not go on for ever. The only reason why people who accept evolution bother to take part in this debate with creationists, is because creationists (inexplicably) have a lot of powerful backers who are trying to pervert science education with 'intelligent design' and the like. Hopefully this threat will pass, and after that we'll be able to leave you creationist nuts to your own devices.
A human cannot set up an experiment that reproduces CSI in nature because the experiment would be intelligently designed by a human.
If the human succeeds, one can logically argue that this is indicative of CSI being impossible in nature without intelligent design.
If the human fails, it can also be argued indicative of CSI being impossible in nature without intelligent design, though this time by God (for lack of a better word) and not human.
Everytime we find CSI it is from an intelligent designer. No it's not. It's from a human who designed it. Once again you can't make the same prediction of design by assuming that all things that "looked designed" are because the designs were from humans. Until you can point to a designer ID will just be a waste of time. Evolution has mechanisms without mechanisms ID will not go anywhere.
lol ...You're right. I guess I could have worded it better. I was referring to the "design" of biological systems - which is not human designed. What is your criterior for "designed".
There's no chicken or egg problem with DNA replication nor is it irreducibly complex. Nucleic acids can polymerize and hybridize without the aid of a catalyst. There is no crazy chemistry involved. Polymerase helps speed up the process and make it more efficient. But if that's your example of ID why is it flawed? What limitations did the designer have when designing replication? If ID were to be taken seriously these questions have to be answered not to mention who the designer is.
@npage85 I didn't quite get the context of those bottle caps, but the reason why chromozone fusion is evidence for evolution is because evolution predicts and requires it and ID doesn't. For example light bending around the sun could be consistent with another theory. I'm sure I could make one up mathematically if i was smart enough. But Einsteins theory requires and predicts that it will occur. There's a big difference.
@RuinSonic Also I'm being generous to include only those who accept that animals can change significantly over time. It would be quite odd for a young earth creationist to hold to a cromosone fusion event. But as you mentioned you can accept evolution and intellegent design. Look at Behee for example. Which makes it kind of odd why you contrast ID with evolution on the cromosone fusion. You don't seem very consistent in how your treating ID.
'if we find CSI, it must be from a designer' Balderdash. Hurricanes are awfully complex and their specific nature in how they form is quite impressive, but we know they're not formed by some designer, they are formed from natural processes related to atmospheric conditions.
"Hurricanes are awfully complex and their specific nature in how they form is quite impressive"
-- Hurricanes do not fit the definition for CSI. There are actually strict criteria that must be matched for something to be considered CSI. It's not just some arbitrary decision based on your "gut instinct."
@npage85 Sorry, I'm not familiar with the terms GTE or CSI as you use them. Could you explain what you are referring to. I've been debating atheists and evolutionists for many years and compiled a lot of evidence and come up with some unique arguments against those hypotheses myself, but quite a few atheists have been using this chromosomal fusion argument lately and I haven't had time to study it intensively yet...so thanks for the vid and send any good links on this to me if you find them.
@npage85 wooops. I think your CSI has been falsified then. Increased information has been observed to occur in the genome naturally. We don't have to give an explanation for the explanation for why any of it occured in the first place to say that information has occured naturally. But the fact of the matter is ID is unfalsifiable because if we showed information could be produced naturally it doesn't disprove ID just like nature cannot disprove God. Perhaps some other evidence could support ID.
ID predicts chromsome fusion? uhhh, okay, how? How is it falsifiable by using the ID hypothesis? Also, why would a designer deceptively fuse 2 chromosomes when we know they already occur in other animals naturally? To assume a designer in the equation is about as logical as assuming a desinger is involved in rainbow creation.
npage85, why is an 'ID' even required to explain the empirical facts of the fusion? We know fusions occur naturally, so to infer a 'designer done it!' is like saying a designer (Gnomes) makes rainbows. To inject a totally untestable, unknown force (super natural) is therefore not scientific and utterly pointless. How could we falsify such an 'ID done it' hypothesis?
"GTE" can make the prediction of chromosomal fusion because it is an understood mechanism that can and does occur in populations. ID cannot claim the same prediction because it is not bound by laws. Any problems you just say "That is the way the designer wanted to do it." ID theorist can make every concievable prediction. Evolution is still the accepted theory because its predictions all fall within known laws of nature.
As long as npage is going to start a new thread, I might as well point out things here that he didn't respond to (yet?) in the comments to the other video.
Hey npage85, while you're trying to figure out a better explanation than macroevolution for why (1) dolphin embryos begin to form 4 limbs, keep in mind that your explanation also has to beat out macroevolution as an explanation for these...
2) Why do manatees have toenails?
3) Manatees don't have hindlimbs, so why do some manatees have hip sockets?
Evolution explains all 3 oddities quite simply: dolphins & manatees evolved from 4-legged land animals. But ID has no good answer.
is that censorship u r blockin him for pointing out flaws in ur theory that is definitaly NOT scientific. secondaly YOU STILL havnt answered his questions that again doesnt sound scientific EVEN sayin "i dont no and will do research to find out" is a better answer than no answer. so my (all be it low rating) has just all vanished as in u dont even defend ur "theory"
1) Intelligent Design theory claims that there is an Intelligent Designer, but He is supposedly not a part of Inteligent Design theory - because He would have to be supernatural.
2) There is no proposed mechanism by which this alleged (supernatural) Intelligent Designer - who isn't a part of Intelligent Design theory!! - instantiates His designs.
3) Intelligent Design fails to explain facts of biology that macroevolution easily does (why manatees have toenails, etc.)
ID Theory claims that things with CSI were intelligently designed.
2) There are many ways in which intelligent agents act to create things with CSI. Being at a loss to give one does not detract from the conclusion that it was intelligently designed.
3) These examples are all hilarious, since you are making the assumption that it does fail to explain them.
1) ... ID Theory claims that things with CSI were intelligently designed.
***
And, Intelligent Design theory claims that there is an Intelligent Designer. Right?
Now, as I have pointed out, the Intelligent Designer is (supposedly) not a part of Intelligent Design theory for a particular reason - because He would have to be supernatural.
If you deny that, then provide us with a plausible natural Intelligent Designer who consistent with the claims of ID.
Why do dolphin embryos begin to form 4 limbs when they have only 2?
Evolution explains it easily: dolphins are descendants of four-legged land animals so inherited the genetic information for hindlimb development.
But what about Intelligent Design? "Gee, even though I'm going to make dolphins have only 2 forelimbs, I'm going to go ahead and make dolphins begin forming 4 limbs, then make 2 of them regress, just to screw around with people ... LOL!"
Um, what you said doesn't address what what I asked. I am aware of the typical Creationist ploy of avoidance when a question is asked that they can't give a good answer to, so no surprise to see you do it.
Now, care to address what I actually asked about? Do you have a better explanation than macroevolution for dolphin embryos beginning to develop hindlimbs? Is your Intelligent Designer a moron, or a deceiver?
I also gave you a link to one of my videos that shows actual photos of the embryos of a human, dolphin, bat, mouse, and cat that showed that they do in fact look very similar.
PS: Oh, don't claim to be open minded or looking for facts when you refuse to look at the evidence.
npage: A similarity [in embryos] is consistent with both the GTE *and* ID.
***
Nope.
For example, human embryos start off with fish-like aortic arches and aortae. This biological fact points straight to common descent, and away from Intelligent Design.
It would be nonsensical to design and create humans to start off with fish-like aortae and fish-like aortic arches, which then require much remodeling in order to end up with the human organization.
npage85: You surely missed that when you were taught biology in your highschool class yesterday, huh?
***
LOL! I have a degree in biology (graduated summa cum laude, with a perfect 4.00 cumulative GPA) and over the past several years have tutored several different biology courses (general biology, organismal biologyl, genetics, etc. ... as well as general and organic chemistry, physical science, etc.) at my alma mater.
Also take a look at the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Evolution nicely explains why it takes it's 'unintelligent' circuitous route whereas Intelligent Design does not.
Oh, IDC can explain it IF the IDCists accept that the Designer is purposefully trying to trick us into believing something that is not the case, by mimicking evolution all over the place. But in that case the Designer is immoral and a huge deceiver.
Um, if you claim rob is wrong, then it is your job to support your claim against him. You do the Googling and post the evidence that (allegedly) refutes him.
PS: Let me guess: ID also predicted the recurrent laryngeal nerve!!! LOL!
hows it dogmatic the only sites that support ID are creationist ones which have been shown to be a pile of shit over and over again so y should i accept any of there information if its not supoorted by unbiased sites
All philosophical meanderings that try and conclude "what" the "designer" is are just that: philosophical, and as such have no bearing on whether or not ID is scientific.
Again... you are confusing the theory with its implications.
If a theory doesn't have anything "supernatural" in it, but the implications of the theory being true *point* to something supernatural existing, it doesn't make the theory unscientific.
So the Intelligent Designer is not part of Intelligent Design????
Get real. The Intelligent Designer is central to Inteligent Design. And ... there are no plausible natural designers that are consistent with the claims of ID: the only Intelligent Designers consistent with ID are nonnatural/supernatural.
That means a non-natural/supernatural being plays a central role in ID. ID is not science, it it religious.
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.
(Phillip E. Johnson, American Family Radio, January 10 2003, as quoted in "The Counter-
Creationism Handbook", Mark Isaak, University of California Press, 2007, p250)
Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
(The Wedge Document, 1999, as quoted by Jerry A. Coyne in his chapter -- Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its name -- of the book "Intelligent Thought: Science Versus The Intelligent Design Movement", Vintage Books, 2006, p4)
I really don't get all these quotes you are posting... for none of them show that ID is unscientific.
All they show is that some people regard the designer to be "God."
All philosophical meanderings that try and conclude "what" the "designer" is are just that: philosophical, and as such have no bearing on whether or not ID is scientific.
It doesn't make the theory itself unscientific... but the philosophical debates about the implication of the theory being true which are unscientific.
You are confusing the theory with the implications.
So the Intelligent Designer is not part of Intelligent Design????
Get real. The Intelligent Designer is central to Inteligent Design. And ... there are no plausible natural designers that are consistent with the claims of ID: the only Intelligent Designers consistent with ID are nonnatural/supernatural.
That means a non-natural/supernatural being plays a central role in ID. ID is not science, it it religious.
You claim ID is scientific and not religious. You also claim ID is based on CSI.
CSI is the brainchild of the IDist William Dembski. And Dembski said that in biology we are clearly dealing with an UNEMBODIED designer that NATURALISM per force excludes. That's not scientific and is religious.
The leaders of ID -- William Dembski, Michael Behe, and Phillip Johnson -- have all stated that the designer in God, in one manner or another.
Johnson has said so explicitly; Dembksi has called it an an unembodied designer that naturalism per force excludes; and Behe has mocked the idea of ETIs (the "naturalistic" form of "ID") and has further said that he believes the designer is God.
"I'll tell you why - because there is no plausible natural designer consistent with the claims of ID."
-- Ah... I see...
So it doesn't matter if the hypothesis makes no claims about anything religious. BUT, if the philosophical result of the hypothesis being true necessitates something religious, then the hypothesis isn't scientific.
So the Intelligent Designer is not part of Intelligent Design????
Get real. The Intelligent Designer is central to Inteligent Design. And ... there are no plausible natural designers that are consistent with the claims of ID: the only Intelligent Designers consistent with ID are nonnatural/supernatural.
That means a non-natural/supernatural being plays a central role in ID. ID is not science, it it religious.
1) Intelligent Design theory claims that there is an Intelligent Designer, but the Intelligent Designer is not really a part of Inteligent Design theory?
2) What is the mechanism of Intelligent Design? (oh, and "poof!" doesn't count).
1) ID Theory only tells you if something was intelligently designed. That's it.
2) There are many mechanisms that intelligent agents use to intelligently design things.
Was the skyscraper not intelligently designed because I don't fully comprehend the methods by which it was constructed. A lack of knowledge means nothing except that you are constructing an argument from ignorance.
npage: Was the skyscraper not intelligently designed because I don't fully comprehend the methods by which it was constructed.
***
Oh, but there are plenty of people who DO know the mechanisms.
It's not just that YOU don't know any plausible mechanism that the alleged Intelligeng Designer used to create biological systems, but neither do the leaging IDists, like Behe, Dembski, Johnson, and so on.
you went straight observation to conclusion which is total unscientific at around 2:50 furthermore everyfing there claimed is "CSI" has been shown not to be therefore making the idea of a IDer illogical furthermore the classic "who designs the designer?"
"you went straight observation to conclusion which is total unscientific at around 2:50"
-- Creating a hypothesis from observable facts is "unscientific?" I'm sorry... I think you need to take some basic science courses before you make an utter fool of yourself.
"furthermore the classic "who designs the designer?""
-- I'm sorry, but this doesn't debunk ID. You're going to have to go a little deeper than that, and also be aware that I will then take you completely down a notch. I've already shot down other people who present this.
i would like to know how it doesnt u claim somefing is to complex to come about by evoulution but is designed. then the designer would need to be even more complex see the problem.
it isnt philosophical u say that the designer isnt supernatural therefore should obey the same laws therefore how did a non supernatural creature appear to make all these CSI systems
u assume that if there is CSI there must b a designer instead of looking for other natural reasons that 2 me is jumping to conclusion "that it must b designed" and i dont c how ID predicts chromosomal fusion u must then explain y the designer would bother to do this
I take observable data, see how it shows that all things with CSI have a designer, and use that as a theory to say that life was designed.
Nothing wrong with taking a hypothesis, showing that it has an immense amount of supporting evidence which makes it a theory, and then holding that life, which contains CSI, was therefore designed according to my theory.
As for the fusion, just watch through the rest of the video responses to this video.
Actually, Rob's comment DOES lack CSI according to Dembski's universal probability bound!!!!
I see you are again avoiding answering the actual questions you are asked. Let me ask you again.
Do you claim that it is impossible for cumulative selection working on top of chance processes to produce Rob's comment "again evidence is the key show me an example of CSI"?
All things that contain CSI that we know the source of are the product of HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. Therefore, the chromosomal fusion (if it contained CSI) would have to be the product of HUMAN INTELLIGENCE.
You can't move from "All things that contain CSI that we know the source of are the product of HUMAN INTELLIGENCE" to a conclusion about anything else of "Therefore, God did it."
All CSI that we know the source of are a product of intelligence. Adding "human" in there is just funny, because if you have an intelligence that is greater than human intelligence, then it could create it just as well.
After all, we are talking about the measure of intelligence, not *what* has that intelligence.
ur "theroy" depends on CSI so show us where this because as far as im aware they isnt any therefore no basis for ur claims. secondaly Vestigial structures r good reasons against ID eg: eyes on the blind mole rat u must also explain y the designer made these fings
First off... your grammar and spelling are horrendous. I'm just letting you know because I find it extremely difficult to interpret what you are saying.
Secondly, you say "no basis for your claims" when there aren't any examples of CSI that are known to have been created by an intelligence other than human.
You still failed to show *why*.
You do understand that what you are saying still lacks substantiation, right?
If you can't make posts that indicate who is saying what, then I suggest that in addition to your learning science/biology, you need to learn some logic and English.
fanks i am dyslexic (in english but got 100% a A lvl maths go figure) and also lazy and hav a character limit but i still manage... and substantiation "to support with proof" im still w8ing for "proof" of CSI i wouldnt be fuzzy but it is 4 days, and u hav the internet dont c y it is takin so long.
Yes, you must, if you want to have your logic hold together.
Until you provide use a case of CSI, for which we know the cause, and that cause is an intelligence other than human, then your entire logic falls apart.
About general relativity. The light of distant star does not bend around the sun: spacetime itself does. Then the light from a distant star merely follows the straightest possible path through spacetime.
We already know the processes that would cause these chromosomes to fuse together. Yet, ID claims this process didn't happen (because it's an "unintelligent" process), and it claims that an intelligent Designer did it instead.
I'm not sure where the error is, but I'm not stupid. If we have a natural process that can do something just fine, or a claim that an "external" intelligent designer is responsible, I'll pick the well studied natural process every time.
"Yet, ID claims this process didn't happen (because it's an "unintelligent" process), and it claims that an intelligent Designer did it instead."
-- Actually... nope. If the chances of a fusion happening exceeded the UPB(which I'm pretty certain it isn't), and the result was specific(which it most definitely isn't) then it pretty much doesn't meet the requirements of something definitely being designed.
154146: I'm not sure where the error is, but I'm not stupid. If we have a natural process that can do something just fine, or a claim that an "external" intelligent designer is responsible, I'll pick the well studied natural process every time.
***
Ockham's razor.
Both general relativity and Intelligent Falling cexplain things falling to the ground. The 1st requires only nature but the 2nd requires a huge assumption: an unknown intelligence. The 1st is therefore preferable.
Occam's Razor only applies to two equally viable theories. If ID is more probable, then you can't use Occam's Razor to shave *it* off instead of the GTE.
Look it up... Theists aren't the only ones who use that term... after all, it was michael201119 who first used it in his video, and he is an Evolutionist.
Please... stop with your petty, meaningless attacks.
As opposed to what, the Special Theory of Evolution????
There is no General Theory of Evolution. Neither "GTE" nor "General Theory of Evolution" appears in the index of any of the following college texts: Douglas Futuyma's "Evolution", "Strickberger's Evolution: Fourth Edition", Solomon's "Biology: Fifth Edition". In addition, neither one appears in of the many evolution books I own.
Now, I know the anti-evolutionist Michael Denton, in his 1986 (horrible and refuted) book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" tried to claim that Darwin came up with a General Theory of Evolution (and a Special Theory of Evolution), but that's bogus.
@DNAunion: I did NOT come up with this term. It was npage85. But it was my mistake taking this term over. This was probably a problem because of my english and I assumed it to be the normally accepted term in the english-speaking world. In biology-lecture we only speak of Evolution.
He actually stated explicitly to use this term and not 'Evolution' as I did.
I rapidly skimmed through that video by npage85 and, in addition to the one you mention -- 09:15 -- 09:27, where he "goes off" on you for not using the alleged "proper" term, the General Theory of Evolution -- I found a couple other instances of him referring to the General Theory of Evolution.
Nothing in ID predicates a chromosomal fusion event occurring due to Common Designer and similar morphology if humans have 46 chromosomes. You need to suggest why this is required.
In the Theory of Evolution our shared ancestry requires that if we have 46 chromosomes and great apes have 48 chromosomes that since a loss of one is fatal that we would need that fusion.
Why does a designer need to produce a fusion?
And no, science does not presume the theory is correct, it uses a null hypothesis.
"Nothing in ID predicates a chromosomal fusion event occurring due to Common Designer and similar morphology if humans have 46 chromosomes. You need to suggest why this is required."
-- Yep... that's what the debate between me and michael201119 is about.
I suggest that you stay glued for the response that I'm currently uploading right now.
It contains the "next step" in that debate. I'm not going to debate with 100's of different people about something that is already going on.
Alright, well it is an interesting discussion, though I may be what you called biased in favor of the opposition so don't consider me expecting any whirlwind responses as I've never heard anything from the mouth of Dembski and the like on this matter either.
aurthor of this video has rational questions and its true.
woleez 1 year ago
ID is not even a theory, it is not science. It is an argument for god.
Science is what scientists do, they don't do ID.
Who can design a universe except a God???, laugh your ass off.
You act like you understand LOGIC and you don't.
gregrutz 1 year ago
CHIMPS AND HUMANS TASTE DIFFERENT, according to a report in Nature, vol 440, p930, 13 April 2006. Every student of biology has probably participated in an experiment to see who can taste a chemical called PTC. The ability to taste this is genetically determined, with the tasting gene being dominant and the non-tasting being recessive. In 1939 three scientists Fisher, Ford and Huxley, tested apes for the ability to taste PTC and found the same variation in the ability to taste it
drshamast 1 year ago
And at the Dover trial they ruled what? ID is a religious belief.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
1. Please demonstrate how CSI automatically points to a intelligent designer.
2. Clarify your definition of CSI...The thing that worries me the most is that you seem to have a rather broad definition of CSI.
rosebaronet 1 year ago
still talking crap it's nice to see
123columbo123 1 year ago
ID is creationism, and it was found to be creationism in court by the same people who created the term 'ID." Aside from that, and even making your assumption that ID is merely the appearance of an intelligence, you're ignoring the detailed, specific, and overwhelming majority of evidence which supports lineage. It's not whether you can put a single example in both cups, it's which cup has more tested examples in it.
Bardlettt 1 year ago
As to the "falsifiability" argument you tried to make.
You're saying, all you have to do is create complexity without design, in a laboratory.
Look up cellular automata.
Simple rules, not intentional design mind you, given time, create complexity.
again: cellular automata
Check it out.
thisisanaccount100 2 years ago
The entire ID theory falls apart precisely because it claims that CSI requires a designer.
If CSI requires a designer, then the designer of CSI also requires a designer, which requires a designer which etc etc.
It's an infinite regress.
GTE doesn't have this problem. It explains complexity through simplicity over time.
ID isn't intelligent, it's a refusal to admit the observable. An excellent definition of insanity by the way.
thisisanaccount100 2 years ago
Haha nice vid bro, reading the comments by hard core evos is funny, lol, have you dug yourself out from under all the strawmen yet?
itsnolongeri 2 years ago
arp76 2 years ago
I actually like your definition of ID. In this sense I think I'm also an ID-theorist. Not with some sort of deity as designer but I'd rather see evolution as an intelligent process itself. After all, it makes decisions: natural selection chooses designs that fit and rejects the ones that don't. I think ID, in this sense, shouldn't be promoted as an alternative theory but rather as a philosophical viewpoint that adds something to evolution.
TaiFerret 2 years ago
no such thing as an ID theorist. What are the papers you have written that have been reviewed by any accredited university research institutions? as opposed to a church?
and what do you think about the Hindu version of intelligent design?
What about the Buddhist version?
Or the Australian Aborigine version?
arp76 2 years ago
What I meant was I kind of agree with this vague definition of ID he gave, because I like to see evolution as an intelligent process. I haven't written any papers on it. If you paid attention to this video you know that according to npage85 ID "doesn't appeal to supernatural things". I'm not a creationist. If life is designed then why can't the designer be evolution? "[ID] might not even contradict evolution", thus said npage85.
TaiFerret 2 years ago
who designed the designer? where did they come from?
arp76 2 years ago
Who knows? Who designed gravity? Who designed nuclear fusion? Do the designing processes of the universe need another special designer? Couldn't they just exist by default?
TaiFerret 2 years ago
gravity is a force in nature; as is nuclear force -- they don't need a designer
arp76 2 years ago
Then why does evolution need a designer? Is it because it isn't a force? Is it because I claim it to be intelligent? Does intelligence need a designer?
TaiFerret 2 years ago
how exactly are you planning on writing a science paper when you don't understand the basic laws of physics and biology?
arp76 2 years ago
Where did I say I was planning on writing a science paper? I was only philosophizing about the definitions of intelligence and design and how this could be applied to evolution and life. After all, isn't that what this video is about?
TaiFerret 2 years ago
Tell that Michael20119 guy to email me. I debunk his chromosome 2 fusion claim. DonExodus2 won't even respond for like the 4th time.
micah1116 2 years ago
ID doesn't predict anything, it's not a theory.
17oodles 2 years ago
ID doesnt have enough evidence to be a scientific theory, it's not even a credible hypothesis.
How ID works:
you observe a complex system and ASSUMING it was designed. they do not know the nature of the designer and do not consider other ways in which it could have occurred.
FAIL, the word hypothesis involves assumptions, your hypothesis IS an assumption.
this is roughly the equivalent of me saying that an antnest is evidence of invisible pink unicorns that create ant nests.
types10000 2 years ago
I see absolutely no reason for a common designer making us and apes so similar in chrosome count. Even if it were true, why the hell would the designer implement a fusion of 2 genes, leaving traces of times when the chromosomes werent fused, like centromers. You dont answer that. You assert your statements as if it is absolutely true that ID predicts chromosome fusion, but logical thinking would not lead to that conclusion. The fusion event still shouts out evolution....
jzuidema 3 years ago
I have yet to come across a prediction thats the same in evolution and ID, that HOLDS UP in the face of evidence and CONTEXT. But like Phoenix said, you first have to define information. Ice crystals 'look' designed, yet we know they arent. And your ID prediction for chromosome fusion is flawed in so many ways. E.g.: The capuchin monkey is in morphology close to the apes, yet has 54 chromosomes. Plants appearing the same can differ 8-fold in chrom. count. The argument does not hold up..
jzuidema 3 years ago
Ummm... "complex specified information" is much like creationist "kinds"... you can't pin down an ID proponent on any objective definition. So, no, it is not scientific.
phoenixshade3 3 years ago 5
As for the rest of this video, you made up an AD HOC explanation to claim that ID also predicted chromosomal fusion. Yet, we can look at many animals that are morphologically similar that have different numbers of chromosomes. So, no, ID did not predict chromosomal fusion, and furthermore no IDer ever claimed it DID until AFTER the evidence for this fusion came to light.
phoenixshade3 3 years ago 7
wait you just said everytime someone in a lab fails to create life it adds credence to the idea of an intelligent designer, doesn't it detract from it because the intelligent designer, you know the guy in a lab couldn't create life therefore an intelligent designer is less likely to be responsible, also your point with the cups, an intelligent design model would suggest that we have always existed in this form, it wouldn't need a fusion event so no it does not support intelligent design.
sonny2dap 3 years ago
Hopefully this debate will not go on for ever. The only reason why people who accept evolution bother to take part in this debate with creationists, is because creationists (inexplicably) have a lot of powerful backers who are trying to pervert science education with 'intelligent design' and the like. Hopefully this threat will pass, and after that we'll be able to leave you creationist nuts to your own devices.
rickelmonoggin 3 years ago
A human cannot set up an experiment that reproduces CSI in nature because the experiment would be intelligently designed by a human.
If the human succeeds, one can logically argue that this is indicative of CSI being impossible in nature without intelligent design.
If the human fails, it can also be argued indicative of CSI being impossible in nature without intelligent design, though this time by God (for lack of a better word) and not human.
somatic80 3 years ago
Everytime we find CSI it is from an intelligent designer. No it's not. It's from a human who designed it. Once again you can't make the same prediction of design by assuming that all things that "looked designed" are because the designs were from humans. Until you can point to a designer ID will just be a waste of time. Evolution has mechanisms without mechanisms ID will not go anywhere.
snakeguy76 3 years ago
"Everytime we find CSI it is from an intelligent designer. No it's not. It's from a human who designed it. "
-- Wow... you just contradicted yourself... unless you are claiming that humans are not "intelligent."
lol...
npage85 3 years ago
lol ...You're right. I guess I could have worded it better. I was referring to the "design" of biological systems - which is not human designed. What is your criterior for "designed".
snakeguy76 3 years ago
"What is your criterior for "designed"."
-- Well, in regards to living organisms, an irreducibly complex system that contains CSI.
My personal favorite is the system of DNA replication. It's even worse than the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" type of problem.
npage85 3 years ago
There's no chicken or egg problem with DNA replication nor is it irreducibly complex. Nucleic acids can polymerize and hybridize without the aid of a catalyst. There is no crazy chemistry involved. Polymerase helps speed up the process and make it more efficient. But if that's your example of ID why is it flawed? What limitations did the designer have when designing replication? If ID were to be taken seriously these questions have to be answered not to mention who the designer is.
snakeguy76 3 years ago
@npage85 I didn't quite get the context of those bottle caps, but the reason why chromozone fusion is evidence for evolution is because evolution predicts and requires it and ID doesn't. For example light bending around the sun could be consistent with another theory. I'm sure I could make one up mathematically if i was smart enough. But Einsteins theory requires and predicts that it will occur. There's a big difference.
RuinSonic 1 year ago 2
@RuinSonic Also I'm being generous to include only those who accept that animals can change significantly over time. It would be quite odd for a young earth creationist to hold to a cromosone fusion event. But as you mentioned you can accept evolution and intellegent design. Look at Behee for example. Which makes it kind of odd why you contrast ID with evolution on the cromosone fusion. You don't seem very consistent in how your treating ID.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
ID doesn't predict anything...
Cosmodot256 3 years ago
"ID doesn't predict anything... "
-- I guess by you saying that, it makes it fact?
Wow... atheists and their dogma-filled minds.
npage85 3 years ago
'if we find CSI, it must be from a designer' Balderdash. Hurricanes are awfully complex and their specific nature in how they form is quite impressive, but we know they're not formed by some designer, they are formed from natural processes related to atmospheric conditions.
agentorange20 3 years ago
"Hurricanes are awfully complex and their specific nature in how they form is quite impressive"
-- Hurricanes do not fit the definition for CSI. There are actually strict criteria that must be matched for something to be considered CSI. It's not just some arbitrary decision based on your "gut instinct."
npage85 3 years ago
"- Hurricanes do not fit the definition for CSI."
Can you pm me a link so we mutually agree on the definition. I'll try to find one after.
agentorange20 3 years ago
@npage85 Sorry, I'm not familiar with the terms GTE or CSI as you use them. Could you explain what you are referring to. I've been debating atheists and evolutionists for many years and compiled a lot of evidence and come up with some unique arguments against those hypotheses myself, but quite a few atheists have been using this chromosomal fusion argument lately and I haven't had time to study it intensively yet...so thanks for the vid and send any good links on this to me if you find them.
dotoree 1 year ago
@npage85 wooops. I think your CSI has been falsified then. Increased information has been observed to occur in the genome naturally. We don't have to give an explanation for the explanation for why any of it occured in the first place to say that information has occured naturally. But the fact of the matter is ID is unfalsifiable because if we showed information could be produced naturally it doesn't disprove ID just like nature cannot disprove God. Perhaps some other evidence could support ID.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
Ok then, what does it predict?
Cosmodot256 3 years ago
You really need to just follow the debate to the last vid that I just posted.
After all, I don't need to explain myself 500 billion times to tons of different people.
npage85 3 years ago
ID predicts chromsome fusion? uhhh, okay, how? How is it falsifiable by using the ID hypothesis? Also, why would a designer deceptively fuse 2 chromosomes when we know they already occur in other animals naturally? To assume a designer in the equation is about as logical as assuming a desinger is involved in rainbow creation.
agentorange20 3 years ago
"ID predicts chromsome fusion? uhhh, okay, how?"
-- If you continue to watch this trail of videos, you'll see what I am saying.
You must understand that this is a debate that I'm having through video responses with michael201119 and urbanelf.
npage85 3 years ago
Another great example why you should stay in school.
Another high school dropout, trying to explain physics and biology.
baldurus1 3 years ago
"Another great example why you should stay in school.
Another high school dropout, trying to explain physics and biology. "
-- This comment is really funny... particularly because I'm getting ready to go to my Calculus 2 class later on. Stupid GE classes...
npage85 3 years ago
npage85, why is an 'ID' even required to explain the empirical facts of the fusion? We know fusions occur naturally, so to infer a 'designer done it!' is like saying a designer (Gnomes) makes rainbows. To inject a totally untestable, unknown force (super natural) is therefore not scientific and utterly pointless. How could we falsify such an 'ID done it' hypothesis?
agentorange20 3 years ago
You really need to just follow the debate to the last vid that I just posted.
After all, I don't need to explain myself 500 billion times to tons of different people.
npage85 3 years ago
"GTE" can make the prediction of chromosomal fusion because it is an understood mechanism that can and does occur in populations. ID cannot claim the same prediction because it is not bound by laws. Any problems you just say "That is the way the designer wanted to do it." ID theorist can make every concievable prediction. Evolution is still the accepted theory because its predictions all fall within known laws of nature.
snakeguy76 3 years ago
You really need to just follow the debate to the last vid that I just posted.
After all, I don't need to explain myself 500 billion times to tons of different people.
npage85 3 years ago
As long as npage is going to start a new thread, I might as well point out things here that he didn't respond to (yet?) in the comments to the other video.
DNAunion 3 years ago
I'll go look for 'em.
npage85 3 years ago
Hey npage85, while you're trying to figure out a better explanation than macroevolution for why (1) dolphin embryos begin to form 4 limbs, keep in mind that your explanation also has to beat out macroevolution as an explanation for these...
2) Why do manatees have toenails?
3) Manatees don't have hindlimbs, so why do some manatees have hip sockets?
Evolution explains all 3 oddities quite simply: dolphins & manatees evolved from 4-legged land animals. But ID has no good answer.
DNAunion 3 years ago
You know... before I block you for spamming my videos... how about you stay on the topic of the video.
I've indulged your rants for as long as possible... but to bring up things which you say that ID can't account for is nowhere in the video up above.
npage85 3 years ago
is that censorship u r blockin him for pointing out flaws in ur theory that is definitaly NOT scientific. secondaly YOU STILL havnt answered his questions that again doesnt sound scientific EVEN sayin "i dont no and will do research to find out" is a better answer than no answer. so my (all be it low rating) has just all vanished as in u dont even defend ur "theory"
rob0is0god 3 years ago
Let me sum up.
1) Intelligent Design theory claims that there is an Intelligent Designer, but He is supposedly not a part of Inteligent Design theory - because He would have to be supernatural.
2) There is no proposed mechanism by which this alleged (supernatural) Intelligent Designer - who isn't a part of Intelligent Design theory!! - instantiates His designs.
3) Intelligent Design fails to explain facts of biology that macroevolution easily does (why manatees have toenails, etc.)
DNAunion 3 years ago
1) Wrong.
ID Theory claims that things with CSI were intelligently designed.
2) There are many ways in which intelligent agents act to create things with CSI. Being at a loss to give one does not detract from the conclusion that it was intelligently designed.
3) These examples are all hilarious, since you are making the assumption that it does fail to explain them.
npage85 3 years ago
***
npage85:
1) ... ID Theory claims that things with CSI were intelligently designed.
***
And, Intelligent Design theory claims that there is an Intelligent Designer. Right?
Now, as I have pointed out, the Intelligent Designer is (supposedly) not a part of Intelligent Design theory for a particular reason - because He would have to be supernatural.
If you deny that, then provide us with a plausible natural Intelligent Designer who consistent with the claims of ID.
DNAunion 3 years ago
***
npage85: 3) These examples are all hilarious, since you are making the assumption that it does fail to explain them. ***
Um, I asked you to provide a better ID explanation than the evolutionary one. You didn't.
You and ID are the ones failing here, not me and evolution :-)
DNAunion 3 years ago
How about you just watch my video responses the your videos that go over the points in your above comments.
npage85 3 years ago
Why do dolphin embryos begin to form 4 limbs when they have only 2?
Evolution explains it easily: dolphins are descendants of four-legged land animals so inherited the genetic information for hindlimb development.
But what about Intelligent Design? "Gee, even though I'm going to make dolphins have only 2 forelimbs, I'm going to go ahead and make dolphins begin forming 4 limbs, then make 2 of them regress, just to screw around with people ... LOL!"
DNAunion 3 years ago
The common look of embryos has been proven a fraud.
You surely missed that when you were taught biology in your highschool class yesterday, huh?
npage85 3 years ago
Um, what you said doesn't address what what I asked. I am aware of the typical Creationist ploy of avoidance when a question is asked that they can't give a good answer to, so no surprise to see you do it.
Now, care to address what I actually asked about? Do you have a better explanation than macroevolution for dolphin embryos beginning to develop hindlimbs? Is your Intelligent Designer a moron, or a deceiver?
DNAunion 3 years ago
I already told you that those drawings are proven frauds.
Developing embryos aren't as similar as you have been educated to think.
npage85 3 years ago
No, I told YOU that the drawings were a fraud.
I also gave you a link to one of my videos that shows actual photos of the embryos of a human, dolphin, bat, mouse, and cat that showed that they do in fact look very similar.
PS: Oh, don't claim to be open minded or looking for facts when you refuse to look at the evidence.
DNAunion 3 years ago
****
npage85: The common look of embryos has been proven a fraud.
****
Wrong.
Haeckel's late-1800 hand drawings of embryos were shown to be fraudulent.
There IS a 'common look' of various vertebrate embryos. I can even show you actual photos displaying this similarity! Watch my video
youtube(dot)com(slash)watch?v=gUiWTukfir4 stating around 2:04 until the end.
DNAunion 3 years ago
So what?
What does a similarity prove in itself?
A similarity is consistent with both the GTE *and* ID.
Please get your facts straight.
npage85 3 years ago
***
npage: A similarity [in embryos] is consistent with both the GTE *and* ID.
***
Nope.
For example, human embryos start off with fish-like aortic arches and aortae. This biological fact points straight to common descent, and away from Intelligent Design.
It would be nonsensical to design and create humans to start off with fish-like aortae and fish-like aortic arches, which then require much remodeling in order to end up with the human organization.
DNAunion 3 years ago
***
npage85: You surely missed that when you were taught biology in your highschool class yesterday, huh?
***
LOL! I have a degree in biology (graduated summa cum laude, with a perfect 4.00 cumulative GPA) and over the past several years have tutored several different biology courses (general biology, organismal biologyl, genetics, etc. ... as well as general and organic chemistry, physical science, etc.) at my alma mater.
Son, you just made a fool out of yourself!
DNAunion 3 years ago
Is this the part where we whip our dicks out and measure them with a ruler?
npage85 3 years ago
Don't get upset because I am superior to you in biology/evolution: you know, the relevant stuff.
DNAunion 3 years ago
Haha...
You really love to get your ego stroked, now don't you?
npage85 3 years ago
the human eye... a perfect example of something not designed as it is inside out the blood vessels are on the wrong side
rob0is0god 3 years ago
Also take a look at the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Evolution nicely explains why it takes it's 'unintelligent' circuitous route whereas Intelligent Design does not.
Oh, IDC can explain it IF the IDCists accept that the Designer is purposefully trying to trick us into believing something that is not the case, by mimicking evolution all over the place. But in that case the Designer is immoral and a huge deceiver.
DNAunion 3 years ago
yeah and it gets even better in the giraffe where it still goes all the way to the heart and back again over 10foot of waste lol
rob0is0god 3 years ago
All that you have posted here has been debunked, but I find it unnecessary to educate you on it, as a quick Google search would clear it up.
That is, unless you are too dogmatic to even *look* for what your opponents are saying.
npage85 3 years ago
Um, if you claim rob is wrong, then it is your job to support your claim against him. You do the Googling and post the evidence that (allegedly) refutes him.
PS: Let me guess: ID also predicted the recurrent laryngeal nerve!!! LOL!
DNAunion 3 years ago
You really think I even have to?
You are getting more absurd by the minute.
npage85 3 years ago
i still havn't been given an example of CSI by u yet i can find loads of examples of STUID designs in natures
rob0is0god 3 years ago
YOu have to if you want to be adult and professional about it.
DNAunion 3 years ago
hows it dogmatic the only sites that support ID are creationist ones which have been shown to be a pile of shit over and over again so y should i accept any of there information if its not supoorted by unbiased sites
rob0is0god 3 years ago
The thing is... you can claim examples of "stupid" designs all you want... it doesn't detract from the theory one bit.
You think the leaning tower wasn't intelligently designed because it had a major design flaw?
Come on now... you are getting *real* absurd.
npage85 3 years ago
/watch?v=bYUyZ7Q9rsI
-- That is for you and DNAunion...
npage85 3 years ago
A list of Intelligent Design books that have been published by InterVarsity Press includes:
Phillip Johnson's "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism"
Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial"
William Dembski's "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology"
So who is InterVarsity Press? Their website says the following:
...continued...
DNAunion 3 years ago
All philosophical meanderings that try and conclude "what" the "designer" is are just that: philosophical, and as such have no bearing on whether or not ID is scientific.
npage85 3 years ago
Why is it philosophical and not scientific? I'll tell you why - because there is no plausible natural designer consistent with the claims of ID.
The only possible designer consistent with ID is non-natural/supernatural, which makes it not science, but philosophical.
DNAunion 3 years ago
Again... you are confusing the theory with its implications.
If a theory doesn't have anything "supernatural" in it, but the implications of the theory being true *point* to something supernatural existing, it doesn't make the theory unscientific.
npage85 3 years ago
So the Intelligent Designer is not part of Intelligent Design????
Get real. The Intelligent Designer is central to Inteligent Design. And ... there are no plausible natural designers that are consistent with the claims of ID: the only Intelligent Designers consistent with ID are nonnatural/supernatural.
That means a non-natural/supernatural being plays a central role in ID. ID is not science, it it religious.
DNAunion 3 years ago
Like I already told you: all philosophical rants about figuring out the nature of the designer are not part of ID.
ID only says whether a thing is designed or not, not what the designer is.
You've got it all twisted in your mind.
npage85 3 years ago
[quote]
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.
(Phillip E. Johnson, American Family Radio, January 10 2003, as quoted in "The Counter-
Creationism Handbook", Mark Isaak, University of California Press, 2007, p250)
[/quote]
DNAunion 3 years ago
[quote]
Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
(The Wedge Document, 1999, as quoted by Jerry A. Coyne in his chapter -- Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its name -- of the book "Intelligent Thought: Science Versus The Intelligent Design Movement", Vintage Books, 2006, p4)
[/quote]
DNAunion 3 years ago
I really don't get all these quotes you are posting... for none of them show that ID is unscientific.
All they show is that some people regard the designer to be "God."
All philosophical meanderings that try and conclude "what" the "designer" is are just that: philosophical, and as such have no bearing on whether or not ID is scientific.
npage85 3 years ago
Why is it philosophical and not scientific? I'll tell you why - because there is no plausible natural designer consistent with the claims of ID.
The only possible designer consistent with ID is non-natural/supernatural, which makes it not science, but philosophical.
DNAunion 3 years ago
It doesn't make the theory itself unscientific... but the philosophical debates about the implication of the theory being true which are unscientific.
You are confusing the theory with the implications.
npage85 3 years ago
So the Intelligent Designer is not part of Intelligent Design????
Get real. The Intelligent Designer is central to Inteligent Design. And ... there are no plausible natural designers that are consistent with the claims of ID: the only Intelligent Designers consistent with ID are nonnatural/supernatural.
That means a non-natural/supernatural being plays a central role in ID. ID is not science, it it religious.
DNAunion 3 years ago
Like I already told you: all philosophical rants about figuring out the nature of the designer are not part of ID.
ID only says whether a thing is designed or not, not what the designer is.
You've got it all twisted in your mind.
npage85 3 years ago
You claim ID is scientific and not religious. You also claim ID is based on CSI.
CSI is the brainchild of the IDist William Dembski. And Dembski said that in biology we are clearly dealing with an UNEMBODIED designer that NATURALISM per force excludes. That's not scientific and is religious.
DNAunion 3 years ago
So you are basing the claim that ID is religious on what *Dembski* thinks the designer is?
Please... all philosophical meanderings which try to conclude what the designer is are just that: philosophical.
The philosophical result of a theory being true have no bearing on whether the theory is scientific or not.
npage85 3 years ago
The leaders of ID -- William Dembski, Michael Behe, and Phillip Johnson -- have all stated that the designer in God, in one manner or another.
Johnson has said so explicitly; Dembksi has called it an an unembodied designer that naturalism per force excludes; and Behe has mocked the idea of ETIs (the "naturalistic" form of "ID") and has further said that he believes the designer is God.
DNAunion 3 years ago
***
npage85: Please... all philosophical meanderings which try to conclude what the designer is are just that: philosophical.
***
Why is it philosophical and not scientific? I'll tell you why - because there is no plausible natural designer consistent with the claims of ID.
DNAunion 3 years ago
"I'll tell you why - because there is no plausible natural designer consistent with the claims of ID."
-- Ah... I see...
So it doesn't matter if the hypothesis makes no claims about anything religious. BUT, if the philosophical result of the hypothesis being true necessitates something religious, then the hypothesis isn't scientific.
Makes a whole lot of nonsense.
npage85 3 years ago
So the Intelligent Designer is not part of Intelligent Design????
Get real. The Intelligent Designer is central to Inteligent Design. And ... there are no plausible natural designers that are consistent with the claims of ID: the only Intelligent Designers consistent with ID are nonnatural/supernatural.
That means a non-natural/supernatural being plays a central role in ID. ID is not science, it it religious.
DNAunion 3 years ago
Like I already told you: all philosophical rants about figuring out the nature of the designer are not part of ID.
ID only says whether a thing is designed or not, not what the designer is.
You've got it all twisted in your mind.
npage85 3 years ago
So let me get this straight.
1) Intelligent Design theory claims that there is an Intelligent Designer, but the Intelligent Designer is not really a part of Inteligent Design theory?
2) What is the mechanism of Intelligent Design? (oh, and "poof!" doesn't count).
DNAunion 3 years ago
1) ID Theory only tells you if something was intelligently designed. That's it.
2) There are many mechanisms that intelligent agents use to intelligently design things.
Was the skyscraper not intelligently designed because I don't fully comprehend the methods by which it was constructed. A lack of knowledge means nothing except that you are constructing an argument from ignorance.
npage85 3 years ago
***
npage: Was the skyscraper not intelligently designed because I don't fully comprehend the methods by which it was constructed.
***
Oh, but there are plenty of people who DO know the mechanisms.
It's not just that YOU don't know any plausible mechanism that the alleged Intelligeng Designer used to create biological systems, but neither do the leaging IDists, like Behe, Dembski, Johnson, and so on.
DNAunion 3 years ago
/watch?v=bYUyZ7Q9rsI
-- That is for you and rob0is0good...
npage85 3 years ago
did u accidentally get my name wrong... or was it on purpose please tell me coz u dont seem 2 b responding 2 me.
rob0is0god 3 years ago
you went straight observation to conclusion which is total unscientific at around 2:50 furthermore everyfing there claimed is "CSI" has been shown not to be therefore making the idea of a IDer illogical furthermore the classic "who designs the designer?"
rob0is0god 3 years ago
"you went straight observation to conclusion which is total unscientific at around 2:50"
-- Creating a hypothesis from observable facts is "unscientific?" I'm sorry... I think you need to take some basic science courses before you make an utter fool of yourself.
npage85 3 years ago
"furthermore everyfing there claimed is "CSI" has been shown not to be therefore making the idea of a IDer illogical"
-- I'm sorry... but what are these examples that you claim exist? You are only asserting something without substantiation.
npage85 3 years ago
"furthermore the classic "who designs the designer?""
-- I'm sorry, but this doesn't debunk ID. You're going to have to go a little deeper than that, and also be aware that I will then take you completely down a notch. I've already shot down other people who present this.
npage85 3 years ago
i would like to know how it doesnt u claim somefing is to complex to come about by evoulution but is designed. then the designer would need to be even more complex see the problem.
rob0is0god 3 years ago
Okay...
What's the problem, even assuming that what you say is true?
You see.... philosophical implications of a theory being true doesn't make it unscientific.
The GTE even has some philosophical implications of a religious nature.
Get it?
npage85 3 years ago
it isnt philosophical u say that the designer isnt supernatural therefore should obey the same laws therefore how did a non supernatural creature appear to make all these CSI systems
rob0is0god 3 years ago
please give me "CSI" and i will go and show how it isnt
rob0is0god 3 years ago
Give you CSI, and then you will show how it isn't CSI?
What... an example?
npage85 3 years ago
yes
rob0is0god 3 years ago
u assume that if there is CSI there must b a designer instead of looking for other natural reasons that 2 me is jumping to conclusion "that it must b designed" and i dont c how ID predicts chromosomal fusion u must then explain y the designer would bother to do this
rob0is0god 3 years ago
I don't "jump to a conclusion."
I take observable data, see how it shows that all things with CSI have a designer, and use that as a theory to say that life was designed.
Nothing wrong with taking a hypothesis, showing that it has an immense amount of supporting evidence which makes it a theory, and then holding that life, which contains CSI, was therefore designed according to my theory.
As for the fusion, just watch through the rest of the video responses to this video.
npage85 3 years ago
again evidence is the key show me an example of CSI
rob0is0god 3 years ago
The comment you just posted.
npage85 3 years ago
***
rob: again evidence is the key show me an example of CSI
***
npage: The comment you just posted.
***
You don't think cumulative selection working on top of chance processes could produce Rob's comment?
DNAunion 3 years ago
lol...
Do you think his comment lacked CSI?
npage85 3 years ago
Actually, Rob's comment DOES lack CSI according to Dembski's universal probability bound!!!!
I see you are again avoiding answering the actual questions you are asked. Let me ask you again.
Do you claim that it is impossible for cumulative selection working on top of chance processes to produce Rob's comment "again evidence is the key show me an example of CSI"?
DNAunion 3 years ago
An example of CSI?
How about you just carry on the debate about this in videos like you have already started to do?
npage85 3 years ago
I'm not "jumping to a conclusion" if *all* cases of CSI with a known source have an intelligence as the source.
You really need to stop trolling.
npage85 3 years ago
show me a case of CSI i really dont care about the "source" just 1 example
rob0is0god 3 years ago
watch?v=vV5vThBcz1g
Does that appease you?
It's from my opponent, after all. He's on *your* side!
npage85 3 years ago
yea and it shows how ridiculous the concept of CSI is...thanks for making some advertisement...;)
michael201119 3 years ago
Wait until I respond to his video...
Haha...
Don't get too ahead of yourself. After all, I'm making the video right now.
npage85 3 years ago
Your logic is flawed.
All things that contain CSI that we know the source of are the product of HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. Therefore, the chromosomal fusion (if it contained CSI) would have to be the product of HUMAN INTELLIGENCE.
You can't move from "All things that contain CSI that we know the source of are the product of HUMAN INTELLIGENCE" to a conclusion about anything else of "Therefore, God did it."
DNAunion 3 years ago
lol...
All CSI that we know the source of are a product of intelligence. Adding "human" in there is just funny, because if you have an intelligence that is greater than human intelligence, then it could create it just as well.
After all, we are talking about the measure of intelligence, not *what* has that intelligence.
npage85 3 years ago
Show us a case of CSI, for which we know the cause, and it is an intelligence other than human?
DNAunion 3 years ago
Do I really need to?
Why must I?
Do you have a logical reason why I would need to do that?
npage85 3 years ago
ur "theroy" depends on CSI so show us where this because as far as im aware they isnt any therefore no basis for ur claims. secondaly Vestigial structures r good reasons against ID eg: eyes on the blind mole rat u must also explain y the designer made these fings
rob0is0god 3 years ago
First off... your grammar and spelling are horrendous. I'm just letting you know because I find it extremely difficult to interpret what you are saying.
Secondly, you say "no basis for your claims" when there aren't any examples of CSI that are known to have been created by an intelligence other than human.
You still failed to show *why*.
You do understand that what you are saying still lacks substantiation, right?
Or is that too big of a word for ya?
npage85 3 years ago
***
npage85: ... there aren't any examples of CSI that are known to have been created by an intelligence other than human.
***
Which again means your overall logic is flawed. It should be:
1) Every instance of CSI, for which the source is known, was produced by HUMANS.
2) Biological systems contain CSI [allegedly]
3) Therefore, biological systems containing CSI were produced by HUMANS.
You can't poof a non-human Intelligent Designer into existence in your conslusion.
DNAunion 3 years ago
What you have quoted is not what I said.
Cheers to you putting words in my mouth.
What is that again... a straw man?
Oh, yes... it is.
npage85 3 years ago
***
npage: What you have quoted is not what I said.
***
It's a DIRECT QUOTE from YOUR post.
If you can't make posts that indicate who is saying what, then I suggest that in addition to your learning science/biology, you need to learn some logic and English.
DNAunion 3 years ago
fanks i am dyslexic (in english but got 100% a A lvl maths go figure) and also lazy and hav a character limit but i still manage... and substantiation "to support with proof" im still w8ing for "proof" of CSI i wouldnt be fuzzy but it is 4 days, and u hav the internet dont c y it is takin so long.
rob0is0god 3 years ago
Yes, you must, if you want to have your logic hold together.
Until you provide use a case of CSI, for which we know the cause, and that cause is an intelligence other than human, then your entire logic falls apart.
DNAunion 3 years ago
First off... did you see how you put ellipses before your quote of me?
Bring back what I said before the ellipses, and then we'll talk.
Why must I supply that "case?"
Where's your logic to support that?
npage85 3 years ago
About general relativity. The light of distant star does not bend around the sun: spacetime itself does. Then the light from a distant star merely follows the straightest possible path through spacetime.
DNAunion 3 years ago
Thank you for this... it would me help out in replying to something that doesn't even have to do with this video.
It's actually quite funny.
npage85 3 years ago
It does have something to do with this video, since in this video you said that light from a distant star bends around the sun.
DNAunion 3 years ago
Did I say that it didn't have to do with this video?
I just said it would help me out in replying to something someone else said in *another* video.
Yes... I *do* have other videos with overlapping topics. *facepalm*
npage85 3 years ago
We already know the processes that would cause these chromosomes to fuse together. Yet, ID claims this process didn't happen (because it's an "unintelligent" process), and it claims that an intelligent Designer did it instead.
I'm not sure where the error is, but I'm not stupid. If we have a natural process that can do something just fine, or a claim that an "external" intelligent designer is responsible, I'll pick the well studied natural process every time.
154146 3 years ago
"Yet, ID claims this process didn't happen (because it's an "unintelligent" process), and it claims that an intelligent Designer did it instead."
-- Actually... nope. If the chances of a fusion happening exceeded the UPB(which I'm pretty certain it isn't), and the result was specific(which it most definitely isn't) then it pretty much doesn't meet the requirements of something definitely being designed.
So, ID doesn't say that the fusion was designed.
npage85 3 years ago
***
154146: I'm not sure where the error is, but I'm not stupid. If we have a natural process that can do something just fine, or a claim that an "external" intelligent designer is responsible, I'll pick the well studied natural process every time.
***
Ockham's razor.
Both general relativity and Intelligent Falling cexplain things falling to the ground. The 1st requires only nature but the 2nd requires a huge assumption: an unknown intelligence. The 1st is therefore preferable.
DNAunion 3 years ago
Occam's Razor only applies to two equally viable theories. If ID is more probable, then you can't use Occam's Razor to shave *it* off instead of the GTE.
npage85 3 years ago
No it doesn't. Ockham's razor applies to any two explanations: the one with the fewest and simplest assumptions is the preferred explanation.
DNAunion 3 years ago
I'm sorry... but this YouTube system left me wondering what you were saying "no it doesn't" to.
Could you please add a little more supporting material in your comments so that I can know what you are even trying to assert?
npage85 3 years ago
npage85, what is this mysterious "GTE" you keep referring to? Is it supposed to stand for the Creationist-fabricated "Grand Theory of Evolution"???
DNAunion 3 years ago
The General Theory of Evolution.
The theory that *all* life has a common ancestor.
Look it up... Theists aren't the only ones who use that term... after all, it was michael201119 who first used it in his video, and he is an Evolutionist.
Please... stop with your petty, meaningless attacks.
npage85 3 years ago
***
npage85: The General Theory of Evolution.
***
As opposed to what, the Special Theory of Evolution????
There is no General Theory of Evolution. Neither "GTE" nor "General Theory of Evolution" appears in the index of any of the following college texts: Douglas Futuyma's "Evolution", "Strickberger's Evolution: Fourth Edition", Solomon's "Biology: Fifth Edition". In addition, neither one appears in of the many evolution books I own.
...continued...
DNAunion 3 years ago
...continued...
Now, I know the anti-evolutionist Michael Denton, in his 1986 (horrible and refuted) book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" tried to claim that Darwin came up with a General Theory of Evolution (and a Special Theory of Evolution), but that's bogus.
DNAunion 3 years ago
***
npage85: The theory that *all* life has a common ancestor.
***
Universal common descent.
DNAunion 3 years ago
Call it whatever you will, but it wasn't *I* who decided to use "GTE," it was michael201119.
Call it "Universal Common Descent" for all I care... I'm still talking about the same thing.
npage85 3 years ago
Except that you're using a bogus term.
If you want to rename physics to blabberdoodle you can, but don't expect me to give you a thumbs up for doing so.
DNAunion 3 years ago
GTE is commonly used amongst evolutionists.
I'm using a term that was even *put forth* by an evolutionist by the name of michael201119.
npage85 3 years ago
You're using a bogus term. It's that simple.
It wouldn't matter if your opponent first called physics blabberdoodle, you should not continue his mistake.
DNAunion 3 years ago
Well...
The problem is, is that "General Theory of Evolution" *is* a valid term, no matter what you think of it.
He uses it because it is a generally accepted term to describe what we were talking about.
If you don't like it, I suggest you PM him and let him know what you think. I'm curious to see what he has to say on the subject.
npage85 3 years ago
@DNAunion: I did NOT come up with this term. It was npage85. But it was my mistake taking this term over. This was probably a problem because of my english and I assumed it to be the normally accepted term in the english-speaking world. In biology-lecture we only speak of Evolution.
He actually stated explicitly to use this term and not 'Evolution' as I did.
watch?v=m1BW9PbCZ5w @ 9:15
michael201119 3 years ago
***
michael201119: @DNAunion: I did NOT come up with this term. It was npage85. ...
watch?v=m1BW9PbCZ5w @ 9:15
***
I rapidly skimmed through that video by npage85 and, in addition to the one you mention -- 09:15 -- 09:27, where he "goes off" on you for not using the alleged "proper" term, the General Theory of Evolution -- I found a couple other instances of him referring to the General Theory of Evolution.
~06:31
~07:01
At this point, the evidence shows npage85 to be a liar.
DNAunion 3 years ago
Nothing in ID predicates a chromosomal fusion event occurring due to Common Designer and similar morphology if humans have 46 chromosomes. You need to suggest why this is required.
In the Theory of Evolution our shared ancestry requires that if we have 46 chromosomes and great apes have 48 chromosomes that since a loss of one is fatal that we would need that fusion.
Why does a designer need to produce a fusion?
And no, science does not presume the theory is correct, it uses a null hypothesis.
Cacovangor 3 years ago
"Nothing in ID predicates a chromosomal fusion event occurring due to Common Designer and similar morphology if humans have 46 chromosomes. You need to suggest why this is required."
-- Yep... that's what the debate between me and michael201119 is about.
I suggest that you stay glued for the response that I'm currently uploading right now.
It contains the "next step" in that debate. I'm not going to debate with 100's of different people about something that is already going on.
npage85 3 years ago
Alright, well it is an interesting discussion, though I may be what you called biased in favor of the opposition so don't consider me expecting any whirlwind responses as I've never heard anything from the mouth of Dembski and the like on this matter either.
Cacovangor 3 years ago
Yeah... the video is up, by the way.
It's the newest one if you go browse my videos on my channel... in case you are interested.
npage85 3 years ago