How can you understand Intelligent Design? It's not true and you have no understanding of the real demonstrable scientific theory for the diversity of life on this planet. How sad for you.
Kudos for allowing comment. MOST Xtian Youtubers either disable or approve comments & i've always seen that as admitting they have little or no POV worth taking seriously. I am Atheist & as such am always willing to learn, even if i end up disagreeing i like to keep it at least civil, so i will watch more with interest. Thanx!
@bismarket Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh Quantum level matter DOES pop in & out of existence, it is thought that at the moment (loose terminology) of the Big Bang the scale was at that quantum state, It's been observed that matter can appear "From nowhere" it seems that science only has to discover why it didn't pop out of existence again. Expansion may have occurred so rapidly that in the time intervening it just got too big i.e. was no longer Quantum, No creator necessary much like the history of science itself really.
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@1tablighBut matter has been OBSERVED coming from "Nowhere". This exact same argument could be made of theologians. The ONLY source of info for Xians is the bible & various interpretations of it! Ultimately it's a question that may never be answered OR if it ever is, that answer cannot be accepted by the devout as it destroys part of their belief system. History is evidence of this, Evolution being just one example, the phrase "God of the gaps" was coined just for this situation.
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
@1tabligh You have now gone to the last refuge of any Theist, Metaphysics. Just because YOU say it's so doesn't make it so & neither of us can prove it, or convince each other that it exists as it's "All in the mind". I see this as a cop-out. You can't defend yourself in the real world so you have to go to fantasy land & say "The skies green here, prove me wrong". It's trickery, plain & simple.
@bismarket If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
@1tabligh Your not making sense, it would mean that i would have to supply you with PROOF that fairies, goblins, elves, etc' are not real & unless i could, then by default they must exist! Surely you can see where this fails?
Your delusion that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
@bismarket You have now gone to the last refuge of any Theist, Metaphysics.
___
We see in this attempt that positivism has borrowed a metaphysical notion to complete the doctrinal structure it had established for the purpose of destroying metaphysics. This notion is the logical possibility, which it distinguished from the actual possibility. If this were not so, then what is the sensible given of the logical possibility?
Positivism states that if a sense experience does not
@bismarket have real possibility, then what meaning will its logical possibility have, other than its metaphysical meaning that does not affect the picture of external reality, and in whose respect the sensible givens do not differ?
Is it not the case that the positivist criterion for the comprehensibility of phrases has become, in the, last analysis, metaphysical, and, consequently, an incomprehensible phrase, according to positivism?
@1tabligh Comte, Put forward this idea stating that it irrelevant regarding initial causes or origins - Such as god as creator of the universe? To be honest i'm not sure if i even understand Positivism fully. However i could be right anyway because as MOST people understand the phrase, it holds true in the sense that i used it.
@bismarket Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
@1tabligh I've now had enough of this, your just throwing quotes you've found on the Internet at me as you obviously have no unique ideas of your own or at least cannot be bothered to put them into your own words, as i suspect your not even aware of their meaning. (Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery) Does this look familiar? I am able to use Googl too. Goodbye, You FAIL!
@bismarket Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
@bismarket Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
@1tabligh & this is where our discussion has to end. If it's beyond logic then it's something i can't examine or test in the real world. Were heading into the realm that theists call faith (& think of as a good thing). You either have it or not, up until now i could argue my point of view but at faith it has to stop. To me it's meaningless or so WishyWashy that it may as well be. it almost always comes to this, "God did it", is just not good enough, at least to me.
@gregrutz Although i agree that it comes down to an argument for God (If their at all honest). If your genuine about wanting to know more & can stand the hypocrisy (as they're disingenuous about the God bits) take a look at the discovery institutes website or just Google it.
@gregrutz Obviously i wasn't clear, i agree with you. ID is thinly disguised creationism that was ONLY dreamed up to try to get around laws & introduce God into the US science classrooms.
This video is very true. However, it would just work on examples like this. Objects and occurrences that is clearly constructed. Like Mt Rushmore.
It would also work in biology if animals would show treats that cannot be explained by genes. E.g. if all bats were born with an electronic circuit radar in stead of ears. THAT would be irreducible complex. However ALL traits that is manifested by genes can also be explained by evolution. ID:ers have tried and failed miserably every time. Grow up.
so by specificity, you mean original initial intent? we know mt. rushmore is designed instantly based on our facial recognition facilities in our brain, perhaps an animal could not make these things out (i don't know)
I understand your point, and await your application into biology
did the designer guide us to the physical forms we have today?
12:13 "You can then recognize the pattern and infer design." So would I be correct in assuming that inferring design is subjective since it relies on wether or not the observer recognizes the outcome?
I don't mind if people think I'm an idiot. What would be helpful tho is if you could actually engage the points I make and tell me where you disagree, and why. When you leave a comment like this, you are the one that makes Atheists look like idiots, since they do not provide any evidence or facts whatsoever to support their position. In other words, please try again, and use REASON and LOGIC. If that is too much to ask...fine....move on....
@onceforgivennowfree Well you say right in this video that people call you an idiot all the time. There's no points to engage on the topic of Intelligent Design. ID has been proven wrong back to front. ID has been debunked by Science. ID has been proven unscientific itself. ID has been proven wrong in a court of law more than once. There's no debate. ID is garbage for unscientific simpletons. Please indicate this designer and the exact mechanisms for this designers work? Please falsify ID?
@onceforgivennowfree If an intelligent designer created everything ===> then everything is designed. How can Dembski make the argument for design by relating the relatively higher probability of X being designed to something else that is also designed? The only way for this logic to work is 1) a measure that is proofed to hold for all conditions 2). a partial creation (the intelligent designer designed less than 100% of "creation")
@onceforgivennowfree Got to agree with you. I would like to change your mind about evolution & stupid insults isn't likely to do it, Atheists have said "Show me fossil Bunnies from the Cambrian" we may change our mind. Do IDers have a similar (Sensible) standard they would adhere to? To be honest it seems to me that earlier lines in the sands have been explained yet IDers keep moving the goalposts...Uugh so many mixed metaphors!
@theshredator 1) Intersubjectivity and objectivity are often mistaken. There is no way to *objectively* infer that space and time exist, either. [See Kant for that matter.] But we can intersubjectively agree upon the experience of them. It requires some intellectual honesty though to understand and apply this onto ID.
2) You can not argue for a theory to be correct with the axioms of the theory in question. ID says: 'We *do not accept natural selection* to account for the variety of life.'
@Metasophy 1) Okay, then how does one measure specified complexity?
2) I'm not arguing for a theory to be correct. I'm arguing that ID is bullshit. Ignoring natural selection altogether is intellectually dishonest to say the least.
"ID says: 'We *do not accept natural selection* to account for the variety of life.'"
And that is all it says. ID has no evidence, and no explanations. It's not even a theory. It's simply the assertion that the ToE is false without anything to back it up. ID=fail
@Metasophy 2) [continuation:] ID BTW doesn't ignore natural selection as a *conservative* force. But natural selection doesn't *create* anything. It just selects from the given. So random mutation creates - if you will. And since we cannot reproduce the results we predict with ToE - ID comes in and says: 'That can't be right.' - Sorry, no BS included... :-/ And no: You don't need a better theory to criticize an existing one. Science wouldn't work if that were true...
@Metasophy 1) Measurement can be done through a symmetrical analysis of a given structure. Such tools we use for all kinds of things from archaeology over anthropology to linguistics to detect human or intelligent causes for anomalies we find.
2) Yes, you are setting the axiom that natural selection accounts for the variety of life. And that is arguing for ToE since that is one of its key elements - along with random mutation.
@Metasophy "Measurement can be done through a symmetrical analysis of a given structure."
Okay, then what? Is that all? Then why not just call it symmetry? What is the relationship between something's symmetry and it's likelihood of being designed? Specified complexity still hasn't been defined. Please, just give a hypothetical example. Like F=ma, so if a 1kg rock falls at 9.8m/s^2, it's Force is 9.8N. Force is defined and calculated. Please, teach me how to find specified complexity.
@theshredator That was one example of how it could be done.
Dembski defined complex specified information (CSI) as being present in a specified event whose probability did not exceed 1 in 10^150, which he calls the universal probability bound. Definition: 'A degree of improbability below which a specified event of that probability cannot reasonably be attributed to chance regardless of whatever probabilitistic resources from the known universe are factored in.'
@NicolSD Then evolution theory would be explained by pointing at something and saying: Chance did it. We all know that both - evolutionary theory and the hypothesis of intelligent design are more complex than that. Is it so hard to simply listen to somebody's arguments and objectively looking at them? Or does it actually cause pain to you to broaden your understanding of a question posed in science?
@NicolSD 1) How is questioning the axioms of a scientific theory not scientific?
2) Evolution theory is very simple: 'God didn't do it. We even have a theory for that.'
3) Wrong. Science tries to answers questions - however far reaching the consequences of the resulting theories are (see evolution theory). If what you said were true math wouldn't even be included within science, since mathematical assumptions do not exist in the physical world - or have you ever met 0, pi or infinity?
1- If it is not done scientifically (using the scientific process), then "questioning the axioms of a scientific theory" is not scientific. Not scientific one bit.
If you can't understand something as simple as that, there is no point even discussing anything else.
@NicolSD 1) Not having proven that every single proponent of ID ignores the scientific method that statement is simply false. The same holds true for: 'Evolution theory is not scientific since some scientists purposely faked transitory forms.' That doesn't make the other scientists working on that field con-artists.
Since I do understand what you want to point to, but simply disagree - I suspect you want to escape my arguments by invoking stupidity on my side... ;)
@NicolSD 3) [continuation:] The error of materialism is to assume that there is a division of metaphysical and physical realities. Assume consciousness were at the root of existence. You would never find it out - since you eradicate it by principle. *That* is unscientific. We can not rule anything out until we analyze it. And how are we to analyze anything if you know - beforehand - that it is not worth looking into it? That's pseudoskepticism at its best...
I'm Down with ID even if it requires voodoo magic to function. Fuck the God-lie, science can take a back seat. We need intelligent design to get rid of religion. Everything complex needs a creator even God WOOT Go ID! =D
The watchmaker argument is self defeating. The thing that is suspected to have been designed is being contrasted against nature to determine that it was designed.
Dawkins wrote an entire book in 1986, The Blind Watchmaker, which provides a sustained critique of the argument from design. He makes easy work of your "specificity and complexity" arguments. Read the book and find out why your argument is SOOO 17th century and why I.D. is not taught in science classes. Creationism's attempts to infiltrate school curriculum through the courts has always failed. Maybe all these 'dummies' just need to watch your videos to understand the intelligence in I.D.
Rocks dont reproduce, just debunked this entire vid - lets move to the next. Using any analogy to an inanimate object when discussing natural laws is pretty a pretty flawed approach.
The best way to put this is in the form of the quest How what method did you use to say that the A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 J Q K has more specificity then any other random order ?
TLDR: "Intelligent Design For Dummies" ?!? POP!! It exists. Done and done, fool. Non-repeatable, non-verifiable theory. (Hell, even using the word theory herein makes me sick). ID equals fail IN EXTREMIS.
See my video, which is similar to above. But should shed further light on I. D. "MisInformation Theory & Secular Science.wmv " I also like this story: "Seen on top of every other fence post along a road. Was a rock. How would you conclude they got there? Did some kid or drunk rancher place the rocks? Or would you believe as evolutionist and atheist. A passing tornado placed the rocks! Evolutionist and Atheist have forsaken reason for senselessness!
@Howie47 This video claims that people who argue against ID don't understand ID. This comment is a perfect example of the opposite - someone arguing against evolution with 0 understanding of it.
@419Films Telling people they just don't understand "evolution" or "ID" isn't a scientific argument. People for years opt out of a debate with me on evolution. With, "you just don't understand". But they can't ever explain it. So they must not understand it either! I can explain ID in nut shell. Eiensten said any theory worth it's salt can be explained simply, so even a bar maid could understand it! Can you explain evolution thusly? I can for ID! Mutation + selection = 0 !
I love how there's no solid way of determining how "specified" something is in the method you're using. Are sand dunes patterns highly specified? They seem "highly specified" to me, there are very clear designs made so therefore= design. Right? The way you're determining whether one thing is specified and another is not seems like a subjective pile of crap. You recognize the patterns of Mt.Rushmore because you already know what they are (presidents) and you know what a human face looks like.
4:28 - What? We have a multitude of ways of knowing that it was designed. Were not simply concluding that it was designed. We have records of its building by man, we know ahead of time what those faces are supposed to be, we can see pictures of its construction, we can read a history book about why its there, you can see the blueprints for it, etc. Did he really just say something that stupid?
Caricature was the wrong word because caricatures are meant to accurately point out what is flawed or at least different about the subject. Don't hate on the caricatures.
The "old man on the rock" thing actually has a high degree of specificity, just not in a way that you expect. It _looks_ like it is a naturally occurring formation of rock. That is the missing specificity. Normally, most people ignore that part, since it blends with the rest of the surroundings. We just take it for granted. Nevertheless, the specificity is still there; it looks like a natural formation.
Don't know what I'm talking about though. Just going off the first half of your video.
Ken Miller shows that the specified complexity that ID proponents use are in effect nothing other then arguments from ignorance. This ID concept gains virtually all it's support from laypeople who "can't imagine" a natural process that could make something. Scientists have shown time and again they are wrong.
I understand from a common sense point of view you say that Mt Rushmore is designed and the old man on the rock is not, and I'd agree with you there. The problem is that science flies in the face of common sense, due to it requiring an objective classification of specificity. In this case, for us to take the very first step of intelligent design, we need an objective, data-driven, quantifiable way of distinguishing specificity from non-specificity, we can't simply make an assertion of design.
another problem with "intelligent design" is what you mention in your video is about not being able to detect the difference between designed or not designed which basically means that the hypothesis cannot be falsified therefore it becomes useless in it's power of predictability
What's amazing is not that so many people misunderstand ID but that NOBODY correctly understands it (that does not already agree with it). Maybe to understand it is to agree with it?. At any rate, it is surely remarkable that those surest of its fallaciousness, are the very ones who misrepresent it the most.
all this talk about design and specificity is pretty pointless since it was precisely the triumph of Darwin in showing that yes there is design in nature, but no intelligence is needed to get at the design. I recommend you read "Darwin's dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett
@grimwatcher I recommend you watch this,The Dark Side of Darwinism here on you tube,google any of these names with Darwin,Hilter,Stalin,Marx,Engels,Mao,Freud ,and see how Darwin's influence on the world is!
I think that you need to have a boundary line between intelligent to natural. I think the Intelligent Design as supported by Behe and Dembski was wrong. Wrong in definition and wrong in arguments. To study more, see my Intelligent Design videos for more.
u clearly made assertions that u were not able to backup! U have no understanding of the Bible, etc; u r just a pretender; U should change ur name to “IamMyOwnAuthorityFoundation” LOL!
ps: i dare u to make this interaction available to ur subs.
all u stated was own opinions and own definitions and rejected the sources that I gave from ur own evo scientists; u think by saying “no’ or “wrong” refutes anything; u kept using rhetoric and distorted the sources that u provided; u kept on backtracking and changing the context of the discussion; ANYONE CAN GO AND READ THE THREAD AND SEE FOR THEMSELVES. I have it copied.
@leviMichealathan No, actually I've been debunking your fallacy and correcting your ignorance for days now and yes, anyone can go back and read my continually setting you straight on actual scientific matters.
@pineconesaresmallnow There are already so many debunking every claim ever made by any creationist/cdesign proponentsist that you can't help but feel you're ripping someone off.
I claimed that there’s no natural law that can produce information.
Ur response was: Natural processes produce information all the time, it's called emergence.
I responded by telling u: Emergent information deals with how "systems" learn and process information” and I even cited an article by experts in the field: Peter Fleissner, Wolfgang Hofkirchner
@leviMichealathan You responded with a complete lack of understanding of emergence. It is not a 'learning' process it's the actual emergence of defining characteristics in natural systems, which is what information is.
u don’t know what induction is; I said that based on our experience that information only comes from intelligence, we can conclude based on induction that the info in DNA and comes from intelligence
ur response; “But that's not logic, that's circular logic.” LOL!
@leviMichealathan In information theory Shannon, information is defined as 'distinguishing essential characteristics or by the number of alternatives from which it makes a choice possible'
>Distinguishing essential characteristics, IE that which makes discernment possible between two systems.
@TheScienceFoundation pasteur’s conclusion part 2: “"No, there IS NOT A SINGLE KNOWN CIRCUMSTANCE in which MICROSCOPIC beings may be asserted to have entered the world without germs, without parents resembling them. Those who think otherwise have been deluded by their poorly conducted experiments, full of errors they neither knew how to perceive, nor how to avoid."”-Pasteur (emp mine)
Do u see that? “microscopic” not mice and other things; he debunked and pwnd abiogenesis in it’s modern form
@leviMichealathan Again, microscopic organisms are modern organisms, no one is claiming that they arose spontaneously and abiogenetic study has nothing to do with them.
Microscopic organisms are still modern organisms. No one who isn't retarded is claiming that modern life appeared spontaneously 3.8 billion years ago.
Its enough to refute u based on the sources I gave u; but I will refute even more; u keep making statements about what Pasteur proved or disproved; Pasteur’s conclusion was that any theory about non-living matter giving rise to living matter is false; here is his conclusion:
@leviMichealathan Yes, that was the spontaneous generation that Pasteur debunked, it has absolutely nothing to do with the biochemical origin of life.
Let me give u 2 more def. of abio and SG from scientific dictionaries:
From: biology-online . org/dictionary:
Abiogenesis: (Science: study) The study of how life originally arose on the planet, ENCOMPASSES THE ANCIENT BELIEF IN THE SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF LIFE FROM NON LIVING MATTER. –emp mine
spontaneous generation: The theory of spontaneous generation held that complex, LIVING ORGANISMS MAY BE PRODUCED FROM NONLIVING MATTER.
@leviMichealathan You're focusing on and yelling the irrelevant part of the definitions
Abiogenesis: (Science: study) The study of how life >originally arose on the planet
spontaneous generation: The theory of spontaneous generation held that >complex, LIVING ORGANISMS
Abiogenesis is not the study of modern complex organisms arising from non-living matter. I'll keep pointing that out as long as you remain ignorant of that fact.
“You keep confusing 'pwnd' and you remaining ignorant of actual biochemistry.” This seems to be ur only argument; let’s see….ur word vs Princeton? … ur word vs ISCID? …ur word vs the Journal of Theoretical Biology?
@leviMichealathan I have no problem with the definition from Princeton, I was correcting your ignorance of the difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis.
“Do you think they're going to microscopically monitor every square millimeter of every diffusion vent on earth?” LOL!!!! U make the claim, then u complain that’s it’s hard to find the evidence or you can’t find it. LOL!
“Exactly how do you think operational science works?” LOL u don’t even know what this is; OS is tested, observable, repeated, demonstrated, falsifiable-u know the science that brought us pcs, tv, etc. abiogenesis fails all this; there’s no way to know if it really did happen or not! and if it did, how exactly did it happen.
“protocell that preceded life” again u make the assertion that this cell existed; yet, u haven’t provided any hard evidence that it did; oh wait, they did exist but u have no evidence.
“A protocell is a protocell whether we're talking about a protocell itself or the protocell that preceded life.” Here u go again with ur rhetoric; what a protocell is has no bearing on the fact that u used it as evidence for abiogenesis; and I asked u for evidence for it in the real world and u gave me a lab experiment.
“Are you saying god isn't an extraordinary power from a supernatural source?” yes!!! again, u are so funny. That’s what I’ve trying to tell u all along! God is BOTH supernatural AND the source of supernatural power; He is both the agent and the source; whereas with magic, the source and the agent are different; anyway, it’s too late for that; ur own source refutes u!
let's continue with the article: "The resulting "synthetic cell" was then "rebooted" and it started to replicate"
can u see the word "rebooted"? why is it not "booted"; u r a liar; u inserted "blank" and "booted"; btw a blank cell is not from scratch. consider urself a liar and pwnd!
"No, he used a blank yeast cell, inserted an entirely synthetic genome and booted it up." no??? LOL! u r funny; here's the direct quote from the article:
"Finally they developed a technique of stripping bacteria cells of all original DNA and substituting it with the new artificial code. "
compare this statement with my statement: "he stripped a cell off it's dna and replaced it with the synthetic code."
@TheScienceFoundation i blocked u! some serious pwnage is coming ur way; stay tuned; i can't believe u have 1477 subs. LOL! i will post pwnages to ur latest claims first and the rest of it later. bye bye!
@leviMichealathan 'recently, ur kind has pushed the problem back a level by claiming that there was sumthing b4 the BB; where did this sumthing come from?'
That's a meaningless question, if it has existed indefinitely it doesn't come from anywhere.
'(not to mention the fact that according to ur logic, the universe is things inside it and things outside of it)'
No, according to my logic, and the actual definition of universe anything that exists is part of the universe.
@leviMichealathan 'logical laws still apply even if there's nothing'
No they don't. If nothing exists, then there's nothing for logic to describe, IE A cannot be A if A doesn't exist.
'the reason why you have this crazy notion that logical laws are only a property of the universe is because u thought that u could do away with cause and effect.
Actually it comes from being the only one in this conversation that apparently understands logic
You have merely asserted that naturally occurring specified complexity possesses inherent properties of 'intelligence'. Also, your definition of specificity is inadequate. This whole video is chock-full of circular reasoning, equivocation and various other fallacies.
Great introduction! An idea for a future series might be to discuss Werner Gitt's information theory. As you might know, its a little more complicated, but given that you're really good at explaining these things, i'm sure you could break it down to an understandable level.
Are you serious... people that don't understand ID try to debunk it?? Well that's just crazy... especially considering ID is noting but an attempt to discredit evolution by people that have no idea what evolution is.
How's this for ID for dummies:You can't understand how this existence and the life we find could just exist... so you imagine another type of existence and another type of life to be the creator. But THAT existence and life CAN just exist without a creator! FAIL
Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is "science" and intelligent design is "religion." Such statements today merely reveal the speaker's own liberal social philosophies and bias— not his or her awareness of scientific facts.
@fellowservant34 "Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is 'science' and intelligent design is 'religion'" actually not even close
What predictions does ID make? How does it gets falsified? Evolution is easy to falsify, find a rabbit with a T Rex or a dog giving birth to a cat and Evolution goes away
As for "information" how is this information related? It is not a code like a sentence but more like a mold twisting proteins
@fellowservant34 "Such statements today merely reveal the speaker's own liberal social philosophies and bias" funny how a conservative judge found that ID was nothing more than Creationism in a lab coat and how all of the "heavy hitters" in the ID field were so totally outclassed in science in front of a judge appointed by Bush Sr.
Great video, I have been wanting to hear more from you about ID. I am beginning to see why ID should be taught in schools. I still don't agree with it, but I am beginning to understand it as no better and no worse than a natural selection explanation. I disagree with the definition of your metric, but I do appreciate the honestly about the what decision questions could be answered with that metric.
Have you watched Flocks of Dodos? Most of the arguments against why Intelligent Design is not a good scientific model are included in the movie. What are your thoughts toward the video? Thanks
I did a long time ago....I forget most of it tho! I've got a few other things I've gotta tackly first, I may watch it again and see what I come up with - I honestly forget most of it!
@onceforgivennowfree thanks for the reply. no problem. I believe you can watch Flocks of Dodos on netflix, but take your time to do what you needed to do first~ :)
Try the talkreason website to debunk Dembski. Wesley Elsberry & Jeffrey Shallit showed Dembski's work for what it was in 2003. Apparently, ignoring evidence is a creationist trait.
Also, try the infidels(dot)org website for a number of different mathematicians showing where Dembski was wrong.
I was chatting with the Discovery Institute guys; they also realize where Dembski went wrong. He is supposed to be fixing his mistakes, but, so far, he hasn't figured it out.
the concept of design is an illusion no design is new nor perminent and therefor relevant if i draw a pict on paper design something and it burns or finds water etc eventually all this so called design will perish therefor such as all living and even dead organisms there is no such thing as design there is only creativity in my opinion wich leads to a point of a design if it would become eternal ;) in a way is only one design and one designer and thats god and all u see we see is creativity
conclusion: you're an idiot
borissman 1 month ago in playlist More videos from onceforgivennowfree
How can you understand Intelligent Design? It's not true and you have no understanding of the real demonstrable scientific theory for the diversity of life on this planet. How sad for you.
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
Comment removed
bismarket 1 month ago
Kudos for allowing comment. MOST Xtian Youtubers either disable or approve comments & i've always seen that as admitting they have little or no POV worth taking seriously. I am Atheist & as such am always willing to learn, even if i end up disagreeing i like to keep it at least civil, so i will watch more with interest. Thanx!
bismarket 3 months ago
@bismarket Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Quantum level matter DOES pop in & out of existence, it is thought that at the moment (loose terminology) of the Big Bang the scale was at that quantum state, It's been observed that matter can appear "From nowhere" it seems that science only has to discover why it didn't pop out of existence again. Expansion may have occurred so rapidly that in the time intervening it just got too big i.e. was no longer Quantum, No creator necessary much like the history of science itself really.
bismarket 1 month ago
@bismarket The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tablighBut matter has been OBSERVED coming from "Nowhere". This exact same argument could be made of theologians. The ONLY source of info for Xians is the bible & various interpretations of it! Ultimately it's a question that may never be answered OR if it ever is, that answer cannot be accepted by the devout as it destroys part of their belief system. History is evidence of this, Evolution being just one example, the phrase "God of the gaps" was coined just for this situation.
bismarket 1 month ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh You have now gone to the last refuge of any Theist, Metaphysics. Just because YOU say it's so doesn't make it so & neither of us can prove it, or convince each other that it exists as it's "All in the mind". I see this as a cop-out. You can't defend yourself in the real world so you have to go to fantasy land & say "The skies green here, prove me wrong". It's trickery, plain & simple.
bismarket 1 month ago
@bismarket If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Your not making sense, it would mean that i would have to supply you with PROOF that fairies, goblins, elves, etc' are not real & unless i could, then by default they must exist! Surely you can see where this fails?
bismarket 1 month ago
@bismarket The atheist Delusion!
Your delusion that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh See Previous answer!
bismarket 1 month ago
@bismarket You have now gone to the last refuge of any Theist, Metaphysics.
___
We see in this attempt that positivism has borrowed a metaphysical notion to complete the doctrinal structure it had established for the purpose of destroying metaphysics. This notion is the logical possibility, which it distinguished from the actual possibility. If this were not so, then what is the sensible given of the logical possibility?
Positivism states that if a sense experience does not
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Direct quote from Muḥammad Bāqir Ṣadr yes?
bismarket 1 month ago
@bismarket have real possibility, then what meaning will its logical possibility have, other than its metaphysical meaning that does not affect the picture of external reality, and in whose respect the sensible givens do not differ?
Is it not the case that the positivist criterion for the comprehensibility of phrases has become, in the, last analysis, metaphysical, and, consequently, an incomprehensible phrase, according to positivism?
1tabligh 1 month ago
Comment removed
bismarket 1 month ago
@1tabligh Comte, Put forward this idea stating that it irrelevant regarding initial causes or origins - Such as god as creator of the universe? To be honest i'm not sure if i even understand Positivism fully. However i could be right anyway because as MOST people understand the phrase, it holds true in the sense that i used it.
bismarket 1 month ago
@bismarket Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh I've now had enough of this, your just throwing quotes you've found on the Internet at me as you obviously have no unique ideas of your own or at least cannot be bothered to put them into your own words, as i suspect your not even aware of their meaning. (Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery) Does this look familiar? I am able to use Googl too. Goodbye, You FAIL!
bismarket 1 month ago
@bismarket Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@bismarket Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@bismarket God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh & this is where our discussion has to end. If it's beyond logic then it's something i can't examine or test in the real world. Were heading into the realm that theists call faith (& think of as a good thing). You either have it or not, up until now i could argue my point of view but at faith it has to stop. To me it's meaningless or so WishyWashy that it may as well be. it almost always comes to this, "God did it", is just not good enough, at least to me.
bismarket 1 month ago
Thank you very much I found this very helpful keep up the good work!!
TheStevehutchie 3 months ago
UM, why don't you tell us what ID is?? All you do is say people don't understand it.
It is easy, it is an argument for GOD. NO Evidence, just an argument.
gregrutz 4 months ago
Comment removed
bismarket 1 month ago
@gregrutz Although i agree that it comes down to an argument for God (If their at all honest). If your genuine about wanting to know more & can stand the hypocrisy (as they're disingenuous about the God bits) take a look at the discovery institutes website or just Google it.
bismarket 1 month ago
@bismarket Sorry, ID lost in court. It was proven to be creationism, a religion.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Obviously i wasn't clear, i agree with you. ID is thinly disguised creationism that was ONLY dreamed up to try to get around laws & introduce God into the US science classrooms.
bismarket 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Intelligent Design is a failure...
IDers claim EVERYTHING was designed,but think thta only complex things can prove it.
odinata 5 months ago
"many people that don't understand it try to debunk it." Gee, that sounds kind of familiar.
KevinReconAlpha 5 months ago
Thanks for the video. Can you provide one scientific paper that empirically demonstrates intelligent design?
ndjarnag 6 months ago
This video is very true. However, it would just work on examples like this. Objects and occurrences that is clearly constructed. Like Mt Rushmore.
It would also work in biology if animals would show treats that cannot be explained by genes. E.g. if all bats were born with an electronic circuit radar in stead of ears. THAT would be irreducible complex. However ALL traits that is manifested by genes can also be explained by evolution. ID:ers have tried and failed miserably every time. Grow up.
Hopefulfilment 6 months ago
so by specificity, you mean original initial intent? we know mt. rushmore is designed instantly based on our facial recognition facilities in our brain, perhaps an animal could not make these things out (i don't know)
I understand your point, and await your application into biology
did the designer guide us to the physical forms we have today?
kelbykross1 6 months ago
12:13 "You can then recognize the pattern and infer design." So would I be correct in assuming that inferring design is subjective since it relies on wether or not the observer recognizes the outcome?
CrapsWithBears 6 months ago
You're an idiot.
bigboy45454545 6 months ago
@bigboy45454545
Hey,
I don't mind if people think I'm an idiot. What would be helpful tho is if you could actually engage the points I make and tell me where you disagree, and why. When you leave a comment like this, you are the one that makes Atheists look like idiots, since they do not provide any evidence or facts whatsoever to support their position. In other words, please try again, and use REASON and LOGIC. If that is too much to ask...fine....move on....
onceforgivennowfree 6 months ago 4
@onceforgivennowfree Well you say right in this video that people call you an idiot all the time. There's no points to engage on the topic of Intelligent Design. ID has been proven wrong back to front. ID has been debunked by Science. ID has been proven unscientific itself. ID has been proven wrong in a court of law more than once. There's no debate. ID is garbage for unscientific simpletons. Please indicate this designer and the exact mechanisms for this designers work? Please falsify ID?
bigboy45454545 6 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree If an intelligent designer created everything ===> then everything is designed. How can Dembski make the argument for design by relating the relatively higher probability of X being designed to something else that is also designed? The only way for this logic to work is 1) a measure that is proofed to hold for all conditions 2). a partial creation (the intelligent designer designed less than 100% of "creation")
axe863 3 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree Got to agree with you. I would like to change your mind about evolution & stupid insults isn't likely to do it, Atheists have said "Show me fossil Bunnies from the Cambrian" we may change our mind. Do IDers have a similar (Sensible) standard they would adhere to? To be honest it seems to me that earlier lines in the sands have been explained yet IDers keep moving the goalposts...Uugh so many mixed metaphors!
bismarket 1 month ago
@bigboy45454545 ..IDiot
bismarket 1 month ago
@theshredator 1) Intersubjectivity and objectivity are often mistaken. There is no way to *objectively* infer that space and time exist, either. [See Kant for that matter.] But we can intersubjectively agree upon the experience of them. It requires some intellectual honesty though to understand and apply this onto ID.
2) You can not argue for a theory to be correct with the axioms of the theory in question. ID says: 'We *do not accept natural selection* to account for the variety of life.'
Metasophy 7 months ago
@Metasophy 1) Okay, then how does one measure specified complexity?
2) I'm not arguing for a theory to be correct. I'm arguing that ID is bullshit. Ignoring natural selection altogether is intellectually dishonest to say the least.
"ID says: 'We *do not accept natural selection* to account for the variety of life.'"
And that is all it says. ID has no evidence, and no explanations. It's not even a theory. It's simply the assertion that the ToE is false without anything to back it up. ID=fail
theshredator 7 months ago
Comment removed
Metasophy 7 months ago
@Metasophy 2) [continuation:] ID BTW doesn't ignore natural selection as a *conservative* force. But natural selection doesn't *create* anything. It just selects from the given. So random mutation creates - if you will. And since we cannot reproduce the results we predict with ToE - ID comes in and says: 'That can't be right.' - Sorry, no BS included... :-/ And no: You don't need a better theory to criticize an existing one. Science wouldn't work if that were true...
Metasophy 7 months ago
@Metasophy 1) Measurement can be done through a symmetrical analysis of a given structure. Such tools we use for all kinds of things from archaeology over anthropology to linguistics to detect human or intelligent causes for anomalies we find.
2) Yes, you are setting the axiom that natural selection accounts for the variety of life. And that is arguing for ToE since that is one of its key elements - along with random mutation.
Metasophy 7 months ago
@Metasophy "Measurement can be done through a symmetrical analysis of a given structure."
Okay, then what? Is that all? Then why not just call it symmetry? What is the relationship between something's symmetry and it's likelihood of being designed? Specified complexity still hasn't been defined. Please, just give a hypothetical example. Like F=ma, so if a 1kg rock falls at 9.8m/s^2, it's Force is 9.8N. Force is defined and calculated. Please, teach me how to find specified complexity.
theshredator 7 months ago
@theshredator That was one example of how it could be done.
Dembski defined complex specified information (CSI) as being present in a specified event whose probability did not exceed 1 in 10^150, which he calls the universal probability bound. Definition: 'A degree of improbability below which a specified event of that probability cannot reasonably be attributed to chance regardless of whatever probabilitistic resources from the known universe are factored in.'
Metasophy 7 months ago
Comment removed
Metasophy 7 months ago
We all know how Intelligent Design works. You point at something and say: God Did It. No need for a 15 minute video to try and explain it.
NicolSD 7 months ago
@NicolSD Then evolution theory would be explained by pointing at something and saying: Chance did it. We all know that both - evolutionary theory and the hypothesis of intelligent design are more complex than that. Is it so hard to simply listen to somebody's arguments and objectively looking at them? Or does it actually cause pain to you to broaden your understanding of a question posed in science?
Metasophy 7 months ago
@Metasophy 1- Intelligent Design is not a theory. It is not even science. It is religion.
2- Intelligent Design is very simple: "God did it."
3- Science tries to answer questions in the realm of the physical world. There is no room for the religious or the metaphysical in the physical world.
Does it cause you pain to have to accept that?
NicolSD 7 months ago
@NicolSD 1) How is questioning the axioms of a scientific theory not scientific?
2) Evolution theory is very simple: 'God didn't do it. We even have a theory for that.'
3) Wrong. Science tries to answers questions - however far reaching the consequences of the resulting theories are (see evolution theory). If what you said were true math wouldn't even be included within science, since mathematical assumptions do not exist in the physical world - or have you ever met 0, pi or infinity?
Metasophy 7 months ago
@Metasophy ROTFLMAO
1- If it is not done scientifically (using the scientific process), then "questioning the axioms of a scientific theory" is not scientific. Not scientific one bit.
If you can't understand something as simple as that, there is no point even discussing anything else.
Let's just agree to disagree.
NicolSD 7 months ago
@NicolSD 1) Not having proven that every single proponent of ID ignores the scientific method that statement is simply false. The same holds true for: 'Evolution theory is not scientific since some scientists purposely faked transitory forms.' That doesn't make the other scientists working on that field con-artists.
Since I do understand what you want to point to, but simply disagree - I suspect you want to escape my arguments by invoking stupidity on my side... ;)
Metasophy 7 months ago
@NicolSD [continuation:] But of course we do not have to discuss this. ;) I simply wanted to add my 2cents to what had been stated here previously.
I can surely live with the thought of people having different opinions than I have. ;)
Metasophy 7 months ago
@NicolSD 3) [continuation:] The error of materialism is to assume that there is a division of metaphysical and physical realities. Assume consciousness were at the root of existence. You would never find it out - since you eradicate it by principle. *That* is unscientific. We can not rule anything out until we analyze it. And how are we to analyze anything if you know - beforehand - that it is not worth looking into it? That's pseudoskepticism at its best...
Metasophy 7 months ago
Retard Alert!! ID has been debunked. Why are you confusing Atheist with perhaps an expert in the field? Like maybe say a biologist there retard?
bigboy45454545 7 months ago
I'm Down with ID even if it requires voodoo magic to function. Fuck the God-lie, science can take a back seat. We need intelligent design to get rid of religion. Everything complex needs a creator even God WOOT Go ID! =D
GodKillerAtheist 8 months ago
The watchmaker argument is self defeating. The thing that is suspected to have been designed is being contrasted against nature to determine that it was designed.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
the old man on the rock is complex because it has a lot of atoms? Well, wouldn't a rock the same size but not with a shape be just as complex?
GWJumpman 8 months ago
Genesis and evolution agree.....
AlanMolstad 8 months ago
I don't need to debunk ID. It's already been debunked by scientist. It's nothing more than creationism in sheep's clothing...
Hornadayfan 8 months ago
@rhettboy Hey, I was a Creationist once, but i'm not now, So, did my Stupid go away, or was I just more intellectually honest?
ThePuppyTurtle 8 months ago
Dawkins wrote an entire book in 1986, The Blind Watchmaker, which provides a sustained critique of the argument from design. He makes easy work of your "specificity and complexity" arguments. Read the book and find out why your argument is SOOO 17th century and why I.D. is not taught in science classes. Creationism's attempts to infiltrate school curriculum through the courts has always failed. Maybe all these 'dummies' just need to watch your videos to understand the intelligence in I.D.
umunhum4fun 8 months ago
Rocks dont reproduce, just debunked this entire vid - lets move to the next. Using any analogy to an inanimate object when discussing natural laws is pretty a pretty flawed approach.
cbilljones 8 months ago
The best way to put this is in the form of the quest How what method did you use to say that the A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 J Q K has more specificity then any other random order ?
deathZor42 9 months ago
TLDR: "Intelligent Design For Dummies" ?!? POP!! It exists. Done and done, fool. Non-repeatable, non-verifiable theory. (Hell, even using the word theory herein makes me sick). ID equals fail IN EXTREMIS.
MsGingergingercat 9 months ago
See my video, which is similar to above. But should shed further light on I. D. "MisInformation Theory & Secular Science.wmv " I also like this story: "Seen on top of every other fence post along a road. Was a rock. How would you conclude they got there? Did some kid or drunk rancher place the rocks? Or would you believe as evolutionist and atheist. A passing tornado placed the rocks! Evolutionist and Atheist have forsaken reason for senselessness!
Howie47 9 months ago
@Howie47 This video claims that people who argue against ID don't understand ID. This comment is a perfect example of the opposite - someone arguing against evolution with 0 understanding of it.
419Films 1 month ago
@419Films Telling people they just don't understand "evolution" or "ID" isn't a scientific argument. People for years opt out of a debate with me on evolution. With, "you just don't understand". But they can't ever explain it. So they must not understand it either! I can explain ID in nut shell. Eiensten said any theory worth it's salt can be explained simply, so even a bar maid could understand it! Can you explain evolution thusly? I can for ID! Mutation + selection = 0 !
Howie47 1 month ago
The atheist book is called "Atheism is for Pompous Twits."
TheXiantruth 9 months ago
Matt,
The vid on my channel "The shroud of Tourin" which is the burial cloth of Jesus.
Do you consider that an example of intelligent design? Interested in your thoughts on something so very complex.
baysideful 9 months ago
@Ataraxschism Because you do not have the science to understand, You perhaps need to study the meaning of intelligent design from others like Matt.
baysideful 9 months ago
I love how there's no solid way of determining how "specified" something is in the method you're using. Are sand dunes patterns highly specified? They seem "highly specified" to me, there are very clear designs made so therefore= design. Right? The way you're determining whether one thing is specified and another is not seems like a subjective pile of crap. You recognize the patterns of Mt.Rushmore because you already know what they are (presidents) and you know what a human face looks like.
SupaKawazu 9 months ago
4:28 - What? We have a multitude of ways of knowing that it was designed. Were not simply concluding that it was designed. We have records of its building by man, we know ahead of time what those faces are supposed to be, we can see pictures of its construction, we can read a history book about why its there, you can see the blueprints for it, etc. Did he really just say something that stupid?
SupaKawazu 9 months ago
When is Intelligent design NOT for dummies?
AtheismandSkepticism 9 months ago
Intelligent design for dummies -- by dummies.
fooltard 9 months ago
How do you measure specificity. Say I had an object that was very close to a perfect sphere. Would that be a high specificity or a low specificity.
yugyfoog 9 months ago
Caricature was the wrong word because caricatures are meant to accurately point out what is flawed or at least different about the subject. Don't hate on the caricatures.
aphilby 9 months ago
The "old man on the rock" thing actually has a high degree of specificity, just not in a way that you expect. It _looks_ like it is a naturally occurring formation of rock. That is the missing specificity. Normally, most people ignore that part, since it blends with the rest of the surroundings. We just take it for granted. Nevertheless, the specificity is still there; it looks like a natural formation.
Don't know what I'm talking about though. Just going off the first half of your video.
HateNeverCeasesHate 9 months ago
Ken Miller shows that the specified complexity that ID proponents use are in effect nothing other then arguments from ignorance. This ID concept gains virtually all it's support from laypeople who "can't imagine" a natural process that could make something. Scientists have shown time and again they are wrong.
Uhlbelk 9 months ago
Would you be interested in recording a conversation for our podcast? I would have PMed you but you disabled that feature.
theowarner 9 months ago
I am glad urbanelf took the time to respond to this nonsense.
Blackmark52 9 months ago
the school he went to should be closed
sofusmadsen 9 months ago
I understand from a common sense point of view you say that Mt Rushmore is designed and the old man on the rock is not, and I'd agree with you there. The problem is that science flies in the face of common sense, due to it requiring an objective classification of specificity. In this case, for us to take the very first step of intelligent design, we need an objective, data-driven, quantifiable way of distinguishing specificity from non-specificity, we can't simply make an assertion of design.
TheWatcherGrigori 9 months ago
another problem with "intelligent design" is what you mention in your video is about not being able to detect the difference between designed or not designed which basically means that the hypothesis cannot be falsified therefore it becomes useless in it's power of predictability
grimwatcher 9 months ago
What's amazing is not that so many people misunderstand ID but that NOBODY correctly understands it (that does not already agree with it). Maybe to understand it is to agree with it?. At any rate, it is surely remarkable that those surest of its fallaciousness, are the very ones who misrepresent it the most.
evangelical1 9 months ago
all this talk about design and specificity is pretty pointless since it was precisely the triumph of Darwin in showing that yes there is design in nature, but no intelligence is needed to get at the design. I recommend you read "Darwin's dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett
grimwatcher 9 months ago
Comment removed
majorl311 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@grimwatcher I recommend you watch this,The Dark Side of Darwinism here on you tube,google any of these names with Darwin,Hilter,Stalin,Marx,Engels,Mao,Freud ,and see how Darwin's influence on the world is!
majorl311 4 months ago
Intelligent design for dummies. Is there any other type?
grimwatcher 9 months ago 9
I eagerly await your response to urbanelf's response to you. :)
TheTruePooka 9 months ago
I think that you need to have a boundary line between intelligent to natural. I think the Intelligent Design as supported by Behe and Dembski was wrong. Wrong in definition and wrong in arguments. To study more, see my Intelligent Design videos for more.
MrIntelligentdesign 9 months ago
With the cards coming up in order you do know the pattern ahead of time.
pineconesaresmallnow 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation conclusion part 2:
u clearly made assertions that u were not able to backup! U have no understanding of the Bible, etc; u r just a pretender; U should change ur name to “IamMyOwnAuthorityFoundation” LOL!
ps: i dare u to make this interaction available to ur subs.
leviMichealathan 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leviMichealathan How is gen 2:7 anything but magic?
You're just redefining terms to suit your needs, thats just more fallacy but what should I expect from you at this point?
TheScienceFoundation 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation conclusion part 1:
all u stated was own opinions and own definitions and rejected the sources that I gave from ur own evo scientists; u think by saying “no’ or “wrong” refutes anything; u kept using rhetoric and distorted the sources that u provided; u kept on backtracking and changing the context of the discussion; ANYONE CAN GO AND READ THE THREAD AND SEE FOR THEMSELVES. I have it copied.
cont...
leviMichealathan 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leviMichealathan No, actually I've been debunking your fallacy and correcting your ignorance for days now and yes, anyone can go back and read my continually setting you straight on actual scientific matters.
TheScienceFoundation 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I think this guy needs a video debunking him :)
pineconesaresmallnow 9 months ago
@pineconesaresmallnow There are already so many debunking every claim ever made by any creationist/cdesign proponentsist that you can't help but feel you're ripping someone off.
TheScienceFoundation 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Yes but not these particular claims in this particular order =p
pineconesaresmallnow 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation origin of information part 2:
ur response was: “No, emergence is complexity arising out of simplicity”
I asked u to define this terms.
U didn’t respond. LOL!
Then I quoted Werner Gitt about there being no law in nature that can produce info.
Ur response: “that quotation is either a quote mine or Gitt knows less about information as per information theory than originally thought.” LOL.
leviMichealathan 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leviMichealathan It definitely is because I've defined information as used in information theory and explained how it arises naturally.
TheScienceFoundation 9 months ago
@leviMichealathan You can say a lot about TheScienceFoundation, but he's no Gitt.. :)
EdjeBos 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation origin of information part 1:
I claimed that there’s no natural law that can produce information.
Ur response was: Natural processes produce information all the time, it's called emergence.
I responded by telling u: Emergent information deals with how "systems" learn and process information” and I even cited an article by experts in the field: Peter Fleissner, Wolfgang Hofkirchner
cont...
leviMichealathan 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leviMichealathan You responded with a complete lack of understanding of emergence. It is not a 'learning' process it's the actual emergence of defining characteristics in natural systems, which is what information is.
TheScienceFoundation 9 months ago
@leviMichealathan And I responded by pointing out that emergent information is any distinguishing characteristic of a system.
AmazingRandoful 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation induction:
u don’t know what induction is; I said that based on our experience that information only comes from intelligence, we can conclude based on induction that the info in DNA and comes from intelligence
ur response; “But that's not logic, that's circular logic.” LOL!
leviMichealathan 9 months ago
@leviMichealathan And I pointed out that more ignorance, this time pertaining to information theory, is not an argument.
Information arises naturally all the time through emergence.
You can't define information without defining the product of emergence.
TheScienceFoundation 9 months ago
@leviMichealathan Because it was, you defined information specifically to mean coming from a mind, it's entirely circular.
AmazingRandoful 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan In information theory Shannon, information is defined as 'distinguishing essential characteristics or by the number of alternatives from which it makes a choice possible'
>Distinguishing essential characteristics, IE that which makes discernment possible between two systems.
AmazingRandoful 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation pasteur’s conclusion part 2: “"No, there IS NOT A SINGLE KNOWN CIRCUMSTANCE in which MICROSCOPIC beings may be asserted to have entered the world without germs, without parents resembling them. Those who think otherwise have been deluded by their poorly conducted experiments, full of errors they neither knew how to perceive, nor how to avoid."”-Pasteur (emp mine)
Do u see that? “microscopic” not mice and other things; he debunked and pwnd abiogenesis in it’s modern form
leviMichealathan 9 months ago
@leviMichealathan Again, microscopic organisms are modern organisms, no one is claiming that they arose spontaneously and abiogenetic study has nothing to do with them.
TheScienceFoundation 9 months ago
@leviMichealathan And now for something less retarded.
Microscopic organisms are still modern organisms. No one who isn't retarded is claiming that modern life appeared spontaneously 3.8 billion years ago.
AndromedasCake 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation pasteur’s conclusion part 1:
Its enough to refute u based on the sources I gave u; but I will refute even more; u keep making statements about what Pasteur proved or disproved; Pasteur’s conclusion was that any theory about non-living matter giving rise to living matter is false; here is his conclusion:
Cont…
leviMichealathan 9 months ago
@leviMichealathan Again you confuse remaining ignorant of actual biochemistry for an argument.
Abiogenesis is the study of the formation of protocells and cells
Spontaneous generation was the idea that modern life arose out of non-living medium
Not sure why that's so hard to grasp unless you're just not wanting to understand it.
TheScienceFoundation 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation abiogenesis vs SG part 2:
It was a popular belief that mice occur spontaneously from stored grain, or maggots spontaneously appear in meat.
here's another one from science-dictionary:
Abiogenesis: (Biology) the theory that life can arise from nonliving materials
spontaneous generation: (Biology) SAME AS ABIOGENESIS-emp mine
leviMichealathan 9 months ago
@leviMichealathan Yes, that was the spontaneous generation that Pasteur debunked, it has absolutely nothing to do with the biochemical origin of life.
TheScienceFoundation 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation abiogenesis vs SG part 1:
Let me give u 2 more def. of abio and SG from scientific dictionaries:
From: biology-online . org/dictionary:
Abiogenesis: (Science: study) The study of how life originally arose on the planet, ENCOMPASSES THE ANCIENT BELIEF IN THE SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF LIFE FROM NON LIVING MATTER. –emp mine
spontaneous generation: The theory of spontaneous generation held that complex, LIVING ORGANISMS MAY BE PRODUCED FROM NONLIVING MATTER.
cont...
leviMichealathan 9 months ago
@leviMichealathan You're focusing on and yelling the irrelevant part of the definitions
Abiogenesis: (Science: study) The study of how life >originally arose on the planet
spontaneous generation: The theory of spontaneous generation held that >complex, LIVING ORGANISMS
Abiogenesis is not the study of modern complex organisms arising from non-living matter. I'll keep pointing that out as long as you remain ignorant of that fact.
TheScienceFoundation 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation definition of operational science part 3:
“You keep confusing 'pwnd' and you remaining ignorant of actual biochemistry.” This seems to be ur only argument; let’s see….ur word vs Princeton? … ur word vs ISCID? …ur word vs the Journal of Theoretical Biology?
leviMichealathan 9 months ago
@leviMichealathan I have no problem with the definition from Princeton, I was correcting your ignorance of the difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis.
TheScienceFoundation 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation definition of operational science part 2:
“Do you think they're going to microscopically monitor every square millimeter of every diffusion vent on earth?” LOL!!!! U make the claim, then u complain that’s it’s hard to find the evidence or you can’t find it. LOL!
cont...
leviMichealathan 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation definition of operational science part 1:
“Exactly how do you think operational science works?” LOL u don’t even know what this is; OS is tested, observable, repeated, demonstrated, falsifiable-u know the science that brought us pcs, tv, etc. abiogenesis fails all this; there’s no way to know if it really did happen or not! and if it did, how exactly did it happen.
cont...
leviMichealathan 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Evidence for a protocell part 2:
“protocell that preceded life” again u make the assertion that this cell existed; yet, u haven’t provided any hard evidence that it did; oh wait, they did exist but u have no evidence.
leviMichealathan 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Evidence for a protocell part 1:
“A protocell is a protocell whether we're talking about a protocell itself or the protocell that preceded life.” Here u go again with ur rhetoric; what a protocell is has no bearing on the fact that u used it as evidence for abiogenesis; and I asked u for evidence for it in the real world and u gave me a lab experiment.
cont..
leviMichealathan 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation God and Magic:
“Are you saying god isn't an extraordinary power from a supernatural source?” yes!!! again, u are so funny. That’s what I’ve trying to tell u all along! God is BOTH supernatural AND the source of supernatural power; He is both the agent and the source; whereas with magic, the source and the agent are different; anyway, it’s too late for that; ur own source refutes u!
leviMichealathan 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Venter's experiment part 2:
let's continue with the article: "The resulting "synthetic cell" was then "rebooted" and it started to replicate"
can u see the word "rebooted"? why is it not "booted"; u r a liar; u inserted "blank" and "booted"; btw a blank cell is not from scratch. consider urself a liar and pwnd!
leviMichealathan 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Venter's experiment part 1:
"No, he used a blank yeast cell, inserted an entirely synthetic genome and booted it up." no??? LOL! u r funny; here's the direct quote from the article:
"Finally they developed a technique of stripping bacteria cells of all original DNA and substituting it with the new artificial code. "
compare this statement with my statement: "he stripped a cell off it's dna and replaced it with the synthetic code."
cont...
leviMichealathan 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation i blocked u! some serious pwnage is coming ur way; stay tuned; i can't believe u have 1477 subs. LOL! i will post pwnages to ur latest claims first and the rest of it later. bye bye!
leviMichealathan 9 months ago
@leviMichealathan 'Christians have been telling ur kind for centuries that the universe had a beginning based of philosophical grounds'
You've been saying it, it certainly doesn't make it true.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leviMichealathan 'recently, ur kind has pushed the problem back a level by claiming that there was sumthing b4 the BB; where did this sumthing come from?'
That's a meaningless question, if it has existed indefinitely it doesn't come from anywhere.
'(not to mention the fact that according to ur logic, the universe is things inside it and things outside of it)'
No, according to my logic, and the actual definition of universe anything that exists is part of the universe.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan 'logical laws still apply even if there's nothing'
No they don't. If nothing exists, then there's nothing for logic to describe, IE A cannot be A if A doesn't exist.
'the reason why you have this crazy notion that logical laws are only a property of the universe is because u thought that u could do away with cause and effect.
Actually it comes from being the only one in this conversation that apparently understands logic
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
You have merely asserted that naturally occurring specified complexity possesses inherent properties of 'intelligence'. Also, your definition of specificity is inadequate. This whole video is chock-full of circular reasoning, equivocation and various other fallacies.
BlowDevilUp 9 months ago
Why is this in the science category?
TheResidentSkeptic 9 months ago
Great introduction! An idea for a future series might be to discuss Werner Gitt's information theory. As you might know, its a little more complicated, but given that you're really good at explaining these things, i'm sure you could break it down to an understandable level.
theapologeticfront 9 months ago
"I've been amazed at how many people just don't understand intelligent design."
LMFAOOOOOOK.
gingerbreadcorpses 9 months ago
Excellent Video, but Homework!!!!!! ughhh
Galmozzi99 9 months ago
Are you serious... people that don't understand ID try to debunk it?? Well that's just crazy... especially considering ID is noting but an attempt to discredit evolution by people that have no idea what evolution is.
How's this for ID for dummies:You can't understand how this existence and the life we find could just exist... so you imagine another type of existence and another type of life to be the creator. But THAT existence and life CAN just exist without a creator! FAIL
sfg911 9 months ago
Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is "science" and intelligent design is "religion." Such statements today merely reveal the speaker's own liberal social philosophies and bias— not his or her awareness of scientific facts.
fellowservant34 9 months ago
@fellowservant34 "Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is 'science' and intelligent design is 'religion'" actually not even close
What predictions does ID make? How does it gets falsified? Evolution is easy to falsify, find a rabbit with a T Rex or a dog giving birth to a cat and Evolution goes away
As for "information" how is this information related? It is not a code like a sentence but more like a mold twisting proteins
Define Information
sol3a1 9 months ago
@fellowservant34 "Such statements today merely reveal the speaker's own liberal social philosophies and bias" funny how a conservative judge found that ID was nothing more than Creationism in a lab coat and how all of the "heavy hitters" in the ID field were so totally outclassed in science in front of a judge appointed by Bush Sr.
sol3a1 9 months ago
@fellowservant34 No we're not, it's never been a problem for anyone with even a minor understanding of biology to make the distinction.
TheScienceFoundation 9 months ago
Great video, I have been wanting to hear more from you about ID. I am beginning to see why ID should be taught in schools. I still don't agree with it, but I am beginning to understand it as no better and no worse than a natural selection explanation. I disagree with the definition of your metric, but I do appreciate the honestly about the what decision questions could be answered with that metric.
beechgrovejoe 9 months ago
@beechgrovejoe
Thanks for your comment!
onceforgivennowfree 9 months ago
To Onceforgivennowfree,
Have you watched Flocks of Dodos? Most of the arguments against why Intelligent Design is not a good scientific model are included in the movie. What are your thoughts toward the video? Thanks
kwanhui1990 9 months ago
@kwanhui1990
I did a long time ago....I forget most of it tho! I've got a few other things I've gotta tackly first, I may watch it again and see what I come up with - I honestly forget most of it!
onceforgivennowfree 9 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree thanks for the reply. no problem. I believe you can watch Flocks of Dodos on netflix, but take your time to do what you needed to do first~ :)
kwanhui1990 9 months ago
C'mon, get on with the biological stuff. Enough with the non-reproducing examples.
CamW30 9 months ago
@CamW30 If he kept up with biology he wouldn't be a creationist.
TheScienceFoundation 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation - Too true, too true.
CamW30 9 months ago
Try the talkreason website to debunk Dembski. Wesley Elsberry & Jeffrey Shallit showed Dembski's work for what it was in 2003. Apparently, ignoring evidence is a creationist trait.
Also, try the infidels(dot)org website for a number of different mathematicians showing where Dembski was wrong.
I was chatting with the Discovery Institute guys; they also realize where Dembski went wrong. He is supposed to be fixing his mistakes, but, so far, he hasn't figured it out.
Do some research!
CamW30 9 months ago
Cool video and thanks for the information!!! God bless you.
Nobleeagle100 9 months ago
the concept of design is an illusion no design is new nor perminent and therefor relevant if i draw a pict on paper design something and it burns or finds water etc eventually all this so called design will perish therefor such as all living and even dead organisms there is no such thing as design there is only creativity in my opinion wich leads to a point of a design if it would become eternal ;) in a way is only one design and one designer and thats god and all u see we see is creativity
molligemozes 9 months ago
One of your best efforts. You keep improving with each video.
steve0281 9 months ago
@steve0281
Thanks! :D
onceforgivennowfree 9 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree If you slip, though, I will let you know.
Promise to you: my critiques will be designed to improve, not denigrate.
steve0281 9 months ago
Comment removed
gerontodon 9 months ago
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Just want to warn you as to what you are up against.
carcabe 9 months ago
@carcabe Exactly the evolutionist want us to open our mind to their beliefs but do you think they will open their mind to ours.
George0025 9 months ago
Alright, onceforgivennowfree, you've convinced me that I need to make a debunking video on this.
We know that Mt. Rushmore is 'designed' only bec