Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
Materialistic Scientism has create some creeds that only accept what is orthodox to them and reject what is heretic according to those creed. Those 'creeds'are not derive from observable science but from materialistic philosophy, and they use these philosophical creed to disgiuse in the name of 'science' to discredit other worldview that are different from them.
Intellegant Design is just creationism made to look intellectual. It has no evidence what soever to support. However, there is plenty of evidence for evolution by natural selection.
Belief in inteligent design over evolution is like the denial of the science of areodynamics and the belief that heavier-than-air aircraft are carried aloft on the backs of flying invisible turtles.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
@JSBachisthebest Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
@JSBachisthebest Scientists today just copy and borrow and rearrange a cells design! People like Craig venter and jack szostak use templates and gene synthesizing machines!! It is impossible for a cell to form by chance! and they know it! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form by chance!!
Your a scum bag lying piece of human feece's Stephen.Dr my ass ..where ya get your degree Liberty University ..or a cracker jack box.The whole damn cast of characters at the Discovery Institute are frauds.You are only capable of convincing yourselves and the idiot creationists that want and need to buy into your BS.All of you at the We have not discovered nothing Institute make me sick.
@copycoonie Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Dr. Meyer did so make use of Prokaryotic cells, in fact he proposed the challenge of building a far less complex version from chance, 250 proteins as opposed to 482 proteins, of the simplest known Prokaryotic cell (Mycoplasma genitalium). ID predicts this could only happen thru the activity of an intelligent agent, eventually science will confirm that.
For all the airhead atheists that believe a large bag of Hydrogen let loose in space is all you need to produce Madonna and Pee-wee Herman, I weep for your pathetic future. God is going to give you your wish, a large bag of Hydrogen and a folding chair when you die.
@loonpolice1 Would it be more appealing to believe that Pee-Wee Herman was created by a perfect God, as opposed to evolved from pond scum? The latter seems more likely to me.
@ClamCrunchy Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Intelligent design makes many predictions such as:
Information rich systems will show evidence of data structuring.
Information rich systems will engage in data communication.
Data communication systems will have protocols acting upon an architecture.
Data communication protocols will have communication policies.
And so forth. ID predicts all these things and more which are NOT predicted by the Darwinian hypothesis. In fact that hypothesis keeps getting ambushed by such things.
I never understood the correlation between science and unforgivable sin, surely I won't go to hell for believing that God has more significant things to judge me on than my belief that he had more important things to do that sit and watch as humans evolved. The problem with intelligent design is that it is unobservable whereas Darwinian evolution is. I mean one only has to look at the evolution of TB, fossil record and the similarity in embryo development to be convinced of its existence.
TheLizardPeople, I hope you know that however pathetic Christians arguments may seem, I truly feel sorry for you. Its grossly naive of you to discount intelligent design and believe in that disguised secular religion (a.k.a science) of yours. Just know that, in the end, Christians will be watching your soul burn in Hell.
Poor ignorant Meyer reflects the common delusion that is based on an ignorance of basic chemistry: covalent bonding. Chemical organization does NOT require large amounts of "information", but a simple process of chemical interaction, one which is close to impossible to PREVENT, rather than initiate.Meyer also is unaware of the cells that have no DNA, an embarassing gaffe which exposes the fallaciousness of this ridiculous thesis--thoroughly nonsensical, unimaginative and grossly ignorant.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is a scientist to be respected. With the degrees and creditation that he carries, it would be understandable for him to turn into a no good atheist. Yet he realizes that there is no way for a world this complex to be create simply from an expansion of matter. And for that I admire him. As for all of you atheists out there, bag on Christians all you want, but we will be laughing all the way to Heaven.
@bob82001 No, Meyer is NOT a 'scientist' to be respected. 1st, he is not a scientist. 2nd, his level of ignorance of biology is close to all-encompassing, as is his ignorance of basic chemistry. This man has never studied any science of substance, and a high-schooler can rebut his pathetic arguments from ignorance. He is an outright fraud and a liar. But, he is a "Fellow" of the Disco Institute [do the hustle], an organisation based totally on fraud and lies, so he fits right in.
@TheLizardPeople You seriously don't know what you're talking about lol, you're what some would call DELUSIONAL. Meyer earned his master's degree in the history and philosophy of science at CAmbridge University in England, where he focused on the history of molecular biology, the history of physics, and evolutionary theory. He then obtained his doctorate from Cambridge, where his dissertation analyzed the scientific and methodological issues in origin of life biology. you're DELUSIONAL lol
@Nosferatu44 Nope--Meyer studied the HISTORY and philosophy of science, not scientific principles and processes. His dissertation focussed on methodological issues in origin of life biology study, not origin of life biology itself. Meyer has little knowledge of biology, biochemistry, or of much else other than statistical analysis. His ideas are junk, his conclusions pathetically inept and his conduct unprofessional, which is why he is considered completely incompetent and a lousy scientist.
@bob82001 Meyer is such a yutz that in composing his supposedly brilliant analysis of cellular composition, he left out an entire CLASS of cells, the Prokariotes, the definition of which among other things is that they completely lack a nucleus! There are prokariotes that are so simple they have no organelles, and some viruses that are even simpler--the HIV virus, a Lentevirus, has 3 small strands of RNA, no organelles, and no nucleus. Meyer is a liar, who misleads, distorts, and misdirects.
Evolution is a process observable in the present, intelligent design is not. All one needs to do is take an easily refuted statement by these DI's with intimidating credentialsto conclude everything else that follows is garbage.
@eleonb Forget about convincing believers, even non-religious intellectuals are abandoning the Darwin ship, and no wonder - because it's sinking fast. Just a few examples : Jerry Fodor. Massimo Piatelli. David Stove. Bradley Monton. Steve Fuller. David Berlinski.
@Jesrael1986M Oh, and I forgot to mention Thomas Nagel. Dean Kenyon. Michael Denton. I'm not saying they support ID - but they agree that evolutionary theory is in a crisis.
@Jesrael1986M Sorry, kiddo, Evolution is in no crisis. Stop trying to flatter your Creationist ideals with lies, it only makes you look all the more of a fool.
The funny thing is that if someone stopped and asked you to validate your statement, you wouldn't have a god damned clue how to do it. Stop parroting lies and grow up: your Magic Man in the sky is a lie told to try and keep you paying the church.
@eleonb Its not time wasted, actually. Every argument made to those people are seen by many others. Watching the rabid Theists crumble in humiliating defeat, if they admit it or not, has a profound effect on those open minded people watching. That is part of the point.
Also, how do you find the "open minded" Theists among the herd of look-a-like sheep that aren't willing to listen? You have to address them all, or in groups, not seek them out.
I love the way in DI propaganda videos they employ a lot of jargonistic language by an ostensibly well educated professional, have music in the background and an eyecatching scientific graphic backdrop. Anything to distract the viewer from the substance of what is actually being said. ID is not science period - If ID is science so is Astrology, Paranormal research, Mysticism and all supernatural phenomina and study. If ID is science then everything and anything goes.
intelligent design is a hypothesis. evolution is a theory in the same sense gravity is a theory. further more, intelligent design is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory, as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. intelligent design, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science, whilst it's backers only seek to avoid scrutiny from the scientific community.
Intelligent designs is a theory, a philosophy, not science. Per DEFINITION of the words. You can not test and prove it. Theory and philosophy is not a bad thing, it's good to theorize. But stop calling it what it is not. It is not science.
Be careful when people mess with the definition of terms. Keeping definitions UNAMBIGUOUS is essential. Stephen says, the critics will "Erect some definition of science" This is absurd. Words have meaning. You can not invent your own meaning to a word and insist others believe it. The definition of science is "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
@shamiotzi253 You are full of shit. We are asking you for proof or evidence because we hold your religion to a high standard. This should tell you that we are quite willing to take you seriously IF you can validate it.
Thats the problem: you cant. Nothing you say can be validated because its all psychological bullshit. Pure and simple.
If you could show that you wern't simply delusional, that would be great. But you cant. Why? You are not well.
@shamiotzi253 Doesn't mean you should lie about non-believers, little one.
I dont think you do understand why, actually. I think that was just another lie, since you have already been found guilty of lying in your post 3 weeks ago.
Ahhh, for shame. Another Theist trapped behind a web of their own lies. Very pathetic.
Signature in the Cell is an eye-opening book. Meyer does explain the Intelligent Design very well and I reckon everyone to read his book. Certainly this book will bring more doubters to re-consider their beliefs.
@NicEdmundWorld Are you serious? Meyer is a fool and his book expresses nothing but logical fallacies in favor of a Magic Man in the sky by using lies and deceit to try and pass it off as "science".
Frauds like those at the Discovery Institute will only ever get mockery and ridicule for their intellectual dishonesty.
Humans cannot comprehend God, therefore many just make false images (eg Jesus, bearded man in the sky, or elephant man with many hands) but the truth is that we cannot understand or imagine the being who created the systems of existence that we all live in.
@AskariWaryaa Your right, there is no Magic Man because your religion is founded on the lies of older religions which were created by frightened and stupid barbarians who knew significantly less than we do now.
Everything around you is not the product of chance, you would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to even think that. But I guess you probably are deaf, dumb and blind.
Nothing happens by random coincidence, it's all the product of incredible design, not just life, but everything that we experience, and those things beyond human comprehension, far beyond!!!
@AskariWaryaa It amuses me to no end that religious people try and attack non-religious people with the sarcastic line about having all the answers.
You double standard raping idiot, YOU are doing that exact thing by proclaiming your Magic Man did it. YOU fools claim to have all the answers. Grow the hell up and stop using double standards like that.
You can make all the claims on your deterministic world view, but you cant validate any of it. Have fun with that.
@ThatOneQuestion You are sure are angry. Atheistic evolution is a logical absurdity, this can be proved with logic, which is part of philosophy. No one system can prove all things. Something for you to think about if you ever calm down long enough to think.
@1980PintoMan Thanks for demonstrating that you dont understand what Evolution is about. It isn't 'atheistic' either, you fucking bigot.
The science has been proven, kid, do some research. There is no need to invoke logical fallacies in order to make yourself feel better about what you dont understand. Read a fucking science book and try, instead of making shit up.
Your fallacious bullshit with attempting to use logic and mingle it with "philosophy" shows how much of an idiot you are.
@ThatOneQuestion I find it funny that throughout this comment you try and defend yourself but use ad hominids and no science to do so. You must be one of those kids who are brainwashed into believing your side is right and anyone who opposes it is automatically wrong. Have fun with that.
Meyers keeps bringing up the same tired argument. Comparing ID to theoretical physics and evolutionary biology. He says they discuss unobservable processes unobservable events. But Biology is full of observable processes that is the difference. Evolutionary biology describes past events using observable processes. As with theoretical physics predictics are made from the models physicists have developed and scientists carry out experiments to see if the predictions are correct
@nontheistdavid I see that you make yourself smarter than this guy, calling him a fool. Then tell me how did DNA obtain the information inside of it. I'm waiting for your smart answer.
@Seekrett Wait, are you going to say your Magic Man put information into DNA?
Maybe... a magical, singular, "Designer" god? And how do you know this? Oh, you dont? Right, then you just made an Argument from Ignorance padded by the God of the Gaps fallacy.
@ThatOneQuestion I am not going to say that GOD only put the information in DNA but HE also designed DNA of every living creature that exists including us HUMANS. If you say I have big faith in the whole creation story described in Genesis Ch.1 & 2 - so be it! But guess what - your faith in the random events and chance producing everything around us from nothing (big bang) - must have much larger FAITH cause it's simply impossible - do you your research and math probability dude! Cheers!
@Seekrett OH right, because... since you have blind faith in an archaic superstition written by barbarians and goat herders thousands of years ago, you think that means I have religious blind faith in whatever I hold as my world view?
And then you actually try to invoke words like "science" and "math and "research"?? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
So rather than defend your religious views, you attack what you think *must* be my views. Interesting.
Attacking strawmen made out of your angry assumptions. Very mature, little one.
Tell me, kiddo, where is faith involved when I dont find your religious arguments compelling? Is religious faith required to realize that your arguments are pathetic and unworthy of serious consideration? If so, how?
How is not believing your silly superstitions based in religion?
@ThatOneQuestion Oh man, you seem like a very secure and smart guy. Looks like you've got it all figured out. Good luck in your "scientific" approach to life and being blind spiritually - if you even know what it means. I hope that some day you will crush against the rock - which is Jesus Christ and this is going to be the most important event in your life. Till then I'll be praying for you.
@ThatOneQuestion By believing in the 19th century theory of evolution you are proving that you didn't "evolve" to 21st century. Therefore you have proven your limited abilities of thinking and that your imagination is also very poor. Are you really that blind? You are representing a typical evolutionary mindset - nothing new dude.
@Seekrett Thats it, little one, attack that strawman to make yourself feel better! HAHAHA!! Damn, that was pathetic.
I can play that game too, kiddo. Okay... you believe in the Cosmic Jewish Zombie who sacrificed itself to itself to satisfy a problem of its own making by its own creations, despite it being all powerful and all knowing. Now, you worship this bloody god of death by practicing metaphoric cannibalism as you eat its body and drink its blood.
@ThatOneQuestion One word - that was weak... I see that that the discussion with you just doesn't go anywhere. Now, you're not just attacking me but God as well. You know-it-all attitude won't bring you to any understanding of reality. Bible says: "Beginning of wisdom is fear of God" . Think about it before words of hatred enter your mouth. Just keep in mind that God still wants to save you and loves you more than you're able to imagine.
@Seekrett Awe, did I hurt your feelings? Strawmans suck, dont they? I suggest you refrain from using them yourself if you dont like it.
You can pray and worship as much as you want, but that doesn't bring you wisdom, kiddo. You can threaten me with your specific version of religious views on one particular adaptation of the monotheistic divine entity concept all you want too, by the way, but it wont do you any good.
Its like you just threatened by with the wrath of Lord Xenu.... pathetic.
And, yes, I'm continuing to "win" this bet with myself because you are too frightened to defend your Creationist bullshit, as I predicted.
You are either too frightened to stand up to what can be demonstrated, or you are too embarrassed about your own religion to do it any justice.
Sorry, kiddo, but either way, thats pretty pathetic. Its completely your problem, though, not mine. You are the one who is going to have to deal with your psychological insecurities.
@ThatOneQuestion Man, that was really pathetic of you to exalt yourself here and say that you're "winning". You make yourself better by calling others names like "kiddo" and their way of looking at reality as "bullshit" and saying that I'm psychologically insecure. Is that how an "evolved man" with nice manners behaves? You continue to say that I'm frightened to stand up, yet I am the only one here to care to discuss with you. Have some respect for others and discuss in a civilized manner.
@ThatOneQuestion You're not hurting my feelings - even by your pathetic ways of calling me a kiddo. You're hurting yourself. Your way of talking is similar to your idol Richard Dawkins. Just stop for a moment and think, yes think, think... Where are you going with all this? Where will it bring you? I am talking about your mindset, your own philosophy of life. What are you basing your belief on? And what will be the end of it? If you do think about it deeper then you should feell emptyness.
@Seekrett "Just stop for a moment and think, yes think, think"
Ironic, coming from someone who believes in magic and gods.
"Where are you going with all this? Where will it bring you?"
Seriously? Its like voting. Are you old enough to vote? You alone wont change anything, but combined with everyone it makes the difference.
I'm speaking out against religious foolishness and lies, as the Dover Trial exposed in the DI, to stave off another age of religious nonsense. We dont need it anymore.
I didn't say I was winning the argument, kiddo, I said I was winning my own bet with myself that people like you are too ashamed or frightened or embarrassed to actually defend your own faith.
Stop and think, for once. YOU havn't been defending your faith one bit... you have been on the offensive and even so far as using veiled threats.
Whats wrong? Dont have enough faith to validate your positions in the religion you say you hold to?
An age where humans have no need to lie about their belief system in order to live with themselves. An age of religious freedom where people really are free from mockery in all forms, ESPECIALLY from their own religious neighbors and friends.
At the moment, however, it seems like the human race is far too immature to do that, on a whole. Like the Discovery Institute (outlined in their Wedge Document) they are malicious, insecure, and willing to lie.
"You continue to say that I'm frightened to stand up, yet I am the only one here to care to discuss with you"
You *are* frightened to defend your religion on its own terms of blind faith and magic. Look at the comment history, kid. Its been weeks or months in between posts. Hardly anyone cares about this channel.
Creationists like you are fewer and fewer, here on youtube. Why? There isn't a single logical or scientific battle you can win, anywhere.
"Have some respect for others and discuss in a civilized manner."
Exceedingly ironic, coming from a Creationist on an Intelligent Design channel. The Discovery Institute, during the Dover Trial, was exposed to be one of the most religiously dishonest groups out there. How dare you speak of being civilized.
I bet you that you never actually intended to put me in your prayers, even once. Your "I'll pray for you" was a complete lie. Talk about being civil, you should avoid lying.
@ThatOneQuestion I just prayed for you and here I see a comment that I am a liar. What else are you going to call me? What is the source of this hatred? You really think that numbers is what it is about? Back in the days of Copernicus majority of people thought that the Sun revolves around the Earth - there were very few "enlightened" ones that thought otherwise and were considered heretics and fools - just like the ID people of today. What shall you say when TRUTH is revealed?
If a Magic Man is PROVEN to exist, it will be with evidence.
Thats what us non-believers keep asking you for: evidence. People like me dont care where the truth lies, but we care about believing what is true over that which is pretty fairy tales to sooth our troubled psychology, like you seem to be doing.
You claim to have the truth, but you have nothing to show for it. You have as many appeals to emotion as any other religion or cult in the world. Why are you so different?
@ThatOneQuestion Who told you I don't think for myself? People like you follow the main stream media and believe in the RELIGION of Charles Darwin. It is the freethinkers like Inteligent Design scientists that challenge the lies of evolution - you support something that you don't have a whole picture of.
The "freethinkers" of the "Intelligent Design scientists"????
Page 64 of Judge Jones III's Dover Trial judgement, you should read it. It goes into detail of why ID IS NOT SCIENCE.
The people at the Discovery Institute haven't done any science, they havn't even done the experiments they mentioned during the Dover Trial to help validate their case!
You have blindly supported liars and con-artists in the DI simply because YOU think their cause supports yours. Silly, naive child.
"You are not capable of discussing in an intelligent and respectful manner"
Not when you lie to my face, no. Why should I respect you for doing that?
"Interesting that Hitler and Stalin shared your evolutionary world-view, isn't it?"
See, you lied again.
"we could have had a nice discussion"
No, we couldn't. You rely on lies far too easily for that. I saw that in you, along with other things. That is another reason I dont respect people like you. Lying for your god? Pathetic.
@ThatOneQuestion The fossil record shows the evidence for creation and global flood described in the Bible. Look for example at the Great Canyon and describe how millions of years of erosion have done the work of forming it.
@ThatOneQuestion See, here you lost it. You are not capable of discussing in an intelligent and respectful manner. You just called me a kiddo and told me that I am not worthy of being treated with respect. This reminds me of how people with biblical views were persecuted by the Roman Church, Nazis and by communists that followed a fool called Stalin. Interesting that Hitler and Stalin shared your evolutionary world-view, isn't it? That's it, we could have had a nice discussion but you blew it!
@ThatOneQuestion I prayed for you before I even said that I will. I pray for people like you, Richard Dawkins and the whole Smithsonian Institute people - is it worth it? I believe it is. When something happens in your life that will change your way of thinking will you write to me personally and say that it did? I don't want any public demonstration - just let me know.
@ThatOneQuestion The whole discussion is a big mess. If you want to discuss - let us do it in an organized manner and with only one topic. I don't want to see 100 different threads and questions as you have done so far. I don't want any name calling, any rude words etc. You get the idea? Also I am on a European time so don't be upset when I don't answer right away. Deal?
@ThatOneQuestion Ok, I just asked you not to call me a kid or a kiddo - if you call me this name again I will not answer your questions. And who is ignorant here???
"Its more disgust and amusement than hate." - so which one is it? Amusement or disgust? How can you connect the 2, that's sick of you. "How can you support the habitual liars behind Intelligent Design when your god commands you not to lie?" - You know that is the other way around - I'm not supporting evolution cause its a lie.
This is why I call you a child. You have nothing to validate that assertion, merely emotional responses designed to maintain your psychological grasp on a fragile world.
You seem poor on DI and need more people buy you pseudo-scientific junk. You have no moral but prey on the gullible and take their money to make your wallet fatter.
And about your censorship; Seems like nazis and communist regions. Don't come tell us what we fail on, we don't accept free commenting because you could point our junk talk.
Intelligent design is not scientific. It was completely destroyed in the Kitzmiller trial. In the trial it was conclusively proven that ID is just creationism dressed up to look like science.
ID proponents have not been able to produce even a single testable hypothesis, let alone any successful result.
Their only argument is irreducible complexity, but every example of irreducible complexity that they have produced has been shown to have an evolutionary explanation.
The fossil record is very Observable, creationists act like it isn't there. Means nothing. Those fossils are sorted by a flood, dinosaurs always in the middle
@gregrutz Im a creationist and an ID supporter and i find no problem in the fossil record.Cambrian explosion-everythings appears created all at once, fully formed .Your right they were sorted by a massive world wide flood.The evidence IS in the millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth.
@gregrutz I used your words about how "floods sort fossils" and floods do make distinct layers as they sort heaviest to lighest sediments in the run off after it starts to recede.Dr Mary Schweitzer's discovery of T-rex blood cells and unfossilized tissue is a good example of how evolutionary fools CANT SEE the evidence before their eyes their arrogant and think themselves omnipotent..A scientist that believes in god is still a scientist.Their beliefs are not the issue.
@gregrutz ID scientists are scientists.They have studied and earned degrees and spent many years doing scientific research in the mainstream. All have the knowledge of evolution.It is only because they had the balls to go where the science led them and speak out against evolution dogma, that all previous knowledge and expertise is suddenly discounted when they say appearance of code and engineering point to a designer.
@chersharni They may be scientists but they are not doing science. They don't understand evolution, that is one of their points. IF they could show something that was designed we would know there was a designer, but they can't. They are trying to get creationism taught in schools by changing god's name to ID.
@gregrutz they use the same scientific methods and observations as evolution believing scientists do, just reach a different assumption. computer programmers create codes with their intelligent minds and engineers use their intelligent minds to design cars,computers,spaceships,skyscrappers etc...yet none of their intelligence nor designs come close to the design and engineering blueprints God has created within the DNA of millions of different lifeforms enabling them to then self replicate.
@gregrutz Evolution is not proved, therefore there is no conclusion ONLY ASSUMPTIONS.Only Natural selection is proved .Think you confuse your definitions.Evolution ie:A species evolving into a completely different species eg, elephants into manatis.God did NOT make us in the image of Apes(that is an evolutionary belief) but in the image of himself with a mind capable of logical thought and reasoning enabling us to see and discover and gain knowledge and understanding from all that he has made.
@chersharni Natural Selection is what drives evolution. Humans ARE Apes, not in their image. Same KIND? Yes! Dogs make dogs. Apes make apes. That is why humans are still apes. And all apes are still monkeys. And all monkeys are still primates. And all primates are still mammals. And all mammals are still tetrapods. And all tetrapods are still vertebrates. You can't outgrow you ancestry.
@gregrutz Natural selection is what drives adaptation... there is no empirical evidence that suggest it can be extrapolated to explain evolution. Only assumptions and assertions. I believe in universal common ancestry ... but on the issue of the mechanism for evolution: blind watchmaker or intelligent design, I think design is the only logical explanation. And if ID isn't science, then the blind watchmaker idea isn't either.
@gregrutz What I meant by adaptation is small changes - beak sizes adapting. bacteria devloping resistance, that sort ot thing. Natural selection certainly can account for that. But to extrapolate it and say the same mechanism can create a beak, is a leap of faith. And I'm not talking about fossils, I believe in evolution. I'm talking about the mechanism for evolution, not whether or not it happened.
@ScootleRoyale What intelligence? The only person who can make a universe is a god. You can't assume a god but not say it's a god just to teach creation in schools, you fooled no one.
@gregrutz You immediately set up the strawman by using the word 'person'. I don't believe in a single anthropomorphic god. Most other ID people might, but I don't. It sounds kind of ridiculous to me. You can't detect god directly, but you can infer one. Same way you can't observe or detect dark matter or dark energy directly but you can infer that they do exist. And you obviously didn't watch that video I linked to. The only proof you have that ID is creationism is a mickey mouse trial.
@ScootleRoyale 'design requires intelligence''. Do you thing intelligence is just floating around in space. They are trying to show a God, a new twist on an old argument. But that is all it is, an argument. Not science, not a theory.
Dark matter can be detected by it's gravity, that is how they know something is there.
@gregrutz 'Do you thing intelligence is just floating around in space' Actually that's pretty simple explanation of what I believe. It's not quite correct but I can't think of a better way of explaining it. I dont care what the ID people are trying to show, that doesn't change the fact that the theory doesn't mandate god. Dark matter is not detected though... it's inferred. We infer it's existence to explain anomalies that we observe. This is what Stephen Meyer was talking about in this video.
The more we learn about life, the more sophisticated design principles we discover, the more brilliant technology we uncover. That has to be the most worrisome part of this whole situation for the Darwinist. Not only has his theory been demoted to failed hypothesis, but the evidence for I.D. continues to grow. It's a double whammy. No wonder they're so bitter and hostile-they're sore losers.
Nope not sarcastic at all- dead serious.I have listened to this signature of the cell and watched 'unlocking the mystery of life' many times over.I can hear steve meyers arguement on circular reasoning and believe it is a valid arguement.plainly judge jones at the dover trial was not into allowing people the choice to decide for themselves what science is, or isnt and therefore ruling against the freedom of information
After watching "unlocking the mystery of life", i FINALLY have been shown the scientific evidence for the intelligent designer i see with my irreducibly complex eyes.Something i was never given a choice to know with the evolutionary dogma i was forcefed.!!! I see the intelligent designer "in and through the things that have been made". Macro Evolution is truly a blind random unguided( faith.) process.Thank you steven meyer and everyone for making "unlocking mystery of life"
@chersharni What scientific evidence for intelligent design? There is no evidence for intelligent design, or even an argument which does'nt contain numerous logical fallacies. There's nothing irreducably complex, nothing which has been shown to be unable to develop with gradual improving steps, generation by generation. Evolution is practiacally a fact. And what evolutionary "dogma"? Every single aspect of Evolution is tested daily and is allowed to be challenged, with proper evidence. Unlike ID
@MrSpleesh Same evidence you look at, is our evidence for design.Irreducible complexity? : your eyes and ears are!. take out one part and you are rendered deaf or blind.A fish is still a fish generation by generation its eyes didnt form from their scales gradually.Natural selection is Fact. The first cells giving rise to every living thing in existence over millions of years- Fantasy.Where are your missing links ,your( half and halfs)-intermediates of every lifeform generation by generation?
@chersharni Irreducible complexity is nothing but a pseudoscientific argument which has been refuted in numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers. Eyes and ears have been clearly demonstrated to have been able to develop by evolution. Vision is not limited to an eye like ours, there are animals who have poorer eyesight then us and who lack certain components which we have. Yet they are not blind. Graduall progression generation by generation works absolutley marvelously. Pure magic, does not.
@MrSpleesh So poor eyesight in human terms means glasses or laser surgery if the eye is slightly impaired.Parts completely missing eg:like a retina or pupil would render you blind.An eye needs all its parts at the start.
In the animal world waiting for evolution to happen within your lifetime of 5-50 years stumbling around.You will be dead before that.
@chersharni for an animal with NO eyes , any light sensitive patch would be an improvement to its survival. It could tell if predetors were awake (day or night). Then if that patch was modifies to be a depression in the skin it might give a direction to the light and the animal could learn that its early or late in the day and have a guide to what direction its moving. Then a lens to focus the light and wizz-bang ! you have a simple eye. No one would expect an eye to appear in complex form.
@SqueakerAlpha Whizz bang!!! You have a simple eye,a lens that just happens along??.If the animal isnt chewed on first as it stubbles around blindly.Say if the animal survived 50+ years where will that new information come from ( within that 50 years) to enable a lens to just spontaneously appear.?Even if a lens where present ,what about the other new information (to form the other parts) that must be present also, to enable a fully formed eyeball capable of sight?.
@chersharni I am talking thousands of generations not the lifetime of one animal. If we were designed why no eye in the back so we could see the bear sneaking up on us, why only two arms , its hard to climb and carry stuff with only two arms ?
@SqueakerAlpha Each intermediate stage with half formed legs/fins arms/wings need to be capable of surviving in its own right, these evolutionary changes must still allow full functionality of eyes,lungs,arms, legs etc.And even if your animals survived long enough to pass on these variations(which natural selection would see culled as weak ,blind and crippled ie: survival of the fittest)) ,where is your new information coming from in each individual within these thousands of generations?
@chersharni have you ever seen a mudskipper ? a simple eye that gives only light/dark, a fin that can move the fish over land short distances, a simple lung that only supplies enough air for quick trips above the water , all can give an animal an advantage for survival and reproduction. If it survives those features may be improved on by subsequent mutations. There are several youtube vids on how information is added to the genome.
@SqueakerAlpha Mudskippers have fully formed eyes enabling panoramic views.The fins are still fins even if they can use them with the tail to hop around. mutations cant produce new functional systems or add information to sprout wings or legs on an animal that didnt have them to start with.
@chersharni Who said eyes developed while fish were still fish, or even out of scales? Fish will remain fish untill they evolve past that label which we put upon them. Tiktaalik is a clear example. You are correct in asserting that natural selection is a fact, but mutations and genetic drift which natural selection acts upon over several million years is fantasy? Nonsense, we have clear evidence of evolution occouring infront of our very eyes, which you so stress can't have evolved by evolution.
@MrSpleesh OH the fish story is one i heard in high school.Where is the clear evidence???i see natural selection varying the same information.But i dont see a goanna sprouting wings yet.
@chersharni There is practically no missing links anymore. We currently have in our possession several hundreds of transitional fossils which clearly demonstrate how our ancestors evolved into the creatures they are today. From fish to tetrapods, from dinosaurs to birds, they are all incorporated as mountains and mountains of evidence for evolution. They are found exactly where we would expect to find them, in the correct order and correct geological layer.
@MrSpleesh Where are those half and half lifeforms?tell me the pages and i will look at these missing links.?will i see the elephants that crawled back to the water to turn into manitis- as one story goes?
@chersharni If you actually cared if your beliefs were true, then you would research both sides objectivley to see which side actually had the evidence and the real arguments. Attacking with ad hominems, refusing to change your mind even when proven wrong in a court of law (see Kitzmiller vs Dover trial) and pandering to the sheep, all to maintain their beliefs cannot be an honest way. "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence". The Discovery institute never has and never will.
@MrSpleesh I was taught evolution FIRST in high school.If i was actually given the right to freedom of information, the dover trial would have ruled in favor of ID and i could know all there was to know of BOTHSIDES.Instead i have those on 'creationism-how the scientists respond" page with anything but scientific views ,to stop ID!!!!
What of S.E.T.I .Bet the pursuit of little green men is deemed as science but the evidence under the microscope of D.N.A cant- by definition be of GOD.
@ThatOneQuestion Been there done that.Have you even watched 'unlocking the mystery of life'? or watched films like exploration films 'creatures that defy evolution'.
Definition of Evolution: A made up story which attempts to prove the existence of the universe and life itself based on the supposed logic and reason of first there was a big bang" and "poof it magically appeared"!!! NOW THATS REAL SCIENCE.
The atheist Delusion!
The Manifestations of God in Nature!
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
1tabligh 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Materialistic Scientism has create some creeds that only accept what is orthodox to them and reject what is heretic according to those creed. Those 'creeds'are not derive from observable science but from materialistic philosophy, and they use these philosophical creed to disgiuse in the name of 'science' to discredit other worldview that are different from them.
yohanesmalaysia 6 days ago
Intellegant Design is just creationism made to look intellectual. It has no evidence what soever to support. However, there is plenty of evidence for evolution by natural selection.
Tyranoraptor1 1 month ago
Belief in inteligent design over evolution is like the denial of the science of areodynamics and the belief that heavier-than-air aircraft are carried aloft on the backs of flying invisible turtles.
Pur11zz 2 months ago
@Pur11zz Evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive.
Antilli 2 months ago in playlist Evolution problems
i wanna buy dat book
mariyababu 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for the ID proponent.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
RationalThinker1859 2 months ago
ID proponent claiming something else is renamed. Classic.
JSBachisthebest 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JSBachisthebest Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JSBachisthebest Scientists today just copy and borrow and rearrange a cells design! People like Craig venter and jack szostak use templates and gene synthesizing machines!! It is impossible for a cell to form by chance! and they know it! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form by chance!!
5tonyvvvv 2 months ago
Your a scum bag lying piece of human feece's Stephen.Dr my ass ..where ya get your degree Liberty University ..or a cracker jack box.The whole damn cast of characters at the Discovery Institute are frauds.You are only capable of convincing yourselves and the idiot creationists that want and need to buy into your BS.All of you at the We have not discovered nothing Institute make me sick.
copycoonie 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@copycoonie Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 2 months ago
@copycoonie Yes ID had it's ass handed to it in court, game over for ID.
How about the faithful try proving god for a change?
ZukefliJohan 1 month ago
@copycoonie
he actually got his degree from Cambridge...just saying
giantsrock99 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Meyer did so make use of Prokaryotic cells, in fact he proposed the challenge of building a far less complex version from chance, 250 proteins as opposed to 482 proteins, of the simplest known Prokaryotic cell (Mycoplasma genitalium). ID predicts this could only happen thru the activity of an intelligent agent, eventually science will confirm that.
Galmozzi99 4 months ago
For all the airhead atheists that believe a large bag of Hydrogen let loose in space is all you need to produce Madonna and Pee-wee Herman, I weep for your pathetic future. God is going to give you your wish, a large bag of Hydrogen and a folding chair when you die.
loonpolice1 4 months ago
@loonpolice1 Would it be more appealing to believe that Pee-Wee Herman was created by a perfect God, as opposed to evolved from pond scum? The latter seems more likely to me.
ClamCrunchy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ClamCrunchy Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 2 months ago
@loonpolice1 Still no proof for god yet as usual?
ZukefliJohan 1 month ago
great video, the inteligent designer is the better to our lives!!
FlavioFlavio285 5 months ago
Intelligent design makes many predictions such as:
Information rich systems will show evidence of data structuring.
Information rich systems will engage in data communication.
Data communication systems will have protocols acting upon an architecture.
Data communication protocols will have communication policies.
And so forth. ID predicts all these things and more which are NOT predicted by the Darwinian hypothesis. In fact that hypothesis keeps getting ambushed by such things.
kc5qhh 5 months ago
I never understood the correlation between science and unforgivable sin, surely I won't go to hell for believing that God has more significant things to judge me on than my belief that he had more important things to do that sit and watch as humans evolved. The problem with intelligent design is that it is unobservable whereas Darwinian evolution is. I mean one only has to look at the evolution of TB, fossil record and the similarity in embryo development to be convinced of its existence.
xylmma 5 months ago
TheLizardPeople, I hope you know that however pathetic Christians arguments may seem, I truly feel sorry for you. Its grossly naive of you to discount intelligent design and believe in that disguised secular religion (a.k.a science) of yours. Just know that, in the end, Christians will be watching your soul burn in Hell.
bob82001 5 months ago
@bob82001 you say that as if you have proof
sailornaruto39 4 months ago
Poor ignorant Meyer reflects the common delusion that is based on an ignorance of basic chemistry: covalent bonding. Chemical organization does NOT require large amounts of "information", but a simple process of chemical interaction, one which is close to impossible to PREVENT, rather than initiate.Meyer also is unaware of the cells that have no DNA, an embarassing gaffe which exposes the fallaciousness of this ridiculous thesis--thoroughly nonsensical, unimaginative and grossly ignorant.
TheLizardPeople 5 months ago
This, ladies and gentlemen, is a scientist to be respected. With the degrees and creditation that he carries, it would be understandable for him to turn into a no good atheist. Yet he realizes that there is no way for a world this complex to be create simply from an expansion of matter. And for that I admire him. As for all of you atheists out there, bag on Christians all you want, but we will be laughing all the way to Heaven.
bob82001 6 months ago
@bob82001 No, Meyer is NOT a 'scientist' to be respected. 1st, he is not a scientist. 2nd, his level of ignorance of biology is close to all-encompassing, as is his ignorance of basic chemistry. This man has never studied any science of substance, and a high-schooler can rebut his pathetic arguments from ignorance. He is an outright fraud and a liar. But, he is a "Fellow" of the Disco Institute [do the hustle], an organisation based totally on fraud and lies, so he fits right in.
TheLizardPeople 5 months ago
@TheLizardPeople You seriously don't know what you're talking about lol, you're what some would call DELUSIONAL. Meyer earned his master's degree in the history and philosophy of science at CAmbridge University in England, where he focused on the history of molecular biology, the history of physics, and evolutionary theory. He then obtained his doctorate from Cambridge, where his dissertation analyzed the scientific and methodological issues in origin of life biology. you're DELUSIONAL lol
Nosferatu44 4 months ago
@Nosferatu44 Nope--Meyer studied the HISTORY and philosophy of science, not scientific principles and processes. His dissertation focussed on methodological issues in origin of life biology study, not origin of life biology itself. Meyer has little knowledge of biology, biochemistry, or of much else other than statistical analysis. His ideas are junk, his conclusions pathetically inept and his conduct unprofessional, which is why he is considered completely incompetent and a lousy scientist.
TheLizardPeople 4 months ago
@bob82001 Meyer is such a yutz that in composing his supposedly brilliant analysis of cellular composition, he left out an entire CLASS of cells, the Prokariotes, the definition of which among other things is that they completely lack a nucleus! There are prokariotes that are so simple they have no organelles, and some viruses that are even simpler--the HIV virus, a Lentevirus, has 3 small strands of RNA, no organelles, and no nucleus. Meyer is a liar, who misleads, distorts, and misdirects.
TheLizardPeople 4 months ago
Awesome, Stephen! Thank you!
nowaydudebook 6 months ago
so this guy is going with the old "you have nothing better there for my baseless guess is the answer"
ID isn't scientific because it gets stupmed at the "design and experiment" phase
sailornaruto39 6 months ago
So..a graduate of History and philosophy has the scientific knowledge to discredit Evolution?
Is this the "Expert" the Discovery Institute has to offer?
Stevoukos 7 months ago
Evolution is observable in the present indeed. The recent e-coli attack in Europe just gave more fresh evidence.
Magic deity or aliens didit (with their own origin unknown - and possibly unknowable) can never be science.
brainybaboon 8 months ago
They're talking nonsense and they know it that's why they don't even allow people to give ratings to their videos lol.
brainybaboon 8 months ago
Evolution is a process observable in the present, intelligent design is not. All one needs to do is take an easily refuted statement by these DI's with intimidating credentialsto conclude everything else that follows is garbage.
robertmike57 8 months ago
Fellow atheists, agnostics, secularists:
Let's not waste our time arguing with people who will never change their mind.
Let's focus on open-minded believers, people who still allow themselves to change their minds, and are hungry for compelling arguments.
eleonb 9 months ago
@eleonb Forget about convincing believers, even non-religious intellectuals are abandoning the Darwin ship, and no wonder - because it's sinking fast. Just a few examples : Jerry Fodor. Massimo Piatelli. David Stove. Bradley Monton. Steve Fuller. David Berlinski.
Jesrael1986M 8 months ago
@Jesrael1986M Stop lying, little one. Fools like you will only continue to embarrass yourselves.
ThatOneQuestion 8 months ago
@Jesrael1986M Oh, and I forgot to mention Thomas Nagel. Dean Kenyon. Michael Denton. I'm not saying they support ID - but they agree that evolutionary theory is in a crisis.
Jesrael1986M 8 months ago
@Jesrael1986M Sorry, kiddo, Evolution is in no crisis. Stop trying to flatter your Creationist ideals with lies, it only makes you look all the more of a fool.
The funny thing is that if someone stopped and asked you to validate your statement, you wouldn't have a god damned clue how to do it. Stop parroting lies and grow up: your Magic Man in the sky is a lie told to try and keep you paying the church.
ThatOneQuestion 8 months ago
@eleonb Its not time wasted, actually. Every argument made to those people are seen by many others. Watching the rabid Theists crumble in humiliating defeat, if they admit it or not, has a profound effect on those open minded people watching. That is part of the point.
Also, how do you find the "open minded" Theists among the herd of look-a-like sheep that aren't willing to listen? You have to address them all, or in groups, not seek them out.
ThatOneQuestion 8 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 9 months ago
I love the way in DI propaganda videos they employ a lot of jargonistic language by an ostensibly well educated professional, have music in the background and an eyecatching scientific graphic backdrop. Anything to distract the viewer from the substance of what is actually being said. ID is not science period - If ID is science so is Astrology, Paranormal research, Mysticism and all supernatural phenomina and study. If ID is science then everything and anything goes.
vohshkab 10 months ago
intelligent design is a hypothesis. evolution is a theory in the same sense gravity is a theory. further more, intelligent design is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory, as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. intelligent design, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science, whilst it's backers only seek to avoid scrutiny from the scientific community.
Macham88 10 months ago
Intelligent designs is a theory, a philosophy, not science. Per DEFINITION of the words. You can not test and prove it. Theory and philosophy is not a bad thing, it's good to theorize. But stop calling it what it is not. It is not science.
ThinkFreely89 10 months ago
@ThinkFreely89 Meyer addressed that; then neither is evolution, call it what you want but look at the evidence. Obviously you don't think freely.
1980PintoMan 9 months ago
Be careful when people mess with the definition of terms. Keeping definitions UNAMBIGUOUS is essential. Stephen says, the critics will "Erect some definition of science" This is absurd. Words have meaning. You can not invent your own meaning to a word and insist others believe it. The definition of science is "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
ThinkFreely89 10 months ago
My fellow theists. Even if JESUS revealed himself to the atheists in today's world. They STILL wouldn't worship him. It's the strong delusion.
shamiotzi253 10 months ago
@shamiotzi253 You are full of shit. We are asking you for proof or evidence because we hold your religion to a high standard. This should tell you that we are quite willing to take you seriously IF you can validate it.
Thats the problem: you cant. Nothing you say can be validated because its all psychological bullshit. Pure and simple.
If you could show that you wern't simply delusional, that would be great. But you cant. Why? You are not well.
ThatOneQuestion 10 months ago
@ThatOneQuestion your very bitter.... and i understand why
shamiotzi253 10 months ago
@shamiotzi253 Doesn't mean you should lie about non-believers, little one.
I dont think you do understand why, actually. I think that was just another lie, since you have already been found guilty of lying in your post 3 weeks ago.
Ahhh, for shame. Another Theist trapped behind a web of their own lies. Very pathetic.
ThatOneQuestion 10 months ago
@ThatOneQuestion You are right. The Discovery Institute is a joke.
ndrthrdr1 9 months ago
Comment removed
shamiotzi253 10 months ago
Even if you can create a decent argument in favour of some form of intelligent design being relevant for the creation of life.
Evolution would still have to be at least mostly true.
celshader 1 year ago
@celshader Even without evidence? That is crazy!
ChristineLV 11 months ago
@celshader Even without evidence? That is crazy!
ChristineLV 11 months ago
Signature in the Cell is an eye-opening book. Meyer does explain the Intelligent Design very well and I reckon everyone to read his book. Certainly this book will bring more doubters to re-consider their beliefs.
NicEdmundWorld 1 year ago
@NicEdmundWorld Are you serious? Meyer is a fool and his book expresses nothing but logical fallacies in favor of a Magic Man in the sky by using lies and deceit to try and pass it off as "science".
Frauds like those at the Discovery Institute will only ever get mockery and ridicule for their intellectual dishonesty.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion there is no Magic man
Humans cannot comprehend God, therefore many just make false images (eg Jesus, bearded man in the sky, or elephant man with many hands) but the truth is that we cannot understand or imagine the being who created the systems of existence that we all live in.
AskariWaryaa 10 months ago
@AskariWaryaa Your right, there is no Magic Man because your religion is founded on the lies of older religions which were created by frightened and stupid barbarians who knew significantly less than we do now.
Making shit up is only deceiving yourself, kid.
ThatOneQuestion 10 months ago
@ThatOneQuestion And you have all the answers do you?
Everything around you is not the product of chance, you would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to even think that. But I guess you probably are deaf, dumb and blind.
Nothing happens by random coincidence, it's all the product of incredible design, not just life, but everything that we experience, and those things beyond human comprehension, far beyond!!!
AskariWaryaa 10 months ago
@AskariWaryaa It amuses me to no end that religious people try and attack non-religious people with the sarcastic line about having all the answers.
You double standard raping idiot, YOU are doing that exact thing by proclaiming your Magic Man did it. YOU fools claim to have all the answers. Grow the hell up and stop using double standards like that.
You can make all the claims on your deterministic world view, but you cant validate any of it. Have fun with that.
ThatOneQuestion 10 months ago
@ThatOneQuestion You are sure are angry. Atheistic evolution is a logical absurdity, this can be proved with logic, which is part of philosophy. No one system can prove all things. Something for you to think about if you ever calm down long enough to think.
1980PintoMan 9 months ago
@1980PintoMan Thanks for demonstrating that you dont understand what Evolution is about. It isn't 'atheistic' either, you fucking bigot.
The science has been proven, kid, do some research. There is no need to invoke logical fallacies in order to make yourself feel better about what you dont understand. Read a fucking science book and try, instead of making shit up.
Your fallacious bullshit with attempting to use logic and mingle it with "philosophy" shows how much of an idiot you are.
ThatOneQuestion 9 months ago
@ThatOneQuestion I find it funny that throughout this comment you try and defend yourself but use ad hominids and no science to do so. You must be one of those kids who are brainwashed into believing your side is right and anyone who opposes it is automatically wrong. Have fun with that.
sicmetal 8 months ago
Meyers keeps bringing up the same tired argument. Comparing ID to theoretical physics and evolutionary biology. He says they discuss unobservable processes unobservable events. But Biology is full of observable processes that is the difference. Evolutionary biology describes past events using observable processes. As with theoretical physics predictics are made from the models physicists have developed and scientists carry out experiments to see if the predictions are correct
snakeguy76 1 year ago
Why doesn't this Discovery Institute spend some money on REAL SCIENCE, instead of making slick videos for credulous people?
nontheistdavid 1 year ago
Why do these fools keep going on? They had their asses handed to them in Dover.
nontheistdavid 1 year ago
The only thing this fool proves is how much indoctrination can warp even a relatively intelligent person.
nontheistdavid 1 year ago
@nontheistdavid I see that you make yourself smarter than this guy, calling him a fool. Then tell me how did DNA obtain the information inside of it. I'm waiting for your smart answer.
Seekrett 1 year ago
@Seekrett Wait, are you going to say your Magic Man put information into DNA?
Maybe... a magical, singular, "Designer" god? And how do you know this? Oh, you dont? Right, then you just made an Argument from Ignorance padded by the God of the Gaps fallacy.
Congratulations.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
Comment removed
Seekrett 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion I am not going to say that GOD only put the information in DNA but HE also designed DNA of every living creature that exists including us HUMANS. If you say I have big faith in the whole creation story described in Genesis Ch.1 & 2 - so be it! But guess what - your faith in the random events and chance producing everything around us from nothing (big bang) - must have much larger FAITH cause it's simply impossible - do you your research and math probability dude! Cheers!
Seekrett 1 year ago
@Seekrett OH right, because... since you have blind faith in an archaic superstition written by barbarians and goat herders thousands of years ago, you think that means I have religious blind faith in whatever I hold as my world view?
And then you actually try to invoke words like "science" and "math and "research"?? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You are very insecure.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
So rather than defend your religious views, you attack what you think *must* be my views. Interesting.
Attacking strawmen made out of your angry assumptions. Very mature, little one.
Tell me, kiddo, where is faith involved when I dont find your religious arguments compelling? Is religious faith required to realize that your arguments are pathetic and unworthy of serious consideration? If so, how?
How is not believing your silly superstitions based in religion?
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion Oh man, you seem like a very secure and smart guy. Looks like you've got it all figured out. Good luck in your "scientific" approach to life and being blind spiritually - if you even know what it means. I hope that some day you will crush against the rock - which is Jesus Christ and this is going to be the most important event in your life. Till then I'll be praying for you.
Seekrett 1 year ago
@Seekrett "Till then I'll be praying for you"
Pray for me, Theist, I'll think for you.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion By believing in the 19th century theory of evolution you are proving that you didn't "evolve" to 21st century. Therefore you have proven your limited abilities of thinking and that your imagination is also very poor. Are you really that blind? You are representing a typical evolutionary mindset - nothing new dude.
Seekrett 1 year ago
@Seekrett Thats it, little one, attack that strawman to make yourself feel better! HAHAHA!! Damn, that was pathetic.
I can play that game too, kiddo. Okay... you believe in the Cosmic Jewish Zombie who sacrificed itself to itself to satisfy a problem of its own making by its own creations, despite it being all powerful and all knowing. Now, you worship this bloody god of death by practicing metaphoric cannibalism as you eat its body and drink its blood.
How was that?
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion One word - that was weak... I see that that the discussion with you just doesn't go anywhere. Now, you're not just attacking me but God as well. You know-it-all attitude won't bring you to any understanding of reality. Bible says: "Beginning of wisdom is fear of God" . Think about it before words of hatred enter your mouth. Just keep in mind that God still wants to save you and loves you more than you're able to imagine.
Seekrett 1 year ago
@Seekrett Awe, did I hurt your feelings? Strawmans suck, dont they? I suggest you refrain from using them yourself if you dont like it.
You can pray and worship as much as you want, but that doesn't bring you wisdom, kiddo. You can threaten me with your specific version of religious views on one particular adaptation of the monotheistic divine entity concept all you want too, by the way, but it wont do you any good.
Its like you just threatened by with the wrath of Lord Xenu.... pathetic.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
And, yes, I'm continuing to "win" this bet with myself because you are too frightened to defend your Creationist bullshit, as I predicted.
You are either too frightened to stand up to what can be demonstrated, or you are too embarrassed about your own religion to do it any justice.
Sorry, kiddo, but either way, thats pretty pathetic. Its completely your problem, though, not mine. You are the one who is going to have to deal with your psychological insecurities.
Have fun with that.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion Man, that was really pathetic of you to exalt yourself here and say that you're "winning". You make yourself better by calling others names like "kiddo" and their way of looking at reality as "bullshit" and saying that I'm psychologically insecure. Is that how an "evolved man" with nice manners behaves? You continue to say that I'm frightened to stand up, yet I am the only one here to care to discuss with you. Have some respect for others and discuss in a civilized manner.
Seekrett 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion You're not hurting my feelings - even by your pathetic ways of calling me a kiddo. You're hurting yourself. Your way of talking is similar to your idol Richard Dawkins. Just stop for a moment and think, yes think, think... Where are you going with all this? Where will it bring you? I am talking about your mindset, your own philosophy of life. What are you basing your belief on? And what will be the end of it? If you do think about it deeper then you should feell emptyness.
Seekrett 1 year ago
@Seekrett "Just stop for a moment and think, yes think, think"
Ironic, coming from someone who believes in magic and gods.
"Where are you going with all this? Where will it bring you?"
Seriously? Its like voting. Are you old enough to vote? You alone wont change anything, but combined with everyone it makes the difference.
I'm speaking out against religious foolishness and lies, as the Dover Trial exposed in the DI, to stave off another age of religious nonsense. We dont need it anymore.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
I didn't say I was winning the argument, kiddo, I said I was winning my own bet with myself that people like you are too ashamed or frightened or embarrassed to actually defend your own faith.
Stop and think, for once. YOU havn't been defending your faith one bit... you have been on the offensive and even so far as using veiled threats.
Whats wrong? Dont have enough faith to validate your positions in the religion you say you hold to?
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
"And what will be the end of it?"
An age where humans have no need to lie about their belief system in order to live with themselves. An age of religious freedom where people really are free from mockery in all forms, ESPECIALLY from their own religious neighbors and friends.
At the moment, however, it seems like the human race is far too immature to do that, on a whole. Like the Discovery Institute (outlined in their Wedge Document) they are malicious, insecure, and willing to lie.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
"You continue to say that I'm frightened to stand up, yet I am the only one here to care to discuss with you"
You *are* frightened to defend your religion on its own terms of blind faith and magic. Look at the comment history, kid. Its been weeks or months in between posts. Hardly anyone cares about this channel.
Creationists like you are fewer and fewer, here on youtube. Why? There isn't a single logical or scientific battle you can win, anywhere.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
"Have some respect for others and discuss in a civilized manner."
Exceedingly ironic, coming from a Creationist on an Intelligent Design channel. The Discovery Institute, during the Dover Trial, was exposed to be one of the most religiously dishonest groups out there. How dare you speak of being civilized.
I bet you that you never actually intended to put me in your prayers, even once. Your "I'll pray for you" was a complete lie. Talk about being civil, you should avoid lying.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion I just prayed for you and here I see a comment that I am a liar. What else are you going to call me? What is the source of this hatred? You really think that numbers is what it is about? Back in the days of Copernicus majority of people thought that the Sun revolves around the Earth - there were very few "enlightened" ones that thought otherwise and were considered heretics and fools - just like the ID people of today. What shall you say when TRUTH is revealed?
Seekrett 1 year ago
@Seekrett "I just prayed for you"
No, I mean back when you said it first. It doesn't count now that I've pointed it out.
"What is the source of this hatred?"
Its more disgust and amusement than hate. How can you support the habitual liars behind Intelligent Design when your god commands you not to lie?
"just like the ID people of today"
The problem is that believing something BECAUSE of evidence is outstanding, but IN SPITE OF the evidence is contemptible.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
If a Magic Man is PROVEN to exist, it will be with evidence.
Thats what us non-believers keep asking you for: evidence. People like me dont care where the truth lies, but we care about believing what is true over that which is pretty fairy tales to sooth our troubled psychology, like you seem to be doing.
You claim to have the truth, but you have nothing to show for it. You have as many appeals to emotion as any other religion or cult in the world. Why are you so different?
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
People like me arn't satisfied with blind faith.
Why are you? I'm not a robot, and never will be a sheep. Why are you content to be someone who doesn't think for themselves?
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion Who told you I don't think for myself? People like you follow the main stream media and believe in the RELIGION of Charles Darwin. It is the freethinkers like Inteligent Design scientists that challenge the lies of evolution - you support something that you don't have a whole picture of.
Seekrett 1 year ago
@Seekrett "People like you follow the main stream media"
I dont even own a television. That assumption backfired in your face.
"believe in the RELIGION of Charles Darwin"
Silly child, Darwin died well over a century ago. Its like saying we thank Thomas Eddison for computers. You simply dont have a clue, do you?
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
The "freethinkers" of the "Intelligent Design scientists"????
Page 64 of Judge Jones III's Dover Trial judgement, you should read it. It goes into detail of why ID IS NOT SCIENCE.
The people at the Discovery Institute haven't done any science, they havn't even done the experiments they mentioned during the Dover Trial to help validate their case!
You have blindly supported liars and con-artists in the DI simply because YOU think their cause supports yours. Silly, naive child.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
"You are not capable of discussing in an intelligent and respectful manner"
Not when you lie to my face, no. Why should I respect you for doing that?
"Interesting that Hitler and Stalin shared your evolutionary world-view, isn't it?"
See, you lied again.
"we could have had a nice discussion"
No, we couldn't. You rely on lies far too easily for that. I saw that in you, along with other things. That is another reason I dont respect people like you. Lying for your god? Pathetic.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
Pointing at something and saying "Gee, that looks complex.... MAGIC MAN must have done it!", simply wont do.
That, the core of Intelligent Design, is founded on three logical fallacies.
Dont even speak again unless you have an apology, kiddo.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion The fossil record shows the evidence for creation and global flood described in the Bible. Look for example at the Great Canyon and describe how millions of years of erosion have done the work of forming it.
Seekrett 1 year ago
@Seekrett "The fossil record shows the evidence for creation"
Listen, kiddo, if you are going to cling to biblical literalism, then I'm not going to treat you with respect. Why? You dont deserve any respect.
How does willful ignorance deserve respect?
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
Stop deflecting the focus of attention, kid: YOU have no validation for your religion.
You are too frightened to even try.
What makes your specific version of an adaptation on the concept of monotheism have any more validity than ANY OTHER RELIGION? Prove it.
You cant. Why not? Because its pure emotion. You have nothing but assertions, and "Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Too cowardly to even defend your own "faith".
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion See, here you lost it. You are not capable of discussing in an intelligent and respectful manner. You just called me a kiddo and told me that I am not worthy of being treated with respect. This reminds me of how people with biblical views were persecuted by the Roman Church, Nazis and by communists that followed a fool called Stalin. Interesting that Hitler and Stalin shared your evolutionary world-view, isn't it? That's it, we could have had a nice discussion but you blew it!
Seekrett 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion I prayed for you before I even said that I will. I pray for people like you, Richard Dawkins and the whole Smithsonian Institute people - is it worth it? I believe it is. When something happens in your life that will change your way of thinking will you write to me personally and say that it did? I don't want any public demonstration - just let me know.
Seekrett 1 year ago
@Seekrett Answer my questions and I'll answer yours.
Show me you arn't simply avoiding the tough questions.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion The whole discussion is a big mess. If you want to discuss - let us do it in an organized manner and with only one topic. I don't want to see 100 different threads and questions as you have done so far. I don't want any name calling, any rude words etc. You get the idea? Also I am on a European time so don't be upset when I don't answer right away. Deal?
Seekrett 1 year ago
@Seekrett Geeze, kid. The questions I'm talking about were from my 3 previous posts before your post 47 minutes ago. They arn't even an hour old.
You completely ignored those three posts.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion Ok, I just asked you not to call me a kid or a kiddo - if you call me this name again I will not answer your questions. And who is ignorant here???
"Its more disgust and amusement than hate." - so which one is it? Amusement or disgust? How can you connect the 2, that's sick of you. "How can you support the habitual liars behind Intelligent Design when your god commands you not to lie?" - You know that is the other way around - I'm not supporting evolution cause its a lie.
Seekrett 1 year ago
@Seekrett "You know that is the other way around"
Liar. Dover Trial proved their lies.
"I'm not supporting evolution cause its a lie."
This is why I call you a child. You have nothing to validate that assertion, merely emotional responses designed to maintain your psychological grasp on a fragile world.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion Please, show me the OUTSTANDING EVIDENCE that supports the theory of evolution.
Seekrett 1 year ago
sorry but meyer did not show up in cout and ID lost.
gregrutz 1 year ago
You seem poor on DI and need more people buy you pseudo-scientific junk. You have no moral but prey on the gullible and take their money to make your wallet fatter.
And about your censorship; Seems like nazis and communist regions. Don't come tell us what we fail on, we don't accept free commenting because you could point our junk talk.
Itchyback 1 year ago
Intelligent design is not scientific. It was completely destroyed in the Kitzmiller trial. In the trial it was conclusively proven that ID is just creationism dressed up to look like science.
ID proponents have not been able to produce even a single testable hypothesis, let alone any successful result.
Their only argument is irreducible complexity, but every example of irreducible complexity that they have produced has been shown to have an evolutionary explanation.
ID is a complete fail.
AThagoras 1 year ago
NO. ID is not science. Science is what scientists do and they don't do ID.
gregrutz 1 year ago
The fossil record is very Observable, creationists act like it isn't there. Means nothing. Those fossils are sorted by a flood, dinosaurs always in the middle
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Im a creationist and an ID supporter and i find no problem in the fossil record.Cambrian explosion-everythings appears created all at once, fully formed .Your right they were sorted by a massive world wide flood.The evidence IS in the millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth.
chersharni 1 year ago
@chersharni Everything did no appear in the Cambrian, just the PHYLA. There were no land animals.
Floods don't sort fossils, floods don't make distinct layers of different kinds of rocks.
All sediment is not ''laid down by water''. Some fossils are in tar pits, desert sands and ash layers.
Sorry Dr. Stephen Meyer did not show up in court and you IDiots lost.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I used your words about how "floods sort fossils" and floods do make distinct layers as they sort heaviest to lighest sediments in the run off after it starts to recede.Dr Mary Schweitzer's discovery of T-rex blood cells and unfossilized tissue is a good example of how evolutionary fools CANT SEE the evidence before their eyes their arrogant and think themselves omnipotent..A scientist that believes in god is still a scientist.Their beliefs are not the issue.
chersharni 1 year ago
@chersharni Floods make ONE layer sorted from larger on the bottom to silt on top. The do not make ash layer, reefs, limestone, lava layers, etc.
Mary still knows the fossil is 70 million years old, the age did not change, that is too well know.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Science is what scientists do. They don't do ID.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz ID scientists are scientists.They have studied and earned degrees and spent many years doing scientific research in the mainstream. All have the knowledge of evolution.It is only because they had the balls to go where the science led them and speak out against evolution dogma, that all previous knowledge and expertise is suddenly discounted when they say appearance of code and engineering point to a designer.
chersharni 1 year ago
@chersharni They may be scientists but they are not doing science. They don't understand evolution, that is one of their points. IF they could show something that was designed we would know there was a designer, but they can't. They are trying to get creationism taught in schools by changing god's name to ID.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz they use the same scientific methods and observations as evolution believing scientists do, just reach a different assumption. computer programmers create codes with their intelligent minds and engineers use their intelligent minds to design cars,computers,spaceships,skyscrappers etc...yet none of their intelligence nor designs come close to the design and engineering blueprints God has created within the DNA of millions of different lifeforms enabling them to then self replicate.
chersharni 1 year ago
@chersharni ''reach a different assumption.'' LOL that's funny. Scientists come to a conclusion, that evolution happens.
Why did God make us Great Apes?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Evolution is not proved, therefore there is no conclusion ONLY ASSUMPTIONS.Only Natural selection is proved .Think you confuse your definitions.Evolution ie:A species evolving into a completely different species eg, elephants into manatis.God did NOT make us in the image of Apes(that is an evolutionary belief) but in the image of himself with a mind capable of logical thought and reasoning enabling us to see and discover and gain knowledge and understanding from all that he has made.
chersharni 1 year ago
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Natural selection is what drives adaptation... there is no empirical evidence that suggest it can be extrapolated to explain evolution. Only assumptions and assertions. I believe in universal common ancestry ... but on the issue of the mechanism for evolution: blind watchmaker or intelligent design, I think design is the only logical explanation. And if ID isn't science, then the blind watchmaker idea isn't either.
ScootleRoyale 1 year ago
@ScootleRoyale Adaptation is another name for Natural Selection.
The evidence is the fossil record but that seems to be invisible to creationists.
Couldn't God just make the 'laws of nature' and let evolution and snowflake disign take care of itself?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz What I meant by adaptation is small changes - beak sizes adapting. bacteria devloping resistance, that sort ot thing. Natural selection certainly can account for that. But to extrapolate it and say the same mechanism can create a beak, is a leap of faith. And I'm not talking about fossils, I believe in evolution. I'm talking about the mechanism for evolution, not whether or not it happened.
ScootleRoyale 1 year ago
@ScootleRoyale So what is your scientific theory for how evolution happens?
ID is not scientific or a theory. It was shown in court to be creationism. Meyer didn't show up in court.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz 'My' theory is that there is intelligenc driving evolution and that that can be detected.
It was not shown in court to be creationism. Judge jones just copied everything Eric Rothschild told him ... word for word.
watch?v=LFhYjazo0CY
ScootleRoyale 1 year ago
@ScootleRoyale What intelligence? The only person who can make a universe is a god. You can't assume a god but not say it's a god just to teach creation in schools, you fooled no one.
How do you detect god, the FSM.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You immediately set up the strawman by using the word 'person'. I don't believe in a single anthropomorphic god. Most other ID people might, but I don't. It sounds kind of ridiculous to me. You can't detect god directly, but you can infer one. Same way you can't observe or detect dark matter or dark energy directly but you can infer that they do exist. And you obviously didn't watch that video I linked to. The only proof you have that ID is creationism is a mickey mouse trial.
ScootleRoyale 1 year ago
@ScootleRoyale 'design requires intelligence''. Do you thing intelligence is just floating around in space. They are trying to show a God, a new twist on an old argument. But that is all it is, an argument. Not science, not a theory.
Dark matter can be detected by it's gravity, that is how they know something is there.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz 'Do you thing intelligence is just floating around in space' Actually that's pretty simple explanation of what I believe. It's not quite correct but I can't think of a better way of explaining it. I dont care what the ID people are trying to show, that doesn't change the fact that the theory doesn't mandate god. Dark matter is not detected though... it's inferred. We infer it's existence to explain anomalies that we observe. This is what Stephen Meyer was talking about in this video.
ScootleRoyale 1 year ago
The more we learn about life, the more sophisticated design principles we discover, the more brilliant technology we uncover. That has to be the most worrisome part of this whole situation for the Darwinist. Not only has his theory been demoted to failed hypothesis, but the evidence for I.D. continues to grow. It's a double whammy. No wonder they're so bitter and hostile-they're sore losers.
signatureinthecell 1 year ago
Stephen C. Meyer, laying the intellectual smack down on Darwinists. Bravo!
Darwinists are illogical hypocrites.
We're told that intelligent design in life is unfalsifiable, yet we're also told that the absence of intelligent design in life has been proven. Huh?
If you can't prove I.D., then you can't disprove non-I.D. (Darwinism)
If you can't disprove I.D., then you can't prove non-I.D.
Translation: Either both are testable or neither are testable.
Logic 101─a Darwinist's worst nightmare.
signatureinthecell 1 year ago
Comment removed
signatureinthecell 1 year ago
Nope not sarcastic at all- dead serious.I have listened to this signature of the cell and watched 'unlocking the mystery of life' many times over.I can hear steve meyers arguement on circular reasoning and believe it is a valid arguement.plainly judge jones at the dover trial was not into allowing people the choice to decide for themselves what science is, or isnt and therefore ruling against the freedom of information
chersharni 1 year ago
AND for signature of the cell too
chersharni 1 year ago
After watching "unlocking the mystery of life", i FINALLY have been shown the scientific evidence for the intelligent designer i see with my irreducibly complex eyes.Something i was never given a choice to know with the evolutionary dogma i was forcefed.!!! I see the intelligent designer "in and through the things that have been made". Macro Evolution is truly a blind random unguided( faith.) process.Thank you steven meyer and everyone for making "unlocking mystery of life"
chersharni 1 year ago
@chersharni What scientific evidence for intelligent design? There is no evidence for intelligent design, or even an argument which does'nt contain numerous logical fallacies. There's nothing irreducably complex, nothing which has been shown to be unable to develop with gradual improving steps, generation by generation. Evolution is practiacally a fact. And what evolutionary "dogma"? Every single aspect of Evolution is tested daily and is allowed to be challenged, with proper evidence. Unlike ID
MrSpleesh 1 year ago
@MrSpleesh Same evidence you look at, is our evidence for design.Irreducible complexity? : your eyes and ears are!. take out one part and you are rendered deaf or blind.A fish is still a fish generation by generation its eyes didnt form from their scales gradually.Natural selection is Fact. The first cells giving rise to every living thing in existence over millions of years- Fantasy.Where are your missing links ,your( half and halfs)-intermediates of every lifeform generation by generation?
chersharni 1 year ago
@chersharni Irreducible complexity is nothing but a pseudoscientific argument which has been refuted in numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers. Eyes and ears have been clearly demonstrated to have been able to develop by evolution. Vision is not limited to an eye like ours, there are animals who have poorer eyesight then us and who lack certain components which we have. Yet they are not blind. Graduall progression generation by generation works absolutley marvelously. Pure magic, does not.
MrSpleesh 1 year ago
@MrSpleesh So poor eyesight in human terms means glasses or laser surgery if the eye is slightly impaired.Parts completely missing eg:like a retina or pupil would render you blind.An eye needs all its parts at the start.
In the animal world waiting for evolution to happen within your lifetime of 5-50 years stumbling around.You will be dead before that.
chersharni 1 year ago
@chersharni for an animal with NO eyes , any light sensitive patch would be an improvement to its survival. It could tell if predetors were awake (day or night). Then if that patch was modifies to be a depression in the skin it might give a direction to the light and the animal could learn that its early or late in the day and have a guide to what direction its moving. Then a lens to focus the light and wizz-bang ! you have a simple eye. No one would expect an eye to appear in complex form.
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
@SqueakerAlpha Whizz bang!!! You have a simple eye,a lens that just happens along??.If the animal isnt chewed on first as it stubbles around blindly.Say if the animal survived 50+ years where will that new information come from ( within that 50 years) to enable a lens to just spontaneously appear.?Even if a lens where present ,what about the other new information (to form the other parts) that must be present also, to enable a fully formed eyeball capable of sight?.
chersharni 1 year ago
@chersharni I am talking thousands of generations not the lifetime of one animal. If we were designed why no eye in the back so we could see the bear sneaking up on us, why only two arms , its hard to climb and carry stuff with only two arms ?
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
@SqueakerAlpha Each intermediate stage with half formed legs/fins arms/wings need to be capable of surviving in its own right, these evolutionary changes must still allow full functionality of eyes,lungs,arms, legs etc.And even if your animals survived long enough to pass on these variations(which natural selection would see culled as weak ,blind and crippled ie: survival of the fittest)) ,where is your new information coming from in each individual within these thousands of generations?
chersharni 1 year ago
@chersharni have you ever seen a mudskipper ? a simple eye that gives only light/dark, a fin that can move the fish over land short distances, a simple lung that only supplies enough air for quick trips above the water , all can give an animal an advantage for survival and reproduction. If it survives those features may be improved on by subsequent mutations. There are several youtube vids on how information is added to the genome.
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
@SqueakerAlpha Mudskippers have fully formed eyes enabling panoramic views.The fins are still fins even if they can use them with the tail to hop around. mutations cant produce new functional systems or add information to sprout wings or legs on an animal that didnt have them to start with.
chersharni 1 year ago
@chersharni How did dinosaurs develop feathers?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz in Same way none flying descendant of bats suddenly sprouted wings and turned into bats.By magic(evolution)
chersharni 1 year ago
@chersharni Who said eyes developed while fish were still fish, or even out of scales? Fish will remain fish untill they evolve past that label which we put upon them. Tiktaalik is a clear example. You are correct in asserting that natural selection is a fact, but mutations and genetic drift which natural selection acts upon over several million years is fantasy? Nonsense, we have clear evidence of evolution occouring infront of our very eyes, which you so stress can't have evolved by evolution.
MrSpleesh 1 year ago
@MrSpleesh OH the fish story is one i heard in high school.Where is the clear evidence???i see natural selection varying the same information.But i dont see a goanna sprouting wings yet.
chersharni 1 year ago
@chersharni There is practically no missing links anymore. We currently have in our possession several hundreds of transitional fossils which clearly demonstrate how our ancestors evolved into the creatures they are today. From fish to tetrapods, from dinosaurs to birds, they are all incorporated as mountains and mountains of evidence for evolution. They are found exactly where we would expect to find them, in the correct order and correct geological layer.
MrSpleesh 1 year ago
@MrSpleesh Where are those half and half lifeforms?tell me the pages and i will look at these missing links.?will i see the elephants that crawled back to the water to turn into manitis- as one story goes?
chersharni 1 year ago
@chersharni If you actually cared if your beliefs were true, then you would research both sides objectivley to see which side actually had the evidence and the real arguments. Attacking with ad hominems, refusing to change your mind even when proven wrong in a court of law (see Kitzmiller vs Dover trial) and pandering to the sheep, all to maintain their beliefs cannot be an honest way. "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence". The Discovery institute never has and never will.
MrSpleesh 1 year ago
@MrSpleesh I was taught evolution FIRST in high school.If i was actually given the right to freedom of information, the dover trial would have ruled in favor of ID and i could know all there was to know of BOTHSIDES.Instead i have those on 'creationism-how the scientists respond" page with anything but scientific views ,to stop ID!!!!
What of S.E.T.I .Bet the pursuit of little green men is deemed as science but the evidence under the microscope of D.N.A cant- by definition be of GOD.
chersharni 1 year ago
@chersharni I hope you are being sarcastic.
Intelligent Design is a lie. Research the Dover Trial. There is no science involved with anything the Discovery Institute has to say.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion Been there done that.Have you even watched 'unlocking the mystery of life'? or watched films like exploration films 'creatures that defy evolution'.
Definition of Evolution: A made up story which attempts to prove the existence of the universe and life itself based on the supposed logic and reason of first there was a big bang" and "poof it magically appeared"!!! NOW THATS REAL SCIENCE.
chersharni 1 year ago