Do you realize the crap you must accept to believe in Christian Creationism? Talking snake, talking donkey, a man can live inside of a whale, angels came down from heaven and had sex with mortal women, talking flaming bush, etc. Basically, a whole lot of crazy bullshit.
Almost everything on intelligent design comes from one place - The Discovery Institute, an organization with a mission to have creationism taught in high schools.
1. Intelligence is quite obviously not supernatural. 2. ID is quite obviously not an argument from ignorance since it appeals to observable facts as evidence. 3. The independent specification does not have to be arbitrarily given "beforehand." In the case of biological information, the specification is functionality.
@SnoopyDaniels 1 The "intelligence" proposed by the ID advocacy is supernatural. Read the trial documents. 2. Irreducible Complexity is an argument from ignorance. 3. You clearly do not understand Dembski's CSI.
1. That is irrelevant. Intelligence is not supernatural, therefore invoking intelligence as an explanation does not equate to invoking supernatural intelligence. You are trying to discredit ID advocates based on their religious beliefs, which is bigotry. 2. I challenge you to demonstrate how Irreducible Complexity is an argument from ignorance. 3. Listen to Dembski's own words. Functional requirements serve as an independently given meaningful pattern.
If you went back in time, there would be a large body of work on geocetrism. Did that make it right? Copernicus was the only one who believed in Heliocentrism, so at the time he was wrong? Fallacious Reasoning...
Imagine what you'd think if everytime the evolutionist says "The theory of evolution-" , the opponent jumps in and says "It's not a theory!", and all his supporters applaud as if it's a very clever rebuttal. Think about it.
"it's not a theory in the scientific sense. no data, no experiments, no results, no testable predictions, no explanatory power....."
Yeah, right - keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.
let me spell it out for you:"- I don't need any help with spelling.
"Imagine what you'd think" why? your hypothetical is ludicrous. if the opponent say's it's not a theory all one needs to do is point out the monumental body of evidence, the predictions made, the confirmation of those predictions from empirical date and case closed. ID can do none of this.
"if it makes you feel better"- keep sneering if you need to but it's nothing to do with feelings. it's about evidence.
@Jesrael1986M Deluded much? I cant tell if your ignorant or facetious, don't be mad because you picked an ideology based on faith alone, we didn't and we have all the evidence. ID make no predictions whatsoever and is totally useless, unless your trying to fill seats in a church. Ps do you even know what a theory is?
for the uneducated evolutionist debater. Theory:a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. Intelligent design is certainly a theory, this man has no idea what he's even talking about.
@micah1116 You really know nothing.A scientific theory is indeed a group of propositions to explain natural phenomena BUT these propositions must be based on empirical evidence and MUST have a predictive capability.Evolution is a scientific theory-ID is not.Deal with it and get your facts straight.
@Stevoukos ID is based on empirical evidence. We OBSERVE that information only comes from an intelligent source, it is most defintely empirical. On the contrary, do you have any empirical evidence that information does not come from intelligence? ID predicts that we will find interdependence in biological systems, such as in the cell. I will elaborate in my next comment.
@Stevoukos What??!!! Typical evolutionist games I see. Do I really have to tell you that information only comes from intelligence? Really??? Go look in a dictionary for the definition of information. The DNA molecule contains the instructions to construct proteins. INSTRUCTIONS, instructions only come from intelligence. This is common sense, stop playing games and trying to re define terms to save yourself.
@micah1116 You use the term information extremely wrong.Information by your definition is a HUMAN construction.The only non human information that we know is DNA.So it WOULD be wrong to assume that a "supernatural being" created this information.Yes indeed HUMAN information NEEDS an intelligence for it to occur.DNA is NOT a human construct nor was it created by man.So basically you are just assuming that the laws that apply to human constructs apply to non human-That's obviously wrong.
@Stevoukos you see what you just did? You ADMITTED information comes from intelligence, and then said DNA didn't! You are going against the empirical data. Information does not need to come from a human, simply intelligence.
@micah1116 You are quote mining like crazy.First of all chickens HAVE TEETH GENES which are de activated.If a creator made the chicken in the form they have today we would expect them to have the genes they need to be the way they are.Having genes deactivated proves common ancestry and not intelligent design.Same thing goes for whales have Leg genes.
Finally I admitted that HUMAN information comes from intelligence.DNA IS NOT HUMAN INFORMATION.So you can't apply that law on DNA.
@Stevoukos Quote mining? What?? What did I quote mine? Again chickens do not have the genes for teeth, look at the embryo pictures yourself, they aren't teeth! Whales do not have leg bones, you do not keep up with modern science. Those bones you speak of, are used in reproduction, they hold the penis in place during reproduction and every mammal with a penis has them, they are not legs. How does gene expression prove common ancestry?? That is the dumbest thing I've EVER heard.
@micah1116 I can only hope that you deliberately miss the point of the argument.I would hate to think that a man would be so ignorant.Chickens HAVE deactivated teeth genes.These genes are obviously NOT used by chickens since they don't have teeth.So the question is : Where did they come from.Common ancestry explains it by saying that a common ancestor of chickens HAD teeth.That's it.ID cannot explain this fact.
Same things goes for whales.They don't have legs.They have DEACTIVATED leg genes.
@Stevoukos you must have the common sense of a mudd puddle. Phenotypic plasticity does not contradict ID, in fact is a process that supports it. What you are saying is the equivalent of this, why do dogs have the genes for long hair, and short hair, brown hair, and white hair. It's gene expression. Whales do not have the genes for legs. Do you understand what gene expression is? If your claim were true, those genes could be turned on either naturally or artificially, yet this hasn't happened.
@Stevoukos I'm laughing so hard right now! Chickens do not have the genes for teeth. Here is the nail in the coffin for you, and I bet you didn't know this. Did you know birds cannot produce enamel? So please tell me oh wise one, how chickens have the genes for teeth, or ever did have teeth, when they can't even produce enamel! Also, don't think I forgot about your "whale of a tale". You can't provide me a source for your whales have the genes for legs claim.
@micah1116 Oh and about enamel.Enamel is a tooth substance.If you don't have teeth you don't have enamel.Simple as theat.Chickens NEVER had teeth.Their common ancestor had.God it's like talking to a 5 year old.
@Stevoukos LOL! now you change your story, I see how it works. You claimed so many times that chickens had teeth and were shown to grow teeth in the lab. Chickens cannot produce enamel, thus never had teeth. What is your evidence that chickens have a common ancestor... other than a chicken? And there's a flaw in your statement. So by your logic, if someone loses all their teeth, they can't produce enamel, since they don't have teeth? Why keep the genes, and not the ability to produce enamel?
@micah1116 "many times that chickens had teeth".I never claimed that chickens have teeth.I said they had deactivated teeth genes (thus having no teeth).The article I provided (I guess you didn't bother looking at it) proves that artificially altering these genes can cause chickens to grow teeth.The fact that chickens have genes that don't work IS NOT explained by Intelligent design.Stop quote mining.Enamel comes to be through the ossification.Since teeth are bones if you don't have teeth (cont)
@Stevoukos Quote mining? Again WHAT?? LOL "proves that artificially altering these genes can cause chickens to grow teeth." You just claimed it again! LOL. How can they grow teeth, when they can't produce enamel? Intelligent design and gene expression have no conflict. Are you telling me the fact that genes turn on and off, such as dogs having brown and white hair, is somehow contrary to intelligent design? You have got to be joking. Gene expression happens all the time!
@micah1116 I already answered that.If you don't get that Enamel is not something that is produced with teeth and that lack of teeth in vertebrates means lack of Enamel I can't help you.
I've responded to your claim a million times.If you don't get it refresh your memory on Histology and Embryology as well as Cell Biology.
@Stevoukos not produced with teeth?? so teeth are not made of enamel? If your not going to debate me in chat, then I see no use of continuing. By the way, I need no help from you on cell biology, I happen to understand, atleast the basics.
Your argument proves your arrogance.Enamel is not a protein.It mostly consists of hydroxylapetite.It's a form of bone tissue in other words.And as I said : Chickens can't form teeth (=bones) and thus CANNOT form the tissue of teeth (part of which is enamel).
@Stevoukos I don't have enamel?? I have to agree with you on the fact that chickens can't produce teeth. Teeth are not bones by the way. I'd like to debate you tonight, if you don't want to, just say so, instead of avoiding my question.
@Stevoukos I'm getting a page moved/under construction message. I have seen many of the articles you speak of. You will find no scientist claiming whales have the genes for legs, and there are so many problems with whale evolution to begin with. I'd be glad to have a discussion with you in the chat room, just send me a message if you'd like to debate tonight, and I'll give you the link. I'd much rather do that, than talk in here.
@Stevoukos (continued) Such as in the cell, there exists interdependence that ID predicts. In order for the cell to function, you need proteins, to construct proteins, you need DNA which contains the instructions on how to construct the proteins. You need a ribosome as well to perform protein synthesis, but to have a ribosome, you need RNA and proteins. Explain that one! In order to have a protein, you need the ribosome which it itself is comprised of proteins! Only ID can explain this.
@micah1116 Oh really?You are failing on one basic thing like all Creationists.This has NOTHING to do with evolution.Absolutely NOTHING.Abiogenesis is a completely different subject that has absolutely no relations with Evolution.
But let me give you the basics of Abiogenesis since you went down that road.The first molecule that was used as a genetic material was the RNA.That is because RNA has the power to self-replicate WITHOUT the use of proteins.DNA on the other hand is far more stable(cont)
@Stevoukos It most certainly does, how do you expect organisms to acquire new morphological structures? You need new information. And your very wrong about RNA. RNA is decoded by very specific proteins, that are themselves coded for by the information in RNA. So again interdependence and irreducible complexity. In addition your starting with information, which again, only comes from intelligence.
@Stevoukos Again, RNA needs to be decoded by very specific proteins, which themselves are coded for by the information in RNA, you have a huge problem, that you can't overcome.
@Stevoukos tell you what, if you want we can debate this in a chat room where creationists and evolutionists debate all the time, if you would like to do this, send me a PM, and I can give you the link, and we can discuss this, maybe tonight if you'd like.
@micah1116 (cont) due to the fact that one -OH group from the RNA has been replaced with a hudgrogen.So DNA being more stable was chosen to be the genetic material.Now different organels and increase in genome happened due to fussion of two different cells.This could happen for many reasons : a)By-products of one can be used by the other or b)This "hybrid" is energetically favorable.
So my turn now.If ID is correct : Why do chickens have teeth genes?
@Stevoukos (continued) If the chickens changed their food source, it's possible these genes would turn off if they didn't need the teeth, this is a known process called phenotypic plasticity. Unfortunately, your fantasy is not reality, and chickens do not have the genes for teeth, and even if they did, it's basic biology not evolution.
@TheBloodPardon that's because there is very little to respond to someone that tells you "the most logical answer is that there is a god that you can't see can't touch, can't anything but must just believe it's there". Not science yesterday, not today, never will, regardless of how many fancy words you use for it. Plus, why does it have to be the judeo-christian god?? why is it not Thor? why is it not Zeus? Any ID person has evidence for that? In fact, it's probably a spaghetti monster!
There is something very important that gets overlooked in this battle. The fact is, both sides may be right. The problem is, both sides are entrenched in believing that the other side is wrong. The design crowd, because it is wrapped up in religiosity, must deny that speciation happens and that homo sapiens sapiens has ancestry in homo erectus, australopithecus, et al. The materialistic indeterminism crowd is ignoring that there may be physical laws that guide evolution along a rational course.
@alachabre The biggest problem at all is that the most trenchant supporters on both sides ignore the scope and grandeur of the universe in favor of anthropomorphic interpretations. God is Jesus and thus a man. Science is the pinnacle of achievement, and thus there is nothing greater than man. The best scientists and the most pious clergy are the ones who are truly humble, and realize the universe is not here for the glory of man. It is truly a good life that seeks God through knowledge.
@alachabre In this case both sides cannot be right. The ID crowd attempt to suggest that ID creationism is science. Scientists explain why ID creationism is not science. The problem for ID creationism is that it isn't science as they are not adhering to the scientic method (methodological naturalism). As a side note: ID creationism does not deny that speciation occurs. That is the domain of many of the other versions of creationism.
@djarm67 I deleted yesterday's comment, because it referred to Prof. Ward's eloquence, and unfortunately as the debate went on, his eloquence faded rapidly. This is the key to ID debate - the ID side possesses (pardon the pun) master debaters, that's part of their modus operandi. Moments like the question presented at 6:30 in video #7 of this series must be pounced upon, to draw the clear conclusion of why ID is not science: rigorous and repeatable experimentation is not taking place.
@SnoopyDaniels Yes they have. They have even demonstrated it in a court of law. Read the transcript here talkorigins (dot) org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover (dot) html
I am aware of the Dover trial, thank you. Surely I don't have to tell you that science is not decided by court cases. Judges have no scientific training.
@SnoopyDaniels Being aware of the trial and reading the transcript to see how legitimate scientists clearly demonstrate that Intelligent Design is not science are two different things.
I have read extensively about the trial and know many of the arguments used to rebut the scientific credentials of intelligent design and they all fail miserably. Which ones in particular are you referring to?
@SnoopyDaniels Invoking the supernatural violates methodological naturalism, Irreducible Complexity is an argument from ignorance and the specified information in complex specified information is never specified beforehand.
@pandorachild Agreed, and my personal opinion is that it is not random but directed, but not consciously. There are yet to be discovered physical laws, at the quantum level or even beyond, that are guiding everything. The intelligence to discern these laws may be forever beyond the level of understanding of the human species. We do the best we can via the tools of science and theology and philosophy, but the Universe itself will always far surpass any life form in level of intelligence.
wow Meyer didnt answer the question AGAIN, "If there is an intelligent designer, why isn't everything perfect " amswer: "ummmmm its theological". "god made us prideful and is punishing us". Meyer is getting his ass handed to him.
I can see from these comments why this country is sliding down the crapper. Zero understanding of what a scientific theory is, and why ID fails as a scientific theory. Zero critical thinking. And zero research into the "evolution" of ID and the Discovery Institute, whose DNA is pure fundamentalist Christian. I give us maybe thirty years until the current crop of Texas Holy Jeebus-idiocated kids are running things and we're a 3rd world Christian Taliban shithole.
you are extremely bigoted and appear particularly unintelligent.
You seem threatened by the idea that someone might think there is actually design in life that Dawkins himself declared "appeared designed".
Wow how scary, life might be designed. This should be stamped out as a scientific theory because you dont agree with it...thats how science works isnt it?
@arsjth - "life might be designed" isn't scary - there are always idiots who will believe the earth is flat. What's scary is when they get into the classroom. ID has one, and only one argument "It's complicated - therefore GOD (oops - I meant an intelligent designer". Well, sorry guys, but lightning and thunder used to be too complicated - that's why we invented Zeus and Thor. We know better now. Ignorance of complex phenomenon has never been a historically good reason to justify a creator.
Meyer is being disingenuous when he confronts the question of whether the designer must create perfectly, simply because the designer he believes in, is said to be all powerful, knowing and perfect, thus, whatever intelligent design seems to exist in the universe as a whole, it automatically leaves his "God" in the cold.
5:55 "he was god, he changed the nature of the basic stuff of life."
Meyers goes on to say "brilliant design engineering".
these evolutionists are so stuck in their ways that they cant even see that they are claiming that a man becomes God because he changes the basic nature of 'stuff'. God who they dont believe exists.
Yet what they are saying is that it takes intelligence to change this stuff and it is sheer brilliance.
We can only imagine the brilliance of the designer of life itself.
@arsjth - Well, you're going to have to keep imagining the "brilliance" of the designer of life, because that designer was either a moron or a sloppy drunk. The brilliance in sorting out the mess that is in our genes is in wading through all the leftover crap. You used to have a coat of fur - like every other monkey. You still carry the genes to produce a tail - which happens more often than you know. You still have the genes to produce an egg yolk - utterly useless in placental mammals. Sheesh.
"because that designer was either a moron or a sloppy drunk."
from a guy who cant even work out how the design works let alone make something himself.
If u believe it happened thru random mutation then you should be able to get some random chemicals of life, throw them together & create some life...cant be too hard can it? if a sloppy drunk could do it??
"You used to have a coat of fur - like every other monkey."
@arsjth - Yep. You still have the genes to give you a coat of fur, just like every other monkey. Every human grows this useless coat of fur in the womb - then sheds it. You also had a tail - early in fetal development it was about 1/6th of your body length. You could also develop an egg yolk - a gift from your reptile ancestors, except that your copies of the VIT1 and VIT3 genes are damaged with premature stop codons. These are all leftovers that you would expect from evolution - not design.
@arsjth - not talking about "junk" DNA at all. Your tail, your embryonic fur, your leftover yolk genes are not what is called junk DNA. We know what they are and what they do - or used to do. ID is the true dead end. "ZOMG - it's too complicated for us puny humans - therefore there is a creator". Being a dummy is no argument for the existence a superior being of any sort. ID has produced nothing, absolutely nothing of value. Evolutionary science on the other hand has literally saved lives.
1) Theological concerns does not invalidate the scientific detection of design. ID does not prove God, or even a good person. It just proves that live was designed by an unknown designer. For some reason, Darwinists have difficulty understanding that proving that something was designed, is not the same as proving the identity of the designer.
2) There is very good theological answers to the so called problem of evil, but all that is irrelevant to ID as a science.
I love intelligent conversations. I can understand Mr.Wells elation at the beauty of the structure of DNA's structure. I am not an I.D. However I dissaprove the basic fundamentals of this way of thinking. Science as a base, tries to prove by dissproving it's own hypothesis and theories. If a gap exists it fills it with something then tries to see if it will keep fitting through all manners of tests until they can replace it. I.D limits itself to: it is what it is... where's the fun in that?
Way to step around the problem. At 8:44 he claims that he doesn't believe in god. He's just a scientist who believes in intelligent design. He's like the political wing of the ID arguement. He's separate from all the wingnuts, cause he's just a lowly old scientist doing his scientist's work. It's funny how the more religious they are, the more they have to tell half truths to get their point across. There's no way he could admit to believing in angels and demons and still sound credible.
Yes, but only philosophically not scientifically. ID does not claim that the designer is God, only that some aspects of life and the cosmos dont just appeared to be designed but actually are. Thats it. It does not claim that the designer is all powerful or perfect. Now, as a theist, I make the philosophically assumption that this designer is God. Much like the materialist would make the philosophical assumption that the appearance of design can only come about by natural processes.
He's not stepping around the problem. The debate isnt about his personal belief in God. Its about the scientific evidence for design and whether that design can be detected or not.
I understand that, but he never once claims to have scientific evidence. Please tell me when in this debate he uses scientific evidence. If he had scientific evidence there would be no debate. It's all opinion, and It is entirely about his personal belief in God. If he didn't believe in God he wouldn't be arguing the point. God is the "Intelligence" in "Intelligent Design". Can you not see that. They can't be separated, they are the same. He is a Christian, he admits it in the debate.
Yeah, he does claim to have scientific evidence. He claims based on OUR knowledge of what an intelligence can do or cause we can then use that knowledge to infer what appears to be intelligent causes or design in nature. Its a logical argument based on the effects of intelligent causes. We can SEE or understand what intelligence does because we are intelligent beings ourselves so therefore we can recognize this when we see the same type of things in nature. This is ASIDE from a personal belief.
You also dont need to identify WHO the designer is to infer that something MIGHT be the cause of an intelligence. You just dont. I dont have know who or what made a chair to that it wasnt the process of some natural event. Is it possible? Yes, I spose. Is it likely at all? NO. If a spaceship was found floating in space by our astronauts, NOBODY would infer that it was the cause of natural forces even IF we had no idea who or what the beings were that made it and how they operated.
It's not that you have to identify who the designer is. We already know what you're going to say. God. Why are you such cowards? Why are you calling it intelligent design? Tell us what you really think. You think the God of the old testament created the universe. Why don't you say that? Are you scared? Do you think we'll call you stupid? Do you think we'll laugh in your face if you said that the God of the old testament created the universe in 7 days.You know we would, and you know why
Why can't anyone just show me a little of this scientific knowledge? Why can't anyone explain what they mean by design as opposed to create? Why do Christians insist on calling it "Intelligent Design" instead of "God Creation"? Isn't that what you actually mean when you say Intelligent design. Oh wait, I know, cause there is no scientific evidence (no seeing doesn't count as scientific) and you're smart enough to "see" that Intelligent Design sounds better. Are cowards allowed into heaven?
@MrBadham "Why cant anyone just show me a little of this scientific knowledge?" Why cant you go read a book and find out for yourself. There is plenty out there. Also, the the reason the ID movement doesnt call itself creationism is because its NOT creationism.
There is plenty out there, you just choose not to tell me what it is. You guys are boring the crap out of me. I feel like I'm talking to kid. The reason it's creationism is because this "Intelligent Designer" didn't just design the universe he also created it, right? Therefore, it's creationism.
@MrBadham A simple google search can help correct that misconception. Another thing you might want to know is that there are literally thousands of intelligent bright people who profess christianity. ID is not a movement to save christianity, its simply an obvious conclusion based on scientific observation
Im truly baffled at the lack of acceptance with this logic because if the results didnt have any sort of philosophical or personal effect on the person or persons rejecting it then I truly believe most people wouldnt have any problem with it. Common sense SCREAMS in most of our heads that MUCH of what we see appears designed. The ID movement has provided and will continue to provide a logical scientific based argument as to why that appearance really IS designed.
That SAME logic is what is applied to much of nature in that a intelligence makes MORE sense than blind natural cause. The only reason one would say otherwise is because they are dead set on anything other than a GOD/Designer being an explanation. I would agree that its not very easy to experiment on and it may always be that way, BUT that does not mean that it CANT be true and that we cant recognize and predict certain effects and features in nature if in fact, a designer was the cause.
Not very easy to experiment on? How about impossible? Say that. God is impossible to experiment on. There is no way whatsoever of experimenting on your "Theory". NONE. Do you know that? Are you aware of that? ID is not science. It is religion. Why can't you say it? Why are you so ashamed of your religion? it's embarassing for you because it makes you look stupid for believing it. Can you even get into heaven if you're embarrassed about believing in it?
First of all there are no "results", and secondly ID has never provided any logical scientifically based arguments of any kind. Their only argument is that they can't be proven wrong. ID is a last ditch effort to give Christianity just the tiniest bit of credibilty to anyone with a tiny mind. Everyone knows religion is on the way out. That's why it's become so radical and militant lately. ID doesn't even hold up in court. It's a sham. Do some research.
just a question... if you are so "true"... why can't you present me one single mistake at the wikipage about evolution?
tell me... what kind of "prediction" can you do to a random event? btw... if you are making the math around chances and possibilities... that means there is no pre-deterministic retard of a god.
Why is it that a mercedes benz will only last 20 or 50 years? That is a really crappy design. The germans did not design the mercedes benz, the mercedes benz evolved. The proof is that it is crappy design. Sometimes the car has RUST on it cor creeps sake. Why would an INTELLIGENT designer, a german, create RUST in his design?
trickyflicky1 , it's call economics. if the cars never rust or fall apart there would be less people buying cars after a while. I hope your not implying that God is playing economics with creations for believers, as the German designer are doing it for money.
raphmclee...you forget that God unlike Bill Gate is perfect. Such analogy only implies that if God was a designer then his work is equally shabby a human designer like Bill Gates. I don't think that's what u mean. Be careful with such weak reasoning.
Yea sure, your right. Just an argument against the idea that with an designer everything has to be perfect. Sure, God himself said that the creation was good, but the human decided to destroy it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
wow. I have only recently started watching debates on this issue, but it is becoming increasingly more clear that Meyer posesses a brilliant mind, and perceives and grasps the nature of this entire issue in a much bigger, fuller perspective and understanding than most. It seems to me that he fully understands, and agrees with the "general" aspects of Ward's "evolutionary" understanding. But Ward, on the other hand, is not grasping Meyer's "bigger picture" of the entire underlying original cause
Come on Ward, I am really trying to agree with you but you are making really macro level value judgements and your search engine point is totally bogus and relates much more to the politics of institutionalised science and history than it does to the more pertinent to this discussion - biological/evolutionary theory.
6Churches - Ward is a weak debater. As much as they call this a discussion, it's a unstructured debate. You should watch Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Anthony Garlyings Debates which I'm sure you probably have already.
I don't know way you used the term "coward" to reference the names I've mentioned. It would seem that such a term is obviously not true and and it betrays your intelligence. Now as for William Lane Craig, I appreciate his more intelligent interpretations but he is non-the-less working on an assumption base that is completely subjective. Such a thing can't be trusted as we can not decipher one way or the other and then again we can decipher in any which way we want.
True, maybe coward might be a bit of an exaggeration, but none the less, Richard Dawkins has refused to debate Craig on at least two occasions. And I dont think it is for the reasons he gives, such as he only debates bishops and that he is very busy. I believe that he genuinely fills intimidated by Craigs intellectual capabilities. I give credit to Hitchens, though, for taking Craig on.
Richard Dawkins was never meant to be a debater. Though he does a decent job at debating, it never was where he wanted to be. In any case, I don't see Richard as a man who's by any means intimidated just tired that's all.
Debating is an art form. It has little to do with intelligence or establishing fact or truth. It's about beating your opponent. Craig has this art down to a "T". He's a brilliant debator, but like many pro debaters he is like a second hand car salesman - Slick, compelling (on the surface) and confident. Dig a little deeper and there's really not much there.
Craig's tactic is to switch the burden of proof, and in doing so attacks a strawman version of atheism and then wheels out arguments that on the surface seem plausable but in truth rely on unsubstantiated premises. Also his arguments don't even back up his position (ie. Christianity) To top it off he misuses probablity when talking about evolution.
I don't blame Dawkins (or Gould for that matter) for not wanting to debate people such as this.
Yes, Craig is a brilliant debater. But this is not his profession, he is a teacher of philosophy by profession. I would say that he wins debates, not only because of his debating skills but because he has something that his opponents don't have: The truth. Error will never prevail against truth. I've seen his debates, and, in them, he always uses at least five positive arguments in favor of his world view.
Could you please give an example of an unsubstantiated premise given by Craig?
"I would say that he wins debates, not only because of his debating skills but because he has something that his opponents don't have: The truth. Error will never prevail against truth"
Quite a claim to say that he has "The truth"...
"he always uses at least five positive arguments in favor of his world view"
Care to list them? (Remember, he is a Christian)
"Could you please give an example of an unsubstantiated premise given by Craig?"
This premise, that the universe began to exist, goes right along with mainstream science, it is the consensus within cosmology that the universe began to exist.
Stephen Hawking reports: "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." (Stephen Hawkins and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton University Press, 1996),20.
Yes, the Big Bang brought forth our Universe .. but only as we know it. This is all we can say at the moment. It's an important distinction from saying the Universe (meaning everything it is made of) began to exist.
There's also many problems with the premise of causality both relating to the ("pre")Big Bang and indeed inside nature, as Physicist Michio Kaku points out in his critique of the Kalam argument..
Everything that universe is made of began to exist:
- PCWDavies comments,
An initial cosmological singularity. . .forms a past temporal extremity to the universe.We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime,through such an extremity. . . .On this view the big bang represents thecreation event; the creation not only of all thematter and energy in theuniverse, butalso ofspacetime itself.PCW.Davies,"SpacetimeSingularitiesinCosmology,"inTheStudyofTimeIII,ed.J.Fraser)
As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo." (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. 442.)
As you can see, the traditional big bang model demonstrates that everything that the universe is made of began to exist in the finite past. Everything, all matter, energy, space, time, and all physical laws and constants had a beginning in the finite past. Literally nothing existed before. So according to mainstream science, you are wrong my friend. The second premise of the Kalam holds up perfectly against the light of modern cosmology.
The contingency argument, that the universe needs an explanation. The cosmological argument, that the universe has a cause. The moral argument, that objective moral values exist, therefore God exists. The argument about the facts surrounding the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And finally, experience, that anyone, including yourself my friend, con experience God if you call upon him and that he can be very real apart from arguments.
Well of course the Universe needs an explanation but the argument from contingency commits the fallacy of composition in its 2nd premise.
I've already talked abit on the Kalam so I'll leave that one here.
His moral argument basically says "we feel it in our heart that morality is objective - therefore it is" I don't thnk I need to go into how bad this is. I'll add however that Craig believes in divine command thus destroys any idea of real objective morality right off the bat.
Non of the above, even if they were valid, do not show that Christianity is true. He's still left at the same point of justifying hs belief. To do this on such a flimsy argument, primarily based on 2000 year old gossip, as Jesus supposedly rising from the dead is extremely weak.
As for experience. I'm not even going to address that as a serious argument.
From here, I will just respond to your own prsonal inbox in regard to your objections of the other arguments, otherwise we will take the whole forum here.
You got to remember that these are deductive arguments that in their totallity prove Christianity true. Each argument proves one aspect of Christianity to be true: That the universe had a beginning, that the cause is trancendent, personal, and all powerful, (God). That this cause became a man in the form of Jesus Christ. That he died, was burried, and resurrected on the third day. And that you can personally experience him and know him if you open you mind and heart.
"Each argument proves one aspect of Christianity to be true: That the universe had a beginning, that the cause is trancendent, personal, and all powerful,"
You're just asserting that this cause is personal. The same can be said for "all-powerful" Just because something may have brought the universe into existence, lets say as an eg. a quantum fluctuation, does it really make it all-powerful?
"That this cause became a man.. [snip] " Really? ...REALLY?
No, the contingency argument is not guilty of committing the fallacy of composition. My friend, you make a lot of assertions without an argument to back them up. And by the way, you cant say that the universe has an explanation and remain an atheist. Granting the big bang model,there is no explanation for the bang.Typically atheists say that the universe just exists inexplicably. Think about it, nature cannot be an explanation of the universe because nature did not exist prior to the universe
Well you know what the premises are of the argument from contingency and you know what the fallacy of composition is so what more do I need to say?
Of course i can say that the Universe needs an explanation and remain an atheist! An explanation doesn't have to be a God... bloody hell!
Everything we discover is part of nature eg. if we were to discover that we are part of a multiverse that domain, where the many universes reside, would still be part of nature. Same goes for "Ghosts"...
Hey, hope you had a great weekend. Anyway, I believe that there are very good answers to your objections, but how about we focus on one subject instead of jumping from one to another. How about we focus on the Kalam for starters? Or on whatever subject you pick is fine with me.
The answer to the second premise of the contingency argument is is your personal inbox. hope to catch you there from now on
Wait, that doesn't sound like Intelligent Design, that sounds like religion, what with the erection of J.C. Can anyone experience I.D. or do they have to be Christian? How come God doesn't need an explanation? How come God doesn't need a cause? How come Christians don't have to be moral? How come they can talk about I.D. as though it's not religion, all the while lying through their teeth, and then suggest that they are somehow better people than the rest of us?
@MrBadham Homochirality proves evolution is a lie,evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence..wow really pathetic..this is why Miller failed to make life or even make building blocks of life..evolutionists have some faith in science in some imaginary evolution process that has never happened or been observed
I dont know about you, but I believe in absolute truth. Either the theist has the truth or the atheist does. I think that it is more probable, based on arguments, that the theist has the truth.
Do you realize the crap you must accept to believe in Christian Creationism? Talking snake, talking donkey, a man can live inside of a whale, angels came down from heaven and had sex with mortal women, talking flaming bush, etc. Basically, a whole lot of crazy bullshit.
HighCardWins 2 months ago
It's little "t" theory, so yes, it is a theory, an idea.
chris7777777777777 2 months ago
2:10 that's because there's an agenda to destroy ID. It's the atheist agenda to destroy anybody who is smarter and more intuitive than them. ;o)
chris7777777777777 2 months ago
lol! Peter Ward is an idiot.
chris7777777777777 2 months ago
..a mission to undermine science--a political agenda.....
odinata 4 months ago
Almost everything on intelligent design comes from one place - The Discovery Institute, an organization with a mission to have creationism taught in high schools.
estragon9 4 months ago in playlist Meyer and ward
@djarm67
1. Intelligence is quite obviously not supernatural. 2. ID is quite obviously not an argument from ignorance since it appeals to observable facts as evidence. 3. The independent specification does not have to be arbitrarily given "beforehand." In the case of biological information, the specification is functionality.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels 1 The "intelligence" proposed by the ID advocacy is supernatural. Read the trial documents. 2. Irreducible Complexity is an argument from ignorance. 3. You clearly do not understand Dembski's CSI.
djarm67 6 months ago 3
@djarm67
1. That is irrelevant. Intelligence is not supernatural, therefore invoking intelligence as an explanation does not equate to invoking supernatural intelligence. You are trying to discredit ID advocates based on their religious beliefs, which is bigotry. 2. I challenge you to demonstrate how Irreducible Complexity is an argument from ignorance. 3. Listen to Dembski's own words. Functional requirements serve as an independently given meaningful pattern.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
I just love this guy "Its NOT a theory" hahahaha stupid creationist playing word games trying to gain equality with an actual Scientific Theory!
pandorachild 6 months ago
If you went back in time, there would be a large body of work on geocetrism. Did that make it right? Copernicus was the only one who believed in Heliocentrism, so at the time he was wrong? Fallacious Reasoning...
xXShanestaXx 7 months ago
Meyer : Certainly this is a new theory -
Ward : It's not a theory.
*applause from mindless darwinbots*
Meyer : Is that an applause line - I mean really ?
Jesrael1986M 7 months ago
@Jesrael1986M
why are you regurgitating a part of the debate?
it's not a theory in the scientific sense. no data, no experiments, no results, no testable preductions, no explanatory power.....
darwinbots? what are you, 5?
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcmanustony OK - let me spell it out for you:
Imagine what you'd think if everytime the evolutionist says "The theory of evolution-" , the opponent jumps in and says "It's not a theory!", and all his supporters applaud as if it's a very clever rebuttal. Think about it.
"it's not a theory in the scientific sense. no data, no experiments, no results, no testable predictions, no explanatory power....."
Yeah, right - keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.
Jesrael1986M 7 months ago
@Jesrael1986M
let me spell it out for you:"- I don't need any help with spelling.
"Imagine what you'd think" why? your hypothetical is ludicrous. if the opponent say's it's not a theory all one needs to do is point out the monumental body of evidence, the predictions made, the confirmation of those predictions from empirical date and case closed. ID can do none of this.
"if it makes you feel better"- keep sneering if you need to but it's nothing to do with feelings. it's about evidence.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcmanustony
ID Proponent: DNA. Genetic code. Language. Commands. Information. Intelligent design.
Darwinist: Its not a theory!
ID Proponent: Cambrian Explosion. Pattern of Explosions. Cosmic Fine-Tuning. Intelligent design.
Darwinist: I's not science!
ID Proponent: Complexity of life. Irreducible complexity. Specified Complexity. Intelligent design.
Darwinist: Dogma!
ID Proponent: Molecular Machines. Molecular motors. Cellular factories. Intelligent design.
Darwinist: Religion!
Jesrael1986M 7 months ago
@Jesrael1986M Deluded much? I cant tell if your ignorant or facetious, don't be mad because you picked an ideology based on faith alone, we didn't and we have all the evidence. ID make no predictions whatsoever and is totally useless, unless your trying to fill seats in a church. Ps do you even know what a theory is?
pandorachild 6 months ago
for the uneducated evolutionist debater. Theory:a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. Intelligent design is certainly a theory, this man has no idea what he's even talking about.
micah1116 8 months ago
@micah1116 You really know nothing.A scientific theory is indeed a group of propositions to explain natural phenomena BUT these propositions must be based on empirical evidence and MUST have a predictive capability.Evolution is a scientific theory-ID is not.Deal with it and get your facts straight.
Stevoukos 8 months ago
@Stevoukos ID is based on empirical evidence. We OBSERVE that information only comes from an intelligent source, it is most defintely empirical. On the contrary, do you have any empirical evidence that information does not come from intelligence? ID predicts that we will find interdependence in biological systems, such as in the cell. I will elaborate in my next comment.
micah1116 8 months ago
@micah1116 "We OBSERVE that information only comes from an intelligent source" where do you see that?And also please define information.
Stevoukos 8 months ago
@Stevoukos What??!!! Typical evolutionist games I see. Do I really have to tell you that information only comes from intelligence? Really??? Go look in a dictionary for the definition of information. The DNA molecule contains the instructions to construct proteins. INSTRUCTIONS, instructions only come from intelligence. This is common sense, stop playing games and trying to re define terms to save yourself.
micah1116 8 months ago
@micah1116 You use the term information extremely wrong.Information by your definition is a HUMAN construction.The only non human information that we know is DNA.So it WOULD be wrong to assume that a "supernatural being" created this information.Yes indeed HUMAN information NEEDS an intelligence for it to occur.DNA is NOT a human construct nor was it created by man.So basically you are just assuming that the laws that apply to human constructs apply to non human-That's obviously wrong.
Stevoukos 8 months ago
@Stevoukos you see what you just did? You ADMITTED information comes from intelligence, and then said DNA didn't! You are going against the empirical data. Information does not need to come from a human, simply intelligence.
micah1116 8 months ago
@micah1116 You are quote mining like crazy.First of all chickens HAVE TEETH GENES which are de activated.If a creator made the chicken in the form they have today we would expect them to have the genes they need to be the way they are.Having genes deactivated proves common ancestry and not intelligent design.Same thing goes for whales have Leg genes.
Finally I admitted that HUMAN information comes from intelligence.DNA IS NOT HUMAN INFORMATION.So you can't apply that law on DNA.
Stevoukos 8 months ago
@Stevoukos Quote mining? What?? What did I quote mine? Again chickens do not have the genes for teeth, look at the embryo pictures yourself, they aren't teeth! Whales do not have leg bones, you do not keep up with modern science. Those bones you speak of, are used in reproduction, they hold the penis in place during reproduction and every mammal with a penis has them, they are not legs. How does gene expression prove common ancestry?? That is the dumbest thing I've EVER heard.
micah1116 8 months ago
@micah1116 I can only hope that you deliberately miss the point of the argument.I would hate to think that a man would be so ignorant.Chickens HAVE deactivated teeth genes.These genes are obviously NOT used by chickens since they don't have teeth.So the question is : Where did they come from.Common ancestry explains it by saying that a common ancestor of chickens HAD teeth.That's it.ID cannot explain this fact.
Same things goes for whales.They don't have legs.They have DEACTIVATED leg genes.
Stevoukos 8 months ago
@Stevoukos you must have the common sense of a mudd puddle. Phenotypic plasticity does not contradict ID, in fact is a process that supports it. What you are saying is the equivalent of this, why do dogs have the genes for long hair, and short hair, brown hair, and white hair. It's gene expression. Whales do not have the genes for legs. Do you understand what gene expression is? If your claim were true, those genes could be turned on either naturally or artificially, yet this hasn't happened.
micah1116 8 months ago
@micah1116 bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/449/Interlude%203/Archosaur%20Teeth%20in%20Chick%20Mutant.pdf
Please check this one out.Scientists artificially altered chicken genes and they started growing teeth.
Stevoukos 8 months ago
@Stevoukos I'm laughing so hard right now! Chickens do not have the genes for teeth. Here is the nail in the coffin for you, and I bet you didn't know this. Did you know birds cannot produce enamel? So please tell me oh wise one, how chickens have the genes for teeth, or ever did have teeth, when they can't even produce enamel! Also, don't think I forgot about your "whale of a tale". You can't provide me a source for your whales have the genes for legs claim.
micah1116 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@micah1116 Did you even bother reading the article?
Stevoukos 8 months ago
@micah1116 Oh and about enamel.Enamel is a tooth substance.If you don't have teeth you don't have enamel.Simple as theat.Chickens NEVER had teeth.Their common ancestor had.God it's like talking to a 5 year old.
Stevoukos 8 months ago
@Stevoukos LOL! now you change your story, I see how it works. You claimed so many times that chickens had teeth and were shown to grow teeth in the lab. Chickens cannot produce enamel, thus never had teeth. What is your evidence that chickens have a common ancestor... other than a chicken? And there's a flaw in your statement. So by your logic, if someone loses all their teeth, they can't produce enamel, since they don't have teeth? Why keep the genes, and not the ability to produce enamel?
micah1116 8 months ago
@micah1116 "many times that chickens had teeth".I never claimed that chickens have teeth.I said they had deactivated teeth genes (thus having no teeth).The article I provided (I guess you didn't bother looking at it) proves that artificially altering these genes can cause chickens to grow teeth.The fact that chickens have genes that don't work IS NOT explained by Intelligent design.Stop quote mining.Enamel comes to be through the ossification.Since teeth are bones if you don't have teeth (cont)
Stevoukos 8 months ago
@Stevoukos Quote mining? Again WHAT?? LOL "proves that artificially altering these genes can cause chickens to grow teeth." You just claimed it again! LOL. How can they grow teeth, when they can't produce enamel? Intelligent design and gene expression have no conflict. Are you telling me the fact that genes turn on and off, such as dogs having brown and white hair, is somehow contrary to intelligent design? You have got to be joking. Gene expression happens all the time!
micah1116 8 months ago
@micah1116 I already answered that.If you don't get that Enamel is not something that is produced with teeth and that lack of teeth in vertebrates means lack of Enamel I can't help you.
I've responded to your claim a million times.If you don't get it refresh your memory on Histology and Embryology as well as Cell Biology.
We'll pick up this discussion then.
Stevoukos 8 months ago
@Stevoukos not produced with teeth?? so teeth are not made of enamel? If your not going to debate me in chat, then I see no use of continuing. By the way, I need no help from you on cell biology, I happen to understand, atleast the basics.
micah1116 8 months ago
@micah1116 (cont) you don't have enamel.
Your argument proves your arrogance.Enamel is not a protein.It mostly consists of hydroxylapetite.It's a form of bone tissue in other words.And as I said : Chickens can't form teeth (=bones) and thus CANNOT form the tissue of teeth (part of which is enamel).
Stevoukos 8 months ago
@Stevoukos I don't have enamel?? I have to agree with you on the fact that chickens can't produce teeth. Teeth are not bones by the way. I'd like to debate you tonight, if you don't want to, just say so, instead of avoiding my question.
micah1116 8 months ago
@micah1116 sciencedaily.c om/releases/2006/05/060523092737.htm
This is what scientists say about the loss of legs in whales and dolphins.
These articles are literally everywhere.From Natural Geographic to Nature.
Stevoukos 8 months ago
@Stevoukos I'm getting a page moved/under construction message. I have seen many of the articles you speak of. You will find no scientist claiming whales have the genes for legs, and there are so many problems with whale evolution to begin with. I'd be glad to have a discussion with you in the chat room, just send me a message if you'd like to debate tonight, and I'll give you the link. I'd much rather do that, than talk in here.
micah1116 8 months ago
tell you what, lets see your source that whales have the genes for legs, I'd love to see what scientists claim this.
micah1116 8 months ago
@Stevoukos (continued) Such as in the cell, there exists interdependence that ID predicts. In order for the cell to function, you need proteins, to construct proteins, you need DNA which contains the instructions on how to construct the proteins. You need a ribosome as well to perform protein synthesis, but to have a ribosome, you need RNA and proteins. Explain that one! In order to have a protein, you need the ribosome which it itself is comprised of proteins! Only ID can explain this.
micah1116 8 months ago
@micah1116 Oh really?You are failing on one basic thing like all Creationists.This has NOTHING to do with evolution.Absolutely NOTHING.Abiogenesis is a completely different subject that has absolutely no relations with Evolution.
But let me give you the basics of Abiogenesis since you went down that road.The first molecule that was used as a genetic material was the RNA.That is because RNA has the power to self-replicate WITHOUT the use of proteins.DNA on the other hand is far more stable(cont)
Stevoukos 8 months ago
@Stevoukos It most certainly does, how do you expect organisms to acquire new morphological structures? You need new information. And your very wrong about RNA. RNA is decoded by very specific proteins, that are themselves coded for by the information in RNA. So again interdependence and irreducible complexity. In addition your starting with information, which again, only comes from intelligence.
micah1116 8 months ago
@micah1116 You are wrong.It has been proven and documented that RNA can be used as a catalyst to it's own duplication.Look it up.
Stevoukos 8 months ago
@Stevoukos Again, RNA needs to be decoded by very specific proteins, which themselves are coded for by the information in RNA, you have a huge problem, that you can't overcome.
micah1116 8 months ago
@micah1116 "RNA needs to be decoded by very specific proteins".You are wrong.Ribonucleotides can be formed extremely easy.
Stevoukos 8 months ago
@Stevoukos tell you what, if you want we can debate this in a chat room where creationists and evolutionists debate all the time, if you would like to do this, send me a PM, and I can give you the link, and we can discuss this, maybe tonight if you'd like.
micah1116 8 months ago
@micah1116 This was proven by Thomas Cech.So it IS wrong to assume that all enzymes are proteins.
Stevoukos 8 months ago
@micah1116 (cont) due to the fact that one -OH group from the RNA has been replaced with a hudgrogen.So DNA being more stable was chosen to be the genetic material.Now different organels and increase in genome happened due to fussion of two different cells.This could happen for many reasons : a)By-products of one can be used by the other or b)This "hybrid" is energetically favorable.
So my turn now.If ID is correct : Why do chickens have teeth genes?
Stevoukos 8 months ago
@Stevoukos (continued) If the chickens changed their food source, it's possible these genes would turn off if they didn't need the teeth, this is a known process called phenotypic plasticity. Unfortunately, your fantasy is not reality, and chickens do not have the genes for teeth, and even if they did, it's basic biology not evolution.
micah1116 8 months ago
I guess the debate here is not what is truth, but what is science. I mistakenly thought human beings generally wanted to know the truth.
OysterLava 8 months ago
The atheist in this video really is not worthy to debate Stephen Meyer. He contributes nothing to the discussion.
TheBloodPardon 10 months ago
@TheBloodPardon that's because there is very little to respond to someone that tells you "the most logical answer is that there is a god that you can't see can't touch, can't anything but must just believe it's there". Not science yesterday, not today, never will, regardless of how many fancy words you use for it. Plus, why does it have to be the judeo-christian god?? why is it not Thor? why is it not Zeus? Any ID person has evidence for that? In fact, it's probably a spaghetti monster!
nessunnick 9 months ago in playlist Evolution Intelligent Design debate Meyer V Ward 1of11
Peter Ward is not a good debator. Meyer's assertions could have been easily refuted from the get go.
Fishqueen1972 10 months ago
There is something very important that gets overlooked in this battle. The fact is, both sides may be right. The problem is, both sides are entrenched in believing that the other side is wrong. The design crowd, because it is wrapped up in religiosity, must deny that speciation happens and that homo sapiens sapiens has ancestry in homo erectus, australopithecus, et al. The materialistic indeterminism crowd is ignoring that there may be physical laws that guide evolution along a rational course.
alachabre 1 year ago
@alachabre The biggest problem at all is that the most trenchant supporters on both sides ignore the scope and grandeur of the universe in favor of anthropomorphic interpretations. God is Jesus and thus a man. Science is the pinnacle of achievement, and thus there is nothing greater than man. The best scientists and the most pious clergy are the ones who are truly humble, and realize the universe is not here for the glory of man. It is truly a good life that seeks God through knowledge.
alachabre 1 year ago
@alachabre In this case both sides cannot be right. The ID crowd attempt to suggest that ID creationism is science. Scientists explain why ID creationism is not science. The problem for ID creationism is that it isn't science as they are not adhering to the scientic method (methodological naturalism). As a side note: ID creationism does not deny that speciation occurs. That is the domain of many of the other versions of creationism.
djarm67 1 year ago
Comment removed
alachabre 6 months ago
@djarm67 I deleted yesterday's comment, because it referred to Prof. Ward's eloquence, and unfortunately as the debate went on, his eloquence faded rapidly. This is the key to ID debate - the ID side possesses (pardon the pun) master debaters, that's part of their modus operandi. Moments like the question presented at 6:30 in video #7 of this series must be pounced upon, to draw the clear conclusion of why ID is not science: rigorous and repeatable experimentation is not taking place.
alachabre 6 months ago
@djarm67
No scientist has successfully explained why intelligent design is not science.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels Yes they have. They have even demonstrated it in a court of law. Read the transcript here talkorigins (dot) org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover (dot) html
djarm67 6 months ago
@djarm67
I am aware of the Dover trial, thank you. Surely I don't have to tell you that science is not decided by court cases. Judges have no scientific training.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels Being aware of the trial and reading the transcript to see how legitimate scientists clearly demonstrate that Intelligent Design is not science are two different things.
djarm67 6 months ago
@djarm67
I have read extensively about the trial and know many of the arguments used to rebut the scientific credentials of intelligent design and they all fail miserably. Which ones in particular are you referring to?
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels Invoking the supernatural violates methodological naturalism, Irreducible Complexity is an argument from ignorance and the specified information in complex specified information is never specified beforehand.
djarm67 6 months ago
@alachabre ID says there was Conscious Direction of our evolution at best and Real Evolution says it Random.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild Agreed, and my personal opinion is that it is not random but directed, but not consciously. There are yet to be discovered physical laws, at the quantum level or even beyond, that are guiding everything. The intelligence to discern these laws may be forever beyond the level of understanding of the human species. We do the best we can via the tools of science and theology and philosophy, but the Universe itself will always far surpass any life form in level of intelligence.
alachabre 6 months ago
wow Meyer didnt answer the question AGAIN, "If there is an intelligent designer, why isn't everything perfect " amswer: "ummmmm its theological". "god made us prideful and is punishing us". Meyer is getting his ass handed to him.
pandorachild 6 months ago
I can see from these comments why this country is sliding down the crapper. Zero understanding of what a scientific theory is, and why ID fails as a scientific theory. Zero critical thinking. And zero research into the "evolution" of ID and the Discovery Institute, whose DNA is pure fundamentalist Christian. I give us maybe thirty years until the current crop of Texas Holy Jeebus-idiocated kids are running things and we're a 3rd world Christian Taliban shithole.
47f0 1 year ago
@47f0
you are extremely bigoted and appear particularly unintelligent.
You seem threatened by the idea that someone might think there is actually design in life that Dawkins himself declared "appeared designed".
Wow how scary, life might be designed. This should be stamped out as a scientific theory because you dont agree with it...thats how science works isnt it?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth - "life might be designed" isn't scary - there are always idiots who will believe the earth is flat. What's scary is when they get into the classroom. ID has one, and only one argument "It's complicated - therefore GOD (oops - I meant an intelligent designer". Well, sorry guys, but lightning and thunder used to be too complicated - that's why we invented Zeus and Thor. We know better now. Ignorance of complex phenomenon has never been a historically good reason to justify a creator.
47f0 1 year ago
"It's not a theory! It's not a theory! It's not a theory! It's not a theory!" ROFL!
Jesrael1986M 1 year ago
Meyer is being disingenuous when he confronts the question of whether the designer must create perfectly, simply because the designer he believes in, is said to be all powerful, knowing and perfect, thus, whatever intelligent design seems to exist in the universe as a whole, it automatically leaves his "God" in the cold.
IntelligentProbe 1 year ago
5:55 "he was god, he changed the nature of the basic stuff of life."
Meyers goes on to say "brilliant design engineering".
these evolutionists are so stuck in their ways that they cant even see that they are claiming that a man becomes God because he changes the basic nature of 'stuff'. God who they dont believe exists.
Yet what they are saying is that it takes intelligence to change this stuff and it is sheer brilliance.
We can only imagine the brilliance of the designer of life itself.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth - Well, you're going to have to keep imagining the "brilliance" of the designer of life, because that designer was either a moron or a sloppy drunk. The brilliance in sorting out the mess that is in our genes is in wading through all the leftover crap. You used to have a coat of fur - like every other monkey. You still carry the genes to produce a tail - which happens more often than you know. You still have the genes to produce an egg yolk - utterly useless in placental mammals. Sheesh.
47f0 1 year ago
@47f0
"because that designer was either a moron or a sloppy drunk."
from a guy who cant even work out how the design works let alone make something himself.
If u believe it happened thru random mutation then you should be able to get some random chemicals of life, throw them together & create some life...cant be too hard can it? if a sloppy drunk could do it??
"You used to have a coat of fur - like every other monkey."
prove that.
"You still carry the genes to produce a tail"
nonsense
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth - Yep. You still have the genes to give you a coat of fur, just like every other monkey. Every human grows this useless coat of fur in the womb - then sheds it. You also had a tail - early in fetal development it was about 1/6th of your body length. You could also develop an egg yolk - a gift from your reptile ancestors, except that your copies of the VIT1 and VIT3 genes are damaged with premature stop codons. These are all leftovers that you would expect from evolution - not design.
47f0 1 year ago
@47f0
seriously your nonsense u sprout here is like listening to a guy who watched a con exodus video and is repeating it like it was fact.
There is no crap left in our genes and scientists who labelled it junk are being embarrassed as the function of the 'junk dna' is being discovered.
ID produces better results when used as a basis for scientific investigation.
The question 'what is its purpose' is always better than 'this must have evolved this way'.
it is always a dead end
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth - not talking about "junk" DNA at all. Your tail, your embryonic fur, your leftover yolk genes are not what is called junk DNA. We know what they are and what they do - or used to do. ID is the true dead end. "ZOMG - it's too complicated for us puny humans - therefore there is a creator". Being a dummy is no argument for the existence a superior being of any sort. ID has produced nothing, absolutely nothing of value. Evolutionary science on the other hand has literally saved lives.
47f0 1 year ago
always these scientists resort to theological arguments against intelligent design theory.
Stephen Meyers owns this guy in the debate and the other guy rarely if ever actually debates science.
arsjth 1 year ago
DNA is designed!!!!!...all man does is copy information
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Intelligent Design will destroy the myth of EVOLUTION.
algadykhalifa 1 year ago
hahahah, funny how ID is not a theory. But Macro-evolution is something more then a hypothesis?
Buahahahaha
tetrahydroscope 1 year ago
I wonder how many proponents of ID would be ok with this alleged designer being an alien race vs a deity.
dangle66 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dangle66
"I wonder how many proponents of ID would be ok with this alleged designer being an alien race vs a deity."
thats because you are completely ignorant of the theory of intelligent design.
it makes no prediction as to who the designer is.
Only an evolutionist sees the appearance of design and concludes it is accidental and as a result of a series of fortunate events.
arsjth 1 year ago
So if the plague was not part of the design, at what level does the designer have control?
leeroynaggins 1 year ago
@leeroynaggins
2 points.
1) Theological concerns does not invalidate the scientific detection of design. ID does not prove God, or even a good person. It just proves that live was designed by an unknown designer. For some reason, Darwinists have difficulty understanding that proving that something was designed, is not the same as proving the identity of the designer.
2) There is very good theological answers to the so called problem of evil, but all that is irrelevant to ID as a science.
Hannodb1961 1 year ago
I love intelligent conversations. I can understand Mr.Wells elation at the beauty of the structure of DNA's structure. I am not an I.D. However I dissaprove the basic fundamentals of this way of thinking. Science as a base, tries to prove by dissproving it's own hypothesis and theories. If a gap exists it fills it with something then tries to see if it will keep fitting through all manners of tests until they can replace it. I.D limits itself to: it is what it is... where's the fun in that?
Kawaiibat 1 year ago
Comment removed
Kawaiibat 1 year ago
wow the guy on the left is such an ass
zelda0521 2 years ago
Why? Because he's right?
MrMZaccone 2 years ago
@MrMZaccone I don't like his attitude.
zelda0521 2 years ago
There's a real misunderstanding about what a theory is in science, and what it is in popular conversation.
vatoencabronado 2 years ago
Way to step around the problem. At 8:44 he claims that he doesn't believe in god. He's just a scientist who believes in intelligent design. He's like the political wing of the ID arguement. He's separate from all the wingnuts, cause he's just a lowly old scientist doing his scientist's work. It's funny how the more religious they are, the more they have to tell half truths to get their point across. There's no way he could admit to believing in angels and demons and still sound credible.
MrBadham 2 years ago
When the Darwinist cannot refute the argument he resorts to personal attacks, typical.
99percentatheist 2 years ago
I'm not a Darwinist, and if you are 99 percent atheist, you are 100% theist, by the way.
MrBadham 2 years ago
True, I am a theist.
99percentatheist 2 years ago
Do you see the connection between theism and ID?
MrBadham 2 years ago
Yes, but only philosophically not scientifically. ID does not claim that the designer is God, only that some aspects of life and the cosmos dont just appeared to be designed but actually are. Thats it. It does not claim that the designer is all powerful or perfect. Now, as a theist, I make the philosophically assumption that this designer is God. Much like the materialist would make the philosophical assumption that the appearance of design can only come about by natural processes.
99percentatheist 2 years ago
He's not stepping around the problem. The debate isnt about his personal belief in God. Its about the scientific evidence for design and whether that design can be detected or not.
Hustada 2 years ago 2
I understand that, but he never once claims to have scientific evidence. Please tell me when in this debate he uses scientific evidence. If he had scientific evidence there would be no debate. It's all opinion, and It is entirely about his personal belief in God. If he didn't believe in God he wouldn't be arguing the point. God is the "Intelligence" in "Intelligent Design". Can you not see that. They can't be separated, they are the same. He is a Christian, he admits it in the debate.
MrBadham 2 years ago
Yeah, he does claim to have scientific evidence. He claims based on OUR knowledge of what an intelligence can do or cause we can then use that knowledge to infer what appears to be intelligent causes or design in nature. Its a logical argument based on the effects of intelligent causes. We can SEE or understand what intelligence does because we are intelligent beings ourselves so therefore we can recognize this when we see the same type of things in nature. This is ASIDE from a personal belief.
Hustada 2 years ago
You also dont need to identify WHO the designer is to infer that something MIGHT be the cause of an intelligence. You just dont. I dont have know who or what made a chair to that it wasnt the process of some natural event. Is it possible? Yes, I spose. Is it likely at all? NO. If a spaceship was found floating in space by our astronauts, NOBODY would infer that it was the cause of natural forces even IF we had no idea who or what the beings were that made it and how they operated.
Hustada 2 years ago
It's not that you have to identify who the designer is. We already know what you're going to say. God. Why are you such cowards? Why are you calling it intelligent design? Tell us what you really think. You think the God of the old testament created the universe. Why don't you say that? Are you scared? Do you think we'll call you stupid? Do you think we'll laugh in your face if you said that the God of the old testament created the universe in 7 days.You know we would, and you know why
MrBadham 2 years ago
Why can't anyone just show me a little of this scientific knowledge? Why can't anyone explain what they mean by design as opposed to create? Why do Christians insist on calling it "Intelligent Design" instead of "God Creation"? Isn't that what you actually mean when you say Intelligent design. Oh wait, I know, cause there is no scientific evidence (no seeing doesn't count as scientific) and you're smart enough to "see" that Intelligent Design sounds better. Are cowards allowed into heaven?
MrBadham 2 years ago
@MrBadham "Why cant anyone just show me a little of this scientific knowledge?" Why cant you go read a book and find out for yourself. There is plenty out there. Also, the the reason the ID movement doesnt call itself creationism is because its NOT creationism.
Hustada 1 year ago
@Hustada
There is plenty out there, you just choose not to tell me what it is. You guys are boring the crap out of me. I feel like I'm talking to kid. The reason it's creationism is because this "Intelligent Designer" didn't just design the universe he also created it, right? Therefore, it's creationism.
MrBadham 1 year ago
@MrBadham A simple google search can help correct that misconception. Another thing you might want to know is that there are literally thousands of intelligent bright people who profess christianity. ID is not a movement to save christianity, its simply an obvious conclusion based on scientific observation
Hustada 1 year ago
@Hustada
NO it's not, it's a last ditch effort to save christianity
MrBadham 1 year ago
@MrBadham
Saving something by being dishonest....gotta love ID
ThieleM 1 year ago
Im truly baffled at the lack of acceptance with this logic because if the results didnt have any sort of philosophical or personal effect on the person or persons rejecting it then I truly believe most people wouldnt have any problem with it. Common sense SCREAMS in most of our heads that MUCH of what we see appears designed. The ID movement has provided and will continue to provide a logical scientific based argument as to why that appearance really IS designed.
Hustada 2 years ago
That SAME logic is what is applied to much of nature in that a intelligence makes MORE sense than blind natural cause. The only reason one would say otherwise is because they are dead set on anything other than a GOD/Designer being an explanation. I would agree that its not very easy to experiment on and it may always be that way, BUT that does not mean that it CANT be true and that we cant recognize and predict certain effects and features in nature if in fact, a designer was the cause.
Hustada 2 years ago
Not very easy to experiment on? How about impossible? Say that. God is impossible to experiment on. There is no way whatsoever of experimenting on your "Theory". NONE. Do you know that? Are you aware of that? ID is not science. It is religion. Why can't you say it? Why are you so ashamed of your religion? it's embarassing for you because it makes you look stupid for believing it. Can you even get into heaven if you're embarrassed about believing in it?
MrBadham 2 years ago
@MrBadham ID is not religion. you are assuming that the designer is god, but meyer plainly states that ID doesnt seek to point to a specific designer
glabblegill 2 years ago
First of all there are no "results", and secondly ID has never provided any logical scientifically based arguments of any kind. Their only argument is that they can't be proven wrong. ID is a last ditch effort to give Christianity just the tiniest bit of credibilty to anyone with a tiny mind. Everyone knows religion is on the way out. That's why it's become so radical and militant lately. ID doesn't even hold up in court. It's a sham. Do some research.
MrBadham 2 years ago
just a question... if you are so "true"... why can't you present me one single mistake at the wikipage about evolution?
tell me... what kind of "prediction" can you do to a random event? btw... if you are making the math around chances and possibilities... that means there is no pre-deterministic retard of a god.
transtlantic 1 year ago
MAYER is the real scientist.
levonet33 2 years ago 2
Parasitic OFF of? what the fuck is this man on about? Wow.
johnthekeane 2 years ago
Why is it that a mercedes benz will only last 20 or 50 years? That is a really crappy design. The germans did not design the mercedes benz, the mercedes benz evolved. The proof is that it is crappy design. Sometimes the car has RUST on it cor creeps sake. Why would an INTELLIGENT designer, a german, create RUST in his design?
trickyflicky1 2 years ago 4
trickyflicky1 , it's call economics. if the cars never rust or fall apart there would be less people buying cars after a while. I hope your not implying that God is playing economics with creations for believers, as the German designer are doing it for money.
baleno808 2 years ago
Why isn't everything perfect?
Possible Answer: Look at MS Windows. Apparently intelligent Designers made thousand mistakes in the design of the Code
raphmclee 2 years ago 6
raphmclee...you forget that God unlike Bill Gate is perfect. Such analogy only implies that if God was a designer then his work is equally shabby a human designer like Bill Gates. I don't think that's what u mean. Be careful with such weak reasoning.
baleno808 2 years ago
Yea sure, your right. Just an argument against the idea that with an designer everything has to be perfect. Sure, God himself said that the creation was good, but the human decided to destroy it.
raphmclee 2 years ago 2
Yes, but ID does not deposit God as the designer. It does not claim that the designer is perfect.
99percentatheist 2 years ago
I'm well aware of ID's Claims.
baleno808 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wow. I have only recently started watching debates on this issue, but it is becoming increasingly more clear that Meyer posesses a brilliant mind, and perceives and grasps the nature of this entire issue in a much bigger, fuller perspective and understanding than most. It seems to me that he fully understands, and agrees with the "general" aspects of Ward's "evolutionary" understanding. But Ward, on the other hand, is not grasping Meyer's "bigger picture" of the entire underlying original cause
jungleboiyt 2 years ago
Come on Ward, I am really trying to agree with you but you are making really macro level value judgements and your search engine point is totally bogus and relates much more to the politics of institutionalised science and history than it does to the more pertinent to this discussion - biological/evolutionary theory.
6Churches 2 years ago
6Churches - Ward is a weak debater. As much as they call this a discussion, it's a unstructured debate. You should watch Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Anthony Garlyings Debates which I'm sure you probably have already.
baleno808 2 years ago
You should watch all those mentioned coward at the name of William Lane Craig.
99percentatheist 2 years ago
I don't know way you used the term "coward" to reference the names I've mentioned. It would seem that such a term is obviously not true and and it betrays your intelligence. Now as for William Lane Craig, I appreciate his more intelligent interpretations but he is non-the-less working on an assumption base that is completely subjective. Such a thing can't be trusted as we can not decipher one way or the other and then again we can decipher in any which way we want.
baleno808 2 years ago
True, maybe coward might be a bit of an exaggeration, but none the less, Richard Dawkins has refused to debate Craig on at least two occasions. And I dont think it is for the reasons he gives, such as he only debates bishops and that he is very busy. I believe that he genuinely fills intimidated by Craigs intellectual capabilities. I give credit to Hitchens, though, for taking Craig on.
99percentatheist 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins was never meant to be a debater. Though he does a decent job at debating, it never was where he wanted to be. In any case, I don't see Richard as a man who's by any means intimidated just tired that's all.
baleno808 2 years ago
@99percentatheist
Debating is an art form. It has little to do with intelligence or establishing fact or truth. It's about beating your opponent. Craig has this art down to a "T". He's a brilliant debator, but like many pro debaters he is like a second hand car salesman - Slick, compelling (on the surface) and confident. Dig a little deeper and there's really not much there.
[cont...]
RPFS2008 2 years ago
[...cont]
Craig's tactic is to switch the burden of proof, and in doing so attacks a strawman version of atheism and then wheels out arguments that on the surface seem plausable but in truth rely on unsubstantiated premises. Also his arguments don't even back up his position (ie. Christianity) To top it off he misuses probablity when talking about evolution.
I don't blame Dawkins (or Gould for that matter) for not wanting to debate people such as this.
RPFS2008 2 years ago
Yes, Craig is a brilliant debater. But this is not his profession, he is a teacher of philosophy by profession. I would say that he wins debates, not only because of his debating skills but because he has something that his opponents don't have: The truth. Error will never prevail against truth. I've seen his debates, and, in them, he always uses at least five positive arguments in favor of his world view.
Could you please give an example of an unsubstantiated premise given by Craig?
99percentatheist 2 years ago
"I would say that he wins debates, not only because of his debating skills but because he has something that his opponents don't have: The truth. Error will never prevail against truth"
Quite a claim to say that he has "The truth"...
"he always uses at least five positive arguments in favor of his world view"
Care to list them? (Remember, he is a Christian)
"Could you please give an example of an unsubstantiated premise given by Craig?"
Ok: "The Universe began to exist"
RPFS2008 2 years ago
This premise, that the universe began to exist, goes right along with mainstream science, it is the consensus within cosmology that the universe began to exist.
Stephen Hawking reports: "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." (Stephen Hawkins and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton University Press, 1996),20.
99percentatheist 2 years ago
Yes, the Big Bang brought forth our Universe .. but only as we know it. This is all we can say at the moment. It's an important distinction from saying the Universe (meaning everything it is made of) began to exist.
There's also many problems with the premise of causality both relating to the ("pre")Big Bang and indeed inside nature, as Physicist Michio Kaku points out in his critique of the Kalam argument..
RPFS2008 2 years ago
Everything that universe is made of began to exist:
- PCWDavies comments,
An initial cosmological singularity. . .forms a past temporal extremity to the universe.We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime,through such an extremity. . . .On this view the big bang represents thecreation event; the creation not only of all thematter and energy in theuniverse, butalso ofspacetime itself.PCW.Davies,"SpacetimeSingularitiesinCosmology,"inTheStudyofTimeIII,ed.J.Fraser)
99percentatheist 2 years ago
As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo." (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. 442.)
99percentatheist 2 years ago
As you can see, the traditional big bang model demonstrates that everything that the universe is made of began to exist in the finite past. Everything, all matter, energy, space, time, and all physical laws and constants had a beginning in the finite past. Literally nothing existed before. So according to mainstream science, you are wrong my friend. The second premise of the Kalam holds up perfectly against the light of modern cosmology.
99percentatheist 2 years ago
here's Craig's five arguments:
The contingency argument, that the universe needs an explanation. The cosmological argument, that the universe has a cause. The moral argument, that objective moral values exist, therefore God exists. The argument about the facts surrounding the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And finally, experience, that anyone, including yourself my friend, con experience God if you call upon him and that he can be very real apart from arguments.
99percentatheist 2 years ago
Well of course the Universe needs an explanation but the argument from contingency commits the fallacy of composition in its 2nd premise.
I've already talked abit on the Kalam so I'll leave that one here.
His moral argument basically says "we feel it in our heart that morality is objective - therefore it is" I don't thnk I need to go into how bad this is. I'll add however that Craig believes in divine command thus destroys any idea of real objective morality right off the bat.
[cont..]
RPFS2008 2 years ago
[...cont]
Non of the above, even if they were valid, do not show that Christianity is true. He's still left at the same point of justifying hs belief. To do this on such a flimsy argument, primarily based on 2000 year old gossip, as Jesus supposedly rising from the dead is extremely weak.
As for experience. I'm not even going to address that as a serious argument.
RPFS2008 2 years ago
Comment removed
99percentatheist 2 years ago
Comment removed
99percentatheist 2 years ago
Comment removed
99percentatheist 2 years ago
Comment removed
99percentatheist 2 years ago
Comment removed
99percentatheist 2 years ago
From here, I will just respond to your own prsonal inbox in regard to your objections of the other arguments, otherwise we will take the whole forum here.
99percentatheist 2 years ago
You got to remember that these are deductive arguments that in their totallity prove Christianity true. Each argument proves one aspect of Christianity to be true: That the universe had a beginning, that the cause is trancendent, personal, and all powerful, (God). That this cause became a man in the form of Jesus Christ. That he died, was burried, and resurrected on the third day. And that you can personally experience him and know him if you open you mind and heart.
99percentatheist 2 years ago
"Each argument proves one aspect of Christianity to be true: That the universe had a beginning, that the cause is trancendent, personal, and all powerful,"
You're just asserting that this cause is personal. The same can be said for "all-powerful" Just because something may have brought the universe into existence, lets say as an eg. a quantum fluctuation, does it really make it all-powerful?
"That this cause became a man.. [snip] " Really? ...REALLY?
RPFS2008 2 years ago
Comment removed
99percentatheist 2 years ago
No, the contingency argument is not guilty of committing the fallacy of composition. My friend, you make a lot of assertions without an argument to back them up. And by the way, you cant say that the universe has an explanation and remain an atheist. Granting the big bang model,there is no explanation for the bang.Typically atheists say that the universe just exists inexplicably. Think about it, nature cannot be an explanation of the universe because nature did not exist prior to the universe
99percentatheist 2 years ago
Well you know what the premises are of the argument from contingency and you know what the fallacy of composition is so what more do I need to say?
Of course i can say that the Universe needs an explanation and remain an atheist! An explanation doesn't have to be a God... bloody hell!
Everything we discover is part of nature eg. if we were to discover that we are part of a multiverse that domain, where the many universes reside, would still be part of nature. Same goes for "Ghosts"...
RPFS2008 2 years ago
As far as the moral argument is concerned, let me ask you a question: Do you believe in objective moral values?
99percentatheist 2 years ago
First of all, to leave no doubt or wiggle room, define precisely what you mean by "objective moral values"
RPFS2008 2 years ago
Hey, hope you had a great weekend. Anyway, I believe that there are very good answers to your objections, but how about we focus on one subject instead of jumping from one to another. How about we focus on the Kalam for starters? Or on whatever subject you pick is fine with me.
The answer to the second premise of the contingency argument is is your personal inbox. hope to catch you there from now on
99percentatheist 2 years ago
@99percentatheist
Wait, that doesn't sound like Intelligent Design, that sounds like religion, what with the erection of J.C. Can anyone experience I.D. or do they have to be Christian? How come God doesn't need an explanation? How come God doesn't need a cause? How come Christians don't have to be moral? How come they can talk about I.D. as though it's not religion, all the while lying through their teeth, and then suggest that they are somehow better people than the rest of us?
MrBadham 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrBadham Homochirality proves evolution is a lie,evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence..wow really pathetic..this is why Miller failed to make life or even make building blocks of life..evolutionists have some faith in science in some imaginary evolution process that has never happened or been observed
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
I dont know about you, but I believe in absolute truth. Either the theist has the truth or the atheist does. I think that it is more probable, based on arguments, that the theist has the truth.
99percentatheist 2 years ago