31. With Bill Dembski - Intelligent Design, Creation

[DonswatchingtheTube]

Just study how livings things work and how they reproduce, repair and maintain themselves. Then ask yourself has man with an intelligent mind ever produce anything that can compare to blind undirected chance? I know some people say its not chance, but it is.

Or ask yourself, why would I think that some else is stupid for believing that designed looking things might have a designer.

[Mathenaut]

Intelligent Design is just Creationism without the word 'Creationism'.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@Mathenaut So what if it was? How would it change the details proposed in the debate? The ID proposals are public domain. This line of reasoning is a red herring, a smokescreen. You either believe that nature on its own created itself or that there was a designer that created it.

[Mathenaut]

@DonswatchingtheTube

A smokescreen for what? Creationism isn't science, it's theology. As is ID.

Additionally, false dichotomy. The designer is essentially the same as 'creating itself', so that's ultimately only one proposal you've made. Where you propose an unfounded, invalid certainty; you're criticizing positions that don't make up answers.

You also seem to be equating abiogenesis with cosmology, which is a common mistake made my creationists.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@Mathenaut You make boast as to what is science, but I'm asking you where everything comes from. this is what science deals with. No ones confusing cosmology with aboigenesis. It follows logically that in your paradigm, living things must have come from non living things initially. You can't only start with life for the word evolution. What word would you use to explain where the original non living material came from?

[DonswatchingtheTube]

Science we deals with it in the present, that is a complete creation with all its complexity. You have to extrapolate back in time to explain the past. You are trying to find out initial causes. When you've gone back to point zero what is the initial cause?

[Mathenaut]

@DonswatchingtheTube

That you can't discern evolution from abiogenesis does not credit or flatter your understanding of the science you are speaking against. It only begs to question what else you don't understand, which explains why you do not know.

In the end, abiogenesis remains an unknown, to the extent that is has not been directly observed, as evolution has.

Regardless, even if abiogenesis is demonstrated false, that does not prove your god.

[finxoner]

Evolutionist: How is ID different from Creationism? Its just religious not scientific

ID scientist: Well we are only looking at complexities found in nature, fine-tuning of the universe, and the scientific evidence that suggests intelligent design.

Evolutionist: God freaks blew up the twin towers!! Death to religions!!!

[TheMrgoku1985]

@finxoner

If ID is not religious than

Who is the designer,how did the designer do it, and why can we not examine this designer?

Evolution OPSERBED progressive patterns in fossils and markers in genes we can SEE SHOWING change over time.

Evolution=answering questions with testable evidence

ID=I don't know who or what did it so I am going to assert a creator with no identity or explanation to how it did it or its existence.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@TheMrgoku1985 ID is ultimately religious, but that's only because of the historical injustices against scientific ideas that don't conform to the materialistic evolutionary history.

All these other comments are contested at each level in there own right.

"ID=I don't know who or what did it so I am going to assert a creator with no identity or explanation to how it did it or its existence." This applies both ways, just say given enough time (Time outside of the observations).

[TheMrgoku1985]

@DonswatchingtheTube

Fossils+dating methods that can correct other dating methods errors+Genetic markers=testable evidence for evolution we CAN SEE no faith needed.

We are talking about faith based assertion vs a testable hypothosis that we CAN SEE.

None of his bull passed Peer review and the predominate arguments of his have been answered he just reworked his arguments and raised the bar. We give straight answers and show our work he just argues there is no contest here.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@TheMrgoku1985 What peer review? The argument is out there. Just demonstrate that it arrived from a step-by-step process. Non-life to life with out intelligent input. This HAS NOT been demonstrated. Its taken on faith that it happened.

Fossils, dating methods and all the things that you've listed have all been shown to contradict the argument that you're making. Don't confuse evolutionary story telling with the observable science. You infer a starting point that was not observed.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@TheMrgoku1985 What is the contest? Explain how the original living cell came into being. I'm not impressed by anything short of that. ID wins hands down from what I've read.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

Why do pro-evolutionist recognise the appearance of design? They say things like "it might look designed, but we know that it wasn't" or "its an illusion of design" Science is not the issue, its purely a hatred of God.

I just watched a BBC programme on What Happened Before the Big Bang? All the top scientist dissatisfied with it, acknowledged an event prior to that initial staring point, but as long as you don't say God, any theory was okay to put forward.

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube

" its purely a hatred of God."- oh, grow up.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@mcmanustony Really? How so?

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@mcmanustony This text comes to mind:

Romans 1:21-22 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube

ooh ooh......a reduntant ill mannered bible quotes. why don't you try to behave better?

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@mcmanustony This a a contextual quote based on your comments, or lack of, concerning the fact that the reason many reject the very thought of allow a deity in to the equation, is that they just don't like God. I thought the text spoke for itself. So just for you: John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube

thanks for the additional redundant bible quotes but i've read it cover to cover and it has no bearing on the issues you pretend to address.

got any science quotes?

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@mcmanustony It has every bearing on what is being discussed.

"got any science quotes?"

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

These make an appeal for an intelligent initial cause.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

Your falsely defining the scientific terms. You can't stick to them when explaining initial causes.

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube

all you demonstrate is that you have no the faintest clue about life science and the best you can manage is to lazily chant stupid insults from the bible.

what a specatuclar specimen you are.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@mcmanustony No, I think your comments apply to you more than it does me. You volunteer nothing, but just waste space with your repeated insults. I have no idea what you are ranting about.

Have you ever read any of the material, either for or against your evolution paradigm?

I quote the Bible (without shame to you), I quote your man Dawkins, I direct you to other Atheist who see the argument in a more balanced way. Nothing will please you.

Stop taking up the space. Goodbye.

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube

calling a dishonest person dishonest is no insult. where did you quote dawkins? he is not my man btw. you repeat the misrepresentation of his position by serial liar ben stein.

yes- i've read carroll, zimmer, dawkins, myers, shallit, moran, shermer, rosenhouse and many others and for the religious anti science position I've read behe, dembski, johnson and many others.

your "fool" bible quote shows that you need to grow up and learn some manners.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@mcmanustony

"religious anti science position:" They all would beg to differ, as would I.

"grow up and learn some manners." This is a bit rich from you sir.

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube

of course they would disagree that's because each of them is a liar. take a break from your remedial biology lessons and read the DI wedge document and see the lies for yourself.

my manners are fine. like all civilised people I find hurling stupid bible quotes a sign of poor manners and even poorer understanding of the science.

try to be a better more honest person.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@mcmanustony Manners? I think your postings speak for them self. You seem to think that I care about them. I don't.

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube

tell me sparky, where are my manners at fault? I called you dishonest and you are. i called you a fool and you are. I called you ignorant and you are. where's the problem?

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@mcmanustony "got any science quotes?"

Dr. Bradley Monton: My book, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, is now out!

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube

"Dr. Bradley Monton:"- a phoilosopher. keep trying. read any books by, say, a biologist?

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@mcmanustony Educate yourself. Your problem seems to your need to defend your evolution paradigm. You seem scared to see it with its short comings. Like I said before, goodbye!!

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube I an very well educated- a process you'd be unfamiliar with. with 250,000 research papers in the primary literature evolution requires no defending from me. though with a child in school- the integrity of science education needs defending from ignorant zealots like yourself.

try reading biology sometime- it might help you learn, you know, biology.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@mcmanustony 250,000 research papers? Demonstrate a period in history when the cell was simpler than it is today. I've ask you to do this. A simple request that a quarter of a mllion papers should conclusively prove.

Carroll, Zimmer, Dawkins, Myers, Shallit, Moran, Shermer, Rosenhouse and many others haver never done this. Yet you claim that someone who logically conclude that designed looking things aren't just an illusion, but the word of an actual designer to be ignorant.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@DonswatchingtheTube As for the word evolution. It just means change, its not exclusive. You just suffix or prefix it to describe the change that your referring to.

E.g. Biological evolution.

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube

" Demonstrate a period in history when the cell was simpler than it is today." the earliest prokaryote fossils are 3.5 billion years old, the earliest eukaryote fossils are 2.1 billion years old. I think that's that covered.

"a quarter of a mllion papers should conclusively prove."- they do, conclusively. not the authors fault creationists are too stupid to understand the science.

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube

here's an actual quote from philosopher Bradley Monton (since you failed to supply any) "while I’m no expert on biology...."

so, which experts on biology DO you read?

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@mcmanustony This is a mute point, as anyone could read the scientific papers (250,000?) and still conclude whether it has addressed the criteria for the evolution paradigm. Bradley Monton, believes in evolution, as did many who now reject it. I once believed that theory. You know nothing about me.

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube

"You know nothing about me"- nor do I wish to. the term is "moot point" and it's nothing of the sort. the papers in question come from diverse areas of science- from microbiology, molecular biology, biogeography, genetics, mathematics, biophysics, paleontology and all reach one conclusion that you've not a shred of evidence to oppose. evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is the only scientific explanation of those facts. grow up and deal with it.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@mcmanustony Really? What am I supposed to be dealing with? What evolution are you talking about? So you can prove a step-by-step explanation how the cell came into existence and how it reproduced the next generation? That's impressive. When is the book or paper 250,001 coming out that will put us all at rest?

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube

"What am I supposed to be dealing with?"- the fact that science has a testable set of hypotheses that explains the diversity of life on this planet and you and your creationist bretheren have not.

science doesn't deal with proof you poor fool. the evidence either supports a hypothesis or it doesn't. in this case it does- ALL of it.

how many of the papers have you read? it's none isnt it. be honest. name some of the biologists whose work you've read. can you?

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@mcmanustony More hot air sir, no demonstration of how a cell formed.

Your right science is testable and the data is on the side of complex working structures, I really don't know what science you are interpreting to fit your theory. All these papers that you've claimed to have read have not revealed what you allude to. I can't imaging any one who believe in ID losing any sleep over your rants. I wont be.

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube

no hot air from me sparky. the data is in favour of evolution- all of it.

I made no claim about my reading of the scientific literature. where do you think I did? it is written for professional scientists and though thats my background, I'm not a professional scientist.

how do you know what the research literature contains? you've read precisely none of it.

ID advocates sleep secure in the knowledge that they lost the argument decades ago. sweet dreams!

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube "no demonstration of how a cell formed"- you've yet to name a single biologist other than dawkins, whose position you cheerfully lie about, whose work you've read. rather you sit in a steaming pile of your own dung sneering at those who actually do the work. what do you know about origin of life research? what evidence do you have pointing away from the current theories and in favour of "godddidit"?

I'll give you a clue- the answer is "none"

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube

"the data is on the side of complex working structures"- does anyone here have any idea what, if anything, this tripe means? what are you talking about?

any chance of naming a few biologists and their work you've read......

thought not.

[Hufflewaffle]

So Intelligent Design simply reaffirms that we, as forms of life, can recognize other forms of life. It doesn't explain the 'dust'.

What exactly is the point of this so-called 'research' again?

[nomesbirdy]

I don't like how these videos seem to be all plugs for different books

[hatemorethanyou999]

I don't know how something happened, therefor I will postulate a super natural being. This is all fine and dandy, but you are through being a scientist when you do this,

[bayreuth79]

If William Dembski thinks that creation means the radical causing of existence of whatever exists, then why is he so determined to find evidence for "special" creation within the world itself (irreducible complexity, etc)? God is the reason why there is something rather than nothing- he therefore explains being as such-; but he is not a rival explanation to scientific explanation- and this is Dembski's mistake!

[WMsReligion]

Vote this up...the soundtrack on this video is too loud. Can't hear the guy speak

[matlalaefcm]

By the way, even Richard Dawkins believes in ID. Watch the movie Expelled. He just comes with the rather exotic "panspermia" hypothesis, which has an alien civilization seeding the universe with living cells that eventually initiates the process of evolution on planet earth. Wow, science at its best. But then Dawkins is not a Christian, so lets listen with muted respect...

[IloveYOUviruses]

@matlalaefcm shhhh you can't say that Dawkins supports ID, you don't want him to be expelled do ya?

[scottpastry]

@matlalaefcm panspermia is supported by some excellent new evidence :)

[mcmanustony]

@matlalaefcm

"even Richard Dawkins believes in ID"- dont tell stupid lies.

"Watch the movie Expelled"- I have, it was dishonest rubbish.

"Dawkins is not a Christian, so lets listen with muted respect."- muted respect? so those who don't share your weird beliefs only deserve "muted" respect. in the civilised world repsect is earned by the content of ones behaviour not fealty to a cult. you should try visitng the civilised world. you might even like it.

[matlalaefcm]

@mcmanustony Hi Tony, I don't think you went to the trouble to follow what I am saying. Dawkins believes intelligent aliens 'seeded' the universe with living cells - INTELLIGENT aliens DESIGNED or planned evolution. Get it? INTELLIGENT DESIGN? Hallo....

[mcmanustony]

@matlalaefcm

"'I don't think you went to the trouble to follow what I am saying"- I did. you're lying. "Dawkins believes intelligent aliens 'seeded' the universe"- wrong. dawkins allowed the possibility that life was seeded on THIS planet by aliens. this only begs the question of how did intelligent aliens evolve.

like I said- try to be more honest in how you present other's views. dawkins does not believe in intelligent design and you know he doesn't. saying he does is a lie. clear?

hallo?

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@mcmanustony You don't need to defend Dawkins, He said what he said. Its only his beliefs, or not. No one made him say what he said in the Expelled Video, he's written many books, over a few decades now, you would have thought by now, that he would have had a better explanation that the one he volunteered.

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube

no, I don;t need to defend dawkins any more than you have to pretend you're interested in the truth. his reputation as a brillian scientist is secured and will remain long after that sordid vulgar little film is forgotten. if you want better explanations quit sneering and try reading some of the books you refer to.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@mcmanustony Read his books? I have done. I'm not impressed by them. The argument has moved on since he last wrote a decent attempt to explain the science. If you believe that your brain could have evolved by random undirected processes, that's up to you, but its a bit rich, trying to insult other peoples intelligence with it. Who are you trying to convince?

Like I said, Dawkins has written many books claiming to address the question he was asked. How is that my fault?

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube

"I have done"- the you know expelled was a dishonest hatchet job don't you.

'I'm not impressed by them"- find someone who gives a toss about what impresses you and have fun.

natural selection is not remotely random.

the one with the task of convincing is you. the ID schtick has been utterly rejected by the entire scientific community and rightly so.

the lies of Expelled might be good enough for you but then you don't seem too interested in honest debate.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@mcmanustony What are you going on about? My challenge, remains the same: Just demonstrate how the first living cell arrived from a step-by-step process. Where is this science that demonstrate a simpler system over a complex one? I think you'll find that the data points to systems that far out-strips and performs better than anything that intelligent man has devised. I don't care which side you quote from, the science shows it. It seems, the more they look the more complex it is.

[mcmanustony]

@DonswatchingtheTube "I think you'll find that the data points to systems that far out-strips and performs better than anything that intelligent man has devised"

i think I've found that you haven't actually read much of the science at all.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@mcmanustony Name something!

[DonswatchingtheTube]

You haven't actually said anything. Its just a rant.

[BillKiernan]

@matlalaefcm " Dawkins believes intelligent aliens 'seeded' the universe with living cells" no he doesn't, not at all. he was QUOTE MINED in a slick editing job in the propaganda piece "expelled," which seems to have worked because you bought it. read what Dawkins ACTUALLY says about these things, and you'll see he does not believe that at all. he was using that as an example of how things could have been created, but without a god, NOT as his belief.

[matlalaefcm]

I am just amazed how often the opponents of ID play the man rather than the ball - in debate after debate their opponents fail to address the issue at hand - whether data available today (especially in microbiology) is better explained by mindless, directionless - blind - processes, or by the involvement of intelligence.

Software engineers stand amazed at what they seen in the DNA code - and I stand amazed at those who refuse to accept that this points at intelligent design.

[matlalaefcm]

So, Dembski is a Christian and, horror of horrors, he even wrote a Christian book?!

I assume that, from now on, Christians are not allowed to take part in the scientific debate?

[mcmanustony]

@matlalaefcm

"So, Dembski is a Christian and, horror of horrors, he even wrote a Christian book?!

I assume that, from now on, Christians are not allowed to take part in the scientific debate?"

why do you write this drivel. the problem with dembski is that his "work" has been comprehensively debunked and he systematically misrepresents the work of his betters in a dishonest attempt to support his religious views.

your "assumption" is laughable as many christians could explain to you.

[SgtDICTION]

He's a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute...a charlatan.

[TheLastHeroofYT]

Dembski is a Christian jsut for the record.

He clarifies that in his new book ID Uncensord 2010

and some of his other books as well maybe all of them.

Also he wrote a Christian book I believe.

[MathematiclObjection]

Hmmm...he's an intelligent man. But, I'm assuming that he does NOT Believe in the same Designer spoke of many times in Holy Bible?

[UncleIrv]

@MathematiclObjection

Incorrect. He does believe in the biblical creator. He's just acknowledging that it is out of the purview of the science of Intelligent Design to posit who or what the designer is.