....so...when are you selling the Brooklyn Bridge? I hear you got a (snicker) great deal on it!!
silly atheist twit.
Oh...and yet another mind-reading atheist!!!.....He says I'm a, what was it now?....a "creationist"...
silly chump!!
But, I guess for someone who is STUPID enough to really think he can categorically rule out the possibility of the existence of God mind-reading should be a piece of cake to you , huh Sparky?
@AtheistToothFairy people that advocate for a god are a troll....because nobody has ever proven it....just dungeons and dragons wishfull thinking...and i have no idea why anyone would wish such a thing to be true....but if you wanna play "life of brian: and run around hoping to give god a handjob...well i rather burn in an immaginary hell....or take the mercy of no longer existing after death....if i were god...i would grant EVERYONE mercy to not exist after death
David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at such universities as Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Universite de Paris.
@Galmozzi99 Let's think this through. Evidently he cannot hold a job. Evidently he can move from one discipline to another like we change apartments and is considered an expert in everything. I am an academic. I have NEVER known anyone to do what he claims. This is simply impossible within the univeristy system. He is not telling the truth about biological science or physics or math. This man is an intellectual fraud and an opportunist.
"Berlinski, a man whose ignorance is only overshadowed by his arrogance" pls elaborate? you seem to be so eloquent in speech, and obvious intelligence....where was, or better yet....what was it that berlinski said that was so damming to his intellect? cant wait
@Alexdurrant7 No... he is not a "foremost physicist' and if you look for his contribution to physics (where he has no degree) you will find a total vacuum. This man is a self-serving intellectual fraud. Go ahead and google for his contributions to physics and see what you get. Go ahead and find his papers and publications. He talks like someone who has learned all he learned from repeated viewings of the Discovery Channel.
@xxgg55 Berlinski is far too fond of criticizing others on the basis of logical fallacy and then using the same fallacy to "prove" his own point. If he's not a complete retard he's a marvelous facsimile.
@hernes111 "reatrded"??? Is that what you get when you retread a retard? In any case all I called him was a facsimile and the rest of my statement is quite demonstrable by just watching enough videos of the man.
I think Berlinski's point is that it is unreasonable. Since then no one has been able to systematically prove their theory and shed that it is extremely probable, hence it widely being accepted. Based on the amount of people demonizing him and attacking him based on reason, it goes to show that Berlinksi may very well be right: that evolution is held strong in the scientific community under a political agenda. I must say he has balls to take on the heat of the status quo.
That you can't prove Darwin's theory of evolution and if you did you'd be able to explain it, much like a builder could explain, through a clear understanding of the facts, how one things turns into the next. Furthermore, the fossil record can't explain in and of itself how one thing turns into the next. It shows variety of creatures that have existed millions of years ago who have since then become extinct. Fossil record does disprove a young earth. Explain me the proof, will you?
@grant1r That depends on what you mean by "proof". Obviously a scientific theory is never "proven" that's not science. The theory of evolution however, is extremely well supported by evidence and is virtually incontrovertible in a general sense.
Man I hate to see when people with exceptional oratory skills use them to further nontruth.
If only Berlinski had the hold on biology that he does on the English language, then he would be right up there with Dr. Krauss, Dr. Scott, and Dr. Dawkins. Instead he uses his time and distinguished oratory skills to degrade the body of knowledge mankind has built. Tragic.
Thumbs up if you agree: Responsible, respected scientists like Lawrence Krauss should declare a BOYCOTT of debates with HACKS from the Discovery Institute.
David Berlinski simply doesn't belong on the same stage with him, or any serious scientist.
@GetMeThere1 haha because they get OWNED during debates? Theists OWN atheists....haha I won't debate theists if I were an atheists....theists are logical and have truth on their side!!!
The Darwinian evolutionist believes the descendents of a prehistoric reptile gradually morphed into a human being after pausing to become rodents for a while.
The Darwinian evolutionist believes human beings have a fish ancestor, an amphibian ancestor, a reptile ancestor, a rodent ancestor... etc. They just can't name any of the species, nor prove the human ancestry of each, nor convince a rational mind that their fairy tale is true.
The Christian creationist believes that the world was created 14 years ago, Moses saved two of every animal on a giant wooden boat sailing on the magma sea where it rained lava for 140 days and nights, and then died on the cross for your sins that you acquired when Jesus ate the apple.
@Markus77x7 Actually its been proven over many different avenues ( fossil record, genetics, mitochondrial DNA) that in fact this is true and we can name the different species involved.
Evolution is a fact, its verifiable, observable, and correct.
ID is silly and stupid and doesn't even have a hypothesis that conclusions can be drawn from.
ID is useless as a science, and stupid as a philosophy.
Berlinski seems like one of the more reasonable ID theorists. Still, he is ass-backwards if he thinks the hand could not have evolved by natural selection.
@PaGaNM0nK everybody here :-P Why couldn't Hitch have somebody more serious to debate. Each debate might be the last. I'd like to see him and Prager or Dinesh again.
Christians of Christianity, depending on the sect-denomination-incarnation, worship Jehovah, Jesus, saints/angels, the Blessed Virgin, the Holy Trinity and/or the Godhead. Religion is what it has always been: a reconciliation with metaphysics. Human logic & perception, reason & rationality are finite, therefor, as human logic dictates, they are inadequate in explaining the infinite.
I'm still not understanding how Intelligent Design is a hypothesis. What exactly IS the hypothesis?
There is no explanation whatsoever in ID. It is apparently "creationism by other means." It explains nothing, it's simply "goddidit" with a little more time than special creation.
I have not seen any of this "frothing at the mouth" but I would declare that a superstition-based "explanation" (which is no explanation at all) is not scientific and deserves no respect from any scientists, period.
It's pretty interesting how hypocritical you intelligent design people are. Why don't you stop flying in airplanes, stop using your computer, stop using anything technological, and wait for the almighty fucking god to design it for you?
@fictive They funny thing about your statement is that all these things you (airplanes, computers, technology) are designed. Why don't you Darwinians stop flying in airplanes, stop using computers, or anything technological, and wait for one to come about by random chance?
@Victoruto I see where you're going. You're just using my argument to provide an unanswerable counter-argument, because what I believe, I believe, and what you believe, you believe. In my opinion, a really cheap and childish way to argue. Molecules did evolve into life by random chance, but luckily some of us have the brain to invent things, like airplanes and computers. It's what's called technology and science, things that are based on facts, not blind belief like you do.
@fictive The point is to show that your own "childish" argument is reversible. If you are going to ask your opponents to do absurd things—as though it would be consistent with their worldview—then you ought to apply the same criteria on yourself.
"Molecules did evolve into life by random chance"
And you claim that I have blind belief? Whats requires blind faith more than believing that the complex diversity found in the biological world stems from sheer dumb chance?
@Victoruto In the 6000 years you believe the world existed, no, molecules can't evolve into complex biological structures. But over millions of years, yes, they can. Put the right molecules together, and you'll find amazing things will happen. I can easiliy tell you what requires more blind faith, but I guess you already know what I'm going to say about that. You can't know that there is a god, that's the difference. We rule out facts instead of blindly believing in them. This is the best theory
@fictive What makes you think I believe the world is 6000 years old?
Adding lot's time to the impossible does not make it possible. It would be just as miraculous for a man to turn into a butterfly over a long period of time than if he did instantly. Darwinism would be just as unlikely if it took a trillion years. It is the mechanisms that cannot account for the vast variety of irreducibly complex biological structures.
@Victoruto I refues to argue with you any further. The scientific evidence for evolution is clear, you don't have any scientific evidence AT ALL for what you are claiming. Show me ONE. There's a reason why intelligent design is not accepted among the ranks of scientists. ID is an excuse to give you meaning in life, to make you special. Too bad there is no meaning, and that we're not very special in the grand scale of things.
@fictive What am I claiming? The burden of proof for evolution lies on the evolutionist. If the evidence is so clear then why is it so hard to find? The reason why ID is not accepted is because it threatens materialistic naturalism—a philosophy of life.
Tell me this: What is the evolutionary advantage of a partially developed sex organ?
@Victoruto Your question is both irrelevant and easy to answer. An obvious genetic dysfunction that happens once in a while. We do not live in a world where everything is perfect. If you did a bit of searching, you would find many papers published about evolution. You have still not shown any evidence. I'm ending this discussion.
@fictive Yes, end the discussion. This seems to be the reasoning of Darwinists when tough questions are raised. What you seem to misapprehending is that a "genetic dysfunction" of a sexual organ serves as no survival value. Not until it is fully developed and functional, along with its counterpart (male and female), does it serve a purpose. How does Darwinism explain this?
@Victoruto Nobody wants to "end the discussion" when tough questions are asked. Science is inherently a process of asking questions, and searching for answers. It isn't the questions that are asked (although many of them are just plain wrong, ignorant of the facts of evolution), it's the way the creationists and ID proponents are attempting to answer them. If they employed the scientific method, they would not receive the criticism they do.
@Victoruto in science we work primarily with evidence, not "proof" as such. There is probably more evidence for evolution than any other theory.
ID doesn't threaten materialistic naturalism, it simply doesn't adhere to it as a theory or hypothesis must in order to be scientific.
Good question. Ask an evolutionary biologist. And if they don't know, it's probably one of those questions that has yet to be answered. Science is about answering questions - nobody said they were already all answered.
@Victoruto Evolution isn't dumb chance. That was the whole point of Darwin's theory. See, long before Darwin people noticed that species evolve. This is something that had been observed for centuries, but only recently did we have the scientific method developed enough to start answering questions such as "why?
Lamarck and others came up with some hypotheses, but Darwin's theory proved to be the correct one.
By the way, evolution is not abiogenesis. Two different things.
@notthecheatr Chance lies at the heart of Darwinism, for random mutation and natural selection are its functioning mechanisms. There is no teleology in random mutation but only the minuscule chance of a beneficial mutation occurring and then passing on its genes to offspring.
Take light-sensitive cells: Prior to these were cells that were not light-sensitive—they were unaware of light so to speak. The only way they could come to detect light is by sheer dumb chance.
@Victoruto not quite. Random mutation isn't the primary driver of evolution, genetic recombination is. If you're wondering how something random could produce anything meaningful, just ask yourself how your parents managed to produce you. Sexual reproduction is anything but deterministic.
Natural selection is not a random process, though. That's why it works. If you have 100 cells and 2 of them are light sensitive, the light sensitive ones will be favored to survive.
@notthecheatr You still need to get 2 light-sensitive cells in the first place—purely random!
My parents' sexual reproduction is anything but random. For one it begs the question by assuming that the evolution that produced their sex organs, brains, etc., is teleological. Secondly, are you really claiming that their mating was accidental? Even rape is is not accidental.
It all starts with random mutation; without this natural selection can't even get started.
@Victoruto No, not "purely" random, obviously as I already stated the reproductive process is somewhat random but not entirely. Obviously light-sensitive cells was an extremely useful innovation.
Your parents sexual reproduction was random in the sense that when the sperm cell meets the egg cell and meiosis occurs, a number of very random processes occur to mix up the genetic material contributed by both parents. The origin of the brain and sex organs is irrelevant to sexual reproduction.
@notthecheatr Light-sensitive cells were useful indeed, but because something is useful it does not mean that it is teleological. If I randomly stumble across $20 on the sidewalk, it will surely be useful. Do you not find it a just a little absurd as to how cells can become light-sensitive by chance without any knowledge (to speak anthropomorphically) of the existence of light?
How can the development (or origin) of sex organs, and a brain to operate them, be irrelevant to sexual reproduction?
@Victoruto well considering light is a direct stimuli that can actually cause physical changes to the cell. so i would contend such a thing could occure that creatures/cels that respond to light source potentially have a better chance of survival in certain circumstances than those who dont. more accurately survive long enough to duplicate/breed..also don't need 2 cells unless they aren't asexual.
@mistereveready I have not argued that light cannot be useful or beneficial to survival. It certainly is. But the transformation from a non-light sensitive cell to a light sensitive cell cannot be explained by survival value. It still must evolve from one to the other by pure dumb chance. Prior to sensing light, the cells were completely unaware of such a thing.
@Victoruto wasn't implying you did if i came off that way, my point was that light has physical effects on cells and as such encourage development. so the concept of what is "aware" comes into play. technically i'd think everything is "chance", evolution is a bit of a snowball effect. natural selection isn't quite pure dumb chance. but notthecheatr answered that part already. mutations aren't always beneficial, can piggy back on those that are.
@mistereveready You are right that natural selection does not function by chance, but natural selection is only one of the mechanisms of Darwinism. Basically, the whole point I am making is that chance lies at the foundation of Darwinism. In order for natural selection to get going, random mutation must occur.
@Victoruto natural selection can work with only the natural variation that sexual reproduction provides. Any variation that provides a reproductive advantage no matter what the cause was. Horizontal gene transfer for example.
Your comment that 'Darwin's knowledge of science is 150 years old' doesn't make any sense either. You can't think of any scientific discoveries that occured before Darwin? For example, gravity? The age of a theory has nothing to do with whether or not it is correct.
Berlinski is a consummate charlatan who caters to the cretinized herd of earnest consumers of pseudo-science. He provides them with the pseudo-scholarly veneer they so desperately crave to lend legitimacy to the obvious falsehoods they hold so dear.
If only the academy were more concertedly marginalizing of his ilk and theologians who employ similar sleight of hand.
Dr David Berlinski is a genius. He managed to prove scientifically and mathematically that evolution is a fallacy. With the availability of modern scientific knowledge today, many other prominent scientists in the world have also proven scientifically that evolution (one species evolving into another) is preposterous and impossible. Darwin's knowledge of science is more than 150 years old and is based on speculation and fantasy.
I doubt that. Send me a link to the paper he published "proving" that evolution is wrong.
Note that evolution is not just a single idea. Common descent is obviously a big part of it, and even Behe, for example, accepts common descent, and offers 'proofs' of common descent in his books. One might be able to mathematically show that the mechanisms of evolution are tentative or insufficient, but genetics proves common descent. So your smug assertions wouldn't even fly with ID proponents.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I agree, Berlinski RULES. People who "intellectually" dismiss him never answer his basic questions... which is simply "don't give me a hand-waving response, I want a quantitative answer." Berlinski SO wrocks... he's so right.
@klank67 Only because you got so many thumbs up for such a small comment, do you have a doctorate's degree in anything yet or are pursuing one? Just curious...
@progenyofprodigies Berlinski does not have a doctorate in any scientific field. He's a doctor of philosophy. I don't think that really qualifies him to refute what an evolutionary biologist has to say about evolution.
@jib1000 It wasn't private, it was simply addressed to an entity that WAS not you, IS not you and will not be...you. Unless you have more than one username on youtube that just so happens to be klank67, i offer my sincerest apologies.
@progenyofprodigies Berlinski does not have a doctorate in any scientific field. He's a doctor of philosophy. I don't think that really qualifies him to refute what an evolutionary biologist has to say about evolution.
@klank67 ..lets see science make RNA without the help of activated subunits and bases taken from living sources, and synthesizing machines..and breaks the law of biogenesis..you morons stubbornly think this is possible..
@klank67 You think chemicals are just put into a test tube and you have RNA LOL..everything is? carefully watched at just the right TEMPERATURES!!! activated..with subunits to start it and bases along with million dollar synthesizing machines.to COPY information just to get it started!!!..these are CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS!!! How dumb can you be?.. RNA arising...LOL more like plagiarizing information ..cut? and paste !!!...LOL!..but all this would happen on a primordial earth..LOL
@5tonyvvvv 'You think chemicals are just put into a test tube and you have RNA'
No, that would be pretty close to creationism. Thought I could understand how nucleotide synthesis would be indistinguishable from magic to some, real organic chemists understand it just fine.
@klank67 Even with all the Proteins and DNA and RNA ...What would you do with it??..from there you have zero molecular machines, zero assembly instructions...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube. to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..there is no natural process.to make a cell evolve ..it would be easier to build the space shuttle..blindfolded while riding a unicycle
@5tonyvvvv ... you're 98% chimpanzee whether you like it or not ... and if all you're going to do is try and build 'strawman' arguments maybe farming is a better occupation than bioligist for you ;)
@klank67 don't bother arguing with 5yonyww, he is a cut and paste man. he cuts and paste the same five paragraphs all over YouTube. He knows nothing of anything.
@klank67 LOL..I see you are just another lost atheist moron,that has no clue what homochirality is..You have ZERO testable biochemical chemistry, to back up your ridiculous assumptions...You have a great argument.."you evolved"..Ok ..Dummy..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
both krauss and berlinski now shit about science, krauss has doble speach with the theist and the atheist. i dont find him sincere ,(of course berlisnki too).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Larry Krauss is such an antichrist Jew. All he is about is attacking Christianity. It would be a hate crime if it were the other way around. Why does Arizona State University allow such conduct? Is Arizona State University antichrist, too?
Classic Darwinian evolution is presumed to take place very gradually, with a steady and slow change of organisms over time. Punctuated equilibrium replaces this slow change with long periods lacking any change at all, mixed with relatively short periods of rapid change.
this alternate concept of evolution is based on the fossils we dont find and on genetic mechanisms that have never been observed
So where are all the peer-review papers on punctuated equilibrium which you feel fits right in?
Eldredge, N. and Stephen J. Gould. 1972. Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. In Schopf, Thomas J.M. (ed.), Models in Paleobiology, pp. 82-115. Freeman, Cooper and Co., San Francisco. (File size: 6.2 MB, 35 pages
that was the earlier paper - rereleased in 77:
Gould, S.J. and N. Eldredge. 1977, Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology 3 (2): 115-151. (File size: 2 MB, 37 pages)
search for punctuated equilibrium and you can read 80 different articles on the topic.
I still don't understand what your point is - do you feel that one or both are incorrect? or that they could not have both taken place during the history of life on this planet? or do you assert that because there is not a unified theory that it must all be wrong?
...who didn't come up with the bogus theory to cover up the flaws of the bogus theory of evolution?
hahaha I think that after that comment I am done - - your horse blinders of true faith are too much for me. I do appreciate the laughs though - you are quite entertaining!
past 1972 for what? do you even have a point that you are arguing or do you just keep moving the goal till everybody is so confused what you are blabbing about that they stop talking to you?
did you go to pubmed and read any of those articles (80 of them)? no? why not? are you afraid information contained therein may shatter your creationist-discovery institute globe?
best I can do for what? to provide you information on a paper on punctuated equilibrium? if you want later papers dealing with the subject try pubmed for more recent papers...as mentioned several times already.
that aside from information gathering, what is your point? you seem to favor ID over evolution but have nothing meaningful to say on the subject apart from asking about punctuated equilibrium and going on about "information".
"if you want later papers dealing with the subject try pubmed"
Just as I suspected, a list of papers that barely touch on the subject which is probably why you stuck with the one from 1972
"that aside from information gathering, what is your point"
Other than what I've already stated regarding Punctuated equilibrium and gradualism, It's not surprising that since 1972 there are such few peer-review articles that actually deal with the topic.
Satan being a figure in the Christian fairy tale...sheep being a term used to describe believers of Christianity due to their ability to thoughtlessly follow the teaching of their theocratic leaders.
I don't know that what you called me actually makes any sense....do you?
snowflakes is 'doing what comes naturally', given the properties of the system. There is no need for any external information or programming to be added to the system—the existing properties of the water molecule and the atmospheric conditions are enough to give rise inevitably to snowflake-type patterns.
I just want to rise above all of this nonsense... for all of you who are insulting... forgive me, but what the hell is wrong with you?
For those who have been honest and said what they have felt, and those who have responded respectfully to others instead of replying like a complete uncivilized apes, I respect you.
"apply the how question to the god hypothesis and you are stuck with....I donno...he just did."
Think for a second, You don't know how evoulution dunnit. Because it happened over millions and millions of years when nobody was looking! That's your "science"
LOL - nice hovindism there chief! "You weren't there, how do you know that it happened?"
we do know how evolution dunnit, just like a detective knows how a crime was committed even though he wasn't there...take the evidence available, come up with an idea as to the what's and how's and then test your idea to see if it has merit.
religious approach - claim some random deity did something, scream blasphemy when people challenge your assertions....
now please tell me why you can't have both . . . why do you think that they contradict or cancel each other out?
First tell me how how punctuated can be falsifiable. Secondly, how many peer -review papers there more less. Better yet tell me where I can find them online.
no I won't - you are the one who initially brought up the topic as some sort of "evidence" against evolutionary theory, so the burden of proof is on your shoulders. what is it exactly that you feel is wrong with one or both?
your current argument is: "blah blah blah doesn't work, go look it up" why not present and actual position and show that you have at least a base understanding of what you are talking about.
If I were to use a quote from Gould you would need to show, not simply claim, that the quote was taken out of context. However, rarely do you Darwinian sheep ever make it that far do you? Merely crying "quote mine, quote mine" seems to work at least in your minds.
merely crying? uuuugh no...most of time it is merely pointed out how the quote mine was taken out of context, was butchered, was edited...this is very simple to do...almost as simple as going to the search bar and typing in "quote mine creationsm"....
but wait...there is no scriptural basis for doing so so you probably have not done this, have you?
and don't be mad just because I preemptively called out your next step...it's just painfully obvious....
"merely crying? uuuugh no...most of time it is merely pointed out how the quote mine was taken out of context"
uuuuugh yes, that's it exactly. Most of the time, if ever, do Darwinian sheep bother to point out how. Most don't even understand what they're claiming is being taken out of text. They simply cry "quote mine" At best they may slap down a link that covers everything from A - Z in a ditched effort to give the appearance to support their claim.
"Most don't even understand what they're claiming is being taken out of text."
immaterial - this does not change the fact that a quote has been mined. the Darwin eye quote is the most notorious example of this.
if your position is that every person to identify a quote mine does not know exactly where it was mined from or how it was mined then I will not argue with you. if you are arguing that your kind does not rely heavily on quote mines, then I'm going to call you full of shit.
does anyone know where i could find the whole debate?
mebe84 6 months ago
Krauss is such a twit: can't you atheists find anyone smarter than him?
TheXiantruth 8 months ago
@TheXiantruth
Krauss is good enough to debunk the lame claims that you creationist are making, no DOUBT!
AtheistToothFairy 8 months ago
@AtheistToothFairy sure buddy....sure...
....so...when are you selling the Brooklyn Bridge? I hear you got a (snicker) great deal on it!!
silly atheist twit.
Oh...and yet another mind-reading atheist!!!.....He says I'm a, what was it now?....a "creationist"...
silly chump!!
But, I guess for someone who is STUPID enough to really think he can categorically rule out the possibility of the existence of God mind-reading should be a piece of cake to you , huh Sparky?
TheXiantruth 7 months ago
@TheXiantruth:"guess for someone who is STUPID enough to really think he can categorically rule out the possibility of the existence of God"
Rule out the existence of any and all gods....Not even gonna try.
Rule out the existence of this xian god....PIECE OF CAKE., Sparkless Boy
AtheistToothFairy 7 months ago
@AtheistToothFairy Well, that just shows how much of a pompous dufus you are, eh?
"Atheist Tooth Fairy" my ass....Hey, sparky, if you're going to call yourself an atheist
then you have to prove there are no gods.
Comprehende Bonehead?
Instead, per usual, you'll reply some stupid shit that is
SUPPOSED to make you look witty.
Your replies aren't witty: they're shitty.
Pompous lazy-ass pseudo-atheist.
TheXiantruth 7 months ago
@TheXiantruth:"Hey, sparky, if you're going to call yourself an atheist
then you have to prove there are no gods"
So as I suspected, you're nothing but a F'ing TROLL.
Frankly, I don't give a damn what YOU think of my comments, Mr. Troll Boy
AtheistToothFairy 7 months ago
@AtheistToothFairy ahhh! the "t"word!! a sure sign that i've kicked some punk's ass!
What a stupid ass ad hominem---lazy as hell too. But what else can someone
expect to get from your sorry lazy lame ass?
Pussy.
TheXiantruth 7 months ago
@TheXiantruth
One LAST comment to you the Troll:
If manure were music, you'd be a brass band
AtheistToothFairy 7 months ago
@AtheistToothFairy the "t" word AGAIN!!
What a sorry-ass , intellectually LAZY-ASS you are you twit.
Run along little fool....dungeons and dragons is waiting....
Pussy.
TheXiantruth 7 months ago
@AtheistToothFairy people that advocate for a god are a troll....because nobody has ever proven it....just dungeons and dragons wishfull thinking...and i have no idea why anyone would wish such a thing to be true....but if you wanna play "life of brian: and run around hoping to give god a handjob...well i rather burn in an immaginary hell....or take the mercy of no longer existing after death....if i were god...i would grant EVERYONE mercy to not exist after death
MadMAn12gauge 4 months ago
David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at such universities as Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Universite de Paris.
Galmozzi99 9 months ago
@Galmozzi99 Let's think this through. Evidently he cannot hold a job. Evidently he can move from one discipline to another like we change apartments and is considered an expert in everything. I am an academic. I have NEVER known anyone to do what he claims. This is simply impossible within the univeristy system. He is not telling the truth about biological science or physics or math. This man is an intellectual fraud and an opportunist.
SolofTarsus5 9 months ago
Krauss is such a chach
jmasterdude89 11 months ago
Berlinski, a man whose ignorance is only overshadowed by his arrogance.
snakeguy76 11 months ago
@snakeguy76 good one
jmasterdude89 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snakeguy76
"Berlinski, a man whose ignorance is only overshadowed by his arrogance" pls elaborate? you seem to be so eloquent in speech, and obvious intelligence....where was, or better yet....what was it that berlinski said that was so damming to his intellect? cant wait
infinitemika 10 months ago
@snakeguy76 Ignorant in the sense that he's one of the world's foremost physicists (and indeed scientists in general), yes.
Alexdurrant7 9 months ago
@Alexdurrant7 Berlinski is a Physicist? You mean Krauss, right?
snakeguy76 9 months ago
@snakeguy76 Wow, I must have been more tired last night than I thought. Apologies!
Alexdurrant7 9 months ago
@Alexdurrant7 Oh Thank you. For second I thought I woke up in another universe where Berlinksi is the brilliant scientist and Krauss is the hack.
snakeguy76 9 months ago
@Alexdurrant7 No... he is not a "foremost physicist' and if you look for his contribution to physics (where he has no degree) you will find a total vacuum. This man is a self-serving intellectual fraud. Go ahead and google for his contributions to physics and see what you get. Go ahead and find his papers and publications. He talks like someone who has learned all he learned from repeated viewings of the Discovery Channel.
SolofTarsus5 9 months ago
Krass should be a politician
smoothpeople33 11 months ago
@smoothpeople33 President!
hafssol82 10 months ago
Berlinski is great: he's a horseshit dynamo! He could turn the Sahara into the garden of eden with the fertilizer he generates.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
Berlinski is not a complete retard.
...kalnk67... your logic is flawless... it works both ways
xxgg55 1 year ago
@xxgg55 Berlinski is far too fond of criticizing others on the basis of logical fallacy and then using the same fallacy to "prove" his own point. If he's not a complete retard he's a marvelous facsimile.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone calling someone retard is childish and reatrded
hernes111 1 year ago
@hernes111 "reatrded"??? Is that what you get when you retread a retard? In any case all I called him was a facsimile and the rest of my statement is quite demonstrable by just watching enough videos of the man.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone
I think Berlinski's point is that it is unreasonable. Since then no one has been able to systematically prove their theory and shed that it is extremely probable, hence it widely being accepted. Based on the amount of people demonizing him and attacking him based on reason, it goes to show that Berlinksi may very well be right: that evolution is held strong in the scientific community under a political agenda. I must say he has balls to take on the heat of the status quo.
grant1r 1 year ago
@grant1r What's unreasonable?
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone
That you can't prove Darwin's theory of evolution and if you did you'd be able to explain it, much like a builder could explain, through a clear understanding of the facts, how one things turns into the next. Furthermore, the fossil record can't explain in and of itself how one thing turns into the next. It shows variety of creatures that have existed millions of years ago who have since then become extinct. Fossil record does disprove a young earth. Explain me the proof, will you?
grant1r 1 year ago
@grant1r That depends on what you mean by "proof". Obviously a scientific theory is never "proven" that's not science. The theory of evolution however, is extremely well supported by evidence and is virtually incontrovertible in a general sense.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone
What makes it incontrovertible?
grant1r 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMZaccone
What makes it incontrovertible?
grant1r 1 year ago
@xxgg55 He may be a good mathematician but he should steer clear of this subject since he's clearly misinformed and out of his league on the matter.
klank67 11 months ago
Berlinski kicks ass!
thumminxy 1 year ago
@thumminxy his own ass, perhaps.
doaftheloaf 1 year ago
Man I hate to see when people with exceptional oratory skills use them to further nontruth.
If only Berlinski had the hold on biology that he does on the English language, then he would be right up there with Dr. Krauss, Dr. Scott, and Dr. Dawkins. Instead he uses his time and distinguished oratory skills to degrade the body of knowledge mankind has built. Tragic.
EppurSiMuove419 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Berlinsky is a compete genius.
VladislavGomulka 1 year ago
turn ooff the autofocus idiot, then try again
alexhamster1134 1 year ago
Thumbs up if you agree: Responsible, respected scientists like Lawrence Krauss should declare a BOYCOTT of debates with HACKS from the Discovery Institute.
David Berlinski simply doesn't belong on the same stage with him, or any serious scientist.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago 11
@GetMeThere1 haha because they get OWNED during debates? Theists OWN atheists....haha I won't debate theists if I were an atheists....theists are logical and have truth on their side!!!
6630mcdo 2 months ago
The Darwinian evolutionist believes the descendents of a prehistoric reptile gradually morphed into a human being after pausing to become rodents for a while.
The Darwinian evolutionist believes human beings have a fish ancestor, an amphibian ancestor, a reptile ancestor, a rodent ancestor... etc. They just can't name any of the species, nor prove the human ancestry of each, nor convince a rational mind that their fairy tale is true.
Markus77x7 1 year ago
@Markus77x7
The Christian creationist believes that the world was created 14 years ago, Moses saved two of every animal on a giant wooden boat sailing on the magma sea where it rained lava for 140 days and nights, and then died on the cross for your sins that you acquired when Jesus ate the apple.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@Markus77x7 Actually its been proven over many different avenues ( fossil record, genetics, mitochondrial DNA) that in fact this is true and we can name the different species involved.
Evolution is a fact, its verifiable, observable, and correct.
ID is silly and stupid and doesn't even have a hypothesis that conclusions can be drawn from.
ID is useless as a science, and stupid as a philosophy.
jib1000 1 year ago
Berlinski seems like one of the more reasonable ID theorists. Still, he is ass-backwards if he thinks the hand could not have evolved by natural selection.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 I like how he says its unique to humans... all the great apes and most of the monkeys have thumbs as well.
jib1000 1 year ago
I think Krauss did a lot of conceding to Belinski's point, at least in this clip.
trumpgeek 1 year ago
Opposable thumbs unknown in the animal kingdom? WTF WTF WTF!? Whenever "Dr." Berlinski leaves a country, that country's IQ stats go up.
VulcanFleet 1 year ago 4
who just looked up berlinski trying to find the recent hitchens vs berlinski debate? lol
PaGaNM0nK 1 year ago 14
@PaGaNM0nK everybody here :-P Why couldn't Hitch have somebody more serious to debate. Each debate might be the last. I'd like to see him and Prager or Dinesh again.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
Thumb and forefinger unique to mankind? Not true. Primates.
It must be difficult for idiots like Berlinski to debate geniuses like Krauss.
CadaverSplatter 1 year ago
Christians of Christianity, depending on the sect-denomination-incarnation, worship Jehovah, Jesus, saints/angels, the Blessed Virgin, the Holy Trinity and/or the Godhead. Religion is what it has always been: a reconciliation with metaphysics. Human logic & perception, reason & rationality are finite, therefor, as human logic dictates, they are inadequate in explaining the infinite.
ThePregnancySlaves 1 year ago
I'm still not understanding how Intelligent Design is a hypothesis. What exactly IS the hypothesis?
There is no explanation whatsoever in ID. It is apparently "creationism by other means." It explains nothing, it's simply "goddidit" with a little more time than special creation.
I have not seen any of this "frothing at the mouth" but I would declare that a superstition-based "explanation" (which is no explanation at all) is not scientific and deserves no respect from any scientists, period.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
It's pretty interesting how hypocritical you intelligent design people are. Why don't you stop flying in airplanes, stop using your computer, stop using anything technological, and wait for the almighty fucking god to design it for you?
fictive 1 year ago
@fictive They funny thing about your statement is that all these things you (airplanes, computers, technology) are designed. Why don't you Darwinians stop flying in airplanes, stop using computers, or anything technological, and wait for one to come about by random chance?
Victoruto 1 year ago
@Victoruto I see where you're going. You're just using my argument to provide an unanswerable counter-argument, because what I believe, I believe, and what you believe, you believe. In my opinion, a really cheap and childish way to argue. Molecules did evolve into life by random chance, but luckily some of us have the brain to invent things, like airplanes and computers. It's what's called technology and science, things that are based on facts, not blind belief like you do.
fictive 1 year ago
@fictive The point is to show that your own "childish" argument is reversible. If you are going to ask your opponents to do absurd things—as though it would be consistent with their worldview—then you ought to apply the same criteria on yourself.
"Molecules did evolve into life by random chance"
And you claim that I have blind belief? Whats requires blind faith more than believing that the complex diversity found in the biological world stems from sheer dumb chance?
Victoruto 1 year ago
@Victoruto In the 6000 years you believe the world existed, no, molecules can't evolve into complex biological structures. But over millions of years, yes, they can. Put the right molecules together, and you'll find amazing things will happen. I can easiliy tell you what requires more blind faith, but I guess you already know what I'm going to say about that. You can't know that there is a god, that's the difference. We rule out facts instead of blindly believing in them. This is the best theory
fictive 1 year ago
@fictive What makes you think I believe the world is 6000 years old?
Adding lot's time to the impossible does not make it possible. It would be just as miraculous for a man to turn into a butterfly over a long period of time than if he did instantly. Darwinism would be just as unlikely if it took a trillion years. It is the mechanisms that cannot account for the vast variety of irreducibly complex biological structures.
Victoruto 1 year ago
@Victoruto I refues to argue with you any further. The scientific evidence for evolution is clear, you don't have any scientific evidence AT ALL for what you are claiming. Show me ONE. There's a reason why intelligent design is not accepted among the ranks of scientists. ID is an excuse to give you meaning in life, to make you special. Too bad there is no meaning, and that we're not very special in the grand scale of things.
fictive 1 year ago
@fictive What am I claiming? The burden of proof for evolution lies on the evolutionist. If the evidence is so clear then why is it so hard to find? The reason why ID is not accepted is because it threatens materialistic naturalism—a philosophy of life.
Tell me this: What is the evolutionary advantage of a partially developed sex organ?
Victoruto 1 year ago
@Victoruto Your question is both irrelevant and easy to answer. An obvious genetic dysfunction that happens once in a while. We do not live in a world where everything is perfect. If you did a bit of searching, you would find many papers published about evolution. You have still not shown any evidence. I'm ending this discussion.
fictive 1 year ago
@fictive Yes, end the discussion. This seems to be the reasoning of Darwinists when tough questions are raised. What you seem to misapprehending is that a "genetic dysfunction" of a sexual organ serves as no survival value. Not until it is fully developed and functional, along with its counterpart (male and female), does it serve a purpose. How does Darwinism explain this?
Victoruto 1 year ago
@Victoruto Nobody wants to "end the discussion" when tough questions are asked. Science is inherently a process of asking questions, and searching for answers. It isn't the questions that are asked (although many of them are just plain wrong, ignorant of the facts of evolution), it's the way the creationists and ID proponents are attempting to answer them. If they employed the scientific method, they would not receive the criticism they do.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
@Victoruto in science we work primarily with evidence, not "proof" as such. There is probably more evidence for evolution than any other theory.
ID doesn't threaten materialistic naturalism, it simply doesn't adhere to it as a theory or hypothesis must in order to be scientific.
Good question. Ask an evolutionary biologist. And if they don't know, it's probably one of those questions that has yet to be answered. Science is about answering questions - nobody said they were already all answered.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
@Victoruto Evolution isn't dumb chance. That was the whole point of Darwin's theory. See, long before Darwin people noticed that species evolve. This is something that had been observed for centuries, but only recently did we have the scientific method developed enough to start answering questions such as "why?
Lamarck and others came up with some hypotheses, but Darwin's theory proved to be the correct one.
By the way, evolution is not abiogenesis. Two different things.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
@notthecheatr Chance lies at the heart of Darwinism, for random mutation and natural selection are its functioning mechanisms. There is no teleology in random mutation but only the minuscule chance of a beneficial mutation occurring and then passing on its genes to offspring.
Take light-sensitive cells: Prior to these were cells that were not light-sensitive—they were unaware of light so to speak. The only way they could come to detect light is by sheer dumb chance.
Victoruto 1 year ago
@Victoruto not quite. Random mutation isn't the primary driver of evolution, genetic recombination is. If you're wondering how something random could produce anything meaningful, just ask yourself how your parents managed to produce you. Sexual reproduction is anything but deterministic.
Natural selection is not a random process, though. That's why it works. If you have 100 cells and 2 of them are light sensitive, the light sensitive ones will be favored to survive.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
@notthecheatr You still need to get 2 light-sensitive cells in the first place—purely random!
My parents' sexual reproduction is anything but random. For one it begs the question by assuming that the evolution that produced their sex organs, brains, etc., is teleological. Secondly, are you really claiming that their mating was accidental? Even rape is is not accidental.
It all starts with random mutation; without this natural selection can't even get started.
Victoruto 1 year ago
@Victoruto No, not "purely" random, obviously as I already stated the reproductive process is somewhat random but not entirely. Obviously light-sensitive cells was an extremely useful innovation.
Your parents sexual reproduction was random in the sense that when the sperm cell meets the egg cell and meiosis occurs, a number of very random processes occur to mix up the genetic material contributed by both parents. The origin of the brain and sex organs is irrelevant to sexual reproduction.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
@notthecheatr Light-sensitive cells were useful indeed, but because something is useful it does not mean that it is teleological. If I randomly stumble across $20 on the sidewalk, it will surely be useful. Do you not find it a just a little absurd as to how cells can become light-sensitive by chance without any knowledge (to speak anthropomorphically) of the existence of light?
How can the development (or origin) of sex organs, and a brain to operate them, be irrelevant to sexual reproduction?
Victoruto 1 year ago
@Victoruto well considering light is a direct stimuli that can actually cause physical changes to the cell. so i would contend such a thing could occure that creatures/cels that respond to light source potentially have a better chance of survival in certain circumstances than those who dont. more accurately survive long enough to duplicate/breed..also don't need 2 cells unless they aren't asexual.
mistereveready 1 year ago
@mistereveready I have not argued that light cannot be useful or beneficial to survival. It certainly is. But the transformation from a non-light sensitive cell to a light sensitive cell cannot be explained by survival value. It still must evolve from one to the other by pure dumb chance. Prior to sensing light, the cells were completely unaware of such a thing.
Victoruto 1 year ago
@Victoruto wasn't implying you did if i came off that way, my point was that light has physical effects on cells and as such encourage development. so the concept of what is "aware" comes into play. technically i'd think everything is "chance", evolution is a bit of a snowball effect. natural selection isn't quite pure dumb chance. but notthecheatr answered that part already. mutations aren't always beneficial, can piggy back on those that are.
mistereveready 1 year ago
@mistereveready You are right that natural selection does not function by chance, but natural selection is only one of the mechanisms of Darwinism. Basically, the whole point I am making is that chance lies at the foundation of Darwinism. In order for natural selection to get going, random mutation must occur.
Victoruto 1 year ago
@Victoruto natural selection can work with only the natural variation that sexual reproduction provides. Any variation that provides a reproductive advantage no matter what the cause was. Horizontal gene transfer for example.
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
Your comment that 'Darwin's knowledge of science is 150 years old' doesn't make any sense either. You can't think of any scientific discoveries that occured before Darwin? For example, gravity? The age of a theory has nothing to do with whether or not it is correct.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
Berlinski is a consummate charlatan who caters to the cretinized herd of earnest consumers of pseudo-science. He provides them with the pseudo-scholarly veneer they so desperately crave to lend legitimacy to the obvious falsehoods they hold so dear.
If only the academy were more concertedly marginalizing of his ilk and theologians who employ similar sleight of hand.
fctchk 1 year ago
Dr David Berlinski is a genius. He managed to prove scientifically and mathematically that evolution is a fallacy. With the availability of modern scientific knowledge today, many other prominent scientists in the world have also proven scientifically that evolution (one species evolving into another) is preposterous and impossible. Darwin's knowledge of science is more than 150 years old and is based on speculation and fantasy.
spidathiania 1 year ago
I doubt that. Send me a link to the paper he published "proving" that evolution is wrong.
Note that evolution is not just a single idea. Common descent is obviously a big part of it, and even Behe, for example, accepts common descent, and offers 'proofs' of common descent in his books. One might be able to mathematically show that the mechanisms of evolution are tentative or insufficient, but genetics proves common descent. So your smug assertions wouldn't even fly with ID proponents.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@spidathiania LOOLLLLL XD
josviegas 1 year ago
@spidathiania Idiot.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@spidathiania ... fail
klank67 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I agree, Berlinski RULES. People who "intellectually" dismiss him never answer his basic questions... which is simply "don't give me a hand-waving response, I want a quantitative answer." Berlinski SO wrocks... he's so right.
ericjohnsa 1 year ago
Berlinski is a complete retard.
klank67 1 year ago 19
@klank67 Is there a more comprehensive word than 'complete'? If so then please rephrase your sentence.
Immy1993 1 year ago
@Immy1993 ... no, I think I capture the essence of his 'retardedness' most emphatically with my word choice :)
klank67 1 year ago
@klank67 lol...ok will give you that...you chose kind words for such 'complete retard(ness)".
Immy1993 1 year ago
@Immy1993 ... lol ... where does one even begin in describing that idiot anyway.
klank67 1 year ago
@klank67 Only because you got so many thumbs up for such a small comment, do you have a doctorate's degree in anything yet or are pursuing one? Just curious...
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Berlinski does not have a doctorate in any scientific field. He's a doctor of philosophy. I don't think that really qualifies him to refute what an evolutionary biologist has to say about evolution.
jib1000 1 year ago
@jib1000 I'm sorry, I don't remember addressing you...
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Oh sorry i didn't realize the post you put on youtube for all the world to see was private.
jib1000 1 year ago
@jib1000 It wasn't private, it was simply addressed to an entity that WAS not you, IS not you and will not be...you. Unless you have more than one username on youtube that just so happens to be klank67, i offer my sincerest apologies.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@progenyofprodigies Berlinski does not have a doctorate in any scientific field. He's a doctor of philosophy. I don't think that really qualifies him to refute what an evolutionary biologist has to say about evolution.
jib1000 1 year ago
@klank67 nice ad hom...
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99 ... uh oh ... a Berlinski defender, are we ;)
klank67 1 year ago
@klank67 no i just think that losers who write stupid shit on youtube should keep their mouths shut about things they arent qualified to talk about.
BigG99 1 year ago
@klank67 ha ha says the beggar on the street. Why don't you take a math problem from him and see who is the retard.
whiteliketar 1 year ago
@klank67 He is too much man for you, lol. Dawkins check under his bed and in the closet for Berlinski before putting on his night gown for the night
salmagnum 1 year ago
@salmagnum ... arrogance doesn't carry Berlinski far in these debates as he's wrong on just about everything.
Now go check under your bed for monsters, k.
klank67 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@klank67 ..lets see science make RNA without the help of activated subunits and bases taken from living sources, and synthesizing machines..and breaks the law of biogenesis..you morons stubbornly think this is possible..
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@klank67 You think chemicals are just put into a test tube and you have RNA LOL..everything is? carefully watched at just the right TEMPERATURES!!! activated..with subunits to start it and bases along with million dollar synthesizing machines.to COPY information just to get it started!!!..these are CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS!!! How dumb can you be?.. RNA arising...LOL more like plagiarizing information ..cut? and paste !!!...LOL!..but all this would happen on a primordial earth..LOL
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@5tonyvvvv 'You think chemicals are just put into a test tube and you have RNA'
No, that would be pretty close to creationism. Thought I could understand how nucleotide synthesis would be indistinguishable from magic to some, real organic chemists understand it just fine.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@klank67 Even with all the Proteins and DNA and RNA ...What would you do with it??..from there you have zero molecular machines, zero assembly instructions...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube. to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..there is no natural process.to make a cell evolve ..it would be easier to build the space shuttle..blindfolded while riding a unicycle
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv ... you're 98% chimpanzee whether you like it or not ... and if all you're going to do is try and build 'strawman' arguments maybe farming is a better occupation than bioligist for you ;)
klank67 11 months ago
@klank67 don't bother arguing with 5yonyww, he is a cut and paste man. he cuts and paste the same five paragraphs all over YouTube. He knows nothing of anything.
tsferg 11 months ago
@tsferg Thanks man .... the conversation went nowhere fast with that moron.
klank67 11 months ago
@klank67 LOL..I see you are just another lost atheist moron,that has no clue what homochirality is..You have ZERO testable biochemical chemistry, to back up your ridiculous assumptions...You have a great argument.."you evolved"..Ok ..Dummy..
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@klank67
Nice, go for an ad hominim! Never fails to get a thumbs up.
mylovelyman2 10 months ago
@mylovelyman2 Yeah, calling him a retard was off base. Nut-job would be more like it. Idiot perhaps. Or maybe, a fucking loon.
DamLazyFuk 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@klank67
"Berlinski is a complete retard.
" wowso eloquent. explain pls..give me two points
infinitemika 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Berlinski rules. Krauss say's he agrees that ID is an interesting hypothesis, but it doesn't point to anything interesting.....That's a real thinker.
benthemiester 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution is a communist ideology
levonet33 2 years ago
@levonet33 No evolution is knowledge not an ideology.
FatalAnimal 1 year ago
@FatalAnimal That's because the alternative makes you pee in your pants.
jonyxy777 1 year ago
@jonyxy777 - ummm what alternative?
FatalAnimal 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
both krauss and berlinski now shit about science, krauss has doble speach with the theist and the atheist. i dont find him sincere ,(of course berlisnki too).
ygustavo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Larry Krauss is such an antichrist Jew. All he is about is attacking Christianity. It would be a hate crime if it were the other way around. Why does Arizona State University allow such conduct? Is Arizona State University antichrist, too?
thechessstick 2 years ago
you're an idiot.
DoctorGmork 2 years ago 2
Classic Darwinian evolution is presumed to take place very gradually, with a steady and slow change of organisms over time. Punctuated equilibrium replaces this slow change with long periods lacking any change at all, mixed with relatively short periods of rapid change.
this alternate concept of evolution is based on the fossils we dont find and on genetic mechanisms that have never been observed
So where are all the peer-review papers on punctuated equilibrium which you feel fits right in?
owensphil 2 years ago
Eldredge, N. and Stephen J. Gould. 1972. Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. In Schopf, Thomas J.M. (ed.), Models in Paleobiology, pp. 82-115. Freeman, Cooper and Co., San Francisco. (File size: 6.2 MB, 35 pages
that was the earlier paper - rereleased in 77:
Gould, S.J. and N. Eldredge. 1977, Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology 3 (2): 115-151. (File size: 2 MB, 37 pages)
also check out pubmed(dot)com
1n354a 2 years ago
search for punctuated equilibrium and you can read 80 different articles on the topic.
I still don't understand what your point is - do you feel that one or both are incorrect? or that they could not have both taken place during the history of life on this planet? or do you assert that because there is not a unified theory that it must all be wrong?
1n354a 2 years ago
Eldredge, N. and Stephen J. Gould. 1972.
1972???????????????????
Anything more recent and by someone who didn't come up with the bogus theory to cover up the flaws of the bogus theory of evolution?
"An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism."
An alternative????? Why an alternative? (LOL) What was wrong with hard rock solid evidence of gradualism of the fossil record?
owensphil 2 years ago
who made claims of solid evidence of gradualism of the fossil record?
1n354a 2 years ago
...who didn't come up with the bogus theory to cover up the flaws of the bogus theory of evolution?
hahaha I think that after that comment I am done - - your horse blinders of true faith are too much for me. I do appreciate the laughs though - you are quite entertaining!
1n354a 2 years ago 9
"hahaha I think that after that comment I am done"
Couldn't find anything past 1972 could ya (lol)
NEXT!!
owensphil 2 years ago
past 1972 for what? do you even have a point that you are arguing or do you just keep moving the goal till everybody is so confused what you are blabbing about that they stop talking to you?
did you go to pubmed and read any of those articles (80 of them)? no? why not? are you afraid information contained therein may shatter your creationist-discovery institute globe?
don't fear knowledge.
1n354a 2 years ago
"past 1972 for what?"
Hello!!!! if you read down a few post about 24 minutes before you posted this one, you posted"
"Eldredge, N. and Stephen J. Gould. 1972. Punctuated Equilibria:"
It appears that 1972 is the best you can do or surely you would have posted something more recent.
owensphil 2 years ago
best I can do for what? to provide you information on a paper on punctuated equilibrium? if you want later papers dealing with the subject try pubmed for more recent papers...as mentioned several times already.
that aside from information gathering, what is your point? you seem to favor ID over evolution but have nothing meaningful to say on the subject apart from asking about punctuated equilibrium and going on about "information".
again...what is your point?
1n354a 2 years ago
"if you want later papers dealing with the subject try pubmed"
Just as I suspected, a list of papers that barely touch on the subject which is probably why you stuck with the one from 1972
"that aside from information gathering, what is your point"
Other than what I've already stated regarding Punctuated equilibrium and gradualism, It's not surprising that since 1972 there are such few peer-review articles that actually deal with the topic.
owensphil 2 years ago
but you haven't said anything about punctuated equilibrium or gradualism, apart from acknowledging that both have been discussed and written about.
do you think that mentioning them somehow discredits evolutionary theory? proves that a designer exists?
again...what is your point?
1n354a 2 years ago
Hey, 1n354a, do you believe in hopeful monsters, too? LOL LOL LOL Wake up you sheep of Satan.
thechessstick 2 years ago
sheep of Satan.
hmmm....
Satan being a figure in the Christian fairy tale...sheep being a term used to describe believers of Christianity due to their ability to thoughtlessly follow the teaching of their theocratic leaders.
I don't know that what you called me actually makes any sense....do you?
1n354a 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are right that is exactly what you are doing! Thank you...
thechessstick 2 years ago
so you finally are admitting that Christianity is a fairy tale for grown ups and that Satan is a character found therein?
Wow! there is hope for you yet, cheesestick! I'm happy for you! And just in time to celebrate Winter Solstice also!
1n354a 2 years ago 2
Every time you think something is going smoothly, some shit happens. Like 5 major extictions where more than half the species on the earth die off.
gregrutz 2 years ago
I assume from your comment about "fossils we don't find" you're referring to the fossil record gap argument.
iowacub1 2 years ago
Hey snowflake guy
water forming
snowflakes is 'doing what comes naturally', given the properties of the system. There is no need for any external information or programming to be added to the system—the existing properties of the water molecule and the atmospheric conditions are enough to give rise inevitably to snowflake-type patterns.
owensphil 2 years ago
Comment removed
owensphil 2 years ago
I just want to rise above all of this nonsense... for all of you who are insulting... forgive me, but what the hell is wrong with you?
For those who have been honest and said what they have felt, and those who have responded respectfully to others instead of replying like a complete uncivilized apes, I respect you.
Limbsy 2 years ago
Comment removed
owensphil 2 years ago
Darwin came up with natural selection before DNA was discovered. He say the variation in nature needed for it to work.
Markers on DNA prove evolution.
All this crap about good mutations and new information is creationist bull shit.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Dr David Berlinski is one highly educated and humble person.
wandp7782 2 years ago
Dr. Butinski needs to take a biology class, he is a philosopher and a math major.
gregrutz 2 years ago
the bible is a myth
origin of species and descent of man are also myths
the structure of molecular biology is not
reaguirre 2 years ago
your a myth hehe... you are in ILLUSION
Limbsy 2 years ago
I just want to punch that pretentious, irritating, and astoundingly ignorant, berlinski.
BeRational 2 years ago 2
I just want to slap you for being so nice
Limbsy 2 years ago
How do you debate ID?
"It looks complicated, god must have done it."
Yea, I can't figure it out either, god must have done it."
gregrutz 2 years ago
"How do you debate ID?
"It looks complicated, god must have done it.""
Then there's the alternative which is to simply say "evolution dunnit"
owensphil 2 years ago
the only difference is, evolution is a real explanation. god aint.
spacecowboy95 2 years ago
well then that statement is followed up by the question how...and an explanation for how evolution works is provided.
apply the how question to the god hypothesis and you are stuck with....I donno...he just did.
which sounds more of a fairy tale? be honest...
1n354a 2 years ago
"apply the how question to the god hypothesis and you are stuck with....I donno...he just did."
Think for a second, You don't know how evoulution dunnit. Because it happened over millions and millions of years when nobody was looking! That's your "science"
owensphil 2 years ago
Evolution happened. There is a Theory that explains how it happened. All the facts support it.
gregrutz 2 years ago
LOL - nice hovindism there chief! "You weren't there, how do you know that it happened?"
we do know how evolution dunnit, just like a detective knows how a crime was committed even though he wasn't there...take the evidence available, come up with an idea as to the what's and how's and then test your idea to see if it has merit.
religious approach - claim some random deity did something, scream blasphemy when people challenge your assertions....
8th grade science stumped ya, didn't it?
1n354a 2 years ago
"we do know how evolution dunnit, just like a detective knows how a crime was committed even though he wasn't there"
Horrible analogy, a detective goes on past observable experiences. It only takes someone to have been there the first couple of times.
If evolutionists knew how evolution dunnit, there wouldn't be a discrepancy between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium now would there?
owensphil 2 years ago
why would you be surprised to find a difference between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium ?
before you answer that, you're going to quote mine Gould next, aren't you? sorry mate -level 2 creationism bullshit. try again please.
you should read up on your assertions before posting them to see how many have been debunked hundreds of times over...
evolution still stands despite your obvious ignorance.
1n354a 2 years ago
"why would you be surprised to find a difference between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium ?"
Oh, not at all, just goes to show that you guys can't get it straight on what you claim to be your so-called evidence
owensphil 2 years ago
please expound - why is there an issue with gradualism and punctuated equilibrium? what specifically do see as being at issue?
1n354a 2 years ago
punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism - two different schools of thought when looking at the fossil record regarding the bogus theory of evolution.
owensphil 2 years ago
well done . . . now please tell me why you can't have both . . . why do you think that they contradict or cancel each other out?
1n354a 2 years ago
now please tell me why you can't have both . . . why do you think that they contradict or cancel each other out?
First tell me how how punctuated can be falsifiable. Secondly, how many peer -review papers there more less. Better yet tell me where I can find them online.
owensphil 2 years ago
no I won't - you are the one who initially brought up the topic as some sort of "evidence" against evolutionary theory, so the burden of proof is on your shoulders. what is it exactly that you feel is wrong with one or both?
your current argument is: "blah blah blah doesn't work, go look it up" why not present and actual position and show that you have at least a base understanding of what you are talking about.
1n354a 2 years ago
"you're going to quote mine Gould next"
If I were to use a quote from Gould you would need to show, not simply claim, that the quote was taken out of context. However, rarely do you Darwinian sheep ever make it that far do you? Merely crying "quote mine, quote mine" seems to work at least in your minds.
owensphil 2 years ago
merely crying? uuuugh no...most of time it is merely pointed out how the quote mine was taken out of context, was butchered, was edited...this is very simple to do...almost as simple as going to the search bar and typing in "quote mine creationsm"....
but wait...there is no scriptural basis for doing so so you probably have not done this, have you?
and don't be mad just because I preemptively called out your next step...it's just painfully obvious....
1n354a 2 years ago
"merely crying? uuuugh no...most of time it is merely pointed out how the quote mine was taken out of context"
uuuuugh yes, that's it exactly. Most of the time, if ever, do Darwinian sheep bother to point out how. Most don't even understand what they're claiming is being taken out of text. They simply cry "quote mine" At best they may slap down a link that covers everything from A - Z in a ditched effort to give the appearance to support their claim.
owensphil 2 years ago
"Most don't even understand what they're claiming is being taken out of text."
immaterial - this does not change the fact that a quote has been mined. the Darwin eye quote is the most notorious example of this.
if your position is that every person to identify a quote mine does not know exactly where it was mined from or how it was mined then I will not argue with you. if you are arguing that your kind does not rely heavily on quote mines, then I'm going to call you full of shit.
1n354a 2 years ago
Most don't even understand what they're claiming is being taken out of text.
"immaterial - this does not change the fact that a quote has been mined"
Hello? How is it irrelevant? How does the Darwinian sheep then determine that the quote has been mined. Quote mining doesn't just mean using quotes.
"if you are arguing that your kind does not rely heavily on quote mines"
Yes, that's what you have to show, Not just claim. It's kind of like completing a thought. Get it?
owensphil 2 years ago