funny how 'science' educates people in the 'big bang' how earth was created yet erases the creator, the mastermind behind it. Learning how the world and humans came into existance is just like learning the alphabtes and numbers but knowing WHY this all came into existance is learning the words made up from the alphabtes and multipying, dividing numbers. (next stage)
Why wouldn't you want to disrespect someone who believes in ID? afterall, you said if they believe in ID they are denying all of the basis of biology, so why would this opinion deserve any respect?
In about 50 years, anyone who still believes in "intelligent design" will be considered uneducated, idiotic, and delusional. They'll die out like those who used to believe in a flat earth, or in Roman gods, or in millions of other past superstitions. It's just modern progress, slowly shining a light on ignorance. Get over yourselves and deal with it. Educate yourselves now, or be considered a stupid weirdo later.
lol this guy named salman khan has clearly made a big fool out of himself. He's saying how he, indirectly, disregards intelligent design and talks about how 'modern biology' is strong in describing the process of evoltion yet he is a Muslim who believes in a creator of the worlds. Either he is tryiying in claimimg to be one as no Muslim would believe in the process of the weak 'Evolution'. We (humans) did NOT evolve from 'apes' no true authentic source shows this. This'thoery'remains a thoery.
he's so not mumbling he spends quality time teaching so it's very clear and helpful for everyone. thank you so much your videos are so interesting and useful
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
As I understand it, the points of contention between Evolution and ID essentiall boil down to whether the process(es) that are responsible for the origin/development/maintenance of life are random, or structured (e.g. heuristic). Those two ideas are completely irreconcilable because nothing can be simultaneously random and not-random. It would alse probably help if the terms were more clearly defined; especially "evolution," but also possibly "science," and even "biology."
This whole argument completely avoids the real issue of where the first "design" came from...perfect or not and assumes that because we know everything, we completely understand the motivation behind the design. Why do we make the assumption that perfection was the intent? And most importantly, how did the first successful DNA code come about..."poof" a miracle happened? Look at the statistics against that probably of occurrence..where did the original "info" come from?
@DaddyDAJ The lack of evidence for one premise is not evidence of another premise. You should seriously consider Intelligent Design's ability to stand on its own merit (because it cannot). Furthermore I can tell for your diction that you are a creationist. You say "a miracle happened". It is a measure of extreme arrogance to say that becasue you/humanity cannot currently explain an event, that it is impossible to explain. You, sir, are intellectual cancer.
@DomeSwag ID stands on it's own merit as easily if not more so than evolution. It takes more faith to blindly believe in a half-baked theory which defies immense statistical probability and most circumstantial evidence that we have observed. Correction..it is extremely arrogant to think that if we don't understand something, it cannot be so. You're argument is mindless and completely contradictory. You pompously think you are an intellectual when in fact you're obviously not.
@DaddyDAJ ID is an ad hoc hypothesis and, by Occam's Razor, is (probably) false. You declare evolution "a half-baked theory", justify that. The majority of the academic world disagree's with you. You claim ID stands on its own merit, how so? Declaring your rightness does not make your statement any more valid, and I am afraid that that is all ID proponents can do; proclaim their rightness, and be as critical as possible of any gaps, no matter how minute, in scientific knowledge. Invalid theory.
@DomeSwag I won't disagree that ID relies on observing the complexities of life and our universe and making the grand conclusion that it didn't just happen because anything is possible given enough time. It's appreciating the fact that so many things work in such harmony within such a finely balanced environment that it can't be left to chance (astronomical odds) no matter how much time you give it. We learn new things every day or realize that we were dead wrong about others.
@DaddyDAJ It would *have* to work in harmony to work at all. If the universe was total chaos, and we still emerged, that would be a miracle. It's funny that you bring that up, because everything in the universe behaves naturally. Why do you insist on introducing unnatural beings? It is a frivolous leap of faith (unfounded belief). Furthermore, I'd like to point out that deities proposed by all religions (deism aside) are, frankly, quite silly.
@DomeSwag You really don't know much about the evolution theory do you and your self-proclaimed statements of "fact" are pretty ridiculous as well. What is "naturally"? You're simple minded definition of how complete chance and chaos is miraculously brought into order to allow life to exist? Everything just happens because it's natural? You get to decide what natural is based on your far superior understanding of the universe? What an arrogant, pompous perspective. Amazing!
@DaddyDAJ Naturally = by a set of solid, unbreakable natural laws (e.g. Gravitation). This is well known, I have no great understanding which is absent from the rest of mankind. God is unnatural, it would violate the first law of thermodynamics in the creation of the universe - it/He is abdicated from the natural laws of existence, which is acknowledged as true. So you should feel pretty silly now, everything I said (aside from the last sentence) was objective and solidly valid. Amazing! :)
@DomeSwag Based on what? So you now think that evolution is somehow confirmed to the equivalent degree of gravitation? You're mixing apples and oranges which I suppose is necessary to even attempt to make your ridiculous assertion. So how do you explain the expanding universe which has become an observed and accepted theory. The laws of thermodynamics work great in closed and defined systems. You're out of your league on this one.
@DaddyDAJ This started by me saying that ID cannot stand on its own, and you're proving me right. I've said nothing of evolution, only you. You're acting like a wounded cat hissing in a corner. ID has no merit to stand upon itself without the acceptance, as an axiom, that existence is evidence of God - which it is not. I am way out of my league here, you're right. I have to help you up the ladder to put you on my level. You've provided not a shred of evidence on defense of ID. Weak debater.
@DomeSwag No the thread is about Evolution Clarified...or not. Who's in a corner? You've presented nothing that logically refutes ID and just looking at the complexity of life and the statistical probability that it just happened randomly (astronomincally low) are proof enough and definitely more proof than that of the evolution myth. You're arrogant and glib and obviously believe anything you read...sheep are common...they don't need to think for themselves.
@DaddyDAJ How do you figure that? The claim in dispute here is that ID stands upon its own merit. And for some reason, in every reply you've brought up evolution. So, with every reply, you validate my original statement. Your "If not A, then B" logic is absolutely false. You've provided not a shred of evidence for ID aside from your own personal incredulity regarding the nature of the universe. ID is an ad hoc hypothesis for the objective value of existence, there's no reason to fancy it true.
@DomeSwag You really do like to hear yourself talk. Too bad you don't put as much time into objectively considering alternative thought as you do into trying to develop an eloquent response so you can convince yourself that you look good. The argument stands on it's own. It's also apparent that you've already been brainwashed but I would still invite you and challenge you to read Lee Strobel's book, "Case for a Creator" as he does a pretty good job of presenting the facts.
@DaddyDAJ You didn't counter a single point I made, nor did you provide any credible evidence for your argument. At that, you also sound pretty flustered. So... I win? Oh, and I am a creationist. Sixth Sense style twist, eh? It was fun chatting.
@DomeSwag You didn't make any substantial points and I did provide credible evidence and a good reference for further reading to help cure your obvious ignorance problem. Why on earth would I be "flustered"...because you you won't take the time to think through what's presented before you start working on your self-impressing response? You've got to be joking...and what did you win? I mistakenly thought you might actually have some substance to share...I was wrong about that.
@DaddyDAJ In debate, it's usually in good taste to display your premises and the logically conclusion which follows. There's a reason you never see a presidential candidate take a moment to tell the audience and his opponent "Well if you'd just have read this book...", it is foolish. Your entire argument revolves around the consistent and unabashed ad-hominem that I am an idiot whom believes everything my professors have taught me. You don't have evidence for it, it is a subjective appeal.
@DomeSwag I don't think you're an idiot but I do think you try much too hard to be clever and overly eloquent with your responses. You give the impression that you are very self-absorbed but maybe that's just the way you present yourself. Although debating skills can be handy, this is a blog for rational objective discussion...you don't get points for style. The topic is extensive and the real issues often avoided or overlooked. The book provides a more extensive treatment.
@DomeSwag I'm obviously not trying to start a formal debate nor do I care about "good taste" and debating style; and heaven forbid that I even remotely attempt to emulate our president and his approach. I'm simply interested in content and possibly learning something new; and I think that although subtle, the premise was established and the conclusion quite obvious. However, given your self-perceived mastery, enlighten me with your argument for ID since you believe in creationism.
@DaddyDAJ take an evolution class or read an evolution book. i don't mean that in a contentious way - it's just too much to explain in a comment or a video. it's fascinating, but not miraculous.
@redwoodwonderland Taken many and read too many books filled with these shoddy theories that don't even begin to stand up to any real scientific rigor. Trying to link together a series of ill-founded theories with little real scientific evidence to form what is perceived as coherent theory is completely ludicrous. It is fascinating and miraculous....if not, then why in our great intellect have we not been able too reproduce it...or even get close? There lies true arrogance.
@redwoodwonderland I agree this topic is much to involved for a simple blog. As with DomeSwag, I would invite you to read Lee Strobel's - "Case for a Creator" which does a fairly good job of presenting the facts and an alternative to the ill-founded hypotheses presented in most of our school systems as fact. It lays down most of the contentious issues and my subsequent independent research tends to supports his claims and conclusion. Objectivity is key!
@DaddyDAJ DNA arose from chemicals on Earth billions of years ago. If you're asking where chemicals and the elements come from, I'd suggest reading up on the big bang. Here's some food for thought: maybe there was no true intent ever.
@linkfan22 It just arose...then it just combined perfectly despite the extremely complex process, strict environmental conditions and immense odds against any such occurrence. You must be religious and have great faith in Darwin your god. Oh, I forgot the classic defense, given enough time anything is possible...and that requires less faith than ID...you've got to be joking! I can't believe people who call themselves educated really buy that stuff.
@DaddyDAJ This requires NO faith at all. Do you know what the most common element in the universe is? It's hydrogen. The third most common is oxygen. Fourth is carbon. Those elements make up all organisms on Earth. And yes, it did take time for it to happen. In fact MILLIONS of years. Practically anything is possible to happen in that time frame. I'm not saying that is exactly how it happened... (part 1/2)
@DaddyDAJ since the very beginning of life on Earth is up for debate, but if you're too stupid to understand biological evolution and that it's real after watching Khan's video on it, then you're just wasting everyone's damn time. Also, think about how much evidence you have for everything you believe. You have NONE.
@linkfan22 Exactly the type of reply that I'd expect from someone like you...thinks he has all the answers but provides little to no concrete evidence to support it...all blow no go. At least you have some grasp of elements but again nothing to tie it all together. So Khan's video is gospel? Just one of the sheep I see. It's obvious that attempts have been made to develop a theory but still nothing more than a simple hypothesis...just ignore what you can't explain or make it up.
@linkfan22 Obviously you don't or rather you don't know what a fossil does and does not tell you. If the fossil record is so good, how do you explain the Cambrian Explosion? The mysterious "explosion" in species from non-vertebrae to vertebrae with absolutely no fossil record confirming the single species origin theory upon which much of the theory of evolution rests. Why are there good fossils of the invertebrate and vertebrate but none showing transition? Poof another miracle?
@DaddyDAJ Maybe no one can currently explain it, but that doesn't automatically mean you jump to creationism. That's an extraordinary claim. And you know what? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence for creationism. I'm sure there are some scientists working on explaining the Cambrian Explosion. Just because we don't know yet, doesn't mean you jump to absolutely ridiculous claims.
@DaddyDAJ Adaptation and mutation are some of the ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS IN the theory of evolution, though! Organisms mutate. Organisms adapt to new environments through natural selection. The flu vaccine protects against one type of flu virus. It kills all those off but leaves room for the mutated ones which then reproduce.
@linkfan22 They are proven concepts leveraged by evolution but THEY ARE NOT EVOLUTION! Show me just one example of a transitory fossil or missing link...there aren't any. Show me one example out of all the fossils that have been discovered that really confirms the "evolution" of one species from another. The mutation of a virus is not a good example since it is still a virus. You show me a virus that evolves into a dog or any other species and then I'll say you have something..
@linkfan22 Your posts have removed all doubt about how ignorant you are though I wouldn't say it is legitimate and I wouldn't go so far to call you stupid though that shoe may fit as well. It's apparent that you as with many in the public school system and universities simply believes without question whatever you are taught and without a firm understanding. Just because an alternative thought conflicts with how you've been brain washed shouldn't remove it from consideration.
@DaddyDAJ You're too stupid to even hold an even slight logical debate with. What are your arguments for proving intelligent design? You still haven't said a single one.
@linkfan22 I've made several which show it to be at least as plausible if not more so than the evolution theory but you're obviously too ignorant to understand...or maybe you just don't read very well. Regardless, the evolutionary theory (from start to finish) has numerous critical controversial aspects and false or unsubstantiated assumptions which require more faith than ID. Both require some some deduction and are simply alternative reasoning. You obviously believe in miracles.
@DaddyDAJ I don't believe in anything of the sort! If you're going to say evolution requires more faith than ID you're ridiculous. ID is based off of nothing but a 2000 year old book that's been through so many translations that half the stuff in there may have not even been in the original. Evolution is based off of findings in archaeology, geology, and biology. More proof of evolution. About 80 years ago, 1% of bacteria were resistent to penicillin. Today it's about 86%. [1/2]
@linkfan22 evolution is not strong in explaining how humans were formed and the world. Its a theory which keeps on changing its claims with the help of modern biology. Intelligent design as named INTELLIGENT has a more clear in-dept understanding of how humans were formed not only does it tell us how but most importantly WHY us humans are formed.
@sabpwin Yes it is! We have thousands of fossils of humans and extremely close genetic relatives of humans that date back millions of years. The theory of evolution only changes when there is new evidence provided just like any area of science. Explain to me how ID has a more in-depth understanding of how humans formed. There is ABSOLUTELY NO scientific evidence supporting it.
@linkfan22 if u want to date back where humans came from then its was indeed not certaintly 'apes' that is so unlogical. The first ever humanbeing who was created was Adam and from him came Eve. From these pairs came many more multiple of humans hence different race and nations of people. why? the answer is...
@linkfan22 "O mankind! We created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know and honor each other (not that you should despise one another). Indeed the most honorable of you in the sight of God is the most righteous." Chapter 49, Verse 13 'Evoltion' is only a made up study of how life came into existance and does not hold any factual evidence.
@sabpwin If evolution is not a study; it's a theory. But I get your point. Isn't the Bible just a made up story that attempts to explain things that we didn't understand hundreds of years ago? And if we find a better explanation (as should be expected as we learn from each other and pass on our new knowledge and methodology to successive generations), shouldn't we favor the newer, more up-to-date explanations rather than the ones from hundreds or thousands of years ago?
@aarongrooves i agree with you. people back then had no science or advanced logic and reasoning. if someone had downs syndrome or a mental disorder, or mutation, they couldn't explain it scientifically, so they labeled the person as "possessed by demons". Adam and Eve might not have even been humans; they could have been bacteria! ...eve was made from adam's rib...."adam" asexually reproducing.....i'm christian but i have logic. i don't take such an old piece of work so literally
@xoalaraxoxo Adam and Eve should not be taken literally. The bible is not a science book nor does it make that claim. Many of the early church fathers' interpretation of Genesis was very mystical and not scientific. I'm a christian too but I love science.
@linkfan22 funny how 'science' educates people in the 'big bang' how earth was created yet erases the creator, the mastermind behind it. Learning how the world and humans came into existance is just like learning the alphabtes and numbers but knowing WHY this all came into existance is learning the words made up from the alphabtes and multipying, dividing numbers. (next stage)
@sabpwin There's no attempt to "erase" the creator. If you ask any cosmologist about how the big bang began, most will be honest and admit that they don't know. They may have hypotheses, but even their best theories break down at that point. Maybe it was God, maybe it was something else. We really don't know. But this is very different from saying, "I don't know, so it must be God." Saying "I don't know" may inspire you to explore, but saying "It was God. Done." makes most people stop thinking.
@DaddyDAJ [2/2] This shows the process of natural selection. If all the bacteria that die from penicillin are killed off, the only one's that will reproduce are the penicillin-resistant bacteria. Therefore, over time, more and more bacteria are born resistant to penicillin and they will survive. That's evolution by natural selection happening at a very quick pace compared to the millions of years it takes for macro-evolution to take place.
@linkfan22 Again, you need to open your books...specifically Darwin's The Origin of Species. Your talking adaption and mutation...give me an example of one species evolving into another or even some evidence of the evolutionary transition of one species to another as theorized by the evolutionary tree. If you want to talk evolution, keep it in context...from start to finish. If you want to believe you are simply happen-chance and evolved from pond scum, that's your prerogative.
No, you should ABSOLUTELY be disrepectful of people who believe in Intelligent design!! I believe in God, but Intelligent design is just trying to reinforce the bullshit "creation" story. Evolution is correct. If you have to jar people into believing in the correct thing, do so!
@Stevesrssrssrs Okay, but one should also be at least a bit disrespectful of people who believe in god.
While it makes sense to accept the assumption a god might somehow exist, plain believe in a fairy tale or the specific gods those stories and their authors came up with is just bullshit, too.
@ikeahase Well, I don't think you should be disrespectful of anyone's religious beliefs, but they have little, if any, place in science. After all, even though you may not believe, most people in the world do. And no one said anything about specific God/Gods or specific stories, just God Himself. The fact is, if there is a God, evolution IS his "Intelligent Design" so to argue against evolution is fucking retarded as hell!!!
@Stevesrssrssrs What an idiot....you've got everything figured out don't you. You haven't got a clue or one bit of actual evidence to contradict ID and yet the complexity that's been observed all around us is immense and still unexplained. I suppose you've created life as well and have explained the delicate balance of our universe. You probably also think the Mercedes Sedan is a product of evolution. What a close minded dolt!
Great video, you communicated very well. There are a lot of ways concepts of evolution can come across, you point out which is the most rational and evident.
Dawkins won't debate with creationists who are scientists, such as the scientists at ICR, The Institure for Creation Research. Ask him why? Read my Internet article: ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Besides, species couldn't have survived with vital tissues, organs, biological systems still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA." Read Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
@Mogley52 Do you agree that every animal within a species shows variation? If these variations keep going on, for let's say 1 million years, will the dog at the end of the generation look exactly the same as the one 1 million years ago? "from worm to human" Natural selection theory does not say that, it says that worms and humans someway down the tree of life share a common ancestor, an ancestor that had the potential to turn into a worm-like relative or a mammal like relative
Being born from someone like that doesn't necessarily mean you will be like them though, many rise up from what should have been a bad upbringing and change the world. Also, a note on the big bang theory, mass can be compounded, and in doing so huge amounts of energy are stored, Thea big bang never came from nothing, it was the release of a massive amount of stored energy that resulted in the release of all the atoms we know of today into something we call the universe
Do me a favor and watch this video ( the only one in my faves) Also keep this in mind while you watch it, many believe that light is actually from another dimension. And using Einstein's time dilation theory, if you were moving at the speed of light for one day then one thousand years would have passed. The Bible says that 1 day to God is a Thousand years on earth. God is referred to many times in the Bible as the light. I think the supernatural world is light.
Einsteins theory of relativity says that if you get in a spaceship and travel for 24 hours at the speed of light time will pass shorter for the person inside the ship than outside the ship. You are right there. What you've done is misunderstood it a little. When you get out 24 hours will still have passed on clocks outside the ship (not 1000 years), but clocks inside the ship will say only 18 hours have passed (as an example). Don't rationalise it to fit backwards into your book
@DudeSpectre Thanks for the correction. I got that from a radio talk show. And the people in it probably didn't know what they were talking about. And also when I read in the Bible that a day in the lords presence is like a 1,000 years, I took it too literally. He was just giving an example so we could have a chance at grasping the experience that he was trying to convey. But anyways thanks. : )
Hey, I really liked the clarification, but on the first example of the educated parents vs. the guy who's "nuts", was just kind of concerned that viewers could possibly misunderstand this comparison and perhaps take away a certain deterministic view of your eye opening message. could the child of the 2 scholars go on to live a life similar to the baby factory dudes, or the 10 playa-prodigies live as active/responsible citizens? nature vs nurture, its debated but genetics ≠ behavior (imo)
So the point is, natural selection does not rule out intelligent design, and intelligent design does not rule out natural selection. This makes the whole argument completely redundant. People need to get over it. The sooner people begin to understand this slightly less obvious, but more profound principle, the better. The only ones who won't accept it are those who take the bible literally, or those with sinister political reasons; (all the same people in my mind),
Finally someone logical enough to see the fallacy in the conclusion that the proving of evolution is the disproving of "ID"!!! LOOK EVERYONE!!! EVOLUTION IS REAL, GOD IS REAL. AND GOD IN HIS MAGNIFICENCE MADE EVOLUTION SO HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO KEEP MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO HIS CREATION DEPENDING ON THE CLIMATE AND OTHER FACTORS. WHAT A BRILLIANT IDEA!!! I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION AFTER CREATION, BUT HOW CAN YOU BE SO BLIND TO THINK THAT EVOLUTION CREATED THE UNIVERSE? AND TOTALLY REJECT GOD?
How can I be blind? There is zero evidence of a creator. It's just a man-made concept to give people reassurance and meaning to their lives. Unlike many, I'm happy enough living in a universe that doesn't give a shit about me or my planet. I am humble, and I recognize our irrelevance. It's a shame so many others can't accept it.
@slasherzedd So I guess the origin of the universe goes like this, in the beginning there was nothing, which exploded. Do you see the illogical thinking in that? To me an intelligent creator is the only logical answer. Think of it this way: everything that began to exist has a cause for it's existence. We know for a fact that the universe bagan to exist (the Big Bang). So there must be a cause for it's existence. And I believe that cause is God.
@slasherzedd More Evidence: If the universe began to exist without the help of some type of divine intervention than where did all of the Physical laws come from? What told water that it's molecular composition had to be H2O for it to be water? What determined the boiling point of all the elements? What determined that the increase in the mass of an object is directly proportionate to it's gravitational pull? Was it by mere chance? And if so, Where did that chance come from in the first place?
@Y0UTUBERCUL0SIS He's not saying that, he just wants to clarify that the fact evolution exists is not a reason to not be religious and that to belief in evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive terms
@kly45 Well it gets kinda tricky, because "Evolution" can mean many different things. There's Macro Evolution: the changing from one type of species to another, Micro Evolution: the variations within the species achieved through natural selection, and Organic Evolution: the origin of life. (Just to name a few) So if your talking about Micro Evolution, that doesn't contradict with christian bible. HOWEVER, if you'r talking about Macro Evolution, that needs millions of years.
@kly45 And the Bible say's that it only took 6 days for the Earth and the solar system to be created. Also the Bible implies a young Earth (10,000 years or so). So if you believed in Macro Evolution then you can't possibly believe in the Bible. However I am of the opinion that Macro Evolution Is unproven, as well as the proposal of an old earth.
@Diomedsspear No, it's a false dichotomy. I agree that the literal bible contradicts evolution, but I know people who are christians and believe in evolution, I disagree with them, but they can hold these views because they are not mutually exclusive. oh and macro/micro evolution is an artificial term, small change over small time = large change over large time, that is mathematical proof, as is the inheritence of genes. we share 96% basic genes as chimps, go figure.
@kly45 Type in "Humans share more dna than previously thought" in Google You should find an article about humans sharing exact dna strands with many different animals at the very top. And about your equation, yes it makes sense on paper. But it still hasn't been proven. Just because you can work something out mathematically doesn't allow you to say dogmatically that it's proven. Many theory's can be worked out mathematically but they can't be proven unless observed through experimentation.
@Diomedsspear I am slightly confused, you're telling me to look up similarities in dna, proving a common ancestor, yet at the same time telling me that there is no proof for common ancestory, which is it? And sorry, that makes no sense, evolution is as dogmatic as germ or gravity theory, don't try and attack it with emotive words. And I suggest you understand what a theory is first, observations are useless without theory, a theory is a model that EXPLAINS WHY an observation happens.
@Diomedsspear So when you say that theories can be worked out mathematically but can't be proved without observation, it doesn't make any sense, theories are all about observations, they're not just stabs in the dark. I assume you are meaning application, guess what? If an application doesn't work then we would change that theory (evolution by natural selection is still considered the mechanism for species.). Lastly, if something can be demonstrated by mathematics then it is good proof
@kly45 I have been searching for evidence of evolution, and I haven't found any evidence of transitional fossils. So if you could direct me to a website or a video I would be very grateful. And What are Ring species? p.s. thanks for the rational discussion. I've run into too many people who have just blown up at me about this topic. I just want to find the truth.
@Diomedsspear Ring species: best to look up in wikipedia, when an animal has broke off into to seperate "microevolutionary" strands due to environment, eventually both strands form a ring, all the species on each strand can mate with the ones they evolved with, yet the ones at the ends of the strands cannot mate with each other ie showing a new speciation (macroevolution) go to talkorigins for good fossil evidences, but fossils aren't that important now that we have genetics, genetics are the
@Diomedsspear the best proof, still you already agreed that dna is shared so I find it hard for you to understand how you accept this yet don't beleive in evidence for macroevoultion
@kly45 I Well, because in that article it said that mice have the most similar DNA strands to humans. Before they said that we were the most similar to chimps, and now their saying we're closer to a mice? Somethings not right.
@kly45 Ok, your right about that one. It doesn't say that, but it does say that Humans share more dna strands with animals that are seemingly very different. (I'm paraphrasing) And the evolutionary theory suggests that species would grow increasingly further apart in terms of similarity. Right?
@Diomedsspear Well, this reminds me of what darwin wrote about the eye, and what is usually quote mined. Darwin said that it SEEMS as though the eye is too complex to evolve, yet (and this is the part creationists don't quote) - he goes on to clarify that things that "seem" impossible is not a valid objections in science. The ancestor of all mammals was a kind of shrew creature, obviously one branch led to us, another to mice. So we should have lots in common with their ancestors. just not AS
@kly45 Ok, so our dna is the most similar too chimpanzees. And that ( I'll say it) works perfectly with the Evolutionary theory. So that's 1 fact that supports evolution. Any others?
@Diomedsspear I don't get it, so you will accept this as fact yet you still need more proof? You realise that no theory of anything is ever complete right? Like someone said in reviewing "no intelligence allowed". A net has many holes in it too, but try telling a fish that the net isn't there. How about the fact that we can measure how distant other animals are from us genetically, and this genetic tree matches the fossil evidence and what we'd expect to find
@Diomedsspear Other than the genetic evidence, we can see ring species and study them (which is what we'd expect for evolution theory). Atavisms, where we see snakes born with arms and humans with tails or larger teeth, likewise, chicken born with teeth. We've also been able to manipulate nature IE breed dogs, pigeons etc and farm crops like bananas all by artificial selection. So obviously natural selection does it without our intervention, and yet clearly shows that animals have the capacity
@Diomedsspear to change over time. There's also been more recent findings like the pepper moths or e.coli developing an advantage to grow on citrate acid (lenski experiment). But even at a basic level we see the overwhelming similarities. All reptiles move the same way, even snakes wriggle in the direction a lizard moves its legs. Snakes, lizards etc all use their tongue to test the atmosphere. Fish swim side to side yet whales and dolphins swim up and down much like land mammals (dogs etc) run
@kly45 That's true, I've heard of the the pepper moths before. But I've never heard those other things before. So reptiles supposedly came from fish, and mammals came from whales? I guess that might be plausible. However I'm still speculative enough to argue about the sufficiency of evidence regarding macro Evolution. But when we look at the very beginning of life on earth. When you go from non-living-matter to living-matter. The question just about the information in DNA puzzles me.
@Diomedsspear slightly wrong. Fish turned into amphibians and then into reptiles. Ever noticed how an amphibian seems kind of like a "squishy fishy-reptile"? I know it's not exactly scientific but there are similariites. Some reptiles became dinosaurs and then some dinosaurs became birds. Some reptiles became mammals and some quadroped mammal like a wolf went BACK into the sea and created whales/dolphins etc. a distant relative of cows would have went into the sea and evolved to manatees
@Diomedsspear and as I said its very interesting, fish swin side to side, while whales and dolphins swim up and down, the same way a dog moves it's rear end up and down while running. Whales etc have babies in the womb, social societies and care for their immature young, They're also warm blooded which tells us they're mammals, and have all the same kind of organs and bones as mammals but in different variations and positions.
@Diomedsspear It's all very interesting, search "Lizard with very tiny legs, almost snake-like" in google and look at the second result (a flickr page)and just lookat the similarities, it looks likea transitional form, well technically everything IS a transitional form, mudskippers, too are both an interesting creature and a "living transition". But as said before, the theory doesn't concern non-living to living phenomena. If you're interested you should look up the first synthetic life created
@Diomedsspear created by craig ventor. And also try to remember what darwin himself said, just because something puzzles you doesn't mean it is not plausible, and in science, simply doubting something becasue it puzzles us does not make it invalid. I'm sure most of the complex building structures and information of life are puzzling to us, after all, we're only human :)
@kly45 It only puzzles me when I look at it in the light of Evolution. You see.....DNA is Information. And information can only come from an intelligent source. program developers don't leave there computers with a randomized program writing software. They higher programers. And when ever we see something that is highly improbable and has a pattern we automatically think intelligent design. So when looking at the information in DNA, the only plausible explanation is that there is intelligence.
@Diomedsspear There are too many problems with your argument to list. First of all, can you elaborate on what you mean by "information"? I hear this all too often and there is no definition of what "information" means. Secondly you're using inductive reasoning to assume only a mind could create this information. Thirdly an intelligent source itself would need to have been designed by another intelligent source by your logic. Fourth, We observe in science that things generally start simple and
@kly45 Information: 2nd def. What is conveyed or represented by a particular sequence of things. There ya go.
My ASSUMPTION was that highly complex systems organized in a particular sequence are impossible without intelligence. Thus my CONCLUSION: because this information exhibits these traits then it came from an intelligent source.
Yes, but not if that first source was eternal and outside of the realm of the universe.
@Diomedsspear Yes but you make the assumption that this information requires a mind because it is the same information that we see in say, computer code. This is NOT a good analogy because both definitions of "information" have been muddled into the same. I can't explain it all in a youtube comment, nor do I have all the knowledge of it, but I will send you a video I seen with someone fully explaining why it is not "information-information". Funnily enough, just last night I was reading a
@kly45 Again I say, It is not an ASSUMPTION, it is my CONCLUSION. And that conclusion comes from other arguments, it does not form the premise for my arguments.
@Diomedsspear No i is, you're conclusion is: The universe had an intelligent designer. The premise is: all things that show information have a designer, the second premise is: The universe shows information. So your first premise is an assumption. Though valid, it's not a sound argument
@kly45 So your saying that my argument is not sound because my first premise( all things that show information have a designer) is a false assumption. Well so far you have not been able to give me an example of information (an improbable pattern) coming from a non-intelligent source. However, I can give you multiple examples of information coming from intelligent sources.( I'm sure you can too) So I don't see any reason for my first premise to be fallacious.
@Diomedsspear Of course I could, natural selection is the process which could cause complex information to come around. Things start simple, but get more complex over time, it's not surprising, due to the age of the earth, that there is complex structures in our molecules. It's like a puddle saying "I fit so well into this pothole, it must have been designed". It's also the second premise I have trouble with, dna is not the same kind of information that you use in analogies. Also, dna is living
@Diomedsspear things that have been designed are not living, not only that but there is problems with our design and there is no "final end product" which is also what a design infers. The dna that we have causes cancer via random mutation within the molecule, so if it were designed it has not been designed well. Also about the examples thing, it's like saying "all swans are white" and then discovering a black swan a week later. The premise is not fallacious, but the argument itself.
@Diomedsspear philosophy book. One subject that came up was God, and a nice quote from russell appeared about the absurdity of the first cause argument, here's the quote from the book: "conclusion not only failed to follow from the premises but also actually contradicted them. argument starts of from 'everything has a (distinct, previous) cause', but ends with the conclusion that there must be something that has no distinct , previous cause, but 'carries the reason of his existence in himself'
@kly45 I could argue about that but we're getting side-tracked here. Let's finish the argument about the origin of information and then we can argue about that argument......haha
@Diomedsspear The russell quote raises the problem with the first cause argument, which is directly related to your argument about the cause of the universe. I don't see how it's side-tracking. Can you counter it?
@Diomedsspear I don't usually quote books, but for me, that excerpt really says it better than I could. Furthermore, there is nothing outside of the realm of the universe, hence, he exists in a state of nothingness, ie he does not exist. And if he did exist outside of our realm of the universe, granted, that my previous argument was false, how can he interact with ours?
@Diomedsspear then grow complex. IE the big bang was a singularity that expanded and got more complex, evolution started as single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms with intelligence (IE humans). Something, therefore, would have to be more simple than life for it to create the basic building blocks of DNA. Natural selection is not "randomized" so that analogy doesn't work either. Mutations are random but selection, by definition clearly is not. And if we make the analogy more accurate
@kly45 The big bang only made things more unorganized and chaotic. Animals (as you assume) go from simple organized organisms to complex ORGANIZED organisms. Not complex unorganized messes.
"evolution started as single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms with intelligence (IE humans)." Your assuming that evolution is a fact in an argument that's trying to prove/disprove evolution.........Hmmm.
@Diomedsspear "The big bang only made things more unorganized and chaotic." how so? Where did you get this information from, it's nothing like what I just said. The big bang was a singularity that heated up and expanded, gradually getting more complex. Things are organized, because constants are most likely relative, no matter what their values are. It's like looking at a castle on top of a hill, and saying "that hill most also have been constructed", rather than the fact that the castle was
@Diomedsspear built WITH the hill already acknowledged for it's construction. I didn't assume that, it's accepted by most of the scientific community. And again, where did I infer that simple organisms would turn out to be unorganized messes? it's only possible that complex organized systems survived. No, evolution is a fact, change happens over time, that is a fact, but it is possible to say that the designer designed the method of evolution or the "fine-tuning" of the universe. I thought you
@Diomedsspear and say that we use natural selection is used in computer softwares then we get a correct answer. Natural selection has been used to design aircrafts and software to program to help develop the best wing shapes to make crafts more aerodynamic. If we take the principle of natural selection rather than the straw man that is "randomization", then it is most probable that dna was created naturally. Oh and last, but by no means least, if you think that an intelligent source created DNA
@kly45 Using natural selection to design a more efficient wing is the same thing as using trial and error. ( Which only works if a human( intelligence) is present to oversee this process and make modifications to the subject or device. But in Evolution Survival of the fittest oversees this process and modifies by eliminating faulty aspects of the organism. Thus natural selection is not comparable to this process because it uses DEATH instead of INTELLIGENCE to enable progression.
@Diomedsspear "Using natural selection to design a more efficient wing is the same thing as using trial and error." yes, but you previously said it was "randomized", randomization is not the same thing as trial and error. "Which only works if a human( intelligence) is present to oversee this process and make modifications to the subject or device." No it isn't, you're thinking about "artificial selection" the process in which living things are farmed/bred, natural selection by definition is
@Diomedsspear selection by natural processes. The most adapted to their environment produce more, the less produce less, those genes are passed on and eventually the animal changes. "Thus natural selection is not comparable to this process because it uses DEATH instead of INTELLIGENCE to enable progression." yes but intelligence is only the process of artificial selection, not natural and even farmers cull animals, so both terms are NOT mutually exclusive
@Diomedsspear them you must also agree that the intelligent source created it in such a way for it to easily mutate due to outside factors (but also just randomly) to mess with our bodies and tell us to continually grow cells and cause tumors.
@kly45 First of all, if I'm going to explain the reason for this then we're going to have to imagine that God Does exist. Now, the reason why God would allow our DNA to "mutate due to outside factors" is because he realizes that the environment is different in different parts of the world. So in my opinion He gave a population the ability to adapt to their environment by means of natural selection. To explain Tumors and other horrible diseases I would have to explain what happened in Genesis.
@Diomedsspear I'm more than happy with your defense, but here is your problem; "we're going to have to imagine that God Does" - You were trying to prove that god exists due to there being design, yet for you to reply to counter my arguments you need to grant that god exists, which makes the whole argument absurd. "I would have to explain what happened in Genesis." - Another problem, you were trying to prove that there is a designer, why must that designer be the god of the bible, or of any
@kly45 I wasn't saying that I knew for sure that the God of Israel is the designer. I was just saying that if He was the designer, I have an explanation for the bad in the world. And it's in Genesis. Would you like me to explain it or no?
@Diomedsspear Okay, but it wouldn't get us anywhere. If I grant two things here, that there was a creator god and that there is objective good and evil, then all you're explanation does is create one of millions of possible explanations
@kly45 That's a possibility, but I still tend to believe in a God of theism even though every human being hasn't had a personal relationship with him. And the reason for that is in the beginning God handed over the authority of this world to us, but we sinned against God by essentially disobeying him and handing over the authority to satan. And that is why we became separated from God and why bad things happen to us. Because Satan hates us because were made in God's image, and Satan hates God.
@Diomedsspear The idea of sin doesn't make sense, however I don't usually use the "evil" argument to disprove god as I believe that if there were a god there ought to be objective good AND evil. I don't believe this however. But the idea that you use to justify it, doesn't seem like a very fair system. If your dad killed someone and then killed himself, should YOU get prosecuted for his actions?
@kly45 If you had the choice of restraining your son and keeping him in the house so that you could have control over his life would you do it? Or would you let him have a free will even if it meant that he might reject you and never see you again? That's why God gave us free will. Because he loves us with more passion then you can ever imagine. Don't let Satan steal you away from Him.
@Diomedsspear That doesn't have anything to do with my argument. As I said, if there were a god i would expect things like good/evil and freewill, what I said was, ". If your dad killed someone and then killed himself, should YOU get prosecuted for his actions?" and that is what sin is.
@Diomedsspear Satan is a Hebrew word which translates to oppose or obstruct not someone who hates God and his children. The bible has several Satans, Job's Satan, Moloch, the reptilian fruit salesman, Belial, Lucifer (God's former high angel) Mephistopheles, and others. Satan can be a human, an animal, or anything else as long as he is opposing the progress of something. In other words you are Ha-Satan of moral reasoning and secular thought (and not a very good one either).
@kly45 However, God made it possible for us to have a relationship with him again even though we turned away. First God made a covenant with abraham, and then through moses God made a way for redemption by sacrificing a lamb for our sins. Then God sent his only begotten son to die on the cross for us and be the perfect sacrifice for our sins and enable us to have a relationship with God. And now all we have to do is pray the prayer of salvation and we'll be saved and reunited with our God.
@Pirate44444 The reason why they exclude Macro evolution is because, macro evolution is where two clads come divergently from an origin. kind of like how fish became into mamals, birds and other species that we have now. The reason why they reject it is because, well that would screw up their belief of Adam and eve.
omg i hate utube comment sections on this kinda shit. shut the fuck up
quiz0walkthroughs 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
funny how 'science' educates people in the 'big bang' how earth was created yet erases the creator, the mastermind behind it. Learning how the world and humans came into existance is just like learning the alphabtes and numbers but knowing WHY this all came into existance is learning the words made up from the alphabtes and multipying, dividing numbers. (next stage)
sabpwin 2 weeks ago
Why wouldn't you want to disrespect someone who believes in ID? afterall, you said if they believe in ID they are denying all of the basis of biology, so why would this opinion deserve any respect?
mikekoz68 2 weeks ago
@mikekoz68 biology comes from the main root of intelligent design
sabpwin 2 weeks ago
In about 50 years, anyone who still believes in "intelligent design" will be considered uneducated, idiotic, and delusional. They'll die out like those who used to believe in a flat earth, or in Roman gods, or in millions of other past superstitions. It's just modern progress, slowly shining a light on ignorance. Get over yourselves and deal with it. Educate yourselves now, or be considered a stupid weirdo later.
merkleboy10 2 weeks ago
lol this guy named salman khan has clearly made a big fool out of himself. He's saying how he, indirectly, disregards intelligent design and talks about how 'modern biology' is strong in describing the process of evoltion yet he is a Muslim who believes in a creator of the worlds. Either he is tryiying in claimimg to be one as no Muslim would believe in the process of the weak 'Evolution'. We (humans) did NOT evolve from 'apes' no true authentic source shows this. This'thoery'remains a thoery.
sabpwin 2 weeks ago
Always appreciate Salman's videos :) thanks for that different view point Sal! I never looked at it that way.
Simeitsa 4 weeks ago in playlist Biology
"ID is not science at all."
Shalek 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
he's so not mumbling he spends quality time teaching so it's very clear and helpful for everyone. thank you so much your videos are so interesting and useful
curious1512 1 month ago
Comment removed
curious1512 1 month ago
Please just grow a pair and make your point Just stop mumbling on about it . . . !
PresidentOfAwesomene 1 month ago
@PresidentOfAwesomene He's not mumbling about it. He's teaching. Now hush!
huizar4289 1 month ago
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
"youtube.com/watch?v=INH-lNUQQZg"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 1 month ago
I like your blog style. It shows your thinking pattern. I'm learning a lot of English from your stating. Thank you.
aidabach 1 month ago
4:07 It just shows you there are some "Cra--!" (and i'm not gonna make any judgement here)! LOL ------
thumbs up if you understand!
jumb0mumb0 2 months ago in playlist Biology
As I understand it, the points of contention between Evolution and ID essentiall boil down to whether the process(es) that are responsible for the origin/development/maintenance of life are random, or structured (e.g. heuristic). Those two ideas are completely irreconcilable because nothing can be simultaneously random and not-random. It would alse probably help if the terms were more clearly defined; especially "evolution," but also possibly "science," and even "biology."
TheNthMouse 2 months ago
This whole argument completely avoids the real issue of where the first "design" came from...perfect or not and assumes that because we know everything, we completely understand the motivation behind the design. Why do we make the assumption that perfection was the intent? And most importantly, how did the first successful DNA code come about..."poof" a miracle happened? Look at the statistics against that probably of occurrence..where did the original "info" come from?
DaddyDAJ 2 months ago
@DaddyDAJ The lack of evidence for one premise is not evidence of another premise. You should seriously consider Intelligent Design's ability to stand on its own merit (because it cannot). Furthermore I can tell for your diction that you are a creationist. You say "a miracle happened". It is a measure of extreme arrogance to say that becasue you/humanity cannot currently explain an event, that it is impossible to explain. You, sir, are intellectual cancer.
DomeSwag 2 months ago
@DomeSwag ID stands on it's own merit as easily if not more so than evolution. It takes more faith to blindly believe in a half-baked theory which defies immense statistical probability and most circumstantial evidence that we have observed. Correction..it is extremely arrogant to think that if we don't understand something, it cannot be so. You're argument is mindless and completely contradictory. You pompously think you are an intellectual when in fact you're obviously not.
DaddyDAJ 1 month ago
@DaddyDAJ ID is an ad hoc hypothesis and, by Occam's Razor, is (probably) false. You declare evolution "a half-baked theory", justify that. The majority of the academic world disagree's with you. You claim ID stands on its own merit, how so? Declaring your rightness does not make your statement any more valid, and I am afraid that that is all ID proponents can do; proclaim their rightness, and be as critical as possible of any gaps, no matter how minute, in scientific knowledge. Invalid theory.
DomeSwag 1 month ago
@DomeSwag I won't disagree that ID relies on observing the complexities of life and our universe and making the grand conclusion that it didn't just happen because anything is possible given enough time. It's appreciating the fact that so many things work in such harmony within such a finely balanced environment that it can't be left to chance (astronomical odds) no matter how much time you give it. We learn new things every day or realize that we were dead wrong about others.
DaddyDAJ 1 month ago
@DaddyDAJ It would *have* to work in harmony to work at all. If the universe was total chaos, and we still emerged, that would be a miracle. It's funny that you bring that up, because everything in the universe behaves naturally. Why do you insist on introducing unnatural beings? It is a frivolous leap of faith (unfounded belief). Furthermore, I'd like to point out that deities proposed by all religions (deism aside) are, frankly, quite silly.
DomeSwag 1 month ago
@DomeSwag You really don't know much about the evolution theory do you and your self-proclaimed statements of "fact" are pretty ridiculous as well. What is "naturally"? You're simple minded definition of how complete chance and chaos is miraculously brought into order to allow life to exist? Everything just happens because it's natural? You get to decide what natural is based on your far superior understanding of the universe? What an arrogant, pompous perspective. Amazing!
DaddyDAJ 1 month ago
@DaddyDAJ Naturally = by a set of solid, unbreakable natural laws (e.g. Gravitation). This is well known, I have no great understanding which is absent from the rest of mankind. God is unnatural, it would violate the first law of thermodynamics in the creation of the universe - it/He is abdicated from the natural laws of existence, which is acknowledged as true. So you should feel pretty silly now, everything I said (aside from the last sentence) was objective and solidly valid. Amazing! :)
DomeSwag 1 month ago
@DomeSwag Based on what? So you now think that evolution is somehow confirmed to the equivalent degree of gravitation? You're mixing apples and oranges which I suppose is necessary to even attempt to make your ridiculous assertion. So how do you explain the expanding universe which has become an observed and accepted theory. The laws of thermodynamics work great in closed and defined systems. You're out of your league on this one.
DaddyDAJ 1 month ago
@DaddyDAJ This started by me saying that ID cannot stand on its own, and you're proving me right. I've said nothing of evolution, only you. You're acting like a wounded cat hissing in a corner. ID has no merit to stand upon itself without the acceptance, as an axiom, that existence is evidence of God - which it is not. I am way out of my league here, you're right. I have to help you up the ladder to put you on my level. You've provided not a shred of evidence on defense of ID. Weak debater.
DomeSwag 1 month ago
@DomeSwag No the thread is about Evolution Clarified...or not. Who's in a corner? You've presented nothing that logically refutes ID and just looking at the complexity of life and the statistical probability that it just happened randomly (astronomincally low) are proof enough and definitely more proof than that of the evolution myth. You're arrogant and glib and obviously believe anything you read...sheep are common...they don't need to think for themselves.
DaddyDAJ 1 month ago
@DaddyDAJ How do you figure that? The claim in dispute here is that ID stands upon its own merit. And for some reason, in every reply you've brought up evolution. So, with every reply, you validate my original statement. Your "If not A, then B" logic is absolutely false. You've provided not a shred of evidence for ID aside from your own personal incredulity regarding the nature of the universe. ID is an ad hoc hypothesis for the objective value of existence, there's no reason to fancy it true.
DomeSwag 1 month ago
@DomeSwag You really do like to hear yourself talk. Too bad you don't put as much time into objectively considering alternative thought as you do into trying to develop an eloquent response so you can convince yourself that you look good. The argument stands on it's own. It's also apparent that you've already been brainwashed but I would still invite you and challenge you to read Lee Strobel's book, "Case for a Creator" as he does a pretty good job of presenting the facts.
DaddyDAJ 1 month ago
@DaddyDAJ You didn't counter a single point I made, nor did you provide any credible evidence for your argument. At that, you also sound pretty flustered. So... I win? Oh, and I am a creationist. Sixth Sense style twist, eh? It was fun chatting.
DomeSwag 1 month ago
@DomeSwag You didn't make any substantial points and I did provide credible evidence and a good reference for further reading to help cure your obvious ignorance problem. Why on earth would I be "flustered"...because you you won't take the time to think through what's presented before you start working on your self-impressing response? You've got to be joking...and what did you win? I mistakenly thought you might actually have some substance to share...I was wrong about that.
DaddyDAJ 1 month ago
@DaddyDAJ In debate, it's usually in good taste to display your premises and the logically conclusion which follows. There's a reason you never see a presidential candidate take a moment to tell the audience and his opponent "Well if you'd just have read this book...", it is foolish. Your entire argument revolves around the consistent and unabashed ad-hominem that I am an idiot whom believes everything my professors have taught me. You don't have evidence for it, it is a subjective appeal.
DomeSwag 1 month ago
@DomeSwag I don't think you're an idiot but I do think you try much too hard to be clever and overly eloquent with your responses. You give the impression that you are very self-absorbed but maybe that's just the way you present yourself. Although debating skills can be handy, this is a blog for rational objective discussion...you don't get points for style. The topic is extensive and the real issues often avoided or overlooked. The book provides a more extensive treatment.
DaddyDAJ 1 month ago
@DomeSwag I'm obviously not trying to start a formal debate nor do I care about "good taste" and debating style; and heaven forbid that I even remotely attempt to emulate our president and his approach. I'm simply interested in content and possibly learning something new; and I think that although subtle, the premise was established and the conclusion quite obvious. However, given your self-perceived mastery, enlighten me with your argument for ID since you believe in creationism.
DaddyDAJ 1 month ago
@DaddyDAJ take an evolution class or read an evolution book. i don't mean that in a contentious way - it's just too much to explain in a comment or a video. it's fascinating, but not miraculous.
redwoodwonderland 2 months ago
@redwoodwonderland Taken many and read too many books filled with these shoddy theories that don't even begin to stand up to any real scientific rigor. Trying to link together a series of ill-founded theories with little real scientific evidence to form what is perceived as coherent theory is completely ludicrous. It is fascinating and miraculous....if not, then why in our great intellect have we not been able too reproduce it...or even get close? There lies true arrogance.
DaddyDAJ 1 month ago
@redwoodwonderland I agree this topic is much to involved for a simple blog. As with DomeSwag, I would invite you to read Lee Strobel's - "Case for a Creator" which does a fairly good job of presenting the facts and an alternative to the ill-founded hypotheses presented in most of our school systems as fact. It lays down most of the contentious issues and my subsequent independent research tends to supports his claims and conclusion. Objectivity is key!
DaddyDAJ 1 month ago
@DaddyDAJ DNA arose from chemicals on Earth billions of years ago. If you're asking where chemicals and the elements come from, I'd suggest reading up on the big bang. Here's some food for thought: maybe there was no true intent ever.
linkfan22 1 month ago
@linkfan22 It just arose...then it just combined perfectly despite the extremely complex process, strict environmental conditions and immense odds against any such occurrence. You must be religious and have great faith in Darwin your god. Oh, I forgot the classic defense, given enough time anything is possible...and that requires less faith than ID...you've got to be joking! I can't believe people who call themselves educated really buy that stuff.
DaddyDAJ 1 month ago
@DaddyDAJ This requires NO faith at all. Do you know what the most common element in the universe is? It's hydrogen. The third most common is oxygen. Fourth is carbon. Those elements make up all organisms on Earth. And yes, it did take time for it to happen. In fact MILLIONS of years. Practically anything is possible to happen in that time frame. I'm not saying that is exactly how it happened... (part 1/2)
linkfan22 1 month ago
@DaddyDAJ since the very beginning of life on Earth is up for debate, but if you're too stupid to understand biological evolution and that it's real after watching Khan's video on it, then you're just wasting everyone's damn time. Also, think about how much evidence you have for everything you believe. You have NONE.
linkfan22 1 month ago
@linkfan22 Exactly the type of reply that I'd expect from someone like you...thinks he has all the answers but provides little to no concrete evidence to support it...all blow no go. At least you have some grasp of elements but again nothing to tie it all together. So Khan's video is gospel? Just one of the sheep I see. It's obvious that attempts have been made to develop a theory but still nothing more than a simple hypothesis...just ignore what you can't explain or make it up.
DaddyDAJ 1 month ago
@DaddyDAJ Do you know what a fossil is by any chance?
linkfan22 1 month ago
@linkfan22 Obviously you don't or rather you don't know what a fossil does and does not tell you. If the fossil record is so good, how do you explain the Cambrian Explosion? The mysterious "explosion" in species from non-vertebrae to vertebrae with absolutely no fossil record confirming the single species origin theory upon which much of the theory of evolution rests. Why are there good fossils of the invertebrate and vertebrate but none showing transition? Poof another miracle?
DaddyDAJ 1 month ago
@DaddyDAJ Maybe no one can currently explain it, but that doesn't automatically mean you jump to creationism. That's an extraordinary claim. And you know what? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence for creationism. I'm sure there are some scientists working on explaining the Cambrian Explosion. Just because we don't know yet, doesn't mean you jump to absolutely ridiculous claims.
linkfan22 1 month ago
@DaddyDAJ Also, why exactly do you think there's a new flu vaccine every year?
linkfan22 1 month ago
@linkfan22 That's adaptation and mutation, not evolution. Maybe you need to look that one up to better understand the theory.
DaddyDAJ 1 month ago
@DaddyDAJ Adaptation and mutation are some of the ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS IN the theory of evolution, though! Organisms mutate. Organisms adapt to new environments through natural selection. The flu vaccine protects against one type of flu virus. It kills all those off but leaves room for the mutated ones which then reproduce.
linkfan22 1 month ago
@linkfan22 They are proven concepts leveraged by evolution but THEY ARE NOT EVOLUTION! Show me just one example of a transitory fossil or missing link...there aren't any. Show me one example out of all the fossils that have been discovered that really confirms the "evolution" of one species from another. The mutation of a virus is not a good example since it is still a virus. You show me a virus that evolves into a dog or any other species and then I'll say you have something..
DaddyDAJ 1 month ago
@DaddyDAJ I can't tell if you're a troll or legitimately stupid...
linkfan22 1 month ago
@linkfan22 Your posts have removed all doubt about how ignorant you are though I wouldn't say it is legitimate and I wouldn't go so far to call you stupid though that shoe may fit as well. It's apparent that you as with many in the public school system and universities simply believes without question whatever you are taught and without a firm understanding. Just because an alternative thought conflicts with how you've been brain washed shouldn't remove it from consideration.
DaddyDAJ 1 month ago
@DaddyDAJ You're too stupid to even hold an even slight logical debate with. What are your arguments for proving intelligent design? You still haven't said a single one.
linkfan22 3 weeks ago
@linkfan22 I've made several which show it to be at least as plausible if not more so than the evolution theory but you're obviously too ignorant to understand...or maybe you just don't read very well. Regardless, the evolutionary theory (from start to finish) has numerous critical controversial aspects and false or unsubstantiated assumptions which require more faith than ID. Both require some some deduction and are simply alternative reasoning. You obviously believe in miracles.
DaddyDAJ 2 weeks ago
@DaddyDAJ I don't believe in anything of the sort! If you're going to say evolution requires more faith than ID you're ridiculous. ID is based off of nothing but a 2000 year old book that's been through so many translations that half the stuff in there may have not even been in the original. Evolution is based off of findings in archaeology, geology, and biology. More proof of evolution. About 80 years ago, 1% of bacteria were resistent to penicillin. Today it's about 86%. [1/2]
linkfan22 2 weeks ago
@linkfan22 evolution is not strong in explaining how humans were formed and the world. Its a theory which keeps on changing its claims with the help of modern biology. Intelligent design as named INTELLIGENT has a more clear in-dept understanding of how humans were formed not only does it tell us how but most importantly WHY us humans are formed.
sabpwin 2 weeks ago
@sabpwin Yes it is! We have thousands of fossils of humans and extremely close genetic relatives of humans that date back millions of years. The theory of evolution only changes when there is new evidence provided just like any area of science. Explain to me how ID has a more in-depth understanding of how humans formed. There is ABSOLUTELY NO scientific evidence supporting it.
linkfan22 2 weeks ago
@linkfan22 if u want to date back where humans came from then its was indeed not certaintly 'apes' that is so unlogical. The first ever humanbeing who was created was Adam and from him came Eve. From these pairs came many more multiple of humans hence different race and nations of people. why? the answer is...
sabpwin 2 weeks ago
@sabpwin How do you know that Adam was the first human being?
aarongrooves 1 week ago
@linkfan22 "O mankind! We created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know and honor each other (not that you should despise one another). Indeed the most honorable of you in the sight of God is the most righteous." Chapter 49, Verse 13 'Evoltion' is only a made up study of how life came into existance and does not hold any factual evidence.
sabpwin 2 weeks ago
@sabpwin If evolution is not a study; it's a theory. But I get your point. Isn't the Bible just a made up story that attempts to explain things that we didn't understand hundreds of years ago? And if we find a better explanation (as should be expected as we learn from each other and pass on our new knowledge and methodology to successive generations), shouldn't we favor the newer, more up-to-date explanations rather than the ones from hundreds or thousands of years ago?
aarongrooves 1 week ago
@aarongrooves i agree with you. people back then had no science or advanced logic and reasoning. if someone had downs syndrome or a mental disorder, or mutation, they couldn't explain it scientifically, so they labeled the person as "possessed by demons". Adam and Eve might not have even been humans; they could have been bacteria! ...eve was made from adam's rib...."adam" asexually reproducing.....i'm christian but i have logic. i don't take such an old piece of work so literally
xoalaraxoxo 6 days ago
@xoalaraxoxo Adam and Eve should not be taken literally. The bible is not a science book nor does it make that claim. Many of the early church fathers' interpretation of Genesis was very mystical and not scientific. I'm a christian too but I love science.
KingDcome11 2 days ago
@linkfan22 funny how 'science' educates people in the 'big bang' how earth was created yet erases the creator, the mastermind behind it. Learning how the world and humans came into existance is just like learning the alphabtes and numbers but knowing WHY this all came into existance is learning the words made up from the alphabtes and multipying, dividing numbers. (next stage)
sabpwin 2 weeks ago
@sabpwin There's no attempt to "erase" the creator. If you ask any cosmologist about how the big bang began, most will be honest and admit that they don't know. They may have hypotheses, but even their best theories break down at that point. Maybe it was God, maybe it was something else. We really don't know. But this is very different from saying, "I don't know, so it must be God." Saying "I don't know" may inspire you to explore, but saying "It was God. Done." makes most people stop thinking.
aarongrooves 1 week ago
@DaddyDAJ [2/2] This shows the process of natural selection. If all the bacteria that die from penicillin are killed off, the only one's that will reproduce are the penicillin-resistant bacteria. Therefore, over time, more and more bacteria are born resistant to penicillin and they will survive. That's evolution by natural selection happening at a very quick pace compared to the millions of years it takes for macro-evolution to take place.
linkfan22 2 weeks ago
@linkfan22 Again, you need to open your books...specifically Darwin's The Origin of Species. Your talking adaption and mutation...give me an example of one species evolving into another or even some evidence of the evolutionary transition of one species to another as theorized by the evolutionary tree. If you want to talk evolution, keep it in context...from start to finish. If you want to believe you are simply happen-chance and evolved from pond scum, that's your prerogative.
DaddyDAJ 2 weeks ago
holy shit
Ra1ndropz 3 months ago
No, you should ABSOLUTELY be disrepectful of people who believe in Intelligent design!! I believe in God, but Intelligent design is just trying to reinforce the bullshit "creation" story. Evolution is correct. If you have to jar people into believing in the correct thing, do so!
Stevesrssrssrs 3 months ago 2
@Stevesrssrssrs Okay, but one should also be at least a bit disrespectful of people who believe in god.
While it makes sense to accept the assumption a god might somehow exist, plain believe in a fairy tale or the specific gods those stories and their authors came up with is just bullshit, too.
ikeahase 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ikeahase Well, I don't think you should be disrespectful of anyone's religious beliefs, but they have little, if any, place in science. After all, even though you may not believe, most people in the world do. And no one said anything about specific God/Gods or specific stories, just God Himself. The fact is, if there is a God, evolution IS his "Intelligent Design" so to argue against evolution is fucking retarded as hell!!!
Stevesrssrssrs 3 months ago
@Stevesrssrssrs What an idiot....you've got everything figured out don't you. You haven't got a clue or one bit of actual evidence to contradict ID and yet the complexity that's been observed all around us is immense and still unexplained. I suppose you've created life as well and have explained the delicate balance of our universe. You probably also think the Mercedes Sedan is a product of evolution. What a close minded dolt!
DaddyDAJ 1 month ago
Great video, you communicated very well. There are a lot of ways concepts of evolution can come across, you point out which is the most rational and evident.
Saganismyhero 3 months ago in playlist TAFE
Our understanding is diseases and viruses today is solidly based on theory of evolution. Still religion claims this didn't happen.
789123Y 3 months ago
Hmm, 243 comments. Probably time to mention Hitler I suppose :)
FlashBlack 3 months ago
Some of the Southern States to the West of GA are very successful.
HigherPlanes 4 months ago
EXCELLENT VIDEO.
Soroush84 4 months ago
oh noes I probably have that 12th Century Chinese Warrior dude's genes (x
Maddiekitteh 5 months ago in playlist Biology
So moral of the story is, smart people should make more kids
captaindisguise 6 months ago
Dawkins won't debate with creationists who are scientists, such as the scientists at ICR, The Institure for Creation Research. Ask him why? Read my Internet article: ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH.
Mogley52 6 months ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Besides, species couldn't have survived with vital tissues, organs, biological systems still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA." Read Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52 Do you agree that every animal within a species shows variation? If these variations keep going on, for let's say 1 million years, will the dog at the end of the generation look exactly the same as the one 1 million years ago? "from worm to human" Natural selection theory does not say that, it says that worms and humans someway down the tree of life share a common ancestor, an ancestor that had the potential to turn into a worm-like relative or a mammal like relative
kly45 6 months ago
TOO MANY NERDS HERE
MrOMGWTFxCorp 6 months ago
The beginning reminds me of usa football
9manny99 6 months ago
I'm so glad you clarified this!
3200manpro 7 months ago
Comment removed
SugarCrazedInsomniac 7 months ago
Being born from someone like that doesn't necessarily mean you will be like them though, many rise up from what should have been a bad upbringing and change the world. Also, a note on the big bang theory, mass can be compounded, and in doing so huge amounts of energy are stored, Thea big bang never came from nothing, it was the release of a massive amount of stored energy that resulted in the release of all the atoms we know of today into something we call the universe
PenguinMan272 7 months ago
Do me a favor and watch this video ( the only one in my faves) Also keep this in mind while you watch it, many believe that light is actually from another dimension. And using Einstein's time dilation theory, if you were moving at the speed of light for one day then one thousand years would have passed. The Bible says that 1 day to God is a Thousand years on earth. God is referred to many times in the Bible as the light. I think the supernatural world is light.
Diomedsspear 7 months ago
@Diomedsspear
Einsteins theory of relativity says that if you get in a spaceship and travel for 24 hours at the speed of light time will pass shorter for the person inside the ship than outside the ship. You are right there. What you've done is misunderstood it a little. When you get out 24 hours will still have passed on clocks outside the ship (not 1000 years), but clocks inside the ship will say only 18 hours have passed (as an example). Don't rationalise it to fit backwards into your book
DudeSpectre 7 months ago
@DudeSpectre Thanks for the correction. I got that from a radio talk show. And the people in it probably didn't know what they were talking about. And also when I read in the Bible that a day in the lords presence is like a 1,000 years, I took it too literally. He was just giving an example so we could have a chance at grasping the experience that he was trying to convey. But anyways thanks. : )
Diomedsspear 7 months ago
Hey, I really liked the clarification, but on the first example of the educated parents vs. the guy who's "nuts", was just kind of concerned that viewers could possibly misunderstand this comparison and perhaps take away a certain deterministic view of your eye opening message. could the child of the 2 scholars go on to live a life similar to the baby factory dudes, or the 10 playa-prodigies live as active/responsible citizens? nature vs nurture, its debated but genetics ≠ behavior (imo)
UneJizz 8 months ago
Comment removed
UneJizz 8 months ago
So the point is, natural selection does not rule out intelligent design, and intelligent design does not rule out natural selection. This makes the whole argument completely redundant. People need to get over it. The sooner people begin to understand this slightly less obvious, but more profound principle, the better. The only ones who won't accept it are those who take the bible literally, or those with sinister political reasons; (all the same people in my mind),
Y0UTUBERCUL0SIS 8 months ago 8
Finally someone logical enough to see the fallacy in the conclusion that the proving of evolution is the disproving of "ID"!!! LOOK EVERYONE!!! EVOLUTION IS REAL, GOD IS REAL. AND GOD IN HIS MAGNIFICENCE MADE EVOLUTION SO HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO KEEP MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO HIS CREATION DEPENDING ON THE CLIMATE AND OTHER FACTORS. WHAT A BRILLIANT IDEA!!! I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION AFTER CREATION, BUT HOW CAN YOU BE SO BLIND TO THINK THAT EVOLUTION CREATED THE UNIVERSE? AND TOTALLY REJECT GOD?
Diomedsspear 8 months ago
@Diomedsspear
How can I be blind? There is zero evidence of a creator. It's just a man-made concept to give people reassurance and meaning to their lives. Unlike many, I'm happy enough living in a universe that doesn't give a shit about me or my planet. I am humble, and I recognize our irrelevance. It's a shame so many others can't accept it.
slasherzedd 7 months ago
@slasherzedd So I guess the origin of the universe goes like this, in the beginning there was nothing, which exploded. Do you see the illogical thinking in that? To me an intelligent creator is the only logical answer. Think of it this way: everything that began to exist has a cause for it's existence. We know for a fact that the universe bagan to exist (the Big Bang). So there must be a cause for it's existence. And I believe that cause is God.
Diomedsspear 7 months ago
@slasherzedd More Evidence: If the universe began to exist without the help of some type of divine intervention than where did all of the Physical laws come from? What told water that it's molecular composition had to be H2O for it to be water? What determined the boiling point of all the elements? What determined that the increase in the mass of an object is directly proportionate to it's gravitational pull? Was it by mere chance? And if so, Where did that chance come from in the first place?
Diomedsspear 7 months ago
@Y0UTUBERCUL0SIS He's not saying that, he just wants to clarify that the fact evolution exists is not a reason to not be religious and that to belief in evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive terms
kly45 7 months ago
@kly45 Well it gets kinda tricky, because "Evolution" can mean many different things. There's Macro Evolution: the changing from one type of species to another, Micro Evolution: the variations within the species achieved through natural selection, and Organic Evolution: the origin of life. (Just to name a few) So if your talking about Micro Evolution, that doesn't contradict with christian bible. HOWEVER, if you'r talking about Macro Evolution, that needs millions of years.
Diomedsspear 7 months ago
@kly45 And the Bible say's that it only took 6 days for the Earth and the solar system to be created. Also the Bible implies a young Earth (10,000 years or so). So if you believed in Macro Evolution then you can't possibly believe in the Bible. However I am of the opinion that Macro Evolution Is unproven, as well as the proposal of an old earth.
Diomedsspear 7 months ago
@Diomedsspear No, it's a false dichotomy. I agree that the literal bible contradicts evolution, but I know people who are christians and believe in evolution, I disagree with them, but they can hold these views because they are not mutually exclusive. oh and macro/micro evolution is an artificial term, small change over small time = large change over large time, that is mathematical proof, as is the inheritence of genes. we share 96% basic genes as chimps, go figure.
kly45 7 months ago
@kly45 Type in "Humans share more dna than previously thought" in Google You should find an article about humans sharing exact dna strands with many different animals at the very top. And about your equation, yes it makes sense on paper. But it still hasn't been proven. Just because you can work something out mathematically doesn't allow you to say dogmatically that it's proven. Many theory's can be worked out mathematically but they can't be proven unless observed through experimentation.
Diomedsspear 7 months ago
@Diomedsspear I am slightly confused, you're telling me to look up similarities in dna, proving a common ancestor, yet at the same time telling me that there is no proof for common ancestory, which is it? And sorry, that makes no sense, evolution is as dogmatic as germ or gravity theory, don't try and attack it with emotive words. And I suggest you understand what a theory is first, observations are useless without theory, a theory is a model that EXPLAINS WHY an observation happens.
kly45 7 months ago
@Diomedsspear So when you say that theories can be worked out mathematically but can't be proved without observation, it doesn't make any sense, theories are all about observations, they're not just stabs in the dark. I assume you are meaning application, guess what? If an application doesn't work then we would change that theory (evolution by natural selection is still considered the mechanism for species.). Lastly, if something can be demonstrated by mathematics then it is good proof
kly45 7 months ago
@Diomedsspear And if you can't take mathematics as proof then you are overlooking transitional fossils, dna and ring species, among other things...
kly45 7 months ago
@kly45 I have been searching for evidence of evolution, and I haven't found any evidence of transitional fossils. So if you could direct me to a website or a video I would be very grateful. And What are Ring species? p.s. thanks for the rational discussion. I've run into too many people who have just blown up at me about this topic. I just want to find the truth.
Diomedsspear 7 months ago
@Diomedsspear Ring species: best to look up in wikipedia, when an animal has broke off into to seperate "microevolutionary" strands due to environment, eventually both strands form a ring, all the species on each strand can mate with the ones they evolved with, yet the ones at the ends of the strands cannot mate with each other ie showing a new speciation (macroevolution) go to talkorigins for good fossil evidences, but fossils aren't that important now that we have genetics, genetics are the
kly45 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear the best proof, still you already agreed that dna is shared so I find it hard for you to understand how you accept this yet don't beleive in evidence for macroevoultion
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 I Well, because in that article it said that mice have the most similar DNA strands to humans. Before they said that we were the most similar to chimps, and now their saying we're closer to a mice? Somethings not right.
Diomedsspear 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear Where in the article does it say we are closer to mice than chimps? You've taken 2 and 2 and made 6
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 Ok, your right about that one. It doesn't say that, but it does say that Humans share more dna strands with animals that are seemingly very different. (I'm paraphrasing) And the evolutionary theory suggests that species would grow increasingly further apart in terms of similarity. Right?
Diomedsspear 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear Well, this reminds me of what darwin wrote about the eye, and what is usually quote mined. Darwin said that it SEEMS as though the eye is too complex to evolve, yet (and this is the part creationists don't quote) - he goes on to clarify that things that "seem" impossible is not a valid objections in science. The ancestor of all mammals was a kind of shrew creature, obviously one branch led to us, another to mice. So we should have lots in common with their ancestors. just not AS
kly45 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear much as we have in common with our closer relatives IE chimpanzee.
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 Ok, so our dna is the most similar too chimpanzees. And that ( I'll say it) works perfectly with the Evolutionary theory. So that's 1 fact that supports evolution. Any others?
Diomedsspear 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear I don't get it, so you will accept this as fact yet you still need more proof? You realise that no theory of anything is ever complete right? Like someone said in reviewing "no intelligence allowed". A net has many holes in it too, but try telling a fish that the net isn't there. How about the fact that we can measure how distant other animals are from us genetically, and this genetic tree matches the fossil evidence and what we'd expect to find
kly45 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear Other than the genetic evidence, we can see ring species and study them (which is what we'd expect for evolution theory). Atavisms, where we see snakes born with arms and humans with tails or larger teeth, likewise, chicken born with teeth. We've also been able to manipulate nature IE breed dogs, pigeons etc and farm crops like bananas all by artificial selection. So obviously natural selection does it without our intervention, and yet clearly shows that animals have the capacity
kly45 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear to change over time. There's also been more recent findings like the pepper moths or e.coli developing an advantage to grow on citrate acid (lenski experiment). But even at a basic level we see the overwhelming similarities. All reptiles move the same way, even snakes wriggle in the direction a lizard moves its legs. Snakes, lizards etc all use their tongue to test the atmosphere. Fish swim side to side yet whales and dolphins swim up and down much like land mammals (dogs etc) run
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 That's true, I've heard of the the pepper moths before. But I've never heard those other things before. So reptiles supposedly came from fish, and mammals came from whales? I guess that might be plausible. However I'm still speculative enough to argue about the sufficiency of evidence regarding macro Evolution. But when we look at the very beginning of life on earth. When you go from non-living-matter to living-matter. The question just about the information in DNA puzzles me.
Diomedsspear 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear slightly wrong. Fish turned into amphibians and then into reptiles. Ever noticed how an amphibian seems kind of like a "squishy fishy-reptile"? I know it's not exactly scientific but there are similariites. Some reptiles became dinosaurs and then some dinosaurs became birds. Some reptiles became mammals and some quadroped mammal like a wolf went BACK into the sea and created whales/dolphins etc. a distant relative of cows would have went into the sea and evolved to manatees
kly45 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear and as I said its very interesting, fish swin side to side, while whales and dolphins swim up and down, the same way a dog moves it's rear end up and down while running. Whales etc have babies in the womb, social societies and care for their immature young, They're also warm blooded which tells us they're mammals, and have all the same kind of organs and bones as mammals but in different variations and positions.
kly45 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear It's all very interesting, search "Lizard with very tiny legs, almost snake-like" in google and look at the second result (a flickr page)and just lookat the similarities, it looks likea transitional form, well technically everything IS a transitional form, mudskippers, too are both an interesting creature and a "living transition". But as said before, the theory doesn't concern non-living to living phenomena. If you're interested you should look up the first synthetic life created
kly45 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear created by craig ventor. And also try to remember what darwin himself said, just because something puzzles you doesn't mean it is not plausible, and in science, simply doubting something becasue it puzzles us does not make it invalid. I'm sure most of the complex building structures and information of life are puzzling to us, after all, we're only human :)
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 It only puzzles me when I look at it in the light of Evolution. You see.....DNA is Information. And information can only come from an intelligent source. program developers don't leave there computers with a randomized program writing software. They higher programers. And when ever we see something that is highly improbable and has a pattern we automatically think intelligent design. So when looking at the information in DNA, the only plausible explanation is that there is intelligence.
Diomedsspear 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear There are too many problems with your argument to list. First of all, can you elaborate on what you mean by "information"? I hear this all too often and there is no definition of what "information" means. Secondly you're using inductive reasoning to assume only a mind could create this information. Thirdly an intelligent source itself would need to have been designed by another intelligent source by your logic. Fourth, We observe in science that things generally start simple and
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 Information: 2nd def. What is conveyed or represented by a particular sequence of things. There ya go.
My ASSUMPTION was that highly complex systems organized in a particular sequence are impossible without intelligence. Thus my CONCLUSION: because this information exhibits these traits then it came from an intelligent source.
Yes, but not if that first source was eternal and outside of the realm of the universe.
Diomedsspear 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear Yes but you make the assumption that this information requires a mind because it is the same information that we see in say, computer code. This is NOT a good analogy because both definitions of "information" have been muddled into the same. I can't explain it all in a youtube comment, nor do I have all the knowledge of it, but I will send you a video I seen with someone fully explaining why it is not "information-information". Funnily enough, just last night I was reading a
kly45 5 months ago
@kly45 Again I say, It is not an ASSUMPTION, it is my CONCLUSION. And that conclusion comes from other arguments, it does not form the premise for my arguments.
Diomedsspear 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear No i is, you're conclusion is: The universe had an intelligent designer. The premise is: all things that show information have a designer, the second premise is: The universe shows information. So your first premise is an assumption. Though valid, it's not a sound argument
kly45 5 months ago
@kly45 So your saying that my argument is not sound because my first premise( all things that show information have a designer) is a false assumption. Well so far you have not been able to give me an example of information (an improbable pattern) coming from a non-intelligent source. However, I can give you multiple examples of information coming from intelligent sources.( I'm sure you can too) So I don't see any reason for my first premise to be fallacious.
Diomedsspear 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear Of course I could, natural selection is the process which could cause complex information to come around. Things start simple, but get more complex over time, it's not surprising, due to the age of the earth, that there is complex structures in our molecules. It's like a puddle saying "I fit so well into this pothole, it must have been designed". It's also the second premise I have trouble with, dna is not the same kind of information that you use in analogies. Also, dna is living
kly45 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear things that have been designed are not living, not only that but there is problems with our design and there is no "final end product" which is also what a design infers. The dna that we have causes cancer via random mutation within the molecule, so if it were designed it has not been designed well. Also about the examples thing, it's like saying "all swans are white" and then discovering a black swan a week later. The premise is not fallacious, but the argument itself.
kly45 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear philosophy book. One subject that came up was God, and a nice quote from russell appeared about the absurdity of the first cause argument, here's the quote from the book: "conclusion not only failed to follow from the premises but also actually contradicted them. argument starts of from 'everything has a (distinct, previous) cause', but ends with the conclusion that there must be something that has no distinct , previous cause, but 'carries the reason of his existence in himself'
kly45 5 months ago
@kly45 I could argue about that but we're getting side-tracked here. Let's finish the argument about the origin of information and then we can argue about that argument......haha
Diomedsspear 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear The russell quote raises the problem with the first cause argument, which is directly related to your argument about the cause of the universe. I don't see how it's side-tracking. Can you counter it?
kly45 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear I don't usually quote books, but for me, that excerpt really says it better than I could. Furthermore, there is nothing outside of the realm of the universe, hence, he exists in a state of nothingness, ie he does not exist. And if he did exist outside of our realm of the universe, granted, that my previous argument was false, how can he interact with ours?
kly45 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear then grow complex. IE the big bang was a singularity that expanded and got more complex, evolution started as single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms with intelligence (IE humans). Something, therefore, would have to be more simple than life for it to create the basic building blocks of DNA. Natural selection is not "randomized" so that analogy doesn't work either. Mutations are random but selection, by definition clearly is not. And if we make the analogy more accurate
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 The big bang only made things more unorganized and chaotic. Animals (as you assume) go from simple organized organisms to complex ORGANIZED organisms. Not complex unorganized messes.
"evolution started as single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms with intelligence (IE humans)." Your assuming that evolution is a fact in an argument that's trying to prove/disprove evolution.........Hmmm.
Diomedsspear 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear "The big bang only made things more unorganized and chaotic." how so? Where did you get this information from, it's nothing like what I just said. The big bang was a singularity that heated up and expanded, gradually getting more complex. Things are organized, because constants are most likely relative, no matter what their values are. It's like looking at a castle on top of a hill, and saying "that hill most also have been constructed", rather than the fact that the castle was
kly45 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear built WITH the hill already acknowledged for it's construction. I didn't assume that, it's accepted by most of the scientific community. And again, where did I infer that simple organisms would turn out to be unorganized messes? it's only possible that complex organized systems survived. No, evolution is a fact, change happens over time, that is a fact, but it is possible to say that the designer designed the method of evolution or the "fine-tuning" of the universe. I thought you
kly45 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear had previously mentioned that you had no qualms with evolution, just about who "designed" the first "seed", as it were.
kly45 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear and say that we use natural selection is used in computer softwares then we get a correct answer. Natural selection has been used to design aircrafts and software to program to help develop the best wing shapes to make crafts more aerodynamic. If we take the principle of natural selection rather than the straw man that is "randomization", then it is most probable that dna was created naturally. Oh and last, but by no means least, if you think that an intelligent source created DNA
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 Using natural selection to design a more efficient wing is the same thing as using trial and error. ( Which only works if a human( intelligence) is present to oversee this process and make modifications to the subject or device. But in Evolution Survival of the fittest oversees this process and modifies by eliminating faulty aspects of the organism. Thus natural selection is not comparable to this process because it uses DEATH instead of INTELLIGENCE to enable progression.
Diomedsspear 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear "Using natural selection to design a more efficient wing is the same thing as using trial and error." yes, but you previously said it was "randomized", randomization is not the same thing as trial and error. "Which only works if a human( intelligence) is present to oversee this process and make modifications to the subject or device." No it isn't, you're thinking about "artificial selection" the process in which living things are farmed/bred, natural selection by definition is
kly45 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear selection by natural processes. The most adapted to their environment produce more, the less produce less, those genes are passed on and eventually the animal changes. "Thus natural selection is not comparable to this process because it uses DEATH instead of INTELLIGENCE to enable progression." yes but intelligence is only the process of artificial selection, not natural and even farmers cull animals, so both terms are NOT mutually exclusive
kly45 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear them you must also agree that the intelligent source created it in such a way for it to easily mutate due to outside factors (but also just randomly) to mess with our bodies and tell us to continually grow cells and cause tumors.
kly45 6 months ago
@kly45 First of all, if I'm going to explain the reason for this then we're going to have to imagine that God Does exist. Now, the reason why God would allow our DNA to "mutate due to outside factors" is because he realizes that the environment is different in different parts of the world. So in my opinion He gave a population the ability to adapt to their environment by means of natural selection. To explain Tumors and other horrible diseases I would have to explain what happened in Genesis.
Diomedsspear 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear I'm more than happy with your defense, but here is your problem; "we're going to have to imagine that God Does" - You were trying to prove that god exists due to there being design, yet for you to reply to counter my arguments you need to grant that god exists, which makes the whole argument absurd. "I would have to explain what happened in Genesis." - Another problem, you were trying to prove that there is a designer, why must that designer be the god of the bible, or of any
kly45 5 months ago
@kly45 I wasn't saying that I knew for sure that the God of Israel is the designer. I was just saying that if He was the designer, I have an explanation for the bad in the world. And it's in Genesis. Would you like me to explain it or no?
Diomedsspear 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear Okay, but it wouldn't get us anywhere. If I grant two things here, that there was a creator god and that there is objective good and evil, then all you're explanation does is create one of millions of possible explanations
kly45 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear religion we know of? Isn't it just as likely, that if there were a designer, it would be a god of deism rather than theism?
kly45 5 months ago
@kly45 That's a possibility, but I still tend to believe in a God of theism even though every human being hasn't had a personal relationship with him. And the reason for that is in the beginning God handed over the authority of this world to us, but we sinned against God by essentially disobeying him and handing over the authority to satan. And that is why we became separated from God and why bad things happen to us. Because Satan hates us because were made in God's image, and Satan hates God.
Diomedsspear 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear The idea of sin doesn't make sense, however I don't usually use the "evil" argument to disprove god as I believe that if there were a god there ought to be objective good AND evil. I don't believe this however. But the idea that you use to justify it, doesn't seem like a very fair system. If your dad killed someone and then killed himself, should YOU get prosecuted for his actions?
kly45 5 months ago
@kly45 If you had the choice of restraining your son and keeping him in the house so that you could have control over his life would you do it? Or would you let him have a free will even if it meant that he might reject you and never see you again? That's why God gave us free will. Because he loves us with more passion then you can ever imagine. Don't let Satan steal you away from Him.
Diomedsspear 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear That doesn't have anything to do with my argument. As I said, if there were a god i would expect things like good/evil and freewill, what I said was, ". If your dad killed someone and then killed himself, should YOU get prosecuted for his actions?" and that is what sin is.
kly45 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear Satan is a Hebrew word which translates to oppose or obstruct not someone who hates God and his children. The bible has several Satans, Job's Satan, Moloch, the reptilian fruit salesman, Belial, Lucifer (God's former high angel) Mephistopheles, and others. Satan can be a human, an animal, or anything else as long as he is opposing the progress of something. In other words you are Ha-Satan of moral reasoning and secular thought (and not a very good one either).
TheBlitMaster 4 months ago
@kly45 However, God made it possible for us to have a relationship with him again even though we turned away. First God made a covenant with abraham, and then through moses God made a way for redemption by sacrificing a lamb for our sins. Then God sent his only begotten son to die on the cross for us and be the perfect sacrifice for our sins and enable us to have a relationship with God. And now all we have to do is pray the prayer of salvation and we'll be saved and reunited with our God.
Diomedsspear 5 months ago
@Y0UTUBERCUL0SIS I.D. entirely rules out Macro evolution. and Macro evolution is the result of well natural selection.
robobrain10000 4 months ago in playlist Biology
@robobrain10000 unless the intelligent designer designed "macro" evolution...
Pirate44444 3 months ago
@Pirate44444 The reason why they exclude Macro evolution is because, macro evolution is where two clads come divergently from an origin. kind of like how fish became into mamals, birds and other species that we have now. The reason why they reject it is because, well that would screw up their belief of Adam and eve.
robobrain10000 3 months ago
@robobrain10000 yes I do know that, but evolution still does not rule out intelligent design.
Pirate44444 3 months ago