So what we ought to do (though many never will) is to infer to intelligent causation as a tentative explanation in the interim. And then we can go and attempt to find a mindless process explanation to replace it with (if such actually exists).
This way, science is unecumbered by either illogical inferences, nor locked into a potentially unfruitful search for mindless process solution that may not even actually exist.
With ID, science is freed from the encumberence of dogmatic materialism.
But why again do we look at something hard to explain (like irreducible complexity) and infer that intellignetly causes were at work? What is the logical connection from ID to intellignece? And not to pixie dust?
It's because we have vast experience and observation of the fact that intelligent design (engineering) routinely gives rise to phenomena such as irreducible complexity. And (based on what we know right now) such phenomena are NOT explained via mindless processes...
Serioulsy, the reason we can logically (but tentatively) infer an intelligent causation (in comparison to a mindless process causation) is via the properties of the phenomenon that we're seeking to explain.
Certain properties of phenomenon under invesigation (such as irreducible complexity, mathematical patterns in radio signals) can lead us to logically infer that there were intelligently derived causes at work that best explain the phenomenon.
What about "something you or I haven't thought of yet?"
Well, if it's science we're talking about (I hope it's science you're talking about) then you actually do have to think of an explanation first, and then we can consider it. Science can't use the 'infinite number of possible future explanations' fallacy. If it's a 'pixie dust' or a 'bad blue KJV bible thumping monster' option, then we can rule those out immediately according to your own criteria for refuting arguments from ignorance.
When it comes to the various options of intelligent (or semi-intelligent - ha ha) causes such as the spaghetti monster or Zeuss, well, Zeus ate the monster, so we can rule HIM out! Zuess can't be ruled out either, but on the other hand, ID isn't specifially ruling him in or out (nor any other personalized gods / faeries / monsters etc.) so it's irrelevant.
What about Orthogensis or Lamarkism, or some other modification of evolution that cureently exists? Simple - just check each of them.
Returning to the correct dichotomy (MINDLESS vs. INTELLIGENTLY CAUSED processes) I don't see the problem investigating each of these alternatives. Most can be instantly ruled out under your own criteria (remember?) for ignoring whatever has no logical claim to be a candidate. Remember 1+1 = God? We know that isn't connected logically with whatever the answer is. Well, neither are JUJU rays, nor magic rays. Cosmic chance is the answer for some, but that (like the multiverse) are beliefs.
Actually, I find your view of the "correct" dichotomy disturbing because it sets up evolution to be unfalsifiable. Well, not quite, because even though evolution can be falsified, "improved evolution" can take it's place. Hmm, but in your world, it's always going to be some version of evolution. Either current evolution, improved evolution, or (yet to be improved) evolution.
You've begged the question into a predetermined class of answers. (I think that might be a blasphemy of science!)
You said: "The correct dichotomies are useless and are impossible to argue ..."
What was your version of the correct dichotomy again?
EVOLUTION versus othogenesis, Lamarkianism, theistic evolution, magic rays, JUJU rays, pixie dust, gods, fairies, freak cosmic chance, something I don't know how to describe, something else I don't know how to describe... etc.
ID sets up the correct dichotomy: MINDLESS processes versus INTELLIGENT causation. (And far from being "useless" as you claimed.)
ID uses the correct dichotomy, that being mindless processes vs. intentional processes. We don't bring God or anything else more specific into consideration, because we realize it's not possible (certainly not at this time) to resolve an intelligent cause down to that level of detail. That kind of belief must left up to the individual's choice of philosophy / religion / etc.
However I find your lack of confident in the correct dichotomy disturbing!
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
@Mogley52 Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator"
And Newton believed you could turn lead into gold. Luckily science is about what you can prove, not random opinions from "big scientists".
"And Newton believed you could turn lead into gold. Luckily science is about what you can prove, not random opinions from 'big scientists'."
Well, in that case, Newton (big name scientist) was proven correct. Elements can be transmutated. It's just a little more difficult to do than Newton might have hoped. But regardless, we're not JUST talking science here on youtube, we're talking about science's effects on culture and politics, right? Worldviews have consequences!
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
@Mogley52 From your article "Not all evolutionists even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. "
This is a laugh because Biologists are actually very consistent about what species a fossil belongs to. Creationists on the other hand will claim a bone is a human with rickets one day and a chimpanzee the next. Same creationist and same bone.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
@Mogley52 "The supernatural cannot be proved by science "
Neither can Leprechauns, and for the exact same reason.
"science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe"
Your inability to come up with another option is not "scientific evidence", all you are doing is using special pleading because your faulty reasoning led you to an infinite regress. That is the exact opposite of science.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
@Mogley52 "Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. "
This is an assertion without evidence, and it also poses a problem for your God who would have had to come into existence from nothing. The cosmological argument is just a mass of special pleading.
@Mogley52 Your article commits the fallacy of Ex Post Facto statistics and Special Pleading in the first 2 paragraphs.Also the protein molecule argument was proved false experimentally in 2009. How about making your own arguments as opposed to hoping some lame creationist website is arguing correctly even if you obviously don't understand it.
@Mogley52 "NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). "
I want an actual definition of "kinds" so that when you make this claim I can show Evolution by Natural Selection is predictive and creationism is silly.
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation. Also read my Internet article, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! According to a Newsweek article quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Creationists turned this video off and instantly began speaking about how evolution is incorrect and creationism is ,thus, the only answer left. Hence, learning absolutely nothing (again) and using the same old refutted arguments to press their case againt evilution....On a serious note, I will point out why this issue is cardinal with christianity. Since evolution proves their holy book wrong at the initial stages, everything else is irrelevant. The christian religious ship is sinking.!!!
"What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete." Isaac Asimov (the Relativity of Wrong)
We know the components of the airplane exist in nature, metals are in the ground, silica for glass are in sand, copper, rubber etc can occur naturally. We know the action of rain, wind, earthquakes, lightning etc "could" produce the airplane naturally, THEREFORE no intelligent design is required.
What are the two major beliefs out their? Creation and evolution. If you prove one false then the only other major belief out their is Creation. Sure, some may believe in pixie dust, but who cares! Most will become Creationists.
Darwin saw changes within species and came to the conclusion that animals evolved from other kinds of animals (not science). That is false reasoning! Animals evolve, but only within their DNA limits. Birds make birds, Dogs make Dogs. Cows don't make whales!
"What are the two major beliefs out their? Creation and evolution"
You stupid little child. You think the entire world is either Creationist or believes in Evolution? Really??
Wow, you just dont even have a clue, do you? Nothing you say has any credibility, kid. Try looking beyond your own family for world views next time, idiot.
They care about this one the most because if God does exist then your life depends on it. Also just because Something else in science is wrong, doesn't mean that we should just accept evolution because "everything else has problems"...Drop a pen on the ground, now you have gravity....now give me one piece of evidence that life started from non life or one animal changed into another.
so if you can't prove life came from non life then god must have done it. Evolution does have to do with organic evolution. IT IS TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS. i find it funny you still didn't give me just one piece of evidence of macroevolution. Just tell me, no need for name calling. If im an idiot then inform me.
Yes but people in support of ID have to 'attack' evolutionism. Not because by disproving evolution you prove ID. But because you cannot believe in both.
Why are videos like this one getting 5 stars? youtube . com / watch?v=Qt6oBxZmOG0&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div
Is it because ID supporters are giving them 5 stars? I don't think so. Is it because not all evolutionists know what to believe?
Ok you are mixing up Intelligent Design with Creationism. I am a creationist and I am a christian. and im right! anyway their are many different types of evolution too....together we are just saying that evolution couldn't happen.
It could be Flying spaghetti monster or whatever else...THATS WHERE FAITH COMES IN.
So you aren't going to accept jesus because he had an advantage? what if you were drowning and you wouldn't let someone save you because they had a floatation device. Would you....
Lastly, just read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis...what have you got to lose? if it makes you feel better he was an athiest....JUST DO THIS FOR ME PLEASE
No, that would be utterly pointless. He doesn't have anything to add to the topic.
If it makes me feel better? You asshole, so what if he claims he was an atheist?
Why dont YOU go watch a few dozen episodes of the Atheist Experience hosted by Matt Dilihunty. He de-converted after being a fundamentalist for around 30 years.
"So you aren't going to accept jesus because he had an advantage?"
Moron, I'm perfectly willing to say someone named Jesus existed in history, just as much as I'm willing to say there was someone named Vlad the Impaler.
I WILL NOT accept the MAGIC of your Jesus guy, however, just like I wont accept the existence of Dracula which is based/inspired by Vlad the Impaler.
when debating evolution we are admitting that our religion is a belief. We don't have to prove anything. all we have to do is state what is wrong with evolution...why? BECAUSE YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT....here's a question. Where did information come from?
ok whatever, of course its my responsibility as a christian to get people to convert, but I don't have too. Did you forget? Evolution is taught in schools so it HAS to be proved true. Creationism, as fact, isn't taught and therefore doesn't need proof, in fact it takes belief. However there is plenty of evidence for it. Evolution is stupid. and so is debating on youtube!
Thats because Evolution HAS been proven true by TENS OF THOUSANDS of scientists AROUND THE WORLD in multiple, repeatable, and corroborating tests and experiments!!
No shit your religious assertions take faith, belief WITHOUT proof and often IN SPITE OF evidence against it.
Thats why it isn't taught as fact, dumbass.
Its too bad you think evolution is stupid, but thats your problem for being too stupid or willfully ignorant to try to understand it.
so they went from a human to a human who couldnt talk? and whats this about not evolving correctly? there is no goal, no direction, no right and wrong with evolution. Don't you think it could just b a birth defect?
Intelligent Design, my ass. If people knew there were dinosaurs, then they probably know they existed MILLIONS of years ago, rather than 6000. Therefore, they contradict their own beliefs.
Back to the point. Through millions of years, evolution can be achieved. Plus humans have done much to change the earth. It is certain that Earth changed over time and that God didn't make it all happen at once. Or "six days". Which is pretty retarded if he is supposed to be "omnipotent".
Ok you can say your point but please don't make fun of God. Six days can mean anything. Plus what would be the fun in snapping your fingers and making everything? Also there are MANY creationists who believe the earth is old. Do you think that just because the earth is old that NO GOD can exist? Now thats stupid. Come up with other reasons (and there are good arguments against it). Hey were you there millions of years ago? I admit my view is a belief
You stupid moron. Where you there when your bible was written? No? Well then how can you know for certain it wasn't a collection of fairy tales pulled out of someone's ass and put together by committee?
The science behind evolution is obviously well over your head. Dont you dare spit in our face and say it isn't possible just because you cant understand it. That makes you look like a hillbilly.
there is a lot of good evidence for evolution while there is virtually 0 evidence for creationism and ID, so i'm not even sure why the argument continues to rage on...
Attacking evolution isn't going to prove the existence of God, but I think the main reason ID proponents attack evolution is this: What other possibilities are there? Design, or Evolution? Is there a third option? Design doesn't mean there is a God, but many creationists think that way. And since there doesn't really seem to be a third option it boils down to faith that God MUST be the designer. This isn't a challenge to evolutionists or creationists, just an observation.
beautiful. BEUATIFUL!!! im speechless. This is by far the best video against creationism i have seen. I am glad other people out there are able to think like i can and have the same ideas and knowledge. MAGNIFICENT! I also liked your music. What is it called?
so finding problems w/ god offers no support for evolution?.. why would it be useless to support "theory of not evolution"..theories don't always become improved upon,when problems are found w/ them..when enough problems are found they can be disproven.science doesn't argue against creation.there is no "major movement"..there are no "boundaries of science" just undiscovered goodies".excellent audio
Hi lunabirdie. Science is always improved upon though. Eg.ultraviolet catastrophe. It threatened to destroy everything we knew about chemistry and physics. So you can imagine that it was bigger than all the so called "problems" they can come up with evo, all put together.
Yet no one threw out chem/phys and started to say that deity X made chemicals and causes gravity. People improved upon existing knowledge. And we ended up with quantum phys/chem, which supplements old chem/phys.
Although definitely opinionated, I must say I was rather impressed with your presentation. With that, I must admit to being a Creationist myself. Not because I think of evolution as an evil lie from the devil, but because of the scientific evidence I've been studying. I am currently a University student and I'm trying to learn more about the evolutionary process, but I know this already: people will believe what they want and many times the evidence won't matter. That goes both ways, btw.
I agree completely, scarface. It's just that I see so much of the "if I find enough problems with evo, then people will have to resort to creationism" attitude going around. And it's simply not true, regardless if those problems with evo are real or not.
True, very true. I suppose not that many people think about the different possibilities of origin. I know I didn't. It doesn't really change my mindset, but I can easily agree with how annoying it is to see people who think they have no choice. Most of the world out there see only the two possibilities so your video here is a new and welcome addition to the debate. Keep on keepin' on and we'll see what the future holds.
Maybe you should re-read what I wrote: people will believe what they want and many times the evidence won't matter. That goes both ways. You seem pretty convinced in your own mind about something and I'm willing to bet that even if they found Noah's ark it wouldn't be enough for you.
Cute, but being a smartass doesn't help your cause. In fact, your past few statements just proved my point. You are SO convinced that it won't matter what anybody says. What 9 or so Noah's arks? If you're such an expert on the subject, what's your background? Religion doesn't have to ignore facts to pretend its real. What are you? Atheist? Anti-theist?
"Yes ill believe the experts, you believe a story book and pretend its real."
You continue to amaze with your sense of ignorance. I've known some atheists in the past and I was wondering what your beliefs were. If you are atheist as well maybe we can debate the science involved. If you're just following a thought, i.e., believing what you want no matter what, then forget it. No sense talking to someone wearing ear plugs.
Proving my point as always. I'm actually studying science as I am currently a University student. Care to compare education? What do you do for a living? What am I ignoring? Do you even know what I was talking about?
Its time to stop this "debate" because you completely ignored my point and are currently acting like a jackass. Good luck in life...
Your studying science, how lovely, have you put in your applicatyion for nobel prizes for proving evolution wrong (Since you know better than the exprerts!)
Bet yuou havent even published world altering facts and evidence that evolution is wrong and your proof now why is that?
And your talking BS from opinionated propaganda. I'm not even arguing the merits of science here, but I doubt you can see that because of personal blinders and ear plugs. Stop spouting garbage and learn how to spell.
No you just deny the facts and proof of science, because your story book doesnt hold up and you obviously cant put forward any reasonable attack on evolution.
So what are you studing?
Its a typo, so is that a personal attack or you just too stupid to realise that?
God, give me patience. This is pure, unadulterated bullshit from an ignorant moron. Give up the argument already. You keep coming back to something that had nothing to do with what I was talking about. Unless you were trying to prove my original point, then you've done that in spades. Also, try fixing your typos and you won't come off quite as stupid.
Where, in any of my comments, did I make that declaration? I went and looked at everything I wrote and it isn't there. This whole debate has gone nowhere fast and I'm done with it. Get over yourself and and try re-evaluating what I was talking about. In case you hadn't figured it out yet, it wasn't about evolution and its feasibility. Don't hurt yourself...
So your a creationist because science is enought proof and imaginary sky daddys is. Offcourse you knew imaginary sky daddy did it before you look at any evidence.
So what science are you studying and why did u bring it up?
I was having a rather pleasant discussion with the guy that made this video and you stuck your nose in the middle of things. Some advice: stick to your own business and stfu. If you want to attack Christianity or faith in general, thats your problem. Suck it up and quit trying to force your beliefs on others.
Learn how to write, learn how to communicate and to not be such an ignorant asswipe. Then we can discuss what I study and what you do for a living. Get yourself straightened out and you might be worth debating with.
I think thats how people would desciribe somone who is an undergrad, but says they know bettter than experts in the fields, who have a degree and amazingly a few million PhDs between them aswell, but you know better as you have a story book, none of this proof rubbish!
Do you have a PhD? Are you a student? Do you have any education at all? Apparently not. Do yourself a favor and just shut the f*ck up. I'm sick of hearing your lame attempts at some kind of argument when you don't seem to have the slightest clue what I was talking about.
Pretending you don't exist should be easy. You pretend you don't exist and quit the asinine responses, then we'll both be happy.
By 'preferred story book' I take it you mean the Bible? That's a whole new can of worms and it's not one I'm going to debate with an uneducated ignoramus like you. Get your facts straight, get an education and maybe then you'll see that I wasn't talking about the merits of evolution in the first place.
Undoctrinated in the world, of believing the story book you where taught to believe and none of the other story books you vdont believe because they aint your story book.
thats what you mean, If you want education you can read all about evolution like I said before, but you will not!
Just give it up. You stopped making any kind of sense about 7 comments ago. You're unable to even make a point in any of your arguments. All one could derive from your pitiful attempts at communication is that you REALLY don't like the Bible. Learn how to write, get some education and then we'll talk. Until then, good luck and God bless...
Scarface1034 on the personal attack as usual because you choose believe your bronze age story book over millions of experts in fieled, you will never allow your self to learn anything about.
Then you can explain away the truths away that prove evolution so just go and stick your head in the sand as usual after you are claiming right, because you think so!
I'm starting to think english is not your first language. If that is the case then I feel I owe you an apology... for that much, at any rate. I will say one more time that my original discussion with powerstone2 (read: NOT YOU) was about his insight into the fundamentals of the creation/evolution argument. Nobody was talking to you about anything, so be a good sport and start minding your own business.
More ignorant ramblings from someone who can't seem to take the hint. Tail DNA? 16 dead virii? Please stop embarrassing yourself and just get on with your life.
See staceyjoe, I can give you the answer to your question. But let me ask you this: If YOU don't know how airplanes fly, does that mean the answer doesn't exist? No, it simply means you're IGNORANT of the answer.
So if YOU don't know how evo is tested, does that mean the answer doesn't exist? No, it simply means you're IGNORANT of the answer.
See how I don't just blindly accuse people of being ignorant? I offer proof of ignorance
When it comes down to it, the evidence points out that you are far more uneducated than I am. One more time for the cheap seats: GIVE IT UP AND START MINDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS
If you say so, ill pretend im a rock, so that makes you right and the experts wrong, after all you said you are studying a science degeree? You where too embaressed to mention what it was in tho!
I never said experts are wrong. Read again what the discussion was about.
"If you say so, ill pretend im a rock"
Actually, you won't have to pretend at all.
My degree is irrelevant, but understand that I'm going for some higher learning. What are you doing? Do you have any education worth mentioning, or are you just going to keep relying on the "experts?"
You have no idea what I have, so don't claim to. Stay retired, stay out of my business and go enjoy the stories told around the old folks home. What I said before has absolutely no bearing on you, so stop trying to make it your concern. Btw, there are experts that both agree and disagree with evolution, yet I wasn't even talking about that originally. You would know that if you bothered to pull your head out of your ass and read the discussion.
You said evolution is wrong and you know this because you are studying science. Then you admitted experts are correct, but you know better on evolution.
Dont be so embaressed, tell us what science you are studying!
"around the old folks home"
Maybe in 30 years or more, but ill still be staying at home.
"Btw, there are experts that both agree and disagree with evolution"
Wow, even more ignorance. Well, no sense discussing things that you're rather uninformed about. No big deal, just keep on believing whatever you want... I'm sure you'll be happy, whether it's the truth or not.
"im happy with the proven truth, your happy with fiction."
"wow, moronic and presumptuous. Nice try, but you should just give it up. "
Ill believe the truth aslong as its the truth, you prove it wrong if you want people believe tis not right. YER YER YER all the experts inculding 40% who are christians are all in a conspiracy run by SATAN no doubt!
Yet again NO mention of your wonderfull studies and how you know better than the experts.
How much longer are you going to continue spewing all this BS? You keep trying to say that my original topic was something to do with a "story book" and that only you know the truth because somehow I know better than the "experts." So once again I'll mention that my studies are irrelevant, none of your business, and you are too uneducated to know the difference. Stop with this pointless argument and just get on with your life. Oh, wait... you're retired so you have nothing better to do.
If you're referring to the Bible, then that's your deal. Don't even bring it up, because it's pretty obvious that between the two of us, you're the one that hates it.
Paying attention to your comments, both past and present, one should examine just who has the weak mind here. You still haven't learned to spell, so now I'm wondering if that has anything to do with how we can't teach an old dog new tricks.
Scarface1034, it is pointless arguing with evolutionists because they don't know what REAL science is. "Evolutionary science" is not "real" science but a belief in a theory that they cannot prove.
"they don't know what REAL science is. "Evolutionary science" is not "real" science but a belief in a theory that they cannot prove"
Before using terms such as theory as it applies in the case of science, maybe it would be a good idea to know the meaning, so you dont look any more stupid to the people, who know what it means when you claim its somthing that its NOT!
Once again, the silly notion that science theories can be proven. Don't you understand? It's because theories CAN'T be proven that makes them scientific. To claim something is provable commits an argument from ignorance fallacy.
Thank you for your support. But TheBigGameHunter1 never seemed to realize that the actual argument between us didn't have anything to do with evolution vs creation. He/she kept bringing that up to ignore the actual point I was discussing with powerstone2, and that was the insight this video showed. Whether one believes in evolution or creation powerstone2 makes an excellent point about the debate between the two. I happen to be a creationist, but not because I think evolution is evil...
I was stationed there for a year back in 95-96. I learned some of the language, but not enough for any real communication. It's interesting to see how their society is run. Did you know they bury their dead standing up? Anything to save some space...
TheBigGameHunter1, you have a naive trust in "experts". At one time "experts" believed that the sun orbited around the earth, but these "experts" were proved wrong, weren't they? It won't be too long before the "experts" will be proved wrong on evolution.
"At one time"experts"believed that the sun orbited around the earth"
When people didnt know any better and they believed what teh bible says, then some guy nearly got killed for pointing out the bible was wrong yet again!
"It won't be too long before the "experts" will be proved wrong on evolution"
LOL with the pile of evidence greater than other and most probally all scientific theorys put together.
Start with atomic theory,it must be wrong if evolution is wrong.Atomic energy LIES!
Whereas trust in junk sites off the internet isn't naive, staceyjoe?
*rolls eyes*
You still don't seem to understand. When you "prove science wrong", the only logical step afterwards is to improve science. As I've shown, prove evo wrong, it'll only work to strengthen it. it's how science works.
When these experts were proved wrong, staceyjoe, no one claimed that God made the shape of the Earth or whatnot. It was used to improve our knowledge on what the shape of the Earth is.
Science isnt God. We have a nature to seek a higher authority. Science is people modeling the universe for practical application, it approaches but never achieves the universe itself by virtue of our limitations. However, any one person can look and see another person who has modeled the universe beyound our ability to distinguish any lack of practical precision and so its easy to think that science is limitless but it is not.
Observations made, conclusions drawn to connect the dots.
Random subtle mutations endorsed by subtle natural standards resulted in all variation of life on earth.
or
life on earth came about, at some point, by deliberate design by a higher authority.
science needs atheistic assumption within its jurisdiction to be science but it also needs theistic assumption to retain discipline and humility to stay humble, know the limits of its jurisdiction.
Science doesn't need to be held back, and it shouldn't. Nathanielcw did not say a theistic assumption limits jurisdiction, he said that it helps us know the limits of our jurisdiction. What those limits are? Scientific study outside of nature (to which we are scientifically bound).
"What those limits are? Scientific study outside of nature (to which we are scientifically bound)." - XyoungearthX
What do you mean, "outside of nature"? One could argue that everything artificial is natural since it all has its roots in the natural world, but if not, how is the technology through which you posted that comment not "outside of nature"?
Anything we can sense (with our senses) is inside of the natural world. The things that are outside of our natural world (if they exist) are the stopping points for our scientific inquiry.
God exists outside of nature, strictly because He created everything, making Him unbound by the restrictions that we face (time, gravity, etc). Science deals with the study of nature.
You cannot scientifically prove (or disprove) the existence of God.
"God exists outside of nature, strictly because He created everything, making Him unbound by the restrictions that we face (time, gravity, etc)." - XyoungearthX
Your argument is based both on the assumption that god exists and that god is as you interpret him/her so to use that argument to back up that assumption would qualify as circular reasoning.
"You cannot scientifically prove (or disprove) the existence of God." - XyoungearthX
You can't disprove the existance of invisible dragons.
Ok, fine then. If you don't ever want creationism taught in science class, the very least they can do is express the FACT that evolution is not fact.
The major objection that I have is that every single child that graduates public school believes that evolution is fact, and they have no idea that there are any faults what-so-ever with it.
Not to mention that discarded scientific ideas are still being published in textbooks around the world.
EVEN IF you found actual flaws in evolution, all that would mean is that evolution needs fixing (which has actually happened: cross-ref. punctuated equilibrium, and why we now call it NEO-Darwinism instead of just Darwinism).
EVEN IF you found FATAL flaws in evolution that could NOT be fixed, that would STILL not provide even ONE SHRED of evidence FOR CREATIONISM or I.D, any more than proving that 2+2≠3 provides even ONE LICK of evidence that 2+2=5.
Right. I understand your strictly naturalistic position. There is absolutely no way you would ever admit that God would be the only possibility, because eventually you'll find an answer, right?
TheBigGameHunter: Since you are doing nothing more than attacking me on my page, and then deleting the comments that I add to your page, maybe we might actually be able to discuss things without you censoring me!
Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Yes, I understand that a theory in science is a good as a fact, but it's still based on speculation about the unobserved past.
Natural selection is a fact. Adaptation is a fact. Genetic mutations and speciation are facts. Evolution is an assumption about the past based on observations in the present that did not and could never ultimately result in molecules to man evolution after the mythical abiogenesis.
Wow, you're wrong on almost EVERY count in that post.
#1, Evolution is NOT bsased on speculation about the unobserved past. That's PART of it, but it's ALSO based on DIRECT OBSERVATION of actual SPECIATION in the HERE AND NOW.
#2, Natural Selection is a THEORY. EVOLUTION is a FACT. A LAW. The Darwinian theory was NOT the Theory of Evolution (evolution predates Darwin), but the Theory of NATURAL SELECTION.
#3, Evolution has NOTHING TO DO with with abiogenesis.
"Natural selection is a fact. Adaptation is a fact. Genetic mutations and speciation are facts. Evolution is an assumption about the past based on observations in the present that did not and could never ultimately result in molecules to man evolution after the mythical abiogenesis."
Analogy: Hand-tossed crusts are fact. Tomato sauce is fact. Oregano is fact. Mozzarella & pepperoni are facts. But pizza is an assumption that could never ultimately result from the mythical island of Sicily.
This has been flagged as spam show
So what we ought to do (though many never will) is to infer to intelligent causation as a tentative explanation in the interim. And then we can go and attempt to find a mindless process explanation to replace it with (if such actually exists).
This way, science is unecumbered by either illogical inferences, nor locked into a potentially unfruitful search for mindless process solution that may not even actually exist.
With ID, science is freed from the encumberence of dogmatic materialism.
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But why again do we look at something hard to explain (like irreducible complexity) and infer that intellignetly causes were at work? What is the logical connection from ID to intellignece? And not to pixie dust?
It's because we have vast experience and observation of the fact that intelligent design (engineering) routinely gives rise to phenomena such as irreducible complexity. And (based on what we know right now) such phenomena are NOT explained via mindless processes...
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Serioulsy, the reason we can logically (but tentatively) infer an intelligent causation (in comparison to a mindless process causation) is via the properties of the phenomenon that we're seeking to explain.
Certain properties of phenomenon under invesigation (such as irreducible complexity, mathematical patterns in radio signals) can lead us to logically infer that there were intelligently derived causes at work that best explain the phenomenon.
Of course, ID is a tentative inference.
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What about "something you or I haven't thought of yet?"
Well, if it's science we're talking about (I hope it's science you're talking about) then you actually do have to think of an explanation first, and then we can consider it. Science can't use the 'infinite number of possible future explanations' fallacy. If it's a 'pixie dust' or a 'bad blue KJV bible thumping monster' option, then we can rule those out immediately according to your own criteria for refuting arguments from ignorance.
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When it comes to the various options of intelligent (or semi-intelligent - ha ha) causes such as the spaghetti monster or Zeuss, well, Zeus ate the monster, so we can rule HIM out! Zuess can't be ruled out either, but on the other hand, ID isn't specifially ruling him in or out (nor any other personalized gods / faeries / monsters etc.) so it's irrelevant.
What about Orthogensis or Lamarkism, or some other modification of evolution that cureently exists? Simple - just check each of them.
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Returning to the correct dichotomy (MINDLESS vs. INTELLIGENTLY CAUSED processes) I don't see the problem investigating each of these alternatives. Most can be instantly ruled out under your own criteria (remember?) for ignoring whatever has no logical claim to be a candidate. Remember 1+1 = God? We know that isn't connected logically with whatever the answer is. Well, neither are JUJU rays, nor magic rays. Cosmic chance is the answer for some, but that (like the multiverse) are beliefs.
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Actually, I find your view of the "correct" dichotomy disturbing because it sets up evolution to be unfalsifiable. Well, not quite, because even though evolution can be falsified, "improved evolution" can take it's place. Hmm, but in your world, it's always going to be some version of evolution. Either current evolution, improved evolution, or (yet to be improved) evolution.
You've begged the question into a predetermined class of answers. (I think that might be a blasphemy of science!)
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You said: "The correct dichotomies are useless and are impossible to argue ..."
What was your version of the correct dichotomy again?
EVOLUTION versus othogenesis, Lamarkianism, theistic evolution, magic rays, JUJU rays, pixie dust, gods, fairies, freak cosmic chance, something I don't know how to describe, something else I don't know how to describe... etc.
ID sets up the correct dichotomy: MINDLESS processes versus INTELLIGENT causation. (And far from being "useless" as you claimed.)
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ID uses the correct dichotomy, that being mindless processes vs. intentional processes. We don't bring God or anything else more specific into consideration, because we realize it's not possible (certainly not at this time) to resolve an intelligent cause down to that level of detail. That kind of belief must left up to the individual's choice of philosophy / religion / etc.
However I find your lack of confident in the correct dichotomy disturbing!
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 3 weeks ago in playlist Evolution Vs. Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 "EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. "
This statement literally makes no sense.
"Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. "
Where? Relativity doesn't actually have a lot to do with the Big Bang Theory. You should probably stop cuntpasting from creationist websites.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator"
And Newton believed you could turn lead into gold. Luckily science is about what you can prove, not random opinions from "big scientists".
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnrainrules
"And Newton believed you could turn lead into gold. Luckily science is about what you can prove, not random opinions from 'big scientists'."
Well, in that case, Newton (big name scientist) was proven correct. Elements can be transmutated. It's just a little more difficult to do than Newton might have hoped. But regardless, we're not JUST talking science here on youtube, we're talking about science's effects on culture and politics, right? Worldviews have consequences!
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 3 weeks ago in playlist Evolution Vs. Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 From your article "Not all evolutionists even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. "
This is a laugh because Biologists are actually very consistent about what species a fossil belongs to. Creationists on the other hand will claim a bone is a human with rickets one day and a chimpanzee the next. Same creationist and same bone.
Did you graduate highschool?
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 3 weeks ago in playlist Evolution Vs. Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 3 weeks ago in playlist Evolution Vs. Creationism
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 3 weeks ago in playlist Evolution Vs. Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 "The supernatural cannot be proved by science "
Neither can Leprechauns, and for the exact same reason.
"science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe"
Your inability to come up with another option is not "scientific evidence", all you are doing is using special pleading because your faulty reasoning led you to an infinite regress. That is the exact opposite of science.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 3 weeks ago in playlist Evolution Vs. Creationism
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 weeks ago in playlist Evolution Vs. Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 "Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. "
This is an assertion without evidence, and it also poses a problem for your God who would have had to come into existence from nothing. The cosmological argument is just a mass of special pleading.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 Your article commits the fallacy of Ex Post Facto statistics and Special Pleading in the first 2 paragraphs.Also the protein molecule argument was proved false experimentally in 2009. How about making your own arguments as opposed to hoping some lame creationist website is arguing correctly even if you obviously don't understand it.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 "NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). "
I want an actual definition of "kinds" so that when you make this claim I can show Evolution by Natural Selection is predictive and creationism is silly.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation. Also read my Internet article, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! According to a Newsweek article quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Mogley52 3 weeks ago in playlist Evolution Vs. Creationism
music please!!!!!
amierdolo 9 months ago
Creationists turned this video off and instantly began speaking about how evolution is incorrect and creationism is ,thus, the only answer left. Hence, learning absolutely nothing (again) and using the same old refutted arguments to press their case againt evilution....On a serious note, I will point out why this issue is cardinal with christianity. Since evolution proves their holy book wrong at the initial stages, everything else is irrelevant. The christian religious ship is sinking.!!!
pillowbugg 1 year ago
False Dichotomy is one fallacy, arguing from ignorance is another they commit
ArcyTheFurryArcanine 1 year ago
"What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete." Isaac Asimov (the Relativity of Wrong)
shaneho78 1 year ago
"Jason is too stupid to build model airplanes"
We know the components of the airplane exist in nature, metals are in the ground, silica for glass are in sand, copper, rubber etc can occur naturally. We know the action of rain, wind, earthquakes, lightning etc "could" produce the airplane naturally, THEREFORE no intelligent design is required.
But we also know -
"Nature is too stupid to produce airplanes"
But Nature isn't the only stupid one.
ozredneck22 2 years ago
Oh look at that a video about logic!
The creationist's heads are going to explode.
LaingGod 2 years ago
Do like the background music, whats that?
acvossius 2 years ago
Arguing with creationists.... what the point?
"Ignore the man behind the curtain"
acvossius 2 years ago
What are the two major beliefs out their? Creation and evolution. If you prove one false then the only other major belief out their is Creation. Sure, some may believe in pixie dust, but who cares! Most will become Creationists.
Darwin saw changes within species and came to the conclusion that animals evolved from other kinds of animals (not science). That is false reasoning! Animals evolve, but only within their DNA limits. Birds make birds, Dogs make Dogs. Cows don't make whales!
angiemay11 2 years ago
"What are the two major beliefs out their? Creation and evolution"
You stupid little child. You think the entire world is either Creationist or believes in Evolution? Really??
Wow, you just dont even have a clue, do you? Nothing you say has any credibility, kid. Try looking beyond your own family for world views next time, idiot.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
They care about this one the most because if God does exist then your life depends on it. Also just because Something else in science is wrong, doesn't mean that we should just accept evolution because "everything else has problems"...Drop a pen on the ground, now you have gravity....now give me one piece of evidence that life started from non life or one animal changed into another.
bradv513 2 years ago
"now give me one piece of evidence that life started from non life"
Dumbass, Evolution DOES NOT talk about the origins of life. You are clueless.
As for the animal changing into another... Evoultion DOES NOT promote MAGIC like your religion does.
Why dont you actually try researching your questions instead of pretending like you even know what scientists have claimed? Idiot.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
so if you can't prove life came from non life then god must have done it. Evolution does have to do with organic evolution. IT IS TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS. i find it funny you still didn't give me just one piece of evidence of macroevolution. Just tell me, no need for name calling. If im an idiot then inform me.
bradv513 2 years ago
Yes but people in support of ID have to 'attack' evolutionism. Not because by disproving evolution you prove ID. But because you cannot believe in both.
Why are videos like this one getting 5 stars? youtube . com / watch?v=Qt6oBxZmOG0&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div
Is it because ID supporters are giving them 5 stars? I don't think so. Is it because not all evolutionists know what to believe?
reignonkarma 2 years ago
I love how ID supporters make the assumption that it is their god that is the designer.
Why couldn't it be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Lord Xenu? There is just as much evidence for them as there is for your Magic Man.
Also... Jesus didn't sacrifice himself. He rose to godhood three days later, which invalidates the sacrifice. That is an upgrade, not a sacrifice.
And beyond that, your god set us up to fail with a trap anyway, so not that it would matter.
You Theists just fail.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Ok you are mixing up Intelligent Design with Creationism. I am a creationist and I am a christian. and im right! anyway their are many different types of evolution too....together we are just saying that evolution couldn't happen.
It could be Flying spaghetti monster or whatever else...THATS WHERE FAITH COMES IN.
So you aren't going to accept jesus because he had an advantage? what if you were drowning and you wouldn't let someone save you because they had a floatation device. Would you....
bradv513 2 years ago
"Ok you are mixing up Intelligent Design with Creationism"
BULLSHIT!!
Intelligent Deisgn IS creationism BECAUSE it says some animals, INCLUDING HUMANS, appeared suddenly and fully formed.
How DARE you try to lie to me. I know what ID states, and there is NOTHING scientific about it.
I suggest you watch the Nova documentary on the Dover Trial, you silly moron.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
say "no you can't help me its not fair, that doesn't count because you have an advantage...ITS SUPPOSED TO BE EASIER.
bradv513 2 years ago
Lastly, just read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis...what have you got to lose? if it makes you feel better he was an athiest....JUST DO THIS FOR ME PLEASE
bradv513 2 years ago
"read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis"
No, that would be utterly pointless. He doesn't have anything to add to the topic.
If it makes me feel better? You asshole, so what if he claims he was an atheist?
Why dont YOU go watch a few dozen episodes of the Atheist Experience hosted by Matt Dilihunty. He de-converted after being a fundamentalist for around 30 years.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"So you aren't going to accept jesus because he had an advantage?"
Moron, I'm perfectly willing to say someone named Jesus existed in history, just as much as I'm willing to say there was someone named Vlad the Impaler.
I WILL NOT accept the MAGIC of your Jesus guy, however, just like I wont accept the existence of Dracula which is based/inspired by Vlad the Impaler.
Learn to separate MYTH and LEGEND from history.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"if it makes you feel better he was an athiest"
Why would that make me feel better, even if that were true?
Would it make you feel better if I cite people who spend 30 years as evangelical Christian Creationists who have since turned into non-believers?
Look up Matt Dinahunty from the Atheist Experience pod cast.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"so if you can't prove life came from non life"
The building blocks for DNA have already been demonstrated to form like you suggest. You lose, idiot.
Second, I find it VERY funny that someone who believes in a Bronze Age religion out of FAITH requires proof from their opponent.
That is called a double standard. Why dont you prove your Magic Man is real?
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Just one piece of evidence for macroevolution??
Ohhh, I see. So you acknowledge micro-evolution happens?
Try using google to answer this question, silly child. Look up OBSERVED SPECIATION, or even MACROEVOLUTION PROOF.
I see the proof with those 5 second searches, lets see if you are able to do the same. I bet you wont understand it, or acknowledge it.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"Evolution does have to do with organic evolution. IT IS TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS"
.....oh wow, how much of an idiot are you to make that statement as if its something we didn't know??
Did you just hear about evolution in your freshman high school class??
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
when debating evolution we are admitting that our religion is a belief. We don't have to prove anything. all we have to do is state what is wrong with evolution...why? BECAUSE YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT....here's a question. Where did information come from?
bradv513 2 years ago
"We don't have to prove anything"
Yes you do. By stating that you have nothing to prove already invalidates your stance.
Intelligent people will laugh at you because you are using a double standard. You having nothing to prove, but you demand proof from others?
Laughable.
If you want to try and debate Evolution, try to actually have some level of education on it, otherwise all you will be doing is attacking strawmen.
Dont be a fool.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
ok whatever, of course its my responsibility as a christian to get people to convert, but I don't have too. Did you forget? Evolution is taught in schools so it HAS to be proved true. Creationism, as fact, isn't taught and therefore doesn't need proof, in fact it takes belief. However there is plenty of evidence for it. Evolution is stupid. and so is debating on youtube!
Brianv727 2 years ago
Thats because Evolution HAS been proven true by TENS OF THOUSANDS of scientists AROUND THE WORLD in multiple, repeatable, and corroborating tests and experiments!!
No shit your religious assertions take faith, belief WITHOUT proof and often IN SPITE OF evidence against it.
Thats why it isn't taught as fact, dumbass.
Its too bad you think evolution is stupid, but thats your problem for being too stupid or willfully ignorant to try to understand it.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
evolution didnt ever stop there have been many instances of humans that do not have the ability to speak because they did not evolve correctly.
wisdomseeker40 2 years ago
so they went from a human to a human who couldnt talk? and whats this about not evolving correctly? there is no goal, no direction, no right and wrong with evolution. Don't you think it could just b a birth defect?
Brianv727 2 years ago
Intelligent Design, my ass. If people knew there were dinosaurs, then they probably know they existed MILLIONS of years ago, rather than 6000. Therefore, they contradict their own beliefs.
Back to the point. Through millions of years, evolution can be achieved. Plus humans have done much to change the earth. It is certain that Earth changed over time and that God didn't make it all happen at once. Or "six days". Which is pretty retarded if he is supposed to be "omnipotent".
NinjaDonutPhillip 2 years ago
Ok you can say your point but please don't make fun of God. Six days can mean anything. Plus what would be the fun in snapping your fingers and making everything? Also there are MANY creationists who believe the earth is old. Do you think that just because the earth is old that NO GOD can exist? Now thats stupid. Come up with other reasons (and there are good arguments against it). Hey were you there millions of years ago? I admit my view is a belief
Brianv727 2 years ago
"Ok you can say your point but please don't make fun of God"
Why not? You just made fun of evolution, calling it stupid when we can prove to you it is fact.
You DARE spit in my face and cry like a baby when we laugh at you, yet you have the gall to turn around and say bullshit like that??
You sound like you JUST joined the debate... utterly clueless.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"Hey were you there millions of years ago?"
HAHAHAHHAHAH!!!
You stupid moron. Where you there when your bible was written? No? Well then how can you know for certain it wasn't a collection of fairy tales pulled out of someone's ass and put together by committee?
The science behind evolution is obviously well over your head. Dont you dare spit in our face and say it isn't possible just because you cant understand it. That makes you look like a hillbilly.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
six days means 144 hours, or 8640 minutes, or 518400 seconds. that's about it.
sarge5000 2 years ago
Hey guys Jesus loves you and died for all your sins
zero252627 2 years ago
there is a lot of good evidence for evolution while there is virtually 0 evidence for creationism and ID, so i'm not even sure why the argument continues to rage on...
sarge5000 2 years ago
wow....ur in for a surprise
Brianv727 2 years ago
i know...you are too.
sarge5000 2 years ago
Attacking evolution isn't going to prove the existence of God, but I think the main reason ID proponents attack evolution is this: What other possibilities are there? Design, or Evolution? Is there a third option? Design doesn't mean there is a God, but many creationists think that way. And since there doesn't really seem to be a third option it boils down to faith that God MUST be the designer. This isn't a challenge to evolutionists or creationists, just an observation.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
beautiful. BEUATIFUL!!! im speechless. This is by far the best video against creationism i have seen. I am glad other people out there are able to think like i can and have the same ideas and knowledge. MAGNIFICENT! I also liked your music. What is it called?
masterthief104 3 years ago
psevdhome WROTE-
I GIVE UP! Be an asshole who believes biased unprovable shit for the sake of his fucking racial pride.
__________________________
In your video on your page (MY TRIP TO MT. ATHOS) 1:44 is a picture of a BLACK HOLY PERSON WITH AFRO-
I suggest you re-examine your own videos before you start calling other people liars.
SMILING
INVASION2012 3 years ago
Thank you for this fantastic video
spiffydude45 3 years ago
so finding problems w/ god offers no support for evolution?.. why would it be useless to support "theory of not evolution"..theories don't always become improved upon,when problems are found w/ them..when enough problems are found they can be disproven.science doesn't argue against creation.there is no "major movement"..there are no "boundaries of science" just undiscovered goodies".excellent audio
lunabirdie 3 years ago
Hi lunabirdie. Science is always improved upon though. Eg.ultraviolet catastrophe. It threatened to destroy everything we knew about chemistry and physics. So you can imagine that it was bigger than all the so called "problems" they can come up with evo, all put together.
Yet no one threw out chem/phys and started to say that deity X made chemicals and causes gravity. People improved upon existing knowledge. And we ended up with quantum phys/chem, which supplements old chem/phys.
powerstone2 3 years ago
yes....good points to consider....and it,s a very interesting time to be alive...and see what science has for us in the few years to come...
lunabirdie 3 years ago
what music is that
lolo2556 3 years ago
it's the music from one of the "cirque du soleil" soundtracks....
lunabirdie 3 years ago
Although definitely opinionated, I must say I was rather impressed with your presentation. With that, I must admit to being a Creationist myself. Not because I think of evolution as an evil lie from the devil, but because of the scientific evidence I've been studying. I am currently a University student and I'm trying to learn more about the evolutionary process, but I know this already: people will believe what they want and many times the evidence won't matter. That goes both ways, btw.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
I agree completely, scarface. It's just that I see so much of the "if I find enough problems with evo, then people will have to resort to creationism" attitude going around. And it's simply not true, regardless if those problems with evo are real or not.
powerstone2 3 years ago
True, very true. I suppose not that many people think about the different possibilities of origin. I know I didn't. It doesn't really change my mindset, but I can easily agree with how annoying it is to see people who think they have no choice. Most of the world out there see only the two possibilities so your video here is a new and welcome addition to the debate. Keep on keepin' on and we'll see what the future holds.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
"That goes both ways, btw. "
No science doesnt work that way.
Do you go for noahs ark being true aswell?
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Maybe you should re-read what I wrote: people will believe what they want and many times the evidence won't matter. That goes both ways. You seem pretty convinced in your own mind about something and I'm willing to bet that even if they found Noah's ark it wouldn't be enough for you.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
No science doesnt not ignore facts, it gets its knowledge from facrts, religion deliberately ignores facts to pretend its real.
One of the 9 or so noahs arks they have already found or another one? Even if there was an ark, the story as claimed by fundys doesnt hold up.
"but because of the scientific evidence I've been studying."
Well since you know alot better than Millions of experts in the field, I look forward to you proving them all wrong.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
So will u just be winning one or all the science Nobel prizes this year?
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Cute, but being a smartass doesn't help your cause. In fact, your past few statements just proved my point. You are SO convinced that it won't matter what anybody says. What 9 or so Noah's arks? If you're such an expert on the subject, what's your background? Religion doesn't have to ignore facts to pretend its real. What are you? Atheist? Anti-theist?
Scarface1034 3 years ago
Im not being a smart ass, you are claiming you know better than the experts and obviously have the evidence to prove them wrong...
Or are you talking story book ideas and blowing smoke out your ass?
"You are SO convinced that it won't matter what anybody says"
Yes ill believe the experts, you believe a story book and pretend its real.
So how many arks have been found?
"Religion doesn't have to ignore facts to pretend its real"
IF thats the case, then why does it?
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
"Yes ill believe the experts, you believe a story book and pretend its real."
You continue to amaze with your sense of ignorance. I've known some atheists in the past and I was wondering what your beliefs were. If you are atheist as well maybe we can debate the science involved. If you're just following a thought, i.e., believing what you want no matter what, then forget it. No sense talking to someone wearing ear plugs.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
" No sense talking to someone wearing ear plugs. "
LOL your the one who ignores science and facts in favour of your story book.
Guess you wont be winning any nobel prizes after all
AS YOU ARE WRONG!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Proving my point as always. I'm actually studying science as I am currently a University student. Care to compare education? What do you do for a living? What am I ignoring? Do you even know what I was talking about?
Its time to stop this "debate" because you completely ignored my point and are currently acting like a jackass. Good luck in life...
Scarface1034 3 years ago
"Proving my point as always. "
Your studying science, how lovely, have you put in your applicatyion for nobel prizes for proving evolution wrong (Since you know better than the exprerts!)
Bet yuou havent even published world altering facts and evidence that evolution is wrong and your proof now why is that?
SIMPLE your talking crap from religous bias.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
And your talking BS from opinionated propaganda. I'm not even arguing the merits of science here, but I doubt you can see that because of personal blinders and ear plugs. Stop spouting garbage and learn how to spell.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
"I'm not even arguing the merits of science here"
No you just deny the facts and proof of science, because your story book doesnt hold up and you obviously cant put forward any reasonable attack on evolution.
So what are you studing?
Its a typo, so is that a personal attack or you just too stupid to realise that?
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
God, give me patience. This is pure, unadulterated bullshit from an ignorant moron. Give up the argument already. You keep coming back to something that had nothing to do with what I was talking about. Unless you were trying to prove my original point, then you've done that in spades. Also, try fixing your typos and you won't come off quite as stupid.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
Im ignorant because I dont believe a story book and accept evolution like the majority of christian do? People can decide on your comment themselfs.
You said you can prove evolution doesnt exist.
So what is it?
Your studying science, so you said, I would love to know what undergrade course you are doing!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
"You said you can prove evolution doesnt exist."
Where, in any of my comments, did I make that declaration? I went and looked at everything I wrote and it isn't there. This whole debate has gone nowhere fast and I'm done with it. Get over yourself and and try re-evaluating what I was talking about. In case you hadn't figured it out yet, it wasn't about evolution and its feasibility. Don't hurt yourself...
Scarface1034 3 years ago
So your a creationist because science is enought proof and imaginary sky daddys is. Offcourse you knew imaginary sky daddy did it before you look at any evidence.
So what science are you studying and why did u bring it up?
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
I was having a rather pleasant discussion with the guy that made this video and you stuck your nose in the middle of things. Some advice: stick to your own business and stfu. If you want to attack Christianity or faith in general, thats your problem. Suck it up and quit trying to force your beliefs on others.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
LOL all gone quite dont want to say what your studying.
Dont want to say why you think evolution is flawed (Not the real reason - Story book says so)
Bet you believe in Noahs ark story being 100% true LOL. Ignore more science, the christian fundy way.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Learn how to write, learn how to communicate and to not be such an ignorant asswipe. Then we can discuss what I study and what you do for a living. Get yourself straightened out and you might be worth debating with.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
"such an ignorant asswipe"
I think thats how people would desciribe somone who is an undergrad, but says they know bettter than experts in the fields, who have a degree and amazingly a few million PhDs between them aswell, but you know better as you have a story book, none of this proof rubbish!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Do you have a PhD? Are you a student? Do you have any education at all? Apparently not. Do yourself a favor and just shut the f*ck up. I'm sick of hearing your lame attempts at some kind of argument when you don't seem to have the slightest clue what I was talking about.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
"Do you have a PhD? Are you a student? "
Lets pretend I dotn exist, so tell me why are all the experts with a few million PhDs on the subject wrong and your right again?
OH yes you prefered story book says so.
Cant argue with that.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Pretending you don't exist should be easy. You pretend you don't exist and quit the asinine responses, then we'll both be happy.
By 'preferred story book' I take it you mean the Bible? That's a whole new can of worms and it's not one I'm going to debate with an uneducated ignoramus like you. Get your facts straight, get an education and maybe then you'll see that I wasn't talking about the merits of evolution in the first place.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
"uneducated ignoramus like you"
Undoctrinated in the world, of believing the story book you where taught to believe and none of the other story books you vdont believe because they aint your story book.
thats what you mean, If you want education you can read all about evolution like I said before, but you will not!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Just give it up. You stopped making any kind of sense about 7 comments ago. You're unable to even make a point in any of your arguments. All one could derive from your pitiful attempts at communication is that you REALLY don't like the Bible. Learn how to write, get some education and then we'll talk. Until then, good luck and God bless...
Scarface1034 3 years ago
Scarface1034 on the personal attack as usual because you choose believe your bronze age story book over millions of experts in fieled, you will never allow your self to learn anything about.
Then you can explain away the truths away that prove evolution so just go and stick your head in the sand as usual after you are claiming right, because you think so!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
I'm starting to think english is not your first language. If that is the case then I feel I owe you an apology... for that much, at any rate. I will say one more time that my original discussion with powerstone2 (read: NOT YOU) was about his insight into the fundamentals of the creation/evolution argument. Nobody was talking to you about anything, so be a good sport and start minding your own business.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
Scarface, dont want to state you believe the ark story (The reason is pretty easy to guess LOL).
So explain why God gave Adam Tail DNA, then made it inactive? Educate me on the bible/ID.
Who planted the 16 dead virii in both ours and the chimps DNA in the exact same spot to prove evolution? Was it god to test us? LOL
I assume you wontg ive answers as usual.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
More ignorant ramblings from someone who can't seem to take the hint. Tail DNA? 16 dead virii? Please stop embarrassing yourself and just get on with your life.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
TheBigGameHunter1, the essence of science is the scientific method where a hypothesis is tested by experiment. That is,
1) State the question
2) Form a hypothesis
3) Do experiments
4) Interpret data and draw conclusions
5) Revise theory (go back to step 2)
Experiment becomes the final arbitrator of truth, HOW DO WE TEST THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?
staceyjoe 3 years ago
"HOW DO WE TEST THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?"
As you list shows, it fixes the problems after accepting them.
Heres how creationism works
1) Start with answer (Believe in bronze agesd story book)
2) Ignore ALL evidence to the contrary and LIE about it
3) Pretend things prove it, and LIE that they do
There no wonder why creationists are so WRONG.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
See staceyjoe, I can give you the answer to your question. But let me ask you this: If YOU don't know how airplanes fly, does that mean the answer doesn't exist? No, it simply means you're IGNORANT of the answer.
So if YOU don't know how evo is tested, does that mean the answer doesn't exist? No, it simply means you're IGNORANT of the answer.
See how I don't just blindly accuse people of being ignorant? I offer proof of ignorance
powerstone2 3 years ago
Heres a nice little video of a survey, that shows less educated people are more likely to deny evolutuion. The reason religious beliefs!
watch?v=YNZA1ATxLiE
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
When it comes down to it, the evidence points out that you are far more uneducated than I am. One more time for the cheap seats: GIVE IT UP AND START MINDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS
Scarface1034 3 years ago
If you say so, ill pretend im a rock, so that makes you right and the experts wrong, after all you said you are studying a science degeree? You where too embaressed to mention what it was in tho!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
I never said experts are wrong. Read again what the discussion was about.
"If you say so, ill pretend im a rock"
Actually, you won't have to pretend at all.
My degree is irrelevant, but understand that I'm going for some higher learning. What are you doing? Do you have any education worth mentioning, or are you just going to keep relying on the "experts?"
Scarface1034 3 years ago
"I never said experts are wrong. Read again what the discussion was about."
so you do AGREE witht the experts that evolution is real? Thats not what you said before!
"My degree is irrelevant"
Then why did you mention it, and use that as a reason as to why you know better than all the experts.
"What are you doing? "
Im retired, what do you do for a living?
"Do you have any education worth mentioning"
Nothing specific to evolution, but more than what you have.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
You have no idea what I have, so don't claim to. Stay retired, stay out of my business and go enjoy the stories told around the old folks home. What I said before has absolutely no bearing on you, so stop trying to make it your concern. Btw, there are experts that both agree and disagree with evolution, yet I wasn't even talking about that originally. You would know that if you bothered to pull your head out of your ass and read the discussion.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
"You have no idea what I have, so don't claim to"
You said evolution is wrong and you know this because you are studying science. Then you admitted experts are correct, but you know better on evolution.
Dont be so embaressed, tell us what science you are studying!
"around the old folks home"
Maybe in 30 years or more, but ill still be staying at home.
"Btw, there are experts that both agree and disagree with evolution"
01% disagree, on purely religous grounds
99.99% agree.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Wow, even more ignorance. Well, no sense discussing things that you're rather uninformed about. No big deal, just keep on believing whatever you want... I'm sure you'll be happy, whether it's the truth or not.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
"happy, whether it's the truth or not."
im happy with the proven truth, your happy with fiction.
So why dont you quit your study/job and go and save souls why waste time studying!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
And yet again, even more ignorance. Not only are you trying to argue something irrelevant, you're starting to make things up as well.
"Offcourse not, you dotn want to look any more stupid than you have shown yourself to be."
Check your spelling and use of grammar. It looks like you've shown yourself to be a lot dumber than I am.
"im happy with the proven truth, your happy with fiction."
Wow, moronic and presumptuous. Nice try, but you should just give it up.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
"im happy with the proven truth, your happy with fiction."
"wow, moronic and presumptuous. Nice try, but you should just give it up. "
Ill believe the truth aslong as its the truth, you prove it wrong if you want people believe tis not right. YER YER YER all the experts inculding 40% who are christians are all in a conspiracy run by SATAN no doubt!
Yet again NO mention of your wonderfull studies and how you know better than the experts.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
How much longer are you going to continue spewing all this BS? You keep trying to say that my original topic was something to do with a "story book" and that only you know the truth because somehow I know better than the "experts." So once again I'll mention that my studies are irrelevant, none of your business, and you are too uneducated to know the difference. Stop with this pointless argument and just get on with your life. Oh, wait... you're retired so you have nothing better to do.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
"or are you just going to keep relying on the "experts?" "
Yes I am, Since you dont like relying on experts, if u ever need a medical doctor come and see me Im not a medical doctor, but ill give it a go!
So do you ignore all experts? or only ones who dont agree with the bronze age story book? Bet I know the answer to that!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Be more specific: bronze age story book?
If you're referring to the Bible, then that's your deal. Don't even bring it up, because it's pretty obvious that between the two of us, you're the one that hates it.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
"you're the one that hates it."
No I feel sorry how it has been used to suck in weak minded fundamenalists, the minority of christians!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Paying attention to your comments, both past and present, one should examine just who has the weak mind here. You still haven't learned to spell, so now I'm wondering if that has anything to do with how we can't teach an old dog new tricks.
Scarface1034 3 years ago
More persoanal attacks, what else do you have nothing.
So going to tell me how are studying at uni? for a degree? in a science unrelated to evolution and how you know better than the experts?
Offcourse not, you dotn want to look any more stupid than you have shown yourself to be.
So next time you pray to god, ask him why the scientific test prove praying doesnt work?
LOL i wont be holding my breath!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Scarface1034, it is pointless arguing with evolutionists because they don't know what REAL science is. "Evolutionary science" is not "real" science but a belief in a theory that they cannot prove.
staceyjoe 3 years ago
"they don't know what REAL science is. "Evolutionary science" is not "real" science but a belief in a theory that they cannot prove"
Before using terms such as theory as it applies in the case of science, maybe it would be a good idea to know the meaning, so you dont look any more stupid to the people, who know what it means when you claim its somthing that its NOT!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Once again, the silly notion that science theories can be proven. Don't you understand? It's because theories CAN'T be proven that makes them scientific. To claim something is provable commits an argument from ignorance fallacy.
powerstone2 3 years ago
Thank you for your support. But TheBigGameHunter1 never seemed to realize that the actual argument between us didn't have anything to do with evolution vs creation. He/she kept bringing that up to ignore the actual point I was discussing with powerstone2, and that was the insight this video showed. Whether one believes in evolution or creation powerstone2 makes an excellent point about the debate between the two. I happen to be a creationist, but not because I think evolution is evil...
Scarface1034 3 years ago
Yeah...you two kind of lost me very early on.
So instead, I went off to learn some Japanese instead. lol 日本語お勉強おします！
powerstone2 3 years ago
I've been to Japan... nice place, not much room...
Scarface1034 3 years ago
Really? Did you learn any of the language? How long did you stay?
Hmmm, I just realized it should have been 勉強しています．
powerstone2 3 years ago
I was stationed there for a year back in 95-96. I learned some of the language, but not enough for any real communication. It's interesting to see how their society is run. Did you know they bury their dead standing up? Anything to save some space...
Scarface1034 3 years ago
TheBigGameHunter1, you have a naive trust in "experts". At one time "experts" believed that the sun orbited around the earth, but these "experts" were proved wrong, weren't they? It won't be too long before the "experts" will be proved wrong on evolution.
staceyjoe 3 years ago
"At one time"experts"believed that the sun orbited around the earth"
When people didnt know any better and they believed what teh bible says, then some guy nearly got killed for pointing out the bible was wrong yet again!
"It won't be too long before the "experts" will be proved wrong on evolution"
LOL with the pile of evidence greater than other and most probally all scientific theorys put together.
Start with atomic theory,it must be wrong if evolution is wrong.Atomic energy LIES!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Whereas trust in junk sites off the internet isn't naive, staceyjoe?
*rolls eyes*
You still don't seem to understand. When you "prove science wrong", the only logical step afterwards is to improve science. As I've shown, prove evo wrong, it'll only work to strengthen it. it's how science works.
powerstone2 3 years ago
When these experts were proved wrong, staceyjoe, no one claimed that God made the shape of the Earth or whatnot. It was used to improve our knowledge on what the shape of the Earth is.
Claiming God is ALWAYS irrational.
powerstone2 3 years ago
Untrue.I gave several examples that are neither (insert any God) or evolution
powerstone2 3 years ago
Untrue.I gave several examples that are neither (insert any God) or evolution
powerstone2 3 years ago
the debate itself between creationism and evolution is a dichotomy, true and false at the same time.
accountnotavailable 3 years ago
The irony is, when it comes to the idea of a creator, the atheist actually has more of a religious mindset than the ones they call religious.
germanicelt 4 years ago
Science isnt God. We have a nature to seek a higher authority. Science is people modeling the universe for practical application, it approaches but never achieves the universe itself by virtue of our limitations. However, any one person can look and see another person who has modeled the universe beyound our ability to distinguish any lack of practical precision and so its easy to think that science is limitless but it is not.
nathanielcw 4 years ago
Observations made, conclusions drawn to connect the dots.
Random subtle mutations endorsed by subtle natural standards resulted in all variation of life on earth.
or
life on earth came about, at some point, by deliberate design by a higher authority.
science needs atheistic assumption within its jurisdiction to be science but it also needs theistic assumption to retain discipline and humility to stay humble, know the limits of its jurisdiction.
nathanielcw 4 years ago
"it also needs theistic assumption to retain discipline and humility to stay humble, know the limits of its jurisdiction" - nathanielcw
What do you mean "limits" of its jurisdiction? Why does science need to hold back?
"Science isnt God" - nathanielcw
You seem to base some of your reasoning on assuming there even is a god in the first place. Circular reasoning much?
This "god" only exists as we interpret it, so to talk about how science is limited to our interpretations is arbitrary.
HiddenFacedMatt 4 years ago
Science doesn't need to be held back, and it shouldn't. Nathanielcw did not say a theistic assumption limits jurisdiction, he said that it helps us know the limits of our jurisdiction. What those limits are? Scientific study outside of nature (to which we are scientifically bound).
XyoungearthX 4 years ago
"he said that it helps us know the limits of our jurisdiction." - XyoungearthX
Again, what do you mean, "limits" of our jurisdiction?
HiddenFacedMatt 4 years ago
"What those limits are? Scientific study outside of nature (to which we are scientifically bound)."
-Me
XyoungearthX 4 years ago
"What those limits are? Scientific study outside of nature (to which we are scientifically bound)." - XyoungearthX
What do you mean, "outside of nature"? One could argue that everything artificial is natural since it all has its roots in the natural world, but if not, how is the technology through which you posted that comment not "outside of nature"?
HiddenFacedMatt 4 years ago
My computer is not "outside of nature".
Anything we can sense (with our senses) is inside of the natural world. The things that are outside of our natural world (if they exist) are the stopping points for our scientific inquiry.
God exists outside of nature, strictly because He created everything, making Him unbound by the restrictions that we face (time, gravity, etc). Science deals with the study of nature.
You cannot scientifically prove (or disprove) the existence of God.
XyoungearthX 4 years ago
"God exists outside of nature, strictly because He created everything, making Him unbound by the restrictions that we face (time, gravity, etc)." - XyoungearthX
Your argument is based both on the assumption that god exists and that god is as you interpret him/her so to use that argument to back up that assumption would qualify as circular reasoning.
"You cannot scientifically prove (or disprove) the existence of God." - XyoungearthX
You can't disprove the existance of invisible dragons.
HiddenFacedMatt 4 years ago
"You cannot scientifically prove (or disprove) the existence of God."
True. Yet another reason that Creationism and I.D. are not, and can never be, science, EVEN IF ONE OR BOTH IS TRUE.
You don't teach mechanical engineering in music classes, even though mechanical engineering is true.
For that reason, Creationism and I.D. do not belong in science classes. Period.
Philosophy classes? Sure! Go for it!
COMALiteJ 4 years ago
Ok, fine then. If you don't ever want creationism taught in science class, the very least they can do is express the FACT that evolution is not fact.
The major objection that I have is that every single child that graduates public school believes that evolution is fact, and they have no idea that there are any faults what-so-ever with it.
Not to mention that discarded scientific ideas are still being published in textbooks around the world.
XyoungearthX 4 years ago
Evolution is FACT your story book is not true, but you like to believe in it. Wheres your rationality in that?
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
EVEN IF you found actual flaws in evolution, all that would mean is that evolution needs fixing (which has actually happened: cross-ref. punctuated equilibrium, and why we now call it NEO-Darwinism instead of just Darwinism).
EVEN IF you found FATAL flaws in evolution that could NOT be fixed, that would STILL not provide even ONE SHRED of evidence FOR CREATIONISM or I.D, any more than proving that 2+2≠3 provides even ONE LICK of evidence that 2+2=5.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Whoah! How'd you do that "does not equal" sign?
Right. I understand your strictly naturalistic position. There is absolutely no way you would ever admit that God would be the only possibility, because eventually you'll find an answer, right?
TheBigGameHunter: Since you are doing nothing more than attacking me on my page, and then deleting the comments that I add to your page, maybe we might actually be able to discuss things without you censoring me!
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Yes, I understand that a theory in science is a good as a fact, but it's still based on speculation about the unobserved past.
Natural selection is a fact. Adaptation is a fact. Genetic mutations and speciation are facts. Evolution is an assumption about the past based on observations in the present that did not and could never ultimately result in molecules to man evolution after the mythical abiogenesis.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Wow, you're wrong on almost EVERY count in that post.
#1, Evolution is NOT bsased on speculation about the unobserved past. That's PART of it, but it's ALSO based on DIRECT OBSERVATION of actual SPECIATION in the HERE AND NOW.
#2, Natural Selection is a THEORY. EVOLUTION is a FACT. A LAW. The Darwinian theory was NOT the Theory of Evolution (evolution predates Darwin), but the Theory of NATURAL SELECTION.
#3, Evolution has NOTHING TO DO with with abiogenesis.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
"Natural selection is a fact. Adaptation is a fact. Genetic mutations and speciation are facts. Evolution is an assumption about the past based on observations in the present that did not and could never ultimately result in molecules to man evolution after the mythical abiogenesis."
Analogy: Hand-tossed crusts are fact. Tomato sauce is fact. Oregano is fact. Mozzarella & pepperoni are facts. But pizza is an assumption that could never ultimately result from the mythical island of Sicily.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
"Whoah! How'd you do that "does not equal" sign?"
I typed an "=" then hit [←] (backspace) and then typed a "/".
Well, that worked in the days of roll-paper Teletype terminals, anyway. ;-)
Seriously, I do it the same way I have ½ a mind to put my 2¢ in. I could tell you, but then I'd be violating © and ™, and perhaps even a ® or two. :-)
COMALiteJ 3 years ago