these are points and arguments that should be made and discussed. im down with that.
JUST NOT IN HIGHSCHOOL. and high school is the ultimate destination of "intelligent design" , is it not?
i would go so far as to say, the only reason the word "intelligent design" exist's is because "creation" as a word is illegal in public HS. and rightly so.
congradulations, you've wasted 20 minutes arguing that god cant be proven not to exist. nobody is arguing that with you, especially as it pertains to evolution. WE ARE arguing the fact the "creationism" (that is what we're talking about here isn't it?) is a petard set at the wall of evolution by bible literalists with pitiably weak faith.
Simply it all is too complex and calling it beyond the capacity of evolution is just under statement. Evolution (darwinism) is practically impossible. No darwinists can show that evolution based on randomness can produce anything useful.
I think evolution is more creation than creationism and is intelligent design friendly, having said that, I think there are still some kinks to work out in the idea, and definitely some questions to answer.
the argument that a designer exists because we can see design in nature is not valid in the light of evolution. to make that argument you have to assume that evolution is wrong, therefore you would have to disprove it.
Unless you want to argue that the first cell was designed to evolve "as planed" or with a little help.
In the matter of abiogenesis, there are already some plausible theories and many possibilities for a designer, (aliens?) And if science figures it out, what becomes of god?
esticadinho3, that is absolutely untrue. As I explained in this vid, I was addressing one SPECIFIC argument against intelligent design. One can reject intelligent design, and yet recognize that this particular argument is fallacious.
Furthermore, as I explained on several occasions, one does not have to reject evolution in order to recognize design. Michael Behe, for example, is on record as believing in evolution. He simply does not believe that it is sufficient to account for life on earth.
What if God is this "alien" that's beyond what is our own capabilities in natural limitations then esticadinho3, not saying that God is supposed to be a martian in a ship, but what is different from the norm we get on material-earth.
I am a Christian and I sent you an YouTube email. Perhaps it is early to mention this to you as I sent the email about 5 days ago, but I wanted to let you know I did not receive a response. I am not sure if you got the YouTube email. My username is heavyduty3737
Why would something self-explained need a further-fetched explanation? Reality doesn't need to stive to or be consistent with a random religion. It was around for bilions of years before the said religion appeared.
Great as always, friend! In my opinion, you have the gentleness and respect spoken of in 1 Peter 3:15. That's something I greatly struggle with in apologetics.
Thank you, SeraphsWitness. I'm sure you'd agree that speaking with gentleness and respect is especially difficult when dealing with critics who are overtly hostile or who give strong indications of simply ignoring the points you raise. I have no doubt that I have occasionally stepped over the line in that regard.
One of my upcoming videos will talk about hostile critics and casting pearls before swine. Dealing with such hostility can be really tough, as we all know.
"The eye and DNA are designed magnificently but not perfectly as an
omniscient being would make it."
There is a huge assumptions underlineing this mentality, and that is that you presume to KNOW what a 'perfectly designed' eye, or DNA or whatever would look like. And it presumes that you know 'better' than an omniscient being. Like Grammastola explained, there could be a perfectly good reason for things we think are flawed, or stuff we may never know, because we're so limited in knowledge.
Just to preempt further digressions... In the spirit of maintaining work priorities, I'm not going to waste time debating points that I already addressed at length in this two-part video. For example, if people say, "Well, an omniscient God would have done a better job!" then it's pretty clear that they didn't watch the vids with an attempt to understand. After all, I addressed that issue at length.
Disagree if you wish, but at the very least, act at though you attempted to grasp the content.
(cont...) And your reason for not accepting the U.D. theory because it doesn't explain the fine tuning argument is ridiculous.
Are you that closed minded that you can't accept a reasonable theory because it doesn't explain every single physical question you would like it to? The God of the gaps argument is dead.
Physical imperfections didn't come from the fall of Adam, the only thing that came from the fall was Death and Sin. Show me where the Bible says that disease was the result.
"And your reason for not accepting the U.D. theory because it doesn't explain the fine tuning argument is ridiculous."
No, it isn't. Even if it were valid, the "unintelligent design" objection would only dispense with the biological problem. It's perfectly valid to point out that it fails to deal with the argument from physics.
Y'know, I can appreciate atheists who disagree with me, but who nevertheless make an effort to understand. Sadly, not everyone does.
Sorry, garveya1, but you're mistaken. Objections to the design of the human eye are exceedingly common. The DNA objection is also one that's I've heard frequently (from Richard Feynmann, for example). Moreover, whether these people are notable or not is irrelevant to this issue.
As for your claim an omniscient being would have made DNA and the eye better... in these videos, I explicitly explained why that's a fallacious assumption! At great length too, I might add.
I just don't see how a newborn baby, dying within hours of its birth, could have any meaningful purpose in existing here on Earth. What kind of God would have that as part of a grand scheme. I mean, you could say it has a greater purpose. I just don't think that makes much sense though, and its just an easy way to dodge
That's a good question, albeit a separate one from the issue of "unintelligent design." I'd like to point out, however, that this is still perfectly consistent with Christian theology, which states that disease entered the world due to sin and that suffering has its reasons.
We do know that painful situations tend to drive people to turn to God. It's entirely possible that God allows these tragic situations in our temporary existence on earth for the sake of greater eternal purposes.
ok, i begin to see it.
these are points and arguments that should be made and discussed. im down with that.
JUST NOT IN HIGHSCHOOL. and high school is the ultimate destination of "intelligent design" , is it not?
i would go so far as to say, the only reason the word "intelligent design" exist's is because "creation" as a word is illegal in public HS. and rightly so.
MpowerdAPE 2 years ago
congradulations, you've wasted 20 minutes arguing that god cant be proven not to exist. nobody is arguing that with you, especially as it pertains to evolution. WE ARE arguing the fact the "creationism" (that is what we're talking about here isn't it?) is a petard set at the wall of evolution by bible literalists with pitiably weak faith.
MpowerdAPE 2 years ago 2
Your videos give me a desire to learn more on this topic. Thank You Very Much
solocruiz 2 years ago
You rock! God bless you!! *repeat*
MonstersNightmare 2 years ago
Simply it all is too complex and calling it beyond the capacity of evolution is just under statement. Evolution (darwinism) is practically impossible. No darwinists can show that evolution based on randomness can produce anything useful.
wandp7782 3 years ago
"Evolution is practically impossible."
You are either willfully ignorant, or purposely deceitful.
Probably both.
infinity730 3 years ago
I think evolution is more creation than creationism and is intelligent design friendly, having said that, I think there are still some kinks to work out in the idea, and definitely some questions to answer.
MonstersNightmare 2 years ago
Research a little more and you may be enlightened to the facts.
solocruiz 2 years ago
the argument that a designer exists because we can see design in nature is not valid in the light of evolution. to make that argument you have to assume that evolution is wrong, therefore you would have to disprove it.
Unless you want to argue that the first cell was designed to evolve "as planed" or with a little help.
In the matter of abiogenesis, there are already some plausible theories and many possibilities for a designer, (aliens?) And if science figures it out, what becomes of god?
esticadinho3 3 years ago
esticadinho3, that is absolutely untrue. As I explained in this vid, I was addressing one SPECIFIC argument against intelligent design. One can reject intelligent design, and yet recognize that this particular argument is fallacious.
Furthermore, as I explained on several occasions, one does not have to reject evolution in order to recognize design. Michael Behe, for example, is on record as believing in evolution. He simply does not believe that it is sufficient to account for life on earth.
grammastola 3 years ago
What if God is this "alien" that's beyond what is our own capabilities in natural limitations then esticadinho3, not saying that God is supposed to be a martian in a ship, but what is different from the norm we get on material-earth.
MonstersNightmare 2 years ago
Grammastola,
I am a Christian and I sent you an YouTube email. Perhaps it is early to mention this to you as I sent the email about 5 days ago, but I wanted to let you know I did not receive a response. I am not sure if you got the YouTube email. My username is heavyduty3737
Sincerely,
Heavyduty
heavyduty3737 3 years ago
Why would something self-explained need a further-fetched explanation? Reality doesn't need to stive to or be consistent with a random religion. It was around for bilions of years before the said religion appeared.
heloizyjhenifer 3 years ago
and the glass is 90% full not 10% empty.
SlickDust 3 years ago
Great as always, friend! In my opinion, you have the gentleness and respect spoken of in 1 Peter 3:15. That's something I greatly struggle with in apologetics.
SeraphsWitness 3 years ago 3
Thank you, SeraphsWitness. I'm sure you'd agree that speaking with gentleness and respect is especially difficult when dealing with critics who are overtly hostile or who give strong indications of simply ignoring the points you raise. I have no doubt that I have occasionally stepped over the line in that regard.
One of my upcoming videos will talk about hostile critics and casting pearls before swine. Dealing with such hostility can be really tough, as we all know.
grammastola 3 years ago
I sometimes abandon it to make a point, and sometimes with hard-heads, it works.
MonstersNightmare 2 years ago
Excellent video brother. 5 stars!!!
thevinerhyme 3 years ago 3
"The eye and DNA are designed magnificently but not perfectly as an
omniscient being would make it."
There is a huge assumptions underlineing this mentality, and that is that you presume to KNOW what a 'perfectly designed' eye, or DNA or whatever would look like. And it presumes that you know 'better' than an omniscient being. Like Grammastola explained, there could be a perfectly good reason for things we think are flawed, or stuff we may never know, because we're so limited in knowledge.
Xaulted 3 years ago
Just to preempt further digressions... In the spirit of maintaining work priorities, I'm not going to waste time debating points that I already addressed at length in this two-part video. For example, if people say, "Well, an omniscient God would have done a better job!" then it's pretty clear that they didn't watch the vids with an attempt to understand. After all, I addressed that issue at length.
Disagree if you wish, but at the very least, act at though you attempted to grasp the content.
grammastola 3 years ago
(cont...) And your reason for not accepting the U.D. theory because it doesn't explain the fine tuning argument is ridiculous.
Are you that closed minded that you can't accept a reasonable theory because it doesn't explain every single physical question you would like it to? The God of the gaps argument is dead.
Physical imperfections didn't come from the fall of Adam, the only thing that came from the fall was Death and Sin. Show me where the Bible says that disease was the result.
garveya1 3 years ago
"And your reason for not accepting the U.D. theory because it doesn't explain the fine tuning argument is ridiculous."
No, it isn't. Even if it were valid, the "unintelligent design" objection would only dispense with the biological problem. It's perfectly valid to point out that it fails to deal with the argument from physics.
Y'know, I can appreciate atheists who disagree with me, but who nevertheless make an effort to understand. Sadly, not everyone does.
grammastola 3 years ago
No one notable is saying that the eye or DNA is badly designed.
The eye and DNA are designed magnificently but not perfectly as an
omniscient being would make it.
If you want to believe that God didn't intend to make his creation perfect then fine, but you must accept if you believe that God
is a perfect entity, that a perfect entity can create imperfection.
garveya1 3 years ago
Sorry, garveya1, but you're mistaken. Objections to the design of the human eye are exceedingly common. The DNA objection is also one that's I've heard frequently (from Richard Feynmann, for example). Moreover, whether these people are notable or not is irrelevant to this issue.
As for your claim an omniscient being would have made DNA and the eye better... in these videos, I explicitly explained why that's a fallacious assumption! At great length too, I might add.
grammastola 3 years ago
I just don't see how a newborn baby, dying within hours of its birth, could have any meaningful purpose in existing here on Earth. What kind of God would have that as part of a grand scheme. I mean, you could say it has a greater purpose. I just don't think that makes much sense though, and its just an easy way to dodge
bwest8888 3 years ago
That's a good question, albeit a separate one from the issue of "unintelligent design." I'd like to point out, however, that this is still perfectly consistent with Christian theology, which states that disease entered the world due to sin and that suffering has its reasons.
We do know that painful situations tend to drive people to turn to God. It's entirely possible that God allows these tragic situations in our temporary existence on earth for the sake of greater eternal purposes.
grammastola 3 years ago
I hope you'll be making more videos more often, now that you came back :)
ubi2002 3 years ago 3
As usual, another great video:)
jarbon5 3 years ago 4
interesting stuff. it's been awhile since you made a video, but this was worth the wait.
jbbremerton 3 years ago 3
Great Video. Nice to see you back again. :)
SavedTru8 3 years ago 2