This so cool how they made a camera small enough to swim around in the cell and watch everything at work in real time. I always wondered what everything looked like in there.
@UthurPendragon Oh you're so smart because you go with the flow and believe in evolution. Must be nice to know that over half the world is dumber then you simply because they believe in creation. Charles Dawrin was born in to a family known for "naturalism" and anti-religious views. In fact he brought a book by Charles Lyell on the Beagle with him to read. Lyell was known for openly attacking religion in his writtings...........
@guistar26 And I'm aware that Charles' dad wanted him to study theology to be a religious official of some sort. The difference is I actually understand what that meant in those days. The church was the seat of power. It was a respectable career for an upperclass man. Especially one who couldn't hack it in medical school. Darwin was not "deeply religious" when he got on the Beagle.
@guitarcrazed188 Intelligent Design, something we can observe in living things, is ridiculous, but the thought that a pineapple and a porcupine share a common ancestor isn't???
The case for the Resurrection for instance. The first time I brought it up I was in fact responding to another person, not you. Anyway, how you would respond to this argument for belief in Christ? Videos on this topic can be found in the Christian Apologetics Group here on YT.
Until atheists can come up with a proper definition of "science" or even "reason," I do not feel that they have a right to lecture everyone else on what is or is not "scientific."
To repeat, I already mentioned the resurrection as the primary proof that Jesus offered of his divinity. Standard historical research and analytic methods show that the events of that time are explainable only by Christ's resurrection and ascension.
True science does not arbritrarily dictate what is "acceptable."
I'm agnostic but the simplest definition of science is
"the search for FACT"(not ideas) OR by proper definition did you mean one that discredits all but what you believe?
Intelligent design is not scientific simply because of one Fact There is and will never be any evidence for or against it(it is clearly a religious theory).
By the way nothing is explainable by christ's resurrection I challenge you to name one event(from history, not religion) that is.(from history, not religious texts)
Okay, smart guy, how do you explain the resurrection, including many known facts such as why the Jesus' disciples even start the Christian religion if Jesus did not in fact rise from the dead. See my friend, assertions are easy to make, but explanations not so easy.
Your definition of science is very incomplete. If you gave that definition to an primitive alien society it would not be helpful since they would already be content with their "facts."
These comments are a good example of how arguing with atheists is like an endless tag team wrestling match. Not only bloodied and battered opponent will ever admit defeat, but their team thinks they can win simply with their overwhelming numbers and repeated citing of authority ("science is on our side" - rofl).
On what basis do you call intelligent design "religious"? Simply because you are spooked by the idea of a Being more intelligent and powerful than ourselves? If you call that science, then obviously science consists only of those ideas with which you feel most comfortable.
1.The resurrection I hate to tell you this but Alice never went through the looking glass,your the one who claimed to have proof but when I ask you to present it you insult me.
2. that is the simplest and best explanation I have ever found (as for the primitive alien remark the would probably be content with their "mythology" as our kind once was)
4.I.D. is religious because it mentions a "higher power" (god) as the cause of evolution and offers no proof(in science for an idea to become a theory their has to be some proof)
And finally God does not "spook" me (I pray to him in fact)
1. If you think Jesus Christ is a fictional character, you are deluded. I did bring up one proof of the Resurrection but you just ignored it.
2. Your so-called definition of science fails to adequately explain science or its underlying support of "reason." In fact, scientific theories are based on "consensus" views, which is another way of saying "majority rule."
3. Modern science is certainly hostile toward all religious viewpoints despite having opened a back door through quantum physics.
3. A little under half of scientist think that evolution was caused by god,don't treat everyone like an enemy. It is just that most people don't want religion to mix with science, this has happened before the era was called "the dark ages". It is not that you should not teach this theory just, (A) Not in public schools &(B) Absolutely not in science class. (I personally would teach this theory to my own kids myself After they learned evolution)
Actually many Christians do believe in evolution, they believe in the practices the bible teaches,They just don't accept the story as fact. And you said science was hostile to religious view points, not to Christianity. Since just over half of the scientific community believes in god that would be very strange if it were true.
Could you give me the Author of that book or better yet the ISBN.
You do use Amazon, don't you? The author is Peter S. Wells.
I would also recommend the book, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E Woods, Jr. Mr. Woods is a recognized expert on the topic.
1. Actually you asked me to explain it? That it didn't happen is the most logical answer (not that he did not exist, necessarily)
2. Actually a theory is proposed based on evidence if you have significant evidence it is still a theory, regardless of consensus(evolution had very few supporters originally).If you did think that way you would know virtually no one in the scientific community considers I.D. a "scientific theory" so you would not be asking how it is not scientific.
By the way I am still waiting to see the "evidence" you claim to have already mentioned but is not on any of this videos comments. Could you please just repeat yourself instead of going through the nondenial denial.
(satire) You want to see evidence for intelligent design? Well, you got me there! The Discovery Institute has published a lot of books, and there is this video on the topic (not just comments here), and other videos. But it's all a bunch of lies. Not one word of truth nor shred of evidence. Obviously, you're just too smart for us, buddy! (satire)
So you don't have the evidence of Christ you claim to have.
You know people who claim to have proof of something then attack people who ask to see it tend to be lying threw their teeth. I never asked to see evidence of ID I asked to see the historical evidence on Christ you claimed to have. Since all you have said was that you already said it I assume you're lying.
As a spiritual person I hate it when someone claims to have validation of religion, It is an insult to all who worship god(s).
Chill, dude! A major historical case cannot be presented in a few words. You would need to do some reading. I tried to post some web links earlier from the leaderu and xenos websites but YouTube must have rejected that post. All I can do is recommend a book such as The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas. YouTube is not designed for these kind of arguments. These comments are only intended to be for the current video so just give it a rest.
the universe had a beginning, so the universe didnt always exist, so you have one first uncaused cause , either the universe came from nothing, or the other cause which is god who is eternal and exists out of time and space
you believe the universe just popped into existence out of nothing, you have faith, it dosent have much validity but you are entitled to your faith
f there can be something that doesn't need a cause, such as god, the argument is self-invalidating.
its not self invalidating, because the universe had a beggining, it didnt always exist, so you have the choice of the universe coming from nothing, or from a creator, if you want to have faith the universe came from nothing then thats your choice, and you are entitled to your faith.
everything that begins to exist needs a cause, since the universe had a start then we have to have one first uncaused cause or we would just have infinite regress which is not possible, seeing as god is eternal he does not need a cause, but the universe had a cause and we have observed all life having a cause, either the universe came from nothing, the first uncaused cause , or it came from god ,the other uncaused cause, it takes more faith that it came from nothing and nothing has never created
I did not say "biggest" but "most fundamental" error in the sense that arguments against Christianity do not belong here to begin with. There is no mistaking the fact that you've made many colossal errors.
The fact that you consider equating ID with Christianity to be a tiny error reveals to everyone just how deluded you are. Seriously, you think that a tendency to be "motivated by religion" is the same as "Christian"? This is pure comedy!
Another thing, jtoksa, when you commend "modern Christians who do accept evolutionary biology," you surely fail to realize that nearly all of those same Christians believe that a higher intelligence was intimately involved in evolutionary processes. Thus, after condemning intelligent design in one sentence, you unknowingly commend it in the next!
You are clearly abusing your friend PeiperJ2's account by embarrassing him through such ignorant rantings.
I believe that in your heart, you know Christianity makes more sense than these other religions. That is why you originally omitted Christianity from the list.
There you go again, responding to a "strawman" argument that I did not even raise.
Again, I mentioned the case for the resurrection and referred you to specific scholars and to the Christian Apologetics Group. Again, I cannot make a detailed argument in 500 characters. Again, you refuse to do your homework.
Isn't it great that atheists don't ban Christians on their channels? LOL
I suspect the reason you were banned is because you are constantly WAY off the topic of intelligent design. Also, you refuse to respond to questions or challenges, but only divert them into endless criticisms of Christianity, which is a topic you obviously know very little about. The video owner is 100 percent justified.
You should definitely be crying if all you are able to Google in terms of apologetics is those two arguments. More likely, you are too close-minded to research any further. Have you looked over the videos in YouTube's Christian Apologetics group?
Is there connexion between ideological design ant horoscopes? I am born on the 8th day of the 8th month of the 8th year of that decade. I believe I have faith. Sorry for english my.
Now, if you followed along, you'd understand that showing all these VINs (which are all completely different numbers, for the sake of analogy) to be of the Ford line would be completely useless to the designer, because no one needs to independantly verify every single VIN to determine that these were made by Ford (The make is obvious, and the logo is on the front).
The way this pertains to evolution is that we're self replicating, have no logos, we have little VINs called ERVs.
" Okay, people do this but... God? Nah, impossible! ;)"
No, People dont do anything remotely close to ERV's. ERVs in say a Car would be like having 85 VIN numbers in various places on the newest models, but comparing previous cars, you would find 83, 82, 55, etc in the same places at you get oler. These numbers dont do anything, and they would serve no purpose other than the fact that they are in the same places on all cars. This does nothing except reassirt that all Fords have VINS in places.
"The simple fact is, evolutionists are unjustified when they ridicule Hoyle and others on the basis that they assume complexity. "
Funny you say we are decievers.
Lovely strawman, ASSUMING that evolution subscribers will ridicule someone simply for "Assuming complexity". Complexity is easily evident. "Intelligent design" is NOT apparant, or evidence, and "Complexity" is NOT evidence of a designer.
The hypotheses of ID cannot be TESTED. Evolution CAN. Sorry to break it to you.
"Thats why I want to know who created god, ID proves he must have had a creator LOL "
ID doesnt prove anything. The only points ID brings to the table are problems it has with the evolution theory, which have ALL been refuted. A God of the Gaps argument.
But of course, christians have the logic and religion filing cabinets in their heads.
"He argued that the universe is Steady State, instead of expansive (false)"
The steady state universe theory is still alive and well. Just ask a plasma cosmologist or check out their websites. Wake up! There are Big Problems with the Big Bang. Due to it being very far off topic, I will not debate that here.
Ever hear of Fred Hoyle? He was a mathematician who calculated the astronomical odds against evolution. Look him up.
As for similar characteristics in different species, surely no designer would employ similar design characteristics in different "models." Okay, people do this but... God? Nah, impossible! ;)
The first 4.5 billion years? Well, I wasn't there, but surely complex life did not come about through random interactions of molecules.
"As for similar characteristics in different species, surely no designer would employ similar design characteristics in different "models." Okay, people do this but... God? Nah, impossible! ;)"
Look up Endogenous Retroviruses. It pretty much blows that concept out of the water.
"The first 4.5 billion years? Well, I wasn't there, but surely complex life did not come about through random interactions of molecules. "
No, complex life didn't, but simple life did. Know the difference.
In addition, Hoyle never really made any true calculations, because the terms are unknown. Unless he knew the velocity and location of every atom in the universe, he couldn't calculate it.
He was throwing out wild guesses, not useing any actual MATH.
And He wasn't a Mathemetician, buddy. He was an astronomer.
Hoyle was both a mathematician and an astronomer. A person can be both, you know...
Your mention of endogenous retroviruses proves nothing.
Finally, buddy, here is no life form in existence that is not complex.
So your argument is that we cannot prove the first cell did not form by chance; therefore it did. Sounds a lot like the argument that you cannot prove the nonexistence of God.
What I get out of this is you have no idea how complex life really is.
"Your mention of endogenous retroviruses proves nothing."
Why dont you explain for the class exactly why ERV's dont illustrate common descent, and why they are evidence of a desinger?"So your argument is that we cannot prove the first cell did not form by chance; therefore it did."
No, I'm saying AbioGenesis preferable to "God did it" which solves nothing; a non scientific elastic answer.
I had already responded to the ERV argument before Power Ranger even brought it up.
"As for similar characteristics in different species, surely no designer would employ similar design characteristics in different 'models.' Okay, people do this but... God? Nah, impossible! ;)"
hint: the ;) symbolizes a wink which symbolizes sarcasm.
Also, personally my faith doesn't depend on humans and monkeys not having a common ancestor. May I remind you that this video is about intelligent design, not about defending a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.
I believe the confusion surrounding this issue is a major reason why many people reject intelligent design.
"Also, personally my faith doesn't depend on humans and monkeys not having a common ancestor. "
But you're sure as hell acting like it.
"I believe the confusion surrounding this issue is a major reason why many people reject intelligent design. "
No, the reason why people reject ID is because there IS NO CONFUSION surrounding this subject. There are people who understand and study the evidence, then there are the willfully ignorant creationists, or as I call them Intentionally Stupid.
"Also, personally my faith doesn't depend on humans and monkeys not having a common ancestor."
'But you're sure as hell acting like it.'
Wrong, wacko. What I typed was essentially a self-attesting statement. After all, how many fundamentalist Christians do you see saying it doesn't matter if common descent is true or not? Common descent is not Darwinian evolution but is a major aspect of it. It can be true in combination with intelligent design.
"As for similar characteristics in different species, surely no designer would employ similar design characteristics in different 'models."
No, this isn't an adequate refutation. ERV's show common descent, its not a refutation of design. You're failing to show how this evidence supports ID, and why it doesnt support the Common Ancestor.
Figure out where the goalposts are before you try to move them.
Furthermore, Its not about if god designed it, its "Where does the Evidence lead?"
Such probability calculations are always bogus, because they assume that some exact arrangement of proteins/amino acids/whatever is the only one that works, and that it sprang into existence just like that, without any precursor.
That is, of course, the opposite of how it really happens.
Behe is the leading expert in such flawed probability calculations, which is a source of great delight to his collegues :-)
A great deal of complexity clearly had to be there from the very start. This includes metabolic, growth, reproductive and other functions such as absorption and assimilation. Each function requires multiple parts consisting of highly complex proteins. The simple fact is, evolutionists are unjustified when they ridicule Hoyle and others on the basis that they assume complexity.
You probably knew all that, but I had to spell it out for the sake of those you seek to deceive.
"This includes metabolic, growth, reproductive and other functions such as absorption and assimilation."
This is pretty much a simplistic definition of life. These are defining characteristics.
Regardless of this complexity, which isn't assumed, its observed (but not so magical in its workings that we can only conclude god designed it), "assuming complexity" isnt the issue, its that all assertions they've made have been wrong. When you take away parts, it just shows a simpler, different tool.
What you fail to mention is that your "friends" in the scientific community haven't even begun to break down the viable life stages from simplicity to the simplest cell, let alone highly complex organisms that came into being.
The argument is "maybe it could have evolved from simple to complex"; we cannot postulate about God or the supernatural; therefore, life MUST HAVE evolved naturally from simple to complex forms. And you call that logic. LOL
None of these things you mentioned disproves the existence of a "supernatural" being. (Supernatural being a word I don't care for because who decides what is "natural" or even possible in this Universe?)
Science has no open questions about God but simply say that practically speaking he cannot exist - because we cannot study him.
That is your argument. As I said before, you call that logic. LOL
"No supporting evidence means anyone's god theory is just as plausible as any other."
This statement is absolutely false if one is even the least bit open-minded to theist proofs versus bogus arguments like those of the "pastafarians." In fact, every statement you made except the last one is false.
"I wrote that gods don't make testable hypotheses and aren't falsifiable."
Huh?!? Atheists write such silly things!
So you say the Bible contains no falsifiable statements? Let's consider the sole proof that Jesus presented for his Messiahship (Matt. 12:38-40), which is at the very heart of Christianity - His death, resurrection, and ascension. For this testimony there is abundant evidence. Look up what scholars like William Lane Craig, NT Wright, JP Holding, and Ben Witherington have written.
If this debate has proven anything, it's that you know almost nothing about what you are attempting to argue against. Since I can't post comprehensive arguments in 500 characters or less, you obviously need to go do your homework. The most fundamental error you and others have made is in not understanding that this video is actually about intelligent design, and that ID is not the same as Christianity.
More on this topic... I wrote that in a scientific sense, "practically speaking
he [God] cannot exist - because we cannot study him." I would be willing to substitute "does not" for "cannot." The key phrase is "practically speaking." This is true. In a practical sense, scientists operate as if God does not exist, which is not to deny that some personally believe in God.
So the only problem here seems to be your inability to read and comprehend every word I typed.
This is a good question, but the answer is negative. Cells have always required great complexity to both exist and to reproduce. Moreover, evolutionists can't deny that cells have "evolved" very little over time. How they came about in the first place is another of those great mysteries of evilution.
By the way, any theorizing about primitive forms of cells is purely speculative since they aren't found in nature.
An outright lie. There is no "working model," just speculation about how the first cell *might* have formed. It's purely imaginative and the odds are fantastically, astronomically opposed to it.
"Solid evidence" for evolution? LMAO.
I don't believe humans were created when the Earth first formed. The Earth would have been too hot. That is not a rational argument for evilution, IMO.
The odds are stacked against it? THAT is an outright lie.
In the known Universe there are about one hundred billion galaxies with a hundred billion stars in each of them. If only one in a billion stars had a planet suitable for life there would still be ten thousand billion suitable solar systems.
And like i said it's not imaginative; we can mathematically prove it's possible; just like we can mathematically prove that the flood is impossible.
I don't think I did. Who exactly are you talking to?
I'll look him up if I'm wrong; but I'm guessing he calculated the odds of evolution to intelligence on any randomly selected planet. There are one hundred billion galaxies with about hundred billion stars in each. If only one in a billion stars had a planet suitable for evolution to intelligence there would be ten thousand billion planets with life.
Positing advancement of biological science and improvements in technology in the past 150 years as invalidating evolution (when these findings only support the theory) is analogous to positing that advancement in nuclear physics has invalidated the theory behind the periodic table of elements (which was developed about the same time)
Sci-Fi cartoons which severely misrepresent biological cellular processes as mechanistic completely fail to make the arguement as well.
massivereader, making videos is not easy. Yes, it would be nice to have something more realistic. But when you have low budgets, etc., the film maker does the best they can. Nevertheless, the point is, the cell is incredibly complex. Could you design a cell starting with just the elements? Why not?
Nice? The difference between biological and mechanical systems is the difference between organic reactions progressing in a liquid and inorganic in a solid. Biological is chaotic, reversable and diffuse, the inorganic is defined to a reaction front and progressive.
Ecology is just as complex, yet you can design self sustaining systems with just a few elements.
I have every confidence this will be done in the very near future. The man behind resolving the human genome project in three years rather than the thirty projected is working on designing a eukaryotic cell right now. From the genetic code itself.
That is right. In fact much too complex for efficiency, with insufficient redundancy and too many less than optimal work arounds and non-functional artifacts to be intentionally designed.
massivereader, earlier you said that you did not personally know how to design a cell. Now you are saying that there are significant design problems with the cell. Can you show us how these design problems can be corrected?
rosaryfilms, No need to correct them. They are artifacts of the evolutionary process and mostly neutral in effect. Although inefficent from a pure design perspective (like the veriform appendix and the location of the optic nerve in the humans eye) they work.
If there were a significant shift in the enviroment or unforseen new disease outbreak, some of them might have an unpredictable survival value. That is how evolution works.
ps. abiogenesis is a feild of study in biology concerning how life first occured, much like cosmology is a feild of study in astrophysics concerning how the universe formed. It is not a specific idea or theory of how life came about.
There are many different hypotheses in the feild of abiogenesis concerning parts of the process, but no accepted overall theory.
massivereader, when scientists do not understand the purpose of something in the cell, they call it an artifact. Later on when they learn of its purpose, then they call it a discovery. An archeologist calls an arrowhead intelligent design, yet calls the cell a product of non-design.
rosaryfilms, You are behind on the science. What I am calling an artifact are such things as the gene for synthesising vitamin C which is active in mice and lemurs and is present on the same gene in the same place but has mutated into inactivity in monkeys, apes and humans. Or the second centromere in human chromosome 2 left over from the fusion of primate genes 12 and 13 (now called 2a and 2b) which present in humans but inactive.
massivereader, you are the one behind on science. Please read up on epigenomes (gene switches). The fundamentals of genetic science are being re-written as I write. What you quote as "facts" are nothing more tha working hypotheses.
rosaryfilms, Wrong. Direct base pair to base pair comparison of the vitamin C synthesis site in rodents and the coresponding location in primates show 85% congruency, explaining the deactivation of the gene and the reason primates require vitamin C in their diet for use in the cytochrome C ATP cycle.
You are simply in denial. You have an theory you want and deny any results that contradict it. That is the core of Intellegent Design.
massivereader, please see my earlier comment which you seem to ignore. You quote as fact what is a working hypothesis. To say that sections of the genetic code have no use is a working hypothesis. They may have no "known use", but that does not conclude that they have no known use. A use may be later recognized. Scientists are not infallible.
rosaryfilms, it is not a working hypothesis since the gradual mutation of this gene which has a specific and known use can be tracked through the phylogenic tree. At a specific point it stops working due to cumulative mutation, but remains located in the same place but inactive in species later on the evolutionary chart.
Again, you are in denial. You simply ignore any evidence that contadicts your theological based preconceived notion. Just like
massivereader, no one is in denial but perhaps yourself. Like many pseudo-scientists, who cannot distinguish between facts, theories, hypotheses, assumptions, etc.; you claim as fact which has not been proved as fact.
Like most intellegent design supporters you cannot distinguish between facts, theories, hypotheses, assumptions, etc.
The existance of the Vitamin C synthesis genes in rodents is a fact.
The hypothesis is that it is still there but deactivated in mammals which require Vitamin C in their diet.
Genetic analysis of the site that shows a base pair by base pair congruency is the test that confirmed the hypothesis and makes it further support for the theory of evolution.
you do realize that vitalism (the idea that life is somehow formed of different stuff from inorganic compounds) died in the 19th century with the synthesis of urea
dancingnature, with all due respect, the idea of abiogenesis, which is the spontaneous origination of life from the elements, is a belief (without scientific basis) held firmly by many evolutionists today.
rosarfilms, abiogenesis is a feild of study in biology concerning how life first occured, much like cosmology is a feild of study in astrophysics concerning how the universe formed. It is NOT a specific idea or theory of how life came about.
There are many different hypotheses in the feild of abiogenesis concerning parts of the process, but no accepted overall theory.
However it is more than possible to make one but you must use a design that is already in use. Human understanding is not yet at the point of designing a cell but you could make one.
Yes. I think that after a day or two, it will sort itself out. It seems they don't process the ordering of the comments when they are written, but later on.
This video has so many problems it is scary that people would take this serious.... the first and biggest problem is that the producers of this video assume that the cell is a perfect structure and no mistakes ever happen. Mistakes happen all the time everything from the wrong molecule entering the cell to the RNA/DNA replication errors. Many of the errors that happen and have no effect on the cell.... the second problem is that they have portrayed the cell as an Lego star wars fairytale.
What you say is perfectly true but what the author of the video is trying to say (Hope I am right) is that the cell is perfectly designed that any change or any error can cause a damage and the complexity is why he thinks GOD exist. Just like a factory, only humans can creat a factory and therefore the cell is also a sign of an intelligent design. The star wars is just a metaphor cause it is hard to explain other wise what is going on.
First, thank you. I do appreciate your input and opinion. I still think that god is religion not science. The cell has NO perfect mechanisms. If there where perfection in a cell no one would ever die. Even in the examples he shows about protein creation, you have big problems. When you put chemical a and chemical b together you can predict an % of the out come will be c but you can never be sure what your going to get. If this was proof of GOD it would never fail, miss align, or die...
I have not addressed your other points yet, but this point - the lack of cell perfection, and death:
The Bible does say many times that God deliberately cursed the world to cause death and ageing etc. So it seems that we are seeing the cell working with amazing complexity, but not perfectly. Yes, that is a point of religious belief, but still reasonable. The Bible never claims perfection. However, cells work amazingly well and carry out many functions that we do not yet undertand at all.
then your god was a doctor he would be labled a mass murder. if he was a lawyer he would be in jail. so why should i worshiped one that hlf assed it tubewatch59.
From what I read about Tiktaalic: it is certainly a fish, has leg-like appendages, but they are weak as in other fish. Speciation is observed (micro)evolution in a type of animal. Each basic type though is fairly far from other types in morphology. Evolutionists originally expected smooth transitions between types (like you have between species) but they aren't found. You can't spot closely connected lineages. You have organisms that have some similarities but many other differences.
So. Creationists expect to observe speciation which is limited evolution over thousands and hundreds of years, but would not expect to see long closely related lineages of massive changes in body plan. What we do see, is many different creatures which have some body plans intermediate in some ways but not intermediate in others. Some of these similarities are convergence! Fossils show much variety. True missing links would require many times the amount of observed types to fill in the gaps.
All of these basic body plans show the effects of speciation, and perhaps effects of bad mutations which cause de-activation of a feature. But mainly you observe a great stability of type. Evolutionists of course claim lineages, but of course they are conjectural because of the huge gaps between them. Only convinced evolutionists find these convincing. They don't show connected lineages, because the gaps between them are too large. So you have to believe none of the links were fossilized.
And needless to say, the basic animal plans just appear suddenly. You can claim ancestors, but once again, the gaps are huge, so it isn't convincing (unless you are already convinced).
If we find fossils of recently formed species, then we should certainly find fossils of the much greater number of species you would have over much longer periods to cause the macroevolutionary changes required. Their absence ought to tell you that there are serious problems with gradualistic evolution, at the very least, from an observational point of view.
the fossile record, while not perfect is amazingly complete (the last 40 years or so have been packed with discoveries of inumerable transtional forms). But even if we'd never found a fossil we could still prove evolution via gentics(which provides a much clearer picture of evolution).
There is lots of variety of fossiles. They are discovering new creatures quite often. But they don't from traceable lineages. By that I mean there are not hundreds of transitions between each major forms, like you do see in speciaition. Most evolutionists have decided to abandon the idea you'd find lineages, and think evolution manifests itself differently.
Well, they do. They appear, they don't have a multitudinous lineage from the first one celled creatures all the way up to the explosion. And even as far as evolution goes, 6 million years is pretty short for that kind of thing to happen.
6 millions years is more then enough time for evolution to cause speciation. Again your lack of understanding is painfully apparent, what happened in the cambrian is the first major aquatic predators evolved and so organizims with hard enough shells to repel attact(and thus finnally producing something that can fossilize). You realize there are pre-cambrian fossiles right?
I know I don't know as much as a biology major. Very Painful! :D
So the consensus opinion is that the hard parts evolved as a response to the evolution of sea predators. Hmm. Ok, that's fair enough. So you are saying (I think) that in 6 million years, speciation of one group of animals gave rise to the first sea predators, and then in parallel to that, speciation of another group of animals gave rise to the observed cambrian explosion. Is that what you are saying? (Or please clarify it.)
No, I'm saying that creatures which had already speciated finnally evolved hard shells/exo-skelitons in responce to predation and so produced more fossiles. Again, we have pre-cambrian fossils. It is also not the largest speciation event in the fossil record.
"... the fossile record, while not perfect is amazingly complete (the last 40 years or so have been packed with discoveries of inumerable transtional forms)."
"... The cambrian explosion took 6 million years and all of the species produced were water dwelling."
What I am basically saying is that you don't have innumerable transitional forms. Each type of creature bodyplan abruptly appears (not just in the cambrian explosion) and does speciate, but the differences due to that are minor. No?
you are completely mistaken. The fossil record is one of the strongest suports for evolution and clearly shows a progression from simpler to more complex life. Again, inumerable transitional forms have been found. tik talik is of coare a prime example.
What do you mean by inumerable? That would seem to indicate you are talking about thousands or tens of thousands of direct links between the first ancestors and the descendants for EACH TYPE of creature. If that were the case the term "missing link" would not have been coined. Instead, animals appear, go virtually unchanged while they exist (though speciation shows minor changes, not far from the basic body plan over time) and then they become extinct or survive to now as living fossils.
And for the same reasons you had the rise of punctuated equilibrium as an alternative to gradualism, because the general observation in fossils is that of "stasis" of a creature. The evolutionary events that changed them were thought to happen so suddenly that they went unnoticed in the fossil record. That is the character of the record. You don't have a clear progression from simple to more complex. You don't really see major changes, only minor ones. You do see much variety of life.
I'm not talking about the change between one different animal group to another. I'm talking about large changes within an animal group that would blur it to another animal group. That is what you would expect to see. Evolution changing one animal type into another, thousands of intermediates. Instead you pick tens of possible intermediates out a a variety of different animals. But there is no clear overlapping progression of intermediates. And not nearly enough of them.
Your input I welcome but miss informed. There are missing links. Evolution in no way says that an animal changes over time. It says that species change overtime. So if you look at humans with a historical generation lasting 40 years that change will be slow. If you look at bacteria that change will be fast seeing that the generational gap is 10 minutes. Science supports this. For proof look at the research on tuberculosis, the human resistance to aids relating back to the Black Death.
This so cool how they made a camera small enough to swim around in the cell and watch everything at work in real time. I always wondered what everything looked like in there.
whatnamesnottakenyet 2 weeks ago
@UthurPendragon Oh you're so smart because you go with the flow and believe in evolution. Must be nice to know that over half the world is dumber then you simply because they believe in creation. Charles Dawrin was born in to a family known for "naturalism" and anti-religious views. In fact he brought a book by Charles Lyell on the Beagle with him to read. Lyell was known for openly attacking religion in his writtings...........
guistar26 1 month ago
@guistar26 And I'm aware that Charles' dad wanted him to study theology to be a religious official of some sort. The difference is I actually understand what that meant in those days. The church was the seat of power. It was a respectable career for an upperclass man. Especially one who couldn't hack it in medical school. Darwin was not "deeply religious" when he got on the Beagle.
guistar26 1 month ago
Intelligent design is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard.
guitarcrazed188 6 months ago
@guitarcrazed188 Intelligent Design, something we can observe in living things, is ridiculous, but the thought that a pineapple and a porcupine share a common ancestor isn't???
That's upside down.
CiscoWes 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science is about finding the truth no matter how unpopular. Religion is about owning the truth no matter how unreasonable.
SolofTarsus5 10 months ago
Islam is lie...
ThomasWinkworth 11 months ago
at the end of the day - GOD created everything for it to grow and evolve,
JAH created these cells, elements and matter, and he programmed it to do what it does,
yesterday, today and tomorow. . .respect to the higher power of god, and thank him for the wonderful universe we live in.
mcRioRemedy 1 year ago
There is no cure of denial
sohailRazzaq1 2 years ago
I hate to say it but your right science deals with facts and proof
For truth you have to go to religion, philosophy, or within
kraor0243 3 years ago
The case for the Resurrection for instance. The first time I brought it up I was in fact responding to another person, not you. Anyway, how you would respond to this argument for belief in Christ? Videos on this topic can be found in the Christian Apologetics Group here on YT.
mayartay 3 years ago
RoseryFilms your name inplies your Catholic so why do you care if A video does not mention a theory that is against your dogma?
kraor0243 3 years ago
Until atheists can come up with a proper definition of "science" or even "reason," I do not feel that they have a right to lecture everyone else on what is or is not "scientific."
To repeat, I already mentioned the resurrection as the primary proof that Jesus offered of his divinity. Standard historical research and analytic methods show that the events of that time are explainable only by Christ's resurrection and ascension.
True science does not arbritrarily dictate what is "acceptable."
mayartay 3 years ago
I'm agnostic but the simplest definition of science is
"the search for FACT"(not ideas) OR by proper definition did you mean one that discredits all but what you believe?
Intelligent design is not scientific simply because of one Fact There is and will never be any evidence for or against it(it is clearly a religious theory).
By the way nothing is explainable by christ's resurrection I challenge you to name one event(from history, not religion) that is.(from history, not religious texts)
kraor0243 3 years ago
Okay, smart guy, how do you explain the resurrection, including many known facts such as why the Jesus' disciples even start the Christian religion if Jesus did not in fact rise from the dead. See my friend, assertions are easy to make, but explanations not so easy.
Your definition of science is very incomplete. If you gave that definition to an primitive alien society it would not be helpful since they would already be content with their "facts."
mayartay 3 years ago
These comments are a good example of how arguing with atheists is like an endless tag team wrestling match. Not only bloodied and battered opponent will ever admit defeat, but their team thinks they can win simply with their overwhelming numbers and repeated citing of authority ("science is on our side" - rofl).
mayartay 3 years ago
On what basis do you call intelligent design "religious"? Simply because you are spooked by the idea of a Being more intelligent and powerful than ourselves? If you call that science, then obviously science consists only of those ideas with which you feel most comfortable.
mayartay 3 years ago
mayartay are you joking or just an idiot.
I shall address your responses in order.
1.The resurrection I hate to tell you this but Alice never went through the looking glass,your the one who claimed to have proof but when I ask you to present it you insult me.
2. that is the simplest and best explanation I have ever found (as for the primitive alien remark the would probably be content with their "mythology" as our kind once was)
kraor0243 3 years ago
3.I am not an atheist as I already mentioned,
In life no one wins we all eventually lose,
and science is on no ones side.
4.I.D. is religious because it mentions a "higher power" (god) as the cause of evolution and offers no proof(in science for an idea to become a theory their has to be some proof)
And finally God does not "spook" me (I pray to him in fact)
kraor0243 3 years ago
1. If you think Jesus Christ is a fictional character, you are deluded. I did bring up one proof of the Resurrection but you just ignored it.
2. Your so-called definition of science fails to adequately explain science or its underlying support of "reason." In fact, scientific theories are based on "consensus" views, which is another way of saying "majority rule."
3. Modern science is certainly hostile toward all religious viewpoints despite having opened a back door through quantum physics.
mayartay 3 years ago
4. ID proponents offer no "proof" (neither do evolutionists), but they do present evidence.
A person who doesn't even know the difference is clearly unqualified to make a judgment on these matters.
mayartay 3 years ago
I meant evidince but proof is shorter and I don't want to have to post three times in response and i don't wish to count carrcters.
kraor0243 3 years ago
3. A little under half of scientist think that evolution was caused by god,don't treat everyone like an enemy. It is just that most people don't want religion to mix with science, this has happened before the era was called "the dark ages". It is not that you should not teach this theory just, (A) Not in public schools &(B) Absolutely not in science class. (I personally would teach this theory to my own kids myself After they learned evolution)
kraor0243 3 years ago
"A little under half of scientist think that evolution was caused by god"
Ah, God created the mechanism and went far away. That's deism, not Christianity.
"the era was called 'the dark ages'"
Historians are coming to agree there were no dark ages - a myth. Read the book "Barbarians to Angels". You don't seem like the type who reads though.
"you should not teach this theory just, (A) Not in public schools &(B) Absolutely not in science class."
I promise I won't do either.
mayartay 3 years ago
Actually many Christians do believe in evolution, they believe in the practices the bible teaches,They just don't accept the story as fact. And you said science was hostile to religious view points, not to Christianity. Since just over half of the scientific community believes in god that would be very strange if it were true.
Could you give me the Author of that book or better yet the ISBN.
kraor0243 3 years ago
Well, the book pops right up at Amazon.
You do use Amazon, don't you? The author is Peter S. Wells.
I would also recommend the book, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E Woods, Jr. Mr. Woods is a recognized expert on the topic.
mayartay 3 years ago
Actually I use a library card it is so much cheaper.
kraor0243 3 years ago
1. Actually you asked me to explain it? That it didn't happen is the most logical answer (not that he did not exist, necessarily)
2. Actually a theory is proposed based on evidence if you have significant evidence it is still a theory, regardless of consensus(evolution had very few supporters originally).If you did think that way you would know virtually no one in the scientific community considers I.D. a "scientific theory" so you would not be asking how it is not scientific.
kraor0243 3 years ago
By the way I am still waiting to see the "evidence" you claim to have already mentioned but is not on any of this videos comments. Could you please just repeat yourself instead of going through the nondenial denial.
kraor0243 3 years ago
(satire) You want to see evidence for intelligent design? Well, you got me there! The Discovery Institute has published a lot of books, and there is this video on the topic (not just comments here), and other videos. But it's all a bunch of lies. Not one word of truth nor shred of evidence. Obviously, you're just too smart for us, buddy! (satire)
mayartay 3 years ago
So you don't have the evidence of Christ you claim to have.
You know people who claim to have proof of something then attack people who ask to see it tend to be lying threw their teeth. I never asked to see evidence of ID I asked to see the historical evidence on Christ you claimed to have. Since all you have said was that you already said it I assume you're lying.
As a spiritual person I hate it when someone claims to have validation of religion, It is an insult to all who worship god(s).
kraor0243 3 years ago
Chill, dude! A major historical case cannot be presented in a few words. You would need to do some reading. I tried to post some web links earlier from the leaderu and xenos websites but YouTube must have rejected that post. All I can do is recommend a book such as The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas. YouTube is not designed for these kind of arguments. These comments are only intended to be for the current video so just give it a rest.
mayartay 3 years ago
Belief in ID doesn't necessitate belief in a particular deity.
"Can you show this to be false by declaring that you do not advocate ID?"
Are you serious? My personal views on religion are unrelated to ID, which is much bigger than that.
mayartay 3 years ago
You are correct. Evolutionary biologists do not study the origin of life. They simply take it for granted.
mayartay 3 years ago
Actually there have been numerous experiments to create life from innate matter.
Scientist research every thing that strikes their curiosity including the origin of life.
kraor0243 3 years ago
"Actually there have been numerous experiments to create life from innate matter."
What is "innate matter"? lol
You forgot to mention that every one of these experiments ended in failure.
mayartay 3 years ago
Actually that was Implied EVERYONE would know about it if they succeeded.
Innate: belonging to the essential nature of something
kraor0243 3 years ago
If you could reduce the word to its individual letters, you might be able to spell "irreducible."
mayartay 3 years ago
the universe had a beginning, so the universe didnt always exist, so you have one first uncaused cause , either the universe came from nothing, or the other cause which is god who is eternal and exists out of time and space
you believe the universe just popped into existence out of nothing, you have faith, it dosent have much validity but you are entitled to your faith
ProudToBLoud 3 years ago
f there can be something that doesn't need a cause, such as god, the argument is self-invalidating.
its not self invalidating, because the universe had a beggining, it didnt always exist, so you have the choice of the universe coming from nothing, or from a creator, if you want to have faith the universe came from nothing then thats your choice, and you are entitled to your faith.
ProudToBLoud 3 years ago
everything that begins to exist needs a cause, since the universe had a start then we have to have one first uncaused cause or we would just have infinite regress which is not possible, seeing as god is eternal he does not need a cause, but the universe had a cause and we have observed all life having a cause, either the universe came from nothing, the first uncaused cause , or it came from god ,the other uncaused cause, it takes more faith that it came from nothing and nothing has never created
ProudToBLoud 3 years ago
I did not say "biggest" but "most fundamental" error in the sense that arguments against Christianity do not belong here to begin with. There is no mistaking the fact that you've made many colossal errors.
The fact that you consider equating ID with Christianity to be a tiny error reveals to everyone just how deluded you are. Seriously, you think that a tendency to be "motivated by religion" is the same as "Christian"? This is pure comedy!
mayartay 3 years ago
Another thing, jtoksa, when you commend "modern Christians who do accept evolutionary biology," you surely fail to realize that nearly all of those same Christians believe that a higher intelligence was intimately involved in evolutionary processes. Thus, after condemning intelligent design in one sentence, you unknowingly commend it in the next!
You are clearly abusing your friend PeiperJ2's account by embarrassing him through such ignorant rantings.
mayartay 3 years ago
I believe that in your heart, you know Christianity makes more sense than these other religions. That is why you originally omitted Christianity from the list.
There you go again, responding to a "strawman" argument that I did not even raise.
Again, I mentioned the case for the resurrection and referred you to specific scholars and to the Christian Apologetics Group. Again, I cannot make a detailed argument in 500 characters. Again, you refuse to do your homework.
mayartay 3 years ago
PeiperJ2,
Isn't it great that atheists don't ban Christians on their channels? LOL
I suspect the reason you were banned is because you are constantly WAY off the topic of intelligent design. Also, you refuse to respond to questions or challenges, but only divert them into endless criticisms of Christianity, which is a topic you obviously know very little about. The video owner is 100 percent justified.
mayartay 3 years ago
What do you expect as far as "testable hypothesis"? That I've got God in a test tube?
You're the one attempting to divert the issue from the resurrection of Christ.
mayartay 3 years ago
You should definitely be crying if all you are able to Google in terms of apologetics is those two arguments. More likely, you are too close-minded to research any further. Have you looked over the videos in YouTube's Christian Apologetics group?
mayartay 3 years ago
Is there connexion between ideological design ant horoscopes? I am born on the 8th day of the 8th month of the 8th year of that decade. I believe I have faith. Sorry for english my.
JohJEpp 3 years ago
Now, if you followed along, you'd understand that showing all these VINs (which are all completely different numbers, for the sake of analogy) to be of the Ford line would be completely useless to the designer, because no one needs to independantly verify every single VIN to determine that these were made by Ford (The make is obvious, and the logo is on the front).
The way this pertains to evolution is that we're self replicating, have no logos, we have little VINs called ERVs.
Piewack1t 3 years ago
" Okay, people do this but... God? Nah, impossible! ;)"
No, People dont do anything remotely close to ERV's. ERVs in say a Car would be like having 85 VIN numbers in various places on the newest models, but comparing previous cars, you would find 83, 82, 55, etc in the same places at you get oler. These numbers dont do anything, and they would serve no purpose other than the fact that they are in the same places on all cars. This does nothing except reassirt that all Fords have VINS in places.
Piewack1t 3 years ago 2
"The simple fact is, evolutionists are unjustified when they ridicule Hoyle and others on the basis that they assume complexity. "
Funny you say we are decievers.
Lovely strawman, ASSUMING that evolution subscribers will ridicule someone simply for "Assuming complexity". Complexity is easily evident. "Intelligent design" is NOT apparant, or evidence, and "Complexity" is NOT evidence of a designer.
The hypotheses of ID cannot be TESTED. Evolution CAN. Sorry to break it to you.
Piewack1t 3 years ago
BTW, Weedgreenpowerranger seems to be blocked. I was askeed to stand in.
Piewack1t 3 years ago
"Oooh, you said "mathematics"!
Ever hear of Fred Hoyle? He was a mathematician who calculated the astronomical odds against evolution. Look him up. "
Yes, I've heard of him. He argued that the universe is Steady State, instead of expansive (false), and argued against your concept of Microevolution.
And His calculations are based on "You would think that the carbon atom had to be designed, wouldn't you? Of course you would".
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
"And His calculations are based on "You would think that the carbon atom had to be designed, wouldn't you? Of course you would". "
Thats why I want to know who created god, ID proves he must have had a creator LOL
Polygamy4Five 3 years ago
"Thats why I want to know who created god, ID proves he must have had a creator LOL "
ID doesnt prove anything. The only points ID brings to the table are problems it has with the evolution theory, which have ALL been refuted. A God of the Gaps argument.
But of course, christians have the logic and religion filing cabinets in their heads.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
Personally, I think the design argument is more about the DNA molecule than about the carbon atom. But then again, what do I know?
mayartay 3 years ago
"Personally, I think the design argument is more about the DNA molecule than about the carbon atom. But then again, what do I know?"
Then tell people to stop toting out this Hoyle putz.
Piewack1t 3 years ago
You're such a joke acting as if Hoyle boiled life down to the carbon atom. LOL
mayartay 3 years ago
"He argued that the universe is Steady State, instead of expansive (false)"
The steady state universe theory is still alive and well. Just ask a plasma cosmologist or check out their websites. Wake up! There are Big Problems with the Big Bang. Due to it being very far off topic, I will not debate that here.
mayartay 3 years ago
Oooh, you said "mathematics"!
Ever hear of Fred Hoyle? He was a mathematician who calculated the astronomical odds against evolution. Look him up.
As for similar characteristics in different species, surely no designer would employ similar design characteristics in different "models." Okay, people do this but... God? Nah, impossible! ;)
The first 4.5 billion years? Well, I wasn't there, but surely complex life did not come about through random interactions of molecules.
mayartay 3 years ago
"As for similar characteristics in different species, surely no designer would employ similar design characteristics in different "models." Okay, people do this but... God? Nah, impossible! ;)"
Look up Endogenous Retroviruses. It pretty much blows that concept out of the water.
"The first 4.5 billion years? Well, I wasn't there, but surely complex life did not come about through random interactions of molecules. "
No, complex life didn't, but simple life did. Know the difference.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
In addition, Hoyle never really made any true calculations, because the terms are unknown. Unless he knew the velocity and location of every atom in the universe, he couldn't calculate it.
He was throwing out wild guesses, not useing any actual MATH.
And He wasn't a Mathemetician, buddy. He was an astronomer.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
Dear PowerRanger "Buddy" -
Hoyle was both a mathematician and an astronomer. A person can be both, you know...
Your mention of endogenous retroviruses proves nothing.
Finally, buddy, here is no life form in existence that is not complex.
So your argument is that we cannot prove the first cell did not form by chance; therefore it did. Sounds a lot like the argument that you cannot prove the nonexistence of God.
What I get out of this is you have no idea how complex life really is.
mayartay 3 years ago
"Your mention of endogenous retroviruses proves nothing."
Why dont you explain for the class exactly why ERV's dont illustrate common descent, and why they are evidence of a desinger?"So your argument is that we cannot prove the first cell did not form by chance; therefore it did."
No, I'm saying AbioGenesis preferable to "God did it" which solves nothing; a non scientific elastic answer.
Piewack1t 3 years ago
Piewack,
I had already responded to the ERV argument before Power Ranger even brought it up.
"As for similar characteristics in different species, surely no designer would employ similar design characteristics in different 'models.' Okay, people do this but... God? Nah, impossible! ;)"
hint: the ;) symbolizes a wink which symbolizes sarcasm.
mayartay 3 years ago
Also, personally my faith doesn't depend on humans and monkeys not having a common ancestor. May I remind you that this video is about intelligent design, not about defending a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.
I believe the confusion surrounding this issue is a major reason why many people reject intelligent design.
mayartay 3 years ago
"Also, personally my faith doesn't depend on humans and monkeys not having a common ancestor. "
But you're sure as hell acting like it.
"I believe the confusion surrounding this issue is a major reason why many people reject intelligent design. "
No, the reason why people reject ID is because there IS NO CONFUSION surrounding this subject. There are people who understand and study the evidence, then there are the willfully ignorant creationists, or as I call them Intentionally Stupid.
Piewack1t 3 years ago 2
"Also, personally my faith doesn't depend on humans and monkeys not having a common ancestor."
'But you're sure as hell acting like it.'
Wrong, wacko. What I typed was essentially a self-attesting statement. After all, how many fundamentalist Christians do you see saying it doesn't matter if common descent is true or not? Common descent is not Darwinian evolution but is a major aspect of it. It can be true in combination with intelligent design.
You seem to me to be extremely confused!
mayartay 3 years ago
> surely no designer would employ
> similar design characteristics in
> different 'models.' Okay, people do this
> but... God? Nah, impossible!
And all the erv's and non-functional genes with identical disabling mutations that we share with other primates.
God put them there to make it look as if they had evolved? One who believes that, will believe anything.
Then again, they already do believe in water walking and virgin birth, so they've had lots of practice in believing absurd claims.
jtoksa 3 years ago
"As for similar characteristics in different species, surely no designer would employ similar design characteristics in different 'models."
No, this isn't an adequate refutation. ERV's show common descent, its not a refutation of design. You're failing to show how this evidence supports ID, and why it doesnt support the Common Ancestor.
Figure out where the goalposts are before you try to move them.
Furthermore, Its not about if god designed it, its "Where does the Evidence lead?"
Piewack1t 3 years ago
> mathematician who calculated the
> astronomical odds against evolution.
Such probability calculations are always bogus, because they assume that some exact arrangement of proteins/amino acids/whatever is the only one that works, and that it sprang into existence just like that, without any precursor.
That is, of course, the opposite of how it really happens.
Behe is the leading expert in such flawed probability calculations, which is a source of great delight to his collegues :-)
jtoksa 3 years ago
A great deal of complexity clearly had to be there from the very start. This includes metabolic, growth, reproductive and other functions such as absorption and assimilation. Each function requires multiple parts consisting of highly complex proteins. The simple fact is, evolutionists are unjustified when they ridicule Hoyle and others on the basis that they assume complexity.
You probably knew all that, but I had to spell it out for the sake of those you seek to deceive.
mayartay 3 years ago
"This includes metabolic, growth, reproductive and other functions such as absorption and assimilation."
This is pretty much a simplistic definition of life. These are defining characteristics.
Regardless of this complexity, which isn't assumed, its observed (but not so magical in its workings that we can only conclude god designed it), "assuming complexity" isnt the issue, its that all assertions they've made have been wrong. When you take away parts, it just shows a simpler, different tool.
Piewack1t 3 years ago
> great deal of complexity clearly had to
> be there from the very start
Almost certainly not true.
All agree that the first self-replicating entities couldn't have been anywhere near as complex as modern bacteria for example.
Fortunately they did not have to be. The minimum requirement for abiogenesis is self-replication,which doesn't require great complexity.
> you seek to deceive
One who claims that magic is a satisfactory explanation to life, is a greater deceiver than I could ever be.
jtoksa 3 years ago
What you fail to mention is that your "friends" in the scientific community haven't even begun to break down the viable life stages from simplicity to the simplest cell, let alone highly complex organisms that came into being.
The argument is "maybe it could have evolved from simple to complex"; we cannot postulate about God or the supernatural; therefore, life MUST HAVE evolved naturally from simple to complex forms. And you call that logic. LOL
mayartay 3 years ago
> cannot postulate about God
We can! But what do we gain?
- Gods don't make testable hypotheses and aren't falsifiable, therefore not science.
- Don't increase our understanding of any phenomenon in any way.
- No supporting evidence means anyone's god theory is just as plausible as any other.
- Bars us from searching a real explanation.
- No sense in explaining one unknown with an even bigger one.
- It is OK for science that there are open questions.
etc.
jtoksa 3 years ago
None of these things you mentioned disproves the existence of a "supernatural" being. (Supernatural being a word I don't care for because who decides what is "natural" or even possible in this Universe?)
Science has no open questions about God but simply say that practically speaking he cannot exist - because we cannot study him.
That is your argument. As I said before, you call that logic. LOL
mayartay 3 years ago
"No supporting evidence means anyone's god theory is just as plausible as any other."
This statement is absolutely false if one is even the least bit open-minded to theist proofs versus bogus arguments like those of the "pastafarians." In fact, every statement you made except the last one is false.
mayartay 3 years ago
> open-minded to theist proofs
They are ontological "proofs" that use nothing but intuition, something that you make up entirely inside your own head, hence worthless.
> "pastafarians."
Sikhism, Bahai, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Shinto, hundreds of indigenous religions, etc etc
None possesses any property that would make it more plausible than any other.
> In fact, every statement you made except
> the last one is false
"They are false because I say so" is a logical fallacy.
jtoksa 3 years ago
> every statement you made except the
> last one is false.
This is getting interesting.
I wrote that gods don't make testable hypotheses and aren't falsifiable.
You claim that this is not so.
Falsifiability means that you must explain what kind of evidence would be required to prove that your god does not exist.
Explain how exactly that might be proven.
Also, what kind of testable hypotheses does your god produce?
Stand behind your words and provide the answers if you can.
jtoksa 3 years ago
> Science has no open questions about God
> but simply say that practically speaking
> he cannot exist - because we cannot study
> him.
Untrue statement.
Science does not say ANYTHING about gods, because the scientific method depends on
gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence.
That's why gods are unwelcome in science.
You are confusing science with metaphysics.
jtoksa 3 years ago
"They are ontological "proofs" that use nothing but intuition."
WRONG! You obviously are unfamiliar with apologetic arguments except possibly that of Anselm.
"None possesses any property that would make it more plausible than any other."
Odd that you didn't include Christianity in the list. This is just a "because I say so" argument like you accuse me of.
When I wrote "every statement you made except
the last one is false," I mean Christian thinkers and others have responded already to it.
mayartay 3 years ago
"I wrote that gods don't make testable hypotheses and aren't falsifiable."
Huh?!? Atheists write such silly things!
So you say the Bible contains no falsifiable statements? Let's consider the sole proof that Jesus presented for his Messiahship (Matt. 12:38-40), which is at the very heart of Christianity - His death, resurrection, and ascension. For this testimony there is abundant evidence. Look up what scholars like William Lane Craig, NT Wright, JP Holding, and Ben Witherington have written.
mayartay 3 years ago
"You are confusing science with metaphysics."
Not at all. You were simply splitting hairs.
If this debate has proven anything, it's that you know almost nothing about what you are attempting to argue against. Since I can't post comprehensive arguments in 500 characters or less, you obviously need to go do your homework. The most fundamental error you and others have made is in not understanding that this video is actually about intelligent design, and that ID is not the same as Christianity.
mayartay 3 years ago
More on this topic... I wrote that in a scientific sense, "practically speaking
he [God] cannot exist - because we cannot study him." I would be willing to substitute "does not" for "cannot." The key phrase is "practically speaking." This is true. In a practical sense, scientists operate as if God does not exist, which is not to deny that some personally believe in God.
So the only problem here seems to be your inability to read and comprehend every word I typed.
mayartay 3 years ago
Hoyle's Fallacy does not take many things into account for instance
An early life form would not be as complex as a modern life form.
Near infinite time (as already stated)
A near Infinite (if not infinite) universe
There may not be a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, required for life.
His calculations were for sequential trials not simultaneous trials.
kraor0243 3 years ago
yah, the origin of life is called abiogenisis, lol at least get your fields of science right, its not too hard
547212436 3 years ago 2
"Did a simpler cell exist?"
This is a good question, but the answer is negative. Cells have always required great complexity to both exist and to reproduce. Moreover, evolutionists can't deny that cells have "evolved" very little over time. How they came about in the first place is another of those great mysteries of evilution.
By the way, any theorizing about primitive forms of cells is purely speculative since they aren't found in nature.
mayartay 3 years ago
No it isn't a mystery; there are working models which explain how simple cells could have come into existence.
And the reason they aren't found in nature is because they wouldn't be able to compete as other cells evolve to become more complex.
LMAO; evilution. That's practically a statement that you'll ignore evidence no matter how solid it is.
If evolution didn't happen where were humans for the first 4.5 Billion years of Earth's history?
bluecode320 3 years ago
"there are working models"...
An outright lie. There is no "working model," just speculation about how the first cell *might* have formed. It's purely imaginative and the odds are fantastically, astronomically opposed to it.
"Solid evidence" for evolution? LMAO.
I don't believe humans were created when the Earth first formed. The Earth would have been too hot. That is not a rational argument for evilution, IMO.
mayartay 3 years ago
"Evolution" is just a nonsense word anyway when you think about it.
Do I believe in evolution? Sure, I believe things change. Doh!
mayartay 3 years ago
The odds are stacked against it? THAT is an outright lie.
In the known Universe there are about one hundred billion galaxies with a hundred billion stars in each of them. If only one in a billion stars had a planet suitable for life there would still be ten thousand billion suitable solar systems.
And like i said it's not imaginative; we can mathematically prove it's possible; just like we can mathematically prove that the flood is impossible.
bluecode320 3 years ago 2
Man I like what you are doing but I keep finding rational arguments, reason and evidence just dont work on these people.
cizzio1 3 years ago
Uh, did somebody mention a flood? It wasn't me, so who exactly are you talking to?
mayartay 3 years ago
I don't think I did. Who exactly are you talking to?
I'll look him up if I'm wrong; but I'm guessing he calculated the odds of evolution to intelligence on any randomly selected planet. There are one hundred billion galaxies with about hundred billion stars in each. If only one in a billion stars had a planet suitable for evolution to intelligence there would be ten thousand billion planets with life.
bluecode320 3 years ago
Actually you did mention the flood. I don't believe the flood was global. Please don't stereotype everyone who does not believe in evolution.
mayartay 3 years ago
I checked my posts and I'm sure I didn't. Please quote the post where I mentioned the flood and explain the evidence for evolution I provided.
bluecode320 3 years ago
mayartay: "How they came about in the first place is another of those great mysteries of evilution. "
Ummm...no it isn't. Evolution occurred regardless of the origin of life.
irreduciblyc0mplex 3 years ago 2
watch?v=78r-fkZ2x8Q
TonyJ017 3 years ago
Sorry about misspelling. I have arthritis and have difficulty typing accurately on this small and non-ergonomic laptop keyboard.
The point was: Abiogeneis is a feild of study not a theory. Intelligent Design is another hypothesis OF abiogenesis.
It has not made any successful predictions nor has anyone tested it so it is not an accepted theory.
What you actually are disputing are hypotheses of chemical evolution, self assemby of proteins, etc.
In science you must be specific.
massivereader 3 years ago 4
Positing advancement of biological science and improvements in technology in the past 150 years as invalidating evolution (when these findings only support the theory) is analogous to positing that advancement in nuclear physics has invalidated the theory behind the periodic table of elements (which was developed about the same time)
Sci-Fi cartoons which severely misrepresent biological cellular processes as mechanistic completely fail to make the arguement as well.
Utter tripe.
massivereader 3 years ago 2
massivereader, no, when you have had to earn a living designing complex systems, you will know different.
rosaryfilms 3 years ago
Oh really? You actually think these cartoons accurately represent chemical and biological reactions moderated mostly by brownian motion?
massivereader 3 years ago 2
massivereader, making videos is not easy. Yes, it would be nice to have something more realistic. But when you have low budgets, etc., the film maker does the best they can. Nevertheless, the point is, the cell is incredibly complex. Could you design a cell starting with just the elements? Why not?
rosaryfilms 3 years ago
Nice? The difference between biological and mechanical systems is the difference between organic reactions progressing in a liquid and inorganic in a solid. Biological is chaotic, reversable and diffuse, the inorganic is defined to a reaction front and progressive.
Ecology is just as complex, yet you can design self sustaining systems with just a few elements.
massivereader 3 years ago
massivereader, Could you design a cell starting with just the elements? Why not?
rosaryfilms 3 years ago
I have every confidence this will be done in the very near future. The man behind resolving the human genome project in three years rather than the thirty projected is working on designing a eukaryotic cell right now. From the genetic code itself.
massivereader 3 years ago 2
massivereader, Could you design a cell starting with just the elements? Why not?
rosaryfilms 3 years ago
Like I just wrote, it is being done right now.
I could not do it personally, but I couldn't design a computer personally or write a best selling novel personally either.
massivereader 3 years ago
massivereader, so the cell is pretty complex, isn't it?
rosaryfilms 3 years ago
That is right. In fact much too complex for efficiency, with insufficient redundancy and too many less than optimal work arounds and non-functional artifacts to be intentionally designed.
massivereader 3 years ago
massivereader, earlier you said that you did not personally know how to design a cell. Now you are saying that there are significant design problems with the cell. Can you show us how these design problems can be corrected?
rosaryfilms 3 years ago
rosaryfilms, No need to correct them. They are artifacts of the evolutionary process and mostly neutral in effect. Although inefficent from a pure design perspective (like the veriform appendix and the location of the optic nerve in the humans eye) they work.
If there were a significant shift in the enviroment or unforseen new disease outbreak, some of them might have an unpredictable survival value. That is how evolution works.
massivereader 3 years ago
ps. abiogenesis is a feild of study in biology concerning how life first occured, much like cosmology is a feild of study in astrophysics concerning how the universe formed. It is not a specific idea or theory of how life came about.
There are many different hypotheses in the feild of abiogenesis concerning parts of the process, but no accepted overall theory.
massivereader 3 years ago
massivereader, when scientists do not understand the purpose of something in the cell, they call it an artifact. Later on when they learn of its purpose, then they call it a discovery. An archeologist calls an arrowhead intelligent design, yet calls the cell a product of non-design.
rosaryfilms 3 years ago
rosaryfilms, You are behind on the science. What I am calling an artifact are such things as the gene for synthesising vitamin C which is active in mice and lemurs and is present on the same gene in the same place but has mutated into inactivity in monkeys, apes and humans. Or the second centromere in human chromosome 2 left over from the fusion of primate genes 12 and 13 (now called 2a and 2b) which present in humans but inactive.
massivereader 3 years ago
massivereader, you are the one behind on science. Please read up on epigenomes (gene switches). The fundamentals of genetic science are being re-written as I write. What you quote as "facts" are nothing more tha working hypotheses.
rosaryfilms 3 years ago
rosaryfilms, Wrong. Direct base pair to base pair comparison of the vitamin C synthesis site in rodents and the coresponding location in primates show 85% congruency, explaining the deactivation of the gene and the reason primates require vitamin C in their diet for use in the cytochrome C ATP cycle.
You are simply in denial. You have an theory you want and deny any results that contradict it. That is the core of Intellegent Design.
massivereader 3 years ago
massivereader, please see my earlier comment which you seem to ignore. You quote as fact what is a working hypothesis. To say that sections of the genetic code have no use is a working hypothesis. They may have no "known use", but that does not conclude that they have no known use. A use may be later recognized. Scientists are not infallible.
rosaryfilms 3 years ago
rosaryfilms, it is not a working hypothesis since the gradual mutation of this gene which has a specific and known use can be tracked through the phylogenic tree. At a specific point it stops working due to cumulative mutation, but remains located in the same place but inactive in species later on the evolutionary chart.
Again, you are in denial. You simply ignore any evidence that contadicts your theological based preconceived notion. Just like
massivereader 3 years ago
massivereader, no one is in denial but perhaps yourself. Like many pseudo-scientists, who cannot distinguish between facts, theories, hypotheses, assumptions, etc.; you claim as fact which has not been proved as fact.
rosaryfilms 3 years ago
rosaryfilms,
Like most intellegent design supporters you cannot distinguish between facts, theories, hypotheses, assumptions, etc.
The existance of the Vitamin C synthesis genes in rodents is a fact.
The hypothesis is that it is still there but deactivated in mammals which require Vitamin C in their diet.
Genetic analysis of the site that shows a base pair by base pair congruency is the test that confirmed the hypothesis and makes it further support for the theory of evolution.
massivereader 3 years ago
"so the cell is pretty complex, isn't it?"
in compared to what
ordinary music CDs have more info
dancingnature 3 years ago
dancingnature, with all due respect, you do not understand the complexity of the cell, or how information is stored on a CD.
rosaryfilms 3 years ago
you do realize that vitalism (the idea that life is somehow formed of different stuff from inorganic compounds) died in the 19th century with the synthesis of urea
dancingnature 3 years ago
dancingnature, with all due respect, the idea of abiogenesis, which is the spontaneous origination of life from the elements, is a belief (without scientific basis) held firmly by many evolutionists today.
rosaryfilms 3 years ago
rosarfilms, abiogenesis is a feild of study in biology concerning how life first occured, much like cosmology is a feild of study in astrophysics concerning how the universe formed. It is NOT a specific idea or theory of how life came about.
There are many different hypotheses in the feild of abiogenesis concerning parts of the process, but no accepted overall theory.
massivereader 3 years ago
rna can become dna, and rna can form in nature. cdk007 has made a vid about this
thegodlessatheist 3 years ago
You can not design a cell
However it is more than possible to make one but you must use a design that is already in use. Human understanding is not yet at the point of designing a cell but you could make one.
kraor0243 3 years ago
epic fail
thegodlessatheist 3 years ago
epic fail and im not an atheist
positing that our ignorance defines God is merely insulting
and it's bad science too
dancingnature 3 years ago
a smart non-atheist? you aer the sixth i have ever seen in youtube
thegodlessatheist 3 years ago
im a biologist
dancingnature 3 years ago
GOD bless you man, great video, thanks alot
ABond008ABond008 3 years ago
ABond008ABond008, thank you for watching!
rosaryfilms 3 years ago
The below comment is to tubewatch59 it would not show in the correct place
Sorry for I hassle
arcaneeagle42 3 years ago
Yes. I think that after a day or two, it will sort itself out. It seems they don't process the ordering of the comments when they are written, but later on.
tubewatch59 3 years ago
This video has so many problems it is scary that people would take this serious.... the first and biggest problem is that the producers of this video assume that the cell is a perfect structure and no mistakes ever happen. Mistakes happen all the time everything from the wrong molecule entering the cell to the RNA/DNA replication errors. Many of the errors that happen and have no effect on the cell.... the second problem is that they have portrayed the cell as an Lego star wars fairytale.
arcaneeagle42 3 years ago
What you say is perfectly true but what the author of the video is trying to say (Hope I am right) is that the cell is perfectly designed that any change or any error can cause a damage and the complexity is why he thinks GOD exist. Just like a factory, only humans can creat a factory and therefore the cell is also a sign of an intelligent design. The star wars is just a metaphor cause it is hard to explain other wise what is going on.
ABond008ABond008 3 years ago
First, thank you. I do appreciate your input and opinion. I still think that god is religion not science. The cell has NO perfect mechanisms. If there where perfection in a cell no one would ever die. Even in the examples he shows about protein creation, you have big problems. When you put chemical a and chemical b together you can predict an % of the out come will be c but you can never be sure what your going to get. If this was proof of GOD it would never fail, miss align, or die...
arcaneeagle42 3 years ago
I have not addressed your other points yet, but this point - the lack of cell perfection, and death:
The Bible does say many times that God deliberately cursed the world to cause death and ageing etc. So it seems that we are seeing the cell working with amazing complexity, but not perfectly. Yes, that is a point of religious belief, but still reasonable. The Bible never claims perfection. However, cells work amazingly well and carry out many functions that we do not yet undertand at all.
tubewatch59 3 years ago
then your god was a doctor he would be labled a mass murder. if he was a lawyer he would be in jail. so why should i worshiped one that hlf assed it tubewatch59.
arcaneeagle42 3 years ago
The complexity of the cell and everything that happens in the human body is simply amazing. All glory to God!
JDtheMusicMan 3 years ago
r the comments here spammed out of existence
stewstudboy 4 years ago
you realize genetics is one of the strongest suports for evolution right? I guess not.
Why don't you do a video on tiktalic
soulinite 4 years ago
From what I read about Tiktaalic: it is certainly a fish, has leg-like appendages, but they are weak as in other fish. Speciation is observed (micro)evolution in a type of animal. Each basic type though is fairly far from other types in morphology. Evolutionists originally expected smooth transitions between types (like you have between species) but they aren't found. You can't spot closely connected lineages. You have organisms that have some similarities but many other differences.
tubewatch59 4 years ago
So. Creationists expect to observe speciation which is limited evolution over thousands and hundreds of years, but would not expect to see long closely related lineages of massive changes in body plan. What we do see, is many different creatures which have some body plans intermediate in some ways but not intermediate in others. Some of these similarities are convergence! Fossils show much variety. True missing links would require many times the amount of observed types to fill in the gaps.
tubewatch59 4 years ago
All of these basic body plans show the effects of speciation, and perhaps effects of bad mutations which cause de-activation of a feature. But mainly you observe a great stability of type. Evolutionists of course claim lineages, but of course they are conjectural because of the huge gaps between them. Only convinced evolutionists find these convincing. They don't show connected lineages, because the gaps between them are too large. So you have to believe none of the links were fossilized.
tubewatch59 4 years ago
And needless to say, the basic animal plans just appear suddenly. You can claim ancestors, but once again, the gaps are huge, so it isn't convincing (unless you are already convinced).
tubewatch59 4 years ago
If we find fossils of recently formed species, then we should certainly find fossils of the much greater number of species you would have over much longer periods to cause the macroevolutionary changes required. Their absence ought to tell you that there are serious problems with gradualistic evolution, at the very least, from an observational point of view.
tubewatch59 4 years ago
the fossile record, while not perfect is amazingly complete (the last 40 years or so have been packed with discoveries of inumerable transtional forms). But even if we'd never found a fossil we could still prove evolution via gentics(which provides a much clearer picture of evolution).
soulinite 4 years ago
There is lots of variety of fossiles. They are discovering new creatures quite often. But they don't from traceable lineages. By that I mean there are not hundreds of transitions between each major forms, like you do see in speciaition. Most evolutionists have decided to abandon the idea you'd find lineages, and think evolution manifests itself differently.
tubewatch59 4 years ago
"the basic animal plans just appear suddenly."
No, they do not. The "cambrian explosion" took 6 million years and all of the speices produced were water dwelling.
soulinite 4 years ago
Well, they do. They appear, they don't have a multitudinous lineage from the first one celled creatures all the way up to the explosion. And even as far as evolution goes, 6 million years is pretty short for that kind of thing to happen.
tubewatch59 4 years ago
6 millions years is more then enough time for evolution to cause speciation. Again your lack of understanding is painfully apparent, what happened in the cambrian is the first major aquatic predators evolved and so organizims with hard enough shells to repel attact(and thus finnally producing something that can fossilize). You realize there are pre-cambrian fossiles right?
soulinite 4 years ago
I know I don't know as much as a biology major. Very Painful! :D
So the consensus opinion is that the hard parts evolved as a response to the evolution of sea predators. Hmm. Ok, that's fair enough. So you are saying (I think) that in 6 million years, speciation of one group of animals gave rise to the first sea predators, and then in parallel to that, speciation of another group of animals gave rise to the observed cambrian explosion. Is that what you are saying? (Or please clarify it.)
tubewatch59 4 years ago
No, I'm saying that creatures which had already speciated finnally evolved hard shells/exo-skelitons in responce to predation and so produced more fossiles. Again, we have pre-cambrian fossils. It is also not the largest speciation event in the fossil record.
soulinite 4 years ago
"... the fossile record, while not perfect is amazingly complete (the last 40 years or so have been packed with discoveries of inumerable transtional forms)."
"... The cambrian explosion took 6 million years and all of the species produced were water dwelling."
What I am basically saying is that you don't have innumerable transitional forms. Each type of creature bodyplan abruptly appears (not just in the cambrian explosion) and does speciate, but the differences due to that are minor. No?
tubewatch59 4 years ago
you are completely mistaken. The fossil record is one of the strongest suports for evolution and clearly shows a progression from simpler to more complex life. Again, inumerable transitional forms have been found. tik talik is of coare a prime example.
soulinite 4 years ago
What do you mean by inumerable? That would seem to indicate you are talking about thousands or tens of thousands of direct links between the first ancestors and the descendants for EACH TYPE of creature. If that were the case the term "missing link" would not have been coined. Instead, animals appear, go virtually unchanged while they exist (though speciation shows minor changes, not far from the basic body plan over time) and then they become extinct or survive to now as living fossils.
tubewatch59 4 years ago
And for the same reasons you had the rise of punctuated equilibrium as an alternative to gradualism, because the general observation in fossils is that of "stasis" of a creature. The evolutionary events that changed them were thought to happen so suddenly that they went unnoticed in the fossil record. That is the character of the record. You don't have a clear progression from simple to more complex. You don't really see major changes, only minor ones. You do see much variety of life.
tubewatch59 4 years ago
I'm not talking about the change between one different animal group to another. I'm talking about large changes within an animal group that would blur it to another animal group. That is what you would expect to see. Evolution changing one animal type into another, thousands of intermediates. Instead you pick tens of possible intermediates out a a variety of different animals. But there is no clear overlapping progression of intermediates. And not nearly enough of them.
tubewatch59 4 years ago
Your input I welcome but miss informed. There are missing links. Evolution in no way says that an animal changes over time. It says that species change overtime. So if you look at humans with a historical generation lasting 40 years that change will be slow. If you look at bacteria that change will be fast seeing that the generational gap is 10 minutes. Science supports this. For proof look at the research on tuberculosis, the human resistance to aids relating back to the Black Death.
arcaneeagle42 3 years ago