boy so many just hate the god view of why we are here an where did it all come from.No one can say for sure either way.but in my humble opinion about good an evil an the big bang an what was before that, points to some ultimate power that maybe one day we will find all the anwsers.if not then all of what we see,hear an observe means nothing.i can hardly believe that !!
Intelligent Design theory in biological science will bring scientific knowledge and advancement to a new paradigm that we even know of. Just as Einstein's new paradigm in physic bring to our scientific development. I can see that this will happen sooner or later.
Who's the Dude trying to do a Steve Martin impression? The white suit is just like one Steve Martin wears in The Jerk, and in Father of The Bride ii ( I think) !
PZ MEYERS IS AN ARROGANT JERK, and he constantly interrupted him, by talking over him in a purposely LOUD voice, EVERY SINGLE TIME Steve proposed, and answered with an excellent answer!! THE MEDIATOR TOTALLY SHOULD HAVE NEVER ALLOWED IT!!! IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME BY EVOLUTIONISTS, in debates. The genius complexity of the LANGUAGE/ Communication in DNA ore than suggests the ORIGIN IS A SOURCE OF BRILLIANT INTELLIGENCE, and so does the sheer BRILLIANCE, and BEAUTY in the very special features, a
I give big credit to Dr. ward in his end speech, the only good statement he made so far besides one of his statement about the increasing complexity from fossils. Kudos to Dr. ward for redeeming himself in the end but still, terrible in his debate.
Dr.Ward had poor arguments against Meyer. It is embarrassing to listen to Dr. ward with his jokes, jeers, and arrogance because he has little to say scientifically. Dr. Meyer do most of the intellectual talks
What's so bad about "if it looks designed that it probably designed argument"? I used to not believe those kind of argument my dad made, "Son, if it looks like shit and smells like shit, you probably don't want to eat it." And guess what? I still regret my unbelieved till this day.
Meyers showed that he is a gentleman, a Christian and a scientist, where as Ward showed he was a drunken scientist. As for persuasive argument, it just got embarrassing for Ward how often and well Meyer answered every question. You see what comes out of Atheist morality: Hitchensian drunkeness.
meyers is not a scietist. he's a full time employee of a right wing religious pressure group. his publications in the scientific literature number 0. the one essay he managed to get published in a real scientific journal was repudiated and removed since his cohort sternberg cheated to get it in. what was that about morality?
atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods- it no more makes moral claims than your non belief in zeus.
All that is asked of either side is to present an opinion and a rebuttal, and it appears even that's simply too much of an effort for Ward. How frequently I have had to look up the upturned nose of an atheist... or more accurately, as Mr. Hitchens has defined himself, an anti-theist, and get past an arrogant presupposition my points weren't worth his/her time.
Especially here, on these forums, it's been my experience that it's usually the evolutionist that's first to scoff.
" that's simply too much of an effort for Ward."- perhaps it's because, despite being awash with money and resources, the ID crew have yet to come up with anything that resembles a scientific theory- the best they've got is "some unknown entity we know nothig about did something we don't understand at some point in the past".
"How frequently I have had to look up the upturned nose of an atheist"- how unfortunate for you. have you considered standing on a chair?
Fortunately, the "ID crew" don't have to expend the resources that less-intelligent deniers seem to have to in order to reason that a complex world such as ours literally screams design and forethought. I am aware, though, that some have to be taken by the hand and shown literally everything... :)
And, for your second slur, your "crew" also seems at a loss for explaining points in the past.
Also, boorishness isn't something that I feel I have to stand on any chair to see.
I have not the faintest idea what the first part of your post means. I doubt you do either.
pointing out the vacuity of ID is not a slur it's a simple fact. there's no mechanism, no data, no testable hypotheses, no predictive or explanatory power- nothing. some IDiots will admit this.
my "crew" by which you mean the life science community is working continuously to enlarge our understanding and if there's a lack of knowledge the gap will be attended to with hard work not magic
And, son? Don't bother me, again, until you can learn some manners that even the most primitive people on Earth exhibit as a natural course in their interactions with others. Evidently those of the ape sect seem to feel they don't need cordiality in their condescending relations with those they deem inferior to themselves... a fact consistently confirmed such as in this video with one of the spokesmen (gurus) of evolutionary theory.
is it ill mannered to point out that you've not a clue what you're talking about? I'd have thought it helpful in that it might give you the spur you evidently need to get off your backside and learn something
do you think I need permission to respond to your idiotic ignorant comments? if so why?
if you have a problem with Ward's boorishness there's always a body of work numbering in excess of 200,000 papers in the primary research literature that you could consult. have you read any?
Well, like I've already said, there is plenty of existential evidence in the natural world for anyone with an appreciative eye and the time not already consumed by going over reams of literature (relevant or no) to observe. It appears Mr. Meyer has some familiarity with those, given Ward's discomfort and unease debating him. I doubt I would fare any better even memorizing 200,000+ pages of information, then rebutting it, given the attitude evident in Ward.
meyer's contribution to the scientific literature is nil. ward's, as a professor of paleontology is rather more substatial. I think one of these has a better command of the literature than the other- given that one and not the other WROTE a chunk of it.
all you have is basically all meyer has- "it looks designed therefore it's designed". thankfully some are prepared to work a bit harder than that.
I have had enough patience to listen to this debate from its beginning to the end. So far my conclusion comes like this: Darwinism - just a joke, ID - honorable intelligent arguments.
@vitea2 Just because Ward wasn't eloquent, doesn't lend veracity to the position of his opponent (Meyer). Meyer speaks very eloquently and clearly describes his position... But his position is still built on a foundation of logical fallacy. In actual fact, this debate shouldn't really have taken place. There is no controversy in the veracity of Evolutionary Theory, and ID is not a scientific argument, as it is based on non-falsifiable premise'. I just wanted to point that out.
I have to agree with other posters. Though I still dont feel a good case for ID was made here, Meyers was extremely polite and articulate in a way I have not seen from ID proponents before.
Ward came off as a drunk jerk. Like he wasnt taking any of this seriously.
I hate to say it but I would score this debate firmly for the ID guys.
@stiimuli Just because Ward wasn't eloquent, doesn't lend veracity to the position of his opponent (Meyer). Meyer speaks very eloquently and clearly describes his position... But his position is still built on a foundation of logical fallacy. In actual fact, this debate shouldn't really have taken place. There is no controversy in the veracity of Evolutionary Theory, and ID is not a scientific argument, as it is based on non-falsifiable premise'. I just wanted to point that out.
@stiimuli OMHO the truth about a topic is related to the FACTS which support the debate, and I don't think that lies can become true if said in a "polite and articulate" way, so "cdesign proponentists" (no, I was not mistyping, if you know what I mean) will never win a debate.
@FreeSilio I completely agree but personality still plays a part in social interaction. A dude acting like an ass won't get his points listened too. He came off as childish and petty. It effects likability and tints opinions as they form. As I stated, no plausible case for ID was made here regardless of Ward's poor behavior.
and, yes, I got the "Panda's and People" referance.
All ID has to do to be taken seriously is present a testable, repeatable hypothesis. It can't do so.
@stiimuli Agreed. Our judgement faculty is easy to be deceived, and by the way that's the reason why every kind of fraudsters (including creationists) need to look so polite.
Off topic: you got a nice channel. I subbed you. :-)
It was hilarious when Meyer said that his religious beliefs made him a better scientist because of how he looked at the evidence! BS! This is an example of how his religion made him look at the evidence better, "we don't know how it happened", god did it! lol!
@Ricardius1710 Consider the fact that Behe and Dembski were both theistic evolutionists before they became ID proponents. They were believers who were perfectly OK with Darwinian evolution. They changed their beliefs only because of looking at the evidence more closely.
On the other hand, Dawkins NEEDS evolution to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist". Atheists have hung a lot on Darwinism. So who's going to be more objective in evaluating the evidence?
@Jesrael1986M Well, if that's correct, then they already had god as their center piece. All of their theories must then be based around the belief in god. (-:
Meyer continued to interrupt Ward throughout the debate. Ward came across as a little arrogant, but usually the ones that debunk other peoples theories usually come across that way. Ward had the better scientific arguments, no question about that.
@crabbit101 Meyer is full of shit that you don't know about, that's for sure. Ward never made a logical argument the entire time and it is because of that fact that he did not make Meyer look stupid. Meyer talked about evidence, research and science that is being done. ID is a theory because observations of the complexity of life at the genetic level beg the existence of a designer - I do not know why given the expansive "evidence" to the contrary that darwinists claim exists none was offered up
@Rofamily6 There was a study conducted recently of 20m+ scientific articles over the last 20 or so years and out of those, 115,000 could be found on evolution and 88 on ID. All but 11 of those on ID were in engineering journals (unsurprisingly) and of those remaining 11, 8 were critical of ID and 3 weren't in research journals!!!
Please do not attempt to label ID as even remotely scientific.
@Rofamily6 I'm afraid that ID is nothing more than creationism repackaged and has been soundly discredited in court and in the scientific literature. Complexity has been explained repeatedly through evolution by natural selection.
Seeing design in nature is purely subjective. Some people see it, others don't.
Ward took the fact that he has the evidence on his side for granted, and underestimated Meyers' PR skills. It still doesn't change the fact that Meyer is totally full of shit.
@crabbit101 what does the legal system have to do with science? You're talking of the political side of the debate between ID and Darwinism, which does not make any scientific assertions to the validity of your stance. That's fine, but you will not convince anyone by summoning a court decision. The only thing proven of complexity by darwinists who believe in NS is that it requires intelligent scientists to create complexity in their lab tests. Do you not see the disconnect in Darwinist logic?
@crabbit101 Why do you say Meyer is FOS? He answered every question thrown at him on a level far superior to Ward. If you simply will not listen to a man because of his cultural bent that's your loss. I listen to darwinists to hear what they say and to see if they have a firm case, but they usually refuse to give evidence and sling mud instead. Why not listen to a guy who is respectful of and is well versed on both sides, like Meyer. You're doing what Ward was doing while losing his debate.
@Rofamily6 I agree that Meyer performed far better than Ward but Ward has the scientific evidence behind him and he squandered his chance to show ID to be the nonsense that it is. That was my original point.
Meyer is FOS because he's not just anti-evolution, he's anti-science because he believes ID should be allowed to bypass the whole scientific method and go straight to school textbooks. There is NOTHING on ID in the peer-reviewed scientific literature because in is fundamentally unscientific
@crabbit101 Meyer is smart and he is doing real scientific exploration. His "Theory," which I guess is not aloud to be a theory for some reason, opposes the big theory in science today and there are many reasons that people are very afraid of the Intelligent Design argument. You won't even listen to what Meyer says and instead call him FOS. It is only fair to concede the debate to the ID side and admit that Meyer is a guy who has answers which could not be challenged by a top evolutionist here.
@Rofamily6 I've watched this whole debate and I agree that Ward performed terribly but that does not add any weight to Meyer's case. Stephen Meyer and the 'Discovery' Institute are undertaking no scientific work of any substance. ID cannot be termed a scientific theory because it needs to be testable, falsifiable, based on observation and it's findings submitted for peer-review. It has done none of this and therefore is nothing more than an idea.
@crabbit101 Nobody has observed macro evolution happening. It is an idea, and possible way to explain the many different life forms we observe today. In the same way ID is a way to explain how life happened. The two are not disparate in this way. It's just that 150yrs of trying to prove Darwin's idea has made it acceptable, despite no proof of it existing. It is a widely accepted notion that was adopted as the truth and that is a tough nut to crack. But we should consider all possibilities.
Yes they have, dozens of times. I can list you them if you like, together with references? Would you prefer animals or plants?
If you spent just 5 mins looking somewhere other than creationist websites you could find an unbelievably huge mountain of information and evidence. ID explains precisely nothing. It is the conclusion that has been reached without any of the necessary investigation and its proponents are looking for the evidence to fit it. The complete opposite of evo bio.
@crabbit101 yes list them man - Observed evidence for macro evolution, not disputed by any other scientist with a PHD from an acceptable program. It may shock you that I have never been to a creationist website. I listen to debates so I can hear both sides. It is likely that I've heard and read about most of what you may call proof, but we'll see. I'm open minded, I just don't agree with you. I am not saying the ID has been proven, I am saying that it is a more reasonable assumption.
macro evolution has been observes many times- in the lab and in the wild. why do you write otherwise? are you just repeating a slogan you've heard or have you actually refuted the hundreds of peer reviewed research papers which carefully document the phenomena?
@mcmanustony You obviously haven't read the papers. That's the problem. a bunch of people running their mouths about stuff they heard said on a video or things they've read in comments or things they've heard their teachers tell them is true. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Have you read Coyne or Orr or Rainey? We're not even talking macroevo, we're talking primary speciation, which hasn't happened either. Or have you heard a Miller talk and been sold? Mr. T said it best...
speciation has been observed and documented many times. have you read those papers? if so have you contacted the journals publishing them to point out their errors?
@mcmanustony yes. that was the point of my message. You don;t know the difference between speciation and macroevolution. And primary speciation has never been observed or documented, though it's been attempted. You're gonna pull something if you keep stretching so much.
what? "yes" you have contacted the publishers of the multitude of journals containing papers describing speciation to explain their errors? have you really?
@mcmanustony One who follows the theory of Darwinism either in its original form or in the form of Neo-Darwinism as popularized and defined by its contemporary proponents Dawkins, Atkins, Harris etc. Darwinists can practice in multiple scientific disciplines or none at all. They generally believe that life is a chance event and that all life on the planet Earth has evolved from the first living things, which evolved out of a mixture of chemicals. This is a wiki definition so feel free to add...
@Rofamily6 What would be evidence to you? There is a multitude of peer-reviewed literature on evo-bio out there for all to see. I'm a 'Darwinist' as you put it and more than happy to provide you with evidence and references to the papers it comes from.
if you listened more you'd know how redundant the term "darwinist" is. do you call modern physicists "newtonianist" or "einsteinianalistiscals" or.....
I've been watching Steven debate neo darwinist heavywights over the last 2 weeks, very impressive!. This one is particularly good "Stephen Meyer & Richard Sternberg impressively defeat Michael Shermer & Don Prothero". Search for it on youtube.
"Up until the last 3 words, we found something we can agree on..." So, being a Druid scientist is somehow not as good as being a Christian scientist? Druid fairytales were wrong and Christian fairytales are right?
Tell one of these ID "scientists" that you agree that an intelligence created life on earth and that intelligence was space aliens, and watch this "open-minded" ID guy immediately distance himself from you. lol.
Whenever one of these IDers gets a debate, the opponent should start right out saying, "Look, we know that your motives and beliefs are purely religious. You dishonestly use the *appearance* of science to promote a purely religious agenda in which you would like to force your biblical views into the schools and take us back to the good-ol' 13th century days of pure religious authoritarianism. That having been said, let's debate."
Any time someone like Meyer gets onstage with a real scientist, he has already won. Not because he is right, but because of the false impression that ID deserves as much respect as real science. He gets legitimacy every time he does this. He is glib, extensively rehearsed, and is very good at imitating scientific rhetoric. After all, he is not expecting to educate scientists. It is the average pedestrian that he is targeting.
The proper forum is PEER REVIEW, not books and debates.
Ward is incorrect. Religion and science are NOT compatible. Especially Christianity and Islam. If you take a literal view of the cannon involved, there is no escaping either willful ignorance or cognitive dissonance.
Now is the time to pick your side,reason and objective reality, or superstition and dogma.
Yes, as much as I'm very disappointed by the ID movement in general and consider their arguments to be clearly fallacious, Ward was simply the weaker debater by a far margin.
The ID fucktards are abusing the assumption that invoking the words "science" implies you have done your work and can show it.
1987 trial over Edwards Vs Aguillard forced the Discovery Institute to change their book from using words like "creator" and "creation proponent" to "designer" and "design proponent"
They are fucking lying. They have LOST the right to any respect by being so dishonest.
They are habitual liars and fucking poor ones at that.
You say there "isn't enough time" in 4 some billion years.... how the hell are you making that judgment? By what standards of measurement are you using? Your Magic Man?
Your argument shows me you are bordering on Creationist propaganda retorts that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with bullshit.
For the intelligent Designer to be able to work his mojo, the stage had to be set in the first place. . Is the ID only only involved in organic design, or is ID also designing the environments they live in? And if so, by what process? Did it design the earth? Did the ID design the sun? Did the ID design the Solar system itself? Is the ID earth local? . There's no life walking around on Venus. I guess things didn't work out so well there... . Maybe earth took up most of ID's time...
@leeroynaggins Interesting question, although not quite as probing as you might suspect. It is as simple as saying that despite predictions, life is only known to be on earth. Perhaps one day you will be able to prove me wrong, but with what is known, there is omly life here. Therefore, it’s just as easy to say the designer only attempted here as far as we know.
Meyers was well spoken and polite, though I disagreed with him. However, Ward was just rude and childish. He wasted so many opportunities to coherently and respectfully elucidate the audience on what he knew. His yelling out to his apparent "cronies" in the audience was so distasteful. All in all, Ward was not serious, and treated the session as a huge annoyance.
@Innerblank Just because Ward wasn't eloquent, doesn't lend veracity to the position of his opponent (Meyer). Meyer speaks very eloquently and clearly describes his position... But his position is still built on a foundation of logical fallacy. In actual fact, this debate shouldn't really have taken place. There is no controversy in the veracity of Evolutionary Theory, and ID is not a scientific argument, as it is based on non-falsifiable premise'. I just wanted to point that out.
I was arguing about the so called knowledge of the supernatural.
For instance, is there anything you can tell me about God, how he manifests in the world that is distinguishable from natural phenomenons?
No,you've shifted your argument since it fails on the knowledge expectancy criterion to something else. Now that fairies are becoming shown to be a poor comparison to God (on a point YOU made) you jump to something else.
@StarringEverett The problem you have is the following. The definition of God is too expansive. If you could tweak lol your fairy to encompass or equal God your point would be valid.
The problem is God is the greatest thing ever imagined or thought of and basically your screwed. There is nothing in mythology or anywhere Gods equal.We can talk about what you need to beat me my friend but the fact is you just dont' have it.
@StarringEverett Let atheists speak for themselves. The question of "why" the world exists is meaningless to an atheist. There is no why. Now since it is important to you, why don't you tell us why the world exists and how you know this.
@Astrobrant2 Hey, a few questions about evolution. Looking at the vast variety of species I find it hard to imagine that 4.5billion years would be enough for all that we see today. I could never find articles that discussed this, maybe you could explain it to me. Why are we so much more significantly developed than closely related species like apes and chimps. I believe in god as much as I "accept" evolution(there's no accepting but saying it for the sake of distingushing myself)
@anonymous7368 I've been planning to make a time-line video showing the age of the earth and major epochs. Your view is skewed by one major misperception: the inability to conceive what a huge abyss of time even a million years is. And ONE billion is a thousand TIMES that. Nobody can actually sense what a billion years is.
Great question about different speeds in evolution. What launched our faster evolution was an earthquake about 8 million years ago!!
@Astrobrant2 And yes Pm me please concerning the whole story of the vast differences in our species with those that we share 98% of our DNA with. thanks! :)
@anonymous7368 The "vast differences" between great apes and humans are the kinds of things which could evolve in 4 million years when put under the kind of evolutionary pressure that our ancestors were.
After all, you did acknowledge that genetically, we are 98% identical to chimpanzees.
@anonymous7368 Thanks for the reply, but for such immensely complex creatures surely a million years isn't sufficient? I read somewhere(I believe it was a times magazine issue) where they said it took about 200 million years for a complez species to evolve from its single celular form.
@anonymous7368 It wasn't a million years. I was more like 4 to 8 million years. Again, I don't think you are giving a million years the credit it is due. That is ten thousand centuries -- a VERY long time.
The differences you see between chimpanzees and humans are not as vast as you seem to believe.
And if he didn't I couldn't prove it! That's my point.
Thats about the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Let me paraphrase.. I have no evidence at all for what I believe and that strengthens my argument. What a bunch of horse shit.
Now you use something called a "straw man argument" a misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Actually my position is: "if the truth isn't something obviously given to me so I should be careful about what I hold to be true and choose carefully a reliable way to inquire."
@StarringEverett You have no evidence. It is a matter of pure faith and believing what you were told to believe from the time you were a little child. Okay.
Now back to the subject of these videos. That is NOT science, and has no business in the classroom. People like Meyer, who are committing this academic sabotage, should be tarred and feathered.
I guess my sense of amazement and humbleness in this context is the following.
I'm humbled that God knows everything and obviously I don't. And that is so much knowledge and real power I can barely grasp. The more I know the more I know I know less and less. And thats a lot lol.
But I think men should conduct themselves honorably.
Intelligent design has much more explanatory power. Thats why they win debates like this. Notice the belligerent atheist trying to shout them down at the last..
The judge claimed ID is falsifiable?You agree with that? Got some PROOF,maybe you can help the judge out here! Evidence that God doesn't exist??
Jones' argument is that the alleged failure of irreducible complexity can be charged to ID's account only if irreducible complexity is a part of Intelligent Design theory itself, since ID itself is not science and therefore not falsifiable. And yet, if it isn't a part of ID, then it obviously cannot undermine the theory itself.
@hashimirasama Google; Richard Swinburne (oxford) Robert Adams (oxford) Brian leftow (notre dame) Dallas willard (usc) Marilyn McCord Adams (UCLA) Peter Van Inwagen (notre dame).
I could go on with prestigious multi-academicians that CURRENTLY teach .
The point here is very smart people hold to God being the best explanation.
You might look into what happens to ones career often when doing your head count of scientists.
Wait a minute, are we still talking about a scientific theory or are you conceding ID is a religious view and therefore has nothing to do in textbooks.
Because in my view the argument of judge Jones (Lutheran Christian btw) stands no matter what my or your religious views might be.
PS
I understand that the word "science" might annoys you but I'm gonna keep using it, no disrespect.
@hashimirasama Thats lame.. Actually not smoking is a habit. If you look at it carefully. You'll fill your time with healthier endeavors. One could call them 'habits' or it habits.
@hashimirasama Sure,I'm still waiting for evidence of other universes outside the initial space time singularity. The problem is there is no way to have evidence outside of our experiencing it. So until we can travel time or something equivalent.I'll have a hard time knowing the truth of something goes by popularity or a vote.
I know you say otherwise but then proceed to want to count institutions as if that lent anything to your position in itself.
No you started talking about Religion & Atheism, I merely answered that the only thing taught in school in place of ID was a scientific theory neutral to religion.
And yes, I agree; atheism isn't a scientific theory.
Let me quote the judge here. After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. (p. 64)
Its true but its not science LOL. I think the judge may be a theist afterall lol.
As I said ID is not science (since it requires supernatural interventions) but it can't be proven wrong (since it's not falsifiable). That's the very definition of Religion.
@hashimirasama No I'm sorry but thats not what the judge said. I gave you the quotes.The judge also said ID may even be true but its still not science.
But thats here nor there.
I may be in agreement with the judge at his conclusion. But are we debating theism atheism or what should be in text books? Two completely different things.
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.(...)ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation"
@hashimirasama Look here braindead.. You cant name any "atheist" institutes! Why ?? Because these terms are PHILOSOPHICAL by nature !
And it all depends on how you phrase the question to said institutes. If you say "god" people have a negative reaction. If you say "cosmic eternal energy etc" the numbers change. What does this mean? It clearly shows a bias in peoples thinking that has nothing to do with biology or astronomy etc when it comes to the word (God)
@hashimirasama I don't see anything in your question but popularity. After all we are talking about religion.
And the day I see an 'atheist' philosopher granted the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Med. I'll still not accept your argument. Because a vote is not how I decide what is true.
But again,your confusing democracy with views on religion and science.
Science (yes I used this word again) is a self correcting process. To be accepted a theory has to pass a long examination phase through peer reviewed articles & experimentations...
Only when a consensus is found amongst the overwhelming majority of the scientific community can the theory be validated. As new knowledge becomes available the theory is then either confirmed or debunked.
Here is what judge Jones actually said:"We find that ID fails on three different levels, (...). They are:
1 ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;
2 the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and 3 ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."
@hashimirasamaHe says that the argument for irreducible complexity is "central to ID". Otherwise, why would he include it in a discussion of whether ID is science? And,
He also says it has been "refuted": in other words, falsified. But if the argument for irreducible complexity is, as Jones later determines, falsified, then ID is falsified, since irreducible complexity is "central to ID".
@StarringEverett He also says that the truth or falsity of arguments for ID are irrelevant:
After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. (p. 64)
@StarringEverett In other words, what Jones is saying is that the falsity of irreducible complexity can be held against ID since it is "central" to it, but that, even if it were true, it wouldn't count in favor of it, since it is not central to it.
It is a clever bit of sophistry: if irreducible complexity is false, then it counts against it, but if it is true, then it doesn't count for it!
@StarringEverett If opponents of ID want to hold irreducible complexity against ID, then they will have to abandon their argument that ID is not science. And if they want to preserve their argument that ID is not science, they will have to stop using arguments against irreducible complexity against ID.
@hashimirasama Refuted doesn't mean falsified? So thats what it takes to be an atheist. I'll pass.. Think you got yourself a democracy not evidence going here.
Atheism is not science.. Has nothing to do with science.. Has never shown anything under a microscope or telescope.. Moreover,theism has the best explanation of origins.
(law of lavoisier?) why don't we start with something simple like (law) of gravity.
Do we have proof that there are no exceptions to this (law) or any (law) NO
Falsifiability is the fact that an assertion can be proven false by an observation or a physical experiment. There is no experimentation that can demonstrate the non-existence of a supernatural Intelligent Designer.
Nevertheless, the theory was refuted not as a wrong scientific statement but as a non-scientific statement. That's why judge Jones said that it might be true but it's not science.
boy so many just hate the god view of why we are here an where did it all come from.No one can say for sure either way.but in my humble opinion about good an evil an the big bang an what was before that, points to some ultimate power that maybe one day we will find all the anwsers.if not then all of what we see,hear an observe means nothing.i can hardly believe that !!
MrBeefreetwo 1 month ago
meyer won this debate cause both of the speakers could not dominate-so therefore i find id plausible.
MrBeefreetwo 1 month ago
Intelligen Design is not a Scientific Theory.. hypothesis? perhaps not even that..
icchiism 1 month ago
Intelligent Design theory in biological science will bring scientific knowledge and advancement to a new paradigm that we even know of. Just as Einstein's new paradigm in physic bring to our scientific development. I can see that this will happen sooner or later.
yohanesmalaysia 3 months ago in playlist More videos from djarm67
Who's the Dude trying to do a Steve Martin impression? The white suit is just like one Steve Martin wears in The Jerk, and in Father of The Bride ii ( I think) !
TheWayandWordofLife 4 months ago
PZ MEYERS IS AN ARROGANT JERK, and he constantly interrupted him, by talking over him in a purposely LOUD voice, EVERY SINGLE TIME Steve proposed, and answered with an excellent answer!! THE MEDIATOR TOTALLY SHOULD HAVE NEVER ALLOWED IT!!! IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME BY EVOLUTIONISTS, in debates. The genius complexity of the LANGUAGE/ Communication in DNA ore than suggests the ORIGIN IS A SOURCE OF BRILLIANT INTELLIGENCE, and so does the sheer BRILLIANCE, and BEAUTY in the very special features, a
TheWayandWordofLife 4 months ago
I give big credit to Dr. ward in his end speech, the only good statement he made so far besides one of his statement about the increasing complexity from fossils. Kudos to Dr. ward for redeeming himself in the end but still, terrible in his debate.
Voltar143 4 months ago
Dr.Ward had poor arguments against Meyer. It is embarrassing to listen to Dr. ward with his jokes, jeers, and arrogance because he has little to say scientifically. Dr. Meyer do most of the intellectual talks
Voltar143 4 months ago
Ward dominated this debate, any one says otherwise is deluded and should go back to church.
pandorachild 6 months ago
What's so bad about "if it looks designed that it probably designed argument"? I used to not believe those kind of argument my dad made, "Son, if it looks like shit and smells like shit, you probably don't want to eat it." And guess what? I still regret my unbelieved till this day.
moeblobchin 6 months ago in playlist Evolution Intelligent Design debate Meyer V Ward
Ward: His book is garbage, pure trash. It's called Perfect Planet.
WTF?! Is this guy for real?
mgundy 6 months ago
148 dislikes from peter ward fans who thought he blew the debate.
pureebreeze 8 months ago 3
@pureebreeze You're a sore loser
Seigu007 3 months ago
Meyers showed that he is a gentleman, a Christian and a scientist, where as Ward showed he was a drunken scientist. As for persuasive argument, it just got embarrassing for Ward how often and well Meyer answered every question. You see what comes out of Atheist morality: Hitchensian drunkeness.
Believerification 8 months ago
@Believerification
meyers is not a scietist. he's a full time employee of a right wing religious pressure group. his publications in the scientific literature number 0. the one essay he managed to get published in a real scientific journal was repudiated and removed since his cohort sternberg cheated to get it in. what was that about morality?
atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods- it no more makes moral claims than your non belief in zeus.
mcmanustony 8 months ago
@mcmanustony
All that is asked of either side is to present an opinion and a rebuttal, and it appears even that's simply too much of an effort for Ward. How frequently I have had to look up the upturned nose of an atheist... or more accurately, as Mr. Hitchens has defined himself, an anti-theist, and get past an arrogant presupposition my points weren't worth his/her time.
Especially here, on these forums, it's been my experience that it's usually the evolutionist that's first to scoff.
Redshield666 8 months ago
@Redshield666
" that's simply too much of an effort for Ward."- perhaps it's because, despite being awash with money and resources, the ID crew have yet to come up with anything that resembles a scientific theory- the best they've got is "some unknown entity we know nothig about did something we don't understand at some point in the past".
"How frequently I have had to look up the upturned nose of an atheist"- how unfortunate for you. have you considered standing on a chair?
mcmanustony 8 months ago
@mcmanustony
Fortunately, the "ID crew" don't have to expend the resources that less-intelligent deniers seem to have to in order to reason that a complex world such as ours literally screams design and forethought. I am aware, though, that some have to be taken by the hand and shown literally everything... :)
And, for your second slur, your "crew" also seems at a loss for explaining points in the past.
Also, boorishness isn't something that I feel I have to stand on any chair to see.
Redshield666 8 months ago
@Redshield666
I have not the faintest idea what the first part of your post means. I doubt you do either.
pointing out the vacuity of ID is not a slur it's a simple fact. there's no mechanism, no data, no testable hypotheses, no predictive or explanatory power- nothing. some IDiots will admit this.
my "crew" by which you mean the life science community is working continuously to enlarge our understanding and if there's a lack of knowledge the gap will be attended to with hard work not magic
mcmanustony 8 months ago
@mcmanustony
And, son? Don't bother me, again, until you can learn some manners that even the most primitive people on Earth exhibit as a natural course in their interactions with others. Evidently those of the ape sect seem to feel they don't need cordiality in their condescending relations with those they deem inferior to themselves... a fact consistently confirmed such as in this video with one of the spokesmen (gurus) of evolutionary theory.
Redshield666 8 months ago
@Redshield666
is it ill mannered to point out that you've not a clue what you're talking about? I'd have thought it helpful in that it might give you the spur you evidently need to get off your backside and learn something
do you think I need permission to respond to your idiotic ignorant comments? if so why?
you are as much an ape as either speaker here.
son?? who the fuck do you think you are?
mcmanustony 8 months ago
@Redshield666
if you have a problem with Ward's boorishness there's always a body of work numbering in excess of 200,000 papers in the primary research literature that you could consult. have you read any?
mcmanustony 8 months ago
@mcmanustony
Well, like I've already said, there is plenty of existential evidence in the natural world for anyone with an appreciative eye and the time not already consumed by going over reams of literature (relevant or no) to observe. It appears Mr. Meyer has some familiarity with those, given Ward's discomfort and unease debating him. I doubt I would fare any better even memorizing 200,000+ pages of information, then rebutting it, given the attitude evident in Ward.
Redshield666 8 months ago
@Redshield666
meyer's contribution to the scientific literature is nil. ward's, as a professor of paleontology is rather more substatial. I think one of these has a better command of the literature than the other- given that one and not the other WROTE a chunk of it.
all you have is basically all meyer has- "it looks designed therefore it's designed". thankfully some are prepared to work a bit harder than that.
mcmanustony 8 months ago
I have had enough patience to listen to this debate from its beginning to the end. So far my conclusion comes like this: Darwinism - just a joke, ID - honorable intelligent arguments.
vitea2 9 months ago
@vitea2 Just because Ward wasn't eloquent, doesn't lend veracity to the position of his opponent (Meyer). Meyer speaks very eloquently and clearly describes his position... But his position is still built on a foundation of logical fallacy. In actual fact, this debate shouldn't really have taken place. There is no controversy in the veracity of Evolutionary Theory, and ID is not a scientific argument, as it is based on non-falsifiable premise'. I just wanted to point that out.
Vortex42 9 months ago
Peter Ward you are an embarassment.
TheBloodPardon 10 months ago
@TheBloodPardon agreed
ScholarVisual 10 months ago
I have to agree with other posters. Though I still dont feel a good case for ID was made here, Meyers was extremely polite and articulate in a way I have not seen from ID proponents before.
Ward came off as a drunk jerk. Like he wasnt taking any of this seriously.
I hate to say it but I would score this debate firmly for the ID guys.
(ew...that made me throw up a little)
stiimuli 1 year ago 12
@stiimuli Just because Ward wasn't eloquent, doesn't lend veracity to the position of his opponent (Meyer). Meyer speaks very eloquently and clearly describes his position... But his position is still built on a foundation of logical fallacy. In actual fact, this debate shouldn't really have taken place. There is no controversy in the veracity of Evolutionary Theory, and ID is not a scientific argument, as it is based on non-falsifiable premise'. I just wanted to point that out.
Vortex42 9 months ago
@stiimuli OMHO the truth about a topic is related to the FACTS which support the debate, and I don't think that lies can become true if said in a "polite and articulate" way, so "cdesign proponentists" (no, I was not mistyping, if you know what I mean) will never win a debate.
...simply because creationism/ID is bullshit.
FreeSilio 1 month ago in playlist Stephen Meyer - Signature In the Cell
@FreeSilio I completely agree but personality still plays a part in social interaction. A dude acting like an ass won't get his points listened too. He came off as childish and petty. It effects likability and tints opinions as they form. As I stated, no plausible case for ID was made here regardless of Ward's poor behavior.
and, yes, I got the "Panda's and People" referance.
All ID has to do to be taken seriously is present a testable, repeatable hypothesis. It can't do so.
stiimuli 1 month ago
@stiimuli Agreed. Our judgement faculty is easy to be deceived, and by the way that's the reason why every kind of fraudsters (including creationists) need to look so polite.
Off topic: you got a nice channel. I subbed you. :-)
FreeSilio 1 month ago
It was hilarious when Meyer said that his religious beliefs made him a better scientist because of how he looked at the evidence! BS! This is an example of how his religion made him look at the evidence better, "we don't know how it happened", god did it! lol!
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 Consider the fact that Behe and Dembski were both theistic evolutionists before they became ID proponents. They were believers who were perfectly OK with Darwinian evolution. They changed their beliefs only because of looking at the evidence more closely.
On the other hand, Dawkins NEEDS evolution to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist". Atheists have hung a lot on Darwinism. So who's going to be more objective in evaluating the evidence?
Jesrael1986M 11 months ago
@Jesrael1986M Well, if that's correct, then they already had god as their center piece. All of their theories must then be based around the belief in god. (-:
Ricardius1710 11 months ago
Meyer continued to interrupt Ward throughout the debate. Ward came across as a little arrogant, but usually the ones that debunk other peoples theories usually come across that way. Ward had the better scientific arguments, no question about that.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
Meyer is totally full of shit but what's worse is that Ward is a crap debater and should easily be making Meyer look stupid. Pity.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@crabbit101 Meyer is full of shit that you don't know about, that's for sure. Ward never made a logical argument the entire time and it is because of that fact that he did not make Meyer look stupid. Meyer talked about evidence, research and science that is being done. ID is a theory because observations of the complexity of life at the genetic level beg the existence of a designer - I do not know why given the expansive "evidence" to the contrary that darwinists claim exists none was offered up
Rofamily6 9 months ago
@Rofamily6 There was a study conducted recently of 20m+ scientific articles over the last 20 or so years and out of those, 115,000 could be found on evolution and 88 on ID. All but 11 of those on ID were in engineering journals (unsurprisingly) and of those remaining 11, 8 were critical of ID and 3 weren't in research journals!!!
Please do not attempt to label ID as even remotely scientific.
crabbit101 9 months ago
@Rofamily6 I'm afraid that ID is nothing more than creationism repackaged and has been soundly discredited in court and in the scientific literature. Complexity has been explained repeatedly through evolution by natural selection.
Seeing design in nature is purely subjective. Some people see it, others don't.
Ward took the fact that he has the evidence on his side for granted, and underestimated Meyers' PR skills. It still doesn't change the fact that Meyer is totally full of shit.
crabbit101 9 months ago
@crabbit101 what does the legal system have to do with science? You're talking of the political side of the debate between ID and Darwinism, which does not make any scientific assertions to the validity of your stance. That's fine, but you will not convince anyone by summoning a court decision. The only thing proven of complexity by darwinists who believe in NS is that it requires intelligent scientists to create complexity in their lab tests. Do you not see the disconnect in Darwinist logic?
Rofamily6 9 months ago
@crabbit101 Why do you say Meyer is FOS? He answered every question thrown at him on a level far superior to Ward. If you simply will not listen to a man because of his cultural bent that's your loss. I listen to darwinists to hear what they say and to see if they have a firm case, but they usually refuse to give evidence and sling mud instead. Why not listen to a guy who is respectful of and is well versed on both sides, like Meyer. You're doing what Ward was doing while losing his debate.
Rofamily6 9 months ago
@Rofamily6 I agree that Meyer performed far better than Ward but Ward has the scientific evidence behind him and he squandered his chance to show ID to be the nonsense that it is. That was my original point.
Meyer is FOS because he's not just anti-evolution, he's anti-science because he believes ID should be allowed to bypass the whole scientific method and go straight to school textbooks. There is NOTHING on ID in the peer-reviewed scientific literature because in is fundamentally unscientific
crabbit101 9 months ago
@crabbit101 Meyer is smart and he is doing real scientific exploration. His "Theory," which I guess is not aloud to be a theory for some reason, opposes the big theory in science today and there are many reasons that people are very afraid of the Intelligent Design argument. You won't even listen to what Meyer says and instead call him FOS. It is only fair to concede the debate to the ID side and admit that Meyer is a guy who has answers which could not be challenged by a top evolutionist here.
Rofamily6 9 months ago
@Rofamily6 I've watched this whole debate and I agree that Ward performed terribly but that does not add any weight to Meyer's case. Stephen Meyer and the 'Discovery' Institute are undertaking no scientific work of any substance. ID cannot be termed a scientific theory because it needs to be testable, falsifiable, based on observation and it's findings submitted for peer-review. It has done none of this and therefore is nothing more than an idea.
Who's afraid of the ID argument???!!!!!!
crabbit101 9 months ago
@crabbit101 Nobody has observed macro evolution happening. It is an idea, and possible way to explain the many different life forms we observe today. In the same way ID is a way to explain how life happened. The two are not disparate in this way. It's just that 150yrs of trying to prove Darwin's idea has made it acceptable, despite no proof of it existing. It is a widely accepted notion that was adopted as the truth and that is a tough nut to crack. But we should consider all possibilities.
Rofamily6 9 months ago
@Rofamily6
Yes they have, dozens of times. I can list you them if you like, together with references? Would you prefer animals or plants?
If you spent just 5 mins looking somewhere other than creationist websites you could find an unbelievably huge mountain of information and evidence. ID explains precisely nothing. It is the conclusion that has been reached without any of the necessary investigation and its proponents are looking for the evidence to fit it. The complete opposite of evo bio.
crabbit101 9 months ago
@crabbit101 yes list them man - Observed evidence for macro evolution, not disputed by any other scientist with a PHD from an acceptable program. It may shock you that I have never been to a creationist website. I listen to debates so I can hear both sides. It is likely that I've heard and read about most of what you may call proof, but we'll see. I'm open minded, I just don't agree with you. I am not saying the ID has been proven, I am saying that it is a more reasonable assumption.
Rofamily6 9 months ago
@Rofamily6
"Nobody has observed macro evolution happening."- whoever told you this should give you your money back.
mcmanustony 8 months ago
@mcmanustony good point.
Rofamily6 8 months ago
@Rofamily6
macro evolution has been observes many times- in the lab and in the wild. why do you write otherwise? are you just repeating a slogan you've heard or have you actually refuted the hundreds of peer reviewed research papers which carefully document the phenomena?
mcmanustony 8 months ago
@mcmanustony You obviously haven't read the papers. That's the problem. a bunch of people running their mouths about stuff they heard said on a video or things they've read in comments or things they've heard their teachers tell them is true. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Have you read Coyne or Orr or Rainey? We're not even talking macroevo, we're talking primary speciation, which hasn't happened either. Or have you heard a Miller talk and been sold? Mr. T said it best...
Rofamily6 8 months ago
@Rofamily6
which papers haven't I read and how do you know?
speciation has been observed and documented many times. have you read those papers? if so have you contacted the journals publishing them to point out their errors?
who's running their mouth?
mcmanustony 8 months ago
@mcmanustony yes. that was the point of my message. You don;t know the difference between speciation and macroevolution. And primary speciation has never been observed or documented, though it's been attempted. You're gonna pull something if you keep stretching so much.
Rofamily6 8 months ago
@Rofamily6
what? "yes" you have contacted the publishers of the multitude of journals containing papers describing speciation to explain their errors? have you really?
no worries about pulling anything here.
mcmanustony 8 months ago
@Rofamily6
what's a darwinist?
mcmanustony 8 months ago
@mcmanustony One who follows the theory of Darwinism either in its original form or in the form of Neo-Darwinism as popularized and defined by its contemporary proponents Dawkins, Atkins, Harris etc. Darwinists can practice in multiple scientific disciplines or none at all. They generally believe that life is a chance event and that all life on the planet Earth has evolved from the first living things, which evolved out of a mixture of chemicals. This is a wiki definition so feel free to add...
Rofamily6 8 months ago
@Rofamily6
what a strange definition. Atkins? Peter Atkins? Chet Atkins? Who? Harris? Sam Harris? Harris Tweed?
not very clear.
mcmanustony 8 months ago
@mcmanustony It's a wiki, add to it. You're a smart guy, You can figure this out. BTW Harris stood for Harrison Ford.
Rofamily6 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rofamily6
what do you think I am trying to figure out?
mcmanustony 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rofamily6
"You don;t know the difference between speciation and macroevolution"
you dont know how to shut your mouth when you are making stupid assumptions.
mcmanustony 8 months ago
@mcmanustony ps. you have a gift Tony. I really enjoyed listening to your songs and your playing. Thank you.
Rofamily6 8 months ago
@Rofamily6
thank you.
mcmanustony 8 months ago
@Rofamily6 What would be evidence to you? There is a multitude of peer-reviewed literature on evo-bio out there for all to see. I'm a 'Darwinist' as you put it and more than happy to provide you with evidence and references to the papers it comes from.
crabbit101 9 months ago
@Rofamily6
if you listened more you'd know how redundant the term "darwinist" is. do you call modern physicists "newtonianist" or "einsteinianalistiscals" or.....
mcmanustony 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Intelligent Design will destroy the myth of EVOLUTION.
algadykhalifa 1 year ago
i wish steven had a better person to debate.
SuperMarco7 1 year ago
@SuperMarco7
I've been watching Steven debate neo darwinist heavywights over the last 2 weeks, very impressive!. This one is particularly good "Stephen Meyer & Richard Sternberg impressively defeat Michael Shermer & Don Prothero". Search for it on youtube.
MrJSouris 1 year ago
"Up until the last 3 words, we found something we can agree on..." So, being a Druid scientist is somehow not as good as being a Christian scientist? Druid fairytales were wrong and Christian fairytales are right?
Tell one of these ID "scientists" that you agree that an intelligence created life on earth and that intelligence was space aliens, and watch this "open-minded" ID guy immediately distance himself from you. lol.
demoskunk 1 year ago
Whenever one of these IDers gets a debate, the opponent should start right out saying, "Look, we know that your motives and beliefs are purely religious. You dishonestly use the *appearance* of science to promote a purely religious agenda in which you would like to force your biblical views into the schools and take us back to the good-ol' 13th century days of pure religious authoritarianism. That having been said, let's debate."
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@Astrobrant2 Well said!!!
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
Any time someone like Meyer gets onstage with a real scientist, he has already won. Not because he is right, but because of the false impression that ID deserves as much respect as real science. He gets legitimacy every time he does this. He is glib, extensively rehearsed, and is very good at imitating scientific rhetoric. After all, he is not expecting to educate scientists. It is the average pedestrian that he is targeting.
The proper forum is PEER REVIEW, not books and debates.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
Ward is incorrect. Religion and science are NOT compatible. Especially Christianity and Islam. If you take a literal view of the cannon involved, there is no escaping either willful ignorance or cognitive dissonance.
Now is the time to pick your side,reason and objective reality, or superstition and dogma.
judoyodan 1 year ago
@judoyodan
"If you take a literal view of the cannon involved..."
Lookout! A cannon!!!!
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond, sory.
judoyodan 1 year ago
Yes, as much as I'm very disappointed by the ID movement in general and consider their arguments to be clearly fallacious, Ward was simply the weaker debater by a far margin.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond Doesn't really matter-how should one take habitual liars seriously?
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion Respec is NOT a Previlage.
anonymous7368 1 year ago
@anonymous7368 Yes, it is a privilege.
The ID fucktards are abusing the assumption that invoking the words "science" implies you have done your work and can show it.
1987 trial over Edwards Vs Aguillard forced the Discovery Institute to change their book from using words like "creator" and "creation proponent" to "designer" and "design proponent"
They are fucking lying. They have LOST the right to any respect by being so dishonest.
They are habitual liars and fucking poor ones at that.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
You say there "isn't enough time" in 4 some billion years.... how the hell are you making that judgment? By what standards of measurement are you using? Your Magic Man?
Your argument shows me you are bordering on Creationist propaganda retorts that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with bullshit.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
leeroynaggins 1 year ago
@leeroynaggins Interesting question, although not quite as probing as you might suspect. It is as simple as saying that despite predictions, life is only known to be on earth. Perhaps one day you will be able to prove me wrong, but with what is known, there is omly life here. Therefore, it’s just as easy to say the designer only attempted here as far as we know.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
I guess the ID does have his little agenda...
leeroynaggins 1 year ago
@leeroynaggins Truth, I suppose, is an agenda, so, agreed.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
Comment removed
leeroynaggins 1 year ago
Ward looked childish and his remarks were those of an amateur. Meyer looked a lot more informed and seemed to be a lot more polite and respectful.
What was all that yelling out to his homies in the audience? What is this? MTV?
juniorsti 1 year ago
His book is a just Crap! Yeah -- that sounds like science to me! What a boob!
copernicanideas 1 year ago
Meyers was well spoken and polite, though I disagreed with him. However, Ward was just rude and childish. He wasted so many opportunities to coherently and respectfully elucidate the audience on what he knew. His yelling out to his apparent "cronies" in the audience was so distasteful. All in all, Ward was not serious, and treated the session as a huge annoyance.
Innerblank 1 year ago 7
@Innerblank I would add he appeared to feel trapped. He could not use his own knowledge to answer Meyers.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@Innerblank Just because Ward wasn't eloquent, doesn't lend veracity to the position of his opponent (Meyer). Meyer speaks very eloquently and clearly describes his position... But his position is still built on a foundation of logical fallacy. In actual fact, this debate shouldn't really have taken place. There is no controversy in the veracity of Evolutionary Theory, and ID is not a scientific argument, as it is based on non-falsifiable premise'. I just wanted to point that out.
Vortex42 9 months ago
Comment removed
Innerblank 1 year ago
I leave you with my Jerry Springer (final thoughts) ATHEISM SUCKS!!!
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
Nice to talk to you!
Goodbye!
hashimirasama 1 year ago
You never got the point, did you?
I was arguing about the so called knowledge of the supernatural.
For instance, is there anything you can tell me about God, how he manifests in the world that is distinguishable from natural phenomenons?
No,you've shifted your argument since it fails on the knowledge expectancy criterion to something else. Now that fairies are becoming shown to be a poor comparison to God (on a point YOU made) you jump to something else.
contd
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett The problem you have is the following. The definition of God is too expansive. If you could tweak lol your fairy to encompass or equal God your point would be valid.
The problem is God is the greatest thing ever imagined or thought of and basically your screwed. There is nothing in mythology or anywhere Gods equal.We can talk about what you need to beat me my friend but the fact is you just dont' have it.
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
Actually God is the most simplistic explanation anyone could come up with:
Why the world exist, because someone did it.
Why can't we see him, because he doesn't want to.
Why do we live, because he has big plans for us.
Why shouldn't we fear death, because he's gonna make us immortal
Why should we fear him, because he could punish us
Why should we obey him, because he will reward us
So simple. But in fact it doesn't explain much.
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama Why the world exists? Atheisms answer-no clue
Why cant we see the forces that originated all things ? Atheism? no clue
Why live? Atheism? Got to find something and call it meaning
Why fear death? Atheism-who cares if you live or die it matters not.
But in your other question I see what is most likely the real reason your an atheist. And be honest,it has nothing to do with biology or astronomy.
So you can stop the 'science' act..
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett Let atheists speak for themselves. The question of "why" the world exists is meaningless to an atheist. There is no why. Now since it is important to you, why don't you tell us why the world exists and how you know this.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@Astrobrant2 Hey, a few questions about evolution. Looking at the vast variety of species I find it hard to imagine that 4.5billion years would be enough for all that we see today. I could never find articles that discussed this, maybe you could explain it to me. Why are we so much more significantly developed than closely related species like apes and chimps. I believe in god as much as I "accept" evolution(there's no accepting but saying it for the sake of distingushing myself)
Thanks.
anonymous7368 1 year ago
@anonymous7368 I've been planning to make a time-line video showing the age of the earth and major epochs. Your view is skewed by one major misperception: the inability to conceive what a huge abyss of time even a million years is. And ONE billion is a thousand TIMES that. Nobody can actually sense what a billion years is.
Great question about different speeds in evolution. What launched our faster evolution was an earthquake about 8 million years ago!!
PM me, if you like. Too long for here.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@Astrobrant2 And yes Pm me please concerning the whole story of the vast differences in our species with those that we share 98% of our DNA with. thanks! :)
anonymous7368 1 year ago
@anonymous7368 The "vast differences" between great apes and humans are the kinds of things which could evolve in 4 million years when put under the kind of evolutionary pressure that our ancestors were.
After all, you did acknowledge that genetically, we are 98% identical to chimpanzees.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@anonymous7368 Thanks for the reply, but for such immensely complex creatures surely a million years isn't sufficient? I read somewhere(I believe it was a times magazine issue) where they said it took about 200 million years for a complez species to evolve from its single celular form.
anonymous7368 1 year ago
@anonymous7368 It wasn't a million years. I was more like 4 to 8 million years. Again, I don't think you are giving a million years the credit it is due. That is ten thousand centuries -- a VERY long time.
The differences you see between chimpanzees and humans are not as vast as you seem to believe.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
You want to talk about Fairies Fine.
I believe in transcendental supernatural beings called Fairies who dwells in a realm beyond reality.
What you say about it?
hashimirasama 1 year ago
And if he didn't I couldn't prove it! That's my point.
Thats about the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Let me paraphrase.. I have no evidence at all for what I believe and that strengthens my argument. What a bunch of horse shit.
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
Now you use something called a "straw man argument" a misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Actually my position is: "if the truth isn't something obviously given to me so I should be careful about what I hold to be true and choose carefully a reliable way to inquire."
hashimirasama 1 year ago
The truth may never be given to you. I thought this idea filled you with awe and amazement?? Now itS an expectation and even OBVIOUS?!!
Now you twist my words and since you learned a new term 'strawman' want to try it out.
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett You have no evidence. It is a matter of pure faith and believing what you were told to believe from the time you were a little child. Okay.
Now back to the subject of these videos. That is NOT science, and has no business in the classroom. People like Meyer, who are committing this academic sabotage, should be tarred and feathered.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
I guess my sense of amazement and humbleness in this context is the following.
I'm humbled that God knows everything and obviously I don't. And that is so much knowledge and real power I can barely grasp. The more I know the more I know I know less and less. And thats a lot lol.
But I think men should conduct themselves honorably.
StarringEverett 1 year ago
In conclusion I'd rather defend theism than multiple universes for which I have NO EVIDENCE AT ALL for.
StarringEverett 1 year ago
How is it that you cannot grasp the following.
I take biology instruction to learn biology. I don't take atheism to learn biology.
I take an astronomy class to learn astronomy. I don't take an atheism class to learn astronomy.
How do you not understand this?
StarringEverett 1 year ago
Intelligent design has much more explanatory power. Thats why they win debates like this. Notice the belligerent atheist trying to shout them down at the last..
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
Intelligent Design is religion disguised as Science it's been ruled by a judge in Dover.
You don't need a debate you need evidence.
Now get a life!
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama No,intelligent design is the best explanation of the evidence... I need not respond to the "judge in Dove" LOL...
StarringEverett 1 year ago
The judge claimed ID is falsifiable?You agree with that? Got some PROOF,maybe you can help the judge out here! Evidence that God doesn't exist??
Jones' argument is that the alleged failure of irreducible complexity can be charged to ID's account only if irreducible complexity is a part of Intelligent Design theory itself, since ID itself is not science and therefore not falsifiable. And yet, if it isn't a part of ID, then it obviously cannot undermine the theory itself.
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@hashimirasama Now you get a life turd!
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
Well, go publish an article in a peer reviewed journal ,explain that to 99% of the scientific community and you got your Theory in classrooms.
You can dream, sucker!
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama I didn't think you wanted a debate on this,now get lost loser!
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
Call me back when you got real scientific evidence.
Oh yeah, that's right you guys are not really interested in scientific demonstrations, you just want to make it to the classrooms.
Who is the loser, now?
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama Stop saying "scientific" when I've demonstrated the opposite!
Your a liar! Show ID FALSIFIABLE! THATS HIS CLAIM IDIOT... And 99 percent of the "scientific community" does NOT support your claims liar...
I agree ID should not be taught. Neither should atheism. Neither are science dumbass
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
Tell me how many research institute how many universities support ID and I will stop pretending that it's not science.
The truth is there's no debate in the scientific community about the true nature of ID.
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama Google; Richard Swinburne (oxford) Robert Adams (oxford) Brian leftow (notre dame) Dallas willard (usc) Marilyn McCord Adams (UCLA) Peter Van Inwagen (notre dame).
I could go on with prestigious multi-academicians that CURRENTLY teach .
The point here is very smart people hold to God being the best explanation.
You might look into what happens to ones career often when doing your head count of scientists.
I suggest watching 'EXPELLED'
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
I said INSTITUTIONS not a handful of apologists!
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama You don't consider Oxfords philosophy debt an institution? Or Notre Dame ?
Whats your criteria? Must be atheist lol !
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
I repeat : "how many research institute how many universities"
No philosophy PhD, no bloody philosopher, no bloody apologist endorsement!
And please don't say Michael Behe.
SCIENCE INSTITUTES, COMPRENDES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama You only accept atheists. I get it! But please stop using the word 'science'
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
Wait a minute, are we still talking about a scientific theory or are you conceding ID is a religious view and therefore has nothing to do in textbooks.
Because in my view the argument of judge Jones (Lutheran Christian btw) stands no matter what my or your religious views might be.
PS
I understand that the word "science" might annoys you but I'm gonna keep using it, no disrespect.
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama In the same sense you would concede atheism is a religious view.
Use any word you like I'll know you mean atheism however.
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
If atheism is a religion than I guess not smoking is a habit.
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama Thats lame.. Actually not smoking is a habit. If you look at it carefully. You'll fill your time with healthier endeavors. One could call them 'habits' or it habits.
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@hashimirasama Do you agree with your 'institutes' the opposition to ID "multiple universes?"
And isn't that a 'designer?' Albeit not God etc etc but still an original from whence we came or infinity etc.
But this idea cant we agree is bullshit? And aren't you really pushed by reason to come up with something like this loony idea??
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
First "multiple universes" hasn't been validated yet so it's merely an hypothesis (that's why it's not in the textbooks).
Two it a totally different subject. Evolution is about speciation not about cosmology.
As long has it hasn't been demonstrated and vetted by evidence I don't believe any of this.
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama Sure,I'm still waiting for evidence of other universes outside the initial space time singularity. The problem is there is no way to have evidence outside of our experiencing it. So until we can travel time or something equivalent.I'll have a hard time knowing the truth of something goes by popularity or a vote.
I know you say otherwise but then proceed to want to count institutions as if that lent anything to your position in itself.
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@hashimirasama I think if we had time (and the patience) I can show you how the judge contradicts himself. Thats not easy to do imo.
But at the core of this.. I agree..I don't like ID taught in public schools either.
But at the same time I hope we could agree atheism should not be taught as well.
What say you?
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett I meant (easy) to do..
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
Atheism taught in school? Damn I guess I miss that on the final.
I was never listening in atheism class.
Seriously, what are you talking about?
Evolution is neutral regarding Religion.
It's just a damn scientific theory, not an atheist conspiracy!
If it has to be replaced it will be by a better theory supported by better evidence.
No one teaches atheism in classrooms.
You're problem is like "not smoking"; you think not teaching about God implies teaching about Atheism.
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama You start out talking about atheism then shift to evolution without stating so.
And atheism is NOT a scientific theory my friend.
And I've told you repeatedly I don't want either THEISMS taught in public schools.
How do you keep missing this?
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
No you started talking about Religion & Atheism, I merely answered that the only thing taught in school in place of ID was a scientific theory neutral to religion.
And yes, I agree; atheism isn't a scientific theory.
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama No,sorry but you said 'atheism'. You may have meant something else.
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@hashimirasama
Let me quote the judge here. After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. (p. 64)
Its true but its not science LOL. I think the judge may be a theist afterall lol.
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
As I said ID is not science (since it requires supernatural interventions) but it can't be proven wrong (since it's not falsifiable). That's the very definition of Religion.
And that's why the judge said that.
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama No I'm sorry but thats not what the judge said. I gave you the quotes.The judge also said ID may even be true but its still not science.
But thats here nor there.
I may be in agreement with the judge at his conclusion. But are we debating theism atheism or what should be in text books? Two completely different things.
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.(...)ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation"
(page 64)
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
By Definition supernatural causation is not Falsifiable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama Look here braindead.. You cant name any "atheist" institutes! Why ?? Because these terms are PHILOSOPHICAL by nature !
And it all depends on how you phrase the question to said institutes. If you say "god" people have a negative reaction. If you say "cosmic eternal energy etc" the numbers change. What does this mean? It clearly shows a bias in peoples thinking that has nothing to do with biology or astronomy etc when it comes to the word (God)
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
The day I see a philosopher being granted the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine I will accept your argument. Till then, let's keep it simple.
I'm asking for a research institution in a discipline remotely related with the subject: Speciation.
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama I don't see anything in your question but popularity. After all we are talking about religion.
And the day I see an 'atheist' philosopher granted the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Med. I'll still not accept your argument. Because a vote is not how I decide what is true.
But again,your confusing democracy with views on religion and science.
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
My question wasn't about popularity but scrutiny.
Science (yes I used this word again) is a self correcting process. To be accepted a theory has to pass a long examination phase through peer reviewed articles & experimentations...
Only when a consensus is found amongst the overwhelming majority of the scientific community can the theory be validated. As new knowledge becomes available the theory is then either confirmed or debunked.
So you see it's not just about popularity.
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama And you still haven't responded to Judge Dovers falsifiability claim.. Is it a load of crap or what?! You bet your boots it is..
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
Here is what judge Jones actually said:"We find that ID fails on three different levels, (...). They are:
1 ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;
2 the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and 3 ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."
ID IS NOT SCIENCE.
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasamaHe says that the argument for irreducible complexity is "central to ID". Otherwise, why would he include it in a discussion of whether ID is science? And,
He also says it has been "refuted": in other words, falsified. But if the argument for irreducible complexity is, as Jones later determines, falsified, then ID is falsified, since irreducible complexity is "central to ID".
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett He also says that the truth or falsity of arguments for ID are irrelevant:
After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. (p. 64)
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett In other words, what Jones is saying is that the falsity of irreducible complexity can be held against ID since it is "central" to it, but that, even if it were true, it wouldn't count in favor of it, since it is not central to it.
It is a clever bit of sophistry: if irreducible complexity is false, then it counts against it, but if it is true, then it doesn't count for it!
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett If opponents of ID want to hold irreducible complexity against ID, then they will have to abandon their argument that ID is not science. And if they want to preserve their argument that ID is not science, they will have to stop using arguments against irreducible complexity against ID.
A contradicting argument always self destructs.
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
"Refuted" doesn't mean "falsifiable".
He didn't said it was falsifiable, he said it was debunked since it doesn't meet any scientific standard.
Moreover, ID requires to reject the very basis of modern science (like the law of Lavoisier); that's why he said:
"ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation"
He didn't reject ID because it's falsifiable, he rejected it because it's loony.
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama Refuted doesn't mean falsified? So thats what it takes to be an atheist. I'll pass.. Think you got yourself a democracy not evidence going here.
Atheism is not science.. Has nothing to do with science.. Has never shown anything under a microscope or telescope.. Moreover,theism has the best explanation of origins.
(law of lavoisier?) why don't we start with something simple like (law) of gravity.
Do we have proof that there are no exceptions to this (law) or any (law) NO
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
Falsifiability is the fact that an assertion can be proven false by an observation or a physical experiment. There is no experimentation that can demonstrate the non-existence of a supernatural Intelligent Designer.
Nevertheless, the theory was refuted not as a wrong scientific statement but as a non-scientific statement. That's why judge Jones said that it might be true but it's not science.
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama There is no experimentation that can demonstrate the non-existence of a supernatural Intelligent Designer.
I'm sorry but thats not something that affects me in any way whatsoever thats YOUR problem.
But for argument sake.. If something is SUPERNATURAL then just maybe a NATURAL test just won't do,ya think?
Like the good judge said "it may be true but not science." And (God) has never been refuted by anyone or any institute.
StarringEverett 1 year ago
@StarringEverett
You can't refute the existence of Fairies, Unicorns, Leprechauns,...either.
hashimirasama 1 year ago
@hashimirasama In the absence of evidence of an object O you may deny that O exists only if these Criteria are met:
Evidence Expectation Criterion. If an object O existed, then we would expect there to be evidence for it.
Knowledge Expectation Criterion. If there were evidence of object O, then we would expect to have knowledge of the evidence.
Although these are philosophy tools they are very good.
StarringEverett 1 year ago