Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
The very fact that god's existence needs to be unweaved by complex philosophy instead of simple and patent revelation (and I mean god coming down from the sky and perfoming a worldwide undeniable miracle) means one of two possibilities:
-God is too selfish and egotist that he expects everyone takes his word without ever saying one from his mouth.
@pelaobaka Well, unless you come to me and give me one trillion dollars I'll believe you exist. How about that? On the other hand, maybe you just don't exist, and the comment you gave was like Neo-Darwinian evolution: an accident that appears to be designed but only by chance. LOL! Seriously, dude, you don't have to be all that sophisticated to know that Dawkins is wrong.
Why can't some people see that what makes hypothesis scientific are the methods employed....scientific methods. Thus, there is a distinction between the Big Bang hypothesis and a "God" hypothesis for an explanation of the origin of the Universe for instance. Of course the supernatural or faith could be studied scientifically in a science class.....but that's not what the i.d movement want's is it? They want it taught to Children as an irrefutable explanation. Irrefutability is'nt Science.
The fact that it is a scientific hypothesis doesnt mean it should be taught, it should be scrutinised. To teach is to present as fact, to plant ideas (supposedly knowledge).
Its rediculous to say "This is a scientific idea therefore teach it to people", youre ignoring the fact that no evidence definitively varifies it.
This is shameless quote mining. Dawkins merely states that god could theoretically be proven or disproved by science. Science can potentially disprove that there is a teacup orbiting Pluto but it doesn't mean it deserves mention in a classroom.
fffffffffuuucking shit.. saying the universe came from my asshole is a scientific hypothesis and if half the world believed it it would qualify to be put in classrooms...
@tdwp98 Well, look, Dawkins said that the God Hypothesis is a scientific one (funny thing is, William Lane Craig said he wasn't sure if he agreed with that). But if you think that a *SCIENTIFIC* hypothesis doesn't belong in classrooms, then suit yourself. Would you have a problem with the Big Bang Hypothesis presented in a physics class? That's pretty close-minded. In the mean time, I do hope your asshole can poo something out more interesting than the thoughts of Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins says that the it's a scientific claim and should be put to the rigors of scientific scrutiny. He can do this without fear because he knows the claim that God is, cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny. So if religious people claim that God belongs in the science class because it's science, it's very very easy to prove that it's a false theory and hence, not science, hence not allowed in the science class room.
@hamstenator LOL! That's some serious damage control for Dawkins, due. If it can't stand up to scientific scrutiny yet at the same time it's a scientific, I just don't see why you can't have it in class. In my science class we were taught that spontaneous combustion was refuted scienfitifcally yet we're still told this. I just don't see why the same can be said of ID then if it's the case it can be refuted.
@drcraigvideos mate you are seriously confused about what "a scientific claim" is. A scientific claim, for example: Sating that ID is true does not make it a VALID scientitic theory. ID has been proven wrong over and over, hence it did not stand up to scientific scrutiny: It has been proven false and should not be taught in class rooms. If I claimed that led turned into gold if you boil it, that would be a scientific claim as well. But as it happens it's quite easy to disprove, much like ID.
@hamstenator Mate, you dodged everything I said, only just to reply with a flippant remark after I thoroughly refuted your first shallow comment. I (nor Dr. Craig) said ID was true. On the other hand, Dawkins said ID was scientific. So, why not let something scientific (albeit it may be easy to disprove but so what?) in class. That's just common sense.
No, you're wrong. No one has proof of the beginning of the universe or life itself. Intelligent design will remain standing until someone can prove the beginning through purely scientific means, which to this point, is just as impossible as disproving God.
Intelligent design does not mean God exactly. Like Dawkins himself said, the Intelligent design could have come from an alien society that seeded earth. Yes, I know that is hard to believe, but design doesn't mean God by default
The kind of religion that should be taught in classes should be the history of religion.
Almost every monotheistic religion has the same story, global flood, rebirth of savior after 3 days, the virgin birth... Just look for zeitgeist part 1 here on youtube and you'll realize that the zombie jew is just one of dozens of saviors with the same story leading right back to Egyptian times of set an anub.
@drcraigvideos He wrote that if the god hypothesis is to be taken seriously, it should be solved in the realm of science by scientists as a scientific hypothesis. However there is nothing scientific about it. Saying it "is" a scientific hypothesis when he that if anything it "should be" studied in the realm of science and that those findings would be far more revealing than what the religion actually says and is about. there is a big diff. get a copy of the god delusion or fuckoff =3
@777neotamakachi777 I have the copy. But since your conceded that Dawkins said it's a scientific hypothesis, then something scientific belongs in class, right? Please, try to be reasonable.
Also scientific hypothesis do not attain validity in science classes....only through laborious research, testing and brutal peer review by the scientific community do they reach acceptance or rejection.
once again science CLASSES are for teaching what science has uncovered. Religion has absolutely no place there.
Simply get a religious teaching to survive the scientific method and become accepted by the scientific community and it will gladly be taught in science class.
Real Christians should resist this. If the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis, then who cares about faith? Faith would be a distraction at best.
@drcraigvideos I honestly did not know about fideism. I was about to reply, "Thank you for the information, I stand corrected," only to find that you had banned me from replying to this video. Banning people who honestly disagree does not make your position look very good, and isn't a very nice thing to do.
@sulljoh4 I'm not Dr. Craig and I don't see how blocking ignorant trollish morons from commenting in my videos adds up to me wanting to throw the First Amendment of the Constitution in the trash. Don't censor your own mind from learning the truth, okay?
I get the impression that some people just have an innate sense that the physical world exists inside their mind. I wonder if there is a basic difference between people - a) those whose sense they are ''in a body ie. inside the world' (realists) & b) those who sense they are outside of the physical world (spiritists)- the latter naturally leaning towards a belief in a universal mind ie God. ??
Anything can be a hypothesis. It does not make it to the status of Theory. The God hypothesis is untestable and unfalsifiable which is why it cannot even get off the ground.
@TomSkorupski Dawkins said the God hypothesis is scientific though. He didn't say anything can be a hypothesis. There's a difference. And ID is falsifiable: watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A. And just because something isn't falsifiable it doesn't mean it's false. Otherwise, the laws of logic wouldn't be rational to hold to.
@drcraigvideos The Flagellum argument has been addressed(shot down), the eye and many others. What IDers keep putting forth item after item they see as irreducibly complex to them and ask other scientists to do the dirty work or shooting down the ideas rather that IDers coming up with proof that something is irreducibly complex. The argument by IDers is "It's so impossible to explain, therefore it must have been designed" By who? The God of the Bible of course because he's the real one.
@TomSkorupski LOL! If the "flagellum" argument has been shot down then it's falsifiable, genius. And if you actually understood ID, they don't say everything is designed. They say that whatever is designed must be specified. Hit the books, pal. You don't understand a thing about ID except what the critics tell you.
@drcraigvideos IDer proposes "Flagellum" arg. Actual Scientists demonstrate how it is false. IDers move the goal post. That is why it is unfalsifiable, the standards of evidence for IDers is different than in real Science. A Pennsylvania Judge (Conservative, Bush Appointed) agrees. How about you hit the "history" books Pal. ID is re-branded Christian Science ie. something that should be left for Religion class. Google Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover School District, et al. for the ruling.
@RedTomSki Better scientists understand that using the Type 3 Secretory system as a counterargument to the flagellum argument means ID is falsifiable. The fact that a dimwit like Bush appointed a Judge should tell you wonders about him. Furthermore, he's a judge not a scientist (and if you read his ruling he plagiarized it). Judges in the past said that women were not equal to men, were they correct? Judges in the past said black people were not equal to white people, were they correct?
@drcraigvideos When he says the idea of God is scientific he means it's a hypothesis that can be tested to see if it is true. Science taught in school tends to be that which has been rigorously tested by experts, if teachers spent time on scientific hypotheses that are unlikely to be true they would be wasting a lot of time. (Usual examples ; alchemy, astrology, Clairvoyancy, demonic posession as the cause of illness etc)
Claims of psychic abilities can be tested scientifically but are not taught as science; they are not supported by evidence. Likewise, in order for creationism/ID to be taught in science class, we would need evidence showing it is a viable theory. Evolution is one of our strongest. It is up to the proponents of ID to provide a falsifiable hypothesis and evidence for that alternative theory. Amplifying gaps in our knowledge of evolution is not the same as providing evidence for ID or for any Gods.
@chionactis1 Something can't be falsifiable unless it's scientific. Dawkins said God is scientific. Why do damage control for him? Besides, ID is falsifiable: watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A.
@chionactis1 Rupert Sheldrake has tested "psychic abilities" scientifically and found that there is, indeed, a legitimate phenomenon occurring. Check out his book, "The Sense of Being Stared At" for more information.
There's tons of evidence for ID if you adjust the lens (a.k.a. BIAS) from which you interpret it; it is rejected on ideological, not scientific, grounds of materialism/naturalism. W/ another lens, you can see vastly different scenarios for our traditional interpretations.
@naujphantom - "If evolution is science, intelligent design is science. But if I' am mistaken, please let me know what is the difference."
Big difference. Evolutionary processes have been tested and retested, & the results have been submitted to peer reviewed journals where other experts have checked the evidence & found it profoundly compelling. ID proponents have not been able to formulate even one hypothesis to test in the 20+ years since it was proposed. Evolution= real science ≠ ID
@CamW30 When you say that evolutionary processes have been tested what do you mean?
If you mean that it has been tested that it is "possible" for random mutations and natural selection to produce beneficial changes the equivalent in ID does not need any testing because it is obviously true that it is possible for intelligence to produce beneficial changes.
If you want an argument for ID, do you think that it is valid a logical inductive and falsifiable argument based on empirical evidences?
@naujphantom According to CamW30 he has been blocked by drcraigvideos, I hope this can be solved soon, he has replied me be P.M. I will post his reply in the next message.
@naujphantom "ID does not need any testing because it is obviously true that it is possible for intelligence to produce [...]"
So, you can just pull hypotheses out of a hat & claim them to be true? Evolutionary biologists can follow transitional features over 100s of thousands or millions of years (reptile jaw to middle ear) or the ability of microbes to digest plastic. We can show the development of genetic changes by comparing organisms and grouping them into clades, etc, etc
@naujphantom Not at all, I thought you would agree that it is possible for intelligence to produce beneficial changes but if you want proof what about genetically modified food?
About the transitional features, they can be interpreted as variations between the same kind or as completely different species on the ID perspective.
@naujphantom "it is possible for intelligence to produce beneficial change"
Touche! But, as you said, IDers interpret it as "variation among kind". The transitional features of the evolution of the middle ear is fascinating. Over 100s of millions of years the jaw of amphibians evolved into the middle ear in mammals.
@CamW30 "IDers interpret it as variation among kind"
You are right, but then variations among kind are observable, no need for tests.
Also, if it is reasonable to say that because some changes are possible by evolution then all changes are, you can say the same for ID, if some parts can be designed, everything can...
Regarding the jaw, in ID, this can be view as similar design for similar purposes, moreover, punctuated equilibrium does not predict gradual changes.
But where is the science in Intelligent Design? This whole debate is so sad. Dawkins is just pointing out that ID is devoid of any scientific credibility. ID was proposed in 1989, and since then not one testable hypothesis has come from the Discovery Institute &/or the ICR. If I were funding these guys I would be asking for my money back.
@CamW30 ID is testable and falsifiable: watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A. Throw the propaganda away and start reading what ID proponents have to say about ID. Just reading what the critics say isn't helpful.
The "God hypothesis" is indeed a scientific one, but does that mean that it should be taught in science classes? Is Craig saying that *ALL* scientific hypotheses should be taught in schools?
Does this include Alchemy? Flat Earth Theory? Geocentricity? The Four Humours theory? Spontaneous Generation? Eugenics? All of these are scientific hypotheses in the same way that intelligent design is; VERY BAD hypotheses, but scientific nonetheless. Should they be in the curriculum?
@pmallon64 " Is Craig saying that *ALL* scientific hypotheses should be taught in schools?" If you actually listened to this video, you'd know the answer to your question.
@naujphantom A scientific theory is quite different from a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been tested exhaustively by experts in the appropriate fields and found to fit with the evidence, and other already well-established theories. Anyone can form a hypothesis - it's just an 'idea' about what might account for a phenomenon.
@naujphantom ID isn't valid as a scientific theory because it hasn't sustained analysis by experts from all the appropriate fields. Evolution fits like many pieces of a jigsaw into the larger picture that science has ascertained over the centuries. Intelligent design has been shown to be a product of religious belief which is not based on science but on tradition - ie. the proponents already decided in advance that a creator exists rather than concluding this from evidence and observation.
@naujphantom re: 'evidences and observations points to an intelligent designer ' - not according to most scientists. Over centuries the search for knowledge has uncovered only natural causes - the wind is not God's breath but from differences in air pressure, lightning comes from electrons in atoms not from God's hand, atoms heavier than hydrogen are made in stars; The scientific process has produced real knowledge by assuming natural causes. Assuming intelligent causes produced no knowledge.
@naujphantom ' ID does not imply God ' - If you mean the designer could be alien creatures then we are left to explain how they came about. If they were made by other alien creatures and so on and so on, eventually we are left to either explain how designers could come about naturally or that the original designer sprang into existence fully formed, which seems the least likely option. As evidence points to long, slow development of life in an ancient universe, evolution seems most likely.
@naujphantom Science cannot infer anything; it can only provide data. It is philosophy and worldview that must then interpret that data. We infer; science cannot. We give the scientific method a mind of its own, yet science cannot postulate or form conclusions. Only minds can do that. :)
@naujphantom ' As I understand it, love and hate are supernatural or for example beauty is a metaphysical property ' Think of what emotion actually is ; a collection of sensual experiences such as various muscle tensions, images, smells, sounds etc both real and imaginary. For some reason we are tempted to see emotion as special but if we think about it, emotion is complex but not magic.
@naujphantom ' As I understand it, love and hate are supernatural or for example beauty is a metaphysical property' - Think about what emotion is; a collection of physical & mental experiences ; muscle-tensions, sights, sounds, smells etc. As a whole emotion seems magical but although complex and sometimes unfathomable - they consist of nothing that might be called supernatural.
@naujphantom re: ' external world & observer exist independently '. They're certainly different kinds of experience but can they be independent when one strongly influences the other eg. a thought can affect the whole world and an event in the world can trigger a thought. - no evidence the mind can exist without the brain - I dont believe in ghosts etc. The mind is a reflection of the world - like a complex mirror-taking sensory info, extracting it's essence & recombining it in new ways.
@naujphantom RE: 'no evidence the world can exist w/o the mind' - reminds me, I once thought either the mind is a product of the physical world or vice-versa. If a spirit-god created the physical universe, then physical things exist within spirit. Hence 2 possibilities ; complex mind existed first & produced the universe or the universe is basically simple and complexity arises naturally & gradually. The latter seems more likely to be true.
@naujphantom - I don't believe in a beginning. If the big bang is right I think it must have emerged out of something simple like an energy field or whatever (I dont know much about physics!). Whatever this background state is I cannot see it as an intelligent spirit/mind because that would have to be incredibly complex for it to be able to construct life. As knowledge increases it's becoming more obvious that there is a hierarchy of simple elements combining to form complex things.
@perrin6 Good, I neither believe in a beginning. Of-course it is a possibility but not the most reasonable in my opinion.
I think there is a confusion here, we both agree that complex things are made by simpler things (which is not the only option, since the level of complexity could be infinite)
Now, this does not implies that complex things arise from simpler things, there could be complexity that acts as a complexity giver.
@naujphantom I would say complex things are made OF simpler things rather than BY simpler things. Complex things do make complex things - eg humans make computers. Yes I think it's possible that the first cell could have been made by something complex but as there is no evidence for this and there is evidence for gradual increase in complexity over time, we need to keep gathering evidence & formulating theories on cell evolution. If evidence for design is discovered then it can be analyzed.
@perrin6 I don't know of any evidence of increase of complexity that can go from simple elements to anywhere near a simple cell and I think there is a lot of evidence of intelligence combining simple elements to form complex systems.
Consider the following logical inductive and falsifiable argument based on empirical evidences:
All systems with cycles that we know how are caused are caused by intelligence.
Therefore, all systems with cycles are caused by intelligence.
@naujphantom Shouldn't there be 2 premises followed by a conclusion in a logical syllogism ? The premise is false anyway, How about cycles such as the seasons, the water cycle, the rock cycle etc - all natural.
The conclusion is invalid anyway - it should be 'therefore some systems with cycles are caused by intelligence. You cannot go from 'all systems we know of' to 'therefore all systems' because 'all systems we know of' is not the same as 'all'.
No, that's in a deductive argument, this is an inductive argument.
"How about cycles such as the seasons"
I say "that we know", meaning that we observe (empirical evidence), seasons are cycles of system earth and we didn't observed how earth was caused.
Inductive arguments are the root of knowledge, for example, if you mix substances A and B and you get C, it is not until you do it many times that you say: always that we mixed [...], therefore [...]
@naujphantom re: 'seasons are cycles of system earth and we didn't observed how earth was caused ' - But we know seasons are a natural result of Earth's inclined axis in different parts of it's orbit around the sun, this is a seperate issue from Earth's origins. Even if Earth was designed, seasons would still be a natural result of Earth's inclined axis. Even if you construct a car engine it still works by natural laws. Once started, the engine works by itself, ie 'naturally'.
@naujphantom I am assuming a mind/conscience would have to be complex because I think it's obvious. If creationists think life is so complex it must have a designer surely they don't also think 'oh - but a conscious mind could be something simple' . Not only does a creator have to have a mind but it must also be able to manipulate the laws of physics to produce matter and shape it into living things. This incredible entity would have to be very complex indeed.
@perrin6 This depends on how we define conscience, I don't mean conscience including everything that it needs to interact, like specific knowledge, etc...
I mean an essential aspect of conscience like for example a substance with the property of feeling.
Then conscience could combine with something else to have other properties.
But as I said, there is the possibility if there is an infinite amount of time, of a complexity that has always existed.
@naujphantom (you mean 'consciousness' - 'conscience' is to do with feeling guilty eg; 'his conscience made him to do the right thing'). I don't know of any theories about what creates consciousness, but I think it exists to some degree in a lot of animals but humans' is very developed. It seems to be a function of more developed brains. Re: 'complexity always existing' - I've already stated why I think the cosmos is basically simple.
@perrin6 The argument is something like this, if conscience is simple then it isn't complex as you said and if it is complex then it is composed of simpler parts as feeling, will, intuition, etc... and then this does not imply the spontaneous generation of something complex.
Of-course I think it is more reasonable a complexity that has always existed.
"I've already stated why I think the cosmos is basically simple."
@naujphantom When humans don't understand something, we project what we already know onto the world. Human societies have always 'personified' the world, such as projecting mind onto other living things and even inanimate objects ie. tree spirits or mountain spirits. As we are concerned so much with social situations we relate to the world in social terms by projecting- 'mother Earth', 'Fatherland' & even sailors relating to their ship as a mother. God is just the ultimate expression of this.
@perrin6 Well, if spirits exist, we have to see what has a spirit and what hasn't a spirit.
You are assuming that spirits don't exist or that the mind is only physical.
If we assume the contrary and we say that there are spirits or that there is a meta-physical aspect of the mind then we could say that we humans have a mind and animals have a mind, etc... and that God is the supreme mind.
Now, what reason there is to make an assumption instead of the other?
@naujphantom I don't think spirits(i.e minds) are physical - I just think they are a product of brains. A mind is what we experience rather than being physical. Minds are an 'experience of consciousness'. If there was a god where is his brain and what direct evidence is there that such a creature exists anyway? I see no reason to believe a mind can exist outside of a brain.
@naujphantom re: your stated position of not being able to prove anything. I don't believe it's possible to prove any particular scenario is 100% correct, it is more a matter of what is more likely or less likely when different theories are put forward.
@perrin6 That's merely one interpretation of what constitutes or motivates emotion. Love & hate, etc., aren't necessarily supernatural, but they are, at least in part, beyond the realm of what science is equipped to address. They require postulations & conclusions, which puts them in part within philosophical and ideological territory. Science is very limited here; in fact, it is a tool of philosophical worldviews.
@KnightofMotley I don't know. Philosophy has been partly eclipsed by science (eg. atoms were postulated by ancient Greeks but there's no way they could we certain they existed until science advanced enough and there are lots of examples of philosophical ideas that have just been consigned to the wastebin by science uncovering what is true - please dont ask me for examples though !) . I think philosophy is what we 'do' when we have no way of analyzing directly - i could be wrong though)
@KnightofMotley re: ' Our experience of the mind is that it is different from the world '. What I was trying to say is that our mental experience consists of sensuality - our thoughts consist of imagined sounds in the form of a simulated voice, the mind's eye - ie imagined images, and all the other senses, plus remembered experiences, which are sensual too. There is a component of thought which seems to be 'above' sense - a sort of extracted essence of worldly things.
@naujphantom re: 'theory must be considered by its own merits and not by how it aroused'; - Yes, and Intel design was thrown out because of it's lack of merits.
@naujphantom; Irreducible complexity has been shown to lack merit as a hypothesis because organs can still be functional even with parts missing. The classic case is the eye which even Darwin admitted he didn't know how such a 'perfect' organ could evolve slowly, but there are many examples of functional eyes in different species that lack parts such as a lens and yet still work.
@perrin6 Irreducible complexity tries to prove that ID is true, not only that it is possible.
To demonstrate that something is true is different from demonstrating that it is possible.
I don't know of an equivalent attempt from evolution to demonstrate that only evolution can be true.
Regarding the eye, evolution has no explication for the origin of the receptor (eye), the wiring and the interpretation system in the brain, you can't lack any of the three.
@naujphantom re: 'Irreducible complexity tries to prove that ID is true' - that's interesting but I think ID proponents should also do experiments to demonstrate the existence of God. I know they don't refer directly to God but they all believe one exists as they are Christians. Why don't Christian scientists really look into using the scientific method to detect God ? The problem is that people believe in God for non-evidential reasons - its an emotional attachment rather than a rational one
@naujphantom re: ' evolution has no explication for the origin of receptor (eye), wiring & interpretation system in the brain, you can't lack any of the 3' - you have to go right back to a more simple sensory cell - nerve setup ie. a cell which produces an affect on a nerve that connects with other nerves and motor cells. The eye didnt evolve as a mammalian eye and then an optic nerve, then a brain, all 3 have been present since very early on ie. they evolved together.
@perrin6 This does not contradict my statement, you are supporting my statement by saying:
"all 3 have been present since very early"
Also, in addition to the receptor, the wiring that must be properly connected to the receptor and the brain, and the interpretation system in the brain we also need the system in the brain to produce the correct response.
If we have everything but not producing the correct response it is all useless.
@naujphantom All 3 elements were present early in animal evolution, but each element was in a simpler form such as 'sensory cell - sensory nerve cell - simple nerve network' Brains probably evolved only once there was sensory info to process. In humans, some sensory information is not even processed by the brain such as the pain reflex by the spinal chord.
@naujphantom I dont know much about the evolution of the senses and you would have to study pre- vertebrate animals to find out but even single-celled organisms respond to their environment without a nervous system so it seems reasonable that sensory cells evolved before the nerves arose and therefore before brains too.
@naujphantom I don't think intelligence is the best explanation for the first cell anymore than it is for the first mammal or the first plant. Life is a hierarchy of nested parts each within another from the multi-cellular down to individual molecules. The cell is most likely to have an evolutionary pathway itself just like animals or plants. Current estimations indicate multi-cellular lifeforms emerged 600 million years ago, single celled-life for roughly 2000 million before that.
@perrin6 There is not much point in discussing about evolution then, I mean, what problem can be bigger in evolution than the one there is in abiogenesis? ...and there are big problems in evolution.
Now, if some kind of technology, let say a complex system, is found in another planet, would you think that it must have evolved (not made by intelligence)?
If not, why do you think different about the first cell?
@naujphantom re: the first cell' - There's enormous evidence for evolution of animals & plants which means design is v.unlikely. Design/evolution of 1st cell are both possible until evidence of abiogenesis is discovered. No possibilities are completely ruled out. The likelyhood of design will reduce if evidence for cell evolution is accumulated. Likelyhoods are quanitified by scientific investigation. This is a good example of real open-mindedness.
@naujphantom Evidence for evolution that can't be evidence for ID; Anything that indicates long slow development of organisms diversifying with some becoming extinct and new groups developing from those that survive. Evidence that Earth is ancient and that life has been developing and changing for 4 billion years. Evidence eg that mammals are never found in rocks more ancient than those containing reptiles etc
@naujphantom Evolution is slow but all sorts of factors effect it such as how many individuals there are in a population. If the are many, then the number of potential beneficial mutations goes up within the interbreeding population. Climate change, disease, competition and predation all effect evolution rate. When I said it was 'slow' I meant 'slow' compared with our everyday experience.
@naujphantom - Indications of slow development ; a) studies of mutation rates b) studies on rates of sediment deposition c) radioactive dating of rocks indicating how old life is at all different points in it's development d) studies on species diversification. It's all out there in thousands upon thousands of research papers, if one cares to look.
@naujphantom "a) Mutation rates are theoretical an assumes evolution is true"
mutation rates can be measured and documented. No assumption needed. Simply project current rates while also taking into consideration population and environmental factors.
"b) Sediment deposition can be explained as a fast catastrophic events"
only in local events. There is no evidence of a global flood...in fact the searches for this by the religious are how the geologic record was first documented.
@stiimuli "mutation rates can be measured and documented. No assumption needed."
He was arguing that mutation rates prove slow development which proves evolution.
My point is that mutation rates prove slow development only if evolution is true, and therefore can't be taken as proof for evolution.
"There is no evidence of a global flood"
I didn't said global flood, theories attempt to explain things, a global flood can explain many things but many localized floods serve the same purpose.
@naujphantom "My point is that mutation rates prove slow development only if evolution is true, and therefore can't be taken as proof for evolution."
What alternative do you believe these mutation rates show?
Your statement is akin to saying continental drift rates prove movement only if plate tectonics is true therefore can't be taken as proof for plate tectonics.
You'r saying evidence of evolution cannot be used to prove evolution O_O
@stiimuli "What alternative do you believe these mutation rates show?"
The alternative is for these mutations to not be able to produce such a complex change required to turn a specie into a different specie and only to be able to produce variations between the same kind.
"is akin to saying continental drift rates prove movement only if plate tectonics is true"
Not at all, drift rates proves movement but not the amount of movement that occurred in the past.
@naujphantom "The alternative is for these mutations to not be able to produce such a complex change required to turn a specie into a different specie and only to be able to produce variations between the same kind."
That's a problem because not only does this happen we've observed and documented it happening in several species in the last century alone. Not to mention the genetic, morphologic, biologic and palentologic evidence that it happens in every known organism.
@stiimuli "That's a problem because not only does this happen we've observed and documented it happening"
Are you serious?
Can you give me an example of a specie that was observed to turn into a different specie that can not be interpreted as a variation between the same kind?
@naujphantom "Can you give me an example of a specie that was observed to turn into a different specie that can not be interpreted as a variation between the same kind?"
yes I can....if we can agree on practical definitions of species and "kind".
If you're looking for a Crocoduck I'm walking away right now.
@stiimuli "yes I can....if we can agree on practical definitions of species and "kind""
The problem is, will you agree with me or I would have to agree with you?
Moreover, besides definitions, this case should not be possible to be interpreted as a variation between the same kind because if it is possible then there is an alternative explanation.
@naujphantom "Moreover, besides definitions, this case should not be possible to be interpreted as a variation between the same kind because if it is possible then there is an alternative explanation"
So you ARE setting up conditions by which any example of speciation could be rejected even before an example is presented.
fine. why dont YOU tell me what would constitute a new species. Once again if you say something like a cat giving birth to a giraffe Im walking away.
@naujphantom "But my point is that ID can explain most of the cases as variation between the same kind unless the change is too big"
at what point is the change "too big"? Where is this magical dividing line? Where is the magical dividing line that you claim accumulation of genetic variation stops and cannot cross?
@naujphantom "ID neither evolution are falsifiable"
I've already listed for you ways that evolution is falsifiable AND explained how your objections to these were inadequate. To continue claiming evolution is unfalsifiable is an empty statement.
@naujphantom "Are you aware of the problem of species?
Yes, I am. Im also aware of creationist attempts to use this debate over classification to refute any presentation of observed speciation by simply saying "thats just a variation of a kind!" Guess what...EVERY organism is a variation of a kind.
Are you attempting to set up conditions by which a species cannot be reliably defined for the purposes of a youtube discussion? if you are that's pretty underhanded.
@stiimuli "I am. Im also aware of creationist attempts to use this debate over classification"
Do you realise that I can say the same about evolutionists?
"Are you attempting to set up conditions by which [...]"
It is evolution that states that an organism can turn into a very different organism so besides definitions the point here is the amount of change that it is possible.
Remember from where this discussion came from, to be proof of evolution it must show a big change.
@naujphantom "It is evolution that states that an organism can turn into a very different organism so besides definitions the point here is the amount of change that it is possible."
right, so in order for one to observe a speciation event in their lifetime a branching point must be agreed apon. A point at which one species deviates into two seperate species down two different genetic paths.
@naujphantom "Even if we observe that event, that event can be explained by both theories"
both explanations cannot be accurate. Only one can be demonstrated as such. Science uses the one that can be demonstrated.....the one that actually gets results.
"From ID POV organisms are machines with the built in capability to produce variations for adaptability."
this is simply adopting a tenant of evolution to lend scientific credibility.
@stiimuli "Science uses the one that can be demonstrated"
Are you saying that ID can't be demonstrated while evolution can?
"this is simply adopting a tenant of evolution to lend scientific credibility"
Evolution does not says such a thing, I am speaking of specific information to produce specific variations nothing similar to variations produced by random mutations.
@naujphantom "Remember from where this discussion came from, to be proof of evolution it must show a big change."
no it does not have to be. Using what we have learned about evolutionary biology we can observe a genetic branching point denoting the initial seperation of two species that were once a single species within our lifetimes.
@stiimuli "we can observe a genetic branching point denoting the initial seperation of two species that were once a single species within our lifetimes."
And how it cannot be that the organism has the capability to produce that variation?
And how that little change proves that we all came from a cell?
@naujphantom "And how it cannot be that the organism has the capability to produce that variation?"
because we know genetic variation builds apon itself producing greater genetic divergance over time. We also have found no magic barrier limiting this accumulation.
@stiimuli "because we know genetic variation builds apon itself producing greater genetic divergance over time"
For example: a liger is not a product of evolution, it is not the result of random mutations because the result is always a liger therefore it is not random it is a capacity to make this combination.
"We also have found no magic barrier limiting this accumulation"
@naujphantom "And how that little change proves that we all came from a cell?"
because projecting those genetic and biological lines back far enough leads to that (or a similar) conclusion based on the evidence. Is that conclusion absolute? Of course not! Its what the evidence is pointing towards so far.
@naujphantom "Not at all, drift rates proves movement but not the amount of movement that occurred in the past."
of course not...but it proves its occurring NOW and there's no indication it just started once we had the capability to measure it. In fact other observations such as the topography of the sea floor along plate boundaries.
Evolution has an even LARGER body of evidence to draw from and has been studied for LONGER than plate tectonics have.
"there's no indication it just started once we had the capability to measure it"
Nobody is arguing that, the questions are: when did it started? What caused it? Is it constant? what limits there are?
"Evolution has an even LARGER body of evidence"
Do you see my point?
Your base to say that it happened for million of years is evolution but you say that this happening for million of years is proof for evolution. (circular reasoning)
@naujphantom "Your base to say that it happened for million of years is evolution but you say that this happening for million of years is proof for evolution. (circular reasoning)"
I never once stated that evolution happening for millions of years was proof of evolution. I simply stated that there is a much larger body of evidence for evolution than there is for plate tectonics.
@stiimuli "I never once stated that evolution happening for millions of years was proof of evolution. [...] how did you get the former from the latter?"
Because this issue came from your objection to my objection to perrin6's statement that studies of mutation rates is proof of slow development and that slow development is proof of evolution.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
The very fact that god's existence needs to be unweaved by complex philosophy instead of simple and patent revelation (and I mean god coming down from the sky and perfoming a worldwide undeniable miracle) means one of two possibilities:
-God is too selfish and egotist that he expects everyone takes his word without ever saying one from his mouth.
-God doesn't exist...
pelaobaka 6 months ago
@pelaobaka Well, unless you come to me and give me one trillion dollars I'll believe you exist. How about that? On the other hand, maybe you just don't exist, and the comment you gave was like Neo-Darwinian evolution: an accident that appears to be designed but only by chance. LOL! Seriously, dude, you don't have to be all that sophisticated to know that Dawkins is wrong.
drcraigvideos 6 months ago
Why can't some people see that what makes hypothesis scientific are the methods employed....scientific methods. Thus, there is a distinction between the Big Bang hypothesis and a "God" hypothesis for an explanation of the origin of the Universe for instance. Of course the supernatural or faith could be studied scientifically in a science class.....but that's not what the i.d movement want's is it? They want it taught to Children as an irrefutable explanation. Irrefutability is'nt Science.
juz111 7 months ago
The fact that it is a scientific hypothesis doesnt mean it should be taught, it should be scrutinised. To teach is to present as fact, to plant ideas (supposedly knowledge).
Its rediculous to say "This is a scientific idea therefore teach it to people", youre ignoring the fact that no evidence definitively varifies it.
mehico33 7 months ago
This is shameless quote mining. Dawkins merely states that god could theoretically be proven or disproved by science. Science can potentially disprove that there is a teacup orbiting Pluto but it doesn't mean it deserves mention in a classroom.
swilson3d 9 months ago
"The Intelligent Design Hypothesis" Chapter of the science books would be nothing but a picture of a guy facepalming...
Raven596 11 months ago 7
fffffffffuuucking shit.. saying the universe came from my asshole is a scientific hypothesis and if half the world believed it it would qualify to be put in classrooms...
tdwp98 11 months ago 3
@tdwp98 Well, look, Dawkins said that the God Hypothesis is a scientific one (funny thing is, William Lane Craig said he wasn't sure if he agreed with that). But if you think that a *SCIENTIFIC* hypothesis doesn't belong in classrooms, then suit yourself. Would you have a problem with the Big Bang Hypothesis presented in a physics class? That's pretty close-minded. In the mean time, I do hope your asshole can poo something out more interesting than the thoughts of Richard Dawkins.
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
@tdwp98 Spot on.
juz111 7 months ago
Dawkins says that the it's a scientific claim and should be put to the rigors of scientific scrutiny. He can do this without fear because he knows the claim that God is, cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny. So if religious people claim that God belongs in the science class because it's science, it's very very easy to prove that it's a false theory and hence, not science, hence not allowed in the science class room.
hamstenator 1 year ago 9
@hamstenator LOL! That's some serious damage control for Dawkins, due. If it can't stand up to scientific scrutiny yet at the same time it's a scientific, I just don't see why you can't have it in class. In my science class we were taught that spontaneous combustion was refuted scienfitifcally yet we're still told this. I just don't see why the same can be said of ID then if it's the case it can be refuted.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos mate you are seriously confused about what "a scientific claim" is. A scientific claim, for example: Sating that ID is true does not make it a VALID scientitic theory. ID has been proven wrong over and over, hence it did not stand up to scientific scrutiny: It has been proven false and should not be taught in class rooms. If I claimed that led turned into gold if you boil it, that would be a scientific claim as well. But as it happens it's quite easy to disprove, much like ID.
hamstenator 1 year ago
@hamstenator Mate, you dodged everything I said, only just to reply with a flippant remark after I thoroughly refuted your first shallow comment. I (nor Dr. Craig) said ID was true. On the other hand, Dawkins said ID was scientific. So, why not let something scientific (albeit it may be easy to disprove but so what?) in class. That's just common sense.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos
In that case, we should teach intelligent falling since its a scientific theory.
starsoffyre 1 year ago
@starsoffyre *SHRUGS* ... okay.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@hamstenator
No, you're wrong. No one has proof of the beginning of the universe or life itself. Intelligent design will remain standing until someone can prove the beginning through purely scientific means, which to this point, is just as impossible as disproving God.
Intelligent design does not mean God exactly. Like Dawkins himself said, the Intelligent design could have come from an alien society that seeded earth. Yes, I know that is hard to believe, but design doesn't mean God by default
Curveball 1 year ago
Out of context. Read the full Paragraph.
The kind of religion that should be taught in classes should be the history of religion.
Almost every monotheistic religion has the same story, global flood, rebirth of savior after 3 days, the virgin birth... Just look for zeitgeist part 1 here on youtube and you'll realize that the zombie jew is just one of dozens of saviors with the same story leading right back to Egyptian times of set an anub.
777neotamakachi777 1 year ago
@777neotamakachi777 Did Richard Dawkins say that the God Hypothesis was a scientific one? Yes or No?
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos He wrote that if the god hypothesis is to be taken seriously, it should be solved in the realm of science by scientists as a scientific hypothesis. However there is nothing scientific about it. Saying it "is" a scientific hypothesis when he that if anything it "should be" studied in the realm of science and that those findings would be far more revealing than what the religion actually says and is about. there is a big diff. get a copy of the god delusion or fuckoff =3
777neotamakachi777 1 year ago
@777neotamakachi777 I have the copy. But since your conceded that Dawkins said it's a scientific hypothesis, then something scientific belongs in class, right? Please, try to be reasonable.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@777neotamakachi777 Zeitgeist is not a good example. Many of its claims are wrong.
grenangle 1 year ago
@grenangle True, many of the claims are exaggerated though the point they are making is true.
There are a LOT of similarities between xtianity and other age old religions.
The astronomical sequencing is the most revealing of all.
777neotamakachi777 1 year ago
The ether is also a scientific hypothesis, and don't forget phlogiston.
grenangle 1 year ago
@grenangle "The ether is also a scientific hypothesis, and don't forget phlogiston"
perfect examples from the dover trial =P
stiimuli 1 year ago
@grenangle Hey, all Dr. Craig is doing is repeating what Dawkins said. And Dawkins said the God hypothesis is a scientific one. Did he not?
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos And so are the examples I have given above.
grenangle 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos I will also add the flat earth theory and geocentrism for good measure.
grenangle 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos He did not. Get a copy of the book and read it yourself.
777neotamakachi777 1 year ago
Also scientific hypothesis do not attain validity in science classes....only through laborious research, testing and brutal peer review by the scientific community do they reach acceptance or rejection.
once again science CLASSES are for teaching what science has uncovered. Religion has absolutely no place there.
Simply get a religious teaching to survive the scientific method and become accepted by the scientific community and it will gladly be taught in science class.
stiimuli 1 year ago
except there is no point teaching hypothesis in classrooms. Only theories and facts.
Besides, the god hypothesis has already failed. Religion is faith (belief without evidence) and cannot be science until it becomes reasonable
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
Real Christians should resist this. If the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis, then who cares about faith? Faith would be a distraction at best.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 Faith isn't synonymous with fideism. That's a stereotype. Please don't underestimate Christians.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos I honestly did not know about fideism. I was about to reply, "Thank you for the information, I stand corrected," only to find that you had banned me from replying to this video. Banning people who honestly disagree does not make your position look very good, and isn't a very nice thing to do.
sulljoh2 1 year ago
@sulljoh2 I'm not "nice." I tend to ban people who have no real grasp of theology, philosophy, or science.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos Dr. Craig seems happy to talk to anybody. He wouldn't censor somebody who disagreed with him, even if they were ignorant of theology.
sulljoh4 1 year ago
@sulljoh4 I'm not Dr. Craig and I don't see how blocking ignorant trollish morons from commenting in my videos adds up to me wanting to throw the First Amendment of the Constitution in the trash. Don't censor your own mind from learning the truth, okay?
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
I get the impression that some people just have an innate sense that the physical world exists inside their mind. I wonder if there is a basic difference between people - a) those whose sense they are ''in a body ie. inside the world' (realists) & b) those who sense they are outside of the physical world (spiritists)- the latter naturally leaning towards a belief in a universal mind ie God. ??
perrin6 1 year ago
Anything can be a hypothesis. It does not make it to the status of Theory. The God hypothesis is untestable and unfalsifiable which is why it cannot even get off the ground.
TomSkorupski 1 year ago
@TomSkorupski Dawkins said the God hypothesis is scientific though. He didn't say anything can be a hypothesis. There's a difference. And ID is falsifiable: watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A. And just because something isn't falsifiable it doesn't mean it's false. Otherwise, the laws of logic wouldn't be rational to hold to.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos The Flagellum argument has been addressed(shot down), the eye and many others. What IDers keep putting forth item after item they see as irreducibly complex to them and ask other scientists to do the dirty work or shooting down the ideas rather that IDers coming up with proof that something is irreducibly complex. The argument by IDers is "It's so impossible to explain, therefore it must have been designed" By who? The God of the Bible of course because he's the real one.
TomSkorupski 1 year ago
@TomSkorupski LOL! If the "flagellum" argument has been shot down then it's falsifiable, genius. And if you actually understood ID, they don't say everything is designed. They say that whatever is designed must be specified. Hit the books, pal. You don't understand a thing about ID except what the critics tell you.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos IDer proposes "Flagellum" arg. Actual Scientists demonstrate how it is false. IDers move the goal post. That is why it is unfalsifiable, the standards of evidence for IDers is different than in real Science. A Pennsylvania Judge (Conservative, Bush Appointed) agrees. How about you hit the "history" books Pal. ID is re-branded Christian Science ie. something that should be left for Religion class. Google Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover School District, et al. for the ruling.
RedTomSki 1 year ago
@RedTomSki Better scientists understand that using the Type 3 Secretory system as a counterargument to the flagellum argument means ID is falsifiable. The fact that a dimwit like Bush appointed a Judge should tell you wonders about him. Furthermore, he's a judge not a scientist (and if you read his ruling he plagiarized it). Judges in the past said that women were not equal to men, were they correct? Judges in the past said black people were not equal to white people, were they correct?
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos When he says the idea of God is scientific he means it's a hypothesis that can be tested to see if it is true. Science taught in school tends to be that which has been rigorously tested by experts, if teachers spent time on scientific hypotheses that are unlikely to be true they would be wasting a lot of time. (Usual examples ; alchemy, astrology, Clairvoyancy, demonic posession as the cause of illness etc)
perrin6 1 year ago
Claims of psychic abilities can be tested scientifically but are not taught as science; they are not supported by evidence. Likewise, in order for creationism/ID to be taught in science class, we would need evidence showing it is a viable theory. Evolution is one of our strongest. It is up to the proponents of ID to provide a falsifiable hypothesis and evidence for that alternative theory. Amplifying gaps in our knowledge of evolution is not the same as providing evidence for ID or for any Gods.
chionactis1 1 year ago 6
@chionactis1 Something can't be falsifiable unless it's scientific. Dawkins said God is scientific. Why do damage control for him? Besides, ID is falsifiable: watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@chionactis1 Rupert Sheldrake has tested "psychic abilities" scientifically and found that there is, indeed, a legitimate phenomenon occurring. Check out his book, "The Sense of Being Stared At" for more information.
There's tons of evidence for ID if you adjust the lens (a.k.a. BIAS) from which you interpret it; it is rejected on ideological, not scientific, grounds of materialism/naturalism. W/ another lens, you can see vastly different scenarios for our traditional interpretations.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
"I find it ironic that Dawkins would actually be an ally of those who would testify in court cases that this belongs in the science classroom."
How incredibly deceitful.
robtbo 1 year ago
@naujphantom - "If evolution is science, intelligent design is science. But if I' am mistaken, please let me know what is the difference."
Big difference. Evolutionary processes have been tested and retested, & the results have been submitted to peer reviewed journals where other experts have checked the evidence & found it profoundly compelling. ID proponents have not been able to formulate even one hypothesis to test in the 20+ years since it was proposed. Evolution= real science ≠ ID
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30 When you say that evolutionary processes have been tested what do you mean?
If you mean that it has been tested that it is "possible" for random mutations and natural selection to produce beneficial changes the equivalent in ID does not need any testing because it is obviously true that it is possible for intelligence to produce beneficial changes.
If you want an argument for ID, do you think that it is valid a logical inductive and falsifiable argument based on empirical evidences?
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom According to CamW30 he has been blocked by drcraigvideos, I hope this can be solved soon, he has replied me be P.M. I will post his reply in the next message.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom "ID does not need any testing because it is obviously true that it is possible for intelligence to produce [...]"
So, you can just pull hypotheses out of a hat & claim them to be true? Evolutionary biologists can follow transitional features over 100s of thousands or millions of years (reptile jaw to middle ear) or the ability of microbes to digest plastic. We can show the development of genetic changes by comparing organisms and grouping them into clades, etc, etc
- CamW30
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom Not at all, I thought you would agree that it is possible for intelligence to produce beneficial changes but if you want proof what about genetically modified food?
About the transitional features, they can be interpreted as variations between the same kind or as completely different species on the ID perspective.
naujphantom 1 year ago
Comment removed
naujphantom 1 year ago
Comment removed
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom "it is possible for intelligence to produce beneficial change"
Touche! But, as you said, IDers interpret it as "variation among kind". The transitional features of the evolution of the middle ear is fascinating. Over 100s of millions of years the jaw of amphibians evolved into the middle ear in mammals.
Tetrapods -> Amphibians -> Reptilomorphs -> Amniotes -> Sauropsids -> Synapsids -> Pelycosaurs -> Therapsids -> Mammals
The above is not direct, but includes offshoots.
- CamW30
naujphantom 1 year ago
@CamW30 "IDers interpret it as variation among kind"
You are right, but then variations among kind are observable, no need for tests.
Also, if it is reasonable to say that because some changes are possible by evolution then all changes are, you can say the same for ID, if some parts can be designed, everything can...
Regarding the jaw, in ID, this can be view as similar design for similar purposes, moreover, punctuated equilibrium does not predict gradual changes.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@ExLuedenscheider - "I don't think history will be all that kind to Dawkins."
How will history treat quote-miners who distort the truth to deceive those with no real knowledge of the scientific processs.
CamW30 1 year ago
But where is the science in Intelligent Design? This whole debate is so sad. Dawkins is just pointing out that ID is devoid of any scientific credibility. ID was proposed in 1989, and since then not one testable hypothesis has come from the Discovery Institute &/or the ICR. If I were funding these guys I would be asking for my money back.
CamW30 1 year ago 6
@CamW30 ID is testable and falsifiable: watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A. Throw the propaganda away and start reading what ID proponents have to say about ID. Just reading what the critics say isn't helpful.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
The "God hypothesis" is indeed a scientific one, but does that mean that it should be taught in science classes? Is Craig saying that *ALL* scientific hypotheses should be taught in schools?
Does this include Alchemy? Flat Earth Theory? Geocentricity? The Four Humours theory? Spontaneous Generation? Eugenics? All of these are scientific hypotheses in the same way that intelligent design is; VERY BAD hypotheses, but scientific nonetheless. Should they be in the curriculum?
pmallon64 1 year ago
@pmallon64 " Is Craig saying that *ALL* scientific hypotheses should be taught in schools?" If you actually listened to this video, you'd know the answer to your question.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@pmallon64 He didn't say anything about those other ones. Just the God Hypotheses.
v33punk 1 year ago
@pmallon64 hahaha, eugenics is already taught there chuck.
tetrahydroscope 1 year ago
@pmallon64 Just some questions that crossed my mind:
How do we decide which hypothesis is bad and which is good?
What makes ID a bad hypothesis?
Why is ID a valid hypothesis but not a valid theory?
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom A scientific theory is quite different from a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been tested exhaustively by experts in the appropriate fields and found to fit with the evidence, and other already well-established theories. Anyone can form a hypothesis - it's just an 'idea' about what might account for a phenomenon.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 Yes, thanks, I understand that. But my question is:
Why it isn't valid as a theory? That is: if evolution is valid why not also ID?
Supposing that beneficial changes by means of random mutations and natural selection has been tested to be possible.
There is proof that beneficial changes are possible by means of intelligence too. For example in genetically modified food.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom ID isn't valid as a scientific theory because it hasn't sustained analysis by experts from all the appropriate fields. Evolution fits like many pieces of a jigsaw into the larger picture that science has ascertained over the centuries. Intelligent design has been shown to be a product of religious belief which is not based on science but on tradition - ie. the proponents already decided in advance that a creator exists rather than concluding this from evidence and observation.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 But the evidences and observations points to an intelligent designer not the other way as you said.
A theory must be considered by its own merits and not by how it aroused.
It isn't based on tradition, do you think that a logical inductive and falsifiable argument based on empirical evidence is valid in science?
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom re: 'evidences and observations points to an intelligent designer ' - not according to most scientists. Over centuries the search for knowledge has uncovered only natural causes - the wind is not God's breath but from differences in air pressure, lightning comes from electrons in atoms not from God's hand, atoms heavier than hydrogen are made in stars; The scientific process has produced real knowledge by assuming natural causes. Assuming intelligent causes produced no knowledge.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 ID does not imply God, an intelligent designer does not imply supernaturalism.
But your objection for supernaturalism depends on the definition of supernatural phenomena.
As I understand it, love and hate are supernatural or for example beauty is a metaphysical property. These things are causes for many effects.
Now, you can't prove that supernatural reality really exist just as you can't prove that the natural reality really exist.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom ' ID does not imply God ' - If you mean the designer could be alien creatures then we are left to explain how they came about. If they were made by other alien creatures and so on and so on, eventually we are left to either explain how designers could come about naturally or that the original designer sprang into existence fully formed, which seems the least likely option. As evidence points to long, slow development of life in an ancient universe, evolution seems most likely.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 I will use the word designer to refer to any kind of possible designer/s.
Science can't infer the origin of the designer since we don't know the properties of the designer.
Science should infer the cause of life based on the properties of life.
If we find a complex machine in another planet we would infer that it has been made by an intelligence based on its properties.
A cell is a complex machine and it is reasonable to infer intelligence as the cause.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom Science cannot infer anything; it can only provide data. It is philosophy and worldview that must then interpret that data. We infer; science cannot. We give the scientific method a mind of its own, yet science cannot postulate or form conclusions. Only minds can do that. :)
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley I agree with that, thanks. :)
Now, the position that I am trying to defend is: using the very own rules to rich true used for those who defend evolution:
If evolution is science, ID is science, if ID is not science, evolution is not science.
It is not to me to demonstrate that there is no difference.
He who claims that the difference is in favour of evolution should show that the difference is in favour of evolution.
The "I don't know the difference" position fits me very well.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom ' As I understand it, love and hate are supernatural or for example beauty is a metaphysical property ' Think of what emotion actually is ; a collection of sensual experiences such as various muscle tensions, images, smells, sounds etc both real and imaginary. For some reason we are tempted to see emotion as special but if we think about it, emotion is complex but not magic.
perrin6 1 year ago
@naujphantom ' As I understand it, love and hate are supernatural or for example beauty is a metaphysical property' - Think about what emotion is; a collection of physical & mental experiences ; muscle-tensions, sights, sounds, smells etc. As a whole emotion seems magical but although complex and sometimes unfathomable - they consist of nothing that might be called supernatural.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 Yes, I perfectly understand that you believe that love, hate, beauty, justice and even reason and logic are illusions in our mind.
Now, think about what the physical reality is: a collection of electric impulses in our brain.
What proof there is that the physical reality is not the illusion and the meta-physical the reality.
There are 3 position:
1. Only the external world exist.
2. Only the observer exist.
3. Both exist independently.
You can't prove neither. I choose the last one.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom re: ' external world & observer exist independently '. They're certainly different kinds of experience but can they be independent when one strongly influences the other eg. a thought can affect the whole world and an event in the world can trigger a thought. - no evidence the mind can exist without the brain - I dont believe in ghosts etc. The mind is a reflection of the world - like a complex mirror-taking sensory info, extracting it's essence & recombining it in new ways.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 "no evidence the mind can exist without the brain"
-No evidence that the world can exist without the mind.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?
Or take for example a dream, the world we see in our dreams ceases to exist as soon we wake up.
"The mind is a reflection of the world"
-I could say: the world is a reflection of our minds.
Remember, my position is that you can't prove this things.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom RE: 'no evidence the world can exist w/o the mind' - reminds me, I once thought either the mind is a product of the physical world or vice-versa. If a spirit-god created the physical universe, then physical things exist within spirit. Hence 2 possibilities ; complex mind existed first & produced the universe or the universe is basically simple and complexity arises naturally & gradually. The latter seems more likely to be true.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 "complex mind existed first [...] or the universe is basically simple and [...]"
You are assuming an absolute beginning, there is another option: an infinite chain of causes and effects.
But even on this view, you are assuming that a mind/conscience requires complexity.
Moreover you are only considering the mind causing the world or vice-versa.
They could have a different origin or maybe they always existed.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom - I don't believe in a beginning. If the big bang is right I think it must have emerged out of something simple like an energy field or whatever (I dont know much about physics!). Whatever this background state is I cannot see it as an intelligent spirit/mind because that would have to be incredibly complex for it to be able to construct life. As knowledge increases it's becoming more obvious that there is a hierarchy of simple elements combining to form complex things.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 Good, I neither believe in a beginning. Of-course it is a possibility but not the most reasonable in my opinion.
I think there is a confusion here, we both agree that complex things are made by simpler things (which is not the only option, since the level of complexity could be infinite)
Now, this does not implies that complex things arise from simpler things, there could be complexity that acts as a complexity giver.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom I would say complex things are made OF simpler things rather than BY simpler things. Complex things do make complex things - eg humans make computers. Yes I think it's possible that the first cell could have been made by something complex but as there is no evidence for this and there is evidence for gradual increase in complexity over time, we need to keep gathering evidence & formulating theories on cell evolution. If evidence for design is discovered then it can be analyzed.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 I don't know of any evidence of increase of complexity that can go from simple elements to anywhere near a simple cell and I think there is a lot of evidence of intelligence combining simple elements to form complex systems.
Consider the following logical inductive and falsifiable argument based on empirical evidences:
All systems with cycles that we know how are caused are caused by intelligence.
Therefore, all systems with cycles are caused by intelligence.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom Shouldn't there be 2 premises followed by a conclusion in a logical syllogism ? The premise is false anyway, How about cycles such as the seasons, the water cycle, the rock cycle etc - all natural.
The conclusion is invalid anyway - it should be 'therefore some systems with cycles are caused by intelligence. You cannot go from 'all systems we know of' to 'therefore all systems' because 'all systems we know of' is not the same as 'all'.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 "Shouldn't there be 2 premises"
No, that's in a deductive argument, this is an inductive argument.
"How about cycles such as the seasons"
I say "that we know", meaning that we observe (empirical evidence), seasons are cycles of system earth and we didn't observed how earth was caused.
Inductive arguments are the root of knowledge, for example, if you mix substances A and B and you get C, it is not until you do it many times that you say: always that we mixed [...], therefore [...]
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom re: 'seasons are cycles of system earth and we didn't observed how earth was caused ' - But we know seasons are a natural result of Earth's inclined axis in different parts of it's orbit around the sun, this is a seperate issue from Earth's origins. Even if Earth was designed, seasons would still be a natural result of Earth's inclined axis. Even if you construct a car engine it still works by natural laws. Once started, the engine works by itself, ie 'naturally'.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 But the argument does not refer to the cycle itself but to systems that have the cycles, it says:
"All systems with cycles"
You said:
"How about cycles such as the seasons"
Also note that it says cycles, plural.
Moreover, it does not refer to how it works once started, but to its cause.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom I am assuming a mind/conscience would have to be complex because I think it's obvious. If creationists think life is so complex it must have a designer surely they don't also think 'oh - but a conscious mind could be something simple' . Not only does a creator have to have a mind but it must also be able to manipulate the laws of physics to produce matter and shape it into living things. This incredible entity would have to be very complex indeed.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 This depends on how we define conscience, I don't mean conscience including everything that it needs to interact, like specific knowledge, etc...
I mean an essential aspect of conscience like for example a substance with the property of feeling.
Then conscience could combine with something else to have other properties.
But as I said, there is the possibility if there is an infinite amount of time, of a complexity that has always existed.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom (you mean 'consciousness' - 'conscience' is to do with feeling guilty eg; 'his conscience made him to do the right thing'). I don't know of any theories about what creates consciousness, but I think it exists to some degree in a lot of animals but humans' is very developed. It seems to be a function of more developed brains. Re: 'complexity always existing' - I've already stated why I think the cosmos is basically simple.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 The argument is something like this, if conscience is simple then it isn't complex as you said and if it is complex then it is composed of simpler parts as feeling, will, intuition, etc... and then this does not imply the spontaneous generation of something complex.
Of-course I think it is more reasonable a complexity that has always existed.
"I've already stated why I think the cosmos is basically simple."
But this complexity is formed by simpler parts.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom When humans don't understand something, we project what we already know onto the world. Human societies have always 'personified' the world, such as projecting mind onto other living things and even inanimate objects ie. tree spirits or mountain spirits. As we are concerned so much with social situations we relate to the world in social terms by projecting- 'mother Earth', 'Fatherland' & even sailors relating to their ship as a mother. God is just the ultimate expression of this.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 Well, if spirits exist, we have to see what has a spirit and what hasn't a spirit.
You are assuming that spirits don't exist or that the mind is only physical.
If we assume the contrary and we say that there are spirits or that there is a meta-physical aspect of the mind then we could say that we humans have a mind and animals have a mind, etc... and that God is the supreme mind.
Now, what reason there is to make an assumption instead of the other?
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom I don't think spirits(i.e minds) are physical - I just think they are a product of brains. A mind is what we experience rather than being physical. Minds are an 'experience of consciousness'. If there was a god where is his brain and what direct evidence is there that such a creature exists anyway? I see no reason to believe a mind can exist outside of a brain.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 But this is a consequence of the duality of the mind.
If you trust in your physical observations why don't you trust your meta-physical observations?
If the mind observe both physical and meta-physical phenomenons then it has a physical and meta-physical nature.
The brain is the physical aspect but the meta-physical is meta-physical and doesn't require the brain.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom re: your stated position of not being able to prove anything. I don't believe it's possible to prove any particular scenario is 100% correct, it is more a matter of what is more likely or less likely when different theories are put forward.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 We agree then, you can't prove this things.
Now, we have to see why naturalism is more likely true than supernaturalism.
But remember that this is not related to ID, since ID does not imply supernaturalism.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@perrin6 That's merely one interpretation of what constitutes or motivates emotion. Love & hate, etc., aren't necessarily supernatural, but they are, at least in part, beyond the realm of what science is equipped to address. They require postulations & conclusions, which puts them in part within philosophical and ideological territory. Science is very limited here; in fact, it is a tool of philosophical worldviews.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley I don't know. Philosophy has been partly eclipsed by science (eg. atoms were postulated by ancient Greeks but there's no way they could we certain they existed until science advanced enough and there are lots of examples of philosophical ideas that have just been consigned to the wastebin by science uncovering what is true - please dont ask me for examples though !) . I think philosophy is what we 'do' when we have no way of analyzing directly - i could be wrong though)
perrin6 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley re: ' Our experience of the mind is that it is different from the world '. What I was trying to say is that our mental experience consists of sensuality - our thoughts consist of imagined sounds in the form of a simulated voice, the mind's eye - ie imagined images, and all the other senses, plus remembered experiences, which are sensual too. There is a component of thought which seems to be 'above' sense - a sort of extracted essence of worldly things.
perrin6 1 year ago
@naujphantom re: 'theory must be considered by its own merits and not by how it aroused'; - Yes, and Intel design was thrown out because of it's lack of merits.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 Ok, could you tell me what merit is missing from ID but not from evolution?
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom; Irreducible complexity has been shown to lack merit as a hypothesis because organs can still be functional even with parts missing. The classic case is the eye which even Darwin admitted he didn't know how such a 'perfect' organ could evolve slowly, but there are many examples of functional eyes in different species that lack parts such as a lens and yet still work.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 Irreducible complexity tries to prove that ID is true, not only that it is possible.
To demonstrate that something is true is different from demonstrating that it is possible.
I don't know of an equivalent attempt from evolution to demonstrate that only evolution can be true.
Regarding the eye, evolution has no explication for the origin of the receptor (eye), the wiring and the interpretation system in the brain, you can't lack any of the three.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom re: 'Irreducible complexity tries to prove that ID is true' - that's interesting but I think ID proponents should also do experiments to demonstrate the existence of God. I know they don't refer directly to God but they all believe one exists as they are Christians. Why don't Christian scientists really look into using the scientific method to detect God ? The problem is that people believe in God for non-evidential reasons - its an emotional attachment rather than a rational one
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 "Why don't Christian scientists really look into using the scientific method to detect God?"
The "God exist" statement is not a scientific statement, it is a philosophical statement. There are philosophical reasons to make that statement.
In science we can infer a designer but a designer isn't necessary God.
Science is based on philosophical presuppositions and therefore depends on philosophy.
If science depends on philosophy we can't say that it has more authority than philosophy.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom re: ' evolution has no explication for the origin of receptor (eye), wiring & interpretation system in the brain, you can't lack any of the 3' - you have to go right back to a more simple sensory cell - nerve setup ie. a cell which produces an affect on a nerve that connects with other nerves and motor cells. The eye didnt evolve as a mammalian eye and then an optic nerve, then a brain, all 3 have been present since very early on ie. they evolved together.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 This does not contradict my statement, you are supporting my statement by saying:
"all 3 have been present since very early"
Also, in addition to the receptor, the wiring that must be properly connected to the receptor and the brain, and the interpretation system in the brain we also need the system in the brain to produce the correct response.
If we have everything but not producing the correct response it is all useless.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom All 3 elements were present early in animal evolution, but each element was in a simpler form such as 'sensory cell - sensory nerve cell - simple nerve network' Brains probably evolved only once there was sensory info to process. In humans, some sensory information is not even processed by the brain such as the pain reflex by the spinal chord.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 Note that I am not arguing about irreducible complexity, even if my position is similar it is not the same.
You can have a simple organism with a simple sensor cell and a simple nerve network and a simple interpretation system.
My point is: you need the emitter, the network, the receptor, the interpretation system and being able to produce a response.
This can't be produced by a single point mutation.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom I dont know much about the evolution of the senses and you would have to study pre- vertebrate animals to find out but even single-celled organisms respond to their environment without a nervous system so it seems reasonable that sensory cells evolved before the nerves arose and therefore before brains too.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 Even having sensory cells,
What is the use of a receptor (brain) without an emitter (terminal nerve)?
What is the use of an emitter without an interpretation system?
What is the use of an interpretation [...] if you can't produce a response?
But ok, you can always say: we don't have the answer yet.
ID doesn't have this problem since we know that intelligence is capable of combining unrelated elements to create functional systems.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@perrin6 I want to ask you this: Do you think that an intelligence is the best explanation for the first cell?
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom I don't think intelligence is the best explanation for the first cell anymore than it is for the first mammal or the first plant. Life is a hierarchy of nested parts each within another from the multi-cellular down to individual molecules. The cell is most likely to have an evolutionary pathway itself just like animals or plants. Current estimations indicate multi-cellular lifeforms emerged 600 million years ago, single celled-life for roughly 2000 million before that.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 There is not much point in discussing about evolution then, I mean, what problem can be bigger in evolution than the one there is in abiogenesis? ...and there are big problems in evolution.
Now, if some kind of technology, let say a complex system, is found in another planet, would you think that it must have evolved (not made by intelligence)?
If not, why do you think different about the first cell?
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom re: the first cell' - There's enormous evidence for evolution of animals & plants which means design is v.unlikely. Design/evolution of 1st cell are both possible until evidence of abiogenesis is discovered. No possibilities are completely ruled out. The likelyhood of design will reduce if evidence for cell evolution is accumulated. Likelyhoods are quanitified by scientific investigation. This is a good example of real open-mindedness.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 When you say "evidence", do you mean evidence that it is possible or evidence that it has happened?
If it is the first, that does not rule out ID, since there is evidence that intelligence can produce beneficial changes.
If it is the last, please show me what evidence there is for evolution that can't be taken also as evidence for ID?
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom Evidence for evolution that can't be evidence for ID; Anything that indicates long slow development of organisms diversifying with some becoming extinct and new groups developing from those that survive. Evidence that Earth is ancient and that life has been developing and changing for 4 billion years. Evidence eg that mammals are never found in rocks more ancient than those containing reptiles etc
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 All this can be explained by ID:
-No evidence indicates slow development, actually, punctuated equilibrium is proposed to explain the lack of gradualism in the fossil record.
-A young Earth is a problem for evolution but an old Earth is not a problem for ID.
-The rocks are usually dated by the fossils.
You can google for: 29 Evidences for Macroevolution critique
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom Evolution is slow but all sorts of factors effect it such as how many individuals there are in a population. If the are many, then the number of potential beneficial mutations goes up within the interbreeding population. Climate change, disease, competition and predation all effect evolution rate. When I said it was 'slow' I meant 'slow' compared with our everyday experience.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 Ok, if you meant that, what is the evidence then of, in your own words: "Anything that indicates long slow development"
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom - Indications of slow development ; a) studies of mutation rates b) studies on rates of sediment deposition c) radioactive dating of rocks indicating how old life is at all different points in it's development d) studies on species diversification. It's all out there in thousands upon thousands of research papers, if one cares to look.
perrin6 1 year ago
@perrin6 a) Mutation rates are theoretical an assumes evolution is true.
b) Sediment deposition can be explained as a fast catastrophic events.
c) Radioactive dating of rocks has been falsified many times, google for: proslogion half-lives
d) If you mean studies of species diversification by evolutionary means, this in itself can't be taken as evidence since assumes evolution is true.
A million invalid arguments don't worth one valid argument. We should focus on the quality, not on the quantity.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom "a) Mutation rates are theoretical an assumes evolution is true"
mutation rates can be measured and documented. No assumption needed. Simply project current rates while also taking into consideration population and environmental factors.
"b) Sediment deposition can be explained as a fast catastrophic events"
only in local events. There is no evidence of a global flood...in fact the searches for this by the religious are how the geologic record was first documented.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "mutation rates can be measured and documented. No assumption needed."
He was arguing that mutation rates prove slow development which proves evolution.
My point is that mutation rates prove slow development only if evolution is true, and therefore can't be taken as proof for evolution.
"There is no evidence of a global flood"
I didn't said global flood, theories attempt to explain things, a global flood can explain many things but many localized floods serve the same purpose.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom "My point is that mutation rates prove slow development only if evolution is true, and therefore can't be taken as proof for evolution."
What alternative do you believe these mutation rates show?
Your statement is akin to saying continental drift rates prove movement only if plate tectonics is true therefore can't be taken as proof for plate tectonics.
You'r saying evidence of evolution cannot be used to prove evolution O_O
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "What alternative do you believe these mutation rates show?"
The alternative is for these mutations to not be able to produce such a complex change required to turn a specie into a different specie and only to be able to produce variations between the same kind.
"is akin to saying continental drift rates prove movement only if plate tectonics is true"
Not at all, drift rates proves movement but not the amount of movement that occurred in the past.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom "The alternative is for these mutations to not be able to produce such a complex change required to turn a specie into a different specie and only to be able to produce variations between the same kind."
That's a problem because not only does this happen we've observed and documented it happening in several species in the last century alone. Not to mention the genetic, morphologic, biologic and palentologic evidence that it happens in every known organism.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "That's a problem because not only does this happen we've observed and documented it happening"
Are you serious?
Can you give me an example of a specie that was observed to turn into a different specie that can not be interpreted as a variation between the same kind?
Are you aware of the problem of species?
Google for: species problem
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom "Can you give me an example of a specie that was observed to turn into a different specie that can not be interpreted as a variation between the same kind?"
yes I can....if we can agree on practical definitions of species and "kind".
If you're looking for a Crocoduck I'm walking away right now.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "yes I can....if we can agree on practical definitions of species and "kind""
The problem is, will you agree with me or I would have to agree with you?
Moreover, besides definitions, this case should not be possible to be interpreted as a variation between the same kind because if it is possible then there is an alternative explanation.
So what is this organism?
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom "Moreover, besides definitions, this case should not be possible to be interpreted as a variation between the same kind because if it is possible then there is an alternative explanation"
So you ARE setting up conditions by which any example of speciation could be rejected even before an example is presented.
fine. why dont YOU tell me what would constitute a new species. Once again if you say something like a cat giving birth to a giraffe Im walking away.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "why dont YOU tell me what would constitute a new species"
But my point is that ID can explain most of the cases as variation between the same kind unless the change is too big.
It could be in many generations in a lab.
That would falsify the current state of ID but ID can be accommodated to that finding my position is that ID neither evolution are falsifiable.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom "But my point is that ID can explain most of the cases as variation between the same kind unless the change is too big"
at what point is the change "too big"? Where is this magical dividing line? Where is the magical dividing line that you claim accumulation of genetic variation stops and cannot cross?
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "at what point is the change "too big"?"
While ID could be adapted just as evolution to fit any evidence the current state would be like any to any of the following major groups:
insect, plant, mammal, reptile, bird, fish, etc...
And more specifically any to any of:
canine, feline, bear, wale, elephant, mouse, horse, falcon, crocodile, penguin, hippopotamus, turtle, crab, pulp, shark, giraffe, ostrich, platypus, bat, duck, hen, cow, pig, serpent, etc...
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom "ID neither evolution are falsifiable"
I've already listed for you ways that evolution is falsifiable AND explained how your objections to these were inadequate. To continue claiming evolution is unfalsifiable is an empty statement.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "I've already listed for you ways that evolution is falsifiable"
I already answered them all but what I am trying to say is that evolution in its core is not falsifiable, not just some aspects of it.
For example imagine that it is proven that ID is true, we have it on tape, an intelligence did it, it was filmed millions of years ago.
Evolutionist could just say that this intelligence must have evolved in some other planet.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom "So what is this organism?"
sorry, Im not going to let the goalposts get moved. We must first agree on a definition.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@naujphantom "Are you aware of the problem of species?
Yes, I am. Im also aware of creationist attempts to use this debate over classification to refute any presentation of observed speciation by simply saying "thats just a variation of a kind!" Guess what...EVERY organism is a variation of a kind.
Are you attempting to set up conditions by which a species cannot be reliably defined for the purposes of a youtube discussion? if you are that's pretty underhanded.
if not lets continue.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "I am. Im also aware of creationist attempts to use this debate over classification"
Do you realise that I can say the same about evolutionists?
"Are you attempting to set up conditions by which [...]"
It is evolution that states that an organism can turn into a very different organism so besides definitions the point here is the amount of change that it is possible.
Remember from where this discussion came from, to be proof of evolution it must show a big change.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom "It is evolution that states that an organism can turn into a very different organism so besides definitions the point here is the amount of change that it is possible."
right, so in order for one to observe a speciation event in their lifetime a branching point must be agreed apon. A point at which one species deviates into two seperate species down two different genetic paths.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "right, so in order for one to observe a speciation event in their lifetime a branching point must be agreed apon"
I think you don't understand my point, maybe it is my fault.
Even if we observe that event, that event can be explained by both theories.
If it is evolution it would be seeing as a step in evolution if it is ID it will be a variation.
From ID POV organisms are machines with the built in capability to produce variations for adaptability.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom "Even if we observe that event, that event can be explained by both theories"
both explanations cannot be accurate. Only one can be demonstrated as such. Science uses the one that can be demonstrated.....the one that actually gets results.
"From ID POV organisms are machines with the built in capability to produce variations for adaptability."
this is simply adopting a tenant of evolution to lend scientific credibility.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "Science uses the one that can be demonstrated"
Are you saying that ID can't be demonstrated while evolution can?
"this is simply adopting a tenant of evolution to lend scientific credibility"
Evolution does not says such a thing, I am speaking of specific information to produce specific variations nothing similar to variations produced by random mutations.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom "Remember from where this discussion came from, to be proof of evolution it must show a big change."
no it does not have to be. Using what we have learned about evolutionary biology we can observe a genetic branching point denoting the initial seperation of two species that were once a single species within our lifetimes.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "we can observe a genetic branching point denoting the initial seperation of two species that were once a single species within our lifetimes."
And how it cannot be that the organism has the capability to produce that variation?
And how that little change proves that we all came from a cell?
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom "And how it cannot be that the organism has the capability to produce that variation?"
because we know genetic variation builds apon itself producing greater genetic divergance over time. We also have found no magic barrier limiting this accumulation.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "because we know genetic variation builds apon itself producing greater genetic divergance over time"
For example: a liger is not a product of evolution, it is not the result of random mutations because the result is always a liger therefore it is not random it is a capacity to make this combination.
"We also have found no magic barrier limiting this accumulation"
Which, if true, doesn't mean there is no limit.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom "And how that little change proves that we all came from a cell?"
because projecting those genetic and biological lines back far enough leads to that (or a similar) conclusion based on the evidence. Is that conclusion absolute? Of course not! Its what the evidence is pointing towards so far.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "because projecting those genetic and biological lines back far enough leads to that (or a similar) conclusion based on the evidence"
Single point mutation can explain all the complexity and punctuated equilibrium has not been demonstrated.
Moreover, proving that it is possible does not proves that it is true.
We also know that intelligence can produce little changes, using the same logic we can say that it can produce the whole.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom "Not at all, drift rates proves movement but not the amount of movement that occurred in the past."
of course not...but it proves its occurring NOW and there's no indication it just started once we had the capability to measure it. In fact other observations such as the topography of the sea floor along plate boundaries.
Evolution has an even LARGER body of evidence to draw from and has been studied for LONGER than plate tectonics have.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "but it proves its occurring NOW"
Of-course.
"there's no indication it just started once we had the capability to measure it"
Nobody is arguing that, the questions are: when did it started? What caused it? Is it constant? what limits there are?
"Evolution has an even LARGER body of evidence"
Do you see my point?
Your base to say that it happened for million of years is evolution but you say that this happening for million of years is proof for evolution. (circular reasoning)
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom "Your base to say that it happened for million of years is evolution but you say that this happening for million of years is proof for evolution. (circular reasoning)"
I never once stated that evolution happening for millions of years was proof of evolution. I simply stated that there is a much larger body of evidence for evolution than there is for plate tectonics.
how did you get the former from the latter? O_o
stiimuli 1 year ago
@stiimuli "I never once stated that evolution happening for millions of years was proof of evolution. [...] how did you get the former from the latter?"
Because this issue came from your objection to my objection to perrin6's statement that studies of mutation rates is proof of slow development and that slow development is proof of evolution.
naujphantom 1 year ago