Another thing to consider is that parts can be removed as well as added. So the evolutionary pathway for an irreducibly complex system wouldn't just contain the addition of parts and changes in function, but also the removal of parts.
Consider the construction of a stone archway that's held together by its own weight. It can't be done by just adding stones one at a time, but if you add a support structure, then take it away once the arch is built, you now have an irreducibly complex structure.
At some point, this intelligent designer decided that we should eat, breathe, and talk all through the same hole, and that our social structure should require that we do all three at the same time.
I wouldn't call intelligent design having my most sensitive area (My testicles) exactly at the middle of my legs wide open to any kind of attack, where any girl could easily kick them and inflict pain. XD
Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
Friends now it's time to decide. Jesus Christ declared 2000 years ago that I AM THE WAY, I AM THE TRUTH AND I AM THE LIFE. These claim were made by only one Man, He is Jesus Christ. Now you have to decide in your heart, whether Jesus was liar or He really is THE WAY, TRUTH and LIFE. Only by Faith, you can accept Him as your Savior. Judgement of God for all sinners in on the way. Recognize by looking present situation on this world. Earthquake, tsunami, tornado, flood, sickness, crime and recess
@samaroo96 Recognize by looking at present situations on this world. Earthquake, tsunami, tornado, flood, sickness, crime and recess??? Tornado's where in this country before christianity was, 81% of earthquakes happen in the ring for fire, floods/tsunamis have been going on for billions of years. You make no sense at all. All the things you mention are part of what makes the world the dynamic ever changing planet it is and will do so long after the CANCER that is christianity is dead
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
Michael Behe's definiton is purposely vague and unreasonable. "Take one part out and the system will not fulfill its purpose." First of all, part is not a scientific term. Second, body parts are not like Jenga Towers. Randomly taking out molecules, tissues, etc and expecting the structure to function is just stupid. Creationist result to nitpicking and wordplay to make their points.
A basic knowledge of biology will throw the idea of intelligent design out of the window. Just a few points, if YOU were going to design a human, would YOU make the pipe that takes in air sit right next to the one that takes in food thus allowing choking? It doesn't sound very intelligently designed to me.
Evolution goes from generalization to specialization. A group of proteins that function dependently together are not dependent in the past. They are independent of each other, carrying out other function. It is via evolution that these components become dependent on each other. An example is the spliceosome for splicing pre-mature RNAs. This complex has been growing bigger and bigger due to complexes coming together and becoming dependent. This is elementary 4th year biology stuff.
I truly believe scientists *will* figure out the answer to multiverse ideas, and probably much sooner than we think. If you simply read an astronomy 2 textbook, you will see the sheer determination and brilliance of modern physicists. The next move for the "religilous" will be to move god into another universe, naturally. Once we know about other universes, people like WLC will no longer use the space-time-less spoof, as they will have a new piece of science to ravage.
The only way god could exist seemingly would be in terms of a multiverse. There would have to be some space outside of our universe; it is trivial and meaningless to say (ASSume) he is spaceless and timeless. Asserting that is to throw out everything we know about physics, existence, and even philosophy. However, the problem then is that if other universes do exist, they themselves are a MUCH better explanation for the existence of the singularity that became our universe.
@baldurus if a god existed in a closed space from -infinite time until creation, his will could have merely called for a larger space than what he originally inhabited. He could have simply made his space larger and placed the universe in it. I am an atheist and am always searching for better arguments against creation, but this may be refuted with a little thinking(in which case, go nuts with creationists. You won't have a problem (; )
I swear, living in America has become a total embarrassment, I am more compelled than ever to immigrate to the UK so I can watch this country descend into the black hole of ignorance from a safe distance.
intelligent design? anyone who believes in that has never tried to take a piss whilst they have a boner, there is nothing intelligent about that design (><)
@walruscrowface - LOL. I had a friend (female) try to explain to me that it is actually impossible to do this. I told her that generally it is rough, but if you're not trying to aim downward at a toilet (such as when you're camping and peeing outdoors) then it is uncomfortable but possible. And she kept insisting that I was wrong. And I was like, "Damn it, woman, I've DONE it!"
@walruscrowface no need for intelligent design...at least in my case...gravity forces it to be not a problem, with such a large mass involved, gravity must hold sway.
God exists, that's the accepted claim by the majority of people, you want to challenge that, bring the evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU. Some narrow minded atheist proposed the wrong notion that atheism doesn't require evidence and many gullible atheists had run to foolishly embrace it. Philosophically the burden of proof is in the argument challenging the establishment. What evidence you have that atheism is true? None, zero, nada. Open your eyes, you're being deceived by an evil cult.
@deadlychickenxop You are an idiot. Give me one reason why thats not intelligently designed. Plus, it has nothing to do with the Bible, it has to do with counter evolutionism
You only know that something is designed because you have something to compare to.
Biology "designs" itself. Prove otherwise then you have a case that counter-acts evolution. And since evolution is a fact, you must have some pretty incredible proof. And a youtube video doesn't count as proof. You need peer reviewed papers that go through the same rigor that evolution has.
@Phaze252 No you dont. Itsn ot because of comparison. Theyve done studies on this. Biology doesnt design itself, as it doesnt have a mind. Now.....more than anything about biology, I get most angry when people claim evolution to be a fact. It is not. Even if it was true, it cant be. you werent there. Just what if a God had made a world in which he leaves evidence of evolution just to trick people and created everything? See it cant be a fact. Not that i believe such nonsense, or that evolution
This is going to be a hefty answer. So I'll try not to equivocate anywhere and pick this apart piece by piece.
First, it is determined by comparison. You must know that this does not naturally occur such as a watch in a forest to say, "This was designed by someone" or even a painting. Otherwise you have no frame of reference to say if it's natural or unnatural. You can't study if it's designed if you have never seen something that is designed. You'd assume it's natural
The superfluous amount of evidence can't be ignored. Considering we've reproduced it countless times in labs. Such as breeding a bird for a specific color or other trait. And even in humans how if your mother has brown eyes and your father has brown eyes. You most likely will have brown eyes. That's really what evolution is on a small scale basis. Traits that get passed on. On a large scale, the results are hard to fathom because of the time span.
And not only that we have a multitude of DNA testing that can easily match us all to a common ancestor which has been dubbed "Ancestral Eve" in some cases. And even the fact our DNA is comparable to every other organism alive on this planet.
If your talking about fossils and why we're missing quite a lot, well you answered your own question partially. But there's also a fossil black-market that might be hoarding quite a few of the links we're searching for...
But the fossils are abundant and we do have transitional fossils. But just because we don't have them ALL doesn't mean there's a hole in the theory. That's analogous to "Well, I don't have video footage from my birth to my 16th birthday, so I guess it didn't happen" That's absurd.
I recommend you to peruse through the Wikipedia page on Evolution as well as talkorigins (org). To get an actual understanding of this actual simple process.
@Phaze252 does have evidence. It doesnt. You cant prove origins. You cant. And evolution has so many holes. Why are there SO many missing links? (dont tell me its because that species didnt fossilize) because we find fossils of pretty much every animal that exists today. And theyre supposed to be recent. We even find fossil pools. (flood). Obviously i dont expect you to believe me based upon what im saying. But tell me, how did the bacterial flagellum produce so many motor exclusive parts, 10 of
For the bacterial flagellum. It's a misconception that it's irreducible. Just like the eye, wings, or anything.
To use a quick analogy...
If you watch T.V in our modern time, we have a myriad of channels and vibrant color, H.D, Flat screens that don't work off low refresh rate CRTs (bubble screens) that damage our eyes.
Well, surely we didn't start off with all these lovely additions did we? Might of started off with one channel, colorless, dull, and pernicious to eyes.
However, the fact that over-time we had the ability to think of new ideas and make the picture better, incorporate more channels and so forth, we created something that is now, wonderfully complex and vivid.
This compares to the flagellum because of the fact you're looking at the aftermath of what is created and just standing in awe and not using any decent reasoning to figure out if it had a previous state.
Now the actual flagellum has been proven not to be irreducibly complex in an experiment done by Zvonimir Dogic. He showed that hairs only containing two proteins present in every eukaryote cell could produce a motor effect which is a strong case for it not being irreducibly complex. And with the more plausible fact it could have evolved from a Type 3 Secretion system, which contains many of the flagellum's basic parts. It could have evolved by means of exaptation into a motor
And the evolution into a motor would have started out bit-by-bit all with useful functions until it came into what we see now. Something that appears irreducibly complex.
And even if it didn't have a function, natural selection would still carry it on. It doesn't kill off all useless parts, other wise we wouldn't have an appendix (It's slowly going away though). But exaptation explains how it could have evolved from a different system.
@Phaze252 the 50 had a seperate function (claimed) but how do you get 40 parts that are MOTOR EXCLUSIVE into natural selection.....? you cant. try to explain it to me. how did it get a tail? If it wasnt spinning it wouldnt be an advantage and therefore would be invisible to natural selection. Answer me athiest.
@baldurus1 That is a weak argument. According to most theists God exists outside of space and time. This negates your arguments in the eyes of theists.
I am an atheist and I am pointing this out because we must hold ourselves to higher standards than the theists. The theist argument falls apart because they cannot provide any evidence for God.
@Hyperplaterine Something can not exist in nothing! Not even a god. Do you understand what "outside of space and time" means? Nothing with ANY properties can "exist" outside of space and time. There is NO outside of space and time, it doesn't exist. If god does "exist" outside of space and time, god would have the same properties=nothing.
@baldurus1 I said "according to theists" not according to me.
However, if you want to be pedantic, the multiverse theory (which many scientists propound) would suggest there are other universes outside of our time and space.
@Hyperplaterine Then they already exist, and there is no need for a god to create something that already exists. If other "Universes" exist, our Universe would not be closed. Our time and space would be a part of the multiverse. Only if there is nothing "outside" of our Universe can we talk about our time and space.
@baldurus1 Mathematics exists and that doesn't need any space... just because you can't disprove something yet doesn't mean it's fact... we don't know yet of anything tangible which doesn't need space to exist but it doesn't mean your point 1 is true
@RobBrooksMusic Math doesn't exist in nothing, there is nothing to extrapolate from nothing. Nothing literally means nothing.
Also the common attributes associated with any gods are all logical fallacies and/or contradictions.
Like omnipotence which is a contradiction within itself, coupled with any other omni and you really start to go down a slippery slope. Omnipotence+omnibenevolence=logical fallacy, if god can't be evil he can't be omnipotent and vice versa.
@baldurus1 If all humans were suddenly extinct, it would still be a fact that 1+1=2... one planet, and one moon orbiting, would equal two bodies... of course there would be no humans to give names like "one" or "two" but the fact would still remain... what space does that fact take up? It isn't a physical thing made of atoms... how do we destroy the fact?
You said "If something exists, it MUST have a place of it's existence." - I'm just saying... prove it... ("no counter-proofs" isn't proof)
@RobBrooksMusic Actually space is composed of energy and matter, without energy and matter you can't have space. Even "empty" space has energy(CBR cosmic background radiation).
Yes, without humans 1+1 would equal 2. But not without space and time, there would be nothing to be added up. You could argue that the concept would still be valid, but a concept requires a mind and a mind requires space.
If god had a rubber ball before space/time, where would he put the ball before creating space/time?
@RobBrooksMusic But a rubber ball is only one example, if you only think of tangible physical objects of course you need atoms and room for them to exist etc... but yes I argue that a concept would still exist, and like you said (before a concept requires a mind): without humans 1+1=2
If something akin to a god did "create" a universe, then the idea of space, time, maths etc must exist before they are realised
@baldurus1 I'm not arguing against your thesis, just your premise that god must exist in space-time to exist at all. The microscopic quantum realm is just as real as macroscopic space-time, but their natures are radically different, and also your mistaken assumption space-time is static. It's kind of like one of those 0=1 arguments, looks good on the surface, but the premise(s) are skewed to favor the result.
@BrokenAeroVT Even at a quantum level there is space(dimensions) and time, and a god can only act within the space not "outside" space(outside space doesn't exist). When have i ever claimed space/time to be static?
And ultimately it's not about gods properties, it has got to do with the physical properties of the Universe which creates the dilemma. If god can't put a rubber ball in nothing he can't create space in nothing.
@baldurus1 Dilemmas? Or a misperceptions created by the different hemispheric thinking in the brain thinking exclusively of each other? You said space-time was static when space-time wasn't being "created"--always existed as it is.
@baldurus1 That's exactly my point. Space-time is being created. By what or whom is another argument altogether, but it doesn't oppose the first. Singularities and infinity do not have dimension. Where is there "space" for that in your argument? What is space-time expanding into, and if it is outside the space-time continuum, does it exist without space-time? I'm just pointing out that your definitions of space and time are too loose/nebulous to make a solid argument.
@BrokenAeroVT I think you have misunderstood when physics talk about singularities and the "beginning" of space time at the Big Bang.
They mean our time and space began with the Big Bang, not time and space itself.
And yes, a singularity does have dimensions and physical properties. All space exists "inside" the singularity just like all space exist "inside" the Universe. Actually talking about an inside is wrong because that would imply that there was an outside which there isn't.
@BrokenAeroVT A singularity is not 3 dimensional as we know space to be, but it's not dimensionless. Also infinite refers to time not space, an infinite can be limited in size yet infinite in existence.
I'm not claiming facts here, like i said before. An infinite Universe is the only scenario that does not contain any contradictions or break any laws of physics(like being created out of nothing).
@baldurus1 The majority consensus among scientists is, that there was "nothing" then there was an expanding universe, but no one said that it was made out of nothing. It's your loose definition of nothing that is creating your conundrum. If you were to take your proof to legitimate physicists, u would immediately be told "that's just philosophy--u aren't going to prove anything in physics that way." That's the lesson I received from a physicist researcher while attending a major US university.
@BrokenAeroVT Again i have not claimed proof or evidence.
And among which scientists is there a consensus that there was nothing before an expanding Universe?
Again when we physicists talk about the "beginning" of space/time at the Big Bang, we mean the beginning of our space and time not space and time itself.
You can't make any proof claims about what was before the Big Bang because all information about any previous states was lost in the singularity(like a black hole).
@baldurus1 I am not going to list names I have no space for while you play a silly little game of word weaseling. What I said is understood about majority consensus is academic.
Your premise is flawed thus your conclusion is flawed. u can't presume on the nature of a god who by religious definition exists outside space time in a dream like domain and require spacial characteristics of this alleged entity anymore than you can require spacial characteristics to a dreamscape.
@BrokenAeroVT Have you read anything i have written?
How could i presume anything about something i don't believe exists?
I've told what would be required physically to "create" space, and the properties of space and time.
Religious definition has no bearing on whether or not something is real. I think you're taking my cosmological argument that i originally posted as a joke a bit too serious, it's there to demonstrate the fallacies of the kalam cosmological argument. But the premises are sound.
@baldurus1 Listen *sshole. I already made the distinction between philosophy and science as the basis for demonstrating that your "proof" is no proof at all. An ad hominem implying I'm some kind of idiot because *in your mind* I can't make the distinction is not going to lessen the inadequacy of your proof.
@BrokenAeroVT I never claimed positive proof, again it's a spoof on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
It's to show the flaws in the premises. But unlike the KCA my arguments are physically sound. Something can not exist in nothing and if you claim otherwise you need to demonstrate it. I didn't call you an idiot, that's like saying that a neurologist is an idiot for not knowing what spin a u-quark has. I'm just questioning your knowledge of physics.
@baldurus1 I know what you're up to, and your quite practiced at distorting word to twist reality, which is what you have done in your "proof". Questioning my knowledge of physics has nothing to do with the structure of your proof. This redirection is what it is, redirection away from that fact.
@BrokenAeroVT I'm seriously getting tired of this and you can go troll somewhere else. If you are incapable of a mature serious debate without turning hostile and degrading i'm not interested.
If you can continue in a serious and mature fashion please continue and i on my part apologize if i have offended you.
I know a lot of people who don't know the difference and i don't question their intelligence in the slightest, in fact i know most of them are a heckofalot smarter than i am.
@baldurus1 I'm not trying to say there is an "outside", I'm saying that your definitions are equally loose as suggesting there is a "space" outside space-time in which the universe is expanding. Philosphical argument is inadequate for proof. Scientific theories are initially philosophy. What makes them science is the examination of concrete evidence to support the theory. Right now, the majority scientific consensus is that space-time was not, then was and continues to expand.
@baldurus1 "If space has always existed there is no need for a god"? It might help to understand the basics of God essence as described in bible.
1) First God is a spirit.
2) God lives in spiritual world.
3) God created the universe, our world and even space from the spiritual world.
What is the spiritual world? It's a place of which we cannot see or touch; so it must be not of this world! Don't believe in other worlds? See: "String" theory and other dimensions based on mathematical models.
these guys are in utter and dogmatic denial, its very painfull to watch, believeing in desing does NOT make one religious, that depends on to what the desing is attributed!
It is not out of the question that at some point, maybe even in my lifetime, scientists will determine exactly how life originated on the Earth, and replicate it in the lab. It is also possible that physicists and cosmologists will figure out exactly how the Big Bang happened. These are the last two holes that God could be hiding in. If these two big mysteries are solved, what possible justification would there be for believing in God?
@DandAinTac the only justification is if you WANT to believe in god... if it gives you compfort to believe in one.. but one should never push their opinions on others.
@bdubu33 Possibly, but it would have no truth value. It would be like saying: "it gives me comfort to believe in that Elvis is still alive--therefore..."
As Sam Harris has noted, anyone who would espouse such a view in a serious setting would pay an immediate price in ill-concealed laughter. This is where religion needs to be in our public discourse.
If humans are made in the immage of God, than God is seriously messed-up.
The lens of the human eye is backwards, many people do not have room in their mouths for their Wisdom teeth, so that when they come in, they have to be removed, otherwise they warp the position of the other teeth, memory is highly flawed, male genitals are outside the body, then there's the hyman, the appendix, the menstrual cycle, widespread lack of empathy, the birth canal is too narrow, birth-defects, Alzheimer's...
What I hate about gods people is they refuse to believe they came from the mother earth land and are related to the animals.....they believe they can transfer their statues on earth into heaven..... DEATH is the great equillizer.... When U dead U fuk'n GONE !
@aierce true science can no more confirm or deny a creator, what creator a god a pantheon, who’s to say your faith, in a supernatural entity might be a load of horse shit you can’t prove it’s not. Belief in the supernatural as an explanation negates the fact that there is no one world view on who the creator(s) are. Science deals with facts while religion due to faith/bias does not hold water due to a scientific critique. The onus is with you to prove your god opposed to the Hindu ones.
you are a robot, you can't understand science and religion are completely two different things. Trying to deny religion with science is just as stupid and absurd with trying to support religion with science.
@aierce really, are you shitting me here. Firstly clarify what religion is the truth they cant all be there are hundreds out there to choose from. I'll be the judge of whats sad or not. You are the robot.
and i don't care for your repeated personal insult, maybe the Christians are on to something when they say atheists don't have morals, say hello to block
@aierce block me just goes to show you avoid the issues and stickl your fingers in your ears. I hold it as a badge of honour you blocked me. Who cares and you know what I'll open up another channel and you can block that one. Morals as if you have the high ground.
I'll let someone as close minded as yourself to have the last say its on the house bye fundie.
@seonidh Do you believe your mother loves you. Do you believe you will be successful in life. Do you believe your favorite sports team will win this year. Why should anyone make any positive claim without proof, after all, it's a load of horse shit if anyone does.
@aierce there are things we know 100% because we have evidence and its observed so your questions are vague off kilter and a strawman. Science is backed up by observational evidence while faith is not because some holy man or book says so. Your god is not the majority viewpoint of the theists across the world if you believe in YEC its not the majority viewpoint of theists across the world. Dont assume please think assess and dont run on automatic. It looks like you are.
@aierce no you are sad and deluded believing in a grey area of religion science cant prove god doesnt exist its possitive 99.999% I agree with that. While you cant even believe in the non-existance of a divine creator.
The forces of nature "create" intelligence but intelligence does not create the forces of nature. Human intelligence came to be because the natural forces of nature have the capacity to do so. Proposing a separate super human like entity greatly complicates the world because
this new entity needs to be explained more so than nature. Just because a god=idea for creation does mean that this super mind doesn't need explanation.
Gary is saying, "Oh, the flagellum cannot be used to propel the bacterium if one protein is removed." Well, does he expect a leg to still work if a femur is removed?!
Proteins of the flagella evolved in sequence for the current function: to propel the bacterium. You can't just remove random parts and be surprised when the system ceases to function. Living things are not JENGA! Bullshit!!!!!
@MunkyDrag0n It seems you are arguing for intelligent design, but you're not clear enough for me to be sure. The proteins of the flagellum did not evolve to propel the bacteria, they had all sorts of different functions, like being a proton pump or holding proteins together to more effectively allow for multiple reactions to occur in sequence. The point is that the shift in function which is so common in biology (especially at the cellular level) makes Irreducible complexity useless as a label.
@sharkjack I am against intelligent design actually. Gary is ignorant to think he can just remove random proteins in a flagellum and expect it to work AS A FLAGELLUM. Like I said, a single protein to a tiny bacterium is like a femur to a human leg. He can't take it out and expect the remainder to fit its original purpose. He has no concept of exaptation or progressive change at all. For him to have the audacity to use that logic in a debate is shocking.
@MunkyDrag0n Well since that is generally how evolution is represented, it is fair yes. In fact it is this representation of evolution that IC takes advantage of. The gradual change over time of the beak into a larger beak, of a neck into a larger neck, stuff like that clearly shows the "selection of the fittest". The changing function is often overlooked sadly.
"Proteins for the flagellum evoled in sequence for the current function" sounds like what IC would say, so I thought you were for it.
@sharkjack "Proteins for the flagellum evoled in sequence for the current function" sounds like what IC would say, so I thought you were for it.
Well, the difference is that IC assumes the flagellum was created in its current state with no function outside of propulsion. Evolution points out that it took a long time for proteins to be built on top of each other for the flagellum to develop. It's called exaptation or progressive development I believe.
It's God of the additional gaps. It's like, RELIGIONIST: There's no intermediate stage between A and E, so we win! SCIENTIST: I've found an intermediate stage. Stage C. RELIGIONIST: Right, now there's twice as many intermediate stages missing, because there should be an intermediate between A and C, and C and E, so we win x2... (ad nauseam!)
@EdwardVonFishington To better clarify, I'm not referring to some mythical god that magically creates everything by blinking his eyes. I'm referring to some other life form possessing technology we are milleniums from understanding aiding or producing the process that created our universe, or some other form of intelligent design that isn't supernatural.
@EdwardVonFishington But what I'm referring to isn't the same tired old argument. The caller speaks about natural design, because the supernatural has no place in science. But the hosts seem to think that's creationists trying to trick people into accepting intelligent design. Maybe I should watch this again to try to follow all that's being said, but it seems the hosts do rule natural design out, which I don't get.
Why did this get shot down so easily? We could one day be capable of producing, or at least triggering the creation of, a universe. So who's to say that our universe couldn't be the product of natural intelligent design?
So if someone commits rape, is that BECAUSE of the porn, or because he's mentally fucked up? Jeez... there is nothing wrong with porn, at all. It's the people who are wrong. Rape has always existed, it's nothing that was invented with porn.
So if someone commits rape, is that BECAUSE of the porn, or because he's mentally fucked up? Jeez... there is nothing wrong with porn, at all. It's the people who are wrong. Rape has always existed, it's nothing that was invented with porn.
@jdude1209 really? because MOST MEN like porn enough to be considered addicted to it (what's the basis for addiction anyways? more than 1 porn video per day?)
Besides, I said there is nothing wrong with porn. I never said anything about an addiction to it. There's nothing wrong with alcohol either, but drinking too much will kill you...
Besided, I watch a ton of porn, but I will never rape anybody
@PaleRider626 He's about to be married. He is also a very smart man and that is a lot more attractive than, oh, say, a bitter, judgemental arsehole lacking in intelligence and originality =)
@PaleRider626 I concur with a10miletooth, you are an idiot. There is nothing wrong with porn. If preachers just stuck to porn, they wouldn't touch little boys, nor would they have copius amounts of sex with male prostitutes while high on illegal drugs... theism tries to suppress the brain, and it tends to backfire...
Saying that the intelligence that created all life could be natural rather than supernatural is a cop out. It just moves the whole argument back a step, since you'd still have to explain the origin of the intelligent designer. It's the same as the "directed panspermia" argument; the so called "secular" version of intelligent design simply replaces a supernatural creator with a biological intelligence that still must be explained by evolution or some other mechanism.
That's correct. ID does not dispute evolutionary theory or even common descent.
How is intelligence detected? It's a long explanation, but ultimately it has to do with specified complexity. It can get a bit tricky though, there are numerous tests an event must pass, it's not just as simple as saying "I dealt myself a royal flush, I must have cheated". The criteria is far more stringent than that.
The primary argument from ID, is we know of no naturalistic process that can produce the digital code found in the DNA molecule. We do know of a cause though, and that cause is intelligence. Irreducible complexity is a supplementary topic, if it's rebutted, ID still stands. The primary issue must be addressed, it is not an argument from ignorance but anti ID advocates, continue to attack irreducible complexity while completely ignoring the central claim.
@penilicious Fair enough. But just because we don't know of a natural process that could cause DNA to come about doesn't mean there isn't one. You are right in saying that intelligence is a potential cause, but there is no evidence in favor of that claim. One could argue that it is, in fact, an argument from ignorance, in that an intelligent creator is assumed just because we don't yet know of a different potential cause.
@MetaKlonoa It doesn't just say "we don't know, therefore it must be....". It says we don't know of any naturalistic cause but we do know of a cause from our knowledge of the cause and effect structure of the world and that is intelligence, and then builds a case on how to detect intelligence. It builds a positive case, it doesn't just fill in the blank with GOD and call it "intelligent design". Granted, plenty of religious people with no knowledge of the theory are happy to do this.
@penilicious If ID is about DNA coming about by intelligent means, then it is an alternative to abiogenesis, not evolution. If the DNA is already present, evolution can take place. So by your definition of ID, both ID and evolution could be true.
@penilicious "The primary argument from ID, is we know of no naturalistic process that can produce the digital code found in the DNA molecule. We do know of a cause though, and that cause is intelligence."
Actually, that's just an argument from ignorance, which you outright admitted in your first sentence.
"We understand the evolutionist process that leads to theses things"....What a load of bull. Noone KNOWS for sure any evolutionary step. No one has ever seen evolution occur or been able to prove it even in a lab. The evolution theory can only make a guess. Thats all.
LIFE is NOT a theory- it is REAL, IT EXIST and REPRODUCES and scientists cannot really explain or prove what or why it is here, how it works or how it reproduces so perfectly. The CELL is a thousand microchips...no accident!!
@jiminiflix Compleatly untrue. We can cause evelution to occur ourselves even. Go into a fish shop, look at bettas. They are NOTHING like the natural cousins we raised them, IE evolved them from. Evolution is simply a way for genetics to change themselves. Given a few million generations, sometimes only a few thousand generations, we can nearly compleatly change an organism with nothing more than selective breeding. To say no one knows is rubbish.
To be fair he is actually trying to make a valid point here. Yes Ken Miller found a similar bacteria that had 40 missing parts and it carried out a different function. But if you take 1 part away then you would have a broken motor and what function would it have then?
ID advocates have long been arguing that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, that it's not based on religion in any way. The problem here lies on the fact that they try to involve something "unobservable" in a scientific theory, which is paradoxical, and secondly ID advocates are pretty specific *which* intelligent designer they're talking about, which seriously disproves the statement that it is "not based on religion".
@23Tev As for the evolution comment; I am not very well versed in it so I have no qualms with disproving evolution. However just saying, I would seriously look at the huge amount of evidence FOR it (genome, physical observations etc) rather then looking at the small tiny "bumps" that MAY disprove it:)
All in all from one human being to another: Stay cool bro!
@zh1412 Well in that case id recommend reading "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne...it's a great read...of course there are loads of Richard Dawkins books which aid in understanding it like The Selfish Gene, The Blind WatchMaker etc.
I love the Atheist experience. I think these guys speak with such clarity that its hard for anyone to argue witht that hasnt been blinded by faith. Also its amazing how well they know their stuff. I watch things like this all the time and know this subject pretty well. I could maybe write a good response but respond right away, or without getting frustrated is a skill. The guy is frustrating me and im just listening to it.
Just asking: Is the whole concept of ID wrong? Because I tried to put myself in hypothetical scenario where ID is right; it just became a huge paradox. How can we claim that the world was designed when we have no point of reference? Wouldn't we NOT know what "non-designed" objects look like?
To me in order to understand something is hot; we must first know what does cold feel like, vice versa.
Its like even if I assume ID to be correct, it also falls apart. Or I am thinking wrongly??
Everything that exists, to me, seems to have to follow some law or code, for instance all processes seems to have some reason. Evolution is a process that seems to be designed, just as writing a computer program has a code that was designed, now granted it's a physical testable observation, but I think a world without some form of law or code would be utter chaos and never allow any straightforward designs. Up and down wouldn't be definable. Perhaps "I" am wrong.
I can't help but to think though, that if a nondesigned universe was existent...it wouldn't go very far, because it would have no process to follow. You understand what I'm sayin'? Lemme say, I am a Christian, but not a deluded one. LOL! The attraction of masses caused by gravity seems to me to be a solution of some sort of intelligence. I'm not saying necessarily intelligent, because it's possible that an all-powerful, yet ignorant force caused order...it just hasn't been discovered.
I'm on the same quest as most ppl...to find the Truth. What I mean is...is there a god or not, because if I know, I won't have faith in something, which is all it is, that I know doesn't exist. Now, I do believe that there has to be an uncaused cause...whether it be God or the ignorant all-powerful force I spoke of. I don't believe that thinking is flawed, because I believe existence has to have a cause, which I know is not testable thus far. I simply don't know, but I would like too!
Another thing to consider is that parts can be removed as well as added. So the evolutionary pathway for an irreducibly complex system wouldn't just contain the addition of parts and changes in function, but also the removal of parts.
Consider the construction of a stone archway that's held together by its own weight. It can't be done by just adding stones one at a time, but if you add a support structure, then take it away once the arch is built, you now have an irreducibly complex structure.
F1NGER 2 days ago
At some point, this intelligent designer decided that we should eat, breathe, and talk all through the same hole, and that our social structure should require that we do all three at the same time.
F1NGER 2 days ago
I wouldn't call intelligent design having my most sensitive area (My testicles) exactly at the middle of my legs wide open to any kind of attack, where any girl could easily kick them and inflict pain. XD
ChaoticRupture 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
1tabligh 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Absurdity of Atheism!
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
1tabligh 1 week ago
Friends now it's time to decide. Jesus Christ declared 2000 years ago that I AM THE WAY, I AM THE TRUTH AND I AM THE LIFE. These claim were made by only one Man, He is Jesus Christ. Now you have to decide in your heart, whether Jesus was liar or He really is THE WAY, TRUTH and LIFE. Only by Faith, you can accept Him as your Savior. Judgement of God for all sinners in on the way. Recognize by looking present situation on this world. Earthquake, tsunami, tornado, flood, sickness, crime and recess
samaroo96 2 weeks ago
@samaroo96 Recognize by looking at present situations on this world. Earthquake, tsunami, tornado, flood, sickness, crime and recess??? Tornado's where in this country before christianity was, 81% of earthquakes happen in the ring for fire, floods/tsunamis have been going on for billions of years. You make no sense at all. All the things you mention are part of what makes the world the dynamic ever changing planet it is and will do so long after the CANCER that is christianity is dead
gateman42 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good Vids. Very Infomative..
Flusercom 1 month ago
Good Video, Thanks for shared...
Spasatcom 1 month ago
I think the fossil record shows, many designs have come and gone, many were NOT good, hence, their extinction. Those designs weren't intelligent
Danarchistic1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Danarchistic1 The Manifestations of God in Nature!
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
1tabligh 4 weeks ago
Michael Behe's definiton is purposely vague and unreasonable. "Take one part out and the system will not fulfill its purpose." First of all, part is not a scientific term. Second, body parts are not like Jenga Towers. Randomly taking out molecules, tissues, etc and expecting the structure to function is just stupid. Creationist result to nitpicking and wordplay to make their points.
MunkyDrag0n 1 month ago 3
A basic knowledge of biology will throw the idea of intelligent design out of the window. Just a few points, if YOU were going to design a human, would YOU make the pipe that takes in air sit right next to the one that takes in food thus allowing choking? It doesn't sound very intelligently designed to me.
weirds0up 2 months ago
nevermind the furthermore the plea is self defense
thanksforthemessdick 2 months ago
Evolution goes from generalization to specialization. A group of proteins that function dependently together are not dependent in the past. They are independent of each other, carrying out other function. It is via evolution that these components become dependent on each other. An example is the spliceosome for splicing pre-mature RNAs. This complex has been growing bigger and bigger due to complexes coming together and becoming dependent. This is elementary 4th year biology stuff.
Casshyr 2 months ago
I truly believe scientists *will* figure out the answer to multiverse ideas, and probably much sooner than we think. If you simply read an astronomy 2 textbook, you will see the sheer determination and brilliance of modern physicists. The next move for the "religilous" will be to move god into another universe, naturally. Once we know about other universes, people like WLC will no longer use the space-time-less spoof, as they will have a new piece of science to ravage.
BER2ERKER 2 months ago
The only way god could exist seemingly would be in terms of a multiverse. There would have to be some space outside of our universe; it is trivial and meaningless to say (ASSume) he is spaceless and timeless. Asserting that is to throw out everything we know about physics, existence, and even philosophy. However, the problem then is that if other universes do exist, they themselves are a MUCH better explanation for the existence of the singularity that became our universe.
BER2ERKER 2 months ago
@baldurus if a god existed in a closed space from -infinite time until creation, his will could have merely called for a larger space than what he originally inhabited. He could have simply made his space larger and placed the universe in it. I am an atheist and am always searching for better arguments against creation, but this may be refuted with a little thinking(in which case, go nuts with creationists. You won't have a problem (; )
McBadgerTactical 3 months ago
@McBadgerTactical If there is already space what need is there for a god to create space that already exists?
The only scenario that doesn't contain any contradictions or logical fallacies is an infinite Universe.
baldurus1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I swear, living in America has become a total embarrassment, I am more compelled than ever to immigrate to the UK so I can watch this country descend into the black hole of ignorance from a safe distance.
lmos26 3 months ago 3
@lmos26
Come to Australia mate, we have a lot less muslims here, lol.
cleticprincess1956 2 months ago
intelligent design? anyone who believes in that has never tried to take a piss whilst they have a boner, there is nothing intelligent about that design (><)
walruscrowface 4 months ago 26
@walruscrowface - LOL. I had a friend (female) try to explain to me that it is actually impossible to do this. I told her that generally it is rough, but if you're not trying to aim downward at a toilet (such as when you're camping and peeing outdoors) then it is uncomfortable but possible. And she kept insisting that I was wrong. And I was like, "Damn it, woman, I've DONE it!"
GlorifiedTruth 2 months ago
@walruscrowface no need for intelligent design...at least in my case...gravity forces it to be not a problem, with such a large mass involved, gravity must hold sway.
OkamsRazer 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
God exists, that's the accepted claim by the majority of people, you want to challenge that, bring the evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU. Some narrow minded atheist proposed the wrong notion that atheism doesn't require evidence and many gullible atheists had run to foolishly embrace it. Philosophically the burden of proof is in the argument challenging the establishment. What evidence you have that atheism is true? None, zero, nada. Open your eyes, you're being deceived by an evil cult.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
If ID was true, then God put the male prostate gland up the ass on purpose, maybe as a way to help with overpopulation by making people gay ?
Therefore ID and the bible are at complete conflict with each other
deadlychickenxop 6 months ago
@deadlychickenxop You are an idiot. Give me one reason why thats not intelligently designed. Plus, it has nothing to do with the Bible, it has to do with counter evolutionism
CarloOnU2ube 5 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube
You only know that something is designed because you have something to compare to.
Biology "designs" itself. Prove otherwise then you have a case that counter-acts evolution. And since evolution is a fact, you must have some pretty incredible proof. And a youtube video doesn't count as proof. You need peer reviewed papers that go through the same rigor that evolution has.
If you can't do that, then you're the idiot.
Phaze252 5 months ago
@Phaze252 No you dont. Itsn ot because of comparison. Theyve done studies on this. Biology doesnt design itself, as it doesnt have a mind. Now.....more than anything about biology, I get most angry when people claim evolution to be a fact. It is not. Even if it was true, it cant be. you werent there. Just what if a God had made a world in which he leaves evidence of evolution just to trick people and created everything? See it cant be a fact. Not that i believe such nonsense, or that evolution
CarloOnU2ube 5 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube
This is going to be a hefty answer. So I'll try not to equivocate anywhere and pick this apart piece by piece.
First, it is determined by comparison. You must know that this does not naturally occur such as a watch in a forest to say, "This was designed by someone" or even a painting. Otherwise you have no frame of reference to say if it's natural or unnatural. You can't study if it's designed if you have never seen something that is designed. You'd assume it's natural
-----
Cont
Phaze252 5 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube
Evolution is indeed a fact.
The superfluous amount of evidence can't be ignored. Considering we've reproduced it countless times in labs. Such as breeding a bird for a specific color or other trait. And even in humans how if your mother has brown eyes and your father has brown eyes. You most likely will have brown eyes. That's really what evolution is on a small scale basis. Traits that get passed on. On a large scale, the results are hard to fathom because of the time span.
Cont.
Phaze252 5 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube
And not only that we have a multitude of DNA testing that can easily match us all to a common ancestor which has been dubbed "Ancestral Eve" in some cases. And even the fact our DNA is comparable to every other organism alive on this planet.
If your talking about fossils and why we're missing quite a lot, well you answered your own question partially. But there's also a fossil black-market that might be hoarding quite a few of the links we're searching for...
Cont.
Phaze252 5 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube
But the fossils are abundant and we do have transitional fossils. But just because we don't have them ALL doesn't mean there's a hole in the theory. That's analogous to "Well, I don't have video footage from my birth to my 16th birthday, so I guess it didn't happen" That's absurd.
I recommend you to peruse through the Wikipedia page on Evolution as well as talkorigins (org). To get an actual understanding of this actual simple process.
Phaze252 5 months ago
@Phaze252 does have evidence. It doesnt. You cant prove origins. You cant. And evolution has so many holes. Why are there SO many missing links? (dont tell me its because that species didnt fossilize) because we find fossils of pretty much every animal that exists today. And theyre supposed to be recent. We even find fossil pools. (flood). Obviously i dont expect you to believe me based upon what im saying. But tell me, how did the bacterial flagellum produce so many motor exclusive parts, 10 of
CarloOnU2ube 5 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube
For the bacterial flagellum. It's a misconception that it's irreducible. Just like the eye, wings, or anything.
To use a quick analogy...
If you watch T.V in our modern time, we have a myriad of channels and vibrant color, H.D, Flat screens that don't work off low refresh rate CRTs (bubble screens) that damage our eyes.
Well, surely we didn't start off with all these lovely additions did we? Might of started off with one channel, colorless, dull, and pernicious to eyes.
-- Cont.
Phaze252 5 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube
However, the fact that over-time we had the ability to think of new ideas and make the picture better, incorporate more channels and so forth, we created something that is now, wonderfully complex and vivid.
This compares to the flagellum because of the fact you're looking at the aftermath of what is created and just standing in awe and not using any decent reasoning to figure out if it had a previous state.
- Cont -
Phaze252 5 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube
Now the actual flagellum has been proven not to be irreducibly complex in an experiment done by Zvonimir Dogic. He showed that hairs only containing two proteins present in every eukaryote cell could produce a motor effect which is a strong case for it not being irreducibly complex. And with the more plausible fact it could have evolved from a Type 3 Secretion system, which contains many of the flagellum's basic parts. It could have evolved by means of exaptation into a motor
Cont
Phaze252 5 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube
And the evolution into a motor would have started out bit-by-bit all with useful functions until it came into what we see now. Something that appears irreducibly complex.
And even if it didn't have a function, natural selection would still carry it on. It doesn't kill off all useless parts, other wise we wouldn't have an appendix (It's slowly going away though). But exaptation explains how it could have evolved from a different system.
(Type 3 Secretion already has a tail)
Phaze252 5 months ago
@Phaze252 the 50 had a seperate function (claimed) but how do you get 40 parts that are MOTOR EXCLUSIVE into natural selection.....? you cant. try to explain it to me. how did it get a tail? If it wasnt spinning it wouldnt be an advantage and therefore would be invisible to natural selection. Answer me athiest.
CarloOnU2ube 5 months ago
@zenithar6666 There is hardly any denial when you are winning intelectually
pochopaz7381 6 months ago
I have a philosophical argument against god, i call it the BCA(Baldurus Cosmological Argument.
Premises:
1. If something exists, it must have a place of it's existence.
2. If god exists, there must be space where god exists.
3. If god has always existed, space has always existed.
4. If space has always existed there is no need for a god to create the space that has always existed.
baldurus1 7 months ago 30
@baldurus1 That is a weak argument. According to most theists God exists outside of space and time. This negates your arguments in the eyes of theists.
I am an atheist and I am pointing this out because we must hold ourselves to higher standards than the theists. The theist argument falls apart because they cannot provide any evidence for God.
Hyperplaterine 7 months ago
@Hyperplaterine Something can not exist in nothing! Not even a god. Do you understand what "outside of space and time" means? Nothing with ANY properties can "exist" outside of space and time. There is NO outside of space and time, it doesn't exist. If god does "exist" outside of space and time, god would have the same properties=nothing.
baldurus1 7 months ago
@baldurus1 I said "according to theists" not according to me.
However, if you want to be pedantic, the multiverse theory (which many scientists propound) would suggest there are other universes outside of our time and space.
Hyperplaterine 7 months ago
@Hyperplaterine Then they already exist, and there is no need for a god to create something that already exists. If other "Universes" exist, our Universe would not be closed. Our time and space would be a part of the multiverse. Only if there is nothing "outside" of our Universe can we talk about our time and space.
baldurus1 7 months ago
@baldurus1 Mathematics exists and that doesn't need any space... just because you can't disprove something yet doesn't mean it's fact... we don't know yet of anything tangible which doesn't need space to exist but it doesn't mean your point 1 is true
RobBrooksMusic 3 months ago
@RobBrooksMusic Math doesn't exist in nothing, there is nothing to extrapolate from nothing. Nothing literally means nothing.
Also the common attributes associated with any gods are all logical fallacies and/or contradictions.
Like omnipotence which is a contradiction within itself, coupled with any other omni and you really start to go down a slippery slope. Omnipotence+omnibenevolence=logical fallacy, if god can't be evil he can't be omnipotent and vice versa.
baldurus1 3 months ago
@baldurus1 If all humans were suddenly extinct, it would still be a fact that 1+1=2... one planet, and one moon orbiting, would equal two bodies... of course there would be no humans to give names like "one" or "two" but the fact would still remain... what space does that fact take up? It isn't a physical thing made of atoms... how do we destroy the fact?
You said "If something exists, it MUST have a place of it's existence." - I'm just saying... prove it... ("no counter-proofs" isn't proof)
RobBrooksMusic 3 months ago
@RobBrooksMusic Actually space is composed of energy and matter, without energy and matter you can't have space. Even "empty" space has energy(CBR cosmic background radiation).
Yes, without humans 1+1 would equal 2. But not without space and time, there would be nothing to be added up. You could argue that the concept would still be valid, but a concept requires a mind and a mind requires space.
If god had a rubber ball before space/time, where would he put the ball before creating space/time?
baldurus1 3 months ago
@RobBrooksMusic But a rubber ball is only one example, if you only think of tangible physical objects of course you need atoms and room for them to exist etc... but yes I argue that a concept would still exist, and like you said (before a concept requires a mind): without humans 1+1=2
If something akin to a god did "create" a universe, then the idea of space, time, maths etc must exist before they are realised
RobBrooksMusic 3 months ago
@baldurus1 I'm not arguing against your thesis, just your premise that god must exist in space-time to exist at all. The microscopic quantum realm is just as real as macroscopic space-time, but their natures are radically different, and also your mistaken assumption space-time is static. It's kind of like one of those 0=1 arguments, looks good on the surface, but the premise(s) are skewed to favor the result.
BrokenAeroVT 3 months ago
@BrokenAeroVT Even at a quantum level there is space(dimensions) and time, and a god can only act within the space not "outside" space(outside space doesn't exist). When have i ever claimed space/time to be static?
And ultimately it's not about gods properties, it has got to do with the physical properties of the Universe which creates the dilemma. If god can't put a rubber ball in nothing he can't create space in nothing.
baldurus1 3 months ago
@baldurus1 Dilemmas? Or a misperceptions created by the different hemispheric thinking in the brain thinking exclusively of each other? You said space-time was static when space-time wasn't being "created"--always existed as it is.
BrokenAeroVT 3 months ago
@BrokenAeroVT Infinite is not the same as static, just look at the changes in a mere 14 billion years.
baldurus1 3 months ago
@baldurus1 That's exactly my point. Space-time is being created. By what or whom is another argument altogether, but it doesn't oppose the first. Singularities and infinity do not have dimension. Where is there "space" for that in your argument? What is space-time expanding into, and if it is outside the space-time continuum, does it exist without space-time? I'm just pointing out that your definitions of space and time are too loose/nebulous to make a solid argument.
BrokenAeroVT 3 months ago
@BrokenAeroVT I think you have misunderstood when physics talk about singularities and the "beginning" of space time at the Big Bang.
They mean our time and space began with the Big Bang, not time and space itself.
And yes, a singularity does have dimensions and physical properties. All space exists "inside" the singularity just like all space exist "inside" the Universe. Actually talking about an inside is wrong because that would imply that there was an outside which there isn't.
baldurus1 3 months ago
@baldurus1 Singulatities and infinities are without dimension by definition.
BrokenAeroVT 3 months ago
@BrokenAeroVT A singularity is not 3 dimensional as we know space to be, but it's not dimensionless. Also infinite refers to time not space, an infinite can be limited in size yet infinite in existence.
I'm not claiming facts here, like i said before. An infinite Universe is the only scenario that does not contain any contradictions or break any laws of physics(like being created out of nothing).
baldurus1 3 months ago
@baldurus1 The majority consensus among scientists is, that there was "nothing" then there was an expanding universe, but no one said that it was made out of nothing. It's your loose definition of nothing that is creating your conundrum. If you were to take your proof to legitimate physicists, u would immediately be told "that's just philosophy--u aren't going to prove anything in physics that way." That's the lesson I received from a physicist researcher while attending a major US university.
BrokenAeroVT 3 months ago
@BrokenAeroVT Again i have not claimed proof or evidence.
And among which scientists is there a consensus that there was nothing before an expanding Universe?
Again when we physicists talk about the "beginning" of space/time at the Big Bang, we mean the beginning of our space and time not space and time itself.
You can't make any proof claims about what was before the Big Bang because all information about any previous states was lost in the singularity(like a black hole).
baldurus1 3 months ago
@baldurus1 I am not going to list names I have no space for while you play a silly little game of word weaseling. What I said is understood about majority consensus is academic.
Your premise is flawed thus your conclusion is flawed. u can't presume on the nature of a god who by religious definition exists outside space time in a dream like domain and require spacial characteristics of this alleged entity anymore than you can require spacial characteristics to a dreamscape.
BrokenAeroVT 3 months ago
@BrokenAeroVT Have you read anything i have written?
How could i presume anything about something i don't believe exists?
I've told what would be required physically to "create" space, and the properties of space and time.
Religious definition has no bearing on whether or not something is real. I think you're taking my cosmological argument that i originally posted as a joke a bit too serious, it's there to demonstrate the fallacies of the kalam cosmological argument. But the premises are sound.
baldurus1 3 months ago
@baldurus1 No, the premises are not sound. Your definitions are too nebulous to constitute an airtight conclusion.
BrokenAeroVT 3 months ago
@BrokenAeroVT That's why it's called philosophy and not science, understand the distinction?
baldurus1 3 months ago
@baldurus1 Listen *sshole. I already made the distinction between philosophy and science as the basis for demonstrating that your "proof" is no proof at all. An ad hominem implying I'm some kind of idiot because *in your mind* I can't make the distinction is not going to lessen the inadequacy of your proof.
BrokenAeroVT 3 months ago
@BrokenAeroVT I never claimed positive proof, again it's a spoof on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
It's to show the flaws in the premises. But unlike the KCA my arguments are physically sound. Something can not exist in nothing and if you claim otherwise you need to demonstrate it. I didn't call you an idiot, that's like saying that a neurologist is an idiot for not knowing what spin a u-quark has. I'm just questioning your knowledge of physics.
baldurus1 3 months ago
@baldurus1 I know what you're up to, and your quite practiced at distorting word to twist reality, which is what you have done in your "proof". Questioning my knowledge of physics has nothing to do with the structure of your proof. This redirection is what it is, redirection away from that fact.
BrokenAeroVT 3 months ago
@BrokenAeroVT The fact is that something can not exist in nothing.
Example: god has a rubber ball which he must put aside in order to create the Universe, where does god put the rubber ball?
baldurus1 3 months ago
@baldurus1 You weren't questioning my knowledge of physics. You were questioning my ability to make a distinction between philosophy and science.
BrokenAeroVT 3 months ago
@BrokenAeroVT I'm seriously getting tired of this and you can go troll somewhere else. If you are incapable of a mature serious debate without turning hostile and degrading i'm not interested.
If you can continue in a serious and mature fashion please continue and i on my part apologize if i have offended you.
I know a lot of people who don't know the difference and i don't question their intelligence in the slightest, in fact i know most of them are a heckofalot smarter than i am.
baldurus1 3 months ago
@baldurus1 You stated I'm a troll...immature...not serious about debate..hostile...degrading... That's some apology, lol.
Look dude. You're as plain as the back of my hand, and I can see through your bullsh*t.
BrokenAeroVT 3 months ago
@BrokenAeroVT Goodbye troll.
baldurus1 3 months ago
@baldurus1 Goodbye, *sshole.
BrokenAeroVT 3 months ago
Respond to this video... Well i can list a whole bunch of physicists that do think the Universe is infinite(in time).
Why can't you name any against?
Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox just to name a few.
baldurus1 3 months ago
@baldurus1 That's beside the point and has nothing to do with your improper use of philosophical argument.
BrokenAeroVT 3 months ago
@BrokenAeroVT Name one.
baldurus1 3 months ago
@baldurus1 Answer not a fool according to his folly...
BrokenAeroVT 3 months ago
@BrokenAeroVT Well you held out longer than most before the personal insults began.
baldurus1 3 months ago
@baldurus1 Another redirection away from the legitimate argument.
BrokenAeroVT 3 months ago
@BrokenAeroVT You have yet to come with an argument. Please provide one.
baldurus1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baldurus1 I can't say it any simpler than this well known cosmologist: /watch?v=0VZRDaBuFrs
BrokenAeroVT 3 months ago
@baldurus1 I'm not trying to say there is an "outside", I'm saying that your definitions are equally loose as suggesting there is a "space" outside space-time in which the universe is expanding. Philosphical argument is inadequate for proof. Scientific theories are initially philosophy. What makes them science is the examination of concrete evidence to support the theory. Right now, the majority scientific consensus is that space-time was not, then was and continues to expand.
BrokenAeroVT 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baldurus1 "If space has always existed there is no need for a god"? It might help to understand the basics of God essence as described in bible.
1) First God is a spirit.
2) God lives in spiritual world.
3) God created the universe, our world and even space from the spiritual world.
What is the spiritual world? It's a place of which we cannot see or touch; so it must be not of this world! Don't believe in other worlds? See: "String" theory and other dimensions based on mathematical models.
yhenry77 2 months ago
@baldurus1 genious
ibragim134 2 months ago
@baldurus1 Sounds logical to me. Well done sir.
dkthg 1 month ago
these guys are in utter and dogmatic denial, its very painfull to watch, believeing in desing does NOT make one religious, that depends on to what the desing is attributed!
zenithar6666 7 months ago
@zenithar6666 You can't even spell design, so I'm not going to take you seriously.
damandatwin 7 months ago
so because i spelt a word wrong you wont answer? pathetic and very revealing.
zenithar6666 7 months ago
It is not out of the question that at some point, maybe even in my lifetime, scientists will determine exactly how life originated on the Earth, and replicate it in the lab. It is also possible that physicists and cosmologists will figure out exactly how the Big Bang happened. These are the last two holes that God could be hiding in. If these two big mysteries are solved, what possible justification would there be for believing in God?
DandAinTac 7 months ago
@DandAinTac the only justification is if you WANT to believe in god... if it gives you compfort to believe in one.. but one should never push their opinions on others.
bdubu33 7 months ago
@bdubu33 Possibly, but it would have no truth value. It would be like saying: "it gives me comfort to believe in that Elvis is still alive--therefore..."
As Sam Harris has noted, anyone who would espouse such a view in a serious setting would pay an immediate price in ill-concealed laughter. This is where religion needs to be in our public discourse.
DandAinTac 7 months ago
If humans are made in the immage of God, than God is seriously messed-up.
The lens of the human eye is backwards, many people do not have room in their mouths for their Wisdom teeth, so that when they come in, they have to be removed, otherwise they warp the position of the other teeth, memory is highly flawed, male genitals are outside the body, then there's the hyman, the appendix, the menstrual cycle, widespread lack of empathy, the birth canal is too narrow, birth-defects, Alzheimer's...
SinnFein4ever 8 months ago
Interesting.
57worldwide 8 months ago
Why do these idiots phone the show to read shit off the net to us? If I want to read god-squad bull-shit I'll do it for myself.
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
What I hate about gods people is they refuse to believe they came from the mother earth land and are related to the animals.....they believe they can transfer their statues on earth into heaven..... DEATH is the great equillizer.... When U dead U fuk'n GONE !
13lael 9 months ago
why does there have to be atheists and creationists. I believe in the Creator, who used evolution as the tool to shape this world as he saw fit.
aierce 9 months ago
@aierce Except evolution does not require a Creator.
kubush 8 months ago
@kubush it doesn't exclude a Creator either, what's your point?
aierce 8 months ago
@aierce true science can no more confirm or deny a creator, what creator a god a pantheon, who’s to say your faith, in a supernatural entity might be a load of horse shit you can’t prove it’s not. Belief in the supernatural as an explanation negates the fact that there is no one world view on who the creator(s) are. Science deals with facts while religion due to faith/bias does not hold water due to a scientific critique. The onus is with you to prove your god opposed to the Hindu ones.
seonidh 8 months ago
@seonidh you are so sad :(
you are a robot, you can't understand science and religion are completely two different things. Trying to deny religion with science is just as stupid and absurd with trying to support religion with science.
aierce 8 months ago
@aierce really, are you shitting me here. Firstly clarify what religion is the truth they cant all be there are hundreds out there to choose from. I'll be the judge of whats sad or not. You are the robot.
seonidh 8 months ago
@seonidh i don't have to subscribe to a religion to believe there's a creator.
aierce 8 months ago
and i don't care for your repeated personal insult, maybe the Christians are on to something when they say atheists don't have morals, say hello to block
aierce 8 months ago
@aierce block me just goes to show you avoid the issues and stickl your fingers in your ears. I hold it as a badge of honour you blocked me. Who cares and you know what I'll open up another channel and you can block that one. Morals as if you have the high ground.
I'll let someone as close minded as yourself to have the last say its on the house bye fundie.
seonidh 8 months ago
@seonidh Do you believe your mother loves you. Do you believe you will be successful in life. Do you believe your favorite sports team will win this year. Why should anyone make any positive claim without proof, after all, it's a load of horse shit if anyone does.
aierce 8 months ago
@aierce there are things we know 100% because we have evidence and its observed so your questions are vague off kilter and a strawman. Science is backed up by observational evidence while faith is not because some holy man or book says so. Your god is not the majority viewpoint of the theists across the world if you believe in YEC its not the majority viewpoint of theists across the world. Dont assume please think assess and dont run on automatic. It looks like you are.
seonidh 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seonidh did i ever say im a christian?
aierce 8 months ago
@seonidh again, if you won't believe anything back up by 100% science, you are sad.
aierce 8 months ago
@aierce no you are sad and deluded believing in a grey area of religion science cant prove god doesnt exist its possitive 99.999% I agree with that. While you cant even believe in the non-existance of a divine creator.
seonidh 8 months ago
interesting
SycamoreHill14 9 months ago
The forces of nature "create" intelligence but intelligence does not create the forces of nature. Human intelligence came to be because the natural forces of nature have the capacity to do so. Proposing a separate super human like entity greatly complicates the world because
this new entity needs to be explained more so than nature. Just because a god=idea for creation does mean that this super mind doesn't need explanation.
humansaretheworld 9 months ago
PaleRider626 is 'pale' because he never leaves his parent's basement.
mikefromwa 9 months ago
@PaleRider626
WTG on picking on one of the most well liked, well respected, intelligent, funny, kind and compassionate people around on YT.
Lonely Troll will always play with porn and sex toys, right after church on Sundays. Alone.
HarrysSecret 10 months ago 3
Gary is saying, "Oh, the flagellum cannot be used to propel the bacterium if one protein is removed." Well, does he expect a leg to still work if a femur is removed?!
Proteins of the flagella evolved in sequence for the current function: to propel the bacterium. You can't just remove random parts and be surprised when the system ceases to function. Living things are not JENGA! Bullshit!!!!!
MunkyDrag0n 10 months ago
@MunkyDrag0n It seems you are arguing for intelligent design, but you're not clear enough for me to be sure. The proteins of the flagellum did not evolve to propel the bacteria, they had all sorts of different functions, like being a proton pump or holding proteins together to more effectively allow for multiple reactions to occur in sequence. The point is that the shift in function which is so common in biology (especially at the cellular level) makes Irreducible complexity useless as a label.
sharkjack 9 months ago
@sharkjack I am against intelligent design actually. Gary is ignorant to think he can just remove random proteins in a flagellum and expect it to work AS A FLAGELLUM. Like I said, a single protein to a tiny bacterium is like a femur to a human leg. He can't take it out and expect the remainder to fit its original purpose. He has no concept of exaptation or progressive change at all. For him to have the audacity to use that logic in a debate is shocking.
MunkyDrag0n 9 months ago
@MunkyDrag0n Well since that is generally how evolution is represented, it is fair yes. In fact it is this representation of evolution that IC takes advantage of. The gradual change over time of the beak into a larger beak, of a neck into a larger neck, stuff like that clearly shows the "selection of the fittest". The changing function is often overlooked sadly.
"Proteins for the flagellum evoled in sequence for the current function" sounds like what IC would say, so I thought you were for it.
sharkjack 9 months ago
@sharkjack "Proteins for the flagellum evoled in sequence for the current function" sounds like what IC would say, so I thought you were for it.
Well, the difference is that IC assumes the flagellum was created in its current state with no function outside of propulsion. Evolution points out that it took a long time for proteins to be built on top of each other for the flagellum to develop. It's called exaptation or progressive development I believe.
MunkyDrag0n 9 months ago
It's God of the additional gaps. It's like, RELIGIONIST: There's no intermediate stage between A and E, so we win! SCIENTIST: I've found an intermediate stage. Stage C. RELIGIONIST: Right, now there's twice as many intermediate stages missing, because there should be an intermediate between A and C, and C and E, so we win x2... (ad nauseam!)
flipperth1 10 months ago
@PaleRider626 He has a fiancé...
Inductus 10 months ago
@EdwardVonFishington To better clarify, I'm not referring to some mythical god that magically creates everything by blinking his eyes. I'm referring to some other life form possessing technology we are milleniums from understanding aiding or producing the process that created our universe, or some other form of intelligent design that isn't supernatural.
JasonHouston77 11 months ago
@EdwardVonFishington But what I'm referring to isn't the same tired old argument. The caller speaks about natural design, because the supernatural has no place in science. But the hosts seem to think that's creationists trying to trick people into accepting intelligent design. Maybe I should watch this again to try to follow all that's being said, but it seems the hosts do rule natural design out, which I don't get.
JasonHouston77 11 months ago
@PaleRider626 Projection much?
69soulstone 11 months ago
Why did this get shot down so easily? We could one day be capable of producing, or at least triggering the creation of, a universe. So who's to say that our universe couldn't be the product of natural intelligent design?
JasonHouston77 11 months ago
Well said/done Matt ★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So if someone commits rape, is that BECAUSE of the porn, or because he's mentally fucked up? Jeez... there is nothing wrong with porn, at all. It's the people who are wrong. Rape has always existed, it's nothing that was invented with porn.
JackeShanTwo 11 months ago
So if someone commits rape, is that BECAUSE of the porn, or because he's mentally fucked up? Jeez... there is nothing wrong with porn, at all. It's the people who are wrong. Rape has always existed, it's nothing that was invented with porn.
JackeShanTwo 11 months ago
@jdude1209 really? because MOST MEN like porn enough to be considered addicted to it (what's the basis for addiction anyways? more than 1 porn video per day?)
Besides, I said there is nothing wrong with porn. I never said anything about an addiction to it. There's nothing wrong with alcohol either, but drinking too much will kill you...
Besided, I watch a ton of porn, but I will never rape anybody
shadesters 11 months ago
@PaleRider626 He's about to be married. He is also a very smart man and that is a lot more attractive than, oh, say, a bitter, judgemental arsehole lacking in intelligence and originality =)
c0rp53f4c3 11 months ago
title of the song? at the begining?
KEEETARO 11 months ago
they need to put this show on dvd
SHIBBYiPANDA 11 months ago
@PaleRider626 I concur with a10miletooth, you are an idiot. There is nothing wrong with porn. If preachers just stuck to porn, they wouldn't touch little boys, nor would they have copius amounts of sex with male prostitutes while high on illegal drugs... theism tries to suppress the brain, and it tends to backfire...
shadesters 11 months ago
@PaleRider626 wow, you're stupid.
a10miletooth 11 months ago 16
@a10miletooth haha!!!! I LOVE YOU <3
UrbanFury12 10 months ago
Saying that the intelligence that created all life could be natural rather than supernatural is a cop out. It just moves the whole argument back a step, since you'd still have to explain the origin of the intelligent designer. It's the same as the "directed panspermia" argument; the so called "secular" version of intelligent design simply replaces a supernatural creator with a biological intelligence that still must be explained by evolution or some other mechanism.
ariston72 1 year ago
That's correct. ID does not dispute evolutionary theory or even common descent.
How is intelligence detected? It's a long explanation, but ultimately it has to do with specified complexity. It can get a bit tricky though, there are numerous tests an event must pass, it's not just as simple as saying "I dealt myself a royal flush, I must have cheated". The criteria is far more stringent than that.
penilicious 1 year ago
@penilicious
I was really interested to see your anwser to metaklonoa, so i'm kind of dissapointed to see that you didn't give him one.
Zuurkool1 1 year ago 10
Red Herring's galore.
The primary argument from ID, is we know of no naturalistic process that can produce the digital code found in the DNA molecule. We do know of a cause though, and that cause is intelligence. Irreducible complexity is a supplementary topic, if it's rebutted, ID still stands. The primary issue must be addressed, it is not an argument from ignorance but anti ID advocates, continue to attack irreducible complexity while completely ignoring the central claim.
penilicious 1 year ago
@penilicious Fair enough. But just because we don't know of a natural process that could cause DNA to come about doesn't mean there isn't one. You are right in saying that intelligence is a potential cause, but there is no evidence in favor of that claim. One could argue that it is, in fact, an argument from ignorance, in that an intelligent creator is assumed just because we don't yet know of a different potential cause.
MetaKlonoa 1 year ago
@MetaKlonoa It doesn't just say "we don't know, therefore it must be....". It says we don't know of any naturalistic cause but we do know of a cause from our knowledge of the cause and effect structure of the world and that is intelligence, and then builds a case on how to detect intelligence. It builds a positive case, it doesn't just fill in the blank with GOD and call it "intelligent design". Granted, plenty of religious people with no knowledge of the theory are happy to do this.
penilicious 1 year ago
@penilicious How is intelligence detected in ID?
MetaKlonoa 1 year ago
@penilicious If ID is about DNA coming about by intelligent means, then it is an alternative to abiogenesis, not evolution. If the DNA is already present, evolution can take place. So by your definition of ID, both ID and evolution could be true.
MetaKlonoa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@penilicious "The primary argument from ID, is we know of no naturalistic process that can produce the digital code found in the DNA molecule. We do know of a cause though, and that cause is intelligence."
Actually, that's just an argument from ignorance, which you outright admitted in your first sentence.
gupsphoo 1 year ago
"Intelligent Design= I don't know how it came about... SO god did it" that should be on a T-Shirt for sale somewhere.
mmmodafoca 1 year ago
matt needs to do more vids
capgains 1 year ago
Looks like 20 people have to answer to Matt for missing the thumbs up key.
supleted 1 year ago
Ireducible complexity? What about a tornado?
faddabean 1 year ago
ID is creationism because 99.99% of ID "Theorists" are Christian creationists.
greyeyed123 1 year ago
"We understand the evolutionist process that leads to theses things"....What a load of bull. Noone KNOWS for sure any evolutionary step. No one has ever seen evolution occur or been able to prove it even in a lab. The evolution theory can only make a guess. Thats all.
LIFE is NOT a theory- it is REAL, IT EXIST and REPRODUCES and scientists cannot really explain or prove what or why it is here, how it works or how it reproduces so perfectly. The CELL is a thousand microchips...no accident!!
jiminiflix 1 year ago
@jiminiflix Compleatly untrue. We can cause evelution to occur ourselves even. Go into a fish shop, look at bettas. They are NOTHING like the natural cousins we raised them, IE evolved them from. Evolution is simply a way for genetics to change themselves. Given a few million generations, sometimes only a few thousand generations, we can nearly compleatly change an organism with nothing more than selective breeding. To say no one knows is rubbish.
Polybun 1 year ago
To be fair he is actually trying to make a valid point here. Yes Ken Miller found a similar bacteria that had 40 missing parts and it carried out a different function. But if you take 1 part away then you would have a broken motor and what function would it have then?
Brushles83 1 year ago
ID advocates have long been arguing that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, that it's not based on religion in any way. The problem here lies on the fact that they try to involve something "unobservable" in a scientific theory, which is paradoxical, and secondly ID advocates are pretty specific *which* intelligent designer they're talking about, which seriously disproves the statement that it is "not based on religion".
daangelo29 1 year ago
Intelligent design is an argument from ignorance.......and it only raises the bigger question who the hell designed the designer?
23Tev 1 year ago
@23Tev As for the evolution comment; I am not very well versed in it so I have no qualms with disproving evolution. However just saying, I would seriously look at the huge amount of evidence FOR it (genome, physical observations etc) rather then looking at the small tiny "bumps" that MAY disprove it:)
All in all from one human being to another: Stay cool bro!
zh1412 1 year ago
@zh1412 Evidence for what?....not sure whether your referring to Evolution or ID?
23Tev 1 year ago
@23Tev Evidence FOR evolution of course! I was trying to say that I do not understand evolution very well.
zh1412 1 year ago
@zh1412 Well in that case id recommend reading "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne...it's a great read...of course there are loads of Richard Dawkins books which aid in understanding it like The Selfish Gene, The Blind WatchMaker etc.
23Tev 1 year ago
I love the Atheist experience. I think these guys speak with such clarity that its hard for anyone to argue witht that hasnt been blinded by faith. Also its amazing how well they know their stuff. I watch things like this all the time and know this subject pretty well. I could maybe write a good response but respond right away, or without getting frustrated is a skill. The guy is frustrating me and im just listening to it.
NicosMind 1 year ago
Just asking: Is the whole concept of ID wrong? Because I tried to put myself in hypothetical scenario where ID is right; it just became a huge paradox. How can we claim that the world was designed when we have no point of reference? Wouldn't we NOT know what "non-designed" objects look like?
To me in order to understand something is hot; we must first know what does cold feel like, vice versa.
Its like even if I assume ID to be correct, it also falls apart. Or I am thinking wrongly??
zh1412 1 year ago
@zh1412
Everything that exists, to me, seems to have to follow some law or code, for instance all processes seems to have some reason. Evolution is a process that seems to be designed, just as writing a computer program has a code that was designed, now granted it's a physical testable observation, but I think a world without some form of law or code would be utter chaos and never allow any straightforward designs. Up and down wouldn't be definable. Perhaps "I" am wrong.
DandBMonk 1 year ago
@zh1412
I can't help but to think though, that if a nondesigned universe was existent...it wouldn't go very far, because it would have no process to follow. You understand what I'm sayin'? Lemme say, I am a Christian, but not a deluded one. LOL! The attraction of masses caused by gravity seems to me to be a solution of some sort of intelligence. I'm not saying necessarily intelligent, because it's possible that an all-powerful, yet ignorant force caused order...it just hasn't been discovered.
DandBMonk 1 year ago
@zh1412
I'm on the same quest as most ppl...to find the Truth. What I mean is...is there a god or not, because if I know, I won't have faith in something, which is all it is, that I know doesn't exist. Now, I do believe that there has to be an uncaused cause...whether it be God or the ignorant all-powerful force I spoke of. I don't believe that thinking is flawed, because I believe existence has to have a cause, which I know is not testable thus far. I simply don't know, but I would like too!
DandBMonk 1 year ago