Im totally starting to lose my patience with these religious idiots. Its time to spread the Question Gravity campaign- make everythijng so utterly stupid that they have NO CHOICE but to stop thier anti- evolution horseshit and maybe we can start turning out some educated people instead of jello minded morons. Question Gravity!!! Teach the controversy!!!!
lol @ that ragnar guy below... I love how the evo's use the Santa Claus example. Because it's ridiculous to think that presents appear on their own under a tree by a magical process. The parents are the one doing things BY DESIGN.
Yet, the evolutionists are the ones that believe in Santa. They believe that something can from nothing by some mysterious magical process.
The evolutionist's continued lies to hold on to their religion never ceases to amaze me.
They should get rid of the sound effects. But I don't think this channel is affiliated with the Expelled movie. It allows comments without the approval of the channel.
well if ben stein doesnt want ot sound like a stupid ass maybe he should provide some sort of evidence instead of saying, "look science doesnt know this part!! haha that means god did it!!!!"
hes a smart guy but hes been told something from such a young age that he would of been able to be made to believe that santa came on christmas
LOL the best thing about the 'irreducible complexity' argument is that it has no basis in fact. Some creationist just looked at a complicated organic structure and decided 'Gosh, looks complicated. I'll just tell people evolutionary biology can't explain it'.
'a creator who makes an egg laying mammal as well as a live birth mamalls,a flying creature with sonar as well as an aquatic one with sonar makes more sense.if you dont agree tell me why '
Basically this is called convergent evolution, it refers to occurances when different unrelated species find a similar solution to the environment through random adaptions.
Ok i see what you are saying, no matter how much evidence suggests common ancestry it is absolutely possible that a god exists.
Its also possible that this god made everything look evolved, he coded the DNA, he planted the ERVS, he gave all fish/reptiles/mammals the same bones, just in different size ratios, he could also have put them in distinct geographic locations which made animals look like they formed in one area.
Yes its an alternative explantion, but its not scientific is it?
Amusing that the Expelled people were sued for using this video because they stole it from a university, and then edited the audio to make it claim things that are totally different than what it really says. Plus the movie is being ripped apart as blatant propoganda by every critic, scholar, and viewer, that isn't a creationist. Belief in Evolution caused the Holocaust? Sure thing Mr. Stein, you psychotic.
First Expelled "borrowed" the animation from Harvard, now Yahoo news is reporting that Yoko Ono is also suing. Expelled never got permission to use the "Imagine" song.
Gasp!! This is the movie "Big Music" doesn't want you to see!
Evolution does not try to answer the question of how life began. Humanity simply does not know the answers and we may never know them. There is a reason that intelligent design is disregarded by the scientific community. There is absolutely no evidence of intelligent design. Intelligent Design was created without scientific process; in fact it was created using wild imaginations. Could life have been created by intelligent design? SURE! Do we have any evidence of this, what so ever? NO!!
you want him to make the same mistake dawkins did? Suggest such evidence which will generally tend to sound silly because.. it's a silly idea to start with, then you'll use the silly answer to ridicule him just as stein did to dawkins in this very film.
you may think some religions have silly ideahs but even einstein beleived in a creator based on scientific observations.
Answer me this. If there were a creator,what evidence would we see in the construction of cells? Dont make such claims if you cant answer the question.
Eisntein possibly believed in some kind of god but he didn't consider it a belief supported by scientific observation. When he talked of god in the context of science it was a metaphorical god.
your question is impossible to answer How can you describe the evidence for a hypothetical? All you can do is dream up hypothetical evidence. see my earlier comments on being silly.. but if you want silly.. how about this... Things I'd accept as evednace for ID include but are not limited to:
not a supreme being.you are claiming the question is silly because you cant answer it without admitting there is evidence for a creator.you interperit that evidence as evolution i interperit it is design.you attribute similarities between species to a commen origin i attribute it to a commen desiner.however you read it it is still evidence.
no.. you want me to be wrong about Einstein so you can put me in the 'athe-scientist' box but I said little to contradict your video. Only thing that matters is Einstein realised how to do science without injecting supernatural agents into the explanation. That's what counts.
abiogenesis is not just as hypothetical. There are many good competing theories in the field. There's even a few labs saying they're close to demonstrating it happening.
Gaps in our knowledge are not a problem for evolution theory either. Gaps are opportunities for further research. Not space for god brand filler.
There are logical explanations for genetic information. Evolution for example and 'intelligence' is no explanation what so ever. all that does is creates more questions! How was the intelligence created etc? and every ID argument suddenly turn round and bites you in the bum.
Actually modern science has enlightened us on how God could be explained.current theory suggests that time was created when matter was created.if that is the case then a creator would exist outside of time.Therefore he had no beggining.Its beyond our comprehension yet it makes good sense.go where the data leads you!
Modern physics throws up many mind bending concepts but it's just lazy thinking to say 'look the universe is weirder than we thought therefore weird ideas like God are now allowed'.
Bottom line. There's no evidence for (or against) god in science. God is a supernatural agent. Science deals with the natural world. God + Science is a catagory error.
It is not lazy thinking to attribute complexity to a designer, it is logical scientific thinking.
no one can account for the origin of coded information other than intelligence.The scientific evidence brings us to the conclusion.Your mentality is like an old lady with a bad back looking for the remote control.she looks everywhere she can see but as she cant bend down she refuses to consider it may be under the couch. The truth
is not limited to what we can see from our tiny vatage point
>no one can account for the origin of coded information other than intelligence
you can say it over and over again but the fact remains you can't prove it. Evolution can account for the 'information'. Natural selection is an organising force. There are plenty of organising forces in nature that can sort material so it has the appearance of intelligently organised information. It's a simple illusion.
Ive spoken to many people on youtube over the years and know one has been able to personally answer that question.since it is a theory put forth it is not up to me to prove it wrong it is up to the proposer to prove it wright.
EG: your a scientist given the job of determening whether the faces on mt rushmore and the face on mars are the results of directed or undirected forces.how would you go about it?
I can find direct historical records from multiple sources documenting the construction of the faces on mt rushmore. The face on mars on the other hand can be explained simply as a case of Praydolia. Visit it to be sure and The lack of tool marks, design, structure ect would confirm this. I fail to see the relivance.
I was talking about rushmore as if there were no records and you only had the sight to study.
RE:The lack of tool marks, design, structure ect would confirm this.
I agree with your thinking here, now if you could comment on rushmore,say you found a comparative structure on the moon.how could you youse science to determine directed or undirected origin
as far as i can see i have answered your questions. you've not answered my questions though. like what EVIDENCE is there for these fingerprints? (irreducible complexity is a long discredited idea. just go look it up on talk origins or something). Some questions are difficult though. Some don't have a clear answer yet. but in science if that's the case you say 'don't know the answer to that just yet' you don't say 'D'did it.
No you havent.ill ask again.If there was a sight on the moon like mt rushmore how would you scientificly determine whether it was a directed or undirected structure ?
RE:irreducible complexity is a long discredited idea.
This is a sweeping statement with zero evidence,Ive researched this topic from both sides,and i find there explanations on evolution of the flagellum comical.you should do some research on the findings of scott minich.
ive told you now several times,complex designs require a designer.darwins theory came at a time when they new nothing of the micro designs within the cell,it just doesnt make sense in light of modern science.
Please can you inform me which peer review papers you have studied on evolution of complex micro-organisms & symbiotic systems, & point out some sections which are wrong?
Please present good clear reasons why they are wrong, im not a biological scientist by trade and i can only imagine the flaws you see, must be so technical that other experts who scrutinize and review those studies are incapable of detecting.
So if you wouldnt mind making it easy for us, i look forward to your response
FYI 99.98% of biologically qualified scientists agree with evolution. Even michael behe agrees we descended from apes.
I will look up your video, as long as you check my profle and consider the evidence of endogenous retrovirus's, there is simply no sound creationist explanation as to why we have 98,000 confirmed APE viral (RNA) insertions in our genome. The only logical explanation is descent from a common ancestor, else we would not find these ERVS in all other modern apes and ourselves.
your talking about examining evidence that science is only beggining to understand.
EG:why is it that one genetic swith turned off produces angelman syndrome in one generation and morbid obesity in a later generation.also most christions beleive that the original pair of humans were created perfect,and since that time each succeding generation has traveled further from perfection.the bible tells of a gradually reducing life span.adam lived till 900 years.after the flood it had droped to 70
Quite simply a designer would not be 'constrained' to make creatures look as if they evolved.
Evolution says birds and mammals share a common ancestor (reptiles) but mammals will never have feathers since this is unique to birds.
A designer COULD make a feathered mammal since he would not have to follow the rules of evolution which say feathers are unique to birds and their own offspring.
Everything in nature supports this RIGID constraint, if it were broken evolution would be FALSE.
re:A designer COULD make a feathered mammal since he would not have to follow the rules of evolution
what kind of creature would you need?
how about one with fur like a polar bear,electro receptive senses like a shark,vennom like a snake,lays eggs like a crocodile and a bill like a duck ?
The platypus is a monotreme, like its fellow survivor the echidna. All the other monotremes are extinct now, they are mammals which lay eggs (a transitional species between egg laying and placental mammals) they evolved in australia after the african and australian continents drifted apart.
Their venom isnt fatal like a snake, their bill is only superficially bird like, they are mammals so have fur and other mammal features.
You have picked a perfectly good transitional form, it proves that egg laying creatures can also breast feed.
Unless... you pretend the last 150 years didnt happen, and you assume its a patchwork of animals and ignore all the genetic and phylogentic material that explains EXACTLY what it is and where it came from.
Sure its a crazy creature and another creationist favourite, but it ironically is a major transitional form and flies in the face of intelligent design.
you cant have it both ways.explain why it has a bill ,was it a bird ? or perhaps it will be a bird.you asked for an example that doesent show conformity to commen ancestry and i gave you one.oh and many snakes vennom arent fatal either.
New genome research proves platypus DNA is an equally cobbled-together array of "avian", "reptilian" and "mammalian" lineages that may hold clues for human disease prevention. The male platypus has venomous spurs on his hind feet with poison "very similar to that of reptiles".
The female lays eggs like birds and lactates to feed their young just like mammals."National Science Foundation"
our designer used the same building blocks and used combinations of ideahs,just like an artist would.
It does not lay bird-like eggs, its reptile-like eggs. It has no feathers, no wings, no beak so how is it avian?
Birds will have reptile DNA sure, plenty of it. Thats as close as a link you will get tho.
You need to do some serious reading about the platypus if you honestly think it contradicts evolution, this just shows you cant keep off of creation sites who are equally clueless about biology.
Well ive just googled it and this discovery is literally days old, i read about the platypus months ago and it was considered 'not' avian by appearance and features. If the DNA sugguests anything avian then thats interesting and ill have to wait and see what exactly that is.
The platypus has linneage anyway, we know what it came from and where it fits into the tapestry of life. So where are these creatures which blow evolution apart?
Platypus - Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Monotremata Family: Ornithorhynchidae Genus: Ornithorhynchus Direct ancestors are - Obdurodon dicksoni Steropodon galmani Also closely related to - Teinolophos Zaglossus hacketti Zaglossus robustus google anything that you want to check here
Zaglossus hacketti isnt a platypus its a monotreme from the same family. It shows that there are various other forms besides the platypus which clearly illustrates that its not a one off.
ect are all just titles given by men who see similarities between creatures.its very easy to make up ancestral patterns this way even if there are none.
a creator who makes an egg laying mammal as well as a live birth mamalls,a flying creature with sonar as well as an aquatic one with sonar makes more sense.if you dont agree tell me why
If creation is true then theres 2 possibilities, life was made all at once (which is contradicted by paleontology and geology) or animals pop into existence fully formed all the time on a regular basis, since they did not exist before certain times.
Secondly DNA allows you to compare similar species to see how related lifeforms are.
If this was unreiable then modern medicine would simply not work since diseases are cured on the basis of determining the family they come from.
Also if this was unreliable you could not have DNA tests on your children to see if they are yours.
In addition chromosomes contain a wealth of nuggets such as ERVs, fusion sites etc which can ONLY be explained by common ancestry since all closely related species carry these irrefutable links of their heritage.
You can also study homologous structures, the modern skeleton can be traced back to ancient fish, they have a radius, ulna, fibula, spine, skull teeth etc just like we do.
all these reasons can better be explained by a commen designer who has inbuilt in every life form ability to adapt to a large but finite degree.your right about modern medicine but it is adaptation that is predictable what you may refer to as micro evolution not macro evolution above species level.
Macro-evolution is the summation of successive micro-evolution.
Small changes happen - therefore in time the small changes add up and completely change the species.
They drift into new areas, they split from the parent population as they adapt to new areas...jump ahead 1000 genera... they evolve so much they now cannot conceive!
2 populations now get more and more different.
Some apes stayed in threes, others came down to roam. We needed to be smarter & walk upright and thats what came.
As i said a designer can explain EVERYTHING we see, if we take the time on his behalf to invent solutions to all the things the bible doesnt cover.
If we choose to make a designer fit all the criteria, yes we can make a highly elaborate explantion that explains all the evidence and facts.
But its so clear that ALL of these things also happened naturally, it would be like gravity doesnt exist...but magic strings hold everything down, because i prefer to think of reality as being that way.
I know you believe in god, but so do most scientists. And they accept evolution as well, Donexodus2 (videos in my profile) is a biology grad student who is also devout christian.
He hates how 'creationists' purposefully lie and distort science to prove the 'errors' of the bible.
I recommend you watch some of his videos.
I have no problem with religous people, i just hate the lies and misinformation that fundamentalists spread.
Its highly damaging to academic standards and science.
Science has given so much to humanity, but today fundamentalist religions spread propaganda that science is evil, its controlled by elites, its immoral, its fabricated, false, lies.. etc
This just is not true to anybody who spends even 1 day reading up on the accusations and allegations.
Think of the damage this propaganda can do to a soceity of lay-people who do not understand science and get dished 'psuedoscience' whos only intention is misinformation to get more people to worship.
I believe animals were created at different times mabye 100s of thousands of our years.
tell me what is evolution
does it happen because it has to or does it happen when un needed mutations simply take advantage of a new path.what i mean is even if there is no need to alter the genetics
However some mutations have positive or negative effects. An example would be denser bones, leaner muscular development, better memory, faster reactions.
Negative could be the opposites of the above.
In life we are struggling for limited resources - food, mates, land, amongst others.
So the better we are in our environment the more likely we are to breed and pass on our genes.
Those positive genes are then passed on, and eventually spread wide amongst the population.
If you look at human diversity we have very distinct skin,eye and hair colours which match the evironment we evolved in.
West africans look compleletly different to the pale blonde swedes, they are still human, they can still conceive but given more time the gene pool would have drifted to the point where conception would fail between a swede and african.
Conception is activated by a protein in the sperm which has to match the egg. It is the start of speciation When this no longer works.
Domesticated animals often are unable to breed with their wild counterparts (sheep and goats are good examples) because they were seperated and bred in capitvity for specific purposes. (sheep bred to produce more wool)
Vegetables are also bred to be bigger,better shaped and they have evolved hugely since agriculture took over their natural development.
Disease also evolves at uncontrollable rates, it is only cured by understanding what its ancestors were weak against.
If there is an animal in a perfect long term enviroment that has no need watsoever to change in any way,will it still change ?
will small mutations over time cause it to change anyway.and once the mutations lead it close enough to a new possibility of adaptation will it then follow that path ?
or would mutated offspring simply fair worse than the original and best configuration and die out?
And no it is not a bird its a mammal as i stated. Mammals have mammary glands, birds dont. It lays eggs which most birds and reptiles do because its what you would call transitional. It evolved in a different location so it does not fit the evolution of other mammals in other regions (as biogeography predicts) it kept its eggs, whilst other mammals became placental.
We know that mammry glands came before the placenta and the platypus confirms it because it got separated at an inbetween stage.
Its a bit of everything mate that blows your theory out of the water.your earlier statement was right,he GOD isnt restricted by the laws of evolution.
The origin of sharks is even more obscure than that of most other groups of animals, for they have left very little evidence of their existence.[and this] The skeleton of such a creature, a common ancestor for all the sharks and their relatives, has yet to be found."The Natural History of Sharks"
If a creature did exist, then creationists would be all over it.
They have tried many times with the flagellum, woodpecker,bombardier beetle etc
They always claim 'x' was impossible to evolve through natural processes...if it is were, then it would be impossible to also present working hypotheses explaining 'how' they might have evolved.
Time and time again people figure out ways how these things can evolve without any need to invoke a supernatural creator. Proving its perfectly possible!
I havent actually mentioned pseudogenes (junk DNA), but since you bring it up animals and humans have DNA for all kinds of things which are disabled in their present form.
Again there is no creationist answer for this which makes logical sense, but it fits evolution perfectly since it predicts whales for eg, were land mammals. So when whales are born with legs (including bones) it confirms the prediction... interesting isnt it?
you said he refferred to god only metaphoricly,you were wrong about that as the video shows.einstein didnt inject the supernatual he "discovered" the supernatural through science.watch the video again!
abiogenesis is much more hyperthetical.everything we see in life and the universe tells us that complex structure comes only from intelligence.abiogenesis can never be demonstraited in a lab because it is supposed to be an undirected process.
So I see evidence for evolution aand you see evolution for design? I'm a designer by the way.. why is the design of our genome such a mess then? It's full of virses and junk and the repetition of the mess is evidence for evolution..How is replication of useless virus DNA in our genome evidence for design? Now I'm not saying it's evidence against design but why do you see that and think AH intelligent...
the question is simple.if there was an inteligent designer responsible for all life
We should see evidence of complexity all the way down,when darwin put forth his theory he imagined a cell to be a simple blob.now we know that it is so vastly complex that we havent even discovered all there is yet.
There is no other logical explanation for the origin of genetic information other than
Darwin put his theory together 150 years ago. there's a hell of a lot he didn't know but all that matters is his idea still works! Oh and darwin had nothing to say about how life began. stop trying to conflate these 2 fields. evolution is a theory of how life changes..not how it began.
The complexity of the cell is not the problem ID would have you believe it is. Life did not begin with the cell.
Quotmined from a 150 year old private letter which is not part of Darwin's published work on evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection is a theory of how life changes not of how it begun. Get your science from scientist not from creationist web sites.
not a creationist web sight.so your wrong again. Its not wheather he published his findings on abiogenesis but that he did indeed think and write about the process.why would you presume that such a curious man would not ponder over how first life arose.He even admited he didnt have an answer
"It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter". charles darwin
Evolution is a theory of how life changes. The unsurprising fact that the man who formulated the theory also considered abiogenesis is irelavent to the theory as it is not part of the theory. Darwin also married his cousin..Does that make marrying ones cousin part of the theory?
The point I was making is that creationists like to conflate the 2 issues so they can say stupid things like 'evolution is a failure because it can't explain how life began' This statement is nonsense because the theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain how life began.
the fact Darwin pondered the question is neither here nor there and the fact he couldn't come up with an explanation 150 years ago doesn't mean that we can't come up with one, in fact several, possible explanations now.
what am i on about? you said darwin had nothing to say on the subject.you were wrong!
I never said his ideahs on abiogenesis were part of his theory on biological evolution.
However abiogenesis is just another form of evolution "chemical evolution" with many of the same principles.marrying ones cousin is a poor analogy.Abiogenes allegedly preceded
biological evolution and is an important backdrop for athiestic evolutionists to account for the beggining of the evolutionary process.
ok you said darwin not evolution.. you're still playing the game of trying to conflate evolution with the origins of life and you continue to do so in this very post. I'm not going to play along. It's just creationist propaganda.
You betray yourself completely trying to ball evolution, the creation of life and 'athiestic evolutionist ' ideas..all together you're not interested in science. Take this nonsense to Sunday School.
by athiestic evolution i mean those scientists who do not beleive in any God,creator,designer ect but rely on abiogenesis to account for origin.there reasonings are different to say ken miller.
Okay, at what point in human evolution was the "soul" invented or injected?
There is zero evidence for any kind of god in any part of scince. You are a liar, lie to yourself, lie to others... pathetic how scared you are to face that. Grow up and stop playing with your imaginary friend.
I dont beleive in human evolution.the bible says adams body was created and then when god breathed into him the breath of life he became a living soul.I dont beleive the soul can survive the body.the word soul comes from nephesh meaning "breather"
The bible says (genesis) the sky(firmament) is made of metal,that outerspace is full of water, stars are hung high in the firmament (not outside of it), rain seeps in through windows, snakes can talk..
These are known by observation to be false.
Arent you devalueing the god you worship by believing the nonsense of genesis word for word without question?
Evolution is proven beyond all doubt, i can provide you with evidence creation CAN NOT explain, because its completely wrong.
firmament,from the Hebrew,reqia, meaning "expanse" beaten or spread out
when elihu used the expression he was saying can you job create or spread out the expanse like god.elihu was explaining in human terms. now if god meant that the firmament was made of metal ,how could lite from the firmament shine down to earth as said in genesis.the hebrew is
a complex language,the word for strength can also mean heat the word "yom" "day" can mean 24 hours 20,000 years in fact any period of time.study up
Well your defense is clearly contradicted by your holy book and does not hold up because the tower of babel depicts men actually attempting to pierce the firmament at the top of the tower - (3 Baruch 3:7-8)
And they took a gimlet, and sought to pierce the heaven, saying, Let us see (whether) the heaven is made of clay, or of brass, or of iron.
So its confirmed later on in the bible that the heavens/firmament are indeed solid as stated originally in genesis. The translation excuse is weak
Well im not as hardcore a theist as you, but this source still validates my point.
Why did the people who wrote the book of baruch think the firmament was made of metal?
The answer is because the book of genesis said so. And those people understood what it meant back then and included it in their mythology. So today genesis describes a metal sky (some theists strongly deny this) but also back then it seemed to mean the same thing.. which questions the 'modern error' in translation you claim.
Ive already explained its from genesis and baruch, however i have nearly always found it futile to debate scripture with theists because the goalposts always move when you point out the flaws.
Its always a mistranslation or a planted edit or just not an accurate enough edition of 'the book'.
Ill just forgo this argument purely because it will go nowhere, id rather keep the focus on evolution since this is what matters.
We'd just be arguing over a word and i have no patience for that im afraid
right,you attacked the bible with a quote from another book what mistranslation are you talking about.you have no knowledge of the bible other than reading the baseless allegations of ant theists.but thats ok at least i was able to teach you something.
The sun and moon were placed within the firmament too, the bible often mentions stars for e.g
-stars being blown out of place by storms, stars falling to earth, the sun being made to rise during the night, fallen stars being trodden on by mere men, even stars attacking a man (i am not joking).
The book of enoch also raises Q's for the validity of the bible, since it says the earth is flat, is on foundations and has a storeroom beneath it..
>if he made the laws of physics ect it stands to >reason that he would use them.
maybe he did. you just have to accept that if he did he did so without leaving his fingerprints all over the job. Why is that so difficult to come to terms with?
if there was an inteligent designer responsible for all life
We should see evidence of complexity all the way down,when darwin put forth his theory he imagined a cell to be a simple blob.now we know that it is so vastly complex that we havent even discovered all there is yet.
There is no other logical explanation for the origin of genetic information other than
Why then does every single piece of scientific evidence show a process of evolution that shows absolutely NO sign of design by deliberate means? If we were inteligently design, why all the massive extinctions? Why bother with the trilobites? Why bother with the dinosaurs? Why all the dead end species that ended up extinct? Why all the birth defects and miscarriages? You are a creationist.
Im totally starting to lose my patience with these religious idiots. Its time to spread the Question Gravity campaign- make everythijng so utterly stupid that they have NO CHOICE but to stop thier anti- evolution horseshit and maybe we can start turning out some educated people instead of jello minded morons. Question Gravity!!! Teach the controversy!!!!
mucephi1 7 months ago
lol @ that ragnar guy below... I love how the evo's use the Santa Claus example. Because it's ridiculous to think that presents appear on their own under a tree by a magical process. The parents are the one doing things BY DESIGN.
Yet, the evolutionists are the ones that believe in Santa. They believe that something can from nothing by some mysterious magical process.
The evolutionist's continued lies to hold on to their religion never ceases to amaze me.
kainestolkyn 2 years ago
They love their pagan religion, dawkins is their priest and the god delusion is their unholy book.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
That 'magical' process by which something comes from 'nothing' is based in quantum mechanics, it's well documented.
Evolution isn't a religion btw.
jameswillmott3d 2 years ago
They should get rid of the sound effects. But I don't think this channel is affiliated with the Expelled movie. It allows comments without the approval of the channel.
internetaccount122 3 years ago
Hey, isn't EVOLUTION just one hell of an INTELLIGENT DESIGN!?! he he he!
Mannheim67 3 years ago
well if ben stein doesnt want ot sound like a stupid ass maybe he should provide some sort of evidence instead of saying, "look science doesnt know this part!! haha that means god did it!!!!"
hes a smart guy but hes been told something from such a young age that he would of been able to be made to believe that santa came on christmas
ragnar336 3 years ago
LOL the best thing about the 'irreducible complexity' argument is that it has no basis in fact. Some creationist just looked at a complicated organic structure and decided 'Gosh, looks complicated. I'll just tell people evolutionary biology can't explain it'.
Falstaff85 3 years ago
sorry i missed this earlier -
'a creator who makes an egg laying mammal as well as a live birth mamalls,a flying creature with sonar as well as an aquatic one with sonar makes more sense.if you dont agree tell me why '
Basically this is called convergent evolution, it refers to occurances when different unrelated species find a similar solution to the environment through random adaptions.
digitised 3 years ago
The main fact is that even tho the solution is the same principal the overall structure, method, appearance and execution are different.
For example birds, insects and bats all have wings. All are unrelated but came up with a form of flight all on their own.
Insects and mammals arent related but they both have legs to move.
Sonar underwater and out of water are also completely different.
whales and dolphins are both mammals which can live in the ocean like fish.
digitised 3 years ago
Insects, arachnids,germs, reptiles and some mammals have venoms and toxins which are all based on different unrelated compounds.
Eyes also vary significantly between species that arent directly related, think of mollusks, flies, crabs, octopus, human etc
All very different in terms of how they work but all enable sight for the creature allowing it to survive in its environment.
digitised 3 years ago
yeh i understand what you think it is but can you tell me why it "can not" be the result of a commen designer likes to mix and match ?
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Ok i see what you are saying, no matter how much evidence suggests common ancestry it is absolutely possible that a god exists.
Its also possible that this god made everything look evolved, he coded the DNA, he planted the ERVS, he gave all fish/reptiles/mammals the same bones, just in different size ratios, he could also have put them in distinct geographic locations which made animals look like they formed in one area.
Yes its an alternative explantion, but its not scientific is it?
digitised 3 years ago
This is Harvards' animation!
They just changed the colour and lowerd the resolution! I didn't think creationists could make something so inspiring.
ngarey 3 years ago
No they didn't, it was made from scratch, I worked on it.
jameswillmott3d 2 years ago
Amusing that the Expelled people were sued for using this video because they stole it from a university, and then edited the audio to make it claim things that are totally different than what it really says. Plus the movie is being ripped apart as blatant propoganda by every critic, scholar, and viewer, that isn't a creationist. Belief in Evolution caused the Holocaust? Sure thing Mr. Stein, you psychotic.
popecorkyxxiv 3 years ago
Wow...this really is pretty much identical to the XVIVO clip.
TavishHill 3 years ago
The book is good too...
matrixm777 3 years ago
Don't you mean "pamphlet?"
EndCredulity 3 years ago
Good movie. Thanks for the video clip...
matrixm777 3 years ago
Shit movie. Read a book.
hydralisk125 3 years ago
First Expelled "borrowed" the animation from Harvard, now Yahoo news is reporting that Yoko Ono is also suing. Expelled never got permission to use the "Imagine" song.
Gasp!! This is the movie "Big Music" doesn't want you to see!
EndCredulity 3 years ago
Evolution does not try to answer the question of how life began. Humanity simply does not know the answers and we may never know them. There is a reason that intelligent design is disregarded by the scientific community. There is absolutely no evidence of intelligent design. Intelligent Design was created without scientific process; in fact it was created using wild imaginations. Could life have been created by intelligent design? SURE! Do we have any evidence of this, what so ever? NO!!
Syrinx69 3 years ago
what kind of evidence would you need ?
pestmanpat 3 years ago
"what kind of evidence would you need ?"
Any evidence at all would be a start
Syrinx69 3 years ago
dont evade the question specificly what kind of evidence
pestmanpat 3 years ago
you want him to make the same mistake dawkins did? Suggest such evidence which will generally tend to sound silly because.. it's a silly idea to start with, then you'll use the silly answer to ridicule him just as stein did to dawkins in this very film.
MarbleMad 3 years ago
you may think some religions have silly ideahs but even einstein beleived in a creator based on scientific observations.
Answer me this. If there were a creator,what evidence would we see in the construction of cells? Dont make such claims if you cant answer the question.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Eisntein possibly believed in some kind of god but he didn't consider it a belief supported by scientific observation. When he talked of god in the context of science it was a metaphorical god.
your question is impossible to answer How can you describe the evidence for a hypothetical? All you can do is dream up hypothetical evidence. see my earlier comments on being silly.. but if you want silly.. how about this... Things I'd accept as evednace for ID include but are not limited to:
MarbleMad 3 years ago
REM STATEMENTS in our DNA.. that'd be a dead give away.
Fossilised remains of God, his space ship or his genetics laboratory.
Blueprints or schematics for life recorded in some form pre-dating life on earth.
Life on other worlds that clearly shown the same origins as life on earth at a more advanced level than could have been conveyed by meteor.
I can answer your questions. they're silly questions so the answers are a bit silly but that's unavoidable but there you have it.
MarbleMad 3 years ago
your wrong about einstein,see my video
its not logical to expect to find schematics
you thinking in the way a human would do it
not a supreme being.you are claiming the question is silly because you cant answer it without admitting there is evidence for a creator.you interperit that evidence as evolution i interperit it is design.you attribute similarities between species to a commen origin i attribute it to a commen desiner.however you read it it is still evidence.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
no.. you want me to be wrong about Einstein so you can put me in the 'athe-scientist' box but I said little to contradict your video. Only thing that matters is Einstein realised how to do science without injecting supernatural agents into the explanation. That's what counts.
abiogenesis is not just as hypothetical. There are many good competing theories in the field. There's even a few labs saying they're close to demonstrating it happening.
MarbleMad 3 years ago
Gaps in our knowledge are not a problem for evolution theory either. Gaps are opportunities for further research. Not space for god brand filler.
There are logical explanations for genetic information. Evolution for example and 'intelligence' is no explanation what so ever. all that does is creates more questions! How was the intelligence created etc? and every ID argument suddenly turn round and bites you in the bum.
MarbleMad 3 years ago
Actually modern science has enlightened us on how God could be explained.current theory suggests that time was created when matter was created.if that is the case then a creator would exist outside of time.Therefore he had no beggining.Its beyond our comprehension yet it makes good sense.go where the data leads you!
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Modern physics throws up many mind bending concepts but it's just lazy thinking to say 'look the universe is weirder than we thought therefore weird ideas like God are now allowed'.
Bottom line. There's no evidence for (or against) god in science. God is a supernatural agent. Science deals with the natural world. God + Science is a catagory error.
MarbleMad 3 years ago
It is not lazy thinking to attribute complexity to a designer, it is logical scientific thinking.
no one can account for the origin of coded information other than intelligence.The scientific evidence brings us to the conclusion.Your mentality is like an old lady with a bad back looking for the remote control.she looks everywhere she can see but as she cant bend down she refuses to consider it may be under the couch. The truth
is not limited to what we can see from our tiny vatage point
pestmanpat 3 years ago
>no one can account for the origin of coded information other than intelligence
you can say it over and over again but the fact remains you can't prove it. Evolution can account for the 'information'. Natural selection is an organising force. There are plenty of organising forces in nature that can sort material so it has the appearance of intelligently organised information. It's a simple illusion.
MarbleMad 3 years ago
Ive spoken to many people on youtube over the years and know one has been able to personally answer that question.since it is a theory put forth it is not up to me to prove it wrong it is up to the proposer to prove it wright.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
EG: your a scientist given the job of determening whether the faces on mt rushmore and the face on mars are the results of directed or undirected forces.how would you go about it?
pestmanpat 3 years ago
I can find direct historical records from multiple sources documenting the construction of the faces on mt rushmore. The face on mars on the other hand can be explained simply as a case of Praydolia. Visit it to be sure and The lack of tool marks, design, structure ect would confirm this. I fail to see the relivance.
MarbleMad 3 years ago
I was talking about rushmore as if there were no records and you only had the sight to study.
RE:The lack of tool marks, design, structure ect would confirm this.
I agree with your thinking here, now if you could comment on rushmore,say you found a comparative structure on the moon.how could you youse science to determine directed or undirected origin
pestmanpat 3 years ago
You'd look pretty silly if you studied mount rushmore and concluded god did it.
MarbleMad 3 years ago
is this another question you cant answer.
its nat a hard question.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
as far as i can see i have answered your questions. you've not answered my questions though. like what EVIDENCE is there for these fingerprints? (irreducible complexity is a long discredited idea. just go look it up on talk origins or something). Some questions are difficult though. Some don't have a clear answer yet. but in science if that's the case you say 'don't know the answer to that just yet' you don't say 'D'did it.
MarbleMad 3 years ago
No you havent.ill ask again.If there was a sight on the moon like mt rushmore how would you scientificly determine whether it was a directed or undirected structure ?
RE:irreducible complexity is a long discredited idea.
This is a sweeping statement with zero evidence,Ive researched this topic from both sides,and i find there explanations on evolution of the flagellum comical.you should do some research on the findings of scott minich.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
ive told you now several times,complex designs require a designer.darwins theory came at a time when they new nothing of the micro designs within the cell,it just doesnt make sense in light of modern science.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Please can you inform me which peer review papers you have studied on evolution of complex micro-organisms & symbiotic systems, & point out some sections which are wrong?
Please present good clear reasons why they are wrong, im not a biological scientist by trade and i can only imagine the flaws you see, must be so technical that other experts who scrutinize and review those studies are incapable of detecting.
So if you wouldnt mind making it easy for us, i look forward to your response
digitised 3 years ago
re:the flaws you see, must be so technical that other experts who scrutinize and review those studies are incapable of detecting.
Im no expert either but i get your point.
The thing is there are educated intelligent men on both sides of the argument.look up
"dean kenyon" on you tube and wickapedia
tell me if you think he has the credentials to put foward an informed argument.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
FYI 99.98% of biologically qualified scientists agree with evolution. Even michael behe agrees we descended from apes.
I will look up your video, as long as you check my profle and consider the evidence of endogenous retrovirus's, there is simply no sound creationist explanation as to why we have 98,000 confirmed APE viral (RNA) insertions in our genome. The only logical explanation is descent from a common ancestor, else we would not find these ERVS in all other modern apes and ourselves.
digitised 3 years ago
your talking about examining evidence that science is only beggining to understand.
EG:why is it that one genetic swith turned off produces angelman syndrome in one generation and morbid obesity in a later generation.also most christions beleive that the original pair of humans were created perfect,and since that time each succeding generation has traveled further from perfection.the bible tells of a gradually reducing life span.adam lived till 900 years.after the flood it had droped to 70
pestmanpat 3 years ago
The bible makes a lot of great claims but is not supported by any evidence in these matters.
The age of adam fits in with many ancient figures, the further you go back in history the more outrageous the ages of emporers and kings are.
Youre disregarding that humans have descended from apelike creatures.
Humans are mammals, bear placental young, have mammary glands, bodyhair, warm blood, spine and skulls, JUST like ALL other mammals.
We are not unique, we are constrained by evolution.
digitised 3 years ago
prove to me that all these facts can not mean a commen designer rather than a commen ancestry
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Quite simply a designer would not be 'constrained' to make creatures look as if they evolved.
Evolution says birds and mammals share a common ancestor (reptiles) but mammals will never have feathers since this is unique to birds.
A designer COULD make a feathered mammal since he would not have to follow the rules of evolution which say feathers are unique to birds and their own offspring.
Everything in nature supports this RIGID constraint, if it were broken evolution would be FALSE.
digitised 3 years ago
Doesnt this strike you in any way?
I mean theres over 100m species on this planet (germ, fungus, animal, plant, fish etc)and all of them show a conformity to common ancestry...
None stick out, despite all the attempts to find one animal that makes no sense, none have been found.
This is a standing testament to common descent.
Or absolute deceit on the behalf of a cunning and mischeivous creator.
digitised 3 years ago
re:A designer COULD make a feathered mammal since he would not have to follow the rules of evolution
what kind of creature would you need?
how about one with fur like a polar bear,electro receptive senses like a shark,vennom like a snake,lays eggs like a crocodile and a bill like a duck ?
pestmanpat 3 years ago
You are just showing your ignorance
The platypus is a monotreme, like its fellow survivor the echidna. All the other monotremes are extinct now, they are mammals which lay eggs (a transitional species between egg laying and placental mammals) they evolved in australia after the african and australian continents drifted apart.
Their venom isnt fatal like a snake, their bill is only superficially bird like, they are mammals so have fur and other mammal features.
Is this your only example?
digitised 3 years ago
You have picked a perfectly good transitional form, it proves that egg laying creatures can also breast feed.
Unless... you pretend the last 150 years didnt happen, and you assume its a patchwork of animals and ignore all the genetic and phylogentic material that explains EXACTLY what it is and where it came from.
Sure its a crazy creature and another creationist favourite, but it ironically is a major transitional form and flies in the face of intelligent design.
digitised 3 years ago
you cant have it both ways.explain why it has a bill ,was it a bird ? or perhaps it will be a bird.you asked for an example that doesent show conformity to commen ancestry and i gave you one.oh and many snakes vennom arent fatal either.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Its bill does not function like a birds beak it looks similar, it has a completely different internal structure and isnt birdlike.
The poison contains 250 compounds of which only 2 are found in snakes.
The poisons venom sac is in the leg, and is not administered from the mouth via intrevenous fangs which ALL snakes use.
Why you draw on snakes here? there is no similarity present.
You have just read and restated this point from ID sites, by people who want to tell you its snake like.
digitised 3 years ago
New genome research proves platypus DNA is an equally cobbled-together array of "avian", "reptilian" and "mammalian" lineages that may hold clues for human disease prevention. The male platypus has venomous spurs on his hind feet with poison "very similar to that of reptiles".
The female lays eggs like birds and lactates to feed their young just like mammals."National Science Foundation"
our designer used the same building blocks and used combinations of ideahs,just like an artist would.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Its not avian, its a mammal.
Its reptilian by linneage, so are you and I!
It does not lay bird-like eggs, its reptile-like eggs. It has no feathers, no wings, no beak so how is it avian?
Birds will have reptile DNA sure, plenty of it. Thats as close as a link you will get tho.
You need to do some serious reading about the platypus if you honestly think it contradicts evolution, this just shows you cant keep off of creation sites who are equally clueless about biology.
digitised 3 years ago
MY GOODNESS MAN the quote i posted was not from a creationist web sight it was from the
National Science Foundation google it yourself.if you disagree with the views you disagree with them not me.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Well ive just googled it and this discovery is literally days old, i read about the platypus months ago and it was considered 'not' avian by appearance and features. If the DNA sugguests anything avian then thats interesting and ill have to wait and see what exactly that is.
The platypus has linneage anyway, we know what it came from and where it fits into the tapestry of life. So where are these creatures which blow evolution apart?
digitised 3 years ago
point me to a fossil of its predecesor
pestmanpat 3 years ago
digitised 3 years ago
what im after is a creature similar to a platypus a close ancestor,one that can not be regarded as simpy another extinct species of platypus.
Zaglossus hacketti is far to different a creature.see what else you can find
pestmanpat 3 years ago
These are direct ancestors-
Obdurodon dicksoni
Steropodon galmani
Zaglossus hacketti isnt a platypus its a monotreme from the same family. It shows that there are various other forms besides the platypus which clearly illustrates that its not a one off.
digitised 3 years ago
no i dont agree.monotreme,marsupial,amphibian
ect are all just titles given by men who see similarities between creatures.its very easy to make up ancestral patterns this way even if there are none.
a creator who makes an egg laying mammal as well as a live birth mamalls,a flying creature with sonar as well as an aquatic one with sonar makes more sense.if you dont agree tell me why
pestmanpat 3 years ago
I dont agree because you are basically saying people just assemble species into a 'what looks similar must be related' mentality.
Its actually far more thorough than this.
First of all fossils are dated by strata depth as well as radiometric dating so we know when they appeared and how long they lived for.
If evolution is true then new creatures appear in different ages, and should not appear ahead of their time/complexity. (ie a jurassic chicken)
digitised 3 years ago
If creation is true then theres 2 possibilities, life was made all at once (which is contradicted by paleontology and geology) or animals pop into existence fully formed all the time on a regular basis, since they did not exist before certain times.
Secondly DNA allows you to compare similar species to see how related lifeforms are.
If this was unreiable then modern medicine would simply not work since diseases are cured on the basis of determining the family they come from.
digitised 3 years ago
Also if this was unreliable you could not have DNA tests on your children to see if they are yours.
In addition chromosomes contain a wealth of nuggets such as ERVs, fusion sites etc which can ONLY be explained by common ancestry since all closely related species carry these irrefutable links of their heritage.
You can also study homologous structures, the modern skeleton can be traced back to ancient fish, they have a radius, ulna, fibula, spine, skull teeth etc just like we do.
digitised 3 years ago
all these reasons can better be explained by a commen designer who has inbuilt in every life form ability to adapt to a large but finite degree.your right about modern medicine but it is adaptation that is predictable what you may refer to as micro evolution not macro evolution above species level.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Macro-evolution is the summation of successive micro-evolution.
Small changes happen - therefore in time the small changes add up and completely change the species.
They drift into new areas, they split from the parent population as they adapt to new areas...jump ahead 1000 genera... they evolve so much they now cannot conceive!
2 populations now get more and more different.
Some apes stayed in threes, others came down to roam. We needed to be smarter & walk upright and thats what came.
digitised 3 years ago 4
Think of a tap dripping...
imagine its just dripping into a completely deserted landscape.
At first you might think, its just a puddle it wont ever get bigger.
But it does.
1 drip at a time it gets bigger, it changes from a puddle to a pool, pool to lake, lake to ocean...
It just takes time, every successive drip adds up to make a HUGE change.
digitised 3 years ago
As i said a designer can explain EVERYTHING we see, if we take the time on his behalf to invent solutions to all the things the bible doesnt cover.
If we choose to make a designer fit all the criteria, yes we can make a highly elaborate explantion that explains all the evidence and facts.
But its so clear that ALL of these things also happened naturally, it would be like gravity doesnt exist...but magic strings hold everything down, because i prefer to think of reality as being that way.
digitised 3 years ago
I know you believe in god, but so do most scientists. And they accept evolution as well, Donexodus2 (videos in my profile) is a biology grad student who is also devout christian.
He hates how 'creationists' purposefully lie and distort science to prove the 'errors' of the bible.
I recommend you watch some of his videos.
I have no problem with religous people, i just hate the lies and misinformation that fundamentalists spread.
Its highly damaging to academic standards and science.
digitised 3 years ago
Science has given so much to humanity, but today fundamentalist religions spread propaganda that science is evil, its controlled by elites, its immoral, its fabricated, false, lies.. etc
This just is not true to anybody who spends even 1 day reading up on the accusations and allegations.
Think of the damage this propaganda can do to a soceity of lay-people who do not understand science and get dished 'psuedoscience' whos only intention is misinformation to get more people to worship.
digitised 3 years ago
I believe animals were created at different times mabye 100s of thousands of our years.
tell me what is evolution
does it happen because it has to or does it happen when un needed mutations simply take advantage of a new path.what i mean is even if there is no need to alter the genetics
does it happen anyway?
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Evolution by definition -
Changes in allele frequency within populations leading to changes in phenotype.
Bascially everytime a creature reproduces (sexually for this example) it provides 1/2 the chromosomes.
When it combines with the other half it recombines and carries 'some' errors.
The human zygote contains on average 128 errors in each conception.
Most of these mutations are benign and have no noticable effect on offspring.
It may be purely superficial eg slightly rounder ear.
digitised 3 years ago
However some mutations have positive or negative effects. An example would be denser bones, leaner muscular development, better memory, faster reactions.
Negative could be the opposites of the above.
In life we are struggling for limited resources - food, mates, land, amongst others.
So the better we are in our environment the more likely we are to breed and pass on our genes.
Those positive genes are then passed on, and eventually spread wide amongst the population.
digitised 3 years ago
If you look at human diversity we have very distinct skin,eye and hair colours which match the evironment we evolved in.
West africans look compleletly different to the pale blonde swedes, they are still human, they can still conceive but given more time the gene pool would have drifted to the point where conception would fail between a swede and african.
Conception is activated by a protein in the sperm which has to match the egg. It is the start of speciation When this no longer works.
digitised 3 years ago
Domesticated animals often are unable to breed with their wild counterparts (sheep and goats are good examples) because they were seperated and bred in capitvity for specific purposes. (sheep bred to produce more wool)
Vegetables are also bred to be bigger,better shaped and they have evolved hugely since agriculture took over their natural development.
Disease also evolves at uncontrollable rates, it is only cured by understanding what its ancestors were weak against.
digitised 3 years ago
If there is an animal in a perfect long term enviroment that has no need watsoever to change in any way,will it still change ?
will small mutations over time cause it to change anyway.and once the mutations lead it close enough to a new possibility of adaptation will it then follow that path ?
or would mutated offspring simply fair worse than the original and best configuration and die out?
pestmanpat 3 years ago
There are many species which have barely changed at all in millions of years, they are still alive now so i guess they work just as they are.
However their will still be variations but if the environment isnt favouring those traits over others then it wont become the dominant 'design'.
Environments are what drive evolution, the ice age would drive creatures to become white, forests - to become green etc
If you blend in you are less likely to be eat, and more likely to breed.
digitised 3 years ago
And no it is not a bird its a mammal as i stated. Mammals have mammary glands, birds dont. It lays eggs which most birds and reptiles do because its what you would call transitional. It evolved in a different location so it does not fit the evolution of other mammals in other regions (as biogeography predicts) it kept its eggs, whilst other mammals became placental.
We know that mammry glands came before the placenta and the platypus confirms it because it got separated at an inbetween stage.
digitised 3 years ago
Its a bit of everything mate that blows your theory out of the water.your earlier statement was right,he GOD isnt restricted by the laws of evolution.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Then please list me the lifeforms (animal, insect, plant, fungus or germ) which do not conform to the principals of common ancestry.
Meaning - find me life which has appeared fully formed with no tracable linneage which shows gradual modification of existing structures/features.
If evolution is blown out of the water then you should have no problem coming up with a nice list to prove me wrong.
Show me as many as you can, ill send $50paypal for each you can find & prove, you have my word.
digitised 3 years ago
The origin of sharks is even more obscure than that of most other groups of animals, for they have left very little evidence of their existence.[and this] The skeleton of such a creature, a common ancestor for all the sharks and their relatives, has yet to be found."The Natural History of Sharks"
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Actually if you google shark evolution the very 1st result says they evolved over 270m years theres 2-3000 fossil remains showing different species.
There are more species of shark on record than dinosaurs. (650-800)
I think you need to cross that 1 off.
digitised 3 years ago
well yes it may say that but this is only speculation as they have no examples of a
common ancestor.different species within a species do not count.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
If a creature did exist, then creationists would be all over it.
They have tried many times with the flagellum, woodpecker,bombardier beetle etc
They always claim 'x' was impossible to evolve through natural processes...if it is were, then it would be impossible to also present working hypotheses explaining 'how' they might have evolved.
Time and time again people figure out ways how these things can evolve without any need to invoke a supernatural creator. Proving its perfectly possible!
digitised 3 years ago
I havent actually mentioned pseudogenes (junk DNA), but since you bring it up animals and humans have DNA for all kinds of things which are disabled in their present form.
Again there is no creationist answer for this which makes logical sense, but it fits evolution perfectly since it predicts whales for eg, were land mammals. So when whales are born with legs (including bones) it confirms the prediction... interesting isnt it?
digitised 3 years ago
you said he refferred to god only metaphoricly,you were wrong about that as the video shows.einstein didnt inject the supernatual he "discovered" the supernatural through science.watch the video again!
abiogenesis is much more hyperthetical.everything we see in life and the universe tells us that complex structure comes only from intelligence.abiogenesis can never be demonstraited in a lab because it is supposed to be an undirected process.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
>he "discovered" the supernatural through science.
That's a contradiction in terms.. and it's also bollocks.
>watch the video again!
Not if you payed me. Once was more than enough.
I've said my piece on abiogenesis.You're wrong.Yyou're just repeating your unfounded prejudice now.
MarbleMad 3 years ago
So I see evidence for evolution aand you see evolution for design? I'm a designer by the way.. why is the design of our genome such a mess then? It's full of virses and junk and the repetition of the mess is evidence for evolution..How is replication of useless virus DNA in our genome evidence for design? Now I'm not saying it's evidence against design but why do you see that and think AH intelligent...
MarbleMad 3 years ago
your wrong about einstein,see my video
abiogenesis is just as hypothetical
the question is simple.if there was an inteligent designer responsible for all life
We should see evidence of complexity all the way down,when darwin put forth his theory he imagined a cell to be a simple blob.now we know that it is so vastly complex that we havent even discovered all there is yet.
There is no other logical explanation for the origin of genetic information other than
intelligence.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Darwin put his theory together 150 years ago. there's a hell of a lot he didn't know but all that matters is his idea still works! Oh and darwin had nothing to say about how life began. stop trying to conflate these 2 fields. evolution is a theory of how life changes..not how it began.
The complexity of the cell is not the problem ID would have you believe it is. Life did not begin with the cell.
MarbleMad 3 years ago
re:darwin had nothing to say
if (and oh! What a big if !) we could conceive
in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia
and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc. present, that
a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo
still more complex changes. At the present such matter would
be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been
the case before living creatures were formed." Charles Darwin
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Quotmined from a 150 year old private letter which is not part of Darwin's published work on evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection is a theory of how life changes not of how it begun. Get your science from scientist not from creationist web sites.
MarbleMad 3 years ago
The quote came from
"THE INTERNET ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE"
not a creationist web sight.so your wrong again. Its not wheather he published his findings on abiogenesis but that he did indeed think and write about the process.why would you presume that such a curious man would not ponder over how first life arose.He even admited he didnt have an answer
"It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter". charles darwin
pestmanpat 3 years ago
What are you on about??
Evolution is a theory of how life changes. The unsurprising fact that the man who formulated the theory also considered abiogenesis is irelavent to the theory as it is not part of the theory. Darwin also married his cousin..Does that make marrying ones cousin part of the theory?
MarbleMad 3 years ago
The point I was making is that creationists like to conflate the 2 issues so they can say stupid things like 'evolution is a failure because it can't explain how life began' This statement is nonsense because the theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain how life began.
the fact Darwin pondered the question is neither here nor there and the fact he couldn't come up with an explanation 150 years ago doesn't mean that we can't come up with one, in fact several, possible explanations now.
MarbleMad 3 years ago
what am i on about? you said darwin had nothing to say on the subject.you were wrong!
I never said his ideahs on abiogenesis were part of his theory on biological evolution.
However abiogenesis is just another form of evolution "chemical evolution" with many of the same principles.marrying ones cousin is a poor analogy.Abiogenes allegedly preceded
biological evolution and is an important backdrop for athiestic evolutionists to account for the beggining of the evolutionary process.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
ok you said darwin not evolution.. you're still playing the game of trying to conflate evolution with the origins of life and you continue to do so in this very post. I'm not going to play along. It's just creationist propaganda.
You betray yourself completely trying to ball evolution, the creation of life and 'athiestic evolutionist ' ideas..all together you're not interested in science. Take this nonsense to Sunday School.
MarbleMad 3 years ago
im not a creationist,creatiuonists teach a literal 6 day creation ect.
I beleive our creator did so through methods that could be explained through scientific methods had we the ability to grap them.
if he made the laws of physics ect it stands to reason that he would use them.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
I lose interest in these kinds of debates as soon as people start using language like 'athiestic evolutionist'.
It betrays your interest is not in science but in wining god points.
MarbleMad 3 years ago
by athiestic evolution i mean those scientists who do not beleive in any God,creator,designer ect but rely on abiogenesis to account for origin.there reasonings are different to say ken miller.
perhaps your just to stumped to answer the
questions so you resort to attacking my agenda.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Okay, at what point in human evolution was the "soul" invented or injected?
There is zero evidence for any kind of god in any part of scince. You are a liar, lie to yourself, lie to others... pathetic how scared you are to face that. Grow up and stop playing with your imaginary friend.
sciencedoggy 3 years ago
I dont beleive in human evolution.the bible says adams body was created and then when god breathed into him the breath of life he became a living soul.I dont beleive the soul can survive the body.the word soul comes from nephesh meaning "breather"
pestmanpat 3 years ago
The bible says (genesis) the sky(firmament) is made of metal,that outerspace is full of water, stars are hung high in the firmament (not outside of it), rain seeps in through windows, snakes can talk..
These are known by observation to be false.
Arent you devalueing the god you worship by believing the nonsense of genesis word for word without question?
Evolution is proven beyond all doubt, i can provide you with evidence creation CAN NOT explain, because its completely wrong.
digitised 3 years ago
firmament,from the Hebrew,reqia, meaning "expanse" beaten or spread out
when elihu used the expression he was saying can you job create or spread out the expanse like god.elihu was explaining in human terms. now if god meant that the firmament was made of metal ,how could lite from the firmament shine down to earth as said in genesis.the hebrew is
a complex language,the word for strength can also mean heat the word "yom" "day" can mean 24 hours 20,000 years in fact any period of time.study up
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Well your defense is clearly contradicted by your holy book and does not hold up because the tower of babel depicts men actually attempting to pierce the firmament at the top of the tower - (3 Baruch 3:7-8)
And they took a gimlet, and sought to pierce the heaven, saying, Let us see (whether) the heaven is made of clay, or of brass, or of iron.
So its confirmed later on in the bible that the heavens/firmament are indeed solid as stated originally in genesis. The translation excuse is weak
digitised 3 years ago
The book of "Baruch" is not even part of biblical cannon.
dont you know that?
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Well im not as hardcore a theist as you, but this source still validates my point.
Why did the people who wrote the book of baruch think the firmament was made of metal?
The answer is because the book of genesis said so. And those people understood what it meant back then and included it in their mythology. So today genesis describes a metal sky (some theists strongly deny this) but also back then it seemed to mean the same thing.. which questions the 'modern error' in translation you claim.
digitised 3 years ago
you show where you think it talks abiout a meatal sky ?
RE:some theists strongly deny this
That would be because it isnt true
put it up and well talk about it.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Ive already explained its from genesis and baruch, however i have nearly always found it futile to debate scripture with theists because the goalposts always move when you point out the flaws.
Its always a mistranslation or a planted edit or just not an accurate enough edition of 'the book'.
Ill just forgo this argument purely because it will go nowhere, id rather keep the focus on evolution since this is what matters.
We'd just be arguing over a word and i have no patience for that im afraid
digitised 3 years ago
right,you attacked the bible with a quote from another book what mistranslation are you talking about.you have no knowledge of the bible other than reading the baseless allegations of ant theists.but thats ok at least i was able to teach you something.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
The sun and moon were placed within the firmament too, the bible often mentions stars for e.g
-stars being blown out of place by storms, stars falling to earth, the sun being made to rise during the night, fallen stars being trodden on by mere men, even stars attacking a man (i am not joking).
The book of enoch also raises Q's for the validity of the bible, since it says the earth is flat, is on foundations and has a storeroom beneath it..
To believe this, is to insult what god is.
digitised 3 years ago
>if he made the laws of physics ect it stands to >reason that he would use them.
maybe he did. you just have to accept that if he did he did so without leaving his fingerprints all over the job. Why is that so difficult to come to terms with?
MarbleMad 3 years ago
thats just it mate he did leave his fingerprints,you just interpret them as something else.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Post them. Then let's see them. Come on, post them up, sport.
sciencedoggy 3 years ago
re-post
if there was an inteligent designer responsible for all life
We should see evidence of complexity all the way down,when darwin put forth his theory he imagined a cell to be a simple blob.now we know that it is so vastly complex that we havent even discovered all there is yet.
There is no other logical explanation for the origin of genetic information other than
intelligence.
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Mabye you can personally answer the elusive question
"where did coded information come from"
since darwinian mechanism only deals with the physical changes. post it up sport !
pestmanpat 3 years ago
So where's the evidence of deliberate design?
Why then does every single piece of scientific evidence show a process of evolution that shows absolutely NO sign of design by deliberate means? If we were inteligently design, why all the massive extinctions? Why bother with the trilobites? Why bother with the dinosaurs? Why all the dead end species that ended up extinct? Why all the birth defects and miscarriages? You are a creationist.
sciencedoggy 3 years ago
"Excellent clip to prove a point"
Yes that creationists are lying, thieving bastards, right?
"The interview at the end with Dawkin? Very revealing......."
Yes that creationists are deceitful, underhanded bastards, right?
Syrinx69 3 years ago
The folks that made the original are suing, but Expelled producers are counter-suing for causing them bad press.
busymartian 3 years ago
judge for yourself
kxSLw1LMvgk
I say guilty :)
the original is much more beautiful also.
MarbleMad 3 years ago 3
Ben Stein said to Pat Robertson that universities are fortresses of nonsense. Yet, Expelled stole animations from Harvard.
busymartian 3 years ago 3
That's good footage that Harvard Multimedia put together.
VincentTruman 3 years ago 3
They didn't.
It's a poor copy with worse resolution - but EXACTLY the same cellular actions.
It's a desperately bad attempt to hide the fact they plagiarised it. No undergraduate would ever get away with this.
jazzx251 3 years ago
So this is the footage that was plagiarised from Harvard.
jazzx251 3 years ago