I disagree vehemently with intelligent design, but I do believe that evolution occurs the way it does because the laws of physics demand it. There is no contingency if everything is determined by natural law from start to finish. That being the case, life was bound to come about, advance, and perhaps one day learn to control the laws of physics that brought them about. The question is not if there is a God in the past, but whether we shall become God in the future.
@AuxentiusZ I disagree vehemently with intelligent design
___
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.
@AuxentiusZ 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. God is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
"What is our relationship to reality as a whole?" Mr Phillip Johnson asks. In his case, tangential or marginal, based on faith not facts. In fact his relationship to reality is unreal and fact-free.
@kkkaldav wrote "Since ID is obviously scientific". No it bloody isn't. There is no convincing evidence of any "irreducibly complex system", so please stop lying. Produce any, and it will be looked at, but grandstanding is not evidence.
The very worst that could happen to Darwin's evolutionary theory is what happened to Newton's gravity theory; that someone comes down and completes it (if it was to be incomplete). But even if evolution was completely disproved tomorrow, to replace it with the "god did it" argument is childish and stupid.
god is the designer the creator hello where is every ones mind at god is the one who made everything read between the lines use the brain that he gave you and realize that he is the one they are talking about but they just dont wanna believe in him thats why they are stuck in there own words and there mines GOD IS REAL AND I DONT CARE WHAT ANYONE HAS TO SAY ABOUT THAT IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN JESUS ONE DAY WHEN HE COMES IT WOULD BE TO LATE FOR YOU TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS
@SaraDavido21 You are possibly 10 years old? You are entitled to your belief, no matter how absurd. However the childish "I DONT CARE WHAT ANYONE ...blah blah" is not very convincing to anyone over maybe 14. You have definitely not convinced me with this juvenile squeal. Oh yes, most of us who do use our brains tend to find the faith-based view of life plain silly, where it is not downright evil. Go check out the historical treatment of women in the main monotheisms, why don't you?
BUT… if we DO accept that complexity necessitates design, HOW do we explain the designer??? Should we say that his existence is EXEMPT because of unknown special circumstances? Then why not just say that the first cell exists because of unknown special circumstances? And wouldn't that be more likely, given that cells have fewer requirements than god, and we can show cells ACTUALLY exist?
A question for the Id advocates out there. Every time creationists went to the courts to get their "science" into the classroom they failed. It was obviously religion. ID was born out this problem. You infer there is a designer but you can't say it's god otherwise you're back to square 1. What other hypotheses do you have regarding the identity of the designer? If you can't say it's god then what or who is it? Keep in mind that you want the answer to sound scientific.
@ptango101 Well to address your question, ID has nothing to do with identifying the designer. ID is about showing that all the science and evidence shows there is a designer, not who the designer is; That's an entirely different field. If you want your question of who the designer is, you best look elsewhere. ID is not about identifying the designer even though that question will inevitable rise up, but that doesn't mean because the question arises that ID is focused on answering it.
@Mustdang So ID is sure there is a designer but has no idea who or what it is? I think if you are going to make such a bold claim you should have some idea what the answer could be. Where is this "elsewhere" I have to look? Creationists demand that origin of life be included in the definition of evolution. This seems like the same situation. You can't just say there is a designer and in the same breath deny all knowledge or insite in to what that could be.
@ptango101 As I said before, the question you are proposing has nothing to do with what ID is doing. ID isn't about figuring out who the designer is. I'm a Christian and I obviously know the designer is God. But ID has nothing to do with defining the designer as God but rather with pointing out biologically that we are not the product of purposeless matter and chance. I'm not saying they don't have an idea of who the designer is. That elsewhere is theology, history, etc.
@Mustdang This is the basic problem with calling ID a science. To answer your own question you must turn to the supernatural. ID"ists hold to the mistaken notion that if you don't say it, it's OK. All it becomes is an elephant in the room no ones willing to discuss. Your observations always lead back to religion's doorstep. By your own admission you don't turn to physics, chemistry or any other discipline. You have to turn to theology.
@ptango101 We could turn to physics, chemistry, etc. but sadly what ID is against is the framework that all these views are built on, which is the philosophy of naturalism. Study the philosophy of science and you will see science is not, in and of itself, a foundational discipline. It rests on the laws of logic, and requires that those laws be absolute in order for rational people to be able to rely on the interpretation of data resulting from any given experiment.
@ptango101 But, the laws of logic are derived from philosophical exercise. Therefore, interpretation of scientific results, by definition, is influenced by and rests upon some philosophical understanding. Philosophy is the foundational discipline. Without philosophy, individual data points do not have meaning, and cannot be interpreted. If you want to discuss who the designer is, it will be more than science. But as I mentioned before ID is NOT about answering the WHO.
@Mustdang I'd have to disagree with that. Science needs to be about the physical, observable, natural world. Without this grounding it becomes meaningless. You can waste time with arguments like, can you prove the idea of a fact or logic exists, but that's all you are doing wasting time. I think it's strange that almost every IDist would think it's god but have some sort of self imposed gag order that prevents them saying it.
@ptango101 Well you can disagree and have your stance and I have mine. I urge you to take a Philosophy of science class if you ever have time or the opportunity to do so and to further your knowledge there. I think further arguing here is futile. I have no problem saying it's God as any other IDist who are asked the question. But once again as I have mentioned countless times before, ID is not about addressing the WHO. Hopefully you checked out the linked I messaged you. It was a good discussion
@Mustdang I am looking at the link. It's good, thank you. I guess the only thing I would say is, apply that sort of reasoning when dealing with the evolution/origins conflict. The position of evolution is to deal only with biodiversity (to put it simply). When people start to mix things like abiogenisis and the age of the universe into the debate, it's usually an attempt to straw-man the theory. Like you with the I in ID, evolution makes no comment on origins. Thanks for the discussion.
Haha, the Darwieners are all out in numbers - as always - to pretend there is no evidence for design but that all is purposeless, random mutation based accident.
What a crock Darwinism is.
Religion drives it and self-blinded nerds believe it.
Since ID is obviously scientific, it's very alarming that the scientific community are prepared to lie so blatantly in order to exclude it. E.g., Darwin himself said that the existence of any irreducibly complex system would cause his theory to break down, yet to even suggest the possibility of an irreducibly complex item is supposed to be unscientific and therefore illegal to teach. What kind of theory needs legal protection against one of its main scientific objections/refutations?
So just because Darwin said that one can't believe in Evolution and God means theistic evolution is invalid ¬_¬?! William of Occam whom invented Occam's Razor said that his Razor works in three ways: through self-evidence, experience or authority of the Bible. Despite that, many Atheists use Occam's Razor against God! Regarding that, it's absurd to suggest that just because the inventor of a theory said that his theory isn't or is compatible with something doesn't mean it's true.
@kkkaldav Oh and by the way, Charles Darwin was benign towards (but never himself accepted) a Theistic and Diestic view of evolution if the believer wanted to believe both. Take Asa Gray (Darwin's friend who was a devout Christian and Evolutionist) and James Hutton (a Diest Evolutionist who Darwin got influenced off).
@kkkaldav You can't just ASSERT that something is irreducibly complex, you need to PROVE it and that has not been done yet. The flagellum was a failed attempt...
@kusalaviro You are mistaken for a number of reasons. Firstly, the flagellum is IC because all IC means is that a system requires a number of interconnected parts to perform the system's overall function in the manner it does. As such, the flagellum is clearly IC. Whether that then poses a problem for evolution or not is a diffferent question. And this shows your second mistake. A conflation of the ideas of IC and unevolvability. You've made other mistakes as well, but I grow weary...
@kusalaviro Y E S spell, YES. IC is the notion that the SYSTEM'S funtionality is lost when parts are removed. As Behe says on this very point:
"I never wrote that individual parts of an IC system couldn't be used for any other purpose. (That would be silly—who would ever claim that a part of a mousetrap couldn't be used as a paperweight".
Indeed, he discusses the possibly of IC systems arising via other functions at length in the book he wrote about it that you haven't/won't read.
@kkkaldav Well then he has backpedaled from his original position which was to imply that IC refuted evolution precisely because evolution couldn't construct these mechanisms...
@kusalaviro But now you're completely conflating the notion of IC with unevolvability as if there was no difference at all between the concepts.
And no, Behe didn't backpedal - that's just the story Ken Miller tells. Behe's position has never changed. Here he is writing in Darwin's Black Box, when he first introduced IC:
"an evolutionary story for the cilium [an IC system] must envision a circuitous route, PERHAPS ADAPTING PARTS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES".
so they all claim that science points to the universe being created by an intelligent being, so where is the proof, it seems to me the only proof they can find is absence of of evidence for the origins of life and the universe, just because we are missing evidence does NOT mean we had to be designed. it is illogical to say you know there is a creator just because absence of evidence.
The best part of this view of Intelligent Design is that it basically removed itself from belief in a god. The video basically implies that should there be a creator, the creator is more capable than us, but not greater/gooder/better than us.
Show don't tell. Oh, I'm sorry... I forgot that there is not a shred of evidence for ID and that all this blather is merely papering over the gaping cracks in the argument for ID. It's creationist propaganda ("cdesign proponentists" anyone?) that is not even wrong.
Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with science. This is a battle for the souls of the scientifically-illiterate. Thus the high production values, loud dramatic music, and absolutely no original research.
@WulfBand No, Darwin was not a believer in Eugenics. He did, however, make statements regarding what we consider race today, as it is explained by natural selection. He thought that certain races were more suited to their environment and would be naturally selected in the future. He did NOT support eugenics, only predicted that some races might be more fit than others. In fact, he suggested that sympathy was "the noblest part of our nature", and that human breeding was a personal choice.
@mhearstify The quote is from page 133 of "River Out of Eden" by Richard Dawkins, published in 1995. Look it up on google books.
The makers of this video did however, remove the words "no evil and no good" from the middle of the quote. So, not only did they mess up the attribution, they misleadingly shortened the original quote. Epic fail.
It is the uncaused cause. Causeless boundless and eternal. No beginning and no end, There never was a time when it wasnt. No time of formation. No time.
The video game is designed. Call the laws that govern respawning, double-jumps, multiple bullet absorption and tireless exertion of energy the laws of "batman the game". Call the laws that govern the universe, the laws of physics. Irrelevant outside the physical.
2. Also the octopuses have a camera eye like us, but the retina is the right way around, so they have no blind spot. This can lead us to conclude to two things, god favors the octopus over us, or he is not worthy of our praise.
I think since human evolution can no longer be tested that it has to be attacked on a microscopic level, which Ken Miller has already destroyed the bacteria flagellum as intelligent design. Next thing you know chemical evolution is impossible! Oh wait H2O,,,,,
If it is intelligent design, then the design is flawed. The human eye is backwards causing a blind spot, which is unnecessary.
@Skurvy2k That's correct. Today we have many historic and scientific evidence to support the existence of a creator. I'm not using the "god of the gaps" idea,I'm talking about real scientific advances. However it would be impossible to present these evidences here on a understandable way, as we are talking about very complex things. There are a few very good books on the subject, one of them being "God's Undertaker" by professor John Lennox from University of Oxford. It's a good starting point.
@diogok Homochirality proves evolution can never happen..but this is now separate from there lies..evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence..they want to explain all life and how it changed but not the first cell..there's some stubborn logic...they dont want it in there theory because evolution falls apart..
evolutionists have way more blind faith.,thats why they dont want it part of evolution..evolution falls apart then.
@diogok ...so what came first RNA..or the repair mechanisms..or the molecular machines??...u have a Major Paradox....all they have is bullshit assumptions..evolution is a lie
@Skurvy2k ...so what came first RNA..or the repair mechanisms..or the molecular machines??...u have a Major Paradox....lets hear some more of your bullshit assumptions....homochirality..destroys evolution
We are naturally inquisitive animals, we just have to know everything - but we simply don't know everything and as an atheist I'm happy with that. If religion had its way we would still believe the world was flat and the earth was the centre of the universe.
Genetics?, along with alost everything we have discovered about ourselves and the world about us would never have been known, if the religious had had their way.
This simple argument should destroy that lousy "the universe is so incredibly fine tuned" garbage.
"The Universe wouldn't be stable without this or that natural law" well congratulations that's exactly the point. Stability trumps unstable, chaotic things. This is why stable things survive & continue to exist while unstable things don't exist for long.
And apart from that everyone who looks up into the night sky and thinks: "wow all those stars are made for me by spacedad" is a colossal moron.
"There are so many laws that govern our universe that make life possible...do you realize how finely tuned it all is? You believe all this just happened by chance?"
So what. Let's assume the universe started as utter chaos. Completely chaotic laws of nature, changing absolutely unpredictably. Even under those conditions stability would ultimately arise if the timeline is long enough.
Every step from chaos towards stability is a step that is ultimately likely to persist and be conserved.
These ID people are so fustratingly ignorrant to any evidence that is presented to them over and over again. I'm sure they think that if they keep denying it and posting stuff like this then uninformed people that watch it will believe it and join their ranks before the real evidence is presented to them.
The reason I believe you deny God is because you are in love with sin...and if you have someone to be held accountable to it scares you to death. You fear God...that is why you deny him. If there is a God then it puts a wet blanket on some of the stuff you want to do in life. Smoke crack, pop extacy pills, drink til you puke! Don't worry nobody is watching! Kill your family...trust me there's no hell. Do whatever you want man. God bless
Another stupid Christian propaganda. Intelligent design has been beaten to death by *real* scientists and in federal court.
For any novice watching, do not be fooled by these men; They do not represent the views of the scientific community in any way. The majority of biologists accept evolution and it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt!
Yes we are apes - That is what the evidence shows. The arrogant idiots like to believe they're somehow special than every other life form on the planet.
Evolution hasn't been proven dude...it never has and it never will be proven. Believing that nothing created everything is a scientific impossibility. How can you be saying that that's real science? Look at the world around you man...it's not hard to see design everywhere you turn! Jesus loves you more than you will know! but I'm sure you don't really care...sad
No scientist or Atheist believe nothing created everything, you're just unintelligent. In fact, you believe that. You believe God created everything from nothing - We don't!
DNA, Transitional fossils, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Chromosomes no. 2, all = Evolution. You just don't know anything about it to form an intelligent opinion. Why don't u tell me what u think evolution is?
Yes i have looked around me, I see ppl suffering... so what was your point again?
Yes even animal planet has said that it all started with "nothing". If we didn't come from nothing then please explain what we did come from. Evolution can't explain why there is love. God created everything you see and cannot see. He is God! Open your heart and mind and you will find Him! As for people suffering the Bible makes it very clear why we have suffering in the world. Try reading Genesis...it might help. We're all sinners and we all need a Savior! God bless you man...take care
Animal planet is not a peer reviewed scientific journal.
We know where we came from... Ape like animals. As far as the origin of life, it is currently not fully understood.
Why should evolution explain love? Evolution explains the diversity of life, not love. Theory of gravity can't explain love either... does that make it invalid? lolz!
As for suffering, i already know the over simplified answer you've been brainwashed to spew - "freewill". What do tsunamis have to do with freewill?
Let me know when an ape makes a website or plays in a sport...humans have been gifted with incredible talents. We are so unique from all other creatures on planet earth. There are so many laws that govern our universe that make life possible...do you realize how finely tuned it all is? You believe all this just happened by chance? You are a fool to believe so....and you think tsunamis have a force behind them? I don't know...possibly God!
Apes do make websites, you're reading one right now, duh!
We are unique? lol! Can u see in the dark? Live underwater? Run as fast as a cheetah? Fly? Fight a lion? Physically fit like a badger? Survive in a jungle? Withstand cold like polar bears? Nope!
So, what makes u think you're so special? We're separated from other animals merely by intelligence (which we obviously don't use very much).
No one says the world happened by chance. We see the world, we explain what we see, and shut up.
You obviously didn't get the point...but thanks for pointing out the diversity of life! You don't realize it but you're pointing out characteristics of design in animals! I was ok with having a rational discussion but it's so typical for the atheist to say shut up and name call...so I'm done talking to you. I hope you realize the truth some day...I talk about this because I care for people and there salvation. Repent and trust in Jesus! Catch ya on the flip side broseph
I wasn't telling u to shut up. You misunderstood my statement.
What i meant was, we see the world, we learn from it, and keep quite (shut up) about things we do not understand for sure.
Why don't u repent & put your faith in Shiva? Shiva is the one and only true God. If u don't confess & accept Shiva into your life, your will re-incarnate as an immortal maggot (which means you'll live in filth for eternity)
OK, lets look at the fossil evidence. By the way where are all the transitional forms that Darwin claimed we would find? And lets look at the Cambrian explosion where all the major animal phylum are found fully developed without any previous evolutionary forms. Also lets take a look at the evidence in molecular biology. How about that information in the DNA. Information always comes from a intelligent being.
"where are all the transitional forms that Darwin claimed we would find?"
They're in the fossil record. I can't improve on Dawkins here: "Whenever a fossil is found that neatly bridges a gap, creationists will claim that there are now twice as many gaps".
As for the Cambrian explosion, please keep in mind that we are talking about tens of million of years, not "instances".
"Information always comes from a intelligent being."
Just think about it. Could all we see just happen by chance? Evolution does not make sense when one actually realizes the zero probability of it happening. We have all been mislead by Darwin and the evolutionists. They want to rule out God for how else would they get money for research.
marystarkey - How exactly did you calculate that "zero probability"? If you would please post your mathematical proof, that would be very helpful.
Not only to me, but to Stephen Hawking, Edward Witten and all the hundreds of thousands of scientists that just don't seem to appreciate your own omnipotence. I'm waiting.
Leading evolutionist, Richard Dawkins in Climbing Mount Improbable p. 283 states that any kind of protein synthesis by natural cause could have a prbabability as low "only one in a billion billon billon in one year" There are many intelligent and qualified scientist who are now following the evidence instead of a presupposed dogma of evolution and the evidence leads to an intelligent designer. Just think about it! We have all been duped by the evolutionists
The operative words being "could have"... In fact nobody has any clue how (un)likely any of these occurrences are. They may indeed be unlikely enough for you to have somewhat of a real point. But as of now, we just don't know.
Therefore, it's a good idea to rely on the findings of general taxonomy, the fossil record and molecular biology, all of which point to the same conclusion. Until contradictory evidence comes in, that is.
I believe there is no room for evolution to be an unguided process.
That being said, I don't believe ID is something that can be taught in school. You can't take ethereal ideas and put them in a science book.
To you cocky know-it-alls: Just because you can't measure it and put it in a test tube, doesn't mean it isn't a valid point of view. Try double checking your own ethereal philosophy. There is no such thing as science without philosophy. Unguided evolution is a philosophical position.
Gonzalez "simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy -- one of our strongest academic programs." Gregory Geoffroy, President of Iowa State U. on rejection of Gonzalez's tenure.
W. Jeffreys, Professor of Astonomy, U of Tex at Austin ...reviewed the book writing "the little that is new in this book isn't interesting, and what is old is just old-hat creationism in a new, modern-looking astronomical costume."[
Evolutionists ALLWAYS critisise ID proponents in a stupid way. Instead of opposing them, trying to disprove their theories, they go to the ATTACK mode. Why so ? To me it seems like they see ID guys are hell of a challenge they can't handle. So they become "little" nervous. Every scientist should constantly challenge his own theories and views. Why not evolution ? Just because they're washing us with it since childhood. NO.
The always go on attack mode because all the ID proponents arguments have been refuted over and over and over again, and is getting very tiresome indeed.
Behe: The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University has published an official position statement which says "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific." Behe's ideas about intelligent design have been rejected by the scientific community and characterized as pseudoscience.
Lehigh University is his EMPLOYER... Embarrased by him
The reason most of the lay people are satisfied with Darwins theory is because its simplified enough. Just as a person can put on a video game and enjoy it without any care or concern about how it was designed; or who were responsible for its creation. As long as it works, who cares. Damn! ....I am still amazed at how the tv works and how somebody actually figured out how to create it. For people to see how complex DNA is and pass it off as an accident? Thats just plain ole closed mindedness.
If you really paid attention to what the Bible says about the creation process it doesn't fall too short from what Evolution is saying as well. First the water. Then land emerged from the water. Then life formed in the water. Then fowls of the air. Then land animals emerged. Then mankind. This was very well known 1000's of years before Darwin. What throws people off is the 7 day thing. The bible states that a day can be as a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years as a day.
Well said Wolfgange63, Agree if all is God's works why wouldn't God use evolution? All evolution is CHANGE, genetic exchanges between breeding populations which over time can and often do mutate due to both internal and external factors.
If God used evolution that would be theistic evolution.
(theistic evoln = God just turn on the switch of evolution. Evolution worked it out. Therefore no design at all. personal note: Evolutionist think they can give us such a cheap substitute and expect us to be OK with it.) Which is absolutely opposite of ID.
wolfgange63 - A book that places birds earlier than land dwelling animals is, to be kind, pretty far off the mark.
On a side note, if the Bible had actually said "a day can be as half a billion years with the Lord", that particular evasion would have made much more sense.
If you want to get into details, the creation story of Genesis actually takes place after the 1st age of the earth. Where it says"and the earth was void and without form" is actually "Tohu va bohu" The Earth became desolate. Of course this happened after the destruction of the dinosaurs. After what had ocurred the earth had to go through another reconstruction. Also about the thousand years...What would say, millions of years be to a time traveler?
liars and morons! Not one fact was presented, only a bunch of conclusions based on the conjecture that all is too grand to be not made by god. I have studies Philosophy and science and the history record shows that religion has consistently ran from the evidence. Dishonest!
We can say the universe has always existed, end of discussion, BUT why not say God has always existed, end of discussion? There's only one answer, WE DON'T KNOW.
God could be the universe, I don't believe that a big white bearded man is up there doing crap, I think that if a God were to exist, it would be that what gives us life, and what gives us life is existence.
That depends on exactly what you think his limitations are and then what you call free will. Tyrant, maybe not, but he certainly does have his mood swings.
The god that I taught about had none. He could see the future, know everything before it happened. This means knowing your thoughts, knowing what you're going to think, and what you'll do. This is where free will comes in. My question, philosophically speaking, is, can you ever have free will if everything you do has already been planned out since the beginning of existence?
Everything was not PLANNED from the beginning; it was KNOWN from the beginning. Even though God knew His creation would revolt, He still allowed them the gift to live, think for themselves, and make their own choices. Even though He knew what those choices would be, that does not mean He made our choices. Like I said, otherwise, He would be a tyrant, forcing us to choose Him
Either way, if the future is already known then you can do whatever you want, but no matter what you do, it has already been predestined. Which really means that before you were born, your fate was already known which in it self is restrictive.
I understand what you mean, but that is not the point that I was trying to make. There's no easy way to explain it in simple terms but I will try. I was trying to say that everything is already scripted. You cannot deter from what is scripted because it would then be false. Providing the illusion of a freedom, but everything you do is really just following the script.
He knows right now what you will do tomorrow, but you don't. He doesn't tell you, so you make that decision. Yes, He knows what you will do, but you're the one that makes the decision to do it.
Alright, I failed to make my point and I don't know how else to say it in order for you to understand. So at that, it was good having this little discussion and thank you for being patient and answering nicely.
It's a cop out answer..."people made God" same as Christians saying God made people. The answers these people gave are simply what they believe, not what they know to be the truth
The way this video does the pan and slow zoom on Darwin's face, makes him look like one dark, badass kind of a guy. The kind of badass you can look up to; the kind that just shouts "I'm the Samuel L Jackson of the 1800's" and makes the theory of evolution just so damn more awesome.
Once again, the evangelicals have done more for the atheist movement than all the nonbelievers combined could ever possibly do.
necesito saber que dice en español, se mui poco ingles D:
JavierAndresElNene 3 days ago
I disagree vehemently with intelligent design, but I do believe that evolution occurs the way it does because the laws of physics demand it. There is no contingency if everything is determined by natural law from start to finish. That being the case, life was bound to come about, advance, and perhaps one day learn to control the laws of physics that brought them about. The question is not if there is a God in the past, but whether we shall become God in the future.
AuxentiusZ 7 months ago
@AuxentiusZ I disagree vehemently with intelligent design
___
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 2 months ago
@AuxentiusZ 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. God is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
1tabligh 2 months ago
"What is our relationship to reality as a whole?" Mr Phillip Johnson asks. In his case, tangential or marginal, based on faith not facts. In fact his relationship to reality is unreal and fact-free.
@kkkaldav wrote "Since ID is obviously scientific". No it bloody isn't. There is no convincing evidence of any "irreducibly complex system", so please stop lying. Produce any, and it will be looked at, but grandstanding is not evidence.
gloin10 8 months ago
And I think creationists should spend more time actually PROVING intelligent design than pathetically attempting to disprove evolution.
LesPaul2006 10 months ago 2
The very worst that could happen to Darwin's evolutionary theory is what happened to Newton's gravity theory; that someone comes down and completes it (if it was to be incomplete). But even if evolution was completely disproved tomorrow, to replace it with the "god did it" argument is childish and stupid.
LesPaul2006 10 months ago
god is the designer the creator hello where is every ones mind at god is the one who made everything read between the lines use the brain that he gave you and realize that he is the one they are talking about but they just dont wanna believe in him thats why they are stuck in there own words and there mines GOD IS REAL AND I DONT CARE WHAT ANYONE HAS TO SAY ABOUT THAT IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN JESUS ONE DAY WHEN HE COMES IT WOULD BE TO LATE FOR YOU TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS
SaraDavido21 10 months ago
@SaraDavido21 You are possibly 10 years old? You are entitled to your belief, no matter how absurd. However the childish "I DONT CARE WHAT ANYONE ...blah blah" is not very convincing to anyone over maybe 14. You have definitely not convinced me with this juvenile squeal. Oh yes, most of us who do use our brains tend to find the faith-based view of life plain silly, where it is not downright evil. Go check out the historical treatment of women in the main monotheisms, why don't you?
gloin10 8 months ago 2
BUT… if we DO accept that complexity necessitates design, HOW do we explain the designer??? Should we say that his existence is EXEMPT because of unknown special circumstances? Then why not just say that the first cell exists because of unknown special circumstances? And wouldn't that be more likely, given that cells have fewer requirements than god, and we can show cells ACTUALLY exist?
TimReed777 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
cant wait to see this movie :)
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
That God exists is obvious.
thewordofgod2010 1 year ago
A question for the Id advocates out there. Every time creationists went to the courts to get their "science" into the classroom they failed. It was obviously religion. ID was born out this problem. You infer there is a designer but you can't say it's god otherwise you're back to square 1. What other hypotheses do you have regarding the identity of the designer? If you can't say it's god then what or who is it? Keep in mind that you want the answer to sound scientific.
ptango101 1 year ago
@ptango101 Well to address your question, ID has nothing to do with identifying the designer. ID is about showing that all the science and evidence shows there is a designer, not who the designer is; That's an entirely different field. If you want your question of who the designer is, you best look elsewhere. ID is not about identifying the designer even though that question will inevitable rise up, but that doesn't mean because the question arises that ID is focused on answering it.
Mustdang 1 year ago
@Mustdang So ID is sure there is a designer but has no idea who or what it is? I think if you are going to make such a bold claim you should have some idea what the answer could be. Where is this "elsewhere" I have to look? Creationists demand that origin of life be included in the definition of evolution. This seems like the same situation. You can't just say there is a designer and in the same breath deny all knowledge or insite in to what that could be.
ptango101 1 year ago
@ptango101 As I said before, the question you are proposing has nothing to do with what ID is doing. ID isn't about figuring out who the designer is. I'm a Christian and I obviously know the designer is God. But ID has nothing to do with defining the designer as God but rather with pointing out biologically that we are not the product of purposeless matter and chance. I'm not saying they don't have an idea of who the designer is. That elsewhere is theology, history, etc.
Mustdang 1 year ago
@Mustdang This is the basic problem with calling ID a science. To answer your own question you must turn to the supernatural. ID"ists hold to the mistaken notion that if you don't say it, it's OK. All it becomes is an elephant in the room no ones willing to discuss. Your observations always lead back to religion's doorstep. By your own admission you don't turn to physics, chemistry or any other discipline. You have to turn to theology.
ptango101 1 year ago
@ptango101 We could turn to physics, chemistry, etc. but sadly what ID is against is the framework that all these views are built on, which is the philosophy of naturalism. Study the philosophy of science and you will see science is not, in and of itself, a foundational discipline. It rests on the laws of logic, and requires that those laws be absolute in order for rational people to be able to rely on the interpretation of data resulting from any given experiment.
Mustdang 1 year ago
@ptango101 But, the laws of logic are derived from philosophical exercise. Therefore, interpretation of scientific results, by definition, is influenced by and rests upon some philosophical understanding. Philosophy is the foundational discipline. Without philosophy, individual data points do not have meaning, and cannot be interpreted. If you want to discuss who the designer is, it will be more than science. But as I mentioned before ID is NOT about answering the WHO.
Mustdang 1 year ago
@Mustdang I'd have to disagree with that. Science needs to be about the physical, observable, natural world. Without this grounding it becomes meaningless. You can waste time with arguments like, can you prove the idea of a fact or logic exists, but that's all you are doing wasting time. I think it's strange that almost every IDist would think it's god but have some sort of self imposed gag order that prevents them saying it.
ptango101 1 year ago
@ptango101 Well you can disagree and have your stance and I have mine. I urge you to take a Philosophy of science class if you ever have time or the opportunity to do so and to further your knowledge there. I think further arguing here is futile. I have no problem saying it's God as any other IDist who are asked the question. But once again as I have mentioned countless times before, ID is not about addressing the WHO. Hopefully you checked out the linked I messaged you. It was a good discussion
Mustdang 1 year ago
@Mustdang I am looking at the link. It's good, thank you. I guess the only thing I would say is, apply that sort of reasoning when dealing with the evolution/origins conflict. The position of evolution is to deal only with biodiversity (to put it simply). When people start to mix things like abiogenisis and the age of the universe into the debate, it's usually an attempt to straw-man the theory. Like you with the I in ID, evolution makes no comment on origins. Thanks for the discussion.
ptango101 1 year ago
Comment removed
ptango101 1 year ago
@ptango101 I will message you the link to their website so you could check it out for yourself. They pretty much address the issues you brought up.
Mustdang 1 year ago
Atheist Morons need to learn basic chemistry ,and Homochirality ,and the Paradox of it
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
Haha, the Darwieners are all out in numbers - as always - to pretend there is no evidence for design but that all is purposeless, random mutation based accident.
What a crock Darwinism is.
Religion drives it and self-blinded nerds believe it.
lordsong7 1 year ago
Since ID is obviously scientific, it's very alarming that the scientific community are prepared to lie so blatantly in order to exclude it. E.g., Darwin himself said that the existence of any irreducibly complex system would cause his theory to break down, yet to even suggest the possibility of an irreducibly complex item is supposed to be unscientific and therefore illegal to teach. What kind of theory needs legal protection against one of its main scientific objections/refutations?
kkkaldav 1 year ago 5
So just because Darwin said that one can't believe in Evolution and God means theistic evolution is invalid ¬_¬?! William of Occam whom invented Occam's Razor said that his Razor works in three ways: through self-evidence, experience or authority of the Bible. Despite that, many Atheists use Occam's Razor against God! Regarding that, it's absurd to suggest that just because the inventor of a theory said that his theory isn't or is compatible with something doesn't mean it's true.
Brummy010 1 year ago
@kkkaldav Oh and by the way, Charles Darwin was benign towards (but never himself accepted) a Theistic and Diestic view of evolution if the believer wanted to believe both. Take Asa Gray (Darwin's friend who was a devout Christian and Evolutionist) and James Hutton (a Diest Evolutionist who Darwin got influenced off).
Brummy010 1 year ago
@kkkaldav You can't just ASSERT that something is irreducibly complex, you need to PROVE it and that has not been done yet. The flagellum was a failed attempt...
kusalaviro 11 months ago
@kusalaviro You are mistaken for a number of reasons. Firstly, the flagellum is IC because all IC means is that a system requires a number of interconnected parts to perform the system's overall function in the manner it does. As such, the flagellum is clearly IC. Whether that then poses a problem for evolution or not is a diffferent question. And this shows your second mistake. A conflation of the ideas of IC and unevolvability. You've made other mistakes as well, but I grow weary...
kkkaldav 11 months ago
@kkkaldav N - O spells NO... IC is the notion that a system cannot be reduced without loss of functionality. This has been disproven.
kusalaviro 11 months ago
@kusalaviro Y E S spell, YES. IC is the notion that the SYSTEM'S funtionality is lost when parts are removed. As Behe says on this very point:
"I never wrote that individual parts of an IC system couldn't be used for any other purpose. (That would be silly—who would ever claim that a part of a mousetrap couldn't be used as a paperweight".
Indeed, he discusses the possibly of IC systems arising via other functions at length in the book he wrote about it that you haven't/won't read.
kkkaldav 11 months ago
@kkkaldav Well then he has backpedaled from his original position which was to imply that IC refuted evolution precisely because evolution couldn't construct these mechanisms...
kusalaviro 11 months ago
@kusalaviro But now you're completely conflating the notion of IC with unevolvability as if there was no difference at all between the concepts.
And no, Behe didn't backpedal - that's just the story Ken Miller tells. Behe's position has never changed. Here he is writing in Darwin's Black Box, when he first introduced IC:
"an evolutionary story for the cilium [an IC system] must envision a circuitous route, PERHAPS ADAPTING PARTS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES".
kkkaldav 11 months ago
@kkkaldav If the Moronic atheist studied Homochirality and Racemic mixtues, they would know life could never arise by chance!!!
5tonyvvvv 9 months ago
Wait, Lee Strobel? But you still maintain that ID has nothing to do with creationism? LOL!
deBeuk 1 year ago
#OMG reaLLy CooL suCCes amsterdaMcuLture
JANCIEprodukTie 1 year ago
what utter nonsense this drek is
TheReptilianAgenda 1 year ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Rapt0r111 1 year ago
Understanding the universe is hard. It's easier to just assume that a magical space-fairy did it.
Apoc2K 1 year ago
well was great... until i found out they were all trying to convince me to intelligent design.. wouldent expect less from a 95% christian nation tho
UjioSatashi 1 year ago
is this a joke?
timothy51886 1 year ago
so they all claim that science points to the universe being created by an intelligent being, so where is the proof, it seems to me the only proof they can find is absence of of evidence for the origins of life and the universe, just because we are missing evidence does NOT mean we had to be designed. it is illogical to say you know there is a creator just because absence of evidence.
you are an idiot if you fall for this propaganda.
banditomexican03 1 year ago
The best part of this view of Intelligent Design is that it basically removed itself from belief in a god. The video basically implies that should there be a creator, the creator is more capable than us, but not greater/gooder/better than us.
Fantastic, good job defeating yourselves.
casqouro 1 year ago 2
Show don't tell. Oh, I'm sorry... I forgot that there is not a shred of evidence for ID and that all this blather is merely papering over the gaping cracks in the argument for ID. It's creationist propaganda ("cdesign proponentists" anyone?) that is not even wrong.
mdja73 1 year ago 3
idiots
asantos 1 year ago 2
"I don't understand how things work, therefore God"
The entire video summarized.
LazyTuba 1 year ago 2
Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with science. This is a battle for the souls of the scientifically-illiterate. Thus the high production values, loud dramatic music, and absolutely no original research.
jondissed 1 year ago 4
science means not saying 'it's magic!'
ID saying 'it's magic but it's god so it's ok!'
yup that sounds like science to me!
and isn't the conclusion of ID 'yup anything you find means god did it!'
sorry this seems a bit silly to me. god may or may not exist but evolution...well the evidence is pretty convincing...
addmoreice 1 year ago 4
If we were designed, then we sure as hell weren't designed by anyone close to "intelligent"
GallileoPaballa 1 year ago 3
why is this "debate" still going on? Where is your proof? I saw none in this video.
ScannerBrightly 1 year ago
@ScannerBrightly The video you saw was a "TRAILER" for 3 DVD's that claimed to provide proof.
KimNejudne 1 year ago
good lord
agrus001 1 year ago
More creationist propaganda.
unknownpoltroon 1 year ago 3
i wish they could just say we dont know..but they can't.
whankerNJ 1 year ago 2
The fact about evolution I find most bizarre is that a consequence of evolution are creationists.
Isn't that funny?
NedFlanders1976 1 year ago 2
PS: Darwin was a major believer in Global Eugenics.
WulfBand 1 year ago
@WulfBand No, Darwin was not a believer in Eugenics. He did, however, make statements regarding what we consider race today, as it is explained by natural selection. He thought that certain races were more suited to their environment and would be naturally selected in the future. He did NOT support eugenics, only predicted that some races might be more fit than others. In fact, he suggested that sympathy was "the noblest part of our nature", and that human breeding was a personal choice.
okahyaoga 1 year ago 4
Theoretical physics say you can hang an elephant by his tail over a cliff with a daisy.
Why can't human minds expand beyond simpleton physics ?
Because they just can't grasp that there is a God and he does love us :)
WulfBand 1 year ago
That opening quote if from Richard Dawkins, not Charles Darwin.
Opening your video with a blatant lie? Fail.
standup4REALscience 1 year ago 3
@standup4REALscience
Charles Darwin actually.
Dawkins made a similar statement.
mhearstify 1 year ago
@mhearstify The quote is from page 133 of "River Out of Eden" by Richard Dawkins, published in 1995. Look it up on google books.
The makers of this video did however, remove the words "no evil and no good" from the middle of the quote. So, not only did they mess up the attribution, they misleadingly shortened the original quote. Epic fail.
standup4REALscience 1 year ago
Nice video!
TheForthcoming1 2 years ago
Obviously there was a designer. Oh, and the designer didn't need a designer.
jedum1 2 years ago
@jedum1
"Oh, and the designer didn't need a designer."
It is the uncaused cause. Causeless boundless and eternal. No beginning and no end, There never was a time when it wasnt. No time of formation. No time.
The video game is designed. Call the laws that govern respawning, double-jumps, multiple bullet absorption and tireless exertion of energy the laws of "batman the game". Call the laws that govern the universe, the laws of physics. Irrelevant outside the physical.
thehalfvolley 2 years ago
2. Also the octopuses have a camera eye like us, but the retina is the right way around, so they have no blind spot. This can lead us to conclude to two things, god favors the octopus over us, or he is not worthy of our praise.
questionsamson 2 years ago
I think since human evolution can no longer be tested that it has to be attacked on a microscopic level, which Ken Miller has already destroyed the bacteria flagellum as intelligent design. Next thing you know chemical evolution is impossible! Oh wait H2O,,,,,
If it is intelligent design, then the design is flawed. The human eye is backwards causing a blind spot, which is unnecessary.
questionsamson 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WOW!!
I have never seen so many scientific illiterates, frauds and stupid liars cometogether in such a racket.
Ekendil 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The more science advances, the more we have evidence for a creator...
I already have one of this movie, and it is beautiful done with experts opinion.
diogok 2 years ago
this is simply not true
YeaItWasOkay 2 years ago
Evidence, please... Where is the evidence?
You wont find them, because there is not.
Atheism is blind, while faith is evidence based...
I can give you a few evidences to support Theism... how many can you give in pro of Atheism?
diogok 2 years ago
go on then give me your evidence...
YeaItWasOkay 2 years ago
@diogok um...what evidence is that? there is none. here let me break down the ENTIRE argument made by people who don't understand science.
I don't understand how that could happen naturally! therefore god!
argument from ignorance, sorry no thanks.
addmoreice 1 year ago 8
@diogok "the more science advances, the more we have evidence for a creator..."
Explain this if you would please.
Skurvy2k 1 year ago 14
@Skurvy2k That's correct. Today we have many historic and scientific evidence to support the existence of a creator. I'm not using the "god of the gaps" idea,I'm talking about real scientific advances. However it would be impossible to present these evidences here on a understandable way, as we are talking about very complex things. There are a few very good books on the subject, one of them being "God's Undertaker" by professor John Lennox from University of Oxford. It's a good starting point.
diogok 1 year ago
@diogok Homochirality proves evolution can never happen..but this is now separate from there lies..evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence..they want to explain all life and how it changed but not the first cell..there's some stubborn logic...they dont want it in there theory because evolution falls apart..
evolutionists have way more blind faith.,thats why they dont want it part of evolution..evolution falls apart then.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@diogok ...so what came first RNA..or the repair mechanisms..or the molecular machines??...u have a Major Paradox....all they have is bullshit assumptions..evolution is a lie
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@Skurvy2k In regards to RNA/DNA - could you please explain the problem of Chirality?
Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments in 1952 - all the amino acids that formed lacked Chirality.!!
It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process.or in a test tube
they believe in some chemistry unknown to science.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@Skurvy2k ...so what came first RNA..or the repair mechanisms..or the molecular machines??...u have a Major Paradox....lets hear some more of your bullshit assumptions....homochirality..destroys evolution
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@Skurvy2k If the Moronic atheist studied Homochirality and Racemic mixtues, they would know life could never arise by chance!!!
5tonyvvvv 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The featured "experts" are quacks. This is creationist nonsense.
326742 2 years ago
Illustra Media appreciates your ratings and we thank you for your non-vulgar comments.
IllustraMedia 2 years ago
@IllustraMedia
I can tell when I'm not fucking wanted.
AndrewTheEternal 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Atheist are one of the blindest bunches of people on this planet...
them and the self-righteous religious hyprocrites...
Just follow Christ... its that simple...
follow me as I follow Christ! :-)
Specilum 2 years ago
talk about blind following LMAO
NordenzurZukunft 2 years ago
Looks good. I look forward to the finished product.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
We are naturally inquisitive animals, we just have to know everything - but we simply don't know everything and as an atheist I'm happy with that. If religion had its way we would still believe the world was flat and the earth was the centre of the universe.
Genetics?, along with alost everything we have discovered about ourselves and the world about us would never have been known, if the religious had had their way.
As Gallileo would testify
NIXIMvideo 2 years ago
God is man's worst creation.
maakotube 2 years ago
This simple argument should destroy that lousy "the universe is so incredibly fine tuned" garbage.
"The Universe wouldn't be stable without this or that natural law" well congratulations that's exactly the point. Stability trumps unstable, chaotic things. This is why stable things survive & continue to exist while unstable things don't exist for long.
And apart from that everyone who looks up into the night sky and thinks: "wow all those stars are made for me by spacedad" is a colossal moron.
rickballance 2 years ago 2
"There are so many laws that govern our universe that make life possible...do you realize how finely tuned it all is? You believe all this just happened by chance?"
So what. Let's assume the universe started as utter chaos. Completely chaotic laws of nature, changing absolutely unpredictably. Even under those conditions stability would ultimately arise if the timeline is long enough.
Every step from chaos towards stability is a step that is ultimately likely to persist and be conserved.
rickballance 2 years ago
These ID people are so fustratingly ignorrant to any evidence that is presented to them over and over again. I'm sure they think that if they keep denying it and posting stuff like this then uninformed people that watch it will believe it and join their ranks before the real evidence is presented to them.
jamie7098 2 years ago 2
The reason I believe you deny God is because you are in love with sin...and if you have someone to be held accountable to it scares you to death. You fear God...that is why you deny him. If there is a God then it puts a wet blanket on some of the stuff you want to do in life. Smoke crack, pop extacy pills, drink til you puke! Don't worry nobody is watching! Kill your family...trust me there's no hell. Do whatever you want man. God bless
krazykyle56 2 years ago
Quote: "The reason I believe you deny God is because"...
So.. the only thing stopping you from murdering your family and engaging in anti-social behavior is because you're afraid of your God?
You my friend, are a sociopath. Ppl like you do need the idea of God to keep you in-line.
TheInvaderBN 2 years ago
"The reason I believe you deny God is because you are in love with sin..." etc etc
Comments like this one would make a lot more sense if Christians were actually committing fewer sinful acts than atheists.
Unfortunately they're just the wishful thinking of desperate religious apologists.
Chrysothemis 2 years ago 2
Wow, what nonsense. Why are they still around trying to get god into science?
MrPinz 2 years ago
Another stupid Christian propaganda. Intelligent design has been beaten to death by *real* scientists and in federal court.
For any novice watching, do not be fooled by these men; They do not represent the views of the scientific community in any way. The majority of biologists accept evolution and it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt!
Yes we are apes - That is what the evidence shows. The arrogant idiots like to believe they're somehow special than every other life form on the planet.
TheInvaderBN 2 years ago
Evolution hasn't been proven dude...it never has and it never will be proven. Believing that nothing created everything is a scientific impossibility. How can you be saying that that's real science? Look at the world around you man...it's not hard to see design everywhere you turn! Jesus loves you more than you will know! but I'm sure you don't really care...sad
krazykyle56 2 years ago
No scientist or Atheist believe nothing created everything, you're just unintelligent. In fact, you believe that. You believe God created everything from nothing - We don't!
DNA, Transitional fossils, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Chromosomes no. 2, all = Evolution. You just don't know anything about it to form an intelligent opinion. Why don't u tell me what u think evolution is?
Yes i have looked around me, I see ppl suffering... so what was your point again?
TheInvaderBN 2 years ago
Yes even animal planet has said that it all started with "nothing". If we didn't come from nothing then please explain what we did come from. Evolution can't explain why there is love. God created everything you see and cannot see. He is God! Open your heart and mind and you will find Him! As for people suffering the Bible makes it very clear why we have suffering in the world. Try reading Genesis...it might help. We're all sinners and we all need a Savior! God bless you man...take care
krazykyle56 2 years ago
Animal planet is not a peer reviewed scientific journal.
We know where we came from... Ape like animals. As far as the origin of life, it is currently not fully understood.
Why should evolution explain love? Evolution explains the diversity of life, not love. Theory of gravity can't explain love either... does that make it invalid? lolz!
As for suffering, i already know the over simplified answer you've been brainwashed to spew - "freewill". What do tsunamis have to do with freewill?
TheInvaderBN 2 years ago
Let me know when an ape makes a website or plays in a sport...humans have been gifted with incredible talents. We are so unique from all other creatures on planet earth. There are so many laws that govern our universe that make life possible...do you realize how finely tuned it all is? You believe all this just happened by chance? You are a fool to believe so....and you think tsunamis have a force behind them? I don't know...possibly God!
krazykyle56 2 years ago
Apes do make websites, you're reading one right now, duh!
We are unique? lol! Can u see in the dark? Live underwater? Run as fast as a cheetah? Fly? Fight a lion? Physically fit like a badger? Survive in a jungle? Withstand cold like polar bears? Nope!
So, what makes u think you're so special? We're separated from other animals merely by intelligence (which we obviously don't use very much).
No one says the world happened by chance. We see the world, we explain what we see, and shut up.
TheInvaderBN 2 years ago
You obviously didn't get the point...but thanks for pointing out the diversity of life! You don't realize it but you're pointing out characteristics of design in animals! I was ok with having a rational discussion but it's so typical for the atheist to say shut up and name call...so I'm done talking to you. I hope you realize the truth some day...I talk about this because I care for people and there salvation. Repent and trust in Jesus! Catch ya on the flip side broseph
krazykyle56 2 years ago
I wasn't telling u to shut up. You misunderstood my statement.
What i meant was, we see the world, we learn from it, and keep quite (shut up) about things we do not understand for sure.
Why don't u repent & put your faith in Shiva? Shiva is the one and only true God. If u don't confess & accept Shiva into your life, your will re-incarnate as an immortal maggot (which means you'll live in filth for eternity)
TheInvaderBN 2 years ago
If you believe in the story of Genesis, you have an extremely low IQ.
TheInvaderBN 2 years ago
OK, lets look at the fossil evidence. By the way where are all the transitional forms that Darwin claimed we would find? And lets look at the Cambrian explosion where all the major animal phylum are found fully developed without any previous evolutionary forms. Also lets take a look at the evidence in molecular biology. How about that information in the DNA. Information always comes from a intelligent being.
marystarkey 2 years ago 7
"where are all the transitional forms that Darwin claimed we would find?"
They're in the fossil record. I can't improve on Dawkins here: "Whenever a fossil is found that neatly bridges a gap, creationists will claim that there are now twice as many gaps".
As for the Cambrian explosion, please keep in mind that we are talking about tens of million of years, not "instances".
"Information always comes from a intelligent being."
Would you mind proving that?
Chrysothemis 2 years ago 5
Just think about it. Could all we see just happen by chance? Evolution does not make sense when one actually realizes the zero probability of it happening. We have all been mislead by Darwin and the evolutionists. They want to rule out God for how else would they get money for research.
marystarkey 2 years ago
marystarkey - How exactly did you calculate that "zero probability"? If you would please post your mathematical proof, that would be very helpful.
Not only to me, but to Stephen Hawking, Edward Witten and all the hundreds of thousands of scientists that just don't seem to appreciate your own omnipotence. I'm waiting.
Chrysothemis 2 years ago
Leading evolutionist, Richard Dawkins in Climbing Mount Improbable p. 283 states that any kind of protein synthesis by natural cause could have a prbabability as low "only one in a billion billon billon in one year" There are many intelligent and qualified scientist who are now following the evidence instead of a presupposed dogma of evolution and the evidence leads to an intelligent designer. Just think about it! We have all been duped by the evolutionists
marystarkey 2 years ago
The operative words being "could have"... In fact nobody has any clue how (un)likely any of these occurrences are. They may indeed be unlikely enough for you to have somewhat of a real point. But as of now, we just don't know.
Therefore, it's a good idea to rely on the findings of general taxonomy, the fossil record and molecular biology, all of which point to the same conclusion. Until contradictory evidence comes in, that is.
Chrysothemis 2 years ago
I believe there is no room for evolution to be an unguided process.
That being said, I don't believe ID is something that can be taught in school. You can't take ethereal ideas and put them in a science book.
To you cocky know-it-alls: Just because you can't measure it and put it in a test tube, doesn't mean it isn't a valid point of view. Try double checking your own ethereal philosophy. There is no such thing as science without philosophy. Unguided evolution is a philosophical position.
emailjrs 2 years ago
Why does every ID/Creationist thing start with random people on the street? Like they have a deep understanding of the theory of evolution.
ummAwkward 2 years ago
That's EXACTLY why. If they asked people who actually know anything, they wouldn't get the answers they're after.
Chrysothemis 2 years ago
Thank you for this amazing video! Where are they available? And are there any translations? Thank you for informations.
mormontube 2 years ago
If you go to Illustra Media's Productions online they have a list of available languages.
mjazzguitar 2 years ago
Gonzalez "simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy -- one of our strongest academic programs." Gregory Geoffroy, President of Iowa State U. on rejection of Gonzalez's tenure.
W. Jeffreys, Professor of Astonomy, U of Tex at Austin ...reviewed the book writing "the little that is new in this book isn't interesting, and what is old is just old-hat creationism in a new, modern-looking astronomical costume."[
catsnjags1 2 years ago 2
Evolutionists ALLWAYS critisise ID proponents in a stupid way. Instead of opposing them, trying to disprove their theories, they go to the ATTACK mode. Why so ? To me it seems like they see ID guys are hell of a challenge they can't handle. So they become "little" nervous. Every scientist should constantly challenge his own theories and views. Why not evolution ? Just because they're washing us with it since childhood. NO.
Jacob011 2 years ago
Jacob011
The always go on attack mode because all the ID proponents arguments have been refuted over and over and over again, and is getting very tiresome indeed.
MrPinz 2 years ago
Great Lineup of Undisputables.....
Behe: The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University has published an official position statement which says "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific." Behe's ideas about intelligent design have been rejected by the scientific community and characterized as pseudoscience.
Lehigh University is his EMPLOYER... Embarrased by him
catsnjags1 2 years ago
Every birth is a "Transitional", proof of evolution.
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
The reason most of the lay people are satisfied with Darwins theory is because its simplified enough. Just as a person can put on a video game and enjoy it without any care or concern about how it was designed; or who were responsible for its creation. As long as it works, who cares. Damn! ....I am still amazed at how the tv works and how somebody actually figured out how to create it. For people to see how complex DNA is and pass it off as an accident? Thats just plain ole closed mindedness.
wolfgange63 2 years ago
Evolution does not disprove God, all it disproves is a literal reading and blind following of Christianity.
gtino93 2 years ago 3
If you really paid attention to what the Bible says about the creation process it doesn't fall too short from what Evolution is saying as well. First the water. Then land emerged from the water. Then life formed in the water. Then fowls of the air. Then land animals emerged. Then mankind. This was very well known 1000's of years before Darwin. What throws people off is the 7 day thing. The bible states that a day can be as a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years as a day.
wolfgange63 2 years ago
In other words time is nothing with God...infinite
wolfgange63 2 years ago
True, time like evolution is just a forward constant.
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
Well said Wolfgange63, Agree if all is God's works why wouldn't God use evolution? All evolution is CHANGE, genetic exchanges between breeding populations which over time can and often do mutate due to both internal and external factors.
BTW, Yes, I'm Christian.
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
If God used evolution then that would be Intelligent Design.
mjazzguitar 2 years ago
Agree for even if man was created out of dust so was all else including stars starting from the Big bang (of creativity?)
Truth is, no one really knows how God formed everything.
Life however was from "His breath" as stated in Genesis.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
If God used evolution that would be theistic evolution.
(theistic evoln = God just turn on the switch of evolution. Evolution worked it out. Therefore no design at all. personal note: Evolutionist think they can give us such a cheap substitute and expect us to be OK with it.) Which is absolutely opposite of ID.
Jacob011 2 years ago
wolfgange63 - A book that places birds earlier than land dwelling animals is, to be kind, pretty far off the mark.
On a side note, if the Bible had actually said "a day can be as half a billion years with the Lord", that particular evasion would have made much more sense.
Chrysothemis 2 years ago 2
If you want to get into details, the creation story of Genesis actually takes place after the 1st age of the earth. Where it says"and the earth was void and without form" is actually "Tohu va bohu" The Earth became desolate. Of course this happened after the destruction of the dinosaurs. After what had ocurred the earth had to go through another reconstruction. Also about the thousand years...What would say, millions of years be to a time traveler?
wolfgange63 2 years ago
WTF!? That first quote is NOT from Darwin. It's from Richard Dawkins.
Way to give yourselves some credibility.
zakiechan 2 years ago
If you believe that everything happens for a reason they YOU exist for a reason not by some chance
tigergirl401 2 years ago
thank you scottt
:)
xmegamoo13x 2 years ago
liars and morons! Not one fact was presented, only a bunch of conclusions based on the conjecture that all is too grand to be not made by god. I have studies Philosophy and science and the history record shows that religion has consistently ran from the evidence. Dishonest!
stephenjay375 2 years ago
We can say the universe has always existed, end of discussion, BUT why not say God has always existed, end of discussion? There's only one answer, WE DON'T KNOW.
carnac449 2 years ago
God could be the universe, I don't believe that a big white bearded man is up there doing crap, I think that if a God were to exist, it would be that what gives us life, and what gives us life is existence.
gtino93 2 years ago
Who ever said God was a white bearded man? LOL Certainly not the bible. Must have been those foolish pagans that taught about bunnies and eggs.
wolfgange63 2 years ago
Forget about evolution, whether it happened or not. It's not important.
Where did the universe come from? Where did the big bang come from? What was before the big bang? What was before that, and that and that....?
carnac449 2 years ago
how come god isn't powerful enough to drive evolution?
hmnun08 2 years ago
He is. He just doesn't force us to believe in Him because that would take away His stand as a loving God who gives us free will
pursuitfortruth 2 years ago
If that's the game he wants to play.
hmnun08 2 years ago
It's not a game. If He didn't give us a free will, He would be a tyrant.
pursuitfortruth 2 years ago
That depends on exactly what you think his limitations are and then what you call free will. Tyrant, maybe not, but he certainly does have his mood swings.
hmnun08 2 years ago
So what do you think His limitations are? What do you call free will?
pursuitfortruth 2 years ago
The god that I taught about had none. He could see the future, know everything before it happened. This means knowing your thoughts, knowing what you're going to think, and what you'll do. This is where free will comes in. My question, philosophically speaking, is, can you ever have free will if everything you do has already been planned out since the beginning of existence?
hmnun08 2 years ago
typo, not taught about, learned about
hmnun08 2 years ago
Everything was not PLANNED from the beginning; it was KNOWN from the beginning. Even though God knew His creation would revolt, He still allowed them the gift to live, think for themselves, and make their own choices. Even though He knew what those choices would be, that does not mean He made our choices. Like I said, otherwise, He would be a tyrant, forcing us to choose Him
pursuitfortruth 2 years ago
Either way, if the future is already known then you can do whatever you want, but no matter what you do, it has already been predestined. Which really means that before you were born, your fate was already known which in it self is restrictive.
hmnun08 2 years ago
It was KNOWN but God did not make your decisions for you
pursuitfortruth 2 years ago
I understand what you mean, but that is not the point that I was trying to make. There's no easy way to explain it in simple terms but I will try. I was trying to say that everything is already scripted. You cannot deter from what is scripted because it would then be false. Providing the illusion of a freedom, but everything you do is really just following the script.
hmnun08 2 years ago
He knows right now what you will do tomorrow, but you don't. He doesn't tell you, so you make that decision. Yes, He knows what you will do, but you're the one that makes the decision to do it.
pursuitfortruth 2 years ago
Alright, I failed to make my point and I don't know how else to say it in order for you to understand. So at that, it was good having this little discussion and thank you for being patient and answering nicely.
hmnun08 2 years ago
That black guy in the beginning gave one of the best and simplest explanations of God I've ever heard.
HiveDes 2 years ago
It's a cop out answer..."people made God" same as Christians saying God made people. The answers these people gave are simply what they believe, not what they know to be the truth
carnac449 2 years ago
The way this video does the pan and slow zoom on Darwin's face, makes him look like one dark, badass kind of a guy. The kind of badass you can look up to; the kind that just shouts "I'm the Samuel L Jackson of the 1800's" and makes the theory of evolution just so damn more awesome.
Once again, the evangelicals have done more for the atheist movement than all the nonbelievers combined could ever possibly do.
scourfish 2 years ago
I love how the sub captions actually say "PHILOSOPHER of science" and "PHILOSOPHER of biology" rather that "scientist" and "biologist".
Because unfortunately, it takes an actual degree to call yourself the latter two.
And reading Pastor Strobel's "The Case For Christ", he must be the most mindlessly credulous journalist who ever lived.
Either that, or he's just getting rich by selling books.
Chrysothemis 2 years ago
Actually, the Philosophers you refer to have PHDs.
Lay off the paint chips. (J.K. buddy, just adding my $.02 - hope you can take a joke)
tylergTV 2 years ago
tylergTV - "Actually, the Philosophers you refer to have PHDs."
I know, and sorry for writing in such a sloppy way. My point was that their degrees are in philosophy, not science.
Paint chips are delicious, by the way.
Chrysothemis 2 years ago
What do you think he should be doing then
pursuitfortruth 2 years ago
pursuitfortruth - "What do you think he should be doing then"
Strobel? I think he should be a park ranger in Alaska. But unfortunately that's not up to me.
Chrysothemis 2 years ago
I mean how do you think he should be doing his journalism
pursuitfortruth 2 years ago
pursuitfortruth - "I mean how do you think he should be doing his journalism"
Oh, OK. That's easier. What he does in Case For Christ, for example, if this.
He finds a set of interview subjects who, as he surely must have known, all hold literal and conservative opinions.
He then asks them questions