this movie looks pretty fun, based on evolution vs. creation, I like the fact that just 2 brothers made the entire thing, called EVOLUTION CREEK, look it up!
So many evil, godless people in this video. Fuck atheists.
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents,ungrateful,unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God;having a form of godliness but denying its power.
What a great video. It reveals how divisive people can be to get "what they want". "It's about religion, politics and power." The exact cocktail we don't want in the USA! Such cocktails are more commonly found in underdeveloped nations and the middle east where backward people still adhere to such nonsense. It's interesting how Santorum, Bush and Philip Jonson fit into the picture and the "Wedge Strategy" and it's 20 year goals - absolutely scary in a modern world seeking legitimate answers.
the people who get all worked up over evolution seem to have little interest in science or evolution at all, it's just the football team mentality... so frustrating listening to them in this vid
If you don't want to accept evolution that's fine, but if you want people to learn about creationism, take them to church. Don't force kids to learn it in schools. If your going to teach creationism in schools then you have to teach every religion's creation myth.
the odds that everything came from nothing by chance is zero, the dna molecule contains thousands and thousands of volume's of information that could NOT have ordered itself. it takes more FAITH to believe in evolution than it does and God said let there be light
@lazzerwolf no one says it all happened by chance. Well let me rephrase that - no one who studies or understands the big bang theory says that, so I will exclude you from that list. Even if big bang is wrong, that does not mean GOD DID IT!!
@chanrichard911 I bet to differ, the foundation of evolution or the doctrine postulates that ALL systems from beginning to end are random events, not one system goes from chaos to order, its the reverse, 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics
@lazzerwolf ok, beg to differ... the only random event is the logical structure of your argument. "the foundation of evolution or the doctrine" - come again? laws of thermodynamics?? - you are jumping all over and didn't make a single point, it's just random. Just goto wikipedia and read about evolution and the laws of thermodynamics, I can't educate you here, but just by looking at how you compose your arguments, I can tell you couldn't buy a clue if your life depended on it.
@chanrichard911 it doesn't surprise me in the least that you do not have the slightest idea what i'm talking about, furthermore to make judgements about my education, is what your kind always does , can't address the facts so .. lets go ad hominem, so i suggest you not waist your time with someone so intellectually inferior,,. I love that shit let me take ya to da schoolhouse sonnyboy haha
Even Pat Roberson admits that Intelligent Design is a Christian religion as he tells Dover that if you have a natural disaster, dont turn to god as you have just rejected him.
we live in the land of the free! we should be able to decide for ourselves, not forced into only one way of thinking. We just completed our new sci fi movie based on evolution vs. creation, check it out let us know what you think! search for Evolution Creek
@steviej321 I think all things should be taught including religions: islam, hindu, christianity, etc etc along with evolution and science. Give people a basic working knowledge of all things so they can decide for themselves. Even if you don't agree with someone elses opinion, at least you would have a more general understanding of the people around you and their beliefs. check out EVOLUTION CREEK the movie :)
@bellhog246 For me, knowing that the chances of the world evolving as it has are minute as they are only makes me realize what a gift life is, how lucky we all are to be here, & how we need to spend every second on this earth living to the fullest. Not fighting ourselves. I know my place in the universe & I am fulfilled knowing that. Do you know yours?
@purpleforevah Statistically speaking, your place and my place in this universe is not of evolution and chance.
For me, knowing that we are NOT here by chance, that life DOES have purpose and meaning, gives me a much greater fulfillment and appreciation for the gift of Life.
If you want to talk statistics you might look at the probability of a divine overlord existing.
Personally I don't need to comfort myself with the thought of one watching over me in order to give my life meaning, I don't need someone else's choice to define my life. I make my own meaning, I derive that meaning and comfort from the love of other human beings struggling to make meaning in their own lives.
Different strokes, but this is belief, not science. It doesn't belong in class.
Neither do I think that postmodernism (this idea that we really can't 'know' anything) needs to be in a science classroom either. In fact, it's anti-science--just like ignoring the statistics.
For me, it's not about comfort or need, but simply where the evidence leads.
@bellhog246 ...we know it today. Perhaps it is discomforting to think that our world is built from a complex chaos of events, of evolutions, one after the other. To think that this delicate balance all rests on chance. To think that there is not something that had a hand in shaping everything that is. That is why many turn to religion-& I am by no means speaking against it-to find a meaning within all of the perceived chaos.
@bellhog246 Disregarding the questionability of your statistic & its source, consider the following; a low probability of an event occurring by no means rules it out as a possibility. There is always that 1 in whatever # chance. As evidenced by microscopic research & endosymbiotic theory, that 1 in whatever # chance happened. Because, at its root, all life, everything in the universe, everything we can see and all we are is the product of chance, of a series of events that has led to life as...
@gaiusscipio You should not use sarcasm when pretending to be Christian who believes in kindness. So many them are so crazy as to say something for real the way you would say something sarcastically. lol
@theshadowify That's exactly why I said it. It illustrates the hypocrisy of many so called religious people who say they believe in a kind, forgiving benevolent God and then threaten to kill you if you don't share their belief. The Christ would have been appalled at the perversion so many people have put his teachings to. The same goes for most other major religions around the world.
@gaiusscipio You did not get the point of my comment. I wasnt clear, but I did put a lol at the end to indicate that I was not serious. My main point was that when you make a sarcastic remark like that while pretending to be Christian, then you should expect some atheist to take you seriously and think you are some crazy Christian and attack your statement because what you say sarcastically can be said by a real crazy Christian. Therefore it can be hard to spot sarcasm. Just as steviej321 did.
@theshadowify No I understood what you meant, but I felt it was better to spell out my meaning, not for you but for the ones that might think I was being serious. Regrettably sarcasm is not for the unintelligent. While a christian might say death to their enemies, I find it hard to believe that even a religious hypocrite could talk about God's love in one breath and death in the other. But then again, maybe I am just unduly giving people credit for intelligence and fairness
im yelling at my screen the whole time, "intelligent design is a relgion it isnt science because they are using the supernatural to explain things and they are describing a religion"
The christians might have well have said. Dear class. In this class we will be teaching addition. We know 1+1=2. But we are required to inform you there is another alternative out there and that alternative is jesus.
It's funny how it's typically not scientists but politicians and lawyers with zero objectivity and an extremely limited knowledge in science (especially biology, biochemistry, genetics, paleontology, geology) that generally make up the majority of proponents for the ID "theory."
ID proponents have the right to their beliefs. But, they don't have the right mislead biology students by teaching that ID, a theological proposal devoid of testable evidence, is scientific.
Here's a scientific fact: The chances of the first living cell coming about on it's own is (conservatively) 1 in 10^11,000. This means it was impossible.
If you want to roll that way with your beliefs then that's OK, but don't claim that it was 'science' that convinced you.
@bellhog246 it doesn't mean it's impossible, it means that its extremely unlikely. There is a less than slight difference between impossible & unlikely.
@dubstepmusic1992 "There is a less than slight difference between impossible & unlikely".
Not so. The definintion of a statistical impossibility is anything less than 1 chance in 10^130.
Not sure if you are simply correcting my logic or if you're actually hanging your hope on these kinds of odds. If you don't believe me, see what a poor treatment is made on the skeptical websites of this fact. The best solution: 'multiverses' (LoL).
@bellhog246 where did you recieve the information that the chances of the first living cell coming about is 1 in 10^11,000? I'm not saying that isn't the case. I'm just curious what study this information is from.
@dubstepmusic1992 I spent some time researching the topic. The probabiliy is an 'average' number just to be fair. I checked a number of sources and the answer varied depending on the assumptions made and the statistical path used. Oddly, few skeptical sources attempted to challenge the findings.
@bellhog246 I'm curious where this information is from too. You didn't really address this. Give actual links, or PMID IDs, if any. Bear in mind anything published by creation journal is unlikely to convince us. If this number is calculated in an unbiased and scientifically legit way, then it should be part of a peer-reviewed journal. I look forward to see it.
It is well explained by various scientists; it's backwards logic. Like calculating the chances of me being exactly in the state and place where I am right now!
...Dawkins gives a good analogy of why it's illogical reasoning to calculate the sate of life backwards. But look it up, I promise it's well understood, and I don't want to spam!
@meztini i understand very well what you are referring to. I'm trying to give bellhog a chance to show some credible sources when presenting the evidence. But i have a strong feeling it's just going to be some crap from creationist journal..lets hope i'm wrong. I'm sick of creationists always citing evidence that turns out to be from unaccredited sources, they get me falsely excited whenever they say they have evidence to disprove evolution.
It's not so much that the calculations are wrong, it's more than they're used to back up claims which they are not logically qualified to support! (and are kinda misrepresented as to what they ACTUALLY calculate!)
I'm getting bored of being an atheist in these arguments :( at least creationists can learn something about the world from us... I wish I could redo my deconversion!!
@Casshyr Bill Dembski wrote "The Design Inference" published by Cambridge University Press peer-reviewed throughly discusses the series Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory.
David Abel also published “The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP),” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6(27) (2009).
Both are reputable peer-reviewed scholarly journals that speak to this topic.
@bellhog246 "Design Inference" => a book is not same as peer-review journal... See criticism in "An intelligently designed response". Nature Methods 4 (12): 983–912. 2007.
@bellhog246 "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)." => yes! finally an actual peer-reviewed article. Altho the article says nothing about that 10^100000 number you gave.
@Casshyr OK then. Obviously I need help. Can you refer me to a peer reviewed work out there that does this that you can cite that describes the probability? Everything I can find outside of these sources is a creationist site. I'd use a skeptic site, but strangely no one wants to talk about it there, so I'll even accept a skeptical source.
Please tell me SOMEONE besides a creationist has done this calculation...
@bellhog246 "refer me to a peer reviewed work out there that does this that you can cite that describes the probability?" => i don't think that number exists. It's probably made up by creationists
@Casshyr Don't you think it's a rather unfair catch-22 when: (1) skeptics are afraid to do the math themselves, (2) creationists have to do it for them, and (3) the conclusions reached, no matter how accurate, are dismissed because the source is considered 'biased'. I wish I were a skeptic and could just wave my hands around without having to explain anything...
See w w w (dot) mathematicsofevolution (dot) c o m for the math. I challenge anyone to refute it.
@bellhog246 You might be interested to check out a paper in Cornell "A Bayesian Analysis of the Astrobiological Implications of Life's Early Emergence on Earth".
@bellhog246 Another article that addresses this issue "Physico-Chemical and Evolutionary Constraints for the Formation and Selection of First Biopolymers: Towards the Consensus Paradigm of the Abiogenic Origin of Life".
@bellhog246 Here's another one: "Abiogenesis and photostimulated heterogeneous reactions in the interstellar medium and on primitive earth: Relevance to the genesis of life"
These are articles that demonstrate why abiogenesis is possible, and if not, the best explanation we have so far without simply resorting to "God did it" statement. Panspermia remains a plausibility too, and of course, so is theistic bbt/evolution if u choose. Either way, the math certainly doesn't dissuade them
@bellhog246 im sry, i should have asked: do you have access to these articles? Some of these journals are not free unless you access them via a university network. In the Bayesian paper i sent to you, they did not give a single number, but plotted it as a function of the priors used. The range seems to be between 0 and 10^-7, altho we also need to keep in mind this is dependent on length of time (i.e. the more time you give this, the more chance for abiogenesis)
@bellhog246 The strength of this analysis, i would say, is that it supports the idea of life being rare in the universe, but given a hospitable environment, abiogenesis is demonstrated, by their analysis, to be likely. Of course, this by no means disprove God. You can always say God is behind it all. The analysis merely present how abiogenesis is possible, especially under the old universe+old earth model. And it also doesn't mean evolution is true. To do that, you need to go to biology.
@bellhog246 "Oh, so he DIDN'T do the math either. More hand waving." => you're starting to annoy me. Read the actual paper please and stop throwing out claims as if in a desperate attempt to debunk.
@Casshyr So we're both at a loss for a scholarly work speaking specifically on the statistics of the chance, unguided assemblage of the first living cell. Now we have to turn to non-academic (but scientifically verifiable) works. Everything I can find (that actually explains the math) places the likelihood way beyond the universal probability bound of 1 in 10^-130.
Can anyone produce a counter-example or a refutation which includes a detailed explanation of the statistics?
@bellhog246 "Everything I can find (that actually explains the math) places the likelihood way beyond the universal probability bound of 1 in 10^-130." => no i already gave you several links, the bayesian one clearly works out the stats. I guess you either:
1) didn't bother to read it
2) don't understand bayesian statistics
3) #1 + #2
If it's #1, then go read it please. If it's #2, then try taking some bayesian statistics courses if you ever get the chance.
@Casshyr I can't find a viewable version of the article. I'll read it if you can point me to it.
There is a pretty good treatment on the topic at w w w infidels o r g by Richard Carrier. He cites the Frank Salisbury study on the topic (published in Nature) is probably the best so far. But reading Carrier's comments, I couldn't help but think that Salisbury's estimate of 1 x 10^415 is still pretty damning evidence to naturalism despite the age of the study.
@bellhog246 Ok, this brings up a good point, one which I do can comment about. First, the Frank paper is published in 1969. I don't know how much you know about biology, but 1969 is back in the days when we only just start to understand what a gene is. We don't even have a full bacterial genome sequenced yet! This is back before even human genome project was even conceived. So to use this article as the basis for refuting abiogenesis/evolution...i would say it's pretty weak (cont)
@bellhog246 But lets do say the paper's claims remain true (which more or less, yes). The percentage cited does indeed show that complexity of life is too great to occur by random chances. But this is only if you assume life is that complex to begin with!! Abiogenesis does not say that. Abiogenesis theory states earlier life forms probably occur as simple RNA strands capable of self-replicating. The percentage in the paper reflects the chance to have a modern cell just coming into existence.
@bellhog246 So yes, even as an evolutionist, i have no problem with that probability, because of course it should be rare! If a complex protein can just *poof into existence by chance, then evolution won't take millions of years, and abiogenesis would be totally wrong. I hope you understand what i'm driving at. The key point is: ancestral life is not as complex as what we have today. Even the most simplest cell is more complex than what it was back then
You are incorrect in your understanding of Salsibury's method of determining his statistics. His probability is not based on a sudden 'poof' of a living cell, but considers the random reactions that would have been involved leading up to the living cell.
Yes, the article is 40 years old and since then we've ALSO learned more about the obsticles to the RNA world hypothesis and chemical evolution. The whole thing remains statistically impossible.
@bellhog246 No, the calculation assumed the first living cell is as complicated as it already is! But if you take abiogenesis to be true, then the first living "thing" is just a strand of RNA. And from there, natural selection can take place, so it would be incorrect to say a cell is derived based on random reactions. In fact, mutations do not happen randomly, otherwise if you plot frequency of mutation on y-axis and genomic locations on x-xis, u would expect an uniform distribution, but u don't
@bellhog246 Check out the article "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations" on TalkingOrigins . org. While I generally don't like to refer to laymen website that's not part of peer-reviewed literature, this article does cite many scientific literature that show why the abiogenesis statistical calculation is incorrect.
You earlier asked me how come nobody bother to debunk the creationist calculation: here it one example.
@bellhog246 If you read the trueorigin article carefully, it's actually not attacking the statistical chance for abiogenesis, it's attacking abiogenesis itself. That's a different issue. You can't compare the statistical probabilities without first agreeing what assumptions to use. Trueorigin doesn't believe the mainstream interpretation of abiogenesis, especially RNA-world hypothesis. If we can't even agree on this..then there's no point discussing on whose stats is correct
@Casshyr Remember thought that the ONLY peer-reviewed journals that address the question are those that suggest an impossibly high probability. You provided a single peer-reviewed journal article that speaks to abiogenesis but you had to provide your own interpretation of the 'implied' statistics. So the scientific evidence is far from "equal".
The skeptical community spends all their time throwing rocks at the studies that ARE published, but has yet to publish their own statistics.
@bellhog246 "ONLY peer-reviewed journals that address the question are those that suggest an impossibly high probability. " => no, you misread them! They say probability is low, but in the end, the conclusion remains that they support abiogenesis! You are cherry-picking individual sentences, and ignore what they conclude! Conclusion of the paper is important lol.
@bellhog246 i think it's safe to say both of us are not experts, and whatever conclusions we think is right is still at best amateur. That's why for me, i rather put my trust (or faith, if u want to get all religious) in mainstream scientists. Historically, mainstream scientists are correct over minority. We only have tiny few exceptions where extreme minorities prove vast majority wrong. I don't think this is one of them, considering we have better technology and more refined methods.
@Casshyr "i rather put my trust ... in mainstream scientists"
But you DO understand that mainstream scientists are looking at material nature and assume 'a priori' that the metaphysical cannot exist.
What happens when the findings of science conflict with the presumptions of science (e.g. when science infers that information comes from intelligent desigers and there is informaiton in DNA)?
Wouldin't the 'scientific' thing to do be to revise our presumptions?
@bellhog246 "mainstream scientists are looking at material nature and assume 'a priori' that the metaphysical cannot exist." => no, latest stats show over 30% of scientists believe in a God. They certainly don't assume metaphysical cannot exist!
And on this note, a mix of metaphysical + science should lead to theistic evolution, not creationism.
I'm sure you have heard of Michael Behe, biggest proponent of intellectual design. You should check out what he says about creationism!
@Casshyr "a mix of metaphysical + science should lead to theistic evolution, not creationism."
A lot of people have advocated this as a way to reconcile the two. I still think evolution (even theistic) falls short scientifically, assuming you mean that God started the initial conditions and let nature guide itself. There's more than one model to explain what we see today in the fossil record and studies show random mutations are insufficient to produce the changes necessary.
@bellhog246 "studies show random mutations are insufficient to produce the changes necessary." => you have to be very careful with claims like this. Who did the studies? Creationists. Are most of them trained in actually relevant fields? No. A pure mathematician is not same as someone who knows both biology and math. And neither is a lawyer (you'll find a lot of creationists PhDs who are outspoken against evolution have lawyers background, which in the end, is not a scientific field)
@bellhog246 "studies show random mutations are insufficient to produce the changes necessary." => you have to be very careful with claims like this. Who did the studies? Creationists. Are most of them trained in actually relevant fields? No. A pure mathematician is not same as someone who knows both biology and math. And neither is a lawyer (you'll find a lot of creationists PhDs who are outspoken against evolution have lawyers background, which in the end, is not a scientific field)
@bellhog246 And again, over 95% of scientists, including theists + atheists, disagree with claims like "studies show random mutations are insufficient to produce the changes necessary". So yes i agree multiple viewpoints exist, but you shouldn't treat as if minority holds some kind of superiority over majority. In fact, if anything, majority should have superiority over minority, which historically + statistically has been correct on issues more than wrong.
@Casshyr "studies show random mutations are insufficient to produce the changes necessary"
This has been shown with selective breeding of fruit flies (which reproduce rapidly). We've never observed a trans-species change through these experiments. Common descent is a 'way' to look at the data (but has no experimental validation).
Again, when the findings of science conflict with its presumptions, wouldn't the most scientific thing to do be to challenge/revise the assumptions?
@bellhog246 I should clarify I myself don't agree with a complete naturalistic interpretation of abiogenesis. I think abiogenesis is true, but i am more towards of some kind of force behind it, whether it's God or super-intelligent aliens...we can't rule it out. Sorry if I wasn't clear on this before. I'm not an atheist myself. I'm more of a deist, with a mix of agnosticism.
@bellhog246 "So what's the challenge to the amateur paper I sent?" => i wouldn't know, i'm not the expert. Why don't you try to submit it to the journal and tell me what feedbacks u get?
In the scientific community, if a claim isn't challenged that can sometimes mean that the claim is too ludicrous to warrant investigation, sorry to break it to you but this is one too.
You know you're making headway with your audience when someone starts marking your posts as spam. It's similar to the way the 'unbiased scientific community' tries to censor opposing viewpoints. So much for free inquiry and academic freedom...
a few hundreds years ago the church made all people think the same and if not the inquistion made sure they did. Luckily today people are aloud to think for themselves and the more they do, they tear off the chains of religion.
It is like teaching the earth is a sphere and the earth is flat (because the bibles says so) at school and then let the students make up their own mind and decide for themselves what is true.
@illywacker1 I think the faithful are well aware they don't have supporting facts for their god theory and this creates some anger as their adult logic tries to break through.
at 1:37 Buckingham put his foot in his mouth. Then later saying the power of prayer. If People like this decide want students are to learn this surely is a step back in history.
Like a lot of other words in the English language, the word "theory" has multiple meanings, just like bat, bowl, row, etc. In colloquial use, a "theory" is a guess. When used in science, a "theory" explains a set of facts. And in science, a guess is called a "hypothesis."
Interesting how religious people send hate mail and want to kill us. How good is religion with its morals? You don't find the scientific community or the justice system threatening religious people. Religion poisons everything. Its that simple! The sooner its banished to the dark ages where it came from, the better human kind.
yeaaahhhhhhhh. truth wins. cant believe some ppl are trying to turn a scientificly developed country like usa into some fanatick slum like afghanistan
This is why atheists must take an aggressive stance in this country. Obliterate superstition and allow science and education to progress. Please stop trying to confuse our children. We already have our work cut out for us with the adults.
as a biology student i ve a doubt..is Jesus haploid??have only 23 chromosomes in his nucleus,unlike other homosapians with 46 ,that too from "virgin" mother???does her ovum avoided that meiosis??if so do he had chromosomal diseases like "turners"??if not diploid how can he have a human form??{ please do answer these ,,avoid stupid answers like thats gods wish or gods way}
As a propoenent of ID, I think the biggest mistake made was in the marketing. ID is really just the science of detecting design with a specific application to the natural world. No one would ever take issue with detecting design in an ancient artifact (archaeology) or at a crime scene (forensics). ID is only dismissed because of it's theological implications.
@mrabdrum "ID today is just a propaganda term for creationism"
The two are different. Creationism views nature through the lens of a biblical understanding of the universe's beginnings. ID infers design in nature the same way that we infer design in everything else--by noticing specific features of complexity. ID CAN have theological implications (for who else could 'design' living systems and the cosmos), but in and of itself does not seek to 'name' the designer.
How does simply "not naming the designer" (as if we don't know who!!) make it any less crazy?
Both science and ID seek to notice specific features of complexity. The difference is this -
ID: notices complexity, attributes it to supernatural, end of investigation.
Science: notices complexity, seeks naturalistic explanations for it, that can be reproduced, peer reviewed, tested, criticised, verified and can make predictions for further discoveries.
@Roj0307 'ID: notices complexity, attributes it to supernatural, end of investigation.'
This is an interesting, recurring argument. Here's my response: Like it or not, you have an infinite regression problem in nature. At some point there was a beginning of nature (nearly every scientist believes this). Since the cause of nature cannot be natural, it must be non-natural. Since science can only explain the natural, science alone is inadequte to explain the beginning of nature. (cont..)
@bellhog246 "The cause of nature cannot be natural"
Not so fast, invoking a magic man (an not saying his name doesn't add credibility) answers nothing.
Science doesn't pretend to have the answer to cosmology. But at least plausible models exist, none of which are supernatural. What initiated or happened before the big bang might be found in quantum theory where intuition and the laws of physics as we know them in our macroscopic world don't apply.
@Roj0307 "Science doesn't pretend to have the answer to cosmology".
Again, I'll throw the B.S. flag on this one. What the crap is a 'multiverse' and why does it get any airtime at all?
"But at least plausible models exist, none of which are supernatural"
Name one plausible model. (And don't cover it up with a bunch of big-sounding science words). When examined, I'm sure they will be every bit as metaphysical as ID.
Sadly, I now detect your level of education in the sciences is limited. This makes further debate fairly pointless.
If you are serious about wanting to learn how relativity and quantum theory help explain models for cosmology that seem counter-intuitive, I suggest you view Thunderf00t's recent excellent video on this on youtube.
@Roj0307 This is all how it always ends up. I ask a question that really gets to the heart of the matter and we change the subject. A thousand times typical...
Scientific models for cosmology exist, period. Whether you understand or believe these is irrelevent. Neither is it my job to bring these to your attention.
This is analogous to me asking you to go to the trouble of typing out and interpreting the 10 commandments verbatum for me, and if you refuse, it somehow proves the bible doesn't exist.
@Roj0307 'ID: notices complexity, attributes it to supernatural, end of investigation.' (cont.)
So, at some point, science (given your definiton) will no longer have explanitory power for the origins of nature--it will have reached its limit and you will have to pack up the telescopes and lab coat and go home. Then what do you do?
The only place to go from here is speculate on what caused nature to begin. This is where ID provides a model for furthering the question of 'why'.
@Roj0307 'When science has no answer it says "i don't know yet."
Real science develops the best models of nature based upon known observation. 'Pop-science' is where science has no answer but speculates an answer. The multi-verse is a good example of this. There's no experimental data and there's no observation, but many 'scientists' find it more palatable than ID, so they give it a pass. The multi-verse is just as metaphysical an explantion as creationism.
Artifacts do not reproduce and evolve, and we are familiar with artifacts as products of human activity. How would you approach, say, a discovery of novel methane-breathing lifeform? Answer - don't give up until a natural explanation is found.
Think about the implications of using ID as science.
Centuries ago, ID would have been the explanation for tides coming in and out. It is a theory of the gaps. It offers no explanations and allows no predictions to be made.
@Roj0307 "Answer - don't give up until a natural explanation is found."
And I'm saying there are mysteries in nature that science is inadequate for. You will either never find an answer, or resort to whacky theories (like multiverse) that fit into the narrow naturalistic worldview.
If the term 'ID' offends, then I'll pitch it. Let's use 'design detection'. We as humans detect design in things and it's a multidisciplinary science to know how and why we can (cont.)
These whaky theories enable you to use your GPS, and runs the microchips in your PC.
Unfortunately, your argument is a common creationist one: "If I don't understand it then no-one should."
Why stop at cosmology, abiogenesis or DNA? If you wish to see design in the way the sun rises and falls, the tides come in and out, the symmetry of snow flakes, feel free.
@Roj0307 Really? You have a multi-verse powered GPS?
Can we stick to a singular line of reasoning? If you can believe a book is written by an author (with all it's specified complexity), why is it such a leap of conscience to apply design detection to things like DNA, the anthropic principle, and the cosmos? What makes them the exception? Why be so logically inconsistant?
This line of reasoning - finding a watch in a forest - has been debunked. It appears you are fairly new to the debate. Not even Dembski uses it anymore.
Does a watch or book reproduce itself? Is each generation a slightly modified version of the previous? Is each generation subjected to selective pressures such that the higher quality the object the more likely the object will propogate? Has this process been allowed to perfect itself over millions of generations?
@Roj0307 "Does a watch or book reproduce itself?"
We're discussing origins, not evolution. Something has to have offspring in order to evolve. The precursor to the unvierse is nothing. The precoursor to DNA is a random collection of amino acids. Why isn't design is the most plausible catalyst for their beginning?
You're still avoiding the question...
Why do we apply a model to one thing and then become scientifically inconsistant and irrational when we apply it to another thing?
Ok, you're right. You've cornered me and 99.7% of scientists with your logic, hitherto unknown.
Scientists do know of magic but pretend otherwise. Until you exposed us, we had everyone conviced that natural explanations account for everything, like earthquakes or disease. No, it is by design. (The designer didn't need designing himself though.)
Scientists were hoping to hide ID and thereby live a life of indulgence and sin.
I'll take this sarcasm as your concession. But just to clarify...
No one is saying a designer designs everything. Most follow-on effects can be attributed to natural causes based on the physical laws of nature. However, there are cases where these physical laws are insufficient to explain the specified complexity in certain phenomena.
In these cases, the more plausible explanation (no matter how difficult a pill it is to swallow) is design.
@bellhog246 Bollocks! Sure, there are things that still perplex scientists about the nature of reality if you will. However, your logic does not necessarily conclude that the plausible explanation to unknowns is design. Your argument is still inductive. However, it seems that science more and more seems to use Inference to the Best Explanation: Given a certain amount of data that is available, the most possible explantion is x. Design has nothing to do with evolution at the biological level.
ID is inferrential, but so is the argument for abiogenesis. Where is the experimental evidence life formed naturally from non-life? Since dead things can't evolve, the bigger problem to solve is the origin of the first life--and the odds weigh heavily against it.
At least with ID there is emperical evidence all around us that design only comes from an intelligent agent.
Exactly my point, "ID is inferrential." It could be true or be false. However, there is good inductive arguments and bad ones. That's why I mentioned Inference to the Best Explanation, yet you can't test or theorize about ID. That was the point of the documentary, and that ID is bad science. You can argue that ID is a good (good luck) philosophic explanation of the origin of everything. But it belongs in philosophy, not science. Thus, evolution is a good scientific theory for the origin of life.
@bellhog246 Dude, did you not take a biology course in college or high school? Dead things? Yo! The whole universe almost works like it's a living thing. It's freakin beautiful. You probably too dumb to appreciate what physicists, biologists, and other natural sciences have found so far. Too stuck on old beliefs huh?
@Roj0307 "Answer - don't give up until a natural explanation is found." (cont.)
...detect design with relatively high accuracy (using statistics, psychology, cognition, etc.). Everyone can agree with this until we apply it to nature--then everyone is out for blood. Isn't this a double-standard? Why do we apply a model to one thing and then become scientifically inconsistant and irrational when we apply it to another thing?
Can anyone answer this for me? I'm very curious...
A "design" model has never been NEEDED to explain anything so far in science.
If a tsunami hits Japan, it might SEEM to be desinged to exterminate non christians. But there is a better natural explanation.
Consider the symmetry of a snowflake. Was it designed? How does a water molecule on one side "know" what the other side is doing so as to copy it? Can YOU draw one, flawlessly, by freehand? Then how on earth does nature achieve this blindly and randomly?
@bellhog246 Your analogy is inaccurate. We can infer design in archaeology and forensic science, since those sciences deal exclusively with events and artifacts, caused by humans. Natural science, on the other hand, does not do the same thing.
@HKOverlord117 "We can infer design in archaeology and forensic science, since those sciences deal exclusively with events and artifacts, caused by humans"
...and you know that they were caused by intelligent creatures (humans) because the artifacts because their form and specific features possess complexity. This is the same way I would 'infer' an intellgent designer to such things as living systems (DNA) and cosmology (the fine-tuning of the universe).
@bellhog246 'ID is not the science of detecting design' You obviously didn't listen to the video or Judge Jones opinion. The laws of physics can explain and do explain everything around us. ID does not. I suggest you watch Professor Brian Cox on the laws of entropy and the universe. What may appeared designed does not imply a designer. As is the case with the bacterial flagellum. Furthermore do research on Richard E Lenski. E-Coli bacteria. More proof of evolution. Its great to be educated!
@stevjen1 'You obviously didn't listen to the video or Judge Jones opinion'
LOL! Oh, the court ALWAYS gets it right (just like with OJ!). I thought anyone without a background in science is incompetent to understand these kinds of things (or does that only apply to dissenting views?).
'The laws of physics can explain and do explain everything around us. ID does not.'
ID provides evidence that many things in nature are best explained through design rather than unguided change.
@bellhog246 While evolution and the universe may appear designed, they are not designed. They are continually evolving with no supernatural intervention. Thats been proven by the laws of physics. Now unless someone has evidence of the laws of physics being broken or even intervened (say to allow a virgin to have a baby or make a snake talk, or allow dead cells to mutate and all of a sudden come back to life) then I think the case for ID is a no brainer.
@stevjen1 "While evolution and the universe may appear designed, they are not designed."
Where's your evidence? That's like saying a book may appeared to have been written, but it isn't.
"Thats been proven by the laws of physics"
Again, the laws of physics were established at the point that nature originated. Science as you describe it can only explain and predict phenomena in the natural world.
The issue is a lot more complex than this documentary goes into. There is a huge development in the scientific arena that doesn't necessarily affirm or deny evolution per-say, but that there may have been some external being or force that caused things to be. That's the rest of the story in a nutshell.
The fact that 40% of the American public believes that evolution is not a proven theory really speaks volume about the scientific illiteracy in this country. No wonder so many of our scientists, doctors, and engineers come from foreign countries.
@KeiserSoze16 It also explains why so many in the U.S. don't believe in global warming, when over 96% of all climate scientists believe it is happening, and with man-made causes.
@KeiserSoze16 It is a shame the US has so many brilliant scientists yet it could do much better if religion didn't take charge of so many minds hobbling their learning.
@KeiserSoze16 Well certain theories of evolution, especially natural selection, is still debated by scientists and philosophers. The documentary just shows that "creation science" is bogus, or at least Intelligent design is.
It's funny how they are talking about Darwin as if his theories have only just been found out and it is only now we are coming to terms with evolution. Only in the backwards, primitive parts of America is this true.
Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
You see atheists burning art or books? Nope, it's always religious zealots.
LOL4Polio 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this movie looks pretty fun, based on evolution vs. creation, I like the fact that just 2 brothers made the entire thing, called EVOLUTION CREEK, look it up!
chauncyhead 2 days ago
So many evil, godless people in this video. Fuck atheists.
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents,ungrateful,unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God;having a form of godliness but denying its power.
BitchPus5 2 days ago
@BitchPus5 Sadly your post paints you as a Pathetic willfully ignorant and gleefully superstitious neanderthal
xephyr1000 2 days ago
What a great video. It reveals how divisive people can be to get "what they want". "It's about religion, politics and power." The exact cocktail we don't want in the USA! Such cocktails are more commonly found in underdeveloped nations and the middle east where backward people still adhere to such nonsense. It's interesting how Santorum, Bush and Philip Jonson fit into the picture and the "Wedge Strategy" and it's 20 year goals - absolutely scary in a modern world seeking legitimate answers.
RATIONALMIND001 5 days ago
Intelligent Design means the is a god and the is no god darwin is right
kevinkards 6 days ago
did you know that a recent suvey said that athiest and agnostics know more about religion than religios people
thearbiter221 1 week ago
i love how ALL the fucks who champion creationism are Law dudes not science dudes
MrRenegademovies 1 week ago
the people who get all worked up over evolution seem to have little interest in science or evolution at all, it's just the football team mentality... so frustrating listening to them in this vid
chanrichard911 1 week ago
If you don't want to accept evolution that's fine, but if you want people to learn about creationism, take them to church. Don't force kids to learn it in schools. If your going to teach creationism in schools then you have to teach every religion's creation myth.
thehallerman1 1 week ago
the odds that everything came from nothing by chance is zero, the dna molecule contains thousands and thousands of volume's of information that could NOT have ordered itself. it takes more FAITH to believe in evolution than it does and God said let there be light
lazzerwolf 1 week ago
@lazzerwolf no one says it all happened by chance. Well let me rephrase that - no one who studies or understands the big bang theory says that, so I will exclude you from that list. Even if big bang is wrong, that does not mean GOD DID IT!!
chanrichard911 1 week ago
@chanrichard911 I bet to differ, the foundation of evolution or the doctrine postulates that ALL systems from beginning to end are random events, not one system goes from chaos to order, its the reverse, 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics
lazzerwolf 1 week ago
@lazzerwolf ok, beg to differ... the only random event is the logical structure of your argument. "the foundation of evolution or the doctrine" - come again? laws of thermodynamics?? - you are jumping all over and didn't make a single point, it's just random. Just goto wikipedia and read about evolution and the laws of thermodynamics, I can't educate you here, but just by looking at how you compose your arguments, I can tell you couldn't buy a clue if your life depended on it.
chanrichard911 1 week ago
@chanrichard911 it doesn't surprise me in the least that you do not have the slightest idea what i'm talking about, furthermore to make judgements about my education, is what your kind always does , can't address the facts so .. lets go ad hominem, so i suggest you not waist your time with someone so intellectually inferior,,. I love that shit let me take ya to da schoolhouse sonnyboy haha
lazzerwolf 1 week ago
Even Pat Roberson admits that Intelligent Design is a Christian religion as he tells Dover that if you have a natural disaster, dont turn to god as you have just rejected him.
theshadowify 2 weeks ago
ha 0:41:15 'let's go find some transitional fossils!'
MrFibertiger 2 weeks ago
we live in the land of the free! we should be able to decide for ourselves, not forced into only one way of thinking. We just completed our new sci fi movie based on evolution vs. creation, check it out let us know what you think! search for Evolution Creek
chauncyhead 3 weeks ago
@chauncyhead It's already BEEN decided. Creationism is fiction, evolution is truth. Why would we teach fiction to our children? Get over it.
steviej321 2 weeks ago
@steviej321 I think all things should be taught including religions: islam, hindu, christianity, etc etc along with evolution and science. Give people a basic working knowledge of all things so they can decide for themselves. Even if you don't agree with someone elses opinion, at least you would have a more general understanding of the people around you and their beliefs. check out EVOLUTION CREEK the movie :)
chauncyhead 1 week ago
@bellhog246 For me, knowing that the chances of the world evolving as it has are minute as they are only makes me realize what a gift life is, how lucky we all are to be here, & how we need to spend every second on this earth living to the fullest. Not fighting ourselves. I know my place in the universe & I am fulfilled knowing that. Do you know yours?
purpleforevah 3 weeks ago
@purpleforevah Statistically speaking, your place and my place in this universe is not of evolution and chance.
For me, knowing that we are NOT here by chance, that life DOES have purpose and meaning, gives me a much greater fulfillment and appreciation for the gift of Life.
bellhog246 1 week ago
@bellhog246
If you want to talk statistics you might look at the probability of a divine overlord existing.
Personally I don't need to comfort myself with the thought of one watching over me in order to give my life meaning, I don't need someone else's choice to define my life. I make my own meaning, I derive that meaning and comfort from the love of other human beings struggling to make meaning in their own lives.
Different strokes, but this is belief, not science. It doesn't belong in class.
purpleforevah 1 week ago
@purpleforevah
Neither do I think that postmodernism (this idea that we really can't 'know' anything) needs to be in a science classroom either. In fact, it's anti-science--just like ignoring the statistics.
For me, it's not about comfort or need, but simply where the evidence leads.
bellhog246 1 week ago
@bellhog246 ...we know it today. Perhaps it is discomforting to think that our world is built from a complex chaos of events, of evolutions, one after the other. To think that this delicate balance all rests on chance. To think that there is not something that had a hand in shaping everything that is. That is why many turn to religion-& I am by no means speaking against it-to find a meaning within all of the perceived chaos.
purpleforevah 3 weeks ago
@bellhog246 Disregarding the questionability of your statistic & its source, consider the following; a low probability of an event occurring by no means rules it out as a possibility. There is always that 1 in whatever # chance. As evidenced by microscopic research & endosymbiotic theory, that 1 in whatever # chance happened. Because, at its root, all life, everything in the universe, everything we can see and all we are is the product of chance, of a series of events that has led to life as...
purpleforevah 3 weeks ago
As a christian who believes in the kindness, compassion and forgiving nature of Christ I say lets kill the judge, the plaintiffs and their lawyers
gaiusscipio 4 weeks ago
@gaiusscipio Creationism is not science. Even the proponents for it admitted this.
Get over your Genesis fairy tale.
Fuck you.
steviej321 2 weeks ago
@steviej321 I think you misunderstood sarcasm...
KeiserSoze16 2 weeks ago
@KeiserSoze16 Thanks mate. I was about to point it out, but then I saw your comment
gaiusscipio 2 weeks ago
@gaiusscipio No problem dude.
KeiserSoze16 2 weeks ago
@gaiusscipio You should not use sarcasm when pretending to be Christian who believes in kindness. So many them are so crazy as to say something for real the way you would say something sarcastically. lol
theshadowify 2 weeks ago
@theshadowify That's exactly why I said it. It illustrates the hypocrisy of many so called religious people who say they believe in a kind, forgiving benevolent God and then threaten to kill you if you don't share their belief. The Christ would have been appalled at the perversion so many people have put his teachings to. The same goes for most other major religions around the world.
gaiusscipio 2 weeks ago
@gaiusscipio You did not get the point of my comment. I wasnt clear, but I did put a lol at the end to indicate that I was not serious. My main point was that when you make a sarcastic remark like that while pretending to be Christian, then you should expect some atheist to take you seriously and think you are some crazy Christian and attack your statement because what you say sarcastically can be said by a real crazy Christian. Therefore it can be hard to spot sarcasm. Just as steviej321 did.
theshadowify 2 weeks ago
@theshadowify No I understood what you meant, but I felt it was better to spell out my meaning, not for you but for the ones that might think I was being serious. Regrettably sarcasm is not for the unintelligent. While a christian might say death to their enemies, I find it hard to believe that even a religious hypocrite could talk about God's love in one breath and death in the other. But then again, maybe I am just unduly giving people credit for intelligence and fairness
gaiusscipio 2 weeks ago
im yelling at my screen the whole time, "intelligent design is a relgion it isnt science because they are using the supernatural to explain things and they are describing a religion"
cole3454657 1 month ago
The christians might have well have said. Dear class. In this class we will be teaching addition. We know 1+1=2. But we are required to inform you there is another alternative out there and that alternative is jesus.
tripeboi 1 month ago
Intelligent Design - Keep America Stupid policy. So glad to see common sense prevail.
MrDevilstreaker 1 month ago
It's funny how it's typically not scientists but politicians and lawyers with zero objectivity and an extremely limited knowledge in science (especially biology, biochemistry, genetics, paleontology, geology) that generally make up the majority of proponents for the ID "theory."
ID proponents have the right to their beliefs. But, they don't have the right mislead biology students by teaching that ID, a theological proposal devoid of testable evidence, is scientific.
KeiserSoze16 1 month ago
haha my school Dover high<3
Makeupnerd77 1 month ago
Here's a scientific fact: The chances of the first living cell coming about on it's own is (conservatively) 1 in 10^11,000. This means it was impossible.
If you want to roll that way with your beliefs then that's OK, but don't claim that it was 'science' that convinced you.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 And did you pulled that out off your scientific ass ?
msarvar1 3 weeks ago
@bellhog246 it doesn't mean it's impossible, it means that its extremely unlikely. There is a less than slight difference between impossible & unlikely.
dubstepmusic1992 1 week ago
@dubstepmusic1992 "There is a less than slight difference between impossible & unlikely".
Not so. The definintion of a statistical impossibility is anything less than 1 chance in 10^130.
Not sure if you are simply correcting my logic or if you're actually hanging your hope on these kinds of odds. If you don't believe me, see what a poor treatment is made on the skeptical websites of this fact. The best solution: 'multiverses' (LoL).
bellhog246 1 week ago
@bellhog246 where did you recieve the information that the chances of the first living cell coming about is 1 in 10^11,000? I'm not saying that isn't the case. I'm just curious what study this information is from.
dubstepmusic1992 1 week ago
@dubstepmusic1992 I spent some time researching the topic. The probabiliy is an 'average' number just to be fair. I checked a number of sources and the answer varied depending on the assumptions made and the statistical path used. Oddly, few skeptical sources attempted to challenge the findings.
bellhog246 1 week ago
@bellhog246 I'm curious where this information is from too. You didn't really address this. Give actual links, or PMID IDs, if any. Bear in mind anything published by creation journal is unlikely to convince us. If this number is calculated in an unbiased and scientifically legit way, then it should be part of a peer-reviewed journal. I look forward to see it.
Casshyr 1 week ago
@Casshyr
It is well explained by various scientists; it's backwards logic. Like calculating the chances of me being exactly in the state and place where I am right now!
ugh not enough characters...
meztini 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
@Casshyr
...Dawkins gives a good analogy of why it's illogical reasoning to calculate the sate of life backwards. But look it up, I promise it's well understood, and I don't want to spam!
meztini 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
@meztini i understand very well what you are referring to. I'm trying to give bellhog a chance to show some credible sources when presenting the evidence. But i have a strong feeling it's just going to be some crap from creationist journal..lets hope i'm wrong. I'm sick of creationists always citing evidence that turns out to be from unaccredited sources, they get me falsely excited whenever they say they have evidence to disprove evolution.
Casshyr 1 week ago
@Casshyr
It's not so much that the calculations are wrong, it's more than they're used to back up claims which they are not logically qualified to support! (and are kinda misrepresented as to what they ACTUALLY calculate!)
I'm getting bored of being an atheist in these arguments :( at least creationists can learn something about the world from us... I wish I could redo my deconversion!!
meztini 1 week ago
@Casshyr Bill Dembski wrote "The Design Inference" published by Cambridge University Press peer-reviewed throughly discusses the series Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory.
David Abel also published “The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP),” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6(27) (2009).
Both are reputable peer-reviewed scholarly journals that speak to this topic.
bellhog246 1 week ago
@bellhog246 "Design Inference" => a book is not same as peer-review journal... See criticism in "An intelligently designed response". Nature Methods 4 (12): 983–912. 2007.
Casshyr 1 week ago
@Casshyr The book was peer reviewed. Not everything peer reviewed is a journal.
bellhog246 1 week ago
@bellhog246 the article i cited to you, published in Nature btw, clearly states mainstream scientists do not agree with what's in the book.
Casshyr 1 week ago
@bellhog246 "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)." => yes! finally an actual peer-reviewed article. Altho the article says nothing about that 10^100000 number you gave.
Casshyr 1 week ago
@Casshyr OK then. Obviously I need help. Can you refer me to a peer reviewed work out there that does this that you can cite that describes the probability? Everything I can find outside of these sources is a creationist site. I'd use a skeptic site, but strangely no one wants to talk about it there, so I'll even accept a skeptical source.
Please tell me SOMEONE besides a creationist has done this calculation...
bellhog246 1 week ago
@bellhog246 "refer me to a peer reviewed work out there that does this that you can cite that describes the probability?" => i don't think that number exists. It's probably made up by creationists
Casshyr 1 week ago
@Casshyr Don't you think it's a rather unfair catch-22 when: (1) skeptics are afraid to do the math themselves, (2) creationists have to do it for them, and (3) the conclusions reached, no matter how accurate, are dismissed because the source is considered 'biased'. I wish I were a skeptic and could just wave my hands around without having to explain anything...
See w w w (dot) mathematicsofevolution (dot) c o m for the math. I challenge anyone to refute it.
bellhog246 1 week ago
@bellhog246 You might be interested to check out a paper in Cornell "A Bayesian Analysis of the Astrobiological Implications of Life's Early Emergence on Earth".
Casshyr 1 week ago
@bellhog246 Another article that addresses this issue "Physico-Chemical and Evolutionary Constraints for the Formation and Selection of First Biopolymers: Towards the Consensus Paradigm of the Abiogenic Origin of Life".
Casshyr 1 week ago
@bellhog246 Here's another one: "Abiogenesis and photostimulated heterogeneous reactions in the interstellar medium and on primitive earth: Relevance to the genesis of life"
These are articles that demonstrate why abiogenesis is possible, and if not, the best explanation we have so far without simply resorting to "God did it" statement. Panspermia remains a plausibility too, and of course, so is theistic bbt/evolution if u choose. Either way, the math certainly doesn't dissuade them
Casshyr 1 week ago
@Casshyr "Either way, the math certainly doesn't dissuade them"
So what do they calculate the chances of life forming on its own?
bellhog246 1 week ago
@bellhog246 im sry, i should have asked: do you have access to these articles? Some of these journals are not free unless you access them via a university network. In the Bayesian paper i sent to you, they did not give a single number, but plotted it as a function of the priors used. The range seems to be between 0 and 10^-7, altho we also need to keep in mind this is dependent on length of time (i.e. the more time you give this, the more chance for abiogenesis)
Casshyr 1 week ago
@bellhog246 The strength of this analysis, i would say, is that it supports the idea of life being rare in the universe, but given a hospitable environment, abiogenesis is demonstrated, by their analysis, to be likely. Of course, this by no means disprove God. You can always say God is behind it all. The analysis merely present how abiogenesis is possible, especially under the old universe+old earth model. And it also doesn't mean evolution is true. To do that, you need to go to biology.
Casshyr 1 week ago
@Casshyr Oh, so he DIDN'T do the math either. More hand waving. So what's the challenge to the amateur paper I sent?
bellhog246 1 week ago
@bellhog246 "Oh, so he DIDN'T do the math either. More hand waving." => you're starting to annoy me. Read the actual paper please and stop throwing out claims as if in a desperate attempt to debunk.
Casshyr 1 week ago
@Casshyr So we're both at a loss for a scholarly work speaking specifically on the statistics of the chance, unguided assemblage of the first living cell. Now we have to turn to non-academic (but scientifically verifiable) works. Everything I can find (that actually explains the math) places the likelihood way beyond the universal probability bound of 1 in 10^-130.
Can anyone produce a counter-example or a refutation which includes a detailed explanation of the statistics?
bellhog246 1 week ago
@bellhog246 "Everything I can find (that actually explains the math) places the likelihood way beyond the universal probability bound of 1 in 10^-130." => no i already gave you several links, the bayesian one clearly works out the stats. I guess you either:
1) didn't bother to read it
2) don't understand bayesian statistics
3) #1 + #2
If it's #1, then go read it please. If it's #2, then try taking some bayesian statistics courses if you ever get the chance.
Casshyr 1 week ago
@Casshyr I can't find a viewable version of the article. I'll read it if you can point me to it.
There is a pretty good treatment on the topic at w w w infidels o r g by Richard Carrier. He cites the Frank Salisbury study on the topic (published in Nature) is probably the best so far. But reading Carrier's comments, I couldn't help but think that Salisbury's estimate of 1 x 10^415 is still pretty damning evidence to naturalism despite the age of the study.
bellhog246 1 week ago
@bellhog246 Ok, this brings up a good point, one which I do can comment about. First, the Frank paper is published in 1969. I don't know how much you know about biology, but 1969 is back in the days when we only just start to understand what a gene is. We don't even have a full bacterial genome sequenced yet! This is back before even human genome project was even conceived. So to use this article as the basis for refuting abiogenesis/evolution...i would say it's pretty weak (cont)
Casshyr 1 week ago
@bellhog246 But lets do say the paper's claims remain true (which more or less, yes). The percentage cited does indeed show that complexity of life is too great to occur by random chances. But this is only if you assume life is that complex to begin with!! Abiogenesis does not say that. Abiogenesis theory states earlier life forms probably occur as simple RNA strands capable of self-replicating. The percentage in the paper reflects the chance to have a modern cell just coming into existence.
Casshyr 1 week ago
@bellhog246 So yes, even as an evolutionist, i have no problem with that probability, because of course it should be rare! If a complex protein can just *poof into existence by chance, then evolution won't take millions of years, and abiogenesis would be totally wrong. I hope you understand what i'm driving at. The key point is: ancestral life is not as complex as what we have today. Even the most simplest cell is more complex than what it was back then
Casshyr 1 week ago
@Casshyr
You are incorrect in your understanding of Salsibury's method of determining his statistics. His probability is not based on a sudden 'poof' of a living cell, but considers the random reactions that would have been involved leading up to the living cell.
Yes, the article is 40 years old and since then we've ALSO learned more about the obsticles to the RNA world hypothesis and chemical evolution. The whole thing remains statistically impossible.
bellhog246 6 days ago
@bellhog246 No, the calculation assumed the first living cell is as complicated as it already is! But if you take abiogenesis to be true, then the first living "thing" is just a strand of RNA. And from there, natural selection can take place, so it would be incorrect to say a cell is derived based on random reactions. In fact, mutations do not happen randomly, otherwise if you plot frequency of mutation on y-axis and genomic locations on x-xis, u would expect an uniform distribution, but u don't
Casshyr 6 days ago
@bellhog246 Check out the article "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations" on TalkingOrigins . org. While I generally don't like to refer to laymen website that's not part of peer-reviewed literature, this article does cite many scientific literature that show why the abiogenesis statistical calculation is incorrect.
You earlier asked me how come nobody bother to debunk the creationist calculation: here it one example.
Casshyr 6 days ago
@Casshyr Yes, and here's another article that refutes it:
w w w . trueorigin . o r g / abio . asp
Guess we'll have to compare and decide.
bellhog246 6 days ago
@bellhog246 If you read the trueorigin article carefully, it's actually not attacking the statistical chance for abiogenesis, it's attacking abiogenesis itself. That's a different issue. You can't compare the statistical probabilities without first agreeing what assumptions to use. Trueorigin doesn't believe the mainstream interpretation of abiogenesis, especially RNA-world hypothesis. If we can't even agree on this..then there's no point discussing on whose stats is correct
Casshyr 6 days ago
@Casshyr Remember thought that the ONLY peer-reviewed journals that address the question are those that suggest an impossibly high probability. You provided a single peer-reviewed journal article that speaks to abiogenesis but you had to provide your own interpretation of the 'implied' statistics. So the scientific evidence is far from "equal".
The skeptical community spends all their time throwing rocks at the studies that ARE published, but has yet to publish their own statistics.
bellhog246 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bellhog246 "ONLY peer-reviewed journals that address the question are those that suggest an impossibly high probability. " => no, you misread them! They say probability is low, but in the end, the conclusion remains that they support abiogenesis! You are cherry-picking individual sentences, and ignore what they conclude! Conclusion of the paper is important lol.
Casshyr 5 days ago
@bellhog246 i think it's safe to say both of us are not experts, and whatever conclusions we think is right is still at best amateur. That's why for me, i rather put my trust (or faith, if u want to get all religious) in mainstream scientists. Historically, mainstream scientists are correct over minority. We only have tiny few exceptions where extreme minorities prove vast majority wrong. I don't think this is one of them, considering we have better technology and more refined methods.
Casshyr 6 days ago
@Casshyr "i rather put my trust ... in mainstream scientists"
But you DO understand that mainstream scientists are looking at material nature and assume 'a priori' that the metaphysical cannot exist.
What happens when the findings of science conflict with the presumptions of science (e.g. when science infers that information comes from intelligent desigers and there is informaiton in DNA)?
Wouldin't the 'scientific' thing to do be to revise our presumptions?
bellhog246 5 days ago
@bellhog246 "mainstream scientists are looking at material nature and assume 'a priori' that the metaphysical cannot exist." => no, latest stats show over 30% of scientists believe in a God. They certainly don't assume metaphysical cannot exist!
And on this note, a mix of metaphysical + science should lead to theistic evolution, not creationism.
I'm sure you have heard of Michael Behe, biggest proponent of intellectual design. You should check out what he says about creationism!
Casshyr 5 days ago
@Casshyr "a mix of metaphysical + science should lead to theistic evolution, not creationism."
A lot of people have advocated this as a way to reconcile the two. I still think evolution (even theistic) falls short scientifically, assuming you mean that God started the initial conditions and let nature guide itself. There's more than one model to explain what we see today in the fossil record and studies show random mutations are insufficient to produce the changes necessary.
bellhog246 5 days ago
@bellhog246 "studies show random mutations are insufficient to produce the changes necessary." => you have to be very careful with claims like this. Who did the studies? Creationists. Are most of them trained in actually relevant fields? No. A pure mathematician is not same as someone who knows both biology and math. And neither is a lawyer (you'll find a lot of creationists PhDs who are outspoken against evolution have lawyers background, which in the end, is not a scientific field)
Casshyr 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bellhog246 "studies show random mutations are insufficient to produce the changes necessary." => you have to be very careful with claims like this. Who did the studies? Creationists. Are most of them trained in actually relevant fields? No. A pure mathematician is not same as someone who knows both biology and math. And neither is a lawyer (you'll find a lot of creationists PhDs who are outspoken against evolution have lawyers background, which in the end, is not a scientific field)
Casshyr 5 days ago
@bellhog246 And again, over 95% of scientists, including theists + atheists, disagree with claims like "studies show random mutations are insufficient to produce the changes necessary". So yes i agree multiple viewpoints exist, but you shouldn't treat as if minority holds some kind of superiority over majority. In fact, if anything, majority should have superiority over minority, which historically + statistically has been correct on issues more than wrong.
Casshyr 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Casshyr "studies show random mutations are insufficient to produce the changes necessary"
This has been shown with selective breeding of fruit flies (which reproduce rapidly). We've never observed a trans-species change through these experiments. Common descent is a 'way' to look at the data (but has no experimental validation).
Again, when the findings of science conflict with its presumptions, wouldn't the most scientific thing to do be to challenge/revise the assumptions?
bellhog246 5 days ago
@bellhog246 I should clarify I myself don't agree with a complete naturalistic interpretation of abiogenesis. I think abiogenesis is true, but i am more towards of some kind of force behind it, whether it's God or super-intelligent aliens...we can't rule it out. Sorry if I wasn't clear on this before. I'm not an atheist myself. I'm more of a deist, with a mix of agnosticism.
Casshyr 5 days ago
@bellhog246 You can't just ignore literature because you don't understand it lol (cuz that's what you sound like right now, no offence)
Casshyr 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bellhog246 "So what's the challenge to the amateur paper I sent?" => i wouldn't know, i'm not the expert. Why don't you try to submit it to the journal and tell me what feedbacks u get?
Casshyr 1 week ago
@bellhog246
In the scientific community, if a claim isn't challenged that can sometimes mean that the claim is too ludicrous to warrant investigation, sorry to break it to you but this is one too.
meztini 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
You know you're making headway with your audience when someone starts marking your posts as spam. It's similar to the way the 'unbiased scientific community' tries to censor opposing viewpoints. So much for free inquiry and academic freedom...
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246
Yeah, we should teach people the theory of Pastafarianism also, or else the scientific community is obviously stifling opposing viewpoints! Idiot...
Megabob10 1 month ago
a few hundreds years ago the church made all people think the same and if not the inquistion made sure they did. Luckily today people are aloud to think for themselves and the more they do, they tear off the chains of religion.
illywacker1 1 month ago
It is like teaching the earth is a sphere and the earth is flat (because the bibles says so) at school and then let the students make up their own mind and decide for themselves what is true.
illywacker1 1 month ago
The moral of the story. It is best to teach science at school and teach fairy tales in church.
illywacker1 1 month ago
@illywacker1 I think the faithful are well aware they don't have supporting facts for their god theory and this creates some anger as their adult logic tries to break through.
ZukefliJohan 1 month ago
at 1:37 Buckingham put his foot in his mouth. Then later saying the power of prayer. If People like this decide want students are to learn this surely is a step back in history.
illywacker1 1 month ago
Like a lot of other words in the English language, the word "theory" has multiple meanings, just like bat, bowl, row, etc. In colloquial use, a "theory" is a guess. When used in science, a "theory" explains a set of facts. And in science, a guess is called a "hypothesis."
illywacker1 1 month ago
Reality has an atheist bias.
RipTheSystem33 1 month ago
Thats a big question. There is a mountain of evidence. Would like evidence for evolution or the big bang thats been proved?
stevjen1 1 month ago
Abandon objective moral values to attain objective moral values.......trying to win...Gods way!
zobbukit 1 month ago
Pat Robertson is slime.
logsdonj 1 month ago 10
Interesting how religious people send hate mail and want to kill us. How good is religion with its morals? You don't find the scientific community or the justice system threatening religious people. Religion poisons everything. Its that simple! The sooner its banished to the dark ages where it came from, the better human kind.
stevjen1 1 month ago
I guess idiots like Kent Hovindt can't tell his gullible followers that if evolution were to ever stand trial, it would lose.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 1 month ago
Well done Judge Jones! We need to keep the light of knowledge burning bright!
leadershipvids 1 month ago
yeaaahhhhhhhh. truth wins. cant believe some ppl are trying to turn a scientificly developed country like usa into some fanatick slum like afghanistan
Rdhot123 1 month ago 24
This is why atheists must take an aggressive stance in this country. Obliterate superstition and allow science and education to progress. Please stop trying to confuse our children. We already have our work cut out for us with the adults.
TheMadBeach 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
as a biology student i ve a doubt..is Jesus haploid??have only 23 chromosomes in his nucleus,unlike other homosapians with 46 ,that too from "virgin" mother???does her ovum avoided that meiosis??if so do he had chromosomal diseases like "turners"??if not diploid how can he have a human form??{ please do answer these ,,avoid stupid answers like thats gods wish or gods way}
MrNutrino 1 month ago
As a propoenent of ID, I think the biggest mistake made was in the marketing. ID is really just the science of detecting design with a specific application to the natural world. No one would ever take issue with detecting design in an ancient artifact (archaeology) or at a crime scene (forensics). ID is only dismissed because of it's theological implications.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 well you've got somewhat of a point there. ID today is just a propaganda term for creationism.
mrabdrum 1 month ago
@mrabdrum "ID today is just a propaganda term for creationism"
The two are different. Creationism views nature through the lens of a biblical understanding of the universe's beginnings. ID infers design in nature the same way that we infer design in everything else--by noticing specific features of complexity. ID CAN have theological implications (for who else could 'design' living systems and the cosmos), but in and of itself does not seek to 'name' the designer.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246
How does simply "not naming the designer" (as if we don't know who!!) make it any less crazy?
Both science and ID seek to notice specific features of complexity. The difference is this -
ID: notices complexity, attributes it to supernatural, end of investigation.
Science: notices complexity, seeks naturalistic explanations for it, that can be reproduced, peer reviewed, tested, criticised, verified and can make predictions for further discoveries.
Roj0307 1 month ago
@Roj0307 'ID: notices complexity, attributes it to supernatural, end of investigation.'
This is an interesting, recurring argument. Here's my response: Like it or not, you have an infinite regression problem in nature. At some point there was a beginning of nature (nearly every scientist believes this). Since the cause of nature cannot be natural, it must be non-natural. Since science can only explain the natural, science alone is inadequte to explain the beginning of nature. (cont..)
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 "The cause of nature cannot be natural"
Not so fast, invoking a magic man (an not saying his name doesn't add credibility) answers nothing.
Science doesn't pretend to have the answer to cosmology. But at least plausible models exist, none of which are supernatural. What initiated or happened before the big bang might be found in quantum theory where intuition and the laws of physics as we know them in our macroscopic world don't apply.
Please, leave magic out of it.
Roj0307 1 month ago
@Roj0307 "Science doesn't pretend to have the answer to cosmology".
Again, I'll throw the B.S. flag on this one. What the crap is a 'multiverse' and why does it get any airtime at all?
"But at least plausible models exist, none of which are supernatural"
Name one plausible model. (And don't cover it up with a bunch of big-sounding science words). When examined, I'm sure they will be every bit as metaphysical as ID.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246
Sadly, I now detect your level of education in the sciences is limited. This makes further debate fairly pointless.
If you are serious about wanting to learn how relativity and quantum theory help explain models for cosmology that seem counter-intuitive, I suggest you view Thunderf00t's recent excellent video on this on youtube.
Best wishes.
Roj0307 1 month ago
@Roj0307 This is all how it always ends up. I ask a question that really gets to the heart of the matter and we change the subject. A thousand times typical...
Name one plausible model.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246
Scientific models for cosmology exist, period. Whether you understand or believe these is irrelevent. Neither is it my job to bring these to your attention.
This is analogous to me asking you to go to the trouble of typing out and interpreting the 10 commandments verbatum for me, and if you refuse, it somehow proves the bible doesn't exist.
Roj0307 1 month ago
@Roj0307 'ID: notices complexity, attributes it to supernatural, end of investigation.' (cont.)
So, at some point, science (given your definiton) will no longer have explanitory power for the origins of nature--it will have reached its limit and you will have to pack up the telescopes and lab coat and go home. Then what do you do?
The only place to go from here is speculate on what caused nature to begin. This is where ID provides a model for furthering the question of 'why'.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246
When science has no answer it says "i don't know yet."
Roj0307 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Roj0307 'When science has no answer it says "i don't know yet."
Real science develops the best models of nature based upon known observation. 'Pop-science' is where science has no answer but speculates an answer. The multi-verse is a good example of this. There's no experimental data and there's no observation, but many 'scientists' find it more palatable than ID, so they give it a pass. The multi-verse is just as metaphysical an explantion as creationism.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246
Artifacts do not reproduce and evolve, and we are familiar with artifacts as products of human activity. How would you approach, say, a discovery of novel methane-breathing lifeform? Answer - don't give up until a natural explanation is found.
Think about the implications of using ID as science.
Centuries ago, ID would have been the explanation for tides coming in and out. It is a theory of the gaps. It offers no explanations and allows no predictions to be made.
Roj0307 1 month ago
@Roj0307 "Answer - don't give up until a natural explanation is found."
And I'm saying there are mysteries in nature that science is inadequate for. You will either never find an answer, or resort to whacky theories (like multiverse) that fit into the narrow naturalistic worldview.
If the term 'ID' offends, then I'll pitch it. Let's use 'design detection'. We as humans detect design in things and it's a multidisciplinary science to know how and why we can (cont.)
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246
"whacky theories"
These whaky theories enable you to use your GPS, and runs the microchips in your PC.
Unfortunately, your argument is a common creationist one: "If I don't understand it then no-one should."
Why stop at cosmology, abiogenesis or DNA? If you wish to see design in the way the sun rises and falls, the tides come in and out, the symmetry of snow flakes, feel free.
Best wishes.
Roj0307 1 month ago
@Roj0307 Really? You have a multi-verse powered GPS?
Can we stick to a singular line of reasoning? If you can believe a book is written by an author (with all it's specified complexity), why is it such a leap of conscience to apply design detection to things like DNA, the anthropic principle, and the cosmos? What makes them the exception? Why be so logically inconsistant?
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246
This line of reasoning - finding a watch in a forest - has been debunked. It appears you are fairly new to the debate. Not even Dembski uses it anymore.
Does a watch or book reproduce itself? Is each generation a slightly modified version of the previous? Is each generation subjected to selective pressures such that the higher quality the object the more likely the object will propogate? Has this process been allowed to perfect itself over millions of generations?
Roj0307 1 month ago
@Roj0307 "Does a watch or book reproduce itself?"
We're discussing origins, not evolution. Something has to have offspring in order to evolve. The precursor to the unvierse is nothing. The precoursor to DNA is a random collection of amino acids. Why isn't design is the most plausible catalyst for their beginning?
You're still avoiding the question...
Why do we apply a model to one thing and then become scientifically inconsistant and irrational when we apply it to another thing?
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246
Ok, you're right. You've cornered me and 99.7% of scientists with your logic, hitherto unknown.
Scientists do know of magic but pretend otherwise. Until you exposed us, we had everyone conviced that natural explanations account for everything, like earthquakes or disease. No, it is by design. (The designer didn't need designing himself though.)
Scientists were hoping to hide ID and thereby live a life of indulgence and sin.
Now, thanks to you, we have been found out.
Roj0307 1 month ago
@Roj0307 "Ok, you're right..."
I'll take this sarcasm as your concession. But just to clarify...
No one is saying a designer designs everything. Most follow-on effects can be attributed to natural causes based on the physical laws of nature. However, there are cases where these physical laws are insufficient to explain the specified complexity in certain phenomena.
In these cases, the more plausible explanation (no matter how difficult a pill it is to swallow) is design.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 Bollocks! Sure, there are things that still perplex scientists about the nature of reality if you will. However, your logic does not necessarily conclude that the plausible explanation to unknowns is design. Your argument is still inductive. However, it seems that science more and more seems to use Inference to the Best Explanation: Given a certain amount of data that is available, the most possible explantion is x. Design has nothing to do with evolution at the biological level.
pame546 1 month ago
@pame546 "Your argument is still inductive."
ID is inferrential, but so is the argument for abiogenesis. Where is the experimental evidence life formed naturally from non-life? Since dead things can't evolve, the bigger problem to solve is the origin of the first life--and the odds weigh heavily against it.
At least with ID there is emperical evidence all around us that design only comes from an intelligent agent.
bellhog246 1 month ago
Exactly my point, "ID is inferrential." It could be true or be false. However, there is good inductive arguments and bad ones. That's why I mentioned Inference to the Best Explanation, yet you can't test or theorize about ID. That was the point of the documentary, and that ID is bad science. You can argue that ID is a good (good luck) philosophic explanation of the origin of everything. But it belongs in philosophy, not science. Thus, evolution is a good scientific theory for the origin of life.
pame546 1 month ago
@bellhog246 Dude, did you not take a biology course in college or high school? Dead things? Yo! The whole universe almost works like it's a living thing. It's freakin beautiful. You probably too dumb to appreciate what physicists, biologists, and other natural sciences have found so far. Too stuck on old beliefs huh?
pame546 1 month ago 2
@Roj0307 "Answer - don't give up until a natural explanation is found." (cont.)
...detect design with relatively high accuracy (using statistics, psychology, cognition, etc.). Everyone can agree with this until we apply it to nature--then everyone is out for blood. Isn't this a double-standard? Why do we apply a model to one thing and then become scientifically inconsistant and irrational when we apply it to another thing?
Can anyone answer this for me? I'm very curious...
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246
A "design" model has never been NEEDED to explain anything so far in science.
If a tsunami hits Japan, it might SEEM to be desinged to exterminate non christians. But there is a better natural explanation.
Consider the symmetry of a snowflake. Was it designed? How does a water molecule on one side "know" what the other side is doing so as to copy it? Can YOU draw one, flawlessly, by freehand? Then how on earth does nature achieve this blindly and randomly?
Roj0307 1 month ago
@bellhog246 cdesign proponentsists, dude, cdesign proponentsists.
logsdonj 1 month ago
@bellhog246 Your analogy is inaccurate. We can infer design in archaeology and forensic science, since those sciences deal exclusively with events and artifacts, caused by humans. Natural science, on the other hand, does not do the same thing.
HKOverlord117 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HKOverlord117 "We can infer design in archaeology and forensic science, since those sciences deal exclusively with events and artifacts, caused by humans"
...and you know that they were caused by intelligent creatures (humans) because the artifacts because their form and specific features possess complexity. This is the same way I would 'infer' an intellgent designer to such things as living systems (DNA) and cosmology (the fine-tuning of the universe).
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 'ID is not the science of detecting design' You obviously didn't listen to the video or Judge Jones opinion. The laws of physics can explain and do explain everything around us. ID does not. I suggest you watch Professor Brian Cox on the laws of entropy and the universe. What may appeared designed does not imply a designer. As is the case with the bacterial flagellum. Furthermore do research on Richard E Lenski. E-Coli bacteria. More proof of evolution. Its great to be educated!
stevjen1 1 month ago
@stevjen1 'You obviously didn't listen to the video or Judge Jones opinion'
LOL! Oh, the court ALWAYS gets it right (just like with OJ!). I thought anyone without a background in science is incompetent to understand these kinds of things (or does that only apply to dissenting views?).
'The laws of physics can explain and do explain everything around us. ID does not.'
ID provides evidence that many things in nature are best explained through design rather than unguided change.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 While evolution and the universe may appear designed, they are not designed. They are continually evolving with no supernatural intervention. Thats been proven by the laws of physics. Now unless someone has evidence of the laws of physics being broken or even intervened (say to allow a virgin to have a baby or make a snake talk, or allow dead cells to mutate and all of a sudden come back to life) then I think the case for ID is a no brainer.
stevjen1 1 month ago
@stevjen1 "While evolution and the universe may appear designed, they are not designed."
Where's your evidence? That's like saying a book may appeared to have been written, but it isn't.
"Thats been proven by the laws of physics"
Again, the laws of physics were established at the point that nature originated. Science as you describe it can only explain and predict phenomena in the natural world.
bellhog246 1 month ago
Comment removed
Roj0307 1 month ago
The issue is a lot more complex than this documentary goes into. There is a huge development in the scientific arena that doesn't necessarily affirm or deny evolution per-say, but that there may have been some external being or force that caused things to be. That's the rest of the story in a nutshell.
swillia9 2 months ago
This painful to watch for the most part--you can almost hear the spitoons a' pangin' throughout the documentary.
niriop 2 months ago
The fact that 40% of the American public believes that evolution is not a proven theory really speaks volume about the scientific illiteracy in this country. No wonder so many of our scientists, doctors, and engineers come from foreign countries.
KeiserSoze16 2 months ago 31
@KeiserSoze16 It also explains why so many in the U.S. don't believe in global warming, when over 96% of all climate scientists believe it is happening, and with man-made causes.
RipTheSystem33 1 month ago
@KeiserSoze16 It is a shame the US has so many brilliant scientists yet it could do much better if religion didn't take charge of so many minds hobbling their learning.
ZukefliJohan 1 month ago
@KeiserSoze16 Well certain theories of evolution, especially natural selection, is still debated by scientists and philosophers. The documentary just shows that "creation science" is bogus, or at least Intelligent design is.
pame546 1 month ago
It's funny how they are talking about Darwin as if his theories have only just been found out and it is only now we are coming to terms with evolution. Only in the backwards, primitive parts of America is this true.
Bloodlovefreak 2 months ago
its so wierd that the comments marked as spam are the ones who speak against this documentary if evolution has nothing to hide why censor people
DeJay14 2 months ago
i used to believe in evolution but then i took an arrow to the knee
DeJay14 2 months ago
America I am disappoint.
josuedinho98 2 months ago 4
nice chair and pukey in the end.
sgpquek 2 months ago in playlist More videos from bdw5000
Evolution is a hoax, just like the "theory" that the earth is round is a fake. The bible clearly states that the earth is flat.
astroboomboy 2 months ago
@astroboomboy please tell me you're being sarcastic and you don't believe that nonsense
danthrplgst 2 months ago
@danthrplgst :)
astroboomboy 2 months ago
Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Absurdity of Atheism!
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
1tabligh 2 months ago