More paean to Meyer the liar--he left out a whole class of cells, Prokariotes, which have no nucleus. And viruses not only seldom have a nucleus, they have no organelles and most have no DNA. He is an incompetent fake.
@cowboyx1970 Dude either your a hardcore atheists that would never believe even in the face of scientific data, or your just not that smart all together, any who the book is actually pretty good
for instance the chemical components of ink, nor the weight of a pen, of the texture of paper can account for the the arrangement of the words written in an book. Specified complecity or information, has always been strongly associated with intelligent concious activity. Therefore following the same line of reasoning, how can we look at the Specified complex information in DNA and not conclude the same? I can send you the book on PDF if you want to read it, its a little long but its worth it.
@Talamasca124 This man has a PhD from oxford and I would assume that most of the people who scoff at him on this page are idiots who live in their mothers basement.
Are you talking about Meyer? He has a PhD from Cambridge on the history and philosophy of science (the latter of which, he seems to outright disregard.) That makes him about as qualified to speculate on the origin of life as I am. (I have a degree in mechanical engineering, IE something completely unrelated to the topic.)
I didn't bother to bring that up, because really, his ideas should stand or fall on their own merits, or in this case, lack thereof.
@PrometheusWithLight Also, as far as mankind ceasing warring. I find that completely laughable. Albert Einstein once said "as long as there are men there will be wars". This is the truth.
@AegeanKing Yes, but at least I recognize that I may be deluding myself in the belief that humans will come to their senses. My point is, 100% of the populace is deluded in one way or another, whether they recognize it or not.
I am not saying my "delusion" that humanity will thrive as a civilization is more rational. I freely admitted that it was an irrational belief. I only consider myself more rational in that I don't demand schools teach this belief.
@PrometheusWithLight Im actually surprised you said that seeing as how the majority of evolutionary biologists and paleontologists freely admit that the "common ancestor" is still missing. Lastly, The vast majority of Christians do not demand that anything is taught in schools and "rational" is completely subjective so in my opinion you are completely irrational.
Common ancestor of what? Are you still talking about the last one between man and chimp?
Given the rate of fossilization, it should be ridiculously difficult to find the last ancestor, as well it has been. What I gave you is the last KNOWN common ancestor between man and chimp.
You do realize that the ID movement has been trying to get ID taught in the schools for years, don't you?
@PrometheusWithLight Macro-Evolution states that there is a common link or "ancestor" between man and ape. My question is, how come we havent found it?
@AegeanKing Sahelanthropus tchadensis occurs before the projected human/chimp divergence. Thus, it is considered to be the last KNOWN ancestor, although we speculate there were a couple more after that.
@PrometheusWithLight Sorry, thats an ape, not an ape-man. Not to mention that almost nothing is known about it including if was a bipedal which is why it has caused so much controversy.
Uh huh. Out of curiosity, do you consider the Archaeopterix to be a dinosaur or a bird? Creationists always seem to have trouble when it comes to deciding what transitional forms are.
@AegeanKing If you're trying to find something that LOOKS half man half chimp, I suggest you try the australopithecus Africanus, or homo habilis. While they did occur AFTER the human/chimp ancestral divergence, they do look like they're half human.
@AegeanKing So... because he has a PhD he can never be wrong? Phucking please. Argument from Authority is for mindless sheep. So the question stands Why do you need ID? Why do you need science? A: Because your bible is the biggest lie ever told to man. Followed closely by the Koran. Apologetics are for pussies.
There was a time when I was being pulled in by the sly slick madness of atheistic evolution. All of the atheists should be locked up in an asylum. Thank God for super smart and yet humble scientists like Meyers.
I don't disagree with the idea that maybe our distant ancestors came from beyond Earth. That is a possibility. But evolution is a theory on how we became what we are, not how we began in the first place, that is abiogenesis.
"Guesses?" Go ahead, tell me Meyer's article wasn't appeal to ignorance mixed with his own inability to do some basic research. I don't think you've actually read the article in question, given that your only defense for it was an ad hominem attack mixed with an appeal to authority. (Hint: Like Kent Hovind, the PhD in question isn't in biology. I will concede he probably knows more about history than I.)
@PrometheusWithLight I said from the beginning that a conversation with you would be pointless, for you were, from the beginning, saying things that made me think you haven't a clue what the issues are. But please, keep posting, you are helping others see just what sort of mind is in opposition to ID.
into believing their ideas through process of elimination.
"What sort of mind is in opposition?" You mean a skeptic? I pointed out that the biggest flaw in your "theory" was that it has no evidence whatsoever. Y'know how you defeat the opposition? Present me with some evidence.
As for Meyer's article... are you serious? I took to task the entire premise of the article. It's flawed in its very foundation! Meyers is concluding that a designer must exist because he thinks a
The ad hominem, by the way, would be the part where you think I'm not qualified to dismantle Meyer's arguments because I'm "just some guy on the internet." What you failed to realize is he's "just some guy with a PhD in an unrelated field." Ergo, our arguments are equally qualified, and should stand on their merits alone.
@PrometheusWithLight You took to task no point in the article. You simply set yourself up as being the wiser with no explanation. So,......when you set yourself up as the target, guess where I throw the darts?
(It is always cute when people do that and then cry "ad homonym!")
naturalistic explanation is unlikely for the cambrian explosion.
He either failed to do the research, or he blatantly misrepresented the facts in an attempt to support his position. Case in point, he forgot to mention that the "explosion," in which "many taxa emerged simultaneously," occurred over a 50 million year period. That's right, 50 million years.
He continues by questioning the ability of evolution to result in the creation of new genes, which we've observed in laboratory
kkkaldav, I have a question or two for you now mate. Do you believe Dawkins is a proponent of this Pseudo-scientific cult you so like to refer to? Or that his books are "religious texts" as you put it? You are advocating the christian idea that atheism is just another religion and so defending religion. Your position is circular and self defeating.
@daddyrizla I am not saying atheism is a religion (and that idea is not necessarily Christian in any event). I said scientism was a religion. Dawkins is an advocate of scientism rather than science. In addition, the way Dawkins presents evolution in a number of his books is pseudoscientific because he extends scientific findings into the realms of, e.g., morality and politics, without any clear admission that he has stopped doing science. And, these books have become religious texts for many.
But morality is proven to be ever evolving as we see continiously. Maybe Dawkins can be said to have cashed in on the book sales market, but he is still regarded as a great biologist and you have to admit his ideas on evolution are clever. You know yourself that science is not afraid to admit being wrong, in fact, this is the whole idea behind it, to prove theories wrong and so come closer to truth. Our knowledge is young and future generations will build on it so it must be accurate (or close).
@daddyrizlalol nipping at your heels, barking at the vac. however, seems you're the pup between the two of us. So did I hear you say there has always been order in mathematics?
@gcnengineer wow, did you really take that from what I said? That's a sign of an obsessive disorder, you know! Maybe I was subconciously saying that and didn't know it myself...wow...you are amazing. Can I join your gang?
@gcnengineer But why would I think that? The science of living things is mathematics in action, but living organisms evolve. Do you really think evolution is so flawed? Can't you accept the notion that science only exists because we don't know everything? If we did, what use would there be for knowledge?
So, now that daddyrizla spent a day prattling and failed to even acknowledge the question, and Manhunt ran away as soon as he got the definition he asked for because he knew he was fucked, would anyone else to try to answer the following question. If Ken Miller had a good argument against Behe's notion of irreducible complexity then why didn't he use it rather than attacking a ridiculous strawman instead?
@kkkaldav you have done your own prattling mate. Have you ever tried to engage a proponent of I.D in a logical debate? Maybe Behe is not a proper creationist, but don't you see that he is allowing his idea to be used to promote creationism, even if it is being disguised as Intelligent Design? Surely He is more intelligent than that.
I guess the simplest way of putting it is this: Miller thinks Behe didn't know about the possibility of co-option. Thus, Miller thinks that by simply pointing to alternative functions that parts of supposedly irreducibly complex systems could have (such as parts of an incomplete mousetraps functioning as a tie-clip) he refutes Behe's claims. Unfortunately for Miller, not only does Behe know about co-option, it is a subsidiary conclusion in his argument involving irreducible complexity. ROFL
One of the things that funniest about youtube. Particularly the fundamentalist atheists that frequent it, is how many of them take themselves to be the embodiment of rationality, but all they actually do is abuse people and state things like "I AM RIGHT" in big capital letters so you know it must be true. LOL. Take Manhunt for example, no argument, no substance, no content. Just the assertion that he is correct delivered from a perspective of almost total ignorance.
Who the fuck do you think you're talking to ya fucking arsehole? Here, then: Miller's argument is that various parts of what Behe thinks are irreducibly complex systems can function in different ways, e.g., parts of a moustrap can function as a tie clip, therefore, e.g., a moustrap is not irreducibly complex and Behe is wrong. Do you agree that that is Miller's argument?
@kkkaldav yes, without being insulting back. But why Miller is approaching it this way is not of any interest to me. I believe Behe is wrong because irreducible complexity can evolve. Behe is being ignorant and Miller is doing two things. He is making a laugh of Behe (or trying to) and cashing in on the infamy of the argument. I am not a big fan of Miller either.
And I don't see how pointing out your religious affiliations is an insult. I mean you are very open about them on your profile. Your favourite books are things like The God Delusion. These are pseudoscientific/scientistic religious texts. This isn't some great secret. That's why you've mainly been ranting and raving about creationism rather than answering the question.
@kkkaldav but you are the defender of creationism. I take it you refer to Dawkins and most biologists as scientistic then, and you are the only one who is truly rational! The rest of us should look up to you while you fly above the city defending creationists everywhere.
Insofar as "working well" means "losing all chance of ever being taught in public school by getting declared unconstitutional because they tried teaching it before doing any real research." I'm sure it'll come back sooner or later, but it'll at least have a different name.
To be perfectly honest, I'm curious to see what would happen if they allowed it. They allowed the teaching of creationism in European public schools, and they have twice as many atheists per capita. Neat, huh?
@PrometheusWithLight You confuse a circuit judge in one region of one state with ,....ummmm,....the rest of the country. You also confuse creationism with ID. It's a wonder you found your way back to this page to post your confused comments. But that you did was kinda neat as well.
Yeah, it's sorta hard to see the difference between creationism and ID, especially when they go into a creationist textbook, substitute "creator" for "designer", and call it good.
Intelligent design IS creationism, by definition. A being designed things intelligently and caused it to be created? Yeah. It's just a deist form of creationism, rather than picking a specific religion.
@gcnengineer Because intelligent design postulates the existence of a god, it is, by definition, a religion. See, there are two "designer" models; one is a race of super-advanced aliens, the other, god. If you're going to posit the existence of aliens, this begs the question, where in hell did they come from? Either they must've evolved, or it's god. If you're going to say the aliens evolved, why not just skip the middle man?
@PrometheusWithLight ID does not postulate the existence of a God. Again you are confused about what the theory envelops. Your leap is just as silly as saying "since we don't know how life began, why don't we just say it did it all by it's little ole self!"
Yes it does. I just demonstrated, through simple, easy-to-follow logic, that ID postulates the existence of a god. To reiterate, you could say it's aliens, but if you do, either those aliens would have to have evolved, or they were designed by more aliens, or god did it. Now, eventually, being as the universe has a finite age, you have to either concede that your first designer evolved, or is god.
@PrometheusWithLight What ID does is just what the Big Bang theory does, it says "we do not know how the singularity came to be" Religious people may say God created the singularity, but so what? Just because religious people may do that, it does not nullify the Big Bang theory. Same with ID. Just because you feel someone may say God is the designer matters not. The Theory does not make that claim.
No, actually. Big bang theory presents some pretty good evidence for the existence of such a singularity, whereas intelligent design has yet to provide any evidence demonstrating the existence of a creator. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the vast diversity of species today is a result of evolution. If you want to say god guided that evidence, that's your prerogative, but it's not science, and shouldn't be taught in science class.
@PrometheusWithLight Okay, we've come to impasse. You're simply going to create arguments rather than read what I have said. Last shot kiddo. I agree there was a singularity, I said that before, clearly in fact. What we do not know is how it came to be. This does not nullify the the big bang theory. ID argues the origin of life. Evolution is what you have after you have life. It's no wonder you oppose ID, you have even a fundamental understanding of it, nor evolution.
A. My "creating arguments" is called critical thought.
B. Your analogy still fails, in that scientists don't try to get their unverified hypotheses, which in this case, is string theory, taught in public schools.
C. Even then, hypothesis though it may be, abiogenesis has some decent supporting evidence, whereas ID, rather than searching for false evidence, tries to set up an ID abiogenesis false dichotomy, and attempts to criticize abiogenesis in hopes that people will be suckered
@PrometheusWithLight Okay four posts is getting out of hand would you like to just email me? You are clearly an intelligent person and we might have a very good conversation, just that argumentation here is endless because of the limitations. Love to have an email from you, then I'll try my best at answering your objections.
Thus far, you've thrown an ad hominem, tried to create an appeal to authority, and suggested that you were glad this were public, so I could "show the sort of person who's opposed to ID" (and I do paraphrase.) Your latest post, while it was courteous, has not, I'm afraid, abated my annoyance. I challenged you for evidence of ID that could survive critical inspection. I understand the limits of the comment area, however.
Thus, if you can provide me with a single piece of evidence I haven't heard of before, it doesn't have to survive my inspection, I just want something new, if you can present to me a single new piece of evidence, I will gladly take this to PM. Until then, however, I see no reason to continue this conversation.
@PrometheusWithLight All I have heard from you are the same old crocodile tears about personal attacks. I never came to offer you any evidence of anything. You asked if ID was going to rename itself. I said doubtful. You said Meyer wrote a bad paper on the Cambrian explosion, yet never said anything about what made it bad. So I said there was no reason for me to listen to a self proclaimed expert, and their was no reason. You cried crocodile tears that I had attacked you personally.
You said ID was "working well." It isn't. Your defense of your claim was, and again, I paraphrase, "Baaw, you're just some guy on the internet! This guy's an expert." When confronted with the absurdity of your statements, it seems your only defense is to fall back on trolling. Way to go, you've made a monkey of yourself.
@PrometheusWithLight Thank you for your time, I have no idea how you became so angry and this conversation disintegrated to the level you now have it at. I'm sure that happens to you often though. Not me, so I'm out, bye.
You have no idea why I'm annoyed with you? Did you read your last post before submitting it?
This reminds me of a Monty Python sketch, where Eric Idle is playing a shop owner who's personality alternates between rude and polite with each response.
@PrometheusWithLight It's a wonder you can even have a conversation with anyone who disagrees with you. To this moment you have not said anything about what meyer's said in the book. you just say how mad you are at me
Ok, sure. In his book, Signature in the Cell, Meyers gives up on arguing against evolution. Instead, he tries to take on abiogensis, a much less developed field of biology. Like the big kid at the playground, he proceeds to bludgeon the reader with his lack of research in the topic, purporting that intelligent design can explain the origin of life (no it can't,) and that it can't have happened through naturalistic processes.
@PrometheusWithLight Hi there! To me it sounded like you were saying that ID kind of starts taking on evolution then ends up picking on Abiogenesis because it seemed a "softer" target. Hopefully that's not what you meant. ID is a theory for life origins. The back of the book reads: "....(ID) helps unravel a mystery Darwin did not address: How life began"
That's exactly what they did. Intelligent design was ORIGINALLY supposed to give an alternative to evolution, but all of a sudden, it seems they're trying to take a new approach. ID 2.0 is all about the abiogenesis, and I think that yes, it's because it's a softer target. Before we go anywhere, the first thing I want you to recognize is that ID isn't a theory. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis; it makes a testable prediction. ID, however, makes no predictions, so you can't even call it
@PrometheusWithLight I'm not sure why it would matter that a theory changes over time. In fact, that is what science should be. The more we learn the more we either change or dismiss a theory. ID does make predictions, rather than me typing it I would refer you to the last paragraph on page 405.
Perhaps I should rephrase that, then. It makes no unique predictions, predictions that show that ID is the answer, and other theories aren't. Irreducible complexity? Function? Please. Those are also predictions of evolution. The one claim made that isn't a prediction of evolution is that complexity "rapidly emerges," usually citing the "cambrian explosion" as an example... without mentioning that it occurred over millions of years.
@PrometheusWithLight Historical scientific theories usually make no unique prediction. If you are trying to explain how the Grand Canyon was made may say it was carved by erosion. You would probably avoid theories that claim a meteor did it, for meteors are not know have such effects. Erosion would hardly be a unique prediction though. Irreducible Complexity is not an argument I would defend. Function is. Perhaps you can tell me how matter became functional?
Also, no. Every theory has to have something about it that makes it unique from the null hypothesis. In the case of intelligent design, the null condition is "evolution..." or is it abiogenesis now?
As for a plausible naturalistic explanation of "function," I suggest you watch cdk007's origin of life. It is a basic explanation of an existing model.
@gcnengineer As to how that bears to what you said, we make too many changes too quick. Natural selection is a function of time, if we're going to test the limits of mutation, we have to do it slowly. Get it?
@PrometheusWithLight Of course I understand that natural selection requires a great deal of time. The reason I said I'm not sure how that applies to what I have said is because I am talking about life origins, not evolution of species. ID is about origins.
B. You brought up fruit fly experiments as evidence to show that the potential of dna to be changed via mutation has serious limitations. I pointed out that those observed limitations occur because the experiments are over a very short amount of time.
C. Now, back to abiogenesis, the mechanisms of evolution are used in several hypotheses. I suggest you watch CDK007's abiogenesis vid for more info.
@PrometheusWithLight I've seen the video before. We simply do not seem to be talking about the book. I could argue that fruit flies produce another generation in a very short period of time, therefor, mutations that occur in them can be observed in what would in fact require a great deal of time in other animals. But then that would give you somewhere to go other than talking about what is in the book. I tend to think you know what you know. You could care less about what the theory in the book.
A. The book is just Stephen C. Meyers asserting that there is no way abiogenesis can account for the complexity of modern life, and that ID can. CDK007's video shows a plausible hypothesis, which therefore directly refutes the premise of Meyers' book.
B. I realize that long term studies on drosphilia wouldn't take as long because of their high rate of reproduction and short lifespan. We still haven't done any, which is a real shame.
@PrometheusWithLight 600 pages and all you got out of it was one man's assertion? Well,these things happen. I have seen religious people who will not believe anything other than what the bible tells them, and I have seen atheist who feel the need to get angry rather than admit any doubt. So it doesn't surprise me that anything Meyers says would have any impact on you. Although we have spoken enough now that I seriously doubt you have read the book. You haven't have you?
Essentially, yes, that's all his book is. Think I'm wrong? Give me an example as to why. He backs up his assertion with a combination of ignorance, quote mining, and blatant lies. (His assertions with respect to RNA in particular.)
@PrometheusWithLight BTW, few living things have been as extensively used as drosphilia in genetic studies. You make it sound as if it's a "dog gone shame we ain't done sumpin of real value with them thar flies" LOL we have.
You're right. Saying we haven't used something to its full potential is TOTALLY the equivalent of saying we've done nothing with it whatsoever, and that by pointing out that we could make improvements in respect, a person must be an ignorant country bumpkin. That thar be some sound reasonin'.
Sure it can. If you'd watched the movie, you'd've understood the model.
You start out with a long string of nonsense, but randomly varying nonsense.
Every now and then, by sheer luck, a little piece that isn't nonsense pops up. It's nothing complicated, but sometimes it aids in the reaction's survival, or replication. This causes that little bit of not-nonsense information to get replicated, thus kicking off evolution. In short, evolution can occur with information too.
By the way, and this is just a side note, I browsed the comments of that movie. Ctrl F really comes in handy. I've got to say, if I had to describe your comments in one word, it would be "imbecilic." Case in point, you're even guilty of classic quote mining, quoting Gould in Panda's thumb. I googled the quote, and it turns out that the next two or three sentences completely refute the point you were using him to make.
@PrometheusWithLight You seem to make accusations about what everyone else is saying, and the claim is always the same, "you people are wrong". You toss in a few insults in an attempt to back your point. But, you never really say anything of substance. I'm not even sure you think you do. Thanks for trying, but you've been as I have said from the very beginning, a total waste of time. I should have listened to myself.
You can't seriously be this deluded. Look at the post where I explained how information could have a natural origin. Then, look at your post. Then look back at my post. Then, beat your head against the desk for a bit. Then look at them again.
@PrometheusWithLight I understand you believe you have said something worthy. However, as you put it, "Look at the post where I explained how information COULD have a natural origin"
An alternate explanation of what may possibly have occurred is not a refutation of ID.
(I've been banging my hed on the desk since we began talking, that's why I'm stopping now)
Intelligent design hinges on the premise that no naturalistic explanation is even possible. That's the only evidence that they give in support of it, that they can't conceive of a naturalistic explanation for what they're looking at.
In short, if that premise is false, they've got nothing.
Long story short, I've just shown you that their premise is false. There IS a possible naturalistic origin.
@PrometheusWithLight oh please, my side is starting to hurt. Competing hypothesis look for the best answer with known information. ID does not state that a naturalistic explanation is not possible. There simply is no theory of abiogenesis to consider at this time. What you feel something is "possible", may well be. Work on it. If you get it worked out you'll disprove ID because of it. You angle of attempt that ID will not consider naturalistic is wrong, thus your argument misses the mark.
@PrometheusWithLight And round and round we go. I can't help you if you refuse to understand what historical science is. Which means, of course, that you have not read the book. (Which, of course, I've known all along).\
I know what 'historical science' is. Creationists misuse the term all the time, its use in this book is nothing new. It originally referred to the objective investigation of human history. When misused by creationists, they usually try to say that historical investigation is subjective, ergo each explanation is equally valid. It's garbage, and I'm surprised you brought it up. Your nonsense is usually... less nonsensical.
@PrometheusWithLight Right, if only we'd use the term about historical events as you do, then we'd find that we couldn't possibly be correct. I've heard atheist use that "wrong term" argument before. It's as if any explanation of anything matters not, and is unworthy of even being heard if it does not fit the first explanation they recieved of terms give to them. I think they call that willful ignorance. But with atheist, it seems more a defence of belief. (Cont)
@gcnengineer A straw man at best. I don't care if you want to research your own explanations, just be aware, you can't have it taught as science until you've backed it up.
As for the term "historical science," well, that's just what the definition is. You're trying to call a dog a sheep; it doesn't help your argument at all, and challenging the definition of what a "sheep" is does nothing to aid you.
@PrometheusWithLight (cont here) It's like talking to Catholics and hearing them define "original sin" or telling you what the Eucharist is. Turn out if you don't accept thier definitions then you can't be one of them. Matters not if they have defined things wrongly, and the truth makes that evident. They believe the difinition defines the truth. Which of course, we know as circular reasoning.
@gcnengineer In this particular case, the original definition can't be wrong, because it's an abstract idea created by humans; it's not as if the definition has to describe reality in any way; it's simply a phrase to describe an idea.
It's sort of like the word "science." In order for something to fall under the epistemological branch of science, it has to obey the scientific method. It's what science is, and what ID isn't.
I was tired when posting, but I've just re-read them, and they each make clear and eloquent points, so no, they're not incoherent nonsense. I think, perhaps, you simply don't understand them.
Suffice it to say, trying to change the definition of "historical science" won't grant your argument any validity.
I'm not changing the definition of historical science. Mine was the correct, original one. It's a moot point anyway, because changing what you call your argument really doesn't help it in any way.
@PrometheusWithLight As for "vague idea" Let's look at the idea that through natural selection change occurs over time. So much change in fact, that we get a new species. But this is a vague idea, for we do not know just what mechanism could be responsible for such change. DNA can make changes, however, those changes are limited. We have tried every such change we can think of on fruit flies and we get only dead, mutated, or normal flies. We get no new creature.
We directly observe changes occurring in the DNA. This is called mutation. I shouldn't have to be telling you this.
The number of changes at once are limited by time. If we make changes too quick, natural selection can't keep up.
C'mon, just what sort of engineer are you? Haven't you had a course in controls? Rapid change makes the system unstable. We don't have any fruit fly experiments lasting decades.
@PrometheusWithLight "Clock mutants of Drosophila melanogaster" 1971 Ron Konopka and Seymour Benzer. We have had fruit fly experiments for decades. The rest of your comments are true, however, I don't see how they have any being on what I have said.
We've HAD fruit fly experiments for decades, but we've never RUN a single experiment for decades. We've never done any long term experiments, nobody has the patience for them.
@PrometheusWithLight I was correct from the beginning when I said you are a waste of time. Although, I must admit, that you proven to me you are an expert at. Take Care.
Lastly, the only argument I've ever heard used to support intelligent design is "I don't think this could happen naturally, therefore god did it." Whether it's the bacterial flagellum, or blood clotting, because it seems impossible to intelligent design "researchers," it was designed.
ID, like all myths, is an intellectually lazy method of not doing the research, and leads to scientific stagnation.
@PrometheusWithLight Again, what you do not know about ID is very apparent in your postings. That arguement from ignorance is covered in the book, which you clearly have not even passed by in a book store. However, I certain that you have no idea that what you have posted only shows what you do not know about ID. So go ahead, feel free to follow up with something you feel is clever. I'm going to have to end it here with you. One must want to be ignorant of ID to be as far behind as you are.
Oh, no, I'm sure they claim to have done all sorts of "research," which, I'm afraid, is quite sub-par. For one thing, it's all aimed at criticizing evolutionary theory, rather than supporting "intelligent design." For another, it usually shows an utter ignorance of the facts. Case in point, the article Meyer wrote on the cambrian explosion.
@PrometheusWithLight You're sure they claim to do all sorts of research which is sub par......lol well who can argues with your guesses?
BTW, ID argues with Abiogenesis. As for Meyer's "article" on the Cambrian explosion, lol why do I bother? nothing like having a 30 year old kid on youtube tell me he's smarter than a PhD from Cambridge.
Since daddyrizla won't address the question, here it is again for anyone else who would like to try: if Ken Miller really has an argument that can refute Michael Behe's point about Irreducible Complexity then why doesn't he use it, rather than creating a ridiculous strawman and attacking that instead. That is, if he has something genuine to say then let's hear it, and if doesn't then he should just shut up. Simply prattling on about moustrap tieclips is pointless and embarrassing.
@daddyrizla You still are not answering the question. If Miller had something sensible to say then why not say it instead of going on about a ridiculous strawman.
@kkkaldav don't you remember, you wrote a comment to me first, I replied. My problem does not concern Behe's well refuted argument but the motives of the discovery institute.
@daddyrizla I do remember. I asked you a question. And for a full day now you have prattled shite and steadfastly refused to answer it. Almost as if you either don't understand the question, or don't know how to answer it, or both.
@kkkaldav after I tried to answer your question you began to try to belittle me by saying some shit about my "religious beliefs". I responded accordingly.
@daddyrizla You didn't try. At no point did you ever address the question about Miller. All you did was rant and rave about creationists, blowtorches and moustaches. Point missing on a such a massive scale that it became obvious that you were unable to even understand the question.
@kkkaldav I began by laying out the argument Miller brought forward. We only have so much word space on youtube, and before I could address anything else, you began mocking me. I have repeatedly told you that I do not care what Miller said or why. If Miller wants to talk about mousetraps, let him. You obviously have anger issues.
@daddyrizla My question was about Miller's strawman. You have never addressed it. The question is: why do think Miller deliberately misinterpreted Behe if he had a good argument up his sleeve? Feel free to attempt an answer sometime.
@manhunt48 You also may try to answer my question. I'll phrase it this was for you: if Behe was an "intellectually dishonest fool" who "never had a good argument" then why do think Miller didn't attack his real argument and attacked a pretend one instead. That is, if Behe's argument was so shit why did Miller create the strawman?
@manhunt48 He did make a strawman. He simply invented a definition of irreducible complexity that was completely different from Behe's. This is not a matter of opinion but a straightforward historical fact.
Look i'm trying to give you a fucking chance here. . . Give me the definition or get fucked. I've had this conversation with you people before and every time no matter how simple the request or how easy the question you refuse to answer. . . . Sorry but not this time, Either comply or brushed off as another pathetically dishonest moron.
this is a big fail. dennis miller? lol
why do you put this garbage on youtube?
Morophin3 1 month ago
More paean to Meyer the liar--he left out a whole class of cells, Prokariotes, which have no nucleus. And viruses not only seldom have a nucleus, they have no organelles and most have no DNA. He is an incompetent fake.
TheLizardPeople 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Intelligent Design isn't science.
Its religion.
And it fails.
odinata 5 months ago
so what the fuck is the "signature in the cell"? I guess if you promote anything fools will buy it, a sucker born every minute.
cowboyx1970 7 months ago
@cowboyx1970 Dude either your a hardcore atheists that would never believe even in the face of scientific data, or your just not that smart all together, any who the book is actually pretty good
overstand720 6 months ago
@overstand720 I'm just asking, I sat through the dumb video and got no information whatsoever...tell me.
cowboyx1970 6 months ago
for instance the chemical components of ink, nor the weight of a pen, of the texture of paper can account for the the arrangement of the words written in an book. Specified complecity or information, has always been strongly associated with intelligent concious activity. Therefore following the same line of reasoning, how can we look at the Specified complex information in DNA and not conclude the same? I can send you the book on PDF if you want to read it, its a little long but its worth it.
overstand720 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@overstand720 You mean the Signature in the cell book? If you can, send it to me too at silascou14@hotmail.com
silascou17 5 months ago
Great! Powerful! Cutting edge science breakthrough
Thank you!
roymel2007 10 months ago
Hm, is this yet another chapter in the wedge strategy?
timeofwonder2009 11 months ago
You have an infallible Bible. Why do you need ID?
Talamasca124 11 months ago
@Talamasca124 This man has a PhD from oxford and I would assume that most of the people who scoff at him on this page are idiots who live in their mothers basement.
AegeanKing 10 months ago
@AegeanKing
Are you talking about Meyer? He has a PhD from Cambridge on the history and philosophy of science (the latter of which, he seems to outright disregard.) That makes him about as qualified to speculate on the origin of life as I am. (I have a degree in mechanical engineering, IE something completely unrelated to the topic.)
I didn't bother to bring that up, because really, his ideas should stand or fall on their own merits, or in this case, lack thereof.
PrometheusWithLight 10 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight Also, as far as mankind ceasing warring. I find that completely laughable. Albert Einstein once said "as long as there are men there will be wars". This is the truth.
AegeanKing 10 months ago
@AegeanKing Yes, but at least I recognize that I may be deluding myself in the belief that humans will come to their senses. My point is, 100% of the populace is deluded in one way or another, whether they recognize it or not.
PrometheusWithLight 10 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight So you are saying that your delusion is more rational? Do you not see how completely silly that argument is?
AegeanKing 10 months ago
@AegeanKing
I am not saying my "delusion" that humanity will thrive as a civilization is more rational. I freely admitted that it was an irrational belief. I only consider myself more rational in that I don't demand schools teach this belief.
PrometheusWithLight 10 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight Im actually surprised you said that seeing as how the majority of evolutionary biologists and paleontologists freely admit that the "common ancestor" is still missing. Lastly, The vast majority of Christians do not demand that anything is taught in schools and "rational" is completely subjective so in my opinion you are completely irrational.
AegeanKing 10 months ago
@AegeanKing
Common ancestor of what? Are you still talking about the last one between man and chimp?
Given the rate of fossilization, it should be ridiculously difficult to find the last ancestor, as well it has been. What I gave you is the last KNOWN common ancestor between man and chimp.
You do realize that the ID movement has been trying to get ID taught in the schools for years, don't you?
Have you heard of the wedge document?
PrometheusWithLight 10 months ago
@AegeanKing
How do you define rationality?
PrometheusWithLight 10 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight Btw, where is the fossil for the "common ancestor"?
AegeanKing 10 months ago
@AegeanKing
Common to what and what?
Do you mean common to all life? That'd be blue green algae.
PrometheusWithLight 10 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight Macro-Evolution states that there is a common link or "ancestor" between man and ape. My question is, how come we havent found it?
AegeanKing 10 months ago
@AegeanKing Man is an ape according to evolutionary theory. Do you mean the last link between Man and Chimp?
PrometheusWithLight 10 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight yes, where is the common ancestor? How come no fossils have been found of such an ancestor?
AegeanKing 10 months ago
@AegeanKing Sahelanthropus tchadensis occurs before the projected human/chimp divergence. Thus, it is considered to be the last KNOWN ancestor, although we speculate there were a couple more after that.
PrometheusWithLight 10 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight Sorry, thats an ape, not an ape-man. Not to mention that almost nothing is known about it including if was a bipedal which is why it has caused so much controversy.
AegeanKing 10 months ago
@AegeanKing
Uh huh. Out of curiosity, do you consider the Archaeopterix to be a dinosaur or a bird? Creationists always seem to have trouble when it comes to deciding what transitional forms are.
PrometheusWithLight 10 months ago
@AegeanKing If you're trying to find something that LOOKS half man half chimp, I suggest you try the australopithecus Africanus, or homo habilis. While they did occur AFTER the human/chimp ancestral divergence, they do look like they're half human.
PrometheusWithLight 10 months ago
@AegeanKing So... because he has a PhD he can never be wrong? Phucking please. Argument from Authority is for mindless sheep. So the question stands Why do you need ID? Why do you need science? A: Because your bible is the biggest lie ever told to man. Followed closely by the Koran. Apologetics are for pussies.
Talamasca124 10 months ago
Hmm, dishonesty tastes like sulphur.
I guess we know where this guy is going.
ArchhereticK 1 year ago
There was a time when I was being pulled in by the sly slick madness of atheistic evolution. All of the atheists should be locked up in an asylum. Thank God for super smart and yet humble scientists like Meyers.
whiteliketar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whiteliketar - "There was a time when I was being pulled in by the sly slick madness of atheistic evolution."
Sorry to hear that you recently sustained a head injury.
"Thank God for super smart and yet humble scientists like Meyers."
Ah, I see; the damage was to your frontal lobes.
CamW30 1 year ago
Comment removed
ScienceIsInteresting 1 year ago
Stephen C Meyer is a witch !
ScienceIsInteresting 1 year ago
@ScienceIsInteresting You mean, like, when you can't refute someone, you witchhunt?
compgrad1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@compgrad1
I have seen no evidence showing Stephen C Meyer is NOT a witch there for he is proven to be a witch.
ScienceIsInteresting 1 year ago
I don't disagree with the idea that maybe our distant ancestors came from beyond Earth. That is a possibility. But evolution is a theory on how we became what we are, not how we began in the first place, that is abiogenesis.
daddyrizla 1 year ago
@daddyrizla So, is there some sort of mathematical abiogenesis? or should is order to mathematics just a given?
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
"Guesses?" Go ahead, tell me Meyer's article wasn't appeal to ignorance mixed with his own inability to do some basic research. I don't think you've actually read the article in question, given that your only defense for it was an ad hominem attack mixed with an appeal to authority. (Hint: Like Kent Hovind, the PhD in question isn't in biology. I will concede he probably knows more about history than I.)
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight I said from the beginning that a conversation with you would be pointless, for you were, from the beginning, saying things that made me think you haven't a clue what the issues are. But please, keep posting, you are helping others see just what sort of mind is in opposition to ID.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
into believing their ideas through process of elimination.
"What sort of mind is in opposition?" You mean a skeptic? I pointed out that the biggest flaw in your "theory" was that it has no evidence whatsoever. Y'know how you defeat the opposition? Present me with some evidence.
As for Meyer's article... are you serious? I took to task the entire premise of the article. It's flawed in its very foundation! Meyers is concluding that a designer must exist because he thinks a
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
conditions about 30 times.
The ad hominem, by the way, would be the part where you think I'm not qualified to dismantle Meyer's arguments because I'm "just some guy on the internet." What you failed to realize is he's "just some guy with a PhD in an unrelated field." Ergo, our arguments are equally qualified, and should stand on their merits alone.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight You took to task no point in the article. You simply set yourself up as being the wiser with no explanation. So,......when you set yourself up as the target, guess where I throw the darts?
(It is always cute when people do that and then cry "ad homonym!")
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
naturalistic explanation is unlikely for the cambrian explosion.
He either failed to do the research, or he blatantly misrepresented the facts in an attempt to support his position. Case in point, he forgot to mention that the "explosion," in which "many taxa emerged simultaneously," occurred over a 50 million year period. That's right, 50 million years.
He continues by questioning the ability of evolution to result in the creation of new genes, which we've observed in laboratory
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
kkkaldav, I have a question or two for you now mate. Do you believe Dawkins is a proponent of this Pseudo-scientific cult you so like to refer to? Or that his books are "religious texts" as you put it? You are advocating the christian idea that atheism is just another religion and so defending religion. Your position is circular and self defeating.
daddyrizla 1 year ago
@daddyrizla I am not saying atheism is a religion (and that idea is not necessarily Christian in any event). I said scientism was a religion. Dawkins is an advocate of scientism rather than science. In addition, the way Dawkins presents evolution in a number of his books is pseudoscientific because he extends scientific findings into the realms of, e.g., morality and politics, without any clear admission that he has stopped doing science. And, these books have become religious texts for many.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
But morality is proven to be ever evolving as we see continiously. Maybe Dawkins can be said to have cashed in on the book sales market, but he is still regarded as a great biologist and you have to admit his ideas on evolution are clever. You know yourself that science is not afraid to admit being wrong, in fact, this is the whole idea behind it, to prove theories wrong and so come closer to truth. Our knowledge is young and future generations will build on it so it must be accurate (or close).
daddyrizla 1 year ago
@daddyrizla Did mathematics evolve as well?
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer You're an argumentative little pup aren't you?
daddyrizla 1 year ago
@daddyrizlalol nipping at your heels, barking at the vac. however, seems you're the pup between the two of us. So did I hear you say there has always been order in mathematics?
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer wow, did you really take that from what I said? That's a sign of an obsessive disorder, you know! Maybe I was subconciously saying that and didn't know it myself...wow...you are amazing. Can I join your gang?
daddyrizla 1 year ago
@daddyrizla Sorry didn't mean to upset you. You seemed kinda cool a moment ago, now you seem all freaked out. Are you going to be OK?
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer I think I'll survive! There is a difference between morality and mathematics you know.
daddyrizla 1 year ago
@daddyrizla Yeah, I never compared them, just wondered if you thought everthing evolved.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer But why would I think that? The science of living things is mathematics in action, but living organisms evolve. Do you really think evolution is so flawed? Can't you accept the notion that science only exists because we don't know everything? If we did, what use would there be for knowledge?
daddyrizla 1 year ago
@daddyrizla I don't have an issue with evolution. Things clearly change over time.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer glad to hear that.
daddyrizla 1 year ago
So, now that daddyrizla spent a day prattling and failed to even acknowledge the question, and Manhunt ran away as soon as he got the definition he asked for because he knew he was fucked, would anyone else to try to answer the following question. If Ken Miller had a good argument against Behe's notion of irreducible complexity then why didn't he use it rather than attacking a ridiculous strawman instead?
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav you have done your own prattling mate. Have you ever tried to engage a proponent of I.D in a logical debate? Maybe Behe is not a proper creationist, but don't you see that he is allowing his idea to be used to promote creationism, even if it is being disguised as Intelligent Design? Surely He is more intelligent than that.
daddyrizla 1 year ago
I guess the simplest way of putting it is this: Miller thinks Behe didn't know about the possibility of co-option. Thus, Miller thinks that by simply pointing to alternative functions that parts of supposedly irreducibly complex systems could have (such as parts of an incomplete mousetraps functioning as a tie-clip) he refutes Behe's claims. Unfortunately for Miller, not only does Behe know about co-option, it is a subsidiary conclusion in his argument involving irreducible complexity. ROFL
kkkaldav 1 year ago
One of the things that funniest about youtube. Particularly the fundamentalist atheists that frequent it, is how many of them take themselves to be the embodiment of rationality, but all they actually do is abuse people and state things like "I AM RIGHT" in big capital letters so you know it must be true. LOL. Take Manhunt for example, no argument, no substance, no content. Just the assertion that he is correct delivered from a perspective of almost total ignorance.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
Who the fuck do you think you're talking to ya fucking arsehole? Here, then: Miller's argument is that various parts of what Behe thinks are irreducibly complex systems can function in different ways, e.g., parts of a moustrap can function as a tie clip, therefore, e.g., a moustrap is not irreducibly complex and Behe is wrong. Do you agree that that is Miller's argument?
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav yes, without being insulting back. But why Miller is approaching it this way is not of any interest to me. I believe Behe is wrong because irreducible complexity can evolve. Behe is being ignorant and Miller is doing two things. He is making a laugh of Behe (or trying to) and cashing in on the infamy of the argument. I am not a big fan of Miller either.
daddyrizla 1 year ago
I'm sure your masters will approve of your ideals. You, Behe and Kent Hovind can start the church of scientasia.
daddyrizla 1 year ago
And I don't see how pointing out your religious affiliations is an insult. I mean you are very open about them on your profile. Your favourite books are things like The God Delusion. These are pseudoscientific/scientistic religious texts. This isn't some great secret. That's why you've mainly been ranting and raving about creationism rather than answering the question.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav but you are the defender of creationism. I take it you refer to Dawkins and most biologists as scientistic then, and you are the only one who is truly rational! The rest of us should look up to you while you fly above the city defending creationists everywhere.
daddyrizla 1 year ago
Check back on the comments kkkaldav. You will see you attacked first. I merely asked you if you supported I.D.
daddyrizla 1 year ago
I wonder when they're going to give up on intelligent design, and try a new name.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight I'm fairly certain that ID will stick, it seems to be working well.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Insofar as "working well" means "losing all chance of ever being taught in public school by getting declared unconstitutional because they tried teaching it before doing any real research." I'm sure it'll come back sooner or later, but it'll at least have a different name.
To be perfectly honest, I'm curious to see what would happen if they allowed it. They allowed the teaching of creationism in European public schools, and they have twice as many atheists per capita. Neat, huh?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight You confuse a circuit judge in one region of one state with ,....ummmm,....the rest of the country. You also confuse creationism with ID. It's a wonder you found your way back to this page to post your confused comments. But that you did was kinda neat as well.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Yeah, it's sorta hard to see the difference between creationism and ID, especially when they go into a creationist textbook, substitute "creator" for "designer", and call it good.
Intelligent design IS creationism, by definition. A being designed things intelligently and caused it to be created? Yeah. It's just a deist form of creationism, rather than picking a specific religion.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight Sounds like you once heard about the Dover Trial one day, and it's the sum total of your knowledge now.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
I don't think the "wedge document" made it to the dover trial, did it?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@gcnengineer Because intelligent design postulates the existence of a god, it is, by definition, a religion. See, there are two "designer" models; one is a race of super-advanced aliens, the other, god. If you're going to posit the existence of aliens, this begs the question, where in hell did they come from? Either they must've evolved, or it's god. If you're going to say the aliens evolved, why not just skip the middle man?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight ID does not postulate the existence of a God. Again you are confused about what the theory envelops. Your leap is just as silly as saying "since we don't know how life began, why don't we just say it did it all by it's little ole self!"
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Yes it does. I just demonstrated, through simple, easy-to-follow logic, that ID postulates the existence of a god. To reiterate, you could say it's aliens, but if you do, either those aliens would have to have evolved, or they were designed by more aliens, or god did it. Now, eventually, being as the universe has a finite age, you have to either concede that your first designer evolved, or is god.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight What ID does is just what the Big Bang theory does, it says "we do not know how the singularity came to be" Religious people may say God created the singularity, but so what? Just because religious people may do that, it does not nullify the Big Bang theory. Same with ID. Just because you feel someone may say God is the designer matters not. The Theory does not make that claim.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
No, actually. Big bang theory presents some pretty good evidence for the existence of such a singularity, whereas intelligent design has yet to provide any evidence demonstrating the existence of a creator. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the vast diversity of species today is a result of evolution. If you want to say god guided that evidence, that's your prerogative, but it's not science, and shouldn't be taught in science class.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight Okay, we've come to impasse. You're simply going to create arguments rather than read what I have said. Last shot kiddo. I agree there was a singularity, I said that before, clearly in fact. What we do not know is how it came to be. This does not nullify the the big bang theory. ID argues the origin of life. Evolution is what you have after you have life. It's no wonder you oppose ID, you have even a fundamental understanding of it, nor evolution.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
A. My "creating arguments" is called critical thought.
B. Your analogy still fails, in that scientists don't try to get their unverified hypotheses, which in this case, is string theory, taught in public schools.
C. Even then, hypothesis though it may be, abiogenesis has some decent supporting evidence, whereas ID, rather than searching for false evidence, tries to set up an ID abiogenesis false dichotomy, and attempts to criticize abiogenesis in hopes that people will be suckered
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight Okay four posts is getting out of hand would you like to just email me? You are clearly an intelligent person and we might have a very good conversation, just that argumentation here is endless because of the limitations. Love to have an email from you, then I'll try my best at answering your objections.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Thus far, you've thrown an ad hominem, tried to create an appeal to authority, and suggested that you were glad this were public, so I could "show the sort of person who's opposed to ID" (and I do paraphrase.) Your latest post, while it was courteous, has not, I'm afraid, abated my annoyance. I challenged you for evidence of ID that could survive critical inspection. I understand the limits of the comment area, however.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Thus, if you can provide me with a single piece of evidence I haven't heard of before, it doesn't have to survive my inspection, I just want something new, if you can present to me a single new piece of evidence, I will gladly take this to PM. Until then, however, I see no reason to continue this conversation.
PWL
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight All I have heard from you are the same old crocodile tears about personal attacks. I never came to offer you any evidence of anything. You asked if ID was going to rename itself. I said doubtful. You said Meyer wrote a bad paper on the Cambrian explosion, yet never said anything about what made it bad. So I said there was no reason for me to listen to a self proclaimed expert, and their was no reason. You cried crocodile tears that I had attacked you personally.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
You said ID was "working well." It isn't. Your defense of your claim was, and again, I paraphrase, "Baaw, you're just some guy on the internet! This guy's an expert." When confronted with the absurdity of your statements, it seems your only defense is to fall back on trolling. Way to go, you've made a monkey of yourself.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight Thank you for your time, I have no idea how you became so angry and this conversation disintegrated to the level you now have it at. I'm sure that happens to you often though. Not me, so I'm out, bye.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
You have no idea why I'm annoyed with you? Did you read your last post before submitting it?
This reminds me of a Monty Python sketch, where Eric Idle is playing a shop owner who's personality alternates between rude and polite with each response.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight It's a wonder you can even have a conversation with anyone who disagrees with you. To this moment you have not said anything about what meyer's said in the book. you just say how mad you are at me
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Huh. I think I've nailed your pattern. You're alternating between rude and polite. Let's see if the pattern holds.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight LOL Did you want to talk about the book any? We are on a page that has a video about the book.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Ok, sure. In his book, Signature in the Cell, Meyers gives up on arguing against evolution. Instead, he tries to take on abiogensis, a much less developed field of biology. Like the big kid at the playground, he proceeds to bludgeon the reader with his lack of research in the topic, purporting that intelligent design can explain the origin of life (no it can't,) and that it can't have happened through naturalistic processes.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight Hi there! To me it sounded like you were saying that ID kind of starts taking on evolution then ends up picking on Abiogenesis because it seemed a "softer" target. Hopefully that's not what you meant. ID is a theory for life origins. The back of the book reads: "....(ID) helps unravel a mystery Darwin did not address: How life began"
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
That's exactly what they did. Intelligent design was ORIGINALLY supposed to give an alternative to evolution, but all of a sudden, it seems they're trying to take a new approach. ID 2.0 is all about the abiogenesis, and I think that yes, it's because it's a softer target. Before we go anywhere, the first thing I want you to recognize is that ID isn't a theory. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis; it makes a testable prediction. ID, however, makes no predictions, so you can't even call it
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight I'm not sure why it would matter that a theory changes over time. In fact, that is what science should be. The more we learn the more we either change or dismiss a theory. ID does make predictions, rather than me typing it I would refer you to the last paragraph on page 405.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Perhaps I should rephrase that, then. It makes no unique predictions, predictions that show that ID is the answer, and other theories aren't. Irreducible complexity? Function? Please. Those are also predictions of evolution. The one claim made that isn't a prediction of evolution is that complexity "rapidly emerges," usually citing the "cambrian explosion" as an example... without mentioning that it occurred over millions of years.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight Historical scientific theories usually make no unique prediction. If you are trying to explain how the Grand Canyon was made may say it was carved by erosion. You would probably avoid theories that claim a meteor did it, for meteors are not know have such effects. Erosion would hardly be a unique prediction though. Irreducible Complexity is not an argument I would defend. Function is. Perhaps you can tell me how matter became functional?
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
What? That analogy doesn't make sense.
Also, no. Every theory has to have something about it that makes it unique from the null hypothesis. In the case of intelligent design, the null condition is "evolution..." or is it abiogenesis now?
As for a plausible naturalistic explanation of "function," I suggest you watch cdk007's origin of life. It is a basic explanation of an existing model.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@gcnengineer As to how that bears to what you said, we make too many changes too quick. Natural selection is a function of time, if we're going to test the limits of mutation, we have to do it slowly. Get it?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight Of course I understand that natural selection requires a great deal of time. The reason I said I'm not sure how that applies to what I have said is because I am talking about life origins, not evolution of species. ID is about origins.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
A. It didn't used to be.
B. You brought up fruit fly experiments as evidence to show that the potential of dna to be changed via mutation has serious limitations. I pointed out that those observed limitations occur because the experiments are over a very short amount of time.
C. Now, back to abiogenesis, the mechanisms of evolution are used in several hypotheses. I suggest you watch CDK007's abiogenesis vid for more info.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight I've seen the video before. We simply do not seem to be talking about the book. I could argue that fruit flies produce another generation in a very short period of time, therefor, mutations that occur in them can be observed in what would in fact require a great deal of time in other animals. But then that would give you somewhere to go other than talking about what is in the book. I tend to think you know what you know. You could care less about what the theory in the book.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
A. The book is just Stephen C. Meyers asserting that there is no way abiogenesis can account for the complexity of modern life, and that ID can. CDK007's video shows a plausible hypothesis, which therefore directly refutes the premise of Meyers' book.
B. I realize that long term studies on drosphilia wouldn't take as long because of their high rate of reproduction and short lifespan. We still haven't done any, which is a real shame.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight 600 pages and all you got out of it was one man's assertion? Well,these things happen. I have seen religious people who will not believe anything other than what the bible tells them, and I have seen atheist who feel the need to get angry rather than admit any doubt. So it doesn't surprise me that anything Meyers says would have any impact on you. Although we have spoken enough now that I seriously doubt you have read the book. You haven't have you?
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Essentially, yes, that's all his book is. Think I'm wrong? Give me an example as to why. He backs up his assertion with a combination of ignorance, quote mining, and blatant lies. (His assertions with respect to RNA in particular.)
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight I think you're wrong, but you're making the accusations, you back them up.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight BTW, few living things have been as extensively used as drosphilia in genetic studies. You make it sound as if it's a "dog gone shame we ain't done sumpin of real value with them thar flies" LOL we have.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
You're right. Saying we haven't used something to its full potential is TOTALLY the equivalent of saying we've done nothing with it whatsoever, and that by pointing out that we could make improvements in respect, a person must be an ignorant country bumpkin. That thar be some sound reasonin'.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight Exactly, it would be the same as inferring one has a point to make when all they have is an observation to offer.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Yeah, that was an idle observation. What of it?
As for the "accusation," my obvious source is his book. The whole thing.
He primarily concentrates on his belief that information can't originate naturally.
Thus, he infers, the information must have an unnatural origin, which he calls a "designer."
Information, however, CAN originate naturally, as shown in the cdk007 movie you didn't watch.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight (Idle hands are the devil's workshop! lol)
"He primarily concentrates on his belief that information can't originate naturally."
Of course it can, Functional information cannot.
(I have watched the flick, on one in his series I'm currently posting)
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Sure it can. If you'd watched the movie, you'd've understood the model.
You start out with a long string of nonsense, but randomly varying nonsense.
Every now and then, by sheer luck, a little piece that isn't nonsense pops up. It's nothing complicated, but sometimes it aids in the reaction's survival, or replication. This causes that little bit of not-nonsense information to get replicated, thus kicking off evolution. In short, evolution can occur with information too.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
By the way, and this is just a side note, I browsed the comments of that movie. Ctrl F really comes in handy. I've got to say, if I had to describe your comments in one word, it would be "imbecilic." Case in point, you're even guilty of classic quote mining, quoting Gould in Panda's thumb. I googled the quote, and it turns out that the next two or three sentences completely refute the point you were using him to make.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight You seem to make accusations about what everyone else is saying, and the claim is always the same, "you people are wrong". You toss in a few insults in an attempt to back your point. But, you never really say anything of substance. I'm not even sure you think you do. Thanks for trying, but you've been as I have said from the very beginning, a total waste of time. I should have listened to myself.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
You can't seriously be this deluded. Look at the post where I explained how information could have a natural origin. Then, look at your post. Then look back at my post. Then, beat your head against the desk for a bit. Then look at them again.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight I understand you believe you have said something worthy. However, as you put it, "Look at the post where I explained how information COULD have a natural origin"
An alternate explanation of what may possibly have occurred is not a refutation of ID.
(I've been banging my hed on the desk since we began talking, that's why I'm stopping now)
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Intelligent design hinges on the premise that no naturalistic explanation is even possible. That's the only evidence that they give in support of it, that they can't conceive of a naturalistic explanation for what they're looking at.
In short, if that premise is false, they've got nothing.
Long story short, I've just shown you that their premise is false. There IS a possible naturalistic origin.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight oh please, my side is starting to hurt. Competing hypothesis look for the best answer with known information. ID does not state that a naturalistic explanation is not possible. There simply is no theory of abiogenesis to consider at this time. What you feel something is "possible", may well be. Work on it. If you get it worked out you'll disprove ID because of it. You angle of attempt that ID will not consider naturalistic is wrong, thus your argument misses the mark.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
1. There are several abiogenesis hypotheses competing right now.
2. ID is not a competing hypothesis because it makes no unique testable predictions, ergo, it's not even a hypothesis.
3. ID hasn't been demonstrated, so it can't be used as the null hypothesis.
4. The only thing Meyers presents as evidence in his entire book is his disbelief that information can arise naturally. Nothing new.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight And round and round we go. I can't help you if you refuse to understand what historical science is. Which means, of course, that you have not read the book. (Which, of course, I've known all along).\
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
I know what 'historical science' is. Creationists misuse the term all the time, its use in this book is nothing new. It originally referred to the objective investigation of human history. When misused by creationists, they usually try to say that historical investigation is subjective, ergo each explanation is equally valid. It's garbage, and I'm surprised you brought it up. Your nonsense is usually... less nonsensical.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight Right, if only we'd use the term about historical events as you do, then we'd find that we couldn't possibly be correct. I've heard atheist use that "wrong term" argument before. It's as if any explanation of anything matters not, and is unworthy of even being heard if it does not fit the first explanation they recieved of terms give to them. I think they call that willful ignorance. But with atheist, it seems more a defence of belief. (Cont)
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer A straw man at best. I don't care if you want to research your own explanations, just be aware, you can't have it taught as science until you've backed it up.
As for the term "historical science," well, that's just what the definition is. You're trying to call a dog a sheep; it doesn't help your argument at all, and challenging the definition of what a "sheep" is does nothing to aid you.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight (cont here) It's like talking to Catholics and hearing them define "original sin" or telling you what the Eucharist is. Turn out if you don't accept thier definitions then you can't be one of them. Matters not if they have defined things wrongly, and the truth makes that evident. They believe the difinition defines the truth. Which of course, we know as circular reasoning.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer In this particular case, the original definition can't be wrong, because it's an abstract idea created by humans; it's not as if the definition has to describe reality in any way; it's simply a phrase to describe an idea.
It's sort of like the word "science." In order for something to fall under the epistemological branch of science, it has to obey the scientific method. It's what science is, and what ID isn't.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight Virtually every word in both your last two posts were incoherent nonsense. You're a lonely person aren't you?
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
I was tired when posting, but I've just re-read them, and they each make clear and eloquent points, so no, they're not incoherent nonsense. I think, perhaps, you simply don't understand them.
Suffice it to say, trying to change the definition of "historical science" won't grant your argument any validity.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight That's what I said to you first.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
I'm not changing the definition of historical science. Mine was the correct, original one. It's a moot point anyway, because changing what you call your argument really doesn't help it in any way.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight Are you really so lonely that you will argue with just about anything I say?
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
What you said was blatantly incorrect. That's why I argued about it.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight You would argue with your mother, and probably do. you argue because you can't help yourself.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer a hypothesis. Intelligent design is just the vague idea that someone created everything.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight As for "vague idea" Let's look at the idea that through natural selection change occurs over time. So much change in fact, that we get a new species. But this is a vague idea, for we do not know just what mechanism could be responsible for such change. DNA can make changes, however, those changes are limited. We have tried every such change we can think of on fruit flies and we get only dead, mutated, or normal flies. We get no new creature.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
We directly observe changes occurring in the DNA. This is called mutation. I shouldn't have to be telling you this.
The number of changes at once are limited by time. If we make changes too quick, natural selection can't keep up.
C'mon, just what sort of engineer are you? Haven't you had a course in controls? Rapid change makes the system unstable. We don't have any fruit fly experiments lasting decades.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight "Clock mutants of Drosophila melanogaster" 1971 Ron Konopka and Seymour Benzer. We have had fruit fly experiments for decades. The rest of your comments are true, however, I don't see how they have any being on what I have said.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
We've HAD fruit fly experiments for decades, but we've never RUN a single experiment for decades. We've never done any long term experiments, nobody has the patience for them.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight I was correct from the beginning when I said you are a waste of time. Although, I must admit, that you proven to me you are an expert at. Take Care.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Lastly, the only argument I've ever heard used to support intelligent design is "I don't think this could happen naturally, therefore god did it." Whether it's the bacterial flagellum, or blood clotting, because it seems impossible to intelligent design "researchers," it was designed.
ID, like all myths, is an intellectually lazy method of not doing the research, and leads to scientific stagnation.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight Again, what you do not know about ID is very apparent in your postings. That arguement from ignorance is covered in the book, which you clearly have not even passed by in a book store. However, I certain that you have no idea that what you have posted only shows what you do not know about ID. So go ahead, feel free to follow up with something you feel is clever. I'm going to have to end it here with you. One must want to be ignorant of ID to be as far behind as you are.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Oh, no, I'm sure they claim to have done all sorts of "research," which, I'm afraid, is quite sub-par. For one thing, it's all aimed at criticizing evolutionary theory, rather than supporting "intelligent design." For another, it usually shows an utter ignorance of the facts. Case in point, the article Meyer wrote on the cambrian explosion.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight You're sure they claim to do all sorts of research which is sub par......lol well who can argues with your guesses?
BTW, ID argues with Abiogenesis. As for Meyer's "article" on the Cambrian explosion, lol why do I bother? nothing like having a 30 year old kid on youtube tell me he's smarter than a PhD from Cambridge.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
Why don't you two girls just get a room.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
I do not wish to trade insultswith anyone. But if I am insulted first it is fair game.
daddyrizla 1 year ago
Since daddyrizla won't address the question, here it is again for anyone else who would like to try: if Ken Miller really has an argument that can refute Michael Behe's point about Irreducible Complexity then why doesn't he use it, rather than creating a ridiculous strawman and attacking that instead. That is, if he has something genuine to say then let's hear it, and if doesn't then he should just shut up. Simply prattling on about moustrap tieclips is pointless and embarrassing.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav if I have been able to refute Behe, then don't you think Miller already has? Read more.
daddyrizla 1 year ago
@daddyrizla You still are not answering the question. If Miller had something sensible to say then why not say it instead of going on about a ridiculous strawman.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav don't you remember, you wrote a comment to me first, I replied. My problem does not concern Behe's well refuted argument but the motives of the discovery institute.
daddyrizla 1 year ago
@daddyrizla I do remember. I asked you a question. And for a full day now you have prattled shite and steadfastly refused to answer it. Almost as if you either don't understand the question, or don't know how to answer it, or both.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav after I tried to answer your question you began to try to belittle me by saying some shit about my "religious beliefs". I responded accordingly.
daddyrizla 1 year ago
@daddyrizla You didn't try. At no point did you ever address the question about Miller. All you did was rant and rave about creationists, blowtorches and moustaches. Point missing on a such a massive scale that it became obvious that you were unable to even understand the question.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav I began by laying out the argument Miller brought forward. We only have so much word space on youtube, and before I could address anything else, you began mocking me. I have repeatedly told you that I do not care what Miller said or why. If Miller wants to talk about mousetraps, let him. You obviously have anger issues.
daddyrizla 1 year ago
@daddyrizla My question was about Miller's strawman. You have never addressed it. The question is: why do think Miller deliberately misinterpreted Behe if he had a good argument up his sleeve? Feel free to attempt an answer sometime.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav and I won't because I don't care.
daddyrizla 1 year ago
@kkkaldav
Thats the thing!! Behe never had a good argument!!, He was shown to be just another intellectually dishonest fool in court!!
manhunt48 1 year ago
@manhunt48 You also may try to answer my question. I'll phrase it this was for you: if Behe was an "intellectually dishonest fool" who "never had a good argument" then why do think Miller didn't attack his real argument and attacked a pretend one instead. That is, if Behe's argument was so shit why did Miller create the strawman?
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav
Miller didn't make a strawman!!, Simply because someone can destroy behe position with ease doesn't automatically make it a strawman.
manhunt48 1 year ago
@manhunt48 He did make a strawman. He simply invented a definition of irreducible complexity that was completely different from Behe's. This is not a matter of opinion but a straightforward historical fact.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav
But he didn't. . . This proves my point EXACTLY.
He destroyed irreducible complexity and because of that you people backpeddle and start trying to change things.
But, Let's pretend you're right. . . Give me the definition of irreducible complexity.
manhunt48 1 year ago
@manhunt48 Why don't you - since your version will be the strawman version Miller gave and then I will show why it is a strawman.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav
Look i'm trying to give you a fucking chance here. . . Give me the definition or get fucked. I've had this conversation with you people before and every time no matter how simple the request or how easy the question you refuse to answer. . . . Sorry but not this time, Either comply or brushed off as another pathetically dishonest moron.
manhunt48 1 year ago