Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
God exists, that's the accepted claim by the majority of people, you want to challenge that, bring the evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU. Some narrow minded atheist proposed the wrong notion that atheism doesn't require evidence and many gullible atheists had run to foolishly embrace it. Philosophically the burden of proof is in the argument challenging the establishment. What evidence you have that atheism is true? None, zero, nada. Open your eyes, you're being deceived by an evil cult.
After all that talk and blah blah blah, his entire point was nature does things similar to things men design so... voila...nature must be designed. That's it. End of summation. ID scientists must spend all of their day creating better obfuscations, because there's nothing much you can really do with that hypothesis.
Good thing I'm not a host on this show. I'd hang up on all of these assholes that are too stubborn to challenge their need for an intelligent source of nature.
We know it isn't intelligently designed! Damn! This is just as likely as saying god keeps planes in the air, and it just so happens that engineering seems to not need the idea of god holding the plane up--but god exists anyway, and flying planes is evidence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You guys are bullies. Yes, your callers are generally full of errors, but you hound and batter them and don't give them a chance to speak. You jump down their throats and shout at them as soon as they say half a sentence. You make atheists look rude and cruel.
The caller is spewing stupidity. THey arent being bullies they are making their points....the guy wont listen or cant understand. Their actions are justified.
That's stem cells. So that's not from scratch. You must understand we as humans do have very crude designs when we attempt to mimic nature. A very poor imataion of life.we innovate never create everything on this planet is natural to this planet nothing is man. Made just man redesign and discovered. Onwards and upward for those who knows the that saying,like the host.
it's not a matter of attack and defense, it's a matter of one side claiming magic is responsible for what is unknown and the otherside continuously disproving their claims as new information arises.
everytime we make a discovery the role of God becomes less.
At what point in development of Artificial Intelligence does the artificial get a soul, Are humans actually soulless beings? Whats a soul another system?
Ps I'm DYSLEX no appologie for my spelling. Letters and words are just a ism, I view as picture just like anyone else from the past. Onwards and upward, make that leap, Edwin Abbott did? Don't be so flat thinking not northwards upwards.
I like your crowd but to me your just as bad as all the others with the answers same man different suit. I know you know nothing but to play with words and letters combined with language. What's true is, you are a bipedal and an intelligent one at that the best design for this planet. That's why we rule it. No arrogance just fact.oh did you find out how to make skin? Take your time human. This fencing with the sword of the mind is textbook attack and defense. That all what dialog is about now,
Ok that's a good starting point for a response, but however, is there some point you would like to respond to regarding my comment.I felt that you armed yourself with a few very good tactical questions.what boring vomit digest this. When was the last time you had an original thought. Now I don't know you so don't take any of this personal. Ps, I'm not important, I'm very important to myself how you jugde me is your perpective. Thank you anyway, I feel less now what did you think of. My comment
THE OTHER QUESTION, ARE YOU INTELLIGENT? NOTHING COULD NOT EXIST WITH OUT DESIGN. NOTHING WOULD WORK, LIKE A SHOP THAT DOES NOT FUNCTION WILL NOT LAST, IE NOT EXIST. SO THE REFLECTION OF (ID) IS THE VIOD OF SPACE. THE EVEDENCE OF ID IS ALL THAT IS NOT SPACE. THIS IS THE CONDITIONING OF ID & SPACE, FROM KNOWING COLD IS TO HOT
DNA IS LIKE LEGO AND MORE, IT CAN BE CONSTRUCTED IN TO MANY THINGS, BUT YOU NEED A DESIGN AND A DESIGNER. IF THERE IS NO INTELILIGENT DESIGN. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT ANYTHING SINCE ITS SIMPLE OR NO DESIGN. THEREFORE TO CREATE A SELF REPAIRING,BREATHABLE, WATERPROOF,INSALATED, UNIQUE FAMILURE GROWING, MEBRANE CALLED SKIN, IF YOU CAN CREATE JUST THAT ELEMENT OF THE BODY ....LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU DONE THAT. DUMB DESIGN.
@bigjohntattoo You said: "ah, we can and have created skin by itself, in a lab" How could "we create" skin "by itself"? That doesn't make sense. Unless all the material jumped out of whatever container held them and all came together in the test tubes all by themselves, then someone put them there - someone, therefore, designed the process - some creator - a chemist most likely.
If something 'appears' to have a design, why is it necessary to say that it has no design. Wouldn't it make more common sense to at least start with the idea that is was designed?
@12345678901234567844 you can say it has a design. for instance, my eye has the design necessary to perform its function. but we know that organs are developed through biological processes. to say my eye had a designer is a huge leap.
@avalsonline2 It's hardly a leap. The leap is yours. To say the eye is biologically made is easy to say, but is so very shallow. It isn't the eye itself, but the very biological processes that proves the designer. You speak of a process - I speak of the processor. Your thinking is shallow, not deep enough. That is because you can't see past what that very organ can see, so therefore, you are unable to process the fact that there is more to it than what we can witness in the physical (cont)
@avalsonline2 You point to the process and call it the cause because the effect is the eye. That is so shallow, because the process itself is an effect. What is the cause of the process, the movement that causes the process, the purpose or intent, the reason or the reasoning behind it? And if the reason is another physical element then what is the cause of that and so on. Sooner or later it will come to mind that what ever the reason there was, indeed, a reason and a reasoner -God- or a creator.
@12345678901234567844 ok, pure and simple. what is the difference between things that are created by god and things that are not created by god? how do you differentiate the two?
@avalsonline2 The fact that you even ask that question shows your place of grand HOPE. Let me just say, I think we can know that man brought the material together and made the car; but we can also know that God made the material, and brought them together to make man, and the material from which man used to make the car. Only a fool could say otherwise, because for anyone who's HOPE is in the truth can see it clearly, and can see the folly in asking the question you have just asked.
@avalsonline2 What would we say about a 3rd grade field trip demonstrating a machine that made candy - and a child says, "Teacher, you taught us that sugar is used to make candy. Does the machine make the sugar also?" We would smile and take joy in his wonderment. But what would we think of an adult who asked the same question?
@12345678901234567844 except once again you fail to realise that we know that sugar is a natural product of a plant. we have seen it happen. it is a fact. we know that a plant comes from seeds of similar plants. we know that plants, like any other life forms gradually change over time to adapt to their environment. but we have never observed a supernatural being creating the plant. so why would we believe the latter claim?
@avalsonline2 Because there is no other plausible answer. Again, it is illogical to claim that anything so designed was not indeed designed. As I said, working back to a cause of anything, indeed all things, anytime you come to the material/s, i.e. the plant/seed in this case, even it's environment, one must dig deeper into these materials and ask for there very own cause/s. Nothing happens out of a vacuum - our own intellect, at some point must concede this - or else we delude ourselves.(cont)
@12345678901234567844 "Because there is no other plausible answer". well, then this is an argument from ignorance. we do not know how else it could have happened, therefore it must have been god. you know, i do not know how everything got started, but to automatically assume that the cause is supernatural is anti intelectual. you automatically negate any further inquiry into the matter by doing this. sorry. i will leave fairy tales for kindergarden
@avalsonline2 Now you see, why do you guys always have to go there? Reduce your arguments to the level of being demeaning? If you don't agree with me, I don't know how to convince you; nor do I see any reason to try. If it's a matter of just not believing, then nobody's going to move you, I would assume. So I'll end where I began and simply say, look deeper, look to the movement. Things don't move or come together on there own. Find movement, find cause, find intent, find God. God bless.
@12345678901234567844 i go there because you have not given one shred of evidence for your supernatural creator. you have given me baseless assumptions. and i have no patience for baseless assumptions and assertions. soon as you have actual evidence, let me know
@avalsonline2 You can't simply say that one material created another material and stop there - if you keep digging into what/who made the material, that made the material, that made the material and on and on - one must absolutely come to the conclusion of design or intent. How can it be otherwise? If you don't come to this conclusion, I SAY, you either haven't gone back far enough to suite your beloved skepticism, or you continue to wish a designer away with grand hope that you are right.
@avalsonline2 You said - "...we have never observed a supernatural being creating..." I say 2 things - 1) true, to a degree that we didn't see the beginning of the processes. That is one reason why I say you are shallow; because unless you see it, you won't believe it. 2) Yes, we have seen and do see a creator creating when we observe His processes.
@avalsonline2 Why is it, that for you, it is more reasonable to say...:"If something SEEMS to have been designed, it must have been made by natural processes,"... rather than to say... "If something SEEMS to have been designed it must have been designed?" Only because you don't think deep enough, is all I can think of -- unless it's just refusal to believe otherwise or wishing it to be so.
@avalsonline2 By your way of thinking, I could say of a car.."We can see that the car was made by natural processes because we can see with our eyes that that bolt holds up that part and that thing does this and that thing did this and so on - so therefore we have a car." You'd say that was some pretty shallow thinking because is completely discounts the person who cause all those things to happen. I have looked at the process, but left out the obvious processor.
@bebop7c2 Said: "If you...find...and study it and other plants, you would see it comes from evolution." Why? It's not been determined that plants come from evolution. In fact, the scientific evidence is that they are from intelligent design. There's no evidence for evolution there. There's only speculation until one, again, follows the parts (the material) back far enough to discover ID. Only a shallow, lazy mind would stop short of that, or a wishful thinker. (I am 123456...-name change)
@4GodSoLoves We can trace trees back millions of years and see that they came from other, older, trees. Wollemi pine trees use to be everwhere in North America, but now there are only 100 of the trees left on earth.
It took millions of years but more modern trees were better suited for this environment so the older version of the pine tree died out. Wollemi pine trees are a transitional form between leaf trees and pine trees, and show that leafy trees evolved into pine trees. :)
@4GodSoLoves You're right the best answer is a scientific one, evolution. Wishful thinking is believing in supernatural beings creating things, and leaving no evidence that they did it or even exist.
I don't think things happen by chance, there is a reason things are the way they are. You know evolution is a fact like gravity right?
@4GodSoLoves I actually thought you were making a joke. My bad. You actually think "design" is scientific. So your idea of what scientists do is look at something and say "hmmm, that thing is kind of like this other thing that people make. Let's go home, I'm staved"? It's like science by oafish analogy. I tried to use a key to start my cat the other day by using "design science" (y'know, it works for the motor in my car, why not "cat motors"?). Cat started right up, so I guess you're right.
It is not a straw man argument. They only say so because it does indeed make evolution look bad. It looks bad because it IS bad - is just plain bad science - in fact, it's not science at all. It's a wish - a strong desire to wish away God.
The brain is a computer, a computer is made by a intelligent being, therefore brains are designed. This was a argument I heard, and what this guy in this video is saying is just as retarded.
Miller covers "the flagellum argument" in his book "Only a Theory." By showing the link between the flagellum and Protein exporting systems in other bacterial life. The leap is just getting ID proponents to entertain the notion of evolution as all that is necessary for the complexity of life, a difficult leap to be sure, as most ID ( and religious, conservative, etc) proponents are "Hedgehogs" (Sir Isaiah Berlin, 1953) whereas science is the definitive "fox." You 2 are much more patient than me
I think the mistake the caller is making in his definition of intelligent design is that for thousand of years man has studied nature and designed systems based on this. As an engineer I could attempt to build a device for moving fluids or I could build off evolution and study natural evolved pumps. Just because the operation of the heart may match a piece of equipment doesn't mean it was intelligently designed
This reminds me of how religious believers always say that Darwin said that we come or evolved from apes... when in fact Darwin said that we have a common ancestor with apes. It should be obvious that apes still exist and that we haven't replaced them at all... but they always seem to misquote and misunderstand proper evolution. Also they often think the universe can't have come from nothing... when they themselves believe that God did create it from nothing... wich leads us to what created god.
All I ask for is ONE transitional fossil out of the manifold billions of fossils discovered, but not one! None between primitive and modern plants, Single cells and invertebrates, invertebrates and fish, fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, land mammals and sea mammals, non-flying mammals to bats, and apes to humans! Nada Zilch Zero Nothing at all but lies deception fraud hoaxes cover-ups artistic license censorship and generally bad science!
@mikeeboy1000 LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. Seriously, when was the last time you've looked in a biology book?
A dog dosen't decide to be a dinosaur and grows a reptile tail out of the blue, surely you can see the naivety in beliving that.
But I got good news, there IS evidence for transitional information, you know you have a tail as a fetus?, all birds have the same tail (vertebrae number) as dinosaurs?, you have knee hair and loose it in gestation?, snakes develop hip bones?.
Backtracing fetus gestation, is a window to evolution, look it up.
@bluesrockfan36 To help you out... a lot of dinosaurs didn't really disappear, they are still around in fact hidden in the genetic code of birds. Look up the research on this topic that McGill University has made on chickens... who are in fact how T-Rex survived the mass extinction or whats left from those days.
@mikeeboy1000 I refuse to believe that you are so incridibly stupid even though all evidence points towards you being stupid. I put faith into you being a youtube troll who just wants to get some angry responses out of people by writing total non-sense.
@urantivirus lol well isn't that just wonderful...he asks for proof of evolution because he's never seen a transitional fossil (or simply doesn't want to accept them as being transitional, which shows that he lacks a simple understanding of evolution) yet he seems to think grainy pictures and videos of ghosts and UFO meet the burden of proof...oh, the irony :)
Except, of course, that all that is required to presenty an example of a transitional fossil is to name one at random, because all fossils, indeed all organisms, are transitional. Ooops!
You ASSUME there is no Creator God, because you were taught that there is physical evidence of simple life, biologically evolving into highly complex systems, so you ASSUME that it occurs naturally! I was taught that rubbish too! I decided to LOOK at what Creationists were saying and soon found that no Physical Evidence has ever been discovered that even hints that biological evolution has occured, let alone could! Atheists simply wont let a Divine foot in the door! If God made you, he owns you!
Wrong again. We don't assume that there is no creator god, we simply no that there is no evidence to support the assumption that there IS. That's an important distinction. Science isn't even asking the question of whether or not there is a creator, because there is no evidence upon which to base a hypothesis, and no reason to invoke one, given the preponderance of natural phenomena that don't require one, and the complete lack of any phenomena that do.
The caller is a prime example of the average argumentative creationist. They simply use pure argument to prove their point, and they say whatever is needed to make you agree with them. As soon as you do, they assume they "won". This doesn't make them any more right, it just inflates their ego so as to interrupt you more and really listen to what you're saying less. They're really annoying.
If my knees were designed by an itnelligent being, can I get my money back? My 40 year old knees are a mess. I would have rathered Bosche be in charge of knees. God is crap!
are u kidding they give callers a great deal of time to explain themselves but it seems regardless of amount of time given, callers fail to answer questions when asked. they default back to repeating their no evidence argument. we spent the majority of the show wondering if he would respond to what does an unintelligently designed organism look like
@anubispfenix Yup, that's how intelligent design works. Having absolutely no evidence of any type to back up their claims, they're stuck repeating their tired BS about how evolution doesn't work.
A snowflake under a microscope appears to be both incredibly complex and to have been designed, and most people would have no idea how it could have formed as a result of natural causes, but a snowflake sure as heck isn't a product of intelligent design.
our brain needs analogies to understand some abstract concepts,like death,no one can know what it actually is,so we represent it as an skeleton dressed in black or as a black shadow,but death isn´t this at all.Our brain needs to see dna as a code to understand it,though it isn´t a code.
So, I'm curious about just one thing: this infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense point of matter, that made the entire universe from the Big Bang; where in the hell did it come from? And what was before this dot?
"before" is a time-concept, and according to our current models, time came into being along with the rest of the universe. The question actually makes no sense when looking at it in this light.
Not that the explanation makes intuitive sense to human beings. All we know are sequential events, one after the other.
Basically, though, the answer is that the question doesn't make sense.
I think you'll find a similar answer to this question, too, though there are a lot of ideas. One being the big-bang, big-crunch theory, which gives you the answer of an infinitely existing universe just bouncing in and out.
We've still LOADS to learn! That's what makes science so exciting!
Creationists are thinking about it backwards. The frog wasn't "made" to live in a bog, the frog exists because of the bog. Evolution is a reaction, not an action.
This Gary guy is so fucking stupid. He can't even realize that the bacterial flagellum was created long before the designed motors he is referencing. Can't he even try to realize that the mechanics that creates this motor mechanism in the bacterial flagellum be simulated in the human designed motors in a similar way that very early flying machine prototypes were modeled from bird flight. Gliders are another perfect example of this copying of nature the create something man made.
This creationist is quite cunning, not cunning enough however. The two atheists on-screen are absolutely intelligent, and are entirely able to defend the case for knowledge.
Digital cameras and boat motors are designed, and we can watch them being put together from raw materials. That's how we know they aren't natural and are designed; we can see the entire process of their design and construction occur in our presence. So-called "intelligent design" of life -cannot- be observed in-process. It can never be observed. Biological evolution on both the micro and macro levels has been observed and documented.
@captain150 exactly. there are things that have to happen for evolution to occur, such as reproduction. there is a video somewhere that shows that if you introduce these things into the watchmaker analogy, then a watch will actually evolve. and a pretty damn good one as well.
New Scientist did an expose on the flagellum about 3 years ago explaining the best theories on how it evolved...3 years ago. I know it's a basic stupid idea to hold but it is depressing to see adults fail to google when i managed it at 15
Letting the gin out of the bottle, right? Using this line of reasoning one can declare literally everything "intelligently designed". One only keeps wondering what kind of "intelligence" would produce so much crap...
Why are you doing this to yourself ? To me it just looks like you are unnecessary frustrating yourself since you are arguing against religious people about science. And by religious people I mean people that use their religion as a way to describe the world. You don't have to be a atheist or agnostic to see you people are right. But what is the point of still discussing about this ? Its been proven time and time again that only people who don't WANT to believe evolution reject it.
As far as i am aware flagellum's tail is not propelled by magnets, it is no more a motor than a muscle is a motor. Muscles drive motion therefore they are motors but if calling something a motor is a reference to modern mechanical motors than show where the magnets and brushes are.
We use mechanical references for natural processes, because that's how we think and that's how language works. We associate familiarities, and we convey our thoughts by translating them into words and symbols so that others know what we are thinking.
This guy is not arguing for Intelligent Design, but for intelligent language skills which he lacks lol.
The bacterial flagellum being completely reducible to simple yet functional parts says a lot about the probability of an intelligent designer. The purported designer would have made it look exactly like it wasn't designed but evolved part by part. A god doesn't have to use individual parts, DNA, molecules, atoms, etc. A designer could just make things out of all-purpose magic matter. Instead we have immense and arbitrary complexity.
Inductive argument but reason enough to side with evolution
The problem remains. It COULD be the case that a designer would hide its design, and it COULD be the case that the world was created with a supposed facticity, but how can you verify that such is the case? Is this even falsifiable? It is contingent upon the presupposition of a designer, because right now it looks like everything evolved naturally and introducing a designer into the picture is an unnecessary ad hoc that requires substantiation, not merely assumptions.
I can only see such an idea as having utility to those with the presupposition of a designer to rationalize the fact that all life really really really really looks like it evolved through natural means. It doesn't have any weight in an argument of evolution vs. creation.
@freethinker923 He's one of these guys that was indoctrinated to an extreme extent. He sounds like he could be an intelligent person, but he's absolutely determined to maintain the crumbling scaffold holding up his creationism.
Of course he doesn't understand evolution, I haven't met a creationist that does, but this is a guy that easily could. He really needs to have the confidence to admit that, yeah, his parents were wrong.
@captain150 Unfortunately, 1/12 people who were indoctrinated as a youth ever come to see the light of reality. It really is hardwired for most people, like an inpenetrable fortress of delusion. I am one of those who was able to break the trance, and for that I feel fortunate.
@freethinker923 I'm fortunate that I was never subjected to indoctrination in the first place. I'm 22 now and have thanked my parents, on more than one occasion, for encouraging my curiosity as a child. Among the most important lessons a parent should teach their child is that saying "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable.
The indoctrination alternative of "I don't know" is "god did it", and you know better than me how damaging that is.
Blah, blah, blah...ramble, wince, repeat. The usual equivocations, quibling over semantics, and preposterous presumptions of the uneducated faithful. If it weren't for the occasional comic relief associated with this "debate", I don't think I could bear the intellectual insult I suffer when I listen to these wastes of perfectly good carbon "argue" their "theory" (NOT) of ID.
@Elitistb616 actually the tomatoes I grow were a product of star dust! It even says on the package "these tomatoes grow best in an area with a lot of "space" lol
This has been flagged as spam show
Goods Vids. Very-Very Infomative..
Flusercom 1 month ago
hehehe. Good!!.. Thanks
Spasatcom 1 month ago
They took the caller apart.
ninuxy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Manifestations of God in Nature!
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
1tabligh 2 months ago in playlist Intelligent Design Intelligently Debunked
This has been flagged as spam show
8:40 Virginia... What? Did I miss a joke?
nolobede 2 months ago
Put some cheese in a jar wait 1 few days "BAM YOUR GOD"
ht448 2 months ago
Epic greenscreen fail at 1:20 :D
ZiqqiPH 2 months ago
00:38 Chansey! I had that one in pokemon card form.
ByTor190 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God exists, that's the accepted claim by the majority of people, you want to challenge that, bring the evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU. Some narrow minded atheist proposed the wrong notion that atheism doesn't require evidence and many gullible atheists had run to foolishly embrace it. Philosophically the burden of proof is in the argument challenging the establishment. What evidence you have that atheism is true? None, zero, nada. Open your eyes, you're being deceived by an evil cult.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
Comment removed
OrdinaryEvidence 4 months ago
After all that talk and blah blah blah, his entire point was nature does things similar to things men design so... voila...nature must be designed. That's it. End of summation. ID scientists must spend all of their day creating better obfuscations, because there's nothing much you can really do with that hypothesis.
rrpostalagain 5 months ago
"any single motor I've ever seen" @ 1:38
Guys, how do you keep from bashing your brains out on live TV?
VvDOPAMEANvV 5 months ago
DNA is totally a code. TAGC. Love you guys. x
MrCybin 7 months ago
This moron wouldn't have anything to say if he couldn't use words that he didn't understand.
holio84 8 months ago
Wow this guy is an idiot. Just because you make the analogy such as the eye is like a camera DOESN'T MAKE IT A FUCKING CAMERA.
wohodude100 9 months ago
i don't think the caller was very smart
aierce 9 months ago
Comment removed
lhurien 9 months ago
Good thing I'm not a host on this show. I'd hang up on all of these assholes that are too stubborn to challenge their need for an intelligent source of nature.
MrSamuelSpade 10 months ago
haahahahaha 5:33 epic facepalm by matt
managarm1349 10 months ago
We know it isn't intelligently designed! Damn! This is just as likely as saying god keeps planes in the air, and it just so happens that engineering seems to not need the idea of god holding the plane up--but god exists anyway, and flying planes is evidence.
greyeyed123 1 year ago 14
@greyeyed123 I've actually heard callers make that claim that God keeps the planes on the air. :)
Akira625 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You guys are bullies. Yes, your callers are generally full of errors, but you hound and batter them and don't give them a chance to speak. You jump down their throats and shout at them as soon as they say half a sentence. You make atheists look rude and cruel.
USERNAMEfieldempty 1 year ago
@USERNAMEfieldempty
The caller is spewing stupidity. THey arent being bullies they are making their points....the guy wont listen or cant understand. Their actions are justified.
ThieleM 11 months ago
Is a rock intelligently designed? If it is, then tell me more about it, its purpose and its irreducible complexity.
If it's not, then how can something exist that is not intelligently designed if god is the alleged creator of everything?
Or, which rocks are intelligently designed? What are their properties vs. non-designed rocks?
P0weredByPie 1 year ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice debate but we all know nothing. So vomit on.
madedigital 1 year ago
That's stem cells. So that's not from scratch. You must understand we as humans do have very crude designs when we attempt to mimic nature. A very poor imataion of life.we innovate never create everything on this planet is natural to this planet nothing is man. Made just man redesign and discovered. Onwards and upward for those who knows the that saying,like the host.
madedigital 1 year ago
@madedigital
"A very poor imataion of life.we innovate never create everything on this planet is natural to this planet nothing is man"
- your statements a little ridiculous, it would be like saying 'humans didnt create airoplanes because they didnt create the chemical elements'
types10000 1 year ago
@madedigital
it's not a matter of attack and defense, it's a matter of one side claiming magic is responsible for what is unknown and the otherside continuously disproving their claims as new information arises.
everytime we make a discovery the role of God becomes less.
types10000 1 year ago
Kenneth Miller, a roman catholic biologist has disproved the irreducible complexity of flagellum
marzbar619 1 year ago 2
At what point in development of Artificial Intelligence does the artificial get a soul, Are humans actually soulless beings? Whats a soul another system?
uilium 1 year ago
Ps I'm DYSLEX no appologie for my spelling. Letters and words are just a ism, I view as picture just like anyone else from the past. Onwards and upward, make that leap, Edwin Abbott did? Don't be so flat thinking not northwards upwards.
madedigital 1 year ago
I like your crowd but to me your just as bad as all the others with the answers same man different suit. I know you know nothing but to play with words and letters combined with language. What's true is, you are a bipedal and an intelligent one at that the best design for this planet. That's why we rule it. No arrogance just fact.oh did you find out how to make skin? Take your time human. This fencing with the sword of the mind is textbook attack and defense. That all what dialog is about now,
madedigital 1 year ago
Ok that's a good starting point for a response, but however, is there some point you would like to respond to regarding my comment.I felt that you armed yourself with a few very good tactical questions.what boring vomit digest this. When was the last time you had an original thought. Now I don't know you so don't take any of this personal. Ps, I'm not important, I'm very important to myself how you jugde me is your perpective. Thank you anyway, I feel less now what did you think of. My comment
madedigital 1 year ago
THE OTHER QUESTION, ARE YOU INTELLIGENT? NOTHING COULD NOT EXIST WITH OUT DESIGN. NOTHING WOULD WORK, LIKE A SHOP THAT DOES NOT FUNCTION WILL NOT LAST, IE NOT EXIST. SO THE REFLECTION OF (ID) IS THE VIOD OF SPACE. THE EVEDENCE OF ID IS ALL THAT IS NOT SPACE. THIS IS THE CONDITIONING OF ID & SPACE, FROM KNOWING COLD IS TO HOT
madedigital 1 year ago
Comment removed
fleskebror 1 year ago
@madedigital CAPS LOCK MEANS I'M IMPORTANT!
fleskebror 1 year ago
DNA IS LIKE LEGO AND MORE, IT CAN BE CONSTRUCTED IN TO MANY THINGS, BUT YOU NEED A DESIGN AND A DESIGNER. IF THERE IS NO INTELILIGENT DESIGN. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT ANYTHING SINCE ITS SIMPLE OR NO DESIGN. THEREFORE TO CREATE A SELF REPAIRING,BREATHABLE, WATERPROOF,INSALATED, UNIQUE FAMILURE GROWING, MEBRANE CALLED SKIN, IF YOU CAN CREATE JUST THAT ELEMENT OF THE BODY ....LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU DONE THAT. DUMB DESIGN.
madedigital 1 year ago
@madedigital ah, we can and have created skin by itself, in a lab
bigjohntattoo 1 year ago
@bigjohntattoo You said: "ah, we can and have created skin by itself, in a lab" How could "we create" skin "by itself"? That doesn't make sense. Unless all the material jumped out of whatever container held them and all came together in the test tubes all by themselves, then someone put them there - someone, therefore, designed the process - some creator - a chemist most likely.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
What leap? You can't say your eye is a camera - it's not a camera - a camera is a camera and an eye is eye. The leap is on their part.
12345678901234567844 1 year ago
If something 'appears' to have a design, why is it necessary to say that it has no design. Wouldn't it make more common sense to at least start with the idea that is was designed?
12345678901234567844 1 year ago
@12345678901234567844 you can say it has a design. for instance, my eye has the design necessary to perform its function. but we know that organs are developed through biological processes. to say my eye had a designer is a huge leap.
avalsonline2 1 year ago
@avalsonline2 It's hardly a leap. The leap is yours. To say the eye is biologically made is easy to say, but is so very shallow. It isn't the eye itself, but the very biological processes that proves the designer. You speak of a process - I speak of the processor. Your thinking is shallow, not deep enough. That is because you can't see past what that very organ can see, so therefore, you are unable to process the fact that there is more to it than what we can witness in the physical (cont)
12345678901234567844 1 year ago
@avalsonline2 You point to the process and call it the cause because the effect is the eye. That is so shallow, because the process itself is an effect. What is the cause of the process, the movement that causes the process, the purpose or intent, the reason or the reasoning behind it? And if the reason is another physical element then what is the cause of that and so on. Sooner or later it will come to mind that what ever the reason there was, indeed, a reason and a reasoner -God- or a creator.
12345678901234567844 1 year ago
@12345678901234567844 ok, pure and simple. what is the difference between things that are created by god and things that are not created by god? how do you differentiate the two?
avalsonline2 1 year ago
@avalsonline2 The fact that you even ask that question shows your place of grand HOPE. Let me just say, I think we can know that man brought the material together and made the car; but we can also know that God made the material, and brought them together to make man, and the material from which man used to make the car. Only a fool could say otherwise, because for anyone who's HOPE is in the truth can see it clearly, and can see the folly in asking the question you have just asked.
12345678901234567844 1 year ago
@avalsonline2 What would we say about a 3rd grade field trip demonstrating a machine that made candy - and a child says, "Teacher, you taught us that sugar is used to make candy. Does the machine make the sugar also?" We would smile and take joy in his wonderment. But what would we think of an adult who asked the same question?
12345678901234567844 1 year ago
@12345678901234567844 except once again you fail to realise that we know that sugar is a natural product of a plant. we have seen it happen. it is a fact. we know that a plant comes from seeds of similar plants. we know that plants, like any other life forms gradually change over time to adapt to their environment. but we have never observed a supernatural being creating the plant. so why would we believe the latter claim?
avalsonline2 1 year ago
@avalsonline2 Because there is no other plausible answer. Again, it is illogical to claim that anything so designed was not indeed designed. As I said, working back to a cause of anything, indeed all things, anytime you come to the material/s, i.e. the plant/seed in this case, even it's environment, one must dig deeper into these materials and ask for there very own cause/s. Nothing happens out of a vacuum - our own intellect, at some point must concede this - or else we delude ourselves.(cont)
12345678901234567844 1 year ago
@12345678901234567844 "Because there is no other plausible answer". well, then this is an argument from ignorance. we do not know how else it could have happened, therefore it must have been god. you know, i do not know how everything got started, but to automatically assume that the cause is supernatural is anti intelectual. you automatically negate any further inquiry into the matter by doing this. sorry. i will leave fairy tales for kindergarden
avalsonline2 1 year ago
@avalsonline2 Now you see, why do you guys always have to go there? Reduce your arguments to the level of being demeaning? If you don't agree with me, I don't know how to convince you; nor do I see any reason to try. If it's a matter of just not believing, then nobody's going to move you, I would assume. So I'll end where I began and simply say, look deeper, look to the movement. Things don't move or come together on there own. Find movement, find cause, find intent, find God. God bless.
12345678901234567844 1 year ago
@12345678901234567844 i go there because you have not given one shred of evidence for your supernatural creator. you have given me baseless assumptions. and i have no patience for baseless assumptions and assertions. soon as you have actual evidence, let me know
avalsonline2 1 year ago
@avalsonline2 You can't simply say that one material created another material and stop there - if you keep digging into what/who made the material, that made the material, that made the material and on and on - one must absolutely come to the conclusion of design or intent. How can it be otherwise? If you don't come to this conclusion, I SAY, you either haven't gone back far enough to suite your beloved skepticism, or you continue to wish a designer away with grand hope that you are right.
12345678901234567844 1 year ago
@avalsonline2 You said - "...we have never observed a supernatural being creating..." I say 2 things - 1) true, to a degree that we didn't see the beginning of the processes. That is one reason why I say you are shallow; because unless you see it, you won't believe it. 2) Yes, we have seen and do see a creator creating when we observe His processes.
12345678901234567844 1 year ago
@avalsonline2 Why is it, that for you, it is more reasonable to say...:"If something SEEMS to have been designed, it must have been made by natural processes,"... rather than to say... "If something SEEMS to have been designed it must have been designed?" Only because you don't think deep enough, is all I can think of -- unless it's just refusal to believe otherwise or wishing it to be so.
12345678901234567844 1 year ago
@avalsonline2 By your way of thinking, I could say of a car.."We can see that the car was made by natural processes because we can see with our eyes that that bolt holds up that part and that thing does this and that thing did this and so on - so therefore we have a car." You'd say that was some pretty shallow thinking because is completely discounts the person who cause all those things to happen. I have looked at the process, but left out the obvious processor.
12345678901234567844 1 year ago
@12345678901234567844
The first question isn't if it was designed, it's how was is created.
If you find a watch, and study it, you would say it's created by a person.
If you find a plant, and study it and other plants, you would see it comes from evolution.
It's about looking for the best answer, and thats never, "I donno, so lets say it was made by someone/thing that might or might not exist."
bebop7c2 8 months ago
@bebop7c2 Said: "If you...find...and study it and other plants, you would see it comes from evolution." Why? It's not been determined that plants come from evolution. In fact, the scientific evidence is that they are from intelligent design. There's no evidence for evolution there. There's only speculation until one, again, follows the parts (the material) back far enough to discover ID. Only a shallow, lazy mind would stop short of that, or a wishful thinker. (I am 123456...-name change)
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves We can trace trees back millions of years and see that they came from other, older, trees. Wollemi pine trees use to be everwhere in North America, but now there are only 100 of the trees left on earth.
It took millions of years but more modern trees were better suited for this environment so the older version of the pine tree died out. Wollemi pine trees are a transitional form between leaf trees and pine trees, and show that leafy trees evolved into pine trees. :)
bebop7c2 8 months ago
Respond to this video...The best answer is the scientific one - design - not the wishful thinking one - that it all happened by chance.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves You're right the best answer is a scientific one, evolution. Wishful thinking is believing in supernatural beings creating things, and leaving no evidence that they did it or even exist.
I don't think things happen by chance, there is a reason things are the way they are. You know evolution is a fact like gravity right?
bebop7c2 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves I actually thought you were making a joke. My bad. You actually think "design" is scientific. So your idea of what scientists do is look at something and say "hmmm, that thing is kind of like this other thing that people make. Let's go home, I'm staved"? It's like science by oafish analogy. I tried to use a key to start my cat the other day by using "design science" (y'know, it works for the motor in my car, why not "cat motors"?). Cat started right up, so I guess you're right.
rrpostalagain 5 months ago
It is not a straw man argument. They only say so because it does indeed make evolution look bad. It looks bad because it IS bad - is just plain bad science - in fact, it's not science at all. It's a wish - a strong desire to wish away God.
12345678901234567844 1 year ago
Why are all the inteligent design proponents so bloody stupid? Even when you explain to them that they are mistaken they just cant understand!
greeny202a 1 year ago
hahahaha. Zing *finger comes into frame* haha that was the best part of the video. i actually lol-ed
kiddhitta 1 year ago
can some one tell this moron that motors do not reproduce.
He can not equate leaving thing to non leaving things.
The Flagellant is a bacteria, and it reproduces.
It has bing proven that the parts of the Flagelland can exist independendt of the Flagellant.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
This debate is as rewarding as bashing your own head towards a brickwall
Tobbena 1 year ago
The brain is a computer, a computer is made by a intelligent being, therefore brains are designed. This was a argument I heard, and what this guy in this video is saying is just as retarded.
thesparitan 1 year ago
Miller covers "the flagellum argument" in his book "Only a Theory." By showing the link between the flagellum and Protein exporting systems in other bacterial life. The leap is just getting ID proponents to entertain the notion of evolution as all that is necessary for the complexity of life, a difficult leap to be sure, as most ID ( and religious, conservative, etc) proponents are "Hedgehogs" (Sir Isaiah Berlin, 1953) whereas science is the definitive "fox." You 2 are much more patient than me
mrvanderloo 1 year ago
I've been to Virginia. Matt makes a good point...
spikebarnett 1 year ago
DNA is a self-replicating molecule that has "encoded" within it the recipes for proteins. And that's it.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
I think the mistake the caller is making in his definition of intelligent design is that for thousand of years man has studied nature and designed systems based on this. As an engineer I could attempt to build a device for moving fluids or I could build off evolution and study natural evolved pumps. Just because the operation of the heart may match a piece of equipment doesn't mean it was intelligently designed
awlangham 1 year ago
"Because it resembles something designed it could be designed" ...So in some ways a dog resembles a cat, a dog is a cat?
moonled 1 year ago
Zing! :D
Edelibo 1 year ago
This reminds me of how religious believers always say that Darwin said that we come or evolved from apes... when in fact Darwin said that we have a common ancestor with apes. It should be obvious that apes still exist and that we haven't replaced them at all... but they always seem to misquote and misunderstand proper evolution. Also they often think the universe can't have come from nothing... when they themselves believe that God did create it from nothing... wich leads us to what created god.
GeofsFilms 1 year ago
All I ask for is ONE transitional fossil out of the manifold billions of fossils discovered, but not one! None between primitive and modern plants, Single cells and invertebrates, invertebrates and fish, fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, land mammals and sea mammals, non-flying mammals to bats, and apes to humans! Nada Zilch Zero Nothing at all but lies deception fraud hoaxes cover-ups artistic license censorship and generally bad science!
mikeeboy1000 1 year ago
@mikeeboy1000 learn how to read. or go to a damn museum. talk origins is a good website to start with.
janzaproductions 1 year ago
@mikeeboy1000 LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. Seriously, when was the last time you've looked in a biology book?
HybridD91 1 year ago
@mikeeboy1000
Don't know why I answering but anyways...
A dog dosen't decide to be a dinosaur and grows a reptile tail out of the blue, surely you can see the naivety in beliving that.
But I got good news, there IS evidence for transitional information, you know you have a tail as a fetus?, all birds have the same tail (vertebrae number) as dinosaurs?, you have knee hair and loose it in gestation?, snakes develop hip bones?.
Backtracing fetus gestation, is a window to evolution, look it up.
bluesrockfan36 1 year ago
@bluesrockfan36 To help you out... a lot of dinosaurs didn't really disappear, they are still around in fact hidden in the genetic code of birds. Look up the research on this topic that McGill University has made on chickens... who are in fact how T-Rex survived the mass extinction or whats left from those days.
GeofsFilms 1 year ago
@mikeeboy1000 I refuse to believe that you are so incridibly stupid even though all evidence points towards you being stupid. I put faith into you being a youtube troll who just wants to get some angry responses out of people by writing total non-sense.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead I'd like to believe that too. But he has over 400 UFO and ghost related videos fav'd on his channel.
urantivirus 1 year ago
@urantivirus lol well isn't that just wonderful...he asks for proof of evolution because he's never seen a transitional fossil (or simply doesn't want to accept them as being transitional, which shows that he lacks a simple understanding of evolution) yet he seems to think grainy pictures and videos of ghosts and UFO meet the burden of proof...oh, the irony :)
83Hammerhead 1 year ago 2
@mikeeboy1000
Except, of course, that all that is required to presenty an example of a transitional fossil is to name one at random, because all fossils, indeed all organisms, are transitional. Ooops!
hackenbollox 1 year ago
@mikeeboy1000 You need to actually open a scientific book, or web-site. Every animal form is transitional.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
You ASSUME there is no Creator God, because you were taught that there is physical evidence of simple life, biologically evolving into highly complex systems, so you ASSUME that it occurs naturally! I was taught that rubbish too! I decided to LOOK at what Creationists were saying and soon found that no Physical Evidence has ever been discovered that even hints that biological evolution has occured, let alone could! Atheists simply wont let a Divine foot in the door! If God made you, he owns you!
mikeeboy1000 1 year ago
@mikeeboy1000
Wrong again. We don't assume that there is no creator god, we simply no that there is no evidence to support the assumption that there IS. That's an important distinction. Science isn't even asking the question of whether or not there is a creator, because there is no evidence upon which to base a hypothesis, and no reason to invoke one, given the preponderance of natural phenomena that don't require one, and the complete lack of any phenomena that do.
Still failing.
hackenbollox 1 year ago
The caller is a prime example of the average argumentative creationist. They simply use pure argument to prove their point, and they say whatever is needed to make you agree with them. As soon as you do, they assume they "won". This doesn't make them any more right, it just inflates their ego so as to interrupt you more and really listen to what you're saying less. They're really annoying.
DanLightning 1 year ago
Favourite part: "-points- ZING!" Also, fantastic video :D
InsertYourBeliefHere 1 year ago
That idiot got pwned
algark 1 year ago
haha wow this is far one of the best argument videos ive ever seen before, this blew my mind away! great job!
TrueAgnosticMetal 1 year ago
If my knees were designed by an itnelligent being, can I get my money back? My 40 year old knees are a mess. I would have rathered Bosche be in charge of knees. God is crap!
MrAugustNidor 1 year ago
I wont how many people think computers think xD
MirageScience 1 year ago
1:25 vlc media player in background
E34BMW535i 1 year ago
this is painfull to watch
"gary" got funked up
anarchy3E 1 year ago
fact it is designed!
fact it was designed by an UN-INTELLIGENT natural process.
it is designed without the need of a concious being
robertwc82 1 year ago
are u kidding they give callers a great deal of time to explain themselves but it seems regardless of amount of time given, callers fail to answer questions when asked. they default back to repeating their no evidence argument. we spent the majority of the show wondering if he would respond to what does an unintelligently designed organism look like
anubispfenix 1 year ago 52
@anubispfenix Hold on, let me design something.
I'll show you what an unintelligently designed organism looks like.
Cyllid 1 year ago
@anubispfenix Yup, that's how intelligent design works. Having absolutely no evidence of any type to back up their claims, they're stuck repeating their tired BS about how evolution doesn't work.
Macrochenia 1 year ago
@anubispfenix -looks in mirror and points, picks up cat and points, looks out window and points at kids on playground....
kyrior 5 months ago
lmao, you guys are sooooo patient! Good for you, I don't know how you do it!
nosafespace 1 year ago 2
A snowflake under a microscope appears to be both incredibly complex and to have been designed, and most people would have no idea how it could have formed as a result of natural causes, but a snowflake sure as heck isn't a product of intelligent design.
comingatchu 1 year ago 2
@comingatchu Well we have a very good idea of how snowflakes form, it's just simple crystal structure.
ScienceGaveMeAHadron 1 year ago
Matt seriously needs to get some training at facepalming and desk-facemeeting, his exhasperation could be much better conveyed if he tried to xD
"I could breath with my mouth if I was in virginia" ???
Either Ive misheard that or Im completely missing it due to living in Europe :(
Azotadeth 1 year ago
Jesus Christ Sodomizing Muhammad.. one of the fucking responses is 'Science is a Religion.' For crapssake...
Manoichan 1 year ago
1:53 "Because we have evidence that it occurs naturally"
Sorry to say, but you missed the point there.
Because that it does occur naturally IS the actual challenge.
The reason why we so far can dismiss IC is BECAUSE it is falsifieable. And HAS BEEN falsified.
It makes a specific claim that CAN be tested. And didn't come out as predicted. So the thesis is dismissed. THAT is the point.
"Because it occurs naturally" is the same as "it looks designed" concerning validity of arguments.
TokayGris 1 year ago
Airplanes fly with wings .... birds fly with wings .... there must be a supernatural god!!!! Yay! Now I'm a creationist!! ........
Redbeardian 1 year ago
@Redbeardian
The funny thing is, people copied the idea of wings *from* birds.
aaaaaFuck 1 year ago
@Redbeardian welcome to the flock!! Please leave all reason at the door!
mythicalhell 1 year ago
lightning strikes resemble Morse code with short and long duration strikes,
lightning must be intelligently designed
deepwinter77 1 year ago
@deepwinter77
*Watches for theist conspirationist fans running out into electrical storms with a cam-corder, a notepad and a morse-code booklet*
....
Thats ok, I've got a nice comfy chair here, and its bound to happen sooner or later xD
Azotadeth 1 year ago
@Azotadeth
hehe :P
deepwinter77 1 year ago
our brain needs analogies to understand some abstract concepts,like death,no one can know what it actually is,so we represent it as an skeleton dressed in black or as a black shadow,but death isn´t this at all.Our brain needs to see dna as a code to understand it,though it isn´t a code.
MITHWORLD1 1 year ago
1 AND 3 PLAY FINE BUT 2 IS FAIL =(
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago 7
@GodKillerAtheist video 2 plays in full screen for me only ... a tip I found in it's comment section. May be worth a try.
Redbeardian 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist I'm having the same trouble... I was really getting into it at the end of the first vid too =(
DanLightning 1 year ago
@DanLightning Someone said try it on full screen or change the quality I never got it to work...=(
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist Oh hey, yeah, I switched it to 480p and it works, it's just going to take a while for it to load. LOL
Switch it to 480p and give it a min to see if it loads.
DanLightning 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist change the video format from 480p to 240p, seems to work for me.
huddd001 1 year ago
@huddd001 Yep got it awhile back Thanks =)
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
So, I'm curious about just one thing: this infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense point of matter, that made the entire universe from the Big Bang; where in the hell did it come from? And what was before this dot?
boomboom314159 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boomboom314159 - "And what was before this dot?"
"before" is a time-concept, and according to our current models, time came into being along with the rest of the universe. The question actually makes no sense when looking at it in this light.
Not that the explanation makes intuitive sense to human beings. All we know are sequential events, one after the other.
Basically, though, the answer is that the question doesn't make sense.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
@boomboom314159 - "where in the hell did it come from?"
I think you'll find a similar answer to this question, too, though there are a lot of ideas. One being the big-bang, big-crunch theory, which gives you the answer of an infinitely existing universe just bouncing in and out.
We've still LOADS to learn! That's what makes science so exciting!
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
Creationists are thinking about it backwards. The frog wasn't "made" to live in a bog, the frog exists because of the bog. Evolution is a reaction, not an action.
AfraidtoFly 1 year ago 2
@AfraidtoFly - Correct. It's the old 'the puddle thinks the hole in the ground must've been especially made for it'. 'Fraid not, Mr Puddle.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
This Gary guy is so fucking stupid. He can't even realize that the bacterial flagellum was created long before the designed motors he is referencing. Can't he even try to realize that the mechanics that creates this motor mechanism in the bacterial flagellum be simulated in the human designed motors in a similar way that very early flying machine prototypes were modeled from bird flight. Gliders are another perfect example of this copying of nature the create something man made.
darrenc182 1 year ago
After listening to this guy, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that I don't have enough breadcrumbs to get home.....
Diomedes01 1 year ago
This creationist is quite cunning, not cunning enough however. The two atheists on-screen are absolutely intelligent, and are entirely able to defend the case for knowledge.
I like'd this!
GuBB3rGuN 1 year ago
Digital cameras and boat motors are designed, and we can watch them being put together from raw materials. That's how we know they aren't natural and are designed; we can see the entire process of their design and construction occur in our presence. So-called "intelligent design" of life -cannot- be observed in-process. It can never be observed. Biological evolution on both the micro and macro levels has been observed and documented.
Pirwzwhomper 1 year ago
@Pirwzwhomper What I like to say is; do digital cameras or boat motors reproduce with variation? Do they struggle for resources?
The living VS non-living distinction is hugely important for me, and demonstrates how pathetic the watchmaker analogy really is.
captain150 1 year ago
@captain150 exactly. there are things that have to happen for evolution to occur, such as reproduction. there is a video somewhere that shows that if you introduce these things into the watchmaker analogy, then a watch will actually evolve. and a pretty damn good one as well.
mephistophile33 1 year ago
Isn't argument from analogy a logical fallacy?
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
Here is an EASY way to refute him:
1) Scientists use the word "motor" for the flagellum
2) Every motor I've ever seen is designed isn't it?
3) No, the bacterial flagellum is not designed. Done
Craigipedia 1 year ago
WOW. A guy from Texas calling Virginians mouth-breathers. Pot, meet kettle.
themishkin 1 year ago
New Scientist did an expose on the flagellum about 3 years ago explaining the best theories on how it evolved...3 years ago. I know it's a basic stupid idea to hold but it is depressing to see adults fail to google when i managed it at 15
ojjy1111 1 year ago
There are hundreds of motors inside me!
Jussimania 1 year ago
This caller is definitly closed-mind... Please, open your eyes! Can't you see you're blind?
6alexa6gothic6 1 year ago
For some reason I can't post a video response.....so peep this
/watch?v=zSVL7IeZOik
drukenhard 1 year ago
Letting the gin out of the bottle, right? Using this line of reasoning one can declare literally everything "intelligently designed". One only keeps wondering what kind of "intelligence" would produce so much crap...
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
Why are you doing this to yourself ? To me it just looks like you are unnecessary frustrating yourself since you are arguing against religious people about science. And by religious people I mean people that use their religion as a way to describe the world. You don't have to be a atheist or agnostic to see you people are right. But what is the point of still discussing about this ? Its been proven time and time again that only people who don't WANT to believe evolution reject it.
ForYeensSake 1 year ago
Can't believe we're still having these arguments in 2010!!
BeforeTheNoose 1 year ago
Matt´s closing message is kind of creepy.
(that said I still love Matt dearly)
mrfoxtalbot 1 year ago
As far as i am aware flagellum's tail is not propelled by magnets, it is no more a motor than a muscle is a motor. Muscles drive motion therefore they are motors but if calling something a motor is a reference to modern mechanical motors than show where the magnets and brushes are.
ooglebydoogleby 1 year ago
If a tree falls accross a stream, is it a bridge?
Of course not, but it doesn't mean that the tree doesn't represent a bridge.
brendankhoury 1 year ago 2
@brendankhoury That is a very good example. My own would be:
"Feasting Vikings in a Hall sound like thunder. Therefore, thunder is feasting Vikingsi n Valhalla"
lagerbaer 1 year ago
We use mechanical references for natural processes, because that's how we think and that's how language works. We associate familiarities, and we convey our thoughts by translating them into words and symbols so that others know what we are thinking.
This guy is not arguing for Intelligent Design, but for intelligent language skills which he lacks lol.
poorkinghaggard 1 year ago
8:38
Mahagawaga 1 year ago
The bacterial flagellum being completely reducible to simple yet functional parts says a lot about the probability of an intelligent designer. The purported designer would have made it look exactly like it wasn't designed but evolved part by part. A god doesn't have to use individual parts, DNA, molecules, atoms, etc. A designer could just make things out of all-purpose magic matter. Instead we have immense and arbitrary complexity.
Inductive argument but reason enough to side with evolution
StabbyRaccoon 1 year ago
@StabbyRaccoon
A designer that would hide it's design? Look up the Omphalos hypothesis.
SCRulerShinoda 1 year ago
@SCRulerShinoda
The problem remains. It COULD be the case that a designer would hide its design, and it COULD be the case that the world was created with a supposed facticity, but how can you verify that such is the case? Is this even falsifiable? It is contingent upon the presupposition of a designer, because right now it looks like everything evolved naturally and introducing a designer into the picture is an unnecessary ad hoc that requires substantiation, not merely assumptions.
StabbyRaccoon 1 year ago
@SCRulerShinoda
I can only see such an idea as having utility to those with the presupposition of a designer to rationalize the fact that all life really really really really looks like it evolved through natural means. It doesn't have any weight in an argument of evolution vs. creation.
StabbyRaccoon 1 year ago
Pinecones are getting smaller...therefore god exists.
freethinker923 1 year ago
Poor Gary. Gotta give ya an A for effort.
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 He's one of these guys that was indoctrinated to an extreme extent. He sounds like he could be an intelligent person, but he's absolutely determined to maintain the crumbling scaffold holding up his creationism.
Of course he doesn't understand evolution, I haven't met a creationist that does, but this is a guy that easily could. He really needs to have the confidence to admit that, yeah, his parents were wrong.
captain150 1 year ago
@captain150 Unfortunately, 1/12 people who were indoctrinated as a youth ever come to see the light of reality. It really is hardwired for most people, like an inpenetrable fortress of delusion. I am one of those who was able to break the trance, and for that I feel fortunate.
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 I'm fortunate that I was never subjected to indoctrination in the first place. I'm 22 now and have thanked my parents, on more than one occasion, for encouraging my curiosity as a child. Among the most important lessons a parent should teach their child is that saying "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable.
The indoctrination alternative of "I don't know" is "god did it", and you know better than me how damaging that is.
captain150 1 year ago
Blah, blah, blah...ramble, wince, repeat. The usual equivocations, quibling over semantics, and preposterous presumptions of the uneducated faithful. If it weren't for the occasional comic relief associated with this "debate", I don't think I could bear the intellectual insult I suffer when I listen to these wastes of perfectly good carbon "argue" their "theory" (NOT) of ID.
KCKatheist 1 year ago
you take away H20 is designed because when you take away O it's not water anymore!! intelligent design!!! lol
gskowal 1 year ago
Colors were designed so things could look pretty and not borring.. lol
gskowal 1 year ago
that man just does not get it...
gskowal 1 year ago
Tornadoes are like vacuum cleaners. CLEARLY tornadoes are intelligently designed and not a product of meteorological phenomena.
Elitistb616 1 year ago 52
@Elitistb616 Holy shit! Does that mean my cousin in Kansas can sue Hoover?
JonO387 1 year ago
@Elitistb616 <--- What he said. Tornadoes are clearly intelligently designed...i'm convinced.
R3APER24 1 year ago
@Elitistb616 actually the tomatoes I grow were a product of star dust! It even says on the package "these tomatoes grow best in an area with a lot of "space" lol
mythicalhell 1 year ago 2
@Elitistb616
Now thats one "intelligent design" I wouldnt want in my home.
I'll stick with the vacuum cleaner thanks :3
Azotadeth 1 year ago
@Elitistb616
Awesome. Got to remember that one.
laflugantabastardo