Perry Marshall - Origin of Life

Perry Marshall, better known for his Google AdWords marketing lectures, delivers a speech on the issues of the origin of life, God, creation vs. evolution, classic Darwinism and DNA, offering a communications engineer's fresh new perspective on the age-old conflict between science and religion.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Perry
• Marshall
• origin
• life
• God
• creation
• evolution
• Jesus
• Christ
• Christianity
• Gospel
• word
• communication
• Charles
• Darwin
• Darwinism
• DNA
• mutation
• information
• science
• religion

[KevZen2000]

The problem with 'science' like Intelligent Design, is that its mostly based off of pointing out gaps within present day science, and then it tries to place God or some designer in its place. Its true that science cannot explain alot of stuff, including the cause of the origin of the universe, before the Big Bang, and biology cannot explain empirically what caused the first life one Earth, or the universe, but neither can saying a designer did it.

[maxavail]

@KevZen2000 Actually,saying that a designer did it does expedite the question very effectively, that's why proponents of ID use this argument. You should also note that ID does contain scientific descriptions of the process of design and this video is such an attempt,perhaps incomplete or partly flawed. Even though we don't know much about our beginning, we know enough to make God at least plausible and that's all we need to get people thinking about the possibility of His existence.

[KevZen2000]

Even if there was a designer, you can only explain the process of the 'design,' within the field of science, so to make Intelligent Design, a science, you are left with no results at all. We can take ants, and they can imagine that a designer designed the ant farm they live in, but unless the ants have a method to explain the designing process of the farm, then you are outside of science, and until this process is discovered, agnosticism is the best conclusion, such as what we are left with.

[maxavail]

@tellnet I didn't need you to point me to a dictionary definition, my request was for you to point out how that definition applied to me. You didn't do that because you can't, you're just a venom sputter, easiest thing to be. My alleged "dishonesty" was a slip and a slip is the only thing I admitted to. Fact of the matter remains, random mutations in evolution are a busted myth, Darwin was wrong and so are you. You're free to leave this page at any time, do not feel compelled to answer back.

[tellnet]

@maxavail

I have no further interest in your disingenuous semantic ramblings.

Check out "obscurantism" in a dictionary.

It refers to idiots who warp reality to suit their particular perspective - it is the folly of an unjustifiable defenceless position.

You have admitted your dishonesty ("random evolution") - Ergo the veracity of any further utterance on your part is not only suspect, but decidedly unworthy of any response.

GET AN EDUCATION.

[maxavail]

@tellnet why does it refer to me ? do you have arguments for that ? don't make a fool of yourself. explain if you have any arguments.

[maxavail]

@tellnet Firstly, "random evolution" was a slip, I admit, I should have said "random mutations". Secondly, did you even READ the article ? That is the final conclusion of it. Natural genetic engineering answers the objections to conventional theory raised by intelligent design advocates. But what were these tenets of conventional theory ? Well, for one, the idea that mutations occurred randomly. Turns out they DON'T, they're ENGINEERED. Engineered and designed are synonymous..

[tellnet]

@maxavail

COPIED and PASTED:

"It also answers the objections to conventional theory raised by intelligent design advocates, because evolution by natural genetic engineering has the capacity to generate complex novelties. In other words, our best defense against anti-science obscurantism comes from the study of mobile DNA because that is the subject that has most significantly transformed evolution from natural history into a vibrant empirical science. "

.

"obscurantism" refers to YOU.

[tellnet]

You are a typical creationist LIAR.

The ONLY place in that article where the word DESIGN appears is in the following sentence:

"It also answers the objections to conventional theory raised by intelligent design advocates"

You are willfully ignorant.

And....

There is no such thing as "random evolution".

GET AN EDUCATION.

[maxavail]

@tellnet Speaking of ignorance, take a look at this link, where professor James Shapiro proves Darwin wrong by showing that hereditary variation arises from the NON-RANDOM action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic ENGINEERING a.k.a. DESIGN (notice the Caps):

htt p://ww w.mobilednajournal. com/content/1/1/4

To put it shortly, the only kind of evolution that happens is the one DESIGNED to happen. No evidence exists for random evolution.