The Inadequacy of Intelligent Design 3/3

The eminent evolutionary biologist Francisco J. Ayala presents his opening case for the inadequacy of intelligent design at Indiana University. He was debating the prominent Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Francisco
• J.
• Ayala
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Intelligent
• Design
• Evolution

[evewale]

where's dr craigs part of the debate??

[Christianjr4]

@evewale

Hi evewale. See my channel for Craig's opening statements. You can find the videos by looking at the most recent ones (ie. "date added").

[goodbryan]

That is just not what it means to be a creationist. You can accept evolution and believe in God. You can believe god startet the process of evolution.

A creationist does not accept evolution.

[itry2brational]

You're delusional. Copy/Paste:

Lichtspielhaus234 (4 days ago)

"cont.. Animals do kill for survival, that would appear reasonable for them. Yes, but you brought up the animal argument not I. Not entirely unknowable, unprovable? Well logic suggest cause and effect. Undefinable? Yes, you can not simply define God, because you can not completely understand Him."

YouTube sends me responses to my comments via an email. Check the All Comments page, dude.

I'll be happy to accept an apology.

[itry2brational]

Lichtspielhaus234,

If you are saying that we do not know what is causing the universe to expand, I would say...I AGREE! We don't know! But the point is, we are observing it expanding!!

"So, you're speculating as well."

Are you saying there ARE people who HAVE observed what happened before the big bang?? No? Then I am not speculating, we don't know what happened 'before' the big bang.

You are descending into ridiculousness when you deny simple observation and inductive reasoning.

[itry2brational]

"You're being dishonest and quote mining without answering the question."

What question have I not answered?

"yet you deny faith"

Who is really being dishonest? Where have I denied faith??

Look, by your own logic and standards you have invalidated the concept of God. I did not quote mine, I quoted the entire premise! I suppose you telling me you were "off to bed" was material to your 'cause effect' validation argument??? Give me a break!

[itry2brational]

"@itry2brational I didn't say this, who are you quoting?

I did not make that statement, who are you quoting???"

If you mean this:

"Undefinable? Yes, you can not simply define God, because you can not completely understand Him."

I am quoting you. According to YouTube you wrote that 4 days ago. I even have it in my email.

[itry2brational]

"Remember, you can not validate a cause by the effect, the cause must be observed. In other words, you can not claim a fact that an unobserved cause was responsible for an observable effect."

Then you have proven that the concept of God is invalid. Thank you.

[itry2brational]

"Now, why is your unobserved cause not faith, and my unobserved cause faith?"

Because the big bang is based on observations. We OBSERVE the universe is expanding. If its expanding currently, that logically means it was contracted to a smaller size before. Ipso facto.

Basic physics, which by the way are only usefully to within billionths of a second after expansion 'began'...beyond that, we simply don't know.

On the other hand, you admit you are "speculating".

[itry2brational]

"Exactly. What prevents a mother from killing her babies?"

You tell me! lol

"Oh so you're saying that it's not valid because their not "social" I see, "moving the goal posts"?"

Not at all. Concepts of morality and altruism are defined by interaction in social structures. Those concepts are simply inapplicable to solitary animals. If you can, lets hear it (this should be funny). Otherwise, all you did was create another false analogy, which you have been prone to do.