Even if one doesn't postulate intelligent design, one cannot help to acknowledge the big diifficulties Darwinian theory seems to have when it comes to explaining crucial mechanisms of evolution. Apart from that it doesn' deal with the origin of life at all.
Nor does gravity explain electromagnetism, which is not a difficulty or problem with gravity, because one can simply apply electromagnetism to explain ElectroMagnetic phenomenon. (This type of simple common sense seems to be too much for many creationists to handle. When they don't get an answer reducing everything to one "purpose", the same mode of operation they use, their heads explode or they go into denial mode). Complaining that gravity doesn't explain E&M, or evolution doesn't explain life origins, or a hammer doesn't work as a pillow AND and spoon AND a blanket AND can't be eaten for food, is *total insanity* and denial of reality. If you want to be spoon-fed like an infantile child screaming for mommy's teat, you want the bible, quran, vedas and the world's religions. If you want reliable, accurate, detailed, specific, predictive, quantifiable, unambiguous, objective, falsifiable knowledge about the external universe, your only choice is science. If science hasn't yet addressed some part of the universe you want to know about, as it hadn't for ALL parts at some time in history, then you will be disappointed. What do you want? True/accurate/reliable knowledge or to suck mommy's teat? Science is modular and focused. That's what makes it work properly and successfully. All attempts to explain everything at once are doomed to fail in the presence of incomplete information and limited knowledge. Science explains parts it can, and makes no attempt to unify or explain other parts when there is not enough information or evidence to meet its standard. Religion doesn't have this "problem" because religion prioritizes creating _any_ answer, true or false, over everything else. The goal is to give people something to eat and fill a void, even if the "food" is totally unhealthy (i.e. untrue). "big difficulties Darwinian theory seems to have when it comes to explaining crucial mechanisms of evolution" As explained above, science defers to parts. Google: *physical mechanisms of mutation* for example, to see how physics and chemistry explain that. My guess is you won't, because you have no interest in true knowledge, only things that make you "happy", like a little baby. Google *genetic drift, sexual selection* (other mechanisms of evolution).
@@ja31472 Um, you do realize design is one of the only two causes for material structures in the universe, right? Literally everything in the universe is either designed or formed via natural causes. Your bigoted diatribe simply cannot change that brute fact of reality; those who deny the reality of design for ideological reasons hinder scientific progress. I have to laugh at the mental knots evolutionists twist themselves in order to support their theory. If you need to deny observable reality to support your theory doesn't that tell you that your theory does not conform to science?
@@stevedoetsch "you do realize design is one of the only two causes for material structures in the universe" You do realize that the *only scientifically demonstrated cause of design/intelligence/consciousness is natural processes* ? It is a fact that the only verified, observed, scientifically demonstrated intelligences in this universe are inside animal brains, *which totally depend on natural processes, laws of chemistry and physics.* Ask a neuroscientist how laws of physics and chemistry allow you to think, feel and ponder a fictional god. While your at it, as a biologist and biochemist how natural processes allow you to live. "Literally everything in the universe is either designed or formed via natural causes." Those things in this universe that are designed (by animal brains) depend on, exist, change and function by natural processes, laws of chemistry and physics. Ask a neuroscientist how laws of physics and chemistry _allow_ you to think, feel and ponder a fictional god you've never observed once. "Your bigoted diatribe simply cannot change that brute fact of reality" Your totally ignorant, warped worldview simply cannot change the fact that matter/energy comes _before_ minds, in all observed cases, and NEVER the reverse. "those who deny the reality of design" You deny the source and cause of intelligence in brains like yours (natural laws and processes). You also deny the reality of why design (created by human brains, which are created by natural processes) exists in the first place. Ask a neuroscientist how your brain works. Ask them how laws of physics and chemistry _allow you_ to think, feel and ponder a fictional god. After you understand that, get on your knees and worship what keeps you alive right now, laws of physics that allow your heart to pump blood, blood to flow and lungs to breath; blind, soulless, mindless physical processes that allow all molecules in your body to react and transform, healing your wounds. Regardless of any religious philosophies _that depend on brain function, which depend on natural laws to exist,_ and help you lead a better life or forget all your pain and suffering, NONE of those religious ideas would matter if it wasn't electromagnetism, for example, that allows your neurons to fire, brain to work, and contemplate that philosophy. "I have to laugh at the mental knots evolutionists twist themselves in order to support their theory" I have to laugh at the mental knots creationists twist themselves in order to support their theory (that you can have a mind without natural processes). Mind before matter is a total, unproven theory and fiction. All observed/observable minds depend on matter/energy and natural processes to work, exist and function. "If you need to deny observable reality to support your theory doesn't that tell you that your theory does not conform to science?" If you need to deny observable reality (that all observed minds depend on natural processes to function) to support your theory, doesn't that tell you that your theory does not conform to science?
@@ja31472 you’re obviously as passionate about your paradigm as a religious individual would be about his. Indulge me if you will. Haven’t you fathomed the reality that Genetic information is in essence Information. ? And the fact that we can read it and decipher it’s language entail an intelligent cause. Albeit it’s against your creed of methodological naturalism.
@@garsayfsomali You're mistaking passion for something else, basic knowledge of science and logic perhaps, because that is where all of the mistakes in creationists' claims lie. Even yours. If someone says the earth is not a sphere or 1 + 2 = 12, and I give a detailed, thorough response (because I'm well-educated on those things), that is not passion, merely knowledge and being detail-oriented, which I can't really help, being part engineer. "creed of methodological naturalism" MN is a *method,* not a creed, lol "Dr". It's even included in the name. "Haven’t you fathomed the reality that Genetic information is in essence Information" Right, because humans (with DNA-based, cell-based, chemistry-based, physics-based, matter/energy-based brains that create information from sensory input and observables) have *called it* information or *used it as* information, which can be done for *any observable.* DNA is information (starting _AFTER_ its discovery and not before) because it consists of physical observables and material attributes that have been co-opted by humans for that use, just like I can use a rock as a hammer, paperweight or weapon; or as some people use an anus as a vagina. Does the philosophy and psychology of "using something as something" escape all creationists? I think so. Prove me wrong. Show me (don't just tell me, SHOW, i.e. scientifically demonstrate) a mind without DNA and you will be world-famous and make intelligent design a legitimate scientific possibility [2] (but not an inevitability). Likewise if you demonstrate "pure" information without a physical observable attached to it, or a chemistry-based brain creating and labeling observables as information. Haven't you fathomed the reality that without a physical observable or some measurable material property and without some physical brain observing and creating meaning from that observable, there would be no information [stored in the brain of the observer, NOT in the observable]. Haven’t you fathomed the reality that anything, including information [1], can be *used as* information, as I use a rock as a hammer, paperweight or weapon? *Any physical property or attribute can be assigned a name, symbol, code, or linguistic representation that "contains" information* (in the mind of the observer, NOT the object of observation). Haven’t you fathomed the reality that once called information or used as information by a human, that in no way proves or demonstrates: 1) There exists any other intelligence that once did the same thing you did, sometime in the past, to the same observable. 2) That intelligence had something to do with its existence. The location of the information, where it exists, is *NOT in or on the observable* (in this case DNA), *it is inside the mind of the observer,* in this case humans, and is dependent on that mind functioning and retaining thought and memory of the meaning of the *observable being used as information.* Ignorant creationists and lay-people see science, the human-created system, constructs, frameworks, models, laws, languages, rules, symbols, etc., and make at least three mistakes: 1) They think those human-created constructs in science existed before humans, and hence the status of DNA as information existed before humans and is "transcendental" or infinite. 2) They think that entails something intelligent like humans existed and was involved in causation or existence of the observable, sometime in the past. 3) They think that symbols, meanings and concepts (such as information) that humans create in their minds and then "paint" onto external observables (like DNA), actually exist outside of the human mind before it was observed and "painted". The status of DNA as information is totally dependent on the human observer, and hence the biological/chemical/physical processes occurring inside the brain that allows humans to think in the first place. Either way, information is dependent on matter/energy and natural laws that allow brains to function and create concepts like genetic information. If all humans ceased to exist right now DNA in other animals, and everything else would continue to operate _exactly_ as it did before humans called it information. Why, because DNA's status as information (according to humans only) is not what makes it work and grants all function; it is unconscious natural laws and mindless physical processes doing all that heavy lifting, that humans philosophically abstract into nice, convenient, understandable, relatable packages and terms like "information", "codes", "transcription", "translation", etc., all of which have anthropomorphic meanings that do not auto-magically generalize to places and times humans did not exist. Certainly not to prebiotic earth 3.5 billion years ago. All known intelligence requires DNA (and cells, chemistry, physics, matter/energy and natural laws) to exist. ID is not a scientific possibility at this time. It is in the domain of philosophy of mind, religions, fantasy, and wish-thinking only. [1] For example, "5 bytes" is information about information. It tells how much information there is. [2] By "mind without DNA", I mean something not causally dependent on DNA, as computer AIs are. So far there is no evidence for any minds that don't rely on DNA, and since ID says a mind created DNA, ID has one of two problems prevent it being legitimate science, either it has a circular dependency or has a faith-based, unproven assumption, that minds can exist without DNA (or cells, chemistry, physics, matter/energy) that humans require (and human-created AIs require).
What Michael Behe says about the irreducible complexity in the flagellum of the cell is actually not irreducible, because part of the flagellum motor is the secretory system and does secretory work in other cells.
What a breath taking thought provoking lecture.... we know little to nothing !!! Bugs me greatly that the experts can’t seem to just admit it !!! Wonderful presentation
Christian Barker - Get a grip, this man has been desperately trying to find just one example of 'design' and has yet to fine one! The flagellum has evolved from simpler forms, just like the eye has. Look it up and you'll see how this happened and what structures have been repurposed in its Evolution to arrive at where it is today. Everything points to Evolution, nothing points to Creation or Design.
@@rogerfroud300 who am I kidding. we are just a speck of dust. Feelings doesn't exists as science can't prove them as they are just mere chemicals. love is fake. We don't have morality. We don't have consciousness. Everything which can't be proved must be false.
@@akashverma4280 - Evolution runs at many speeds. Elephants and Viruses both evolved and are still evolving. How about you tell us all the evidence you have for Creation? You complain about Evolution, for which there is a vast treasure trove of evidence, yet you don't offer any of your own. Why is that? Could it be that there simply isn't any? Go on Genius, let's hear your evidence for Creation, we're all ears.
@@akashverma4280 - Wrong yet again. Science just explains what it can, and investigates the things it doesn't know about. Morality certainly does exist, it's been evolving since creatures have been able to think. You can see how human morality has Evolved since the Old Testament, where Rape, Murder and Genocide were carried out in God's name and with his direction. If you want to know about morals, the last place to look is the Bible!
I don't blame Darwin. He had NO idea of the "information" necessary to create and sustain life occurred. During his time, as Behe mentions, they thought life was just "dirty water." Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
I really liked his humbleness in a humors way when he said that he named it irreducible complexity to make people think he is smart. I was thinking about this myself, I was thinking that most humanity were believing in God because they knew that it is impossible for all this complex universe, all these complex animals and complex humans to exit together without a creator, they just didn't know to give it such a fancy name like irreducible complexity.
Questions were about items that Michael covered in Darwin's Black Box. I don't think these people even read the book. Macro-evolution (evolution of body plans) is not falsifiable, therefore it is not a scientific theory.
Correct, evolution is the only major scientific theory proposed without any mathematics; it makes no predictions and cannot be falsified because it's just a story about the past through which to interpret the data. The theory itself is not proven by the data.
Behe’s arguments are very strong and sound. It is true that the scientific community is dead set against allowing criticism of Darwin’s theory, but Darwin had no explanation for the origin of life. Darwin left that to succeeding generations of scientist who have not made much progress other than to demonstrate the improbability of abiogenesis which atheistic theories of the origin of life assume. Darwin’s theory is NOT meant to explain the origin of life but merely the origin of species GIVEN life! It does a very poor job at that.
Shame his arguments are based on.... hmmmm, nothing. The science community is not dead set against criticism of Darwin't theory. That fact is demonstrated endlessly in creationist quote mining work. Criticism is strong and continuous. That's howcome there has been so much new work. Abiogenesis is making progress but is far from being solved. That makes no actual difference. Evolution is a very real thing.
ozowen evolution is a very real thing? Well, there is some suggestion that all life is somehow related, Common systems suggest that. Evolution was an idea that goes back to the ancient Greeks, hardly Darwin’s idea. Darwin’s idea was evolution by ‘Random Mutation and Natural Selection’. THAT is falling apart as the Random Mutation motif has been demonstrated to be incapable of creating the complexity of systems and information we find. Losing Anthony Flew was the deathknell for Random Mutation.
@@roberttormey4312 How strange, I take it you do all your reading on this subject within the confines of the ID/ creationist bubble? Random selection is hardly "falling apart" as the source material for Natural Selection to work on to increase complexity. Where is you source for this claim? Papers are constantly showing how mutations are responsible for evolution being able to happen. (Hint: actual scientific papers, not someone's youtube video)
@@ozowen5961 , there is too much of cheerleading for claims supporting one's own beliefs and cynicism for claims contrary to one's own belief. We should be using healthy skepticism equally to claims regardless of our beliefs. Most realize the observations of a level of life adapting and of life being similar. But you seem to use an extreme extrapolation to assume that cell to man is a given. To me this is more a statement of your faith. I don't think it impossible but I look to valid experiments showing such. What experiment shows how we by design have shown any major adaptation could have occurred naturally?
@@allenrhoades8482 It's hardly a matter of faith. 1) The fossil record is a record of trait appearance. The order of traits such as eyes, wings, limbs, spines, hips, joints, seeds, sexual reproduction or pretty much any trait is robust. That isn't extrapolation. It is observed in the fossil record and is explained by evolution. In the 1800's this disturbed scientists so much that they concluded for a while that perhaps God killed off creatures then started again and yet again in constant extinction and reboot plans. 2) Sequenced genomes can be compared. This not only reveals similarity. It also reveals shared heritages/ ancestry. For example, all humans share 14 markers of viral infections traced back to shared ancestors. (certainly viral, certainly shared and certainly random placement markers- meaning they're not coincidental) 3) We share these genetic markers of ancestry with chimpanzees and others with other primates. Making a very robust means of showing we evolved and the order of that evolution. 4) Many of those markers are now partially employed by the genome, meaning beneficial mutations were derived from inserted viral sequences.
The guy electronic engineer, the answer is in your question: you yourself said: "we developed... we improve". Your micro processor will not develop by themselves... stupid question
exactly, its crazy to me that people using that argument dont see that. It takes mind and inteligence to create chip and keep improving it. Nobody who goes to shore and sees simples transistor says oh this came out by waves over milions of years
From Lehigh University Department position on evolution and "intelligent design" The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
@@timid3000 Are you saying that is is a shame, that not all his colleagues fall back to a mind set of a medieval peasant , where they attemt to solve one mystery by appealing to another, which happens to come in the form of a divine entity? Because it sounds a lot like you are saying exactly that.
@@derhafi Pretty much, yeah. It’s unfortunate that people and especially academics are so thoroughly brainwashed. For grown adults to believe that a sea slug can randomly mutate into a human or a Peacock and believe so minus any tangible evidence is quite alarming. I was one of those brainwashed people not too long ago but having taken interest in the debate I’ve come to see how painfully obvious it is that ID proponents are winning. They’re mocked, ridiculed and straw manned constantly, because they’re winning.
@@timid3000 This certainly is a way to make it clear that you have not the faintest grasp on science. You might not be aware of this, I’m certain you aren’t, but you put people in a position where they don’t know how to reply. Not because there would not be an adequate response, but it is just hard to decide where to begin. The foundation of knowledge one would need to impart into you, before we could even begin to drag you out of your sinkhole of ignorance is just indescribable vast and would cost thousands of dollars..
@@derhafi Lol, you're projecting Rob. You're brainwashed my friend, just another sad fanatic of pseudoscience. You'll be telling me next that the earth is a big spinning ball! Bless your heart.
Irreducible Complexity: Irreducible complexity simply means that certain mechanisms, be they mechanical or biological, require all of the essential parts in place to function. If you deny that, then you are incredibly unlearned. You do know what the word 'essential' means? And you must know that right in front of you and all around you are devices that will not function if an essential part is broken or missing. Each claim for irreducible complexity must certainly be examined individually not categorically since there are obvious examples that are not irreducibly complex. However, there are other examples that cannot easily be dismissed. Understand that no scientist or engineer claims irreducible complexity is not a valid concept. Very simply, a mechanism cannot run without all of its ESSENTIAL parts. No one questions that. It is in fact, a self-evident statement, that always holds true. The real issue with IC is whether a partial mechanism or organ can remain around long enough to become useful before natural selection eliminates it. All I have heard from those trying to refute irreducible complexity are imaginary unobserved scenarios describing what "might have happened" in the evolutionary time scale to bring about the biological features in question. No one has demonstrated the step by step processes taking place on an irreducibly complex bio-machine, organ, or the extraordinary complex cell itself. Shooting down an hypothesis takes more than some reasonable imaginary story of how something might have happened but has not been observed happening. The problem with evolutionary theory is that evolution depends on unguided mechanisms: random mutation and natural selection in order for evolution to take place. These mechanisms have been shown by experience and reason to not be adequate to cause evolution. And, there is more to it than some useless mutational changes just hanging around until something useful is built. The whole notion that any complex life form can even get off the ground is at odds with observation and common sense. Do some serious reading, John
Ah - the "you weren't there" version of the argument from incredulity. Well: you weren't there either, so you have no basis for claiming an intelligent designer : lacking any evidence, there is no way to distinguish between your hypothesis from the hypothesis of random chance just getting lucky after 10B years with millions of planets just in this galaxy.
"The real issue with IC is whether a partial mechanism or organ can remain around long enough" No, the real issue is whether the partial mechanism ever existed in the first place, and thus, that evolution even had to deal with it. *IC doesn't prove it existed, it just assumes it or imagines it, and builds all further logical steps on that fictional story and assumption.* Just like the bible and quran. It's an undeniable fact, *removing a part of something doesn't prove it ever existed in history.* Removing the atmosphere from earth (physically or in one's mind) does not prove that an atmosphere-less earth was a stage in its past or even existed. Removing all four walls from a house does not demonstrate the house once existed without walls, although the creationist will try to make you think it did AND a god was supporting the roof without walls. "No one has demonstrated the step by step processes taking place on an irreducibly complex" No creationist has demonstrated the part-less system was ever a real step that existed in history, and subsequently that evolution had to deal with it. IC defines what "working" and function means, takes a "working" system and removes a part (in one's imagination), carefully chosen to make it not "work" (but it still may work as something else, in some other place and time). Thus, IC is all based on imaginary claims, just like the bible and quran. "Shooting down a hypothesis takes more than some reasonable imaginary story" IC imagines a story about removing a part and then asserts, with no evidence, that the incomplete thing actually existed or some event occurred sometime in earth's history. At best, IC is a philosophical thought experiment with *ZERO evidence for its claims* and conclusions. "a mechanism cannot run without all of its ESSENTIAL parts." Yes it can. It can "run" as something else, for a different purpose or with a different function. Anything can be *used as* something different, possibly millions of purposes exist, not just the biological or what is obvious to you, the human. You, nor any human, possess an "objective function/purpose detector." Nor does any human have a perfect god detector or scripture interpreter. All decisions are fallible, according scripture in most religions, even the decision to choose a "true" god or religion. "ESSENTIAL parts." What is essential to one system is detrimental to another. Fins on a cheetah. Legs on a fish. A large brain in an insect (that survives by being small and acting like an insect). A small brain in a human. Function is relative to environment. You can't remove a part and be sure it won't function as something else in some other environment. *IC doesn't prove function was eliminated, it just assumes it, one more fictional premise.* "No one questions that." Any scientist would and should question that there is an objective or "god" function, purpose or global set of "essential" parts, when the evidence shows that function and "essential" is totally relative to environment, place and time. Any scientist would question that one set of parts in one environment is not essential or necessary in another. This is demonstrably true, yet IC ignores it. "It is in fact, a self-evident statement, that always holds true." It doesn't hold true in all environments. Also, the claim is based on a bogus philosophical concept: "to run (with a purpose)", when purpose itself can change and is not objective, and is relative to environment, time, place and observer. "there are other examples that cannot easily be dismissed." All examples of IC can be dismissed once you realize IC asserts multiple false assumptions: 1) removing a part proves that incomplete system ever existed or that evolution had to deal with it. False, see examples above. 2) function is objective and not dependent on the mind or observer 3) biological function is "objective" or higher than all others 4) function can't change 5) function can be destroyed or eliminated permanently 6) multiple simultaneous function is impossible "All I have heard from those trying to refute irreducible complexity are imaginary unobserved scenarios describing what "might have happened" " Give full names and direct quotes I doubt you can. *IC is based on a totally imaginary scenario, a philosophical though experiment with no real evidence.* IC invents its own mythical history and demands it be true history, just the bible and quran. IC declares one possible function, removes a part without proving it ever happened, and then declares with no evidence that one case is true for all and function is "eliminated". "Understand that no scientist or engineer claims irreducible complexity (IC) is not a valid concept." No scientists or engineer claims IC is a valid scientific concept. IC may be a valid _philosophical_ concept, just like fairies, witchcraft, heaven, hell, gods, and harry potter magic. *But there is absolutely nothing scientific or empirical about IC* except the first step. IC is a philosophical thought experiment. It does the following: 1) Take a system, define, declare or assert (not measure) a function, which is a *way of understanding how the system operates as a whole.* There is no such thing as objective function, only function relative to observer or the interest of humans, i.e. in biological function, chemical function, function or purpose to convince humans of an argument, etc. 2) Remove one part [carefully selected by the creationist giving the argument] as to eliminate the previously asserted function which he invented, which was only *one of many possible functions or uses.* 3) *Assert without evidence* that the simpler system can't function as the original did or anything else of interest. Even if this is true, *it still doesn't prove all possible functions were removed for all future time.* No matter how far you break something down, even to sub-atomic particles, *you can't remove its function* or the potential for natural laws to make something of it in the future. Matter made of atoms that can [naturally] combine to form all we see in the universe is proof that function can't be destroyed. 4) *Assert without evidence* that since the new part-less system didn't function as the previous whole thing did, it couldn't have been any use to survival in evolution. But it is already proven there are billions of ways to survive (for example, take the billions of species in millions of ecological niches) not just the one way that the original system had. IC has multiple false claims and no evidence to back up anything it says. It asserts: 1) There is only one function of a system. This is demonstrably false. Anything can be used for multiple purposes or have multiple simultaneous functions. 2) Removal of one part destroys all possible potential functions completely, for all future time. This is totally absurd. If this were true, recycling would not be possible, either throughout nature or as humans do it intentionally. 3) No other use or function can exist in the system with one part removed. This is demonstrable false. 4) Function is static, unchangeable, objectively measurable, and can't exist simultaneously with other functions. All false, as shown above. "No one has demonstrated the step by step processes taking place on an irreducibly complex bio-machine" No creationist has demonstrated that anything is actually irreducibly complex, because they haven't demonstrated function can be eliminated, can't change on the fly, or occur simultaneously with other function not preciously known, or that something can't function in a different environment. "Each claim for irreducible complexity must certainly be examined individually" No because the basis of IC is fundamentally flawed. It assumes false things, no matter what each claim says, they all assume the same false premises as listed above. "Irreducible complexity simply means that certain mechanisms ... require all the essential parts in place to function." But since there are multiple possible functions, especially for survival and evolution, removing a part that "destroys" only one of those doesn't prove anything. We already have enough evidence to show the contrary. Billions of species, each with different t niches and functions. Function can change on the fly and there are multiple ways to achieve the same function. There is no such thing as objective function and function can't be destroyed or removed. Function is a philosophical concept. IC is not scientific. For example, atoms function as the building blocks for everything, including life. Even if living structures composed of atoms are destroyed, that still doesn't eliminate the function.
Very hard to challenge the dogma of science. All of post-modern philosophy would collapse if it were proven God existed. A very uncomfortable prospect for most intellectual and carnal pursuits. Thus unthinkable to many.
"dogma of science" is a self contradiction. Either you don't know what science is or you lie. The scientific method is iterative, repeating, self-correcting, honest, open, and constantly seeks verification with the empirical universe it seeks to describe. Exactly the opposite of religious dogma, which is final (according to ancient illiterate uneducated "prophets"), closed to all competing ideas and explanations, not self-correcting, dishonest, not attached in any way to the external universe it claims to dictate knowledge of, and entirely philosophical, with no verifiable repeatable experiments. "All of post-modern philosophy would collapse" No, because science is by definition amenable and open to change, contrary to religion and its dogmas. If science has no mention of a god, it's because a god does not interactively participate in this universe anywhere near as much as the laws of nature do. In fact there is no scientifically verified interaction of any god at anytime in the history of the entire universe. The word "father" in christian dogma truly is a lie and insult to even the most drunken immoral man who fucks a teen girl, gets her pregnant and then abandons her forever, leaving only a message to obey his rules and worship him. All life and non-life is driven, changes, and functions by natural law, with not a god in sight controlling anything. You live because of biochemical and physical processes. Science measures and describes the empirical universe accurately, and there is no measurable, detectable god interacting in the empirical universe, hence its conclusion.
OMG! If all of post-modern philosophy collapsed what would we do? I'll tell you what we'd do. We's send 10's of 1000's of pseudoscientists to the unemployment line! WOW. Do you think the Universe could handle such a damaging blow? Whaa Whaa Whaa...stop whining and get over it...
@@ja31472 In a perfect world you are correct. In the real world, often those who question the consensus or offer other explanations that diverge from it are ridiculed, have their funding cut off, not allowed to take part in the peer review process, etc. To pretend the scientific community is somehow immune from the types of corruption that have permeated every facet of human culture throughout history is just plain ignorance.
Obviously you're no geek. You don't understand evolution and you don't understand the "science" behind IrCom. If you did you would understand that Behe and co. are lying for cash.
Me thinks thou doest protest too much, and don't understand the uneducated theory, not science behind Darwin's theory, which is not a fact, but a theory, and that to expose his bad science theory is not lying, it is telling the truth that the so-called scientific community is unwilling to tell. Hello pot, this is the kettle, and you're black. Try getting a grant from your so-called scientific community without bowing at the altar of its god Darwin, and practicing his religion know as unquestioning faith in his THEORY of evolution. If you did understand Darwin's faulty theory, and Behe's explanation of irreducible complexity, you might be able to admit how your self delusional pseudo science cohorts get their grants, aka cash. IMO. David Berlinski said the theory of evolution will disappear and good riddance to a bad theory. ua-cam.com/video/SOtGb8hKyWE/v-deo.html
@@charlesmiller2472 Behe has no idea at all. You clearly did not understand what a Theory is in science when you did that post. Hopefully you will have learned since then.
+The One Journal of Quarterly Review of Biology did peer review and then publish one of Behe's articles. www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_scientific_paper041131.html As I understand it, In that article Behe reviewed prior published literature that described mutations as mechanisms for evolution. Of all the publications he reviewed, (as I understand it) Behe reported that the published reports almost always report that observed mutations result is the loss of previously established function. That included the loss of function of regulatory mechanisms (as in Lenski's E.Coli). But loss of function cannot explain evolution of diverse species. The implication is that species are gradually losing function due to mutation - life appears to be de-evolving. www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_scientific_paper041131.html
The One I see no basis for you to write "little to no impact on the scientific community". The mere fact that his article was cited 36 times does not demonstrate impact on the scientific community. First, define what the scientific community is. Is it merely America atheist scientists? Or does it include the whole world? Is it just scientists who publish? Or does it include the many thousands of support people and scientists who are not publishing. Is the "impact" limited in time to merely the period during which you perform a review? Or does the impact period extend out into the future? And please define what an "impact" is. Did the article make scientists think more critically about the potential failures of evolution? Personally, I think he should be congratulated for publishing something that is apparently offensive to many pro-evolutionists because we should be free to publish new ideas. I also congratulate the Quarterly Review of Biology and the peers who reviewed his initial submission. This shows that articles critical of evolutionist science can be published.
+Joe Baublis The definition of "scientific theory": "Scientific Theory" means "evidence based explanations lacking any contradictions". As for evolution: "Evolution" is not a theory, biological or otherwise. Evolution has taken place. In this regard, it is a fact. Evolutionary theories are the explanations of how evolution took place. That's the problem with debating the reality of evolution. To the lay individual, a theory is "just a guess". But we are talking about a "Scientific Theory" and to a scientist, it's about as close to being a fact as you can get without being absolutely sure that it's correct. It is the current "evidence based explanations LACKING ANY CONTRADICTIONS. Evolution happened and was a fact even before Darwin established how it works without outside intervention. There is no criticism of modern sciences methods or conclusions(evolution) that doesn't work against your religious foundation of myths & superstitions better. You ignorant f ucking myth spreading maggot. The scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific, pseudoscience, or junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma). This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced." In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory". There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution. There are No Alternative Hypothesis to the principle of evolution with its "tree of life," that any COMPETENT biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is FIRMLY ESTABLISHED, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established and the sun is at center of solar system.
mechanicmike69 Solomon Asch showed that people will falsify their own perceptions in order to be accepted by their peers. And Milgram showed that people will harm other people in order to obey authorities. Your argument - essentially - shows that a peer group has formed. But you have not demonstrated that evolution has ever even been observed. Based on my research into evolution - I say there are many contradictions, and many examples of evolution fraud. As for the law - for many years American law justified slavery even though it was never right. Evolution is a giant fraud.
+mechanicmike69 Your personal characterization is very colorful Mr. Mechanic. I'm compelled to attack the idea of evolution - but not you personally. I find it regrettable that you resort to vulgarity and personal insults in support of your position, but I suppose that's your choice. The list of scientific disciplines to which you allude is impressive. However, you haven't identified any specific proof of evolution within any of the fields. Milgram and Asch demonstrated. - essentially - that humans will obey authority and comply with commands even when doing so causes injury to other people, and Asch showed that humans will falsify their own perception of facts merely to fit into peer groups. Mr. Mechanic - your list of scientific fields is merely the result of many people who want to fit into their scientific peer group. The Von Sternberg ID publication debacle shows the same human tendency, as do the numerous incidences of scientific fraud in support of evolution.
@FIDIRONU If you actually read the rule of falsification by Karl Popper you'd know it is not the end all or be all of science. Yet when it comes to Neo-Darwinism it is a rhetorical argument as Darwin himself said. It is obviously so true there doesn't need to be very much proof that it is true. That argumentation is how it took over science. Yet there still is very little evidence that Darwin was right. Darwinism does not pass the falsification test because it changes its rhetoric to meet every argument against it. A theory that explains everything actually explains nothing. Sound like Climate Change the blames everything on it.
The Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection (the Theory that explains the fact of evolution) is constantly evolving. The nonsense replies here are the choir you preached to. But their ignorance is revealed in their posts. And be aware, ID is not a viable Theory. It isn't yet a hypothesis and ID has yet to challenge itself by experimentation.
Until there is actually evidence that contradicts it. So far, none. All based in concepts, no data, no actual observation. Even more, a flawed concept like this one.
@1:06:00 This gentleman tries to disprove irreducible complexity by choosing an intelligently designed object in order to refute Behe's position of irreducibly complex systems are intelligently designed. I'm so confused....
I wonder if we can make a flagellum to propel boats, subs, airplanes? That hook (universal joint) would be a great way to increase maneuverability. 19:40
As a Christian scientist, I will make some predictions: 1. Man will never create life from non-living material. 2. Man will never find life outside of earth. 3. The world is not getting any better. And it will get continually worse until the day Jesus returns. 4. As time goes along, the book of Revelation will prove itself true. Read it and watch for the signs!
Your evidence shows that a so called synthesized genome was transplanted into an already existing living cell. This is not the creation of life but a manipulation of a preexisting life form. "Scientists who were not involved in the study caution that it is not a truly synthetic life form because its genome was put into an existing cell."
The complexity of a V8 engine is nowhere close to the level of complexity of a living cell. Let me know when you create life from non-life or find a life form outside of earth.
The goal post is the same. If you believe you are on the 10 the 20 or even 90 yard line, let me know when you score a touchdown. Which is creating life from non-life.
No.You have not proved no such thing. The text you cited clearly says and I quote "Scientists who were not involved in the study caution that it is not a truly synthetic life form because its genome was put into an existing cell." The Bible says man cannot create life. I believe the Bible. Do you have any other evidence?
The question which needs to be asked is: is there anything which Darwinists could conceive of that could not be the result of a gradual evolutionary process?
It's a silly sleight of hand debate trick - I don't have to refute your challenge to what I smugly demand be accepted as fact unless you prove some horseshit of whose God's parents are. Nothing to do with the beneficial sequenced mutations of organisms.
MisterTenacious D Reason tells us that if all things are contingent, then there cannot be an infinite regress of contingencies. The buck has to stop somewhere. Reason also tells us that there cannot be contingencies without existence, and that existence must have a source, and that source also cannot have an infinite regress. Therefore, reason tells us that there must be an entity in which both contingency and existence are grounded, and this entity must be eternal, timeless, unchanging and unchangeable. So, no parents. Ok. I answered his question. Now hopefully he will answer yours.
Hmmm....... Of course you are joking. Everybody knows that something cannot bring itself into being. People who are rational and reasonable know that, and I am sure you count yourself among them.
If your entity can just 'exist' then so can the universe without your entity. Simple reasoning . Quit making crap up, like primitive primates making up their gods, to explain something you simply don't understand yet.
Evolution. The ever changing ( evolving lol) theory with its basis rooted in the clouds, floating around, ebbing and flowing on the whim of the evolutionist scientist's view at the time.
Science evolves as new and better evidence is found. That means that scientific theories get closer to the truth unlike your dogma that will always be wrong.
Yes the scientific method has never and will never claim its correct. It’s just the closest and most logical and consistent way we can gather information that fits the closest to our universe.
Your requirement for certainty is a requirement for untruth. That is unavoidable. Evidence requires adjustments as it is found and researched. Then the research and the evidence are exhaustively challenged. That brings us closer to the truth. But starting as if you know the truth and then force fitting everything into it and ignoring anything that doesn't. That's just lying. Creationism is lies and nonsense.
@@ozowen5961 - Exqisitely put. Irreducible Complexity looks to imply divine intervention when the biological feature in fact has its origin in Evolution. The Eye used to be 'irreducibly complex' until it was shown to have Evolved. Then it was the 'flagellum', which again has been shown to have Evolved. He knows, this, he's been shown time and again, but he still peddles the same lies. Check out the transcript of the 'Dover trial' and see the way he was humiliated in court over what he said about Intelligent Design being a Science.
Okay let's say spontaneous life generation is possible (mathematically). But what makes you darwinists think, that just because it's possible, this is how life on earth was created? It's about 99.999% that it was intelligent design, it's simple logic.
You don't say why it's simple logic. Aren't you merely pushing back the origins further by claiming an intelligence planned it all? When and how was that intelligence born?
The audacity of a creationist to use "irreducible complexity" as a criticism of evolution, not realizing that the same argument works better against their god assertion. Their god has to be way more complex than the simple lifeforms it must be responsible for making, and your "irreducible complexity" argument states that your god must now need a creator( after all he is much more complex than the simple problems you are trying to answer). And then it, needs another even more complex god to design/make it. The fucking irony of theists, their blatant ignorance, and their blatant lack of depth, in not thinking their own criticisms out to their conclusions.
mechanicmike69 That's not an argument. You can't claim that God would need a cause, and then assume that the universe didn't need one when it is the subject in question that _began_ to exist in the first place.
Three (shallow) objections to IC systems: 1. Parts of a so called IC system can be found in other systems; 2. Scientists may yet discover how such systems could be naturally formed; 3. If there is a designer of creation, who designed the designer? Is that the best they've got? That does not deal with the issue that IC raises, namely that the IC system cannot exist in its function in any simpler form because without all the parts assembled in one time as they are, it would not have that function that it has. IC does not mean parts or simpler versions of the system cannot be used in other systems and have other functions. But for the function of the IC system, there is no simpler system than the one it has, and the function of the system cannot be reproduced or approximated with any simpler part of that IC system. That is the point they are sidestepping. It is irrelevant that parts of the system appear in other systems with other functions. Furthermore, science is not going to discover how such systems can naturally evolve because they are IC in their function - namely, they cannot exist in their function in any simpler form. On the question of who made God, we answer that God is uncreated and exists beyond the limits of creation. This is similar to the atheist who believes that there is an infinite eternal multiverse that was not created, except that there is a proof that there must be a beginning to creation. Thus, the universe began out of absolutely nothing, or how does it remain in a state of timelessness and then act in a specific time? Essentially they give divine attributes to creation and make God a creature without blushing.
"On the question of who made God, we answer that God is uncreated and exists beyond the limits of creation." I agree. Atheists are left with asking stupid questions. Here's what I tell them: -----So in your way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If you want to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.-----
@@2fast2block If you want your “supernatural creator ” to be anything more than an assumption, bring unscrutinised repeatable, testable, empirical evidence.
@@derhafi Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened.
“…please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened.” Funny enough that you claim to know things that you simply have no way of knowing! What’s next? Are you going to tell me what’s happening after we die? OOhh..religion makes up stories about that too. You are claiming a designer based on nothing than a custerfuck of fallacies and not a trace of evidence. I’m just not buying it. I’m happy with a honest: I don’t know which circumstances are responsible for the inflation of the universe 13.8 billion years ago. That is called intellectual honesty. Whereas, what religion does is called: Making shit up. If you want your “Lawgiver God” to be anything more than a wild assumption, you have to come forward with some unscrutinised repeatable, testable, empirical evidence. Things have to be demonstrated to be real…otherwise the default position is “I don’t know.” And not “a supernatural entity is responsible” “Real science says nothing does nothing” Science does not make claims of absolute truth. It provides the best possible explanation according to the available evidence. It is a method to spate fact from fiction. You have no problem of benefiting from science. Not when it extends your lifespan, eradicates diseases, allows you to travel all over the globe within hours, enables you to type in your nonsense in the internet and share your stupidity with literally anyone. Science comforts your stupid ass basically all the time and boy, do you take it for granted! Science is in fact so successful that religious subscribers of all faith based cults like nothing more to piggyback on its success by desperately trying to warrant their faith based nonsense with science. A task, that cannot be done in a honest way.
Your assumption of a designer, has not only no evidence to back itself up, is has also zero explanatory power. Surprisingly one does not solve a mystery by appealing to an even bigger mystery. Adding an extra layer of complexity is no pathway to the truth of anything. It is fine to go as far as the evidence allows us at the moment and say: I can’t be certain about anything before 10-43 seconds after spacetime begun. That is done by the scientific community all the time. Again: Intellectual honesty To me this has more appeal than just making shit up. Or, standing by, obviously made up shit, even if it’s backed up by literally nothing in terms of empirical evidence and in odds with nature in a cringe worthy way. „Creation cannot happen by natural means.” Again, you have not a trace of evidence to back this up. “ Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.” Acceptance can only be achieved by unscrutinised repeatable, testable, empirical evidence. Of which there is none to support you position. So, good luck with that! Quite to the contrary, there IS solid evidence that renders the supernatural as the “science-fiction story “ that is…minus the science part. The laws of physics underlying our day to day life (every particle and force able to interact with us) are completely known. There is demonstrably nothing beyond that that is able to interact with us. So all you have to do, is to extend the standard model of particle physics. Which explains what the world is what holds it together. It is a simple and comprehensive theory that explains all the hundreds of particles and complex interactions with only: 6 quarks. 6 leptons. Another thing that science does, I’m sure you didn’t know, is: It tells you how certain its findings are. There is a sigma 5 certainty that there is nothing beyond the standard model and gravity, able to interact with us. Look up what sigma 5 means, you might learn something. Regarding your misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and misuse of the Laws of Thermodynamics. To use your words “if you want to pretend to be smart” it would help to read an actual science book instead of assuming that everyone falls for that creationist nonsense interpretation of said laws. So, to your “conclusions”: “1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means.” What you are ignoring here is this: -The big bang theory doesn't necessarily mean the universe came from nothing, again, we don’t know what conditioned ruled before 10-43 seconds after space-time begun.-The first law also renders any creation event impossible, because it is, by definition, creating something from nothing. “The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max.” So what?
The probability of 1 FUNCTIONAL protein chain aligning by random chance given the most optimized environment is something like 10^125. This means that enough time hasn’t elapsed since the beginning of the universe for even this one protein chain to assemble by chance.
@@marieindia8116 No calculation. The above maths is based on parameters that are unknown and unclear. I'd rate it as equivalent to the sort of "maths" that was used to calculate that motor vehicles were dangerous to humans as we could not endure speeds over 20mph, in the 1800's.
In the light of more recent research on the functions of parts of the Flagellum, it's now clear that this 'poster boy' example of ID is in fact NOT irreducibly complex. If you google it, you will find that the evidence against ID in this example was presented in court and was rejected as having no scientific basis and being motivated by Religious beliefs rather than evidence..
IC has no evidence to support it. All of the cases they've tried to put forward have been explained by natural selection. The blatantly poor 'design' of some aspects of creatures also clearly shows that organisms morph from one form to another over time. That's the only sensible conclusion for the absurd path that some nerves take in a Giraffe's neck. It makes perfect sense if the neck gradually became progressively longer, and the nerves couldn't be re-routed. There's no credible Creationist explanation for this kind of phenomena. The bottom line is that IC is the last desperate stand of the Religious to hang on to their God as our creator. It's a stand that's failed in every face to face debate with Evolutionary Biologists, and it's failed in the courts when they've tried to get it into the classroom. Behe confines himself to writing books and preaching to people who want to believe this nonsense. A real Scientist would be doing proper research, publishing papers and taking on the opposition. He knows he's on the losing side of the argument. That's why he runs from these debates these days. He's also a liability in court because he believes in Astrology too and can't stay on message.
Courts rule on what is "science" now? Really? What jury or judge decides this? Which jurisdiction? To what does the decision apply and how far into the future? In the 1600s there were trials of science. Do you approve of their rulings? I,more one, am terrified of the idea.
www.livescience.com/3998-judge-rules-intelligent-design-taught-class.html Read it for yourself, don't take anyone's word for it. Science is well defined, courts don't decide on the definition. They are quite capable of deciding what falls within the definition of Science, and what is bogus and driven by Religious dogma. That's what the court ruled on, and they concluded quite rightly that Intelligent Design is just Religious dogma dressed up as Science. Case closed.
Son, in any court in the U.S., doctors, DNA experts, engineers, scientists or all kinds and experts in any area educate the jurors and the court as to any given issue. The burden is on the movant to prove the elements of any claim, and the other side presents his evidence or experts in his case, and the court, or jury decides the factual issues. You're asking what fucking court can decide if the car crash broke some dude's leg. The claimant is responsible to produce his evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and respondent rebuts. Like Behe who said there's no published articles re: bacterial flagellum. Then the adults placed 55 published books and articles on the witness box in front of him. He's about as well informed as you are. His university where he works has a disclaimer as to his opinion. Every jurisdiction rules on the fact of an issue. You guys are deluded and ignorant and dangerous to the species. Why the fuck do you promote an idea you heard about and can't after all your life substantiate? You've been laughed out of U.S. District Court by a Christian judge who goes to church every Sunday. But spirit is spirit and flesh is flesh. Peace.
No, I keep wondering why folks think that. Have you ever bothered to look at the Camnbrian? I mean the Pre Cambrian was enough to make the Cambrian not a creation event, however, the Cambrian, if you want to claim it as the creation moment leaves you with: 1) A lot of critters you will not easily recognise. 2) An almost complete lack of anything you will recognise 3) A lot of evolution to get from that lot to the current critters. The Cambrian is another nail in creationist claims.
@@s1haron It was a response to the now disappeared post: "Chinese scientist found pre-C layer without fossils in China. How did these multitude of animals arise so suddenly at relatively geologic same time? Where is the physical evolution record?"
HisRedeemed I bet you have tried to communicate with unseen characters. I bet you believe in a god and have no evidence to back your 'belief' and have the fucking audacity to comment against evidence that shows your god is rather an asinine assertion rather than reassess your god belief. Fuck you.
Very interesting, thank you. I have seen attempts to refute the flagellum example, but lack the ability to judge these attempts. Does Dr. Behe respond to these attempts somewhere that is accessible,
LoL, I've watched UA-cam Atheists drawing pretty pictures saying "see, if I start with this circle, and stack this circle on top of this circle" lmfao. Effectively demonstrating their complete lack of knowledge regarding biology and biochemistry to the world
These attempts to refute flagellum example only demonstrate that it has some large possible sub functions that could have served a different useful purpose. Which is fine but functions sure can be made up of sub functions but you are still very far from refuting the rest of the 99% of the irreducible complexity. Those sub functions come with a great deal of irreducible complexity themselves. You can't design complexity with small changes while maintaing some benefit for natural selection to select on your way to something even more complex. I am an engineer and I can speak from real experience that these evolutionary biologist do not have. For me I can clearly see through the nonsense of macro evoultion. The ability to adapt should never be confused with the ability to create real new complex function. You will get at best a feature change on a complex function but never a new function created by beneficial mutations. It is easy to have a feature change on an existing complex function compared to the impossibility of creating the existing complex function wth small beneficial incremental changes.
@@Thefamiliaguy " You can't design complexity with small changes while maintaing some benefit for natural selection to select on your way to something even more complex." That's bc design and evolution are incompatible.
The electrical engineer made a better argument for intelligent design by example than the whole presentation while trying to argue against it and didn't even realize it. 😂
Irreducible complexity has been thoroughly refuted as an argument against evolution. That Creationists are still using it just shows that it is a religious dogma, not a rational theory, one they will continue to repeat like Holy Writ in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
louis feinberg so long as you mean with Scientific Dogma yea sure. dawkins even has to own up to I.D. in one of his debates he goes on to fabricate aliens on a different planet where we cannot observe. Where Evolution would have to have happened to come here and design us then just leave.
tlrieder1 Evolution takes place on separate planets independently, though there is some evidence that DNA may travel from planet to planet, blasted into orbit by asteroid strikes. In any case, DNA must form initially through chemical processes as it cannot have existed in the conditions of the early universe. We don't know if life can exist with chemistry other than DNA or if consciousness can exist outside of known biology. Evolution certainly isn't in contradiction with any legitimate, accept Christian teaching, and Creationism is an embarrassment to educated Christians everywhere.
louis feinberg Ow man the list of unfounded claims in your post is staggering. Evolution on other planets show it , are you familiar with Penrose and his probability number probably not. In any case, DNA must form initially through chemical processes. I could say the same of God that he Must exists because the universe had an origin. Its simply an unfounded claim on both sides. Your just intellectually dishonest not to admit your own bias. Also science has given up trying to prove abiogenesis as a waste of time because the improbability of it simply makes it impossible to show see Penrose again. Whose advocating creationism and in what form. Your problem is your dealing in absolutes which you have no right to do so. As a thought experiment prove your not a brain in a vat, you cant so you make assumptions but ultimately no one can deal in absolutes yet you want the privilege and deny it to everyone else.
tlrieder1 If self-replicating chemistry such as DNA could form on Earth, it can form anywhere else-- Earth is made of the same elements we see in other planets. The belief that living processes are "supernatural" went out with the Dark Ages, today we understand life in physical terms.
louis feinberg "Irreducible complexity has been thoroughly refuted as an argument against evolution." - Um, no it hasn't. Only by atheists like yourself. But hey, keep taking the blue pill.
"Who designed the designer?" That is a ridiculous question. It makes as much sense to ask the question, "What is South of the South Pole?" By definition there can be nothing South of the South Pole as the South Pole has been DEFINED as the most southern point on the Globe. In fact you can travel only North from the South Pole on the full 360 degrees of Longitude as East and West DO NOT EXIST at the South Pole...but that is just another implication of the definition. Those directions MANIFEST once one moves away from the South Pole. This is an IMPORTANT CONCEPT as you will see.. Likewise an Eternal Creator who has always been, IS, and will always be, who transcends both space and time, is BY DEFINITION of what a particular attributes of the Creator is.. And employing the Einstein-Lorentz Relativity Transforms along with the Laws of Thermodynamics this is really easy to demonstrate the physical mechanism as to just how a Creator exists that satisfies the attributes of being Eternal, Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient. The math required is only a rudimentary understanding of the Fundamental Therom of Calculus...the concept of the Limit.. Do not let that dissuade you..It is actually simple. I ought to write a paper and produce a video. Here is the demonstration. Energy cannot be created or destroyed...it can only be TRANSFORMED. it is an inviolable Law of Thermodynamics. Mass is Energy and Energy is Mass. That is what the Mass Energy EQUIVALENCE statement says...You know? E = m multiplied by the constant c squared? Now let's look at that wonderful mass accretion statement and multiply each side by c squared This is the result... Eq (1) mc^2 = m(0)c^2/SQR(1 - v^2/c^2) or, since Eq(2) E = mc^2 then combining Eq(1) and Eq(2) yields Eq(3) E = m(0)c^2/SQR(1 - v^2/c^2) where m(0) is mass at v = 0..Rest mass. Now many know how to take the limit of both sides of this equation and allow v to approach c and come to the conclusion that it takes infinite Energy to have a rest mass travel at light speed....which is true. Okay.. I agree. What happens when you run this equation backwards? Well let's let v = c Then Eq (3) reads as the following Eq(4) E = m(0)c^2/SQR(0) Now I do love both zero and one. They are my two favorite numbers. They are such powerful tools. The following is an interesting way of writing zero. Eq(5) 0 = 1 - c*^2/c^2 where c* = c, and c is Light Speed. Now Eq(4) when combined with Eq(5) can be written in the following fashion. Eq(6) E = m(0)c^2/SQR(1 - c*^2/c^2) Taking the limit of both sides of Eq(6) and allowing c* to approach v yields us right back to Eq(3) Eq(3) E = m(0)c^2/SQR(1 - v^2/c^2) We ran it backwards, right? It is consistent with what we know. (Otherwise Eq(3) would not have been the result.) Energy cannot be created or destroyed...it can only be TRANSFORMED. That is what the Lorentz TRANSFORM does. The Energy was always there...ever present...eternal. Mass is only energy slowed down...Light slowed down.. That is what I demonstrated with Equation 6 as I slowed from c to v. I transformed the Energy to mass. Mass is just a different form of Energy. It has been TRANSFORMED. Now do the same trick with the time and distance contraction formulas. You know they equal zero at Light Speed. Slow Energy down and then both time and distance manifests, or, space time, manifests..They manifest as Light slows down, just as East, West and South manifest as directions when one moves away from the South Pole. (Remember the initial nonsense question, "What is South of the South Pole?" in this exposition?) That is the essence of the CREATION of the Physical Universe. You will find that time only exists at speeds less than Light Speed. You will find that distance traveled can only happen at speeds less than Light Speed. Light Speed is the preferred speed. You can be everywhere at once. You are Eternal. You can know everything that ever happened, is happening, and will ever happen. You'd be all powerful. (Thank you Carl Sagan for teaching your Grad Student so that he could teach me._I learned more about relativistic physics in two hours with this man than in an entire semester studying at the University..) Hmmmm...Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Eternal? At Light Speed? YOU WOULD BE GOD. The Light has always been, IT IS, and it will always be..Something did NOT come from nothing. Light is eternal. Mass is nothing more than Light slowed down. God is Light. In Him there is no darkness. ~ Apostle John Therefore God has always been, GOD IS, and God will always be. Isn't it funny that the Apostle John knew how to describe God so elegantly...some 1900 years before Einstein published his paper?
Interesting post, but wouldn't that make God a materialistic entity (energy) subject to the second law, entropy and time ? If God is in any way subject to materialistic law, he can't exist without also breaking the first law. Also any materialistic precept attributed to God would then manifest a time consideration resulting in an infinite time requirement prior to the creation event which would then never happen. The only way around that is God must have no materialistic qualities subject to the first and second laws, and he did say he is spirit.
@James Registe Materialism includes both matter and energy ie light, they are related by E=mC^2. Matter and energy are both measurable. Spirit on the other hand is metaphysical and not measurable by any materialistic means, unlike light.
""Who designed the designer?" is a ridiculous question. It makes as much sense to ask the question, "What is South of the South Pole?"" It's ridiculous to assume that the concept of a god is the same as a point on the surface of a sphere. Mathematically, that's assuming a very specific situation (a 2D space embedded in a 3D space that can't be reached) and is only *one of billions* of other possible scenarios. "By definition there can be nothing South of the South Pole as the South Pole has been DEFINED as the most southern point on the Globe." But the reason it's useful to geography is that the definition matches the preponderance of evidence. In fact, much of the evidence preceded the definition, which was designed around the evidence and observation. You have not established that your analogy of sphere and south pole to a god is even remotely consistent. And in fact your can't, because ALL the information you have about gods is pure philosophical definitions, no empirical observation or evidence. "Likewise an Eternal Creator who has always been" No, not likewise. You have not established your philosophical, imagined definition of a god fits or is even close to some part of the external universe, something outside your mind. Saying "likewise" does not prove likewise. Saying the jews are like rats does not prove jews are rats. Saying women or black people are like chattle, unfit to be more than property, is _likewise_ not a proof. "Energy cannot be created or destroyed...it can only be TRANSFORMED. That is what the Lorentz TRANSFORM does." No it doesn't. It transforms locations or points from/to moving frames. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation "Mass is nothing more than Light slowed down." No it isn't. "Light has always been" Nope. Now you contract yourself because you admitted light is one form of mass, so light can't always have been. "Therefore God has always been, GOD IS, and God will always be." This does not follow from anything prior. You just vomited a bunch of math and physics nonsense and said "therefore [my own personal definition of god] is true"
It's all been such a wonderful journey and would it not be fitting to have climbed the hard rock landscapes of physical science only to end up where we began but knowing it for the first time to borrow a phrase.
Every component of the mousetrap must be specific in its form or shape or it will not be a working device. It might be possible to use a mousetrap that doesn't contain parts that are specifically fitted & designed to function for another purpose, (Maybe a paperweight?) however it WILL NOT FUNCTION AS A MOUSETRAP. Also any of the components might be able to be adapted to devise a different device with another use, or even be used individually, but will perform a totally different purpose. We call that "McGuiverism" to adapt whatever is at hand to solve a problem. Truly taking an extremely intelligent & creative person, not blind chance.
The notion of irreducible complexity is bogus. It preys on people’s ignorance, appeals to incredulity, and relies on the errant assumptions that a simpler version of the structure couldn’t have existed and that an “incomplete” version could not be of use to the organism.
We have every intermit stage of an eye in nature working today, from photo sensitive cells all the way to eyes with lenses, there are people who’s brain was removed by 50% which still thrive, the composition of flagella is surprisingly diverse across bacteria with many proteins only found in some species but not others. Hence the flagellar apparatus is clearly very flexible in evolutionary terms and perfectly able to lose or gain protein components. What was your point again? That those three things you got totally wrong would somehow prove the concept of the divine? How?
Irreducible complexity reduces the time or change smaller dynamic symmetry operations to fold up that plan in a proteins design. This is quantum gauge physics.
irreducible complexity is an argument that something as complex as ( for example) the human eye could not have evolved naturally & required a creator. The argument ignores the fact that the argument itself is an argument that the creator who created our eyes would have to be more simple than our eyes or would have needed a creator for itself. And the human eye is not irreducibly complex. Remove the cones from our eyes and we would still have vision, we just wouldn't see all the colors we see now. Remove the rods from our eyes and our eyes wouldn't be good in low light conditions.
Did Behe make this video before or after the Dover trial in 2005? He used the mouse trap analogy in this video but Ken Miller demonstrated that a useless mousetrap makes a perfectly fine tie clip at the Dover trial. Behe seems to be unaware that the evolution of "incompletr" intermediates of what he thinks are irreducibly complex are not selected and preserved on the basis of the their [in]ability to perform that function. Intermediate functions correspond to intermediate structures. Half lungs were not hampered by their inability to perform the function of breathing bc half lungs did not do the job of breathing but rather modifying buoyancy in certain fish. Neil Shubin expands on this concept in "Some Assembly Required..".
These are "just so" stories, not science. People will imagine anything if provided a motivation to invent such myths, say for example, if their entire world view and morally degraded life would be exposed if they didn't make up such stories. They would have quite the psychological motivation to convince others that such stories are science! Never the less, it was Darwin's objection to his own theory that spawned irreducible complexity. Without such a theory it would make his theory unfalsifiable, aka unscientific.
@@stevedoetsch Darwin didn't object to his own theory. Neither do creationists-they had to eventually embrace natural selection Thats when speciation from created kinds became a thing. IC is a rehash of Paley. Ofc you might be a little more informed than your avg creationist and be talking about Darwin's discussion of intermediate structures. Well, sorry to break it to you but intermediate structures have intermediate functions not related to their final role. Darwin killed IC in the 19th century but creationists didn't pay attention. A careful consideration of Darwin could have saved Behe s lot of extra work writing a book for no reason
@@patldennis Not to forget the biggest Elephant in the room , so big that one might think Creationists rented an apartment in its anus. *Disproving evolution would not add an ounce of credibility to any God claim to begin with.* “God”, let alone the one they believe in, is not the default position. Such an idea has to be proven separately. Until there is prove, a demonstrable correlation between any given God and reality, “God” does not even qualify as an explanation. A mystery is not solved or explained by appealing to another mystery.
@@derhafi but doesn't every answer to enquiry usually lead to more mystery and enquiries, if it's being done right? Of course, for people who like to think they know it all, that is only desirable if it leads to more grant money.
@@marieindia8116 "but doesn't every answer to enquiry usually lead to more mystery and enquiries" Yes, sometimes they do...them we solve them as well, we call that: Progress
Professor Behe’s observations of irreducible complexity is a good example that evolution cannot continue pretending of a designer did not happened, but natural selection and common ancestor did it instead. I do not understand why Darwinists are afraid of debate ID proponents on universities public view area. This debate will be good for science and for the development of researchers for vaccine’s and sickness cures. Resorting to bulling and calling names do noting for the advancement of the sciences.
ID has been well debated. It has lost and continues to do so. The real science is not found in debate. It is found in research. ID has provided almost nothing in that sphere. A handful of papers that attempt to imply design. No attempts to disprove their own assumptions. ID has yet to make a case as to why they should not be considered as anything else but fringe nonsense.
@@ozowen5961 First, learn the real meaning of what is ID. Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things. www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design
@@bluejysm2007 ID as a "science" relies on concepts such Irreducible Complexity. As such it is an epic failure. The movement itself as is noted in the Wedge document, is born of a creationist agenda. If ID were as you say, and only as you say, then I might have no problem wit it. However, what it really is, is a smokescreen, pseudo science and at best, more God of the Gaps garbage
@@ozowen5961 Yes, Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. Ozowen, I think you mistaken, the concept of irreducible complexity is inference from Professor Behe that a cell function as a machine irreducible complexity means it cannot work as an unguided process. It is like taking a part of the machine it will not perform the same function as it did before the changes were applied to the machine. You need to grasp the idea that professor Behe proposed, you can read it in any books he published like “Darwin’s black box,” “Darwin devolves,” etc. In all the debates that I watched I seen people putting ideas to try to debunk professor Behe proposed ideas and they cannot. so, they get frustrated and starts to call bad names and going personal. However, if you want propose ideas against irreducible complexity and ID then you can write a science paper that makes sense of course. But better talked then done.
ARN doesn't appear to want people to know when this was recorded. This from way back in 1997: I still have my VHS copy from back when I was ignorant of biology.
There is a lot of focus on evolution around this. More core to this is the mathematics of morphogenesis, chaos and feedback. Alan Turing did some ground-breaking work on this, up there with his work on his computers. Intelligent design shows a lack of imagination. Dr. Behe needs to look up to the stars to see almost infinite complexity, interaction, recycling and complexity. Remember, the only elements in the early universe were hydrogen & helium.
The extent and severity of ignorance displayed by so many of those students, (who were clearly just mouthing the ideas that their professors had them write down), is just staggering. Angry, stupid children that are clearly only waiting for their turn to talk again - when they should be listening.
Yes, uni students should never question anything, they should just listen and accept the truths they are given. I take it you approve of the teaching approach in the Peoples' Republic of China?
All the new info about epigenetics backup this talk, and takes darwinian evolution to the imagination spectrum. also the new info about the high complexity of the simplest cell that could "auto reproduce itself" is not simple at all not in function and informatión process.
You can always tell the people pushing unaccepted fringe ideas by the forceful, argumentative tone of their voice. They are rarely pleasant to listen to and tend to less than subtle "listen to me or else" under tones.
Surah Fussilat, Verse 53: سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ We will soon show them Our signs in the Universe and in their own souls, until it will become quite clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things? (English - Shakir) via iQuran
Dr.Mohammad Niqab Khan This is what you can do with you Qur'an, Evil book of Satan that it is. UNICEF hospital admission statistics show 30 thousand girls between the ages of 9 to 13 died from child birth and blood loss from wedding night sexual intercourse,, in Yemen and Iran combined, in the past decade. Statistics in links below. It is clear the verse 65:4 is given as a to be followed (Jussive mood). The vecommandrse itself refers to those women who did not menstruate(in all of past time until the present time), which can include children or girls before puberty or attainment of menarche (first period). Therefore, the exact translation of this portion of Qur'an 65:4 is "Not menstruated yet" ( لَمْ يَحِضْنَ ). In Arabic, the menstruating process is called HAIDH ( حيض ). It is possible to turn this noun into its verb form. Like we do it with menstruation, "menstruate" is YAHIDH ( يَحِض ). But it is LAM ( لَمْ ) that appears before YAHIDH and the NA ( نَ ) associated with YAHIDH and this puts Islamic apologists in a quandary because it cannot have any other meaning than “Not menstruated yet”. This is the appropriate English translation. This verse 65:4 should be read as a continuation of Qur'an 33:49. If a woman who has not been used for sex should not have to observe any Iddah at all, as mentioned in 33:49, what is the reason for the prescribed Iddah for those women who have not yet menstruated? This is a clear indication marrying pre-pubescent girls and having sex with them is sanctioned by the Qur'an. The phrase found in Qur'an 65:4 as "Wallaee Lam Yahidhna" is sometimes mistranslated by apologists. Exact meaning of the phrase is available in Tafsirs (Quran interpretations). www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011/10/02/sharia-law-has-led-to-the-legislation-of-child-marriage-in-6-countries.html The link just above this comment talks about child marriage is legal in 6 islamic countries. ////////////////////////////////////////// The link below shows unicef talking about children that are dying from child birth 30 thousand plus children have died from child birth in Yemen alone in, I think a decade. That's only the ones that make it to hospital and get reported, the real figures must be shocking beyond belief. edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/14/yemen.childbirth.death/index.html?_s=PM:HEALTH wikiislam.net/wiki/Contemporary_Pedophilic_Islamic_Marriages www.faithfreedom.org/bangladesh-minority-girls-are-abducted-forcefully-converted-married-murdered-raped-rampantly/ www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm bulletinoftheoppressionofwomen.com/category/child-marriage/ www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1264729/Child-bride-13-dies-internal-injuries-days-arranged-marriage-Yemen.html www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28250471 www.jihadwatch.org/2014/12/uk-powerless-to-stop-islamic-child-marriage www.frontpagemag.com/point/217334/65-brides-muslim-yemen-are-children-daniel-greenfield www.rt.com/news/329157-pakistan-child-marriage-law-islam/ www.jewsnews.co.il/2016/02/23/islamic-scholar-allah-encouraged-mohammed-to-have-sex-with-his-9-year-old-wife-aisha/ These are the moderate Muslims the media defends,, only Pedophiles defend Pedophilia.
It's all about and only about people trying their best to disprove, discount and deny God. Why? Because if they acknowledged God they would then be infinitely and completely accountable for their motives .
Why is there even a debate? The issue is simple. Biology is driven by information. Random mutations degrade information, although, purely by chance, the result is occasionally beneficial in a limited way. Evolution theory, at least so far, does not provide any mechanism for constructing new information in the quantities required by what we see in the fossil record and in the world around us. Where's the beef? Here's an experiment: Start with 100 copies of the Mona Lisa. Randomly shoot colored beebees (miniature paintballs) at them for a while. Select the one that looks closer to Starry Night than the others and discard the others. Make 100 copies of the selected image. Repeat the process for a while. Do you think you might eventually end up with Starry Night or something close to it that anyone might recognize as such? Do you think the Mona Lisa will still be recognizable? I would guess "no" for both questions. I think the image of Mona Lisa will degrade, and any resemblance to Starry Night will be short-lived and quickly degrade for the same reason that the Mona Lisa became unrecognizable. To make this more reasonable, the experiment can be easily simulated on a computer. Technical point, since some ID-ers might object: The a-priori test against Starry Night in my proposed experiment is meant to simulate survivability in a complex environment (aka ecosystem or habitat) consisting of many different factors; it is not a pre-loading of target information into the experiment. The Mona Lisa image represents the best survivor in the prior environment before the environment changed to the Starry Night template.
2 hours of discourse and he doesn't present any evidence to support his claim . Is there any ground to the assumption he or anyone else is capable to access with any level of certainty what ever a system is truly irreducibly complex ? because if he can't prove this , then everything else is speculation ..
Creationists only look at scientific questions in terms of whether they are pro- or anti-god, but science doesn't work that way, it only follows the evidence wherever it leads. .Creationists can't grasp the notion that science is motivated by curiosity, not ideology.
Behe's research is not the only example of irreducible complexity in biology. RNA polymerase is DNA-dependent, and DNA is RNApol-dependent. Now I don't want to draw the usual ad-hoc work-arounds attacking facts and common-sense, but learned speculation as to how this catch-22 could occur is welcomed(please no cursing, from those that are driven to overflowing by the sinful nature, such that it flows constantly from their mouths). While we're discussing the always ready ad-hoc explanations from the evolutionists, why do people believe that humans evolved from a single-celled eukaryote but have no idea how it could have happened? Genetic mutation/selection, if even mathematically or molecularly feasible(which it's not), doesn't come close to providing the information required to alter body plans. I'm not saying science is not able to advance in knowledge, but it's ridiculous to believe in something so strongly[evolution] and have no theory as to how it may have happened. Curiously, the strongest support for evolution, which is a vacuous set of ad-hoc mythical band-aids for a 19th century dreamer at this point, seems to come mainly from those who are hiding from truth.
Fuck you.You're the fucking idiot that thinks the answer defaults to a creator/god if it's too complicated rather than admit, 'we don't know' like an intelligent person would.
You curse because you are bound in sin. The 4 Gospels are eye witness testimonies to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. If you are going to dismiss the Gospels as accurate historical documents please provide a valid reason for doing so. Follow the promise of Acts 2: 38-39 to be saved.
mechanicmike69 The Gospels do agree with each other, you just don't think they do because you get your information from propagandish websites instead of actually studying the Bible. What's more, if the 4 Gospels were written using the exact same story from the exact same perspective by all 4 authors then they could be considered a fabrication, because anyone would tell you if all the eyewitnesses see the exact same thing then they are probably lying. So thanks for confirming that the Gospels do not appear as a fabricated story. Your cursing is not going to claim victory over the truth, as cursing is only evidence for the sinful nature of mankind from which Christ saves us through His Grace. Follow Acts 2: 38 to be saved. Peace unto you.
I just hope that this essay included the fact that, proving the theory of evolution by natural selection, wrong, would in no way add one ounce of credibility to this unfounded claim of a supernatural creator. Science, if proven wrong, was always proven wrong by better science. Since ID is not science, good luck! You don’t have to take this from me, take it from Behe himself. I quote: ¨Dr. Behe, But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?¨ Behe: Yes, that's correct.” End Quote. Further he admitted that intelligent design seems plausible and reasonable to inquirers in direct proportion to their belief or non-belief in God. Behe is, at best, a fraud. Science is independent of personal biases. Science does not make claims of absolute truth. It provides the best possible explanation according to the available evidence. All that and the fact that Behes irreducible complexity “argument” was dismantled by actual scientists, renders what ID is, a Trojan horse to piggyback creationist nonsense into the classrooms. All the best to you!
@@derhafi Yes it would give credence to that. The fact they looked designed is very good evidence they were designed. That is how we recognize design. And the added fact an accidental explanation cannot be shown to work by the brightest minds in the worlds seals the deal. We dont proceed forth in science with the answer ahead of time and your idea there is no bias in science is RIDICULOUS. Science is done by humans which are full of bias including you. If life is designed we would expect to see evidence of that and we do. If you happen to not like that, well too bad. Thats how reality works. You dont get to rule it out or dismiss it because you dont like it or it makes you uncomfortable
@@jordandthornburg “ The fact they looked designed is very good evidence they were designed. That is how we recognize design.” No, that’s not how we go about recognizing design. That’s how you end up with a banana in your hand making a fool out of yourself like Ray Comfort; that’s like saying a puddle of water is fine-tuned for the pothole it sits in. Looking at something that is naturally occurring and declaring it “designed” just does not cut it. Organisms are not like deliberately, designed, manufactured objects. We know that there was no life at one point, we know that there is now. We also know that there is nothing beyond the natural world as it is described in the standard model of physics that is capable of interacting with our reality. Concluding that something else, something supernatural had a hand in the OOL is like making up some magic. It’s baseless nonsense. Abiogenesis is supported by the sheer fact that is a possibility in this reality…whereas his supernatural Suggestion (the God he happens to believe in) have no demonstrable correlation with this reality at all. “If life is designed we would expect to see evidence of that and we do” No, we do not..you mix up the claim with the answer here. If we go about declaring anything we have no easy answer for as “design” and immediately making up a designer, despite that this designer has no demonstrable correlation with reality, would kill any form of progress, and enhancement of our understanding of nature in its cradle and we’d be still in the dark ages. Also, where would that take you? At Best t o a designer, who does not qualify as real due to lack of demonstrable correlation with reality, that just leaves one with more Questions. Where did this designer come from? Who designed him..…That is a route to a special pleading fallacy at best, not an explanation. One does not explain a mystery by appealing to another one. “We don’t proceed forth in science with the answer ahead of time…” That is true, yet that is what you seem to have in mind when things become a bit complicated. “…. and your idea there is no bias in science is RIDICULOUS” Did I say that? I did not, so leas stop putting fucking words in my mouth, thank you! Science is, demonstrably, by far the most reliable method we have to separate truth from fiction. It has self-correcting mechanisms witching to root out as much bias as possible. If you have a better method than science to equal out our human shortcomings, please let the world know. “ You don’t get to rule it out or dismiss it because you dont like it or it makes you uncomfortable” True again, yet I get to rule it out as long as there is, no sound argument and no trace of evidence to support this claim. All creationism has produces so far boils down to “ it’s complicated and we don’t know for sure…therefore we choose to pick this this pseudo-anser despite it having no demonstrable correlation with reality” THAT is fallacious thinking of a medieval mind set 2.0, THAT is not evidence.
So, would you religious believers agree that God is infinitely more complex than the universe he created? Yet you buy into this "Irreducible Complexity" argument? If increasingly complex living things require a creator and your deity is the most complex living thing, who/what created your deity?
Yet, there is no evidence whatsoever that the universe was "created", no evidence whatsoever that there is a "creator", certainly no evidence whatsoever that this "creator" is the telepathically-connected deity of any one particular religionist myth-belief. Your ability to imply that this series of beliefs without evidence is either rational, logical, or "the only realistic option" demonstrates you wilfully make these assertions without rational thought, without logically appraising the evidence, and without truthfully considering the options in terms of where the evidence leads and produces the most reproducible results with a positive predictive value. This is fine (like the "belief" in Santa Claus or a flat earth) but when asserted in terms of logic and reason as opposed to the dogma and tradition that you are honestly relying upon it wonderfully demonstrates the intellectual dishonesty you have embraced.
KEVIN WALKER The universe could also then be an "uncaused cause" unless you plan to jump directly to the "special pleading" fallacy for your particular deity at this point.
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics supports the idea that the universe is an uncaused cause (energy/matter being neither created nor destroyed). If you are going to state, "...it's a mind", provide evidence.
600 million years since the first invertebrates evolved to the present is plenty of time to produce the variety of species we see today, and the fossil record confirms that, along with DNA relationships between different living species that prove common ancestry.
So can you show us the fossils worth of millions of years worth of our very own species Use your brains....Darwinists would have museums worth of skeletons gradually progressing towards our kind in the 21st Century
Just consider that nobody intelligent is creating "irreducibly complex" stuff. If something is "irreducibly complex" is not created or the supposed creator is not intelligent at all.
Quetzal Coyotl By the way I can't imagine any superantural device wasting so much of his time and skills in making so irreducibly complex the rear end of a bacteria...
+Quetzal Coyotl Sure they are. Many gadgets and machines are irreducibly complex. Of course, many systems and machines incorporate the use of redundancies also.
once you figure something out you can wow that is really simple after all. so if someone could tell you how GOD came to be or if he appeared to all once a month but didn't tell how. he got here and wouldn't answer any question you have. then what would you say.
Can evolution explain how humans posses emotions, love, hate , shyness, blushing, regret , pride, grudge, envy, jealous, passionate, speach, ? These must be implanted by God.
The universe can operate just fine without intelligence-- intelligence is just one effect of the universe, a very minor effect restricted to only a few life forms on this and maybe a few other planets.
I want you to find the dumbest mechanic you can find to fix your car just before a long.trip no use a ape with no hands.. this is your mindset.your Clinton vote. didn't matter either.
Since this talk considerable progress has been made in our understanding of abiogenesis, many of those working on abiogenesis have received Nobel Laureates. Michael Behe theory has been refuted. It does nothing to disprove evolution. The Q&A even in 1977 exposes how weak his arguments stand up to scrutiny. I love his appeal to aliens composed of little fluffy clouds. Since this video the case for evolution had become increasingly supported by new evidence and refuted by none. He is a religious creationist.
The bottom line is so simple a 6th grader could understand it: If the religion of evolutionism were true then it would have been obvious even in Charlie's day and he even said as much in On Origins, and I quote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case”, unquote, Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. If natural processes could produce not only the entire known Universe, but everything in between including us, then it would be so easy to reproduce these miraculous events even in the primitive laboratory conditions of the mid-19th century, that the aforementioned 6th grader could do it by simply adding some chemicals together and POOF! Life! But as we know it just isn't so. Now, if you take into account that even with the huge advancements in experimental science since Darwin's time, creating a laboratory so advanced it would scare him - it still can't be done. Plain and painfully simple...
“..then it would be so easy to reproduce these miraculous events even in the primitive laboratory conditions of the mid-19th century” How do you reach this conclusion? We have a repeatable sound way how non-living matter could transform to RNA..that is done. We may never knoe how exactly it came about, we do know, however, how it could have happened in a perfectly natural way. Science does not make claims of absolute truth. It provides the best possible explanation according to the available evidence. It is a method to spate fact from fiction. Life can rise from simple matter, that’s a fact backed up by evidence. If you want your “God” to be anything more than an assumption, bring unscrutinised repeatable, testable, empirical evidence.
@@caidenbond1988 yep. You seem to have 'issues' with that. Try to find some peace, and realize that other people have perspectives different from yours.
a coin or anything to do with the making of it or the origin of.the metal it is made of has nothing to do with what people call chance . flipping the coin is odds head or tail not chance cause chance dont exist. could chance happen by chance odds are zero.. or it would be purpose. everything is for something else and a result of something else.EVERYTHING..
the atheist sees a computer for the.first time and says this is so complex and appears designed which could only mean it had to happen by chance and evopollution.
Susan - People believe in Evolution because of the evidence. It's as simple as that. If the evidence showed linear paths of unchanging species from miraculous 'creation' events, then we'd believe in Creation. However, that's not what the fossil record shows. Check it out, read Donald Prothero or P Z Meyers, they'll explain it all to you.
It should be called Darwinian Creation because it is little else than an absurdly weak repudiation of the Hebrew God who claimed to be the source of life. I find it interesting that God (of Hebrew tradition) also claimed to create the universe. Interesting to me because those who "believe" in Darwinian Creation get upset if one argues that Darwin's theory cannot escape the inclusion of the origin of the universe. They want to go back in time to a place where life was simple, when no further explanations or questions were required. Darwinian Creation is childish in its imaginative allure.
You fucking moron, Evolution is the process of specialization. ABIOGENESIS is the science dealing with how life started, you fucking arrogant idiot. You post is therefore one of a fucking idiot.
Religious fanatics have a terror of 'meaninglessness" because they can't come up with meaning in their own lives unless religious provides it for them. They miss the beauty of a universe that operates freely and playfully-- the idea actually feels threatening to them.
Dr Behe, I am amazed that you fail to understand basic principles of natural selection. Please reach out Richard Dawkins for some intro. Because you can't get it doesn't mean that there is ID behind all this. this is a logical fallacy..
Dawkins refuses to discuss or even debate points with those that are not Neo-Darwinists anymore. Which, of course, is the opposite of science and is simply theocracy. To which you subscribe.
It's more about they don't have any evidence. It's more about this bullshit has all been refuted before. It's more about religious twats grasping at straws.
1:05:07 This guy!! LOL, I mean really dude. We are talking about intelligent design and this guy is using an OBVIOUSLY DESIGNED THING to try and argue against design. This fact is somehow lost on him, even though he actually says that human being have done this, he still does not make the connection that this is therefore a designed thing. He makes Behe's case while thinking that he is debunking it.
I hate it when these guys call Darwin a "scientist," because he was no such thing. In fact, he was at best nothing but a 'wannabe scientist,' who's only degree was in theology - a vocation he never delved into. There's also the fact that most, with only an exception or 2, 'scientists' of Darwin's day were lawyers, or other professions outside of science. Remember, all someone needed to be 'a scientist' in the 19th century was - MONEY... ...because it took a lot of it to pretend to be one...
@@ozowen5961 I think I would propose that there has been no example where scrutiny wasn’t offered, but certainly i know examples that to this day that stand scrutiny and cannot be explained away. ie, flagellum. And yes, I know biochemist whine about it, but most of there refutations are not compelling.
@@terrygodgirl4430 The flagellum was pared back genetically and that made it a different organelle- it still functioned. SO- reducible- therefore not irreducible.
Evolution is a theory. It explains many features of living organisms and is therefore useful. It is not a law. There is much missing in the fossil record. There are facts that cause one to fill in the blanks of necessary change using hypothesis. Evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. Science does not make religion obsolete and religion does not disprove science. People should not be required to accept one and discount the other as stupid.
"Evolution is a theory."- maybe have a look at the definition of "theory" in science and try this again. Evolution has the weight of mountains of coherent evidence from multiple distinct branches of science- the other is not dismissed as stupid, it's dismissed as being wrong.
With one simple question I can totally destroy the darwinian notion. And here it is: even if a successful spontaneous combination of even two amino acids could come about, there should have been a system already in place to register and replicate such a successful combination. So, what system was it and where would it come from? I invite all those blind darwinian people (blind, because the evidence of the intelligent design is all around, and yet they don't see it this way) i invite you to try to answer this question. 😁🙈😜
@@onepartofone youve got to understand that evolutionists never answer anything directly. For example.. no known mutation brings forth new information to the genome..so why did organisms develop new features?
one guy said how stupid the designer made some things . first off you you have to be i.d. to know something is not i.d. birds that have feathers and cant fly still need feathers or hair or a shell for protection.if a man could.pick up a hand full of dirt and squeeze it and make perfect diamond the atheist would say yeah but he cant throw it a mile and hit that bulls eye.
how silly something that's so complex, billions of years of evolution couldn't create it...we wont understand these creatures till we except these things aren't divinely inspired... to say these creatures that we sneeze out are holy in some way, is looking at the problem wrongly.
What a shame. Just a few months after this Behe was shot down in flames, and shown to be a charlatan, at the Dover Trial. I watched the documentary. It was hilarious as he fumbled over the answers when being questioned. What was even funnier was when he was forced to admit Intelligent Design was a sneaky way of trying to get god into science. It showed Behe to be an irreducible liar.
@@2fast2block Ah no. If that "paper" is challenge Miller, then it needs to be published in a reputable paper and subjected to review. The author placed it in a nowhere place and will not be subjected to any real scrutiny unless some scientist stumbles on it, can be bothered reading it and can be bothered to challenge it. So, if you are going to "bitch slap" then you need to make contact. You really are the dumb arse you slap.
@@2fast2block OFFS, I am now reading your "bitch slapping paper"! Are you serious? What a load of poorly disguised fuckwittery. I hope to make it through the whole thing, but right at the outset in the first couple of paragraphs we have idiocy. No wonder you think highly of it.
@@ozowen5961 "If that "paper" is challenge Miller, then it needs to be published in a reputable paper and subjected to review." Says you. Who are you but nothing but a dumbass. Give your science peer-reviewed info showing the details are wrong. You'll never do it. Your only comeback is, "So, if you are going to "bitch slap" then you need to make contact." Thanks for sharing what low depths your intellect is at.
@@2fast2block No dopey, and you had best not tell too many falsehoods. Firstly, I was a tad busy so having time to read and comment on the paper was subject to time constraints. (Still is- I have a few jobs to get through today) However, the "paper" set up a whole bunch of totally false scenarios. For example, it fails to mention that evolution happens at the population level and the entire population is involved in change. The claims that it would take "trillions" of years conveniently forgets that it is not a process happening in a single lineage, but pretty much all breeding members of a population are involved. And the processes of natural selection root out the dysfunctional elements. Probably a major reason for the terrible paper never going to a reputable journal. It would have and should have been rejected at the outset. Of course you will whine about how that is all not true or how peer review is a conspiracy or some other drivel. But that is just a start.
@@ozowen5961 "Probably a major reason for the terrible paper never going to a reputable journal. It would have and should have been rejected at the outset. Of course you will whine about how that is all not true or how peer review is a conspiracy or some other drivel. But that is just a start." If you could read you'd see that he was going by the analysis of others who also looked at this. And you want to lecture what is "terrible". "For example, it fails to mention that evolution happens at the population level and the entire population is involved in change." So "the entire population" of what? What is your population made of? How did it populate? How did whatever was the first one to populate get life from non-life to populate? Again, what populated, how did it populate, and how did it get life to populate? You don't have a clue. But....what you are somehow sure about once you skipped how stupid it is to have somehow got the population that you don't even know what of, etc, you know that it "fails to mention that evolution happens at the population level and the entire population is involved in change." and how do you know whatever you completely made up as life populating is all changing? Mutations are pretty much detrimental so if what you fart out is true the population would die out, not progress. Can you at least try harder to make sense in your dumbass mind?
As far as science and ID is concerned, Behe himself acknowledged under oath that he or anyone has no peer reviewed publications that support ID by pertinent experiments or calculations . Here is an extract from his cross examination - Kitzmiller v. Dover Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct? Behe - No, I argued for it in my book. Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal? Behe - That's correct. Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct? Behe - That is correct, yes.
You do know that peer-reviewed journals aren't bias free, don't you? Just look at the numerous psychological articles published in the Psychological Bulletin. Some are nothing but publication biases such as the file-drawer. Statisticians even criticize peer-review publications in their textbooks.
I wouldn't put to much stock in the lack of peer review for ID themed papers. I wouldn't expect Magellan to of had conformation of a spherical Earth when all the existing "scientist" believed it to be flat.....Best thing to do is read his critics from the scientific community and read his replies.....Transcript from a court case listed on every pro-Darwinian isn't much of an argument. If he had no peer reviewed papers, that would be a concern and reason to dismiss. But the fact it's hard for him to get anything published from a "board" of good ole boys about ID specifically, doesn't bother me much, and honestly would be expected.
***** "he also admitted in court that he wanted to redefine science and that astrology would be taught in the science class room under his definition" I don't care whether Behe wanted to consider astrology a science, but I do know for a fact that the definition of science and the scientific method have been hijacked by secularists/materialists under the limits of naturalism and anyone who dares defy it deserves scorn, rejection, etc. from the scientific community. I find the claim that 'whatever doesn't fit with the natural world should not be considered science since the scientific method only deals with the natural world' quite erroneous. The sheer irony in such definition is that there is actually nothing in the scientific method that suggests all hypotheses should be limited to materialistic explanations. It only says that as long as a hypothesis is testable and falsifiable, it can be considered scientific regardless how far-fetching it sounds. This is because science is simply a tool that deals with the tangible, not necessarily limited by naturalistic explanations. and if you seriously think otherwise, then tell me this: What is supernatural/paranormal to you? Is dowsing, ESP/Telekinesis, etc. paranormal? You would think so, but if those paranormal powers were in our everyday lives you would beg to differ since they fall in the norm. Even if you were completely ignorant in our everyday technology, you would consider them supernatural since you would think they must work by magic. Yet, it is actually your ignorance that limits you to what you think is natural and not natural. Using science as a tool under materialism/naturalism is nothing more but an equivocation fallacy fabricated in sheer ignorance that limits science from acknowledging the unknown by creating a wall between the norm and paranormal/supernatural.
***** "it was found that the paper was not peer reviewed to standard and as a result was disavowed" What paper? I checked the link CSID ZN provided and all I saw was a biography of Sternberg. Also, according to his biography, he has published refereed articles in such journals as Genetica, Evolutionary Theory, Journal of Comparative Biology, Crustacean Research, Journal of Natural History, Journal of Morphology, Journal of Biological Systems, and the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Sounds like he has peer-reviewed credentials to me.
34:40 is recognition from experience, same as machine learning / AI. Plus it's spurious: that cartoon could have been conveyed in a multitude of styles, all the way down to ASCII art. And the scene could have been re-arranged. And the wording could have been less clunky. Or in Korean. Or in braille. Or rendered in blue-on-purple for enjoyment by tetrachromics. Or not at all from Muslims and other creeds that forbid representation, or pre-representational cultures. So we can tell a lot about the designer and purpose of something from the thing. What does the 'evidence' tell us: god has a hard-on for beetles ; god hates people so he took away the cancer regulation genes that all the other primates get ; god really hates humans so he made childbirth really anatomically dangerous ; god regrets moving away from fish, so every land vertebrate has a chance of choking on every mouthful ; god was much happier with pterodactyls than people, so he gave _them_ the lightweight bones and high endurance ; god is an intermittently absent overlord - apparently drops perfectly-formed little toys into the ecosystem every so often then fu@ks off to do something more interesting while his playthings degenerate or he sobres up.
Sorry for your loss brother....you don't deny God....you absolutely loathe Him...perhaps next time we will leave stuff alone that doesn't belong to us...if you recall only then was the tree of life forbidden. Don't blame Eve or Adam...blame you...as you, and I would of made the same decision....to know more and be equal. He's not mad at us brother.
Therefore it's not by chance. So it must have developed by some very clever method or maybe some other way that we don't know about. Anybodies guess until we get more information about the method. I suppose it could be magic, but it's more likely natural because magic is too much of a stretch. Besides, we would then need to find out how the magic works, so I don't like that approach.
tedgrant2 We all know how difficult it is to win the lottery. Now multiply this little chance by a million and you call this a very clever method? Why wait for a chance when you can just create something with a magic wand if you are God?
You clearly don't understand the process of Evolution. The changes are random but the selection isn't. If a random mutation improves the chance of survival, then that mutation will be incorporated in it's offspring. That's pretty simple to understand, yet you fail to grasp it.
Each child born has an average of 60 mutations, most of which make little difference, but the odd one from time to time has a beneficial effect. In a large population over millions of generations, these things morph one form into another. Creationists like to hang on to a 6000 year old Earth in an attempt to argue that there is insufficient time, but they're wrong. Why is there so much concern about the over use of Anti-Biotics at the moment? This is a classic case of evolution in action. It's happening much more quickly than in large organisms because bacterial number in their billions in each of us, and it only takes a tiny percentage of mutations for one of them to find a way of defeating the Anti-Biotic. Those are the ones that then multiply It's a simple concept, try to understand it.
Dr Behe's energy patience, and demonstration of Random Access Memory in this presentation is outstanding.
Behe doesn't think its designed because he believes in God, he believes in God because he can see that it is designed. I do, anyway.
Even if one doesn't postulate intelligent design, one cannot help to acknowledge the big diifficulties Darwinian theory seems to have when it comes to explaining crucial mechanisms of evolution. Apart from that it doesn' deal with the origin of life at all.
Nor does gravity explain electromagnetism, which is not a difficulty or problem with gravity, because one can simply apply electromagnetism to explain ElectroMagnetic phenomenon. (This type of simple common sense seems to be too much for many creationists to handle. When they don't get an answer reducing everything to one "purpose", the same mode of operation they use, their heads explode or they go into denial mode).
Complaining that gravity doesn't explain E&M, or evolution doesn't explain life origins, or a hammer doesn't work as a pillow AND and spoon AND a blanket AND can't be eaten for food, is *total insanity* and denial of reality.
If you want to be spoon-fed like an infantile child screaming for mommy's teat, you want the bible, quran, vedas and the world's religions.
If you want reliable, accurate, detailed, specific, predictive, quantifiable, unambiguous, objective, falsifiable knowledge about the external universe, your only choice is science.
If science hasn't yet addressed some part of the universe you want to know about, as it hadn't for ALL parts at some time in history, then you will be disappointed. What do you want? True/accurate/reliable knowledge or to suck mommy's teat?
Science is modular and focused. That's what makes it work properly and successfully. All attempts to explain everything at once are doomed to fail in the presence of incomplete information and limited knowledge. Science explains parts it can, and makes no attempt to unify or explain other parts when there is not enough information or evidence to meet its standard.
Religion doesn't have this "problem" because religion prioritizes creating _any_ answer, true or false, over everything else. The goal is to give people something to eat and fill a void, even if the "food" is totally unhealthy (i.e. untrue).
"big difficulties Darwinian theory seems to have when it comes to explaining crucial mechanisms of evolution"
As explained above, science defers to parts.
Google: *physical mechanisms of mutation* for example, to see how physics and chemistry explain that. My guess is you won't, because you have no interest in true knowledge, only things that make you "happy", like a little baby.
Google *genetic drift, sexual selection* (other mechanisms of evolution).
@@ja31472 Um, you do realize design is one of the only two causes for material structures in the universe, right? Literally everything in the universe is either designed or formed via natural causes. Your bigoted diatribe simply cannot change that brute fact of reality; those who deny the reality of design for ideological reasons hinder scientific progress. I have to laugh at the mental knots evolutionists twist themselves in order to support their theory. If you need to deny observable reality to support your theory doesn't that tell you that your theory does not conform to science?
@@stevedoetsch "you do realize design is one of the only two causes for material structures in the universe"
You do realize that the *only scientifically demonstrated cause of design/intelligence/consciousness is natural processes* ?
It is a fact that the only verified, observed, scientifically demonstrated intelligences in this universe are inside animal brains, *which totally depend on natural processes, laws of chemistry and physics.*
Ask a neuroscientist how laws of physics and chemistry allow you to think, feel and ponder a fictional god.
While your at it, as a biologist and biochemist how natural processes allow you to live.
"Literally everything in the universe is either designed or formed via natural causes."
Those things in this universe that are designed (by animal brains) depend on, exist, change and function by natural processes, laws of chemistry and physics.
Ask a neuroscientist how laws of physics and chemistry _allow_ you to think, feel and ponder a fictional god you've never observed once.
"Your bigoted diatribe simply cannot change that brute fact of reality"
Your totally ignorant, warped worldview simply cannot change the fact that matter/energy comes _before_ minds, in all observed cases, and NEVER the reverse.
"those who deny the reality of design"
You deny the source and cause of intelligence in brains like yours (natural laws and processes).
You also deny the reality of why design (created by human brains, which are created by natural processes) exists in the first place.
Ask a neuroscientist how your brain works.
Ask them how laws of physics and chemistry _allow you_ to think, feel and ponder a fictional god.
After you understand that, get on your knees and worship what keeps you alive right now, laws of physics that allow your heart to pump blood, blood to flow and lungs to breath; blind, soulless, mindless physical processes that allow all molecules in your body to react and transform, healing your wounds.
Regardless of any religious philosophies _that depend on brain function, which depend on natural laws to exist,_ and help you lead a better life or forget all your pain and suffering, NONE of those religious ideas would matter if it wasn't electromagnetism, for example, that allows your neurons to fire, brain to work, and contemplate that philosophy.
"I have to laugh at the mental knots evolutionists twist themselves in order to support their theory"
I have to laugh at the mental knots creationists twist themselves in order to support their theory (that you can have a mind without natural processes).
Mind before matter is a total, unproven theory and fiction.
All observed/observable minds depend on matter/energy and natural processes to work, exist and function.
"If you need to deny observable reality to support your theory doesn't that tell you that your theory does not conform to science?"
If you need to deny observable reality (that all observed minds depend on natural processes to function) to support your theory, doesn't that tell you that your theory does not conform to science?
@@ja31472 you’re obviously as passionate about your paradigm as a religious individual would be about his.
Indulge me if you will.
Haven’t you fathomed the reality that Genetic information is in essence Information. ? And the fact that we can read it and decipher it’s language entail an intelligent cause.
Albeit it’s against your creed of methodological naturalism.
@@garsayfsomali You're mistaking passion for something else, basic knowledge of science and logic perhaps, because that is where all of the mistakes in creationists' claims lie. Even yours. If someone says the earth is not a sphere or 1 + 2 = 12, and I give a detailed, thorough response (because I'm well-educated on those things), that is not passion, merely knowledge and being detail-oriented, which I can't really help, being part engineer.
"creed of methodological naturalism"
MN is a *method,* not a creed, lol "Dr". It's even included in the name.
"Haven’t you fathomed the reality that Genetic information is in essence Information"
Right, because humans (with DNA-based, cell-based, chemistry-based, physics-based, matter/energy-based brains that create information from sensory input and observables) have *called it* information or *used it as* information, which can be done for *any observable.*
DNA is information (starting _AFTER_ its discovery and not before) because it consists of physical observables and material attributes that have been co-opted by humans for that use, just like I can use a rock as a hammer, paperweight or weapon; or as some people use an anus as a vagina.
Does the philosophy and psychology of "using something as something" escape all creationists?
I think so. Prove me wrong.
Show me (don't just tell me, SHOW, i.e. scientifically demonstrate) a mind without DNA and you will be world-famous and make intelligent design a legitimate scientific possibility [2] (but not an inevitability).
Likewise if you demonstrate "pure" information without a physical observable attached to it, or a chemistry-based brain creating and labeling observables as information.
Haven't you fathomed the reality that without a physical observable or some measurable material property and without some physical brain observing and creating meaning from that observable, there would be no information [stored in the brain of the observer, NOT in the observable].
Haven’t you fathomed the reality that anything, including information [1], can be *used as* information, as I use a rock as a hammer, paperweight or weapon?
*Any physical property or attribute can be assigned a name, symbol, code, or linguistic representation that "contains" information* (in the mind of the observer, NOT the object of observation).
Haven’t you fathomed the reality that once called information or used as information by a human, that in no way proves or demonstrates:
1) There exists any other intelligence that once did the same thing you did, sometime in the past, to the same observable.
2) That intelligence had something to do with its existence.
The location of the information, where it exists, is *NOT in or on the observable* (in this case DNA), *it is inside the mind of the observer,* in this case humans, and is dependent on that mind functioning and retaining thought and memory of the meaning of the *observable being used as information.*
Ignorant creationists and lay-people see science, the human-created system, constructs, frameworks, models, laws, languages, rules, symbols, etc., and make at least three mistakes:
1) They think those human-created constructs in science existed before humans, and hence the status of DNA as information existed before humans and is "transcendental" or infinite.
2) They think that entails something intelligent like humans existed and was involved in causation or existence of the observable, sometime in the past.
3) They think that symbols, meanings and concepts (such as information) that humans create in their minds and then "paint" onto external observables (like DNA), actually exist outside of the human mind before it was observed and "painted".
The status of DNA as information is totally dependent on the human observer, and hence the biological/chemical/physical processes occurring inside the brain that allows humans to think in the first place. Either way, information is dependent on matter/energy and natural laws that allow brains to function and create concepts like genetic information.
If all humans ceased to exist right now DNA in other animals, and everything else would continue to operate _exactly_ as it did before humans called it information.
Why, because DNA's status as information (according to humans only) is not what makes it work and grants all function; it is unconscious natural laws and mindless physical processes doing all that heavy lifting, that humans philosophically abstract into nice, convenient, understandable, relatable packages and terms like "information", "codes", "transcription", "translation", etc., all of which have anthropomorphic meanings that do not auto-magically generalize to places and times humans did not exist. Certainly not to prebiotic earth 3.5 billion years ago. All known intelligence requires DNA (and cells, chemistry, physics, matter/energy and natural laws) to exist. ID is not a scientific possibility at this time. It is in the domain of philosophy of mind, religions, fantasy, and wish-thinking only.
[1] For example, "5 bytes" is information about information. It tells how much information there is.
[2] By "mind without DNA", I mean something not causally dependent on DNA, as computer AIs are. So far there is no evidence for any minds that don't rely on DNA, and since ID says a mind created DNA, ID has one of two problems prevent it being legitimate science, either it has a circular dependency or has a faith-based, unproven assumption, that minds can exist without DNA (or cells, chemistry, physics, matter/energy) that humans require (and human-created AIs require).
What Michael Behe says about the irreducible complexity in the flagellum of the cell is actually not irreducible, because part of the flagellum motor is the secretory system and does secretory work in other cells.
What a breath taking thought provoking lecture.... we know little to nothing !!! Bugs me greatly that the experts can’t seem to just admit it !!! Wonderful presentation
Christian Barker - Get a grip, this man has been desperately trying to find just one example of 'design' and has yet to fine one! The flagellum has evolved from simpler forms, just like the eye has. Look it up and you'll see how this happened and what structures have been repurposed in its Evolution to arrive at where it is today.
Everything points to Evolution, nothing points to Creation or Design.
@@rogerfroud300 evolution is a gradual process. that thing couldn't be broken down gradually
@@rogerfroud300 who am I kidding. we are just a speck of dust. Feelings doesn't exists as science can't prove them as they are just mere chemicals. love is fake. We don't have morality. We don't have consciousness. Everything which can't be proved must be false.
@@akashverma4280 - Evolution runs at many speeds. Elephants and Viruses both evolved and are still evolving.
How about you tell us all the evidence you have for Creation? You complain about Evolution, for which there is a vast treasure trove of evidence, yet you don't offer any of your own. Why is that? Could it be that there simply isn't any? Go on Genius, let's hear your evidence for Creation, we're all ears.
@@akashverma4280 - Wrong yet again. Science just explains what it can, and investigates the things it doesn't know about.
Morality certainly does exist, it's been evolving since creatures have been able to think.
You can see how human morality has Evolved since the Old Testament, where Rape, Murder and Genocide were carried out in God's name and with his direction.
If you want to know about morals, the last place to look is the Bible!
I don't blame Darwin. He had NO idea of the "information" necessary to create and sustain life occurred.
During his time, as Behe mentions, they thought life was just "dirty water."
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
I really liked his humbleness in a humors way when he said that he named it irreducible complexity to make people think he is smart. I was thinking about this myself, I was thinking that most humanity were believing in God because they knew that it is impossible for all this complex universe, all these complex animals and complex humans to exit together without a creator, they just didn't know to give it such a fancy name like irreducible complexity.
Questions were about items that Michael covered in Darwin's Black Box. I don't think these people even read the book. Macro-evolution (evolution of body plans) is not falsifiable, therefore it is not a scientific theory.
Correct, evolution is the only major scientific theory proposed without any mathematics; it makes no predictions and cannot be falsified because it's just a story about the past through which to interpret the data. The theory itself is not proven by the data.
The last question from the audience was simple but effective and well answered by Michael Behe.
Behe’s arguments are very strong and sound. It is true that the scientific community is dead set against allowing criticism of Darwin’s theory, but Darwin had no explanation for the origin of life. Darwin left that to succeeding generations of scientist who have not made much progress other than to demonstrate the improbability of abiogenesis which atheistic theories of the origin of life assume. Darwin’s theory is NOT meant to explain the origin of life but merely the origin of species GIVEN life! It does a very poor job at that.
Shame his arguments are based on.... hmmmm, nothing.
The science community is not dead set against criticism of Darwin't theory. That fact is demonstrated endlessly in creationist quote mining work. Criticism is strong and continuous. That's howcome there has been so much new work.
Abiogenesis is making progress but is far from being solved. That makes no actual difference. Evolution is a very real thing.
ozowen evolution is a very real thing? Well, there is some suggestion that all life is somehow related, Common systems suggest that. Evolution was an idea that goes back to the ancient Greeks, hardly Darwin’s idea. Darwin’s idea was evolution by ‘Random Mutation and Natural Selection’. THAT is falling apart as the Random Mutation motif has been demonstrated to be incapable of creating the complexity of systems and information we find. Losing Anthony Flew was the deathknell for Random Mutation.
@@roberttormey4312 How strange, I take it you do all your reading on this subject within the confines of the ID/ creationist bubble?
Random selection is hardly "falling apart" as the source material for Natural Selection to work on to increase complexity.
Where is you source for this claim? Papers are constantly showing how mutations are responsible for evolution being able to happen.
(Hint: actual scientific papers, not someone's youtube video)
@@ozowen5961 , there is too much of cheerleading for claims supporting one's own beliefs and cynicism for claims contrary to one's own belief. We should be using healthy skepticism equally to claims regardless of our beliefs.
Most realize the observations of a level of life adapting and of life being similar.
But you seem to use an extreme extrapolation to assume that cell to man is a given. To me this is more a statement of your faith. I don't think it impossible but I look to valid experiments showing such.
What experiment shows how we by design have shown any major adaptation could have occurred naturally?
@@allenrhoades8482
It's hardly a matter of faith.
1) The fossil record is a record of trait appearance. The order of traits such as eyes, wings, limbs, spines, hips, joints, seeds, sexual reproduction or pretty much any trait is robust.
That isn't extrapolation. It is observed in the fossil record and is explained by evolution. In the 1800's this disturbed scientists so much that they concluded for a while that perhaps God killed off creatures then started again and yet again in constant extinction and reboot plans.
2) Sequenced genomes can be compared. This not only reveals similarity. It also reveals shared heritages/ ancestry. For example, all humans share 14 markers of viral infections traced back to shared ancestors. (certainly viral, certainly shared and certainly random placement markers- meaning they're not coincidental)
3) We share these genetic markers of ancestry with chimpanzees and others with other primates. Making a very robust means of showing we evolved and the order of that evolution.
4) Many of those markers are now partially employed by the genome, meaning beneficial mutations were derived from inserted viral sequences.
The guy electronic engineer, the answer is in your question: you yourself said: "we developed... we improve". Your micro processor will not develop by themselves... stupid question
exactly, its crazy to me that people using that argument dont see that. It takes mind and inteligence to create chip and keep improving it. Nobody who goes to shore and sees simples transistor says oh this came out by waves over milions of years
From Lehigh University
Department position on evolution and "intelligent design"
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
It’s unfortunate that Behe’s ability to think critically hasn’t rubbed off on his colleagues.
@@timid3000 Are you saying that is is a shame, that not all his colleagues fall back to a mind set of a medieval peasant , where they attemt to solve one mystery by appealing to another, which happens to come in the form of a divine entity? Because it sounds a lot like you are saying exactly that.
@@derhafi Pretty much, yeah. It’s unfortunate that people and especially academics are so thoroughly brainwashed. For grown adults to believe that a sea slug can randomly mutate into a human or a Peacock and believe so minus any tangible evidence is quite alarming. I was one of those brainwashed people not too long ago but having taken interest in the debate I’ve come to see how painfully obvious it is that ID proponents are winning. They’re mocked, ridiculed and straw manned constantly, because they’re winning.
@@timid3000 This certainly is a way to make it clear that you have not the faintest grasp on science.
You might not be aware of this, I’m certain you aren’t, but you put people in a position where they don’t know how to reply. Not because there would not be an adequate response, but it is just hard to decide where to begin. The foundation of knowledge one would need to impart into you, before we could even begin to drag you out of your sinkhole of ignorance is just indescribable vast and would cost thousands of dollars..
@@derhafi Lol, you're projecting Rob. You're brainwashed my friend, just another sad fanatic of pseudoscience. You'll be telling me next that the earth is a big spinning ball! Bless your heart.
Irreducible Complexity:
Irreducible complexity simply means that certain mechanisms, be they mechanical or biological, require all of the essential parts in place to function. If you deny that, then you are incredibly unlearned. You do know what the word 'essential' means? And you must know that right in front of you and all around you are devices that will not function if an essential part is broken or missing.
Each claim for irreducible complexity must certainly be examined individually not categorically since there are obvious examples that are not irreducibly complex. However, there are other examples that cannot easily be dismissed.
Understand that no scientist or engineer claims irreducible complexity is not a valid concept. Very simply, a mechanism cannot run without all of its ESSENTIAL parts. No one questions that. It is in fact, a self-evident statement, that always holds true.
The real issue with IC is whether a partial mechanism or organ can remain around long enough to become useful before natural selection eliminates it.
All I have heard from those trying to refute irreducible complexity are imaginary unobserved scenarios describing what "might have happened" in the evolutionary time scale to bring about the biological features in question.
No one has demonstrated the step by step processes taking place on an irreducibly complex bio-machine, organ, or the extraordinary complex cell itself.
Shooting down an hypothesis takes more than some reasonable imaginary story of how something might have happened but has not been observed happening. The problem with evolutionary theory is that evolution depends on unguided mechanisms: random mutation and natural selection in order for evolution to take place. These mechanisms have been shown by experience and reason to not be adequate to cause evolution.
And, there is more to it than some useless mutational changes just hanging around until something useful is built. The whole notion that any complex life form can even get off the ground is at odds with observation and common sense.
Do some serious reading,
John
Ah - the "you weren't there" version of the argument from incredulity.
Well: you weren't there either, so you have no basis for claiming an intelligent designer : lacking any evidence, there is no way to distinguish between your hypothesis from the hypothesis of random chance just getting lucky after 10B years with millions of planets just in this galaxy.
William Chamberlain
You don’t have to be there to observe and recognize intelligence. His criticism is not an argument from incredulity.
Darwinian evolution results from circular reasoning.
"The real issue with IC is whether a partial mechanism or organ can remain around long enough"
No, the real issue is whether the partial mechanism ever existed in the first place, and thus, that evolution even had to deal with it. *IC doesn't prove it existed, it just assumes it or imagines it, and builds all further logical steps on that fictional story and assumption.* Just like the bible and quran.
It's an undeniable fact, *removing a part of something doesn't prove it ever existed in history.*
Removing the atmosphere from earth (physically or in one's mind) does not prove that an atmosphere-less earth was a stage in its past or even existed.
Removing all four walls from a house does not demonstrate the house once existed without walls, although the creationist will try to make you think it did AND a god was supporting the roof without walls.
"No one has demonstrated the step by step processes taking place on an irreducibly complex"
No creationist has demonstrated the part-less system was ever a real step that existed in history, and subsequently that evolution had to deal with it.
IC defines what "working" and function means, takes a "working" system and removes a part (in one's imagination), carefully chosen to make it not "work" (but it still may work as something else, in some other place and time).
Thus, IC is all based on imaginary claims, just like the bible and quran.
"Shooting down a hypothesis takes more than some reasonable imaginary story"
IC imagines a story about removing a part and then asserts, with no evidence, that the incomplete thing actually existed or some event occurred sometime in earth's history. At best, IC is a philosophical thought experiment with *ZERO evidence for its claims* and conclusions.
"a mechanism cannot run without all of its ESSENTIAL parts."
Yes it can. It can "run" as something else, for a different purpose or with a different function.
Anything can be *used as* something different, possibly millions of purposes exist, not just the biological or what is obvious to you, the human. You, nor any human, possess an "objective function/purpose detector." Nor does any human have a perfect god detector or scripture interpreter. All decisions are fallible, according scripture in most religions, even the decision to choose a "true" god or religion.
"ESSENTIAL parts."
What is essential to one system is detrimental to another. Fins on a cheetah. Legs on a fish. A large brain in an insect (that survives by being small and acting like an insect). A small brain in a human.
Function is relative to environment. You can't remove a part and be sure it won't function as something else in some other environment. *IC doesn't prove function was eliminated, it just assumes it, one more fictional premise.*
"No one questions that."
Any scientist would and should question that there is an objective or "god" function, purpose or global set of "essential" parts, when the evidence shows that function and "essential" is totally relative to environment, place and time.
Any scientist would question that one set of parts in one environment is not essential or necessary in another. This is demonstrably true, yet IC ignores it.
"It is in fact, a self-evident statement, that always holds true."
It doesn't hold true in all environments.
Also, the claim is based on a bogus philosophical concept: "to run (with a purpose)", when purpose itself can change and is not objective, and is relative to environment, time, place and observer.
"there are other examples that cannot easily be dismissed."
All examples of IC can be dismissed once you realize IC asserts multiple false assumptions:
1) removing a part proves that incomplete system ever existed or that evolution had to deal with it. False, see examples above.
2) function is objective and not dependent on the mind or observer
3) biological function is "objective" or higher than all others
4) function can't change
5) function can be destroyed or eliminated permanently
6) multiple simultaneous function is impossible
"All I have heard from those trying to refute irreducible complexity are imaginary unobserved scenarios describing what "might have happened" "
Give full names and direct quotes I doubt you can.
*IC is based on a totally imaginary scenario, a philosophical though experiment with no real evidence.* IC invents its own mythical history and demands it be true history, just the bible and quran.
IC declares one possible function, removes a part without proving it ever happened, and then declares with no evidence that one case is true for all and function is "eliminated".
"Understand that no scientist or engineer claims irreducible complexity (IC) is not a valid concept."
No scientists or engineer claims IC is a valid scientific concept.
IC may be a valid _philosophical_ concept, just like fairies, witchcraft, heaven, hell, gods, and harry potter magic. *But there is absolutely nothing scientific or empirical about IC* except the first step.
IC is a philosophical thought experiment. It does the following:
1) Take a system, define, declare or assert (not measure) a function, which is a *way of understanding how the system operates as a whole.* There is no such thing as objective function, only function relative to observer or the interest of humans, i.e. in biological function, chemical function, function or purpose to convince humans of an argument, etc.
2) Remove one part [carefully selected by the creationist giving the argument] as to eliminate the previously asserted function which he invented, which was only *one of many possible functions or uses.*
3) *Assert without evidence* that the simpler system can't function as the original did or anything else of interest. Even if this is true, *it still doesn't prove all possible functions were removed for all future time.*
No matter how far you break something down, even to sub-atomic particles, *you can't remove its function* or the potential for natural laws to make something of it in the future. Matter made of atoms that can [naturally] combine to form all we see in the universe is proof that function can't be destroyed.
4) *Assert without evidence* that since the new part-less system didn't function as the previous whole thing did, it couldn't have been any use to survival in evolution. But it is already proven there are billions of ways to survive (for example, take the billions of species in millions of ecological niches) not just the one way that the original system had.
IC has multiple false claims and no evidence to back up anything it says. It asserts:
1) There is only one function of a system. This is demonstrably false. Anything can be used for multiple purposes or have multiple simultaneous functions.
2) Removal of one part destroys all possible potential functions completely, for all future time. This is totally absurd. If this were true, recycling would not be possible, either throughout nature or as humans do it intentionally.
3) No other use or function can exist in the system with one part removed. This is demonstrable false.
4) Function is static, unchangeable, objectively measurable, and can't exist simultaneously with other functions. All false, as shown above.
"No one has demonstrated the step by step processes taking place on an irreducibly complex bio-machine"
No creationist has demonstrated that anything is actually irreducibly complex, because they haven't demonstrated function can be eliminated, can't change on the fly, or occur simultaneously with other function not preciously known, or that something can't function in a different environment.
"Each claim for irreducible complexity must certainly be examined individually"
No because the basis of IC is fundamentally flawed. It assumes false things, no matter what each claim says, they all assume the same false premises as listed above.
"Irreducible complexity simply means that certain mechanisms ... require all the essential parts in place to function."
But since there are multiple possible functions, especially for survival and evolution, removing a part that "destroys" only one of those doesn't prove anything. We already have enough evidence to show the contrary. Billions of species, each with different t niches and functions.
Function can change on the fly and there are multiple ways to achieve the same function.
There is no such thing as objective function and function can't be destroyed or removed. Function is a philosophical concept. IC is not scientific.
For example, atoms function as the building blocks for everything, including life. Even if living structures composed of atoms are destroyed, that still doesn't eliminate the function.
God thank you for clearing this up!
Genius! Thank you Mr. Behe
Very hard to challenge the dogma of science. All of post-modern philosophy would collapse if it were proven God existed. A very uncomfortable prospect for most intellectual and carnal pursuits. Thus unthinkable to many.
exact opposite is more scientifically proven over 50 years
"dogma of science" is a self contradiction. Either you don't know what science is or you lie. The scientific method is iterative, repeating, self-correcting, honest, open, and constantly seeks verification with the empirical universe it seeks to describe.
Exactly the opposite of religious dogma, which is final (according to ancient illiterate uneducated "prophets"), closed to all competing ideas and explanations, not self-correcting, dishonest, not attached in any way to the external universe it claims to dictate knowledge of, and entirely philosophical, with no verifiable repeatable experiments.
"All of post-modern philosophy would collapse"
No, because science is by definition amenable and open to change, contrary to religion and its dogmas.
If science has no mention of a god, it's because a god does not interactively participate in this universe anywhere near as much as the laws of nature do. In fact there is no scientifically verified interaction of any god at anytime in the history of the entire universe.
The word "father" in christian dogma truly is a lie and insult to even the most drunken immoral man who fucks a teen girl, gets her pregnant and then abandons her forever, leaving only a message to obey his rules and worship him.
All life and non-life is driven, changes, and functions by natural law, with not a god in sight controlling anything. You live because of biochemical and physical processes. Science measures and describes the empirical universe accurately, and there is no measurable, detectable god interacting in the empirical universe, hence its conclusion.
@@ja31472 >>> self-correcting, honest,
Not evolution discussion
OMG! If all of post-modern philosophy collapsed what would we do? I'll tell you what we'd do. We's send 10's of 1000's of pseudoscientists to the unemployment line! WOW. Do you think the Universe could handle such a damaging blow? Whaa Whaa Whaa...stop whining and get over it...
@@ja31472 In a perfect world you are correct. In the real world, often those who question the consensus or offer other explanations that diverge from it are ridiculed, have their funding cut off, not allowed to take part in the peer review process, etc. To pretend the scientific community is somehow immune from the types of corruption that have permeated every facet of human culture throughout history is just plain ignorance.
1:30 these little geeks trying to blow Micheal's argument, so many 1 minute geniuses..!
Obviously you're no geek. You don't understand evolution and you don't understand the "science" behind IrCom. If you did you would understand that Behe and co. are lying for cash.
Me thinks thou doest protest too much, and don't understand the uneducated theory, not science behind Darwin's theory, which is not a fact, but a theory, and that to expose his bad science theory is not lying, it is telling the truth that the so-called scientific community is unwilling to tell.
Hello pot, this is the kettle, and you're black. Try getting a grant from your so-called scientific community without bowing at the altar of its god Darwin, and practicing his religion know as unquestioning faith in his THEORY of evolution.
If you did understand Darwin's faulty theory, and Behe's explanation of irreducible complexity, you might be able to admit how your self delusional pseudo science cohorts get their grants, aka cash. IMO.
David Berlinski said the theory of evolution will disappear and good riddance to a bad theory.
ua-cam.com/video/SOtGb8hKyWE/v-deo.html
@@charlesmiller2472
Behe has no idea at all.
You clearly did not understand what a Theory is in science when you did that post.
Hopefully you will have learned since then.
Takes a lot of courage to stand up to the establishment and highlight that common knowledge may be a scientific error.
+The One Journal of Quarterly Review of Biology did peer review and then publish one of Behe's articles. www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_scientific_paper041131.html
As I understand it, In that article Behe reviewed prior published literature that described mutations as mechanisms for evolution. Of all the publications he reviewed, (as I understand it) Behe reported that the published reports almost always report that observed mutations result is the loss of previously established function. That included the loss of function of regulatory mechanisms (as in Lenski's E.Coli). But loss of function cannot explain evolution of diverse species. The implication is that species are gradually losing function due to mutation - life appears to be de-evolving.
www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_scientific_paper041131.html
The One I see no basis for you to write "little to no impact on the scientific community". The mere fact that his article was cited 36 times does not demonstrate impact on the scientific community. First, define what the scientific community is. Is it merely America atheist scientists? Or does it include the whole world? Is it just scientists who publish? Or does it include the many thousands of support people and scientists who are not publishing. Is the "impact" limited in time to merely the period during which you perform a review? Or does the impact period extend out into the future? And please define what an "impact" is. Did the article make scientists think more critically about the potential failures of evolution?
Personally, I think he should be congratulated for publishing something that is apparently offensive to many pro-evolutionists because we should be free to publish new ideas. I also congratulate the Quarterly Review of Biology and the peers who reviewed his initial submission. This shows that articles critical of evolutionist science can be published.
+Joe Baublis
The definition of "scientific theory":
"Scientific Theory" means "evidence based explanations lacking any contradictions".
As for evolution:
"Evolution" is not a theory, biological or otherwise. Evolution has taken place. In this regard, it is a fact.
Evolutionary theories are the explanations of how evolution took place.
That's the problem with debating the reality of evolution. To the lay individual, a theory is "just a guess".
But we are talking about a "Scientific Theory" and to a scientist, it's about as close to being a fact as you can get without being absolutely sure that it's correct. It is the current "evidence based explanations LACKING ANY CONTRADICTIONS.
Evolution happened and was a fact even before Darwin established how it works without outside intervention.
There is no criticism of modern sciences methods or conclusions(evolution) that doesn't work against your religious foundation of myths & superstitions better. You ignorant f ucking myth spreading maggot.
The scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific, pseudoscience, or junk science.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.
In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma). This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."
In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory". There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.
There are No Alternative Hypothesis to the principle of evolution with its "tree of life," that any COMPETENT biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is FIRMLY ESTABLISHED, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established and the sun is at center of solar system.
mechanicmike69 Solomon Asch showed that people will falsify their own perceptions in order to be accepted by their peers. And Milgram showed that people will harm other people in order to obey authorities.
Your argument - essentially - shows that a peer group has formed. But you have not demonstrated that evolution has ever even been observed.
Based on my research into evolution - I say there are many contradictions, and many examples of evolution fraud.
As for the law - for many years American law justified slavery even though it was never right.
Evolution is a giant fraud.
+mechanicmike69 Your personal characterization is very colorful Mr. Mechanic. I'm compelled to attack the idea of evolution - but not you personally. I find it regrettable that you resort to vulgarity and personal insults in support of your position, but I suppose that's your choice.
The list of scientific disciplines to which you allude is impressive. However, you haven't identified any specific proof of evolution within any of the fields.
Milgram and Asch demonstrated. - essentially - that humans will obey authority and comply with commands even when doing so causes injury to other people, and Asch showed that humans will falsify their own perception of facts merely to fit into peer groups. Mr. Mechanic - your list of scientific fields is merely the result of many people who want to fit into their scientific peer group. The Von Sternberg ID publication debacle shows the same human tendency, as do the numerous incidences of scientific fraud in support of evolution.
When will Darwinism start to evolve
sorry, but creed in sects is adamant and unchanging... that is why it is doomed.
@FIDIRONU LOL, but it's don't have any real experimental evidence of evolution possibility as a nature happening.
@FIDIRONU If you actually read the rule of falsification by Karl Popper you'd know it is not the end all or be all of science. Yet when it comes to Neo-Darwinism it is a rhetorical argument as Darwin himself said. It is obviously so true there doesn't need to be very much proof that it is true.
That argumentation is how it took over science. Yet there still is very little evidence that Darwin was right. Darwinism does not pass the falsification test because it changes its rhetoric to meet every argument against it. A theory that explains everything actually explains nothing. Sound like Climate Change the blames everything on it.
The Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection (the Theory that explains the fact of evolution) is constantly evolving.
The nonsense replies here are the choir you preached to. But their ignorance is revealed in their posts.
And be aware, ID is not a viable Theory. It isn't yet a hypothesis and ID has yet to challenge itself by experimentation.
Until there is actually evidence that contradicts it. So far, none. All based in concepts, no data, no actual observation. Even more, a flawed concept like this one.
@1:06:00 This gentleman tries to disprove irreducible complexity by choosing an intelligently designed object in order to refute Behe's position of irreducibly complex systems are intelligently designed. I'm so confused....
I wonder if we can make a flagellum to propel boats, subs, airplanes? That hook (universal joint) would be a great way to increase maneuverability. 19:40
That dear sir is called biomimetic engineering 👍
To the guy speaking at 106 minutes . Has nature ever produced a microprocessor ? No ?
Nature produced “brain” that evolved from simple form to the one for Homo sapiens.
Peace 🙏🙏🙏
@@kdshak4904
ua-cam.com/video/V15sjy7gtVM/v-deo.html
Q and A time, let me just give a 5 minute lecture to show how intelligent I am before I get to my question.
As a Christian scientist, I will make some predictions:
1. Man will never create life from non-living material.
2. Man will never find life outside of earth.
3. The world is not getting any better. And it will get continually worse until the day Jesus returns.
4. As time goes along, the book of Revelation will prove itself true. Read it and watch for the signs!
***** Been done? Citations if you please? I'd like to hear more on this
Your evidence shows that a so called synthesized genome was transplanted into an already existing living cell. This is not the creation of life but a manipulation of a preexisting life form. "Scientists who were not involved in the study caution that it is not a truly synthetic life form because its genome was put into an existing cell."
The complexity of a V8 engine is nowhere close to the level of complexity of a living cell.
Let me know when you create life from non-life or find a life form outside of earth.
The goal post is the same. If you believe you are on the 10 the 20 or even 90 yard line, let me know when you score a touchdown. Which is creating life from non-life.
No.You have not proved no such thing. The text you cited clearly says and I quote "Scientists who were not involved in the study caution that it is not a truly synthetic life form because its genome was put into an existing cell." The Bible says man cannot create life. I believe the Bible. Do you have any other evidence?
The question which needs to be asked is: is there anything which Darwinists could conceive of that could not be the result of a gradual evolutionary process?
Humans..
Who designed the designer? How is that question even remotely relevant to Behe's hypothesis?
It's a silly sleight of hand debate trick - I don't have to refute your challenge to what I smugly demand be accepted as fact unless you prove some horseshit of whose God's parents are. Nothing to do with the beneficial sequenced mutations of organisms.
MisterTenacious D Reason tells us that if all things are contingent, then there cannot be an infinite regress of contingencies. The buck has to stop somewhere. Reason also tells us that there cannot be contingencies without existence, and that existence must have a source, and that source also cannot have an infinite regress. Therefore, reason tells us that there must be an entity in which both contingency and existence are grounded, and this entity must be eternal, timeless, unchanging and unchangeable. So, no parents.
Ok. I answered his question. Now hopefully he will answer yours.
He magic'd his ass into existence.
Hmmm....... Of course you are joking. Everybody knows that something cannot bring itself into being. People who are rational and reasonable know that, and I am sure you count yourself among them.
If your entity can just 'exist' then so can the universe without your entity.
Simple reasoning . Quit making crap up, like primitive primates making up their gods, to explain something you simply don't understand yet.
it is brillaint, Behe is a true scientist with a live mind.
Evolution. The ever changing ( evolving lol) theory with its basis rooted in the clouds, floating around, ebbing and flowing on the whim of the evolutionist scientist's view at the time.
Science evolves as new and better evidence is found. That means that scientific theories get closer to the truth unlike your dogma that will always be wrong.
Yes the scientific method has never and will never claim its correct. It’s just the closest and most logical and consistent way we can gather information that fits the closest to our universe.
Marachenka - Evolution, same as it's been for billions of years. Creationists... still haven't grasped how it works and why it's true.
Your requirement for certainty is a requirement for untruth. That is unavoidable.
Evidence requires adjustments as it is found and researched. Then the research and the evidence are exhaustively challenged.
That brings us closer to the truth.
But starting as if you know the truth and then force fitting everything into it and ignoring anything that doesn't. That's just lying.
Creationism is lies and nonsense.
@@ozowen5961 - Exqisitely put. Irreducible Complexity looks to imply divine intervention when the biological feature in fact has its origin in Evolution. The Eye used to be 'irreducibly complex' until it was shown to have Evolved. Then it was the 'flagellum', which again has been shown to have Evolved. He knows, this, he's been shown time and again, but he still peddles the same lies.
Check out the transcript of the 'Dover trial' and see the way he was humiliated in court over what he said about Intelligent Design being a Science.
Okay let's say spontaneous life generation is possible (mathematically). But what makes you darwinists think, that just because it's possible, this is how life on earth was created? It's about 99.999% that it was intelligent design, it's simple logic.
You don't say why it's simple logic. Aren't you merely pushing back the
origins further by claiming an intelligence planned it all? When and how
was that intelligence born?
The audacity of a
creationist to use "irreducible complexity" as a criticism of
evolution, not realizing that the same argument works better against their god
assertion. Their god has to be way more complex than the simple lifeforms it
must be responsible for making, and your "irreducible complexity"
argument states that your god must now need a creator( after all he is much
more complex than the simple problems you are trying to answer). And then it, needs another even more complex
god to design/make it. The fucking irony of theists, their blatant
ignorance, and their blatant lack of
depth, in not thinking their own criticisms out to their conclusions.
+mechanicmike69
Did God ever begin to exist?
The rules don't change for pagan superstitions.
mechanicmike69
That's not an argument. You can't claim that God would need a cause, and then assume that the universe didn't need one when it is the subject in question that _began_ to exist in the first place.
Three (shallow) objections to IC systems:
1. Parts of a so called IC system can be found in other systems;
2. Scientists may yet discover how such systems could be naturally formed;
3. If there is a designer of creation, who designed the designer?
Is that the best they've got? That does not deal with the issue that IC raises, namely that the IC system cannot exist in its function in any simpler form because without all the parts assembled in one time as they are, it would not have that function that it has.
IC does not mean parts or simpler versions of the system cannot be used in other systems and have other functions. But for the function of the IC system, there is no simpler system than the one it has, and the function of the system cannot be reproduced or approximated with any simpler part of that IC system. That is the point they are sidestepping.
It is irrelevant that parts of the system appear in other systems with other functions.
Furthermore, science is not going to discover how such systems can naturally evolve because they are IC in their function - namely, they cannot exist in their function in any simpler form.
On the question of who made God, we answer that God is uncreated and exists beyond the limits of creation.
This is similar to the atheist who believes that there is an infinite eternal multiverse that was not created, except that there is a proof that there must be a beginning to creation. Thus, the universe began out of absolutely nothing, or how does it remain in a state of timelessness and then act in a specific time? Essentially they give divine attributes to creation and make God a creature without blushing.
"On the question of who made God, we answer that God is uncreated and exists beyond the limits of creation."
I agree. Atheists are left with asking stupid questions. Here's what I tell them:
-----So in your way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If you want to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.-----
@@2fast2block If you want your “supernatural creator ” to be anything more than an assumption, bring unscrutinised repeatable, testable, empirical evidence.
@@derhafi Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened.
“…please give me the laugh by
giving your science how creation really happened.” Funny enough that you claim
to know things that you simply have no way of knowing! What’s next? Are you going
to tell me what’s happening after we die? OOhh..religion makes up stories about
that too.
You are claiming a designer based
on nothing than a custerfuck of fallacies and not a trace of evidence. I’m just
not buying it.
I’m happy with a honest: I don’t
know which circumstances are responsible for the inflation of the universe 13.8
billion years ago. That is called intellectual honesty. Whereas, what religion
does is called: Making shit up.
If you want your “Lawgiver God” to be anything more than a wild
assumption, you have to come forward with some unscrutinised repeatable,
testable, empirical evidence.
Things have to be demonstrated to be real…otherwise the
default position is “I don’t know.” And not “a supernatural entity is responsible”
“Real science says nothing does nothing” Science does not make claims of
absolute truth. It provides the best possible explanation according to the
available evidence. It is a method to spate fact from fiction. You have no
problem of benefiting from science. Not when it extends your lifespan,
eradicates diseases, allows you to travel all over the globe within hours,
enables you to type in your nonsense in the internet and share your stupidity
with literally anyone. Science comforts your stupid ass basically all the time and boy, do you take it for granted!
Science is in fact so successful that religious subscribers of all faith
based cults like nothing more to piggyback on its success by desperately trying
to warrant their faith based nonsense with science. A task, that cannot be done
in a honest way.
Your assumption of a designer, has not only no evidence to back itself
up, is has also zero explanatory power. Surprisingly one does not solve a
mystery by appealing to an even bigger mystery. Adding an extra layer of
complexity is no pathway to the truth of anything.
It is fine to go as far as the evidence allows us at the moment and say:
I can’t be certain about anything before 10-43 seconds after
spacetime begun. That is done by the scientific community all the time. Again: Intellectual
honesty
To me this has more appeal than just making shit up. Or, standing by,
obviously made up shit, even if it’s backed up by literally nothing in terms of
empirical evidence and in odds with nature in a cringe worthy way.
„Creation cannot happen by natural means.” Again, you
have not a trace of evidence to back this up.
“ Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is
finding proof of what supernatural power did it.”
Acceptance can only be achieved by unscrutinised repeatable, testable, empirical
evidence. Of which there is none to support you position. So, good luck with
that! Quite to the contrary, there IS solid evidence that renders the
supernatural as the “science-fiction story “ that is…minus the science part.
The laws of physics underlying our day to day life (every particle and
force able to interact with us) are
completely known. There is demonstrably nothing beyond that that is able to
interact with us. So all you have to do, is to extend the standard model of
particle physics. Which explains what the world is what holds it together. It is
a simple and comprehensive theory that explains all the hundreds of particles
and complex interactions with only: 6 quarks. 6 leptons. Another thing that
science does, I’m sure you didn’t know, is: It tells you how certain its findings
are. There is a sigma 5 certainty that there is nothing beyond the standard
model and gravity, able to interact with us. Look up what sigma 5 means, you
might learn something.
Regarding your misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and misuse of the Laws
of Thermodynamics. To use your words “if you want to pretend to be smart”
it would help to read an actual science book instead of assuming that everyone
falls for that creationist nonsense interpretation of said laws.
So, to your “conclusions”:
“1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and
neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means.” What
you are ignoring here is this:
-The big bang theory doesn't necessarily mean the universe came from nothing, again,
we don’t know what conditioned ruled before 10-43
seconds after space-time begun.-The first law also renders any creation event impossible, because it is, by
definition, creating something from nothing.
“The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down,
entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy
was at its max.” So what?
The probability of 1 FUNCTIONAL protein chain aligning by random chance given the most optimized environment is something like 10^125. This means that enough time hasn’t elapsed since the beginning of the universe for even this one protein chain to assemble by chance.
Bullshit maths
@@ozowen5961 oh, what is your personal calculation, oh bull of & ₹#@?
@@marieindia8116
No calculation. The above maths is based on parameters that are unknown and unclear.
I'd rate it as equivalent to the sort of "maths" that was used to calculate that motor vehicles were dangerous to humans as we could not endure speeds over 20mph, in the 1800's.
In the light of more recent research on the functions of parts of the Flagellum, it's now clear that this 'poster boy' example of ID is in fact NOT irreducibly complex. If you google it, you will find that the evidence against ID in this example was presented in court and was rejected as having no scientific basis and being motivated by Religious beliefs rather than evidence..
IC is still relevant unlike your " vegistial organs" .
IC has no evidence to support it. All of the cases they've tried to put forward have been explained by natural selection.
The blatantly poor 'design' of some aspects of creatures also clearly shows that organisms morph from one form to another over time. That's the only sensible conclusion for the absurd path that some nerves take in a Giraffe's neck. It makes perfect sense if the neck gradually became progressively longer, and the nerves couldn't be re-routed. There's no credible Creationist explanation for this kind of phenomena.
The bottom line is that IC is the last desperate stand of the Religious to hang on to their God as our creator. It's a stand that's failed in every face to face debate with Evolutionary Biologists, and it's failed in the courts when they've tried to get it into the classroom.
Behe confines himself to writing books and preaching to people who want to believe this nonsense. A real Scientist would be doing proper research, publishing papers and taking on the opposition. He knows he's on the losing side of the argument. That's why he runs from these debates these days. He's also a liability in court because he believes in Astrology too and can't stay on message.
Courts rule on what is "science" now? Really? What jury or judge decides this? Which jurisdiction? To what does the decision apply and how far into the future? In the 1600s there were trials of science. Do you approve of their rulings? I,more one, am terrified of the idea.
www.livescience.com/3998-judge-rules-intelligent-design-taught-class.html
Read it for yourself, don't take anyone's word for it. Science is well defined, courts don't decide on the definition. They are quite capable of deciding what falls within the definition of Science, and what is bogus and driven by Religious dogma. That's what the court ruled on, and they concluded quite rightly that Intelligent Design is just Religious dogma dressed up as Science.
Case closed.
Son, in any court in the U.S., doctors, DNA experts, engineers, scientists or all kinds and experts in any area educate the jurors and the court as to any given issue. The burden is on the movant to prove the elements of any claim, and the other side presents his evidence or experts in his case, and the court, or jury decides the factual issues. You're asking what fucking court can decide if the car crash broke some dude's leg. The claimant is responsible to produce his evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and respondent rebuts. Like Behe who said there's no published articles re: bacterial flagellum. Then the adults placed 55 published books and articles on the witness box in front of him. He's about as well informed as you are. His university where he works has a disclaimer as to his opinion. Every jurisdiction rules on the fact of an issue. You guys are deluded and ignorant and dangerous to the species. Why the fuck do you promote an idea you heard about and can't after all your life substantiate? You've been laughed out of U.S. District Court by a Christian judge who goes to church every Sunday. But spirit is spirit and flesh is flesh. Peace.
Cambrian Explosion, anyone? refutes Darwin
No, I keep wondering why folks think that. Have you ever bothered to look at the Camnbrian?
I mean the Pre Cambrian was enough to make the Cambrian not a creation event, however, the Cambrian, if you want to claim it as the creation moment leaves you with:
1) A lot of critters you will not easily recognise.
2) An almost complete lack of anything you will recognise
3) A lot of evolution to get from that lot to the current critters.
The Cambrian is another nail in creationist claims.
Pre Cambrian fossils are found in Australia and other places.
@@ozowen5961 I agree. So what is your poiint?
@@s1haron
It was a response to the now disappeared post: "Chinese scientist found pre-C layer without fossils in China. How did these multitude of animals arise so suddenly at relatively geologic same time? Where is the physical evolution record?"
@@ozowen5961 there is none
amazing love the truth thank you Jesus
The truth doesn't require a "Leap of Faith".
Have you ever tried to communicate with an unseen creator of the universe?
HisRedeemed I bet you have tried to communicate with unseen characters.
I bet you believe in a god and have no evidence to back your 'belief' and have the fucking audacity to comment against evidence that shows your god is rather an asinine assertion rather than reassess your god belief.
Fuck you.
Keep dreaming.
@@archive2500 stay lying to yourself
Very interesting, thank you. I have seen attempts to refute the flagellum example, but lack the ability to judge these attempts. Does Dr. Behe respond to these attempts somewhere that is accessible,
LoL, I've watched UA-cam Atheists drawing pretty pictures saying "see, if I start with this circle, and stack this circle on top of this circle" lmfao. Effectively demonstrating their complete lack of knowledge regarding biology and biochemistry to the world
These attempts to refute flagellum example only demonstrate that it has some large possible sub functions that could have served a different useful purpose. Which is fine but functions sure can be made up of sub functions but you are still very far from refuting the rest of the 99% of the irreducible complexity. Those sub functions come with a great deal of irreducible complexity themselves. You can't design complexity with small changes while maintaing some benefit for natural selection to select on your way to something even more complex. I am an engineer and I can speak from real experience that these evolutionary biologist do not have. For me I can clearly see through the nonsense of macro evoultion. The ability to adapt should never be confused with the ability to create real new complex function. You will get at best a feature change on a complex function but never a new function created by beneficial mutations. It is easy to have a feature change on an existing complex function compared to the impossibility of creating the existing complex function wth small beneficial incremental changes.
Matthew Wright www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
***** And the link to his response is .... ??
@@Thefamiliaguy " You can't design complexity with small changes while maintaing some benefit for natural selection to select on your way to something even more complex."
That's bc design and evolution are incompatible.
The electrical engineer made a better argument for intelligent design by example than the whole presentation while trying to argue against it and didn't even realize it. 😂
Irreducible complexity has been thoroughly refuted as an argument against evolution. That Creationists are still using it just shows that it is a religious dogma, not a rational theory, one they will continue to repeat like Holy Writ in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
louis feinberg so long as you mean with Scientific Dogma yea sure. dawkins even has to own up to I.D. in one of his debates he goes on to fabricate aliens on a different planet where we cannot observe. Where Evolution would have to have happened to come here and design us then just leave.
tlrieder1 Evolution takes place on separate planets independently, though there is some evidence that DNA may travel from planet to planet, blasted into orbit by asteroid strikes. In any case, DNA must form initially through chemical processes as it cannot have existed in the conditions of the early universe. We don't know if life can exist with chemistry other than DNA or if consciousness can exist outside of known biology. Evolution certainly isn't in contradiction with any legitimate, accept Christian teaching, and Creationism is an embarrassment to educated Christians everywhere.
louis feinberg Ow man the list of unfounded claims in your post is staggering.
Evolution on other planets show it , are you familiar with Penrose and his probability number probably not.
In any case, DNA must form initially through chemical processes. I could say the same of God that he Must exists because the universe had an origin. Its simply an unfounded claim on both sides. Your just intellectually dishonest not to admit your own bias. Also science has given up trying to prove abiogenesis as a waste of time because the improbability of it simply makes it impossible to show see Penrose again.
Whose advocating creationism and in what form. Your problem is your dealing in absolutes which you have no right to do so. As a thought experiment prove your not a brain in a vat, you cant so you make assumptions but ultimately no one can deal in absolutes yet you want the privilege and deny it to everyone else.
tlrieder1 If self-replicating chemistry such as DNA could form on Earth, it can form anywhere else-- Earth is made of the same elements we see in other planets. The belief that living processes are "supernatural" went out with the Dark Ages, today we understand life in physical terms.
louis feinberg "Irreducible complexity has been thoroughly refuted as an argument against evolution." - Um, no it hasn't. Only by atheists like yourself. But hey, keep taking the blue pill.
Happy Atheist Day on a most appropriate day, April 1st
or April the thirty ninth
"Who designed the designer?" That is a ridiculous question. It makes as much sense to ask the question, "What is South of the South Pole?"
By definition there can be nothing South of the South Pole as the South Pole has been DEFINED as the most southern point on the Globe. In fact you can travel only North from the South Pole on the full 360 degrees of Longitude as East and West DO NOT EXIST at the South Pole...but that is just another implication of the definition. Those directions MANIFEST once one moves away from the South Pole. This is an IMPORTANT CONCEPT as you will see..
Likewise an Eternal Creator who has always been, IS, and will always be, who transcends both space and time, is BY DEFINITION of what a particular attributes of the Creator is..
And employing the Einstein-Lorentz Relativity Transforms along with the Laws of Thermodynamics this is really easy to demonstrate the physical mechanism as to just how a Creator exists that satisfies the attributes of being Eternal, Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient.
The math required is only a rudimentary understanding of the Fundamental Therom of Calculus...the concept of the Limit.. Do not let that dissuade you..It is actually simple.
I ought to write a paper and produce a video. Here is the demonstration.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed...it can only be TRANSFORMED. it is an inviolable Law of Thermodynamics.
Mass is Energy and Energy is Mass. That is what the Mass Energy EQUIVALENCE statement says...You know? E = m multiplied by the constant c squared?
Now let's look at that wonderful mass accretion statement and multiply each side by c squared
This is the result...
Eq (1) mc^2 = m(0)c^2/SQR(1 - v^2/c^2)
or, since
Eq(2) E = mc^2
then combining Eq(1) and Eq(2) yields
Eq(3) E = m(0)c^2/SQR(1 - v^2/c^2)
where m(0) is mass at v = 0..Rest mass.
Now many know how to take the limit of both sides of this equation and allow v to approach c and come to the conclusion that it takes infinite Energy to have a rest mass travel at light speed....which is true. Okay.. I agree.
What happens when you run this equation backwards?
Well let's let v = c
Then Eq (3) reads as the following
Eq(4) E = m(0)c^2/SQR(0)
Now I do love both zero and one. They are my two favorite numbers. They are such powerful tools. The following is an interesting way of writing zero.
Eq(5) 0 = 1 - c*^2/c^2
where c* = c, and c is Light Speed.
Now Eq(4) when combined with Eq(5) can be written in the following fashion.
Eq(6) E = m(0)c^2/SQR(1 - c*^2/c^2)
Taking the limit of both sides of Eq(6) and allowing c* to approach v yields us right back to Eq(3)
Eq(3) E = m(0)c^2/SQR(1 - v^2/c^2)
We ran it backwards, right? It is consistent with what we know. (Otherwise Eq(3) would not have been the result.)
Energy cannot be created or destroyed...it can only be TRANSFORMED. That is what the Lorentz TRANSFORM does.
The Energy was always there...ever present...eternal. Mass is only energy slowed down...Light slowed down.. That is what I demonstrated with Equation 6 as I slowed from c to v. I transformed the Energy to mass. Mass is just a different form of Energy. It has been TRANSFORMED.
Now do the same trick with the time and distance contraction formulas. You know they equal zero at Light Speed.
Slow Energy down and then both time and distance manifests, or, space time, manifests..They manifest as Light slows down, just as East, West and South manifest as directions when one moves away from the South Pole. (Remember the initial nonsense question, "What is South of the South Pole?" in this exposition?) That is the essence of the CREATION of the Physical Universe.
You will find that time only exists at speeds less than Light Speed. You will find that distance traveled can only happen at speeds less than Light Speed.
Light Speed is the preferred speed. You can be everywhere at once. You are Eternal. You can know everything that ever happened, is happening, and will ever happen. You'd be all powerful.
(Thank you Carl Sagan for teaching your Grad Student so that he could teach me._I learned more about relativistic physics in two hours with this man than in an entire semester studying at the University..)
Hmmmm...Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Eternal?
At Light Speed? YOU WOULD BE GOD.
The Light has always been, IT IS, and it will always be..Something did NOT come from nothing. Light is eternal.
Mass is nothing more than Light slowed down.
God is Light. In Him there is no darkness. ~ Apostle John
Therefore God has always been, GOD IS, and God will always be.
Isn't it funny that the Apostle John knew how to describe God so elegantly...some 1900 years before Einstein published his paper?
Interesting post, but wouldn't that make God a materialistic entity (energy) subject to the second law, entropy and time ?
If God is in any way subject to materialistic law, he can't exist without also breaking the first law.
Also any materialistic precept attributed to God would then manifest a time consideration resulting in an infinite time requirement prior to the creation event which would then never happen.
The only way around that is God must have no materialistic qualities subject to the first and second laws, and he did say he is spirit.
@James Registe
Materialism includes both matter and energy ie light, they are related by E=mC^2.
Matter and energy are both measurable.
Spirit on the other hand is metaphysical and not measurable by any materialistic means, unlike light.
""Who designed the designer?" is a ridiculous question. It makes as much sense to ask the question, "What is South of the South Pole?""
It's ridiculous to assume that the concept of a god is the same as a point on the surface of a sphere. Mathematically, that's assuming a very specific situation (a 2D space embedded in a 3D space that can't be reached) and is only *one of billions* of other possible scenarios.
"By definition there can be nothing South of the South Pole as the South Pole has been DEFINED as the most southern point on the Globe."
But the reason it's useful to geography is that the definition matches the preponderance of evidence. In fact, much of the evidence preceded the definition, which was designed around the evidence and observation.
You have not established that your analogy of sphere and south pole to a god is even remotely consistent. And in fact your can't, because ALL the information you have about gods is pure philosophical definitions, no empirical observation or evidence.
"Likewise an Eternal Creator who has always been"
No, not likewise. You have not established your philosophical, imagined definition of a god fits or is even close to some part of the external universe, something outside your mind.
Saying "likewise" does not prove likewise. Saying the jews are like rats does not prove jews are rats. Saying women or black people are like chattle, unfit to be more than property, is _likewise_ not a proof.
"Energy cannot be created or destroyed...it can only be TRANSFORMED. That is what the Lorentz TRANSFORM does."
No it doesn't. It transforms locations or points from/to moving frames.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
"Mass is nothing more than Light slowed down."
No it isn't.
"Light has always been"
Nope. Now you contract yourself because you admitted light is one form of mass, so light can't always have been.
"Therefore God has always been, GOD IS, and God will always be."
This does not follow from anything prior. You just vomited a bunch of math and physics nonsense and said "therefore [my own personal definition of god] is true"
It's all been such a wonderful journey and would it not be fitting to have climbed the hard rock landscapes of physical science only to end up where we began but knowing it for the first time to borrow a phrase.
Every component of the mousetrap must be specific in its form or shape or it will not be a working device. It might be possible to use a mousetrap that doesn't contain parts that are specifically fitted & designed to function for another purpose, (Maybe a paperweight?) however it WILL NOT FUNCTION AS A MOUSETRAP.
Also any of the components might be able to be adapted to devise a different device with another use, or even be used individually, but will perform a totally different purpose. We call that "McGuiverism" to adapt whatever is at hand to solve a problem. Truly taking an extremely intelligent & creative person, not blind chance.
It doesn't have to function as a mousetrap. The parts can function as something else and be co-opted.
Life always originates from life. By the way, the water Behe drank every now and then was actually vodka.
The notion of irreducible complexity is bogus. It preys on people’s ignorance, appeals to incredulity, and relies on the errant assumptions that a simpler version of the structure couldn’t have existed and that an “incomplete” version could not be of use to the organism.
flegellun, the eye, the brain and.....the divine designer
all "irreducibly complex'
We have every intermit stage of an eye in nature working today, from photo sensitive cells all the way to eyes with lenses, there are people who’s brain was removed by 50% which still thrive, the composition of flagella is surprisingly diverse across bacteria with many proteins only found in some species but not others. Hence the flagellar apparatus is clearly very flexible in evolutionary terms and perfectly able to lose or gain protein components.
What was your point again? That those three things you got totally wrong would somehow prove the concept of the divine?
How?
@@derhafi Even without brain. we can experience complex emotions? what's your point?
@@derhafi evolution is a gradual process. that thing couldn't be broken down gradually.
@@akashverma4280 If this is your attemt to argue, you have to be more specific.
Irreducible complexity reduces the time or change smaller dynamic symmetry operations to fold up that plan in a proteins design. This is quantum gauge physics.
irreducible complexity is an argument that something as complex as ( for example) the human eye could not have evolved naturally & required a creator. The argument ignores the fact that the argument itself is an argument that the creator who created our eyes would have to be more simple than our eyes or would have needed a creator for itself.
And the human eye is not irreducibly complex. Remove the cones from our eyes and we would still have vision, we just wouldn't see all the colors we see now. Remove the rods from our eyes and our eyes wouldn't be good in low light conditions.
Did Behe make this video before or after the Dover trial in 2005? He used the mouse trap analogy in this video but Ken Miller demonstrated that a useless mousetrap makes a perfectly fine tie clip at the Dover trial.
Behe seems to be unaware that the evolution of "incompletr" intermediates of what he thinks are irreducibly complex are not selected and preserved on the basis of the their [in]ability to perform that function. Intermediate functions correspond to intermediate structures. Half lungs were not hampered by their inability to perform the function of breathing bc half lungs did not do the job of breathing but rather modifying buoyancy in certain fish. Neil Shubin expands on this concept in "Some Assembly Required..".
These are "just so" stories, not science. People will imagine anything if provided a motivation to invent such myths, say for example, if their entire world view and morally degraded life would be exposed if they didn't make up such stories. They would have quite the psychological motivation to convince others that such stories are science!
Never the less, it was Darwin's objection to his own theory that spawned irreducible complexity. Without such a theory it would make his theory unfalsifiable, aka unscientific.
@@stevedoetsch Darwin didn't object to his own theory. Neither do creationists-they had to eventually embrace natural selection
Thats when speciation from created kinds became a thing.
IC is a rehash of Paley.
Ofc you might be a little more informed than your avg creationist and be talking about Darwin's discussion of intermediate structures. Well, sorry to break it to you but intermediate structures have intermediate functions not related to their final role. Darwin killed IC in the 19th century but creationists didn't pay attention. A careful consideration of Darwin could have saved Behe s lot of extra work writing a book for no reason
@@patldennis Not to forget the biggest Elephant in the room , so big that one might think Creationists rented an apartment in its anus.
*Disproving evolution would not add an ounce of credibility to any God claim to begin with.*
“God”, let alone the one they believe in, is not the default position. Such an idea has to be proven separately. Until there is prove, a demonstrable correlation between any given God and reality, “God” does not even qualify as an explanation. A mystery is not solved or explained by appealing to another mystery.
@@derhafi but doesn't every answer to enquiry usually lead to more mystery and enquiries, if it's being done right?
Of course, for people who like to think they know it all, that is only desirable if it leads to more grant money.
@@marieindia8116 "but doesn't every answer to enquiry usually lead to more mystery and enquiries"
Yes, sometimes they do...them we solve them as well, we call that: Progress
Professor Behe’s observations of irreducible complexity is a good example that evolution cannot continue pretending of a designer did not happened, but natural selection and common ancestor did it instead. I do not understand why Darwinists are afraid of debate ID proponents on universities public view area. This debate will be good for science and for the development of researchers for vaccine’s and sickness cures. Resorting to bulling and calling names do noting for the advancement of the sciences.
If you want your “Designer” to be anything more than an assumption, bring unscrutinised repeatable, testable, empirical evidence.
ID has been well debated. It has lost and continues to do so. The real science is not found in debate. It is found in research.
ID has provided almost nothing in that sphere. A handful of papers that attempt to imply design. No attempts to disprove their own assumptions.
ID has yet to make a case as to why they should not be considered as anything else but fringe nonsense.
@@ozowen5961 First, learn the real meaning of what is ID. Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things. www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design
@@bluejysm2007 ID as a "science" relies on concepts such Irreducible Complexity. As such it is an epic failure.
The movement itself as is noted in the Wedge document, is born of a creationist agenda. If ID were as you say, and only as you say, then I might have no problem wit it. However, what it really is, is a smokescreen, pseudo science and at best, more God of the Gaps garbage
@@ozowen5961 Yes, Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan.
Ozowen, I think you mistaken, the concept of irreducible complexity is inference from Professor Behe that a cell function as a machine irreducible complexity means it cannot work as an unguided process. It is like taking a part of the machine it will not perform the same function as it did before the changes were applied to the machine.
You need to grasp the idea that professor Behe proposed, you can read it in any books he published like “Darwin’s black box,” “Darwin devolves,” etc. In all the debates that I watched I seen people putting ideas to try to debunk professor Behe proposed ideas and they cannot. so, they get frustrated and starts to call bad names and going personal. However, if you want propose ideas against irreducible complexity and ID then you can write a science paper that makes sense of course. But better talked then done.
ARN doesn't appear to want people to know when this was recorded.
This from way back in 1997: I still have my VHS copy from back when I was ignorant of biology.
I felt as if I were watching a sitcom in the 90s during questions.
They don't want people to know when it was recorded???
1:42:27 "copyright 1995" lmao. This post is like a sitcom from the 90's.
There is a lot of focus on evolution around this. More core to this is the mathematics of morphogenesis, chaos and feedback. Alan Turing did some ground-breaking work on this, up there with his work on his computers.
Intelligent design shows a lack of imagination. Dr. Behe needs to look up to the stars to see almost infinite complexity, interaction, recycling and complexity. Remember, the only elements in the early universe were hydrogen & helium.
The extent and severity of ignorance displayed by so many of those students, (who were clearly just mouthing the ideas that their professors had them write down), is just staggering. Angry, stupid children that are clearly only waiting for their turn to talk again - when they should be listening.
Yes, uni students should never question anything, they should just listen and accept the truths they are given.
I take it you approve of the teaching approach in the Peoples' Republic of China?
All the new info about epigenetics backup this talk, and takes darwinian evolution to the imagination spectrum.
also the new info about the high complexity of the simplest cell that could "auto reproduce itself" is not simple at all not in function and informatión process.
You can always tell the people pushing unaccepted fringe ideas by the forceful, argumentative tone of their voice. They are rarely pleasant to listen to and tend to less than subtle "listen to me or else" under tones.
Surah Fussilat, Verse 53:
سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ
We will soon show them Our signs in the Universe and in their own souls, until it will become quite clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things?
(English - Shakir)
via iQuran
Dr.Mohammad Niqab Khan This is what you can do with you Qur'an, Evil book of Satan that it is.
UNICEF hospital admission statistics show 30 thousand girls between the ages of 9 to 13 died from child birth and blood loss from wedding night sexual intercourse,, in Yemen and Iran combined, in the past decade. Statistics in links below.
It is clear the verse 65:4 is given as a to be followed (Jussive mood).
The vecommandrse itself refers to those women who did not menstruate(in all of past time until the present time), which can include children or girls before puberty or attainment of menarche (first period).
Therefore, the exact translation of this portion of Qur'an 65:4 is "Not menstruated yet" ( لَمْ يَحِضْنَ ). In Arabic, the menstruating process is called HAIDH ( حيض ). It is possible to turn this noun into its verb form. Like we do it with menstruation, "menstruate" is YAHIDH ( يَحِض ). But it is LAM ( لَمْ ) that appears before YAHIDH and the NA ( نَ ) associated with YAHIDH and this puts Islamic apologists in a quandary because it cannot have any other meaning than “Not menstruated yet”. This is the appropriate English translation.
This verse 65:4 should be read as a continuation of Qur'an 33:49. If a woman who has not been used for sex should not have to observe any Iddah at all, as mentioned in 33:49, what is the reason for the prescribed Iddah for those women who have not yet menstruated? This is a clear indication marrying pre-pubescent girls and having sex with them is sanctioned by the Qur'an.
The phrase found in Qur'an 65:4 as "Wallaee Lam Yahidhna" is sometimes mistranslated by apologists. Exact meaning of the phrase is available in Tafsirs (Quran interpretations).
www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011/10/02/sharia-law-has-led-to-the-legislation-of-child-marriage-in-6-countries.html
The link just above this comment talks about child marriage is legal in 6 islamic countries.
//////////////////////////////////////////
The link below shows unicef talking about
children that are dying from child birth 30 thousand plus children have died from child birth in Yemen alone in, I think a decade. That's only the ones that make it to hospital and get reported, the real figures must be shocking beyond belief.
edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/14/yemen.childbirth.death/index.html?_s=PM:HEALTH
wikiislam.net/wiki/Contemporary_Pedophilic_Islamic_Marriages
www.faithfreedom.org/bangladesh-minority-girls-are-abducted-forcefully-converted-married-murdered-raped-rampantly/
www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm
bulletinoftheoppressionofwomen.com/category/child-marriage/
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1264729/Child-bride-13-dies-internal-injuries-days-arranged-marriage-Yemen.html
www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28250471
www.jihadwatch.org/2014/12/uk-powerless-to-stop-islamic-child-marriage
www.frontpagemag.com/point/217334/65-brides-muslim-yemen-are-children-daniel-greenfield
www.rt.com/news/329157-pakistan-child-marriage-law-islam/
www.jewsnews.co.il/2016/02/23/islamic-scholar-allah-encouraged-mohammed-to-have-sex-with-his-9-year-old-wife-aisha/
These are the moderate Muslims the media defends,, only Pedophiles defend Pedophilia.
Behe: Neo Darwinism suddenly seems much more resonable.
It's all about and only about people trying their best to disprove, discount and deny God. Why? Because if they acknowledged God they would then be infinitely and completely accountable for their motives .
Bullshit.
Try to address the science...and spare us your obnoxious bigotry. I don't believe in your god for the same reason you don't believe in Zeus.
Why is there even a debate? The issue is simple. Biology is driven by information. Random mutations degrade information, although, purely by chance, the result is occasionally beneficial in a limited way. Evolution theory, at least so far, does not provide any mechanism for constructing new information in the quantities required by what we see in the fossil record and in the world around us. Where's the beef?
Here's an experiment: Start with 100 copies of the Mona Lisa. Randomly shoot colored beebees (miniature paintballs) at them for a while. Select the one that looks closer to Starry Night than the others and discard the others. Make 100 copies of the selected image. Repeat the process for a while. Do you think you might eventually end up with Starry Night or something close to it that anyone might recognize as such? Do you think the Mona Lisa will still be recognizable? I would guess "no" for both questions. I think the image of Mona Lisa will degrade, and any resemblance to Starry Night will be short-lived and quickly degrade for the same reason that the Mona Lisa became unrecognizable. To make this more reasonable, the experiment can be easily simulated on a computer. Technical point, since some ID-ers might object: The a-priori test against Starry Night in my proposed experiment is meant to simulate survivability in a complex environment (aka ecosystem or habitat) consisting of many different factors; it is not a pre-loading of target information into the experiment. The Mona Lisa image represents the best survivor in the prior environment before the environment changed to the Starry Night template.
How does this video only have 43k views?
Because it's debunked nonsense.
2 hours of discourse and he doesn't present any evidence to support his claim . Is there any ground to the assumption he or anyone else is capable to access with any level of certainty what ever a system is truly irreducibly complex ? because if he can't prove this , then everything else is speculation ..
Indeed, all of their examples of IC have been shown to be reducible. So not sure what they are standing on now. Thin ice I suspect.
isn't everything irreducibly complex, from the sea lapping on the shore, to the cat licking its paw, but what a silly way of looking at the problem.
+marlo deverell Jarvis maybe theres no problem to look at and these evolutionist are wasting time lol
Except that Behe's characterization of Darwinian evolution is inaccurate. Other than that, a finer sermon I have not witnessed.
Creationists only look at scientific questions in terms of whether they are pro- or anti-god, but science doesn't work that way, it only follows the evidence wherever it leads. .Creationists can't grasp the notion that science is motivated by curiosity, not ideology.
Behe's research is not the only example of irreducible complexity in biology. RNA polymerase is DNA-dependent, and DNA is RNApol-dependent. Now I don't want to draw the usual ad-hoc work-arounds attacking facts and common-sense, but learned speculation as to how this catch-22 could occur is welcomed(please no cursing, from those that are driven to overflowing by the sinful nature, such that it flows constantly from their mouths). While we're discussing the always ready ad-hoc explanations from the evolutionists, why do people believe that humans evolved from a single-celled eukaryote but have no idea how it could have happened? Genetic mutation/selection, if even mathematically or molecularly feasible(which it's not), doesn't come close to providing the information required to alter body plans. I'm not saying science is not able to advance in knowledge, but it's ridiculous to believe in something so strongly[evolution] and have no theory as to how it may have happened. Curiously, the strongest support for evolution, which is a vacuous set of ad-hoc mythical band-aids for a 19th century dreamer at this point, seems to come mainly from those who are hiding from truth.
Fuck you.You're the fucking idiot that thinks the answer defaults to a creator/god if it's too complicated rather than admit, 'we don't know' like an intelligent person would.
Cursing is evidence of your sinful nature. I know Jesus Christ is God because I sought answers rather than making excuses and using profanity.
There are far more documents for Jesus Christ than for Julius Caeser . Try again ( will your flesh permit you not to curse?)
You curse because you are bound in sin. The 4 Gospels are eye witness testimonies to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. If you are going to dismiss the Gospels as accurate historical documents please provide a valid reason for doing so. Follow the promise of Acts 2: 38-39 to be saved.
mechanicmike69
The Gospels do agree with each other, you just don't think they do because you get your information from propagandish websites instead of actually studying the Bible. What's more, if the 4 Gospels were written using the exact same story from the exact same perspective by all 4 authors then they could be considered a fabrication, because anyone would tell you if all the eyewitnesses see the exact same thing then they are probably lying. So thanks for confirming that the Gospels do not appear as a fabricated story.
Your cursing is not going to claim victory over the truth, as cursing is only evidence for the sinful nature of mankind from which Christ saves us through His Grace. Follow Acts 2: 38 to be saved. Peace unto you.
This SAVED my life for school! Thank youuuuuu
What kind of school was that?
@@derhafi Mother of Divine Grace school. We had to read Darwin's Black Box and write a few essays on it.
I just hope that this essay included the fact that, proving the theory of evolution by natural selection, wrong, would in
no way add one ounce of credibility to this unfounded claim
of a supernatural creator. Science, if proven wrong, was always proven wrong by
better science. Since ID is not science, good luck!
You don’t have to take
this from me, take it from Behe himself. I quote:
¨Dr. Behe, But you are clear, under your
definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also
a scientific theory, correct?¨ Behe: Yes, that's correct.” End Quote.
Further he admitted that intelligent design seems plausible and reasonable to
inquirers in direct proportion to their belief
or non-belief in God.
Behe is, at best, a fraud.
Science is independent of personal biases. Science
does not make claims of absolute truth. It provides the best possible
explanation according to the available evidence. All that and the fact that
Behes irreducible complexity “argument” was dismantled by actual scientists,
renders what ID is, a Trojan horse to piggyback creationist nonsense into the
classrooms.
All the best to you!
@@derhafi Yes it would give credence to that. The fact they looked designed is very good evidence they were designed. That is how we recognize design. And the added fact an accidental explanation cannot be shown to work by the brightest minds in the worlds seals the deal. We dont proceed forth in science with the answer ahead of time and your idea there is no bias in science is RIDICULOUS. Science is done by humans which are full of bias including you. If life is designed we would expect to see evidence of that and we do. If you happen to not like that, well too bad. Thats how reality works. You dont get to rule it out or dismiss it because you dont like it or it makes you uncomfortable
@@jordandthornburg “ The fact they looked designed is very good evidence they were designed. That is how we recognize design.” No, that’s not how we go about recognizing design. That’s how you end up with a banana in your hand making a fool out of yourself like Ray Comfort; that’s like saying a puddle of water is fine-tuned for the pothole it sits in.
Looking at something that is naturally occurring and declaring it “designed” just does not cut it. Organisms are not like deliberately, designed, manufactured objects.
We know that there was no life at one point, we know that there is now. We also know that there is nothing beyond the natural world as it is described in the standard model of physics that is capable of interacting with our reality. Concluding that something else, something supernatural had a hand in the OOL is like making up some magic. It’s baseless nonsense.
Abiogenesis is supported by the sheer fact that is a possibility in this reality…whereas his supernatural Suggestion (the God he happens to believe in) have no demonstrable correlation with this reality at all.
“If life is designed we would expect to see evidence of that and we do” No, we do not..you mix up the claim with the answer here.
If we go about declaring anything we have no easy answer for as “design” and immediately making up a designer, despite that this designer has no demonstrable correlation with reality, would kill any form of progress, and enhancement of our understanding of nature in its cradle and we’d be still in the dark ages.
Also, where would that take you? At Best t o a designer, who does not qualify as real due to lack of demonstrable correlation with reality, that just leaves one with more Questions. Where did this designer come from? Who designed him..…That is a route to a special pleading fallacy at best, not an explanation. One does not explain a mystery by appealing to another one.
“We don’t proceed forth in science with the answer ahead of time…” That is true, yet that is what you seem to have in mind when things become a bit complicated. “…. and your idea there is no bias in science is RIDICULOUS” Did I say that? I did not, so leas stop putting fucking words in my mouth, thank you! Science is, demonstrably, by far the most reliable method we have to separate truth from fiction. It has self-correcting mechanisms witching to root out as much bias as possible. If you have a better method than science to equal out our human shortcomings, please let the world know.
“ You don’t get to rule it out or dismiss it because you dont like it or it makes you uncomfortable” True again, yet I get to rule it out as long as there is, no sound argument and no trace of evidence to support this claim. All creationism has produces so far boils down to “ it’s complicated and we don’t know for sure…therefore we choose to pick this this pseudo-anser despite it having no demonstrable correlation with reality” THAT is fallacious thinking of a medieval mind set 2.0, THAT is not evidence.
When I grow up I want to be real scientist, so I am studying astrology. That's science, right Behe?
And if Eve was created by GOD from Adam's rib, was Eve's DNA the same as Adam's DNA...?
So, would you religious believers agree that God is infinitely more complex than the universe he created? Yet you buy into this "Irreducible Complexity" argument?
If increasingly complex living things require a creator and your deity is the most complex living thing, who/what created your deity?
***** Such is the case with all man-made mythological beings.
Yet, there is no evidence whatsoever that the universe was "created", no evidence whatsoever that there is a "creator", certainly no evidence whatsoever that this "creator" is the telepathically-connected deity of any one particular religionist myth-belief.
Your ability to imply that this series of beliefs without evidence is either rational, logical, or "the only realistic option" demonstrates you wilfully make these assertions without rational thought, without logically appraising the evidence, and without truthfully considering the options in terms of where the evidence leads and produces the most reproducible results with a positive predictive value. This is fine (like the "belief" in Santa Claus or a flat earth) but when asserted in terms of logic and reason as opposed to the dogma and tradition that you are honestly relying upon it wonderfully demonstrates the intellectual dishonesty you have embraced.
donfishmaster god is an uncaused caused =meaning he doesnt have a beinning ,he enternal
KEVIN WALKER The universe could also then be an "uncaused cause" unless you plan to jump directly to the "special pleading" fallacy for your particular deity at this point.
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics supports the idea that the universe is an uncaused cause (energy/matter being neither created nor destroyed).
If you are going to state, "...it's a mind", provide evidence.
600 million years since the first invertebrates evolved to the present is plenty of time to produce the variety of species we see today, and the fossil record confirms that, along with DNA relationships between different living species that prove common ancestry.
So can you show us the fossils worth of millions of years worth of our very own species
Use your brains....Darwinists would have museums worth of skeletons gradually progressing towards our kind in the 21st Century
Just consider that nobody intelligent is creating "irreducibly complex" stuff. If something is "irreducibly complex" is not created or the supposed creator is not intelligent at all.
Quetzal Coyotl By the way I can't imagine any superantural device wasting so much of his time and skills in making so irreducibly complex the rear end of a bacteria...
+Quetzal Coyotl Sure they are. Many gadgets and machines are irreducibly complex. Of course, many systems and machines incorporate the use of redundancies also.
once you figure something out you can wow that is really simple after all. so if someone could tell you how GOD came to be or if he appeared to all once a month but didn't tell how. he got here and wouldn't answer any question you have. then what would you say.
Can evolution explain how humans posses emotions, love, hate , shyness, blushing, regret , pride, grudge, envy, jealous, passionate, speach, ? These must be implanted by God.
The universe can operate just fine without intelligence-- intelligence is just one effect of the universe, a very minor effect restricted to only a few life forms on this and maybe a few other planets.
I want you to find the dumbest mechanic you can find to fix your car just before a long.trip no use a ape with no hands.. this is your mindset.your Clinton vote. didn't matter either.
Spokesperson for the universe, are you?
There should debate with evolutionist scientist such as Dawkins to avoid biasing.
Been done. Dover trial. Behe failed to make any useful point and then ran for cover.
Thank you
Informative
Since this talk considerable progress has been made in our understanding of abiogenesis, many of those working on abiogenesis have received Nobel Laureates.
Michael Behe theory has been refuted. It does nothing to disprove evolution. The Q&A even in 1977 exposes how weak his arguments stand up to scrutiny. I love his appeal to aliens composed of little fluffy clouds.
Since this video the case for evolution had become increasingly supported by new evidence and refuted by none.
He is a religious creationist.
Breathtaking inanity
The bottom line is so simple a 6th grader could understand it: If the religion of evolutionism were true then it would have been obvious even in Charlie's day and he even said as much in On Origins, and I quote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case”, unquote, Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
If natural processes could produce not only the entire known Universe, but everything in between including us, then it would be so easy to reproduce these miraculous events even in the primitive laboratory conditions of the mid-19th century, that the aforementioned 6th grader could do it by simply adding some chemicals together and POOF! Life! But as we know it just isn't so. Now, if you take into account that even with the huge advancements in experimental science since Darwin's time, creating a laboratory so advanced it would scare him - it still can't be done. Plain and painfully simple...
“..then it would be so easy to reproduce these miraculous events even in the primitive laboratory conditions of the mid-19th century”
How do you reach this conclusion?
We have a repeatable sound way how non-living matter could transform to RNA..that is done. We may never knoe how exactly it came about, we do know, however, how it could have happened in a perfectly natural way. Science does not make claims of absolute truth. It provides the best possible explanation according to the available evidence. It is a method to spate fact from fiction. Life can rise from simple matter, that’s a fact backed up by evidence.
If you want your “God” to be anything more than an assumption, bring unscrutinised repeatable, testable, empirical evidence.
Psalm 139:14
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made
You cannot substitute information that is not logically valid as science, sorry!
@@caidenbond1988 who is 'substituting'? I merely added a different perspective.
@@johngeverett really? Using a passage?
@@caidenbond1988 yep.
You seem to have 'issues' with that.
Try to find some peace, and realize that other people have perspectives different from yours.
It does not make logical sense so you cannot use it logically, get what I’m saying?
a coin or anything to do with the making of it or the origin of.the metal it is made of has nothing to do with what people call chance . flipping the coin is odds head or tail not chance cause chance dont exist. could chance happen by chance odds are zero.. or it would be purpose. everything is for something else and a result of something else.EVERYTHING..
Who designed the designer = who cooked the cook
Anyone following this subject will enjoy James Shapiros Evolution A View from the 21st Century
the atheist sees a computer for the.first time and says this is so complex and appears designed which could only mean it had to happen by chance and evopollution.
So what does he believe? If God designed this cruel world full of suffering, what the heck did He have in mind? I have experienced that there
Many of the questioners pursued their religious like belief in evolution like fundamentalists.
Susan - People believe in Evolution because of the evidence. It's as simple as that. If the evidence showed linear paths of unchanging species from miraculous 'creation' events, then we'd believe in Creation. However, that's not what the fossil record shows. Check it out, read Donald Prothero or P Z Meyers, they'll explain it all to you.
the.atheist say nothing is i.d
now why is what they convey any different
It should be called Darwinian Creation because it is little else than an absurdly weak repudiation of the Hebrew God who claimed to be the source of life.
I find it interesting that God (of Hebrew tradition) also claimed to create the universe. Interesting to me because those who "believe" in Darwinian Creation get upset if one argues that Darwin's theory cannot escape the inclusion of the origin of the universe.
They want to go back in time to a place where life was simple, when no further explanations or questions were required.
Darwinian Creation is childish in its imaginative allure.
Fail.
+mechanicmike69 you idiot, if there's no life, there's no species
You fucking moron, Evolution is the process of specialization. ABIOGENESIS is the science dealing with how life started, you fucking arrogant idiot. You post is therefore one of a fucking idiot.
Ew. Do not drag evolution by your level. Live on the fantasy of your narrative. Do not confuse it with reality.
Religious fanatics have a terror of 'meaninglessness" because they can't come up with meaning in their own lives unless religious provides it for them. They miss the beauty of a universe that operates freely and playfully-- the idea actually feels threatening to them.
are you well now?
Dr Behe, I am amazed that you fail to understand basic principles of natural selection. Please reach out Richard Dawkins for some intro. Because you can't get it doesn't mean that there is ID behind all this. this is a logical fallacy..
Dawkins refuses to discuss or even debate points with those that are not Neo-Darwinists anymore. Which, of course, is the opposite of science and is simply theocracy. To which you subscribe.
It's more about they don't have any evidence. It's more about this bullshit has all been refuted before. It's more about religious twats grasping at straws.
1:05:07 This guy!! LOL, I mean really dude. We are talking about intelligent design and this guy is using an OBVIOUSLY DESIGNED THING to try and argue against design. This fact is somehow lost on him, even though he actually says that human being have done this, he still does not make the connection that this is therefore a designed thing. He makes Behe's case while thinking that he is debunking it.
I hate it when these guys call Darwin a "scientist," because he was no such thing. In fact, he was at best nothing but a 'wannabe scientist,' who's only degree was in theology - a vocation he never delved into.
There's also the fact that most, with only an exception or 2, 'scientists' of Darwin's day were lawyers, or other professions outside of science.
Remember, all someone needed to be 'a scientist' in the 19th century was - MONEY...
...because it took a lot of it to pretend to be one...
At least he planted the doubt in their minds
Doubt not based on science
@@ozowen5961 Which details were not scientific?
@@terrygodgirl4430
For a start- Irreducible Complexity. There has been no example of this so far that has been proposed and survived scrutiny.
@@ozowen5961 I think I would propose that there has been no example where scrutiny wasn’t offered, but certainly i know examples that to this day that stand scrutiny and cannot be explained away. ie, flagellum.
And yes, I know biochemist whine about it, but most of there refutations are not compelling.
@@terrygodgirl4430
The flagellum was pared back genetically and that made it a different organelle- it still functioned. SO- reducible- therefore not irreducible.
Evolution is a theory. It explains many features of living organisms and is therefore useful. It is not a law. There is much missing in the fossil record. There are facts that cause one to fill in the blanks of necessary change using hypothesis. Evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. Science does not make religion obsolete and religion does not disprove science. People should not be required to accept one and discount the other as stupid.
Theories have higher value than do laws. Theories can generate laws and incorporate laws. They do not ever graduate into them.
"Evolution is a theory."- maybe have a look at the definition of "theory" in science and try this again.
Evolution has the weight of mountains of coherent evidence from multiple distinct branches of science- the other is not dismissed as stupid, it's dismissed as being wrong.
With one simple question I can totally destroy the darwinian notion. And here it is: even if a successful spontaneous combination of even two amino acids could come about, there should have been a system already in place to register and replicate such a successful combination. So, what system was it and where would it come from?
I invite all those blind darwinian people (blind, because the evidence of the intelligent design is all around, and yet they don't see it this way) i invite you to try to answer this question. 😁🙈😜
Come back in 2051 to get a consistent answer.
They'll just beat around the bush
@@koppite9600 I will be 85 in 2051. And I personally already have an answer with the help of elementary logic
@@onepartofone youve got to understand that evolutionists never answer anything directly.
For example.. no known mutation brings forth new information to the genome..so why did organisms develop new features?
@@koppite9600 what makes you think that I don't understand that? My original question was hypothetical. 😁
@@onepartofone i knew it was hypothetical
one guy said how stupid the designer made some things . first off you you have to be i.d. to know something is not i.d. birds that have feathers and cant fly still need feathers or hair or a shell for protection.if a man could.pick up a hand full of dirt and squeeze it and make perfect diamond the atheist would say yeah but he cant throw it a mile and hit that bulls eye.
how silly something that's so complex, billions of years of evolution couldn't create it...we wont understand these creatures till we except these things aren't divinely inspired... to say these creatures that we sneeze out are holy in some way, is looking at the problem wrongly.
What a shame. Just a few months after this Behe was shot down in flames, and shown to be a charlatan, at the Dover Trial. I watched the documentary. It was hilarious as he fumbled over the answers when being questioned. What was even funnier was when he was forced to admit Intelligent Design was a sneaky way of trying to get god into science. It showed Behe to be an irreducible liar.
@@2fast2block
Ah no. If that "paper" is challenge Miller, then it needs to be published in a reputable paper and subjected to review.
The author placed it in a nowhere place and will not be subjected to any real scrutiny unless some scientist stumbles on it, can be bothered reading it and can be bothered to challenge it.
So, if you are going to "bitch slap" then you need to make contact.
You really are the dumb arse you slap.
@@2fast2block
OFFS, I am now reading your "bitch slapping paper"!
Are you serious?
What a load of poorly disguised fuckwittery.
I hope to make it through the whole thing, but right at the outset in the first couple of paragraphs we have idiocy.
No wonder you think highly of it.
@@ozowen5961 "If that "paper" is challenge Miller, then it needs to be published in a reputable paper and subjected to review."
Says you. Who are you but nothing but a dumbass. Give your science peer-reviewed info showing the details are wrong. You'll never do it.
Your only comeback is, "So, if you are going to "bitch slap" then you need to make contact."
Thanks for sharing what low depths your intellect is at.
@@2fast2block
No dopey, and you had best not tell too many falsehoods.
Firstly, I was a tad busy so having time to read and comment on the paper was subject to time constraints. (Still is- I have a few jobs to get through today)
However, the "paper" set up a whole bunch of totally false scenarios.
For example, it fails to mention that evolution happens at the population level and the entire population is involved in change. The claims that it would take "trillions" of years conveniently forgets that it is not a process happening in a single lineage, but pretty much all breeding members of a population are involved. And the processes of natural selection root out the dysfunctional elements.
Probably a major reason for the terrible paper never going to a reputable journal. It would have and should have been rejected at the outset.
Of course you will whine about how that is all not true or how peer review is a conspiracy or some other drivel.
But that is just a start.
@@ozowen5961 "Probably a major reason for the terrible paper never going to a reputable journal. It would have and should have been rejected at the outset.
Of course you will whine about how that is all not true or how peer review is a conspiracy or some other drivel.
But that is just a start."
If you could read you'd see that he was going by the analysis of others who also looked at this. And you want to lecture what is "terrible".
"For example, it fails to mention that evolution happens at the population level and the entire population is involved in change."
So "the entire population" of what? What is your population made of? How did it populate? How did whatever was the first one to populate get life from non-life to populate? Again, what populated, how did it populate, and how did it get life to populate? You don't have a clue. But....what you are somehow sure about once you skipped how stupid it is to have somehow got the population that you don't even know what of, etc, you know that it "fails to mention that evolution happens at the population level and the entire population is involved in change." and how do you know whatever you completely made up as life populating is all changing? Mutations are pretty much detrimental so if what you fart out is true the population would die out, not progress.
Can you at least try harder to make sense in your dumbass mind?
As far as science and ID is concerned, Behe himself acknowledged under oath that he or anyone has no peer reviewed publications that support ID by pertinent experiments or calculations . Here is an extract from his cross examination - Kitzmiller v. Dover
Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?
Behe - No, I argued for it in my book.
Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
Behe - That's correct.
Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?
Behe - That is correct, yes.
You do know that peer-reviewed journals aren't bias free, don't you? Just look at the numerous psychological articles published in the Psychological Bulletin. Some are nothing but publication biases such as the file-drawer. Statisticians even criticize peer-review publications in their textbooks.
I wouldn't put to much stock in the lack of peer review for ID themed papers. I wouldn't expect Magellan to of had conformation of a spherical Earth when all the existing "scientist" believed it to be flat.....Best thing to do is read his critics from the scientific community and read his replies.....Transcript from a court case listed on every pro-Darwinian isn't much of an argument. If he had no peer reviewed papers, that would be a concern and reason to dismiss. But the fact it's hard for him to get anything published from a "board" of good ole boys about ID specifically, doesn't bother me much, and honestly would be expected.
"Peer"-review. "Peer"
***** "he also admitted in court that he wanted to redefine science and that astrology would be taught in the science class room under his definition"
I don't care whether Behe wanted to consider astrology a science, but I do know for a fact that the definition of science and the scientific method have been hijacked by secularists/materialists under the limits of naturalism and anyone who dares defy it deserves scorn, rejection, etc. from the scientific community. I find the claim that 'whatever doesn't fit with the natural world should not be considered science since the scientific method only deals with the natural world' quite erroneous. The sheer irony in such definition is that there is actually nothing in the scientific method that suggests all hypotheses should be limited to materialistic explanations. It only says that as long as a hypothesis is testable and falsifiable, it can be considered scientific regardless how far-fetching it sounds. This is because science is simply a tool that deals with the tangible, not necessarily limited by naturalistic explanations.
and if you seriously think otherwise, then tell me this:
What is supernatural/paranormal to you? Is dowsing, ESP/Telekinesis, etc. paranormal? You would think so, but if those paranormal powers were in our everyday lives you would beg to differ since they fall in the norm. Even if you were completely ignorant in our everyday technology, you would consider them supernatural since you would think they must work by magic. Yet, it is actually your ignorance that limits you to what you think is natural and not natural.
Using science as a tool under materialism/naturalism is nothing more but an equivocation fallacy fabricated in sheer ignorance that limits science from acknowledging the unknown by creating a wall between the norm and paranormal/supernatural.
***** "it was found that the paper was not peer reviewed to standard and as a result was disavowed"
What paper? I checked the link CSID ZN provided and all I saw was a biography of Sternberg.
Also, according to his biography, he has published refereed articles in such journals as Genetica, Evolutionary Theory, Journal of Comparative Biology, Crustacean Research, Journal of Natural History, Journal of Morphology, Journal of Biological Systems, and the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Sounds like he has peer-reviewed credentials to me.
irreducible complexity is taking our ignorance as a evidence , how does this make sense ?
34:40 is recognition from experience, same as machine learning / AI.
Plus it's spurious: that cartoon could have been conveyed in a multitude of styles, all the way down to ASCII art. And the scene could have been re-arranged. And the wording could have been less clunky. Or in Korean. Or in braille. Or rendered in blue-on-purple for enjoyment by tetrachromics. Or not at all from Muslims and other creeds that forbid representation, or pre-representational cultures. So we can tell a lot about the designer and purpose of something from the thing. What does the 'evidence' tell us: god has a hard-on for beetles ; god hates people so he took away the cancer regulation genes that all the other primates get ; god really hates humans so he made childbirth really anatomically dangerous ; god regrets moving away from fish, so every land vertebrate has a chance of choking on every mouthful ; god was much happier with pterodactyls than people, so he gave _them_ the lightweight bones and high endurance ; god is an intermittently absent overlord - apparently drops perfectly-formed little toys into the ecosystem every so often then fu@ks off to do something more interesting while his playthings degenerate or he sobres up.
Sorry for your loss brother....you don't deny God....you absolutely loathe Him...perhaps next time we will leave stuff alone that doesn't belong to us...if you recall only then was the tree of life forbidden. Don't blame Eve or Adam...blame you...as you, and I would of made the same decision....to know more and be equal. He's not mad at us brother.
10 to the 200th power is the number to get these working proteins and genes by chance.
Therefore it's not by chance. So it must have developed by some very clever method or maybe some other way that we don't know about. Anybodies guess until we get more information about the method. I suppose it could be magic, but it's more likely natural because magic is too much of a stretch. Besides, we would then need to find out how the magic works, so I don't like that approach.
tedgrant2
We all know how difficult it is to win the lottery.
Now multiply this little chance by a million and you call this a very clever method?
Why wait for a chance when you can just create something with a magic wand if you are God?
You clearly don't understand the process of Evolution. The changes are random but the selection isn't. If a random mutation improves the chance of survival, then that mutation will be incorporated in it's offspring. That's pretty simple to understand, yet you fail to grasp it.
Roger Froud Youre the one who failed to grasp how many possible mutations there are and how little is the chance for one beneficial to occur.
Each child born has an average of 60 mutations, most of which make little difference, but the odd one from time to time has a beneficial effect. In a large population over millions of generations, these things morph one form into another. Creationists like to hang on to a 6000 year old Earth in an attempt to argue that there is insufficient time, but they're wrong.
Why is there so much concern about the over use of Anti-Biotics at the moment? This is a classic case of evolution in action. It's happening much more quickly than in large organisms because bacterial number in their billions in each of us, and it only takes a tiny percentage of mutations for one of them to find a way of defeating the Anti-Biotic. Those are the ones that then multiply It's a simple concept, try to understand it.
Common sense is not so common …
I've learned that God is made of three parts. Take any one away and the trinity no longer works.
interesting and absolutely logical