Thanks for correcting me. I was referring to Ken Miller. As far as Behe's points regarding IC, I am not trained enough in the sciences to know the concepts well enough to comment on whether they hold water or not. I only understand the basic ideas of what he is arguing.
1. I agree. Proof can be used in different ways. I don't necessarily mean that proof always need to be meant as mathematical certainty. 2. I believe you can prove a negative. 3. I have good reason to believe that it is guided. 4. That just helps support my point that abiogenesis is not really a part of evolution. Abiogenesis may be considered a type of evolution in and of itself, but it is not a part of what scientists usually refer to as evolution.
Cool, I will check them out. It's not weak to offer videos. I am not intensely debating this topic, because I am really not on either side of the fence. So having other videos to watch is totally fine with me.
Interesting question. The interesting answer is that zero is even. zero is not only even but threeven fivenen etc. because it divides integrally with everything.
Wolfram Alpha defines even number as all numbers of the form n=2k, where k is an integer. Since k is an integer it can be zero. When k=0, n=2x0=0. Therefore, 0 is an even number. Q.E.D.
You can divide zero things between 2 people evenly- they both get nothing- there is no remainder. That's the definition of an even number. Also if you look at the sequence of even numbers going backwards: ...8, 6, 4, 2, 0, -2, -4 ..., Zero is within the pattern, as we would expect for an even number.
"Currently materialist reductionism doesn't appear to be able to account for actual consciousness or thought." The existence of consciousness has never had explanation anywhere. To paraphrase Steven Pinker: This is not a new question. more than 2000 years ago Greeks were attacking the question of the mystery of consciousness. Not only has no advance been made in this field of inquiry, there's nothing to suggest that advance ever will be made or how we might proceed along this mode of inquiry.
I apologize. I don't mean to be misleading. From what I have read, most ID proponents don't have a problem with evolution (change over time). However, a major part of Darwin's theory was natural selection, which ID proponents don't accept. What I meant by "How can either be falsifiable" I was referring to the concepts of directed and undirected processes, not Evolution and ID.
However, I think ID theorists would say that intelligent design is falsifiable. They might argue based on how they test for specified and irreducible complexity, that if there was a naturalistic explanation that was simpler, then Occam's Razor would suggest that it should be preferred for further inquiry. A lot of whether a hypothesis can be determined true or false also has a lot to do with one's intellectual honesty.
I think that was the point of the example, to point out how the use of the fallacy of False Dilemma presents a simplified view of the issue: either this or that, when in reality there are many other alternatives, or even mixtures of alternatives. The most famous example from one of George W. Bush's speeches: Either you are with us or against us in the war on terror, when obviously you can be not with him in his 'war on terror' while still not being against him (implicit: a terrorist).
I don't think they are defining evolution as just natural selection. I suspect they are probably aware of the modifications and new theories that you mentioned. Since I am unfamiliar with these modifications and new theories, do any of them propose an alternative to natural selection or are they just processes that work along side it?
Could the fact that, if you end up in court for whatever reason, you only have the options of pleading guilty or not guilty be considered a false dilemma? There may well be other factors involved that the plea question does not allow for.
I am familiar with the Dover trial. I am not sure where the arguments of irreducible complexity were overridden, even partially. Steve Miller has been the biggest objector to the argument of irreducible complexity, but has done nothing more than attack arguments that have not actually been presented. Once again, I am not stating that I believe that ID is an actual physical science exactly, but I don't think the refutations of it so far haven't been too impressive
I understand what you mean by "proof" in science. I wasn't using "proof" in the sense of mathematical certainty. First of all, let me tell you that I am not exactly a proponent of intelligent design as a physical science. I am more interested in whether it is true or false, not what category (religion, science, philosophy) it falls under. Truth doesn't care about categories. (cont.)
Nothing is not even. Zero is void. As in not 1 or 2. It's nothing. Not even. Try dividing 10 by zero and see what you get. Zero is not a number it's the state in between numbers you could say.
We then create right or wrong based on morals & ethics not resources. In other words consciousness is what allows humans to keep order and stop the confusion. We allow each other rights but if those rights are removed or all the power is put in few hands as it is now we will soon see what happens to morality. But back to the point zero is not a number it is a state, and everyone has just as much right as the next too all resources on earth, justice is sharing it out fairly as zero doesn't exist.
Just like he said in the video, the plausibility of the premise may be subject to your background knowledge or your preconceptions of the subject. Science does not make atheistic assertions about nature. It would be unscientific to say that natural phenomena has or does not have teleological influences. It is not the purpose of science to do this. Science is about observing and testing natural phenomena, not about removing or including supernatural influence.
I have heard folks like Richard Dawkins assert that evolution is non-teleological, but I've never heard them substantiate that assertion. It seems they simply assume the assertion is true because it already conforms to their world veiw. Personally, I think the existence evolution suggests that the existence of an intelligent creator is more likely than not. I'd make my arugment here if the youtube comment system didn't suck so much.
Zero isn't a number it's more of a state. In programming it is used as the number 1 instead of zero. But in reality zero is not a number. You could argue it was a point, but it's still not a number. If zero was a number than every form of science would be void that implied that everything is infinite and nothingness is never really nothing and so zero is not a number, it's more a state that humans have derived in order to keep things black and white. In reality no one owns anything...
Yes, it's a non-scientific and philosophical assertion. I understand evolution as a series of tautologies (e.g. survivors survived), and the theory is only practically useful if teleology is assumed. Non-teleological evolution wouldn't suggest a creator, imo. Non-teleological anything offers up no valuable info whatsoever cuz its very character is to be meaningless and void of useful content.
I am not sure that scientists can support the claim that evolution is an undirected process. It might appear to be the case, but I am not sure how someone could scientifically prove this. Abiogenesis has not been proven, and it really has little, if nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. Darwin himself said, "talking about the origins of life is absurd. One might as well talk about the origins of matter."
@@TheaDragonSpirit a definition of even is “can be divided by 2 and makes a whole number.” 0 can by divided into 2 groups so it fits. Even though it represents nothing.
Don't have to believe the world is thousands y/o for the belief in God and the belief in evolution to be mutually exclusive. My understanding is evolutionary theory asserts evolution is a non-teleological process. Theism should certainly be incompatible with belief in evolution cuz of this apparent atheistic assertion. If the CC accepts anything it accepts a tweaked version that is compatible with theism (i.e. evolution is teleological). So I'm not sure this example is false dilemma at all.
I have good reasons to believe that God exists, and so I believe that the best explanation of the origins of life come from him. However, ID does not state that the intelligent cause must be supernatural. ID doesn't rule out the idea of natural intelligence.
That's not exactly true. Proponents of ID are not anti-evolutionists, they are anti-darwinism. Most proponents of ID are ok with evolution as far as change over time and even common descent. They are more or less challenging the idea of an undirected process. Actually, the idea of "undirected process" is not much different in nature than "directed process". How can either be falsifiable. I think it would be better for both to say "This is the process" but the how and why are still left open.
I love how the analogies revolved around believing in a god and evolution but did not address that the very idea of evolution could be and probably is false. I can easily demonstrate this.
John Kelley You knuckleheads crack me up with your noble prize. You want some Mcdonald fries and a chocolate milk with that Nobel Prize? Nobel Prize is not worth the paper it is written on these days. For crying out loud didn't Obama get one lately? LOL! Talking about a Nobel Prize as valuable to a creationists is like saying a grain of sand is a diamond. Your just going to get laughed at.
Tom Brooks, it was an attempt at showing you how worthless claims of disproving evolution are... If you can disprove evolution (the crowning achievement of science), then you'll pretty much disprove science. Evolution has more evidence for it than any other scientific theory in history including Global Warming, Gravity, Heliocentricism (universe rotating around the sun), and many other theories. Yes, Gravity and Heliocentricism are scientific theories. No, Creationism is not a scientific theory. Yes, some people (1 in 4 Americans) still believe in Geocentricism (universe rotating around the earth). You say creationists like I'm not one. I'm merely one that doesn't put false dogma based on misguided interpretations of scripture above facts. I am a theistic evolutionist.
John Kelley If the claims of creationism are so worthless than how come their are over a 1,000 PHD professors world wide that have already signed the descent from Darwin Letter. And thats just a small fraction that actually had the guts to put their careers and jobs in jeopardy.
nothing worse than trying to teach logic and philosophy than by trying to teach it with the use of politics and religion. this is why our youth is so fragile
Your videos are super helpful!
I love learning about fallacies!!! Today is the first day that I have ever heard this term.
Thanks for correcting me. I was referring to Ken Miller. As far as Behe's points regarding IC, I am not trained enough in the sciences to know the concepts well enough to comment on whether they hold water or not. I only understand the basic ideas of what he is arguing.
1. I agree. Proof can be used in different ways. I don't necessarily mean that proof always need to be meant as mathematical certainty.
2. I believe you can prove a negative.
3. I have good reason to believe that it is guided.
4. That just helps support my point that abiogenesis is not really a part of evolution. Abiogenesis may be considered a type of evolution in and of itself, but it is not a part of what scientists usually refer to as evolution.
Cool, I will check them out. It's not weak to offer videos. I am not intensely debating this topic, because I am really not on either side of the fence. So having other videos to watch is totally fine with me.
Interesting question. The interesting answer is that zero is even. zero is not only even but threeven fivenen etc. because it divides integrally with everything.
Wolfram Alpha defines even number as all numbers of the form n=2k, where k is an integer. Since k is an integer it can be zero. When k=0, n=2x0=0. Therefore, 0 is an even number. Q.E.D.
You can divide zero things between 2 people evenly- they both get nothing- there is no remainder. That's the definition of an even number. Also if you look at the sequence of even numbers going backwards: ...8, 6, 4, 2, 0, -2, -4 ..., Zero is within the pattern, as we would expect for an even number.
"Currently materialist reductionism doesn't appear to be able to account for actual consciousness or thought."
The existence of consciousness has never had explanation anywhere. To paraphrase Steven Pinker: This is not a new question. more than 2000 years ago Greeks were attacking the question of the mystery of consciousness. Not only has no advance been made in this field of inquiry, there's nothing to suggest that advance ever will be made or how we might proceed along this mode of inquiry.
I apologize. I don't mean to be misleading. From what I have read, most ID proponents don't have a problem with evolution (change over time). However, a major part of Darwin's theory was natural selection, which ID proponents don't accept.
What I meant by "How can either be falsifiable" I was referring to the concepts of directed and undirected processes, not Evolution and ID.
Most of that is over my head. However, I have one question. What do mean "there was no 'goal'?"
However, I think ID theorists would say that intelligent design is falsifiable. They might argue based on how they test for specified and irreducible complexity, that if there was a naturalistic explanation that was simpler, then Occam's Razor would suggest that it should be preferred for further inquiry. A lot of whether a hypothesis can be determined true or false also has a lot to do with one's intellectual honesty.
the last sentences where of the biggest value from the video
Can it be the same as excluded middle or black or white fallacy
Well said
I think that was the point of the example, to point out how the use of the fallacy of False Dilemma presents a simplified view of the issue: either this or that, when in reality there are many other alternatives, or even mixtures of alternatives. The most famous example from one of George W. Bush's speeches: Either you are with us or against us in the war on terror, when obviously you can be not with him in his 'war on terror' while still not being against him (implicit: a terrorist).
I don't think they are defining evolution as just natural selection. I suspect they are probably aware of the modifications and new theories that you mentioned. Since I am unfamiliar with these modifications and new theories, do any of them propose an alternative to natural selection or are they just processes that work along side it?
Could the fact that, if you end up in court for whatever reason, you only have the options of pleading guilty or not guilty be considered a false dilemma? There may well be other factors involved that the plea question does not allow for.
I am familiar with the Dover trial. I am not sure where the arguments of irreducible complexity were overridden, even partially. Steve Miller has been the biggest objector to the argument of irreducible complexity, but has done nothing more than attack arguments that have not actually been presented. Once again, I am not stating that I believe that ID is an actual physical science exactly, but I don't think the refutations of it so far haven't been too impressive
2:25 I get it, the person could just be insane
I understand what you mean by "proof" in science. I wasn't using "proof" in the sense of mathematical certainty. First of all, let me tell you that I am not exactly a proponent of intelligent design as a physical science. I am more interested in whether it is true or false, not what category (religion, science, philosophy) it falls under. Truth doesn't care about categories. (cont.)
Nothing is not even. Zero is void. As in not 1 or 2. It's nothing. Not even. Try dividing 10 by zero and see what you get. Zero is not a number it's the state in between numbers you could say.
We then create right or wrong based on morals & ethics not resources. In other words consciousness is what allows humans to keep order and stop the confusion. We allow each other rights but if those rights are removed or all the power is put in few hands as it is now we will soon see what happens to morality. But back to the point zero is not a number it is a state, and everyone has just as much right as the next too all resources on earth, justice is sharing it out fairly as zero doesn't exist.
Just like he said in the video, the plausibility of the premise may be subject to your background knowledge or your preconceptions of the subject. Science does not make atheistic assertions about nature. It would be unscientific to say that natural phenomena has or does not have teleological influences. It is not the purpose of science to do this. Science is about observing and testing natural phenomena, not about removing or including supernatural influence.
Either physics is true or the philosophy of psychologism is true... or maybe Jung was right, but wouldn't that mean that psychologism is right?
I have heard folks like Richard Dawkins assert that evolution is non-teleological, but I've never heard them substantiate that assertion. It seems they simply assume the assertion is true because it already conforms to their world veiw.
Personally, I think the existence evolution suggests that the existence of an intelligent creator is more likely than not. I'd make my arugment here if the youtube comment system didn't suck so much.
The example presented isn't a false dilemma.
Zero isn't a number it's more of a state. In programming it is used as the number 1 instead of zero. But in reality zero is not a number. You could argue it was a point, but it's still not a number. If zero was a number than every form of science would be void that implied that everything is infinite and nothingness is never really nothing and so zero is not a number, it's more a state that humans have derived in order to keep things black and white. In reality no one owns anything...
What is zero then? Even or Odd?
It is considered even. You can have nothing and you don’t have anything left if you were to divide it (or something that ends in zero) up.
@@mbdg6810 So then all the times it ended up zero in the casino they screwed me when I picked even. Ha
@@mbdg6810 I think zero isn't actually considered anything, because zero represents that which doesn't exist.
@@TheaDragonSpirit true.
Yes, it's a non-scientific and philosophical assertion.
I understand evolution as a series of tautologies (e.g. survivors survived), and the theory is only practically useful if teleology is assumed. Non-teleological evolution wouldn't suggest a creator, imo. Non-teleological anything offers up no valuable info whatsoever cuz its very character is to be meaningless and void of useful content.
I am not sure that scientists can support the claim that evolution is an undirected process. It might appear to be the case, but I am not sure how someone could scientifically prove this. Abiogenesis has not been proven, and it really has little, if nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. Darwin himself said, "talking about the origins of life is absurd. One might as well talk about the origins of matter."
Even parts of nothing?
How can something that doesn't exist... be even?
Divisibility rules. You don’t have anything left over like another even number even when you have nothing.
@@mbdg6810 If you divide 9 by 3 you don't have anything left...
@@TheaDragonSpirit a definition of even is “can be divided by 2 and makes a whole number.” 0 can by divided into 2 groups so it fits. Even though it represents nothing.
Don't have to believe the world is thousands y/o for the belief in God and the belief in evolution to be mutually exclusive.
My understanding is evolutionary theory asserts evolution is a non-teleological process. Theism should certainly be incompatible with belief in evolution cuz of this apparent atheistic assertion. If the CC accepts anything it accepts a tweaked version that is compatible with theism (i.e. evolution is teleological). So I'm not sure this example is false dilemma at all.
I have not seen evidence of this, but it could be true.
I have good reasons to believe that God exists, and so I believe that the best explanation of the origins of life come from him. However, ID does not state that the intelligent cause must be supernatural. ID doesn't rule out the idea of natural intelligence.
mmmmk
That's not exactly true. Proponents of ID are not anti-evolutionists, they are anti-darwinism. Most proponents of ID are ok with evolution as far as change over time and even common descent. They are more or less challenging the idea of an undirected process. Actually, the idea of "undirected process" is not much different in nature than "directed process". How can either be falsifiable. I think it would be better for both to say "This is the process" but the how and why are still left open.
I love how the analogies revolved around believing in a god and evolution but did not address that the very idea of evolution could be and probably is false.
I can easily demonstrate this.
Are you saying that you can easily demonstrate that the theory of evolution is false?
Please stop ranting on RUclips and go collect your Nobel Prize. Oh wait... You can't, because you can't disprove evolution....
John Kelley You knuckleheads crack me up with your noble prize. You want some Mcdonald fries and a chocolate milk with that Nobel Prize? Nobel Prize is not worth the paper it is written on these days. For crying out loud didn't Obama get one lately? LOL! Talking about a Nobel Prize as valuable to a creationists is like saying a grain of sand is a diamond. Your just going to get laughed at.
Tom Brooks, it was an attempt at showing you how worthless claims of disproving evolution are... If you can disprove evolution (the crowning achievement of science), then you'll pretty much disprove science. Evolution has more evidence for it than any other scientific theory in history including Global Warming, Gravity, Heliocentricism (universe rotating around the sun), and many other theories. Yes, Gravity and Heliocentricism are scientific theories. No, Creationism is not a scientific theory. Yes, some people (1 in 4 Americans) still believe in Geocentricism (universe rotating around the earth).
You say creationists like I'm not one. I'm merely one that doesn't put false dogma based on misguided interpretations of scripture above facts. I am a theistic evolutionist.
John Kelley If the claims of creationism are so worthless than how come their are over a 1,000 PHD professors world wide that have already signed the descent from Darwin Letter. And thats just a small fraction that actually had the guts to put their careers and jobs in jeopardy.
nothing worse than trying to teach logic and philosophy than by trying to teach it with the use of politics and religion. this is why our youth is so fragile