Intelligent Design and Creationism/Evolution Controversy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- In this University of Michigan program, Eugenie C. Scott, executive director at the National Center for Science Education, explores 'Intelligent Design' (ID), a new form of creationism that emerged after legal decisions in the 1980s hampered the inclusion of 'creation science' in the public school curriculum. In the 20 years since ID appeared, there has been no evidence of it being used to solve problems in biology. Although the scientific/scholarly part of ID has been a failure, the 'cultural renewal' part of ID has been a success, as supporters of ID seek 'restoration' of a theistic sensibility in American culture to replace what they consider an overemphasis on secularism.
There is no controversy. Evolution is a fact and creationism is a bunch of lies. ;-)
Absolutely 🤗
Of course saying doesn't make it so. Creationism is a fact evolution is a bunch of lies. Evidence please.
That’s putting it mildly 🤣🤣
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
“The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has its limits.”
“Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.”
― Albert Einstein
repeating what someone smart says never make the one repeating it smart...........ID exist ,everywhere in nature...evolutionists are just to dumb to understand evolution itself ,how it works ,to understand that evolution goes against science.....
"You better hope there's intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, 'cos there's bugger all down here on Earth."
- Monty Python
There is no controversy, creationism is bunkum.
well you just don t even understand evolution and science ,that s all...evolution stands against strict science,evolution is a story for dumb dumbs.......
@@smithkarine9678 Well then, publish your hypothesis, get it peer reviewed and await your Nobel prize, just think of all the accolades, wealth and world wide recognition, I’ll wait but not hold my breath.
@@jackthebassman1
She posts and says nothing.
One bassist to another: Nice bass jack!
@@dryfox11 Oh thank you, actually it’s an 1986 I believe, I’ve gifted it to my youngest son, he and i play some rock/blues together with a keyboard player and guitarist, he plays bass and drums in a couple of bands., I’ve got a few more basses and some vintage ones (it’s a bit of an illness!) lol. Thanks for your nice comment. ✌️👍😁
The only shortcoming of Eugenie Scott’s speech is that I’m only finding it 16 years after it was made. The distinction between methodological materialism necessary to practice science, and philosophical materialism was illuminating for me.
materialism is crap.....
@@smithkarine9678 Says the person using material (pc, internet).
@@ergonomover heuuu....are you brain dead ? plug something and come back.......
@@smithkarine9678 You mean something material can help me, even if its "crap"?
@@ergonomover ah well , have you missed a few branches along the way of evolution ???????? you don t seems to have all the chips in the same bag.........
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
"Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character."
Intelligence and creationism do not belong in the same sentence.
Red Rock yet you are not "intelligent" enough to know how the universe was made, why it was made and you cannot even produce one cell of life from non-life.
Grandpa KJV
You are correct. But I have lots of company. No one on the earth "KNOWS' how and why our Universe was made.
There is a BIG difference between believing and knowing.
+Grandpa KJV And you're probably not intelligent enough to produce a cellphone from raw materials...
... yet your impotence in this endeavour would hardly place them in the realm of divine miracle.
Similarly, the very likely mechanisms of Abiogenisis (the creation of life from non-life) are actually fairly well understood. So is the formation of stars (yet we cant do that in a lab either) ... your argument is rather irrational.
Are you somehow surprised that things that happen on the timescale of millions or billions of years cannot be demonstrated over lunch to your satisfaction. Oh well, Sorry about that.
Please feel free to continue on in ignorance, surviving as religion always has, devolving to fit in the ever-shrinking gaps found at the very frontier of mans understanding.
+Red Rock so what do you think happens when you die you ignorant faithless fools
When *I* die? Nothing much. But when *you* die? ...
... well, then our species evolves : )
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
― Albert Einstein
When & where did he say this. Cite your source.
What's 'controversial' in the Creationism v Evolution so-called debate? There is no controversy. One is a faith based surrender of reason while the other is based on observation, peer review and the demonstration of high quality evidence. The only 'controversy' is why the hell are we so polite to these superstitious apologists?
There's no such thing as Darwinists or Darwinism. Only biologists and biologism. 😉
Biology would not exist if not for quarks that are bursting forth and spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons. You can find these words in the book THE QUANTUM WORLD written by the physicist Kenneth Ford.
Biology could not exist if first there were not quarks and atoms. YOU like billions of others are ignoring what you can't see. Gell-Mann won a Nobel prize for his theory of quarks. More specifically, this sentence completely woke me up: "magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons".
At our core, at biology's core are quarks spinning as 3 points of light. How do quarks turn into what is called physical? Don't you know that those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER find solidity? They work with energy and only energy because energy is the core of this existence. Atoms are electrical energy fields because they spin as positive/negative poles. All of us consist of 7 billion billion billion atoms. WE ARE ELECTRICAL ENERGY FIELDS. Where in biology is this taught? To me, biology is strictly a money maker, the kind that rockefeller created to make himself king of the world. He was not interested in healing. He wanted to put oil into pills. It is because of this nazi thinking rockefeller that this earth is so full of sick people, so full of cartels.
I found this clip very interesting and factual. Anyone, with half a brain, who listens carefully, will grasp the points and realize I.D. isn't just wrong, it is plain stupid and outrageous. It says much about the politicians who voted to add I.D. to high school and college/university curriculums, as an alternate theory.
+terry z When a "Creation Scientist" wins a Nobel prize and passes peer review, then maybe, it would be worth considering. Until then, it will remain fantasy and magic!
Jeffrey P Very true Jeff. I find it almost impossible to discuss anything with the Creationists. Ever listen to Ken Ham? What an idiot!
terry z We are dealing with very strong religious indoctrination, with many of these people. I am meeting a refreshing number of younger Christians, who do accept scientific origins so, there is hope.
Jeffrey P Yes, there is hope. Still, I do not believe in a god.
terry z Neither do I, but I find less to argue about with most of the moderates. The only problem I have with them is, they really have to go to extremes in cherry picking the Bible, to make it more palatable.
Creationism is not science. Science involves putting forward an idea (called a hypothesis) which postulates a cause with an effect. It then amasses evidence and objectively assesses that evidence to see whether it supports the hypothesis or not. If it does, the hypothesis is used to make a prediction which can be further tested. If not, the hypothesis is either rejected or amended for further testing. The key word in all of this is objective. Creationism involves beliefs which are subjective. What is worse, it bowdlerises the scientific method by only looking for evidence that supports its beliefs and ignoring or supressing that which does not. In addition, its supporters continually point to facts for which science (as yet) has no answers as 'proof' of the validity of their ideas. Science does not pretend to have answers for everything. It is an evolving, learning and adaptable way of looking at the universe. That is why it has been so successful over the last three hundred years. The old saying, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is true up to a point but absence of evidence is not proof of presence.
"Evolution" is not science. It is speculation and conjecture about what happened in the past. It requires belief and faith without proof . . . meaning it is a religion.
@@philroe2363 The fossil record provides more evidence and proof of evolution than has ever been dreamed up in favour of religion. - Which is why the religious obsessives try to deny that any of it even exists.
@@madgeordie4469 the fossil record shows stasis of species over time, not transition. In fact, there is no known transitional record in the fossils. Not one. The ONLY thing you evolutionists do is point at creatures that have similar features to two other creatures and say "transitional fossil." But this doesn't demonstrate "evolution;" absent a transitional record, it only demonstrates special creation.
Further, the vast majority of fossils in the world show catastrophic water burial - something we DON'T see happening today. This situation speaks loudly of a one time massive global flood, not "millions of years of slow burial."
The fossil record sustains Biblical creation . . . not Darwinistic "evolution." Sorry.
@@philroe2363 If species were static the plants and animals with their associated fossils from the Permian, Ordovician, Carboniferous, Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous eras plus every other era up to the present would all be the same - which they are not. So much for being static. As evolution is a constant process which never stops all fossils and even the species of organisms alive today are all transitional. There is no such thing as a completely developed species. Finally while some fossils show that their originators suffered violent deaths, often by natural causes such as floods this does not apply to all or even most. Hence, no planet wide flood. Hard to believe that one person could be so wrong about so many things in one post but there you go...
@@philroe2363 you are simply wrong, you know nothing of this subject other than what religious zealots told you. Evolution is a fact, so is common descent. DNA alone shows it beyond all doubt, just as well as it can tell you who your parents are. There is no evdience for any of the ludicrous claims in the bible, a book that describes a fl;at earth coveredc by a firmament with waters above and below... Being created before the sun, all of that is ludicrously wrong, and you would never think it matches science were you not indoctrinated into it.
Actually we can reproduce that particular chemical process in a lab now that we know how. The paper is 'synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions' and it's published in nature.
It's a shame this professor has to explain why ID is not science. It's also a shame that the people who need to hear this will never listen.
“The scripture worshipers put the writings ahead of God. Instead of interpreting God's actions in nature, for example, they interpret nature in the light of the Scripture. Nature says the rock is billions of years old, but the book says different, so even though men wrote the book, and God made the rock and God gave us minds that have found ways to tell how old it is, we still choose to believe the Scripture.” ~~ Sheri S. Tepper ~~ The Fresco
The mental gymnastics begin when they can't reconcile reality with with their book. Willfully deluded they are.
curiousgeorge1940
It's pretty messed up, because it means that the fundamentalist religion is a form of idolatry, where the book is worshiped more than the god it talks about.
KalibreSteelblast Go research Bible History and you'll see the thousands of errors that as many hands have messed up in the copying and recopying of the "original texts". Go to the dozens of web sites that illustrate biblical contradictions to see how "The Word" says one thing, then a little later says the opposite.
- JWs ( that Jehovah crowd ) are told they can't read any of that : not even the history of their own religion, because all of that is the work of the devil. Nice touch to keep your sheep in line !
I think Eugenie C. Scott, as a professor is complete wrong about ID when talking about it and misrepresenting it and confusing it with creationism. Its better to say that ID is a challenge to Darwinism evolution natural selection theory. Its open enough space to creativity and exploration in science. It’s not creationism. As Darwinist atheists have a hard time in accepting other theories and doctrines our kids in schools as the truth.
It's not a controversy evolution is a fact, and the latter are just primitive religious beliefs
No one is debating mere evolution. It's when people say life and its diversity arose via blind and mindless processes that there is debate.
@@sombodysdad evolution has nothing to do with how life originated
@@sombodysdad origin of life is still a mystery to science and therefore everybody
@@sombodysdad There is no debate. You don't have any science.
@@logicalatheist1065 How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. It's only if blind and mindless processes produced life would we say they also produced its diversity. An Intelligently designed OoL means that organisms were intelligently designed with the information and ability to evolve and adapt. Evolution by means of intelligent design, ie telic processes. Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of telic processes.
The claim of "Intelligent Design" is a common one amongst creationists of all ilk (I've had it thrown at me by Muslims as well as creationist Christians)
But anyone with a basic knowledge of anatomy knows that so many things about the layout of the human body are completely and utterly dumb.
If a human engineer designed an eye with nerves criss-crossing light sensitive cells, BETWEEN the cells and the light source, they'd be laughed out of the room.
Huw Rees Music It is neither weird nor insignificant. If such a system is designed, it's designed VERY badly. What would that say about the designer?
Huw Rees Music in this scenario we explore two possibilities. 1. so called designer doesn't exist or 2. so called designer exists and sucks at his job.
Given these two scenarios then it reveals that even if we do accept the premise that a designer exists, the designer is hardly to be beheld since afterall, if people could design things than this supernatural designer, what good is the designer?
Huw Rees Music It's not just in my opinion. It's a fact (and one of many in nature)
If a system were created AS IS by an omnipotent being, WHY ISN'T IT PERFECT?
"I don't understand why you think it would have to be perfect". Why would a perfect being DELIBERATELY create something imperfect?
Or better, the playground in the same area as a sewage plant, or in the case of the male, directly sharing space with waste water disposal. Seriously? An intelligent designer couldn't do better than that?
Oh! One more! Giving most tetrapods a singe line from the various orifices in the face for intake of food, water, and air, with only a switch-select to prevent drowning?
I’ve heard of Eugenie Scott before. She must be a heavy hitter because I’ve seen the creationist try to put her down.
The reason I remember this is because they care so much about sex they always have to point out the fact she is one of those women things they talk about so much.
Eugenie Scot is amazing! So is the NCSE. They are essential in a country riddled with, not religion, but religious fundamentalism.
She is amazing only to those more intelectually impotent than she is. Religious fundamentalism?!! Are you aware of the fact that it is the chortsian moral standards that are the foundation of the democracy and prosperity in the western world? Stop being a idiot.
@@pappycool Dr Eugenie Scott is a real scientist unlike your fraud heros of Stephen Meyer and the other liars at the Discovery Institute.
"Are you aware of the fact that it is the chortsian moral standards that are the foundation of the democracy and prosperity in the western world?"
Another lie. Your biblical morality forbids all other religions. That is a fundemental freedom in all western democracy.
There is NO trace of any democracy in your bloody bible, nor do women have human rights in your bible.
Your bible condones slavery, something gone from our democracies.
Sorry but your biblical morality has little to do with the rights and freedoms we enjoy in modern society.
Again you show yourself to be an ignorant liar.
Here is something that I want you to answer.
Do the Falgellum and the ttss share any protein? or are they all different proteins (meaning that they have no common protein)?
Albert Einstein said it well: "Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."
That was disproven in court, the kitzmiller vs dover trial to be exact. The flagellum is a modified version of the needle mechanism that can be found in viruses. Haven't you updated your arguments for the like 10 years or something?
There is no controversy, other than in some parts of the US
Because you must make a special case for a backward nation.
Allow them their hamless(?) little crazy beliefs.
There is not much controversy anywhere in the world about the validity of Darwinism. It is merely a Creationist claim made to give their irrational beliefs a veneer of respectability by fooling people into thinking that if such a controversy does exist there must be some scientific backing for those beliefs (of which there conspicuously is not). In other words, its a Creationist scam.
Eugenie has her head on a box, and Darwinism evolution has a monopoly on education to teach our kids only evolution right? What century this Amazon women is living?
@@bluejysm2007 This woman is evil and her fairytale of Evolutionism won't save her that's for sure..
"DARWIN MADE IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN INTELLECTUALLY FULFILLED ATHEIST" RICHARD DAWKINS
WWW.EVOLUTIONFAIRYTALE.COM
@@jaydelgado1994
How dare she use science instead of your solid yet evidence free conjecture!
In order to explain this world, we have to believe that a very clever person made it.
The designer is always smarter than the thing he designed.
So now we need an even smarter designer who designed the designer.
Yes folks, it's gods all the way up !
silly argument
@@ozowen5961
Don't you agree that a potter is cleverer than his pots ?
@@tedgrant2
Your argument presupposes a designer. It's not clear at all that is required.
I believe there is such, but the argument is not one I would use. It hopes the listener is poorly educated
@@ozowen5961
When you see a pot on sale in a shop, do you presuppose that someone made the pot ?
Or do you think it just popped into existence, all by itself ?
@@tedgrant2 I see you are a single argument kind of guy.
You must be proud.
They didn't mention the Spaghetti Monster Creation belief! I am shocked!
calling it a controversy does a disservice to the scientists who discovered/illuminated us upon the process of evolution.
Creationists had been unsuccessful in getting their brand of religious "Creation Science" taught in science class so they manufactured this "Intelligent Designer" facade. The "controversy" was manufactured by a collection of Creationists through what is called the Wedge Document and formed an organization called the Discovery Institute to distribute their nonsense. They do no discovery of any sort other than quote mine and seek donations. In return the gullible and scientifically illiterate get a pamphlet and videos so they can further distribute their propaganda.
Evolution could not exist because energy is constantly spinning/vibrating/pulsating/etc. Evolution is built on what is called the solid. Those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER find solidity. This is an electrical energy field world where we are electrical energy field beings because atoms spin as electrical energy fields.
It didn't take all that many words to show you up as a disservice to humanity.
@@pureenergy4578 talk to me after youve taken a collegiate lvl course in quantum mechanics and thermodynamics.
"everything in its present form" Proven wrong through genetics.
God idea creates ID plausibility. Self fulfilling.
Religious attracted to false dichotomies.
Incredulity sparks supernatural tendencies. "If I can't understand it, then god."
Religion puts cart before horse, conclusions first, then cherry picking research to fit narrative.
Yiu are intelevtually impotent my friend and ignorant as they get. If not, and you poses the knowledge than it is possible that you are also stupid, , incapable of rational reasoning, along with other possibilities such as: hypocrite, liar, manipulator, marxist, etc. Take your pick.
@@pappycool Now point all of those words at yourself because you don't read books of any kind.
Biology could not exist if first there were not quarks and atoms. YOU like billions of others are ignoring what you can't see. Gell-Mann won a Nobel prize for his theory of quarks which Kenneth Ford writes about in his book THE QUANTUM WORLD. More specifically, this sentence completely woke me up: "magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons".
At our core, at biology's core are quarks spinning as 3 points of light. How do quarks turn into what is called physical? Don't you know that those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER find solidity? They work with energy and only energy because energy is the core of this existence. Atoms are electrical energy fields because they spin as positive/negative poles. All of us consist of 7 billion billion billion atoms. WE ARE ELECTRICAL ENERGY FIELDS. Where in biology is this taught? To me, biology is strictly a money maker, the kind that rockefeller created to make himself king of the world. He was not interested in healing. He wanted to put oil into pills. It is because of this nazi thinking rockefeller that this earth is so full of sick people, so full of cartels.
Discovery Institute what a totally Orwellian use of the words
Evolution is everywhere
François D especially our wonderful schools. We really are doing so well as a country. Our kids are the smartest, most well behaved children on earth!
+François D So the argument is between the clear minded and the deluded? Do you come to that conclusion as the result of careful study, or is it a belief you hold? Seriously curious.
world peace I dont have to do it , Darwin did it all
François D So it is a belief you hold
world peace It is not a belief, it is a reality.
You missed the part where I made it clear that you have misunderstood the passage. I know you want him to be saying there's no evidence for evolution, but what he's saying is that Darwin's understanding of evolution was limited compared to what we know now. You need to accept this.
"...what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices"
This appears in both quotes because you're quoting the same passage.
You're welcome to explain the fossils in any other way, let's hear it.
Not only that, but also what was the cause of time, space and matter, aka Universe, to come into existence. Also how about mathematical odds of life appearing by chance. Etc. Etc. Etc.
@@pappycool YOU ARE A LIAR. YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID DR SCOTT IS A HYPOCRITE.
YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID DR SCOTT IS A MARXIST.
YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID DR SCOTT IS A LIAR.
YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID DR SCOTT IS A MANIPULATOR.
YOU LIED WHEN YOU POSTED YOUR QUOTE MINE OF DARWIN'S STATEMENT ABOUT THE EYE.
YOU ARE A LIAR.
@@garywalker447 lol, it is true I said thatvand i stand by my statement! Every single modern atheist on this planet today is a Marxist wheter they know it or not. Atheism is mandatory step in the Marxist formation. No kne can be a Marxist without being an atheist first. You are a Marxist too by the way. Yiu may not acknowl3dge it but it is a fact.
@@garywalker447 here is the challenge again: pick from biology astrophysics, or chemistry, as we already yiu were left speechless about the mathematical and paleontology evidence you were given. I dare you. This will be a copy paste whenever you attempt to take the conversation into ridiculousness. Your choice. So what's it going to be?
@@pappycool lol,
it is true I said thatvand i stand by my statement!
Every single modern atheist on this planet today is a Marxist wheter they know it or not.
Atheism is mandatory step in the Marxist formation.
No kne can be a Marxist without being an atheist first.
You are a Marxist too by the way. Yiu may not acknowl3dge it but it is a fact.
Evolution does explain the existence of many complex molecular machines (e.g., bacterial flagella). That evolution cannot (as yet) explain the evolution of some complex machines does not necessarily imply an intelligent designer - it just means that the proper experiments have not been done yet. E.g., your example of the Cambrian explosion - fossils of single-celled organisms are harder to find, although such fossils have been found recently, so an explanation of this should be forthcoming.
Nice quote mining. This was part of something Gould said to emphasize the completeness of Lucy. Plus he said it before the discovery of several more complete hominins.
I'm talking about the origin of the first self-replicating cell - and the vast majority of Origins researchers' still agree with this statement made a few decades ago by molecular biologist J. D. Bernal:
"The question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms, clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge that life is actually here,leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life."
You're still avoiding my question. Why all the similarities? Convergence only accounts for so much, and nothing at all when the similarities are between organisms occupying different environments.
He also said "Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices."
It also doesn't exclude Intelligent Design either. Therefore, until experimental/empirical evidence proves Darwinian evolution is adequate to create a ribosome or other complex molecular machine, we cannot eliminate intelligent design as having a role in abiogenesis and evolution. Many scientists are questioning the ability of natural selection/mutation as being creative enough for the origin of these complex organelles.
Additionally, Tacitus was not a contemporary of JC and could have easily had been referring to what he was told.
The scholars that you are referring to are Theistic Scholars, NOT critical scholars.
No, they say that there is no evidence that life was designed; all the evidence presented by ID for design can be explained by evolutionary theory.
It is NOT logical to fill in gaps of missing information with hearsay. Imagine the implications of that in a murder trial. "Ladies of gentlemen of the court, we can't find the body, nor the weapon, nor any evidence to determine his guilt, so logically you must find him guilty because he can't prove he didn't do it either."
Did she just say in the beginning of her talk that Intelligent design EVOLVED out of a CLASS of Creationist theories? Specifically the SPECIES of which is Creation Science? Don't you see this friends, the mechanism of evolution is found everywhere in nature, not only in biology, but in physics, chemistry, and even our expression of our thoughts through words (as just described) and everything else.
No argument there. Can't help but notice you've avoided proffering any real critique of the transition in question. Are you going to do it or are you going to keep evading?
It's fumy that a lot of creationists consider Dover trial judge a traitor but I see a man who stuck to the principle of the law instead of letting dogma compromise his principles.
Can you give me at least a phrase to put in the search box? I thought evolution was always described like branches on a tree, with parallel ancestries, and that the more linear approach is described as a misunderstanding of evolutionary processes by the creationist. And what kind of evolution are we referring to here? no one argues mutation, copying errors, genetic variety, even gene duplication
Fetal mutations (fixed permanent inherited diseases) are caused by infectious diseases. We propagate so many types of infections now that we are rapidly degrading.
200% rise in autism and we are at pandemic levels now (1 in 54 boys have it). We are building a future of people who can't function well enough to continue.
12:00. Young Earth creationists are not just rejected by scientists, but by most Christians as well.
It is interesting that the "fundamentally implausible" formation of replicating life and other systems of informative conveyance are sustained with negative entropy.
You still listed a humerus as an organism which is wrong no matter how you writhe. Now, what about those questions I asked?
One clear error, but forgivable... that picture from the Hubble was a nebula, not a galaxy.
You may wish to read the paper by Alan Turing "The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis'. It contains Turing's mathematical proof of abiogenesis.
And you didn't clarify what you were talking about developing to higher organisms. And you still haven't told me any more about that frog of yours. And you still haven't presented actual objections to the Panderichthys-Tiktaalik lineage beyond that you've looked at the animals in question and decided that "they look very similar," but they're not related. While I'm sure your examination was well-informed and rigorous, I'd like some actual objections.
Here's what Shapiro said in response to that particular quote mine:
"...he DID use it out of context Questioning the adequacy of Darwinian theory is something quite different from challenging the evidence for evolution. Our best defense against Creationism is a vital scientific study of evolutionary processes using the most complete molecular and biological information we can obtain. "
speciation is considered microevolution. No one is in denial of mutation, gene duplication, or that organisms may experience a loss of genetic information. That is all occurring with already existent genetic information. This doesn't justify the "molecule to man" evolution.
And I don't know where you're getting your information, but Tulerpeton is known from much more than ten bones (the preserved forelimbs and hindlimbs alone contain more). Acanthostega is known in its entirety as is Ichthyostega. There are many taxa that are poorly represented in the fossil record, but their reconstructions are based on what's seen in closely-related forms. Relatedness is determined by myriad features of the the skull and postcrania, not an artist's guess.
First, you clearly don't know what Gould was saying in the quote you dug up. As demonstrated in the previously posted quote, Gould said that transitional fossils at the species level are rare (not absent) but that transitional fossils at higher taxonomic levels were abundant. And I don't understand what you mean about the driving mechanism behind the "development to a higher organisms". That's Great Chain of Being talk and is not real science.
How many times do people need to tell you that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, and abiogenesis has nothing to do with spontaneous generation?
If you're that hell-bent on ignoring what science actually is, then you have no basis to argue with it. Go troll somewhere else.
The ruling keepers cannot cut their links with the traditional old ways even as they are no longer appropriate to resolve the contradictions and conflicts. Instead of identifying the true nature of the principal contradiction at this stage of our intellectual struggle to understand the universe the keepers identified themselves with either of the two so-called visions. And instead of plugging the hole they gave their opponents loop holes. In so doing, they got entangled with creation.
According to creationists, all of the great scientists of the past were creationists, but if modern science came from creationism, why are there still creationists?
@@keithboynton Nice :)
Oh, I almost didn't notice your uncommonly blatant Azar quote mine.
“If a biologist teaches that between existing fossils there was a non-existing third … is he not really like the man of religious faith who says, ‘I believe, even though there is no evidence?"
So not only does the quote not say what you are pretending it does, but Larry Azar isn't even a scientist, just some guy asking scientists questions.
What are your sources?
im evasive ? what were u saying about divine intervention ?
Science was invented by our ancient ancestors for their survival and not to find and the beginning or end of time. Yet no one can deny that the keepers of the two-seemingly competing visions are principally engaged in finding and proving how the universe started off. In reality, they have no contradictions because they both uphold a time-dependent universe. If the oldest vision uphold the oldest myth of creation the relatively new vision uphold the modern scientific myth of big bang creation.
I was 7 when I suggested a “theistic evolution” argument based on something a Sunday school teacher said. He said “the days before man were time on God’s scale, which meant that a day could be a billion years.” I raised my hand and said, “If God can do anything, then why can’t he make humans out of amoebas (I was only 7 😅) through evolution?” He answered, “because it doesn’t say that.” I replied, “it doesn’t say a Day was a billion years either.” I stopped being Christian young……
Maybe you don't know where you are and you just made it clear to me with your answer.
Yes, you are a resident of this devine zoo. But you are one of these lucky people who don´t know that they are zoo residents He has created to bring some fun in his boring everyday life. I´m one of the unlucky people how know where they are.
But make some funny noices to please Him. I have a prayer for you.
"Almighty alien from hyperspace. Don't kill us with your laser cannons like you did before."
The Extraterrestrial has also created dinosaurs for His zoo. When they bored Him, He killed everyone with a laser. The burn marks can still be found in layers of earth.
Make Him happy. Act like a good resident of His zoo. But don't argue against why you exist or He will burn you up like dinosaurs.
@@marculatour6229 what in the world are you babbling about? Your comment suggests that you’ve some good herb…wanna pass it to the left hand side? 😂
The above from Wikipedia, not "Creationist website", The debate continues within the scientific community. To say all these questions have been answered and substantiate evolution is ignorance.
ID is insufficient because a) It's metaphysical and thus not science and b) it doesn't explain the multitude of homologies that wouldn't be explained purely by homoplasy or why they should develop in the same way etc. The same goes for all the actinopterygians you're claiming are also unrelated. And coelocanths resemble sarcs because they are sarcs.
Creationists "mathematical probabilities" never seem to include, as a variable, natural selection or the fact that you are only considering the probabilities of what is now. Not all the other possibilities that may include a form of intelligent life. It's like being dealt a particular hand of cards and saying how improbable that particular hand is. It may be so but some combination of cards will always be dealt.
Missing the point: the recurrent laryngeal nerve is not an ideal design at the best of times. In the giraffe it's utterly ridiculous. To say so is not a religious argument. It never strays from observable evidence and I make no metaphysical claim. Thus not a religious belief.
On that note, how convenient that my question has ended up right below this comment. What a perfect opportunity for you to try to address them rather than obfuscating as usual.
Both theories are observable in nature and have predictive power. Tiktaalik was an excellent example. Evolutionary theory predicted that something that looked approximately like Tiktaalik should show up in rocks of a certain age. Paleontologists located some rocks of the right age and found exactly what they'd predicted they would. Evolutionary theory also predicts that you'll never see a rhinoceros, for instance, in the Cambrian. And so it is.
What controversy? Like the people who continue to argue for a flat earth, so-called "creationists" are simply people who don't know what they're talking about.
Invoking the supernatural answer zero questions without first proving the supernatural exists.
I'd rather say: while religious explanations need faith and belief system (and that's why they're bullshit), scientific explanations are based on evidence and the scientific method, which is the best tool human beings ever developed to investigate how reality works, and if you know how this method works you easily understand why we can rely on science.
I've seen this woman debate Meyer before, and she blatantly lies. The fact that the description under the video states "no problems being used to solve problems in biology" is deceiving and doesn't take into account the predictions ID makes. And she clearly doesn't understand SETI looks for not just complexity, but also specificity, as pointed out by Dembski.
So that explains why organisms in similar environments are often similar, but not why organisms in dissimilar environments are similar.
The uncertainty over Tiktaalik is in your head. You keep claiming it's unrelated without substantiating your claim in any way. Of course there's more to physiology than bones, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the evidence in the bones.
Large groups of believers is NOT evidence of anything except they are lemmings the most common human in any society.
All the great scientist that we build on were Creationists: “What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the World.”
― Albert Einstein
The father of modern physics was a creationist.
Can you plz answer the last comment I made to you before. You see I got the feeling you really don't understand what Behe's argument for irreducible complexity actually means.
Please give me the exact sentence/paragraph or tell where it is. Just reading the abstract it says this concerning the soft tissue: "..Moreover, the fibrils DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY in spectral signature FROM those of potential modern BACTERIAL CONTAMINANTS. Also, if there had been bacterial contamination 23000 years ago why wouldn't the soft tissue have decomposed? Did it say that results of C14 were conclusively bacterial, or possible? Also what's the explanation for ANY soft tissue preserving?
what a gibberish question
Confused. That's the same quote. Still ignoring Gould's firm support of the fossil record.
"My conviction is that evolutionary biologists are making ancient words serve too many masters. We take pre-Darwinian terms like'species', 'adaptation,' and 'homology' and try to give them exact modern meanings, but technical meanings require technical terms, and it is time to abandon idealism in favor of pragmatism and utility...
"The ribosome, both looking at the past and at the future, is a very significant structure - it's the most complicated thing that is present in all organisms. Craig does comparative genomics, and you find that almost the only thing that's in common across all organisms is the ribosome. And it's recognizable; it's highly conserved. So the question is, how did that thing come to be? And if I were to be an intelligent design defender, that's what I would focus on; how did the ribosome come to be?"
wao professor says it so clearly that i want to applaud forever....
I don't care what YOUR definition of positive mutation is, nor do I need to prove your strawman.
A positive mutation would be defined in science as a mutation that improves the chance surviving due to the impact of natural selection. That's it.
It doesn't need to add new functions, it doesn't need to increase health or fitness, nor does it need to increase intelligence, it doesn't need to increase complexity.
It's very hard to watch this.. She miss-represents creationism and intelligent design so badly it's painful. I just wish both sides would be honest about what the other side believes. She then says "She doesn't want to go into the details" of what creation science believes but that it's just bad science. Well that's convenient.. she knows most people really haven't taken the time to investigate the claims of creationism so she just tells them to trust her that it's bad science without giving any examples of how it's bad science. Eugenie C. Scott knows exactly what she is doing as she creates this false straw man version of creationism and intelligent design. It seems to be the MO of the evolutionist camp to just try to shut down conversation about it. I see through their deception. I'm agnostic when it comes to evolution or creation science. Why? Because there are big holes in both arguments. At least take the time to find out what they really believe. Creation.com is a good start.
Ben Tanner But people HAVE taken the time to investigate the claims of creationism IN DETAIL and anyone with any legitimate science background (ie: NOT Kent Hovind) will agree that these claims are complete bunk..... just worn out biblical mythology trying (and thus far failing) to worm its way into the science class. To be "agnostic when it comes to evolution or creation science" is just a cheap and ignorant copout.
Your statement that "anyone with any legitimate science background will agree that these claims are complete bunk" is false.
Why then are there so many published PHD Scientists that are regular contributors to creation magazine then? (www.creation.com)
You are either running from this, or you are ignorant of the facts.
Ben Tanner HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! EXACTLY!.... they are regular contributors to a creation magazine. In other words, the only place they can get people to take them seriously is in a forum of similarly fundamental religious people. Part of the process of science is to put your findings out among the general population so that it can be reviewed and criticized by the most knowledgeable people in the field. When that has happened in the past, this creationist nonsense has been shot down as the mythological bullshit it is and the so-call "creation scientists" have been marginalized to their weird little creation publications.... and rightly so. The reason for this is that a "creation scientist" is not a scientist at all because he starts with a conclusion (god did it because the bible says so) and then rummages around trying to distort and twist and lie observed evidence into fitting his initial conclusion. That is simply not how legitimate science works.
Brammy... they are also published Scientists that have actually made breakthroughs in science unlike most of the scientific world. "Peer review" is just another name for Group Think.
Ben Tanner Yawn..... being published means little.... anyone can publish any crap they want...... where you are published and (more importantly) the reaction of the professional community is of much greater importance. Lots of complete nitwits are published.... Ken Ham for one who is so insane that he actually thinks that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time............ OK, lets get down to it..... please name the "scientist" or "scientists" who you think have good arguments for biblical creation.
WHY don't we see transitional species. The fact is that we do, and there are plenty of examples. The question is why don't we see MORE. The reason is simply that STABLE forms of biological creatures tend to persist in their current form in their niches until some conditions drives a change. That change epoch is extremely brief relative to the stable epoch. An animal being fossilized is extremely rare. Therefore, fossils of transitional species are, accordingly, extremely rare. Get it?
I see the newest issue of "Facts According to Moonram" has arrived. No evolutionary biologist thinks fish and whales share common descent except in the sense that tetrapods evolved from fish. I guarantee that no one thinks fish and whale morphological convergence is anything but the result of "adaptive necessity". I hope this wasn't you trying to address my last question.
Yes necessarily, stop obfuscating the issue. Is not macroevolution, according to your side, a result of a sequence of microevolutionary change?(at least Darwinian). No one argues that there are changes within the gene pool. The argument is over whether these changes have limits, using already available information; or if we can extrapolate bigger changes that eventually bring change to the basic kind & infer common ancestry for all living things. You never answered my question, just ad hominem.
There's some miscommunication going on here due to you not knowing what an articulated skeleton is. A complete skeleton can be articulated or associated and the same is true for an incomplete specimen such as Tiktaalik. I didn't say Tiktaalik was complete, I said articulated which it is. Now, I know your expert scrutiny has yielded the identification of "leather baggage".
So "creation science" claims there is a materialist bias in the research of science.
May I inquire then....... as to how you test for non materialist reality?
How would science test to confirm fairies or the tooth fairy?
What research can be conducted in the field and/or laboratory setting to discover, define and explain that methodology of an intelligent designer?
The fact remains that creation science is a theology.......not a science.
And ID'ers change that definition every week to include people who accept cosmology, geology, social darwinism, atomic theory, palentology, and other general fields of science unrelated to evolution. She's not going to claim to know what they're talking about because all of her opponents have a different definition.
She probably knows the historical definition, but she knows the ID'ers don't use it.
How can they think these things? Well, because the ones who do are not actually brainless, quite the opposite. the really smart ones are the ones who are the proponents of such ideas, and it is because they are also aware of inane quantum physics. QPhysics has a varied amount of explanations of matter and energy intermingling on profound levels. QP can show how a particle of matter can be in two locations at the same time. It also can explain how positive and negative electrons can annihilate
The Bacteria Flagellum has been tested for irreducible complexity and is has been shown that yes, it can exist without the sum or its parts
Also, you ask all these questions about abiogensis, and all of the other holes...it's called SCIENCE; trust me, scientists are asking the same questions and are working on it. Just because we don't have the answer now doesn't mean it's not there for us to discover naturally
In this case the hypothesis is based on the depositional environment indicated by the rocks and various morphological features. So it's an evidence-based hypothesis. But here's the kicker: At no point is Daeschler discussing the evolutionary kinship of Tiktaalik; this is not in doubt. He's making an environmental interpretation which, while important, is not related to the question of whether or not tetrapods evolved from animals like Tiktaalik.
There was merit in his paper, and the evidence we all start out with is the incredible appearance of design in every living cell from abiogenesis to humans. Intelligent Design does not necessarily require a supernatural creator. As far as science knows it could be a higher intelligence with a natural source - like an evolved intelligence as Dawkins even admitted and there could be evidence of it if, such as a signature, if we would look. What is the evidence for abiogenesis being natural anyway?
actually not. the ttss has protein that doasnt exist in falgellum!(toxin proteins and more). so you cant reduce flagellum to ttss. also- a car and airplan has both wheels and fuel. doas it mean that you can change a car into airplan in small steps?
Each human as at min 1000 deleterious mutations. This is verified by a study. On average we have lost fitness in the nature of 3 deleterious mutations per generation. There has never been found even on beneficial mutation. "Mutations are the only measure of "evolution". UC Berkeley.
According to PubMed there are approx 50,000 deleterious mutations causing over 17000 known inherited diseases at the present condition of our degradation.
How the hell have you guys have the patience to watch all of this?!
Fossils are not evidence for evolution because the prior levels were far more complex. You can easily see this in the horse, dog, mouse, cat, any of the now living creatures the prior ancient ancestors were far more fit, stronger thicker bones, and more complex bone structures.
A molecular machine, or nano-machine, is any discrete number of molecular components that produce quasi-mechanical movements (output) in response to specific stimuli (input). The expression is often more generally applied to molecules that simply mimic functions that occur at the macroscopic level. Please quit using inorganic matter as a comparison of organic biology.
Reproduction the natural process among organisms by which new individuals are generated and the species perpetuated. Design is to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
so Brendon is unable to cite ANYONE that answers my thesis...and Brendon chooses not to use the word "prove", only "explain", like someone would "explain why they shouldn't be guilty of a traffic ticket".....weak, but typical, nonetheless. ..which leaves the only logical, documented explanation of Creation as the Genesis account.
We've learnt much about abiogensis in the last few years. For example we now know how RNA nucleotides could have been created in the conditions present during the early Earth.
Also, Lamarck evolution is very different than the evolutionary view held by scientists today. In fact Darwin argued against Lamarckism.
Even if abiogensis were shown to be false that doesn't disprove evolution. The evidence is stands independently.
Caterpillars become butterflies. Tadpoles become frogs. Even the human animal evolves from one apparent species to another, in the womb to birth. Not gradually over countless generations, but all of a sudden, at signals unknown and unseen. Is there any reason not to suppose that an animal may change from one species to another, not slowly but all of a sudden, simply because in the organic wholeness of life the time is ripe? This idea makes more sense in my mind than evolution.