The scientific and skeptical community were highly critical of Nye for agreeing to have a debate in the first place, and I agree. There's nothing to debate.
Bill Nye wasn't debating creationism. Now, I know that was the topic of the debate, but his goal wasn't to try and convince creationists that they were wrong. That's impossible: Ken Ham even said in the debate that his mind couldn't be changed.Interesting. I haven't listened to it but that's the most interesting point I've seen on Bill's behalf.
Bill Nye's goal, and I believe he accomplished it, is the same it's been since the Bill Nye The Science Guy days. He wanted to convince children and young people to use scientific thinking and enter scientific fields. He wasn't speaking to the Young Earth Creationists: He was speaking to their children. He demolished the reasoning behind Ken Ham's belief, but notice how many appeals to the future of science he made? His whole tangent about how important it is to the future of the US economy? His thoughts were on the future of science, not the fact that some people have moronic beliefs.
Did anyone catch this? Bill Nye debated the founder of the Creation Museum on Creationism. Bill made a number of good points. I just wish he had pushed the absurdity of a museum depicting humans frolicking with dinosaurs.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio
lol
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio
lol
How do you explain a sunset if their is no God?
#3 is a good point, though. I even made that same point in another thread.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio
lol
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr05/5/0/enhanced-28374-1391576852-17.jpg)
Dayum, Smuggy Smug McSmugface
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio
lol
How do you explain a sunset if their is no God?
#3 is a good point, though. I even made that same point in another thread.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio
lol
How do you explain a sunset if their is no God?
#3 is a good point, though. I even made that same point in another thread.
It's only logical if God is a trickster who delights in confounding his creation.
How the hell are they relating the second law of thermodynamics to evolution?Assuming the Earth is a closed system (which it isn't), we should be degenerating, and not progressing
Even in a closed system, as long as there exists a temperature gradient, work can be done.How do you associate thermodynamics with organic evolution?
Even in a closed system, as long as there exists a temperature gradient, work can be done.How do you associate thermodynamics with organic evolution?
Assuming the Earth is a closed system (which it isn't), we should be degenerating, and not progressing
Evolution does not mean systems become more complex, which is probably what they're trying to refer to.Yes, sorry, I forgot to include that assumption. They assume that evolution always results in more information being added to the DNA (sic).
Whether we agree or disagree, we should defend to the death a persons right to speak
How the hell are they relating the second law of thermodynamics to evolution?Assuming the Earth is a closed system (which it isn't), we should be degenerating, and not progressing
Free speech does not give people the right to say something and not be ridiculed.Exactly. No one says Ken (or other creationists) shouldn't have the right to speak. I mean, I'd prefer if they stopped being wrong, but they have all the right to voice their beliefs, and said right should be defended when necessary.
Ham kept dodging Nye's whole "predicition" concept, which was annoying.
Also, I thought a very revealing part of the debate was when Ham touched on nihilism. He asked Bill why he does what he does if he's going to end up dead anyway. This really shows Ham's true colors. Without god, he can't find motivation to do anything, and his life is pointless. Once you take that into consideration, it makes sense why he is so adamant that he will never be convinced that his model is wrong. He clings so strongly to god because his life depends on it.
I agree with that, but by the same token, there have been many people that have found solace in religion after leading a life of hopeless despair. One of my very best friends is a perfect example of this. Whether or not Christianity's doctrine is correct, it is an undeniable source of community and satisfaction for many people. Even Bill acknowledged this.What is religion but rules, hope, and community?
What is religion but rules, hope, and community?
What is religion but rules, hope, and community?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio
lol
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio
lol
Actually I have found that some "atheists", mainly people who watch the Ancient Aliens show on the Used To Be About History Channel, do believe #11
The same thing that makes the mind vulnerable to religion makes it vulnerable to equally wacky extra-terrestrial phenomenon. I see people who watch Ancient Aliens and say "yeah that's totally what happened" as no different from religious fanatics. I find it hilarious, in fact, that a religious person would find the two opposing theories comparable enough to comment on the parallels but not see the asinine nature of their own belief system.
Why would aliens visit earth? They're probably so jaded with finding new civilizations that they don't want to, or didn't bother looking in our infinitesimal area of existence.
Why would aliens visit earth? They're probably so jaded with finding new civilizations that they don't want to, or didn't bother looking in our infinitesimal area of existence.
Why would aliens visit earth? They're probably so jaded with finding new civilizations that they don't want to, or didn't bother looking in our infinitesimal area of existence.
I would like to know which statistics you derived that "probably" from.
Are you denying the possibility of ETs, or just that they have visited Earth? If it's the latter, then I agree with you.
I pulled it out of my ass just like everyone does when they consider if interstellar alien civilizations exist or not.
Are you denying the possibility of ETs, or just that they have visited Earth? If it's the latter, then I agree with you.
There is no evidence that they exist. Feel free to spam the ol' argument from probability thing, where you state the innumerable amount of planets in the universe and then state they have to exist. It's a fallacious argument made by people who want aliens to exist. Even to say "it is probable that aliens exist" is nonsense.
Well, from a purely scientific point of view, aliens actually don't exist. You can't calculate probability for something that hasn't happened.
Well, from a purely scientific point of view, aliens actually don't exist. You can't calculate probability for something that hasn't happened.
It has happened though.
Well, from a purely scientific point of view, aliens actually don't exist. You can't calculate probability for something that hasn't happened.
It has happened though.
You must be way ahead of the entire scientific community then. Where did you get evidence for alien life?
You can't calculate probability for something that hasn't happened.
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened. If an event has occurred it's probability is 1 and no calculation is necessary.Well, from a purely scientific point of view, aliens actually don't exist. You can't calculate probability for something that hasn't happened.
This is all kinds of wrong. The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened. If an event has occurred it's probability is 1 and no calculation is necessary.
Actually, I'm specifically referring to life outside our solar system.
Well, from a purely scientific point of view, aliens actually don't exist. You can't calculate probability for something that hasn't happened.
Life exists on Earth, there are other planets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581) like Earth outside our solar system...
Life exists on Earth, there are other planets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581) like Earth outside our solar system...
Which planet in the Gliese 581 system is "like Earth" in any meaningful way?
Nobody is arguing that it isn't a possibility.
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.
There is no evidence of alien life. Life on Earth is not evidence of anything apart from life on Earth.
Sure, there is no evidence of life outside Earth, but it's not unscientific to suggest that it's a possibility.
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.
Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.
Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.
Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.
Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
I am about to flip a coin. The probability that it will land with heads side up is 1/2.
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.
Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
Indeed, but it has no value in determining any real statistics. It's only useful in generating debate.The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.
Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
I am about to flip a coin. The probability that it will land with heads side up is 1/2.
Oops, you must have misunderstood me. What I said was, I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.
Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.
Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
Indeed, but it has no value in determining any real statistics. It's only useful in generating debate.The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.
Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
I am about to flip a coin. The probability that it will land with heads side up is 1/2.
Oops, you must have misunderstood me. What I said was, I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.
Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
Indeed, but it has no value in determining any real statistics. It's only useful in generating debate.The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.
Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
I am about to flip a coin. The probability that it will land with heads side up is 1/2.
Oops, you must have misunderstood me. What I said was, I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
Oh. Sorry. I think you mean to say, s"omething that has not happened ,ever. " I have not flipped the coin I am about to flip; it has not happened. Either way, you are wrong; just because something has not happened, does not mean you cannot know the likelihood of it happening. It does require that you have a good understanding of the factors contributing to its probability. For example, if I were to be the first person ever to flip a coin, it would not be difficult to work out that there are two possible outcomes and that the probability of each outcome is 1/2. Obviously, solving the Drake Equation is much more problematic, but that does not mean it is impossible.
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.
Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
I agree with Vauxhall.The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.
Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
Since life evolved/created/whatever on Earth, then it has occurred. So you can't claim that life in the universe has never happened.
My claim is that life outside of earth has not happened. If you want to prove this statement wrong, you have to find evidence to the contrary. Currently, there isn't any evidence whatsoever. Simply saying "herp derp the universe is Xbox huge" is not evidence. Science doesn't get to operate on conjecture.
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
If this was a court of law there would be plenty of circumstantial evidence for the existence of life outside Earth.
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
At this point, Vauxhall, your argument is no different than any given religion. Also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
You really have no idea what that means, do you?
My claim is that life outside of earth has not happened. If you want to prove this statement wrong, you have to find evidence to the contrary. Currently, there isn't any evidence whatsoever. Simply saying "herp derp the universe is Xbox huge" is not evidence. Science doesn't get to operate on conjecture.
If this was a court of law there would be plenty of circumstantial evidence for the existence of life outside Earth.
This isn't about God, Rushy. This is about life. Which has been shown to exist in the universe. Gods have not been observed, life has.
Do you want to debate this claim or just post wikipedia articles? Because I can do both.
I'm not sure why you added this stupid little bit. The American justice system and the scientific method are polar opposites. Legal proceedings only care about how good a lawyer is. The scientific method cares about what is actually true.
In the realm of science, "we haven't found em yet" means they don't exist.
This isn't about life, it is about life outside the solar system. Nice job trying to construct a strawman, though.
This isn't about life, it is about life outside the solar system. Nice job trying to construct a strawman, though.
You have no idea what that means, do you?
In the realm of science, "we haven't found em yet" means they don't exist.
This isn't about life, it is about life outside the solar system. Nice job trying to construct a strawman, though.
You have no idea what that means, do you?
I'm glad to see that I could destroy you in roughly four posts. Carry on.
In the realm of science, "we haven't found em yet" means they don't exist.
No, it doesn't. As somebody said earlier, there is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know" in the "realm of science".
In the realm of science, "we haven't found em yet" means they don't exist.
No, it doesn't. As somebody said earlier, there is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know" in the "realm of science".
Yes it does. Otherwise it's religion.
In the realm of science, "we haven't found em yet" means they don't exist.
No, it doesn't. As somebody said earlier, there is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know" in the "realm of science".
Yes it does. Otherwise it's religion.
In the realm of science, "we haven't found em yet" means they don't exist.
No, it doesn't. As somebody said earlier, there is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know" in the "realm of science".
Yes it does. Otherwise it's religion.
Religion claims to know for certain. "I don't know" - how is that certain? If you think that anyone here is claiming 100% that aliens exist, you've misunderstood the entire premise of this conversation and are basically trolling at this point.
I was simply telling you that the possibility of life is not an unscientific concept.
I was simply telling you that the possibility of life is not an unscientific concept.
Science only cares about probability, which brings us back to the Drake equation and how generations of ignorant people have tried to solve it without enough information.
Possibility is unscientific.
In the realm of science, "we haven't found em yet" means they don't exist.
No, it doesn't. As somebody said earlier, there is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know" in the "realm of science".
Yes it does. Otherwise it's religion.
Religion claims to know for certain. "I don't know" - how is that certain? If you think that anyone here is claiming 100% that aliens exist, you've misunderstood the entire premise of this conversation and are basically trolling at this point.
It's your personal belief that life exists outside of earth, but you can't pass this off as anything scientific or verifiable. It's important that you recognize that the evidence for God existing and the evidence for extraterrestrial life are essentially the same. Both bodies of evidence boil down to "it seems like the case".
Life outside the solar system can be proven or disproven.
Life outside the solar system can be proven or disproven.
Disproving life outside the solar system is technically possible, but completely unfeasible. You'd have to search the entire universe. Saying that makes it scientific would be no different than me saying God is on another planet, we just haven't been to it yet.
can't be proven or disproven. Which is why it's not scientific.
If we had met a god and knew that gods existed then it would be scientific to search for gods on another planet. That's why your analogy is retarted. Because life does not equal God. God is a made up fantasy. No evidence. Life is right under our noses. We can quite easily prove that life exists (within reason).
So drop this God shit. It's basically a big strawman. And yes Rushy, I know what that means.
If we had met a god and knew that gods existed then it would be scientific to search for gods on another planet. That's why your analogy is retarted. Because life does not equal God. God is a made up fantasy. No evidence. Life is right under our noses. We can quite easily prove that life exists (within reason).
So drop this God shit. It's basically a big strawman. And yes Rushy, I know what that means.
What evidence can you bring forth that shows life on Earth is not a special case?
I have no direct evidence, which I've admitted several times. Can you produce some evidence that shows that life on Earth is a special case? I think that's the bigger assumption here considering everything we know about the universe. You're going to say "because we've only found life on Earth", right?
Are you trying to say that the entire field of Astrobiology is a scientific farce with no merit?
can't be proven or disproven. Which is why it's not scientific.
Well done.
We can currently prove ET life exists just as much as we can prove god exists: we can't. Unless you were planning on taking your Prius to go look.
can't be proven or disproven. Which is why it's not scientific.
Well done.
We can currently prove ET life exists just as much as we can prove god exists: we can't. Unless you were planning on taking your Prius to go look.
Of course we can prove it. That we haven't does not mean we can't.
I have no direct evidence, which I've admitted several times. Can you produce some evidence that shows that life on Earth is a special case? I think that's the bigger assumption here considering everything we know about the universe. You're going to say "because we've only found life on Earth", right?
I have one case of planet that has life. You have one case of planet that has life. The difference between us is that you're busy claiming you have more theoretical cases but you can't even provide evidence to support that they exist.Are you trying to say that the entire field of Astrobiology is a scientific farce with no merit?
The name itself is a misnomer, considering you can't study astronomical life if you don't have any to begin with.
We just don't do it because it doesn't interest us very much, huh?
can't be proven or disproven. Which is why it's not scientific.
Well done.
We can currently prove ET life exists just as much as we can prove god exists: we can't. Unless you were planning on taking your Prius to go look.
Of course we can prove it. That we haven't does not mean we can't.
We just don't do it because it doesn't interest us very much, huh?
can't be proven or disproven. Which is why it's not scientific.
Well done.
We can currently prove ET life exists just as much as we can prove god exists: we can't. Unless you were planning on taking your Prius to go look.
Of course we can prove it. That we haven't does not mean we can't.
We just don't do it because it doesn't interest us very much, huh?
You can't force a radio signal from an alien civilization to get to Earth. You have to wait for it. But people are looking.
can't be proven or disproven. Which is why it's not scientific.
Well done.
We can currently prove ET life exists just as much as we can prove god exists: we can't. Unless you were planning on taking your Prius to go look.
Of course we can prove it. That we haven't does not mean we can't.
We just don't do it because it doesn't interest us very much, huh?
You can't force a radio signal from an alien civilization to get to Earth. You have to wait for it. But people are looking.
So until one comes, if one ever does, we can't prove it.
can't be proven or disproven. Which is why it's not scientific.
Well done.
We can currently prove ET life exists just as much as we can prove god exists: we can't. Unless you were planning on taking your Prius to go look.
Of course we can prove it. That we haven't does not mean we can't.
We just don't do it because it doesn't interest us very much, huh?
You can't force a radio signal from an alien civilization to get to Earth. You have to wait for it. But people are looking.
So until one comes, if one ever does, we can't prove it.
I feel like you feel like you are leading me in to a trap.
I feel like you feel like you are leading me in to a trap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Do you have a good reason for assuming that life does not exist outside our solar system? Despite the fact that other possibly hospitable planets have been detected?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Do you have a good reason for assuming that life does not exist outside our solar system? Despite the fact that other possibly hospitable planets have been detected?
I see you still haven't bothered to read that Wikipedia article. If you want to say life exists outside the solar system, you're free to do so. I'm just saying you might as well be religious too, while you're at it. If you're going to believe in nonsense, might as well broaden your spectrum a bit.
But how would you disprove God? Disproving life outside of the solar system (can we just say Earth?) is possible, as you noted. But can you devise a test to disprove God? Unless I'm wrong, that's one of the reasons God is not scientific: No test can be devised to disprove it's existence.Life outside the solar system can be proven or disproven.
Disproving life outside the solar system is technically possible, but completely unfeasible. You'd have to search the entire universe. Saying that makes it scientific would be no different than me saying God is on another planet, we just haven't been to it yet.
God can't be disproved. No test can be devised that God can't simply fool. Heck, God could change the rules of reality. How do you use science against that kind of supernatural power?can't be proven or disproven. Which is why it's not scientific.
Well done.
We can currently prove ET life exists just as much as we can prove god exists: we can't. Unless you were planning on taking your Prius to go look.
But how would you disprove God? Disproving life outside of the solar system (can we just say Earth?) is possible, as you noted. But can you devise a test to disprove God? Unless I'm wrong, that's one of the reasons God is not scientific: No test can be devised to disprove it's existence.
But how would you disprove God? Disproving life outside of the solar system (can we just say Earth?) is possible, as you noted. But can you devise a test to disprove God? Unless I'm wrong, that's one of the reasons God is not scientific: No test can be devised to disprove it's existence.
Saying it is technically possible is not the same as saying it is falsifiable. You proposed an unfalsifiable claim because searching the entire universe is unfeasible. Like I said, it would no different than me saying God is on another planet, we just haven't found it yet. Now I've just made God a technically possible to disprove claim, but it is still unfeasible to do so.
It's unfeasible now but so what? Plenty of things have been seen as unfeasible until we did them. This isn't an argument (as it's a logical fallacy) but simply a fact: You can't say it will never be feasible. I can't say it will be either. But it is definitely not impossible that it will become feasible.
It's unfeasible now but so what? Plenty of things have been seen as unfeasible until we did them. This isn't an argument (as it's a logical fallacy) but simply a fact: You can't say it will never be feasible. I can't say it will be either. But it is definitely not impossible that it will become feasible.
You are suggesting that it will eventually be feasible to search the entirety of the universe for life.
Didn't you suggest that humanity might eventually reverse entropy recently?
Didn't you suggest that humanity might eventually reverse entropy recently?
Please quote me that post so I can argue with myself.
So what will we do when each atom in existence is separated by trillions of light years?
Put them back together.
Didn't you suggest that humanity might eventually reverse entropy recently?
Please quote me that post so I can argue with myself.So what will we do when each atom in existence is separated by trillions of light years?
Put them back together.
I'm suggesting that it's possible it will eventually be feasible to search the entirety of the universe for life.It's unfeasible now but so what? Plenty of things have been seen as unfeasible until we did them. This isn't an argument (as it's a logical fallacy) but simply a fact: You can't say it will never be feasible. I can't say it will be either. But it is definitely not impossible that it will become feasible.
You are suggesting that it will eventually be feasible to search the entirety of the universe for life.
Okay, reversing the universe's heat death, caused by entropy.
I'm suggesting that it's possible it will eventually be feasible to search the entirety of the universe for life.
Okay, reversing the universe's heat death, caused by entropy.
You asked what we could do if they were really far apart and I answered we could put them back together. You never stipulated that there is no available energy left in the universe due to some environmental phenomenon.
He did stipulate that every atom was separated by trillions of light years though. Sort of hard to mobilize at that point.
The point is that you suggested we might do something that would be unfathamable with today's technology on a universal scale, like, say, searching the universe for life.
The point is that you suggested we might do something that would be unfathamable with today's technology on a universal scale, like, say, searching the universe for life.
The difference is that my suggestion was made tongue in cheek and Dave's was not.
You can resolve those specks of light into circles with discernible features with equipment cheaper than $100.Yes, I have done this before. It does not prove what size the lights are. It only proves the planets are larger lights than stars.
You can resolve those specks of light into circles with discernible features with equipment cheaper than $100.Yes, I have done this before. It does not prove what size the lights are. It only proves the planets are larger lights than stars.
Saw this debate live.
It was fun to watch.
Ken Ham ended up looking like a fool.
Saw this debate live.
It was fun to watch.
Ken Ham ended up looking like a fool.
maybe....
i don't think that Nye would'v done as good if he had to "take on" some of the Intelligent Design heavy-weights like, for instance, Steven Meyer or Michael Behe.....
in that case, Nye would'v ended up looking like a fool.....and...a prize-winning one @ that :(
(any-way.....the "debate format" was too short....you'd need some-thing like 1½-hr each for the main presentation; ½-hr each for rebuttals and one hour for questions from the 'audience'......'course....that means a five-hour format and with people's attention spans so small these days...... :( )
I highly doubt that intelligent design 'heavyweights' would make him look like the fool. They would simply draw better arguments out of him. The debate against Ham was ridiculous, Nye ran out of things to argue about because it is hard to argue against random nonsense. It wasn't a real debate... and it really could never be when one side has scientific evidence and the other blind belief. Ham said it himself when he said that no matter what, he could not be persuaded against his views...
Nye said that evidence would change his mind. That's a completely scientific response. Science doesn't care about beliefs, it cares about evidence. A scientist is willing to accept anything as possible, but the more outlandish the claim, the more evidence that will be required to make it believable. Ham was unable to provide any evidence... that leaves his 'idea' with nothing to stand on except brain-washed beliefs....
That video is pretty laughable...
I am actually sorry that I watched it. It provided nothing really... If this is the best that intelligent design 'heavyweights' can do, it's a wonder that anyone takes creationism seriously at all.
I highly doubt that intelligent design 'heavyweights' would make him look like the fool. They would simply draw better arguments out of him. The debate against Ham was ridiculous, Nye ran out of things to argue about because it is hard to argue against random nonsense. It wasn't a real debate... and it really could never be when one side has scientific evidence and the other blind belief. Ham said it himself when he said that no matter what, he could not be persuaded against his views...
Nye said that evidence would change his mind. That's a completely scientific response. Science doesn't care about beliefs, it cares about evidence. A scientist is willing to accept anything as possible, but the more outlandish the claim, the more evidence that will be required to make it believable. Ham was unable to provide any evidence... that leaves his 'idea' with nothing to stand on except brain-washed beliefs....
That video is pretty laughable...
I am actually sorry that I watched it. It provided nothing really... If this is the best that intelligent design 'heavyweights' can do, it's a wonder that anyone takes creationism seriously at all.
i think that you either misunderstood what the IDrs were saying in the video or you weren't concentrating;
maybe you should re-watch it;
if so: you will find that the pro-evolution panel had no answer(s) @ all to the IDrs claims of ID in the cell;
they couldn't explain (via naturalistic means) nor did they even bother to address:
i/the chemical coding systems (DNA/RNA and other, recently discovered, double and triple embedded 'languages');
ii/the irreducible complexity of a multitude of biochemical systems;
iii/the (eerie) machine-like quality of the cell and its attendant systems....in particular: protein function
(bacterial flagellum, cilia &c)
that's three strikes and yr O_U_T !
Darwinism is dead!
it is totally paralysed in the face of the gob-smacking, intricate design now being discovered @ the molecular biological level;
as for Nye being able to 'take on' Behe......come on! ::)
Nye is an intellectual light-weight whereas Behe is a fully tenured Professor of biochemistry who has published in peer-reviewed journals!
Behe would wipe the floor with him!
this YouTube might "get the message" across a bit more clearly....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffaw46_p8t4
enjoy! :-B
You are joking right?
Your 3 points that you brought up neither confirm nor deny intelligent design.
"how could *such and such complex thing* occur naturally?"
The fact that most of the ludicrous questions have already been answered only means they have to bring up another
The trouble with this line of defense is that finding a question that someone doesn't have an answer to, in no way proves one side or the other
That is the difference between science and fanaticism. Scientists will admit when they don't know something. That's why there is still research going on - if we knew everything, what would we need to research for? Fanatics on the other hand already have an idea and will use gaps in knowledge to fit their fanatic ideas into. In reality, their arguments show a severe lack in logic
No such thing as Darwinism.
And Evolution is far from dead - it is actually a scientific fact.
That is the difference between science and fanaticism. Scientists will admit when they don't know something. That's why there is still research going on - if we knew everything, what would we need to research for? Fanatics on the other hand already have an idea and will use gaps in knowledge to fit their fanatic ideas into. In reality, their arguments show a severe lack in logic
No such thing as Darwinism.
And Evolution is far from dead - it is actually a scientific fact.
Feeding a bad troll is not a victimless crime. Please stop.
Complex systems are certainly possible in evolution, especially when one understands how things like protein facilitators and enzymes work.
You still have nothing to directly point to a designer
irreducibly complex, machine-like systems are not possible in evolution;I suppose it is a good thing that this isn't the case.
certainly not in "evolution" as its commonly understood and certainly not without Intelligent intervention;
information required intelligence;This is unequivocally false.
that is a clear deduction using the same sort of methodology that cryptographers, forensic scientists and archaeologists employ!
more-over, the irreducibly complex systems we see in Nature would have to have been all put in place instantaneously and simultaneously for life to surviveWho sees? This literally makes no sense and is entirely made up.
the close similarity of biological systems also indicates not many but a single, Omnipotent Designer;False.
[.........]
[.........]
i suggest you get a copy of this book (http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Biology-Cell-Bruce-Alberts/dp/0815341113/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429844340&sr=1-10&keywords=molecular+biology+of+the+cell) and read it!
oh....BTW....can you cite any example of information or machinery being produced without intelligent intervention?!? ::)
sheesh!
some of you people on here.....you must have some sort of brain disease or some-thing....Encephalitis or some-thing!
UN-believable! ::)
oh....BTW....can you cite any example of information or machinery being produced without intelligent intervention?!? ::)
sorry!
its "irreducible complexity" all the way down! :o
Where am I the Bill Nye appreciation society?! ;)You're in a place where bumping a 3-year-old thread with a pointless comment is not appreciated. Have a warning. Locking thread.