Two videos for those who want to know the truth about evolution.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nonspecific

I didn't watch at all. I don't watch youtube videos on ATS as they aren't evidence for anything. I read people's posts so the information I was talking about was the information from the videos that the OP supplied.

Ok so you are debasing a youtube video that you have not watched? I am ok with this as you normally talk sense but your reasoning for dismissing this OP is what?

Youtube videos can be edited to say anything you want them to. You can selectively apply evidence or just conveniently omit that what you are currently saying has been debunked. Plus you have to take information in at the speed of the video. It is easier to take information in if you sit back and read it and can pick it apart bit by bit. That way you know where the flaws are.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This guy is full of crap. I don't have to watch 5 hours of video to figure that out. Most of the claims you are pointing out are either untrue, been debunked, or discarded from the scientific knowledge base.

If macro-evolution is just a science and not a faith to you, why are you so scared that it may only amount to a bad hypothesis?

Who said I am scared of it being a hypothesis? For one, I don't care if it were to be disproven tomorrow. I'd just forget it and accept the next most plausible scenario, which going by the options available would be none or "I don't know".

Just because you can't accept the glaring evidence that evolution is real doesn't mean it will be wrong tomorrow though. You have to present REAL evidence that debunks it. This guys argument's are all the same Creationist talking points that we've all heard before and debunked ad nausem.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No missing links but we don't have one example of Man-Ape or Ape-man?? Sounds like your missing some to me..

Timeline of Human Evolution

Looks pretty definitive to me. I'm sure there are a few larger spots in some areas, but really what you are asking is for me to pick out on a sliding color scale when blue turns to red. I may be able to pick out purple, but then you can turn around and ask when blue turns to purple or red turns to purple, and we would go on this song and dance forever. It's tedious and a waste of time since that's how sliding scales work. PROVE that evolution doesn't work on a sliding scale, because everything says that it does.

a reply to: AnuTyr

He makes mention that if a chair is created, and we don't know who the creator is. Does that mean there never was a creator of the chair?

Compare the complexity of a chair to a human.

Compare the complexity of the alleged Creator to that of a human. We don't know who created the Creator, that doesn't mean there isn't a creator for the Creator.

The Watchmaker logic falls apart a bit doesn't it?

If we permit the understanding the Creator could be an eternal first cause, the Alpha and Omega, then why not permit the possibility that complexity in the Universe is the result of the culmination of natural phenomenon over large expanses of time. We have evidence for the latter.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: aorAki

Pretty sure a guy whose been to medical school knows what foramen magnum.(sic)

Well, it sure looks like he doesn't.

Tell me, where is the foramen magnum in that picture?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Compare the complexity of the alleged Creator to that of a human. We don't know who created the Creator, that doesn't mean there isn't a creator for the Creator.

Not necessarily. If the universe had a beginning (and thus time and space), whatever created it must transcend time and space. Thus an eternal creator isn't an illogical premise in the philosophical sense.

The Watchmaker logic falls apart a bit doesn't it?

It really doesn't. I don't think anyone has successfully disproved it, either.

If we permit the understanding the Creator could be an eternal first cause, the Alpha and Omega, then why not permit the possibility that complexity in the Universe is the result of the culmination of natural phenomenon over large expanses of time.

All theories should be permitted until falsified to a reasonable degree. The complexity of the universe being the result of chance over long periods of time is highly unlikely, even if we give 15 billion years to the process, which says little about the notion of everything coming from nothing, or statistical probabilities of such a thing occurring (or fine tuning). The best attempt I've seen thus far is to attribute it to an infinite number of universes within an infinite multiverse, but this is as quantifiable as the concept of God.

We have evidence for the latter

What evidence would that be?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Not sure why you think the Watchmaker Argument doesn't have the intrinsic issue I mentioned. The metaphysical idea of the Creator being an eternal first cause is separate to the idea that complexity entails a Creator. My other point was that if someone thinks it a permissible possibility that there is an 'Alpha Omega' Prime Mover then why be dismissive of the possibility complexity is a wholly natural phenomenon. Surely both are possibilities. It seems to me religious people often take the position that's not even a possibility *shrug* While I am dismissive of religious gods, I am open to a Creator, however I would be lying if I said the evidence points to there being a need for one. At least what I understand of the evidence. I won't pretend to be an authority there.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

The premise isn't we are designed, therefore we have a creator. The full premise would be:

Anything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning therefore the universe has a cause.
Anything with irreducible complexity requires a designer.
Mouse traps are irreducible complex, therefore mouse traps have a designer.
Any form of life is far more irreducibly complex than a mouse trap, therefore life must have a designer.

Your premise:

Nothing can bring about something.
Non-intelligence can produce irreducible complexity.
Non-life can produce non-life.


P.S.

I could take my premise further by saying the Universe is irreducibly complex therefore it must have a designer.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Not sure why you think the Watchmaker Argument doesn't have the intrinsic issue I mentioned. The metaphysical idea of the Creator being an eternal first cause is separate to the idea that complexity entails a Creator.

Because irreducible complexity really does create an issue. Even if we assume all life on earth evolved from a single celled organism, we still have no way of determining how that cell in all it's complexity appeared from a magical "primordial soup", with all the necessary parts for it to function and thus be defined as a cell, completely intact. While I'm not trying to imply there is an open and shut case for intelligent design, there are issues to the purely materialist view as well. We also run into the same issue with the origins of the universe itself.

My other point was that if someone thinks it a permissible possibility that there is an 'Alpha Omega' Prime Mover then why be dismissive of the possibility complexity is a wholly natural phenomenon. Surely both are possibilities.

I believe they are both possibilities. I personally lean towards one view (as you know), but the alternative is certainly possible. I do find certain philosophical issues with it, however. I also think it's interesting how either way we are currently left with the choice of what to believe.

It seems to me religious people often take the position that's not even a possibility *shrug*

Granted. To be fair, we see the same behavior among atheists.

While I am dismissive of religious gods, I am open to a Creator, however I would be lying if I said the evidence points to there being a need for one. At least what I understand of the evidence. I won't pretend to be an authority there.

Indeed. It really is subjective. Science is a long ways away from being able to declare the universe as uncreated, if it will ever be capable of doing so.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Michael Behe's term "irreducible complexity" is, to be frank, plainly silly

More at source

ServantOfTheLamb Mouse traps are irreducible complex, therefore mouse traps have a designer.

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

"Evolution is cleverer than you are."
-biologists' proverb

From above source


How to answer Theist arguments

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Your premise:

Nothing can bring about something.

Where is it outlined in evolution that nothing brought about something?

a reply to: aorAki

This is a painfully inadequate debunking of the concept of irreducible complexity. I really do think that even atheists should read Darwin's Black Box. It's a remarkable book, and very well written. The mousetrap analogy is overly simplistic, and doesn't even come close to addressing the problem.

Behe writes about these issues from the perspective of microbiology. You really do owe it to yourself to read the book, as it highlights quite clearly why a cell is dependent on all it's individual mechanisms and parts in order to operate. I highly recommend it, and I say this not in an effort to convince you of my own personal beliefs, but because it really is a fascinating and thought provoking book.

a reply to: aorAki

DNA can be considered IC because it carries something known as a semiotic dimension(it carries meaning). There is no need for parts when it comes to DNA. DNA functions like a program. Programs are irreducibly complex and carry semiotic dimension. Dna is irreducibly complex and carry semiotic dimension. Get on code blocks and sit there and type in a bunch of random keys and see how long it takes you to get a working program....

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The context of this conversation is about a prime mover. Not evolution.

I haven't watched the videos yet, but I'm about to. I just have a quick question for the evolution experts here before I get started. Keep in mind the OP is arguing against MACROevolution by the way.

In the case of the Green Anole Lizard, how much more does the lizard need to change before its considered a new species? The same question applies to domesticated wolves (aka dogs).

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The context of this conversation is about a prime mover. Not evolution.

It sort of took both directions... which would be my fault

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
The context of this conversation is about a prime mover. Not evolution.

Then change your title; 'Two videos for those who want to know the truth about evolution.'

Because it certainly appears to me you are dicussing evolution.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Anything with irreducible complexity requires a designer.

I don’t see how the irreducibly complex argument is ultimately different than the 'complexity entails design’ argument. Therefore the Creator himself should be subject to the same rationale.

Your premise:

Nothing can bring about something.

Please don’t invent arguments for me. I never gave anything to indicate that’s my thinking. Our inability to address “before” the beginning of the Universe doesn’t negate that the BBT model has been verified with our scientific findings. There are of course many theories other than god that suggest a ‘something’. Just because we don’t yet have a definitive answer to this big question doesn’t mean the answer is ‘god’.

Additionally, and perhaps too much of a tangent for the thread, it’s possible if there is a Creator god it’s absolutely not affiliated with any known religion.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Get on code blocks and sit there and type in a bunch of random keys and see how long it takes you to get a working program...

Billions of years?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
The conversation you jumped in the middle of has progressed to somewhere else, which I have no problem with.