Jeremiah Ames
Well-Known Member
Debate the science, please.
I’m not interested in religion.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is this scientific proof?
- Thread starter Jeremiah Ames
- Start date
Debate the science, please.
I’m not interested in religion.
I listened to about half. His argument is that if the DNA has instructions, it must be intelligently designed. It's basically the same incredulity and special pleading arguments we are accustomed to: The genome seems too complex to have arisen naturalistically, therefore it didn't, therefore God, who, despite being orders of magnitude more complex than the genetic material and itself undesigned and uncreated, is offered as a solution as to how so complex a thing as a genome could exist.
To me, proof is that which convinces, which changes a mind from undecided to decided, meaning that nothing is a proof if nobody is convinced by it, just as one can't simply declare a joke that nobody laughs at funny. Notice that proof as defined here is not dependent on the correctness of the assertion, but on its ability to persuade, even if it persuades one of a false conclusion through specious argumentation as the one in the video might. For me, this is proof of nothing more than that apologists are still trying to convince critical thinkers who will not believe by faith that there is a rational, evidence-based basis for believing.
To me, proof is that which convinces, which changes a mind from undecided to decided, meaning that nothing is a proof if nobody is convinced by it, just as one can't simply declare a joke that nobody laughs at funny. Notice that proof as defined here is not dependent on the correctness of the assertion, but on its ability to persuade, even if it persuades one of a false conclusion through specious argumentation as the one in the video might. For me, this is proof of nothing more than that apologists are still trying to convince critical thinkers who will not believe by faith that there is a rational, evidence-based basis for believing.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No. I know this without even watching the video. There is no "proof" in science. There is only evidence. So when he starts out with such a bad title you can bet that the rest will be wrong.
And in the video itself he simply uses equivocation fallacy and unsupported claims. Very very few actual scientists that understand this think that DNA is evidence for God. So who do you think will get it right? An amateur YouTuber or those that actually study the science?
And in the video itself he simply uses equivocation fallacy and unsupported claims. Very very few actual scientists that understand this think that DNA is evidence for God. So who do you think will get it right? An amateur YouTuber or those that actually study the science?
You think this is an adequate rebuttal?
I mean, don’t you think that humans are the same?
To you and others, Humankind is “itself undesigned and uncreated”, and “orders of magnitude more complex” than the simpler things it has made, like a bicycle. A mousetrap. A campfire ring. Etc. Yet we make them....
The argument is that complexity requires intelligence.
Isn't that more of a claim than an argument?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, there are endless things that are complex that do not require intelligence. Your claim is not just unsubstantiated it has been refuted.
And if you watched the video another sign that the maker is either dishonest or woefully uninformed is his use of the word "luck". So what was it? Is he a liar or an ignorant creationist that needs to go back to school?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope. One can show evidence for the noon day sun. There is no evidence for his claim.
Not so much that it can be shown objectively.
There is no evidence that complexity requires intelligence?
Regards Tony
Just as much as claiming naturalism can create complex interaction.
Watched it. arguments from incredulity, false analogy and lack of understanding of the automatic, natural mechanisms that created the genetic sequence.
The presenter begins with an assertion that scientists have proved God, yet doesn't explain why most remain atheist.
The presenter assumes complexity must = intentional design. He compares DNA to an intentionally planned, goal-directed computer code, and assumes something so 'complex' must have a designer. Apparently he never took biology in high school, and doesn't understand the automatic mechanisms involved.
The poor design, repetition and unnecessarily long DNA sequence is not mentioned, though he declares the genome a product of a "highly intelligent superintelligence."
It's yet another "its so complicated, I don't understand it, therefore -- God!" argument.
The presenter begins with an assertion that scientists have proved God, yet doesn't explain why most remain atheist.
The presenter assumes complexity must = intentional design. He compares DNA to an intentionally planned, goal-directed computer code, and assumes something so 'complex' must have a designer. Apparently he never took biology in high school, and doesn't understand the automatic mechanisms involved.
The poor design, repetition and unnecessarily long DNA sequence is not mentioned, though he declares the genome a product of a "highly intelligent superintelligence."
It's yet another "its so complicated, I don't understand it, therefore -- God!" argument.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
None that I know of. None that has been posted here.
But then creationists do not tend to understand the concept.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
We can directly observe that.
Of course, nothing will ever be too complicated for a naturalistic explanation, eh?
You asked me once:
Because I’ve never read any literature explaining the definite mechanisms or pathways evolution took, or how it could create the first, say, bacterial flagellum, or any other novel organelles without a “probably,”“could have been” or “likely” thrown in . That’s philosophy, not science.
A gradual development of the BF *at one time* was explained by saying a simpler T3SS was a precursor, but then what happened? It was discovered that the BF came first, apparently.
So what were the pathways? What was the first protein selected, then what mechanisms utilized the other 29 proteins (or more?) to self-assemble and arrange themselves into a functional, purposeful unit?
I am fully for the evolution of the species, and that it is an intelligent evolution.
Regards Tony
Maybe in some cases, but the mechanisms involved in this example are well known, observed and tested. In this case, no invocation of magical design is needed, plus, in no case, is "Goddidit" an "explanation."
Goddidit is an assertion of agency.
No, it's science, and you should have learned the mechanisms in high school. They've also been extensively explained, referenced and linked right hear on RF. It's amazing how something so well understood could countinue to baffle, or how the intermediate steps in flagellum or eye evolution could continue to be cited as inexplicable examples of irreducible complexity.
???? Clarify?
Pathways to what? What are we talking about here?
True. Simple algorithms or formulæ can generate infinite complexity.
At what point in the process is intelligence required?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
To be honest I was referring to the concept of evidence, but you are correct. They do not appear to understand the concept of complexity either.