Posts: 29,202
Threads: 690
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
48
03-28-2019, 09:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-28-2019, 09:14 AM by ScarletHayes.)
Discusses the mathematical improbability of natural selection when it comes to dna or code. a.k.a. The problem of combinitorial inflation. "Gibberish sequences" far more likely than functional ones. Reoccurring theme throughout is in regards to information.   Quantitative odds are prohibitive. Â
If you want his credentials, etc... you can watch from the start. If you just want to get to the meat of this talk, go to about the 19:45 mark. Probably a topic more for the weekend when you have some time, but either way it's interesting to say the least. Â
Posts: 21,608
Threads: 253
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
30
I know there are quite a number on here who disagree with me on this. That's ok, they are smart folks and I like them. But IMO it takes MUCH more faith to believe that we got to this point thru sheer circumstance and natural selection than it does to believe that there is a God who created all that we know and don't know. Timelines have to be extended and allowances made to make it all fit the happenstance narrative.
Nah. I'll take the choices I've made, the faith I've placed. It's proven true over my 50 years.
Posts: 18,399
Threads: 54
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
32
Pass. You don't argue with creationists any more than you argue with a schizophrenic or an antivaxxer. To do so implies they have a point and that their crazy ideas are somehow valid. You just nod your head , roll your eyes, and walk away.
Posts: 29,202
Threads: 690
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
48
(03-28-2019, 09:47 AM)3rdgensooner Wrote: Pass. You don't argue with creationists any more than you argue with a schizophrenic or an antivaxxer. To do so implies they have a point and that their crazy ideas are somehow valid. You just nod your head , roll your eyes, and walk away.
He's not a creationist. Â This is straight science.
Posts: 18,399
Threads: 54
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
32
(03-28-2019, 09:50 AM)ScarletHayes Wrote: (03-28-2019, 09:47 AM)3rdgensooner Wrote: Pass. You don't argue with creationists any more than you argue with a schizophrenic or an antivaxxer. To do so implies they have a point and that their crazy ideas are somehow valid. You just nod your head , roll your eyes, and walk away.
He's not a creationist. Â This is straight science.
Uh no. It's straight nonsense for loons. "Intelligent design" is not science it's creationism tarted up as science.
Posts: 944
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
5
Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute. Thatâ€s an impressive organizational title.
Posts: 18,399
Threads: 54
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
32
(03-28-2019, 10:22 AM)somenole Wrote: Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute.  Thatâ€s an impressive organizational title.
Religious fanatics trying to pass themselves off as scientists. I expected more of Shapiro.
Posts: 944
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
5
I think Shapiro is a smart cat but heâ€s a shill for that point of view.
Posts: 21,608
Threads: 253
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
30
He's an orthodox Jew. What should we expect?
Posts: 944
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
5
For him not to be the Jewish hightop?
Posts: 18,399
Threads: 54
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
32
(03-28-2019, 12:32 PM)Alabuckeye Wrote: He's an orthodox Jew. Â What should we expect?
 He's too logical a guy to fall for pseudoscientific nonsense. Faith can make intelligent people do so I understand but he doesn't strike me as that sort of person.
Brutus Buckeye
Unregistered
(03-28-2019, 09:08 AM)Alabuckeye Wrote: I know there are quite a number on here who disagree with me on this. Â That's ok, they are smart folks and I like them. Â But IMO it takes MUCH more faith to believe that we got to this point thru sheer circumstance and natural selection than it does to believe that there is a God who created all that we know and don't know. Â Timelines have to be extended and allowances made to make it all fit the happenstance narrative.
Nah. Â I'll take the choices I've made, the faith I've placed. Â It's proven true over my 50 years.
I'm not the most devout guy in the world obviously, but I come back to that a lot. The seemingly infinite number of coincidental chemical reactions that would have had to have taken place, all set in motion by... ?
Posts: 29,202
Threads: 690
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
48
(03-28-2019, 10:10 AM)3rdgensooner Wrote: (03-28-2019, 09:50 AM)ScarletHayes Wrote: (03-28-2019, 09:47 AM)3rdgensooner Wrote: Pass. You don't argue with creationists any more than you argue with a schizophrenic or an antivaxxer. To do so implies they have a point and that their crazy ideas are somehow valid. You just nod your head , roll your eyes, and walk away.
He's not a creationist. Â This is straight science.
Uh no. It's straight nonsense for loons. "Intelligent design" is not science it's creationism tarted up as science.
His talk is STRAIGHT SCIENCE.
Posts: 18,399
Threads: 54
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
32
(03-28-2019, 01:44 PM)ScarletHayes Wrote: (03-28-2019, 10:10 AM)3rdgensooner Wrote: (03-28-2019, 09:50 AM)ScarletHayes Wrote: (03-28-2019, 09:47 AM)3rdgensooner Wrote: Pass. You don't argue with creationists any more than you argue with a schizophrenic or an antivaxxer. To do so implies they have a point and that their crazy ideas are somehow valid. You just nod your head , roll your eyes, and walk away.
He's not a creationist. Â This is straight science.
Uh no. It's straight nonsense for loons. "Intelligent design" is not science it's creationism tarted up as science.
His talk is STRAIGHT SCIENCE.
Straight nonsense. He's a creationist using pseudoscience to push his view. It's BS. Yes he's using scientific terms. "Intelligent Design" is a pseudoscience.
Posts: 14,690
Threads: 2,368
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
46
Third, can you provide an example of a Meyer scientific statement that is false?
|
