I like the idea that people have where attacking Darwin somehow weakens the field of Biology, who spent their time finding the flaws in the initial theory as a matter of course. 'Darwin was wrong here!' 'We know. Good first stab at it though! Guys was a genius!' 'Darwin didn't talk about the origin of life!' 'We know. Nor should he, that wasn't his field of research. What's your point?'
Hard agree! It's akin to attacking Einstein as a hack, because he didn't tell us where and how the universe began. The attitude demonstrates a major level of ignorance of the fundamental concepts on both theories, and science itself.
@@duncanbryson1167especially words that were written by mfs thousands of years ago, and who would prolly have an aneurysm if told bout things like general relativity or quantum physics lol
As Aron puts it: 'a god that exists outside of reality does not exist IN reality'. Might sound like just a word trick, but it's a pretty pointed commentary on how much is really worth doing for such a belief.
I think McGuire's idea is that science is a religion. If Darwin is a prophet of atheism, then he ought to know everything--he ought to have a direct line to Evolution in the same way that a biblical prophet has a direct line to Yaweh. So, if Darwin doesn't know everything about Evolution then either he is a false prophet or he is following a false god. The idea that Darwin and Wallace were the first to make a theory about what was happening, and that further research was assumed to be necessary to hone the theory is so far outside of the religious way of thinking that I doubt McGuire even can conceive of such a thing.
A good part of this Daily Dose of Wisdom sounds like stuff I used to contemplate when I was in elementary school. I think the biggest hyperbole here is the name of the channel. Your responses were, as always, respectful and well-thought-out.
Every time a theist brings up the topic of evolution, they also annoyingly tend to bring up abiogenesis not understanding that the two are distinct scientific fields of study which shows an even greater lack of understanding of these realms of science than I think I have. And my general response is that even if our current understanding about these two fields were completely debunked or thrown out the window, it would not mean that a god created life and its diversity.
At least he didn't somehow bridge into astrophysics. They never quite seem to be able to grasp that Evolution deals with changes in allele frequencies over time and nothing else. Or that none of that has anything to do with Atheism, which is about yet another completely distinct question.
@@Llortnerof They like to conflate two separate uses of the term evolution and most of the time it happens out of intentional semantics rather than purely ignorance.
I think you done a great job of explaining science and philosophy. It’s weird how theists expect atheists to know all science, evolution, philosophy and all they believe in is magic. 🌬️💨💨
Yeah they hardly understand these subjects yet think they’re valid to claim a higher power exists yet they’ve never been everywhere in the universe to check or been around since the beginning of the universe to watch it. Strange how they still think we atheists must do all that to even have a say. Lmao
Apologists are like ants in the kitchen cupboard. No matter how many times they get whacked they just keep coming back...and with the same old, failed tactics they used every other time.
I'd say it's rather dishonest to imply that abiogenesis isn't trying to answer an important question, considering how much work is done in that specific field. But considering he conflated the entirety of the field with "primordial soup theory", I didn't have high hopes for his accuracy and honesty.
Ah, that channel. My experience was that they show up in shorts giving a lot of bad and sometimes utterly toxic "advices" that I deemed not worthy of remembering the details.
I believe I am tired of Theists failing to adequately describe the simplest of concepts. I am tired of Theists conflating Cosmology, Biology and Abiogenesis. I am tired of Theists promoting the worst kinds of misinformation. I am tired of Theists making unfounded claims and inserting their favourite deity where one is not required. Other than that, I think our Theist's brief video is excellent, compelling and honest, in a poor, uninteresting and deceitful kind of way.
Although we don't know exactly how and when life began, we have a pretty good understanding of how it spreads, evolves, develops, and ceases to exist. But narrow minded gullible believers like the answer provided in their fantasy history book. It's easier and not complicated to understand.
For their argument to hold any water, they have to come up with a compelling explanation of where god came from (and what created it). "GodDunDidIt" doesn't explain anything.
Well, there is that verse that says wisdom comes from the fear of God. It's doesn't say anything about thinking, let alone rationally or even coherently. So at least according to the religion he identifies with, DDW is not lying... even though his religion would join us in calling him a liar.
A lot of lower-level Christian apologists have followed this formula of adding themselves nodding along to a video made by a more famous believer. In a community which discourages original thought, this should perhaps be unsurprising, but their parasitic use of other people's intellectual property suggests that they are less invested in the topic than they are in turning a quick buck off an uncritical audience.
@@ianchisholm5756 It's especially damning in a group that prides itself (despite that being sinful to them) on their moral superiority. Really, they have an absurd level of self-own going on there. They claim to have so much that they actually lack and claim their enemies to have so much which is actually their own.
So... he hasn't actually adressed atheism in any meaningful way and failed to grasp the difference between the well-established and evidenced theory of Evolution and the so far unknown process by which abiogenesis happened (and atheism, for that matter). Uh... why should i care exactly? And how does that show that any gods whatsoever exist?
Trashing a scientific theory, or hypothesis, does not imply that the supernatural is true. Theists are trying to defend unsubstantiated ancient religious supernatural assertions against methodological naturalism. We should remember that the ancients made claims that were based upon the very limited knowledge available to them. An example of this knowledge limitation was that they didn't know what 'air' was, although they did know that a person would die without it. From their viewpoint, air must have had magical 'life-giving' properties.
1. Exactly, well said. 2. How do you make this link with a magnifying glass and how isn’t your post removed by the algorithm for ‘having link data in the post et al?
I don't believe that the "deep see vents theory" is correct. At that time, the mantle was very thin, the water was more uniformly distributed over Earth (it could had been even less water), and the vents could be closer to the water surface - hence, not so deep.
Let's pretend for a minute that abiogenesis is false, than aliens created humans. Does that prove the existence of any specific deity? No. Does it prove the existence of a god? Again, no. It's a mutually exclusive argument from any argument for or against atheism.
I don’t think that your statement, there’s evidence for atheism. Is correct. Atheism is someone who’s not convinced any gods are real or exist. It doesn’t take evidence to not be convinced of something. In logic it’s a claim of what is that requires evidence. Because there’s no evidence that can exist for something that isn’t. That’s called, unfalsifiable. Example. Show me evidence that unicorns aren’t real or exist.
I suppose if i were to spin my own interpretation of this phrase, I would say there is "evidence for atheism." Atheism has many definitions, and if we were to fall more into the anti-theist territory, you could argue that the universe as we observe it looks to us to have no higher power, and no guiding force. There is nothing to indicate the presence of any one god. And while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, most religions make claims that their gods interact with the physical world in some way, therefore we should be able to obverse them, yet every time we try and find evidence for any higher power, we turn up with nothing. Absence of evidence where it is expected is evidence of absence. The lack of evidence for any one particular claim where evidence would be expected I would say classifies as evidence for the thing not existing. Of course, there's an asterisk here for the fact we can find evidence later that would convince people that a higher power exists. My evidence that unicorns arent real is that we have yet to be able to observe them. We do not find single horned horses anywhere on the planet, where if unicorns were real we would expect to find one. Of course, this "evidence" only lasts up until we find evidence of a unicorn where we would expect to find it (in nature, in this case), but the current lack of evidence in itself is evidence of the non-existence of unicorns.
@ I appreciate your response. I think you’re channel is great and I’ve subscribed and will be watching your videos. Part of the reason I made my comment was because theists wrongly expect atheists to have evidence of something that isn’t there and saying there is, Just muddying the waters. I just think that the theists don’t have evidence for their claim because there is none. I think it’s unreasonable that atheists need to have evidence of the theist claim isn’t true. The definition of atheism is really simple. Atheism is to not accept the claims made by theists. By definition Atheists wouldn’t exist if there wasn’t theists. Any other definition of atheism would be incorrect. So acceptance of claims or not acceptance of claims comes before belief of truth to convince. Logically there has to be a claim before any evidence can be shown or not. I just think. In logic. It’s not logical to have evidence of something that isn’t there. I think you and I just see evidence as a different meaning my understanding is evidence is objective not subjective. One point is when you go to court there’s no evidence of what you didn’t do or what isn’t there. There’s only objective evidence of what the defendant did do and what was there. It’s just not logical to say there’s evidence for what didn’t happen. Imagine if a prosecutor claim was that. There’s no evidence that the defendant didn’t do it. The reason things are unfalsifiable is because there’s no objective evidence a claim isn’t true. My analogy of the unicorn. There’s no evidence that unicorns are real or exist but we can’t say for certain that they don’t because it’s unfalsifiable. Meaning, just because we haven’t found a unicorn isn’t objective evidence. it just means we haven’t found a unicorn yet. Evidence is objective not subjective. So the correct answer is we don’t know for certain that unicorns are real or exist or they aren’t real. Truth in reality is either it’s true or not true or we don’t know. We have to say we don’t know because there’s evidence of many things we don’t know for certain. I would assert there’s things we will never know. Otherwise there would be no questions about physics and we would know everything about the universe. But with the current data we can say with some confidence that unicorns don’t exist because truth is in reality. So it’s not logical to think the lack of evidence is evidence in itself. My understanding of evidence is that some things are unfalsifiable because of lack of evidence but the meaning of truth is that reality is true. yet truth is not definite. In Everything and everyone has a different perception of reality therefore truth in reality is different for each individual. Otherwise our perception would all be exactly the same and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Lol have a great day
Well i had to add this. The reason why the absence of evidence is not evidence. If a claim is made that unicorns are real and exist. There’s no evidence either way so it’s unfalsifiable. the correct answer is. We don’t know for certain. We can’t say something that doesn’t have evidence doesn’t exist because there’s so much humans don’t know. Especially in science and physics. So it’s not logical to claim it does or doesn’t exist. There for it’s an unfalsifiable claim. But with reason of truth in history. Unicorns aren’t real. We can’t logically make a claim of anything is true in reality without first having rational reasoning for it. I just think saying that atheists need evidence of not believing a claim is nonsense. Logically there has to be a claim of truth in reality before any evidence can exist. Atheism is not a claim. The problem I see with unfalsifiable claims is. By saying there’s evidence of not a claim gives the theist a reason to flip illogic on unfalsifiable claims.
So he bases his beliefs on the standard of if they’re scientific or not. And believes in a God too weak and/or stupid to have created a natural means by which life can come from non-life. Science wept.
Yup. Evolution is not true, therefore God is true. Well, that's me convinced. I have called the priest and reserved my pew for next Sunday, and no mistake.
Yeah well a huge reason not to be a theist is because there has never been any credible evidence that any god is actually real or true. Until you can provide some you're essentially worshiping an imaginary friend and to me that is completely unreasonable and not rational. Good luck my friend.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I like the idea that people have where attacking Darwin somehow weakens the field of Biology, who spent their time finding the flaws in the initial theory as a matter of course. 'Darwin was wrong here!' 'We know. Good first stab at it though! Guys was a genius!' 'Darwin didn't talk about the origin of life!' 'We know. Nor should he, that wasn't his field of research. What's your point?'
Hard agree!
It's akin to attacking Einstein as a hack, because he didn't tell us where and how the universe began.
The attitude demonstrates a major level of ignorance of the fundamental concepts on both theories, and science itself.
A god that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist.
Mere words by mere humans, whether written or spoken, will never convince me of any deities nor anything supernatural.
@@duncanbryson1167especially words that were written by mfs thousands of years ago, and who would prolly have an aneurysm if told bout things like general relativity or quantum physics lol
As Aron puts it: 'a god that exists outside of reality does not exist IN reality'. Might sound like just a word trick, but it's a pretty pointed commentary on how much is really worth doing for such a belief.
I am too uneducated to even understand how a hypothesis works, therefor gawd.
I think McGuire's idea is that science is a religion. If Darwin is a prophet of atheism, then he ought to know everything--he ought to have a direct line to Evolution in the same way that a biblical prophet has a direct line to Yaweh. So, if Darwin doesn't know everything about Evolution then either he is a false prophet or he is following a false god. The idea that Darwin and Wallace were the first to make a theory about what was happening, and that further research was assumed to be necessary to hone the theory is so far outside of the religious way of thinking that I doubt McGuire even can conceive of such a thing.
A good part of this Daily Dose of Wisdom sounds like stuff I used to contemplate when I was in elementary school. I think the biggest hyperbole here is the name of the channel. Your responses were, as always, respectful and well-thought-out.
A Daily Dose of Dumbness would both be more alliterative and more accurate.
He's extremely gullible and easily impressed. I've watched a few of his videos having been brought there by the likes of this.
Yes, must be one of the dumbest channels out there. Just hilarious.
I call him Daily Dose of Dishonesty. He's not above editing clips of people to suit his narrative and show them in a bad light.
@@duncanbryson1167 He's also a content thief. He'll "react" to other apologists with "Mmm" "Yep" and "Mhm" and post that as his own work.
he's pretty standard RUclips apologist IMO. Of course he distorts the truth to get views
The magical proposition for the existence of anything is about as trivial as they come.
Every time a theist brings up the topic of evolution, they also annoyingly tend to bring up abiogenesis not understanding that the two are distinct scientific fields of study which shows an even greater lack of understanding of these realms of science than I think I have. And my general response is that even if our current understanding about these two fields were completely debunked or thrown out the window, it would not mean that a god created life and its diversity.
At least he didn't somehow bridge into astrophysics. They never quite seem to be able to grasp that Evolution deals with changes in allele frequencies over time and nothing else. Or that none of that has anything to do with Atheism, which is about yet another completely distinct question.
@Llortnerof valid.
@@Llortnerof
They like to conflate two separate uses of the term evolution and most of the time it happens out of intentional semantics rather than purely ignorance.
I think you done a great job of explaining science and philosophy. It’s weird how theists expect atheists to know all science, evolution, philosophy and all they believe in is magic. 🌬️💨💨
Yeah they hardly understand these subjects yet think they’re valid to claim a higher power exists yet they’ve never been everywhere in the universe to check or been around since the beginning of the universe to watch it.
Strange how they still think we atheists must do all that to even have a say. Lmao
I am an atheist and will never change
“Campbell’s Primordial Soup” is awesome.
Apologists are like ants in the kitchen cupboard. No matter how many times they get whacked they just keep coming back...and with the same old, failed tactics they used every other time.
Clean your kitchen dude
I'd say it's rather dishonest to imply that abiogenesis isn't trying to answer an important question, considering how much work is done in that specific field.
But considering he conflated the entirety of the field with "primordial soup theory", I didn't have high hopes for his accuracy and honesty.
Thanks!
Ah, that channel.
My experience was that they show up in shorts giving a lot of bad and sometimes utterly toxic "advices" that I deemed not worthy of remembering the details.
I believe I am tired of Theists failing to adequately describe the simplest of concepts. I am tired of Theists conflating Cosmology, Biology and Abiogenesis. I am tired of Theists promoting the worst kinds of misinformation. I am tired of Theists making unfounded claims and inserting their favourite deity where one is not required. Other than that, I think our Theist's brief video is excellent, compelling and honest, in a poor, uninteresting and deceitful kind of way.
Start with being a skeptic.
Then, go from there.
Nice video! Keep up the great work!
Although we don't know exactly how and when life began, we have a pretty good understanding of how it spreads, evolves, develops, and ceases to exist.
But narrow minded gullible believers like the answer provided in their fantasy history book. It's easier and not complicated to understand.
For their argument to hold any water, they have to come up with a compelling explanation of where god came from (and what created it). "GodDunDidIt" doesn't explain anything.
Well, there is that verse that says wisdom comes from the fear of God. It's doesn't say anything about thinking, let alone rationally or even coherently. So at least according to the religion he identifies with, DDW is not lying... even though his religion would join us in calling him a liar.
Daily Dose isn't just misinformed and dishonest, he's also a thief. He posts other people's content as his own. How "wise" can he be?
A lot of lower-level Christian apologists have followed this formula of adding themselves nodding along to a video made by a more famous believer. In a community which discourages original thought, this should perhaps be unsurprising, but their parasitic use of other people's intellectual property suggests that they are less invested in the topic than they are in turning a quick buck off an uncritical audience.
@@ianchisholm5756 It's especially damning in a group that prides itself (despite that being sinful to them) on their moral superiority.
Really, they have an absurd level of self-own going on there. They claim to have so much that they actually lack and claim their enemies to have so much which is actually their own.
So... he hasn't actually adressed atheism in any meaningful way and failed to grasp the difference between the well-established and evidenced theory of Evolution and the so far unknown process by which abiogenesis happened (and atheism, for that matter).
Uh... why should i care exactly? And how does that show that any gods whatsoever exist?
Over 300,000 gods later and we are still playing the game of my god did it. 🙄Where even absolute faith can't make their god exist.
If you can't prove how life was started, you can't be an atheist. That's what I took from his video. Not a great way to try and convince people.
I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
When I clicked on this it had 666 views 👀
Believing in religion and a god is literally delusional and dumb lmao
Trashing a scientific theory, or hypothesis, does not imply that the supernatural is true. Theists are trying to defend unsubstantiated ancient religious supernatural assertions against methodological naturalism. We should remember that the ancients made claims that were based upon the very limited knowledge available to them. An example of this knowledge limitation was that they didn't know what 'air' was, although they did know that a person would die without it. From their viewpoint, air must have had magical 'life-giving' properties.
1. Exactly, well said.
2. How do you make this link with a magnifying glass and how isn’t your post removed by the algorithm for ‘having link data in the post et al?
There are plenty of plausible paths for life to have started, definitely *not* a gotcha for atheists.
Lovely vid DoAT!
It's soooo disheartenin' , tho, to find out you ain't et your 'primo' thoup! ;-)
Wait…. There was a point?
I don't believe that the "deep see vents theory" is correct. At that time, the mantle was very thin, the water was more uniformly distributed over Earth (it could had been even less water), and the vents could be closer to the water surface - hence, not so deep.
we still do not know what the g0d is, but it is SURE trying hard to fill a gap
daily dose of wisdumb is a tik tok drop kick.
Let's pretend for a minute that abiogenesis is false, than aliens created humans. Does that prove the existence of any specific deity? No. Does it prove the existence of a god? Again, no. It's a mutually exclusive argument from any argument for or against atheism.
I don’t think that your statement, there’s evidence for atheism. Is correct. Atheism is someone who’s not convinced any gods are real or exist. It doesn’t take evidence to not be convinced of something. In logic it’s a claim of what is that requires evidence. Because there’s no evidence that can exist for something that isn’t. That’s called, unfalsifiable. Example. Show me evidence that unicorns aren’t real or exist.
I suppose if i were to spin my own interpretation of this phrase, I would say there is "evidence for atheism." Atheism has many definitions, and if we were to fall more into the anti-theist territory, you could argue that the universe as we observe it looks to us to have no higher power, and no guiding force. There is nothing to indicate the presence of any one god. And while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, most religions make claims that their gods interact with the physical world in some way, therefore we should be able to obverse them, yet every time we try and find evidence for any higher power, we turn up with nothing. Absence of evidence where it is expected is evidence of absence.
The lack of evidence for any one particular claim where evidence would be expected I would say classifies as evidence for the thing not existing. Of course, there's an asterisk here for the fact we can find evidence later that would convince people that a higher power exists.
My evidence that unicorns arent real is that we have yet to be able to observe them. We do not find single horned horses anywhere on the planet, where if unicorns were real we would expect to find one. Of course, this "evidence" only lasts up until we find evidence of a unicorn where we would expect to find it (in nature, in this case), but the current lack of evidence in itself is evidence of the non-existence of unicorns.
@ I appreciate your response. I think you’re channel is great and I’ve subscribed and will be watching your videos. Part of the reason I made my comment was because theists wrongly expect atheists to have evidence of something that isn’t there and saying there is, Just muddying the waters. I just think that the theists don’t have evidence for their claim because there is none. I think it’s unreasonable that atheists need to have evidence of the theist claim isn’t true. The definition of atheism is really simple. Atheism is to not accept the claims made by theists. By definition Atheists wouldn’t exist if there wasn’t theists. Any other definition of atheism would be incorrect. So acceptance of claims or not acceptance of claims comes before belief of truth to convince. Logically there has to be a claim before any evidence can be shown or not. I just think. In logic. It’s not logical to have evidence of something that isn’t there. I think you and I just see evidence as a different meaning my understanding is evidence is objective not subjective. One point is when you go to court there’s no evidence of what you didn’t do or what isn’t there. There’s only objective evidence of what the defendant did do and what was there. It’s just not logical to say there’s evidence for what didn’t happen. Imagine if a prosecutor claim was that. There’s no evidence that the defendant didn’t do it. The reason things are unfalsifiable is because there’s no objective evidence a claim isn’t true. My analogy of the unicorn. There’s no evidence that unicorns are real or exist but we can’t say for certain that they don’t because it’s unfalsifiable. Meaning, just because we haven’t found a unicorn isn’t objective evidence. it just means we haven’t found a unicorn yet. Evidence is objective not subjective. So the correct answer is we don’t know for certain that unicorns are real or exist or they aren’t real. Truth in reality is either it’s true or not true or we don’t know. We have to say we don’t know because there’s evidence of many things we don’t know for certain. I would assert there’s things we will never know. Otherwise there would be no questions about physics and we would know everything about the universe. But with the current data we can say with some confidence that unicorns don’t exist because truth is in reality. So it’s not logical to think the lack of evidence is evidence in itself. My understanding of evidence is that some things are unfalsifiable because of lack of evidence but the meaning of truth is that reality is true. yet truth is not definite. In Everything and everyone has a different perception of reality therefore truth in reality is different for each individual. Otherwise our perception would all be exactly the same and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Lol have a great day
Well i had to add this. The reason why the absence of evidence is not evidence. If a claim is made that unicorns are real and exist. There’s no evidence either way so it’s unfalsifiable. the correct answer is. We don’t know for certain. We can’t say something that doesn’t have evidence doesn’t exist because there’s so much humans don’t know. Especially in science and physics. So it’s not logical to claim it does or doesn’t exist. There for it’s an unfalsifiable claim. But with reason of truth in history. Unicorns aren’t real. We can’t logically make a claim of anything is true in reality without first having rational reasoning for it. I just think saying that atheists need evidence of not believing a claim is nonsense. Logically there has to be a claim of truth in reality before any evidence can exist. Atheism is not a claim. The problem I see with unfalsifiable claims is. By saying there’s evidence of not a claim gives the theist a reason to flip illogic on unfalsifiable claims.
So he bases his beliefs on the standard of if they’re scientific or not.
And believes in a God too weak and/or stupid to have created a natural means by which life can come from non-life.
Science wept.
Unscientific? Like "God did it" is? 🙄
Yup. Evolution is not true, therefore God is true.
Well, that's me convinced. I have called the priest and reserved my pew for next Sunday, and no mistake.
Is the title sarcastic clickbair or a legit question?
Who cares.
Don't recommend channel.
Yeah well a huge reason not to be a theist is because there has never been any credible evidence that any god is actually real or true. Until you can provide some you're essentially worshiping an imaginary friend and to me that is completely unreasonable and not rational. Good luck my friend.