I was almost expelled from High School by writing an essay based on my philosophy that religion was created by a handful of educated to control the uneducated masses by creating an unseeable supernatural being that you must have unwavering faith in order to live happily but once you lose your faith or stop following the word of this being, bad things will happen. I had to take the principal and teacher to the Atlanta School Board to fight for my freedom of religion (or none). The assignment was to write an essay on something we learned that quarter not to write something the teacher will like. My expulsion was overturned.
Anyone can bring a theory like you did. What you said cannot be proved or disproved. You did not practice your freedom of religion, you tried to redicule religion. It is not you alone, plenty of people who believe in God also redicule atheist. All of you people from both sides who indulge in such need to know one thing. There are not one person alive who can prove or disprove what they believe and practice as completely right or wrong. So don't think too much of yourself. Be curious not offensive.
@@JTStonne I believe in a god. But I also believe in freedom. Speech. True enough I might Dissagree,, but I would. Fight for some ones right to speak what they think about any thing. Even it went against my,beliefs,,
The world as we apprehend it is, and can only be, an approximation. Our infantlike intellect does not permit us to go any further. At best, we get to see the veil. Just when we do get to look behind it...well, if that time comes, we won't be us any more.
So Neil appears cock sure of his opinions. Therefore he must be among the stupid. In fact, I would say all rude militant atheist materialists such as Richard Dawkins and Laurence Strauss, are also among the stupid because they’re so cock sure that only what can be observed in a lab is ALL there is. You can’t verify instinct, intuition, premonition, in a lab, yet animals know for sure when a tsunami is approaching long before humans can observe it - that is a recorded fact. There is much more to the universe and existence than that which can be verified in a lab. The universe and nature laugh at scientists all the time. They will never fully discover even a tenth of reality, because reality goes not just beyond the lab, but beyond time, space, matter, and energy. The lab observable part of existence is less than 6 % of the universe, the rest is dark matter and dark energy, which is the term scientist use to describe what they don’t know and can’t see. Nothing stupid about concluding intelligent design by itself, but not the humanoid benevolent God of human religions.
@@thevulture5750 Consider this: out of all the life on Earth, the only creatures that we can separate into being male or female are those species that reproduce through sexual reproduction. So, why should we assume or believe or accept that the "creative force of the universe" has a male gender? Are you saying God has sex and reproduces? If not, them there is no reason to give the creative force ANY gender. So, why do we call it "God" and not "Goddess"? Simply to justify our patriarchal society. That is also why the Bible put Adam here first, and Eve second. If you can't see through the BS, I cannot help you. "God" does not exist in the form depicted in the Bible.
@@bradparker6156 - There is no god. All claims of gods have foundations in archaic fairy tales. Why do people keep insisting 'Jesus is his own daddy and he lives in the sky' in an age where we understand physics?
@@DwayneShaw1 I'm no born-again type, but don't dismiss the possibility of something/someone beyond us. Perceived understanding can and very often leads to arrogance. The literal meaning of the bible is certainly questionable, but the words have ultimately been put to paper by fallible humans. To me, that does not mean God does not exist..
Pointless arguing with creationists, they've already ready made up their minds about what they want to believe and will stubbornly defend that position regardless...
Bildad1976 The thing is, science is not conscious, does not think anything and doesn't have an agenda. Science is a method: hypothesis-testing-results-analysis-confirmation/refutation/modification of hypothesis. that's it, that's all. Science is only a tool to understand reality through fact. Not believing in science is like not believing in snow shovel. If scitific experiment demonstrate the existence of God, then science would have proven the existence of God, period. If the science is sound, then anyone with a scientific mind will accept it. But as of now, nothing indicates it'll go that way. Then there is the problem of all the different dieties that existed through the ages. Believers find it hard to believe Atheist don't believe God exists, while that themselves don't believe in thousands of gods. Atheist simply don't believe in one more. Most people of faith don't realize that the only reason they have their specific faith is because of where and when they are born. Fundamentalist christians would be fundamentalist muslims were they born in the middle-east. But no! they just happened to be raised in the correct faith.
Same can be said about scientific consensus...how many years did it take for them to change opinion about the shape of the earth??? it took the opinion's holders death...
Creation is easy and simple it's doesn't have to be proven or debated. It's magical and mystical. No math no calculations or science is involved. It's meek and humble enough for a child to understand. Unfortunately when I became a man I put away childish things
I do not believe in the Big Bang theory because the only part of the Big Bang theory that is provable is the part that the Bible always suggested in the first place, namely the expansion of the Heavens. Hence, I see it as being entirely unnecessary to accept that the Big Bang happened. The Big Bang is not just a theory about the expansion of the universe. It also includes the faith-based assumption of everything that began to exist existing in a ball-sized spot of energy and unformed elements then expanding from there. This latter faith-based ASSUMPTION is used but strictly speaking can never be shown to be even reasonably accurate. Before this theory came about, and before anyone knew through ACTUAL SCIENCE (observable, testable, repeatable) that the universe was expanding, the Bible already said it. So my thing is: why should people abandon their Bible faith for the faith that only sounds more and more Biblical every year with ACTUAL observable, testable, science?
The bible says that because you interpreted it as such. The expansion of the universe has been observed through the use of the doppler effect of light compression from distant galaxies. In fact scientists have observed the left over microwaves from the big bang and mapped out this expansion. There's a statically background noise that could be heard by merely turning the knob of an old transistor radio but not tuning it in. The theory has been put to the test. Matter is pure energy. We are l Pure energy e=mc2.
Ridiculous! We haven't lost anything due to lack of intellectual curiosity. We are further advanced than we ever have been. Nobody is stopping anyone from learning and/or advancing forward. You are simply under the wrath of God and cannot believe. Maybe believe it is because you are not elect, meaning, your heart is hard because you haven't been invited into the family of God. The wonderful things true believers experience and rely on from day to day after they have Heard the call of God and responded is the very reason we can go to our deaths without best of the unknown. For us it isn't unknown.
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” ― Buddha Siddhartha Guatama Shakyamuni Given that as background, consider this: The Maya mapped the movement of the planets with tremendous precision in the 9th century CE, predicted the phases of the moon to within 1 1/2 minutes AND developed a calendar more accurate than even the calendar used today. . .WITHOUT the access to telescopes .
Some people do not seem to understand that a law, in scientific terms, is an description of something that is already occurring in nature. It builds upon observable data to develop an understand that can be used to make observable predictions. It is not a rule that is created for the universe to follow. The term theory seems to confuse many as well. It is very simply an explanation of a process based upon observable evidence at any given time. Theories can be modified, updated, or outright rejected as new evidence becomes available. No theory can be said to 100% accurate since it is only as accurate at the evidence available allows. There does have to be a preponderance of evidence to support any theory though. Insufficient evidence may lead to a hypothesis or conjecture, but not theory nor a law. This is my understanding at any rate.
You don't seem to be able to think rationally. You allow people to conjure up new definitions which contradict their original meanings. A law is a law and a theory is not a law nor is it a fact. The only way to change the meaning of the terms is through deception. You sir are a victim of wizardry. A theory is a fact....a law is not a law...taxation is legal....usury is not punishable by death! Evil soulless lives matter! Anyhow, you get the point...right? Oh, wait nvm...you're a retarded pos who parrots nonsense! Go vote, see if God cares about how precisely you are able to parrot the sorcerers. Nah fam, laws are laws.
@@carlosdiaz6405 there's no contradiction. For instance special relativity does not contradict Newton's theory*. It's just more accurate and describe more things. And words do have meaning, whether we like them or not. In science, when you say "theory", you're not describing someone's supposition or conjecture. You're using that word when you speak of something that has been demonstrably proven (by repeated experiments) to work. If you don't like that the word theory is also used for this, fine: use another one. But the common meaning of theory is NOT the one meant in science. And that makes _string/brane theory_ a wrong label. It should be called _string/brane idea_ , because this one has _not_ been proven to work yet. *or rather they agree on a common sub set of results
@@ChaineYTXF special relativity and Newton's theory both fail to explain how the universe maintains it's integrity over the massive distance which have been calculated and so in order to properly invoke gravity, dark matter/dark energy must be conceded. In your response to my observation of a contradiction you describe the very contradiction you are dismissing. Tell me, what about dark energy/dark matter is observable and or repeatable? It is an escape mechanism to avoid the utter absurdity of the stars ability to maintain the very same formations for all of recorded human history while simultaneously moving at unimaginably and immeasurable speeds at inconceivably far distances from each other.
They are desperate. Their myths are fading into the dustbin of history where they belong as an increasingly enlightened world moves forward in its pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the universe, leaving their bronze age dogma of ignorance and subjugation of the mind behind.
Afro Samurai Gabriel Rd PLEASE watch the following video (you may skip the long intro at the beginning, but PLEASE watch the rest in its entirety)!: ruclips.net/video/5mvx8kW33OU/видео.html If you're TRULY a truthseeker, you will have been EXTREMELY GLAD you DID watch the whole thing! :] Ps. The world's 3 major (virtuous) religions HAVE BEEN CORRUPTED! The ancestors of "The Powers That Be" CREATED Catholicism in order to CORRUPT Christianity, also Zionism in order to CORRUPT Judaism, and Shi'ites in order to CORRUPT Islam...these BOGUS versions (along with their BOGUS versions of holy texts (ie. ALL of the modern bibles/those printed after the "King James Bible"), were created in order to divide us all AND control us all!!! Btw, all the EVIL in this world are due to people who have been/are being easily manipulated by the DEVIL.
***** Science and the bible contradict and this is not up for discussion anymore. The world was not created in six days, there never was a global flood, the sun never stood still in the sky, the Earth is not flat and immovable. All of these things are not alleghories. I'm no layman on the bible and its scientific inacuracies. I'm not even going to bother watching the video. PS: The devil doesn't exist.
Wow...just, wow... You're RIGHT, just b/c YOU say so...wow... And BY ALL MEANS, DON'T watch the video I strongly recommended, b/c I'm ALSO worried that YOUR HEAD MAY IMPLODE! (Your loss...)
***** Dude, no. Just no. There's 9001 videos that claim a compatibilist view on science and the bible and all of them fail miserably. I'm not going to waste my time on this. Creationism is bullshit.You hear me? Bull-fucking-shit. You might be scientifically- and biblically illiterate, but I'm not. Please stop wasting my time and yours. I'm not going to watch another creationist video. You can poison your mind if you want to, I'm not into that stuff.
Yep - they believe it's wise to follow an ancient religion made up by people who didn't know where the sun went at night, but we who follow evidence rather than myth know how foolish that is.
First time I've heard that wise saying; I love it for me to share. It has me thinking in a "Trumpacious" or "Trumpiferous" manner. You are correct, ex-president Donald J. TRUMP is in the House 🏠 🛖 🏚: he speaks; the audiences reply with your given quote. Thanks.
Make yourself a Gratitude journal. Write in it everyday. Start with: I am thankful for Sunshine. 2. I am thankful for Red 🌷 tulips 3. if you can't think of anything else to be thankful for, remember: Tulips come in many colors .
If creationsists presented evidence (to the normally accepted standard) that there are any Gods, most scientists would say WOW thats great, I was mistaken. On the other hand there is no amount of evidence that will change the mind of creationsists.
S Camp More than that, scientists would say, cool, let's not stop there. This opens a huge new area of discovery!! Where did these gods come from? What are they made of? Do they follow the same rules that we have observed in our universe? What predictions can we now make and test based on this new model of a universe? Can we leverage some of these predictions into useful tools or technology? Maybe we can design devices that communicate better with them than what we have now (basically just telepathy) so requests get fulfilled more often, preferably with some form of tracking so we can be home when it is delivered... stuff like that.
nicely put, but as I said the creationists would still have issues. They wouldn't believe their own gods if they told them that everything including them was answerable by science.
I'm an exmuslim and its so depressing realizing what my part of the world is missing out on scientifically. Everyone has their ideas about the middle east and I understand those views, its so sad seeing how the irrationality of islam poisoning this society, there are so many beautiful smart minds here but their suppressed even if they wanted to do great things, the society is not supportive and is outraged very easily by any scientific reasearch or claim. Also your passion is pretty much chosen for you by the people around you. You can't stray much or study what you love.
What happened was the Islam world flowered intellectually, and, sincexmost people could not keep up, they trampled on the flowers (meaning the stupid (the normal) took over again). Let's hope history does not repeat itself in the West now that most (the normal) people have fallen behind science once again.
(Edited to clarify meaning:) I really feel for what you say, as I spent three years in Saudi Arabia and have seen the impact of Islam on the population there, or at least the conservative fundamentalist Wahabist Islam practiced in Saudi. This is a very difficult topic for non-muslims to address, because there are many in the West who are biased against Islam, and even against individual Muslims, for trivial, unwarranted, and bigoted reasons. The issue that you described, however, is very real, and it can't be fully appreciated unless you closely observe the culture. The longer I lived there, and the more that I saw, the worse it seemed, until I just wanted to scream. Some expats go the other direction, and actually come to embrace Islam, but I'd say a greater number have the same impressions that I did. (To be fair, it's probably the case that the majority of just don't give it much thought. I sure did.) I feel so bad for the people who live under this oppression, as it not only suppresses their capacity for creative or critical thinking, but it stifles aspects of their basic humanity. In my view, the problem is more tied to authoritarianism than the individuals who live under its yoke, who are, nearly without exception, wonderful, decent, generous people. At the same time, Islam provides an environment that is rich in family life and ritual. These things have value as well... Immense value. I just don't think the trade-off is worth it. (BTW, after returning to the USA, and seeing the impact of conservative fundamentalist Christianity on American society, it strikes me as being very nearly as oppressive and harmful as Wahabist Islam, and might actually be _more_ insidious, considering that it threatens the continuity and future of an established secular democracy. America has a responsibility to promote tolerance and freedom internationally, and too often we fail. It is all the more ironic when those who threaten our freedom and liberty internally claim that they are acting in the name of freedom and liberty, and--of course God.... the ultimate cosmic rationalization. Deep hypocrisy.)
Thank you for that brilliant and very insightful comment! We need much more of that these days. I live in Southern California where there are people from all over the world, which promotes a quite tolerant society than a lot of other places in this country, but we do have our ghettos of right-wing lunacy. I encounter Middle Eastern immigrants all the time with few problems, however in the back of my mind I have to wonder how many of these people could be convinced to commit some massacre if ordered to by one of their Mullahs, and that's a problem that shouldn't exist in a rational world. @@MendTheWorld
@@peterzinya1 If I watch it again that will make THREE! Of course why should you believe ANYthing you see on the Internet. I watch videos about the flood of Noah and just shake my head!
@@AINews4 of course i believe what Neil says about the statistics. I kinda already knew that from my yrs of science study. But he suggests that the creator should be phased out of human life for ever. The flood does take some faith to believe. But there are prophesies from 3000 yrs ago that came true now. Things you cant deny. If the bible(god) got that right, what else is right?
@@peterzinya1 In that case, You also have to consider all the stuff the bibel got wrong: We do NOT live on a flat Earth that's devided into four corners, while resting on four pillars with a firmament holding water out, but with tiny holes to allow rain. The Sun and the Moon are NOT the same size and stars are NOT pinpricks in the curtain of night. Things You cannot deny. If the bible(god) got that wrong, what else might be wrong?? 🤔 😇 🤣
You're as gullible AF if you believe his stories. The Bush and Star Names story at 26:00 was debunked in 2014 by Sean Davis. The tales regarding Newton and Ghazali are also nonsense.
great lecture, very eye opening i am a middle eastern muslim and what he said couldnt be more true you will not belive how ignorant and close minded people are in here and i belive religion has big part to do with it i just wish if people would listn more and open thier minds to scince and reason instead of waisting thier lives on a delusion all kinds of respect to Neil
All kinds of disrespect to you. You have apparently swallowed several piles of bull shit. Ghazali never wrote that math is the work of the devil. Nor did Islamic innovation end in the 1100s with Ghazali. Also Tyson's Bush and Star Names story was solidy debunked in 2014 by Sean Davis. A lot of progress in science and math were accomplished by very religious people. Catholic priests and Muslim clerics institutionalized the scientific method. Built schools, taught math and literacy, built universities, libraries, hospitals and observatories. You strong confirmation bias has made you credulous. Let Tyson's following become known for their stupidity and dishonesty.
Religion indeed has to do with it. It teaches you to believe in things, despite a great lack of actual evidence. It teaches you to believe based upon wishful thinking. It teaches you to believe based upon fallacious reasoning. It teaches you, that opinion and data are equal. It teaches you that all of these believes are not just believes but knowledge. And it teaches you that everybody outside your in-group is mislead and trying to deceive. Many people without any scientific experience are often just like that already, even without being affiliated to any religion. I say that out of experience, since I'm living in a part of a country, with 71% people without any religious affiliation. But religion refines your ignorance to a level where cognitive dissonance becomes an impenetrable wall, to protect your belief.
@@biedl86 Eyup. Religious belief stifles innovation. Which explains why believers like Isaac Newton, Max Planck, Georges Lemaître, James Clerk Maxwell and many others fail so abysmally in pushing back the frontiers of knowledge. And why brilliant agnostics like Neil deGrasse Tyson manage to fuck up basic math and physics and completely botch their history. Three of the stories Tyson tells in the above video are false histories.
@@HopDavid Well, that's your anecdote, it's your data point, which convinces you. It doesn't convince me for many reasons. You can't tell, whether or not these people believed in the kind of god you are imagining. It's fair to say, that back in the day almost everybody was religious. Pointing that out without looking at the reasons or the means on how they became religious, does nothing. In today's Italy you are declared Christian at birth almost by default. That means, almost everybody in Italy is a Christian. In fact 85% of Italians are affiliated with Christianity. But the truth is, that only 21% out of all the people in Italy say, that God is important in their life. Something similar happens in Sweden. Their culture is intertwined with royalty and cultural Christianity. Almost 70% are part of any religion, 60% are part of the church of Sweden. Now, only 10% say, that God is important in their life. And btw. the biggest group of Jews in Israel are secular Jews, not believing in a God. Now, are you really a believer, if God isn't important? I don't thinks so. If I really believe, I'd bow before the Lord every day, I'd do missionary work, because the bible tells me so. I'd knew everything about the bible. From experience I can tell you, that I never met a Christian in person, who knows as much about his book, as I do. I mean, there are even studies done, showing that this isn't just my experience. How come? Do they not really care about God's word? What I said was something completely unrelated to your argument anyway. I said, people are like this in general and that religion refines this proclivity to believe in things unseen and hoped for. It's already there. Religion is just taking hold of it, filling that gap. But still, there are human beings who do not see the need to fill that gap, because their skepticism doesn't allow for it and they are fine with it. Both of which, people who fill that gap and those who don't, can be scientists. It's obvious, if the majority of people is religious, that a certain amount of scientists will be religious too. That's just how probability works. Now, the majority of scientists is not religious. Strange data point indeed. In a world, where religion is part of your culture, it has no barring on whether or not you are religiously affiliated while doing science. It has no barring on being scientifically minded in your field of expertise. But for the regular person, it'll make a difference indeed, whether feelings tell you about what is true, or a proper methodology. A religious scientist won't go to the bible to make an argument about whether or not abortion should be legal.
After watching Tyson mangle his calculations for centrifugal force I would not trust him to design a ceiling fan. There are three steaming piles of false history in the above talk. 1) A false account of Bush's 9-11 speech 2) A false account of Ghazali's teachings and false history regarding the Islamic Golden Age. 3) A whole lot of false history regarding Newton. Just one example: The so called "dare" that prompted Newton to write Principia was made in 1684 when Newton was in his 40s. All the stuff Newton supposedly did on a whim in two months were decades of collaborative efforts.
I never tire of listening to Neil's lectures. I believe that he tries hard to make them understandable for most of us! In the end it is your choice! Find a peaceful place to live and be happy. Ronald
It's always great to read a creationist claiming that the big bang should be dismissed because there is no way to test that theory... and seeing no hypocrisy in that statement.
@@williammoney962 That's a strawman fallacy. No critical thinking person nor the evolution theory says we came about by pure chance alone. Yes, there was some chance involved, but not only chance. All organisms are controlled by the environment they find themselves in. So for you to pretend it's all just random chance is dishonest. The same as claiming we believe in something from nothing when theists are the people claiming a magical something from nothing. Your God said abracadabra, and a universe just popped into existence out of nothing at all. We believe it was always there but in a more condensed state. No need for a creator of something that has always existed, right? It's easy to create a strawman you know you can debunk. But debunking what we actually claim is a lot different.
Reminds me of that scene on avatar when they start throwing spears at the helicopter and the pilot is like "they've opened fire". Basically what runs through my head when anyone tries to justify an argument with ridiculous religious positions.
Eternal Light you are in darkness for you cant even see that Tyson is saying nothing. Absolutely nothing. He is the atheist token black, nothing more. I dare anyone to prove otherwise
Johnny A You're just a fat headed over weight balding ignorant token white racists cult member, nothing more. You're saying absolutely nothing important or intelligent. I dare anyone to prove otherwise.
Johnny A aww, it's okay buddy. Just because you lack the intelligence to understand what he is saying doesn't mean you have to get mad about it. Plenty of people are stupid, don't feel bad for being one of them
***** You're entitled to your belief....religion may be true to you but it is not based on any evidence whereas science is all based on evidence. Science is willing to change when new evidence is discovered, religion does not allow for change.
27:45 I pointed out to him that he went a bit overboard because Muslims/Arabs did not invent or discover anything significant (with a lone exception in 1999), but advanced existing knowledge and documented it. Brilliant people did brilliant things and scientists today are grateful for their contribution.
Before you talk or write something on social media do your due diligence and research so that you learn a thing or two. Let me put it this way, without the inventions of Muslims you would not have the modern world you live in and enjoy today. A simple Google search will tell you everything you need to know about what scientific concepts, mathematics and medicine were invented by Muslims.
@@Rolanditou who? Neil explains it really well, makes it easy for people with less education or who were educated with intelligent design - unfortunately
He said he had no opinion on how it worked. Lucky for him, because conceiving of curved space was beyond his era. He would have been wrong, and he was wise enough to know that.
The Electric Universe model is also supported by a few notable scientists. A Swedish plasma physicist, Hannes Alfven, received the 1970 Nobel Prize for Physics for his work on the Alfven wave, a phenomenon related to sunspots and aurorae. In fact, the Electric Universe model has been credited with the discovery of inter-galactic magnetic fields, and these fields are not related to gravity.
It is true that electric and "electromagnetic" phenomena prevail in most of what is important to us. When a massive nucleus fissions, the energy and power come from the mutual repulsion forces between the protonic fragments. But it is gravitational forces that initiate stellar exothermal fusion, and gravitational superforces that create a supernova by endothermic fusion, and thereafter neutron stars and Black Holes.
There are different ways to see this than Neil and his fans see it, you know. Not all of us believe in spirituality that is ignorant, fearful and dominating
Religion itself claims to know what it itself can’t prove. I think you’re mistaking the word ignorance in a negative connotation. Ignorance is human nature. Everyone lives in a state of ignorance every second of every day. Religion simply does not claim ignorance in the unknown. According to religion, there is no unknown to be known.
The fundamental flaw in man's science is that because we learn how things work that somehow disproves God. We are simply understanding HOW God made creation, not that he doesn't exist. Unfortunately mankind's hubris puts to much stock in it's own intellect.
Ah yeah, the same book that says it;s ok to drink poison because it will do you no harm. Funny how not many Christians try that one out...and most of the ones that tried...died.
@@richardgregory3684 Exactly where does the Bible say it is ok to drink poison? Funny how some who make fun of the Bible can't even quote it as accurately as my 8 year old nephew.
@@troysanders7775 _Exactly where does the Bible say it is ok to drink poison_ Mark 16:18 " They shall take up serpents; *and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them* ; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover " _Funny how some who make fun of the Bible can't even quote it as accurately as my 8 year old nephew_ Man, I bet you've got a red face right now, mocking _me_ for not knowing bible quotes! And by the way - if Christians can heal the sick, why do we need hospitals and doctors? And why do Christians call 911 and not speed dial their local priest?
@@richardgregory3684 So you do realize that "if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them" and "it is ok to drink poison" are not the same thing? If not I can have my 8 year old nephew explain it to you.
Just an observation; After reading thru the comments, I notice a common theme. Most people who don't want to listen to an idea that doesn't work along with "God's plan" is because "The idea that humans aren't special snowflakes makes me feel sad, and not happy, so I refuse to believe in it." So I guess my question would be: Why do people think their feelings have anything to do with facts? It's the equivalent of yelling at lightning to stop striking because its thunder hurts your ears. Just cuz you're upset at it, doesn't mean it's gonna feel bad, put on its hat and leave. I understand pain and suffering and all that, and so I can understand why people think they need God as some sort of sign of hope, but I personally think you insult yourself if you refuse to learn and understand what's right in front of you. ESPECIALLY now, since we live in the information age.
I was watching a documentary on a Christian "university" and they asked a young student why she believed in a geocentric, designed universe and she replied: "Because if those atheist scientists are right, I wouldn't be important..." Now, that is intelligent design in a nutshell - it stems from human insecurity.
@@tullochgorum6323 I suspect this is a fiction. Much like Tyson's fictions he delivers with smooth confident voice. Have you checked the story Tyson tells at 26:00? Searching for Bush's 9-11 speech all I can find is a plea for tolerance and inclusion -- "Islam Is Peace" delivered from the Islamic Center at Washington D.C. on September 17, 2001. I can find Bush quoting scripture saying "In the skies today we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see, there is comfort and hope. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, “Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of His great power, and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.”" But that was from Bush's eulogy for the Space Shuttle Columbia astronauts. In neither speech did Bush try to set Christians above Muslims. Likewise, can you find evidence supporting Tyson's claims regarding Ghazali and the Islamic Golden Age? Or maybe you can provide evidence that Newton explained elliptical orbits before he turned 26? Or that Newton stopped working on n-body systems after he wrote Principia? Until you provide evidence supporting Tyson's stories I will continue to call them steaming piles of bull shit. And until you name the documentary of this Christian University I will continue to believe the same of your story.
@@HopDavid Yup - you can't trust an atheist - they are clearly all liars. And it seems you can't trust the evidence of your own eyes either, because he actually ran video of Bush's speech. You won't find evidence if you refuse to look for it or trust the word of distinguished scientific communicators. Take the example of Ghazali and the end of the Islamic Golden Age. It's a totally uncontroversial claim, documented in dozens of scholarly books. But it doesn't fit into your world view so you feel qualified to rubbish the work of the actual experts without knowing anything about the subject. "My ignorance is as good as your knowledge". You can live any way you like. Just don't expect that anyone with an educated and enquiring mind will ever take you remotely seriously.
Actually even though Newton described accurately the equation for gravity and called it a force he found it hard to believe it was a force because it worked over such large distances. Einstein later verified that gravity is not a force but rather a distortion in space.
@@boterlettersukkel Planet is an object, so is a moon and sun those are things that take up space which is the area they are in. I never said they were nothing.
To sum it up - people invented god to explain shit they didnt understand. Its just ridiculous that in the 21st century people still believe rain comes from god and people are made of clay.
+RJ Lee dust it's not specifically clay it is more (as powdered or gray); hence, clay, earth, mud:--ashes, dust, earth, ground, morter, powder, rubbish. and I believe we are all related chemically to the earth. so it kinda makes sense doesn't it?
+RJ Lee C. Hoygens applied God also to what he did understand since he said at around 17:00 "is in them much more clearly manifested". much more manifested means it is much less manifested in lifeless heaps, which implies there is some manifestation. And C.Hoygens did understand the lifeless heaps right?
Religions are tricky to prove or disprove because they are outside of the realm of science. I like that Doctor Tyson doesnt ever say that he knows there is no god, but rather explains why he believes the existance of a god is improbable. Most people have very strong definitive opinions on religion one way or another and get very worked up when someone does agree with their beliefs, but Neil is doesnt care what you believe, even if it is different from his beliefs.
I think when you said disprove that is something that is not required . The proof lies in the person that makes the claim . Nobody has disproven thor or pixies or anything unknown.
@@rodneyhickman825 My case and point. You have a very strong opinion on the existence of a god and believe that religions are as silly as believing in unicorns. I'm an atheist myself, but I respect religious people and I like that Dr Tyson does too. And if god not existing were as obvious as pixies not existing then I doubt that half of all scientists including Isaac Newton, the man that Neil degrasse Tyson calls the smartest man ever to live, would believe in a god. Figuring out the origin of the universe is not as plainly obvious as debunking the existence of fairy tale creatures.
@@4dojo I disagree with your statement that he "respects religious people". I don't know what he says in this vid...because I am not even going to watch it. I have heard him strongly mock and ridicule people of faith and religion many times. As far as I am concerned he is an arrogant clown, And I certainly will not even waste 1 minute of my time listening to him. I just happen to have this U tube pop up and I thought I would read some comments.
Sophists knew that in ancient Greece, which they taught to people so they could win their court cases (you had to argue your own back then) without using logic. Plato hated that.
No Joey the absolute argument is faith in God or Faith in yourself you have a choice you can believe in God or you can believe in yourself I choose this day to believe in God because I know he's real he lives in my heart
@@ritchievernon8099 lol, if you were born in India, you'd be saying the same thing about Krishna. Do you have any evidence? That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
@@ritchievernon8099 Oh ffs. You dont know shit. A theist is someone who thinks the unfathomably vast universe is but a backdrop to an epic battle between good and evil taking place in the minutia of our lives. Aren't you just so special. The fact is there isnt a speck of evidence to support any god claim. So let's look at the god concept you picked. Endorses slavery, its go to solution is something must die (usually an innocent third party), it mass murders children, kills children to punish their parents, condemns generations for the crimes of their ancestors. Your god is a sadistic monster. The fact is you're in a barbaric, blood sacrifice death cult from the bronze age, nothing more. For deeming a sadistic monster worthy of worship, you should not only be embarrassed, you should be ashamed.
We don't need to be "debunking" Creationism. It's established as a religious belief and people are welcome to believe what they can't verify or even understand. What we NEED to be doing is demonstrating that Creationism is NOT A SCIENCE and doesn't belong in the classroom.
Not only is it not a science, but its an archaic form of logic, whereby all explanations of actual events are limited to, and refined by, human understanding before the discovery of a scientific method. The scientific method produces progressive results in the learning and development process of the species as a whole; yet superstition (and all other forms of fantastical religious storytelling) attribute only explanations of our reality that break the natural laws, presume non-existent beings, and pridefully exhume the arrogant disposition that somehow, we have all the answers to questions such as the beginning of existence and many other profound statements. The burden of proof lies on the religious, for they claim that they have the answers to questions, while science is open to debate and is clearly contrary to religion as we believe only what we have evidence for, the rest is irrelevant. The idea that some fantastical creative being, that no one could ever possibly prove its existence, and is most unlikely and improbable, is responsible for elevating our species' status in the cosmos to the highest of orders, is utter stupidity and prideful arrogance. There's a reason no one of faith can claim that faith has evidence, the word has evolved to imply a belief without evidence.
There is no burden of proof on theists. As theists are not forcing theocratic doctrine on you. Do you see Christians at your door wanting to burn you for blasphemy? Leave theists alone or else you are the aggressor. When you start an argument by saying religion is illogical or false, YOU are making that claim, therefore the burden is actually on you. Most theists are not even attempting to have the debate, it is atheists who push the debate on theists. Yes, faith lacks evidence, hence why it is called faith. Have you ever made a choice uncertain of the outcomes? If so, then you used faith. A belief in an outcome without certainty. True scientists dont debate with theists on religion, mainly because scientists are intelligent and realize the futility of doing so. Internet atheists on the other hand seem to enjoy insulting theists, maybe it gives you that sense of superiority that religion once gave men in past days.
It is illogical, they claim absolute knowledge of the beginning of existence, life after death and attempt to claim knowledge of existence of supernatural beings that break the laws of nature and coincidently choose outcomes. It's simple, what proof is there? None. And probability is extremely low.
And the fact that people ignorantly divide themselves and kill each other over belief in supernatural beings and histories written by uneducated and unknowing tribal people is only the most superficially obvious consequence of such illogical thought processes.
Remember, the earth was flat, the center of the universe which was tiny and seemingly irrelevant and God's Will was responsible for illness and misfortune... dinosaurs also didn't exist... but yet, they knew that everything can't into being and how. As for other mythical and fantastic stories about creation, they're all equally presumptuous and false.
John Carboni Your powers of analogy are legendary. You could have said "Do you expect your toothbrush to understand Mozart's music?"...brilliant analogy so Legendary level indeed
@@wbiro His arguments are irrational as expects intelligent design to be perfect but thinks humans that make imperfect machines make intelligent designs. I pointed out his contradiction. An intelligent design would not have to be perfect.
5:49 God of the Gaps phenomenon, which the rest of the video demonstrates, until he gets to the Imperfection argument (how could a perfect god mess up the universe so bad?), that counters the Perfect God/Perfect Earth claim of Intelligent Design.
Whether I agree or disagree. Whether I have knowledge of the subject or not. He makes me think on the subject at hand. For that alone. Thanks. Namaste.
Watching this vid (again), I notice what I find disappointing in NDT when he's on TV (Nova or recently the new Cosmos). You don't get THis Neil DeGrasse Tyson; the passionate, excited, dynamic force of scientific nature. Listening to him here, or in other live stage lectures, makes you want to go out and enrol in a University, and get in on the game. He sounds like the teacher you wish you'd had in school. Whereas on TV he seems in comparison timid. I just wish a producer would say "OK Neil, just go OFF!"
I think you miss the point here buddy. Cosmos is meant to inspire scientific awe through storytelling and trying to reach the broadest audience and educate them thus following the legacy of Carl Sagan. Don’t expect to turn on Cosmos and watch NDT screaming “stupid design”.
It would say that no matter how many absurd infinite regresses, or equally unprovable factors (loop quantum gravity, the 'multiverse') one posits, they will never TRULY 'disprove God'. God remains as a potential hypothesis as long as a conscious first person subjective awareness persists.
Ha Ha! It's hilarious when people think they have the "ace card" with a simple saying, without thoroughly researching it's counterpoints and if it's truthful, along with the fools who go, "Oooo! See! See!". In West Harlem, New York City; Riverbank State Park is 28 acres of parks, baseball fields, tennis courts, walking trails all on top of the roof of the North River Sewage Treatment Plant which began construction in 1992. It is the largest entertainment complex ever built in the middle of a sewage system. "no engineer would design that at all ever" - Neil D Tyson "Well, apparently they did, and decades before you thought you came up with a profound thought with relevance." NDT found a way and is just here to make money.
@@riproar11 thanks I will tell people this in case they quote this quote which I always think is gross. I am also not sure why he thinks the genitals are for entertainment when clearly they are for reproduction. That doesn't entertain most life forms. It's just a thing they have to instinctually do. He is being too anthropomorphic by calling it an entertainment center. Also he's misogynistic because of how he lists 0 women as important scientists. All of them are men. Because of this, I don't like him. Also I like Christianity and am a Christian so I think it's not great that he is trying to completely eradicate religion from 100% of the elite scientists. It's like he's trying to take away the 15%'s free will. Strange.
It's easy to make up quotes that don't make sense - ID has the backing of scientific research - it is not a philosophy. If anything, 'evolution' theory is a weak hypothesis and a fancy philosophy because there is no science to substantiate any of the claims for 'mutations' causing new information to be generated - 'mutations are destructive not constructive'. 'natural selection' is a misnomer - it does not exist. Anything that 'selects' is only capable of doing so under intelligent direction have a specific criteria - this is how choices are made. Random choices never result in an upward progressive direction that enhance biological life forms. Mutation experiments on fruit flies have only resulted in deformed fruit flies. Darwin's finches are still birds .. ie. finches - they have never become anything else.
Your personal opinion does not change the fact that science is a philosophy. Philosophy has reasoning power and searches avenues of thinking and logic where science fails. In our modern world even physics has its limits. You need to get better educated to keep up.
Tony07UK how exactly is Intelligent Design over gradual adaptation supported by science? And there are a plethora of examples of unintelligent design (ie. The blind spot, appendix, bone where a tail would be, our jaws usually being too small for wisdom teeth etc.). Why do these unnecessary things exist if we were intelligently designed? Either the creator(s) must not have made us perfectly, made us perfectly and we are degenerating, which there is absolutely no proof for, or there is no creator at all.
It's where the star dust develops sequencing and becomes life where materialist face a chasm where randomness breaks down as a creative nature. There is a cause for complex sequencing, intelligence, where randomness breaks down when it comes to complexity. One can argue that astronomy is quite random, but life, abiogenesis is a different matter.
From an epistemological POV, there is no question. If you use a god to solve abiogenesis, you introduce a theoretical entity that can do whatever it likes: your theory no longer forbids anything, thus it predicts nothing. For example, if you use a god to explain abiogenesis, there is no reason to suppose that god could not resurrect a dead human. Since we want the dead to stay dead, and not screw up out scientific laws, we are better off trying to come up with an empirically workable materialist abiogenesis. We will never be certain that our model will be the one that actually happened: we cannot recreate the actual set of conditions. After all, we do know that, somehow it happened. It wasn’t magic, or a divine being doing it.
I don't understand the issue... we should be teaching ONLY WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW, right up to the limit of what we know, so the next generation can go from there, and teach their kids up to THAT limit!! There shouldn't be any reason to fill the gap with A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G!! Much less some magic guy in the sky that will make you feel better, if you "just believe hard enough"!! Believe what you believe... I couldn't care less, but that is your PERSONAL business, and should NOT BE FORCED into the rest of the children in your child's classroom!! There... issue solved!!
Michael- That would all be fine, if children would NOT BE FORCED to learn what has NOT been & can NOT be proven, i.e. evolution of life from matter & evolution of species from common ancestor, which is ALL high speculation, NOT fact.
@@david77james That’s ridiculous. Evolution is a fact. The evidence supporting it is overwhelming. Denying evolution is like denying gravity. Yes there are still some facts we do not know about either and our understanding can always improve but that’s true of everything. Both gravity and evolution are clearly demonstrable and a basis for our understanding of the world. There is no such evidence for a god. We need to teach children information that can be demonstrated instead of fantasies which can not. Teaching creationism in a class room is very harmful. It’s not based in reality. Teaching children that people will be tortured eternally and burned, is child abuse.
Very thoughtful, yet pragmatic discussion of intelligent design. The likelihood that the decline of Islamic culture is related to the 12th century substitution of revelation for investigation, should be troubling ...
frightening is the word I would use -- and it absolutely terrifies me when laymen in this country try to suggest religiosity is the cure for society!!!
@@timq6224 It took Western science a thousand years to wrest the investigation of natural phenomena from the clutches of the church(es). Yet we still get to witness the efforts of the witless to return the realm of science to the control of those who would destroy the progress made in order to....what?
All these came from the physical quantities that we are unaware of but god is considered by relgions as physical entity and webhave more than enough evidence that all the physical entities have created by physical quantities not the vice bera so the prblm is the basic concept that we are teliable upon that the creator or designer is a physical entity while from all the evidence wee see its the physical quantities that have always been there . So when we say something came from nothing here the words something and nothing are defined in human basic understanding context if i ask u what nothing means you will simply say some empty space but still the you have space time there and temperature which makes the space time and quarks field react to produce particles , but again what if i ask u to imagine something without space and time you cannot because human brains have not been evolve that much so when i say nothing it means it doesnt has space time and it doesnt has any fundamental fields so it must have some other physical quantity that we are unaware of and we cannot imagine that because our brain has not evolved that way to ever saw a glimpse of that similarly before einstein nobody thought about time dialation as it doesnt fits your common sense and. Then quantum entanglement these are some massive evidence based phenomenon that deduce that something can come from nothing and the creator or the design thate we see is because of physical quantities and field not any physical entity . For example solar system , earth , stars etc are because of space time and gravity gravity So what does relgion offers a concekt of creator that is good and its morality revolves around humans and mamals While what we see thorugh evidence is that huamns were not made by god rahher they evolved from a single cell and intellegence occured through millions of years of evolution so what we see through evidence snd hisotry of scienctific discoveries that the creator is always the physical quanties not the physical physical entities because the physical entities because if u say the fundamental particle or field of universe was created by a god which is a physical entity then if i ask u who created the gkd then god itself is a highly intelligent being that must have been through trillions to the power trillions years of evolution so even while saying god his own existence is dependent on physical quantities which we are unaware of so god or any physical entity can never be the supreme creator while physical quntities which we are unaware of can wxist even without any divine intervention. Such as human we are a physical entity made without any intervention of any divine god but through evolution via natural selection. So something can come from nothing given that the nothing or what is a void for us has a physical quantity beyonf our understanding but not a physical entity because an entity is not beyond our understanding. So we dont have answers tk everytbing and will never have but relgion is definitely not the answe is is just bunch of baselss claims made for affirmation of faith to control the skciety instead evn if there was an actual creator he would not have morallity as co sider by humans because is humans have ourselves came just 1 million years ago . And morallity changes and decreases as you move up the heirchy of intelligence. Because if u are saying whatever is undiscovered or gaps in scientific discoveries is of then science will takle these mysteries one by one so god is an ever receding pocket if sceintifc discovery . So the whole assumption of theist is wrong why consider thay creation is done by an intelligent physical entity because through evidencethe existence of physical entire is dependent of physocal quantities such as space time not the vice versa.
😬🥱🤧🚮🔇🪠🥱🤧🪳🌭🪫🗑️💬🙄 Oh, I get it... It wasn't because the primitive superstition in drag that is intelligent design is an asinine cultural disease that doesn't describe reality?
We know more than ever about the universe we live in. The pace of scientific learning accelerates unceasingly. We evolved in a world of scarcity, we live in a world of abundance, our appetites are too powerful. As Weinberg said, The more we understand, the more we know there's no point to it. I can't find a point to this comment.
I was born with a modestly above average intelligence which was enough to get me through medical school. I regret that intelligence was stultified by the brainwashing of creationism and a personal God. How thankful I am for people like Neal and Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who have stimulated my relatively dull, unsupple mind to enjoy the freedoms of uninhibited discovery. I am 71 years age now and have wasted so much time. However thanks to vastly superior minds to my own, I can reflect that while the best time to have planted a tree was 20 years ago., the next best time is today. Thank you again , Neil Richard, Christopher and others for the awakening.
I thank you for pulling this up from years ago and I will apply fully what all my capabilities will allow. My choices in my youth stunted my absorption of knowledge , now I'm choosing to not only catch up but to excel.
Indoctrination comes with a degree at the end ( when you know, think and believe what the indoctrinatiors want you to know, think and believe). Education has no end to so mark. Read whatever your curiosity leads you to read, accept demonstratable facts, blindly believe nothing, process the information both logically and intuitively in the manner of reasoning your own truths. Remember that the scientist says, " Don't believe me ! Do the experiment and draw your own conclusion." It is never too late to gain knowledge and understanding, to climb higher on the mountain of enlightenment. I am here to discuss anything, or direct you toward certain books, the work of certain scientists, as well as see the universe unfold all over again thru your eyes . That is what I live for these days. I truly would love to play a small, humble part in your journey toward a more excellent level of understanding. If not, at least I wish you a joyous journey up the mountain. Take care, Janelle
It may be better to not absorb this stuff. It's not true knowledge, it's conjecture. You can tell that God or the universe or the source of existence is continually creating everything moment to moment, and you can tell intuitively so it's okay. If anything, I'd recommend enlightenment (Buddha, Jesus Christ, Krishna, David Hawkins, etc)
@Peter Brown def Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. You posit that our observations, education of a subject, AND FACTS will not save us but belief in your god will save us? 🙃🤔🥴
You need to get out more. Tyson is a politician, who tries to sound scientific. But he is driven by HATE! He has the interviews where he loses control of himself carefully edited to hide his rage, contempt and hatred of mankind.
Science and Spirituality are two very different systems for two very different things. Science informs us how things happened, how we evolved, and how we gained our conscious experience. Science helps us live longer, but it also helps us make more deadly nuclear weapons. Whereas spirituality and religion tell us how to best experience this gift of first-person subjective awareness (as fleeting and brief as it is) and how we ought treat our fellow man to evolve our soul and attain enlightenment. For example, I always loved this example from John Lennox, a follower of C.S. Lewis and brilliant mathematician: A wise man asks a scientist and a holy man "Why is the Teapot boiling??" Well, the scientist quickly pipes up that molecules of gas flow into the stove and reach an ignition source at the burner, the electric spark is activation energy to create a flame from the gas and air mixture and convection cells and conduction through the metal of the teapot excite the water molecules, and this increase in movement and potential energy pushes water to the point of phase change, hence, the teapot is boiling!" and then the Holy man speaks up and says "No, the kettle is boiling because I wanted a cup of Tea!" The two men gave two different MODES of explanation. Just like we can invoke the laws of physics for the reason a jet engine exists, we can alternately point to the mind of Frank Whittle. Both answers are exactly, and equally, correct. Frank Whittle invented the turbojet, but it's the laws of physics which allow it to perform so beautifully as it does. Now what force of brute blind cold indifferent nature allowed Whittle to envision such a genius device? Science will forever be the best way to battle disease, enhance technology, and study the world around us. But what a dark and dreary world it will be when there is no art, no song, no love, and no poetry. The soul is the source of all these things, and the human soul requires nurtuing and care. And how will we establish peace in such an advanced state? Without absolute truth and a sense of "oughtness", morality is quickly reduced to a temporally subjective preference of those in power, and History has taught us well how dangerous that can be (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) Hence, spirituality has it's place, and its a very important one at that. The error of many people is to juxtapose the two. Spirituality should never be used as a means to discern knowledge from the universe. It is a means to discern knowledge about the heart and soul of man.
hey....also my friend. can this struggle between science and spirituality be contributed to God creating the brain into two parts? the left brain(science, logic) and the right brain(visual awareness, imagination)
@@mikepatterson8177 I think only one Being knows that answer. Although I believe the human brain is perfectly calibrated to allow us to be moral beings, compassionate beings, and at the same time rational and logical beings who survived pre-history. It probably has a lot more to do with how we evolved from our ancestral roots. The duality I was pointing to has more to do with modes of thought. For example, If you ask "where did we come from?" you can answer that in two ways. You can explain how the body evolved and how chemicals and electrical impulses create a human being in the womb, but then you can also ask "why are we here?" and that is more of a spiritual question that deals with meaning in life and the value of human life. I could go on and on with that but suffice to say, I think life truly requires a balance. The Buddhists have a great concept in the ying and the yang, however a more Western concept might be "Body and Spirit". You need Science to manage your body (health) and Spirituality to manage your mind/soul. I personally see no problem with being a scientific thinker AND a spiritual person. When I learn the science of how the Universe was created, and how amazingly complex our bodies truly are, it just points to an amazingly complex and awe inspiring God.
Hello everyone saying Neil DeGrasse Tyson didn't debunk anything! The publisher of this video came up with that title, not the people who made it. He's not out to try and prove religion is wrong or debunk anything. He is merely pointing out some holes in the logic that people use when considering the supernatural.
Indeed religion has many holes. Yet, There are holes in his belief as well. Considering quantum mechanics hasn’t proven the universe isn’t conscious and the Copenhagen interpretation alone proves nothing exists until the observer looks at it. Tyson often ignore those facts and he always ignores the “why” question when that’s not how science should work. He’s biased towards his own beliefs
@@harwn999 If he 'believes' in anything (rather than giving things probabilities based on higher reason and evidence), then that would be his fundamental error. As for Quantum Mechanics, even though it is not completely understood yet (which gives rise to crazy interpretations), it has already been engineered to, which is the litmus test for veracity. You cannot engineer to myth and make-believe.
@@wbiro he does engineer make believe often. He consistently argues the probabilities while other quantum physicist such as Cox and the Harvard professor Avi Loeb, they are very unbiased and truthful. Many physicist invins their own erroneous opinions that aren’t supported by the evidence. And most of quantum mechanics is not known as any credible physicist would agree, they have close to no idea as to how the universe operates. So there is no “if”, he does believe certain positions that aren’t supported by the evidence, the untrained eye wouldn’t recognize it
I have read some of the comments and I can wisely say: "if intelligent design is real, you surely are not part of it" There no worst blind than those who don't want to see, inform yourself, learn, and then judge, not over something that your parents (or culture) told you based on where you born....
@@HopDavid Aw, snowflake is this because he destroyed Trump the other day? The concept of god is silly. The concept of a Christian god is worse. An extremely jealous, deranged incoherent sociopath, who's top priority is being worshipped. Wait, no wonder fundamentalists and Evangelists love Trump. Perhaps if you'd not spend all day performing simulated fellatio on your Trump 2020 flag (the one with his fat face cropped and pasted over Stallone's body in Rambo II), you'd think what you're saying through?
Oh dumbass, we know where you are going with this, and in turn Neil would discuss about the big bang theory and what all that went into it. But still theory, if you know what an actual theory is. There is no evidence of God making it so stfu before even mentioning it.
I think we can all agree that there is some fundamental thing that underlies all reality. Whether that thing be god or nature, there is something that just exists without being caused. Even if we discover that thing, we could still ask "what caused it" and in that case, there would literally be no answer. For that reason, I personally don't ask "where did that thing come from" but instead ask "does this particular theory make accurate, testable predictions"? In my experience, the "god hypothesis" does neither of those things while the big bang hypothesis does some of them (albeit imperfectly).
No, it's just a stupid joke without meaning, calling one of the most esteemed scientists in our time a''poop'' just because someone in the upper comments called him the pope of since..
Assumptions are statements accepted as given truths without proof. In order to use a theory, the assumptions must be accepted by the user. Assumptions set the foundation for the application of a particular theory
So you want to forbid Christians to believe in their religion? I want to believe in a omnipotent pink dolphin who guides me. Oh wait... that doesn't make sense to you does it, so you want to control what I believe in. People have the right to believe in they want without being criticized (we just shouldn't allow them to hinder scientific progress). But by your post, its obvious you do not believe in freedom of religion and I'm okay with it...as long as you don't become world leader or something like that.
Mishnaree Mincey No. I just want the country to stop taking Christians so seriously. How do you think a Navajo person feels when you don't give Coyote God equal time? They were here first.
Docktor Jim Good point. True, all religions should be respected equally. Christianity is held in such high regard in America because it's the largest here, but I'm with you in that it should receive special perks that other religions do not.
God bless honest scientists. A million atheists who respect the scientific method are a bigger blessing to the world than even one dishonest preacher that makes a living by tampering with scripture
95% of atheists don’t understand the scientific method nor science. Science requires you to admit you simply don’t know and atheism requires you to insist that you know there is not higher power.
You require an ultimate independent Standard of Perfection to even try to recognize a flaw. So he's actually proving a perfect Designer (God) with this argument. This logically means that what he's recognizing aren't actually flaws, he's simply confused about reality. It's amazing that people in the room with him think this argument makes any sense at all.
What if the universe's process of evolving has a preordained pattern? A process from which intelligence arises? That we are not merely a random accident but the purpose of the universe experiencing itself and growing, changing.
Not really any different than asking "what if its god". There's no evidence to support your hypothesis so no reason to take it seriously. An entertaining thought nonetheless.
@@ashtonhaggitt216 I wonder how we could tease the process out of our traditions and drop the dogma that is baggage from our past. I think Jordan Peterson is on to something with his biblical studies.
@@ashtonhaggitt216what evidence do you have that the universe is based on random chance (instead of being based on a logical order)? using your logic there is no evidence of that either so no reason to take that hypothesis seriously
Evolutionary theory says that isn’t how it works. The mutations are random. They either confer greater reproductive success in that particular environment, or they are neutral, or they reduce reproductive success. There is no reason why any one species develops. And it appears very likely that our species squeaked through a couple of near e t’incitions moments. Will the universe miss us? Why would it?
CS Lewis - Mere Christianity and the Case for Christ - his life and mentorship are compelling reading for the inquiring mind. In fact the Netflix movie The Most Reluctant Convert: The Untold Story of C.S. Lewis is inspiring.
I wish it was common that these kind of lectures where giving with the entertainment rate this one has. More satisfying than going to a theatre or cinema imo.
In the 1700s, scientific demonstrations were considered entertainment. When I give demonstrations in open mic venues or schools, with my lasers or high voltage, I get the same responses from my audience as the magician does. The only difference is that magic conceals, where science reveals.
We're so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside... 😄 Ive had jobs that bring that song to mind most days. Enjoy the show! Emmerson, Lake and Palmer. Very fitting btw
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. Max Planck
Max Planck simply could not accept that something was unknowable to him. His ego and that of many men, see themselves as the center of all things. Only a man's father can be the great teacher, the one who creates him and raises him. So, man's mind creates a super father to explain what they cannot yet comprehend.
" We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. " We must assume NO SUCH THING! Because we can assume that this intelligent mind is also responsible for any number of impossible absurdities!!! We could therefore assume that this god is simply a gear cranker who knows nothing of what he is doing!
@@AdrumaVictoria16 Father or mother, it makes no difference. Gods were patterned by things people already know of. Mothers, fathers, children. Fearful, ignorant people project these concepts onto things that they want to understand and control.
@@charlesm7589 egoic minds are self deluded/delusional, a small ego looks up to a bigger ego, a more powerful, talented, eloquent, or hardworking ego. a richer, smarter, cooler or better looking ego. this ego can't believe in any divine agency (God) because the ego has put it's own sweet self in the place of any & all Gods & loves being the center of attention, adulation, and yes, worship! hence all the wars, greed, thievery, murder, mayhem, intrigue, extortion & strife. many atheists have made the claim that God & Religion have been the cause of more carnage/ cruelty & inflicted suffering than all other causes combined, well, maybe something obvious here is being overlooked, (&purposefully) by the ego? that the egoic mind gets it's taint into all avenues of human endeavor, particularly in politics & religion, cuz that's where the power is/was, (now it's social media?) ego loves power, missiles & armies & rockets & weapons to protect it, but it's the ego in religion that wreaks (& has wreaked) all the havoc. when the time comes for this egoic self, this fabricated, disneyesque false entity to die, (hard to acknowledge for poor little ego) it's role as a false god will be all too completely revealed, but until then....look around, the arena of human affairs, nation states/world powers, corporate mercenaries, military industrial cartels, etc. are a reflection of the collective human egoic mind. in some Hindu texts it's called discernment, being able to discriminate between the real and the unreal, God being all that is real, the rest being under the spell of Maya, Goddess of illusion, the dream, matrix, etc. when we wake up from the dream, when our egos are exposed/dispersed like shadows in the light, then maybe we'll begin to see what is really of value, vital, & essential in life? so called science, if it worships only the ego, is of the ego, by the ego & for the ego, then what peace will it ever be able to find?
The auditory ossicles (bones) within the human ear did not just happen. The fossil record shows how the jaw of ancestral animals had multiple bones. Over the aeons of evolutionary time, the central bone expanded into its sickle shape while the others migrated into the ear. There’s another. The recurrent pharyngeal nerve exits the spine in the upper neck, then wraps under the aorta and back up to the lower voice box. It’s there in all mammals including giraffes, cetaceans and humans. That nerve was originally directly connected with gills which live in the neck. The aeons of evolutionary time moved the heart into the chest alongside the lungs. Meanwhile the Gills evolved into the pharynx. That particular nerve could not unwrap itself from a major blood vessel, so it just grew longer.
How does one try to dismiss the idea of ID without mentioning how the DNA works. Knowing that no natural process can produce information or an instruction code, the genetic code of the DNA is something that debunks the idea of self assembly(evolution).
I was wondering who was going to bring that up. DNA is the most wonderful of all life compounds; it can morph itself into anything, at a whim; on the fly. DNA can, in fact, DECIDE what it wants to be. AND, what's more, there a people who can read the actual intentions, of the DNA in ancient animal remains, even where no DNA exists anymore; thus, it can be known that the dinosaur WANTED to become a bird; just by a casual glance at the remains, this amazing knowledge may be deduced. Wonderful stuff, this DNA. Add to that, DNA can make itself, as it did in the very first living cell. It can use almost any material laying around to do this. Its favorite material is space dust, which falls on Earth's surface in many tons, every year. Which means DNA is forming everywhere - your garden, the street, the landfill, on top of buildings. And soon, (that means billions of years from now) a NEW species will spring forth. And, who knows? In the NEW human race, men might actually be able to give birth. (OOH sorry; can I say "men" on the internet?)
@@Joskemom It's ok. This was not meant to be serious. You and I know DNA does not "morph" itself. This was a "tongue-in-cheek", and yet still very real description of how evolutionists see the subject of abiogenesis, or the origins of life. They have no way of understanding the immense amount of diversity in life, other than that the DNA just changes whenever it wants to. Their normal understanding of ""natural selection" could not apply at any level of evolutionary development, but certainly not in the development of the first cells. DNA "morphing" itself is about the only thing left. Dinosaurs becoming birds is an example of their understanding of the word "mutation", which to them is another way of saying the DNA just changes, because it just wants to. But this is not what a mutation is at all. Sorry if I have caused confusion.
@@lazybbones You got me! Like I said I read a couple of lines and thought you were serious. As you see I only put a couple of lines in the response. In talking with these people over the course of time I have heard some of the weirdest explanations. One thing I have notice with most of them is that they get insulted when their 'belief' is questioned and debunked because they think we are stupid for not thinking evolution is real.
@@Joskemom Yes, you're right; that's how they think. At our church we are planning a series on creation, where we'll be examining evolution over a period of several weeks. Should be fun!
We all have philosophy at our core (the degree is what separates us from lower animals). The problem is, human philosophy has been feeble (enter the Philosophy of Broader Survival).
And there you have it: religious belief takes over where human certainty ends, and not before. Meanwhile, not everything is known -- or can be known. So there will always be something left over, and a desire to be certain about that unknown. And belief in a Big Overseer satisfies that desire.
@@Jobotubular 8:51 Tyson has Newton figuring out planetary motion before he turned 26. 20:40 He has Newton figuring this out in two months after a friend asks him about elliptical orbits. It was in Principia that Newton explained elliptical orbits. And it was Halley's question that prompted Newton to write Principia. Halley asked the question in 1684 when Newton was in his 40s. So, no, this encounter didn't happen before Newton turned 26. Newton had started thinking about orbits in 1665. He figured out how to demonstrate inverse square gravity implies elliptical orbits in 1677. So, no, it didn't take Newton two months, more like 12 years. And this was before Halley's question, so no he didn't do it on Halley's "dare". Tyson says Newton just stopped. This is false. Newton returned to the problem of modeling multi-body systems again and again. In particular he spent a great deal of time and effort trying to model the 3-body system of the earth, moon and sun. After Newton tried Euler took a crack at it. Euler is regarded by many as the greatest mathematician in history. Laplace held that opinion. Also Lagrange and d'Alembert worked on the problem. More than 100 years later Laplace built on the work of Newton, Euler, Lagrange and d'Alembert. To say Newton could have easily done this work in an afternoon is excruciatingly stupid. May Tyson and his following become known for their stupidity.
Thanks for clearing that up. NdGT is too often a pitchman. He is useful, I suppose, because he tries not to offend religious people. Brian Cox is the same. That allowed, I wonder if society can afford to pay deference to religious people any more. Because they trust to their Imaginary Zfriends to save their bacon, to provide them a heaven if we make this planet unliveable, they can just .carry on with environmental disasters. The religious right are the ones the elect the GOP, and the GOP then take away their unions, their wages, their social security, so Bezos can make another trillion. @@HopDavid
What I don't understand about the theory of God is WHY do we have infants with deadly painful cancers and diseases? Why would a loving god EVER place BABIES in that position? They experience pain for their entire, albeit short, lives. What kind of twisted 'benevolent' being would ever put that into their 'plan'.
+Kingwut117 Do not DARE question the power of our creator. Without suffering we would not know joy and the pleasures of life! The sickness is the work of the devil, or perhaps the lesson learned for us being such SINFUL creatures! You laugh at God but soon you will have hell to pay!
Jeremy Wright So you believe in an all powerful God, but you believe he would let the Devil, a being whose sole purpose is to be the anti-god, exist? And cause our lives to be miserable? God sounds like a dick. Condemn me to hell all you want, even in the religion I was raised in, we didn't believe in Hell, because any God who would willingly send his children to ETERNAL SUFFERING is obviously a God that no one should ever follow
+Kingwut117 Go get the corporations to stop pumping toxins into food, water, and air. Who is causing the suffering to children? I guess wealth is more important though. As far as letting the devil exist, one third of the angels followed him. He could have destroyed them all. Instead, he's giving them a chance now to make their choice in the flesh. Sounds like a dick move to give somebody another chance, huh? Lack of knowledge in religion makes Christians sound stupid, but the proper study reveals truth. In Genesis- the earth was null and void, should read (in correct Hebrew) BECAME null and void. There was a first earth age. Yes dinosaurs lived then, and the Earth IS extremely old. I understand how atheists can so easily mock the Bible, but "religious" people need to get their foot out of their mouths and learn the truth.
@@alexanderschonfeld5879 Which points to the only logical conclusion that there must be a starting point and science can't explain it. Pretty scary, huh?
Here's a fact: you are assuming a creation in order to justify your claim of a creator. It is not a creation - mountains exist, we know how they come to exist, no creator involved as they are not a creation.
@@richardgregory3684 If the BEGINNING of our existence is not a creation, then what is it? Don't talk to me about mountains. If you want to swim in the deep end, get serious.
If there is such a thing as an intelligent designer, you then have to figure out how the designer came up with the ideas he used in his design. If you say his ideas spontaneously occurred to him, you might as well say they spontaneously occurred WITHOUT him.
VJScope I was saying that creation wasn't debunked, young earth creationism is, since the world has been proven to be way older than what the fundies think
I was almost expelled from High School by writing an essay based on my philosophy that religion was created by a handful of educated to control the uneducated masses by creating an unseeable supernatural being that you must have unwavering faith in order to live happily but once you lose your faith or stop following the word of this being, bad things will happen. I had to take the principal and teacher to the Atlanta School Board to fight for my freedom of religion (or none). The assignment was to write an essay on something we learned that quarter not to write something the teacher will like. My expulsion was overturned.
Yea well I got in trouble. For showing how evolutions has many gaps. That are not fact. And that it was just a theory. .,
Anyone can bring a theory like you did. What you said cannot be proved or disproved. You did not practice your freedom of religion, you tried to redicule religion. It is not you alone, plenty of people who believe in God also redicule atheist. All of you people from both sides who indulge in such need to know one thing. There are not one person alive who can prove or disprove what they believe and practice as completely right or wrong. So don't think too much of yourself. Be curious not offensive.
@@imtijamir8054 this was high school and my belief at the time.
@@JTStonne I believe in a god. But I also believe in freedom. Speech. True enough I might Dissagree,, but I would. Fight for some ones right to speak what they think about any thing. Even it went against my,beliefs,,
@@duaneholcomb8408 great. That's how it should be. Religion and sexual orientation are private life choices
"Why are the stupid so cocksure, while the intelligent are so full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
Thank you. This actually makes me cringe a little...
Because the intelligent are curious and the stupid don’t care to find out (but attribute it to God’s work). 😂
The world as we apprehend it is, and can only be, an approximation. Our infantlike intellect does not permit us to go any further. At best, we get to see the veil. Just when we do get to look behind it...well, if that time comes, we won't be us any more.
So Neil appears cock sure of his opinions. Therefore he must be among the stupid. In fact, I would say all rude militant atheist materialists such as Richard Dawkins and Laurence Strauss, are also among the stupid because they’re so cock sure that only what can be observed in a lab is ALL there is. You can’t verify instinct, intuition, premonition, in a lab, yet animals know for sure when a tsunami is approaching long before humans can observe it - that is a recorded fact.
There is much more to the universe and existence than that which can be verified in a lab. The universe and nature laugh at scientists all the time. They will never fully discover even a tenth of reality, because reality goes not just beyond the lab, but beyond time, space, matter, and energy. The lab observable part of existence is less than 6 % of the universe, the rest is dark matter and dark energy, which is the term scientist use to describe what they don’t know and can’t see.
Nothing stupid about concluding intelligent design by itself, but not the humanoid benevolent God of human religions.
@@thevulture5750 Consider this: out of all the life on Earth, the only creatures that we can separate into being male or female are those species that reproduce through sexual reproduction. So, why should we assume or believe or accept that the "creative force of the universe" has a male gender? Are you saying God has sex and reproduces? If not, them there is no reason to give the creative force ANY gender. So, why do we call it "God" and not "Goddess"? Simply to justify our patriarchal society. That is also why the Bible put Adam here first, and Eve second. If you can't see through the BS, I cannot help you. "God" does not exist in the form depicted in the Bible.
That intro is all the creation we all need
Newton's brilliance is undeniable. He also wrote more about religion during his life than he did about science.
he also believed in alchemy
He considered his greatest achievement his lifelong celibacy.
Why does understanding the physics behind something make it no longer the design of a higher entity?
@@bradparker6156 - There is no god. All claims of gods have foundations in archaic fairy tales. Why do people keep insisting 'Jesus is his own daddy and he lives in the sky' in an age where we understand physics?
@@DwayneShaw1 I'm no born-again type, but don't dismiss the possibility of something/someone beyond us. Perceived understanding can and very often leads to arrogance. The literal meaning of the bible is certainly questionable, but the words have ultimately been put to paper by fallible humans. To me, that does not mean God does not exist..
Pointless arguing with creationists, they've already ready made up their minds about what they want to believe and will stubbornly defend that position regardless...
no kidding, read through my conversations.....
Thank God it's Creationists who've already made up their minds! That means secularists are still open to converting to God!
Bildad1976
And that would be a backwards step...
Bildad1976 The thing is, science is not conscious, does not think anything and doesn't have an agenda. Science is a method: hypothesis-testing-results-analysis-confirmation/refutation/modification of hypothesis. that's it, that's all. Science is only a tool to understand reality through fact. Not believing in science is like not believing in snow shovel.
If scitific experiment demonstrate the existence of God, then science would have proven the existence of God, period. If the science is sound, then anyone with a scientific mind will accept it. But as of now, nothing indicates it'll go that way.
Then there is the problem of all the different dieties that existed through the ages. Believers find it hard to believe Atheist don't believe God exists, while that themselves don't believe in thousands of gods. Atheist simply don't believe in one more. Most people of faith don't realize that the only reason they have their specific faith is because of where and when they are born. Fundamentalist christians would be fundamentalist muslims were they born in the middle-east. But no! they just happened to be raised in the correct faith.
Same can be said about scientific consensus...how many years did it take for them to change opinion about the shape of the earth??? it took the opinion's holders death...
Creation is easy and simple it's doesn't have to be proven or debated. It's magical and mystical. No math no calculations or science is involved. It's meek and humble enough for a child to understand. Unfortunately when I became a man I put away childish things
*Fortunately. :)
haha cute..tell me something, do you believe in the big bang?
***** The Big Bang is not a belief system.
I do not believe in the Big Bang theory because the only part of the Big Bang theory that is provable is the part that the Bible always suggested in the first place, namely the expansion of the Heavens. Hence, I see it as being entirely unnecessary to accept that the Big Bang happened. The Big Bang is not just a theory about the expansion of the universe. It also includes the faith-based assumption of everything that began to exist existing in a ball-sized spot of energy and unformed elements then expanding from there. This latter faith-based ASSUMPTION is used but strictly speaking can never be shown to be even reasonably accurate. Before this theory came about, and before anyone knew through ACTUAL SCIENCE (observable, testable, repeatable) that the universe was expanding, the Bible already said it. So my thing is: why should people abandon their Bible faith for the faith that only sounds more and more Biblical every year with ACTUAL observable, testable, science?
The bible says that because you interpreted it as such. The expansion of the universe has been observed through the use of the doppler effect of light compression from distant galaxies. In fact scientists have observed the left over microwaves from the big bang and mapped out this expansion. There's a statically background noise that could be heard by merely turning the knob of an old transistor radio but not tuning it in. The theory has been put to the test. Matter is pure energy. We are l
Pure energy e=mc2.
Love the concept of what we have lost due to lack of intellectual curiosity.
Ridiculous! We haven't lost anything due to lack of intellectual curiosity. We are further advanced than we ever have been. Nobody is stopping anyone from learning and/or advancing forward. You are simply under the wrath of God and cannot believe. Maybe believe it is because you are not elect, meaning, your heart is hard because you haven't been invited into the family of God. The wonderful things true believers experience and rely on from day to day after they have Heard the call of God and responded is the very reason we can go to our deaths without best of the unknown. For us it isn't unknown.
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” ― Buddha Siddhartha Guatama Shakyamuni
Given that as background, consider this: The Maya mapped the movement of the planets with tremendous precision in the 9th century CE, predicted the phases of the moon to within 1 1/2 minutes AND developed a calendar more accurate than even the calendar used today. . .WITHOUT the access to telescopes .
Some people do not seem to understand that a law, in scientific terms, is an description of something that is already occurring in nature. It builds upon observable data to develop an understand that can be used to make observable predictions. It is not a rule that is created for the universe to follow.
The term theory seems to confuse many as well. It is very simply an explanation of a process based upon observable evidence at any given time. Theories can be modified, updated, or outright rejected as new evidence becomes available. No theory can be said to 100% accurate since it is only as accurate at the evidence available allows. There does have to be a preponderance of evidence to support any theory though. Insufficient evidence may lead to a hypothesis or conjecture, but not theory nor a law.
This is my understanding at any rate.
You don't seem to be able to think rationally. You allow people to conjure up new definitions which contradict their original meanings. A law is a law and a theory is not a law nor is it a fact. The only way to change the meaning of the terms is through deception. You sir are a victim of wizardry. A theory is a fact....a law is not a law...taxation is legal....usury is not punishable by death! Evil soulless lives matter! Anyhow, you get the point...right? Oh, wait nvm...you're a retarded pos who parrots nonsense! Go vote, see if God cares about how precisely you are able to parrot the sorcerers. Nah fam, laws are laws.
@@carlosdiaz6405 there's no contradiction. For instance special relativity does not contradict Newton's theory*. It's just more accurate and describe more things.
And words do have meaning, whether we like them or not. In science, when you say "theory", you're not describing someone's supposition or conjecture. You're using that word when you speak of something that has been demonstrably proven (by repeated experiments) to work. If you don't like that the word theory is also used for this, fine: use another one. But the common meaning of theory is NOT the one meant in science.
And that makes _string/brane theory_ a wrong label. It should be called _string/brane idea_ , because this one has _not_ been proven to work yet.
*or rather they agree on a common sub set of results
@@ChaineYTXF special relativity and Newton's theory both fail to explain how the universe maintains it's integrity over the massive distance which have been calculated and so in order to properly invoke gravity, dark matter/dark energy must be conceded. In your response to my observation of a contradiction you describe the very contradiction you are dismissing. Tell me, what about dark energy/dark matter is observable and or repeatable? It is an escape mechanism to avoid the utter absurdity of the stars ability to maintain the very same formations for all of recorded human history while simultaneously moving at unimaginably and immeasurable speeds at inconceivably far distances from each other.
Where did the laws come from
Fuck religion
Why are there so many creationist comments? Do they like to make a fool out of themselves?
They are desperate. Their myths are fading into the dustbin of history where they belong as an increasingly enlightened world moves forward in its pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the universe, leaving their bronze age dogma of ignorance and subjugation of the mind behind.
Afro Samurai Gabriel Rd PLEASE watch the following video (you may skip the long intro at the beginning, but PLEASE watch the rest in its entirety)!:
ruclips.net/video/5mvx8kW33OU/видео.html
If you're TRULY a truthseeker, you will have been EXTREMELY GLAD you DID watch the whole thing! :]
Ps. The world's 3 major (virtuous) religions HAVE BEEN CORRUPTED! The ancestors of "The Powers That Be" CREATED Catholicism in order to CORRUPT Christianity, also Zionism in order to CORRUPT Judaism, and Shi'ites in order to CORRUPT Islam...these BOGUS versions (along with their BOGUS versions of holy texts (ie. ALL of the modern bibles/those printed after the "King James Bible"), were created in order to divide us all AND control us all!!!
Btw, all the EVIL in this world are due to people who have been/are being easily manipulated by the DEVIL.
*****
Science and the bible contradict and this is not up for discussion anymore. The world was not created in six days, there never was a global flood, the sun never stood still in the sky, the Earth is not flat and immovable. All of these things are not alleghories.
I'm no layman on the bible and its scientific inacuracies. I'm not even going to bother watching the video.
PS: The devil doesn't exist.
Wow...just, wow... You're RIGHT, just b/c YOU say so...wow...
And BY ALL MEANS, DON'T watch the video I strongly recommended, b/c I'm ALSO worried that YOUR HEAD MAY IMPLODE! (Your loss...)
*****
Dude, no. Just no. There's 9001 videos that claim a compatibilist view on science and the bible and all of them fail miserably. I'm not going to waste my time on this. Creationism is bullshit.You hear me? Bull-fucking-shit. You might be scientifically- and biblically illiterate, but I'm not.
Please stop wasting my time and yours. I'm not going to watch another creationist video. You can poison your mind if you want to, I'm not into that stuff.
“Professing to be wise, they became fools.”
Why the quote, why not just say I'm smarter because I practice the x religion?
Yep - they believe it's wise to follow an ancient religion made up by people who didn't know where the sun went at night, but we who follow evidence rather than myth know how foolish that is.
Thankfully we have plenty of very wise people who don't proclaim it; rather they just inform us of the information we didn't have!
First time I've heard that wise saying; I love it for me to share.
It has me thinking in a "Trumpacious" or "Trumpiferous" manner.
You are correct, ex-president Donald J. TRUMP is in the House 🏠 🛖 🏚: he speaks; the audiences reply with your given quote.
Thanks.
"Professing to be wise, they became fools."
Sounds religious and prophetic!
Make yourself a Gratitude journal. Write in it everyday. Start with: I am thankful for Sunshine. 2. I am thankful for Red 🌷 tulips 3. if you can't think of anything else to be thankful for, remember: Tulips come in many colors .
Hello Sharon
How are you doing today?
If creationsists presented evidence (to the normally accepted standard) that there are any Gods, most scientists would say WOW thats great, I was mistaken. On the other hand there is no amount of evidence that will change the mind of creationsists.
S Camp More than that, scientists would say, cool, let's not stop there. This opens a huge new area of discovery!! Where did these gods come from? What are they made of? Do they follow the same rules that we have observed in our universe? What predictions can we now make and test based on this new model of a universe? Can we leverage some of these predictions into useful tools or technology? Maybe we can design devices that communicate better with them than what we have now (basically just telepathy) so requests get fulfilled more often, preferably with some form of tracking so we can be home when it is delivered... stuff like that.
nicely put, but as I said the creationists would still have issues. They wouldn't believe their own gods if they told them that everything including them was answerable by science.
@@CustomTies God created science by creating. Of course science explains the creation.
@@silencemeviolateme6076 Wrong, men created science.
@@CreamFreshCream looking for a game of semantics?
I'm an exmuslim and its so depressing realizing what my part of the world is missing out on scientifically. Everyone has their ideas about the middle east and I understand those views, its so sad seeing how the irrationality of islam poisoning this society, there are so many beautiful smart minds here but their suppressed even if they wanted to do great things, the society is not supportive and is outraged very easily by any scientific reasearch or claim. Also your passion is pretty much chosen for you by the people around you. You can't stray much or study what you love.
What happened was the Islam world flowered intellectually, and, sincexmost people could not keep up, they trampled on the flowers (meaning the stupid (the normal) took over again). Let's hope history does not repeat itself in the West now that most (the normal) people have fallen behind science once again.
(Edited to clarify meaning:) I really feel for what you say, as I spent three years in Saudi Arabia and have seen the impact of Islam on the population there, or at least the conservative fundamentalist Wahabist Islam practiced in Saudi. This is a very difficult topic for non-muslims to address, because there are many in the West who are biased against Islam, and even against individual Muslims, for trivial, unwarranted, and bigoted reasons. The issue that you described, however, is very real, and it can't be fully appreciated unless you closely observe the culture. The longer I lived there, and the more that I saw, the worse it seemed, until I just wanted to scream. Some expats go the other direction, and actually come to embrace Islam, but I'd say a greater number have the same impressions that I did. (To be fair, it's probably the case that the majority of just don't give it much thought. I sure did.)
I feel so bad for the people who live under this oppression, as it not only suppresses their capacity for creative or critical thinking, but it stifles aspects of their basic humanity. In my view, the problem is more tied to authoritarianism than the individuals who live under its yoke, who are, nearly without exception, wonderful, decent, generous people. At the same time, Islam provides an environment that is rich in family life and ritual. These things have value as well... Immense value. I just don't think the trade-off is worth it.
(BTW, after returning to the USA, and seeing the impact of conservative fundamentalist Christianity on American society, it strikes me as being very nearly as oppressive and harmful as Wahabist Islam, and might actually be _more_ insidious, considering that it threatens the continuity and future of an established secular democracy. America has a responsibility to promote tolerance and freedom internationally, and too often we fail. It is all the more ironic when those who threaten our freedom and liberty internally claim that they are acting in the name of freedom and liberty, and--of course God.... the ultimate cosmic rationalization. Deep hypocrisy.)
I think your last two sentences may be an answer to Niels 15% question.
Thank you for that brilliant and very insightful comment! We need much more of that these days. I live in Southern California where there are people from all over the world, which promotes a quite tolerant society than a lot of other places in this country, but we do have our ghettos of right-wing lunacy.
I encounter Middle Eastern immigrants all the time with few problems, however in the back of my mind I have to wonder how many of these people could be convinced to commit some massacre if ordered to by one of their Mullahs, and that's a problem that shouldn't exist in a rational world.
@@MendTheWorld
found the racist troll
So thought provoking i've come back and watched this again.
Same.
The pot rising and telling the potter.....i dont believe in you. How very human. (;-D
@@peterzinya1 If I watch it again that will make THREE! Of course why should you believe ANYthing you see on the Internet. I watch videos about the flood of Noah and just shake my head!
@@AINews4 of course i believe what Neil says about the statistics. I kinda already knew that from my yrs of science study. But he suggests that the creator should be phased out of human life for ever.
The flood does take some faith to believe. But there are prophesies from 3000 yrs ago that came true now. Things you cant deny. If the bible(god) got that right, what else is right?
@@peterzinya1 In that case, You also have to consider all the stuff the bibel got wrong: We do NOT live on a flat Earth that's devided into four corners, while resting on four pillars with a firmament holding water out, but with tiny holes to allow rain. The Sun and the Moon are NOT the same size and stars are NOT pinpricks in the curtain of night. Things You cannot deny. If the bible(god) got that wrong, what else might be wrong?? 🤔 😇 🤣
This lecture is GREAT. I keep watching it over and over.
You're as gullible AF if you believe his stories. The Bush and Star Names story at 26:00 was debunked in 2014 by Sean Davis. The tales regarding Newton and Ghazali are also nonsense.
This lecture was fantastic
Poor thing
He is wrong...mathematics proves he is wrong. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
Absolutely. I want to listen to his colleagues speak as well
great lecture, very eye opening
i am a middle eastern muslim and what he said couldnt be more true
you will not belive how ignorant and close minded people are in here
and i belive religion has big part to do with it
i just wish if people would listn more and open thier minds to scince and reason
instead of waisting thier lives on a delusion
all kinds of respect to Neil
You’re from Syria? What city?
All kinds of disrespect to you. You have apparently swallowed several piles of bull shit. Ghazali never wrote that math is the work of the devil. Nor did Islamic innovation end in the 1100s with Ghazali.
Also Tyson's Bush and Star Names story was solidy debunked in 2014 by Sean Davis.
A lot of progress in science and math were accomplished by very religious people. Catholic priests and Muslim clerics institutionalized the scientific method. Built schools, taught math and literacy, built universities, libraries, hospitals and observatories.
You strong confirmation bias has made you credulous. Let Tyson's following become known for their stupidity and dishonesty.
Religion indeed has to do with it. It teaches you to believe in things, despite a great lack of actual evidence. It teaches you to believe based upon wishful thinking. It teaches you to believe based upon fallacious reasoning. It teaches you, that opinion and data are equal. It teaches you that all of these believes are not just believes but knowledge. And it teaches you that everybody outside your in-group is mislead and trying to deceive.
Many people without any scientific experience are often just like that already, even without being affiliated to any religion. I say that out of experience, since I'm living in a part of a country, with 71% people without any religious affiliation. But religion refines your ignorance to a level where cognitive dissonance becomes an impenetrable wall, to protect your belief.
@@biedl86 Eyup. Religious belief stifles innovation. Which explains why believers like Isaac Newton, Max Planck, Georges Lemaître, James Clerk Maxwell and many others fail so abysmally in pushing back the frontiers of knowledge.
And why brilliant agnostics like Neil deGrasse Tyson manage to fuck up basic math and physics and completely botch their history. Three of the stories Tyson tells in the above video are false histories.
@@HopDavid Well, that's your anecdote, it's your data point, which convinces you. It doesn't convince me for many reasons. You can't tell, whether or not these people believed in the kind of god you are imagining. It's fair to say, that back in the day almost everybody was religious. Pointing that out without looking at the reasons or the means on how they became religious, does nothing. In today's Italy you are declared Christian at birth almost by default. That means, almost everybody in Italy is a Christian. In fact 85% of Italians are affiliated with Christianity. But the truth is, that only 21% out of all the people in Italy say, that God is important in their life. Something similar happens in Sweden. Their culture is intertwined with royalty and cultural Christianity. Almost 70% are part of any religion, 60% are part of the church of Sweden. Now, only 10% say, that God is important in their life. And btw. the biggest group of Jews in Israel are secular Jews, not believing in a God.
Now, are you really a believer, if God isn't important? I don't thinks so. If I really believe, I'd bow before the Lord every day, I'd do missionary work, because the bible tells me so. I'd knew everything about the bible. From experience I can tell you, that I never met a Christian in person, who knows as much about his book, as I do. I mean, there are even studies done, showing that this isn't just my experience. How come? Do they not really care about God's word?
What I said was something completely unrelated to your argument anyway. I said, people are like this in general and that religion refines this proclivity to believe in things unseen and hoped for. It's already there. Religion is just taking hold of it, filling that gap. But still, there are human beings who do not see the need to fill that gap, because their skepticism doesn't allow for it and they are fine with it. Both of which, people who fill that gap and those who don't, can be scientists. It's obvious, if the majority of people is religious, that a certain amount of scientists will be religious too. That's just how probability works. Now, the majority of scientists is not religious. Strange data point indeed. In a world, where religion is part of your culture, it has no barring on whether or not you are religiously affiliated while doing science. It has no barring on being scientifically minded in your field of expertise. But for the regular person, it'll make a difference indeed, whether feelings tell you about what is true, or a proper methodology. A religious scientist won't go to the bible to make an argument about whether or not abortion should be legal.
"It's like an entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system - no engineer would design that at all ever." 36:15
After watching Tyson mangle his calculations for centrifugal force I would not trust him to design a ceiling fan.
There are three steaming piles of false history in the above talk.
1) A false account of Bush's 9-11 speech
2) A false account of Ghazali's teachings and false history regarding the Islamic Golden Age.
3) A whole lot of false history regarding Newton. Just one example: The so called "dare" that prompted Newton to write Principia was made in 1684 when Newton was in his 40s. All the stuff Newton supposedly did on a whim in two months were decades of collaborative efforts.
I’ve often thought the same thing but he articulated it much better. 😂
*36:10
@@irrelevant_noob I’ve watched Tyson badly botch freshman physics. I would not trust Tyson to design a ceiling fan.
@@HopDavid good thing he's an astronomer and not an engineer then. :p
the question ls was the tree of knowledge forbidden or was it put there for us to discover
I never tire of listening to Neil's lectures. I believe that he tries hard to make them understandable for most of us! In the end it is your choice! Find a peaceful place to live and be happy. Ronald
It's always great to read a creationist claiming that the big bang should be dismissed because there is no way to test that theory... and seeing no hypocrisy in that statement.
+Calavera Candy
You believe we are here by chance, we believe we were created. You believe in an infinite cell, we believe in an infinite God.
*****
Listen to the created put limitations on the Creator.
I gotta ask. Which is harder? Creating the rock or lifting the rock?
@@williammoney962 That's a strawman fallacy. No critical thinking person nor the evolution theory says we came about by pure chance alone. Yes, there was some chance involved, but not only chance. All organisms are controlled by the environment they find themselves in. So for you to pretend it's all just random chance is dishonest. The same as claiming we believe in something from nothing when theists are the people claiming a magical something from nothing. Your God said abracadabra, and a universe just popped into existence out of nothing at all. We believe it was always there but in a more condensed state. No need for a creator of something that has always existed, right? It's easy to create a strawman you know you can debunk. But debunking what we actually claim is a lot different.
Loud sound can create matter/ Bible says God shouted....Both can be the same event
@Rheumattica What, pray tell, is the "opposite of hypocrisy"?
Attacking modern science using a stone-age creation-myth is like attacking an aircraft carrier with a flint ax.
Reminds me of that scene on avatar when they start throwing spears at the helicopter and the pilot is like "they've opened fire". Basically what runs through my head when anyone tries to justify an argument with ridiculous religious positions.
I like this analogy and will use it on my idiot religious friends thanks.
Andrew Martinez Start the meme. :-)
*The truth about evolution revealed at TruthContest ◙ Com*
Its actually bronze age mythology, lets not stoop to their level and give mis information.
I've always loved that poetic quote from Ptolemy.
Neil actually said, "That monolith building," and we all got the reference. :)
Neil Degrasse Tyson is not only brilliant but very funny and interesting to listen to.
Eternal Light you are in darkness for you cant even see that Tyson is saying nothing. Absolutely nothing. He is the atheist token black, nothing more. I dare anyone to prove otherwise
Johnny A Don't you have anything better to do than troll people? If you want to remain stupid that's fine, but don't drag other people down.
Shots fired!
Johnny A You're just a fat headed over weight balding ignorant token white racists cult member, nothing more. You're saying absolutely nothing important or intelligent. I dare anyone to prove otherwise.
Johnny A aww, it's okay buddy. Just because you lack the intelligence to understand what he is saying doesn't mean you have to get mad about it. Plenty of people are stupid, don't feel bad for being one of them
You don't have to believe in science. Science is true wether you believe in it or not.
Yeah but wait until they come up with the same sentence but said the other way around.
***** Lol good point.
***** soooooo, You have to believe in science. Science is false whether you believe in it or not. XD
***** Dear Science; its happened, they have found the loophole
***** You're entitled to your belief....religion may be true to you but it is not based on any evidence whereas science is all based on evidence. Science is willing to change when new evidence is discovered, religion does not allow for change.
27:45 I pointed out to him that he went a bit overboard because Muslims/Arabs did not invent or discover anything significant (with a lone exception in 1999), but advanced existing knowledge and documented it. Brilliant people did brilliant things and scientists today are grateful for their contribution.
Before you talk or write something on social media do your due diligence and research so that you learn a thing or two. Let me put it this way, without the inventions of Muslims you would not have the modern world you live in and enjoy today. A simple Google search will tell you everything you need to know about what scientific concepts, mathematics and medicine were invented by Muslims.
So was Neil debunking intelligent design or was he saying don’t use it as an excuse to stop trying to discover?
the second, and also bulling the hell of anything he can't explain at the same time, like the human design, he is asking for some dolphin features
@@Rolanditou who? Neil explains it really well, makes it easy for people with less education or who were educated with intelligent design - unfortunately
Both...😂
@@gerhardusvanderpoll Basically, and for the slow people that still don’t get it you’re retarded.
He's saying religion is a full-stop to discovery and all scientists should reject it.
Newton may have understood *what* gravity does, but he certainly didn't understand *how* it does it.
He said he had no opinion on how it worked. Lucky for him, because conceiving of curved space was beyond his era. He would have been wrong, and he was wise enough to know that.
Even now its just hypothesis.
The Electric Universe model is also supported by a few notable scientists. A Swedish plasma physicist, Hannes Alfven, received the 1970 Nobel Prize for Physics for his work on the Alfven wave, a phenomenon related to sunspots and aurorae. In fact, the Electric Universe model has been credited with the discovery of inter-galactic magnetic fields, and these fields are not related to gravity.
It is true that electric and "electromagnetic" phenomena prevail in most of what is important to us. When a massive nucleus fissions, the energy and power come from the mutual repulsion forces between the protonic fragments. But it is gravitational forces that initiate stellar exothermal fusion, and gravitational superforces that create a supernova by endothermic fusion, and thereafter neutron stars and Black Holes.
neither do we...
what was this event called and when was it ? i want the full conference !!
There are different ways to see this than Neil and his fans see it, you know. Not all of us believe in spirituality that is ignorant, fearful and dominating
Religion itself claims to know what it itself can’t prove. I think you’re mistaking the word ignorance in a negative connotation. Ignorance is human nature. Everyone lives in a state of ignorance every second of every day. Religion simply does not claim ignorance in the unknown. According to religion, there is no unknown to be known.
The fundamental flaw in man's science is that because we learn how things work that somehow disproves God. We are simply understanding HOW God made creation, not that he doesn't exist. Unfortunately mankind's hubris puts to much stock in it's own intellect.
"They proclaimed themselves wise, but became fools instead."
Ah yeah, the same book that says it;s ok to drink poison because it will do you no harm. Funny how not many Christians try that one out...and most of the ones that tried...died.
@@richardgregory3684 Exactly where does the Bible say it is ok to drink poison? Funny how some who make fun of the Bible can't even quote it as accurately as my 8 year old nephew.
@@troysanders7775 _Exactly where does the Bible say it is ok to drink poison_
Mark 16:18 " They shall take up serpents; *and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them* ; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover "
_Funny how some who make fun of the Bible can't even quote it as accurately as my 8 year old nephew_
Man, I bet you've got a red face right now, mocking _me_ for not knowing bible quotes!
And by the way - if Christians can heal the sick, why do we need hospitals and doctors? And why do Christians call 911 and not speed dial their local priest?
@@richardgregory3684 So you do realize that "if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them" and "it is ok to drink poison" are not the same thing? If not I can have my 8 year old nephew explain it to you.
@@troysanders7775 The bible is literally saying it's ok to drink poison because it won;t hurt you. lol
Just an observation; After reading thru the comments, I notice a common theme. Most people who don't want to listen to an idea that doesn't work along with "God's plan" is because "The idea that humans aren't special snowflakes makes me feel sad, and not happy, so I refuse to believe in it."
So I guess my question would be: Why do people think their feelings have anything to do with facts? It's the equivalent of yelling at lightning to stop striking because its thunder hurts your ears.
Just cuz you're upset at it, doesn't mean it's gonna feel bad, put on its hat and leave.
I understand pain and suffering and all that, and so I can understand why people think they need God as some sort of sign of hope, but I personally think you insult yourself if you refuse to learn and understand what's right in front of you. ESPECIALLY now, since we live in the information age.
Tyson’s histories are fiction. Facts don’t give a fuck about your feelings
I was watching a documentary on a Christian "university" and they asked a young student why she believed in a geocentric, designed universe and she replied: "Because if those atheist scientists are right, I wouldn't be important..." Now, that is intelligent design in a nutshell - it stems from human insecurity.
@@tullochgorum6323 I suspect this is a fiction. Much like Tyson's fictions he delivers with smooth confident voice.
Have you checked the story Tyson tells at 26:00? Searching for Bush's 9-11 speech all I can find is a plea for tolerance and inclusion -- "Islam Is Peace" delivered from the Islamic Center at Washington D.C. on September 17, 2001.
I can find Bush quoting scripture saying "In the skies today we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see, there is comfort and hope. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, “Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of His great power, and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.”"
But that was from Bush's eulogy for the Space Shuttle Columbia astronauts. In neither speech did Bush try to set Christians above Muslims.
Likewise, can you find evidence supporting Tyson's claims regarding Ghazali and the Islamic Golden Age? Or maybe you can provide evidence that Newton explained elliptical orbits before he turned 26? Or that Newton stopped working on n-body systems after he wrote Principia?
Until you provide evidence supporting Tyson's stories I will continue to call them steaming piles of bull shit. And until you name the documentary of this Christian University I will continue to believe the same of your story.
@@HopDavid Yup - you can't trust an atheist - they are clearly all liars.
And it seems you can't trust the evidence of your own eyes either, because he actually ran video of Bush's speech.
You won't find evidence if you refuse to look for it or trust the word of distinguished scientific communicators.
Take the example of Ghazali and the end of the Islamic Golden Age. It's a totally uncontroversial claim, documented in dozens of scholarly books. But it doesn't fit into your world view so you feel qualified to rubbish the work of the actual experts without knowing anything about the subject.
"My ignorance is as good as your knowledge".
You can live any way you like. Just don't expect that anyone with an educated and enquiring mind will ever take you remotely seriously.
@@tullochgorum6323 Tyson *admitted* his Bush and Star Names story was false. You are a liar.
The music you played at the beginning and end was, um, painfully unenjoyable. Maybe some smooth rock or something? Or some Lofi?
Intelligent design part starts around 30:51 if you're only looking for it.
Thank you
Actually even though Newton described accurately the equation for gravity and called it a force he found it hard to believe it was a force because it worked over such large distances. Einstein later verified that gravity is not a force but rather a distortion in space.
How can space be distorted, and if it can how without any type of force? If I distorted shape of an empty milk jug it is with some force.
What does a distortion in space even mean? You can distort an object but how do you distort space which is just area with or without anything in it?
@@hydrolito So a planet, a moon or sun etc... is now a nothing?
@@boterlettersukkel Planet is an object, so is a moon and sun those are things that take up space which is the area they are in. I never said they were nothing.
@@hydrolito And again you fail to present *EVIDENCE* for a flat earth
"an entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system..."
hahahaha
I was about to say this style of intro took me way back and then i saw that it was uploaded 10 years ago
These people who comment on religion are not religious and lack the fundamentals. One thing about science. It always changes it's mind.
Well for those fortunate enough to be a research subject at least.. experience is a little bit more broad in regards to life forms
To sum it up - people invented god to explain shit they didnt understand. Its just ridiculous that in the 21st century people still believe rain comes from god and people are made of clay.
lol
+RJ Lee dust it's not specifically clay it is more (as powdered or gray); hence, clay, earth, mud:--ashes, dust, earth, ground, morter, powder, rubbish. and I believe we are all related chemically to the earth. so it kinda makes sense doesn't it?
ozSpiral no, it doesn't make sense, we have the answers and yet you believe the bullshit
+RJ Lee C. Hoygens applied God also to what he did understand since he said at around 17:00 "is in them much more clearly manifested". much more manifested means it is much less manifested in lifeless heaps, which implies there is some manifestation. And C.Hoygens did understand the lifeless heaps right?
ozSpiral that makes no sense
Religions are tricky to prove or disprove because they are outside of the realm of science. I like that Doctor Tyson doesnt ever say that he knows there is no god, but rather explains why he believes the existance of a god is improbable. Most people have very strong definitive opinions on religion one way or another and get very worked up when someone does agree with their beliefs, but Neil is doesnt care what you believe, even if it is different from his beliefs.
I think when you said disprove that is something that is not required . The proof lies in the person that makes the claim . Nobody has disproven thor or pixies or anything unknown.
@@rodneyhickman825 My case and point. You have a very strong opinion on the existence of a god and believe that religions are as silly as believing in unicorns. I'm an atheist myself, but I respect religious people and I like that Dr Tyson does too. And if god not existing were as obvious as pixies not existing then I doubt that half of all scientists including Isaac Newton, the man that Neil degrasse Tyson calls the smartest man ever to live, would believe in a god. Figuring out the origin of the universe is not as plainly obvious as debunking the existence of fairy tale creatures.
And I don't care what he believes.
@@johnstudd4245 Yeah. That's kind of the point.
@@4dojo I disagree with your statement that he "respects religious people". I don't know what he says in this vid...because I am not even going to watch it. I have heard him strongly mock and ridicule people of faith and religion many times. As far as I am concerned he is an arrogant clown, And I certainly will not even waste 1 minute of my time listening to him. I just happen to have this U tube pop up and I thought I would read some comments.
I love lectures and debates on RUclips
It is fun .
Jesus is the truth .
The argument from emotion will always be the loudest
Sophists knew that in ancient Greece, which they taught to people so they could win their court cases (you had to argue your own back then) without using logic. Plato hated that.
No Joey the absolute argument is faith in God or Faith in yourself you have a choice you can believe in God or you can believe in yourself I choose this day to believe in God because I know he's real he lives in my heart
@@ritchievernon8099 lol, if you were born in India, you'd be saying the same thing about Krishna. Do you have any evidence? That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
@@olyacarell6434 Not true Olay. I know a person born in India that believes the Biblical GOD.
@@ritchievernon8099 Oh ffs. You dont know shit.
A theist is someone who thinks the unfathomably vast universe is but a backdrop to an epic battle between good and evil taking place in the minutia of our lives. Aren't you just so special.
The fact is there isnt a speck of evidence to support any god claim. So let's look at the god concept you picked. Endorses slavery, its go to solution is something must die (usually an innocent third party), it mass murders children, kills children to punish their parents, condemns generations for the crimes of their ancestors. Your god is a sadistic monster.
The fact is you're in a barbaric, blood sacrifice death cult from the bronze age, nothing more. For deeming a sadistic monster worthy of worship, you should not only be embarrassed, you should be ashamed.
We don't need to be "debunking" Creationism. It's established as a religious belief and people are welcome to believe what they can't verify or even understand. What we NEED to be doing is demonstrating that Creationism is NOT A SCIENCE and doesn't belong in the classroom.
Not only is it not a science, but its an archaic form of logic, whereby all explanations of actual events are limited to, and refined by, human understanding before the discovery of a scientific method. The scientific method produces progressive results in the learning and development process of the species as a whole; yet superstition (and all other forms of fantastical religious storytelling) attribute only explanations of our reality that break the natural laws, presume non-existent beings, and pridefully exhume the arrogant disposition that somehow, we have all the answers to questions such as the beginning of existence and many other profound statements. The burden of proof lies on the religious, for they claim that they have the answers to questions, while science is open to debate and is clearly contrary to religion as we believe only what we have evidence for, the rest is irrelevant. The idea that some fantastical creative being, that no one could ever possibly prove its existence, and is most unlikely and improbable, is responsible for elevating our species' status in the cosmos to the highest of orders, is utter stupidity and prideful arrogance. There's a reason no one of faith can claim that faith has evidence, the word has evolved to imply a belief without evidence.
There is no burden of proof on theists. As theists are not forcing theocratic doctrine on you. Do you see Christians at your door wanting to burn you for blasphemy? Leave theists alone or else you are the aggressor. When you start an argument by saying religion is illogical or false, YOU are making that claim, therefore the burden is actually on you. Most theists are not even attempting to have the debate, it is atheists who push the debate on theists. Yes, faith lacks evidence, hence why it is called faith. Have you ever made a choice uncertain of the outcomes? If so, then you used faith. A belief in an outcome without certainty. True scientists dont debate with theists on religion, mainly because scientists are intelligent and realize the futility of doing so. Internet atheists on the other hand seem to enjoy insulting theists, maybe it gives you that sense of superiority that religion once gave men in past days.
It is illogical, they claim absolute knowledge of the beginning of existence, life after death and attempt to claim knowledge of existence of supernatural beings that break the laws of nature and coincidently choose outcomes. It's simple, what proof is there? None. And probability is extremely low.
And the fact that people ignorantly divide themselves and kill each other over belief in supernatural beings and histories written by uneducated and unknowing tribal people is only the most superficially obvious consequence of such illogical thought processes.
Remember, the earth was flat, the center of the universe which was tiny and seemingly irrelevant and God's Will was responsible for illness and misfortune... dinosaurs also didn't exist... but yet, they knew that everything can't into being and how. As for other mythical and fantastic stories about creation, they're all equally presumptuous and false.
Ther should be a public debate -With a creationist and evolutionist to debunk this guy😮 Amen!
We need to see someone debunking the spaghetti monster.
The FSM is the god that defeated the Creationists in the Dover schools decision. The cuddly satanists keep prayer out of legislatures and schools.
Guys, don't step down to the trolls level. Just read their stupid comments, laugh, and watch Neil Tyson debunk the bullshit called "Creation".
John Carboni
Your powers of analogy are legendary. You could have said "Do you expect your toothbrush to understand Mozart's music?"...brilliant analogy so Legendary level indeed
John Carboni Among our creations was proper grammar, which is something you apparently didn't pick up on.
***** Wrong...if someone gives evidence then the giving of evidence IS being observed... What's wrong with you?
KalimaShaktide Huh! Fake evidence is not evidence. If it has not been observed, it is just an opinion and opinion is not science.
If creation is wisdom, then McDonalds is considered health food.
So when does the debunking start?
It only takes a millisecond. You missed it.
@@wbiro or it's not there.
@@wbiro He did not debunk intelligent design.
@@wbiro His arguments are irrational as expects intelligent design to be perfect but thinks humans that make imperfect machines make intelligent designs. I pointed out his contradiction. An intelligent design would not have to be perfect.
5:49 God of the Gaps phenomenon, which the rest of the video demonstrates, until he gets to the Imperfection argument (how could a perfect god mess up the universe so bad?), that counters the Perfect God/Perfect Earth claim of Intelligent Design.
Whether I agree or disagree. Whether I have knowledge of the subject or not. He makes me think on the subject at hand. For that alone. Thanks. Namaste.
*¡enjoyed at 1:37 am Pacific Standard Time on Sunday, 11 December 2022!*
Watching this vid (again), I notice what I find disappointing in NDT when he's on TV (Nova or recently the new Cosmos).
You don't get THis Neil DeGrasse Tyson; the passionate, excited, dynamic force of scientific nature. Listening to him here, or in other live stage lectures, makes you want to go out and enrol in a University, and get in on the game. He sounds like the teacher you wish you'd had in school.
Whereas on TV he seems in comparison timid. I just wish a producer would say "OK Neil, just go OFF!"
I think you miss the point here buddy. Cosmos is meant to inspire scientific awe through storytelling and trying to reach the broadest audience and educate them thus following the legacy of Carl Sagan. Don’t expect to turn on Cosmos and watch NDT screaming “stupid design”.
"A Crocodile can eat a Chicken a month, and it's fine." LMAO
not a chicken but a missionary
not a chicken but a missionary it would be nice
Audio pretty muffled on this so I did not get a good chance to fully hear the talk
What if there was always an unapproachable edge to our knowledge of any matter and an invocation of the divine were ever present? What would that say?
RIGHT !!!
It would say that no matter how many absurd infinite regresses, or equally unprovable factors (loop quantum gravity, the 'multiverse') one posits, they will never TRULY 'disprove God'. God remains as a potential hypothesis as long as a conscious first person subjective awareness persists.
@@ralphralpherson9441 Hebrews 11: 1-2 🙏
genitals are like _"an entertainment complex in the middle of a sewer system"_
haha
Ha Ha! It's hilarious when people think they have the "ace card" with a simple saying, without thoroughly researching it's counterpoints and if it's truthful, along with the fools who go, "Oooo! See! See!". In West Harlem, New York City; Riverbank State Park is 28 acres of parks, baseball fields, tennis courts, walking trails all on top of the roof of the North River Sewage Treatment Plant which began construction in 1992. It is the largest entertainment complex ever built in the middle of a sewage system. "no engineer would design that at all ever" - Neil D Tyson "Well, apparently they did, and decades before you thought you came up with a profound thought with relevance." NDT found a way and is just here to make money.
@@riproar11 thanks I will tell people this in case they quote this quote which I always think is gross. I am also not sure why he thinks the genitals are for entertainment when clearly they are for reproduction. That doesn't entertain most life forms. It's just a thing they have to instinctually do. He is being too anthropomorphic by calling it an entertainment center. Also he's misogynistic because of how he lists 0 women as important scientists. All of them are men. Because of this, I don't like him. Also I like Christianity and am a Christian so I think it's not great that he is trying to completely eradicate religion from 100% of the elite scientists. It's like he's trying to take away the 15%'s free will. Strange.
"Science is a philosophy of discovery, ID is a philosophy of ignorance." - NDT
It's easy to make up quotes that don't make sense - ID has the backing of scientific research - it is not a philosophy. If anything, 'evolution' theory is a weak hypothesis and a fancy philosophy because there is no science to substantiate any of the claims for 'mutations' causing new information to be generated - 'mutations are destructive not constructive'. 'natural selection' is a misnomer - it does not exist. Anything that 'selects' is only capable of doing so under intelligent direction have a specific criteria - this is how choices are made. Random choices never result in an upward progressive direction that enhance biological life forms. Mutation experiments on fruit flies have only resulted in deformed fruit flies. Darwin's finches are still birds .. ie. finches - they have never become anything else.
Your personal opinion does not change the fact that science is a philosophy. Philosophy has reasoning power and searches avenues of thinking and logic where science fails. In our modern world even physics has its limits. You need to get better educated to keep up.
Tony07UK how exactly is Intelligent Design over gradual adaptation supported by science? And there are a plethora of examples of unintelligent design (ie. The blind spot, appendix, bone where a tail would be, our jaws usually being too small for wisdom teeth etc.). Why do these unnecessary things exist if we were intelligently designed? Either the creator(s) must not have made us perfectly, made us perfectly and we are degenerating, which there is absolutely no proof for, or there is no creator at all.
ID is a pathetic idea, and only believed by brainwashed, mentally-deficient numpties
@@Tony07UK ID has zero backing in science. The scientific backing of evolution only grows. Try again.
It's where the star dust develops sequencing and becomes life where materialist face a chasm where randomness breaks down as a creative nature. There is a cause for complex sequencing, intelligence, where randomness breaks down when it comes to complexity.
One can argue that astronomy is quite random, but life, abiogenesis is a different matter.
From an epistemological POV, there is no question. If you use a god to solve abiogenesis, you introduce a theoretical entity that can do whatever it likes: your theory no longer forbids anything, thus it predicts nothing. For example, if you use a god to explain abiogenesis, there is no reason to suppose that god could not resurrect a dead human. Since we want the dead to stay dead, and not screw up out scientific laws, we are better off trying to come up with an empirically workable materialist abiogenesis. We will never be certain that our model will be the one that actually happened: we cannot recreate the actual set of conditions. After all, we do know that, somehow it happened. It wasn’t magic, or a divine being doing it.
I don't understand the issue... we should be teaching ONLY WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW, right up to the limit of what we know, so the next generation can go from there, and teach their kids up to THAT limit!! There shouldn't be any reason to fill the gap with A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G!! Much less some magic guy in the sky that will make you feel better, if you "just believe hard enough"!! Believe what you believe... I couldn't care less, but that is your PERSONAL business, and should NOT BE FORCED into the rest of the children in your child's classroom!!
There... issue solved!!
Your problem is you're thinking much too rationally for 70 - 90% of all Americans.
Yeah... I guess I'll have to work on that!! Hahaha It seems when you make rational comments on this website, you offend a great number of people!!
Amen brother 👌😊🤣
Michael- That would all be fine, if children would NOT BE FORCED to learn what has NOT been & can NOT be proven, i.e. evolution of life from matter & evolution of species from common ancestor, which is ALL high speculation, NOT fact.
@@david77james
That’s ridiculous. Evolution is a fact. The evidence supporting it is overwhelming. Denying evolution is like denying gravity. Yes there are still some facts we do not know about either and our understanding can always improve but that’s true of everything. Both gravity and evolution are clearly demonstrable and a basis for our understanding of the world. There is no such evidence for a god. We need to teach children information that can be demonstrated instead of fantasies which can not. Teaching creationism in a class room is very harmful. It’s not based in reality. Teaching children that people will be tortured eternally and burned, is child abuse.
Very thoughtful, yet pragmatic discussion of intelligent design. The likelihood that the decline of Islamic culture is related to the 12th century substitution of revelation for investigation, should be troubling ...
frightening is the word I would use -- and it absolutely terrifies me when laymen in this country try to suggest religiosity is the cure for society!!!
@@timq6224 It took Western science a thousand years to wrest the investigation of natural phenomena from the clutches of the church(es). Yet we still get to witness the efforts of the witless to return the realm of science to the control of those who would destroy the progress made in order to....what?
All these came from the physical quantities that we are unaware of but god is considered by relgions as physical entity and webhave more than enough evidence that all the physical entities have created by physical quantities not the vice bera so the prblm is the basic concept that we are teliable upon that the creator or designer is a physical entity while from all the evidence wee see its the physical quantities that have always been there .
So when we say something came from nothing here the words something and nothing are defined in human basic understanding context if i ask u what nothing means you will simply say some empty space but still the you have space time there and temperature which makes the space time and quarks field react to produce particles , but again what if i ask u to imagine something without space and time you cannot because human brains have not been evolve that much so when i say nothing it means it doesnt has space time and it doesnt has any fundamental fields so it must have some other physical quantity that we are unaware of and we cannot imagine that because our brain has not evolved that way to ever saw a glimpse of that similarly before einstein nobody thought about time dialation as it doesnt fits your common sense and. Then quantum entanglement these are some massive evidence based phenomenon that deduce that something can come from nothing and the creator or the design thate we see is because of physical quantities and field not any physical entity .
For example solar system , earth , stars etc are because of space time and gravity gravity
So what does relgion offers a concekt of creator that is good and its morality revolves around humans and mamals
While what we see thorugh evidence is that huamns were not made by god rahher they evolved from a single cell and intellegence occured through millions of years of evolution so what we see through evidence snd hisotry of scienctific discoveries that the creator is always the physical quanties not the physical physical entities because the physical entities because if u say the fundamental particle or field of universe was created by a god which is a physical entity then if i ask u who created the gkd then god itself is a highly intelligent being that must have been through trillions to the power trillions years of evolution so even while saying god his own existence is dependent on physical quantities which we are unaware of so god or any physical entity can never be the supreme creator while physical quntities which we are unaware of can wxist even without any divine intervention. Such as human we are a physical entity made without any intervention of any divine god but through evolution via natural selection.
So something can come from nothing given that the nothing or what is a void for us has a physical quantity beyonf our understanding but not a physical entity because an entity is not beyond our understanding.
So we dont have answers tk everytbing and will never have but relgion is definitely not the answe is is just bunch of baselss claims made for affirmation of faith to control the skciety instead evn if there was an actual creator he would not have morallity as co sider by humans because is humans have ourselves came just 1 million years ago . And morallity changes and decreases as you move up the heirchy of intelligence. Because if u are saying whatever is undiscovered or gaps in scientific discoveries is of then science will takle these mysteries one by one so god is an ever receding pocket if sceintifc discovery .
So the whole assumption of theist is wrong why consider thay creation is done by an intelligent physical entity because through evidencethe existence of physical entire is dependent of physocal quantities such as space time not the vice versa.
Mr. White: Why should it be troubling?
Whaaat???🤔
I am an engineer and read things realizing I don’t need to know exactly how something was determined many things finalized by experimentation.
The design itself is intelligent. Yes, it's in the math! "Deep within the text itself is burried the primer," etc etc etc.
Intelligent design is immediately disproven the moment you meet humans.
:)
😬🥱🤧🚮🔇🪠🥱🤧🪳🌭🪫🗑️💬🙄
Oh, I get it...
It wasn't because the primitive superstition in drag that is intelligent design is an asinine cultural disease that doesn't describe reality?
Lmao! So true
Lmao! So true
😂
Robin Williams: I don't know what's so intelligent. You've got a recreational area right next to a toxic dump.
David Hume destroyed this argument in the 18th century.
We know more than ever about the universe we live in. The pace of scientific learning accelerates unceasingly. We evolved in a world of scarcity, we live in a world of abundance, our appetites are too powerful. As Weinberg said, The more we understand, the more we know there's no point to it. I can't find a point to this comment.
I was born with a modestly above average intelligence which was enough to get me through medical school. I regret that intelligence was stultified by the brainwashing of creationism and a personal God. How thankful I am for people like Neal and Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who have stimulated my relatively dull, unsupple mind to enjoy the freedoms of uninhibited discovery. I am 71 years age now and have wasted so much time. However thanks to vastly superior minds to my own, I can reflect that while the best time to have planted a tree was 20 years ago., the next best time is today. Thank you again , Neil Richard, Christopher and others for the awakening.
I know people get mad when I say this, but in my experience, those that are more intelligent tend to reject the idea of gods and religious beliefs.
@@larrycrabs5995 Those that are more arrogant tend to reject the idea of an Intelligent designer. Read "Is Atheism Dead" by Eric Metaxas.
I thank you for pulling this up from years ago and I will apply fully what all my capabilities will allow. My choices in my youth stunted my absorption of knowledge , now I'm choosing to not only catch up but to excel.
by listening to this asshat?
Indoctrination comes with a degree at the end ( when you know, think and believe what the indoctrinatiors want you to know, think and believe).
Education has no end to so mark. Read whatever your curiosity leads you to read, accept demonstratable facts, blindly believe nothing, process the information both logically and intuitively in the manner of reasoning your own truths. Remember that the scientist says, " Don't believe me ! Do the experiment and draw your own conclusion." It is never too late to gain knowledge and understanding, to climb higher on the mountain of enlightenment. I am here to discuss anything, or direct you toward certain books, the work of certain scientists, as well as see the universe unfold all over again thru your eyes . That is what I live for these days. I truly would love to play a small, humble part in your journey toward a more excellent level of understanding. If not, at least I wish you a joyous journey up the mountain. Take care, Janelle
It may be better to not absorb this stuff. It's not true knowledge, it's conjecture. You can tell that God or the universe or the source of existence is continually creating everything moment to moment, and you can tell intuitively so it's okay. If anything, I'd recommend enlightenment (Buddha, Jesus Christ, Krishna, David Hawkins, etc)
Thank you, you nicely expressed much of my own life's attitude and experience.
@Peter Brown def Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. You posit that our observations, education of a subject, AND FACTS will not save us but belief in your god will save us? 🙃🤔🥴
Well, unlike religious theories, scientific theories are proven as true or either over time. Thats why science improves while religion remains static.
You need to get out more. Tyson is a politician, who tries to sound scientific. But he is driven by HATE! He has the interviews where he loses control of himself carefully edited to hide his rage, contempt and hatred of mankind.
Science and Spirituality are two very different systems for two very different things. Science informs us how things happened, how we evolved, and how we gained our conscious experience. Science helps us live longer, but it also helps us make more deadly nuclear weapons. Whereas spirituality and religion tell us how to best experience this gift of first-person subjective awareness (as fleeting and brief as it is) and how we ought treat our fellow man to evolve our soul and attain enlightenment.
For example, I always loved this example from John Lennox, a follower of C.S. Lewis and brilliant mathematician:
A wise man asks a scientist and a holy man "Why is the Teapot boiling??" Well, the scientist quickly pipes up that molecules of gas flow into the stove and reach an ignition source at the burner, the electric spark is activation energy to create a flame from the gas and air mixture and convection cells and conduction through the metal of the teapot excite the water molecules, and this increase in movement and potential energy pushes water to the point of phase change, hence, the teapot is boiling!" and then the Holy man speaks up and says "No, the kettle is boiling because I wanted a cup of Tea!"
The two men gave two different MODES of explanation. Just like we can invoke the laws of physics for the reason a jet engine exists, we can alternately point to the mind of Frank Whittle. Both answers are exactly, and equally, correct. Frank Whittle invented the turbojet, but it's the laws of physics which allow it to perform so beautifully as it does. Now what force of brute blind cold indifferent nature allowed Whittle to envision such a genius device? Science will forever be the best way to battle disease, enhance technology, and study the world around us. But what a dark and dreary world it will be when there is no art, no song, no love, and no poetry. The soul is the source of all these things, and the human soul requires nurtuing and care. And how will we establish peace in such an advanced state? Without absolute truth and a sense of "oughtness", morality is quickly reduced to a temporally subjective preference of those in power, and History has taught us well how dangerous that can be (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot)
Hence, spirituality has it's place, and its a very important one at that. The error of many people is to juxtapose the two. Spirituality should never be used as a means to discern knowledge from the universe. It is a means to discern knowledge about the heart and soul of man.
man, this was deep. i was totally blown away with this explanation. i have copied and printed out to share with others. God bless you, my friend.
hey....also my friend. can this struggle between science and spirituality be contributed to God creating the brain into two parts? the left brain(science, logic) and the right brain(visual awareness, imagination)
@@mikepatterson8177 I think only one Being knows that answer. Although I believe the human brain is perfectly calibrated to allow us to be moral beings, compassionate beings, and at the same time rational and logical beings who survived pre-history. It probably has a lot more to do with how we evolved from our ancestral roots. The duality I was pointing to has more to do with modes of thought. For example, If you ask "where did we come from?" you can answer that in two ways.
You can explain how the body evolved and how chemicals and electrical impulses create a human being in the womb, but then you can also ask "why are we here?" and that is more of a spiritual question that deals with meaning in life and the value of human life. I could go on and on with that but suffice to say, I think life truly requires a balance. The Buddhists have a great concept in the ying and the yang, however a more Western concept might be "Body and Spirit". You need Science to manage your body (health) and Spirituality to manage your mind/soul. I personally see no problem with being a scientific thinker AND a spiritual person. When I learn the science of how the Universe was created, and how amazingly complex our bodies truly are, it just points to an amazingly complex and awe inspiring God.
Hello everyone saying Neil DeGrasse Tyson didn't debunk anything! The publisher of this video came up with that title, not the people who made it. He's not out to try and prove religion is wrong or debunk anything. He is merely pointing out some holes in the logic that people use when considering the supernatural.
SOME holes? Get real.
Indeed religion has many holes. Yet, There are holes in his belief as well. Considering quantum mechanics hasn’t proven the universe isn’t conscious and the Copenhagen interpretation alone proves nothing exists until the observer looks at it. Tyson often ignore those facts and he always ignores the “why” question when that’s not how science should work. He’s biased towards his own beliefs
@@harwn999 If he 'believes' in anything (rather than giving things probabilities based on higher reason and evidence), then that would be his fundamental error. As for Quantum Mechanics, even though it is not completely understood yet (which gives rise to crazy interpretations), it has already been engineered to, which is the litmus test for veracity. You cannot engineer to myth and make-believe.
@@wbiro he does engineer make believe often. He consistently argues the probabilities while other quantum physicist such as Cox and the Harvard professor Avi Loeb, they are very unbiased and truthful. Many physicist invins their own erroneous opinions that aren’t supported by the evidence. And most of quantum mechanics is not known as any credible physicist would agree, they have close to no idea as to how the universe operates. So there is no “if”, he does believe certain positions that aren’t supported by the evidence, the untrained eye wouldn’t recognize it
I have read some of the comments and I can wisely say: "if intelligent design is real, you surely are not part of it" There no worst blind than those who don't want to see, inform yourself, learn, and then judge, not over something that your parents (or culture) told you based on where you born....
Do you believe Tyson's addled histories? If so, you're in no position to lecture anyone for not informing themselves.
@@HopDavid Aw, snowflake is this because he destroyed Trump the other day?
The concept of god is silly. The concept of a Christian god is worse. An extremely jealous, deranged incoherent sociopath, who's top priority is being worshipped.
Wait, no wonder fundamentalists and Evangelists love Trump.
Perhaps if you'd not spend all day performing simulated fellatio on your Trump 2020 flag (the one with his fat face cropped and pasted over Stallone's body in Rambo II), you'd think what you're saying through?
Very true, creationists never know anything about evolution... because if they did they would believe it
@@vandal1764 Tyson’s fans don’t much about science and history. If they did they would know Tyson is full of shit
@@HopDavid "Tysons fan don't much about history" lol what
I have just one question for Neil. Please explain for me where the laws of nature come from? Not who discovered them, but where they come from.
Oh dumbass, we know where you are going with this, and in turn Neil would discuss about the big bang theory and what all that went into it. But still theory, if you know what an actual theory is. There is no evidence of God making it so stfu before even mentioning it.
Big bang
Where did God come from?
I think we can all agree that there is some fundamental thing that underlies all reality. Whether that thing be god or nature, there is something that just exists without being caused. Even if we discover that thing, we could still ask "what caused it" and in that case, there would literally be no answer. For that reason, I personally don't ask "where did that thing come from" but instead ask "does this particular theory make accurate, testable predictions"? In my experience, the "god hypothesis" does neither of those things while the big bang hypothesis does some of them (albeit imperfectly).
@@SG-dg6oi all energy starts somewhere dynamic or otherwise
God of the Gaps. People are notorious for this. If you don't understand something, "Gawdidit". Once you understand something you never invoke god.
I wonder what could have found Newton if he just had access to a school scientific calculator
Damn!! Ikr
I think I have a man crush on Mr. Tyson.
He should be made the Pope of Science.
***** I don't get that..
***** Yeah i got that part, but why? :D
No, it's just a stupid joke without meaning, calling one of the most esteemed scientists in our time a''poop'' just because someone in the upper comments called him the pope of since..
BACK OFF HE'S MINE!!!!
Assumptions are statements accepted as given truths without proof. In order to use a theory, the assumptions must be accepted by the user. Assumptions set the foundation for the application of a particular theory
The Real Word of God...
"Just remember that my son's middle name is Fu*king".
“But his middle initial is H….?”
Lord spells in mysterious ways.
Why are we allowing Christians to pretend there is only one creation story? There are dozens of creation stories.
So you want to forbid Christians to believe in their religion? I want to believe in a omnipotent pink dolphin who guides me. Oh wait... that doesn't make sense to you does it, so you want to control what I believe in.
People have the right to believe in they want without being criticized (we just shouldn't allow them to hinder scientific progress). But by your post, its obvious you do not believe in freedom of religion and I'm okay with it...as long as you don't become world leader or something like that.
Mishnaree Mincey No. I just want the country to stop taking Christians so seriously. How do you think a Navajo person feels when you don't give Coyote God equal time? They were here first.
Docktor Jim Good point.
True, all religions should be respected equally. Christianity is held in such high regard in America because it's the largest here, but I'm with you in that it should receive special perks that other religions do not.
Mishnaree Mincey And yeah, you caught me. I don't give a crap about Coyote God either. That's just stupid.
Docktor Jim loll
God bless honest scientists.
A million atheists who respect the scientific method are a bigger blessing to the world than even one dishonest preacher that makes a living by tampering with scripture
Define the scientific method?....according to who?...
Come on?...my cousin was a chief engineer on the Casini project....Vance Hammmerle
'God bless'. I got a laugh out of that.
Or misrepresenting evolutionary theory deliberately to prop up their ludicrous fairy stories.
95% of atheists don’t understand the scientific method nor science. Science requires you to admit you simply don’t know and atheism requires you to insist that you know there is not higher power.
You require an ultimate independent Standard of Perfection to even try to recognize a flaw. So he's actually proving a perfect Designer (God) with this argument. This logically means that what he's recognizing aren't actually flaws, he's simply confused about reality. It's amazing that people in the room with him think this argument makes any sense at all.
What if the universe's process of evolving has a preordained pattern? A process from which intelligence arises? That we are not merely a random accident but the purpose of the universe experiencing itself and growing, changing.
deep....you should be up there on stage.
Not really any different than asking "what if its god". There's no evidence to support your hypothesis so no reason to take it seriously. An entertaining thought nonetheless.
@@ashtonhaggitt216 I wonder how we could tease the process out of our traditions and drop the dogma that is baggage from our past. I think Jordan Peterson is on to something with his biblical studies.
@@ashtonhaggitt216what evidence do you have that the universe is based on random chance (instead of being based on a logical order)? using your logic there is no evidence of that either so no reason to take that hypothesis seriously
Evolutionary theory says that isn’t how it works. The mutations are random. They either confer greater reproductive success in that particular environment, or they are neutral, or they reduce reproductive success. There is no reason why any one species develops. And it appears very likely that our species squeaked through a couple of near e t’incitions moments. Will the universe miss us? Why would it?
CS Lewis - Mere Christianity and the Case for Christ - his life and mentorship are compelling reading for the inquiring mind. In fact the Netflix movie The Most Reluctant Convert: The Untold Story of C.S. Lewis is inspiring.
big fan of CS Lewis -- I enjoy good fiction
Indeed - also The Great Divorce and Screwtape letters are compelling insights. NDT is a great representative for atheism.
C.S. Lewis wrote anti-science fiction.
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 rubbish
I wish it was common that these kind of lectures where giving with the entertainment rate this one has. More satisfying than going to a theatre or cinema imo.
In the 1700s, scientific demonstrations were considered entertainment. When I give demonstrations in open mic venues or schools, with my lasers or high voltage, I get the same responses from my audience as the magician does. The only difference is that magic conceals, where science reveals.
Thank God for lectures such as this one!
😂😂
Yes it is divinely inspired
So much passion for his subject, he can just about get it out...
Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends
We're so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside...
😄
Ive had jobs that bring that song to mind most days.
Enjoy the show!
Emmerson, Lake and Palmer.
Very fitting btw
@@Paislywalls4767 Brain Salad Surgery ELP
@@keithvincent322 Word Salad: Flat Earth priests.
Soon the gypsy queen in a glaze of vasoline... heh heh heh
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
Max Planck
Max Planck simply could not accept that something was unknowable to him. His ego and that of many men, see themselves as the center of all things. Only a man's father can be the great teacher, the one who creates him and raises him.
So, man's mind creates a super father to explain what they cannot yet comprehend.
@@charlesm7589 Enter Super Mother. Ontological pursuit may allow for for equitable balance ,as emotional frequency is a feature of life.
" We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. " We must assume NO SUCH THING! Because we can assume that this intelligent mind is also responsible for any number of impossible absurdities!!! We could therefore assume that this god is simply a gear cranker who knows nothing of what he is doing!
@@AdrumaVictoria16 Father or mother, it makes no difference. Gods were patterned by things people already know of. Mothers, fathers, children. Fearful, ignorant people project these concepts onto things that they want to understand and control.
@@charlesm7589
egoic minds are self deluded/delusional, a small ego looks up to a bigger ego, a more powerful, talented, eloquent, or hardworking ego.
a richer, smarter, cooler or better looking ego. this ego can't believe in any divine agency (God) because the ego has put it's own sweet self in the place of any & all Gods & loves being the center of attention, adulation, and yes, worship! hence all the wars, greed, thievery, murder, mayhem, intrigue, extortion & strife.
many atheists have made the claim that God & Religion have been the cause of more carnage/ cruelty & inflicted suffering than all other causes combined, well, maybe something obvious here is being overlooked, (&purposefully) by the ego?
that the egoic mind gets it's taint into all avenues of human endeavor, particularly in politics & religion, cuz that's where the power is/was, (now it's social media?)
ego loves power, missiles & armies & rockets & weapons to protect it,
but it's the ego in religion that wreaks (& has wreaked) all the havoc.
when the time comes for this egoic self, this fabricated, disneyesque false entity to die, (hard to acknowledge for poor little ego) it's role as a false god will be all too completely revealed, but until then....look around, the arena of human affairs, nation states/world powers, corporate mercenaries, military industrial cartels, etc. are a reflection of the collective human egoic mind.
in some Hindu texts it's called discernment, being able to discriminate between the real and the unreal,
God being all that is real,
the rest being under the spell of Maya, Goddess of illusion, the dream, matrix, etc.
when we wake up from the dream, when our egos are exposed/dispersed like shadows in the light, then maybe we'll begin to see what is really of value, vital, & essential in life?
so called science, if it worships only the ego, is of the ego, by the ego & for the ego, then what peace will it ever be able to find?
Neil sure does love him some Neil
The auditory ossicles (bones) within the human ear did not just happen. The fossil record shows how the jaw of ancestral animals had multiple bones. Over the aeons of evolutionary time, the central bone expanded into its sickle shape while the others migrated into the ear. There’s another. The recurrent pharyngeal nerve exits the spine in the upper neck, then wraps under the aorta and back up to the lower voice box. It’s there in all mammals including giraffes, cetaceans and humans. That nerve was originally directly connected with gills which live in the neck. The aeons of evolutionary time moved the heart into the chest alongside the lungs. Meanwhile the Gills evolved into the pharynx. That particular nerve could not unwrap itself from a major blood vessel, so it just grew longer.
Yup. Evolution. Evolution just tinkers with the stuff already on the bench. Evolution can’t order from the catalogue.
How does one try to dismiss the idea of ID without mentioning how the DNA works. Knowing that no natural process can produce information or an instruction code, the genetic code of the DNA is something that debunks the idea of self assembly(evolution).
I was wondering who was going to bring that up. DNA is the most wonderful of all life compounds; it can morph itself into anything, at a whim; on the fly. DNA can, in fact, DECIDE what it wants to be. AND, what's more, there a people who can read the actual intentions, of the DNA in ancient animal remains, even where no DNA exists anymore; thus, it can be known that the dinosaur WANTED to become a bird; just by a casual glance at the remains, this amazing knowledge may be deduced. Wonderful stuff, this DNA. Add to that, DNA can make itself, as it did in the very first living cell. It can use almost any material laying around to do this. Its favorite material is space dust, which falls on Earth's surface in many tons, every year. Which means DNA is forming everywhere - your garden, the street, the landfill, on top of buildings. And soon, (that means billions of years from now) a NEW species will spring forth. And, who knows? In the NEW human race, men might actually be able to give birth. (OOH sorry; can I say "men" on the internet?)
@@lazybbones I stop reading your ignorance after a couple of lines. No, DNA does not 'morpn' itself. Dont know where you even got that from.
@@Joskemom It's ok. This was not meant to be serious. You and I know DNA does not "morph" itself. This was a "tongue-in-cheek", and yet still very real description of how evolutionists see the subject of abiogenesis, or the origins of life. They have no way of understanding the immense amount of diversity in life, other than that the DNA just changes whenever it wants to. Their normal understanding of ""natural selection" could not apply at any level of evolutionary development, but certainly not in the development of the first cells. DNA "morphing" itself is about the only thing left. Dinosaurs becoming birds is an example of their understanding of the word "mutation", which to them is another way of saying the DNA just changes, because it just wants to. But this is not what a mutation is at all. Sorry if I have caused confusion.
@@lazybbones You got me! Like I said I read a couple of lines and thought you were serious. As you see I only put a couple of lines in the response. In talking with these people over the course of time I have heard some of the weirdest explanations. One thing I have notice with most of them is that they get insulted when their 'belief' is questioned and debunked because they think we are stupid for not thinking evolution is real.
@@Joskemom Yes, you're right; that's how they think. At our church we are planning a series on creation, where we'll be examining evolution over a period of several weeks. Should be fun!
For a man who dislikes philosophy, he sure uses a lot of his own.
His makes more sense than most.
This blowhard must be very highly educated to be as ignorant as he is. Neil Tyson is a mimic and a tool.
We all have philosophy at our core (the degree is what separates us from lower animals). The problem is, human philosophy has been feeble (enter the Philosophy of Broader Survival).
And there you have it: religious belief takes over where human certainty ends, and not before. Meanwhile, not everything is known -- or can be known. So there will always be something left over, and a desire to be certain about that unknown. And belief in a Big Overseer satisfies that desire.
You do realize that Tyson's story regarding Newton is fiction? Or perhaps you're utterly lacking in critical thinking skills.
😂
@@Jobotubular 8:51 Tyson has Newton figuring out planetary motion before he turned 26. 20:40 He has Newton figuring this out in two months after a friend asks him about elliptical orbits.
It was in Principia that Newton explained elliptical orbits. And it was Halley's question that prompted Newton to write Principia. Halley asked the question in 1684 when Newton was in his 40s.
So, no, this encounter didn't happen before Newton turned 26.
Newton had started thinking about orbits in 1665. He figured out how to demonstrate inverse square gravity implies elliptical orbits in 1677. So, no, it didn't take Newton two months, more like 12 years. And this was before Halley's question, so no he didn't do it on Halley's "dare".
Tyson says Newton just stopped. This is false. Newton returned to the problem of modeling multi-body systems again and again. In particular he spent a great deal of time and effort trying to model the 3-body system of the earth, moon and sun.
After Newton tried Euler took a crack at it. Euler is regarded by many as the greatest mathematician in history. Laplace held that opinion. Also Lagrange and d'Alembert worked on the problem.
More than 100 years later Laplace built on the work of Newton, Euler, Lagrange and d'Alembert. To say Newton could have easily done this work in an afternoon is excruciatingly stupid.
May Tyson and his following become known for their stupidity.
Thanks for clearing that up. NdGT is too often a pitchman. He is useful, I suppose, because he tries not to offend religious people. Brian Cox is the same. That allowed, I wonder if society can afford to pay deference to religious people any more. Because they trust to their Imaginary Zfriends to save their bacon, to provide them a heaven if we make this planet unliveable, they can just .carry on with environmental disasters. The religious right are the ones the elect the GOP, and the GOP then take away their unions, their wages, their social security, so Bezos can make another trillion. @@HopDavid
I think we can debunk everything and go back to the debunk bed , good night , sleep tight
0:19 to skip intro
What I don't understand about the theory of God is WHY do we have infants with deadly painful cancers and diseases? Why would a loving god EVER place BABIES in that position? They experience pain for their entire, albeit short, lives. What kind of twisted 'benevolent' being would ever put that into their 'plan'.
+Kingwut117 Do not DARE question the power of our creator. Without suffering we would not know joy and the pleasures of life! The sickness is the work of the devil, or perhaps the lesson learned for us being such SINFUL creatures! You laugh at God but soon you will have hell to pay!
Jeremy Wright So you believe in an all powerful God, but you believe he would let the Devil, a being whose sole purpose is to be the anti-god, exist? And cause our lives to be miserable? God sounds like a dick.
Condemn me to hell all you want, even in the religion I was raised in, we didn't believe in Hell, because any God who would willingly send his children to ETERNAL SUFFERING is obviously a God that no one should ever follow
+Kingwut117 Disease wasn't in God's plan. It came into the world when Adam and Eve first rebelled.
So god doesn't have the power to fix something two idiots supposedly did at the beginning of time? Seems like bullshit
+Kingwut117 Go get the corporations to stop pumping toxins into food, water, and air. Who is causing the suffering to children? I guess wealth is more important though. As far as letting the devil exist, one third of the angels followed him. He could have destroyed them all. Instead, he's giving them a chance now to make their choice in the flesh. Sounds like a dick move to give somebody another chance, huh? Lack of knowledge in religion makes Christians sound stupid, but the proper study reveals truth. In Genesis- the earth was null and void, should read (in correct Hebrew) BECAME null and void. There was a first earth age. Yes dinosaurs lived then, and the Earth IS extremely old. I understand how atheists can so easily mock the Bible, but "religious" people need to get their foot out of their mouths and learn the truth.
Here's a fact: A creation requires a creator.
and that creator in turn needs a parent creator and so on
@@alexanderschonfeld5879 Which points to the only logical conclusion that there must be a starting point and science can't explain it. Pretty scary, huh?
Your thing needs a guy analogy ignores the laws of science
Here's a fact: you are assuming a creation in order to justify your claim of a creator. It is not a creation - mountains exist, we know how they come to exist, no creator involved as they are not a creation.
@@richardgregory3684 If the BEGINNING of our existence is not a creation, then what is it? Don't talk to me about mountains. If you want to swim in the deep end, get serious.
If there is such a thing as an intelligent designer, you then have to figure out how the designer came up with the ideas he used in his design.
If you say his ideas spontaneously occurred to him, you might as well say they spontaneously occurred WITHOUT him.
The only think he debunked was young-earth creationism (actually it's been pretty much debunked long before), not creation itself
I think you missed the god of the gaps part...
VJScope Nope
paradisecityX0 So where does the creation fit in?
VJScope I was saying that creation wasn't debunked, young earth creationism is, since the world has been proven to be way older than what the fundies think
paradisecityX0 Hmm.. ok.