Reliable Creator? Makes perfect sense(s)! (feat. Shannon Q)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- Our examination of the "Evolution Exposed" all-star creationist six-hour epic seminar with Ray Comfort and 10 other well-known prominent anti-evolution speakers. This time, Dr Jason Lisle tells us that the reliability of our senses is proof of a God, who made our senses perfect. Any imperfections are obviously part of our punishment for sin... right?
Grab AtlasVPN Special deal for 82% OFF get.atlasvpn.c... !
Shannon Q
/ shannonq
/ shann_q0
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
Send me cool mail!
Paulogia
PO Box 1350
Lantz Stn Main, NS
B2S 1A0
Canada
Grab AtlasVPN Special deal for 82% OFF get.atlasvpn.com/Paulogia !
One of the most interesting psychology class I had was Sensation&perception. The class covered optical illusions in human perception. Your senses are easily fooled and often mistaken. Not just in optical test, but in real life. Hunters shoot what they are sure is a deer, but turns out to be another hunter. Dozens of a crowd of hundreds swear the sun danced across the sky, while the rest saw no movement. Why? Because your brain tells you what it thinks you see.
"Is science anti-science?" asks the supernaturalist who literally lies about science for a living.
Off to a good start.
Creationism is anti-god so maybe they are projecting.
@James Henry Smith Oh yes, these people tell you that they are the messengers of Jesus who can save you from your sins (so they say) (when you donate) -
AFTER they have indoctrinated you from earliest childhood that you are an original sinner, a sinner even though you did not do anything, that you are doomed to go to hell and be roasted forever, that you must be saved.
If you abolish the concept of sin, all falls apart.
Replace it with you are responsible for your actions, so you should watch out that your actions do not harm others, as you want that the actions of others should not harm you. Elaborate that concept, teach it, learn how to apply it circumstantially, as our life is complex and not always realizable in the way you want it to be, and learn to cope with the fact that neither you nor the others are perfect and shit happens.
Then you have a very good basis to cope with your life.
And in principle that is exactly what the Bible wants to do - give you a guide to cope with life. Explain the wonders of the world, why it is so shrewd.
Just the issue is that it pretends to have simple answers, that are universal, and that an ultra-powerful entity is ruthlessly behind it that every single rule is kept to the letter.
Plus that the whole was obviously written from the standpoint of a struggilng tribe that fought for its survival against other tribes, so it was important that the own tribe is chosen by the entity, is special, has divine backing that the others lack.
@@feedingravens that dude has been spamming the same 2 messages on nearly every comment. I’ve reported at least 15 of the exact same sentence as spam already… sad that he doesn’t have anything fun to do with his free time.
@@CraftyVegan He wrote 4 comments to my comment. He is in a state of hysterical elation, lost any contact with reality. ZERO facts, only "It's true, I am RIGHT by definition, that gut feeling of being saved (they sold me) is great!."
One could say "poor sod" if such radicalism of ANY (religious or non-religious) cult would not be so dangerous.
He asks if it's _the anti-science_ actually, which I think is worse than just asking if science is anti-science. Violating the law of identity? Typical everyday creationist lying. Making a field of science into an evil avatar of Untruth(tm)?
...well okay that's also typical everyday creationist lying, but with bells on. Okay, _larger_ bells on.
"How do you know you're not a blade of grass?"
Because I am in fact a cactus. 🌵
I was a newt. But I got better.
The entire point of science and the scientific method is to compensate for inaccuracies and biases in human perception. The fact that we have "science" and not just knowledge or common sense immediately disproves everything said here.
🤔🤨, explain Plzz. To Me -Science is Not the Lead, the Maker of Questions, IS. And Thirst to Question is the Pre-Science, finding the Answer's, is just a Part of the scenario. Question, calculate, Do again, have peer Review, Independ Peer reproduction and Repeat, Repeat.
Yeah, and that man is supposedly an astrophysicist, I think it's fair to say he should be aware of that.
@@mike140298 I wonder if there i$ $ome rea$son he i$ thi$ di$hone$t?
Or just wilfully blind, or unwilling to apply his education evenly to his religio ?
@You're Gonna Hate This yahweh, unlikely.
I love how he quotes Proverbs 20:12 as being literal scientific truth, yet if I were to pull out any verse in Proverbs that was uncomfortable to him (like say I tried to do a scientific study based on the "fact" proposed by Proverbs 3:2 that Christians live longer than non-Christians) I'd be immediately shut down because "It's just poetry, you're not supposed to take it literally!"
That's pretty much my pet peeve with theists, what in their holy books is literal truth and what is metaphor/poetry (or what is straight from God's lips and eternal vs "cultural laws" created by man that "don't count" any more) changes literally verse to verse with no rhyme or reason other than what is most convenient to the theist.
"...what in their holy books is literal truth and what is metaphor/poetry..."
So true! What gets me is that they think that they, personally, individually, have the right to decide which verses are "poetic" and which are "literal". This is hubris at a godly scale. No, they don't have the right to interpret a book that professes to be divine revelation. Only God gets to do that.
No reason..... perhaps it rhymes in Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew though;)
God made my eyes to be so reliable that I need to rely on wearing glasses everyday to see.
What a fantastic creator! What an amazing design!
Can you please provide scientific evidence that son exists and how it damages people's eyes so that humans have to correct its flaws.
@@jaclo3112 Don't bother. Ask about evidence, you'll get bible quotes. Ask about good reasons, it will go round and round circular. Try to discuss, he'll go all "I am right because I am right!!". Ask him to accept defeat and he'll start all over again with the same nonsense.
These preaching guys are completely lost. I wonder if they, deep down, realize, that this behavior saves noone but can lead more people away from religion, when they finally realize it is just blind indoctrination and people like the parrot here are evidence for this..
@@jaclo3112 Sometimes our eyes work badly due to genetic defects that lead to astigmatism, near or far sightedness, non-parallel vision.
Eyes are SO perfect that my Dad is slowly going blind from macular degeneration. No cure.
@@kaiza6467 sorry to hear that. Hope he is doing okay
I think it’s worthwhile pondering what the imperfection of our senses means for this argument even if we hypothetically grant it as due to the fall. Why would God make our senses *less* reliable once it became clear that we can use free will to go against God's will? It implies that accurately perceiving the world makes us less likely to conclude that God's will is the proper course. That, or God doesn’t actually think that it is important that we can trust our senses. The conclusion that we can trust our senses because God wants us to accurately perceive the world immediately falls apart. We know that we can trust our senses because God made them imperfect is an oxymoron.
Which calls into question what the hell is sin?
@James Henry Smith wonderful to hear. So if I become a Christian, I will no longer need glasses? I'm a bit concerned about a perfect sense of smell, though, even when I empty the cat litter regularly, there's always some odour, and it's not great even with my imperfect sense. But there's always a trade-off I guess.
@Ben Salemi Does God make our 'senses' 'less reliable'? Perhaps. You could argue 'we' did it on account of the Fall, also that God did it, since he created the entire system & thereby allowed it to happen. It may well be neither. As to whether they were made imperfect that depends on the same reasoning. If something is created/manufactured with the property of failing if used improperly, does that make it imperfect?
@@amateurprojects3341 How is a person using their senses improperly when a optical illusion (or an auditory illusion, or a tactile illusion, or a gustatory illusion, or an olfactory illusion) tricks them?
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger I don't know enough about all people, human senses, or what you refer to as illusions to answer your question I'm afraid.
13:08 - All living organisms are able to sense their environment. Using his own example, grasses display geotropic (the ability to tell up from down) and phototropic (the ability to detect light intensity) awareness, courtesy of a few enzymes. Someone really needs to let him know that auxins are a thing. As an aside, one of my favorite things as a biochemist and farmer is watching the slow rotation of my sunflowers as they track the sun's movement during the course of a day.
I am also growing some sunflowers, though not as a farmer. And it's absolutely wonderful to see these plants go from almost nothing to sizeable plants. And yeah, their ability to find the sun is amazing!
@@mike140298 I feel you, there's nothing more beautiful than nature just being herself.
@@2Sor2Fig yeah, nature is absolutely full of wonders. And it saddens me greatly that a lot of creationists don't see that and talk about plants and other animals as "just" plants and "just" animals.
@@mike140298 So true, it's not like we're some special, separate, piece of existence. We're all in this together. I'm sure their personal live are just as deep and important to them as any of ours are to us.
the devil is in the sneaky wording. "grass has no visual sensory organs" is correct by most definitions of an organ. what is sneaky is the implication that organs are required to sense light. as noted above this is not true, a photo receptor can be as small as an organelle, or even a single molecule ,and still provide visual information.
I'm astounded at how calm and collected you remain in all of these critiques. The shear and utter stupidity that comes out of these experts' mouths is ASTONISHING. Keep up the great content! Personally, I loved how he said that we were born with reliable vision, but we don't find out it's reliable until we can read the bible. Has he seen a new born to 2 month old? Their eyes don't even track in conjunction sometimes. And my son must've been LOADED with sin and 'The Curse' to have a strabismus from age 2 and requiring corrective lenses. Man, I should've prayed harder!!!
You are right .... we all must get the " sinners" eyesight around the age of 40.
Usually, the calm and collected, are just the way some people are. Other times, it comes with age, kind of a second maturation if you will (as has occurred with me).
That is my take, anyway.
@@sussekind9717 then sometimes old people become front porch neighbourhood terrorists also!
@@bloozee
True, I've encountered a few examples in my lifetime.
I suppose it could ⬅️go either way➡️. 😂😜
@James Henry Smith fake God, fake aliens and fake theists... no threat.
Every time I look both ways before stepping onto a road and don’t see a car, I have been able to cross it safely. When I do see a car, I can often roughly judge how long it will take to pass me. To confirm, I see the car, hear noise, and feel the wind after that time has passed. Both of these are consistent outcomes and I make other predictions with similar reliability. But what of things I can’t see? Can’t notice radiation, but I have this nifty tool called a geiger counter. Those who stay for an extended period of time when it goes ‘crckcrckcrckcrck’ usually don’t survive or suffer serious ailments, while those who hurry away are fine.
Where our senses encounter limits, we have ways around it and we can (and have) build predictive scientific models that could be available long before the tools (that are far more sensitive than us) to confirm what lies beyond are created. Even if our senses can’t be trusted because we’re evolved, the fact we can make all of these predictions, inferences, and be successful hints that, more often than not, they’re actually reliable. And, as our understanding grows, so does our understanding of the faults and when we shouldn’t trust our senses which leads to greater accuracy.
Nor does it even matter if our senses are engineered. Compare the functionality of a $10 and a $1000 camera. Both are ‘created’ but the quality of the pictures could be night and day. Maybe we’re dealing with a sadistic engineer who is amused by people bumbling around in relative darkness and ever so frequently stubbing their toes (or getting radiation poisoning) because they couldn’t see rather than someone who is concerned about us making fully informed decisions. Still the same problem and solution.
I am still amazed at how the Christian apologist attempt to twist and warp reality, science, logic and reason to try to justify their belief in their religion. Their biggest problem is and always has been their lack of compelling evidence to support their beliefs.
I know all of the anti-evolution arguments in this series are ridiculous, but hearing Lisle try and explain how his position makes sense... all I can say is wow. "How do you know you're not a blade of grass?" Really? So you're willing to assert that your senses are reliable enough to recognize an unfalsifiable supreme being, but my senses aren't reliable enough to even recognize that I'm not *green* and *pointy?*
We all have to assume our senses are good enough to accurately perceive reality if we want to say anything meaningful about reality in the first place, regardless of whether or not God is the reason for that. God cannot be the *reason* that you trust your senses, because you have to trust your senses in order to form any sort of belief about God in the first place. At best, God is simply an *explanation* for why can trust your senses, and it's not so much a "good" explanation as it is an assertion with the same rational basis as a kindergartener one-upping you by screaming something "times infinity".
"times infinity" FTW. Amazing how even small children and YECists can grasp concepts as esoteric as multiplication and infinity without much of a deeper understanding of anything...
"...but my senses aren't reliable enough to even recognize that I'm not green and pointy?"
Yeah, about that... You're as green and pointy as they come. Sorry. We just really didn't know how to break it to you.
Shannon, you are forgetting the prime tenet of Creationists...
"Don't confuse the issue with facts."
“Intelligent Design,” my ass! Have you seen how many problems there are with the human body?
No, but mostly because my eyes are pretty crappy.
Due to corruption through SIN. Not the initial state of creation.
@@stefanblumhoff1562 No.
@@stefanblumhoff1562 Which implies the design was never perfect to begin with anyway if it could be corrupted. Furthermore, if sin could corrupt God's creation, it implies one of 2 things:
1.) If we assume God did not WANT sin to corrupt his creations, then the fact that sin DID corrupt his creations according to you means that sin surpasses God in terms of its capability of corrupting his creations against God's will without God being able to know beforehand it would, which violates his omniscience, or being able to do anything about it after the fact, which would make him not omnipotent. In short, Sin is more powerful than God, and hence, so is the source of sin, Satan.
2.) God knew that sin would corrupt his creation and could have prevented it either before or after the fact. This implies that God intended for his creations to be corrupted by sin. That sin was God's plan after all, that God worked with the serpent/Satan to ensure that this corruption happened and he then punished everyone that has ever existed with this corruption that he knew beforehand would happen and that he fully INTENDED to happen. In other words, God punished humanity for a corruption that was his intention all along, which means he isn't just by our standards of justice. It also means that God is...well...immoral and evil by our current standards of morality.
@@stefanblumhoff1562 I will add to the DeludedOne's comment above, that if God was aware that "sin" might damage His creation, the He's a very poor engineer if He didn't build in some safe-guards to stop "sin" from happening through such a simple action.
Anyone knows that the heirarchy of safety is:
1) Avoid completely if possible
2) Engineer in as many safeguards as possible
3) Ensure personnel are properly trained and install written procedures
4) Employ protective equipment
God jumped straight to (3), and did a poor job of that.
I'm kind of glad God doesn't design aeroplanes or nuclear power plants. Adam and Eve ought to claim compensation under the Health and Safety at Work act.
If South Park can have a geologist as their go-to scientist I'm sure it's fine for the apologists to have an astrophysicist explain biology 😂
Mammalian eyes vs Avian eyes are an interesting example that can't be explained by the fall distorting our eyes. But evolution explains it perfectly. Bird eyes are dinosaur eyes. Dinosaurs favored daylight. They hunted by daylight. At the time of the dinosaurs, mammals were mostly creatures of the night. For one thing, dinosaurs were not hunting at night. Mammals lost some of the color receptors, but their eyes were much better adapted to low light levels. Once the large dinosaurs went extinct the daytime became safer, so mammals expanded into environmental niches previously occupied by dinosaurs. But the ancient ancestors of the groups like canines and primates had already lost some of those light receptors. Birds already had them, and they kept them. Bats show us how mammals might have evolved if mammals had all remained creatures of the night.
Now, let's look at the claim that the fall ruined our eyesight. Why didn't it ruin the eyesight of birds and insects? That might be explained by the fact that birds and insects didn't eat the forbidden fruit. But what about the other mammals? They didn't eat the fruit. Why did wolves lose their ability to see color? Were they being punished? Do wolves have agency? Are wolves redeemed from the fall by the blood of Christ? Should we be out preaching the message of Christ to wolves? What about rats, gophers, and moles? If they can be redeemed, will they be in heaven?
There is soooo much wrong with what you said there.
First, birds evolved FROM dinosaurs. Please stop spreading this misinformation. They are not themselves dinosaurs. Thus, they have bird eyes, NOT dinosaur eyes.
Second, mammals have NEVER been nocturnal. The mammals of the time were VERY SMALL. That's how they escaped being eaten by dinosaurs. Dinosaurs had vision based on MOVEMENT. That is why they had trouble eating mammals; small animals that moved very little. Most mammals at that time were herbivores and thus had no need to be nocturnal. Predators hunt at night so their prey does not see them. Dinosaurs are REALLY hard to not see. A rodent is VERY EASY to see.
Third, carnivores (like many of the dinosaurs) hunt at night, not during the day. The dinosaurs that were herbivores ate during the day when their predators were asleep.
Fourth, aside from bats, humans, wolves, and cats what mammals lack color vision? The reason these species lack color vision is because they HUNTED AT NIGHT. They didn't need to have color vision. Primates however do not hunt. They eat bugs, nuts, berries, etc. so they have no need for being nocturnal. This is why the other primates still have color vision. Most mammals are herbivores in fact. Thus, most mammals have excellent color vision.
Fifth, birds are no more all the same than mammals are. Some birds-like hawks, eagles, and falcons-are predatory nocturnal carnivores. The rest are seed eating, nut munching herbivores that are generally awake during the day. These birds have color vision.
Can you please provide empirical evidence for your creationism claim.
@James Henry Smith Are you going to post that lame comment in every reply?
Dang, now I'm curious about how bronze age people would have explained the differences in animal perception.
Like, basic observation and intuition can lead you to conclude that dogs use their nose for a wide variety of things.
But how would ancient people explain how it is that dogs appear to have much more powerful senses of smell than us?
I suppose a lot of myths and folktales cropped up to explain some animal behaviors. Their keen senses being bestowed by gods and what have you.
But is that the case for every behavior? Were there whole classes of behavior which ancient people didn't recognize as distinct that we do thanks to research?
Now I'm curious to know more about the adaptation owls must have
The very idea of an invisible sky wizard conjuring up the whole universe using incantation spell is rather ridiculous to me.
Just say abracadabra slowly and a universe will pop up somewhere. You won’t be able to see it but it’s there in the multiverse
I could buy that, but when you show me THIS world and say that's the perfect creation... That's pretty far fetched.
So is the theory of creating a universe out of nothing. Explain it without resorting to the supernatural. Explain how evolution doesn't conflict with the 2nd law of aerodynamics without resorting to the supernatural.
@@goldenalt3166 NO, WRONG. The world and universe when initially created. Were PERFECT. Only after Satan was thrown out of heaven and Eve sinned did corruption occour.
@@stefanblumhoff1562 maybe it wasn’t created out of nothing but out of another universe, or a previous universe, or a collision between 2 universes eternally being born, expanding then contacting together to die and be reborn again in fire.
We don’t know but whatever the explanation is it will be from science and not magic.
I love it! Listen to an Astrophysicist share his entirely unrelated ideas about Creationism. Next week, a Rocket Scientist will disprove the effectiveness of Plumbing. Coming up Next; Stay Tuned as a Brain Surgeon builds an Ark in less than 120 years.
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or an evangelical🤣
@@PaTrick-cf6ev Perfect. Bless you my child. Send $20.00
@@EverettVinzant Tom is making fun of the creationist astrophysicist that's featured in this video, not Shannon or Paul.
@@EverettVinzant BOOM! Get in. Right off the Bat, an insult. If I do not care what Jason Lisle has to say, what makes you think I care about your petty nonsense? Ah yes, insults... Your Mother was a Hamster and your Father Smelled of Elderberries. I Blow my Nose at You. I Break Wind in your General Direction.
Done. Now we are even. Have a Wonderful Life.
@@Daniel8857 Thank you. Paul and Shannon deserve the highest respect. Absolutely I was mocking the "Appeal to Authority" oft used by the likes of Jason Lisle. My Masters is in Military History, My Doctorate is in Napoleonic Warfare. This in no way qualifies me to become an expert on all things Religious. Cheers.
Do creationists not understand the concept of credibility?
Do they not know the consequences of losing credibility?
No, they don't.
They are clearly under the influence of Satan. God would never tell them they were right and had the truth. He's all "I am the Truth. You can't handle the Truth. Trust me." :)
I thought all publicity was good publicity... it's a marketing strategy to lie and double down on the lie for the follower types to foam at the mouth with as they dig in deeper into the lie and sacrifice more.
They don't care. "Credibility" to them equals "gullibility", they don't care as long as there are suckers who believe them...
No.
When an astrophysicist needs to retreat to the presupposition apologetics script to best defend their position instead of addressing it with the science they got their degree in speaks volumes to the actual strength of their case.
@James Henry Smith I am more than willing to place any bet that the god of young earth creationism is fake, absolutely.
Shannon knocking the science out of the park that was awesome!
*_Fastest way to lose an argument... DENY EVOLUTION!_*
@James Henry Smith OK. Let's do this. What part of evolution do you think is wrong and why? 🤔
Add "Eve's eyes got rewired when she ate the fruit" to the list of things self-proclaimed "literalists" pretend their text says when it clearly doesn't, I guess.
Perfect, I just got lasik for my divinely created eyes. Can't wait to hear why i needed that
There is a certain point where it simply becomes unproductive to keep questioning everything. I can't definitively prove that I'm not just a brain in a jar experiencing a simulated reality. However, since all the evidence of my senses tells me that I am not just a brain in a jar, and that this is not just a simulated reality, then until I have sufficient reason to think otherwise it is reasonable to behave as if I can trust my senses.
This isn't rocket science it's just basic pragmatism.
It's not rocket science but it is ontology.
Soon as I saw this video was Evolution Exposed and only 17 minutes I knew the argument had to be trash.
And man was I not disappointed. Took Shannon less than a minute to blow it out of the water, then she nicely spent the rest of the time cleaning it up.
Almost a nice change of pace. So many creationist claims about evolution require large amounts of time to address.
But then this argument was not one of the better ones I've seen.
He compared all of mankind to BLADES OF GRASS! No buddy we're killing it😂
You missed the massive circular reasoning he used when he said that he can trust his senses that the bible is true because the bible says it's true.
And even though every word was written by humans 'it comes from god''
I almost chop my head off because of how strongly I facedpalmed myself after hearing that plants don't have sensory organs, geez.
I wish there was a Huge "Little Shop of Horrors" size Venus Fly trap. So I could buy one, feed it with, faithfools!
Making Earth Healthy. Eliminating One, Infected, at a Time!
Yet another cool RUclipsr who is Canadian.
I've watched a half dozen of your videos before discovering that you are from Canada.
Hi, from Vancouver.
Paulogia, you and Shannon did a great job with this! And puntastic!👍💙😂💝🥰✌
15:45
So babies can figure out that they they can trust their senses without knowing anything about the bible, but if you don't believe in god, then you can't conclude you can trust your senses?
Shannon, you were right. This is so far off the rails that I don't even know what he is trying to say any more.
Babies can't even _see_ properly for the first few months, I think. Blurry vision, unable to focus, until they finish developing. This is why you shouldn't the pedagogical insights of a pretend-astrophysicist, but if you try telling Jason that he'll just say 'What I can't hear you my senses aren't reliable the bible says babies' eyes are like hawks'
What you'd expect from evolution is senses that are mostly good enough, with some variation, but far from perfect. Which is obviously what we have
OMG Shannon I laughed and laughed when you said "It's a well established fact, based on the objectively sourced RUclips comments, that I've come across, that i am in fact an idiot."
Apparently I too am an idiot. Welcome to the club!
This is the silliest argument I've heard, and I've heard many
It is really bad
Evolution is the “anti-science ?”
Quoz ?
This gentleman makes my head hurt.
But Ms Q ladled on the perfect palliative of piquant snarkasm and rationality and stopped my swelling, itching brain from a collapse into delirium.
Snarkasm. This is my new favorite word.
Note to Shannon Q: Don't forget that the vitreous humor of the human eye has a refractive index of appr. 1.336 while the refractive index of seawater is 1.39807 and that of air is appr. 1.000.
I personally think this is very strong evidence that our eyed evolved from a water dweller. No benevolent designer would have chosen this option.
"No *benevolent* designer would have chosen this option."
So Yahweh is still on the table, is what you're saying?
@@lnsflare1 along with Jehovah and El Elyon.
@@lnsflare1 it was obviously the work of the Great Juju at the bottom of the sea.
It's evidence it's a liquid... that isn't the same index as sea water... Please don't do the creationist thing, just saying that stuff that fits your idea is evidence for it. Our ancestor species left water so long ago that the refractive index could be completely different by now, and if hypothetical life had originated on land liquid lenses with a similar index would still be expected. We know life came from water because of actual evidence, not a near coincidence.
@@lnsflare1 Drum roll please! And give the man a cigar...
Shannon is kicking ass!!! Awesome brain work!!!!
“…It’s odd that sin would effect our visual systems….” lol
14:45 A reference to the 80's show Seeing Things. I am overcome with a warm flood of nostalgia. Thank you.
I'm a bit confused by Jason's line of argumentation.
It sounds like he's saying we can't trust our senses unless we assume they are designed and controlled by God.
For now, let's put aside the question of whether God, or claims about him, could be perceived without those same senses.
As a scientist, did he consider that the reliability of our senses can be tested, examined and quantified? And that the origin of our senses is entirely irrelevant to the question of how reliable they are?
Since all he seemed to say is he trusts unsupported claims of faith over science, that just results in me having less trust in the reliability of Jason's claims.
And of course he entirely glosses over whether reliable science does rely on the trusting of our senses to always be accurate.
His claims about the nature and unreliability of science, make me question why he troubled to get a degree in it.
Creationist are such lightweights. Peewee Herman stepping into the ring with Tyson. 3rd graders trying to debate Einstein.
I understand that the argument he's going for is solipsism, but just getting to hear an "astrophysicist" say, "How do you know you're not a blade of grass?", is an absolute treat. Thank you for that, Paul. 😁😁😁
"Not everything is science."
I love you and your style, Paul.
“There’s no reason to trust your senses except for what the Bible tells you…”… says it all
Our senses work because of ✨✨MAGIC! ✨✨ Man, D&D is awesome, I have never played myself but, clearly, we wouldn't have eyes without D&D.
Also, if only "Perfect God" gave us the common sense to not listen to a talking snake someone created for some reason, we would have perfect eyesight. _What a shame_
Considering the snake's punishment was to slither on the ground, I have to wonder how it got around previously. Did it walk? Did it fly? Eaither way, both make me think this "snake" was actually a dragon. Now the question is, was it chromatic or metallic?
@@VCXZ883 Before its own *SIN* , the snake traveled using its own perfect mode of locomotion, a biological pogo stick.
@@VCXZ883
Roll an Arcana check, and don't cheat.
@@VCXZ883 And it lives by eating dirt ,not many people know that.
@@frankwhelan1715 so it wasn't a snake at all, it was an earthworm?
“Not everything is science.” Priceless 😅
A "Seeing Things" reference? Awesome!!
All touchy feely 🤗🤗🤗🤗
Thanks for another interesting 🤔 presentation! 💯❤️🙏🏽
Degrees in divinity - the lack of embarrassment baffles me.
@James Henry Smith Quite and "Euw .."
@James Henry Smith Did you bring enough for everyone?💊
@James Henry Smith If it didn't, I wasn't trying hard enough. When it comes to "Doctors of Divinity, " I think a better description would be "defecation of character." The graduates of Hogwarts can at least do some tricks other than getting people to part with their money, common sense, and dignity. 😊✌️
Thanks Paul & Shannon, keep highlighting the 'poor' if not ridiculous theist crap on the Tubes. 😁👍
I consider lying to the entire world via the internet as a crime.
Describing the members of this panel as "experts on evolution" instead of "charlatans with no real academic credentials in the subject area" is step one for the Gaslighting Quorum.
Shannon , you are so good. I am grateful to have found you out there. Sharing your insight and questioning these assertions. Thank You.
EDIT : It is specially humorous to hear an astrophysicist, whose very job depends on extending sensory input, make claims regarding our visual system being imperfect. Does he think we started out with the ability to perceive the entire electromagnetic spectrum? With polarity? How about gravity waves? Did we loose all that in that instant? Could Adam and Eve even been human before the fall? With superpowers?
It breaks parody and passes ridicule. Even symmetry.
@James Henry Smith it is not, no.
@James Henry Smith Christianity and Islam contradict each other... both have different sects that disagree with each other... how can both be true?
My impression of Astrophysicists just plummeted to the ground... I think his reasoning deserves a "For the bible tells me so" jingle.
Always good to remember there's a spectrum within any group of people we look at. Finding a bad sample in a group, doesn't do an accurate representation of the group.
Also, I think applying the word reasoning to what Jason did here, is a somewhat loose usage of that word.
I think Jason has demonstrated himself capable of engaging in reason, and using the scientific method. Clearly that was not a priority in this particular talk.
You atheists just don't get it. If you started by believing in the bible you would believe it and know that it is right! You just gotta believe and then it'll all make sense. Of course it doesn't make sense if you don't believe first, you silly geese!
My guess is, he knows perfectly well that he's lying his a** off, but it pays much better than honest astrophysics work...
@@rapdactyl Damn it, that's the answer and it was there, right under my nose all the time! Bible is true, science is make believe! Next time I see a snake, instead of running away, I will sit down beside it and strike up a conversation!
@@rapdactyl ah… I think you’ve had too much flav-r-ade… go sleep it off my dude.
"How do you know you're not a blade of grass?". That guy is _deep_ or high.
Did he just say the "design" wasn't perfect because of the "fall"? How does sin redesign the eye? Does it use evolution and anti-selection to create degraded creatures?
You can justify any position if you are allowed to use your beliefs as evidence, which is great if you want to live in your own head. Jason or whatever is painful to listen to. Shannon is good. Must be a curious person.
Oh ye of little faith, Shannon! Relying on those pesty FACTS! Seriously, that review of how the eye works, brought back memories of Biology 101 in HS. :D
6:30 Reliability of the senses is not a Biblical principle, and it's certainly not exclusive to the Bible. And the reason why we trust our senses is because we literally have no other choice but to do so for the most part. They were, for a really long time, our only means of perceiving the world around us. That is until machines came along that enhanced our ability through these senses or other mediums to perceive the world in different ways. And guess what? We have relied more on these means as they have proven more reliable than our rather limited senses.
7:28 Welp. We have had more reliable non-Biblical ways to perceive our world since. So, the fall isn't really that much of a concern anymore? (at this point, Lisle has basically simply asserted that our perceptions are designed and that they have become "less perfect" after the fall. Actually proving this? Not yet).
12:12 We know because we've actually been able to deceive our senses. And we've invented stuff that allows us to perceive the world better. That's how we know our sense aren't always reliable.
12:28 Reliability of the senses IS a survival trait. I shouldn't even need to explain why. But Lisle is deceitfully pairing "reliability" with "truthfulness" here. Reliability of the senses by itself doesn't need to be at the level where it can reveal to us the "truth" of all things, only enough that we can survive. That's what natural selection does. And hence our eyes are neither perfect nor absolutely reliable, but reliable enough for us to survive as a species.
13:09 Yup, based on the environment, cave fish have no need of eyes for survival. This is endorsing the concept of evolution, not debunking it.
13:18 Which is irrelevant because so many species have survived in a myriad of forms each in their own way even within a specific environment. Lisle is making the ridiculous implication that all the creatures in a single environment would need the exact same traits to survive in it. If anything the opposite is true, the diversity of forms is what sustains a food web in a natural environment.
Unless it's an artificially created homogenous culture like a wheat field (and even then it isn't 100% homogenous), no environment has ever required all species in it to have the exact same traits. They may require common traits, but not all traits have to be exactly the same.
13:28 Because we can perceive that we are not grass?
13:40 You don't, but do we really have to go solipsist Descartes's Demon here? This isn't supposed to be about philosophy right?
15:08 That's not a good reason. I could simply say that our senses were the work of Descartes's Demon and it would still be just as good an answer.
15:21 No you're not. Lisle has just skipped over the fact that his position is no different from everyone else's as he puts it. He has to assume his senses are reliable before even being able to perceive "God" and believe in him through reading the Bible or whatever. Before that there's no way for him to 'know" that God even exists, let alone that God creates his senses to be "reliable".
Thus, Lisle is in the exact same position as everyone else but lies about it. He, just as much as anyone else, has to assume without good reason, that his senses are reliable before he can even know of God's existence, much less things like God creating those senses in the first place. He created this conundrum for others not realizing that it applies perfectly to him as well, as is expected with most apologists who foist standards on others without first checking how those same standards apply to THEIR beliefs and worldview.
So yeah, Lisle claims he has good reason to know his sense are reliable, but he had to assume without good reason that his sense were reliable FIRST before he could even "know" that good reason. So he can't accuse anyone else for believing in the reliability of their sense without good reason without being a hypocrite. Since he has, then well, he's a hypocrite.
15:26 This is his way of trying to avoid the above conundrum, by asserting that everyone can intrinsically "know" God through some sort of hard wiring. It's basically touting the Romans 1:20 verse except even THAT verse requires the use of one's perceptions in order to even get to know God (Look at the TREES!!!).
This is provably bollocks of course, because people who lived before the time of Jesus had no concept of Christianity or Jesus, and people who have never ever been in contact with Christianity or Judaism their entire lives have had no knowledge of God for their entire lives. Lisle is one-upping the stupidity of "Look at the TREES" with "It's in your heart". Entire cultures have lived and died without ever knowing of Judaism or Christianity and hence, of God. Their hearts never led them to Christianity the way it should have if Lisle is correct about his PIDOOMA "hard wiring".
15:30 Nope, they are born "knowing" nothing at all, they simply trust their senses because that's all they have. And even if they did, it doesn't also follow then that they know that God is the one that created their senses and that's why they are 'reliable".
15:36 How about if they never learned to read or learned of the Bible or of Christianity? Do they still arrive at the same conclusions that Christians do about the reliability of their senses? No? Then you're full of shit.
Damn. Lisle has creds in astrophysics, but he's completely useless anywhere else it seems.
It's amazing how someone can make a circular argument, admit that it is, and say that it is fine lol. "No, I can trust my senses, despite me having to get there by presupposing that my senses are reliable!" We both have the presuppose it, period. You can't get anywhere without it. It's pretty much a presuppositionalist "because I presuppose God, I'm justified in it".
@James Henry Smith Cool story troll
@James Henry Smith Okay boomer
Presupposing what you want to be true has to be awfully fucking handy.
WWWWWWWHHHHHHHOOOOOOOO Glasses combo take Down!!!!!
P.S. This is the only thing I could think of to comment with out taking more that 5 minutes out of my day.
*Shannon UNLEASHED!*
I laugh when I hear about humans' sensory perceptions and I really love to dazzle them with audio and optical illusions. Yet their sensory perceptions are so infallible. Only in their tiny minds and egos I guess.
3:33 Did he just call elements “radioactive SPECIES”?
Perhaps he meant KINDS! 😂
"You can't rely on your sensing the world to determine that your senses are somewhat reliable, but I can rely on my sensing the world and the bible to determine that my senses are somewhat reliable."
What an interesting example of special pleading!
13:00
"Grass doesn't have sensory organs"
Oh for pete's sake
Grass has chlorphyll, which allows for the absorption of visible light. In particular, visible wavelengths below 450 (in the blue/violet) and out in the red (660). Therefore, what's left is green.
Visible light absorption is what our eyes are all about. Any carbon-based lifeform can detect UV and IR, but it takes something special to detect visible. Rhodopsin is what we use to get there, grass uses chlorophyll.
Does grass have eyes? No, because it doesn't need eyes. It isn't moving anywhere, it doesn't need spatial recognition. It doesn't need to distinguish between prey and predator, doesn't need to be able to identify the location of somethng moving, nor does it need acute vision. It just wants to gather all the light it can, so it has sensory ability all over its structure.
Grass is one big solar panel. Because that's what it needs. That's what evolution gets you.
You can technically train yourself to see polarization. I never taken the time to do it, but I did read about it.
Being a blade of grass...hmmm...no rent to pay, no food needed to buy, no need for anything......
Just....being
I've heard "you can't tell you're not just a brain in a vat" before. Saying "you can't tell if you are a blade of grass" is a new one. I'll give him that.
And I always love when they say anything bad or not reliable is the result of the Fall. But I've been thinking lately, how do Christians think those changes took place? If everything was perfect but the Fall brought pain and suffering, does that then mean God made a whole bunch of new things and reordered the world just because he was upset people who didn't know any better disobeyed him? Like, were viruses and parasites made during creation, or after the Fall? Was the earth capable of earth quakes and volcanoes before the Fall? Did God have to fundamentally change everything to punish humans? That seems tyrannical, doesn't it?
Let's say there's two parents. They both have a child that disobeyed them. One parent tells their child they need go to their room and they take their game console for a week as punishment. The other parent, after their child disobeyed them, chops a hand off the child as punishment.
Both children disobeyed. But wouldn't we look at the way the parents reacted and could say chopping off a hand is not a loving thing to do? How much more for God to implement all these horrible things, like cancer, earthquakes, viruses, etc. As punishment. Or did those things happen against God's will? In which case, is he really that in control and powerful?
YEC "science." In the beginning of our universe there was a preexisting universe called heaven occupied by a god and angels. This preexisting universe is "explained" as "just is."
Or, a simpler explanation. It is our universe that "just is." The universe named heaven is unneeded. Possible, but unnecessary.
Of course there's this: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design, ultimately found by the court to not be science. 🤣
Escape your theocracy! That ad really made me feel attacked
"I belive my senses are reliable, therefore my senses are reliable"
I'm anticipating a re-tread of Plantinga's EAAN? Is that where we're going? Our reliable senses prove God! Only our senses aren't reliable at all...
12:06
I liked how a second before the guy laughed I thought about how carnivorous animals eat other animals physically but humans "eat" other humans mentally.
That comedic timing.
Obviously there's physical violence but for the most part it's mental.
Shannon is actually a beast
"Eyes are perfect." Had that debate before. No, they're not. I can buy a $10 camera that's more reliable than my eyes. In fact, if the human eye were designed, it would be like designing a car with the engine in the passenger seat and then having to design all sorts of other stuff to make it work. Lashes, lids, lubricant, etc. They're easily subject to disease, and other irritants. Subject to defects of all sorts. Incredibly limited in spectrum. If that's their definition of "perfect" I would say I don't think that word means what they think it does.
It was always hilarious to me, eyes are one of the best examples I can think of to demonstrate both development over time, and point out... Not especially intelligent design choices. Yet, it's a Christian go-to
Creationist says "Likely", "Probable", or "Chance" - Yep i can ignore this statement because they dont understand how probability works. Love the use of probability when talking about the universe, as if we have another one to compare against.
"Taste and see that the Lord is good"
So if something tastes bad...?
Having grown up a catholic, I can assure you the flesh of the lord tastes rather bland.
And his blood is too sweet for my taste.
How do I know I am not a blade of grass? Hmmm, lawnmowers don't terrify me.
Before Sin obviously we had Octopus eyes then Adam and Eve turned everything around 😝
Any Astrophysicist who makes fallacious claims like Jason Lisle does must have signed a "Statement of Faith" which means he doesn't get paid unless he goes against what he knows better and often lies.
This video likely should have come with a face balm brain damage warning. Lol. My brain melts when someone uses philosophical arguments like this to try to disprove a field of science. The “how do you know you can trust your senses” is an interesting though experiment sometimes, but Shannon did a great job explaining that we know that we CAN’T trust our senses. We have had to come up with many ways to overcome our human sense limitations to develop scientific models that we can use to predict reality.
"How do you know you're not a blade of grass?"
I have sensory organs and grass does not. He just told us this. And I don't cut myself with a lawnmower.
I don't know why I am bothering. Solopsism is the most boring form of argumentation and a total waste of time.
We know our senses are reliable because, they reliably translate what we experience to our brain. No god required.
So.......where were their 'experts' on Evolution?
2:40
I disagree, Paul. The scientific method is not a philosophy, it is a methodology. I mean, it's kind of in there, in the name.
The scientific method is objective, not subjective. Philosophy is subjective, not objective.
Now, philosophy may use objective truths in its formation of thoughts, arguments and ideas, however philosophy itself, is not objective. Or am I wrong somehow? 🤔
If I am, please show me where I am incorrect.
My eyes are perfect? Apparently, according to my optician yesterday, I'm beginning to develop cataracts. Doesn't sound perfect to me.
"How do you know, you're not a blade of grass?" Do they even listen to themselves? *facepalm*
Even if I accept Jason's assumptions about the mind and the senses being reliable because they needed to be created that way, at absolute best these are assumptions of theism, not biblical creation. The claim is that human beings need to have been designed, but there is nothing about this that necessitates the designer being the biblical God specifically. It doesn't even exclude evolution - many theistic believers happily admit that evolution happened and is happening, but are saying that their God or Gods have somehow guided the evolutionary process and directed it towards what humans are today, and the idea that the human sensory system is the result of a deity making small incremental changes and working with each successive generation rather than being able to start from scratch makes far more sense than "our eyes used to be perfect but God decided to mess them up as punishment for two people eating a fruit." And of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that God very clearly explains what his punishment for Adam and Eve was in the Bible, and at no point does worse eyesight come close to entering the picture.
Shannon, I tell you what our eyes looked like before Eve, watch ' The Mutant ' on The Outer Limits, our ears, watch Nosferatu. Both of those give excellent examples of what our perfect senses originally looked like.
Shoutout to Shannon.
When we question their God, his ways are not our ways and we could not possibly know why he does what he does. But if they think it'll prove their God? Oh sure, "He made our senses so we could experience and enjoy the world"
Do Creationists consider sin a creative force or entity? If death did not exist before sin it is reasonable to assume that the immune system was created by it. Questions for the next encounter.
Irreduceable complexity, or as it is better known, "Glasses man words for the furrowed brow".
I learned that the retina has the circulatory system and nerves on the inside, while rod and cone cells are located near the outside of the eye, so the brain has to compensate in order to enhance perception. I would have expected this the other way around for an intelligent design.
“”If you’re in America, you can escape your theocracy….”
Did he just 🎵Because my senses tell me so 🎵 us?