@@jasmeet_singh2028 *Very wise. Ur children shouldn't be taught nonsense like they come from bacteria and nature can create and evolve codes and information. That would have been ok for kindergarten.*
*It means one of 2 things: 1) either he doesn't know the theory because it's about the theory of evolution THROUGH RANDOM MUTATIONS and natural selection; 2) he realizes that randomness (including RANDOM mutations) cannot lead to anything meaningful, so he actually rejects the theory of evolution.*
@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 well many atheist especially scientists don't concede the notion of 'true' randomness. But we understand evolution and its processes, how then can we call it random? There's only apparent random mechanisms such ad mutations but the entire theory isn't about chance.
@@lordfreizaa4013 *You mean if we understand the brownian motion, that means it is not random? Can you predict the exact speed of the wind in your area for tomorrow?*
Dawkins realizes the universe can't be completely random because 13 billion years wouldn't be enough time. That's not even enough time for every proton in the world to type Hamlet one time by pure chance.
God doesn't need to be made by another creator as he has always existed. Likewise a universe which is eternal has no need for an explanation since its existence is necessary.
@@blizzforte284 Using the same argument that God always existed, you can also argue that Complex beings like humans always existed and don't need creator.
@@blizzforte284 Christians have already given arguments against the Ontological Argument. Way back in the Middle Ages Gaudino responded to Anselm’s articulation of the argument by pointing out that you could prove the existence of anything simply by declaring it to be the most perfect imaginable version of that thing. Kant, also a Christian, demolished it by pointing out that existence is not a predicate and the Ontological Argument was a “miserable tautology”
'Can I prove God? No!!! But for some reason, I just believe. Until I'm proven otherwise, I'll believe'. Imagine someone saying the exact same thing, only substituting 'God' with 'magical elf people'. Do you at least see WHY we are baffled by you?
The designer argument based on real designers is truly naive. It doesn't seem to take into account that those observed real designers actually just pull from nature, and they were created by nature. Initially they're no designers at all, but are totally empty in that department until they gain the necessary experience. But for some reason they look at designers as an ultimate starting point. As if they can just design things out of the blue. It is convenient tho to look them that way, because if will fit much better with the God argument they try to make.
Dawkins' arguments are thoughtful and well reasoned. Science doesn't have all the answers...yet...to the pithy questions that bedevil mankind, but the trail of evidence clearly leads away from the notion of an all-powerful supernatural being and points to natural, physical laws that provide cogent explanations for difficult questions with which mankind has been grappling for millennia. Religion raises more questions than it answers, while It is abundantly apparent science is on the right track.
the problem with this argument is that if everything is perfectly designed then why are there so many poorly designed things in the universe. Even if things are poorly designed does that mean that the designer is also in the same stroke poor designer? This why the design argument falls in its place. And of course the ultimate question is where did the designer appear and where did it come from?
Actually, I agree with you to a point when I think about it. Since there are times when science don't really have an explanation for the mechanism behind the explanation, one can still explain it. Even without genetics, natural selection does have a good explanation for how evolution works, it's just that genetics explains the actual mechanism. However, that's more than can be said about the idea of a designer, which i think the "where did the designer came from" argument is about.
There should always exist an explanation of the explanation. Natural selection explains how evolution works, and there are explanations for what natural selection is and how it works. It's a perfectly valid argument for the situation.
"A watch is proof that there was a watchmaker". Nope. If a stone-age man found a watch, he would not see that as proof that there was a watchmaker. He would probly see that as proof that there was a god. Education tells us that a watch is not proof of a god. Education tells us that life is not proof of God. Creationists are simply lacking education
@@jeffreykaufmann2867 I can picture a stone age man finding a watch. He is possibly smarter than u & i, in his own way. He looks at the watch. He doesnt understand what it is or what it could be used for, but he recognizes that its design & its construction are too advanced for mere mortals, certainly not by anyone on his island, & no-one on any islands that he knows of, & he duznt automatically think that there might be some very advanced tribes from far away that made it, or that there might be visitors from another planet. He thinks that it could only have been made by a super-human, ie a god or a demi-god (not an advanced human, & not a visitor from another planet unless of the god or demi-god variety of visitor). Or he might even think that that kind of object has been created miraculously using magic (probably by a god or demi-god)(possibly throo the local high priest). The question on his mind would then be how & why did it get there. Was it put there on purpose, perhaps so that he himself could find it. Or was it accidentally lost. Should he take it & try to use it, in which case he might make the gods angry. Or should he play safe(r) & give it to his tribe & high priest for them to sort it all out, hopefully with less risk to himself. Or should he perhaps play ultra-safe & leave it where it is, & not tell anyone. Or even hide it, no, the gods might get angry if he duznt pick it up & take it. There is no perfectly safe way out. But, if he takes it, what use might it be. It might be useless, worse still it might bring very bad luck, or make the gods angry. The bottom line is that he would reckon that the watch was made or created by a watchmaker, & that the watchmaker was a god or a demi-god. But if he was shown modern society he would learn that we can make watches, we dont need gods.
@@atheistaetherist2747 A watch is proof that there was a watchmaker cause we know that watches are made by humans. Why isn't life proof that there is a God? Since a Watchmaker created the watch then a human maker created a human.
@@atheistaetherist2747 If There is no Ultimate creator that would mean that the Physical World has Always existed and didn't need a Creator. Is that what Atheists Believe?
Those who quote the watchmaker and the watch as a way to disprove evolution miss the blindingly obvious, as do those who make the counter argument. The fact is that the watch is a very intricate piece of precision engineering with numerous moving parts, it did not come into being in one hit, the watch itself evolved over time. The very first wristwatch only came into being in the 1860's The very earliest way of telling the time was to look at the position of the sun in the sky and from that you could tell roughly what time of day it was. Next step on from that was to put a stick in the ground and see where the shadow fell. We did not go from that simple stick to a fully functioning Rolex accurate to withing milliseconds in one jump - there were hundreds of incremental changes which took place over a long period of time before we arrived at an accurate timepiece. Yes, the existence of a watch does indicate the existence of a watchmaker but that's a long way away from saying that a creator just made it instantly from nothing. The watchmaker argument actually goes some way to support the idea of evolution, not disprove it.
andy What people do when arguing about evolution is forget quantum physics where what is studied are quarks, which are constantly bursting forth and spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light, forming what are called protons and neutrons. This is energy and light that is constantly bursting and spinning. This proves constant creation. I found some of these words in the book "The Quantum World" written by the physicist Kenneth Ford. Also see the book "Hands of Light" written by the physicist Barbara Brennan. There are pictures in this book of what we look like out of these bodies as holograms or eternal energy beings. Time is simultaneous. The images that existed billions of years ago exist now as images still. Nothing is solid. We are saturated in a holodeck as holograms. Has to be true because nothing is solid, but constantly vibrating as energy. E=mcsquared.
Pure Energy - I'll take your word for it. My entire knowledge of quantum physics can be written on a postage stamp and is likely to remain so. It sounds absolutely fascinating but I fear most of it would pass straight over my head.
I was walking alone in the desert when I found a watch. It was beautiful and amazingly intricate, and it was clearly struggling to survive. It had a reproductive system, and I could see a cute little baby watch forming inside. I noticed several dangling gears that had no function, which were limiting it, and other inefficiencies, like the fact that it only wound itself up about halfway, or certain parts that would have been more suited for water. As I dug down into the sand, I found broken watches, more and more primitive with none of the ones from the upper layers in the lower ones. Whenever a watch hit upon a really great addition, it would tend to also be in all the watches above it. Deep into the sand I found evidence of a lake...that was the place where I found that the watch had first gotten its water processing bits. I considered the possibility that a watchmaker had been sitting here trying by trial and error to make the best watch. But, given the intellect required to design them, he sure seemed to be making a lot of stupid mistakes. Even when he hit upon a good idea, he didn't seem to know what it was actually for: he kept the water processing system long after the lake had dried up, despite how inefficient it made the watches in the desert. Nor did he pass his best ideas on to other kinds of watches, if they were too different. Instead he'd solve the same problem a second time in a different way, as though he'd never seen it before, and he was not necessarily better on his second try. The only thing he seemed to know was whether the change worked, that is, whether it made them survive better and reproduce more. So he mustn't have had any skill with watchmaking, but merely observing and tinkering. Looking at the way this poor little watch struggled in the hot sun, I considered for a grim moment the cruelty that would be necessary to build watches this way. It was as though the watchmaker hadn't even been thinking at all... And suddenly, I realized who the watchmaker was.
The universe is 10^18 seconds old, and there are 10^82 atoms in the universe. If you multiply these two numbers together, it's still FAR smaller than the denominator of the probability of typing Hamlet randomly, which is over 10^130,000 possibilities. I don't know if the universe can make a watch randomly, but it DARN sure isn't able to make Hamlet randomly, unless it gets many, many orders of magnitude older.
But watches are "evolving" as well. Watches, just as well as other inventions, are gradually getting better over time. They're getting more accurate, more precise, they come in smaller designs, they have more features. They adapt to the needs and desires of the consumers. This is all happening gradually as the art of watchmaking proceeds, and watchmakers try new ways to do things, and eliminate failed attempts.
1. Dawkins IS a scientist. Of course he understands science, including its limitations. 2. Dawkins mentions often that he cannot disprove God, therefore he's an agnostic atheist. Not Dawkins makes look religious people stupid, they often make themselfes look stupid.
The watchmaker argument is very easy to to dispute. How do you know the watch is designed? By comparison to nature. Watches don't grow on trees, right? So nature CANNOT be designed. Right? If nature was designed how would you recognize design? Right? :D
+ImplosiveCat Yes the analogy is easy to dispute, however no using the above questions. Q1 - Part I We imply the knowledge of the design of the watch because of two reasons: A - We have proof that every other watch in (the known) existence has be designed. B - We can take it apart to it's most basic pieces and see that the pattern of the pieces means that they work so harmoniously that it would be logical (not certain but highly probably) that in order to do so the watch must have been designed. Q1- Part II This is contextually nonsensical. The reason being is that the analogy doesn't even remotely suggest that watches grow on trees or are A PART of nature. What the analogy is trying to do is compare the harmony, mechanics & creation of the universe and nature to that of a watch. Therefore as said above this display of harmony and pattern in the mechanics of the universe & nature is the same as that of the watch leading to the logical conclusion of the comparison. Q2 - In a simply form this question is now made redundant by Part II of my answer to Q1. Q3 - What i have said in Q1 - PII is relevant however to develop on that, if you were to strip anything down even to it basic feature you can observe the harmony and pattern of it mechanics which suggests something created/designed it. Now while you can not do this to the universe as a whole, like any experience you can dissect and observe various different parts to get an over all view and result.
Regarding the Watchmaker Argument: a) most watches made by the same watchmaker are often mass produced and the same and b) watches are usually close to perfect and rarely break down if properly maintained. Whereas eyes, for example, are rarely the same (a good thing) and imperfect or flawed: blind (including from birth) or color blind, cataracts, et al. Why did the eye "designer" make them all right? Was he incompetent or just plain cruel?
As Matt Dillahunty pointed out, just because a banana fits in your ass doesn't mean it was designed for it. Besides, explain the design of the coconut.
@gregrutz sorry I realy dont get it :D If a tree shows 1000 rings, can the tree be around 750 years old, because the tree might have made 2 rings once in a while. So you cannot trust this time messurement. I realy dont understand what you are talking about.
So at the end Dawkins concludes that everyone of religion is an idiot, incapable of understanding complex concepts. And apparently you can't believe in both a God and natural selection? At first, Dawkins seemed intelligent and I was eager to hear his arguments. The ending slide convinced me that he's an ass, formulating one-sided arguments to taunt those who do not share his views, and to make his flock of admirers giggle in the audience. That last slide made my blood boil.
Vlad Lucian That's not entirely true. I'll predicate this with stating that I am an Atheist, but I'll play Devil's Advocate for a minute. If Natural Selection is the HOW of life, there is still room for God in the 'why'. In the ultimate purpose. Maybe God was just bored. Thought he'd just put together a ton of mass into one place to see what came of it, and it couldn't hold together. It just started expanding, faster and faster, and the natural laws started to kick in. Being a bored entity with not much else to occupy him, he watched, tweaked things here and there to see what would happen, and eventually, there were humans. A species that he could screw with a bit and maybe drive to insanity by making them pray to different names he gave himself over the centuries. Maybe God is like a kid with a magnifying glass, and humans are the ants? But, the point is, evolution explains the how, but doesn't give us a why. And that's where religious folk who accept scientific fact hold to their beliefs. They want a purpose. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. Everyone wants to matter in one way or another. It's just a little childish to think that, if there is a God, that he cares about you as an individual. If you want to matter, matter to those around you, because they'll be the only ones who notice when you die. Live on in their memories. It's the only immortality you'll get.
He isn't targetting creationists to begin with. He has said he is talking to those still on the fence, people who have yet to decide one way or the other.
I can make up a creature that is invisible and undetectable and i'll just write a whole book about how it created the world. Oh so now because you cant disprove it, it must mean this creature is real. the fact is we don't know the answer to everything, but saying that an invisible man in the sky did it and deem him unquestionable is absolutely stupid.
It says that the watchmaker argument is illogical. 1) if that's your idea of god (there are lots of different interpretations) then there's no point in assuming one exists. 2) What? The argument is "wow this is so complicated, therefore god did it", what does it have to do with abiogenesis?
@djhellkloud I never said that Macro evolution is false! I simply said that Macro evolution has limits; it can not change a species from its kind of animal to a species within another kind of animal. The evolution theory explains the change from a species to another species (the origin of the species) or the origin of the variations within a species. The only thing evolution is wrong about right now is that all species had a common ancestor. The fact is that there are different ...
Re: where energy comes from.. I'll try to explain that in a nutshell: At the time of the Big Bang, space expanded and the universe cooled too rapidly for hydrogen to completely fuse into heavier elements. This means that hydrogen is a store of potential energy.This energy can be released as LIGHT upon fusion. This can occur during gravitational collapse in star formation, due to high pressure and heat, such as in our Sun. Light released reaches Earth and is converted to diff forms of energy.
Didn't read that before I posted this ;) I never claimed that there is a possible view that competes with the theory of evolution. Notice though that testable is a broad term. To know what happened in the past, something can only be tested in the present. But some events or situations aren't currently testable directly. An example of this would be the faint sun paradox and its explanations.
yeah i thought he was bit obnoxious too but then i watched another video where he talks about his apparent obnoxious image and says its because people hold religion in this 'untouchable' box and any criticism is taboo. then i started thinking maybe he's not so obnoxious its just the subject matter
In Nomadic times to Symbolise fear. And in the Middle-Ages to empower the wealthy few over the ignorant many. "Religion is regarded by the common folk as true" "By the wise as false" "And by the Ruleling class as useful" Seneca
Excerpts from an Interveiw at The Paley Watch Company for those keen to invest their money. “We have a two tiered business approach,” Managing Director Lance Korpulous explains. “The first is aimed at the individual consumer. You first purchases [sic] a shaker. Watch parts are sold separately. Simply place the watch parts into the shaker and vigorously shake. The law of natural selection dictates the watch will ultimately assemble. It may go through various stages, and each assembly will require a different amount of time; but we know it works.” Has a watch ever been assembled by shaking? “No,” smiles Korpulous. “But that is of no concern. The theory is solid and evolution is as well established as the sciences of quantum chemistry, Newtonian physics and global warming. If you release a ball from a height, it will fall. If you shake a box of watch parts, it will assemble into a watch.”
+Harm10412 No, it has been demonstrated scientifically that the materials like stainless steel, plastics etc are all natural and readily form in nature. Volcanic activity has been shown to melt metal ores and form cogs, springs etc and silicates can melt to form lens. It's not a great leap of faith, it's solid science.
+Lap Dan Just trying to use the new Google RUclips non reply reply in comments that doesn't work. Is it the channel? or do people who debate religion in youtube comments not allowed to reply to each other anymore?
If the human body had been designed by anyone with a smidgeon of engineering skill it would have been a better creation. The spine for example is ok if you walk on all 4s. It is unsuited to upright walking especially for anyone who routinely needs to carry heavy weights from construction workers to anyone carrying the weekly shop.
The statement about the universe makes sense though. While it's possible that God could exist and either ALWAYS intervene in perfectly predictable ways, or NEVER intervene at all, neither of those require him to exist. They are, therefore, the same as if he didn't exist for all practical purposes. There are other ways to prove things than physical evidence, such as logic (e.g. all of mathematics), but theists have not succeeded on that front either.
I find it remarkably entertaining that you jump to the conclusion that I am these things and then accuse me of jumping to conclusions. Egocentric much? 1. The Big Bang THEORY is that a singularity rapidly expanded into the known universe. It fails to explain where that singularity came from. 2. "jumping to inept conclusions" 3. Reproduction is a mechanism that helps the universe function. A cog is a mechanism which helps a watch function. Please understand the analogy. (Continued)
Well, this is just a short clip, it's likely he explained those things in other parts of the lecture. Also, he explains all of those things in his several books on the subject, the most recent (and most comprehensive explanation of the evidence for evolution being The Greatest Show on Earth).
You're wrong, the likelihood of that rock being there is much smaller than the universe coming into existence. For it to be there, not only did the universe have to come into existence but also the following billions of years had to go a very specific way.
1. So, the singularity was always there? Last I checked, dark energy is still something and thus the question can be asked "Where does dark matter/energy come from?" 2/3. My analogy? This analogy has been around for... I don't even know how long. No, watches don't have babies, but reproduction represents a mechanism within the watch. The analogy is not poor, just your understanding of it. 4. Out of curiosity, what must one do to deserve an ad hominem attack?
@eagleeye2102 RE: Trees not mean it is undeniably true, just that it's remained our best knowledge on the subject for a long while. But here's something that would clinch the worldwide flood for you and every other believer. There are trees that are classed as over 6,000 years old all over the Earth. Take some sample cores from each of them and compare their dendrochronology and match up the year (on each of them) where the flood supposedly took place. It's not terribly convincing evidence
In regard to the discussion by Dan and Sean about the mathematical probability of a rock being in a certain location, this seems to me a (fairly common) misapplication of the concept of probability. The probability of something which as already happened is exactly one. It's a mathematical certainty. If I go into a field, intending to pick one piece of clover from a hundred million, it is wildly improbable (from the point of view of each piece of clover) that it will be the one which is picked. Once it is picked, however, there is nothing in the slightest bit improbable about it being the one which *was* picked. Assigning probabilities retrospectively is fraught with perils like this, and creationists make themselves foolish most times they attempt this in public.
@davorunner 1) let's imagine that something exists after death so amazing and wonderful that we can't begin to understand it. 2) We can't use logic to argue against this point, because it is something so amazing we can't begin to understand. 3) Since we can't argue against it, it must be real. it's a nice idea. but the next question is do you actually believe in this, or is it that you want to believe in it?
The argument that we should reject the idea of God as creator because it lacks explanatory power doesn't work. It's true that providing God as an explanation doesn't explain God but I don't see any reason for assuming that everything that is ought to be comprehensible.
The moment you say god as the whatever every theist is going to jump all over trying to insert there square god into the hole when it's obviously a circle. There trying to avoid that outcome and the fact that there's no reason to believe it's a god since gods are normally rulers or metaphysical beings who do things that are oddly human
I don't know, I think there might be more going on than we can comprehend. I sat on a stationary bike at the science centre that was a basic generator: peddling illuminated a small series of lights. Science and rationality are fine but I think we should accept that they are powered by human minds. Peddling at top speed we may struggle to light the far corners of the room, let alone the universe. Imagine me ordering cat food on the internet. The internet doesn't "lack explanatory power" but it's certainly not comprehensible to my cat. I don't want to confuse things I don't comprehend with things that can't possibly exist.
It's cool that your trying to ponder what's outside the universe something may appear incomprehensible to us but it will be commonplace to our descendents
I agree that there are things we don't know, and probably things we cannot know. And I agree that the inability to explain everything does not constitute valid grounds for discarding a discipline. I think one strength which science has in comparison with belief systems is that (when done properly) it does not pretend to be able to explain the inexplicable. Some religious belief systems do, and I personally think this is not a useful attribute. Furthermore, it is not, I think, a good idea to accept as true propositions we have no prospect of ever understanding. For instance, I think there are competing, interesting ideas about the big bang theory, but I don't expect I will ever be in a position to accept any of them as true, and I don't see a problem with that. It does not reflect badly on science; quite the opposite. And there are things which modern evolution theory is unable to explain, particularly with reference to the origins of life. I think it would be a mistake to assume that we can ever come up with a single compelling explanation on this extraordinary categorical shift (compelling in the same way that modern theories of micro evolution are to most people and their extension to macro evolution is to many)
EatsYouUp, we are using the term "natural" not nature. It specifically refers to humans not having a creator, not a vague point at all. drche420 is feebly trying to compare the creation of a watch to countless years of mutations and natural selection, the validity of which Darwinians vouch for on account of evidence ranging from Macroscopic (Bones) to beyond microscopic (DNA).
"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389) - Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton
Not really. Since the usual idea of intelligent design or creation is that if something is complexe then it must have been created by a designer, then it is a fair question who created the designer since it must have been something complexe itself. If the designer don't need a designer then there is no reason to believe that the other stuff needed a designer.
And here we are. Back to square one: try and understand this time. I don't have to justify anything, for any number of reasons. In addition, you made the mistake of calling me out. Don't expect me to cry now because you have nothing to offer. Better luck next time. At least you are now back to not knowing--a good place to start.
So, Hitchen's concedes that a complex timepiece was created by intelligent design ofan infinitely more complex human, but the human was created by natural selection,not by an infinitely more complex designer. Did not Darwin himself state that if any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous,successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. I believe it wasHadgi who spent a life-time trying to" naturally select" single-celled flagellates to multicellular ones---and this was way way down phylogenetically.Not being as well-schooled as Prof. Hitchens, I must be missing something here. Pleaseenlighten me.
Thanks. I'm a Dawkins fan, and am aware of all of your points. And I concede he may have covered my points in another part of this lecture. Still, I felt my comment did fairly point out that the crane metaphor he uses here would have been made clearer if he'd tossed in the phrase "the non-random survival value of some of those random mutations." I know he's made that precise point many times in other contexts, I just feel he should have included it in this particular context, too.
No it's not. If something doesn't have an explanation then it's really nothing. It would almost be like saying that evolution works by natural selection, but we have no explanation for what natural selection is or how it works. That's why even an explanation needs a explanation.
But why do you think it is fair? What do you think about my round circle analogy and why do you think it does not fit perfectly, given that I have explained what people mean by a circle and what theists/deists mean by God?
@JOverton1992 We are not discussing religion or faith here. This is not a Bible study nor Intelligent design. Let us stick with scientific evidence that support what Darwin was stating in his book that four legged animals with short necks after several generations turned into giraffe. Those short necked animals simply forgot or refused to look down for vegetation on the ground.
That depends. If the creator is timeless, spaceless and immaterial, the question 'who created God' is nonsensical. It would be like asking why circles are round. Btw, I accept evolution, but I take it you use it as an example. If your strain of logic is valid, I cannot accept the explanation of natural selection/evolution, because you need to give me an explanation of the explanation of natural selection. And then an explanation of the explanation of the explanation of natural selection.
your wrong and right, mutation is random, and most mutations are nuetral, some are negative, and some are positive, the ones that are negative are selected out of the gene pool very quickly, the positive ones thrive and procreate. mutation is random, but the actual selection is very far from chance.
Education in general in the US and UK schools is absolutely appalling. Critical thinking and logical reasoning just are not taught. How can children understand anything properly if they can't use reason and critical thinking.
@djhellkloud Forget about the past, I'm talking about the present. I don't care about what was taught in the past, the hypotheses of a basic animal kind is something new. In the past, a kind was something which we today call a species. I, however, am talking about a basic animal kind which has different species in it. This would create a limit for Macro evolution and therefore disprove the evolution idea of the past, not the evolution theory. Again, tree ring counting is not plausible!
@gilless429 I didnt say Creation. I said creation ***of** LIFE. It is given that there has been a creation of life. The rest of your statement is obsolete. ----> cre·a·tion /kriˈeɪʃən/ Show Spelled[kree-ey-shuhn] Show IPA noun 1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering. 2. the fact of being created. 3. something that is or has been created. 4. the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God. 5. the world; universe.
before you start preching, you have to prove that he exists. you say the "clear" demonstration he has provided for his existence is that we can't explain everything without him, but we can with him. that might be a reaosnable point if you weren't begging the question: 1) let's define God as an all powerful being that explains everything 2) the best explanation for everything will be the one that explains everything 3) God explains everything 4) the best explanation is God 5) God must exist
@TomFynn The video doesnt show how giraffe evolved. Again, provide a list of at least 10 four legged animals which showed clearly that they evolved GRADUALLY from having short neck until they transformed into a giraffe. We will examine them one by one here. At least 10, it should be easy because if evolution is true there should have been thousands of intermediate forms since natural selection requires fine gradation or incremental changes over very long period of time.
Rant: I'm always annoyed when an audience is too eager to clap. 2:38 is the perfect example. It ruins the speaker's rhythm and makes the audience wait untill the clapping is over. It's OK once in a while, but don't do it every freaking time the speaker says something you agree with or we'll be here all night. /rant.
If the creator is timeless, spaceless and immaterial, then he's not much of an explanation as we can't test it, which makes evolution even more superior as an explanation since it can be tested and even make certain predictions. And there is a limit of explanations if you limit yourself to the theory of evolution, unless you need to have every answer we know to the very beginning of the universe, which is not what evolution is about.
Okay, I hold that position as well. My original comment was on his moronic assumption that "the universe would be different if god exists." The burden of proof is completely irrelevent because neither side is able to provide any. Like I said - to get hung up on the evidence argument is completely stupid. I know atheists love to advocate for logic and reason, yet I find it hypocritical to think that the only way to achieve logic or reason is through evidence.
Bit late for me to be replying, but: A) no one is claiming that the universe came into being "by itself". >_> B) Faith in something does not make it true, however religion in general breeds more trouble than no religion, as is demonstrated throughout history. It would be so much more beneficial to us to build a society of morals that do not come from a two thousand year-old book, but from usng our own sense of intelligence and rational.
@eagleeye2102 From wikipedia: flood geology (I suggest you read the whole article) "Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology, physics, chemistry, molecular genetics, evolutionary biology, archaeology, and paleontology, and the scientific community considers the subject to be pseudoscience" You're still claiming the flood is supported by science?
Yes, there absolutely IS a burden of proof on the side of the person who claims that God exists. If I claim that I was visited by spacemen in a flying saucer, or that I have a fire-breathing dragon as a pet, only an idiot would believe me without proof. The burden to back my claims up with evidence falls on me. You claim there's a God? OK, where's your evidence? The Watchmaker argument is logically flawed, and it defeats itself if you think about it.
I do wish Dawkins had explained natural selection's mechanism more clearly: the non-random survival of random mutations. Many people who don't understand evolution think it is just about random mutations, and don't understand that the survival value of some mutations, which in turn get passed onto subsequent generations, is the key to the crane metaphor. I'd also have liked a few words on sexual selection--for example, a peacock's tail is the result of what generations of peahens find sexy.
@lolgepwnt This is not a defence, Giraffe is the iconic example of evolution taught in almost all biology class.. Since you cannot provide a list of at least 10 four legged animals which showed clearly that they evolved GRADUALLY from having short neck until they transformed into a giraffe. Which other micro-organism bacteria evolved to? Bacteria did not mutate to be resistant to antibiotics. Research showed that some cultured bacteria 100 years ago are already resistant to antibiotics.
@eagleeye2102 RE: Trees I don't think of it as a win or a loss. As I stated before, science is imperfect. What we know of dendrochronology in general and dendrochronological paleoecologly specifically is subject to change if our knowledge is shown to be faulty. It may turn out at the end that you are absolutely correct, but at the moment our best knowledge shows it to be otherwise.
Perhaps i should try to make it a little clearer. If you have an idea which requires an endless string of questions, then you need to have an endless string of answers. That's a problem the idea of evolution and its explanation natural selection removes. All you can do with it is to try to find the last missing clues for the last questions.
While god's intervention does not affect his existence, the point is about how it would affect us or provide us with a way to distinguish God from fiction. For God to be meaningful, he'd have to interact with us inconsistently or unpredictably. Since it is illogical to believe in the existence of something without any evidence or logical proof of that thing, the atheist perspective is the current victor, the defending champion. That is, until such time as pro-theistic logic or evidence appears.
@davorunner There's such a huge contradiction in how Christians dismiss science as an alternative. You say, "to believe that random molecules were just here is preposterous." Well, we say, to believe that a random God was just here is also preposterous. Do you see how that works?
@KingDingaLing090 --->intellectuals. = Correct Spelling ---->"achieve a challenge" = Terrible grammar --> The belief that you could argue with Dawkins without being laughed out of the room for ignorance= Very Funny
Why would a universe with god be different than one without? God would be the greatest scientist, physicist, biologist, chemist, etc. Just because god would have CREATED science doesn't mean it'd be different. Reply if I'm wrong, but if god and the universe have always existed - with god simply shaping matter and energy into what we know today - then the watchmaker argument would still stand. Like the watchmaker, god simply makes 'complex' creations out of something that was already there.
@daogdaog In case you haven't noticed: The fossil evidence is not proof for the case of evolution. It is a bonus. The point is the looping around of the laryngal nerve. Or do you see that as evidence for design? If yes, it must have been a pretty incompetent designer.
@Tom Don't you think that if the Atheists felt really confident that more exploration on Mars could prove their "Methodological Naturalism" is a Law of Nature, that Evolution is not just theory ,but a Law that universally impacts the whole Universe, they would have fostered more voyages to test their theorem ? They did the best they can, there is not a material cause of reason that Mars is Sterile, except that Evolution and Methodological Naturalism is not NOT A LAW , but opinion.
first of all, saying the big bang is wrong doesn't disprove evolution since they are two different concepts which is your only response to evolution. As for your question to the big bang, that's not the only explanation for our world, and there is the concept of the multiverse-which I'm sure you've never heard of because you never bothered to try to understand anything to do with this subject. OPEN YOUR EYES AND EARS AND MAK YOUR OWN DECISION!
>This is the best that the atheists have to >dispute God's existence? That's like putting >an arrogant little league pitcher up against >Alex Rodriguez. Even if this *was* our best, it's still a lot better than the assumption that a god does exist. All the theist arguments I've seen so far basically boil down to "things are so complicated, it *has* to be magic." Imagine if detectives would solve cases like that.
@hevy99 Claiming to "posess" intelligence and saying you are insulting my intelligence are two different matters. You suggested with your comment that I'm claiming to have some type of superior intellect. I might and might not. That is purely subjective. I knock you for your grammar because you personally insult people on here. You attempt to insult me as well. You tell me to take Biology classes when you cannot even get the simplest form of grammar correct.
@JOverton1992 There is no need to involve religion or creationism in this discussion. Let us confine ourseleves in scientific discussion. You stated lack of evidence in one area, so I asked you which other area. What about bacteria? which other micro organism bacteria gradually involved into? Darwin stated that from a single cell gradually evolved so many species.
fair play but i dunno i just think that maybe there is something cos the balance between things in the universe is pretty immense. im not religious at all but if you think about it the big bang (which i also believe in) cant be the end of it. how else are you meant to make a universe after all?
The big bang theory doesn't really try yo explain the creation of the universe as such, it's more like the universe was somehow created and then this happened.
I don't understand theory A, and I have to protect my children from understanding theory A!
uncleanunicorn - won't somebody think of the children !!!
Lool perfect
When I see that slide, it seems to me that Theory A is Christianity and Theory B is atheism.
@@mattk6719 stop
@@jasmeet_singh2028 *Very wise. Ur children shouldn't be taught nonsense like they come from bacteria and nature can create and evolve codes and information. That would have been ok for kindergarten.*
Richard Dawkins also said in his book, "The God Delusion" that evolution has nothing to do with chance in the first place.
*It means one of 2 things: 1) either he doesn't know the theory because it's about the theory of evolution THROUGH RANDOM MUTATIONS and natural selection; 2) he realizes that randomness (including RANDOM mutations) cannot lead to anything meaningful, so he actually rejects the theory of evolution.*
@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 well many atheist especially scientists don't concede the notion of 'true' randomness. But we understand evolution and its processes, how then can we call it random? There's only apparent random mechanisms such ad mutations but the entire theory isn't about chance.
@@lordfreizaa4013 *You mean if we understand the brownian motion, that means it is not random? Can you predict the exact speed of the wind in your area for tomorrow?*
Dawkins realizes the universe can't be completely random because 13 billion years wouldn't be enough time. That's not even enough time for every proton in the world to type Hamlet one time by pure chance.
god is so complex he must have been made by a creator
God doesn't need to be made by another creator as he has always existed. Likewise a universe which is eternal has no need for an explanation since its existence is necessary.
@@joshcreedon772 Pseudo-intelligent people using the childish ontological argument, so dumb that laughter is enough to refuted it.
@@insanetester1015 At least give arguments against his ontological arguments. Just using words like "laughter" and "dumb" is just as childish.
@@blizzforte284 Using the same argument that God always existed, you can also argue that Complex beings like humans always existed and don't need creator.
@@blizzforte284
Christians have already given arguments against the Ontological Argument. Way back in the Middle Ages Gaudino responded to Anselm’s articulation of the argument by pointing out that you could prove the existence of anything simply by declaring it to be the most perfect imaginable version of that thing. Kant, also a Christian, demolished it by pointing out that existence is not a predicate and the Ontological Argument was a “miserable tautology”
I love the sound of pure reasoning, coming to irrefuteable conclusions.
The problem with creationists is that they attempt to solve a mystery by appealing to an even bigger mystery and leaving it at that.
Scientific naturalists have no problem believing in an infinite, eternal all powerful universe/multiverse. You just can't call it God.
@@0607guy Why call the universe god when we already have a word for the universe?
@@2l84me8 Because a blindless universe doesn't have the power to fine tune anything, let alone everything.
@@0607guy What makes you think the universe was fine tuned at all?
The universe we inhabit is extremely hostile to life.
@@2l84me8 Are you denying that the universe is fine-tuned?
'Can I prove God? No!!! But for some reason, I just believe. Until I'm proven otherwise, I'll believe'.
Imagine someone saying the exact same thing, only substituting 'God' with 'magical elf people'. Do you at least see WHY we are baffled by you?
cool
“Faith “ we will never be proven otherwise.
Not just British and American Students ....
The designer argument based on real designers is truly naive. It doesn't seem to take into account that those observed real designers actually just pull from nature, and they were created by nature. Initially they're no designers at all, but are totally empty in that department until they gain the necessary experience. But for some reason they look at designers as an ultimate starting point. As if they can just design things out of the blue. It is convenient tho to look them that way, because if will fit much better with the God argument they try to make.
omg I never thought about it from that angle.
So nature created some designers that harm the nature more than it contribute to it.
@@AhaduzzamanRafin-h1s Unrelated to the topic, but sure.
Dawkins' arguments are thoughtful and well reasoned. Science doesn't have all the answers...yet...to the pithy questions that bedevil mankind, but the trail of evidence clearly leads away from the notion of an all-powerful supernatural being and points to natural, physical laws that provide cogent explanations for difficult questions with which mankind has been grappling for millennia. Religion raises more questions than it answers, while It is abundantly apparent science is on the right track.
the problem with this argument is that if everything is perfectly designed then why are there so many poorly designed things in the universe.
Even if things are poorly designed does that mean that the designer is also in the same stroke poor designer?
This why the design argument falls in its place.
And of course the ultimate question is where did the designer appear and where did it come from?
Actually, I agree with you to a point when I think about it. Since there are times when science don't really have an explanation for the mechanism behind the explanation, one can still explain it. Even without genetics, natural selection does have a good explanation for how evolution works, it's just that genetics explains the actual mechanism. However, that's more than can be said about the idea of a designer, which i think the "where did the designer came from" argument is about.
There should always exist an explanation of the explanation. Natural selection explains how evolution works, and there are explanations for what natural selection is and how it works. It's a perfectly valid argument for the situation.
"A watch is proof that there was a watchmaker".
Nope.
If a stone-age man found a watch, he would not see that as proof that there was a watchmaker.
He would probly see that as proof that there was a god. Education tells us that a watch is not proof of a god.
Education tells us that life is not proof of God.
Creationists are simply lacking education
Why wouldn't a stone age man not see that a watch is proof of a watchmaker?
@@jeffreykaufmann2867 I can picture a stone age man finding a watch. He is possibly smarter than u & i, in his own way. He looks at the watch. He doesnt understand what it is or what it could be used for, but he recognizes that its design & its construction are too advanced for mere mortals, certainly not by anyone on his island, & no-one on any islands that he knows of, & he duznt automatically think that there might be some very advanced tribes from far away that made it, or that there might be visitors from another planet. He thinks that it could only have been made by a super-human, ie a god or a demi-god (not an advanced human, & not a visitor from another planet unless of the god or demi-god variety of visitor). Or he might even think that that kind of object has been created miraculously using magic (probably by a god or demi-god)(possibly throo the local high priest). The question on his mind would then be how & why did it get there. Was it put there on purpose, perhaps so that he himself could find it. Or was it accidentally lost. Should he take it & try to use it, in which case he might make the gods angry. Or should he play safe(r) & give it to his tribe & high priest for them to sort it all out, hopefully with less risk to himself. Or should he perhaps play ultra-safe & leave it where it is, & not tell anyone. Or even hide it, no, the gods might get angry if he duznt pick it up & take it. There is no perfectly safe way out. But, if he takes it, what use might it be. It might be useless, worse still it might bring very bad luck, or make the gods angry. The bottom line is that he would reckon that the watch was made or created by a watchmaker, & that the watchmaker was a god or a demi-god.
But if he was shown modern society he would learn that we can make watches, we dont need gods.
@@atheistaetherist2747 A watch is proof that there was a watchmaker cause we know that watches are made by humans. Why isn't life proof that there is a God? Since a Watchmaker created the watch then a human maker created a human.
@@jeffreykaufmann2867 A god of course means that there was a god-maker.
@@atheistaetherist2747 If There is no Ultimate creator that would mean that the Physical World has Always existed and didn't need a Creator. Is that what Atheists Believe?
He's so full of pawnage it's funny in itself. That plus his sense of humor...
Those who quote the watchmaker and the watch as a way to disprove evolution miss the blindingly obvious, as do those who make the counter argument. The fact is that the watch is a very intricate piece of precision engineering with numerous moving parts, it did not come into being in one hit, the watch itself evolved over time. The very first wristwatch only came into being in the 1860's
The very earliest way of telling the time was to look at the position of the sun in the sky and from that you could tell roughly what time of day it was. Next step on from that was to put a stick in the ground and see where the shadow fell. We did not go from that simple stick to a fully functioning Rolex accurate to withing milliseconds in one jump - there were hundreds of incremental changes which took place over a long period of time before we arrived at an accurate timepiece. Yes, the existence of a watch does indicate the existence of a watchmaker but that's a long way away from saying that a creator just made it instantly from nothing.
The watchmaker argument actually goes some way to support the idea of evolution, not disprove it.
andy
What people do when arguing about evolution is forget quantum physics where what is studied are quarks, which are constantly bursting forth and spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light, forming what are called protons and neutrons. This is energy and light that is constantly bursting and spinning. This proves constant creation. I found some of these words in the book "The Quantum World" written by the physicist Kenneth Ford. Also see the book "Hands of Light" written by the physicist Barbara Brennan. There are pictures in this book of what we look like out of these bodies as holograms or eternal energy beings.
Time is simultaneous. The images that existed billions of years ago exist now as images still. Nothing is solid. We are saturated in a holodeck as holograms. Has to be true because nothing is solid, but constantly vibrating as energy. E=mcsquared.
Pure Energy - I'll take your word for it. My entire knowledge of quantum physics can be written on a postage stamp and is likely to remain so. It sounds absolutely fascinating but I fear most of it would pass straight over my head.
I was walking alone in the desert when I found a watch. It was beautiful and amazingly intricate, and it was clearly struggling to survive.
It had a reproductive system, and I could see a cute little baby watch forming inside. I noticed several dangling gears that had no function, which were limiting it, and other inefficiencies, like the fact that it only wound itself up about halfway, or certain parts that would have been more suited for water.
As I dug down into the sand, I found broken watches, more and more primitive with none of the ones from the upper layers in the lower ones. Whenever a watch hit upon a really great addition, it would tend to also be in all the watches above it. Deep into the sand I found evidence of a lake...that was the place where I found that the watch had first gotten its water processing bits.
I considered the possibility that a watchmaker had been sitting here trying by trial and error to make the best watch. But, given the intellect required to design them, he sure seemed to be making a lot of stupid mistakes.
Even when he hit upon a good idea, he didn't seem to know what it was actually for: he kept the water processing system long after the lake had dried up, despite how inefficient it made the watches in the desert. Nor did he pass his best ideas on to other kinds of watches, if they were too different. Instead he'd solve the same problem a second time in a different way, as though he'd never seen it before, and he was not necessarily better on his second try.
The only thing he seemed to know was whether the change worked, that is, whether it made them survive better and reproduce more. So he mustn't have had any skill with watchmaking, but merely observing and tinkering.
Looking at the way this poor little watch struggled in the hot sun, I considered for a grim moment the cruelty that would be necessary to build watches this way. It was as though the watchmaker hadn't even been thinking at all...
And suddenly, I realized who the watchmaker was.
So pray tell, who might that watchmaker be?
evolution
The universe is 10^18 seconds old, and there are 10^82 atoms in the universe. If you multiply these two numbers together, it's still FAR smaller than the denominator of the probability of typing Hamlet randomly, which is over 10^130,000 possibilities. I don't know if the universe can make a watch randomly, but it DARN sure isn't able to make Hamlet randomly, unless it gets many, many orders of magnitude older.
But watches are "evolving" as well. Watches, just as well as other inventions, are gradually getting better over time.
They're getting more accurate, more precise, they come in smaller designs, they have more features. They adapt to the needs and desires of the consumers.
This is all happening gradually as the art of watchmaking proceeds, and watchmakers try new ways to do things, and eliminate failed attempts.
1. Dawkins IS a scientist. Of course he understands science, including its limitations.
2. Dawkins mentions often that he cannot disprove God, therefore he's an agnostic atheist.
Not Dawkins makes look religious people stupid, they often make themselfes look stupid.
The watchmaker argument is very easy to to dispute.
How do you know the watch is designed? By comparison to nature. Watches don't grow on trees, right?
So nature CANNOT be designed. Right?
If nature was designed how would you recognize design?
Right? :D
+ImplosiveCat
Yes the analogy is easy to dispute, however no using the above questions.
Q1 - Part I
We imply the knowledge of the design of the watch because of two reasons:
A - We have proof that every other watch in (the known) existence has be designed.
B - We can take it apart to it's most basic pieces and see that the pattern of the pieces means that they work so harmoniously that it would be logical (not certain but highly probably) that in order to do so the watch must have been designed.
Q1- Part II
This is contextually nonsensical. The reason being is that the analogy doesn't even remotely suggest that watches grow on trees or are A PART of nature. What the analogy is trying to do is compare the harmony, mechanics & creation of the universe and nature to that of a watch. Therefore as said above this display of harmony and pattern in the mechanics of the universe & nature is the same as that of the watch leading to the logical conclusion of the comparison.
Q2 - In a simply form this question is now made redundant by Part II of my answer to Q1.
Q3 - What i have said in Q1 - PII is relevant however to develop on that, if you were to strip anything down even to it basic feature you can observe the harmony and pattern of it mechanics which suggests something created/designed it. Now while you can not do this to the universe as a whole, like any experience you can dissect and observe various different parts to get an over all view and result.
Regarding the Watchmaker Argument: a) most watches made by the same watchmaker are often mass produced and the same and b) watches are usually close to perfect and rarely break down if properly maintained. Whereas eyes, for example, are rarely the same (a good thing) and imperfect or flawed: blind (including from birth) or color blind, cataracts, et al. Why did the eye "designer" make them all right? Was he incompetent or just plain cruel?
What about the banana?
How To Do Stuff what about it? The bananas we buy at the market are genetically selected by us humans, you don't see our concept of bananas in nature
TFEM: Can you explain the coconut, it hasn't been modified by humans.
Ma Nut Draw you clearly failed to see the sarcasm.
Sarcasm isn't obvious when this is an actual argument creationists make.
As Matt Dillahunty pointed out, just because a banana fits in your ass doesn't mean it was designed for it. Besides, explain the design of the coconut.
@gregrutz sorry I realy dont get it :D
If a tree shows 1000 rings, can the tree be around 750 years old, because the tree might have made 2 rings once in a while. So you cannot trust this time messurement.
I realy dont understand what you are talking about.
So at the end Dawkins concludes that everyone of religion is an idiot, incapable of understanding complex concepts. And apparently you can't believe in both a God and natural selection? At first, Dawkins seemed intelligent and I was eager to hear his arguments. The ending slide convinced me that he's an ass, formulating one-sided arguments to taunt those who do not share his views, and to make his flock of admirers giggle in the audience.
That last slide made my blood boil.
Religion and Science are mutually corrosive.
If you belive in evolution and in God, you can't think rationally. If evolution is true, it means there is no purpose for God.
L Melton
Someone is TRIGGERED!!!
He destroyed your god and you feel personally offended because you cant let go of imaginary friends.
Vlad Lucian
That's not entirely true.
I'll predicate this with stating that I am an Atheist, but I'll play Devil's Advocate for a minute.
If Natural Selection is the HOW of life, there is still room for God in the 'why'. In the ultimate purpose.
Maybe God was just bored. Thought he'd just put together a ton of mass into one place to see what came of it, and it couldn't hold together. It just started expanding, faster and faster, and the natural laws started to kick in.
Being a bored entity with not much else to occupy him, he watched, tweaked things here and there to see what would happen, and eventually, there were humans.
A species that he could screw with a bit and maybe drive to insanity by making them pray to different names he gave himself over the centuries.
Maybe God is like a kid with a magnifying glass, and humans are the ants?
But, the point is, evolution explains the how, but doesn't give us a why. And that's where religious folk who accept scientific fact hold to their beliefs. They want a purpose. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. Everyone wants to matter in one way or another. It's just a little childish to think that, if there is a God, that he cares about you as an individual.
If you want to matter, matter to those around you, because they'll be the only ones who notice when you die.
Live on in their memories.
It's the only immortality you'll get.
jason, "why" is procreation. species survive for no other reason. it is a human flaw to believe we are important. we are yet another species
He isn't targetting creationists to begin with. He has said he is talking to those still on the fence, people who have yet to decide one way or the other.
I can make up a creature that is invisible and undetectable and i'll just write a whole book about how it created the world. Oh so now because you cant disprove it, it must mean this creature is real.
the fact is we don't know the answer to everything, but saying that an invisible man in the sky did it and deem him unquestionable is absolutely stupid.
It says that the watchmaker argument is illogical.
1) if that's your idea of god (there are lots of different interpretations) then there's no point in assuming one exists.
2) What? The argument is "wow this is so complicated, therefore god did it", what does it have to do with abiogenesis?
@djhellkloud I never said that Macro evolution is false! I simply said that Macro evolution has limits; it can not change a species from its kind of animal to a species within another kind of animal. The evolution theory explains the change from a species to another species (the origin of the species) or the origin of the variations within a species. The only thing evolution is wrong about right now is that all species had a common ancestor. The fact is that there are different ...
Re: where energy comes from.. I'll try to explain that in a nutshell: At the time of the Big Bang, space expanded and the universe cooled too rapidly for hydrogen to completely fuse into heavier elements. This means that hydrogen is a store of potential energy.This energy can be released as LIGHT upon fusion. This can occur during gravitational collapse in star formation, due to high pressure and heat, such as in our Sun. Light released reaches Earth and is converted to diff forms of energy.
Didn't read that before I posted this ;)
I never claimed that there is a possible view that competes with the theory of evolution. Notice though that testable is a broad term. To know what happened in the past, something can only be tested in the present. But some events or situations aren't currently testable directly. An example of this would be the faint sun paradox and its explanations.
Deleting my own post is my own annoying quirk, I can't stand seeing bullshit, and when I can, I remove them.
Especially when they come from me.
yeah i thought he was bit obnoxious too but then i watched another video where he talks about his apparent obnoxious image and says its because people hold religion in this 'untouchable' box and any criticism is taboo. then i started thinking maybe he's not so obnoxious its just the subject matter
*humor on*
It's no use Mr. Dawkins! It's rockets and aliens all the way!!
*humor off*
(Roughly based on 'it's turtles all the way down')
I'm always grateful that chickens evolved a nice taste when cooked.
Did they? Or did we evolve to enjoy their taste because they are nutritious?
In Nomadic times to Symbolise fear.
And in the Middle-Ages to empower the wealthy few over the ignorant many.
"Religion is regarded by the common folk as true"
"By the wise as false"
"And by the Ruleling class as useful"
Seneca
Excerpts from an Interveiw at The Paley Watch Company for those keen to invest their money.
“We have a two tiered business approach,” Managing Director Lance Korpulous explains.
“The first is aimed at the individual consumer. You first purchases [sic] a shaker. Watch parts are sold separately. Simply place the watch parts into the shaker and vigorously shake.
The law of natural selection dictates the watch will ultimately assemble. It may go through various stages, and each assembly will require a different amount of time; but we know it works.”
Has a watch ever been assembled by shaking?
“No,” smiles Korpulous. “But that is of no concern. The theory is solid and evolution is as well established as the sciences of quantum chemistry, Newtonian physics and global warming. If you release a ball from a height, it will fall. If you shake a box of watch parts, it will assemble into a watch.”
so, Korpulous understands neither evolution nor science in general, is that what you are trying to say?
+Harm10412 No, it has been demonstrated scientifically that the materials like stainless steel, plastics etc are all natural and readily form in nature. Volcanic activity has been shown to melt metal ores and form cogs, springs etc and silicates can melt to form lens. It's not a great leap of faith, it's solid science.
*****
So you don't understand how evolution works either? Do you know what your "argument" is called? A straw man.
Where does natural selection, and the shaking of materials converge?
+Lap Dan Just trying to use the new Google RUclips non reply reply in comments that doesn't work. Is it the channel? or do people who debate religion in youtube comments not allowed to reply to each other anymore?
It's just a consequence of switching from one comment system to another.
If the human body had been designed by anyone with a smidgeon of engineering skill it would have been a better creation. The spine for example is ok if you walk on all 4s. It is unsuited to upright walking especially for anyone who routinely needs to carry heavy weights from construction workers to anyone carrying the weekly shop.
Or the laryngeal nerve that goes down, loops around the aorta and back up to the larynx
This is one the most idiotic comments I have ever beared the misfortune of reading.
@@tahsin7682 The comment by Helena?
@@mut-x8k Yeah
@@tahsin7682 Oh okay so tell me how is it stupid?
The statement about the universe makes sense though. While it's possible that God could exist and either ALWAYS intervene in perfectly predictable ways, or NEVER intervene at all, neither of those require him to exist. They are, therefore, the same as if he didn't exist for all practical purposes.
There are other ways to prove things than physical evidence, such as logic (e.g. all of mathematics), but theists have not succeeded on that front either.
I find it remarkably entertaining that you jump to the conclusion that I am these things and then accuse me of jumping to conclusions. Egocentric much?
1. The Big Bang THEORY is that a singularity rapidly expanded into the known universe. It fails to explain where that singularity came from.
2. "jumping to inept conclusions"
3. Reproduction is a mechanism that helps the universe function. A cog is a mechanism which helps a watch function. Please understand the analogy.
(Continued)
The fundamental point in Zeitgeist was that all religions are man-made...
P.S. Mithra was born on the 25th of December))
Well, this is just a short clip, it's likely he explained those things in other parts of the lecture. Also, he explains all of those things in his several books on the subject, the most recent (and most comprehensive explanation of the evidence for evolution being The Greatest Show on Earth).
You're wrong, the likelihood of that rock being there is much smaller than the universe coming into existence. For it to be there, not only did the universe have to come into existence but also the following billions of years had to go a very specific way.
And so?
Is there anyone here who can explain how the "crane" terminates the otherwise infinite regress? Thanks.
The only reason people say that religion and science don't intersect is because they don't want science debunking religion. Which it would easily do.
Actualli it woudnt, because of the god of the gaps argument, also known as argument from ignorance fallacy
@@rexkraft_ The God of the Gaps is so easily recognized and pointed out. It's pretty hard to take seriously.
If we suppose that universe creation never finished then evolution IS the world creation process
1. So, the singularity was always there? Last I checked, dark energy is still something and thus the question can be asked "Where does dark matter/energy come from?"
2/3. My analogy? This analogy has been around for... I don't even know how long. No, watches don't have babies, but reproduction represents a mechanism within the watch. The analogy is not poor, just your understanding of it.
4. Out of curiosity, what must one do to deserve an ad hominem attack?
@eagleeye2102 RE: Trees
not mean it is undeniably true, just that it's remained our best knowledge on the subject for a long while. But here's something that would clinch the worldwide flood for you and every other believer. There are trees that are classed as over 6,000 years old all over the Earth. Take some sample cores from each of them and compare their dendrochronology and match up the year (on each of them) where the flood supposedly took place. It's not terribly convincing evidence
In regard to the discussion by Dan and Sean about the mathematical probability of a rock being in a certain location, this seems to me a (fairly common) misapplication of the concept of probability. The probability of something which as already happened is exactly one. It's a mathematical certainty.
If I go into a field, intending to pick one piece of clover from a hundred million, it is wildly improbable (from the point of view of each piece of clover) that it will be the one which is picked. Once it is picked, however, there is nothing in the slightest bit improbable about it being the one which *was* picked.
Assigning probabilities retrospectively is fraught with perils like this, and creationists make themselves foolish most times they attempt this in public.
@davorunner
1) let's imagine that something exists after death so amazing and wonderful that we can't begin to understand it.
2) We can't use logic to argue against this point, because it is something so amazing we can't begin to understand.
3) Since we can't argue against it, it must be real.
it's a nice idea. but the next question is do you actually believe in this, or is it that you want to believe in it?
The argument that we should reject the idea of God as creator because it lacks explanatory power doesn't work. It's true that providing God as an explanation doesn't explain God but I don't see any reason for assuming that everything that is ought to be comprehensible.
The moment you say god as the whatever every theist is going to jump all over trying to insert there square god into the hole when it's obviously a circle. There trying to avoid that outcome and the fact that there's no reason to believe it's a god since gods are normally rulers or metaphysical beings who do things that are oddly human
I don't know, I think there might be more going on than we can comprehend. I sat on a stationary bike at the science centre that was a basic generator: peddling illuminated a small series of lights.
Science and rationality are fine but I think we should accept that they are powered by human minds. Peddling at top speed we may struggle to light the far corners of the room, let alone the universe.
Imagine me ordering cat food on the internet. The internet doesn't "lack explanatory power" but it's certainly not comprehensible to my cat. I don't want to confuse things I don't comprehend with things that can't possibly exist.
It's cool that your trying to ponder what's outside the universe something may appear incomprehensible to us but it will be commonplace to our descendents
Thanks.
I agree that there are things we don't know, and probably things we cannot know.
And I agree that the inability to explain everything does not constitute valid grounds for discarding a discipline.
I think one strength which science has in comparison with belief systems is that (when done properly) it does not pretend to be able to explain the inexplicable.
Some religious belief systems do, and I personally think this is not a useful attribute.
Furthermore, it is not, I think, a good idea to accept as true propositions we have no prospect of ever understanding. For instance, I think there are competing, interesting ideas about the big bang theory, but I don't expect I will ever be in a position to accept any of them as true, and I don't see a problem with that. It does not reflect badly on science; quite the opposite.
And there are things which modern evolution theory is unable to explain, particularly with reference to the origins of life. I think it would be a mistake to assume that we can ever come up with a single compelling explanation on this extraordinary categorical shift (compelling in the same way that modern theories of micro evolution are to most people and their extension to macro evolution is to many)
EatsYouUp, we are using the term "natural" not nature. It specifically refers to humans not having a creator, not a vague point at all. drche420 is feebly trying to compare the creation of a watch to countless years of mutations and natural selection, the validity of which Darwinians vouch for on account of evidence ranging from Macroscopic (Bones) to beyond microscopic (DNA).
"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389) - Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton
Not really. Since the usual idea of intelligent design or creation is that if something is complexe then it must have been created by a designer, then it is a fair question who created the designer since it must have been something complexe itself. If the designer don't need a designer then there is no reason to believe that the other stuff needed a designer.
And here we are. Back to square one: try and understand this time. I don't have to justify anything, for any number of reasons. In addition, you made the mistake of calling me out. Don't expect me to cry now because you have nothing to offer. Better luck next time. At least you are now back to not knowing--a good place to start.
So, Hitchen's concedes that a complex timepiece was created by intelligent design ofan infinitely more complex human, but the human was created by natural selection,not by an infinitely more complex designer. Did not Darwin himself state that if any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous,successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. I believe it wasHadgi who spent a life-time trying to" naturally select" single-celled flagellates to multicellular ones---and this was way way down phylogenetically.Not being as well-schooled as Prof. Hitchens, I must be missing something here. Pleaseenlighten me.
Thanks. I'm a Dawkins fan, and am aware of all of your points. And I concede he may have covered my points in another part of this lecture.
Still, I felt my comment did fairly point out that the crane metaphor he uses here would have been made clearer if he'd tossed in the phrase "the non-random survival value of some of those random mutations." I know he's made that precise point many times in other contexts, I just feel he should have included it in this particular context, too.
Go easy on him Pete.
And yes Riptide, scientists have said billions.
No it's not. If something doesn't have an explanation then it's really nothing. It would almost be like saying that evolution works by natural selection, but we have no explanation for what natural selection is or how it works. That's why even an explanation needs a explanation.
But why do you think it is fair? What do you think about my round circle analogy and why do you think it does not fit perfectly, given that I have explained what people mean by a circle and what theists/deists mean by God?
@JOverton1992 We are not discussing religion or faith here. This is not a Bible study nor Intelligent design. Let us stick with scientific evidence that support what Darwin was stating in his book that four legged animals with short necks after several generations turned into giraffe. Those short necked animals simply forgot or refused to look down for vegetation on the ground.
That depends. If the creator is timeless, spaceless and immaterial, the question 'who created God' is nonsensical. It would be like asking why circles are round.
Btw, I accept evolution, but I take it you use it as an example.
If your strain of logic is valid, I cannot accept the explanation of natural selection/evolution, because you need to give me an explanation of the explanation of natural selection. And then an explanation of the explanation of the explanation of natural selection.
I remember when gullible students used to fall for this...
your wrong and right, mutation is random, and most mutations are nuetral, some are negative, and some are positive, the ones that are negative are selected out of the gene pool very quickly, the positive ones thrive and procreate. mutation is random, but the actual selection is very far from chance.
That is the personal incredulity fallacy along with the false dilemma fallacy.
Education in general in the US and UK schools is absolutely appalling. Critical thinking and logical reasoning just are not taught. How can children understand anything properly if they can't use reason and critical thinking.
@djhellkloud Forget about the past, I'm talking about the present. I don't care about what was taught in the past, the hypotheses of a basic animal kind is something new. In the past, a kind was something which we today call a species. I, however, am talking about a basic animal kind which has different species in it. This would create a limit for Macro evolution and therefore disprove the evolution idea of the past, not the evolution theory. Again, tree ring counting is not plausible!
@gilless429 I didnt say Creation. I said creation ***of** LIFE. It is given that there has been a creation of life. The rest of your statement is obsolete. ----> cre·a·tion /kriˈeɪʃən/ Show Spelled[kree-ey-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.
2. the fact of being created.
3. something that is or has been created.
4. the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.
5. the world; universe.
before you start preching, you have to prove that he exists. you say the "clear" demonstration he has provided for his existence is that we can't explain everything without him, but we can with him. that might be a reaosnable point if you weren't begging the question:
1) let's define God as an all powerful being that explains everything
2) the best explanation for everything will be the one that explains everything
3) God explains everything
4) the best explanation is God
5) God must exist
@TomFynn The video doesnt show how giraffe evolved. Again, provide a list of at least 10 four legged animals which showed clearly that they evolved GRADUALLY from having short neck until they transformed into a giraffe. We will examine them one by one here. At least 10, it should be easy because if evolution is true there should have been thousands of intermediate forms since natural selection requires fine gradation or incremental changes over very long period of time.
Is he suggesting that cranes are acting blindly and without purpose when they do the work?
Rant:
I'm always annoyed when an audience is too eager to clap. 2:38 is the perfect example. It ruins the speaker's rhythm and makes the audience wait untill the clapping is over. It's OK once in a while, but don't do it every freaking time the speaker says something you agree with or we'll be here all night.
/rant.
To be fair I doubt the kind of audiences that are captive to these discussions are the most intelligent of people.
If the creator is timeless, spaceless and immaterial, then he's not much of an explanation as we can't test it, which makes evolution even more superior as an explanation since it can be tested and even make certain predictions.
And there is a limit of explanations if you limit yourself to the theory of evolution, unless you need to have every answer we know to the very beginning of the universe, which is not what evolution is about.
the term "darwinism" is like calling the use of a windows computer "microsoftism".
Okay, I hold that position as well. My original comment was on his moronic assumption that "the universe would be different if god exists."
The burden of proof is completely irrelevent because neither side is able to provide any. Like I said - to get hung up on the evidence argument is completely stupid. I know atheists love to advocate for logic and reason, yet I find it hypocritical to think that the only way to achieve logic or reason is through evidence.
Bit late for me to be replying, but:
A) no one is claiming that the universe came into being "by itself". >_>
B) Faith in something does not make it true, however religion in general breeds more trouble than no religion, as is demonstrated throughout history. It would be so much more beneficial to us to build a society of morals that do not come from a two thousand year-old book, but from usng our own sense of intelligence and rational.
@eagleeye2102 From wikipedia: flood geology (I suggest you read the whole article)
"Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology, physics, chemistry, molecular genetics, evolutionary biology, archaeology, and paleontology, and the scientific community considers the subject to be pseudoscience"
You're still claiming the flood is supported by science?
Yes, there absolutely IS a burden of proof on the side of the person who claims that God exists. If I claim that I was visited by spacemen in a flying saucer, or that I have a fire-breathing dragon as a pet, only an idiot would believe me without proof. The burden to back my claims up with evidence falls on me. You claim there's a God? OK, where's your evidence?
The Watchmaker argument is logically flawed, and it defeats itself if you think about it.
Since when have they had religious debates? What exactly is there to debate again?
I do wish Dawkins had explained natural selection's mechanism more clearly: the non-random survival of random mutations. Many people who don't understand evolution think it is just about random mutations, and don't understand that the survival value of some mutations, which in turn get passed onto subsequent generations, is the key to the crane metaphor.
I'd also have liked a few words on sexual selection--for example, a peacock's tail is the result of what generations of peahens find sexy.
@lolgepwnt This is not a defence, Giraffe is the iconic example of evolution taught in almost all biology class.. Since you cannot provide a list of at least 10 four legged animals which showed clearly that they evolved GRADUALLY from having short neck until they transformed into a giraffe. Which other micro-organism bacteria evolved to? Bacteria did not mutate to be resistant to antibiotics. Research showed that some cultured bacteria 100 years ago are already resistant to antibiotics.
@eagleeye2102 RE: Trees
I don't think of it as a win or a loss. As I stated before, science is imperfect. What we know of dendrochronology in general and dendrochronological paleoecologly specifically is subject to change if our knowledge is shown to be faulty. It may turn out at the end that you are absolutely correct, but at the moment our best knowledge shows it to be otherwise.
Disappointed that he doesn't give any valid explanation as to why the watchmaker argument is a poor one.
Because the watchmaker argument doesn’t give an answer, it just makes a claim that has no proof. It is also illogical.
Perhaps i should try to make it a little clearer. If you have an idea which requires an endless string of questions, then you need to have an endless string of answers. That's a problem the idea of evolution and its explanation natural selection removes. All you can do with it is to try to find the last missing clues for the last questions.
While god's intervention does not affect his existence, the point is about how it would affect us or provide us with a way to distinguish God from fiction. For God to be meaningful, he'd have to interact with us inconsistently or unpredictably.
Since it is illogical to believe in the existence of something without any evidence or logical proof of that thing, the atheist perspective is the current victor, the defending champion. That is, until such time as pro-theistic logic or evidence appears.
We're drinking the kool-aid! May the force (of wisdom) be with you. *Hugz from this Canadian Family
@davorunner There's such a huge contradiction in how Christians dismiss science as an alternative. You say, "to believe that random molecules were just here is preposterous." Well, we say, to believe that a random God was just here is also preposterous. Do you see how that works?
@KingDingaLing090 --->intellectuals. = Correct Spelling
---->"achieve a challenge" = Terrible grammar
--> The belief that you could argue with Dawkins without being laughed out of the room for ignorance= Very Funny
Why would a universe with god be different than one without? God would be the greatest scientist, physicist, biologist, chemist, etc. Just because god would have CREATED science doesn't mean it'd be different.
Reply if I'm wrong, but if god and the universe have always existed - with god simply shaping matter and energy into what we know today - then the watchmaker argument would still stand. Like the watchmaker, god simply makes 'complex' creations out of something that was already there.
totally. i hate the awkward applause. clap at beginning. clap at end. all good.
@daogdaog In case you haven't noticed: The fossil evidence is not proof for the case of evolution. It is a bonus. The point is the looping around of the laryngal nerve. Or do you see that as evidence for design? If yes, it must have been a pretty incompetent designer.
Why does god need a watch?
Or, for that matter, money?
@@inkysteve in a place outside of space and time, nowhere and never...
@Tom Don't you think that if the Atheists felt really confident that more exploration on Mars could prove their "Methodological Naturalism" is a Law of Nature, that Evolution is not just theory ,but a Law that universally impacts the whole Universe, they would have fostered more voyages to test their theorem ? They did the best they can, there is not a material cause of reason that Mars is Sterile, except that Evolution and Methodological Naturalism is not NOT A LAW , but opinion.
Get the Fred Hoyle quote wrong why not? Hoyle was talking about probability of the origins of life without panspermia, not natural selection.
first of all, saying the big bang is wrong doesn't disprove evolution since they are two different concepts which is your only response to evolution. As for your question to the big bang, that's not the only explanation for our world, and there is the concept of the multiverse-which I'm sure you've never heard of because you never bothered to try to understand anything to do with this subject. OPEN YOUR EYES AND EARS AND MAK YOUR OWN DECISION!
>This is the best that the atheists have to
>dispute God's existence? That's like putting
>an arrogant little league pitcher up against
>Alex Rodriguez.
Even if this *was* our best, it's still a lot better than the assumption that a god does exist. All the theist arguments I've seen so far basically boil down to "things are so complicated, it *has* to be magic." Imagine if detectives would solve cases like that.
@hevy99 Claiming to "posess" intelligence and saying you are insulting my intelligence are two different matters. You suggested with your comment that I'm claiming to have some type of superior intellect. I might and might not. That is purely subjective. I knock you for your grammar because you personally insult people on here. You attempt to insult me as well. You tell me to take Biology classes when you cannot even get the simplest form of grammar correct.
@JOverton1992 There is no need to involve religion or creationism in this discussion. Let us confine ourseleves in scientific discussion. You stated lack of evidence in one area, so I asked you which other area. What about bacteria? which other micro organism bacteria gradually involved into? Darwin stated that from a single cell gradually evolved so many species.
fair play but i dunno i just think that maybe there is something cos the balance between things in the universe is pretty immense. im not religious at all but if you think about it the big bang (which i also believe in) cant be the end of it. how else are you meant to make a universe after all?
The big bang theory doesn't really try yo explain the creation of the universe as such, it's more like the universe was somehow created and then this happened.
Thats what i used to think too.
God started the ball rolling etc.
But now i just leave god out of it and instead say "I dont know".