"Lawrence, Lawrence, Lawrence stop your giving them evidence Lawrence, Lawrence there are creationists listing to this, Lawrence." XD that host was not expecting him to be ready for that.
Wait Lawrence, stop, Lawrence, no, those are facts. Lawrence, Lawrence I'm trying to spout out harebrained bullshit in a way that sounds almost scientific, your facts keep overpowering that. Lawrence Lawrence Lawrence no Lawrence but Lawrence see I'm inserting god into every tiny gap and disagreement between scientists about the nature of our universe, and you keep filling those gaps easily because I'm entirely ignorant of the subjects I'm pretending to know about! Lawrence, Lawrence stop Lawrence you make it seem like every single thing I've said is completely wrong and intellectually dishonest, by correcting my false data with actual facts and pointing out the cheap logical fallacies I'm using to weasel my way into an argument for a completely impossible scenario! Lawrence...
What bullshit. Dawkins only said that to Ben Stein because Stein asked him to imagine how it would have happened if it came about that way. Dawkins wasn't saying that that's how it did happen or probably happened or even that it was a likely scenario. They set him up, cut out the original context and then misquote him. That's dishonesty at its finest.
"Lawrence.. Lawrence.. Lawrence.. Lawrence.. I'm not listening what you're saying, but I agree with you.. Lawrence.. Lawrence.. Lawrence.. I'm not listening.. I'm throwing something else at you. I'm not even listening.. Lawrence.. Lawrence.. I'm just interrupting you because I want to throw you another piece of data." Damn this guy is dimwitted and a liar. He claims "I agree with you" - yeah, right.. Just because he thinks he can gain some kind of "rapport" with the interviewed subject, which can give him a psychological benefit. Despicable.
Yes, that was my first thought: "GOD THIS HOST GUY IS ANNOYING". I'm glad there are people with the knowledge and persistence of Krauss, most of us would have just said f this and moved on.
I've learned something! It's much easier to engage in dishonest on-air debate when your opponent is coming through a call-line and you have control of the volume knob.
Im glad chemists, biologists, and cosmologists have you guys to inform them on what is irrational and/or impossible when it comes to the science they have spent their lives learning and studying. Presumably you guys have a high-school education (possibly a bachelors degree - although highly doubtful given your responses). What would they do without you?
Please cite for me the scientific journal article analyzing these "blood, hemoglobin and various sort tissues (including blood vessels)" found in dinosaur bones. I will await it eagerly.
1:40 We already found amino acids in meteorites: the Murchison meteorite, and the "Almahata Sitta" meteorite. Also we found organic molecules in the Orion Nebula. The possibility that meteorites transported organic molecules or already amino acids, or maybe even proteins to earth is a very good one.
The way Dr. Krauss immediately lost his shit the moment he found out that Bob is a young earth creationist and continued to go on out on the guy until the end of this interview 😂😂😂😂
When Enyart interviews a scientist, his only goal is to trap his guest into using phrase that can subsequently be torn from its context and used as a lie. Thank you, Bob, it is Christians like you that helped me understand the inherent dishonesty of religion and free myself from it. Keep up the good work.
Interviewer: "HEY I READ THIS" Lawrence: "Well I actually have seen them in person" Interviewer" YEAH BUT I READ IT, YOU'RE WRONG" Lawrence: "Right, but... I'm a scientist, and I've actually-- Interviewer: " LAWRENCE, LAWRENCE... LAWRENCE"
To further illustrate that point..he is another Gould quote: "Transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim..." continued next...
I don't even think you know what it is you are talking about, and I certainly dont. What exactly is the point you are making regarding Coelacanths? Please enlighten me. What do they prove, or disprove, or what are they evidence of, etc? What exactly am I supposed to 'caulk' (I assume you mean chalk) up for the creationists?
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Mark Twain. It's almost impossible having an intelligent discussion with a creationists, since they don't know much about science or anything else of value.
Yep. Quote mined Dawkins and missed the most important part off the end. Dawkins also said that whilst it was possible aliens started life here, it still doesn't explain the problem of where life came from, which we admit we don't yet know. Nor does it harm the theory of evolution.
I have followed much of his writings as well. the PE argument was clearly due to the abrupt appearance of life with an absence of intermediates in the fossil record. Rather than considering the errors in evolutionism, Scientists, like Gould, redefine the precepts to attempt to explain the 'scientifically' the absence if intermediate forms. Many scientists, as well as the textbooks acknowledge the absence of intermediate forms in the rocks.
Religious belief persists through the same mechanisms as any other ideology that one wishes to adhere to no matter what the opposing facts may be... political, social, religious, and yes even scientific beliefs are sometimes held to because they are comforting. The blind adherence to an idea, with no willingness to change one's mind, will always cause problems. But this doesn't mean the person is stupid - just that they want a security blanket. The facts are often cold and hard.
When he spoke about Dawkins. He was quote mining I saw the video that it was cut so it looked like Dawkins said that, but he was talking about how life could have started. He never posited that.
Yea, and it's quite admirable of him to be willing to attempt to educate even people like this. I still pity his situation in this interview when I hear it though. I've lost my patience with silly creationists
Bob Enyart-radio guy - has his own RUclips channel. Just punch his name in and scroll down. He has a comment box open too. Maybe a little 'heads up' would be beneficial?
They understand his writing better than I have? Even though he (the person who actually wrote the thing is question) agrees with me, that they completely misunderstand it? That is an amazing piece of logic.
I like how he quotes Dawkins with all 100 may haves and might haves in there and then goes on to analyze it like Dawkins is standing behind it with absolute certainty.
If I am not mistaken that is the Dawkins quote where he seems to have been asked how ID could be possible and he is taking every pain possible to give some way that it would be possible, not plausible, but possible. Actually Dawkins has already given an accoutning of it: /watch?v = 6XpP5jsg5kM
Sorry NemoUtopian it was 5:14 And maybe just better to take to start of hosts sentence but it is like that was when he gave up with the conversation. It was in favour of Dr.Krauss and I apologize for the confusion.
This interview is a perfect distillation of the religious VS the non-religious mind. It's an even better example of why the latter is superior in nearly every way.
i have read the transcription of dawkins this guy used. dawkins uses it as a point of argument, along the lines of, "yes, life COULD have evolved somewhere else and then, spawned it here." he certainly did not say that was what he thought.
That quote he read by Dawkins was from a Ben Stein movie called "Expelled: No intelligence Allowed". Richard thought it was a serious movie, and he was trying to think of some possible way that intelligent design could be true without God. Richard was no way saying he believes that its true or likely. My point is that was a total quote mine that I wish Laurence had been aware of.
Yes, you are right. All of your assertions and statements, which are contradictory to all known evidence and accepted science, have swayed me. And to think, I was trusting scientists who have actually put time and effort (years and year) into the study of these things - and also have the evidence to back it up - over religious people who just sit and "think about it", and come up with how wrong it must be. What was I thinking?
I made the morphologically/genetically different comment in the exact way you phrased it here in the original comment - I even went as far as to stress "morphologically"...but it is to no avail. Like you said, his response to everything is "that is an assumption not science!" .... but somehow at the same time creationism is based in rock-solid scientific fact to him. It is a mystery of life...
Stein. Where he was asked a hypothetical question along then lines of "suppose we find that life was designed" and Dawkins kept saying I don't think that's the case. But finally conceded with his statement of it could have been from aliens which resulted in him saying that there's still no need to postulate a God.
It seams like, to a great extent, that our radio-host (not to mention Believers I've herd in previous debates/interviews) intentionally use faulty, or completely bad reason to use for argument.
This is now the third time you have said that I have claimed the "Cambrian explosion has been debunked" - I made no such claim. I am not going to explain again what it is that I said - go back and read more carefully and see what I actually am saying.
I like honesty and Laurence Krauss is being honest. He runs an institute at a University, wrote a book on the discovery that's currently being postulated in physics, is a physicist, knows Dawkins personally and none of which on my list this host has accomplished means that he doesn't understand the topic he's purporting. He's a host and he should act like one.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret for paleontologists…..we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” S.J.Gould, Narural History, Vol.86 This is one of Gould's founding comments of PE. The context is clear.
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." - Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. p. 258-260.
11:50 the Collagen protein was sequenced from a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex bone (Nature 2007). But we found collagen before: "Before this, the oldest sequenced protein (also collagen) came from a mammoth fossil that was 100,000-300,000 years old." So obviously a protein can survive a very long period of time. Both C-12 and C-13 are stable and form 99,99%. C-14 with is radioactive and is used in carbon-dating, is only 1 part per trillion. If the collage protein have no C-14...
"Lawrence, Lawrence, Lawrence stop your giving them evidence Lawrence, Lawrence there are creationists listing to this, Lawrence." XD that host was not expecting him to be ready for that.
Wait Lawrence, stop, Lawrence, no, those are facts. Lawrence, Lawrence I'm trying to spout out harebrained bullshit in a way that sounds almost scientific, your facts keep overpowering that. Lawrence Lawrence Lawrence no Lawrence but Lawrence see I'm inserting god into every tiny gap and disagreement between scientists about the nature of our universe, and you keep filling those gaps easily because I'm entirely ignorant of the subjects I'm pretending to know about! Lawrence, Lawrence stop Lawrence you make it seem like every single thing I've said is completely wrong and intellectually dishonest, by correcting my false data with actual facts and pointing out the cheap logical fallacies I'm using to weasel my way into an argument for a completely impossible scenario! Lawrence...
The host was owned. How embarrassing!
What bullshit. Dawkins only said that to Ben Stein because Stein asked him to imagine how it would have happened if it came about that way. Dawkins wasn't saying that that's how it did happen or probably happened or even that it was a likely scenario. They set him up, cut out the original context and then misquote him. That's dishonesty at its finest.
Props to Krauss for staying in this interview so long, truly amazing.
"Lawrence.. Lawrence.. Lawrence.. Lawrence.. I'm not listening what you're saying, but I agree with you.. Lawrence.. Lawrence.. Lawrence.. I'm not listening.. I'm throwing something else at you. I'm not even listening.. Lawrence.. Lawrence.. I'm just interrupting you because I want to throw you another piece of data."
Damn this guy is dimwitted and a liar. He claims "I agree with you" - yeah, right.. Just because he thinks he can gain some kind of "rapport" with the interviewed subject, which can give him a psychological benefit.
Despicable.
Maybe 10 minutes in, I would have told him to call me Dr. Krause.
Sorry, I can't finish this, I don't have the patience.
Thomas Koloniar
My sentiments exactly.
Thomas Koloniar i agree this guy is an idiot how did he get an interview with someone like Kraiss
chaz Davis
By misrepresenting himself.
Thanks, your comments are spot on as well. Keep fighting the good fight.
Thanks for that annotation about the editing. I wasn't paying attention to the screen and thought I really was going crazy.
Am I listening to the loop, annoying host beyond believe...
Yes, that was my first thought: "GOD THIS HOST GUY IS ANNOYING". I'm glad there are people with the knowledge and persistence of Krauss, most of us would have just said f this and moved on.
i love kraus. he's so.. honest xD and real..
Glad to have people on my channel who appreciate science!
I agree wholeheartedly. I just came to a realisation that these debates seem to be one of the only things that actually make me laugh out loud.
You continue to write responses without responding to what I am actually saying. Amazing.
I've learned something! It's much easier to engage in dishonest on-air debate when your opponent is coming through a call-line and you have control of the volume knob.
It's called Dunning-Kruger effect. TheraminTrees made a nice video about that with the fitting title "illusion of superiority". :)
I love how he had the good will to not just assume the guy was a young earther too.
Im glad chemists, biologists, and cosmologists have you guys to inform them on what is irrational and/or impossible when it comes to the science they have spent their lives learning and studying. Presumably you guys have a high-school education (possibly a bachelors degree - although highly doubtful given your responses). What would they do without you?
God,this is hard work to listen to.
Please cite for me the scientific journal article analyzing these "blood, hemoglobin and various sort tissues (including blood vessels)" found in dinosaur bones. I will await it eagerly.
1:40 We already found amino acids in meteorites: the Murchison meteorite, and the "Almahata Sitta" meteorite. Also we found organic molecules in the Orion Nebula. The possibility that meteorites transported organic molecules or already amino acids, or maybe even proteins to earth is a very good one.
Dr. Krauss - Why must people reject all the knowledge we have?
Creationist - Because of dinosaur blood vessels. LOL
The way Dr. Krauss immediately lost his shit the moment he found out that Bob is a young earth creationist and continued to go on out on the guy until the end of this interview 😂😂😂😂
I admire Lawrence's patience. Talking to irrational idiots is not easy
Krauss response at 5:42; BRILLIANT!
When Enyart interviews a scientist, his only goal is to trap his guest into using phrase that can subsequently be torn from its context and used as a lie. Thank you, Bob, it is Christians like you that helped me understand the inherent dishonesty of religion and free myself from it. Keep up the good work.
Well said citetez. Those type of people helped me to.
wasn't it from that expelled movie?
It is beyond me how people can be stupid enough to believe the Earth is 6000 years old...
The host doesn't realize that there are no scientists who honestly believe the earth it 6000 years old
GEORGE MASON?? There's a young Earther in a position at my university?? This makes me immensely sad, I can't even begin.
I would never ever do that, but I totaly understand your feelings.
The Truth is mind numbing when you have walked in deception for so long.
Interviewer: "HEY I READ THIS"
Lawrence: "Well I actually have seen them in person"
Interviewer" YEAH BUT I READ IT, YOU'RE WRONG"
Lawrence: "Right, but... I'm a scientist, and I've actually--
Interviewer: " LAWRENCE, LAWRENCE... LAWRENCE"
"It's very difficult to go extinct 40,000 years ago when the earth is only 6,000 years old."
Thanks for clearing that up, it did strike me as kind of odd for him to say that. :)
To further illustrate that point..he is another Gould quote: "Transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim..." continued next...
Dr. Lawrence Krauss: I admire your patience.
Please give me your best definition of empirical.
It's radioactive potassium, K? (I can't believe I've made a chemistry joke on RUclips. I hang my head in shame!)
Haha, at 3:00 I thought I was going crazy.... then I saw the poster's comment on the video. Thanks for saving my sanity Hitchslap.
I don't even think you know what it is you are talking about, and I certainly dont. What exactly is the point you are making regarding Coelacanths? Please enlighten me. What do they prove, or disprove, or what are they evidence of, etc? What exactly am I supposed to 'caulk' (I assume you mean chalk) up for the creationists?
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Mark Twain.
It's almost impossible having an intelligent discussion with a creationists, since they don't know much about science or anything else of value.
You can pinpoint the exact moment Krauss loses faith in humanity: "Oh no...you're not a young earther, are you?"
Yep. Quote mined Dawkins and missed the most important part off the end. Dawkins also said that whilst it was possible aliens started life here, it still doesn't explain the problem of where life came from, which we admit we don't yet know. Nor does it harm the theory of evolution.
What's the conflict?
SPOT ON !
you Owned Him w/ that reply ~ Big Time !!!
I have followed much of his writings as well. the PE argument was clearly due to the abrupt appearance of life with an absence of intermediates in the fossil record. Rather than considering the errors in evolutionism, Scientists, like Gould, redefine the precepts to attempt to explain the 'scientifically' the absence if intermediate forms. Many scientists, as well as the textbooks acknowledge the absence of intermediate forms in the rocks.
This is so frustrating to listen to. This man isn't arguing with Lawrence, he's just trying to prove why he's wrong.
Religious belief persists through the same mechanisms as any other ideology that one wishes to adhere to no matter what the opposing facts may be... political, social, religious, and yes even scientific beliefs are sometimes held to because they are comforting. The blind adherence to an idea, with no willingness to change one's mind, will always cause problems.
But this doesn't mean the person is stupid - just that they want a security blanket. The facts are often cold and hard.
When he spoke about Dawkins. He was quote mining I saw the video that it was cut so it looked like Dawkins said that, but he was talking about how life could have started. He never posited that.
Which question are you referring to? I believe I answered finest03.
Yea, and it's quite admirable of him to be willing to attempt to educate even people like this. I still pity his situation in this interview when I hear it though. I've lost my patience with silly creationists
Bob Enyart-radio guy - has his own RUclips channel. Just punch his name in and scroll down. He has a comment box open too. Maybe a little 'heads up' would be beneficial?
Any way to turn down the volume of the host, ant turn up Laurence?
They understand his writing better than I have? Even though he (the person who actually wrote the thing is question) agrees with me, that they completely misunderstand it? That is an amazing piece of logic.
I like how he quotes Dawkins with all 100 may haves and might haves in there and then goes on to analyze it like Dawkins is standing behind it with absolute certainty.
Spot on !!!
Good Points ;-)
Radio talk-show host: "Whenever you don't know something...it was MY particular god that was responsible."
I couldn't make it through this.
Exactly.
i subbed!
You either missed, or are intentionally ignoring, the entire point I made with this (3 part) response.
Right.
If I am not mistaken that is the Dawkins quote where he seems to have been asked how ID could be possible and he is taking every pain possible to give some way that it would be possible, not plausible, but possible.
Actually Dawkins has already given an accoutning of it:
/watch?v = 6XpP5jsg5kM
How do we have oil with abundant C14.
Sorry NemoUtopian it was 5:14 And maybe just better to take to start of hosts sentence but it is like that was when he gave up with the conversation.
It was in favour of Dr.Krauss and I apologize for the confusion.
This interview is a perfect distillation of the religious VS the non-religious mind. It's an even better example of why the latter is superior in nearly every way.
Agreed!
I don't know if i should like this video or throw my computer out the window...
6:14 "What department"? lol.
Since when is Crick the discoverer of DNA?
Funny, I heard no whimper, it is nice that your hearing defects can provide you with so much amusement.
That's a quote mine from Dawkins, deliberately taken out of context by the editors of the Ben Stein interview. watch?v=8btZ0KWFFBg
Reminds me of the "challenge" issued by Kent Hovind to prove the theory of Darwinian evolution.
i have read the transcription of dawkins this guy used. dawkins uses it as a point of argument, along the lines of, "yes, life COULD have evolved somewhere else and then, spawned it here." he certainly did not say that was what he thought.
"You're not going crazy."
That quote he read by Dawkins was from a Ben Stein movie called "Expelled: No intelligence Allowed". Richard thought it was a serious movie, and he was trying to think of some possible way that intelligent design could be true without God. Richard was no way saying he believes that its true or likely. My point is that was a total quote mine that I wish Laurence had been aware of.
Yes, you are right. All of your assertions and statements, which are contradictory to all known evidence and accepted science, have swayed me. And to think, I was trusting scientists who have actually put time and effort (years and year) into the study of these things - and also have the evidence to back it up - over religious people who just sit and "think about it", and come up with how wrong it must be. What was I thinking?
They have discovered basic amino acids on samples retrieved from a comet recently. You can Google it.
LK: "Why must people reject all the knowledge we have?"
Creationist: "Because of DINOSAUR BLOOD VESSELS!!!"
HEHEHEHHAHAHAHAHAHA
I made the morphologically/genetically different comment in the exact way you phrased it here in the original comment - I even went as far as to stress "morphologically"...but it is to no avail. Like you said, his response to everything is "that is an assumption not science!" .... but somehow at the same time creationism is based in rock-solid scientific fact to him. It is a mystery of life...
Stein. Where he was asked a hypothetical question along then lines of "suppose we find that life was designed" and Dawkins kept saying I don't think that's the case. But finally conceded with his statement of it could have been from aliens which resulted in him saying that there's still no need to postulate a God.
Can just hear the frustration in Lawrence's voice. poor guy.
lol @ "no.....whatever it is, no."
It seams like, to a great extent, that our radio-host (not to mention Believers I've herd in previous debates/interviews) intentionally use faulty, or completely bad reason to use for argument.
Go read the thread.
This is now the third time you have said that I have claimed the "Cambrian explosion has been debunked" - I made no such claim. I am not going to explain again what it is that I said - go back and read more carefully and see what I actually am saying.
oh god, the freaking quotemining at 2:00 IT HURTS!!
any chance of pointing out something he should concede? something where he is demonstrably wrong?
thought not.
I like honesty and Laurence Krauss is being honest. He runs an institute at a University, wrote a book on the discovery that's currently being postulated in physics, is a physicist, knows Dawkins personally and none of which on my list this host has accomplished means that he doesn't understand the topic he's purporting. He's a host and he should act like one.
"I'm shouting louder so I'm obviously right!"
I never claimed they where.
magic!
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret for paleontologists…..we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”
S.J.Gould, Narural History, Vol.86
This is one of Gould's founding comments of PE. The context is clear.
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." - Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. p. 258-260.
Yah, potholer54 included the Dawkins thingy it in one of his fantastic videos. :)
"kevdclo7" OWNED YOU with his reply too !!!!!!!!
This guy is something else...I think he makes up his argument as he goes.
11:50 the Collagen protein was sequenced from a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex bone (Nature 2007). But we found collagen before: "Before this, the oldest sequenced protein (also collagen) came from a mammoth fossil that was 100,000-300,000 years old." So obviously a protein can survive a very long period of time.
Both C-12 and C-13 are stable and form 99,99%. C-14 with is radioactive and is used in carbon-dating, is only 1 part per trillion. If the collage protein have no C-14...
Wow.