I'm always reminded of the late, great Christopher Hitchens quote: "You give me the awful impression - I hate to have to say it - of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position, ever."
Hahaha, classic "Hitch-slap". It's a drag that Sean Hannity is still around and Hitchens is not, but at least we have Hitchens' books, essay, and debates.
I find it frustrating when theists avoid answering a direct question and instead respond to a different question. To prevent this from happening repeatedly, I suggest interrupting them politely mid-sentence and asking, "Could you please clarify what question I asked you?" If they are unable to identify the question or provide an incorrect answer, it becomes evident that they were not attentively listening and were merely waiting for an opportunity to speak. This is a common occurrence in discussions with theists.
Layman calls an atheist show, to debate biology, which can take a decade to be called an expert, to regurgitate a hypothesis from other non-biologists. Education, get some.
Why go through the trouble of an education when you can claim godly authority and persecution? Besides you can’t trust science because it’s difficult and you might hear something that hurts your feelings.
If a man says he has never done wrong/sinned he is a liar, and the truth is not in him. He cannot accept reality. 2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
@@paulgemme6056 Uh huh. Demonstrate that this god actually exists, and anything you said accurately represents it. Because what you’re doing is obeying humans who wrote a book that says they are god/speak for god. Then expecting us to give you the authority of a god.
That’s most of these calls. Most theists as well. Their ignorance is just as good as someone else’s knowledge of a subject because they’re told their feelings are facts and demand the authority of their “god”. They REFUSE to get an education on science and say whatever they feel is true. Because you can’t trust anyone but them.
Not to mention how intelligently designed the first world was in their story the god character had to destroy it and start over.. well I guess it's better than designing a garden filled with fruit you can't eat.
@cursedkennedy7605 🤣"I know you have no idea what being naughty is and are ultimately naive, but I'm just gonna put this fruit tree in the middle of the garden and create a clever reptile that may or may not give you some advice." Muhahahahaha🤪
@@mdug7224 We are ( oops) I mean "I am" going to mention the " Man of the Mist" ... Once then never again and hope everyone forgets that We (oops) I ever said that.
Posterity is shorter than you think. In about 500 years probably nobody will remember who Elvis is. How many 500-year-old musicians do you know? Mozart himself isn't that old.
@@theboombodymate, the fact that YOU don’t know renaissance-era musicians doesn’t mean no-one does. Classical music is still very much alive. Speak and show your ignorance.
@@Mmmmilo Classical music does not go back that far does it? To my knowledge artists like Beethoven and Mozart go back to 1700, not 1500. That's a 200 year difference. But I'll be happy to get a list of musicians you know from the year 1500.
There are dozens and dozens of faults with the human body, if you're going to claim a creator then you must also admit that your creator is completely incompetent!!
Their answer, of course, would be, "He works in mysterious ways." Scientists should steal this one and claim from now on, science explains EVERYTHING! And when Christians ask how the Universe began, all they need to reply with is, "Science works in mysterious ways."
Don’t forget, it’s the entire universe that is supposedly designed. There are flaws in every aspect of everything. Surely a few billion years would be long enough to design perfection.
Every intelligent design dingus fails to understand that they're starting with a completed orgsnism and working backward, thinking that the REASON that organism exists is to function EXACTLY as it does. That's the only way you could think it was even close to being a valid idea.
I was intelligently design eh? I have Spinal Osteoarthritis, had skin cancer and a burst appendix years ago. I could go on but I'll leave there. The callers 'designer ' did a shit job.
@@AdrieKooijman dont forget that the invisible sky dude split himself, to become himself, to torture himself, and eventually sacrifice himself for our sins, which does not include the sin of eating that apple
Love these throwbacks. They remind me of the years of my life I became an atheist watching this show and was "born again" into rational thought and was finally happy 😊
The insect world is a horrid nightmare of insects being eaten alive, maggot eating the paralyzed tarantula, the animal kingdom is also a nightmare world, hyenas ripping the intestines from living zebras etc, no loving being would have created such a horrendous system of life.
My favourite argument for and against ID is the duckbilled platypus. It's a egg laying mammal that sweats milk, has a poisonous barb on its hind legs and glows under UV light.
The problem I have with "intelligent design," or any other attempt to turn religious beliefs into science, is this: the goal of science is to learn the truth of what is, *_not_* to stubbornly defend beliefs against contradictory knowledge. Those are completely different motivations.
All you're saying here is that because lightning strikes happen... Zeus must be the reason for them to happen. "Because the universe can be observed to follow mathematics... therefore the universe must have a god and it must be my favorite god." This doesn't prove anything. You're just asserting that your god exists without demonstrating it. Just because humans created math and the universe appears to follow the laws of that math does not mean a god made everything. Edit: This is directed at the Rick dude that deleted their comment. Replied to OP by accident
@@sarahtonin4649 oh my bad fam. I was actually meaning to reply to RickLambert but I responded to you on accident. That Rick dude deleted his comment afterward too so it looks weirder.
Not when you give exact numbers. The age of the universe in milliseconds is FAR less than 10^500. So is the number of protons in the observable universe. But the odds of typing out a copy of Hamlet randomly on a typewriter is less than 1 out of 10^100,000. The universe does not have enough space or time in order for human thought to come from randomness alone. That's why Dawkins says natural selection happens through adaptation, not randomness. Randomness is not a good argument for things being the way they are. Natural laws are required.
The chances of things shaking out the way they did is exactly 1. You can tell, because they DID. Throw all the big scary numbers around that you like, but no amount of lying about probability will make your god real. Even if you managed to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your numbers are correct (they are not), you have done nothing to show evidence for your god. Religion does not win by default any time we do not have an answer for something.
@@RussianPrimeMinister Didn't say I was showing evidence for God. Just said that the universe operates by laws and not solely by random chance. That's true in every scientific piece of literature. The numbers are generously over-estimated to compensate for potential error. Certainly with regards to the age of the universe. It's 13 billion years old according to scientific findings. That's not hard to convert to milliseconds. 13 billion times 365 times 24 times 60 times 60 times 1000. Round it up so it's all zeros except for the first digit. That's a number with WAY less than 500 zeros. It's also a number with WAY less than 100 zeros.
@@USCanDoBetter I think it goes much deeper than you realize. I confess that it is confusing and somewhat disturbing to understand, but if you analyze the scriptures it seems that the individual who holds the power of death is extremely powerful and its a cosmic battle that has possibly been going on for eons.
They never listen. But expect us to listen, which we do but when we point to the obviously logical fallacy, they shout "you don't understand, your not listening".
In the poll I have on my RUclips community page, I asked who believes that either Jim or Pokey would actually come on to my livestream this Saturday. These guys claim that they beat all the atheists but have never actually debated an atheist. There were only 14 votes, but all of them said that the cowards would be no-show. I'm surprised that not a SINGLE person said that they would show up. They don't have any fans here, I guess. Even THEY didn't say that they would show up.
Snowflakes are complex mathematical structures and have the appearance of being designed. They are also devoid of any system of self-replication so must be individually created. There must therefore be a God of Snowflakes creating each and every one of them on the fly.
I don’t understand how irreducible complexity is a sign of intelligent design. Nothing that we have made is irreducibly complex. We didn’t just go from no means of travel to a 747 or a dodge Ram.
22:20 - A flagellum is not a motor, any more than legs are. 26:00 - Irreducible complexity is a bunk argument as well. When you remove a part (which evolution doesn't usually do), the function changes. Gary (yes, I know this call occurred years ago), imagine for a moment, you have a species of bacteria. Some of them gain little bumps on their surfaces, and this allows them to detect things in their environment just a little bit more readily, before committing to a full movement and/or running headlong into something potentially dangerous. This then gets selected for, and the bumps slowly grow into little arms or fibers. But a bacteriophage might start picking up on these arms/fibers/feelers and using those to attack the bacteria. So now there's selection pressure against the arms/fibers. So they start to lose them. Not all of them, just most, until they just have a few. They're still useful, after all, even if something else turns it into a detriment. But now a few of them develop a way to wiggle one of those feelers. Could be useful as a lure, but it propels the bacterium slightly in the opposite direction. Very useful to evade a predator. Now there's selection pressure to make that feeler wiggle a _lot_ . And before long, it's fully rotating at its base, and that flailing motion makes it even more agile. Bam. Flagellum. All of this is the hypothesis of a layman, based on what little I know about flagella and evolution, but it's not terribly hard to see how simple life forms would be able to make such huge changes to their body plans. They have fewer systems to disrupt than, say, humans, so having an extra thing here or there isn't necessarily out of the ordinary. This is just one potential explanation of the "motor" here. There are probably plenty of videos that discuss it in depth, as well. Jackson Wheat has one from six years ago (video ID LLMPd41GvWM).
A flagellum is nothing like a motor. Every motor ever made was made by humans and with metal parts. No matter how it functions it cannot be directly compared to a motor
The way we tell if something is designed is to compare it to something naturally occurring. If everything is designed, there is nothing to compare it to as not designed.
@@bobs182 But man is of nature. Just like beaver dams, anything man creates is natural. How can something of nature make something that's not of nature???
Intelligent design? Does that include the species of boars that grows its tusk into its own brain as a result of the boars with the longest tusks having the most sex?
Intelligent design? Does that include the humans who don't have the cognitive capability to understand that mathematical laws are descriptions of numeric relations? They think that there must be some mind that's necessary for things like the Fibonacci sequence number to be true. It's like saying that a mind is needed for a triangle to exist. He's conflating the WORD triangle, which humans came up with and the triangular shape, which would ALWAYS exist, whether humans existed or not.
@@RickLambert963 No 😂 The universe has laws, it doesn't follow them. They're just part of the universe and how it functions We humans can observe and test these laws, measure their impact and explain how they work by using math (among other things). I suggest that you learn how the scientific method works, and when you have a reasonable explanation and (dare I say) evidence then you can publish your findings in a peer review magazine, collect your nobel prize, become the world's most famous person ever and can come back here to tell us that you told us so. Until then, maybe try some logical reasoning and realize that it is unreasonable to accept such a claim without the necessary evidence to support it.
@@RickLambert963 I agree that mathematics is abstract because math itself is not something that we experience. I disagree with the idea that the universe follows mathematical laws. Like you said mathematics is conceptual. A concept is a thought or idea. The universe does not run on our thoughts and ideas. What happens is we can use our minds to apply mathematics in order to describe patterns that happen in nature. For example, the equation for calculating the force of gravity is something we derived from our observation. At this moment in time, it has the best predictive power for determining the force of gravity between two objects. However, the fact that we can represent this phenomenon with mathematics does not mean we can deduce that the universe has a mind. TLDR: We cannot deduce the universe has a mind just because we can represent physical constants mathematically.
@@RickLambert963 You've made multiple claims about the laws of mathematics and use a God to support them but the existence of a God is a presupposition. You have to demonstrate that 1. A God exists and 2. A God has the qualities you have just described.
How sad. Obviously an intelligent and articulate guy. He’s stuck with a conclusion given to him by his religion that he believes has to be true, and so his entire task is to pretend that evidence indicates what it clearly does not indicate. In the battle of dogma vs intellectual honesty dogma is still winning.
our sun is literally going to boil our planet in about 500 million years. our "intelligent designer" literally designed his design to all be completely boiled away.
People put in far too much effort to still end up being wrong. The God excuse: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument. Theists don't want atheists telling people what to believe - because theists want the exclusive right to tell people what to believe.
@@RickLambert963incorrect, the universe has physical laws that we applied mathematics and measurements to. The speed of light is the speed of light, the 3.00 x 10^8 m/s was something humans designed to apply mathematics and measurement to a natural phenomenon.
Creationists: Humans make information so information in the cell can only come from an intelligent mind. The same Creationists: Humans can't even make a cell! Only God can. See the paradox and logical fallacy? So when humans can do something, God. When we can't do something, it's still god. 🙄
The fallacies get created when the supposition is that minds can exist independent of brains and that minds control and act upon matter. When we are separated from the world, we then need someone like us to make a world in which we fit. If we are an integral aspect of the world we naturally fit.
Remind me not to make a puzzle with Gary. If we disagree on a piece's place, my strategy is to use that piece to try to find another similar, if it doesn't work, mark that piece for later and move on. He would leave it there and build on a possible mistake...
The entire idea of calling something IC, is to say that it is not possible to gradually have evolved to the final state. Defining IC as something that can’t perform the same function when it is missing a part is therefore useless for the goal of refuting evolution. For evolution it is sufficient for the in-between product to have some useful function, which does not need to be the same function as the final product. They could have made this point clearer by just going along with saying that the flagella is indeed IC by their narrow deffinition , and then ask so what?
Premise 1: Everything can be described in some language. (Even simplest language with 0 and 1 only two alphabet can describe every possible information) Premise 2: Every language's even a smallest part ie. A single alphabet can be used to describe truth value of some random thing. Conclusion: therefore its impossible to design or even for something to exist in a describable format to be irreducibly complex
The probability, despite being incalculable, of these things emerging as the result of random mutations becomes obviously irrelevant when you consider not just the time, but the number of iterations. Imagine if you rolled 10 dice; the odds of all 10 dice coming up as 1 on a single roll is approximately 1 in 60,459,000. If you roll that same number of dice tens of millions of times though, the odds quickly approach very practical numbers. If you also increase that number of dice to 20 dice, your odds of rolling 10 1's increases drastically, to the point where it becomes almost trivial. Evolution has both the advantage of time and iteration; all life is under natural pressure to change all the time; trillions of lifeforms all randomly mutating for hundreds of millions of years, eventually the number is going to come up. It's not even a maybe; it's a near statistical certainty. Murphy's Law is the simplest way to understand this; anything that can happen, eventually will happen.
"Earlier versions of current structures didnt do the same thing that they do know, therefore they were designed!" Doesnt that argument get closer to proving evolution?
I just had someone insist that our jaws becoming too small for our wisdom teeth someone indicated intelligent design and _not_ evolution. For people who don't understand anything, anything is possible.
This caller wants to quote Dawkins as saying “there is an appearance of design”. 1. Just because there is an *_APPEARANCE_* of design does not mean it was actually designed. I too, an atheist, will agree that the universe and everything in it has the *_appearance_* of design, that doesn’t mean everything was actually designed. Much like a piece of toast with certain toasting patterns can appear to resemble a face, that doesn’t mean a face is actually there or was burned into the toast on purpose; the same way a cloud can appear to resemble a rabbit, or any creature, that doesn’t mean the cloud was designed to look like a rabbit. 2. The ID apologist will always make this grave mistake in their argument (as the caller blatantly did). They will claim that ID is the better answer because *_CHANCE_* could not have gotten us to where we are. If the caller wants to quote Dawkins he should keep reading because Dawkins also points out in The God Delusion that CHANCE is NOT evolution by natural selection. Natural selection is a *_CUMULATIVE_* *_PROCESS_* by which the non-random selection of random mutations leads to evolutionary adaptations and diversity in life. Intelligent design and chance are not the only options for the answer of life, and both are horrible options anyway when we have Darwinian natural selection staring us in the face!
Simplicity is a homework of design and we know the more complicated. Something is the more points of failure it has and nature has uncountable points of failure
Look around the world. Look at how the designer’s greatest creation, supposedly Homo sapiens, behaves towards each other and the rest of ‘creation ’. Think of all the innocents killed, in the bible, because of the sins of others, by that designer. Surely that designer is a mixture of malevolence and incompetence.
A car. Not an irreducibly complex Its wheel can be used for other tasks. Wind shield can be used as a glass to make a mirror from. Its seats can be used to sit in the sun. So even a designed thing doesn't have to be irreducibly complex mostly it wouldn't be. Honestly it's really hard maybe almost impossible to even design something irreducibly complex. U can write a code whose statements are completely useless individually. But i can even take a 'z' character in code or 0 a number in code and use it for mathematics or language and then my original code will fail to be irreducibly complex. So its practically impossible to design something irreducibly complex
34:45 finally gotcha atheist. Your likley hood of wining the powerball is exacaly the same every time. Sure for people might have the numbers but you still win. Sometimes no one wins. I think you mean the lotery total 450million. Not your chances of winning.
Premise 1: Everything can be described in some language. (Even simplest language with 0 and 1 only two alphabet can describe every possible information) Premise 2: Every language's even a smallest part ie. A single alphabet can be used to describe truth value of some random thing. Premise 3: Bcz every possible information (design of something) can be described in a language its smallest part ie. A single alphabet say 'a' can be used to describe truth of a statement X ie if a then X is true if not a them X is false. Premise 4:This shows how every possible design's single part ie a single alphabet in its description can have a function in this case function of describing truth value if statement x Conclusion: Therefore its impossible to design or even for something to exist in a describable format to be irreducibly complex as premises. However let me warn that above argument describes any possible function and not some specific function or specific function set.
A tree grows. If you put a weight on the tree it lifts it as a jack would. So we could call a tree a jack. Does that make it designed by an intelligence? Bonkers! We know a tree occurs naturally.
Wow. Just wow. Caller: 1+1=4 Hosts: why do you say that? Caller: because i believe it. Over a billion years ago on earth. Before life. In one minute there were more chemical reactions that occured that could cause chemical replicators to become life form replicators than there are stars in the universe. This went on for millions of years. The odds are not against it. The odds are for it. The same goes for development of the motorized flagellum. Instead the odds are dramatically more in favor of it happening. Slowly. Piece by piece over time. To think the odds are against it is maddening. Lets just say there is an intelligent designer. How did it decide upon this point in the universe to suddenly pop all life in all its complexity into existence when everything is dependent on everything else. In The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, earth mark 2 was built and the suddenly brought life in all its complexity into being. Watch it and you will see how utterly ridiculous it is. Which is Adams's point of his five part trilogy. How moronic intelligent design is. Why now? How could anything do such an incredible thing. Never has anyone made life never mind anything to support trillions upon trillikns of life forms and all the chemicals and gases and compounds they need to live. Again this god of the gaps fails. There is no proof. And it is utterly ridiculous.
The book of Pandas and People was originally published as a creationist book and then republished as an intelligent design book. That was so evident in that their search and replace didn't catch all of the phrases from creator to intelligent designer. Mess up and were caught out. LOL Just like all "holy" texts, men were trying again to pull the wool over the eyes of the gullible.
Nature brought everything into existence and nature consumes everything back into itself. Everything it becomes, rises from its ashes to become everything again and again, ad infinitum.
even though this is from 2010, it is almost the same 'discussion' that was had last week. just sad... over 14 years of "...from my research" and there is not 1 seemingly new argument, and the callers just quote others without much indication of their own thoughts
Is not a convection cell that runs on natural heat that ultimately produces rotary air motion a simple motor? Rising humid air can power a tornado or hurricane. There are several other components than just the initial heat of the air: absolute and relative humidity, the conservation of angular momentum, the Coriolis effect, exothermic release of water vapor condensing to a liquid, the volume of air involved (critical mass), the latitude (which affects the tropopause, which determines the vertical distance in which the storm has to develop), and so on. Take away any one of these and the thing fizzles out. Ergo, intelligent design?
I can't, off-hand, think of a single living system that uses heat as a sole energy source. Sure, a cold-blooded reptile might bask in the sun to warm up enough to move in search of food, but I don't think it's essential. It's only humans who figured out how to make steam move pistons!
But if you take away any one of those things, we'd end up with something else entirely, which you would then argue had been intelligently designed because it matches those different conditions perfectly A pothole in the road will fill with water when it rains, creating a puddle. The puddle will conform naturally to the exact shape of that pothole. Was the pothole intelligently designed to fit that exact volume of water? Of course not. The end result occurs as a result of the circumstances, rather than the circumstances being designed specifically to accomodate the end result
"_____ says cow shit tastes like lasagna." "He's wrong." "But the more cow patties you find, the more probable it tastes like-" "No, that's not how it works. A massive pile of cow shit does not equal lasagna." "But _____ says cow pies are the BEST lasagna, and the more lasagna we find-" "You didn't find lasagna, you found cow shit." "Right, but if you pile it high enough..." Get your fork, Gary.
I think the hosts (I'm about 3/4 way through) are missing one (out of many) of the caller's errors. He repeatedly states that flagellum has been characterized as a "motor," and then asks: "where have we ever seen a naturally occurring motor?" He is defining "motor" as the kind of motors that humans make out of metal or plastic or wood--but I've never seen a human -made motor that is constructed from biological cells. It's like saying: bats have an obstacle avoidance system based on sonar. Where have we ever seen a naturally occurring sonar system?" Am I missing something here? Isn't the obvious answer, whether bats or tiny animals, that the animal (or whatever)l IS the naturally occurring example we can use?
That life is so complex that it couldn't have happened by chance means than something infinitely more powerful and complex must have done it. This 'something' which is called a god has no supporting evidence whatsoever, and there is no test I can perform to confirm or deny its existence - one has to simply 'believe' that the particular god one follows created everything (and also be atheist to the thousands of other gods). Interesting 'logic'!
Just curious what grade this is from. I would not expect APA style and MS word formatting in lower grade schools or citations required. Assuming this is real…
The apologist are going to re-write the bible in to a science level of principles and equivalencies so they can sell it as the presumptive we're right and you're wrong becuz of this/that/other.
When Orks in Warhammer 40k just throws scraps and bits together and they just somehow work and they can even make intergalactic space ships and stuff, is that Intelligent Design?
@@gregdoriman no, I didnt imply things just magically work because they think it can. They work because they genetically know, but don't realize it. To the Orks, they are just mashing it together and the more confident they are about it, the more they are tapping into that inert ability
He doesn't have a brain. He hears, "evolution is not dependent on the origin of life," and he lies and claims that means the speaker is an agnostic. But then we are talking about someone who thinks his best argument against evolution is that it doesn't give an explanation for the origin of life. It's just as logical as saying that creationism can't be right since it doesn't explain why BJ's mommy doesn't love him.
I would say it’s been indoctrinated out of them. They no longer have the ability to think for themselves and listen to their idols. All this guy could do, was quote other people, he couldn’t talk for himself.
Theist who hasn’t rven read the bible goes deep into biology, cosmology and other science. Feels good that the god of the gaps has been driven back all the way beyond the big bang :-)
eru iluvatar created the world through music and divine will along with the ainur where morgoth and his servant sauron shaped the course of history. how desperate and ignorant, if not dishonest, can they get ?
I'm always reminded of the late, great Christopher Hitchens quote:
"You give me the awful impression - I hate to have to say it - of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position, ever."
Hahaha, classic "Hitch-slap". It's a drag that Sean Hannity is still around and Hitchens is not, but at least we have Hitchens' books, essay, and debates.
Intelligent design is a mix of argument from ignorance, authority, and because I said so
It's based on weasel worded definitions along with Misrepresentations and misinterpretations of actual science.
Yeah but jesus though😂😂😂
I find it frustrating when theists avoid answering a direct question and instead respond to a different question. To prevent this from happening repeatedly, I suggest interrupting them politely mid-sentence and asking, "Could you please clarify what question I asked you?" If they are unable to identify the question or provide an incorrect answer, it becomes evident that they were not attentively listening and were merely waiting for an opportunity to speak. This is a common occurrence in discussions with theists.
When hosts do that the threads are full of people whining that they won't let the caller speak.
Me now I agree with you.
That's genius, I'm gonna use that haha
In fairness, that's a common occurrence with everyone. But otherwise yeah.
Be wary with that one, ADHD and short term retention is a bitch.
Dishonest "christians"? Shocking!!
"From what I gather from my research." AKA: I searched for things that aligned with bias and already established narrative.
😂 pretty much
It's frustrating for me, as I believe I am maximally maximum in every possible way, yet I haven't found a shred of evidence to support it.
When people claim they have done their own research, my eyes want to roll into another dimension 😂
by "research" I meant "mesearch"
"Knowledge is not something you simply assert; knowledge is demonstrated."
Layman calls an atheist show, to debate biology, which can take a decade to be called an expert, to regurgitate a hypothesis from other non-biologists. Education, get some.
Obligatory Samuel L. Jackson: “Education, motherfucker! Do you have it?!”
Why go through the trouble of an education when you can claim godly authority and persecution? Besides you can’t trust science because it’s difficult and you might hear something that hurts your feelings.
If a man says he has never done wrong/sinned he is a liar, and the truth is not in him. He cannot accept reality.
2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
@@paulgemme6056 Uh huh. Demonstrate that this god actually exists, and anything you said accurately represents it.
Because what you’re doing is obeying humans who wrote a book that says they are god/speak for god. Then expecting us to give you the authority of a god.
That’s most of these calls. Most theists as well. Their ignorance is just as good as someone else’s knowledge of a subject because they’re told their feelings are facts and demand the authority of their “god”.
They REFUSE to get an education on science and say whatever they feel is true. Because you can’t trust anyone but them.
The three word phrase an apologist hates to say: I don't know.
Not to mention how intelligently designed the first world was in their story the god character had to destroy it and start over.. well I guess it's better than designing a garden filled with fruit you can't eat.
@cursedkennedy7605 🤣"I know you have no idea what being naughty is and are ultimately naive, but I'm just gonna put this fruit tree in the middle of the garden and create a clever reptile that may or may not give you some advice." Muhahahahaha🤪
@@mdug7224 We are ( oops) I mean "I am" going to mention the " Man of the Mist" ... Once then never again and hope everyone forgets that We (oops) I ever said that.
@@cursedkennedy7605 I've never read it. Is it worth it?
@@mdug7224 nah
I breath, eat, speak, and drink through the same orifice. That's a stupid and bad design.
Hey, at least you don't have tastebuds on your anus. Proof of intelligent design! That's about the level of logic from these types of callers.
Naked mole rats can’t get cancer, yet humans can. That’s an even more idiotic design. 🤯
(it's friday) u mad me think of a video "Gallagher - Drinking"
I Wonder what it would be like if we ate with our ass and took a dump with our mouth. Bad breath?
How many orifices do you want? 🤣🤣🤣
I can't imagine how mortified I'd be as this guy. This clip has been memorialized for years and saved for posterity, viewed by thousands of people.
They probably think they are a great persecuted orator revealing truth to the unenlightened, ha.
Posterity is shorter than you think. In about 500 years probably nobody will remember who Elvis is. How many 500-year-old musicians do you know? Mozart himself isn't that old.
@@theboombodymate, the fact that YOU don’t know renaissance-era musicians doesn’t mean no-one does. Classical music is still very much alive. Speak and show your ignorance.
@@Mmmmilo Classical music does not go back that far does it? To my knowledge artists like Beethoven and Mozart go back to 1700, not 1500. That's a 200 year difference. But I'll be happy to get a list of musicians you know from the year 1500.
There are dozens and dozens of faults with the human body, if you're going to claim a creator then you must also admit that your creator is completely incompetent!!
Their answer, of course, would be, "He works in mysterious ways."
Scientists should steal this one and claim from now on, science explains EVERYTHING!
And when Christians ask how the Universe began, all they need to reply with is, "Science works in mysterious ways."
Don’t forget, it’s the entire universe that is supposedly designed. There are flaws in every aspect of everything. Surely a few billion years would be long enough to design perfection.
There's no such thing as irreducible complexity. Just because we don't know how to reduce it, we cannot simply state it's irreducible.
its also doesnt mean anything, who care if it irreducible? its doesnt even come close of proving anything :p
Theists never answer the question they're asked, they just don't listen...
Every intelligent design dingus fails to understand that they're starting with a completed orgsnism and working backward, thinking that the REASON that organism exists is to function EXACTLY as it does. That's the only way you could think it was even close to being a valid idea.
I was intelligently design eh? I have Spinal Osteoarthritis, had skin cancer and a burst appendix years ago. I could go on but I'll leave there. The callers 'designer ' did a shit job.
“It’s because you have free will!!!”
- low IQ creationists
That's not a design flaw. That's your punishment for your great great great great great great great great grandmother stealing an apple.
@@AdrieKooijman dont forget that the invisible sky dude split himself, to become himself, to torture himself, and eventually sacrifice himself for our sins, which does not include the sin of eating that apple
Love these throwbacks. They remind me of the years of my life I became an atheist watching this show and was "born again" into rational thought and was finally happy 😊
The insect world is a horrid nightmare of insects being eaten alive, maggot eating the paralyzed tarantula, the animal kingdom is also a nightmare world, hyenas ripping the intestines from living zebras etc, no loving being would have created such a horrendous system of life.
Ah, but tarantulas and wasps just loved each other dearly before Adam and Eve bit the apple!
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 maybe if there had been a maggott in the apple, Adam would of spat it out and saved us all alot of trouble!
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 what did they eat to live?
@@JohnnysCafe_ I'm not a creo, dear, best ask one of them. I've been an atheist for well over 50 years.
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 I do apologise Sparrow-hawk, it was not a question directed at you but more what would theists say.
My favourite argument for and against ID is the duckbilled platypus. It's a egg laying mammal that sweats milk, has a poisonous barb on its hind legs and glows under UV light.
Don't forget it also lives DownUnder which has been proven to not exist by a sub-branch of Christianity.
That and the way hyenas reproduce, obligate siblicide etc
The problem I have with "intelligent design," or any other attempt to turn religious beliefs into science, is this: the goal of science is to learn the truth of what is, *_not_* to stubbornly defend beliefs against contradictory knowledge. Those are completely different motivations.
All you're saying here is that because lightning strikes happen... Zeus must be the reason for them to happen.
"Because the universe can be observed to follow mathematics... therefore the universe must have a god and it must be my favorite god."
This doesn't prove anything. You're just asserting that your god exists without demonstrating it. Just because humans created math and the universe appears to follow the laws of that math does not mean a god made everything.
Edit: This is directed at the Rick dude that deleted their comment. Replied to OP by accident
@@RickLambert963 'The universe follows mathematical laws."
No, mathematical laws are based on the universe...
@@themadmanescaped1 - Not sure who you're addressing here . . . this doesn't seem to have anything to do with my comment.
@@sarahtonin4649 oh my bad fam. I was actually meaning to reply to RickLambert but I responded to you on accident. That Rick dude deleted his comment afterward too so it looks weirder.
@@t800fantasm2 The universe functions with humans counting and measuring it.
Intelligent design? The creationists in the threads show no evidence of either intelligence or design.
Probability is the last resort of the Apologist when they know they have lost the argument.
Not when you give exact numbers. The age of the universe in milliseconds is FAR less than 10^500. So is the number of protons in the observable universe. But the odds of typing out a copy of Hamlet randomly on a typewriter is less than 1 out of 10^100,000. The universe does not have enough space or time in order for human thought to come from randomness alone. That's why Dawkins says natural selection happens through adaptation, not randomness. Randomness is not a good argument for things being the way they are. Natural laws are required.
The chances of things shaking out the way they did is exactly 1. You can tell, because they DID. Throw all the big scary numbers around that you like, but no amount of lying about probability will make your god real. Even if you managed to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your numbers are correct (they are not), you have done nothing to show evidence for your god. Religion does not win by default any time we do not have an answer for something.
@@RussianPrimeMinister Didn't say I was showing evidence for God. Just said that the universe operates by laws and not solely by random chance. That's true in every scientific piece of literature.
The numbers are generously over-estimated to compensate for potential error. Certainly with regards to the age of the universe. It's 13 billion years old according to scientific findings. That's not hard to convert to milliseconds. 13 billion times 365 times 24 times 60 times 60 times 1000. Round it up so it's all zeros except for the first digit. That's a number with WAY less than 500 zeros. It's also a number with WAY less than 100 zeros.
He's so sure of his statements, that it would take a flagellum with a crowbar to move him off it.
Intelligent design? A supernatural creator throws a flawed self-aware being onto an unfinished planet that can kill it and that's intelligent.
@@RickLambert963ok you’ve finally convinced me. All hail Odin!
@@RickLambert963 "Mathematics is proof of intelligent design. "
You make stupid look like a level of achievement you will never rise to...
Because you would have done it so much better. Lol
@@ShroudoftheLogosI know I would have if I had “unlimited power”. It’s actually quite easy to be better than the biblical god.
@@USCanDoBetter I think it goes much deeper than you realize. I confess that it is confusing and somewhat disturbing to understand, but if you analyze the scriptures it seems that the individual who holds the power of death is extremely powerful and its a cosmic battle that has possibly been going on for eons.
They never listen. But expect us to listen, which we do but when we point to the obviously logical fallacy, they shout "you don't understand, your not listening".
In the poll I have on my RUclips community page, I asked who believes that either Jim or Pokey would actually come on to my livestream this Saturday. These guys claim that they beat all the atheists but have never actually debated an atheist.
There were only 14 votes, but all of them said that the cowards would be no-show. I'm surprised that not a SINGLE person said that they would show up. They don't have any fans here, I guess. Even THEY didn't say that they would show up.
Snowflakes are complex mathematical structures and have the appearance of being designed. They are also devoid of any system of self-replication so must be individually created. There must therefore be a God of Snowflakes creating each and every one of them on the fly.
Now that’s a god I could get behind! (I love snow.)
😂😂😂😂😂
I don’t understand how irreducible complexity is a sign of intelligent design. Nothing that we have made is irreducibly complex. We didn’t just go from no means of travel to a 747 or a dodge Ram.
What if the creator is not all-knowing or perfect, but instead an advanced being, such as an alien?
22:20 - A flagellum is not a motor, any more than legs are.
26:00 - Irreducible complexity is a bunk argument as well. When you remove a part (which evolution doesn't usually do), the function changes.
Gary (yes, I know this call occurred years ago), imagine for a moment, you have a species of bacteria. Some of them gain little bumps on their surfaces, and this allows them to detect things in their environment just a little bit more readily, before committing to a full movement and/or running headlong into something potentially dangerous. This then gets selected for, and the bumps slowly grow into little arms or fibers.
But a bacteriophage might start picking up on these arms/fibers/feelers and using those to attack the bacteria. So now there's selection pressure against the arms/fibers.
So they start to lose them. Not all of them, just most, until they just have a few. They're still useful, after all, even if something else turns it into a detriment.
But now a few of them develop a way to wiggle one of those feelers. Could be useful as a lure, but it propels the bacterium slightly in the opposite direction. Very useful to evade a predator. Now there's selection pressure to make that feeler wiggle a _lot_ . And before long, it's fully rotating at its base, and that flailing motion makes it even more agile.
Bam. Flagellum.
All of this is the hypothesis of a layman, based on what little I know about flagella and evolution, but it's not terribly hard to see how simple life forms would be able to make such huge changes to their body plans. They have fewer systems to disrupt than, say, humans, so having an extra thing here or there isn't necessarily out of the ordinary.
This is just one potential explanation of the "motor" here. There are probably plenty of videos that discuss it in depth, as well. Jackson Wheat has one from six years ago (video ID LLMPd41GvWM).
Every one of these callers argues thus: "Here are reasons why I demand you join my faith."
A flagellum is nothing like a motor. Every motor ever made was made by humans and with metal parts. No matter how it functions it cannot be directly compared to a motor
The way we tell if something is designed is to compare it to something naturally occurring. If everything is designed, there is nothing to compare it to as not designed.
@@bobs182 everything that occurs in natural, this includes atomic bombs, plastics, computers, cars, and beaver dams.
@@dwayneruss8277 True by one definition but another definition of natural is non man made.
@@bobs182 But man is of nature. Just like beaver dams, anything man creates is natural. How can something of nature make something that's not of nature???
@@dwayneruss8277 I understand your point but I don't make up the definition of words. Look up the definition of natural.
This is so great. Great throwback.
Intelligent design? Does that include the species of boars that grows its tusk into its own brain as a result of the boars with the longest tusks having the most sex?
Nothing about that seems intelligently designed 😂 Reminds me of the picture with the ram that had its horns growing into its head.
Intelligent design? Does that include the humans who don't have the cognitive capability to understand that mathematical laws are descriptions of numeric relations?
They think that there must be some mind that's necessary for things like the Fibonacci sequence number to be true. It's like saying that a mind is needed for a triangle to exist. He's conflating the WORD triangle, which humans came up with and the triangular shape, which would ALWAYS exist, whether humans existed or not.
@@RickLambert963 No 😂 The universe has laws, it doesn't follow them. They're just part of the universe and how it functions We humans can observe and test these laws, measure their impact and explain how they work by using math (among other things).
I suggest that you learn how the scientific method works, and when you have a reasonable explanation and (dare I say) evidence then you can publish your findings in a peer review magazine, collect your nobel prize, become the world's most famous person ever and can come back here to tell us that you told us so. Until then, maybe try some logical reasoning and realize that it is unreasonable to accept such a claim without the necessary evidence to support it.
@@RickLambert963 I agree that mathematics is abstract because math itself is not something that we experience. I disagree with the idea that the universe follows mathematical laws. Like you said mathematics is conceptual. A concept is a thought or idea. The universe does not run on our thoughts and ideas. What happens is we can use our minds to apply mathematics in order to describe patterns that happen in nature. For example, the equation for calculating the force of gravity is something we derived from our observation. At this moment in time, it has the best predictive power for determining the force of gravity between two objects. However, the fact that we can represent this phenomenon with mathematics does not mean we can deduce that the universe has a mind.
TLDR: We cannot deduce the universe has a mind just because we can represent physical constants mathematically.
@@RickLambert963 You've made multiple claims about the laws of mathematics and use a God to support them but the existence of a God is a presupposition. You have to demonstrate that 1. A God exists and 2. A God has the qualities you have just described.
How sad. Obviously an intelligent and articulate guy. He’s stuck with a conclusion given to him by his religion that he believes has to be true, and so his entire task is to pretend that evidence indicates what it clearly does not indicate. In the battle of dogma vs intellectual honesty dogma is still winning.
But but Bill Gates said that DNA is like computer code!
Yeah and my butcher said something about the formation of stars.
From the school of "I'm not going to look at the actual science, and you can't make me".
That was like nails scraping down a blackboard!!
our sun is literally going to boil our planet in about 500 million years. our "intelligent designer" literally designed his design to all be completely boiled away.
Have you even seen Star Trek, I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Oops, I used a mixed parallel universe example. Blame that guy and his cat 😉
Nothing but assertions from creationists as usual.
And, atheists.
@@ENDtheFED-it4bo atheism isn't a claim. It's not believing in the claim of belief in any gods. It is not a claim that no gods exist.
@@ENDtheFED-it4bo What assertion do you believe is being made?
Try advocating for intelligent design after witnessing a traumatic childbirth....
Loving these throwbacks!
The caller had just got his Ladybird book on Biology......and now he's an expert......
If only it was a ladybird book and not some creationist’s insane take on science then he’d at least have the fundamentals to go on 🤭❤️
People put in far too much effort to still end up being wrong.
The God excuse: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument.
Theists don't want atheists telling people what to believe - because theists want the exclusive right to tell people what to believe.
Designing Satan definitely was a "smart" choice 😊
And a good Saturday Morning 🌞 AXP Fans and Theists ❤❤❤
Peace ✌️
Don’t forget the eye eating parasites!
@@RickLambert963incorrect, the universe has physical laws that we applied mathematics and measurements to. The speed of light is the speed of light, the 3.00 x 10^8 m/s was something humans designed to apply mathematics and measurement to a natural phenomenon.
@@RickLambert963 incorrect, the universe follows physical laws that we humans applied mathematics to
@@RickLambert963You know, if you didn't randomly inject your transphobia into unrelated posts, fewer of your posts would get reported and deleted.
@@Beacon80 Ricky's deathly afraid we're going to figure out he's a flaming homosexual.
Creationists: Humans make information so information in the cell can only come from an intelligent mind.
The same Creationists: Humans can't even make a cell! Only God can.
See the paradox and logical fallacy? So when humans can do something, God. When we can't do something, it's still god.
🙄
The fallacies get created when the supposition is that minds can exist independent of brains and that minds control and act upon matter. When we are separated from the world, we then need someone like us to make a world in which we fit. If we are an integral aspect of the world we naturally fit.
Remind me not to make a puzzle with Gary. If we disagree on a piece's place, my strategy is to use that piece to try to find another similar, if it doesn't work, mark that piece for later and move on. He would leave it there and build on a possible mistake...
There are types of flagella that have different complexity with different ammount of components
The entire idea of calling something IC, is to say that it is not possible to gradually have evolved to the final state. Defining IC as something that can’t perform the same function when it is missing a part is therefore useless for the goal of refuting evolution. For evolution it is sufficient for the in-between product to have some useful function, which does not need to be the same function as the final product. They could have made this point clearer by just going along with saying that the flagella is indeed IC by their narrow deffinition , and then ask so what?
great call
Premise 1: Everything can be described in some language. (Even simplest language with 0 and 1 only two alphabet can describe every possible information)
Premise 2: Every language's even a smallest part ie. A single alphabet can be used to describe truth value of some random thing.
Conclusion: therefore its impossible to design or even for something to exist in a describable format to be irreducibly complex
The probability, despite being incalculable, of these things emerging as the result of random mutations becomes obviously irrelevant when you consider not just the time, but the number of iterations.
Imagine if you rolled 10 dice; the odds of all 10 dice coming up as 1 on a single roll is approximately 1 in 60,459,000.
If you roll that same number of dice tens of millions of times though, the odds quickly approach very practical numbers.
If you also increase that number of dice to 20 dice, your odds of rolling 10 1's increases drastically, to the point where it becomes almost trivial.
Evolution has both the advantage of time and iteration; all life is under natural pressure to change all the time; trillions of lifeforms all randomly mutating for hundreds of millions of years, eventually the number is going to come up. It's not even a maybe; it's a near statistical certainty. Murphy's Law is the simplest way to understand this; anything that can happen, eventually will happen.
"Earlier versions of current structures didnt do the same thing that they do know, therefore they were designed!"
Doesnt that argument get closer to proving evolution?
I just had someone insist that our jaws becoming too small for our wisdom teeth someone indicated intelligent design and _not_ evolution.
For people who don't understand anything, anything is possible.
It’s silly to ask for evidence of evolution while swallowing a whole book of childish fairy tales with no evidence.
This caller wants to quote Dawkins as saying “there is an appearance of design”.
1. Just because there is an *_APPEARANCE_* of design does not mean it was actually designed. I too, an atheist, will agree that the universe and everything in it has the *_appearance_* of design, that doesn’t mean everything was actually designed. Much like a piece of toast with certain toasting patterns can appear to resemble a face, that doesn’t mean a face is actually there or was burned into the toast on purpose; the same way a cloud can appear to resemble a rabbit, or any creature, that doesn’t mean the cloud was designed to look like a rabbit.
2. The ID apologist will always make this grave mistake in their argument (as the caller blatantly did). They will claim that ID is the better answer because *_CHANCE_* could not have gotten us to where we are. If the caller wants to quote Dawkins he should keep reading because Dawkins also points out in The God Delusion that CHANCE is NOT evolution by natural selection. Natural selection is a *_CUMULATIVE_* *_PROCESS_* by which the non-random selection of random mutations leads to evolutionary adaptations and diversity in life. Intelligent design and chance are not the only options for the answer of life, and both are horrible options anyway when we have Darwinian natural selection staring us in the face!
Never saw someone rebutted so well, and thoroughly on AE as Gary did on this clip.
are you saying you agree his nonsesne ?
@@petermeichan3160Gary didn’t rebut anything well and thoroughly
His argument is irreducibly circular.
Simplicity is a homework of design and we know the more complicated. Something is the more points of failure it has and nature has uncountable points of failure
Look around the world. Look at how the designer’s greatest creation, supposedly Homo sapiens, behaves towards each other and the rest of ‘creation ’. Think of all the innocents killed, in the bible, because of the sins of others, by that designer. Surely that designer is a mixture of malevolence and incompetence.
A car.
Not an irreducibly complex
Its wheel can be used for other tasks.
Wind shield can be used as a glass to make a mirror from.
Its seats can be used to sit in the sun.
So even a designed thing doesn't have to be irreducibly complex mostly it wouldn't be.
Honestly it's really hard maybe almost impossible to even design something irreducibly complex.
U can write a code whose statements are completely useless individually.
But i can even take a 'z' character in code or 0 a number in code and use it for mathematics or language and then my original code will fail to be irreducibly complex.
So its practically impossible to design something irreducibly complex
"ts seats can be used to sit in the sun. "
I've also seen them put on swivel mounts and used as really neat bar stools...
34:45 finally gotcha atheist. Your likley hood of wining the powerball is exacaly the same every time. Sure for people might have the numbers but you still win. Sometimes no one wins. I think you mean the lotery total 450million. Not your chances of winning.
@@capttuttle7422 "exacaly"
Lol.
@@mattslater2603 he's just mad because he blew all his money on "lotery" tickets.
🤣
guys, calm down, you're yelling like I do when I argue with ignorant people
Martin was so awesome!
Just imagine this curiosity and passable intelligence bent toward the sincere exploration of nature!
🤷♂️😢
This is the most ridiculously circular arguement I've ever heard.
Premise 1: Everything can be described in some language. (Even simplest language with 0 and 1 only two alphabet can describe every possible information)
Premise 2: Every language's even a smallest part ie. A single alphabet can be used to describe truth value of some random thing.
Premise 3: Bcz every possible information (design of something) can be described in a language its smallest part ie. A single alphabet say 'a' can be used to describe truth of a statement X ie if a then X is true if not a them X is false.
Premise 4:This shows how every possible design's single part ie a single alphabet in its description can have a function in this case function of describing truth value if statement x
Conclusion: Therefore its impossible to design or even for something to exist in a describable format to be irreducibly complex as premises.
However let me warn that above argument describes any possible function and not some specific function or specific function set.
@@RickLambert963 'The universe follows mathematical laws."
No, mathematical laws are based on the universe...
Wow, that was painful!
Flagellum is a motor.
Eye is a camera.
Elbow is a fulcrum.
Rock is a hammer.
Big rock is a wrecking ball.
EVERYTHING must be designed!
I reject the US court as the arbiter of reality.
Considering the fools and extremists on the bench I second that
And I reject the opinion of a known fraud (He manipulated data tables in multiple papers to come to his ID conclusion) as the arbiter of reality.
@@bass-dc9175 what known fraud are you talking about?
@@George89999 Ah Thank you.
@@christianblevins3802 Yes, George89999 is correct, I was refering to Behe.
PREADAPTATION. That’s the term the caller needed to be made to understand.
A tree grows. If you put a weight on the tree it lifts it as a jack would. So we could call a tree a jack. Does that make it designed by an intelligence? Bonkers! We know a tree occurs naturally.
Wow. Just wow.
Caller: 1+1=4
Hosts: why do you say that?
Caller: because i believe it.
Over a billion years ago on earth. Before life. In one minute there were more chemical reactions that occured that could cause chemical replicators to become life form replicators than there are stars in the universe. This went on for millions of years. The odds are not against it. The odds are for it. The same goes for development of the motorized flagellum. Instead the odds are dramatically more in favor of it happening. Slowly. Piece by piece over time. To think the odds are against it is maddening.
Lets just say there is an intelligent designer. How did it decide upon this point in the universe to suddenly pop all life in all its complexity into existence when everything is dependent on everything else. In The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, earth mark 2 was built and the suddenly brought life in all its complexity into being. Watch it and you will see how utterly ridiculous it is. Which is Adams's point of his five part trilogy. How moronic intelligent design is. Why now? How could anything do such an incredible thing. Never has anyone made life never mind anything to support trillions upon trillikns of life forms and all the chemicals and gases and compounds they need to live. Again this god of the gaps fails. There is no proof. And it is utterly ridiculous.
The book of Pandas and People was originally published as a creationist book and then republished as an intelligent design book. That was so evident in that their search and replace didn't catch all of the phrases from creator to intelligent designer. Mess up and were caught out. LOL Just like all "holy" texts, men were trying again to pull the wool over the eyes of the gullible.
Nature brought everything into existence and nature consumes everything back into itself. Everything it becomes, rises from its ashes to become everything again and again, ad infinitum.
His “research” sounds like it amounts to googling!
even though this is from 2010, it is almost the same 'discussion' that was had last week.
just sad... over 14 years of "...from my research" and there is not 1 seemingly new argument, and the callers just quote others without much indication of their own thoughts
Is not a convection cell that runs on natural heat that ultimately produces rotary air motion a simple motor? Rising humid air can power a tornado or hurricane. There are several other components than just the initial heat of the air: absolute and relative humidity, the conservation of angular momentum, the Coriolis effect, exothermic release of water vapor condensing to a liquid, the volume of air involved (critical mass), the latitude (which affects the tropopause, which determines the vertical distance in which the storm has to develop), and so on. Take away any one of these and the thing fizzles out. Ergo, intelligent design?
I can't, off-hand, think of a single living system that uses heat as a sole energy source. Sure, a cold-blooded reptile might bask in the sun to warm up enough to move in search of food, but I don't think it's essential. It's only humans who figured out how to make steam move pistons!
@@Sparrow-hawk-666Sigh. You completely missed the point. Science is not your thing.
But if you take away any one of those things, we'd end up with something else entirely, which you would then argue had been intelligently designed because it matches those different conditions perfectly
A pothole in the road will fill with water when it rains, creating a puddle. The puddle will conform naturally to the exact shape of that pothole. Was the pothole intelligently designed to fit that exact volume of water? Of course not. The end result occurs as a result of the circumstances, rather than the circumstances being designed specifically to accomodate the end result
@@VerryAnna I was pointing out the stupidity of the intelligence design argument, not supporting it. Jeez! 🤦
@@spacelemur7955 My apologies, I completely misinterpreted your comment
"_____ says cow shit tastes like lasagna."
"He's wrong."
"But the more cow patties you find, the more probable it tastes like-"
"No, that's not how it works. A massive pile of cow shit does not equal lasagna."
"But _____ says cow pies are the BEST lasagna, and the more lasagna we find-"
"You didn't find lasagna, you found cow shit."
"Right, but if you pile it high enough..."
Get your fork, Gary.
Fuck. That was hard work. I bet Gary even thought he’d won the argument!
They always do.
@@powbobsyep religious people always think they won even when they get ripped apart the one braincell that works can’t accept reality 🤭🤭🤭❤️
It operates as a tail fin like in a fish.
If you you find a motor in nature, you'll have a motor that may or may not came about by design. That is the question we trying to solve!
"my research" aka.....i saw it on facebook
A plane is like a bird in that it has wings and flies. What type of bird is a plane?
Martin was golden.
He really had good build-up counter-questions.
I think the hosts (I'm about 3/4 way through) are missing one (out of many) of the caller's errors.
He repeatedly states that flagellum has been characterized as a "motor," and then asks: "where have we ever seen a naturally occurring motor?" He is defining "motor" as the kind of motors that humans make out of metal or plastic or wood--but I've never seen a human -made motor that is constructed from biological cells.
It's like saying: bats have an obstacle avoidance system based on sonar. Where have we ever seen a naturally occurring sonar system?"
Am I missing something here?
Isn't the obvious answer, whether bats or tiny animals, that the animal (or whatever)l IS the naturally occurring example we can use?
They keep saying things like "the likelihood of that probability...."
in other words "the probability"
That life is so complex that it couldn't have happened by chance means than something infinitely more powerful and complex must have done it. This 'something' which is called a god has no supporting evidence whatsoever, and there is no test I can perform to confirm or deny its existence - one has to simply 'believe' that the particular god one follows created everything (and also be atheist to the thousands of other gods). Interesting 'logic'!
I LOVE THIS co-host! ❤️ 😍
Just curious what grade this is from. I would not expect APA style and MS word formatting in lower grade schools or citations required. Assuming this is real…
The apologist are going to re-write the bible in to a science level of principles and equivalencies so they can sell it as the presumptive we're right and you're wrong becuz of this/that/other.
He is exhausting!!!
According to that definition of irreducible complexity, every system, and every POSSIBLE system would be irreducibly complex. Useless!
Nature is the Designer.
When Orks in Warhammer 40k just throws scraps and bits together and they just somehow work and they can even make intergalactic space ships and stuff, is that Intelligent Design?
That's a very wrong view on how Orks technology work, based on memes, not actual lore.
@@gregdoriman no, I didnt imply things just magically work because they think it can. They work because they genetically know, but don't realize it. To the Orks, they are just mashing it together and the more confident they are about it, the more they are tapping into that inert ability
"DNA is literally a computer program"--crap, learn what words mean.
He keeps quoting people is the reason he believes in a religion to begin with... He just follows what he is told.
The Spamming Florida BJ doesn't have arguments, he has second-hand slogans. I guess it's easier than thinking for himself.
He doesn't have a brain. He hears, "evolution is not dependent on the origin of life," and he lies and claims that means the speaker is an agnostic.
But then we are talking about someone who thinks his best argument against evolution is that it doesn't give an explanation for the origin of life. It's just as logical as saying that creationism can't be right since it doesn't explain why BJ's mommy doesn't love him.
He's been indoctrinated into his beliefs, thinking has been bred out of him.
@@joshsheridan9511
It’s been bred out of every believer in these threads.
I would say it’s been indoctrinated out of them. They no longer have the ability to think for themselves and listen to their idols. All this guy could do, was quote other people, he couldn’t talk for himself.
Theist who hasn’t rven read the bible goes deep into biology, cosmology and other science. Feels good that the god of the gaps has been driven back all the way beyond the big bang :-)
E.g. Send if feathered dinosaurs to wings, all completely understood by evolutionary biology.
If you take a car with a cup holder and remove the cup holder, it will no longer function as a car with a cup holder. Checkmate atheists
eru iluvatar created the world through music and divine will along with the ainur where morgoth and his servant sauron shaped the course of history. how desperate and ignorant, if not dishonest, can they get ?
Im thinking the absence of ice giants is a pretty strong indicator that Odin is real
“The theory of ID”……
Can’t believe they let that one slide. Imagine calling ID a theory!? Haha! Wow.
Even if you knock out several proteins in the flagellum it will still act as a MOTOR!
Water because of its flow it does all types of work. That's natural.