I often use a David Brooks quote to explain Naturalism: “To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy”
The only reason Creationists are now blathering on about physics and origins is that this scientific study is as yet incomplete. We have several theoretical possibilities and need more accurate data to understand our universe origin. Soon however, the creationists will be as stumped in Physics as they are in biology.
Apparently you think an origin that does not explain the origin is ok. It isn't. If God is the origin of the universe, then what origin does God have?
The three leading theories in Physics show mathematically that time began at a fixed point about 13 billion years ago. The precise origin parameters vary in each theory, and we need more information to discriminate between them. Each accepted theory remains compatible with all observations, and as deity fails this test, it is rejected.
"Time began at a fixed point." Does that mean that whatever made the universe and time was unmade/uncaused or are there an infinite regress of causes? To my understanding, if something BEGINS to exist it had to have been made by something.
One would - according to one theory - perhaps be more accurate to say that time *did not* begin. Hawking stated some years ago (I think it was in his 'no boundary' boundary proposal) that there in fact was not singular time t=0 at which the universe came into being. In stead, one could see the beginning of the universe as the spot where a line touches a circle: t->0, but not t=0.
JohnDeBungTest: There are numerous examples of intelligent beings creating stuff IE A carpenter building a house or a fence. But there are No examples of Nothing creating Something. Atleast we have not observed Nothing creating something. Now isnt that interesting? :)
I love it when people like Mekelsior demonstrate an inability to distinguish between the origin of matter, and the organization of matter.
In both Physics and religion, all agree that first there was no matter, then there was matter. What the religious fail to explain is where the deity came from.
(incidentally, yes, matter can be organized without intelligence)
John: I ask a simply question, and you deduct that i have an inability to distinguish origin of matter and organization of matter? The question is, if there was nothing why does now, something exist? 0+0=0 regardless. If you belive that there has always been something, you introduce God, but also the posibility that 0+1=1.
John: What has Hawking Radiation anything to do with my question? If you have Nothing, that is Nothing, how can Nothing become Something? How can you, if you have ZERO, get anything but a ZERO? If you do not add anything? ZERO + ZERO = ZERO, ZERO x ZERO = ZERO.
See ... the point is that if you knew squat about this, then you would know. Now quit trying to use physics that you don't know to prove a deity that does not exist.
John: If you belive that I try to prove a deity that does not exist by using physics, then you are indeed mistaken. Now that you say that a deity does not exist, then perhaps you should prove it, or perhaps choose different words? Since you cannot know neither. All I try to do, is make you answer a rather simple question, but obviously that is beyond your understanding? In any event, perhaps you should read some physics or basic calculus? Instead of avoiding the question at hand.
John: If you can give me an example of where Nothing has Created something, Id be thrilled. If you cannot then perhaps you should refrain from using bad examples? And in all seriousness, you have not debunked or mentioned anything that would even answer my question. And again, I am after the logic behind your reasoning. If that is indeed what you are using, and not simply accepting the massmedias perspective?
JohnDeBunkTest: It appears you do not understand the question, or refuse to answer it, that is your choise. Claiming that a diety does not explain the origin is false, science is the one that fail to explain it as of now. Anyway, again, I have not asked about a diety, I have asked, wether or not there was something in the beginning or if there was nothing. Gee is that so hard to answer? :)
To state that the Theory of Evolution is Science, is rather far fetched, due to the def. presented here. You can only prove what you observe. No one observed the big bang, no one observed macro evolution. So from what we know, it may or may not have happened. In essence, the evidence you present, just state that we do not know where we came from, we can speculate and belive, but we can never prove it. Unless we change the criterias of science.
Evolution - succinctly defined as "changes within the gene pool of a population of living organisms from generation to generation" - is an observed fact, an observed natural phenomenon. Here you'll note the distinction between the facts of evolution, and the theory (the modern evolutionary synthesis) used to explain those facts. Now, macroevolution - that is, evolution which occurs at or above the species level - is, again, an observed fact.
Scientists have recorded dozens of observed instances of speciation both inside and outside the laboratory. If you would be willing to devote a modicum of effort, you could delve into the scientific literature and see for yourself. Good luck on your journey out of ignorance. No offense, but that's all this is: ignorance. Not stupidity, but ignorance.
On a sidenote, science doesn't deal in proof or truth. And if it does deal in truth, it deals in provisional truth. That is, a sort of truth which is subject to change in light of new evidence. Really, science deals in varying degrees of confidence. And those varying degrees of confidence hinge of course on the evidence in support of that particular theory, and upon how long that particular has managed to hold out, to survive, in the face of rigorous attempts to falsify it.
EvoLIEtion: The idea is simple, you cannot disprove evolution, nor can you prove it, same thing is with God, you cant prove God, nor can you disprove God. The facts you speak of, are observed today, you do not know if it has always happened, or that it always will happen. There are several ways to get to the store, as an example, you can walk, you can drive. And thus, knowing that we are here, does not tell how we got here with 100% accuracy.
"Please give me a reference to the Macroevolution?"
talkorigins dot org/faqs/macroevolution.html - I don't understand why you can't do some research on your own.
"The idea is simple, you cannot disprove evolution, nor can you prove it, same thing is with God, you cant prove God, nor can you disprove God."
Evolution is indeed falsifiable. Again, if you're really interested in learning more about evolutionary theory, you would be willing to put some effort into it.
EvoLIEtion: That link mentioned that Macroevolution IS possible, but they cannot say that it is or isnt Microevolution. And in regards of it being falsifiable, well.. they werent really clear on that either. They said proving something didnt happen is impossible, but again they dont know what happened or the cause of why it happened.
EvoLIEtion: Atleast I dont pull stuff out of context mate. I have investigated this hypotheze of yours, and frankly it is a religion, so I ask others that belive in this church of apes, that perhaps I have missed something. But in pretty much all accounts, they insult people that question them, like you just did.
Good vid, but long and repetitive. Did you do that to fit the length of the song?
By the way it's presented a kid could understand it, but it also feels like you're treating people watching it as kids. This may likely turn watchers away, convincing no-one in the end.
In science, when plausible natural mechanisms can explain facts, there is no need to assume a more complicated mechanism. Since explanations for a supernatural phenomena are numbered infinite, this would certainly complicate the explanation.
But you can't say we cannot deal with unknown mechanisms: if facts were not explained by a known mechanism, we would need another, and make it known.
A better definition of supernatural would be: unknowable.
But in science,mechanisms are still restricted to things we know to exist. Electrons exist but their behaviour puzzled us. We came up with the quantum to explain it-without supernatural
That's the problem with ID. No mechanism. I can say that the fairy godmother "designed" Cinderella's carriage or I can just say she poofed it out of nowhere. Without a mechanism of design,they might as well be saying that life was poofed out of nowhere. It's an argument from ignorance
Of course they do. Theirs is an irrational belief, faith based. But *when* you're going to try combatting irrationality with rationality, you've got to make sure your arguments are gramatically and semantically correct, or they're just going to use your own words against you.
Come to think, they probably will anyway. I've probably used words like "I" and "am" and "satan" during my life.
Powerstone: And by same logic, if you look at the universe, the evolutionists say, in regards of why: "Nothing created it" and the other side "Someone created it" I find this whole idea, rather amusing :)
one quibbles , let the end comment stay for a while ..you have to pause it to read it
and this isnt a quibble, it's bit of a problem ... im a speed reader & even i had trouble reading all info at that speed ...please one frame letting people know that they CAN pause or go back to read it
I often use a David Brooks quote to explain Naturalism: “To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy”
watch?v=eU-wpNOyuas
zarkoff45 3 months ago
The Babel ... I mean, the Bible actually supports EVOLUTION.
GenesisHoaxesITB 4 years ago
you're assuming God doesn't exist
you fail
migkillertwo 4 years ago
but the outcome is the same since god is a non-testable entity
migkillertwo 4 years ago
your vods are cool, your choice in music sucks.
newexperiment 4 years ago
Beaver ghost? lol!
philip1201 4 years ago
The only reason Creationists are now blathering on about physics and origins is that this scientific study is as yet incomplete. We have several theoretical possibilities and need more accurate data to understand our universe origin. Soon however, the creationists will be as stumped in Physics as they are in biology.
JohnDeBunkTest 4 years ago 2
Apparently you think an origin that does not explain the origin is ok. It isn't. If God is the origin of the universe, then what origin does God have?
The three leading theories in Physics show mathematically that time began at a fixed point about 13 billion years ago. The precise origin parameters vary in each theory, and we need more information to discriminate between them. Each accepted theory remains compatible with all observations, and as deity fails this test, it is rejected.
JohnDeBunkTest 4 years ago
"Time began at a fixed point." Does that mean that whatever made the universe and time was unmade/uncaused or are there an infinite regress of causes? To my understanding, if something BEGINS to exist it had to have been made by something.
seanboy360 4 years ago
One would - according to one theory - perhaps be more accurate to say that time *did not* begin. Hawking stated some years ago (I think it was in his 'no boundary' boundary proposal) that there in fact was not singular time t=0 at which the universe came into being. In stead, one could see the beginning of the universe as the spot where a line touches a circle: t->0, but not t=0.
XGralgrathor 4 years ago
There is not one example of anything being made by "intelligent design" except for the things people and animals make.
The "failed hypothesis of I. D." needs at least one credible example before anyone should be pretending it can be studied.
JohnDeBunkTest 4 years ago
JohnDeBungTest: There are numerous examples of intelligent beings creating stuff IE A carpenter building a house or a fence. But there are No examples of Nothing creating Something. Atleast we have not observed Nothing creating something. Now isnt that interesting? :)
Mekelsior 4 years ago
I love it when people like Mekelsior demonstrate an inability to distinguish between the origin of matter, and the organization of matter.
In both Physics and religion, all agree that first there was no matter, then there was matter. What the religious fail to explain is where the deity came from.
(incidentally, yes, matter can be organized without intelligence)
JohnDeBunkTest 4 years ago
John: I ask a simply question, and you deduct that i have an inability to distinguish origin of matter and organization of matter? The question is, if there was nothing why does now, something exist? 0+0=0 regardless. If you belive that there has always been something, you introduce God, but also the posibility that 0+1=1.
Mekelsior 4 years ago
I suggest you look up Hawking Radiation and study it. 0 = +1 -1
JohnDeBunkTest 4 years ago
John: What has Hawking Radiation anything to do with my question? If you have Nothing, that is Nothing, how can Nothing become Something? How can you, if you have ZERO, get anything but a ZERO? If you do not add anything? ZERO + ZERO = ZERO, ZERO x ZERO = ZERO.
Mekelsior 4 years ago
See ... the point is that if you knew squat about this, then you would know. Now quit trying to use physics that you don't know to prove a deity that does not exist.
JohnDeBunkTest 4 years ago
John: If you belive that I try to prove a deity that does not exist by using physics, then you are indeed mistaken. Now that you say that a deity does not exist, then perhaps you should prove it, or perhaps choose different words? Since you cannot know neither. All I try to do, is make you answer a rather simple question, but obviously that is beyond your understanding? In any event, perhaps you should read some physics or basic calculus? Instead of avoiding the question at hand.
Mekelsior 4 years ago
John: If you can give me an example of where Nothing has Created something, Id be thrilled. If you cannot then perhaps you should refrain from using bad examples? And in all seriousness, you have not debunked or mentioned anything that would even answer my question. And again, I am after the logic behind your reasoning. If that is indeed what you are using, and not simply accepting the massmedias perspective?
Mekelsior 4 years ago
Mekelsior the origin of things does not require a deity, and deity fails to explain origin unless you can explain the origin of the deity.
Once again, I see no value in giving physics lessons to anyone who is not sufficiently interested to do their homework.
JohnDeBunkTest 4 years ago
JohnDeBunkTest: It appears you do not understand the question, or refuse to answer it, that is your choise. Claiming that a diety does not explain the origin is false, science is the one that fail to explain it as of now. Anyway, again, I have not asked about a diety, I have asked, wether or not there was something in the beginning or if there was nothing. Gee is that so hard to answer? :)
Mekelsior 4 years ago
To state that the Theory of Evolution is Science, is rather far fetched, due to the def. presented here. You can only prove what you observe. No one observed the big bang, no one observed macro evolution. So from what we know, it may or may not have happened. In essence, the evidence you present, just state that we do not know where we came from, we can speculate and belive, but we can never prove it. Unless we change the criterias of science.
Mekelsior 4 years ago
Evolution - succinctly defined as "changes within the gene pool of a population of living organisms from generation to generation" - is an observed fact, an observed natural phenomenon. Here you'll note the distinction between the facts of evolution, and the theory (the modern evolutionary synthesis) used to explain those facts. Now, macroevolution - that is, evolution which occurs at or above the species level - is, again, an observed fact.
EvoLIEtion 4 years ago
EvoLIEtion: Please give me a reference to the Macroevolution?
Mekelsior 4 years ago
Scientists have recorded dozens of observed instances of speciation both inside and outside the laboratory. If you would be willing to devote a modicum of effort, you could delve into the scientific literature and see for yourself. Good luck on your journey out of ignorance. No offense, but that's all this is: ignorance. Not stupidity, but ignorance.
EvoLIEtion 4 years ago
On a sidenote, science doesn't deal in proof or truth. And if it does deal in truth, it deals in provisional truth. That is, a sort of truth which is subject to change in light of new evidence. Really, science deals in varying degrees of confidence. And those varying degrees of confidence hinge of course on the evidence in support of that particular theory, and upon how long that particular has managed to hold out, to survive, in the face of rigorous attempts to falsify it.
EvoLIEtion 4 years ago
EvoLIEtion: The idea is simple, you cannot disprove evolution, nor can you prove it, same thing is with God, you cant prove God, nor can you disprove God. The facts you speak of, are observed today, you do not know if it has always happened, or that it always will happen. There are several ways to get to the store, as an example, you can walk, you can drive. And thus, knowing that we are here, does not tell how we got here with 100% accuracy.
Mekelsior 4 years ago
"Please give me a reference to the Macroevolution?"
talkorigins dot org/faqs/macroevolution.html - I don't understand why you can't do some research on your own.
"The idea is simple, you cannot disprove evolution, nor can you prove it, same thing is with God, you cant prove God, nor can you disprove God."
Evolution is indeed falsifiable. Again, if you're really interested in learning more about evolutionary theory, you would be willing to put some effort into it.
EvoLIEtion 4 years ago
EvoLIEtion: That link mentioned that Macroevolution IS possible, but they cannot say that it is or isnt Microevolution. And in regards of it being falsifiable, well.. they werent really clear on that either. They said proving something didnt happen is impossible, but again they dont know what happened or the cause of why it happened.
Mekelsior 4 years ago
"The facts you speak of, are observed today, you do not know if it has always happened, or that it always will happen."
You're referring to the problem of induction. Every scientific theory is an appeal to induction, and there's no way to get around it.
plato dot stanford dot edu/entries/induction-problem/
EvoLIEtion 4 years ago
Science doesn't deal in "100% accuracies". Science doesn't deal in proof or truth. I'm sure I just explained that. What grade are you in?
EvoLIEtion 4 years ago
P.S. I meant to say "evolutionary THEORY is indeed falsifiable." K, I'm done.
EvoLIEtion 4 years ago
EvoLIEtion: Atleast I dont pull stuff out of context mate. I have investigated this hypotheze of yours, and frankly it is a religion, so I ask others that belive in this church of apes, that perhaps I have missed something. But in pretty much all accounts, they insult people that question them, like you just did.
Mekelsior 4 years ago
Good vid, but long and repetitive. Did you do that to fit the length of the song?
By the way it's presented a kid could understand it, but it also feels like you're treating people watching it as kids. This may likely turn watchers away, convincing no-one in the end.
But good vid :)
coekyelmo 4 years ago
wat does this vid show that god exist or not
ademg1 4 years ago
Good video
THEoldy 4 years ago
Hm. Equating unnatural with doesn't exist?
In science, when plausible natural mechanisms can explain facts, there is no need to assume a more complicated mechanism. Since explanations for a supernatural phenomena are numbered infinite, this would certainly complicate the explanation.
But you can't say we cannot deal with unknown mechanisms: if facts were not explained by a known mechanism, we would need another, and make it known.
A better definition of supernatural would be: unknowable.
XGralgrathor 4 years ago
But in science,mechanisms are still restricted to things we know to exist. Electrons exist but their behaviour puzzled us. We came up with the quantum to explain it-without supernatural
That's the problem with ID. No mechanism. I can say that the fairy godmother "designed" Cinderella's carriage or I can just say she poofed it out of nowhere. Without a mechanism of design,they might as well be saying that life was poofed out of nowhere. It's an argument from ignorance
powerstone2 4 years ago
Of course they do. Theirs is an irrational belief, faith based. But *when* you're going to try combatting irrationality with rationality, you've got to make sure your arguments are gramatically and semantically correct, or they're just going to use your own words against you.
Come to think, they probably will anyway. I've probably used words like "I" and "am" and "satan" during my life.
XGralgrathor 4 years ago
lol. It's true. I don't know why my computer didn't pick up on my typos.
powerstone2 4 years ago
Powerstone: And by same logic, if you look at the universe, the evolutionists say, in regards of why: "Nothing created it" and the other side "Someone created it" I find this whole idea, rather amusing :)
Mekelsior 4 years ago
my ways are not your ways
testiest 4 years ago
one quibbles , let the end comment stay for a while ..you have to pause it to read it
and this isnt a quibble, it's bit of a problem ... im a speed reader & even i had trouble reading all info at that speed ...please one frame letting people know that they CAN pause or go back to read it
im favoriting anyway
dancingnature 4 years ago
Love this video.
Gravitationalist 4 years ago