Christianity is not a rocket Science nor physical thing like car, computer, iPad etc. But Christianity is a personal experience of true Love, peace and Joy within your heart, mind and soul. All Secrets of Human are within their heart and it is impossible to know others thought, mind and heart. Just now you have lots of thoughts, imaginations in your heart and I can not see, nor can proof any of them by logics and evidence. Same way God is personal experience within us and we can't Prove Him by
NO matter how loud you cry or shout that there is No God. Echo sound will hit you again and again that HE IS. No matter how hard you may try to justify your sins, you can not escape from them. Sinner must pay their account of Sins. You have only two options. Pay by your self or accept that Jesus Christ paid for you. There is no other way to escape. Accept The Gift of Salvation through Jesus Christ or be ready to get punishment for your sins which you have done in your body. I will advise, pleas
He does all the time. The only defense he needs for not accepting someone's extraordinary claims is their laughable lack of extraordinary evidence, which he points out constantly.
i wonder how matt would fare if the roles were reversed and he had to defend his position on atheism his own against a pair of impatient,unfriendly agressive fundimentalists.
@TomVodkaCollins sorry misunderstanding some where , what im saying is even though the laws governing the universe which arose from the cosmic symmetry breaking ,at the very begining, which allowed chaotic dinamics,to produce new stucture to emerge on increasing scales,as we move from the level of fundimental particles to organisms,this big bang origion ,still does not explain what set it all in motion.
Well, you're 100% correct about that to the best of my knowledge, which is far from complete, but you can't claim it was chance either, as you did do. Labeling the cause, i.e. chance, is claiming knowledge of causality that you can't possibly possess.
@TomVodkaCollins the universe came into being when nothing deviated to form something. as phisics have proven time did not exist before the big bang,and matter cannot exist without time. Since nothing can not cause a diviation,because it is nothing,and something was not around to to cause nothing to deviate, something that was not nothing must of acted on nothing in order for it to deviate. this is the paradox of origion.[first part]
@lordofthecoils [part two] no matter how you look at it something must have existed before the big bang and that thing could not have been something from our universe.
@lordofthecoils 1) Physics has made mathematical models that have a high degree a probability, but no reputable physicist would say they've proven shit about the origins of squat any more than any biologist would say they've proven exactly how inorganic matter and chemicals become organic material and biochemistry.
@lordofthecoils 2) The only people who think astrophysics say something came from nothing are apologists. Cosmologists have never claimed there was a point at which there was nothing because they could not verify such a claim should it be made. They also never said that matter existed before the Big Bang occurred because it didn't. The singularity from which the event we call the Big Bang erupted did not consist of matter. I've never heard any scientists say the things apologists accuse them of.
@TomVodkaCollins no 2, cont. let me quote Einstien who said 'our sum of knowlegde and ability to comprehend the vast and complex answers of existance, are akin to a child standing before a vast libarey of books, all written in different languages, he vaugely understands they are in a set order and have a shape to them ,but that is all.'
@lordofthecoils 2) cont...The problem is one of communication. What they mean by "nothing" and what the average layman means is not the same critter. You see, "empty" space really isn't all that empty. it's filled with energy and it's from this energy that particles arise. It's that whole E=mc2 thing. Matter to energy conversion works the other way, too.
This vid will explain it better than I can. youtube.com/watch?v=gH9UvnrARf8&list=WLB27D62E2C4F38843&index=11&feature=plpp_video
@TomVodkaCollins No 1.....In recent years sceptitism regarding the higgs bosum [the god particle],has started a whole new run of back tracking among sientists,who have to modify thier theorys,to suit each new change, in sientific learning. The deeper sience penetrates the secrets of existance the more fantastic and complicated the answer seems to get. My critism of the current vouge of athiesm is that it hides behind current sientific theorys, as if they are the sum of all knowledge, cont
because acording to matt, the origion of everything is just by chance and not design . well inteligent design doesnt have to include a hebrew benevolent god figure. what if were all wrong? and origon or the component make up of the universe has a influence from something which our present sientific knowledge cannot explain. even recently there has been a growing number of sientists who are starting to doubt, the big bang as the very begining of everything
matt and co. always use the sientific explanation of evolution, to say there was no intel design, because the laws that are set in the making of stars and planets are set long before biological evolution takes place, and the atomic rules of the universe have either been there forever or up to the big bang, but what is theorigon of these laws, and if they happened just by chance, why would they for what reason?
anyone in this age that believes creationism is beyond stupid, they are dishonest assholes, its like denying germs or a round earth and a heliocentric earth, which is also still round
These "hosts" are far too rude and emotional to be taken seriously. Shouting at callers and making threats are unacceptable. What these guys do is basically pin down callers with things that they won't be able to answer, then use the callers' inability to answer as a confirmation that they are correct.
@doug65536 thats precisely how a debate works. If you take a stand that can't be able to defend itself is a completely logical point to be made. The fact that a position cannot be equitably defended should give substantial pause to anyone who is considering it to be true.
Since God is all powerful and doesn't make mistakes, all i need is just 1 example to prove that we are not intelligently designed. And we do have a lot of such examples: human eye nerves, for example. Or the giraffe vague nerve. Creationists like to cherry-pick on the things that look well-designed ,but they totally ignore the things that are not! What happened? God screwed up??
@Casshyr I've never heard intelligent design scientists say they are looking for something that is WELL designed, just appearance of design.Just because your car breaks down&doesn't work properly,does that prove that no one designed the car?No,it proves that the design could have been better, but it is still intelligently designed.&,how would we know all about what is the best design?It's only recently that we have begun to understand the natural world.We shouldn't jump to assumptions.
@mragonrider but if something has flaws in the design, this suggests the maker is imperfect. So it is wrong to say God is all powerful then. He may be powerful compared to us, but he is nevertheless still subjected to flaws, if his creations have flaws. So either he is 1) not all powerful contrary to popular claims or, 2) he purposely made "mistakes" in his creations for unknown purposes
IC is not falsifiable because if I prove your example to be false you'll just say, "oh well that organ may not be irreducibly complex, but here's another one." That process will continue until we've come to a point that we've explained every single mutation, a process which will never end.
I have a question: Matt said in the video that something designed doesn't have to be complex. He used a chain mail bracelet as an example. so, my question is, is how we know something is designed is that it is simple? that doesn't make sense to me. there are lots of things that are designed that are simple, but also really complex things, like cars and computers. I don't think his explanation got us any closer to answering the question in the video or my question.
@mragonrider You're right I think that it was kind of a bad explanation. We can infer that things like that were intelligently designed because we have examples of other necklaces, which we know were intelligently designed. Given what we know about the natural occurrence of some organs through mutations, appeals to some intelligent design in other organs, due to apparent complexity, are not justified. The main problem is that while particular instances of IC are falsifiable, IC itself isn't.
@Setzer Okay,so are you implying that if something does not occur in nature,then we know it’s been intelligently designed,because we have other examples of these things& they are man-made, not natural?My question then would be,aren’t we supposedly just accidents of a mindless process?How does intelligence come from non-intelligence?You said that IC can’t be falsified, but examples of it can be?Could you perhaps expound on this? It’s still a bit unclear to me.Thanks for discussing this with me.
@mragonrider It's really difficult to answer all those questions in less than 500 characters. 1st Q: Yes this is an example of inductive reasoning. It doesn't *prove* that the necklace is man-made, but the theory that it was man-made explains the origin of the necklace pretty well. Now compare this to Evolution through Natural Selection, which is the answer to the 2nd Q.
@mragonrider Natural selection is the non-random survival of randomly mutating DNA. There's a wealth of information on youtube about this. I highly recommend looking up some explanations by Dawkins. He explains the bacterial flagellum and the human eye as well. Jerry Coyne has a vid on youtube explaining why evolution is true: watch?v=w1m4mATYoig (it's a bit long). Carl Sagan also does a nice video of the gradual transition from bacteria to humans watch?v=vsDjrb_2XJw
@Setzer Sorry I asked so many questions& for this late reply.It might take me a few comments to reply! I know Dawkins is well renowned, but as a truth seeker,I never listen to just one side of the story.I’ll listen to evidence for evolution& for ID& from there make a decision based on which one has more compelling evidence. Nothing against youtube,but to really understand this stuff,I think reading books and journal articles written by these scientists would be a better starting place.
@Setzer Also,I agree that there is good evidence for natural selection.To deny that would be to deny what’s happening around us.But I don’t see how special adaptations of a particular species would lead to new species.Even given millions of years,it doesn’t seem plausible.Objects without an outside force bring only randomness,not order,according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.All the answers I've been given in the past have still left huge doubts in my mind of evolution's plausibility.
@mragonrider Actually you're misinterpreting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. We're not in a closed system so it doesn't apply here. Special adaptions would form new species, but it takes a very long time for it to occur and you need some environmental factor that separates a species into isolated groups to get clear branches. If you want an example of evolution just look at the artificial selection that has created the wide variety of dogs. Natural selection works the same way.
@Setzer Artificial selection isn't the same as natural selection.After all,yes,there's tremendous variety in the dog breeds,but they are still the same species.Even after hundreds of years of breeding,we haven't made a new species.If an intelligent human can’t create a new species,how could a mindless process do it?That gives no supportive evidence for natural selection to lead to new species.It just shows the amazing variation within the genes of a species to adapt to their environment.
@mragonrider I was just giving an example of how biodiversity can occur in basically real time. In natural selection speciation usually occurs over much longer time periods; different groups become isolated and do not interbreed. Lines between species are a bit fuzzy, and there's many definitions of the word "species" that scientists use. If you look at bio-geography, genetics, vestigial organs, the fossil record, etc, natural selection becomes the only plausible explanation
@Setzer As to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, its existence has been tested in a closed environment, but it is still a force one must deal with when working on anything scientifically. I concede that the 2nd Law is not the only factor at work in our open system, so it is not the exclusive force, but that does not negate it. I read some articles on this subject and basically, evolution has to bypass the 2nd Law in order to work. That does not seem scientifically consistent to me.
@mragonrider As far as the IC argument goes, I recommend looking up some videos of Dawkins explaining the eye watch?v=sUjd8x-1xM0 or bacterial flagellum here's another guy talking about it the bacterial flagellum watch?v=OYjXq8jDsOw
I said that IC is not falsifiable because even if we prove the eye is not irreducibly complex, creationists will say "okay well maybe they eye isn't IC, but what about this example?" We can continue disproving each example for eternity.
God exists, that's the accepted claim by the majority of people, you want to challenge that, bring the evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU. Some narrow minded atheist proposed the wrong notion that atheism doesn't require evidence and many gullible atheists had run to foolishly embrace it. Philosophically the burden of proof is in the argument challenging the establishment. What evidence you have that atheism is true? None, zero, nada. Open your eyes, you're being deceived by an evil cult.
The best part is when they ask him how he determines if something is designed, and he comes back by answering that he looks for design. They asked him how he makes the determination that something looks designed in the first place and he answers with the step AFTER he determines if it looks designed and tries to work backwards.
unfortuanly when matt says "what would an undesigned univese look like"and insist a frame of reference is needed, then where is his frame of reference for a designed universe?
if any of these jokers actaully studied microbiolgoy instead of simply taking milars authoriy they would realise just how big the task is they are setting the mechanisms, great new papers that show an enzyme cannot be co opted via the pathways we had envisionsed.
one can only speculate, "envisioning" somthign is stills imply specualtion, and there is far too much of this within the field of evolutionary biology. i for one, at the moment, am utterly convinced of design in nature, but i do not automatically ascribe it to god or any diety. I simply dont know, and i dont pretend to..
@zenithar6666 Interesting, but like they said in the video how could you tell that something was designed until you know what something that wasn't designed looks like, and (no I'm not assuming your christian but simply using that as a reference) if everything was supposedly designed then we wouldn't have any frame of reference. That's a very evolved position though that I happen to share: I simply don't know, and I don't pretend to
you see, if everthign did happen according the the neo darwinian synthesis then teh very thoguhts you have about what is and is not random or designed are meaningless.
put it this way, do i know a watch is designed? YES, do you YES, doesnt this mean we know designe when we see it, and therefore dont need a reference point since its so obvious..
i mean, infering there is no design in nature is a total denial of everthign we know about intent and design. its the elephen in the sitting room
neither do i pretend to know, but i do, like evolutionists so called..have a strong suspicion and opinion based on the evidence. of course.
Oh indeed that is an interesting question about do i know what is and isnt designed.
but does an evolution proponent(its mechanisms) know what is and is not random? or what is designed? they INFER from teh evidence that there is not desing in nature, I INFER, from experience that there is!
@zenithar6666 the only reason it is obvious is because I know a watch is nearly impossible to be put together by nature, we see new watches being made and designed all the time but nature never does, however this is the only reference point we have to determine if something is designed or not, whether it occurs in nature, If I pick up a rock i certainly don't think to myself hmm someone must have designed this, I can understand how this rock came to be here naturally.
@zenithar6666 Evolution is a fact, however, it does not explain lifes origins (that's abiogenesis and it's still being studied) Evolution simply explains the variety among the species. Micro-evolution can be demonstrated in a lab, it's why we have that wonderful thing called medicine. Macro-evolution cannot be demonstrated in a lab because larger organisms have much longer lives making observation highly difficult. How can one say ok micro-evolution is fine but macro-evolution is wrong?
Simple question, what is the measure of complexity, and what are the boundaries of the measured value beyond which the complexity is deemed "irreducible"?
There is no point in arguing with Matt Dillahunty...as soon as you try to bring up points in an intellegent fashion he'll overtalk you and hang up on you...
@VIPSoundCircleTV I've never seen him hang up on someone who had any kind of valid point that was intelligent or factual. I've only ever seen him hang up on people when (A They stop being coherent or (B When the caller obviously disregards any facts they present to them.
This guy's logical fallacies can be shot down by a middle school student. Apparently not everyone on the East Coast is intelligent or eloquent. Sorry, New York, you lose on this one!
@23Tev But it is largely down to chance. My understanding of evolution is that there are random mutations in genetics that happen "by chance." The survival of these mutations is by no stretch of the imagination, "by chance," but the mutations themselves happen randomly. I think he sort of has a point, but he doesn't understand enough to make it properly.
This caller's logic is exactly backward and the reason is stupid-simple. He's asserting that some things "look designed" in nature because they resemble things that have been designed by man. But the REASON that man designed those things in certain ways is: We saw those concepts in nature. That's where we got our ideas FROM. Nature evolved. We copied nature. Bird had wings, so we put wings on a plane. We can't go back then and say... "now nature looks like what we've done, so it was designed."
@perfectshot77 You are comprehensible. But I have yet to read a profound, wise and smart statement that wasn't spelled correctly. It's such an easy filter to just ignore texts without proper spelling and grammar as they offer no remarkable substance anyway. It was a friendly reminder to you, if you want to be taken seriously. I'm not going to offer you insults in return for yours.
@perfectshot77 A scientist has intelligence, a design or system by definition cannot. That which has a mind has a degree of intelligence. Try reading what intelligence is on wikipedia. Otherwise, prove to me that the universe or ID has a mind. You might as well call the universe a "beautiful design" or a "profound design", but the label on it doesn't change what it actually is, just as pluto did not change despite our reclassification or relabeling of what pluto is.
@perfectshot77 Argumentum ad hominem. You might want to check your spelling as well if you want to be taken seriously, not just argumentational fallacies.
If someone born and raised in the Khalahari desert suddenly stumbles upon a a shiny Ford Edsel. Not familiar with auto design and production process he would assume it was 'created/designed' in an instant by some god. ID people encountering a complex natural structure or phenomena assume the same thing, not having a grasp of evolutionary processes or the tremendous lengths of time involved. Hint: acid chains + eons of solar radiation = change. What doesn't work dies. ID marvels at the leftovers.
@perfectshot77 If it's non-caring, then why call it intelligent? And why call it God? I use my intelligence to reduce emotional and physical suffering and pain. And I want scientists and doctors to use their intelligence to rid the world of diseases that do. If God doesn't give a hoot about medical advances, then why worship a God that isn't omnibenevolent? If you're a deist, then you have no reason to call Him intelligent, because only by using your intelligence, will you reveal its extent.
if you take away a persons heart, they die. therefor we are created by an intelligant designer. aserting that if you take something away and it wont work isn't even an argument becasue things evole and adapt to use all there parts to function. if you can take something away and the organism still functions, that is also proof that it has evoled to a point where it no longer needs the function of that "thing" ie. the appendix
The callers definition of ID is god of the gaps. I tried that in math class. God failed the test, somehow i got the F. WTF?!? All i said was god knows the answer and does not want me to know answer because he did not tell it to me. But god knows, so i technically was correct. God solves all problems, or so they taught me. Im so confused.
Here's how it goes: fish, land animal, land mammal, ape, human, creationist, ape...
If the entire "whip" of a bacterial flagellum was removed, the remaining fulcrum would still function, but as the type-3 secretory system. There goes your argument.
The caller accuses Ken Miller of straw-manning in the last video, when it's clear that Behe is clearly the one straw-manning. He wants to use his definitions to represent evolution and not the ones that are agreed upon by virtually every scientist. This is where he gets his 'irreducibly complex' BS from - he completely misrepresents evolution so that he can make that claim.
As a designer I have looked to living things for design inspiration. So saying that living things resemble designed things is proof that living things are designed may be missing the something. I've heard of coders using evolved code as a reference or source of inspiration for designed code.
I am riping out my hair, this is way I dont like to debate theist, they cannot answer a fucking question. ANSWER THE QUESTION. someones says is not a argument.
Matt was wrong at the end of part one, intelligent design is falsifiable on a case by case basis, but the key thing is IT HAS BEEN FALSIFIED!
Probably the biggest deception within this irreducible complexity 'argument' is that it can be asserted at any time about any thing that hasn't yet been shown otherwise. However the achillies heel here is that scientific theories find a generalized answer for all cases, irreducible complexity is merely an ad-hoc assertion with no explanation.
Bacteria flagellum has been shown to be made from different functional components and they came together by natural selection. They removed 40 out of 50 proteins from this bacterium and they ended up with a fully functional Type – III Secretory system. From what I understand it boils down to that even a single protein in this bacteria has a function.
I love how the caller doesn't cite scientific papers but, things that aren't by scientists who do actual science or public books that aren't within the scientific circles...
the bill gates quote is from his book "the road a head." In the page he talks about his chemistry teacher vs his physics teacher. nothing about evolution
And about irreducible complexity of the eye, even if it wasn't used to see, it would still be used to create vitamin E that need light to be made... Irreducible complexity is a fantasy...
Biological Evolution was dreamed up to try and explain the origin of life without an intelligent designer, Stellar evolution, the Cosmos itself! The assumed vast Eons of TIME, the magic ingredient of atheistic theorists, is inseperable from their beliefs,so they have to reject most of what science reveals due to their pre-conceived biased opinion that the god of the bible does not exist! There is no PHYSICAL evidence of a frog turning into a prince, no matter how much TIME you want to dream up!
@VarykGerai Sorry, Atheistic Evolutionists BELIEVE that Simple life Spontaneously Generated from non-living dirt, and then by chance random natural unseen processes ,changed (EVOLVED) into everything we see today. Given enough TIME these mysterious unseen processes will produce the apparent design in nature, all by luck! Atheists can never accept the possibility of a supernatural creator, their whole system was designed around the BELIEF/HOPE that the Creator God of the bible is non-existent!
@mikeeboy1000 yes, it's far easier to believe that man was made from clay and woman from his rib... BTW, there are 3 strawman arguments in your claim... Are you dishonest or simply ignorant ?
@mikeeboy, Your understanding of evolution is incorrect. First, Evolution says nothing about how life started. That is not part of the theory. Instead, evolution is the mechanism whereby less complex life evolves to greater complexity through natural selection. Natural selection is anything BUT random. Life's diversity is an example of Self Emergent Complex Systems. Economies, language & societies are other examples of SECS. They appear to be designed, but instead evolve naturally over time.
@mikeeboy1000 Ummmm.. no. Even Darwin was religious... that is until he discovered that life didn't require a creator to explain the great variety in life.
@mikeeboy1000 evolution and abiogenesis are 2 different things
Evolution by natural selection= Diversity in organisms
Abiogenesis= Origin of life rising from inanimate matter
When will you idiots realize this??
Evolution=/= Origin of Life
Pls study biology in depth, learn the proper definition of a THEORY and read up on all the LAB TESTS carried out that proves evolution. Also research on abiogenesis thoroughly before coming out here to reveal your single digit IQ to the world.
@mikeeboy1000 Yes, but why are you quoting the creationist position when trying to "debunk" science? In Creationism a frog may turn into a prince. Humans are formed whole-cloth out of clay. Serpents speak and tyrranical gods give out edicts and then punish those that had no idea that it was wrong to go against one's slave-owner. That's not science. That's YOUR position, not ours.
Matt says naturally occurring and non-naturally occurring is the way to tell design. I have wads of paper in my trashcan. They don't occur in nature. Is that an example of design? Pollutants from factories pour into air and stream. Those pollutants don't occur naturally. Are they examples of design?
Matt is an intelligent guy, but he is mistaken. Design is not defined simply by natural versus unnatural.
@MorganMarvinson Umm, what is the point you are trying to make? How does wads of paper in your trashcan prove or disprove design...or anything for that matter? Same goes for pollutants coming from a factory, what are you trying to illustrate? Are you trying to say that those 2 things aren't natural and don't serve a function, therefore they aren't designed? They are part of a design process though, by-products of the process or failures in the design.
@AwesomOver9000 Wadding up a piece of paper is part of a design process? If I sent you a trashcan full of wadded up paper, would you say "great design" or "poor design"? I don't think you would call it "design" at all--yet it does not occur in nature.
"failures of the design" in nature is called disease. Otherwise, the design works pretty well.
I've complemented Matt on his thoughtfulness in debating Matt Slick, but I can't give him points on this one.
@MorganMarvinson Of coarse wadded up pieces of paper are part of a design process, they are a by-product of your designing of a letter, drawing, writing etc. Whether they signify the end of the process or a failure is dependent on what was on the paper.
As for diseases being a failure...well bacteria and viruses are some of the most successful organisms on the planet, so they are not failures, and if you are taking the view of religion, then God was a lousy designer for allowing cancer etc.
@MorganMarvinson Wads of paper in your trashcan is an example of design, because you designed it that way. You are assuming that anything designed must have a purpose, when they are separate issues. Something can be designed without serving a purpose. A painting is clearly designed but all it does is sit there with no function except to be seen. Who is to say the trash in the trashcan cant serve the same purpose.
@Boomx2Brian If you can see design in unintentional trash, you should have no problem seeing design in the intricately related cell, tissue, organism, and biosphere.
I've heard of designer trashcans, but not designer trash.
@MorganMarvinson Even if i give u that things are designed, how do you go about deciding who designed it? I say it was the flying spaghetti monster in his infinite wisdom thrust his appendages give rise to the world as it is today. You no more proof that it was your god who did the creating as opposed to the spaghetti monster.
@Boomx2Brian We are actually getting somewhere. There is design--and that speaks of a designer. Scientifically we can't arrive at who the designer is (though deep within we likely know).
The flying spaghetti monster (Did Oregon State physics graduate Bobby Henderson have a vision or something in 2005?) is an unlikely candidate since spaghetti is itself an invention, likely derived from rice noodles of the Orient.
@MorganMarvinson I can just use the same logic u christians use. Henderson was a divine prophet and the spaghetti monster communicated to the world through him.
Spaghetti came into being because he showed himself to us and guided our hands to create the yummy food.
You mean, you know it is the god in which you believe by accident of birth, and not the god in which people believe by accident of birth in Saudi Arabia?
Careful there lest you are declared a heretic by your fellow Bible thumpers for saying that Allah is the same god. But Allah is actually the name of the god, not the word, just like Yahweh is the name of the god of the Bible. But then, it might just as well be Krishna, who is believed by the Hindus, or some other god of the thousands of gods humans ever invented.
And evolution has nothing to do with whether the gods exist or not, so you once again FAIL, like ALL cretards.
I know. That's because like all willfully ignorant creationist scientific illiterates(A redundancy), you have no interest in trustworthy information. You only have an interest in your religious dogma, in which you believe only by accident of birth and not by any deep studying, thinking and reflection. But you're not alone. That applies to the vast majority of the 85% of the world's population who still believe in a religion.
Yeah, unlike old books of mythology and folktales that are completely trustworthy and more scientifically accurate than all the work by all the world's scientists...Like yeah, totally!
"Creationists and ID proponents are not stupid people"
Don't underestimate yourself.You ARE quite stupid if you believe that creationism is scientific and that evolution is some vast conspiracy by evil scientists against your favorite fairytale.
@MorganMarvinson: You are of course free to believe in this bullshit as you see fit, but don't expect any person who knows better to pretend like it has any scientific merit, when it absolutely doesn't. Now run along and dig for rabbit fossils in the per-cambrian, you little religionist tool.
Should they not re-name it "mildly dimwitted scrap building"? It seems a pretty crappy god that would put your 'pleasure zone' next to your 'waste outlet'.
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
@hymnofashes The mass majority of theist arguments, regardless of how they're decorated, boil down to an argument from ignorance. Ignorance is the crux of the theist position.
I tell an example of "system looking designed, but it isn't". There are rocks in f*'in Nevada, what looks like 5m tall penis with 2 balls, and the blasted wind did it!
@robertwc82 The recurrent laryngeal nerve is another great example of the remnants of evolutionary transition being shown in rather sloppy "design." The nerve runs well past its target, then back up to where it should go, rather than follow the most direct path with other related nerves.
@logicologist I'm currently reading _Atom_ by Lawrence Krauss, based on recommendations by a couple of people. I've never had a physics class, had only a semester of astronomy, and focused most of my scientific studies to the biological sciences (anthropology, biology, paleontology). I'm reading it because it's aimed to the educated layman who has little knowledge of cosmology and physics, by a physics professor well known in academia.
If you want to learn about cosmology, get this book.
@robertwc82 good one. Also, 'goosebumps' appear, but why? I'm not a biologist but it seems from thermodynamics (I do have a Mechanical Engineering degree) that increasing the surface area of our skin would cool us down in a cold environment. But with evolution we can deduce that goosebumps (with hair) would have increased the thickness of our hair/fur, thus keeping us warm longer.
@logicologist well according to the evidence we evolved in a warm climate.
infact the fact we can be fully active in the hot midday sun without overheating is one of the things that gave us an edge over the competition. the furry animals lie in the shade all day and mover very little
Christianity is not a rocket Science nor physical thing like car, computer, iPad etc. But Christianity is a personal experience of true Love, peace and Joy within your heart, mind and soul. All Secrets of Human are within their heart and it is impossible to know others thought, mind and heart. Just now you have lots of thoughts, imaginations in your heart and I can not see, nor can proof any of them by logics and evidence. Same way God is personal experience within us and we can't Prove Him by
samaroo96 4 days ago
NO matter how loud you cry or shout that there is No God. Echo sound will hit you again and again that HE IS. No matter how hard you may try to justify your sins, you can not escape from them. Sinner must pay their account of Sins. You have only two options. Pay by your self or accept that Jesus Christ paid for you. There is no other way to escape. Accept The Gift of Salvation through Jesus Christ or be ready to get punishment for your sins which you have done in your body. I will advise, pleas
samaroo96 1 week ago
@samaroo9 Amen!
lordofthecoils 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lordofthecoils "i wonder how matt would fare"
He does all the time. The only defense he needs for not accepting someone's extraordinary claims is their laughable lack of extraordinary evidence, which he points out constantly.
TomVodkaCollins 2 weeks ago
i wonder how matt would fare if the roles were reversed and he had to defend his position on atheism his own against a pair of impatient,unfriendly agressive fundimentalists.
lordofthecoils 2 weeks ago
Does this fuckwit caller have any words of his own or is he going to spend the entire call quoting other people just as stupid as he?
TomVodkaCollins 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from FFreeThinker
This has been flagged as spam show
I Like This, Very Informative. Goods
Flusercom 1 month ago
kenapa tegang ?.. Good..
Spasatcom 1 month ago
i would like to ask matt this , what is the possibility of a jumbo jet just appearing by chance.,
lordofthecoils 1 month ago
@lordofthecoils Seriously? Evolution via Natural Selection is the exact opposite of chance.
TomVodkaCollins 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from FFreeThinker
@TomVodkaCollins sorry misunderstanding some where , what im saying is even though the laws governing the universe which arose from the cosmic symmetry breaking ,at the very begining, which allowed chaotic dinamics,to produce new stucture to emerge on increasing scales,as we move from the level of fundimental particles to organisms,this big bang origion ,still does not explain what set it all in motion.
lordofthecoils 2 weeks ago
@lordofthecoils " sorry misunderstanding"
Well, you're 100% correct about that to the best of my knowledge, which is far from complete, but you can't claim it was chance either, as you did do. Labeling the cause, i.e. chance, is claiming knowledge of causality that you can't possibly possess.
TomVodkaCollins 2 weeks ago
@TomVodkaCollins the universe came into being when nothing deviated to form something. as phisics have proven time did not exist before the big bang,and matter cannot exist without time. Since nothing can not cause a diviation,because it is nothing,and something was not around to to cause nothing to deviate, something that was not nothing must of acted on nothing in order for it to deviate. this is the paradox of origion.[first part]
lordofthecoils 2 weeks ago
@lordofthecoils [part two] no matter how you look at it something must have existed before the big bang and that thing could not have been something from our universe.
lordofthecoils 2 weeks ago
@lordofthecoils 1) Physics has made mathematical models that have a high degree a probability, but no reputable physicist would say they've proven shit about the origins of squat any more than any biologist would say they've proven exactly how inorganic matter and chemicals become organic material and biochemistry.
TomVodkaCollins 5 days ago
@lordofthecoils 2) The only people who think astrophysics say something came from nothing are apologists. Cosmologists have never claimed there was a point at which there was nothing because they could not verify such a claim should it be made. They also never said that matter existed before the Big Bang occurred because it didn't. The singularity from which the event we call the Big Bang erupted did not consist of matter. I've never heard any scientists say the things apologists accuse them of.
TomVodkaCollins 5 days ago
@TomVodkaCollins no 2, cont. let me quote Einstien who said 'our sum of knowlegde and ability to comprehend the vast and complex answers of existance, are akin to a child standing before a vast libarey of books, all written in different languages, he vaugely understands they are in a set order and have a shape to them ,but that is all.'
lordofthecoils 5 days ago
@lordofthecoils 2) cont...The problem is one of communication. What they mean by "nothing" and what the average layman means is not the same critter. You see, "empty" space really isn't all that empty. it's filled with energy and it's from this energy that particles arise. It's that whole E=mc2 thing. Matter to energy conversion works the other way, too.
This vid will explain it better than I can. youtube.com/watch?v=gH9UvnrARf8&list=WLB27D62E2C4F38843&index=11&feature=plpp_video
TomVodkaCollins 5 days ago
@TomVodkaCollins No 1.....In recent years sceptitism regarding the higgs bosum [the god particle],has started a whole new run of back tracking among sientists,who have to modify thier theorys,to suit each new change, in sientific learning. The deeper sience penetrates the secrets of existance the more fantastic and complicated the answer seems to get. My critism of the current vouge of athiesm is that it hides behind current sientific theorys, as if they are the sum of all knowledge, cont
lordofthecoils 5 days ago
because acording to matt, the origion of everything is just by chance and not design . well inteligent design doesnt have to include a hebrew benevolent god figure. what if were all wrong? and origon or the component make up of the universe has a influence from something which our present sientific knowledge cannot explain. even recently there has been a growing number of sientists who are starting to doubt, the big bang as the very begining of everything
lordofthecoils 1 month ago
matt and co. always use the sientific explanation of evolution, to say there was no intel design, because the laws that are set in the making of stars and planets are set long before biological evolution takes place, and the atomic rules of the universe have either been there forever or up to the big bang, but what is theorigon of these laws, and if they happened just by chance, why would they for what reason?
lordofthecoils 1 month ago
anyone in this age that believes creationism is beyond stupid, they are dishonest assholes, its like denying germs or a round earth and a heliocentric earth, which is also still round
wearestarstuffsagan 2 months ago
These "hosts" are far too rude and emotional to be taken seriously. Shouting at callers and making threats are unacceptable. What these guys do is basically pin down callers with things that they won't be able to answer, then use the callers' inability to answer as a confirmation that they are correct.
doug65536 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@doug65536 thats precisely how a debate works. If you take a stand that can't be able to defend itself is a completely logical point to be made. The fact that a position cannot be equitably defended should give substantial pause to anyone who is considering it to be true.
OkamsRazer 2 months ago
Since God is all powerful and doesn't make mistakes, all i need is just 1 example to prove that we are not intelligently designed. And we do have a lot of such examples: human eye nerves, for example. Or the giraffe vague nerve. Creationists like to cherry-pick on the things that look well-designed ,but they totally ignore the things that are not! What happened? God screwed up??
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr I've never heard intelligent design scientists say they are looking for something that is WELL designed, just appearance of design.Just because your car breaks down&doesn't work properly,does that prove that no one designed the car?No,it proves that the design could have been better, but it is still intelligently designed.&,how would we know all about what is the best design?It's only recently that we have begun to understand the natural world.We shouldn't jump to assumptions.
mragonrider 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mragonrider but if something has flaws in the design, this suggests the maker is imperfect. So it is wrong to say God is all powerful then. He may be powerful compared to us, but he is nevertheless still subjected to flaws, if his creations have flaws. So either he is 1) not all powerful contrary to popular claims or, 2) he purposely made "mistakes" in his creations for unknown purposes
Casshyr 2 months ago
Caller = irritating pseudo-intellectual.
clumpft 2 months ago
IC is not falsifiable because if I prove your example to be false you'll just say, "oh well that organ may not be irreducibly complex, but here's another one." That process will continue until we've come to a point that we've explained every single mutation, a process which will never end.
Setzer 3 months ago
I have a question: Matt said in the video that something designed doesn't have to be complex. He used a chain mail bracelet as an example. so, my question is, is how we know something is designed is that it is simple? that doesn't make sense to me. there are lots of things that are designed that are simple, but also really complex things, like cars and computers. I don't think his explanation got us any closer to answering the question in the video or my question.
mragonrider 3 months ago
@mragonrider You're right I think that it was kind of a bad explanation. We can infer that things like that were intelligently designed because we have examples of other necklaces, which we know were intelligently designed. Given what we know about the natural occurrence of some organs through mutations, appeals to some intelligent design in other organs, due to apparent complexity, are not justified. The main problem is that while particular instances of IC are falsifiable, IC itself isn't.
Setzer 3 months ago
@Setzer Okay,so are you implying that if something does not occur in nature,then we know it’s been intelligently designed,because we have other examples of these things& they are man-made, not natural?My question then would be,aren’t we supposedly just accidents of a mindless process?How does intelligence come from non-intelligence?You said that IC can’t be falsified, but examples of it can be?Could you perhaps expound on this? It’s still a bit unclear to me.Thanks for discussing this with me.
mragonrider 3 months ago
@mragonrider It's really difficult to answer all those questions in less than 500 characters. 1st Q: Yes this is an example of inductive reasoning. It doesn't *prove* that the necklace is man-made, but the theory that it was man-made explains the origin of the necklace pretty well. Now compare this to Evolution through Natural Selection, which is the answer to the 2nd Q.
Setzer 3 months ago
@mragonrider Natural selection is the non-random survival of randomly mutating DNA. There's a wealth of information on youtube about this. I highly recommend looking up some explanations by Dawkins. He explains the bacterial flagellum and the human eye as well. Jerry Coyne has a vid on youtube explaining why evolution is true: watch?v=w1m4mATYoig (it's a bit long). Carl Sagan also does a nice video of the gradual transition from bacteria to humans watch?v=vsDjrb_2XJw
Setzer 3 months ago
@Setzer Sorry I asked so many questions& for this late reply.It might take me a few comments to reply! I know Dawkins is well renowned, but as a truth seeker,I never listen to just one side of the story.I’ll listen to evidence for evolution& for ID& from there make a decision based on which one has more compelling evidence. Nothing against youtube,but to really understand this stuff,I think reading books and journal articles written by these scientists would be a better starting place.
mragonrider 2 months ago
@Setzer Also,I agree that there is good evidence for natural selection.To deny that would be to deny what’s happening around us.But I don’t see how special adaptations of a particular species would lead to new species.Even given millions of years,it doesn’t seem plausible.Objects without an outside force bring only randomness,not order,according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.All the answers I've been given in the past have still left huge doubts in my mind of evolution's plausibility.
mragonrider 2 months ago
@mragonrider Actually you're misinterpreting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. We're not in a closed system so it doesn't apply here. Special adaptions would form new species, but it takes a very long time for it to occur and you need some environmental factor that separates a species into isolated groups to get clear branches. If you want an example of evolution just look at the artificial selection that has created the wide variety of dogs. Natural selection works the same way.
Setzer 2 months ago
@Setzer Artificial selection isn't the same as natural selection.After all,yes,there's tremendous variety in the dog breeds,but they are still the same species.Even after hundreds of years of breeding,we haven't made a new species.If an intelligent human can’t create a new species,how could a mindless process do it?That gives no supportive evidence for natural selection to lead to new species.It just shows the amazing variation within the genes of a species to adapt to their environment.
mragonrider 2 months ago
@mragonrider I was just giving an example of how biodiversity can occur in basically real time. In natural selection speciation usually occurs over much longer time periods; different groups become isolated and do not interbreed. Lines between species are a bit fuzzy, and there's many definitions of the word "species" that scientists use. If you look at bio-geography, genetics, vestigial organs, the fossil record, etc, natural selection becomes the only plausible explanation
Setzer 2 months ago
@Setzer As to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, its existence has been tested in a closed environment, but it is still a force one must deal with when working on anything scientifically. I concede that the 2nd Law is not the only factor at work in our open system, so it is not the exclusive force, but that does not negate it. I read some articles on this subject and basically, evolution has to bypass the 2nd Law in order to work. That does not seem scientifically consistent to me.
mragonrider 2 months ago
Comment removed
yeudh 2 months ago
@mragonrider As far as the IC argument goes, I recommend looking up some videos of Dawkins explaining the eye watch?v=sUjd8x-1xM0 or bacterial flagellum here's another guy talking about it the bacterial flagellum watch?v=OYjXq8jDsOw
I said that IC is not falsifiable because even if we prove the eye is not irreducibly complex, creationists will say "okay well maybe they eye isn't IC, but what about this example?" We can continue disproving each example for eternity.
Setzer 3 months ago
Quoting and quote mining Bill Gates
jcgadfly 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God exists, that's the accepted claim by the majority of people, you want to challenge that, bring the evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU. Some narrow minded atheist proposed the wrong notion that atheism doesn't require evidence and many gullible atheists had run to foolishly embrace it. Philosophically the burden of proof is in the argument challenging the establishment. What evidence you have that atheism is true? None, zero, nada. Open your eyes, you're being deceived by an evil cult.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
Oh I love when atheists get owned
jordan7787 4 months ago
@jordan7787 When did this happen?
xynth101088 4 months ago
Q: "what would a non-designed universe look like?"
A: looks out window and points
kyrior 4 months ago 3
The best part is when they ask him how he determines if something is designed, and he comes back by answering that he looks for design. They asked him how he makes the determination that something looks designed in the first place and he answers with the step AFTER he determines if it looks designed and tries to work backwards.
KazeKirin 6 months ago
If IC is accurate, shouldn't everything be irreducible complex?
So why is the bacterial flagellum the ONLY example the IDiots can produce?
Maybe because it's a soft shell organism and doesn't fossilize.
baldurus1 7 months ago
unfortuanly when matt says "what would an undesigned univese look like"and insist a frame of reference is needed, then where is his frame of reference for a designed universe?
zenithar6666 7 months ago
@zenithar6666 You could just not know which puts it at a netural postion.
nextgenvids 7 months ago
@zenithar6666 Indeed, it boils down to:
If a god exists, everything would be exactly as it is.
If a god doesn't exist, everything would be exactly as it is.
Occam's razor favours one of these options over the other.
DuTriDu 6 months ago
if any of these jokers actaully studied microbiolgoy instead of simply taking milars authoriy they would realise just how big the task is they are setting the mechanisms, great new papers that show an enzyme cannot be co opted via the pathways we had envisionsed.
zenithar6666 7 months ago
@zenithar6666 could an enzyme be co opted via pathways we had NOT envisioned?
MrArokOleary 5 months ago
one can only speculate, "envisioning" somthign is stills imply specualtion, and there is far too much of this within the field of evolutionary biology. i for one, at the moment, am utterly convinced of design in nature, but i do not automatically ascribe it to god or any diety. I simply dont know, and i dont pretend to..
zenithar6666 5 months ago
@zenithar6666 Interesting, but like they said in the video how could you tell that something was designed until you know what something that wasn't designed looks like, and (no I'm not assuming your christian but simply using that as a reference) if everything was supposedly designed then we wouldn't have any frame of reference. That's a very evolved position though that I happen to share: I simply don't know, and I don't pretend to
MrArokOleary 5 months ago
you see, if everthign did happen according the the neo darwinian synthesis then teh very thoguhts you have about what is and is not random or designed are meaningless.
put it this way, do i know a watch is designed? YES, do you YES, doesnt this mean we know designe when we see it, and therefore dont need a reference point since its so obvious..
i mean, infering there is no design in nature is a total denial of everthign we know about intent and design. its the elephen in the sitting room
zenithar6666 5 months ago
neither do i pretend to know, but i do, like evolutionists so called..have a strong suspicion and opinion based on the evidence. of course.
Oh indeed that is an interesting question about do i know what is and isnt designed.
but does an evolution proponent(its mechanisms) know what is and is not random? or what is designed? they INFER from teh evidence that there is not desing in nature, I INFER, from experience that there is!
zenithar6666 5 months ago
@zenithar6666 the only reason it is obvious is because I know a watch is nearly impossible to be put together by nature, we see new watches being made and designed all the time but nature never does, however this is the only reference point we have to determine if something is designed or not, whether it occurs in nature, If I pick up a rock i certainly don't think to myself hmm someone must have designed this, I can understand how this rock came to be here naturally.
MrArokOleary 5 months ago
@zenithar6666 Evolution is a fact, however, it does not explain lifes origins (that's abiogenesis and it's still being studied) Evolution simply explains the variety among the species. Micro-evolution can be demonstrated in a lab, it's why we have that wonderful thing called medicine. Macro-evolution cannot be demonstrated in a lab because larger organisms have much longer lives making observation highly difficult. How can one say ok micro-evolution is fine but macro-evolution is wrong?
MrArokOleary 5 months ago
@zenithar6666 Also btw Matt Dillahunty's wife to be IS a microbiologist and I would assume they talk about such matters.
MrArokOleary 5 months ago
Simple question, what is the measure of complexity, and what are the boundaries of the measured value beyond which the complexity is deemed "irreducible"?
tbriggs7 7 months ago
There is no point in arguing with Matt Dillahunty...as soon as you try to bring up points in an intellegent fashion he'll overtalk you and hang up on you...
VIPSoundCircleTV 8 months ago
@VIPSoundCircleTV I've never seen him hang up on someone who had any kind of valid point that was intelligent or factual. I've only ever seen him hang up on people when (A They stop being coherent or (B When the caller obviously disregards any facts they present to them.
Clubbingshawn 7 months ago
Apparently "What would a non-designed universe or life-form look like?" means "Please change the subject and waste our fucking time for 20 minutes"
havvyweponsman 10 months ago 2
Argument from authority, argument from ignorance
This guy's logical fallacies can be shot down by a middle school student. Apparently not everyone on the East Coast is intelligent or eloquent. Sorry, New York, you lose on this one!
MunkyDrag0n 10 months ago
They cut off the end too early -- I wanted to see Matt hang up on his ass.
destronia123 10 months ago
TAE = 123493859238238295832
Chrisitans = 0.000000001
Yay248 1 year ago
Things best being explained by an intelligent designer is NOT a Theory. In order to be a theory, it has to be capable of being falsified!
greyeyed123 1 year ago 2
lucky number 15,000
teerav707 1 year ago
He keeps saying "By chance"...Evolution by natural selection is the exact opposite of chance!!
23Tev 1 year ago 24
@23Tev But it is largely down to chance. My understanding of evolution is that there are random mutations in genetics that happen "by chance." The survival of these mutations is by no stretch of the imagination, "by chance," but the mutations themselves happen randomly. I think he sort of has a point, but he doesn't understand enough to make it properly.
revilo412 1 month ago
This caller's logic is exactly backward and the reason is stupid-simple. He's asserting that some things "look designed" in nature because they resemble things that have been designed by man. But the REASON that man designed those things in certain ways is: We saw those concepts in nature. That's where we got our ideas FROM. Nature evolved. We copied nature. Bird had wings, so we put wings on a plane. We can't go back then and say... "now nature looks like what we've done, so it was designed."
instereovideos 1 year ago 25
@perfectshot77 You are comprehensible. But I have yet to read a profound, wise and smart statement that wasn't spelled correctly. It's such an easy filter to just ignore texts without proper spelling and grammar as they offer no remarkable substance anyway. It was a friendly reminder to you, if you want to be taken seriously. I'm not going to offer you insults in return for yours.
Speedable 1 year ago
@perfectshot77 A scientist has intelligence, a design or system by definition cannot. That which has a mind has a degree of intelligence. Try reading what intelligence is on wikipedia. Otherwise, prove to me that the universe or ID has a mind. You might as well call the universe a "beautiful design" or a "profound design", but the label on it doesn't change what it actually is, just as pluto did not change despite our reclassification or relabeling of what pluto is.
Speedable 1 year ago
@perfectshot77 Argumentum ad hominem. You might want to check your spelling as well if you want to be taken seriously, not just argumentational fallacies.
Speedable 1 year ago
If someone born and raised in the Khalahari desert suddenly stumbles upon a a shiny Ford Edsel. Not familiar with auto design and production process he would assume it was 'created/designed' in an instant by some god. ID people encountering a complex natural structure or phenomena assume the same thing, not having a grasp of evolutionary processes or the tremendous lengths of time involved. Hint: acid chains + eons of solar radiation = change. What doesn't work dies. ID marvels at the leftovers.
telescope3 1 year ago
@perfectshot77 If it's non-caring, then why call it intelligent? And why call it God? I use my intelligence to reduce emotional and physical suffering and pain. And I want scientists and doctors to use their intelligence to rid the world of diseases that do. If God doesn't give a hoot about medical advances, then why worship a God that isn't omnibenevolent? If you're a deist, then you have no reason to call Him intelligent, because only by using your intelligence, will you reveal its extent.
Speedable 1 year ago
Why is it intelligent for diseases to exist?
Speedable 1 year ago
Comment removed
Speedable 1 year ago
Comment removed
Speedable 1 year ago
if you take away a persons heart, they die. therefor we are created by an intelligant designer. aserting that if you take something away and it wont work isn't even an argument becasue things evole and adapt to use all there parts to function. if you can take something away and the organism still functions, that is also proof that it has evoled to a point where it no longer needs the function of that "thing" ie. the appendix
kiddhitta 1 year ago
Any Crystal looks designed, and the all come about but spontaneous condensation.
a what credible source did this idiot named.
Bill Gate? who si not even a programmer.
and Dawkin in a quote where he meant the exact opposite?
JerezJulio 1 year ago
"Even Bill Gates..."
reasonformirrors 1 year ago
The callers definition of ID is god of the gaps. I tried that in math class. God failed the test, somehow i got the F. WTF?!? All i said was god knows the answer and does not want me to know answer because he did not tell it to me. But god knows, so i technically was correct. God solves all problems, or so they taught me. Im so confused.
MrKevMan 1 year ago
Here's how it goes: fish, land animal, land mammal, ape, human, creationist, ape...
If the entire "whip" of a bacterial flagellum was removed, the remaining fulcrum would still function, but as the type-3 secretory system. There goes your argument.
ProfoundReality2 1 year ago
The caller accuses Ken Miller of straw-manning in the last video, when it's clear that Behe is clearly the one straw-manning. He wants to use his definitions to represent evolution and not the ones that are agreed upon by virtually every scientist. This is where he gets his 'irreducibly complex' BS from - he completely misrepresents evolution so that he can make that claim.
ByTor190 1 year ago
i killed someone is that gods great plan for me what an ass hole Santa Claus aint bring me presents this Christmas
only2nocrew 1 year ago
As a designer I have looked to living things for design inspiration. So saying that living things resemble designed things is proof that living things are designed may be missing the something. I've heard of coders using evolved code as a reference or source of inspiration for designed code.
ekpil2000 1 year ago
The human brain is irreductibly complex. You take it out of the person, and you get an ID proponent.
hellhammerz666 1 year ago 6
I am riping out my hair, this is way I dont like to debate theist, they cannot answer a fucking question. ANSWER THE QUESTION. someones says is not a argument.
thesparitan 1 year ago
The Great Pumpkin. Find this, and you have proof of Intelligent Design :)
advantis03 1 year ago
Matt was wrong at the end of part one, intelligent design is falsifiable on a case by case basis, but the key thing is IT HAS BEEN FALSIFIED!
Probably the biggest deception within this irreducible complexity 'argument' is that it can be asserted at any time about any thing that hasn't yet been shown otherwise. However the achillies heel here is that scientific theories find a generalized answer for all cases, irreducible complexity is merely an ad-hoc assertion with no explanation.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
I think ID proponents need to rename their movement "the church of the Bacteria flagellum".
kgh001 1 year ago 7
@kgh001 Hahah true
thesparitan 1 year ago
04:21
That looked familiar.
That's what you get when people do not understand the very basics of what you're trying to explain :P
gunblade64 1 year ago
Bacteria flagellum has been shown to be made from different functional components and they came together by natural selection. They removed 40 out of 50 proteins from this bacterium and they ended up with a fully functional Type – III Secretory system. From what I understand it boils down to that even a single protein in this bacteria has a function.
47saeed 1 year ago
I love how the caller doesn't cite scientific papers but, things that aren't by scientists who do actual science or public books that aren't within the scientific circles...
Entertainmentwf 1 year ago
the bill gates quote is from his book "the road a head." In the page he talks about his chemistry teacher vs his physics teacher. nothing about evolution
r29 1 year ago
First off: Evolution by natural selection is not random, it is not "chance."
jymbo1969 1 year ago
What would a non-intelligent designed world look like? That's one heavy fuckin question for a believer.
controllerbrain 1 year ago
Matt's a beast
HumanKrayzie 1 year ago 2
The question the ahtist in this video asks the theist is EXTREMELY hypothetical.
Answer this question: If the internet did not exist, how would youtube come about?
Pathetic
Rednax2Ela1 1 year ago
And about irreducible complexity of the eye, even if it wasn't used to see, it would still be used to create vitamin E that need light to be made... Irreducible complexity is a fantasy...
Acrimonator 1 year ago
07:12 "i swear to god"... ops! xD
kingcobralive 1 year ago
Biological Evolution was dreamed up to try and explain the origin of life without an intelligent designer, Stellar evolution, the Cosmos itself! The assumed vast Eons of TIME, the magic ingredient of atheistic theorists, is inseperable from their beliefs,so they have to reject most of what science reveals due to their pre-conceived biased opinion that the god of the bible does not exist! There is no PHYSICAL evidence of a frog turning into a prince, no matter how much TIME you want to dream up!
mikeeboy1000 1 year ago
@mikeeboy1000 Evolution has nothing to do with origin of life! What is that was rejected?
VarykGerai 1 year ago
@VarykGerai Sorry, Atheistic Evolutionists BELIEVE that Simple life Spontaneously Generated from non-living dirt, and then by chance random natural unseen processes ,changed (EVOLVED) into everything we see today. Given enough TIME these mysterious unseen processes will produce the apparent design in nature, all by luck! Atheists can never accept the possibility of a supernatural creator, their whole system was designed around the BELIEF/HOPE that the Creator God of the bible is non-existent!
mikeeboy1000 1 year ago
@mikeeboy1000 these mysterious processes are very well know and understood.
VarykGerai 1 year ago
@VarykGerai known*
VarykGerai 1 year ago
@mikeeboy1000 yes, it's far easier to believe that man was made from clay and woman from his rib... BTW, there are 3 strawman arguments in your claim... Are you dishonest or simply ignorant ?
Acrimonator 1 year ago
@mikeeboy, Your understanding of evolution is incorrect. First, Evolution says nothing about how life started. That is not part of the theory. Instead, evolution is the mechanism whereby less complex life evolves to greater complexity through natural selection. Natural selection is anything BUT random. Life's diversity is an example of Self Emergent Complex Systems. Economies, language & societies are other examples of SECS. They appear to be designed, but instead evolve naturally over time.
coolgreyoneabby 1 year ago
@mikeeboy1000 Ummmm.. no. Even Darwin was religious... that is until he discovered that life didn't require a creator to explain the great variety in life.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
@mikeeboy1000 evolution and abiogenesis are 2 different things
Evolution by natural selection= Diversity in organisms
Abiogenesis= Origin of life rising from inanimate matter
When will you idiots realize this??
Evolution=/= Origin of Life
Pls study biology in depth, learn the proper definition of a THEORY and read up on all the LAB TESTS carried out that proves evolution. Also research on abiogenesis thoroughly before coming out here to reveal your single digit IQ to the world.
zh1412 1 year ago
@mikeeboy1000 Yes, but why are you quoting the creationist position when trying to "debunk" science? In Creationism a frog may turn into a prince. Humans are formed whole-cloth out of clay. Serpents speak and tyrranical gods give out edicts and then punish those that had no idea that it was wrong to go against one's slave-owner. That's not science. That's YOUR position, not ours.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
Matt says naturally occurring and non-naturally occurring is the way to tell design. I have wads of paper in my trashcan. They don't occur in nature. Is that an example of design? Pollutants from factories pour into air and stream. Those pollutants don't occur naturally. Are they examples of design?
Matt is an intelligent guy, but he is mistaken. Design is not defined simply by natural versus unnatural.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Umm, what is the point you are trying to make? How does wads of paper in your trashcan prove or disprove design...or anything for that matter? Same goes for pollutants coming from a factory, what are you trying to illustrate? Are you trying to say that those 2 things aren't natural and don't serve a function, therefore they aren't designed? They are part of a design process though, by-products of the process or failures in the design.
AwesomOver9000 1 year ago
@AwesomOver9000 Wadding up a piece of paper is part of a design process? If I sent you a trashcan full of wadded up paper, would you say "great design" or "poor design"? I don't think you would call it "design" at all--yet it does not occur in nature.
"failures of the design" in nature is called disease. Otherwise, the design works pretty well.
I've complemented Matt on his thoughtfulness in debating Matt Slick, but I can't give him points on this one.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Of coarse wadded up pieces of paper are part of a design process, they are a by-product of your designing of a letter, drawing, writing etc. Whether they signify the end of the process or a failure is dependent on what was on the paper.
As for diseases being a failure...well bacteria and viruses are some of the most successful organisms on the planet, so they are not failures, and if you are taking the view of religion, then God was a lousy designer for allowing cancer etc.
AwesomOver9000 1 year ago
@AwesomOver9000 Coarse wadding isn't design. ;)
Contract cancer and do a couple of victory laps for us, then.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
Comment removed
AwesomOver9000 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Wads of paper in your trashcan is an example of design, because you designed it that way. You are assuming that anything designed must have a purpose, when they are separate issues. Something can be designed without serving a purpose. A painting is clearly designed but all it does is sit there with no function except to be seen. Who is to say the trash in the trashcan cant serve the same purpose.
Boomx2Brian 1 year ago
@Boomx2Brian If you can see design in unintentional trash, you should have no problem seeing design in the intricately related cell, tissue, organism, and biosphere.
I've heard of designer trashcans, but not designer trash.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Even if i give u that things are designed, how do you go about deciding who designed it? I say it was the flying spaghetti monster in his infinite wisdom thrust his appendages give rise to the world as it is today. You no more proof that it was your god who did the creating as opposed to the spaghetti monster.
Boomx2Brian 1 year ago
@Boomx2Brian We are actually getting somewhere. There is design--and that speaks of a designer. Scientifically we can't arrive at who the designer is (though deep within we likely know).
The flying spaghetti monster (Did Oregon State physics graduate Bobby Henderson have a vision or something in 2005?) is an unlikely candidate since spaghetti is itself an invention, likely derived from rice noodles of the Orient.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson I can just use the same logic u christians use. Henderson was a divine prophet and the spaghetti monster communicated to the world through him.
Spaghetti came into being because he showed himself to us and guided our hands to create the yummy food.
Boomx2Brian 1 year ago
@Boomx2Brian And how is this "logic" like anything a Christian has said?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson The spaghetti monster tells me so.
Boomx2Brian 1 year ago
@Boomx2Brian "The spaghetti monster tells me so."
Brian, quit playing with your food! ;)
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson haha. I must admit that was a funny one.
Boomx2Brian 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson:
"(though deep within we likely know)."
You mean, you know it is the god in which you believe by accident of birth, and not the god in which people believe by accident of birth in Saudi Arabia?
Next religionist FAIL argument...
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma Yes, the very same god. Allah is an Arabic derivative of El, as in Elohim. He is the Creator.
Next evolutionist FAIL argument ...
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson:
Careful there lest you are declared a heretic by your fellow Bible thumpers for saying that Allah is the same god. But Allah is actually the name of the god, not the word, just like Yahweh is the name of the god of the Bible. But then, it might just as well be Krishna, who is believed by the Hindus, or some other god of the thousands of gods humans ever invented.
And evolution has nothing to do with whether the gods exist or not, so you once again FAIL, like ALL cretards.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma I can tell one thing, I won't be asking you for trustworthy information.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson:
I know. That's because like all willfully ignorant creationist scientific illiterates(A redundancy), you have no interest in trustworthy information. You only have an interest in your religious dogma, in which you believe only by accident of birth and not by any deep studying, thinking and reflection. But you're not alone. That applies to the vast majority of the 85% of the world's population who still believe in a religion.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma Your information is simply not trustworthy. Pound your chest a little more; make a few more grunts.
Creationists and ID proponents are not stupid people, and grunting as you do only demonstrates arrogance.
I don't thump Bibles, but I do talk to the One who created us. In Arabic, that is Allah (accent on the second syllable).
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson: "Your information is simply not trustworthy"
Yeah, unlike old books of mythology and folktales that are completely trustworthy and more scientifically accurate than all the work by all the world's scientists...Like yeah, totally!
"Creationists and ID proponents are not stupid people"
Don't underestimate yourself.You ARE quite stupid if you believe that creationism is scientific and that evolution is some vast conspiracy by evil scientists against your favorite fairytale.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson: You are of course free to believe in this bullshit as you see fit, but don't expect any person who knows better to pretend like it has any scientific merit, when it absolutely doesn't. Now run along and dig for rabbit fossils in the per-cambrian, you little religionist tool.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma Could you tell me which way to go to dig in the "PER-Cambrian"?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
Should they not re-name it "mildly dimwitted scrap building"? It seems a pretty crappy god that would put your 'pleasure zone' next to your 'waste outlet'.
MrAugustNidor 1 year ago
@MrAugustNidor Which one would you have Him move?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
Disliked :)
TopTenCrew 1 year ago
Comment removed
DicksOrGTFO1 1 year ago
God isn't irreducibly complex, he's irreducibly incoherent.
This argument boils down to "the world is disturbingly complicated, so it must actually be very simple."
hymnofashes 1 year ago 34
@hymnofashes
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
theclinger 1 year ago
@hymnofashes The mass majority of theist arguments, regardless of how they're decorated, boil down to an argument from ignorance. Ignorance is the crux of the theist position.
controllerbrain 1 year ago
@hymnofashes WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!?
cure4atheism 1 year ago
@cure4atheism We're sick we atheism, and we need the cure to fill the Jesus-shaped hole in our hearts.
hymnofashes 1 year ago
Intelligtent Design is proof postive that mankind descended from really dumb animals.
psb1964 1 year ago 84
@psb1964 WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!?
cure4atheism 1 year ago
@psb1964 lol
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@psb1964 must be a democrat.
hatelibs1 1 year ago
@hatelibs1 Nope. I'm not a citizen of the USA. But I am a well-wisher.
psb1964 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@psb1964
hahahahaha...you are talking about the old Intelligent Design, not the new one. Look at my videos and you will see that you are wrong.
MrIntelligentdesign 9 months ago
Why is this video totally broken?
korsaircandyman13 1 year ago
haha they got the FSM on the desk
E34BMW535i 1 year ago
I tell an example of "system looking designed, but it isn't". There are rocks in f*'in Nevada, what looks like 5m tall penis with 2 balls, and the blasted wind did it!
gagnashdiak 1 year ago
if you want to look for an example of a non-intelligent design you dont have to look any further than your own body.
we have a tail-bone but no tail (though occasionly people are born with tails.
we have an apendix we dont use.
we have goosebumps all over our body (which is what hair grows out of), yet we have are not covered in hair
robertwc82 1 year ago
@robertwc82 The recurrent laryngeal nerve is another great example of the remnants of evolutionary transition being shown in rather sloppy "design." The nerve runs well past its target, then back up to where it should go, rather than follow the most direct path with other related nerves.
csbair 1 year ago
@csbair I love to be educated... THANKS. ...Too much to know, too little time.
logicologist 1 year ago
@logicologist I'm currently reading _Atom_ by Lawrence Krauss, based on recommendations by a couple of people. I've never had a physics class, had only a semester of astronomy, and focused most of my scientific studies to the biological sciences (anthropology, biology, paleontology). I'm reading it because it's aimed to the educated layman who has little knowledge of cosmology and physics, by a physics professor well known in academia.
If you want to learn about cosmology, get this book.
csbair 1 year ago
@csbair Thanks maybe I'll check it out; literally. I had plenty of physics so it should be a good quick read. Peace.
logicologist 1 year ago
@robertwc82 good one. Also, 'goosebumps' appear, but why? I'm not a biologist but it seems from thermodynamics (I do have a Mechanical Engineering degree) that increasing the surface area of our skin would cool us down in a cold environment. But with evolution we can deduce that goosebumps (with hair) would have increased the thickness of our hair/fur, thus keeping us warm longer.
logicologist 1 year ago
@logicologist well according to the evidence we evolved in a warm climate.
infact the fact we can be fully active in the hot midday sun without overheating is one of the things that gave us an edge over the competition. the furry animals lie in the shade all day and mover very little
robertwc82 1 year ago