Actually... Ep. 19

[Emilydogcat]

God created everything----how did life come about? It just happened? We were created.

[akg41470]

OK, then, how was God created?

[MrPablowjob]

@akg41470 search for Carl Sagan's "The were did the big bang come from?"

We really need to stop asking that paradoxical borderline ridiculous question in theological arguments (both theists, agnostics, and atheists).

[MrPablowjob]

@MrPablowjob "then where did the big bang come from?" my bad again.

[MrPablowjob]

@akg41470 omit "botch" sorry.

[qujingyuan]

@akg41470

God created everything, that didn't create itself. The Question is, did he create himself? Think about it ;)

[SilkSwe]

2:35 - I laughed when he said that. "Species" are called "arter" in Swedish. Why wouldn't he called it the same or something similar in his native language?

His arguments are wrong on so many levels.

[artaudian]

just love the whole series akg:)) my favorite is EP.15 ( an absolute classic)!!are there still new ones coming out? if so keep up the good work:)

[Djarms67]

This guy is an idiot.

[baalChrist]

He's right, the ancient Greeks were all Christian theists, as well as the Babylonians, Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, Mayans...and that pesky Ptolemy with his great idea of heavenly discs

[baalChrist]

I think Adam Smith might actually have something to say about a car having 1 creator.

[kissfan7]

On behalf of all Ians, I profusely apologize for this man. He in no way reflects our proud and noble people.

"... but Dr. Miller and various evolutionary scientists are not satisfied with that answer. Why? They do not what there to be a creator God."

The amount of projection going on in this statement is amazing.

[jroyals26]

It is a classical creationist strawman. Also Ken Miller is a devout Catholic that believes in a creator god.

[Theoriginal8ball]

Excellent series akg41470. Hope you can produce more work of this standard soon.

[ctastrophe]

Funny thing too is that Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic, so I think he is okay with the idea of a creator god.

[DivineOverlord666]

why is it that creationists like to bunch up different fields like evolution, cosmology and abiogenesis?

[lowcomedy]

Easier to distract people. They like to change the playing field by attacking an unrelated area of science. Makes it harder to counter when they make irrelevant statements and it's a good way to move the debate off topic.

[DivineOverlord666]

too true, and it makes them seem as if they know what they are talking about to people who aren't really knowledgeable about the subjects!

[ctastrophe]

I like how his subtitles are sometimes different from what he says and frequently correct his poor grammar.

[GayForDarwin]

Great video! Hope you make more soon.

[englishballerco]

Even darwin conceded that the lack of these fossils is "is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection" to his theory, although he confidently predicted that futre discoveries would vindicate him. p.127

[akg41470]

Nice try, but this is a well-worn quote mine.

You obviously forgot to read the two paragraphs following his *rhetorical* question:

talkorigins (dot) org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.h­tml#quote75

...and since when are there NO transitional fossils? There's LOADS!:

talkorigins (dot) org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

[ctastrophe]

Do you have any idea how many fossils have been found in the last 150 years? The cool thing about science is that it is cumulative; as new evidence comes in theory are refined. Darwin said nothing of DNA, does that mean it doesn't exist? Lastly, Darwin is not infallible, and I would be shocked if anyone claimed so.

[englishballerco]

However, the FRAMEWORK of ToE is most definitely what happened. Citation

Darwin NEVER put an ultimatum on the ToE.

citation

I know must of my info on evolution based on the book case for faith by lee strobel and what the government taught me in highschool and college where most of the indoctrnation begins. By yopu saying that TOE is true you can't put science towards anyother study. Also macro evolution is almost supernatural as well

[akg41470]

Sorry, the burden of proof is on you to find the quote in question from Darwin. I can't show you all of Darwin's works and say "it's not there".

We can ABSOLUTELY put science "towards another study" of the generation of species. Anytime. As long as there's good evidence for it and a good explanation, scientists will be eager to listen. You have some?

Macroevolution = supernatural? How exactly? There are perfectly good natural explanations, no supernatural necessary...

[englishballerco]

this guy uses bad logic. But this guy insults these people and he says how many years they came before darwin like he is his god because it seems to him science begins with darwin.

[akg41470]

No, science did not begin with Darwin. The theory of evolution began with Darwin.

He's bringing up how many scientists believed in creation, which was refuted scientifically by the theory of evolution. There's no way to believe in a theory before it exists, so these arguments are futile.

[englishballerco]

"which was refuted scientifically by the theory of evolution"

okay so no more science can be studied for creation by god because you said it was refuted by charley darwin. Way to kill science and discovery because the theory of evolution is fool proof. where are the missing links and don't use mutation because darwin said after his work was published if there was no missing links found within 50 approx. years we should accept his theory as false. The cell is way to complex to be random.

[akg41470]

1. No study can EVER be done for creation by God because God is supernatural. Can't test the supernatural scientifically.

2. The ToE leaves a LOT of discovery left to be done - not all of is science is "figured out". However, the FRAMEWORK of ToE is most definitely what happened.

[akg41470]

3. "darwin said...if there was no missing links found within 50 years we should accept his theory as false" - citation please, this is simply untrue. Darwin NEVER put an ultimatum on the ToE.

4. The cell is way to complex to be random." - says who? and who says evolution is random? Natural selection makes sure of that...

[englishballerco]

i have a question. If science proved that there is a God with 100% proof would all atheists convert and become theists or would they just rather continue believeing that there isn't one? Just something to put out there.

[akg41470]

If there's 100% proof, then someone would be a fool NOT to believe in God. There's 100% proof that there's oxygen in the air... only a complete fool would think that oxygen doesn't exist.

[englishballerco]

Actually.... he was listing persons who were orginaters of science's not just evolutionary theory. It might surprise you that darwin didn't inculde physics in his theory on the orgin of species because the two don't directly impact each other but they are both sciences still.

[akg41470]

Really? The theory of evolution doesn't explain gravity? What a shocker.

[englishballerco]

Actually... your first insult to this man's agrument is that he said chrisian theists. which is totally valid because there are muslim theists and hindu theists and wiccn theists he was refering to the theists that believe in the christian God. I believe you should have known that because he could have just said christians.

[akg41470]

Then why didn't he just say "christians"? There are generic "theists" as well.

[Doazic]

You got the "biogenesis" thing wrong. You should have pointed out that "biogenesis" is not a law. It is actually a theory referred to as "vitalism" which was disproved in 1828 when Urea, an organic compound, was synthesized from inorganic chemicals.

[Chuichupachichi]

Just as you say; "It depends on what the evidence says". Darwin said his theory was dependent on the existence of certain

"evidence". That certain evidence being, transitionals in the fossil record. Which he expected would be found, in the years ahead from his time. That evidence does "not" exist, and it's not a matter of it not having been found "yet". Because there is a large fossil record already unearthed. If evolution were fact, the record would be littered with transitionals. Not even 1!

[akg41470]

1. So you are saying that the thousands upon thousands of different fossils, not a SINGLE ONE shows transitional characteristics to you? Did you see any of my other videos where I SHOW transitional forms?

2. Darwin didn't expect genetics. However, genetics provides further proof of evolution, right along what would be expected. Fossils aren't the only thing.

Denying evidence exists is very very lame.

[Chuichupachichi]

Thats correct, not a single one is two different species in one organism.

About genetics, its one thing to make a statement like that, but just because its said, doesn't automaticaly make it true. Care to explain. Also, responding with talk about one theory in place of the other, which was the actual subject of my previous question, is still just "ducking" the question.

[akg41470]

Evolution doesn't claim that one organism is two species simultaneously. How would you explain something like Archaeopteryx? It's got traits of birds AND reptiles... is that not an example of a "transitional"?

You claimed that because the fossil evidence "isn't good enough" that ToE should be discarded. I brought up genetics to show that another branch of science, independent of paleontology, supports ToE.

[Chuichupachichi]

It's irrelevant that Darwin didn't expect genetics. He was the author of the theory, who would know it better than he. So when he said that his theory is dependant upon there being multitudes of transitionals in the fossil record, that should not be discarded.

He being the author, he obviously clearly understood the nature of his theory and what is required for it to be proven fact.

I agree with your last line, the thing is though, that you guys are the ones who deny the evidence.

[akg41470]

And guess what - biology has moved WAAY past Darwin at this point. He was the foundation, but science has taken his ideas and made them even more obvious and concrete. (By the way, there ARE "multitudes of transitionals". we would always love more, but there's some great examples already)

No relevant biologist sticks hard to Darwin, but the ToE as it is described is exactly right.

Denying evidence? Why don't you list some of the evidence that science is "denying" and we'll discuss it.

[Chuichupachichi]

"Science" is not denying any evidence.

People do, people who subscribe to "pseudeo" sciences, like evolution.

[akg41470]

OK, I ask you again. What are these evidences that are being denied?

Are you also claiming that there is a science that explains the existence of fossils of thousands of dead species that is NOT evolutionary in nature? If so, can you tell us what it is?

[akg41470]

Q.E.D.

[TheGreaterGood80]

So the foundation of science came from christian theists? Ahh ok, see I figured that the need to record, observe and study was the foundation of science.

I also read something somewhere about the Chinese, Indians, Mayans, Egyptians,Greeks and Persians having a good deal of science before christianity even existed, but it might have been a lie of the liberal media.

[ctastrophe]

I love how his subtitles frequently deviate from what he is saying.

[scottkevinmaxwell]

You could have mentioned that Kenneth Miller is a Catholic so the idea that he believes in evolution because he does not want there to be a creator is just plain ludicrous.

[Shirotora1979]

First off i want to say that I am a christian and belive in evolution. Their is one point in this entire debate that I have yet to hear posted that really shows the difference between science and "creation" scientest. Lets just say for sake of argument that creationism is "PROVEN". Now you have to show that GOD did it and not aleins or something eles. Now once that is done you have to show that it was the christain god and not ZEUS. Real scince always has more questions to ask.

[boyoben]

Ken Miller belives in god. Yet this guy claims Ken Miller believes in evolution because he does not want god to exist. This guy really needs to do some research... In another video didn't he claim to be a member of MENSA?

[Ronaldsan]

I heard that headline quote weekly on the Point of Inquiry podcast...I was thinking that wasn't an actual headline and just something generic they made up to do with the creationism debate.

I am disappointed I am wrong.

[mikesatomicdustbin]

Keep up the good work my friend!!

I saw a man shouting and preaching in the high street today so i shouted and preached back, i yelled 'Nylong Eating Bacteria' at him and he shut up.

I just know he cried himself to sleep that night :D

[Killersepp]

Great, you're still alive! ;-) Ah, I missed the series.

[Darvec]

The latest attempt to redefine science in Kansas was repealed in 2007. The people of Kansas rejected the creationist nutjobs who took over the state Board of Education.

[akg41470]

Exactly what they should have done. Nobody can say with a straight face that the "cdesign proponentists" aren't trying to redefine science, it's right there in black and white.

[hunkamonkiman]

...laughing my atheist ass off!

[KiliStickyG]

I guess Juby has no idea what the word ASSUMPTION means.

ID = ASSUMPTION

[richardsull119]

You missed a chance to point out that many non-Christians have been doing science for centuries, not just "Christian theists".

[richardsull119]

Yikes. This guy might be the most ass-backwards of all the people you've rebutted. Every word out of his mouth is nonsense.

[matereymate]

YES another video!!!!! thank god (a.k.a akg41470)

[shortaznkid99]

Finally another VIDEO. Good job!

[ArgusEyes]

You should have pointed out that Ken Miller is a catholic. So when he says "they don't want there to be a creator God" he is just full of B.S.

[hegbert]

Awesome vid!

[RuinedSaint]

Ian Juby seems to overlook the fact that Ken Miller is an *outspoken* Christian and very much believes in a "creator god".

Oh, well...

Another excellent addition to the Actually Series. Keep it up!

[k9lionheart]

"as opposed to christian atheist" lmao, gotta love it. :)

[Brainmold]

To be a creationist you have to also become a liar.

[sweatytoothmadman]

Life from non-life doesn't he mean life from organic compounds?

[sweatytoothmadman]

Why do creationists always project themselves on to us, they say we have faith and believe in the supernatural it's like subconsciously they known their wrong so they want to take everyone else down with them.

[rjrrules]

i love these videos

[cdk007]

Great video. This just solidifies my view that creationists must deny logic. So because I'm a scientist, if I believe something it is automatically true. Huh? I really do wish this worked but despite my best efforts of believing ignorant people don't exist they keep popping up. And if I believe something today that gets disproven in 200 years by new evidence somehow my belief can travel to the future and count as evidence to disprove that new theory?

[VivoVitamBonam]

Isn't this that guy who wears a toilet seat, or was that some other crazy internet person?

[Kieran27]

That fellow with the toilet seat is down in Texas somewhere (or southern states region) Mr. Juby's fashion statement leans towards the hiker's vest. I'm not entirely sure why he wears that, no more than I'm aware of the reason for the toilet seat.

Another difference is Mr. Juby is Canadian, not American. And that fact shames me by association...

[NYjon888]

That guy makes me angry XD

[evirus]

just once i wish creationists would bring up pokemon, it would highlight their idiocy vary accuratly.

[cda6590]

As for your first point: biology would come crashing down nowadays without evolution. Evolution IS practically biology. You can't even begin to teach the basics of biology without it. Physics was a science before Newton and Einstein, but physics wouldn't exist anymore without those two men. Darwin did the same for biology.

[Zombiefisting]

brilliant as always

[ineedmorelumber]

Has this been emailed to the PodCaster?

We need to make sure this is seen by him.

[akg41470]

I just sent it as a video response. We'll see where he goes with this.

Can't wait.

[thumbsdownman]

I <3 this series. :)

[Drekoguk]

It's hilarious this creationist brought up Newton invoking God to "explain" how all the planetary orbits originated because Pierre-Simon de Laplace figured out Newton's gap in knowledge a century later.

That just goes to show you that invoking deities for explaining natural phenomenons gets you nowhere. Hope the ID camp eventually figures that out.

google: "Perimeter of Ignorance" written by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson to see the vacuity of ID and creationism.

[soulhunger1]

I'd feel sorry for the guy you just pwned the crap out of, but he's a moron, so I don't.

Awesome job.

[h8uall66]

Wow, this must have been an easy video to make. I know your tagline says that you are making creationists look foolish, but I really think this guy did about 99% of the work for you. He basically said that stopping science is not stopping science.

[AtxAxLoss]

Good show, sir. That guy's my one of my favorite idiots of the lot.

[nospacesallowed]

I think you should have also pointed out that the law of biogenisis

[nospacesallowed]

deals with life in its current form, The law of biogenesis has nothing to do with the coming about of early life.

[smartmusicfreak]

"deals with life in its current form, The law of biogenesis has nothing to do with the coming about of early life."

True. It would be better rephrased as "All living organisms reproduce."

[muskie1324]

Good video.

Ken Miller is a Catholic. Why would he not want there to be a creator god?

[oggleman]

Great video and series, these guys really seem to have it out for Dr. Miller, he must be a thorn in their side.