Belief in a God or Creator has nothing to do with science so your statement makes no sense. Have you ever read a bible. You sound like you try to over think creationism or believe in a supernatural creator. For someone who sounds so smart you have little understanding about faith. Belief in people evolving from a lower form of life is just that a belief. I get so tired of people who dismiss God because there is no proof from their point of view, but you choose not to accept the idea of God.
Albert I find you to be hilarious and also wrong. Dude I really appreciate the effort to spice your video up with humor. I must say I am not sure I agree with your stance that the ID movement is not only based on organisms being too complicated to come from natural means. I would stand on the ground of logic. The big answer that the Darwinist can't answer is how can a living organism come from non-living matter? Only a God that is beyond natural limits is logical in my view. Keep up the vids!
@berrytc44 well, ill help you out here. There is no "darwanism" for one, just the theory of evolution, which is true. Also, the theory of evolution does not cover, mention, or attempt to explain how lifing things came from non-living matter. If it rained frogs for no reason millions of years ago, they would still evolve. Its a fact.
Albert I find you to be hilarious and also wrong. Dude I really appreciate the effort to spice your video up with humor. I must say I am not sure I agree with your stance that the ID movement is not only based on organisms being too complicated to come from natural means. I would stand on the ground of logic. The big answer that the Darwinist can't answer is how can a living organism come from non-living matter? Only a God that is beyond natural limits is logical in my view. Keep up the vids!
i can see if you an i were to debate creation - evolution we may debate all year.... so i will keep it simple. firstly congratulations you have more sence than richard dawkins honestly, but my qestion is how from your viewpoint are atoms created, and is it by chance they are created.... its just there are alot of them to be chance and the matter had a begining...
HAHAHAHA i nearly died when you gritted your teeth and hissed, 'intelligent design' - damn, now i have to rewind and start again because i was too busy giggling!
Isn't creative design just another wierder word for darwinism? We are obviously designed seeing as nothing lacks a design and it could be construed as intelligent or at least superior.
EpiDot52 - Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker goes into this exact question: how could living organisms that seem to have design be created through natural processes.
no no. I'm saying that we were created by natural processes (I agree) but we are designed and that design was superior to other designs (natural selection) therefore they could be considered intelligent design
EpiDot52 - Uh, sure. If you redefine "intelligent design" to mean the exact opposite of its intended meaning then that would be true. Although you would confuse the term "intelligent" with a natural process that has no intent, motivation, or reasoning capability.
I see where your coming from =^_^= I thought the same way
Just because something looks complex and awesome doesn't mean natural "non-intelligent" processes couldn't have made them
Gems for example have a molecular structure that looks hand made and designed, but in reality its just chemistry acting normal
Humans were not designed by something intelligent, we were designed by the unfit humans dieing, and the fit humans living. Its the Non-Random selection of Randomly changing parts
Your response about Pascal's wager was a valied point, but would it be cheeky to point out that you are specially targetting Christianity in your posts.
I'm assuming by "Darwinism", you meant evolution as a whole.
Evolution is falsifiable. Hypothetically, you could falsify it by finding an example of a modern organism that evolution predicts evolved from a prior organism, existing in an era before its supposed ancestor. Like finding a pelican skeleton in a layer of strata dated before the arrival of archaeopteryx.
You could also map the genetics of a creature living today, whose genes don't lend themselves to coming from prior organisms.
OK then, can you falsify the current theory of the Standard Model of the Universe? Or Einstein's theory of Special Relativity? No? Then I suppose it is not Science and must be incorrect...
StefSSU: Google for "experimental basis special relativity". And by "Standard Model of the Universe", do you mean "Standard Model of Particle Physics"?
The only way we know that these two are real is because they are subjected to experimentation and prove to still be valid. I don't understand what you are trying to say. Do you think scientists just make this up and do not back it up with empirical evidence at all?
sorry, never mind. I understand now what you were trying to say about falsifiable, and I agree. However, you must agree that the idea that there is no higher power, is also not falsifiable, therefore the only logical view is that of an agnostic (me), leaning towards a religion just in case (pascals wager), besides I believe that religion is very useful in bringing out good in people, even if it is wrong.
StefSSU: I don't agree that agnosticism is the ONLY logical view. Technically, I'm agnostic since I don't "know" that God or gods don't exist. But I also don't "know" that Santa Claus exists. I have reasons why Santa Claus is implausible, so I go ahead and say he doesn't exist even though I'm only 99% sure instead of 100%.
Pascal's Wager is a sleazy argument that uses fear of fire and brimstone instead of rational argument. Are you a vegetarian "just in case" Hinduism is the true religion?
Wwallace67: "Fitness" is a definition about a disposition to survival in a certain environment, rather than a theory in and of itself. It is sort of like asking if "F=ma" is falsifiable, instead of saying it is a definition of "force".
Perhaps you were asking what would falsify evolution, in which case the short answer is the JBS Haldane quote "rabbit fossils in the Precambrian".
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Your understanding of science is clouded by your hatred of religion.
Rabbit fossils in the Precambrian would merely change the way biologists draw their tree of life.
F=m*a is falsifiable, and was in fact falsified, in that a != F/m when v (velocity) approaches the speed of light. Newtons laws of motion, which, unlike the theory of evolution, actually provided falsifiable positive statements.
//Rabbit fossils in the Precambrian would merely change the way biologists draw their tree of life. //
I disagree. If a fossil for an animal that previously appeared only in the recent fossil record popped up in Precambrian rock, scientists would be hard pressed to fit it into the current evolutionary tree. It would certainly be a start in falsifying evolutionary theory.
This is basically shorthand to say that those that survive and breed more successfully will see their traits [and genes] passed into subsequent generations more often.
If it could be shown that the traits [and genes] which enhanced reproductive success did not have any effect on the distribution of these traits [or genes] in future generations, "survival of the fittest" would be falsified.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Albert10110 What you're are saying here is falsifiable. "Christians couldn't get christian theoligy taught in public school so they tried to get ID taught." This is not true. Michael Behe is a Cathoilc, and so is Kenneth Miller. ID is not taught in Catholic school.
He didnt say ID is taught in Catholic school. He said that Creationists tried to get it taught in public schools and failed in the 80s. They then changed their rhetoric to that of ID. ID may not be orthodox and has been discouraged by the Vatican but it is a form of christian theology and not science.
The weakest part of the creationist argument is complexity. It would have been great if the video dissembled the complexity (teleological) argument. However, by demonstrating that there is no clear divided what is complex and what is not showed the actual weakness in the creationist argument.
I'm not sure I agree with the Popperian position that to be science is to be falsifiable.
Lots of contemporary astrophysics and sub-atomic physics work fail to admit of much in the way of falsifiable claims. Work on the big bang, the continuity of time, the existence of a multiverse, and string theory are a few of the examples of non-falsifiable-but-still-scientific theories.
Furthermore, it's really easy to make bad theories (like ID) falsifiable with some simple ad hoc additions to the theory.
neither youm nor venomfangX will convert any believer (nonbeliever) to your camp.
gotta find some other way to convince people, because mostly, believers don't understand the scientific formalism. they just need something to "feel" something for
so how do we make atheism more emotional, more appealing to people?
and why? why not just do stuff to neutralize the possible fanatic behaviour of religious people? give the people their right to be stupid, cuz they can't change.
I have an idea! Lets take a play right out of the Christian book (no, not *that* book...), by modifying one of their more common emotionally appealing statements to fit atheism!
"The lack of proof of the existence of a supernatural God loves you!"
Er... wait... This idea might need some tinkering...
Hrm... that last comment was supposed to be a response to De4sher, when he said:
"Gotta find some other way to convince people, because mostly, believers don't understand the scientific formalism. they just need something to "feel" something for
so how do we make atheism more emotional, more appealing to people?"
Actually, the idea behind ID that's being presented as the backbone of the argument is "Irreducible Complexity", not JUST complexity. Complexity is too vague and relative to quantify, but they have phrased it in a way to insist a completely falsifiable theory, since the idea of "Irreducible" can be quantified by measuring the maximum functionality of something still considered to be living (bacterial flagellum, in this case). But conveniently enough for atheists, it HAS been refuted.
I did hear about an argument about DNA being a language and no language has ever come about from something with no mind. It's the strongest argument I've heard for the existence of a god/creator, but I still don't subscribe to religion.
DNA is simply a pair of RNA strands fused together. There are only four kinds of nucleotides on each strand. The "message" sent by DNA is just a chemical reaction determined by which nucleotides come together and where. This is not a language, just cause and effect.
So good news, you're completely justified in not subscribing to any religion.
cpluscoder: Both "language" and "blueprint" are analogies to try to explain what DNA and RNA do. I think an even better analogy than "blueprint" is "recipe": Changing one small part of a blueprint usually only affects that local area of the building. Changing one small part of a recipe can create drastically different food (or maybe not affect much at all, or make the food even tastier).
hey Al what do you think about this argument for What else would have "kicked off" the chain in the first place? There must be a "First Cause" that created the chain and acts outside of it.
Some suggest that the chain of cause-and-effect extends backwards forever. This is impossible:
an infinite amount of causes and effects could only take place if the past were infinite. Yet if the past were infinite, you couldn't be reading this right now; you couldn't experience a present moment.
Yay Albert! A very good, accessible introduction to falsificationism. I would argue (or add) that cretin science in theory would be falsifiable- it makes strong, testable predictions about the age of the earth, for example. It just descends into ad hoc modifications and similar asininity when those predictions aren't met- then, it becomes unfalsifiable.
Also, what is your take on the Duhem-Quine Thesis? I'm still pondering it.
I think you're right about science and atheism. Atheism would be supported by science in regards to evolution and there being no creator. You come across as very intelligent in your blogs with always a lot of knowledge to back your opinions. Have you thought of being a scientist some day? :)
high quality. very basic argument but nicely put. but oh well, for people who believe in ID, it has to be put basically. funny and creative as well. five star! i'll be very interested to talking to u in ID and atheism.
Kinda not that important, but you said "non-falsifiable theories". Something that is non-falsefiable wouldn't be considered a theory in the scientific usage of the word, because a theory has to be falsefiable.
Finally, if anyone reads KvD. Beforehand read Wikipedias short blurb on the 'melon test'.
en wikipedia org/wiki/Lemon_v _Kurtzman
(replace all space with '.')
The constant 'prong' this or 'prong' that I thought was legaleese is in reality the very core of the case. The 'effects prong', 'purpose prong' are part of the 'lemon test'.
Let me suggest you (Albert) a reading materiel. Read the Kitzmiller-Dover trial (all of it, not just the verdict). I'm sure you'll find it enjoyable and illuminating. In total it gives a very broad and deep coverage of creationism history in the US and about all the issues. Everything is discussed, the blodclotting cascade, Newton, the philosophy of science, Cambrian explosion, there's drama, humor, and unimagined depths of tomfoolery.
I love you. I watched your video twice just to make sure you were a real person. I want to give you my number but not where everyone here can see. I find myself wondering if whether or not your release inside me will transfer some of your brilliance or not. =D
To me it seems like an educated holy man, is not afraid of science, and foolish scientist fears religion. Vice versa as well. The two are not at odds and if are poster were to think on it more, religion seems to be fairly necessary for all cultures, thus its elimination only results in sermons on its non existence, which is also, a sort of faith.
Necessary for all cultures? Ish, just becuase it was present in all cultures, does'nt mean it was necessary. Murder and rape were probably present in all cultures as well.
It seems as if he's thought about the subject a fair amount.
Incidentally, there is a direct correlation between secularism and a low crime rate in societies. Is this evidence that atheists are somehow more moral than theists? Of course not, but it goes some way to demonstrating that "religion seems to be fairly necessary for all cultures" may not be true, especially in our modern age.
"Iran strives to revive the golden age of Persian science. The country has increased its publication output nearly tenfold from 1996 through 2004, and has been ranked first in terms of output growth rate"
Islam is vital in Iran, the country is very science oriented. The two do not find themselves in opposition to eachother because they value the nature of each pursuit. Yet the video maker claims that religion and science are at odds. Why is Iran so successful?
IMO, which is all it is, religion exists because of human nature, some of which would be greed, love, and selfishness. (Not caring that ppl goto Hell as long as you goto Heaven, reuniting with loved ones, immortality) What other attractives aspects does religion have to offer?
Countries like Israel, and Turkey, openly support organized religion and elude to God heavily, but at the same time, are also leading hubs for scientific work, even Iran, a non-secular state, super theological state, is a leading scientific research state, I don't see how or why you worry about or are offended by the falsity or correctness of the existence of God. I mean you go through all teh trouble of making this video while in countries where true theocracy exist, there is no problem.
Anyways, the 3 things I meantioned are not things I would like. Does anyone ever even stop to think about heaven and immotality, is it just me that thinks it would be boring. And why would God sending his imperfect creations to fuck up his perfect world. Is'nt that what we're doing here now? >.>
i forgot one thing though.. you have to break the code before you understand what it says.. but your smart i know you'll find the formula.. if not hmm i'll just click your topics if i need info..
as the title of one of your videos fair and balanced do you really think that you are fair with this one. again you sound like a low chips database.. who reads information on the internet based on the writings of other people.. but knows nothing about the books of the believers.. come on ur smart you can do better that.. read the books all of them so as you can be fair.
etitbe1027: I have read the Bible. It's curious the accusation of "You haven't read our holy book, on what basis do you judge?", or "You've been reading books, but not the *right* kind of books".
This is completely useless, because you don't address ANY the arguments I make. It's simply avoiding my arguments and throwing more burdens and tasks on me before I can express an opinion on this topic. For many who make these accusations, I can *never* have enough knowledge to satisfy them.
I might also add here that all knowledge is, of course, fallible: as I suggested earlier. Because of this, there are gaps in our knowledge about biology - just as there are gaps in our knowledge about all things. This is likely to always be the case. To suggest that all that needs to be known about biology is already known, and it can be found in a text some thousands of years old - would seem to me to be not only a ludicrously anti-intellectual stance to take, but also a supremely arrogant one.
What is the "creation" model, exactly? Does the creation model explain the existence of the fossil record? Can it make any useful predictions? Which creation theory do you subscribe to exactly? The one of the King James bible or the Quaran? If it is the Bible you rely upon, why do you consider that book a reliable resource?
Dude... SMOOTH. Seriously, you put this to words better than I ever could have. I'd be stuttering and humming and hawing so much :p Charming, I hope this brings some people to their senses.
This is the most inane argument I've heard after listening to many on youtube. Evolution and ID are models used to explore historical evidence. Niether are falsifiable, only their predictions are. Anyone care to provide the means by which evolution can be falsified?
Sure. Evolution could be found false if the fossil record did not show changes in the species. Or if we found species that had evolutionary inexplicable traits from species that were not related (e.g. a chimera). Or, if we lacked vestigial body parts that implied an evolutionary history (e.g. appendix, wisdom teeth).
There is no such thing as vestigial parts. I eat with my wisdom teeth--the appendix fights disease. Also, a tricycle, motorcycle, Mack truck, and space shuttle all appear to have evolutionary explicable traits. Just because something is imagined doesn't make it so. Proof is required at the molecular level. Show me how DNA formed without protein synthase.
The appendix can be removed without too much trouble. Indeed, inform people who have had appendicitis just how intelligently designed they believe their bodies are. Proof is required? Science is not about proof: mathematics and other deductive types of reasoning are. Science is about explaining phenomena in the best way; in other words constructing the strongest (falsifiable) theories around the available evidence.
I might also add that "That motorcycle over there evolved from something else without the intervention of an intelligent designer" is a falsifiable theory that I, and any reasonable person is able to falsify given the time and inclination.
BRhalluk, My Leg can be removed without too much trouble as well; that doesn't make it vestigial. How might I falsify a claim that a man and ape had the same ancestor or short necked giraffes evolved into long necked giraffes. What if I provided proof of a reticulating valve in a Giraffe's neck that is only relevant because of the long neck? What if I showed mathematically that too many generations would be required for apes and man to have a common ancestor by random mutation?
If your leg is removed you will have much trouble: walking, balancing and so forth. There really is a great advantage to human legs: the appendix, not so. Again, if we are intelligently designed: what is it about appendicitis that is so intelligent? What about our knee joints (I could design something far more useful) - how about the blindspot - place the optic nerve BEHIND the retina would be my suggestion.
The list of unintelligent design is long and preposterous - wonderful evidence of blind evolution - wonderful evidence there was NO intelligent designer. We might suggest things like myopia and disease of all types, we might think of micarriages ("god" is the greatest abortionist of all), we can point to all manner of bad design. But most of all...
As with all those who object to good science it is reasonable to ask: then what? What theory do you have that is able to explain all that evolution by natural selection can and more? What theory do you have that can predict things like bacterial resistance to antibiotics, the existence of fossils, the fact DNA between close species is so similar, etc, etc. What theory explains all of these phenomena better than Darwinism?
Tyciol, first you would have to prove that man and ape had a common ancestor before I could disprove it.
Also, a better explanation is that an omnipotent God created everything in 6 literal days. Please explain why your solution is better than mine. Please-O-Please say proof!
Science is not about proof. It is about providing the best explanation for what we observe in the world. The strength of science is that it can always be revised and improved upon. Like ALL knowledge, it is fallible. Science admits to this. Religious dogma pretends to be certain about things it is not certain about. It also arrogantly presumes to know things about cosmology and biology that no scientists claims to (yet) have answers for.
The evidence that man has a common ancestor with other living things on this earth is provided by the fact that their DNA is so similar. This is not the only observation that requires explanation but for illustrative purposes, it should serve. The theory that "God created everything..." creates vastly more problems than it solves. It leaves one with questions about the nature and purpose of this God.
brhalluk, guess you haven't read the latest research about so-called junk DNA. Turns out DNA is not so similar after all; check out the article in science magazine. Friend, science is about proof and it proves there are more problems with the evolutionary model than with creation.
Junk DNA has been known about for many, many years: it is hardly some kind of new discovery. What is important is not the junk DNA - but rather the genome: the set of your genes (the non-junk). Your genome is very similar to that of apes, less so to that of other animals. What is the best explanation for this similarity?
"Guess you haven't read the latest research about so-called junk DNA." - raygarrettjr
Well I guess you haven't, either. The "junk DNA" that has been spoken of recently has to do with the "non-proper" genes -- that is, the ones which do not directly translate into proteins. This still does not have anything to do with Human Endogenous Retroviruses, LINE-1, alus, transposons, retrotransposons, etc.. And their lineages are all still traceable through the species by code variations through time.
When speaking on "junk DNA", the sciences are explaining the nuances of evolution, not refuting it. Read closer.
As far as the dissimilarities caused by deletions, they are already explained by a phenomenon called "sexual antagonism". I highly recommend you look this up.
And as brhalluk has explained, our knowledge [about genetics] is not complete. There are two basic models for comparing two sets of DNA, but one has the problem of not accounting for deletions in code (assuming 100% similarity in deleted code), and the other assumes they are 100% dissimilar. In truth, it is most likely that the similarity lies somewhere between 0 and 100%, but we cannot truly know exactly where because the information has been lost.
In the end, whether we share 98% or 92% of our DNA with chimpanzees, and whether we share 50% or 46% of our DNA with bananas, the point is the same: evolution can explain this, and religion cannot.
For clarity's sake, I believe that the latest figure researchers have come out with is around 95.6% similarity with the common Chimpanzee. The point stands, though.
To change the subject a bit, I would like to ask you a question, raygarrett:
What is your explanation for why your creator would 'design' a molecule -- RNA, whose job it is to copy & replicate DNA -- that cannot copy & replicate DNA **properly** (i.e. Huntington's cholera, which is based on RNA's frequent failure to keep count of how many "CAG"s are in a line of code).
No I'm sorry to tell you that: it is only suspected that the Appendix possibly helps people's immune system, but there are documented cases of humans born with no appendix, and they have no gastric or immune system problems. Also people have Appendectomies and there are no known side effects from the procedure, so I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the Human Appendix is for all intents and purposes; a vestigial organ.
Oh wow, i had reachecd a lot of your points myself but i would never have been able to pull it all together like that for some time. Thanks for making things more clearer for me :D
i'd just like to point out that Al atleast manages to discuss his beliefs without insulting other people's or assuming that his are 'nonfalsifiable', despite being able to give actual supporting evidence. it would be nice if people commenting on him could do the same
I thought you were talking too fast at first until I realised that you had to fit a huge amount of information into a 10-minute video. Fine for a YouTube video, but if you ever present to a live audience, slow it down a bit!
Very well researched and cogent arguments, by the way.
Which is what my belief on science boils down to: A bunch of liars proving themselves right. I'm not militant or anything with my Christian views I just wanted to just throw my change in the bucket. Thanks for the video and I really hope you get in touch with me.
With science I can prove my bad ass computer is in fact your dog. That doesn't mean it's right but I'm more than positive with the step-by-step process of science (I think it's like hypothesize, single variable, experiment, conclusion or whatever the hell high school was on about) I can come to any conclusion I desire...as long as I make science give me the answer I desire.
Please, I'd love to hear an argument that your computer is my dog scientifically. I gotta hear it. If you can do it, I'll praise Jesus right along with you.
Here's the thing...I care little about whether something is understood by you or scientific. The burden of proof is on neither of us. I believe in what I have faith in because I see it as the only truth that applies to my life. You could perhaps not because you don't see fact in it and need the proof. Like I said to "DblOSmith"...this conversation is moot.
The fact of the matter is I'm not a good enough liar to prove this but if you took my statement as what it was meant for you'd understand what point I was trying to make. Your dog can bark, has 4 legs, and is black let's say. Your computer can be forced to do and be those same things.
They'll bend relationships between items to put you in a perspective where you can see that their theory has to be at least 99.99% right. But then again...given 5 choices when none of them are completely right, what can happen? I'm not even writing to you to get you to worship Jesus. Do what you want. This conversation is obviously moot.
Heh, "this conversation is moot", translated means, "I don't feel like discussing this when I need things like "evidence", or "proof", or "making any sense".
Science isn't about "why", it's about "why are you allowed to live".
jellywillreturn 8 months ago
Belief in a God or Creator has nothing to do with science so your statement makes no sense. Have you ever read a bible. You sound like you try to over think creationism or believe in a supernatural creator. For someone who sounds so smart you have little understanding about faith. Belief in people evolving from a lower form of life is just that a belief. I get so tired of people who dismiss God because there is no proof from their point of view, but you choose not to accept the idea of God.
arecuk1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here but the coverup is strong, if u r interested in a REAL free energy magnet motor
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it's probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
violafinishda 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here but the coverup is strong, if u r interested in a REAL free energy magnet motor then
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it's probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
narragansettharco 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The big bad Oil corporations r trying their best to stop free energy ideas from spreading to common ppl.
We need to put an end to this corruption ,start generating ur own electricity now.
Visit LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints . Join the Revolution!!
glennjgd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here but the coverup is strong, if u r interested in a REAL free energy magnet motor then
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it's probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
glennjgd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The big bad Oil corporations r trying their best to stop free energy ideas from spreading to common ppl.
We need to put an end to this corruption ,start generating ur own electricity now.
Visit LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints . Join the Revolution!!
glennjgd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The big bad Oil corporations r trying their best to stop free energy ideas from spreading to common ppl.
We need to put an end to this corruption ,start generating ur own electricity now.
Visit LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints . Join the Revolution!!
glennjgd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here! The Big Oil companies r doing everything they can to stop this
information. If you want a Free energy magnet motor , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the
revolution!
glennjgd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here but the coverup is strong, if u r interested in a REAL free energy magnet motor then
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it is probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
affluenceclm 1 year ago
@Albert10110 you need More Comments
CrazyIcelander8321 1 year ago
@CrazyIcelander8321 and im First to comment :D
CrazyIcelander8321 1 year ago
Albert I find you to be hilarious and also wrong. Dude I really appreciate the effort to spice your video up with humor. I must say I am not sure I agree with your stance that the ID movement is not only based on organisms being too complicated to come from natural means. I would stand on the ground of logic. The big answer that the Darwinist can't answer is how can a living organism come from non-living matter? Only a God that is beyond natural limits is logical in my view. Keep up the vids!
berrytc44 1 year ago
@berrytc44 well, ill help you out here. There is no "darwanism" for one, just the theory of evolution, which is true. Also, the theory of evolution does not cover, mention, or attempt to explain how lifing things came from non-living matter. If it rained frogs for no reason millions of years ago, they would still evolve. Its a fact.
grendelee 1 year ago
Albert I find you to be hilarious and also wrong. Dude I really appreciate the effort to spice your video up with humor. I must say I am not sure I agree with your stance that the ID movement is not only based on organisms being too complicated to come from natural means. I would stand on the ground of logic. The big answer that the Darwinist can't answer is how can a living organism come from non-living matter? Only a God that is beyond natural limits is logical in my view. Keep up the vids!
berrytc44 1 year ago
i can see if you an i were to debate creation - evolution we may debate all year.... so i will keep it simple. firstly congratulations you have more sence than richard dawkins honestly, but my qestion is how from your viewpoint are atoms created, and is it by chance they are created.... its just there are alot of them to be chance and the matter had a begining...
modernrocks 1 year ago
FINALLY! Now I know what "falsifiability" means!
I never understood that, but now I see why science implemented that rule, to stop dumb things from getting into science
Thank you Al!
BlankPicketSign 2 years ago
"the G word" lol
flangleelgnalf 2 years ago
HAHAHAHA i nearly died when you gritted your teeth and hissed, 'intelligent design' - damn, now i have to rewind and start again because i was too busy giggling!
ellymellyvids 2 years ago
You've inspired me almost as much as morrie shwarts.
WigglesThePirate 2 years ago
Isn't creative design just another wierder word for darwinism? We are obviously designed seeing as nothing lacks a design and it could be construed as intelligent or at least superior.
EpiDot52 2 years ago
EpiDot52 - Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker goes into this exact question: how could living organisms that seem to have design be created through natural processes.
Albert10110 2 years ago
no no. I'm saying that we were created by natural processes (I agree) but we are designed and that design was superior to other designs (natural selection) therefore they could be considered intelligent design
EpiDot52 2 years ago
EpiDot52 - Uh, sure. If you redefine "intelligent design" to mean the exact opposite of its intended meaning then that would be true. Although you would confuse the term "intelligent" with a natural process that has no intent, motivation, or reasoning capability.
Albert10110 2 years ago 2
@EpiDot52
I see where your coming from =^_^= I thought the same way
Just because something looks complex and awesome doesn't mean natural "non-intelligent" processes couldn't have made them
Gems for example have a molecular structure that looks hand made and designed, but in reality its just chemistry acting normal
Humans were not designed by something intelligent, we were designed by the unfit humans dieing, and the fit humans living. Its the Non-Random selection of Randomly changing parts
BlankPicketSign 2 years ago
When you say 'intelligent design' with gritted teeth like that, you look like Dick Cheney. Creepy! Very! That man scares me to no end!
Other than my own phobia, once again, wonderful video.
graaar 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
mmm...
atheism is falsifiable or non-falsifiable?...
falsifiable...
doesn't necessarily mean it's false...
non-falsifiable...
...can possibly be shown to be possibly false...
i know...
its not a theory...
...mmm..
i wonder...
Castrate666 2 years ago
JC ROCKS!
kidjade7 2 years ago
Your response about Pascal's wager was a valied point, but would it be cheeky to point out that you are specially targetting Christianity in your posts.
THINKER43 2 years ago
Darwinism isn't falsifiable.
RebelRay 2 years ago
I'm assuming by "Darwinism", you meant evolution as a whole.
Evolution is falsifiable. Hypothetically, you could falsify it by finding an example of a modern organism that evolution predicts evolved from a prior organism, existing in an era before its supposed ancestor. Like finding a pelican skeleton in a layer of strata dated before the arrival of archaeopteryx.
You could also map the genetics of a creature living today, whose genes don't lend themselves to coming from prior organisms.
melancholyid 2 years ago 2
science say my great great grandpa is a monkey. I say ney, hes a primate
Nades129 2 years ago
OK then, can you falsify the current theory of the Standard Model of the Universe? Or Einstein's theory of Special Relativity? No? Then I suppose it is not Science and must be incorrect...
StefSSU 2 years ago
StefSSU: Google for "experimental basis special relativity". And by "Standard Model of the Universe", do you mean "Standard Model of Particle Physics"?
The only way we know that these two are real is because they are subjected to experimentation and prove to still be valid. I don't understand what you are trying to say. Do you think scientists just make this up and do not back it up with empirical evidence at all?
Albert10110 2 years ago
sorry, never mind. I understand now what you were trying to say about falsifiable, and I agree. However, you must agree that the idea that there is no higher power, is also not falsifiable, therefore the only logical view is that of an agnostic (me), leaning towards a religion just in case (pascals wager), besides I believe that religion is very useful in bringing out good in people, even if it is wrong.
StefSSU 2 years ago
StefSSU: I don't agree that agnosticism is the ONLY logical view. Technically, I'm agnostic since I don't "know" that God or gods don't exist. But I also don't "know" that Santa Claus exists. I have reasons why Santa Claus is implausible, so I go ahead and say he doesn't exist even though I'm only 99% sure instead of 100%.
Pascal's Wager is a sleazy argument that uses fear of fire and brimstone instead of rational argument. Are you a vegetarian "just in case" Hinduism is the true religion?
Albert10110 2 years ago
Good to see you understand that in order for a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable.
Please explain how "survival of the fittest" is falsifiable.
[I think I hear crickets.]
Wwallace67 3 years ago
Wwallace67: "Fitness" is a definition about a disposition to survival in a certain environment, rather than a theory in and of itself. It is sort of like asking if "F=ma" is falsifiable, instead of saying it is a definition of "force".
Perhaps you were asking what would falsify evolution, in which case the short answer is the JBS Haldane quote "rabbit fossils in the Precambrian".
Albert10110 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Your understanding of science is clouded by your hatred of religion.
Rabbit fossils in the Precambrian would merely change the way biologists draw their tree of life.
F=m*a is falsifiable, and was in fact falsified, in that a != F/m when v (velocity) approaches the speed of light. Newtons laws of motion, which, unlike the theory of evolution, actually provided falsifiable positive statements.
Wwallace67 3 years ago
//Rabbit fossils in the Precambrian would merely change the way biologists draw their tree of life. //
I disagree. If a fossil for an animal that previously appeared only in the recent fossil record popped up in Precambrian rock, scientists would be hard pressed to fit it into the current evolutionary tree. It would certainly be a start in falsifying evolutionary theory.
crazyquads 3 years ago 6
Man, you're dumb.
Zickddot 3 years ago
And you're brilliant.
Wwallace67 3 years ago
"survival of the fittest"
This is basically shorthand to say that those that survive and breed more successfully will see their traits [and genes] passed into subsequent generations more often.
If it could be shown that the traits [and genes] which enhanced reproductive success did not have any effect on the distribution of these traits [or genes] in future generations, "survival of the fittest" would be falsified.
kshackleton 2 years ago
their "scientific" theory could also explain snowflakes
KempsGrl 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Albert10110 What you're are saying here is falsifiable. "Christians couldn't get christian theoligy taught in public school so they tried to get ID taught." This is not true. Michael Behe is a Cathoilc, and so is Kenneth Miller. ID is not taught in Catholic school.
Oliver1456 3 years ago
He didnt say ID is taught in Catholic school. He said that Creationists tried to get it taught in public schools and failed in the 80s. They then changed their rhetoric to that of ID. ID may not be orthodox and has been discouraged by the Vatican but it is a form of christian theology and not science.
AtheistMentat 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wow, you're a walking text-book? or reading a promptor? er? lol? do you use mouthwash?
not trying to be impolite, but were you an A-student?
1ojak1 3 years ago
The weakest part of the creationist argument is complexity. It would have been great if the video dissembled the complexity (teleological) argument. However, by demonstrating that there is no clear divided what is complex and what is not showed the actual weakness in the creationist argument.
omiteru 3 years ago
"there are laws and principals that our minds have not evolved enough to be able to grasp."
There is also a natural sex ratio at birth estimated to be close to 1.1 males/female.
Think about that for awhile.
cpluscoder 3 years ago
how is something created from nothing?
sharinganker 3 years ago
"How is something created from nothing?"???
That is quite an interesting question. This is a question that theist have never been able to answer.
omiteru 3 years ago
Isn't the mind an amazing organ? 80% water.
Built in months, capturing images and learning teachings in years. Enlightened through decades.
80% water.
cpluscoder 3 years ago
I'm not sure I agree with the Popperian position that to be science is to be falsifiable.
Lots of contemporary astrophysics and sub-atomic physics work fail to admit of much in the way of falsifiable claims. Work on the big bang, the continuity of time, the existence of a multiverse, and string theory are a few of the examples of non-falsifiable-but-still-scientific theories.
Furthermore, it's really easy to make bad theories (like ID) falsifiable with some simple ad hoc additions to the theory.
NathanZimmerman 3 years ago 2
If only I and you were gay :(
smithy501 3 years ago
neither youm nor venomfangX will convert any believer (nonbeliever) to your camp.
gotta find some other way to convince people, because mostly, believers don't understand the scientific formalism. they just need something to "feel" something for
so how do we make atheism more emotional, more appealing to people?
and why? why not just do stuff to neutralize the possible fanatic behaviour of religious people? give the people their right to be stupid, cuz they can't change.
De4sher 3 years ago
I have an idea! Lets take a play right out of the Christian book (no, not *that* book...), by modifying one of their more common emotionally appealing statements to fit atheism!
"The lack of proof of the existence of a supernatural God loves you!"
Er... wait... This idea might need some tinkering...
Obsidianorb 3 years ago
Hrm... that last comment was supposed to be a response to De4sher, when he said:
"Gotta find some other way to convince people, because mostly, believers don't understand the scientific formalism. they just need something to "feel" something for
so how do we make atheism more emotional, more appealing to people?"
Obsidianorb 3 years ago
You rock.
Ruccrols 3 years ago
I love you
Dutchbag 3 years ago
Actually, the idea behind ID that's being presented as the backbone of the argument is "Irreducible Complexity", not JUST complexity. Complexity is too vague and relative to quantify, but they have phrased it in a way to insist a completely falsifiable theory, since the idea of "Irreducible" can be quantified by measuring the maximum functionality of something still considered to be living (bacterial flagellum, in this case). But conveniently enough for atheists, it HAS been refuted.
psymon208 3 years ago
I did hear about an argument about DNA being a language and no language has ever come about from something with no mind. It's the strongest argument I've heard for the existence of a god/creator, but I still don't subscribe to religion.
kemup 3 years ago
DNA is simply a pair of RNA strands fused together. There are only four kinds of nucleotides on each strand. The "message" sent by DNA is just a chemical reaction determined by which nucleotides come together and where. This is not a language, just cause and effect.
So good news, you're completely justified in not subscribing to any religion.
number1historybuff 3 years ago
No it's not a language, it's a blueprint,
cpluscoder 3 years ago
cpluscoder: Both "language" and "blueprint" are analogies to try to explain what DNA and RNA do. I think an even better analogy than "blueprint" is "recipe": Changing one small part of a blueprint usually only affects that local area of the building. Changing one small part of a recipe can create drastically different food (or maybe not affect much at all, or make the food even tastier).
Albert10110 3 years ago
I call seconds.
graaar 3 years ago
Everybody should listen to this. Good synthesis.
arsenelupin123 3 years ago
ledge
lopazthespastic 3 years ago
hey Al what do you think about this argument for What else would have "kicked off" the chain in the first place? There must be a "First Cause" that created the chain and acts outside of it.
Some suggest that the chain of cause-and-effect extends backwards forever. This is impossible:
an infinite amount of causes and effects could only take place if the past were infinite. Yet if the past were infinite, you couldn't be reading this right now; you couldn't experience a present moment.
DEFMAN67 4 years ago
I'd add that just because we do not necessarily know that yet, the leap from 'we don't know' to 'it must have been god' is flawed logic.
graaar 3 years ago
Yay Albert! A very good, accessible introduction to falsificationism. I would argue (or add) that cretin science in theory would be falsifiable- it makes strong, testable predictions about the age of the earth, for example. It just descends into ad hoc modifications and similar asininity when those predictions aren't met- then, it becomes unfalsifiable.
Also, what is your take on the Duhem-Quine Thesis? I'm still pondering it.
killerlimpet 4 years ago
This guy Albert ROCKS!!! And by the way, I think he is totally hot! :)
hbousq 4 years ago
I belive in ID, Xe'naga gave form to the Zerg and protoss so to say that they did not make the terrans is just retarded
rafen8705 4 years ago
"I belive in ID, Xe'naga gave form to the Zerg and protoss so to say that they did not make the terrans is just retarded"
Oh yeah, totally. But who created the Xel'Naga? Maybe they evolved!
soulhunger1 4 years ago
Yea I meant to say Xel'naga, Yea they most liky evolved but they also got their ass kicket by the zerg so evelution be damned.
rafen8705 4 years ago
numbers=ownage
StardustPro12 4 years ago
brilliant video
5 star all the way
hammy606 4 years ago 2
Al, you should hang out with VenomFangX. Mabey some of your logic would rub off on him.
busymartian 4 years ago 2
You've got it ALL wrong.
It's because GOD, made it that way.
or
God, making that way since a long time ago.
or
God: That guy who makes it that way.
something along those lines anyway.
Great video!
jimsartor 4 years ago
I think you're right about science and atheism. Atheism would be supported by science in regards to evolution and there being no creator. You come across as very intelligent in your blogs with always a lot of knowledge to back your opinions. Have you thought of being a scientist some day? :)
HaleyMary 4 years ago
I would argue that irreducible complexity is falsifiable in the sense that all examples of IC have been falsified (flagella, immune system, etc).
ren5311 4 years ago
high quality. very basic argument but nicely put. but oh well, for people who believe in ID, it has to be put basically. funny and creative as well. five star! i'll be very interested to talking to u in ID and atheism.
SirDoyle 4 years ago
Kinda not that important, but you said "non-falsifiable theories". Something that is non-falsefiable wouldn't be considered a theory in the scientific usage of the word, because a theory has to be falsefiable.
siredward800 4 years ago
i am getting the feeling that you know are very very smart
Saurim0 4 years ago
rAmen
baldur26 4 years ago
2(3)
You obviously already know much on the subject. I'm just saying it is a fun read and you will likely learn something new from it.
Complete transcript
w w w talkorigins org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover html
Summary of resources at bottom of page.
Kevin Padians visual slides
w w w sciohost org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript html
Kenneth Millers slides exist somewhere. Might be found with an effort.
cont...
oo303 4 years ago
3(3)
500 word sux.
Finally, if anyone reads KvD. Beforehand read Wikipedias short blurb on the 'melon test'.
en wikipedia org/wiki/Lemon_v _Kurtzman
(replace all space with '.')
The constant 'prong' this or 'prong' that I thought was legaleese is in reality the very core of the case. The 'effects prong', 'purpose prong' are part of the 'lemon test'.
oo303 4 years ago
1(3)
Let me suggest you (Albert) a reading materiel. Read the Kitzmiller-Dover trial (all of it, not just the verdict). I'm sure you'll find it enjoyable and illuminating. In total it gives a very broad and deep coverage of creationism history in the US and about all the issues. Everything is discussed, the blodclotting cascade, Newton, the philosophy of science, Cambrian explosion, there's drama, humor, and unimagined depths of tomfoolery.
Continue ...
oo303 4 years ago
I love you. I watched your video twice just to make sure you were a real person. I want to give you my number but not where everyone here can see. I find myself wondering if whether or not your release inside me will transfer some of your brilliance or not. =D
gagolplap 4 years ago
Superb logical argumentation. And very funny. But you should slow down a little. The average creationist cant follow such a pace. :D
Faidros62 4 years ago
ur more like a jew
XEDOARIKX 4 years ago
Are you a debater?
Citeen 4 years ago
Nice video. Erudite and amusing; a full five stars to you, sir.
Sqrrl101 4 years ago
I dunno, I see it like.
Religion-Philosophy<>Mathematics-Science
Religion and science are too ends of the spectrum. I don't see them coming into conflict. I see their conflict as formed and unnatural no different.
Sikkario 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i'm pretty sure YOU ARE A FAGGOT LMFAO
chillipeppa777 4 years ago
"because god made it that way?"
mucura1 4 years ago
To me it seems like an educated holy man, is not afraid of science, and foolish scientist fears religion. Vice versa as well. The two are not at odds and if are poster were to think on it more, religion seems to be fairly necessary for all cultures, thus its elimination only results in sermons on its non existence, which is also, a sort of faith.
Sikkario 4 years ago
Necessary for all cultures? Ish, just becuase it was present in all cultures, does'nt mean it was necessary. Murder and rape were probably present in all cultures as well.
sighuponsigh 4 years ago
It seems as if he's thought about the subject a fair amount.
Incidentally, there is a direct correlation between secularism and a low crime rate in societies. Is this evidence that atheists are somehow more moral than theists? Of course not, but it goes some way to demonstrating that "religion seems to be fairly necessary for all cultures" may not be true, especially in our modern age.
Sqrrl101 4 years ago
"Iran strives to revive the golden age of Persian science. The country has increased its publication output nearly tenfold from 1996 through 2004, and has been ranked first in terms of output growth rate"
Islam is vital in Iran, the country is very science oriented. The two do not find themselves in opposition to eachother because they value the nature of each pursuit. Yet the video maker claims that religion and science are at odds. Why is Iran so successful?
Sikkario 4 years ago
IMO, which is all it is, religion exists because of human nature, some of which would be greed, love, and selfishness. (Not caring that ppl goto Hell as long as you goto Heaven, reuniting with loved ones, immortality) What other attractives aspects does religion have to offer?
sighuponsigh 4 years ago
Countries like Israel, and Turkey, openly support organized religion and elude to God heavily, but at the same time, are also leading hubs for scientific work, even Iran, a non-secular state, super theological state, is a leading scientific research state, I don't see how or why you worry about or are offended by the falsity or correctness of the existence of God. I mean you go through all teh trouble of making this video while in countries where true theocracy exist, there is no problem.
Sikkario 4 years ago
well, perhaps you can do scientific research in iran.
but when you find out something that is in conflict with islam, you need to make it fit or your life is in danger.
unfortunately all religions are in conflict with reality. oh, and tell me... in what fields of research are theocracies successful?
kurtilein3 4 years ago
Anyways, the 3 things I meantioned are not things I would like. Does anyone ever even stop to think about heaven and immotality, is it just me that thinks it would be boring. And why would God sending his imperfect creations to fuck up his perfect world. Is'nt that what we're doing here now? >.>
sighuponsigh 4 years ago
i forgot one thing though.. you have to break the code before you understand what it says.. but your smart i know you'll find the formula.. if not hmm i'll just click your topics if i need info..
letitbe1027 4 years ago
as the title of one of your videos fair and balanced do you really think that you are fair with this one. again you sound like a low chips database.. who reads information on the internet based on the writings of other people.. but knows nothing about the books of the believers.. come on ur smart you can do better that.. read the books all of them so as you can be fair.
letitbe1027 4 years ago
etitbe1027: I have read the Bible. It's curious the accusation of "You haven't read our holy book, on what basis do you judge?", or "You've been reading books, but not the *right* kind of books".
This is completely useless, because you don't address ANY the arguments I make. It's simply avoiding my arguments and throwing more burdens and tasks on me before I can express an opinion on this topic. For many who make these accusations, I can *never* have enough knowledge to satisfy them.
Albert10110 4 years ago
Informative and very entertaining, I've just subscribed and I want more! 5 stars
Pythol 4 years ago
was the bible written by schizophrenics? Help me understand Albert.
20MOJO20 4 years ago
I might also add here that all knowledge is, of course, fallible: as I suggested earlier. Because of this, there are gaps in our knowledge about biology - just as there are gaps in our knowledge about all things. This is likely to always be the case. To suggest that all that needs to be known about biology is already known, and it can be found in a text some thousands of years old - would seem to me to be not only a ludicrously anti-intellectual stance to take, but also a supremely arrogant one.
brhalluk 4 years ago
What is the "creation" model, exactly? Does the creation model explain the existence of the fossil record? Can it make any useful predictions? Which creation theory do you subscribe to exactly? The one of the King James bible or the Quaran? If it is the Bible you rely upon, why do you consider that book a reliable resource?
brhalluk 4 years ago
complete ownage yet again. I'm starting to love this guy.
naejimba 4 years ago
Dude... SMOOTH. Seriously, you put this to words better than I ever could have. I'd be stuttering and humming and hawing so much :p Charming, I hope this brings some people to their senses.
tyciol 4 years ago
Amazing... awesome.
aljimilah 4 years ago
Damn you're good.
Kunjaku 4 years ago
i agre with you, but still press on for answers.
tomboygirl41 4 years ago
Ultra win to you for Pastafarianism.
dantestorment 4 years ago
Are you in a bathroom?
truehaas2090 4 years ago
This is the most inane argument I've heard after listening to many on youtube. Evolution and ID are models used to explore historical evidence. Niether are falsifiable, only their predictions are. Anyone care to provide the means by which evolution can be falsified?
raygarrettjr 4 years ago
Sure. Evolution could be found false if the fossil record did not show changes in the species. Or if we found species that had evolutionary inexplicable traits from species that were not related (e.g. a chimera). Or, if we lacked vestigial body parts that implied an evolutionary history (e.g. appendix, wisdom teeth).
Albert10110 4 years ago
There is no such thing as vestigial parts. I eat with my wisdom teeth--the appendix fights disease. Also, a tricycle, motorcycle, Mack truck, and space shuttle all appear to have evolutionary explicable traits. Just because something is imagined doesn't make it so. Proof is required at the molecular level. Show me how DNA formed without protein synthase.
raygarrettjr 4 years ago
The appendix can be removed without too much trouble. Indeed, inform people who have had appendicitis just how intelligently designed they believe their bodies are. Proof is required? Science is not about proof: mathematics and other deductive types of reasoning are. Science is about explaining phenomena in the best way; in other words constructing the strongest (falsifiable) theories around the available evidence.
brhalluk 4 years ago
I might also add that "That motorcycle over there evolved from something else without the intervention of an intelligent designer" is a falsifiable theory that I, and any reasonable person is able to falsify given the time and inclination.
brhalluk 4 years ago
BRhalluk, My Leg can be removed without too much trouble as well; that doesn't make it vestigial. How might I falsify a claim that a man and ape had the same ancestor or short necked giraffes evolved into long necked giraffes. What if I provided proof of a reticulating valve in a Giraffe's neck that is only relevant because of the long neck? What if I showed mathematically that too many generations would be required for apes and man to have a common ancestor by random mutation?
raygarrettjr 4 years ago
If your leg is removed you will have much trouble: walking, balancing and so forth. There really is a great advantage to human legs: the appendix, not so. Again, if we are intelligently designed: what is it about appendicitis that is so intelligent? What about our knee joints (I could design something far more useful) - how about the blindspot - place the optic nerve BEHIND the retina would be my suggestion.
brhalluk 4 years ago
The list of unintelligent design is long and preposterous - wonderful evidence of blind evolution - wonderful evidence there was NO intelligent designer. We might suggest things like myopia and disease of all types, we might think of micarriages ("god" is the greatest abortionist of all), we can point to all manner of bad design. But most of all...
brhalluk 4 years ago
As with all those who object to good science it is reasonable to ask: then what? What theory do you have that is able to explain all that evolution by natural selection can and more? What theory do you have that can predict things like bacterial resistance to antibiotics, the existence of fossils, the fact DNA between close species is so similar, etc, etc. What theory explains all of these phenomena better than Darwinism?
brhalluk 4 years ago
Actually, they explain disease and bad mutations either by a cruel designer, or by a designer with a hidden purpose for our suffering.
tyciol 4 years ago
You would need to show proof that man and ape's oldest common ancestors were not the same ancestor, or really, provide a better explanation.
tyciol 4 years ago
Tyciol, first you would have to prove that man and ape had a common ancestor before I could disprove it.
Also, a better explanation is that an omnipotent God created everything in 6 literal days. Please explain why your solution is better than mine. Please-O-Please say proof!
raygarrettjr 4 years ago
Science is not about proof. It is about providing the best explanation for what we observe in the world. The strength of science is that it can always be revised and improved upon. Like ALL knowledge, it is fallible. Science admits to this. Religious dogma pretends to be certain about things it is not certain about. It also arrogantly presumes to know things about cosmology and biology that no scientists claims to (yet) have answers for.
brhalluk 4 years ago
The evidence that man has a common ancestor with other living things on this earth is provided by the fact that their DNA is so similar. This is not the only observation that requires explanation but for illustrative purposes, it should serve. The theory that "God created everything..." creates vastly more problems than it solves. It leaves one with questions about the nature and purpose of this God.
brhalluk 4 years ago
brhalluk, guess you haven't read the latest research about so-called junk DNA. Turns out DNA is not so similar after all; check out the article in science magazine. Friend, science is about proof and it proves there are more problems with the evolutionary model than with creation.
raygarrettjr 4 years ago
Junk DNA has been known about for many, many years: it is hardly some kind of new discovery. What is important is not the junk DNA - but rather the genome: the set of your genes (the non-junk). Your genome is very similar to that of apes, less so to that of other animals. What is the best explanation for this similarity?
brhalluk 4 years ago
"Guess you haven't read the latest research about so-called junk DNA." - raygarrettjr
Well I guess you haven't, either. The "junk DNA" that has been spoken of recently has to do with the "non-proper" genes -- that is, the ones which do not directly translate into proteins. This still does not have anything to do with Human Endogenous Retroviruses, LINE-1, alus, transposons, retrotransposons, etc.. And their lineages are all still traceable through the species by code variations through time.
TrenchantAtheist 4 years ago
When speaking on "junk DNA", the sciences are explaining the nuances of evolution, not refuting it. Read closer.
As far as the dissimilarities caused by deletions, they are already explained by a phenomenon called "sexual antagonism". I highly recommend you look this up.
TrenchantAtheist 4 years ago
And as brhalluk has explained, our knowledge [about genetics] is not complete. There are two basic models for comparing two sets of DNA, but one has the problem of not accounting for deletions in code (assuming 100% similarity in deleted code), and the other assumes they are 100% dissimilar. In truth, it is most likely that the similarity lies somewhere between 0 and 100%, but we cannot truly know exactly where because the information has been lost.
TrenchantAtheist 4 years ago
In the end, whether we share 98% or 92% of our DNA with chimpanzees, and whether we share 50% or 46% of our DNA with bananas, the point is the same: evolution can explain this, and religion cannot.
TrenchantAtheist 4 years ago
For clarity's sake, I believe that the latest figure researchers have come out with is around 95.6% similarity with the common Chimpanzee. The point stands, though.
Sqrrl101 4 years ago
To change the subject a bit, I would like to ask you a question, raygarrett:
What is your explanation for why your creator would 'design' a molecule -- RNA, whose job it is to copy & replicate DNA -- that cannot copy & replicate DNA **properly** (i.e. Huntington's cholera, which is based on RNA's frequent failure to keep count of how many "CAG"s are in a line of code).
TrenchantAtheist 4 years ago
No I'm sorry to tell you that: it is only suspected that the Appendix possibly helps people's immune system, but there are documented cases of humans born with no appendix, and they have no gastric or immune system problems. Also people have Appendectomies and there are no known side effects from the procedure, so I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the Human Appendix is for all intents and purposes; a vestigial organ.
Purpleninja42 4 years ago
as the previous response stated, many ideas you proposed are ideas that I have accepted. Good job stringing them together in a rational video.
mtded 4 years ago
Oh wow, i had reachecd a lot of your points myself but i would never have been able to pull it all together like that for some time. Thanks for making things more clearer for me :D
WhiteVsRed 4 years ago
RAmen. Go FSM!
inxorabl 4 years ago
"The sun is really hot" isn't falsifiable. "really hot" is subjective. A statement like "The sun is hotter than my light bulb" would be falsifiable.
kennygraham 4 years ago
Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things.
Albert10110 4 years ago
can't help it. it's so rare that i find a flaw in any of your videos that i just had to pounce! keep up the good work.
kennygraham 4 years ago
kennygraham I'm sure he knows that, it was just an example to explain the concept without going into detail.
olenikm 4 years ago
Awesome - subscribed on the strength of this video.
askegg 4 years ago
Please get a better camera... Good work otherwise.
IdleGod 4 years ago
i'd just like to point out that Al atleast manages to discuss his beliefs without insulting other people's or assuming that his are 'nonfalsifiable', despite being able to give actual supporting evidence. it would be nice if people commenting on him could do the same
ramstar28 4 years ago
<3 you
darksagerk 4 years ago
I thought you were talking too fast at first until I realised that you had to fit a huge amount of information into a 10-minute video. Fine for a YouTube video, but if you ever present to a live audience, slow it down a bit!
Very well researched and cogent arguments, by the way.
surfdude000 4 years ago
Hey buddy, calm down!
GeorgeM007 4 years ago
Stop talking so fast!
AmuliusIV 4 years ago
I'd have sex with you.
as long as you wear that bandana.
SpanishBassist 4 years ago
I couldnt agree more with everything you said. Please, run for president. Thanks.
Beebostomp 4 years ago
lol, that'd be awesome. I think the Mike Gravel/Albert10110 ticket would run straight to the white house. lol
DblOSmith 4 years ago
Oh and you have to read my comment from the bottom ones up because YouTube doesn't allow more than 500 characters a comment. Thanks!
AdamShumpisxXx 4 years ago
Which is what my belief on science boils down to: A bunch of liars proving themselves right. I'm not militant or anything with my Christian views I just wanted to just throw my change in the bucket. Thanks for the video and I really hope you get in touch with me.
AdamShumpisxXx 4 years ago
Oh, I don't think science is all bad. You aren't dying of polio right now, after all. Don't you think you might be exaggerating a bit?
Albert10110 4 years ago
With science I can prove my bad ass computer is in fact your dog. That doesn't mean it's right but I'm more than positive with the step-by-step process of science (I think it's like hypothesize, single variable, experiment, conclusion or whatever the hell high school was on about) I can come to any conclusion I desire...as long as I make science give me the answer I desire.
AdamShumpisxXx 4 years ago
Please, I'd love to hear an argument that your computer is my dog scientifically. I gotta hear it. If you can do it, I'll praise Jesus right along with you.
DblOSmith 4 years ago
I want to hear that one as well. More likely, though, I expect to hear an explanation that proves little understanding or actual science.
melancholyid 4 years ago
Here's the thing...I care little about whether something is understood by you or scientific. The burden of proof is on neither of us. I believe in what I have faith in because I see it as the only truth that applies to my life. You could perhaps not because you don't see fact in it and need the proof. Like I said to "DblOSmith"...this conversation is moot.
AdamShumpisxXx 4 years ago
The fact of the matter is I'm not a good enough liar to prove this but if you took my statement as what it was meant for you'd understand what point I was trying to make. Your dog can bark, has 4 legs, and is black let's say. Your computer can be forced to do and be those same things.
AdamShumpisxXx 4 years ago
They'll bend relationships between items to put you in a perspective where you can see that their theory has to be at least 99.99% right. But then again...given 5 choices when none of them are completely right, what can happen? I'm not even writing to you to get you to worship Jesus. Do what you want. This conversation is obviously moot.
AdamShumpisxXx 4 years ago
Heh, "this conversation is moot", translated means, "I don't feel like discussing this when I need things like "evidence", or "proof", or "making any sense".
melancholyid 4 years ago