Michael Shermer 1/5 (The Amazing Meeting 3)

[mmahji]

Please explain why is the video 4/5 not posted nor the video 5/5 for Million dollar Challenge not posted? This is extremely agravating!!!

[haldarin]

At 4 min and 50 sec. There are actually 9 two by two squares :P

4 three by three squares, 1 four by four square and 16 1 by one squares.

Adds up to 30 ;)

[sethmusic]

@haldarin isnt that exactly what he said?

[drhoobad]

Anyone else think he looks like a young, American Jonathan Pryce?

[flexicon1996]

This is Bacon's best stuff and Shermer does a good job giving an overview.

[Baburote]

Idols are the profouded fallacies of the mind of men.

Bacon says...

So making him an idol would be faulty - that was my contradiction. Not so important I know - but I could not help notice.

[Baburote]

Just a littel critic.

8:20 making Bacon an idol kontradikts the message.

[sumvlac]

@Baburote

Did you meant to say a LITTLE CRITIQUE about how quoting Bacon CONTRADICTS the message? I have to ask because you might not have.

[Baburote]

I am danich - we say kritik he he

I guess I did not fully comprehend the idol of Bacon the first time I saw and heard it. It seemed as if the distorted mind would not make way to any scientific truth - hence a contradiction, but I might be wrong. A scientific truth is truthful as long as a majority or the most kunning say it is so -

[ragnarlava]

@sumvlac

Did you mean to say: DID YOU MEAN TO SAY?

[BRtankbuster]

Great video.

One comment: Shermer is the author of "Why DARWIN matters", not "Why Dawkins matters" LOL :p

[ProphecyChanger]

Spirit tests spirit

Science tests science

[pinochska]

1 out of 2 correct...

[dafyddoe]

Science tests science

Distillers test spirit

[Bockatadi]

it would have been neat to see Carl Sagan speak at these meetings.

[fokuzt]

Bacon was not only a rosicrucian, he was an 'alchemist'. Both of which are ,to put it plainly, based on magic and spirituality. Seems like an odd choice of subject to chose in a demonstration on scepticism.

[NecrosisOfLight]

Because the systematic search for the icons of alchemy inadvertently created a vast array of experimental data for chemists. Additionally, he had what could be called the first scientific view of nature

[pratinus]

alchemy at the time was not so far fetched, its only in today's context that it seems obsurd.

[Otwieracz]

Omar Khayyam wasn't a tent maker, his father was. Omar Khayyam was a poet, astronomer and mathematician.

[xXTheRatXx]

I have a question. Is this before or after mr Shermer got dominated by Kent Hovind. Haha, wish he would be "skeptical" of his own philosophy! Just because you can get a natural explanation for the operation of the universe doesn't mean you can get a natural explanation for the origin of it. Michael Shermer fails to distinguish what is science from what is his dogma.

[djchubakka]

Are you serious? How about it's hard to debate a liar. Hovind is a liar. Shermer didn't have to debate him because with what hovind presented he both doesn't understand most of the scientific theories and the ones he might actually comprehend... he lies about. Hovind is in jail. Shermer is a respected author. There are ONLY natural explanations for the universe. There has never been evidence for any supernatural forces anywhere.

[xXTheRatXx]

Hovind is not a lier. He's in jail because he made some stupid decisions. It always seems to be the excuse: "he just doesn't understand evolution".

DNA consists of millions of nucleotides that must be in the exact specific order to give all of life's instructions. The order of the base pairs however, means nothing unless there is a language system to read it. But, the language system itself is encoded in the DNA! Try to get that by chance. Molecular biology is "evidence for supernatural forces"

[djchubakka]

DNA didn't come first. Work that out.

[xXTheRatXx]

what came first then? And then were did the coded instructions come from?

I mean honestly, what natural processes have the ability to produce a design,(note that's produce not modify)?

The only logical explanation for the design we see in the universe is "In the beginning God". Naturalism can not account for the amazing design. Send me a private message if you'd like to discuss more. :- )

[djchubakka]

Wow. You really don't understand the process of evolution.

[xXTheRatXx]

"you just don't understand!" --I obviously understand how it works better than you. Darwin's observations account for variation with in kind, not increase in complexity. like I said before, when evolutionists don't have an answer, they tell you that you just don't understand the theory.

It's not even really a theory. It is a religious dogma that has replaced Christianity in the schools. It's no wonder our ethics have hit rock bottom.

[djchubakka]

Talking out of your ass. All of biology is based on the theory... and it works. We find more and more evidence every year. It's survived the onslaught of creationists for 150 years. Something doesn't have to become more complex to evolve. Everytime you talk about evolution you present a strawman that has nothing to do with evolution.

[xXTheRatXx]

"Something doesn't have to become more complex to evolve."-- On a molecules to man level, yes it does. On a reptile to bird level, yes it does. on an ape to man level, yes it does. Like I asked before, what evolutionary process produces design? All we observe is modification of design. That's all Darwin observed: variation within kind. The rest is pure imagination. There is no evidence for molecules to man evolution.

[djchubakka]

There is evidence for primate to man (which is also a primate)...amphibian to mammal... fish to amphibian. Land mammal to see mammal.

That's evolution. We're not sure how "life" orignated, but goddidit is not an answer, there's plenty of research being done to find out.

Still, evolution doesn't require increased conplexity. But it can increase complexity. The eye evolved.

[djchubakka]

You are completely wrong. Period. Hang onto those delusions tightly apparently your would would fall apart if youa accepted reailty.

[Drewdood]

"There's no transitions"

Acanthostega, Archaeopteryx, Ambulocetus, Artiocetus, Aetiocetus, Australopithecus, to not even leave the "A's".

"What evolutionary process can create information?"

If you define DNA as "information" evolution easily explains how more "information" can be created; it's called mutation.

"THAT is the ONLY logical 'answer'."

It is the least logical and needs a visit from Ockham and his razor.

"It most certainly did not evolve."

It most certainly did.

[Goryus]

Your responses show a very evident lack of understanding as to how Evolution works.

Mutations are not always destructive.

Genetic recombination is a bigger factor than mutations are.

The eye is such a great case for how evolution happens that it was specifically used in Charles Darwin's original treatise, the Origin of Species, as an example of the process.

[Drewdood]

"Archaeopteryx is a bird!"

Correct, it is classified as a bird. However, it has distinctly dinosaurian traits such as teeth, no bill, neck attached to skull from the rear, long bony tail, claws on three unfused digits, to name only a few. It is a perfect example of a transition, as are the other examples despite what lies AiG has on their ridiculous website.

"loss in information."

Absolutely wrong. The "nylon bug" is an example of information being added by a frame shift mutation.

[Drewdood]

Do a Google search for "nylon bug" and the first page should be the NMSR website which explains how this beneficial addition of information occurred and addresses AiG's responses and shows how technically illiterate those unqualified charlatans at AiG are.

"send me a private message"

I have no delusion of convincing you, but I won't let you possibly misguide others with your nonsense.

"the eye is no acception"

If the eye was designed by God was is it built upside-down and backwards?

[tommyk77]

Answers in Genesis freely admits it will reject any science that does not fit with the Bible.

Oh, and birds don't have teeth. Archaeopteryx does

[UrinationNation]

Yes there is no "acception" that's for sure. Answers in Genesis is a joke, please don't use it in reference to science, none of them are interested in providing any testable hypothesis, they just say you can't test it I'm right, that's not an argument and it proves nothing, beyond how little they care about discovery and real answers.

[420blazejuggalo]

if an all knowing god gave us the eye he would make it so we could see in the dark, and see poisonous gasses. our eyes arent as perfect as you think. the octopus has better eyesight then we do!

[dojohansen]

You've clearly not understood the theory! Asking what process produces design gives it away; the whole point is that there *is* no design.

In fact, it would be wrong to claim that evolutionary pressures have favoured complexity all the time. In the very early beginnings it might have, but in fact the vast majority of living beings are algea and bacteria - the simplest forms of life we know of.

[TheBadAstronomr]

I like your blue tie. Your sexy Michael

[Clausfarre]

Wonderful! Thanks.