Well someone has said that saying, it sure as heck wasnt pasture. But science does say that nothing cannot create something. It goes against all laws of science that we evolved all the way from ultimately nothing. To answer your question it was Fred Hoyle. He wrote a book on it. It is also the likelihood of throwing 50,000 six's in a row while rolling a die.
@PasonMantato761 actually that is not entirely true. it is possible for something to come from nothing, only in pairs, and only that pair of objects destroy each other, around a microsecond or so. this has actually be observed in particle accelerators, such as the LHC.
@PasonMantato761 a pair of elementary, sub-atomic, particles can be created from nothing, as long as they collide to destroy each other to produce the energy for them to be created in the past. technically it is a very, and i mean VERY, crude form of time travel. this is most likely the cause of sub-atomic interactions between base pairs, the theory that explains this is called supersymmetry, granted supersymmetry is now a broad term used for a specific type of quantum theory.
@PasonMantato761 you don't seem to understand what i am saying. i will try to explain it better. in a void, where there literally is absolutely nothing. sub-atomic particles spontaneously create themselves. these particles then collide and explode. the energy used to create these particles is "borrowed" from the "future". these particles are literally created from nothing, and then destroyed. if i need to explain this concept better please let me know.
@PasonMantato761 in a nutshell, yes the energy travels backwards in time. i know i am not explaining this in the best way. the easiest thing to do is to read a book or two on quantum physics.
In the N. hemisphere, tornadoes rotate counterclockwise. If the tornado were capable of DISassembling a 747 you could place the debris in an exact mirror image of where it wound up, and then, if that exact same tornado came along again, it would necessarily assemble the 747 from the debris, always supposing that the wind didn't tear the materials which had been, say, welded together.
I didn't call u a fool because u are christian, i called u a fool because i think ur stupid! im not that dumb. and ur message failed to convert me to christian.
We don't have to know everything, even scientists don't know everything, but we do know about gravity, particles and atoms, matter, light, ect. I know that somehow these forces work together to make our universe work, but since im only 12 and still in middle school, i am not educated enough to explain in more detail. So stop pressuring people into Christianity and god, we have our own beliefs. I choose to believe in atheism and science. Nobody, including you, can change that. So please shut up
i wasnt pressuring you to christianity at all. im just showing you how atheism is false. besides thoes things do work together. BUT they cant controll how orderly our univers is. it would have to be some sort of god or even my God
mnredryder1 its called gravitational pull and the sun. Everything thing works the ways its supposed too if it doesn't it's considered obsolete and is replaced by something that works. It has nothing to do with God or Jesus. Specifically in our world today its all about our leaders, our mistakes, and our decisions that decise how our universe works. So once again you've failed to convert one person in this thread to Christianism, Congratulaions.
"mnredryder1 its called gravitational pull and the sun."
Wrong. It's called disco Jesus power baby!
I've seen Jesus in the sky with my telescope! He was bitchslapping the sun to keep it rotating and using his secret disco powers to attract (no pun intended) the Earth towards the sun.
So we are betting which religion is true. If you win and I lose. You die and nothing happens. YOU don't win anything. If i lose I die and nothing happens. I don't LOSE anything. But if i win and my religion is true. I die and i go to heaven. I WIN BIG TIME! and if you lose and your religion isn't true. YOU WILL GO TO HELL AND BURN FOR ETERNITY! YOU LOSE BIG TIME!
thats why all atheists are FOOLS! not the christians.
mnredryder1, the problem is there are more then one religion. if you die and Zeus is god you lose. there have been about 10,000 differnt religions in history. you and I have the same odds of being right 1 and 10,000. so Atheists are not fools
YEA BUT CAN YOU PROVE THE OTHER GODS ARE REAL. YOU SEE MOST OTHER RELIGIONS HAVE CONTRADICTIONS AND THEREFORE ARE FAULTY. like islam. it is a false religion. it says in some parts to make peace with the jews then it say to kill them.
So now that you are taking a bet that atheism is true lets look at the bets. IM a christian. I believe that anyone who believes in God will go to heaven and anyone who doesnt wont. In your belief when you die nothing happens. you just die. but when i die i go to heaven for eternity.
take a piece of paper and draw a circle. now, lets imagine that every thing in that circle is every thing you know. then write God outside that circle. Question: Is it possible for God to exist outside that circle?
Your answere has to be yes! It can't be no because. You DON'T KNOW THAT!
In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the Wright brothers didn't achieve flight until the 1900's. So, Pasteur couldn't have even known about any airplane, much less a Boeing.
Christianity: the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who is his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Yeah.... makes lots of sense.
Islamicdawah, if early Christians didn't believe in God's son, Jesus Christ(Note that Christ is in the word Christian), how could they be Christian without believing in what Christianity is about, Jesus Christ dying for every single human being?
The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God,"
Psalms 53:1
the only thing the RRS has proven is that without God, people sound like babbleing fools with no points other then "Science says it" yet science still hasent proved evolution, or carbon dating...or anything that could remotely disprove God, I wonder why.. That's right, because God is real.
Right because science cant prove evolution yet it obviously means there is a god. I dont say well science says so and thats why i believe in it. I look at the facts and see if they are conclusive and real. god has a book ohno totally ral.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
wynjones1, I would like to apologise to you. I should have read what you wrote a bit more clearly. It is just that on pretty much every atheist video on Youtube there is some idiot theist posting Bible quotations, and I'm sick of seeing them.
There IS proof of his existance and planned sacrifice of Jesus. If your serious about the truth regaurdless of your up bringing go to biblecodedigestcom I warn you, You will beleive and face the decision of professing it to all. Jesus said "he who is ashamed of me before men, I will be ashamed of before my father" the odds that the codes are by chance are in some cases are as low as 1 in 225,900,with 210 more zero's! proving God super naturally inspired it.
so he was like 100 years off. to quote lewis black, slightly modified for relevence of corse "if you were a roofer, and you built a roof 100 feet off... you'd still be in prision"
Christianity was changed by Paul. The early Christians did not believe God had a son, then Paul changed Christianity and added paganism to it and mythology so the Romans would believe it.
Positions are not valid; the concept of validity is applicable to arguments. Positions, in the form of declarations of belief, are either true or false. What you said in the video is a hypallage.
Specifically, validity is applicable to the form of arguments--and I understand why you said "not a valid position." If you were to apply the proper adjectives to the noun you are using, which are right and wrong, then that would undercut your entire point. Through word games you are dodging the real issue. If theism is right, then atheism--in some forms, using definitions in common currency--would be wrong. It is agnosticism which could not be classified as wrong.
Atheism is the disbelief of a higher being based on scientific facts, logic, and reason. It can therefore be assumed that if any type of theism were to be proven correct atheism would no longer exist because there would be solid evidence supporting a god. So it doesn't ever become "wrong" it just would just fall to pieces.
hey is it too late to cash in on the video offer for the blasphemy challenge? I'd totally be down for it but I'm not sending my soul to eternal damnation unless I get something cool in the process.
"The probability of life arising by chance is the same probability as throwing a six on a dice five million consecutive times...let's be scientifically honest. We all know that the probability of life arising to greater and greater complexity and organization by chance through evolution is the same probability as having a tornado tear through a junkyard and form out the other end a Boeing 747 jetliner!" - Sir Fred Hoyle
Addressing the actual point? You've got no better than a 4th grade understanding of science if you think there was a salient point. Do a google search, or read points from RRS members in this thread for help.
The salient (albeit, incorrect) point being the perceived improbability of the "Giant Leap Formation" that Creationists presume is proposed by abiogenesis theories.
With my "4th grade understanding of science" I'm fully aware of the flaws in this argument, yet your approach was not to discuss issues of deterministic probabilities of life-forming chemical reactions, but to search for the author's year of death on Wikipedia!
You're lucky your "RRS members" are there for you, at least.
Everyone already knows how irrational the giant leap statements are, so going into the details is pointless. Undermining Roaches appeal to authority by disqualifying the quote shows how his comment was stupid. If you were aware the whole point of the video is 'stupidest comment' not 'scientific reasons why the giant leap theories are wrong.'
A clearer way to put it may be that we share a common ancestry with modern fish, but that our paths diverged some 417 million years ago with lungfish, 425 m.y.a. for Coelacanths, and some 500 mya for lampreys and hagfish. Ref. "The Ancestor's Tale" - Dawkins.
One thing I should mention is that, while I am an atheist and I appreciate the Rational Response Squad, Wikipedia is NOT a good source of information. Especially if you consider a recent entry defining Humanism with "The Humanist hates life." or something along those lines as the opening statement. Wikipedia is not a valid source and to use it can make people doubt your arguments. Try peer reviewed reputable academic journals. Thanks.
"Nobody said that humans came from fish. Fish were in our evolutionary tree, ummm far back enough, but ummm, that's not aaahh any direct ascendant in sort of relative timespan...."
"Giraffe blah amoeba blah...."
"We have evidence to show that it happened...."
Wow, that sounds pretty dumb to me! Is it too late for this late entry in the competition?
Pasteur! Jesus, couldn't he make up someone more PROBABLE, at least? I mean, never mind the simile is profoundly flawed (because of that little thing called natural selection) but at least be accurate in the author, or lie less obviously.
Athiest would nor right or right, but astudy of life based on facts, experiments and exploration,. It is factual. If you christians and other religions cant accept that, that is your fault because your stuck in your own little world.
"'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
The person you speak of suffers from Kirk Cameron's little man-friend syndrome: Say dumb things, but make it look good so people believe you. Note: slander atheism, this always gets "them" riled up.
Duhhh, you are clearly dumb at being atheist. Louis Pasteur was so brilliant and fantastic that he predicted the scientific fact of boeing and irreducibly complex things before they even happened. How did an atom evolve?
Seriously stupid comment. You would have to think a bit just to come up with a dumber comment. He misquotes Fred Hoyle, Confuses evolution with atheism, thinks people who don't have his belief should be beaten and think psychological treatment should be used to treat the most rational people.
that was a bad reply i think.. actually your worst reply ever.. first you said a cell could form by accident, when you should rather say its definitly possible to form in a scientific process, unlike a devine creator.
and then you said atheism would always exist, when abviously it would not if there were no theists believing in fairy tales.
Relisten to my words... I did not positively say the words a "cell could form by accident." If there were no theists, everyone would be atheist by default, atheism will likely always exist.
Buddhist, ridicule is thought to be one of the main reasons the KKK is now a fringe group in this country. Please don't underestimate it's effectiveness. [paraphrasing a Sam Harris quote in Truthdig]
A cell didn't form by chance. The first self-replicating molecules, (precursors of DNA) formed by chance ~3.8 billion years ago and evolved into the common ancestor over about 300 million years. This statistical improbability stance concerning the complexity of those precursors was refuted by a roman catholic biologist in a major ID court case. Here's his argument: youtube dot com/watch?v=QTAC3h6gbKw
"I doubt the odds are the same. But for argument lets say the odds are.. You admit with infinite amount of years, and trillions of junk yards, with trillions of tornadoes.. it will eventually happen? With eternity, the impossible becomes when not if."
The "Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit" was first introduced by Fred Hoyle, who said that "the probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a boeing 747" (P. 113, The God Delusion). Richard Dawkins eloquently refuted this specious metaphor in his book (The God Delusion) by exposing how little these people know about bio life forms to assume that they are irreducibly complex.
I think the book is relatively easy to understand. If you had read his other books as well, you'll realize that he always tried his best to convey hard concepts in layman's terms... usually by analogies or metaphors. His enrinched vocabulary, however, will cause an average person to consult a dictionary 2-3 times per page... a great way to augment one's vocabulary, btw... lol.
I'll add that 747s and other inanimate objects don't reproduce sexually, and don't pass on their genes to the next generation. If 747s had little baby 747s then the argument might hold. But until then it's a stupid comment by Fred Hoyle. Refuted big time.
Obviously the plans for a 747 was around in the late 1800's but those evil athiests got tired of waiting for their tornado to build the plane and so went on to build it themselves. (The Atheists were also planning on getting a really big tornado to build the oil refinery fo fuel the plane).
Praying to God and Allah to build the plane didn't see much progress either.
Actually I heard that all vertebrates came from a single species of fish that was the first animal with a backbone during the Cambrian explosion. It must be true, I saw it on Discovery Channel!
Congrats to Roach2000 for the 'dumbest' comment of the day! Three strawmen in your posts, it takes a great deal of ignorance to commit that many fallacies! Brian, I think his prize ought to be a brand new library card, perhaps he can read a book on evolutionary theory.
Yes, he's using the old Hoyle quote, but the problem with Hoyle is that he was attacking a strawman - evolution is random only vis-a-vis mutations, otherwise, natural selection is anything other than random. Whenever you see a theist make this error, you can know that he's never even read a book on evolutionary theory. The proper response is to guide him to a library.
This has been flagged as spam show
pious pigs need to be burned alive,
shredabilly13 7 months ago
i am atheist, i believe in evolution.
poleeed 8 months ago
lol good video, that other guy is stooopid
lilcool111 1 year ago
Yankee Neeeeeeeeeerds
iRuSHxL3G3ND 1 year ago
Wondering, are you going to be willing to pay the god tax?
cyberhobo813 1 year ago
Well someone has said that saying, it sure as heck wasnt pasture. But science does say that nothing cannot create something. It goes against all laws of science that we evolved all the way from ultimately nothing. To answer your question it was Fred Hoyle. He wrote a book on it. It is also the likelihood of throwing 50,000 six's in a row while rolling a die.
PasonMantato761 1 year ago
@PasonMantato761 actually that is not entirely true. it is possible for something to come from nothing, only in pairs, and only that pair of objects destroy each other, around a microsecond or so. this has actually be observed in particle accelerators, such as the LHC.
MobileThinker 1 year ago
@MobileThinker If there is a pair of objects, that is something. That is not nothing.
PasonMantato761 1 year ago
@PasonMantato761 a pair of elementary, sub-atomic, particles can be created from nothing, as long as they collide to destroy each other to produce the energy for them to be created in the past. technically it is a very, and i mean VERY, crude form of time travel. this is most likely the cause of sub-atomic interactions between base pairs, the theory that explains this is called supersymmetry, granted supersymmetry is now a broad term used for a specific type of quantum theory.
MobileThinker 1 year ago
@MobileThinker A pair of sub atomic particles is something though, you still dont get it. There has to be something if two things collide.
PasonMantato761 1 year ago
@PasonMantato761 you don't seem to understand what i am saying. i will try to explain it better. in a void, where there literally is absolutely nothing. sub-atomic particles spontaneously create themselves. these particles then collide and explode. the energy used to create these particles is "borrowed" from the "future". these particles are literally created from nothing, and then destroyed. if i need to explain this concept better please let me know.
MobileThinker 1 year ago
@MobileThinker Mk, so basically what you are saying is that particles are being created from borrowed energy from the future?
Doesnt make sense to me, dont they need energy first of all to be able to borrow this energy?
Or does the energy just travel back in time in some awkward way?
PasonMantato761 1 year ago
@PasonMantato761 in a nutshell, yes the energy travels backwards in time. i know i am not explaining this in the best way. the easiest thing to do is to read a book or two on quantum physics.
MobileThinker 1 year ago
way to go roach ya idiot
wannabeastarrover 3 years ago
u sound like a girley mane mane
JPalto 3 years ago
dumbest video of the year is from this small minded dweeb.
hugeackman 3 years ago
Small minded? he is much smarter than you will ever be.
gothkid287 3 years ago
wow, what a moron you are.
hugeackman 3 years ago
I hate religous ignorance
LeonSKennedy828 3 years ago 8
LMAO he closed his account (the roach guy)
Sky2yoshimura 4 years ago
In the N. hemisphere, tornadoes rotate counterclockwise. If the tornado were capable of DISassembling a 747 you could place the debris in an exact mirror image of where it wound up, and then, if that exact same tornado came along again, it would necessarily assemble the 747 from the debris, always supposing that the wind didn't tear the materials which had been, say, welded together.
eelshepherd 4 years ago
i dont get it?
noBITCHASSNESS4 3 years ago
I dont mean to be rude. im just debating Christianity vs Atheism.
So sir, what do you think?
mnredryder1 4 years ago
There is no "true religion". everyone has their own beliefs. But, it is a fact that u sir are a fool. Neither christian or athiest is a fool.
Sky2yoshimura 4 years ago
um you call me a fool. and im a christian. but you just sayed that christians arn't fools. thats really got to be embarasing for you.
BESIDES I CAN PROVE SCIENTIFICLY THAT THERE IS A GOD. SCIENTIFICLY!!!!!!!!!
mnredryder1 4 years ago
I didn't call u a fool because u are christian, i called u a fool because i think ur stupid! im not that dumb. and ur message failed to convert me to christian.
Sky2yoshimura 4 years ago
well. then how can you explain how things work in the universe?
mnredryder1 4 years ago
We don't have to know everything, even scientists don't know everything, but we do know about gravity, particles and atoms, matter, light, ect. I know that somehow these forces work together to make our universe work, but since im only 12 and still in middle school, i am not educated enough to explain in more detail. So stop pressuring people into Christianity and god, we have our own beliefs. I choose to believe in atheism and science. Nobody, including you, can change that. So please shut up
Sky2yoshimura 4 years ago
i wasnt pressuring you to christianity at all. im just showing you how atheism is false. besides thoes things do work together. BUT they cant controll how orderly our univers is. it would have to be some sort of god or even my God
mnredryder1 3 years ago
Ok, i understand. But just to let u know i believe it is not false. So when u say it is false, it doesn't matter to me.
Sky2yoshimura 3 years ago
ur only 12 and u owned that 26 year old
virgin computer geek??..props man.
noBITCHASSNESS4 3 years ago 2
mnredryder1 its called gravitational pull and the sun. Everything thing works the ways its supposed too if it doesn't it's considered obsolete and is replaced by something that works. It has nothing to do with God or Jesus. Specifically in our world today its all about our leaders, our mistakes, and our decisions that decise how our universe works. So once again you've failed to convert one person in this thread to Christianism, Congratulaions.
InfinitePlayz 3 years ago
lol
Sky2yoshimura 3 years ago
"mnredryder1 its called gravitational pull and the sun."
Wrong. It's called disco Jesus power baby!
I've seen Jesus in the sky with my telescope! He was bitchslapping the sun to keep it rotating and using his secret disco powers to attract (no pun intended) the Earth towards the sun.
adeadlysniper 3 years ago
you know to much! you must be a god!
hakadvocaten 3 years ago
So we are betting which religion is true. If you win and I lose. You die and nothing happens. YOU don't win anything. If i lose I die and nothing happens. I don't LOSE anything. But if i win and my religion is true. I die and i go to heaven. I WIN BIG TIME! and if you lose and your religion isn't true. YOU WILL GO TO HELL AND BURN FOR ETERNITY! YOU LOSE BIG TIME!
thats why all atheists are FOOLS! not the christians.
mnredryder1 4 years ago
mnredryder1, the problem is there are more then one religion. if you die and Zeus is god you lose. there have been about 10,000 differnt religions in history. you and I have the same odds of being right 1 and 10,000. so Atheists are not fools
marjoe77 4 years ago
YEA BUT CAN YOU PROVE THE OTHER GODS ARE REAL. YOU SEE MOST OTHER RELIGIONS HAVE CONTRADICTIONS AND THEREFORE ARE FAULTY. like islam. it is a false religion. it says in some parts to make peace with the jews then it say to kill them.
mnredryder1 4 years ago
all religions have contradictions, christiany doses too
marjoe77 4 years ago
So now that you are taking a bet that atheism is true lets look at the bets. IM a christian. I believe that anyone who believes in God will go to heaven and anyone who doesnt wont. In your belief when you die nothing happens. you just die. but when i die i go to heaven for eternity.
cont
mnredryder1 4 years ago
take a piece of paper and draw a circle. now, lets imagine that every thing in that circle is every thing you know. then write God outside that circle. Question: Is it possible for God to exist outside that circle?
Your answere has to be yes! It can't be no because. You DON'T KNOW THAT!
cont.
mnredryder1 4 years ago
That's fricking hilarious. The dead have risen and are making weak-ass arguments against evolution!
BobTKaye 4 years ago
lulz, get ur boomsticks this isnt groovy
sturmgeist1819 4 years ago 2
In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the Wright brothers didn't achieve flight until the 1900's. So, Pasteur couldn't have even known about any airplane, much less a Boeing.
TheGregorian 4 years ago
Reading these comments, it's amazing what some people will accept as proof. Love RRS, keep up the great work.
meudro 4 years ago
Christianity: the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who is his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Yeah.... makes lots of sense.
Jingdood 4 years ago 3
Islamicdawah, if early Christians didn't believe in God's son, Jesus Christ(Note that Christ is in the word Christian), how could they be Christian without believing in what Christianity is about, Jesus Christ dying for every single human being?
Preach116 4 years ago
The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God,"
Psalms 53:1
the only thing the RRS has proven is that without God, people sound like babbleing fools with no points other then "Science says it" yet science still hasent proved evolution, or carbon dating...or anything that could remotely disprove God, I wonder why.. That's right, because God is real.
Preach116 4 years ago
you obviously know little about science if you think that's true
bdmjintx 4 years ago
Science hasn't disproved that the universes was created by a Chinese carrot, therefore it must be true.
You silly woman.
BruceForsythe 4 years ago
Right because science cant prove evolution yet it obviously means there is a god. I dont say well science says so and thats why i believe in it. I look at the facts and see if they are conclusive and real. god has a book ohno totally ral.
Clovions 4 years ago
Was Jesus god or the son of god
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
wynjones1 4 years ago
Thanks for the Bible quotes. It's funny to see yet another idiot thinking it is somehow proof that God exists.
Matt7895 4 years ago
no this is a contradiction in the bible
wynjones1 4 years ago
wynjones1, I would like to apologise to you. I should have read what you wrote a bit more clearly. It is just that on pretty much every atheist video on Youtube there is some idiot theist posting Bible quotations, and I'm sick of seeing them.
Matt7895 4 years ago
just thought i would use there "evidence" against them
wynjones1 4 years ago
you are both bummers
dooombringerrr 4 years ago
There IS proof of his existance and planned sacrifice of Jesus. If your serious about the truth regaurdless of your up bringing go to biblecodedigestcom I warn you, You will beleive and face the decision of professing it to all. Jesus said "he who is ashamed of me before men, I will be ashamed of before my father" the odds that the codes are by chance are in some cases are as low as 1 in 225,900,with 210 more zero's! proving God super naturally inspired it.
alto99 4 years ago
I'm not surprised studies have shown atheists to be generally more intelligent than theists.
BruceForsythe 4 years ago 10
Yup, that's dumb.
eswyatt 4 years ago
so he was like 100 years off. to quote lewis black, slightly modified for relevence of corse "if you were a roofer, and you built a roof 100 feet off... you'd still be in prision"
evirus 4 years ago
Haha, hilarious, keep it up.
I'd like to see you tackle some bigger issues than one idiot on the internet though.
SkepticalZombie 4 years ago
Christianity was changed by Paul. The early Christians did not believe God had a son, then Paul changed Christianity and added paganism to it and mythology so the Romans would believe it.
isIamicdawah 4 years ago
Positions are not valid; the concept of validity is applicable to arguments. Positions, in the form of declarations of belief, are either true or false. What you said in the video is a hypallage.
Uroshnor 4 years ago
Specifically, validity is applicable to the form of arguments--and I understand why you said "not a valid position." If you were to apply the proper adjectives to the noun you are using, which are right and wrong, then that would undercut your entire point. Through word games you are dodging the real issue. If theism is right, then atheism--in some forms, using definitions in common currency--would be wrong. It is agnosticism which could not be classified as wrong.
Uroshnor 4 years ago
By the way, I'm an atheist, so no quarrels there. But in the video you speak carelessly.
Uroshnor 4 years ago
Atheism is the disbelief of a higher being based on scientific facts, logic, and reason. It can therefore be assumed that if any type of theism were to be proven correct atheism would no longer exist because there would be solid evidence supporting a god. So it doesn't ever become "wrong" it just would just fall to pieces.
CheezMonsterCrazy 4 years ago
wow, the dude that commented clearly knows less than squat about science, read a book for a change.
volkswagen128 4 years ago
Paint my chicken coop Sapient!!
stratocasterz 4 years ago
How can I get a T-shirt???
Gaiaweapon 4 years ago
tell your gf to show her tits.
FriendlyGuyXXX 4 years ago
hey is it too late to cash in on the video offer for the blasphemy challenge? I'd totally be down for it but I'm not sending my soul to eternal damnation unless I get something cool in the process.
not4resale 4 years ago
The likelyhood is still the same. Dispite the guy's misquoting the quote.
AlexRoss1986 4 years ago
"The probability of life arising by chance is the same probability as throwing a six on a dice five million consecutive times...let's be scientifically honest. We all know that the probability of life arising to greater and greater complexity and organization by chance through evolution is the same probability as having a tornado tear through a junkyard and form out the other end a Boeing 747 jetliner!" - Sir Fred Hoyle
danno1111 4 years ago
I've heard better rebuttles to the airplane in a tornado argument... good job dodging the salient points by addressing trivial details.
danno1111 4 years ago
This is why I'm not a RRS fan. I just wish they were as smart at the guys from IIDB.
AtheistSkeptic 4 years ago
Addressing the actual point? You've got no better than a 4th grade understanding of science if you think there was a salient point. Do a google search, or read points from RRS members in this thread for help.
RationalResponse 4 years ago
The salient (albeit, incorrect) point being the perceived improbability of the "Giant Leap Formation" that Creationists presume is proposed by abiogenesis theories.
With my "4th grade understanding of science" I'm fully aware of the flaws in this argument, yet your approach was not to discuss issues of deterministic probabilities of life-forming chemical reactions, but to search for the author's year of death on Wikipedia!
You're lucky your "RRS members" are there for you, at least.
danno1111 4 years ago
Everyone already knows how irrational the giant leap statements are, so going into the details is pointless. Undermining Roaches appeal to authority by disqualifying the quote shows how his comment was stupid. If you were aware the whole point of the video is 'stupidest comment' not 'scientific reasons why the giant leap theories are wrong.'
holyjesus 4 years ago
My point is that a simple misattribution of the analogy doesn't make the argument much more "dumb" than the analogy itself.
Surely Creationists' arguments on this site are providing more appropriate candidates than this ;)
danno1111 4 years ago
This should be a regular feature - maybe dumbest comment of the week?
MattShizzle 4 years ago
Theists say the dumbest things...
MattShizzle 4 years ago
There you go, a "Kids say the darndest things" spoof.
JesterFoxx 4 years ago
!<b>WOOD PANEL OWNS!</b> I mean that. (I'll expect my dumb comment award asap plz)
califbeachtoads 4 years ago
Your full of hate arn`t you? Ob-h you just "love" the feeling? Have a good ol time burning in hell.... may the damned be with you...
(yeah that is a funny joke >=()
Josh3455 4 years ago
Stupidity should be painful.
GypsyWytch 4 years ago
A clearer way to put it may be that we share a common ancestry with modern fish, but that our paths diverged some 417 million years ago with lungfish, 425 m.y.a. for Coelacanths, and some 500 mya for lampreys and hagfish. Ref. "The Ancestor's Tale" - Dawkins.
kfleetwood 4 years ago
One thing I should mention is that, while I am an atheist and I appreciate the Rational Response Squad, Wikipedia is NOT a good source of information. Especially if you consider a recent entry defining Humanism with "The Humanist hates life." or something along those lines as the opening statement. Wikipedia is not a valid source and to use it can make people doubt your arguments. Try peer reviewed reputable academic journals. Thanks.
1DangerMouse1 4 years ago
Youre a smart guy!
RndmG 4 years ago
1:11ff
"Nobody said that humans came from fish. Fish were in our evolutionary tree, ummm far back enough, but ummm, that's not aaahh any direct ascendant in sort of relative timespan...."
"Giraffe blah amoeba blah...."
"We have evidence to show that it happened...."
Wow, that sounds pretty dumb to me! Is it too late for this late entry in the competition?
club157 4 years ago
Yeah, I was thinking pretty much the same thing! That, and that Louis Pasteur must have been a prescient genius.
TheGiantRobot 4 years ago
Could be dumb, but I lean towards dishonesty. It's really hard for me to think these boneheads really believe the absurd statements they make.
proudfootz 4 years ago
Pasteur! Jesus, couldn't he make up someone more PROBABLE, at least? I mean, never mind the simile is profoundly flawed (because of that little thing called natural selection) but at least be accurate in the author, or lie less obviously.
LynxChan 4 years ago
Give that Idiot the crown! Or did Pasteur Time Travel??? LOL
Belger143 4 years ago
Wow, that WAS the Dumbest Comment of the YEAR for me. Pasteur?? 767's???
sciencedoggy 4 years ago
Athiest would nor right or right, but astudy of life based on facts, experiments and exploration,. It is factual. If you christians and other religions cant accept that, that is your fault because your stuck in your own little world.
YingYangPanda 4 years ago
"'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
Rivaneagle 4 years ago
I must read the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy when I´m through with the book I´m currently reading.
This is so cool.
DeletedDelusion 4 years ago
The person you speak of suffers from Kirk Cameron's little man-friend syndrome: Say dumb things, but make it look good so people believe you. Note: slander atheism, this always gets "them" riled up.
FrankieBoombatts 4 years ago
It's proof of the afterlife! Louis Pasteur's disembodied spirit is running around making quotable statements.
Sheesh.
HanifXHier 4 years ago
It is a quote from Fred Hoyle but I am not sure if it was a Boeing or DC.
He was an astronomer, not a biologist.
lovasip 4 years ago
this video would be better if it went for 2 minutes
paulscf 4 years ago
PWND!!!!!
ozatheist 4 years ago
I'm just glad it wasn't me mwhaha.
Ujikaweapon1 4 years ago
Which god has the biggest penis? Is it Yahweh, Jeshua, Elijah, Elohim, Allah, Buddha, Krishna or Bal?
SatwaDude 4 years ago
It's between Diablo, Mephisto, and Baal.
AtheistSkeptic 4 years ago
That comment was only semi-retarded. Anybody know about Fundies Say The Darndest Things?
dubya dubya dubya dot fstdt dot com
AtheistSkeptic 4 years ago
Duhhh, you are clearly dumb at being atheist. Louis Pasteur was so brilliant and fantastic that he predicted the scientific fact of boeing and irreducibly complex things before they even happened. How did an atom evolve?
:P Seriously, I cringed.
HealingBlight 4 years ago
Seriously stupid comment. You would have to think a bit just to come up with a dumber comment. He misquotes Fred Hoyle, Confuses evolution with atheism, thinks people who don't have his belief should be beaten and think psychological treatment should be used to treat the most rational people.
A strange cookie indeed.
Mjhavok 4 years ago
that was a bad reply i think.. actually your worst reply ever.. first you said a cell could form by accident, when you should rather say its definitly possible to form in a scientific process, unlike a devine creator.
and then you said atheism would always exist, when abviously it would not if there were no theists believing in fairy tales.
SoftWarewolf 4 years ago
Relisten to my words... I did not positively say the words a "cell could form by accident." If there were no theists, everyone would be atheist by default, atheism will likely always exist.
RationalResponse 4 years ago
ah sorry, didnt listen properly..
SoftWarewolf 4 years ago
Wow, you must be smart if you can call people dumb.
msbsevensixseven 4 years ago
Scholars believe that dumb people are capable of calling people dumb as well, but they're still waiting for solid evidence, it's just a theory.
RationalResponse 4 years ago
I think it is really "great" that you people make fun of others like that. It is really a great way to win the A&T debate
AtheisticBuddhist 4 years ago
He is just treating them the same way.
Dillips 4 years ago
Buddhist, ridicule is thought to be one of the main reasons the KKK is now a fringe group in this country. Please don't underestimate it's effectiveness. [paraphrasing a Sam Harris quote in Truthdig]
RationalResponse 4 years ago
"Humans can't come from fish." ? Hehe...tell that to Anaximander!
vidensodoacer 4 years ago
very nice reference, you know your ancient greek history.
hanniballecturer 4 years ago
A cell didn't form by chance. The first self-replicating molecules, (precursors of DNA) formed by chance ~3.8 billion years ago and evolved into the common ancestor over about 300 million years. This statistical improbability stance concerning the complexity of those precursors was refuted by a roman catholic biologist in a major ID court case. Here's his argument: youtube dot com/watch?v=QTAC3h6gbKw
cryptographix 4 years ago
lol...that was rather dumb...hehe
JDRedstone 4 years ago
On your ninja- video bbruhwiler4 states 911 was an inside job.
Should I mark that as spam. What is your policy for things like that?
DeletedDelusion 4 years ago
Did he post it over and over? If so, it's spam.
RationalResponse 4 years ago
I've labeled that one the "God by the Odds" argument, m'self.
JillSwift 4 years ago
does the dumbest comment have to be genuine? cuz i can say some pretty stupid shit, i promise
fattychunks 4 years ago
What did you expect Brian?
Theists have been misrepresenting and misquoting dead guys for a long time.
It's an art form to them.
ChrisGose 4 years ago
EXCELLENT!
I would've responded by saying
"I doubt the odds are the same. But for argument lets say the odds are.. You admit with infinite amount of years, and trillions of junk yards, with trillions of tornadoes.. it will eventually happen? With eternity, the impossible becomes when not if."
thefakeyeti 4 years ago
Cells don't divide by random, satan and baby jhebus do it!!!praise the lawd and his creation !!11!!
aPaThEiSt 4 years ago
The "Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit" was first introduced by Fred Hoyle, who said that "the probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a boeing 747" (P. 113, The God Delusion). Richard Dawkins eloquently refuted this specious metaphor in his book (The God Delusion) by exposing how little these people know about bio life forms to assume that they are irreducibly complex.
Golfina 4 years ago
The argument was so cogent... people must read it if they haven't. It's good to know how to argue against such spurious claim.
Golfina 4 years ago
Is the book easy to understand?
I would like to read it, but I am scared all of it will go above my head :(
thefakeyeti 4 years ago
I think the book is relatively easy to understand. If you had read his other books as well, you'll realize that he always tried his best to convey hard concepts in layman's terms... usually by analogies or metaphors. His enrinched vocabulary, however, will cause an average person to consult a dictionary 2-3 times per page... a great way to augment one's vocabulary, btw... lol.
Golfina 4 years ago
It's an easy read, fun too. Try it.
hanniballecturer 4 years ago
I'll add that 747s and other inanimate objects don't reproduce sexually, and don't pass on their genes to the next generation. If 747s had little baby 747s then the argument might hold. But until then it's a stupid comment by Fred Hoyle. Refuted big time.
dudev 4 years ago
Does the psychology test come first, or after the beating...
freedomLeaver 4 years ago
I'm so glad it wasn't me!
comodocomodos 4 years ago
LOL!!!! What a pillock.
tskaface 4 years ago
pwned
savagemike90 4 years ago
Bwahahahahaha!!!! That's hilarious
dragon2wolf 4 years ago
Obviously the plans for a 747 was around in the late 1800's but those evil athiests got tired of waiting for their tornado to build the plane and so went on to build it themselves. (The Atheists were also planning on getting a really big tornado to build the oil refinery fo fuel the plane).
Praying to God and Allah to build the plane didn't see much progress either.
DayfallKat 4 years ago
Maybe tornadoes were actually building 767's back then, because Boeing sure as heck wasn't.
RationalResponse 4 years ago
Typical theist research(none at all("god did it"))... Great video Brian!
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 4 years ago
Louis Pasteur talking about 767s! Haha, oh dear how embarassing for him.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
Awesome, Brian. Another one bites the dust.
Chuloloc 4 years ago
Yesturday I laughed about it, today I feel sorry for him. I didn´t see his second comment
Hope you will do sometihng about the Rushdie situation after you come back.
Enjoy your holiday.
DeletedDelusion 4 years ago
Actually I heard that all vertebrates came from a single species of fish that was the first animal with a backbone during the Cambrian explosion. It must be true, I saw it on Discovery Channel!
sorienor 4 years ago
Congrats to Roach2000 for the 'dumbest' comment of the day! Three strawmen in your posts, it takes a great deal of ignorance to commit that many fallacies! Brian, I think his prize ought to be a brand new library card, perhaps he can read a book on evolutionary theory.
hanniballecturer 4 years ago
He certainly needs "Evolution for Dummies."
connerjd 4 years ago
which video was this comment made in?
eric712 4 years ago
I wish I could kill all Christians.
Track607 4 years ago
Whoa, steady on there :-D
WizardJim 4 years ago
I just hate them so much.
Track607 4 years ago
I know dude...I know ;-)
WizardJim 4 years ago
How can you keep it in?
Track607 4 years ago
heavy sedetives and satan worshiping
wynjones1 4 years ago
You just squeeze your ass cheeks together.
dooombringerrr 4 years ago
Awesome video! I need to find where his comment is...
provita 4 years ago
Search for "rOaCh2000" on this videos comments:
"To TheNinjagirl01 and muslims"
RationalResponse 4 years ago
I think he is misquoting Fred Hoyle.
mrjonnewman 4 years ago
Yes, he's using the old Hoyle quote, but the problem with Hoyle is that he was attacking a strawman - evolution is random only vis-a-vis mutations, otherwise, natural selection is anything other than random. Whenever you see a theist make this error, you can know that he's never even read a book on evolutionary theory. The proper response is to guide him to a library.
hanniballecturer 4 years ago
The old Hoyle quote that was debunked and pwned. Once again it is an argument from incredulity.
Mjhavok 4 years ago
Based on a strawman... fallacy upon fallacy.
hanniballecturer 4 years ago
Yes.
Mjhavok 4 years ago