Give it up already, you can't change or "fine-tune" the laws of nature without LARGELY (im talking disgustingly high percentiles) destroying the possibility of life. If you believe in a God of divine intervention in the laws of nature, you are delusional.
@youngs1ncere Hm, I don't see why a belief in god that set the laws of nature is delusional, at least not on the basis of what you've said here. The fact that life can't exist outside a very narrow range of values for certain fundamental parameters, at an intuitive level, seems like a good reason to posit a god/designer. I don't think it's a satisfactory or productive supposition -- to me it seems presumptuous and simplistic, but calling it delusional goes a bit too far in my opinion.
Could God create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it? To what extent, if any, is a god bound by logic or the laws of the universe it creates? If life on the sun isn't impossible, it seems improbable; similarly, a universe capable of developing conscious life seems improbable. That we've observed the latter is taken by proponents of the strong anthropic principle as evidence of god/design.
I think it's a flawed argument but not quite delusional.
Neil deGrasse Tyson - "OUR COLLECTIVE FREE TIME NEEDS TO SHIFT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO EDUCATION. WHETHER YOU'RE A YOUNG STUDENT OR FINISHED SCHOOL LONG AGO, GET OUT TO THE LIBRARY WHENEVER YOU CAN AND WORK HARD TO LEARN EVERYTHING YOU CAN ABOUT THIS WORLD. EACH INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY WILL BENEFIT FROM BEING ABLE TO SOLVE MORE PROBLEMS AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS. EDUCATION IS AN AMAZING DISCOVERY PROCESS THAT REPAYS YOU ENDLESSLY."
A very interesting presentation. But there's one thing that gets to me. Regardless of ID, why would anyone assume that there are flaws in the design of human beings and other organisms. All things work according to the laws of nature no matter how it may seem. Perhaps it seems like a flaw because it fails human expectation, but we must remember that there are still many things about the laws of the universe that we still don't quite understand. There's a reason for everything.
@zacharyrod1st ID is the issue though, and unless we are talking about strictly deistic ID, I think it's fair to raise the issue of what would seem to be design "flaws" according to human intuition, values and expectations. Outside the issue of ID, when we call something "flawed", there is usually some implied context or perspective that makes that description defensible.
@zacharyrod1st: The issue is that evolution, unlike a designer, doesn't work to a plan or with a goal in mind. That makes evolution's solutions sometimes seem short-sighted or impromptu. There's the "good enough" syndrome, that makes the voice box nerve 10 times longer than it needs to be, because it first appeared in fish. There's man's suboptimal eye, suboptimal erect body plan, auto-immune diseases. There's hemoglobin's affinity for carbon monoxide, much less cyanide. Etc.
@zacharyrod1st: It's the equivalent of the two guys trying to run from a bear. The first moans to the second that he doesn't think they can outrun the bear; the second wheezes back, "I don't think so either, but all I have to do is outrun you." Evolution does just that; incentive to improve stops when you're at the top of the heap.
Well, I don't care what any "scientist" says, my holy book says different, so I'm going to ignore logic, reality and so called "facts" and believe that I want to believe.
existence of God is proved by alien S... code name of smart alien who is dumped from his planet to earth (because he is so stupid (his real S) in his planet)
The evangelist out to convert to the new religion. Here's one of the problems with Tyson's arguments. Tyson is in awe of Newton and other scientists who 'discovered how things really work.' Once discovered, they lost their awe of nature. It's an argument from silence. Not true. Most lecturers begin in awe of the Giants. They never end that way. They want you to be in awe of them. Bad religion, bad science says I am the gatekeeper to awe. Tyson is the now the awesome preacher. Humble science? No.
@Hainan48: Who prescribes humility as a necessary part of science? It may be useful for civilization and living together, but science requires nothing but truth.
@kredit787 He was Corsican. While he was ethnically Italian, Corsica was controlled by France at the time. So it can go either way, and the argument itself is kinda silly.
15% of the most brilliant minds don't believe in God; Newton, "there is no greater intellect" believed passionately in God. What's to study?
"Science is a philosophy of discovery; intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance." Neil, that ignores reality. Intelligent design was the motivation for exploring science in the first place; ID IS science. The real contrast is this:
Philosophical naturalism (not science) is the epitome of human arrogance; intelligent design is the epitome of wonder.
@MorganMarvinson Perhaps, but this human arrogance refused to limit our understanding of disease to "God did it." And has allowed us to walk on another planet. Precisely what has Intelligent Design done?
Besides, you're confusing "Intelligent Design" with "Intelligibility." The first scientists were motivated not by the idea that there was some kind of creator, but by the belief that the universe's laws could be understood. As LaPlace said, there's no need for such a hypothesis.
@crabbieappleton "God did it." 1. I don't know that anyone believes God made disease. 2. There is nothing inherently stifling about studying design that would keep us from walking on the moon. (We haven't yet walked on another planet.) It is the study of design that enables us to understand science. The evolutionist just has to pretend it isn't. Physiology = the study of design. Biology = the study of design. Physics = the study of design.
@MorganMarvinson "I don't know that anyone believes God made disease." Of course not. We're now smarter than that, thanks to real science's refusal to stop at "God does it" as an answer.
@crabbieappleton Disease is under the purvey of the destroyer (and thoughtless humanity). Your claim then is a strawman.
"Where is 'evolutionist' coming from?" It is coming from the worldview of philosophical naturalism that dismisses design, not because of a lack of evidence, but by a philosophical assumption that wouldn't allow a Designer no matter WHAT the evidence. It excludes God by definition without considering the evidence.
@crabbieappleton You cannot consistently separate their belief in a Creator from their concept that the laws of the universe could be understood. One was an outgrowth of the other. Deist Laplace (if he actually made Tyson's quote and, if he did, who would have recorded it?) stood at a point of divergence from faith. In the French Revolution (1789-1799) the RAISON of the head was elevated and, as it was, the heads of 15,000 left their owners.
@Apotheosis275 "LOL" Yea. Pretty funny for anyone trying to use previous models of atheistic states to project for the future. Fortunately, Sweden, which has a high percentage of atheists, is a much better example. Even so, Sweden has a national church since 2000. In late 2009 the church of Sweden had 71.3% of the population as its members. So, it isn't an atheistic state. Countries that have been atheistic have been rather repressive of competing beliefs.
"15% of the most brilliant minds don't believe in God;" -- Where are you getting that? If you're referencing the statistic mentioned by Tyson in the video, you should watch it again and listen more closely.
"Newton, "there is no greater intellect" believed passionately in God. What's to study?" -- Even the most brilliant person in the world can be wrong. You don't end study on the basis of one person's belief, no matter how smart you think that person to be.
"Philosophical naturalism (not science) is the epitome of human arrogance; intelligent design is the epitome of wonder."
These are value judgments that say nothing of the real merit or truth value of either perspective.
"It is the study of design that enables us to understand science. The evolutionist just has to pretend it isn't."
No. The "evolutionist" (and the scientist) just takes the parsimonious approach, eschewing baseless assumptions like your conflation of predictability and design.
@Quinstol "eschewing baseless assumptions ..." Hogwash! They study it as if it is has design--otherwise they couldn't discern laws and patterns, but then they "code switch" into evolution-ese and describe it in terms of it having no design. The extra effort sends them down blind alleys, such as calling non-coding chromosomes as "junk," instead of assuming it has function. Only belatedly do they come to discover the function. Had they gone direct, they likely would have found it faster.
"They study it as if it is has design--otherwise they couldn't discern laws and patterns." This is an empty statement. To study anything with the goal of understanding requires a sensitivity to laws, patterns and relationships. This applies universally, whether design is apparent in the thing being studied or not. With this statement, you're a priori defining predictable things as designed things. You want me to accept as a premise the very thing you're trying to convince me of. Not convincing.
@Quinstol "Not convincing." Of course not. How can any evidence convince someone to quit pretending that design doesn't exist when he is of a perspective that, by definition, excludes design as an explanation, while practically assuming design in the ordered nature of laws, patterns, and relationships in the thing studied?
I'm not presenting evidence; I'm making a plea for you to quit the evolutionary charade. Design IS design--by definition. This Dawkinsian redefinition is schizophrenic.
I'm not of a mindset to exclude design as an explanation, I just require substantial evidence to convince me of design. I don't accept that intelligibility necessarily equates with design, which is why saying that we study the universe "as if has design" is meaningless. It's at least as valid to say that we study the designed things as if they are intelligible. That the universe is intelligible and observable are the only basic assumptions of science, and even those assumptions may be incorrect.
@Quinstol "I'm not of a mindset to exclude design as an explanation ..." Then perhaps we have a basis for dialog.
"It's at least as valid to say that we study the designed things as if they are intelligible." First, an observation. In this sentence you have accepted my premise--you call them "designed things."
Second, two questions: Is DNA assembly language? What makes a language "intelligible"?
@Quinstol "Only belatedly do they come to discover the function." That there is some corruption in the genome by no means disqualifies all the wonderful design we find therein. Those who claim design for DNA were not surprised to find mounting evidence of function for what was relegated to the scrap heap of random mutation. Begrudgingly those who assumed it all to be junk acknowledge its important role in reproduction, offering an ad hoc explanation that the DNA co-opted viral leftovers! Smart.
I also think you're really stretching, trying to lay "evolutionist blinders" as being reasonable for the misnaming and assumptions about "junk DNA." Scientists of all disciplines have occasionally made mistaken assumptions. It may have been sloppy to call non-coding DNA was "junk," but it was an understandable error, and one that didn't preclude further study of junk DNA.
Now, if you wanted to say Tyson is similarly stretching in this video, I'd concede that you have a decent point.
@Quinstol "An understandable error" Yes, it is understandable--they concluded it junk because they deny the design of the rest of the DNA that they have been studying. One false premise leads to another. Then, they have to come up with an explanation why it could play a useful role in reproduction. Instead of acknowledging obvious design for the language of life, they make the further fantastic claim that the DNA turned leftover viral code--by mere chance, mind you--into essential code for life.
@MorganMarvinson It's an understandable error because the clearest, most important function of DNA for a long time was the fact that it serves as a genetic vehicle by coding for proteins. To claim that "evolutionists" deny other possible FUNCTIONS of junk DNA is an extreme over-generalization, as is demonstrated by the he fact that its other functions are being studied by many who accept DNA, including evolutionary biologists. And that junk DNA is "essential" to life hasn't yet been established.
@Quinstol "... one that didn't preclude further study of junk DNA." The implication of your statement is that recognizing design precludes further study. It doesn't. All it does is recognize the obvious. Furthermore, it suggests that, being designed, the scientist can further study its relation to the rest of the genome and uncover more function. Study and discovery are the natural outgrowth of recognizing design.
@Quinstol BTW, the "evolutionist" is a part of a subset--though a rather large one--of all scientists. The parsimony (i.e. "stinginess") is on the part of folks who do not recognize that there is a vocal--and much smaller--subset of scientists, who are not evolutionists in part or at all because they do not see the mechanism of RM/NS to be adequate to accomplish what is claimed of it.
@Quinstol The point of my statement, "Philosophical naturalism . . . is the epitome of human arrogance; intelligent design is the epitome of wonder," is that PN declares that nature is not a mystery but a puzzle, which human beings will eventually figure out (so said Dawkins in 2010 in Mexico). ID is not so hampered by human ego and can seek to unravel design, without the self-deception that, just given enough time, humans will figure everything out. There is and will always be wonder.
Mystery, puzzle -- it's really a difference without a distinction as long as you're claiming that the mystery/puzzle can be "unraveled" to some degree. I think most PNs would be willing to accept that there may be things in the universe that we must remain agnostic about, because the necessary puzzle pieces are beyond human perception (either absolutely or effectively) or are simply too complex/strange for our ape brains to comprehend -- even Dawkins has said as much (google "middle world").
I would add (to the mystery/puzzle/agnosticism bit) that one of the thing we may never know is what the true boundaries of what is knowable actually are, given the expanding toolkit of science. Real arrogance is saying "I can't figure this out, therefore nobody can -- or only God can". Invoking a god of the gaps is a to compound the arrogance with true hubris, as it's claiming a degree of understanding (specifically, that "god did it") of a thing that you admit that you don't understand.
@Quinstol It is not arrogance to acknowledge you can't understand something.
And talk about the gaps--"evolution of the gaps" is employed routinely. "This isn't design because we think it should have had X feature to it." "This isn't design because other creatures have greater ability in this feature." "This isn't design because we see similarity to the design of other organisms."
Complaining because of a gap just shows one's ignorance. Designs are optimized for each organism's needs.
The evolution through natural selection occurs is well-founded in the evidence. To extrapolate that most/all features exhibited by modern species have been selected for (and are therefore the product of evolution) isn't unreasonable. It could be wrong, but as far as it's been tested so far that prediction/assumption has been borne out. Intelligent design (in biology) has a basically non-existent empirical foundation.
@Quinstol "The evolution through natural selection occurs is well-founded in the evidence." No, it is only inferred. What is well-founded is that natural selection plays a role in the preponderance of a particular variation within a population of organisms. That natural selection can do anything to put pressure on an organism to create a new molecular machine to adapt to a new environment has never been demonstrated.
Evidence shows organisms vary within predetermined parameters--that's ID.
@verzen the bacteria – a strain known as GFAJ-1 – don't depend on arsenic. They still contain detectable levels of phosphorus in their molecules and they actually grow better on phosphorus if given the chance. It's just that they might be able to do without this typically essential element ... ... they belong to a group called the Oceanospirillales. Bacteria from the same order are munching away at the oil that was spilled into the Gulf of Mexico earlier this year.
@verzen palaeoanthropologist John Hawks ... focuses on the lack of controls in the research.
"I'm no microbiologist, but I read the paper carefully because it seemed to be such an interesting result if true. And the paper simply does not include the controls to show that arsenate has been taken up as part of the DNA. All the other claims in the press accounts of the discovery – for example, the idea that the organisms could substitute arsenate for phosphate in ATP – were complete fiction."
@verzen "It turns out the Nasa scientists were feeding the bacteria salts which they freely admit were contaminated with a tiny amount of phosphate. It's possible, the critics argue, that the bacteria eked out a living on that scarce supply. As Bradley [Harvard microbiologist Alex Bradley] notes, the Sargasso Sea supports plenty of microbes while containing 300 times less phosphate than was present in the lab cultures."
@verzen Can you show the laboratory proof in the thousands of generations of E. coli or fruit fly that would indicate otherwise? The fossil evidence supports stasis of body type--not gradual accumulation of mutational changes.
All observable evidence supports the fixation of body types. Only inference based on hypothetical evidence says otherwise. Evolution from one body type to another only exists in the imagination of those who want to believe it. No wonder atheists like Lennon's song!
@Quinstol "a difference without a distinction" Talk to Dawkins. He's the one he made the distinction. "To some degree"--to the degree that the human mind is equipped to understand it. The arrogance is in humans thinking they can understand EVERYTHING the Creator did and does. For Dawkins, it's that parts of the puzzle are missing--hence "we may never know ..." For the believer in the Designer, it is that humans are on one plain and God is on another, and there are limits to what we can grasp.
@MorganMarvinson That EVERYTHING can be understood by the human mind is not a basic feature of philosophical naturalism, even if it may be what some people who'd call themselves philosophical naturalists believe. The worldview you're attributing to Dawkins (can you give a more specific citation?) seems to contradict what I've heard him say before: that as apes with minds evolved to deal with the "middle world", there may be a limit to what we can comprehend about the universe and its nature.
@Quinstol "specific citation" unfortunately it was in a video that is no longer available. I went to access it to get you the information. It was called "Richard Dawkins vs William Lane Craig on big debate." I'm trying to see if the quotation is in someone else's posted video.
@MorganMarvinson Also, Dawkins doesn't define philosophical naturalism. Even if Dawkins has contradicted himself in the past, there is nothing in the definition of philosophical naturalism that requires one to accept that everything can be comprehended by humans -- there is room for agnosticism in our world-view. And we can do this without baselessly assuming that we know something about WHY we may not be able to understand everything about the universe.
@Quinstol "there is nothing in the definition of philosophical naturalism that requires one to accept that everything can be comprehended by humans" Good to hear it. But inherent to PN is the exclusion of all but naturalistic explanations for origins--even when the evidence strongly points to intelligence (which, BTW, Dawkins actually gave the nod to in EXPELLED when he said that life could have been guided on earth by intelligence--just not God's).
Idiot. You dont even realize wtf Dawkins even said. He said that aliens COULD have.. but then we would have to ask the question, "How did these aliens get here?"
The main difference is, is that you retards refuse to ask the question, "How did God come to be?"
If we REQUIRE a designer than so does our designer.. leading to infinite regression.
@verzen "leading to infinite regression" The idiocy is in not recognizing that either stance has the same problem--what came before what came before? Either "stuff" is eternal or its Creator is eternal.
Either you accept the unfathomable that God has no beginning (which I do) or you accept the unfathomable that all the laws, matter, and energy of the universe came into existence by themselves or always existed. Yes, we have brilliant minds hypothesizing about this, but it's all pie in the sky.
Tyson is simply pointing out a human tendency noting that when even the most intelligent human beings (e.g. scientists) run out of understanding and explanations some start spouting god and that's when they become useless at advancing reason and science further. That's the pattern. Why do they do that? Human beings crave answers even though they be forged in the furnace of human ignorance.
@emaildoctor That's a shortsighted reason to invoke God. For me, it isn't always the things that I don't understand that make me think of God. More often it's the things that I think I do understand.
"In Him we live and move and have our being." Understanding the process of oxygen exchange doesn't make a body live. Understanding how the immune system works doesn't keep us from getting sick.
The problem with all of you is that you don't understand the bible, read and be elightened: "And thus we came from God. For he bent over and shat fourth the man. And thus he removed mans rib, and from the hole in mans chest he shat forth woman; and he said to them "Behold I am the lord thy god, for I have gestated you 9 months after thine butt-sex session with that fabulous colored-man down the street. Heeyyyy!" And the lord thy god flicked his wrist in limp fashion. " Amen
I love his passion, and his words mirror my thoughts. As soon as you ignore science for the benefit of your own agenda, you're lost. For those pondering the chances of life without ID, let me say this; "we can only ask the questions because we are here." You are searching for absolutes explaining everything about your existence, while scientists are exploring and questioning EVERYTHING.
It is rather entertaining, that while lecturing on "The Perimeter of Ignorance," lecturer demonstrates that he can't spell the title of his source correctly 1:51 . God is in details.
Any engineer with the ability to create self-replicating molecules could design far better animals than the ones that exist on earth. Besides, scientist do not need to disprove every ridiculous claim made by every willingly misinformed person. Prove there are no unicorns!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Since Tyson is fond of stating in other videos, that he requires proof of things, but on this he will flap his gums with no proof to back his statement....fine...by his own standards, prove there is no intelligent design.
@tzebra Tyson's thesis isn't that there is no intelligent design, it's that intelligent design exists as a philosophy that can, at times, manifest itself in fashion that is antithetical to the purpose of science. Given his audience (at this conference, a bunch of scientists, philosophers and atheists), that idea is more controversial than the notion that ID fails as a scientific theory (which is taken as a given).
@Quinstol This is where it becomes entertaining. Scientist and Philosophers, people who are supposed to dig deep, explore, question, and claim or refute nothing without solid repeatable facts, would automatically dismiss ID, with no proof. Inside of their own camp there are those who support it, and those who oppose it, yet neither has enough evidence to say "there it is", which is why I ask, after his statement in the video, that the burden falls upon him as the scientist to prove his point.
@tzebra You can't really disprove anything as nebulously defined as ID, but that's OK. You don't have to thoroughly disprove a concept to demonstrate that it's nonscientific and unproductive. The onus is on the boosters of ID to show that their ideas have scientific merit. They've failed to do this.
@Quinstol Have you ever honestly run the math to formulate the chances of life occurring, on its own, with what is available in the known universe, without assistance from something greater than?
Yale U did a study on this, to determine the possibility of the most simplest of life forms to develop on its own. Their conclusion was, one out of ten to the 340 millionth power, with it being confirmed by independent math professors; Go reference it and get back to me.
@tzebra "with what is available in the known universe" -- Therein lies the rub. We don't know the exact process by which life may have evolved; lacking such vital information, any calculations performed to calculate the odds of life arising independently is bound to be highly flawed. This is just another god of the gaps argument of the sort that Tyson highlights in this video, directly analogous to Newton's failed attempts to account for the stability of planetary orbits.
@tzebra That figure is misleading and dependent on the formation of a very specific molecule. The Miller-Urey experiment alone shows how trivial it would be for amino acids to form. Abiogenesis is highly improbable but not statistically impossible. Also, there is no way to disprove a negative. You can't disprove ID even if you definitively prove evolution because there is no way of knowing that an intelligent designer didn't meticulously direct the evolution in some way.
Also, later in the video does give some examples of "unintelligent design", with often humorous examples of terrible engineering and lack of forethought in the design of humans and other organisms. He doesn't really try to tear down ID in any sort of scientifically rigorous fashion, but the examples he gives does raise the question as to why a designer so subtle, skilled, intelligent and details-oriented miss some pretty obvious design flaws.
@Quinstol obviously god didnt make things gravy, i have to live amongst mindless twits on all sides of the spectrum, in a cruel world of lunacy...but it is what it is.....luckily there are some good things in life...sometimes it seems like there are equal amounts of good and bad things in the world ..i see no reason to think its impossible for god to be responsible for such a creation as this place..its too strange and amazing to just pop into existence out of nothing..nothing spawns nothing
@longfootbuddy It's not impossible for a god to have been responsible for the creation of the universe, it's just that there isn't much evidence to suggest that is the case. Although I would say that it'd be a logical contradiction to say that in a world that may be equal parts good and bad, that the god responsible for the creation of the universe is all-loving AND all-powerful. The simple fact is that such a god could've created a much better reality.
@Quinstol yes he couldv, at least in my mind, but im no more capable of understanding the reasoning of god, than scientists are capable of understanding god's creation...to me, its much harder to accept that the universe was made from nothing, for no purpose, with no god behind it...it has nothing to do with me being brainwashed by christians.. i was raised in a christian household, and grew up to realize most of what they believe, is nonsense
@Quinstol Well it's simple, isn't it? Intelligent Design is not a "theory" in the scientific sense of the word because it can't be tested, falsified, has no evidence, makes no predictions, etc. It's complete pseudo-science garbage.
@tzebra We are not obligated to prove there is no intelligent design any more than we are obligated to prove there is no Jack Frost. Mythical, whimsical characters are extraordinary claims and therefore demand extraordinary proof. It can be observed that natural forms emerge from ordinary principles of physics and so there is no need to search for something more exotic to explain them. Now if we found a signed plaque on Mars stating, "Made by God," that would be different.
He doesn't have to disprove ID. The burden of proof is on the party making the claim. They have made many claims in an attempt to support their theory (NOT scientific theory) for ID, but with absolutely no credible evidence, testability, or peer-reviewed papers to show for it. Do you waste your time disproving the idea that fairies exist, aliens abduct humans, or geocentric ideas? No, because there has been no proof presented to suggest those claims are viable in the first place.
I'm probably going to get alot of crap for this,but I would like to see Tyson debate Craig..I believe them both to be great.I would love to see a them share their thoughts at the same time.
Pt. 3: You don't want to go there. You can't. You can't be wrong. Your belief system and values in this life depend upon it. You don't want Truth, you just want to be "right". Typical herd, sheep-bleating mentality. Enjoy yourselves. Ignorance is bliss...
@menthol5 And there you have it folks. Pretty much the other side's argument in a nutshell as laid out in all its simplistic beauty by this hate-filled menthol5. He's got it ALL figured out, might even have a diploma to show for it from one of the system schools to verify his ability to pass their tests! "We don't want Truth, we want to be RIGHT! And if we don't like what you have to say, we'll string you up!" The mob was no more understanding when God himself was on this earth in human form.
You an embarrassment to humanity. To dispute Evolution is akin to denying that the Earth revolves around the Sun. If I may quote Sir David Attenborough
"Evolution is a fact. As sure as the fact that William the Conqueror. Landed at Pevensy in 1066."
@salmagnum How is the fossil record false? WTF are you talking about? Evolution is a fact big man get used to it. Buried fossil records? You must be out your goddamn mind.
@salmagnum You really believe the earth is 6000 years old? WOW theres no stopping you huh? You're already convinced that man and dinosaurs walked together? So, if we look at it with your perspective Noah had dinosaurs on his ark right? Since man and dinosaurs walked together. Where are the dinosaurs? Where did the water go? Why isn't there a thick level of fossils in the layer of the earth where everything was killed by the flood? You don' have to answer my questions. Good day.
@surshot56 What we really need is a team of Psychiatrists to figure out WHY people generally can believe in something as preposterous as the idea that the Earth is 6,800 years old etc. Is it just childhood indoctrination? Or is it that having bought into one lie they have to invent more lies to get them out of a hole?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Pt. 2: We Biblical creationists do not fear the supernatural as is commonly supposed by university-programmed automatons. I for one embrace it. Fact: The fossil record has been fabricated. Fact: What lies buried in the vaults of the Smithsonian and London Museum among other places would shake all you Darwinian atheists posing as credible scientists to the core.
@salmagnum You've made three comments and have really said nothing to support any of your "points". They're just flat assertions that really don't have any credibility coming from a random Internet conspiracy theorist.
@Quinstol You are absolutely correct Quinstol. And I never will have any credibility. You are not afforded such, no matter how much proof (or even circumstantial evidence) you offer or how intelligently you pose your queries, given the realities of the current "enlightened", "scientific" mindset. (And yes, the quotes indicate facetious intent.) I have talked to those few who have seen behind the proverbial curtain, and have experienced that which science cannot explain, that is all.
@Quinstol "Random Internet Conspiracy Theorist", is that like "Flat Earth Creationist"? Too bad we can't meet face to face. You might have a few of your oh-so-convenient paradigms shattered...maybe not. No matter how far off base I might consider you, I will not attempt to marginalize you or engage in condescending retorts like so many I see on these forums doing. Just beware of generalizations, we creationists are very rarely the buck-toothed hillbillys of stereotype. Newton wasn't
@salmagnum You're above attempting to marginalize people with condescending retorts, but you have absolutely no problem with dismissing entire fields of study as basically fraudulent without anything more to back it up to vague references to evidence "buried in the Smithsonian" and the like.
This isn't the best forum for an in depth discussion, but surely most anything you could convey to me face-to-face could be composed and presented on a web site. Show me your arguments and evidence.
@lewisner nope haven't "moved on" lol. Hard for an educated man like myself to move from the truth to crap, theoretical "science". Hey--- check it out! REAL science by NON-Christians (after all, we all KNOW that no Christian could ever be a REAL scientist, lol) whose actual field work has led them to pose some really interesting questions to their atheists-posing-as-scientists counterparts!
@salmagnum another dumb-fuck Christer. You can troll for alterboys like your asshole priests. If I ever come one of your 'holy' men molesting a child, I'll be arrested for murder.
@menthol5 Ah, such enlightenment my friend! I am more against the pagan "church" of Rome & its pederasts (and organized religion in general) than you could ever be. You don't understand the distinction between religion and Biblical Christianity, so you spew misguided bile. A blind hatred of what you call Christ. Typical. Had you an inkling of how this world really operates you would understand that Darwinian "scientists" and the Catholic religious institution are on the same team.
@salmagnum MEME has taken complete control of your entire brain. This is not a personal attack. This kind of thought processes you have and conclusions in your head that you would believe also that hanging around folks who are not infested beyond all recognition and convince us of what? The definition of insanity, for instance, is performing a task over and over and over again and eventhough the same results happen each time expecting them to change to what you want the results to be. Pitiful
Pt. 1 "100 years later..." oh, and the Age of Reason where they first said that God was dead. Laplace was a product of this culture, as is/was Darwin, Tyson, Dawkins, Sagan, et al. I wonder how many ppl would react to all the evidence supporting the Biblical account that has been swept under the rug were they allowed access to it.
We know the truth of how, why and when the bible was scripted, the number of times and the trail of lies that extend past any point our eyes can surmise. Being objective is the key to this riddle, you believe it to be true because you were taught it to be true. Without questioning the validity of those who taught you. That is not doubt that is just plain seeking verification. Which you have not done in any way at all. If you had any respect for yourself, you should check for collaboration please
@splicedenergy Came to Christ only recently after devoting many years of my life to study of all the wisdom and knowledge of man. My passion has always been true history (not to be confused with the myths and accounts written by the conquerors which pass for history in the texts of your institutions), finally, last year my search led me to the Word of God. Had I simply settled for what was spoon fed me by the "learned" indoctrinated system-promoters, I would've stayed complacent in my ingnorance
@salmagnum Thats bullshit and I am calling you out on it. You just made that up out of thin air. I'm not stupid, I used to be penecostal, I know the tricks of word play as well as you do. Knowingly or not. Christ doesnt not have any historical footprint, not even the biblical scholars would disagree with me you see, because they were the ones to teach me. Dont think for a second that you can getaway about knowing what I do, you can lie to yourself. That is all you are going to do.
@splicedenergy If you were pentecostal there is little wonder you were deceived. Christ is not some feeling of euphoria achieved at a mass s'eance, He is the Word of truth found in the unadulterated Scripture (aka NON Roman Catholic versions of the Bible). As for the historicity of Christ, refer to the pm I sent you. If anyone else would care to view info on Christ, Noah's Ark, The Flood, creationism and all the other taboo topics you are being lied to about in your institutions, pm me.
@salmagnum My pointing that I was penecostal was to make it known that I myself was a fundamentalist christian and once believed everything taught in the church. To even imply that JC was an actual flesh and blood person. If you had done the years of extensive research with top scholors this would be obvious. Do not talk to me as if you pity me for being "decieved" the deception has factual tangible evidence that what is true is that you are the one still being decieved. I'm sorry
@splicedenergy i c, i c. I was just pointing out that if you went to a pentecostal church you were in no way a Christian fundamentalist. The clips I sent you proving that Jesus did indeed exist feature top scholars in their field. Dismissing them without watching them is what blind belief is all about. Anyone can make unsubstantiated claims on the internet. I enjoy looking into things for myself, it keeps the old egg off the face, I've found :)
@salmagnum I assure you, they most certainly are. In my definition anyway. I don't know how much further a denomination would have to go for you to agree since I do not see much room to go any further in disgraceful and murderous behaviours which is very extreme. A few people refusing to accept the vast historical artifacts and those missing which are important to aquire the proof in any way is not anywhere to be found. For 2000 years. This is about facts, what these few are doing are believing
@splicedenergy Your most recent msg is incoherent, I could not understand what you were trying to say. Could you restate your points? It never ceases to amaze me when I hear those on the faceless internet claiming their intellectual superiority through garbled phrase and grammatical error. An infrequent spelling error now and again happens to even the best of us, but when I have to interpret someone who is sure they've got the market on knowledge cornered, it seems such sweet irony.
Hah I love Dr. Tyson, he gets so into his lectures. I agree with Tyson that ID should be taught as it applies to history, but not as a legitimate scientific possibility. It is important that we remember how even the most brilliant among us can fall victim to ID and how it has in the past as it currently is today slowed the progress of science and held people back from reaching their full potential.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson, you are RIGHT, Intelligient Design, or ID for short, is a philosophy of ignorance, and of WILLFULL IGNORANCE. ID supporters LOVE building STRAW MEN, it is their #1 FAVORITE logical fallacy of all time!
ok, stop the infighting! people want to blow the sucker up or nudge it away with mutual grav tether, NO, FLY AHEAD OF IT PARALLEL TO IT'S TRAJECTORY, DROP AIR TANKS WITH EXPLOSIVES STRAPPED ON, CREATE AIR POCKETS TO ALTER IT'S COURSE, THEN MANEUVER IT TO HIGH ORBIT FOR SPACE MINING
I don't know if there are more credible arguments against Newton's religiosity. But as it stands, Tyson is upset that Newton didn't apply his brilliant mathematics to more. That, I think, is the most intriguing part about Newton! He wrote at least 10,000 pages on Christian prophecy, spent a great deal of time on alchemy, and invented calculus and physics. 1 for 3 ain't bad, especially when the one is quite a big one!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
(cntd. from above) So maybe we should lay off Newton for not using the ENTIRETY of his time on science. I mean, he did invent physics and calculus.
Intelligent design believers are not dammed by our beliefs. Just because we chock up the unknown to "God did it", it doesn't mean that we don't have a burning desire to know HOW God did it. Is it so different from you atheists that say that chance did it? (ironically atheists can't exist, because they believe in the God of chance)
@tpstrat14 You could argue that Tyson reads too much into what Newton says regarding the supposed necessity of design in the motions of the planets, but it does sound a little as if he giving up because it's something he thinks is beyond the ken of mortals. Maybe that's not the case, but is it not worth considering as a possibility?
Instead of generalizing about atheists, or redefining "chance" to mean "god", perhaps you could explain what's so offensive about what Tyson is saying here.
@tpstrat14 sorry man but religion makes you ignorant by, without any scientific proof denying other theories, it is a very critical error and damns you very much so in biological science but i do agree with the irony
HUH?!?!This is the most offensively ignorant statement on Newton concerning his religious fervor, but I am glad he went there. It really showcases the stubbornness of most atheists. Is it impossible to believe us theists when we tell you that our faith ACTUALLY helps us. And no, not "help" as in it helps us fall asleep at night. It actually fuels our progression in life in EVERY area. And yes, that implies that there are other areas in our life outside of science. Surprise!
Intelligence does not exist. Systems of natural causal effect events, human or any other can not be show to be intelligent or design. That is a dogmatic human delusion.
@Lucuskane You wouldn't know about quantum mechanics if you had his mind because it wasn't known during his time. If you mean by having his mental ability, you can surpass his mental ability by going to college. Undergrads today process and take in far more information than scientists in the past. Here's the kicker, our "intelligence" will too be surpassed. Genome sequencing may be a high school project in the next 100 years or so.
@HybridD91 I agree with your clarification, the context of my comment meant as such. For exponential growth in science, i think genome sequencing in high school or earlier could happen sooner if quantum computers are available for public use.
As a scientist, you would know as a fact that if a creator does exists, he/she/it would exists with or without religion, with our without humanity, with or without Earth. Our opinions of our best thinkers don't matter. The fact that Newton was able to come up with the mathmatics to explain orbits and did or did not mention God is quite irrelevant to whether a creator existed. In fact, a creator may not have created the universe or even life, maybe just created the gameboard and the rules.
Laplace was a genius. I read his bio on wikipedia and Laplace was a maths prodigy maybe even more talented than Newton. So maybe what Laplace figured out was beyond the capabilities of Newton. I don't think God held Newton back. I think he just ran out of steam and burned out.
And of course that was from the christian bible. If the authors had access to knowledge of morality (or microbiology for that matter) through some supernatural source could have saved us all a lot of grief, instead it treated slavery as part of the landscape. "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)"
@IHS7 haha, nice..what i found funny about his comment was that he's obviously such a good theist, he "lol's" at people suffering in the afterlife....really great human being.
@DoNotBeHighandMighty spoken like a true christian...such good morals you have, so much better than the atheist...but great job of trolling, you do it well, the capitals letters really helped
watch out guys, this guy really is a badass
blindedby2monkeys 6 hours ago
I love science and math, it requires facts and truth..
megaflex48 1 week ago
pure out, flat and simple
purpleletters 3 weeks ago
believing in god is for the simple of mind
MrSpadeofAce 1 month ago
watch out guys, we're dealing with a badass over here
Chacha5678 1 month ago
Watch out, we've got a badass over here!
beansock 1 month ago
Give it up already, you can't change or "fine-tune" the laws of nature without LARGELY (im talking disgustingly high percentiles) destroying the possibility of life. If you believe in a God of divine intervention in the laws of nature, you are delusional.
youngs1ncere 3 months ago
@youngs1ncere Hm, I don't see why a belief in god that set the laws of nature is delusional, at least not on the basis of what you've said here. The fact that life can't exist outside a very narrow range of values for certain fundamental parameters, at an intuitive level, seems like a good reason to posit a god/designer. I don't think it's a satisfactory or productive supposition -- to me it seems presumptuous and simplistic, but calling it delusional goes a bit too far in my opinion.
Quinstol 3 months ago
@Quinstol wouldnt a god be able to make life exist in any condition,
for example if god wanted he could make it possible for life to exists on the the sun.
gwf1213 2 months ago
Maybe, but that's like a paradox of omnipotence.
Could God create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it? To what extent, if any, is a god bound by logic or the laws of the universe it creates? If life on the sun isn't impossible, it seems improbable; similarly, a universe capable of developing conscious life seems improbable. That we've observed the latter is taken by proponents of the strong anthropic principle as evidence of god/design.
I think it's a flawed argument but not quite delusional.
Quinstol 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Neil deGrasse Tyson - "OUR COLLECTIVE FREE TIME NEEDS TO SHIFT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO EDUCATION. WHETHER YOU'RE A YOUNG STUDENT OR FINISHED SCHOOL LONG AGO, GET OUT TO THE LIBRARY WHENEVER YOU CAN AND WORK HARD TO LEARN EVERYTHING YOU CAN ABOUT THIS WORLD. EACH INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY WILL BENEFIT FROM BEING ABLE TO SOLVE MORE PROBLEMS AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS. EDUCATION IS AN AMAZING DISCOVERY PROCESS THAT REPAYS YOU ENDLESSLY."
TheLogicalBrain 3 months ago
A very interesting presentation. But there's one thing that gets to me. Regardless of ID, why would anyone assume that there are flaws in the design of human beings and other organisms. All things work according to the laws of nature no matter how it may seem. Perhaps it seems like a flaw because it fails human expectation, but we must remember that there are still many things about the laws of the universe that we still don't quite understand. There's a reason for everything.
zacharyrod1st 4 months ago
@zacharyrod1st ID is the issue though, and unless we are talking about strictly deistic ID, I think it's fair to raise the issue of what would seem to be design "flaws" according to human intuition, values and expectations. Outside the issue of ID, when we call something "flawed", there is usually some implied context or perspective that makes that description defensible.
Quinstol 3 months ago
@Quinstol I suppose such thinking is necessary in understanding the smaller details, it's just hard to tell if the view is objective sometimes.
zacharyrod1st 3 months ago
@zacharyrod1st: The issue is that evolution, unlike a designer, doesn't work to a plan or with a goal in mind. That makes evolution's solutions sometimes seem short-sighted or impromptu. There's the "good enough" syndrome, that makes the voice box nerve 10 times longer than it needs to be, because it first appeared in fish. There's man's suboptimal eye, suboptimal erect body plan, auto-immune diseases. There's hemoglobin's affinity for carbon monoxide, much less cyanide. Etc.
puncheex 3 weeks ago
@puncheex I like this "good enough" syndrome you mention.
zacharyrod1st 3 weeks ago
@zacharyrod1st: It's the equivalent of the two guys trying to run from a bear. The first moans to the second that he doesn't think they can outrun the bear; the second wheezes back, "I don't think so either, but all I have to do is outrun you." Evolution does just that; incentive to improve stops when you're at the top of the heap.
puncheex 3 weeks ago
Wow! Well put together by Mr. Tyson.
DonFlamingo1990 6 months ago
Well, I don't care what any "scientist" says, my holy book says different, so I'm going to ignore logic, reality and so called "facts" and believe that I want to believe.
pineapplepenumbra 6 months ago 6
tyson will always be politically correct.he never steps on toes.
tommiedepew1 6 months ago
Is that Richard Dawkins at 00:56?
krogan92 7 months ago
@krogan92 i think so, yes
whenthesumis41 7 months ago
Brilliant Dr. Tyson, Brilliant
3200manpro 7 months ago
headline of South Pole Times... December 9450
existence of God is proved by alien S... code name of smart alien who is dumped from his planet to earth (because he is so stupid (his real S) in his planet)
hahaha
dfdtdfdx 7 months ago
The evangelist out to convert to the new religion. Here's one of the problems with Tyson's arguments. Tyson is in awe of Newton and other scientists who 'discovered how things really work.' Once discovered, they lost their awe of nature. It's an argument from silence. Not true. Most lecturers begin in awe of the Giants. They never end that way. They want you to be in awe of them. Bad religion, bad science says I am the gatekeeper to awe. Tyson is the now the awesome preacher. Humble science? No.
Hainan48 7 months ago
@Hainan48: Who prescribes humility as a necessary part of science? It may be useful for civilization and living together, but science requires nothing but truth.
puncheex 3 weeks ago
The guy at 0:52 just found some good porn
chype 7 months ago
I agree with cheetah, we need somebody like him as our president, enough of these dumbasses, we need a genius like Neil
keithrose4227 8 months ago
Neil deGrasse Tyson for President!
cheetah100 8 months ago 14
@cheetah100 YES YES YES YESSS, 2012 Forget obama, Forget any GOP candidate.. DR. NEIL deGRASSE TYSON FOR PRESIDENT!!!
mmmodafoca 8 months ago
@mmmodafoca VOTE PEYOTE PARTY in 2012. MOJO NIXON FOR PRESIDENT !!!
MrBeautifulba1 8 months ago
@MrBeautifulba1 peyote is illegal why not use san pedro cactus,its legal and contains mescaline.
tommiedepew1 6 months ago
@tommiedepew1 Excellent advice.
MrBeautifulba1 6 months ago
Dawkins in the audience :)
AxeHomeless 8 months ago
Napoleon Bonaparte was actually Italian, not French. You can even tell by his name.
kredit787 8 months ago
@kredit787 He was Corsican. While he was ethnically Italian, Corsica was controlled by France at the time. So it can go either way, and the argument itself is kinda silly.
PashaAntipov 8 months ago
@PashaAntipov It doesn't really matter, but its just an interesting tidbit.
kredit787 8 months ago
15% of the most brilliant minds don't believe in God; Newton, "there is no greater intellect" believed passionately in God. What's to study?
"Science is a philosophy of discovery; intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance." Neil, that ignores reality. Intelligent design was the motivation for exploring science in the first place; ID IS science. The real contrast is this:
Philosophical naturalism (not science) is the epitome of human arrogance; intelligent design is the epitome of wonder.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Perhaps, but this human arrogance refused to limit our understanding of disease to "God did it." And has allowed us to walk on another planet. Precisely what has Intelligent Design done?
Besides, you're confusing "Intelligent Design" with "Intelligibility." The first scientists were motivated not by the idea that there was some kind of creator, but by the belief that the universe's laws could be understood. As LaPlace said, there's no need for such a hypothesis.
crabbieappleton 9 months ago
1/2
@crabbieappleton "God did it." 1. I don't know that anyone believes God made disease. 2. There is nothing inherently stifling about studying design that would keep us from walking on the moon. (We haven't yet walked on another planet.) It is the study of design that enables us to understand science. The evolutionist just has to pretend it isn't. Physiology = the study of design. Biology = the study of design. Physics = the study of design.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson "I don't know that anyone believes God made disease." Of course not. We're now smarter than that, thanks to real science's refusal to stop at "God does it" as an answer.
And where is "evolutionist" coming from?
crabbieappleton 9 months ago
@crabbieappleton Disease is under the purvey of the destroyer (and thoughtless humanity). Your claim then is a strawman.
"Where is 'evolutionist' coming from?" It is coming from the worldview of philosophical naturalism that dismisses design, not because of a lack of evidence, but by a philosophical assumption that wouldn't allow a Designer no matter WHAT the evidence. It excludes God by definition without considering the evidence.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
2/2
@crabbieappleton You cannot consistently separate their belief in a Creator from their concept that the laws of the universe could be understood. One was an outgrowth of the other. Deist Laplace (if he actually made Tyson's quote and, if he did, who would have recorded it?) stood at a point of divergence from faith. In the French Revolution (1789-1799) the RAISON of the head was elevated and, as it was, the heads of 15,000 left their owners.
So much for that trial of an atheistic state.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson LOL
Apotheosis275 8 months ago
@Apotheosis275 "LOL" Yea. Pretty funny for anyone trying to use previous models of atheistic states to project for the future. Fortunately, Sweden, which has a high percentage of atheists, is a much better example. Even so, Sweden has a national church since 2000. In late 2009 the church of Sweden had 71.3% of the population as its members. So, it isn't an atheistic state. Countries that have been atheistic have been rather repressive of competing beliefs.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
"15% of the most brilliant minds don't believe in God;" -- Where are you getting that? If you're referencing the statistic mentioned by Tyson in the video, you should watch it again and listen more closely.
"Newton, "there is no greater intellect" believed passionately in God. What's to study?" -- Even the most brilliant person in the world can be wrong. You don't end study on the basis of one person's belief, no matter how smart you think that person to be.
Quinstol 8 months ago
Comment removed
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
"Philosophical naturalism (not science) is the epitome of human arrogance; intelligent design is the epitome of wonder."
These are value judgments that say nothing of the real merit or truth value of either perspective.
"It is the study of design that enables us to understand science. The evolutionist just has to pretend it isn't."
No. The "evolutionist" (and the scientist) just takes the parsimonious approach, eschewing baseless assumptions like your conflation of predictability and design.
Quinstol 8 months ago
@Quinstol "eschewing baseless assumptions ..." Hogwash! They study it as if it is has design--otherwise they couldn't discern laws and patterns, but then they "code switch" into evolution-ese and describe it in terms of it having no design. The extra effort sends them down blind alleys, such as calling non-coding chromosomes as "junk," instead of assuming it has function. Only belatedly do they come to discover the function. Had they gone direct, they likely would have found it faster.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
"They study it as if it is has design--otherwise they couldn't discern laws and patterns." This is an empty statement. To study anything with the goal of understanding requires a sensitivity to laws, patterns and relationships. This applies universally, whether design is apparent in the thing being studied or not. With this statement, you're a priori defining predictable things as designed things. You want me to accept as a premise the very thing you're trying to convince me of. Not convincing.
Quinstol 8 months ago
@Quinstol "Not convincing." Of course not. How can any evidence convince someone to quit pretending that design doesn't exist when he is of a perspective that, by definition, excludes design as an explanation, while practically assuming design in the ordered nature of laws, patterns, and relationships in the thing studied?
I'm not presenting evidence; I'm making a plea for you to quit the evolutionary charade. Design IS design--by definition. This Dawkinsian redefinition is schizophrenic.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
I'm not of a mindset to exclude design as an explanation, I just require substantial evidence to convince me of design. I don't accept that intelligibility necessarily equates with design, which is why saying that we study the universe "as if has design" is meaningless. It's at least as valid to say that we study the designed things as if they are intelligible. That the universe is intelligible and observable are the only basic assumptions of science, and even those assumptions may be incorrect.
Quinstol 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Quinstol "I'm not of a mindset to exclude design as an explanation ..." Then perhaps we have a basis for dialog.
"It's at least as valid to say that we study the designed things as if they are intelligible." First, an observation. In this sentence you have accepted my premise--you call them "designed things."
Second, two questions: Is DNA assembly language? What makes a language "intelligible"?
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
@Quinstol "Only belatedly do they come to discover the function." That there is some corruption in the genome by no means disqualifies all the wonderful design we find therein. Those who claim design for DNA were not surprised to find mounting evidence of function for what was relegated to the scrap heap of random mutation. Begrudgingly those who assumed it all to be junk acknowledge its important role in reproduction, offering an ad hoc explanation that the DNA co-opted viral leftovers! Smart.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
I also think you're really stretching, trying to lay "evolutionist blinders" as being reasonable for the misnaming and assumptions about "junk DNA." Scientists of all disciplines have occasionally made mistaken assumptions. It may have been sloppy to call non-coding DNA was "junk," but it was an understandable error, and one that didn't preclude further study of junk DNA.
Now, if you wanted to say Tyson is similarly stretching in this video, I'd concede that you have a decent point.
Quinstol 8 months ago
@Quinstol "An understandable error" Yes, it is understandable--they concluded it junk because they deny the design of the rest of the DNA that they have been studying. One false premise leads to another. Then, they have to come up with an explanation why it could play a useful role in reproduction. Instead of acknowledging obvious design for the language of life, they make the further fantastic claim that the DNA turned leftover viral code--by mere chance, mind you--into essential code for life.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
@MorganMarvinson It's an understandable error because the clearest, most important function of DNA for a long time was the fact that it serves as a genetic vehicle by coding for proteins. To claim that "evolutionists" deny other possible FUNCTIONS of junk DNA is an extreme over-generalization, as is demonstrated by the he fact that its other functions are being studied by many who accept DNA, including evolutionary biologists. And that junk DNA is "essential" to life hasn't yet been established.
Quinstol 8 months ago
@Quinstol "coding for proteins" They didn't consider the sequencing (i.e. timing) of their development? Isn't that a bit shortsighted?
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
@Quinstol "... one that didn't preclude further study of junk DNA." The implication of your statement is that recognizing design precludes further study. It doesn't. All it does is recognize the obvious. Furthermore, it suggests that, being designed, the scientist can further study its relation to the rest of the genome and uncover more function. Study and discovery are the natural outgrowth of recognizing design.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
@Quinstol BTW, the "evolutionist" is a part of a subset--though a rather large one--of all scientists. The parsimony (i.e. "stinginess") is on the part of folks who do not recognize that there is a vocal--and much smaller--subset of scientists, who are not evolutionists in part or at all because they do not see the mechanism of RM/NS to be adequate to accomplish what is claimed of it.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
@Quinstol The point of my statement, "Philosophical naturalism . . . is the epitome of human arrogance; intelligent design is the epitome of wonder," is that PN declares that nature is not a mystery but a puzzle, which human beings will eventually figure out (so said Dawkins in 2010 in Mexico). ID is not so hampered by human ego and can seek to unravel design, without the self-deception that, just given enough time, humans will figure everything out. There is and will always be wonder.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
Mystery, puzzle -- it's really a difference without a distinction as long as you're claiming that the mystery/puzzle can be "unraveled" to some degree. I think most PNs would be willing to accept that there may be things in the universe that we must remain agnostic about, because the necessary puzzle pieces are beyond human perception (either absolutely or effectively) or are simply too complex/strange for our ape brains to comprehend -- even Dawkins has said as much (google "middle world").
Quinstol 8 months ago
I would add (to the mystery/puzzle/agnosticism bit) that one of the thing we may never know is what the true boundaries of what is knowable actually are, given the expanding toolkit of science. Real arrogance is saying "I can't figure this out, therefore nobody can -- or only God can". Invoking a god of the gaps is a to compound the arrogance with true hubris, as it's claiming a degree of understanding (specifically, that "god did it") of a thing that you admit that you don't understand.
Quinstol 8 months ago
@Quinstol It is not arrogance to acknowledge you can't understand something.
And talk about the gaps--"evolution of the gaps" is employed routinely. "This isn't design because we think it should have had X feature to it." "This isn't design because other creatures have greater ability in this feature." "This isn't design because we see similarity to the design of other organisms."
Complaining because of a gap just shows one's ignorance. Designs are optimized for each organism's needs.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
The evolution through natural selection occurs is well-founded in the evidence. To extrapolate that most/all features exhibited by modern species have been selected for (and are therefore the product of evolution) isn't unreasonable. It could be wrong, but as far as it's been tested so far that prediction/assumption has been borne out. Intelligent design (in biology) has a basically non-existent empirical foundation.
Quinstol 8 months ago
@Quinstol "The evolution through natural selection occurs is well-founded in the evidence." No, it is only inferred. What is well-founded is that natural selection plays a role in the preponderance of a particular variation within a population of organisms. That natural selection can do anything to put pressure on an organism to create a new molecular machine to adapt to a new environment has never been demonstrated.
Evidence shows organisms vary within predetermined parameters--that's ID.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
Oh. And you're wrong. Arsenic life forms have been discovered. This is a new molecular machine that has adapted to a new environment.
verzen 7 months ago
@verzen the bacteria – a strain known as GFAJ-1 – don't depend on arsenic. They still contain detectable levels of phosphorus in their molecules and they actually grow better on phosphorus if given the chance. It's just that they might be able to do without this typically essential element ... ... they belong to a group called the Oceanospirillales. Bacteria from the same order are munching away at the oil that was spilled into the Gulf of Mexico earlier this year.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@verzen palaeoanthropologist John Hawks ... focuses on the lack of controls in the research.
"I'm no microbiologist, but I read the paper carefully because it seemed to be such an interesting result if true. And the paper simply does not include the controls to show that arsenate has been taken up as part of the DNA. All the other claims in the press accounts of the discovery – for example, the idea that the organisms could substitute arsenate for phosphate in ATP – were complete fiction."
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@verzen "It turns out the Nasa scientists were feeding the bacteria salts which they freely admit were contaminated with a tiny amount of phosphate. It's possible, the critics argue, that the bacteria eked out a living on that scarce supply. As Bradley [Harvard microbiologist Alex Bradley] notes, the Sargasso Sea supports plenty of microbes while containing 300 times less phosphate than was present in the lab cultures."
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson
Really? Can you name the mechanism that prevents the accumulation of mutational changes?
verzen 7 months ago
@verzen Can you show the laboratory proof in the thousands of generations of E. coli or fruit fly that would indicate otherwise? The fossil evidence supports stasis of body type--not gradual accumulation of mutational changes.
All observable evidence supports the fixation of body types. Only inference based on hypothetical evidence says otherwise. Evolution from one body type to another only exists in the imagination of those who want to believe it. No wonder atheists like Lennon's song!
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@Quinstol "a difference without a distinction" Talk to Dawkins. He's the one he made the distinction. "To some degree"--to the degree that the human mind is equipped to understand it. The arrogance is in humans thinking they can understand EVERYTHING the Creator did and does. For Dawkins, it's that parts of the puzzle are missing--hence "we may never know ..." For the believer in the Designer, it is that humans are on one plain and God is on another, and there are limits to what we can grasp.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
@MorganMarvinson That EVERYTHING can be understood by the human mind is not a basic feature of philosophical naturalism, even if it may be what some people who'd call themselves philosophical naturalists believe. The worldview you're attributing to Dawkins (can you give a more specific citation?) seems to contradict what I've heard him say before: that as apes with minds evolved to deal with the "middle world", there may be a limit to what we can comprehend about the universe and its nature.
Quinstol 8 months ago
@Quinstol "specific citation" unfortunately it was in a video that is no longer available. I went to access it to get you the information. It was called "Richard Dawkins vs William Lane Craig on big debate." I'm trying to see if the quotation is in someone else's posted video.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Also, Dawkins doesn't define philosophical naturalism. Even if Dawkins has contradicted himself in the past, there is nothing in the definition of philosophical naturalism that requires one to accept that everything can be comprehended by humans -- there is room for agnosticism in our world-view. And we can do this without baselessly assuming that we know something about WHY we may not be able to understand everything about the universe.
Quinstol 8 months ago
@Quinstol "there is nothing in the definition of philosophical naturalism that requires one to accept that everything can be comprehended by humans" Good to hear it. But inherent to PN is the exclusion of all but naturalistic explanations for origins--even when the evidence strongly points to intelligence (which, BTW, Dawkins actually gave the nod to in EXPELLED when he said that life could have been guided on earth by intelligence--just not God's).
Transparent.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
@MorganMarvinson
Idiot. You dont even realize wtf Dawkins even said. He said that aliens COULD have.. but then we would have to ask the question, "How did these aliens get here?"
The main difference is, is that you retards refuse to ask the question, "How did God come to be?"
If we REQUIRE a designer than so does our designer.. leading to infinite regression.
verzen 7 months ago
@verzen "leading to infinite regression" The idiocy is in not recognizing that either stance has the same problem--what came before what came before? Either "stuff" is eternal or its Creator is eternal.
Either you accept the unfathomable that God has no beginning (which I do) or you accept the unfathomable that all the laws, matter, and energy of the universe came into existence by themselves or always existed. Yes, we have brilliant minds hypothesizing about this, but it's all pie in the sky.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson If I were you, I would give up before I made myself look any worse. Almost on the verge of lunacy. Just sayin'. Sorry bub. G'day.
youngs1ncere 3 months ago
Tyson is simply pointing out a human tendency noting that when even the most intelligent human beings (e.g. scientists) run out of understanding and explanations some start spouting god and that's when they become useless at advancing reason and science further. That's the pattern. Why do they do that? Human beings crave answers even though they be forged in the furnace of human ignorance.
emaildoctor 10 months ago
@emaildoctor That's a shortsighted reason to invoke God. For me, it isn't always the things that I don't understand that make me think of God. More often it's the things that I think I do understand.
"In Him we live and move and have our being." Understanding the process of oxygen exchange doesn't make a body live. Understanding how the immune system works doesn't keep us from getting sick.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
The problem with all of you is that you don't understand the bible, read and be elightened: "And thus we came from God. For he bent over and shat fourth the man. And thus he removed mans rib, and from the hole in mans chest he shat forth woman; and he said to them "Behold I am the lord thy god, for I have gestated you 9 months after thine butt-sex session with that fabulous colored-man down the street. Heeyyyy!" And the lord thy god flicked his wrist in limp fashion. " Amen
scourfish 10 months ago 2
I love his passion, and his words mirror my thoughts. As soon as you ignore science for the benefit of your own agenda, you're lost. For those pondering the chances of life without ID, let me say this; "we can only ask the questions because we are here." You are searching for absolutes explaining everything about your existence, while scientists are exploring and questioning EVERYTHING.
TheGoldcountry 10 months ago
It is rather entertaining, that while lecturing on "The Perimeter of Ignorance," lecturer demonstrates that he can't spell the title of his source correctly 1:51 . God is in details.
Quelle2003 11 months ago
more tyson, less dawkins
MindOfPagan 1 year ago 2
Intelligent Design is just laughable.
CRISNCHIPS12398 1 year ago
Any engineer with the ability to create self-replicating molecules could design far better animals than the ones that exist on earth. Besides, scientist do not need to disprove every ridiculous claim made by every willingly misinformed person. Prove there are no unicorns!
chedillychedilly1 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Since Tyson is fond of stating in other videos, that he requires proof of things, but on this he will flap his gums with no proof to back his statement....fine...by his own standards, prove there is no intelligent design.
tzebra 1 year ago
@tzebra Tyson's thesis isn't that there is no intelligent design, it's that intelligent design exists as a philosophy that can, at times, manifest itself in fashion that is antithetical to the purpose of science. Given his audience (at this conference, a bunch of scientists, philosophers and atheists), that idea is more controversial than the notion that ID fails as a scientific theory (which is taken as a given).
Quinstol 1 year ago 24
@Quinstol This is where it becomes entertaining. Scientist and Philosophers, people who are supposed to dig deep, explore, question, and claim or refute nothing without solid repeatable facts, would automatically dismiss ID, with no proof. Inside of their own camp there are those who support it, and those who oppose it, yet neither has enough evidence to say "there it is", which is why I ask, after his statement in the video, that the burden falls upon him as the scientist to prove his point.
tzebra 11 months ago
@tzebra You can't really disprove anything as nebulously defined as ID, but that's OK. You don't have to thoroughly disprove a concept to demonstrate that it's nonscientific and unproductive. The onus is on the boosters of ID to show that their ideas have scientific merit. They've failed to do this.
Quinstol 11 months ago
@Quinstol Have you ever honestly run the math to formulate the chances of life occurring, on its own, with what is available in the known universe, without assistance from something greater than?
Yale U did a study on this, to determine the possibility of the most simplest of life forms to develop on its own. Their conclusion was, one out of ten to the 340 millionth power, with it being confirmed by independent math professors; Go reference it and get back to me.
tzebra 11 months ago
@tzebra "with what is available in the known universe" -- Therein lies the rub. We don't know the exact process by which life may have evolved; lacking such vital information, any calculations performed to calculate the odds of life arising independently is bound to be highly flawed. This is just another god of the gaps argument of the sort that Tyson highlights in this video, directly analogous to Newton's failed attempts to account for the stability of planetary orbits.
Quinstol 11 months ago
@tzebra That figure is misleading and dependent on the formation of a very specific molecule. The Miller-Urey experiment alone shows how trivial it would be for amino acids to form. Abiogenesis is highly improbable but not statistically impossible. Also, there is no way to disprove a negative. You can't disprove ID even if you definitively prove evolution because there is no way of knowing that an intelligent designer didn't meticulously direct the evolution in some way.
GoodGodStopThis 11 months ago
Also, later in the video does give some examples of "unintelligent design", with often humorous examples of terrible engineering and lack of forethought in the design of humans and other organisms. He doesn't really try to tear down ID in any sort of scientifically rigorous fashion, but the examples he gives does raise the question as to why a designer so subtle, skilled, intelligent and details-oriented miss some pretty obvious design flaws.
In any case, the burden of proof isn't on Tyson.
Quinstol 1 year ago 16
@Quinstol obviously god didnt make things gravy, i have to live amongst mindless twits on all sides of the spectrum, in a cruel world of lunacy...but it is what it is.....luckily there are some good things in life...sometimes it seems like there are equal amounts of good and bad things in the world ..i see no reason to think its impossible for god to be responsible for such a creation as this place..its too strange and amazing to just pop into existence out of nothing..nothing spawns nothing
longfootbuddy 9 months ago
@longfootbuddy It's not impossible for a god to have been responsible for the creation of the universe, it's just that there isn't much evidence to suggest that is the case. Although I would say that it'd be a logical contradiction to say that in a world that may be equal parts good and bad, that the god responsible for the creation of the universe is all-loving AND all-powerful. The simple fact is that such a god could've created a much better reality.
Quinstol 9 months ago
@Quinstol yes he couldv, at least in my mind, but im no more capable of understanding the reasoning of god, than scientists are capable of understanding god's creation...to me, its much harder to accept that the universe was made from nothing, for no purpose, with no god behind it...it has nothing to do with me being brainwashed by christians.. i was raised in a christian household, and grew up to realize most of what they believe, is nonsense
longfootbuddy 9 months ago
@Quinstol Well it's simple, isn't it? Intelligent Design is not a "theory" in the scientific sense of the word because it can't be tested, falsified, has no evidence, makes no predictions, etc. It's complete pseudo-science garbage.
Drgamedood 5 months ago
@tzebra We are not obligated to prove there is no intelligent design any more than we are obligated to prove there is no Jack Frost. Mythical, whimsical characters are extraordinary claims and therefore demand extraordinary proof. It can be observed that natural forms emerge from ordinary principles of physics and so there is no need to search for something more exotic to explain them. Now if we found a signed plaque on Mars stating, "Made by God," that would be different.
MrDominex 1 year ago
@MrDominex still doesn't say which God. Abrahamic God? Pan gu? Odin? Zeus? Brahma?
thunderfirebolt 1 year ago
@tzebra
Tyson's standards would NEVER be "prove there is no... anything". It would be "prove there is...something".
DickJohnson3434 10 months ago
@tzebra
He doesn't have to disprove ID. The burden of proof is on the party making the claim. They have made many claims in an attempt to support their theory (NOT scientific theory) for ID, but with absolutely no credible evidence, testability, or peer-reviewed papers to show for it. Do you waste your time disproving the idea that fairies exist, aliens abduct humans, or geocentric ideas? No, because there has been no proof presented to suggest those claims are viable in the first place.
phroz3n 10 months ago
I'm probably going to get alot of crap for this,but I would like to see Tyson debate Craig..I believe them both to be great.I would love to see a them share their thoughts at the same time.
MsLttle 1 year ago
It's a troll comment...guys
SSGWhit 1 year ago
Pt. 3: You don't want to go there. You can't. You can't be wrong. Your belief system and values in this life depend upon it. You don't want Truth, you just want to be "right". Typical herd, sheep-bleating mentality. Enjoy yourselves. Ignorance is bliss...
salmagnum 1 year ago
@salmagnum blow me asshole
menthol5 1 year ago
@menthol5 And there you have it folks. Pretty much the other side's argument in a nutshell as laid out in all its simplistic beauty by this hate-filled menthol5. He's got it ALL figured out, might even have a diploma to show for it from one of the system schools to verify his ability to pass their tests! "We don't want Truth, we want to be RIGHT! And if we don't like what you have to say, we'll string you up!" The mob was no more understanding when God himself was on this earth in human form.
salmagnum 1 year ago
@salmagnum
You an embarrassment to humanity. To dispute Evolution is akin to denying that the Earth revolves around the Sun. If I may quote Sir David Attenborough
"Evolution is a fact. As sure as the fact that William the Conqueror. Landed at Pevensy in 1066."
JONNOG88 1 year ago
@salmagnum How is the fossil record false? WTF are you talking about? Evolution is a fact big man get used to it. Buried fossil records? You must be out your goddamn mind.
surshot56 1 year ago
@salmagnum You really believe the earth is 6000 years old? WOW theres no stopping you huh? You're already convinced that man and dinosaurs walked together? So, if we look at it with your perspective Noah had dinosaurs on his ark right? Since man and dinosaurs walked together. Where are the dinosaurs? Where did the water go? Why isn't there a thick level of fossils in the layer of the earth where everything was killed by the flood? You don' have to answer my questions. Good day.
surshot56 1 year ago
@surshot56 What we really need is a team of Psychiatrists to figure out WHY people generally can believe in something as preposterous as the idea that the Earth is 6,800 years old etc. Is it just childhood indoctrination? Or is it that having bought into one lie they have to invent more lies to get them out of a hole?
lewisner 1 year ago
@lewisner These people are just as dangerous as criminals.
surshot56 1 year ago
@salmagnum HEY ASSHOLE TROLL GO BACK UNDER YOUR ROCK.
menthol5 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pt. 2: We Biblical creationists do not fear the supernatural as is commonly supposed by university-programmed automatons. I for one embrace it. Fact: The fossil record has been fabricated. Fact: What lies buried in the vaults of the Smithsonian and London Museum among other places would shake all you Darwinian atheists posing as credible scientists to the core.
salmagnum 1 year ago
@salmagnum You've made three comments and have really said nothing to support any of your "points". They're just flat assertions that really don't have any credibility coming from a random Internet conspiracy theorist.
Quinstol 1 year ago 18
@Quinstol You are absolutely correct Quinstol. And I never will have any credibility. You are not afforded such, no matter how much proof (or even circumstantial evidence) you offer or how intelligently you pose your queries, given the realities of the current "enlightened", "scientific" mindset. (And yes, the quotes indicate facetious intent.) I have talked to those few who have seen behind the proverbial curtain, and have experienced that which science cannot explain, that is all.
salmagnum 1 year ago
@Quinstol "Random Internet Conspiracy Theorist", is that like "Flat Earth Creationist"? Too bad we can't meet face to face. You might have a few of your oh-so-convenient paradigms shattered...maybe not. No matter how far off base I might consider you, I will not attempt to marginalize you or engage in condescending retorts like so many I see on these forums doing. Just beware of generalizations, we creationists are very rarely the buck-toothed hillbillys of stereotype. Newton wasn't
salmagnum 1 year ago
@salmagnum You're above attempting to marginalize people with condescending retorts, but you have absolutely no problem with dismissing entire fields of study as basically fraudulent without anything more to back it up to vague references to evidence "buried in the Smithsonian" and the like.
This isn't the best forum for an in depth discussion, but surely most anything you could convey to me face-to-face could be composed and presented on a web site. Show me your arguments and evidence.
Quinstol 1 year ago 3
@salmagnum "we creationists are very rarely the buck-toothed hillbillys of stereotype. Newton wasn't"
Newton lived 500 years ago. Some of us have moved on.You obviously haven't.
lewisner 1 year ago
@lewisner nope haven't "moved on" lol. Hard for an educated man like myself to move from the truth to crap, theoretical "science". Hey--- check it out! REAL science by NON-Christians (after all, we all KNOW that no Christian could ever be a REAL scientist, lol) whose actual field work has led them to pose some really interesting questions to their atheists-posing-as-scientists counterparts!
watch?v=6oGqPc6poS4
salmagnum 1 year ago
@salmagnum another dumb-fuck Christer. You can troll for alterboys like your asshole priests. If I ever come one of your 'holy' men molesting a child, I'll be arrested for murder.
menthol5 1 year ago
@menthol5 Ah, such enlightenment my friend! I am more against the pagan "church" of Rome & its pederasts (and organized religion in general) than you could ever be. You don't understand the distinction between religion and Biblical Christianity, so you spew misguided bile. A blind hatred of what you call Christ. Typical. Had you an inkling of how this world really operates you would understand that Darwinian "scientists" and the Catholic religious institution are on the same team.
salmagnum 1 year ago
@salmagnum MEME has taken complete control of your entire brain. This is not a personal attack. This kind of thought processes you have and conclusions in your head that you would believe also that hanging around folks who are not infested beyond all recognition and convince us of what? The definition of insanity, for instance, is performing a task over and over and over again and eventhough the same results happen each time expecting them to change to what you want the results to be. Pitiful
splicedenergy 11 months ago
@salmagnum Creationists = idiots. PERIOD.
DerangederX 1 year ago
Pt. 1 "100 years later..." oh, and the Age of Reason where they first said that God was dead. Laplace was a product of this culture, as is/was Darwin, Tyson, Dawkins, Sagan, et al. I wonder how many ppl would react to all the evidence supporting the Biblical account that has been swept under the rug were they allowed access to it.
salmagnum 1 year ago
We know the truth of how, why and when the bible was scripted, the number of times and the trail of lies that extend past any point our eyes can surmise. Being objective is the key to this riddle, you believe it to be true because you were taught it to be true. Without questioning the validity of those who taught you. That is not doubt that is just plain seeking verification. Which you have not done in any way at all. If you had any respect for yourself, you should check for collaboration please
splicedenergy 11 months ago
@splicedenergy Came to Christ only recently after devoting many years of my life to study of all the wisdom and knowledge of man. My passion has always been true history (not to be confused with the myths and accounts written by the conquerors which pass for history in the texts of your institutions), finally, last year my search led me to the Word of God. Had I simply settled for what was spoon fed me by the "learned" indoctrinated system-promoters, I would've stayed complacent in my ingnorance
salmagnum 11 months ago
@salmagnum Thats bullshit and I am calling you out on it. You just made that up out of thin air. I'm not stupid, I used to be penecostal, I know the tricks of word play as well as you do. Knowingly or not. Christ doesnt not have any historical footprint, not even the biblical scholars would disagree with me you see, because they were the ones to teach me. Dont think for a second that you can getaway about knowing what I do, you can lie to yourself. That is all you are going to do.
splicedenergy 11 months ago
@splicedenergy If you were pentecostal there is little wonder you were deceived. Christ is not some feeling of euphoria achieved at a mass s'eance, He is the Word of truth found in the unadulterated Scripture (aka NON Roman Catholic versions of the Bible). As for the historicity of Christ, refer to the pm I sent you. If anyone else would care to view info on Christ, Noah's Ark, The Flood, creationism and all the other taboo topics you are being lied to about in your institutions, pm me.
salmagnum 11 months ago
@salmagnum My pointing that I was penecostal was to make it known that I myself was a fundamentalist christian and once believed everything taught in the church. To even imply that JC was an actual flesh and blood person. If you had done the years of extensive research with top scholors this would be obvious. Do not talk to me as if you pity me for being "decieved" the deception has factual tangible evidence that what is true is that you are the one still being decieved. I'm sorry
splicedenergy 11 months ago
@splicedenergy i c, i c. I was just pointing out that if you went to a pentecostal church you were in no way a Christian fundamentalist. The clips I sent you proving that Jesus did indeed exist feature top scholars in their field. Dismissing them without watching them is what blind belief is all about. Anyone can make unsubstantiated claims on the internet. I enjoy looking into things for myself, it keeps the old egg off the face, I've found :)
salmagnum 11 months ago
@salmagnum I assure you, they most certainly are. In my definition anyway. I don't know how much further a denomination would have to go for you to agree since I do not see much room to go any further in disgraceful and murderous behaviours which is very extreme. A few people refusing to accept the vast historical artifacts and those missing which are important to aquire the proof in any way is not anywhere to be found. For 2000 years. This is about facts, what these few are doing are believing
splicedenergy 11 months ago
@splicedenergy Your most recent msg is incoherent, I could not understand what you were trying to say. Could you restate your points? It never ceases to amaze me when I hear those on the faceless internet claiming their intellectual superiority through garbled phrase and grammatical error. An infrequent spelling error now and again happens to even the best of us, but when I have to interpret someone who is sure they've got the market on knowledge cornered, it seems such sweet irony.
salmagnum 11 months ago
@salmagnum
Trololol.
calmsnowfall 11 months ago
its not about religion or atheism, its about science
thepickletrain 1 year ago
Hah I love Dr. Tyson, he gets so into his lectures. I agree with Tyson that ID should be taught as it applies to history, but not as a legitimate scientific possibility. It is important that we remember how even the most brilliant among us can fall victim to ID and how it has in the past as it currently is today slowed the progress of science and held people back from reaching their full potential.
s5b678 1 year ago
Neil DeGrasse Tyson, you are RIGHT, Intelligient Design, or ID for short, is a philosophy of ignorance, and of WILLFULL IGNORANCE. ID supporters LOVE building STRAW MEN, it is their #1 FAVORITE logical fallacy of all time!
MrOdyssey1999 1 year ago
I love this smart man
RedPILLisis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ok, stop the infighting! people want to blow the sucker up or nudge it away with mutual grav tether, NO, FLY AHEAD OF IT PARALLEL TO IT'S TRAJECTORY, DROP AIR TANKS WITH EXPLOSIVES STRAPPED ON, CREATE AIR POCKETS TO ALTER IT'S COURSE, THEN MANEUVER IT TO HIGH ORBIT FOR SPACE MINING
DavidPennable 1 year ago
Fair enough.
I don't know if there are more credible arguments against Newton's religiosity. But as it stands, Tyson is upset that Newton didn't apply his brilliant mathematics to more. That, I think, is the most intriguing part about Newton! He wrote at least 10,000 pages on Christian prophecy, spent a great deal of time on alchemy, and invented calculus and physics. 1 for 3 ain't bad, especially when the one is quite a big one!
tpstrat14 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
(cntd. from above) So maybe we should lay off Newton for not using the ENTIRETY of his time on science. I mean, he did invent physics and calculus.
Intelligent design believers are not dammed by our beliefs. Just because we chock up the unknown to "God did it", it doesn't mean that we don't have a burning desire to know HOW God did it. Is it so different from you atheists that say that chance did it? (ironically atheists can't exist, because they believe in the God of chance)
tpstrat14 1 year ago
@tpstrat14 You could argue that Tyson reads too much into what Newton says regarding the supposed necessity of design in the motions of the planets, but it does sound a little as if he giving up because it's something he thinks is beyond the ken of mortals. Maybe that's not the case, but is it not worth considering as a possibility?
Instead of generalizing about atheists, or redefining "chance" to mean "god", perhaps you could explain what's so offensive about what Tyson is saying here.
Quinstol 1 year ago 3
@tpstrat14 Repeating the canard "chance did it" doesn't make it true. That is an ID straw man that is not supported by natural selection theory.
Natural selection is nothing like chance.
Try reading what natural selection actually is instead of IDiots lies.
fidgaf 1 year ago
@tpstrat14 Chance isn't a mechanism or diety, it's a possible outcome.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@tpstrat14 Chance is not God. So there are atheists.
atheistram 1 year ago
@tpstrat14 sorry man but religion makes you ignorant by, without any scientific proof denying other theories, it is a very critical error and damns you very much so in biological science but i do agree with the irony
TheFunkyBuddhaa 1 year ago
HUH?!?!This is the most offensively ignorant statement on Newton concerning his religious fervor, but I am glad he went there. It really showcases the stubbornness of most atheists. Is it impossible to believe us theists when we tell you that our faith ACTUALLY helps us. And no, not "help" as in it helps us fall asleep at night. It actually fuels our progression in life in EVERY area. And yes, that implies that there are other areas in our life outside of science. Surprise!
tpstrat14 1 year ago
Intelligence does not exist. Systems of natural causal effect events, human or any other can not be show to be intelligent or design. That is a dogmatic human delusion.
Twicebakedtaters 1 year ago
I wish i had a mind as that of Newton. If that was, quantum mechanics would be a joy.
Lucuskane 1 year ago
@Lucuskane You wouldn't know about quantum mechanics if you had his mind because it wasn't known during his time. If you mean by having his mental ability, you can surpass his mental ability by going to college. Undergrads today process and take in far more information than scientists in the past. Here's the kicker, our "intelligence" will too be surpassed. Genome sequencing may be a high school project in the next 100 years or so.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 I agree with your clarification, the context of my comment meant as such. For exponential growth in science, i think genome sequencing in high school or earlier could happen sooner if quantum computers are available for public use.
Lucuskane 1 year ago
I am just astonished that so many people can sit so idle watching, If I was there I would just sit with open eyes totally sucking everything in.
Of course many probably who sits there and like any good scientist judge and tries to disprove Tyson's comments.
userstupidname 1 year ago
As a scientist, you would know as a fact that if a creator does exists, he/she/it would exists with or without religion, with our without humanity, with or without Earth. Our opinions of our best thinkers don't matter. The fact that Newton was able to come up with the mathmatics to explain orbits and did or did not mention God is quite irrelevant to whether a creator existed. In fact, a creator may not have created the universe or even life, maybe just created the gameboard and the rules.
MRRICH07 1 year ago
@MRRICH07 I think that's quite a view, and I sort of like it.
NasalSnack4 1 year ago
@MRRICH07 Spoken like a true Jesus freak. Go comment on a praise Jesus video you fuck.
Luckier8 1 year ago
Another one of the smartest people on the planet!!
MrCrater1 1 year ago
man i could listen to this guy explain how fresh dog crap drys up and becomes crusty, he is that entertaining. Wsh he was my instructor.
smp1717 1 year ago 3
Good ol' detrimental religion. Tyson is impossible to argue with when he presents his side with such affection and smoothness to the opposition.
MafferDragonhandEyed 1 year ago
Laplace was a genius. I read his bio on wikipedia and Laplace was a maths prodigy maybe even more talented than Newton. So maybe what Laplace figured out was beyond the capabilities of Newton. I don't think God held Newton back. I think he just ran out of steam and burned out.
WhoLueYou 1 year ago
And of course that was from the christian bible. If the authors had access to knowledge of morality (or microbiology for that matter) through some supernatural source could have saved us all a lot of grief, instead it treated slavery as part of the landscape. "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)"
GowanBray 1 year ago
Religion comes out of ignorance. I Like it :)
hostaa 1 year ago
YOU LOSE ATHEISTS. YOU LOSE NOW AND IN THE AFTERLIFE LOL.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@DoNotBeHighandMighty the law of conservation of energy spits on your afterlife.
IHS7 1 year ago 2
@IHS7 haha, nice..what i found funny about his comment was that he's obviously such a good theist, he "lol's" at people suffering in the afterlife....really great human being.
abrahambivins 1 year ago
@DoNotBeHighandMighty spoken like a true christian...such good morals you have, so much better than the atheist...but great job of trolling, you do it well, the capitals letters really helped
abrahambivins 1 year ago