Part 1: Hugh Ross, Fuz Rana, and Michael Shermer - Was Darwin Wrong? Debate at UT 4/28/9

[treasuredroperX]

Michael Shermer is AWESOME!

[TheMarkinaustin]

I was at this debate and even though I am a convinced Christian, I was embarrassed for Michael Shermer…his arguments were horrendous and I am sure intelligent atheists that attended were horrified by how lousy his arguments were. There ARE better arguments against belief (not that I agree with them), but man did this guy come off as uneducated. As a graduate in Philosophy of this fine institution (U.T.) I was horrified that the Atheist Club would have invited someone so ill equipped to debate

[Galmozzi99]

@TheMarkinaustin Shermer is prone to these arguments which rely on the ignorance of his cheerleaders. In an email exchange with me he also claimed the following about David Berlinski "evolution, a subject of which he has no training and knows next to nothing about." Shermer fails to consider Berlinki's degrees in molecular biology & mathematics to be relevant but considers his own limited background in only psychology to make him an expert. Typical.

[Artdecovampire]

This is great stand up. I think doing stand up comedy about Darwin being wrong is really brave. I laughed out loud. Not as much as all of our lives being ruled by an invisible man that changes his ideas at will, and people make stuff up about him to suit their own ends. Now that really is funny. Its almost as funny as people who really don't understand Darwin trying to disprove naturall selction, what a hoot. Better than any comedy club I ever saw.

[SHIBBYiPANDA]

@Artdecovampire I know I live for this stuff... Who needs a comedy club when you have churches??? lol

[Artdecovampire]

@SHIBBYiPANDA I know, it amuses me why we, as an organism, have to pretend there is a spook watching us? Perhaps if we admitted that we are responsible ourselves for all the good and bad we do we might grow up a bit. Evolution only has one argument, the truth. Religeon has thousands, but they're all made up. Sadly people like made up fantasy. What really made me chuckle is how he tried to put down other made up nonesense as less true than his own made up nonsense. LOL!

[SHIBBYiPANDA]

@Artdecovampire LOL! Agreeeed. I would also posit that if religious people realized that if God exists, than HE is responsible for all the god and bad they do, as well as all the good and bad demons and hurricanes and blah blah blah do, than they would grow up a little..

[SHIBBYiPANDA]

@SHIBBYiPANDA is this video good?? I seems a little strange to see Shermer debating TWO creationists...

[Gavilanes65]

I love this guy!No-one can explain this guy away,and it just pisses everyone off that they cant explain him wrong.Because he knows who the Living Godor Jesus is.

[mattkyle99]

@Gavilanes65 I know it is amazing!! Really compelling stuff!!

[ScottMacFie]

Job 26: 7: God "stretches the Northern Skies over empty space. He hangs the earth on nothing."

The prophet Job, related the words of God in a manner which even THEN would have been puzzling (the concept of the earth hanging on nothing).

The reality is, there are TONS of statements in the bible that ONLY make sense now that we know what we know.

[toobsucker]

Something that most all Darwinian evolutionists do not understand is naturalistic evolution stands or falls on the back of abiogenesis. this is the reason why atheists ALWAYS separate abiogenesis from Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolutionists start their theory AFTER the DNA code is already written (the hard part) because if they started their naturalistic theory from its foundation. it would never get off the ground.

There is NO naturalistic explanation for the existence of the DNA code

[chansetwo]

Crediting the bible with explaining the origin of the universe is an insult to the scientists that spent their lives for over 400 years studying the universe, and discovering what we now know. It's also an insult to any intelligent person who can differentiate reality from fiction.

[ObjectiveBob]

@chansetwo

Christian scientists don't credit the bible with EXPLAINING the origin of the universe. They basically say that there is no incompatibility between scientific discoveries and the Bible; that is, the Bible says that God created the universe while science explains how the creation occured in detail.

[larsiemannen]

@ObjectiveBob: How would Gods creation contradrict with the fact that human find more and more about how he created his universe?

[larsiemannen]

@chansetwo: Besides dscovering what 'we' know, its awfull alot they -dont- know; you just need to find a scientific and logic reason which contradict with how the Bible explains the creation of universe. And how do you know how to use 'intellect' if you are not above physical matters? And if you admit that you are, consciousness, why not an Creator?

[chansetwo]

@larsiemannen The bible does not explain anything about the function or origin of the universe. The bible authors were completely ignorant of how the cosmos functions and evolves. That is why they resort to rediculous fabricated stories about talking snakes, invisible beings and other such nonsense.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo A mistake some evolutionists make is believing science and religion are on two different sides. Science is a tool that we use to explain things. The fact that we named it science only proves that we created it. Theories and facts are two totally different things. The Creationist and Evolutionist are very similar, they both believe that in time their theory will be proven correct.

[chansetwo]

@BlizzGMX You're wrong. Creationists don't have scientifically valid theories. Neither Genesis creation nor intelligent design pass the test of critical inquiry necessary for a valid, well supported scientific theory. Also, scientific theories are not "proven correct". Proofs only exist in math and logic. It is a matter of probability, not "proofs" The probability is on the side of science, not biblical myth, and/or creation. So, you don't know what you're talking about.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo I think you must have totally neglected what i wrote just so you could spew out what you wanted to say without any effort to stay on track with the actual comment I made. Is it a programmed response or do you just forget what you're talking about a lot? I never said anything about scientific proofs, I said we named science science as a tool to investigate the intricate workings of our planet. Claiming this tool as a religion is no different than giving a screwdriver a drivers licence.

[chansetwo]

@BlizzGMX Ok, I'll make it even clearer. You wrote "The Creationist and Evolutionist are very similar, they both believe that in time their theory will be proven correct." "Evolutionists" do not believe their theory will be proven correct for reasons I just stated.  There are no "proofs" in natural science; only in math and logic. Science is about probability, not "proof". The parallel you suggest between "Evolutionists" and "Creationists" does not exist. You don't know what you're writing.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo let's begin with simple science. U develope a hypothesis, u "create" theories for why it might be correct. Then you gather data to support said hypothesis. If the data does not support said hypothesis then one can conclude said hypothesis is inncorrect. Did I lose you yet? If you're still with me then that means you understand basic english. If your data doesn't put the puzzle together then it PROVES you're WRONG. Find a piece of evidence that fills the missing genome in any specimen.

[chansetwo]

@BlizzGMX None of what you wrote refutes what I said. You are avoiding the issue. I repeat: you made the claim that "Evolutionists" and "Creationists" want to "prove" their "theory" correct. This is wrong because scientific theories are not proven. Proofs only exist in math and logic; not natural science. A well supported theory like evolution is as close to a "proof" as can exist in natural science. This is a basic axiom of the philosophy of science. Open a book before opening your mouth.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo I can see your ego gets in the way of your ability to think for yourself. I could go on and on with you, but simple logic doesn't seem to work with you. You can prove a theory is inncorrect when no critical evidence supports it. I can walk around saying I was 29 feet tall 3 days ago. With no evidence to support this I can be proven wrong. Tell me how a butterfly becomes an elephant? LOL both are just as ridiculous

[chansetwo]

@BlizzGMX "You can prove a theory is inncorrect.." Changing the argument is not going to work. For the fourth time, you said "Ev.. and Cre.." want to "prove" their "theory" CORRECT. This is not done is science for reasons I've stated three times; and you have not responded to. Science does not deal in "proofs"; it deals in probabilities. One cannot know an absolute. The idea of scientific absolutes "proofs" was discarded in science a century ago. Close your loud mouth, and open a book.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo If somethiing can be proven inncorrect, then it can also be proven correct. I think maybe you should use a little bit of common sense. The books you're referring to have let you down again. Evolution has never provided any evidence to support it''s ridiculous claims in well over a century, yet you cling to these books as your bible. Darwin himself said that if no evidence was found to support his theory in 100 years of it's birth, to abondon it and search for other theories.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo There is no way you can explain anything without evidence. Once enough evidence is gathered you can prove if things are correct or not. Why waste the time searching for answers if once you get them you deny their authenticity? No evidence exists to support evloution which is why it will remain a theory forever. Books are written by man, men edit books all the time when their contents are proven wrong. Saying there is no proof in science is laughable. Science is proof, I'm done nowbye!

[chansetwo]

@BlizzGMX Ok, I'll make it even more elementary. As anyone who has taken a college lab course knows, you are not allowed to discard data and solutions believed to be incorrect. Why? Becasue further investigation may validate that data. Theories are not "proven" or "disproven". Science uses probability not "proofs". Evolution is one of the most successful thories in the history of science. It will not be "proven" for the same reasons the theories of gravity and electricity will not be proven.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo and that is why I said " IN TIME". eventually when enough time passes things will be proven. To think this universe will go on forever without answers surfacing is absurd. Proof will set you free haha I'm going to leave you on that note. I won't respond anymore. Have A wonder life. Bye!

[chansetwo]

@BlizzGMX You still don't get it. I can't make it any simpler than I have. "Time" is irrelevant. Science does not deal in "proofs" because for one, one cannot know an absolute, no matter how much time passes. 100 years ago, the apparent univerality of Newtons mechanics was overturned by Einsteins relativity. That is one reason science deals in probabilities, not "proofs" Go take a class on elementary epistemology or philosophy of science; but first, start with 7th grade science.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo U baited me to write one last bit. Newtons theories became obsolete to Enstiens because of what? "TIME" You're proving my point for me. thank you very much. I have taken college science courses I just do not believe everything i read. i use my own common sense before anything else.

[chansetwo]

@BlizzGMX I did not say "Newtons theories became obsolete". They are not. You can't seem to get anything right. Forget about taking philosophy, and 7th grade science; you need to start earlier. You don't understand the impact relativity had on Newtons second law, you don't understand the philosophy or methodology or history of science, you don't understand the significance of a theory; you don't understand basic informal logic, and you lay your ignorance out for everyone to see.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo obsolete- to make obsolete by replacing with something newer or better; antiquate: Automation has obsoleted many factory workers. I don't need to perform miracles to make this simple point lol

[chansetwo]

@BlizzGMX Newton's "theories" have not been "replaced with something else". The first college physics class one takes is Classical Mechanics where one learns how Newtons laws affect everyday life; including the second one. As I said, You don't understand what you're talking about. Go get an education - begining at the 6th grade level.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo I will agree to disagree with you. you think the future is one big question mark where everyone runs around with no idea about whats going on right in front of their eyes. I think time produces evidence explaining the intricate workings of God's hand. Science is a tool not a religion. Now please stop trying to bait me in with your ad hominems. I understand you want me to repeat the 1rst grade with you as my teacher, but if I did that we would both be fools

[BlizzGMX]

@U quoted "replaced by something else" when I clearly did not have that in my comment. replaced by something newer or better was the quote u were trying to avoid. nice try though!

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo "100 years ago, the apparent univerality of Newtons mechanics was overturned by Einsteins relativity" you want to argue if overturned and replaced are incompatible words? Word choice does not make your bickering any more sensible

[chansetwo]

@BlizzGMX As usual you are wrong. I do not believe what you just wrote I do. You haven't been paying attention. You're still wrong about Newton and relativity. You said "Newtons theories became obsolete". You are wrong. If you had a high school understanding of physics you would understand that. Neither was his second law "replaced" or "overturned". I already carefully explained this. You dance around the issue without a scrap of understandng. Turn off the computer and get an education.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo I just Quoted you. you said "overturned" not me LOL you're now arguing with yourself. if you had a practical understanding of communication you would realize how retarded you sound arguing with your own words. I can not keep wasting my time with this topic. Read what you wrote below and try to keep up LOL what a waste of my time

[chansetwo]

@BlizzGMX I did not write that Newtons law was "overturned". I wrote "the UNIVERSALITY of Newtons Mechanics was overturned". That means they are not universal. That does not mean they were overturned. As I already said, they are taught in every high school and college physics course.Not only are you profoundly ignorant, you are apparently illiterate as well.You can't seem to get anything right. You can't even understand what you read. Instead of the 6th grade, you need to start with the 3rd.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo you are clearly an idiot who can not keep track with anything. I said theories nothing about laws. Anyway U keep thinking you're some brilliant person i know better and so will anyone who reads this. I had fun showing you how pitiful you are. Good riddons. I am sure you will try to get the last word with some more dancing around the issue. You make up quotes to use as your firepower and you include words that i did not say. That is the sign of a desperate person.

[chansetwo]

@Bl "I said theories nothing about laws" It is Newtons second LAW that is in question with regard to relativity you fool.You're also wrong about theories as I've explained six times now, and you have not refuted once.You further demo- nstrate your ignorance with each post.Not only do you not understand the

philosophy, methodology or history of science or the significance of a theory among other things, we now know you have no understanding of the Einstein's relativity on Newtonian mechanics.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo HAHAHA!!! such an idiot. You conjure up these huge arguments adding your own information into my sentences trying to imply i said any of it and then you try to base your argument on things I never even said all while calling me names LOL this is funny don't ever join the debate team you would get demolished

[chansetwo]

@BlizzGMX "HAHAHA!!! such an idiot." is not a refutation. As I've said and demonstrated repeatedly, you wrong about theories, wrong about "proofs", you have no understanding of science. Now you have not even attempted to put an argument forth. I guess that means you acknowledge your failure.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo keep readin and you will get ot the point where you're refuted and should hold your head down in shame

[chansetwo]

@BlizzGMX Then show me how you have "refuted" me.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo can't u read????. You argue about laws and all of this BS when I clearly said Newtons theory became obsolete to Einstiens. the theory of relativity superseded a 200 year old theory of mechanics elucidated by sir isaac newton. TAKE YOUR LOSS LIKE A MAN.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo Which goes back to my original point that answers and discoveries will eventually lead to the truth. In the theory of general relativity Orbits precess in a way unexpected in Newton's theory of gravity. (This has been observed in the orbit of Mercury and in binary pulsars). Which means Newton's theory of gravity is obsolete to general relativity

[chansetwo]

@BlizzGMX Once again you are not paying attention. Newtons "theory" with regard to gravity is taught in every college and physics department for a reason. Every physicist and engineer must know how it works. It is the UNIVERSALITY of principals like his second law that were in question.For the third time his "theory" of gravity has not been replaced or overthrown. Acceleration due to gravity is still 32f/s. Gravity still operates at a distance. Einstein simply explained the mechanism, fool

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo WOW you're 100 percent hopeless. The argument i was making was that with enough time passing answers will surface and eventually lead humanity to the truth. Which is an undeniable fact. Whether you like the truth or not is not important because in the grand scheme of things you're not important. You don't know what you're talking about but you keep talking like yo do. Give up already i have proven you are wrong.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo If I have a math problem that is 90 percent correct and someone else has the same math problem 100 percent correct then who is right and who is wrong? I am not taking away from newton's theory i am simply pointing out the obvious in that einstein's theory superseded newton's theory. To argue against that is insanity. You're not well equipped to handle a debate of any magnitude. You can not deny einsteins theory impacted the world.

[chansetwo]

@BlizzGMX Changing the argument is not going to work. You wrote"Newtons theories became obsolete to Einstiens" This is wrong. If they were obsolete, they would not be taught by every physics department in every high school and college. Neither were they "replaced" or "overthrown" You don't know what you're talking about. You're also wrong about "proofs" and "theories" in science, as I've also explained. You don't have a clue. Have the integrity to admit it. It's obvious.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo i DIDNT CHANGE ANYTHING I SOMPLY PROVED YOU WRONG

[chansetwo]

@BlizzGMX Then why can't you show me how? I'm asking you for the second time now.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo do you know what the definition of insanity is? cause i already know u dont know what the defintions of supersede or obsolete are. THIS IS MY LAST POST IN REGARDS TO THIS TOPIC. I HAVE PROVIDED PLENTY TO DISPUTE ALL OF YOUR ATTEMPTS OF ARGUING JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING. YOU CANT ACCEPT DEFEAT SO U JUST KEEP SAYING HOW COME I LOST???

[chansetwo]

@BlizzGMX None of what you just wrote refutes me. I'm still waiting for that mysterious refutation you allude to. You don't offer a refutation becasue you don't have one. You're not fooling anyone, except perhaps yourself.

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo and even Einstein himself approached ideas of a super natural being and a creator with complete humility. You need to learn a lot before you try to match wits on youtube. Start with basic reading comprehension. Then maybe you can express yourself with some practical common sense. In the real world the book won't save you from someone like me LOL

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo if this argument was a chess match you're in checkmate

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo The theory of relativity enriched physics and astronomy during the 20th century. When first published, relativity superseded a 200-year-old theory of mechanics elucidated by Isaac Newton. It changed perceptions.[4][5][6]

For example, it overturned the concept of motion from Newton's day, into all motion is relative.

WIKI

[BlizzGMX]

@chansetwo superseded- to replace in power, authority, effectiveness, acceptance, use, etc., as by another person or thing. Now will you please shut the fuck up and quit pretending like you know something. You are a complete imbecile. YOU HAVE LOST ALL CREDIBILITY PLEASE TAKE YOUR LOSS AND GO CRY WITHOUT RESPONSE. I WIN THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[ghostbirdfilms]

"michalchik" - You might want to check your translation of Genesis. "Heavens" is plural - as in multi-dimessional. How about proving Ross's "error bar" wrong. Do you know what that is? Now that would be a useful comment.

[michalchik]

His "predictions" consist entirely of, we will continue to find supporting evidence of things science has already discovered. That is not a prediction about anything but the fact that science is self-consistent.

His biblical interpretation is laughable. God created the heavens and earth in no way translates to Singularity in which nothing resembling the heavens or earth exists. In fact is implies the space. He then dodges that gaff by saying God created all that is which is begging the question.

[logicCplusplus]

Yeah, I'm sure you're a lot smarter than him.

[michalchik]

Most scientists are a lot smarter than him. He has no concept of testability or predictive value. Nevertheless that is moot.

"Smartness" is not how truth is determined in science. It is the quality of argument and evidence that you offer. His arguments are flawed and his evidence is posthoc and contradictory with his theory. If you disagree explain why, instead of speculating that he has a bigger brain than me.

[logicCplusplus]

What he suggests is a logical necessity based on scientific evidence. The bible works in reverse, where it only confirms what is already apparent.

[michalchik]

Those are two claims not explanations.

Why for example does "god created the heaven and the earth" imply a singularity ( a dimensionless point) heaven and earth are two things and they are not dimensionless, they have uncountable dimensions.

[sonofagunM357]

ZOMG - i support people who upload quarky skeptic debates

[GodRemixed]

I'm glad there's a video of this, I can't wait to watch the whole thing.

Thanks for putting this up!

[5tonyvvvv]

@GodRemixed Evolution is a Bullshit,science cant even make one single protein!!.or get all LEFT handed amino acids..Evolution is its own Paradox..and not testable..

[StevieWonder501]

@5tonyvvvv What part of evolution are you talking about?