Intelligent design: in conversation with Derren Brown (7/7)

[e1000oak]

Does he carry a banana with him everywhere?

[BooshBoy8000]

Are you telling me Santa Claus doesn't exist?!

[keflar5]

Isn't nature itself a design, what told stupid atoms what to do

[Wh3tst0nE]

It's certainly quite noisy. :3

[SpeshAli]

All the bible bashing deluded god lovers actually scare me. How can we live in this modern world with people around still this ignorant?

[jack83perry1]

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes" Rom1v16

[jack83perry1]

Look at the woodpecker. Its tongue is wrapped around its brain. No other animal has anything like this so how could it evolve? God exists nature proves it. "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.’ Psalm 14v1. Even Charles Darwin’s own wife was a creationist. Why do people treat evolution as a fact? So many people have tried to prove the bible wrong. They have tried to prove that certain place mentioned in the bible doesn’t exist. Later the place was excavated.

[uru39]

@jack83perry1 "Even Charles Darwin’s own wife was a creationist" nearly every one was a creationist before darwin, so that point has no argument at all. Einstein once send (cant remember the exact quote) "I find it hard to believe in a God that allows so much evil". He also never tried to disprove god so found no reason to fully reject the idea. However, there is more evidence today that god doesn't exist (the greatest being that theist can't prove God when we would expect them to be able to).

[jack83perry1]

Look at the woodpecker. Its tongue is wrapped around its brain. No other animal has anything like this so how could it evolve? God exists nature proves it. "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.': Psalm 14v1. Even Charles Darwins own wife was a creationist. Why do people treat evolution as a fact? So many people have tried to prove the bible wrong. They have tried to prove that certain place mentioned in the bible dont exist. Later the place was excavated.

[SpeshAli]

@jack83perry1 What are you saying you deluded man?

[zebb1111]

the banana arguement is a straw man arguement. neither of the men in the video were theists yet they were presenting theists arguments. one of the dumbest ones ever on top of that. clearly the only theist he ever debated was his sweet little uneducated grandmother.

lets see him deal with leibnitzes REAL argument.

by the way, i cant think of any great scientist aside from darwin (who wasnt even a scientist) who didnt believe in God. einstein, Godel, currie, etc etc. all believers!!

[jack83perry1]

@zebb1111 Einstein was the smartest person who has lived and he believe in God. Why would you believe one man, when almost everyone other scientist admits God is real? Atheists treat Richard Darwkins and Charles darwin as a God.

[ginjaninja1989]

@jack83perry1 Einstein didn't believe in God per se. He believed in a natural set of laws that govern the universe. Read The God Delusion by Professor Dawkins, he discusses it at length early on in the book. And your claim that that atheists treat Dawkins and Darwins as Gods is a contradiction in terms. Look up what 'atheist' actually means and get back to me.

[Ramohog]

Foolish reasoning! It's really the combination of sequential information, digital algorithmic coding and decoding, structure and design that we find in the nanotech mini computers that we call cells together with the cosmic finetuning of the anthropic constants. All this information clearly implies intelligence due to the cause and effect structure. This intelligence makes Himself known through His revelations and manifestations, backed up by prophecy and documented history. We r without excuse!

[convictPKlol]

@Ramohog You literally made all of that up.

[astroboomboy]

@Ramohog It does not imply intelligence, that's just how you see it.

[zebb1111]

@astroboomboy yes, matter just randomly came together and created life and sentience. thats really believing in magic. somehow the eye formed at the same time as the nerves wich connect it to the brain and somehow at the same time, the brain developped the interpretive skills it needed to make sense of the light stimulation hitting the nerves. think about it a little bit more before you swallow what scientists have to say. they brought us nukes and deadly viruses...them smart. lol

[astroboomboy]

@zebb1111 Please do yourself a favor and don't discuss matters you have no understanding of.

[mentalistlance]

I think if god did exist it would be hard for people to prove it since where just animals, and are understandings are still primitive at best.. since we look back a 100 years and think they are primitive.. God may exist but peoples views of it maybe grossly primitive and dogmatic

[zebb1111]

@mentalistlance its not up to us to find him, its up to him to reveal himself to us if communication with us is something he desires. i truly believe that if someone seeks a relationship with God, then God will reveal himself to that person. if all the person is seeking is God to do his bidding i.e. "make me a millionaire oh Lord" then why should God reveal himself. if we were created, then we were created for him and not the other way around

Ask and ye shall recieve. (light)

[mentalistlance]

everything works through repitition whether affirmations giving to the subconcious or evolution, remember how crappy computers where 20 years ago, it;s the way everything works, it all steams from one word belief, life is what you believe it to be

[caspos1987]

So who did he make melons for?

[ClumsyRoot]

The modern banana WAS designed--by humans.

Wild bananas are roundish, with a thick skin and lots of seeds. And they're bitter. Through selective breeding, we came up with the handy, tasty yellow fruit we find in our grocery stores today.

[lj2318]

oo the fucking banana I wish was ur cock in my hand ahahaha

[lj2318]

all I see here is two gays flirting with each other

[fayell]

pt4 Impirically you still need to explain how the first cell came into existence if it had nothing to evolve from. If you think it evolved from atoms being fused together, then where did the atom come from? Remember God doesn't have that problem because He created time, matter and space and is therefore not bound within it's limits of having a before or after. The big bang is chaos yet the universe is finely tuned for life on earth, the laws of physics did not evolve and have remained constant.

[sparkloweb]

@fayell There is empirical evidence of amino acid formation and several theories of how self-replicating structures can emerge. "Where did the atom come from" is already explained fairly well by the standard model of particle physics. Gaps exist, but "God did it" fills the gaps no better than "the tooth fairy did it." It's very egotistical to say the universe is "finely tuned" for our existence. How many wonderful organisms never formed because the universe wasn't "finely tuned" for them?

[fayell]

pt3 God doesn't need us but we need God for the very reason that we need a fixed moral template, one that is universal among all people at all times i.e. we know giving charity has been good throught the ages and remains good for eternity, just as we know rape is wrong has been wrong throught the ages and remains wrong for eternity. Everything is governed by good & evil, scientific practice in all fields is governed by morals. But morals lose value and becomes relative when God is rejected.

[sparkloweb]

@fayell Social contract theory explains most morals without invoking the supernatural. Gods have been given negative human traits such as jealousy, vengefulness, inclinations toward genocide... Religious leaders demand obedience - sometimes moral and sometimes not - and claim disobedience will be punished by god(s). Even that can be done without invoking gods, but gods were useful in primitive times within a framework where the same gods explained things that science now explains better.

[fayell]

pt2 God created time, matter and space and bound us in it making everything in it a use and test for us. Even if we "physically" saw God and had impirical proof people would still reject Him and even disbelieve in Him choosing their own desires and pride to follow. We make rules and laws, we know right from wrong and know the consequences of crime, yet men still choose to do wrong. Without a fixed moral template right and wrong becomes relative and "evil" can be justified by the "evildoers".

[sparkloweb]

@fayell Morality IS relative. We agree it's wrong to eat one's partner after mating, it may not be wrong for a black widow spider, whether the spider reasons about such things or not. That doesn't imply that a human evildoer can justify his/her actions by moral relativism, because reason leads to many objective conclusions even when some premises are subjective. The best advice to come out of the Bible is the "golden rule," which agrees nicely with the conclusions of social contract theory.

[fayell]

Why is it highly unlikely that God doesn't exist? You cannot prove it either way impirically. It's naive saying just a banana proves the existence of God because it's easy to eat, but when D.B says 'it gets confusing to believe God designed the universe because he would then be a part of it and then who designed God', he assumes that a designer/creator is bound within that creation. God isn't bound within time, matter and space just as a builder of a house isn't then bound within it's walls.

[sparkloweb]

@fayell I agree that one shouldn't assume a god would be bound by matter, space and time, just as one shouldn't assume that the universe is bound by those. Even by the big bang theory, the formative universe did not have a concept of time or matter. You can't follow the arrow of time back to the "moment" of creation because time did not become a phenomenon until "later" (for lack of time-agnostic words). I suppose you could call that pre-universe "God" but the label provides no insight about it.

[VSL123]

@fayell But a builder still had a father and mother to create him/her. What you're basically saying is 'God is an exception to the rule'. If that's the case, then surely the universe can be the exception to the rule just as God is. It seems unreasonable, in my opinion, to constrain the origin of the universe with logic and then throw it out of the window when dealing with God. If you say the universe's origin is God then God's origin must also be brought into question in line with reason.

[astroboomboy]

@fayell How do you know anything about this god? How can you even say he is not bound within time, matter and space? These are just assumptions that there are no reason to accept.

I could just as likely say that since the universe and life is so complex, so filled with conflict and contradiction, so much of it poorly designed, that there HAS to be several gods competing with each other. Hence all this disease, problems, etc.

[zebb1111]

@astroboomboy how can you make any value judgements as to whether or not the universe is contradictory and confused? have you a perfect model for comparison. thats very common of atheists....making value judgements on the things that exist as though they could come up with something better. actually darwinism worships death. the dying out of a species is a good thing for it makes room for a superior species. Hitler just loved darwinism.

[Hi675445]

what is evidence it is some thing that back someing else up atheist and Christensen have diffident onion on this

[jaylias]

Ray Comfort is a moron

[DeinosDinos]

Ray Comfort was so close to convincing me....until I remember about Pineapples, Durians and Coconuts.

[frightenedsoul]

What I love so much about the banana argument is that bananas actually WERE designed... by MAN. The bananas in the grocery store look NOTHING like wild bananas. Those are from hundreds of years of selective breeding by humans. Wild bananas are much rounder and have seeds in them and are difficult to open, etc.

[MegaDogsofwar]

"it doesnt spurt on your face"thats why derren likes nana's

[BananaSandwich1]

can i sucj your banana derren?

[honestcheetah]

In the end, the sound he trips on is the same gawd that designed "design". lolz

[AussieEvonne]

Yup! I'd love to see the guy who uses bananas as proof of god's existence explain the same in relation to oranges (tasty but messy) or mackerel (tasty but full of bones which we keep having to fish out (no pun intended)).

[ZenoKameno]

Bannanas are infact designed... by us

[Atheeizm]

@ZenoKameno true

[ultipimp469]

banana designed for homo sapiens lol what came first the human or the banana?

[bilsim]

Damn those secular pineapples.

[yasmin4jaysean]

'Certainly quite noisy' xD

[oombuddah]

0:46 even that is design. The chances of it happening are so improbable.

[BeatMasterPhil]

Serious physicists & cosmologists do agree that if this is the only or 1 of only several universes, that the probability of the laws and constants being exactly what they are to support human life is so infinitesimally small, as a scientist they say it doesnt make any sense to say that this all happened by chance. So now to try and explain this is the multi-verse; but still as of right now all the theories lead to a distinct beginning, meaning you would need a "creator". We will see...

[VioletRice]

@BeatMasterPhil The problem with that thought process is that even though it's unlikely to have the exact constants and laws necessary to produce life, the constants must be hospitable to life in order for anyone to observe that they are.

Plus, it's just as easy to assume that some form of a universe or multi-verse has always existed as it is to assume that a creator has always existed. The only difference is that you remove one step by assuming that the universe/multi-verse has always existed.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@VioletRice I agree that we have to exist in order to observe these laws, but as Stephen Hawking notes, using chance to explain how the universe and all the its laws and constants came to be is nearing ludicrous if looking at it from scientific certainty. Can't remember the physicist who calculated that the probability that all laws/constants are as they are and the state of low entropy the universe is in was about 1 to 10^10^123. A double exponent; 10 raised to a 1 with 123 0's after it.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@VioletRice I would argue that there is a huge difference between a mutiverse and God. The critical difference: A multiverse would still be within a physical space-time, whereas God would be outside of space/time. Meaning a multiverse still needs an explanation for where it came from.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@VioletRice To address the idea of an infinite universe/multiverse; That is the big hangup right now with physics and cosmology is there are 2 paths. Either all of space-time is infinite or finite. If it is finite then there must be something outside of it that brought it into being. Right now the evidence in both physics and cosmology is pointing towards there needing to be a beginning to all of space time. Whether it is one universe or a multiverse.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@VioletRice If physics and cosmology keep moving on that path and show scientifically that the universe needs to have some distinct beginning, we then get to the point were we either admit there is some being outside of space-time that created all by a first cause. Or we just throw our hands up and say that something did really come from *absolute* nothing. Which most feel would be the biggest magic trick of all time.

[VioletRice]

@BeatMasterPhil Could you direct me to your sources when you say that there needs to be a beginning to all space time? I understand that we have plenty of evidence pointing to the beginning of the universe, but I'm not sure exactly where you're getting the part about a multiverse needing a beginning.

Also, If there was a first cause, why exactly would it have to be a being?

[BeatMasterPhil]

@VioletRice It is good to realize when it is said "being" it is not meant to be being in how we think of it. That is why I try and put it in quotes. Since a being outside of space/time would not be anything that we are familiar with. You can think of this "being" on a basic level as an "unembodied mind." Philosophy does get at this "being" as being the shear act of being; being itself. We all share in being, obviously, but God would be being itself. (i.e.Creator would not be inside the creation)

[BeatMasterPhil]

@VioletRice Good questions, a decent primer to the answer of what physics and cosmology is going after right now can be found in a 12- part series on here called, "God and Modern Physics." The man who does them is accomplished in physics, cosmology, and metaphyscis. I would watch those 12 first, but the I would go out and do your own research of what is going in modern science in regards to the beginning times.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@VioletRice On multiverses; One of the main points of evidence on why a multiverse would need a beginning comes from Thermodynamics and the law of entropy. We end up at the point where any number of multiverses would still need to have a beginning. (Therefore not an infinite number as well.) Of course there could be more theories proposed in the future that are able to get around some of these reasons why it couldn't be infinite, but as of right now science is pointing towards the finite.

[Llynok]

Ah... the banana.

Fits in your hand, fits in your mouth...

and it fits in your ass.

[arwenevenstar123]

I think he is so handsome and eloquent.

[Ramshobraja]

Bot ID and evolution can coexist...

[Kabitu1]

Funny how people will say that god intended the banana to be proper food for us, but when you bring up evolution they find it insulting to be associated with monkeys...

[aJDfMDl]

Derren could be a modern day Sherlock Holmes if he worked for the police.... wasn't he offered a job or something?

[seesitnow4sure]

Extra terrestrails will explain intelegent design, also how they wrote the bible.

[mythicalhell]

He said the magic statement which is soo very true! God is made in MAN'S IMAGE!! When are people going to WAKE UP to reality and put religion where it belongs, that's right, put religion where it belongs ON THE SHELF of mythology with the other hundreds of gods!

[monody]

The dude explains how creationists leap in with non-sequitur and that's a straw man?

Or is it that he picked a particular example to illustrate this common trait (which he stated outright outside of the 'argument' analogies) that one is throwing a hissy fit over? In which case might I quote one on their jab at straw-men?

[omgiwaswrong]

If god made the banana to be so perfect for human consumption, then he must have made all other fruit, which has none of those attributes, just to spite us. This should tell us an awful lot about the supposed 'designer'.

I mean what was he thinking when he created the coconut? "Look how conveniently, when placed on a hard surface and hit repeatedly with a rock, it gives forth it's milk."

[zebb1111]

@omgiwaswrong thereby insuring that only large brained animals could recieve its fruit. sorry your having so much trouble opening coconuts

[chipk77]

So this guy attacks an argument by people who probably amount to flat-earthers and he thinks he's debunked Intelligent Design.  Wow, talk about a strawman.

[CognitiveApprentice]

@chipk77

Having a little trouble telling the difference between an "attack" and a conversational observation are we?

[chipk77]

@CognitiveApprentice Thanks for yet another nice demonstration of illogic. If you don't recognize a reference to "attacking a strawman" argument, then you need to go back to logic 101.

[CognitiveApprentice]

@chipk77

There was no attack because there was no debate. Both sides in this conversation stand on the same side of the topic, so everything said was simply rapport.

Further, the term attack is subjective, so I'll concede that if you think you heard an attack, then you (and I mean you specifically) heard an attack. I didn't hear any attack, but neither of us could provide any objective evidence to support our positions.

[chipk77]

@CognitiveApprentice Attacking a strawman is not subjective in any way. It is addressing a weaker argument, or a misrepresentation of an argument, and then pretending that you have successfully rebutted the actual argument when you have not. This is clearly what this guy does. The fact that you think attacking a strawman requires that both parties in an argument be present makes it blatantly obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

[Aaberg123]

@chipk77

I've yet to see any coherent arguments in favour of ID creationism, but you could perhaps point towards such argument, in an effort to escape the proposed horde of strawmen?

[chipk77]

@Aaberg123 I'm not a biologist, nor am I an expert in ID, though I've read Behe's book, Miller's book purporting to refute Behe (though both are Catholic), as well as a lot of online material such as over at Talk Origins. However, it doesn't take a professional scientist to recognize a fallacy. Attacking the absurd "banana argument" (which merely makes an argument from apparent design, which is more like arguing from a coincidence) and then acting like you've refuted ID is fallacious.

[hayshed]

@chipk77

He attacks the apparent design argument, which I believe is the backbone of ID. Well that and "God did it".

[chipk77]

@hayshed Apparent design is not the backbone of ID. Perhaps that could be said of arguments from cosmology, but even then it's more about probability. ID is about whether you can produce complex molecular structures from the "primordial soup", which we admittedly don't even know for sure what it consisted of, using successive, slight, beneficial modifications. Again, attacking the banana argument and pretending you can, therefore, dismiss ID is at best intellectually dishonest.

[hayshed]

@chipk77

And those arguments too have been found lacking. ALL their arguments have been found lacking. They just keep making up more to support the same conclusion which is not how science works. They are not applying the scientific method, they are merely pointing out apparent problems with evolution and saying if that doesn't explain it then their 'theory' does. And everytime a scientist swoops in and finds a rational explanation and they move on.

[BullInTheHeather1]

If true nothingness is not possible then thee's no need for a supreme creator. Furthermore physical law is not like societal law - it's not like we can go faster than the speed of light but we shouldn't because we'll get a ticket. As for the arisal of the rules of the universe - there are plenty of competing theoretical explanations out there, any one of which would be more sensible than positing a designer with the ad hoc quality of being 'outside nature' or 'self-creating'

[AtheistMehdy]

That guy kinda look like Edward Norton! Thumbs up if you agree.

[BullInTheHeather1]

N.B. 'who created the nothingness' in my previous post is a single quote - forgot to book-end it with an inverted comma.

[234566tgvb]

@BullInTheHeather1 how where the rules of the univers, creation made and how does it makes sure they are not broken ?

[BullInTheHeather1]

I'm always puzzled by the assumption that the universe arose from 'nothing', as though 'nothing' is even possible. The best theories in physics talk of the universe arising from quantum mechanical fluctuations in a 'false vacuum', which is crucially different from 'nothing'. One post-Hawking apologist even said we now must ask 'who created the nothingness. The whole concept of 'nothing' existing is utterly riddled with paradoxes. I see no reason to believe true nothingness is even possible.

[234566tgvb]

@BullInTheHeather1 Even with that possibly been true. It's still an mind blowing thought, if true nothingness is not possible, was it always here, if you go back infinity amounts of time. Who or what created it and how was the rule "true nothingness is not possible" created and how is it managed, to make sure nothingness does not happen ?

[234566tgvb]

Plus the problem with the banana example, is that I thought bananas may of been cross breed to what they are today, by humans. Natrual bananas and the ones we eat are probably completely diffrent and natural ones probably maybe a diffrent shape, less designed for the human hand and not as tasty to eat. If I'm wrong, then I'm welcome for people to put me right :).

[234566tgvb]

But the same thing starts again, who designed god. But how did everything start from nothing ? How can you make something from nothing. Not matter, no space, no light or dark, no inteligence or someone to think things over, no knollege, nothing. Then from nothing, you get everything. But then you could say it was just here, so there was no start, what does that look like and how does that happen. Ever way, it does not stick with normal logic.

[234566tgvb]

I guess Darren Brown is great at what he does, but I guess there are science out there he might not understand. There was an experiment in phisics, where they showed that on electron could be in many places at the same time, even this many not seem possible, it has been show, do a search for it. Plus I guess there are two ways to do an illision, for example, make a building disappear. You could even use mirrors to make it disappear, or knock it down when it's behind the curtain.

[TheProphetNabob]

Why would Derren choose the Queen of Hearts to begin with?

;-]

[TheProphetNabob]

"Funny you should mention fruit."

Cute!

[TheProphetNabob]

@TheProphetNabob

"It doesn't spurt in your face."

Even cuter!

[revjimbob]

If the room was to spontaneously combust, Warburton would be toast.

[revjimbob]

I would like to apologise for the above comment.

[francisb1977]

Much as I admire Messrs Warburton and Brown, there is something a little cloying about an interview format where the interviewer and interviewee just reinforce each other; might have been better if Warburton had played a more contrary role and challenged Brown on some more difficult ground?

[mcteeth]

@francisb1977 i can see that, but it does say it's a "conversation" not an interview.

[francisb1977]

@mcteeth fair point!

[BullInTheHeather1]

If Ray Comfort(is that his name?) believes that bananas were designed for our hands he must also accept that, by his own logic, our penises were similarly constructed and that part of God's grand plan for us is that we wank ourselves stupid on a regular basis.

[mcteeth]

@BullInTheHeather1 i guess i'm more religious than i thought!

btw, Comfort's arguement also fails in that bananas - the commercially available ones - were bred by man to have those characteristics.

[kascally]

@BullInTheHeather1 ...and thanks godness he didn't put that err... 'peeling' mechanism on everything banana shaped

[kascally]

@BullInTheHeather1 ...and thank godness he didn't put that err... 'peeling' mechanism on everything banana shaped

[WisdomVendor]

@BullInTheHeather1 I would have loved to see the expression on Derren's face when he first saw the Comfort -banana video.

I thought it was a spoof of some sort when I first saw it. I was blown away when once I knew this guy really believed what he was saying.

[xirishmagicx]

@BullInTheHeather1 I can't lie . . . that theory is much more compelling and interesting when you put it that way. . . . Just sayin'

[Llawliet246]

@BullInTheHeather1 I always transferred the banana logic to oral sex rather than masturbation, but that works just as well XD

[EJ920]

Hes trying to use his subliminal messages!!!

[drjohnswilkins]

Yes. The problem with the creationist argument is that bananas as we now sell them are not only designed *by us*, we've actually bred the ability to form seeds out of them. They can only survive because we propagate them by cuttings. Wild bananas are awful. It's a pity Warburton interrupted Brown there, because he was about to make that point.

[alezunde]

@drjohnswilkins I was going to bring up that precise point. It's quite amazing how many foods and animals these days that we do take for granted, but literally would not exist in the form that we know them if it weren't for our deliberate interference.

[moJomittens]

@drjohnswilkins : Good thing we have the intelligence to make them acceptable for us. Monkeys/animals love them either way because of their design/purpose.

[nexuspexus]

So that is what Nigel looks like!

[sitemountain]

Ha! My Grandmother DID work in a florists! IT'S A MIRACLE!

P.S. Bananas don't look like they artificially selected fruit we 'designed'... they were short & fat & much less ergonomic.

[waksibra]

BANANA MAN

[markeymark101]

Very hole tempting Derren. :D

[mcteeth]

@markeymark101 lol!