All of these so called bangs are . . . theoretical. They can not be proven. They are ideas thought up by men to answer . . . their unknowns.
To truly believe in God. One must actually have an Out of Body Experience (OBX). And communicate and interact directly with God.
The idea of reading books to arrive at truth is like trying to sleep walk on a tight rope across the grand canyon . . . thinking you will get to the other side safely.
Life forms formed gradually, the first life forms are said to have been tiny lumps of oil with the most basic organic compounds stuck in between them. The odds may be 1 to 10e100, but hey, there are more than 10e1000 stars in the universe, right ?
The evolution of mind is easy to prove. We can observe different behaviors we've inherited from fish to elephants and in fact worms. And morality is just plain bullshit. It's an evolutionary mistake. But I can't cmnt frth
Atheist? Theist? Two sides of the same coin, either way you are dealing in absolutes in a world where such a thing simply does not exist. Nature is imperfect and not even the laws of physics ALWAYS hold true.
We're "no closer" to understanding how to create "life from dead stuff"? Have you ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment, which showed that basic organic compounds can form RNA and DNA?
Why do you need a "leap of faith" to distinguish between animals and humans? How are you so certain that there's a difference aside from your bigger brain?
As for free will... you should probably debate a philosopher or psychologist on that. How are you certain you it?
@NewThinkful In short, none of these things are actually "leaps of faith." Each of the first three have scientific solutions whose theories (i.e. the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution) are based on observations and evidence in the real world, and the debate about introspection and free will isn't really a scientific question, but one for philosophers and psychologists. (Can you satisfactorily demonstrate to another person or to yourself that you have free will from all causes? I doubt it.)
@HayPennie Science thrives on challenges, but the challenges have been met and passed. Evolution is a bygone conclusion, and the idea that a significant quantity of biologists reject it is nonsense. You go get Discovery Institute's 100 scientists who dispute evolution and I'll go grab the 1,000 biologists named Steve who affirm it. Challenge us, yes. Act like buffoons and make moronic claims (as this video does) and I'll call it out as the inane tripe that it is.
"I used to be an evidence-following atheist, but despite this, I'm going to fire off every caricature of atheism that Christians like me can think of, as well as demonstrate that I can't even read a Wikipedia entry on the topics I'm claiming have no supporting evidence at all!"
@grays42 Sort of like being an 'evidence-following' atheist who fires off every caricature of Christianity / Faith that you can think of, as well as demonstrating only a child's understanding of Biblical precepts. You do know that there are many atheist physicists, mathematicians, astronomers, biologists, who think Darwinian evolution is total rubbish, right? Why are so many atheists resistant to challenges to Darwin, even when those challenges aren't made by theists? Like say, David Berlinski?
(2) Both are equally implausible, it's just that Superman was written more recently and basically no one believes he exists. But really, the only reason we think that is because no one has ever seen Superman. No one has ever seen God either, yet plenty believe he exists.
It also helped that for 1000s of years, most people could not read anyway, so they simply believed what their preacher told them. If they read the zany stories in the Bible, less would have believed it at first, I think.
@richardtheconquerer Regarding your superman comparison: They are not both equally implausible because millions haven't believed superman exists while millions have believed God exists. Furthermore your assumption is and I assume many Christians would say Jesus is God and many people saw Him so your statement is untrue. A Theist would also counter that there is not a shred of evidence to believe in superman but there are many reasons to believe in God.
@bmyers1986 " A Theist would also counter that there is not a shred of evidence to believe in superman but there are many reasons to believe in God" re your comment to richard.
The difference is that Superman has always been fiction and everyone knows this from the start. The bible however is a combination of different texts put together over hundreds of years. Most are not eyewitness accounts. Some are known to be 'stories' , Some may be true.
@mtbee9 Most are not eyewitness accounts? Eyewitness accounts of what? Yes there are many different genres in the Bible and many of the 66 books had different authors but "eyewitness accounts" depends on what your understanding of an account is. What do you mean by some may be true? And I I have many reasons for believing in God-how can complex, creative, life forms that desire purpose come from non-life?, I'll get into others but don't have much space left here.
@mtbee9 Most are not eyewitness accounts? Eyewitness accounts of what? Yes there are many different genres in the Bible and many of the 66 books had different authors but "eyewitness accounts" depends on what your understanding of an account is. What do you mean by some may be true? And I I have many reasons for believing in God-how can complex, creative, life forms that desire purpose come from non-life?, I'll get into others but don't have much space left here.
@bmyers1986 "how can complex, creative, life forms that desire purpose come from non-life"
Through Evolution. Life stated slowly, although the exact process of the first replicating organism is not yet understood there are many theories that are being examined. Once life started it evolved usually slowly over the last 3.5 BY. Only very recently has life that 'desires purpose' come into being - humans in the last 2-3 MY.
@mtbee9 It seems illogical to me and unreasonable to say that life comes from non-life in this one area but it doesn't from anywhere else. I realize that some truths are counter-intuitive and will acknowledge that I haven't studied evolution very much but I do believe in some forms of evolution. Just not a macro view that is a change outside of species. I'm willing to look at the evidence for this and if you have articles they would be helpful so I can see specific claims and the reasoning
@bmyers1986 "It seems illogical to me and unreasonable to say that life comes from non-life" Why?
We know that simple cells are made basic chemical building blocks, amino acids etc. We know that these can form if the right chemical components and circumstances exist. It doesn't take much thinking to see that one can come from the other. There are some current theories about it but nobody knows yet how Abiogenesis happened. For books the ancestors tale, is good or, the greatest show on earth.
@bmyers1986 "The ancestor's tale is a book you recommend? Just curious." Yes I do. I know it's by Dawkins and that puts off a lot of religious people but it does a good job of explaining how life has evolved and showing connections between different forms. It is a biology book but still an easy read and not specifically anti-religious. (The god delusion of course is an exception)
@bmyers1986 "The ancestor's tale is a book you recommend? Just curious." Yes I do. I know it's by Dawkins and that puts off a lot of religious people but it does a good job of explaining how life has evolved and showing connections between different forms. It is a biology book but still an easy read and not specifically anti-religious. (The god delusion of course is an exception)
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2.Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3.Therefore, God exists.
The teleological argument from fine tuning 1.The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. 2.It is not due to physical necessity or chance. 3.Therefore, it is due to design.
@bmyers1986 I don't know what you mean by objective morals. Morals are subjective and change with society, many things that were accepted 2000 years ago are not accepted today. But it depends on society. Stoning still occurs in the Middle East but is totally outlawed in most civilized countries. I hope you aren't relying on the bible for your moral code as you will have to pick out the good from the bad. The bible was written by man so if you're using the bible for morals they come from man!
@mtbee9 What evidence do you have that morals are subjective and change with society? This is commonly stated but can you give me some evidence? To say that stoning still occurs it certain societies does not determine if that is right or wrong. It is just a statement that it happens. If young girls are throwing stones at a man who is trying to rape and beat one of their friends this is radically different from a group throwing stones at an individual who had sex with someone of the same sex.
@bmyers1986 "morals are subjective and change with society" Well you mentioned stoning as a way of punishing someone. There is also slavery which was once widely accepted. Also indigenous people have their own rules by which to govern their societies such as in the Amazon, Aboriginies, Eskimos etc. All of these peoples have worked out ways to live together, usually peaceably. Monkey and Gorilla societies also live by different guidelines, which is really all morals are.
@bmyers1986 "The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design"
Or, the laws of the universe are what they are - not designed, not chance, not necessity - just the nature of the universe. There is also lots of chance in the universe, meteorites, super nova formation of stars etc. There is no evidence of anything being designed to be chaotic.
You appear to be arguing for 'god' to fit the evidence rather than looking at the evidence and seeing where it leads.
@mtbee9 "Or, the laws of the universe are what they are " I'm not sure what to do with your statement they are what they are? What do you mean by this and how is it relevant to understanding why the universe if fine tuned the way it is? Also please don't pull the you appear to be arguing for "god" to fit the evidence rather than looking at it and seeing where it leads. There is "faith" in evolution as well and I'm willing to hear the evidence but I'm only hearing assertions.
@bmyers1986 "the universe if fine tuned the way it is" I mean that the nature of physics, chemistry etc are what they are. Not all chemicals are stable many break down to other chemicals over time. The universe is expanding but what caused this is unknown. Stars form and die due to natural processes. If the nature of the universe was different then we would be observing that difference - but it would appear normal to us! and we too would be different!
@mtbee9 Thanks for the clarification on what you meant about the nature of the fine tuning of the universe. Another thing to consider: you say the universe is expanding but what caused this is unknown: I want to try and understand what the best explanation based on the evidence is for this cause and that is what I'm getting at: a question that is outside the realm of science and delves into philosophy. Science is limited as we would both acknowledge and is not the only way to discover truth.
@bmyers1986 "what the best explanation based on the evidence is for this cause " The big bang is not my area of expertise as it claims that all of the universe came from a single point 'a singularity', from which it all expanded to what we observe today. That is about as far as I can go. You need an astrophysicist to explain it further.
As for Science - it is the only way I know of discovering the truth. What else is there?
@bmyers1986 There is no faith in Evolution just a logical explanation of the evidence! People have a certain confidence about observing the evidence and working out what the facts mean, Gravity, Electricity, why we get sick, why metal rusts, what are stars? etc have all been worked out by observation, reasoning and deduction over many years. Faith is belief based on no evidence. Science is a way of understanding based on examining the evidence.
@mtbee9 When you say:"There is no faith in Evolution just a logical explanation of the evidence," it is not as straightforward as you make it seem. Simply put there is a great deal of faith or belief in: that our are senses working properly, that the data collected by scientists from history and our ability to interpret what they were saying, that natures laws are discoverable and knowable, that our method to uncover the truth of the universe is sound, the laws of logic, etc.
@bmyers1986 "that our are senses working properly, that the data collected by scientists ... that natures laws are discoverable and knowable, that our method to uncover the truth of the universe is sound, the laws of logic"
My answer is: that is what science is all about! People observe, experiment and test what has gone before. We refine what we have found about things and test again. Newton was basically right but his theory has been refined, same with Evolution and so we progress...
@bmyers1986 "you appear to be arguing for "god" to fit the evidence" Sorry, didn't mean to ignore this comment, but unfortunately it is very true for creationists to argue from the assumption of god being the creator and this guides their thinking. The fact that nobody has any evidence for a god to me makes it an insincere starting point and is really no more than a guess. Usually their arguments boil down to: 'such and such happened' - therefore god!
@bmyers1986 "1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist." This is a terrible argument. Do you really think people only behave morally (and as mtbee9 said, these standards constantly change throughout time) because there is a God? I don't need a book to tell me not to sleep with my neighbor's wife or to not kill people etc
@richardtheconquerer You are misquoting me. I never said anything about people only behaving morally because there is a God. Read the argument again carefully. Also I'll ask you the same questions I asked mtbee9: what evidence is there that moral standards change throughout time? To say that in some societies people did certain things and considered it moral but other societies considered the opposite moral says nothing about the morality of thing in itself.
@richardtheconquerer Is forcing someone else who doesn't want to have sex to have sex with you (aka raping them) right even if a society has declared that it is right? Is it considered courageous to flee from protecting your wife and child against harm? Is it right to put people into concentration camps, torture them, and murder them because of their religious beliefs, because they have sex with someone of the same sex, or because they have a different color skin?
@bmyers1986 Since this has been a long back and forth, I'm a little confused as to what you're even arguing about now. Let's get back to the reasons there are to believe in God.
You said objective moral values and duties do exist, therefore there is a God, correct? Why is that?
@richardtheconquerer Is forcing someone else who doesn't want to have sex to have sex with you (aka raping them) right even if a society has declared that it is right? Is it considered courageous to flee from protecting your wife and child against harm? Is it right to put people into concentration camps, torture them, and murder them because of their religious beliefs, because they have sex with someone of the same sex, or because they have a different color skin?
@richardtheconquerer Is forcing someone else who doesn't want to have sex to have sex with you (aka raping them) right even if a society has declared that it is right? Is it considered courageous to flee from protecting your wife and child against harm? Is it right to put people into concentration camps, torture them, and murder them because of their religious beliefs, because they have sex with someone of the same sex, or because they have a different color skin?
@richardtheconquerer Is forcing someone else who doesn't want to have sex to have sex with you (aka raping them) right even if a society has declared that it is right? Is it considered courageous to flee from protecting your wife and child against harm? Is it right to put people into concentration camps, torture them, and murder them because of their religious beliefs, because they have sex with someone of the same sex, or because they have a different color skin?
@richardtheconquerer Is forcing someone else who doesn't want to have sex to have sex with you (aka raping them) right even if a society has declared that it is right? Is it considered courageous to flee from protecting your wife and child against harm? Is it right to put people into concentration camps, torture them, and murder them because of their religious beliefs, because they have sex with someone of the same sex, or because they have a different color skin?
@richardtheconquerer Is forcing someone else who doesn't want to have sex to have sex with you (aka raping them) right even if a society has declared that it is right? Is it considered courageous to flee from protecting your wife and child against harm? Is it right to put people into concentration camps, torture them, and murder them because of their religious beliefs, because they have sex with someone of the same sex, or because they have a different color skin?
@richardtheconquerer Is forcing someone else who doesn't want to have sex to have sex with you (aka raping them) right even if a society has declared that it is right? Is it considered courageous to flee from protecting your wife and child against harm? Is it right to put people into concentration camps, torture them, and murder them because of their religious beliefs, because they have sex with someone of the same sex, or because they have a different color skin?
@bmyers1986 Like I said, Superman was written recently. Give it 1900 years or so. If it had been written thousands of years ago and presented as fact rather than fiction, I bet millions of people would believe he existed. Also, as far as I know, there is almost no doubt Jesus existed as a human being, but as the savior/God there is very little evidence, if any at all.
@richardtheconquerer Most of the main sources used to identify Jesus as the human identify Jesus as Savior/God Richard. The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all the primary accounts used by historians to examine the life of Jesus as human and the claims about him as God. We can't pick and choose what we want to believe. We must look at the sources as they come to us.
@bmyers1986 "We can't pick and choose what we want to believe."
But that is exactly what many creationists do - they accept evidence that does not contradict their belief and reject other good solid evidence simply because it doesn't fit into their dogma.
From my view any 'creation story' must fit with the evidence - if it doesn't then it by definition is wrong!
@mtbee9 Some among creationists and Some among evolutionists pick and choose. Darwin considered the fossil record a big problem for his theory and cited the imperfection of the geological record and argued that Precambrian fossils had been destroyed but would contain many transitional species. But as I understand it (and I am open to being given examples and reasons for why I am wrong), scientists haven't found even close to abundance of these species despite finding many Precambrian fossils.
@bmyers1986 "Darwin considered the fossil record a big problem for his theory" and to finish the comment.. because there were not as many fossils as he would have expected!
Today we have millions of fossils and Darwin has been vindicated about the depth and detail of what does exist in the fossil record. It ALL supports evolution.
If you study the fossil life before and after the Cambrian transition you will see that most of life before were soft bodied creatures, cont.
@mtbee9 I would like to see a source for the statement that all the fossils support macro evolution. Again I'm not talking about changes within species.
@bmyers1986 "all the fossils support macro evolution" because there is no fossil out of sequence with what went before - no mammals in the Cambrian for example. In addition, if you observe the limbs of fishes and early tetrapods through amphibians, reptiles, even dinosaurs and mammals, there is a general progression of morphology that matches what went before. There is nothing suddenly appearing 'out of sequence'. Read any book on the subject or look in any natural history museum.
@bmyers1986 cont. It is because all of the evidence that exists that ties all life together, plants and animals in a growing hierarchy that Evolution is considered true by most scientists and I would say all biologists. Then more recently we have DNA that also independently confirms the interrelationships between species again indicating that one form branched from another. The evidence is overwhelming and nothing found so far contradicts Evolution. There is no other scientific theory for life!
@mtbee9 It's been a while due to work but mtbee9 all I can say is this: Check out this book by Peter Medewar one of Oxford's most brilliant scientists who wrote a book titled The Limits of Science. In it he writes, "“That there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by the existence of questions that science cannot answer, and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer.... I have in mind such questions as: How did everything begin? What are we all here for?
@bmyers1986 "How did everything begin?" Well this could be the big bang ie the Universe or Abiogenesis. We may never know what happened before the big bang but we already have a few good ideas about Abiogenesis.
"What are we all here for?" Who knows? That question may have an answer if there indeed is a creator and mybe no answer if there isn't one.
Science does not attempt to answer philosphical questions.
@mtbee9 Abiogenisis has become so chock full of holes that atheists have become a bit desperate, offering 1million dollars for an explanation that "corresponds to empirical biochemical and thermodynamic reality" On the website offering the prize (lifeoriginsdotorg) they clearly state that chemical origins has a lot of problems. And the big bang has been accepted as pretty solid fact, proving the universe began to exist which demands the universe has a cause.
@shernajwine "chemical origins has a lot of problems" Sure it does - there is a lot to work out. But as all life is made of chemicals then I'm sure that they will work it out.
"proving the universe began to exist which demands the universe has a cause" So something caused the big bang. We don't know what at this time. Definitely no reason to bring imaginary gods into it!
@mtbee9 And btw, cosmological and biological origins are two different areas of study. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the big bang or the beginning of the universe, it has to do with origin of life.
@mtbee9 The development of transitory fossils to support the macro evolution paradigm has been largely unsuccessful and if you have any specific examples that would be tremendously helpful. I am not an expert but I do think that this list (dissentfromdarwin. org) clearly demonstrates that the Darwinian theory that so many hold to with such fervor is under serious assault from serious thinkers.
@bmyers1986 "The development of transitory fossils to support the macro evolution paradigm has been largely unsuccessful "
Paleontologists continue to find new fossils, ALL of which fit into the existing tree as we understand it. Each new fossils adds to the tree. No fossil appears out of order. i.e. the gradual change in species is undeniable. There are many examples.
I know of nobody in the science community who disagrees. Those who do are creationists with their own agenda and no evidence.
@mtbee9 The Public Goods Hypothesis For the Evolution of Life on Earth, an evolutionary biologist, McInerney, says "the Tree of LIfe is "becoming increasingly implausible."
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils “Evolution’s erratic pace” p.14
@shernajwine "the Tree of LIfe is "becoming increasingly implausible." They are entitled to their opinion but that does not appear to be the mainstream concept in Biology.
"extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists" Not really there are countless examples of transitional forms.
@bmyers1986 Oh and Dissent from Darwin is a mouth piece of the DIscovery Institute a known creationist group. When they can come up with an alternative theory that matches the facts. I'll listen to them. Until now it's simply wishful thinking.
@mtbee9 Calling the Discovery Institute a creationist group is ignorant parroting of the Darwin Lobby. David Berlinski is part of the DI and he is a secular Jew! ID is not creationism, learn the difference.
@bmyers1986 cont.. After the Cambrian transition we start to see creatures with skeletal components which do fossilize easier than those without. Don't forget that the so called explosion was over a period of 20-30 Million years when oxygen was becoming more abundant in the atmosphere providing a boost to evolution. Most of the mammal species we see today arose immediately following the demise of the dinosaurs 65 MY over a period of about 20 MY. Evolution is continuos but it is not constant.
(1) So if I'm following his logic: God exists because..... he thinks so? Atheism is nothing more than the idea that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God. That's it. It's not a "belief in the big bang." The big bang is just a theory for how things started. The only difference between the story of the Christian God (and I specify that cause I assume "his" God is the correct one) and Superman is one was written a long time ago. Both are just stories that human beings made up.
@richardtheconquerer Well over 90% of human beings have believed in some form of God throughout history. I for one will not dismiss them as ignorant fools or "stories made up" without examining what they are precisely saying. It is the height of arrogance to do this. And as for your point about most people being able to read I am not prepared to accept that they were brainless and thoughtless and uncritical thinkers because they couldn't read.
@bmyers1986 No, the height of arrogance is to claim what a human wrote is the word of God which is what these people did thousands of years ago. I never said people who couldn't read back then were brainless. The problem was they HAD to believe what the preacher told them was true cause they either a) had no choice or b) since they weren't able to read, they couldn't find out about the inconsistencies in the bible.
@richardtheconquerer Okay who claimed that what a human wrote is the word of God? I never did. Who said that? And no people didn't have to believe what the preacher told them...people have a choice in belief and to say they don't or to claim that because they couldn't read this means they couldn't identify certain inconsistencies in reality is implying that a person is brainless.
You really need to better study history. I'm not talking about recently. In the Dark Ages (when Christianity really took the number one spot) all other non-Catholic books were burned for the most part. You were put to death if you worshiped gods other than the Christian one. So no, they weren't "brainless" nor did I imply they were. They had NO choice.
@richardtheconquerer Is forcing someone else who doesn't want to have sex to have sex with you (aka raping them) right even if a society has declared that it is right? Is it considered courageous to flee from protecting your wife and child against harm? Is it right to put people into concentration camps, torture them, and murder them because of their religious beliefs, because they have sex with someone of the same sex, or because they have a different color skin?
I still think that the best "argument" for God's existence is, simply put, His showing up. Until that happens it's only philosophy. But after that, it is a part of one's personal history. And, who would have thought it? It happens to be something God wants us to have.... Amazing. So why do so many people not have it (a personal knowledge of God)? Could sin have something to do with it? That's what God says. Suffering and death? Two reasons to get us to go further than our noses.
I got a course too. 1 minutes long. How to identify f^&*(nuts. Its one mole of credits. You graduate when you watch a Prager video and tell someone else - hey these guys at BATSHIT stupid.
Al lot of work went into making of this video and all they give us yet another god of the gaps argument. God done it is not a good substitute for we don't know yet.
@RayJayJrUke But do you think there are any reasonable objections in this video to the commonly asserted origins of the universe? Which specific lines did you think were god of the gaps?
@bmyers1986 All of them? Nothing he said in the video proves the existence of God. All he said is that the big bang doesn't explain everything. Well, no kidding! Figuring out how the universe works is a complicated scientific process, and when something pops up that we haven't figured out yet, you can't just say "hey must be my God!" and I say "my God" because I know he means his Christian God cause there's no way it's some other deity other than the one in the Bible. Why that's inconceivable!
@richardtheconquerer I was responding to people who were accusing Frank of not proving the existence of God and that's why I said the big bang has many complications and many articles of faith as well. Science cannot disprove God because that is outside the scope of it's abilities. Further, math and philosophy precede science and just because there is according to some "no good scientific reason" for certain things it doesn't mean there still aren't good reasons to believe certain things.
@richardtheconquerer You realize that Dennis Prager, founder of Prager University, isn't a Christian right? Science can't replicate how life came out of non-living material, or any of these jumps. Your comment just shows that you didn't get the point of the video. Do you know how many experiments have tried to create life out of only non-living material?
@richardtheconquerer No but it does pose a position of faith for either side. There is no observational evidence to prove that the universe was caused by a natural process therefore by saying there is no God you assume a natural cause that has not been proven. You believe despite evidence which is the definition of faith. So I'll turn it back around on you. Not being able to prove God's existence does not make other speculations and theories of causality true.
@shernajwine "You believe despite evidence which is the definition of faith."
Nope, you're twisting what I wrote. Where do I say any scientific process has proven there is no God? A step further, where did I say I don't believe in some sort of deity?
@SirNitty Also I know Prager is either Jewish or Christian. I don't remember which, but I assume the former iven your comment, but it doesn't really matter.
I DO know he's anti-atheism though, and he thinks anyone who doesn't follow some religion is immoral. He's also a blowhard who has no clue what he's talking about.
@richardtheconquerer Attacking the man on a personal level is an ad hominem argument with no merit. Your opinion of him personally doesn't negate what he is saying. He said nothing in this video about anyone being immoral. And everything he spoke of are things discussed between many areas of science. How the mind evolved is a legitimate question. where are the intermediate fossils, is a legit question. Sounds like you don't have a clue....
@shernajwine Nope, it sounds like I've heard his radio station before. Calling him a blowhard is not a personal attack. In fact, I know ZILCH about the man personally. It's an attack on his professional ethics. He is VERY anti-atheist on is radio show and seems to have no problem being that way cause he knows his audience is mostly right wing Christians.
I agree dave. Amazing: we have Biological evidence for Evolution, we have Astrophysics to explain the Big Bang (Sorry there is only one), Oh and biological also covers the anthropological, then of course Psychological which is well Biology as well as it relates to the brain.
So why don't we just throw out all of the knowledge we've gained and imagine some invisible illogical deity somehow magically poofed it all into existence.
@mtbee9 We have biological evidence for micro-evolution-changes within a species. Do you have any for macro-evolution-changes outside of species? How does astrophysics explain the big bang? I'm asking because I really don't know.
@bmyers1986 "Do you have any for macro-evolution-changes outside of species"
Yes the fossil record - all of it! E.g. The bone structure of animal fore limbs can be traced back from mammals to tetrapods all the way to the limbs of fishes. All offspring have differences from their parents gradual changes over time can explain how the bones in fish fins has gradually changed to become the limbs of mammals and birds.
The same bones structure is found with gradual changes in fossils over time.
@mtbee9 I know you would want to see the evidence but Dr. David Raup, a geologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago said something about 30 years ago about the fossil record and it was that despite the vast expansion of the fossil record: "The situation hasn't changed much." Also while acknowledging a great deal of fossils found, the late Harvard Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the "trade secret" of paleontology.
@bmyers1986 "Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils "
With all due respect to Gould and Raup most paleontologists today would disagree with those statements.
Today we have many so called transitional fossils and a much larger group of additional fossils. ALL the fossil evidence of millions of specimens all support our understanding of Evolution as the method by which they evolved.
@mtbee9 Interesting. I appreciate talking to you about this because many people just get ticked off and you respond thoughtfully and with respect. So thanks for that. It does not go unnoticed. Question though: When you say all the fossil evidence support our understanding of evolution what do you mean?
@bmyers1986 "When you say all the fossil evidence support our understanding of evolution what do you mean"
Basically, Evolution says that life today developed over time from previous generations through small changes from very simple replicating organisms. So the fossil evidence should show that older rocks have simple life, gradually getting more complex over time as life evolved. That is exactly what the fossil evidence shows!
No other logical explanation of the fossil record has been made.
In reply to your first point. The reason many people get ticked off is that there are a small group of creationists who argue against evolution, by misrepresenting it! The theory of evolution is not difficult to understand so for people to misrepresent what it says shows they are either doing so on purpose (most likely) or simply have not studied it and are arguing out of ignorance. They do not want to accept that it disproves some of their beliefs.
@mtbee9 Appreciate your thoughts! A few more questions: What does evolution disprove about a theists belief? Francis Collins and others are Christian evolutionists and many other Christian scientists believe in micro and macro evolution as well and it doesn't conflict with their beliefs. Let me know!
@bmyers1986 "What does evolution disprove about a theists belief"
First Evolution says nothing about theistic beliefs. It is a scientific theory to explain evolution and how life developed on Earth.
So people are free to suggest a god without going against Evolution. The problem lies with Christians who say that the Earth was made in 6 days and god created it all. As Evolution is considered true by most scientists - Genesis as described in the bible must be wrong.
@bmyers1986 There are some 'Christian evolutionists' who are accommodationists and try and find a middle ground where the Bible and Science do not contradict each other. They interpret Genesis as a metaphor and not an exact description of how the Earth came to be. This is why there are so many christian religions all different interpretations of the bible - They also pick out which morals to believe or ignore but that's another story.
If one religion is right then all the others must be wrong!
@mtbee9 In other words, what is your understanding of evolution? My basic understanding is that time, chance and natural selection are responsible for the origin of life but I want to know your view of evolution.
@bmyers1986 "My basic understanding is that time, chance and natural selection are responsible for the origin of life"
Not quite. Chance plays a part and provides a means for organisms to become slightly different from one generation to the next. Natural selection - the ability of one offspring to survive over another depending on environmental and other variables is also required. There is also the need for traits that help an organism survive to be passed on to the next generation. cont.
Evolution says nothing about how life actually started just how it has changed or evolved. Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Which process actually produced the first life is still unknown, but there are a few theories being looked at by molecular biologists. The main thing is that all the building blocks of life can be shown to occur naturally in the right conditions. The puzzle is working out what process caused these chemicals to form life.
@bmyers1986 AS for Astrophysics - not really my field especially the details of the big bang. However the evidence shows an expanding universe. Based on the rate and direction of the expansion you can extrapolate back in time to the origin of the universe as coming from a single point about 14 BY ago. For the actual physics somebody else will need to answer that for you.
@dave28lax Do you think these are good objections to the naturalistic explanation of the universe? If you leave out supernatural explanations to account for a possible explanation of the world's origins then it isn't objective science. The "I don't understand therefore God argument" as you call it can be turned to, "It couldn't ever be God because I don't believe in God and so even if Pastore has reasonable objections to a form of evolution I won't directly respond to him."
@bmyers1986 I see you've gone for the old "you don't believe in magic, therefore you must be close minded" gambit. How lame.
Also, you might want to look up what the word "science" means, otherwise you're liable to get laughed at. Actually, scratch that - I wouldn't want others to be deprived of a chuckle.
So... Until we can know the naturalist process behind nature, supernaturalism is the best explanation?
I'm not sure why not knowing things, means the god hypothesis is strengthened in any way. Supernaturalism, has a poor track record in science. I mean to say that it has absolutely 0% success rate, every time it's been offered as an explanation in science, it's been found that it's unnecessary. That said, science is further forward at answering these questions than the video makes out.
What exactly do you mean by science? Here is a simple definition "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
Science is simply observation of the physical universe looking for patterns based on observation and experiment. Therefore, it follows God (or supernaturalism) would not be an explanatation for how the physical universe functions.
Well, science isn't limited to just pattern spotting, scientific theories are explanations of facts, the mechanisms. If the world was influenced by some supernatural force of some kind. I think it would be within the scope of science to investigate it. The effectiveness of prayer can be tested, and has been, is that not science? And is it not testing supernatural concepts?
The James Randi challenge is another example of a scientific approach to testing suoernatural ideas.
@manwhowasthursday1 Right so science is limited and needs to make limited conclusions. Other disciplines are required to help us with other questions-philosophy, history, etc. Some of the greatest scientists historically were theists and presently as well. They were and are fully aware that there discipline cannot account for everything found in the universe.
@manwhowasthursday1 Right so science is limited and cannot account for immaterial things and should be used to make limited conclusions. Some of the greatest scientists were and are theists and they realize(d) that their discipline was limited and needed philosophy and history and other areas of study.
However, this makes sense if God indeed did create the universe. If he created the natural laws that govern the universe (like gravitational force). The arguement the Christian makes is not that God can be discovered by science, but that science is only possible with God. Let me ask you, where did natural forces come from? How are they possible without a creator? Furthermore, why do you have any reason to trust what you see is really reality?
I really can't do anything with a statement like, "Science is only possible with god", I can't disprove it. It's just something that's asserted, and which I don't see any reason to accept.
I could play the same game, and ask you "Well, where did god come from", and I find that we can give the same answer; "the laws of nature (or the laws for creating laws of nature)/god are/is eternal."
@piprod01 Science cannot account for everything. It has limits and is not close to answering much-morality, altruism, and consciousness. Philosophy, history and other disciplines are necessary to help us answer other questions. Newton warned "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.” This is not God of the gaps it is with limited evidence make limited conclusions.
@ReturnOfTheJam “The mechanisms proposed by evolutionists have all failed.” Substantiate that claim. Can you cite even one article in a legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific journal that falsifies even one of the following mechanisms proposed by evolutionary theory: base substitution, insertion, or deletion; gene flow; natural, artificial, intrasexual, or intersexual selection; genetic drift; the bottleneck or the founder effect; exon shuffling; gene duplication; or horizontal gene transfer?
@nichtmuttersprachler I agree that return of jam should substantiate that claim because it's a little out there but I think the point of the video is more to show the limitations and problems of a naturalistic explanation for the origin of and continuation of life. Science is limited and evolutionary theory has many complications. Also scientists often make philosophical and interpretive statements and proclamations that outside their expertise.
@bmyers1986 "the point of the video is more to show the limitations and problems of a naturalistic explanation for the origin of and continuation of life" Frank didn't address the actual scientific explanations. He addressed strawmen, which is one of the big issues with this video.
"evolutionary theory has many complications" Substantiate that claim.
He also reveals his ignorance at 3:25 when he says, "[W]e still don't have a way to account for the great diversity of lifeforms ... Nor do we have a way to account for the differences between man and animal." Hasn't he ever heard of evolutionary theory? Frank really needs to take a biology class, since he obviously doesn't understand the basics of modern biology.
Frank clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about in this video, and he makes that abundantly clear at 4:52 when he says, "[T]hese problems require 'bangs,' I mean, sudden binary 'pops' into existence since there's no evidence for any gradual development in any of these." Life gradually appeared on Earth, and the theory of abiogenesis explains how it happened. Though we do not fully understand how the human mind came to be, fields like neuroscience and psychology are providing insights.
Question to this guy: Why Christianity? It doesn't even remotely have the most reasonable answer, also it's one of the most hostile religions. Also I've got some problems believing that this guy would be bashing atheism faith like that (the way he is talking about it now, as if he was looking down on atheistic thoughts) wasn't always Christian.
This video is based completely on a false dichotomy - religion vs. science. Religion is a belief system, by definition it can not be proved wrong, and deals with the spiritual world. Science is based on testing of known observable evidence in the material world and asks questions which can be proven incorrect. Totally apples and oranges and not in any way
mutually exclusive. Using scientific knowledge to "prove" or "disprove" religious belief is impossible.
Video is incorrect to say we don't understand these things. 3rd and 4th are pretty well understood. 2nd is somewhat understood. 1st is admittedly unknown.
But existence of gods is a greater unknown than all of these, because the god must be complex enough to explain all of these.
Further, just because we don't know how something happened doesn't mean it's gods... we don't know.
And isn't saying it is the gods the same as saying it is magic? "You can't explain that, it must be magic."
If we don't know, what makes you so sure it was a God?
Quantum Mechanics shows us how effectively 'something' can come from 'nothing' and how do you account for the existence of a god before The Big Bang, or in other words before the existence of time. In what 'realm' could it exist?
Just because we don't know what happened before the Big Bang, before time began, doesn't mean something didn't 'happen'. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
I find this to be the weakest of arguments. He is essentially arguing that because we don't know everything concerning the beginning of existence and all that followed, then the only answer must be that god is responsible. This seems to me to be just a silly and nonsensical conclusion. It's no different than ancient peoples applying the concept of gods to thunder, lightning and rain because understanding the source of those things was, at that time. beyond their comprehension.
@Entropy56 Exactly! People need to be skeptical and understand beliefs should be held only if they can be demonstrated to be true. All too often, people ignore skepticism and construct false dichotomies, much like Frank did at 5:04, saying, "It's either faith in these four big bangs of 'somethings from nothings' ... or faith in some kind of creator god." These "four big bangs" are certainly great mysteries, but we must be comfortable with saying "I don't know" until a conclusion is supported.
@Marlowann Depends on how you define "know" and "believe." My point is that people should hold a conclusion as true only if it is justified. If one cannot demonstrate a belief to be true, then it's completely unreasonable to hold that belief. If one wants to hold as many true beliefs as possible and avoid as many false beliefs as possible, one must not have faith but rather honestly follow the evidence. (When I say faith in this context, I mean a belief that is not supported by evidence.)
@nichtmuttersprachler It's always been clear to me how people stress a huge distinction between "knowledge" and "belief." A belief might be true and could have some evidence in its favor if it is a reasonable belief, but knowledge is certain and demonstrable in the fullest sense.
And of course nobody should care very much about faith if faith is "a belief not supported by evidence." But nobody ever talks about faith that way unless they're trying to make it look bad.
@Marlowann The problem with defining knowledge as "certain" is that it then becomes something unattainable because no matter how much evidence there is in support of something and no matter how sure we are of something, there's always going to be a possibility we're wrong, even though that possibility may be negligible in some cases.
@nichtmuttersprachler But knowledge is attainable by realizing self-evident truths and drawing conclusions from them. Beyond that it is very bold indeed for anyone to claim to know something. But just because *real* knowledge is very hard to obtain doesn't mean you have to conclude that you can't define it as certain, nor does it mean that it is impossible to obtain.
For example, a whole object is greater in quantity than any one of its parts. There is no chance that such information is false.
@Marlowann If you ask someone what evidence they have in support of something, and they say, "I don't have evidence. I have faith," then faith clearly is belief not supported by evidence in this context. This meaning of faith (i.e. blind faith) is the kind of faith that should be castigated. Granted, there are other meanings of the word faith such as loyalty; confidence or trust in a person or thing; or a system of religious belief (ex. the Christian faith, the Jewish faith, etc.).
@nichtmuttersprachler Furthermore, never have any actually thinking religious people ever paid any attention to blind faith, beyond castigating it. So I see no point in you bringing it up. Anyone worth engaging in discussion will agree that blind faith is a terrible idea, and anyone who doesn't believe it's a terrible idea isn't worth engaging in discussion.
@Marlowann I brought up blind faith because Frank himself is advocating it in this video. He proudly boasts his "faith in some kind of creator god" at 5:12 even though he has not presented any justification for that belief. All he does in this video is construct a false dichotomy and fallaciously employ an argument from ignorance to conclude a god exists. Frank's belief is not a justified belief; it is an unjustified belief grounded in blind faith.
@nichtmuttersprachler The argument from ignorance concludes more so that Atheism has less assurance than people think. I never figured that the video explained and justified Frank's belief, but rather that it pointed out holes in a secular paradigm about the origin of the universe.
As for the false dichotomy: what's keeping this one from being a true dichotomy?
@Marlowann "The argument from ignorance concludes more so that Atheism has less assurance than people think." Huh? I don't even know what you mean. An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, which takes one of the two following basic forms: 1) a claim has not been shown to be false; therefore, that claim is true 2) a claim has not been shown to be true; therefore, that claim is false.
@nichtmuttersprachler Sorry I was thinking of something else when I was typing that. Don't mind the first sentence in the comment about Atheism's assurance.
All of these so called bangs are . . . theoretical. They can not be proven. They are ideas thought up by men to answer . . . their unknowns.
To truly believe in God. One must actually have an Out of Body Experience (OBX). And communicate and interact directly with God.
The idea of reading books to arrive at truth is like trying to sleep walk on a tight rope across the grand canyon . . . thinking you will get to the other side safely.
enotstehw 1 week ago
There was only one big bang.
Life forms formed gradually, the first life forms are said to have been tiny lumps of oil with the most basic organic compounds stuck in between them. The odds may be 1 to 10e100, but hey, there are more than 10e1000 stars in the universe, right ?
The evolution of mind is easy to prove. We can observe different behaviors we've inherited from fish to elephants and in fact worms. And morality is just plain bullshit. It's an evolutionary mistake. But I can't cmnt frth
emshains 1 week ago
Atheist? Theist? Two sides of the same coin, either way you are dealing in absolutes in a world where such a thing simply does not exist. Nature is imperfect and not even the laws of physics ALWAYS hold true.
JoshuaRWright 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow... a waste of almost 6 minutes. I know which university NOT to send my children to.
sodomisticthrash 2 weeks ago
Wow... a waste of almost 6 minutes. I know which university NOT to send my children to.
sodomisticthrash 2 weeks ago
Prager, consider me unsubscribed.
Poharex 1 month ago
It makes me sad how Americans who support Israel are illogical when it comes to anything else.
RdMrcr 2 months ago
This video is so stupid.
I only made it past the first Big Bang.
Have to stop to save my sanity.
NefariousVirtuoso88 2 months ago
@NefariousVirtuoso88 If you don't watch the entire video, how can you judge it?
dianeag8 1 month ago
@dianeag8
... because the first part was brain melting stupidity.
NefariousVirtuoso88 1 month ago
The ignorance in this video is astounding.
We're "no closer" to understanding how to create "life from dead stuff"? Have you ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment, which showed that basic organic compounds can form RNA and DNA?
Why do you need a "leap of faith" to distinguish between animals and humans? How are you so certain that there's a difference aside from your bigger brain?
As for free will... you should probably debate a philosopher or psychologist on that. How are you certain you it?
NewThinkful 3 months ago
@NewThinkful In short, none of these things are actually "leaps of faith." Each of the first three have scientific solutions whose theories (i.e. the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution) are based on observations and evidence in the real world, and the debate about introspection and free will isn't really a scientific question, but one for philosophers and psychologists. (Can you satisfactorily demonstrate to another person or to yourself that you have free will from all causes? I doubt it.)
NewThinkful 3 months ago 5
@NewThinkful The Miller-Urey experiment had nothing to do with DNA or RNA.
It doesn't invalidate your argument, though.
WoodCroftwoodcroft 2 months ago
It's necessary to distinguish between two very different types of religion.
First, is the religion that is an answer for some people to very real metaphysical questions raised quite well in this video.
Second, is the worldly, crass, self-serving type of religion of the Pat Robertson, Dennis Prager, Joe Lieberman, Ted Haggard, strain.
It's understandable that promoters of the second, false, type of religion would associate themselves with the former, genuine, one.
mukome 4 months ago
Hey man
READ THIS:
yportal .com/scientists-create-life-from-nothing-first-synthetic-cell/
Magefa 5 months ago
Comment removed
Magefa 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A complete response, if you have access to Facebook. The note is public, but you have to be logged in to see it:
facebook.com/notes/brandon-lawler/response-to-the-four-big-bangs/272711529419340
grays42 5 months ago
is this bald guy retarded ? cant tell .
OrNyLexx 5 months ago
@HayPennie Science thrives on challenges, but the challenges have been met and passed. Evolution is a bygone conclusion, and the idea that a significant quantity of biologists reject it is nonsense. You go get Discovery Institute's 100 scientists who dispute evolution and I'll go grab the 1,000 biologists named Steve who affirm it. Challenge us, yes. Act like buffoons and make moronic claims (as this video does) and I'll call it out as the inane tripe that it is.
grays42 5 months ago
"I used to be an evidence-following atheist, but despite this, I'm going to fire off every caricature of atheism that Christians like me can think of, as well as demonstrate that I can't even read a Wikipedia entry on the topics I'm claiming have no supporting evidence at all!"
grays42 5 months ago
@grays42 Sort of like being an 'evidence-following' atheist who fires off every caricature of Christianity / Faith that you can think of, as well as demonstrating only a child's understanding of Biblical precepts. You do know that there are many atheist physicists, mathematicians, astronomers, biologists, who think Darwinian evolution is total rubbish, right? Why are so many atheists resistant to challenges to Darwin, even when those challenges aren't made by theists? Like say, David Berlinski?
HayPennie 5 months ago
2:49 DAT MASS!
jazun33 5 months ago
Great video!
bw01a 5 months ago
(2) Both are equally implausible, it's just that Superman was written more recently and basically no one believes he exists. But really, the only reason we think that is because no one has ever seen Superman. No one has ever seen God either, yet plenty believe he exists.
It also helped that for 1000s of years, most people could not read anyway, so they simply believed what their preacher told them. If they read the zany stories in the Bible, less would have believed it at first, I think.
richardtheconquerer 6 months ago
@richardtheconquerer Regarding your superman comparison: They are not both equally implausible because millions haven't believed superman exists while millions have believed God exists. Furthermore your assumption is and I assume many Christians would say Jesus is God and many people saw Him so your statement is untrue. A Theist would also counter that there is not a shred of evidence to believe in superman but there are many reasons to believe in God.
bmyers1986 6 months ago
@bmyers1986 " A Theist would also counter that there is not a shred of evidence to believe in superman but there are many reasons to believe in God" re your comment to richard.
The difference is that Superman has always been fiction and everyone knows this from the start. The bible however is a combination of different texts put together over hundreds of years. Most are not eyewitness accounts. Some are known to be 'stories' , Some may be true.
What reason do you have to believe in any god?
mtbee9 6 months ago
@mtbee9 According to his previous comment, because lots of people do, which is a silly reason
richardtheconquerer 5 months ago
@mtbee9 Most are not eyewitness accounts? Eyewitness accounts of what? Yes there are many different genres in the Bible and many of the 66 books had different authors but "eyewitness accounts" depends on what your understanding of an account is. What do you mean by some may be true? And I I have many reasons for believing in God-how can complex, creative, life forms that desire purpose come from non-life?, I'll get into others but don't have much space left here.
bmyers1986 5 months ago
@mtbee9 Most are not eyewitness accounts? Eyewitness accounts of what? Yes there are many different genres in the Bible and many of the 66 books had different authors but "eyewitness accounts" depends on what your understanding of an account is. What do you mean by some may be true? And I I have many reasons for believing in God-how can complex, creative, life forms that desire purpose come from non-life?, I'll get into others but don't have much space left here.
bmyers1986 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 "how can complex, creative, life forms that desire purpose come from non-life"
Through Evolution. Life stated slowly, although the exact process of the first replicating organism is not yet understood there are many theories that are being examined. Once life started it evolved usually slowly over the last 3.5 BY. Only very recently has life that 'desires purpose' come into being - humans in the last 2-3 MY.
mtbee9 5 months ago
@mtbee9 It seems illogical to me and unreasonable to say that life comes from non-life in this one area but it doesn't from anywhere else. I realize that some truths are counter-intuitive and will acknowledge that I haven't studied evolution very much but I do believe in some forms of evolution. Just not a macro view that is a change outside of species. I'm willing to look at the evidence for this and if you have articles they would be helpful so I can see specific claims and the reasoning
bmyers1986 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 "It seems illogical to me and unreasonable to say that life comes from non-life" Why?
We know that simple cells are made basic chemical building blocks, amino acids etc. We know that these can form if the right chemical components and circumstances exist. It doesn't take much thinking to see that one can come from the other. There are some current theories about it but nobody knows yet how Abiogenesis happened. For books the ancestors tale, is good or, the greatest show on earth.
mtbee9 5 months ago
@mtbee9 The ancestor's tale is a book you recommend? Just curious.
bmyers1986 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bmyers1986 "The ancestor's tale is a book you recommend? Just curious." Yes I do. I know it's by Dawkins and that puts off a lot of religious people but it does a good job of explaining how life has evolved and showing connections between different forms. It is a biology book but still an easy read and not specifically anti-religious. (The god delusion of course is an exception)
mtbee9 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bmyers1986 "The ancestor's tale is a book you recommend? Just curious." Yes I do. I know it's by Dawkins and that puts off a lot of religious people but it does a good job of explaining how life has evolved and showing connections between different forms. It is a biology book but still an easy read and not specifically anti-religious. (The god delusion of course is an exception)
mtbee9 5 months ago
Other reasons to believe in God:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2.Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3.Therefore, God exists.
The teleological argument from fine tuning 1.The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. 2.It is not due to physical necessity or chance. 3.Therefore, it is due to design.
bmyers1986 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 I don't know what you mean by objective morals. Morals are subjective and change with society, many things that were accepted 2000 years ago are not accepted today. But it depends on society. Stoning still occurs in the Middle East but is totally outlawed in most civilized countries. I hope you aren't relying on the bible for your moral code as you will have to pick out the good from the bad. The bible was written by man so if you're using the bible for morals they come from man!
mtbee9 5 months ago
@mtbee9 What evidence do you have that morals are subjective and change with society? This is commonly stated but can you give me some evidence? To say that stoning still occurs it certain societies does not determine if that is right or wrong. It is just a statement that it happens. If young girls are throwing stones at a man who is trying to rape and beat one of their friends this is radically different from a group throwing stones at an individual who had sex with someone of the same sex.
bmyers1986 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 "morals are subjective and change with society" Well you mentioned stoning as a way of punishing someone. There is also slavery which was once widely accepted. Also indigenous people have their own rules by which to govern their societies such as in the Amazon, Aboriginies, Eskimos etc. All of these peoples have worked out ways to live together, usually peaceably. Monkey and Gorilla societies also live by different guidelines, which is really all morals are.
mtbee9 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 "The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design"
Or, the laws of the universe are what they are - not designed, not chance, not necessity - just the nature of the universe. There is also lots of chance in the universe, meteorites, super nova formation of stars etc. There is no evidence of anything being designed to be chaotic.
You appear to be arguing for 'god' to fit the evidence rather than looking at the evidence and seeing where it leads.
mtbee9 5 months ago
@mtbee9 "Or, the laws of the universe are what they are " I'm not sure what to do with your statement they are what they are? What do you mean by this and how is it relevant to understanding why the universe if fine tuned the way it is? Also please don't pull the you appear to be arguing for "god" to fit the evidence rather than looking at it and seeing where it leads. There is "faith" in evolution as well and I'm willing to hear the evidence but I'm only hearing assertions.
bmyers1986 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 "the universe if fine tuned the way it is" I mean that the nature of physics, chemistry etc are what they are. Not all chemicals are stable many break down to other chemicals over time. The universe is expanding but what caused this is unknown. Stars form and die due to natural processes. If the nature of the universe was different then we would be observing that difference - but it would appear normal to us! and we too would be different!
mtbee9 5 months ago
@mtbee9 Thanks for the clarification on what you meant about the nature of the fine tuning of the universe. Another thing to consider: you say the universe is expanding but what caused this is unknown: I want to try and understand what the best explanation based on the evidence is for this cause and that is what I'm getting at: a question that is outside the realm of science and delves into philosophy. Science is limited as we would both acknowledge and is not the only way to discover truth.
bmyers1986 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 "what the best explanation based on the evidence is for this cause " The big bang is not my area of expertise as it claims that all of the universe came from a single point 'a singularity', from which it all expanded to what we observe today. That is about as far as I can go. You need an astrophysicist to explain it further.
As for Science - it is the only way I know of discovering the truth. What else is there?
mtbee9 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 There is no faith in Evolution just a logical explanation of the evidence! People have a certain confidence about observing the evidence and working out what the facts mean, Gravity, Electricity, why we get sick, why metal rusts, what are stars? etc have all been worked out by observation, reasoning and deduction over many years. Faith is belief based on no evidence. Science is a way of understanding based on examining the evidence.
mtbee9 5 months ago
@mtbee9 When you say:"There is no faith in Evolution just a logical explanation of the evidence," it is not as straightforward as you make it seem. Simply put there is a great deal of faith or belief in: that our are senses working properly, that the data collected by scientists from history and our ability to interpret what they were saying, that natures laws are discoverable and knowable, that our method to uncover the truth of the universe is sound, the laws of logic, etc.
bmyers1986 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 "that our are senses working properly, that the data collected by scientists ... that natures laws are discoverable and knowable, that our method to uncover the truth of the universe is sound, the laws of logic"
My answer is: that is what science is all about! People observe, experiment and test what has gone before. We refine what we have found about things and test again. Newton was basically right but his theory has been refined, same with Evolution and so we progress...
mtbee9 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 "you appear to be arguing for "god" to fit the evidence" Sorry, didn't mean to ignore this comment, but unfortunately it is very true for creationists to argue from the assumption of god being the creator and this guides their thinking. The fact that nobody has any evidence for a god to me makes it an insincere starting point and is really no more than a guess. Usually their arguments boil down to: 'such and such happened' - therefore god!
mtbee9 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 "1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist." This is a terrible argument. Do you really think people only behave morally (and as mtbee9 said, these standards constantly change throughout time) because there is a God? I don't need a book to tell me not to sleep with my neighbor's wife or to not kill people etc
richardtheconquerer 5 months ago
@richardtheconquerer You are misquoting me. I never said anything about people only behaving morally because there is a God. Read the argument again carefully. Also I'll ask you the same questions I asked mtbee9: what evidence is there that moral standards change throughout time? To say that in some societies people did certain things and considered it moral but other societies considered the opposite moral says nothing about the morality of thing in itself.
bmyers1986 5 months ago
@richardtheconquerer Is forcing someone else who doesn't want to have sex to have sex with you (aka raping them) right even if a society has declared that it is right? Is it considered courageous to flee from protecting your wife and child against harm? Is it right to put people into concentration camps, torture them, and murder them because of their religious beliefs, because they have sex with someone of the same sex, or because they have a different color skin?
bmyers1986 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bmyers1986 Since this has been a long back and forth, I'm a little confused as to what you're even arguing about now. Let's get back to the reasons there are to believe in God.
You said objective moral values and duties do exist, therefore there is a God, correct? Why is that?
richardtheconquerer 5 months ago
@richardtheconquerer Is forcing someone else who doesn't want to have sex to have sex with you (aka raping them) right even if a society has declared that it is right? Is it considered courageous to flee from protecting your wife and child against harm? Is it right to put people into concentration camps, torture them, and murder them because of their religious beliefs, because they have sex with someone of the same sex, or because they have a different color skin?
bmyers1986 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@richardtheconquerer Is forcing someone else who doesn't want to have sex to have sex with you (aka raping them) right even if a society has declared that it is right? Is it considered courageous to flee from protecting your wife and child against harm? Is it right to put people into concentration camps, torture them, and murder them because of their religious beliefs, because they have sex with someone of the same sex, or because they have a different color skin?
bmyers1986 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@richardtheconquerer Is forcing someone else who doesn't want to have sex to have sex with you (aka raping them) right even if a society has declared that it is right? Is it considered courageous to flee from protecting your wife and child against harm? Is it right to put people into concentration camps, torture them, and murder them because of their religious beliefs, because they have sex with someone of the same sex, or because they have a different color skin?
bmyers1986 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@richardtheconquerer Is forcing someone else who doesn't want to have sex to have sex with you (aka raping them) right even if a society has declared that it is right? Is it considered courageous to flee from protecting your wife and child against harm? Is it right to put people into concentration camps, torture them, and murder them because of their religious beliefs, because they have sex with someone of the same sex, or because they have a different color skin?
bmyers1986 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@richardtheconquerer Is forcing someone else who doesn't want to have sex to have sex with you (aka raping them) right even if a society has declared that it is right? Is it considered courageous to flee from protecting your wife and child against harm? Is it right to put people into concentration camps, torture them, and murder them because of their religious beliefs, because they have sex with someone of the same sex, or because they have a different color skin?
bmyers1986 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@richardtheconquerer Is forcing someone else who doesn't want to have sex to have sex with you (aka raping them) right even if a society has declared that it is right? Is it considered courageous to flee from protecting your wife and child against harm? Is it right to put people into concentration camps, torture them, and murder them because of their religious beliefs, because they have sex with someone of the same sex, or because they have a different color skin?
bmyers1986 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 Like I said, Superman was written recently. Give it 1900 years or so. If it had been written thousands of years ago and presented as fact rather than fiction, I bet millions of people would believe he existed. Also, as far as I know, there is almost no doubt Jesus existed as a human being, but as the savior/God there is very little evidence, if any at all.
richardtheconquerer 5 months ago
@richardtheconquerer Most of the main sources used to identify Jesus as the human identify Jesus as Savior/God Richard. The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all the primary accounts used by historians to examine the life of Jesus as human and the claims about him as God. We can't pick and choose what we want to believe. We must look at the sources as they come to us.
bmyers1986 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 "We can't pick and choose what we want to believe."
But that is exactly what many creationists do - they accept evidence that does not contradict their belief and reject other good solid evidence simply because it doesn't fit into their dogma.
From my view any 'creation story' must fit with the evidence - if it doesn't then it by definition is wrong!
mtbee9 5 months ago
@mtbee9 Some among creationists and Some among evolutionists pick and choose. Darwin considered the fossil record a big problem for his theory and cited the imperfection of the geological record and argued that Precambrian fossils had been destroyed but would contain many transitional species. But as I understand it (and I am open to being given examples and reasons for why I am wrong), scientists haven't found even close to abundance of these species despite finding many Precambrian fossils.
bmyers1986 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 "Darwin considered the fossil record a big problem for his theory" and to finish the comment.. because there were not as many fossils as he would have expected!
Today we have millions of fossils and Darwin has been vindicated about the depth and detail of what does exist in the fossil record. It ALL supports evolution.
If you study the fossil life before and after the Cambrian transition you will see that most of life before were soft bodied creatures, cont.
mtbee9 5 months ago
@mtbee9 I would like to see a source for the statement that all the fossils support macro evolution. Again I'm not talking about changes within species.
bmyers1986 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 "all the fossils support macro evolution" because there is no fossil out of sequence with what went before - no mammals in the Cambrian for example. In addition, if you observe the limbs of fishes and early tetrapods through amphibians, reptiles, even dinosaurs and mammals, there is a general progression of morphology that matches what went before. There is nothing suddenly appearing 'out of sequence'. Read any book on the subject or look in any natural history museum.
mtbee9 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 cont. It is because all of the evidence that exists that ties all life together, plants and animals in a growing hierarchy that Evolution is considered true by most scientists and I would say all biologists. Then more recently we have DNA that also independently confirms the interrelationships between species again indicating that one form branched from another. The evidence is overwhelming and nothing found so far contradicts Evolution. There is no other scientific theory for life!
mtbee9 5 months ago
@mtbee9 It's been a while due to work but mtbee9 all I can say is this: Check out this book by Peter Medewar one of Oxford's most brilliant scientists who wrote a book titled The Limits of Science. In it he writes, "“That there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by the existence of questions that science cannot answer, and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer.... I have in mind such questions as: How did everything begin? What are we all here for?
bmyers1986 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 "How did everything begin?" Well this could be the big bang ie the Universe or Abiogenesis. We may never know what happened before the big bang but we already have a few good ideas about Abiogenesis.
"What are we all here for?" Who knows? That question may have an answer if there indeed is a creator and mybe no answer if there isn't one.
Science does not attempt to answer philosphical questions.
mtbee9 5 months ago
@mtbee9 Abiogenisis has become so chock full of holes that atheists have become a bit desperate, offering 1million dollars for an explanation that "corresponds to empirical biochemical and thermodynamic reality" On the website offering the prize (lifeoriginsdotorg) they clearly state that chemical origins has a lot of problems. And the big bang has been accepted as pretty solid fact, proving the universe began to exist which demands the universe has a cause.
shernajwine 5 months ago
@shernajwine "chemical origins has a lot of problems" Sure it does - there is a lot to work out. But as all life is made of chemicals then I'm sure that they will work it out.
"proving the universe began to exist which demands the universe has a cause" So something caused the big bang. We don't know what at this time. Definitely no reason to bring imaginary gods into it!
mtbee9 5 months ago
@mtbee9 And btw, cosmological and biological origins are two different areas of study. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the big bang or the beginning of the universe, it has to do with origin of life.
shernajwine 5 months ago
@shernajwine "Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the big bang" I couldn't agree more! Why do people continue to combine them! Crazy.
mtbee9 5 months ago
@mtbee9 The development of transitory fossils to support the macro evolution paradigm has been largely unsuccessful and if you have any specific examples that would be tremendously helpful. I am not an expert but I do think that this list (dissentfromdarwin. org) clearly demonstrates that the Darwinian theory that so many hold to with such fervor is under serious assault from serious thinkers.
bmyers1986 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 "The development of transitory fossils to support the macro evolution paradigm has been largely unsuccessful "
Paleontologists continue to find new fossils, ALL of which fit into the existing tree as we understand it. Each new fossils adds to the tree. No fossil appears out of order. i.e. the gradual change in species is undeniable. There are many examples.
I know of nobody in the science community who disagrees. Those who do are creationists with their own agenda and no evidence.
mtbee9 5 months ago
@mtbee9 The Public Goods Hypothesis For the Evolution of Life on Earth, an evolutionary biologist, McInerney, says "the Tree of LIfe is "becoming increasingly implausible."
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils “Evolution’s erratic pace” p.14
shernajwine 5 months ago
@shernajwine "the Tree of LIfe is "becoming increasingly implausible." They are entitled to their opinion but that does not appear to be the mainstream concept in Biology.
"extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists" Not really there are countless examples of transitional forms.
mtbee9 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 Oh and Dissent from Darwin is a mouth piece of the DIscovery Institute a known creationist group. When they can come up with an alternative theory that matches the facts. I'll listen to them. Until now it's simply wishful thinking.
mtbee9 5 months ago
@mtbee9 Calling the Discovery Institute a creationist group is ignorant parroting of the Darwin Lobby. David Berlinski is part of the DI and he is a secular Jew! ID is not creationism, learn the difference.
shernajwine 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shernajwine "David Berlinski is part of the DI and he is a secular Jew! ID is not creationism"!
Sorry but "Jewish people believe in One God who created the world" so that's creationism! You need to learn what creationism is!
mtbee9 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 cont.. After the Cambrian transition we start to see creatures with skeletal components which do fossilize easier than those without. Don't forget that the so called explosion was over a period of 20-30 Million years when oxygen was becoming more abundant in the atmosphere providing a boost to evolution. Most of the mammal species we see today arose immediately following the demise of the dinosaurs 65 MY over a period of about 20 MY. Evolution is continuos but it is not constant.
mtbee9 5 months ago
(1) So if I'm following his logic: God exists because..... he thinks so? Atheism is nothing more than the idea that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God. That's it. It's not a "belief in the big bang." The big bang is just a theory for how things started. The only difference between the story of the Christian God (and I specify that cause I assume "his" God is the correct one) and Superman is one was written a long time ago. Both are just stories that human beings made up.
richardtheconquerer 6 months ago
@richardtheconquerer Well over 90% of human beings have believed in some form of God throughout history. I for one will not dismiss them as ignorant fools or "stories made up" without examining what they are precisely saying. It is the height of arrogance to do this. And as for your point about most people being able to read I am not prepared to accept that they were brainless and thoughtless and uncritical thinkers because they couldn't read.
bmyers1986 6 months ago
@bmyers1986 No, the height of arrogance is to claim what a human wrote is the word of God which is what these people did thousands of years ago. I never said people who couldn't read back then were brainless. The problem was they HAD to believe what the preacher told them was true cause they either a) had no choice or b) since they weren't able to read, they couldn't find out about the inconsistencies in the bible.
richardtheconquerer 5 months ago
@richardtheconquerer Okay who claimed that what a human wrote is the word of God? I never did. Who said that? And no people didn't have to believe what the preacher told them...people have a choice in belief and to say they don't or to claim that because they couldn't read this means they couldn't identify certain inconsistencies in reality is implying that a person is brainless.
bmyers1986 5 months ago
@bmyers1986 Who said that? Christians? Always?
You really need to better study history. I'm not talking about recently. In the Dark Ages (when Christianity really took the number one spot) all other non-Catholic books were burned for the most part. You were put to death if you worshiped gods other than the Christian one. So no, they weren't "brainless" nor did I imply they were. They had NO choice.
richardtheconquerer 5 months ago
@richardtheconquerer Is forcing someone else who doesn't want to have sex to have sex with you (aka raping them) right even if a society has declared that it is right? Is it considered courageous to flee from protecting your wife and child against harm? Is it right to put people into concentration camps, torture them, and murder them because of their religious beliefs, because they have sex with someone of the same sex, or because they have a different color skin?
bmyers1986 5 months ago
Great video!!
bw01a 6 months ago
i feel sorry for the people watching this video and believing what this guy is saying.
deathmetalinsanity54 6 months ago
I still think that the best "argument" for God's existence is, simply put, His showing up. Until that happens it's only philosophy. But after that, it is a part of one's personal history. And, who would have thought it? It happens to be something God wants us to have.... Amazing. So why do so many people not have it (a personal knowledge of God)? Could sin have something to do with it? That's what God says. Suffering and death? Two reasons to get us to go further than our noses.
deQuercy321 6 months ago
Oops didn't mean to post twice
bmyers1986 6 months ago
I got a course too. 1 minutes long. How to identify f^&*(nuts. Its one mole of credits. You graduate when you watch a Prager video and tell someone else - hey these guys at BATSHIT stupid.
linzelj 6 months ago
Al lot of work went into making of this video and all they give us yet another god of the gaps argument. God done it is not a good substitute for we don't know yet.
RayJayJrUke 6 months ago
@RayJayJrUke But do you think there are any reasonable objections in this video to the commonly asserted origins of the universe? Which specific lines did you think were god of the gaps?
bmyers1986 6 months ago
@bmyers1986 All of them? Nothing he said in the video proves the existence of God. All he said is that the big bang doesn't explain everything. Well, no kidding! Figuring out how the universe works is a complicated scientific process, and when something pops up that we haven't figured out yet, you can't just say "hey must be my God!" and I say "my God" because I know he means his Christian God cause there's no way it's some other deity other than the one in the Bible. Why that's inconceivable!
richardtheconquerer 6 months ago
@richardtheconquerer I was responding to people who were accusing Frank of not proving the existence of God and that's why I said the big bang has many complications and many articles of faith as well. Science cannot disprove God because that is outside the scope of it's abilities. Further, math and philosophy precede science and just because there is according to some "no good scientific reason" for certain things it doesn't mean there still aren't good reasons to believe certain things.
bmyers1986 6 months ago
@richardtheconquerer You realize that Dennis Prager, founder of Prager University, isn't a Christian right? Science can't replicate how life came out of non-living material, or any of these jumps. Your comment just shows that you didn't get the point of the video. Do you know how many experiments have tried to create life out of only non-living material?
SirNitty 5 months ago
@SirNitty Not being able to prove something does not make something else that's also unprovable true.
richardtheconquerer 5 months ago
@richardtheconquerer No but it does pose a position of faith for either side. There is no observational evidence to prove that the universe was caused by a natural process therefore by saying there is no God you assume a natural cause that has not been proven. You believe despite evidence which is the definition of faith. So I'll turn it back around on you. Not being able to prove God's existence does not make other speculations and theories of causality true.
shernajwine 5 months ago
@shernajwine "You believe despite evidence which is the definition of faith."
Nope, you're twisting what I wrote. Where do I say any scientific process has proven there is no God? A step further, where did I say I don't believe in some sort of deity?
richardtheconquerer 5 months ago
@SirNitty Also I know Prager is either Jewish or Christian. I don't remember which, but I assume the former iven your comment, but it doesn't really matter.
I DO know he's anti-atheism though, and he thinks anyone who doesn't follow some religion is immoral. He's also a blowhard who has no clue what he's talking about.
richardtheconquerer 5 months ago
@richardtheconquerer Attacking the man on a personal level is an ad hominem argument with no merit. Your opinion of him personally doesn't negate what he is saying. He said nothing in this video about anyone being immoral. And everything he spoke of are things discussed between many areas of science. How the mind evolved is a legitimate question. where are the intermediate fossils, is a legit question. Sounds like you don't have a clue....
shernajwine 5 months ago
@shernajwine Nope, it sounds like I've heard his radio station before. Calling him a blowhard is not a personal attack. In fact, I know ZILCH about the man personally. It's an attack on his professional ethics. He is VERY anti-atheist on is radio show and seems to have no problem being that way cause he knows his audience is mostly right wing Christians.
richardtheconquerer 5 months ago
@richardtheconquerer It may be that Dennis is an exception to most highly educated individuals having no clue.
Pomiferous 5 months ago
I agree dave. Amazing: we have Biological evidence for Evolution, we have Astrophysics to explain the Big Bang (Sorry there is only one), Oh and biological also covers the anthropological, then of course Psychological which is well Biology as well as it relates to the brain.
So why don't we just throw out all of the knowledge we've gained and imagine some invisible illogical deity somehow magically poofed it all into existence.
You must be out of your mind!
mtbee9 6 months ago
@mtbee9 We have biological evidence for micro-evolution-changes within a species. Do you have any for macro-evolution-changes outside of species? How does astrophysics explain the big bang? I'm asking because I really don't know.
bmyers1986 6 months ago
@bmyers1986 "Do you have any for macro-evolution-changes outside of species"
Yes the fossil record - all of it! E.g. The bone structure of animal fore limbs can be traced back from mammals to tetrapods all the way to the limbs of fishes. All offspring have differences from their parents gradual changes over time can explain how the bones in fish fins has gradually changed to become the limbs of mammals and birds.
The same bones structure is found with gradual changes in fossils over time.
mtbee9 6 months ago
@mtbee9 That is interesting. I was just curious for some examples because I wasn't familiar with any solid evidence for this. Thanks for your input.
bmyers1986 6 months ago
@bmyers1986 If you want more evidence read why evolution is true by coyne he does a good job of explaining all the evidence.
mtbee9 6 months ago
@mtbee9 I know you would want to see the evidence but Dr. David Raup, a geologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago said something about 30 years ago about the fossil record and it was that despite the vast expansion of the fossil record: "The situation hasn't changed much." Also while acknowledging a great deal of fossils found, the late Harvard Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the "trade secret" of paleontology.
bmyers1986 6 months ago
@bmyers1986 "Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils "
With all due respect to Gould and Raup most paleontologists today would disagree with those statements.
Today we have many so called transitional fossils and a much larger group of additional fossils. ALL the fossil evidence of millions of specimens all support our understanding of Evolution as the method by which they evolved.
Evolution has never been falsified.
mtbee9 6 months ago
Comment removed
bmyers1986 6 months ago
@mtbee9 Interesting. I appreciate talking to you about this because many people just get ticked off and you respond thoughtfully and with respect. So thanks for that. It does not go unnoticed. Question though: When you say all the fossil evidence support our understanding of evolution what do you mean?
bmyers1986 6 months ago
@bmyers1986 "When you say all the fossil evidence support our understanding of evolution what do you mean"
Basically, Evolution says that life today developed over time from previous generations through small changes from very simple replicating organisms. So the fossil evidence should show that older rocks have simple life, gradually getting more complex over time as life evolved. That is exactly what the fossil evidence shows!
No other logical explanation of the fossil record has been made.
mtbee9 6 months ago
@bmyers1986 "many people just get ticked off "
In reply to your first point. The reason many people get ticked off is that there are a small group of creationists who argue against evolution, by misrepresenting it! The theory of evolution is not difficult to understand so for people to misrepresent what it says shows they are either doing so on purpose (most likely) or simply have not studied it and are arguing out of ignorance. They do not want to accept that it disproves some of their beliefs.
mtbee9 6 months ago
@mtbee9 Appreciate your thoughts! A few more questions: What does evolution disprove about a theists belief? Francis Collins and others are Christian evolutionists and many other Christian scientists believe in micro and macro evolution as well and it doesn't conflict with their beliefs. Let me know!
bmyers1986 6 months ago
@bmyers1986 "What does evolution disprove about a theists belief"
First Evolution says nothing about theistic beliefs. It is a scientific theory to explain evolution and how life developed on Earth.
So people are free to suggest a god without going against Evolution. The problem lies with Christians who say that the Earth was made in 6 days and god created it all. As Evolution is considered true by most scientists - Genesis as described in the bible must be wrong.
mtbee9 6 months ago
@bmyers1986 There are some 'Christian evolutionists' who are accommodationists and try and find a middle ground where the Bible and Science do not contradict each other. They interpret Genesis as a metaphor and not an exact description of how the Earth came to be. This is why there are so many christian religions all different interpretations of the bible - They also pick out which morals to believe or ignore but that's another story.
If one religion is right then all the others must be wrong!
mtbee9 6 months ago
@mtbee9 In other words, what is your understanding of evolution? My basic understanding is that time, chance and natural selection are responsible for the origin of life but I want to know your view of evolution.
bmyers1986 6 months ago
@bmyers1986 "My basic understanding is that time, chance and natural selection are responsible for the origin of life"
Not quite. Chance plays a part and provides a means for organisms to become slightly different from one generation to the next. Natural selection - the ability of one offspring to survive over another depending on environmental and other variables is also required. There is also the need for traits that help an organism survive to be passed on to the next generation. cont.
mtbee9 6 months ago
@bmyers1986 cont. "the origin of life"
Evolution says nothing about how life actually started just how it has changed or evolved. Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Which process actually produced the first life is still unknown, but there are a few theories being looked at by molecular biologists. The main thing is that all the building blocks of life can be shown to occur naturally in the right conditions. The puzzle is working out what process caused these chemicals to form life.
mtbee9 6 months ago
@bmyers1986 AS for Astrophysics - not really my field especially the details of the big bang. However the evidence shows an expanding universe. Based on the rate and direction of the expansion you can extrapolate back in time to the origin of the universe as coming from a single point about 14 BY ago. For the actual physics somebody else will need to answer that for you.
mtbee9 6 months ago
Ah, the old "I don't understand it, therefore God" argument.
dave28lax 6 months ago 2
@dave28lax Do you think these are good objections to the naturalistic explanation of the universe? If you leave out supernatural explanations to account for a possible explanation of the world's origins then it isn't objective science. The "I don't understand therefore God argument" as you call it can be turned to, "It couldn't ever be God because I don't believe in God and so even if Pastore has reasonable objections to a form of evolution I won't directly respond to him."
bmyers1986 6 months ago
@bmyers1986 I see you've gone for the old "you don't believe in magic, therefore you must be close minded" gambit. How lame.
Also, you might want to look up what the word "science" means, otherwise you're liable to get laughed at. Actually, scratch that - I wouldn't want others to be deprived of a chuckle.
dave28lax 6 months ago
So... Until we can know the naturalist process behind nature, supernaturalism is the best explanation?
I'm not sure why not knowing things, means the god hypothesis is strengthened in any way. Supernaturalism, has a poor track record in science. I mean to say that it has absolutely 0% success rate, every time it's been offered as an explanation in science, it's been found that it's unnecessary. That said, science is further forward at answering these questions than the video makes out.
piprod01 6 months ago 17
@piprod01
What exactly do you mean by science? Here is a simple definition "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
Science is simply observation of the physical universe looking for patterns based on observation and experiment. Therefore, it follows God (or supernaturalism) would not be an explanatation for how the physical universe functions.
manwhowasthursday1 6 months ago
@manwhowasthursday1
Well, science isn't limited to just pattern spotting, scientific theories are explanations of facts, the mechanisms. If the world was influenced by some supernatural force of some kind. I think it would be within the scope of science to investigate it. The effectiveness of prayer can be tested, and has been, is that not science? And is it not testing supernatural concepts?
The James Randi challenge is another example of a scientific approach to testing suoernatural ideas.
piprod01 6 months ago
@manwhowasthursday1 Right so science is limited and needs to make limited conclusions. Other disciplines are required to help us with other questions-philosophy, history, etc. Some of the greatest scientists historically were theists and presently as well. They were and are fully aware that there discipline cannot account for everything found in the universe.
bmyers1986 6 months ago
@manwhowasthursday1 Right so science is limited and cannot account for immaterial things and should be used to make limited conclusions. Some of the greatest scientists were and are theists and they realize(d) that their discipline was limited and needed philosophy and history and other areas of study.
bmyers1986 6 months ago
@piprod01
However, this makes sense if God indeed did create the universe. If he created the natural laws that govern the universe (like gravitational force). The arguement the Christian makes is not that God can be discovered by science, but that science is only possible with God. Let me ask you, where did natural forces come from? How are they possible without a creator? Furthermore, why do you have any reason to trust what you see is really reality?
manwhowasthursday1 6 months ago
@manwhowasthursday1
I really can't do anything with a statement like, "Science is only possible with god", I can't disprove it. It's just something that's asserted, and which I don't see any reason to accept.
I could play the same game, and ask you "Well, where did god come from", and I find that we can give the same answer; "the laws of nature (or the laws for creating laws of nature)/god are/is eternal."
piprod01 6 months ago
@piprod01
Can you prove through science that sense experience is accuarte? No, you have to presuppose it is accurate. You have to have faith it is accurate.
manwhowasthursday1 6 months ago
@piprod01 Science cannot account for everything. It has limits and is not close to answering much-morality, altruism, and consciousness. Philosophy, history and other disciplines are necessary to help us answer other questions. Newton warned "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.” This is not God of the gaps it is with limited evidence make limited conclusions.
bmyers1986 6 months ago
@ReturnOfTheJam “The mechanisms proposed by evolutionists have all failed.” Substantiate that claim. Can you cite even one article in a legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific journal that falsifies even one of the following mechanisms proposed by evolutionary theory: base substitution, insertion, or deletion; gene flow; natural, artificial, intrasexual, or intersexual selection; genetic drift; the bottleneck or the founder effect; exon shuffling; gene duplication; or horizontal gene transfer?
nichtmuttersprachler 6 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler I agree that return of jam should substantiate that claim because it's a little out there but I think the point of the video is more to show the limitations and problems of a naturalistic explanation for the origin of and continuation of life. Science is limited and evolutionary theory has many complications. Also scientists often make philosophical and interpretive statements and proclamations that outside their expertise.
bmyers1986 6 months ago
@bmyers1986 "the point of the video is more to show the limitations and problems of a naturalistic explanation for the origin of and continuation of life" Frank didn't address the actual scientific explanations. He addressed strawmen, which is one of the big issues with this video.
"evolutionary theory has many complications" Substantiate that claim.
nichtmuttersprachler 6 months ago
He also reveals his ignorance at 3:25 when he says, "[W]e still don't have a way to account for the great diversity of lifeforms ... Nor do we have a way to account for the differences between man and animal." Hasn't he ever heard of evolutionary theory? Frank really needs to take a biology class, since he obviously doesn't understand the basics of modern biology.
nichtmuttersprachler 6 months ago
Frank clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about in this video, and he makes that abundantly clear at 4:52 when he says, "[T]hese problems require 'bangs,' I mean, sudden binary 'pops' into existence since there's no evidence for any gradual development in any of these." Life gradually appeared on Earth, and the theory of abiogenesis explains how it happened. Though we do not fully understand how the human mind came to be, fields like neuroscience and psychology are providing insights.
nichtmuttersprachler 6 months ago
Question to this guy: Why Christianity? It doesn't even remotely have the most reasonable answer, also it's one of the most hostile religions. Also I've got some problems believing that this guy would be bashing atheism faith like that (the way he is talking about it now, as if he was looking down on atheistic thoughts) wasn't always Christian.
neverXuploadXvideos 6 months ago
This video is based completely on a false dichotomy - religion vs. science. Religion is a belief system, by definition it can not be proved wrong, and deals with the spiritual world. Science is based on testing of known observable evidence in the material world and asks questions which can be proven incorrect. Totally apples and oranges and not in any way
mutually exclusive. Using scientific knowledge to "prove" or "disprove" religious belief is impossible.
mzsharful 6 months ago
Video is incorrect to say we don't understand these things. 3rd and 4th are pretty well understood. 2nd is somewhat understood. 1st is admittedly unknown.
But existence of gods is a greater unknown than all of these, because the god must be complex enough to explain all of these.
Further, just because we don't know how something happened doesn't mean it's gods... we don't know.
And isn't saying it is the gods the same as saying it is magic? "You can't explain that, it must be magic."
angelwhite 6 months ago
If we don't know, what makes you so sure it was a God?
Quantum Mechanics shows us how effectively 'something' can come from 'nothing' and how do you account for the existence of a god before The Big Bang, or in other words before the existence of time. In what 'realm' could it exist?
drummerkid1993 6 months ago
@drummerkid1993 I doubt Quantum Mechanics shows that anything can come from nothing. If something has no reason to exist, it does not exist.
Marlowann 6 months ago
Just because we don't know what happened before the Big Bang, before time began, doesn't mean something didn't 'happen'. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
midlantica 6 months ago
I find this to be the weakest of arguments. He is essentially arguing that because we don't know everything concerning the beginning of existence and all that followed, then the only answer must be that god is responsible. This seems to me to be just a silly and nonsensical conclusion. It's no different than ancient peoples applying the concept of gods to thunder, lightning and rain because understanding the source of those things was, at that time. beyond their comprehension.
bennadad 6 months ago
There is a third choice. Skepticism. It is okay to say, "I don't know."
Entropy56 6 months ago
@Entropy56 Exactly! People need to be skeptical and understand beliefs should be held only if they can be demonstrated to be true. All too often, people ignore skepticism and construct false dichotomies, much like Frank did at 5:04, saying, "It's either faith in these four big bangs of 'somethings from nothings' ... or faith in some kind of creator god." These "four big bangs" are certainly great mysteries, but we must be comfortable with saying "I don't know" until a conclusion is supported.
nichtmuttersprachler 6 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler You can say "I don't know" and still *believe* in one of the two sides of the dichotomy.
Marlowann 6 months ago
@Marlowann Depends on how you define "know" and "believe." My point is that people should hold a conclusion as true only if it is justified. If one cannot demonstrate a belief to be true, then it's completely unreasonable to hold that belief. If one wants to hold as many true beliefs as possible and avoid as many false beliefs as possible, one must not have faith but rather honestly follow the evidence. (When I say faith in this context, I mean a belief that is not supported by evidence.)
nichtmuttersprachler 6 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler It's always been clear to me how people stress a huge distinction between "knowledge" and "belief." A belief might be true and could have some evidence in its favor if it is a reasonable belief, but knowledge is certain and demonstrable in the fullest sense.
And of course nobody should care very much about faith if faith is "a belief not supported by evidence." But nobody ever talks about faith that way unless they're trying to make it look bad.
Marlowann 6 months ago
@Marlowann The problem with defining knowledge as "certain" is that it then becomes something unattainable because no matter how much evidence there is in support of something and no matter how sure we are of something, there's always going to be a possibility we're wrong, even though that possibility may be negligible in some cases.
nichtmuttersprachler 6 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler But knowledge is attainable by realizing self-evident truths and drawing conclusions from them. Beyond that it is very bold indeed for anyone to claim to know something. But just because *real* knowledge is very hard to obtain doesn't mean you have to conclude that you can't define it as certain, nor does it mean that it is impossible to obtain.
For example, a whole object is greater in quantity than any one of its parts. There is no chance that such information is false.
Marlowann 6 months ago
@Marlowann If you ask someone what evidence they have in support of something, and they say, "I don't have evidence. I have faith," then faith clearly is belief not supported by evidence in this context. This meaning of faith (i.e. blind faith) is the kind of faith that should be castigated. Granted, there are other meanings of the word faith such as loyalty; confidence or trust in a person or thing; or a system of religious belief (ex. the Christian faith, the Jewish faith, etc.).
nichtmuttersprachler 6 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler Furthermore, never have any actually thinking religious people ever paid any attention to blind faith, beyond castigating it. So I see no point in you bringing it up. Anyone worth engaging in discussion will agree that blind faith is a terrible idea, and anyone who doesn't believe it's a terrible idea isn't worth engaging in discussion.
Marlowann 6 months ago
@Marlowann I brought up blind faith because Frank himself is advocating it in this video. He proudly boasts his "faith in some kind of creator god" at 5:12 even though he has not presented any justification for that belief. All he does in this video is construct a false dichotomy and fallaciously employ an argument from ignorance to conclude a god exists. Frank's belief is not a justified belief; it is an unjustified belief grounded in blind faith.
nichtmuttersprachler 6 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler The argument from ignorance concludes more so that Atheism has less assurance than people think. I never figured that the video explained and justified Frank's belief, but rather that it pointed out holes in a secular paradigm about the origin of the universe.
As for the false dichotomy: what's keeping this one from being a true dichotomy?
Marlowann 6 months ago
@Marlowann "The argument from ignorance concludes more so that Atheism has less assurance than people think." Huh? I don't even know what you mean. An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, which takes one of the two following basic forms: 1) a claim has not been shown to be false; therefore, that claim is true 2) a claim has not been shown to be true; therefore, that claim is false.
nichtmuttersprachler 6 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler Sorry I was thinking of something else when I was typing that. Don't mind the first sentence in the comment about Atheism's assurance.
Marlowann 6 months ago