Atheists Won't Believe This Intelligent Design Evidence
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 бер 2023
- Get ready to be blown away, atheists, by the most convincing proof of intelligent design. So convincing, in fact, that it was uploaded to youtube and no news casters have found it...
But maybe they just don't understand? Take a look for yourself...
Original Video here - • PhD Physicist Finds Ev...
Defending Evolution from other creationists - • Atheists defend Evolut...
More ridiculousness - • Evolutionary Nonsense
** T-Shirts Are Here - my-store-cf9db1.creator-sprin... **
Patreon - / theskeptick
Facebook - / theskeptick
Instagram - / theskeptick
Twitter - / the_skeptick
TikTok - tiktok.com/theskeptick
Everything in this video is just an opinion, and should be treated as such - though it is important to ask questions. Any humour or sarcasm is aimed towards the words and actions of the individuals, and not intended to be a personal attack on any individual themselves, under the act of free speech
Title - Atheists Won't Believe This Intelligent Design Evidence
Tags - intelligent design,atheist,atheists,evidence for intelligent design,is there evidence for intelligent design,atheists won't believe this,what don't atheists believe,why don't atheists believe in god,is there proof of god,hoe to prove got to an atheist,creationists,atheist responds,atheist response,atheist reacts,atheists reaction,proof of intelligent design,is there proof of intelligent design
A scientist using the word "evolutionist" immediately makes me discount anything else he says.
That's what an evolutionist would say!
@@DistinctiveBlend lol.
That and a mention of being affiliated with the discovery institute.
@@JoeySchmidt74 I hadn’t heard of the Discovery Institute until now. I just went to check out their site and I think my eyes rolled so far back in my head I nearly had a seizure.
@@monodescarado Professor Dave does some remarkable tearing down of their rhetoric.
This guy has a physics and engineering degree from a prestigious institution. How dare we question his expertise in biology! The next time my dog gets sick I will totally be taking her to see my local architect. Always use an expert people!
I'm glad someone else thought this. Having a doctorate doesn't make you an expert in anything other than your field.
To be fair, he did say “the electromagnetic force that keeps protons and neutrons together.” So I’m not even sure he’s a physicist. You’d think an expert in physics would at least know the fundamental forces.
Having a physics and engineering degree does not even make him a credible physicist,nor, especially, agood engineer. My dad was an excellent engineer. Only a small bit of that was his education. More on his ability to realize when he was wrong or under informed, and get better info. My dad died only caring that people did not get hurt or die on his designs. Christians only care, as long as god is giving them points.
Rodger that mate!!😅👍
@@katieheys3007 usually a very tiny slice of the field.
So the guy saying the eye is well-designed is. . . wearing glasses? 🤣🤣🤣
It seems to be an unwritten requirement for making that particular argument.
Bespectacled people seem to use it at a rate well over chance.
Don't forget the all-in-one argument when things aren't perfect! Adam and Eve ate the fruit, we're now a fallen people, all flaws are a result. We were cursed with disease and poor eye sight by the infinitely vengeful sky daddy.
jup. just shows how much they are willing to bend their brain to make it seem realistic. i dont know how they do it. the cognetive dissonence is insanely strong
@Jeff Scott Ah, so it's free will then, is it? Yeah, so glad sky daddy gave us free will. Thanks for that, god!
😂🤣😂🤣
If mold grows on food in my fridge, does that mean that my fridge was designed to grow mold?
According to him yes
Here’s a friendly reminder to clean your fridge!
great point
"See, atheists now actually think that humans are mold!" - some creationist's reaction (probably) 🤪
@@Wolf-ln1ml Lol! You know it. 😆
I've said it too many times..
The denial or lack of evidence for one thing is not evidence for another thing.
And that's some of the craziest things about a lot of apologist arguments. For one they believe if they can poke holes in arguments that stem from scientific data, they've disproved the actual scientific data. Then they also believe that automatically proves everything they believe is correct.
@@terrencelockett4072 It's because it isn't about a sincere quest for truth, it's about giving the sheep a warm comfy blanket to hide under. Provide *_A_* response, no matter what it is or how immediately stupid it sounds; as long as the cultists can ball their fists and nod their heads in agreement the _response_ has done its job.
I used to mildly exaggerate for comedic effect about how they could literally just make fart noises and it would still work, but... well... Billy Craig went there with "I lower the bar!", so it turns out I wasn't exaggerating at all.
@@EdwardHowton _"make fart noises and it would still work, but..."_
I've found this too..
Q. "Why?"
A. "Because, _[noises]"_
Q2. "Oh, okay. Here's some money."
Well, I tested his "hypothesis" and I shoved his god in my coffee and nothing changed. I took it out again and nothing changed; I didn't even lose a drop of coffee that could've stuck to this god. Gods are completely useless extra steps that we should skip.
If you do something completely useless _seeming,_ at least make it something fun and preferably fun you can share, like stirring your coffee with a dildo instead of a spoon. Yes, I don't have dildos in my kitchen drawer so I'll have to go upstairs to get one, but it's so dumb and harmless it makes at least one person smirk like a stupid idiot :p And that's a win.
And I don't have to gaslight, manipulate, or threaten anyone for it - that is a huge loss for all theistic gods and religions.
@@stylis666 _"stirring your coffee with a dildo"_
Thank you soo much! 😡 Arse!
My coffee over flowed, dildo got stuck in the mug, and the whole thing flopped off the table when I ran for paper towels..
My dog's high on floor coffee, my favorite mug's busted, and I'm trying to floss out caffeinated paper towel bits..
I hate you so much right now..
At least the dildo still.. ..OH!.. ..oh my!
These guys are essentially making the argument that you can't eventually get to 1000 by adding 1, and then adding 1 again, and adding 1 again... on repeat.
I was going to make a similar analagy with speed and accelleration but you beat me to it.
What I find more funny about this is that it is pretty much every kid's first attempt at counting to 1000. We all have been in that one game of hide-and-seek that literally went on all day (or all week, if the kid doing the counting ever lost count).
Who would have thought that kids unknowingly figured out evolution this way? Well, not apologists, apparently.
Or can understans seconds but reject years. I don't think they can count beyond five.
I like my hourglass analogy, they look at it and assume all the sand appeared at the bottom magically rather than a slow gradual flow from the top.
Cults do that to cultists. I remember interacting with one guy who said evolution was impossible because of "genetic limits". Refused to accept the fact that there's no such thing. Apologists create a fake foundational lie and then build other lies on top of them. Convince them that evolution requires big jumps and then lie about how it can't explain those big jumps and you get cultists trapped in misinformation. Any attempt to prove that's nonsense runs against TWO barriers, so any fact looks outnumbered by all their Wrong.
It's frankly genius in an evil way, but that's the result of thousands of years of evolution of cult defense mechanisms winning the arms race against reality.
"Darwinism" is just the name used as a blanket term for evolution and any science that goes against creationism. Because they can't seem to think outside of religious structures, so to them Darwin is like our prophet or something idk...
He’s second in line to LtRG, LBuH
And why don't they say mohammedism or smithism. Or even jesusism?
If eyes were “optimally designed” he’d not need those glasses! 😂
Ah, these guys believe we all degraded since the fall. So Eve´s apple is responsible that opticians can make a living.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 JW's once told me to imagine a cake baked in a dented tin.
I love mom jokes, but there's a line you don't cross - she has intelligence, just like I do; I got it from her.
But more importantly, their religion gives the "cure" for my mom's fallibility _instead_ of focusing on her ability to learn and teach me to learn by example. They want you to focus on the impossibility to be perfect and they gaslight you by saying that any imperfections in your body are because of behavioural problems and a lack of faith. It's much darker and harmful than people think it is. This isn't even scratching the top layer of the snow on the tip of the iceberg.
@@stylis666 I don´t agree. Besides, Christianity is so stupid, I can only tolerate it by making fun of it.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 Do you tolerate AIDS, cancer and earthquakes as well?
@@stylis666 Please, explain me, in which regard AIDS, cancer and earthquakes can be called stupid?
Creationists never seem to recognize that every time they try to argue against evolution they inevitably end up arguing against creation. Their strawman arguments always end up beckfiring on them.
How so?
And it’s always the same arguments that have failed countless times already…
@@Lordidudebecause creationists inevitably have to posit a super-hyper-accelerated version of evolution in order to explain how we have the countless millions of animal species today after their flood myth a few thousand years ago.
I am not sure if they argue against creation, but they do seem to argue against there god. Even at this point if they proof creation, they are far away from proving God. I mean our universe as well just be something like a booger to a being that lives outside our time and space. Something you wipe away and do not think about anymore.
And even if we didn't have so much evidence that precludes the Genesis flood, for creationists to be correct about the age of the earth would require a rate of evolution hundreds of thousands of times faster than it actually occurred.
well, if time began with the big bang, then yes, the universe has existed FOREVER
never thought of that.
Our so perfectly designed universe, purposefully made for us could, at any point, wipe us out with a random gamma ray burst, or meteor or solar flare. So perfect!
Or, more likely, our central source for heat and light gives us skin cancer.
Damn..... Missed the Gamma Ray burst in my list...
Thank you... Updating now....
So absolutely perfectly designed for us, only 30% of the surface of an infinitely small dot is able to sustain us without a lot of leaping through increasingly difficult hoops...
Yes, but maybe if there weren't any gays, God would have made us a safer planet..? 😂
To be fair if we have iron chariots we can combat gods plan to wipe us out, since he is powerless against them.
Theists are constantly going on and on about Darwin and Richard Dawkins. They really seem to think that those two are atheist versions of jebus🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️
That's the problem with dogmatic thinking. They don't/can't understand people, basically, thinking for themselves, and think we just take certain works as gospel or certain people or ideas are beyond reproach.
Their worldview is built on the words of prophets. They don't know anything else.
It's not surprising that they assume we think the same way.
And one of the ways it seems like that to me is how they mostly just use quotes from atheists like that, as a way to claim what all atheists are supposed to believe or something.
The irony is that Darwin, typical of most people in 19th century Britain was a devout Christian.
Biggest difference between him and the so called scientist in this video, Darwin could actually use his brain.
@Vinny Ganzano this was debunked. Darwin was clearly an atheist.
I wonder what Forrest Valkai would have to say about his claim that biologists are abandoning evolution in favor of intelligent design...
Possibly that there are people that are educated in biology that believe such things. But Science doesn't work on what it's participants believe. It works with what they can show.
Speaking of what scientists believe, instead of the science itself, is essentially an admission that they don't have the science to back up the claims.
He'd call it out for the bullshit it is.
You mean after he got done laughing?
?
When the host mentioned The Discovery Institute, all became clear.
I was going to say the exact same thing, you beat me to it 👍
Anyone claiming to be a "serious scientist" associated with DI can pretty much be dismissed as a fraud/liar without further discussion, really.
I can guarantee that Dr. Miller has never had a scientific paper published on intelligent design. So this is misplaced authority and dramatic wishful thinking.
Not to mention, he's talking about things from fields that he has no business pretending to be an authority on.
I guess he forgot the part where oxygen was toxic to much early life
Technically it still is toxic - humans (and most other complex life) are just adapted to handle the toxicity in moderate doses... which is why oxygen poisoning is a real thing that can happen if you consume more pure oxygen than your body can handle - a potential hazard for example for scuba divers.
"we have a decorated professional scientist here. So just let him deal with random quotes. That will show the atheists!"
_Rain falls equally on the virtuous and the wicked._ - some dead person.
Watching that guy speak even in the edited bits is more painful than an ice enema...
haha I followed every word he said and I call word salad
...How do you know what an ice enema feels like...?
@@LadyDoomsinger You probably don't want to know.
@@vinnyganzano1930 I dunno... Might be an interesting experience, I've never tried it.
Which one?? The host who looks like he's had plastic surgery and is reacting to a peanut allergy at the same time or the guy with the Phd's?
Top scientists, philosophers, theologians, bus conductors and tea ladies are now saying that the universe was created when the Great Cosmic Giraffe farted it into existence.
Erm...waddaya mean, who are these people...I don't have to give sources. You just take my word for it these top people said what I just said.
I always listen to the tea ladies. They're a lot friendlier than the apologists, rarely talk as much nonsense, and always keep me up to date with the gossip. Plus they make excellent tea, without which I can't function. But I can function without idiotic apologetics.
@@RichWoods23 And the great of their 'kind' throw in choccy cookies.
I spent a lot of my working life in design meetings and one thing we regularly aimed to do was design out complexity as it was usually something that added cost and was more likely to fail than something cheap and simple.
Imagine an island 100 miles square. 99.99 square miles are covered in boiling lava, and some creatures live in the remaining 5 and a quarter square feet. It is obvious to everyone that the island was built and optimised specifically for those creatures.
I am sick of the assertion that life couldn't exist with differing variables, because it strongly implies that they created worlds with these differing variables, waited billions of years, and concluded they didn't work out, then repeated the process with more tweaks a bunch of times.
That is so stupid that it has to be deliberate disingenuousness. Nobody can be that wrong on that many issues out of sheer ignorance.
Always remember, Christians are perfectly willing to lie to bring people to Jeebus.
But it's wilful ignorance, or perhaps more accurately motivated reasoning. The god belief was there first.
Religious people are getting more tiresome by the day. 😒🙄😣
So first the guy with a PhD in physics talks about biology, then he jumps feet first into the same old Kalam cosmological argument. I understand why he isn’t teaching at an accredited institution.
Edit: Oh, geez, and the fine-tuning argument? Can his degree be revoked?
if an astrophysicist says the earth is flat, he will still be wrong, a professional saying something stupid does not make that idea less stupid, the fact he had to lie about evolution and biologists shows he is completely wrong in this subject, regardless of his formation
Ugh yeah I can't stand the kalam stuff, some of the most insufferable masturbatory bull crap I've ever heard. Anytime someone brings it up I want to headbutt a brick wall rather than listen to it again.
@@capthavic if someone is talking about it and you can answer, use the same line of reasoning to provem them you are their father
1-every human need a father
2-you are human
C- therefore i am you father
once they understand the ridiculousness of the jump to that conclusion they will see how dumb the argument for god is
Anytime I see discovery institute in the bio I just go of course.
I'm 6 minutes and like 40 seconds into this video and I feel like I"m on the edge of a black hole watching a star form a billion lightyears away. I feel like I have aged 40 years in the past 6 minutes and that my IQ has dropped below 0.
The Discovery Institute...nuff said.
I wonder why they chose that name, because they’re going out of their way to NOT discover anything true.
@@kellydalstok8900 well, they have discovered that rubes will pay them to lie.
@@kellydalstok8900 it was a mis-communication: The original plan was: "this cowardly institute"
This hole fits me perfectly, it must have been made for me isn't the argument they think it is. Considering most of the planet itself is hostile to humans and could destroy us in the blink of a eye without even noticing proves how weak it is.
He thinks life is efficiently designed? Hahahahaha!
Doesn't he remember that complexity is, by definition, the opposite of efficiency?
Even ignoring that his claim is clearly untrue, we could still ask why the design isn't better because they aren't positing a limited designer who had to work with preset tools--their god supposedly decided all of the limits of physics in the first place.
Yeah...the brilliant design that led to us using the same passage for eating, drinking, breathing, and talking - constant choking hazard, no engineer in their right mind would do that. Or how about the human birth being so much more difficult and painful (and lethal) for us than for any other mammal? Or menopause in only one gender (I mean, of lifelong monogamy is the designer's intent, that move is just stupid). Or the wonderful design features that produce cancer, or our immune systems attacking ourselves, etc? Our bodies alone are just what one would expect from an evolutionary process adapting to changing environments in a struggle for existence. They're only what one would expect from a designer if that designer was 1) of limited competence; and 2) something of a sadist.
@@TheLithp Exactly, we could be made out of homogenous clear goop, and work, just because it was God's will.
Sean Carroll already had Allen Guth discredit this in a debate with William Lane Craig lol.
That was a brilliant debate by Sean Carroll. I don't know how WLC had the hubris to continue his apologetics after that.
18:00 Yes, the puddle analogy. What he neglects to recognize is that different "constants" would indeed result in a different universe but there is no way of knowing whether or not some other kind of life would have developed under those different conditions. It's way more complicated than that and I'm no expert. But I've heard physicists say that there's no reason to think a material universe would not function with different constants.
Agreed. There is absolutely no reason to think that a universe with different constants couldn't also produce sentient life who would eventually look out at the universe and think "aren't we special, we have just the right atmosphere, just the right gravity, just the right liquid, just the right electro magnetic forces etc, etc..., clearly this was made by an intelligent, loving designer JUST FOR US!!
And we shall call her Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe, Leaf Be upon Her."
Also, if God created everything - why would he need to "fine tune" it?! He could've decided on any arbitrary configuration that he liked.
Unless there were already constraints on what would be needed for life to exist, and he was bound by those constraints - in which case... Who created those constraints?
The other thing is that they suggest changing just one constant and say it could never work. There's nothing to say that those constants aren't interconnected and if you change one you automatically change others and everything still works.
3:06 So, he's a physicist and his written "contributions" are to religious based journals. He's not a biologist and has no academic credentials or background in evolutionary biology.
Apologists do this a lot, find someone with an irrelevant but reputable expertise and then get them to back the apologist's theological arguments. This is basically an appeal to authority fallacy.
By the way, the "Center for Science and Culture" is part of the Discovery Institute.
I like the way that they also mention that he minored in engineering. There's a disproportionally higher number of engineers who find the design argument and/or fine-tuning argument appealing, although the number is still very much in the minority.
So he's pretty much a false authority for the topic he's trying to talk about.
You'll notice that Miller skipped a lot of substantiation for his assertions and presuppositions.
3:19 Creationist admits that accepting microevolution means you accept Darwinism. I wonder how the creationist audience heard that.
You clearly don’t understand Darwinism. Process of evolution (even macro one) was known to theists way before your Darwin. It’s that stupid “random mutation” that contradicts with reality.
@@Fundamental_Islam. That's interesting, do you think all mutations are intended parts of God's design? It sounds like you are hyper-focusing on beneficial mutations, and unaware there are any harmful ones.
That's interesting because it's the reverse of the typical creationist position. The Christian creationist movement pushes that 'beneficial mutations are a myth, all are harmful'. Are you pushing that 'harmful mutations are a myth, all are beneficial'?
Maybe you should talk to the Christian creationist movement and sort of what the God model really predicts, haha :)
@@Fundamental_Islam.how does random mutations contradict reality?
@@cliftongaither6642 your teeth always grow on your mouth. Have you ever seen creatures with teeth on random places?
@@Fundamental_Islam. obviously you don't understand what random mutations means. and yes teeth can grow outside of the mouth on humans. ever heard of a germ cell tumor called teratoma? these tumors are made of pluripotent stem cells that can turn into teeth or hair. just google it. and while you're at it, google what random mutation means. take care.
Water evaporates, goes up turns into clouds, condenses, begins to fall, drops hit an acorn knocking it off a tree, acorn hits a squirrel in the head, the squirrel runs off, and scares a lady, who screams, causing someone three streets away to look up and trip on a curb -- if that ain't a natural "rubh Goldberg whatever" machine, then nothing is
He wants us to see his fancy drawings behind him so bad!
Look how smart! Doodles on a whiteboard wow
I kind of like how flerfers have taken the drawing on a whiteboard as "we look like real professors doing this" dragging people like this guy down with them.
Yeah, that framing wasn't done on accident. Ironically, one could mock him using the watch maker argument if he tried to deny this.
I thought exactly that, too.
I've got a whiteboard too!
@@Dr.JustIsWrong _"I've got a whiteboard too!"_
I was just thinking that! I should make a video with that. My whiteboard even has the days of the week on it. So it's already showing more information before I start!
The Hitchens quote in a bit more context:
Hitchens: At some point, certainly, we are all asked which is the best argument you come up against from the other side. I think every one of us picks the fine-tuning one as the most intriguing.
Wilson: The Goldilocks idea. Yeah, okay.
Hitchens: Yeah. The fine-tuning, that one degree, well, one degree, one hair different of nothing-that even though it doesn’t prove design, doesn’t prove a Designer, [the fine-tuning] could have all happened without [God]- You have to spend time thinking about it, working on it. It’s not a trivial [argument]. We all say that.
So, of course, the host chose to omit the next part, where Hitchens says that the fine-tuning argument *doesn't prove design, doesn't prove a Designer*
What I am wondering is...
If God is the creator of everything, and decided on all the rules for how the universe was going to work... Why would he need to fine-tune it? He could've come up with any arbitrary configuration that he liked and say, that's how he wanted it to be... Unless there were already conditions and rules for how life functions and how it would be able to exist, that God had to follow in order to make life.
In which case, who created those rules and conditions?
The so-called "fine tuning" argument can be easily refuted when you consider the obvious fact that our world only needs to be Good Enough for life to have involved. If it were not Good Enough, nobody would be there asking the question. So we are faced with life having involved on the only planet we know of that's Good Enough for life to have involved. DUH!! :D
This physicist seems to have attended the Bill Craig lesson on the Borde, Guth, Valenkin theory. Both Guth and Valenkin have flat out stated that their model does not exclude an infinitely old universe. The whole chat between these two apologists was a massive case of special pleading. Thanks for another great start to my Sunday, Mr Tick. May your leaves be fresh and plentiful.
Didn't one of them do it live to his face during a debate? Or was that Deepak Chopra. All charlatans run together into one undifferentiated scummy mass after a while in my mind.
"The Physicist" seems to belong to the Discovery Institute. I kindly refer you to Professor Dave for more on them.
It always makes me laugh when someone casually says ‘outside of time and space’ as if that is something real they can understand and comprehend.
This would be the whole thesis that I would submit for my Scientific PHD at a Creationist University based on explaining time and space: 'We live in a box where time and space exists and so logically outside of that box time and space doesn’t exist'.
Brilliant!
Please allow me to give unasked advice that you can dismiss completely or partly as you please:
Instead of a box, I would suggest a jelly blob that we are parts of and all of it is space. And if you want to mess with people's heads, explain how the blob extends indefinitely into the fourth dimension and we're looking at only one point of it at a time. You can imagine the whole as an infinite jelly blob in 4 dimensions we can only see one "slice" of, making the universe a 4D jelly , 3 dimensions of which slide through our observation/field of view, kind of like how an ant would see a ball or a cone falling through its field of view, appearing as a dot at first and the ant sees the dot expand rapidly, not knowing what it is looking at until it can calculate the expansion rates and/or differentials of those.
I think I like the term _higher dimensions._ We already have issues picturing a 4th dimension and trying it makes you feel like either you or the dimension itself are high as a kite, or that it might help to be high to picture it :p
And eh... I obviously didn't even mention that everything not part of the jelly is "outside" spacetime. That's your problem :p
The whole argument for the Kalam Cosmological model should consist of:
1. "The universe as we know it began to exist"
2. "We do not know the cause".
The end. There is no "therefore god" in that. Don't bother to thank me; sending money would be quite sufficient.
A really creepy guy and a complete wacko. I knew this was going to go well. 😂
But which is which? :D
@@SilverMKI Both are both?!
6 minutes in, and I'm pretty sure this is all one big 'appeal to authority' fallacy.
And the god of the gap fallacy, and the very bad fine tuning argument, and a lot of word salad, and...
Yep, basically. PhD in physics, discusses cosmology and biology.
HAHAHAHAHA! I had to pause the video. I couldn't get through this, not even with Tick's humour butting in.
Then I scrolled down and I commented somewhere:
_"I'm 6 minutes and like 40 seconds into this video and I feel like I"m on the edge of a black hole watching a star form a billion lightyears away. I feel like I have aged 40 years in the past 6 minutes and that my IQ has dropped below 0."_
And then I scrolled down only two more comments and I see your comment:
_"6 minutes in, and I'm pretty sure this is all one big 'appeal to authority' fallacy."_
You can imagine how funny that was to me 🤣
Also, no, the appeal to authority is just one of the many fallacies used to manipulate in the overarching fallacy that is an argument from ignorance. So, if you say "all one big", then it's an all one big argument from ignorance. The appeal to authority is a part of it. A big part, but not the whole. The argument from ignorance is the whole.
The peaceful sounding host is creeping me out.
Right? I could totally see him as a villain on Bones, Criminal Minds, or CSI! He would be the long running villain that takes several episodes to finally catch!
Good god, that interviewer. So bad. It's like he's animating an email chain.
It's always fun when someone with a real education attempts apologetics. It's like a game to spot all the times he switches between using sound logic and science to religious dogma.
The most obvious part for me was when he kept repeating the phrase "fine tuning." That's not a scientific term, that's 100% religious apologetics. That whole section was projection, accusing them of making wild assumptions then stating his ridiculous assumptions as irrefutable fact.
The eye is optimally designed…said the guy wearing eyeglasses.
As opposed to what other kind glasses? Calling them eyeglasses is redundant
@@frederickvondinkerberg7721 Well professor, as opposed to drinking glasses.
@@wayneu1233 you had already stated about the eye, therefore just saying glasses was all that was needed.
@@frederickvondinkerberg7721 I take your point, but it's so goddamned trivial I can't understand why you'd bother to make it.
When I want advice about biology I always turn to physicists.
Especially one who is a spokesman for the id movement and a frequent contributor to a "science" publication which has as a stated aim of countering "fake news" pro-darwin propoganda
Smart move. Never trust someone that actually studied the subject at hand, they’re most likely brainwashed.
Not the physics that is the problem. Physics explains biology. I just dont ask christians, muslims, or jews important questions.
@@user-cr4pz5yg7y _"Not the physics that is the problem. Physics explains biology."_
I love that you say that. Physics is everything after all.
But also, to understand biology it's not enough to have studies physics.
_"I just dont ask christians, muslims, or jews important questions."_
Yep. Usually it isn't too much of a problem because professionals will just say to leave the theological hat at the door. But compartmentalization is bullshit. Although, I'll happily cut parts of people's brains out to put in a box at the door if they want me to :p
@Gary Allen really? Can atheist explain things successfully?
I wonder how any of these people would think after a year of Science, Biology, Physics. Many Many experiments .. many many tentative explanations, we were encouraged to keep studying as new data was available all the time.
Where’s the Nobel Committee?!we have new candidates!
Only Dr. Miller I will ever trust is the character from the SCP readings by TheVolgun.
Much, much more trustworthy and intelligent
Smug and frightening looking, large plate of word salad
OMG I just said that
An ugly non ginger version of Mick Hucknalll, in most people the is a gap between the eyes
Wow, you would think a physicist would understand the Anthropic Principle better than that. Neither strong or weak versions point to fine tuning. Basically, weak says the universe must be able to support life because we are here, the strong says we are here because the universe supports life (life is inevitable in a universe that can support it). Fine tuning implies it could/should have been different and someone tweaked it just for us. Not only incredible hubris, but (since we only have this one example) assumes it could have been different.
Right? And then they have the nerve to call atheists arrogant.
Also, I am left wondering why God would even need to fine-tune anything. Didn't he decide what would be required for life to exist in the first place? He could've picked any random configuration and made it work... unless God actually had to abide by certain pre-existing conditions for what would be required for life to exist? In which case, where did those pre-existing conditions come from, and why did God not have the power to change them?
"I have no relevant degree but I'm still going to say the experts are wrong."
He has a degree in a totally irrelevant field; he’s an engineer.
@@kellydalstok8900: "...no relevant field...".
@@kellydalstok8900 Physicist with a minor in engineering. No real engineer would try to design in complexity if there was a simpler design option.
@@martinconnelly1473 Yup, which just proves that their god, if it exists, is an amateur. Probably some kid playing with a Woolworth's special "Home Universe kit". Just add water!
If you have a degree, then you're an expert. If you say experts are wrong, then you're wrong too, so experts are right, so you're right, and therefore wrong..
So fu
Even if it was 1 chance in ( insert how ever many noughts as you like ) it would still be more plausible than a god dit it especially the god of the bible.
Writing noughts 'til the end of time... Come, surf the clouds, race the dark... 🎵
Sorry, got a little sidetracked there ☺
The odds of all of this happening doesn't matter because it DID happen. Like Han Solo said, "Never tell me the odds!" And their ideas are indeed completely implausible!
@@Wolf-ln1ml 🎶 Every child worthy of a better tale 🎶
@@RichWoods23 Indeed, one of my favourite "responses" to all this nonsense 😊😊
@@Wolf-ln1ml That's what struck me too, out of all of Tuomas's lyrics on that particular album (especially in light of the multiple mentions of 'the child' open to various interpretations across earlier albums). That one line is all that is necessary to sum up the influence of religion and the reason, however poetically stated, why it should be and has to be countered.
17:50 Timmy's argument, here is quite literally "The ground has to be perfectly designed for it to reach exactly high enough to hit the bottom of my feet when I'm walking. If the dial for the ground's height were any different, I would either be floating in the air or have my legs buried. Therefore God."
How unprofessional do you have to be to never look up from or deviate from your script
Ironic how a man (who is not a biologist, by the way) wearing corrective lenses claims that the human eye is optimally designed.
Wow.
I like how creationists love to jump from topic to topic lumping together completely separate terms like beginning of the universe, appearance of earth and appearance of life on it…
Gishgallop
Let's stay on one topic then... are humans still fish?
@@n8rsk8r41
That depends on your definition of “fish”.
Are Americans that were born in USA whose ancestors came from Great Britain still “Englishmen”?
In order to not confuse anyone because “fish” is associated with animals with gills living in the water we came up with a new term “tetrapod”. We are still “tetrapods” - the same as our ancestors that were “fish”…
@@Boris99999 Ok perfect, I see your point.
So, you say we have fish ancestors. Do these ancestor fish look exactly like fish do today or were they different in any notable ways?
@@n8rsk8r41
Well fish “today” looks really different compared to another fish today so it’s hard for me to answer that if you just say “fish”. A Shark, an Opah, a Ramp fish, an Angler fish and a Mudskipper - are ALL modern fish! But you wouldn’t mistake one for another, would you?
So what modern “fish” did you have in mind?
If you meant “Does Tiktaalik (our ancestor fish) look different than the modern lobe-finned fish?” Well yes and no - it has some differences that helped distinguish it from modern fish and it has enough similar features that we were able to determine it was a relative of the fish that exists today.
That’s the point of evolution - related species will have some similar features and some differences.
What? Intelligent Design is nonsense to the nth degree. Keep making great content, Mr. Tick, it makes my day.
Yeah! Clearly it was “random magic mutation” that by accident changed the arrangement of some nuclei bases in camel’s dna that gave it an extra transparent eyelid to see during dust storm. It was all accident nothing deliberate
@@jzsbff4801 yep you’re right
I imagine this spokesman for the Discovery Institute as a turd on the sidewalk. He looks up and concludes, "Shifting assumptions describe a revolution taking place in the perambulations not only of the better-informed scientists but of the general public." The turd becomes more confident in this assessment, as people exclaim, "Holy shit, that was close!" and "Oh my God, I almost stepped in that!"
I love how the guy was describing what life would look like if the theory of evolution was accurate, and managed to describe what life pretty much looks like. I mean he conveniently skipped the part about how natural selection, sexual selection, etc would fine tune each feature but still...
20:50. Possibly the finest example of autodebunking I have ever seen. I teach anatomy at university. Every organism, including humans, is an extraordinary mishmash of adaptations, additions and subtractions thrown together in a way that would send any designer straight back to the drawing board. All he’s done is loudly proclaim his ignorance and his complete lack of understanding. He absolutely disproves his own assertion. 🤦♂️
If you dont mind, since you are an anatomy professor, I have a few quick questions. In looking at muscle contraction, and more specifically just looking at the actin myofilament, how or in what order did the: troponin, tropomyocin, and the myosin binding sites come about.
We really don't know if those fundamental forces are really independent and we also don't know if they could be any different. And we also don't know how many universes ever existed, therefore any probability that a specific universe can support live could be higher or lower by several magnitudes than the number of universes.
This guy is from the Discovery Institute. 'Nuff said.
3:20
"The standard Evolution model neo-Darwinism is really helpful if you're looking at things like Finch beaks getting smaller or larger but if you're trying to explain how let's say a fish became an amphibian or how a bacteria became a complex organism it is hopelessly inadequate."
Really? I hope he goes into why neo-Darwinism can explain certain changes but not others.
Edit: Well, that was disappointing.
Hitchens was explaining that the anthropic principle was the best argument because it's the most effective. Humans are pre-disposed to imagine that the cause of *everything* is anthropic, because that's what our lives are. Everything in our immediate lives, growing up, are caused by adults doing things. So it's really, really, really, really, *really,* easy to assume that the cause of everything is some person doing things. *That* is why Hitchens found the argument to be their best: because it appeals to a fundamental aspect of the human experience. But that has no bearing on the accuracy of that assumption. Which is why Hitchens wasn't a theist.
IF it was designed then it has been designed to look exactly like evolution happens
g0d used magic to manipulate the evidence. That makes g0d a liar.
or
AS the evidence shows, it was evolution. That makes g0d a lie.
Even if something has a low chance of occurring, with enough time it will happen, just has to have a chance. Like of theists being able to say something correctly.
Like the kid with the lemonade stand selling his wares at $500 a cup. It won't happen often, but all he has to do is sell ONE and he's set.
When you have only a single sampling point and something did happen, then, the probability of that something to happen is 1.
Leaf be upon you, Shadow!
@@Kualinar Correct. Anything else is speculation and pulling numbers out of your ass.
And given an infinite amount of time, anything that can possibly happen will at some point inevitably happen.
I think it was hilarious when Sean Carroll had one of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin bunch queued up and ready to answer this sort of misrepresentation of their model. When asked Borde-Guth-Vilenkin said "Did our universe have a beginning? We don't know but I suspect that it did not." Shame you didn't have that ready to go here. But still great content.
I looked up the 2016 Royal Society conference "New trends in evolutionary science", which dealt with as stated "The rise of molecular biology and evolutionary developmental biology, the recognition of ecological development, niche construction and of multiple inheritance ..." and featured 'Developments in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields have produced calls for revision of the standard theory of evolution, although the issues involved remain hotly contested. This meeting presented these developments and arguments and encouraged cross-disciplinary discussion, which involved the humanities and social sciences in order to provide further analytical perspectives and explore the social and philosophical implications."
I listened to Dr. Gerd Mueller's speech on "The extended evolutionary synthesis" and how it has been extended into various fields above from the standard hypothesis developed in the 1940s. At no time did he mention "Darwinism" or any 'breakdown'. Either Dr. Brian Miller simply didn't understand the various talks, or he is distorting to the point of fabrication what they actually said.
Or both!
One guy reads out quotes from scientists that disagree with the consensus to another guy who then agrees with the quotes, at no point is evidence presented or papers cited. Textbook apologist.
How can a scientist say it was god? When there is no falsifiable evidence of any gods. Ever. He is very silly. 😂
Addition is useful if you’re counting out exact change when you’re paying in cash, but it cannot explain multibillion dollar bank accounts. We need an alternate theory.
That host is what I think of whenever I think of a group therapy facilitator. If I were on a jury in a case of someone punching him in the nose, I'd be open to the "victim deserved it" defense.
Top down design. So there's a good reason the fun bits are so tied into the waste disposal bits? Thanks to Forrest Valkai for that point, even if it's not a direct quote.
Not knowing where the universe came from is not evidence of magic man of the sky. You have to observe magic man in the sky and watch him Conjuring up universes to prove any such thing.
20:18 There are SO MANY obvious examples of sub-optimal "design" in human bodies. I really don't see why he's going down this route.
22:00 "Many of the design patterns that we see in life are the same design patterns that we use in human engineering."
Well yes, obviously, because everything we design with engineering is rooted in the laws of physics, i.e. is fundamentally inspired by nature and what we have learned about it through scientific investigation. (Unlike other comments I've made, I _am_ in my area of expertise here. I have a master's degree in structural engineering.)
Humans evolved as animals full of curiosity and with an irrepressible urge to manipulate our environment to our benefit. We DESIGN. That's what we do. We can't help thinking of the world as a design problem. So when we ponder "creation" and anthropomorphize a God to create it, guess what. That god is a designer. He's a bigger, smarter, more powerful version of ourselves. The only problem is, the random results of evolution actually do result in a lot of inefficient organisms. The best of them survive and prosper. But the evidence of inefficiencies remains.
Problems with the "fine tuning" argument:
1) If there was a god, then it wouldn't _need_ to fine tune.
2) There may be a wide number of workable universes, we just don't know.
3) There could be a Multiverse with 10^1000,000^1000,0000 universes, most of which didn't get past the "er, splat!" stage 0.0^35 seconds into their existence.
*4) How fine tuned would a God's brain have to be?*
3:06 I'm sure that, having a doctorate in physics, he is an expert when it comes to biology. Now I'm off to the plumber to get my teeth fixed.
Edit: corrected myself on the degree Dr. Miller holds.
Don't you rather mean, "Correcting myfelf on phe degree Dr. Miller holdph"? 😋
@@Wolf-ln1ml Lol. I thee what you did there...
Am I the only one that says “leaf be upon her” when you say it as well?
More hen!
Perhaps, but from now on I'll say it too.
Any scientist or PhD of any description who throws their hat in the ring with creationists should have their credentials revoked
I expect their job prospects do suffer.
@@RichWoods23 not with the multitude of so called creation science institutes hiring anyone for top dollar with even a remotely legitimate degree infact it's probably easier and more financially viable for them then doing real science
Whenever they cite a scientist, it's now a habit to look up who they quote. Like, Gerd Muller was quoted. He never claimed that evolution was hopelessly inadequate. He also cites SEVERAL alternative models. Specifically, Muller promotes the idea of extended evolutionary synthesis. This takes "darwinian" evolution, and adds it in to the other things that effect evolution, like genomics, phenotype plasticity, and others, to improve the model.
The equivalent would be to say that because Einstein improved upon Newtonian physics then Einstein believed that Newtonian physics were hopelessly inadequate and false.
It's blatant deception.
The full quote is " For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behaviour-whose variation it describes-actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences."
Hey, Apologists. If you have to lie in order to prove your point, how good is your point?
We see ad hoc solutions in living organisms all the time. Thanks, Brian Miller, for confirming that there's no evidence for an intelligent designer.
Adding a comment to feed the UA-cam algorithm.
Ugh. When Einstein came up with general relativity, he *explicitly* believed in the steady state model. He even created the cosmological constant to keep it steady in the math. It wasn’t until Hubble showed him the expanding universe that Einstein abandoned steady state.
Personal incredulity is rampant in these knobs. The only explanation in my opinion is that they choose to be ignorant.
My body is literally tearing itself apart. Why would an intelligent creator do that?
Do you think you will enter Paradise without Allah proving which of you ˹truly˺ struggled and patiently endured? (Quran 3:142)
@@Fundamental_Islam. my life is already a living hell. I'd rather go there than a heaven where I can never stop worshipping the genocidal slaver that decided that constantly torturing me was ok
@@sparki9085 hmm no snowflake! I’m sure there are ppl suffering even more than you in countries that were drone attacked by your barbaric government that you pay tax to. They are more grateful and religious than you! Besides, why ignore all the food he gave you that sustained you till this day and hands and eyes that help you type nonsense about Him here on UA-cam?
@JZ's BFF everywhere in the universe
Dr. Miller has legit degrees. Unfortunately, they are in a field that doesn't make him any sort of expert in biology. He's simply rendering opinions outside of his field on abiogenesis/evolution. In other words, this is a classic appeal to false authority fallacy. But all I need to know is he's working for the "Discovery Institute". The place where men and women with actual degrees go to sell their souls and credibility to market God.
That, and he makes it clear in many things he says that he doesn't know a darn thing about the topic. Just the usual apologetics claims and general, misleading statements.
Once someone is working for the Discovery Institute they have lost any and all credibility that they could have had. Honestly if the changed the name of Discovery Institute to Dishonesty Incorporated it would at least be honest and accurate.
Honestly any functioning democracy would legally disband such toxic disinformation mills.
They literally are poison to public discourse.
Discovery Institute.
ICR. Answers in Genesis. Abolished.
These Fucking liars are the reason our country went from producing Einsteins to producing Adin Ross’s in a single generation.
I welcome our nuclear annihilation by our Chinese overloads. The American Experiment was a mistake.
"Universes" can never be a word.
A 426 Hemi or a Chevy 350 are intelligent designs. Humans are not. And the universe certainly is not.
What about a 351 Windsor?
@@sledzeppelin Sorry, I seem to have left Ford, as well as Pontiac and Oldsmobile out of my list
Appeal to authority nameless sources 🙄 "trust me bro" 🙄
A cursory reading about the work of Gerd Müller reveals that he is not at all dubious about evolution, but that he seems to be proposing mechanisms by which evolution can introduce more marked changes over shorter periods of time.
It's funny seeing a "scientist" with glasses saying that eyes are perfectly designed.
''theory of intelligent design''
lmfao that's cute.
Notice they never refer to Intelligent Design as a hypothesis.
Far logical than “random magic mutation” giving camel an extra transparent eyelid to see during the dust storm by accident.
@@Fundamental_Islam. oh yeah. Because we humans are never born with an extra finger or two, or any abnormalities...
@@ciri151 oh yeah! Let’s forget about trillions of purposeful stuff in nature and focus on rare abnormalities that happen due to malnutrition or environmental toxins we throw here and there.
@Fundamental Islam lmao you didn't make any point there. Yes, mutations are rare.. and they're influenced by their environment.. That's the whole point, lol. That is why animals adapt to their environment. Maybe try to learn how evolution actually works from an evolutionary biologist instead of your lying friends who tell you it's OK that your fucked up book tells you to kill all nonbelievers.
"Oh my giraffe" that is not "Evidence"...
"Proof"
That "scientist's" description of "God did it" left me with a burning question. Why would God design a universe that would end in a heat death? Wouldn't he or she create a perfect universe for us humans that would last forever? Doesn't the Bible say God created the earth for humans to live on forever? I don't think it says it was created for us for just a while. Sounds like the Bible was written when people were more ignorant than now. That is why theist scientists need to twist themselves into a pretzel to explain how "God did it."
What we learn from our environment trains us to adopt a more optimal future, as bleak as it may appear, realize that understanding this statement is both rare and precious.
I'm a biologist with MSc in biological sciences and MScRes in cellular/molecular biology.
The fact that life is unnecessarily and redundantly complex is actually evidence against intelligent design. An intelligent creator would have made life simpler and more efficient than what it is. With all of the degenerative conditions and diseases that life is plagued with, their intelligent design and creator is extremely incompetent.
Could also be a sadistic designer 🤷♂
5:58 Interesting to note the non-sequitur: "If the universe had a beginning, that implies that _something outside of time and space_ "
No it doesn't, you WLC wannabe.
I love these arguments. "When you get something by random change, that is not designed up front, you are more likely to get a rube goldberg machine". Have you EVER tried to build a rube goldberg machine, *without* designing at least parts of it?
Likewise, cars were designed. In 1885/1886 according to wikipedia. If one checks the design of "car" over the ages, it is very obvious, that it was optimized in tiny, tiny steps. Time and time again.
However that was effectively an upscaling of a toy from roughly 1672 (still wikipedia). This (and now we enter the realm of speculation) was most likely dreamed up by someone who knew about steam engines and the fact that horses can be killed, making horsewagons unreliable in certain situations, so this person took the idea from a horsewagon. Which, as we all know, "came from" the idea of "not wanting to pull a wagon manually, let's just use some strong animal for it", so it was an improvement on a wagon. The wagon was, again, more or less an upscaling of something that came before, most likely akin to a wheelbarrow, meaning something to move large amounts of stuff with little effort. Which in itself was the addition of "container" to "wheel". And I believe most of us concur with the idea that "wheel" was a more or less random discovery when round stuff started to roll away.
So, starting from "random discovery" we can get to car when using "minor improvements" over "a long time" and "assimitating/incorporating other existing things".
According to that DI fraud, that woudl require "car" - in its current form, mind you, to have been designed before the first wheel came about.
Given an omiscient, omnipotent god, that is possible, but begs the question, why not START at the point we are now at? Why "design" anything like this at all?
I'm going to do the running man , while doubting this guys science degree.
I propose that the universe was created by Keith Richards. Makes more sense that a god, we can demonstrate that he exists and we know he's been around forever. And what's with this host and his poor Ted Theodore Logan impression?
Universe banged into existence when Richards had that famous argument with Chuck Berry. There can only be one god.
Keith’s intro on Can’t You Hear Me Knocking is proof of god. How else could something so perfect and FUCKING BADASS just come about by chance?
I like that photo of Keith teaching a very young Willie Nelson to play the guitar.
Our eyes are so incredibly designed by a genius creator, that when I need to see something clearly I take a pic of it and zoom in on my phone because a 4k camera is better than my eyes.