The Human genome is evidence for Intelligent Design | Billy - Austin, TX | Talk Heathen 03.13
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 кві 2019
- Talk Heathen 03.13 for March 31, 2019 with Eric Murphy & Matt Dillahunty.
Call the show on Sundays 1:00-2:00pm CDT: 1-512-686-0279
Atheist Day Austin information: www.atheistdayaustin.com/
Don't like commercials? Become a patron & get ad-free episodes & more: / talkheathentome
The podcast may be found at:
www.spreaker.com/show/talkhea...
Sign up for the ACA monthly newsletter: aca.activehosted.com/f/1?fbcl...
-------
WHAT IS TALK HEATHEN?
Talk Heathen is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared toward long-form and on-going dialogue with theists & atheists about religion, theism, & secularism. Talk Heathen is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
Talk Heathen is filmed in front of a live studio audience every week at the Freethought Library of the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop & support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing & friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of government-religion separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists & to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
CONTACTS & SOCIAL MEDIA
Instagram:
Eric Murphy: Erictheheathen
Jamie Boone: Jamietheheathen
Twitter:
Eric Murphy: @dirtyheathen
Jamie Boone: @reason_evidence
Facebook.com/talkheathen
Reddit.com/r/talkheathen
NOTES
TalkHeathen is the official channel of Talk Heathen. "Talk Heathen" is a trademark of the ACA.
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Copyright © 2017 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
Memo to Billy: your resentment of educated people is highly unbecoming.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 getting angry over every comment because they're correcting and criticizing you is alright with you?
@@tiffanyfrank3654 it's pretty clear how you feel because you were corrected by all these people and you cant accept that the genome does not prove any supernatural being whatfuckingsoever
@@tiffanyfrank3654 With respect, knowing more than the average person about something does not make one an expert in that thing. I know more about math than my 4-year-old daughter. That doesn't make me an expert in that field. Anyone can say that he/she is "a self-proclaimed expert." That's fine. But *real* expertise is earned, and partly involves recognition by other experts in the relevant field.
In short, there's a difference between knowing a lot and being a bona fide expert.
I also must note that in my line of work I know a lot of experts in various fields and specializations within those fields. With very rare exceptions, they almost *never* proclaim themselves to be experts, even though they obviously are. They're far more likely to clothe their statements in humility. For instance, when gravitational waves were discovered a few years ago, a good friend and colleague of mine who is a physicist was bombarded with interview requests because he is an expert in that area. But he didn't invoke his expertise in any of those interviews. Instead, he spoke quite humbly about his excitement and the possibility for new discoveries that lay beyond his/our current reach.
My unsolicited advice: be content with simply saying that you know a lot about the topic you're discussing. It's a much more honest statement, and I don't think it would raise the hackles of your critics as much as your claims of expertise do.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 I would like to discuss the issue of "expertise" with you further. But first I really must correct one of your remarks because it's not just wrong: it's an insult to my colleague. Here's the excerpt I'm thinking of:
"Instead, he spoke quite humbly about his excitement and the possibility for new discoveries that lay beyond his/our current reach.
(So he had no knowledge of the actual data... just like everyone else...)
"
So that it's clear, that's me at the beginning of that quotation, and then your reply is in parentheses.
The fact is that he DID have knowledge of the actual data. He was part of an international team that collaborated on ways that gravitational waves might be detected. That's why he was contacted by the media in the first place. So please don't say he had no knowledge. He is *demonstrably* an expert in this field.
Your comment brings us right back to the question of *your* expertise: your assessment of his knowledge is based on your own lack of expertise in this area.
It's also a lamentably unprincipled statement. You could easily demonstrate your intellectual good faith by recanting what you said about him.
I hope you won't perceive this as an attack upon you. I'm making a genuine effort to try to arrive at some understanding with you.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 Back to the larger question of expertise now, would you be willing to tell me the areas in which you consider yourself an expert? I'm not asking this in order to mock your answer. It just seems like it might give us a good place to begin a discussion of expertise, if you're willing to have that discussion.
As a good-faith gesture, I am happy to have this discussion in private. You can email me: professorflynnontwitter@gmail.com
I hope you're having a good weekend.
Billy is a prime example of the Dunning- Kruger effect. He even has the audacity to call himself an expert on DNA! Logic and reason just don't work on people like Billy. Maybe he'll finally get bored of calling Talk Heathen and The Atheist Experience and go down the flat earth rabbit hole. He's just the type.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 You made numerous incorrect statements. Let me list some:
* the genome is "clearly evidence of intelligent design". False. It may be your opinion that it is "evidence", but it is unjustified to assert that it is "clearly evidence" when 99.9% of the experts in the field completely disagree with you. In no other field of science would you make that assertion when 99.9% of experts disagree with you.
*"genetic entropy" is "destruction of biological information". False. Firstly, the phrase is found almost exclusively in creationist literature which is not a good start. But the concept describes reduction of biological function, not "destruction" of information. Unless the mutation is a deletion mutation (and very few are as they are often fatal to a fetus), then the SAME amount of information is present, it is just different - which may or may not reduce biological function. It seems clear to me that you are just parroting John Sanford's discredited views.
* "nothing in this universe replicates itself, that's impossible". False, all living things replicate themselves. There would be no life on earth if that simple fact wasn't so. Also, RNA replicates itself - some of which can do so unassisted (without any supporting enzymes).
* "I am an expert". False - You REALLY are NOT an expert. You are an enthusiast. You have read John Sanford's book and associated blog articles and you find them convincing. Good for you. Sanford's opinions have made zero impact on mainstream science, and there is a reason for that. If you WERE an expert, you could (and WOULD) write a paper outlining your views with the supporting evidence, submit it to peer review (which it would pass easily) and then publish it in a mainstream, credible science journal. If your position was sound, it would be noticed by the scientific community and would make an impact into the scientific consensus, perhaps even eventually resulting in a paradigm shift. Then you would be famous and probably rich. But you won't, will you?
@@tiffanyfrank3654 SIGH!!!!!!! I'm wasting my time here, but a few final comments. Then you can reply and claim victory.
* Your description of the genome is not consistent with the mainstream scientific consensus.
* If you think you've "proved" intelligent design with your analogy argument, you are truly delusional. If only there was a Nobel Prize in Biology.
* Your big list of creationists contains an extremely a small number of qualified biologists, and an even smaller number of actual working biologists. I think my 99.9% estimate is probably conservative.
* Mutations are not only destructive - you are simply wrong.
* John Sanford's views have not gained any traction in the scientific community. As a creationist who believes the world is less than 100,000 years old, it is safe to say that very few people take Sanford's views seriously.
* LOL - I accept the mainstream scientific consensus and you don't - but somehow I'm delusional. I've been accused of the same by flat earthers, young earthers, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers and various other conspiracy theorists.
* You are an expert in your own imagination. Would anyone else recognize you as an expert? Would any actual expert accept you as an expert?
Let me close by saying that rather than arguing on the internet, if you really think you have an actual case, then PRESENT IT to the experts in the relevant field. Submit it to the peer review process and see how you go. At least then you'll be able to cry "conspiracy" when it is rejected. Or you could just keep on arguing on the internet ...
@@tiffanyfrank3654 wow dude. Just wow. At literally every single turn you demonstrate yourself to be ill-informed, ignorant and unreasonable.
That's why you keep getting hung up on. Instead of standing stalwart in your defense of an unfounded position, why not review your interactions with others and try to see it from their side an d maybe just Maybe you'll get an idea of why people consider you unreasonable.
Also I gotta get you on that expert thing. You are NOT an expert. Even studying a topic everyday does not inherently make you an expert. Real experts dedicate their lives to this stuff and spend years going through grueling schooling and spending a vast majority of their time researching and learning. Fo g some internet research and reading a few books is no where near what real experts go through, its not even close.
You've said inn past calls your open minded but you have clearly Demonstrated that you are not.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 I hope you know that you just re-proved virtually every point made against you. And I hope that someday you are able to see reason.
Have a lovely morning.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
"Why do you guys keep getting mad at me? I'm perfectly calm."
It's like he has no self-awareness at all. He keeps interjecting to just blurt out "nuh-uhs" every other word.
Reminds me of Walter from Big Lebowski "I'm perfectly calm, dude"
“Even though I don’t have your education in Logic 101.”
You don’t have ANY education in Logic 101.😂
Stupid is so strong in the world. I'm genuinely sad...
@@tiffanyfrank3654 😂🤣😂🤣😂
Billy is a guilty pleasure. I love his calls. He is so dumb, and so arrogant. I am completely entertained.
Just found all the Billy TX calls I could on AXP and TH. "Why" Billy asks this happens every time he calls. I think it is because he has trouble listening and being patient but is constantly listening in a restless state, eager to get a word in immediately. His impatience is what makes communication very difficult I think.
Additionally, when he is told that he is wrong, even if he were not (not saying it happened), instead of calmly claiming he believes his critic is actually wrong (not saying it happened), he resorts to "I am twice your age", "I am vastly more educated than you" and the like
I just had a Deep Billy Dive myself, and he's not just impatient with the hosts, he's deeply impatient with himself. There's something going on with Billy, and I hope he's getting better.
"im a very calm person" - billy, while pissed, and is the repeat caller who gets pissed the most
"even though I don't have your education in logic 101"
Billy is so butthurt from his last call.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 How so? Please elaborate.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 I didn't convince myself that you were butthurt, I became convinced by what I heard during your calls. Whether I'm correct or not, that's not what self-delusion is.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 Much like you did in every single call you made to both The Atheist Experience and Talk Heathen, you simply don't listen and won't be reasoned with. You rely entirely on personal attacks and fallacious arguments while projecting your own flaws onto those who will not share any of them.
I'm not sure what else I was expecting from someone who thinks that "I can't eat rocks, therefore everything I can't eat is a rock" is a flawless syllogism that takes years to work on.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 I don't see your first premise as a true dichotomy. You would need to define terms and/or reword it.
As for personal attacks, you never did attack the hosts directly. You did, however, say and do a few things that I may have unjustly (and perhaps wrongly) interpreted as ad hominem fallacies, such as seemingly avoiding questions and bringing up irrelevancies, whether that was your intention or not.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 you are the butthurt one because you are writing in every comment when we are correcting and criticizing you that is the That's a textbook example of "butthurt"
It's funny to watch Matt when he says he's done but doesn't have the power to hang up on the caller.
He did behave very childishly. Sat there on the phone pretending/trying not to listen.
@@gottliebdee263What else could he do? The caller refused to listen so they couldn't have a conversation. Billy wants to talk and talk but not listen even a little.
@@gottliebdee263 what's more childish - forcing a conversation with a block of wood or accepting the fact that the block of wood is incapable of conversation?
@@JayMaverick Hyperbole much?
I wish I had the arguing power and skill of Matt. Holy crap.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 lol. Yeah that's it.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 Nah. So he can shut down silly religious people easier. There are words that help hone your ability to debate people so that they can't use semantics or rant about faith being evidence.
Billy sounds like he is on the verge of a nervous breakdown
He always does. Everytime he calls he sounds like he's gonna cry.
Billy always sounds like he's putting on his pants.
5:46 Billy defining himself as a calm person is the same as Islam defining itself as a religion of peace.
his first name must be hill...
I support Matt on everything he said, and I think this caller was mistaken on multiple accounts, but I was happy to see Eric tell Matt he wasn’t going to hang up in the caller.
I dont think the guy even understood that Eric asked him to show his claims to experts and have them evaluated at the end.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 There comes a point where every person needs to rely on other peoples information. People with a job and a life have got shit to do. We cant put in PhD levels of research into every single topic that religion touches on. And expecting that from the opposing side is dishonest, period. We can argue about the basics, but if the apologist is sophisticated enough, we will have to refer to actual experts. Simple question, what do you WANT us to do? Pull an answer out of our ass? Or rather refer you to the actual scientific process of getting your ideas challenges by the best available experts on the field because they obviously dont agree with your creation story for a REASON?
@@tiffanyfrank3654 (What do those other people rely on?) I didnt make myself clear, I think. People like me (who work non-academic jobs) rely on the research of the scientific body. The people of the scientific body rely on their OWN research on the topic, since they have been able to do it full-time as graduates. When it comes to OTHER topics on which they arent experts on, they rely on the information of other experts in the field who themselves have been researching these singular topics full-time for years. No reasonable person will claim to be an expert on every single field out there (except trump).
You think that working people can do full-time research on every single topic that religion touches on? Lets do some VERY SIMPLE MATH.
Lets say we sleep 8 hours and put in 9,5 hours getting to work, working and getting back. 6,5 hours left. That already is less than 8 hours every weekday. Thats not taking in breakfast or dinner, doing housework/chores or spending time with family. And with the 2 hours that may finally be left in the average workday, compared to the like 8 hours that every student has time per day to study on ONE SUBJECT. And you think you can multiply that times ~10 topics or so and still have time?
Just to make it clear. You would need like 80 hours per day to put in PhD-levels of research into 10 topics. Working people have 2 hours per weekday, realistically. Thats 40x less. I dont know what the fuck you think PhDs do with the time of their day but it seems like you think that they are just jacking off all day and thats why you have the audacity to think that one could put LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE levels of study time into all of these topics to be full-rounded-informed.
(Shouldn't you expect in-depth research into every legitimate point regardless of which side it's on?) Of course and that has been done, it just cant be done by every single person on each side.
(Or refer to the internet, which is better than an expert...) Wow... this is just unreal. Yes, the internet has some areas in which it is qualitatively comparable to the entirety of the scientific body. But it also very often acts as the ultimate echo chamber, which is why nobody takes your "diploma of "being an expert in these fields after years of research" from the university of UA-cam and Conservapedia" seriously. And nobody SHOULD take it seriously. You are desperately trying to put yourself on equal footing with actual graduates and I have never once heard you answer the question whether you have ever concisely formulated your ideas in written form and put them out for the world to scrutinize. Have you? If so, what have the not-just-self-proclaimed experts said about it?
What is your creation story? I dont know, but I have an inkling. Thats what I meant by that statement.
Billy gets his scientific knowledge from Alec Jones.
doesn't understand basic scientific terms, claims he's an expert on genetics. billy stop wasting everyone's time when you call pick up a book instead
Billy, AKA "The guy who talks to himself on the bus."
Billy lost a toe last year. He's down to eleven.
Billy sounds like he's 17.
Of all the hilarious, dumb and incorrect shit billy has said over the years, calling himself a calm person is my favorite
"I've been hung up by both of you before"
Can't imagine why...
This is the same creationist script I was taught in my Baptist middle school.
Holy Fk Billy youd figure after watching these shows so long you'd learn something
Billy you know what I shouldn't attack you maybe personally. I will say this it's people like you that call in that make these shows entertaining
I cannot fathom how Matt has not lost his mind, listening to all these mental masturbators every week!
So many people call in with not even the semblance of a cohesive argument.
Billy watched Good Will Hunting too many times. He’s the kind of personality who shouldn’t be allowed to watch it. Ever.
Billy thinks the DNA molecule self-replicates without any raw materials, sort of “ex nihilo”? Wow, no wonder his understanding of chemistry is so muddled.
DNA doesn't self replicate itself. A cell replicates itself. A cell uses transcriptase (proteins) to copy (transcribe). There are all fun proteins like reverse transcriptase that insert new stuff in (retro viruses). Google mitosis.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 sure... But does that change my point? It kinda adds to it.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 no... Not quite. We biologists say that there is a clear progress from our complex eukaryotic cells all the way back to the original self-replicating molecules with no irreducible complexity. unless you're saying that then we are saying the same thing.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 hmmmm.. seams astronauts need to take a course in biology. "a clear progress" I was an attempt to dumb down "an evolutionary process". You dropped the "a" from my statement, which changes "clear progress" from the object of the sentence to an action or description. Attempting to mock my education while making unsupported and ill-informed statements about irreducible complexity makes me realise you are trolling (intentionally or not). Supposed Christian's would not introduce insult into a debate of fact, and someone who wasn't Christian is very unlikely to consider irreducible complexity reasonable based on all evidence at hand. Therefore troll.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 look - you use your real name so I respect that you believe and stand by what you say. You are however, making statements that are incorrect no matter how you obtained those ideas. if you are truly interested in discussing the reasonableness and rationality of this please call into one of these shows with your best evidence and your best. from my side I always try to find evidence that my beliefs and information I've been told is wrong. I frequently stated things as fact, such as eating sugar leads to diabetes, unaware that that was a myth I now know better. Google commonly-held misconceptions and you will find that I am not alone. All I ask of you is that you will attempt to disprove your thoughts of your reducible complexity while I attempt to disprove evolution. The only pathway towards truth is not holding a pre-existing position as absolute.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 given your statement, firstly why would you call an atheist show about evolution? Even if there was intelligent design to everything, that has nothing to do with theism. Second point: for something to be scientific it has to be falsifiable. So are you saying that intelligent design is not scientific or are you saying that you haven't yet tried to falsify it. Because to me if there is at least one altetnate simpler explanation that is so supported by the evidence, that would indicate that a more complicated ill-defined explanation is improbable. The simple explanation is a stochastic process with reward and punishment outcomes that is known as evolution. I haven't seen any evidence against intelligente design, but since I haven't seen any evidence against the simpler and less ambiguous process of evolution I must conclude that evolution is to be accepted until there is evidence that ever indicates another process is more likely (such as intelligent design) all that I simply know that evolution is not correct and I don't know what is. No position stating it must be X can be scientific by definition. And I insist that you're not meaningfully a troll, just mistaken.
Um...duh... um..well...that's not what I called about...um...
It's weird how Eric is awkwardly intent on showing his authority over Matt . "You won't hang up on Billy" / "You're not walking off the show" / "Now you can hang up." It's like he is really power tripping. Kinda gross.
That is kind of weird.
This guy claiming to be an expert is similar to a flat-earther claiming to be an expert on the shape of the earth.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 I can also attack his argument (if it falls within the realms of my knowledge) but dont you dare and try to stop me making fun of youtube PhDs. They are what leads to many conspiracists, worst of all the anti-vaxxers. Its ridiculous and needs to be pointed out.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 Well afaik there are more compounds involved such as RNA and mRNA and what not so its not technically a true "Replication of itself" out of just itself but rather with external help, so to say. You should check out the channel called Professor Stick.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 So? and what exactly has Stick said that is buffoonish?
ᴊᴀᴄᴋᴀss ʙɪʟʟʏ
3:55 Wow, it's great to see a fellow panelist stand up to Matt like that. Normally he just gets away with treating the people around him like absolute shit so this is very refreshing.
Let Billy calm down, he sounds so fired up, so high on adrenaline. He can't talk calmly, can't make a proper sentence. He should think about why that is...............
@@tiffanyfrank3654No, I'm wondering why he gets so fired up if he has good arguments
Also, Matt needs to lay off the angry. He is involved in a robust discussion and is almost chucking a tanty every time he is interrupted by the caller, however he is happy to regularly interrupt the caller. If Matt is trying to promote the "angry atheist" meme, he's doing a good job.
I actually agree with that statement. Its weird, sometimes he has angelic patience but often he has a quite authoritative way of debating.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 You are truly deluded if you think "Intelligent Design" is Matt's (or anyone's) kryptonite. It is a religious, pseudo-scientific claim that has equal credibility to young earth creationism or flat-eartherism. It is a tiny, fringe movement of almost exclusively religiously motivated individuals who use its arguments primarily to promote their religion (as admitted by Phillip E. Johnson in his "Wedge" strategy).
@@tiffanyfrank3654 Matt gets frustrated with intellectual dishonesty, obfuscation, dodging his questions and generally performing an apologetic tap dance. I am critical of Matt for too quickly over-reacting to these tactics, as a calm dismantling of logical fallacies and baseless assertions will have far more impact on observers than a rant. Having said that, there does come a time where it is clear that the caller is making no effort to interact honestly with Matt, and a rant is justified. (And some of Matt's rants are truly things of beauty). My criticism of Matt with regards to your call is that he reached that point WAY too early in the call.
The question of the scientific status of ID was addressed in the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District trial. Google the court's findings and read them for yourself.
Let me conclude by saying that it is really weird for me to be communicating with an ID supporter who is not religious. I would ask you to consider the following:
* IF there is a higher power, then it is possible that the higher power is a personal god.
* IF a personal god exists, then it is possible that it is one of the specific gods hypothesised by a specific religion.
* IF a specific religion's god exists, then it is possible that that specific religion's scriptures are true (at least in their original autographs).
* IF the scriptures of one of the world's specific religions are true, then there are consequences to you personally for believing, observing and obeying (or not) the various teachings, duties and ceremonies as articulated in those scriptures. These potential consequences may involve not only your current life, but also (depending on which religion is the "true" one) your eternal destiny.
I'm curious to know if you've considered that, and if so, what have you concluded.
Matt is just human, with higher patience levels than most. It looks like he just got fed up of trying to explain something which to him is quiet a simple matter, to a guy with very little patience, and lacking of control due to nervousness. I'm sure if someone interrupted you 15 times when you were trying to speak , that you wouldn't be too happy either!.
On top of that, this wasn't the first time that he had found himself at odds with the show, as stated by him when first online with Matt. The caller should have learnt by his past mistakes, and taken a different approach. To travel the same road, will always result in the same destination, a lesson not learnt I think!.
Wow, its like Billy doesnt know a thing hes talking about.
Pure wickedness and bullying.. Your bigger than them Billy ❤️
Billy is not very bright.
@@tiffanyfrank3654 Oh, but you are bright, right? You're a genius from playing angry birds so much... because that's where intelligence comes from... playing video games in your parents' basement!!!! we can do this too moron
Hey Matt if u have the balls debate dr brown and don't throw a fit he can say whatever and u can say whatever and let's see who gets decimated I'm sure he will debate on ur show his show wherever unless u don't BELIEVE u will win hahaha God bless
call in pussy
@@creasefold1986 already tried lastnight
@@creasefold1986 why are u so emotional dang
Billy,is a complete ignoramus
I'm not saying Billy is the brightest tool in the toolshed, I myself don't claim to be Einstein either. But my issue is they seem to think its okay to call him a jackass, when they themselves get offended when you "mis pronoun" them. Just saying.
My father used to pick a fight with my mother in order to create an excuse to rush off to the bar and start drinking. Often times, I've noticed, Matt does a similar thing. When he senses a challenge he suspects he can not sufficiently handle, he begins stewing unnecessary conflict that will create an excuse to be done with the caller. Matt was thoroughly frustrated and threw the caller to the curb in just 4 minutes. These kind of "hang ups" always come at a time when I am interested in what the caller has to say, but the caller gets flushed before we can hear a thorough explanation of what he wants to say. Then, the choir sings in comments how stupid the caller is as well. And usually, after that, the choir once again sings the praises of Matt and trashes the commenter.
Billy?...
A challenge? Matts frustration was bc the caller keeps talking over them.
Bc they can't handle the truth haha
I have evidence that there are Godly, nothing more. See Talk Heathen.
Your age don’t give you more knowledge 😂