@@kimdanielsen4368 evolution simply states things change over time. more specifically when people think or speak about evolution theyre referring to changes of species. But in fact everything evolves (changes over time) in one way or another. This is a fact. With regards to life, Small genetic mutations add up to make bigs changes over millions and millions of years.
@@kimdanielsen4368 If you studied evolution you wouldn't have to ask. You don't know because you're probably too lazy and uneducated to know any better.
@@TheGillenium Well that´s not what we normally mean by evolution, evolution claim is a specific process of natural selection and random mutation. There is no clear evidence that "small mutations" add bigs changes over time and so change species. Right now that´s just a hypothesis at best, some change over time is one thing, the theory that all life comes from one soup of life is and change vastly over time from such beginning is something completely different.
Atheism was invented when broke hearted people needed to vent to deal with their hurt.....read up on the biographies of Nietzsche, Marx, Darwin, Huxley, Richard Dawkins....Ernst Mayr
@@horaceball5418 atheism is a response to the claim that theists make. Take your dishonest position elsewhere, it's transparent and only exposes your dishonesty
Well this is a funny saying it is very inaccurate The Invention evolution of religion is a complex process But we know people naturally think magically It is in our nature to personify the world around us Actually this kind of magical thinking had survival advantages and led to group cohesion But in the modern world there is even greater survival advantages in understanding science and in learning about our nature and seeing how the human mind works But people creating religion rituals and Superstition wasn't clearly about conning people Rather it was a complex relationship where people created group cohesion and created systems of understanding the world that were often times based on Magic and superstition. The important thing is now we can learn from this and about this and can better understand ourselves in the world
@@kimdanielsen4368 that doesn't make sense. There are countless examples of people taking advantage of others in the name of religion, getting their money, making them do crazy things, making them believe things that have no chance of being successful. Also doesn't make sense historically because there's so much more evidence of people doing things and making others do things in the name of religion there's no counter-examples in the name of atheism
Intelligent Design 101: everything/everyone needs to be created, because nothing can come from nothing, that's why the Universe was made from nothing by a being that wasn't created! - If you can spot the paradox, congrats, you're a normal person; if you can't, you're a fool; if you can but you'll still defend it... you're the worst kind of fool!
There is another one. "Every effect needs a cause, the universe is an effect, therefore god is the cause." Problem is, besides the fact that god needs a cause too, you can replace god with Pikachu and the statement can still be true.
***** That pikachu created the universe? Well, welcome aboard pal, that's what I believe too. In a serious note, no, it doesn't mean it's false, it means we have no reason to believe its true but even if it is true it doesn't mean that X is god since X can be anything. And btw, it can't be god, because the X creator needs a cause too. Therefore its pikachu, who was caused by a pocketball.
***** I'm not gonna listen to every single retarded claim anyone makes, cause there are millions of retarded claims and I don't have the time to listen to all of them. Thinking he is on to something doesn't mean anything to me. The universe been created by Pokemons, well I think we are onto something. Should we investigate it any further? NOP. And btw, I shouldn't watch a 60 minute video for a hypothesis. A hypothesis can be built in a single minute. So what's his hypothesis about?
@@donbacker9883 The is what intelligent design proponents do. They have no evidence for their claims, but they have a set of talking points and stick to them.
Garys coming from the mindset that this is its "final" form. That evolution has a purpose, an end goal.🤦♀️ 🤔They really needed to impress the point to Gary that the "motor" wasn't the purpose or goal, it was just what it ended up doing & LOOKING like. It was still just living even before the "motor" evolved. And so it doesnt matter that the motor wouldnt still be there in earlier iterations. It just was what it was. Now it is what it is. And tommorow it'll be whatever it'll be, too. No plan or intelligentally picked "purpose" 🤦♀️🌏☮️
Not only is Irreducible Complexity an argument from ignorance, I am convinced it is also an argument from Incredulity, special pleading, and God of the Gaps.
Irreducible complexity is still a valid argument, if you think it has been refuted be my guest show some evidence first that it is evidently incorrect???
@@kimdanielsen4368 If I tell you that there's a flying space unicorn always hiding on the dark side of the moon, and then invited you to disprove it if you can, would you see that as a good reason for anyone to believe me?
@@kimdanielsen4368 Irreducible complexity is as valid as farting pixies, if you think the pixies has been refuted be my guest and accept the shifiting of the burden of proof you just offered and prove it is evidently incorrect.
@@lydiafayre9806 In fact we can disprove a flying space unicorn with negative arguments of its existence and therefor the example is not valid. Also to compare superstitions (blind faith) with reasonable faith shows that you are ignorant on this topic. Next time try to do some research first maybe you learn something new.
@@kimdanielsen4368 the very premise has already been debunked, not a single instance of it stood up to any critical examination. I am sorry, but you have been deceived. Also it is no one else's job to shopw that IC is refuted, so long as you cannot actually show it is valid. Learn the burden of proof. Learn what evolution actually is. Yes the example is valid, you could not disprove the unicorn. You asserting you could shows your own ignorance and desperateness to cling on to a fantasy.
I love now creationists have now been forced to argue for god on the cellular level or the quantum level. It demonstrates how much ground they've been forced to conceed to science. They can't pretend the bible is literally true anymore. Now they're left trying to sneak god into the gaps of current scienctific knowledge. Very telling.
I've been observing the same thing, with the same sense of satisfaction. The god of the gaps has been pushed back to wormhole-sized gaps. :) Next step is when neuroscience identifies the cause for superstitiosity, and we can work on a cure.
TheGodexists1 Seriously, "reality exists, therefore an imaginary being has to have created it"? I don't even think we have a name for that fallacy. The closest I can get is non sequitur ad absurdia.
TheGodexists1 Why are you asking loaded questions? Attacking strawman only undermines dialog. It is also bearing false witness, so if you're a christian you just broke the 9th commandment.
Hosts: "What would a non-God-designed universe, or creature, or whatever, look like?" Gary: "[Bunch of crap comes out of mouth, never addresses question]" Obviously, Gary has been well trained by the ID hucksters to never admit he doesn't know the answer to a question. Because he knows full well that if he says "I don't know," the hosts will fire back with, "Then how do you know the difference?"
Whenever I hear someone bring up Behe and the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial, I can't help but wonder if I'm the only one who read the transcript. During that trial, Behe was forced to admit... under oath in open court... that in order for ID to qualify as "science" they would have to skew the definition of science so much that astrology and palmistry would ALSO be qualified as "science". I don't know why more isn't made of this admission, since it completely undermines any illusion of credibility these 'cdesign proponentsists' had as legitimate science. P.S. The 'bacterial flagellum' this guy keeps going on about was completely decimated as evidence of 'irreducible complexity' during the trial.
>>>>> in order for ID to qualify as "science" they would have to skew the definition of science so much that astrology and palmistry would ALSO be qualified as "science". I've heard this brought up in debates..... but you are right....more should be made of this astounding admission.
You should really research the issues instead of forming biased and wrong conclusions like this. Do you know why they would have to twist the definitions? It’s only because intelligent design wasn’t ever presented as valid scientific theory meant to be tested and refuted, it was meant to be a hypothesis that shows all the evidence ALSO fits with an intelligence creating life, if you consider ID not science then evolution is also not science, they use the same methods and the only difference is evolution uses “natural force” where the ID theory uses “intelligent agent” about mechanisms we don’t fully know about like mutations accounting for the diversity of life. Also, Behe wasn’t even allowed to speak at the trial, so everything you read was simply the opposition quoting him and forming arguments misconstruing his arguments, that was a suppressive trial that wrongly cost Behe his job and there’s a documentary out about it.
Travis Pratt: What are you smoking? Behe testified. He was the primary witness for the defense. Among his admissions is that the plausibility of ID is dependent on a prior belief in God. And no, evolution and ID don't use the same methods: one starts from the assumption that God created things and squeezes every bit of evidence to fit that assumption, to the point where anything one finds is just another instance of "Wow, look how great God is". There's nothing that would falsify it. Evolution is falsifiable: finding rabbit bones in the pre-Cambrian would do it.
Gates did not say that DNA was LITERALLY a computer program. He said “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any ever created.”
I completely disagree I’d say it Creationism using an alias. Not even a bad disguise just creationism saying “call me intelligent design now” in the same shabby clothrs
+Coy Hampton Evolution is not science because it cannot be proven using the scientific method. Secondly, in order for evolution to have a fighting chance there must be new genetic information introduced into an organisms genome in order for a new species to arise. Natural selection does not add new genetic information, it merely selects what is available in the gene pool. Mutation does not create new information either, it simply damages pre-existent genetic information. As far as fruit flies mutating and no longer being able to interbreed, this is not an example of evolution because the fruit flies are still fruit flies. The fruit flies are not some other kind of organism. It's not a butterfly, grasshopper, or ant. It's still just a fruit fly with damaged genes caused by mutation.
+utubevideo1ful Just because you love to ignore facts or is either willfully ignorant towards science or too stupid to understand it, doesn't make evolution false. Evolution is a scientific theory.
Then explain where gravity came from, and why there's order in the universe--so much order that NASA can put a man on the moon. Also, give me one example of evolution. Just one.
"how would you show that something is irreducibly complex?" "I'd go out and find something that was irreducibly complex... Duh!" Thanks Gary, really showed em there.
I just had a similar discussion with a guy earlier today. He was claiming that the bible wasn't to be taken literally and pointing out fallacies in it to show it. I asked him why, if any part of the bible could be wrong, he would believe any of it and how could he determine which parts were correct. He agreed that the bible had errors but fell right back to the "you need faith" argument. It's not a lack of education, it's more willful ignorance. they don't want to see the truth or face it.
"A building needs a builder!" Yes, it does, I've seen buildings being built. I've never seen one grow out of the ground, like a tree! ;O) A building is intelligently designed...a tree is not!
If the caller ever had any credibility he lost it when he started quoting Behe as an authority. Even Behe's own university has distanced himself from his comments.
+Sam Adams BTW, he's also demonstrating a lack of understanding of basic statistics. There is a difference between "a priori" and "a posteriori" probabilities - no reason to argue that he's got to be able to calculate the probabilities.
***** You REALLY think humans were magicked up by a magic sky fairy? WOW! Give my your strongest scientific reason why you think your ancestors were created by magic.
I like how Gary talks about Dawkins and yet his entire argument is based on the false assumption of irreducible complexity that Dawkins addresses constantly. If you have photo-receptive cells and your competition doesn't, then 1% of an eye is clearly better than not having one at all.
I like how creationists think irreducible complexity is an actual concept. I wonder if they look at a birthday cake and say "there's no way this used be sugar, flour and milk".
Jebuslives IC means if you take away one element of the organ, it won’t function for its current purpose. But organs, limbs, etc, change purpose, so IC, even if true, is not relevant . If you take away the icing, you still have a dessert, so maybe the cake analogy is not the best. Also, from my limited understanding of DNA, a mutation can reverberate thru the phenotype, because DNA is not just a blueprint, it also has the equivalent of a computer function (produce fingers until you reach such and such a condition - a more general condition than having 5 fingers). So the function produces different results given different input, and the input changed with the mutation. It is difficult to believe that Michael Behe does not already know all this, somI consider him a deceiver.
@@scienceexplains302 the computer analogy for DNA is a pretty poor analogy simply because computer programs are resistant to change, so if you change a single bit, it could corrupt the whole file or just change the whole file whereas for DNA there is no such corruption at all, so long as you have the start gene (of which there is 3) and the stop gene (of which there is 2) then it'll code regardless, also DNA is far more flexible with multiple codones coding for exactly the same thing, there is an amino acid that can be coded in 4 different ways and not a single amino acid is strictly just 1 codon, if I remember correctly, basically computer codes are far more strict than DNA
@@chrisnelson5002 it's called the fact that Biology doesn't support Neo Darwinism, and mathematicians and p physicists just think you're idea is stupid and absurd.
@@salamjihad3449 and it's one of the worst examples. Like the human eye, intermediary stages have been found, with different functions, such as ion pumps, etc.
Michael Dennis For lack of a better title, yes. He and Andrew Wakefield (who wrote the fraudulent paper on vaccines and Autism) are arguably the two biggest quack scientists in the world.
+Michael Johnson Yep. One of my favorite arguments against the "intelligent design" of the human eye. Just look around the room at how many people are wearing glasses. Even without taking into account those who wear contacts or have had eye surgery to correct their vision, you still usually end up with a LOT of people in glasses.
+Michael Johnson Before I say anything, I'd like to say that I am an Atheist and that the whole "the eye is so complex" argument fucking stupid. But this counter doesn't really say anything. Complex things that are created can have flaws or be damaged. That's just my two cents.
Martin: How do you falsify ID? Gary from Wadeya: I can't hear you. Martin: How do you know something is not ID? Gary from Wadeya: I literally can't hear you. Martin: All right, let's move on. Gary from Wadeya: Oh, I can hear you now!
LMAO, he said "you want me to falsify the entire theory of intelligent design", as though there's an immense body if evidence in support of intelligent design. He then says, "I'd falsify it by, even Richard Darkins admits there's an appearance of design".
It’s fascinating how the devoutly religious appeal to authority, citing other people held in high regard to try and associate their argument with someone who has importance.
Crowd: SHE'S A WITCH!!!!! Sir Vedomir: How do you know she is a witch? Crowd member 1: She look's like one! Crowd member 2: She turned me into a NEWT! Sir Vedomir: A newt? Crowd member 1: Well... I got better.... Thank you Monty Python, for foreshadowing the arguments of ID proponents 40 years ago.
Is it just me or do Creationists seem to forget that metaphors like "DNA is like computer code" are not to be taken literally? Computer code is created by a creator, DNA is not, because DNA is not computer code and doesn't really serve the same direct purpose. Scientists and science communicators use metaphors to describe complex concepts knowing all along that they are metaphors and not always apt ones or are useful only up to a point. Do Creationists even know what a metaphor is? The definition is "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable". Emphasis on "not literally applicable".
***** Its full of stories that are more logically analogies or metaphors than actual accounts of history. Just an example of creationists not understanding analogies and metaphors. It was mostly a joke, don't think about it too much.
William Mills Well, codes are used to communicate information between beings. I'd like an example of using DNA as a code to communicate something. My understanding of DNA is a series of chemicals which interact to produce biological effects, because that's what there is evidence for. Science's simplification of attributing letters to these chemicals is no more relevant to DNA being a code, than if we graded pebbles by size, giving them letter values, and then claimed a beach was a code.
Seems to me it's logical and reasonable to conclude that all things found in nature are not intelligently designed. Before you can make such a claim, you have to present a designing agent, and then you have to connect the dots. In other words, you have to demonstrate the method by which a particular designer, did in fact, design a particular thing in nature. The Creationists have the same problem as apologists...they have never been able to prove their designer exists! They've never even come close.
Chuck Duffy, If you do not remember where that DNA came from, I suggest that you wash it off with soap, clean the area where you found DNA with disinfectant, and then get STD test.
Gary: “This is one of the leading criticisms of intelligent design”. THE leading criticism of “intelligent design” is the FACT that nobody can prove any gods exist.
The caller keeps saying "...if it resembles things that we know are designed..." But what he ignores is the fact that WE design things using nature as our model. We then observe other things in nature which have similar functions. What he's doing is pointing to those later observations and saying, "Ah-ha! That looks like our designed thing, therefore it's designed."
Atheists dont pretend to have knowledge, they just dont believe what the theists are proclaiming! Its the theists that think they have all the answers lol
what I mean is, when asked about anything that has come to pass a christian say their god must have done it! For a lot of the big questions the answer is... we just dont know yet
Even Behe's other love child, the human eye doesn't show IR. We can see unicellular organisms with a photosensitive spot. This merely lets them tell if it's light or dark, determining activity levels. A more specifically located spot can allow the organism to detect the direction of the light, so it can move up or down in water during the day. We can have multicellular organisms with photosensitive eyespots allowing you to detect day and night, or even the direction of a shadow. There are many steps leading up to an organ which acts like a camera. Even that can work without a functioning lens, or other components. We can see all sorts of intermediate steps.
9 years have passed. The "what would a non-designed universe look like?" question is still not gotten answered. ...and no Creationist has yet to receive a Nobel Prize. That says a lot in this fast-pace, IT-propelled, and globally connected world environment reducing Creationist population does to the caller.
behe's entire argument was blown out of the water in the Dover case, and the Creationists didn't even TRY to counter it.. That indicates they KNOW their version is bunk.... in the specific example is the coagulation cascade....there's some 2 dozen stages....and EACH of them work quite well on their own.....Miller systematically dismantled the ENTIRE claim of Irreducible Complexity on the stand...
The caller doesnt understand he keeps reaching a circular argument. It goes back to square one of smuggling in a designer due to specified complexity. As a professional ux and Graphic designer, I can tell you that design can be either simple or complex and is recognized by contrasting it to nature. Nature must then be demonstrated to be a creation. This has never been demonstrated by any human or god. Time for a god to step up and prove itself if it indeed wants us to know it exists.
Two things: 1. He brings up irreducible complexity, heavily relying on Michael Behe. He says the more examples there are that are irreducibly complex, the more unlikely it is that it came about by batural means. There are two major flaws in this: A) One single example of actual irreducible complexity would be sufficient to disprove evolution. More examples would not be needed and wouldn‘t add anything to any probability. B) There ARE no „more and more examples“. Each and every single last example Behe came up with was not only not shown to be necessarily irreducibly complex, but in fact was positively shown to not be irreducibly complex. That argument fails at every. Single. Point. 2. When scientists call the flagellum a „motor“, that exclusively refers to its function; it does NOT refer to its origin, not even its mechanism to fulfill that function. That‘s one reason why this line of reasoning is a fallacious deduction from analogy. Another one is this: All motors we know to have been designed have one particular thing in common: They are NOT part of a self-replicating system. The flagellum is. I‘m utterly dumbfounded that these people apparently don‘t see that this one single difference alone is so crucial in this particular context that the attempt to argue the flagellum‘s origins based on that analogy holds less water than a friggin kitchen sieve.
Yup. These jackasses insist on pretending that when a biologists calls something a "motor" it literally means a motor in exactly the same way they would refer to a car engine.
Theists strive to "save face" in order to defend ther religious delusion; my question is why? Is it faith, threats of hell and damnation, anceint dogma or something we learned at such an early age that we simply accpet it without thinking? Whatever it is, religon is such deluded nonsense that I don't understand how a few people can support it's mythical claims.
I believe it's just hard for most ppl to admit they are wrong, even to themselves - imagine if you held a fundamental belief for decades and then you realize it's just wishful thinking... I am an overly rational preson, yet something like that would throw me off...
I remember one day coming across a man and woman preaching Intelligent design in the city. I asked him if I could ask him a question about it, he agreed. I asked him: "If we were designed intelligently, why do we breathe and eat through the same hole? since that guarantees a certain amount of people will die from choking each year, as opposed to for example Dolphins, who breathe and eat through different holes and therefore never choke." The ensuing word-salad and goal oriented reasoning was truly astounding.
This whole "motor" thing is simply an argument by analogy in the first place. What would they have compared the flagellum to _before we invented motors?_ Five hundred years ago, they would simply have said it was the little tail this tiny animal wagged to swim.
So a designer which intelligently designs complex things like flagellum must be vastly more complex than all these things it designs.....so what designed the intelligent designer of all complexity then?
OK, for any creationists that happen across this video and think the intelligent design caller had a valid argument... First, the probability of an object being intelligently designed has absolute zip, zilch, zero to do with complexity. You'd have to establish a means of determining something which is designed from something that is not designed. Not one intelligent design proponent has ever put forth such a test. As Matt Dillahunty stated, we determine things which were designed by evidence of prior design, not from complexity. The watchmaker argument suffers from exactly this fault. From a creationist's perspective, everything was designed, so it'd be a watch on a beach of watches - in other words, watches all the way down. Since their argument is that everything is created, there would be no means to determine designed from not designed. If you see a watch on the beach you know it's designed, not because of complexity or function, but because every single watch we've ever encountered has been designed by an intelligent being. The next problem is the idea of irreducible complexity, which has been debunked over and over. Even if Behee defines irreducible complexity as lacking the same function when a part is removed, this is not a valid definition. A system doesn't have to retain the exact same function in order to be a benefit to the organism it's a part of. The organism merely has to be successful enough to live long enough to reproduce for the system to be viable. The concept of irreducible complexity also doesn't account for additions and deletions. For instance, if you were building an arch, and it was constructed out of perhaps five large blocks, removing even one of the blocks would cause the entire arch to fall. But what if there was a support of some kind in place while the arch was being assembled, and then that support was later removed? Now you have an apparently irreducibly complex system, but that was able to be formed part by part. I've even heard this applied to termites and gut flora. The termites can't live without the gut flora that digests the wood it eats, and the flora can't live without the termite as its host. So how could this have happened by chance? Answer is that it didn't. What is most likely is that at one point termites and gut flora didn't depend on each other, but were more successful at survival and reproduction together. Over time, they adapted to work better together, until they finally depend on each other. It's something like an irreducibly complex system, but one that we have a natural explanation for its development. Same with the eye. Anyone that thinks the eye's evolution is difficult has simply never done five minutes of research on it. We understand the various steps of eye evolution, and many examples of different stages are extant in organisms we see today. Finally, this appeal to probability is only effective if you can actually calculate it. If you can't establish the total possible outcomes, both positive and negative, then you can't determine probability. End of story. All this caller was doing was using his intuition to determine whether he felt something was likely. Intuition is what told us heavy items fall to earth faster than lighter items. Intuition can't be trusted to determine truth. It's just a heuristic tool we use for everyday decisions. In science, intuition is worthless. You have to create models and perform experiments to demonstrate the truth of your claim. Note that while the caller stated that lots of biologists agreed with 'x', and had loads of quotes from various people, what he did not have was a single peer-reviewed paper from a scientific journal that supports irreducible complexity. There's a reason Behee and irreducible complexity lost so badly in court, and why creationists now rely on media and propaganda, rather than even attempting to publish anything for scientific peer review.
+Albert Guilmont That's a funny point. It's odd that creationist argumentation is so childish and shallow. They seem unable to consider that deletions along with additions and modifications might make something irreducibly complex, that also arose naturally. The arch is a perfect example, because after you remove the arch, the blocks that hold each other up are irreducibly complex. Remove any one of them, and they'll all fall. You can't build them one at a time, so how's it possible to create such structures with an arch? It's obvious even to a small child that you can make things with molds. I just can't understand this level of argumentation. It's like the human population argument some creationists (like Eric Hovind) like to tout about. The idea that we could duplicate our population in a linear model without any regard to carrying capacity is a scenario that only the most impacted of fuckwits could champion. It's literally such a stupid argument that I wonder if the person making it is just fucking with me, or if they're really that pig-ignorant.
"Actually, the "leap of faith"-to give it the memorable name that Soren Kierkegaard bestowed upon it-is an imposture. As he himself pointed out, it is not a "leap" that can be made once and for all. It is a leap that has to go on and on being performed, in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary." - C. Hitchens
You got to love those adorable creationists who collect arguments and mine quotes and construct a whole debate opening and wait years for their big moment to destroy evolution and then make fools out of themselves by running in completely non-relevant directions once let loose.
I love when religious people say there has to be a creator because nothing can come from nothing,i ussually tell then and it gets them mad. Ultimately then God could not have came from nothing either,so the first question should be is,where did God come from?
you are making a typical error who said that an eternal being had to be created or come out of nothing. When we talk about physical things like the universe that came to be out of nothing, which is physically impossible then the rational question should be how can everything come from absolutely nothing (nonphysical). The best logical answer may very well be that the universe was at some point created from something nonphysical, spaceless and eternal.
@@kimdanielsen4368 can you prove the only other explication is that the universe came from nothing? This isn't what science says to begin with and even if it was science can be wrong, but this doesn't prove any of the god claims
@@zer-op2gq If you know the Big Bang theory that is exactly what the theory propose, the universe came from nothing. Also in looking at logic we can come to the same conclusion, in a created universe all physical things had to have come out of nothing before there was something. When we consider the implication from the theory the rational characteristic of that which is nonphysical, spaceless, eternal and with a lot of creative power are what we normally would characterize as God.
12:36 the flagella aren’t even part of the motor, they are what the motor acts upon. Also, the irreducible complexity of the eye that ID proponents love to tout has been falsified many times. Dawkins has a great video on the subject.
Yeah, my many diabetic relatives have to get shots in their eyes every few months to keep from going blind...not to mention wear glasses. There seems to be a huge amount effort to keep perfectly intelligently designed eyeballs from failing miserably...which seems to be pretty conclusive evidence that they are not designed, perfectly or otherwise.
Yeah, I don't understand why they keep pulling out the eye, it's such low lying fruit, like I have no qualifications in biology, yet I can develop a very good idea over how the eye evolved bit by bit
His argument of flagellum is a motor and every motor we have ever seen was designed by a creator. You can use the exact same argument to say a camera is an eye, and every eye we have seen occurs naturally through evolutionary processes. Therefore cameras must occur naturally. It’s a seriously flawed argument. If you wanted to demonstrate cameras occur naturally, you would need evidence and not just that you can compare it to something natural.
If you call something "irreducibly complex", it makes the unwarranted assumption that it could never be improved upon by a later modification, that evolution is done with it and it has achieved its supposed "purpose". Now I'll go put some gas in my Model T and cut some firewood for the stove.
There is no "Theory of I.D." There isn't even an I.D. hypothesis. There is only belief in it, and it is incorrect. Which of course makes the source, the Bible, incorrect.
@@brucebaker810 And rabbits were designed with white tails to make it easier to shoot them. Tigers were designed with big teeth in order to control the population in India. Rain was invented to give umbrella manufacturers a purpose in life. Sin was invented so that preachers.....fill in the blanks yourself.
@@notreallydavid Actually, he did. No idea why you would think otherwise. The script of the trial is literally on the internet for the world to read. Behe did not successfully defend a single point he put forward. Not one.
@@michaeldobson107 Hi Michael. To _literally_ wipe the floor with him he'd have had to dip his head in a bucket of soapy water and clean the linoleum with his hair. That's what 'literally' literally means. I know lots of people use 'literally' as a loose intensifier now, but it's an imprecise, floppy and stale usage, and careful writers don't do it. One of the things that makes good writing fresh and vivid is the avoidance of things like this - ditto the widespread US use of 'legitimate' to denote 'genuine', which erodes and sometimes confuses a useful existing meaning. (←pet hate there) Please kill me. All best.
@@michaeldobson107 I'm a radical materialist with three degrees in biology/biomedical science. I'm bewildered and disheartened that creationism continues to flourish. I have no doubt that Behe's arguments went nowhere; my earlier point concerned use of language, and nothing but.
Matt and Martin were great here. But I think an easier way to address this might be to get Intelligent design proponents to admit that their intelligent designer must be supernatural because they’re asserting designs beyond the comprehension of man, which to them is the supernatural. Then point out that supernatural claims by definition aren’t in the realm of science. Science operates within the realm of what is natural as opposed to supernatural. Intelligent design smuggles supernatural claims which smuggle supernatural Gods and religions. The scientific method is where falsifiable objective tests and measurements are essential. These standards must be ignored in order for Intelligent Design assertions to gain any merit. Intelligent design isn’t just a bad scientific model, Intelligent design and science are mutually exclusive.
If the human body was designed, the creator needs to be fired. It’s full of design flaws. Human beings could design a way better human and we’re not gods.
Sure, if you take away the elephants trunk, then it can't eat. However, no one is confused (except creationists) about how elephants got their present trunk in fact there's a huge fossil record of elephants and the various trunk forms over long periods of evolutionary development. The 'creation movement' is just ignorant and desperately trying to goal seek, circle the hits and dismissing the misses.
When i look in the mirror, i see an image that looks like another me. Because it looks like another me, it is another me. Therefore there are two of me. Respect !
"...specified complexity . . ." The moment that term is used, the proponent has begged the question and should be stopped in his tracks until he can demonstrate that specification has taken place and who the specifier is. Until the proponent has done that, his argument is entirely specious.
His response to their request for how to falsify ID always starts with the presupposition that ID is true and thereby needs to be proven false. That is not the same thing as falsification. Falsification addresses the hypothesis before it is considered true, not as a response to it's assertion that it is true. The assertion itself is unjustified. Matt was right for calling that a shifting of the burden of proof. When promoting a hypothesis you both come up with a test for demonstrating it is true and a test for demonstrating it is false at the same time BEFORE arriving at a conclusion. That is why this guy cannot offer any scientific method for this ridiculous hypothesis. And that is also why it is rejected. The right method would be to propose x might be true if a, b, and c are found to also be true (and the connection is demonstrable via evidence), and is NOT true if we instead find d, e, and f. Then you investigate, find one set or the other, and THEN make the assertion that x is true or false. ID is like defining out of the blue that a, b, and c automatically indicate x is true with no justification or demonstration of that connection, and then claiming it is falsified by finding something that violates that self-defined rule (that hasn't been demonstrated to be valid or pertinent in the first place). LOL
Glad you're better after your appendix bout. I had a major heart attack and was in hospital for 10 days, most in ICU....about the opposite ends....just so you know, I WAS a christian for over 40 years. Never have I felt better about my life, family and the world since I've become an atheist. My eyes are truly opened. Well, have fun with the kickboxing.
Evolution is a fact.
The theory of evolution is the scientific explanation for that fact.
In which sense is evolution a fact? Is it just an explanation of smaller development or can it explain all variation of life??
@@kimdanielsen4368 evolution simply states things change over time. more specifically when people think or speak about evolution theyre referring to changes of species. But in fact everything evolves (changes over time) in one way or another. This is a fact. With regards to life, Small genetic mutations add up to make bigs changes over millions and millions of years.
@@kimdanielsen4368 If you studied evolution you wouldn't have to ask. You don't know because you're probably too lazy and uneducated to know any better.
@@roder51 I have, of course, studied evolution and know by now that you don't fully understand the Darwinian evolution theory.
@@TheGillenium Well that´s not what we normally mean by evolution, evolution claim is a specific process of natural selection and random mutation. There is no clear evidence that "small mutations" add bigs changes over time and so change species. Right now that´s just a hypothesis at best, some change over time is one thing, the theory that all life comes from one soup of life is and change vastly over time from such beginning is something completely different.
Well done Matt and Martin.
“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Atheism was invented when broke hearted people needed to vent to deal with their hurt.....read up on the biographies of Nietzsche, Marx, Darwin, Huxley, Richard Dawkins....Ernst Mayr
@@horaceball5418 atheism is a response to the claim that theists make.
Take your dishonest position elsewhere, it's transparent and only exposes your dishonesty
Well this is a funny saying it is very inaccurate
The Invention evolution of religion is a complex process
But we know people naturally think magically
It is in our nature to personify the world around us
Actually this kind of magical thinking had survival advantages and led to group cohesion
But in the modern world there is even greater survival advantages in understanding science and in learning about our nature and seeing how the human mind works
But people creating religion rituals and Superstition wasn't clearly about conning people
Rather it was a complex relationship where people created group cohesion and created systems of understanding the world that were often times based on Magic and superstition. The important thing is now we can learn from this and about this and can better understand ourselves in the world
“Atheism was invented when the first con man met the first fool.”
@@kimdanielsen4368 that doesn't make sense. There are countless examples of people taking advantage of others in the name of religion, getting their money, making them do crazy things, making them believe things that have no chance of being successful. Also doesn't make sense historically because there's so much more evidence of people doing things and making others do things in the name of religion there's no counter-examples in the name of atheism
Intelligent Design 101: everything/everyone needs to be created, because nothing can come from nothing, that's why the Universe was made from nothing by a being that wasn't created! - If you can spot the paradox, congrats, you're a normal person; if you can't, you're a fool; if you can but you'll still defend it... you're the worst kind of fool!
Hahaha. That was awesome man!
***** What? Did you even read my comment properly?
There is another one.
"Every effect needs a cause, the universe is an effect, therefore god is the cause."
Problem is, besides the fact that god needs a cause too, you can replace god with Pikachu and the statement can still be true.
***** That pikachu created the universe? Well, welcome aboard pal, that's what I believe too.
In a serious note, no, it doesn't mean it's false, it means we have no reason to believe its true but even if it is true it doesn't mean that X is god since X can be anything. And btw, it can't be god, because the X creator needs a cause too. Therefore its pikachu, who was caused by a pocketball.
***** I'm not gonna listen to every single retarded claim anyone makes, cause there are millions of retarded claims and I don't have the time to listen to all of them. Thinking he is on to something doesn't mean anything to me. The universe been created by Pokemons, well I think we are onto something. Should we investigate it any further? NOP.
And btw, I shouldn't watch a 60 minute video for a hypothesis. A hypothesis can be built in a single minute. So what's his hypothesis about?
Gary is incapable of listening to a counter argument. He NEVER acknowledges a counter argument.
Indeed. All he's doing is waiting for a pause in speech from Matt and Martin to jump in with more blabbing.
But he does have is stuff right there in front of him
Right.
@@donbacker9883 The is what intelligent design proponents do. They have no evidence for their claims, but they have a set of talking points and stick to them.
Garys coming from the mindset that this is its "final" form.
That evolution has a purpose, an end goal.🤦♀️
🤔They really needed to impress the point to Gary that the "motor" wasn't the purpose or goal, it was just what it ended up doing & LOOKING like.
It was still just living even before the "motor" evolved.
And so it doesnt matter that the motor wouldnt still be there in earlier iterations.
It just was what it was.
Now it is what it is.
And tommorow it'll be whatever it'll be, too.
No plan or intelligentally picked "purpose"
🤦♀️🌏☮️
Not only is Irreducible Complexity an argument from ignorance, I am convinced it is also an argument from Incredulity, special pleading, and God of the Gaps.
Irreducible complexity is still a valid argument, if you think it has been refuted be my guest show some evidence first that it is evidently incorrect???
@@kimdanielsen4368 If I tell you that there's a flying space unicorn always hiding on the dark side of the moon, and then invited you to disprove it if you can, would you see that as a good reason for anyone to believe me?
@@kimdanielsen4368 Irreducible complexity is as valid as farting pixies, if you think the pixies has been refuted be my guest and accept the shifiting of the burden of proof you just offered and prove it is evidently incorrect.
@@lydiafayre9806 In fact we can disprove a flying space unicorn with negative arguments of its existence and therefor the example is not valid. Also to compare superstitions (blind faith) with reasonable faith shows that you are ignorant on this topic. Next time try to do some research first maybe you learn something new.
@@kimdanielsen4368 the very premise has already been debunked, not a single instance of it stood up to any critical examination. I am sorry, but you have been deceived. Also it is no one else's job to shopw that IC is refuted, so long as you cannot actually show it is valid. Learn the burden of proof. Learn what evolution actually is. Yes the example is valid, you could not disprove the unicorn. You asserting you could shows your own ignorance and desperateness to cling on to a fantasy.
I love now creationists have now been forced to argue for god on the cellular level or the quantum level.
It demonstrates how much ground they've been forced to conceed to science. They can't pretend the bible is literally true anymore. Now they're left trying to sneak god into the gaps of current scienctific knowledge.
Very telling.
I've been observing the same thing, with the same sense of satisfaction. The god of the gaps has been pushed back to wormhole-sized gaps. :)
Next step is when neuroscience identifies the cause for superstitiosity, and we can work on a cure.
TheGodexists1
What?
TheGodexists1 Seriously, "reality exists, therefore an imaginary being has to have created it"? I don't even think we have a name for that fallacy. The closest I can get is non sequitur ad absurdia.
TheGodexists1
Yes.
TheGodexists1 Why are you asking loaded questions? Attacking strawman only undermines dialog. It is also bearing false witness, so if you're a christian you just broke the 9th commandment.
Hosts: "What would a non-God-designed universe, or creature, or whatever, look like?"
Gary: "[Bunch of crap comes out of mouth, never addresses question]"
Obviously, Gary has been well trained by the ID hucksters to never admit he doesn't know the answer to a question. Because he knows full well that if he says "I don't know," the hosts will fire back with, "Then how do you know the difference?"
Whenever I hear someone bring up Behe and the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial, I can't help but wonder if I'm the only one who read the transcript. During that trial, Behe was forced to admit... under oath in open court... that in order for ID to qualify as "science" they would have to skew the definition of science so much that astrology and palmistry would ALSO be qualified as "science".
I don't know why more isn't made of this admission, since it completely undermines any illusion of credibility these 'cdesign proponentsists' had as legitimate science.
P.S. The 'bacterial flagellum' this guy keeps going on about was completely decimated as evidence of 'irreducible complexity' during the trial.
It's funny to catch how he slips in that trial as if the ruling was 'Creatardism is true'.....very weaselly.
>>>>> in order for ID to qualify as "science" they would have to skew the definition of science so much that astrology and palmistry would ALSO be qualified as "science".
I've heard this brought up in debates..... but you are right....more should be made of this astounding admission.
You should really research the issues instead of forming biased and wrong conclusions like this. Do you know why they would have to twist the definitions? It’s only because intelligent design wasn’t ever presented as valid scientific theory meant to be tested and refuted, it was meant to be a hypothesis that shows all the evidence ALSO fits with an intelligence creating life, if you consider ID not science then evolution is also not science, they use the same methods and the only difference is evolution uses “natural force” where the ID theory uses “intelligent agent” about mechanisms we don’t fully know about like mutations accounting for the diversity of life. Also, Behe wasn’t even allowed to speak at the trial, so everything you read was simply the opposition quoting him and forming arguments misconstruing his arguments, that was a suppressive trial that wrongly cost Behe his job and there’s a documentary out about it.
Travis Pratt: What are you smoking? Behe testified. He was the primary witness for the defense. Among his admissions is that the plausibility of ID is dependent on a prior belief in God. And no, evolution and ID don't use the same methods: one starts from the assumption that God created things and squeezes every bit of evidence to fit that assumption, to the point where anything one finds is just another instance of "Wow, look how great God is". There's nothing that would falsify it. Evolution is falsifiable: finding rabbit bones in the pre-Cambrian would do it.
I’d starts with God and evolution starts with natural process, just claiming they start with God doesn’t debunk the theory.
I can see why some people think my eyes were intelligently designed,
but only when I am wearing my glasses.
its remarkable how dumb intelligent design is
Gates did not say that DNA was LITERALLY a computer program.
He said “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any ever created.”
@@Rui_Dias_ ... and your point is, what?
@@Rui_Dias_ Yup, well said.
Intelligent design is essentially creationism in a very bad fake mustache.
Either that or one of those gag glasses with the mustache and nose.
Lol
I completely disagree I’d say it Creationism using an alias. Not even a bad disguise just creationism saying “call me intelligent design now” in the same shabby clothrs
Reminds me of "Vincent Adultman"
Modern intelligent design has few links to creationism if any.
"Intelligent design is creationism in a lab coat", i like that.
God couldn't even intelligently design the bible, let alone the universe.
+Coy Hampton Evolution is not science because it cannot be proven using the scientific method.
Secondly, in order for evolution to have a fighting chance there must be new genetic information introduced into an organisms genome in order for a new species to arise. Natural selection does not add new genetic information, it merely selects what is available in the gene pool. Mutation does not create new information either, it simply damages pre-existent genetic information.
As far as fruit flies mutating and no longer being able to interbreed, this is not an example of evolution because the fruit flies are still fruit flies. The fruit flies are not some other kind of organism. It's not a butterfly, grasshopper, or ant. It's still just a fruit fly with damaged genes caused by mutation.
+utubevideo1ful Just because you love to ignore facts or is either willfully ignorant towards science or too stupid to understand it, doesn't make evolution false. Evolution is a scientific theory.
utubevideo1ful I don't debate science deniers
Then explain where gravity came from, and why there's order in the universe--so much order that NASA can put a man on the moon. Also, give me one example of evolution. Just one.
Zwerchig Give me one example of evolution. Just one.
"how would you show that something is irreducibly complex?"
"I'd go out and find something that was irreducibly complex... Duh!"
Thanks Gary, really showed em there.
I just had a similar discussion with a guy earlier today. He was claiming that the bible wasn't to be taken literally and pointing out fallacies in it to show it. I asked him why, if any part of the bible could be wrong, he would believe any of it and how could he determine which parts were correct. He agreed that the bible had errors but fell right back to the "you need faith" argument. It's not a lack of education, it's more willful ignorance. they don't want to see the truth or face it.
"A building needs a builder!"
Yes, it does, I've seen buildings being built.
I've never seen one grow out of the ground, like a tree! ;O)
A building is intelligently designed...a tree is not!
If the caller ever had any credibility he lost it when he started quoting Behe as an authority. Even Behe's own university has distanced himself from his comments.
+Sam Adams BTW, he's also demonstrating a lack of understanding of basic statistics. There is a difference between "a priori" and "a posteriori" probabilities - no reason to argue that he's got to be able to calculate the probabilities.
If you believe life was intelligently designed, walk into ANY Walmart
Or, spare yourself the direct contact and watch a UA-cam vid.
Or read a UA-cam comment section.
Zapro: lol
jaycol21 LMAO!! XD
Internet won!
Whenever a theist calls someone an evolutionist I want to ask them if they consider themselves a gravitationalist.
You REALLY think humans have bacterial ancestors?
WOW!
Give my your strongest scientific reason why you think you have bacterial ancestors.
*****
Not necessarily, we could have a common ancestor with bacteria.
Genetics.
*****
You REALLY think humans were magicked up by a magic sky fairy?
WOW!
Give my your strongest scientific reason why you think your ancestors were created by magic.
***** Give us your strongest reason for believing in a god.
JL
You're going easy on him. Ask him for his strongest reason for believing in the specific god he believes in.
"I'm glad you brought that up" always seems to come before a pre-defeated premise is spoken.
I like how Gary talks about Dawkins and yet his entire argument is based on the false assumption of irreducible complexity that Dawkins addresses constantly. If you have photo-receptive cells and your competition doesn't, then 1% of an eye is clearly better than not having one at all.
Here's the analogy: if you take an engine out of a car it won't perform in exactly the same way, but you will have a useful cart.
I like how creationists think irreducible complexity is an actual concept. I wonder if they look at a birthday cake and say "there's no way this used be sugar, flour and milk".
Jebuslives IC means if you take away one element of the organ, it won’t function for its current purpose. But organs, limbs, etc, change purpose, so IC, even if true, is not relevant .
If you take away the icing, you still have a dessert, so maybe the cake analogy is not the best.
Also, from my limited understanding of DNA, a mutation can reverberate thru the phenotype, because DNA is not just a blueprint, it also has the equivalent of a computer function (produce fingers until you reach such and such a condition - a more general condition than having 5 fingers). So the function produces different results given different input, and the input changed with the mutation. It is difficult to believe that Michael Behe does not already know all this, somI consider him a deceiver.
@@scienceexplains302 the computer analogy for DNA is a pretty poor analogy simply because computer programs are resistant to change, so if you change a single bit, it could corrupt the whole file or just change the whole file whereas for DNA there is no such corruption at all, so long as you have the start gene (of which there is 3) and the stop gene (of which there is 2) then it'll code regardless, also DNA is far more flexible with multiple codones coding for exactly the same thing, there is an amino acid that can be coded in 4 different ways and not a single amino acid is strictly just 1 codon, if I remember correctly, basically computer codes are far more strict than DNA
@@adamboyen4727 Agreed. But there are some partial analogies, such as the one I made to a function.
Still no good case for intelligent design. What a surprise. ;)
You mean nothing that beats evolution and abiogenesis?
I mean exactly what I posted.
Still good evidence for intelligent design which most people in the world has been able to see for a long time. What a surprise:))
@@kimdanielsen4368 Care to share any of this 'evidence'?
@@chrisnelson5002 it's called the fact that Biology doesn't support Neo Darwinism, and mathematicians and p physicists just think you're idea is stupid and absurd.
Great job Martin. You kept speaking clearly and rationally
Gary is an example of irreducible simplicity.
By Gary's logic, if he is irreducibly simple that implies an intelligent designer and I don't think that designer likes Gary.
@@tommystyx There is no intelligent design because Gary.
Matt said it on multiple occasions: Intelligent design IS an big argument from ignorance!!
An argument from ignorance to shoehorn in tyranny. It must be resisted at all costs.
Saying the bacterial flagellum is literally a motor, is like saying my butt is literally a natural gas refinery.
BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE !
@@salamjihad3449 and it's one of the worst examples. Like the human eye, intermediary stages have been found, with different functions, such as ion pumps, etc.
Michael Behe thinks that the human eye is so complex that it needs a creator, yet little has Mr. Behe noticed: he wears glasses.
Michael Johnson lol....hilarious. Never noticed that before. How deliciously ironic...
+Michael Johnson he is a fucktard
Michael Dennis
For lack of a better title, yes. He and Andrew Wakefield (who wrote the fraudulent paper on vaccines and Autism) are arguably the two biggest quack scientists in the world.
+Michael Johnson Yep. One of my favorite arguments against the "intelligent design" of the human eye. Just look around the room at how many people are wearing glasses. Even without taking into account those who wear contacts or have had eye surgery to correct their vision, you still usually end up with a LOT of people in glasses.
+Michael Johnson Before I say anything, I'd like to say that I am an Atheist and that the whole "the eye is so complex" argument fucking stupid. But this counter doesn't really say anything. Complex things that are created can have flaws or be damaged. That's just my two cents.
Martin: How do you falsify ID?
Gary from Wadeya: I can't hear you.
Martin: How do you know something is not ID?
Gary from Wadeya: I literally can't hear you.
Martin: All right, let's move on.
Gary from Wadeya: Oh, I can hear you now!
LMAO, he said "you want me to falsify the entire theory of intelligent design", as though there's an immense body if evidence in support of intelligent design.
He then says, "I'd falsify it by, even Richard Darkins admits there's an appearance of design".
They are sooo patient.
Theists are unable to accept that they might be wrong, that's basically it.
Matt Dillahunty is so knowledgeable, more I watch Atheist Experience, more fascinated with him I'm becoming. Truly remarkable mind.
It’s fascinating how the devoutly religious appeal to authority, citing other people held in high regard to try and associate their argument with someone who has importance.
Crowd: SHE'S A WITCH!!!!!
Sir Vedomir: How do you know she is a witch?
Crowd member 1: She look's like one!
Crowd member 2: She turned me into a NEWT!
Sir Vedomir: A newt?
Crowd member 1: Well... I got better....
Thank you Monty Python, for foreshadowing the arguments of ID proponents 40 years ago.
Bub the Zombie
Another classic.
NI!!!
It's Sir Bedevere
@@cotswoldlad9413
My apologies.
ID is so full of peril... it's periless to try to reason with these idiots
Is it just me or do Creationists seem to forget that metaphors like "DNA is like computer code" are not to be taken literally? Computer code is created by a creator, DNA is not, because DNA is not computer code and doesn't really serve the same direct purpose. Scientists and science communicators use metaphors to describe complex concepts knowing all along that they are metaphors and not always apt ones or are useful only up to a point. Do Creationists even know what a metaphor is? The definition is "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable". Emphasis on "not literally applicable".
analogous to is not the same as
Creationists don't understand analogies or metaphors, hence the problem with the stories in the bible that are probably analogies and metaphors.
***** Its full of stories that are more logically analogies or metaphors than actual accounts of history. Just an example of creationists not understanding analogies and metaphors.
It was mostly a joke, don't think about it too much.
William Mills
Could you please demonstrate the communication of an idea using the DNA code?
William Mills
Well, codes are used to communicate information between beings.
I'd like an example of using DNA as a code to communicate something.
My understanding of DNA is a series of chemicals which interact to produce biological effects, because that's what there is evidence for.
Science's simplification of attributing letters to these chemicals is no more relevant to DNA being a code, than if we graded pebbles by size, giving them letter values, and then claimed a beach was a code.
Seems to me it's logical and reasonable to conclude that all things found in nature are not intelligently designed. Before you can make such a claim, you have to present a designing agent, and then you have to connect the dots. In other words, you have to demonstrate the method by which a particular designer, did in fact, design a particular thing in nature.
The Creationists have the same problem as apologists...they have never been able to prove their designer exists! They've never even come close.
Cooabux --- Tell me then , from where do YOU believe , that DNA came ?
Most likely from RNA.
and if he says i don't know, how does that take you closer to any designer?
Chuck Duffy,
If you do not remember where that DNA came from, I suggest that you wash it off with soap, clean the area where you found DNA with disinfectant, and then get STD test.
It also ends in an endless regression of who designed the designer?
Gary: “This is one of the leading criticisms of intelligent design”.
THE leading criticism of “intelligent design” is the FACT that nobody can prove any gods exist.
"A case for intelligent design?"... LOLNOPE!
The caller keeps saying "...if it resembles things that we know are designed..." But what he ignores is the fact that WE design things using nature as our model. We then observe other things in nature which have similar functions. What he's doing is pointing to those later observations and saying, "Ah-ha! That looks like our designed thing, therefore it's designed."
Intelligent design isn't even an hypothesis. It's still in the realms of mythology.
Intelligent design? ... ... So explain birth defects!
Sin. Of course. Same goes for farting and BO.
DNA !!!!!!!!!!!!
That bitch Eve ate the apple. It's how we got weeds and ticks.
There is a difference between original design and current state. Evolution has degraded original design.
You know you've ticked off Matt when he says "I swear to god!"
Hahaha, he is trying to make evolution go backwards ... evolution doesn't go backwards ... Christians go backwards.
Ain't that the truth!
u seem smat. christians dont care much for that smat talk u doin
it does! christians believe that everything was designed intelligently! mostly because they cant bend their minds round any other explanation
Atheists dont pretend to have knowledge, they just dont believe what the theists are proclaiming! Its the theists that think they have all the answers lol
what I mean is, when asked about anything that has come to pass a christian say their god must have done it! For a lot of the big questions the answer is... we just dont know yet
Even Behe's other love child, the human eye doesn't show IR.
We can see unicellular organisms with a photosensitive spot. This merely lets them tell if it's light or dark, determining activity levels.
A more specifically located spot can allow the organism to detect the direction of the light, so it can move up or down in water during the day.
We can have multicellular organisms with photosensitive eyespots allowing you to detect day and night, or even the direction of a shadow.
There are many steps leading up to an organ which acts like a camera. Even that can work without a functioning lens, or other components. We can see all sorts of intermediate steps.
9 years have passed. The "what would a non-designed universe look like?" question is still not gotten answered.
...and no Creationist has yet to receive a Nobel Prize. That says a lot in this fast-pace, IT-propelled, and globally connected world environment reducing Creationist population does to the caller.
Gary, DNA is NOT a COMPUTER PROGRAM.
behe's entire argument was blown out of the water in the Dover case, and the Creationists didn't even TRY to counter it.. That indicates they KNOW their version is bunk....
in the specific example is the coagulation cascade....there's some 2 dozen stages....and EACH of them work quite well on their own.....Miller systematically dismantled the ENTIRE claim of Irreducible Complexity on the stand...
The caller believes it because he believes it because he believes it...
The caller doesnt understand he keeps reaching a circular argument.
It goes back to square one of smuggling in a designer due to specified complexity.
As a professional ux and Graphic designer, I can tell you that design can be either simple or complex and is recognized by contrasting it to nature.
Nature must then be demonstrated to be a creation. This has never been demonstrated by any human or god.
Time for a god to step up and prove itself if it indeed wants us to know it exists.
Two things:
1. He brings up irreducible complexity, heavily relying on Michael Behe. He says the more examples there are that are irreducibly complex, the more unlikely it is that it came about by batural means. There are two major flaws in this: A) One single example of actual irreducible complexity would be sufficient to disprove evolution. More examples would not be needed and wouldn‘t add anything to any probability. B) There ARE no „more and more examples“. Each and every single last example Behe came up with was not only not shown to be necessarily irreducibly complex, but in fact was positively shown to not be irreducibly complex. That argument fails at every. Single. Point.
2. When scientists call the flagellum a „motor“, that exclusively refers to its function; it does NOT refer to its origin, not even its mechanism to fulfill that function. That‘s one reason why this line of reasoning is a fallacious deduction from analogy. Another one is this: All motors we know to have been designed have one particular thing in common: They are NOT part of a self-replicating system. The flagellum is. I‘m utterly dumbfounded that these people apparently don‘t see that this one single difference alone is so crucial in this particular context that the attempt to argue the flagellum‘s origins based on that analogy holds less water than a friggin kitchen sieve.
Yup. These jackasses insist on pretending that when a biologists calls something a "motor" it literally means a motor in exactly the same way they would refer to a car engine.
If the air conditioner on your car breaks, do you throw your car out? It no longer has the exact same function?
One of the biggest problems is people's misunderstanding of the word theory.
universe doesn't need a creator , nature has no master , nature is the master
I like.
LOL ARE YOU HIGH ?
@@jameswest8280 that because u are smart
Gary, like all religious apologists, needs to constantly be told to “ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION”.
Theists strive to "save face" in order to defend ther religious delusion; my question is why? Is it faith, threats of hell and damnation, anceint dogma or something we learned at such an early age that we simply accpet it without thinking? Whatever it is, religon is such deluded nonsense that I don't understand how a few people can support it's mythical claims.
I believe it's just hard for most ppl to admit they are wrong, even to themselves - imagine if you held a fundamental belief for decades and then you realize it's just wishful thinking... I am an overly rational preson, yet something like that would throw me off...
also money
I remember one day coming across a man and woman preaching Intelligent design in the city. I asked him if I could ask him a question about it, he agreed. I asked him: "If we were designed intelligently, why do we breathe and eat through the same hole? since that guarantees a certain amount of people will die from choking each year, as opposed to for example Dolphins, who breathe and eat through different holes and therefore never choke."
The ensuing word-salad and goal oriented reasoning was truly astounding.
They seem to be glossing over the flying spaghetti monster's role in this. He created the world with his noodley appendage.
Ramen
He has many more 'hands' via his noodles. Therefore universe being created by the FSM is more likely than the christian god. Checkmate.
Aye, and the heavens flow endless beer volcanoes and strippers as far as the eye can see.... Paradise
This whole "motor" thing is simply an argument by analogy in the first place. What would they have compared the flagellum to _before we invented motors?_ Five hundred years ago, they would simply have said it was the little tail this tiny animal wagged to swim.
The guy wants to appeal to authority on everything.
Matt looks so much better today. Thanks for the show!
So a designer which intelligently designs complex things like flagellum must be vastly more complex than all these things it designs.....so what designed the intelligent designer of all complexity then?
+davids11131113 Can't you tell? It was designers all the way down...
ARE YOU SERIOUS ?
OK, for any creationists that happen across this video and think the intelligent design caller had a valid argument...
First, the probability of an object being intelligently designed has absolute zip, zilch, zero to do with complexity. You'd have to establish a means of determining something which is designed from something that is not designed. Not one intelligent design proponent has ever put forth such a test. As Matt Dillahunty stated, we determine things which were designed by evidence of prior design, not from complexity. The watchmaker argument suffers from exactly this fault. From a creationist's perspective, everything was designed, so it'd be a watch on a beach of watches - in other words, watches all the way down. Since their argument is that everything is created, there would be no means to determine designed from not designed. If you see a watch on the beach you know it's designed, not because of complexity or function, but because every single watch we've ever encountered has been designed by an intelligent being.
The next problem is the idea of irreducible complexity, which has been debunked over and over. Even if Behee defines irreducible complexity as lacking the same function when a part is removed, this is not a valid definition. A system doesn't have to retain the exact same function in order to be a benefit to the organism it's a part of. The organism merely has to be successful enough to live long enough to reproduce for the system to be viable. The concept of irreducible complexity also doesn't account for additions and deletions. For instance, if you were building an arch, and it was constructed out of perhaps five large blocks, removing even one of the blocks would cause the entire arch to fall. But what if there was a support of some kind in place while the arch was being assembled, and then that support was later removed? Now you have an apparently irreducibly complex system, but that was able to be formed part by part.
I've even heard this applied to termites and gut flora. The termites can't live without the gut flora that digests the wood it eats, and the flora can't live without the termite as its host. So how could this have happened by chance? Answer is that it didn't. What is most likely is that at one point termites and gut flora didn't depend on each other, but were more successful at survival and reproduction together. Over time, they adapted to work better together, until they finally depend on each other. It's something like an irreducibly complex system, but one that we have a natural explanation for its development. Same with the eye. Anyone that thinks the eye's evolution is difficult has simply never done five minutes of research on it. We understand the various steps of eye evolution, and many examples of different stages are extant in organisms we see today.
Finally, this appeal to probability is only effective if you can actually calculate it. If you can't establish the total possible outcomes, both positive and negative, then you can't determine probability. End of story. All this caller was doing was using his intuition to determine whether he felt something was likely. Intuition is what told us heavy items fall to earth faster than lighter items. Intuition can't be trusted to determine truth. It's just a heuristic tool we use for everyday decisions. In science, intuition is worthless. You have to create models and perform experiments to demonstrate the truth of your claim. Note that while the caller stated that lots of biologists agreed with 'x', and had loads of quotes from various people, what he did not have was a single peer-reviewed paper from a scientific journal that supports irreducible complexity. There's a reason Behee and irreducible complexity lost so badly in court, and why creationists now rely on media and propaganda, rather than even attempting to publish anything for scientific peer review.
+Albert Guilmont That's a funny point. It's odd that creationist argumentation is so childish and shallow. They seem unable to consider that deletions along with additions and modifications might make something irreducibly complex, that also arose naturally. The arch is a perfect example, because after you remove the arch, the blocks that hold each other up are irreducibly complex. Remove any one of them, and they'll all fall. You can't build them one at a time, so how's it possible to create such structures with an arch? It's obvious even to a small child that you can make things with molds. I just can't understand this level of argumentation. It's like the human population argument some creationists (like Eric Hovind) like to tout about. The idea that we could duplicate our population in a linear model without any regard to carrying capacity is a scenario that only the most impacted of fuckwits could champion. It's literally such a stupid argument that I wonder if the person making it is just fucking with me, or if they're really that pig-ignorant.
3 LETTERS !!!!!!!!! DNA !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Like most believers, this guy has a giant blind spot.
"Actually, the "leap of faith"-to give it the memorable name that Soren Kierkegaard bestowed upon it-is an imposture. As he himself pointed out, it is not a "leap" that can be made once and for all. It is a leap that has to go on and on being performed, in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary." - C. Hitchens
You got to love those adorable creationists who collect arguments and mine quotes and construct a whole debate opening and wait years for their big moment to destroy evolution and then make fools out of themselves by running in completely non-relevant directions once let loose.
God is apparently "irreducibly complex", yet didn't need a designer/creator.
I love when religious people say there has to be a creator because nothing can come from nothing,i ussually tell then and it gets them mad.
Ultimately then God could not have came from nothing either,so the first question should be is,where did God come from?
philosophicalreason , that's a good one!!! Where did God come from???
@@jkhall9665 he's a bi-product of a bacterial flagellum!
you are making a typical error who said that an eternal being had to be created or come out of nothing. When we talk about physical things like the universe that came to be out of nothing, which is physically impossible then the rational question should be how can everything come from absolutely nothing (nonphysical). The best logical answer may very well be that the universe was at some point created from something nonphysical, spaceless and eternal.
@@kimdanielsen4368 can you prove the only other explication is that the universe came from nothing? This isn't what science says to begin with and even if it was science can be wrong, but this doesn't prove any of the god claims
@@zer-op2gq If you know the Big Bang theory that is exactly what the theory propose, the universe came from nothing. Also in looking at logic we can come to the same conclusion, in a created universe all physical things had to have come out of nothing before there was something. When we consider the implication from the theory the rational characteristic of that which is nonphysical, spaceless, eternal and with a lot of creative power are what we normally would characterize as God.
"How do you judge that something is NOT a complex design?"
"You go in nature and see that it is a complex design..."
UGH!
12:36 the flagella aren’t even part of the motor, they are what the motor acts upon. Also, the irreducible complexity of the eye that ID proponents love to tout has been falsified many times. Dawkins has a great video on the subject.
Yeah, my many diabetic relatives have to get shots in their eyes every few months to keep from going blind...not to mention wear glasses. There seems to be a huge amount effort to keep perfectly intelligently designed eyeballs from failing miserably...which seems to be pretty conclusive evidence that they are not designed, perfectly or otherwise.
Yeah, I don't understand why they keep pulling out the eye, it's such low lying fruit, like I have no qualifications in biology, yet I can develop a very good idea over how the eye evolved bit by bit
Gary isn't complex enough to listen
His argument of flagellum is a motor and every motor we have ever seen was designed by a creator.
You can use the exact same argument to say a camera is an eye, and every eye we have seen occurs naturally through evolutionary processes. Therefore cameras must occur naturally.
It’s a seriously flawed argument.
If you wanted to demonstrate cameras occur naturally, you would need evidence and not just that you can compare it to something natural.
This debate was unnecessarily complex.
If you call something "irreducibly complex", it makes the unwarranted assumption that it could never be improved upon by a later modification, that evolution is done with it and it has achieved its supposed "purpose".
Now I'll go put some gas in my Model T and cut some firewood for the stove.
There is no "Theory of I.D." There isn't even an I.D. hypothesis. There is only belief in it, and it is incorrect. Which of course makes the source, the Bible, incorrect.
I believe that my garbage is removed by the great green garbage removal monster... How do I know? Well, how else could it have been removed?
My nose and ears were intelligently designed to stop my glasses falling off.
the point being...but not your eyes, hence the glasses?
good one. :=)
@@brucebaker810
And rabbits were designed with white tails to make it easier to shoot them.
Tigers were designed with big teeth in order to control the population in India.
Rain was invented to give umbrella manufacturers a purpose in life.
Sin was invented so that preachers.....fill in the blanks yourself.
"Dawkins used the phrase "Appearance of design". yes, and then he went on to say "designed by evolution".
My nose and ears support my spectacles.
If you take one part away, my spectacles would fall off.
Therefore God exists !
Cosmic.
A truly 'spectacular' line of reasoning. ;)
@@stevetennispro
Very punny
Kenneth Miller literally wiped the floor with Behe at the Dover trial by forcing him to admit Behe's hypothesis could evolve with enough time.
He didn't _literally_ wipe the floor with him!
@@notreallydavid Actually, he did.
No idea why you would think otherwise.
The script of the trial is literally on the internet for the world to read.
Behe did not successfully defend a single point he put forward.
Not one.
@@michaeldobson107 Hi Michael. To _literally_ wipe the floor with him he'd have had to dip his head in a bucket of soapy water and clean the linoleum with his hair. That's what 'literally' literally means.
I know lots of people use 'literally' as a loose intensifier now, but it's an imprecise, floppy and stale usage, and careful writers don't do it. One of the things that makes good writing fresh and vivid is the avoidance of things like this - ditto the widespread US use of 'legitimate' to denote 'genuine', which erodes and sometimes confuses a useful existing meaning. (←pet hate there)
Please kill me. All best.
@@notreallydavid Nice to see you so quickly resort to logically fallacies and side-stepping an actual defense.
Bang.
You're dead.
@@michaeldobson107 I'm a radical materialist with three degrees in biology/biomedical science. I'm bewildered and disheartened that creationism continues to flourish. I have no doubt that Behe's arguments went nowhere; my earlier point concerned use of language, and nothing but.
The caller has begun with his conclusion and has then marshaled all the arguments, notions, secondary claims that he can find in support of it.
That's ID!
If there is intelligent design, why did God forget to use it on Gary?
Matt and Martin were great here. But I think an easier way to address this might be to get Intelligent design proponents to admit that their intelligent designer must be supernatural because they’re asserting designs beyond the comprehension of man, which to them is the supernatural. Then point out that supernatural claims by definition aren’t in the realm of science. Science operates within the realm of what is natural as opposed to supernatural.
Intelligent design smuggles supernatural claims which smuggle supernatural Gods and religions. The scientific method is where falsifiable objective tests and measurements are essential. These standards must be ignored in order for Intelligent Design assertions to gain any merit. Intelligent design isn’t just a bad scientific model, Intelligent design and science are mutually exclusive.
Olympic level mental gymnastics
The caller sounds like someone sampled Kermit The Frog then used a computer to generate speech.
If the human body was designed, the creator needs to be fired. It’s full of design flaws. Human beings could design a way better human and we’re not gods.
Sure, if you take away the elephants trunk, then it can't eat. However, no one is confused (except creationists) about how elephants got their present trunk in fact there's a huge fossil record of elephants and the various trunk forms over long periods of evolutionary development. The 'creation movement' is just ignorant and desperately trying to goal seek, circle the hits and dismissing the misses.
Why do we have mostly unintelligent designs that fail?
Intelligent design is not a hypothesis, because it is not testable.
Nevermind about ‘irreducibly complex’, what does ‘complex’ even mean? Complex compared to what?
When i look in the mirror, i see an image that looks like another me.
Because it looks like another me, it is another me.
Therefore there are two of me.
Respect !
Put another mirror behind you and you will see there are an infinite number of you.
@@wadeinn463
I tried, but I can't see the mirror behind me !
It's funny how this people claim to have houndreds of examples of irreductible complexity but always put on the same one
"...specified complexity . . ."
The moment that term is used, the proponent has begged the question and should be stopped in his tracks until he can demonstrate that specification has taken place and who the specifier is.
Until the proponent has done that, his argument is entirely specious.
His response to their request for how to falsify ID always starts with the presupposition that ID is true and thereby needs to be proven false. That is not the same thing as falsification. Falsification addresses the hypothesis before it is considered true, not as a response to it's assertion that it is true. The assertion itself is unjustified. Matt was right for calling that a shifting of the burden of proof. When promoting a hypothesis you both come up with a test for demonstrating it is true and a test for demonstrating it is false at the same time BEFORE arriving at a conclusion. That is why this guy cannot offer any scientific method for this ridiculous hypothesis. And that is also why it is rejected.
The right method would be to propose x might be true if a, b, and c are found to also be true (and the connection is demonstrable via evidence), and is NOT true if we instead find d, e, and f. Then you investigate, find one set or the other, and THEN make the assertion that x is true or false. ID is like defining out of the blue that a, b, and c automatically indicate x is true with no justification or demonstration of that connection, and then claiming it is falsified by finding something that violates that self-defined rule (that hasn't been demonstrated to be valid or pertinent in the first place). LOL
This callers entire life is a logically fallacious mess!
i wonder if god is irreducably complex?
+Amalganman I wonder if anyone has proof that a god exists
I wonder if purple magical unicorns are irreducibly complicated as well, this does not mean they exist.
Glad you're better after your appendix bout. I had a major heart attack and was in hospital for 10 days, most in ICU....about the opposite ends....just so you know, I WAS a christian for over 40 years. Never have I felt better about my life, family and the world since I've become an atheist. My eyes are truly opened. Well, have fun with the kickboxing.