PZ Myers - The Evolution of Creationism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 січ 2013
- PZ Myers addresses Lake Superior Freethinkers. PZ is recipient of the International Humanist Award of 2011. He is a Professor of Evolutionary Biology. He is author of "Pharyngula", the most popular Science Blog.
What I love about the watch argument is how self defeating it is right from the get go. They're pointing out what's designed over what is natural but at the same time they're trying to state what is natural is designed. It amazes me how they can't see how flawed this is and they absolutely love to use it.
It's really the Homuncular Fallacy of infinite regress. The watch was designed by a designer, but who designed the designer ad infinitum. A better argument logically would a situational preconditioning approach, but it doesn't have the appeal....'>.......
"For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing."
H. L. Mencken
Could you please give me your best explanation for the origin of life? Please note, I did not ask if you KNEW who life originated, I asked you for your best explanation, and please use science (not emotion or insults) in your reply. I look forward to your response! Thank you.
@@horaceball5418 Blimey you seem to believe you're onto something
@@horaceball5418 Why does an anonymous UA-cam person have to EDUCATE you? What, you can't google "origins of life" and EDUCATE YOURSELF?
You aren't interested in actually learning anything. You're just looking for the typical Christer "god of the gaps" argument. Christers are SO dishonest. They NEVER reveal that they ALWAYS have an apologist agenda. They don't really want to learn anything, as they believe they have the "only book you'll ever need."
@@horaceball5418 its called abiogenesis
@@kinanshmahell8065 Howdy. I know the word "abiogenesis" but that is not what I asked.
Please tell me scientifically how you think life originated?
This is where you avoid science and either ignore the question or tap dace..
Here's a famous quote. I read it first in a "reader," in my English class, and it was attributed to a Catholic nun, who was also a chemist. I later learned that it probably originated with Galileo: "The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go."
The left side of PZ's beard is evolving faster than the right side.
i'm wondering how scared he was in that shark cage.
🤣🤣🤣
I was raised a literalist. aka a creationist. I'm not one now. and it's wonderful
Good not having to constantly look over your shoulder when you're naughty eh? Freedom at last!
Congratulations on breaking free of that bizarre way of looking at life.
When I was still teaching freshman English at a state uni, I found that the hard-core religious students were the absolute worst, which hardly makes sense when you consider I was teaching composition and argument at the most basic level.
Most of them, though, came to uni with a strong belief that everyone in higher education was going to try to turn them against god--or at least that's the way it seemed. I never really credited the stories of right-wing Christian paranoia till I had to deal with it every semester.
They were also the most obnoxious and unpleasant students. East Texas, in case you're wondering.
Jim Battersbee
You're right, of course.
My son quit history teaching due to all the nonsense with science christians lousy parents and poor pay. He had a teachers certificate five years on a submarine a masters in library and a finally what made him happy was a five year program in master electrician which he just finished and has been offered a teaching position only five in the state. He loves what he does as an electrician. Go figure. No one needs to be abused by idiot parents. The ones who carry on are the ones least involved with their children .....
qhsperson ...Wow. Texas, yes. I've met them in Oregon, New Hampshire...elsewhere. I call this the "Arrogance of Persons Who Presume They've Been Saved and/or Approved By a Deity". The arrogance of Muslims shines in the same way. Non-Muslims are not even human according to many Muslim religionists...their arrogance has to be experienced to be understood. It doesn't matter what religion it is though....the idea is the same. It's as if religionists are saying, "We're special, were in 'The Club' and you're not. We're better than you."
+qhsperson
Yes it is extremely ironic that these creationists think they are the only ones who are living correctly and are holier than anyone else. Yet their actions are much worse than all but the most insane of society. So they do not seem to understand that actions are what makes you a good person and not what you believe.
Could you please give me your best explanation for the origin of life? Please note, I did not ask if you KNEW who life originated, I asked you for your best explanation, and please use science (not emotion or insults) in your reply. I look forward to your response! Thank you.
I was raised SDA, so I understood why SDA's need young earth, 6 literal day creationism, but it always mystified me why the other fundies drink this coolaid. Thank you for illuminating me.
This is nuts how creationists actually don't realize just how long nature takes to form a mountain or a glacier on top of it.
Creationists know the basics , eating, sleeping, shitting, reproducing. .....thats about it.
If they had an enema they would be transparent.
Could you please give me your best explanation for the origin of life? Please note, I did not ask if you KNEW who life originated, I asked you for your best explanation, and please use science (not emotion or insults) in your reply. I look forward to your response! Thank you.
@@horaceball5418 Basically we don't know yet how life began, ( but we will surely find out one day ) but it is very unlikely that it was a ghost daddy in the sky that was responsible, Gods are just a figment of human imagination and superstition.
My own view is that as life is just chemistry and the universe is the same "ingredients" throughout, those ingredients just need to be in the perfect place and perfect conditions for life to start.
@@WildPhotoShooter Hello wild photo shooter. What was your favorite location to shoot? Please not I come to politely discuss, not argue, and your "tone" seems similar. Please note I did not ask if you "knew" how life originated, no one does...no one was there...I asked for you "best explanation."
I have some polite questions. You said "My own view is that as life is just chemistry and the universe is the same "ingredients" throughout, those ingredients just need to be in the perfect place and perfect conditions for life to start."
I respect that.
But...if life is just "chemistry" (and may I add biology and physics), why can we not bring a dead dog back to life? A dead dog has all the chemistry and biology and physics right there...but never has one been brought back to life. I fully understand skeptics are trying to arugue how proteins, RNA, DNA etc originated to explain the origin of life....but I am willing to "hand" you 1000 dead dogs that already have the necessary RNA, DNA and proteins, and asking you to bring to life.
I am not saying you agree with me, but does my point have validity? Even if chance could assemble a dog...it would still be dead...what is the difference between a dead dog and a living dog? Is it only chemistry, biology and physics?
Thank you.
@@horaceball5418 Well , I find it strange that a lot of people on youtube who deny science don't really know much about it, (A good example are flat earthers who think gravity doesn't exist) The same train of thought runs through all of these science deniers because they seem to want us to educate them , and you seem to require the same tuition.
I ask politely , why don't you stop being lazy and just go and find out these things for yourself ? Find out for yourself why it is when something dies it cannot be brought back to life ( heart attacks can be recovered because it is often bad lifestyle that causes it and the body has not totally worn out) Death from cancer and other disease destroys the body and kills it, never to be revived.
If you did some medical research you will find that the chemistry of the bodies cells has a finite life span and strangely it is oxygen that has a destructive process on living cells over a lifetime.
That is a very simple, basic explanation but if you want to really understand why death is final and why the chemistry stops working , all the information you need is out there on the internet and in medical books......you will learn something but it takes a little effort.
The Bible was written by the ancestors of the Jews for themselves. When it says thou shalt not kill, it means thou shalt not kill members of our tribe. It's perfectly OK to kill members of other tribes and God tells them to do it.
All tthe punctuation has been edited in later, hebrew does not really know periods and commata... so it is VERY liikely that all ten/eleven commandments refer to "your neighbor" not just the last two... and like you said neighbor for jews of those days meant only other jews (of their own specific tribe), same is true for a lot of the other rules later, mainly the distinction between israelites and foreigners for who they could enslave and who only became a temporary servant except they did not want to leave wife and children in your property when leaving so they decided to become your property for life too. It's not even a 7 generations rule there in god's perfect word to get the offspring to be freed ONE day.
That would be " context " .
@@georgeelmerdenbrough6906
Both slave men and slave girls shall be taken from the heathen around you.
They shall be slaves for ever and you can pass them on to your children.
(Leviticus chapter 25)
"we win arguments because we are right"... very nice... amazing...
Once a person becomes invested in an idea, especially one tied into his or her identity, the tendency is for that person to double down when that idea is called into question.
I have a Scofield Reference Bible. A fundamentalist great-aunt and great-uncle gave it to my parents on the occasion of my birth as a not-so-subtle hint to raise me with (Protestant) religion. Thankfully my parents ignored the hint and let me come to my own conclusion. I realized I was an atheist by the age of six years old.
Great video ; I'm glad I had the honour of watching it !! I wish I was there in person.
I think "exposing creationism" is approarching the rigor and importance of debunking ghosts and bigfoot claims. How many times do we have to go down this road?
Thanks for posting David.
Nice Whirled Nuts Daily reference! That place was birther central back when this talk was new.
Based on the title I’m expecting “Cdesign Proponentsists” to make an appearance.
Religion is a security blanket .
We shouldn't give up hope cause after all, it took only 500 years for them to recognize the heliocentric model, they should come around soon.
Thanks, PZ, for outlining the history of these ideas for us. I know I would rather join a "polar bear" swim club than have to read through this particular patch of philosophical/religious history.
Thanks for the upload.
Creationists may make arguments of ignorance but, to be fair, the ignorance is strong in these ones. That's what make them so convincing to some people. 🤔
What is he ignorant of?
this is a good video BUT, the audio NEEDS to be boosted.
can you post a copy of your slides please
Am I glad to live in Europe, where evolution is taught as a fact, not even a theory.
The Theory explains the fact.
shockibg! Anyone ever see a movie called "Idiocracy"? by the look of Meyer's charts, we'll b there in the next few years, if we're not there now!
Yep. Islam is a growing religion. Women in burkas. "Intelligent" design is on the rise. It leads me to believe that we're heading for the new middle ages. Although even religious zealots mostly don't want to lose their luxuries... Maybe that's the only reason that will keep it from happening.
I joined the AAAS just now it was 50 for me as I am retired. I will renew yearly automatically. Also I do Amazon smile.com Freedom from Religion everytime I buy something a donation is made. It is a small amount but gives me comfort. Our country is a mess. Science is our only hope for someday billions of years from now we have to have another home when that sun burns out. That is reality. We better use those years to find a way to leave planet earth. PS I homed schooled my kids because I thought public school was terrible and it is. My kids learned science my husband was a science teacher before becoming a medical doc. So forget it, not all of us homeschoolers were insanely religious not at all. My kids grew up socialized and with careers not money geology medicine nursing rehab etc.
Well done. Don't worry about the sun scorching the Earth ; we will be long-extinct by then...unless we have been downloaded into robust substrates...or have harnessed genetics to confer immortality. One is engineering, the other biochemistry. Neither involves new physics, therefore they are soluble problems, take my professional word for it.
jonnine I am not sure what a robust substrate is however harnessed genetics would seem viable. It is sad that humans believe all these religious unrealities when so much is to be gained by knowing truth and enjoying what is real. Ill enjoy a feather from a bird before worrying about salvation (from what?) is the robust substrate meant to be building deeply into or under ground?please define I want to learn I am not a scientist are you saying we will meld with organisms or pure chemistry and or robotics? If I had known how incredible science is I would have ditched what I was up to! Hindsight lol
At 27:59, wow, I guess he described ME precisely! But I don't believe in the "day-age" or "gap" theories....I believe that most of Genesis is mythology.
the christian god is mythology too
Was that movie Noah meant to be a creationist historical documentary? It is as crazy as the creation myth he described
Yes indeed, when creationists talk about intelligent design, it is "astoundingly" jaw dropping.
Great talk
Paley's watch is not an argument from ignorance, it is an argument from personal incredulity.
Oh no, its an argument from ignorance.....its shocking that its still used as an argument.....
Sal LoGrasso No, it isn't.
ShadeyBladey If the argument stated that life is designed because you can't prove it isn't, it would be an argument from ignorance.
That is not the argument, the argument is that life is designed because it looks designed and I can't think of how that could occur without a designer.
It is an argument from personal incredulity, not an argument from ignorance, as I said.
ShadeyBladey Make an argument or fuck off.
ShadeyBladey Still no argument, just pathetic ad hominems. Fuck off troll.
Just keep reading the rest of the paragraph after the sentence you always quote from Darwin. he gives all the examples there.
I've heard the different views argument before. They think that the debate between creationism and evolution is a world-view debate and that they somehow view it correctly because they view the evidence from a " biblical" perspective
Irony.
I like to listen to lectures or audiobooks while doing the puzzles in the daily paper. I always begin with the daily "Cryptoquote" and today's quote, when decoded, turned out to be: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
47:27 no it's 12 not 16. I think he confuses it with binary which is 2 to the 4th. Although there are some errors in the picture, some are double and some are missing. There should be 6 columns with yellow on top. It's easy to figure out logically. I think the math is faculty n4 2x3x4. but the yellows are twins so that halves the amount.
Yeah it's n4 alright, my math is a bit rusty. There are 4 slots for the first colour to fill, 3 for the second and 2 for the third and 1 leftover for the fourth. For this to work the yellow has to be split into two. And the endresult halved (obviously) so it's n(4)/2
You can also go there directly by taking yellow last. So there are 4 slots for brown, 3 for blue, and the leftovers are yellow. Well enough about that..
About the subject I'm not sure stamping out religion will improve the world. I guess so, religion is a bit obnoxious and it would seem it's an improvement but I just wouldn't take it as some sort of given. People tend (I guess) to take on new illusions or new 'religion' like belief in 'the government'. (just an example from the top of my head.. 'coincidentally')
For me, born and raised in western europe, its actually unbelievable that evolution and science in its whole, are so controversial. No parent in my country and neighbore countries would even think about scolding science teachers for doing their jobs and teaching our children evolution, physics, biology, geology etc. This is actually shocking to me, that parents actually prevent teachers to teach their kids the tools they need to compete in the world! America, you are undermining your young generations. You will also undermine your own economy, your capability to defend your country, your place as world leader, your future in advanced technology and so on. Stop educating your children is digging your own grave. I hope you do understand that!
It really is baffling that that country also developed the Apollo program. But remember it's a large country and the richest in the world. The educated part of the population live their own lives , not bothered by idiots
You are correct. This will all happen in the USA
@Rnickey Lidack If you're going to ask stupid questions, don't disable the ability for people to reply.
Yes, believing in god is crazy.
Great talk by PZ Myers. The way he exposed that pseudoscience center was hilarious.
"If you follow modern Christianity" isn't quite right. The reference should be to Protestant Christianity, which is only about a third of the whole. A little over half of Christianity is Roman Catholic and they never raised any objection to evolution. I assume that was down to having learned the folly of arguing with rational science a couple of centuries earlier!
More recent and alarming is the late 20th century foisting of creationism onto Islam, in defiance of its scientific history and the postulation of evolution by natural selection, based on rigorous observation of speciation, by Al Jahiz, around 900 years before Darwin. Indeed, one of Darwin's earliest critics accused him of having "adopted the Mohammedan theory". (There is evidence that Darwin's father had read Al Jahiz's Kitab al Hayawan in French translation, but none that Darwin had done so himself. It hadn't been translated into English at the time.)
Now, there is a charlatan from Turkey, Adnan Octar, plugging "Islamic" creationism. It is "old earth", not "young earth" but otherwise the same nonsense. He writes as "Harun Yahya", which is a very presumptious title (reason complex, but Muslims will know) and doesn't also state his real name, which is heavily frowned on in Muslim scholarly circles. Writing under an assumed name is OK, and common, but you must also state your real name.
He doesn't write his cod science for a scholarly readership, of course, but for a credulous one. Though he's not exactly of that stripe himself, his nonsense has been sucked up with enthusiasm in reactionary Salafist, Wahhabist and Kharijite circles, and has become almost a totem at the fundamentalist end of Islam.
SIGH I can only tip my hat to Al Jahiz, the rationalist Muʿtazilite movement of which he was part, and to his later reviver and re-publiciser, the great polymath of Tunis, Ibn Khaldun.
Not sure that I want to finish watching this - it's too frightening!
what if we will find a watch with a dna and a self replicating system, does it will be evidence for evolution?
I think it would be evidence of someone having a laugh.
i have never suspected watches, or any form of time piece of indulging in sexual actiions of any type ( no homosexual clocks have yet been found)
If they could and did reproduce yourargument may, just may, be valid. As it is, you have just wasted 10 seconds of your life being dumb
grumpy sod..And you have wasted even more time replying........
That cutlery clanging 😠😡
...there is a book written by Tony Tymstra...here is a chapter you may find interesting...the book is available on amazon, the link is below.
THE LITTLE BUTTERFLY PROOF
How much more amazing can this planet be? A butterfly
returns to the forest four generations later after having never
been there before and lands on the same trees as its great
grandparents once did, traveling almost 3000 miles and never
getting lost. How can that not be proof of something grand in
this world?
The Great North American monarch butterfly's migration is
only one example of nature's seemingly endless number of
inspiring mysteries.
It is a demonstration of the complex and elegant
entanglements that are still hidden from us. Such a testimony
quietly compels us to discover and understand the world
around us.
Before these butterfly sanctuaries were discovered in the late
1970s, people in North America had always wondered where
did all these monarch butterflies go. And in a strange twist of
beautiful irony, the people in Mexico had always wondered
where did all these butterflies come from. These are two
different views of the same incredible pilgrimage. This
migration is truly one of nature's wondrous revelations because
it is not the life of one butterfly that makes this so unusual. It is
the life of four generations of butterflies that makes this story
complete and causes us to ponder about our own purpose and
destiny.
This is a beautiful story. The migration starts in the middle of
the forest, in the mountains of Michoacán. It is in an area only
thirty by fifty miles round. Millions upon millions of butterflies
converge in this place to overwinter enjoying the warmth of the
Mexican sun. During their stay in this migratory site, the female
monarchs become fully developed, and mating takes place.
As this first generation begins their spring migration, they fly
over mountain ridges to as far north as Texas and to the
southern parts of the United States. Here they lay eggs on
milkweed plants along the way. This generation soon dies, but
in four days, their eggs will hatch into baby caterpillars. These
earthbound caterpillars eat ferociously for two weeks before
becoming fully-grown. They will then find a quiet and safe
place to hide. Here they will start the process of transforming
into a chrysalis.
For about ten days, the caterpillar will undergo a remarkable
transformation called metamorphosis, and soon a beautiful
butterfly will emerge. Deeply embedded in their nature, this
second-generation somehow knows to continue the journey,
and they fly north to the mid-United States and to the lower
parts of Canada where they will lay eggs and begin the cycle for
the next generation.
As the third generation emerges, they will find milkweed
plants, eat, breed, and lay eggs, and soon a fourth generation of
butterflies is born. When autumn arrives, and the leaves fall,
this fourth-generation will fly all the way back to Mexico.
Picking up thermals and getting carried aloft on the upper
winds.
They will travel roughly sixty miles a day. After two months,
they will eventually arrive at the same thirty by fifty-mile
forested area of that first generation. It will have been a flight of
almost 3000 miles without having any knowledge of being there
before, and never getting lost on the way. It is an incredible feat.
The Monarch Butterfly migration inspires an overwhelming
feeling of reverence and admiration for the glory of nature. It is
still a mystery as to how they do it.
In early Christianity, the butterfly was a symbol of the soul. In
China, it was used as a symbol of bliss and joy. People in
Australia and New Zealand call the monarch butterfly "the
wanderer." To Native Americans, the butterfly is a symbol of
joy, color, and change. The butterfly has inspired many poets,
thinkers, and writers. Perhaps this is a testimony to the Creator
of this world. Is a butterfly proof that a Creator exists? If and
when we learn all the mysteries of the world, then perhaps we
will know, but the Great Butterfly Migration gives us a glimpse
towards that answer.
www.amazon.com/Possible-Impossible-Probable-Proof-exists/dp/B088B4SKSK/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=tony+tymstra&qid=1607226097&s=books&sr=1-1
It's not twelve but it's not sixteen either (47:00), it's twenty-four.
Can you tell what the slide asks? it is difficult for me to read.
"It is not their love for Man, but rather the impotence of their love for Man, that hinders the Christians of today from - burning us." Nietzsche
great title and ironic. The evolution of creationism
You see, what had happened was...PZ Myers was all like "BITCH!?!" and then the people were like "Oh Em Gee, he said a bad word!" Then PZ Myers was all like, "I only unclasp my praying hands to smack dat ass!" Then the feminists were like. "Whoa whoa whoa, you can't say that? Not ALL women like their ass smacked! Take that back!" Then they made an uproar by throwing high heels and wonder bras at him, he apologized to keep from being killed.
And that is where Babies come from.
Haven't heard from PZ in some time... is he still making videos?
The only _reason_ to fear or oppose reason is if your motives and M.O. are deeply unreasonable.
If god "made" man, why would he give them a brain taht is able to distort the truth so much? Why would our natural tendency of curiosity and deducting conclusions from evidence play to badly with our minds?
Men have not changed once? Then where do "races" or phenotypical archetypes of humans come from? Was Adam white, Eve asian, cain black and Seth "amerindian"??
If you were to listen to his lecture, he has loads of factual data in them. Who else to learn evolution from than somebody that studies it for a living?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think he is a candidate for Atheist of the Year award, but he is out there doing what he thinks is right; the only way he knows how to do it.
If you don't like him, don't watch.
Need to research those blind cavefish, how ironic that they're adding information!
You're high. No junk DNA ought to open your eyes to the origins truth. GOD DID IT. and you say Father time did it, now that is worse than magic. Because that's like saying nothing, NO THING, suddenly without cause (logically in a no thing switch) everything appeared and then, by no known mechanism, started going against the law of entropy, pulling ever advancing complexity at the genotype level. And, POOF! Here I am world, full of "a lack of belief" yet spouting truth statements against your beliefs. All this in a non objective, freewill is an illusion, no such thing as "T"-truth reality. One question. Are you sure? And if so, is that a truth statement and did you decide to make this claim by choice?
Atheist dilemma:
Can science exist in a world where an absolute void of any thing in non existance suddenly, without cause, " makes" everything? (Sorry, "make" is probably a dirty word but what adjectives should we use in this beyond magic created universe?). Universe- a single spoken phrase, crap, not again! COz Mose, ahhh much better.
jamie Russell Did it ever occur to you that PhD biologists spending their entire lives studying these things might know something that you don't? Is that at all possible in your world-view?
As for our dilemma; if life is too complicated, then a cosmic super-intelligence that did not need to be created and lives outside of space-time would be more complicated and therefore more extraordinary than the life you invoke him/it/she/they to explain.
A scientist makes a hypothesis and then looks for evidence to back or refute his claim.
If there was a creator God who loved and cared about us. The evidence would be as follows:
1 Everybody would know of him and his commands and expectations. Multiple prophets all telling exactly the same story.
2 We would be emotionally mature. No petty arguments or wars.
3 We would have been designed better, no backache, baldness or cancer.
4 The earth would not have a cooling crust that is susceptible to volcanos, tsunamis, and earthquakes.
5 Bacteria and viruses would not exist or we would be immune.
6 The world would be designed in a way that we all flourished. Some people throw food away and have water on tap, some people experience famine and drought.
7 Adults would not believe or tell children ridiculous stories about talking snakes or flying horses, told as literal truths on pain of rejection if you did not believe.
I could go on. There is no evidence for God.
Question: In the part where he showed the slide of the horse and talked about the horse evolving over years, did he not start with a horse and end with a horse? How is that evolution?
He probably started with Eohippus, which is the size of a small dog and has multiple toes on each foot.
Would it be clearer if he used the example of whales, where we start with a 4-legged land animal and end with a giant flippered marine animal?
Thats the favourite argument of Creationists... A total fallacy, as if all the different, ancient by millions of years, Horse especies were not just that : DISTINCT ESPECIES, unable to breed with each other...
I remember all that and I, while he might have been a little strict, you have to remember, it's his "house" and he has the right to manage it however he likes. You would kick someone out of your home who started being disrespectful of you or your home.
If you are going to post something on someone elses webpage, probably should try not to piss off the owner.
I think monotheism is itself a creationism. If you study Indian religion then you will easily find that creationism was already formed in actual shape 2nd Century BC when the Bhagvat Geeta was written.
Essentially, that is how most religions are. They are philosophies and lifestyle considerations for their people and how they should be toward everyone.
This is why it is divided as Jew and Gentile...we are only gentiles to Jews not that we are really gentiles. There is nothing wrong with it either, I mean if you look at the actual Jewish culture, they have evolved their culture and spiritual system to fit modern times as all Spiritual systems should evolve.
Modern Christians are the ones who do not get this and see the myths as fact and also embrace another's people culture and try to tell them how they should follow their own culture,
Appropriation of someone's spiritual system can lead to problems like we face now. The problem with the religion like Islam is that the Arab culture (not Islam itself since it is dependent on Arab culture) has not evolved so that Islam can change. So when other people not of the culture convert to Islam they accept the same actions as the Arabs and unfortunately some of their radical ideas as well.
So when the Arab state and surrounding states alike evolve in culture, in whatever shape that is, then so will Islam.
Christianity will only evolve once Christians accept the origin of Hebrew faith and how we (modern christians) currently are misusing it and have turned it into a different religion which basically has a different God.
Every religion's has a name for the creator. Most Christians don't call God YHWH, they just say God and they do not use the given name of Jesus which is Yeshua...they use the transliterated version Jesus....which is important because Yeshua in itself has a cultural meaning an connection to the YHWH while Jesus and or Jehovah have no culture meaning to the original faith,
Once you lose these meanings, regardless of principles staying the same...you have essentially created a new God and religion...therefore in the eyes of the ancient Hebrews, Christians are essentially Idolaters.
Read about Horus, The Jesus story is an exact 100% accurate copy of Horus. Horus was Born of a virgin, was visited by three wise men, was preaching at 12 yrs old, had twelve disciples baptised at 30 yrs old , was crucified, resurrected from the dead three days late , rose to heaven The only difference is the Horus story was 6000 years before Jesus , so the Bible is plagiarised.
And by the way, Horus isn't the only one , there are several saviours with exactly the same story.
Yes - Richard Carrier covers a lot of this in his lectures and debates if anyone wants to look further into it.
@@siwilson1437 Actually, Carrier specifically calls out the Horus comparison as false. He does agree that Osiris was also a savior god, as wells as others. But when it comes to Horus he is quick to point out that this is an invention created on UA-cam. Check out this clip ua-cam.com/video/LTllC7TbM8M/v-deo.html at the 29:00 mark. In his words, "Please don't go around saying that Jesus is just like Horus..."
But he does go on to cite 5 other savior gods that follow the same story and alludes to others that have such similarities.
@@santabarbara6311 although accordingly to followers of xtianity the major difference is that Jesus died for our sins and rose up in one piece again.
Don't listen to nutjobs who follow PZ around everywhere he goes now, and diss him because he's a feminist who supports Rebecca Watson and Atheism +, and they're just terrified of feminists in general. But you can tell for yourself whether this talk had merit, as well as all the others he has done.
There are some here who are definitely proof of unintelligent design who wants to ague with that???? I put it gown to bad programing, where did they get their programing from?
On the topic of ethics and morals. I really wish everyone had them and poor people could watch or afford to. I'm using free wifi which is great.
Stay classy trumps America
It is not difficult to discern Truth from ‘’information masquerading as knowledge’’.
Only if you are willing to disbelieve everything you believe up to Now.
If you are still willing to believe in something that may not be True, then you will never become truly knowledgeable, truly unendarkened, truly enlightened.
Come to understand your aha moments of knowing. Understand that your aha moments are the gateways to your Be-ing. Then you will become truly knowledgeable, truly unendarkened, truly enlightened.
Only then will you understand that the question:
‘’To Be, or not to BE?’’...has only one acceptable answer.
To Be in the Now, question everything you believe.
And then pay attention to the strength of your aha moments of knowing.
very enlightening in general. Speaking of light, one slight suggestion for improvement:
the example of genesis, where you say plants were created before the sun was created is correct corresponding to genisis 1 is true, however when you start ridiculing about the tree that had to grow up in the dark for longer than 24 hours.. you fail to mention that genisis mentions the creation of light before the creation of plants. hence this is a false argument.
more accurate would it be to ridicule the ones literally interpretating genisis by pointing out they believe that there was light before the creation of any stars (including our sun).
personally i dislike to ridicule a group of people, as it contributes to polarization. Wich you illustrate in your video by your observation that the main trouble started after 1960 (or was it 1961) when the creationists where publicly disqualified from the discussion. I prefer the christians that like the early creationists attempt to harmonize the religeous dogma's with new scientific insights rather than the ones disqualifying science because in their vieuw it cant be harmonized with their religeon.
(my apologies for my spelling mistakes, english is not my native language and my spelling correction is for some reason set to my native language.)
+Tommie D where it sais "where you say plants were created before the sun was created is correct corresponding to genisis 1 is true" should be read as :
"where you say plants were created before the sun was created is correct corresponding to genisis 1" or "where you say plants were created before the sun was created corresponding to genisis 1 is true"
What happened? What's the deal?
Pity the sound is so bad!
Looks like an attempt from an audience member ,hence this result.
Remember, folks, that the percentage of Christians who are creationists (in the sense meant here) is TINY -except in the USA and some pockets in Africa. It is an almost uniquely USian aberration in world Christianity. That's why I'm more concerned about the even newer "Islamic" creationism (see below).
I'm an atheist, BTW, so not plugging either religion.
Personally I'd much rather people believe in "God-guided evolution" than not believe in evolution at all.
no no no
saying that David Abel is a veterinarian is not ad homs because it's exactly about the field of expertise
He also had the exact time of day. You don't have to pay any money to download, if you're curious. Unfortunately, as a Type 1 diabetic, I also know that Myers' view of sucrose being the same as high fructose is also just as wrong. So one takes anything he says is just as unreliable. Now quote some crap, then look up the Princeton studies that prove him wrong.
Creationism has evolved. It is still evolving.
I like to remind people that there is no unified atheism . Peoole can be irrational and unskeptical and still be an atheist . What I prefer to identify as is a rational skeptic .
There is no unified theism either. Even _Christianity_ has no unification.
@@philaypeephilippotter6532 Of course not but most do not make the presumption that all Christians are Catholic , Right Wing , and anti science .... I quite often see Atheism equated with left wing exclusivity , Rational Skeptic specific , and pro science . My point was you might be right in any specific case but generalization is wrong .
@@georgeelmerdenbrough6906
I agree. It's actually sad that atheism are often seen as a political belief because it's not. Plenty of people seem to worship greed and equate that with being religious but they're rarely seen as political animals. On the other hand atheists who _don't_ worship greed are said to be dangerous left-wing extremists. It's all lunacy.
@@philaypeephilippotter6532 Not that I am accusing you .... But do you get the sense that people do not so much care to actually be correct in their thinking as much as convincing you that they are ... or worse, convincing you that you are wrong ? Also , I like telling myself that I put these arguments up as a defense of truth for the sake of the casual observer . However , it now seems very much like there is no casual observers and that sides are well drawn and committed to . Three in total Right , Wrong and Indifferent . I am beginning to resign myself to the fact that for some , Solace is everything . If truth is in the way of it , then truth be damned .
(c 45:00) Creationists' rapid evolution within all the basic created kinds had to have happened in far less than 4000 years. Both human and animal mummies from ancient Egypt are virtually identical to modern specimens, no perceptible difference. Cuvier realized this in the early 19th century from mummies brought back by Napoleon, which is one reason he rejected evolution. So then actually, creationists' rapid evolutionary model had to have happened within a few centuries or less, which is even worse.
39:55 ...Hall and Oates...?
What about catholics ?? I understand its ok if you believe in evolution and God according to the Catholic church. If there are any Catholics out there please comment.
was taught in the 70's that Adam was a village and not a person in Catholic class. He thinks if he can make christianity fall, islam will too, he never mentions islam. Greek, eastern and catholics don't hold to 6,000 years. Mormons don't know as well. The better question is What about Catholics view on the age of the earth. The age question is better. Just because this guy says there are links in creation, doesn't make it true. A mouse doesn't become a cat, a cat doesn't become a dog. But I have to admit I am ignorant when it comes to this science.
I'm anticipating a Biblical Scholar in a few years reinterpreting the Genesis story to include Evolution - probably Catholic as they seem to be making concessions.
leave it to Myers not to figure out that Shelly is brilliant based on reading his poems. that same insight that causes him to repeated unsubstantiated accusations of rape on his blog for which is being sued.
The watchmaker argument goes back to early Greek times only it was a statue not a watch used in example. The religious arguments haven't evolved over 2200 years even with God supposedly on their side.
Shelly is the best...just hold up his argument and the games over.
The fact that religious folks continue to trot out 2000 year old dead and refuted arguments, means they are not about debating good arguments but about marketing their faith every time they take the stage.
"proof by assertion" (54:00) = circular reasoning!
Please God,give me a bird that cannot fly....just to fool around man.
+Markhuntonio "Please God,give me a bird that cannot fly....just to fool around man." Chickens, Turkeys, Ostriches, Emus ....
***** Exactly,there are many arent there?They prove evolution,with evolution you can easly understand why they lost the capacity to fly.Good example the Dodo,a huge bird who lost the capacity to fly due to the absense of land predators.
With a god creator of everything(birds that cannot fly included)what possible reason could that god had to create a animal with wings that cannot fly?
Summarizing......with evolution and science in general things make sense,with Gods nothing makes sense.
“We win arguments because we’re right.” PZ Myers
Re: Evolution vs creationism
2:32 _"the geologists at that time all looked at him and said 'well no, that's wrong'."_
Geology was founded about same time by one Dane, Steno, who converted. He was a Flood geologist.
He was NOT likely to tell Ussher he was wrong.
3:14 _"I am not talking about people doing this in the 17th century, [I] talk about people doing it now, right now"_
So?
You claim, perhaps, if I did not get you quite wrong, geology has since then thoroughly disproven Ussher (or parallel methods with LXX text, like the St Jerome chronology I use).
The people you talk about would normally be claiming, no, geology has not thoroughly or even probably disproven Ussher (or parallel methods etc).
3:43 _"creationists ignore the science, okay"_
Sure. Here is one creationist who had a debate under a post of yours a few years ago, arguing your scenario for chromosomal fission is wrong and at least for mammals other scenarios on how chromosome numbers increase are wrong too.
As I recall it, you shut down comments after a certain number, perhaps mine are up again (I think I saw that too) but the point is, I was not ignoring the science, and unless your memory is very selective, you know that.
5:26 I did not know Origin of the Species was a chapter by chapter rebuttal of Paley.
I wonder when Atheist Evolutionists are going to take up a question by question and article by article rebuttal of St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Prima pars, questions 2 - 26 (most involving more than one article). That is what some Protestants had been missing out on since Reformation and what Paley was trying to bring back.
And of course, 5:48, it would be harder to say Aquinas was making an argument from ignorance. He was pupil of his time's top scientist, St Albert (canonised recently, by Pope Pius XI, since long time suspected of sorcery and of being author of sorcery books going by his name).
6:12 I am sorry, but the essay is really not very refuting of anything. It says design has to be proven. Well, design is proven by teleology. By complex things working together for a common meaningful goal.
I note, while subtitles didn't make it clear, your very thorough discussion comes from Percy Bysshe Shelley. I did a google from the words, and also note he is a top writer and used "proved" where we would expect "proven" ... no editors famous for squirming at individual idiosyncrasies of language back then, were there?
Here is a further piece:
_Why do we admit design in any machine of human contrivance? Simply because innumerable instances of machines having been contrived by human art are present to our mind, because we are acquainted with persons who could construct such machines; but if, having no previous knowledge of any artificial contrivance, we had accidentally found a watch upon the ground, we should have been justified in concluding that it was a thing of Nature, that it was a combination of matter with whose cause we were unacquainted, and that any attempt to account for the origin of its existence would be equally presumptuous and unsatisfactory._
_The analogy which you attempt to establish between the contrivances of human art, and the various existences of the Universe, is inadmissible. We attribute these effects to human intelligence, because we know beforehand that human intelligence is capable of producing them. Take away this knowledge, and the grounds of our reasoning will be destroyed. Our entire ignorance, therefore, of the Divine Nature leaves this analogy defective in its most essential point of comparison._
If Aquinas had strolled along, he would have been noting Percy was attributing the divine agencies proven in five ways to a "nature-god" rather than to a personal one.
For my part, I consider the objections of Aquinas against that as valid. The God proven by the five ways has to be totally pure act, not unrealised potency. This excludes nature from being that God. Or even before that, q 3:
_"I answer that, It is absolutely true that God is not a body"_
A "nature-god" like that dreamed of by Shelley would be a body.
_"and this can be shown in three ways._
_"First, because no body is in motion unless it be put in motion, as is evident from induction. Now it has been already proved (I:2:3), that God is the First Mover, and is Himself unmoved. Therefore it is clear that God is not a body._
_"Secondly, because the first being must of necessity be in act, and in no way in potentiality. For although in any single thing that passes from potentiality to actuality, the potentiality is prior in time to the actuality; nevertheless, absolutely speaking, actuality is prior to potentiality; for whatever is in potentiality can be reduced into actuality only by some being in actuality. Now it has been already proved that God is the First Being. It is therefore impossible that in God there should be any potentiality. But every body is in potentiality because the continuous, as such, is divisible to infinity; it is therefore impossible that God should be a body._
_"Thirdly, because God is the most noble of beings. Now it is impossible for a body to be the most noble of beings; for a body must be either animate or inanimate; and an animate body is manifestly nobler than any inanimate body. But an animate body is not animate precisely as body; otherwise all bodies would be animate. Therefore its animation depends upon some other thing, as our body depends for its animation on the soul. Hence that by which a body becomes animated must be nobler than the body. Therefore it is impossible that God should be a body."_
What did Shelley's Eusebes say about that one?
6:46 - ah, you did mention it was Percy Shelley. Thanks.
6:55 It would seem that the part I quoted from Eusebes was _not_ really using the science of the day ... it was philosophising of a kind refuted before AD 1274, March 7th. That being the day on which St. Thomas Aquinas died.
6:59 No, I do not think Eusebes or his author Shelley used logic and reason as established before than as well as St Thomas Aquinas did.
7:06 *gasp* P Z Myers has no better reply to Intelligent Design than Percy Bysshe Shelley?
7:17 If PZM can claim Percy blew intelligent design, 200 years in advance, why can't an intelligent designer and young earth creationism claim St Thomas Aquinas blew Shelley 540 years in advance or some more?
7:42 Myers is equating "exquisite contrivances" in Paley with "I don't know how it works, it is really complicated"?
I suspect, Myers was very well advised not to take up a carreer in letters.
Exquisite contrivances if translated to anything like the phrase means "I partly do know how it works, it is purposefull and too complex to be purposefull by chance". That is quite another statement.
Darwin's proposed solution:
_"we can see 'numerous gradations' giving rise to 'complex and perfect' organs by natural mechanisms with no need for guidance."_
For one thing Darwin : Myers = 1:0.
Darwin does see that it is not just a question of "complex" (a splatter of spilled milk is highly complex, not very purposefull, though), but of "complex and perfect".
Then Darwin : Mendel = 0:1
What Darwin thought of as "with no need for guidance" we know since Mendel and even more discovery of DNA has a very complex system of very purposefull guidance. Remember, Darwin knew nothing of genetics. He's the guy who is making an argument from ignorance.
I just made a claim about PZM's academic carreer.
Fact check:
1985 Ph.D. in Biology, Institute of Neuroscience,University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
1979 B.S. in Zoology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
1975-1976 attended DePauw University, Greencastle, IN
1973-1975 attended Kent-Meridian High School, Kent, WA
Read more: freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/about/#ixzz556ag3q8G
8:01 _"[what Paley is saying is 'we dont understand it, it is] really complicated, therefore it must be designed' "_
Well, it seems PZM cannot read Paley. He is reading Paley through Eusebes in Shelley.
If PZM had tried to do anything in letters, if I had been his professor (I'm in fact still "undergraduate" all or most of my studies depending on how you count equivalencies), and had been given Paley to paraphrase and had paraphrased like this, he would have flunked. Big.
In Swedish - which I suppose PZM might know, and perhaps David Broman too - this is called "läsförståelse".
8:36 PZM is a bit dishonest on the evidence on "evolution of the eye" too.
Where to Darwin each "step" is functional, one can very well see they cannot function AS steps on a ladder, since each being "top step" on a different ladder (fetal development or whatever you call it for invertebrates providing the rungs while eyes are produced).
What is more, in many cases these steps are actually dependent on more than one genes functioning perfectly. I saw a discussing of blind fish, it seems the mutated genes (devolving, not evolving) were concerned with two steps in the production of the eyes, more properly with cone cells or rod cells or both. These two steps involved a total of ten genes which had to be ok.
Note, this means for the one step two genes must - on the "evolu" view - have mutated to functional, while what we know of similar looking genes in blind fish involves dysfunctional for production of eyes, not functional for anything else, and the previous step eight genes were collaborating.
It is not ONE gene which has to flunk right for that step, but EIGHT. Not to mention whatever the origin of those genes previous to serving in functional eyes, since closest genes we know of to some of them, in blind fish, only make dysfunctional eyes.
Darwin's model would have worked if "add a rod cell" or "add a cone cell" had been a unitary evolutionary step.
You DO mean Christian science, not Christian Science, could be taught in one hour.
So you're going with Behe "Show me the point mutations atom by atom and their adaptive value at each stage" rather than Dembski "I won't stoop to your pathetic level of detail"?
I like PZ, but he vastly underestimates AI. If he doesn't change his tune (and I mean fast) he is going to look very foolish.
Hahahaha "AL"
...Now, mind you, this might just be *myself* and my master's level in social psychology ... but doesn't *"AARGH!!!"* look just like Ken Cumfart ...??? 39:02 Just saying ... ////////..////////
Ray Cumfart. Kent Hovind.
Says the internet troll.
It's called sarcasm, hehe... I bet you browsed a lot of videos like this lately, you lose track as you can actually find comments like mine though actually serious. But mine wasn't. ;)
What? I don't know what you mean by William Dembski saying he won't stoop to someones "pathetic level of detail". They don't necessarily need to show all the mutations, but they need a hell of lot more than what they have now. They don't have any for the eye as far as I know.
Biologists have actually managed to track how the eye has developed from a few light sensitive cells on very simple creatures to groups of cells that can detect light and the direction it comes from which then developed into an increasingly sophisticated cup like structure that is able to direct the light coming into it until we end up with a spherical eye that has a lens and pupil capable of detecting colour and detail. They discovered this by examining a large selection of animals, many alive today, that display examples of these intermediate structures and how they function. It isn’t always perfect as evidenced by some humans being colour blind or needing glasses and even the fact we all have a “blind spot”. There are also other animals that generally have far superior eye sight to us humans so we are not the pinnacle of flawless design when it comes to the eye although it’s still pretty impressive. I’m sure you could find a much better and in-depth explanation online but hopefully you get the idea.
Awesome talk given my misgivings about PZ's personal attacks on other prominent atheists. Not to mention the rep he's gained as being a straight up ass. He obviously wanted to jump onto the Horseman bandwagon and it just didn't happen so now he attacks them. That aside when PZ sticks to vids like these on science and theology I still really enjoy them.
hey hypocrite ! you do the same as you accuse others . I love your style. you make up your speech as you go along.
geez man, people dont stop coughing it's annoying
It's all those non smokers breathing in today's air,no training whatsoever.
To that (and really all of the whole conflict), all I can say is no one is perfect and we forgive people their flaws. I had an objection as well but I guess I'm just not as willing to vilify PZ to that extent. It's not like he kicks people off a few times a week or anything so I can relegate that incident to a conflict of personalities, say there were mistakes on both sides, and let sleeping dogs lie. Neither Thunder or PZ was damaged in any real way and both continue good work.
"Intelligent Design" is NOT a scientific theory. It is, rather, a critique of the conventionally accepted version of the theory of evolution, asserting that it could not have happened without the influence of an external intelligence. It may have merit.....then, maybe not. Study it, and decide. And be sure to study the counter-arguments.
...proponents of intelligent design seem to have a rather nebulous definition of this alleged designer. Then, of course, there appears to be an abject lack of evidence for this ill-defined designer, no stated mechanism of design, nor a testable method of detecting design.
Clearly, ID is not a scientific theory. At best, ID is a weak hypothesis...some would go so far as to categorize ID as dogmatic wishful thinking, or even pure, unmitigated bullshit.
A critique is hardly evidence. Dismiss it.
Are you a poe? You can't be serious. He just exposed an Intelligent Design research paper as a hoax and the research center as a retired veterinarians little home in an urban neighborhood. When someone lies for Jesus, do you think its helping your cause or belief or whatever it is you value?
No, that doesn't explain the evolution of the eye. That just shows some of the steps that might happen in the evolution of the eye.
I have a lot of tools, none of them have ever spoken to me. If your tools talk to you, maybe you should lay off the drugs a little bit.
there's a wonderfull anime called 'angel's egg' which dives into christianity vs evolution, it revolves around the ark of noah story. It takes a different view on life, the eastern I guess, where life is a force that moves through evolution and tries to 'grasp something'. ua-cam.com/video/7aToOckImfM/v-deo.html one to watch deep in the night.
It should be called the creationism of the evolution of creationism.
Its surely created and not investigated story!
Does any evolutionist have actual biological scientific evidence for the glorious claim of fish becoming mammals? Actual bio sci evidence! not just speculation.
Name your favorite if there is too many.
Me first. its up to evolutionists to provide biological scientific evidence for evolution.
Why is up to creationists to debunk a hundred secondary point claims.
ANYWAYS. All these things you listed are easily seen as like responses to like problems in like type biology.
No evidence, especially biological, supports evolution!!!
Thats your calling to present such!
None of your list supports anything but lines of reasoning.
None! Why do you think it does?
Repeating nothing is still nothing.
the reason for this video is because evolution is not accepted by so many. its a famous contention. Not a famous settled fact.
Its still up to evolutionists to back up evolutionist ideas with biological evidence from science.
They don't do it and so are losing.
Those who can't say its done already.
You say nothing but sound bites.
Its up to your side to prove your case.
We disprove it and very successfully as we see it relative to opportunities to reach large audiences.
You respond hee because of our effective work.
this video is evidence of our threat.
sure it is.
You just accuse our character and long winded because you yourself can not make a case for evolution based on biological evidence.
Thats why you are losing. Just like Hilary losing to trump. Something that is impossible a. Your doing a poor job.
Evolutionism has NO biological evidence .
If it did then thats all they would say and not discredit their opponents.
you make a good case here.
We shall overcome and prevail very soon I think.
The oldest and most read book in the world = The Bible over 2,000 years old... this book is a powerful tool!!
*facepalm* You are an idiot. I correct myself you are the tool. The bible is by far NOT the oldest collection of books (the range of origin btw is 1400BCE to if you consider the varies forgeries/additions 800CE or even medieval times). That makes at least the pentateuch in its beginnings 3400years old, but don't forget that it had a major rewrite in 800BCE.
In fact the oldest books are 4500 years old and they are Sumerian, Egyptian, Akkadian, Hitite and Vedic. Now try again with your arguments from ignorance and supposed authority.
BaaaHaaaaaa too funny ~ The Bible is ONE of the oldest books "read" ... by many many person(s). Thank God for google/wikipedia huh..you wouldn't have a leg to stand on ...do you have any thoughts of your own??
Where did you and I come from "facepalm"? In your own words ...your OWN words ..simple question ...
Many flies like shit, many people like communism, many like monarchs, many like fascism or capitalism but that doesn't mean that it is good or superior. 'Many people doing things = validity' is an argument from ignorance. (lemmings) ... Besides I have read Gilgamesh, Odyssey, Lament for Ur, Book of Death, De Bello Gallico, Illiad.. (all older than 2000 years) if you lack that in your education it is your own fault. (see Immanuel Kant) At least three of those books I mention were part of my school curiculum. This is basic knowledge!
And if you now state that the bible is 'the oldest read' book... after I pointed out that 'the oldest and most read' book (your first claim) and the age (2000 years) is wrong then you are shifting what you said and expose your ignorance and even further.
Besides if I stoop down to your line of arguing the Rigveda (older than the Pentateuch) are Hindu prayers still in use today by 1 billion Hindu. So you loose the argument... yet again.
It would suit you well to humble yourself or you'll keep exposing your arrogance. But as the saying goes.. arrogance comes before the fall (Proverbs 16:18).
As for your pathetic attempts at taunts or baiting, how about you get an education or ask actual bible scholars (not priests, ministers, reverends or pastors) and then we talk like civilized people and I don't have to call you a tool or your behavior idiotic anymore. How about that?
True ... but where did the 1st humans come from??? Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?
People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?
Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.
The fact that humans can engineer cells, and organisms and alter the geology and ecology of the world through design shows that design is operative through conscious age4ncy in the world. Why is it such a problem to consider an even greater designer than humans.
Wether you believe in God or not, everything was still created from the same "nothing".
Where did God get all the "stuff" from to create the universe, where did he keep it all ?