Creationist Does a Jebait
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 жов 2023
- A creationist tries to tell us why science and God can coexist, then proceeds to try to disprove science.
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=3308388
Follow me on Twitter: / stickprofessor
Become a Member: / @professorstick
Check out my merch: teespring.com/stores/professo...
Original Video: • Do God and science con...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Yeah, basically you can say you believe in a god if you want, but as soon as you make a statement about it that takes place in the real world, be ready for science to bear on it.
How did your comment be here 3 days ago when he only posted this video within this hour? That's a godly miracle lol
@@bachhongoc6461 it might've been unlisted
Time machine
@@bachhongoc6461 patreon
Patreon 💁♂️
He doesn't seem to understand that "google code" has 'evolved' over the 2 decades since it was 1st written. What is used now, isn't the same as in 98.
What he doesn't understand could fill a book.
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 A library, or several. It would be easier to figure out what he *does* understand. It wouldn't take up nearly as much space.
I love the "computer code" example. I hate to tell them, but computer code DID evolve from a certain point of view.
it just evolved faster because there is inteligence guiding it, that is why took us to turn from wild apes to human 7-9 million years, but we manage to turn wolfs in every domestic dog breed out there in 50k or less, and we didn't even know about evolution back them, now a days we can "evolve" things much faster, and once we figure out gene editing we will be able to basically skip steps in evolution
Yes, what was displayed on the screen was a dump of HTML. Try putting some C++ code in there if you want to look smart!
In fact thanks to machine learning some code LITERALLY did evolve
Just don't show them code-writing code.
I still don't get how you can "write computer code" with a magic spell. Sounds like BS to me.
The "computer code" analogy continues to grate on me as a software engineer. Their "lines of code" thing is referring what in computing is such an absurdly high level abstraction. Even microcode - the 1s and 0s that represent magnetic charges running through physical circuits - still benefits from complex elements like the microprocessor, bus, and more. But even this is too complex for what DNA does.
A closer analogy might be a record player. You put vinyl on a turntable, drop a needle into the grooves, and spin it. Ideally, it's music. But if you put a needle onto grooves, sound will come out. If you express DNA, proteins form. If you sample that record and make another record, you get something new. If your audience likes what they hear, you make more records like that one. But the process of getting sound from the vinyl depends on a very basic physical process and it's going to happen that way because that's how our physical universe works, not because you have multiple levels of computing power doing interpretation on code.
That is a great analogy….
@@ImAmirus Not born, but we can write code that creates computers. That's the whole idea of Von Neumann probes.
So life is analog... that's what I figured ;-)
Off topic but as a software engineer, what do you think about the future of AI?
@@warren52nz I'd rather defer to artists & creators about what should happen with AI. That said, any profitable technology path will be pursued. While AGI (artificial general intelligence) still seems conceptually elusive, LLMs (large language models) have promise in many applications. I just feel those applications risk destroying livelihoods that ought to be defended, because they are the ones producing the inputs to those models. So I think AI in general is interesting & has potential but I really want to see some sober regulation around it.
I always hate how a lot of Creationists take the honest "We don't know" and twist it so it's not only a bad thing that we don't know, but their assumption MUST, therefore, be the one True(tm) answer...
its seeing a blank space where they can insert their god and still act as if they follow the science
"We don't know and thus I know." And theists accuse atheists of being arrogant.
I call it the "we don't know, therefore we know" argument.
Edit: just read @Nymaz's comment. Same thing.
It's because they're cowardly minds who project.
Most of those constants that he brings up are entirely arbitrary and are due to what we use for units of distance, time, mass, etc. The only true fundamental constants are the unitless ones like the fine structure constant.
Another way of looking at it is that all these constants have a value of 1. It only seems impressive to some people because the base 10 numbers we assign with our units of measurement look complicated or mystifying to them.
Expose these charlatans brother, i’m sick of the harm & pain they cause & take NO responsibility for it
Funny how he's showing css and thinking that it is code. It's not code, it's formatting.
I didn't even pay attention to it at first. Wow lol.
Yeah, the universe is SOOOO fine tuned that no life (as we know and understand it) can survive in 99,99999....... % of it. And even on our own planet, without our clothes and fire we would only be able to inhabit very small part of available landscape(I mean, even harsher winter in mild climate would be devastating for us without clothes and fire). And don´t get me started on the fact that majority of our planet is covered in water. Yep. So fine tune. Much wow.
Also the unspoken assumption is that the universe is fine tuned specifically for humans, because humans need so many things 'just right' to exist. But i could say the universe is fine tuned for lice, because the lice needs the same things as us, plus us.
His dichotomy is pretty much magic and make believe vs naturally. Hmmm I wonder which one makes more sense.
@9:00 What is the thinking, speaking, writing, art-making, imagining, loving, reflecting self aware, reasonable robot guy doing with his left hand?
"there isnt a shred of evidence for my position" ah yes, you must surely be correct then! That is *clearly* the rational position :)
(the most sarcasm)
I can take a leap of faith with science, because it has a strong foundation to land on safely...
You don't need faith when you have evidence.
Science works on evidence.
Faith means to believe without evidence and exclusive to religion.
honestly, it's not leap of any form of faith, because science has a history of figuring stuff out. such as neptune, physicists saw an anomaly on saturn's orbit and so hypothesized a nearby planet effecting saturn's orbit. and then they actually found neptune
edit: and also figuring out that earth isn't the center of the universe, nor is everything revolving around it. but rather, most of the nearby planets revolve around the sun
I maintain that we're just an NPC species in a Spore game.
Why do some people mistake contingent hypotheses as being leaps of faith? I guess it's because they believe that so much is riding on their particular leap of faith that to not take said leap is itself a leap of faith. It's a surreptitious manifestation of Pascal's Wager I guess, and we all know the problem with said wager.
I still don't get how the fine tuning argument makes any sense to anyone. Lindybeige made a great video on it. Just because something is specific doesn't mean it needs intelligent design. The number 1 is incredibly specific. If it was off by 1 *10^-99999 it wouldn't be 1. But that doesn't mean anything
We describe constants with numbers. Numbers usually represent quantities or proportions that can vary. So, you can see a constant and imagine 'what if' that constant had another value. Of course, we being able to imagine constants with diferent values doesn't mean those constants can really vary. That's the point were the whole argument crumbles. For example, Pi has a exact value that is the same in any posible universe. About other constants, we don't really know, but there is no evidence those constants aren't really constants.
@@Grauenwolf A number close to 1, but not quite, can be a very useful source of information. It can mean that, there is a big effect 'trying' to make the quantity 1, but a lesser, maybe unknown, effect is modifying it. For example, dividing mass by weight one should expect 1, but it we got a number close to 1, maybe there is something important we are missing: a gravitational anomaly, magnetic attraction, our frame of reference isn't inertial, etc.
The fine tuning argument is like rolling a six sided die once and being astounded it didn't come up with a seven
Roll two die. The odds of rolling 7 are 1:36. They'd probably just demand a 13, but Zatoichi weren't any more real than Jesus, so he won't be a'showin' up to slice one of the dice in half, savvy ...?
@thehellyousay The die is our universe. We don't have two die, only one. And we don't know what the possible result range for it even was, which is why it's stupid to be so in awe of the result we got that they insist a god must have guided it. You don't need a god to prevent a d6 from rolling a 7.
"I believe in Science and Evolution!", said the man with absolutely no concept of what the f Science or Evolution is
Problem with this fine tuning argument is that if that was the case, it is still very easy to get the universe we have. If the universe did start from nothing, then it is very likely a new universe would start if everything returned to nothing. So starting with that in mind, even if his fine tuning is true that + or - any thing would break the universe, then that is perfect. It is like if u want to role a 7 on a 100 sided dice, but you had to role this dice because absolutely nothing existed & the stare of nothing is unstable. There for each time u fail to role a 7 you get to role again. This would mean there is a 100% chance that some time u will get the universe we exist in. It is all down to how the universe started. If things where ever to return to that, things should start again. So by saying the universe would not exist if X then he sets it up perfectly for a new universe to start. Simply speaking based on his example.
wrong @@Grauenwolf regardless of how many sides u give the dice. If u need to role a 7 to get our universe & every other number like his example creates a universe that will destroy itself. So if the universe started from nothing & returns to nothing some time after u fail to role a 7, then given unlimited time, with each fail u would get to role again. Yes in reality we don't know how many values make a stable universe. Yet in his example, he said if the numbers where off by any amount, the universe would destroy itself or not exist at all. So based on that example, (not based on reality) there is a 100% chance of our universe given it started from nothing & there for time it self would even reset after each role, as u can't have time with out space & u don't have space if the universe destroys itself.
This is intelligent design and they are still trying to get their hooks into schools.
Yep, that was a sneaky one!
Well, sneaky-ish 😉
10^123 is a really large number to be off. Also his scales don’t balance.
I was thinking the same thing. I'm guessing it was supposed to be 10^-123 but I can't believe that to be true either.
I think it was supposed to be "if you zoom in to 10^123x magnification, the thickness of this line is the amount by which needs to be off by". But maybe not since that's not a useful way to visualize something like that.
On the other hand, the fact it's an absurd way to visualize it might actually support it having been that.
If the universe was slightly different, it would not be exactly like it is now. What a shocking revelation.
Catholic apologists might be the MOST condescending flavor or voluntary stupidity.
"Imagine looking at all that Google code and me telling you that it all kind of evolved together on its own somehow."
Imagine me wondering what you know about the actual theory of evolution?
I've genetically evolved code I could not and cannot write myself in literally minutes. This guy doesn't know science, programming, biology or theology.
Well, that shifted quickly. Starting from science and religion can coexist, going to science needs to take a back seat to religion and not try and contradict the dogma.
I guess technically they are still coexisting.
Lions and Gazelles also coexist.
Oh, and citing a mathematician to claim fine tuned physical laws, is not compelling. Maybe once we have sufficient knowledge to have enough equations to work with, he can contribute more.
Wow, there really was no difference between this guy who "accepts science and evolution" and any other creationist. Except that he opened up with a lie about accepting science and evolution.
Is intelligence, reason and love beneficial to humans? Then they would be selected for. That would explain why they evolved.
Or it was Bigfoot, there are more options than just 2 . What about the magic teapot or the FSM etc?
I instantly noticed a couple of numbers in the list that made me raise an eyebrow. Avogadro's number 6.02*10^23 is the number of atomic mass units for each gram of mass.... this is a unit definition constant. What does it mean to say that if this was changed by the smallest amount then life would be impossible? The other one i saw was the Hubble constant and I think it was listed as 73 km/s/Mpc. This constant is the subject of the "crisis in cosmology" where two different measurements of the constant yield different values. So the standard candle method might suugest that the value is 73 km/s/Mpc while the cosmic microwave background suggests the value is 68km/s/Mpc. Nobody thinks that either of these divergent values would lead to the impossibility of life else we could figure out which value was right! I think the statement that if any of these values was changed by just a smidge then life would be impossible lies somewhere on the spectrum from farcical exaggeration to pure nonsense. Please come back when you have the list of important physical constants and what variation in each life could tolerate. Then we can look into whether we need the protection of the anthropic principle together with the multiverse hypothesis to rescue us or not.
We don't even know yet which of those constants are fundamental, versus which are ultimately a result of some of the others. So, we don't know how many constants there really are, we don't know if it's even *possible* for them to be other than they are, and if so, what the probability distributions of them are. In short, there is no way to calculate any odds on us having the ones we do.
These "fine-tuned constants" are descriptions of the universe, not sliders on a video game settings menu....
It's like "What are the odds that the word 'dog' is spelled exactly like the word 'God' backwards? Coincidence? I think not!"
"So what makes more sense? That life and intelligence and the ability to think and love comes from something that already has life and intelligence and thinks and loves or that it comes from ~sludge puddle~"
Well.. if it's so unlikely that something that has life and intelligence and the ability to think and love just happens to exist, why is there an exception on this for their god? We have no reason to expect that one entity like that existing is more likely than any other. That is basically one of the larger issues I have for all the usual points of creationists, you are just moving it one step further out, we have no reason to believe, if it was impossible to just happen naturally that it wouldn't also be impossible for a god to exist before all of those natural things.
8:00 by the way, all apes are thinking, loving and self aware
All simians, and probably most dolphins. Possibly some parrots and most corvids. I'm not even being exhaustive.
@@DavidSmith-vr1nb i wasn't either, i only pointed out apes, because this guy is religious contrary to evidence
I really like the video about fine tuning by DarkMatter2525. It shows the absurdity of the claim really well. ua-cam.com/video/jMYIl5b-paY/v-deo.html
Also while we are the most intelligent animal on the planet (probably) we aren't unique in the things mentioned. Other animals also think, feel and use imagination.
I think most people who have been around cats, dogs and/or horses can tell they can indeed show love.
Many animals (for example the New Caledonian crow) are capable of using and even making tools.
Bowerbirds make very... Well artistic structures to attract a mate.
And other species are capable of recognizing themselves from a mirror.
And rats have been observed demonstrating altruism.
So we really aren't THAT special.
And, while it's true we are the most intelligent species, there is no objective measure of why intelligence should be some special kind of trait. Elephants, with her trunks, are as unique as us, but because we are not elephants, we don't care about trunks as a measure of specialness.
Damn that stupid fraction more than 2. 🤦
One of the saddest days was when I finished binginge through DarkMatter2525's videos and was all caught up. 😕
HOW TF DID YOU GET A LINK TO WORK
@@ARandomVogon Good question, I don't know. They don't work for me most of the time. Seems to be at random. Glad to hear it's not just me then.
@@tessalyyvuo1667 off topic rq- I just discovered the Prof. (lol) and I am LOVING HIS STUFF! I honestly hope he starts feeling better because I am really hooked! (Now that I say it like that it's coming across as a bit selfish haha)
I always found the fine tuning argument to be a silly thing to bring up. If the constants of this universe were so far off that it couldn’t hold itself together, we wouldn’t be here discussing it. Since we are here, everything must be in a state of stability. Or, at least, stable enough to last as long as it has……
And the whole argument relies on a silly premise: that constants aren't really constants, but they can vary.
@@juanausensi499 Plus it's built on two lies about probability:
- if they weren't chosen intentionally by
@@CookiesRiot Agreed. I never understood the false dichotomy between 'intentional' and 'random'. Those two concepts aren't even opposites!
About the odds: it is not possibe to calculate the odds of a universe, because noone knows what constants, if any, can vary, and the ones that does, in what range. In fact, if odds are mentioned, that's a surefire indicator of the people talking making it up, or copying from someone who made it up.
Hate to tell you but the top astrophysicists all see fine tuning…..I think they know more than you do.
@@edgein8632 Hate to tell you but, in this issue, we are all in the same page: no one knows if what we call constants are in fact constants.
Every time I run into the fine tuning argument, I just want to bug them about what they actually know about advanced physics. Can they actually name one of the constants and show me that if I process an equation using a normal calculator that rounds off after a handful of digits, I'll get a complete useless result and the math can only be done with however many digits of precision they insist is needed for there to be a life sustaining universe.
My first thought looking at the animation was that this is Prager U, but 1) the people aren't blue and 2) it's not stupid enough. Prager U goes all the way to the stupidest extreme it can go to.
If only creationists always embraced medicine when they're sick...
To sum up how we went from dumb animal to smart human, it did not happen instantaneously. For example, we could speak for thousands of years before we developed agriculture and we developed agriculture before we figured out how to write. Besides, who said all animals are not loving, self aware, reflecting or reasoning. Most animals are not but apes, dogs, dolphins, octopi, ducks, crows and a wide variety of other animals show signs of these very human patterns.
Ah, the famous natural constants like Avogadro's number or the standard molar volume.
Oh ffs. We are here because the numbers allow it, not in spite of it.
Thanks for the video :)
We created number systems and ways of measuring physical phenomena. The numbers don’t exist independently of the people who calculated them.
The only reason these numbers are this "fine tuned" is because we've developed the means to measure them to this degree of accuracy.
It would be more impressive to me if we started creating units based on the constants being whole numbers and discovered that applying these to our known formulas produced the other constants also as whole numbers. That would at least imply a designer.
But this higgildy piggildy mishmash? Nope.
On a practical basis an atheist is someone who does not believe in an all powerful Gap.
"Even if you were a non-physical super intellect, and you wanted to bring a physical universe into existence..."
Yeah, hi. I have an important question: why? Why would a "non-physical super intellect" even WANT to create a PHYSICAL universe? What's the point of that?
Where else would they get a really nice hotdog?
Maybe it got bored? Eternity is such an awfully long time... ;-)
@@irrelevant_noob My point is that a "non-physical" super intellect that is supposedly all powerful could simply create a "non-physcial" universe. There's no reason for it to make a physical one.
@@Spar10Leonidas uhh, no, that doesn't really follow. Since it's already a "non-physical being," it would be reasonable for it to exist in a non-physical environment too... So it makes a bit more sense to have it want to test out what *_else_* is available. 🧐
Why physical constants usually are weird number. If It's was designed perfectly, what's the point of it to be this complicate.
Actually these kind of theists are a lot more preferable than the ones that just plug their ears, close their eyes and go “Lalalala! I can’t hear you!” every time you talk about science with them!
I prefer theists like myself who have no qualms with science and have no need for a god of the gaps. :>
@@willguggn2cool
At 4:50 the narrator basically lies about a fine tuned universe. There are not a few options. The constants may be related in a theory of everything. We may be one of an infinite subset of universes with life from a set of infinite universes with different constants. Extra-universe aliens may have created our universe. Our universe may be a simulation. QM might give a universe with a superposition of initial conditions which were “selected” to give our conditions.
Why do they always get this backwards...for some reason they always have it this way: these numbers are so precise that is they were changed life wouldnt exist, therefore someone must of made it so. When really they need to think of it as : of course these numbers are perfect for life because their values only life that could exist with these values would ever exist...
I might not of written that very well but im happy to try abit better if someone wants to chat about it.
Ofcourse these values are allegedly "perfect" for life, they're neccesarily the only values that can be, making design neccesarily 'unnecessary. Then life also only exists where the neccesary conditions already exists and no where else.
As life on Earth goes, our species can only survive on 'Well' roughly 8 percent of the total surface of the earth, the rest being mountains, djungle and Oceans. With only 1% of all the water on earth being drinkable with most of that percent locked in Icecaps and underground.
...
That's my take on formulating the lower part of your reply, you may adapt what you want as you care to.)
You brought up a good point, to bad theists like to look at that backwards.
The apparent design of these values is evidence against a designer God because they're the only possible values and no range of change or ability to shift is even plausible much less possible. 🤷♂️
And if you take into account that almost 100% of the universe is very hostile to life, the "perfect for life" argument falls apart even more.
Correct me if I'm wrong but these constants are descriptive rather than prescriptive.
The fine tuning argument is of no help to the creationist. All it does is point out how limited their god's power must be. If god needed to set those fundamental constants so precisely that means 'he' is operating in an environment that constrains 'his' ability to manipulate. God cannot be all powerful if even 'he' needs to set some dials to make things work.
@@susancorbett8155
They're descriptive in the sense they're our descriptions for commonalities that are for all intent and purposes neccesarily unalterable per nature.
I.e they're descriptive themselves but the effects are prescriptive to the best of our knowledge gathered as a species. 💁♂️
The idea of Bizarro World from 60s Superman comics existing somewhere is amusing
This derp peddler does not understand how people write software! We start out with simple boilerplate code for the foundation. Then we modify it and test the new code. We change what does not work right and add new features; then test again... Over and over till it works how we want it to work. THEN it goes to beta testing etc. When the end user sees it, it looks like a completed thing. However it is really just a transitional form because it will get fixes and be updated. Software also spawns other software (speciation) when people copy code and modify it to suit their own purposes. Basically, software evolves! You did a great job on this one!
The only thing unique about human animals is the ability to share complex ideas with each other. Everything else humans do are regular, boring, mundane, often below average animal stuff. The perks of sharing complex ideas include building civilizations, which is largely the project of promoting cooperation, collective security, and well-being, as well as (and often by means of) curbing, redirecting, or suppressing primal behaviors. In this context, its easy to see the usefulness of religion as a galvanizing force among early humans, and as a way of quickly identifying those whom you can trust, for example. However, its persistence as a formal set of dogmatic ideologies is not conducive (often antithetical) to a multicultural global society. Religion had its day in the sun, it's time for humanity to move on from this obsolete epistemology.
Avogadros number is just a random number avogadro measured to make the math easy. Thats like saying a kilogram is some magical number.
The chips fell where they may and people now think that means it was fine-tuned instead of just cascading into place. And even if we granted this premise, it doesn't prove his God or a God. Some other type of being could have done it.
This is how apologists work: argue for the higher probability of _a god_ and then hope you take the giant leap of faith to God. How to shut this apologist up? Ask how he feels about medical science vs demon possession. Or about the sciences of Egyptology and Palestinian archeology concluding that the 10 Plagues, Exodus, Wanderings and Conquest stories - and all the Patriarchs - are myths.
I can’t compartmentalize my rational brain to the extent required to accept science and believe in the supernatural without a lot more evidence.
There would be no life and no universe “as we know it”. Which is to imply that there would be no life and no universe period, but actually implies that it could be a different kind of universe and a different kind of life.
Code doesn't have sex, Mr Creationist...
@@mal2ksc Sure
All the constants are what they are because if they weren't, we wouldn't be here to observe them..
I'm reminded of the _"If we were one INCH closer to the sun we'd all burn up INSTANTLY!"_ people, and how quickly the conversation gets hostile when I ask them if tall people are all dead.
It's even funnier once you consider that the Earth's distance to the sun flactuates by 5 kilometers over the year and nothing happens
The world makes me think humanity is regressing. Then a Professor Stick video comes out, I read the comments, and it all gives me hope.
At 3:03 the narrator makes an error. The expansion rate of the universe is not a constant and is not really known. The Hubble tension is 2 types of measurement giving different rates. The Hubble “constant” is the current rate and varied in the past.
What methods did the "designer" use to guide evolution? Deadly cosmic & solar radiation; the O2 catastrophe; continental drift; worldwide ice ages; volcanism, mega-droughts; mass starvation; predation; parasitic infestation; pathogenic infection and 5 mass extinction events, the last of which killed off the Dinos and ~2/3 of all species and made room for mammals to evolve into primates and humans. If not for that errant meteor, we wouldn't be here. Did the "designer" see that space rock coming and let it pass? Did he/she/it hurl that asteroid at Earth intentionally? Or did that impact take the "designer" by surprise? Kind of a rube-goldbergy way to get to humans, no?
@@mal2ksc No. If I was going to call God an asshole I'd point to the millions of men, women, children and babies killed by God's hand & command in the bible. But it's all myth & fiction so it's like calling The Joker or Thanos an asshole.
I dont believe in god, or any religion for that matter, but i dont think that being religious or believing in science is mutually exclusive. There will always be things we cannot know or that we can't rationally explain, problems we can't solve or that don't have solutions (whether it be social, moral or even mathematical problems like Gödel's incompleteness theorems) , and that notion, that hole, scares people and so they try to fill it with beliefs (whether it be religious or ideological), with stories that we tell ourself to explain the complicated world around us. at the same time when you start saying that everything you dont know or that you cant understand can be explain by "god did it" is stupid, potentially harmful, and it opens you up to justify terrible and irrational things. Still, having contradicting beliefs is human. No one is a perfectly rational machine that knows everything. As long as we try not to restrict people's liberties, make policies based on doctrine, and impose religion onto others, i feel that having those non-rational beliefs is fine and it does not make someone an idiot.
This isnt an attempt to prove a god exists. Its an attempt to prove the god he believes in exists.
2:35 The fine tuned universe.
I wish this creationist dude did some similar stuff to Professor Dave Explains. His graphics, presentation, and voice are spectacular. What a total waste of talent.
Also, the end begs the question.. Where did God get his love, reason, intelligence, and life?
Great video once again Professor Stick!
The "Cosmological Constants" are simply unitary relations in light of the scales we established. There are systems in place where the Gravitational Constant, 6.673 x 10^-11 Newton-(meter-squared)-per-(kilogram-squared) is just 1. No Newtons or Pounds, no Meters or Feet or Miles, no Kilograms or Grams or Bricks. These, however, aren't useful for 99.99999999% of the things we do when we measure gravitational interactions... since we specifically measure in Newtons and Meters and Kilograms.
A proton has the mass of 1 Proton. This is some fraction of the mass of the NIST standard, a platinum-iridium cylinder called "Prototype Kilogram 20", which practically defines the tautology of 1 kilogram. This metal rod is 1 kilogram because this metal rod is defined as 1 kilogram of mass, and 1 kilogram is the mass of this metal rod because 1 kilogram is defined as the mass of this metal rod. There is a math-equation-definition thing that was used to determine this item as the standard, but that then relates this physical standard to the other physical standards...
It's not really any different than how there's Celsius and Fahrenheit as two separate distinct systems to measure temperature. And most of the world uses Celsius, while some of the world uses Fahrenheit, and some circumstances require a person to use Kelvin.
9:42
they aren't even trying at this point.
sounds more like a parody that something an actual catholic scolar would say.
this is insulting...
Sigh.. Computer code is in NO WAY equivalent to DNA chemistry.
alert !!! ramble :
this is a case of observer bias ( ? if thats the term ) , a universe which can have life can only be observed by that life, thus a universe without the ability to have life cannot be observed , the fine tune argument ignores the simple fact that simply saying that because the things that allow life to have developed on earth are on earth , that god must have made it , ignoring the fact that if we lived on mars , the argument would be the same , life simply happened to develop on this planet to the point where it gained sentience , life could have developed on a trillion other planets and died out due to inhospitable conditions and if we consider concepts like the multiverse , it could be that the chance of life developing is almost a guarantee , but simple minded people cannot comprehend that we can only see a universe capable of supporting life because we exist
I will never understand the religious.
Creationists like to point out the various physical constants and breathlessly declare that the chances of them being that way are eleventy quinttrillion to one against (thereforGawd)!
I'd like to see their math.
In the mean time I'll share a little simple probability math.
We can observe the number of faces of a cube die as 6. Thus when rolling that die at random we can calculate the odds of landing on a specific face (1) out of all the probabilities (6) as 1 in 6 or roughly 16.67%.
So lets apply that to the universe. We have observed exactly one universe with certain values. So with the data we have we can calculate the probability of a specific value (1) for a constant against the number of observed universes (1). I'll leave it up to you to figure out the probability for 1 in 1.
When I was a creationist kid, I thought that science would one day "catch up" to... er... magick (translation: evolution wrong).
This mindset is only possible when you don't really know anything about the universe yet.
I wonder if this guy noticed he made a positive claim (that if any of the so-called fine tuned numbers were to change) so it is for him to show that life could not appear if these differed from what we have. He might even be asked to show that any of the values could be different.
Of course, if a god created anything, and if that god was all-powerful, life could appear where he puts it whether the conditions are suitable or not. That we are in a suitable place suggests that we evolved as science says we did, then the claims for a god are less believable.
I think it would be funny to think of God as the ultimate nerdy worldbuilder. They have made universes before, and wanted a new universe and thought “I’ll make a whole bunch of laws of physics that I will constrain myself to for a challenge run, and allow whatever life develops to do cool stuff with those laws of physics” and then spent absolutely ages just making whatever laws of physics they could come up with before sitting back and watching with a bag of mataphysical popcorn to see what happened.
For creationists Got created all life within 24 hours that means that for at least thousands of animals and millions of plants that each consistst of billions of cells where you have a genetiv code of 3 billions of letters, God must have arranged EVERY SINGLE ATOM so that all lifeforms are viable.
ALL cells must have fitting genetic code, so that you can procreate.
And it is even worse, for animals that learn God has to implant these experiences into them. That means program in (memory) molecule patterns and quantum states for what is thought.
I can get along with a Creator God that tries out universes and sees what comes out.
But that "the universe was made so that THESE humans can live in it so that Jesus can come" type of God - that is simply insane. The amount of complexity and omnipotence is simply ridiculous
the only time it works is when youre a civilization with no actual idea of the complexity of the universe
Maybe it just couldn't have happened any other way. - T
Everything is organized or seems to be to us & we like to organize things. It all seems so complex & yet we expect that & see it every where. If organized was possible, would it not be better then some random mess?
I am not speaking only about a universe created. @@mal2ksc Regardless of god existing or not, is it better for something to be organized & complex or random? it was just a question because stick seemed to suggest that how could we know what 1 would be better to pick for a god creating a universe. So in the context of something we have created, what is better? The best way to know is to note examples & stick lists none so I thought maybe he would see & understand the question.
if there is no way out of the universe@@mal2ksc then why do some say "maybe we live in a simulation" & why do some suggest there is more then one universe & how would u consider what the future may bring?
I love how they need to equate evolution with abiogenesis so they can ridicule evolution as explaining that life came from mud, all to distract from the fact that the bible is the one teaching this.
Evolution and abiogenesis are directly linked and are made impossible for the same reason…..it’s impossible to created the required proteins to create life and then evolve life by creating new body parts by any random mechanism. You will notice in the definition of evolution you will find no mention of this requirement…..all you find is adaptation by mutations that degrade genes to change appearance. You aren’t educated enough to comment
@edgein8632 thats wrong
They are completely seperate theories
Even if we could prove that life began with magic that would not change a single in evolution
@@edgein8632 "its impossible"
What you're actually saying is an argument from personal incredulity logical fallacy. Unless of course you know absolutely everything there is to know which you don't
So what you're really saying is "i don't know how its possible and it seems absurd to me"
@@edgein8632also you're wrong
The Ecoli experiment proved a strain of ecoli mutated a gene that none of its ancestor strains had which allowed it to digest citrus
That was brand new information
@@drsatan7554 Pay attention for once in your life. I said BOTH rely on the same thing so are linked….the creation of proteins. U R too dumb for words
05:04 There are multiple types of mutliverse. The one we tend to think of is separated discrete universes with another value from ours along a 4th spatial axis or a separate bubble of 3+1 space-time as we're used to, but 300 billion lights years away from us right now in this universe (assuming it's that big) is a chunk of reality that we will never contact without warp drive and for our purposes is "another universe". The Visible Universe is known as the Hubble Volume. And there are as many of those as there are points in space.
Computer code does evolve. AI technology uses a selective process. I’m pretty sure CGP Grey talked about this.
The "Laws of the Universe" are descriptive, not prescriptive. They aren't required to make a universe. They are created by humans to describe what we observe! I don't understand why they can't grasp this concept!
At 7:51 the narrator seems to want to be ignorant! There is an entire field of science called abiogenesis which studies the origin of life. Evolution ignores this because it is life that evolves.
Prof. Stick knows this too. He just isn't getting into it this time.
The argument presented at 1:20 makes no sense at all.
If I'm an all powerful, non-physical, disembodied consciousness, why would I want to create a complex, physical, systematic universe, in order to foster "life", so that I could then imbue that life with a similar non-physical consciousness or soul? Would it not be so much simpler to just create any number of non-physical, disembodied consciousnesses? "Life" could be literally ANYTHING, including floating orbs of thought with NO UNIVERSE at all. It's beyond silly to tie a supposed tri-omni god to the restrictive laws of physics.
This whole thing is just the sentient puddle with extra steps.
"Imma create a universe with billions of Galaxies, each having billions of Solar Systems, just so I can have this cool Spinning Ball with walking apes on them"
- God, I guess
@@RealQuarlie If sentient civilised life is separated from us by even a tenth of the diameter of the Galaxy, our chances of even detecting each other become vanishingly small. Our chances of meaningful interaction drop off even faster due to the communication delay running into thousands of years, and the requirement for a technologically advanced society to remain politically and environmentally stable over such timescales is one that we ourselves have yet to meet.
The fine-tuning argument never made sense to me, because I feel it's like taking a consequence and elevate it to a cause without any reason to do so. Life is a byproduct of the constants of the Universe, and it's only one product among many many many many others. Why life should hold higher value that, say, Black Holes in that regard?
Also, for Homo Sapiens to be on Earth, for our civilization to reach the point it has, a ton of things happened "right": the Solar System formed, it is a single-star system (that is uncommon, most system are binary or even 3-star systems), it has four rocky planets, and one of them is in the right place in the habitable zone. It has liquid water on its surface, unlike Venus; it has an atmosphere that changed through Earth's history to have the 21-ish% O2 - 78-ish% N composition that allowed primates to live and prosper... We have tectnonic plaques, we avoided major impacts, we have Jupiter in the right position to shield us from most comet bombarments (whereas Jupiter-like planets are more common in an orbit very close to their star)...
I mean, Earth is very very very very very rare. If I were an intelligent designer and I have life as a GOAL, I would've made things like life is a common occurrence, and yet it seems the exact opposite. And also there are cosmic phenomena that are waaaaay more common than life, then I should say the universe is fine-tuned to said fenomena, rather than life.
Life is a consequence among many of those constants. It's true that if those are even an eeny tiny bit different there would be no life, but then it might also be possible with the same basis assumption that if they were an eeny tiny bit different, the universe would thrive with life to the point that we would have many neighboring civilizations (which we currently don't seem to have).
The "cosmological constants" version of the fine tuning argument is just a god of the gaps.
The reason the "cosmological constants" are constants is because they are values in the equations we've created to describe the universe that we have not yet been able to probe. It could well be that many of them are not "fundamental", that they are the products of still deeper physical processes, but since we don't know what they are or have a means of varying them, we have not observed enough to really figure that out. That's how we probe things - by varying inputs and observing outputs. Since we haven't observed the circumstances under which they do change, **we don't truly know what they are.** So discussion of why they are "constants" or whether they're "fundamental" isn't going to amount to much more than pontification.
Similarly, *nobody who uses this argument has a means of conceiving what the universe would look like if these constants changed,* because again _they don't really know what they are._ We can conceive of what these constants do for the equations that they're in, but the mechanism of the constants themselves is a total unknown. What would it mean if they were different? *Big shrug!* Could they total the same thing in the equation but in a different way? *Big shrug*
So in the end talking about how _precisely set_ the cosmological constants are is a bit like waxing philosophical about just how _orange_ a particular orange is and about how scientists don't even know how this orange was precisely calibrated to be as _orange_ as it is, and how unreasonable it would be to think that this orange is _this orange_ by chance. It's less about understanding the orange and more about being public relations for the goddamn orange.
The fundamental misconception is that they think that there must have been some INTENTION hehind the universe coming into existence.
It MUST be that the universe came into a stable condition - yet extremely diversified (nothing is absolutely identical) and constantly changing).
It MUST be that the goal of the whole "creation" is to create humans, so that there can be a subgroup, the Chosen People.
It is all a justification how special THEY are, that THEY are the reason for everything. That an infinitely powerful entity is obsessed by them, made them, coaches them, watches them 24/7, reads their every thought, even in their sleep. OMG, must they be insanely important -
insane, agreed, but REALLY important compared to this gigantic universe?
The alternative, that the universe just is as it is, and that all just randomly happens, and we are just a (lucky???) chance result - that is intolerable for them.
Even when there is a God, he must be bored stiff in his eternity. Making a plan that then is slavishly followed til the end cannot be fun, is just as boring.
Way more sense for entertainment is that he created something where he himself does not know the outcome, so that he can watch and be surprised at what happens.
But that is also not tolerable for christians, as that would mean there is no dictate from God how we MUST be, no ruler that controls everything.
And christians WANT to be ruled (by God or Trump or Hitler or...), they WANT a rigid framework defining exactly how to behave. Because that relieves them from that horrible self-responsibility, that scourge that you have to do your own decisions, and that could go wrong, and no one is to blame but you yourself.
With God, just follow the rules, and you cannot fail. You are innocent. God has the responsibility. And when your life goes down the drain, then it is God's will and not your stupidity.
Religion is a wonderful exxuse for laziness, not wanting to learn, not wanting to think, for vanity, arrogance, feeling superior.
If I move to Guadalajara from East Cambridge, the universe as we know it will cease to exist.
Pretty silly argument if you ask me, creationists.
They ask if it make more sense that life came from life pointimg at god as that life it came from. Problem is that the God modern Christians claim does not match any of the definitions of life we have.
Professor Stick, lol, I'm halfway through. This sounds like a video by the 'kings of cherrypicking' fallacy fellowship. Sounds like they cherrypick science and religion! And fallacies, God of gaps, puddle analogy, oh, and personal incredulity. And lol, if you took out writing, all their other 'human' stuff also fits Sperm Whales! 👍💙💖💙🥰✌
4:51 or… these numbers just are what they are…
If one number was different, somethings would be different. Maybe a few things, maybe big things.
Why do crazy religious people frequently talk so slowly?
- I'm always baffled when a religious person is a scientists or vice versa. For example, Destin of SmarterEveryday or James of ActionLab. I just can't fathom how they can reconcile the cognitive-dissonance. 🤔
- 6:10 Um, where'd they get that information? 🤨 And how are they defining "Google"? Google the search-engine was written by two people in their spare-time while in uni from 1996-1998. (Technically, most of it was written by one guy, Scott Hassan.)
Even Ken Ham cherry picks the bible.
About 6:27 I looked at the genetic code. I stopped the video. A goes with T. C goes with G. And this, *ahem* person who made the video didn't look up how the nucleotides fit together.
Evidence for a multiverse? No.
Oh, you deleted the comment that I destroyed and made another one for me to destroy
Thank you
A multiverse must possess at least one universe by definition
The existence of one universe is evidence for the multiverse
It doesn't not, however constitute proof
@@drsatan3231
I'm curious. Where in the world did you get the silly idea that I was religious?
@@scientiousoh, are you not?
My mistake then. You're still wrong though
@@drsatan3231
I'm probably the last person on the planet you should think of as religious. You are perfectly free to hold onto your ideas as long as you can. You may find comfort in them.