Maybe, but he really declined as he went on, so those books wouldn't be any good. For instance, did you READ the later foundation books? They SUCK! It just degenerated into essentially an epilogue of his usual robot theme, and a below average robot story at that. The story should have ended with the legacy of the mule but no, he had to try to tie it together to ride on the coattails of the success of 2 separate earlier creations of his. His best stuff was when he was young.
I shouldn't be surprised that a guy who envisioned a global network of computers in one of his first essays long before any computers existed could see the dangers of creationism before most others realized how bad it could become.
@@insanetester1015 I'm pretty sure every time a religion was started it at least seemed insane to most people around and probably seemed dangerous too. Judaism: So, you say cutting of the foreskin of baby boys will make your god happy? Rome: OK, so Zeus came to Europa in the form of a bull? And she went with him and had 3 sons? Right Christianity: Jesus died for our sins? So, he's dead? No? How does this work again? (I would have used something from Hinduism or Zoroastrianism but I don't really know them that well)
, The "National Center for Science Education" (NCSE) is the only group that I know of that actually fights for the banning of teaching ID/Creationism in public schools...and they've been at it since 1981- with notable success, especially in: Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005).
AGNOSSI There's also groups like Americans United For the Separation of and State that has done a good job with that as well, but they haven't done anywhere near as much as NCSE
* * * He is one of the very few... or perhaps the ONLY ... author to have books published in every Dewey Decimal System category... I love that man. . . His mother was amazed (his family was a Russian immigrant family) that he could go to a place and the people there would let him bring home books to read for free (the library) ... * * * Until that time. . .
I thought it was every category except one. Yea, "...except for category 100, philosophy and psychology." in Wikipedia. OTOH, www.librarything.com/topic/91374 shows 150 - The Human Brain: Its Capacities and Functions which sounds like it ought to be biology. A reply from that thread: " It's true -- The Human Brain needs to move to DDC 612. " The closest Asimov ever came to a book in the 100s was a book entitled Psychology Today by Jay Braun and Darwyn Linder. Poor ol' Isaac was relegated to writing all the chapter introductions and didn't merit full co-author status. He also wrote a foreword for In Pursuit of Truth, a philosophy festschrift.
The Robot series is pretty good. "Caves of Steel" is the first proper novel, but you probably want "I, Robot" short story collection. It's 1950's idea of the future, so be prepared to laugh at some Jetson's-style extrapolation of technology. "Wrist-mounted nuclear transducers" and the like.
I think "I, Robot" may be the greatest thing I've ever read. I love the foundation series, but it can't compare to the highly concentrated brilliance of "I, Robot."
The "everything is nuclear now" retro vision of the future (which is also prominent in foundation) just added to the experience IMO. I guess you could describe it as the "real" version of the parody they made for Fallout. It gave me some slightly similar vibes to another favorite of mine - Frank Herbert (Dune) I guess it is easy to forget just how much our perspective and technology has really changed since those books were written. Thanks for the reply, and keep up the quality work on this channel :)
He did, but at the time, and I was a toddler... well at the time his Sci-Fi persona just let that warning wash over folks as a Sci-Fi warning. He also warned of A.I. too... so I better be careful what I do with Tensorflow .... lol
Maybe you should stop accusing everyone who does not agree with you that they are working for the fossil fuel industry and open your mind a little bit. I know the real science and the real science says that the sun is the main driver of climate change. We are no longer warming we are entering a cooling phase because of the sun. Yea how about that that huge star that we rotate around actually has an effect on us. And also there is no masses of evidence. Haven't you heard the top scientist associated with climate change have just put out a paper stating that they over estimated the effects of CO2 by 50%. Here is some real science for you. ua-cam.com/video/jGj4Q0ZxR1c/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/MS0qLhqaZDM/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/Bl4fVY2d5ok/v-deo.html 3 videos to wake you up.
ryler05 I don't think you do understand the science if you're still talking about how the sun is the main driver of climate. If that's true, then why is the temperature rising during times when solar output is in decline. Potholer 54 has excellent refutations to all of these objections. So does Thunderfoot and many others. Also, it's kind of funny that you're writing this comment in 2016, the hottest year on record since 2015, which is the hottest year on record since 2014, which was also the hottest year on record. But if you want to do it by decades, the 80's was the hottest decade on record until the 90's, also the hottest decade on record until the 00's, the hottest decade on record and now the teens is once again the hottest decade on record. I honestly hope you can reconcile the fact that you've just been misinformed. There's really no question about this and honest climate "skeptics" as they like to be called, admit this. They now usually go with the premise that it's not going to be that bad but facts are facts and there's no question that the earth is getting warmer and it's hotter than it's ever been on record and there is a correlation between the expansion of industry and rise in temperature. And no, that doesn't necessarily mean that the temperature rise is caused by the expansion of industry but it does mean that if you think there's no connection at all between temperature and human activity, you're wrong. I know that one sounds weird but it's true.
No, I just looked for and found this article here (www.triumf.info/wiki/pwalden/images/6/6d/The_end.pdf), and it does not, it MENTIONS the burning of fossil fuels, but only to say that it can't provide the energy to fuel the current rate of exponential human population growth for long, NOT to predict that carbon dioxide would cause a greenhouse effect. The entire thing is just obsessing over exponential growth and overpopulation of the human race. And that, he was wrong about, because in the first world we have this little thing called feminism which teaches women to hate men, men to hate women, and brings breeding rate down to below replacement levels. So he failed to predict the late stage game plan feminism would have in store for 40 years later back in 1971, back then they were only just beginning the damage they would do to the social contract between men and women. It's only the 3rd world shitholes that are overflowing with human detritus, and when the rest of the world has had enough of them, there will be some wars to take care of that. But bottom line, Asimov didn't predict SHIT, all he said was overpopulation alarmism, which was COMMON at the time, in fact there was a star trek TOS episode about that,where they go to a planet which is just covered with people in a giant dogpile.
Time Marks 2:50 1. The argument from analogy 4:35 2. The argument from general consent 6:13 3. The argument of belittlement 8:10 4. The argument of imperfection 11:30 5. The argument from distorted science 15:05 6. The argument from irrelevance 17:00 7. The argument from authority
It appears to be getting worse, for example the rise in popularity of flat earth nonsense. And of course the USA is a seething cauldron of anti-science, conspiracy theories, fundamentalist religious christians, etc. And that barking mad mentality goes into the heart of their government. It's shocking and frightening.
The world was fashioned by the storm god Marduk from the corpse of the god Tiamat! I insist that our schools start teaching the Enuma Elish, and it's true account of the creation of the world in science class!
When in the height heaven was not named,And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name, And the primeval Apsû, who begat them,And chaos, Tiamat, the mother of them both,- Their waters were mingled together,And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen; When of the gods none had been called into being.
As a German I feel compelled to say that Germany is not a scientific backwater. In fact we are now Europe's powerhouse economically and scientifically. But we are very secular, despite having a state church. In Germany, religion is absolutely only in the private realm.
Asimov's quote is from several decades ago; at the time, Germany was still struggling with the aftermath of the Wall and such.... I think he would be encouraged by the advancement they've shown since reunification.....
The greatest tragedy of World War I is that Germany was well on its way to be "Europe's powerhouse economically and scientifically" by 1920 without any need for war. But the paranoid Kaiser saw enemies everywhere and decided to strike first.
@@fcolli8889 You do know that 1920 the first World war was already over ? And Germany didn´t start WW 1, were allied with Austria-Hungary, which was a monarchy as well back then. and they declared war, so germany had to join in? or do your schools teach otherwise ?
Love your style, love your videos. Always a joy when one unexpectedly appears. Thank you that in your current busyness you still produce one now and again.
As much as I admire Asimov, I've got to say I'd love to be a science teacher in a place where I'm supposed to teach both creationism and evolution. First I'd teach all the creation myths from all the cultures around the world, including as an afterthought if I have time, the Judeo Christian version. Then I'd get on with the science. So, this was meant to be a somewhat humorous comment if you're going to say that other teachers wouldn't do that. I agree and I was joking of course.
As a creationist before I started studying the facts from both sides, it seemed to me that there were two groups of scientists: One group that believed in God and accepted theism, and one group which hated God and wanted to find an alternative to God. I think it is important to point out to creationists that the existence of God has nothing to do with it. The vast majority of scientists reject creationism, and many of these evolutionary biologists believe in God.
And yet what everyone's beliefs are about unprovable things & what their hatreds or loves are & all that are utterly unimportant & irrelevant to the objective provable reality of evolution.
@@theultimatereductionist7592 The story of microbes to mankind evolutionism is nowhere near proven. All that is actual proven and factual is variation and adaptation within limits including microbe to microbe, finch to finch and dog to dog, all of which belongs to every model of origins.
Thank you for this. I recently began listening to talks given by Mr. Asimov. I am just discovering his humanist association. It's like finding out that one of your favorite lead singers also likes the same cereal you like.
The simple transforms to the complex all the time powered (possibly indirectly) by the sun. For example, a seed becomes a corn plant, a zygote becomes a baby, water vapour becomes a snowflake.
One of the best explanations of what science is (search for truth based on evidence) and what is creationism (mythology= religion). Thank you the great Isaac Asimov! Unfortunately some humans are devolving because their dogmatic religions keep them from thinking critically.
Thanks for this! In my life of 75 years (so far) i have read much by Asimov - but not this essay. Let's be honest - who could read it all? How did the man find the time to put so many words into print? I think his thoughts resonate with mine (or should that be the other way round?) because of an inability to understand people who's minds do not operate within the bounds of logic.
These analogies to the Earth being round and the theory of gravitation make me miss when even the most idiotic people we could imagine knew those were givens.
We already are falling behind. An increasing number of ppl graduating from our universities with science degrees are foreign students - and a good portion of those foreign students have no intention of staying here after they graduate either. We're fortunate that we still have our higher education system to bring in foreign students who want to learn, although as the prices for that continue to rise, we may reach the point where they're just too expensive for anyone other than rich ppl to attend. And all of this because we refuse to invest in the education of the next generation and want to continue starving schools for funds. We've long passed the point where public schools are no longer free. If we continue down this route, access to basic education may start to become restricted as well simply due to costs.
Why do people confuse second law of thermodynamics which makes a statement about increasing randomness with Increase in complexity, there is fairly simple curve which shows that even in a closed system with increasing entropy (I.e. Randomness) you can have increasing complexity unless complexity reaches its maxima
I have always thought, ever since I first started reading his collected essays, that his factual writings should be integral in some way, to the educational curriculum. Perhaps as an introduction to science class?
I think those closing statements are coming close to seeing their fulfillment at present. For quite a long time now, I've felt that a more poetic, but also perhaps more nuanced, statement of the situation may be found in Lovecraft's opening paragraph to "The Call of Cthulhu", particularly the idea that humanity as a whole simply is ill-equipped to handle reality (T.S. Eliot, anyone?): "The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but someday the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we will either go mad from the revelation, or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." Please note: this does NOT decry knowledge or science, but humanity's inability (en masse) to handle what we learn about the reality in which we live. I fervently hope that view is wrong. But, frankly, the longer I witness the behavior of humanity, the more I think it is spot on.....
My daughter married the Grandson of Isaac Asimov's cousin, he has 15 MORE brothers and sisters. Asimov's mostly married with kids, they number in the hundreds. My daughter's last name is "Asimov" the original family were also Chabad Chasids from the same Smolensk Oblast area in Russia 3 generations back. and 9 generations as Chasidic Jews in Russia. In 1966 or so I started reading many of his fine books..
How does this happen in the US? In Europe (I live in the UK) this kind of thing is unknown especially west of the River Oder. Your Founding Fathers would have been horrified that their creation would believe in unsubstantiated nonsense.
The tragedy here is that not enough people read Asimov. I am changing that...my son is 12, and his summer reading includes his first introduction to Asimov - the original Foundation trilogy. Join me by doing the same for your children.
If Yahweh created the illusion of an old universe, who am I to disagree? Obviously, that is what he wants me to believe Yahweh made the stars. People made the bible, ostensibly with divine help. It makes sense to trust the stars over the bible.
+C0nc0rdance Thank you. But, don't worry. I don't take any of UA-cam's fascist anti-free-speech politically correctness insanity personally. One day I will exact my revenge on all the scum in positions of power with my math.
We would be 100% AI slaves if not for creationists or anyone going against the grain, the grain is really a control system. At-least now we still have a chance to shut down the beast.
Where we'd be today is probably nonexistent because the human race would have been destroyed in a nuclear war thousands of years ago, or some other ecological catastrophe. So yeah, you're in a way right, that religion SLOWED DOWN the progress, but that may be a good thing.
To anyone interested in debating creationists, all of their claims have been collected, organized and listed by content and are numbered. It is presented by _Talk Origins_ and is used in graduate programs in several colleges. It is titled - _Index of Creationist Claims List_. *Enjoy*. ; ) www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Only just found this, a year late, while looking for an old Asimov interview. It's been years since I've debated a creationist. Life is just too short, and the effort too useless. But after looking through that reference, I've decided that it's the best I have seen, and bookmarked it. If I ever get wrapped around that axle again, it might at least help minimize the time wasted. Possibly to the extent of just sending the URL, while mentioning that, "Whatever your argument(s), it's likely that they have already failed so often that they appear in an actual *catalog of failure*."
, Truth. Well said, and well presented (especially your rendition of Thermo 2nd Law + the inculcation of Fear and Guilt on the young). Thank you C0nc0rdance.
Whenever someone talks about the definition of theory, I have to point out that yes, even scientists use "theory" in the colloquial hypothesis sense. Commonly. So, it is simply not accurate to say that "scientists mean a 'real' theory when they use the word 'theory'". I wish a different word was used.
We still need to exterminate & kill anyone (chriturds, AGW deniers) who hypernanolawyers/cherrypicks / quotemines scientists' words ignoring the massive bulk of what they say.
I've seen creationaist down in La Jolla . . . asking questions of "did god create the universe" or something like that. I mean they're down there asking lots of non-scientists these questions. They're not doing science; they're just sitting there. . . . they seem insecure; like if they don't convert people to their religion, then they're god will die.
Never try to teach a pig to sing . This wastes your time , and annoys the pig . Sorry ; but , it seems that things have gotten worse in terms of the number of irrational people . These same people don't believe in climate change or evolution . I miss Asimov . Too bad he could not have lived longer and kept writing books . I loved both his fiction and nonfiction .
The second law of thermo-dynamics argument used by creationists is possibly one of the dumbest one I hear used (in a collection of already severely dumb arguments). The second law is about closed systems moving towards entropy. If we applied the law as creationists do (i.e. ignoring the "closed system" part of it) then it would make a mockery of even easily relatable everyday activities. For one, nothing would ever be capable of getting hotter. Microwaving your dinner? Sorry - that clearly breaks the second law of thermodynamics. This is absurd for your dinner in exactly the same way that it is absurd for the earth and it's contents - neither the microwave or the earth are closed systems. In practice very few systems are. Arguing the second law of thermo dynamics in this way is not something you can do by accident or benign misunderstanding - it can only be a result of either blindly parroting someone else and being ignorant of or willfully ignoring the meaning of what you are saying, since actually trying to apply this "creationist version" of the law produces obviously false absurdities. Maybe this is meant to stump people who just have no idea what the second law actually is... but the basics of it is not very complicated and I think that anyone past highschool are quite capable of getting the gist of it in a trivial amount of time, so ignorance isn't much of an excuse. This isn't relativity or quantum theory...
Dan Barker in his great book "Godless" says whenever a creationist brings up the second law of thermodynamics, he always asks them if they know how many laws of thermodynamics there are. The most entertaining answer he got in a debate was when a creationist said "Well, I know there are at least two!"
It's always tripped me out when creationists use this line of argument. Cuz if it was true, how would a single-cell human ever develop into an organism with trillions of cells? I've never received a good answer to that question.
+teh y And that is why no one takes you seriously, shithead. You insult ixtl guul for merely citing SOMEONE ELSE'S experience (Dan Barker) with arrogant creationist shitheads.
The fundamental issue with the clockmaker's dilemma is that it is predicated on the notion that complex objects like pocketwatches simply emerge into existence randomly from a previous nonexistence without predecessors, just as man supposedly emerged complete owing to divine creation. We know this is not so. It took generations of human societies operating from simple principles and then, after tinkering, evincing and syncretising information from various disciplines into the development process, gradually building upon incipient designs until eventually modern watches appear. There is a long period of time spanning between the emergence of rudimentary sundials to the sophisticated engineering developments that make modern Swiss movements possible, a process of gradually emerging complexity building upon simpler forms that you might even call a (gasp) evolution.
Yes. From his 1944 book "What Is Life": "How does the living organism avoid decay? The obvious answer is: By eating, drinking, breathing and (in the case of plants) assimilating. The technical term is metabolism." You can find the original here: www.whatislife.ie/downloads/What-is-Life.pdf
Creationist: "Thermodynamics disproves evolution!" Sane Person: "Why?" Creationist: "Things tend toward disorder, evolution creates complexity, therefore evolution is not possible." Sane Person: "Well in that case things tend toward disorder, you yourself were a product of increasing complexity... so you are not possible either!" Creationist: "Its a scientific fact!" Sane Person: "So is 'thermodynamic equilibrium' which means that its WORK in a system increasing complexity that increases entropy, not to mention theres this huge ball of gas in the sky called a Sun, you'll notice it hasn't dissipated yet." Creationist: "You don't know what your talking about! The sun has nothing to do with it?" Sane Person: "Interesting you say that when you are insisting you don't exist! Can I suggest a book called *On a Universal Tendency in Nature to the Dissipation of Mechanical Energy* Creationist: "No thats just a lie, scientists are liars!" Sane Person: "Well that's the book that outlines thermodynamics by lord Kelvin! Its free on Gutenberg and it'll bring you up to the mid nineteenth century there. " Creationist: "I'm going to change the subject now!" Sane Person: "Sure, you go ahead, I'm sure theres lots more you haven't a clue about!"
Ok, let's play this game, I am "Creationist" and you are "Sane Person". But this time, without Creationist that originated from your imagination. Sane Person: "Well in that case things tend toward disorder, you yourself were a product of increasing complexity... so you are not possible either!" Creationist: I am the product of pre-existing cellular machinery and information written in the DNA. Here, we are discussing whether or not evolution is capable to create cellular machinery and DNA(complexity). We are not disscusing whether or not pre-existing cellular machinery and DNA are capable to produce me(complexity).
7 років тому+1
Hmm, no Mickelodian is more accurate. Your statement may be a different statement but it amounts to the same in the end. Evolution is a fact, how it works is the theory which is backed by evidence from many different fields of other sciences (as thats a requirement for an idea to become a theory to begin with), and not one ounce of "give me an alternative" will change that until your side comes up with evidence to even entertain the notion of a different explanation.
@@niwrad6096 That evolution occurred is a fact, backed up by multiple lines of evidence, the largest of which is the DNA itself. The same science that can tell whose blood was left at the crime scene and that can tell if you're the great-great-great-great grandson of your four-greats grandfather. The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the fact of evolution that we observe. It states, basically that life forms pass their genetic information to their children, and creatures well-suited to their environment will, as a result, breed mores, and as a result of that, creatures DNA will slowly adapt to the current environment. A population split by some event and in two different environments will eventually change so much that they cannot breed with each other any more, meaning that they are two different species. (Or two different 'kinds' as defined in the Bible: two animals are the same 'kind' if they can 'bring forth together' (have offspring, breed).
@@Tasarran Sure, that evolution ocured, that it is occurring and that it will occur is a fact. That's because evolution is an observable natural process, just like wind, rain, fog, radiation or any other process that changes living or non-living matter. But, the IDEA, that is, the theory of evolution, by which evolution can turn a bacteria into humans is as nonsensical as the idea that wind, rain and fog can turn mud into skyscrapers. So, you must differentiate between the process that is observed - hereditary changes and their frequencies in the gene pools(evolution) and human idea about what this process can or cannot do. There's an enormous difference between the two.
In my religion (I know it's annoying but I am just putting this out there) we are supposed to get our own testimonies, pray for our own understanding, and learn of it ourselves (we also believe that children can't go to hell and that the ignorant will be taught about God and only punished according to their sins, which for many are very few, correct me if I am wrong). Your argument still is 100% correct, just telling how it has worked for me in my religion.
The most powerful positions against any religion that makes supernatural claims: "Can you demonstrate that?" followed by "What is the origin of that claim?" The answers are always, "No," and "Man's imagination."
what would you call a macro evolution? A reptile growing wings? feathers instead of scales? There is no such things has a reptile giving birth to a bird. I know this is hard because we are talking about a scale in time absolutely impossible to figure out with our imagination: Look at you, now look at what look your great grand parents. Notice how you are different in many things. Then take a look at humans 5 thousands years ago, their height, muscles etc. Look how different you are from people 5 000 years ago. Now think that this has been going for MILLIONS OF YEARS, sometimes hundreds of millions of years for some species. You look exactly like your parents, but if we go as far as even 1000 years in the past, you wouldn't be able to recognize any traits you have with your great great...grand parent. Macro evolution doesn't exist in the sense "there was one day a macro evolution, then boom! feathers!" it happened really gradually, you really think a reptile wouldn't kill his kid on the spot if it were a fucking chicken? What you call a macro evolution is simply a micro evolution that grew bigger and bigger in appearance with time: At first, animal never had eyes, the first fish had an almost useless things compared to what we have, it could barely distinguished when there was light or not, then it's forms changed a little, allowing to catch more light and distinguishing shapes etc. No scientist as ever said that a creature with no eyes suddenly got a weird mutations and got instantaneous perfect eyes.
@@unpassant6584 I appreciate the time you took to write that, but I'm not some ignoramus who doesn't understand basic science, so, look up the definitions of Micro and Macro evolution, as well as Adaptation (which is what you referred to with the grandparents example). Macro evolution which is simply one species turning into another has never been observed or traced, thus the missing links. I genuinely mean it when I ask of anyonee knows of one example.
@@emadbagheri About micro and macro evolution i was right, the second is simply what you observe after accumulating micro evolution (mutations between generations) over time: evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_04 evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_05 about missing links, because that is really not a thing. You simply don't have one being giving birth to a being from another species. that's what i was trying to convey with the grandparent's story. even basic research can explain that en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_link_(human_evolution)#Famous_%22missing_links%22_in_human_evolution And by the way, you MAY find one day a fossils that is between let's say homo ergaster and homo cepranensis. But the fact we haven't one today doesn't prove anything? Between each species we have found so far, we have a full understanding of the branch we come from. You may find a fossils one day that will prove there was another branch between erectus and floresensis. But that would still not change a damn thing about the lineage found so far. Or you are going like in that futurame series when they once fight for every "missing links" to the absurdity of even differentiating every little change and when ONE fossils was missing, that would mean EVERYTHING ELSE is wrong? That's a non sequitur, because the fact you don't have a fossils doesn't mean it never existed nor that the link between the species it was supposed to be in-between is not real That's completely absurd: because you would be saying that the claim made about our ancestors and evolution doesn't allow that we don't find EVERY SINGLE FOSSILS (even when we clearly have enough to connect them all between each other) Now i won't pretend i know your view on this, but i think it's fair to guess that you go for the creationist view? Then how come you have such gigantic burden of proof for the evolutionists claim, requiring they present fossils until let's say every generations of living being is completed, but for creationism you ask what? that a book written in the bronze age said so? that you cannot believe it is otherwise? how could you justify such double standards i'm curious? (if you are indeed a creationist of course)
Today, 2016 October 24, is the 384th birthday of scientist & lensmaker Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, the Father of Microbiology! Thank you, Google doodles, for informing me! www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/10/24/how-antoni-van-leeuwenhoek-discovered-the-sperm-cell-and-a-rare/
Creationists are some of the most hypocritical and ignorant people I've ever meet. While in a discussion/debate with a creationist I worked with a few years back, asked me why I'm an atheist and why I accept science as true. I gave several examples and when I mentioned black holes, he immediately interrupted me and literally said this... "You believe a black hole is real, yet you can't see it, but believe it to be true because you were told about black holes and is written in a book" I laughed and told him I feel exactly the same about his imaginary friend and his book
they are not creationists, they are opportunists and there are billions of people at their disposal to take advantage of and they practice that diligently..
At the start of this easy, Aaimov said that Scientists say the age of the universe is 20 billion years. According to all the scientists I've listened to, they say it's less than 14 billion years.
or, you know, you could PAY ATTENTION to when this essay was written, and the prevailing wisdom of the day based on the available evidence at the time, which is how theories are built...
Of course, the greatest irony in all this is that the Soviets championed Lyssenko because they viewed his ideas to be more in tune with Darwinism, not that darned Mendelian genetics that dictated limits to the changes organisms could undergo. That's one point if any to be taken from the entire tirade. It seems that the threat that creationism poses is the rejection of Darwinism. If that is all, more dire predictions need to be sought to make it appear more menacing. Ironically, it is Darwinian thought in the present seeking to silence all dissent and establish an orthodoxy that cannot be questioned.
Lysenkoism (and I made a video on that topic you can find on my channel) had more in common with Lamarckism than evolution. Darwin was rejected under Stalin as British "bourgeois nonsense perpetuated by enemies of the people". Lysenko believed that plants had "wills" that purposefully strived for the betterment of their collective, self-sacrificing if needed to strengthen the germline.
The most common apologetics they use are the fine tuning argument, the first cause argument, and pascal's wager, and I find it unsatisfying that you didn't even mention any of them.
I guess we can consider each point individually to point out the flaws in logic. 1. Argument from analogy: This ended up being more of a point against ignorance. Apart from a few factual errors (stoning people to death wasn't a frequent habit of Ancient Greeks), it is sound, but also goes both ways. Just because we do not know about how something works or occurs doesn't mean that attribute it to a naturalistic force either. That's pretty much the exact same fallacy just substituting "naturalism" for a god. Any such claims must be evaluated on it's own merit. 3. Argument from belittlement: There is some merit here as well, but also obvious hot air in trying to describe Darwinism as "thoroughly examined." That is simply not the case, and I suspect this stems from one of 2 things, conflating established observations with speculation. For example, there is absolutely nothing concrete in the suggestion that reptile scales could transform into birds' feathers. No observable, verifiable or experimental evidence supports such a claim.....or that a prokaryote could somehow produce an eukaryote, or an asexual species could produce a sexual ones. Each of those problems and several others have remained the same since the start and have not been explained by any Darwinian mechanism. 4. Argument from imperfection: This one is interesting because it rests on the belittlement of the problems these "details" pose. Speaking plainly, problems with details can indeed invalidate ideas in their entirety. It depends on just how much one is invested in the ideas and what they find more compelling. For example, the fact that no mechanisms can account for a sexual species arising from an asexual one is a "detail", but one if impossible that completely invalidates the idea that gradual changes can transform one species into another. The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion that such a thing is possible, and "we may find out a way in the future" does not make the problem go away, especially considering it has remained virtually the same since Darwin first proposed his idea. This logically contradicts the 3rd point as well, and one would have to tread a very fine line to keep both "throroughly supported by observations," and "several observations contradict the idea" as being valid in their head. It can't be both. 5. Argument from distorted science: Okay, this one was really amusing. The irony must be lost on folks on this one if they don't realize that what is described is exactly what Darwin did. Darwin spent quite a bit of time explaining the problems he had with special creation, not providing any direct evidence for his own claims (because he really could not). One cannot disparage creationists for that if they would not also disparage Darwin for it. Darwin thought that saying "there are problems with special creation, therefore evolution must have done it," was adequate, so you can't really fault anyone who reverses that proposition if you think it is valid. 6. I guess this would be valid for the American Bible Belt, but outside of that it is clearly the opposite. "Creationism" or even any little dissent from Darwin is what is taboo. Students hear of Darwinism, but not any disagreement with it. It's not an issue of creationism being taught in classrooms, but students are not even given the idea that there are any alternatives at all. I guess one could say that balances out, but that only leads to confusion. Anyone who is truly honest (or feels they have a solid case) should not be scared of the alternative being mentioned. Fear of such tends to be a pretty obvious sign of insecurity. There's also a different issue related to that point that is completely valid: some use evolution as a means to introduce philosophical naturalism. That isn't seen as a religion in the traditional sense, but is definitely philosophical influence, not science. It's just as before a tactic that creationists were just accused of using, referring to a "creator" when they mean the Judeo-Christian God. Some in like manner speak of "evolutionary process" when they mean purely naturalistic force. Lol, there's also the expected reference to science as a monolith. No idea in science is science itself. Science is simply the scientific method, and the ideas and beliefs of scientists does not compromise science itself otherwise it would never change. Science is independent of interpretations of data through philosophical and ideological lenses, whether uniformitarianism or catastrophism, for example. Of course, there are more contradictions towards the end. You can't both hold that "observations only lead to one conclusion" and "observations are open to interpretation." If we are to speak of views that allow for no deviation, then Neo-Darwinism obviously qualifies because as just admitted, the overall idea cannot be questioned, only details are allowed to be. And then there's the confusion of personal views of the universe (uncaring and ruled by chance) with actual science (makes no statements on the nature of the universe). All in all, it's just the typical tactic of equating Darwinism with Science itself, but the two are clearly separate and independent of each other. So the "science" is scary speech is really irrelevant to the topic because Darwinism and Creationism is what is being discussed, not science itself.
The last part about various nations getting set back in science and technology seems a bit far fetched. Except in the case of China that rejected western science specifically, even hounded academics. Germany never did that.
The True Life of the Scientific Future is directly proportional to the moral integrity of the scientists who sincerely seek to know the Truth rather than to be known by their peers. Once all of the scientists are not self-concerned we'll have much better science, once and for all!
I grew up in the early 60's under the regime of the catholic church, at the start of every school day we had a catechism study class, it was boring and mandatory but counted on your report card. our teachers had as much or maybe more influence than the clergy did.
On a separate but somewhat related note, I always find it funny when people who proclaim to be atheists use phrases like "God only knows" and "thank God".
Other phrases we might both use: "sacred cow" "Achilles heel" "Hot as Hades" "chaotic" and of course the days of the week are mostly named for the Nordic gods, and the months of the year for the Roman gods. The ancient Romans and Vikings don't mind if you borrow their mythology to make your language more colorful.
I would imagine it to be quite difficult to mind anything, when the last person to value such phrases for their religious content, has been dead for centuries. Current believers, on the other hand, find comfort in our difficulty to let go of expressions that reference their deity, or a deity that might as well be theirs because they believe there are none but it. I would argue to refrain of god phrases and find atheistic replacements, even if only to rob believers of their smugness when they hear an atheist use 'jesus' or 'god' as an expletive.
It's just a habit, particularly if one was raised in that religion or culture. Old habits die hard, and new ones can be formed. I might say "Holy shit!" in shock, but that doesn't mean I believe in a Divine Turd. I've said "Shazbot!" in place of "Shit!" on occasion, but I don't believe in Mork from Ork (though I got it from Tribes: Ascend anyway). I am also at heart a fairly silly person, and in private (or under my breath) tend to use nonsensical gibberish for exclamations or mutterings, but I've noticed that without thinking about it, I've sometimes used the same string of rubbish in the same context. I couldn't say off the top of my head what is associated with what; it comes naturally. In only the last few weeks I've incorporated various clicks into some phrases.
If Asimov were alive today, he'd be up to about 1,000 books by now.
Maybe, but he really declined as he went on, so those books wouldn't be any good. For instance, did you READ the later foundation books? They SUCK! It just degenerated into essentially an epilogue of his usual robot theme, and a below average robot story at that. The story should have ended with the legacy of the mule but no, he had to try to tie it together to ride on the coattails of the success of 2 separate earlier creations of his. His best stuff was when he was young.
And very old
@@medexamtoolscom Asimov was ALSO known for his non-fiction books - many of them. So far as the fiction goes, THAT comes down to personal tastes.
Asimov vs Kent Hovid. Debate on modern-day debate. AronRa as moderator.
@@lordrupertfotheringay2671 he wouldn't waste his time
I shouldn't be surprised that a guy who envisioned a global network of computers in one of his first essays long before any computers existed could see the dangers of creationism before most others realized how bad it could become.
The dangers of religion were realized as early as Ancient Greece...
@@insanetester1015 I'm pretty sure every time a religion was started it at least seemed insane to most people around and probably seemed dangerous too.
Judaism: So, you say cutting of the foreskin of baby boys will make your god happy?
Rome: OK, so Zeus came to Europa in the form of a bull? And she went with him and had 3 sons? Right
Christianity: Jesus died for our sins? So, he's dead? No? How does this work again?
(I would have used something from Hinduism or Zoroastrianism but I don't really know them that well)
I am so glad that you threw Pence into that mix at about 1:40 ish
My jaw dropped and my blood pressure went up after hearing him talk about evolution.
You should see him now! Vote Blue in 2 weeks!
,
The "National Center for Science Education" (NCSE) is the only group that I know of that actually fights for the banning of teaching ID/Creationism in public schools...and they've been at it since 1981- with notable success, especially in: Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005).
AGNOSSI
There's also groups like Americans United For the Separation of and State that has done a good job with that as well, but they haven't done anywhere near as much as NCSE
The Freedom From Religion Foundation
* * *
He is one of the very few... or perhaps the ONLY ... author to have books published in every Dewey Decimal System category...
I love that man. . .
His mother was amazed (his family was a Russian immigrant family) that he could go to a place and the people there would let him bring home books to read for free (the library) ...
* * *
Until that time. . .
I thought it was every category except one.
Yea, "...except for category 100, philosophy and psychology." in Wikipedia.
OTOH, www.librarything.com/topic/91374 shows
150 - The Human Brain: Its Capacities and Functions
which sounds like it ought to be biology. A reply from that thread:
" It's true -- The Human Brain needs to move to DDC 612.
" The closest Asimov ever came to a book in the 100s was a book entitled Psychology Today by Jay Braun and Darwyn Linder. Poor ol' Isaac was relegated to writing all the chapter introductions and didn't merit full co-author status. He also wrote a foreword for In Pursuit of Truth, a philosophy festschrift.
Asimov is a treat to read
I started on the foundation series. Quite unlike any other sci-fi I've read. Any other recommendation of him? :)
The Robot series is pretty good. "Caves of Steel" is the first proper novel, but you probably want "I, Robot" short story collection. It's 1950's idea of the future, so be prepared to laugh at some Jetson's-style extrapolation of technology. "Wrist-mounted nuclear transducers" and the like.
I think "I, Robot" may be the greatest thing I've ever read. I love the foundation series, but it can't compare to the highly concentrated brilliance of "I, Robot."
The "everything is nuclear now" retro vision of the future (which is also prominent in foundation) just added to the experience IMO. I guess you could describe it as the "real" version of the parody they made for Fallout. It gave me some slightly similar vibes to another favorite of mine - Frank Herbert (Dune)
I guess it is easy to forget just how much our perspective and technology has really changed since those books were written.
Thanks for the reply, and keep up the quality work on this channel :)
The Foundation series is really good
"And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night." - Matthew Arnold
Asimov also talked about human-caused climate change in a 1971 Penthouse article.
He did, but at the time, and I was a toddler... well at the time his Sci-Fi persona just let that warning wash over folks as a Sci-Fi warning.
He also warned of A.I. too... so I better be careful what I do with Tensorflow .... lol
We know now that human caused climate change is false. Based on bad assumptions from scientist. ua-cam.com/video/x36Tjgr7eAE/v-deo.html
Maybe you should stop accusing everyone who does not agree with you that they are working for the fossil fuel industry and open your mind a little bit. I know the real science and the real science says that the sun is the main driver of climate change. We are no longer warming we are entering a cooling phase because of the sun. Yea how about that that huge star that we rotate around actually has an effect on us. And also there is no masses of evidence. Haven't you heard the top scientist associated with climate change have just put out a paper stating that they over estimated the effects of CO2 by 50%. Here is some real science for you. ua-cam.com/video/jGj4Q0ZxR1c/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/MS0qLhqaZDM/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Bl4fVY2d5ok/v-deo.html
3 videos to wake you up.
ryler05 I don't think you do understand the science if you're still talking about how the sun is the main driver of climate. If that's true, then why is the temperature rising during times when solar output is in decline. Potholer 54 has excellent refutations to all of these objections. So does Thunderfoot and many others.
Also, it's kind of funny that you're writing this comment in 2016, the hottest year on record since 2015, which is the hottest year on record since 2014, which was also the hottest year on record.
But if you want to do it by decades, the 80's was the hottest decade on record until the 90's, also the hottest decade on record until the 00's, the hottest decade on record and now the teens is once again the hottest decade on record.
I honestly hope you can reconcile the fact that you've just been misinformed. There's really no question about this and honest climate "skeptics" as they like to be called, admit this. They now usually go with the premise that it's not going to be that bad but facts are facts and there's no question that the earth is getting warmer and it's hotter than it's ever been on record and there is a correlation between the expansion of industry and rise in temperature. And no, that doesn't necessarily mean that the temperature rise is caused by the expansion of industry but it does mean that if you think there's no connection at all between temperature and human activity, you're wrong. I know that one sounds weird but it's true.
No, I just looked for and found this article here (www.triumf.info/wiki/pwalden/images/6/6d/The_end.pdf), and it does not, it MENTIONS the burning of fossil fuels, but only to say that it can't provide the energy to fuel the current rate of exponential human population growth for long, NOT to predict that carbon dioxide would cause a greenhouse effect. The entire thing is just obsessing over exponential growth and overpopulation of the human race. And that, he was wrong about, because in the first world we have this little thing called feminism which teaches women to hate men, men to hate women, and brings breeding rate down to below replacement levels. So he failed to predict the late stage game plan feminism would have in store for 40 years later back in 1971, back then they were only just beginning the damage they would do to the social contract between men and women. It's only the 3rd world shitholes that are overflowing with human detritus, and when the rest of the world has had enough of them, there will be some wars to take care of that. But bottom line, Asimov didn't predict SHIT, all he said was overpopulation alarmism, which was COMMON at the time, in fact there was a star trek TOS episode about that,where they go to a planet which is just covered with people in a giant dogpile.
Time Marks
2:50 1. The argument from analogy
4:35 2. The argument from general consent
6:13 3. The argument of belittlement
8:10 4. The argument of imperfection
11:30 5. The argument from distorted science
15:05 6. The argument from irrelevance
17:00 7. The argument from authority
WOW!!!!!!
Such clear thinking!
Truly a brilliant video.
It is so sad that people are wilfully ignorant.
It appears to be getting worse, for example the rise in popularity of flat earth nonsense. And of course the USA is a seething cauldron of anti-science, conspiracy theories, fundamentalist religious christians, etc. And that barking mad mentality goes into the heart of their government. It's shocking and frightening.
The world was fashioned by the storm god Marduk from the corpse of the god Tiamat! I insist that our schools start teaching the Enuma Elish, and it's true account of the creation of the world in science class!
When in the height heaven was not named,And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsû, who begat them,And chaos, Tiamat, the mother of them both,-
Their waters were mingled together,And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being.
Yes! The earth was fashioned out of the skull of the frost giant Ymir. Teach the controversy!
You completly miss the point. Everything comes from the flying spaghetti monster. The pastafarianism should be taught at equality with creationnism.
Dirk - I agree with Jim Stafford, a Frisbeeterian. We believe that, when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and you can’t get it down.
I much prefer the Viking giant cow as the obvious starting point.
As a German I feel compelled to say that Germany is not a scientific backwater. In fact we are now Europe's powerhouse economically and scientifically. But we are very secular, despite having a state church. In Germany, religion is absolutely only in the private realm.
Its fascinating to see how the Germany of Azimov's time (and the rest of the world of course)was completely different than it is today.
Phoenix Knight
I didn't read anything from Asimov I must admit. I red Stanislaw Lem.
Asimov's quote is from several decades ago; at the time, Germany was still struggling with the aftermath of the Wall and such.... I think he would be encouraged by the advancement they've shown since reunification.....
The greatest tragedy of World War I is that Germany was well on its way to be "Europe's powerhouse economically and scientifically" by 1920 without any need for war. But the paranoid Kaiser saw enemies everywhere and decided to strike first.
@@fcolli8889 You do know that 1920 the first World war was already over ? And Germany didn´t start WW 1, were allied with Austria-Hungary, which was a monarchy as well back then. and they declared war, so germany had to join in? or do your schools teach otherwise ?
Love your style, love your videos. Always a joy when one unexpectedly appears. Thank you that in your current busyness you still produce one now and again.
As much as I admire Asimov, I've got to say I'd love to be a science teacher in a place where I'm supposed to teach both creationism and evolution. First I'd teach all the creation myths from all the cultures around the world, including as an afterthought if I have time, the Judeo Christian version. Then I'd get on with the science.
So, this was meant to be a somewhat humorous comment if you're going to say that other teachers wouldn't do that. I agree and I was joking of course.
Had some flashbacks to '09 listening to this.
Good to hear your voice again.
As a creationist before I started studying the facts from both sides, it seemed to me that there were two groups of scientists: One group that believed in God and accepted theism, and one group which hated God and wanted to find an alternative to God. I think it is important to point out to creationists that the existence of God has nothing to do with it. The vast majority of scientists reject creationism, and many of these evolutionary biologists believe in God.
And yet what everyone's beliefs are about unprovable things & what their hatreds or loves are & all that are utterly unimportant & irrelevant to the objective provable reality of evolution.
@@theultimatereductionist7592 The story of microbes to mankind evolutionism is nowhere near proven. All that is actual proven and factual is variation and adaptation within limits including microbe to microbe, finch to finch and dog to dog, all of which belongs to every model of origins.
Fantastic essay. Wonderfully presented.
Thank you for this. I recently began listening to talks given by Mr. Asimov. I am just discovering his humanist association. It's like finding out that one of your favorite lead singers also likes the same cereal you like.
1981! Sad it could have been written yesterday...
Well done. I like how you read this and produced a complementing video to Dr. Asimov's essay.
The simple transforms to the complex all the time powered (possibly indirectly) by the sun. For example, a seed becomes a corn plant, a zygote becomes a baby, water vapour becomes a snowflake.
One of the best explanations of what science is (search for truth based on evidence) and what is creationism (mythology= religion). Thank you the great Isaac Asimov! Unfortunately some humans are devolving because their dogmatic religions keep them from thinking critically.
Thanks for this! In my life of 75 years (so far) i have read much by Asimov - but not this essay. Let's be honest - who could read it all? How did the man find the time to put so many words into print? I think his thoughts resonate with mine (or should that be the other way round?) because of an inability to understand people who's minds do not operate within the bounds of logic.
Yes. I get SO frustrated when creationists say Evolution is "just a theory", not understanding the definition of Scientific theory. Ugh!.
Tell them to step off the edge of the roof. After all, gravity is “just a theory!”
Fantastic video, C0n. You are a fine ally in the fight for our future. Thank you, amicus meus!
These analogies to the Earth being round and the theory of gravitation make me miss when even the most idiotic people we could imagine knew those were givens.
We already are falling behind. An increasing number of ppl graduating from our universities with science degrees are foreign students - and a good portion of those foreign students have no intention of staying here after they graduate either. We're fortunate that we still have our higher education system to bring in foreign students who want to learn, although as the prices for that continue to rise, we may reach the point where they're just too expensive for anyone other than rich ppl to attend.
And all of this because we refuse to invest in the education of the next generation and want to continue starving schools for funds. We've long passed the point where public schools are no longer free. If we continue down this route, access to basic education may start to become restricted as well simply due to costs.
"Another video in progress." That really makes my day!
Why do people confuse second law of thermodynamics which makes a statement about increasing randomness with Increase in complexity, there is fairly simple curve which shows that even in a closed system with increasing entropy (I.e. Randomness) you can have increasing complexity unless complexity reaches its maxima
Because they are being lied to about it by superstitious nitwits.
I have always thought, ever since I first started reading his collected essays, that his factual writings should be integral in some way, to the educational curriculum.
Perhaps as an introduction to science class?
The monster of dark age is frickin coming back
given the results of the most recent election, this is sounding hauntingly prophetic .....
Asimov and I exchanged about a hundered letters. Great man.
Thanks for presenting Asimov's words. Always an involuntary prophet, our Isaac.🖖
I think those closing statements are coming close to seeing their fulfillment at present. For quite a long time now, I've felt that a more poetic, but also perhaps more nuanced, statement of the situation may be found in Lovecraft's opening paragraph to "The Call of Cthulhu", particularly the idea that humanity as a whole simply is ill-equipped to handle reality (T.S. Eliot, anyone?): "The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but someday the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we will either go mad from the revelation, or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." Please note: this does NOT decry knowledge or science, but humanity's inability (en masse) to handle what we learn about the reality in which we live. I fervently hope that view is wrong. But, frankly, the longer I witness the behavior of humanity, the more I think it is spot on.....
A newly-released 2007 video
I take it back: You didn't insult anyone or shill a product vocally instead of with a link-only ad
I rock it old-school, Jon. It's the only way I know.
Isn't that Sam Harris' reading? Why is he noted or attributed in the credits?
25:54 Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!
My daughter married the Grandson of Isaac Asimov's cousin, he has 15 MORE brothers and sisters. Asimov's mostly married with kids, they number in the hundreds. My daughter's last name is "Asimov" the original family were also Chabad Chasids from the same Smolensk Oblast area in Russia 3 generations back. and 9 generations as Chasidic Jews in Russia. In 1966 or so I started reading many of his fine books..
America, please excuse my strong language but what the fuck are you allowing to happen to the nation I used to look up to?
why does this have to be explained
I questioned god when I was six
Here, have a cookie.
How does this happen in the US?
In Europe (I live in the UK) this kind of thing is unknown especially west of the River Oder. Your Founding Fathers would have been horrified that their creation would believe in unsubstantiated nonsense.
Asimov left out one other tremendously important aspect about science & engineering that scares people off from it:
it is tremendously expensive.
The tragedy here is that not enough people read Asimov. I am changing that...my son is 12, and his summer reading includes his first introduction to Asimov - the original Foundation trilogy. Join me by doing the same for your children.
If Yahweh created the illusion of an old universe, who am I to disagree? Obviously, that is what he wants me to believe Yahweh made the stars. People made the bible, ostensibly with divine help. It makes sense to trust the stars over the bible.
26m29s "Our German scientists are better than THEIR [Soviet's] German scientists!" -- The Right Stuff
Your comments get moved to "Likely spam" for whatever arcane UA-cam reason ... I'll approve them whenever I can.
+C0nc0rdance Thank you. But, don't worry. I don't take any of UA-cam's fascist anti-free-speech politically correctness insanity personally. One day I will exact my revenge on all the scum in positions of power
with my math.
What method is used to determine age of earth
Just think of where we would be today if not for religion pissing on the fire of intelligence and reason. It boggles the mind.
We would be 100% AI slaves if not for creationists or anyone going against the grain, the grain is really a control system. At-least now we still have a chance to shut down the beast.
Why do you assume that AI will not be "us"?
Where we'd be today is probably nonexistent because the human race would have been destroyed in a nuclear war thousands of years ago, or some other ecological catastrophe. So yeah, you're in a way right, that religion SLOWED DOWN the progress, but that may be a good thing.
so he debunked the use of analogies then proceeded t use the engine analogy?
To anyone interested in debating creationists, all of their claims have been collected, organized and listed by content and are numbered. It is presented by _Talk Origins_ and is used in graduate programs in several colleges.
It is titled - _Index of Creationist Claims List_. *Enjoy*. ; ) www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Only just found this, a year late, while looking for an old Asimov interview. It's been years since I've debated a creationist. Life is just too short, and the effort too useless. But after looking through that reference, I've decided that it's the best I have seen, and bookmarked it. If I ever get wrapped around that axle again, it might at least help minimize the time wasted. Possibly to the extent of just sending the URL, while mentioning that, "Whatever your argument(s), it's likely that they have already failed so often that they appear in an actual *catalog of failure*."
,
Truth.
Well said, and well presented (especially your rendition of Thermo 2nd Law + the inculcation of Fear and Guilt on the young).
Thank you C0nc0rdance.
Whenever someone talks about the definition of theory, I have to point out that yes, even scientists use "theory" in the colloquial hypothesis sense. Commonly. So, it is simply not accurate to say that "scientists mean a 'real' theory when they use the word 'theory'". I wish a different word was used.
We still need to exterminate & kill anyone (chriturds, AGW deniers) who hypernanolawyers/cherrypicks / quotemines scientists' words ignoring the massive bulk of what they say.
for Christians, everything else is 'just' a mythology or a 'just' a theory.
I've seen creationaist down in La Jolla . . . asking questions of "did god create the universe" or something like that. I mean they're down there asking lots of non-scientists these questions. They're not doing science; they're just sitting there. . . . they seem insecure; like if they don't convert people to their religion, then they're god will die.
Exactly. Because religionturds are LAZY ASS FUCKS who REFUSE to do hard work.
Endless SPECULATING bullshit is all they can do.
Sadly, these rational, sensible words fall on deaf ears when it comes to irrational, senseless people.
Never try to teach a pig to sing . This wastes your time , and annoys the pig . Sorry ; but , it seems that things have gotten worse in terms of the number of irrational people . These same people don't believe in climate change or evolution . I miss Asimov . Too bad he could not have lived longer and kept writing books . I loved both his fiction and nonfiction .
The second law of thermo-dynamics argument used by creationists is possibly one of the dumbest one I hear used (in a collection of already severely dumb arguments).
The second law is about closed systems moving towards entropy. If we applied the law as creationists do (i.e. ignoring the "closed system" part of it) then it would make a mockery of even easily relatable everyday activities.
For one, nothing would ever be capable of getting hotter. Microwaving your dinner? Sorry - that clearly breaks the second law of thermodynamics. This is absurd for your dinner in exactly the same way that it is absurd for the earth and it's contents - neither the microwave or the earth are closed systems. In practice very few systems are.
Arguing the second law of thermo dynamics in this way is not something you can do by accident or benign misunderstanding - it can only be a result of either blindly parroting someone else and being ignorant of or willfully ignoring the meaning of what you are saying, since actually trying to apply this "creationist version" of the law produces obviously false absurdities.
Maybe this is meant to stump people who just have no idea what the second law actually is... but the basics of it is not very complicated and I think that anyone past highschool are quite capable of getting the gist of it in a trivial amount of time, so ignorance isn't much of an excuse. This isn't relativity or quantum theory...
Dan Barker in his great book "Godless" says whenever a creationist brings up the second law of thermodynamics, he always asks them if they know how many laws of thermodynamics there are. The most entertaining answer he got in a debate was when a creationist said "Well, I know there are at least two!"
***** lol, is it nappy-changing time already?
It's always tripped me out when creationists use this line of argument. Cuz if it was true, how would a single-cell human ever develop into an organism with trillions of cells? I've never received a good answer to that question.
They don't even accept the Second law of thermodynamics themselves.
+teh y And that is why no one takes you seriously, shithead.
You insult ixtl guul for merely citing SOMEONE ELSE'S experience (Dan Barker) with arrogant creationist shitheads.
Good upload: well read too
The fundamental issue with the clockmaker's dilemma is that it is predicated on the notion that complex objects like pocketwatches simply emerge into existence randomly from a previous nonexistence without predecessors, just as man supposedly emerged complete owing to divine creation. We know this is not so. It took generations of human societies operating from simple principles and then, after tinkering, evincing and syncretising information from various disciplines into the development process, gradually building upon incipient designs until eventually modern watches appear. There is a long period of time spanning between the emergence of rudimentary sundials to the sophisticated engineering developments that make modern Swiss movements possible, a process of gradually emerging complexity building upon simpler forms that you might even call a (gasp) evolution.
CC please? I find a combination of reading and listening to work the most effective and my ADD ass zones out if I only have one or the other.
Ah! I forgot. Will be up in less than an hour.
Yo dog I just found your channel and I really like all your videos. Could you do antidepressant efficacy or Vitamin B17 next?
Schrödinger described life as a negative enthropy in regards to it running against the universe´s tendency for chaos
Yes. From his 1944 book "What Is Life": "How does the living organism avoid decay? The
obvious answer is: By eating, drinking, breathing
and (in the case of plants) assimilating. The
technical term is metabolism."
You can find the original here: www.whatislife.ie/downloads/What-is-Life.pdf
@@C0nc0rdance Thanks Mr. C0nc0rdance :D
Creationist: "Thermodynamics disproves evolution!"
Sane Person: "Why?"
Creationist: "Things tend toward disorder, evolution creates complexity, therefore evolution is not possible."
Sane Person: "Well in that case things tend toward disorder, you yourself were a product of increasing complexity... so you are not possible either!"
Creationist: "Its a scientific fact!"
Sane Person: "So is 'thermodynamic equilibrium' which means that its WORK in a system increasing complexity that increases entropy, not to mention theres this huge ball of gas in the sky called a Sun, you'll notice it hasn't dissipated yet."
Creationist: "You don't know what your talking about! The sun has nothing to do with it?"
Sane Person: "Interesting you say that when you are insisting you don't exist! Can I suggest a book called *On a Universal Tendency in Nature to the Dissipation of Mechanical Energy*
Creationist: "No thats just a lie, scientists are liars!"
Sane Person: "Well that's the book that outlines thermodynamics by lord Kelvin! Its free on Gutenberg and it'll bring you up to the mid nineteenth century there. "
Creationist: "I'm going to change the subject now!"
Sane Person: "Sure, you go ahead, I'm sure theres lots more you haven't a clue about!"
Ok, let's play this game, I am "Creationist" and you are "Sane Person". But this time, without Creationist that originated from your imagination.
Sane Person: "Well in that case things tend toward disorder, you yourself were a product of increasing complexity... so you are not possible either!"
Creationist: I am the product of pre-existing cellular machinery and information written in the DNA. Here, we are discussing whether or not evolution is capable to create cellular machinery and DNA(complexity). We are not disscusing whether or not pre-existing cellular machinery and DNA are capable to produce me(complexity).
Hmm, no Mickelodian is more accurate. Your statement may be a different statement but it amounts to the same in the end.
Evolution is a fact, how it works is the theory which is backed by evidence from many different fields of other sciences (as thats a requirement for an idea to become a theory to begin with), and not one ounce of "give me an alternative" will change that until your side comes up with evidence to even entertain the notion of a different explanation.
How do you define the word "evolution"? Repeating the phrase "evolution is a fact" means absolutely nothing. So, can you please define it?
@@niwrad6096 That evolution occurred is a fact, backed up by multiple lines of evidence, the largest of which is the DNA itself. The same science that can tell whose blood was left at the crime scene and that can tell if you're the great-great-great-great grandson of your four-greats grandfather.
The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the fact of evolution that we observe. It states, basically that life forms pass their genetic information to their children, and creatures well-suited to their environment will, as a result, breed mores, and as a result of that, creatures DNA will slowly adapt to the current environment. A population split by some event and in two different environments will eventually change so much that they cannot breed with each other any more, meaning that they are two different species. (Or two different 'kinds' as defined in the Bible: two animals are the same 'kind' if they can 'bring forth together' (have offspring, breed).
@@Tasarran Sure, that evolution ocured, that it is occurring and that it will occur is a fact. That's because evolution is an observable natural process, just like wind, rain, fog, radiation or any other process that changes living or non-living matter. But, the IDEA, that is, the theory of evolution, by which evolution can turn a bacteria into humans is as nonsensical as the idea that wind, rain and fog can turn mud into skyscrapers. So, you must differentiate between the process that is observed - hereditary changes and their frequencies in the gene pools(evolution) and human idea about what this process can or cannot do. There's an enormous difference between the two.
Wow, that went from reason to terror quickly.
asimov is the reason i became an atheist at 12 years old
In my religion (I know it's annoying but I am just putting this out there) we are supposed to get our own testimonies, pray for our own understanding, and learn of it ourselves (we also believe that children can't go to hell and that the ignorant will be taught about God and only punished according to their sins, which for many are very few, correct me if I am wrong). Your argument still is 100% correct, just telling how it has worked for me in my religion.
that picture at 5:00 looks like a cell dividing monkaS
The most powerful positions against any religion that makes supernatural claims: "Can you demonstrate that?" followed by "What is the origin of that claim?" The answers are always, "No," and "Man's imagination."
The creationists have tried to fight science all along.
Then they discovered just how weak they are.
Now they take the fight to our children...Classy!
Is there a 'scientifically confirmed' case of macro-evolution?
what would you call a macro evolution? A reptile growing wings? feathers instead of scales?
There is no such things has a reptile giving birth to a bird. I know this is hard because we are talking about a scale in time absolutely impossible to figure out with our imagination:
Look at you, now look at what look your great grand parents. Notice how you are different in many things. Then take a look at humans 5 thousands years ago, their height, muscles etc. Look how different you are from people 5 000 years ago.
Now think that this has been going for MILLIONS OF YEARS, sometimes hundreds of millions of years for some species.
You look exactly like your parents, but if we go as far as even 1000 years in the past, you wouldn't be able to recognize any traits you have with your great great...grand parent.
Macro evolution doesn't exist in the sense "there was one day a macro evolution, then boom! feathers!" it happened really gradually, you really think a reptile wouldn't kill his kid on the spot if it were a fucking chicken?
What you call a macro evolution is simply a micro evolution that grew bigger and bigger in appearance with time:
At first, animal never had eyes, the first fish had an almost useless things compared to what we have, it could barely distinguished when there was light or not, then it's forms changed a little, allowing to catch more light and distinguishing shapes etc.
No scientist as ever said that a creature with no eyes suddenly got a weird mutations and got instantaneous perfect eyes.
@@unpassant6584 I appreciate the time you took to write that, but I'm not some ignoramus who doesn't understand basic science, so, look up the definitions of Micro and Macro evolution, as well as Adaptation (which is what you referred to with the grandparents example). Macro evolution which is simply one species turning into another has never been observed or traced, thus the missing links. I genuinely mean it when I ask of anyonee knows of one example.
@@emadbagheri
About micro and macro evolution i was right, the second is simply what you observe after accumulating micro evolution (mutations between generations) over time:
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_04
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_05
about missing links, because that is really not a thing. You simply don't have one being giving birth to a being from another species. that's what i was trying to convey with the grandparent's story.
even basic research can explain that en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_link_(human_evolution)#Famous_%22missing_links%22_in_human_evolution
And by the way, you MAY find one day a fossils that is between let's say homo ergaster and homo cepranensis. But the fact we haven't one today doesn't prove anything? Between each species we have found so far, we have a full understanding of the branch we come from. You may find a fossils one day that will prove there was another branch between erectus and floresensis. But that would still not change a damn thing about the lineage found so far.
Or you are going like in that futurame series when they once fight for every "missing links" to the absurdity of even differentiating every little change and when ONE fossils was missing, that would mean EVERYTHING ELSE is wrong? That's a non sequitur, because the fact you don't have a fossils doesn't mean it never existed nor that the link between the species it was supposed to be in-between is not real
That's completely absurd: because you would be saying that the claim made about our ancestors and evolution doesn't allow that we don't find EVERY SINGLE FOSSILS (even when we clearly have enough to connect them all between each other)
Now i won't pretend i know your view on this, but i think it's fair to guess that you go for the creationist view? Then how come you have such gigantic burden of proof for the evolutionists claim, requiring they present fossils until let's say every generations of living being is completed, but for creationism you ask what? that a book written in the bronze age said so? that you cannot believe it is otherwise? how could you justify such double standards i'm curious? (if you are indeed a creationist of course)
Today, 2016 October 24, is the 384th birthday of scientist & lensmaker Antoni van Leeuwenhoek,
the Father of Microbiology! Thank you, Google doodles, for informing me!
www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/10/24/how-antoni-van-leeuwenhoek-discovered-the-sperm-cell-and-a-rare/
oh ffs 50 years , shame , but not the shame of 300
10:00 Wrong! I do not drive a car. I ride the bus.
Other than that I understand and agree with your argument so far.
nothing short of brilliance or ......otherwise described, common sense!
Creationists are some of the most hypocritical and ignorant people I've ever meet. While in a discussion/debate with a creationist I worked with a few years back, asked me why I'm an atheist and why I accept science as true. I gave several examples and when I mentioned black holes, he immediately interrupted me and literally said this...
"You believe a black hole is real, yet you can't see it, but believe it to be true because you were told about black holes and is written in a book"
I laughed and told him I feel exactly the same about his imaginary friend and his book
they are not creationists, they are opportunists and there are billions of people at their disposal to take advantage of and they practice that diligently..
thanks for posting this
Where I come from, creationism is pretty much the default. Full high school science students debate evolution and deem it questionable or false.
Kept waiting for the part with Isaac. It never came
At the start of this easy, Aaimov said that Scientists say the age of the universe is 20 billion years.
According to all the scientists I've listened to, they say it's less than 14 billion years.
Looks like Asimov wasn't always right and that fact-checking is useful.
or, you know, you could PAY ATTENTION to when this essay was written, and the prevailing wisdom of the day based on the available evidence at the time, which is how theories are built...
Of course, the greatest irony in all this is that the Soviets championed Lyssenko because they viewed his ideas to be more in tune with Darwinism, not that darned Mendelian genetics that dictated limits to the changes organisms could undergo.
That's one point if any to be taken from the entire tirade. It seems that the threat that creationism poses is the rejection of Darwinism. If that is all, more dire predictions need to be sought to make it appear more menacing.
Ironically, it is Darwinian thought in the present seeking to silence all dissent and establish an orthodoxy that cannot be questioned.
Lysenkoism (and I made a video on that topic you can find on my channel) had more in common with Lamarckism than evolution. Darwin was rejected under Stalin as British "bourgeois nonsense perpetuated by enemies of the people". Lysenko believed that plants had "wills" that purposefully strived for the betterment of their collective, self-sacrificing if needed to strengthen the germline.
Not "the Soviets" (plural) but the tyrant J. Stalin (singular), an orthodox christian who observed the confession throughout his life.
Don't forget the Giant Spaghetti Monster. All hail the perfect strands!!
And the sauce of marinara?
The most common apologetics they use are the fine tuning argument, the first cause argument, and pascal's wager, and I find it unsatisfying that you didn't even mention any of them.
I guess we can consider each point individually to point out the flaws in logic.
1. Argument from analogy: This ended up being more of a point against ignorance. Apart from a few factual errors (stoning people to death wasn't a frequent habit of Ancient Greeks), it is sound, but also goes both ways.
Just because we do not know about how something works or occurs doesn't mean that attribute it to a naturalistic force either. That's pretty much the exact same fallacy just substituting "naturalism" for a god. Any such claims must be evaluated on it's own merit.
3. Argument from belittlement: There is some merit here as well, but also obvious hot air in trying to describe Darwinism as "thoroughly examined." That is simply not the case, and I suspect this stems from one of 2 things, conflating established observations with speculation. For example, there is absolutely nothing concrete in the suggestion that reptile scales could transform into birds' feathers. No observable, verifiable or experimental evidence supports such a claim.....or that a prokaryote could somehow produce an eukaryote, or an asexual species could produce a sexual ones. Each of those problems and several others have remained the same since the start and have not been explained by any Darwinian mechanism.
4. Argument from imperfection: This one is interesting because it rests on the belittlement of the problems these "details" pose. Speaking plainly, problems with details can indeed invalidate ideas in their entirety. It depends on just how much one is invested in the ideas and what they find more compelling. For example, the fact that no mechanisms can account for a sexual species arising from an asexual one is a "detail", but one if impossible that completely invalidates the idea that gradual changes can transform one species into another. The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion that such a thing is possible, and "we may find out a way in the future" does not make the problem go away, especially considering it has remained virtually the same since Darwin first proposed his idea.
This logically contradicts the 3rd point as well, and one would have to tread a very fine line to keep both "throroughly supported by observations," and "several observations contradict the idea" as being valid in their head. It can't be both.
5. Argument from distorted science: Okay, this one was really amusing. The irony must be lost on folks on this one if they don't realize that what is described is exactly what Darwin did. Darwin spent quite a bit of time explaining the problems he had with special creation, not providing any direct evidence for his own claims (because he really could not). One cannot disparage creationists for that if they would not also disparage Darwin for it. Darwin thought that saying "there are problems with special creation, therefore evolution must have done it," was adequate, so you can't really fault anyone who reverses that proposition if you think it is valid.
6. I guess this would be valid for the American Bible Belt, but outside of that it is clearly the opposite. "Creationism" or even any little dissent from Darwin is what is taboo. Students hear of Darwinism, but not any disagreement with it. It's not an issue of creationism being taught in classrooms, but students are not even given the idea that there are any alternatives at all.
I guess one could say that balances out, but that only leads to confusion. Anyone who is truly honest (or feels they have a solid case) should not be scared of the alternative being mentioned. Fear of such tends to be a pretty obvious sign of insecurity.
There's also a different issue related to that point that is completely valid: some use evolution as a means to introduce philosophical naturalism. That isn't seen as a religion in the traditional sense, but is definitely philosophical influence, not science. It's just as before a tactic that creationists were just accused of using, referring to a "creator" when they mean the Judeo-Christian God. Some in like manner speak of "evolutionary process" when they mean purely naturalistic force.
Lol, there's also the expected reference to science as a monolith. No idea in science is science itself. Science is simply the scientific method, and the ideas and beliefs of scientists does not compromise science itself otherwise it would never change. Science is independent of interpretations of data through philosophical and ideological lenses, whether uniformitarianism or catastrophism, for example.
Of course, there are more contradictions towards the end. You can't both hold that "observations only lead to one conclusion" and "observations are open to interpretation."
If we are to speak of views that allow for no deviation, then Neo-Darwinism obviously qualifies because as just admitted, the overall idea cannot be questioned, only details are allowed to be.
And then there's the confusion of personal views of the universe (uncaring and ruled by chance) with actual science (makes no statements on the nature of the universe).
All in all, it's just the typical tactic of equating Darwinism with Science itself, but the two are clearly separate and independent of each other. So the "science" is scary speech is really irrelevant to the topic because Darwinism and Creationism is what is being discussed, not science itself.
I think that quantum theory is probably more well established than evolution theory though both are without a doubt accurate to the universe.
Asimov is Awesome-O!
This is well done, but there was no instruction from NASA to read from Genesis on any Apollo mission. This was a decision of the astronauts involved.
I hope so.
Uh, no. It was included in the mission plan printed my NASA. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8_Genesis_reading
You're back!
Existence exists, acceptable or not, non existence is debatable.
20 Billion? Isn't more like 13 to 14?
The moon is made from Roquefort? BLASPHEMY!!! Every sane person knows it's made from Wensleydale!
Your links are not for the article but they are taking you to online gambling and creationist website.
“but some people believe the Earth is only 6000 y.o.” yes. 97%😂
Asimov is really smart chap.
The last part about various nations getting set back in science and technology seems a bit far fetched. Except in the case of China that rejected western science specifically, even hounded academics. Germany never did that.
Kids, they say stuff like this coz Religion is largely getting ignored nowadays, so you pay attention and argue with them AND THEY WIN.
The True Life of the Scientific Future is directly proportional to the moral integrity of the
scientists who sincerely seek to know the Truth rather than to be known by their peers.
Once all of the scientists are not self-concerned we'll have much better science, once and for all!
thank you
Great to listen to
an Open mind✨
I grew up in the early 60's under the regime of the catholic church, at the start of every school day we had a catechism study class, it was boring and mandatory but counted on your report card. our teachers had as much or maybe more influence than the clergy did.
They have the right to be wrong. We have the right to be right.
But do they have the right to be left?
On a separate but somewhat related note, I always find it funny when people who proclaim to be atheists use phrases like "God only knows" and "thank God".
Other phrases we might both use:
"sacred cow"
"Achilles heel"
"Hot as Hades"
"chaotic"
and of course the days of the week are mostly named for the Nordic gods, and the months of the year for the Roman gods. The ancient Romans and Vikings don't mind if you borrow their mythology to make your language more colorful.
I would imagine it to be quite difficult to mind anything, when the last person to value such phrases for their religious content, has been dead for centuries.
Current believers, on the other hand, find comfort in our difficulty to let go of expressions that reference their deity, or a deity that might as well be theirs because they believe there are none but it.
I would argue to refrain of god phrases and find atheistic replacements, even if only to rob believers of their smugness when they hear an atheist use 'jesus' or 'god' as an expletive.
It's just a habit, particularly if one was raised in that religion or culture. Old habits die hard, and new ones can be formed.
I might say "Holy shit!" in shock, but that doesn't mean I believe in a Divine Turd. I've said "Shazbot!" in place of "Shit!" on occasion, but I don't believe in Mork from Ork (though I got it from Tribes: Ascend anyway).
I am also at heart a fairly silly person, and in private (or under my breath) tend to use nonsensical gibberish for exclamations or mutterings, but I've noticed that without thinking about it, I've sometimes used the same string of rubbish in the same context. I couldn't say off the top of my head what is associated with what; it comes naturally. In only the last few weeks I've incorporated various clicks into some phrases.
+Drat okay! Well, science bless you!😀
Also, don't forget "goodbye" which means god be with you.