Ken Hamm Historical & Testable Science/Creationism | James - AZ | Atheist Experience 20.50
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 02. 2018
- Six day creationist. Historical science versus observable and repeatable science as it applies to evolution.
The Atheist Experience episode 20.50 for December 18, 2016, with John Iacolettii and Jen Peeples.
Call the show on Sundays 4:00-6:00pm CDT: 1-512-686-0279
We welcome your comments on the open blog thread for this show.
► freethoughtblogs.com/axp/
CZcams comments are at present disabled in our channel, to the displeasure of some. However, each video has a prominent link to the associated open thread that appears on our blog. In the past we've tried opening up the channel to comments, but we found that a very high number of episodes wound up being flooded with a combination of spam, long winded apologists, and various obscene or misogynistic comments directed at various hosts by people with an axe to grind. This seems to be the nature of CZcams comment sections, in our experience.
We do moderate the blog, the same way that we moderate chat during the show, as well as comments on our Facebook group. For comment sections that are "officially" associated with our show (and, to a much lesser extent, channels that may give the unintended appearance of being official), we prefer not to play host to straight up ad hominem attacks and bigotry. As a general policy we do not block commenters simply on the basis of disagreement with our point of view. However, we do prefer discussion environments that don't actively chase off more reasonable contributors.
-------
The most up to date Atheist Experience videos can be found by visiting atheist-experience.com/archive/
You can read more about this show on the Atheist Experience blog:
► freethoughtblogs.com/axp/
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
► www.atheist-community.org (The Atheist Community of Austin)
► www.atheist-experience.com (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
More shows and video clips can be found in the archive:
► www.atheist-experience.com/arc...
DVDs of the Atheist Experience can be purchased via:
► www.atheist-community.com/prod...
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
Opening Theme:
Shelley Segal "Saved" www.shelleysegal.com/
Limited use license by Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2017 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
Not even 10 minutes in and what I'm hearing is:
Jen: 1 + 1 = 2, right?
James: Right.
Jen: 2 + 2 = 4, right?
James: Yeah, I have no problem with that.
Jen: So 5000 + 5000 = 10000, right?
James: Well, we never saw that happen and that's not repeatable, therefore God did it.
Nosfrat Tirek Whoa dont use 3rd grade math you’ll scare them!!
@@americanpatriot8426 don't give them that much credit, my daughter is 6 aka just finished kindergarten and she can do those math problems, actual third grade math would really scare them, they are scared of 1st grade math at most
😂😂
Adam Vicari wow, quite a 2nd sentence....approx. 125 words!
Creationist: This looks designed so it must be designed.
Me: That cloud looks like a sheep. It must be a giant flying sheep
😅
hahahah
I just love the number of callers that start with claims along the lines of “I’ve studied evolution” or “I totally understand evolution”, then immediately say things about evolution that are so unbelievably wrong. What is it with creationists that means they don’t understand that we weren’t just an apple a few years ago? 🤦🏻♂️
When someone has his life philosophy based on misinformation, they can’t entertain the idea they’re wrong.
Precisely the problem with atheists
Because a dirt man and rib woman makes way more sense.
@@jeffreyp1855
😁
The caller cannot comprehend that seconds add up to decades or millimeters add up to light years.
Those sorts of time scales cannot be comprehended to somebody who thinks everything is made in less than a week.
Tick tick tick ⏰
John and Jen are good together. They actually allow the caller to talk, and don’t get riled.
Very calm, very orderly, very competent.
Actually they were a bit wet. Failed to challenge him like Matt does.
John's last point was beautifully made. He only thinks the cell must've been created because he believes in a god who can create one.
I used to use the intricacy of the cell when I was theist too. Forget the eye that's easy. How did a cell with dozens of organelles (co-dependent for reproduction and mutation) evolve? Answer: "we don't know yet."
@@cmack17 Or as the saying goes "Beware the fury of a patient man!"
@@francoisona No they weren't - rather than shouting at the caller or hanging up on him they were calm and rational and provided some excellent points. They showed that there is evidence for evolution from bacteria, salmon, moths, chromosome 2, etc. That the caller had a previous belief and was trying to fit the evidence to rationalise those beliefs rather than following the trail that the evidence leads to. Showed that there was no other evidence for a god so there was no need to insert god into the explanation of the evidence. Showed that science isn't just conducted in the lab and that we have evidence from disciplines in science that use different methods. I think they did an excellent job and their approach is much more likely to convince theists that their beliefs are wrong when they're presented with calm explanations of how their mindset is faulty. Great job John and Jen.
@@3960xRocks I disagree. Sure the calm approach is welcomed but Matt is far more effective at causing intellectual dissonance within callers. This caller thought that his viewpoint was legitimate and that he wasn't going to see eye to eye with them and thats all. Matt would dismantle his premise by doing his normal routine of:
1. Faith is the excuse you give when you dont have evidence
2. Is there anything you couldnt believe through faith ? So we agree faith isnt a pathways to truth.
3. You support a book that endorsed slavery etc..
Matt occasionally flies off the handle because he insists on rigour in thinking and intellectual integrity.
Those 2 let that dude think that he had a seat at the table of Reason.
He says "right, yeah, no totally I agree on that, but where's the crocoduck." You can't talk to people like this. It's his children that we have to worry about. But it'll be okay. His religion is dying out with every generation. There's hope.
barely.
It needs to happen faster, but yes, at least it is inevitable.
@@Chapterhouse86 I think it's pretty naive to say it's inevitable. Unless radical change happens my grandchildren will die as elderly folk in an America that is still primarily Christian, even if the rest of the world will be Islamic. And even when Christianity and Islam both die out, which I do agree is technically inevitable, I don't think an enlightenment from religion is even remotely on the horizon. Maybe in a few thousand years, a few hundred at best, if we haven't all killed each other yet.
Still despicable ......................
Why call atheists about science in the first place? If you want to know about science, ask a freaking scientist.
Matt gave a great analogy with latin and the languages that came from it. There was never parents who spoke latin and their kids spoke Italian yet they are two completely different languages that developed as well as many others that cant understand each other.
"I don't understand science and don't believe in it and I think it's unfair to call me anti-science"
If anybody asks me why I believe in evolution, I just ask them why they don't believe in the entire scientific field of biology. You can't reject evolution without rejecting absolutely everything we know about biology.
@@stephenireland3816 Wow, confusing evolution with abiogenesis already.
While we don't have full explanations of everything, we have no reason to appeal to an intelligent designer. Please give me one, besides your personal incredulity. Evolution makes predictions of what we'll find in the genome and what we'll find in the fossil record - predictions which have happened. Please give me a prediction from intelligent design which will distinguish it from evolution.
Behe had a couple of examples - all of which were shown to have evolutionary explanations. He is a real scientist at least. Can you do better?
Its funny but inthink Paul told us to avoid that thing called science.
@@stephenireland3816
1 Timothy 6:20, ESV: "O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,”"
1 Timothy 6:20, KJV: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called
@@stephenireland3816 You are not worth my time. In your very first post here, you show yourself to be so ignorant on what science has to say on the subject that you confuse evolution with abiogenesis. How can I engage with you in conversation if you don't even know the basics of the subject you want to talk about?
@@stephenireland3816 "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding."
Martin Luther, founder of protestantism.
what I find fascinating is that there's people that will more easily concede that they were "created" overnight by a magical being, than conceding they are a product of a biological process that spans millions of years of trial and error.
*Pedro Daniel* That's Religion for you !
It's awesome that we were born in the belly of stars.
*tonywhee* Try not to anthropomorphise astral bodies, that way religion lies...
Of course, because they have seen Yahweh create so many animals in labs. 😉
Stars need to go on a diet, because they have really big bellies.
If I can take 10 steps, and do so over and over... I can't walk a mile.. cause 10 steps isn't a mile.
Therefore macro evolution doesn't exist.
As long as you do it backwards. Then you'll pass for a true creationist. It seems macro evolution left them with a micro mentality.
James needs to look up Monotremes, an ancient mammalian species, that has weird characteristics somewhat reminiscent of both reptiles and mammals. EDIT: the world needs more Jen Peeples.
Ian M, Echidnas are my favorite. They are just too awesome and pretty cute as well.
Y'all Aussies got some crazy cute critters!
@caveman Versace and what does that indicate but that Indonesia has slack laws regarding endangered wildlife?
@caveman Versace Sad but likely true I suspect.
Don't you mean they share characteristics with the common ancestor of both reptiles, birds and mammals which would be amniotes?
It usually takes less than 5 minutes to get to the watchmaker...
JackDaniels10101 this guy obviously did not wind his watch
But who is keeping time..
@@mykehog6646 Is there any evidence to indicate something is keeping the time?
@@leongkhengneoh6581
Time itself is the evidence
@@youtubebannedme4207 evidence for what? A cow is evidence for a rancher?
It's just too much for a lot of people to know that no one made us, we are here on our own, there is no nobility or reason for our pain, and that we are going to live and die, just like all of the other animals on this planet.
Gus Grizzel yup
Couldn’t nobility be found in striving above all else to reduce this suffering for the current generation and those yet to come?
The plain and obvious truth. Most people just can’t live with it.
@Gene Scheel wormholes are now theoretically possible...
@Gene Scheel you were never "star-dust", and you will never be "star-dust" Again.
Bits of the chemical makeup of your body were star-dust at some stage. That's all.
When the sun explodes and vaporizes earth, the chemical bits that remain of your being will end up as star-dust Again. That's all. Nothing to do with you as a conscious being made up of bits of star-dust.
This is one of the best Atheist Experience episodes ever. Jen is awesome!
In 1991, Ken Ham came to my college 'Bob Jones University' and taught his beliefs in chapel for 2 days. He titled his one message "This they are willingly ignorant of" and he loved saying, "Were you there?" I remember sitting there in chapel saying, "Wow! Where are evolutionists? This guy is freaking awesome! This stuff cannot be refuted." Years later, Ken Ham gets his ass kicked by a guy he should have easily beat if he really had the winning arguments. By the time the debate was over was when I concluded, "Ken Ham is willingly ignorant" with his constant "I believe the bible" when he had no good answer. It's so easy to seem convincing when nobody is there to challenge your BS and I concluded that Ken Ham was full of BS. I later concluded that religion is full of BS. I came to enjoy freedom instead of that bondage I once was a part of. I used to call my beliefs "freedom in Christ" but was blinded that I was in bondage to stupidity . Once a person can finally be honest and will start challenging everything they were taught then believing the bible becomes very difficult or impossible.
These two are so patient....reiterating how evolution happened to a closed mind, hats off to you two!!!
There should be an annual "James Award" for outstanding patience in trying to educate and rationalise with a theist.
“I’ll accept any science that doesn’t contradict my religion. If it does contradict my religion it just seems a little fishy.... but not because it contradicts my religion... for other reasons.”
The only reason creationists invented this distinction of historical vs observational science, of which there is no distinction, is because creationists realise that they make proclamation about the past that are unsubstantiated and directly contradicted by well established scientific theories. And since these theories contradict their account of how things came into being they must outright deny the theories. But then they are stuck in this hypocritical position because they have no problem accepting scientific findings that benefit them that do not contradict their beliefs (medical, engineering, etc). So they invented this petty fog to save face by saying that what we observe now cannot tell us about the past. In this way they attempt to avoid the obvious hypocrisy of denouncing science that contradicts their ancient stories and accepting science that allows them to live to 84 or send a text.
I found a banana peel on my floor. I'd say something peeled a banana and left it there...
Creationists say that's historical science.. I wasn't there, how could I know. Therefore God did it.
Whenever a moron says "Were you there?", I just ask if they were on the ark. It derails that stupidity quickly, but then they move on to other stupidity... 🙄
I love the fact that this guy is calling in on a cell phone, using a computer, and telling us that science is not valid.... And that somehow there is a difference in science that directly conflicts with his religious beliefs and science that doesn't.... I wonder if he gets sick and refuses to accept modern medicine, which is based almost exclusively on the same biology and genetics he doesn't accept....
DrPommels Ken Ham includes in his cult material that modern science and technology are real. That's where the caller was going with making the "observable science" distinction (the hosts headed him off before he could get there). "I can see an iPhone or an airliner being made, so all the science around that is valid."
I know I'm speaking to the choir here, but the basis for the technologies used in all modern electronics was developed by Bell Labs and Fairchild Semiconductor using quantum mechanics.... I would imagine all of these theists would have difficulty understanding and accepting the underlying science as it calls for recognizing behavior that would likely conflict with their simplistic bible based view of the universe. Dr. Shockley knew the math said that electrons in a semiconductor (first germanium then later silicon) had wavelike behavior, and that understanding the implications of this for "state" allowed for controlling currents. Noyce and Moore took this further and applied this to IC's. All of this required that they not limit themselves to biblical "science", or even "observable" science, whatever that means.... All science is based on observation. We observe the facts of our universe, model the best possible description for why those facts exist, then try to disprove those models. When we cannot find a way to disprove them across a wide array of attempts, we call this a theory.... A theist sits in his mom's basement, decides he knows better because his bible tells him so, and doesn't understand why that is not acceptable to everyone. After all, his theory is as goos as anybody else's.....
Ham's drivel essentially is that since quantum mechanic physicists were not there in the garden of eden nor during/after the flood, we cannot know that quantum mechanics works then like it does today.
He does this for the stars.. The fossil record.. etc etc to explain away why the earth/cosmos look billions of years old, but are really only 6000 years.
The only real mystery is:
1) Ken Ham is really a believer of this non-sense himself.
2) Ken Ham started as a contrarian to secularism and slowly has adopted this belief as fact..
3) The likely answer... He is a Donald Drumpf, Joseph Smith, Muhammed, Prager, David Koresh type con man.
which is why it is so hypocritical for them all to use the very technology they are denying in order to post their denials... I imagine when his family gets sick they don't deny them medical treatment, which uses the exact same scientific method that allowed us to understand the fossil record, etc. But given their level of delusion, it is possible they believe in faith healing too......
I think this is the part we are missing each other on.
Ken's cult acknowledges how the scientific method applies today. When talking on this topic, he will run down a list of "our own scientists at AIG". He will also list off how inventors of all kinds of tech were also Christians, etc...
Just whenever a scientific method leads to an accurate conclusion that contradicts the "history" in the bible, he diverts to "well, you were not there... you cannot know that the process worked that way back then"
Nearly all these callers boil down to “ I don’t really understand how science works”
- also "and you shouldn't either"
"Look how a cell is functioning. That has design written all over it."
Tell that to someone who has cancer.
There is an Italian island where lizards have had changes in their jaws and stomachs since being introduced to the island around 30 years ago.
Please allow me to apologise on behalf of Australia for our most horrid export, Ken Ham. I'm sorry. Damn, I'm really sorry. I worked with chemically treated chilled water air conditioning cooling towers. We had to regularly change the chemical brew treating the cooling towers, because the bacteria evolved so quickly. Thank you for sharing.
If you were really sorry you'd come get him!!! Must be he wore out his welcome there. Or you are not as susceptible to con men as American christians. Thank you for your apology. We'll send you back your Ham.
Charlie, retract that apology quick before they send Hammy back to us!
I to am Australian and we promise as soon as he steps foot back in Australian we will arrest him for being a stupid ignorant fool.
Ham is not your fault. He's the product of a brain gone AWOL.
He is not stupid, ignorant or fool. I would bet he does not believe what he says and he is making big money from gullible people.
Gotta love the logic. If you open your heart and believe in God then you'll finally believe in God.
And you'll also have an open heart. Hey, bonus!
And don't forget that they have to stop thinking and just believe. :D
@@dieseljester3466 Nope you actually have to think to be able to believe.
@Kim Danielsen Bullshit. Pastors don't want you to think, they want you to follow. It's why the congregation are called 'sheep' or a 'flock' and that Jesus is the Shepard. Rational, critical thinking is looked down and questions are squashed in the churches. Even the bible says who are you to question god... meaning sit down and shut up (Romans 9:20). So yes, you have to stop thinking and just accept things on pure, blind faith in order to 'find God'.
I used to be a die hard Southern Baptist. I think that I might know a little bit on this particular subject.
@@dieseljester3466 Well said. I'm from an atheist background (a country where religion is "whatever") and encountering believers in another country where most are very religious, they are the most dishonest bunch out there. They will not discuss, they will not respect but will covertly mock you for being an atheist. Atheists in general are much more upfront, if not always nice about it.
I love it when they talk about "different kinds of science"; there is science....period.
One of the biggest pains is having a discussion with creationists, they keep on running in circles, its so god damn frustrating!
I kept waiting for him to say " were you there "!!!
As soon as someone brings up Ken ham you know they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about
I'm gonna call in and repeat my stupid point over and over again for 30 minutes while not listening.
He called in with some apologetics that he thought he'd try with someone who knew what they were talking about. I think that he was acting out his cognitive dissonance but wasn't ready to resolve it honestly so ended up defeated and not changing his mind.
They always seem to try to equate when they can't win. "You interpret the evidence one way, I interpret it another." No, it's not 2 sides of the same coin. One side already has a conclusion in mind and is therefore leading the evidence to suit that conclusion while the other side is honestly looking at the evidence and has a completely non-agenda, open mind about where that evidence might lead. Which leads me to my favorite thing zealots like to say to me, "You've just got to have an open mind." LOL, a lesson in open-mindedness from people who try to bend and contort evidence as much as possible to fit it into their previously reached conclusions.
Douglas Yeah, that could be the case. It could also be that he really was open to being convinced of the evidence. Either way it doesn't matter if he was honest or not since the end result was a long, educational call with a lot of creationist claims being stomped out.
@@psychee1 True, there was progress in that call.
Great Comment.
These hosts were amazing-super knowledgeable and thoughtful, but humble, kind and patient in teaching about evolution. Refreshing that there’s no ridicule for what others not knowing what they know.
I'd counter that, if people want to argue on a subject, they need to have some knowledge on it, which the caller didn't.
He's arguing from ignorance.
It'd be different if he was simply asking to learn, but this guy is arguing from complete ignorance.
As demonstrated by his statement that you don't see a mammal evolve from a reptile.
Poor James. Calling into the show is possibly a great first step. Keep watching the shows on youtube James, you can do it!
“I don’t agree because there’s not any observational science”
“Show me god so I can observe him”
“Ooh…. 🤔”
"Bacteria is still bacteria" is one of the dumbest statements ever to come out of a creationist mouth (and there's a lot of competition). Saying "bacteria is still bacteria" is like saying "animals are still animals". Duh! Yes!
Right, but one of the common creationist arguments is that what they call "macroevolution" (vaguely defined as evolution which turns one "kind" of animal into another - beyond speciation which could account for different varieties of cats, horses, etc.), according to them, does not occur. They may grant evolution on a smaller scale but deny the idea that one animal can't, through successive generations, can't turn into another "kind" of animal, that descendants of cats will always be cats, etc.
So the question they pose (depending on the speaker, either an earnest question rooted in their ignorance, or a reducto-ad-absudium to "defeat" evolution) is how one "kind" of animal can be thought to turn into a wholly different one.
And the answer, of course, is that it happens over a long-ass time, through incremental generation-to-generation changes, most of which, taken alone, we wouldn't even recognize as changes. It's like a color gradient. If you look at a tiny little piece of it you don't see the color change, but when you view the whole thing (which we can't readily do in the case of the whole history of life on Earth) you see the gradual change from one color to another.
18:31 "I just know..." Gotta love that religious logic.
"And on the third day..."
Hold on. Were you there?
"Well no. But God was there. And he told Moses. So 'observed'...once removed."
But Moses' writings include his own funeral. So maybe Moses didn't actually write Moses?
"Okay, so observed...and more than once removed. But it still counts under observed. Not historical."
But...historical. As in history. As in story in history and how we evaluate historical claims...?
"No no no. It was observational! The guy who my book asserts to exist, told a guy how it happened. That guy told someone else who wrote it down. That's historical fa...er, I mean observed fact! It's right there in the book!"
History IS just another of HIStories. Where else do you think the word came from?
In a modern court it would be overruled as hearsay. Yet these people still go by 1st century rules.
But the spooky thing is neither moses, noah or jesus ever existed
Like the sermon on the mount. Who wrote that down? With what. Onto what?
@@Frie_Jemi the word doesn't come from Gid it comes from the Greek meaning learned man
I don't know how you two put up with him so long. Love you guys.
I am on pins and needles: will the creationists caller apply his observational history idea to Creationism? He would be the first
*R Wm* No, ironically they're good at throwing stones...
+R Wm
but they have this appeal to A WITNESS (one that never takes the stand, has only left a shoddily written, error riddled account of what he saw and has shown problems with understanding what acutally happened ;-) And yet the YEC trust this "witness" without exception. Or what they think is his faithfully transmitted report...
Which witness to Creation are you referring to? Elohim (god/s)?
Exactly.
Totally confusing why they didn't need a "witness" for the creation of their religion.
@@chris.hartliss The Christian have many "witnesses" for the creation of the true religion.
Amazing how partially scientifically educated religious folks, try to seize back science to prop up evidence for their god. Furthermore when they are presented with facts and evidence not in favour of their god, a whole load of ignorant doubting starts to happen.
Whenever someone brings up that we can't know evolution is true because we can't observe it in its entirety; remind them that we've never observed the atom yet we're able to harvest its energy based on atomic theory.
True, and yet they don't bring the same standard of evidence for their God beliefs. They can't observe their God, and can't identify a single thing in nature caused by their God, yet they 'believe'. They hold 'science' to a much higher standard of evidence (actually, science holds itself to a higher standard), but no matter how much evidence is presented, they won't accept it.
his entire argument can be summed up as " I don't understand how science works therefor God "
I'm always a little perplexed by theists fascination with observation, as if science can't be valid unless it's something you see happen with your own eyes. There are many ways to figure out the reality of how our universe works without seeing it all visually. But I'm guessing none of them have seen God with their own eyes. Seems a little hypocritical.
They've also not seen atoms or up quarks or down quarks but they exist.
They also didn’t see the events of their books unfold.
I’m perplexed by most theistic conclusions and thought processes, as well. Sometimes things just don’t logically follow, but with enough embellishment and time, some people appear able to believe anything. (Time, or incredulity).
@@a1612 why just up and down quarks, why not strange quarks or top quarks, or bottom quarks (insert gay joke here) or charm quarks 😊
Where is Matt when you need him to shut down circular arguments?
He's out there. Somewhere. Shutting down circular arguments.
I wouldn't fault him if he was drinking and banging his head on a wall.
Etienne Jackson and or to say ok we're done
Persons starting almost every sentence with "ok", "right", "yeah" appear to have vague thoughts and seem to me as easy to manipulate.
These guys make a good team
“We’ve never observed bacteria becoming something other than bacteria.”
You’ve never observed any gods either, have you?🔥
After all these years, believers' brains stopped evolving...
Jam Spiders loLLLLL
Here is how you demonstrate that any theistic claim is non-sense as far as science is concerned. Substitute the word God with anything else you like (Spaghetti Monster, cherry, Darkling Beetle, etc.) and the argument is the same. God is just a word for the person's ignorance.
And you feel like that from your inductranation in public schools.
In the Humanist Magazine (Jan/Feb, 1983, p. 26), humanist author John Dunphy says:
. . . a viable alternative to [Christianity] must be sought. That alternative is humanism. I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level . . . . The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new . . .. the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism . . . .
Karl Marx, Public Schools and the Profligacy of Government Education
"Free education for all children in public schools."
@@jn-mh4eb The John Dunphy quote is not a scientific one. It's just his personal opinion, so what's your point?
No idea what the Karl Marx bit was about, unless you want to make it sound like public education is a communist idea and therefore evil/wrong?
@Anemo R Seriously--COMMULISM? And who are the "Socials"? Some kind of feel good get-together group? Also, saying that "anything" the Democrats are for will lead to North Korea is just total bullshit, just like saying that EVERYTHING that conman Trump says is a lie---wait, that part about Trump ISN'T bullshit.....every turd, I mean word, that plops out of his mouth every day is total bullshit. Mexico is NOT paying for any wall. Sound from wind powered generators does NOT cause cancer. His administration has NOT accomplished more than any other previously.
Ring species are one of the best observable evidence of speciation.
Ken the Ham teaches hysterical science. At least Ray Comfort is congenial, Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are just jerks.
Hovind is a particularly disgusting human being.
You are so right James. Hovind and Ham, what a pathetic pair of dumbasses. Comfort’s not far behind but he does make you laugh, he’s so stupid.
Have you listened to a guy called Cornelius? My god, unbelievable.
As an Australian... I apologise for Ken Ham, but damn I'm glad he's not here any more. :)
Kent Hovind is an obnoxiously annoying arrogant person who consistently proves he is an utter idiot whereas I find Ken Ham is a shyster and a duplicitous con man who I’m pretty sure left Australia because they refused buy (literally) his BS. They are both are hypocritical liars who are using religion as a cover.
Time flies like an arrow
Fruit flies like a banana
Reptile to mammal transitional fossils: synapsids.
For example: Dimetrodon. It laid eggs but had some traits only mammals have.
I’m only 8 minutes in but this guy seems nice and even though his beliefs are absurd he seems like a person I would like to know
I dig Jen's pocket size explanation of how evolution can be caused using bacteria and temperature.
Best AXP video I've watched. (and I've watched sooooo many)
I find it sad that people are so attached to their beliefs that they build mental roadblocks against evidence. The Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy Easter Bunny revelations must have been a difficult time in their lives
I find it very interesting how someone could challenge scientific fact or theory yet has no problem interjecting something like a god which can't be tested or hasn't been able to be tested.
How long will it take for Theists to understand that the request for a crockaduck is only showing their ignorance of the whole concept?
What a great combo! Awesome job!
*"We never observe fruit flies become not fruit flies..."*
Of course we don't! If we did then our understanding of evolution, specifically monophyly, would be shown to be fundamentally flawed. Biology claims that descendants of fruit flies will ALWAYS be fruit flies, just with additions that do not currently exist.
James, if you don't want to accept biological evolution that's fine, but at least learn what it is claimed before you say it doesn't happen.
Dude wants a crocoduck. Wants a child being a different species from its parents.
The interesting thing they missed is that science predicts things that should be found if the theory is correct, and pseudoscience does not. A prediction of evolution is that related species should have related DNA, which is what has been found. They should have asked this guy about what predictions creationism makes. For instance, if God just coded DNA according to features, unrelated species with similar physical features should have similar DNA.
They do not.
I still think they did a fairly good job considering they're people on a call in atheist show. Callers often fail to remember that.
Scott Davidson
EXCELLENT ARGUMENT, BUT TOO HIGH-BROW FOR THE ONES WHO WOULD BENEFIT MOST FROM UNDERSTANDING IT.
Scott Davidson
This also fits the theory of intelligent design.
Common DNA points to a common designer🤔
@@stephenireland3816 Please give a testable result or discovery that would distinguish "intelligent design" (whatever you mean by that) from evolution.
Behe, being a scientist, had one - a structure not explainable by evolution. However all his examples turned out to be explainable after all.
An intelligent designer would reuse the same DNA for similar structures like fins. And not screw up so often. And not route a sewer line through an amusement area.
Scott Davidson
So I assume you BELIEVE all living systems have a naturalistic explanation even if science hasn’t discovered them all yet.
ie. Complex self replicating life spontaneously formed in some muddy puddle in the distance past and lead to all the life we see today.
You don't have to sit down and watch evolution happening over time to prove it either. For example, we can deduce evolution from the fossil record. If you have a succession of fossils which show a smooth transition from one species to another, you can make a reasonable judgement that is evolution occurring, and you can repeat that observation as many times as you like.
By this guy's standard, you couldn't deduce the age of a tree from the number of rings in its trunk because you can't observe them forming.
Just man tiring to make the natural world fit inti their highly flawed manmade book.
Yes indeed- he's very tiring.
James argues that we have no evidence of change in speciation and he forgets that we have no evidence of his god. His only claim of any evidence would be writings of ancient goat herders.
Dennis Pennington
When you say EVIDENCE for God,
are you talking only about evidence revealed by the scientific method of testing? Observable testable repeatable etc
@@stephenireland3816 I'm certainly not talking about "faith" and just making things up.
Dennis Pennington
You didn’t answer my
question☹️
Jen and John are a great team!
you two sure are patient.
The “common designer” idea requires that the designer had a flawed design and made another design built on the previous errors and adding more errors (along with some good stuff).Evolution has to work that way, because it cannot make use of magic; it just works with the existing DNA, environment, and physics.
Yeah, a god that'd've been creating our DNA would need to be an awfully lazy programmer, too stupid or arrogant to run any debugging over his sloppy work... EVER. We now know so many things where instead of writing a clean variant of something just certain factors were turned on or off resulting in different uses for comparable structures ... that is HORRIBLE design... and so random too... why would humans get a deactivated gene for in body vitamin C production? Evolution has no problem to explain why a human with a balanced diet does not die off from not being able to metabolize that without external sources... but what would move a creator that has put this gene into most other landdwelling species (and a few living in the oceans as well ;-)) to put a broken variant into his prsumed final creation and alleged "masterpiece"???
Yes, a collection of kludges
An important point here is that there has never been a scientific prediction made by creation scientists that held true. They can _explain_ the data afterwards, but that's not a very strong argument. Tell us what we should see if, e.g., we find life on Europa. Will it have the same genetic code as Earth-life (since they were created by the same creator) or not? And then, if we find that life from Europa falsifies that prediction, admit that it was a failed prediction and that creation science is now less likely to be true.
You just made a prediction that we could use to falsify their claim! I hope we do find life on europa and the DNA is different. I wonder how they would tapdance around that.
@@h.w.6563 the creator got bored with his model and experimented. They will weasel out of it.
Micro evolution vs marco evolution is like getting one day older vs getting ten years older: it's just more of the same thing.
We CAN observe speciation. Ring species are a great example that you can observe today.
James tries very hard not to use the word "kind" like Ken Hamm does..
Why can't they just call in a and say "I'm clueless about a subject, please inform me?"
john moulton lol true or just say here is why I think what I think
Ring species! They exist and they're observable and testable! 😀
This gets funnier every time I listen to it. Thanks Jen
James - either show me an observable oxygen molecule OR stop breathing.
James, do you believe in a very simple god, or a very complex one which needs a creator?
Please learn to think straight.
I get annoyed with the idiots who don't understand how evolution works thinking it's like when a dog gives birth to a cat. That is not evolution. In fact, that would disprove evolution.
They also try to split evolution into two, micro and macro, when there's just evolution.
So annoying to say the least.
I find it incredible that almost 100 years after Darwin proposed the Theory of Evolution that our recent discoveries and increasing knowledge of DNA has significantly supported the model and helped us to trace and determine the accuracy of ancestral lineage.
and what's even more incredible, is that despite all of that, lots of people still think 'god did it'...
love you guys xxx!
The more science learns the less room there is for god. Not my original thought but oh so true.
Would DNA from a common creator include all the bugs in the code too? Like the broken vitamin C genes we share with other apes? Or identical copies of dead viruses in the same locations? That’s a very sloppy copy & paste job. I’m not sure how that proves separate creation. I could see that as evidence of potential plagiarism.
Charles Darwin wrote in Origin of Species, “What can be more curious than that the hand of a man formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise, and the wing of the bat, should all be constructed on the same pattern?” This is one of thousands of pieces of evidence to support the theory of evolution and the existence of common ancestors.
The scale of evolutionary phenomena is breathtaking.
I don't understand the inner workings of a cell phone, therefore God designed it and it must have magic inside.
mickey quintana amen brother lol
It appears that even Ken Ham's last name has changed over time.
He had a funny feeling in Church and the preacher told him it's the Holy Spirit at work.
I get a funny feeling listening to Schubert's piano music played by Alfred Brendel.
I would describe it as shivers down my spine.
Not the Holy Spirit.
tedgrant2 I get that from Dio
Favorite part about this? I had no idea about the cold-bacteria study. That's awesome! :D
"on that scale"
**FACEPALM**
If all this was designed, it is a very lacking type of design... very poor designer at that...
This bears repeating: not every determinative finding in science must be done as a formal experiment. There’s lots of information to be gleaned just by looking at the evidence.
This is GREAT info... I never learned this stuff in my Christian university... thanks!
When you believe in things that you don't understand
Then you suffer
Superstition ain't the way
This guy was arrogant although in a polite way. But basically his problem is ignorance in the field he's questioning, cause he sounded like he has the ability to learn (unlike some callers who are just mindless on this show). It seems he has only superficial knowledge from the sound bites spoon feed to him by his church, yet seems to think he is armed with the tools to assess these topics. If he'd just start reading some actual science books on the subject I'd bet he'd be amazed how life's seeming complexity breaks down into understandable parts. Life is not all that different from an smartphone, that is amazingly complex device as a whole, but there are many people that understand how it breaks down essentially to nothing more than billions of simple ON and OFF switches. I would have loved to tell him that from what I already understand about evolution, even if god revealed himself to me, I still would not need to use god to explain creation of the human cell. And he also needs to know that that god connection he feels can be explained through human emotion and brain chemistry - its not supernatural.
*Jonathan Simon* He doesn't need to read science books, he just needs to apply some critical thinking and realise that he treats his belief in a special way - a way that he doesn't apply to any other part of his life when buying a sweater or filling his tank full of fuel. In every other part of his life he will look at the evidence and not just believe absolutely anything that someone might tell him.
Sadly, most evangelicals and their churches now look to Ken Ham and AIG. The core of that cult is that distinction between "observable science" and "historical science". See the Ken Ham, Bill Nye debate. Ken lays out his dishonesty in full view there.
Exactly, Jonathon.
These two wasted so much time that could have been much more productive if they had enough science knowledge on the tips of their tongues. They could have explained how multiple lines of evidence mutually support each other to justify the conclusions of evolution. She could have explained how the scientific method weeds out bias. She touched on Crick, but should have said his theistic bias didn't cause him to see creation as a better explanation than evolution. They didn't challenge the caller to explain how design could account for the fossil record nearly as well as evolution. I was cringing when they acted incredulous and dismissive that anyone would intuitively expect a designer based on complexity. It's a deeply ingrained presupposition, especially with the types of fundamentalists that call in to the show. He is trying to resolve cognitive dissonance and I think the hosts didn't present themselves as having a secure foundation for their position. She should have been able to rattle off many steps along the way between being once a theist and now an atheist or agnostic. Science fumbles for anything more than embarrassing stabs at explaining consciousness as a product of an elaborate machine, so a kid indoctrinated in God since childhood, and being introduced only recently to evolution, is going to let go of creationism reluctantly and more easily believe antievolution "strawmanning" than accept a whole new way of looking at life. I hope he finds better educators in time. They need a list of websites to recommentd for various topics that come up, especially when they know it covers one of their weak spots.
These young fundamentalists are fed with oversimplified, debased, unsavory, easily mocked & dismissed versions of evolution in the Sunday schools and youth groups for an inoculation effect. Of course their science education isn't similarly crafted as antireligious propaganda.
I was wishing I was there to pinch hit.
@@BigHeretic " He doesn't need to read science books, he just needs to apply some critical thinking" Depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to question his beliefs and maybe come to a reasonable conclusion, yes critical thinking would suffice.
If the goal is for him to understand what evolution is REALLY about, then I think reading some scientific books on it (not pop-science shit based on bad analogies!) is a good way to do that.
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves (Philippians 2:4). James, here endeth the lesson.
I really enjoyed this caller. The caller was non reactionary and non emotional and it was a good discussion.
Theists need to understand their beliefs really don’t matter when science is involved.
The real evidence for reptiles evolving into mammals is in scales and hair. Both are made out of almost the same protein keratin. In reptiles, the protein is pushed out at an angle like a spade. In mammals, the protein is extruded as a fiber. So somewhere in the past, a species of reptile started making smaller, rounder scales. This could have helped it keep cool or get warm, or perhaps regulated moisture. Over time, the follicles became completely around, leaving areas of epidermis exposed. Good for dealing with water and heat regulation. Especially if your metabolism is getting faster and faster. Being round, it was easier to pack more together, making a reptile mammal that probably looked like a porcupine, and then the hairs could get smaller and smaller, packing more and more together. Now you have a reptile that isn't very reptile at all.
What the caller is doing is making the mistake "We don't see X evolve into Y" without thinking 'Okay, what are the differences between X and Y and do we see any evidence of steps of X becoming Y?'
I've stopped watching these as an argument against creationism and now just enjoy the fascinating science lessons, broken down in ways I can follow.
Learning is fun😊
Learning about the real inner workings of reality, ecstasy 😊😊
Same reason I love videos debunking the global flood and Noah's Ark. Nothing like learning that animal farts preclude a habitable ark.
If matt were on this call. It would be more fun. Call is never going to take this long.
These hosts are extremely calm, even though the caller is getting more irritating every second pass by.