Do you guys think Turek is being dishonest? Does he understand the argument(s) against intelligent design? I voiced my opinion, but I'm still a bit conflicted.
Always, it's his default position. Our environment suits us so well because we evolved to fit into it, but that makes us subordinate to our environment and not at all special so he's never going to accept that.
@@The_Joy_Of_Jesus So since you're saying that God is not confined to the laws of nature _(Time, gravity, Newton's laws, etc.)_ like we are, here is my question for you: This would make God all powerful _(The Bible says he created life and an entire universe, so he is certainly capable),_ so why doesn't he exercise that power to prevent great suffering in our world? It seems to me that if there _is_ such an omnipotent God out there, that he doesn't deserve my worship because he clearly doesn't care enough to prevent evil in this world.
@@The_Joy_Of_Jesus If God is perfect _(Something that is implied),_ then he should be able to create a perfect world- a world without great pain, hunger, tyrants, disease, abuse, etc. while still being able to "display his everlasting love." But, seeing how we are living in a thoroughly messed up world, I can conclude that: -There is no God, -There _is_ a God, but he is clearly evil for allowing such mass suffering to persist and deserves no love, -Or, there is a God but for whatever reason he is totally flawed and unable to fix everything _(Which directly contradicts the bible, therefore leading me to cast doubt over his existence)._
@@greenaum Please don't say that. Many atheists have been raised theist without reasoning, and then were reasoned out of it. Deprograming is hard, but not impossible.
@@nataliaborys1554 It's an old saying, and it explains just why deprogramming is so difficult, and in many cases doomed to failure. Deprogramming a cult is one thing, but for a religion that receives state support in some countries, where believers are everywhere, that's very different.
@@greenaum I am literally from that background. My state supports the Church financially, religion is taught in schools as defualt (you have to sign out of this, not sign for it) and everyone at the very least pretends to be religious, at least it was like that in my formative years. Yet, I'm here, not believing in God anymore. Mostly thanks to my atheist friend, my not-crazy parents and the Internet. I know, many don't have these assets, but it's still possible.
*Real life definition of an Atheist:* Pursuers of already debunked arguments in an attempt to justify their atheism to themselves and attempting to convince others to be the same as them. When they've exhausted their incredibly limited scientific understanding and sense their own limitations and defeats looming over them while trying to patch up their collapsing position whilst simultaneously being on the back foot, they then proceed to make ad hominem attacks on the individual they're attempting to argue with complete with the usual overused catchphrases of 'pigeon chess' and 'Dunning Kruger' with no hint of irony from them whatsoever. 🙄
@@jennifersmith4864 Typical, that conclusion you keep spouting is not valid. There so far is no god so we lack belief in god....if anyone provides valid evidence then our position changes. It means we do not have to worship him, but at least he was proven. Words are all anyone has offered.
@@bigbabatunde1218 _"No evidence will be good enough for you"_ What evidence do you have? Oh that's right.. 1. Failed prophecies. 2. Humans are complicated. You make Frank Turek look good. 😂
@@markh1011 Thanks for replying and inadvertently confirming that my posts are visible to others. You have had lots of evidence for God over the years here. You reject it all for some unfathomable reason. Things aren't too complex to understand, the designs of whatever you want to point to are well observed and understood by many, complex or not. Never once had any of it been evidenced to have sprung up from a blob in a puddle, or worse still, from nothing billions of years ago. Another loss for you there.
Exactly. Christians always think they are special. What they don't realise is that we are an insignificant part of this massive universe and nothing we do has any impact on the universe
My tortie cat has just about every color of cat on her with very little white. The only place she does have white is this "ring" on her tail. So I could easily say "she's got this ring on her tail because she used to hold the one ring to rule them all."
The problem with that quote is that it can be used against Athiest activist CZcamsrs as well. Still a great quote. Just a bit of a double edged sword as well.
@@Myke_thehuman not really religious ppl only understand about their religion. Atheist could understand both side of explanation and they just chose the most rational answer. Most of the religious ppl thinks Theory of Darwin means monkey evolved to became man. 😑
@@randomclips4677 yes that's very frustrating. Even my mom brought up that argument. And wow I couldn't believe she didn't even bother to do any research at all. . Plus the whole, the universe is perfectly in sync and timed so that your can't debate if there's a Creator. That argument came up as well. And it's simply not true. The universe is choas. And there's only peace when things are way too far apart to hit each other. Or when they get trapped in a n orbit. Other then that there's supernovas, black holes, planets getting bombarded with meteors stars so close in orbit to each other that they are feeding off of each other. It's all chaos. And in space chaos can in fact be a ladder.
Cats 2079 I wonder if the dinosaurs worshipped a god and prayed for the meteor to stop... If we don’t stop this now then 1000 years from now Christians will still be praying for the sea level to retreat from their city at the top of Mount Everest
“My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.” - John Dominic Crossan
@Samuel 868 Well, scientists/Atheists don’t claim that something came from nothing. The consensus seems to be that the stuff that our universe is made of is eternal and always existed in some form. Creating something from nothing, which is impossible, is the nonsense that Turek believes in.😂 And of course you have only two options left, you can accept the evidence for unguided/scientific Evolution or you can believe in guided/theistic Evolution... but what you can’t do is deny that Evolution happened like Turek does.😂
@Samuel 868 So you only accept Evolution within a kind like ape to human Evolution?😂 Meanwhile in reality the entire Genesis account has been proven to be fiction invented by superstitious savages. Most Christians can accept that fact and simply reinterpret all the stories of the Bible that have been proven to be false.😉
@Samuel 868 Only creationists aka science denying religious fundamentalists distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, but the mechanism is identical. And yes, apes evolving into humans would only be considered to be microevolution, it would be relatively small changes within the same taxonomic group. Well, your god is just one of thousands of other made up gods with just as much evidence as we have for all of the others... none. When I say that the entire Genesis account has been disproven then that means that pretty much all of it can be proven to be false. -we can prove that Noahs global flood never happened -we can prove that pretty much every detail of the creation myth is false -we can prove that Adam and Eve never existed -Abraham and Moses are most likely just fictional characters and the Exodus never happened, the Israelites were never enslaved in Egypt. Also, the Bible doesn’t say anything about space, time and matter... like you said: God created the heavens and the earth. Because the authors of Genesis didn’t know what the universe is... they thought that earth IS the universe, that the stars are just tiny signs in the solid firmament and that there was water on the other side of the firmament.😂 All of the authors of the Bible combined knew less about how the world works than a random 14 year old kid that lives today in the western world, so don’t try to justify your superstitious beliefs by applying your secular understanding of the world to the texts that literally say something completely different as you claim.😉
“The Old Testament is responsible for more Atheism, Agnosticism, Disbelief - call it what you will - than any book ever written; it has emptied more Churches than all the counter-attractions of cinema, motor bicycle and golf course.” - A.A Milne
*"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way....to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story. Amusing perhaps, even instructive, but not scientific."* Dr Henry Gee 'Evolutionist' and Senior Editor at publication Nature.
@@bigbabatunde1218he has criticisms towards things we cannot prove with CERTAINTY, that doesn’t mean evolution just crumbles apart; even for him. That same man you are quoting also said “Even though it is impossible to know for certain whether one species is the ancestor of another, we do know that any two organisms found on Earth must be cousins in some degree”
That's SIMPLY NOT HOW OBSERVATION WORKS. It holds no real power in and of itself as per the idea of a conscious entity being there to observe something. The universe could indeed have existed without any life. The nuclear bomb WOULD almost certainly detonate within a minute.
Sean “But wait, see in this hostile universe there’s only one (most likely more but let’s forget about them) place that’s suitable for life! Coincidence? I think not!”
Try to address a person who can who knows the subject. Asking a Christian a phd rather then one that works at wall mart. Some goes for a an atheist. An atheist still hasn’t found any proof of a change of kind or a big foot lol
bro, if God is good he cannot do bad things, therefore it is the devil. not that hard to understand, and if God worked in obvious ways everyone would believe
@@ballsman6084 God says he's responsible for ALL of it. I refer to the Bible’s book of Isaiah 45:7 where God says: “I form the light and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” In Deuteronomy 32:39 God says: “…I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal…”. In Exodus 4:11, God says: “…who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?”
@@brqxton8974 lol fam a famrsctom if an inch closer to the sun we’d be French today the hell you talking about? Y’all just ungrateful creations still complaining when you have all the tools for this earthly experience
@@NotThatSocially God's gonna release an update soon to fix those bugs, but it will be the last for this universe. We need to get another one to get the new updates on the cosmic store
6:20 It's the first time I'm hearing this crab analogy. The problem is that he's comparing DNA to a message in sand made by a crab. No, it's not probable that a crab would accidentally write a full sentence in sand. Just like it's not probable that DNA would just appear from nowhere. DNA evolved from simpler molecules. And those molecules evolved from even simpler molecules. A crab would probably not write a full sentence in sand, but there's a higher probability that he would write a single word, then there's even higher probability that he would write a single letter, and finally, there's a pretty high probability that he would write a single stroke in sand. The crab analogy completely ignores evolution.
with all my respect to everyone anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power (Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 ❤❤❤.
The whole intelligent design thing makes me think of the "library of babel", which is a computer generated library of all text that could ever exist. Ofcourse, that's amongst loads and loads of gibberish- but chance causes it to produce proper sentences and paragraphs. DNA doesn't need a writer, it just needs to exist and to change and occasionally chance upon a change that is better at surviving and reproducing than before, and most of the gibberish gets weeded out through natural selection until most of it makes sense. (Also I love the argument that the way we are designed isn't actually intelligent, but rather stupid, because we have lots of flaws in our construction. We can literally break our own ribs from sneezing to hard. That doesn't sound like intelligent design to me.)
So, before you shift the burden, what exactly is Hawking's theory of everything? The fact is, scientist don't love to be in a position of authority because they are reptiloids and already are in the ultimate position of authority, reptiloids are angels send from god... But lets go back a step, the theory of everything is atm purely hypothetical afaik. So how does a hypothetical idea conflict with the fact that "We don't know" means "We do not know"
The atheist scientist doesn't say god doesn't exist. They just don't care either way because it has no value in their equations and conclusions. Name one equation that has "plus God" in it.
My favorite response to the argument from design is one from Matt Dillahunty, which, paraphrasing and applying to the version that Turek uses: Turek (paraphrased): When you're walking on the beach and see a message drawn in the sand, you know that the message came from a mind. Matt Dillahunty (paraphrased): which proves that the message in the sand is of DIFFERENT quality than the natural sand dunes around it. The "watchmaker" argument defeats itself. It is, according to you, immediately apparent that the message in the sand is different from the rest of the environment in its intelligent origin. But you are trying to use this as an analogy for the entire universe being designed. Why is the message in the sand unique in this environment, when it is designed, the sand dunes are designed, the ocean waves are designed, the sky is designed. The intelligently designed message should appear un-special in an environment made ENTIRELY out of intelligent design. And yet the argument claims it is special.
"... a software program 3.2 billion letters long also seems to require a mind - a great mind!" Thank you, good sir, for this compliment! Indeed all software engineers I know are extremely intelligent and serious people! We would never say things like "//no idea why it works but DON'T change this line"
"no idea why it works but dont change this line" as far as understand is machine learning algorythms right? I'm not a programmer so let me know what you think
Holy Koolaid, Viced Rhino, Belief It Or Not, and thx to His GOP-Coverage, which i would argue is 'Unhealthy-Religion-Coverage', also: Some More News. Take this Recommenadtion and say AMENN.
Imagine being so smart that you assume that one slip of the tongue or one minor language infraction is indicator of intelligence. You must be a goddamned genius!
Yes lol what other group of people are actively trying to disprove there own models and theories? And give awards to people are able to find counter examples? They are like "YES finally someone found an experiment that doenst agree with our model, now we can investigate and find deeper truths of the universe"
with all my respect to everyone anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power (Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 ❤
@@aymanseder5887You clearly don't have any respect for other people so just stop. Stop projecting your own intellectual failings on everybody else, it's just embarrassing.
I love the examples you gave of unintended messages being originally interpreted as intentional. I feel like those are such big/scientific examples, a lot of theists would still try to explain them away with religion. Maybe simple examples would help to. One time my dad and I discussed this type of topic and I mentioned that when hunters track their prey, they look for signs such as broken branches, crushed grass, etc. all of these are messages interpreted by the hunter as to where the prey has been, but obviously the prey did not leave these signs with the intent of telling the hunter where they are or have been. Hence, a message can be interpreted without being intentional. Does an example like this also hold up against the question he asked or should we use more scientific ones like you used. Just curious in case this topic comes up again personally :)
Yeah, I guess if you think about it, it's weird that mountains and clouds don't have messages on them. I mean God could have splashed "Jesus Loves You" and John 3:16 all over the place, but no, the Christians have to put those out there for themselves.
@@urbangorilla331. If god did that, many would still dount or try to explain it scientifically, or blame cognitive malfunction like hallucination. 2. If he revealed himself today say like a 2nd jesus, how long in the future until people question its historic validity and begin doubting again? 3. If god showed everyone 100% with no doubt of his existence, what is the point of faith and finding your way back to god if he hands it to you? Why dont we give everyone a million dollars so we can all be rich? We exist between heaven and hell and have been given freewill to chose where we end up, otherwise there is no freewill if he makes the choice for us. Get it? You cannot have freewill, and also have all the answers directly uploaded to your brain by god himself.
with all my respect to everyone anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power (Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 .
@Yiannis Mantheakis Thank God most theists properly question their answers :P Honestly, the divide between atheists and theists is ridiculous when both are accusing each other of dishonesty or cognitive dissidence. Both have decent arguments but neither have absolute solutions. Granted, after looking at the evidence behind Jesus, I’d hedge my bets on God if I were a betting man.
@@FuddlyDud Most theists properly question their answers? You must be joking. When asked what evidence would challenge his belief in God, Ken Ham answered "Nothing". How in the hell is that questioning an answer? That's more like actively shielding an answer from question. Ham is far from alone. Further, the point of most of these sorts of videos is that theists *do not* actually have good answers. Theists have answers which sound superficially appealing, but cannot withstand any degree of serious scrutiny. In the end, almost all theistic answers to the great questions all boil down to faith. As to the 'evidence behind Jesus', aside from the Bible and the fact that a religion evolved around it's stories, there is none. That's worth repeating. There is NONE. I know that's a bitter pill for most Christians to swallow, but it is the truth. I'm sure we agree that religions, even very prominent religions, can evolve out of false notions. That is, in fact, the consensus opinion of Christians concerning all other religions. With that in mind, how can any purely documentary evidence serve as a foundation for such a great claim? The simple answer is; To a rational mind, it cannot. While scientific answers are incomplete, at least they can show solid evidence for why what is believed is believed in repeatable tests. And, there is no cognitive dissonance in science. Christianity can't even pass the basic test of falling in line with demonstrable reality without invoking miracle after miracle. That being said, nobody would care what Christians believe were they not actively trying, with a good measure of success, to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. But, they are. Finally, when Christians start acting like those who murder and claim God told them to do it should actually be taken seriously instead of treated as mentally ill or liars, then I'll take your claimed 'hedge' seriously. Until then...
@@silentotto5099 Look, my comment was an off-the-cuff remark about how theists do struggle with the big questions that atheists deem as absolute proof to disproving theology and the existence of God. Sure, some people are unshakable in their view, but both theists and atheists are guilty of this and claiming superiority just because you use Science is ridiculous since claiming religion and science as mutually exclusive isn't true (although it is to many, more fundamentalist/literal groups). None? Seriously? Roman and Jewish historians, known for their accuracy in reporting, report him as a real person. Mind explaining how both were so easily hoodwinked? And, if the claim is that he never existed, then could you explain what the point of the apostles' ministry? All it did was get them killed in horrific ways and get them rejected by both Jewish and Roman groups. Why lie about something that only makes your life worse in every feasible way and provides no benefit to anybody because it is all one big lie in the first place? I'd like the discuss the question of Jesus because I have yet to find any good evidence that disproves his existence and proves the apostles were a bunch of liars. If you have any such evidence, I'd love to see it!
@@yeetman7398 Not how that works. Hitler was very very obviously wrong, but the people that supported him went along with him because he was a very confident and competent leader to them. And he said *what they wanted.* I think you meant to say "what the audience think is right", not "what is right"
@@okaybutwhythough7456 uh i dont think killing and racism back then can be compared to what is being debated here abt religion EDIT: changed some grammar mistakes
As a physics student I think I can explain few things. If you want few more examples you can keep reading. First of all even if something seem to be perfect without a purpose it does any mean that it was made by god. It just mean that we don’t understand some things. The thing that seem perfect can and probably will have flaws when seen differently - we can create a “perfect” metal ball but when we will see it under a microscope we will see that it has scratches. Also - seeing something as bad or good is subjective so it actually doesn’t need to be a flaw. There isn’t something like a good thing and a bad one in nature.. but forget that. Let’s see why his arguments doesn’t work at all 1. You could change parameters/constants/coefficients and it wouldn’t mean the universe would vanish - it just would be different; sure in some cases nothing would be created but that doesn’t mean that universe doesn’t exist. In the future probably everything will decay - we think that protons won’t live forever; even black holes will evaporate due to Hawkings radiation. It doesn’t mean that the universe won’t exist anymore. It will be empty, sure, maybe with some particles but without bigger structures or life. Besides that some constants aren’t even constant (for example the expansion rate of the universe, it will increase probably forever) - who knows if other parameters won’t change? Maybe it is changing at such slow rate that we can’t measure it. And we may never know… you have to have a pretty big ego to think that someone created the universe just for you to live in, sorry but that’s my opinion. We got lucky. 2. The genome isn’t perfect. To be fair it’s full of trash. In this year I’m attending some biophysics lectures and my professor was telling us a lot about that. Im not as experienced as bio student so won’t tell you much unfortunately but this is really interesting so I remembered a lot from the lectures. The so called “junk-DNA” doesn’t have instructions for coding proteins which are basics of life. Some of it actually is used but probably not all of it. To be fair we could be wrong. The second thing is that we are still evolving, don’t forget that, so during copying our dna could be slightly changed. It may be the change that will be useful but doesn’t have to be. Why god would make us imperfect? Couldn’t he create us already in the best form? 3. I laughed when he told that we have so much information in our cells. It would fit on a CD disk. It really isn’t much information for today’s technology 4. There were cases in which evolution went horribly wrong. Why would that be a thing if god created it 5. I would rather say that algorithms are like dna etc. not the other way 6. And his main point… just as you said - the word “message” need an interpreter. They often seem to misunderstand that some things are created by us. Just like we decide in which group something “will be” - animals and plants for example. It is created by us. Not by anything higher - you won’t tell me that every scientist hear voice whenever discovering anything new. It was created so it’s easier to describe the world. We could do it differently and it wouldn’t change anything. When I create a message I do it to inform someone about something. Natural law that create messages is… evolution. For some reason animals communicate. They wouldn’t survive if they didn’t do that. And it doesn’t have to be a word - it could be colour of animal (having colours like a bee so nothing will attack you), shape (trying to look bigger to scare us), eyes, ears, tail movement (dogs)… why does it need a higher mind. Without this many animals would simply die. The same goes for trees that can communicate through their roots - they can inform other trees about some diseases etc., they tell them how to survive. Btw electromagnetic signals can be a message. Gravitational waves can be a message. It can tell us what happened in deep space but did the black hole want to tell us something? I don’t think so. It is all part of natural processes and we learned how to interpret that. So telling that this forces don’t create messages is bullshit. We just need to recognise it as one. We also have quantum cryptography so don’t tell me that the quantum mechanics is a sign of god. It is so frustrating seeing someone who is trying to prove something with the knowledge they don’t have. Your video was great. Just wanted to point out more things in case that someone want to know more Hope that my grammar isn’t too bad, Im not a native speaker but even in my language I tend to do stupid errors
Water says "There is a hole in the ground that is just right to give me the ability to contemplate my own existence"? "There must be an intelligent hole maker"!
with all my respect to everyone anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power (Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 ❤
@@aymanseder5887 They really do not know. In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes.
Tyler Chiu it’s almost like they missed the point entirely 🤔 Obviously this faulty logic hole was tailor made for them by a divine creator because how else could they fit so perfectly inside it lol
The puddle analogy reminds me of the Feynman quote "I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”
That's a poor argument against fine tuning. If probabilities worked like how you describe then all theories of science would be binned. Let's try your argument against the theory of evolution. Scientists: What are the chances of all species sharing genetic code if its not the case that they evolved from one universal common ancestor. You: ~Proceed to use your license plate anecdote.~ Let's try another. Sherlock Holmes: I deduce by balance of probabilities the murderer must most likely be an adult man. You: Dude, there are 7 billion people in the world, it could have been any of them. ~Proceed with your license plate anecdote.~
@@abutalsafuba2179 It’s not even an argument against fine tuning, it’s just pointing out how the perspective change leads to a very different conclusion about it all.
@@abutalsafuba2179 It literally isn’t. Saying that someone that happens to be in the right circumstances is foolish for thinking that those circumstances are divine is not against the circumstances, it’s against using divinity as the reasoning for them. In a sense, it is mocking fine tuning being used as an argument purely for *human* life, but that's only due to some people inherently assuming that the universe was created for THEM specifically, and not for any other reasons
Everything is random . Why burden yourself with make belief . A man came to my door and asked me : Do you know where your going to go after you die ? I told him his question was irrelevant , that when you die there's nothing ,zilch , no more ....bye bye , that I spend my time living the good life ....NOW
with all my respect to everyone anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power (Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 ❤..
with all my respect to everyone anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power (Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 ❤❤..
An he counts that as an worthy explanation while requiring atheists to explain everything... Theists don't understand they are the ones who have to provide better arguments for the existence of their invisible, tantrum-throwing and unjust god.
@Rawlings I'm going to admit, I am tired so I was no able to read your whole post so I apologize, but have you never thought about what your saying? The fact is that there could be a LOT of things changed and life could still exist, we don't know enough about how life comes to be to say that life COULDN'T exist. Also, as you said THERE ARE TRILLIONS of galaxies, what is there to say in one of those galaxies, there is a civilian wag more advanced then us who is just fucking with us and having a laugh? Or what if these beings are the true chosen one of god and we have just been lieing to ourself? Or GASP what if we are not special at all, and if there is a god they most likely hardly pay attention to us and at most see us as a tantrum throwing child? Why would god put down all this evidence for us adapting to the environment, if it was not true? I honestly just thing aliens are fucking with us lol
I've literally made the joke before: "u think God designed ears to fit earbuds?" I didn't realize it was a legitimate argument in the theological community
No, people that created the earbuds made it to fit into peoples ears, which shows that earbuds need to be designed in order to fit into people's ears... Wait, what? What you're saying sounds like a false analogy. Your satircal argument seems to say this: "Anything that seems designed must have been designed by God. Earbuds and ears seem to be designed to fit each other. Therefore, earbuds/ears were designed by God". This sounds pretty ridiculous, but it isn't the same argument as the watchmaker argument. The watchmaker argument effectively says "Anything that is designed needs a designer. The Universe appears designed. Therefore, the universe needs a designer." If you're going to refute the watchmaker argument, use evidence that shows that things can look designed without actually being designed. Don't use a false analogy.
@@petery6432 *William* was actually saying that this argument is ridiculous. He said nothing about the _watchmaker_ argument. So it's your _false analogy_ and your _strawman._
@@philaypeephilippotter6532 He said his thing about earbuds and then said "I didn't realize this was an actual argument in the theological community". This would imply that he believed that his earbud analogy was like the argument Turek used above, which was effectively a restated Watchmaker argument. This makes it sound as though he's trying to show the Watchmaker argument as completely ridiculous by using another analogy and showing how that other analogy makes no sense.
@@petery6432 Why are you asserting that *William* meant something he didn't even imply? It's still a _strawman_ argument and a _false analogy._ Even if he posts that that is exactly what he believes, which I doubt, your post is still a _strawman_ argument and a _false analogy._
@@philaypeephilippotter6532 How did he not imply that he believed that his Earbud analogy and the Watchmaker argument were the same? I stated why it sounded like he believed it above. You haven't given me a reason to believe he meant otherwise. My argument was shutting down the idea that "Something seems designed, so God must have designed it" is the same argument as "The universe seems designed, therefore it must need a designer". The way his comment was phrased made it sound like he believed the idea that the two arguments I stated above were the same
with all my respect to everyone anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power (Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 ❤..
yeah, imagine if our universe was the 1 in more than a micrillion that has at least one galaxy in which most planets don't have life. a micrillion is 10^3000003, in case you didn't know.
I believe 'fine tuned' in this remark is considered a static end result. I believe the universe is merely in process of tuning, and perhaps not even all that finely. Heck, in some places, the beholder could also perceive the tuning of this universe as rather crude lol
not faith, faith is believe in something you cant prove, we dont need faith to understand our capality to analize things and research to answer questions. Faith is needed when you cant prove something cause there is no evidence, and evidence that can be found leads to understand that its all stories made by less knowledged people
I've been an agnostic atheist all my life. I remember my first semester of genetic classes, when I was learning all the ways how DNA self replicate and error correct itself I was baffled by it. I thought that even by chance those mechanism were too complex to be evolved by natural selection no matter how long it took. It was one of the few moments my atheism was shaken... Until the next class I started to learn about genetic auto-immune diseases. A couple of different base pairs signals and most of the terrible diseases such as sclerosis could have been completed eradicated by our genome. Took BILLIONs of years, and that random mutation that eradicated sclerosis never came... Precisely because it is uncommon enough to no signifcantly naturally be written off of our code. This sort of DUMB flaw in our DNA is the ultimate proof, it is not inteligently designed.
Wait till Monday for the Lies in Genesis and Deluded Institute multiple 'personality' employee to start telling you why you are mistaken, Their reason? Well "God done it of course, the evidence is all around you!".
@@bigbabatunde1218 So the experts are wrong and you - the scientific illiterate science denier are right because you think so 🤣 Your incredulity, ignorance and lack of education don’t refute that facts. *Get a grip*
Thinking of the idea of messages needing a mind - I feel like there are two issues. One is the interpretation of cause and effect as 'messages'. And the other is that in some respects, there are only 'messages' because we assign meaning to things. We organize things into information, translate it into something that has shared cultural meaning, and then communicate that. Evolution has created messages as a survival mechanism.
Would you say the ultimate goal is to understand, and when we don't, there in lays the problem, DNA is individual so is understanding or not, yes or no?
I never really understood the "fine tuning" arguement because if the universe is so finely tuned why is it that there are so many things that can kill us.
Well life isnt all about us..fine tuning like the suns distance from earth makes it possible for you to wright this comment on youtube..your sitting on a floating ball moving super fast called earth.. and you are asking about fine tuning..if this all happened by chance then someone please seriously come and shake me so that my eyes can open.
@@QuigleTheGnome Have you read the new testament and do you understand the teachings of Jesus? I am convinced you dont really understand it.Come and explain it to me please when you have done so.
The biggest problem of "modern society" isn't that intelligent and/or educated people being too cautious or shy. It is the opposite: ignorant or uninformed speak loud and proud, with unearned confidence. We need a "slow and steady movement".
No. I don't celebrate Jesus' birthday. As my son and his girlfriend will visit me I won't have the opportunity this year, but pretty often I listen to Tchaikovsky's opus 41.
@@marknieuweboer8099 Me neither and it doesn’t need to be his birthday to spend time with family and friends. Karen doesn’t have any of those, just him and his troll accounts.
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus But you do keep changing your username. Remember when you were White Republican Jesus? I remember. Cry in your own time. Goodbye.
D C Wilson Google the meaning of life, I’m sure you will find the right answer in five seconds. “If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. On the other hand, if it had been greater by a part in a million, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars and planets to form.” Stephen Hawking
@@DCWilsonwriter Oh dear u are so smugly ignorant to not know what scientists are saying about our finite, awe inspiring, incredibly fine-tuned, rationally intelligible universe. Actually quoting mining is cherry picking part of citation then drawing an inference not intended by the author. I have pages of similar quotes to show that the evidence for design is overwhelming as PCW Davies concludes. Just PM me.
@@Gericho49 Tell you what, let me know when you have something other than quote mining and childish insults. Come back when you have an actual point to make.
Skye Watson Well, it’s explained pretty well in the video itself. Basically, if you’re talking about the beginning of the universe, our most accepted theory is it began after the rapid expansion of a near infinitely dense singularity. This still makes it cooperate with the idea of matter not being just created. Of course, how the singularity was made is still unknown, but just because something isn’t known now doesn’t mean it will never be solved by science ever. We can’t know what we don’t know, and admitting that is just part of using the scientific method.
Skye Watson It’s not faith to admit you don’t know everything. My original comment was just a relevant reference. If you want to get really into how we understand the universe, we can say just because something seems to hit a broad amount of ideas doesn’t make it true. This can be applied to both creationism and science. It’s very possible that sometime in the far future we discover something that completely changes our understanding of science. The difference lies in how through hypothesis and rigorous testing by many many scientists throughout history, we can come up with a pretty good idea of what probably happens with many things in science, and the reality is that intelligent design is simply not scientifically probable. Again, my original comment was not meant to be provocative and I really don’t want to start an argument over an Avatar the Last Airbender reference of all things.
If we don't understand it. It ain't god unless we discovered "everything" possible and there's no way to explain it even with everything possible discovery discovered and that's just impossible because of the immense luck required for humanity to last that long.
@@AresVisualsMeva actually intelligent design is as justifiable an explanation, if not more, than a scientific one. Science would have us believe that everything that exists originated from nothing. That's such an absurd notion. If nothing existed, then where would the elements that magically created the universe have come from? There is no answer to that question. And to keep referring back to the overly used statement about "we just haven't found that answer" is no different than a person of faith not being able to explain the existence of a Creator or God. There is no way to explain or fully understand the "being" of God...we lack the mental capacity to do so.
"What natural laws can create messages." Heat, generated by a toaster. Plenty of people seem to see Jesus on a toast and interpret some dried, burnt bread as a message.
with all my respect to everyone anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power (Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 ❤❤❤.
with all my respect to everyone anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power (Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 ❤❤❤❤
*'Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds?* *Perhaps yes, perhaps no. There is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science for there is no way to put them to the test.'* Dr Colin Patterson Paleontologist.
I don't consider the interpreters of religious texts to be anywhere close to intelligent. They all spout nonsense from the fairy tales they were told as children.
@@userhome3601 couldn't agree more. I heard the point of GMS as being about the problem of actually having NO intelligent, unemotionally connected dissection. Because if they could provide one, that'd be an interesting read about how humans cling onto the ridiculous for comfort. But, as it stands now, all we get are tortuous mind gymnastics trying to explain the validity of this shit. I'm with you.
GMS really missed it on this one IMO. Messages DO require intelligent minds to create. A funny looking shape on the moon is NOT a real message. "Jon loves Mary" written in the sand is. Using a fake "message" to try to debunk a real message is a weak argument. He never actually answers Turek's question, which was supposed to be the whole point of this video. How does nature create messages. REAL messages? 🤦🏻♂️
@@8thMusketeer to be honest, regardless of what you yourself believe, it seems like you have missed the point of what gms was saying. Nobody would disagree that an intelligent message requires an intelligent creator. But gms is saying there is no message. There is only nature of reality. And it is THAT notion that does not require the designer. John loves Mary is certainly a message. Where is a puddle is just the result of things puddling in the way that things puddle. Liquids splashabout and collect in holes, and holes are merely the absence of materials. You may as well claim that God created holes as well. Is the hole also designed? Or just an area where something isn't. Things are not messages. Only messages are messages
@@euanseaman1774 We've already answered that question: You're operating under the assumption that the universe had to be caused, that the matter, energy, and physical laws couldn't have always existed.
And more importantly, lacking an explanation for any given phenomenon in no way invalidates explanations for other phenomena. Nor does it provide validity to someone else's explanation- having an answer is not inherently more correct than not having one. In fact, I would say acknowledgement of ignorance is a more correct answer than a baseless guess. Because ignorance isn't a claim- it can't be wrong!
@@euanseaman1774 Clearly, atheism is not a rational worldview. It is self-refuting because the atheist must first assume the opposite of what he is trying to prove in order to be able to prove anything.
Considering that slavery is allowed and god basically decided to screw over humanity for the next few millennia by forcing different languages for building big tall tower, it is reasonable to believe that god is not a good guy
with all my respect to everyone anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power (Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 ❤❤.....
@@georgemen Hold on, I got that one bookmarked... In essence, Occam's Razor can be simplified as "The simplest solution is most likely the right one." Or, more accurately, if presented with multiple solutions to a problem, you should first try the one that relies on the least assumptions.
@@Kartoffelkamm It takes more faith (stupifyingly high levels actually) to believe in random, spontaneous abiogenesis and the resulting un-Guided "evolution" as taught than it takes to believe in an Almighty God. Just saying.
*“What evolution tells us is that we are part of a grand, dynamic, and ever-changing fabric of life that covers our planet. Even to a person of faith, in fact especially to a person of faith, an understanding of the evolutionary process should only deepen their appreciation of the scope and wisdom of the creator's work."* Kenneth R. Miller
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus Click what? "links in the description"? Don't make me laugh. The Beatles are the best band ever because the Beatles fanclubs said so. 😂😂😆🤦
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus If you type in certain phrases relating to say 'Lucy' really being a shared ancestor of humans, the first page of Google's search results can both support and discredit 'Lucy' (Australopithecus afarensis) depending on what was typed in. Anyone can use search engines to further their own confirmation bias. Where's the evidence for 'evolution' as taught? You haven't provided any so you lose.
@@ThyBountyHunter The range of animal species back in Noah's day probably wasn't as varied as today. Species can diverge over time you know. Where's those shared common ape like ancestors we've all been told about though? Where's the science and studies behind that pish?
@@bigbabatunde1218 If this is true, why the Middle East its not the epicentre of all biodiversity on our planet? And how animals like the Kangaroo went from Australia to the Ark? How Noah feed the carnivores on the Ark, doesn't that mean extinction to other especies? And also with the measurements that are in the bible, the Noahs is physically impossible. And plz don't tell me it was a miracle from God
DNA is not actually a "code". It is a specifically shaped molecule with specific properties that rise from that. Considering it a "code" is just a human convention to make it easier to understand. One could equally say that water molecules have a "code" that causes them to form snowflakes under certain conditions. DNA does not have letters or numbers, it has the chemicals adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine to which we assign letters ACGT for the sake of convenience and ease of understanding.
@@tigerboy4705 You miss the point... Please go to Kent Hovinds yt-channel or other problematic channels and report them. So we can have what we all want: A more healthy and less hate-filled and less s-ual YT.
Yeah, but it requires a designer to set those molecules (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine) into instructions. You think you can take molecules, throw them into a pile and expect them to come together and create instructions? No. And about the snowflakes, in an atheist perspective you could say they arose from natural processes, but from my theist perspective I see design in the force of nature that causes the incredibly complex design in those snowflakes.
@@arunmoses2197 Why would you need a designer? And yes molecules do self assemble. They are not "instructions" , DNA is simply a specifically shaped molecule with properties that arise from that. Referring it as a "code" or "instructions" is just a human convention to make it easier to understand. It is not a code like a computer program. By Occam's Razor your ideas about snowflakes fails. There is no need for a designer, so introducing one is an unecessarily element in the solution, and it does nothing but question where and how the "designer" arose. And the designer is, by necesity more complex yet, so where did it come from? Yur "solution" solves nothing.
*'I now believe there is a God.... I now think it* (the evidence) *does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations.* *What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.'* Antony Flew Former atheist.
"Everything seems designed for us." Dude! Could you tell me in which percent of the universe we can live? The universe is enormous and very very very deadly for humans!
So you think that because we can't go out into outer space, then space is derelict and there's no God. You sound like an eight year old that realises that they can't become an astronaut. 😂😂
@@bigbabatunde1218 What you are talking about??? Well as per usual you guys when it becomes inconvenient you jump from topic to topic. Oh yeah so you think, so you tell me. I never said anything about that! So youuuu tell me. Some 14 billion years ago your god created this universe and after 10 billion years of playing bowling with the planets, he got bored and created a tiny little solar system with an even tinier planet (still no humans) then waited again for some 4.5 billion years to create humans. If this was the main goal I guess he was not highly motivated 🤣
7:25 This is a great quote. "Things which are perceived as messages don't require an intelligent creator. They only require an intelligent interpreter."
@@brianaxb9429 thermal distillation or the reverse osmosis water to desalinate it is energy inefficient and is not at all able to sustain the water needs of the world. A big reason why we get by is through water treatment and reuse. It's also been pretty common knowledge, taught in elementary schools, that the vast majority of the water on Earth is not fit for straight consumption..
@@kevinjoker2 Distilation over a fire is easy, I've done it... and you say earth is not fit? More like humans aren't worthy, especially the ignorant self important. How about call out the fact we have too many people instead of not enough water? Also the fact you act like you have a percentage is hilarious considering that's impossible even with today's tech, but if you put .5 on the end of it, and call it a rough percentage, we can act like it's legit?
@@brianaxb9429I never said thermal distillation wasn't easy?? I said it is not at all energy efficient to be sustainable for humans as a whole. Perhaps think outside the scope of your own backyard for a second. We've had a quite accurate estimation of the % of drinkable, potable water on Earth since literally decades ago.. why do you immediately only refuse to accept the statistic that's literally been taught in elementary schools since a few decades ago just because you feel like it? If you're going to say random shit at least back it up with some sort of source rather than your own uneducated opinion. You're already on the internet, might as well pull up a tab and read something for once in your life
What's really frustrating is that science doesn't actually claim that the "big bang" was the start of existence but it's the start of the universe as we know it. The idea of the universe having a "beginning" comes from religion and is not a testable claim made by science. Talking about the big bang as the start of the universe is something science communicators do, people that try and talk to the general public in a way that most people will understand.
Reading matter from the past did indeed put the 'Big Bang' as the beginning of the universe. I distinctly remember reading in an encyclopedia like publication for young people back in the 90s as stating that there was nothing before the Big Bang and nothing could happen as there was nothing there for anything to happen. Look how the scientific community, especially those cheap followers, have changed their tune on that one over the years.
@ Big Baba aka SamF aka BigBam aka AlexiP aka Bigot Bob McMillysilly: yeah, because scientists etc. unlike creacrappers understand and apply "when my information changes I alter my conclusions." This is called learning, something you're not capable of anymore.
@@marknieuweboer8099You have never posted any evidence scientific or otherwise to support 'evolution' as taught. The reality of the situation in that you cannot post any supporting evidence for 'evolution' despite being asked countless times is testament to what I and many others have said. On the other hand, information in the Biblical writings across thousands of years, information that was known before its accepted time is recorded in the Bible, information ranging from early acknowledgement of the precipitation rainfall process in the book of Genesis to the Earth being supported in space by nothing visible as can be read in the book of Job. Clotting factor being it's highest on the 8th day from birth for circumcisions as well as prophecies being known, sometimes hundreds of years in advance, about the fall of kingdoms such as Babylon and of Tyre, as well as modern secular society medical professionals, academics and historians inadvertently backing up the Bible accounts of things mentioned. Beat that for evidence. Where's your 'evidence' for 'evolution'?
@ Big Baba aka SamF aka BigBam aka AlexiP aka Bigot Bob McMillysilly: indeed crickets are evidence for evolution theory too. No need to alter my conclusions. I very well might after you finally have answered a far more intriguing question: what evidence for evolution theory would you accept iso rejecting it 'cuz yadda yiddy yoddo? "This won't stop."
As a former Christian turned Atheist, one question I've never been able to answer (and probably never will) is this one: . The hyperbola _H_ has cartesian equation 5x² − 4y² = 20. (i) Write down its eccentricity, the co-ordinates of its foci _S_ and _S-_ , the equation of the directrices and the equation of the asymptotes. (ii) Sketch the curve, indicating all important features. Bloody mathematics...
It's been close to a decade since I had to do math involving exponents so I don't remember the meanings of most of the words in (i), but the equation can be simplified to 5x^2-20=4y^2, and then simplified again to ((5x^2)/4)-5=y^2. From there you can plug in various positive values of X (keeping in mind that the results only stop including the impossible-to-chart value "i" once X's side becomes positive) to get the mirrored Y results, then mirror the entire thing across the Y axis to account for the negative values of X. Once you have enough points of reference to determine a general shape, you can sketch the shape and notate the quirks of the equation that caused certain things (such as the equation "not existing" between x=-2 and x=2 causing a gap, or the fact that both sides are squared making the equation mirrored in all four quadrants).
Frank Turek once said to someone on camera, "If Christianity is proven true, will you become a Christian", the person quickly replied, "I could ask you that if Hinduism is proven true will you become a Hindu". Frank totally lost it, "That's not going to happen" he said, "Yeah, and that's my answer to your question" replied the man. Frank was totally stumped.
It's a valid question, Most are so comfortable with the sinful life they have they would completely reject God even if he was standing in front of them. And also it helps determine who is there to try and shore up their Atheist beliefs and who is actually looking for knowledge. And yes even Atheists have doubts. any Atheist who says they never have doubts about their beliefs or lack there of is lying. Some feel better when they feel they can prove their position. And that is human nature, about any position really, doesn't have to include religion. Pro Choice people go to events to try and debate/affirm their beliefs as much as Pro Lifers do on abortion. Question most Atheists I know don't like to answer is, But ok.. What if you find out your wrong after it's to late? I have never had one answer me honestly. Usually some form of Sarcastic response.
@@truthinchristapologetics3542 I'd just go to hell knowing that I did nothing wrong, but ended up being punished just because of searching for truth, and not believing in something illogical without a proof because of fear of fire. I won't believe in something just because it would be safer in case I end up being wrong, but rather educate myself and try to be right. I want the most correct belief, not the safest one.
@@trash1341 You do know that there is no such place as "hell"? Catholics are the ones who pioneered the belief of hellfire. Ancient Israelites and early Christians didn't know or teach eternal torment.....it was the Catholic church that twisted some symbolic things in the Bible for the Catholic churches own nefarious ends, namely controlling people across a mediaeval Europe centuries ago. If you want to know what the Bible REALLY says and teaches visit jw.org You don't need to be a Jehovah's Witness to make use of their genuinely FREE study materials.
the crab analogy reminds me of the i guess hypothetical statement that if you leave a monkey in a room with a computer/keyboard, it will eventually write a Shakespeare book😂 its entirely possible that a crab could happen to move around in the way it looks like a message but the monkey nor the crab know of the message we get from it
The best thing about reality is that it simply doesn’t care about opinions or religious beliefs. It is how it is, with or without humans understanding it.
czcams.com/video/Ow1Q0m5lznQ/video.html Here is a great video by whaddo you meme showing the TRUTH of the Teleological argument. No more fallacies and lies
And how is this any different than a theologian that cannot give you definitive answers as to why bad things happen if a Good God exists? Its essentially the same answer. Truly sad.
@@Muscleduck That's because of impairment. Inherited defects etc. The Bible story of Adam and Eve bringing sin and death into the world explains this. Evolution doesn't.
@@Muscleduck “Yea but only because of that one lucky kid who i made to born in rich family to show him how lucky he is and how he should thank me for his life, … ye also your dad has stage 3 cancer.”
Stop fooling yourself the creator of the universe created everything, you can never understand who you are deeply because you are not the creator but created. Beings like a rat , a lion, a cat but abit intelligent becoz the almighty God breathed his breath on you.
*"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way....* *to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story, amusing perhaps, even instructive, but not scientific.'* Dr Henry Gee Senior editor at Nature journal.
@Trolltician I would like to see your critiques of some of Hitch's work. I am not being a smart alek, I really would. Do you have anything out there that people can read? Thank you.
@Trolltician He once asked William Lane Craig if he would believe the same things if he had been born somewhere else in the world and raised by parents of a completely different belief system. Craig laughed it off and never answered...because this is the death hammer for all religious beliefs.
What? You can’t adapt TO survive in an environment. In a micro evolutionary sense yes, in that we can adapt to BETTER survive but adapting TO survive is impossible. You can’t drop two humans on mars day after day for thousands of years and them magically learn to breathe. One shot. One suffocation. Micro evolutionary theory is plausible, things like skin tone change to accommodate more sun exposure. But this is the gap in macro evolution. You can’t adapt to survive. There has to be an originating success.
*'Fossils may tell us many things but one thing that they can never disclose is wether they are ancestors of anything else.'* Dr Colin Patterson Paleontologist.
*“The scientific argument advanced for intelligent design at the Dover Trail, those arguments collapsed, scientifically and intellectually“.* Kenneth R. Miller
SamF aka Bigot Bob aka AlexiP aka GarryB aka Big Baba always dodges or runs and thinks everything is evidence for his Iron Age outlook. He usually ends up fleeing arround poo, including absurd lies. See, I have given him two pieces of evidence for evolution theory: - Researchers from .... - A biogeography quote from christian site Bio Logos.
@@SamFey Atheism is a disbelief in all Gods due to lack of evidence provided for said Gods. So in what way does that require the atheist to provide any evidence? When deluded dullards claim their God is true because they have defined their God as able to do anything, then provide evidence that their God exists because 'stuff is around', then all the atheist can do is laugh at how deluded and 1d10t1c anyone that thinks such an argument is convincing, is. So, if you have any convincing evidence for your God belief, that cannot be applied to many other God beliefs too - baring in mind that there are multiple Christian sects for a start - then go for it, if you can, Mr. evidence lover!
@@El_Bruno7510Doesn't explain your lot's penchant for millitant anti God, anti religious borderline illegal behaviour or your distinct lack of any supporting evidence for origin of life or evolutionary theories. You have had ample time and opportunities to make your case with accompanying evidence but have failed to do so. You also deliberately misunderstand God. Atheists are the 'dumpster fire' of humanity.
@@brambes1804 The fuck they are To insinuate "God's will" would show a "knowledge" behind a cause It would be a claim of knowing the action that caused the result It clearly points to an agent behind an occurrence ...how" in whatever way does this relate to "I don't know?"
“Religion is an early attempt to answer the questions we all asked: why are we here? where did we come from? Nowdays, Science provides better and more consistent answers, but people will always cling to religion because it gives comfort, and they do not trust or understand science” -Stephen Hawking
It may very well also be because scientific theory doesn't always hold true. There are many things science doesn't or can't explain, therefore something else must be the result of that which can't be explained. Doesn't mean that it's automatically God, however it does show that something is there.
@@discussionz7289 we can prove anything with the scientific theory, the only problem is, we don’t have the correct or enough resources/ energy, for example, many religions belief that we are the only living creatures in the universe, science can proof that wrong using simple math, estimations, and predictions, we can’t prove it because we don’t have resources to make food supplies last years or even decades to find the nearest solar system, I also mentioned energy, because we don’t have enough energy to power a ship to nearby solar systems without a bunch of fuel, also give me an example which u don’t think science can prove, also u say maybe not god but something but that doesn’t mean anything because u have no proof to back it up so that irrelevant
@@yournarrator6428 not at all. There are countless stories about even wild paranormal animals existing, yet science can't figure that out at all. Science can't prove that there are other being besides humans with a level of intelligence similar or above our own, on any other planet. I also see that science says the fastest thing in existence is the speed of light, yet interestingly enough the heat expansion of the universe is faster? Or something faster then light would mean time is going backwards? Those things aren't proven either, those are speculations based on thought. So the interesting thing here is that if your *theory* states science can prove everything, yet lacks resources or correct resources... That means in practice even if theoretically possible, it's not practical and will fail or be wrong. You need to prove your stance as well.
Your explanation of basic evolution on a cell by cell scale was excellent. I have a habit of over complicating my explanations so it truly impressed me how you could get so much information conveyed in such a short and concise way, good job.
It's especially evidence for "Big Baba aka SamF aka BigBam aka AlexiP aka Bigot Bob McMillysilly rejecting any evidence for evolution theory 'cuz yadda yiddy yoddo."
@ Big Baba aka SamF aka BigBam aka AlexiP aka Bigot Bob McMillysilly: so you've been away for a week, demonstrating that your "this won't stop" was just another lie of yours, and this is the best you can do? Confirming my previous comment by providing evidence for it? Utterly lame.
@@melvinrosendaal9795 "It’s even more complicated then that because we can’t even recreate it" These are two mutually exclusive ideas. The idea that we can't recreate something has nothing necessarily to do with whether it is complicated or not. Moreover, our inability to recreate something tells us exactly nothing about it. "Put your pride away." What are you talking about? "Don’t choose sin to take over your life man" Why are you making random statements? Are you drinking?
@@SamIAm-kz4hg we can make soulless robots but not free will beings don’t. Every atheist has it’s pride. It’s not a natural progress that we are created by nothing. That the universe (space, time and matter) was created by nothing is already the biggest bullshit ever, then look at the concept of life especially with humans involved, so why not believe in god. He is spaceless, immaterial, timeless, intelligent, personal and creates. That sound way more logical than literally nothing. Scientist always have arguments for that, they say it were aliens who created us or gravity had the idea to create the universe. When they start saying crap like that you know there is a pride covering their loss. In the end of the day we believers are the most hated people on earth for being believers in something atheists think we can’t know. Yet they speculate nothing created everything. Get out of here man. Whats the molecule for being conscious? If we’re just molecules and nothing more than nobodies life cares including yours.
@@melvinrosendaal9795 "we can make soulless robots but not free will beings don’t." Did you think this was a sentence? "Every atheist has it’s pride." Why do you think you know every atheist? And why can't you write coherently? "It’s not a natural progress that we are created by nothing." Again, please learn how words work. This is simple gibberish. "That the universe (space, time and matter) was created by nothing is already the biggest bullshit ever" This is yet again a logical fallacy. Your personal incredulity isn't reasoning or evidence. But that's beside the point. We don't know why there is something instead of nothing. We don't know if there has always been something, or if everything that exists began to exist at some point in the distant past. I have no idea why you think there are only the options you presented. "That sound way more logical than literally nothing." So your "reasoning" is that it SOUNDS more logical? And you think this is intelligent dialogue? EXPLAIN why it is more logical. Use ACTUAL logic. Do you know what logic is and how it works? And do you realize the irony in stating that something SOUNDS more logical, and then not using logic. That's funny. "Scientist always have arguments for that, they say it were aliens who created us or gravity had the idea to create the universe." NO SCIENTIST ARE SAYING THIS. What are you smoking? "When they start saying crap like that you know there is a pride covering their loss." I have no idea what you think this sentence means. "In the end of the day we believers are the most hated people on earth for being believers in something atheists think we can’t know." I KNOW that you can't know these things. You can CLAIM to know them. You aren't hated for this. People like me simply think you are stupid. "Yet they speculate nothing created everything." You need to get off this idea. There are many different theories regarding the origins of the universe. Most scientists actually do not think that nothing created everything. But you also have not been able to demonstrate that this is impossible. You've simply asserted it. "Whats the molecule for being conscious?" We suspect that consciousness is related to the power of our brains. Scientists have done work with other animals, like apes. Some can understand the gravity of death. So, there seems to be a correlation between the power of our brains and consciousness. "If we’re just molecules and nothing more than nobodies life cares including yours." So, another bizarre sentence. You sound like English isn't your first language. But I think I know what you are trying to say. Whether you happen to like it or not, we could all just be an accident. Here just by chance. We have meaning to each other, and we give our lives meaning. But beyond that there may be nothing. So what?
I found it hilarious bc turreck kept trying to make dna out as some divine creation, when in reality it’s sloppy, and frequently imperfect causing mutations. If it was the work of a creator he didn’t do a great job.
In the following text i debunk the premise of this video, please read with attention The counter arguments presented by this individual are intellectually flawed, not due to an inherent lack of intelligence ,but rather due to a misguided confidence that the presenter holds in relation to his ability to present these so called "counter arguments" Firstly, he is extremely articulate, employing a wide array of such selectively chosen words of high complexity whose meaning will simply go over the mind of the layman, this very high levels of articulacy coupled with the appearance of overconfidence in his speech provides the listener with the auditory and visual illusion of successfully "debunking" the arguments of the thiestic fellow, As i do not have a deep understanding of the puddle argument i do not feel qualified to comment on it, but there are definitely fundamental logical mistakes and fallacies in which the presenter makes that i can point out At 6:10 : the presenter "debunks" the argument for the extremely large human genome as proof for intelligent design as it was being compared to an extremely intricate sequence of binary code , by simply stating that it is not proof for intelligent design, notice how he does not actually provide any counter arguments for that point, he relies on his high level of articulacy and overconfidence to convince the viewer that he has successfully debunked it when all he has actually done is say, "it is not proof for intelligent design" and "if you cant show me the designer making it then it isn't justifable to to attribute it to intelligent design" why isn't it justifable????? That's the question he should answer, its like seeing an extremely complex piece of technology lying in an uninhabited barren wasteland, with no history or record of who may have invented it , and saying , well if you cant show me the designer who created it as he was creating it i will not believe there was active intelligence behind , and i will simply state that it came about by entropy/ randomness, because i could not witniss the creator create it, that is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD! furthermore Beginning at 8:45, he uses the example of the message on the beach, which is obviously a specific , conditional, one time example, that the thiestic fellow used to propogate his argument for intelligent design, by creating an analogy between intelligent design and messages, and he bases the entire argument around this singular example, and this example mind you, does not convey the argument that was trying to be made, it is simply analogy, yet the presenter cites several examples in which "messages" from nature were misinterpreted as actual messages, this is completely missing the point, what does misinterpretation of an apparent messages in the natural world, have anything to do, with an intricate mechanism, that lead to the creation of a complex arrangment letters that bear meaning, which is pretty much synonymous to the intelligent design behind this universe? This is a straw man argument, in which the presenter completely deforms and bends the original argument in a way that suits him , making it easier to "debunk" the argument, using competely unrelated examples that seem intertwined with the origjnal argument but are actually not, as it has undergone implicit distortion which may have gone under the radar of most listeners Thirdly In the last portion of the video in which the presenter on a whole scientific rant mentioned 2 primary points 1) how DNA mutates and species undergo genetic changes from generation to generation (which is microevolution) 2) how DNA is capable of intrinsically add genes wihout any extrinsic stimulus/factors These are well estabilished scientific facts with their own merit, but that also miserably fails as a rebuttal to the orignal argument made by Frank turek, which is how can one or a combination of natural forces can lead to an extremely large and complex genetic sequence such as that of the human genome? -) what the presenter was able to explained is how DNA can change over time and absolutely not how it is created from inaminate inorganic matter, the DNA or the genome has to be there in the first place before it can undergo these changes, you failed to answer how The extremely complex genome/DNA can even arise in the first place , from natural forces, acting on inanimate matter This is another fundamental mistake that you made just like many others in this video Forgive me for repeating my words, but i have to make a point that sits with the reader We're not all dumb bigots who are incapable of objective analysis, i hope that who ever might come accross this has the patience to read the whole thing and have a change of heart in regards to these so called *skeptics* that have their way with weak minded individuals through the power of words along
@@FourDeuce01 yet you haven’t disproven or even commented on a single point he has made. I can assume you didn’t read it which kind of makes it funnier.
@@thesqweebliest3727 " yet you haven’t disproven" That's why you need to learn some basic logic before you try to talk with adults. I don't need to disprove his nonsense until he proves it. "I can assume you didn’t read it" You can assume anything you're dumb enough to assume. You already proved you don't know any basic logic.
The second religious people (or conspiracy theorists) base their arguments on selected scientific findings, thats what you should point to. The question is "How do you know that?" works both for faith based claims as scientific ones. They just pick and chose whatever they can to build a model to support their argument. Asking why they trust one scientific finding and not another is a simple way to dismantle their arguments.
Take for example the Lenski E Coli lab experiments and the claims made about citrus adaption. They never seemed to realise that E Coli has been around at least as long as humans have and humans have been eating citrus fruits throughout human history. *The point?* E Coli in people's bowels has encountered citrus over thousands of years. There's no issue of alleged 'evolution' other than the paycheque hunting 'evolution' obsessed scientists making unsupported claims of how the E Coli 'evolved' in their lab dishes to accommodate citrus etc just because they said so and want more funding for further research. It's essentially daylight robbery of money by them, money that should be better spent going into researching something more relevant. The scientific crowd is awash with the this self entitled behaviour. It's amazing none of them have secured billions to research if the sun really does rise in the East, milk it for a few decades then tell us the public what we already knew.
@@bigbabatunde1218 Clearly you failed to understand the experiment, sure it has been around for a long time, creating an environment where it is forced to change is the purpose. It shows that something will evolve when required to for survival given changes in the environment. Outside the lab there is no reason for it to evovle. Congrats on proving your ignorance.....once again.
@@bigbabatunde1218 Said the "goodbye proclaimer" that never actually leaves! Did you see my response in the post further up that trashes your designer? I note you haven't responded to that yet. Is my answer causing problem with your cognitive dissonance? You'll need to come up with some deluded interpretation to answer I'm afraid 😂
Not all programs have clear design or structure, due to obfuscation used to hide the intent of some written code. Not to give the others an argument to be made, but if there was an all powerful creator they could have covered their tracks just as someone in Infosec might cover their tracks. Maybe just another test? Maybe this all powerful being only wants blind Faith followers!
@@swagpotato3396 It's not that the universe is finely tuned so that stars could exist or whatever could exist it's that these things exist in the form they do because they can. At one point we thought that all life forms needed light of some sort, or that they needed oxygen of some sort but then we managed to find lifeforms in places on earth where there was absolutely no light at all, and no oxygen at all either. In an environment were no living life form we had previously encountered could survive there was a a multitude of species alive.
@@swagpotato3396 When I try to think about this I picture a multiverse, with uncountable different universes. In each one, the gravitational force is slightly different. In some universes, it is too weak for stars to form. And guess what? In those universes, no life exists. The only universe in which life could exist to ponder these questions is the universe whose strength of gravity just so happened to be the right strength to allow the formation of planets. That doesn't mean our universe was specifically tailored to us, unless you can prove there aren't 1,000,000 "failed" universes out there.
@@marknieuweboer8099 And there you are making unsubstantiated claims again and based on what? Post the evidence for your claims. Post this evidence for evolution that you keep believing is true. I could be Big Baba or I could be their friend, co worker, team mate, sibling or partner, or again, none of the mentioned. You have no evidence for anything you whine about, but whine to do.
@@watchman.servant he is literate enough for current hypothese. I dont knoe what your point is though. We dont know what will happen in a billion years tho we will most likely all be dead... But we dont know what new information might cone up but most likely he will still be scientifically literate in the furture since he seems like the guy to be willing to learn
*Real life definition of an Atheist:* Pursuers of already debunked arguments in an attempt to justify their atheism to themselves and attempting to convince others to be the same as them. When they've exhausted their incredibly limited scientific understanding and sense their own limitations and defeats looming over them while trying to patch up their collapsing position whilst simultaneously being on the back foot, they then proceed to make ad hominem attacks on the individual they're attempting to argue with complete with the usual overused catchphrases of 'pigeon chess' and 'Dunning Kruger' with no hint of irony from them whatsoever. 🙄
@@Lydia13778 I would ask them if they really believe it, if I were you. And be direct. I only know a couple of Mormons. They don’t believe in the gap theory. In fact, many of the early scientists, Newton, Galileo, Mendel, Faraday, Pascal, and Boyle, just to name a few, were Christians. They believed that God had made the universe in such a way that we could discover how it worked, through experimentation. Put another way, they believed that a God of order would have made the universe and world we live in, in an orderly and predictable way. And low and behold, they found that order. One other point to ponder, whenever we encounter intelligibility, intelligence is always assumed, save in the natural world. Why is that, do you suppose?
Sometimes the arguments seem strong. I know it is not correct, but I don't have the counterarguments at hand. It leaves me baffled. And that's when the theist think they've won. And I hate it. You're doing a great job in debunking those people.
"To derive a divine world from our concrete one requires a salto mortale" - Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis, end of the Nineteenth Century. So my tip is to look for the point where they jump from evidence, facts, anything from our natural reality (eg the Big Bang, the beauty of a waterfall, the intricate "design" of a biological cell) to their favourite creator god. Then point out that they haven't justified that jump. They merely proclaim "goddiddid", which is the God of the Gaps fallacy. Very often they react with "but you can't explain at all", to which the reply is "you try to convince me, not the other way round". This covers most apologetics and all creacrap.
*"Our own genomes carry the story of evolution, written in DNA, the language of molecular genetics, and the narrative is unmistakable."* Kenneth R. Miller
@@bigbabatunde1218 Do you know the difference between the 2? Now I know your mentally challenged when it comes to answering simple yes or no questions. Try to honestly answer it. Bitch 😂
@ Big Baba: thanks for confirming my previous comment. You fail to recognize that you still can't "refute" one by "criticizing" the other. It's as stupid as 'refuting" Ohm's Law by pointing at the lack of monopoles. Or calling the UK a communist country because the former GDR had the word demokratisch in its name. So of course you stick to it. Also you're lying. I gave you evidence forc evolution. You just refuse to accept it because yadda yiddy yoddo. You always do.
Turek isn't trying to (honestly) answer these questions - he's trying to reassure the other members of the audience, so that they stop asking these questions.
So what is this channel doing? Sounds to be he is doing the same thing. Suming up the arguement can be stated as: "Turek is wrong because X and Y reasons, do not listen to him, I am correctly because I know so." Quite a conundrum, isn't it?
@@KlaustheViking Except Turek is presenting his position using manipulative or ignorant language and misrepresenting the counter argument. This video presents both sides of the argument and criticizes the positions using facts one can verify, Turek simply speaks from "authority" without any way to prove anything he says. When you combine both dishonest presentation style and a unverifiable series of claims.. you find a liar. You would not take me claiming "I am immortal" at face value, you would expect me to prove it.
@@azarinevil I could still argue the same way with Skeptic's way of pointing out Turek's fault in his arguements. I would say, for a side note: Turek is not given all the time in the world with the lines of peoole asking him all sorts of questions, so I would understand him giving a rather simplified way of puttinf his arguement. I would personally look at his debates with well-known skeptics such as Christopher Hitchens to hear Turek's more prolonged explanations for his arguements rather than trying to squeeze in a couple of minutes for a question that typically requires a more well thought out answer. He is only trying to answer on the dime, so I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Back to my original statement, I could say that Skeptic is using the same type of manupulative language to convince the audience who watches his videos to make an authoritative statement that a God does not exist. He has said that, "Just say 'I do not know' if you do not know the answer rather saying 'God did it'", when he [Skeptic] does not know for an absolute certainty that there is no God.
@@KlaustheViking You miss the point of that argument completely.. the default answer shouldn't be a cope out like "God did it". That's the laziest and most dishonest argument in Christianity. It was my grandmother's go to along with "Because God said so". It was always just a dismissal of the debate as a whole.. that was the point she was actually saying "I can't actually defend my position so I don't want to talk about it any more". I watched her use this on my uncle when he tried to explain to her why he had to leave the church and get a divorce from his abusive, cheating wife. He was one of the four children who the church destroyed by selling the "traditional values" according to God. One of the reasons I am so confident in the non-existence of God is the authority problem of Christianity. We are expected to take the words of human beings, who took it on the word of other human beings.. for over 2000 years. By the time I was 8 I had figured out human beings lie through their teeth when it offers them control, things they want, and the ability to excuse their gross actions.
@@azarinevil Going off the last part of what you said lies in the problem: you are going off the authority of other humans versus what the Bible (God's word) commanded. The Bible has been translated many times, but the message always remained the same. Im sorry you had a bad experience which led to you leaving the church. I have heard many tsstimonies of people doing the same exact thing for very similar reasons. Back to the main issue... The cop out of "Because God said so" or however it is put depending on the arguement can be valid in certain circumstances. When we are arguing about the morality of God, God is the arbiter of all that is good and is perfectly just according to Christian belief. Being that God is our creator and instilled morality into our hearts, there is no other moral truth... only God's standard. Of course, I am arguing on my point of view. In that sense, saying "Because God says so" is fine with that sort of arguement because God has authority above all. I understand in other arguements, when using that so called "cop out", it does not hold water. There is so much that we, even as devout Christians, do not know or understand about God's nature, so we can only go off with what we are given. Considering we are finite in our abilities as humans to comprehend God as a supreme being, I would imagine it bring practically impossible to understand why God did this or said that at certain times in the Bible. So with that all being said, saying that "cop out" is not just a completely dishonest way of dismissal of an arguement. It all depends on the arguement at hand.
Do you guys think Turek is being dishonest? Does he understand the argument(s) against intelligent design? I voiced my opinion, but I'm still a bit conflicted.
Always, it's his default position. Our environment suits us so well because we evolved to fit into it, but that makes us subordinate to our environment and not at all special so he's never going to accept that.
Honestly I have no idea, he's defiently one of the more intellegent Christians but can't tell if he's lying or just has wrong way of seeing these
Obvious apologetics tactic, dodge the question & restate your position.
@@LarryTownsend Very true
He’s so blatantly dishonest, I watched a debate with him and cosmic skeptic and he’s clearly an intelligent guy, just a liar.
Pray ->
Did it work? -> *PRAISE THE LORD!*
Didn't work? -> _The Lord works in mysterious ways._
@@The_Joy_Of_Jesus
So since you're saying that God is not confined to the laws of nature _(Time, gravity, Newton's laws, etc.)_ like we are, here is my question for you:
This would make God all powerful _(The Bible says he created life and an entire universe, so he is certainly capable),_ so why doesn't he exercise that power to prevent great suffering in our world?
It seems to me that if there _is_ such an omnipotent God out there, that he doesn't deserve my worship because he clearly doesn't care enough to prevent evil in this world.
@@The_Joy_Of_Jesus
If God is perfect _(Something that is implied),_ then he should be able to create a perfect world- a world without great pain, hunger, tyrants, disease, abuse, etc. while still being able to "display his everlasting love." But, seeing how we are living in a thoroughly messed up world, I can conclude that:
-There is no God,
-There _is_ a God, but he is clearly evil for allowing such mass suffering to persist and deserves no love,
-Or, there is a God but for whatever reason he is totally flawed and unable to fix everything _(Which directly contradicts the bible, therefore leading me to cast doubt over his existence)._
@@The_Joy_Of_Jesus “Think about it.”
You first.😂
@@The_Joy_Of_Jesus “Then you know what you believe.”
I know you don’t understand basic logic.😏
@@The_Joy_Of_Jesus As long as you keep lying about other people, you’ll keep failing.💩
Evangelicals christians: "science can't explain that!"
science: *explains it*
Evangelicals: LIES
As ever, you can't reason someone out of a belief that they weren't reasoned into in the first place.
@@greenaum Please don't say that. Many atheists have been raised theist without reasoning, and then were reasoned out of it. Deprograming is hard, but not impossible.
@@nataliaborys1554 It's an old saying, and it explains just why deprogramming is so difficult, and in many cases doomed to failure. Deprogramming a cult is one thing, but for a religion that receives state support in some countries, where believers are everywhere, that's very different.
@@greenaum I am literally from that background. My state supports the Church financially, religion is taught in schools as defualt (you have to sign out of this, not sign for it) and everyone at the very least pretends to be religious, at least it was like that in my formative years. Yet, I'm here, not believing in God anymore. Mostly thanks to my atheist friend, my not-crazy parents and the Internet. I know, many don't have these assets, but it's still possible.
*Real life definition of an Atheist:*
Pursuers of already debunked arguments in an attempt to justify their atheism to themselves and attempting to convince others to be the same as them.
When they've exhausted their incredibly limited scientific understanding and sense their own limitations and defeats looming over them while trying to patch up their collapsing position whilst simultaneously being on the back foot, they then proceed to make ad hominem attacks on the individual they're attempting to argue with complete with the usual overused catchphrases of 'pigeon chess' and 'Dunning Kruger' with no hint of irony from them whatsoever. 🙄
I would rather have questions which can't be answered, than Biblical answers which can't be questioned.
Atheist irrationality ===== the bible is BS therefore there is no thing called "god".
Straw man. Atheist reject ALL the claims of god(s) existence, not just the Christian god.
@@jennifersmith4864 Typical, that conclusion you keep spouting is not valid. There so far is no god so we lack belief in god....if anyone provides valid evidence then our position changes.
It means we do not have to worship him, but at least he was proven. Words are all anyone has offered.
@@bigbabatunde1218
_"No evidence will be good enough for you"_
What evidence do you have?
Oh that's right..
1. Failed prophecies.
2. Humans are complicated.
You make Frank Turek look good. 😂
@@markh1011 Thanks for replying and inadvertently confirming that my posts are visible to others.
You have had lots of evidence for God over the years here. You reject it all for some unfathomable reason.
Things aren't too complex to understand, the designs of whatever you want to point to are well observed and understood by many, complex or not.
Never once had any of it been evidenced to have sprung up from a blob in a puddle, or worse still, from nothing billions of years ago.
Another loss for you there.
The world wasn’t fine tuned to us, we were fine tuned to the world
I support that statement...
Obviously
@@Huskylogic
If it was so obvious I wouldn't be hearing people saying the complete opposite on a daily basis
This is why we live on earth and not on mars or jupiter or smth
Exactly. Christians always think they are special. What they don't realise is that we are an insignificant part of this massive universe and nothing we do has any impact on the universe
My friend's dog has a mark on its neck that looks like a Nike swoosh, the only explanation is that she is Nike's divinely appointed brand ambassador.
It must be
Yes exactly.
very well, watch me
gonna bomb Nike HQ and then paint Nike symbols everywhere while filming it
My tortie cat has just about every color of cat on her with very little white. The only place she does have white is this "ring" on her tail.
So I could easily say "she's got this ring on her tail because she used to hold the one ring to rule them all."
Not a great analogy, but it gave me a chuckle, no cap
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair
Loved the quote
The problem with that quote is that it can be used against Athiest activist CZcamsrs as well.
Still a great quote. Just a bit of a double edged sword as well.
@@Myke_thehuman not really religious ppl only understand about their religion. Atheist could understand both side of explanation and they just chose the most rational answer. Most of the religious ppl thinks Theory of Darwin means monkey evolved to became man. 😑
@@randomclips4677 yes that's very frustrating. Even my mom brought up that argument. And wow I couldn't believe she didn't even bother to do any research at all.
.
Plus the whole, the universe is perfectly in sync and timed so that your can't debate if there's a Creator. That argument came up as well. And it's simply not true. The universe is choas. And there's only peace when things are way too far apart to hit each other. Or when they get trapped in a n orbit.
Other then that there's supernovas, black holes, planets getting bombarded with meteors stars so close in orbit to each other that they are feeding off of each other.
It's all chaos. And in space chaos can in fact be a ladder.
Cats 2079 I wonder if the dinosaurs worshipped a god and prayed for the meteor to stop...
If we don’t stop this now then 1000 years from now Christians will still be praying for the sea level to retreat from their city at the top of Mount Everest
“My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.”
- John Dominic Crossan
Said someone who wasn't there.
*Squeals someone who isn’t all there*
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus Said Darwins cabbage.
Oh wow Im so offended 🤣
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus Prove your claims then.
“Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever conceived!”
- Isaac Asimov
A somewhat convoluted plot with talking snakes, unfeasable boats and a mass murdering deity that loves you!
bro why are you here, also address my arguments
@@dicegamez8216 Bro im allowed to be anywhere on here 😂
Why does that trigger you buddy?
What arguments? 😂
Say that to quran.... Fight between your God... Which one is the Real God Lol
@@manipuriflames6512 I wipe my ass with the pooran 🤣
I’m not gullible enough to believe in a man made god
"I don't know" is an infinitely more honest and intelligent answer than "because God"
I don't know = null, nothing, invalid.
@@ultrainstinctgoku2509
Made up answers like "God did it“ are pathetic and worthless.
It’s on the same level as "It’s magic“.😂
@Samuel 868
Well, scientists/Atheists don’t claim that something came from nothing.
The consensus seems to be that the stuff that our universe is made of is eternal and always existed in some form.
Creating something from nothing, which is impossible, is the nonsense that Turek believes in.😂
And of course you have only two options left, you can accept the evidence for unguided/scientific Evolution or you can believe in guided/theistic Evolution... but what you can’t do is deny that Evolution happened like Turek does.😂
@Samuel 868
So you only accept Evolution within a kind like ape to human Evolution?😂
Meanwhile in reality the entire Genesis account has been proven to be fiction invented by superstitious savages. Most Christians can accept that fact and simply reinterpret all the stories of the Bible that have been proven to be false.😉
@Samuel 868
Only creationists aka science denying religious fundamentalists distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, but the mechanism is identical.
And yes, apes evolving into humans would only be considered to be microevolution, it would be relatively small changes within the same taxonomic group.
Well, your god is just one of thousands of other made up gods with just as much evidence as we have for all of the others... none.
When I say that the entire Genesis account has been disproven then that means that pretty much all of it can be proven to be false.
-we can prove that Noahs global flood never happened
-we can prove that pretty much every detail of the creation myth is false
-we can prove that Adam and Eve never existed
-Abraham and Moses are most likely just fictional characters and the Exodus never happened, the Israelites were never enslaved in Egypt.
Also, the Bible doesn’t say anything about space, time and matter... like you said: God created the heavens and the earth.
Because the authors of Genesis didn’t know what the universe is... they thought that earth IS the universe, that the stars are just tiny signs in the solid firmament and that there was water on the other side of the firmament.😂
All of the authors of the Bible combined knew less about how the world works than a random 14 year old kid that lives today in the western world, so don’t try to justify your superstitious beliefs by applying your secular understanding of the world to the texts that literally say something completely different as you claim.😉
As a coder myself, I can tell you that coding does NOT require a great mind.
nope, it just writes itself
lol
As a retired mainframe coder all I can say is "ouch!" But you have a valid point.
The best way to code is to just randomly try stuff until your program works
But it needs a hell a lot of determination and mental strength cause hell im not going to start doing that again
“Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool”
- Voltaire
Prove it.
Look in the mirror princess. There’s your proof 🐥🐥
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus So a rabid atheist said. 🙄
Boohoo
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus Insolent child.
“The Old Testament is responsible for more Atheism, Agnosticism, Disbelief - call it what you will - than any book ever written; it has emptied more Churches than all the counter-attractions of cinema, motor bicycle and golf course.”
- A.A Milne
The best reason for me to be atheist is the un-Christian behaviour of the Christians in my youth....
*"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way....to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story. Amusing perhaps, even instructive, but not scientific."*
Dr Henry Gee
'Evolutionist' and Senior Editor
at publication Nature.
@@bigbabatunde1218he has criticisms towards things we cannot prove with CERTAINTY, that doesn’t mean evolution just crumbles apart; even for him. That same man you are quoting also said “Even though it is impossible to know for certain whether one species is the ancestor of another, we do know that any two organisms found on Earth must be cousins in some degree”
The universe was created specifically for us..... Why else would 99.9999999 percent of it be lethal to our existence?
Wait.... A.... Second......
Lol
Yeah! :)
@Scharlach927 That's a bullshit concept, that of quantum immortality.
That's SIMPLY NOT HOW OBSERVATION WORKS. It holds no real power in and of itself as per the idea of a conscious entity being there to observe something. The universe could indeed have existed without any life. The nuclear bomb WOULD almost certainly detonate within a minute.
Sean “But wait, see in this hostile universe there’s only one (most likely more but let’s forget about them) place that’s suitable for life! Coincidence? I think not!”
Every Christian Apologists go-to arguments:
1. God did the good things
2. The Devil did the bad things
3. God works in mysterious ways
Try to address a person who can who knows the subject. Asking a Christian a phd rather then one that works at wall mart. Some goes for a an atheist. An atheist still hasn’t found any proof of a change of kind or a big foot lol
@@isaiahsambol453 It's been a week and I'm still trying to decipher that last sentence you typed.
@@TitusRedwind Not sure if he's going to give you more sambols to understand. I'm sorry
bro, if God is good he cannot do bad things, therefore it is the devil. not that hard to understand, and if God worked in obvious ways everyone would believe
@@ballsman6084 God says he's responsible for ALL of it. I refer to the Bible’s book of Isaiah 45:7 where God says: “I form the light and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” In Deuteronomy 32:39 God says: “…I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal…”. In Exodus 4:11, God says: “…who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?”
Even if the universe is finely tuned by an intelligent creator, it's still indistinguishable from one that just happened to end up this way.
It’s also pretty evident that it is nowhere near finely tuned, the universe is voids between absolute chaos
@@brqxton8974 the universe is absolutely finely tuned. if any of a number of things were different atoms could not exist
yes, you will never find a proof of god. likewise science will never answer the question why does anything exist
@@jgunther3398 look out into the universe and you will find that at every single level it is absolute chaos.
@@brqxton8974 lol fam a famrsctom if an inch closer to the sun we’d be French today the hell you talking about? Y’all just ungrateful creations still complaining when you have all the tools for this earthly experience
It would be hilarious if the reason we can't get physics models quite right is because the "creator" just put together a bunch of spaghetti code lmao
"Damnit there's a bug in the code! Gravity and the other 3 forces don't agree with eachother? Oh well I'll just ship it as a feature"
Steel Wool is God confirmed
@@NotThatSocially God's gonna release an update soon to fix those bugs, but it will be the last for this universe. We need to get another one to get the new updates on the cosmic store
@@NotThatSocially "It just works." -God, possibly
"What are the odds that my legs would be precisely the right length to reach the floor?"
Lol
Are you Irish?
Praise the miracles of Jeebus.
It's a miracle
I would say less than 0,0001 percent! Imagine all other lenghts! The truth is thst they kill babies with longer or shorter legs at birth.
Don't get me started on pianos! these things are perfect to be played by human fingers!
Everything said here is wrong. We all secretly know the truth is the great spaghetti being created all in his 12 sons’ image.
12 sons?
MisterNurse2U
Are you being serious, or...
Satan is better. Choose the Dark Site of Religion. Maybe they have cool hoodies like the Empire in Star Wars ..
And raptor Jeezus is his messiah, amen
Heretic, the great macaroni being only had Cheesus as his one and only son!
6:20 It's the first time I'm hearing this crab analogy. The problem is that he's comparing DNA to a message in sand made by a crab. No, it's not probable that a crab would accidentally write a full sentence in sand. Just like it's not probable that DNA would just appear from nowhere. DNA evolved from simpler molecules. And those molecules evolved from even simpler molecules. A crab would probably not write a full sentence in sand, but there's a higher probability that he would write a single word, then there's even higher probability that he would write a single letter, and finally, there's a pretty high probability that he would write a single stroke in sand. The crab analogy completely ignores evolution.
with all my respect to everyone
anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self
something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power
(Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 ❤❤❤.
@@aymanseder5887 I don't see that.
@@aymanseder5887I wish he gave you the divine power to spell
The whole intelligent design thing makes me think of the "library of babel", which is a computer generated library of all text that could ever exist. Ofcourse, that's amongst loads and loads of gibberish- but chance causes it to produce proper sentences and paragraphs. DNA doesn't need a writer, it just needs to exist and to change and occasionally chance upon a change that is better at surviving and reproducing than before, and most of the gibberish gets weeded out through natural selection until most of it makes sense.
(Also I love the argument that the way we are designed isn't actually intelligent, but rather stupid, because we have lots of flaws in our construction. We can literally break our own ribs from sneezing to hard. That doesn't sound like intelligent design to me.)
Think about this, eating, breathing or water, if we do not get anyone 1 of those we die....that is an extremely flawed design.
@@ThyBountyHunter You need bumming remember.
ThyBountyHunter clearly doesn't understand eco systems. 🙄
ID is a deep theory so read on friend.
But there isn't enough time for DNA to have that chance.
“It’s easier to fool someone than to convince them they’ve been fooled.”
Mark Twain
That can be said about individuals on both sides of the arguement.
That's why people who fall for email scams will funnel thousands of dollars to the scammers before they admit that they were wrong.
Ronald Jeter how can you be fooled into believing there isn’t a god? Please explain
@@evinroen6401 I do believe in Yah. I was simply making the point that the quote can be used defensively on both sides of the argument.
Ronald Jeter ok
The default answer to "We don't know" is *not* "god did it", but "We don't know *yet* ".
So, before you shift the burden, what exactly is Hawking's theory of everything?
The fact is, scientist don't love to be in a position of authority because they are reptiloids and already are in the ultimate position of authority, reptiloids are angels send from god...
But lets go back a step, the theory of everything is atm purely hypothetical afaik. So how does a hypothetical idea conflict with the fact that "We don't know" means "We do not know"
KLJF you need to understand modern physics and it’s origins first to understand what you just said
Well.... Someone or something MUST have done it, still, and that someone or something is the ALMIGHTY GOD! Evolution???? How gullible can you get???
Rebecca Dørum not gullible enough to fail the high school biology evolution exam based on faith
@@sebastianlaplume461 well... Stay decieved if that's what you choose.
The atheist scientist doesn't say god doesn't exist. They just don't care either way because it has no value in their equations and conclusions. Name one equation that has "plus God" in it.
My favorite response to the argument from design is one from Matt Dillahunty, which, paraphrasing and applying to the version that Turek uses:
Turek (paraphrased): When you're walking on the beach and see a message drawn in the sand, you know that the message came from a mind.
Matt Dillahunty (paraphrased): which proves that the message in the sand is of DIFFERENT quality than the natural sand dunes around it. The "watchmaker" argument defeats itself. It is, according to you, immediately apparent that the message in the sand is different from the rest of the environment in its intelligent origin. But you are trying to use this as an analogy for the entire universe being designed. Why is the message in the sand unique in this environment, when it is designed, the sand dunes are designed, the ocean waves are designed, the sky is designed. The intelligently designed message should appear un-special in an environment made ENTIRELY out of intelligent design. And yet the argument claims it is special.
Oh my that's really good!
This is a brilliant answer.
"... a software program 3.2 billion letters long also seems to require a mind - a great mind!" Thank you, good sir, for this compliment! Indeed all software engineers I know are extremely intelligent and serious people! We would never say things like "//no idea why it works but DON'T change this line"
This comment should be at the very top
haha nice one!
That's litterally how it goes
I have seen comments like that in code all the time.
"no idea why it works but dont change this line" as far as understand is machine learning algorythms right? I'm not a programmer so let me know what you think
He’s so smart he calls elementary particles “molecules”
My brain just became windows exp shutdown
Holy Koolaid, Viced Rhino, Belief It Or Not, and thx to His GOP-Coverage, which i would argue is 'Unhealthy-Religion-Coverage', also:
Some More News.
Take this Recommenadtion and say AMENN.
True
Imagine being so smart that you assume that one slip of the tongue or one minor language infraction is indicator of intelligence. You must be a goddamned genius!
@@loturzelrestaurant Sorry, no matter what I try and pull from your post, I can only assume that you have brain damage from too many drugs.
The best part of being a scientist is you have to ignore your own culture
This is why I wanna be a scientist
lol
Yes lol what other group of people are actively trying to disprove there own models and theories? And give awards to people are able to find counter examples?
They are like "YES finally someone found an experiment that doenst agree with our model, now we can investigate and find deeper truths of the universe"
with all my respect to everyone
anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self
something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power
(Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 ❤
@@aymanseder5887You clearly don't have any respect for other people so just stop. Stop projecting your own intellectual failings on everybody else, it's just embarrassing.
@@ACharmedEarthling THANK YOU
I love the examples you gave of unintended messages being originally interpreted as intentional. I feel like those are such big/scientific examples, a lot of theists would still try to explain them away with religion. Maybe simple examples would help to. One time my dad and I discussed this type of topic and I mentioned that when hunters track their prey, they look for signs such as broken branches, crushed grass, etc. all of these are messages interpreted by the hunter as to where the prey has been, but obviously the prey did not leave these signs with the intent of telling the hunter where they are or have been. Hence, a message can be interpreted without being intentional. Does an example like this also hold up against the question he asked or should we use more scientific ones like you used. Just curious in case this topic comes up again personally :)
That's what I expected Drew to talk about, but was pleasantly surprised with an entirely different (and yet reasonable) response
Yeah, I guess if you think about it, it's weird that mountains and clouds don't have messages on them. I mean God could have splashed "Jesus Loves You" and John 3:16 all over the place, but no, the Christians have to put those out there for themselves.
@@urbangorilla331. If god did that, many would still dount or try to explain it scientifically, or blame cognitive malfunction like hallucination.
2. If he revealed himself today say like a 2nd jesus, how long in the future until people question its historic validity and begin doubting again?
3. If god showed everyone 100% with no doubt of his existence, what is the point of faith and finding your way back to god if he hands it to you? Why dont we give everyone a million dollars so we can all be rich? We exist between heaven and hell and have been given freewill to chose where we end up, otherwise there is no freewill if he makes the choice for us. Get it? You cannot have freewill, and also have all the answers directly uploaded to your brain by god himself.
with all my respect to everyone
anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self
something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power
(Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 .
@@aymanseder5887 No, it actually doesn't. Its your personal interpretation that does that.
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.”
Richard Feynman.
Case closed
@Yiannis Mantheakis
Thank God most theists properly question their answers :P
Honestly, the divide between atheists and theists is ridiculous when both are accusing each other of dishonesty or cognitive dissidence. Both have decent arguments but neither have absolute solutions.
Granted, after looking at the evidence behind Jesus, I’d hedge my bets on God if I were a betting man.
Amen Feynman, Amen
@@FuddlyDud Most theists properly question their answers?
You must be joking.
When asked what evidence would challenge his belief in God, Ken Ham answered "Nothing".
How in the hell is that questioning an answer? That's more like actively shielding an answer from question.
Ham is far from alone.
Further, the point of most of these sorts of videos is that theists *do not* actually have good answers.
Theists have answers which sound superficially appealing, but cannot withstand any degree of serious scrutiny. In the end, almost all theistic answers to the great questions all boil down to faith.
As to the 'evidence behind Jesus', aside from the Bible and the fact that a religion evolved around it's stories, there is none.
That's worth repeating. There is NONE.
I know that's a bitter pill for most Christians to swallow, but it is the truth.
I'm sure we agree that religions, even very prominent religions, can evolve out of false notions. That is, in fact, the consensus opinion of Christians concerning all other religions.
With that in mind, how can any purely documentary evidence serve as a foundation for such a great claim?
The simple answer is; To a rational mind, it cannot.
While scientific answers are incomplete, at least they can show solid evidence for why what is believed is believed in repeatable tests. And, there is no cognitive dissonance in science.
Christianity can't even pass the basic test of falling in line with demonstrable reality without invoking miracle after miracle.
That being said, nobody would care what Christians believe were they not actively trying, with a good measure of success, to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. But, they are.
Finally, when Christians start acting like those who murder and claim God told them to do it should actually be taken seriously instead of treated as mentally ill or liars, then I'll take your claimed 'hedge' seriously.
Until then...
@@silentotto5099
Look, my comment was an off-the-cuff remark about how theists do struggle with the big questions that atheists deem as absolute proof to disproving theology and the existence of God. Sure, some people are unshakable in their view, but both theists and atheists are guilty of this and claiming superiority just because you use Science is ridiculous since claiming religion and science as mutually exclusive isn't true (although it is to many, more fundamentalist/literal groups).
None? Seriously?
Roman and Jewish historians, known for their accuracy in reporting, report him as a real person. Mind explaining how both were so easily hoodwinked?
And, if the claim is that he never existed, then could you explain what the point of the apostles' ministry? All it did was get them killed in horrific ways and get them rejected by both Jewish and Roman groups. Why lie about something that only makes your life worse in every feasible way and provides no benefit to anybody because it is all one big lie in the first place?
I'd like the discuss the question of Jesus because I have yet to find any good evidence that disproves his existence and proves the apostles were a bunch of liars. If you have any such evidence, I'd love to see it!
Muslims:Are you challenging us?
Y-yeah...b-but he's confident....and really loud.........he must know what he's talking about........right?
Plankton: *CORRECT!*
Nobody thinks like this bruh
Being loud and confident doesn’t make you right unless you talking about something that is right
@@yeetman7398
Not how that works. Hitler was very very obviously wrong, but the people that supported him went along with him because he was a very confident and competent leader to them. And he said *what they wanted.*
I think you meant to say "what the audience think is right", not "what is right"
@@okaybutwhythough7456 uh i dont think killing and racism back then can be compared to what is being debated here abt religion
EDIT: changed some grammar mistakes
As a physics student I think I can explain few things. If you want few more examples you can keep reading.
First of all even if something seem to be perfect without a purpose it does any mean that it was made by god. It just mean that we don’t understand some things. The thing that seem perfect can and probably will have flaws when seen differently - we can create a “perfect” metal ball but when we will see it under a microscope we will see that it has scratches. Also - seeing something as bad or good is subjective so it actually doesn’t need to be a flaw. There isn’t something like a good thing and a bad one in nature.. but forget that. Let’s see why his arguments doesn’t work at all
1. You could change parameters/constants/coefficients and it wouldn’t mean the universe would vanish - it just would be different; sure in some cases nothing would be created but that doesn’t mean that universe doesn’t exist. In the future probably everything will decay - we think that protons won’t live forever; even black holes will evaporate due to Hawkings radiation. It doesn’t mean that the universe won’t exist anymore. It will be empty, sure, maybe with some particles but without bigger structures or life. Besides that some constants aren’t even constant (for example the expansion rate of the universe, it will increase probably forever) - who knows if other parameters won’t change? Maybe it is changing at such slow rate that we can’t measure it. And we may never know… you have to have a pretty big ego to think that someone created the universe just for you to live in, sorry but that’s my opinion. We got lucky.
2. The genome isn’t perfect. To be fair it’s full of trash. In this year I’m attending some biophysics lectures and my professor was telling us a lot about that. Im not as experienced as bio student so won’t tell you much unfortunately but this is really interesting so I remembered a lot from the lectures. The so called “junk-DNA” doesn’t have instructions for coding proteins which are basics of life. Some of it actually is used but probably not all of it. To be fair we could be wrong. The second thing is that we are still evolving, don’t forget that, so during copying our dna could be slightly changed. It may be the change that will be useful but doesn’t have to be. Why god would make us imperfect? Couldn’t he create us already in the best form?
3. I laughed when he told that we have so much information in our cells. It would fit on a CD disk. It really isn’t much information for today’s technology
4. There were cases in which evolution went horribly wrong. Why would that be a thing if god created it
5. I would rather say that algorithms are like dna etc. not the other way
6. And his main point… just as you said - the word “message” need an interpreter. They often seem to misunderstand that some things are created by us. Just like we decide in which group something “will be” - animals and plants for example. It is created by us. Not by anything higher - you won’t tell me that every scientist hear voice whenever discovering anything new. It was created so it’s easier to describe the world. We could do it differently and it wouldn’t change anything. When I create a message I do it to inform someone about something. Natural law that create messages is… evolution. For some reason animals communicate. They wouldn’t survive if they didn’t do that. And it doesn’t have to be a word - it could be colour of animal (having colours like a bee so nothing will attack you), shape (trying to look bigger to scare us), eyes, ears, tail movement (dogs)… why does it need a higher mind. Without this many animals would simply die. The same goes for trees that can communicate through their roots - they can inform other trees about some diseases etc., they tell them how to survive. Btw electromagnetic signals can be a message. Gravitational waves can be a message. It can tell us what happened in deep space but did the black hole want to tell us something? I don’t think so. It is all part of natural processes and we learned how to interpret that. So telling that this forces don’t create messages is bullshit. We just need to recognise it as one. We also have quantum cryptography so don’t tell me that the quantum mechanics is a sign of god.
It is so frustrating seeing someone who is trying to prove something with the knowledge they don’t have.
Your video was great. Just wanted to point out more things in case that someone want to know more
Hope that my grammar isn’t too bad, Im not a native speaker but even in my language I tend to do stupid errors
Your grammar is very good. I couldn’t tell that English is your 2nd language
Water says "There is a hole in the ground that is just right to give me the ability to contemplate my own existence"? "There must be an intelligent hole maker"!
with all my respect to everyone
anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self
something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power
(Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 ❤
@@aymanseder5887 They really do not know.
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes.
So; his argument is: _"the puddle analogy fails, cause, well: just look how neatly we fit in this hole!"_ ? Wow!
Lol.
Who are you referring to?
Oh wow it’s almost as if we grew inside the hole and consequentially became the shape of the hole and that’s why we fit in it!
Tyler Chiu it’s almost like they missed the point entirely 🤔
Obviously this faulty logic hole was tailor made for them by a divine creator because how else could they fit so perfectly inside it lol
Kind of
The puddle analogy reminds me of the Feynman quote "I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”
....cute
That's a poor argument against fine tuning. If probabilities worked like how you describe then all theories of science would be binned.
Let's try your argument against the theory of evolution.
Scientists: What are the chances of all species sharing genetic code if its not the case that they evolved from one universal common ancestor.
You: ~Proceed to use your license plate anecdote.~
Let's try another.
Sherlock Holmes: I deduce by balance of probabilities the murderer must most likely be an adult man.
You: Dude, there are 7 billion people in the world, it could have been any of them. ~Proceed with your license plate anecdote.~
@@abutalsafuba2179
It’s not even an argument against fine tuning, it’s just pointing out how the perspective change leads to a very different conclusion about it all.
@@Jonathan-A.C. It actually is an attempt to mock the probability argument for fine tuning, not just a matter of perspective.
@@abutalsafuba2179
It literally isn’t. Saying that someone that happens to be in the right circumstances is foolish for thinking that those circumstances are divine is not against the circumstances, it’s against using divinity as the reasoning for them.
In a sense, it is mocking fine tuning being used as an argument purely for *human* life, but that's only due to some people inherently assuming that the universe was created for THEM specifically, and not for any other reasons
Everything is random . Why burden yourself with make belief .
A man came to my door and asked me : Do you know where your going to go after you die ?
I told him his question was irrelevant , that when you die there's nothing ,zilch , no more ....bye bye , that I spend my time living the good life ....NOW
with all my respect to everyone
anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self
something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power
(Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 ❤..
Theists usually confuse
Can’t answer with … I don’t accept their answer
with all my respect to everyone
anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self
something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power
(Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 ❤❤..
@@aymanseder5887
Yeah
Your lying to yourself
Deep inside you know that Gods are not real
Everything around us shows there are no creator Gods
"I don't understand how it could have happened naturally therefore God."
Turek's entire argument
An he counts that as an worthy explanation while requiring atheists to explain everything... Theists don't understand they are the ones who have to provide better arguments for the existence of their invisible, tantrum-throwing and unjust god.
@Rawlings So? How does any of that prove that a god exists?
And Mount Rushmore was created by wind and water erosion. Because that's what wind and water erosion do.
@Rawlings I'm going to admit, I am tired so I was no able to read your whole post so I apologize, but have you never thought about what your saying? The fact is that there could be a LOT of things changed and life could still exist, we don't know enough about how life comes to be to say that life COULDN'T exist.
Also, as you said THERE ARE TRILLIONS of galaxies, what is there to say in one of those galaxies, there is a civilian wag more advanced then us who is just fucking with us and having a laugh? Or what if these beings are the true chosen one of god and we have just been lieing to ourself?
Or GASP what if we are not special at all, and if there is a god they most likely hardly pay attention to us and at most see us as a tantrum throwing child?
Why would god put down all this evidence for us adapting to the environment, if it was not true?
I honestly just thing aliens are fucking with us lol
Also atheist argument..... " We can't physically see god so he doesn't exist."
I've literally made the joke before:
"u think God designed ears to fit earbuds?"
I didn't realize it was a legitimate argument in the theological community
No, people that created the earbuds made it to fit into peoples ears, which shows that earbuds need to be designed in order to fit into people's ears... Wait, what?
What you're saying sounds like a false analogy. Your satircal argument seems to say this: "Anything that seems designed must have been designed by God. Earbuds and ears seem to be designed to fit each other. Therefore, earbuds/ears were designed by God". This sounds pretty ridiculous, but it isn't the same argument as the watchmaker argument. The watchmaker argument effectively says "Anything that is designed needs a designer. The Universe appears designed. Therefore, the universe needs a designer."
If you're going to refute the watchmaker argument, use evidence that shows that things can look designed without actually being designed. Don't use a false analogy.
@@petery6432
*William* was actually saying that this argument is ridiculous. He said nothing about the _watchmaker_ argument.
So it's your _false analogy_ and your _strawman._
@@philaypeephilippotter6532 He said his thing about earbuds and then said "I didn't realize this was an actual argument in the theological community". This would imply that he believed that his earbud analogy was like the argument Turek used above, which was effectively a restated Watchmaker argument. This makes it sound as though he's trying to show the Watchmaker argument as completely ridiculous by using another analogy and showing how that other analogy makes no sense.
@@petery6432
Why are you asserting that *William* meant something he didn't even imply?
It's still a _strawman_ argument and a _false analogy._
Even if he posts that that is exactly what he believes, which I doubt, your post is still a _strawman_ argument and a _false analogy._
@@philaypeephilippotter6532 How did he not imply that he believed that his Earbud analogy and the Watchmaker argument were the same? I stated why it sounded like he believed it above. You haven't given me a reason to believe he meant otherwise. My argument was shutting down the idea that "Something seems designed, so God must have designed it" is the same argument as "The universe seems designed, therefore it must need a designer". The way his comment was phrased made it sound like he believed the idea that the two arguments I stated above were the same
I love when stupid people say something can’t be explained…what they mean in actuality is that THEY can’t explain it.
with all my respect to everyone
anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self
something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power
(Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 ❤..
The answer to the question 'what natural law can produce messages?' Reduces to a one word answer... "Apophenia'.
"The Universe is fine tuned.."
(Remembers all the dead lifeless planets in the universe.)
Wait a minute...
yeah, imagine if our universe was the 1 in more than a micrillion that has at least one galaxy in which most planets don't have life. a micrillion is 10^3000003, in case you didn't know.
Yes, I think it was Neal degrasse Tyson who brought up all the ways that the universe is trying to kill us, then say that it was made for us 😂
I believe 'fine tuned' in this remark is considered a static end result. I believe the universe is merely in process of tuning, and perhaps not even all that finely. Heck, in some places, the beholder could also perceive the tuning of this universe as rather crude lol
"Remembers that atleast 20% of our DNA is inactive" (Can't remember the exact number, so took a very low estimate)
@@natanoj16 it's not dna, it's dnEA, gotta pay to unlock that 20%
"I don't know, therefore god."
“I dont know therefore science”
@@skyewatson6204 Inncorrect, science is "I don't know, so lets learn more and figure it out."
@@tristan3456 in that case you are putting faith in man until we "figure it out"
@@icylikegucci4074 I'd rather put my faith in man than in a book with no evidencial basis.
not faith, faith is believe in something you cant prove, we dont need faith to understand our capality to analize things and research to answer questions. Faith is needed when you cant prove something cause there is no evidence, and evidence that can be found leads to understand that its all stories made by less knowledged people
I've been an agnostic atheist all my life. I remember my first semester of genetic classes, when I was learning all the ways how DNA self replicate and error correct itself I was baffled by it. I thought that even by chance those mechanism were too complex to be evolved by natural selection no matter how long it took. It was one of the few moments my atheism was shaken... Until the next class I started to learn about genetic auto-immune diseases. A couple of different base pairs signals and most of the terrible diseases such as sclerosis could have been completed eradicated by our genome. Took BILLIONs of years, and that random mutation that eradicated sclerosis never came... Precisely because it is uncommon enough to no signifcantly naturally be written off of our code. This sort of DUMB flaw in our DNA is the ultimate proof, it is not inteligently designed.
Wait till Monday for the Lies in Genesis and Deluded Institute multiple 'personality' employee to start telling you why you are mistaken, Their reason? Well "God done it of course, the evidence is all around you!".
@@El_Bruno7510Spending your weekend thinking about me? Not a good sign that.
I don't know what you were told or by who but it's wrong. So wrong that there's nothing even to refute as your post was pseudo science gibberish.
@@bigbabatunde1218 So the experts are wrong and you - the scientific illiterate science denier are right because you think so 🤣
Your incredulity, ignorance and lack of education don’t refute that facts.
*Get a grip*
@@bigbabatunde1218 Another great example of your logical deduction, NOT 😂
Thinking of the idea of messages needing a mind - I feel like there are two issues. One is the interpretation of cause and effect as 'messages'. And the other is that in some respects, there are only 'messages' because we assign meaning to things. We organize things into information, translate it into something that has shared cultural meaning, and then communicate that. Evolution has created messages as a survival mechanism.
"It's hard to win an arguement against a smart person but it is *impossible* to win an arguement against an idiot": Wise man
Because smart people can tolerate being wrong, but idiots can't 🤡🤡
The puddle argument ignores the intelligence required for the puddle to self realize
because the intelligence has no connection to the point. ur focusing on the wrong thing
@@RR-xz6bv the point
You.
Would you say the ultimate goal is to understand, and when we don't, there in lays the problem, DNA is individual so is understanding or not, yes or no?
I never really understood the "fine tuning" arguement because if the universe is so finely tuned why is it that there are so many things that can kill us.
Fallen creatuo
If God is the supreme creator why does God need to 'fine tune' His creation?
Well life isnt all about us..fine tuning like the suns distance from earth makes it possible for you to wright this comment on youtube..your sitting on a floating ball moving super fast called earth.. and you are asking about fine tuning..if this all happened by chance then someone please seriously come and shake me so that my eyes can open.
Stefan Fourie well if god is real (I’m an atheist) I’m convinced he only keeps humans around because he likes to be praised and worshiped. Very Holy
@@QuigleTheGnome Have you read the new testament and do you understand the teachings of Jesus? I am convinced you dont really understand it.Come and explain it to me please when you have done so.
The biggest problem of "modern society" isn't that intelligent and/or educated people being too cautious or shy. It is the opposite: ignorant or uninformed speak loud and proud, with unearned confidence. We need a "slow and steady movement".
Any bet the local troll will regurgitate the same hate filled hissy fit from last year about Atheist celebrating and enjoying Jesus' birthday
So you admit to being a hypocrite then.
No. I don't celebrate Jesus' birthday. As my son and his girlfriend will visit me I won't have the opportunity this year, but pretty often I listen to Tchaikovsky's opus 41.
@@bigbabatunde1218 No, I’m not a theist with multiple troll accounts.
Troll harder
@@marknieuweboer8099 Me neither and it doesn’t need to be his birthday to spend time with family and friends.
Karen doesn’t have any of those, just him and his troll accounts.
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus But you do keep changing your username.
Remember when you were White Republican Jesus? I remember.
Cry in your own time. Goodbye.
"Atheists can't answer this question!" = A question that could be answered with five seconds of googling.
Or a couple of seconds of logical thought
D C Wilson
Google the meaning of life, I’m sure you will find the right answer in five seconds.
“If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. On the other hand, if it had been greater by a part in a million, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars and planets to form.”
Stephen Hawking
Stephen Mancuso so what? Quote mines don’t mean anything.
@@DCWilsonwriter Oh dear u are so smugly ignorant to not know what scientists are saying about our finite, awe inspiring, incredibly fine-tuned, rationally intelligible universe. Actually quoting mining is cherry picking part of citation then drawing an inference not intended by the author. I have pages of similar quotes to show that the evidence for design is overwhelming as PCW Davies concludes. Just PM me.
@@Gericho49 Tell you what, let me know when you have something other than quote mining and childish insults. Come back when you have an actual point to make.
Best summed up in Avatar the Last Airbender.
“Can your science explain how it rains?”
“...yes. It can.”
Skye Watson Well, it’s explained pretty well in the video itself. Basically, if you’re talking about the beginning of the universe, our most accepted theory is it began after the rapid expansion of a near infinitely dense singularity. This still makes it cooperate with the idea of matter not being just created. Of course, how the singularity was made is still unknown, but just because something isn’t known now doesn’t mean it will never be solved by science ever. We can’t know what we don’t know, and admitting that is just part of using the scientific method.
Matthew van Arsdale so even in ur disbelief you still have faith everything was an accident?
Skye Watson It’s not faith to admit you don’t know everything. My original comment was just a relevant reference. If you want to get really into how we understand the universe, we can say just because something seems to hit a broad amount of ideas doesn’t make it true. This can be applied to both creationism and science. It’s very possible that sometime in the far future we discover something that completely changes our understanding of science. The difference lies in how through hypothesis and rigorous testing by many many scientists throughout history, we can come up with a pretty good idea of what probably happens with many things in science, and the reality is that intelligent design is simply not scientifically probable. Again, my original comment was not meant to be provocative and I really don’t want to start an argument over an Avatar the Last Airbender reference of all things.
If we don't understand it. It ain't god unless we discovered "everything" possible and there's no way to explain it even with everything possible discovery discovered and that's just impossible because of the immense luck required for humanity to last that long.
@@AresVisualsMeva actually intelligent design is as justifiable an explanation, if not more, than a scientific one. Science would have us believe that everything that exists originated from nothing. That's such an absurd notion. If nothing existed, then where would the elements that magically created the universe have come from? There is no answer to that question. And to keep referring back to the overly used statement about "we just haven't found that answer" is no different than a person of faith not being able to explain the existence of a Creator or God. There is no way to explain or fully understand the "being" of God...we lack the mental capacity to do so.
"What natural laws can create messages."
Heat, generated by a toaster. Plenty of people seem to see Jesus on a toast and interpret some dried, burnt bread as a message.
with all my respect to everyone
anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self
something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power
(Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 ❤❤❤.
with all my respect to everyone
anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self
something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power
(Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 ❤❤❤❤
*'Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds?*
*Perhaps yes, perhaps no. There is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science for there is no way to put them to the test.'*
Dr Colin Patterson
Paleontologist.
"They don't require an intelligent designer. This only requires an intelligent interpreter " (Paraphrased). Perfect!
I don't consider the interpreters of religious texts to be anywhere close to intelligent. They all spout nonsense from the fairy tales they were told as children.
@@userhome3601 couldn't agree more. I heard the point of GMS as being about the problem of actually having NO intelligent, unemotionally connected dissection. Because if they could provide one, that'd be an interesting read about how humans cling onto the ridiculous for comfort. But, as it stands now, all we get are tortuous mind gymnastics trying to explain the validity of this shit. I'm with you.
@@brinkerduo people assume that the bible has some kind of "wisdom" simply because it's old
GMS really missed it on this one IMO. Messages DO require intelligent minds to create. A funny looking shape on the moon is NOT a real message. "Jon loves Mary" written in the sand is. Using a fake "message" to try to debunk a real message is a weak argument. He never actually answers Turek's question, which was supposed to be the whole point of this video. How does nature create messages. REAL messages? 🤦🏻♂️
@@8thMusketeer to be honest, regardless of what you yourself believe, it seems like you have missed the point of what gms was saying. Nobody would disagree that an intelligent message requires an intelligent creator. But gms is saying there is no message. There is only nature of reality. And it is THAT notion that does not require the designer. John loves Mary is certainly a message. Where is a puddle is just the result of things puddling in the way that things puddle. Liquids splashabout and collect in holes, and holes are merely the absence of materials. You may as well claim that God created holes as well. Is the hole also designed? Or just an area where something isn't. Things are not messages. Only messages are messages
Every time I find some Christian apologist claiming atheists can't answer a given question, it's a question we've already answered.
Atheists can't answer this question: what caused the universe
@@euanseaman1774 We've already answered that question: You're operating under the assumption that the universe had to be caused, that the matter, energy, and physical laws couldn't have always existed.
And more importantly, lacking an explanation for any given phenomenon in no way invalidates explanations for other phenomena. Nor does it provide validity to someone else's explanation- having an answer is not inherently more correct than not having one. In fact, I would say acknowledgement of ignorance is a more correct answer than a baseless guess. Because ignorance isn't a claim- it can't be wrong!
Why did you choose to become an atheist? What made you choose that faith/religion?
@@euanseaman1774 Clearly, atheism is not a rational worldview. It is self-refuting because the atheist must first assume the opposite of what he is trying to prove in order to be able to prove anything.
“The bible itself will turn you Atheist faster than anything.”
- Penn Jillette
Said an atheist looking for excuses. 🙄
Atheisms biggest cheer leader - the gift that keeps on giving 🤡
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus Said another desperate atheist.
Projecting again 🍿
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus You have nothing. Utterly spent.
Lying, cheating, dishonesty immoral acts are all forgivable sins under Christianity; a sort of basic guideline of Christian Apologetics
Considering that slavery is allowed and god basically decided to screw over humanity for the next few millennia by forcing different languages for building big tall tower, it is reasonable to believe that god is not a good guy
with all my respect to everyone
anyone who says there is no God is lying to them self
something inside of us tells them there is a Devine power
(Everything around us tells us there is a God) 🙏 🙏 ❤❤.....
"God did it" is not a reasonable anwser to any of those "tough" questions. It's like saying "The wizard did it". It explains nothing.
Aliens did it.
I think going with that answer is called occam’s razor?
No the rogue did it
@@georgemen Hold on, I got that one bookmarked...
In essence, Occam's Razor can be simplified as "The simplest solution is most likely the right one."
Or, more accurately, if presented with multiple solutions to a problem, you should first try the one that relies on the least assumptions.
@@Kartoffelkamm It takes more faith (stupifyingly high levels actually) to believe in random, spontaneous abiogenesis and the resulting un-Guided "evolution" as taught than it takes to believe in an Almighty God.
Just saying.
"DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." - Dr. Richard Dawkins.
I don't particularly care for this quote. We can't just attribute magical powers to DNA. Questioning it's origin is a question we need to answer.
@@cryogeneric the quote does not include magic.......
@@cryogeneric help me understand how you got to "magical powers" from this quote.
So life IS a never-ending rave!
@LazyPurple
I don’t get the “we dance to its music” part of the quote. Please explain
*“What evolution tells us is that we are part of a grand, dynamic, and ever-changing fabric of life that covers our planet. Even to a person of faith, in fact especially to a person of faith, an understanding of the evolutionary process should only deepen their appreciation of the scope and wisdom of the creator's work."*
Kenneth R. Miller
So where's those mythical shared common ape like ancestors of ours then?
Someone is to scared to click and learn new things 🤣
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus Click what? "links in the description"?
Don't make me laugh.
The Beatles are the best band ever because the Beatles fanclubs said so.
😂😂😆🤦
The Links would be a start, then followed up with a google search.
But you hate learning, that’s your problem not mine
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus If you type in certain phrases relating to say 'Lucy' really being a shared ancestor of humans, the first page of Google's search results can both support and discredit 'Lucy' (Australopithecus afarensis) depending on what was typed in.
Anyone can use search engines to further their own confirmation bias.
Where's the evidence for 'evolution' as taught? You haven't provided any so you lose.
Cognitive Dissonance is all i see on Christian apologists
Deceiver$$ need believer$$
You should see those 'evolutionists'. 😆🙄
@@bigbabatunde1218 At least they have the science and studies on their side.
Tell me how did Noah fit 56 million kinds of animals on the ark....
@@ThyBountyHunter The range of animal species back in Noah's day probably wasn't as varied as today. Species can diverge over time you know. Where's those shared common ape like ancestors we've all been told about though?
Where's the science and studies behind that pish?
@@bigbabatunde1218 If this is true, why the Middle East its not the epicentre of all biodiversity on our planet? And how animals like the Kangaroo went from Australia to the Ark? How Noah feed the carnivores on the Ark, doesn't that mean extinction to other especies? And also with the measurements that are in the bible, the Noahs is physically impossible. And plz don't tell me it was a miracle from God
Genome sequences also aren't naturally letters, we just describe them in a long string of letters because that's a form we can understand.
Also genetics are frequently imperfect, causing mutation and speciation. If it was the work of a creator he didn’t do a great job.
@@mathewmagneson5114 you can't expect amateur Programmer to make perfect program
Same with binary and hexadecimal code.
@Heroniden if he is 'Perfect',why he favored Israel,and purge the other
@Heroniden well
DNA is not actually a "code". It is a specifically shaped molecule with specific properties that rise from that. Considering it a "code" is just a human convention to make it easier to understand. One could equally say that water molecules have a "code" that causes them to form snowflakes under certain conditions. DNA does not have letters or numbers, it has the chemicals adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine to which we assign letters ACGT for the sake of convenience and ease of understanding.
Please BE the 180 Degree Opposite of Cancel-Culture and be helpful by flagging K.H...
Well, u can interprete the buildings blocks of dna as 0 n 1 s
@@tigerboy4705 You miss the point...
Please go to Kent Hovinds yt-channel or other problematic channels and report them.
So we can have what we all want: A more healthy and less hate-filled and less s-ual YT.
Yeah, but it requires a designer to set those molecules (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine) into instructions. You think you can take molecules, throw them into a pile and expect them to come together and create instructions? No. And about the snowflakes, in an atheist perspective you could say they arose from natural processes, but from my theist perspective I see design in the force of nature that causes the incredibly complex design in those snowflakes.
@@arunmoses2197 Why would you need a designer? And yes molecules do self assemble. They are not "instructions" , DNA is simply a specifically shaped molecule with properties that arise from that. Referring it as a "code" or "instructions" is just a human convention to make it easier to understand. It is not a code like a computer program. By Occam's Razor your ideas about snowflakes fails. There is no need for a designer, so introducing one is an unecessarily element in the solution, and it does nothing but question where and how the "designer" arose. And the designer is, by necesity more complex yet, so where did it come from? Yur "solution" solves nothing.
*'I now believe there is a God.... I now think it* (the evidence) *does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations.*
*What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.'*
Antony Flew
Former atheist.
"Everything seems designed for us." Dude! Could you tell me in which percent of the universe we can live? The universe is enormous and very very very deadly for humans!
They're always looking at it from the opposite way that it actually is. The world wasn't made for us, we've simply adapted to the world.
Yeah, it's more absurd than arguing that the White House was designed to provide a landing place for flies.
So you think that because we can't go out into outer space, then space is derelict and there's no God. You sound like an eight year old that realises that they can't become an astronaut.
😂😂
@@DontBurnTheAmericanFlag Why would you think anyone is to go out into outer space? Talk about lame arguments you lot make. 🙄
@@bigbabatunde1218 What you are talking about??? Well as per usual you guys when it becomes inconvenient you jump from topic to topic. Oh yeah so you think, so you tell me. I never said anything about that!
So youuuu tell me. Some 14 billion years ago your god created this universe and after 10 billion years of playing bowling with the planets, he got bored and created a tiny little solar system with an even tinier planet (still no humans) then waited again for some 4.5 billion years to create humans. If this was the main goal I guess he was not highly motivated 🤣
7:25 This is a great quote.
"Things which are perceived as messages don't require an intelligent creator. They only require an intelligent interpreter."
That would have to be one of the most brain dead statements ive ever read. Interpret that.
I just created the previous msg.
@@robdarstak4686 thank you for an example of the first sentence in the quote.
@@LittleMAC78 You just showed me you aren't your 3rd sentance. And are even more my 1st sentance.
@@LittleMAC78 Those claiming to be INTELLIGENT are actually the opposite. Just like those claiming to be totaly sane.
when we need water to survive but we live on a planet where only 2.5% is safe for us to drink ah yes finely tuned indeed
2.5%...? That sounds like finely tuned misinformation 🤣
@@leinfare well luckily for distillation I don't have to worry about salt in the water.
@@brianaxb9429 thermal distillation or the reverse osmosis water to desalinate it is energy inefficient and is not at all able to sustain the water needs of the world. A big reason why we get by is through water treatment and reuse. It's also been pretty common knowledge, taught in elementary schools, that the vast majority of the water on Earth is not fit for straight consumption..
@@kevinjoker2 Distilation over a fire is easy, I've done it... and you say earth is not fit? More like humans aren't worthy, especially the ignorant self important. How about call out the fact we have too many people instead of not enough water?
Also the fact you act like you have a percentage is hilarious considering that's impossible even with today's tech, but if you put .5 on the end of it, and call it a rough percentage, we can act like it's legit?
@@brianaxb9429I never said thermal distillation wasn't easy?? I said it is not at all energy efficient to be sustainable for humans as a whole. Perhaps think outside the scope of your own backyard for a second.
We've had a quite accurate estimation of the % of drinkable, potable water on Earth since literally decades ago.. why do you immediately only refuse to accept the statistic that's literally been taught in elementary schools since a few decades ago just because you feel like it? If you're going to say random shit at least back it up with some sort of source rather than your own uneducated opinion. You're already on the internet, might as well pull up a tab and read something for once in your life
What's really frustrating is that science doesn't actually claim that the "big bang" was the start of existence but it's the start of the universe as we know it. The idea of the universe having a "beginning" comes from religion and is not a testable claim made by science. Talking about the big bang as the start of the universe is something science communicators do, people that try and talk to the general public in a way that most people will understand.
Reading matter from the past did indeed put the 'Big Bang' as the beginning of the universe. I distinctly remember reading in an encyclopedia like publication for young people back in the 90s as stating that there was nothing before the Big Bang and nothing could happen as there was nothing there for anything to happen. Look how the scientific community, especially those cheap followers, have changed their tune on that one over the years.
@ Big Baba aka SamF aka BigBam aka AlexiP aka Bigot Bob McMillysilly: yeah, because scientists etc. unlike creacrappers understand and apply "when my information changes I alter my conclusions." This is called learning, something you're not capable of anymore.
@@marknieuweboer8099You have never posted any evidence scientific or otherwise to support 'evolution' as taught. The reality of the situation in that you cannot post any supporting evidence for 'evolution' despite being asked countless times is testament to what I and many others have said. On the other hand, information in the Biblical writings across thousands of years, information that was known before its accepted time is recorded in the Bible, information ranging from early acknowledgement of the precipitation rainfall process in the book of Genesis to the Earth being supported in space by nothing visible as can be read in the book of Job. Clotting factor being it's highest on the 8th day from birth for circumcisions as well as prophecies being known, sometimes hundreds of years in advance, about the fall of kingdoms such as Babylon and of Tyre, as well as modern secular society medical professionals, academics and historians inadvertently backing up the Bible accounts of things mentioned.
Beat that for evidence.
Where's your 'evidence' for 'evolution'?
@@marknieuweboer8099 So what evidence for 'evolution' have you learned since being asked hundreds of times to post this evidence?
Crickets chirping.
@ Big Baba aka SamF aka BigBam aka AlexiP aka Bigot Bob McMillysilly: indeed crickets are evidence for evolution theory too. No need to alter my conclusions. I very well might after you finally have answered a far more intriguing question: what evidence for evolution theory would you accept iso rejecting it 'cuz yadda yiddy yoddo?
"This won't stop."
As a former Christian turned Atheist, one question I've never been able to answer (and probably never will) is this one:
.
The hyperbola _H_ has cartesian equation 5x² − 4y² = 20.
(i) Write down its eccentricity, the co-ordinates of its foci _S_ and _S-_ , the equation of the directrices and the equation of the asymptotes.
(ii) Sketch the curve, indicating all important features.
Bloody mathematics...
Lmao. You got me at the first line.
@@bmw3-er same lol
It’s just > < ?
Unless I’m not doing it correctly
God knows.....
It's been close to a decade since I had to do math involving exponents so I don't remember the meanings of most of the words in (i), but the equation can be simplified to 5x^2-20=4y^2, and then simplified again to ((5x^2)/4)-5=y^2. From there you can plug in various positive values of X (keeping in mind that the results only stop including the impossible-to-chart value "i" once X's side becomes positive) to get the mirrored Y results, then mirror the entire thing across the Y axis to account for the negative values of X. Once you have enough points of reference to determine a general shape, you can sketch the shape and notate the quirks of the equation that caused certain things (such as the equation "not existing" between x=-2 and x=2 causing a gap, or the fact that both sides are squared making the equation mirrored in all four quadrants).
Frank Turek once said to someone on camera, "If Christianity is proven true, will you become a Christian", the person quickly replied, "I could ask you that if Hinduism is proven true will you become a Hindu". Frank totally lost it, "That's not going to happen" he said, "Yeah, and that's my answer to your question" replied the man. Frank was totally stumped.
Link?
Hmmm no, that never occurred as you describe it
It's a valid question, Most are so comfortable with the sinful life they have they would completely reject God even if he was standing in front of them. And also it helps determine who is there to try and shore up their Atheist beliefs and who is actually looking for knowledge. And yes even Atheists have doubts. any Atheist who says they never have doubts about their beliefs or lack there of is lying. Some feel better when they feel they can prove their position. And that is human nature, about any position really, doesn't have to include religion. Pro Choice people go to events to try and debate/affirm their beliefs as much as Pro Lifers do on abortion. Question most Atheists I know don't like to answer is, But ok.. What if you find out your wrong after it's to late? I have never had one answer me honestly. Usually some form of Sarcastic response.
@@truthinchristapologetics3542 I'd just go to hell knowing that I did nothing wrong, but ended up being punished just because of searching for truth, and not believing in something illogical without a proof because of fear of fire. I won't believe in something just because it would be safer in case I end up being wrong, but rather educate myself and try to be right. I want the most correct belief, not the safest one.
@@trash1341 You do know that there is no such place as "hell"?
Catholics are the ones who pioneered the belief of hellfire.
Ancient Israelites and early Christians didn't know or teach eternal torment.....it was the Catholic church that twisted some symbolic things in the Bible for the Catholic churches own nefarious ends, namely controlling people across a mediaeval Europe centuries ago.
If you want to know what the Bible REALLY says and teaches visit jw.org
You don't need to be a Jehovah's Witness to make use of their genuinely FREE study materials.
the crab analogy reminds me of the i guess hypothetical statement that if you leave a monkey in a room with a computer/keyboard, it will eventually write a Shakespeare book😂 its entirely possible that a crab could happen to move around in the way it looks like a message but the monkey nor the crab know of the message we get from it
That fact that a person cannot understand an argument does not exclude the possibility that the person is also arrogant and dishosnest.
The best thing about reality is that it simply doesn’t care about opinions or religious beliefs. It is how it is, with or without humans understanding it.
czcams.com/video/Ow1Q0m5lznQ/video.html
Here is a great video by whaddo you meme showing the TRUTH of the Teleological argument. No more fallacies and lies
Or as Neil deGrasse Tyson says, "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you."
exactly, we are not special little life beings that DESERVE answers, sometimes what you can’t find the answer to, is okay and so let be.
Yep
We gotta be simple like that, yet it's nice to be intellectual and curious about how the world works.
And how is this any different than a theologian that cannot give you definitive answers as to why bad things happen if a Good God exists? Its essentially the same answer. Truly sad.
His argument that the genetic code is a message falls through for people who find that the message in their own genes is "You are so screwed ".
God: "lol I'll give you a chromosome too much, or mess with a few letters. Now you suffer".
Homosexual DNA be like: your gay
@@Muscleduck That's because of impairment. Inherited defects etc.
The Bible story of Adam and Eve bringing sin and death into the world explains this.
Evolution doesn't.
@@Muscleduck “Yea but only because of that one lucky kid who i made to born in rich family to show him how lucky he is and how he should thank me for his life, … ye also your dad has stage 3 cancer.”
Stop fooling yourself the creator of the universe created everything, you can never understand who you are deeply because you are not the creator but created. Beings like a rat , a lion, a cat but abit intelligent becoz the almighty God breathed his breath on you.
*"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way....*
*to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story, amusing perhaps, even instructive, but not scientific.'*
Dr Henry Gee
Senior editor at Nature journal.
Ohh I remember this guy debating Hitch
Turek:"Where does evil come from?"
Hitch: *_Religion_* 😂😂
Indeed. I especially liked how quick he was with it.
@Trolltician I would like to see your critiques of some of Hitch's work. I am not being a smart alek, I really would. Do you have anything out there that people can read? Thank you.
Trolltican hich was send by God to stop religious nuts making him look like a complete maniac.
The classic Hitchslap.
@Trolltician He once asked William Lane Craig if he would believe the same things if he had been born somewhere else in the world and raised by parents of a completely different belief system. Craig laughed it off and never answered...because this is the death hammer for all religious beliefs.
The environment is not made for us, we adapted to survive in the environment over time...
Exactly
No, humans are able to change the environment around us
Both
What? You can’t adapt TO survive in an environment. In a micro evolutionary sense yes, in that we can adapt to BETTER survive but adapting TO survive is impossible. You can’t drop two humans on mars day after day for thousands of years and them magically learn to breathe. One shot. One suffocation. Micro evolutionary theory is plausible, things like skin tone change to accommodate more sun exposure. But this is the gap in macro evolution. You can’t adapt to survive. There has to be an originating success.
@@pepperelliott That's litteraly what I meant
Strawman and red herring fallacies in full effect with this guy.
That's young Drew and the new atheists for you.
*'Fossils may tell us many things but one thing that they can never disclose is wether they are ancestors of anything else.'*
Dr Colin Patterson
Paleontologist.
_"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience”_ - Mark Twain.
B O R I N G !
_says the troll out of spite to stroke his ego_
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus Probably the most ironic and projecting comment you've ever made. 😂😂
@@robertmcmillan3638 Why does god send people to hell for the plan he created for them?
@@potent-love yes
"Why is x true?"
theist apologists "because god"
this is literally "a wizard did it" with a religious background
stand user
Yeah lol
Or go atheist favorite with the simulation theory.
@@aseeds7785 it make sense
i hate playing dnd with a guy who plays a wizard and fire ball is his answer to everything
*“The scientific argument advanced for intelligent design at the Dover Trail, those arguments collapsed, scientifically and intellectually“.*
Kenneth R. Miller
Who's funding Kenneth R Miller?
Address the comment or cry.
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus Address my post or you just conceded defeat.
@@bigbabatunde1218 Address my quote or concede another humiliation
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus Maybe if you post something relevant and up to date, there would be something to address.
I've lost count of the amount of videos that start with....
"Athiests can't answer this!"
Atheists never answer anything and certainly never provide evidence for their alternative outlooks.
SamF aka Bigot Bob aka AlexiP aka GarryB aka Big Baba always dodges or runs and thinks everything is evidence for his Iron Age outlook. He usually ends up fleeing arround poo, including absurd lies.
See, I have given him two pieces of evidence for evolution theory:
- Researchers from ....
- A biogeography quote from christian site Bio Logos.
@@SamFey Atheism is a disbelief in all Gods due to lack of evidence provided for said Gods. So in what way does that require the atheist to provide any evidence? When deluded dullards claim their God is true because they have defined their God as able to do anything, then provide evidence that their God exists because 'stuff is around', then all the atheist can do is laugh at how deluded and 1d10t1c anyone that thinks such an argument is convincing, is.
So, if you have any convincing evidence for your God belief, that cannot be applied to many other God beliefs too - baring in mind that there are multiple Christian sects for a start - then go for it, if you can, Mr. evidence lover!
@@marknieuweboer8099What a mess you are. In a rush with that one were you? Once again, where's the supporting evidence?
@@El_Bruno7510Doesn't explain your lot's penchant for millitant anti God, anti religious borderline illegal behaviour or your distinct lack of any supporting evidence for origin of life or evolutionary theories.
You have had ample time and opportunities to make your case with accompanying evidence but have failed to do so.
You also deliberately misunderstand God.
Atheists are the 'dumpster fire' of humanity.
in simple terms, a fictional answer is not better than having no answer
If religion was really about humility, the answer would not be "It's god's will", but "I don't know"
Nightdare God will and I don’t know are pretty much the same things
@@brambes1804 NO, far from!!! "It's God's will..." is often used to prove a point or justify an action. "I don't know, isn't"
@@brambes1804
The fuck they are
To insinuate "God's will" would show a "knowledge" behind a cause
It would be a claim of knowing the action that caused the result
It clearly points to an agent behind an occurrence
...how" in whatever way does this relate to "I don't know?"
@@Nightdare i think he meant that "God's will" is worthless, just like "I don't know"
“Religion is an early attempt to answer the questions we all asked: why are we here? where did we come from? Nowdays, Science provides better and more consistent answers, but people will always cling to religion because it gives comfort, and they do not trust or understand science” -Stephen Hawking
Very true
It may very well also be because scientific theory doesn't always hold true. There are many things science doesn't or can't explain, therefore something else must be the result of that which can't be explained. Doesn't mean that it's automatically God, however it does show that something is there.
@@discussionz7289 we can prove anything with the scientific theory, the only problem is, we don’t have the correct or enough resources/ energy, for example, many religions belief that we are the only living creatures in the universe, science can proof that wrong using simple math, estimations, and predictions, we can’t prove it because we don’t have resources to make food supplies last years or even decades to find the nearest solar system, I also mentioned energy, because we don’t have enough energy to power a ship to nearby solar systems without a bunch of fuel, also give me an example which u don’t think science can prove, also u say maybe not god but something but that doesn’t mean anything because u have no proof to back it up so that irrelevant
@@yournarrator6428 not at all. There are countless stories about even wild paranormal animals existing, yet science can't figure that out at all. Science can't prove that there are other being besides humans with a level of intelligence similar or above our own, on any other planet. I also see that science says the fastest thing in existence is the speed of light, yet interestingly enough the heat expansion of the universe is faster? Or something faster then light would mean time is going backwards? Those things aren't proven either, those are speculations based on thought. So the interesting thing here is that if your *theory* states science can prove everything, yet lacks resources or correct resources... That means in practice even if theoretically possible, it's not practical and will fail or be wrong. You need to prove your stance as well.
@@discussionz7289 countless stories, u are basing ur information on a story instead of real experts observing and analyzing the data?
Any challenge to arrogant Turek is worth a watch.
Your explanation of basic evolution on a cell by cell scale was excellent. I have a habit of over complicating my explanations so it truly impressed me how you could get so much information conveyed in such a short and concise way, good job.
IKR and still some ignorant scientific illiterate theist lack the intellect to comprehend his simple explanation
Living cells demonstrating previously unseen things is not evidence for 'evolution'. It's evidence of scientists prior ignorance.
It's especially evidence for "Big Baba aka SamF aka BigBam aka AlexiP aka Bigot Bob McMillysilly rejecting any evidence for evolution theory 'cuz yadda yiddy yoddo."
@@marknieuweboer8099 Cringe. You have never posted any evidence for anything the whole time you have been posting around here.
@ Big Baba aka SamF aka BigBam aka AlexiP aka Bigot Bob McMillysilly: so you've been away for a week, demonstrating that your "this won't stop" was just another lie of yours, and this is the best you can do? Confirming my previous comment by providing evidence for it?
Utterly lame.
"Imagine a message 3.2 billion letters long."
Yes I can. But that's NOT what DNA is. It is neither a message, nor does it contain letters.
It’s even more complicated then that because we can’t even recreate it. Put your pride away. Don’t choose sin to take over your life man
@@melvinrosendaal9795
"It’s even more complicated then that because we can’t even recreate it"
These are two mutually exclusive ideas. The idea that we can't recreate something has nothing necessarily to do with whether it is complicated or not. Moreover, our inability to recreate something tells us exactly nothing about it.
"Put your pride away."
What are you talking about?
"Don’t choose sin to take over your life man"
Why are you making random statements?
Are you drinking?
@@SamIAm-kz4hg we can make soulless robots but not free will beings don’t. Every atheist has it’s pride. It’s not a natural progress that we are created by nothing. That the universe (space, time and matter) was created by nothing is already the biggest bullshit ever, then look at the concept of life especially with humans involved, so why not believe in god. He is spaceless, immaterial, timeless, intelligent, personal and creates. That sound way more logical than literally nothing. Scientist always have arguments for that, they say it were aliens who created us or gravity had the idea to create the universe. When they start saying crap like that you know there is a pride covering their loss. In the end of the day we believers are the most hated people on earth for being believers in something atheists think we can’t know. Yet they speculate nothing created everything. Get out of here man. Whats the molecule for being conscious? If we’re just molecules and nothing more than nobodies life cares including yours.
@@melvinrosendaal9795
"we can make soulless robots but not free will beings don’t."
Did you think this was a sentence?
"Every atheist has it’s pride."
Why do you think you know every atheist? And why can't you write coherently?
"It’s not a natural progress that we are created by nothing."
Again, please learn how words work. This is simple gibberish.
"That the universe (space, time and matter) was created by nothing is already the biggest bullshit ever"
This is yet again a logical fallacy. Your personal incredulity isn't reasoning or evidence. But that's beside the point. We don't know why there is something instead of nothing. We don't know if there has always been something, or if everything that exists began to exist at some point in the distant past. I have no idea why you think there are only the options you presented.
"That sound way more logical than literally nothing."
So your "reasoning" is that it SOUNDS more logical? And you think this is intelligent dialogue? EXPLAIN why it is more logical. Use ACTUAL logic.
Do you know what logic is and how it works? And do you realize the irony in stating that something SOUNDS more logical, and then not using logic. That's funny.
"Scientist always have arguments for that, they say it were aliens who created us or gravity had the idea to create the universe."
NO SCIENTIST ARE SAYING THIS. What are you smoking?
"When they start saying crap like that you know there is a pride covering their loss."
I have no idea what you think this sentence means.
"In the end of the day we believers are the most hated people on earth for being believers in something atheists think we can’t know."
I KNOW that you can't know these things. You can CLAIM to know them. You aren't hated for this. People like me simply think you are stupid.
"Yet they speculate nothing created everything."
You need to get off this idea. There are many different theories regarding the origins of the universe. Most scientists actually do not think that nothing created everything. But you also have not been able to demonstrate that this is impossible. You've simply asserted it.
"Whats the molecule for being conscious?"
We suspect that consciousness is related to the power of our brains. Scientists have done work with other animals, like apes. Some can understand the gravity of death. So, there seems to be a correlation between the power of our brains and consciousness.
"If we’re just molecules and nothing more than nobodies life cares including yours."
So, another bizarre sentence. You sound like English isn't your first language. But I think I know what you are trying to say. Whether you happen to like it or not, we could all just be an accident. Here just by chance. We have meaning to each other, and we give our lives meaning. But beyond that there may be nothing. So what?
I found it hilarious bc turreck kept trying to make dna out as some divine creation, when in reality it’s sloppy, and frequently imperfect causing mutations. If it was the work of a creator he didn’t do a great job.
When an honest man finds out he is mistaken he will either stop being mistaken or he will stop being honest.😉
Well said
In the following text i debunk the premise of this video, please read with attention
The counter arguments presented by this individual are intellectually flawed, not due to an inherent lack of intelligence ,but rather due to a misguided confidence that the presenter holds in relation to his ability to present these so called "counter arguments"
Firstly, he is extremely articulate, employing a wide array of such selectively chosen words of high complexity whose meaning will simply go over the mind of the layman, this very high levels of articulacy coupled with the appearance of overconfidence in his speech provides the listener with the auditory and visual illusion of successfully "debunking" the arguments of the thiestic fellow,
As i do not have a deep understanding of the puddle argument i do not feel qualified to comment on it, but there are definitely fundamental logical mistakes and fallacies in which the presenter makes that i can point out
At 6:10 : the presenter "debunks" the argument for the extremely large human genome as proof for intelligent design as it was being compared to an extremely intricate sequence of binary code , by simply stating that it is not proof for intelligent design, notice how he does not actually provide any counter arguments for that point, he relies on his high level of articulacy and overconfidence to convince the viewer that he has successfully debunked it when all he has actually done is say, "it is not proof for intelligent design" and "if you cant show me the designer making it then it isn't justifable to to attribute it to intelligent design" why isn't it justifable????? That's the question he should answer, its like seeing an extremely complex piece of technology lying in an uninhabited barren wasteland, with no history or record of who may have invented it , and saying , well if you cant show me the designer who created it as he was creating it i will not believe there was active intelligence behind , and i will simply state that it came about by entropy/ randomness, because i could not witniss the creator create it, that is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD!
furthermore
Beginning at 8:45, he uses the example of the message on the beach, which is obviously a specific , conditional, one time example, that the thiestic fellow used to propogate his argument for intelligent design, by creating an analogy between intelligent design and messages, and he bases the entire argument around this singular example, and this example mind you, does not convey the argument that was trying to be made, it is simply analogy, yet the presenter cites several examples in which "messages" from nature were misinterpreted as actual messages, this is completely missing the point, what does misinterpretation of an apparent messages in the natural world, have anything to do, with an intricate mechanism, that lead to the creation of a complex arrangment letters that bear meaning, which is pretty much synonymous to the intelligent design behind this universe?
This is a straw man argument, in which the presenter completely deforms and bends the original argument in a way that suits him , making it easier to "debunk" the argument, using competely unrelated examples that seem intertwined with the origjnal argument but are actually not, as it has undergone implicit distortion which may have gone under the radar of most listeners
Thirdly
In the last portion of the video in which the presenter on a whole scientific rant mentioned 2 primary points
1) how DNA mutates and species undergo genetic changes from generation to generation (which is microevolution)
2) how DNA is capable of intrinsically add genes wihout any extrinsic stimulus/factors
These are well estabilished scientific facts with their own merit, but that also miserably fails as a rebuttal to the orignal argument made by Frank turek, which is how can one or a combination of natural forces can lead to an extremely large and complex genetic sequence such as that of the human genome?
-) what the presenter was able to explained is how DNA can change over time and absolutely not how it is created from inaminate inorganic matter, the DNA or the genome has to be there in the first place before it can undergo these changes, you failed to answer how The extremely complex genome/DNA can even arise in the first place , from natural forces, acting on inanimate matter
This is another fundamental mistake that you made just like many others in this video
Forgive me for repeating my words, but i have to make a point that sits with the reader
We're not all dumb bigots who are incapable of objective analysis, i hope that who ever might come accross this has the patience to read the whole thing and have a change of heart in regards to these so called *skeptics* that have their way with weak minded individuals through the power of words along
@@thehydroid1029 Too much bloviating.😏
All you debunk is your own credibility. That is due to a lack of intelligence.💩
@@FourDeuce01 yet you haven’t disproven or even commented on a single point he has made. I can assume you didn’t read it which kind of makes it funnier.
@@thesqweebliest3727 " yet you haven’t disproven"
That's why you need to learn some basic logic before you try to talk with adults. I don't need to disprove his nonsense until he proves it.
"I can assume you didn’t read it"
You can assume anything you're dumb enough to assume. You already proved you don't know any basic logic.
Recommended: the CZcams videos made by DanMcLellan and Clint's Reptiles.
The second religious people (or conspiracy theorists) base their arguments on selected scientific findings, thats what you should point to. The question is "How do you know that?" works both for faith based claims as scientific ones. They just pick and chose whatever they can to build a model to support their argument. Asking why they trust one scientific finding and not another is a simple way to dismantle their arguments.
Take for example the Lenski E Coli lab experiments and the claims made about citrus adaption.
They never seemed to realise that E Coli has been around at least as long as humans have and humans have been eating citrus fruits throughout human history. *The point?* E Coli in people's bowels has encountered citrus over thousands of years. There's no issue of alleged 'evolution' other than the paycheque hunting 'evolution' obsessed scientists making unsupported claims of how the E Coli 'evolved' in their lab dishes to accommodate citrus etc just because they said so and want more funding for further research.
It's essentially daylight robbery of money by them, money that should be better spent going into researching something more relevant.
The scientific crowd is awash with the this self entitled behaviour.
It's amazing none of them have secured billions to research if the sun really does rise in the East, milk it for a few decades then tell us the public what we already knew.
@@bigbabatunde1218 Clearly you failed to understand the experiment, sure it has been around for a long time, creating an environment where it is forced to change is the purpose. It shows that something will evolve when required to for survival given changes in the environment. Outside the lab there is no reason for it to evovle.
Congrats on proving your ignorance.....once again.
@@bigbabatunde1218 I thought Gowd lifted the Sun up and moved it around the earth 🤣
@@El_Bruno7510 You being predictably irrelevant and dodging as usual I see.
You disqualify yourself with every comment you post.
G o o d b y e .
@@bigbabatunde1218 Said the "goodbye proclaimer" that never actually leaves! Did you see my response in the post further up that trashes your designer? I note you haven't responded to that yet. Is my answer causing problem with your cognitive dissonance? You'll need to come up with some deluded interpretation to answer I'm afraid 😂
As a programmer I am offended by pretending DNA is "a software program". A program has clear design and structure.
Not all programs have clear design or structure, due to obfuscation used to hide the intent of some written code.
Not to give the others an argument to be made, but if there was an all powerful creator they could have covered their tracks just as someone in Infosec might cover their tracks.
Maybe just another test? Maybe this all powerful being only wants blind Faith followers!
@Tab Hopefully your code has notes in it, regardless of how dirty or structureless it appears
If only god thought of leaving some comments in our DNA.
unless you're an inexperienced coder
@Mandatory Late Term Abortions for All DemoKKKrats Relevance!?
Every time I hear the fine tuning argument, I simplify it to: "If things were different, things would be different."
This
This I feel should come with a "the end" after it
Nice
I am atheist, and I do kind of agree with you, but it does seem kind of tuned. If gravity was an extremely bit lower than stars wouldn't have formed.
@@swagpotato3396 It's not that the universe is finely tuned so that stars could exist or whatever could exist it's that these things exist in the form they do because they can.
At one point we thought that all life forms needed light of some sort, or that they needed oxygen of some sort but then we managed to find lifeforms in places on earth where there was absolutely no light at all, and no oxygen at all either. In an environment were no living life form we had previously encountered could survive there was a a multitude of species alive.
@@swagpotato3396 When I try to think about this I picture a multiverse, with uncountable different universes. In each one, the gravitational force is slightly different. In some universes, it is too weak for stars to form. And guess what? In those universes, no life exists. The only universe in which life could exist to ponder these questions is the universe whose strength of gravity just so happened to be the right strength to allow the formation of planets.
That doesn't mean our universe was specifically tailored to us, unless you can prove there aren't 1,000,000 "failed" universes out there.
You're trying to tell me that the Unicorn I see in my popcorn ceiling wasn't designed by the carpenter?
Living in the head of Dunning-Kruger Babs is so drafty!
You were well trounced. It's amusing watching you trying to save face.
SamF speaking like Big Baba because he ís Big Baba.
@@marknieuweboer8099 And there you are making unsubstantiated claims again and based on what? Post the evidence for your claims. Post this evidence for evolution that you keep believing is true. I could be Big Baba or I could be their friend, co worker, team mate, sibling or partner, or again, none of the mentioned. You have no evidence for anything you whine about, but whine to do.
BWAHAHAHA!
SamF aka Big Baba aka AlexiP aka Big Bam aka Bigot Bob McMillysilly being too dense to recognize that he himself substantiated my claim.
@@marknieuweboer8099 You have proved nothing here like always.
“You just don’t know that because your scientifically illiterate ...” Greatest line I’ve heard in my life.
is this guy scientifically literate? may for the generation of a billion years from now?
@@watchman.servant he is literate enough for current hypothese. I dont knoe what your point is though. We dont know what will happen in a billion years tho we will most likely all be dead... But we dont know what new information might cone up but most likely he will still be scientifically literate in the furture since he seems like the guy to be willing to learn
@@watchman.servant You're not even the regular kind of literate lol
*Real life definition of an Atheist:* Pursuers of already debunked arguments in an attempt to justify their atheism to themselves and attempting to convince others to be the same as them.
When they've exhausted their incredibly limited scientific understanding and sense their own limitations and defeats looming over them while trying to patch up their collapsing position whilst simultaneously being on the back foot, they then proceed to make ad hominem attacks on the individual they're attempting to argue with complete with the usual overused catchphrases of 'pigeon chess' and 'Dunning Kruger' with no hint of irony from them whatsoever. 🙄
you're**
Me:
*sees dark clouds in sky*
This dude:
"It's a message from god that it's going to rain"
?
Literally no theist believes in the “god of the gaps” theory. It’s a straw man argument popularized by Dawkins to ridicule theists and ID believers.
@@ProDeo04 you should tell that to my family and the entire Mormon religion
@@Lydia13778 I would ask them if they really believe it, if I were you. And be direct. I only know a couple of Mormons. They don’t believe in the gap theory. In fact, many of the early scientists, Newton, Galileo, Mendel, Faraday, Pascal, and Boyle, just to name a few, were Christians. They believed that God had made the universe in such a way that we could discover how it worked, through experimentation. Put another way, they believed that a God of order would have made the universe and world we live in, in an orderly and predictable way. And low and behold, they found that order.
One other point to ponder, whenever we encounter intelligibility, intelligence is always assumed, save in the natural world. Why is that, do you suppose?
Lol, I can't breathe
Sometimes the arguments seem strong. I know it is not correct, but I don't have the counterarguments at hand. It leaves me baffled. And that's when the theist think they've won. And I hate it. You're doing a great job in debunking those people.
So relatable
"To derive a divine world from our concrete one requires a salto mortale" - Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis, end of the Nineteenth Century. So my tip is to look for the point where they jump from evidence, facts, anything from our natural reality (eg the Big Bang, the beauty of a waterfall, the intricate "design" of a biological cell) to their favourite creator god. Then point out that they haven't justified that jump. They merely proclaim "goddiddid", which is the God of the Gaps fallacy. Very often they react with "but you can't explain at all", to which the reply is "you try to convince me, not the other way round".
This covers most apologetics and all creacrap.
No he isn't.
AlexiP aka Bigot Bob McMillan aka SamF aka BigBam aka Big Baba is about the last person in the Universe to be the judge of that.
@@alexipetrovski7868 Oh he most certainly is. It's just that some people are too thick to understand the arguments aren't they Babs!
*"Our own genomes carry the story of evolution, written in DNA, the language of molecular genetics, and the narrative is unmistakable."*
Kenneth R. Miller
Prove it.
Out of interest, Miller Urey experiments were an unmitigated failure as to the origin of life.
Big Baba demonstrating again that he doesn't (want to) understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.
@@marknieuweboer8099 Two of them would be connected if they had happened according to how they're taught. You have posted evidence for neither.
@@bigbabatunde1218 Do you know the difference between the 2?
Now I know your mentally challenged when it comes to answering simple yes or no questions.
Try to honestly answer it.
Bitch 😂
@ Big Baba: thanks for confirming my previous comment. You fail to recognize that you still can't "refute" one by "criticizing" the other. It's as stupid as 'refuting" Ohm's Law by pointing at the lack of monopoles. Or calling the UK a communist country because the former GDR had the word demokratisch in its name.
So of course you stick to it.
Also you're lying. I gave you evidence forc evolution. You just refuse to accept it because yadda yiddy yoddo. You always do.
Turek isn't trying to (honestly) answer these questions - he's trying to reassure the other members of the audience, so that they stop asking these questions.
So what is this channel doing? Sounds to be he is doing the same thing.
Suming up the arguement can be stated as: "Turek is wrong because X and Y reasons, do not listen to him, I am correctly because I know so."
Quite a conundrum, isn't it?
@@KlaustheViking Except Turek is presenting his position using manipulative or ignorant language and misrepresenting the counter argument. This video presents both sides of the argument and criticizes the positions using facts one can verify, Turek simply speaks from "authority" without any way to prove anything he says. When you combine both dishonest presentation style and a unverifiable series of claims.. you find a liar. You would not take me claiming "I am immortal" at face value, you would expect me to prove it.
@@azarinevil I could still argue the same way with Skeptic's way of pointing out Turek's fault in his arguements.
I would say, for a side note: Turek is not given all the time in the world with the lines of peoole asking him all sorts of questions, so I would understand him giving a rather simplified way of puttinf his arguement. I would personally look at his debates with well-known skeptics such as Christopher Hitchens to hear Turek's more prolonged explanations for his arguements rather than trying to squeeze in a couple of minutes for a question that typically requires a more well thought out answer. He is only trying to answer on the dime, so I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Back to my original statement, I could say that Skeptic is using the same type of manupulative language to convince the audience who watches his videos to make an authoritative statement that a God does not exist. He has said that, "Just say 'I do not know' if you do not know the answer rather saying 'God did it'", when he [Skeptic] does not know for an absolute certainty that there is no God.
@@KlaustheViking You miss the point of that argument completely.. the default answer shouldn't be a cope out like "God did it". That's the laziest and most dishonest argument in Christianity. It was my grandmother's go to along with "Because God said so". It was always just a dismissal of the debate as a whole.. that was the point she was actually saying "I can't actually defend my position so I don't want to talk about it any more". I watched her use this on my uncle when he tried to explain to her why he had to leave the church and get a divorce from his abusive, cheating wife. He was one of the four children who the church destroyed by selling the "traditional values" according to God. One of the reasons I am so confident in the non-existence of God is the authority problem of Christianity. We are expected to take the words of human beings, who took it on the word of other human beings.. for over 2000 years. By the time I was 8 I had figured out human beings lie through their teeth when it offers them control, things they want, and the ability to excuse their gross actions.
@@azarinevil Going off the last part of what you said lies in the problem: you are going off the authority of other humans versus what the Bible (God's word) commanded. The Bible has been translated many times, but the message always remained the same. Im sorry you had a bad experience which led to you leaving the church. I have heard many tsstimonies of people doing the same exact thing for very similar reasons.
Back to the main issue...
The cop out of "Because God said so" or however it is put depending on the arguement can be valid in certain circumstances. When we are arguing about the morality of God, God is the arbiter of all that is good and is perfectly just according to Christian belief. Being that God is our creator and instilled morality into our hearts, there is no other moral truth... only God's standard. Of course, I am arguing on my point of view. In that sense, saying "Because God says so" is fine with that sort of arguement because God has authority above all.
I understand in other arguements, when using that so called "cop out", it does not hold water. There is so much that we, even as devout Christians, do not know or understand about God's nature, so we can only go off with what we are given. Considering we are finite in our abilities as humans to comprehend God as a supreme being, I would imagine it bring practically impossible to understand why God did this or said that at certain times in the Bible.
So with that all being said, saying that "cop out" is not just a completely dishonest way of dismissal of an arguement. It all depends on the arguement at hand.