You would determine if something is designed by comparing it to things that aren't designed. But if everything is designed then exactly what are they comparing it to?
Yes, the Christian church philosophers invented the scientific methodology. The church was the sole practitioners and sponsors of science until recent centuries.
@@EdithBromfeldyour evidence for your claim that church philosophers invented science is....? Your evidence that if that were true, that would entail the truth of Christianity is....?
If you want to put science to the test look at your childhood vaccine records then ask yourself whether or not you've gotten the measles, the mumps, or polio.
Fallacy of personal incredulity: "Gee, this looks complicated. Someone must have designed it. Must be God." Fallacy of Special Pleading: "But God doesn't need a designer because of.. reasons. He's eternal, so no explanation is required. Shut up, that's why!"
@@damonkenny7818 They're ILLUSTRATIONS of specific fallacious forms of argument. And since they comport with the forms, they are demonstrably correct description. The illustrations of a Strawman Fallacy comes from your comment. Thank you for adding to the list.
The second someone uses the words "random(ness)", "chaos", and "disorder" to describe entropy you know that they don't know what they're talking about.
Mwah, don't think "randomness" or "disorder" in a colloquial sense are so bad, unless you go to very peculiar examples. Chaos is a bit more distant perhaps, but again colloquially not so bad.
Yes. Theist apologists can never get out of the mindset of an intentional creation with a planned objective. if we start with no such assumption then the chances of us getting where we are by whatever random chance designs, is inevitable.
@@KnakuanaRka Not a physicist or mathematician, this is how I see it: Potential for, well anything, is highest in a big bang state, all mass concentrated in one point that explodes, any arrangement and set of interactions is possible. Once it's all spread out and the matter and heat is diffuse and more uniform, the amount of possible future interactions and arrangements is limited, same amount of mass-energy but less potential for 'stuff' to happen, more entropy. You can, kinda, sorta, view entropy as 'useless' mass/energy if you want interesting stuff to occur.
"I want you to believe in my god. Then I want power over your life, I want you to do what I tell you to do, live the way I say and give me money." Never let any religious person lie to you about what it is that they really want. Power over you and your money. Religious people have no other objective.
Entropy applies to a isolated system. Entropy does not apply to a closed system as energy can enter or leave a closed system, but matter cannot. An open system is when matter and energy can enter or leave the system. This is a common mistake as the second law of thermodynamics is often oversimplified in grade school textbooks to refer to closed systems versus open systems. I don't know why..
@@deeterfulHell yes, they should. But, they're not really that interested in the subject. They just heard the argument they called in with on an apologist video somewhere and thought they could use it against an atheist - because along with Dunning Kruger, they're always narcissists, and they believe they're the smartest people in any room they're in.
Either they realize that they have no chance convincing scientists or even debating them, or they think the scientists aren’t “qualified” and “closed minded”. In either case, theists believe they have a better chance against atheists with their “unique” hypotheses. Even though they’re not scientifically sound and many nonbelievers ask the right questions to point out the flaws.
Yes. But they’re very ignorant and science is hard. So they think science=non-Christian. Which is why we have people that call/comment with what they think is some paradigm shift in science. But they’ve never actually done anything to demonstrate their claims.
One thing I have learned watching Theists on call in shows, they think they are incredibly intelligent are smug and condescending about it. They are mostly wrong.
The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known. They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world. God has made a home in the heavens for the sun. It bursts forth like a radiant bridegroom after his wedding. It rejoices like a great athlete eager to run the race. The sun rises at one end of the heavens and follows its course to the other end. Nothing can hide from its heat.
Theists insist on saying it’s “random” or “their god” but what they’re talking about isn’t random, and they can’t demonstrate their god exists, can “create” anything, or is even possible. He’s trying desperately to just claim that intelligent design has happened while simultaneously trying to get away from proving the who, how, and why. It’s all about how he feels.
I suppose the ultimate test of the scientific method is the results: overall, it comes out very well. For example, I am currently using communication technology made possible through various scientific advances. What humans do with scientific advances is not always positive, but that is not the fault of the scientific method.
'Desired outcome' and 'design' are blocking Alex's ability to get to a rational thought. He can't imagine a world where god doesn't exist, so he's stuck making dumb arguments. They sound rational to him because of his fundamental prior belief in a creator. You can't get to desired unless you smuggle in the agent.
*I repeat my challenge for Christian preachers* I still have the 3 easy questions that normal Christians can answer but you preachers avoid. 1) Is dishonesty allowed under 2 Timothy 4? 2) Should preachers understand their audience in order to be effective? 3) Why quote Bible verses if it's unproductive and counterproductive? It's been two weeks and preachers still can't answer these. It gives the impression that Christian preachers aren't honest.
The caller says that the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that systems go from more complex to less complex. This is backward. The singularity postulated to be at the origin of the universe is the most simple thing possible. Complexity increased when the expansion began, not decreased.
@landsgevaer Here's the first two meanings for reference: 1. composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite 2. characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc The singularity had no constituent parts and had one arrangement with only a single attribute: energy. Does that help clear up your confusion?
@@scottjohnson7248 Do I need to have "a point"? Isn't it sufficient to have "a question"? I wanted to know how you would clarify your idea of complexity. Not everything is an attack; not even in a YT comment section. I was hoping the smiley might convey that, but alas.
Science: The study of the natural world or the knowledge gained by that study. The scientific method: A structured inductive process for pursuing knowledge through observation of objective evidence, experimentation, and analysis. Putting science "to the test" is something of an odd idea since, by definition, the scientific method puts all scientific hypothesis "to the test" as an intrinsic part of the methodology. Meanwhile Alex's whole argument rests upon the presumption that our current state of affairs represent a "desired outcome" of something or someone....despite his complete inability to establish that premise. Until he does that, no amount of doubling back to smuggle in stolen concepts will help him. And when he brings up entropy he only further reveals his general scientific ignorance. Overall he's a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect.
Examples of common fallacies used in discussions of science : Appeal to personal incredulity- "Do you really believe that you have a fish as an ancestor? That's absurd!" Appeal to consequences- "If it's true that humans are animals that evolved from other species of animals, that means we aren't special and that's unacceptable." Strawman: "You believe that everything came from nothing by random accident." Appeal to motive: "Scientists are biased because they are paid for their work." - (Yes, people can be biased in favor of whoever pays them, but you can't just assume that they are and dismiss their findings based on that. Their findings- and the methods used to obtain them- need to be evaluated on their own merits.) Argument from ignorance/ God of the gaps: "Science can't explain why there's things rather than nothing, so the answer must be God." Stacking the deck: "True science shows that the Earth is 6000 years old and that the fossil record is caused by the Great Flood"- yes, if you dismiss all the science that shows otherwise and call the alleged evidence that favors it 'true science', you get that conclusion.
Regarding the question does the earth still have the same forces ..., although this was not specifically asked, the forces that created abiogenesis were added to once life began, and that is living animals that eat. Meaning, if by chance a new type of abiogenesis is biggening to form animals around this new formation would eat it and thus terminate this new abiogenesis getting a foothold.
Another way to describe this is that newly emergent life from non-life would have to outcompete existing life that has a 3 billion year head start, a tall order.
In addition to the condescension, the pseudo intellectual smugness a la JP... His voice just simply grates on me as well. It's a pushmi-pullyu of putting me to sleep and causing me to explode.
A very interesting statement from a physicist I have heard was: "If our physic is false, then it's very good false." So much to, it's only falsifiable.
Emphasizing a closed system for the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not very clear. A closed system is NOT the key reason why we cannot say that natural evolution conflicts with the 2nd law. If it were, you could imagine a gigantic box around the solar system (extending well beyond Pluto's orbit). Would that box prevent natural evolution on Earth? It would be a closed system. The key reason that natural evolution does not conflict with the 2nd law of thermodynamics is that the law applies to the ENTIRE (closed) system. In other words, the NET entropy of the (closed) system does not decrease. You can still have pockets of order appearing in the system, as long as it is offset by disorder in other regions.
The emergence of complexity is an entirely expected consequence of thermodynamics. Considering that theists often appeal to complexity as a fallacious reason why there must be a special creator ("I just can't believe that all this COMPLEXITY could have come about all by itself") the fact that we know the emergence of complexity to be an entirely natural process, not requiring a creator, should be something to keep in mind.
The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known. They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world. God has made a home in the heavens for the sun. It bursts forth like a radiant bridegroom after his wedding. It rejoices like a great athlete eager to run the race. The sun rises at one end of the heavens and follows its course to the other end. Nothing can hide from its heat.
@@STOP-n-READ " The heavens proclaim " To the simple minded, everything looks amazing... To a fly, sh*it looks fine tuned... "Nothing can hide from its heat." Most of the entire universe doesn't know the sun even exists... can't see it and certainly can't feel the heat... and in a few billion years it will cease to exist... Do you enjoy flaunting your lack of education?
It's a partial test. A successful tool should also NOT do what you did NOT intend. For example, a peanut sorting machine that is to separate peanuts from rocks would deliver peanuts even if it consisted of a very large funnel into which the feedstock is poured. Yes, it delivers peanuts, as intended. But it also delivers rocks, not as intended.
The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known. They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world. God has made a home in the heavens for the sun. It bursts forth like a radiant bridegroom after his wedding. It rejoices like a great athlete eager to run the race. The sun rises at one end of the heavens and follows its course to the other end. Nothing can hide from its heat.
This caller is 100% a preacher ffs. I sensed it the moment he dishonestly attempted to make up new definitions for words and immediately changed topics when proven a liar.
There are those who conflate natutalism with materialism and methodological materialism with philosophical materialism because apparantly, nuance and accuracy are their enemies. So it is with all propagandists.
Ask him if he can spell 'Saskatchewan'. If he can, he's smarter that I thought. But he's so confused, he'd probably spell it either 'Alberta' or 'Manitoba'.
No. Faith is useless. But it's straightforward to create a testing framework whose objects to be tested are mechanisms or processes which perform tests of their own. We do this all the time in software engineering.
Kinda dumb title. We test science every time we use it. And considering we call it the single best method for understanding reality you could say we have already done the work and have a conclusion.
The troll Damon Kenny claims below that there are 'many observational contradictions that science produced because of the bogus atheist doctrine of Naturalism'. What's the betting on the number of actual contradictions of this sort Damon will be able to identify?
John 3 16 invites you to know His love and forever promise to you. TODAY, if you hear His invitation though His Word, do not harden your heart, for TODAY is the Day of your salvation.
They're not going to be able to tell you that, because they have subscribed to a particular philosophy of science called naturalism. Methodological naturalism is not the same as the scientific method. It is a particular assumption about the state of all matter, energy, and even the subjective and abstract. Anything "extraordinary" ever found or experienced will always have unknowns. And so the game being played is not ever what can be known, but rather what will always be unknown when something new is known. A never ending appeal to the unknown in order to protect the sociopolitical position, goals, and desires, of a particular group that thinks in a particular way about how we all should live and think.
That would depend on the context, because we are talking about established facts that would lead logically to the conclusion that some of creator and/or ruler of the world exists. We don't know enough about the world as a whole for there to be a single thing one could point at and say, "There's the evidence!"
@amtlpaul There's a game your side is playing. Many of you might not even be aware of the reason for why it is a game. But no matter what the evidence is you can always appeal to the unknown in what is found out. It's a state of mind- New World Encyclopedia, Materialism- _"Science uses a working assumption, sometimes known as methodological naturalism, that observable events in nature are to be explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. Materialists have often been determinists, holding to the claim that, "There is a cause for every event," although that view is not required in order to be a materialist"_ The ASSUMPTION is that it CAN ONLY BE EXPLAINED by natural means. That is why it is a state of mind and a philosophy of science. It doesn't matter that there is no claim that the supernatural is real or not real "when it can only be explained by a certain method". It's dogmatic and unfalsifiable assumption ABOUT THE STATE OF BEING AND REALITY.
Its impssible to even show a non intentional creator could possibly exist in this reality as every attempt to set up the parameters to show such a thing is possible requires intent thus rendering the whole process an excersise in utter futility aka quackery. This is why any scientist who claims non intent created anything is an idiot! Such claims are nothing more than a rank expression of unprovavable faith which is verboten aka the anthises of scientific endeavor.
From His abundance we have all received one gracious blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses, but God’s unfailing love and faithfulness came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God-But the unique One, who is Himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.
Repent of your sins. Believe in Jesus for salvation and be born again, becoming a new person in this life. Luke 24:47, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 2 Corinthians 5:17 KJV........
You mean like the sin of Spamming? "Thou shalt not spam, for spamming is the sign of a desire to humiliate oneself and interest in buggery. Thusly, the spammer, his head, in the dark places of his buttocks shall be mocked to the ends of time. Sausage 12:13"
The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known. They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world. God has made a home in the heavens for the sun. It bursts forth like a radiant bridegroom after his wedding. It rejoices like a great athlete eager to run the race. The sun rises at one end of the heavens and follows its course to the other end. Nothing can hide from its heat.
" The heavens proclaim " To the simple minded, everything looks amazing... To a fly, sh*it looks fine tuned... "Nothing can hide from its heat." Most of the entire universe doesn't know the sun even exists... can't see it and certainly can't feel the heat... and in a few billion years it will cease to exist... Do you enjoy flaunting your lack of education?
Fuck me, do you have a whole bunch of phones on the same page all at once, signed in to different accounts so your alts can speed upvote each other? Get a life.
Is the following statement logical or illogical?? The non-personal, non-intelligent processes of big bang, abiogenesis, & or evolution, “somehow” pioneered the PERSONAL characteristic of INTELLIGENCE, then provided it to select species
Are you saying faith is a bad thing? I agree that religious faith (typically defined) is a bad thing, but you seem to be using it as an insult? Presumably you’re a theist who has faith 🤔?
Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages a·the·ist /ˈāTHēəst/ noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. re·li·gion /rəˈlij(ə)n/ noun: religion the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
Why does intelligent design seem like an argument that says, “assume that I’m right and now that you assume that I’m right therefore I’m right.”
You would determine if something is designed by comparing it to things that aren't designed.
But if everything is designed then exactly what are they comparing it to?
Science is a methodology. Every scientific advancement IS a test of science
Yes, the Christian church philosophers invented the scientific methodology. The church was the sole practitioners and sponsors of science until recent centuries.
@@EdithBromfeld Also Churches: ThE EaRtH iS FlAt
@@BigTMaker Lying is all you atheist trash can offer? Where is your evidence boy?
@EdithBromfeld so?
@@EdithBromfeldyour evidence for your claim that church philosophers invented science is....? Your evidence that if that were true, that would entail the truth of Christianity is....?
This guy, really thinks he is smart, and coming up with great arguments, and it's laughable.
@@tommycreugers2341 really. He’s a waste of time
So from this caller one can learn that it is possible to talk rubbish in a serious tone to make it sound smart
His condescending tone is annoying.
Absolutely, does he think waterfalls result from water deciding that it's the best way for it to achieve its goal of moving towards the sea?
If you want to put science to the test look at your childhood vaccine records then ask yourself whether or not you've gotten the measles, the mumps, or polio.
Fallacy of personal incredulity: "Gee, this looks complicated. Someone must have designed it. Must be God."
Fallacy of Special Pleading: "But God doesn't need a designer because of.. reasons. He's eternal, so no explanation is required. Shut up, that's why!"
Nice strawman arguments.
@@damonkenny7818Nah
@damonkenny7818 😆 🤣 😂 😹
@@damonkenny7818Those are the arguments. You're just too stupid or unwilling to think about them to notice.
@@damonkenny7818
They're ILLUSTRATIONS of specific fallacious forms of argument. And since they comport with the forms, they are demonstrably correct description.
The illustrations of a Strawman Fallacy comes from your comment. Thank you for adding to the list.
The second someone uses the words "random(ness)", "chaos", and "disorder" to describe entropy you know that they don't know what they're talking about.
Yep
Mwah, don't think "randomness" or "disorder" in a colloquial sense are so bad, unless you go to very peculiar examples. Chaos is a bit more distant perhaps, but again colloquially not so bad.
Yes. Theist apologists can never get out of the mindset of an intentional creation with a planned objective. if we start with no such assumption then the chances of us getting where we are by whatever random chance designs, is inevitable.
How should it be described better, then?
@@KnakuanaRka Not a physicist or mathematician, this is how I see it: Potential for, well anything, is highest in a big bang state, all mass concentrated in one point that explodes, any arrangement and set of interactions is possible. Once it's all spread out and the matter and heat is diffuse and more uniform, the amount of possible future interactions and arrangements is limited, same amount of mass-energy but less potential for 'stuff' to happen, more entropy. You can, kinda, sorta, view entropy as 'useless' mass/energy if you want interesting stuff to occur.
"I want you to believe in my god. Then I want power over your life, I want you to do what I tell you to do, live the way I say and give me money." Never let any religious person lie to you about what it is that they really want. Power over you and your money. Religious people have no other objective.
Entropy applies to a isolated system. Entropy does not apply to a closed system as energy can enter or leave a closed system, but matter cannot. An open system is when matter and energy can enter or leave the system. This is a common mistake as the second law of thermodynamics is often oversimplified in grade school textbooks to refer to closed systems versus open systems.
I don't know why..
Wouldn't people like the caller be better off calling scientists / science educators if their goal was to have their scientific questions answered?
Or better yet, enrolling in some classes on these subjects.
@@deeterfulHell yes, they should. But, they're not really that interested in the subject. They just heard the argument they called in with on an apologist video somewhere and thought they could use it against an atheist - because along with Dunning Kruger, they're always narcissists, and they believe they're the smartest people in any room they're in.
Either they realize that they have no chance convincing scientists or even debating them, or they think the scientists aren’t “qualified” and “closed minded”. In either case, theists believe they have a better chance against atheists with their “unique” hypotheses. Even though they’re not scientifically sound and many nonbelievers ask the right questions to point out the flaws.
Yes. But they’re very ignorant and science is hard. So they think science=non-Christian. Which is why we have people that call/comment with what they think is some paradigm shift in science. But they’ve never actually done anything to demonstrate their claims.
Usually they don't want answers, they want others to just accept whatever they came to sell
One thing I have learned watching Theists on call in shows, they think they are incredibly intelligent are smug and condescending about it. They are mostly wrong.
As soon as he said “test the scientific method” I knew we were gonna be in for a wild stupid ride
Always find it interesting that theist who care about this subject call in to talk to non scientists about it lol
Alex doesn't care about this subject, if he did he would have done the slightest bit of research for rebuttals to his silly creationist arguments.
The heavens proclaim the glory of God.
The skies display his craftsmanship.
Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known.
They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard.
Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world.
God has made a home in the heavens for the sun.
It bursts forth like a radiant bridegroom after his wedding.
It rejoices like a great athlete eager to run the race.
The sun rises at one end of the heavens and follows its course to the other end.
Nothing can hide from its heat.
@@STOP-n-READNah
@@STOP-n-READhow does this relate to the video or to this particular comment?
C'mon... Do better.
Testing itself is the core of the scientific method. It's why science replaced philosophy as the method to understand reality.
Theists insist on saying it’s “random” or “their god” but what they’re talking about isn’t random, and they can’t demonstrate their god exists, can “create” anything, or is even possible.
He’s trying desperately to just claim that intelligent design has happened while simultaneously trying to get away from proving the who, how, and why. It’s all about how he feels.
Some of my fellow theists don't understand that it's a false dichotomy
I suppose the ultimate test of the scientific method is the results: overall, it comes out very well. For example, I am currently using communication technology made possible through various scientific advances. What humans do with scientific advances is not always positive, but that is not the fault of the scientific method.
his argument is just a fancy "look at the trees" and working backwards. nothing special about this nonsense.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in this one!
testing itself is literally what science is....
22:40 The way his voice gets so soft and slow is suuuuuuper gross.
LITERALLY sounds like Heath Ledger's Joker.
Can you measure a ruler? Yes with another ruler 😅
If evolution was false and Christianity was true we'd all have the same DNA, including every living thing on earth.
'Desired outcome' and 'design' are blocking Alex's ability to get to a rational thought. He can't imagine a world where god doesn't exist, so he's stuck making dumb arguments. They sound rational to him because of his fundamental prior belief in a creator.
You can't get to desired unless you smuggle in the agent.
Good Saturday morning AXP fans and theists ❤❤❤
Thank God for atheism 🙏
Peace Love Empathy From Australia 🤠
Thank God ? ? ?
@@doneestoner9945 It sounds like Stoner is ironically challenged.
*I repeat my challenge for Christian preachers*
I still have the 3 easy questions that normal Christians can answer but you preachers avoid.
1) Is dishonesty allowed under 2 Timothy 4?
2) Should preachers understand their audience in order to be effective?
3) Why quote Bible verses if it's unproductive and counterproductive?
It's been two weeks and preachers still can't answer these.
It gives the impression that Christian preachers aren't honest.
Nobody cares about your fake challenges you lying fool. Lol
Ah, Master Kenney has shown up 😅
The caller says that the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that systems go from more complex to less complex. This is backward. The singularity postulated to be at the origin of the universe is the most simple thing possible. Complexity increased when the expansion began, not decreased.
Define "complex" 😉
@landsgevaer Here's the first two meanings for reference:
1. composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite
2. characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc
The singularity had no constituent parts and had one arrangement with only a single attribute: energy. Does that help clear up your confusion?
@@scottjohnson7248 Asking clarification does not need to arise from confusion, thank you.
@@landsgevaerThen what is your point?
@@scottjohnson7248 Do I need to have "a point"? Isn't it sufficient to have "a question"?
I wanted to know how you would clarify your idea of complexity.
Not everything is an attack; not even in a YT comment section. I was hoping the smiley might convey that, but alas.
Science: The study of the natural world or the knowledge gained by that study.
The scientific method: A structured inductive process for pursuing knowledge through observation of objective evidence, experimentation, and analysis.
Putting science "to the test" is something of an odd idea since, by definition, the scientific method puts all scientific hypothesis "to the test" as an intrinsic part of the methodology.
Meanwhile Alex's whole argument rests upon the presumption that our current state of affairs represent a "desired outcome" of something or someone....despite his complete inability to establish that premise. Until he does that, no amount of doubling back to smuggle in stolen concepts will help him.
And when he brings up entropy he only further reveals his general scientific ignorance. Overall he's a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect.
Very well said.
This guy doesn’t even know what Thermodynamics are!
He thinks he is smart. He isn't.
Examples of common fallacies used in discussions of science :
Appeal to personal incredulity- "Do you really believe that you have a fish as an ancestor? That's absurd!"
Appeal to consequences- "If it's true that humans are animals that evolved from other species of animals, that means we aren't special and that's unacceptable."
Strawman: "You believe that everything came from nothing by random accident."
Appeal to motive: "Scientists are biased because they are paid for their work." - (Yes, people can be biased in favor of whoever pays them, but you can't just assume that they are and dismiss their findings based on that. Their findings- and the methods used to obtain them- need to be evaluated on their own merits.)
Argument from ignorance/ God of the gaps: "Science can't explain why there's things rather than nothing, so the answer must be God."
Stacking the deck: "True science shows that the Earth is 6000 years old and that the fossil record is caused by the Great Flood"- yes, if you dismiss all the science that shows otherwise and call the alleged evidence that favors it 'true science', you get that conclusion.
If you found a method better than science , you would have to use science to prove it
The test of the validity of the scientific method is that it continues to produce useful predictions.
Regarding the question does the earth still have the same forces ..., although this was not specifically asked, the forces that created abiogenesis were added to once life began, and that is living animals that eat. Meaning, if by chance a new type of abiogenesis is biggening to form animals around this new formation would eat it and thus terminate this new abiogenesis getting a foothold.
Another way to describe this is that newly emergent life from non-life would have to outcompete existing life that has a 3 billion year head start, a tall order.
It might not happen here due to the conditions, but for all we know, it could be happening on hundreds if not millions of planets...
If abiogenesis happened again, it would be eaten by everything that's already alive before we noticed.
maybe I'm the only one that feels this way, but I can't stand this guys voice...something about it just grates on me...
@@markireland1162 He sounds like Jordan Peterson. Both vocally and in his insufferable pseudo intellectual smugness.
His voice drips with condescension
In addition to the condescension, the pseudo intellectual smugness a la JP... His voice just simply grates on me as well. It's a pushmi-pullyu of putting me to sleep and causing me to explode.
His voice makes me wonder if I'm repressing something. Positively creepy
A very interesting statement from a physicist I have heard was:
"If our physic is false, then it's very good false."
So much to, it's only falsifiable.
Hydrolic forces of water? Come again? 😂😂😂
Do you know if you shook those marbles enough they might get back into order but that would take a long time
That's by far the most "the question is..." But just giving a braindead question over and over again i've ever heard and ever will be hearing
Emphasizing a closed system for the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not very clear. A closed system is NOT the key reason why we cannot say that natural evolution conflicts with the 2nd law. If it were, you could imagine a gigantic box around the solar system (extending well beyond Pluto's orbit). Would that box prevent natural evolution on Earth? It would be a closed system.
The key reason that natural evolution does not conflict with the 2nd law of thermodynamics is that the law applies to the ENTIRE (closed) system. In other words, the NET entropy of the (closed) system does not decrease. You can still have pockets of order appearing in the system, as long as it is offset by disorder in other regions.
^This
It is the NET entropy, the 2nd law does not care about a local decrease.
If a God exists, it's no longer a closed system...
The emergence of complexity is an entirely expected consequence of thermodynamics.
Considering that theists often appeal to complexity as a fallacious reason why there must be a special creator ("I just can't believe that all this COMPLEXITY could have come about all by itself") the fact that we know the emergence of complexity to be an entirely natural process, not requiring a creator, should be something to keep in mind.
No human being has ever pissed me off more than this caller.
Whenever you use a tool is a test. If it does as intended, then it has passed.
The heavens proclaim the glory of God.
The skies display his craftsmanship.
Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known.
They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard.
Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world.
God has made a home in the heavens for the sun.
It bursts forth like a radiant bridegroom after his wedding.
It rejoices like a great athlete eager to run the race.
The sun rises at one end of the heavens and follows its course to the other end.
Nothing can hide from its heat.
@@STOP-n-READ " The heavens proclaim "
To the simple minded, everything looks amazing...
To a fly, sh*it looks fine tuned...
"Nothing can hide from its heat."
Most of the entire universe doesn't know the sun even exists... can't see it and certainly can't feel the heat...
and in a few billion years it will cease to exist...
Do you enjoy flaunting your lack of education?
@@STOP-n-READ
That's a lot of claims with no accompanying evidence. Dismissed.
It's a partial test. A successful tool should also NOT do what you did NOT intend.
For example, a peanut sorting machine that is to separate peanuts from rocks would deliver peanuts even if it consisted of a very large funnel into which the feedstock is poured.
Yes, it delivers peanuts, as intended. But it also delivers rocks, not as intended.
@@starfishsystems Probably not the best metaphor I came up with
We are always changing, but people are too afraid to change. Evolution is always on the go.
The heavens proclaim the glory of God.
The skies display his craftsmanship.
Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known.
They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard.
Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world.
God has made a home in the heavens for the sun.
It bursts forth like a radiant bridegroom after his wedding.
It rejoices like a great athlete eager to run the race.
The sun rises at one end of the heavens and follows its course to the other end.
Nothing can hide from its heat.
basically “can you test testing?”
Lol 🤣what would you use as a control if you tested science? Doing nothing?
Once upon a time there was a Ural sea. Once upon a time there was land where there is now water, etc, etc, etc.
Let Alex do his magic trick please. Can't wait for this.
Elephants compete pictures
This caller is 100% a preacher ffs. I sensed it the moment he dishonestly attempted to make up new definitions for words and immediately changed topics when proven a liar.
Great questions.
There are those who conflate natutalism with materialism and methodological materialism with philosophical materialism because apparantly, nuance and accuracy are their enemies. So it is with all propagandists.
And it's methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. But what's nuanced about material or physical?
Looks like the OP's point was demonstrated
Ask him if he can spell 'Saskatchewan'. If he can, he's smarter that I thought. But he's so confused, he'd probably spell it either 'Alberta' or 'Manitoba'.
like yea your MENT to question science, blindly "trust the science" is one the most unscientific things.
How can we test a test ?
Faith !
No. Faith is useless.
But it's straightforward to create a testing framework whose objects to be tested are mechanisms or processes which perform tests of their own. We do this all the time in software engineering.
@starfishsystems
I have faith that my software has no bugs.
@@tedgrant2so what? That’s not a test.
@@hammalammadingdong6244
Who can say what is a test ?
@@tedgrant2 a person who understands what the word “test” means.
Kinda dumb title.
We test science every time we use it. And considering we call it the single best method for understanding reality you could say we have already done the work and have a conclusion.
This guy doesn’t know what a force is.
The troll Damon Kenny claims below that there are 'many observational contradictions that science produced because of the bogus atheist doctrine of Naturalism'. What's the betting on the number of actual contradictions of this sort Damon will be able to identify?
You’re obviously too stupid to understand the easily understandable point I made.
@@damonkenny7818Nah
😆 🤣 😂 😹
@@scottjohnson7248 I’m just repeating what all philosophers have known about epistemology. You’re just too low IQ to get it.
@@damonkenny7818😆 😂😅
Science use to be called philosophy with good evidence
Self affirming Alex.
why does bro sound like L from the Death Note dub???
epic facepalm
John 3 16 invites you to know His love and forever promise to you. TODAY, if you hear His invitation though His Word, do not harden your heart, for TODAY is the Day of your salvation.
This guy has spent too long hitting the bong and saying "You know maaaan..."
round and round...... 🧠 🧠 🧠
What would constitute evidence of a god?
Wouldn’t a god know what that should be?
They're not going to be able to tell you that, because they have subscribed to a particular philosophy of science called naturalism. Methodological naturalism is not the same as the scientific method. It is a particular assumption about the state of all matter, energy, and even the subjective and abstract.
Anything "extraordinary" ever found or experienced will always have unknowns. And so the game being played is not ever what can be known, but rather what will always be unknown when something new is known. A never ending appeal to the unknown in order to protect the sociopolitical position, goals, and desires, of a particular group that thinks in a particular way about how we all should live and think.
That would depend on the context, because we are talking about established facts that would lead logically to the conclusion that some of creator and/or ruler of the world exists. We don't know enough about the world as a whole for there to be a single thing one could point at and say, "There's the evidence!"
@amtlpaul There's a game your side is playing. Many of you might not even be aware of the reason for why it is a game. But no matter what the evidence is you can always appeal to the unknown in what is found out. It's a state of mind-
New World Encyclopedia, Materialism-
_"Science uses a working assumption, sometimes known as methodological naturalism, that observable events in nature are to be explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. Materialists have often been determinists, holding to the claim that, "There is a cause for every event," although that view is not required in order to be a materialist"_
The ASSUMPTION is that it CAN ONLY BE EXPLAINED by natural means. That is why it is a state of mind and a philosophy of science. It doesn't matter that there is no claim that the supernatural is real or not real "when it can only be explained by a certain method". It's dogmatic and unfalsifiable assumption ABOUT THE STATE OF BEING AND REALITY.
@@Theosis-81 😆 🤣 😂 😹
Its impssible to even show a non intentional creator could possibly exist in this reality as every attempt to set up the parameters to show such a thing is possible requires intent thus rendering the whole process an excersise in utter futility aka quackery. This is why any scientist who claims non intent created anything is an idiot! Such claims are nothing more than a rank expression of unprovavable faith which is verboten aka the anthises of scientific endeavor.
WTF are you on about?
@@scottjohnson7248
I think they're demonstrating that creators are impossible by definition
@JimWilliams-s8z
Some dressing for your salad sir?
@scottjohnson7248 lol! You are duuummb. Can't understand the words but still felt compelled to cry about them. Classic buffoonery!
@@redflag4781The fact that you have to preface with "I think" demonstrates how poorly the OP has communicated their point.
I think science is subjective
I think you're full of it
Nah
From His abundance we have all received one gracious blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses, but God’s unfailing love and faithfulness came through Jesus Christ.
No one has ever seen God-But the unique One, who is Himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.
FYI, "STOP-n-READ, The.King.Is.Coming.726, ATHEISM-is-MADNESS" and "Mark1615-zi4er" are all the same troll.
O boy! Another preacher bot to report.
Nah
Double nah. Go bother a TH-cam channel where they read fiction to one another….
Triple Nah. First provide some evidence and sound arguments for your beliefs and then perhaps we'll talk
Both ⚛️ Atheists and Theists "musings" are ultimately fruitless.
Does this apply to your musing as well?
Existence is "ultimately fruitless", so what's your point?
Repent of your sins. Believe in Jesus for salvation and be born again, becoming a new person in this life. Luke 24:47, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 2 Corinthians 5:17 KJV........
What sins?
Reported for spam
No you
You mean like the sin of Spamming?
"Thou shalt not spam, for spamming is the sign of a desire to humiliate oneself and interest in buggery. Thusly, the spammer, his head, in the dark places of his buttocks shall be mocked to the ends of time.
Sausage 12:13"
Scoobie Doobie Doo, rot raggy
The heavens proclaim the glory of God.
The skies display his craftsmanship.
Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known.
They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard.
Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world.
God has made a home in the heavens for the sun.
It bursts forth like a radiant bridegroom after his wedding.
It rejoices like a great athlete eager to run the race.
The sun rises at one end of the heavens and follows its course to the other end.
Nothing can hide from its heat.
Nah
" The heavens proclaim "
To the simple minded, everything looks amazing...
To a fly, sh*it looks fine tuned...
"Nothing can hide from its heat."
Most of the entire universe doesn't know the sun even exists... can't see it and certainly can't feel the heat...
and in a few billion years it will cease to exist...
Do you enjoy flaunting your lack of education?
Fuck me, do you have a whole bunch of phones on the same page all at once, signed in to different accounts so your alts can speed upvote each other? Get a life.
Dude, take a page from @Atheism-Taps-Out. Crib from his notes. He's at least attempting to engage in the conversation.
I'm back!!!
Is the following statement logical or illogical??
The non-personal, non-intelligent processes of big bang, abiogenesis, & or evolution, “somehow” pioneered the PERSONAL characteristic of INTELLIGENCE, then provided it to select species
Nah
Why don't you figure
out, if you came to that conclusion yourself. Or if something/someone told you that conclusion!
Strawmanning evolution and abiogenesis won't make your beliefs true by default
I'd say someone who can write a strawman word salad from ignorance proves there's no god given intelligence.
'Logical' is NOT defined as "Feels right to Florida BJ Spammer"
You atheists have a alot of faith in your religion
Are you saying faith is a bad thing? I agree that religious faith (typically defined) is a bad thing, but you seem to be using it as an insult? Presumably you’re a theist who has faith 🤔?
What bible do I read? Where do I go to church? What hymns do I sing? Can I still celebrate Christmas?
Nah
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
re·li·gion
/rəˈlij(ə)n/
noun: religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
Morons think atheism is a religion...
This is Canadian Catholic.