@pippo atheists are kinda like deeply religious people, i think thats what @Bronte meant 😅. If You jokingly whisper in their ears, “God bless you” and hell will be upon you 😂
@pippo correction, "hell will be unleashed upon you" missed a word there mate, i wont explained it further, but its a phrase used to describe when you are about to give someone all you got, pleasant or unpleasant stuff :)
Where did the spark of life come from to evolve? Can all the logic Sam Harris has answer that. I understand that evolution means things changing from one form to another.. Only living things change.. The components that make up the human body must have evolve also what were they before they even decided to evolve?
Dawkins is at the point where Neil will be when he learns that its impossible to convince people who dont want to be convinced and that, at some point, you have to not coddle them like children asto not offend their beliefs, and just straight up tell them they are ignorant and wrong about the world around them. You certainly dont have to call them stupid, but its not a crime to call a spade a spade.
I think it's good we have both styles out there. Some people might be responsive if you catch them by the hand, while others might be responsive after being called an idiot.
If science says birthing people can be of any gender then that's how it is any anyone that disagrees is stupid. If science says that a person must have ovaries to be a birthing person then scientists should set the record straight. Throughout all of history, a person with ovaries that gives birth has been called a woman and mother yet NDT and Dawkins are silent and their friend Bill Nye the Science Guy supports birthing people of any gender. Science and data SAY nothing, only scientists SAY something. The science and data make evolution less convincing with each new discovery yet scientists stand firm in their belief.
That’s no longer surprising because there are still many half -ape humans that still exist today which are very difficult species to convinced. Their conviction is only based on systematic beliefs from what they hear from among themselves particularly as they are growing up and also willing to kill and die over it. If you study the history of how religion and human civilization began, you will surely notice their similarities.
I think Neil Degrasse Tyson does himself a disservice. He might not speak with a British accent &, even as a British person who loves an RP accent, it doesn't matter. The content is far more important than the accent. I enjoy Dr Tyson's work & the way he talks about science in a way laypeople can understand.
Most people in Britain do not have Home Counties RP accents, and even the BBC has dropped this as a requirement for Radio and TV presenters. Sadly, a great many Britons have now lost their regional or city accents for a variety of reason, not least the dominance of US cultural imperialism and the pernicious influence of soap culture which has given us an epidemic of ugly HRTs and convinced many Londoners that they ought to imitate the ludicrous drama-school 'mockney' they hear on 'Eastenders'. Other distinctive regional accents. like those of Lancashire, Somerset, and parts of West Yorkshire, have also largely disappeared among the younger generation. But I agree with Ms Burrow that the point is not the accent but the ability to communicate, and I also agree that Dr Tyson makes a perfectly fine job of this, despite his Yankee accent.
@@exiled_londoner I'm from West Yorkshire & have a mild accent (Leeds isn't as strong as other Yorkshire accents plus I taught English abroad so lost most of my accent). I'm a sucker for RP because that's my wife's accent. She moved up north to be with me. 🙂
Sincere scholars who have no other intention other than knowledge should be honored for opening the minds and eyes of humanity. I believe by increasing the true knowledge will make people more humane as it should be not the other way round.
It sounded like Dawkins deflected onto the guy from New Science. I think Tyson was right about this. Dawkins can be very off-putting, especially to those who need the most to get his point. I often agree with Dawkins but still am tempted to yell at the computer screen.
Word War 3. The whole relationship: G is an incomplete whole with one square angle drawn in. O is a whole. D is a split whole with two square angles drawn in. As we add a whole relationship to the words middle way we see GOOD expanded from its Whole image. As we draw the words first and last into its middle for a Whole halved once squared twice to the right to measure its: Time 12-3-6 Time, times 12x-3-6 Time, times and half a time 1/2x-3-6 Additional elements from the table: 12 Magnesium 3 Lithium 6 Carbon 1 Hydrogen One clock wise cycle out of many observed and measured in its beginning.
Czechia is one of the most atheistic country in the world, Most people have never heard about creationism or "intelligent" design. I looked at PISA results from 2018 and CZ is next to France and Estonia is at the top. I don't know the difference between methodology still it seems pretty stupid to pack together Czechia, Bosnia and Estonia. The Eastern block was broken 30 years ago.
Zdar Oskar. Unfortunately, even here in Czechia are creationist morons, flat earth believers and antivax idiots. I am very surprised how many people believe in stupid nonsenses.
@@lukasfilipsky31Ahoj, there are people who believe in crazy shit everywhere buy in Czechia it's maybe astrology and such crap but I don't know a single creationist or flat earther. There may be some but the number is insignificantif it is something like half a percent.
have no idea What the graph it is but living in Estonia and knowing local realities and religion statistics Estonia is normally placed among 5 top atheist countries. It`s actually quite hard to find religious people here unless they are 70 plus
It depends how one defines atheism. If by atheism u mean not believing in a god and going to church or some other religious institution. Well... that's a limited definition of atheism because whilst some ppl consider themselves atheist in this regard they then spend a small fortune on psychic readers or fortune tellers or have superstitious beliefs and may have a belief in ghosts and dabble in other supernatural interests. This is a very a very different definition of atheism from that espoused by Richard Dawkins for example.
@@westnblu Bro, almost Nobody goes to church here. ok, maybe some senile elders. if someone in his 30s...40s tells me here he believes in god I would be quite surprised.
@@deniszest Notice how advanced and peaceful your country is compared to religious nut cases like America? They think a 600 year old man built a ship 6000 years ago and put dinosaurs on it so they wouldn't go extinct.
@@dleet86 Human's Y chromosome DNA and mitochondria DNA are more than 99.9% the same ACROSS THE PLANET, EVEN BETWEEN AFRICA AND SOUTH AMERICA, AUSTRALIA OR *EVEN HAWAII,* *NO MAMMALS ARE ANYWHERE CLOSE to 99% !* You are probably thinking about the man/chimp genetic study, *BUT* it was proven either to be done with *MAJOR INCOMPETENCE OR FRAUD, PROVEN IN 2015 !*
@@dleet86 The genetic similarities among humans across the entire world strongly indicating a major world event, less than 10,000 years ago like the *TOWER OF BABEL !* God's very rapid moving of people around the entire earth ! If humans were around and separated for more that 10,000 years, there would be much more genetic differences in the different parts of the earth !
The downfall of western humanity was when we started to think science wasn’t “cool”. At my school, if you’re interested in science then you were labelled a geek. And “geek” was a supposed to be a degrading term. I’m just glad I was more concerned about learning the truth than being cool. Science is interesting, useful and beautiful.
Yeah, and Neil does not follow it much. Neil deDumba$$ Tyson asked about the start of the universe and if he believes in God: Larry King, "Who started all this; do you believe in God?" Neil, "The proper question should be who or what started it, but I don't know. If I don't know I'm going to say I don't know." from the beginning of this video: th-cam.com/video/v-qU4F0lNfU/w-d-xo.html What we KNOW and have NO doubts about... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. Neil does not know BASIC science. Not only can't we have creation without God, Neil does not know that we also can't have science without God. The laws of nature can only come from a Lawgiver, God. Tyson says his dung at about 2:00 in the video below about the eye evolution. It is proven false in the rest of the video. But to shallow people, to hell with details and what the evidence shows. Your agenda is all that matters. th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html He IS Neil deDumba$$ Tyson.
Sorry to say but Neil made a mistake by using "Eastern block countries" as one group and making conclusions from that average as they are very different (for different reasons). For example Slovenia and Hungary are above 60%, very similar to Netherlands and Italy, and Poland, Romania and Lithuania are low, around 40%. So, although I generally respect Neil de G.T. and his fight for science, he did not follow that approach in this case by making this politically biased grouping of Eastern Block countries and averageing them to make (wrong) conclusions. Btw. some of those countries (like Slovenia) were not even in the Eastern block, so double wrong.
I think you misinterpreted because your ego was affected in some way. :o) Neil just wanted to give at a very high level how the nations or group of nations stand in regards to their beliefs. The reason he used the "eastern block" category was simply because all those countries shared one extremely important trait, they all experienced communist regimes and dictatorships. And these regimes were ALL against church and any creationist philosophy so it is somewhat surprising that they still stand above other countries that never experienced that and above all the USA themselves! This is the important aspect here and not that there are differences between countries from this eastern block. And even though Slovenia had borders with Austria and Italy was STILL part of the Eastern block as part of former Yugoslavia, you like it or not. Yes, you clearly had advantages compared to those more to the east than you and especially if they did NOT have any border with any of the Western European countries. I am a Romanian, by the way, who used to live and learn in communist Romania but now lives in Canada. Back to the point a bit, about religion/creationism vs science/evolutionism dispute, the big mistake both sides do is believing that there is some sort of contradiction between the 2 approaches to the existence and the Universe. Their is NO contradiction and those who continue to pedal on it are nothing else but zealots on both sides who have no interest in proving themselves but in disprove those on the other side, including this Dawkings character who has never managed to impress me, him being one of the most important extremist of the atheist side, as none of the other side zealots, the creationists, did.
He didn’t group the Eastern Block Countries and average them, he just pointed where some of the Eastern Block Countries were. If you listen, he says Slovenia, Czech Republic, and Estonia which were all in that area of where he pointed. He wasn’t saying that he averaged all of the Eastern Block Countries and put them as one group on that graph. This is very clear by the fact that there is no “Eastern Block Countries” label on the graph. And even if he did, you don’t understand the point at all. He was just pointing out that almost every country that was tested, including the Eastern Countries, were more scientifically literate than the United States. It is honestly a shame that religion was invented, as it leads so many people away from accepting scientific fact.
@@ethanandrews3076 sorry, Ethan, but you are wrong, except the last sentence, which I, as an atheist who believes in science, I totally support. But it looks to me that you fall in some kind of "Tyson religion" trap, as you blindly believed he can not make a mistake and attacked me without even checking what he really said (and was shown in the slide). Go to 1:17 of the video and you will see he literally wrote "Eastern Block Countries" (it was not on the original list, as the list was made by the authors of the research, and not him). He made the slides, and on slide, as mentioned, he wrote "Eastern block countries", that is the fact that you can see with your own eyes. So my critic of wrongly used name is totally valid (as mentioned Slovenia was not part of Eastern block). On top of that he said (again check from 1:17 to 1:45) and I quote: "Some Eastern block countries (Sic!): Slovenia, Czech Republic and Estonia, and that is interesting [...] you think they should be really high on this list, but they are not [...] as though the suppressed religion had manifest itself at the end of the Soviet empire...". So, obviously you missed the point he made, he specifically said "they should be really high on this list, but they are not", but if you go and look at original research countries he mentioned (Slovenia, Estonia...) they really are high on the list (just below Netherlands and Italy for example) but other "Eastern block countries" (to use his naming) are indeed not, like Poland, Romania etc. Therefore talking about all those countries at ones and making conclusions about them as a group, although their results are very different is a mistake and does not match the facts and data presented in the research ( I read the original article, did you?). And he again, mentioned that they were part of Soviet empire (which, as mentioned, some of countries named by him were not - again, easy checked historical fact). So, Ethan, are you honest enough and in a spirit of scientific fact acceptance, now going to admit that you made a mistake when you attacked me? As you can see Neil indeed said what he said and my critic was valid. Because of that I do not respect him any less, everybody makes mistakes, question is do they admit them? What you say Ethan, do you?
The problem today, is not that the world is flat, or even that some individuals think it may be, it's that the people who believe it is, dont trust the ones telling them it isn't.
@Noel Coward the real problem is with trust, not that "the earth is flat". Although perhaps it's so obvious that its redundant for me to have commented in the first place.😅
If the human body was the result of a design process then there are grounds for one daddy of a class action suit for provision of goods not fit for use.
After decades of banging his head against a wall trying to get unreasonable people to set aside irrational beliefs and raise their children with open, inquiring minds, it's not hard to understand why Dawkins is exasperated by displays of hostile ignorance. He's had a lifetime of it. But Dawkins is a British academic, not a trained media performer. He's a product of his environment (he'd appreciate the savage lack of irony, there). In the Britain of his youth, children were seen and not heard. There was no American tradition of 'show and tell' in schools. Completely unheard of. I only learned about it when I read 'Peanuts' books as a child. Wow! [I thought]. Charlie Brown and Linus have to stand in front of the class and TALK to everyone about stuff? That's incredible! Brit kids were not encouraged to make themselves conspicuous or even to be heard unless spoken to. Diffidence was a desirable trait, not a personality disorder. In the Britain of my youth there were no USA-style 'school spirit' or 'pep' clubs or regimented patriotic displays or morning flag-saluting ceremonies or perky cheerleading squads loaded with bright-eyed, attention-grabbing wannabe superstars. We didn't go in for public speaking at all. True, those few noisy, attention-seeking Brits that did exist got sent to stage schools ["FAME!"] where they could sparkle and shine and dance and sing in leotards and spangly tights or whatever, but they were seen as very weird indeed. Richard Dawkins did not attend such a school. 🤭Neither did I. I watched Carl Sagan's Royal Institution Christmas Lecture (1977) on the BBC and also enjoyed Dawkins in 1991. [The lectures are basically science for all (including kids) and have been going since about 1830.] I imagine a modern American like Tyson would be APPALLED by the low-key, not slick, clunky, rather quaint, very British approach. For someone like Dawkins though, raised the way he was, it must have been extreme 'show and tell' torture on a big stage. It can't have been easy for him. I loved it. Pardon my ignorance here, but from what I've seen, USA kids are raised to speak out confidently and to have perfectly straight, extremely shiny, unnaturally white teeth because their parents dream of them becoming (at best) a multi-millionaire Hollywood film star or (at least) the President, so Merkin kids are expected to be loud and assertive and confident when speaking. This doesn't endear them to the rest of the world (and as adults they make embarrassing international tourists), but at home they turn into peeps perfectly suited to modern media - TV, for instance. Tyson was almost born to entertain an audience. In the grumpy, gloomy old Britain that raised Dawkins, children were not indulged and deferred to and treated as equals who could say and do no wrong. No 'Mom' ever squealed, "Good jaaaarb!" when baby Dawkins successfully completed his first potty-poop transaction. 💩 No. In Britain you buttoned your lip and did as you were told until such time as you could put forward a forceful enough argument to warrant being listened to. That's how Dawkins was brought up. He does his best, but he's not a professional clown or comic. He's just a bloke. Tyson is a charismatic communicator; it's easy to imagine him as a stand-up comedian or a top sales executive or a politician or even a fire-and-brimstone Gospel preacher (I'm kidding!), but that's because he was raised that way. Even when criticising Dawkins (perfectly fairly and accurately), he's doing it in a way that his teachers would approve of. Seeing both sides, persuading with subtlety, being oh-so reasonable, and never, ever losing his sense of humour. He's excellent with a crowd. He's excellent with a microphone. He's excellent as a chat-show guest because he understands perfectly how to put himself across, thanks to his upbringing as a confident, voluble child. Dawkins knows his subject, but he also knows that he's not an actor. He can't help that. Brits see it as a good thing; Merkins recoil in horror because he's not prepared to spend £10,000 on a fake smile and put on an act to get people on his side. He's not after votes, just understanding, and he can't (and won't!) change the nature of his being to achieve his ends. Never mind. The important thing for Reason and Science is that the world contains a Dawkins AND a Tyson. Together, they'll get the message across. One day. Maybe. Possibly. Perhaps.
That is a really reductive take on Americans there. Now, the US sucks ( I live in it. They still genocide my people.) But people are raised to be highly socially conscious because we have a culture of media. Not because we all believe we are going to be movie stars, but because we have had a myriad of social movements geared towards increasing our willingness to perceive and act in a kinder, more egalitarian way (for the American Left at least) and a culture of speaking up due to the expectations set upon by a combination of rugged individualism which conditions us to see ourselves as more than the group that we are in (to a detrimental extent). This combines with the necessity of community and openness to survive poverty that most of us live in (relative to cost of living). That is what breeds our outspokenness. You combine that with a a lot of minority communities that only resist total suppression by speaking out and rioting if we need to, and you get the outspoken American. And by the way, Dawkins way of speaking is also indicative of a culture that doesnt prioritize everyone being a salesperson of themselves of a product. He is not persuasive because he is abrasive. But is very popular amongst edgy young Atheists and older crowd types.
All animals in Gen 1:20-26 took their evolutionary descent form a single "kind"- Darwin got evolution form his Greek Bible - Genom meaning kind . This video explains it objectively - th-cam.com/video/dDN-4faodpY/w-d-xo.html
I've seen several of Richard Dawkins presentations... He does not strike me as particularly brilliant... In fact during a presentation about the evolution of the human eye... He repeats the words "just imagine" so many times that my eyes got stuck crossed for a week... And left me with loud ringing in my ears 🤣🤣🤣🤣 never mind that he didn't have an answer for which part evolved first... Which is really quite simple... None of the parts evolved first.... Evolutionist s have such great faith!! But it leaves them with a serious lack of knowledge 😥😥🥴
@Jim Hughes I’m not sure if I understand the intent of the question “which part of the eye evolved first?” Do you mean did it start with a small portion of the optic nerve...or some other component...and then grow from there? Or do you mean what kind of eye was first to form? Asking what part of our human eye formed first would be like asking which part of a modern skyscraper was first laid down by some ancient civilization thousands of years ago. Of course, back then they weren’t thinking of high-rise apartments or business centers with elevators and HVAC systems. They certainly didn’t lay down a foundation only and think “one day the other components will be invented and a complex building will be constructed here; meanwhile we’ll just sit out in the rain.” Rather, they built much simpler shelters...complete shelters, but with much less functionality compared to a skyscraper. If I go with a friend to Cairo, and they ask me about the construction of the Iconic Tower “Which part of this did the fourth dynasty Egyptians form?” and I answer “Well they built other impressive, yet simpler structures like Pyramids, but no skyscrapers like this” ... should my friend then say “You didn’t answer my question”? By evolutionary theory, there would not have been singular components of the “modern eye” coming into existence, which on their own would have no functionality as an eye. Rather it would’ve started with an extremely simple eye...perhaps only a single cell or small group of cells that had sensitivity to light (a flatworm has a simple eye like this). Whatever organism formed this simple eye would then branch off into other kinds of organisms. Depending on the environment each new organism would find itself, changes would come about in the eye, some advantageous and some not, with advantageous ones more likely to stick around. At some point in the branching, we would reach an organism that happens to be an early ancestor to humans...AND that has a later form of this eye. If we continue following the branches toward humans, we would likely see this eye continue to change along the way. Eventually we reach modern human with modern eye. To clarify what is hopefully obvious by this point…evolution does not posit that humans (or other eyed-creatures) came about with no eyes at all. It was a concurrent process. Hopefully I didn’t straw-man you here; I answered what I perceived to be your question. Let me know if that perception was incorrect. Also, I’m not writing this so that you’ll instantly be persuaded about evolution. This is simply pointing out what evolution has to say about it.
4:39 At that point, I was expecting someone in the audience to ask it it was his first time, to which he would have had to reply, "No. I've been nervous lots of times."
@@thehound9086 , the statement is correct. The unwillingness to accept evolution is synonymous with a lack of understanding of evolution. Probably because they don’t want to understand.
An intelligent person never says that. An intelligent person states that one theory has a higher probability than another. 'No one knows for sure' is the argument of the ignorant. Its commonly a given as surety implies no possibility of error.
@@timn4481 Are intelligence and ignorance not different topics? For example is it not possible for a very intelligent person (say a genius mathematician), to be totally ignorant about a topic unrelated to their field of expertise (like pharmacology for example)? I see "ignorance" as the opposite of "knowledge", not related directly to intelligence necessarily, (though perhaps indirectly related). I think the initial poster is trying to convey that an intelligent person is (supposedly) humble enough to accept that they don't have all the answers, and doesn't invent one. I think this is a thinly veiled accusation that one side is somehow making up arguments and evidence as a "God of the gaps" argument. Personally, I think an intelligent person is someone who is smart enough to defer to subject matter experts when discussing topics that don't relate to their personal area of expertise.
But we do have peered reviewed scientific facts that stood the test of time. We also have 5 senses and if there was some almighty who created EVERYTHING and everyone then why WOULDN'T this god make itself known? Why this elaborate game of hide and seek.?
@@cosmikrelic4815 Human's Y chromosome DNA and mitochondria DNA are more than 99.9% the same ACROSS THE PLANET, EVEN BETWEEN AFRICA AND SOUTH AMERICA, AUSTRALIA OR *EVEN HAWAII,* *NO MAMMALS ARE ANYWHERE CLOSE to 99% !* You are probably thinking about the man/chimp genetic study, *BUT* it was proven either to be done with *MAJOR INCOMPETENCE OR FRAUD, PROVEN IN 2015 !*
@@cosmikrelic4815 The genetic similarities among humans across the entire world strongly indicating a major world event, less than 10,000 years ago like the *TOWER OF BABEL !* God's very rapid moving of people around the entire earth ! If humans were around and separated for more that 10,000 years, there would be much more genetic differences in the different parts of the earth !
@@studygodsword5937 crap, chimps share 98.9% with humans, i suppose you count that as no where near. you're an idiot, of course our DNA is common amongst humans, that's because we are humans. Evolving DNA doesn't suddenly change to something completely different. there is enough information coded in DNA to give a different humans differences in the population. show me the paper that shows farud. there isn't one, you are making it up.
I love trying to enlighten the scientifically illiterate/religious fundamentalists. Often when a question arises from one about what the big bang or evolution entails, I treat it as a teachable moment. I give the benefit of the doubt as to their sincerity in asking the question. However, just as often, it is disingenuous and simply a prelude to accusing me or "science" in general of exhibiting some logical fallacy or inconsistency and then proceeding to mischaracterize what I've said or what the prevailing scientific theories are. It's then that i usually recall the Mark Twain quote - " Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with their experience." and point out that the question was asked even thought the answer was never wanted. I tried to give an answer and point to the evidence being readily available to them to investigate themselves, because at that point I'm no longer under the presumption that any evidence will convince the person arguing with me... BUT HOPEFULLY to some person who reads our exchange who may have had the same genuine questions and doubts who simply may never have been exposed to the salient argument before. Because you never know what seeds may sprout even in infertile soil.
We have seen the evidence... And the theory doesn't work... None of the theories work... And all of the proselytes never seem to remember... They're just theories... Based on faulty reasoning... For instance... Weird math showing a flat universe... Then more weird math showing a curved universe... Then more weird Math showing a spherical universe... How do we know it's weird math?... About to start with you come up with three different answers... By tiny people with tiny minds on a tiny planet in a tiny Galaxy somewhere in a gigantic universe that no one can possibly conceive the size of... People in religious communities call that "blind faith"...
@@jimhughes1070 A scientific theory is a well-tested, broad explanation of a natural phenomenon. In everyday life, we often use the word theory to mean a hypothesis or educated guess, but a theory in the context of science is not simply a guess-it is an explanation based on extensive and repeated experimentation.
I agree with Dawkins on this - you can't unmonkey a monkey. If people don't have an open mind to begin with and are entrenched in their suppositions, you won't entice them anyway. It's a wasted effort. They don't have the discipline of mind to even understand what you're saying. Trying to convince them is as useless as trying to drive a sportscar over an unpaved road.
or maybe your atheism isn't really as "logical" as you assume.... creation (big bang) caused by nothing? from "nothing"? "laws of physics" came into "being" how???????
@@richardprofit6363 If you ever took a look at quantum mechanics, you will see how little is left of your "common sense" once you dive really deep in the mind of God. An unanswered question is just what it is: an unexplored field of discovery. If you prefer a "God of the gaps", it's an even more ridiculous proposition - because that way God is painting Himself into a corner. Slowly, but surely. Or do you prefer the uneducated minds of "flat earthers", that desperately try to prove that God really stopped the sun? But even can't provide a simple program that is able to calculate sunrise and sunset for any spot of the world at any time of the year? And what if your God created the universe - and then let it be, since He already knows what's in each mans heart and mind for eternity - and everything that happens was already planned. So why interfere? Does God makes errors He has to correct? Can you petition the Lord with prayer - like ants petition the boy who messes up their nest? What if God died? Or faded away? What if the Planck length is actually a pixel of our simulated world? What if the Hindus are right? Have you considered that?
@@brianedwards7142 Science says there is a designer. The numbers speak truth. Life could not possibly start from scratch. The earth is also a numbers thing. Earth could not possibly come about by chance for observers and human exploration.
@@richardprofit6363 Oh please.... You ask us to play by rules you refuse to play by yourself, as refuse to explain the creators creator's creator. You don't have the foggiest idea about what was "before time existed", and you are just making things up as you move along to keep your religious beliefs intact. Most atheists knows scripture far better than believers do (as they are former believers who've read through scripture), and who finds science interesting. Yet, you ask Atheists questions that are meant for _scientists,_ and _physicists._ And if _we,_ can't answer them - that somehow proves "Atheism wrong" and your beliefs "right" ?! What kind of logic is that?? You don't have a shred of evidence for _anything._ You have nothing but _words._ Literally. Words. Yet you rather trust empty words than what science provides and gives for free, and believes those words are superior to science. I've read the bible twice - cover to cover, and I dig into it on a regular basis. Only very biased people consider the bible logical and reasonable.
Every human uses their own logic and reason to try to motivate their life. Integrity allows us to remain reasonably human and exist in the long term whatever logic each one uses or creates.🍀
Disbelief in evolution doesn't = scientific ignorance. It's disbelief in evolution. Science is more than evolution. BTW I believe in evolution.I have numerous friends that do but accept all other sciences.
Exactly. Some atheists are so certain they have no dogma, but they would shudder and scoff before agreeing with your statement. Everyone with a way of life has a religion.
Yes it does. The rejection of evolution is founded ENTIRELY on religious conviction and a rejection of reality in favor of mysticism. There exists no valid or scientific reason whatsoever to reject it. If someone is rejecting evolution, it means they are rejecting science. That is necessarily the case. The fact that they're selective in which parts of science they accept and which they reject doesn't stop them being ignorance of science.
Disbelief in any scientifically proven fact without enough evidence to support such "belief" is the definition of scientific ignorance. What are you talking about... Also, I put the word "belief" in brackets because the correct word would be . You know and accept scientific facts, you don't "believe" in them.
i just don't get it. american scientists have been at the forefront of scientific discovery, technology n all the cool exciting stuff atleast for the past 100 years and yet the public doesn't reflect that. why so?
@@SuneRicardo America was tied with Denmark on the GINI ratio in 1976. We were a real Democracy from 1933 to 1981 when reagan set out to kill the middle class and a demand economy based on it in favor of trickle down supply side oligarchic bribery. He deregulated airwaves and news so USA is 44th on the Press Freedom Index. 90% of media is in 6 corporate donors' hands and they were facing a FICA cap tax hike (US pension tax) when CDC told them 80% of the dying were over 65 aka on FICA. US media pushed anti-vax myths and have killed 550,000 FICA recipients, killing the need for a tax hike. Reagan knew you have to keep the public ignorant and the church was the easiest way. www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/corporate-america-invented-religious-right-conservative-roosevelt-princeton-117030/
When I've compared the Creation and Evolution myths, I'm impressed more by their similarity rather than their divergence. From the various arguments I've heard the salient differences seem to be the time frame and the name or title given to the principal actor: Yahweh versus Random.
Finding similarities behind creation myths and evolutionary truth largely depends on which religion's myths you are studying. Furthermore, the biggest difference between creationism and evolution is this: creationism posits a starting and ending points (let's call them A and B) as well as a directing 'intelligence' guiding the species from A to B. On the contrary, evolution is the entirely unguided method by which a species adapts to changing environmental pressures. My top three reasons why creationism (and the gods thereof) is false: 1) no intelligent designer would put a breathing tube in front of a liquid/semi-solid intake tube (ie., the trachea in front of the esophagus), 2) why do the laryngeal nerves run from the larynx to the heart and back again? Surely it's more efficient to follow the shortest route, and 3) who installed a hazardous waste line inside an amusement park (urethra inside the primary sexual organs)? I'm sure there are more, but the randomness of those three structures in the human body present a strong argument for evolution.
@@richardgregory3684 Hey, Richard, if you're replying to my post, you're right. In the second paragraph, final sentence, I said that the three items I presented were 'random' structures. I probably should have called them 'evidence for creatorial malpractice' :)
If you didn't put my country, The Czech Republic together into eastern block, it would have much higher rate. I know personaly less than a handful people who do not accept evolution as a scientific fact. Even believers accept that. We all learned it at the elementary school. We learned some communist BS also but as for biology and cosmology they thaught us according the latest scientific discoveries. I hate communist ideology but I must thank them for that.
Evolution IS a scientific fact, that has stood the most rigorous of tests, the church can't even de-bunk it. That's why it's a scientific THEORY (and how many people get that definition wrong. 🤦♂)
Want to add a correction, Since the universe is expanding, the current location that we see in the sky , is just a snapshop of the light that reaches earth . Example Andromeda is about 200m light years away, so what we see is where Andromeda was 200M years ago ... Same for the very distant galaxies that are 14B light years away, what we see is their location 14B years ago ,,, (infra red shifted galaxies) . The time it took these galaxies to reach their assumed visible location has to be much much longer than 14B years (time to travel from Big bang location to current visible location), which you have to add to the 14B years ... Neil ,, this is what you have to calculate .... Total universe after big bang = time took the distant galaxies to travel to visible location + 14B years ... you have missed the first part of the equation Niel. Again, what do we know ..? very little ... including you ... and all of us
There's countless arguments against creationism and religion. Many based on the lack of evidence for these views. However, that does not matter to those who don't care about evidence. They've been told that having faith is a great virtue.
@@timothyknudson9353 are you serious? Your personal spiritual "evidence" is completely useless and irrelevant to the rest of humanity. I´m fine with you believing whatever you like. You may indulge in gullibility as much as you want. But do not expect to be respected for it. You - as person - should always be respected. Just not your believes however real and true they are to YOU. I am convinced I am going to win a billion dollars in a lottery next year. I can´t proove it though (Much like you can´t proove your statement). I expect a car dealer to give me his most expensive car because next year I´ll be very rich. Do you think he´ll give it to me? That´s what you are saying. I do have a problem with the religious (especially Christians) forcing their believes and “morals” (whatever that entails) on others. “My religion/believes forbids you to ...” is just awful.
@@peteraschaffenburg1 You’re conflating credulity with the Bible’s definition of faith. “Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.” You exercise Biblical faith every time you insert your key into your car. You have “faith” it will start. Why? It did the countless times you started it before. You have “faith” the sun will rise , you have “faith “ water comes out of your spigots, you have “faith” your payroll is deposited ( if you have direct deposit), you have “faith” in the laws of physics, and on and on….
@@groovecouple4644 my faith in all these things happening you just listed ist based on demonstrable experiences wich can be repeated over and over again. That’s not faith in the biblical sense. Faith in god is merely based on hear say, gullibility and ancient books we don’t even know the sources cq authors for most of it. I talked to god yesterday and she told me your wrong about the Bible. Does that statement have any value to you? I am convinced she is going to punish us because all religious people are wrong about her. Does your faith is more legit than mine? I’m exaggerating a little, not to mock you, just to show how ridiculous some religious claims sound to people from other religion or no religion at all.
@@bluesbr0ther588 just like the universe and everything in it I suppose. I'm not saying that is what happened, I just don't like the way he tries to poke fun at religious people he's just a arrogant dick. Especially when his version of events sounds just a crazy as theirs. A divine creator is just as reasonable a explanation to me, than one second their was nothing then bang and all of a sudden all the building blocks of the universe just exist. Maybe god created the "big bang" who knows. I definitely don't and either does he. He just knows what other people have told him at the end of the day. And what difference does it make? People are trying to solve the puzzle of the universe when we can't even solve problems we have in our own little world. We don't even truly know how the complex systems of our own bodies work never mind the world it's madness
"To be fair god creating the world doesn't sound any crazier than everything came from nothing." Given the premise is wrong I can see why you would think that, no one says as fact everything came from nothing. That is a notion that believers have grasped onto and have twisted as being what science believes but it is entirely wrong.
Strange. Never heard a good explanation to or from Neil of creationism. I got alot more respect towards David berlinski talking down evolution than I do for Neil talking about creationism.
Neil deDumba$$ Tyson asked about the start of the universe and if he believes in God: Larry King, "Who started all this; do you believe in God?" Neil, "The proper question should be who or what started it, but I don't know. If I don't know I'm going to say I don't know." from the beginning of this video: th-cam.com/video/v-qU4F0lNfU/w-d-xo.html What we KNOW and have NO doubts about... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. Neil does not know BASIC science. Not only can't we have creation without God, Neil does not know that we also can't have science without God. The laws of nature can only come from a Lawgiver, God. Tyson says his dung at about 2:00 in the video below about the eye evolution. It is proven false in the rest of the video. But to shallow people, to hell with details and what the evidence shows. Your agenda is all that matters. th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html He IS Neil deDumba$$ Tyson.
The atheist has to accept that something has always existed. To explain how the universe came to be they describe a beginning, the Big Bang. To explain how living things came in to existence they say something like “when life began” and move on. It requires a belief in something that cannot be proved but rather accepted. A believer in God has to accept that someone has always existed and became a Creator. The Bible explains it as “In the beginning “. If you believe that life began on its own you must have meditated on how that fist cell formed, found food to sustain itself, found a way to reproduce itself. Then at some point it developed the incredible way to store information in its DNA. The computer that I am writing with contains far less information than the small portion of DNA that was in the fertilized egg when I was conceived, I do not know who made this computer, but I don’t doubt it was both designed and made. That’s how I came to accept that there was a creator. I don’t want to debate this with anyone because I respect your right to decide for yourself what to believe. Either way you must believe in something you can’t fully understand but must accept. This is what I would call “Faith”. It’s my hope that you put your faith in the truth and honestly pursue it.
I´m sorry sir, but just because YOU can´t grasp the concepts of "The Big Bang" and Evolution, that doesn´t mean these theories are false. Maybe they are. But that´s the good thing about sciences. It changes it´s mind when proven wrong. The religious can´t change their mind even though the christian God of the bible did a couple of times. “how that fist cell formed, found food to sustain itself, found a way to reproduce itself” You do realize cells do this every day, even today, right? Cells in plants get their “nutrition” form the air, water and sunlight. This process is called Carbon dioxide fertilisation is responsible for at least 80% of this increase in photosynthesis. ... Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide make plants more productive because photosynthesis relies on using the sun's energy to synthesise sugar out of carbon dioxide and water. Just an example.
@@peteraschaffenburg1 something cant come from nothing. Where did the 'thing' that created that 'singularity' come from..where did the thing that created the thing that created the singularity come from..carry that question as far as u can go..when you stop..just know the universe created itself..just admit it. It sounds and is stupid why atheists go around that fact
@@alexrattray8807 maybe you should ask people like Lawrence Krauss to explain that. It’s not my job to educate you. Like I’ve said before; just because you do not understand the concept, that doesn’t make it stupid. Do you realize how silly the religious sound when taking about talking donkeys, virgins giving birth or men arising from the dead. All these things you MUST believe without any evidence. Does it get anymore ridiculous?
Nothing in the Bible says that God is subject to the laws of time that He made. I have come to believe, after much thought, that the Bible has room for Darwin. After all, Origin of Species only tells 'how'. Empirical science can only say 'how'. It can never say 'why'. As for the Seven days, I believe the seven days of the week are in homage of them, not that God had to stuff 14 bil years into 144 hours. If I am wrong, I am a fool, but I will find out in the next life.
@@oscarmedina1303 I have thought for decades on this subject. Only human points of view and assumptions say they are mutually exclusive. If you have a different opinion, that is your right.
The big bang went "Bang!". So tell me, where did the material for the bang come from and what made it all go bang!!!????? There's only one answer and if your IQ is at least average, you will understand. Enough said.
The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion event. As to where the matter came from, there is reason to suspect it never had an absolute beginning in time. We need to ask an important question ... does the universe exist in time, or does time exist in the universe? This is not a trivial distinction. We check our clocks every day and think we understand time. We don't. Read about the Hafele-Keating experiment. It demonstrated relativistic time dilation. Two atomic clocks set to the same time were no longer synchronized simply by one traveling faster than the other. If time is affected by motion, then it is not an absolute. There is more than one answer to your question. The best we can say is we don't currently know. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
@@Yeagerists1321 Neither does anyone else. Scientists have good lines of evidence, and the research continues. The ones who already claim to know "where did the material for the bang come from" are lying.
Nothing against you or your assertion and your name indicates maybe English is a second language, but I hope you can appreciate the humour in the fact that your final, ALL CAPS word is spelled wrong.
Intelligence is not a requirement for survival or for the evolutionary process. Dinosaurs were around for 400 million years. Mankind hasn't even made it to a million years, and likely won't. Extinction is the norm.
My question for atheists is: what's so wrong about God being the cause of the existence of matter and energy, of time and space? No, I can't prove he/she was, but it's more logical to have it come from someone, than from nothing... "Nothing from nothing, leaves nothing. You gotta have something, if you want to be with me." And no, I am not talking about the anthropomorphic gods in the Bible. That god couldn't create diddlysquat. A God that doesn't have any flaws.
What´s wrong with the Idea of a god like you described? First of all; He´s not necessary. Lawrence Krauss can explain in laymens terms (like myself) how you can have something from nothing. Depending on the definition of nothing. So if you´re really interested check that out. “it's more logical to have it come from someone,” No it is not. You´re using the god of the gaps argument. “I can´t explain it, therefore a god must have done it...” What you are doing is ignoring all other possibilities even if Lawrence Krauss was wrong. There appears to be evidence for what science is claiming. There is no evidence AT ALL for what you are assuming.
@@peteraschaffenburg1 There's a logical evidence that God exist, it exists in every human minds, its jus a will of a person whether to believe it or not. I prepared to believe in creationism because it doesn't limit me to accept only physical evidence but also spiritual evidence.
@@randellaquino7682 "it exists in every human minds" ?? Really? How do you know that? How do YOU know what´s in MY mind? To me, that statement sounds ridiculous. I know a man living in a mental institution. He "chooses" to believe he is Napoleon. That´s HIS reality. Doesn´t make it true, does it? What on earth is "spiritual evidence"? I´m dutch, wich means I know some people who have been smoking dutch agricultural products ... ;-) They seem to have spirituel experiences. Does that mean their experiences are true? I think your statement is a deluded load of crap. You may believe anything you like but to assume everybody has these believes and they are just not willing to give into them is almost funny if it wasn´t so bad. You don´t really believe that, do you?
@@randellaquino7682 I´ll try to put it less harsh; I am convinced I am going to win a billion dollars in a lottery next year. I can´t proove it but I am convinced that everybody knows I will. (Much like you can´t proove your statement.) They just won´t accept that truth. I expect the car dealer to give me his most expensive car because next year I´ll be very rich. Do you think he´ll give it to me? That´s what you are saying.
My answer, as an atheist, is that flawed premises lead to flawed reasoning, which produces unreliable, absurd, and potentially dangerous outcomes. You've demonstrated this yourself. It's not "more logical" to assume the existence of something without evidence for it. So you clearly don't understand what logic is. But because your argument is premised, incorrectly, on the assumption that you do, you're not able to take a moment to learn logic, and so you arrive at an absurd conclusion. The best fix that I can recommend is for you to buy an introductory text on logic, or take a night school course. Most university bookstores carry both new and used editions that would be inexpensive and perfectly suitable. If your premise is correct and you do understand logic, then this will only serve to strengthen your position. If you're not correct, you'll come away wiser and much better equipped to argue your case. It won't be the above case, because it's already logically flawed, but at least you will know that before having it pointed out to you.
Men are made in God's image, It's the only reason this atheist backslapping love in is able to take place,you have the freewill to question investigate reject or accept that there is a spiritual aspect to your very existence.
Is it possible that nothing createt everything? How is that possible? Man dozen’t even know what energi is but thay know how to explain the big bang. There must be a creator! Who created everything
you are stuck in this creation thing. there was no creation. universe is timeless, energy within it cannot be created nor destroyed. universe just changes forms. current form being around 14 billion years old. there is no creator because there was never a creation needed. "nothing" doesnt exist. its just a concept, there is no state without any energy and particles within it
@@mariojansson1001 yes you have to smile because you are stuck in particular mindset. for you to be able to cope with reality, there had to be "someone" or "something" that "created" its easier than just educate yourself
@@mariojansson1001 no. i have no idea whos teaching is that. but no science says that nothing doesnt exist. so something that doesnt exist, cannot create.
@@keithboynton I am NOT a genius. 1st.... I flat out STOLE that. 2nd Neil has forgotten more sitting on the toilet than I'll ever know about the Heavens.... but it is funny and I think he'd agree.
"A moral point of view too often serves as a substitute for understanding in technological matters." [Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, Marshall McLuhan,1964, Ch. 24: Games, p. 216 vac]
But David, is your line much different from this? I believe that ''Man created God'' I don't know why this is so hard to believe for others. What makes more sense ''God creating man'' or '' Man creating God'' ?
Simple, this contradicts the claim that god created every living creature separately. Anyone who thinks evolution and his/her religion can coexist doesnt understand either evolution or his religion or both.
because it isn't based on anything other than "someone who doesn't know either told you so", or "you added God as origin so that you can accept evolution's existence". "God created evolution" means nothing, its inconsequential. Like adding 1+1+0=2. the 0 means nothing other than believing in the cult of 0. Evolution doesn't need to be created, like a pile of sand doens't need to be piled up by intelligence. its just simply deterministic, and even if you don't know how, you can understand the principles. took us a long time to figure out, but that doesn't mean God was needed for piles of sand until then. so, we don't need God for evolution either until further understanding of its origins. if you are fantastically inclined you can believe in any made up origin you like, but it will always be inconsequencial, like the 0 added to an equation.
You gave the answer yourself, it's your belief. There are also people that believe in unicorns, is that a reason for you to believe in unicorns as well? It's also not about how many share that same belief, it's just a belief, it doesn't hold water when you start asking questions. No one has ever seen a real unicorn, not even a unicorns remains. For most people that settles the question whether or not unicorns exist or ever did. Some will still insist they do, while the rest moves on.
Using mundane language, evolutionary biology is a "fact". In scientific jargon, it is called the Theory of Evolution. Nonscientific people might not know the definition of "theory" in the scientific dictionary. That's why he uses the word "fact" --he is trying to use simple words to help nonscientific people understand. Imagine that a student doesn't know the semantics of "gay" in a Jane Austen novel, in that case, the teacher had better explain that "gay" means "cheerful" in the context of that novel.
@@dancekitty135 , bad argument lawyer. He could have used any other word to simplify. This study, this science.... "This fact..." Confusion doesn't need to be said. He's not speaking to children.
@@ebcsecurity9490 i think he is emphasizing that scientific theories are made of almost countless facts. A lot of people get stuck up on the mundane definition of "theory" as something unproven. Where, in fact, scientific theories have been proven and proven again.
Sometimes Many must Wonder if These Debates Over These Issues are Put Together for Prestige and Prominence, And of Course Money, Books are Written, Money is Made .And of Coarse, Divides People to Take Sides, We have this in Politics, Religion, Now Science, Many must also Think Why ? Dosnt it Take Real Humility, should we not think, if There is a God , with The Knowledge, Power, Wisdom, Love, And Justice, Find Out for Ourselves,.Self Prominence sometimes can Blind us to the Truth!!
Neil deDumba$$ Tyson asked about the start of the universe and if he believes in God: Larry King, "Who started all this; do you believe in God?" Neil, "The proper question should be who or what started it, but I don't know. If I don't know I'm going to say I don't know." from the beginning of this video: th-cam.com/video/v-qU4F0lNfU/w-d-xo.html What we KNOW and have NO doubts about... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. Neil does not know BASIC science. Not only can't we have creation without God, Neil does not know that we also can't have science without God. The laws of nature can only come from a Lawgiver, God. Tyson says his dung at about 2:00 in the video below about the eye evolution. It is proven false in the rest of the video. But to shallow people, to hell with details and what the evidence shows. Your agenda is all that matters. th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html He IS Neil deDumba$$ Tyson.
The problem Tyson is not seeing is that our lives don't afford us time to reeducate the people who don't care to listen... Our lives are not long enough to hand hold each ignorant mind through understanding... If they don't see how amazing science is, then nothing is left but ridicule of showing them how ignorance is harmful and wastes what little life each one of us has left by not exploring our how our world really is....
Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. Evolution and the Big Bang are two very different things, and bear little relationship to each other. Yes, the universe "evolves' to the extent that it transforms from one state into another, but since galaxies are not life forms, strictly speaking, universes don't "evolve". A. Suppose God is not the one who assembled all the molecules into the first single celled organism. Although one of the reasons the universe exists is to provide a stage for life. Yes, that life is also for the purpose of producing as many children for the Divine Father as possible. The Life Carrier who brought life to our planet (aka Urantia), designed evolution into the DNA. Life is inherently intelligent enough to adapt to its surroundings. The process of "adapting" is a component of evolution. B. The Big Bang doesn't explain everything... it is closely associated with the mechanistic viewpoint, which doesn't allow of where or how relationships and personality came into existence, for they are not properties of matter or energy. They are supermaterial, bordering on the spiritual. The fact that old time religionists have a problem with the idea that humans are related to an animal, that way back when, we had monkey mamas, really freaks some people out. They consider themselves to be superior to all the animals. That God put us here by fiat action. Well, that may have been true of Adam and Eve, (who were our biological uplifters), but all those people in the Land of Nod, predated Adam and Eve, and were of evolutionary origin. [Biblically speaking...] I doubt any Biblical scholar has attempted to date the people in the Land of Nod back at all. Why, they could go back hundreds of thousands of years for all we know... 😉 Humans by any biological comparison, are clearly related to other great primates, with but one or two different chromosomes. That most mammals (if not all) have the same number of bones in our bodies... and organs, didn't happen by accident. We also share the majority of our DNA with plants... hence our ability to consume them as food. Science clearly says we're related, and should treat them better!
There were no people in the land of Nod no evidence at all Genesis 4: 16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son-Enoch.
The Bible does not give us an age of the earth. It says: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. It could have been billions of years before the Creation. We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 to 5000 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people. Of course, the direct population growth went a lot faster. But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is about the time needed for the present population to reach 7.5 billion. If you follow the genealogy counting in the Bible it corresponds with these numbers If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure-a one followed by 100 zeros; that is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/ 2018 7,632,819,325 1.09 % 82,557,224 51 4,186,975,665 55 % 1900 :1,600,000,000 1850 :1,200,000,000 1804: 1,000,000,000 The Shang dynasty (founded around 1600 BC) of the Yellow River valley in northern China is as far back as we have solid archaeological evidence and positive proof of the first written records. Earlier than that, history disintegrates into mythology. But even if you accept the preceding mythical Xia dynasty as the start, it takes you back only to around 2000 BC. In terms of age, civilizations in other parts of the world precede China. Writing systems in Egypt and Mesopotamia predate Chinese writing by a thousand years. The world’s first city, Uruk, in modern-day Iraq, dates back between Four and 5000 yr. Cities began to emerge about the same time in various places around the world. But most archaeologists agree that it is fair to claim Uruk (pronounced OO-rook) as one of the world’s first cities (Uruk is its Akkadian name; its own people called it Unug; the Hebrew Torah called it Erech; and its current name, Warka, is Arabic.) Uruk arose about 4,500 years ago, no time at all when measured against the evolutionist's claim of the more than 200,000 years of Homo sapiens or the 6 million years of hominin evolution. www.museums.gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=76723&p=0 The Bible tells us that God divided water from land Genesis 1: 9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. Before the flood, there were no Continents. Evidence indicates that the continents have moved around, broken apart, and crashed together, but the basic pieces have remained fairly constant. Violent catastrophes tore off slivers from the edges of the continents, but the core pieces seem to have survived. That there was Noah's flood and the ark is the only thing that makes any sense. Do you want to know that our universe comes from Intelligent design? Figure out MALE - FEMALE procreation. and the rate of birth male-female is 49% 51% that is not happening just by accident Look at your hand God gave it to you so you know it was not an accident But a design. Your thumb just turns the other way as your 4 fingers otherwise your hand would be useless for most of the work we do. God created planets, and numerous moons orbiting many planets. in our galaxy Venus And Uranus are Spinning in a different direction than all the others, Our Lord God did that TO MAKE EVOLUTION LOOK STUPID. Just one thing is important that is what happened two thousand years ago the basis for our year counts. You live in a part of the world where you can believe whatever you want or have your sexual preference. Be happy, look at the people in Afghanistan.
@@MariusVanWoerden BTW, your growth projections are just total rubbish. World population does not and have not doubled every 150 years. We have enough data to show that even in the CE, it took more than 1000 years for it to double. You should check your facts straight before distributing wrong information.
@@theamalgamut8871 Of course not!! My God also does not approve of serving other gods or not keep his commandments. However, We live in a country where you can do whatever you want. You don't get thrown off a roof to your death if you are gay. I'm married and have 11 children. But I have a friend potter who is gay and I have talked about It and he knows I don't agree, but he is a friend. Gay is not more sinful than adultery or even hate. th-cam.com/video/owz9EsUknBA/w-d-xo.html
Given a long enough time frame all species go extinct. Mankind has been around about 250k years. The dinosaurs were here for 400 million years. Intelligence is not a requirement for species longevity.
@@oscarmedina1303 That is just a religious claim for which there's no credible evidence let alone proof. People do like to blather like mindless fools especially when they know absolutely nothing.
USA all videos are governed by local People of Vidyanagar Hermu city Ranchi , Jharkhand state India , improve your abilities after all you are USA. Thanks.
Well the thing of it is that the whole evolution and the biogenesis pretty much teaches that life magically appeared out of nowhere, and to me it takes a lot of faith to accept that, creation at least dares to present a creator, as the one who brought everything forth, but science just says here is how we think it all happened and don't you dare question it
@@bluesbr0ther588 well actually the christian God is eternal no begining no end if God can be created or has a begining then simply he wouldn't be God he'd be more like an alien from a very advanced civilization
@@juliusemperor907 But what if i claimed that Earth is eternal? Then we wouldn't need to explain how it all started. It wouldn't be very scientific but it would be something that you cannot argue against.
@@bluesbr0ther588 but you couldn't claim that earth is eternal because it is not a person or a being, God is and he has revealed himself to humans, other can't say that we have a mental illness because very prominent people we know of claim to be Christians and hold such beliefs
Human's are the most clever species among animals, so human will never be able to prove whether we were created or evolved no matter how much we try, because we were created at one point of time along with animal and evolved the rest to where we are right now.
Simple.... 3 types of people. 1) Those that can see. Newton, Einstein, Steven Hawkins, etc. Very rare. 2) Those that can see when shown.... Many of us. 3) Those that can't see because they are not smart (unfortunate) or much worse, those that REFUSE to see...... for various reasons. They were conditioned. They have a financial gain to be had. Basically, they are crooks. The fear of loss of life or liberty as in a tyrannical government. Unfortunately those that refuse to see often wield a lot of POWER. Hope that helped.
because you're a loser just as Neil is. Neil deDumba$$ Tyson asked about the start of the universe and if he believes in God: Larry King, "Who started all this; do you believe in God?" Neil, "The proper question should be who or what started it, but I don't know. If I don't know I'm going to say I don't know." from the beginning of this video: th-cam.com/video/v-qU4F0lNfU/w-d-xo.html What we KNOW and have NO doubts about... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. Neil does not know BASIC science. Not only can't we have creation without God, Neil does not know that we also can't have science without God. The laws of nature can only come from a Lawgiver, God. Tyson says his dung at about 2:00 in the video below about the eye evolution. It is proven false in the rest of the video. But to shallow people, to hell with details and what the evidence shows. Your agenda is all that matters. th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html The odds are NOT there. th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
Why does it have to be either/or as in creationism or evolution I don't believe in religious creationism nor do I believe in a singular theory of evolution that all humans came for a particular animal species
Eh not to crazy an interpretation needed at least in comparison to most attempts to solve that problem. Just it means actually admitting that the magic 7 days werent right and thats a step to far. The garden of eden was a safe development area for humans to evolve in and grow. Once humans had succesfully evolved then the bible so starts. Why is there no evidence of this magical garden? As with all god things magic god land and hey we can even use our favourite of the gaps here and say this is why the link hasnt been found
Why is that a problem? Reality is not obligated to confirm to mythology. Incidentally, even if the mythology was true, there would still be no "need" for Jesus anyway. Couldn't Yahweh just forgive everyone without needing a blood sacrifice? Why is it that the creator of the universe, who is making all the rules, could not think of any other solution than coming down to earth in bodily form to sacrifice himself, to himself, and then bring himself back to life to rule the universe alongside himself, to serve as a loophole for rules that he created and has complete control over? If your god exists, why didn't he just say: "Okay, now nobody goes to hell". There's no need for Jesus even IF your mythology was true.
@@seraphinaaizen6278 God cant just remove sin or "forgive us" like that..its more complex than just that. Human choice is a very important factor and mans need for an INTERCESSOR. God doesnt want anyone to be punished by Hell but it is inevitable. Because of Human Choice..He cant save everyone. God only forgives if you are repentant and willing for forgiveness..God wont force forgiveness on anyone and wont force anyone to live eternally with Him..and at the same time..He hates sin and will destroy it and all who harbour sin...unrepentant and rebellious
@@seraphinaaizen6278 and God is a government..God isnt just 1 individual but 3 beings who all work in unison as God...each and all are God. God the Father God the Son/Jesus God the Holy Spirit All are God
Without considering any other factor, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution. It is the Law of Entropy. Things degrade over time not improve.
Instead of debating things we can't know, I've got one for you: The evolution of technology as a case study on the mechanics and dynamic nature of evolutionary patterns. Are there any underlying fundamental principles to the nature of evolutionary and natural selection? If any are identified, that could be useful in understanding the gaps in our knowledge about biological evolution - very mysterious still. The fossil record does not seem to me to be the best place to discover such things. Spread the word...
Underlying principle...it's mathematical isn't it...over time the slightest edge of one colour of replicating bead over other replicating beads will result in a predictable outcome, that colour bead will increase in numbers relative to the others....it can be predicted mathematically if you know the extent of the advantage.
@@ken0272 time is not in evolution's favor. Nothing is. The 2nd law of thermodynamics (2LT): The universe is an isolated system that does not exchange energy or mass. A closed system exchanges energy but not mass. An open system exchanges energy and mass. The first law says basically the energy remains the same, it can change forms but it can't be created or destroyed. How we got all this to begin with points to a supernatural creation. If you think it was done by natural means, go ahead and explain how in regard to the 1LT. You can't even get chemicals for life without breaking the 1LT. The earth is basically a closed system depending upon what exactly is being talked about. Keep in mind that the 2LT works in all systems, there will always be an end result of more entropy, but in an open system you can get order nonetheless yet the total will always be in favor of more entropy overall. Consider too that there is NO truly isolated system in the universe. That says that the 2LT is which is so well-tested, works in all systems. As mentioned, you have to get around the 1LT by explaining creation in light of it. Next, once you have creation, it is an isolated system that cannot get order, so you'll have to explain how things formed to get order to even have open systems inside of it. I know, you can't do that either by known science. The 2LT does not prevent the first replicating cell from happening and evolving. Part of entropy though is the tendency to go to disorder. We obviously have order on the earth such as snowflakes, salt crystals (which are very simple), also plants, animals, (which are complex), etc. Even still, those eventually break down over time. I'll give you a simple example of the 2LT. If there was a glass of room temp water and I put several drops of green dye in the water, would the 2LT prevent it from forming the word "cell" all in connecting cursive letters? Absolutely not. Nothing stops the dye from doing that. Now, will it do it? No because the dye will go where there is no order. What if though I had inside the glass a clear plastic mold also filled with water that forced the dye to form the word "cell". Then it would do it because there was something (a "machine") to direct the dye and make order to it. Look at how a snowflake and salt crystals form, their environments led them to do what they had no choice in doing due to a "machine" to make it do that. They are simple systems, not complex like a plant or animal. With that in mind, if there was an open system, you'd have to have a "machine" that directs the molecules (that you can't explain how they got there to begin with by natural means) to form the first living self-replicating cell. Does the 2LT prevent that from happening? No, not at all, but will it happen? No, not at all because the odds of such a machine to give such order is impossible. You never even reached natural selection because that takes life. Natural selection picks from what is there already. You are believing in something that has odds against the complexity of life ever happening. Again, odds that make it impossible. Simply saying that the sun in an open system is the answer to order, is wrong. Undirected and unharnessed energy into an open system won't cause an increase in order, it would do the opposite, like the proverbial bull in a china shop. In other words, it is atheists' science because they have to remain blind to reality. The science against them crushes them. It's a wonder how such ignorance is deliberately chosen. This guy is of a few that explain it well: th-cam.com/video/9dAA06Zfi4M/w-d-xo.html Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html The odds are NOT there. th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
he needs to switch his os to ubuntu or debian someone that bright using a mac is scary, but they might be using a mac for product promotion. no reason to use broken tools or operating systems
About religion in eastern block .. don't put 'em in same pot and read out average. Compare Poland and Estonia - there is huge difference .. at least if you look at % For absolute numbers .. yeah, nation of 1.4M has no place in world statistics. No matter our no-religious outlook or PISA scores ..
Reboot says “ no one created me I was developed from ordinary broom To electric vacuum to intelligent reboot as we are now “ If you could believe Try To fit time line period let say 3 billions years in account in process
Atheism may be the bones of humanity, but religion and belief, is the flesh, the warmth, the laughter, the poetry, the music, the dinner parties, the appreciation of beauty, the compassion, ………… and everything that makes life worthwhile. THINK ABOUT IT..
Funny how the most secular countries in Europe, where athiesm is a majority and religion plays no part in most people's lives, are also rated the most highly for happiness, personal development, personal freedom and satisfaction. Whereas the most religious countries in the world are often poverty stricken hellholes or are run by oppressive fanatics imposing their usperstition through force.
It's still valid to call evolution a theory, just as it's still valid to call gravity a theory. Or atoms a theory. While it's true that the process of evolution is a fact - it's demonstrable - the theory of evolution is the explanatory model that explains that fact. Just as we know, without doubt, that atoms exist, that doesn't mean that atomic theory stops being a theory. There is nothing above the level of theory in science. Theories do not at some point graduate into being something else, and "proof" does not exist in the real of science. The only application of proof in science is in mathematics. No theory is "proven"; we didn't even "prove" atomic theory when we split the atom.
@@seraphinaaizen6278 Gravity is referred to by the scientific establishment as the "Law of Gravity", not the the theory of gravity. If you're falling off a tall building telling yourself "It's just a theory" won't save your ass! :-)
@@bigbirdwpg Good grief. There is such a thing as the universal law of gravitation. Theories often contain a number of laws. But doesn't mean that there isn't a "theory of gravity". It's still a theory. It's always going to BE a theory. It will not at some point STOP being a theory. It's a common belief among the scientifically illiterate that theories at some point "become laws" when they are "proven". That it's the case. Theories and laws describe different things. One does not become the other. And the existence of laws that relate to gravity does not cause the theory of gravity to disappear, or stop being something other than it is. "If you're falling off a tall building telling yourself "It's just a theory" won't save your ass!" No, of course it wouldn't. And nobody who knew what the word "theory" meant in the scientific context would ever use that phrase. It's honestly kind of annoying for someone to lecture me on what the scientific community says about the theory of gravity, when they evidently don't know what a scientific theory IS.
So the only valid measure of scientific literacy is one question about evolution? Not knowledge of the period table or Lagrangian Mechanics or Maxwell's equations or differential geometry or anything like that? I have a degree in mathematics from the University of Texas which is usually in the top 20 in the nation for math and I still believe in angels. But someone who has no clue how to do something as simple as integration by u-substitution would still call me scientifically illiterate just because I believe the inductive reasoning that governs our laws of physics can sometimes on RARE and inconsistent occasion be violated. Still, I will always respect Neil DeGrasse Tyson for introducing me to the idea of Lorentz transformations.
You've offered a Strawman Fallacy to begin your remarks, and then you proceed on to make an Argument from Authority. And among your subsequent remarks is the statement that you believe in angels. These three facts tell me that your grasp of reason is, at best, unreliable. At worst, you're disingenuous. And that is enough for me, a stranger, to write you off, because life's too short to be wasted in wading through nonsense. Stick to math. Your colleagues will probably tolerate you as long as you demonstrate sufficient rigor in your work.
@@starfishsystems Do you know what a strawman fallacy is, or is it a term you saw on youtube that you thought looked good? I directly addressed what's going on in the video. Tyson is using ONE question about evolution to judge the scientific knowledge of people, and I'm attacking that action by saying it isn't fair. I didn't claim he made a different action just to have something to attack. I didn't need to. Then I used myself as as one weak counterexample to the implied belief that religious people have way less scientific education, which the undetailed survey tries to confirm. I never said angels are real. I just said there exists at least one person with a STEM education who believes in angels.
The only motivation to reject evolution is a rejection of science in favor of mysticism. And every single time someone who rejects it attempts to explain why, they always immediately demonstrate that they don't even have a high school level understanding of the subject. So yes: People who reject evolution are scientifically illiterate.
@@seraphinaaizen6278 I wouldn't argue against the fossil record, however, I have not studied it myself. That's one reason I wouldn't argue against it. It doesn't interest me. Science itself has some mystical properties though, in particular the world of complex and imaginary numbers. Study those and see if they don't make you believe that there may be something deeper beneath the surface of things that we don't have any idea about. Be very careful when you say ALL people who reject evolution are scientifically illiterate, otherwise you might get embarrassed one day when one of those said people questions you about a scientific topic you may not know much about. Much safer on your end to say MOST instead of ALL. People who have said that all religious people are scientifically illiterate have already been shown to be wrong many times over.
@@theboombody " I wouldn't argue against the fossil record, however, I have not studied it myself. " Yes, I could have told you that. I suspect you have studied very on this subject, frankly. "Science itself has some mystical properties" No it doesn't. Science is in opposition to mysticism. "in particular the world of complex and imaginary numbers" Numbers are not mystical. "Study those and see if they don't make you believe that there may be something deeper beneath the surface of things that we don't have any idea about." There is nothing whatsoever about numbers that convince me that the universe was wished into existence by a magical, invisible genie plucked from bronze age folklore. "Be very careful when you say ALL people who reject evolution are scientifically illiterate, otherwise you might get embarrassed one day" Everyone who rejects evolution is scientifically illiterate. Just as everyone who says the earth is flat is scientifically illiterate; they're on the exact same level. If someone is willing to reject demonstrably reality because if conflicts with their preferred mythology then yes: that person is scientifically illiterate. Irrespective of what other scientific positions they DO accept. You either accept reality, or you don't. And people who reject evolution do not accept reality. "People who have said that all religious people are scientifically illiterate have already been shown to be wrong many times over." Not all religious people reject evolution. Creationists are actually a minority, globally. For good reason; because evolution is demonstrable, and creationism would be evidently false even IF a god actually existed. I will say that all religious people hold irrational beliefs; because not once, ever, has any religious person ever offered a rational basis for their religious belief, but that's a separate issue. It's possible to be religious and be scientifically literate. It is not possible to be a creationist and be scientifically literate.
Wow Neil, I thought you were smarter than that, I had some scrap metal laying around for a couple of years and one day I noticed that there’s a computer there where all the scrap metal was “ it must have been a little bang
@@AMC2283 no, it's loser Neil and his loser followers that run from science. Neil deDumba$$ Tyson asked about the start of the universe and if he believes in God: Larry King, "Who started all this; do you believe in God?" Neil, "The proper question should be who or what started it, but I don't know. If I don't know I'm going to say I don't know." from the beginning of this video: th-cam.com/video/v-qU4F0lNfU/w-d-xo.html What we KNOW and have NO doubts about... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. Neil does not know BASIC science. Not only can't we have creation without God, Neil does not know that we also can't have science without God. The laws of nature can only come from a Lawgiver, God. Tyson says his dung at about 2:00 in the video below about the eye evolution. It is proven false in the rest of the video. But to shallow people, to hell with details and what the evidence shows. Your agenda is all that matters. th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html The odds are NOT there. th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
How do you get to hell? Very simple: claim that you're innocent. How do you get to heaven? Very simple: Admit that you're not Innocent, you're guilty and ask for mercy. How to know if you're guilty or not? Simply: Compare your life to the Ten Commandments God gave you in the Bible. Everyone agrees that if people followed the ten commandments there would be no need for governments or police. Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not commit adultery. Do not insult God by using his name as a cuss word. There are six more but let's just leave it at that. How many lies have you told in your life? Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you? Jesus said, if you look at a women lustfully you've already committed adultery in your heart with that woman. How many times a day do you do that? Do you use God's name as a cuss word? Would you do that with your own mother's name? If you answer these questions honestly you know that you're guilty. God can justly punish you and send you to hell. Ask him for mercy. His name is Jesus. It's as simple as this, The Ten Commandments are called the moral law. You and I broke God's laws. Jesus paid the fine. The fine is death. Ezekiel 18:20 - "The soul who sins shall die. That's why Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins. This is why God is able to give us Mercy. Option A. You die for your own sins. Option B. Ask for mercy and accept that Jesus died for you. K
"Jesus said, if you look at a women lustfully you've already committed adultery in your heart with that woman". He wants us to deny our (God given) nature? It's perfectly natural to have lustful thoughts. It is not a choice. Thinking about 'sinning' is not the same as sinning.
@@eventcone God is not the author of Temptation. We are each drawn away by our own selfish desires. Jesus said the same things about hate and murder. "If you hate your brother you've already murdered him in your heart" God does not deprive us of sex, God invented sex. Just like he invented your taste buds. He requires that you find one woman and commit yourself to her. You don't make the rules.
We have a big bang exhibit 🤣🤣🤣🤣 kind of shows how the big bang happened... Ever increasing billions of years in the past 🤣🤣🤣 based on the belief that if you play the blackjack tables long enough....🤣🤣🤣🤣
Speculation and guess work is NOT science. As a man of science I hate it when people who want to believe in a lot of unproven theories in their "fake science", criticise religious for doing same. It's very funny how, whatever Niel says about religious people applies to himself.
Science self-corrects when new knowledge is gained. Religion just entrenches itself, no matter what knowledge is gained. I'm gonna stick with trusting science and the scientific method. After all, its science that allows you to be on the internet spouting anti-science bollocks.
@@mattsadventureswithart5764 @Making with Matt Just so you know I'm a Software engineer, so I don't need your "intro to the internet" crap. Science being self correcting doesn't mean speculation and guess work is accepted until the right thing is discovered . Science is NOT speculation. let that sink in. Peace.
"As a man of science " You are most definitely NOT a man of science. " whatever Niel says about religious people applies to himself" However, you are a hypocrite.
I *Believe* in the big bang theory/expansion i *BELIEVE* in evolution and here's the shocker i believe That a GOD exist "If you don't believe there is a God, Fuck Off"- me
The difference here is that the first two beliefs are founded upon hundreds of years of scientific advancement. Your belief is founded off an ancient and unchanging religious text. Do you see the difference here?
@@evanpimley5933 yes exactly, both are in cohesion, if there is smoke, fire is present and each has a main question that can not be answered, where did the particles that collided to form the big bang come from? and where did GOD come from? Who knows, i don't let things like these concern me tho just be a good decent human being, not for hopes of eternal life or heavenly rewards or fear of hell but because it is the rite thing 2 do. But science and religion should go together like math and english.....
Sam Harris said.,,,,
If a person doesn’t value
logic and reason, then what
logic and reason can you use to convince them that they should.
@Gorest Fump If atheists used reason they would never have become atheists.
@@brontehauptmann4217 a statement as true as science
@pippo atheists are kinda like deeply religious people, i think thats what @Bronte meant 😅. If You jokingly whisper in their ears, “God bless you” and hell will be upon you 😂
@pippo correction, "hell will be unleashed upon you" missed a word there mate, i wont explained it further, but its a phrase used to describe when you are about to give someone all you got, pleasant or unpleasant stuff :)
Where did the spark of life come from to evolve? Can all the logic Sam Harris has answer that. I understand that evolution means things changing from one form to another.. Only living things change..
The components that make up the human body must have evolve also what were they before they even decided to evolve?
Creation is real, people have created many gods since day 1.
God is the Creator.
People are creation.
I love your comment lol its so true
@@aaronharun1394H that's where you are very wrong
@@aaronharun1394H very wrong
@@sha3755How so?
Dawkins is at the point where Neil will be when he learns that its impossible to convince people who dont want to be convinced and that, at some point, you have to not coddle them like children asto not offend their beliefs, and just straight up tell them they are ignorant and wrong about the world around them. You certainly dont have to call them stupid, but its not a crime to call a spade a spade.
One like lmao
I think it's good we have both styles out there. Some people might be responsive if you catch them by the hand, while others might be responsive after being called an idiot.
@@Guizambaldi how long did it take you to come up with that
If science says birthing people can be of any gender then that's how it is any anyone that disagrees is stupid.
If science says that a person must have ovaries to be a birthing person then scientists should set the record straight.
Throughout all of history, a person with ovaries that gives birth has been called a woman and mother yet NDT and Dawkins are silent and their friend Bill Nye the Science Guy supports birthing people of any gender.
Science and data SAY nothing, only scientists SAY something.
The science and data make evolution less convincing with each new discovery yet scientists stand firm in their belief.
That’s no longer surprising because there are still many half -ape humans that still exist today which are very difficult species to convinced. Their conviction is only based on systematic beliefs from what they hear from among themselves particularly as they are growing up and also willing to kill and die over it. If you study the history of how religion and human civilization began, you will surely notice their similarities.
I think Neil Degrasse Tyson does himself a disservice. He might not speak with a British accent &, even as a British person who loves an RP accent, it doesn't matter. The content is far more important than the accent. I enjoy Dr Tyson's work & the way he talks about science in a way laypeople can understand.
It was obviously a joke
Most people in Britain do not have Home Counties RP accents, and even the BBC has dropped this as a requirement for Radio and TV presenters. Sadly, a great many Britons have now lost their regional or city accents for a variety of reason, not least the dominance of US cultural imperialism and the pernicious influence of soap culture which has given us an epidemic of ugly HRTs and convinced many Londoners that they ought to imitate the ludicrous drama-school 'mockney' they hear on 'Eastenders'. Other distinctive regional accents. like those of Lancashire, Somerset, and parts of West Yorkshire, have also largely disappeared among the younger generation. But I agree with Ms Burrow that the point is not the accent but the ability to communicate, and I also agree that Dr Tyson makes a perfectly fine job of this, despite his Yankee accent.
@@exiled_londoner I'm from West Yorkshire & have a mild accent (Leeds isn't as strong as other Yorkshire accents plus I taught English abroad so lost most of my accent). I'm a sucker for RP because that's my wife's accent. She moved up north to be with me. 🙂
Nordic countries are on average better educated.
Nothing better to do when you are snowed in 8 months out of year?
@@omstout They have working and organized snow plowing.
Anyone could guess the answer. Easy to know who the dumb heads are.
Free education!
On average better at a lot of things, not just education.
Sincere scholars who have no other intention other than knowledge should be honored for opening the minds and eyes of humanity. I believe by increasing the true knowledge will make people more humane as it should be not the other way round.
Brilliant. But the rebuke at the end was well deserved. Dawkins took it well! Very well, for him.
The rebuke was on presentation NOT science. Tyson needs a job, Dawkins doesn't. He can speak the truth
It sounded like Dawkins deflected onto the guy from New Science. I think Tyson was right about this. Dawkins can be very off-putting, especially to those who need the most to get his point. I often agree with Dawkins but still am tempted to yell at the computer screen.
@@hug58h He's an old man and at some point it must get a bit tedious to counter all these similar arguments
On a Neil Degrasse Tyson marathon ❤️
Word War 3.
The whole relationship:
G is an incomplete whole with one square angle drawn in.
O is a whole.
D is a split whole with two square angles drawn in.
As we add a whole relationship to the words middle way we see GOOD expanded from its Whole image.
As we draw the words first and last into its middle for a Whole halved once squared twice to the right to measure its:
Time 12-3-6
Time, times 12x-3-6
Time, times and half a time 1/2x-3-6
Additional elements from the table:
12 Magnesium
3 Lithium
6 Carbon
1 Hydrogen
One clock wise cycle out of many observed and measured in its beginning.
Czechia is one of the most atheistic country in the world, Most people have never heard about creationism or "intelligent" design. I looked at PISA results from 2018 and CZ is next to France and Estonia is at the top. I don't know the difference between methodology still it seems pretty stupid to pack together Czechia, Bosnia and Estonia. The Eastern block was broken 30 years ago.
Zdar Oskar. Unfortunately, even here in Czechia are creationist morons, flat earth believers and antivax idiots. I am very surprised how many people believe in stupid nonsenses.
@@lukasfilipsky31Ahoj, there are people who believe in crazy shit everywhere buy in Czechia it's maybe astrology and such crap but I don't know a single creationist or flat earther. There may be some but the number is insignificantif it is something like half a percent.
@@lukasfilipsky31 but antivax idiots are here definitely :/
Whenever I see the word 'creationism', my mind thinks 'cretinism'.... I just can't help it... lol
have no idea What the graph it is but living in Estonia and knowing local realities and religion statistics Estonia is normally placed among 5 top atheist countries. It`s actually quite hard to find religious people here unless they are 70 plus
It depends how one defines atheism. If by atheism u mean not believing in a god and going to church or some other religious institution.
Well... that's a limited definition of atheism because whilst some ppl consider themselves atheist in this regard they then spend a small fortune on psychic readers or fortune tellers or have superstitious beliefs and may have a belief in ghosts and dabble in other supernatural interests. This is a very a very different definition of atheism from that espoused by Richard Dawkins for example.
@@westnblu
Bro, almost Nobody goes to church here.
ok, maybe some senile elders.
if someone in his 30s...40s tells me here he believes in god I would be quite surprised.
@@deniszest Notice how advanced and peaceful your country is compared to religious nut cases like America? They think a 600 year old man built a ship 6000 years ago and put dinosaurs on it so they wouldn't go extinct.
@@dleet86 Human's Y chromosome DNA and mitochondria DNA are more than 99.9% the same ACROSS THE PLANET, EVEN BETWEEN AFRICA AND SOUTH AMERICA, AUSTRALIA OR *EVEN HAWAII,* *NO MAMMALS ARE ANYWHERE CLOSE to 99% !* You are probably thinking about the man/chimp genetic study, *BUT* it was proven either to be done with *MAJOR INCOMPETENCE OR FRAUD, PROVEN IN 2015 !*
@@dleet86 The genetic similarities among humans across the entire world strongly indicating a major world event, less than 10,000 years ago like the *TOWER OF BABEL !* God's very rapid moving of people around the entire earth ! If humans were around and separated for more that 10,000 years, there would be much more genetic differences in the different parts of the earth !
I gratefully accept your rebuke. Even when he is using the 'F' word he sounds like the educated person he is.
New Scientist has been my favorite magazine for 26 years. Science IS interesting!
The downfall of western humanity was when we started to think science wasn’t “cool”. At my school, if you’re interested in science then you were labelled a geek. And “geek” was a supposed to be a degrading term.
I’m just glad I was more concerned about learning the truth than being cool.
Science is interesting, useful and beautiful.
Yeah, and Neil does not follow it much.
Neil deDumba$$ Tyson asked about the start of the universe and if he believes in God:
Larry King, "Who started all this; do you believe in God?"
Neil, "The proper question should be who or what started it, but I don't know. If I don't know I'm going to say I don't know."
from the beginning of this video: th-cam.com/video/v-qU4F0lNfU/w-d-xo.html
What we KNOW and have NO doubts about...
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
Neil does not know BASIC science. Not only can't we have creation without God, Neil does not know that we also can't have science without God. The laws of nature can only come from a Lawgiver, God.
Tyson says his dung at about 2:00 in the video below about the eye evolution. It is proven false in the rest of the video. But to shallow people, to hell with details and what the evidence shows. Your agenda is all that matters.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
He IS Neil deDumba$$ Tyson.
Sorry to say but Neil made a mistake by using "Eastern block countries" as one group and making conclusions from that average as they are very different (for different reasons). For example Slovenia and Hungary are above 60%, very similar to Netherlands and Italy, and Poland, Romania and Lithuania are low, around 40%. So, although I generally respect Neil de G.T. and his fight for science, he did not follow that approach in this case by making this politically biased grouping of Eastern Block countries and averageing them to make (wrong) conclusions. Btw. some of those countries (like Slovenia) were not even in the Eastern block, so double wrong.
I think you misinterpreted because your ego was affected in some way. :o) Neil just wanted to give at a very high level how the nations or group of nations stand in regards to their beliefs. The reason he used the "eastern block" category was simply because all those countries shared one extremely important trait, they all experienced communist regimes and dictatorships. And these regimes were ALL against church and any creationist philosophy so it is somewhat surprising that they still stand above other countries that never experienced that and above all the USA themselves! This is the important aspect here and not that there are differences between countries from this eastern block. And even though Slovenia had borders with Austria and Italy was STILL part of the Eastern block as part of former Yugoslavia, you like it or not. Yes, you clearly had advantages compared to those more to the east than you and especially if they did NOT have any border with any of the Western European countries. I am a Romanian, by the way, who used to live and learn in communist Romania but now lives in Canada.
Back to the point a bit, about religion/creationism vs science/evolutionism dispute, the big mistake both sides do is believing that there is some sort of contradiction between the 2 approaches to the existence and the Universe. Their is NO contradiction and those who continue to pedal on it are nothing else but zealots on both sides who have no interest in proving themselves but in disprove those on the other side, including this Dawkings character who has never managed to impress me, him being one of the most important extremist of the atheist side, as none of the other side zealots, the creationists, did.
He didn’t group the Eastern Block Countries and average them, he just pointed where some of the Eastern Block Countries were. If you listen, he says Slovenia, Czech Republic, and Estonia which were all in that area of where he pointed. He wasn’t saying that he averaged all of the Eastern Block Countries and put them as one group on that graph. This is very clear by the fact that there is no “Eastern Block Countries” label on the graph.
And even if he did, you don’t understand the point at all. He was just pointing out that almost every country that was tested, including the Eastern Countries, were more scientifically literate than the United States. It is honestly a shame that religion was invented, as it leads so many people away from accepting scientific fact.
@@ethanandrews3076 sorry, Ethan, but you are wrong, except the last sentence, which I, as an atheist who believes in science, I totally support. But it looks to me that you fall in some kind of "Tyson religion" trap, as you blindly believed he can not make a mistake and attacked me without even checking what he really said (and was shown in the slide). Go to 1:17 of the video and you will see he literally wrote "Eastern Block Countries" (it was not on the original list, as the list was made by the authors of the research, and not him). He made the slides, and on slide, as mentioned, he wrote "Eastern block countries", that is the fact that you can see with your own eyes. So my critic of wrongly used name is totally valid (as mentioned Slovenia was not part of Eastern block). On top of that he said (again check from 1:17 to 1:45) and I quote: "Some Eastern block countries (Sic!): Slovenia, Czech Republic and Estonia, and that is interesting [...] you think they should be really high on this list, but they are not [...] as though the suppressed religion had manifest itself at the end of the Soviet empire...". So, obviously you missed the point he made, he specifically said "they should be really high on this list, but they are not", but if you go and look at original research countries he mentioned (Slovenia, Estonia...) they really are high on the list (just below Netherlands and Italy for example) but other "Eastern block countries" (to use his naming) are indeed not, like Poland, Romania etc. Therefore talking about all those countries at ones and making conclusions about them as a group, although their results are very different is a mistake and does not match the facts and data presented in the research ( I read the original article, did you?). And he again, mentioned that they were part of Soviet empire (which, as mentioned, some of countries named by him were not - again, easy checked historical fact). So, Ethan, are you honest enough and in a spirit of scientific fact acceptance, now going to admit that you made a mistake when you attacked me? As you can see Neil indeed said what he said and my critic was valid. Because of that I do not respect him any less, everybody makes mistakes, question is do they admit them? What you say Ethan, do you?
@@zberteoc damn son what school you go to!
@@ethanandrews3076 communist school. 😀
Science does not need to be 'sensitive' to be true.
"The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." - NDT
The problem today, is not that the world is flat, or even that some individuals think it may be, it's that the people who believe it is, dont trust the ones telling them it isn't.
@Noel Coward the real problem is with trust, not that "the earth is flat". Although perhaps it's so obvious that its redundant for me to have commented in the first place.😅
If the human body was the result of a design process then there are grounds for one daddy of a class action suit for provision of goods not fit for use.
What engineer in their right mind puts a pleasure center right next to a sewer? LOL
After decades of banging his head against a wall trying to get unreasonable people to set aside irrational beliefs and raise their children with open, inquiring minds, it's not hard to understand why Dawkins is exasperated by displays of hostile ignorance. He's had a lifetime of it.
But Dawkins is a British academic, not a trained media performer. He's a product of his environment (he'd appreciate the savage lack of irony, there). In the Britain of his youth, children were seen and not heard. There was no American tradition of 'show and tell' in schools. Completely unheard of. I only learned about it when I read 'Peanuts' books as a child. Wow! [I thought]. Charlie Brown and Linus have to stand in front of the class and TALK to everyone about stuff? That's incredible!
Brit kids were not encouraged to make themselves conspicuous or even to be heard unless spoken to. Diffidence was a desirable trait, not a personality disorder.
In the Britain of my youth there were no USA-style 'school spirit' or 'pep' clubs or regimented patriotic displays or morning flag-saluting ceremonies or perky cheerleading squads loaded with bright-eyed, attention-grabbing wannabe superstars. We didn't go in for public speaking at all.
True, those few noisy, attention-seeking Brits that did exist got sent to stage schools ["FAME!"] where they could sparkle and shine and dance and sing in leotards and spangly tights or whatever, but they were seen as very weird indeed.
Richard Dawkins did not attend such a school. 🤭Neither did I.
I watched Carl Sagan's Royal Institution Christmas Lecture (1977) on the BBC and also enjoyed Dawkins in 1991. [The lectures are basically science for all (including kids) and have been going since about 1830.]
I imagine a modern American like Tyson would be APPALLED by the low-key, not slick, clunky, rather quaint, very British approach. For someone like Dawkins though, raised the way he was, it must have been extreme 'show and tell' torture on a big stage. It can't have been easy for him. I loved it.
Pardon my ignorance here, but from what I've seen, USA kids are raised to speak out confidently and to have perfectly straight, extremely shiny, unnaturally white teeth because their parents dream of them becoming (at best) a multi-millionaire Hollywood film star or (at least) the President, so Merkin kids are expected to be loud and assertive and confident when speaking.
This doesn't endear them to the rest of the world (and as adults they make embarrassing international tourists), but at home they turn into peeps perfectly suited to modern media - TV, for instance. Tyson was almost born to entertain an audience.
In the grumpy, gloomy old Britain that raised Dawkins, children were not indulged and deferred to and treated as equals who could say and do no wrong. No 'Mom' ever squealed, "Good jaaaarb!" when baby Dawkins successfully completed his first potty-poop transaction. 💩
No. In Britain you buttoned your lip and did as you were told until such time as you could put forward a forceful enough argument to warrant being listened to.
That's how Dawkins was brought up. He does his best, but he's not a professional clown or comic. He's just a bloke.
Tyson is a charismatic communicator; it's easy to imagine him as a stand-up comedian or a top sales executive or a politician or even a fire-and-brimstone Gospel preacher (I'm kidding!), but that's because he was raised that way. Even when criticising Dawkins (perfectly fairly and accurately), he's doing it in a way that his teachers would approve of. Seeing both sides, persuading with subtlety, being oh-so reasonable, and never, ever losing his sense of humour.
He's excellent with a crowd. He's excellent with a microphone. He's excellent as a chat-show guest because he understands perfectly how to put himself across, thanks to his upbringing as a confident, voluble child.
Dawkins knows his subject, but he also knows that he's not an actor. He can't help that. Brits see it as a good thing; Merkins recoil in horror because he's not prepared to spend £10,000 on a fake smile and put on an act to get people on his side.
He's not after votes, just understanding, and he can't (and won't!) change the nature of his being to achieve his ends.
Never mind. The important thing for Reason and Science is that the world contains a Dawkins AND a Tyson. Together, they'll get the message across. One day. Maybe. Possibly. Perhaps.
That is a really reductive take on Americans there. Now, the US sucks ( I live in it. They still genocide my people.) But people are raised to be highly socially conscious because we have a culture of media. Not because we all believe we are going to be movie stars, but because we have had a myriad of social movements geared towards increasing our willingness to perceive and act in a kinder, more egalitarian way (for the American Left at least) and a culture of speaking up due to the expectations set upon by a combination of rugged individualism which conditions us to see ourselves as more than the group that we are in (to a detrimental extent). This combines with the necessity of community and openness to survive poverty that most of us live in (relative to cost of living).
That is what breeds our outspokenness. You combine that with a a lot of minority communities that only resist total suppression by speaking out and rioting if we need to, and you get the outspoken American.
And by the way, Dawkins way of speaking is also indicative of a culture that doesnt prioritize everyone being a salesperson of themselves of a product. He is not persuasive because he is abrasive.
But is very popular amongst edgy young Atheists and older crowd types.
All animals in Gen 1:20-26 took their evolutionary descent form a single "kind"- Darwin got evolution form his Greek Bible - Genom meaning kind . This video explains it objectively - th-cam.com/video/dDN-4faodpY/w-d-xo.html
I've seen several of Richard Dawkins presentations... He does not strike me as particularly brilliant... In fact during a presentation about the evolution of the human eye... He repeats the words "just imagine" so many times that my eyes got stuck crossed for a week... And left me with loud ringing in my ears 🤣🤣🤣🤣 never mind that he didn't have an answer for which part evolved first... Which is really quite simple... None of the parts evolved first.... Evolutionist s have such great faith!! But it leaves them with a serious lack of knowledge 😥😥🥴
Spreading intelligence among tadpoles in tedious. I'd have gone to the pub.
@Jim Hughes I’m not sure if I understand the intent of the question “which part of the eye evolved first?” Do you mean did it start with a small portion of the optic nerve...or some other component...and then grow from there? Or do you mean what kind of eye was first to form?
Asking what part of our human eye formed first would be like asking which part of a modern skyscraper was first laid down by some ancient civilization thousands of years ago. Of course, back then they weren’t thinking of high-rise apartments or business centers with elevators and HVAC systems. They certainly didn’t lay down a foundation only and think “one day the other components will be invented and a complex building will be constructed here; meanwhile we’ll just sit out in the rain.” Rather, they built much simpler shelters...complete shelters, but with much less functionality compared to a skyscraper.
If I go with a friend to Cairo, and they ask me about the construction of the Iconic Tower “Which part of this did the fourth dynasty Egyptians form?” and I answer “Well they built other impressive, yet simpler structures like Pyramids, but no skyscrapers like this” ... should my friend then say “You didn’t answer my question”?
By evolutionary theory, there would not have been singular components of the “modern eye” coming into existence, which on their own would have no functionality as an eye. Rather it would’ve started with an extremely simple eye...perhaps only a single cell or small group of cells that had sensitivity to light (a flatworm has a simple eye like this).
Whatever organism formed this simple eye would then branch off into other kinds of organisms. Depending on the environment each new organism would find itself, changes would come about in the eye, some advantageous and some not, with advantageous ones more likely to stick around. At some point in the branching, we would reach an organism that happens to be an early ancestor to humans...AND that has a later form of this eye. If we continue following the branches toward humans, we would likely see this eye continue to change along the way. Eventually we reach modern human with modern eye.
To clarify what is hopefully obvious by this point…evolution does not posit that humans (or other eyed-creatures) came about with no eyes at all. It was a concurrent process.
Hopefully I didn’t straw-man you here; I answered what I perceived to be your question. Let me know if that perception was incorrect.
Also, I’m not writing this so that you’ll instantly be persuaded about evolution. This is simply pointing out what evolution has to say about it.
4:39 At that point, I was expecting someone in the audience to ask it it was his first time, to which he would have had to reply, "No. I've been nervous lots of times."
Nobody:
Me when I am explaining something: 7:37
"You can't prove evolution" often translates to "you can't make me educate myself".
What?
@@thehound9086 , the statement is correct. The unwillingness to accept evolution is synonymous with a lack of understanding of evolution. Probably because they don’t want to understand.
@@mikhem1962 It scares them, they want to feel special.
No scientific theory can be proven. Evolution is fact but "Theory of evolution"(s) will never be.
@@meph5291 , unhelpful comment of the day!
"No one knows for sure" - an intelligent person.
...and we are much, MUCH more sure about some things than others.
An intelligent person never says that. An intelligent person states that one theory has a higher probability than another.
'No one knows for sure' is the argument of the ignorant. Its commonly a given as surety implies no possibility of error.
@@timn4481 Are intelligence and ignorance not different topics? For example is it not possible for a very intelligent person (say a genius mathematician), to be totally ignorant about a topic unrelated to their field of expertise (like pharmacology for example)? I see "ignorance" as the opposite of "knowledge", not related directly to intelligence necessarily, (though perhaps indirectly related).
I think the initial poster is trying to convey that an intelligent person is (supposedly) humble enough to accept that they don't have all the answers, and doesn't invent one. I think this is a thinly veiled accusation that one side is somehow making up arguments and evidence as a "God of the gaps" argument.
Personally, I think an intelligent person is someone who is smart enough to defer to subject matter experts when discussing topics that don't relate to their personal area of expertise.
But we do have peered reviewed scientific facts that stood the test of time. We also have 5 senses and if there was some almighty who created EVERYTHING and everyone then why WOULDN'T this god make itself known? Why this elaborate game of hide and seek.?
@@williamdillard5060 He has to hide to get more money for his salesmen's new jets.
I get your point
N. D. Tyson , but I love
Richard Dawkins approach .
I don’t get the feeling that he’s trying to cover up anything.
Like the evolving eye 😆
@@dropkick4440 this is a place for intelligent people, so not you.
@@cosmikrelic4815 Human's Y chromosome DNA and mitochondria DNA are more than 99.9% the same ACROSS THE PLANET, EVEN BETWEEN AFRICA AND SOUTH AMERICA, AUSTRALIA OR *EVEN HAWAII,* *NO MAMMALS ARE ANYWHERE CLOSE to 99% !* You are probably thinking about the man/chimp genetic study, *BUT* it was proven either to be done with *MAJOR INCOMPETENCE OR FRAUD, PROVEN IN 2015 !*
@@cosmikrelic4815 The genetic similarities among humans across the entire world strongly indicating a major world event, less than 10,000 years ago like the *TOWER OF BABEL !* God's very rapid moving of people around the entire earth ! If humans were around and separated for more that 10,000 years, there would be much more genetic differences in the different parts of the earth !
@@studygodsword5937 crap, chimps share 98.9% with humans, i suppose you count that as no where near. you're an idiot, of course our DNA is common amongst humans, that's because we are humans. Evolving DNA doesn't suddenly change to something completely different. there is enough information coded in DNA to give a different humans differences in the population.
show me the paper that shows farud. there isn't one, you are making it up.
Where's the place to go see the big bang? I'm booking my holiday I wanted to go Florida but now I want to go there even more
If you have an old analog tv you can catch some background radiation on non broadcast channels.
Where are the dislike counter so we can see the viewers opinion?
I love trying to enlighten the scientifically illiterate/religious fundamentalists. Often when a question arises from one about what the big bang or evolution entails, I treat it as a teachable moment. I give the benefit of the doubt as to their sincerity in asking the question. However, just as often, it is disingenuous and simply a prelude to accusing me or "science" in general of exhibiting some logical fallacy or inconsistency and then proceeding to mischaracterize what I've said or what the prevailing scientific theories are.
It's then that i usually recall the Mark Twain quote - " Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with their experience." and point out that the question was asked even thought the answer was never wanted. I tried to give an answer and point to the evidence being readily available to them to investigate themselves, because at that point I'm no longer under the presumption that any evidence will convince the person arguing with me... BUT HOPEFULLY to some person who reads our exchange who may have had the same genuine questions and doubts who simply may never have been exposed to the salient argument before. Because you never know what seeds may sprout even in infertile soil.
We have seen the evidence... And the theory doesn't work... None of the theories work... And all of the proselytes never seem to remember... They're just theories... Based on faulty reasoning... For instance... Weird math showing a flat universe... Then more weird math showing a curved universe... Then more weird Math showing a spherical universe... How do we know it's weird math?... About to start with you come up with three different answers... By tiny people with tiny minds on a tiny planet in a tiny Galaxy somewhere in a gigantic universe that no one can possibly conceive the size of... People in religious communities call that "blind faith"...
@@jimhughes1070 A scientific theory is a well-tested, broad explanation of a natural phenomenon. In everyday life, we often use the word theory to mean a hypothesis or educated guess, but a theory in the context of science is not simply a guess-it is an explanation based on extensive and repeated experimentation.
Nordic countries on top
I wonder if there is a correlation between the belief in logic and reason and the belief in democratic socialism?
I agree with Dawkins on this - you can't unmonkey a monkey. If people don't have an open mind to begin with and are entrenched in their suppositions, you won't entice them anyway. It's a wasted effort. They don't have the discipline of mind to even understand what you're saying. Trying to convince them is as useless as trying to drive a sportscar over an unpaved road.
or maybe your atheism isn't really as "logical" as you assume.... creation (big bang) caused by nothing? from "nothing"? "laws of physics" came into "being" how???????
@@richardprofit6363 If you ever took a look at quantum mechanics, you will see how little is left of your "common sense" once you dive really deep in the mind of God. An unanswered question is just what it is: an unexplored field of discovery. If you prefer a "God of the gaps", it's an even more ridiculous proposition - because that way God is painting Himself into a corner. Slowly, but surely.
Or do you prefer the uneducated minds of "flat earthers", that desperately try to prove that God really stopped the sun? But even can't provide a simple program that is able to calculate sunrise and sunset for any spot of the world at any time of the year?
And what if your God created the universe - and then let it be, since He already knows what's in each mans heart and mind for eternity - and everything that happens was already planned. So why interfere? Does God makes errors He has to correct? Can you petition the Lord with prayer - like ants petition the boy who messes up their nest?
What if God died? Or faded away? What if the Planck length is actually a pixel of our simulated world? What if the Hindus are right? Have you considered that?
@@richardprofit6363 That's not what science says.
@@brianedwards7142 Science says there is a designer.
The numbers speak truth.
Life could not possibly start from scratch.
The earth is also a numbers thing.
Earth could not possibly come about by chance for observers and human exploration.
@@richardprofit6363 Oh please.... You ask us to play by rules you refuse to play by yourself, as refuse to explain the creators creator's creator. You don't have the foggiest idea about what was "before time existed", and you are just making things up as you move along to keep your religious beliefs intact. Most atheists knows scripture far better than believers do (as they are former believers who've read through scripture), and who finds science interesting. Yet, you ask Atheists questions that are meant for _scientists,_ and _physicists._ And if _we,_ can't answer them - that somehow proves "Atheism wrong" and your beliefs "right" ?! What kind of logic is that?? You don't have a shred of evidence for _anything._ You have nothing but _words._ Literally. Words. Yet you rather trust empty words than what science provides and gives for free, and believes those words are superior to science. I've read the bible twice - cover to cover, and I dig into it on a regular basis. Only very biased people consider the bible logical and reasonable.
Every human uses their own logic and reason to try to motivate their life.
Integrity allows us to remain reasonably human and exist in the long term whatever logic each one uses or creates.🍀
America first...to be second to last.
@CalvinV7 that's transparency.
@CalvinV7 The Ark museum with dinosaurs wearing saddles is America's gift, too.
Disbelief in evolution doesn't = scientific ignorance.
It's disbelief in evolution.
Science is more than evolution.
BTW I believe in evolution.I have numerous friends that do but accept all other sciences.
Exactly. Some atheists are so certain they have no dogma, but they would shudder and scoff before agreeing with your statement.
Everyone with a way of life has a religion.
But you have to be scientifically ignorant not to accept evolution.
Yes it does.
The rejection of evolution is founded ENTIRELY on religious conviction and a rejection of reality in favor of mysticism. There exists no valid or scientific reason whatsoever to reject it.
If someone is rejecting evolution, it means they are rejecting science. That is necessarily the case. The fact that they're selective in which parts of science they accept and which they reject doesn't stop them being ignorance of science.
Disbelief in any scientifically proven fact without enough evidence to support such "belief" is the definition of scientific ignorance. What are you talking about... Also, I put the word "belief" in brackets because the correct word would be . You know and accept scientific facts, you don't "believe" in them.
@@brianedwards7142 *HOW* does the pseudoscience of abiogenesis *get past THE FOLLOWING FACTS, BELOW ?:*
Yeah it sucks to live in a country that’s only 245 years old as a reasonable logical person.
Best wishes from Denmark --- Hope you (USA) gets better and more sane soon :)
i just don't get it. american scientists have been at the forefront of scientific discovery, technology n all the cool exciting stuff atleast for the past 100 years and yet the public doesn't reflect that. why so?
@@kushal4956 Because you tolerate stupidity
@@RtB68 i'm not american dumbass
@@SuneRicardo America was tied with Denmark on the GINI ratio in 1976. We were a real Democracy from 1933 to 1981 when reagan set out to kill the middle class and a demand economy based on it in favor of trickle down supply side oligarchic bribery. He deregulated airwaves and news so USA is 44th on the Press Freedom Index. 90% of media is in 6 corporate donors' hands and they were facing a FICA cap tax hike (US pension tax) when CDC told them 80% of the dying were over 65 aka on FICA. US media pushed anti-vax myths and have killed 550,000 FICA recipients, killing the need for a tax hike. Reagan knew you have to keep the public ignorant and the church was the easiest way. www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/corporate-america-invented-religious-right-conservative-roosevelt-princeton-117030/
Where is this?
Australia
@@pdallen8355 How do you know (just curious)?
No need to argue! Final proof: th-cam.com/video/vnrD8nerYH4/w-d-xo.html
Tyson + Dawkins = reason in its purest form.
When I've compared the Creation and Evolution myths, I'm impressed more by their similarity rather than their divergence. From the various arguments I've heard the salient differences seem to be the time frame and the name or title given to the principal actor: Yahweh versus Random.
Finding similarities behind creation myths and evolutionary truth largely depends on which religion's myths you are studying. Furthermore, the biggest difference between creationism and evolution is this: creationism posits a starting and ending points (let's call them A and B) as well as a directing 'intelligence' guiding the species from A to B. On the contrary, evolution is the entirely unguided method by which a species adapts to changing environmental pressures.
My top three reasons why creationism (and the gods thereof) is false: 1) no intelligent designer would put a breathing tube in front of a liquid/semi-solid intake tube (ie., the trachea in front of the esophagus), 2) why do the laryngeal nerves run from the larynx to the heart and back again? Surely it's more efficient to follow the shortest route, and 3) who installed a hazardous waste line inside an amusement park (urethra inside the primary sexual organs)? I'm sure there are more, but the randomness of those three structures in the human body present a strong argument for evolution.
Evolutiuon isn't random
@@richardgregory3684 Hey, Richard, if you're replying to my post, you're right. In the second paragraph, final sentence, I said that the three items I presented were 'random' structures. I probably should have called them 'evidence for creatorial malpractice' :)
Saying ‘random’ shows you don’t understand evolution. Easily straightened out though.
@@greyblade23 I was actually replying to the first post int he thread
The problem I think is that Neil Wants to prove that he is the smartest and funniest man in any room especially if the room has geniuses like Dawkins
@YT Fan If I am the smartest and funniest man in a room then I definitely consider myself as being in the wrong room buddy.
You could always downgrade his title to dwarf science educator. Take that Neil!
The soviet nuclear project was made in Estonia, Sillamäe.
"Science, because it works, Bitches!" ~Richard Dawkins
If you didn't put my country, The Czech Republic together into eastern block, it would have much higher rate. I know personaly less than a handful people who do not accept evolution as a scientific fact. Even believers accept that. We all learned it at the elementary school. We learned some communist BS also but as for biology and cosmology they thaught us according the latest scientific discoveries. I hate communist ideology but I must thank them for that.
Evolution IS a scientific fact, that has stood the most rigorous of tests, the church can't even de-bunk it. That's why it's a scientific THEORY (and how many people get that definition wrong. 🤦♂)
Men created God NOT God created men.
I was just about to comment these wise words.. 👍
God i love the guy 🤣
Want to add a correction, Since the universe is expanding, the current location that we see in the sky , is just a snapshop of the light that reaches earth .
Example Andromeda is about 200m light years away, so what we see is where Andromeda was 200M years ago ...
Same for the very distant galaxies that are 14B light years away, what we see is their location 14B years ago ,,, (infra red shifted galaxies) .
The time it took these galaxies to reach their assumed visible location has to be much much longer than 14B years (time to travel from Big bang location to current visible location), which you have to add to the 14B years ... Neil ,, this is what you have to calculate ....
Total universe after big bang = time took the distant galaxies to travel to visible location + 14B years ...
you have missed the first part of the equation Niel.
Again, what do we know ..? very little ... including you ... and all of us
Aha????♡◇♧♤○●○
Somehow saying fuck off in the Queens English is not offensive. Christopher Hitchens demonstrated the same.
AND IN THE BEGINNING MAN CREATED GOD
Disagree with that. In the first instance Man had to create power and greed. Then came the God.
Power and greed are not a requirement for the creation of mythology. All you need is something you can't explain... like lightning and thunder.
There's countless arguments against creationism and religion. Many based on the lack of evidence for these views. However, that does not matter to those who don't care about evidence. They've been told that having faith is a great virtue.
@@timothyknudson9353 please explain what evidence. if its not scientific evidence then wtf is it ?
@@timothyknudson9353 are you serious? Your personal spiritual "evidence" is completely useless and irrelevant to the rest of humanity. I´m fine with you believing whatever you like. You may indulge in gullibility as much as you want.
But do not expect to be respected for it. You - as person - should always be respected.
Just not your believes however real and true they are to YOU.
I am convinced I am going to win a billion dollars in a lottery next year. I can´t proove it though (Much like you can´t proove your statement).
I expect a car dealer to give me his most expensive car because next year I´ll be very rich. Do you think he´ll give it to me? That´s what you are saying.
I do have a problem with the religious (especially Christians) forcing their believes and “morals” (whatever that entails) on others. “My religion/believes forbids you to ...” is just awful.
@@peteraschaffenburg1 You’re conflating credulity with the Bible’s definition of faith. “Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.” You exercise Biblical faith every time you insert your key into your car. You have “faith” it will start. Why? It did the countless times you started it before. You have “faith” the sun will rise , you have “faith “ water comes out of your spigots, you have “faith” your payroll is deposited ( if you have direct deposit), you have “faith” in the laws of physics, and on and on….
@@groovecouple4644 my faith in all these things happening you just listed ist based on demonstrable experiences wich can be repeated over and over again.
That’s not faith in the biblical sense.
Faith in god is merely based on hear say, gullibility and ancient books we don’t even know the sources cq authors for most of it.
I talked to god yesterday and she told me your wrong about the Bible.
Does that statement have any value to you?
I am convinced she is going to punish us because all religious people are wrong about her. Does your faith is more legit than mine?
I’m exaggerating a little, not to mock you, just to show how ridiculous some religious claims sound to people from other religion or no religion at all.
@@peteraschaffenburg1 My faith in the God of the Bible is also from demonstrable sources….” Every house has a builder.”
To be fair god creating the world doesn't sound any crazier than everything came from nothing. Just saying haha
Something from nothing is oversimplifying. Either way, it’s less superstitious and probably far more rational.
But where did God come from then?
Did he just magically appear out of nowhere?
@@bluesbr0ther588 just like the universe and everything in it I suppose. I'm not saying that is what happened, I just don't like the way he tries to poke fun at religious people he's just a arrogant dick. Especially when his version of events sounds just a crazy as theirs. A divine creator is just as reasonable a explanation to me, than one second their was nothing then bang and all of a sudden all the building blocks of the universe just exist. Maybe god created the "big bang" who knows. I definitely don't and either does he. He just knows what other people have told him at the end of the day. And what difference does it make? People are trying to solve the puzzle of the universe when we can't even solve problems we have in our own little world. We don't even truly know how the complex systems of our own bodies work never mind the world it's madness
"To be fair god creating the world doesn't sound any crazier than everything came from nothing."
Given the premise is wrong I can see why you would think that, no one says as fact everything came from nothing. That is a notion that believers have grasped onto and have twisted as being what science believes but it is entirely wrong.
@@ajm1293 EXACTLY!! I always say this
Strange. Never heard a good explanation to or from Neil of creationism. I got alot more respect towards David berlinski talking down evolution than I do for Neil talking about creationism.
Neil deDumba$$ Tyson asked about the start of the universe and if he believes in God:
Larry King, "Who started all this; do you believe in God?"
Neil, "The proper question should be who or what started it, but I don't know. If I don't know I'm going to say I don't know."
from the beginning of this video: th-cam.com/video/v-qU4F0lNfU/w-d-xo.html
What we KNOW and have NO doubts about...
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
Neil does not know BASIC science. Not only can't we have creation without God, Neil does not know that we also can't have science without God. The laws of nature can only come from a Lawgiver, God.
Tyson says his dung at about 2:00 in the video below about the eye evolution. It is proven false in the rest of the video. But to shallow people, to hell with details and what the evidence shows. Your agenda is all that matters.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
He IS Neil deDumba$$ Tyson.
Dawkins can be the Malcolm Tucker of science when he wants to be.
The atheist has to accept that something has always existed. To explain how the universe came to be they describe a beginning, the Big Bang. To explain how living things came in to existence they say something like “when life began” and move on. It requires a belief in something that cannot be proved but rather accepted. A believer in God has to accept that someone has always existed and became a Creator. The Bible explains it as “In the beginning “. If you believe that life began on its own you must have meditated on how that fist cell formed, found food to sustain itself, found a way to reproduce itself. Then at some point it developed the incredible way to store information in its DNA. The computer that I am writing with contains far less information than the small portion of DNA that was in the fertilized egg when I was conceived, I do not know who made this computer, but I don’t doubt it was both designed and made. That’s how I came to accept that there was a creator. I don’t want to debate this with anyone because I respect your right to decide for yourself what to believe. Either way you must believe in something you can’t fully understand but must accept. This is what I would call “Faith”. It’s my hope that you put your faith in the truth and honestly pursue it.
I´m sorry sir, but just because YOU can´t grasp the concepts of "The Big Bang" and Evolution, that doesn´t mean these theories are false. Maybe they are. But that´s the good thing about sciences. It changes it´s mind when proven wrong.
The religious can´t change their mind even though the christian God of the bible did a couple of times.
“how that fist cell formed, found food to sustain itself, found a way to reproduce itself”
You do realize cells do this every day, even today, right?
Cells in plants get their “nutrition” form the air, water and sunlight.
This process is called Carbon dioxide fertilisation is responsible for at least 80% of this increase in photosynthesis. ... Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide make plants more productive because photosynthesis relies on using the sun's energy to synthesise sugar out of carbon dioxide and water.
Just an example.
For those who understand science....none of those things are difficult.
So you assume a creator which is more complicated than what is created. By Occam's Razor, I'll go with evolution over billions of years.
@@peteraschaffenburg1 something cant come from nothing.
Where did the 'thing' that created that 'singularity' come from..where did the thing that created the thing that created the singularity come from..carry that question as far as u can go..when you stop..just know the universe created itself..just admit it.
It sounds and is stupid why atheists go around that fact
@@alexrattray8807 maybe you should ask people like Lawrence Krauss to explain that.
It’s not my job to educate you.
Like I’ve said before; just because you do not understand the concept, that doesn’t make it stupid.
Do you realize how silly the religious sound when taking about talking donkeys, virgins giving birth or men arising from the dead.
All these things you MUST believe without any evidence. Does it get anymore ridiculous?
A person can believe in both creation and evolution... I do, at least.
How?
Apply critical thinking.... then report back.
Nothing in the Bible says that God is subject to the laws of time that He made. I have come to believe, after much thought, that the Bible has room for Darwin. After all, Origin of Species only tells 'how'. Empirical science can only say 'how'. It can never say 'why'.
As for the Seven days, I believe the seven days of the week are in homage of them, not that God had to stuff 14 bil years into 144 hours. If I am wrong, I am a fool, but I will find out in the next life.
@@oscarmedina1303 I have thought for decades on this subject. Only human points of view and assumptions say they are mutually exclusive. If you have a different opinion, that is your right.
@@Svensk7119
I see.
"Behold! The moment of creation!" - John Muir.
🍻
The big bang went "Bang!". So tell me, where did the material for the bang come from and what made it all go bang!!!????? There's only one answer and if your IQ is at least average, you will understand. Enough said.
The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion event.
As to where the matter came from, there is reason to suspect it never had an absolute beginning in time. We need to ask an important question ... does the universe exist in time, or does time exist in the universe? This is not a trivial distinction.
We check our clocks every day and think we understand time. We don't. Read about the Hafele-Keating experiment. It demonstrated relativistic time dilation. Two atomic clocks set to the same time were no longer synchronized simply by one traveling faster than the other. If time is affected by motion, then it is not an absolute.
There is more than one answer to your question. The best we can say is we don't currently know. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
I find your presumptuousness very irksome .
@@rickmartin7596 so you have no proof?
@@Yeagerists1321 Neither does anyone else. Scientists have good lines of evidence, and the research continues. The ones who already claim to know "where did the material for the bang come from" are lying.
@@rickmartin7596 Big Bang=God said !
I want that New Scientist quote on a T-shirt.
Perhaps not; I think that that was the editor who went off to work on the awful Omni magazine: because its owner, a pornographer, could pay more.
@@MrAaronvee His subsequent change of employer does not in any way invalidate the quote.
@@allenjenkins7947 Don't be so naive; as a prosecuting lawyer would say, "it goes to motive".
Never mind DNA from scratch we can't even make nucleotides from scratch. But if we ever do it will have been done artificially through INTELLIGENCE.
Nothing against you or your assertion and your name indicates maybe English is a second language, but I hope you can appreciate the humour in the fact that your final, ALL CAPS word is spelled wrong.
So what? Human intelligence replicating natural processes does not require or even imply natrual processes require intelligence.
Intelligence is not a requirement for survival or for the evolutionary process. Dinosaurs were around for 400 million years. Mankind hasn't even made it to a million years, and likely won't. Extinction is the norm.
@@oscarmedina1303 talk about red herrings....wow
@@brontehauptmann4217 Look up the series "How to think like a genius". I suspect you'll find the episode on genetics of interest.
My question for atheists is: what's so wrong about God being the cause of the existence of matter and energy, of time and space? No, I can't prove he/she was, but it's more logical to have it come from someone, than from nothing... "Nothing from nothing, leaves nothing. You gotta have something, if you want to be with me."
And no, I am not talking about the anthropomorphic gods in the Bible. That god couldn't create diddlysquat. A God that doesn't have any flaws.
What´s wrong with the Idea of a god like you described?
First of all; He´s not necessary.
Lawrence Krauss can explain in laymens terms (like myself) how you can have something from nothing. Depending on the definition of nothing.
So if you´re really interested check that out.
“it's more logical to have it come from someone,”
No it is not. You´re using the god of the gaps argument.
“I can´t explain it, therefore a god must have done it...”
What you are doing is ignoring all other possibilities even if Lawrence Krauss was wrong.
There appears to be evidence for what science is claiming.
There is no evidence AT ALL for what you are assuming.
@@peteraschaffenburg1 There's a logical evidence that God exist, it exists in every human minds, its jus a will of a person whether to believe it or not. I prepared to believe in creationism because it doesn't limit me to accept only physical evidence but also spiritual evidence.
@@randellaquino7682 "it exists in every human minds" ?? Really? How do you know that?
How do YOU know what´s in MY mind?
To me, that statement sounds ridiculous. I know a man living in a mental institution. He "chooses" to believe he is Napoleon. That´s HIS reality. Doesn´t make it true, does it?
What on earth is "spiritual evidence"?
I´m dutch, wich means I know some people who have been smoking dutch agricultural products ... ;-) They seem to have spirituel experiences. Does that mean their experiences are true?
I think your statement is a deluded load of crap. You may believe anything you like but to assume everybody has these believes and they are just not willing to give into them is almost funny if it wasn´t so bad. You don´t really believe that, do you?
@@randellaquino7682 I´ll try to put it less harsh;
I am convinced I am going to win a billion dollars in a lottery next year.
I can´t proove it but I am convinced that everybody knows I will. (Much like you can´t proove your statement.) They just won´t accept that truth.
I expect the car dealer to give me his most expensive car because next year I´ll be very rich.
Do you think he´ll give it to me?
That´s what you are saying.
My answer, as an atheist, is that flawed premises lead to flawed reasoning, which produces unreliable, absurd, and potentially dangerous outcomes.
You've demonstrated this yourself. It's not "more logical" to assume the existence of something without evidence for it. So you clearly don't understand what logic is. But because your argument is premised, incorrectly, on the assumption that you do, you're not able to take a moment to learn logic, and so you arrive at an absurd conclusion.
The best fix that I can recommend is for you to buy an introductory text on logic, or take a night school course. Most university bookstores carry both new and used editions that would be inexpensive and perfectly suitable.
If your premise is correct and you do understand logic, then this will only serve to strengthen your position. If you're not correct, you'll come away wiser and much better equipped to argue your case. It won't be the above case, because it's already logically flawed, but at least you will know that before having it pointed out to you.
Gods are Man Made.
Men are made in God's image,
It's the only reason this atheist backslapping love in is able to take place,you have the freewill to question investigate reject or accept that there is a spiritual aspect to your very existence.
Is it possible that nothing createt everything? How is that possible? Man dozen’t even know what energi is but thay know how to explain the big bang. There must be a creator! Who created everything
you are stuck in this creation thing.
there was no creation.
universe is timeless, energy within it cannot be created nor destroyed. universe just changes forms. current form being around 14 billion years old.
there is no creator because there was never a creation needed.
"nothing" doesnt exist.
its just a concept, there is no state without any energy and particles within it
@@spatrk6634 i have to smile over your statement and definition off creation
@@mariojansson1001 yes you have to smile because you are stuck in particular mindset.
for you to be able to cope with reality, there had to be "someone" or "something" that "created"
its easier than just educate yourself
@@spatrk6634 and you are stuck in the teaching that nothing created everything
@@mariojansson1001 no.
i have no idea whos teaching is that.
but no science says that
nothing doesnt exist.
so something that doesnt exist, cannot create.
I don't know why the universe be the way it be. It just do.
@@keithboynton
I am NOT a genius. 1st.... I flat out STOLE that. 2nd Neil has forgotten more sitting on the toilet than I'll ever know about the Heavens.... but it is funny and I think he'd agree.
I can't calculate whether Richard's reply was bad or senseless...
"A moral point of view too often serves as a substitute for understanding in technological matters."
[Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, Marshall McLuhan,1964, Ch. 24: Games, p. 216 vac]
I know I'm not alone in my belief ... I believe that "God created evolution" I don't know why this is so hard to believe for others.
Not the God you worship though. (The proof of this is trivial, but it would be wasted on you).
But David, is your line much different from this?
I believe that ''Man created God'' I don't know why this is so hard to believe for others.
What makes more sense ''God creating man'' or '' Man creating God'' ?
Simple, this contradicts the claim that god created every living creature separately. Anyone who thinks evolution and his/her religion can coexist doesnt understand either evolution or his religion or both.
because it isn't based on anything other than "someone who doesn't know either told you so", or "you added God as origin so that you can accept evolution's existence".
"God created evolution" means nothing, its inconsequential. Like adding 1+1+0=2. the 0 means nothing other than believing in the cult of 0.
Evolution doesn't need to be created, like a pile of sand doens't need to be piled up by intelligence. its just simply deterministic, and even if you don't know how, you can understand the principles.
took us a long time to figure out, but that doesn't mean God was needed for piles of sand until then.
so, we don't need God for evolution either until further understanding of its origins. if you are fantastically inclined you can believe in any made up origin you like, but it will always be inconsequencial, like the 0 added to an equation.
You gave the answer yourself, it's your belief. There are also people that believe in unicorns, is that a reason for you to believe in unicorns as well? It's also not about how many share that same belief, it's just a belief, it doesn't hold water when you start asking questions. No one has ever seen a real unicorn, not even a unicorns remains. For most people that settles the question whether or not unicorns exist or ever did. Some will still insist they do, while the rest moves on.
Man made God in his image, just read the Bible!
I've read three versions of it cover to cover. Why should I assume the bible is accurate?
@David Landon You missed the twisted sarcasm.
Tyson is slick with his tongue. He smoovely said evolution is a fact ("this fact"). Evolution is only a theory. No shame.
Using mundane language, evolutionary biology is a "fact". In scientific jargon, it is called the Theory of Evolution. Nonscientific people might not know the definition of "theory" in the scientific dictionary. That's why he uses the word "fact" --he is trying to use simple words to help nonscientific people understand.
Imagine that a student doesn't know the semantics of "gay" in a Jane Austen novel, in that case, the teacher had better explain that "gay" means "cheerful" in the context of that novel.
@@dancekitty135 , bad argument lawyer. He could have used any other word to simplify. This study, this science.... "This fact..." Confusion doesn't need to be said. He's not speaking to children.
@@ebcsecurity9490 i think he is emphasizing that scientific theories are made of almost countless facts. A lot of people get stuck up on the mundane definition of "theory" as something unproven. Where, in fact, scientific theories have been proven and proven again.
@@dancekitty135 theories that get "proven over and over" again yet remain theory? You are not making any sense.
Are you confusing hypothesis with theory?
Sometimes Many must Wonder if These Debates Over These Issues are Put Together for Prestige and Prominence, And of Course Money, Books are Written, Money is Made .And of Coarse, Divides People to Take Sides, We have this in Politics, Religion, Now Science, Many must also Think Why ? Dosnt it Take Real Humility, should we not think, if There is a God , with The Knowledge, Power, Wisdom, Love, And Justice, Find Out for Ourselves,.Self Prominence sometimes can Blind us to the Truth!!
Neil deDumba$$ Tyson asked about the start of the universe and if he believes in God:
Larry King, "Who started all this; do you believe in God?"
Neil, "The proper question should be who or what started it, but I don't know. If I don't know I'm going to say I don't know."
from the beginning of this video: th-cam.com/video/v-qU4F0lNfU/w-d-xo.html
What we KNOW and have NO doubts about...
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
Neil does not know BASIC science. Not only can't we have creation without God, Neil does not know that we also can't have science without God. The laws of nature can only come from a Lawgiver, God.
Tyson says his dung at about 2:00 in the video below about the eye evolution. It is proven false in the rest of the video. But to shallow people, to hell with details and what the evidence shows. Your agenda is all that matters.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
He IS Neil deDumba$$ Tyson.
The problem Tyson is not seeing is that our lives don't afford us time to reeducate the people who don't care to listen... Our lives are not long enough to hand hold each ignorant mind through understanding... If they don't see how amazing science is, then nothing is left but ridicule of showing them how ignorance is harmful and wastes what little life each one of us has left by not exploring our how our world really is....
He mentioned Slovenia. Wtf?
God did the first few days in the dark, then thought better switch the light on.😂
You put human constraints on God, do you realize how stupid that is?
Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. Evolution and the Big Bang are two very different things, and bear little relationship to each other. Yes, the universe "evolves' to the extent that it transforms from one state into another, but since galaxies are not life forms, strictly speaking, universes don't "evolve".
A. Suppose God is not the one who assembled all the molecules into the first single celled organism. Although one of the reasons the universe exists is to provide a stage for life. Yes, that life is also for the purpose of producing as many children for the Divine Father as possible. The Life Carrier who brought life to our planet (aka Urantia), designed evolution into the DNA. Life is inherently intelligent enough to adapt to its surroundings. The process of "adapting" is a component of evolution.
B. The Big Bang doesn't explain everything... it is closely associated with the mechanistic viewpoint, which doesn't allow of where or how relationships and personality came into existence, for they are not properties of matter or energy. They are supermaterial, bordering on the spiritual.
The fact that old time religionists have a problem with the idea that humans are related to an animal, that way back when, we had monkey mamas, really freaks some people out. They consider themselves to be superior to all the animals. That God put us here by fiat action. Well, that may have been true of Adam and Eve, (who were our biological uplifters), but all those people in the Land of Nod, predated Adam and Eve, and were of evolutionary origin. [Biblically speaking...] I doubt any Biblical scholar has attempted to date the people in the Land of Nod back at all. Why, they could go back hundreds of thousands of years for all we know... 😉
Humans by any biological comparison, are clearly related to other great primates, with but one or two different chromosomes. That most mammals (if not all) have the same number of bones in our bodies... and organs, didn't happen by accident. We also share the majority of our DNA with plants... hence our ability to consume them as food. Science clearly says we're related, and should treat them better!
There were no people in the land of Nod no evidence at all Genesis 4: 16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son-Enoch.
The Bible does not give us an age of the earth. It says: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. It could have been billions of years before the Creation.
We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 to 5000 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people. Of course, the direct population growth went a lot faster. But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is about the time needed for the present population to reach 7.5 billion. If you follow the genealogy counting in the Bible it corresponds with these numbers
If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure-a one followed by 100 zeros; that is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/
2018 7,632,819,325 1.09 % 82,557,224 51 4,186,975,665 55 %
1900 :1,600,000,000
1850 :1,200,000,000
1804: 1,000,000,000
The Shang dynasty (founded around 1600 BC) of the Yellow River valley in northern China is as far back as we have solid archaeological evidence and positive proof of the first written records. Earlier than that, history disintegrates into mythology. But even if you accept the preceding mythical Xia dynasty as the start, it takes you back only to around 2000 BC.
In terms of age, civilizations in other parts of the world precede China. Writing systems in Egypt and Mesopotamia predate Chinese writing by a thousand years. The world’s first city, Uruk, in modern-day Iraq, dates back between Four and 5000 yr. Cities began to emerge about the same time in various places around the world. But most archaeologists agree that it is fair to claim Uruk (pronounced OO-rook) as one of the world’s first cities (Uruk is its Akkadian name; its own people called it Unug; the Hebrew Torah called it Erech; and its current name, Warka, is Arabic.) Uruk arose about 4,500 years ago, no time at all when measured against the evolutionist's claim of the more than 200,000 years of Homo sapiens or the 6 million years of hominin evolution. www.museums.gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=76723&p=0
The Bible tells us that God divided water from land Genesis 1: 9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. Before the flood, there were no Continents.
Evidence indicates that the continents have moved around, broken apart, and crashed together, but the basic pieces have remained fairly constant. Violent catastrophes tore off slivers from the edges of the continents, but the core pieces seem to have survived.
That there was Noah's flood and the ark is the only thing that makes any sense. Do you want to know that our universe comes from Intelligent design? Figure out MALE - FEMALE procreation. and the rate of birth male-female is 49% 51% that is not happening just by accident
Look at your hand God gave it to you so you know it was not an accident
But a design. Your thumb just turns the other way as your 4 fingers otherwise your hand would be useless for most of the work we do.
God created planets, and numerous moons orbiting many planets. in our galaxy Venus And Uranus are Spinning in a different direction than all the others, Our Lord God did that TO MAKE EVOLUTION LOOK STUPID.
Just one thing is important that is what happened two thousand years ago the basis for our year counts. You live in a part of the world where you can believe whatever you want or have your sexual preference. Be happy, look at the people in Afghanistan.
@@MariusVanWoerden Funny you end with that sentence, since the god of the bible, your god, does not approve that men sleep with men.
@@MariusVanWoerden BTW, your growth projections are just total rubbish. World population does not and have not doubled every 150 years. We have enough data to show that even in the CE, it took more than 1000 years for it to double. You should check your facts straight before distributing wrong information.
@@theamalgamut8871 Of course not!! My God also does not approve of serving other gods or not keep his commandments. However, We live in a country where you can do whatever you want. You don't get thrown off a roof to your death if you are gay. I'm married and have 11 children. But I have a friend potter who is gay and I have talked about It and he knows I don't agree, but he is a friend. Gay is not more sinful than adultery or even hate.
th-cam.com/video/owz9EsUknBA/w-d-xo.html
People will live on forever
Creation vs the other.
nope it's soul death for all non-Christians. You have been duped by the oldest satanic lie in the book
Given a long enough time frame all species go extinct. Mankind has been around about 250k years. The dinosaurs were here for 400 million years. Intelligence is not a requirement for species longevity.
@@oscarmedina1303 That is just a religious claim for which there's no credible evidence let alone proof. People do like to blather like mindless fools especially when they know absolutely nothing.
@@brontehauptmann4217 How long have you been having violent fantasies?
Wait... so believing in evolution = Science literacy? Odd.
USA all videos are governed by local People of Vidyanagar Hermu city Ranchi , Jharkhand state India , improve your abilities after all you are USA. Thanks.
If someone said to me “ fuck of”, I’d say “ go to hell”.
So...they actually made Cerebro!
Theistic evolution, a 3.8 bya abiogenesis | mainline Protestantism is the slim majority within North America.
Well the thing of it is that the whole evolution and the biogenesis pretty much teaches that life magically appeared out of nowhere, and to me it takes a lot of faith to accept that, creation at least dares to present a creator, as the one who brought everything forth, but science just says here is how we think it all happened and don't you dare question it
But how does creation explain the origin of the creator?
Did God appear out of nowhere?
@@bluesbr0ther588 well actually the christian God is eternal no begining no end if God can be created or has a begining then simply he wouldn't be God he'd be more like an alien from a very advanced civilization
@@juliusemperor907
But what if i claimed that Earth is eternal?
Then we wouldn't need to explain how it all started.
It wouldn't be very scientific but it would be something that you cannot argue against.
@@bluesbr0ther588 but you couldn't claim that earth is eternal because it is not a person or a being, God is and he has revealed himself to humans, other can't say that we have a mental illness because very prominent people we know of claim to be Christians and hold such beliefs
@@juliusemperor907
Who says that only God can be eternal?
A TH-cam Clip.
Of a show of Tyson's.
It contains a TH-cam Clip, of Tyson. It's black science man all the way down....
Human's are the most clever species among animals, so human will never be able to prove whether we were created or evolved no matter how much we try, because we were created at one point of time along with animal and evolved the rest to where we are right now.
They think before big bang was nothing and then everything so who can create something from nothing answer is very simple.
I don’t understand how somebody can look at all this evidence and still say that we didn’t evolve from apes
Simple.... 3 types of people.
1) Those that can see.
Newton, Einstein, Steven Hawkins, etc. Very rare.
2) Those that can see when shown.... Many of us.
3) Those that can't see because they are not smart (unfortunate) or much worse, those that REFUSE to see...... for various reasons. They were conditioned. They have a financial gain to be had. Basically, they are crooks. The fear of loss of life or liberty as in a tyrannical government.
Unfortunately those that refuse to see often wield a lot of POWER.
Hope that helped.
because you're a loser just as Neil is.
Neil deDumba$$ Tyson asked about the start of the universe and if he believes in God:
Larry King, "Who started all this; do you believe in God?"
Neil, "The proper question should be who or what started it, but I don't know. If I don't know I'm going to say I don't know."
from the beginning of this video: th-cam.com/video/v-qU4F0lNfU/w-d-xo.html
What we KNOW and have NO doubts about...
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
Neil does not know BASIC science. Not only can't we have creation without God, Neil does not know that we also can't have science without God. The laws of nature can only come from a Lawgiver, God.
Tyson says his dung at about 2:00 in the video below about the eye evolution. It is proven false in the rest of the video. But to shallow people, to hell with details and what the evidence shows. Your agenda is all that matters.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
@@2fast2block
That is NOT what Neil said...... He said, "I don't know why the universe be the way it be. It just do."
@@2fast2block u just wasted all that time explaining how ur an idiot sheep who follows a cult
@@franram7426 loser, I even gave the video of the joke Neil saying just as I wrote. You can go try your lying on other losers who will believe you.
Why does it have to be either/or as in creationism or evolution I don't believe in religious creationism nor do I believe in a singular theory of evolution that all humans came for a particular animal species
The problem is that with evolution, there's no original sin and thus no need for Jesus to forgive.
Eh not to crazy an interpretation needed at least in comparison to most attempts to solve that problem. Just it means actually admitting that the magic 7 days werent right and thats a step to far.
The garden of eden was a safe development area for humans to evolve in and grow. Once humans had succesfully evolved then the bible so starts.
Why is there no evidence of this magical garden? As with all god things magic god land and hey we can even use our favourite of the gaps here and say this is why the link hasnt been found
@@SereneAncalime the garden of eden was removed from earth by God
Why is that a problem? Reality is not obligated to confirm to mythology.
Incidentally, even if the mythology was true, there would still be no "need" for Jesus anyway. Couldn't Yahweh just forgive everyone without needing a blood sacrifice? Why is it that the creator of the universe, who is making all the rules, could not think of any other solution than coming down to earth in bodily form to sacrifice himself, to himself, and then bring himself back to life to rule the universe alongside himself, to serve as a loophole for rules that he created and has complete control over?
If your god exists, why didn't he just say: "Okay, now nobody goes to hell".
There's no need for Jesus even IF your mythology was true.
@@seraphinaaizen6278 God cant just remove sin or "forgive us" like that..its more complex than just that. Human choice is a very important factor and mans need for an INTERCESSOR. God doesnt want anyone to be punished by Hell but it is inevitable. Because of Human Choice..He cant save everyone.
God only forgives if you are repentant and willing for forgiveness..God wont force forgiveness on anyone and wont force anyone to live eternally with Him..and at the same time..He hates sin and will destroy it and all who harbour sin...unrepentant and rebellious
@@seraphinaaizen6278 and God is a government..God isnt just 1 individual but 3 beings who all work in unison as God...each and all are God.
God the Father
God the Son/Jesus
God the Holy Spirit
All are God
Without considering any other factor, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution. It is the Law of Entropy. Things degrade over time not improve.
Evolution isn't disproved nor does not center around "improvement"; natural selection's drive is geared toward "adaptability".
The statement that entropy of a system increases is only true for a closed system... Our planet with all living things on it is not a closed system.
Instead of debating things we can't know, I've got one for you:
The evolution of technology as a case study on the mechanics and dynamic nature of evolutionary patterns.
Are there any underlying fundamental principles to the nature of evolutionary and natural selection?
If any are identified, that could be useful in understanding the gaps in our knowledge about biological evolution - very mysterious still.
The fossil record does not seem to me to be the best place to discover such things.
Spread the word...
missing link or some kind?
Underlying principle...it's mathematical isn't it...over time the slightest edge of one colour of replicating bead over other replicating beads will result in a predictable outcome, that colour bead will increase in numbers relative to the others....it can be predicted mathematically if you know the extent of the advantage.
@@ken0272 time is not in evolution's favor. Nothing is.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics (2LT):
The universe is an isolated system that does not exchange energy or mass.
A closed system exchanges energy but not mass.
An open system exchanges energy and mass.
The first law says basically the energy remains the same, it can change forms but it can't be created or destroyed. How we got all this to begin with points to a supernatural creation. If you think it was done by natural means, go ahead and explain how in regard to the 1LT.
You can't even get chemicals for life without breaking the 1LT.
The earth is basically a closed system depending upon what exactly is being talked about. Keep in mind that the 2LT works in all systems, there will always be an end result of more entropy, but in an open system you can get order nonetheless yet the total will always be in favor of more entropy overall. Consider too that there is NO truly isolated system in the universe. That says that the 2LT is which is so well-tested, works in all systems.
As mentioned, you have to get around the 1LT by explaining creation in light of it. Next, once you have creation, it is an isolated system that cannot get order, so you'll have to explain how things formed to get order to even have open systems inside of it. I know, you can't do that either by known science.
The 2LT does not prevent the first replicating cell from happening and evolving. Part of entropy though is the tendency to go to disorder. We obviously have order on the earth such as snowflakes, salt crystals (which are very simple), also plants, animals, (which are complex), etc. Even still, those eventually break down over time.
I'll give you a simple example of the 2LT. If there was a glass of room temp water and I put several drops of green dye in the water, would the 2LT prevent it from forming the word "cell" all in connecting cursive letters? Absolutely not. Nothing stops the dye from doing that. Now, will it do it? No because the dye will go where there is no order. What if though I had inside the glass a clear plastic mold also filled with water that forced the dye to form the word "cell". Then it would do it because there was something (a "machine") to direct the dye and make order to it.
Look at how a snowflake and salt crystals form, their environments led them to do what they had no choice in doing due to a "machine" to make it do that. They are simple systems, not complex like a plant or animal.
With that in mind, if there was an open system, you'd have to have a "machine" that directs the molecules (that you can't explain how they got there to begin with by natural means) to form the first living self-replicating cell. Does the 2LT prevent that from happening? No, not at all, but will it happen? No, not at all because the odds of such a machine to give such order is impossible. You never even reached natural selection because that takes life. Natural selection picks from what is there already. You are believing in something that has odds against the complexity of life ever happening. Again, odds that make it impossible.
Simply saying that the sun in an open system is the answer to order, is wrong. Undirected and unharnessed energy into an open system won't cause an increase in order, it would do the opposite, like the proverbial bull in a china shop. In other words, it is atheists' science because they have to remain blind to reality. The science against them crushes them. It's a wonder how such ignorance is deliberately chosen.
This guy is of a few that explain it well:
th-cam.com/video/9dAA06Zfi4M/w-d-xo.html
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
he needs to switch his os to ubuntu or debian someone that bright using a mac is scary, but they might be using a mac for product promotion. no reason to use broken tools or operating systems
About religion in eastern block .. don't put 'em in same pot and read out average. Compare Poland and Estonia - there is huge difference .. at least if you look at %
For absolute numbers .. yeah, nation of 1.4M has no place in world statistics. No matter our no-religious outlook or PISA scores ..
Reboot says “ no one created me I was developed from ordinary broom
To electric vacuum to intelligent reboot as we are now “
If you could believe
Try
To fit time line period let say 3 billions years in account in process
Atheism may be the bones of humanity, but religion and belief, is the flesh, the warmth, the laughter, the poetry, the music, the dinner parties, the appreciation of beauty, the compassion, ………… and everything that makes life worthwhile.
THINK ABOUT IT..
It may bring you comfort but it doesn’t mean Mother Nature is a real lady
All those emotional responses existed long before religion.
Funny how the most secular countries in Europe, where athiesm is a majority and religion plays no part in most people's lives, are also rated the most highly for happiness, personal development, personal freedom and satisfaction. Whereas the most religious countries in the world are often poverty stricken hellholes or are run by oppressive fanatics imposing their usperstition through force.
......and makes people fly into buildings......
Stop calling it the "theory" of evolution. It is a proven scientific tenet!
Theory is the explanation.
It's still valid to call evolution a theory, just as it's still valid to call gravity a theory. Or atoms a theory.
While it's true that the process of evolution is a fact - it's demonstrable - the theory of evolution is the explanatory model that explains that fact. Just as we know, without doubt, that atoms exist, that doesn't mean that atomic theory stops being a theory.
There is nothing above the level of theory in science. Theories do not at some point graduate into being something else, and "proof" does not exist in the real of science. The only application of proof in science is in mathematics. No theory is "proven"; we didn't even "prove" atomic theory when we split the atom.
@@seraphinaaizen6278 Gravity is referred to by the scientific establishment as the "Law of Gravity", not the the theory of gravity. If you're falling off a tall building telling yourself "It's just a theory" won't save your ass! :-)
@@bigbirdwpg Good grief.
There is such a thing as the universal law of gravitation. Theories often contain a number of laws. But doesn't mean that there isn't a "theory of gravity".
It's still a theory. It's always going to BE a theory. It will not at some point STOP being a theory.
It's a common belief among the scientifically illiterate that theories at some point "become laws" when they are "proven".
That it's the case. Theories and laws describe different things. One does not become the other. And the existence of laws that relate to gravity does not cause the theory of gravity to disappear, or stop being something other than it is.
"If you're falling off a tall building telling yourself "It's just a theory" won't save your ass!"
No, of course it wouldn't. And nobody who knew what the word "theory" meant in the scientific context would ever use that phrase.
It's honestly kind of annoying for someone to lecture me on what the scientific community says about the theory of gravity, when they evidently don't know what a scientific theory IS.
Or intelligence
So the only valid measure of scientific literacy is one question about evolution? Not knowledge of the period table or Lagrangian Mechanics or Maxwell's equations or differential geometry or anything like that? I have a degree in mathematics from the University of Texas which is usually in the top 20 in the nation for math and I still believe in angels. But someone who has no clue how to do something as simple as integration by u-substitution would still call me scientifically illiterate just because I believe the inductive reasoning that governs our laws of physics can sometimes on RARE and inconsistent occasion be violated. Still, I will always respect Neil DeGrasse Tyson for introducing me to the idea of Lorentz transformations.
You've offered a Strawman Fallacy to begin your remarks, and then you proceed on to make an Argument from Authority. And among your subsequent remarks is the statement that you believe in angels.
These three facts tell me that your grasp of reason is, at best, unreliable. At worst, you're disingenuous. And that is enough for me, a stranger, to write you off, because life's too short to be wasted in wading through nonsense.
Stick to math. Your colleagues will probably tolerate you as long as you demonstrate sufficient rigor in your work.
@@starfishsystems Do you know what a strawman fallacy is, or is it a term you saw on youtube that you thought looked good? I directly addressed what's going on in the video. Tyson is using ONE question about evolution to judge the scientific knowledge of people, and I'm attacking that action by saying it isn't fair. I didn't claim he made a different action just to have something to attack. I didn't need to. Then I used myself as as one weak counterexample to the implied belief that religious people have way less scientific education, which the undetailed survey tries to confirm. I never said angels are real. I just said there exists at least one person with a STEM education who believes in angels.
The only motivation to reject evolution is a rejection of science in favor of mysticism. And every single time someone who rejects it attempts to explain why, they always immediately demonstrate that they don't even have a high school level understanding of the subject.
So yes: People who reject evolution are scientifically illiterate.
@@seraphinaaizen6278 I wouldn't argue against the fossil record, however, I have not studied it myself. That's one reason I wouldn't argue against it. It doesn't interest me.
Science itself has some mystical properties though, in particular the world of complex and imaginary numbers. Study those and see if they don't make you believe that there may be something deeper beneath the surface of things that we don't have any idea about.
Be very careful when you say ALL people who reject evolution are scientifically illiterate, otherwise you might get embarrassed one day when one of those said people questions you about a scientific topic you may not know much about. Much safer on your end to say MOST instead of ALL. People who have said that all religious people are scientifically illiterate have already been shown to be wrong many times over.
@@theboombody " I wouldn't argue against the fossil record, however, I have not studied it myself. "
Yes, I could have told you that. I suspect you have studied very on this subject, frankly.
"Science itself has some mystical properties"
No it doesn't. Science is in opposition to mysticism.
"in particular the world of complex and imaginary numbers"
Numbers are not mystical.
"Study those and see if they don't make you believe that there may be something deeper beneath the surface of things that we don't have any idea about."
There is nothing whatsoever about numbers that convince me that the universe was wished into existence by a magical, invisible genie plucked from bronze age folklore.
"Be very careful when you say ALL people who reject evolution are scientifically illiterate, otherwise you might get embarrassed one day"
Everyone who rejects evolution is scientifically illiterate. Just as everyone who says the earth is flat is scientifically illiterate; they're on the exact same level.
If someone is willing to reject demonstrably reality because if conflicts with their preferred mythology then yes: that person is scientifically illiterate. Irrespective of what other scientific positions they DO accept.
You either accept reality, or you don't. And people who reject evolution do not accept reality.
"People who have said that all religious people are scientifically illiterate have already been shown to be wrong many times over."
Not all religious people reject evolution. Creationists are actually a minority, globally. For good reason; because evolution is demonstrable, and creationism would be evidently false even IF a god actually existed.
I will say that all religious people hold irrational beliefs; because not once, ever, has any religious person ever offered a rational basis for their religious belief, but that's a separate issue.
It's possible to be religious and be scientifically literate.
It is not possible to be a creationist and be scientifically literate.
It's awesome how he makes it up
Hahahahaha I'm proud to be British haha
Eastern Bloc? Was this done in 1960s? Ridiculous.
Wow Neil, I thought you were smarter than that, I had some scrap metal laying around for a couple of years and one day I noticed that there’s a computer there where all the scrap metal was “ it must have been a little bang
Which means you don’t understand the evidence or physics.
@@AMC2283 no, it's loser Neil and his loser followers that run from science.
Neil deDumba$$ Tyson asked about the start of the universe and if he believes in God:
Larry King, "Who started all this; do you believe in God?"
Neil, "The proper question should be who or what started it, but I don't know. If I don't know I'm going to say I don't know."
from the beginning of this video: th-cam.com/video/v-qU4F0lNfU/w-d-xo.html
What we KNOW and have NO doubts about...
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
Neil does not know BASIC science. Not only can't we have creation without God, Neil does not know that we also can't have science without God. The laws of nature can only come from a Lawgiver, God.
Tyson says his dung at about 2:00 in the video below about the eye evolution. It is proven false in the rest of the video. But to shallow people, to hell with details and what the evidence shows. Your agenda is all that matters.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
Humanity should not exist
How do you get to hell?
Very simple: claim that you're innocent.
How do you get to heaven?
Very simple: Admit that you're not Innocent, you're guilty and ask for mercy.
How to know if you're guilty or not?
Simply: Compare your life to the Ten Commandments God gave you in the Bible.
Everyone agrees that if people followed the ten commandments there would be no need for governments or police.
Do not lie.
Do not steal.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not insult God by using his name as a cuss word.
There are six more but let's just leave it at that.
How many lies have you told in your life?
Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you?
Jesus said, if you look at a women lustfully you've already committed adultery in your heart with that woman.
How many times a day do you do that?
Do you use God's name as a cuss word?
Would you do that with your own mother's name?
If you answer these questions honestly you know that you're guilty.
God can justly punish you and send you to hell.
Ask him for mercy.
His name is Jesus.
It's as simple as this, The Ten Commandments are called the moral law. You and I broke God's laws. Jesus paid the fine.
The fine is death.
Ezekiel 18:20 -
"The soul who sins shall die.
That's why Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins. This is why God is able to give us Mercy.
Option A.
You die for your own sins.
Option B.
Ask for mercy and accept that Jesus died for you.
K
"Jesus said, if you look at a women lustfully you've already committed adultery in your heart with that woman".
He wants us to deny our (God given) nature? It's perfectly natural to have lustful thoughts. It is not a choice.
Thinking about 'sinning' is not the same as sinning.
@@eventcone
God is not the author of Temptation.
We are each drawn away by our own selfish desires.
Jesus said the same things about hate and murder.
"If you hate your brother you've already murdered him in your heart"
God does not deprive us of sex, God invented sex. Just like he invented your taste buds.
He requires that you find one woman and commit yourself to her.
You don't make the rules.
With the US being rated so low what's that say about you!!!!
That he raises the average. The U.S. would be rated even lower if he wasn't a citizen.
We have a big bang exhibit 🤣🤣🤣🤣 kind of shows how the big bang happened... Ever increasing billions of years in the past 🤣🤣🤣 based on the belief that if you play the blackjack tables long enough....🤣🤣🤣🤣
Why does god need to be separate from evolution, why does creation need to be seprate from evolution. It's strange that people think so singularly?
Because the certain religious books don't talk about these things
Because there’s evidence for evolution…
Because it’s theologically inconsistent, heck it’s scientifically inconsistent
Speculation and guess work is NOT science.
As a man of science I hate it when people who want to believe in a lot of unproven theories in their "fake science", criticise religious for doing same.
It's very funny how, whatever Niel says about religious people applies to himself.
Science self-corrects when new knowledge is gained. Religion just entrenches itself, no matter what knowledge is gained.
I'm gonna stick with trusting science and the scientific method. After all, its science that allows you to be on the internet spouting anti-science bollocks.
@@mattsadventureswithart5764 @Making with Matt Just so you know I'm a Software engineer, so I don't need your "intro to the internet" crap.
Science being self correcting doesn't mean speculation and guess work is accepted until the right thing is discovered .
Science is NOT speculation. let that sink in. Peace.
"As a man of science "
You are most definitely NOT a man of science.
" whatever Niel says about religious people applies to himself"
However, you are a hypocrite.
@@69eddieD I've seen many ignorant, yet arrogant people of your type so I'll let you pass.
I *Believe* in the big bang theory/expansion i *BELIEVE* in evolution and here's the shocker i believe That a GOD exist
"If you don't believe there is a God, Fuck Off"- me
The difference here is that the first two beliefs are founded upon hundreds of years of scientific advancement. Your belief is founded off an ancient and unchanging religious text. Do you see the difference here?
@@evanpimley5933 NO.
@@Yeagerists1321 So you think that scientific research and religious dogma are equally valid in terms of the information they deliver?
@@evanpimley5933 yes exactly, both are in cohesion, if there is smoke, fire is present and each has a main question that can not be answered, where did the particles that collided to form the big bang come from? and where did GOD come from? Who knows, i don't let things like these concern me tho just be a good decent human being, not for hopes of eternal life or heavenly rewards or fear of hell but because it is the rite thing 2 do. But science and religion should go together like math and english.....