Yep I worked with a guy that was home schooled in a pure Christian system. I don’t know how the state allowed him to graduate. He never took a science class, I would understand if they didn’t teach evolution if it’s against their beliefs. But his ability to reason was none existent. He didnt know basic things we learned as a kid like a beaker or a flask. We did often have discussions about the Bible and he was one who thought the Bible was perfect. And god wouldn’t allow anything he didn’t want to be in the Bible to not be there
@@bobby9192I knew a guy like this too. He honestly did believe that slavery was okay if god allowed it. And shockingly he could not answer me if he would be my slave under the rules of biblical slavery. Id feed him and house him and everything, and he still said no. Weird.
“Scientists would agree otherwise…” I love how deluded theists reference “scientists” or the common phrase “Most scholars agree…” No they don’t. And you’re the furthest from an authority on any of those topics.
If you think "all scientists agree" with your premise, yet they don't all come to your conclusion, chances are that A) you misunderstand the premise B) it doesn't logically lead to your conclusion. C) both.
@@MasamiPhoenix not disagreeing with you because you're entirely right (stated at end how). However technically, math (ZFC) is definable by a core 9 axioms (extension, regularity, specification, pairing, union, replacement, infinity, power set, choice) that can be used to construct mathematics. Generally, any (ZFC focusing) mathematician would agree that these are 'true' technically. However if I proved an unproven conjecture. (which there are enough simple enough ones that an undergraduate student can solve) that can be represented in ZFC, I will have found something I can prove that 'all scientists 'agree' on', but I understand my premise and it does logically lead to my conclusion. However, in general, unless you have someone around you who is well accepted in science working with you / you are someone who is well known in science, you aren't proving anything new in a long time. So your claim may as well be true.
Most Americans don't understand much about science, theist or atheist. I think probably less than 20% of the population comprehends the phrase nature abhors a vacuum.
Yep. A really good designed Solar system wouldn't need (at least) Mercury or Pluto... And certainly not the menacing asteroids that can randomly hit the one planet hosting the supposed designer's favorite beings... 🙄
@hfdthvd you can't even show or prove anything metaphysicaly so why have a conversation about it. That's the whole idea you have zero evidence for a God for someone who can create a whole universe it seems odd he cares so much about sex, shell fish, and woman talking.
@@AquilMandiqui how is it a metaphysical claim. There are many things we can't see or hear that exist and are observable in other ways. Such as gravity which hopefully you believe is real. Just because we can't prove and observe everything at this current time does not mean the best explanation is a God. We simply don't know and that's OK. God is a short cut and an answer our ancestors came up with to explain the unexplainable. And if we look deeper actually was invented to control and subvert the masses. It's better to be skeptical till there is sufficient evidence to believe something. There is no evidence for God beyond feelings and people's testimony if you some how have some present it to the world or this show they would love to hear it.
I remember catching this call live, and his condescending attitude made it almost unbearable to listen. If I’m not mistaken, he called in again later, and unsurprisingly, that conversation went just as poorly as the first.
I’ve never been religious, but when I hear these scripted calls I imagine there must be rooms full of these guys meeting in church basements on Wednesday nights across the country, high fiving each other as they bullet point on chalkboards with totally misconceived points. How bizarre, yikes!
True! The pre-sup dialogue tree callers are so tiring. They can't hold on actual conversation, they just want to get to the next item on their flowchart!
Next time a religious apologist try the “science says so” card, he/she better come prepared with: Name of author, title of paper and journal of publication, direct quote from the paper, where it says…. “we concluded that the existence of the God of Christianity is highly likely, with a 12 sigma confidence level”, otherwise take a hike.
"Here is programming. Something we know people invented. Here is nature. Something we don't know how it got to exist. These are, as you can see, the exact same" How theists continuously fail to see the difference between these two never ceases to baffle me.
At least a third of the theist callers are either going off of the memory of, or specifically reading from an apologist script. It's so obvious, that the split second that you derail the scrip, they start getting flustered and upset.
" The modern Mephistopheles is the soft-toned preacher in his pulpit - the editorial sophist in his net- work of lies, - the political crocodile on his “planks” and his platforms.” -Arthur Desmond-1890
I mean, asking questions to understand a starting point for a conversation is totally reasonable. Not that that's what this guy was doing of course, not defending him. Just ... dont want someone absorbing this as, dont ask questions of the other person before making your point.
John's argument is basically: "Let me put words in your mouth and tell you your position so I can make an argument about something I don't understand."
@themuch21 No. Having callers who have structured their thoughts and prepared in advance is one thing, but expecting the person refuting your fallacies to stick to your script is nuts.
they think if you throw quantum in a sentence they automatically win... When really, it shows how desperate you are, referring to science everyone involved knows the caller has no clue about (nor do the hosts really, but they don't pretend they do).
@@nagranoth_ Yeah, funny how apologists often try to throw science into the mix to make themselves sound more credible, but you rarely find a scientist invoking religion to add credibility to a scientific theory.
It's likely that some of the molecular machines in living cells take advantage of quantum effects. Now all he has to do is demonstrate that such machines couldn't have arisen naturally.
Just how many times have theists tried and failed to argue the existence of a god? A million? And not once has any theist succeeded. That’s a terrible rate of success. 0%
You can explain ANYTHING away by saying it was magic, pixies, leprechauns, or a god. The problem is, we don't know if those are candidate explanations. A god must be demonstrated BEFORE we get to use it to explain things, not after.
Well, I suppose it must be if you want to adhere to logic. But must we adhere to logic? The answer is no. The universe doesn't have a mind or a heart and it does not care what humanity does. We can pretty much just do whatever we want.
I was just 7 years old when my parents took me back to the evangelical church that I was forced to attend every Sunday. As usual, all the people would start to "speak in tongues". I couldn't do it or understand it. Everyone one including my parents would start to jump up and down, flailing all over the floors knocking me out of chairs while I was getting slapped by the other members, rolling all over the floors knocking everyone else out of their chairs, screaming "blah blah blah" flailing around, flip flopping 3 rows up and down. I started to cry because it was so scary. It was that weekend that my parents spoke with the preacher saying if I could get 'the holy spirit" and do the exact same things as the others. The Pastor said to my parents to send me to him in order to "speak in tongues". The pastor's wife was gone one night and he called me parents to bring me to his house. The pastor asked me to go into a small room with a doctors table with holes in it. The pastor told me right away that "Jesus" told him to tell me to get nude and on the table. I was scared of him and followed. He then said that before we begin, that Jesus said that he has to put oil all over my body.....literally EVERYWHERE. I had my eyes closed because I was so unconfortable, but when I opened them up for a second, I saw that the pastor's pants were down. To this day, I am an Atheist. I haven't spoken to my parents in decades and am still in therapy. It wasn't bizarre to hear that us children put him into prison where he is still there today. I'm doing a lot better but still cry a little bit once in a while when i hear Christians ask me if I am a believer. I WAS JUST 7 YEARS OLD!!!!!!!!!!! And I know this still goes on today by this cult!!!
What a terrible and terrifying thing to do to a child. My heart goes out to you, I am not and never have been religious, and I’m so glad that my parents weren’t like yours. Stay strong my friend.
I don't understand why theists use this DNA as literal code argument. You'd think that the fact that the majority of scientists working in that field are not theists would debunk their argument for them before they tried to actually use it.
We don't try to debunk the argument, because it's misplaced. DNA is legitimately an encoding. Get used to the idea. It's not a threat to your worldview. Why not? Because encodings don't imply intelligence. That case would have to be made on its own merits, and that hasn't been done. It's just another example of a Begging the Question fallacy.
3 หลายเดือนก่อน +6
@@starfishsystems chemical combonations arent a code....
I don't understand why theists find the position that no one has convinced me that any gods exists is the same as saying no gods exist. If a homeless man said to me he has a $1,000 bill, I will be unconvinced until he shows it to me.
Argument from incredulity followed by argument from ignorance followed by statement of authority fallacy, followed by non sequitur fallacy, followed by god of gaps...we have fallacy bingo people.🎉
Another way to describe the invalid reasoning of the OP is that it's just a series of unsubstantiated counter-claims (listed as a top characteristic of pseudoskepticism)
Literally, the lowest level a programmer goes is Assembly, which is just a human readable version of machine instructions. We always compile it to binary code, and even that binary code when we open it is represented in hexadecimals. Actual binary, 1s and 0s are literally only used for memory manipulation within human readable code. Even that we don't really do today as those were done for performance reasons, but today's computers can handle a whole 8 bits being used to store a simple true-false value.
Going to quantum mechanics (something John most likely doesn’t understand on any level), linguistics (which is the study of how languages are structured/have evolved), and/or logic to prove the existence of a God is just folly. There’s no evidence for a God in those fields of study.
Sure about that? According to an idea in quantum physics, two particles can and occasionally do spontaneously come into existence! Almost always in outer space. If a particle and an antiparticle start to exist on the very edge of a stellar-mass blackhole's event horizon, and the antiparticle is just inside. The antiparticle will fall inside the blackhole; the particle will escape! Evidence that quantum physics allows small pockets of REAL magic in our Universe!!! Exhibit A in the metaphoricalgods exist trial!!!!!
He's using several fallacies here I would say. Watchmaker argument,God of the gaps,argument from authority, argument from incredulity, argument from complexity
@@alexhetherington8028 Non sequitur as well. Even if you could demonstrate that living things had to have been designed, it wouldn't imply the designer was supernatural, or that it created anything else, or that it cares about your sex life.
For all the sophisticated sounding blabbering that preceded this, it really just ended up being a god of the gaps argument "I don't get how DNA could have formed, therefore god".
One of the funny things about the "DNA is a code, therefore it was made by intelligence" is that even if we granted them the idea that DNA is a code, it doesn't get them there. Because if DNA is a code, then we have a black swan fallacy. We can not claim that all code comes from an intelligence. That claim is a conclusion based on the fact that all code we have encountered comes from an intelligence. Since we have classified DNA as code, we do not know if all code comes from intelligence, so we can't assume that is true anymore.
The caller is reading a series of questions and essentially interviewing the hosts, or trying to. The caller is invited to share their thinking in support of a “God” and after listening carefully for 6:30 there is no evidence the caller has a position…or a point to be made…or anything useful to me as a listener. Sorry.
time 7:45 Caller's utter lack of comprehension as he dismisses 'simple machines' and deflects to nanoscale cellular components is gratingly Dunning-Kruger territory. Ex. Scissors results from two opposing levers possessing wedges along the inside edge, thus combining several 'simple' machines. The true usefulness is in the versatility and scalability of this 'compound' machine. To be pedantic, molecular 'machines' such as enzymes alter molecules by making and breaking chemical bonds. This is accomplished by repositioning (electrochemical gradients) 'charges'. Though they may, by analogy, be referred to as molecular 'scissors' they are not interchangeable, except amongst void that is the God of the Gaps fallacy.
About the computer stuff. Although we use transistors, OPAMs and more. The basics are really, really simple. One of the gates is literally a cable. "The complexity" is just repeating the same over and over again.
Actually, I didn't find much word salad beyond his intro description of his methods of argument. After that, it was just a string of easily parsable fallacies.
God is amazing and very intelligent. As we all know, intelligence can only come from intelligence. Therefore God was designed by Supergod. Therefore Supergod exists.
And there's Supergod II. Supergod III. Supergod IV. Supergod god. Supergod Blue. Supergod Ultra ego. Supergod ultra instinct. And that isn't even his final form! When will it ever end?
binary is not intrinsically a "language" . we have found a way to use it as a language. wo many callers need to get their ideas spoken out loud to a person that can review their ideas with criticism, before they bring them on these shows, before they make their arguments their identity. i really do think the callers do not have enough friends IRL to talk to about their ideas. friends that have experiences outside of their own.
It always make great sense in the mind of someone who has no understanding of what they’re talking about right up to the point when it’s said out loud in the president of someone else!
Persistence in attempting to force them into a corner where they MUST accede to the veracity of his assertions is admirable! Desperation is an unkind master! Yes, I realise that was nineteen years ago!
Right. Barrow from consciousness and metaphysical idealism in order to support a blind process completely based on chance. It really is easy to understand, that if evolution were taking place the way you and your people say it does, that we would see something like Australopithecus or Homo erectus walking around today
Random chance doesn't mean we can't backtrack it. Evolution is based on random, but at the end, we can know who's more likely to survive. And more importantly : if we are so good at backtracking it, it's because there are so many animals, and we can backtrack it by noticing the differences If you have 10 people on a room, give a drawing to one of them, ask him to replicate it and show it to another person on the room that didn't get it (choosed by a dice roll) that will do the same thing. At the end, you take a look at every drawing, you will easiely be able to say who showed it to who. The order was randomly chosen, yet you can backtrack what's the order. So that conclusion isn't true
@@quentind1924 Evolution as it is explained by evidence destroying professors in public schools is an atheistic creation myth. Many atheists and theists argue about that, but it has been stated by atheists in the past, and we can see why they would honestly say that. The claims get rid of intelligent design. It makes everything completely materialistic. Some theists act like atheist lap dogs.. They deny the power of God but they want to keep the appearance for whatever reason. Maybe out of fear, just in case God might send them to hell. Maybe they're just comfortable in their upbringing. But it's a worthless kowtowing and pandering to materialism and Woke Cultural. They're like the "familiars" in vampire stories. "Useful idiots" in Soviet Union stories
@@Atreyu-81 Do you have evidence for your other spurious claim elsewhere, of atheists... supporting... g'rape, on here? And as for blind processes - it's a huge universe, and a huge system. 'Blind' or 'guided' are both human assumptions, made on limited data. Chance also doesn't describe the stochastic data. Or even a Markov Chain...
Geneticist here! I do not in fact agree with John. Calling DNA a code is a useful analogy, a practical bit of fiction. While it does help better explain what DNA is and what it does, it's also a trap in its own way. Much as atoms are not, in fact, balls of protons and neutrons with electrons orbiting circularly around them, DNA is not a code, but chemicals that behave in a manner that humans understand to be code-like. Only, that's not nearly as succinct.
Well, as you can see it can be very misleading to people to call DNA code, they're then comparing it to computer code. Just call it what it is: chemical molecule containing building instructions for proteins. BTW describing atom as ball with circular electron orbits is much closer to reality than calling DNA code. The only difference between laymen's atom and the real one is that electron orbits which are not circular. 🙂
You're right, and you're wrong. Yes it is NOT a code, if with code you mean something similar to a programming language. And that is the analogy often used, so it bears pointing out that towards _that_ kind of code it is just an analogy. But from an information theory perspective, specifically signalling theory, DNA IS a code and IS information. But in the most basic sense of the meaning: one thing representing another thing. DNA does represent which proteins get made after all (and so many more complex things that you know a shitload more about than I do), so in that sense it is a code. This explicitly does NOT imply an intentional sender, receiver or any intelligence in signalling theory though. Signalling theory is about how these codes develop unintentionally in nature. See John Perry's Stated Clearly channel for a short explanation of what I mean. I'm not arguing against you here, just letting you know other perspectives within science DO consider DNA a code, but not in any way similar to what creationists pretend it is.
@@nagranoth_ As always, when conflict comes about in terminology, it's useful to remember that there is no objective, authoritative, or prescriptive meaning to words: words mean whatever we agree they mean when exchanging them. The issue with the whole "DNA is code" problem is that most scientists are using it metaphorically to imply a similarity to what people _often_ and _typically_ mean when they use the term "code", _computer_ code, and then creationists will take that analogy to an unreasonable and quasi-literal extreme, thus engaging in a fallacy. Your broadened variation of the term "code" is so open as to make explaining the fallacy to the creationist only more problematic. It's not that I think you're incorrect, only that I think adding such an open and uncommon use of the term is not likely to help in a discussion between someone making the analogy and someone misusing it.
John from TN is used to "winning" arguments with a dense repertoire of tech idioms. Most folk in Appalachia thereabouts will acquiesce to the power of words, not ideas. Verbum Vincet 😁
When it comea to cells being complex, yes, after something has slowly changed over billions of years, would he complex. Early life however wasn't as complex. Also complexity is evidence against creation and design, not evidence for it, certainly not for intelligent design, at best it proves incompetent design.
Dumb argument. It doesn't tell anyone why chaos or imperfect designs took place, nor does it say intelligent designs don't exist because they have flaws
@@Atreyu-81 Intelligent design is nonsensical man made idea how to explain nature by ancient ignorant goat herders who didn't know where Sun goes at night. It's unbelievable people still believe such BS today.
@@Atreyu-81" intelligent designs" 1... Male mammals have none functioning nipples. 2... We pee through our sex organs. 3... You can die from diseases acquired while trying to reproduce. 4... Most of the water on earth is fatal if drunk by humans. 5... Most of the planet is hostile to unprotected humans. 6... Above around 15,000 feet there is not enough oxygen to allow you to live. 7... The planet has thousands of diseases that can injure or kill you... 8... Large quantities of fruits, plants and even some animals are too toxic to eat.. 9... There are thousands of insects that can annoy or kill you... 10.. Many large animals will kill you for food. 11.. Many other humans will kill you, some for food... 12.. The sun will kill you if you get too much exposure... 13.. There are toxic elements that can kill you. 14.. Volcanoes, weather, earthquakes and such can and do kill people.... 15.. One day the sun will expand and destroy our home planet, that is if a comet or asteroid doesn't kill us first... 16.. Birth defects can kill or maim you... 17.. You are one of several billion lifeforms that evolved over billions of years, on one of bunch of non-descript planets, asteroids and rocks, orbiting a mid-range yellow G-class star, itself, only one of hundreds of billions in a backwards part of the Milky Way galaxy, which in of itself is one of hundreds of billions galaxies, many larger than our own, in a perhaps infinite universe that may be one of an infinite number of universes, that may have thousands if not billions of other intelligent life forms, in one tiny slice of time out of billions of years.... And you think it's all about YOU.... How f**king sad is that.... 18.. Mental illnesses... 19.. Allergies to plants, foods, metals, pretty much anything are not unusual... 20.. Your eyesight, strength and physical capabilities are less than many other animals... 21.. You can die from drinking too much water.. (No I don't mean drowning...(#22) 23.. Your testicles have to hang below your body because so called Fine Tuning didn't allow for the need for them to be cooler than if they were inside your body... 24.. Women can die in childbirth. 25.. Parts of your body are redundant... Appendix, tonsils, tail bones etc... 26.. Most of the universe is unreachable to us.... Why is it there? 27.. Most of the universe is fatal to humans yet Tardigrades can exist in many places we would die... Is it fine tuned for the Tardigrade? 28.. This may not be the only universe. Maybe this one is broken in ways we can't imagine... 29.. There is no proof that this universe has not always existed. 30.. We do not know if there are other lifeforms out there that are better suited to this universe. 34.. For all you know, we may be a food crop seeded here by another race.... 35.. When this planet was formed, it didn't support life at all... 36.. Why, if this is fine tuned, is the universe not absolutely perfect for us? 37.. The Earth's orbit around the sun is not a perfect circle. It's about 5 million km closer on one side than the other and also changes each year. 38.. The moon is slowly drifting further and further from Earth...It's orbit also changes over time... 39.. We fit into this universe because we can. If the universe was different the way we fit would probably be different and people would think that one was fine tuned for us... 40.. Why do humans kill each other. 41.. So god "designs" us with a foreskin then demands we cut it off. Kind of weird that. 42.. "Situs Inversus" is a condition where your internal organs are reversed compared to most. 43.. Some humans are still born with vestigial tails... 44.. Tell me about women who have 3 breasts... how do two on one side and one on the other show symmetry? 45.. Tell me about men born with 1 testicle? 46.. Polyorchidism is a very rare condition. Men with this condition are born with more than two testes, also known as testicles or gonads. 47. Uterine Didelphys is a disorder present before birth in which a female develops two uteruses instead of one. 48. RANCHI: A girl born with three eyes and two noses has been attracting hordes of people who believe her to be an incarnation of Hindu god Shiva. 49. The Earth's rotation is slowing down. 50. The Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth. 51. Some animals can see polarised light. Most humans can not. 52. While the conditions for the creation of life are seemingly improbable, all other conditions are equally improbable. 53. If this universe is intelligently designed, then why is so much of it out of reach and for the most part not even visible to us. 54. Why can't animals talk? 55. Why do people have different levels of intelligence? 56. If the universe did not develop this way, then maybe it would be suited for some other form of life that might have ended up thinking about how the universe was intelligently designed for them... 57. Why would anyone think that this universe, billions of light years across that we will not even likely ever get to see or ever reach , was fine tuned for anyone? 58. If the universe was fine tuned, then why isn't there life on every planet? 59. Recurrent laryngeal nerve that starts at the top of the neck, goes down into the chest, loops under the aorta, the comes back up to the larynx in many creatures. 60. There are creatures that reproduce by implanting their larva in other creatures to eat them alive from within. 61. Parasitic organisms such as tapeworms. 62. Our so perfectly designed universe, purposefully made for us could, at any point, wipe us out with a random gamma ray burst, or meteor or solar flare. 63. Jellyfish are essentially immortal being unable to die of old age. Why aren't we? 64. This entire universe may one day collapse back in on itself to create yet another singularity that may eventually expand into a new universe. 65 Your digestive juices can eat away at your stomach causing ulcers even death... 66. Your tongue can fall into the back of your throat cutting off your air supply and killing you... 67. Regurgitating digestive juices can damage vocal cords and or the lungs... 68. You can have food allergies to common human foods... 69. Parasitic worms can survive in your digestive tract 70. Loons are ducks with feet that cannot support the bird and it cannot walk. It will die within inches of water because it can't get to it. 71. The Sun can give you cancer 72. Magpies injure around 6,000 people a year. 73. Many other creatures have longer lives than us. 74. Babies heads are often too large to pass through the birth canal.
Common symptoms during a seizure Awareness, Sensory, Emotional or Thought Changes: Loss of awareness (often called “black out”) Confused, feeling spacey Periods of forgetfulness or memory lapses Distracted, daydreaming Loss of consciousness, unconscious, or “pass out” Unable to hear Sounds may be strange or different Unusual smells (often bad smells like burning rubber) Unusual tastes Loss of vision or unable to see Blurry vision Flashing lights Formed visual hallucinations (objects or things are seen that aren’t really there) Numbness, tingling, or electric shock like feeling in body, arm or leg Out of body sensations Feeling detached Déjà vu or jamais vu Body parts feels or looks different Feeling of panic, fear, impending doom (intense feeling that something bad is going to happen) Pleasant feelings Physical Changes: Difficulty talking (may stop talking, make nonsense or garbled sounds, keep talking or speech may not make sense) Unable to swallow, drooling Repeated blinking of eyes, eyes may move to one side or look upward, or staring Lack of movement or muscle tone (unable to move, loss of tone in neck and head may drop forward, loss of muscle tone in body and person may slump or fall forward) Tremors, twitching or jerking movements (may occur on one or both sides of face, arms, legs or whole body; may start in one area then spread to other areas or stay in one place) Rigid or tense muscles (part of the body or whole body may feel very tight or tense and if standing, may fall “like a tree trunk”) Repeated non-purposeful movements, called automatisms, involve the face, arms or legs, such as lipsmacking or chewing movements repeated movements of hands, like wringing, playing with buttons or objects in hands, waving dressing or undressing walking or running Repeated purposeful movements (person may continue activity that was going on before the seizure) Convulsion (person loses consciousness, body becomes rigid or tense, then fast jerking movements occur) Losing control of urine or stool unexpectedly Sweating Change in skin color (looks pale or flushed) Pupils may dilate or appear larger than normal Biting of tongue (from teeth clenching when muscles tighten) Difficulty breathing Heart racing Sure, let’s call these misfirings of the brain “intelligent design”. 🤦♂️🙄
Computer scientist here, binary in itself definitely isn't a language. The way we encode and decode binary can technically be called a language though. Him being so smug about it makes me cringe, lol.
What I dont get is when you have to talk fast, use words you dont understand, attempt to trick the other person into saying something you want, lie about them saying that when they dont and get exponentially more agitated as you go on because you know you cant do the trickery you set out to do, just dont realize you are up to no good? You know it is not good behavior. I understand the agenda. But you are doing bad things, harming yourself, for bad reasons. If you have proof, present it. If you are asked a question you cant answer without exposing yourself, answer it and face the truth. If you do, one day you will look back and appreciate what an honest debate can do for you.
Yet, something within you wants to hear it again and then other arguments you've already heard a billion times. You and so many of your atheist brethren can't get enough religious talk. You're more obsessed with god than the typical theist is
@@Atreyu-81 What does that got to do with the caller's bad argument? And does the caller's poor attempt to prove his god have to do with your bizarre need to call atheism a religion? Is that because you know how bad religion is and want to try to associate atheism to it?
@@Atreyu-81 "You're more obsessed with god than the typical theist is" It's self defense. Look at you, you're so obsessed with woke and atheism you have to go to atheist channel to troll there. 😀Do you know how it is called? *Hypocrisy.*
Damon DonKey thought she had heard That AXP folks read his every word but was deeply offended his reality upended To find he's ignored like every other troll turd.
Word games!!, I win!, so Listen to me with respect, do what I tell you to do, live your life the way I tell you to live and give me money!" "I speak for the bible which means I speak for god, so OBEY ME!" “And if you refuse it is because you are full of the “Sin of pride”, you want to enjoy your life of sin!” So listen to me, obey me as if I am god, and most important, GIVE ME MONEY!”
Get off your high horse, heathen, nobody cares what you do. Nobody wants or needs your money. You're a weirdo minority that pops up with annoying screaming and snarling from time to time. No one cares
DonKey's topic of the week is teleology His latest attempt at using demagogy Quoting somebody McKenna On his way to Gehenna And battling his own androgyny!
Even if there was a supernatural intelligence that created the universe, that has nothing to do with the thousands of human-invented religions, gods, and saviors. Therefore, whatever caused the creation of the universe does not need to be prayed to, worshiped, or feared.
06:29 I hung on in there as long as I could but this is such a time-wasting and convoluted way to get to the bloody point that I won't be watching further. DEMONSTRATE the existence of a god or shut up!
Jesus has a broken heart over all the poor apologists trying to talk him into existence ! St Peter is instructed to never let them through the pearly gates.
The thing John really needs to understand is the difference between a 'language' a medium to convey information between two people. and a 'language' a medium to instruct a program to do something, and the way the program understands a 'language'. The first is talking how we do between people. The second is the form a computer programmer uses. The last is the physical wires that are running the program. He talks about the first form if 'language' but uses it to describe the third form which isn't even a language. To show the difference, we could consider a person making a machine that throws dust to form cool arrangements. The person first plans and makes the machine with other people in a first form language. Then they will construct a second form language that tells the machine what formations the dust should form. However, the machine doesn't 'interpret' the instructions. We have simply positioned the machine's components in such a way, that physically there is no way for the dust to move in a different way than we wanted it to. A simple example of such a construction is if the dust falls from a height, and the 'machine' is simply gravity which pulls it down to earth. This machine could also be formed by random luck when the wind pushes the dust into the air in interesting ways, it forms incredible 'information'. This is wrong that because there is no physical 'information', only what would naturally happen when dust gets hit by wind.
If you explain something with a god, then you must explain where god came from. Some theists overlook that nature can create things, a tree for example, and wrongfully assume that since trees are a creation, therefore there must be an intelligent god who creates trees, flowers, viruses, bacteria, diseases, cats whatever. Oh look a new star, must be a supernatural creator. Meanwhile in reality natural processes create things.
@@Atreyu-81 "Which is just as magical and mysterious without consciousness to guide the initial design" Nature has no obligation to make sense to anybody. I'm NOT sorry for your ignorance. 🙂
@@Seticzech And someone can say the same thing about the creation process. Technology is a mind's ability to manipulate or control matter and energy. So "magic" is just a word we use for technology we don't understand
@@Atreyu-81 After Arthur C Clarke. But that reduces your god to an alien with superior technology. If it’s a product of nature, I don’t have a problem with that. It’s when you start to assign properties without evidence that we have an issue, like insisting intelligence is required for nature to exist. That’s just not supported by the data.
I’ll never understand how theist go from the analogy dna is like a code to dna is programming language and real code and therefore there must be high level programmer aka god is the ultimate programmer and not only god but the personal god of the Bible of a particular denomination
The caller's questions are quite aggressive and demanding: 'Do you agree bla bla bla...' A better and more polite approach would be: 'What do you think about the idea ...'
This is like arguing that I don’t need food because I’m part of a family tree and trees get their energy from photosynthesis. DNA isn’t literally a programming language.
@3:51 Does this guy not understand that whale songs insist of a language? Does he not realize that the chirps of crickets can act as both mating calls and signals of distress?
Imagine standing in front of a friend while having a conversation. This friend can hear you, touch you, and smell you. But you spend the whole conversation trying to convince ypur friend that you exist..... the friend will look at u crazy. Because it is very OBVIOUS that u exist. Therefore, convincing is NOT needed. If god exists, nobody would need to be convinced.
@@Atreyu-81 "People need to know what you are and why you support Woke Culture" People need to know what you are and why you are a moron? Were you dropped on your head a lot as an infant? Your mommy do a lot of drugs and booze while she was carrying your uncles's baby? Or did you have a brain injury yourself?
It's unbearable to talk with any people who insist on continuously talking over you or interrupting by repeating something like "yea..... yea.... yea... yea... yea" .... My own dad has done it my entire life, and recently when he starts to interrupt me, I stop my entire sentence and say "......do you want to finish my sentence for me? what was I going to say?" .... then he gets ashamed and stops his interruptions for entire 2 minutes, after which he completely forgets that I will repeat the same procedure as often as it takes :D
Nothing to argue about. I want to spread the good news to you and save your eternal soul from sin! The TRUTH of the one living God Begochiddy has been written divinely on your heart and spleen. You just angrily deny it! You have turned from Begochiddy's love and lead to a FALSE God and it's cult of deluded followers who are idolaters worshipping the image of the crucifix that the false God's demonic offspring was nailed upon! You must repent, renounce your sins, humbled yourself on bended knees, and begged the one TRUE living God Begochiddy to embrace you in his loving arms. Paradise awaits you in the afterlife in the bosom of the one and ONLY living God Begochiddy. 🤣🤣
Nothing to argue about, so far no evidence for the existence of any god was presented outside of baseless claims from a holy text. Remember, *a holy text is the claim and does NOT count as evidence!*
Yes, all you have to do is convince children and rubes, and then teach them to validate with others, and *poof* your religion survives for another generation.
It's insane how someone can just talk and talk and talk but manage to say nothing, then pause for someone's response, not really comprehend or even listen half the time, then talk and talk and talk again. He just keeps going.....and going.
Caller proves that metaphors are like scissors, they are dangerous when you run with them.
@@simonkoster this is good ❤
@@simonkoster Especially, when that metaphor involves a very technical and controversial (at least in the minds of theists) subject.
You have two points there
OH MY GOD!!! I fell off my toilet laughing
Brought to you by the bible belt homeschooling system
🤦🏻
Designed in North Korea, by kim jong un .....................
"forever teaching you how to be Stoopid"
Yep I worked with a guy that was home schooled in a pure Christian system. I don’t know how the state allowed him to graduate. He never took a science class, I would understand if they didn’t teach evolution if it’s against their beliefs. But his ability to reason was none existent. He didnt know basic things we learned as a kid like a beaker or a flask.
We did often have discussions about the Bible and he was one who thought the Bible was perfect. And god wouldn’t allow anything he didn’t want to be in the Bible to not be there
@@bobby9192I knew a guy like this too. He honestly did believe that slavery was okay if god allowed it. And shockingly he could not answer me if he would be my slave under the rules of biblical slavery. Id feed him and house him and everything, and he still said no. Weird.
“Scientists would agree otherwise…” I love how deluded theists reference “scientists” or the common phrase “Most scholars agree…” No they don’t. And you’re the furthest from an authority on any of those topics.
Scientists would largely agree that god hypotheses are unsound. It's so weird when apologists want to cite them as authoritative.
@@AbsurdlyGeeky
Because they recognise that most people would accept them as being more authoritative on truth than the average preacher...
That's the most irritating thing about them. The cocksure attitude that what they say is true, based on.......them saying it.
If you think "all scientists agree" with your premise, yet they don't all come to your conclusion, chances are that
A) you misunderstand the premise
B) it doesn't logically lead to your conclusion.
C) both.
@@MasamiPhoenix not disagreeing with you because you're entirely right (stated at end how). However technically, math (ZFC) is definable by a core 9 axioms (extension, regularity, specification, pairing, union, replacement, infinity, power set, choice) that can be used to construct mathematics.
Generally, any (ZFC focusing) mathematician would agree that these are 'true' technically.
However if I proved an unproven conjecture. (which there are enough simple enough ones that an undergraduate student can solve) that can be represented in ZFC, I will have found something I can prove that 'all scientists 'agree' on', but I understand my premise and it does logically lead to my conclusion.
However, in general, unless you have someone around you who is well accepted in science working with you / you are someone who is well known in science, you aren't proving anything new in a long time. So your claim may as well be true.
Dude needs to stop treating the ScyFi channel as an source for education and laughing at people who actually understand science.
Pretty sure this guy would be a bigger fan of The 'History' Channel.
Most Americans don't understand much about science, theist or atheist. I think probably less than 20% of the population comprehends the phrase nature abhors a vacuum.
Why was life created?
@@drganknstein Life was created so we can fuck god in the ass until he cries for my mercy.
@@drganknstein who cares? Just enjoy being here and making the most of your time.
complexity does not indicate good design. really good design is as simple as possible to reduce errors from complexity.
Exactly. The more complexity, the more failure points are inserted.
Yep.
A really good designed Solar system wouldn't need (at least) Mercury or Pluto... And certainly not the menacing asteroids that can randomly hit the one planet hosting the supposed designer's favorite beings... 🙄
@hfdthvd you can't even show or prove anything metaphysicaly so why have a conversation about it. That's the whole idea you have zero evidence for a God for someone who can create a whole universe it seems odd he cares so much about sex, shell fish, and woman talking.
@@AquilMandiqui how is it a metaphysical claim. There are many things we can't see or hear that exist and are observable in other ways. Such as gravity which hopefully you believe is real. Just because we can't prove and observe everything at this current time does not mean the best explanation is a God. We simply don't know and that's OK. God is a short cut and an answer our ancestors came up with to explain the unexplainable. And if we look deeper actually was invented to control and subvert the masses. It's better to be skeptical till there is sufficient evidence to believe something. There is no evidence for God beyond feelings and people's testimony if you some how have some present it to the world or this show they would love to hear it.
@@AquilMandiquiSo you've detected the undetectable? Go get your noble!
I remember catching this call live, and his condescending attitude made it almost unbearable to listen. If I’m not mistaken, he called in again later, and unsurprisingly, that conversation went just as poorly as the first.
When they confidently claim they'll use quantum mechanics to demonstrate god, you know it's gonna be painful.
@@NotAPacifist825Because if they actually could do that, they would be accepting a Nobel prize instead of calling an atheism show.
@@NotAPacifist825 in new age spiritual communities too, as soon as I hear someone use the word quantum, I know imma about to be hit by cringe
@@Pyrrhonian I have a sadomasochistic fantasy/nightmare of Jordan Peterson in conversation with Deepak Chopra for 2 hours. 😳
We just heard an "A grade" w__k_r apply his trade.
I’ve never been religious, but when I hear these scripted calls I imagine there must be rooms full of these guys meeting in church basements on Wednesday nights across the country, high fiving each other as they bullet point on chalkboards with totally misconceived points. How bizarre, yikes!
True! The pre-sup dialogue tree callers are so tiring. They can't hold on actual conversation, they just want to get to the next item on their flowchart!
Apologist wannabes...getting rich without working, just by lying...
Next time a religious apologist try the “science says so” card, he/she better come prepared with: Name of author, title of paper and journal of publication, direct quote from the paper, where it says…. “we concluded that the existence of the God of Christianity is highly likely, with a 12 sigma confidence level”, otherwise take a hike.
This caller almost reaches the stupidity of Deepak Chopra.
no ,he reached your level of stupidity;Chopra is an American educated MD;are you saying that schools in America graduate stupid students ?
His real name is not-so-Deepak
worse
DNA isn’t a code or a language. It’s an acid. That’s the “A” in “DNA”, John.
"Here is programming. Something we know people invented.
Here is nature. Something we don't know how it got to exist.
These are, as you can see, the exact same"
How theists continuously fail to see the difference between these two never ceases to baffle me.
Caller following a script
a really bad one. Well, that actually goes without saying, they're always bad.
Yeah, he tried to monologue and got frustrated and snippy when he didn't get the answers his script relied on.
@@pdav1285scientists would agree John's panties are still bunched up to this day
At least a third of the theist callers are either going off of the memory of, or specifically reading from an apologist script. It's so obvious, that the split second that you derail the scrip, they start getting flustered and upset.
The poor guy spent the first six minutes building up to a gotcha, and it failed.
After that it was just so much drivel.
Give me your best argument for the existence of God. Okay, let me spend 10 minutes asking you questions.
Yeah... Thats the problem. They think their best is so simple... Until they try to verbalize it and all the convolution falls out
So yeah, like would you agree that blah blah blah blah blah?
" The modern Mephistopheles is the soft-toned preacher in his pulpit - the editorial sophist in his net- work of lies, - the political crocodile on his “planks” and his platforms.”
-Arthur Desmond-1890
I mean, asking questions to understand a starting point for a conversation is totally reasonable. Not that that's what this guy was doing of course, not defending him. Just ... dont want someone absorbing this as, dont ask questions of the other person before making your point.
John's argument is basically: "Let me put words in your mouth and tell you your position so I can make an argument about something I don't understand."
Like JP, but worse.
@@jonathanj8303 Who is JP?
@@pdav1285 He probably means Jordan Peterson, since he's the guy that redefines words to the point where communication is impossible.
@@magnatcleo2043 Okay, thanks. That makes sense.
@@pdav1285 Jordan Peterson. The man who puts the babble in psychobabble.
You can see the flow chart in front of him
"That's not what you're supposed to say, I've got your next line here.."
Yeah, but this isn't necessary a bad thing. I think calls can benefit from more structure.
@themuch21 No. Having callers who have structured their thoughts and prepared in advance is one thing, but expecting the person refuting your fallacies to stick to your script is nuts.
@@themuch21 When you can predict the next 10 minutes the moment the caller brings up language and intelligence, that's too predictable.
A flow chart has branch points. All he had was a script, and when they refused to follow his script he had nothing left.
As soon as he mentioned quantum mechanics, I knew he was going to go right off the rails.
they think if you throw quantum in a sentence they automatically win... When really, it shows how desperate you are, referring to science everyone involved knows the caller has no clue about (nor do the hosts really, but they don't pretend they do).
@@nagranoth_ Yeah, funny how apologists often try to throw science into the mix to make themselves sound more credible, but you rarely find a scientist invoking religion to add credibility to a scientific theory.
For me, it was when he mentioned linguistics.
@@GalapagosPete
Touché!
It's likely that some of the molecular machines in living cells take advantage of quantum effects. Now all he has to do is demonstrate that such machines couldn't have arisen naturally.
Just how many times have theists tried and failed to argue the existence of a god? A million? And not once has any theist succeeded. That’s a terrible rate of success. 0%
Saying that someone succeeded or not in demonstrating something is subjective though.
You can explain ANYTHING away by saying it was magic, pixies, leprechauns, or a god. The problem is, we don't know if those are candidate explanations. A god must be demonstrated BEFORE we get to use it to explain things, not after.
So many don't see that they are doing just that.😢
Well, I suppose it must be if you want to adhere to logic. But must we adhere to logic? The answer is no. The universe doesn't have a mind or a heart and it does not care what humanity does. We can pretty much just do whatever we want.
Sigh.... It WAS Pixies and Leprechauns who did it. Even they know that DNA is a code...
I was just 7 years old when my parents took me back to the evangelical church that I was forced to attend every Sunday. As usual, all the people would start to "speak in tongues". I couldn't do it or understand it. Everyone one including my parents would start to jump up and down, flailing all over the floors knocking me out of chairs while I was getting slapped by the other members, rolling all over the floors knocking everyone else out of their chairs, screaming "blah blah blah" flailing around, flip flopping 3 rows up and down. I started to cry because it was so scary. It was that weekend that my parents spoke with the preacher saying if I could get 'the holy spirit" and do the exact same things as the others. The Pastor said to my parents to send me to him in order to "speak in tongues".
The pastor's wife was gone one night and he called me parents to bring me to his house. The pastor asked me to go into a small room with a doctors table with holes in it. The pastor told me right away that "Jesus" told him to tell me to get nude and on the table. I was scared of him and followed. He then said that before we begin, that Jesus said that he has to put oil all over my body.....literally EVERYWHERE. I had my eyes closed because I was so unconfortable, but when I opened them up for a second, I saw that the pastor's pants were down.
To this day, I am an Atheist. I haven't spoken to my parents in decades and am still in therapy. It wasn't bizarre to hear that us children put him into prison where he is still there today. I'm doing a lot better but still cry a little bit once in a while when i hear Christians ask me if I am a believer. I WAS JUST 7 YEARS OLD!!!!!!!!!!! And I know this still goes on today by this cult!!!
What a terrible and terrifying thing to do to a child. My heart goes out to you, I am not and never have been religious, and I’m so glad that my parents weren’t like yours. Stay strong my friend.
@@thomaswigfield7623 Thanks very much for your kindness. I am doing so much better today.
And they talk about morals. What fkn nerve.
@@Alen-gr1xm True, my friend. Their beliefs don't hide their desires.....
Honey wake up, new pasta dropped
“I’m like super smart… trust me.”
All this guy is doing is going down a checklist of questions to ask, to determine which part of the script he jumps to next.
I don't understand why theists use this DNA as literal code argument. You'd think that the fact that the majority of scientists working in that field are not theists would debunk their argument for them before they tried to actually use it.
We don't try to debunk the argument, because it's misplaced. DNA is legitimately an encoding. Get used to the idea. It's not a threat to your worldview.
Why not? Because encodings don't imply intelligence. That case would have to be made on its own merits, and that hasn't been done. It's just another example of a Begging the Question fallacy.
@@starfishsystems chemical combonations arent a code....
@@starfishsystemsclaiming DNA is a code is as absurd as saying bricks are code for a house.
" Faith in the supernatural begins as faith in the superiority of others."
-Ayn Rand-
@@BeefT-Sq Faith is indistinguishable from stupidity and a licence for liars and charlatans to exploit the fearful, desperate and vulnerable.
Talk about a script.
That's all John did, God help him.
I don't understand why theists find the position that no one has convinced me that any gods exists is the same as saying no gods exist. If a homeless man said to me he has a $1,000 bill, I will be unconvinced until he shows it to me.
Argument from incredulity followed by argument from ignorance followed by statement of authority fallacy, followed by non sequitur fallacy, followed by god of gaps...we have fallacy bingo people.🎉
I claim my prize, please!
@@danielkeizer4174 thanks for breaking that down! 🙏🫡
The OP is a series of baseless assertion fallacies itself.
Another way to describe the invalid reasoning of the OP is that it's just a series of unsubstantiated counter-claims (listed as a top characteristic of pseudoskepticism)
@@PhDPaul922I didn't know you could get a PHD in stupidity.
Laughed out loud when he said he would support the god claim with quantum mechanics of all things.
Hes saying there are no levers in the human body when in reality the muscular-skeletal system is full of them.
Really? Where? (Not a theist but also not a scientist)
Nobody codes directly in binary code.
...the amount of stuff people talk about without any idea how stupid they sound.
I actually learned to code directly on an 8086 processor with registers and command codes and all. And STILL we put the codes in as hexadecimals....
@@nagranoth_
Customer: "we need to sell our servive through an API"
Me: "Sure! 0100101010010010101010101001010100101010100101001010101..."
:D :D
Literally, the lowest level a programmer goes is Assembly, which is just a human readable version of machine instructions. We always compile it to binary code, and even that binary code when we open it is represented in hexadecimals. Actual binary, 1s and 0s are literally only used for memory manipulation within human readable code. Even that we don't really do today as those were done for performance reasons, but today's computers can handle a whole 8 bits being used to store a simple true-false value.
@@nagranoth_ "I actually learned to code directly on an 8086 processor" Me too. Actually it was Z80. 😀Great times.
@@katamas832 well, if you're doing embedded code you might still do actual bit manipulation, because the chip can be cheaper then.
Going to quantum mechanics (something John most likely doesn’t understand on any level), linguistics (which is the study of how languages are structured/have evolved), and/or logic to prove the existence of a God is just folly.
There’s no evidence for a God in those fields of study.
Sure about that? According to an idea in quantum physics, two particles can and occasionally do spontaneously come into existence! Almost always in outer space. If a particle and an antiparticle start to exist on the very edge of a stellar-mass blackhole's event horizon, and the antiparticle is just inside. The antiparticle will fall inside the blackhole; the particle will escape! Evidence that quantum physics allows small pockets of REAL magic in our Universe!!! Exhibit A in the metaphoricalgods exist trial!!!!!
So the caller is just using the watchmaker argument?
Maybe John’s surname is Paley?
He's using several fallacies here I would say. Watchmaker argument,God of the gaps,argument from authority, argument from incredulity, argument from complexity
@@alexhetherington8028 Non sequitur as well. Even if you could demonstrate that living things had to have been designed, it wouldn't imply the designer was supernatural, or that it created anything else, or that it cares about your sex life.
People like John are NEVER wrong, will never admit it or even bother to listen.
John has wasted twenty years reading books without understanding the words.
He doesn't need an argument. He's not asserting anything. You are!
For all the sophisticated sounding blabbering that preceded this, it really just ended up being a god of the gaps argument "I don't get how DNA could have formed, therefore god".
@@RighteousnessWillPrevail And if "God" is not real, you have made people's one and only lives in this world massively worse.
No thanks.
Saying “Cells are AI robots” is like saying “Creation”. If you’re gonna _call_ it “artificial” up front, that’s just on you.
He acted like he was gonna bring some new and super well thought out argument and then just immediately went to the old “dna is code” stuff lol
One of the funny things about the "DNA is a code, therefore it was made by intelligence" is that even if we granted them the idea that DNA is a code, it doesn't get them there.
Because if DNA is a code, then we have a black swan fallacy. We can not claim that all code comes from an intelligence. That claim is a conclusion based on the fact that all code we have encountered comes from an intelligence. Since we have classified DNA as code, we do not know if all code comes from intelligence, so we can't assume that is true anymore.
If we claim nature has no intelligence then we have to acknowledge that something stupider than us is what created us.
This guy brought a fallacy-laden script to a logic fight.
The caller is reading a series of questions and essentially interviewing the hosts, or trying to. The caller is invited to share their thinking in support of a “God” and after listening carefully for 6:30 there is no evidence the caller has a position…or a point to be made…or anything useful to me as a listener. Sorry.
"A little learning is a dangerous thing!"-
- Alexander Pope
Not halfway so dangerous as a hell of a lot of ignorance.
“If you’ll just give up your critical faculties, a world of idiotic bliss can be yours.”
- Christopher Hitchens
"But no knowledge at all is absolutely lethal".
With apologies to Radio Active.
bla, bla, bla, bla, 8 minutes in and said actually nothing
time 7:45 Caller's utter lack of comprehension as he dismisses 'simple machines' and deflects to nanoscale cellular components is gratingly Dunning-Kruger territory.
Ex. Scissors results from two opposing levers possessing wedges along the inside edge, thus combining several 'simple' machines. The true usefulness is in the versatility and scalability of this 'compound' machine.
To be pedantic, molecular 'machines' such as enzymes alter molecules by making and breaking chemical bonds. This is accomplished by repositioning (electrochemical gradients) 'charges'. Though they may, by analogy, be referred to as molecular 'scissors' they are not interchangeable, except amongst void that is the God of the Gaps fallacy.
About the computer stuff. Although we use transistors, OPAMs and more.
The basics are really, really simple. One of the gates is literally a cable.
"The complexity" is just repeating the same over and over again.
Right? Found it baffling that dude was laughing "it's a little bit more complicated than a lever hue hue" when it's not.
All word salad from the caller
Actually, I didn't find much word salad beyond his intro description of his methods of argument. After that, it was just a string of easily parsable fallacies.
He must LOVE KaAMALA hARRIS.,
The ignorance is nauseating
Syntax is the aspect of dealing with word order, the order of words and word categories. I’m not convinced the caller understands that.
John’s argument boils down to: “Life is made from code, therefore there is a coder.”
Another fast speaking pseudo-intellectual. 😂
Sounds like he was reading from a script.
that's a little generous...this asshole can't do up his own buttons or feed himself.
God is amazing and very intelligent.
As we all know, intelligence can only come from intelligence.
Therefore God was designed by Supergod. Therefore Supergod exists.
😄 All hail God and Supergod! And Ultramechagod, of course.
And there's Supergod II. Supergod III. Supergod IV. Supergod god. Supergod Blue. Supergod Ultra ego. Supergod ultra instinct.
And that isn't even his final form! When will it ever end?
@@ChallengeYourBeliefs
It's gods all the way up !
More gods
God
People
Turtle
More turtles
Metaphysical substrate
@@brucebaker810
Yes, it's gods all the way up folks !
Every argument for so-called intelligent design boils down to "I don't understand it; therefore GOD!"
Skip to 5:15 if you want to laugh :)
binary is not intrinsically a "language" . we have found a way to use it as a language.
wo many callers need to get their ideas spoken out loud to a person that can review their ideas with criticism, before they bring them on these shows, before they make their arguments their identity.
i really do think the callers do not have enough friends IRL to talk to about their ideas. friends that have experiences outside of their own.
one big argument from ignorance.
It always make great sense in the mind of someone who has no understanding of what they’re talking about right up to the point when it’s said out loud in the president of someone else!
Just another version of "i don't know how it happened so there's a god" also i feel kinda bad for this guy reasearching this for a year
The amount of man hours wasted on religious activities is incomprehensible. Go ahead, try to imagine it.
Persistence in attempting to force them into a corner where they MUST accede to the veracity of his assertions is admirable!
Desperation is an unkind master!
Yes, I realise that was nineteen years ago!
Dna is just chemistry. We don’t have levers? Am I hallucinating my limbs? You’d tell me if I was, right?
Within a minute I knew exactly where this guy was going. Such lazy attitude, lazy argument and lazy use of words.
You can hear the Discovery Institute whispering in his ear, filling his mind with intelligent sounding lies.
2:10 im going to go out on a limb here and predict hes not going to use logic or science and not going to prove a god of any kind exists.
I don’t know = intellectual honesty
I don’t know, therefore it has to be a god = incredulity
Evolution is NOT "random chance" if it was, we wouldn't have been able to backtrack it at all to prove it happened.
Right. Barrow from consciousness and metaphysical idealism in order to support a blind process completely based on chance. It really is easy to understand, that if evolution were taking place the way you and your people say it does, that we would see something like Australopithecus or Homo erectus walking around today
Random chance doesn't mean we can't backtrack it. Evolution is based on random, but at the end, we can know who's more likely to survive. And more importantly : if we are so good at backtracking it, it's because there are so many animals, and we can backtrack it by noticing the differences
If you have 10 people on a room, give a drawing to one of them, ask him to replicate it and show it to another person on the room that didn't get it (choosed by a dice roll) that will do the same thing. At the end, you take a look at every drawing, you will easiely be able to say who showed it to who. The order was randomly chosen, yet you can backtrack what's the order. So that conclusion isn't true
@@quentind1924 Evolution as it is explained by evidence destroying professors in public schools is an atheistic creation myth. Many atheists and theists argue about that, but it has been stated by atheists in the past, and we can see why they would honestly say that. The claims get rid of intelligent design. It makes everything completely materialistic. Some theists act like atheist lap dogs.. They deny the power of God but they want to keep the appearance for whatever reason. Maybe out of fear, just in case God might send them to hell. Maybe they're just comfortable in their upbringing. But it's a worthless kowtowing and pandering to materialism and Woke Cultural. They're like the "familiars" in vampire stories. "Useful idiots" in Soviet Union stories
@@Atreyu-81 Do you have evidence for your other spurious claim elsewhere, of atheists... supporting... g'rape, on here?
And as for blind processes - it's a huge universe, and a huge system.
'Blind' or 'guided' are both human assumptions, made on limited data. Chance also doesn't describe the stochastic data.
Or even a Markov Chain...
@@Atreyu-81 Evolution is a fact. Every single piece of evidence is supporting it. No scientist will even say that evolution is overrated
When you have to read off a speech to explain why you're going to make an argument that takes 5 seconds, you know you've lost.
Lifeforms have had dna long before humans existed. Long, LONG before. What took God so long to make our DNA?
It's fun watching theists invoke science when they think it'll benefit them, then when it doesn't they'll just deny the science.
Geneticist here! I do not in fact agree with John. Calling DNA a code is a useful analogy, a practical bit of fiction. While it does help better explain what DNA is and what it does, it's also a trap in its own way. Much as atoms are not, in fact, balls of protons and neutrons with electrons orbiting circularly around them, DNA is not a code, but chemicals that behave in a manner that humans understand to be code-like. Only, that's not nearly as succinct.
Non-geneticist here, and I want to thank you for essentially saying what I was about to say. Cheers.
That's the trouble when scientists have to dumb stuff down for us laymen.
They forgot how dumb some laymen are 😁
Well, as you can see it can be very misleading to people to call DNA code, they're then comparing it to computer code. Just call it what it is: chemical molecule containing building instructions for proteins.
BTW describing atom as ball with circular electron orbits is much closer to reality than calling DNA code. The only difference between laymen's atom and the real one is that electron orbits which are not circular. 🙂
You're right, and you're wrong. Yes it is NOT a code, if with code you mean something similar to a programming language. And that is the analogy often used, so it bears pointing out that towards _that_ kind of code it is just an analogy. But from an information theory perspective, specifically signalling theory, DNA IS a code and IS information. But in the most basic sense of the meaning: one thing representing another thing. DNA does represent which proteins get made after all (and so many more complex things that you know a shitload more about than I do), so in that sense it is a code. This explicitly does NOT imply an intentional sender, receiver or any intelligence in signalling theory though. Signalling theory is about how these codes develop unintentionally in nature.
See John Perry's Stated Clearly channel for a short explanation of what I mean.
I'm not arguing against you here, just letting you know other perspectives within science DO consider DNA a code, but not in any way similar to what creationists pretend it is.
@@nagranoth_ As always, when conflict comes about in terminology, it's useful to remember that there is no objective, authoritative, or prescriptive meaning to words: words mean whatever we agree they mean when exchanging them.
The issue with the whole "DNA is code" problem is that most scientists are using it metaphorically to imply a similarity to what people _often_ and _typically_ mean when they use the term "code", _computer_ code, and then creationists will take that analogy to an unreasonable and quasi-literal extreme, thus engaging in a fallacy.
Your broadened variation of the term "code" is so open as to make explaining the fallacy to the creationist only more problematic. It's not that I think you're incorrect, only that I think adding such an open and uncommon use of the term is not likely to help in a discussion between someone making the analogy and someone misusing it.
John from TN is used to "winning" arguments with a dense repertoire of tech idioms. Most folk in Appalachia thereabouts will acquiesce to the power of words, not ideas. Verbum Vincet 😁
When it comea to cells being complex, yes, after something has slowly changed over billions of years, would he complex. Early life however wasn't as complex.
Also complexity is evidence against creation and design, not evidence for it, certainly not for intelligent design, at best it proves incompetent design.
Dumb argument. It doesn't tell anyone why chaos or imperfect designs took place, nor does it say intelligent designs don't exist because they have flaws
@@Atreyu-81 Intelligent design is nonsensical man made idea how to explain nature by ancient ignorant goat herders who didn't know where Sun goes at night. It's unbelievable people still believe such BS today.
@@Atreyu-81" intelligent designs"
1... Male mammals have none functioning nipples.
2... We pee through our sex organs.
3... You can die from diseases acquired while trying to reproduce.
4... Most of the water on earth is fatal if drunk by humans.
5... Most of the planet is hostile to unprotected humans.
6... Above around 15,000 feet there is not enough oxygen to allow you to live.
7... The planet has thousands of diseases that can injure or kill you...
8... Large quantities of fruits, plants and even some animals are too toxic to eat..
9... There are thousands of insects that can annoy or kill you...
10.. Many large animals will kill you for food.
11.. Many other humans will kill you, some for food...
12.. The sun will kill you if you get too much exposure...
13.. There are toxic elements that can kill you.
14.. Volcanoes, weather, earthquakes and such can and do kill people....
15.. One day the sun will expand and destroy our home planet, that is if a comet or asteroid doesn't kill us first...
16.. Birth defects can kill or maim you...
17.. You are one of several billion lifeforms that evolved over billions of years, on one of bunch of non-descript planets, asteroids and rocks, orbiting a mid-range yellow G-class star, itself, only one of hundreds of billions in a backwards part of the Milky Way galaxy, which in of itself is one of hundreds of billions galaxies, many larger than our own, in a perhaps infinite universe that may be one of an infinite number of universes, that may have thousands if not billions of other intelligent life forms, in one tiny slice of time out of billions of years.... And you think it's all about YOU.... How f**king sad is that....
18.. Mental illnesses...
19.. Allergies to plants, foods, metals, pretty much anything are not unusual...
20.. Your eyesight, strength and physical capabilities are less than many other animals...
21.. You can die from drinking too much water.. (No I don't mean drowning...(#22)
23.. Your testicles have to hang below your body because so called Fine Tuning didn't allow for the need for them to be cooler than if they were inside your body...
24.. Women can die in childbirth.
25.. Parts of your body are redundant... Appendix, tonsils, tail bones etc...
26.. Most of the universe is unreachable to us.... Why is it there?
27.. Most of the universe is fatal to humans yet Tardigrades can exist in many places we would die... Is it fine tuned for the Tardigrade?
28.. This may not be the only universe. Maybe this one is broken in ways we can't imagine...
29.. There is no proof that this universe has not always existed.
30.. We do not know if there are other lifeforms out there that are better suited to this universe.
34.. For all you know, we may be a food crop seeded here by another race....
35.. When this planet was formed, it didn't support life at all...
36.. Why, if this is fine tuned, is the universe not absolutely perfect for us?
37.. The Earth's orbit around the sun is not a perfect circle. It's about 5 million km closer on one side than the other and also changes each year.
38.. The moon is slowly drifting further and further from Earth...It's orbit also changes over time...
39.. We fit into this universe because we can. If the universe was different the way we fit would probably be different and people would think that one was fine tuned for us...
40.. Why do humans kill each other.
41.. So god "designs" us with a foreskin then demands we cut it off. Kind of weird that.
42.. "Situs Inversus" is a condition where your internal organs are reversed compared to most.
43.. Some humans are still born with vestigial tails...
44.. Tell me about women who have 3 breasts... how do two on one side and one on the other show symmetry?
45.. Tell me about men born with 1 testicle?
46.. Polyorchidism is a very rare condition. Men with this condition are born with more than two testes, also known as testicles or gonads.
47. Uterine Didelphys is a disorder present before birth in which a female develops two uteruses instead of one.
48. RANCHI: A girl born with three eyes and two noses has been attracting hordes of people who believe her to be an incarnation of Hindu god Shiva.
49. The Earth's rotation is slowing down.
50. The Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth.
51. Some animals can see polarised light. Most humans can not.
52. While the conditions for the creation of life are seemingly improbable, all other conditions are equally improbable.
53. If this universe is intelligently designed, then why is so much of it out of reach and for the most part not even visible to us.
54. Why can't animals talk?
55. Why do people have different levels of intelligence?
56. If the universe did not develop this way, then maybe it would be suited for some other form of life that might have ended up thinking about how the universe was intelligently designed for them...
57. Why would anyone think that this universe, billions of light years across that we will not even likely ever get to see or ever reach , was fine tuned for anyone?
58. If the universe was fine tuned, then why isn't there life on every planet?
59. Recurrent laryngeal nerve that starts at the top of the neck, goes down into the chest, loops under the aorta, the comes back up to the larynx in many creatures.
60. There are creatures that reproduce by implanting their larva in other creatures to eat them alive from within.
61. Parasitic organisms such as tapeworms.
62. Our so perfectly designed universe, purposefully made for us could, at any point, wipe us out with a random gamma ray burst, or meteor or solar flare.
63. Jellyfish are essentially immortal being unable to die of old age. Why aren't we?
64. This entire universe may one day collapse back in on itself to create yet another singularity that may eventually expand into a new universe.
65 Your digestive juices can eat away at your stomach causing ulcers even death...
66. Your tongue can fall into the back of your throat cutting off your air supply and killing you...
67. Regurgitating digestive juices can damage vocal cords and or the lungs...
68. You can have food allergies to common human foods...
69. Parasitic worms can survive in your digestive tract
70. Loons are ducks with feet that cannot support the bird and it cannot walk. It will die within inches of water because it can't get to it.
71. The Sun can give you cancer
72. Magpies injure around 6,000 people a year.
73. Many other creatures have longer lives than us.
74. Babies heads are often too large to pass through the birth canal.
Common symptoms during a seizure
Awareness, Sensory, Emotional or Thought Changes:
Loss of awareness (often called “black out”)
Confused, feeling spacey
Periods of forgetfulness or memory lapses
Distracted, daydreaming
Loss of consciousness, unconscious, or “pass out”
Unable to hear
Sounds may be strange or different
Unusual smells (often bad smells like burning rubber)
Unusual tastes
Loss of vision or unable to see
Blurry vision
Flashing lights
Formed visual hallucinations (objects or things are seen that aren’t really there)
Numbness, tingling, or electric shock like feeling in body, arm or leg
Out of body sensations
Feeling detached
Déjà vu or jamais vu
Body parts feels or looks different
Feeling of panic, fear, impending doom (intense feeling that something bad is going to happen)
Pleasant feelings
Physical Changes:
Difficulty talking (may stop talking, make nonsense or garbled sounds, keep talking or speech may not make sense)
Unable to swallow, drooling
Repeated blinking of eyes, eyes may move to one side or look upward, or staring
Lack of movement or muscle tone (unable to move, loss of tone in neck and head may drop forward, loss of muscle tone in body and person may slump or fall forward)
Tremors, twitching or jerking movements (may occur on one or both sides of face, arms, legs or whole body; may start in one area then spread to other areas or stay in one place)
Rigid or tense muscles (part of the body or whole body may feel very tight or tense and if standing, may fall “like a tree trunk”)
Repeated non-purposeful movements, called automatisms, involve the face, arms or legs, such as
lipsmacking or chewing movements
repeated movements of hands, like wringing, playing with buttons or objects in hands, waving
dressing or undressing
walking or running
Repeated purposeful movements (person may continue activity that was going on before the seizure)
Convulsion (person loses consciousness, body becomes rigid or tense, then fast jerking movements occur)
Losing control of urine or stool unexpectedly
Sweating
Change in skin color (looks pale or flushed)
Pupils may dilate or appear larger than normal
Biting of tongue (from teeth clenching when muscles tighten)
Difficulty breathing
Heart racing
Sure, let’s call these misfirings of the brain “intelligent design”. 🤦♂️🙄
@@tonyclements1147 Horrible argument. A virus in a computer doesn't indicate a stupid designer
Computer scientist here, binary in itself definitely isn't a language. The way we encode and decode binary can technically be called a language though. Him being so smug about it makes me cringe, lol.
Guy was desperate to get to the end of his script 😂
As a Molucular Biologist. I can completely confirm that there are definitely channel proteins that are either open or closed, hence levers in cells
Also. A "Lever" works based on gravity. Salutes are subject to Brownian motion. So a literal lever would probably not work in a cell.
I thought I recognized this fool and his arguments. It's Logical Plausible Probable on TH-cam. Wonder what happened to him.
Great closing wisecracking there!
What I dont get is when you have to talk fast, use words you dont understand, attempt to trick the other person into saying something you want, lie about them saying that when they dont and get exponentially more agitated as you go on because you know you cant do the trickery you set out to do, just dont realize you are up to no good? You know it is not good behavior. I understand the agenda. But you are doing bad things, harming yourself, for bad reasons. If you have proof, present it. If you are asked a question you cant answer without exposing yourself, answer it and face the truth. If you do, one day you will look back and appreciate what an honest debate can do for you.
I saw this guy's argument coming from a mile away what a tired tired tired argument
Yet, something within you wants to hear it again and then other arguments you've already heard a billion times. You and so many of your atheist brethren can't get enough religious talk. You're more obsessed with god than the typical theist is
@@Atreyu-81 What does that got to do with the caller's bad argument? And does the caller's poor attempt to prove his god have to do with your bizarre need to call atheism a religion? Is that because you know how bad religion is and want to try to associate atheism to it?
@@Atreyu-81 "You're more obsessed with god than the typical theist is" It's self defense.
Look at you, you're so obsessed with woke and atheism you have to go to atheist channel to troll there. 😀Do you know how it is called? *Hypocrisy.*
Damon DonKey thought she had heard
That AXP folks read his every word
but was deeply offended
his reality upended
To find he's ignored like every other troll turd.
Word games!!, I win!, so Listen to me with respect, do what I tell you to do, live your life the way I tell you to live and give me money!" "I speak for the bible which means I speak for god, so OBEY ME!" “And if you refuse it is because you are full of the “Sin of pride”, you want to enjoy your life of sin!” So listen to me, obey me as if I am god, and most important, GIVE ME MONEY!”
Get off your high horse, heathen, nobody cares what you do. Nobody wants or needs your money. You're a weirdo minority that pops up with annoying screaming and snarling from time to time. No one cares
@@Atreyu-81
“No one cares.”
Indeed.
@@tonyclements1147take out your high horse too. Indeed
DonKey's topic of the week is teleology
His latest attempt at using demagogy
Quoting somebody McKenna
On his way to Gehenna
And battling his own androgyny!
@@tonyclements1147
Apot failed to spot the irony 😆😂🤣
Even if there was a supernatural intelligence that created the universe, that has nothing to do with the thousands of human-invented religions, gods, and saviors. Therefore, whatever caused the creation of the universe does not need to be prayed to, worshiped, or feared.
06:29 I hung on in there as long as I could but this is such a time-wasting and convoluted way to get to the bloody point that I won't be watching further. DEMONSTRATE the existence of a god or shut up!
At the end of the day, we know the watch is designed solely by the fact that all watches are designed.
Jesus has a broken heart over all the poor apologists trying to talk him into existence ! St Peter is instructed to never let them through the pearly gates.
The thing John really needs to understand is the difference between a 'language' a medium to convey information between two people. and a 'language' a medium to instruct a program to do something, and the way the program understands a 'language'.
The first is talking how we do between people. The second is the form a computer programmer uses. The last is the physical wires that are running the program.
He talks about the first form if 'language' but uses it to describe the third form which isn't even a language.
To show the difference, we could consider a person making a machine that throws dust to form cool arrangements. The person first plans and makes the machine with other people in a first form language. Then they will construct a second form language that tells the machine what formations the dust should form. However, the machine doesn't 'interpret' the instructions. We have simply positioned the machine's components in such a way, that physically there is no way for the dust to move in a different way than we wanted it to.
A simple example of such a construction is if the dust falls from a height, and the 'machine' is simply gravity which pulls it down to earth.
This machine could also be formed by random luck when the wind pushes the dust into the air in interesting ways, it forms incredible 'information'. This is wrong that because there is no physical 'information', only what would naturally happen when dust gets hit by wind.
If you explain something with a god, then you must explain where god came from. Some theists overlook that nature can create things, a tree for example, and wrongfully assume that since trees are a creation, therefore there must be an intelligent god who creates trees, flowers, viruses, bacteria, diseases, cats whatever. Oh look a new star, must be a supernatural creator. Meanwhile in reality natural processes create things.
But the atheist starts with the axiom of materialism. Which is just as magical and mysterious without consciousness to guide the initial design
@@Atreyu-81 "Which is just as magical and mysterious without consciousness to guide the initial design" Nature has no obligation to make sense to anybody. I'm NOT sorry for your ignorance. 🙂
@@Seticzech And someone can say the same thing about the creation process. Technology is a mind's ability to manipulate or control matter and energy. So "magic" is just a word we use for technology we don't understand
@@Atreyu-81Except that it isn't, but don't let your ignorance get in the way of saying really stupid things.
@@Atreyu-81
After Arthur C Clarke. But that reduces your god to an alien with superior technology. If it’s a product of nature, I don’t have a problem with that. It’s when you start to assign properties without evidence that we have an issue, like insisting intelligence is required for nature to exist. That’s just not supported by the data.
"Hmmm, if I use enough big word I'll sound like I'm right"-every theist ever
I’ll never understand how theist go from the analogy dna is like a code to dna is programming language and real code and therefore there must be high level programmer aka god is the ultimate programmer and not only god but the personal god of the Bible of a particular denomination
The caller's questions are quite aggressive and demanding: 'Do you agree bla bla bla...' A better and more polite approach would be: 'What do you think about the idea ...'
I bet John is fun at parties
No doubt pulling all the gals, eh ?
@@tonydarcy1606 I would agree 😄
@-D-I-V-A- Yeah, no thanks, but you have fun.
@-D-I-V-A-It’s kind of cute that so many of you think you’ve been born again, but think we’ve heard enuf from you and others like you already
This is like arguing that I don’t need food because I’m part of a family tree and trees get their energy from photosynthesis.
DNA isn’t literally a programming language.
John's a liar. Huge surprise.
@3:51 Does this guy not understand that whale songs insist of a language? Does he not realize that the chirps of crickets can act as both mating calls and signals of distress?
God is a ridiculous notion
Imagine standing in front of a friend while having a conversation. This friend can hear you, touch you, and smell you. But you spend the whole conversation trying to convince ypur friend that you exist..... the friend will look at u crazy. Because it is very OBVIOUS that u exist. Therefore, convincing is NOT needed. If god exists, nobody would need to be convinced.
Comment for the algorithm.
Like for the algorithm.
@@joshsheridan9511 I want to help your algorithm. People need to know what you are and why you support Woke Culture
@@Atreyu-81People can pretty quickly figure out what you are.
@@Atreyu-81 What is this "woke culture" you speak of and what makes you think Josh supports it?
@@Atreyu-81 "People need to know what you are and why you support Woke Culture"
People need to know what you are and why you are a moron? Were you dropped on your head a lot as an infant? Your mommy do a lot of drugs and booze while she was carrying your uncles's baby? Or did you have a brain injury yourself?
It's unbearable to talk with any people who insist on continuously talking over you or interrupting by repeating something like "yea..... yea.... yea... yea... yea" ....
My own dad has done it my entire life, and recently when he starts to interrupt me, I stop my entire sentence and say "......do you want to finish my sentence for me? what was I going to say?" .... then he gets ashamed and stops his interruptions for entire 2 minutes, after which he completely forgets that I will repeat the same procedure as often as it takes :D
Nothing to argue about. The existence of God does not depend on convincing an atheist anywhere of anything.
Nothing to argue about. I want to spread the good news to you and save your eternal soul from sin!
The TRUTH of the one living God Begochiddy has been written divinely on your heart and spleen. You just angrily deny it!
You have turned from Begochiddy's love and lead to a FALSE God and it's cult of deluded followers who are idolaters worshipping the image of the crucifix that the false God's demonic offspring was nailed upon!
You must repent, renounce your sins, humbled yourself on bended knees, and begged the one TRUE living God Begochiddy to embrace you in his loving arms.
Paradise awaits you in the afterlife in the bosom of the one and ONLY living God Begochiddy.
🤣🤣
Well you can thank God for that as the arguments are not convincing anyways.
Nothing to argue about, so far no evidence for the existence of any god was presented outside of baseless claims from a holy text. Remember, *a holy text is the claim and does NOT count as evidence!*
Yes, all you have to do is convince children and rubes, and then teach them to validate with others, and *poof* your religion survives for another generation.
Information exists outside of brains. It's just that we use the word Information as a name for brain's processing that Information
A segment from the very end of the Before Times!
The thought of John impotently raging at his computer after he got hung up on pleases me.
Id like to see these callers explain how they would research the other side for 60min and see if that changed their arguments.
It's insane how someone can just talk and talk and talk but manage to say nothing, then pause for someone's response, not really comprehend or even listen half the time, then talk and talk and talk again. He just keeps going.....and going.