Argument from Improbability Fallacy

Рет қаралды 28,349

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 1 500

@AronRa Ай бұрын

Seems every video has to include one stupid mistake. In this case, I googled "simplest protein + linked amino acids" and mistook glycine for a protein. I really should have caught that immediately. Doh!

@Zeff-c2k Ай бұрын

Reissue a corrected version, then? Otherwise, thanks for this. It's one of the few "arguments" they have left. I've been stuck with the contrapositive example "you can disprove your parents ever met".

@martinblank-d2n Ай бұрын

Do you believe E=mc2? or is this False in your mind? Do you believe we are apart of an electromagnetic Spectrum or is this False in your mind?

@Evolution.1859 Ай бұрын

@@martinblank-d2nOf course we are matter/energy. That’s how we know every chemical reaction in our bodies is simply following the course of events it must. That’s how we know we are simply following the laws of physics set at or before the Big Bang. That’s how we know we live in a deterministic universe and the Christian idea of libertarian free will is an illusion, but, as Dennett always followed with, an illusion worth having.

@ApostateMike-41 Ай бұрын

At least you admitted when you are wrong lol

@exoplanet11 Ай бұрын

Science isn't getting everything right. It is checking what's wrong and fixing it.

@captainkelley2339 Ай бұрын

"This thing is very unlikely, therefore it is impossible, therefore it had to be magic." What a masterpiece of rational thought.

@kellydalstok8900 Ай бұрын

No matter how unlikely something happening is, if it has happened the chance is at least 1, isn’t it?

@captainkelley2339 Ай бұрын

@@kellydalstok8900 I would agree.

@michaelburk9171 Ай бұрын

And that magic was performed by the 1 god I happen to believe in.

@captainkelley2339 Ай бұрын

@@michaelburk9171 Okay. Prove it.

@michaelburk9171 Ай бұрын

@@captainkelley2339 I could have been clearer. That is always the apologist's claim. Isn't possible, there for god, and obviously my god. That's like 3 levels deep of unprovable.

@davidschneide5422 Ай бұрын

It’s ALWAYS “argument from ignorance”

@alanmacification Ай бұрын

That's why Dawkins stopped trying to talk to them. They don't know ANYTHING, and they don't care. All they are interested in is the platform and the microphone. It's the Nigerian General scam. They are actually looking for stupid gullible people to fill their pews and collection trays.

@RyanLivesForGodAlways Ай бұрын

Nahum 1:7 The Lord is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in him, Follow Jesus, especially if you believe in Him and know He is real, life comes and go, eternity last forever and never ends, decide now you may not get the chance to become a friend of Jesus, give you love to Christ and surrender yourself into Him who is faithful

@odojang Ай бұрын

And here it's even worse; argument from incredulity. I can't understand it, let alone beleive it, therefore it can't be true, therefore God.

@DaveB-hg7el Ай бұрын

I'm sorry but the key word in your comment is 'believe', not know. You could substitute the name of any other deity, either modern or ancient, and your claim will be the same. If there was any deity that could be demonstrated to be the one true God, then there wouldn't be the many variations of religion that exist in the world. I don't mean to sound hostile to your beliefs, I just want to point out where your beliefs aren't enough to convince those who don't already believe as you do. Peace 💚@@RyanLivesForGodAlways

@DAYBROK3 Ай бұрын

@@RyanLivesForGodAlwaysbut what are the facts that supports your belief? The bible is not a fact, it’s a book, full of spells, fortune telling, violence, child abuse, S assault, and a few nice saying not something that shows facts.

@borisbauwens7133 Ай бұрын

Hi, biochemist here, with hands-on experience in protein evolution and calculations involving sequence randomization. Creationists always calculate the answer to the wrong question. What they solve, is the question "how many different sequences of this length exist" (and then dividing 1 by that). What they should be solving, is the question "out of all possible sequences, how many perform this or that specific function". And that question is much more relevant and informative, but also much, much harder. Anyone can raise 20 to the power of chain length. Here's what you really need to do. 1. Define the parameters of reaction conditions. (We'll assume an environment that allows untemplated polymerization in any case) You have to account for relative abundance of each amino acid (they won't be in equal concentrations, we know from experiments that the simple ones like glycine, valine etc abiotically form in much higher yields than big ones like tyrosine or tryptophan), and you also have to account for differences in reactivity. You can't just take 1/20 as the odds for every elongation step, that assumes all and only modern amino acids were present and made in equal concentrations. That's a bad assumption. Then there's neighbour effects: some sequences will form less often or even not at all, for example sequences with many positively or negatively charged amino acids in a row: they will attract opposite charged ones and repel the same charge. Same for hydrophobic/hydrophilic. This decreases the amount of practically possible sequences. 2. Of this pool of (chemically biased) polymers, now we're interested in how many of them have some function of interest. Let's take as an example, one that catalytically binds small molecules A and B to become AB. Maybe we know a modern protein that does this, but in principle EVERY protein counts when it folds in such a way that it creates a pocket that is of the right geometry and charge to bind and bring A and B close together, so that they react to form AB. For any reaction, there will be a large but unknown amount of folds that create such active site pockets. One or some of those could be present in modern proteins, but there's no reason to assume in advance that there are no potential others. 3. Once you've estimated the amount of folds that could accomodate this specific active site pocket (and you can't, realistically, at this point in time. Too much possibilities, too little supercomputing power or experimental assays), you will have to take each fold, and calculate the amount of sequences that form this 3D fold, while performing the chosen activity. That amount is also almost incalculably huge. Creationists pretend that it's just one, but this is absurd. Because for one thing, for any known functional protein that exists, it will almost always be non-identical between different species that have the gene. The amount of tolerable neutral variation in proteins is huge, explosively and exponentially and therefore incalculably huge. To get a feel for this variation with an example, the 140 amino acid protein alpha hemoglobin carries oxygen in all vertebrates, and has the same shape in all of them. Humans and chimps have identical protein sequence (no surprise there) but shortfin mako shared differr in about 60% of the amino acids. Over half of the amino acids are different, yet the fold and function is almost identical. In the end, you're left with dividing a gigantically large number with huge uncertainty margins, by a sickeningly large number. All exact solutions that anyone gives, are made up. There is simply no possibility of an exact solution at this point. What does exist, are experiments that take large populations of random starting points (for example 100 amino acids long), and then screen those pools for random variants that have this prespecified function. For practical reasons, those variant population sizes are usually between a million or a few billion. So if numbers like 10^40 or 10^73 or whatever, that are derived by merely taking the inverse of sequence space, are accurate, then such experiment are sampling waaaaay too little, and the odds of success are virtually zero. Yet in reality, we observe multiple functional sequences from random pools. Usually one or a handful, from a population of millions/billions. This could not realistically be the case if the true odds are one in trillions upon quadrillions.

@SteveLomas-k6k Ай бұрын

I can't speak for creationists but it's generally understood that there can be redundancy, different nucleotides coding for the same amino acids etc- different ways to skin the same cat as it were. But there's no way around the core problem- the function still has to be specified. And the number of possible sequences that specify no function is hyperexponential. This problem is exacerbated by the ever shrinking timeframes available for certain mutations to appear. Some scientists posit supernova radiation events to speed up mutation rates, or propose that some of the necessary information was already written in from the get go, and only needed activated later by environmental pressures. Or yes, maybe it was just programmed that way on purpose- that's also a distinct possibility that would solve a lot of problems in the theory.

@borisbauwens7133 Ай бұрын

@@SteveLomas-k6k the fractional amount of sequence space that is functionless is very large, but how much of a problem that is, depends extremely strongly on the amount of "trials" that can sample for the functional ones. And something like 10^-17 can look tiny, but if you know how molecules are typically counted in moles, and you know the size of Avogadro's number, you quickly realize that some of this is very unintuitive. For example it's estimated that the fraction of RNA sequences that are self-ligases, is about 10^-13. Compare that to a sequence space size of 4^80 or whatever. In that case, a population of 10^14 random RNAs undersamples 66 orders of magnitude. Yet you expect to find 10 (different) ligases in that population. You also need to be very aware of the distinction between random untemplated polymerization in an abiotic setting, and evolving new functions through templated replication with mutation. Completely different processes, completely different math.

@SteveLomas-k6k Ай бұрын

@@borisbauwens7133 I agree, abiogenesis is a different story, and completely different math- i.e. far more problematic. I'm just talking about the mathematical problems with creating the required quantities of new functional DNA in the timescales allowed- though a purely random process. Even if we grant bacteria for free. And I'm sure you're aware that the problem is not just hitting on a functional sequence anywhere, but having that sequence 'buffered' and 'installed' correctly with the gene regulatory system- just as in our own digital information systems- be they digital versus quaternary- you can't just chuck functional code in anywhere you like. But beyond all that I'd say the proof is in the pudding; The 'evolution' we observe genetically is overwhelmingly regressive. Traits and DNA suffer decay through random mutation. i.e. it's not just the amount of change and time constraints that are problematic, but that the actual direction of change we observe in adaptation or 'micro-evolution' is generally opposite to that required by macro evolution.

@borisbauwens7133 Ай бұрын

@@SteveLomas-k6ksounds like you learned your genetics from creationists

@SteveLomas-k6k Ай бұрын

@@borisbauwens7133 :) not sure how recently you worked in biochemistry or how many papers you published, but things move pretty fast: Something that might help get you up to speed if you haven't been following: "Loss-of-function mutations are main drivers of adaptations during short-term evolution" Joanna Klim, Urszula Zielenkiewicz & Szymon Kaczanowski Scientific Reports volume 14, Article number: 7128 (2024) "gene loss is “regressive evolution”1, also named “trait/DNA decay" There are many similar papers that concur with members at a recent meeting of the Royal Society in London- that Darwinian evolution still lacks a theory of the generative. If 'creationists' were a little quicker to figure this out, then I guess we have to give credit where it's due.

@kiralana324 Ай бұрын

the irony is arguing the probability of something that exists, while simultaneously saying it's mathematical impossible, yet we have these complex molecules, we have life so it's verifiable and already mathematically proven!

@ApostateMike-41 Ай бұрын

A creationist at my apartment complex flat out told me she is ok with being wrong. I just don't understand how someone can be wrong; know they are wrong and be ok with it. Thats why I am no longer a Christian.

@2854Navman Ай бұрын

"Willful Ignorance". Boggles my mind too.

@DaveB-hg7el Ай бұрын

There is also a group of people who will make the choice to not think about their doubts and questions of religion. They haven't gotten to the point of knowing that what they believe is wrong, because they have been taught to view doubts as evidence of a lack of faith. Many denominations will have their members use thought stopping techniques when doubts arise, literally tell them to quit using the brain. Sad, peace 💚

@Raz.C Ай бұрын

Believing that you get to live forever, because you have a magical, loving space-ally, who only punishes 'other people,' who loves you and who- after you die- wants to send you to Disneyland-In-The-Sky, for ever and ever and ever... That's a powerful inducement to keep your head in the sand. People ensnared by such delusions don't want to accept reality, since their wish-fulfilment fantasy is so much more pleasing. And that's the crux of it - Some people prefer reality, others prefer a pleasing fiction. Some choose Zion, others choose the Matrix. It's too hard for them to accept reality so they instead, prefer to stay in the womb, protected from reality by their chosen delusions. I suspect that at some level, they are all aware that "God" is just an evolved version of Santa Claus - "He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake..." They know that Santa is make-believe and so there's a part of them that recognises that their God and all their associated beliefs are also make-believe. However, going to church/ mosque/ synagogue and being surrounded by so many others who also make-believe the same thing is so very reassuring to them, that it silences that part of their mind that knows the truth.

@helixsol7171 Ай бұрын

It's okay to be okay with being wrong. It's only a problem when you pretend you're not.

@ApostateMike-41 Ай бұрын

@@helixsol7171 No it's never ok to be ok with being wrong. That is the same as lying and isn't that breaking one of the ten commandments? Thou Shall Not Lie.

@firefly4f4 Ай бұрын

"... anything that was Infinitely Improbable was actually very likely to happen almost immediately." - Douglas Adams

@alistairmackintosh9412 Ай бұрын

"Million to one shots happen 99% of the time!" -Terry Pratchett

@RyanLivesForGodAlways Ай бұрын

@@alistairmackintosh9412 Nahum 1:7 The Lord is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in him, Follow Jesus, especially if you believe in Him and know He is real, life comes and go, eternity last forever and never ends, decide now you may not get the chance to become a friend of Jesus, give you love to Christ and surrender yourself into Him who is faithful

@firefly4f4 Ай бұрын

@@RyanLivesForGodAlways Austin 3:16 I just kicked your ass. Away with you, spam troll!

@ExtremeMadnessX Ай бұрын

🤡🤡🤡🤡👆@@RyanLivesForGodAlways

@Nocturnalux Ай бұрын

I love it how the church is half empty…!

@tulpas93 Ай бұрын

Less than half from the looks of it. On the other hand, it could be the bad breath of the preacher has forced everyone to press into the last few pews! 😂

@shaunbolton4662 Ай бұрын

It disturbs me that it's nearly half full! (But yeah, I too love that it's half empty!)

@mckorr2116 Ай бұрын

As a mathematician one thing I've noticed about Creationists and Apologists is that they have absolutely no understanding of math.

@Sergiu.antifascist Ай бұрын

this is how we part in believers and non-believers, in school, the math classes

@PhokenKuul Ай бұрын

Yeah, but so do people in general. HAHA!

@michaelramon2411 Ай бұрын

They have absolutely no understanding of almost every subject imaginable. Half of them have absolutely no understanding of the texts they claim to base their whole worldview off of!

@CaptFoster5 Ай бұрын

In fairness, but one need not be a mathematician to know that glaring and obvious fact. Although it's probably a little easier for you to notice it sooner than the rest of us 😅

@adnanmir2873 Ай бұрын

The irony when Aran in his debate with jake said 2+2 could be 5. U atheists keep getting worse day by day

@artemisnite Ай бұрын

While I was being brainwashed as a child, every single pastor I ever had in several different churches cheated on his wife with a parishioner. Including my own uncle. One pastor used to tell everyone to close their eyes while he listed sins and asked the guilty to raise their hands. Adultery never missed the list. It was only after he got caught "counseling a woman through divorce" if you know what I mean, that I realized he was using that show of hands to target "promiscuous" women.

@robynsnest8668 Ай бұрын

Don't hate the player, hate the game...no, wait, hate the hypocrite.

@RyanLivesForGodAlways Ай бұрын

@@robynsnest8668 Nahum 1:7 The Lord is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in him, Follow Jesus, especially if you believe in Him and know He is real, life comes and go, eternity last forever and never ends, decide now you may not get the chance to become a friend of Jesus, give you love to Christ and surrender yourself into Him who is faithful

@georgem2334 Ай бұрын

It's 2024 and Fundamentalist Christians are still arguing against evolution. Incredible! lol

@ThisOldHelmet Ай бұрын

It will be the same in 2025

@DarrylSteele69 Ай бұрын

We have no issue with evo if you break it down into categories. Adaptation is observable and verified so no issues. Speciation has been observed and verified. eg Central European blackcap. Hybrids eg Liger. Observable and verified. None of these eg require beliefs. They're all proven facts and no-one is in dispute with these A 4 legged wolf like land dwelling animal [pakicetus] becoming a whale over millions of years hasn't been observed and is not verifiable. One can only accept and believe the interpretations of the evidence by scientist which is also not verifiable. I do accept personally this may of happen, but I can only accept and believe at best this is what happened. This particular eg of evo is what theist, [mainly yec] have an issue with it, as it requires belief to accept this as being true as it cannot be verified the same way the previous eg can.

@LisaAnn777 Ай бұрын

Theres literally people who still think the Earth is flat. Delusions are not influenced by facts.

@jacevicki Ай бұрын

"Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised." - Woodrow Wilson, August 29, 1922. Over 100 years ago.

@RyanLivesForGodAlways Ай бұрын

@JhonnyCano Ай бұрын

The part where you mention an apologist might accomodate mundane events to make them appear as highly improbable occurrences really resonated with me. Thanks for producing these videos!

@theboombody Ай бұрын

I remember when I thought WCW was going to put WWF out of business because it took all of their talent, including Bret Hart. But just the opposite happened. I wouldn't call it miraculous, but it was anything but mundane. Funny how life is.

@scottthomas3792 Ай бұрын

The " Infinite Improbability Drive" comes to mind for me...

@andystokes8702 Ай бұрын

No matter how statistically improbable life starting on this planet by natural processes is it is still more probable than the same level of improbability with the addition of magic. He's just making something unlikely even less likely.

@Pooknottin Ай бұрын

It's a small thing, but when you hear it again and again, it grinds on the sanity. Thanks Aron for pointing out that the plural of 'evidence' is 'evidence'.

@alanhilder1883 Ай бұрын

According to sir Terry Pratchett, if something has only a "1 in a million chance" of happening, then it is certain to happen when you need it to... ( almost any of the discworld novels )

@AgiHammerthief Ай бұрын

but that is in a world of magic.

@alanhilder1883 Ай бұрын

@@AgiHammerthief These people claim in magic/miracles, so yes.

@seekthevisceral Ай бұрын

True. Just ask Rincewind. How many times did he evade Death?

@ksturmer5388 Ай бұрын

Good work Aron, I've not seen your video's for a while now due to me being very sick in hospital, then I saw this on my newsfeed on FB. Thanks soooo much for keep fighting the fight buddy!!! You make a difference out there. All the best my friend, from the UK to you and your family.

@johnburn8031 Ай бұрын

The god eating fairies told me that they ate the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Hey! Christians! Prove that the god eating fairies don't exist.

@ThisOldHelmet Ай бұрын

That’s not what the Bibble says lol

@Sergiu.antifascist Ай бұрын

@@ThisOldHelmet that is exactly what the bible says! the bible says "my god is stronger and bigger than yours". well, this principle is universal, does not apply to only a god. we can always use this principle, against any belief. this is what the bible says

@ThisOldHelmet Ай бұрын

@@Sergiu.antifascist It was sarcasm 😂

@Sergiu.antifascist Ай бұрын

@@ThisOldHelmet i understand sarchasm, but we have also the serious part

@RyanLivesForGodAlways Ай бұрын

@kappasphere Ай бұрын

One time a random guy came up to me at the train station and asked me what the chances were that he was going to meet me there. I explained to him that the likelihood was very high, as I was at the train station every day at that time, and if I wasn't there, he might as well have asked the same question to any other person who would have been there instead.

@Zorbilinus Ай бұрын

survivor's bias ?

@oliverthompson9922 Ай бұрын

As Einstein said "after the fact, one should not ask for probabilities"

@alanmacification Ай бұрын

Tell them that the wave function collapsed the moment you saw me. So, the probability became 100% due to quantum decoherence.

@thedave1771 Ай бұрын

Exactly @kappasphere. The trick is to remember that you aren’t special (nor am I). If it wasn’t you, it would have been me, or anyone else and the situation doesn’t change from his perspective. In a lot of cases I think the “I’m special” is one of the things that keeps people from considering a situation where their god isn’t there, supervising their life, judging their decisions, watching them poop, and everything else. The whole “without a god, what does it even matter?” is a symptom of this problem.

@Soapy-chan Ай бұрын

@@alanmacification nice one

@CorwynGC Ай бұрын

I have 58 ten sided dice. If I roll them all, the chances of that exact outcome is 1/10^58. It is therefore impossible to roll those dice.

@fakename5788 Ай бұрын

That's a TTRPG flex if ever I saw one

@FrozEnbyWolf150-b9t Ай бұрын

And impossible to sneeze on them. Or trip and drop them down the stairs.

@custos3249 Ай бұрын

Not bad, but I like Vsause's somewhat still recent query about infinity involving if it's better to start in paradise or hell if there are infinite people, someone is blinked to the opposite world for eternity everyday, and it's certain you will be picked eventually. Sure sucks for that 1/∞ on day one in paradise.

@RyanLivesForGodAlways Ай бұрын

@@fakename5788 Nahum 1:7 The Lord is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in him, Follow Jesus, especially if you believe in Him and know He is real, life comes and go, eternity last forever and never ends, decide now you may not get the chance to become a friend of Jesus, give you love to Christ and surrender yourself into Him who is faithful

@theslay66 Ай бұрын

To paraphrase Richard Dawkins : Our own existence, as an individual, is already improbable. Given the number of possible combinaisons of DNA that are possible, us being born instead of someone else, our own combinaison of DNA that defines us at a genetic level, had a ridiculously low chance of happening. And yet, here I am, watching this video and spouting nonsense in the comments. What are the odds of such thing happening ? You're right, my friend. Any specific serie of event can be made improbable, and that's because there is a basic problem with the sample : only the successfull ones are considered, and none of all the ones that have failed.

@martinblank-d2n Ай бұрын

Those who own the DATA control not just the Future of Humanity but the Future of LIFE ITSELF. RNAi and mRNA is the last Key they needed. It was always too late Physics Proves this. Evolution is just a set of predictable patterns due to Cause and Effect. I.E. The angular momentum of the quantization condition. E=mc2 we live in an electromagnetic spectrum. Every spectrum has an opposite and cant exist without because they are ONE. Carbon Death based Life. Life lives on death and death lives on Life. I can show evidence in Everything that exists.

@daraghokane4236 Ай бұрын

1/1 as Allah wrote the end before he wrote the Beginning nothing can change his plan. If you believe in Determinism the answer is 1/1 as cause and effect made it set in motion billions of years ago

@martinblank-d2n Ай бұрын

@@daraghokane4236 Qubit split is the same as stars are made. Everything Divided. Humpty Dumpty. Ouroboros is E=mc2

@theslay66 Ай бұрын

@@daraghokane4236 And yet Allah failed so hard that he had to wipe is whole creation at least once.

@cthellis Ай бұрын

Dutko talking about “the simplest of life” does make me chuckle. Ya sure are, baby.

@1977ajax Ай бұрын

This preacher, like most others it seems, is not talking to us. He knows his BS is wasted on us. He is talking to those who already believe. His text, therefore, does not have to be logical or technically strict in any way. He is simply lying to give synthetic comfort to the religious - which is why it sounds so silly to the rest of us.

@DudeTheMighty Ай бұрын

Still worth dismantling it. Who knows? Maybe one of the less-indoctrinated members of his flock will find this video series.

@warren52nz Ай бұрын

*_ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE._* Nothing a high school education couldn't fix.

@RichWoods23 Ай бұрын

That would only work for someone who was willing to learn.

@DavidStowers-o7k Ай бұрын

As opposed to home school education.

@warren52nz Ай бұрын

@@DavidStowers-o7k I was about to add that but changed my mind. Actually I met a family on the beach just a week ago and I had a chat and asked them if they were locals and they said no, they were just visiting. So I asked them why their children weren't in school and she said they're home schooled. My "religious light" came on in my head and I said "You mean to protect them from that evil science stuff and evolution?" And instead of retaliating in some way she just said "yeah and all that LBGTQ stuff". My forehead still hurts!

@martinblank-d2n Ай бұрын

Do you think E=mc2 is Valid?

@kinglyzard Ай бұрын

No amount of education will fix willful ignorance. It is rather self explanatory in that manner.

@Xelianow Ай бұрын

The Argument from Improbability has one huge flaw: It assigns arbitrary significance to one outcome over any other just because it is the one that we happen to live in. I assume this argument has such an appeal to abrahamic theists because they see the existance of humans exactly as they are as a necessity, otherwise their religion wouldn't make any sense. But humans didn't have to evolve, a universe without humans would still be a valid universe... so would a universe without life at all. Or one without matter... or one that collapses in itself seconds after the big bang... There is nothing special about a universe that happend to have humans in it over literally any other universe. It is kinda like getting handed cards, that hand of cards becomming sentient und wondering how incredibly unlikely it is that this exact hand was dealt. "The chances of those 10 out of 32 cards is one in 64.5 million! Someone sentient must have chosen those cards..."

@CookiesRiot Ай бұрын

Every apologetic argument for probability has more than one huge flaw, and they start even before the flaw you pointed out about assigning arbitrary significance to one observed outcome: To calculate a probability of anything happening by chance, it must first be demonstrable that the outcomes are determined by chance at all and that the number of possibilities and likelihood of each have known bounds. Regarding the biochemical processes in this video, neither of those criteria are the case, so assigning any mathematical probability is making a category error. Another category error is at 9:29 when he says, "It is just mathematically impossible," which is antithetical to the concept of probability in the first place. Any non-zero chance result would be, by definition, possible even on the first try. And that's where your post comes in; after they've incorrectly determined that this result is supposed to be from random chance, that we can calculate that chance, that the chance is approximately zero, and that approximately zero equals impossible.

@thedave1771 Ай бұрын

It’s amazing how many people can’t wrap their head around the fact that every well shuffled deck is as unique as every other.

@laurajarrell6187 Ай бұрын

It's wishful thinking, so you never really lose someone, or the truth. Truth can suck, but doesn't make the lie any truer. 👍🏼🌊💙💙💙🌊🥰✌🏼

@justinmoock7506 Ай бұрын

Hmmm...u should tell ur democratic friends this. To them the truth DOES suck but it doesn't make the lie any truer. Ya know,the false narrative all u people seem to worship?

@Kevin_Williamson Ай бұрын

This is one of those Baffle 'Em With Big Numbers speeches. I'm willing to bet the folks in the pews lapping this up never took an in-depth probabilities and statistics course to begin to question where these amazing statistics even come from. Or a high school chemistry course to understand how molecules form and interact. I get the impression this group would be amazed at someone mixing chemicals from a kid's chemistry set to create a compound right before their eyes. Magic!!!!

@Soapy-chan Ай бұрын

"everything is insanely improbable so it's 100% possible and fact that my favorite interpretation of a sky fairy did it"

@brenatevi Ай бұрын

Could have named this episode "Abusing math for God."

@RyanLivesForGodAlways Ай бұрын

@odojang Ай бұрын

Or "cherrypicking numbers for God." Amusing how in his big numbers of improbability of specific molecules, he forgets the big numbers of millions of square foot of but one planet where you have billions of simultaneous attempts, every second of billions of years, among hundreds of billions of stars in hundreds of billions of galaxies. And that's only what we know of so far. With such an immense range of opportunities, it is his very impossibility that actually becomes impossible.

@ExtremeMadnessX Ай бұрын

@@RyanLivesForGodAlways🧌🤡💩👆

@martinblank-d2n Ай бұрын

Do you think E=mc2 or is this False in your mind?

@lower_case_t Ай бұрын

But is he really? Seems to me he only uses mathwords but there's no math in any of his ramblings whatsoever. In particular, these apologists apparently never think about the meaning of the word "probability". Their "math" has as much to do with math as their "science" has to do with science.

@sciencenerd7639 Ай бұрын

Glycine is not a protein, it is an amino acid. You need multiple amino acids linked together to be called a protein. What Dutko said was still unbelievably stupid for several reasons. One of the reasons is that proteins can be smaller than 400 amino acids. Insulin has 51.

@RyanLivesForGodAlways Ай бұрын

@AronRa Ай бұрын

That’s what I get for googling “simplest protein”.

@borisbauwens7133 Ай бұрын

Technically gluthathione is the smallest protein. It's three amino acids long: cysteine, glycine and glutamate. (It's made enzymatically, not through translation, and technically it's a polypeptide and not a protein, although that distinction on length is arbitrary)

@sciencenerd7639 Ай бұрын

@@borisbauwens7133 Yeah I would call that an oligopeptide. To be called a protein it should have a "well-defined three dimensional structure". In other words, long enough to fold. But I love that you brought up this example because it shows that even a very small number of linked amino acids can have important functions.

@sciencenerd7639 Ай бұрын

@@AronRa It would be difficult to determine the simplest protein because it is arbitrary where to draw the line between calling it a polypeptide and calling it a protein. The idea is, to be called a protein it should be long enough to fold and exist in a well-defined three-dimensional structure. One of my textbooks say it's a protein if its weight is above 10,000 daltons and that would be 90 amino acids. An example of a rather small protein is cytochrome c which is 104 amino acids long. Some proteins start out longer but then get cleaved to become functional. Insulin starts out at 110 amino acids and after getting cleaved a couple times its 51. As pointed out by another commenter in the thread, even very small oligopeptides can have important biochemical functions, even if they are not what we would call a protein.

@Outspoken.Humanist Ай бұрын

It is sad to see even those few scattered members of his audience. You know that because of their preconditioning, they will listen to the way he recites all those big numbers and supposed facts and they will believe him. How could they not? They will never fact check him because they already prefer comforting lies to uncomfortable truth. Religious people are slaves to ignorance. And, worse, they are willing slaves. It really is tragic.

@fepeerreview3150 Ай бұрын

The willing acceptance of being a slave is the only path into Heaven.

@TheSkyGuy77 Ай бұрын

@@fepeerreview3150 which is impossible. How can one experience so-called paradise when one cannot even see, nor think, nor taste, nor smell, because one is no longer alive to perceive it?

@tulpas93 Ай бұрын

Thank you, Aron!

@jastheadventurer1784 Ай бұрын

There's almost no one in the Church!

@herbieshine1312 Ай бұрын

Thanks Mr. Ra

@MagiRemmie Ай бұрын

It doesn't matter how improbable something is. The fact of the matter is it happened. It's more likely something improbable happened than something impossible happened.

@michaelburk9171 Ай бұрын

Just something like getting to work on time requires an almost incalculable number of chance occurrences to happen

@robotaholic Ай бұрын

Been watching you for years. . . Thank you for existing and being so bad to the bone!

@phrozenwun Ай бұрын

Electronegativity in the Periodic Table is not a random property, it drives chemical coordination in a highly choreographed manner - that is just one process that is "real" and definitely not random.

@fepeerreview3150 Ай бұрын

This is great! Give Dutko no rest. Let him know that every public statement he makes is going to be subject to scrutiny and if it's false or weak that's going to be pointed out.

@thomasridley8675 Ай бұрын

Impossible gods are the only ones we have. Christianity is the most diverse, agenda driven and fought over religous theology we have ever created. Which is clearly at odds with their claims of having a unified theology.

@Raz.C Ай бұрын

It gets somewhat worse than that: Christianity is at odds with the Bible!!! Violently so! The old testament defines Jesus as a False Prophet, warns against following false prophets, has a commandment against worshipping anyone other than God (the 'Father') and so on and so forth. The only way to be a Christian and believe that the bible is divinely inspired, is by ignoring VAST swathes of the bible. Just for laughs, if you read Ecclesiastes, it will give you an idea of how delusional a person needs to be to believe both that the bible is divinely inspired and to also believe the claims made by Christianity. Ps: "Judeo-Christian" is as nonsensical a term as would be "Islamo-Christian" Judaism (ie - the old testament) and christianity (the new testament) are completely and utterly incompatible.

@uriituw Ай бұрын

Imagine this Jehovah guy just twiddling his thumbs for a semi-infinite amount of time-and then only around 6,000 years ago, bringing everything into existence.

@CookiesRiot Ай бұрын

Or as WLC claims, time didn't exist until a point in time [which didn't exist] wherein a decision was made [timelessly] to change over time [which didn't exist] to a time when time did exist.

@RichWoods23 Ай бұрын

@@CookiesRiot I remember that time. The time Low Bar Bill made a timeless (metaphorically speaking) claim about time, that is.

@istvansipos9940 Ай бұрын

It is even more ridiculous than that. First, the all creating g0d (whatever the g0d is) was satisfied and perfectly happy with the great void. And, since the g0d did not create space-TIME, the next moment (the moment of creation) never came. The End. If an ALL creating g0d existed, nothing else would.

@TheBorderlineMan Ай бұрын

I appreciate your content!

@Shadequillx Ай бұрын

Quantum Mechanics & Spacetime? More like ‘How to Confuse Your Friends at Parties 101.’ Just remember, if anyone asks you to explain it, just say, ‘It’s all relative,’ and watch their brains implode faster than a particle in a collider. And that equation? It’s basically the universe’s way of saying, ‘Good luck, buddy!’

@toneloke7489 Ай бұрын

I think it was Niels Bohr who said, "anyone saying they understand quantum physics, doesn't know quantum physics 😂

@hifibrony Ай бұрын

@@toneloke7489 It was Richard Feynman.

@VaughanMcCue Ай бұрын

Thank you.

@Enkidu-4U Ай бұрын

I've thought for some time after listening to most of the arguments from apologists that if you're using philosophy to prove your God. You've already lost and didn't show a shred of evidence. philosophical arguments for God never work, and you're not tricking yourself to be smarter. You're just tricking yourself.

@fepeerreview3150 Ай бұрын

The thought experiment about what I did yesterday is a brilliant way to explain to somebody how probabilities can be manipulated to confuse people. First, there's the obvious difficulty of assigning probabilities to actions. How probable is it that I take 27 minutes to drink my first coffee vs the other times I've taken in the past, perhaps ranging from 12 minutes to 32? Every single minute increment has a different probability of occurrence. Then there's the question of my shower. Breakfast... etc. Put it all together and the precise sequence and timing of all those events happening exactly as they did is extraordinarily low. But the simple fact is that yesterday happened.

@michaelpudney Ай бұрын

That Pastor would tell his audience that he has a seven second ritual to do before bed that will prove God exists but you have to be in his church for 3 years before he will reveal it.

@invaderhorizongreen8168 Ай бұрын

sounds like the kind of words that would be spoken by a con man.

@smadaf Ай бұрын

I'm only 63 seconds in, and I have a thought. My wish is that you would make certain points more, and certain other points less, in your many videos. Here's what brings it that wish to mind: In this, the first minute, you've (A) brought up an excellent point-the convergence of science on an accurate reflection of reality, juxtaposed with thousands of years of splintering, divergent religious misunderstandings of reality-and (B) said something about whether "there's a 'there' there". I've heard you mention A in several other videos, and yet in my internal monologue that is critical of religion it is very rare that point A comes to mind. I've heard you mention B more often; and, if you asked me to list Things That Aron Ra Says a Lot, I would easily think of the line about "a 'there' there". I think this is a problem. While the line about "a 'there' there" may have seemed witty to you when you first thought of it, and it may seem witty to others when they first hear it, it gets old real fast-and, beyond that, it carries so little _meaning:_ ask me right now to tell you what Aron Ra means when he says that line, and what it implies, and I would struggle: it'd be like "Well, he says that line a lot; but, hmm, let me think for a moment about what he might mean." On the other hand, if you asked me to talk about the juxtaposition of scientific convergence and religious divergence, I could immediately start talking about important implications of this juxtaposition. The "'there' there" line has become a cliché in your videos, annoying to the point of being like a broken record-whereas, at least in my recollection, all your mentions of the convergence-divergence juxtaposition seem to have been done almost _in passing._ Yet, _that,_ the juxtaposition, is something of substance, some meat, something that should be given more attention. You could even make a video that was about nothing but that: it wouldn't require you to go on for half an hour or even a quarter: maybe just a five-minute talk focused on that would be far more influential than the umpteenth repetition of "a 'there' there". I can _easily recall_ dozens of other good points you've repeatedly brought up in videos, but not this point-and, whereas those other points have been given their due attention in your videos that I've seen, this one hasn't. If you asked me for advice about the "'there' there" line, I'd say never to utter it again. Think about my internal monologue just mentioned, the one that's critical of religion. Does A _deserve_ a place in that monologue? _Yes._ Does A _have_ a place in it? No; and maybe this is because the point has been highlighted so rarely in the media that I've taken in. Does B (the "'there' there" line) have a place in my internal monologue? It does not. Does B _deserve_ a place in that monologue? I think it doesn't. From my perspective, it seems that you are wasting time, and your and others' mental resources, on something of very little use, when you could be spending those resources on something much more worthy. I think you also should make a short video about what you mean when you say, as you so often do, that faith is the most dishonest position one can hold. It's obvious that it's dishonest-but just now I can't think of any video in which you've spelled out _how_ it's the _most_ dishonest. _Maybe_ your idea is that belief unfounded on evidence is the _most_ dishonest because it means lying _to oneself_ (you do often say "auto-deceptive" near your utterance of "the most dishonest"): but I don't _know_ that that's what you mean; I have only my guess. This, I think, is something you should clarify. And, of course, if you want to bring in new recruits, rather than just preach to your KZbin choir, it probably will be more effective if you take some time to spell it out in more words (not your often repeated memorized condensed soundbites) and steer clear of the ranting about how so many people are such idiots: if you want those people (those "idiots") to be more receptive to your message that seeks to reduce their moments of idiocy, your first step should be to avoid telling them that they're idiots.

@smadaf Ай бұрын

1:37 "If there is no actual fact that can be [ . . . ] objectively shown to be really true and that [ . . . ] either positively indicates this conclusion or [is] exclusively concordant with that, contradicting or otherwise eliminating the nearest competitive concept, then [ . . . ] ." This is a good example of what I was talking about when I said "it probably will be more effective if you take some time to spell it out in more words (not your often repeated memorized condensed soundbites)". I see three things going on in your line that I've just quoted: 1. You're making the same point you've made many times, about evidence and conclusions and faith. It's a worthy point. 2. Laudably, you're changing the words slightly from your usual script. For example, you started off saying "is either positively", but then dropped your usual "is positively indicative of" in favor of a rewording, "positively indicates". 3. But you still rushed through this. The rushing, I think, is part of what makes it hard for people who don't already agree with you to come around to your point of view. Imagine that I were trying to teach you how the names of the letters of the Roman alphabet are pronounced in, say, Finnish, and I stood before you and pointed at the letters on the chalkboard and ran through the names of all of them in four seconds, a very fast recitation of the names of the letters in order. Would that teach you much? No. Would it make me look as if I were either (A) tired of having to say the alphabet to all my idiotic students or (B) trying to show off how fast I could do it? I bet it might. You repeat so many times, for us, your audience, your memorized lines about faith and dishonesty and autodeception and "a 'there' there", and the Levant, and fables and fantasy and folklore, and evidence and objectively verifiable facts and whether they are positively indicative of or exclusively concordant with bla bla bla. Is it impressive that you came up with these tight definitions, and so many good points, and can recite them so fast? I guess. But what does that do for the people who are encountering these ideas for the first time, the people whom you want really to stop and think about them? If you want me to learn how to say the alphabet in Finnish, you're going to have to go slowly, and build it up in little pieces, and make sure I have each piece before you move on to the next one. I think you know this last point, because of the several times you've complained that, when you try to show anti-evolutionists the truth of the theory of biological evolution, they come to some point where they don't want to acknowledge that they understand and agree with the points so far (probably because they know what logically will have to come next). You understand the need to build up an understanding in pieces, and to make sure each unit is understood before you move on to the next one. I think you should take your repertoire of stock-phrases and go through it one by one, a short video for each. You could have a three- or five-minute video on the meaning of "evidence" and "evidently" (in the scientific domain), for example: you could even steer clear of religious controversy and instead just talk about something dull, like evidence of whether there's any iron in a metal nail (or whatever)-or at least hold off the religious application until the last thirty seconds of the video. The same kind of problem occurs when you start talking about how something or other is entirely supported by evidence in many fields-you know, when you start listing your "ogies" and the like, with anthropology, archaeology, paleontology, climatology, geology, vulcanology, oceanography, phylogeny, &c. It's like rattling off the alphabet as fast as you can, apparently to show off, rather than much teaching to the uninitiated.

@ChrisS2i Ай бұрын

Creationists don't understand that evolution is a step-wise sieving process that works on populations. If a mutation is successful it will replicate through the population over time. These arguments from probability don't take into account the number of individuals at each step, the fact that genes replicate, and the number of times cells divide. They are essentially computing the probability of spontaneous generation all at once (they think of evolution in terms of creationism); they don't understand evolution doesn't need to win the lottery multiple times all at once, since selection will allow building up of complex proteins over time step-wise.

@FerrariKing Ай бұрын

My wife didn't believe in God but I convinced her to talk to my pastor. He invited her to his office and shut the door and after a couple minutes she was praying, " Oh God, Oh god," and now aways goes to my pastor for a Wednesday. In his office twice Sunday and wednesday.

@donkink3114 Ай бұрын

I really really hope you are just joshin us lol

@ronm3245 Ай бұрын

They were fucking.

@kellydalstok8900 Ай бұрын

Did you send her to the priest because you two had problems conceiving? Because that’s how they solved it in olden times.

@michaelramon2411 Ай бұрын

There are six different directions I could move in (forward, backwards, left, right, up and down), meaning that there is a 1/6th chance whenever I jump that I fall down instead of another way. YET, in the thousands of times I have jumped, I have only ever fallen down. The probability of falling down by random chance a mere 100 jumps in a row is 1.53 x 10^-78! Therefore, God must use his hand to push us down every time we jump. There is no other possible alternative explanation.

@Sableagle Ай бұрын

Have you checked for elastic ropes attached to your ankles and pulled by hordes of pink-and-blue-striped squirrels? Search very carefully. The squirrels could be invisible.

@RichWoods23 Ай бұрын

@@Sableagle And intangible. Tricky little buggers, squirrels.

@brunozeigerts6379 Ай бұрын

YEC's should be forced to write a thousand times on a blackboard: Evidences is not a valid plural, Evidences is not a valid plural.

@4dojo Ай бұрын

I don’t know how to explain something, therefore god.

@4dojo Ай бұрын

@@obnobn2345 I’m not sure if you realize that my comment is a joke. It doesn’t even make a point, it’s just parroting the overused format of many theist arguments.

@adnanmir2873 Ай бұрын

@@4dojoCountering so called overusing religiously arguments by Overusing "jokes". #AheistLogic

@4dojo Ай бұрын

@@adnanmir2873 You do realize that I really don’t care if it bothers you, so have a nice day I guess.

@rimmersbryggeri Ай бұрын

5:05 "The chances of anything coming form Mars are a million to one he siad, But still they come"

@sciencenerd7639 Ай бұрын

hello everybody

@Starhawke_Gaming Ай бұрын

Hi! 👋🏼

@johnburn8031 Ай бұрын

Hi 🙋🏻‍♂️

@ThisOldHelmet Ай бұрын

Hello!

@b4ph0m3tdk9 Ай бұрын

Hello distent travler

@SaerosTheDragon Ай бұрын

Greetings!

@Leith_Crowther Ай бұрын

What are the odds that in a town of about 35,000 with an average age in the mid 50’s, with me being a recluse who only leaves the house every couple of days, that I would pass by a Tesla Cybertruck on September 3rd, 2024 at exacrly 11:40am? Those are pretty slim odds, but it happened.

@davidschultz3585 Ай бұрын

Since single cell organisms have been doing their thing for a few billion years, it isn't at all surprising that they appear complicated. They have had lots of time to accumulate new complications. And the bit about all those parts working in "perfect precision". Hah. Mostly it is just things bouncing around at random and bumping into each other.

@soyevquirsefron990 Ай бұрын

The odds of creating the first protein are 1 in 2x10^58? Ok, the odds of shuffling a deck of cards in any particular way are 1 in 8x10^68. But every time anyone shuffles a deck of cards, no matter what order the cards are in, that order is more unlikely than protein forming by itself. Everything is unlikely, but unlikely things happen all the time

@paulcooper3173 Ай бұрын

Please note that you cannot have a single “bacteria” ! It is a single bacterium! 🤯🧐

@diggie9598 Ай бұрын

Same goes for critierium and visum. It hurts to hear people say: "There is one criteria..."

@ronm3245 Ай бұрын

But you can have a Carpeteria. At some point there must have been just one of them.

@jursamaj Ай бұрын

I'm amazed that they showed all those empty pews. And it's all old folks. That church is dying.

@missk1697 Ай бұрын

The problem with improbability argument is it could be said in literally every version of the world or universe.

@ziploc2000 Ай бұрын

A deck of cards can be arranged in any of 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ways, yet every given deck of cards is arranged in one of those ways. That's a known probability. We live in one possible universe, but we have no idea if it's the only way the universe could ever be. We can't judge probability given a sample of one.

@JenniferPicaninny Ай бұрын

Thx aron ra.

@thomashennessy3585 Ай бұрын

Isn’t it telling that Bob spent so much time lying about science instead of promoting the truth & wonder of his religion?

@RichWoods23 Ай бұрын

It's all because he doesn't have enough faith to believe six impossible things before breakfast, and fears that others may be about to leave the church too.

@Logical.Psychopath Ай бұрын

The Ignorance, the incompetence to comprehend the simplest of complexity. Just wow.

@leamael00 Ай бұрын

Ah yes, big numbers therefore god.

@goofusmaximus1482 Ай бұрын

Or big numbers, therefore Flying Spaghetti Monster. Equal probability.

@TheSinisterPorpoise1 Ай бұрын

Statistics are often counterintuitive, and I've seen creationists fumble basic concepts on occasion, including the one where sometimes they forget to say the odds of something that we know happened are in the past or not including the phrase "by chance." The probability that life evolved on this planet is 1. We're here. We know this happened. This is also true for all the events that happened to you yesterday and today up until this point. The probability of those things happening is 1. But the also forget that millions of molecules would interact for centuries before life evolved, and things don't have to evolve in a sequence. The necessary chemicals can arise in tandem, and it's possible -- although I don't know how likely it is -- that the first cells arose in different places at about the same time at different places. (I'll let the origin of life researchers correct me on this one because this is wild speculation on my part.) Other concepts I've seen creationists fumble is what a negative exponent means, because I've seen Sal Giardina, a relatively minor apologist with a background in engineering, say something had a 1 in 10^-70 chance of happening. 1 in 10^-70 is well above one, giving the event a probability of 1. I don't now if he misspoke or he forgot that the ratio he was using would indicate a very large positive number, but I'll be charitable and assume it was the former. I am still waiting for a creationist to show me that DNA is either Turing Complete or can be used to manipulate data. All they've been able to show me so far is that DNA computing systems, which we've engineered to be Turing Complete, use DNA as data. This is also something where I think it can be shown. Since you can prove Turing Completeness mathematically, you'd think they'd be all over this one, since you can prove things conclusively in math.

@Big_Trev Ай бұрын

Wouldn’t the practical infiniteness of the universe be an argument for natural processes? That amongst the trillions of galaxies and billions of planets inside each galaxy, wouldn’t it be not too shocking that at least one of them developed life? Because when speaking in (practical) infinites, unlikely is just certainty, waiting for its turn.

@msmith3395 Ай бұрын

I’ve heard this combinatorics argument for years. It’s not that the math is bad, in fact it’s trivial, the problem is there is no underlying mechanism or model that the math is attached to. The implied mechanism is that things just fell together by chance, which obviously is not possible, no silly combinatorics calculation needed. From the best I can tell, such pulpit math demonstration are meant to give the impression of sophistication to an entirely unsophisticated audience, like the jungle explorer who gets the natives’ worship by flicking his bic.

@DylanStone-w4s Ай бұрын

That's why I say it's aliens we only break down to the matter that makes up the universe and they can put that matter back together because they know the future

@DylanStone-w4s Ай бұрын

And in fact if you could manipulate energy or matter anyway you wanted you could bring people back to life

@lower_case_t Ай бұрын

Nothing has a fixed probability, at least outside pure quantum mechanics (and even there, this would be true if you can live with a many worlds interpretation). We determine probability by recognizable patterns, and the more we know about a process and it's parameters, the better we can predict it's outcome. To put numbers on probabilities, we use statistics - an evaluation of past events with similar patterns like the one we're trying to predict. Once something has happened (like life existing), we simply cannot say it's impossible any more. Amino acids and proteins form naturally so frequently that we can put that probability to 1 in the right conditions. But we can assume a zero probability for anything that has never, not once, been observed (like a god showing themselves or someone talking life into existence)

@weldabar Ай бұрын

Roll the dice a 100 times, and no matter what you get it's very improbably. You get an improbable roll every single time!

@lurch666 Ай бұрын

Shuffle a pack of cards and you will get a sequence of cards that's never occurred before. Does that mean it's impossible to get any sequence since the probability of any is so small.

@PhokenKuul Ай бұрын

If something is probable doesn't that preclude it from being improbable? When you roll a standard die there is a 1 in 6 chance of any specific face coming up. The probability is calculable and probable.

@PhokenKuul Ай бұрын

@@lurch666 Trudat. the odds are 52! or something like 10^67 different combos.

@RyanLivesForGodAlways Ай бұрын

@@lurch666 Nahum 1:7 The Lord is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in him, Follow Jesus, especially if you believe in Him and know He is real, life comes and go, eternity last forever and never ends, decide now you may not get the chance to become a friend of Jesus, give you love to Christ and surrender yourself into Him who is faithful

@michaelburk9171 Ай бұрын

That was a nasty falacy gravy of incredulity, fine tuning, ignorance, and improvability. He poured that mess on thick too.

@gatorboymike Ай бұрын

I'm imagining Jesus dressed as a British constable holding a sign that says "NO POOFING."

@davecannabis Ай бұрын

my daughter broke my heart a while ago, we were talking and i asked her if she knew how old the Earth was her reply was "6,000 years" i knew she was a godbotherer her mother is at fault there, but i didnt realise the depth of her delusion, ill be seeing her at xmass time when we have a family get together, i dont think ill be able to look at her the same any more , shes still my daughter and i love her but i see her in a very different light now

@theboombody Ай бұрын

Maybe being deluded isn't as bad as you'd think it is. After all, wasn't all of humanity once deluded into believing time flowed universally for everything? Even today most people believe that. The only ones who found out otherwise are those exposed to the ideas of special relativity, which is not easy.

@CharlesPayet Ай бұрын

I’m so sore hear that, @davecannabis. That must be very discouraging.

@Jojosworld000 Ай бұрын

Thats silly youre “heart is broken” over your daughters wrong opinion. Bolth of you need to chill, more so you.

@davecannabis Ай бұрын

@@Jojosworld000 im chill lol you seem to be upset , im not , it just makes me very sad that my daughter my only child turned to such unbelievable rubbish , we dont talk about religion because she knows how i feel, and i dont want to lose her, just because she's wrong , and anyway its none of your bloody business

@Jojosworld000 Ай бұрын

@@davecannabis you ever watch that south park episode of Stan being friends with the mormon kid, and he trys to convince him that its ridiculous and hes a fool for believing it. And in the end the mormon kid called stan a *a hole who needs to grow up* So what if your daughter believes something bogus, im sure shes a sweet and nice person with a loving family, if you are bothered by her fairy tale that it makes you “disappointed” in her. You sound like the A-hole, and thats only gonna hurt your relationship with you daughter hearing her own mother thibks shes a disappointment because of a belief. You remind me of that episode. Do better Stan

@unicyclist97 Ай бұрын

It's mathematically improbable that that guy would tell that many lies in that exact sequence at that exact place and time... so by his own logic he didn’t do it 😂

@indricotherium4802 Ай бұрын

Why did the creator god equip humans with toenails that grow? What's the effing point?

@Sableagle Ай бұрын

Last week, I flipped my bicycle over to repair a punctured inner tube. When I flipped it right way up again, the folding hex-key set slipped out of its elastic and landed on my big toe, taking a piece out of the nail. It wouldn't probably have hurt more if that nail hadn't been there. I've lost the nails off my big toes a couple of times, due to the combination of leather boots, moisture and much walking. I'm not saying any creator sky daddy fairy gave us all toenails to protect me from falling hex-key sets. I'm just saying toenails aren't totally useless.

@indricotherium4802 Ай бұрын

@@Sableagle : if the creator's idea was armour, there were presumably harder and more durable materials available. And why cover only the end joint - what about protection for the rest of the toe/foot? Anyway, though I appreciate your reply - a discussion about the purpose of toenalis in a god designed human is pretty rare - you didn't say anything about the design intention of making them to grow. Most parts of the body, like bone, stop enlarging on maturity. Toenails don't - what use to Adam & Eve?

@Sableagle Ай бұрын

@@indricotherium4802 Maybe they wore their toenails down a little each day by using them do dig for peanuts while dangling from trees by their arms.

@indricotherium4802 Ай бұрын

@@Sableagle : the fact that you make a connection to trees is very interesting. And if you're on the right track, optimum length for a toenail is when it is ideal for peanut digging. Maybe that's quite long and maybe the creator god has designed them to grow or regrow after wear or breakage only to that length and no further. I have to admit I've never let mine grow long enough to check it out. Problems getting your shoes and socks on! But I guess Adam & Eve didn't wear them.

@ChrisBreederveld Ай бұрын

I've mentioned this the other day elsewhere, but it fits here as well: Anyone that worked on the FoldIt project, to build your own proteines to math some given target enzyme, knows there are many ways to build one that works and more often than not one that works poorly can change to one that works great with a single "mutation". It's just as if that "evolution thing" actually has practical applications and that the theist numbers game is just disingenuous as hell.

@CookiesRiot Ай бұрын

Theists who employee probability arguments for amino acids mysteriously omit that silent point mutations exist where a mutation occurs, but the exact amino acids and proteins are created. I also don't see a lot of mention of the fact that something a quarter of all conceptions result in miscarriages, and about half of those are due to genetic conditions of the fetus. Creationists will act like there's no chance that a baby could ever come out alive with random mutations, even as we empirically know that about 1 in 8 don't make it for exactly that reason.

@DJH316007 Ай бұрын

This is what happens when the education system fails.

@donkink3114 Ай бұрын

This is what happens when indoctrinated parents indoctrinate their kids, and won't allow the education system to de-indoctrinate their kids.

@Caffin8tor Ай бұрын

As opportunities ➡️♾️, improbable 🟰 inevitable

@Sundaydish1 Ай бұрын

There are over 45,000 denominations of christianity. How many denominations of evolution are there?

@missk1697 Ай бұрын

Two that I am aware of.

@Sundaydish1 Ай бұрын

@@missk1697 I hope you are not referring to Lamarckism

@Sundaydish1 Ай бұрын

@BrianDk1x What does the word count have to do with it? Why ask me? I'm not a christian. Because it's all made up nonsense?...

@Sableagle Ай бұрын

@BrianDk1x There is no limit to the number of ways a fool can be wrong.

@Sundaydish1 Ай бұрын

@BrianDk1x Then do your own research. I am not here to explain everything to you.

@quietone2674 Ай бұрын

I have a friend who is Christian. He's the more normal Christian, and also a history major, so when I point out a lot of the stuff that's wrong in the bible he typically brushes it aside as being written in the bronze age. So he knows on some level that the story is greatly exaggerated, to put it generously. But the funny part is we were watching creationist debunk stuff together and he came up with the idea maybe there is a god - but he's an Australopithecus. We still have a good laugh at Australopithecus God, just doing things in an imaginary void, dead scientists trying to teach him the wheel or fire. He has no idea what's going on, but he's trying.

@toneloke7489 Ай бұрын

Preach needs to stick to bible myths, and stay away from science, it's makes him look stupid.

@kellydalstok8900 Ай бұрын

It makes him look even more stupid.

@mikaeljohnledet1060 26 күн бұрын

In topics like this, I always keep a quote from Niel DeGrass Tyson in mind: "Science is the philosophy of discoveries, while religion is the philosophy of ignorance." 😊

@timrosencrans7955 Ай бұрын

Every time you shuffle a deck of cards, you manifest an occurrence that has the odds of 8 times 10 to the 67th power

@fepeerreview3150 Ай бұрын

8:52 In short, "BIG SCARY NUMBERS!!! so it must be Gawd who dun it! Hallelujah. Amen. Pass the collection plate."

@SandhillCrane42 Ай бұрын

How could there be a rock without The Jesus? Rocks are an illusion of the devil. I rest my case.

@MegaBearsFan 17 күн бұрын

My response to any "the odds of a protein forming by chance are astronomical" is "and what are the odds of an all-powerful god, larger and more complex than the universe, forming by chance?"

@zray2937 Ай бұрын

There are uncountably infinite directions in which an object can move in space, so choosing one at random has zero probability. However, every time I let a rock fall, it moves downwards.

@seraphonica Ай бұрын

interestingly, the continuous fracturing of religions into smaller and more detailed sects... is superficially similar to evolution, in the same way language is

@smadaf Ай бұрын

We're not even nine minutes in, and Bob Dutko has already said three times with a straight face that there's such a thing as a probability greater than 1. I guess he'd have no complaint about a TV weatherman who said seriously that there was a five-million-percent chance of snow tomorrow.

@alexistoran2181 Ай бұрын

These creationists just love to declare something mathematically impossible while also painstakingly representing it as having a non-zero mathematical probability.

@RichWoods23 Ай бұрын

If they were to be deliberately precise with their words, rather than making hyperbolic claims and emotive appeals, more of their audience would see through them.

@chriscreations8853 Ай бұрын

RyanLivesForSpamAlways

@ashleytravel5829 Ай бұрын

I have absolutely no idea why something happened therefore I know for absolute certain that it is the most unlikely thing that happened!

@evecruz0167 Ай бұрын

❤

@bujinkanatori Ай бұрын

When listening an apologist, keep a record of things he says that are true. Your list will be very small.

@saintdonoghue Ай бұрын

In addition to being an interesting case study, Rabbi Jeremy is also what's known in the Torah as a cutie-patootie

@bangfi1865 Ай бұрын

I think this Dupeco character once tried to sell me a Kirby vacuum cleaner for 2800. Dollars back in the late 80s.

@timhaines3877 Ай бұрын

I challenge /any/ CDesignProponentist to describe how their "probabilities" are calculated. If you can't even understand how scientific notation works for numbers, then I have a feeling I'll be waiting a while for this.

@tonybrantley Ай бұрын

As we speak Elephants are evolving without tusks because of Poaching for the Ivory !

@CmdrRob Ай бұрын

"Scientists have calculated that the chances of something so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten." - Terry Pratchett You'd think YECs would be on the side of the magicians.