Can We Test Science Itself? | Alex - CA | Atheist Experience 24.13

[@ElYeyo1989]

How can someone’s voice put me to sleep and at the same time annoy me? This guy has talent!

[@ojrmk1]

That feeling when someone shit in your NyQuil

[@scottlaughlin1528]

Alex is so determined to read from his script that when the conversation goes in a different direction from his script, he either won't answer Matt and Jen's questions directly, or answers questions they never asked to bring it back to his script. SMH.

[@jasondulin7376]

I think you are correct. He doesn't react to nearly anything Matt says, because his script doesn't have options to deal with those responses. You can hear him waiting for Matt to stop speaking for him to move on to the next scripted point that he doesn't care what the response is.

[@themousethatroared3371]

A script taken from the Christian Apologetics Manual for Dummies.

[@Arbadee.PayZaLee]

Yes, just another typical religious nut ball Christian. Matt explains the universe is not random and there are natural laws (that don't have a personality or desires) that guide the universe! Alex agrees and then Alex wants to compare intelligent Design to the universe being random! Ignorance is rampant in religion!. of course they don't understand Newton's 2nd law of thermodynamics or ignore the word "isolated". The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an "isolated system" can never decrease over time, and is constant if and only if all processes are reversible. Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the state with maximum entropy. The key word they all miss is "isolated" (or closed), where no more energy enters that system. The system will eventually become entropic where all energy within that system comes to a complete equilibrium. As far as science can tell the universe is a closed system and will eventually become entropic but not for an approx 100 trillion earth years by best guest scenarios. Our sum should last for another 14 billion years but will be a shell of it's self (haha) our little blue marble will either be a burnt to a crisp charcoal sphere or have been absorbed into the remains of the sun. Either way I'm afraid we won't be around to witness the end and will have died 14 billion years earlier. Stuff happens before we were born and after we are dead! The universe will move on without us!

[@gazza595]

@@themousethatroared3371 Does that book exist? It really should, it would be a hilarious read!

[@themousethatroared3371]

@@gazza595 I wouldnt be surprised if one did. I know there are actual apologetics books out there but I dont know the actual titles. 😅

[@MunkyDrag0n]

If science failed the test, then the phone being used for the caller to spew his pseudo intellectual crap would never exist.

[@Arbadee.PayZaLee]

Funny how the anit-science people never really seem to get this or conveniently ignore this fact. Typical hypocritical religious nut balls. Ignore facts which don't fit into their narrative the same way they ignore the biblical stories that don't fit into or contradict their religious ideology.

[@Arbadee.PayZaLee]

@David Anewman You can't really be that ignorant! Do you really just run around the internet trying to pick fights by saying something so ignorantly stupid as that last post. 1st off cell phone technology goes much further than 1 mile as long as there are no obstructions like mountains in the way. Fuck do we have to really explain how cell phones technology work with microwaves and line of sight. O yeah you are a nut ball Christian, I think you believe there are really no satellites orbiting earth but balloons floating around bouncing back the microwaves. Or maybe the repeaters are hanging from the dome ceiling, how they got there is a mystery only solved by "god" Ever been on a boat, my reception is way further than a mile. I have a cheap walkie talkie set which has a range of approx 7 miles tested. It's like talking to a bible thumping Christian!

[@roqsteady5290]

@David Anewman likely you wouldn't even have those if it were not for science.

[@petersinclair3997]

Dirk Knight. The end is nigh... Is the Son to ride on a cloud and save Judea from Second Century Romans. Good trick in the 21st Century. I wonder if clouds can traded in on time machines?

[@vampiremosquito9045]

@AT87 Too bad you can't justify your argument. No one has come up with a better methodology, leaving you with a fallacy of the argument from imperfection. As perfection doesn't exist, the point is irrelevant. Further, philosophy is the process of determining what is true, hardly a problem. We want a construct to be falsifiable. It's a good thing.

[@anowhereguy2521]

All that blabbering and he end up with the watchmaker argument... I'm disappointed.

[@ptuffgong8504]

Right? What a letdown.

[@SamIAm-kz4hg]

It was at about 21 minutes in. Why not start with that? What a numpty.

[@WukongTheMonkeyKing]

When a theist caller wants to talk about evolution and science then the watchmaker is usually hiding in the wings.

[@BigHeretic]

*A Nowhere Guy* If you keep watching be prepared for more disappointment, they don't have a whole lot else up their sleeves!

[@RonLarhz]

Ok... I'm early in the video... Maybe i should quit this and go to the school one in talkheathen.

[@puckerings]

Someone who starts out by saying they want an honest discussion about something generally doesn't.

[@derekmizer6293]

Theists are dishonest by default

[@Nabiki73]

@@derekmizer6293 Not necessarily- Alex could honestly believe the stuff he is saying. He can also be honestly wrong like he was when he cited the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as some sort of evidence for a god. He's not intentionally trying to deceive, he is just deluded.

[@derekmizer6293]

@@Nabiki73 I hear u but I don't buy it. He is dishonest. Science has already demonstrated the singularity. Science has already demonstrated evolution. Science has stated 2 of a species is not enough to propagate. Every theists knows this but willfully ignore it.

[@Ma7sain27]

@Derek Mizer No dude, religious people are that stupid. I know its hard to believe but they really are. They can never get over the fact that the world is not made by an “intellegent design”. Also, Most get offended if you tell them humans and apes have common ancestors. (Which is scientifically proven)

[@nuffflavor]

ALWAYS !

[@lionheart7762]

Alex’s voice makes me feel like he’s trying to talk dirty to me, but failing miserably.

[@Izzmonster]

Her: Talk dirty to me Me, an idiot: Well the laws of thermodynamics say...

[@adrianjanssens7116]

He's creepy, on purpose. I wouldn't follow him anywhere. Yikes!

[@jaymeanderson5121]

It's creepy af! As a mother I would definitely keep my children away from him.

[@lionheart7762]

Jayme Anderson 😂😂

[@robboltwood]

Oh yeah Alex, shake it, shake my box..... I’ll sort your marbles....

[@dukeemzworth3005]

Anyone who says - "Can We Test Science Itself?" does not even know what science is.

[@ralfhaggstrom9862]

Totally Ignorant ! ..............

[@radar0412]

@@ralfhaggstrom9862 It's already been Scientifically proven.

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

Can we test whether we can test things?

[@brucebaker810]

Lets test it with...religion?

[@ralfhaggstrom9862]

@@brucebaker810 Why test Anything using FAIRY-TALES ? ..........

[@SamIAm-kz4hg]

As soon as he started talking about a bracelet I realized I just wasted 20 minutes of my life. The dishonesty of people is really awesome. Dude, START with that point. You know you wanted to get there. And there is no quantity of preamble that will change the fact that the argument is flawed. And Matt's response was wonderful. This clown begins to describe his box of marbles in such slow detail, as if he himself has just thought of this and is explaining a complicated and brand new idea. Dude, it's the watchmaker argument. It's wrong. And Matt is COMPLETELY right. Your ignorance is pretty unbelievable.

[@kevinchong5424]

I’ve made a game of it to try and pinpoint when it’s obvious that the caller has lost a pretense of a dialogue, and is just waiting to talk. Have to say, some callers do pleasantly surprise me when they steer back to a dialogue

[@sb5403]

This seems to be a main tactic among callers, to take some easily refuted assertion, but first preamble it with 20 minutes of a contrived script that sounds clever to the caller itself. It's horrible and dishonest.

[@sharanchandran5659]

I really liked Matt's answer to the bracelet too. It's so simple and is a perfect analogy for Atheism.

[@hernanedias554]

Yeah that's what I thought too...

[@heinshaaine8153]

Dont tell me that he will make the watchmaker argument...

[@kubush]

Just had a creationist ask me why Darwin wrote the book "the Darwin in doubt." A book written by a modern day creationist. Creationists don't have the mental faculty to check facts.

[@themousethatroared3371]

26 minutes to get to the watchmaker analogy.

[@immortaltoaistisascamdonot4938]

"ALL I WANT TO DO IS STICK TO MY SCRIPT " you're letting reason and basic science get in the way

[@TheDahaka1]

"I don't understand science, but I think it's unreliable. Intelligent design makes much more sense!"

[@derekmizer6293]

🤣🤣🤣🤣good one

[@ricardodelreal5744]

Science has given us technology over the centuries, just look around you!

[@BigHeretic]

*TheDahaka1* Preceded by "There's a god..."

[@derekmizer6293]

@David Anewman take your meds dimwit

[@BigHeretic]

@AT87 Science has done a lot more than given us cool things, it has given us the means to feed and clothe ourselves, identified the cause of illnesses and provided cures and prevention. Through science we have increased our comfort and health and in so doing life expectancy. Rationality is at the heart of Science, I don't know if it gives it but it's a good ambassador for it. It certainly does give us knowledge, more than we know what to do with. In a mere 200 years Science has provided more knowledge and understanding than all the 200 thousand years of our existence that preceded it.

[@elmolewis9123]

This character is going to put science to the test. Einstein wouldn't have a chance against this guy.

[@rembrandt972ify]

Einstein would have left him in a pool of his own blood.

[@lynettekomidar2819]

hahahahahaha

[@sdscipio]

Another god-smuggler caught

[@slimjim227]

Mat is the excise man when it comes to god smugglers.

[@FourDeuce01]

But look how his rectum appears to have been "intelligently designed" for his imaginary god to fit right in it.😂

[@BileDuctBalderdash]

@@FourDeuce01 I have no idea what the OP is saying but I love your comment 😆👌

[@losttribe3001]

“A CLOSED SYSTEM!”, I yelled out of frustration from the kitchen. “What?!?”, my wife confusedly replied from the living room. Alex thinks he’s more clever than he actually is and Matt and Jenna showed the flaw in his “argument”.

[@jackdaniels9179]

Haha same

[@BigHeretic]

*A Lost One* Isn't it amazing, he's using "Law of Thermodynamics" without knowing what it is!? When would we dare to do something so dumb? ...to throw out some reason or proof that we don't understand ourselves. It really says something about how their brains work.

[@subductionzone]

Isolated system, not closed system. There are three systems in today's classification. The Earth is for all practical purposes a closed system. Energy can get in and out, but matter cannot.

[@subductionzone]

@Les Brown Please note the qualifier that I used. "For all practical purposes". When it comes to a measurable change in entropy that small amount of mass entering and leaving the Earth do not amount to a hill of beans. There is quite an increase in entropy from energy entering and leaving the Earth continually. Low entropy light enters and higher entropy heat escapes.

[@subductionzone]

@Les Brown I know. Why even post that?

[@michaeldynesdynesis3534]

You could see straight away that Alex was slowly building up to a wonderful crescendo performance of demonstrating his wilful ignorance.

[@brunobrauer6301]

This guy never took a physics class in his life.

[@JAGUART]

I'm sure he did however, take many many hours of religious instruction.

[@shanesimpson3455]

@@JAGUART That is a worry considering the disgusting proclivities of many Priests/Preachers/Pastors.

[@WyattCayer]

His "forces" were not forces at all......HYDRAULIC!? There are only 4 known forces in the universe right now.

[@juangarza320]

@@WyattCayer well, they're the fundamental forces. There are actually several diferent kind of forces that derived from those three.

[@rockysandman5489]

@David Anewman But reality does.

[@bradleynichols4909]

Jenna and Matt: How do you manage to stay sane dealing with these people?

[@hank_says_things]

Ah, the old “intelligent design/randomness” false dichotomy coupled with a teleological assumption. How bloody tiresome. Alex, please read more.

[@FourDeuce01]

Reading more won't help him until he learns some basic logic.😏

[@brandonmoore3149]

I love how they can never just answer questions 😂 it's like talking to a three-year-old, you have to get their attention and repeat the question like FOUR times before they attempt to answer..... And sometimes they never do 😶

[@IxodesPersulcatus]

When he began listing random words, I nearly cried.

[@michaelsims6429]

He has a box with 100 marbles. Who's going to be the one to tell him he's lost them all?

[@isaacpriestley]

This call is absurd, why do people call an atheist show and say "can you tell me what you learn in a Junior High student's introduction to science class?"

[@JohnSmith-fz1ih]

"Let's put science to the test" he says... Science is a method. We start with a hypothesis. We then put it to the test with initial experimentation We then put it to the test by trying to repeat our results We then put it to the test by making a prediction and testing to see if it comes right We then put it to the test by trying to repeat that and, if we can, other predictions over and over We then put it to the test by publishing our methodology and results so our peers can pick any faults with our testing or assumptions, and replicate the tests themselves to make sure they get the same results. We then put it to the test during a peer review process. We then put it to the test by requiring a consensus of experts to be convinced that this is the best explanation of all of the facts. Science literally is the process of testing itself in every way we can think of. To not notice this is a monumental failure of understanding what science is.

[@iatsd]

You've clearly never studied any philosophy of science.

[@JohnSmith-fz1ih]

@@iatsd If there’s a mistake in something I said then point it out and explain my error. General comments to the effect of “you’re dumb”, without an explanation of how are useless.

[@iatsd]

@@JohnSmith-fz1ih That your don't understand what I mean is just another example of your not understanding what science is and isn't. I was being quite literal when I said it's clear you've never studied any philosophy of science.

[@JohnSmith-fz1ih]

@@iatsd You’re incapable of making a point still I see. Let me know when you’re interested in a conversation instead of just repeating points that boil down to “you’re dumb”.

[@iatsd]

@@JohnSmith-fz1ih Wave your hands all you want to try and distract, but it is still hanging there for all to see: you're stuck on falsification and simply aren't aware of progress since the 1940's.

[@nemiloszorka1162]

And so, you have wasted 26 minutes on "watchmaker" argument. I really admire your patience :)

[@annk.8750]

I once saw a great illustration, very simply done: at the Cleveland museum of natural history, there was a wheel that was a plexiglass sandwich, slowly rotating on a horizontal axis. It contained a layer of identical solid balls, and as the wheel turned, those "randomized" balls continually formed and reformed regular crystal-like structures. It was a basic, super-simplified illustration of the way that things can form without any "designer". Geometry, like chemistry and physics, is not random. This caller doesn't explain HOW a "designer" could work (none of them do; their answer is "magic"), but also doesn't understand that since he is already here, his mythology demands that he must have been designed by the same guy that already designed so many things so badly that they've gone extinct. And even when he got around to humans, he screwed up so badly that he had to drown them all and start over...

[@Truth-Be-Told-USA]

Yeah. Look how badly human teeth are designed. Coffee and sugar destroy them. Not a great design

[@Dragonblaster1]

Darwin had no idea whatsoever how heredity worked (he assumed it was a blending process, which it is not). But, once Watson and Crick showed how heredity actually _did_ work, natural selection worked just as well as an explanation for evolution as it did for Darwin's speculative model.

[@barkYdarkATFB]

He’s working so damn hard not to answer “god”. He knows that once he says that word, he has to demonstrate the existence, and his “science talk” will end.

[@JohnFnLopez]

He doesn't have a question, he has a script. He's dishonest and doesn't care.

[@joannahaddock4338]

I listen to people like this and want to bang my head into the desk. All that talk and said absolutely nothing.

[@yevodee4024]

+ Joanna Haddock They always go round and round and round and round and.....

[@norafromash5087]

This is like watching Dora the explorer, me yelling 'closed system' at my screen until Matt tells me what I already know

[@IoDavide1]

I'm convinced this is the problem with this kind of believers, they actually think that people "believe" science.

[@vermilion6966]

tbey dobt believe this, tbey just have to call it faith to bring science on their low level with religion

[@noel090909]

Jenna’s face when the caller is talking about a box of marbles sums up my feelings about this caller.

[@dinohall2595]

I remember watching this live. At the end of the call, the chat was entirely saturated with people exclaiming "closed system!" Alex must not have been watching the chat or been a troll because he was the only person whose head it flew clean over.

[@dinohall2595]

@David Anewman Is it not possible to design an open system?

[@beautifulnova6088]

@David Anewman The earth is an open system, yes. Matter entering it is kind of rare, but there's a constant trickle of energy from the sun. This alone is enough to make the second law not apply to earth as a system.

[@beautifulnova6088]

@David Anewman The point is that because the earth gets energy from the sun, on earth the second law doesn't apply (at least not on the scales we deal with). Eventually the entire universe will reach equilibrium, but until the sun burns out the earth will receive energy from outside, allowing entropy to be resisted through the consumption of that energy.

[@beautifulnova6088]

@David Anewman Yes, if you expand the system you're looking at to include the sun, the total entropy still increases. But entropy on earth decreases.

[@timsn274]

@@beautifulnova6088 There are several millions of tonnes per year of meteoric dust arriving on Earth. Hardly rare.

[@enomiellanidrac9137]

The moment Matt asked "What kind of system does the second law of thermodynamics apply to?", I mentally raised my hand and thought "Me sir! me please! me! I got the answer!". I guess I can't shake off my years in college studying science that easily.

[@coletrickle1775]

I'm just in auto mechanic and I know "a closed system" is the answer. Just saying, the caller doesn't have to be college educated to know the answer. It's really sad he doesn't have a clue.

[@ianchisholm5756]

You know exactly where this is going as soon as the caller defines science as something that has to be repeatable.

[@Akimoto4u]

this guy has the calmness of the ''Saw" movie's serial killer

[@jesse_cole]

I don't know how many times I've seen this over the years. Some caller with a half-baked, debunked, creationist-talking-point-based idea who thinks he's going to "school" Matt with something he's never heard before. I don't know what's worse, hearing his "argument," or listening to him drone on in that soft-spoken, pedantic tone, knowing that Matt would be ripping out his hair if he had any.

[@damienleigh9943]

Maybe thats why he doesnt have hair cause he knows he will rip it out in frustration.

[@guytheincognito4186]

@@damienleigh9943 Maybe that's why he doesn't have any, he's already ripped it out. 😉

[@danemassie3750]

I find his voice shallow and pedantic too

[@chrispitchforth621]

The caller is on for about 30 seconds and I can already smell the apologetics tricks and wordplay being lined up.

[@_EVANERV_]

Can randomness lead you to the same goal as if by design? The best example I can think of is Orlando the stock picking cat. The goal for investors is to maximize return. In 2012 a contest was held by The Observer between a team of 3 financial analysts and Orlando the cat to see who will get the best investment return in one year with a starting fund of $8000 each. Orlando picked his stocks randomly when playing with his toy. By contrast The analysts picked their stocks carefully after doing much research. By year's end, Orlando's portfolio grew to $8900 while the financial analysts' fund grew to $8300. This example alone should be enough to show that randomness can absolutely achieve or even exceed goals that are set up via careful drsign and execution.

[@jasonspades5628]

Im a huge Jenna Belk fan. Along with Johnny Angel they are both extremely articulate, relatable, and very relevant with their discourse.

[@venyredun5221]

Can we test science? Science IS a form of test That ended up being the best set of methods that explain, describe and predict the world around us...

[@lapland123]

"it ain't necessarily so" from Ella Fitsgerald Is a very good theme song for this programe. It begins with: "the things you are liable, to read in the bible...It ain't necessarily so" I like it.

[@MikeHodges666]

Amazingly amusing and frustrating at the same time. It's like listening to a 4 year old trying to justify eating too much candy by constantly saying "because, because, because..."

[@jasondean88888]

Ah yes, the "water force". I remember learning about that briefly in my "force of dirt" class.

[@veranicus6696]

Alex starts with the lie that he wants a honest conversation. Then continous to avoid to react or awnser to what Jenna and Matt said.

[@claudehall7889]

Does anyone else find it ironic that believing in "intelligent" design makes you sound like an idiot?

[@henrikrolfsen584]

No "God" in his right mind, would have created a world as flawed, as violent, and as capricious as the world we currently have.

[@willietanner7085]

15 years since the Dover trial and these people still regurgitating Michael Bebe's nonsense. One giant argument from incredulity.

[@MasterSpade]

Religious people always want to start with the Conclusion......... One should NEVER start with Conclusion. You should start with the Evidence!!!!!

[@Xelianow]

Agree. On top of that they usually asume their conclusion to be true as one of their premisses... the problem with that however is that you can never prove something by asuming it is true, all you can do is prove that it is wrong by showing that this asumption leads to a contradiction. If you asume something is true and then show that this results in a non-contradiction you have shown absolutly nothing...

[@ptuffgong8504]

"Goodbye, sir". Ha! Great end to the ramblings.

[@irontiki551]

I didn't know it was possible for a man to sound that tired of his own drawn-out BS *as* he stubbornly refuses to deviate from the script of said BS. This guy must've been an old youth group pastor or something.

[@deuteronimus750]

His voice was creepy. I wonder what he was doing during the call.

[@Nivola1953]

Point 2, what is more likely “chance” or “intelligent design”? Well when you buy a ticket of the largest lottery in America what are your chances to win a prize in excess of 100M$? A very very small number right, but not zero, and this is why every time there is a winner, it just ain’t YOU! The probability of a specific targeted event happening (you winning) it’s very small, but the chances of the generic event happening (there is a winner) are 100%. Intelligent design requires a being conjuring everything out of nothing, that’s against religious apologist favorite Kalam argument !

[@beautifulnova6088]

Technically with most lotteries the chances of a winner is very small, they just roll the prize over week to week until there is one. In the long run though, that fluctuating weekly chance will come through and at least one person will win.

[@ganndeber1621]

This mans voice makes me want to have his hard drive investigated by the police.

[@A-WallfromAL]

You and most of us.

[@steveswangler6373]

When Matt took him off of mute I fully expected him to still be rambling about the marbles. He didn’t bother to listen to anything Matt or Jenna said

[@NotALiberalSoSkipTheScript]

He’s been taught the creationist script that if his emotionally held god didn’t make everything specifically the way he was told, with HIM in mind, then everything everywhere including math, chemistry, history, physics, rolling dice, and this video is just “random” so nothing could ever exist.

[@NoSenatorson]

I learn more from Matt than just atheism.

[@evidencebased1]

Once Matt has a grasp on a subject he becomes a stellar teacher of that subject. His powers of listening, distilling, and explaining a subject are equal to anyone’s.

[@davidkillens8143]

That was the genius of Newton. He did not "invent" gravity, he realized that the forces acting on the moon were the same as an apple on this planet. Up to that time, it was accepted that there were laws for the earth and a separate set of laws for the heavens. He proved the uniformity of nature.

[@Heathen.Deity.]

Matt: “what sort of system does the 2nd law of thermodynamics apply to?” Alex: “erm... the elements in this world.” Everyone that has even the most basic of basic understanding of the 2nd law: 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@coletrickle1775]

The correct answer is "a closed system". I'm just an auto mechanic....

[@Darth69906]

Natural forces..... inviting words to make a point

[@ericbilodeau3897]

23:15 (listen 5 seconds) We can summarize Alex's entire comments by what he says here Then at the end 23:20 keep it paused to look at Jenna's and Matt's faces. Those expressions also summarize his comments completely. You can get the gist, let's say, just from that 1 image

[@peteralleyman1945]

This guy's brain proves his version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[@LaRossaSelvaggia]

“Random” and “natural” are not synonymous, Alex.

[@richdandanell2911]

At the beginning Alex seem so intelligent and level headed . That didn't last very long .

[@UngoogleableMan]

When you start off with "world" and obviously dont understand the difference between "the universe" and "the planet earth" you dont get to cite the 2nd law. When you interchange world to mean all of reality and are incapable of using more precise language to get your point across you already lost.

[@jerryking45]

This guy's voice still grates on me.

[@cletokings4302]

This guy is basically asking for a test of the test.

[@markbrown4404]

Jenna's eyebrows are on point. I applaud you.

[@michaeldelyjah5696]

Damn!!!! Matt is patient beyond belief.

[@FourDeuce01]

“Can we test science?” he says, using the products of science to ask that stupid question.🙈

[@flea8332]

he was trying to say that a bracelet was made by man so trees were made and points toward a god he was just going about it in a very confusing and misleading way.... its shocking at how theist never listen or learn from mistakes

[@funkmonk5921]

I love your bass playing flea.

[@flea8332]

@@funkmonk5921 crazy thing is a play bass lol have a great one

[@BroNumsi]

Ah, ok. You get the obvious answer at 22:40. He hasn't lost his marbles, he just put them in a box.

[@connect2reality]

Isn't there a non-zero chance that the marbles would fall into a sorted order by shaking the box? Asking for a friend.

[@jonmeador8637]

This is the first time I’ve seen someone admit that an intelligent designer is the best explanation for design. 16:00 Very ballsy. Most people dance around it. So , the burden is now squarely on the design crowd: show a designer and a designed. They usually point to humans, human morality, human consciousness as circumstantial evidence of a designer. There is no direct evidence of a designer. Matt is putting himself out there. He did a great job!

[@fir34effct]

Creepy voice, I definitely wouldn't want to hitch a lift with this guy!

[@funkmonk5921]

Law enforcement should definitely check this guys basement. Just in case.

[@Izzmonster]

Yeah, i wouldn't want to lift a hitch with him either.

[@joshuahanley7251]

Yep! Definitely throwin in with "the dude might be dangerous" crowd. Shit had serial killer written all over it😬 Dudes in his lair, still stewing about Matt and Jenna, wondering if mothers frequent flyer miles will cover the trip after this 'rona's over, ay. ✌️😁🇨🇦

[@slimjim227]

Pastors/priests voice!

[@Brammy007a]

@@kaidrewry4378 I found it soothing too.... like someone who just had electroshock.

[@wesleygordoncook432]

Great stuff Mat cheers mate 👍

[@sunzi42]

Every time a person says "let me finish please", the person in question is preaching.

[@brucewailes7744]

I know it was two years ago, but Alex is the person for whom the word "sanctimonious" was invented.

[@alexlynch8901]

As soon as he got past greetings, that affectatious timbre and manipulative vocal style just screamed "totally disingenuous". I enjoy playing dumb with ego-fiends like him, then pulling the lever when he's given himself enough rope to twist in the embarrassing wind.

[@jesperjee]

Dunning Kruger is one hell of a sickness. Question for Alex: Is a vine a rope? And did it occur naturally?

[@calpeters4295]

Alex sounds like he's on Quaaludes. His 'reasoning skills' also suggest the same.

[@jameskelly3745]

Matt is unstoppable 👏. Freaking awesome !!!!!

[@kevinchong5424]

Theist: Can we do an experiment to prove this, and I’m using this as the basis of the experiment? Me: I don’t see the point since I don’t see what you’re using as basis is valid. Can you first make the case that we have a solid base to build the experiment on? Theist: But let’s do the experiment to proof my point. Me: Good to know you haven’t listen to a word I said. See ya Edit: spell check

[@kevinchong5424]

@Feeds Ravens: No prob. That’s how we learn, by having our errors pointed out to us.

[@Kalense]

I am so glad you stomped so accurately and effectively on his flatulent blethering about thermodynamics. But I'm perfectly certain that he thinks he "won" because there's no way in hell (sic) he'll ever understand why Earth isn't a closed system.

[@SpawnFanboy]

Matt metaphorically took a hammer and smashed the nail (caller Alex) when he stated that Science is constantly tested. After that the rest of the call that took place was nonsensical blabbering, caller Alex said nothing of worth, while confusing all manner of science with personal perspective of "intelligent design" in a so called attempt to put science to the test. Lol what a joke.

[@SpawnFanboy]

@ordinary walker The very definition of science, intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

[@SpawnFanboy]

@ordinary walker Semantics?

[@Burtimus02]

Ultimately, I have not found a single “challenge” to evolution specifically or science generally not predicated on a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject.

[@SpawnFanboy]

@@Burtimus02 agreed. 100%

[@SpawnFanboy]

@Barthelemy His comment is making the statement that most *"challenges"* towards science are usually made from ignorance; they lack understanding of that which they challenge. *Example:* Caller Alex from this very video lol

[@A1441]

You are too smart for the caller (or any caller, for that matter), MATT. You are a good explainer of stuff. 11 Jul 2020; 6:39pm

[@psychlos21]

"Marbles" of which Alex has lost.

[@TheBeatle49]

This guy is one of those folks who thing they're SO smart.

[@guardianofauset5722]

Can someone explain to me why people think words are proof of something?

[@brucebaker810]

If I explained it...would that prove anything?

[@kenbrunet6120]

The sad part is. I bet this caller will go off and tell everyone that Matt and Jenna suppressed his "test" and that's why he wasn't able to demonstrate anything. Instead of spending some time considering that he was presupposing things to get to his argument.

[@alanlaudani6379]

Whenever someone like Alex uses the term "random forces", it implies no knowledge of science. Forces are defined: electromagnetic, weak and strong atomic and gravitational. They have never been known not to have different strengths than what they currently measure at any other time or place. Why did it take 15 minutes to say this? To test the process of science is redundant. Science is self testing by definition. This was one of the most painful calls in recent programs. Matt, Jenna don't let the caller ramble so much! Please, if you have made a point, have the caller repeat the point. Alex was hog-tied and you let him slip the knot without calling "uncle".

[@frosted1030]

LOL The guy used the word entropy.. as if he had a clue. In an ISOLATED system the total number of entropies remains constant. The best metaphor for this dude would have been following a perfectly air-tight container with air at the same pressure as the what surrounds the box. The question being "is there a breeze if we leave the box at room temperature for a year completely undisturbed in a cleanroom?" Now the smart answer would be that the elements of the air under the same gravity would eventually stratify to a small degree but there would be no movement outside of isotopic decay, and maybe a little Brownian motion at the start. The hymogitanaity of the system remains constant (when you look at just a year) which is exactly what you would expect thermodynamics to produce.

[@terencekent615]

Who else shouted " a closed system " at the screen ?

[@the_regular_dinosaurus_rex]

his marble example is the defeating his own point. if someone was to shake the box, the marbles arent just "getting mixed up" they are getting mixed evenly. the longer you shake the bix the more evenly the colours will scatter or "mix" until they eventually reach a point where they cant mix any further. wouldnt that count as a "goal"? it is an outcome that will happen eventually, it just is different from the one he chose

[@mykehog6646]

This guy definitely has a hitch hiker chained up in his basement...

[@AlexPBenton]

He’s trying to say that if you want to do something, the most effective way is to do it intentionally. This blatantly assumes and asserts that someone wanted something, which is what he’s trying to prove.

[@robsaxepga]

That was painful lol

[@ImAlwaysHere1]

Second law of thermodynamics applies to an isolated system. There is a difference between a closed system and isolated system. You can Google it. That said, I don't disagree with anything else Matt has put forward here. I just want it to be very clear and specific. Here is just one example of an explanation, differentiating between a closed system and an isolated system, that I found: "In a closed system, the matter within the system is constant but, energy is allowed to be transferred from system to surroundings and vice versa. In an isolated system, neither matter nor energy transfer between a system and its surroundings are allowed."

[@Rationality876]

I love Jenna belk❤️

[@kenchristiansen2080]

Can you test science? That is basically all that science is. Testing results, can you test the testing? Science is the compilation of many many different tests. Which is a simplified way of saying what Matt said.