Determining The Logic Of Design | Bandon-TX | The Atheist Experience 892

[@danwatson171]

When apologists say “right” or “okay” after hearing an explanation, it tends to indicate a wilful ignorance of what was just said to them

[@channelfogg6629]

Yes, because they immediately continue to- as Matt so precisely put it - 'meander'.

[@CronoXpono]

😂 Matt now says “acknowledge the fucking point being made” 😆 The free ride to yeah yeah yeahing to the next point is over 😆

[@brynnd5523]

The other most consistent one I’ve heard has been “well, I would say” or “what I would say is”, or some variation of that. Of course that comes before they say something, but ya know

[@user-tz5uq2bt1s]

So many callers do it. The host makes a point, the caller clearly ignored every single word they said, states "Right" or "Okay" then proceeds to carry on with whatever they were saying before their premise was refuted.

[@Nocturnalux]

They are just gaining time so they can move on to their next point for more “whataboutism”, which is their approach whenever cornered. Don’t admit your point has been countered and just move on to the next.

[@Rocinantewow]

caller says "If you put an engine on a stick it wouldn't fly because it doesn't produce lift" .... he must have never seen a rocket...

[@XJWill1]

I was thinking that a bottle rocket is literally an engine on a stick. I wish they had mentioned that to the caller.

[@arsenic1987]

I'd use a skipping stone as an analogy. Perfectly designed to skip on the water, right?

[@mwnDK1402]

This is an amazing example, since people literally walk along beaches, searching for skipping stones. Which is what people do with intelligent design as well, looking for things that seem designed.

[@ericjohnson6665]

Absolutely! You picked it, out of all the other stones, because it had the *design* you were looking for, right? smooth, round, dark... good for at least 6 skips, right? As a programmer, I have never seen a computer program code itself. When I see a computer program, I'm damn sure someone coded it! (And it usually has their userid associated with it.) So, let's see, a DNA molecule... what are the chances it fell into that sequence accidentally? I dare you to find a bookie who would give you odds that it was an accident. Those things take special molecules to wrap and unwrap it, right? And it just accidentally had a cell nucleus wrap itself around the DNA, and that DNA just happened to have telomeres hanging off of it for no particular reason... I know, it's got some fancy name, like arguing from necessity... not totally conclusive using deductive reasoning, but totally there with inductive reasoning. (Which we all use, every day. Don't act like it's something strange, okay?) But, you know, it wasn't necessarily God who assembled the first single celled organism on our planet... maybe it was some middle-management flunky... who specializes in genetics. And if it wasn't God, than the existence of life doesn't prove God exists either, right? So, relax! Life can still be on purpose, without ruining the narrative. It's just a thought, y'all have a good day.

[@johnboettcher1962]

My immediate response was "my ass is logical". I'm still laughing.

[@lgm-pq6nr]

@@mwnDK1402、cv、、cvxっcっvっっっbc

[@johnrap7203]

My mind went there too! Goodonyamate! 👍👍

[@goranmilic442]

Affirming the consequent is example of non sequitur fallacy. If A is true, then B is true. B is true. Therefore, A is true. If thing is created, it has purpose. Thing has purpose. Therefore, thing is created. Caller's argument from design is non sequitur fallacy.

[@patar3323]

Succinct

[@trixn4285]

I'd even say that a thing may be designed for a purpose but the purpose isn't therefore even a feature of the thing. I could design and create an oil barrel but I could also use it as a smoker for barbecue. So there are things created by an agent for a certain purpose but it can be used for an infinite number of other purposes and there are things not "created" by an agents that can still be used for any number of purposes. Ot in other words. A thing can be suitable for a purpose no matter if it has been created for it or not.

[@patar3323]

@@trixn4285 the dexter show knows exactly what you mean about barrels

[@MarioRossi-sh4uk]

Yeah, I agree. The marker of design is not "purpose".

[@starfishsystems]

Yes, although Affirming the Consequent is a fallacy in its own right. Non Sequitur is a more general class of fallacy, in which the conclusion of an argument has nothing to do with the premise. For example, "A snake doesn't have armpits, therefore a bicycle is not like an orange." As your example illustrates, Affirming the Consequent applies an incorrect truth table as if it were the truth table for Modus Ponens. In Modus Ponens, P->Q is equivalent to !Q->!P. Affirming the Consequent instead tries to infer that P->Q is equivalent to !P->!Q. A couple of other fallacies could also be used to describe the "purpose implies design" argument. It's a False Dichotomy if presented as a choice between randomness and purposefulness. It's an Argument from Ignorance if presented as "We can't explain why this object appears to have a purposeful form, therefore it must have been designed." All of these flawed arguments are also Begging the Question fallacies, and this seems to be a common motivation for all religious apologetics. We start by insisting on a particular conclusion ("god did it") and then set out to construct an argument which seems to lead towards it. But it only seems to when we don't look too closely for flaws in the argument.

[@TheScotsalan]

As a design engineer, I have no idea what an aeroplane has to do with god. Remember the tower of babel.The so called god confused language because the ppl were working together. If it were up to god we would still be in the bronze age making animal sacrifices. The reformation opened up our minds to solving problems and creating things.

[@TheScotsalan]

@@yabutmaybenot.6433 Excellent point ya maybe not 👍. If a middle eastern artist were to somehow carve a perfect wooden wing, nobody would know what it was. But the indigenous ozzies had the wing shape by then in boomerangs ( I think by then ). I dont think Judah had any major discovaries at that time. As gods chosen ppl, they should have been able to invent everything. But it was India who came up with the decimal place, and later on, muslims invented algegra. I have often wondered, why did god not just give us penecillian ? 👍

[@majmage]

Yeah as a game designer I find it particularly ridiculous when they claim our universe was designed since we have all sorts of designed universes _(video game universes)_ and we know what that looks like, and our universe doesn't resemble that at all (especially in relation to religions which claim it was designed _for us._ ).

[@optimus-el4444]

I guess this is the aaa gfe experience once again in a different spin lol ha ha ha ha with the jafafecan nick the mechanic...ha ha ha

[@sttonep242]

I'm a product design student and I just love creationists talk about god's "good design" :D

[@majmage]

@@ceceroxy2227 Birds aren't designed, they just _appear_ designed due to evolution. Pretty important difference (and doesn't involve a bird causing itself to fly)

[@rrpostalagain]

I’m so tired of people who think literally everything is designed telling me how I determine design… and this was a particularly bad job at it.

[@d_camara]

"if you were in the middle of a desert and spotted a pocket watch you'd think it's hand made!" -person that thinks sand is hand made

[@Virtualblueart]

I love people caliming a thing is useless unless it can do what it is "designed" for. A rock can roll, just lie there, be used as a paper weight, ammo in a slingshot, decoration in a garden used as ballast in a ship to name but a few. Wich one of those is it's intended "designed" function? A punctured tire can still be a fun swing for an ape. Or a planter. Or the material for a couple of sandals.

[@kylevogelgesang9996]

A tyre can also be used as a table... a sandbox... used too prop up your car as you change the brake lines.

[@rrpostalagain]

@@kylevogelgesang9996 this reminds me of brother Jim from Taxi’s table. If that clip is on KZbin I’ll include it.

[@jackssmirkingrevenge7301]

It’s the irreducible complexity dead horse. Ken Miller wore a mousetrap as a tie clip on the stand, while he was testifying during the Kitzmiller V. Dover trial to demonstrate how useless IC is as “evidence”.

[@scipioafricanus5871]

@@kylevogelgesang9996 The possibilities are endless - now that's true miracles...

[@Fizbin1701]

Another purpose would be to throw one at Brandon. ;)

[@dashingkevs3295]

As soon as he asked is a wing logical? I had a strong feeling he was gonna be an idiot. Props to Matt and Martin for being patient with him.

[@facelessdrone]

Yeah, not even using the word in its correct context... on a mere technicality is the meaning correct, but his usage is very awkward and wrong, so he clearly doesn't understand what exactly logic entails,...

[@greenjelly01]

I had a guy tell me once that our bodies were designed so perfectly it had to be designed by God. He spent the next 30 minutes trying to explain why our bodies were so flawed at so many levels...

[@channelfogg6629]

Simply ask what the appendix is for.

[@buttkid3548]

Or why most of us need glasses as we age.

[@krisaaron5771]

I'd like to have a talk with "god" about teeth and WTF "he" thought teeth that can break and rot were a good idea!!

[@lforlight]

@@channelfogg6629 Well, Wikipedia has an entire section titled "Functions" in the "Appendix (anatomy)" article. While it's a degenerate digestive organ that no longer functions as part of the digestive process, it still does stuff.

[@Crypto_Prophet]

@@krisaaron5771 And don't forget to ask him why our sexual organ is also a waste disposal..

[@OrlandoDibiskitt]

The weird thing is that the shape of many aircraft wings and other components are actually "evolved" inside simulations. They start not very efficient but, based entirely on mathematical algorithms and physics modelling.

[@seasonedbeefs]

Digital twins

[@etrigan69]

The issue with most bad arguments is taking something very complex and simplifying it to the point of complete idiocy.

[@tetsujin_144]

1:36 - "So if you found a wing..." Or, you know, a watch... (sigh)

[@Jex2112]

Martin asked him “imagine you are blissfully ignorant” lol, he insulted him without him even noticing.. very good 😊

[@trishayamada807]

Penguins have wings and don’t fly. Emus, ostriches, cassowary have wings, don’t fly. So not all wings are for flight, but they are still wings.

[@FourDeuce01]

After listening to Brandon, I must say it's awful nice of him to let Matt speak on HIS show. ;)

[@jshaers96]

And people complain Matt loses his temper sometimes!

[@FourDeuce01]

@@jshaers96 If I was doing that show, I would have less patience than Matt has.😂

[@FourDeuce01]

There is no logic to design until that design is proved to exist. Theists have had thousands of years to come up with some evidence for their gods, but they're still failing miserably. "So the point I'm making is...." IF you were making the point well, you wouldn't have to explain the point. :/

[@goranmilic442]

Affirming the consequent is example of non sequitur fallacy. If A is true, then B is true. B is true. Therefore, A is true. If thing is created, it has purpose. Thing has purpose. Therefore, thing is created. Caller's argument from design is non sequitur fallacy.

[@FourDeuce01]

@@yabutmaybenot.6433 Maybe he’s still praying for the end of atheism.😂

[@DeludedOne]

1:26 The most important word of all, intent. This is where ID fails. It assumes design without clarifying the intent behind that design by the alleged designer. Where they have tried to guess the intent of said designer through...the Bible...contradictions have turned up in the supposedly designed things that do not suit the characteristics and indeed, implied intent, of said alleged designer. 2:42 To some things up, appearance of design does not determine that something is designed, and absence of such appearance of design does not necessarily mean that something is NOT designed. Given that the very aspect of appearance of design is somewhat subjective, the only way to consider if something has been designed is if you are able to discern the actual intent of the designer and that it matches with the actual function of the supposedly designed thing. 4:23 You can actually hear the parameters and criteria being made up as he goes along. The thing about the shape of a wing is that it has nothing to do with an engine regarding aerodynamics. The first planes had their engines in their fuselage not on their wings. So he's actually shifting the goalposts of design from aerodynamics of wings to "can they hold an engine" here, which of course, isn't the same thing. 9:03 Notice how Matt mentions a criteria of design that doesn't have anything to do with function at least on appearance, the material that something is made out of that has never been found to occur naturally. This particular aspect of design is a legitimate one, but is not something that IDers can actually use as an example. This is because they aren't able to find materials that have never been seen to exist naturally yet also definitively point the creation of that material to something other than another intelligent lifeform that isn't human. 12:13 The main problem with the scenario given is that involved objects that are already known and acknowledged to be designed. It's not a good example because one cannot discount the knowledge and fact that those objects ARE designed! In order for a scenario to be valid, the objects used for the discussion should be things that we do not know for sure are designed or not designed. Technically speaking, there's no "real" example of this since things are either designed or not designed, but we can use an example where there is dispute over whether it is designed or not, for example, living things. (IDers say they are, other say they aren't) Why not use a living organism for the comparison? Given that, the question will now look something like, "if you go out one day and find a person in the middle of the forest, would you believe that person is designed?" It may not intuitively follow, but such an example would be much more relevant to the discussion. 22:04 There's the concession. "We didn't design them." So how does he know or why does he believe they are designed when he doesn't know why they are "designed that way" according to him? Well, it's because he not only assumes design to begin with despite not knowing or having an explanation for why something would be designed, but also that assumption comes from comparing that thing to other similar things that he knows ARE designed and then claiming" "hey, since A is very similar to B, and we know B is designed, then that means A is designed too", add a bit of argument from complexity to handwave away the possibility that A couldn't NOT have been designed and that's his whole reasoning in a nutshell. 24:28 This is actually a red herring. So we have to look at ALL the things in nature now to prove design (or not design)? If that one thing is something that we can't definitively tell is designed or not, do we just move on to something else, repeat the same argument and try to declare victory by claiming because that seems to be designed therefore everything is? Yeah.

[@D-me-dream-smp]

Nice work A+

[@Dr.HowieFeltersnatch]

To be fair, if I was trying to design an idiot, I would probably design someone just like Brandon.

[@Amor_fati.Memento_Mori]

Oh Doctor, don't use such language.

[@godlessolddude305]

@@Amor_fati.Memento_Mori Hell, I was going to call him a jackass. 😁

[@NPMEDPRO]

More like strong confirmation bias with Dunning Kruger effect and poor logic skills due to ignorance of such.

[@davidmauro8947]

Brandon is good at what he does.

[@arsenic1987]

19:10 - There are birds with wings composed of the same feathers that can't fly... I don't think it's even consistent in this ramble.

[@arsenic1987]

Oh look. I commented before I watched the rest. They brought it up =)

[@Natorz111]

Let me save you 30 min. The guy argue that: Because Boeing design airplane wings, god design bird wings and everything else in the universe Seems like he skipped his biology classes at school.

[@AlexPBenton]

At every turn, he ties himself into more and more knots. The “more than one purpose” bit is just stupid, because a wing has a single function, while a rock has many functions.

[@heavymeddle28]

Scotch on the rocks, rock'n roll, Mick Rock...

[@soren_hero247]

Depending on the bird, the wings have a second function. Tasty snack. So to the caller: why are some bird wings delicious in Buffalo sauce, and others aren't? were they designed that way?

[@AlexPBenton]

@@soren_hero247 I was talking more specifically about manufactured wings, but you’re right

[@holgerlubotzki3469]

@@AlexPBenton NEP will be here soon to tell us all about the purpose of moist rocks.

[@c.guydubois8270]

"damned stone tools"

[@iraesch4637]

Poop has no function? Talk to literally any farmer or gardner, and they'll tell you exactly the function of poop.

[@Fizbin1701]

Another purpose would be to throw it at Brandon. ;)

[@darrenwallace6161]

Ode to Brandon “**** makes the flowers grow “

[@andrewey2083]

Wait until you can't shit if you want to know its function

[@c.guydubois8270]

Mr. Hankie says "hidey ho"...

[@MrPilton]

Many plants require birds too eat their fruit and poop out their seeds. Thus using the bird's poop to get a headstart on growing. Brandon does indeed need to investigate the "design" of poop.

[@bruvvamoff]

6:08 Martin shows Matt something he typed on the laptop, and Matt confirmed. What do we think it said? Some possibilities. 1. Isn't he just arguing for intelligent design?' 2. 'Wanna go for a beer after?' 3. 'Did maintenance John fix the ceiling fan in the common room yet?' 4. 'Shall we mention the fact that wings occur naturally?' 5. 'Is this guy for real?' 6. 'Do you like my cheekbones?'

[@petyrkowalski9887]

My all time favourite is the talking puddle who is amazed how he has been “intelligently designed” to fit perfectly into the hole.

[@davidsmith7653]

I bet a bunch of dung beetles out there are furious about the "Poop doesn't do anything" line.

[@aemiliadelroba4022]

Bottom line > things happens ! Rocks happens! Humans assume , or turned them into something ( functional , designed , intended , …. )

[@ericburger6482]

Yup! So tired of the "Everything happens for a reason." statement. NO, stuff just happens. Only humans would try to assign purpose to something "happening".

[@truttlebear7999]

"Here's a bird that's dead." I laughed so much at this. X3

[@simay4977]

Summary of call: "some thing work well, some things don't, some things do nothing, some things may have a function but we do not know, ergo, everything was designed".

[@salembuckeye9030]

The caller is forgetting the hundreds of wing designs that failed.

[@petyrkowalski9887]

@Gary Allen not entirely true.. the wing was not invented by them, it was the control surfaces and mechanisms that they enhanced and developed to be useful and workable.

[@genem2768]

It's almost like current wing design "evolved" from less successful designs. Hmmm!

[@keithulhu]

"If you put an engine on a stick, it wouldn't fly very well." Has he never heard of fireworks?

[@dilldathrill9010]

My thoughts exactly

[@richardmooney383]

The human outer ear has a shape that is "logically" well suited to gathering sound so that it can be transmitted to the inner ear and then on to the brain. But it is also well suited "logically" to providing support for spectacles. How do we decide which it was "logically" designed for?

[@ianp3112]

Puddle logic says spectacles of course!

[@brent8183]

Right as I was thinking, "Okay, it's been quite clear where he's going with this for a while, is it really not coming across or something?" Matt chimed in and said, "Although I can see where you're going with this I'll let you meander to it.." immediate satisfaction lol. Oh, also I wrote it down beforehand so... Prophecy!

[@Ploskkky]

Brian apparently seems to keep finding wings all over the place.... So long winded, just to say "My invisible magical god-friend designed stuff." Brandon is right of course. The wings of an ostrich are perfectly designed for flying.... oh, wait.... Well sometimes the invisible magical friend has a bad design day....

[@asherchancey3615]

When I click on a 25 minute video and the caller starts down a design argument . . .

[@dudesayingthings]

I can't believe any believers in design who see the frail, pathetically weak and selective human body and think it was designed by an all-powerful designer.

[@ohh1065]

And all the animals who have went extinct throughout time but he thinks everything is designed 😂

[@genem2768]

Hey! Speak for yourself. I'm not frail. ;)

[@SC-zq6cu]

Here is the problem with claiming something was designed: you do not get to figure out what was involved in it existing. calling something as being designed does not talk about what was involved in it being designed. If you want to know those you have to talk about the processes involved in making it. At that point "it was designed" becomes a meaningless banter. Therefore the "design argument" is not an argument for anything other than theists trying to dress up ignorance as knowledge.

[@walnutoil100]

Your evidence is?

[@SC-zq6cu]

@@walnutoil100 Its not a claim that you can ask evidence for. Its an explanation. Read the comment first before you try to post a troll reply to it.

[@walnutoil100]

@@SC-zq6cu yes it is a claim

[@SC-zq6cu]

@@walnutoil100 No it isnt.

[@D-me-dream-smp]

Design is a process with a specific intent therefore you need to prove/verify the intent first. Sand on a beach didn’t occur so we could have a soft spot to rest on it’s a byproduct of natural processes that happens to benefit us and other living organisms just like planets didn’t form simply so one could develop the conditions suitable to support life. The theistic purview that everything was created for us is quite arrogant and solipsistic and while this is a normal world view for toddlers most mature adults grow out of it.

[@houstonpromotion]

Dang I thought this was an atheist show not a show about airplane parts lol

[@Fizbin1701]

Everything in life goes back to an airplane wing. I guess.

[@patar3323]

It's usually gumballs

[@patar3323]

@@Fizbin1701 is that like a Godwin's law? Lol

[@americanhostage32]

A rock can be a paperweight, therefore god. It’s as simple as that.

[@tetsujin_144]

But can a god make a paper so prone to being blown away that he can't make a paperweight that would hold it in place?

[@americanhostage32]

@@tetsujin_144, can god make a rock that he can’t pick up? I see where you’re going in your comment, I like it too.... good one my friend.

[@seasonedbeefs]

The trees

[@joeanthony7759]

😂

[@jellyfishsii]

If animals are so well designed then why are 99% of all species that have ever existed currently extinct? I'm surprised the puddle analogy didn't come up in this conversation

[@meninblack3585]

Whats the puddle anology?

[@jellyfishsii]

@@meninblack3585 sort of like the sharpshooter fallacy. It's essentially a puddle becoming sentient and saying at since it's water fits it's hole so perfectly that it must have been designed. It's looking at the way something ends up and assuming the only way is through design.

[@shannonkey9926]

a Maple tree seed that people call helicopters. They fly and theyre natural. They get lift and they fly away all on their own.

[@JB-yb4wn]

Large rocks have a design - dinosaur killer. ☄️

[@thethoughtfield]

8:32 a rock can have actually many uses. holding papers on a desk, as weights, as weapon, as tool, as construction material, as road blockade, as fulcrum for leverage, just to name a few.

[@yoredeerleader]

The poop of bats is used as a measure of mental stability.

[@mckorr2116]

It's used for gunpowder, so obviously god created bats so people could kill each other more efficiently. Such a loving god.

[@RFWalsh81]

Why do birds fly into windows and go splat? Where's the intelligent design for there eyes?

[@crono276]

They can just argue windows aren't natural to side step the issue. Besides, the most common reason that happens is because the windows are too clean or something like that.

[@69eddieD]

@@yabutmaybenot.6433 windex - Satan's semen

[@chriskelly3481]

I LOVE hearing these theistic pretenders get increasingly frustrated when hosts won't follow their script by just agreeing with them into what they think is some slam-dunk "gotcha moment". Usually via a (unbeknownst to them) tired old logical fallacy or lame metaphor which is inevitably melted before their confused little eyes.

[@facelessdrone]

Its absolutely beautiful, you can practically see the script that was given to them by their precious preachers, and its all destroyed by the very first leading question they ask. LOL!!

[@bobs182]

Theists project. They think that because we create things for our needs out of existing material that everything must have been created. They have never encountered a super human like mind without a brain nor any mind that can think/will material into existence. They don't recognize themselves in their god.

[@hamster4618]

So because we have pacemakers, hearts must be designed.

[@hamster4618]

@@yabutmaybenot.6433 😂 Indeed. It's all flaws, you design people to rape, pillage and murder, with litteraly the first instruction "go forth and multiply" telling people to do some incestuous inbreeding, then have an instruction manual telling you not to comply with your design 🤷‍♀️. Weird. Wouldn't it have been more useful to design people in such a way they (all) didn’t feel the need to do stuff like that? And how about "intelligent design", whomever comes up with a design for a population that can only survive on 1 planet if/when you created millions? I'd say it was intelligent design if we could live anywhere and didn't need food.

[@hamster4618]

@@yabutmaybenot.6433 but still, what makes it convincing, is that I do see some similarities with computers,especially in the early years: " goddammit, what is it doing now!", "OH, don't do that", "what do you mean error?!". So yeah, in a way I can see God fuming somewhere on a cloud about all those design flaws, like me when either the machine malfunctioned because someone else made a programming mistake or because I did, or hardware entirely. But there where computers have gotten better, humans didn't. It would have been more useful to create better humans, in newer versions. Although, he might have tried that with humanism. Unfortunately, with the Taliban emerging again with their Abrahamistic beliefs, we still see the design flaws. Or a crazy nasty God. Or, better explanation: no God at all.

[@lotanerve]

Many tools designed for one use have also been used as a hammer.

[@Rob-fc9wg]

Most tools!

[@LaserSeQ]

''putting an engine on a stick wont make it fly'' i present...the space rocket....missiles of all sorts, fireworks....his thinking is abit shallow. best to review everything that we have designed that flies compared to living beeings that fly. soemthing does not add up in his reasoning and shallow tought

[@krisaaron5771]

A wing can't EVER "fly" ... by itself. A wing has to be moved by something external before it can perform its function.

[@Dr.HowieFeltersnatch]

I think the major issue here is that people don’t understand what “LOGIC” means. You can’t “prove” anything using “logic”. People have a presuppositional belief and just cite “logic” as their evidence. But logic is not a substitute for evidence. You need to use evidence to build a premise, and if the premises you chain together are valid and sound, you have a logical argument. If a premise is false, something can still be logical, but not necessarily true. I also see people citing “common sense” in a similar way to citing “logic”. It is much easier to use a catch all word such as “logic” than to gather evidence.

[@kidd32888]

This has to be said. 100% agree

[@starfishsystems]

Indeed, logic is not a substitute for evidence. Conversely, you can't use evidence to develop formal proofs. But you CAN use LOGIC to develop proofs. In fact, without a formalism such as logic, formal PROOFS (which is the strict meaning of the word) are impossible. The issue here, I'm truly sorry to have to report, is that YOU don't understand what logic means. I believe that you WOULD WANT to understand, if only to ground your position, but you need first to read a decent introductory text or two on the subject. Call the Department of Philosophy at your nearest university and ask to speak to a prof who specializes in this area. He or she would be THRILLED to name a couple of texts. (You could do the same for Computer Science or Mathematics or Electrical Engineering, and you would get useful resources as well, but these disciplines tend to be less patient about examining the human side of the formalism. You'll get the same intellectual rigor, but you might not enjoy it so much.)

[@Dr.HowieFeltersnatch]

@@starfishsystems What specifically did I say that demonstrates I do not know what logic means?

[@Mike-om4tv]

Take the banana..

[@DiMadHatter]

The atheist nightmare! XD

[@jonc4719]

Having bar arguments is a helluva gig. Hats off to the soberlings that make all this work.

[@apocalypsed8]

Intelligent design or what I like to call religious confirmation bias is something I've been thinking about a lot. And to me it really shows how strong the selective perception of theists can become (for some) once they've accepted a God. Most of the animal types went extinct,we will one day,the conditions on which we can survive are only temporarely. Looking at what manages to survive at this moment and speak about perfect design is a really backwards way of thinking. Why would a perfect God have so many failed attempts to make creatures survive before we witness the ones that are surviving at the moment? Heck,I can find a plant within 100 metres of hy home hwich would kill me if I ate it,does that sound like a world designed for us? Another example of how strong religious confirmation bias can be is 1 we are so used to hearing so much that I think most don't even think about it anymore. But probably all of us have come across a moment where a religious person talks about a miracle where one survives after a horrible accident that would kill most. Their body is wrecked,they need to recover for months if they even will completely but they say things like "it's a mircale!" and "God watches over me" But if God watches over you and wants to save you, couldnt he have done it 10 seconds earlier before the accident? And prevent that your body is broken now and you need to recover for months? If you'd ask a theist before crossing the road if they'd feel lucky after crossing it but ending at the other side with a broken body they would 100% say no. But yet, if it happens and they look back at it somehow they find a way to feel lucky and think that a God is watching them after having a vere bad accident that destroyed their body

[@D-me-dream-smp]

I find the arrogance of thinking that God designed EVERYTHING (the universe) purely for our benefit yet we can only exist in an infinitesimally small part of it. Seriously was he so bored that he created billions of galaxies (many of which we can’t even see without sophisticated technology) for just giggles. Man has found ways to almost double our lifespan in about 200 years yet we are “Gods perfect creation”

[@daistoke1314]

Anyone who thinks the earth was designed for man should spend a week in Australia. They have t shirts listing the things that will sting, bite and eat you.

[@FreakinFred08]

but but but…derpyderp…god’s plan…..derpyderp…

[@bobs182]

If you are in an airplane crash that kills 120 people and you are the only survivor that means that god has a plan for you. God's plan is for you to die but failed.

[@Pllayer064]

25:33 click for a soundbite.

[@timsn274]

A cassowary's wing has no apparent function.

[@paulokas69]

Penguins have wings and they don't fly. Chickens also don't fly

[@cmvamerica9011]

Rocks were made to throw at glass houses.

[@darksoul479]

4:35 yada yada yada if you find a watch on a beach. He just changed the watch to Wing.

[@tetsujin_144]

Yeah but I mean, what are the chances that the people on AXP have heard that one before? I mean if they'd heard this argument before they probably would have already converted to Christianity. Because it's just that good.

[@MaskOfCinder]

22:57 It doesn’t matter if there is another function. A function does not mean it was intended or designed. All you are doing is asserting that those things are always linked when they are not. Prove that function has to have intent behind it. You can’t.

[@davidmandell1727]

I couldn't think of a more appropriate thing to say here than, "Let's go, Brandon!"

[@ElaineIp]

Well, that was painful...

[@paulv9258]

Praise Sterculius, the Roman god of feces!

[@92brunod]

And his daughter Escherichia

[@fredbohm4728]

Sterculius was the god of odor, not feces.

[@drg8687]

Poop can be used to fertilize or vandalize but it was not designed to do either.

[@darrenleelayton6052]

Martin is typing "COMPUTER SAYS NO!" 🤣

[@arh6624]

We have ears that glasses fit upon perfectly, what a coincidence

[@DarkAlkaiser]

'Metal occurs naturally' XD yeah, as rocks, not purified metals you can make something from

[@TheMadFoxes]

2:04 lmao “what criteria would you use to determine it was designed?”the fact that it works and couldn’t have been a product of natural selection

[@AndrewWilsonStooshie]

As Daniel Dennett said, there is design in nature but it's bottom up design. No awareness needed.

[@hansj5846]

He seems oblivious to the fact that some of the first attempted aeroplanes used flapping wings because we didn't understand physics properly. None of them worked obviously 😂

[@Userre]

Is it not mildly humorous that Brandon is from Round Rock. lol

[@vizzini2510]

@Chance Wagy Right there in the middle of Brushy Creek, I have enjoyed a picnic on the namesake round rock, so it was obviously designed to be a picnic table. I have also napped on the round rock, so it was obviously designed to be a bed. As a young stupid boy, I also peed on that same round rock, so it was obviously designed to be a toilet. Some magical invisible creature MUST have designed this amazing multi-function rock!

[@TheMadFoxes]

2:56 you know, I have a cool trick where I hold a flip-flip upside down and throw it like a boomerang and they generally WILL generate a surprising amount of actual upwards lift (redundant but of course it’ll fly, the impressive part is the amount of lift), but it was designed and NOT as a wing. Just saying, even in actual design, function is NOT definite to application (ie. People hammering in nails with steel toed boots)

[@av3sta480]

I’m an atheist myself, so I can’t help but lean toward the position of the two men answering the call. Unfortunately, I think that the behavior of the man on my right is incredibly rude. I’ve noticed this at 18:30 especially and in his other videos. I understand when conversations start to break down and the caller is stubborn or starts to talk in circles that it can be frustrating, but I find it unappealing to see someone succumb to such behavior when engaging in intellectual discourse. I’m not sure I want to keep watching a channel that attempts to engage in such discourse, but can’t maintain neutral emotional composure and instead resorts to such negative behavior. I’m a bit disappointed honestly.

[@ianp3112]

Unfortunately intellectual discourse is on the menu but it's not the popular item! Seriously though, if intellectual discourse is your thing, you should look elsewhere like the thinking atheist or Christopher Hitchens debates or Matt's (guy on the right) debates. For a call in show, you have to talk at the level of the caller and most of the time it's hardly intellectual. Which is the core of the problem, lack of education and critical thinking skills! I'm not defending Matt, I have my criticisms as well. But I give him some slack for his longevity and commitment to ridding the world of superstitious nonsense! Cheers 😽

[@av3sta480]

@@ianp3112 I can certainly understand that and I’m a big fan of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson to name a few, so I’d be more likely to enjoy civil, composed discourse among those individuals I’m sure. 😂 I was hoping to see the same here, but I understand that having to cater to the disposition and education of these types of callers can certainly be frustrating. I just wish that he would rise above a bit more and showcase a better level of patience despite how frustrating his callers must be. I’ve dealt with people like that plenty myself, so I understand. I just don’t like seeing someone who espouses a particular level of intellectual prowess succumb to such emotional bait.

[@asherchancey3615]

7 minutes in, caller has made 5 seconds of a point.

[@oodeuce6926]

The closing minute on that caller was hilarious

[@daisy3525]

I mean, I could see exactly where the argument was going from that first question, after all of these I've watched, but I wanted to see where it went. My problem is, the argument fell apart as soon as he asked the second question, about finding a wing and knowing it could fly, because what defines an airplane wing as a wing as opposed to an aerodynamic rock is the intent behind it, which is what misses from his analogy. A rock happens to be aerodynamic because that's how it's shape ended up. A wing is a wing as opposed to something else because it was made with the intent for it to function as a wing. Something having a characteristic does not signal a clear intend behind its function, and if we don't have no proof of intent, it's just as likely to be a coincidental natural occurrence. Basically the only reason we can say a design is "logical", to use his terms, is that we know what it's final function was intended to be, and know that it fills that function. If there was no intent, or no known intent, behind some thing's existence, any function it manages to perform is by happenstance, because it wasn't necessarily meant for that function in particular. For this analogy to work, you first have to prove intent. Otherwise you're comparing oranges to apples. Or planes to sticks, as it were.

[@vilkoskorlich259]

Rocket don't have wings but flying to the MOON????

[@kratosGOW]

Arguments from design stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and how it works.

[@kratosGOW]

@@TheBigChiefton Don’t boy me, BOY!

[@channelfogg6629]

'Arguments from design stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and how it works.' - No, they derive from a rejection of evolutionary theory.

[@kratosGOW]

@@channelfogg6629 Rejecting evolution, in my experience with lots of conversations with creationists, was ALWAYS because they had a cartoonishly ridiculous misunderstanding of the theory.

[@raduen2]

Martin killed me at the end "somewhere some religion has the god of poop".. Awesome

[@brucewilliams4152]

Ostrich, emu etc

[@lnsflare1]

What about the birds born with birth defects that prevents it from flying?

[@wyett123]

What about birds that can't fly? Lol

[@rebeilsolneman6930]

Indeed, we see wings of birds, but we also see wings of bats and wings of insects and none of these are "consistent" in structure or composition. But we can see how they evolved. Why does a "designer" "design" biological systems along evolutionary lines? Without any execption? We don't see birds' wings on mammals or insects' wings on birds.

[@philojudaeusofalexandria9556]

Easy! God loves to play hide-and-seek! Undefeated champion of all of existence (and non-existence)! He'll even let billions pretend they found him (and not clue them in that they haven't found shit) because by telling them he would give away his hiding spot!

[@walnutoil100]

Your evidence they evolved?

[@rebeilsolneman6930]

@@walnutoil100 I'm confident that you are able to use google scholar yourself to find the manifold peer review papers addressing the evolution of wings and flight.

[@TypographyGuru]

If only we could think of an alternative explanation, that would not require an agent, but can demonstrably lead to the same result of apparent design. Oh, wait, we can! Evolution. Brandon just never bothered to explore that option, so he is stuck with his argument from ignorance. Looks designed, so it was.

[@TheMadFoxes]

5:42 yeah, triangular wheels would roll less effectively like how the human eye has a large blind spot, wisdom teeth generally cause significant problems, upright spines have notable problems in their effectiveness; yeah honestly if nature had a designer it -would- have been more efficient wouldn’t it?

[@delbomb3131]

Simple plothole in this guy's theory, the wings of a flightless bird 🤷‍♀️ Also the end was amazing and completely worth it 🤣🤣

[@DanDan-eh7ul]

25:53 "Some religion somewhere has a god of poop" Allow me to introduce The Great, Mighty Poo! He's going to throw his shit at you!

[@nunyabusiness979]

And now let us open up our services with a hymn. Turn to page 2 and join in singing *WINNIE THE 💩*

[@lukewojtanowicz1991]

I think Catholics call their leader the poop. Or is that something else?

[@nunyabusiness979]

@@lukewojtanowicz1991 let me pontificate or pondeficate on that and I'll get back to you. 😉

[@lukewojtanowicz1991]

@@nunyabusiness979 You doo that.😁

[@hamster4618]

It can be hard to distinguish between natural occurrences and design. I would have difficulty to distinguish between a natural cracked stone and a ax from the stone age.

[@dandotvid]

If someone was lost in the wilderness and came across an airplane wing, having no knowledge of what an airplane wing looked like or what its intended function was, they would probably use that wing for some other purpose. For instance, an airplane wing would be a great makeshift shelter if propped up. It would do better than a lot of other things in that regard. So, is its intended purpose now a shelter?

[@richardp7116]

In some parts of Nepal there are no trees and no electricity, so they have to use yak poop for fires. It's a hugely important commodity. Elephant poo is also popular for making writing paper.

[@Mysterychannel12]

existence of God is obvious,I mean ,look at the trees

[@wyldink1]

Aw man, I looked at a Wendy's and became a Zoroastrian.

[@aemiliadelroba4022]

These callers should re examine their opinion in a rational , logical way before calling and wasting time and making fools of themselves. Frustrating!

[@kylevogelgesang9996]

That's an oxymoron statement lolz. Most theists are too far gone too even think that logical thinking and reason are a thing that happens in reality.

[@scipioafricanus5871]

@@kylevogelgesang9996 When listening to most theists they appear to be designed perfectly for making fools of themselves.

[@kylevogelgesang9996]

@@scipioafricanus5871 Fake arguments for a fake god.

[@Folsomdsf2]

If they did that, would they have those opinions?

[@nicholashazel7049]

Lmao. "Wait, I can't explain the simple instance. Let's use a complicated example instead so I can muddy the water"

[@TheMadFoxes]

What if we assume a “klork” is found; it’s held together with bolts and screws and made out of wood, but who knows what its function could be, it could just be art. Wood is naturally occurring, but the fact that it’s fastened together mechanically and bears marks generally left by tools is going to make it pretty damn hard to misinterpret as a living thing

[@bill01ng]

There is a big logical flaw in Bandon's argument, he wrongly assume the only function of the wings is to fly. This is wrong! There are animals that have wings but don't fly!! For example, penguin, ostrich, turkey, ducks...etc. If there is a designer, why he made wings for ostrich, turkey, it they can not use it for flying. Go check Britannia for more of this animal.

[@buzzwerd8093]

"Random design" works by eliminating all that does not. Works well is a matter of what else fits and how well it works. In a lab I might try the technique of radiating bacteria to see what comes out that I can't predict, is not design.

[@an9l1c1sm6]

05:20 Actually if you are driving in dry sand, triangular wheels would be better (on a light vehicle)

[@mikekelsey6777]

I am a hang glider pilot. I have flown hang gliders since the early 80's. Every glider I have owned was designed at a factory using the best known concepts of flight to make for a safe flying foot launched glider. If I came upon something in the woods or in the desert, and it had an appearance to a wing, I would not even consider flying it. I am also a designer of aircraft. Paper Airplanes that is. I love flying my little paper airplanes that I design, but in no way would I believe I could indeed take a flight on them.

[@tomphilbrick5985]

Tornados often make whole trees and buildings fly, and during Fukushima there were cars floating down the streets on waves of water. Were those things "designed" to do that?

[@christianblevins3802]

You can’t call something designed until you either have a object that is not designed that you are comparing it with or you prove that there was a designer behind the item in question

[@christianblevins3802]

Also remember that we humans invented the value system that we use. So when we give value or label to a what we call a wing that said value is all our own and not something we discovered.

[@slimjim227]

Well after listening to Brandon for 20 minutes I’d say he knows all about poop, the poor mans suffering from verbal diarrhoea. Didn’t he realise that he ended up describing evolution by natural selection?

[@davecladwel5707]

How logical is it to put the breathing time and the eating tube in the same place?

[@n0w3lly90]

He's eluding to bacterium flogellum (using a plane as the analogy) 😂