Do Your Questions Have A Point? | Joe-VA | Talk Heathen 05.24

[@greenjelly01]

"What is the point of this?" "Sorry, I gotta go." Sign of an honest caller!

[@Robeebert]

"Micro evolution or macro evolution?" Yes! I love these hosts.

[@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306]

The young earthers don't really get that micro and macro have both been observed. And they often confuse "kind" with breed or species. I don't understand how anyone thinks they are qualified to debate these fields when that don't even understand the terminology much less the theory itself... which the term "theory" is often misunderstood by them as well. Let's not even get into "science" and "evidence".

[@Robeebert]

@@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306 misdefining "theory" is a prerequisite to be a Young-Earth creationist. If you don't check off that box, they will not give you your YEC license.

[@JarlGrimmToys]

Young Earth creationists have backed themselves into a corner. On the one hand they try to deny evolution. But on the other hand when pressed they have to admit evolution occurs. They just can’t admit that small changes over time can lead to larger changes. Because they believe the world is only 6000 years old. That’s why they invented the terms micro and macro evolution. Ironically the type of evolution that the likes of Ken Ham propose is a type of super fast evolution. Where a limited number of “kinds” were on Noah’s ark and diverged in a few 1000 years. Like the brown bear and the polar bear can still mate, and they diverged around 500,000 years ago.

[@michaelmay5453]

@@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306 It's all evolution, just at different stages and there is no point in separating them so I don't really know why anyone accepts the two different concepts. It's like "hey, I do believe in inches but not miles because I can't see that far". Both are distances and adding enough inches will result in a mile.

[@jerrylong6238]

Micro and macroevolution are both the same thing both are just evolution. Evolution is ongoing so yes it is both short-term and long-term. Evolution happened yesterday, it's happening today, and it will still be happening tomorrow and as long as life goes on. Little changes turn into big changes after a few million years that just stands to reason. If you keep changing something it will look like something totally different in millions of years. If you keep measuring inches long enough it will turn into feet, yards, and even miles after a long time. that is all micro and macro evolution is.

[@Heathen.Deity.]

Less than Average Joe: “Micro or macro evolution?” Ken: “Yes” Great answer, that unfortunately over Joe’s head in a flash.

[@jerrylong6238]

That went so far over his head that he couldn't have seen it with the strongest telescope.

[@JayJay-two]

Lost it there. Genius answer, and so quick. 😂😂😂😂😂

[@RKM_DarKo]

This guy watched a montage of every bad creationist argument.

[@hegyak]

So, every Creationist argument, then.

[@RKM_DarKo]

@@hegyak facts

[@ericwilliams1659]

I was surprised I didn't hear the "than a dog would give birth to a cat" evolution argument.

[@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306]

I wish these creationists would share info with each other so the show does not have to deal with the same already answered questions or debunked claims over and over. They really need some new material.

[@BlackZero_Art]

@@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306 well answers in genesis does something like that enumering lots of the "arguments so bad that even we shouldnt be using", but creationists arent known for trying to search for something against their preconceptions

[@DavidHeffron78]

I believe in millimetres. But kilometres are impossible!

[@AquaPeet]

I reject nano evolution!!!11!!

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

@@AquaPeet you can walk 10 ft, but obviously walking 10 miles is physically impossible. Obviously.

[@waukivorycopse2402]

@@uncleanunicorn4571 how the heck did you evolve to have 10 feet!?! That's superb!

[@michelleespino9814]

@@uncleanunicorn4571 how do you explain Forrest Gump then Mr. smarty pants he justa kept on runnen 🏃🏽‍♂️

[@JayJay-two]

I believe in a step but a staircase, that's impossible 😮😮😮😮 Sad faither😢 Sad😢

[@chemquests]

Abiogenesis is just chemistry. These people placing odds act like it was a series of random independent events. Thermodynamics compels certain reactions under particular conditions. The work is in figuring out those conditions but it’s clear that those reactions have occurred because life exists.

[@ecocentrichomestead6783]

There we go! someone else thinking! Abiogenesis is not only possible but, possibly, inevitable!

[@johnmcclure40]

Also, even accepting the improbability, do we know how many times it failed to happen? Odds of one in a billion don't mean much if there were over two billion opportunities.

[@chemquests]

@@johnmcclure40 only had to happen once

[@johnmcclure40]

@@chemquests Exactly.

[@jamesonrosen1773]

We found amino acids on a meteor. amino acids are the building blocks of dna for those that dont know. We also found amino acids in the atmosphere of a comet. They are naturally occurring. Out there in space. With all the other planets. It would really really suck if we were special. Alone. Im not sure why people have such a hard time with the idea.

[@kevinchong5424]

Joe is giving a good demonstration of how people who don’t know what they are talking about will lump everything together; like how he went from ‘atheistic believe’ to ‘evolution’ to ‘abiogenesis’. Every one of those are about different things, that have no direct connections with each other.

[@noncsamedi4627]

The idea that macroevolution and microevolution are distinct processes is as accurate, and for the same reasons, as the assertion that a person can't walk 100 miles if their stride is only 30 inches.

[@Lorventus]

In a single step, yes, but the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

[@mrfabulous4640]

Not really. Extreme extrapolation, in principle, is basically the slippery slope fallacy.

[@biekgiek]

@@mrfabulous4640 "Extreme extrapolation", are you saying that the theory of evolution is "extreme extrapolation"? And would you please define that phrase? Thanks!

[@rockysandman5489]

@@mrfabulous4640 It would be if we had evidence only for evolution on a smaller scale. It's not the case, the evidence out there is also showing the larger scale evolution.

[@MetalHeadProductions]

No, it's the same process, in your comparison, in both instances they are walking, the only difference here is time. It takes longer to walk 100 miles than it does 30 inches. Same for large changes to accumulate vs a small number.

[@TravisW888]

Arden hit it on the head near the end, he was dropping loaded questions meant to try and trap them, based on some apologetics he had read. I loved Kenneth’s answer to one of “sure, but I don’t really know”.

[@TheRaven_200]

Joe was trying so hard to straw man them, but they wouldn’t let him do it. 😂

[@onlychangeiscertain]

“Did we lose Joe? - we lost him an infinite time ago.

[@ejflor1313]

An infinite regress of time 😂

[@grantwing4942]

After 15 minutes of politely answering questions to be told "you're avoiding questions. You don't want to answer questions.." That's a bit rough, caller. Just because the answers were not what you wanted to hear dont put your frustration on the hosts.

[@moonled]

Joe is obviously reading his questions from a prepared list.

[@Lik3UhBOSS]

Joe dipping out once he’s asked what the point of his call is just shows he didn’t think it all through

[@DrDeathpwnsu]

The point of his questions were for him to get through the list of apologetic questions (that someone either gave to him or he found online).

[@johnd.shultz7423]

Believing in an imaginary friend to supposedly guide one through life and hoping for a paradise to schmooze around in after death takes a lot more desperation and psychological dependency then not believing in these comforting dependencies...

[@savantus1]

To start fixing the world starts with solving how to cure people's ignorance and willingness to stay ignorant.

[@standance9044]

I really love these two hosts. Kenneth way of positively handling people is really good. The junkyard fallacy is so pathetic

[@hank_says_things]

If Joe’s still wondering why Matt has no patience with him, he should watch all his calls. Jeeebers

[@kelduck8851]

Joe: "Do you think an infinite regress is possible?" How old is your god? Theist logic. My god is timeless , therefore it is infinitely old even though an infinite regress is impossible.

[@denverarnold6210]

*puts on theist cap* No, its not old, it's timeless. It's always been there, hur during. But seriously, without a better understanding of not only time, but any potential time outside of/before our current space/time model, we can't say an infinite regress is either possible or impossible.

[@duncanbryson1167]

Whether one subscribes to young earth creationism or accepts the "big bang", why "create"/ start everything at that point. What was the Abrahamic deity doing looking back into negative infinity?

[@jeffc5974]

I always think it is odd that they posit absolute rules that everything supposedly is bound by, then immediately say their god breaks that rule.

[@jonstrickland4848]

Joe is incredibly ignorant and dishonest. Let’s cut through the BS here.

[@psychee1]

*Joe has exited the call*

[@HarryNicNicholas]

when you start at "pixies rule the universe" you have nowhere to go .

[@freddan6fly]

I am always asking at the hospital for them doctors and nurses to fix my car, and the car repair shop what is wrong with my left knee. Just as Joe.

[@johnlarkin8891]

"Fish and humans share a common ancestor" is the response that would have reduced a headache or two here.

[@agatasowinska]

I would even go as far as to say that our ancestors millions of generations back *resembled fish.

[@happyninja42]

Joe wouldn't have accepted that, it wouldn't have changed anything.

[@michaelmay5453]

All living organisms have a common ancestor is far simpler and should be easier to understand.

[@michaelmay5453]

@@SimonWoodburyForget Well then there is the genetics.

[@happyninja42]

@@michaelmay5453 it's not that they don't understand it, it's that they don't want to believe it. Because their origin story has them in the position of the beloved, chosen, most favored creature in all of creation. that god literally made all of this stuff FOR them, and gave them dominion over it. They are the special snowflake of creation. So to say "nah, actually we all just crawled up out of the muck together, over a long timeline, and we just happen to be a really clever organism that figured out how to figure out stuff" deflates that place of importance in their minds. Which I find funny, considering how often religious people accuse us of being arrogant, yet THEY think they are the most special of creatures of god, lucky enough to get into his special eternity club, have rule over all of the lands and seas. But WE are arrogant. *rolls eyes* suuure. xD

[@callmeflexplays]

Hey guys, a non-biologists opinion on biology is a reputable source, right?

[@AbsurdlyGeeky]

If it's about common knowledge, sure. I'm not a mechanic, but I can tell you why a car needs fuel and certain parts to operate.

[@callmeflexplays]

@@AbsurdlyGeeky yea that's not really analogous to what's going on in this call though, is it?

[@bobby9192]

@@callmeflexplaysyou don’t have to be a biologist to understand it. But this guy doesn’t understand it

[@Gambit0590]

@@AbsurdlyGeeky you're analogy is idiotic

[@klebbe1]

Whenever i hear the "Microevolution exists but Macroevolution doesnt" argument, all i hear is "The bus can go from the central station to the next stop, but for it to go the the next city is impossible!"

[@csarmii]

Well, local bus lines (inside the city) are possible, but surely you can't use a bus to get to the next city.

[@fekinel]

Poor Joe, and the billions, possibly millions like him, are the reason many con artists are millionaires..

[@petermeichan3160]

con artists like Ham and Comfort prey on the stupid

[@bradweir6993]

@@petermeichan3160 The slightly more stupid.

[@laz5590]

Please don't take it a wrong way , "billions" are more than "millions" , so isn't better to say "millions, possibly billions like him" ? I'm just saying, and I'm not a grammar police , i was thinking, you want to say , lots of people , possibly even more than you think is like him ?

[@fekinel]

@@laz5590 lol..I know m8. I wrote it in the style of Bobby Henderson who started the mighty spaghetti monster 'religion.. check out some of his 'scriptures '.. 😀

[@laz5590]

@@fekinel so , i was the one , who missed a joke 😃

[@Gaston-Melchiori]

i want this guy to call again in the future and say "i went to a university and talked to a biologist and i am so sorry"

[@andreasplosky8516]

Believing in microevolution, but not in macroevolution, is akin to believing that drops of water can fill up a bucket, but never a swimming pool.

[@twowardrobeswardrobes1536]

I am biased. I admit it. The more evidence there is for a claim, the more biased I am towards believing it.

[@diogeneslamp8004]

Fanatic. 😜

[@runenorderhaug7646]

Something that I don't think was mentioned is that a lot of us as atheists actually have biases in both direction when it comes to belief in god. There are a large amount of factor that would bias us towards a belief in god despite being atheists especially since many of us live in heavily religious countries and have other forms of pressure that might give us a bias in that sense.

[@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279]

Well pointed out.

[@Author-dad-veteran]

First time I’ve seen you guys, great show and very well handled.

[@curbotize]

That awfully flesh coloured water bottle, really threw me off for a second.

[@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306]

Evolution works with or without a god. Just like the earth is round with or without a god.

[@carolinenagel7085]

Saint Nicolas was a Turkish bishop - 270 AD to 340 AD. In the Netherlands and Belgium he is celebrated every year on the 6th of december (the date he supposedly died) with gift giving. In the Netherlands it's a tradition to write a little poem to go with the gift.

[@Sekhubara]

In Hungary, there are two Christmases in December. 7 December is called Mikulás and it is a day of gift giving and using more pagan symbology, like the Christmas tree. Then on the 24th everybody goes to Mass to mark the birth of Christ.

[@csarmii]

​@@Sekhubaraand by "everybody", we mean like 5-10%

[@philpaine3068]

Yes, we are descended from the Lobe-finned fishes [Sarcopterygians] of the Devonian Era, from which Amphibians, Reptiles and Mammals all emerged. During the Devonian, life in the sea was dominated by fishes of various kinds, while the land was dominated by plants and arthropods. It is the evolution of lungs that allowed some of the Sarcopterygians to leave water, and further evolve into land creatures (including us). However, most of the fish we see in the world today are descended through a different line from the Ray-finned and Cartilaginous fishes of the Devonian Era. The Lobe-finned fish are extremely rare, represented by six species of "lung-fish" and the Coelacanth, of which only two modern specimens have ever been found.

[@philpaine3068]

@Syzygy132134 The first living coelacanth species to be discovered was found in 1938 off the east coast of Africa. Several dozen were found in following years. In 1998, a second distinct species was discovered in Indonesia, and that may be the one you are thinking of.

[@stevethecatcouch6532]

Literally everyone agrees that abiogenesis took place. Only the mechanism is in dispute.

[@paddlefar9175]

True, haha! One is: “ goddidit” the other: Physics and Chemistry Theologian: “I’ll take magic please!”

[@solasta]

I am less interested in this show these days, but Kenneth was excellent. Incisive and robust whilst also being patient and non-abusive.

[@WillPhil290]

I love how Arden says something snarky and then takes a sip... We are on to you, Arden... Lmao

[@tonydarcy1606]

If an infinite regress is "impossible", then how come theists claim that their God is "eternal", outside of space and time and had no beginning ? One rule for us, and another one for God ! Special pleading always lets Houdini God to escape the logical ! Too bad Joe's gotcha questions didn't have any real bite.

[@Zanimawl]

I wonder what God was doing before he created the universe. After all, even if you're going to invent that he existed outside of existence, and as such outside of time, he must still have been doing something before he made everything. And what was he doing before that ? And before that ? After all, he existed forever in that non-temporal place where "forever" doesn't make sense, so there's an infinite regress of actions preceeding the Creation. One rule for us, and another one for God, as you say.

[@DanDan-eh7ul]

Oh, but apologist Will Craig and his ilk will say God's without time, but can magically still decide things without time because the word 'personal' magically makes it so. You could make a good sized sandwich out of the many layers of special pleading he does.

[@eklektikTubb]

It would make much more sense if theists were making arguments FOR infinite regress. That would support all eternal claims - not just infinetly old past of God but also infinite future of immortal souls in afterlife.

[@neutrinoexpert825]

Because there is “incontrovertible” scientific evidence for the existence of God, that no Atheist can falsify with the scientific method.

[@Zanimawl]

@@neutrinoexpert825 Like ?

[@orionred2489]

The "we came from a fish" is from Dawkins' children's book. In the long analogy that he does about taking a picture of your dad, then his dad.... You go back 80 million pictures and your great great great... grandfather was... a fish.

[@biekgiek]

Thanks! I did a quick google search, but nothing direct came up. And the top hits were from apologetic or creationist websites that seemed to be quote mining at best.

[@miconis123]

They love to take quotes like this and snip it a bunch so that they can say "Dawkins says we came from a fish! How stooopid!"

[@crystakovala2694]

This guys arguments all boil down to Argument of Personal Incredulity-he can’t personally believe the evidence or grasp or it doesn’t appeal to him, so therefore it must be false!

[@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306]

Flat earthers and other conspiracist theorists are all like that. Whatever they don't understand they just right off as fake rather then learn the truth that they don't want. But they often will easily accept the most absurd reason for things without question or just insert a god/creator.

[@locutusdborg126]

Fun fact: the Personal Incredulity fallacy was invented by Richard Dawkins.

[@neutrinoexpert825]

Argument of Personal Incredulity is the exact response from Atheists when confronted with the “incontrovertible” scientific evidence for the existence of God. Watch, you will do the same thing now. If you even dare to respond.

[@neutrinoexpert825]

@@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306 What's the difference between Flat Earthers and Atheist? Especialy when you face the fact there is “incontrovertible” scientific evidence for the existence of God.

[@crystakovala2694]

@@neutrinoexpert825 there is no “incontrovertible” evidence of any deity, much less a particular deity. Which is why we have cacophony of countless people all clamoring and asserting without sufficient evidence that “muh god exists” in contradiction to everyone else’s god claims. Merely asserting “there’s incontrovertible evidence” isn’t an actual argument, it’s a baseless assertion. It isn’t a demonstration for the claim. Demonstrate your deity exists or GTFOH.

[@phrozenwun]

The Hoyle quote is not about evolution, it is about abiogenesis. However, it makes the huge assumption that the first form of life is known and is the same as what we know a cell to be today, and that the only way that it could have come about is by random processes. We know that cellular molecular building blocks are abundant and there are several hypotheses about driving events that could lead to replicating molecular complexity - that is, that the process was guided by a combination of chemical and environmental factors and not random at all. However, the fact is, we don't yet know how it happened and neither did Hoyle and as such it is a giant fallacy to make assertions based on ignorance.

[@SnakeMan448]

Also, since the quote has a goal, in that the tornado is intending to make an airplane, it automatically becomes a bunk analogy for processes that don't work towards achieving things.

[@curbroadshow]

@Syzygy132134 playing devils advocate here, the answers you gave, eg a life carrying asteroid, don’t answer the question of how it began, the question just regresses to how did it begin on the asteroid.

[@curbroadshow]

@Syzygy132134 Yes I agree, theists seem to have a problem with ‘I don’t know’, even if it’s followed by ‘yet’, because they believe their book of fairy stories answers everything.

[@SnakeMan448]

"The internet says that Dawkins said this." The internet is a vast place, and we are justified in suspecting that he heard that from a dishonest source.

[@grantm6514]

Take a shot every time Arden says '...like...'

[@mckaylapaddock9319]

Forrest Valkie, the renegade scientist, is a great resource for anyone with questions about evolution 😁 love when he hosts and can answer these questions!

[@digbycrankshaft7572]

Forrest is an amazing resource

[@michaelfredgren1342]

Joe: "That is just how I see it". Welcome to bias, Joe.

[@aussieatheist960]

With Atheist hosts like these, in Hell I'm gonna be in damn GOOD COMPANY!!

[@Matt-gs9io]

Big fan of Kenneth after only a few times watching. Seen more of Arden... who is awesome also.

[@Varanamous]

Joe, Hoyles 747 analogy is do fractally wrong its literally it's own fallacy. And it isnt a comparable analogy. So much so, it falls apart from the outset the very second you understand and acknowledge the 747 has no natural mechanism for coming to be, you have not only a single example of a 747 that can or has cone about in such a way, no mechanism to allow such. But aldi every example we have is known & can be shown (very literally) to come about via us creating them. Or in a synopsis, it's not a 1 to 1 analogy. And another issue, it's not impossible that given enough time & constituents, that a tornado may very well be capable of assembling a 747. I agree it's highly unlikely but not impossible given a vast enough period & the constituents. The fact that we've never observed it doesnt mean it couldnt happen, again though highly improbable it may very well be. Life & biological constituents on the other hand. Do have a natural mechanism that can account for them. And even if you want to argue improbability, it doesn't equal impossibility. Because we can fudge the numbers & parameters enough to make an argument that you calling the show to make those arguments is outlandishly improbable despite clear evidence that it did in fact play out that way.

[@TheSnoeedog]

"there's a part of me that wants god to not exist, but...." does anyone else hear the train's brakes about to fail?

[@jmg94j]

Saying that you believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like saying that you believe in meters, but not kilometers.

[@UngoogleableMan]

We did actually evolve from fish. Check out Neil Shubins "Your Inner Fish".

[@roberthamilton9154]

@@destronia123 technically the fish branch comes 100 million years before the first land animals so fish were definitely around. Idk if our branch was one of the fish lineages though.

[@coreymiller6717]

@@destronia123 The organism existed but the label didn't. No point arguing about labels.

[@roberthamilton9154]

@@destronia123 yes… the things we labeled as a concept, fish, were around… that is exactly what we were talking about… not wether something was around to identify the fish… nobody was claiming the English word ‘fish’ was around 500mil yr ago…

[@ajhieb]

We share a common ancestor with modern-day fish, and that common ancestor more closely resembles modern-day fish than it does humans, but that common ancestor was *not* what would be classified as a fish. _Technically_ we did not descend from fish. Colloquially speaking, yeah, we came from fish. Here's the problem: Creationist dipshits like Kent Hovind love to catch people (especially scientists) speaking colloquially and then treat it as if it were stated _technically._ So if you want to still be reasonably accurate without getting too pedantic, but also not giving any ground to the Hovinds of the world, just say "We had a fish-like ancestor." and you've covered all your bases.

[@jpizzleforizzle]

I remember reading about the origin of teeth being modified scales. Fun stuff.

[@RickSolus]

I find it funny when theist say that an infinite regress is impossible, since they believe in an infinite progress. If people go to hell or heaven for ever, that means there is infinite time forward, which necessarily implies infinite time backwards.

[@orionred2489]

I think the attempt here was to go to the "first cause" argument.

[@EyeonthePrize247]

I’m only 6 minutes in so things could change but this caller is surprisingly a lot more pleasant and understanding than most of the theistic callers.

[@matildastanford7019]

".. I don't want anything to be combative, I'm not interested in arguing......" "..but..."

[@stevenboelke6661]

All these arguments are so tired

[@olivergreenlaw8559]

Dawkins did say the fish thing - as an example of proof being reducto ad absurdium. He was not saying we came from fish. It was from his speech at Penn State.

[@TheDeath138]

@C L And he isn't necessarily wrong if we go back far enough.

[@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306]

Odd how they always seem to equate atheism with biologists, cosmologists, astronomers, geologists etc... Atheism and theism have to do with beliefs in a gods existence or not and does not have to include all that other stuff by default.

[@starfishsystems]

But those educated professionals work with substantial bodies of knowledge which happen to be completely compatible with the premise of no gods existing, and are not in any way usefully explained by the premise of gods existing.

[@kissit012]

Not that odd since most credible scientists tend to be atheist. Being rational isn’t something most intelligent people compartmentalize

[@cj6814]

These two are and excellent commination to host this show! Will they be together again any time soon?

[@jeffc5974]

After the infinite regress question, Joe says they should apply their skepticism, when that is exactly what they are doing.

[@Stuartharrod1]

"I'm an !diot and can't understand science therefore magic."

[@dalex60]

I've never heard anyone state that the universe is god, but the energy within the universe. It's in the details...

[@aricliljegren890]

Glad you guys walked back your initial response to the "did we evolve from fish" question. He *was* clearly angling here, but it is also true - life was initially equatic in nature.

[@tconnelly8]

"angling 😂

[@aricliljegren890]

@@tconnelly8 I'm glad someone caught that :)

[@dma8657]

😆

[@alanrosenthal6323]

Caller doesn't think an infinite regress is possible but he does believe in a sky daddy who has existed forever, was never created or born, and lives outside of time. Lovely.

[@admrs6822]

I hate when people do the "I think [group of people including the person being spoken to] is [negative comment]. Not YOU, but thooose people." Like, bruh, you're talking about me, don't pretend like you're not to avoid the truth.

[@nagranoth_]

Gets a full 16 minutes of questions before the hosts ask him what point he's trying to get to. "I'm sorry if you don't like being questioned." Joe... my man... do you actually think people wouldn't notice that extremely blatant dodge? You were clearly following some script to manipulate a gotcha into existence, and the fact that you dodged the question shows you _know_ that script is a dishonest way of interacting....

[@alexkilgour1328]

Hoyle didn't propose The Big Bang, that was a Catholic Priest named Fr. George LeMaitre and he called it The Cosmic Egg. The Big Bang was coined later as a derisive name.

[@TheKompromissi]

Huh, I thought the cosmic egg was the Finnish creation myth. 😊

[@supernovaleftover1812]

Evolution is a NON ramdom selection of genes most likely to survive. It's frustrating how many people don't understand this.

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

Fred Hoyle coined the phrase "big bang" to ridicule the the theory. He got that wrong, as well as evolution. He thought life was brought to earth by panspermia, and got dottier as he aged. And I absolutely agree that anyone who talks of micro- and macro-evolution doesn't know the least thing about it.

[@richardmitchell2774]

Ok…. Who f*cked the fish?!?!!

[@pelgrim8640]

How does one even calculate the odds of a tornado creating a 747?

[@---yl4mf]

With lots of fantasy and assumptions.

[@cy-one]

Depends. Is there a tornado-created 747 we can compare other 747s against?

[@bradweir6993]

After a dozen glasses of jesus juice. You know it all. !

[@AquaPeet]

@@bradweir6993 eww

[@qhviananan-laul5159]

I got it it is 10^4,000,000,000,000,000 to one, give or take a a thousand. Oh wait I got the numbers to getting a 757 b series, sorry about that.

[@Hedcase71]

Another example of the complete failure of the American education system, sad.

[@zemorph42]

To accept micro but not macro is the same as accepting inches but not miles or leagues. It's the same process, the only difference is time scale, which is based on generations of the populations under study.

[@ianchisholm5756]

This sounds like a 'Questions for your Atheist Friends' pamphlet he got from his pastor.

[@nuclearsimian3281]

"Do I think an infinite regress of temporal events is possible?" "Define everything you said in that incomprehensible comment. That's totally nonsensical."

[@alisonmcglone750]

Yes we evolved from fish in the sense we are both tetrapods.

[@brianbeattie3305]

Actually taxonomiclly there is no such thing as a fish.

[@richjback]

I have NOTHING in common with one of those drink cartons

[@jillum89]

Did you mean vertebrates or how it’s spelled? Fish aren’t tetrapods.

[@billmcavoy5056]

A tetrapod is a any vertebrae animal with four feet and fish are considered just below that classification level. What would be more accurate is that ‘fish’ (not quite a taxonomically correct assignation - but workable) and homo sapiens share a common ancestor.

[@billmcavoy5056]

@@richjback : loved that comment 🤣

[@pretzelogic2689]

Very early "fish" are in our tree. We came from the ocean.

[@brucebaker810]

Well fish shouldn't be in trees. And we're better off only visiting the ocean now and then. kidding

[@GrimAngel01100]

I'm only 5 minutes in, but I like that The caller is asking about biases and what not instead of just making claims to the hosts biases, let's see where this goes.

[@brinkerduo]

Oh, i like these two. They are open, honest, non-judgmental, and take zero shit in a nice way. Kudos.

[@neutrinoexpert825]

There are cowards you won't face the “incontrovertible” scientific evidence for the existence of God.

[@brinkerduo]

@@neutrinoexpert825 yeah, i would also put "incontrovertible" in heavily sarcastic quotation marks. Because that is the only sensible way to do it.

[@cardboardmannequin4069]

I think the caller wanted to demonstrate that the hosts were using an inconsistent evidentiary standard for their beliefs. It seems his assumption was that the hosts would dogmatically insist on knowing all the answers and when they instead answered "yes/no" only when there was clear evidence and "i don't know, maybe XYZ?" when there wasn't, his whole purpose for calling was derailed so he said "this isn't getting anywhere" and gave up.

[@petermirtitsch1235]

Santa Claus IS based on a real person, Saint Nicholas, the fourth century bishop of Myra.

[@suburban-vampire]

Joe was following a dialog tree lol

[@MasamiPhoenix]

Pretty sure he was trying to prove you aren't skeptical about "atheist beliefs." Which is why he started with abiogenesis and evolution. Then things got even more muddied because he assumed that infinite regression was a universally held "atheist belief," when it became clear that Kenneth has spent very little time pontificating about it and doesn't have a strong belief in either side.

[@rafagames6355]

The one thing we learned about Joe is that he doesn't know what skepticism is

[@simonl1135]

Too bad Joe dropped his script and got disconnected while he went down looking for it, otherwise we might have learned what was the point of it.

[@ilonachan]

There's always some reason to interrogate unsubstantiated claims, especially far-reaching ones like a god claim... there's EXTRA reason if those claims are used constantly and pervasively to hurt massive groups of people.

[@nevitt2236]

I could not find where Dawkins said we came from fish, anyone got a link or reference, maybe something specific or a direction I could start.

[@hansj5846]

Being an adult and not believing in evolution is truly amazing. Do you not have any schools and colleges over there? Jesus fucking Christ

[@dma8657]

We have an amazingly anti-intellectual bias in the US. Some people take pride in being uneducated.

[@girlwithtehface5880]

Joe, citing a cosmological physicists opinion about biology isn't going to work. That's like getting an electrician to look at your plumbing.

[@walnutoil100]

False - you can ask an astro- biologist

[@girlwithtehface5880]

@@walnutoil100 Astro biologist? Is there such a field as astro biology?

[@neutrinoexpert825]

@@girlwithtehface5880 Physics is relevant because there “incontrovertible” scientific evidence for the existence of God.

[@girlwithtehface5880]

@@neutrinoexpert825 Really? What evidence?

[@neutrinoexpert825]

​@@girlwithtehface5880 The following testable scientific facts demonstrate “incontrovertible” scientific evidence for the existence of God, where God is operationally defined as a "Higher Power" above and beyond all time and space or the Universe. 1. Man can't create a Neutrino from nothing or zero energy. This fact is demonstrated by the following equation: UT=Ui+W+QUT=Ui+W+Q which represents the maximum internal energy (UT) that could exist in any system required to create Neutrinos. 2. Neutrinos do not create themselves from nothing or zero energy. This fact is demonstrated by the following equation: ΔU=W+Q which represents the change (ΔU) in internal energy of the Neutrino and proves it does not have the power to create itself from nothing or zero energy. 3. Neutrinos are not eternal and will decay. In fact “Neutrinos are born in various decays, which is when a particle changes from one type into another." Neutrino Decay as an Explanation of Atmospheric Neutrino Observations V. Barger, J. G. Learned, S. Pakvasa, and T. J. Weiler Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2640 (1999) - Published 29 March 1999 This fact is demonstrated mathematically by various equations including but not limited to : (ν ̄e + p → e+ + n ) which proves at least one type of inverse beta decay. (Bethe and Peierls, 1934) and experimentally (Reines 1976). And (μ → e + ¯νe + νμ) which proves Muon-Neutrino decay. And by the fact that Neutrinos will reach a maximum state of Entropy like everything else in the universe, and experience a heat-death. 4. The lowest power detectable Neutrino particle required a "Higher Power" above and beyond the universe to be created. This fact is demonstrated in two parts. First, by the detection and measurement of the Lowest EPP (energies-per-particle) which is represented mathematically on a scale of ~100-200 meV. where ~1.95 K = CNB. The power level measurements are based on the cosmic microwave background temperature power spectrum. Second, by conservation laws which demonstrates the universe has the same amount of energy unless it’s added from the outside. Thus proving the final fact that the Lowest EPP Neutrino at the earliest beginning of the universe required a “Higher Power” above and beyond (outside the universe) to be created. Summary: The preceding testable scientific facts demonstrate “incontrovertible” scientific evidence for the existence of God, where God is operationally defined as a "Higher Power" above and beyond all time and space or the Universe. Therefore, while not a hypothesis or theories, the rules of the scientific method require the evidence to be falsified by citing or conducting repeatable, objective scientific test(s)/experiment(s) that falsify the data presented. Until such “falsification” the “incontrovertible” scientific evidence invalidates the Atheist belief/position there is no evidence for the existence of God.

[@JohnLeePettimoreIII]

Also an assertion by Hoyle : The correlation of flu epidemics with the sunspot cycle, with epidemics occurring at the minimum of the cycle. The idea was that flu contagion was scattered in the interstellar medium and reached Earth only when the solar wind had minimum power.

[@apistevistatheist]

it is not the people who dont want god to exist that is the problem; it is in fact all the people who have invented gods that want their god to exist that is the problem. Not wanting god to exist changes nothing, if god exists. But deluding yourself into believing a god exists when none exists is a problem.

[@bulkvanderhuge9006]

In the middle of a desert, your Water Bottle IS god.

[@raygowan1968]

His voice sounds familiar. Hasn't he called in to AE on a few occasions using different names?

[@curious1053]

Probably. There’s been several repeat callers slowly losing their faith.

[@karlrschneider]

Bias toward truth is NOT a vice, it is a virtue.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

Ken is very good. 😊 Wish I could think that quickly on the spot.

[@eviltwin2322]

8:00 Even if Hoyle said that, he was an astrophysicist, not a biologist. He literally wasn't qualified to make any assertions on the matter!

[@humbleevidenceaccepter7712]

'I understand how I-75 could go from Detroit to Toledo, but it could never go all the way to Florida!'

[@henrikrolfsen584]

"The Lord has written his laws on my heart". Behavioral Science has explained why guilt feelings exist. They exist because they are an important survival mechanism. Because we are Social Primates, our survival depends upon our being integrated into larger groups. Guilt feeling are a source for self control, and self moderation. Behavioral Science has long since replaced both Religion, and Philosophy!

[@justaguy6100]

First, Hoyle was a life-long evolution critic for personal reasons that had nothing to do with scientific inquiry into the biologic theories and tests behind evolution, and he was also a critic of the "Big Bang" theory, a theory first posed by an astronomer who was also a Catholic priest. And yeah we did evolve from a chordata organism that was aquatic.

[@bmcfarland1046]

I'm not convinced of the existence of God, but no Santa Claus?! Thems fighten words!