Intelligent Design Is Complete Nonsense

Steve and I discuss Intelligent Design. We cover its inception and why it's completely wrong.
🪐 SUBSCRIBE / 🚀 LIKE / 👽 COMMENT
The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe
Website & Podcast: www.theskeptic...
Patreon: / skepticsguide
Facebook: / theskepticsguide
Instagram: / theskepticsguide
Twitter: / skepticsguide
TikTok: / skepticsguide
✉️ Send your questions to:
[e-mail]
Check out Our Books:
📘 The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake
📙 The Skeptics’ Guide to the Future: What Yesterday’s Science and Science Fiction Tell Us About the World of Tomorrow
www.theskeptic...
#SGU #SkepticsGuide #Science

[@MichaelFoley64]

"Cdesign proponentsists." is still my favorite transitional fossil.

[@RKling-o2b]

LOL Your joke went over everybody's heads.

[@digital1083]

Around 3:44 - In speaking about the bacterium's flagella, the use of phrases like "the flagella might have evolved" and "that appears to be what happened" and "it probably evolved" is far from scientific in my mind. Why use words like "might", "appears" and "probably" ? Either you know it for sure, or you don't. And if you unsure, then state it as such in textbooks and to the public. Don't make claims that you do not know for certain.

[@ramigilneas9274]

Sure… but then the those creationists should never again be allowed to say that something is irreducibly complex… or that something can not have evolved through natural processes… because they don’t know that. Scientists simply propose a plausible hypothesis that don’t require outlandish assumptions… just because you don’t like those assumptions because of your own religious biases doesn’t make those assumptions unreasonable.

[@estebansteverincon7117]

That's just called being honest. But scientists not knowing everything 100 percent doesn't magically prove a 'god' exists, that's for sure.

[@ClifffSVK]

That's because there's a gap in our knowledge. And it's better to say "might", "appears" and "probably" rather than "we know for sure" without backing it up. The proposition of evolution of the flagellum itself is not unscientific. It's backed by the evidence of other structures evolving into new ones and gaining new functions. So the evolution of the flagellum is EXPECTED by the theory.

[@JJ-qq2so]

A skeptic that believes whatever hes told to, amazing

[@uzul42]

I find that one of the most compelling arguments against the idea of an intelligent designer (i.e. God) who created all the species as they are is the way the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve looks like in different animals. The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve connects the brain with the muscles of the larynx. In humans it does so by going from the brain down to the chests, looping around the heart and going all the way back up again to the larynx. Why that big detor? The theory of evolution can give a perfectly conclusive explanation. In fish the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve connects the brain to the gills by also looping around the heart, but in fish that is in fact the shortest route. When fish went on land and evolved into amphibians they grew a neck and their gill arches turned into the larynx. A truly intelligent designer would have scrapped his old design from the fish, toss out the looping around the heart path and connect the nerve directly from brain to larynx. But that's not how evolution works. Unless there is sufficient evolutionary pressure the process of evolution never goes back and changes existing structures. Making the nerve just a bit longer is not enough of a disadvantage to do so. So that's what happened. All the way up to the giraffe, whose brain is 6 feet (1,8 meter) removed from the heart so this nerve has to be twice that long to go all the way down to the chest and then all the way back up again to reach their voice box. Intelligent design proponents can give no explanation for this insanity, except "God works in mysterious ways".

[@iwkaoy8758]

Hue mans wire houses building and cars width electric wires,but day don't wire dim isle de same. It de pins own de structure,shortest and most safest path. You wood ant wire a fish like a hue man ore a giraffe.

[@ZebecZT]

No intelligent design proponent has ever invoked god in the equation. the theory doesn’t directly address the nature of the intelligence, it just addresses the exiting of AN intelligence. that is all. stop strawmaning

[@leftpastsaturn67]

@@ZebecZT "No intelligent design proponent has ever invoked god in the equation" Either you don't listen to ID proponents, you're very selective about which ones you choose to listen to, or you're being dishonest.

[@ZebecZT]

@@leftpastsaturn67 Inteligent design theory itself doesn’t invoke god , the theory just talks about there being evidence for an intelligent , it never tries to say this intelligence is god , thats the interpretation of theistic scientist who are ID Proponents. what i was trying to say is the theory itself doesn’t lead you to a god but the existence of an intelligence.

[@leftpastsaturn67]

@@ZebecZT I know all that, but that isn't what you typed when you said "No ID proponent has ever invoked god in the equation". I'm curious as to what 'intelligence' the non theist proponents think was responsible.

[@GodID7]

Lol! He actually uses the co-option argument? Hahaha! An event that haven’t seen anywhere! A lot of evolutionary philosophy there.

[@5ynthesizerpatel]

The real problem for intelligent design is the designer. You see if you're proposing some kind of supernatural superbeing as the designer, you first need to justify why it needs to be a supernatural superbeing, but by that point you're just proposing creationism with extra steps. If on the other hand you hold an agnostic position on the designer - could be natural, could be supernatural - you're accepting the proposition that a designer of sufficient intelligence and complexity to design all life on this planet came about as a result of natural processes. and if the designer can be the result of natural processes .... then so can all life on this planet

[@blusheep2]

ID simply implies a designer. It doesn't identify that designer at this point. Christians will present their argument that it is God. That is a separate argument though. If I see a sand castle, I know its designed. I don't need to know anything about the designer. For those that use the ID argument as an argument for God, they are simply building a case for God. ID may not prove God designed life but it sure does open the door very wide in His direction and that is why there is so much push back to the argument.

[@TorstenPihl]

Technical quirk: "No signal" and color bars show up briefly a couple of times.

[@flyingsodwai1382]

A Gap! That's where god lives!

[@strangelee4400]

Check out smarter every day. Destin just went off the deep end and went full on intelligent design proponant.

[@pohidie94]

Intelligent design is not an attempt to frame creationism as a science, and the early 1990s is NoT the origin of intelligent design as an inference from observable evidence. Irreducible complexity is an argument about purpose in complexity. That structures can be coopted from one purpose to another in no way addresses the fact that purpose in complexity cannot be obtained from unpurposeful random combinations of simple elements. Evolutionary pressure can only excert influence in already purposeful complexity. "It's functional the entire time" this is the fallacy that should get you thinking. The god of the gaps argument being even referenced here is just ridiculous and I will waste no more words on this strawman. He says that intelligent design proponents say "whenever we don't understand something then that's just the way the designer designed it." But he makes the exact same claim without any explanation himself when he believes that everything that we don't yet know can only be explained in terms of random mutation and natural selection, which completely misses the point of intelligent design argumentation, which is that mutation and natural selection alone cannot explain the origin and diversity of complexity in the observed universe. Intelligent design claims that the characteristics of observable complexity are best explained by the agency of an intelligent designer. This was not even debated in the past. A predilection to Intelligent design as an explanation to complexity is clearly a part of the origin of science as a means to understanding the world. Not to mention that science is predicated on the fact that the world itself is intelligible... via intelligence! If this was not so, scientific inquiry by means of experimentation and peer review would be no more than an interesting mental stimulation, more akin to a videogame session than to a means to truth.

[@DocReasonable]

*Why scientists dismiss irreducible complexity* Irreducible complexity's main proponent was the religious charlatan Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Behe has since renounced his lie, as it is so laughably absurd. No examples of irreducible complexity have ever been found. The concept is rejected by the scientific community. If an irreducibly complex system contains within it a smaller set of parts that could be used for some other function, then the system was never really irreducibly complex to begin with. A subset of the bacterial flagellum proteins, for example, are used by other bacteria to inject toxins into other cells and several of the proteins in the human blood-clotting system are modified forms of proteins found in the digestive system. ID begins with complexity - a supreme being - and also ends there. The explanations offered by ID are not really explanations at all. They're more like last resorts. And there is a danger in pretending that ID belongs next to evolution in textbooks. 'It doesn't add anything to science to introduce the idea that a god did it," Professor William Provine told LiveScience. Intelligent design 'would become the death of science if it became a part of science.'

[@GottenhamVerenoight]

I hate the word "falsifiable." It's very confusing to people who are new to scientific jargon. It's like, how can you show that something is false if it's true? I prefer the word "testable."

[@svetovidarkonsky1670]

Can you please align the hem of the tablecloth with the edge of the table? You are sending my OCD into overdrive ... I just CANNOT stop looking at it. 😬

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

It's good to see Deepak Chopra and Leslie Nielsen discussing this.

[@2A3tube]

Whoyou working for?

[@douglasbrenner891]

Thanks again guys for shining a light on things. I love what you do and it elucidates a way to converse with my friends who have been misinformed about our best understanding of the realities of the world we coexist in. The struggle is real. Keep up the good work!

[@flyingsodwai1382]

I've viewed IA as an argument from incredulity ever since I saw the first IA movie.

[@kentclark9616]

Why did you direct the question at this guy? He giving the worst answers. The ID community has addressed his argument’s over and over again. He seems to be completely clueless

[@ZebecZT]

this is a strawman. ID is not” god of the gaps argument” its not a theory based on faith or theistic scripture but rather a ration inference to the best explanation based on scientific evidence; all ID says is “ there are certain characteristics of life that are best explained by an intelligent cause “ it doesn’t say anything about god, therefore saying its a god of the gaps argument would be a miss characterisation and a straw man.

[@kamerad4212]

you got it right. There is a glimmer of hope for humanity. Just a glimmer.

[@veridicusmaximus6010]

There is no design explanation for any part of life. Period! You don't have to use 'god' - it's simply a different form of the argument from ignorance. And we all know that they were shown to be Creationists at the trial. It was their intent to masquerade themselves. Their not fooling anyone since we all know they are Creationists and that any natural ID begs the question - who designed it?

[@ramigilneas9274]

Ok… it’s not a direct God of the Gaps argument. It’s a God of the Gaps argument that is thinly veiled in surface level scientific jargon to give it the appearance that it’s a serious argument instead of creationism.😂

[@ZebecZT]

@@ramigilneas9274 This is the internet, Anyone can call any valid scientific theory “ surface level scientific jargon “ Interestingly, when newton published his theory, there were also alot of resistance, it took several decades for it to be accepted, why? because the theory undermined and changed existing fundamental beliefs about our universe. People are dogmatic, they don’t like change, but change is bound to happen, may it take years or decades.

[@CatDaddyGuitar]

And yet science ignores the concept of God and still finds answers that explain reality. If theism or deism were true, there would be influential data to explain what science can't yet. To jump to the presupposition that "there must be an entity that started it all" is just that, a presupposition with no evidence to support it other than your "perception" or by looking around you.

[@atmanbrahman1872]

Basically you basically misrepresented basically from the first sentence basically intelligent design basically. So I conclude that there is no intellectual honesty to be found in this video.

[@veridicusmaximus6010]

You're basically wrong!

[@KNYHT.FIRE-1]

He says "maybe", "probably", "could be" and other such irrevocably ascertainable veracities that prove these statements are conjecture, nothing more.

[@ramigilneas9274]

Maybe Christians should do the same and admit that they don’t have any verifiable evidence for any of the stories in the Bible. No evidence for the resurrection, no evidence any miracle ever, no evidence that the stories about Jesus are more than legends invented by people who never met him.😉

[@Jtexy]

Great explanation Steve

[@SuperChicken666]

Wow! How did you manage to get Leslie Nelson? He's one of my favs...Wait. isn't he dead? Never mind. Great topic and great video anyway.😊❤❤❤

[@Mark_Wheeler]

Anybody who argues for intelligent design must not have chronic back pain like I do. Mr. Deity really screwed up on that one.

[@iwkaoy8758]

Bad design does ant mean know designer. That's like say yin a bad Lee design car proves know designer. Isle so, Bad design de pins own de purr puss of de designer,knot de design it self. As inn example - killler Wells live indie war da,But breath air. Own de sir fuss, Its a bad design two killler Wells,but it's a good design four de hole ecosystem. Killler Wells wood bee OP if day did ant knead two come up four air. Day have know natural predators,So day wood over feed own ocean creatures. Your bad back is caused buy recessive mutate Shawn's. Cars rust and break down over time,But it does ant mean it's knot designed.

[@Mark_Wheeler]

@@iwkaoy8758 The discussion was about "intelligent" design. Human backs have problems because we evolved our bipedal posture from a quadrupedal one. If we were designed bipedally from scratch, there would be much better ways to do it.

[@iwkaoy8758]

@@Mark_Wheeler What if de designer did ant plan four de back two last four ever? Wood you consider it unintelligent if it did ant? It's bad four (You),but knot de designer. Isle so, Two daze creatures aren't de original design. Rusted cars aren't de original design either. Out side forces break king down some ting does ant make de original design bad. It does ant make your arm a bad design bee cause a sword Ken chop it off. De designer create Ted prehistoric wolves,knot pugs. pugs are dwarf wolves/ Recessive gene wolves. Pugs have a lot of breathing,hip, and other health problems,Wolves don't have doze problems. Hue men's are break king down two,But faster bee cause technology a lao's de week two pass own their genes. Isle so,hue men's breed four love ore money instead of de best genetic like wild any moles. Hue men breeding habits causes bad genetics,knot de designer. Hue men's should have hue men's breeding projects from de survive of their genetic,But de Evolutionism bee leave system thinks hue men's are evolving instead of De-evolving.

[@timid3000]

@@Mark_Wheeler ⁠​⁠People who live well, eat well and don’t overly exert their backs in non natural ways, don’t have back problems. The fact you can overlook the endless ways that humans routinely abuse their bodies as a possible explanation for bad backs is testament to how unimportant getting to the truth is for you. You sound like the two children talking in the video. Leaning heavily on poor arguments and ignoring completely the sound ones. All the while convincing yourself you have the intellectual high ground. You need to grow up mate.

[@leftpastsaturn67]

@@timid3000 "You need to grow up mate" Oh, the amusing irony. Don't be a soft twat.

[@Lesserthannone]

Next time they do this, the floor should be open so people that think Aleins did it can also talk their nonsense. You just wonder when the shame of this nonsense would kick in for those preposing ID

[@iwkaoy8758]

That does ant diss credit a intelligent designer. That's like some one say yin Santa clause placed presents under de tree. Just bee cause de Santa store rie is seal Lee does ant mean know one placed presents under de tree. Their Ken bee mini wrongs a bot hoo placed de presents their,but that does ant diss credit a placer.

[@larryg6865]

Intelligent design is creationism with a suit and tie.

[@blusheep2]

This is simply a lazy argument. Its a genetic fallacy on top of that. Your assuming the argument is false because of the motives of the person giving it.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@blusheep2 Sure… just because the few people who still peddle ID are all religious fundamentalists who openly admit that they reject Evolution for emotional and religious reasons doesn’t make their arguments false. But it’s also a good explanation for why real scientists don’t take their arguments seriously. And don’t forget that the vast majority of Christian scientists also reject their arguments and agree that Evolution is a proven fact.😉

[@blusheep2]

@@ramigilneas9274 The guys "peddling" ID are not "fundamentalists." Fundamentalists are the YEC types and none of the guys promoting ID are YEC, as far as I can tell. So it seems as if you might not know enough about them. They don't reject evolution they reject "Darwinian Evolution." They believe God was involved in directed evolution but evolution nonetheless. Second they have written books given deductive and inductive arguments for their position so its simply not true that they have admitted that they hold to their position for emotional and religious reasons. Real scientists aren't supposed to use their emotional baggage to judge scientific inferences either, and that is what they would be doing if they ignored what the ID proponents presented just because they believe in God. If you say that the vast majority of Christian scientists reject their arguments, provide the poll of these Christian scientists. I think the reason you are saying this is because you are conflating Intelligent Design with Young Earth Creationism. That is a mistake because, though YEC types will use some of the ID material, the two camps are not the same thing or connected with each other.

[@blusheep2]

@@ramigilneas9274 I think you are making a mistake. I think you are conflating ID with Young Earth Creationism. The people promoting ID are not YEC and the two groups are not affiliated with each other. Therefore, the ID proponents are not "fundamentalists." They don't reject evolution. They reject Darwinian Evolution and favor a Directed Evolution hypothesis. They are all, as far as I can tell, old earth theistic evolutionists. The most famous of them have written books supporting their position with deductive and inductive logic and never by relying on emotional and religious reasons. Real scientists don't ignore arguments because the person presenting them has an emotional reason to do so. If a scientist ignores the scientific argument because he doesn't like the person's metaphysical beliefs then he is the one guilty of using emotion and his religious perspective to make his conclusions. He employs a genetic fallacy. Show me the poll where the vast majority of Christian scientists reject ID arguments? Again, I think your saying this because you are conflating Id with YEC.

[@blusheep2]

@@ramigilneas9274 I think you are making a mistake. I think you are conflating ID with Young Earth Creationism. The people promoting ID are not YEC and the two groups are not affiliated with each other. Therefore, the ID proponents are not "fundamentalists." They don't reject evolution. They reject Darwinian Evolution and favor a Directed Evolution hypothesis. They are all, as far as I can tell, old earth theistic evolutionists. The most famous of them have written books supporting their position with deductive and inductive logic and never by relying on emotional and religious reasons. Real scientists don't ignore arguments because the person presenting them has an emotional reason to do so. If a scientist ignores the scientific argument because he doesn't like the person's metaphysical beliefs then he is the one guilty of using emotion and his religious perspective to make his conclusions. He employs a genetic fallacy. Show me the poll where the vast majority of Christian scientists reject ID arguments? Again, I think your saying this because you are conflating Id with YEC.

[@skatter44]

This is typical of skeptics who don't understand or probably never read any of the literature. ID is NOT warmed over creationism. Their goal is to show that if something has the appearance of design, like Richard Dawkins claims in the Blind Watchmaker, how can we tell if something has been designed or if natural causes are a good enough explanation? Their argument for biology, for example, is that there is so much complex information in just a single cell alone that the probability that it assembled itself is external low and that when we come across that type and amount of complex information we attribute it to a designer.

[@ramigilneas9274]

Sure… we already know that the "God of the Gaps“ fallacy is their only argument. But "this looks too complex to be the result of natural processes… therefore it must have been an even more complex designer who just exists for no reason“… is a very stupid argument.😂

[@skatter44]

@@ramigilneas9274 This reply demonstrates that you do not understand what the ID community argues for. They do not say "gee, we can't figure out how this could have come about naturally so God must have done it." They NEVER argue in this way. Please see the relevant chapters (15-20) in Stephen Myer's book 'Signature in the Cell' where he addresses these simplistic objections.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@skatter44 Of course he has to pretend that this isn’t his view to give ID the appearance of a legitimate hypothesis… but it’s still just a thinly veiled God of the Gaps argument.😉

[@mutwa_0]

Macro evolution is shown to be a fairy tale by empirical data not just pure denial. Might have, probably evolved i like this science.

[@jjwhittle8873]

Where is this empirical data?

[@stefansmith4313]

Only in your atrophied brain, meanwhile here in reality evolution has evidence while you have nothing.

[@walkergarya]

cdesign proponentsists!

[@mottthehoople693]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/j2auant4nq-jq80

[@suegirouard917]

A theist can not distinguish fantasy from reality. How is that an intelligent design?

[@GodID7]

Haha the first statement of that man is already a straw man. The theory itself doesn’t impose an specific agent. Different from creationism that presupposes God. Even Dawkins acknowledge that one possibility could be directed panspermia. One thing is what the theory says and other what inferences you can make outside the theory.

[@blusheep2]

Agreed. His first statement of definition defined creationism as denying evolution when most of the proponents behind the ID movement believe in evolution.

[@GodID7]

@@blusheep2 part of it. They are skeptical of universal common ancestry. The difference is creationists are not skeptical, they reject the hypothesis but not the whole theory.

[@blusheep2]

@@GodID7 I think the term creationist should just be retired. We at least need another designation to separate the Young Earth Creationists from the Old Earth ones. I would agree. People like Meyers and Behe and Axe, don't reject evolutionary change over time. They reject the power of natural selection to account for the change. That is different then rejecting the theory. Rocks, fossils, phylogenetic trees tell us nothing about how evolution happened.

[@GodID7]

@@blusheep2 yeah actually I should say YEC. Well it is quite difficult bc there’re OECs that reject universal common ancestry too. In fact ID proposers are OEC or most of them. So idk 🤣

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@blusheep2 Then they should call themselves theistic Evolutionionists. But Meyer seems to believe in a lot of other nonsense that is incompatible with scientific Evolution. He simply can’t let go of the religious idea that his God specially created humans 10k years ago.😂

[@FurieMan]

Personally I'm a Cdesign proponentsists.

[@RKling-o2b]

Many scientists, including fully secular scientists, have concluded that the universe does seem to be 'fine tuned' for life in many and spectacular ways. But we don't need to jump to the conclusion that a God is responsible when we can simply say we don't believe and chalk it all up to luck. That isn't much to base a belief system on, but it's plenty enough for those with average or below average IQ or thinking skills 😉

[@stefansmith4313]

No they haven't, you're just spewing bullshit.

[@RKling-o2b]

@@stefansmith4313 Bro, even Hitchens and Dawkins acknowledged the fine tuning argument is a tough one for an atheist to get around.

[@stefansmith4313]

@@RKling-o2b except life adapted to the universe and not the other way around.

[@RKling-o2b]

@@stefansmith4313 That's an interesting belief.

[@RKling-o2b]

@@stefansmith4313 But there's much much more to the fine tuning argument than just the questions around life.

[@kamerad4212]

I came here looking for some real science-based feedback vis-a-vis intelligent design. I find ID very intriguing but understand the need for a balanced approach. I have read many articles and books on the subject of origins and am familiar with the basic tenets of each. ID is based on the discovery of the biological code within DNA and the ability of living organisms to read the code language and manufacture proteins according to the instructions. You take the lazy approach and lump ID in with creation. What a farce your channel is. You need to directly address the problem of information in the cell and the fact it is too complicated to have evolved. The thing I really like about ID is it doesn't go any further than to point out that an intelligence is obviously required to be the source of information for the codes. It isn't anti-religiously biased like naturalist evolution proponents. Nor does it do what creationism does and cram everything to fit the assumed biblical narrative. The intelligent designer can be anything - Jesus, Allah, the Universe, ET's. Personally I like the ET idea. Get off your arse and do some real critical thinking instead of just parroting the party line.

[@DocReasonable]

proposing supernatural magic as the origin of everything because you don't understand science is puerile.

[@Apebek]

You believe that I can build a car factory if I randomly kick around some building materials with no goal in mind for trillions of years. You believe that a dumb person like me who has no intelligence at all can do that?

[@JayNovella]

No one is saying that is how evolution works.

[@Apebek]

@@JayNovella It's the same thing

[@TheSkepticsGuide]

Straw meet man.

[@Apebek]

@@TheSkepticsGuide Then tell me how comes a singular cell into existence. How do the different parts of a cell that rely on eachother come into one being? Does a factory that synthesizes some of the most complex molecules in the universe come into being by trial and error?

[@chimaobibarnabas]

​@@ApebekYou need to understand that the first cells weren't very good at this. Life became this complex through natural selection over time . Most likely why we don't discover new forms of life. Any one that pops up is quickly outcompeted by already existing ones which had billions of years to evolve.

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

Intelligent design is how life arrived on this planet and for some reason it is complete nonsense.

[@SuperShowJonesy]

But Steve, if we evolved from monkey's, how are there still monkeys? It doesn't make sense.

[@iwkaoy8758]

That question is Moore deeper den that,but some pea pole sea a imagine of de words indie questions,but knot de hole picture. Hue men's are bipedal ,But de send from none bipedal apes a core den two Evolutionism. Amoeba branched inn two Moe tea bowl creature, Hue men's and monk keys go back two one branch,So why does de branching stops during de in-between stages of none bipedal two apes and bipedal apes? Should ant de half bipedal apes have branches two? Why are hue men's de own Lee bipedal apes? Should ant de in between stages branched off inn two other creatures like yeti's ore some ting? Why is their a dye reck Line two hue mans from none bipedal,but know branches in between? Why isle de in between stages could ant survive until modern times,but none bipedal apes did? What caused de extinction of de in between stages ( half bipedal apes),but did ant killl de none bipedal apes?

[@godblessthelessfortunate3175]

Whichever side of our origins you're on, it is based on faith. It takes just as much faith, if not more so, to believe that carbon, mixed with a bunch of elements, wait billions of years, eventually produces a reproducing species with conscience, sapience, and sentience than to believe in the everlasting existence of the all powerful creator.

[@ctpaul1261]

No, sirree. There's empirical evidence for the elements, time, and the evolution of life forms, so no faith required for that. On the other hand, what is the empirical evidence for an "all powerful creator"?

[@godblessthelessfortunate3175]

@@ctpaul1261 There is absolutely no empirical evidence to prove the origins on a reproducing species endowed with conscience, sapience, and sentience. It takes a leap of faith to believe in that THEORY.

[@galloe8933]

Buddy, you really did pick the deep end of the pool to shoot that little quip off in, has it ever worked? The guys in the video? Likely been doing this longer than you have been alive, and a lot longer than KZbin. You're not going to make them upset with your, shallow argument not for God, but for how they are wrong. Ever hear about how that dweeb tried to sue them? Get in line, kiddo, you're in over your head. No one will remember this, no one will care.

[@RandiRain]

No matter how many times you prove this false, they still repeat it. There's only about a million videos here on youtube debunking that very notion, but here it still is.

[@godblessthelessfortunate3175]

@@RandiRain There is no proof for either side of the debate. It takes faith to believe whichever side you choose. It is impossible to prove carbon mixed with a bunch of elements evolved into humans with conscience, sapience, and sentience because that experiment would take billions of years to realize the result. Likewise, it is impossible to prove that the 2,000 fulfilled biblical prophecies are attributed to an everlasting all powerful, all knowing, all present creator, as astronomical an improbability and impossibility as it sounds.

[@minimum20mins]

I bet you lot have had your boosters .

[@nateb7394]

I like this series. I think it would be helpful if Steve's credentials were listed on the bottom of the screen and in the description. Not that people should believe him only because he's a neuroscientist, but just to give the conversation more credibility. Thanks!

[@ProfessorBenDover]

"Not that.." lol

[@nullpip]

@nateb7394 While I agree that these credentials contribute to Steve being qualified & are worth calling out, skeptics already are perceived by some as being elitist, snooty & condescending; this would not help. In addition, this would open up these science-communication videos to claims that they rely on the "argument from authority" fallacy. I believe this definitely is an incorrect statement, I still think this will open an avenue of conversation which ultimately distracts from the topic at hand. Putting credentials in the description would be mostly fine, imo, but putting titles as a permanent "watermark" on the actual video would likely backfire heavily.

[@Gothlore]

I believe Steve because he has a great track record and checks his sources. People who are wrong can often list degrees, but far fewer can show a good track record and checked sources.

[@theoriginalmonstermaker]

I reject the notion thar anyone should pay attention to anyone based on credentials; any person of intelligence can perceive intelligence the moment it is demonstrated, which Steve does in every sentence he speaks. Logic is evident in the formulation of thoughts; if anyone needs more, let them waste their lives worshiping at the alters of their figureheads.

[@theoriginalmonstermaker]

....But if the topic was neuroscience, then I suppose it would be relevant.

[@Mark_Wheeler]

I hate the word "falsifiable." It's very confusing to people who are new to scientific jargon. It's like, how can you show that something is false if it's true? I prefer the word "testable."

[@user255]

I get your point, but the emphasis is (and should be) on the value of negative result. IE you "can" test whether something is "true", while you should always test whether it is false.

[@user255]

@@williamrunner6718 It might sound like non-sense, but it is logical necessity.

[@theoriginalmonstermaker]

Understood. But you're not testing whether it's true, you're designing a test to show its false IF it were... but yes, that sounds confusing, lol ... 2nd attempt: you're trying to show your position is true, so if it wasn't, what would be a way to investigate that? If there's no way to investigate, it's not falsifiable, bc it CANNOT be proven wrong. It still may be testable, bc there are a ton of things you use to show its right, but not falsifiable, bc no evidence or test that would show its wrong.