Why would listening to a pretentious lying fraud like Berlinski "grow" your critical faculties. All I can see is a bitter failed academic lying about science and scientists for money.....
Critical that evolution by natural selection actually occurred and continues to occur? My preference is to hold onto the concept that mice spontaneously form out of the hay that they habitate in.
His is precisely the cynicism we need today! Cynicism doesn't quite capture it but he's a court jester extraordinaire. He says of the people that they are fools but also of the King if he had any wisdom, almost with a wink, that he's a person!
@@Kobe29261 He's a pretentious lying fraud who has contributed precisely nothing to any branch of any science at any time. He makes a grubby living posing as an intellectual for the entertainment of the gullible while sneering helplessly at his betters from the sidelines.
@@mcmanustony he has contributed in this video right here...science isnt just about writing papers ...the other side is to get it peer reviewed...he is a peer and he is reviewing it on air... i dont understand your ad hominem
He knows as much about quantum cosmology as he does about the contents of my fridge. He's a ridiculous pretentious poseur. The only faintly interesting question he raises is how the fuck does he get away with it.
There's a paradox about Berlinski, his erudition is unquestionable and it remains for me a mystery that he found the humility to acknowledge the inconclusivity of all our current theories instead of the comfort of reserved understanding. He could have earned a seat with the 'masters'. That he chose this path, or was chosen by it - thats a more interesting mystery to me.
@@Kobe29261 Sorry, that's nonsense. He is a master of absolutely nothing so he's not at that table. He lies that he's a mathematician yet has done no original work of any kind in any branch of the subject at any time. He academic "career" was a disaster. He never landed a full time job and got fired from a succession of low level part time teaching assistant gigs over the years. "Humility"- are you serious? Really?? He has "an ego fit for a medieval pope". He preens himself before audiences of ignorant right wing bible thumpers because no one else would give him the time of day. What is "mysterious" about a bitter failed academic sneering at science for money?
@@mcmanustony So apparently there's a history of you and Berlinski? Sounds like you don't like his body of work. I don't fault anyone, we all have our preferences. He's not saying much that's unique or even interesting for anyone familiar with the canon. His is the admission that 'much remains to be learned yet before anyone gets ridiculed for their convictions' - that goes as far back as ancient Chinese texts and Patangali's Yoga sutra's. Its not relevant if he's done seminal work, that's an inordinately high bar. The fact is few scientists achieve seminal work in their careers. You can count the formative ideas on one hand in both Physics and the biological sciences. Honestly I think its disingenuous that you bring up how he earns his keep, who he works for etc. I've done thoroughly embarrassing things for money, I'm not proud of it. His ideas are what matters, even if he's echoing the wisdom of ages. Hitler was brilliant, he was also a psychopath.
@@Kobe29261 My point is that he lies his tits off about expertise he actually lacks. He is a deeply and profoundly dishonest person. His bio is replete with inflated credentials: "post doctoral research fellow in mathematics and molecular biology"- bullshit! He was a part time teaching assistant showing students how to multiply matrices. He's full of it: for all his "humility" he still found the time to lie about work in differential topology with Rene Thom; work that can be found nowhere in the collected works of Thom.....because it doesn't exist. He lied about the views Von Neumann whom he never met because the bible thumpers who pay the bills would oooh and aaaah that a great scientist denied evolution. He didn't: It was a pack of lies. there is nothing disingenuous in pointing out that Berlinski is a lying, sneering fraud.
@@martinsinnombre It needs no explanation. God does not make known to men His being and attributes in order to teach them science merely, but to bring them to the saving knowledge of Himself. I did not personally see Jesus do miracles or walk out of his tomb but by faith I believe it.
@@martinsinnombre what part dumbfounds you martin? I gave clear context. Is it why that verse was invoked? You disagree? You're undecided in matters of faith vs science?? Help me out.
If you compare even a very bad book too genocide, slavery, the subjugation of women, rape, human sacrifice and Jesus's favourite eternal torture, then I really worry about your moral compass.
@@tylerchamberlain7511 My moral compass tells me that many things in the bible are immoral. If you endorse these barbaric crimes it's not my moral compass you should worry about.
@@gustavgus4545 I didn't say it did. You can learn what I said by......ummm.....reading what I said. Berlinski poses as an authority on several branches of science based on him being a interdisciplinary mathematician. Guess what- it's bullshit. Here's a list of his peer reviewed contributions to the sciences . . . . . . . here's that list again. . . . . . . . . do you get it now?
30:42 this young man is about to hyperventilate. He's panicking at the realization his enormously expensive evolutionary based education has just hit a God shaped iceberg.
@@bigaschwing2296oh no... this is wayyyy more than nerves. He has to pay back $100 grand in student loan debt for a defective evolutionary based education. Darwinism is old news. ID is tsking over the debate. Too bad his professors didn't let him decide..they only presented one worldview. See a problem? This will be a heck of a pill to swallow. Yikes!
@@alexrogers777 nah...you must have purchased the same worldview he did. Vote for Bernie..hes' telling people their college debts will be paid for by somebody else..not you. So relax.
@@rapturebound197 lmao what does Bernie have to do with this?? Seriously his whole question was about asking why something that's unproven/unprovable should in science, a discipline that's based on proving what you know with evidence. Way to shoehorn politics into this
@@bigaschwing2296 I was agnostic for 40 years. Since my conversion 7 years ago, I find myself today, staggered, that given the obviousness of a creator God I could ever have taken that position. I can only put it down to not wanting to bend the knee. I can now see that I knew fundamentally that God was there and I also now think that is a universal experience. We are hardwired to believe in God. And there's a good reason for that. We can argue about God's nature and who, if anybody has it right Theologically speaking, but the belief is properly basic and one day we're all going to stand before him and give an account of ourselves.
@@candeffect then explain why the evolutionary principles are being used in countless technical and commercial applications...but the ID isn't! ID, god is a magical explanation. Magic did it...that is the claim in reality. This is why we can not use this assumption as a principle in our applications! Yes Theories are limiting our wishful thoughts. They are based on observable rules and laws and mechanisms in nature. Unfortunately your points are not in favor of ID!
Nickolas Gaspar I would argue that without the Darwinian model we can still understand how all these things in nature cited in these articles can adapt within their limitations and this can be well understood by observation. In fact Darwin’s model tells us that after some many millions of generations of sAureus exposed to the many different antibiotic pressures we have subjected it too it should be a brand new family of organism. But all we see is design limits and most of its adaptation to antibiotics is via devolution. Darwinian evolution does not predict that. The Darwinian model is a pigs ear of a theory dressed up as a silk purse
I came to a crisis of faith in 2011 and after reading "a hunger for God" by John piper, I fasted and prayed for four days .. no reading or media...not even the bible. At 12.oo noon on July the 14th I had an encounter with God which so totally overwhelmed me I begged him to stop. He answered my prayers and showed me his glory and love. It cannot be put into words except to say that there is a reality that exists far beyond our senses or any of our measuring devices. "If you seek me with all your heart you will surely find me." Reason alone will never provide answers to the hunger of the human heart.
Uh, Mr. Haggerty, it is quite obvious that you have no poverty of imagination regarding your encounter with God. I heartily agree that there are other realities beyond our limited human senses in which God resides.But, God in his wisdom and love for us as his children and heirs to his kingdom, remarkably has made his reassuring presence felt in the world around us, like the beauty of a rose, the raindrops on your face, the majestic flight of eagles, the warm kiss of the sun on your face, need I go on? Yes, God is present in all his creation, yet not bound by it. And yes! He answers prayers even before you formulate them in your mind!
@@lifewasgiventous1614 Oh look....it's someone trotting out a cliche! incorrectly. That Berlinski's books are out of print is not a matter of opinion it's a simple fact. The chances of Berlinski having an infinitesimal fraction of the impact that Harris does is nil...and he knows it, and so do you.
mcmanustony Pompous tripe is an opinion boy genius, impact doesn’t mean anything, Jesus Christ had more impact than Sam Harris, lmao, by your logic he is right. Impact can be truth or falsehood, impact alone is not enough.
@@lifewasgiventous1614 Berlinski's books- which I accurately pointed out are long out of print- contain basic errors of mathematics- hence, tripe. In one he drones on and on about "explaining" the concept of a limit to a group of professional mathematicians- hence, pompous tripe. Jesus isn't a published author as far as I'm aware. By your logic Mohammed is right too since the Koran has sold more than Harris. Or you could grow up and accept reality. Berlinski is an utterly marginal figure posing dishonestly as an authority on subjects where he has none.
We don't have a god that walks out of a tomb, we only have deluded and stubborn people claiming that he does without any good evidence or any unbiased epistemology.
@@1Skeptik1when someone has to wrtie down that they're "chuckling" its a sign of nervous anxiety. So tell me does mocking God make you feel like a big man? If you had to guess what insecurity inside of you causes the need to mock? You seem overly nervous about Gods existance. Is it guilt? Shame? A mix of both?? I had all of that too at one time which is how I know the signs. We can talk about it if you like.
@@1Skeptik1so the chuckling stopped because I called out your deep seated need to show mockery.. and you reached instead for the ever so cool, calm and collected "cheers". Ok so you recognize the sin involved in "religion" by other people...is that it? Are you telling me that because you think I don't know wrongdoing when I see it??...or because you have a self appointed deep seated need to be THE moral authority? Funny you should take such a deep intetest in sin.. so much so youve done research into the fiduciary elements of religion. Thats not just a passing interest thats obession. Tell me are you equally obsessed and concerned when you contemplate your own sins? Are those as obvious to you? We know you don't give money to any religious group because thats your pet pieve but what do you support with your money? Abortion? Pornography? Since you are self appointed moral authority what do you think needs to happen with sin (aside from the sins of religion) no matter what form or sphere of life you find it in? Is there sin outside of religion? And if so is that sin 1) better or 2) worse than or 3) equal to.. the sins you see in religion? How about the sins you see in yourself? Bonus points will be given for honesty. What say you 1Skeptik1? What about you? Have you something to reveal? Full Disclosure: I am a full blown sinner. You name it Ive done it.
sciencetrumpsfaith I think, if the first five minutes are anything by which to go, Berlinski isn't claiming per se, that 'atheists say' [though he has elsewhere], it's the issue of living in an intellectual climate where one can semantically state that 'science says' - therein lies the problem. As he put it, there is no being with volition that answers to the name 'Science'. Therein is the problem, at least with the New Atheists that he decries. Nietzsche was a far more compelling atheist (though strictly I'm not sure if he was truly an atheist) - he recognised the implications of the 'death of God' moment.
Neil Reinhardt "who" is this "Science"... of whom you speak? Whatever your qualms with the religious heritage of mankind is a separate question. Have you not met scientists who disagree? Krauss would disagree with Ard Louis on the issue of religion based on what they 'read' from the science. There is a point at which the discussion becomes a philosophical and hermeneutical one, and I think we're already in that territory. Science " says" doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. The first four chapters, particularly "Pictures of the World" in DB Hart's book "The Experience of God" is excellent in laying out the precise limits of our inferences. He's a philosopher and theologian, so I imagine you won't agree with his theological commitments (though he lays those out elsewhere more fully) but he is exceptional in explaining the point that I believe, with all due respect my friend, that you're missing
6 лет назад
Berlinski's "logic" is baffle gab and has nothing to do with reality.
I'd been looking for him all my life. Not for affirmation but that surely someone else can see that this is just their new 'religion'! Its a bonus that he's sublime - his is just a sharper tool than theirs.
@@mcmanustony I've heard you play Tony, to me its no different - you both are good at surplus enjoyment. You could read Thorsten Veblen but many'd rather you strummed!
@@Kobe29261 No. I make no pretense that I have authority in subjects where I have none. Berlinski make his living at it. He poses as a mathematician though he's not. He pretends to have demolished the theory of evolution yet instead of presenting this to a scientific journal he goes on the Ben Shapiro show or Jesus TV or Fox News or..... I find his sneering and dishonesty repulsive- as do many others.
@@mcmanustony I think you are smart enough to isolate his self-aggrandizement -which I consider an act personally, but you are welcome to give as much credence as you desire, from his thought process and conclusions. This is what I gather from all that I've read and listened from him 'We don't know enough to conclude that its ridiculous or shameful to proffer conviction in creationism' and consequently 'nobody should consider themselves evolved beyond the plebian because they resonate with Darwinism'. The underwhelming reaction to the unraveling of the human genome should suffice as an example. Man, homo-scientifica, is terribly impressed by all our discoveries until we plug them back into the larger framework off human experience. When I listen to you, or whoever is playing the music in those videos on your channel what happens is profound beyond any equation conceivable. e=mc2 also has a beauty of its own but then we are way past the event horizon
"Scientists" persist in these theories because to retreat from them would not only re-introduce the idea of a Creator, but with it the requisite Lawgiver and Judge. It's the latter part their hubris dreads.
@@mcmanustony oh man this is so funny...the minute I read this guys comment and saw that there was 1 Response I knew there was a good chance it might be you ..so I clicked on the link and BINGO..there you were! This Berlinski envy thing is eating you alive. You're making yourself miserable man...STOP...enough already! You want the recognition, admiration and attention Berlinski recieves..and maybe he doesn't "deserve" it...sheesh man even Berlinski himself in his own unique sarcastic way would tell you that!!...but why do you feel the need to grab his spotlight??..I mean whats up with that! Is that gonna somehow justify your own existance?! You're not the first person to suffer from envy. I don't know of a human alive that hasn't been bit by that bug. But extreme envy comes from your own ignorance of, or lack of belief in, your own own gifts. I have no doubt you are a highly accomplished individual..but its time to put this thing of wanting someone elses accolades down. Let go of it man..its not going to fill that V O I D. "There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of each man which cannot be satisfied by any created thing but only by God the Creator, made know through Jesus Christ." ~ Blaise Pascal
@@rapturebound197 You've been trying and failing at this for some time now. I do not need your permission or approval to comment here or anywhere else. "You want the recognition, admiration and attention Berlinski recieves"- aside from your inability to spell "receive", I have explained why this is false. Maybe the fifth or sixth time you'll get it. Berlinski is regarded, wrongly, as an intellectual on the religious right. nowhere else. Outside of that circle he is an utter nonentity. He has never spoken at an academic conference. He has zero engagement with actual scholars. He is a "fellow", maybe a "senior titular emeritus honorary fellow' at the "Discovery Institute"- an ineffective far right Christian fundamentalist pressure group above a Starbucks in Seattle. He does not address audiences of curious smart people in France, the UK, Canada etc. There is a strong and monied religious right in the US and that is the audience he panders to- not because he has great insights and truths to deliver but because he has bills to pay- and thick ignorant drones like you will help him do that. That kind of recognition I can live without. I don't seek it, have no use for it and regard but the recipient and the donors with contempt. How do you measure this "recognition" you babble about? Any ideas? His books are out of print. My publications are not. The first is 26 years old. Still available and will be for years to come. I have told you that I'm better known in my profession than he is in what he claims to be his. This is a fact- however much it interferes with your pathetic armchair psychology narrative. I have been in my profession for almost 30 years. My work has taken my all over the world and I get paid well for doing what I love. And you, in your arrogance, imagine that I WISH I were an obscure, failed academic peddling creationist bullshit to get money from bible thumpers to pay the rent. Take a seat and have another think about it. As you've also been told- I worked in mathematics at a higher level than Berlinski. I keep in touch with the subject by reading reports of the professional literature. What I don't do is preen myself and lie about expertise I don't have. I listed a series of hysterical blunders in a two minute shit storm re the Riemann Hypothesis- and from you: crickets. Maybe try to address what I write rather than embarrass yourself further with this ignorant, laughable sneering.
Yours is a keen insight. I have suspected the same from personal experience - it bothered me little that God should create the world, but the implication that he must also make demands on me, this tormented me far worse. To obviate the latter I rescinded the former! Thanks for the fantastic reasoning!
I absolutely do agree with the observation that it seems there are some who, no matter what, are just DETERMINED to NOT believe in God. Period. Nothing else matters. How very pitiful for them.
Very interesting and entertaining discussion by Berlinski. Very analytical, critical minded and humorous approach to philosophy. Refreshing to hear someone state the obvious. We need to celebrate different ways of knowing, including cultural and religious diversity etc whilst encouraging common sense, education, critical thinking, tolerance and humility in the world and in particular among the scientific community \ elites. Science, Philosophy and Theology are all valuable and valid tools. Conversely, these tools are only as good as the users.
George Doyle I couldn’t agree more. It seems those critical of this speech overstate what he was actually saying. And you summed up this speech quite succinctly.
@@patrickkparrker413 You shouldn't be. He doesn't. I have once heard him discuss advanced mathematics and it was a comedic train wreck. He was asked about The Riemann Hypothesis- only the most important unsolved problem in all of mathematics. He started off with a long winded explanation of "conjecture" vs "theorem"- that could have taken 3 seconds. What he should have explained ,and didn't/couldn't, was that it's called a "hypothesis" because large chunks of mathematics are predicated on RH being true- and that has yet to be established. He then dropped the almost painfully cultured nugget that poor tragic Riemann died at the same age as poor tragic Schubert- utterly irrelevant and, more to the point, false: 31=/=39. But how exquisitely refined he sounded. "It's a problem in complex function theory"- It involves a complex function but is actually a problem in number theory. He mentioned the "upper half plane"- which has absolutely nothing to do with the RH. I suspect he read that in some popular account of Willes' proof of Fermat (unrelated) which involves modular forms defined on the upper half plane. The question is "do the zeros line up on some pole...."- WHAT? A "pole" is a singularity, a point at which a function is not defined. The Riemann zeta function has one solitary pole at 1. The ACTUAL question is do the zeros line up on the LINE re(z)=1/2. He went on to say they either line up or, illustrated by flailing his arms about, "are all over the place". This is total nonsense. What is known is that the first several trillion- actually around 12,000,000,000,000 are ON the line. The rest are either on the line or in a "critical strip" close to the line. For an encore he said that couple of "proofs" were being considered by experts hadn't agreed on their validity. This is false. The last reported "proof" was that of Michael Atiyah and a gap was found almost instantly. At present and at the time Berlinski was dribbling there were NO submitted proofs of the RH. He is a pompous, pretentious fraud. You've been taken for a ride.
Sciencetrumpsfaith, Nestor Valentsuela stated that David Berlinski “doesnt stick to the status quo”. I believe that everyone who knows the important people in science can agree that this is factual. You stated that Nestor Valentsuela is “one of the dumbest people of our century” for simply stating partially his opinion which was “One of the most important people of our century.” You may not agree with this at all, many do, but then he finishes with a factual statement. What facts have you presented? You stated your opinion in an ad hominiem attack that Nestor is “one of the dumbest people of our century”
Can you enlighten us on a few issues - what does science say on the origin of life and Cambrian Explosion. I notice you are a very smart person so I am sure you will know the facts.
sciencetrumpsfaith, I am going to address one thing about your statement. David Berlinski is a secular Jew. He is an agnostic. I don't think he addressed this part of himself in this video, but the main point of the whole video is precisely what Nestor Valentsuela stated: (David Berlinski) "he questions, doesnt stick to the status quo.". You need to watch the video again to get the idea of what he is really saying instead of performing an informal fallacy of attacking a straw man.
I bet he did not watch more than a minute of the video. Good for you, stay within your comfort zone and leave the people who want more to look for the answers ....
1:20 “This is Perposturous” 2:07 Why are you discontented with the New Atheism? 3:38 Concepts Exhausted 4:20 The 4 Great Scientific Theories 6:02 “ it’s very late in the day to be taking the name of science in vain. Because too much is at stake” *Science can not speak with a Single Voice* 11:37 Stephen Hawking’s, _A History of Time_ 13:44 String Theory doesn’t explain everything 17:00 In The Beginning, that’s what happened. That’s about what we can say 17:50 (3) Darwin’s Theory of Evolution 27:08 Evolutionary Psychology is abhorrent. The Human Mind is significant and dignified 28:25 Q&A 33:37 Ethical externalities of Atheistic Ideas 35:05 36:57 Layman 40:03, 42:25 "I have nothing to say" 43:30 I Am NOT An Advocate for Intelligent Design, however I believe it should be considered 45:34 Evolutionary Psychology 46:33 Why 2008 as a time for Rabid Atheism? 49:33 Falsifiable
Huh. It's hard to believe how pearls from the Book of Exodus like, "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk" just don't fill me with any sense of the relevance or truth of the Bible. True timeless wisdom, that passage ... ;)
@@wp5875 Ahhh, and attribute that to not being able to understand what it is that you are reading, as a Christian I can attest to exactly what Berlinski is saying about the admission, unembarrassedly, of not understanding what is written. Context seems always to be the culprit in these matters and lengthy study is a medicine rarely administered and never sought.
Well ... for that Exodus passage, I'd be interested in your interpretation and for you to place it into context. In my experience, apologists use context like magic dust. I've encountered a lot of dishonesty.
The prediction that secular scientists would arrive at the Multiverse was scoffed at, by those same secular scientists, during the 1980"s. The discoveries of the 90's and 00's which greatly expanded the fine tuning of every level of physical reality, backed them into the Multiverse corner. And of course, then it was not laughable but brilliant, according to the same people.
That is what science is. It goes through many iterations and it hopefully converges on a highly probable model that explains a natural phenomenon. You get rewarded by proving a theory wrong.
People need to have the confidence to discard their heroes and think for themselves. We don't need "heroes" to fill our heads with their thoughts. We need to have the ability to have our *own thoughts* and to analyze the world as it really is.
Berlinski has that perfect mix of academic rigor, rhetorical wit, and common sense judgement that makes him a one-of-a-kind opponent to the new atheist movement. Truly a force to be reckoned with.
I didn't grow up as a religious person. I only arrived at my conclusion that the Creator exists via deep contemplation and asking the famous big questions: where did the universe come from, what is the meaning of life etc. At this point I am fully convinced of the ever present intelligence in the universe. Look at the mathematics and physics and their amazing order. Look at the fine tuning of the universe to 1 part in 10^120 in order for our universe to exist and be appropriate for life. This is not mere coincidence. DNA is software information. The most complex molecule and the most effective information storage know to man. Our technology and engineering is too primitive comparing to DNA, ATPase and many other enzymes (which are nano machines). IN the court of law they make inference to the best explanation based on the available date. The court uses the principle of "what is reasonable, not what is possible" based on the available data. If we turn to mind and consciousness, Godel's incompleteness and Tarski's undefinability theorems, conscience, the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, then the evidence simply demands a verdict. Josh McDowell, a former skeptic, who traveled around the world to disprove the Bible and the resurrection in order to write his book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", ended up writing the book by the same title to actually defend the Bible and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He wrote over 100 books after that. His life was dramatically transformed and within 6 months his dad, who abused him greatly in his childhood and youth, saw the difference, especially when Josh forgave him. His dad was the town drunk, who saw the changes in his son Josh and ended up giving his life to Jesus and was similarly dramatically changed and his neighbors saw it too. J Warner Wallace was a staunch atheist cold case detective, who applied his skills to the Gospels to establish the historical reliability and ended up concluding that the NR documents are historically reliable, the disciples of Jesus are reliable eye witness, and the resurrection of Jesus is the most reasonable conclusion based on the hard facts of history. He wrote his Cold Case Christianity book and many more youtube videos. Lee Strobel was another staunch atheist. He embarked on a journey to disprove the resurrection because his wife got into Christianity and he hated the fact. He used his skills as criminal journalist for Chicago Tribune to investigate the veracity of the NT documents and the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. He reluctantly accepted that all evidence pointed only in one direction. He ended up giving his life to Christ. He wrote The Case for Christ and much more. All three of these men (and many more) were reluctant to believe and accept these facts, but the evidence convinced them intellectually that the Bible is true and Jesus Christ rose from the dead. The problem was in their unwillingness to accept the truth. It was a will and moral problem, not an intellectual problem. Once they realized that their problem was their bias and their will, they humbly gave into the most reasonable and most obvisous. This what I have done and continue to do. After all, walking with Jesus isn't a mere rational walk, but intensely personal and a matter of will and conscience. I don't talk to empty space, I talk to a real Person. He answers and guides. It is a reality that cannot be denied. My life has changed and continues to change. Sin is an existential reality one must grapple with and explain. It is a real force and most people cannot deal with it. Just look around and then within. Malcolm Muggeridge put it best 'The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact.'
one of the laziness performances by science is in the paranormal. while we don't have a ghost in a test tube, we have testimony, often corroborated from all areas of human experience. The argument is not whether we are dealing with dis incarnate spirits or beings but the fact strange things that defy current scientific explanation do exist. Yet they attack the intelligence and integrity of this testimony across the board and tie it up with a bow of convenience with a fantasy that all involved in such ridiculous things are the simpletons of society. and that's not even going into the rare and often questionable hard evidence of photos and audio recordings.
@Cesar Rabbit yes it is the lowest form of evidence but still evidence. it has some value. In a legal situation the character of the testifier is weighed to the likelihood of the possibility of it being truth. And Science hasn't " finally arrived ". every generation of science thinks their models are complete. Yes we can't prove in the existence of paranormal phenomena but it's lazy to shut the door on it and label all involved as fools and quiet frankly that decision is made from intellectual ego rather than scientific curiosity. we don't even know what contentiousness is yet.
This man is delightfully witty and honest. I couldn't agree with him more. He just articulates it better than I ever could. It's been a non-stop tirade against my similar ideas. Berlinski gives me hope.
if he is so brilliant and honest why does he lie relentlessly about his academic failures? he has never held a full time job at any university, been fired from most of the part time jobs he's held and published zero research of any kind in any branch of any science at any time......he is a preening, self worshiping bore sitting helplessly on the sidelines sneering any lying about his betters. you are easily amused.
Petersen "delightfully witty and honest." Witty, sometimes, honest, rarely. "Berlinski gives me hope." Its a vein hope because he tends to tell lies. The reason you agree with him is that he is quite lazy and uses standard Creationist nonsense. He doesn't bother to look for anything honest because well that would not do for his target audience, the Discovery Institute as they pay him.
Ethelred Hardrede I find it ironic how easily you spot other people’s character flaws, and yet are so blind to your own. You’re throwing stones from a glass house.
@@mcmanustony ... Showing us how science, at least in terms of cosmology, is compared to the religions, equally a fairy-tale. In short that we're woefully inadequate in our explanations.. All you're doing is hurling insults
@@dvoulio he doesn’t know enough about cosmology or any science to make any substantive point about any of them. All you have is a pretentious fraud, an academic failure with bills to pay which he does by pandering to the anti science right. What has he published on cosmology? Is his “critique” any better than the witless drivel he peddles on evolution?
You are under no obligation at all to love Berlinski. what is the to admire in bitter failed academic who now simply lies and sneers at his betters for money?
@@mcmanustony You say he lies so demonstrated show he lies again just because you say it doesn’t make it true it’s because he lost a debate with someone doesn’t mean he’s lying you may believe it butDoesn’t make it true he still above respected scientist and because you don’t agree with him doesn’t mean you can call him a liar don’t slander people because you don’t like them.
@@mcmanustony also almost forgot to add “sneers his bettors for money” That could be any scientist anywhere both religious or unreligious eighth is stupid and so do some Christians. Richard Dawkins has done it Christopher Hitchens used to do the same thing he would make fun of religion and gain more followers until he died so yeah he did the same exact thing almost
@@webslinger527 His biography for years touted a PhD in mathematics- several online bios from sites he's associated with STILL claim a PhD in mathematics. He has no such degree. He has claimed to have been a "post doctoral research fellow in mathematics and molecular biology"- an amazing achievement for someone with a degree actually in philosophy- makes as much sense as a doctor of organic chemistry being a post doc in economic history and ancient greek. Of course he was nothing of the sort- he was forced to admit "post doctoral fellow" was self styled, or as we say in the clean world: a lie. He was a temporary teaching assistant and nothing more. He had a string of such jobs and was fired from almost all. He has lied about research in mathematics with Rene Thom- which appears nowhere in the collected works of Rene Thom. He has lied about the views of Von Neumann on evolution. He never knew Von Neumann and was simply making shit up. He routinely lies about the work of the many thousands of scientists he's never bothered his pompous arse learning from. Lied about a paper commented on by Dawkins- of course not as he should have done, submit to the journal in question, but in the safe space of conservative comic "Commentary"- he got pummeled, and deserved it, in the letters page. I despise Berlinski and need no permission to say so. I am sickened by his lies, his pretension, his pompous self regard, his relentless sneering at those who, unlike him, actually work in the sciences. You're welcome.
Who lies about entire branches of science he does not and never has worked in and doesn't understand. Lies about qualifications he lacks, lies about positions he's never held, lies about the views of real scientists he never met, lies about work with famous mathematicians he's never met.... but terribly, almost painfully witty!
This GaryWalker has been preaching his atheism everywhere. He is just another typical atheist who mistakes science as god and then he represents science (god).
@ If you can't even admit Berlinski is brilliant and witty no matter you agree with him or not you're obviously an idiot. I heard this literally said in reference to Hitchens even though Hitchens would roll out the same old worn cloth on multiple occasions. No matter, your dismissive in - liner is evidence enough you're basically just a troll.
6 лет назад
If you can't even admit Berlinski is brilliant and witty no matter you agree with him or not you're obviously an idiot.
Argument to authority. This is how you could trash half of humanity from your sofa. Thank fucking GOD you weren't reviewing submissions the day Einstein submitted his paper on General Relativity. "This guy is a fucking patent clerk." FUCK YOU. You ARE in fact a fucking idiot.
This is so delicious. Just the fact that he uses his creds to stand up to the majority. Hope he finally acknowledges a greater power, we all have our intellectual journey.
" he uses his creds "- what on earth are you talking about? He has a decades old basic degree in mathematics and nothing more. He's forgotten most of what he learned. He's just a pretentious fraud.
@@curtisreimer4592 not obsessed at all. I do find him repugnant- was I supposed to ask your permission? I am disgusted by his conceit, his haughty pretensions and his rank and insufferable dishonesty and intellectual cowardice. I find it depressing that a preening, vacuous poseur is taken by anyone as an intellectual. But my depression is lifted by the amusement derived from watching his drooling fans squirm and wriggle as they tie themselves in knots trying and failing to identify precisely what the fuck he's any good at. It certainly isn't mathematics- his feigned area of expertise. Despite having an ego visible from space, and a disastrous attempt at an academic career, he has made no contributions to any branch of any science, has lied about collaborations with great scientists, lied about the views of great scientists he never met, babbled inanely about work that was about to be published but....but ......but......dear Mario's dog ate it.....blah blah. Have you ever listened to real scientists and mathematicians. It's good fun....and so much better than this pompous, sneering clown.
Psalms 14:1-4 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD."
@Novak Ingood I liked the comment, CM3.Redeye made, and I will add another one to the list. (Psalms 9:17) "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."
he'd love you back if you got his name right! Berlinski is an agnostic secular Jew who has made a nice if disreputable living by posing as an academic and scientific authority- he's neither- and convincing gullible fools on the right that lying and sneering at one's betters is some kind of significant contribution.
@@mcmanustony Say's one trying to guard the gate of Atheist Science pushing out all opposition to the self-made god of their own version of a quasi-intelligent designed science construct. If you don't like the message kill the messenger, just because it works for Berlinski doesn't mean you can pull it off.
@@2drsdan what incoherent tripe. What the hell is atheist science? Dawkins is a brilliant science educator and an atheist. Ken Miller is a brilliant expositor of evolutionary biology and a devout christian. Francis Collins- evangelical Christian and brilliant biologist.....was there a point you were hoping to make? you don't seem to have the faintest clue what you're talking about. What's that like?
@@2drsdan "just because it works for Berlinski doesn't mean you can pull it off"- because *what* works for Berlinski? What do you think I'm trying to pull off? Berlinski poses as a mathematician and authority on science. he's neither. I'm not trying to do anything of the sort. you seem confused......can I help?
@@mcmanustony REALLY! and yet you have no idea as to the world you and your ILK create with the crap you articulate while standing on those Christian Scientists work all the while your educated idiots head for the streets to tear down the very society that they too should be thanking Christian heritage for making all in the name of Godless science "It's settled". so a big FUCK YOU is well deserved on your part. When the dust settles from the next big bang / civil war you created with your Darwinist tripe. My God man have you no eyes?
David Berlinski is a really original thinker, courageously tearing all shaking postulations of a superiority signaling scientific community apart. Very refreshing when unearned fame is getting dissolved by such a mastermind, only by clear thinking and questioning a bit like a child. Didn't know him until recently but must say, this outburst of intellectual clear thinking is really impressive. He is like a fog remover. You thought, something is wrong with some scientific statements, and then he comes demolishing so many vain dogmas with his typical laconical declarations.
I never argue against (neo-Darwinian) evolutionary theory as I have always thought it ridiculous, and that the burden of proof lies on the other side...the French have also long taken the same attitude...the origin(s) of species remains a mystery, except for polyploid grasses (diploid fusions), and similar cases amongst exciting molluscs like oysters...but of course how the original species got there is the real question, to my way of thinking. Where the information in the DNA/RNA/cytoplasmic gene code reading machinery came from is the mystery underlying it all, and that is fundamentally impossible (not implausible) by random processes, where the first cell came fromm, and how, is an even greater mystery - to my way of thinking
Gen chapter 3 … the problem of evil I can answer... Ye shall be as god's knowing the difference between good and evil... Men judging God.. the same evil exists today.. They want to judge the Creator and they can't even understand the Creation itself is laughable.
"the sheer absurdity of supposing the many molecular machines necessary for even the SIMPLEST forms of life, could have naturally formed on their own, given enough time (e.g. BILLIONS OF YEARS) without a designing intelligence." Dr. James Tour is a world-renowned synthetic organic chemist, specializing in nanotechnology. His many scientific credentials, first rate laboratory work, numerous awards and hundreds of research publications, rank him among the most knowledgeable people in the world, to speak on this subject. He, and his team of cutting edge experts, is one of only a handful, on the planet, who literally build molecular machines 'from the ground up.' In this video, he explains how difficult it is to create just ONE molecular machine with the finest cutting edge technology and intelligent minds of our day! And he elucidates the sheer absurdity of supposing the many molecular machines necessary for even the SIMPLEST forms of life, could have naturally formed on their own, given enough time (e.g. BILLIONS OF YEARS) without a designing intelligence. Unfortunately, many in the general public still naively swallow the notion of life emerging from non-life, over lots and lots of time. As the experimental evidence clearly demonstrates, however, time doesn't magically work FOR the formation of life, but rather AGAINST it! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xG6BV7-jV68.html
The absurdity of life without an intelligent designer and creator is well enough known among scientists in the fact that we have the law of bio-genesis.
@Zeke Bean I wonder if you actually watched the full technical lecture by Jim Tour about these so called odds. He had two lectures on RU-vid at two universities. Take a look first and then see if you still can maintain your position. Organic chemistry doesn't work blindly, but within a very strict environment and within very short time spans. The product obtained has to be protected immediately in a special freezer lest it be lost. Nature couldn't possibly do these things without guidance and such rigorous processes. Just take a listen and see for yourself. You owe it to yourself to remain intellectually honest with yourself in the first place.
@@mcmanustony That is only in the context of atheists not wanting to arrive at the inevitable conclusion since mathematicians have already proven their cannot be an infinite chain of prior events. Atheists did the same thing when they found out that the universe was not steady state. Biogenesis meets the requirements of a natural law. At any rate, would you have us accept the voodoo of abiogenesis?
@@tl1094 there is no such law....that is simply a fact independent of your sneering at atheists. Mathematicians, of whom Berlnski is not one, have also proven no such thing. I would have you accept the truth. research into the origins of life is ongoing. there are several competing hypothesis and there is as yet no consensus- just as in the 1850s there was no consensus about biodiversity. Now there is.
@@toninobelimussi296 The same as Berlinski's in science. None. He is a paid liar. He lies a lot and gets paid to do so. What are you academic accomplishments? Are you educated enough to understand the subject? I am. So is Dr Berlinski so he is clearly being dishonest intentionally.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv I understand that your opinions are - to you - facts. When you say Berlinski is a paid liar, you imply quite a few facts of which you most probably know absolutely nothing. You don't like his opinions, so you belittle him. I'm a lawyer, I speak and write in five different languages (understand a few more orally) and my last five years were spent as an expert in insurance fraud. Now, since I've named my credentials as you asked me to, what are your achievements? Not to be condescending, but you express yourself like a teenager.
@@toninobelimussi296 " I understand that your opinions are - to you - facts" Self description. "When you say Berlinski is a paid liar, you imply quite a few facts of which you most probably know absolutely nothing." Wrong, he is paid by the Discovery Institute and he does tell lies for them. It is you that knows not one thing on the subject. "I'm a lawyer, I speak and write in five different languages (understand a few more orally) and my last five years were spent as an expert in insurance fraud. " Even if true, there is not sign of it in your posts, that does not make you an expert on this subject. "Now, since I've named my credentials as you asked me to, None at all on the subject. As expected. " what are your achievements? Living life honestly and not in denial of obvious evidence. And thanks for moving the goal posts. It was YOU that demanded credentials, I merely replied in kind and I did answer your question and here you are pretending that I did not. IF you are a lawyer I sure don't want you representing me in court. "Not to be condescending, but you express yourself like a teenager. That is an ad hominem and false. I am likely older than you and my posts show that I do know the subject. Thanks for another fact free post, filled with ad hominem and not a single fact supporting you. Not good for an alleged lawyer. Things you are clearly unaware of on the subject of honesty regarding the Disovery Asylum, who you subscribe to, and Dr. Berlinski. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy "The Wedge Document outlines a public relations campaign meant to sway the opinion of the public, popular media, charitable funding agencies, and public policy makers. The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph: "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies" "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" There are three Wedge Projects, referred to in the strategy as three phases designed to reach a governing goal: Scientific Research, Writing, and Publicity Publicity and Opinion-making Cultural Confrontation & Renewal Recognizing the need for support, the institute affirms the strategy's Christian, evangelistic orientation: Alongside a focus on the influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to popularize our ideas in the broader culture.[12] The wedge strategy was designed with both five-year and twenty-year goals in mind in order to achieve the conversion of the mainstream. One notable component of the work was its desire to address perceived social consequences and to promote a social conservative agenda on a wide range of issues including abortion, euthanasia, sexuality, and other social reform movements. It criticized "materialist reformers [who] advocated coercive government programs" which it referred to as "a virulent strain of utopianism". That is clearly not from an honest organization. Yet Berlinski works for them and must be fully aware of the group he works for considering his claims of competence at logic, he does have a degree that requires such competence. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski "In his 1996 article, The Deniable Darwin, published in Commentary, Berlinski says he is skeptical of evolution for a number of reasons, claiming an appearance "at once" of an astonishing number of novel biological structures in the Cambrian explosion, a lack of major transitional fossils, a lack of recent significant evolution in sharks, the evolution of the eye, and a failure of evolutionary biology to explain various phenomena ranging from the sexual cannibalism of redback spiders to why women are not born with a tail.[12] The article was described by science historian Ronald L. Numbers as "a version of ID theory". Dr. Berlinski has been making those utterly false claims for a long time. He MUST have become acquainted with the actual facts, such as the Cambrian Radiation took place over a period of at least 20 million years. He uses mostly Creationist arguments which he cannot possibly fail to know are utter garbage. Now do you have something besides fallacious unsupported ad hominem attacks and rants about credentials. The first person to rant at me for my credentials was bullying crank with PhD and was later convicted of child abuse so if you want be in Dr. Oliver K. Manuel's class, barring the child abuse but keeping the bullying, just keep ranting about credentials. You have none on the subject. I have knowledge on it. Credentials or not. Ethelred Hardrede
@@2drsdan As exemplified by the fact that he's not addressing an academic audience- he's speaking on behalf of the "Discovery" "Institute"- a right wing religious pressure group. His academic career was one of abject failure. He never managed to find a full time job and was, by his own admission, routinely fired from the non tenured, teaching assistant jobs he got. Please don't trot out the "post doctoral research fellow in molecular biology and mathematics" guff from his bio. He was a teaching assistant giving basic math classes to biology students and was forced to admit the above piffle was "self styled"- ie. a lie. His presence in the academic literature is beyond negligible. He has done no original work of any kind at any time in any branch of any science and published squat in the peer reviewed literature. His books on mathematics are laughable and have been out of print for decades.....but he's good at lying about the views of real scientists he has never met- but that doesn't make much of a career in academia. you're welcome.
@@mcmanustony you make some good points, I don't know the man, so I can't speak to the veracity of your statements, except one! You expect us to believe that the fact that he has been rejected by the leftist fellowship of academia that protects tenured professors, often in the face of serious charges of misconduct, is a reason to reject everything that he says. That position leads me to believe that the rest of what you said is simply a matter of opinion and to be rejected as well, until I see concrete evidence to the contrary!
@@bdavidgreenwell8298 you lost me at "leftist fellowship of academia"..... He wasn't fired for being conservative. he was fired for being hopeless at the subjects he pretends to understand. He has been introduced as a professor of mathematics and has never lifted a finger to correct that falsehood. A few seconds will confirm that he was never any such thing. In one video here he is asked his opinion of the Riemann Hypothesis- the biggest unsolved problem in mathematics. He goes on to make a laughable mess of even stating the problem but does manage to drop the ever so cultured observation that poor Riemann died tragically young at "roughly the same age as Schubert" ......of course, because 39 is roughly 31?? Enjoy your delusions that DB ran afoul of a leftist conspiracy. The only actual question is how did such a pompous fraud ever get hired in the first place......
This guys great lol! Gotta be the world's most intelligent stand-up comedian. Luv his sense of humility in understanding, regarding the sciences. God said we'll never be able to prove that he exists. All we have are his fingerprints, and those saturate the natural universe. And so it is that christ states, "my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge". "Old knowledge without new understanding grows stale". The education system is a lie! There was Never a finish line. Never stop learning!
Thanking the Lord Jesus in my heart for the gifts to humanity that these men are: David Belinski, John Lennox, William Lane Craig, Sir Rodger Penrose, Stephen Meyers, James Tour, Ben Shapiro and many others whose works I am yet to bump into. There is a satisfaction in my heart and a deep restful gratitude for the wisdom, knowledge, counsel, understanding and power Yeshua has gifted them with. Halleluyah!
How can you prove that in a rectangle the two horizontal and the two vertical lines are parallel and that the four angles are equal? By looking at a rectangle it just makes sense, it's obvious. And such is God, it's just common sense. In Geometry you go from things that are assumed/given: the lines are parallel and the four angles are equal. The existence of God can be as simple as that and no wonder simple minded people can simply see it; they don't try to prove that in a rectangle the lines are parallel and the angles are equal.
Berlinski received his PhD in philosophyfrom Princeton University[3]. He was later a Fellow of the faculty of Mathematics, and a postdoctoral fellow in molecular biology at Columbia University[4]. He has taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford University, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. He was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France.
He was not a post doctoral fellow in molecular biology at Columbia. He was forced to admit this was "self-styled" or as honest people was call it- a bald faced lie. He was a low level teaching assistant and from the majority of these jobs he was, by his own admission, fired. He has never had a full time academic job yet smiles as he is falsely and for the umpteenth time introduced as a "professor of mathematics"! He is not and never has been a mathematician. He is not and never has been a scientist. he has found a nice if disreputable earner posing as an authority for gullible conservatives who dislike science and think this Berlinski's brand of sneering passes for actual insight. Raise your standards.....
And you both say this because? Militant "atheist" fighters. Relax. Just copied his credentials and shared them here word for word. Oh and, your illogical unreasonable arrogant and egoistical refusal to believe what Dr David Berlinski's well documented and irrefutable credentials does not mean they are untrue . Otherwise his debate opponents would have long ago exposed this. Who are you guys by the way ? Your replies persuade me to believe you are far from being as educated as this man . Well , and i havent even said i believe or believe not Dr Berlinski's argument . Just a passer by helping people by pasting his credentials on his video . Weirdos
@@calebng7527 they are not well documented and they are refuted by his own words. He has been questioned and exposed repeatedly on the subject of inflating his credentials and lying about degrees he doesn't have. He admitted that the title "post doctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology" was self styled- ie. made up. NO actual postdoctoral researcher in any subject leaves no trace in the peer reviewed literature of that subject. Berlinski has published absolutely nothing in the literature of either mathematics or molecular biology. He was simply a teaching assistant helping biology students with basic mathematics. why not calm down. stop hurling abuse and ask yourself how does a man with a phd in philosophy become a post doc in TWO totally unrelated fields, one in which he has just a bachelors degree and in the other he has no qualifications whatsoever.....and in both he has left not a trace of a presence in the literature? In mathematics- the subject where he likes to pose as an authirity- I am considerably more educated than Berlinski.
@@mcmanustony you could see how uneducated he is right; please post your rebuttal of his points; would have been amazing to have you in the audience you would have shown him I am sure; you would have told him you believe in a spaghetti monster and he would have told you I am not Christian you fool.
@@andyarellanoChannel what the fuck are you babbling about? Berlinski feigns expertise in multiple subjects- genetics, particle physics, biology, synthetic chemistry, advanced mathematics etc.- where he has none. He is simply a bitter, pretentious old fraud. What “argument” of his would you like me to deal with?
When the kid at/within the 32 min mark was REALLY adamant when it came to "authority" it seemed to me that he was keen on squashing/trampling religious rights via authority of who gets to say what. Or better said, we believers can have our silly views, but they don't carry force in our part of the public square (i.e. you MUST bake that cake would be justifiable under the objector's "authority" premise). The falsifiable potential of a posit regarding theology was premised by Kant in the phenomenal vs. the numinal, and surely the debate can handle that context - thus the kid was bordering on paranoia against people of reasonable faith..
One of the worlds finest mathematicians giving a few clues as to why evolution is mathematically improbable. I have watch him go deeper into this on other discussions. I don’t know who could debate him mathematically. As well as his many other mentioned concerns with it.
Ok, take a seat. Among the "worlds finest mathematicians" are: Terence Tao who works in everything from primes in arithmetic progression to partial differential equations; Peter Scholze- arithmetic geometry, applying algebraic geometry to number theory; Bhargav Bhatt- commutative algebra, Andrew Wiles who proved Fermat's Last Theorem via proving the modularity theorem. Simon Donaldson- topology of 4-manifolds, Jacob Lurie- algebraic geometry...... Berlinski has a decades old bachelors in mathematics and has done no original work of any kind in any branch of any science- including mathematics- at any time. He is one of the world's finest self promoters- with his lies about a fictitious mathematics PhD, his lies about being a "post doctoral fellow" in mathematics and molecular biology (he was forced to admit that was "self styled"- or as we say in the clean world- a lie) when he was simply a lab assistant for a short time while he tried and failed to find a permanent job. There is, as far as I know, only one video of him attempting to discuss advanced mathematics- it was a train wreck of comedic proportions. He spewed absolute drivel about the Riemann Hypothesis- only the most significant problem in all of pure mathematics. We got pretentious tripe about poor tragic Riemann dying at the same age as poor tragic Schubert- they didn't as 31=/=39 but how painfully cultured he sounded. The rest was simply ignorant nonsense which, given you've been fooled into thinking Berlinski is a mathematician, would take too long to detail. He doesn't have anything resembling the goods to say that evolution is mathematically impossible. Given that it has been repeatedly observed in real time he might as well say that getting out of bed is mathematically impossible. The mathematics involved in population genetics leans heavily on the theory of stochastic differential equations. Berlinski stands as much chance of grasping that as he does being the next Queen of Denmark. He makes a grubby living lying and sneering at his betters, peddling the falsehood that there is no mathematical theory of evolution. He's lying. He knows he's lying. You should too.
@@mcmanustony you sound full of hate. And you are a liar yourself evolution has not been proven in real time. Human intervention has always been involved to push things they way to produce their desired outcome they just like you are full of bias. The statement evolution has been proven is laughable and shows your desire to push your belief. I have no interest in continuing in conversation with you.
Quantum field theory posits that all that exists is made up of 4 fields in which matter consists merely of energetic local excitations that can arise out of nothing and return to nothing. Each field fills the universe and each came from a single field that originated out of nothing. This is what underlies all of reality. People accept this theory and then have problems with "God said let there be light"?
Virtual particles in a vacuum with unstable gasses appear to form out of nothing and then disappear. In a vacuum that’s in the space/time continuum. Interesting.
I had this same observation. Multiverse theory is entertained because it’s a hypothetical that bolsters the secular lens of its proponents, not because it’s remotely falsifiable.
He has bills to pay and his attempt at an academic "career" was a disaster with him being only capable of getting low level, short term teaching assistant gigs....and still managing to be routinely fired. So, making a living preening himself while lying about and sneering at his betters from the sidelines is all he can do.
If you can't speak of "Science" as a monolithic perspective with a voice, neither can you say that "Religion" is anything like a singular perspective. Different cultures have built up many different religious perspectives to address a variety of ultimate concerns. Look at the book, "God is not One," for a good example of that. And yes, the Devil does have his own voice among the world's religions, not just atheism, and he isn't confined by any intention to tell the truth. He only wants to deceive us.
Although I wasn't particularly impressed with Berlinski's response to the questioner asking whether or not the unfalsifiable should be allowed in science, it truly is a complex question. For example, life obviously had an origin; however, no test has been able to replicate the mechanisms that gave rise to it (i.e., we've never been able to generate life from scratch in a lab). Similarly, we've never been able to replicate an instance of the Big Bang under test conditions in a lab. Because we can't conclusively falsify the Big Bang under test conditions or whether time and random forces alone generate life--also under test conditions, does this mean such matters fall outside of science? Or do we have to make allowances in certain cases where we cannot actually predict and observe via the scientific method? If so, how do we make that judgment?
AND why do we try? We have ALL woke to a world in mid-process, or being, asking the question why are we here and how did this happen? So I have to trust that this "history" THEY are pushing on me is either correct or not. What a mess. Am I to take for truth any of this existence? Did anyone ask me if wanted too? But when I look around and fathom how amazing and wonderful and scary and dangerous this all is my head spins in wonder and question. Brelinski hits the nail on the head with it's ok not to understand. I'm a big boy, I can handle the implication.
I do not think that because we lack the ability to empirically test the big bang hypotheses or to generate life from non-life, that these matters fall outside of science. Hypotheses is a valid part of the scientific process. However, I do believe that any scientist must be prepared to accept the fact that some disciplines in science are more sure than others. For those less sure, we have to avoid being too dogmatic and scientists need to recognize those limitations in their field. Ultimately, there will be many things that science cannot answer. As an electrical engineer, much of our science is sure in that testability, observability, and repeatability are often obtainable and these things are based on practical application of mathematics as opposed to mathematical models or abstracts. Ultimately, both science and philosophy combined can help us be more objective and accept what is the "best" explanation to a question.
@4121Z0N4 . Your incorrect ! There is ONLY 2 choices, either the universe is infinite OR its finite. If its finite, there HAD to be a start. And if there was a start, it therefore WOULD be in the form of an extremely FAST EXPANSION of space AND time ! And indeed, as we look out into the cosmos today we see stars and galaxies receding away from us and each other at an ever increasing rate of speed !
Which god? God doesn't manifest in reality aside from claims of revelation and divine scripture. So the whole idea of god COMES from people's own imagination. Religion was institutionalized from the very start, because every religion ends up being a collection of claims made by people who assert that they have the knowledge of god without actually being able to demonstrate it. So it all revolves around humans trying to frame their own imagination and beliefs into a certain set of rules and doctrines. This is why we have thousands of religions throughout history, all of which claim that they are the ultimate truth. Well, they can't all be correct because they are mutually incompatible, but they can easily all be wrong. There is a reason why not even members of the same religion agree on all sorts of topics, and the reason is that the origin of every god ever were claims of personal revelation, that became scripture, which then became doctrine in attempt to legislate how we should conduct in our lives. So religion is just an attempt at philosophy, but every religious claim fail miserably when it's scrutinized and reviewed, and evaluated in light of what we know about the universe.
Still doesn't mean there isn't a higher power. I agree. Never understood that argument. Religion could be completely wrong and it wouldn't matter. Has nothing to do with if everything did or did not arise from a designer
@@NSOcarth I can't really argue this, but once a religion starts rolling and becomes a cultural norm, it is the primary drive force of religious belief instead of an a priori conviction that a creator exists. There is a saying that the number one predictor of religious beliefs is geographic place of birth and the cultural background. Which indicates that millions and even billions of people believe on the basis of simply being born into a certain cultural environment. If you are born in India, you are not likely to be a Christian. So to conclude, for all we know there might be a creator and still ALL the religious ideas and doctrines could be totally wrong on what that creator is. To have a firm and rigid religious belief is to assert a position which one cannot demonstrate. It requires one to dismiss all humility in favor of a rigid worldview that asserts truths that can never be demonstrated in any way. I am not against the idea of a creator, but I can't with a straight face accept claims of certainty made by various religious teachings.
I didn't give this vid a Like. The science fiction and ridiculous claims made by atheist type writers, is pretty clear to any thinking person. The origin of the universe without being supernatural and being done by a supernatural creator, defies all the science we know. And that's just the start, beginning. When people reject that they set their pattern for all the other atheist dumbass beliefs. My point being, the evidence proves CLEARLY a supernatural creator. That creator may have revealed themselves in other ways besides just creation. Various religions claim to have that information that is divine. For me at least, I thought it worthwhile to seek evidence of what religion had this other evidence of the creator's inspired words, and it was the bible. I take a stand on that. Unless a person has the urge to because they are convinced of the supernatural creator, then they won't go further. But if convinced, they will. David takes no stance on that. Very wimpy and stupid. Don't know why he wants to appear so intellectual and come up short of where it all leads to, but it's pathetic of him.
@@2fast2block Firstly, I agree with your conclusion: "and it was the bible". I too take a very strong position on that. I also agree that Berlinski is passive on the subject, however, his brilliance is in the fact that he is honest. He is honest about the conjecture of the scientific community, (part of which is flat out dishonesty) and he is honest about his belief in a Creator; If you listen to what he says closely, he does state that sometimes he does believe in a "Creator" and sometimes he does not. Above all things, I admire truth and honesty; at least, Berlinski admits his confusion by it all while most scientist flat out deny even the probability of Creation or a Creator. Thank you for taking the time out to reply...Godspeed
@@block9390, yes, I appreciate him bringing out the science fiction that does not compete with the science we know for sure. He's got a 'name', and for some just having popularity means a lot for them to accept something. It's not just the message they take from an unknown like us, the same message coming from a 'known' means much more even though it's the same message. Today, it's the messenger and not so much the message. That's why as I heard a person say, degrees today are a license to believe in the absurd. A lot of truth to that. It's my opinion that religions have much to blame for the rejection of them and leaves the door open for dumbasses like Hitchens (now dead), Krauss, Dawkins, Susskind, Miller, and the list goes on, to spread such nonsense. There's a decent amount who bring out the nonsense and still reject God. Personally, I don't go to a church or want to, but that does not make me believe the garbage these fools put out how these impossible things happened on their own. That's what I love about the bible and what God says to do, to reason, to prove, to search out, to reject fools and their foolishness. If a person truly does that, it naturally develops trusting in God and His way. For some though, as I said, they see where the arrow is clearly pointing but they think for whatever reason to remain on the fence. All their writings and lectures in the end won't save them. It's as if they had fun bringing out the obvious but that's as far as all they wanted to do.
@@block9390 I agree. I have respect for honest atheists. Just being willing to ask the questions that may not have answers that support your worldview is admirable.
@Andrew H. JR. It's a figure of speech. get over it. you have no more evidence for your god than anyone has for their's be it Mithras, Apollo or Allah.
Mathematics is indeed not falsifiable. To explain his point, allow me to provide you with the following example. One cannot prove that 2 + 2 does NOT equal 5 without referring to mathematics itself. Similarly, one cannot prove that 2 + 2 DOES equal 4 without relying on mathematics. The only way you can prove that a mathematical problem is correct, or wrong, is by relying EXCLUSIVELY on mathematics itself. Hence, mathematics is not falsifiable. It's a very basic point and the reason why so many atheist in comment section don't seem to understand it is probably because they don't want to bother in the first place. I'm not even a mathematician and I still understood it pretty easily.
@Cesar Rabbit No, I do not intend to generalize all atheists with this comment at all. I simply stated that the ones who reply with "I don't get it" just to avoid a more serious argument that goes further than "It is true because it is in the Bible". Second of all, no I am not confusing falsifiability at all. When you rely on mathematical equations alone, in proving that a certain problem is wrong, that means whole field is not falsifiable because you can not falsify it referring to a different scientific field. You can only rely on mathematics to prove that mathematics is right. That is my point. Since mathematics cannot be proven to be false (talking about a mathematical problem) then the whole field is worthless anyway!! My point stands. When problems cannot be proven to be correct, or not, or solved properly, or not, that means your whole field is worthless. Moreover, I never mentioned anything about the physical existence. However, since you mentioned it, Mathematics cannot be proven to physically exists, that renders it non-existenting according to atheists logic. You do not have a physical proof so it is not real, just in your religious head. God is not real because you cannot provide a tangible proof for it, still, we believe in mathematics despite the lack of tangible evidence.
The counter to that logic is simply that God exists because you can't prove he doesn't. Which is the point of his premise. All our theoretical principles and limited collection of human knowledge can not conclusively prove that despite it's attempts over time.
Well, if I take 2 penguins and 2 other penguins and count them up, assuming that counting is the correct method of finding how many of something there is, and I get a number other than 4, would that not disprove that 2 plus 2 equals 4? I side with you, by the way. Just playing devils advocate. I don’t think we can truly know anything, but just be really confident in things to the point where it’s almost knowledge, like 2+2=4.
@@ohboy1113 If we get a number other than 4. then we needed mathematics to get to the truth. In that case, it doesn't really matter because mathematics was used to get to the truth. My point is that we are counting to get the answer and that is exclusive to mathematics. Whether or not we were right or wrong regarding the number is irrelevant. :)
HE spoke it into existence... ie HE spoke into existence space time matter. Prior to that thrre was no time, no space no matter..only God. And HE did it in such a way as we could understand the timeframe 6 - 24 hr days with a day of rest at the end. You can explain it because the God of the Universe came to be a man in the flesh and then told you He did it that way.
The pioneers of quantum mechanics believed that mind/information/consciousness is primary, matter secondary. The universe with its space, time, matter had come into being from non-being, that is a reality without time, space, matter. What sort of reality is that? Where do love, hate, abstraction, absolute morality come from? Why should these non-material realities be so? Why should an abstraction in the human mind be a real description of the universe out there. Abstract algebra with its group and ring theory and symmetry was only in the mathematicians' mind hundreds of years before particle physics and computer science saw its amazing applications in the 20th century. How come? James Tour, a renowned chemist, gave a lecture about the origins of life and demonstrated how clueless and scientific community is about even beginning to answer the question. The emperor has no clothes and few dare to say it publicly. Persecution and censorship, religious or secular, is the story of human civilization. Fear, intimidation, and brutal silencing of the opposition has been a tried and true method for all those who dissent. just look at USSR, Nazi Germany, communist China and North Korea. The catholic church. The scientism of the 20th and 21st century. The roman empire etc. Free and honest thinking and expression of free and honest thoughts has been persecuted for millennia. Why is it so? there is an agenda, an axe to grind....
The QM I was taught made no claims of mind or consciousness (I make no claims of expertise in QM - I was just a wide-eyed, mind-blown student). As well, biochemists don't know the first steps of life but to say they are clueless isn't fair either. I think a naturalistic explanation is on the horizon. For now, I just don't know but won't claim supernatural intervention.
@@wp5875 Notice that I supplied the name of a world renowned chemist, namely James Tour, who gave a rigorous & technical lecture about the cluelessness of the best possible scientists who would have no clue about the origins of life. Take a listen to his lecture and share your feedback. By the way, your words " I think a naturalistic explanation is on the horizon." reminded me of a Russian joke (I grew up in USSR, a formal atheistic government system): A communist leader was speaking one day and said 'comrades, communism is on the horizon', to which someone replied 'what do you mean on the horizon?'. The leader replied 'the closer you get to it, the farther away it seems'. And so... As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. Max Planck check out more quotes here: www.azquotes.com/author/11714-Max_Planck Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind. I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Erwin Schrodinger www.azquotes.com/author/13142-Erwin_Schrodinger and much more I presume can be said about it. by the way Godel and Tarski really put a big or giant whole in the logical structure of formal logical systems. So logic cannot prove itself, but needs something beyond it to validate itself. Talk about nice paradoxes :))
@@wp5875 some more very interesting and intriguing quotes by the QM founders: "Uncertainty" is NOT "I don't know." It is "I can't know." "I am uncertain" does not mean "I could be certain." Werner Heisenberg [T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts. Werner Heisenberg Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. Niels Bohr If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet. Niels Bohr No paradox, no progress. Niels Bohr Physics is the belief that a simple and consistent description of nature is possible. Niels Bohr These men saw something that many mainstream materialist refuse to see and accept.
A few things worth considering and allowing them to challenge your biases: The Origin of Life: An Inside Story - 2016 Lectures (with James Tour) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_zQXgJ-dXM4.html A Critique of Darwinist Icons (Icons of Evolution) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-te3aShKST1A.html
Love those guys but I think they were just as in the dark about the nature of conscientiousness as we are. Personally, I think it is an emergent property ... but, hey, who the hell knows. I guess we can agree that we disagree.
the materialists of the 21st century don't want to see what Max Planck and Bohr and Heisenberg and Schrodinger and Godel etc saw. I love reading Max Planck's thoughts. Both religion and natural science require a belief in God for their activities, to the former He is the starting point, and to the latter the goal of every thought process. To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view. Max Planck There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Max Planck Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. Max Planck As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. Max Planck I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. Max Planck There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls Max Planck Every advance in knowledge brings us face to face with the mystery of our own being. Max Planck Modern physics has taught us that the nature of any system cannot be discovered by dividing it into its component parts and studying each part by itself... We must keep our attention fixed on the whole and on the interconnection between the parts. The same is true of our intellectual life. It is impossible to make a clear cut between science, religion, and art. The whole is never equal simply to the sum of its various parts. Max Planck In all my research I have never come across matter. To me the term matter implies a bundle of energy which is given form by an intelligent spirit. Max Planck Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.' Max Planck All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter. Max Planck
@@mcmanustony Gödel has an impact on both in my opinion. So many people are seeking rigorous proofs in both camps, yet Gödel has shown that such proofs cannot be found within a logical system. One must step outside the system and use things like intuition, inference, assumptions to grasp those things unfathomable by the logical mind. This leaves room for mystery and paradox, which are all around us. This leaves room for humility. Pride, arrogance are things that bring far too much pain and destruction in our lives. Gödel's incompleteness is like a vaccine against such pride. Gödel and Tarski help us keep the wonder & the awe alive while we behold the unknowable and enjoy the ride. This doesn't stop us from pursuing better understanding, but it always keeps us ever more wondering about the absolute and the infinite, beyond the immediate grasp of the logic.
@@ambassador_in_training Sorry. this is absolute piffle. Godel is precisely an antidote against assuming that in any theory stronger that propositional calculus any true statement can be proven within that theory. It says nothing about god, pride, awe, late Beethoven string quartets, the efficacy of Brexit or the price of postage stamps in 1920's Latvia. Nothing more.....
@@ambassador_in_training you didn't tell me which of Goedel's incompleteness theorems has the bigger impact on this debate. It's almost as if you've absolutely no idea what you're talking about........
By now, we can be certain that, what we regard as fundamental particles, according to the standard model, are vibrations in quantum fields. Planck did a lot of heavy lifting when it comes to the understanding of the universe. However, that doesn’t make his guess regarding “conscious” anything more than a guess. He did what humans did at his time and before, he played the “god card”. Given the context of the time, a reasonable thing to do. But that was a hundred years ago. In natural science a lot of Progress was made within the last hundred years, in contrast to the constancy of “God did it”, which never has provided any sort of answer at all. I think it’s not too farfetched to assume that Planck would not have bailed out like this if he knew what we know today. Still there is much to do. Up to this day we don’t have a unanimous definition what we mean by “conscious” thus there are no defined tests to enlighten this mystery yet. What there is so far are competing hypothesis and very good reasons to believe that all the answers will be found in the natural world. It’s going to be biologists, physicist chemist who will answer this question.
It didn't take long for the real mathematicians to discredit the 10 ^ 500 different Calabi-Yau manifolds number. It was a bad conjecture built on more arrogance than understanding.
"eal mathematicians to discredit the 10 ^ 500 different Calabi-Yau manifolds number No. Its what the math shows. It fits the evidence but make no testable predictions. "It was a bad conjecture built on more arrogance than understanding." That seems to be a self description. Would you care to produce a link to the alleged debunking?
Sometimes you can summarize a man with a single comment he makes. For Berlinkski that comment is, and I am paraphrasing: The Old Testament is the greatest document produced in Human history. Depending on your religious leanings, views of reality, and this single comment one can immediately decide if this man is worth listening to. You make your own decision. I have already made mine.
Their are phenomena that humans experience, that cannot be explained by science, not yesterday, or today. And not all those who experience supernatural phenomena can be dismissed as simple minded and self deluded.
@demigodzilla LOL. so you have a faith based belief in science. Which science? that of 1950? 2000? 2019? Any scientist worth his salt knows the limitations of science, and remains humble about energies and effects that can be transduced or observed by the instrumentation of the day. i.e. there is more unknown about the human brain than known. we don't even know how fluids move around and through the brain in clinically meaningful detail. We don't know what causes autism or obesity, and there are epidemics of both more damaging to the perpetuation of the human species than climate change.
@demigodzilla LOL....you don't work in a scientific discipline, do you. Your grasp of science excludes that science needs equipment that senses phenomena. The science of 2000 didn't know how fluids moved in and around the brain because it didn't have equipment and techniques to observe this. So it had little understanding of intracranial hypertension pathophysiology, and how to fix it. The science of 2019 has made inroads because it has equipment. So scientific consensus of 2000 has been smashed in this field. Though dunderheads such as you don't comprehend the need to stay detached from consensus. science is data driven. So when you say 'and none of those who claim to experience supernatural phenomena ....", you are doing nothing other than highlighting your ignorance and fixated belief in the scientific consensus.....OF THE DAY. That you don't comprehend science does not justify the non existence of something on the basis it has not been observed with the technology of the day, is clear proof you do not understand science.
@demigodzilla LOL....all you've got is a verbosity of pubescent slights. And if the best you can do is attack the use of supernatual, then my previous appraisal of your intellect and emotional lability stands. Supernatural applies to phenomena that transcend CURRENT scientific consensus of natural phenomena. Seriously, you stand on quicksand. And thanks for giving me the loudest guffaw this year. That you have some issue with medical science, as a science, confirms your intellect will never eclipse your ego.
@César Rabbit I clarified above.....but presuming you are cognitively challenged, I'll copy and paste: "Supernatural applies to phenomena that transcend CURRENT scientific consensus of natural phenomena." A few hundred years ago, people didn't know about magnetism, so it was supernatural. they didn't believe man could fly, so it was supernatural. they didn't believe you could see into the body, so MRI and ultrasound would be supernatural to them. Are the pennies starting to drop for you? The principle is humans keep changing what they believe is the natural world. They do this as science develops technology to measure and observe the natural world. If I told you kundalini energy is a real thing, chi energy is a real thing.....you'd tell me it isn't because science has never measured or observed it. However, the same was true of magnetism, until magnetism was measured and observed.
@César Rabbit so.....what's my point? the scientific consensus of today is not that of tomorrow. Science keeps changing its understanding of nature. So if you believe in science, then your have a belief system that must keep changing. Ergo, you cannot have a permanent concrete stance on anything.....because science doesn't. Therefore to argue there is no God or no supernatural forces, is to be unscientific....because science has never disproven these things.....and never will be able to. If God doesn't want science to prove his existence, do you honestly think science will be able to? And what instrument/s would science use to prove or disprove God?
Actually no. The guy is not the best arguer ever, he has some weird ideas that relies on logical acrobatics that only address his own people, with their agenda. He has no clear arguments that answer question but philosophies that I can't quite understand where he got them from and some of them even ignore facts in reality. Also, his voice is fucking boring and it makes you fucking struggle listening to him on pase. Maybe the guy is good around his field but his arguments here are fragile as shit.
I have never read a book about atheism. I have read plenty of books that argue against theism. But, I don't know what a book about atheism is. Could you clarify? For instance, I don't know what a book about fairies don't exist would be. Would that book give evidence that fairies don't exist? Or, would the book try to discredit what evidence we have of the existence of fairies? Has any book been written?
Berlinski possesses an excellent mind and is unfortunately one of the few clear and logical thinkers remaining among the non theists. Indeed, an unprecedented imposition of such a hypothesis onto the populace is a significant indicator of its exceptional flaws.
I choose God because I can. Science doesn't prove anything negative about God. Science has overstepped it's bounds. It's almost turning into a type of religion! (wrap your head around that!)
Name one thing Berlinski and his Discovery Institute have discovered, other than that a 2000 year old book is true, written at a time when everybody thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth?
@@joshlamb8163 why? Berlinski has ZERO track record of any research in any branch of any science and is lauded on the right as some globe straddling intellectual colossus.....he's not. and never has been.
@@joenelson3037 Really? Can you give some examples of knowledge gained by him asking "the right question"? He's a lying poseur and nothing more- an academic career of complete and utter failure and now reduced to helplessly sneering at his betters from the sidelines while they get on with the work. A supposedly brilliant mathematician, one of the world's leading physicists according to Ravi Zacharias and enough of a biologist to know that the entirety of a dozen or so scientific professions are wrong and he, with no relevant training, expertise, published work etc. is right! He is not and never has been a mathematician He is not and never has been a physicist His antics in the field of biology are a sad joke The only serious question about Berlinski is- how does this preening bore get away with it?
Evolutionist Belief= The person believes that He/She came from a monkey, that came from a fish, that came from a soup that came from a rock.... that exploded.... from Nothing. Brainwash.
I'm curious who cain's wife was or how incest brought about the entire human population.... Or how population genetics had a massive shift in how it works -- without relying heavily on just logarithms like Answers in Genesis did.
@@tothesciencemobile4707 oh so you want an answer according to what you like...lol let's say evolution is true. How else would you reproduce? How did your great x^x grandpa rock, grow a penis... did he have lungs? How did he breath without a heart? What did the heart pump if there was no blood, how did it know to pump blood but have no brain I mean these organs are insanely different. Which came first... who did your rock grandpa marry? Did rock grandpa magically grow legs and a dick and balls.... found your rock grandma with a vagina... dont be a religious fool. careful when you walk outside. Dont step on grandpa
@@tothesciencemobile4707 Here is the amazing things in 2019 that the spirit of Cain is still in the world. Pope Francis is 100% of Cain, he is also a false prophet. In 2015 antichrist Obama with the rest of them set up a world wide SIN OFFERING OF CAIN., it is called the Paris Accord. It is amazing how the world is attacking early Genesis. (Genesis 4:3) "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD." (Romans 1:25) "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature (creation) more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." (Hebrews 10:18) "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." 76 Genders and Transgender? (Genesis 1:27) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Mark 10:6) "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Sodomite Marriage? (Genesis 2:24) "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." The question is do you listen to Satan? (Genesis 3:4-5) "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Or Jesus? (Revelation 2:7) "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." Remember Jesus was slain when mankind fell: (Revelation 13:8) "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." The tree of life was cut off until Jesus died on the tree: (Genesis 3:22-24) "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." (Matthew 27:50-54) "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God." (Revelation 21:2-8) "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
@@deebonash1495 "How did your great x^x grandpa rock, grow a penis.: The Evolution of Males and Females - with Judith Mank m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-En26p6GvtHw.html
which came first, the egg or the chicken. If you say the egg, was it fertilized? By what? You say the chicken, how did the ameba that produced the first chicken, know to make eyes etc... Which came first the heart or the blood? If you say heart? how did the blood come instantly to be circulated? If you say the blood came first, how did the blood circulate without the heart? Creation itself testifies of HIS invisible attributes and divine POWER so that men are without excuse. ROMANS
The egg. Its just a cell. It does not need to be fertilized in many species. "By what? You say the chicken' Why lie? Eggs existed long before chickens. " Which came first the heart or the blood? Blood. No heart is needed till long after blood exists. Heck there salamanders that don't even have lungs. The idea of irreducible complexity is a load of BS in regards to how life evolves. " If you say the blood came first, how did the blood circulate without the heart? Movement of other things in the animal. A heart is only needed after life gets larger. " Creation itself testifies of HIS invisible attributes Bullshit, its YOU doing that. Reality shows no signs of a creator as nearly all of it is utterly hostile to life. "divine POWER so that men are without excuse. ROMANS" Gee self serving lies from a long disproved book. I am not impressed. There was no Great Flood thus there is no Jehovah.
FIDIRONU "One at a time, " OK get your post to stay, that is the KEY thing at this point. IF you see your post, log out, return still logged out, REFRESH THE PAGE, then you will not see it. I don't anyway.
"So, a lungless salamder, and a lunged salamander, presumably shared a common ancestor." Most likely. "Objectors to the Theory of Evolution (henceforth, ToE) - objectors such as me That is people that ignore any evidence to support their religion. "can't conceive of a practicable pathway from no lungs to lungs" That is you failure. Both types of salamanders exist. ", from the common ancestor to the present lunged salamander. " Why? Oh I know because thinking about how it could happen would damage your willful ignorance. :"Can you provide a step-by-step pathway?" As soon a you can provide one for a god to exist. Just claiming one exists is a fact free claim whereas there is fossil and genetic evidence, plus lab and field tests that ALL show that life evolves. Creationists don't want that sort of question answered. They ask it and then NO MATTER HOW DETAILED and answer they get they will invariably more detail while NEVER giving a cause for the god's existence. Of course YOUR god is purely imaginary as the Earth is old, life DOES evolve and there was no Great Flood. Yes I don't have any respect for that sort of argument by bogus demand from people that just claim their god exists Because they say so. By the way your original post ". AFAIK, salamanders have either a gill, a lung, or both. Pray tell - which has neither?" You could have found the answer in the length of time it took you type that. A search of: salamander without lungs Produces multiple link right at the top. Including this one that answers your question. Didn't expect that but it does. www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/xeroxed-lung-gene-helps-salamanders-breathe-through-their-skin "PORTLAND, OREGON-Almost all land animals need lungs to survive. The world’s largest group of salamanders is a rare exception. Now, researchers know how these amphibians came to breathe through their skin instead. A copy of a key lung gene shifted where it is active, rendering skin capable of efficient gas exchange, they reported here this week at the annual meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology." I saw your post on that Berlinski video. Its a very dishonest video and you are easily gulled. Let me get you started in your journey to reality. How evolution works, the basics: First step in the process. Mutations happen - There are many kinds of them from single hit changes to the duplication of entire genomes, the last happens in plants not vertebrates. The most interesting kind is duplication of genes which allows one duplicate to do the old job and the new to change to take on a different job. There is ample evidence that this occurs and this is the main way that information is added to the genome. This can occur much more easily in sexually reproducing organisms due their having two copies of every gene in the first place. Second step in the process, the one Creationist pretend doesn't happen when they claim evolution is only random. Mutations are the raw change in the DNA. Natural selection carves the information from the environment into the DNA. Much like a sculptor carves an shape into the raw mass of rock. Selection is what makes it information in the sense Creationists use. The selection is by the environment. ALL the evidence supports this. Natural Selection - mutations that decrease the chances of reproduction are removed by this. It is inherent in reproduction that a decrease in the rate of successful reproduction due to a gene that isn't doing the job adequately will be lost from the gene pool. This is something that cannot not happen. Some genes INCREASE the rate of successful reproduction. Those are inherently conserved. This selection is by the environment, which also includes other members of the species, no outside intelligence is required for the environment to select out bad mutations or conserve useful mutations. The two steps of the process is all that is needed for evolution to occur. Add in geographical or reproductive isolation and speciation will occur. This is a natural process. No intelligence is needed for it occur. It occurs according to strictly local, both in space and in time, laws of chemistry and reproduction. There is no magic in it. It is as inevitable as hydrogen fusing in the Sun. If there is reproduction and there is variation then there will be evolution. Some books to get you started: Why evolution is true - Jerry A. Coyne THIS BOOK IN PARTICULAR to see just how messy and undesigned the chemistry of life is. Herding Hemingway's Cats: Understanding how Our Genes Work Book by Kat Arney This shows new organs evolving from previous organs. Limbs from fins. Your Inner Fish Book by Neil Shubin Wonderful life : the Burgess Shale and nature of history / Stephen Jay Gould Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billions Years of Evolution on Earth Andrew H, Knoll The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence by Carl Sagan Ethelred Hardrede
Ethelred Hardrede Oh there you are! I was wondering why you hadn’t responded to my post asking you to draw a clear line from no circulatory system to circulatory system. Man if I didn’t know any better I’d say you were avoiding me! I looked through your replies to this guy and you didn’t give him an answer either. Now this was three months ago, so I figured you would come up with an explanation for the evolution of the circulatory system. Why don’t you do that now? And please, like the man you insulted said, please be specific with the steps! Thank you.
@@ozowen5961 if a non crippled dude would have put up Hawkings PhD thesis, he would of been shot down. They just gave him a PhD and he became a novelty act of science
@@tankbuggeru he was the original fat model on the cover of Victoria's Secret so everyone can look like good people, or maybe they legit felt sorry for him, but nobody was gonna be seen insulting a crippled guy. That's just bad optics...
