The other most consistent one I’ve heard has been “well, I would say” or “what I would say is”, or some variation of that. Of course that comes before they say something, but ya know
So many callers do it. The host makes a point, the caller clearly ignored every single word they said, states "Right" or "Okay" then proceeds to carry on with whatever they were saying before their premise was refuted.
They are just gaining time so they can move on to their next point for more “whataboutism”, which is their approach whenever cornered. Don’t admit your point has been countered and just move on to the next.
This is an amazing example, since people literally walk along beaches, searching for skipping stones. Which is what people do with intelligent design as well, looking for things that seem designed.
Absolutely! You picked it, out of all the other stones, because it had the *design* you were looking for, right? smooth, round, dark... good for at least 6 skips, right? As a programmer, I have never seen a computer program code itself. When I see a computer program, I'm damn sure someone coded it! (And it usually has their userid associated with it.) So, let's see, a DNA molecule... what are the chances it fell into that sequence accidentally? I dare you to find a bookie who would give you odds that it was an accident. Those things take special molecules to wrap and unwrap it, right? And it just accidentally had a cell nucleus wrap itself around the DNA, and that DNA just happened to have telomeres hanging off of it for no particular reason... I know, it's got some fancy name, like arguing from necessity... not totally conclusive using deductive reasoning, but totally there with inductive reasoning. (Which we all use, every day. Don't act like it's something strange, okay?) But, you know, it wasn't necessarily God who assembled the first single celled organism on our planet... maybe it was some middle-management flunky... who specializes in genetics. And if it wasn't God, than the existence of life doesn't prove God exists either, right? So, relax! Life can still be on purpose, without ruining the narrative. It's just a thought, y'all have a good day.
Yeah, not even using the word in its correct context... on a mere technicality is the meaning correct, but his usage is very awkward and wrong, so he clearly doesn't understand what exactly logic entails,...
Affirming the consequent is example of non sequitur fallacy. If A is true, then B is true. B is true. Therefore, A is true. If thing is created, it has purpose. Thing has purpose. Therefore, thing is created. Caller's argument from design is non sequitur fallacy.
I'd even say that a thing may be designed for a purpose but the purpose isn't therefore even a feature of the thing. I could design and create an oil barrel but I could also use it as a smoker for barbecue. So there are things created by an agent for a certain purpose but it can be used for an infinite number of other purposes and there are things not "created" by an agents that can still be used for any number of purposes. Ot in other words. A thing can be suitable for a purpose no matter if it has been created for it or not.
Yes, although Affirming the Consequent is a fallacy in its own right. Non Sequitur is a more general class of fallacy, in which the conclusion of an argument has nothing to do with the premise. For example, "A snake doesn't have armpits, therefore a bicycle is not like an orange." As your example illustrates, Affirming the Consequent applies an incorrect truth table as if it were the truth table for Modus Ponens. In Modus Ponens, P->Q is equivalent to !Q->!P. Affirming the Consequent instead tries to infer that P->Q is equivalent to !P->!Q. A couple of other fallacies could also be used to describe the "purpose implies design" argument. It's a False Dichotomy if presented as a choice between randomness and purposefulness. It's an Argument from Ignorance if presented as "We can't explain why this object appears to have a purposeful form, therefore it must have been designed." All of these flawed arguments are also Begging the Question fallacies, and this seems to be a common motivation for all religious apologetics. We start by insisting on a particular conclusion ("god did it") and then set out to construct an argument which seems to lead towards it. But it only seems to when we don't look too closely for flaws in the argument.
I had a guy tell me once that our bodies were designed so perfectly it had to be designed by God. He spent the next 30 minutes trying to explain why our bodies were so flawed at so many levels...
@@channelfogg6629 Well, Wikipedia has an entire section titled "Functions" in the "Appendix (anatomy)" article. While it's a degenerate digestive organ that no longer functions as part of the digestive process, it still does stuff.
As a design engineer, I have no idea what an aeroplane has to do with god. Remember the tower of babel.The so called god confused language because the ppl were working together. If it were up to god we would still be in the bronze age making animal sacrifices. The reformation opened up our minds to solving problems and creating things.
@@yabutmaybenot.6433 Excellent point ya maybe not 👍. If a middle eastern artist were to somehow carve a perfect wooden wing, nobody would know what it was. But the indigenous ozzies had the wing shape by then in boomerangs ( I think by then ). I dont think Judah had any major discovaries at that time. As gods chosen ppl, they should have been able to invent everything. But it was India who came up with the decimal place, and later on, muslims invented algegra. I have often wondered, why did god not just give us penecillian ? 👍
Yeah as a game designer I find it particularly ridiculous when they claim our universe was designed since we have all sorts of designed universes _(video game universes)_ and we know what that looks like, and our universe doesn't resemble that at all (especially in relation to religions which claim it was designed _for us._ ).
@@ceceroxy2227 Birds aren't designed, they just _appear_ designed due to evolution. Pretty important difference (and doesn't involve a bird causing itself to fly)
The weird thing is that the shape of many aircraft wings and other components are actually "evolved" inside simulations. They start not very efficient but, based entirely on mathematical algorithms and physics modelling.
I love people caliming a thing is useless unless it can do what it is "designed" for. A rock can roll, just lie there, be used as a paper weight, ammo in a slingshot, decoration in a garden used as ballast in a ship to name but a few. Wich one of those is it's intended "designed" function? A punctured tire can still be a fun swing for an ape. Or a planter. Or the material for a couple of sandals.
It’s the irreducible complexity dead horse. Ken Miller wore a mousetrap as a tie clip on the stand, while he was testifying during the Kitzmiller V. Dover trial to demonstrate how useless IC is as “evidence”.
Many plants require birds too eat their fruit and poop out their seeds. Thus using the bird's poop to get a headstart on growing. Brandon does indeed need to investigate the "design" of poop.
Let me save you 30 min. The guy argue that: Because Boeing design airplane wings, god design bird wings and everything else in the universe Seems like he skipped his biology classes at school.
There is no logic to design until that design is proved to exist. Theists have had thousands of years to come up with some evidence for their gods, but they're still failing miserably. "So the point I'm making is...." IF you were making the point well, you wouldn't have to explain the point. :/
Affirming the consequent is example of non sequitur fallacy. If A is true, then B is true. B is true. Therefore, A is true. If thing is created, it has purpose. Thing has purpose. Therefore, thing is created. Caller's argument from design is non sequitur fallacy.
@Gary Allen not entirely true.. the wing was not invented by them, it was the control surfaces and mechanisms that they enhanced and developed to be useful and workable.
I can't believe any believers in design who see the frail, pathetically weak and selective human body and think it was designed by an all-powerful designer.
6:08 Martin shows Matt something he typed on the laptop, and Matt confirmed. What do we think it said? Some possibilities. 1. Isn't he just arguing for intelligent design?' 2. 'Wanna go for a beer after?' 3. 'Did maintenance John fix the ceiling fan in the common room yet?' 4. 'Shall we mention the fact that wings occur naturally?' 5. 'Is this guy for real?' 6. 'Do you like my cheekbones?'
At every turn, he ties himself into more and more knots. The “more than one purpose” bit is just stupid, because a wing has a single function, while a rock has many functions.
Depending on the bird, the wings have a second function. Tasty snack. So to the caller: why are some bird wings delicious in Buffalo sauce, and others aren't? were they designed that way?
Brian apparently seems to keep finding wings all over the place.... So long winded, just to say "My invisible magical god-friend designed stuff." Brandon is right of course. The wings of an ostrich are perfectly designed for flying.... oh, wait.... Well sometimes the invisible magical friend has a bad design day....
If animals are so well designed then why are 99% of all species that have ever existed currently extinct? I'm surprised the puddle analogy didn't come up in this conversation
@@meninblack3585 sort of like the sharpshooter fallacy. It's essentially a puddle becoming sentient and saying at since it's water fits it's hole so perfectly that it must have been designed. It's looking at the way something ends up and assuming the only way is through design.
1:26 The most important word of all, intent. This is where ID fails. It assumes design without clarifying the intent behind that design by the alleged designer. Where they have tried to guess the intent of said designer through...the Bible...contradictions have turned up in the supposedly designed things that do not suit the characteristics and indeed, implied intent, of said alleged designer. 2:42 To some things up, appearance of design does not determine that something is designed, and absence of such appearance of design does not necessarily mean that something is NOT designed. Given that the very aspect of appearance of design is somewhat subjective, the only way to consider if something has been designed is if you are able to discern the actual intent of the designer and that it matches with the actual function of the supposedly designed thing. 4:23 You can actually hear the parameters and criteria being made up as he goes along. The thing about the shape of a wing is that it has nothing to do with an engine regarding aerodynamics. The first planes had their engines in their fuselage not on their wings. So he's actually shifting the goalposts of design from aerodynamics of wings to "can they hold an engine" here, which of course, isn't the same thing. 9:03 Notice how Matt mentions a criteria of design that doesn't have anything to do with function at least on appearance, the material that something is made out of that has never been found to occur naturally. This particular aspect of design is a legitimate one, but is not something that IDers can actually use as an example. This is because they aren't able to find materials that have never been seen to exist naturally yet also definitively point the creation of that material to something other than another intelligent lifeform that isn't human. 12:13 The main problem with the scenario given is that involved objects that are already known and acknowledged to be designed. It's not a good example because one cannot discount the knowledge and fact that those objects ARE designed! In order for a scenario to be valid, the objects used for the discussion should be things that we do not know for sure are designed or not designed. Technically speaking, there's no "real" example of this since things are either designed or not designed, but we can use an example where there is dispute over whether it is designed or not, for example, living things. (IDers say they are, other say they aren't) Why not use a living organism for the comparison? Given that, the question will now look something like, "if you go out one day and find a person in the middle of the forest, would you believe that person is designed?" It may not intuitively follow, but such an example would be much more relevant to the discussion. 22:04 There's the concession. "We didn't design them." So how does he know or why does he believe they are designed when he doesn't know why they are "designed that way" according to him? Well, it's because he not only assumes design to begin with despite not knowing or having an explanation for why something would be designed, but also that assumption comes from comparing that thing to other similar things that he knows ARE designed and then claiming" "hey, since A is very similar to B, and we know B is designed, then that means A is designed too", add a bit of argument from complexity to handwave away the possibility that A couldn't NOT have been designed and that's his whole reasoning in a nutshell. 24:28 This is actually a red herring. So we have to look at ALL the things in nature now to prove design (or not design)? If that one thing is something that we can't definitively tell is designed or not, do we just move on to something else, repeat the same argument and try to declare victory by claiming because that seems to be designed therefore everything is? Yeah.
Yup! So tired of the "Everything happens for a reason." statement. NO, stuff just happens. Only humans would try to assign purpose to something "happening".
Right as I was thinking, "Okay, it's been quite clear where he's going with this for a while, is it really not coming across or something?" Matt chimed in and said, "Although I can see where you're going with this I'll let you meander to it.." immediate satisfaction lol. Oh, also I wrote it down beforehand so... Prophecy!
Summary of call: "some thing work well, some things don't, some things do nothing, some things may have a function but we do not know, ergo, everything was designed".
I LOVE hearing these theistic pretenders get increasingly frustrated when hosts won't follow their script by just agreeing with them into what they think is some slam-dunk "gotcha moment". Usually via a (unbeknownst to them) tired old logical fallacy or lame metaphor which is inevitably melted before their confused little eyes.
Its absolutely beautiful, you can practically see the script that was given to them by their precious preachers, and its all destroyed by the very first leading question they ask. LOL!!
Theists project. They think that because we create things for our needs out of existing material that everything must have been created. They have never encountered a super human like mind without a brain nor any mind that can think/will material into existence. They don't recognize themselves in their god.
''putting an engine on a stick wont make it fly'' i present...the space rocket....missiles of all sorts, fireworks....his thinking is abit shallow. best to review everything that we have designed that flies compared to living beeings that fly. soemthing does not add up in his reasoning and shallow tought
They can just argue windows aren't natural to side step the issue. Besides, the most common reason that happens is because the windows are too clean or something like that.
The human outer ear has a shape that is "logically" well suited to gathering sound so that it can be transmitted to the inner ear and then on to the brain. But it is also well suited "logically" to providing support for spectacles. How do we decide which it was "logically" designed for?
I think the major issue here is that people don’t understand what “LOGIC” means. You can’t “prove” anything using “logic”. People have a presuppositional belief and just cite “logic” as their evidence. But logic is not a substitute for evidence. You need to use evidence to build a premise, and if the premises you chain together are valid and sound, you have a logical argument. If a premise is false, something can still be logical, but not necessarily true. I also see people citing “common sense” in a similar way to citing “logic”. It is much easier to use a catch all word such as “logic” than to gather evidence.
Indeed, logic is not a substitute for evidence. Conversely, you can't use evidence to develop formal proofs. But you CAN use LOGIC to develop proofs. In fact, without a formalism such as logic, formal PROOFS (which is the strict meaning of the word) are impossible. The issue here, I'm truly sorry to have to report, is that YOU don't understand what logic means. I believe that you WOULD WANT to understand, if only to ground your position, but you need first to read a decent introductory text or two on the subject. Call the Department of Philosophy at your nearest university and ask to speak to a prof who specializes in this area. He or she would be THRILLED to name a couple of texts. (You could do the same for Computer Science or Mathematics or Electrical Engineering, and you would get useful resources as well, but these disciplines tend to be less patient about examining the human side of the formalism. You'll get the same intellectual rigor, but you might not enjoy it so much.)
Here is the problem with claiming something was designed: you do not get to figure out what was involved in it existing. calling something as being designed does not talk about what was involved in it being designed. If you want to know those you have to talk about the processes involved in making it. At that point "it was designed" becomes a meaningless banter. Therefore the "design argument" is not an argument for anything other than theists trying to dress up ignorance as knowledge.
Design is a process with a specific intent therefore you need to prove/verify the intent first. Sand on a beach didn’t occur so we could have a soft spot to rest on it’s a byproduct of natural processes that happens to benefit us and other living organisms just like planets didn’t form simply so one could develop the conditions suitable to support life. The theistic purview that everything was created for us is quite arrogant and solipsistic and while this is a normal world view for toddlers most mature adults grow out of it.
@@yabutmaybenot.6433 😂 Indeed. It's all flaws, you design people to rape, pillage and murder, with litteraly the first instruction "go forth and multiply" telling people to do some incestuous inbreeding, then have an instruction manual telling you not to comply with your design 🤷♀️. Weird. Wouldn't it have been more useful to design people in such a way they (all) didn’t feel the need to do stuff like that? And how about "intelligent design", whomever comes up with a design for a population that can only survive on 1 planet if/when you created millions? I'd say it was intelligent design if we could live anywhere and didn't need food.
@@yabutmaybenot.6433 but still, what makes it convincing, is that I do see some similarities with computers,especially in the early years: " goddammit, what is it doing now!", "OH, don't do that", "what do you mean error?!". So yeah, in a way I can see God fuming somewhere on a cloud about all those design flaws, like me when either the machine malfunctioned because someone else made a programming mistake or because I did, or hardware entirely. But there where computers have gotten better, humans didn't. It would have been more useful to create better humans, in newer versions. Although, he might have tried that with humanism. Unfortunately, with the Taliban emerging again with their Abrahamistic beliefs, we still see the design flaws. Or a crazy nasty God. Or, better explanation: no God at all.
Intelligent design or what I like to call religious confirmation bias is something I've been thinking about a lot. And to me it really shows how strong the selective perception of theists can become (for some) once they've accepted a God. Most of the animal types went extinct,we will one day,the conditions on which we can survive are only temporarely. Looking at what manages to survive at this moment and speak about perfect design is a really backwards way of thinking. Why would a perfect God have so many failed attempts to make creatures survive before we witness the ones that are surviving at the moment? Heck,I can find a plant within 100 metres of hy home hwich would kill me if I ate it,does that sound like a world designed for us? Another example of how strong religious confirmation bias can be is 1 we are so used to hearing so much that I think most don't even think about it anymore. But probably all of us have come across a moment where a religious person talks about a miracle where one survives after a horrible accident that would kill most. Their body is wrecked,they need to recover for months if they even will completely but they say things like "it's a mircale!" and "God watches over me" But if God watches over you and wants to save you, couldnt he have done it 10 seconds earlier before the accident? And prevent that your body is broken now and you need to recover for months? If you'd ask a theist before crossing the road if they'd feel lucky after crossing it but ending at the other side with a broken body they would 100% say no. But yet, if it happens and they look back at it somehow they find a way to feel lucky and think that a God is watching them after having a vere bad accident that destroyed their body
I find the arrogance of thinking that God designed EVERYTHING (the universe) purely for our benefit yet we can only exist in an infinitesimally small part of it. Seriously was he so bored that he created billions of galaxies (many of which we can’t even see without sophisticated technology) for just giggles. Man has found ways to almost double our lifespan in about 200 years yet we are “Gods perfect creation”
Anyone who thinks the earth was designed for man should spend a week in Australia. They have t shirts listing the things that will sting, bite and eat you.
If you are in an airplane crash that kills 120 people and you are the only survivor that means that god has a plan for you. God's plan is for you to die but failed.
He seems oblivious to the fact that some of the first attempted aeroplanes used flapping wings because we didn't understand physics properly. None of them worked obviously 😂
If only we could think of an alternative explanation, that would not require an agent, but can demonstrably lead to the same result of apparent design. Oh, wait, we can! Evolution. Brandon just never bothered to explore that option, so he is stuck with his argument from ignorance. Looks designed, so it was.
8:32 a rock can have actually many uses. holding papers on a desk, as weights, as weapon, as tool, as construction material, as road blockade, as fulcrum for leverage, just to name a few.
Well after listening to Brandon for 20 minutes I’d say he knows all about poop, the poor mans suffering from verbal diarrhoea. Didn’t he realise that he ended up describing evolution by natural selection?
"Believers" make the claim, that the existence of logic, is PROOF that a "God" exists. Will somebody please ask one of these "Believers" where his "God" came from? Did this incredible "Creator" not need to be created by an even more incredible creator? There is no logic in belief in the "supernatural".
'Arguments from design stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and how it works.' - No, they derive from a rejection of evolutionary theory.
@@channelfogg6629 Rejecting evolution, in my experience with lots of conversations with creationists, was ALWAYS because they had a cartoonishly ridiculous misunderstanding of the theory.
I mean, I could see exactly where the argument was going from that first question, after all of these I've watched, but I wanted to see where it went. My problem is, the argument fell apart as soon as he asked the second question, about finding a wing and knowing it could fly, because what defines an airplane wing as a wing as opposed to an aerodynamic rock is the intent behind it, which is what misses from his analogy. A rock happens to be aerodynamic because that's how it's shape ended up. A wing is a wing as opposed to something else because it was made with the intent for it to function as a wing. Something having a characteristic does not signal a clear intend behind its function, and if we don't have no proof of intent, it's just as likely to be a coincidental natural occurrence. Basically the only reason we can say a design is "logical", to use his terms, is that we know what it's final function was intended to be, and know that it fills that function. If there was no intent, or no known intent, behind some thing's existence, any function it manages to perform is by happenstance, because it wasn't necessarily meant for that function in particular. For this analogy to work, you first have to prove intent. Otherwise you're comparing oranges to apples. Or planes to sticks, as it were.
22:57 It doesn’t matter if there is another function. A function does not mean it was intended or designed. All you are doing is asserting that those things are always linked when they are not. Prove that function has to have intent behind it. You can’t.
Indeed, we see wings of birds, but we also see wings of bats and wings of insects and none of these are "consistent" in structure or composition. But we can see how they evolved. Why does a "designer" "design" biological systems along evolutionary lines? Without any execption? We don't see birds' wings on mammals or insects' wings on birds.
Easy! God loves to play hide-and-seek! Undefeated champion of all of existence (and non-existence)! He'll even let billions pretend they found him (and not clue them in that they haven't found shit) because by telling them he would give away his hiding spot!
@@walnutoil100 I'm confident that you are able to use google scholar yourself to find the manifold peer review papers addressing the evolution of wings and flight.
There is a big logical flaw in Bandon's argument, he wrongly assume the only function of the wings is to fly. This is wrong! There are animals that have wings but don't fly!! For example, penguin, ostrich, turkey, ducks...etc. If there is a designer, why he made wings for ostrich, turkey, it they can not use it for flying. Go check Britannia for more of this animal.
Ant colonies, bee hives, wasp nests, termite mounds, meerkat warrens: all designed in nature. Eyes, spleens, and pancreases: not so much - they _evolved._
“How could something like a wing evolve?” Through animals being able to breed, and carry on their traits for millions of generations, the ones that die/can’t breed can’t pass on its traits. “Well wings are designed to fly, and that couldn’t happen with evolution” How do you know it’s “designed”, who designed it, who create it, how was it created or anything else about “design”. “Well what do birds do with wings?! They must’ve been made by god because they’re made out of feathers, and that can’t happen any other way! There’s no use for part of a wing!” What about flightless birds like Ostriches? They have wings and can’t fly. Why did “god” make it that way? “....Well... They were designed not fly” Then why did god give them wings? “Well they still have feet that walk...” So does almost everything else! Why mention birds and wings? “Well everything was designed to do what it does”
If someone was lost in the wilderness and came across an airplane wing, having no knowledge of what an airplane wing looked like or what its intended function was, they would probably use that wing for some other purpose. For instance, an airplane wing would be a great makeshift shelter if propped up. It would do better than a lot of other things in that regard. So, is its intended purpose now a shelter?
You can’t call something designed until you either have a object that is not designed that you are comparing it with or you prove that there was a designer behind the item in question
Also remember that we humans invented the value system that we use. So when we give value or label to a what we call a wing that said value is all our own and not something we discovered.
"Random design" works by eliminating all that does not. Works well is a matter of what else fits and how well it works. In a lab I might try the technique of radiating bacteria to see what comes out that I can't predict, is not design.
The actual answer was no, "an aeroplane wing" is not a proposition so it cannot be logical nor illogical. A better question would be "knowing the principle of aerodynamic is it logical to build a aeroplane wing the way they are built?".
I am a hang glider pilot. I have flown hang gliders since the early 80's. Every glider I have owned was designed at a factory using the best known concepts of flight to make for a safe flying foot launched glider. If I came upon something in the woods or in the desert, and it had an appearance to a wing, I would not even consider flying it. I am also a designer of aircraft. Paper Airplanes that is. I love flying my little paper airplanes that I design, but in no way would I believe I could indeed take a flight on them.
The Christian caller starts out being dishonest. The caller poses a situation hoping to lead to a conclusion he already believes and he knows he is going to try and mislead or trick the other party into making logical mistakes. This is typical of Christians when debating their beliefs. It is factual to state that to be a Christian, one must first allow themselves to be dishonest and then to rationalize that dishonesty.
Yeah but I mean, what are the chances that the people on AXP have heard that one before? I mean if they'd heard this argument before they probably would have already converted to Christianity. Because it's just that good.
A flat board can function perfectly as a wing at the correct speed, a perfect wing for one speed range may not function at all at a different speed range.
How many times did he say right , correct and you agree. When the hosts said something that completely disagreed or pointed out his fallacy and he’s not even listening to them.
I can neither fly nor breathe under water. I do not have sticky hands and feet to climb up walls. I am unable to squirt poisonous chemicals out of my ass to defend against predators (sort of). I am designed shitly.
