So I promised to break down this entire series. It took a while before I was ready to confront this level of stupid/dishonesty (one or the other, though likely some of both) but here is the debunking of part 2.
The first minute and a half are just intro/recounting where video one left off. So, we're going to ignore that since part one is already destroyed, and start with his first new claim in part 2.
Text in bold is emphasized, and for fun, anything in italics can be read with the sneering voice of Severus Snape. Anything that is in all caps is supposed to be lower case and bold. Well, except acronyms like DNA and such. I think I caught all the caps, but I might have missed some.
1. Oh boy here he goes with "irreducible complexity". He makes two claims here so this will count as two numbers. His first claim is that Darwin himself would say that his theory has failed. Well, sure. This is true. It has failed. That's why the theory of evolution that we use today is not the same as the one Charles Darwin proposed. Darwin was human, and made some mistakes. The Theory of Evolution that we use today has roots in Darwin's theory, but it is not Darwin's theory. It is revised, you know, like any other thing that you test and find fault in.
Just by saying what he does he shows that he either doesn't know science at all, which throws his claim of having done serious investigation for years into question. (What kind of investigation doesn't at least hear what the other side has to say so that their claims can be investigated and proven right or wrong?) Or that he knows better and is a complete and utter liar right off the bat.
This means that I don't even really need to debunk the rest of the video, but I will just for completeness sake.
2. Let's get to the second part of his claim, the things that are supposedly "irreducibly complex".
F1-ATPase - Well, that's it! You've got us. Irreducibly complex! ...Wrong! See, when a thing is found it can at first seem to be irreducibly complex, but after time studying it, it can be shown just how and maybe even why such a thing is not irreducibly complex. A simple google search can now show this information is wrong.
I'll also note that he never said just why it should be irreducibly complex, just that it is complex, and then asserted that it was "impossible" for it to have evolved. No evidence, not even a real claim of what specifically was impossible, just an assertion that it was. This is the result of years of study? What a joke...
3. Proteins, cilia, etc... Here we go again. Many structures only function when all of the parts are assembled. Yes this is true; but this is also misleading. The structures in their current form only function when all the parts are assembled. We can and have shown on multiple occasions just how they were able to function separately in prior forms before they evolved together. They tried this shit in the trials about teaching intelligent design in school in Pennsylvania. They lost. Because nothing they could show was actually irreducibly complex. Not then, and still not now. It's a bunch of bullshit. Look it up. Watch the documentary about the trial.
4. We should stand in awe of any God who is just able to design and create cilia? Holy oversimplification batman! We have humans who have designed improvements of God's designs. Should we worship them too? I'd be careful what you say there buddy! You're encouraging blasphemy!
5. Sequencing of proteins is not at all a "crisis" of "evolutionary thinking". Maybe you should actually have done years of research like you claimed instead of just parroting other apologists like yourself. Because then you might at least be able to use arguments that haven't already been disproven time and time again.
Take a protein that doesn't have a viable sequence. It falls apart. Which means that eventually just from sheer random chance? Proteins will form viable sequences and stay together, while the "wrong" sequences do not, leading only the "correct" sequences to evolve. It isn't difficult.
See, they often compare it to monkeys typing on a keyboard, but they mess up the analogy. What if there was a computer, that deleted every letter the monkey typed unless it was a valid letter in a word?
Meaning if a monkey typed "M" it would stay. They then type a and it stays because a word like "Man" or "May" or "Maybe" exists. Now what happens when the monkey types "z" next? Well, if the computer has no word that starts with "Maz" in it's dictionary, it deletes the letter z and lets the monkey keep typing. You see how the monkey would actually turn out real words with that feature? That is how proteins function. You add a bad letter, (wrong sequence) and it doesn't stick.
Let me put your argument into a metaphor. I have a car. Now, for the car to function it needs all of it's parts. However that doesn't mean that the engine, the wheels, the fuel, and other necessary parts were all created together. We invented the wheel long before the engine, we invented the type of fuel we use at a different time than the engine as well. The light bulb had nothing to do with an engine, neither did electricity have anything to do with wheels. Yet all those parts are needed to have a car. They were invented independently and later came together to make a car. It's simple.
Now that isn't a perfect metaphor, but it gets the point across. Not all parts are needed "simultaneously" for evolution to be true.
6. Ahhhh here it goes. "It is not possible for a code of any kind to arise by chance." Really? Well my childhood writings would disagree with you, as would any sufficiently long book like War and Peace and Moby Dick. Search long writings trying enough different letter skip sequences and you'll find "hidden codes" that are the result of purely random chance. Blatant lies... worse it what else it says. All code is the work if intelligence. So, if anything that makes some kind of sense cannot arise without a mind behind it, then what mind created your God? He must be infinitely more complex than a simple human, despite his non-physicality... What mind designed that complex being? You have trapped yourself into an infinite regression that you simply refuse to answer by saying "God always was" despite the blatant contradiction.
7. "Even the cleverest dog or chimpanzee could not work out a code..." Pure bullshit. What do you think a dog learning commands is? The sounds are meaningless to them, they haven't been taught English or whatever language the owner speaks. Yet somehow they "work out" the "code" of sounds to learn what sounds have what meanings to the point that they can follow complex commands. Chimps even more than dogs. Did you know that there are apes who can use sign language to communicate with humans? Even thought their level of ability with the language is low, it is still a "code" that had to be figured out. You're arguing from ignorance again...
8. Oh wow... Just... Wow. You actually have the nerve to quote mine Richard Dawkins!? The guy who adamantly refuses to accept a god? Anyone with any sense that knows anything about Dawkins could tell you were taking him out of context. He said superficially the evidence demands a god. That means that it looks like that on the surface, but when you actually take the time to study and do proper research, you find that there is no need for one. The later line says that this is what the theist is stressing. Not that the theist is correct in his belief you utter fuck.
I normally don't lower my arguments to this kind of ad hominem attack but at this point you have literally asked for it by being so obviously dishonest that I can't even give you the benefit of the doubt anymore. You know that you are lying now, as you are purposefully misrepresenting your opponent's views. You are one lying, scheming, slimy sack of shit. Here's a quote for you:
"If God was real he would have put you to death, and long before you had a chance to even utter a breath."
Now to calm myself... Because your blatant lies are now pissing me off.
9. "Information" in a cell is not "information" as most people think of it. We compare it to how much data we could store on a computer sure, but it isn't that kind of information. Nice way of using words in a non-scientific context to twist people's understandings.... Just like that shit with the word theory. It doesn't mean in science what it means in common conversation. Information doesn't either, not in this context. Fuck you really are an asshole. Just trying to twist people's beliefs and get them converted.
10. Right.... about the bible claiming that God made everything in the first six days. There's a thing about that. God made the animals before he made Adam. Dolphins have two pipes, one for eating, one for breathing. Humans have only one. This dual pipe idea God had for dolphins makes it impossible for them to choke and die on their food. A pretty good design I'd say, if it was in fact designed.
Why did God not realize how good an idea this was and preserve it in humans? I mean, you'd think that since humans were his last creation, he'd have used the experience he gained from making the other animals to make a superior product, yet in almost every way other than our intelligence levels, we are inferior to the animals.
Did you know that some species of female moths can choose what male sperm goes to their eggs? That they can have sex with multiple males, but only get pregnant by the one they think is the best? How many human woman would love that trait I wonder? To be able to fuck whoever they want, but only actually get pregnant by the successful businessman and not their loser drug dealing boyfriend on the side? I guess it's good for us men that god discarded that particular ability huh?
Humans are weaker, slower, we don't have a stable breeding season meaning that babies can be born in deadly winter for our non-furred bodies instead of in warm spring... Horrible all around. Wtf? Did god just forget all the great ideas he had when he got to us? Were we made from the creative dregs of what was left of his mind after being awake for 5 days prior? God must have been on his last legs. Maybe if he'd rested on the 6th day and made us on the 7th we'd be better designed, is that it? Or maybe, just maybe, we don't have any of the good advancements some of our animal friends have because we evolved instead of being designed.
11. Two more horrible claims... First, species don't actually always produce the same species over and over. That's exactly why evolution is a thing. Species can produce slightly different subspecies, that eventually, should they remain isolated instead of interbreeding with the previous tribe, become a completely separate species that cannot interbreed back with the original species. But here's information about evolution both in short, and long.
12. Lastly, you're mixing things up. Evolution talks about what happens to life once it exists. The idea of life coming into existence in the first place is about abiogenesis. Evolution is a fact, wherever life originally came from. Even if some deity exists that created life to begin with, that deity then only created the first organism(s) and not all diverse life on the planet. As for whether life sprang up here on earth, was seeded from outer space through meteor bombardment, or was created by a deity, that doesn't matter to the truth of evolution in the slightest. Again, the origin of life is abiogenesis, what happens to life after it exists, is evolution.
Let me put your argument into a metaphor. Let's continue with the car. I can tell you what happens to that car after I drive it, but I can't tell you how that car was put together outside of general terms because I'm not a car guy. I know that my car needs gas, I know that it was once a different color before I had it painted, and I know that it needs oil changes. What you are saying is that just because I don't know how the car was constructed, I can't possibly know anything else about the car. Your argument is completely retarded.
13. "It's not possible to have life without a lifegiver." Please prove that. "Only God has life inherent in himself." Oh never mind, you've just been kind enough to disprove your previous sentence.
Since you obviously can come up with the idea of something having life "inherently" why is it so hard to believe that such a thing might not be a divine entity and not just another part of nature? Why assume divinity where you have no evidence of it? Oh right, you're a fucking liar. I almost forgot.
14. "Is he more than a blind power? A dumb first force?" Well, maybe whatever first cause could be that... But I haven't asserted that it is, I simply said that you can't say for certain that it is not. Those aren't the same thing. And again, complexity is not the hallmark of design, simplicity is. Everything designed (with the exception of puzzles, because those are intended to be challenges and so are obviously different than anything made for other reasons) is made a simply as possible for efficiency. Complexity is the hallmark of nature, or at the least the hallmark of trial and error. Of someone learning as they go. Not the signs that an all-knowing god would leave.
15. Once again, YOU DON'T KNOW THERMODYNAMICS! For fucks sake, you keep getting those laws wrong. You're definitely a liar, and possibly stupid as well.
16. Wait a minute, something cannot come from nothing, therefore God had to always exist? Really? If obviously something had to always exist, why assume that this "something" is your God? Why can it not be the universe itself? You keep doing this bullshit assumptions game.
17. No, a cause does not have to be greater than the effect. That is only the case if the cause is inefficient. If the cause has 100% efficiency, then the effect can be just as great as the cause because no energy is lost. Therefore God (if he existed) wouldn't have to be greater than the universe, only equal to it. Unless you think God is not capable of being 100% efficient... And no, he wouldn't have to be "all-powerful" even if he wasn't 100% efficient, he would only have to be powerful enough to create the universe. That in no way implies all powerful, nor does it imply that he had to exist for "all eternity". Once again you keep making these stupid leaps in logic.
18. So... you have a nobel prize winner who either is being quote mined, where you are taking his words out of context because he probably meant that no matter how far science progresses, there are limits to the human mind, and therefore there are likely to be things that we simply cannot understand due to our inherent limits, or else he happened to be wrong about God. So what? Just because he was a nobel prize doesn't mean he's "all-knowing" so he can obviously be wrong on certain things. Big deal. Again, I can point out preachers who have quit religion to become atheists. Does that make them right about God? Stop trying to use arguments from authority to convince people of your lies.
19. Right... Science ignores the truth. That's why science had to fight so hard against religion to get the world to learn that the sun was the center of the solar system and the earth went around it, not vice versa. That's why science had to teach that the earth wasn't flat, that there wasn't a canopy of water above to firmament pouring down, that's why science had to teach that no only was the earth not the center of the solar system, but that our solar system wasn't even the center of the galaxy. Because Earth isn't actually special. It's just one planet among many. What a crock of shit. Just more and more assertions and nothing of substance.
20. Why would highly intelligent men believe such false and silly ideas, and even willingly deceive people? I don't know. Ask a Muslim, or a Baptist, or a Christian, or a Catholic, or a Hindu, or anyone of any faith on the planet. Maybe it's because people believe all kinds of stupid shit for bad reasons, and because they believe it, most of them aren't "deceiving" people because they aren't trying to lie, they're just wrong. Not everyone is as big a liar as you after all. Stop assuming that people have the same reasons you do.
21. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's your answer? The reason people don't believe and teach others not to believe is because they don't want to obey a God? The old, "Atheists just want to sin!" answer!?!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I've been waiting for someone to be so stupid as to actually use that argument. Here's how much of a fucking idiot you are:
22. "Speaking truth with facts (uhhh, aren't they one and the same fucktard?) allows speaking with authority." Wrong! One can have all the truth/facts in the world, and not speak with authority. Speaking with authority is all about having charisma, and having the balls to do so. That's why there are so many religions out there. Because authority is not dependent on facts, truth, or whatever word you want to use to describe it. Authority is only dependent on the ability to make people listen. Either through force, or through the strength of your personality.
23. "All existing food on earth is perfectly designed for human or animal consumption." You fucking idiot. We classify things as "food" because we can eat them. Not the other way around. It isn't like we classified arsenic as "food" only to find out later it was poisonous! We call it "poison" and not "food" because of what it does! Your ignorance and idiocy is beyond words.
24. "Every time man tried to improve or alter food..." Really? Not according to banana man aka Ray Comfort. Not according to the "super foods" that we have artificially made to be more resilient. Not according to even the "normal" foods that we have today that are a result of man breeding different strains of plants together centuries ago. All the "original" plants are long since gone you fool.
25. Sickness would vanish if man just "left food alone"? Huh. I wonder where all those illnesses of the past came from then...
26. "...God who made perfect food..." You mean that God who made water, our main necessity to survive, but made the lakes and rivers so that the water inside kills people if they drink it naturally? That they had to use alcohol to dilute the water and kill most of the bacteria in it, leading us to the alcohol infused societies we have today? The God who made the only good water to drink so hidden that we needed wells to get to it, wells that only science invented? Even if it was primitive science? Damn, you're setting the bar pretty low. Humans win that one easy.
27. Fossils. Yes, some fossils were indeed misclassified. But you know what? Science showed that and corrected itself. This is something religions fail to do. You know what else? We have many, many, many, complete skeletons in the fossil record. Go to museums and see them. They exist. Some are in the back, in storage, but you can always ask the curator to show you more than what is on display. The rotate their selections so as to not get stale.
Nice to see you using a professor of physics to argue about fossils though. Let me just go to a car mechanic to get information on my plumbing system. Because getting people who are experts in a different field than the one they are being questioned about is obviously the way to go. Have a dentist fix your airplane and see who trusts it to fly.
28. Again you use Darwin. Well guess what? Darwin had no idea how old the earth actually is. He was dealing with the religious age of the earth, a little over 4,000 years rather than the now known millions and billions of years. Had he known just how old earth was, he'd have realized that it takes longer for the changes to occur. His question makes sense with the framework of time he thought he had. More evidence that even smart people can be wrong sometimes.
29. I like how you try and limit evolution to fossils. Fact is, we don't need a single fossil to prove evolution. DNA alone is enough. Much like we don't need to wait until a kid dies and use their fossils to prove parentage, we can use DNA to prove what species came from what other species long ago. But go ahead, keep talking about the fossils without actually saying anything of substance. You know, stating that the article was honest and said maybe, presumable, and other such statements without giving any context to say what they were talking about when they used those terms, in order to make it seem like they were saying that about evolution itself.
30. There is no "micro-evolution" or "macro-evolution" these terms are only used by people who don't actually know what evolution is, or by those who are trying to use terms that their opponents are using in order to explain how evolution really works. Whoever you're talking about either didn't know what the hell they were talking about, or else was trying to "dumb it down" for you, and you still failed to understand it.
31. "Any who mock God's existence..." Mocking a belief is not mocking a person. You aren't giving what you're getting, you're going above and beyond. I don't mock all religious people, even though I do mock you yourself. Because they don't deserve to be mocked. But I do mock their belief, which is a very different thing. It's like a wise man once said: "People deserve respect, beliefs don't."
Any belief that can't be mocked without fear of reprisal is suspect. Because any true belief would be able to stand against such on its own merit. I guess we know what beliefs can't...
32. And no, the fossil record does not show that, despite your abject lies. Anyone who wants to look into the fossil record can check, by talking to scientists who actually specialize in fossils and so know what they are talking about. Not physicists who might know a lot about physics but nothing about fossils. You do that, but your practices should obviously not be followed in that manner.
33. I like how you claim to believe anything other than what you say is to be dishonest with the evidence after you lied so many, many, many times. Please people, educate yourselves before believing these liars. In the meantime, I'll get to video three eventually. It's gonna take time to get over this much stupid again.
No comments:
Post a Comment