Here is an informative little video by a guy named Steve Mould who does a lot of “science” videos on youtube. Its all (ostensibly) about how simple little processes can make “meaningful” structures from stochastic processes-and he uses magnetic shaped little parts to show this. Its a popular channeled followed by millions, and is often referenced by other famous people in the science community-and his fans love it.
And hey, it does show how meaningful structures CAN form from random processes. Right? So you can learn from this. Wink, wink. Nod, nod. And all the skeptics will know exactly what he is really saying. Cause we are all part of the clique that knows this language-the language of the skeptic propagandist. I mean, he almost hides it, the real message, it is just under the surface, and the less skeptically aware, the casualist, might even miss it. The casualist might not learn as much about Steve Mould and what he is trying to say here-but the skeptic knows. “See, atheism is true! Spread the word!” Steve has given the wink. The same wink used by DeGrasse Tyson, and Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene, and on and on. You know the one.
And for 95% of his viewers, whether they know it or not, they got his message. I mean, look, its plain as day, right? He just showed you, that is certainly a meaningful structure that arose from random processes, isn’t it? Its defintely meaningful, its a, a, a , well, it’s shape that, we have a, a name for…that’s kind of…anyway, defintely random, I mean other than the magnets and the precut shapes, and the little ball with nothing else inside, and the shaking only until its just right then stopping kind of way…That’s random kind of right???
But there are 5% percent of his viewers that spotted his little wink and nod, and said, hold on a second. If you want us to believe that your little explanation about how simply life can form from nonsense without a plan, how blind exactly do you want us to be? 95%, they are hooked, you got them (Ryan StallardThere are so many creationist videos this obliterates. Especially 4:18.). But some likeGhryst VanGhod helpfully point out: “this is incorrect. the kinesin travels along fibres within the cell and takes the various molecules exactly where they need to be, they are not randomly “jumbling around in solution”. https://youtu.be/gbycQf1TbM0 ” and then you get to see a video that tells you just a few more of the things that are ACTUALLY happening which are even more amazing if you weren’t already skeptical (the real kind).
And if you go through some more of the comments you will notice a few more (real) skeptics, not the wink and nod kind, and you will start to notice why the wink nod propogandist skeptics everywhere you look in modern culture are a very puposefully designed cancer on knowledge and thought.
I think (to be generous) you misunderstand. Atheists may think or believe there are no gods, but that doesn’t mean atheists don’t care about all the people who DO believe in gods, and who are numerous enough to inform our laws, our school curricula, our public displays, many of our standard practices.
You have consistently confused not believing with not caring. Gods may be (and probably are) imaginary, but belief in them (however misguided) has profoundly corrupted nearly every aspect of our lives whatever we believe. And yes, atheists care strongly about this.
Realising and accepting that this is the only life we get makes the gift and experience of this life more special, not less.
My use of “care” was in relation to what difference it makes whether phoodoo cares about my lack of religious belief and vice versa. There are more important things to care about, such as the threat that climate change brings to the continuing of human existence. That I care about.
Still wondering which religion phoodoo recommends as an alternative to atheism. So far we only have an example of sock gnome logic.
I am not sure where you are getting your information from but seems this is not the case.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/update-71-75-districts-uttar-pradesh-india-reported-no-covid-19-cases-24-hours-implementing-ivermectin-protocol/
The above link is from October 31st.
To add insult to injury, Indonesia authorized use of Ivermectin in July and yep you guessed it.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/update-covid-19-cases-plummeted-indonesia-government-authorized-ivermectin-treatment-big-pharma-vaccines-made-little-difference/
As for the effectiveness of Ivermectin, Tess Lawrie did a meta-analysis of Ivermectin and HCQ and the results speak for themselves. Ivermectin should have been promoted by governments/health agencies to effectively blund the pandemic. But they didn’t. They chose to put all their eggs in the untried mRNA shots, which we now know actually increase the likelihood of getting Co\/id and even increase transmission of Co\/id.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/36858/pdf/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2ju5v4TAaQ&t=744s
Here’s more info detailing the effectiveness of Ivermectin:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/SUMMARY-OF-THE-EVIDENCE-BASE-FINAL.pdf
and yes people are blocking doctors from prescribing Ivermectin. good thing there is an online go-around.
But this doesn’t address the simple fact that all religion is human invention, notwithstanding the impeccable logic and clarity of reasoning.
Steve,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit
We all now know that the vaccinated are getting infected, hospitalized at an increasingly higher rate and are also transmitting it to others more.
How in the hell do you call these shots vaccines? If their only redeeming factor is that Co\/id would be less severe, hell Ivermectin does that, a daily regimen of D3, C, Zinc and Quercetin does that.
Absolutely a much better source than NIH, FDA, or CDC,
But you know better than to try and kill the messenger. Speak to the contents of the article. Are they in dispute? If so, dispute away.
The facts are that many 2nd tier or 3rd tier countries are successfully turning to Ivermectin because they dont have the option of waiting in line for foreign (faux)vaccines AND Ivermectin is cheap and effective.
Damn that dirty little Ivermectin rat. How dare it put a cog in such well-laid out plans?
Rumraket, what you fail to mention is that trial and error is a process that is kickstarted by first an idea, then a plan of action and a means to interpret the results of that action.
Evolution narratives always start somewhere in the middle to avoid explaining the pre-existing phenomena that are pre-requisite for trial-and-error processes to produce useable results.
So when you step back and take an honest look at it, evolutionary change is design in action because it depends on pre-existing machinery which cannot be explained by evolution.
We now know why skeptics co-opted the word evolution from theists – to obscure its original meaning of ‘a rolling-out, an unfolding’, which implies the implementation of a pre-existing plan; because that is what evolution depends on – a pre-existing plan to kick-start it.
In a nut-shell, evolution requires a starter-kit.
Then explain it.
That kid is back with the turd writing on the walls!
Can you name that pre-existing machinery that cannot be explained by evolution and then follow that up with your explanation for that machinery?
No, I did not think you could…
Do you have any actual numbers there?
Hospitalization without vaccine: N
Hospitalization with vaccine: Y
Chance of death without vaccine: R
Chance of death with vaccine: Q
Care to fill in N, Y R and Q?
I think it does, because the influence of those traditions affects what we’re talking about when we talk about God. The discourse about God becomes increasingly abstract and metaphysical, and that does some trickle-down effects to what people are affirming or denying.
For some people, sure, their conception of God is basically mythological: they think of God as a really powerful person, not really any different from how Hesiod imagined Zeus. But for others, God is basically metaphysical, sort of like Aristotle’s unmoved mover, except that He gives a shit about us.
My guess is that most people have a very vague, ill-defined conception of God that varies along a spectrum between the mythological and the metaphysical. It would be cool to look into the sociology of religion on this.
But to reiterate, this has nothing to do with intelligent design.
Not quite: the starting-point is a problem, or what John Dewey called a “problematic situation”. Something doesn’t make sense, or usual habits are interrupted, expectations thwarted — we are surprised, puzzled, maybe annoyed or frustrated. Then reflection and analysis take over, breaking down our model of the situation into its distinguishable and manipulable components, deciding which components to manipulate, and experimenting from there until the problem has been solved and smoothly functioning habits have been restored.
Isn’t that everything?
Well no, because things are only ever designed by organisms that have themselves evolved.
Don’t you just love smuggling your preferred conclusion into your argument?
Allan Miller,
Hi Allan
This is what needs to be established. ID can be a useful tool in finding the points of demarkation here. Since our understanding of the eukaryotic cell is perhaps 1% of full knowledge it will take a while to sort this out.
Alan Fox,
How have you establish this as a “fact”? Is this part of the skeptics labeling fallacy playbook like labeling evolution a “fact”?
Rumraket,
No but a group of people designed the system that you use to utilize passwords sequence space in order to maintain privacy. Another powerful system that is emerging now which is Web 3. Have you seen the specs?
Corneel,
You have a detailed explanation of how the transcription translation machinery or cell division evolved? You are projecting here accusing Steve of circular reasoning.
Did Steve present a really detailed explanation of how he ruled out that those things evolved? Or did he just assert stuff without bothering to explain why those things can’t possibly have evolved?
Exactly, I showed steve how appallingly bad his argument was by turning it around. Well spotted!
As always, no evidence was forthcoming that organisms are Designed. We just got another serving of “It’s so complex. It can’t possily have evolved”. What was amusing about his claim was that he conceded that evolutionary change is occurring, but that it doesn’t count because it still is Design.
Why are we discussing evolution anyway? I thought we were talking about atheism.
Corneel,
Here is why.
Richard Dawkins, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
No, it can’t.
Prove me wrong!
It is a fact, as much as anything can be a fact.
Facts are based on our understanding of the world. Our understanding of the world does not include ghosts who write books.
Yours might include that. And that’s fine and dandy. But in the world of objective facts, people write books not ghosts.
Or, please educate me. What religion(s) are not human invention and what is your evidence (i.e. facts) to support that?
With a simple google search I can find many such attempts at determining the answers to those questions from a scientific viewpoint.
All I can find from you is the statement: A mind did it.
So you don’t actually have what you are demanding others produce. Are you happy with that state of affairs? Or does “a mind did it” count as a detailed explanation to you?
Oh, wait, don’t bother. Some parts of the bible make predictions the other parts fulfill. Woo-pe-fuck-in-doo.
I’m glad that some in humanity look to the stars with something other then a cower.
OMagain,
Judaeo Christianity is most likely not an invention. The integrity of the Torah, Tanakh and the NT Bible which introduce Prophets starting with Moses is strong evidence of this.
colewd,
You’ve been ninja’d!
also
has to be the quickest self-pwn ever.
He was wrong about that, of course.
It suggests that atheists before Darwin were not intellectually fulfilled, which is baffling (to put it mildly).
If there weren’t any intellectually fulfilled atheists before Darwin, Darwin doesn’t help with that.
Dawkins would have been right if he had pointed out that modification by natural selection does help address one specific criticism that was advanced against the Epicureans by their Stoic rivals: what explains the origin of adaptive traits if not the working-out of what Providence has intended? This was a problem for the Epicureans because everything in their account was the result of necessary laws and purely random accidents.
But Dawkins doesn’t care about getting the facts right about the history of philosophy and theology, no matter how much he opines on such things. His opinions are not trustworthy.
Kantian Naturalist,
We have common ground here 🙂
Likewise the integrity of the Harry Potter universe is strong evidence etc etc.
So your “evidence” is, what, that the most blatant contradictions were edited out? That makes that particular religion divinely inspired?
OK. Low bar you are setting there.
colewd, how long do you believe Moses lived for?
From what I can tell I’m surprised you can be an intellectually satisfied theist.
From you it’s very thin gruel colwed. A mind did it. Other details to follow.
So thin it’s transparent.
That’s interesting.
I always took Dawkins as saying here that religion is fueled by ignorance (in this case about adaptive evolution). This I heartily disagree with and I assume that you do as well. So what do you think Dawkins is saying here?
Steve,
I am leaving your tinfoil hat diatribe up, only because nobody with half a brain would find your beliefs re “Co\/id” [lol] convincing.
If anyone at all thinks there is any merit in what Steve is peddling, please let me know, and I will explain fun stuff such as the file drawer effect to them.
In the spirit of argumentum ad Youtubium, here’s Rebecca Watson.
FYI, that fraudulent Egyptian study is Elgazzar 2020 which is quite central to dear Dr. Lawrie’s hopeless attempt at a meta-analysis.
I don’t know either. This is just how I feel about it. Nobody taught me this, let alone Dawkins. I just wrote what I’ve observed about what most of us mean by atheism.
Badly mistaken? I’m unconvinced that there’s gods, any gods, even that believed by phoodoo.
I disagree. Myths are myths regardless of the philosophical convolutions elaborated around them. Sure those philosophical convolutions can be interesting, but they cannot transform myths into anything close to realities. They’re philosophical convolutions, not magical incantations.
I don’t know about Corneel,, but I don’t have it personally. I don’t carry in my mind all of the scientific literature. But the scientific literature is filled with examples after examples of evolutionary pathways of one or another part(s) of such systems. A work in progress to be sure, but evolutionary pathways have been identified, studied, corrected when in error, etc.
Either way, as I have insisted before, the fact remains that if your examples of design are human designs, then you’re engaged in hopelessly circular arguments, since humans are among the things you’re trying to explain as being the results of design. You’re claiming that designed beings are necessary to design designed beings.
The “integrity” is a poorly patched and carefully chose set of versions of stories proves that mythological stories are true to the point of some famous snake-oil salesman being the son of god? The Lord Of The Rings is much more self-coherent. It also has fulfilled prophesies, and something of a resurrection. Does that mean that all of those stories and beings are real Bill?
The bottom line is, Steve Mould’s supposedly science video, is skeptic propoganda, pure and simple. His motovation behind his use of words was clear as day to me, and that is I I knew Mould’s religious beliefs without knowing anything else about him. A quick google search on him proved my suspicions.
You can find many examples of this from other so called science communicators online. They seem to be much less concerned about the actual science, than they are about trying to convey an atheist message. hence Mould’s completely inaccurate descriptions of cell behavior. When I referenced other videos that give a much clearer picture of how intricately designed the cell mechanisms are, Jock objected to the first one, because , um, “Hey, that video is associated with Casey Luskin, and he is someone I don’t approve of, so, so…well, that’s not fair!” No criticism of the actual video of course. When someone else made a similar video explaining in detail how kinesins mechansims work, Jock had no way to complain.
Mould try to make it seem like the working of a cell are so simple, that accidental processes could easily help create it. It was all rubbish, but it advertised his skeptic points. That is what most popular science is online these days unfortunately. Its the epidemic of dumb which has permeated our society.
KN mentions that it doesn’t really matter in terms of intelligent design, because all intelligent design could ever tell us anyway, is that life was designed by something. As if anything else matters.
And, boy does this matter to the atheists. Look at them scramble to turn it into a discussion of their belief in the bible-as if that matters. Wink, wink nod guys.
And so talking about propoganda, strident anti-vaxxer actress and vampire slayer Kristy Swanson is in the hospital with covid complications and is asking for thoughts and prayers. All of her supporters are giving her encouragement and telling her to take more ivermection. Well, first off she is young and healthy, so why should she need any encouragement and well wishes, and she can get ivermectin anywhere she wants, and I am sure she has already taken it, so where’s the problem? I wonder if Steve can address this?
Here, I think, is a case where KN has his nose pressed so firmly up against his single tree that he can’t seem to grasp anything beyond it. I think you express this very well – philosophical convolutions, no matter how detailed, how extensive, how historical, simply cannot poof nonexistent gods into being.
KN’s defense strikes me as a courtier’s reply, “a type of informal fallacy in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to pose any sort of criticism whatsoever.” He seems to be saying that since us ignorati haven’t spent a lifetime immersed in the philosophical study of one particular god, we aren’t qualified even to notice that there aren’t any gods! But to be fair, he does seem to recognize that no two Believers seem to believe in the same god. How big a leap can it be to grasp the reason for this?
I’ve been trying to follow this thread, but I can’t find where this is happening. Yet you describe it as a scramble! Can you point out where this is even mentioned? All I find is a professed lack of belief in any gods.
(As a footnote, I find some of the gods a LOT more interesting than the one I assume you can’t let go of. Kind of a shame, considering how many different gods there are. Maybe you should expand the horizons of your faith?)
Let me see if I can help you find some examples…
Start with here :
I think you may have misread KN. I don’t think he is saying that the Abrahamic god is real. I think he is only saying that there is more depth there than you will find with the Greek gods.
I don’t know about “depth”. My point was only that God is conceptually different from the Norse or Greek gods, and so needs a different kind of reason for why believing in Him is irrational, or why He doesn’t exist.
Here is what you wrote that I responded to: “…scramble to turn it into a discussion of their belief in the bible…”
I asked for an example, and you cite a case of NON belief, which makes NO mention of the bible. I wonder if we actually speak the same language.
Bullshit. Gods of any shapes or sizes are figments of the imagination, and they don’t exist. There is only ONE reason for considering such beliefs irrational, and that’s because there are no gods. This isn’t rocket science. I don’t see why it should matter the sheer volume of historical contortions different gods have inflicted on their believers. Seeing conceptual differences between equally imaginary conceits amounts to splitting nonexistent hairs.
I think it’s interesting, and worthwhile, to investigate why people believe without evidence, so strongly that no evidence could ever matter. I don’t find it interesting which unevidenced belief(s) we might consider.
(As a footnote, I’m amused that you refer to Greek gods or Norse gods, but the Abrahamic god is referred to as “God”, rather than apply some parallel adjective, and referenced as “Him” and “He”, capitalization not applied to gods of other pantheons. Flagrant myopia. You might perhaps step back, or into the shoes of someone for whom the Christian god is as silly as the Norse gods.)
There’s a whole lot of Trumpians out there as potential subjects for your investigation.
phoodoo,
If you didn’t want any comments, then you should have considered not producing an OP.
I understand that this is the impression you get, and this is (as the hilarious GEM of TKI would say) telling. This is a result of your GotG theology, whereby any naturalistic explanation is an attempt to promote atheism. Leaving your misguided theology aside, you need to somehow demonstrate that Mould’s description actually IS inaccurate. Which is going to be tricky, given the levels of expertise.
Oh, I am not complaining, I am pointing and laughing. The Veritaserum video actually uses somewhat overly teleological language, but that’s a very common shortcut to use when explaining science to a lay audience. Pedagogically justified, even. The videos themselves are rather misleading, since they make the process appear more efficient than it actually is. There’s a fair amount of futile cycling going on, in reality.
No, the pointing and laughing relates to the irony of phoodoo writing an OP about all this nodding and winking, and the evil atheists importing their hatred of God into science videos, and then phoodoo links to Casey’s video, where the narration is delightful:
Nothing to see here. Move along now.