Speaker 1: Hello and welcome to my podcast. This is an audio
Speaker 1: version of my videos available to make listening to my
Speaker 1: stuff in the background easier than YouTube makes it. But
Speaker 1: since my videos are primarily made for YouTube, there may
Speaker 1: be occasional references to visual materials. If you'd like this
Speaker 1: podcast ad free, you can join us on Patreon app,
Speaker 1: Patreon dot com, slash Vice Rhino. Please enjoy.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to my channel Vice Rhino. Here today
Speaker 2: we're looking at a video put out by the Tomorrow's
Speaker 2: World channel titled this is Scientific Evidence for God. Before
Speaker 2: we get into the meat of this video, though some background.
Speaker 2: This YouTube channel is run by the Living Church of God,
Speaker 2: which is an offshoot denomination of the Global Church of God,
Speaker 2: which was one of the factions that formed after the
Speaker 2: founder of the Worldwide Church of God died in nineteen
Speaker 2: eighty six. They do not believe in the trendy. They
Speaker 2: see God and Jesus as the two original members of
Speaker 2: the Divine Family, and if you are a good Christian,
Speaker 2: then eventually you yourself will become a member of the
Speaker 2: Divine Family and become a full son of God because
Speaker 2: the of the Divine Family is for God to reproduce himself. Also,
Speaker 2: I'm not looking that deep into it, but I assume
Speaker 2: that everybody being a son of God is either a
Speaker 2: misogynistic view to women God doesn't have daughters, or else
Speaker 2: all women will become trans men in God's kingdom. Somehow,
Speaker 2: I doubt the latter option. The various factions of the
Speaker 2: Worldwide Church of God are one of those offshoots of
Speaker 2: Christianity that very obviously began because one guy, Herbert Armstrong
Speaker 2: in this case, saw Christians as an easy mark for
Speaker 2: his cohn. He wound up living in a mansion, flying
Speaker 2: around in a private jet, and wearing expensive clothing. He
Speaker 2: preached against doctors in modern medicine as you should have
Speaker 2: faith that God would heal you, but he had no
Speaker 2: problem going to the doctor when it came to him personally.
Speaker 2: Then he died, and in the power vacuum, the various
Speaker 2: leaders had varying levels of success, forming their splinter groups,
Speaker 2: of which these guys are one. I don't expect any
Speaker 2: of this to actually be relevant to the video, but
Speaker 2: I do like to know some of the background of
Speaker 2: who I'm responding to lest I make the mistake of
Speaker 2: ridiculing the idea of the trindy when the person in
Speaker 2: the video doesn't believe in the trendy, he believes in
Speaker 2: the divine family in which he will eventually attain Godhood
Speaker 2: for himself, an idea that is so far beyond ridicule
Speaker 2: that it looped back around right into ridicule. Anyway, let's
Speaker 2: see what the scientific evidence for God is. Maybe a
Speaker 2: fringe cult will have something different than a standard Christian apologist.
Speaker 2: Let's go.
Speaker 3: Many claim that science has removed the need for a creator.
Speaker 3: After all, they say, we now know the universe began
Speaker 3: in a sort of Big Bang, expanding in every direction
Speaker 3: we can see.
Speaker 2: It's not so much that science has definitively removed the
Speaker 2: need for a creator. It's more that we keep discovering
Speaker 2: non magical ways that happens, and so the need for
Speaker 2: a happener to exist has been removed. So science has
Speaker 2: removed the need for a creation. Okay, you got me.
Speaker 2: Usually the apologists say that we atheists think that science
Speaker 2: disproves God. I'm not used to hearing my position being
Speaker 2: stated accurately by apologists. I'm sure this will continue for
Speaker 2: the rest of the video.
Speaker 3: Right, we understand the structure of matter, why it behaves
Speaker 3: the way it does, and the laws that govern it all.
Speaker 2: Well, we don't understand everything about matter, how it behaves,
Speaker 2: in the laws that govern it all. It's just that
Speaker 2: every time we've learned a thing about any of that,
Speaker 2: it has turned out to not involve God in any
Speaker 2: way whatsoever, and so there's no real reason to think
Speaker 2: that God would be a necessary part of the next
Speaker 2: thing that we learn.
Speaker 3: Closer to home, we understand life itself, they say it
Speaker 3: simply evolved from non living matter with chance combinations of
Speaker 3: chemicals enduring over time as they were somehow more fit
Speaker 3: for survival and duplication.
Speaker 2: He is once again being overly absolute here, presenting it
Speaker 2: as though we know everything about the origin of life,
Speaker 2: when that's actually one of the most active areas of
Speaker 2: research in biology, meaning that there's a lot we still
Speaker 2: don't know about it. But don't worry. I'm sure he's
Speaker 2: not going to use the fact that we don't know
Speaker 2: everything yet as a way to argue himself to God's
Speaker 2: existence from a point of ignorance, because no apologist would
Speaker 2: ever do that.
Speaker 3: Yet, when you look more closely, those claims fall apart,
Speaker 3: because in every aspect of the world, if you're willing
Speaker 3: to seek out and to accept the evidence you see
Speaker 3: the fingerprints of a divine creator.
Speaker 2: I know it's more than a bit cliche to bring
Speaker 2: this up at this point, but that would mean that
Speaker 2: those divine fingerprints are all over everything, including cancer, mosquitoes,
Speaker 2: that parasite that's making Americans their pants. Now you know the.
Speaker 3: One ancient King David of Israel composed many of the
Speaker 3: psalms of the Bible, and in them he makes a
Speaker 3: simple and elegant point. The fool has said in his
Speaker 3: heart there is no God.
Speaker 2: Is it really elegant to say, essentially, if you don't
Speaker 2: agree with me, you're an idiot. And it gets even
Speaker 2: less elegant if we read the second half of the verse.
Speaker 2: They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds. There is none
Speaker 2: who does good. So not only is this if you
Speaker 2: don't agree with me, you're an idiot, it's if you
Speaker 2: don't agree with me, you're an idiot who is incapable
Speaker 2: of doing anything good in your life. Usually the second
Speaker 2: half gets left off by apologists, as he did here,
Speaker 2: because it is really easy to find examples of non
Speaker 2: Christians doing good. My go to has always been you guys,
Speaker 2: my audience. Since twenty nineteen, we've done an annual fundraiser
Speaker 2: for a food bank in my area, and the cumulative
Speaker 2: total donated by you guys to this food bank is
Speaker 2: currently setting out just over ninety six thousand dollars. That
Speaker 2: is a lot of good to be done by people
Speaker 2: who supposedly never do anything good. Y'all prove the Bible
Speaker 2: wrong every November, is what I'm getting at.
Speaker 3: Yet, there are many scientists today who would call King
Speaker 3: David the fool?
Speaker 2: Is that really what we're going with here? King David
Speaker 2: says non believers are idiots, but they think he's an idiot.
Speaker 2: This is supposed to be a video, and the evidence
Speaker 2: for God and his opener is a drawn out nil
Speaker 2: you fight where only one side is actually even involved
Speaker 2: and the other is completely imagined.
Speaker 3: They stare into the cosmos above, or examine the variety
Speaker 3: of life in the world and see no evidence of
Speaker 3: God anywhere at all. They look into nature and see
Speaker 3: nothing in it that points beyond nature.
Speaker 2: Okay, for a moment, let's just ignore the fact that
Speaker 2: there are plenty of scientists who believe in God and
Speaker 2: just take him at face value. A monarch from a
Speaker 2: time before toilet paper was invented, looked at the world
Speaker 2: and was like, wow, I can't imagine how this could
Speaker 2: have come about. Seems magical to me. Meanwhile, modern scientists
Speaker 2: who have the ability to three D print a custom
Speaker 2: prosthetic limb that can be controlled via brain interface have
Speaker 2: looked at the world and we're like, wow, seems like
Speaker 2: all of this can be explained without resorting to magical explanations.
Speaker 2: And you think we should side with the pre butt
Speaker 2: wipeian monarch. Spellcheck didn't underline pre butt Wipeian. By the way,
Speaker 2: I'm not entirely sure what that says about society, but
Speaker 2: it does seem like proof against a loving God. Next up,
Speaker 2: he reads that Dawkins quote about the universe looking exactly
Speaker 2: as we'd expect if there is no God. We've all
Speaker 2: heard it a million times, so I'm gonna just skip it.
Speaker 3: Too. Many physicists, cosmologists, and biologists refuse to see the
Speaker 3: evidence for their eyes, refuse to acknowledge the fingerprints of
Speaker 3: God that exists all over the very subjects they study.
Speaker 2: Should it not say something to you that the experts
Speaker 2: at studying these things don't see God in them, but you,
Speaker 2: a layman whose knowledge on the subjects barely scratches the surface,
Speaker 2: do And of course he's framing this as though all
Speaker 2: scientists are atheists, But that is just not true. Sure,
Speaker 2: a scientist is less likely to believe in God than
Speaker 2: someone from the general public, but nearly a third of
Speaker 2: them do believe in God. So your blanket statement that
Speaker 2: all of these science people refuse to acknowledge the evidence
Speaker 2: for God is just wrong not to mention the fact that,
Speaker 2: according to what you have said so far in this video,
Speaker 2: the smartest people on the planet are all a bunch
Speaker 2: of fools.
Speaker 3: They proclaim a dedication to following the evidence, but when
Speaker 3: the evidence points in a direction they find undesirable, they
Speaker 3: look away.
Speaker 2: Counterpoint, you, a non expert, are probably just wrong about
Speaker 2: the direction in which the evidence points. Well, the experts
Speaker 2: are actually correct.
Speaker 3: So without a telescope or spectral analysis or cosmic microwave measurements,
Speaker 3: David could still look at the universe above his head
Speaker 3: and conclude this is a fingerprint of God, who created
Speaker 3: all of this.
Speaker 2: You can clearly see the fingerprint of God until you
Speaker 2: look closely. Then all the people doing the looking are like, actually,
Speaker 2: there is no reason to think a God did this.
Speaker 2: That sounds like a pretty reasonable argument against God if
Speaker 2: you ask me.
Speaker 3: And science has backed the Bible up, as the evidence
Speaker 3: does point to a universe that did not always exist.
Speaker 2: Whatever he is about to inevitably say about the Big Bang,
Speaker 2: let me just point out that the Bible had two
Speaker 2: options here. Either the world had a beginning or it
Speaker 2: did not. It's not really all that impressive that the
Speaker 2: Bible won a coin flip. But also there is nuance
Speaker 2: in the translation of the first few verses of Genesis.
Speaker 2: In most translations, it goes something like in the beginning,
Speaker 2: God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was
Speaker 2: without form and void, and darkness was over the face
Speaker 2: of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering
Speaker 2: over the face the waters. And God said, let there
Speaker 2: be light, And there was light. But the syntax of
Speaker 2: the ancient Hebrew suggests that verse two, rather than being
Speaker 2: a description of the earth as God was creating, it
Speaker 2: is supposed to be a parenthetical describing the earth that
Speaker 2: existed before God began creating. The anchor Bible translation has
Speaker 2: it as when God set about to create heaven and earth,
Speaker 2: the world being beniformless waste with darkness over the season,
Speaker 2: only an awesome wind sweeping over the water. God said,
Speaker 2: let there be light, and there was light. There is
Speaker 2: enough ambiguity here that, honestly a case could be made
Speaker 2: in either direction. Either the world had a beginning or
Speaker 2: there was always something there, depending on how you look
Speaker 2: at the text. So the Bible flipped a coin and
Speaker 2: wound up in a headsie wind tails you lose scenario.
Speaker 3: Today, the Big Bang theory has taken so much for
Speaker 3: granted that many do not realize that when evidence for
Speaker 3: it was first discovered, scientists vigorously opposed it because it
Speaker 3: sounded too much like the description of God's creation in
Speaker 3: the Book of Genesis.
Speaker 2: Betchy, He doesn't mention that the Catholic priests who first
Speaker 2: formulated the Big Bang theory, George Lemetra, once asked the
Speaker 2: Pope to stop talking about it as those signs proves God,
Speaker 2: because that's not how he saw it.
Speaker 3: For instance, when George la Maatra first suggested that relativity
Speaker 3: implied that the universe began at a certain point in time,
Speaker 3: Albert Einstein told him that it suggests too much the
Speaker 3: theological idea of creation.
Speaker 2: And while Einstein would eventually come around to accept the
Speaker 2: Big Bang. Lemetra never wanted it used as evidence of creation,
Speaker 2: and in case it wasn't clear from these guys description
Speaker 2: of the origin of life earlier, they are indeed Young
Speaker 2: Earth creationists, meaning that he is standing there using the
Speaker 2: Big Bang as evidence for a creator, all the while
Speaker 2: ignoring the worldview shattering implications of the Big Bang with
Speaker 2: regards to the age of the universe. Because the thing
Speaker 2: is Lemetra used the theory of relativity as the basis
Speaker 2: for his hypothesis of an expanding universe, and if relativity
Speaker 2: is correct, then the universe is billions of years old.
Speaker 2: Otherwise the math doesn't work, and we know that relativity
Speaker 2: is correct. We've observed gravitational lensing. We've observed gravity waves.
Speaker 2: We've not only observed redshift and stars as they move
Speaker 2: away from us, but figured out how to calculate a
Speaker 2: star's distance based on how red shifted it is. We've
Speaker 2: seen the cosmic microwave background radiation. So you don't get
Speaker 2: to come up here and say that we know that
Speaker 2: God exists because the universe had a beginning, but then
Speaker 2: dismiss all of the implications that go along with how
Speaker 2: we know the universe had a beginning. Also, we don't
Speaker 2: actually know what came before the Big Bang, so it
Speaker 2: could be that the universe didn't have a beginning in
Speaker 2: the sense that apologists mean.
Speaker 3: Writing in the esteemed science journal Nature Astrophysicists, Sir Arthur
Speaker 3: Eddington said of the idea philosophically, the notion of a
Speaker 3: beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me.
Speaker 2: And he's one of the guys who made some key
Speaker 2: observation that demonstrated not just the theory of relativity, but
Speaker 2: the Big Bang as well. Also, he was a devout
Speaker 2: Quaker who most definitely believed in God, So your use
Speaker 2: of him to support the idea that scientists willingly refuse
Speaker 2: to see God in nature is entirely laughable.
Speaker 3: And astronomer and cosmologists friends. Hoile mocked the idea of
Speaker 3: a beginning to the universe, saying that the idea of
Speaker 3: a big Bang was quote a form of religious fundamentalism.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'll give you a Hoile for this point. As
Speaker 2: far as I can tell, he went to his grave
Speaker 2: in two thousand and one without ever accepting the Big
Speaker 2: Bang theory, and much of his rhetoric regarding the Big
Speaker 2: Bang revolved around the idea that too many scientists were
Speaker 2: being influenced by their religious beliefs and so accepted the
Speaker 2: theory that most closely matched up with the Bible, rather
Speaker 2: than looking at the data. And well, I am happy
Speaker 2: to disagree with that point. When you look at the
Speaker 2: characters involved in the development of the Big Bang theory,
Speaker 2: it's a bunch of developed religious scientists. So I can
Speaker 2: see how he got that initial impression, but how he
Speaker 2: held on to that idea past the turn of the
Speaker 2: millennium is a bit of a mystery to me.
Speaker 3: Why they were all unnerved is perhaps best summed up
Speaker 3: in a statement by famous physicist Stephen Hawking. As New
Speaker 3: Scientist magazine reported in twenty eleven, he noted a point
Speaker 3: of creation would be a place where science broke down,
Speaker 3: one would have to appeal to religion and the hand
Speaker 3: of God.
Speaker 2: Before getting into this quote, I'd just like to point
Speaker 2: out a bit of dishonest trickery on their part. You see,
Speaker 2: when we look at the screenshot they're showing, we see
Speaker 2: the title of the article, the author, and when it
Speaker 2: was written. But when I went to that article, there
Speaker 2: seems to be a rather worthy subtitle that they have
Speaker 2: omitted from their images, which reads, the Big Bang may
Speaker 2: not have been the beginning of everything, but new calculations
Speaker 2: suggests we still need a cosmic starter.
Speaker 1: Gun.
Speaker 2: Guess we couldn't have the fact that the Big Bang
Speaker 2: is not, in fact the beginning of the universe being
Speaker 2: pointed out in a video that relies so heavily on
Speaker 2: the misconception that it is. Back to the quote, I
Speaker 2: wasted ten dollars to access the article to find that
Speaker 2: they had just pulled it completely out of context from
Speaker 2: a pre recorded speech that he gave out a symposium
Speaker 2: in twenty twelve. In context, he is not saying that
Speaker 2: that is his opinion. In fact, it's not even the
Speaker 2: beginning of a sentence. So let's read the full quote.
Speaker 2: The big question in cosmology in the early sixties was
Speaker 2: did the universe have a beginning? Many scientists were instinctively
Speaker 2: opposed to the idea because they felt that a point
Speaker 2: of creation would be a place where science broke down.
Speaker 2: One would have to appeal to religion and the hand
Speaker 2: of God to determine how the universe would start off.
Speaker 2: So he was not, in fact saying that a beginning
Speaker 2: automatically means God. He was saying that some scientists were
Speaker 2: of that opinion in the nineteen sixties. I think it's
Speaker 2: safe to say, given that the high point in his
Speaker 2: career was explaining the beginning of the universe without appealing
Speaker 2: to God or religion, that he did not actually hold
Speaker 2: that opinion himself.
Speaker 3: As prominent physicist Alexander Blincoln wrote in two thousand and seven,
Speaker 3: with the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer
Speaker 3: hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There
Speaker 3: is no escape. They have to face the problem of
Speaker 3: a cosmic beginning.
Speaker 2: And if we read slightly past that quote, to the
Speaker 2: bottom of the page that it's on, we find a
Speaker 2: section of the chapter called a proof of God question mark.
Speaker 2: And if you'll allow me to read a somewhat lengthy
Speaker 2: passage from this book, which you will, because this is
Speaker 2: a video, you don't control me. The final paragraphs of
Speaker 2: that section say, quote, so what do we make of
Speaker 2: a roof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a
Speaker 2: proof of the existence of God? This would be far
Speaker 2: too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of
Speaker 2: the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes.
Speaker 2: In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my
Speaker 2: colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the
Speaker 2: theologian over the scientist. Also, the scientist might have been
Speaker 2: too rash to admit that the cosmic beginning cannot be
Speaker 2: described in purely scientific terms. True, it is hard to
Speaker 2: see how this can be done. But things that seem
Speaker 2: to be impossible often to reflect only the limitations of
Speaker 2: our imagination.
Speaker 3: Why would so many scientists consider that a problem?
Speaker 2: Because a scientist's job is to solve problems by figuring
Speaker 2: out how it works. So the origin of the universe
Speaker 2: is a problem that needs solving, and ain't nobody going
Speaker 2: to solve it by saying God did it? Just as
Speaker 2: soon as the math starts getting complicated.
Speaker 3: Well, think about it. If the universe had a beginning,
Speaker 3: then what caused that beginning? After all, science is very
Speaker 3: much the study of cause and effect.
Speaker 2: I guess. But the issue here is that y'all are
Speaker 2: using the fact that we don't actually have a solid
Speaker 2: answer to this question in order to shove God and
Speaker 2: is the answer? But the Christian God did it? Isn't
Speaker 2: any better of an answer than gay Unicorn, Gary did
Speaker 2: it and the real answer we don't know for sure,
Speaker 2: but the smart people are working on It. May be
Speaker 2: unsatisfying for some people, but that doesn't mean that plugging
Speaker 2: that gap in our knowledge with God is warranted at
Speaker 2: this time.
Speaker 3: But we can't go further. What makes science and a
Speaker 3: study of this vast universe possible not just the fact
Speaker 3: that the universe exists, but that it is a law
Speaker 3: abiding and orderly universe.
Speaker 2: Science is the process of learning about and describing how
Speaker 2: the universe works. If the universe worked differently, than science
Speaker 2: would learn about this different universe, potentially in a different way,
Speaker 2: depending on what those differences are. The fact that we
Speaker 2: are capable of learning about and describing the universe does
Speaker 2: not point to a God enforcing a learned, boutedness onto
Speaker 2: the universe, and this actually kind of flies in the
Speaker 2: face of his earlier point about using the origin of
Speaker 2: the universe as proof of God. If God is required
Speaker 2: in order to make the universe behave in accordance with
Speaker 2: the laws of physics and whatnot, than not having a
Speaker 2: God means that you can expect, like entire universes to
Speaker 2: just pop into existence for no apparent reason. You even
Speaker 2: expect some of those universes to just through sheer random chance,
Speaker 2: to have constraints like the laws of physics on them.
Speaker 2: But in truth, the answer to the question of why
Speaker 2: the universe has the laws of physics that it does
Speaker 2: is once again, we don't know, so at best. Here
Speaker 2: we've once again got you trying desperately to stuff God
Speaker 2: into a knowledge gap.
Speaker 3: Calling the beginning of the universe the Big Bang gives
Speaker 3: the wrong impression that it was like an explosion of
Speaker 3: randomness and chaos. But nothing could be further from the truth.
Speaker 3: Just consider the collection of mathematical equations and laws that
Speaker 3: ensure all things in creation run in an orderly structured way.
Speaker 2: You've got it backward. We developed mathematical equations and laws
Speaker 2: to describe how we observe things running. Math does not
Speaker 2: constrain the universe.
Speaker 3: It just describes it, such as Newton's laws of motion, swells,
Speaker 3: equations concerning light and electromagnetism, the Einstein field equations, the
Speaker 3: Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Speaker 2: Okay, he goes on for a while just listing a
Speaker 2: bunch of math stuff. I will skip it because it's boring,
Speaker 2: but I did want to point out that they are
Speaker 2: aware of Einstein's field equations and presumably also believe that
Speaker 2: they work as an accurate description of housepace, time, and
Speaker 2: matter work. Well. Those equations were the ones from which
Speaker 2: the Friedman equations were derived, which describe the development of
Speaker 2: the universe from the Big Bang onward and gives us
Speaker 2: a calculated age of the universe of thirteen point eight
Speaker 2: billion years. So we are once again at a place
Speaker 2: where people who believe that the entire universe is only
Speaker 2: about six thousand years old are using the same math
Speaker 2: that shows it to be billions of years old in
Speaker 2: order to support the idea that it was made by
Speaker 2: a creator who liked orderly things. But here's the real
Speaker 2: problem with this line of argument. If there were no God,
Speaker 2: in what sort of universe would we expect to find life, Well,
Speaker 2: only in the kind of universe that is capable of
Speaker 2: sustaining life. But if there were a God, then in
Speaker 2: what sort of universe would we expect to find life?
Speaker 2: Any sort. He's God. He can sustain life in any universe,
Speaker 2: even one that is completely inhospitable to any life. And
Speaker 2: if this God just happens to be the kind of
Speaker 2: God who's interested in people actually believing that he exists.
Speaker 2: It seems to me that creating a universe that, by
Speaker 2: all appearances is completely incapable of sustaining life in any way,
Speaker 2: shape or form, but then having life existing within that
Speaker 2: universe would be more likely than one whose physical laws
Speaker 2: would allow for the natural development of life without a
Speaker 2: god's intervention.
Speaker 3: And yet the order and structure go further. While there
Speaker 3: are still mysteries we don't fully understand, such as theoretical
Speaker 3: dark matter and dark energy, the standard model of modern
Speaker 3: physics tells us that everything we see in the universe
Speaker 3: is built out of only seventeen basic building blocks twelve
Speaker 3: basic particles of matter, four force carrying particles, and one
Speaker 3: particle giving the other's mass. Imagine all the vast variety
Speaker 3: we see here on Earth, let alone throughout the cosmos,
Speaker 3: all built from a construction set of only seventeen basic, invisible,
Speaker 3: law abiding particles.
Speaker 2: Okay, once again, you are making a point that is
Speaker 2: the opposite of the one that you're trying to make.
Speaker 2: Assuming that he's describing quantum physics correctly, which is an
Speaker 2: assumption that strains credulity. What He's saying is that everything
Speaker 2: in the universe ultimately has its basis in some very
Speaker 2: simple stuff that doesn't require an intelligent designer to explain
Speaker 2: all the complexity. Last week, Greg Cochal and Amy Hall
Speaker 2: had me nearly sold on Hinduism with their attempt to
Speaker 2: explain why Christianity deserves more consideration than other religions. This week,
Speaker 2: this guy whose name I forget even though they showed
Speaker 2: it in a chiron every ten seconds or so, is
Speaker 2: selling me on atheism. Apologists really suck at their jobs,
Speaker 2: don't they. On an unrelated note, when the Higgs boson
Speaker 2: was first observed in twenty twelve, Chris Halbeck put out
Speaker 2: this one panel comic of the Huggs Bison. It is
Speaker 2: stupid and dumb, and I love it. I would die
Speaker 2: for you, Huggs Bison.
Speaker 3: And yet the order goes even deeper because the universe
Speaker 3: is more than order and law abiding. The laws exhibit
Speaker 3: extreme fine tuning to make complex life like ours possible.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so again we find life in the universe that
Speaker 2: would be capable of sustaining life with or without a
Speaker 2: God's intervention. And this is somehow better proof for God
Speaker 2: than if we existed in a universe that clearly was
Speaker 2: incapable of sustaining life without supernatural help. Aren't miracles supposed
Speaker 2: to be within God's skill set? How is a non
Speaker 2: miraculous thing like stuff existing where it's possible for that
Speaker 2: stuff to exist supposed to prove God? And at this
Speaker 2: point he just lists a bunch of cosmological constants and properties.
Speaker 2: It comes across very much as a look at how
Speaker 2: in his science words, I can say that means that
Speaker 2: I am smart, so you can trust me. And it's
Speaker 2: boring to boot, so skip it. I shall not sure
Speaker 2: why I wrote that last line, like that intellectual life
Speaker 2: sound when speak like Yoda.
Speaker 3: I do all of these factors and more required values
Speaker 3: so precise that if some of them were off by
Speaker 3: only a fraction of a percent, stars could not form,
Speaker 3: the universe could not expand, and human life could not exist.
Speaker 2: I always love it when the anti evolution apologists use
Speaker 2: this argument, because the whole thing is predicated around the
Speaker 2: formation of stars. We need stars to produce elements heavier
Speaker 2: than beryllium and provide a source of energy that can
Speaker 2: be used on a nearby planet, and the chemical reactions
Speaker 2: that eventually develop into life, which eventually evolves into us.
Speaker 2: None of that is necessary if you don't think evolution happened.
Speaker 2: God just poofed us all into existence from nothing, So
Speaker 2: why would it matter whether or not stars in the
Speaker 2: early universe were making elements that life could use as
Speaker 2: it developed billions of years later. At best, this is
Speaker 2: an argument for theistic evolution, But even when used that way,
Speaker 2: it once again boils down to we don't know how
Speaker 2: this happened, so it must have been magic. So color
Speaker 2: me unimpressed.
Speaker 3: As Stephen Hawking put it in his groundbreaking book A
Speaker 3: Brief History of Time, the remarkable fact is that the
Speaker 3: values of these numbers seem to have been very finely
Speaker 3: adjusted to make possible the development of life.
Speaker 2: The preceding sentence to that one was quote, it is
Speaker 2: also possible that some or all of them vary from
Speaker 2: universe to universe, or within a single universe. Even earlier
Speaker 2: in that chapter, he says quote, these laws may have
Speaker 2: been originally decreed by God, but it appears that he
Speaker 2: has since left the universe too evolve according to them,
Speaker 2: and does not now intervene in it. So not only
Speaker 2: was Hawking not convinced that a god was necessary, a
Speaker 2: good chunk of this chapter is him juxtaposing the God
Speaker 2: hypothesis with both the weak and strong anthropic principle. But
Speaker 2: even if you land on the God side, you're once
Speaker 2: again left with a God who just got things going
Speaker 2: and then sat back and watched evolution take its course.
Speaker 3: Now, let's look at another passage written by King David
Speaker 3: that takes us in a completely different direction in our
Speaker 3: hunt for God's fingerprints. In Psalm one hundred and thirty
Speaker 3: nine and verse fourteen, we read, I will praise you
Speaker 3: for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Marvelous are your works,
Speaker 3: and that my soul knows very well.
Speaker 2: Prediction time we are about to enter the wow. Biology
Speaker 2: is complicated, therefore it must have been God portion of
Speaker 2: the program.
Speaker 3: Life itself carries the fingerprints of God. Consider, for instance,
Speaker 3: the smallest unit of life, the cell. As biologists have
Speaker 3: learned to peer into the microscopic world of the living cell,
Speaker 3: they have discovered an absolutely amazing world, so intelligently structured
Speaker 3: in its vast array of inner workings and mechanisms that
Speaker 3: it puts to shame every piece of human technology ever invented.
Speaker 2: And there you have it. Biology be complicated must have
Speaker 2: been God.
Speaker 3: Richard Dawkins stated in his landmark book The Blind Watchmaker
Speaker 3: that there is enough information capacity in a single human
Speaker 3: cell to store the Encyclopedia Britannica all thirty volumes of it,
Speaker 3: three or four times over.
Speaker 2: I know quote mining is a creation of staple, but
Speaker 2: in this case, the title of the book itself makes
Speaker 2: it rather obvious that the entire point of the book
Speaker 2: is explaining how this stuff could have come about without
Speaker 2: having to be designed by God. So far, this whole
Speaker 2: video has just been an exercise and cherry picking. When
Speaker 2: I think the science works for my case, I will
Speaker 2: use it. But during the rest of the book, where
Speaker 2: it contradicts my case, I can just ignore all of that.
Speaker 3: Wow, DNA and proteins and other molecular apparatus that process, duplicate, repair,
Speaker 3: and maintain it represent nanotechnology of nearly unimaginable complexity. And
Speaker 3: wonder that for all of our efforts, we have yet
Speaker 3: been able to create ourselves.
Speaker 2: I'm at a level with you here. I hate molecular biology.
Speaker 2: It bores me to tears. So rather than dealing with
Speaker 2: this exactly now, I will instead link to an older
Speaker 2: video of mine where I had a similar dislike of
Speaker 2: molecular biology and so roped friend of the Channel and
Speaker 2: now officially published scientist Jackson Wheat into handling the evolution
Speaker 2: of the bacterial flagellum. Well, this guy didn't specifically bring
Speaker 2: up the flagellum. The same principle applies here. The flagellum
Speaker 2: is a molecular machine whose evolution is well understood, and
Speaker 2: simpler forms of the flagellum have different uses in biology,
Speaker 2: showing that irreducible complexity doesn't really apply here. Pick any
Speaker 2: molecular machine in any modern cell, and I can guarantee
Speaker 2: you there will be a plethora of research into the
Speaker 2: evolution of that particular machine. This is one of the
Speaker 2: main problems of creationism. If you learn just a little
Speaker 2: tiny bit about some scientific topic, then it becomes relatively
Speaker 2: easy to use big words to say, look, how complicated
Speaker 2: this it is. It must have been God. But if
Speaker 2: you learn more than just that little tiny bit about
Speaker 2: the same topic, then you immediately start learning about all
Speaker 2: the non God explanations for how all this complicated happens.
Speaker 3: In a paper published in twenty twelve, prominent molecular geneticist
Speaker 3: George Church said plainly, DNA is among the most dense
Speaker 3: and stable information media known. Less than a year later,
Speaker 3: the journal Nature reported that a team of scientists demonstrated
Speaker 3: this capacity in DNA by encoding all one hundred and
Speaker 3: fifty four of Shakespeare's sonnets. The original scientific paper by
Speaker 3: Francis Crick and James Watson, about the structure of DNA,
Speaker 3: a color photograph of the European Bioinformatics Institute in England,
Speaker 3: and an audio excerpt of Martin Luther King's famous I
Speaker 3: have a dream speech, all of it in a tiny
Speaker 3: bit of DNA.
Speaker 2: Okay, storing data in DNA is really really cool, But
Speaker 2: I don't see how this is relevant to the question
Speaker 2: of whether or not there is a designer. All DNA
Speaker 2: data storage is really doing is converting the binary code
Speaker 2: for all of the things that he was talking about
Speaker 2: from ones and zeros to ac'sg's and t's. Because there
Speaker 2: are four bases, there is an automatic increase in storage density.
Speaker 2: But you could store the same information in rocks. If
Speaker 2: you really wanted to just line up the rocks and
Speaker 2: have one rock represent to zero and two rocks represent
Speaker 2: a one, your storage density would decrease by a very
Speaker 2: large margin, but all the same data could hypothetically be there. Hell,
Speaker 2: you can store data in an audio waveform using this method.
Speaker 2: Musician turn hacker Ben Jordan once stored an image of
Speaker 2: a bird on a bird. The DNA isn't what's making
Speaker 2: this information useful. It's still the computers that can turn
Speaker 2: the data into pixels on a screen. And would you
Speaker 2: like to know what else? If the DNA being used
Speaker 2: to store data had the same level of organization as
Speaker 2: the DNA in our bodies, it would be nearly useless.
Speaker 2: The ones and zeros to play the MP three of
Speaker 2: the I Have a Dream speech wouldn't be much use.
Speaker 2: If they were jumbled up in a random order, which
Speaker 2: is largely what you find in naturally occurring DNA, it
Speaker 2: would take a lot of extra effort to parse out
Speaker 2: the correct order, rendering the DNA functionally useless as a
Speaker 2: storage medium in the process. Like just as an example,
Speaker 2: I'm sure many of you have heard that the main
Speaker 2: thing that causes males to develop male anatomy is the
Speaker 2: sroy gene on the Y chromosome. Male embryos have a
Speaker 2: Y chromosome, so the Sroy gene tells the body to
Speaker 2: develop male anatomy. And if you haven't heard that, now
Speaker 2: you have. That is the very common, oversimplified picture of
Speaker 2: how sex determination happens. But how exactly does the sroy
Speaker 2: gene make you male? Well, it does that by producing
Speaker 2: a protein that stops a gene found on the X chromosome,
Speaker 2: Nr zero b one from making its protein, which would
Speaker 2: then stop the SOCKS nine gene on chromosome seventeen from
Speaker 2: making testes. Did you follow all of that. SOXS nine
Speaker 2: is a gene on chromosome seventeen which everyone has, which,
Speaker 2: when expressed, will cause an embryo to develop testes. Female
Speaker 2: anatomy happens when the Nr zero b one gene makes
Speaker 2: a protein that binds to the soxs and nine gene,
Speaker 2: preventing it from being expressed. So male anatomy happens when
Speaker 2: the sroy gene stops the NR zero b one gene
Speaker 2: from stopping the SOXX nine gene from making male anatomy.
Speaker 2: And even this is an oversimplified picture. My point in
Speaker 2: bringing it up is one of organization. If our genome
Speaker 2: was intelligently designed, why is everything about it a disorganized
Speaker 2: pile of hot garbage?
Speaker 3: The complexity of the cellular machinery and the information bearing
Speaker 3: capabilities of DNA should be seen as fingerprints pointing to
Speaker 3: the presence of a great design or behind them.
Speaker 2: Well, unfortunately for you, one of the hallmarks of great
Speaker 2: design is that something is no more complex than it
Speaker 2: needs to be in order to do its job. So
Speaker 2: you consistently harping on about how complex everything is is
Speaker 2: once again working against you.
Speaker 3: Yet most scientists continue to look away from the obvious
Speaker 3: conclusions of the evidence, no matter how much work they
Speaker 3: must do to convince themselves that the obvious isn't obvious.
Speaker 2: If the conclusions were obvious, then I'm sorry, but the
Speaker 2: scientists would agree with them. But unfortunately for you, these
Speaker 2: conclusions are only obvious if you have a superficial understanding
Speaker 2: of these topics. As soon as you start studying them
Speaker 2: in any amount of depth, creationism becomes untenable. The rest
Speaker 2: of the video is him preaching, So we're done here.
Speaker 2: I guess the fringe cult has the exact same talking
Speaker 2: points as the mainstream guys. Weird that you can arrive
Speaker 2: at such radically different views of God from the same evidence.
Speaker 2: I wonder why science doesn't work that way. Today's comment
Speaker 2: to the day. It comes to us from Bobby Friston,
Speaker 2: who says atheism is when thought convinces itself that it
Speaker 2: has searched every nook and cranny for God. God is
Speaker 2: when thought understands itself to be the impediment. Well, Bobby,
Speaker 2: I don't think I've searched every nook and cranny for God.
Speaker 2: I just haven't seen any indication that God exists and
Speaker 2: apologies keep failing at showing me the knooks and crannies
Speaker 2: that they superdue or promise that He's hiding in. But
Speaker 2: thanks for acknowledging that the best way to believe in
Speaker 2: God is to stop thinking. Thanks for watching. I'll be
Speaker 2: back next Friday with more, but if you need to
Speaker 2: get your rhino fixed in before then, I live stream
Speaker 2: with service every Wednesday eight thirty Eastern on my other channel,
Speaker 2: The Watering Hole. Thanks to Piper for being my editor
Speaker 2: and special thanks as always do my patrons, who are
Speaker 2: the image of a bird that is stored on the
Speaker 2: bird that is my channel. If you'd like to be
Speaker 2: one of the weirdest data storage situations I've ever heard of,
Speaker 2: you can join us on Patreon for as little as
Speaker 2: a dollar per week over at Patreon dot com, slash
Speaker 2: vice Rhino, or by supporting the channel in one of
Speaker 2: the other methods can be gone at link stab viceround
Speaker 2: dot com, which is also where you find links of
Speaker 2: my other projects. If for whatever reason want to send
Speaker 2: me stuff my po box addresses in the description see
Speaker 2: and next time. It just started raining really hard and
Speaker 2: I'm not sure if that's going to get picked up
Speaker 2: by the microphone, but whatever, I can't control the weather yet.
Speaker 2: M