Proof of Inteligent Design That Destroys Atheism | Victor - Brooklyn, NY | Talk Heathen 02.07

you have I have in the note that you have proof of intelligent design oh yeah yeah yes right the you have proof you can destroy a phone hit us what is your proof for intelligent design is quite two really big proofs that where an intelligently designed universe and we're not just this big cosmic explosion accidents no hold on well Victor I'm stopping you there that's a false dichotomy I don't like the word accident no no no no no you're presenting a false dichotomy right just present your case don't try and present the other side's case it doesn't work that way go ahead right so I would say that uh DNA right so what is your definition of a code right so my definition of a code is something like like the alphabet right where you have a series of characters each character means something and then when you combine those characters in a certain way it makes a message right yes randomly well actually here's here's my piece on that and I do want to make sure that we're on the same page going into this or else we're gonna I can see a stumbling block coming so would you agree that each of those characters in the alphabet is something that we assign meaning to right they don't have intrinsic meaning on their own right right like if we were to get the alphabet and show it to an alien they'd be like that's a thing but it would be like it would not have the meaning that we put by an alphabet the sounds and you know when you put them together the words that they create we completely create that right right okay thank you go ahead sorry hope that in order to get past the alphabet right and like like ladies like you said like we need to assign meaning to the characters and then assign meaning to the combination of the characters in order for them to mean anything otherwise they're meaningless right right but now when you're doing that so when you're doing that you are you are the intelligence agents right that's making this cold you're making the characters you're creating the characters what they're supposed to look like you're making the URIs finding meaning to these words so that another intelligent agent can decide for them that's really a code well that's all very cold so can i okay can I ask you a clarifying question so if I were to leave Austin Texas today move out into the mountains grow out a beard never meet another person again and write my manifesto would that also be B fall within that subcategory if I write something that nobody's ever gonna read does that still have meaning well it has meaning it has it what it what it is is that you are still an intelligent agent have made that thing that you wrote like you read it right you read it and you can decipher that you can tell what's on paper by you writing it right all the ways you're not gonna know what you're writing true okay go ahead I dreamy are you good with that so far well I would just say no sorry that that's not a language it's a series of patterns and we understand the effect of them a language communicates words detach from it it's very much like saying because there is ink on a page that's a language no no look at that all the time no no I I understand the argument you're making and I'm attempting to put it in context if I break a rock in half I can look at one half of the rock and the bumps in it and that will communicate to me what the other side of the rock looks like did I just write myself a message but you broke the rock in half yeah I broke the rock but it's a bullet for example I make a concrete sphere and I break it perfectly in half and I look at one side of the concrete sphere and by looking at the bumps and the texture of that side I can draw conclusions about the other side the other inner broken jaggedy side of that concrete sphere right well unless you seen yourself broke it you would have no idea what the other side of the rock looks like well yeah okay so if I'm holding half a sphere and a bump on the side that is broken could I examine the broken side of one half and draw conclusions that okay well on this side there's a jagged e out part and on this side there's a jagged e in part so because I know there's another half I know that on the other half there's a jagged e in part and a jagged e out part does that make sense or if I at least the idea as I'm trying to communicate it okay is a jagged e out part and a jagged e in part a code that is a language no because it's not a sequence of characters that you intelligently creative talking about a rock talking about you break yeah we're talking about things that exist as matter I didn't happen right yeah yeah things that exist is matter that's very close to the way that we use DNA to understand things just because we represent them with letters doesn't mean that they are actually letters because they're not actually well it's all it follows as a code they call it the genetic sequence that they call it uh the code of life you know that the genetic code the genetic sequence right they use this words and I call DNA a unicorn does that Unicorn obituary they just they just it's all arbitrary they just use that word you know just know there's not the reason why they use that word it's because it's a code it's because it's easily understandable and it's right Russell they speak with the characters and and a cult can only come from an intelligence source it's represented by a sequence of characters it's a sequence of chemicals yeah actively so so actually I I gotta stop you there just because something is recognizable doesn't mean that it's made by intelligence right so we can recognize that the Sun goes up every single day and we can track that that doesn't mean that someone created the Sun right like our ability to assign meaning to things and be able to translate them into things other you know to understand them that doesn't mean that those things are necessarily intelligent or have had Intel adjust means that we're able to describe them right in the same way that letters have no meaning until we assign them letters or assign the meaning and we because I feel like you're going with DNA is a code written by God is that where you're going well if they're calling it a code and the fundamental nature of a code is it's something that is made by an intelligent source right you can't write a book right we're going to write a book you're basically writing code yeah onto paper language isn't DNA is not a language language well it's a complex acid that we wanted to know about so we assigned characters to be able to describe the different components of that acid so that we can better be able to understand it yeah we created meaning to describe that thing it did not have that before we describe like that that's like us describing gravity gravity was there that's fantastic and we didn't know about it we didn't have to know about it gravity is gravity but when we assigned you know the the words in the description we created the theory that describes gravity that's not when it started that just is when we began to learn more about it right does that make sense we dohe didn't change from a planet to a dwarf planet because the physical attributes of Pluto changed the way that we describe it changed yeah so sorry what which right where where all the Charlie putting characters through these acids right so that we can even try to attack the language of DNA right a lay-oh DNA does not have language but DNA is not a language na doesn't is not language we don't we're not trying to understand the language of salt but we call it sodium nitrate which is a series of characters that describe it you eat so I II thought iam chloride I don't know about you Jay here yep that's sodium chloride holy maybe that's why you wear the same thing you've been eating sodium nitrate I think I would be dead if I ate some high tree okay sorry we're talking over you yeah do you get the point that we're trying to make or or I don't want to retread it over and over if you're all the Charlie pretty characters on these acids and and just because the author Charlie put them on it doesn't mean that it's a coach well no no well that's why there's a difference between code and language right so language is I tell Jamie I want to go get sub after the show yeah and we could drive out and go get a sandwich right do you want to get a sandwich I'm super down to get us how much after the trap we'll do that um but I I could not use that I I could not do that in acid right and if I did then that would still be arbitrary well another that's a terrible medium to try to do that in right absolutely it media yeah so I when you call the complex parts of deoxyribonucleic acid a language I don't think of that as a language the way I think of the way we're talking to each other or the way that Jamie and I are talking about going and getting a sandwich after the show I didn't I didn't say like it's a cold okay I heard you say language I just wanted to make sure if it's a sequence a secret implies design its secrets inquires intentional placement while putting things in a certain way so that they can behave a certain way so right it's a secret okay so just to clarify when you say sequence you don't just mean like a thing that follows another thing right because there's a sequence that a rock rolls down a hill I'm just I'm just assuming that that's not what you mean when you're saying sequence that's like a collagen effect yeah so when you say a sequence you mean something like oh there's a gear and it pushes another gear that's hit by a spring like that kind of sequence of thing well where's it come from then no no I'm just saying that you're intelligently designed right yeah that's an example of a sequence of events that we know is designed because we know watches oh yeah and and and we really don't want to start getting in a habit of assigning yeah and we contrasted when things like DNA because DNA is not yeah yes we can't even possibly comprehend the complexity of DNA and we call like the last week or unit let me draw a conclusion about its origins and I'm pretty sure people won the Nobel Prize for that actually for a sequencing yeah we've sequenced the human genome yeah we actually you can buy a pretty cheap carries this is sort of concerning the jardin the amazing all the junk DNA they call it junk to nota because they personally don't know what it does so we call it junk DNA so they do recognize that there are pieces in DNA it it's a long breath let me just throw a reference here sorry I don't want to throw this out here but there's an entire collection of responses to these common arguments but it's long been known that some non-coding DNA has important functions this was well known even before the phrase junk DNA was coined however there is good evidence that much DNA has no function and the amazingness about that is just wouldn't you in background yeah I mean when I look at that information my first thought is yeah that does sync with my idea of evolution slowly leading us to where we're at that there gonna be a whole bunch of pieces in our DNA that we're really useful and express themselves at some point but because we are where we are they're just not there anymore they don't use this document to the fou-fou refute evolution also but the junk DNA ya know you're now with the natural process that inefficient it doesn't matter it's actually a little a 9 by what we're saying yeah I mean the fact that I like a hen deck oh it is a good example yeah so you're saying that the junk DNA has no function would you be willing to have a child and that that child be produced without all of that junk DNA and then you you think that that kids going to be healthy but would you be willing to do that I personally think that cloning people is unethical until I know more about it well it's just kind of hypothetically like like if you're saying that junk DNA has no function and useless and would you be willing to have a child you know somehow we would have some way just remove all of the junk DNA out of an entire like embryo and then just have a child like that like we only willing a child waste the time and resources that would be required to do that when it could be spent by those people with us you know I'm giving you an answer actually so the answer is no that's this is answer the answer you oh no that that is a that is an actual answer that we can have and because of a choice that I would make there for something that can be understood about fundamental nature of existence I've been on if you're gonna say that it's useless and is no useful return urgent you should be okay with being like all right yeah you know there's no point for it so whatever well so I don't I don't I'm not saying that there's no point for it I'm talking over here today you dude remarried so here's the here's the gist response to the last thing that you said if like oh if you actually believe if you believe that junk DNA has no purpose then I should be willing to allow you know my child to be born without it right I all right what that appears to be an argument that I don't actually hold the belief that junk DNA doesn't have a noticeable effect and not an argument about what the actual function if any there is of junk DNA so are we talking about me and my motivations and what I think are we talking about existence as it can be observed I'm talking about if you're gonna show me to make a claim and say that junk DNA is no purpose and it's useless then you might as well just have human beings running around without junk DNA oh let's actually be super clear he will be better at what we do is we're laypeople of junk DNA then whether it's there or not it has no effect yeah let's let's be super clear what we're where we're at is we're evaluating evidence and we're trying to come with the best conclusions that we can based upon that evidence with that we have not added to it and so we are not positively you know saying this is it because that would be I'm doing my best to report the findings young people who have dedicated their entire lives to using the most reliable system for understanding things that we've developed to understand DNA I am NOT a geneticists geneticist study this this is my understanding of the conclusions that they found and if this is the this is the argument that you want to have Victor if you want to say you're purporting this so blank that is a conversation you need to have with a professional with a geneticist right because that that what we're doing is we're just spitballing and we're not really getting any closer to the truth I mean we the hyper Douglas situation that are out there you know yeah I think we're a little off in the weeds all of us together so what I would like it so the whole junk DNA thing like you could also use that to refute some of the claims made by evolution also because what they do is when they say Oh 98% of our DNA is matched with the chimpanzee right over there what they're also doing is they're including the junk DNA also they're excluding the junk DNA and they're only including the DNA that we know has a function right so when you're excluding your 85% of the DNA that we don't even notice how the function also does have a function that's a pretty wild claim right like that's like a really bad way to decipher to know that we're so similar to chimpanzees if you're throwing out you know 80% of it so only comparing the stuff that that's similar I have only my pairing the story that affects the way an organism develops seems like yeah intuitive way to do that however again I'm not a geneticist yes you geneticists have an answer to this question as a geneticist and asked this question is there a recognition that there people with specific knowledge in this field that would be equipped to explain this well yeah no I'm just saying that's exactly what that's exactly what the evolutionists didn't but you know what's a claim that our DNA is so close to chimpanzees they excluded all of the junk DNA because they can't they don't know what it does and they can't assign a function to it so they just threw it out right junk DNA they just they don't salute it so Viktor I feel really included old idea and I'm absolutely sure that number would have more down dramatically D are you a geneticist so are you actually saying this because you know or are you talking out of your ass vector well no because that's exactly what they did that's the claim that they made no no he's saying about your conclusion that that number would have gone down dramatically yeah because I'm not really go there I would be talking with anybody Yeah right and I just want to make sure that you're not talking out of your ass no part a we're pretty wild to assume that all of the you know the however I don't know the exact amount of junk DNA that's in us but I'm pretty sure it's a very large amount so it's pretty wild to assume that all of that DNA would also match our DNA with you know the smaller percentage of the DNA that we do know has a function so even if that was true because I don't know definitely gonna be some DNA that doesn't match I had gonna bring the number down what if it matches and doesn't match in the same proportion and what if we don't know and that's okay not to know I mean wouldn't be no don't take that what you know wouldn't be intellectually honest thing it would be do it would be to say that you don't know right wouldn't that be the intellectually on is going to do I love I don't know you don't know I love saying I don't know okay the why do you keep going on with VAE and they want you to think this and they want you to do that because this is what they're telling us who the is they the day of the day the okay figure out who they are and then call us back okay Victor and was this the topic that we had yes this weight to be clear is this how you were gonna destroy atheism as it said in the comments that you were gonna destroy atheism is that I mean I realize that's a night like that's an expression yeah but but is is that what you were calling it about today I could go on for days yeah you don't me yeah I do figure out who they are and show us that you can prove who they are and we'll talk again alright also really quickly drop you have you reached out to us outside of calling us on the show you made that you guys you need mail me but it oh did you leave it email with the call screener that bet you're right that's probably yeah you did yeah and that's our fault yeah I think that's on us actually can we pop you on hold to make sure I didn't lose that yes as I'm super organizing professionals sorry about that Victor hey I meant to email you but we got a little bit people doing we could be on the base days you the American it is conveyed yeah I'm so allow me to apologize for saying I was gonna email you and not emailing you and and all of this that's that's my dad I do find the source of the day and then we find out that they said that they compared only the DNA that we know has a function then what then then I would do the best assuming it's about reliable information I would say yes that's what they did know what I would love to do is be able to vet that source before we talk well we're not talking out of our right so if you sent it to us and then we were able to be able to talk about it as people who've looked into it that'd be nice I mean I'd also like to talk to a geneticist that might explain why that happened or why they did that that would be included in the time we took to vet the source okay well you can go be a veterinarian we're gonna figure out what physics vector you take care of man it's good talking to you all right well I put it yeah on on hold yeah he's a okay

Channel: Talk Heathen

Views: 232,863

Rating: 4.2955742 out of 5

Keywords: atheist, atheism, atheist vs christian, atheist debate, religion debate, atheism debate, belief, faith, reason, rational, proof, evidence, logic, fallacy, religion, religious, science, secular, Skepticism, skeptic, questioning god, doubt, is god real, agnostic, agnosticism, evidence for god, Christianity, Islam, morality, evidence for jesus, Jesus, Jesus Christ, debate, Bible, Bible contradictions

Id: j5mD7EAOpyI

Length: 20min 28sec (1228 seconds)

Published: Fri Mar 09 2018