There’s a simpler question to ask, beyond what have you designed that compares to life. The real question is “Do you know all of the design tradeoffs that had to be balanced to produce X?” I think people can critique a good or a bad design IF they know what the tradeoffs and objectives actually were. If I know that the Tacoma Narrows bridge was intended to support the weight of automobiles and last for 100 years in all weather conditions, I can conclude it failed to meet those design constraints. Even if I had never designed a bridge myself. But, without knowing what the design goals and constraints were, no one can offer a cogent critique of any design. A 747 is an absolutely terrible design....for a fighter jet. An F21 is a terrible design...for a passenger or cargo-carrying airplane. Before anyone can critique any design, one has to know the specific design goals and the tradeoffs that had to be made.

@johncastino2730

2 жыл бұрын

Excellent Robert!

@matthewmcarthur8748

2 жыл бұрын

Well spoken..

@vahramterzikyan1026

2 жыл бұрын

Are you implying that an all knowing and almighty god was unable to create what he wanted without tradeoffs? Meaning he is limited by things outside of his control?

@silversilk8438

2 жыл бұрын

@@vahramterzikyan1026 God put the limits there. God did things this way by choice including knowing that creation would groan (romans 8) being corrupted by mankind's sin which brought death (Genesis 3). God made finite people on a finite planet in a finite universe, but is not himself finite. Sidenote, fun video: kzread.info/dash/bejne/oouO2qSRlsW6kbA.html

@dougsmith6793

Жыл бұрын

@@vahramterzikyan1026 Dead aim. So God had to make a universe with -- at last count -- 6 trillion galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, and trillions upon trillions of planets, just to find ONE with the right ingredients to create life? Somehow the creationists miss the simple implication of your argument.

Tyson entire argument seems to be “there can’t be a god because he would have done things the way I think they should be done.”

@gatolf2

3 жыл бұрын

And that mindset is a deceptive form of blasphemy.

@MrChiangching

3 жыл бұрын

Tyson never says there can't be a god.

@ronaldmorgan7632

3 жыл бұрын

Most people like Tyson think that we must be perfect if we are designed by something able to design people. If the motive was to design something perfect, it would have been done that way. Some scientists are book smart, but lack common sense.

@demetriusmiddleton1246

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrChiangching do you understand what the word 'paraphrase' means?

@johngeverett

3 жыл бұрын

You nailed it, Tommyboy!

Tyson' problem is that he's in love with his own intellect and only intellectuals could make a case for the nonsense they espouse.

@choosejesus1910

3 жыл бұрын

Yes he has intellect but not wisdom.

@Kman.

3 жыл бұрын

*Jer **9:23* "Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom..."

@les2997

3 жыл бұрын

I'm surprised that as an astronomer Tyson doesn't understand that the Universe had to be large, old, cold and mostly empty. Otherwise, the heavier elements present in his body could not form.

@chrisschutte3604

3 жыл бұрын

@@choosejesus1910 I would argue he has a defective intellect; even worse, probably deliberately so, which makes him an intellectual minor .. certainly no wisdom ..

@timothykeith1367

3 жыл бұрын

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a celebrity scrientist, I wouldn't look too much to what he says. He isn't a serious intellect.

I've done enough programming to know that I could probably spend my entire life studying DNA and never be able to write code anywhere near as cool as a bacterium

@mattmattix2598

2 жыл бұрын

I’m sure Tyson would tell you why you are wrong because reasons lol

@GuyI9000

2 жыл бұрын

I could, given time probably write code as good as a bacterium.... maybe better, but still.... it doesnt deter from the fact that that code is written with sequence, selection, repetition..... not chance.... its made by something/someone

@paulcooper1223

2 жыл бұрын

It's not a computer code.

@harshbarj

2 жыл бұрын

DNA is not code. It's a string of molecules. When you have something that is self correcting change itself over billions of years things happen.

@zedorda1337

2 жыл бұрын

No you have not, because thinking that a base set of 8 makes for a more complicated program than what we have come up with already. Is just plain lying. You fucking fraud.

Only someone who has never built anything, or someone utterly ignorant of the details, would ever believe that details reveal less rather than more evidence for design. I'm an Engineer, and I bet these guys couldn't assemble a sandwich. Complexity goes up exponentially the closer we look at pretty much anything. Furthermore, arguments from bad design pretty much always originate, again, in the biologists utter ignorance and presupposition that if we dont know what it does, what its purpose is or what its used for, that therefore it is either useless or badly designed, and in pretty much every case when further research is done and the true nature of the features are discovered, it further demonstrates design. Tyson is a monumental narcissistic blowhard, a poster child of the kind of corruption and stupidity that occurs with celebrity.

The science has essentially confirmed that something extremely intelligent engineered life. I know so many atheist scientists were hoping to be a sort of god with all of the answers and a lasting legacy among their narcissistic peers, but they'll just have to accept the reality of intelligent design (even on a general level) and GET OVER IT!

This is all i want , an intelligent scientist, tyson makes us scientists look like dogmatic idiots

@voiceinthewild8385

2 жыл бұрын

Most scientists don’t even think. What they know is what they learned from the system. So you could have someone so philosophically stupid but book smart that they come across as a genius.

@nayanmipun6784

2 жыл бұрын

Tyson shouldn't have joined the leftist scientists

Cars are susceptible to flat tyres therefore it's a bad design and therefore NOT designed🥱

@kskdtr

2 жыл бұрын

would you every buy a car that explodes if you stop driving? or a car with, let's say, the engine block right in front of the windshield obstructing the view?

@morroghaiky6580

2 жыл бұрын

There is one problem with this. Nobody claims the designer of the car was omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent, like in case of human body and nature.

@grassCrow

2 жыл бұрын

@@morroghaiky6580 Maybe the designers purpose is to keep selling cars. So a car that never needs replaced would be a bad design for that purpose.

As Bernardo Kastrup says, some of those materialists cheerleaders like Neil degrasse Tyson should try making good science instead of bad philosophy

@ScotsThinker

3 жыл бұрын

It's no wonder Tyson doesn't want People to study Philosophy.

@ahmadfrhan5265

3 жыл бұрын

@@ScotsThinker yep

I've not listened to much of DeGrasse-Tyson previously, so I didn't know what to expect when I heard his arguments... I literally laughed. Because we can _choke on food_ there is no designer? What a good chuckle. Even a person with a layman's interest in philosophy and logic can see how weak these bad design arguments are.

@morroghaiky6580

2 жыл бұрын

Because we can choke on food, there is no omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent designer, which are supposed qualities of your god. At least one of them must be false.

@Andrew-pp2ql

2 жыл бұрын

How many people have accidentally choked on their food and died throughout human history? The fact that we use the same structure for both digestion and breathing has counted for innumerable deaths. Not saying therefore no god….but is indicative of what I would expect to occur via the process of evolution….and not something designed wherein death could occur. It’s not a laughable argument…when you have seen a child accidentally almost choke to death….if not for your intervention. The argument is valid whether you wish to acknowledge it or not…..but nothing worth chuckling over.

@rclrd1

2 жыл бұрын

@@Andrew-pp2ql The fact that "things can go wrong" tells us _absolutely nothing_ about whether life "evolved through random processes" or was "intelligently designed".

ANOTHER THOUGHT Has Neil deGrasse Tyson been in many debates? I'd like to see him challenge Stephen C. Meyer, Dave Berlinski or James Tour. It's one thing to crique ideas without anyone challenging you. It's another thing to constantly have to defend your position or ideas against an opponent.

@joeschmoe1794

3 жыл бұрын

Tour vs Tyson would be great to watch.

@jonhiggins2012

2 жыл бұрын

He'd get smoked. Just like Richard Dawkins only debates people when he's intellectually punching down.

@lisanloves

4 ай бұрын

I would love to see a debate between him and one of those guys, or him and Hugh Ross (who also is an astrophysicist).

@carldouglashaggardsr.9129

26 күн бұрын

No. He just comes on various programs and will disparages ID and poke fun - but never will debate. And he never never answers any of the scientific arguments except, like all of them to say: “I don’t know the final answers. I can’t answer the compelling ultimate questions. But I know it’s not ID!”

I've seen that Tyson video. He came across as _extremely_ emotional, not as a competent scientist.

@Autobotmatt428

3 жыл бұрын

He at best is a spokesmen

@ManlyServant

3 жыл бұрын

ahaha

@freedom4life312

3 жыл бұрын

Actually...all of athiest debates I have ever seen so far show how emotionally charged they are, with really no facts at all to show for the case they constantly try to make. Their usual tactings are, shaming their opponents, getting personal, insulting, and use of arrogance....apart from that, they are great at "crying me a river" with their emotional stories of all the evil they see in the world. 🙄

@viniciusbueno2160

3 жыл бұрын

He's an actor, just like bill nye

@tomrogers5862

3 жыл бұрын

He rarely comes across as a scientist. I have a beef with the designer who surrounded the urethra with a prostate gland prone to enlarging.

"Designing always involves trade offs". So you concede that God isn't omnipotent? Good.

@Robinhim2002

2 жыл бұрын

So there is a God? Great!

@thinkislamcheckmychannel

2 жыл бұрын

@@Robinhim2002 Well said

@thinkislamcheckmychannel

2 жыл бұрын

Reject God if you want. You will be rejected and may have earned yourself a prime position in hell with your arrogance. Your choice

@Mo74mmad

2 жыл бұрын

God “made the universe in truth”. He could’ve made everything work magically with no viable deeper understandings of how certain things functions but he chose not to because God is truthful.

@sliglusamelius8578

2 жыл бұрын

Nobody said that God created heaven on earth. Oh wait, they DID say that, but Man sinned and now disease and death exist. But Jesus is the antidote to give us perfection for the next life, where God’s majesty will be obvious. See how that works?! You have to make up straw man arguments.

Two quotes come to mind... “The learned fool writes his nonsense in better language than the unlearned, but it is still nonsense.” -Benjamin Franklin, author, printer, political theorist & politician, scientist, inventor, etc. “...nonsense remains nonsense even if scientists are writing it.” -John Lennox, mathematician, in response to Stephen Hawking’s claim that gravity would inevitably generate the universe out of nothing It also reminds me of the simple fact that ALL design requires compromise. (9:15) There isn't any one thing that does everything. The intended purpose is how you evaluate a design. If there is no mind involved, why call it design? And I like the way they point out the means of circumventing the ever present endless rabbit trails when it comes to skeptics and scoffers and their objections. For sure, more folks need to be exposed to BOTH sides. Evolutionists so often claim that anyone who disagrees with the Darwinian view are ignorant and need to educate themselves, but it has been my experience that it is those who subscribe to the Darwinian view who are generally pretty clueless when it comes to actual ID proponents - and especially Biblical creationists. If it is all about science and discovering truth, it shouldn't be 'us vs. them', it should be a sharing and comparing of ideas... _Shouldn't it?_

@philosophicaltool5469

Жыл бұрын

Clueless indeed. Too many times I've had people 'jump' me, and then often also trying to explain to me what I was attacking, (one might think I would understand the subject and issues with it, for being able to attack it to begin with, but hey, what do I know, right? Haha!) And then ironically in the process explaining they have absolutely no clue how the theory even is supposed to 'work'.

@TheFoolOnTheHill_

Жыл бұрын

Intelligent design is a relic of the past. It has no evidence and there's no good reason to believe intelligent design is more likely than evolution. On the other hand, evolution has a mountain of evidence and our models become more detailed each decade. Christianity is mythology without any basis in reason, and while it served us well before we understood much about life, it's clear by now that its framework is as flawed as ancient Chinese medicine. I'm not defending Neil Tyson's idiotic comments, or any of his inane argument, but young earth creations are just as dimwitted as Neil.

@sudamadas344

7 ай бұрын

Of course, with our limited knowledge, when we, with our limited senses, mind and intelligence, try to design something, we are left with compromises and at best we may find the sweet spot. We are secondary designers, utilizing the existing elements and laws of material nature to build our designs. But, when it comes to the original supreme designer, aka the Supreme Personality of Godhead, we talking about a designer who is, inconceivable. In the Vedic literature, God's inconceivable potencies are described in great detail. One such text, the Isopanisad, begins with this verse: "The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance." And, if God wants to engineer something that, in our limited intelligence, eventually disintegrates, He can perfectly do so and He does with a perfect purpose or higher purpose - it's not due to Him having to compromise the design, because then, He would not be God, there would be someone higher than Him. And the reasons for why, are another philophical discussion, also covered elaborately in the Vedas. The main point is that, everything that God does, is perfect and complete. It takes a spiritually perfected person to understand even a fragment of God's infinite power and glory.

@andredarin8966

2 ай бұрын

Brilliant.

Tyson's head is so big it has its own gravitational pull.

@Rightlydividing-wx1xb

3 жыл бұрын

That's funny😄

@onethdasanayake3689

2 жыл бұрын

LOL

@John14-6...

2 жыл бұрын

Lol. I'm surprised there are not little planetary bodies orbiting around his head

@D800Lover

2 жыл бұрын

Yep. He is in his own orbit too, another new planet in our solar system.

@yasinali6223

2 жыл бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂. You made my day.

Stupid yet he will claim just how wonderful and intricate the cosmos is in its complexity and grandeur.

@TheL4LMusic

Жыл бұрын

it's all fake.

@gabrielbrewster4806

Жыл бұрын

I think what he would means is:- the cosmos is wonderful and intricate its complexity and grandeur being a thing that was not designed. But if it was designed it could have probably been designed differently or even to function better. Einstein proposed this with the question "Did God have a choice in how he created the universe?"

@unkaumanguy1439

Ай бұрын

Creationism is just denying reality. Evolution has so much evidence for it that denying it only proves a persons ignorance.

Why would primordial matter and all the constituents of the known universe, regardless of wether you postulate that they may or may not have been put there by design, need, want or even be able to organize themselves into complex structures like a brain for instance capable of consciousness and thus intelligence if not without some predetermined impetus that would want and need it to be so? From a purely logical perspective you can't get a "Something" from a "No" "Thing". It therefore stands to reason that all matter and known organic structures must be preceded by what we would define as "immaterial" "intelligent" and possessing "intent".

The truth is this whole line of argumentation is a perfect example of the logical fallacy of equivocation. Intelligent Design is NOT the argument that everything was designed perfectly. It is merely that it was the product of an agent that possesses the capacities of intelligent agents (i.e., foresight, intentionality, knowledge, intelligence, etc.). Uninformed Atheists will key in on the word “intelligence” to equivocate on the term to mean as intelligent a design as possible. But that is not at all the same argument.

@rclrd1

2 жыл бұрын

When humans design things they don't expect perfection, they proceed by "trial and error". Evolution proceeds similarly. This analogy is profound - we are a very long way from understanding its implications.

There are people who have designed things that mildly compare to life. Computer programers design code that is used to manifest higher functions. They recognize how their designs are similar to DNA. They also recognize that DNA is ridiculously more complex than any software program humans have ever designed.

@Angelmou

3 жыл бұрын

Humans designed more complex XNA with 6 instead of just 4 nucleotides of DNA 7 years ago already. Your knowledge is not up to data.

Doug Axe is a boss. I would like to see more regular content like this.

@p.kayward6966

3 жыл бұрын

deGrasse just got "Axe-d"

@les2997

3 жыл бұрын

I agree on both points.

@Greenie-43x

3 жыл бұрын

@@p.kayward6966 That deserves it's own comment thread! Axe-d... too funny

@truthbebold4009

3 жыл бұрын

I would love to see him debunk more weak arguments. I get video recommends from "It's OK To Be Smart". They claim there are numerous leftovers from evolution. E.g. our tail bone.

@Dr_Diaz

3 жыл бұрын

@@truthbebold4009 lmfao that channel is a waste of time.

Strange thing is, I've always thought how impossible it could be to accidentally evolve a multifunctional opening like the mouth! The essential requirements to breathe and eat which are then diverted so elegantly down different pathways to the awe inspiring design of the lungs connected to the ingenious fluke of a heart and onto the rest of the body via the circulatory systems and respiratory systems, all held together by the skeletal system, nervous system, muscles, cartilage, tendons, and all controlled either consciously or subconsciously by the brain, relying on the metabolites from the other pathway - to the digestive system and all that entails. Then there's the immediate non-essential functions of the mouth - the ability to talk, sing, whistle, cough, sneeze, use facial expressions, laugh, pull tongues, make silly nonsensical noises, scream, cry, taste, kiss, play musical instruments, using our free will to do so and ALL aided by the nasal airways. All whilst using different subconscious breathing techniques.

I love Tysons personality and ability to promote how cool science is.. but I’ve never thought he was even a slightly deep or decent scientist. He was on Rogan and I couldn’t believe how shallow and weak everything he said was...

@joemann7667

3 жыл бұрын

Yea when he was on Rogans show he was like a spoiled child, cutting off joe every time he opened his mouth

@TeaParty1776

2 жыл бұрын

Tyson is a Leftist political activist. His competence as scientist is irrelevant. He condemned the progress from hunting-gathering to farms because, ,many millenia later, farming was allegedly destructive to the planet. He held a baby in his arms while talking. Hes a very competent Leftist political activist.

We ate from the tree of knowledge.

@bobweird655

3 жыл бұрын

Tree of knowledge of good and evil. People always leave the second half of the verse out which dramatically changes its meaning.

"Stupid design" gave Mr. Tyson the intelligence to discern how life should have been designed.

@thinkislamcheckmychannel

2 жыл бұрын

Well said. He refutes himself

@joshuaswart8211

2 жыл бұрын

Which begs the question: why would God create a world where evidence for his existence is so unconvincing, that for most of human existence, the vast majority of humans didn't believe in the existence of the Abrahamic god, and millions today still do not?

@seaknightvirchow8131

Жыл бұрын

@@joshuaswart8211 Perhaps the answer lies in the freedom of choice left to man. God left enough evidence that millions have believed in him. He has also allowed men to repress and deny the evidence. The natural man hates the idea of a existence of a sovereign God who is holy, righteous, and just as identified by the Bible. We all like to do what we do and don’t want anyone or anything interfering with our choices. There are many who see overwhelming evidence of God or at least the existence of a supernatural power. Among those who find the data sufficient are many eminent scientists including some Nobel Prize winners. Why have millions believed in Christ, many to the point of torture and death, when they might have saved themselves by a simple denial? This is equally as challenging as the fact that some do not believe. Pure atheists are a very very small minority of mankind. The overwhelming majority of men are theistic or agnostic in their epistemology. Very few are as militant as Dawkins or Tyson in denying the existence of a creator or anything supernatural. The problem is not due to a paucity of data, it is with the heart of a man who chooses to reject the data.

Materialism = Arrogance at its finest We understand soooooo little about thé body we use everyday and we dare to say it IS full or bad design...that's so arrogant.

Atheist 'intellectuals' like Dawkins, Hitchens and Tyson say a lot of stupid things. In reality they prefer emotive rhetorical arguments to carefully thought out rational ones.

@stevedoetsch

3 жыл бұрын

Played out to it's full conclusion atheism is actually anti-intellectual and anti-science.

@andywomack3414

3 жыл бұрын

What is your rational argument for God's existence?

@thinkislamcheckmychannel

2 жыл бұрын

@@andywomack3414 Any thoughts on that proof of God?

The horror is not that evolution might be true, it's that we are not allowed question it. This attitude isn't science, it's RELIGIOUS TYRANNY. Men like Tyson are their own gods, and seek their own glory, even at the expense of people's lives.

@kskdtr

2 жыл бұрын

evolution is questioned every single day since a couple of centuries, and it has been changed accordingly to the best evidences available at the time.... exactly how science is supposed to work... want to question evolution?! get a bachelor, ph.d and doctorate in biology, and join the party

For every example of "flaw" there is an example of elegance that is much greater in magnitude.

@VinceTwiga

3 жыл бұрын

There are no flaws in creation. Everything is created perfectly how God intended it. If there are siamese twins, Allah intended it that way, even if we don’t understand why. Perhaps it’s intended as a sign to the people that He is capable of creating anything He wants.

@joshuaswart8211

2 жыл бұрын

But if there is a flaw at all, that ALREADY contradicts intelligent design.

All the intelligence in the history of the world can't deliberately create what Tyson believes blind nature has accidentally created. Tyson is over and under thinking at the same time.

@grassCrow

2 жыл бұрын

@@Unconskep Forget? You were here 200,000 years.

Excellent Analysis - in "broken design" we see, ironically, professed atheists making a theological argument!

The point at which a scientist’s ideological positions predict their beliefs, is where we have to ask if they’re disingenuous. A sincere thinker will change their mind as rationality and evidence determines.

How ironic is it that when they acknowledge these alleged problems with design, by default they are acknowledging devolution and genetic entropy!! You see, they lose either way.

@RedefineLiving

3 жыл бұрын

Argument number one. Because the Bible says that we were specially designed specifically for life here on this planet earth, and that’s exactly what we see, this means we were not designed? Fail.

@RedefineLiving

3 жыл бұрын

Argument number two. Because we see intelligent design in other life forms, the human was not intelligently designed? Facepalm.

@RedefineLiving

3 жыл бұрын

Argument three. Because there is cancer, which should really falsify evolution if you think about it, we were not designed? Facepalm

@anzaca1

2 жыл бұрын

@@RedefineLiving Explain birth defects.

@joshuaswart8211

2 жыл бұрын

@@RedefineLiving How the fuck would the existence of cancer falsify evolution? No-one claims that evolution is a god. Evolution is merely the only reasonable conclusion for how living beings are the way they are. But a god that allowed for cancer to exist is either evil or incompetent. And I don't plan on worshipping a god like that.

Roller coaster argument is a really good one.

To adequately assess a design, it is necessary to understand the purpose for which an object is designed. One could say that women's spike high heel shoes are not intelligently designed because no one could run the 100 meter dash in them, but that is not the purpose for which they are designed. Tyson presumes to understand the purposes for which God made what he made, but no one is privy to God's thinking in that way.

Wow. So many people's ego so BIG that they think they can understand the design or even understand the designs from an Intelligent designer so powerful to create a universe...

What an elegant and compelling presentation. Truly shows the difference between scientists and stand-up comedians. Kudos Dr Axe. - Salam

This is impressive. I really want to be a part of this Intelligent Design movement. Doing a PhD presently, and design is part of it. Design always requires conciousness..🙌

@professorneturman2249

2 жыл бұрын

* because you assume design

@taylor6618

2 жыл бұрын

Do it!

Great video. I was a little confused by the title but I enjoyed the content. I would like to mention that just because we don't understand the purpose or reason behind why something was designed or created the way it was, does not dismiss the fact that it was designed. I feel that "science" is the means to find purpose, reason and rhyme in the things that are designed. "I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me." Isaac Newton Therefore, if one can not find ample evidence to deny a creator, how can a mind that was created be able to judge the mind of its creator?

@bordeaux1337

2 жыл бұрын

We do know the reasons for some of the things like Wisdom Teeth and Tailbones because those were useful before evolving and now we are just stuck with them. Or like Ostriches having wings but can't fly etc.

Doug makes a good defense against this "criticism", but I'd forward an even simpler one: look, Nature is comprised of several systems (causally interlocked, hierarchically organized, etc.) - some of which even naturalists/evolutionists/whateveryouwannacallemists will grant have the _appearance_ of design. If, as the ID proponents claim, at least _some_ of these instances of apparent design _cannot_ reasonably be explained (away) as merely accidental, even after exhaustive research and testing, then it's checkmate, baby. That's how science works, and I can only feel sorry about your naturalism if it fails the test of science.

You know I was thinking about what he said about having only one hole to eat and breath. Well the water we drink and saliva act as a moisturizer and lubricant. If we didn't drink liquid or no saliva went down our throat it would dry up and we couldn't talk or breath very well. It's a very efficient system.

You will also find that any trade-offs that had to be made in our (or any) design or function in nature are perfectly and optimally balanced. Also you mentioned a Dolphin's blowhole. You will see that is perfectly placed and only needs a dolphin to expose a couple of inches of their body to air to be able to breath. Perfect design. For us, breathing in is done through our nose. We aren't supposed to breath through our mouth when eating. When we do... that is when the risk of choking arises. I do wish our designer was a little more generous in the tooth department. I am going through my second set faster than I would have liked to.

@bordeaux1337

2 жыл бұрын

No. a Breathing hole is a stupid design compared to gills for dolphins as they have to swim up to the surface.

@warrenrae32

4 ай бұрын

​@@bordeaux1337really? Don't you think being an aquatic mammal would be hindered by only being able to breath under water? Gills would restrict it to only being under water. With a blowhole a dolphin has the freedom to spend time either below or above water. So the question of wether gills or a blowhole are best is really only a difference of opinion between yours and God's. Don't you think that may look just a 'tad' arrogant on your part?

You’re describing production engineering, having several uses for the same equipment or parts of a greater system of mechanical elements

You're really correct about the elegance of the mouth design. I'm a mechanical design engineer and there's a design a approach we use called DFx or Design For excellence whereby overall material, manufacturing, assembly, servicing and maintenance cost is reduced by reducing part count, using multifunctional parts as two of many design guidelines. I always look up to divine creation as inspiration for design excellence.

@WhatWouldVillainsDo

9 ай бұрын

My dad always God will never really create something single purpose, because that's bad engineering..you have to get your value.

I'm already reading "undeniable " from Dr. Axe. he is a genius in explaining complex matters especially when it comes to design. totally recommend it to anyone who wants to understand the design in biological species.

@MrFossil367ab45gfyth

2 жыл бұрын

I've heard of this book before. I want to get it one day.

About the "choke situation", I'd not only agree with the elegant aspect of the design but also I'd like to highlight the importance of redundancy here: every single human being with a few years old has ever experienced some viral and/or bacterial infection of upper air-ways, and these really frequently happen with obstruction of our nostrils with mucal secretion. This is an important defense system against pathogens that wouldn't be possible if our mouths couldn't be used as a secondary entrance to air. This is not only elegant, but it's the kind of problem-predicting ability that is typical of good designers. If we dive deeper into the embryology of the thing, we'll find out that the elegance of the relation between digestive and respiratory tracts is even more impressive when it comes to the way how the genetical and embryological movements of these systems are compacted in an efficient way of storing information and translating it in organogenesis (that happens in the 4º week of human's development). But there's not a shade of surprise in the fact that Tysson vomits his ignorance about Biological Sciences on his enemies, anyway.

@nil1473

3 жыл бұрын

Thank u for informing and educating me abt this...we all should be grateful to the designer for doing all this for us...🙏🙏👌👌 Again thanks to u for countering atheists arguments..please keep those comments coming , these are very helpful for fighting atheism..

@Angelmou

3 жыл бұрын

"good designers" False because 2 independent systems could do the very same in 1 indivudal. It is a pink glass claim by you to talk things nice. Like someone wants to redefine the lack of whale under water breathing organs with the adapted lungs to have some warm blood advantages, while as backup system for drowning emergencies alone under water breathing would be beneficial. There are btw. other lifeforms like snakes with the Glottis which do not suffer as much as mammal forms without it as easy from suffocation ;-)

@paulcooper1223

2 жыл бұрын

Biological sciences support the theory of evolution, not intelligent design. ID isn't science.

Well said. People tend to think that the theory of evolution is the only possible way that makes sense, when it comes to our origin story and that if you dare think otherwise, you are foolish. Yet, there are so many people of science, myself included, who see the evidence for intelligent design.

@professorneturman2249

2 жыл бұрын

What evidence for intelligent design?

@bordeaux1337

2 жыл бұрын

Then explain to me why Males have nipples, we have a tailbone. We have wisdom teeth that can hurt like hell. Bees die after stinging, Snakes sometimes eat themselves in confusion, Ant mills as in ants running confused in circles until they die, Why do Ostriches have wings they don't use? Why are plants green and not black, black absorbs energy better?

That was brilliant! I looking for a KZread clapping emoji.

Excellently presented and excellent content. You also exposed the arrogance of those like Tyson without actually mentioning that arrogance.

@andywomack3414

3 жыл бұрын

Monotheism = arrogance + hypocrisy.

An important point you kind of touch on is that to say something is poorly designed, you have to know the purpose the thing was designed for and that it doesn't fulfill that purpose. People like Tyson assume materialism, humanism, atheism, etc. and say that the human body or life in general is poorly designed because you can suffer, die in various ways, things like that. Their philosophy assumes that's the worst thing that could ever happen to anyone. Almost every other religion and philosophy on Earth has made the obvious conclusion that life has a purpose beyond survival and material prosperity, but the skeptics have thrown out all human knowledge that isn't "scientific" so they're a little behind the curve lol.

Whenever I hear people, such as deGrasse Tyson, expressing their hubris and contempt for God (by way of argument against intelligent design) I think of the verse "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth".

@p.kayward6966

3 жыл бұрын

actually, after watching this again, Axe paraphrases the above Bible verse @ 12:17.

@DivineDianne

3 жыл бұрын

brilliant.

@TheAndreas1008

3 жыл бұрын

It's a great verse, but it goes both ways doesn't it? I don't know if you endorse Intelligent Design, but this is also an attempt understanding how life was created.:)

Simple counters have destroyed degrasse’s proposition. Thank you. His arguments are indeed silly!

Quickly, correctly and logically.

If Tyson was an engineer, he probably would understand this stuff. Life is really an engineering problem, not a science problem, if you will.

Great video. I'd recommend adding closed captions, but they don't seem to be available. Thanks for sharing this with us !

Great video! Thanks!

I thought he was suggesting the argument was so stupid that it warranted saying it twice. But no, it describes the argument of "stupid design" as being stupid... I think🐳 Who knew you were funny too? Thanks Douglas ! Great video

DeGrasse-Tyson runs the Hayden Planetarium -- in essence, a movie theater with ultra-reclining seats. So yeah, obviously a monumental genius.

Great argument. You could have countered the ridiculous deGrasse argument by pointing out that God's design is indeed perfect for what he designed human beings to be. No one ever got sick, or choked to death in the Garden of Eden, nor will anyone in Christ ever get sick or choke to death in Heaven. Those things only take place in this fallen world not due to a design flaw but due to sin and Satan's dominion on the earth. It is not representative of God's perfect design and plan for mankind.

@bordeaux1337

2 жыл бұрын

So you are basically disagreeing that we live in a perfectly designed world then?

Wow! Super informative and easily articulated for us to grasp. God is the intelligent mind. Amen 🙏

@andywomack3414

3 жыл бұрын

Provide evidence.

@dpollard5286

3 жыл бұрын

@@andywomack3414 Provide evidence for anything being intelligently designed.

@ahmadfrhan5265

3 жыл бұрын

@@andywomack3414 of what? if you are an atheist than everything literally is subjective therefore, there's no value of life nor good or bad. so i ask you is providing a evidence good or bad? 😉 and what is " evidence " ? who decides? and is it good or bad? 😉 you have officially been C7ed. we can prove God existence, but why prove it to " literally nothing"- Richard Dawkins ( you ) ?!!!!! note: i asked you is it good or bad to provide evidence. whatever is your answer is either "good or bad " it's completely subjective to you and you can't prove it's either good or bad since it's based on subjectivsim therefore, why would i prove it to you if it is neither good nor bad ( worthless ) to you ? 😏.

@stueve

3 жыл бұрын

@@andywomack3414 The fact that there's something rather than nothing.

So if dolphins are an example of good intelligent design, does that mean that dolphins were in fact intelligently designed?

"Bad" Design makes perfect sense in a world that once WAS perfect, but has been cursed of sin.

Great talk! Please produce more content like this. Well said @ 11:54, _"When people [like Neil deGrasse Tyson] weigh in like this, they're really showing themselves to be - in a sense - foolish; that they're standing in judgment over something that they're just simply not competent to judge."_

God could've designed a whole different way for us to speak and eat, have two openings for these functions instead of one. We don't have to assume we need to have one mouth or opening to speak and eat at the same time.

Tyson is a prime example of a pseudo intellectual - he’s not pursuing truth in the “truest” sense of the word, he’s pursuing power via ego and scientism

👌👌👌👌amazing video, especially the mouth part

One can't correctly critique a design unless first understanding the purpose of the design. Otherwise, one is superimposing one's own purpose on it which can lead one to falsely conclude that the design is insufficient. For example, if a furniture maker designs a bed it would be incorrect to critique it as a chair.

@thinkislamcheckmychannel

2 жыл бұрын

Excellent

If you put Neil DeGrasse Tyson in a group of creationists he wouldn’t survive (philosophically)

@choosejesus1910

3 жыл бұрын

Has he ever debated a creationist?

@jamesdeburiet3919

3 жыл бұрын

@@choosejesus1910 no, he just hates on them

@watcherwlc53

3 жыл бұрын

or maybe literally...

@Autobotmatt428

3 жыл бұрын

You put him in a room of Philosophers he wouldn't survive.

@dethcloud7763

3 жыл бұрын

XD

Everything started to go downhill when science split spirit from matter, discarded spiritual and recognised only material. It's like studying properties of the water, but discarding "O" and recognising only "H".

I think the most convincing case for extremely intelligent design, aside from the probability arguments against life ever coming into existence, is all the stories that can easily be explained as being a result of intelligent design but have no other reasonable explanation. Such as what is found in many scriptures from many different times and places that describe how the Universe and how many parts of the body work in ways they couldn't possibly have discovered by physical means. Such as the first page of Genesis describes exactly how a cell works and the words that define the parts of the cell relate directly to the Bible in the English dictionary which I realize there are other languages but I know many of these words are derivatives from ancient languages which are found in many languages. Phospholipids make up the cell wall with phosphorus meaning light bearer and lips give form to the word which is written in our genes which is spoken across the cytoplasm which gives form to the formless in the plasm which means mother is a short version of what is found in our cells of a certain kind different from other kinds like blood and neurons. The first definition of Sinew in the dictionary is nerve. The Caduceus is the fiery serpent picked up by Moses some place I forget where I just heard about it in reference to the rising of man or something like that, Neville Goddard mentioned it. Anyway, the fiery serpent is the currents that travel our Spines driven by a wave of cavatation begun by the Inspiration of our breath which literally moves the coccyx at the base of the Spine sending this wave from what is literally called the Sacral pump to the separations of the skull which resonate like the tetonic plates of the Earth and are called Fontanel which font means receptacle of the Holy Water which is literally from the Fountain of Life. The rod, staff, mantle are all centers of magnetism. When the magnitude of magnetism is increased the currents that necessarily surround it are driven further apart like the Red Sea and I forget what Joshua separated. Anyway hit the right frequency like the shofar played before the arc of the covenant, which I happened to hear about from a few different sources like most of what I have said, and the walls of Jericho will come falling down as a Revelation of what has been hidden in the shadows of the city walls. The shofar can't be played just by blowing, it takes practice to learn to play it with Love. Then a little correspondence with the seven churches and yadayadayada Hark the Herald Angels sing Glory to the New Born King of a New Earth and a New Heaven and the seas will be dried up. 🙏⚕🙏

Nothing you say matters untill you give evidence of the inteligent designer, and that must be physical evidence not well this looks designed verifiable evidence is what we need

Understanding the Permission of Evil is their issue. Scientifically- creation has more proof than evolution. Questioning why an intelligent creator would allow evil- sorrow, sickness and death has to do with understanding sin, the curse of “dying you shall die”- really explains this. But it’s a much longer conversation than could be had here. Any question deserves a reasonable and respectful answer.

I don't know if you've mentioned this elsewhere, but I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the design of the human eye - specifically the fact that the nerves seem to come from the wrong side of the cells (so that they both obscure our vision and also give us a blind spot). I ask because this is one of the most common examples I've seen when it comes to 'inept design', so I'd really love to see it refuted.

@DiscoveryScienceChannel

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for asking! The issue you mention is dealt with in this video: kzread.info/dash/bejne/nZajt6SKnrC2aNo.html

Cheers Dr. Axe! “What has Tyson invented?? What patents does he hold to give him sway on an argument over the adequacy of a particular design?” The answer is, of course, nothing. Tyson is an example of the typical person so emotionally convinced of something they make arguments originating from and targeted to other people’s emotions. Real breakdowns of math, chemistry and information theory are best left to thinking individuals rather than emotional hysterics.

@feedingravens

2 жыл бұрын

What has this guy invented? NOTHING. He learned how to make apologies for his God, and recites the standard repertoire of creationists, spiced up with character denunciation of Neil deGrasse Tyson. And the classic "We are too stupid to understand God's ways". For an omniscient, omnipotent, BENEVOLENT God it would be no problem to make a flawless design. So flaws must be intentional by God. So children that are born with cancer or horrible birth defects, that will never have had a real life (or the chance to sin), that will die in hours or after years of agony and misery, that is God's plan. I propose the following christian apologies for that: - God loves the kids so much that he wants to have them in heaven asap - It is the parents' fault, the children have to suffer for THEIR sins. - the omniscient, omnipotent God just couldn't do it better. His perfect creation has unavoidable flaws. There is no bogus excuse a christian would not swallow hook, line and sinker to excuse the deeds of their God; the feeling of being saved, of a great eternity in a heaven EXACTLY as you imagine it to be, that if you but believe you are always right, all your sins are forgiven - that feeling is too good to give it up.

Me: excuse me sir. My Rav4 doesn't fit my fornicher. Toyota sales person : Sir you're not supposed to be living in it.

Other causes of death: speed, softness, water, hands, metal, rock, gravity, heat, sharpness, cold, holes, pressure, lack of pressure, size, wind, dust... ad nearly infinitum. So Tyson would say a world without these elements might be a candidate for Intelligent Design?

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is the definition of an intellectual lightweight. He’s the late-night “comedian” tv host weighing in on political issues.. a pompous, self-righteous, no-nothing spewing bs for an audience of trained clapping seals

@rclrd1

2 жыл бұрын

NGT is an _entertainer_ who was once a scientist.

Notice he didn't call Tyson stupid. He called his argument stupid

To evaluate efficiency in any design you have to know the (a) available time, (b) available resources, and (c) purpose of the design. Since God is a being with no time or resource constraints -- who in fact brought all time and resources into being -- and whose purposes may well be beyond our understanding, it's impossible for deGrasse Tyson to render accurate judgment on the designer.

If there was no some design which we didn't see ass wrong , we wouldn't have said that everything is designed .. because they would say it would have been like that for infinity .. But now when we saw that the universe change to be more cooler so this change which some would say is wrong design .. but throw that we know its designed because if it wasn't designed we wouldn't point errors which we think is wrong ..

Such an intelligent critique compated to the shallow arguments of NDG

Well put, like it.keep posting

I think the best way to deal with atheist that critique ID, is to become better at showing clear respect to the person, but clearly ridicule to the impossibility of abiogennesis without a creator, and the zero to little evidence to neo-drawinism Obviously after going over some of the abundance of evidence for ID. GK Chesterton would do that all that time with his opponents that he would regularly be friend. He even kinda did that to the terrible lawyer who ridicule creation, and praised evolution in theScopes trial. Chesterton came to the US and blew that lawyers ideas away. There were many newspapers that reported on that encounter and how helpless that lawyers became when they actually talked about science instead of just insulting the possibility of a creator.

Every critic must first know the purpose of a designer's creation before being able to critique it. We don't listen to an art critic's opinion of medical technology, nor do we listen to the culinary critic's opinion of spices and foodstuffs prior to their preparation, completion, and presentation. Humankind is as yet incomplete in it's preparation, still in an intermediate stage prior to achieving the perfection that people like Dr. Tyson now demand.

"What we use to eat? What we use to speak?" boom, very mindblowing counterargument, thanks.

Super helpful thank you!

@johnfrost5268

3 жыл бұрын

Is this marble Jessica?

Tyson can detect bad design using his mind which is also an outcome of the same evolutionary process which created the bad design! So the evolutionary process is so smart that it can create Tyson and his intelligent mind and at the same time so stupid that it fails to figure out how to make good designs.

Great points

Very good.

Perfectly stated! yes!! Design heavily involves trade-offs. Your example of designing a smart phone is spot on! I often saw some “analyst” or “tech review” zooming on the fact that, for example, a phone CPU is slower than this one, or the pixel count on this phone camera is higher, blah blah blah, therefore this phone is better, yada yada. Well, it was because the design team took into account hundreds of design objective and made proper trade off. What good is a smart phone with such a advanced camera and it would only last 3 hours. Or I read somewhere that someone “criticized” the design of the human eye, and the that he would have designed differently. I guess that person was too ignorant or stuck too deep inside of a tunnel to realize that the human visual system is enormously complex. What good of an “advanced human eyes” when it would have tired us out quickly.

@morroghaiky6580

2 жыл бұрын

So, should I take it as your god is not omnipotent?

Excellent retort. Answer to broken design argument: cancers, illnesses, suffering are caused by not following the instruction manual (Rules/Laws/Regulations) provided by the Designer OR by man made changes to the design specs. of internal /external environments using chemical /biological /mechanical means. Answers to 'incompetent' design arguments can only be provided once all the details are known concerning ALL the functions of the item in question. It may have an apparent function as well as other functions that are not known. This is actually an argument from ignorance.

Most people who talk about bad design couldn't put a shelf up.

11:18 This is a very good point.

I know that ID is meant to address pagans using naturalistic arguments. But depression, cancer and even choking are ramifications of living in a state in which we weren't created for. None of those things existed before the fall and all of them are a result of the fall. When a pagan says something is poorly designed it's simple to remind them that that is a result of their precious, "random mutations over time."

Dr Axe, what's the mechanism of design and when was it tested? How do you differentiate between a natural occurrence, like snowflakes, and a deliberate divine design? When was that put to the test and documented?

If life was poorly designed it wouldn’t have lasted as long as it has

Maybe Tyson could demonstrate his new, improved design for the human.

I get the airway and food passage combined argument a lot. My favorite response is: "You ever try to cough out your nose?" and "How that breathing thing going when nose is stuffed up or when you need to exercise heavily?"

Ask Neil Degrassi where can I buy one if those watches designed by the blind watch maker. I want to give him one as a present for being so "INTELLIGENT". He is so knowledgeable to question God's creations and he believes he got his intelligents from non guided, unintentional, blind, lifeless matter that came from NOTHING! God bless and enlighten him before it's too late.

"Of the simplest machines, a toothpick has no moving parts. The only way to make it is by machines and engineering. Given every tree on the planet and infinite time, evolution could never make a toothpick. The only thing "evolution" can do is rot the wood." Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo

@andywomack3414

3 жыл бұрын

I dunno, I've seen the broken ends of twigs that one could use as a tooth-pick..

@carlosdrfx

3 жыл бұрын

Cactus: am I a joke to you?!?

@kmferdoush1381

3 жыл бұрын

@@andywomack3414 But that would be uneven for sure and will cause harm on your tooth.

@paulcooper1223

2 жыл бұрын

The theory of evolution doesn't say trees will become toothpicks. Seems the person you're quoting knows even less about evolution than you do. Maybe don't quote him in future and instead cite some science?

@vt_mod

2 жыл бұрын

That's dumb. I have seen plenty of broken trees with with toothpick like splinters.

Your professors want the degrees they gave you back. There is no evidence of a supernatural being who would fill the role of designer. None. Thus, until such a being is found no reason to suspect anything was designed. Meanwhile we absolutely can observe the various natural processes in action all around us that make the entire system work. Now, if we were designed, for life on this planet, the majority of this planet would not be hostile to our kind of life. Massive oceans, deadly to drink from them, deadly to soak in them for extended periods of time. Food, we need a steady supply of food, every day of our lives for the most part. A competent design would give us more of a buffer so we could travel farther by foot between meals. We are the worst equipped beasts in the wild, most things from microbes to obvious predators can eat us for lunch, literally. And from birth we are incompetent and useless for several years. Animals in the wild, baby pops out and within minutes it is running alongside mom. Designed? Please. Evolution was just kind to us once we developed a brain that thought beyond the next moment, and that's a fairly recent thing evolutionarily speaking.