I just ran across this today, and I had to share it. I haven't heard of this gentlemen before, and I don't know his credentials, but I don't think he needs any. Anyone can understand what he is saying, and therefore can also understand the implications.

It's only a few minutes long, and entertaining as well.


Is there any way to argue against this?



Youtube video "Stupid Design"

I absolutely loved it!!!! Thank you so much for posting this.

This guy needs to lock himself inside his house he thinks everything is out to get him.....

I've posted this before, but it never got any attention. Hopefully it does this time. Thanks for posting it.

Tyson is brilliant. He and Carl Sagan both had a huge influence on my decision to enter the field of science. He has a PhD in Astrophysics from Columbia University, if I'm not mistaken.

Intelligent design? Not hardly.

On the other hand brain damaged or completely inebriated design...

yeah i love this vid. makes some of the best points.
but alota believers will find some stupid way to argue against this vid. even though theres nothing to argue

All this guy is saying is that because the world isn't perfect that there is no way that a perfect God would create such a place. But at the same time many belive that God created us & people are not perfect.

I stand by my other statement he needs to go hide in his closest with his blankie...

This is hilarious.

yup he shoud,stupid desing if you look hard enough everything is a "stupid desing" especially the universe it to big to not atleast one inperfection.

so do we wear camo and hide in the dark, or just go on as business as usual

The world isn't perfect? Did you even watch the video? And since when were you a follower of ID? I thought you were pagan?


The video is arguing the point that ID followers believe that God designed the universe, the world, and everything else specially to suit human beings, since we are the favored pets. Obviously, it is completely inconceivable when you look at it the way it was presented in the video.

Nothing was designed for us. We were designed (by non sentient forces) to survive in the environment, NOT the other way around. If there was a benevolent God, who had made human beings and then created a perfect environment for them, it would be nothing like the environment we find ourselves in. As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say that we are less suited for this planet, this universe, than plenty of other creatures that are alive and thriving. So why are we so egotistical to believe that anything was created for us??

Sorry bout the double post, but I had to address this one too.

Everything is not a stupid design. Engineers make intelligent designs all the time, in buildings and plants and cars and almost everything you use on a daily basis. They are working quite well for you, aren't they? The computer you are using to make this post was an intelligent design.

The universe is an intelligent design as well, but not in the same form of "intelligent" that creationists and IDers claim. It was not intelligently designed for the human race. If it were, then all of the things the speaker in the video mentioned would be different. We would live in a galaxy that was NOT headed for another one, we would live on a world where we could inhabit more than 1/3 of the surface, we would have bodies that were not able to be poisoned by natural gasses that are found all over our planet. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and it shows me that there was no rationality behind any design of our environment. It's just the opposite.

The Perimeter of Ignorance
A boundary where scientists face a choice: invoke a deity or continue the quest for knowledge
by Neil deGrasse Tyson
From Natural History magazine — November 2005

The Perimeter of Ignorance


Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson is the director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History.

the thing is he's right. the design of humans stinks in comparison. and the universe doesn't exist for us.

This is one of the guys who argued that pluto wasn't a planet. because it was smaller than some moons. Guess what so is mercury.

The perfect environment went away with the garden of eden.

Among the objects of the Solar System, Pluto is not only smaller and much less massive than any planet, but at less than 0.2 lunar masses it is also smaller than seven of the moons: Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, Io, Earth's Moon, Europa and Triton. Pluto is more than twice the diameter and a dozen times the mass of the dwarf planet Ceres, the largest object in the asteroid belt. However, it is smaller than the dwarf planet Eris, a trans-Neptunian object discovered in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

Yes, so why did god design an entertainment complex between a sewage system ?

RFLMAO !!!

lmao. the 'garden of eden' went away when hunter gather man became stable and learned to farm. As for the place dubbed 'eden ' ? found at the rivers of Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and the Euphrates ?

The area thought to be the Garden of Eden, which was flooded when Gulf waters arose, is shown in green.
Yellow areas of Bahrain and Arabian coast represent Dilmun, paradise land of Ubaidians and Sumerians

Click to view attachment

In Sumerian the word "Eden" meant simply "fertile plain." The word "Adam" also existed in cuneiform, meaning something like "settlement on the plain." Although both words were set down first in Sumerian, along with place names like Ur and Uruk, they are not Sumerian in origin. They are older. A brilliant Assyriologist named Benno Landsberger advanced the theory in 1943 that these names were all linguistic remnants of a pre-Sumerian people who had already named rivers, cities-and even some specific trades like potter anti coppersmith-before the Sumerians appeared.

Landsberger called the pre-Sumerian language simply Proto-Euphratian. Other scholars suggest that its speakers were the Ubaidians. However it was, the existing names were incorporated into Sumerian and written down for the first time. And the mythology of the lush and lovely spot called Eden was codified by being written.

"The whole Garden of Eden story, however, when finally written, could be seen to represent the point of view of the hunter gatherers," Zarins reasons. "It was the result of tension between the two groups, the collision of two ways of life. Adam and Eve were heirs to natural bounty. They had everything they needed. But they sinned and were expelled. How did they sin? By challenging God's very omnipotence. In so doing they represented the agriculturists, the upstarts who insisted on taking matters into their own hands, relying upon their knowledge and their own skills rather than on His bounty.


http://ldolphin.org/eden/

Thank you ms. ripley, I would not have been able to explain it any better.

Even if Eden existed in the way that people like Danielost imagines it did, as a beautiful perfect garden, it would still not be the perfect environment for humans at all.

In any ecosystem, there is a balance of offensive and defensive traits in anything that is alive. Some of those traits will by definition be harmful to humans. Are you saying that in Eden, the bees that were necessary to pollinate the fruitful plants were not equipped with stingers? Were the molds that are necessary to break down decomposing matter not harmful to Adam and Eve? Where the gases that were in the atmostphere different than they are today?

Also, Eden was just a teeny place compared to the rest of the world, supposedly. What about the people that were already living outside the boundaries of Eden, as mentioned in Genesis? Why were they automatically born outside of the perfect environment? If God had created an entire world for his pets to live on, why did he make a little portion of it so ideal for humans, but let people be born in the imperfect conditions outside of it? Why design a "perfect" environment and then not have everyone live in it? And according to the bible, there were already people living outside of Eden when Adam and Eve were evicted, so saying that those outside of Eden were punished because of the whole tree of knowledge debacle won't work.

Thanks for that Sundog - I always like entertaining speakers.

Humans are just so egotistical to think the whole thing was concocted just for them.

actually the man's point also makes it a good point for intelligent design. IE God made the Earth where it would barely support human life.

wow good video and very interesting haha! i agree with what norwood said and must add it may be true that the design is not made for us and actually if you look at it..it was made for "them" the animals..dolphins, look at crocs, look at all these animals they even comoflaughe*sorry cant spell that* but they blend in to their invirement and for them it is perfect as for us..the only thing we were given is a brain much smarter than theres and we can creat things, but then again its about all we can do because as animals we'd be the weakest ones the only weapon we'd have is intelligence we dotn really even have an insinct of danger and other things like animals do.

I don't see that. could also be aliens planted us here. could be we are a virus off a meteor that hit ........ could be pure dumb luck .

i also thought about that, just thought it sounded to crazy, but hey if they say aliens are super smart and if we were viruses then it explains why were half smart hahaha jk dont know where thats going.

I watched the entire thing-it was beautifully done. I was almost in tears. however, I have a different point of view than most of you. I believe in God. Not the xian God, but something more rational. Let's be logical; there are probably very strict conditions under life can arise. It probably has to be a planet at the earth's distance from a sun of our type of sun, with about the same type of atmosphere. The dominant intelligent beings on such a planet have to have no special abilities (thanks Arthur Clarke), other than binocular vision and an advanced brain, and probably bipedal locomotion. there may be slight variations on this, four fingers or whatever, but probably, on another planet, the dominant race would be very similiar to ourselves. We should be extremely cognizant of the absolute miracle that we even exist as a race. There are probably billions of similiar planets in the universe, there being trillions of stars. Will we meet them? Who knows? I don't believe in i.d., or "stupid design". How about "accidental design", following very specific rules, in a very orderly universe.

How does that in any way shape or form make the designer 'intelligent'?

He took an uninhabitable planet and made it habitable. By the way the Earth is too hot for liquid water except for one small detail.

But he made it just so barely habitable that we can only survive on a very specific very small area, relatively speaking, and he made us incredibly inefficient biological machines.... but hes the perfect being Danielost, the perfect being would have a perfectly formed creation. no ifs ands or buts.

Why because you say so.

im not sure if you were being serious or not, but ive always thought about that theory.
and im my opinion, it could explain some things. example, people have always looked to the heavens (the sky) for the creator. the ufos depicted in sooo many paintings over the years. and people seeing the flaming sheilds, 'angels' or balls/chariots of fire. and if we WERE placed here, by ETs of some sort. it could explain the absense of god since....well, since forever. and could explain the constant visitations of ufos for the last few thousand years. and abductions are basically checking up on us. like when we go out, trank an animal, tag it, then put it back.
i know thats not what religious people like to think about, at all. but like i said, just theories/opinions.

*edit* also could explain why were not perfect or in a perfect world, created by a perfect being/entity

ET would still quilify as intelligent design. since all life on this planet has the same dna.

Nope, similar DNA, not the same.

Unless your are talking about the make up of DNA. In which case it still points to shared ancestor species for all species.

No, because what I said logically follows. What you said does not.

well in this case, only somewhat intelligent then. looking at all the problems and flaws

Yes, genetically engineered or hybrids.

This would make alot more sense, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if true.

No the same DNA. The more advanced animals have the same DNA of all the simplier life forms.

When I watched that video, I laughed so hard at the beginning! lol! "Look at all the things that just want to kill us! Most places in the universe will kill life INSTANTLY! Instantly! Oh the forces of nature are 'just right' for life. lol Excuse me, just look at the volume of the universe where you CAN'T live!

Then no we don't. It reads differently.

danielost, I am not a geneticist, but I am pretty sure that the "more advanced animals" do not have the same DNA. And on top of that, our DNA structure is not proof of an intelligent designer. It is moreso proof of natural selection than anything.

You are also assuming that an alien life form would have DNA similar to ours. I believe the word that was used was ET, short for extra terrestrial, which would imply that they are not from this planet. In that case, we have no idea what the DNA structure would be, since all we have to go on are the DNA structures of earthly animals.

But even if ET came back and we had identical DNA, it still would not be anywhere near proof that there was an intelligent designer.

Listen, I am not trying to prove that there isn't a God. That is not even my belief. But if there is, then he surely didn't make the Earth to be a perfect habitat for us.

LOL, LOVE IT! That was awesome, cheers for sharing

Funny. If any of the universe's constants were different during the formation of the universe, he would not be mocking the argument of intelligent design. The DNA by which he received his identity, has more information in it that 1,000 encyclopedias, according to Richard Dawkins, but yet he assumes that there is no intelligent design going on. The DNA is a message that tells what goes where and how. You mean to tell me that stupid design created that? How can you attribute the message in DNA to mindless laws, as Mr. Dawkins does? This sounds like denial to me. For one, the DNA cannot produce without protein, but protein can not produce without the DNA. Which one came first? Let me guess, an accident? I think not.

Perhaps the reason why we can't live on 2/3 of the earth's surface is because we keep fighting over the 1/3 more preferrable surface.

And how does he know how long it took to make multi-cellular life. He has no proof of how long it took or when the first life happened. He may even suggest that living organisms formed from non-living material. If this is the suggestion, then lets see him make a life from nonliving material. He seems to be implying that organized scientists can't duplicate an even that they claim mindless laws created. It holds no solid ground. It seems that it takes more faith to believe in extreme Darwinism than it does to believe in intelligent design.

He seems to complain about nature killing people, but yet justifies a universe that is subject the Law of Entropy, also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. People die because the state of existence we live in will die. The universe, as he confirms, will grow cold and void of energy. It will die.

Birth defects, as well, aren't only naturally caused. Drugs do them do. People who do drugs, to be more specific. This man isn't holding a legitimate argument. All he is doing is giving credence to the Law of Entropy. Thats it.

The universe may or may not be here for us, but we live because of the way it is designed.

And how is choking a result of stupid design? The guy is basically complaining about the way we are set up. And gives little credence to the male reproductive organ. All it was, at best, was a comedy show. He proved only, from my observation about his Stupid Design argument, that people can design the stupidest arguments against intelligent design.

it proves that we didn't come from another planet.

Oh sorry. Misinformed argument there. Second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. How many organisms are closed systems? That would be 0? Oh look yes it would.
Can you prove the universe is a closed system? No you can't.
Maybe you need to go back and figure out what you are debating before making an ill informed argument.
Best evidence against ID btw, the is absolutely 0, nothing, zip, nada evidence supporting it. It is pseudo-science.

?

So you are attributing the design to nature?



Maybe he did and it isn't anymore. Regardless, entropy makes it quite hard to stay in one stay for all eternity. This universe will die. That means that we need to pursue another state of existence, a new heaven and a new earth. This one, as you said, simply won't do. The Bible is complimentory of this attitude:

Isa 65:17 "For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind."

Isa 66:22 "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain."

2Pe 3:13 "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness "

Rev 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."

Showing that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is being grossly misused and and misrepresented by someone who does not understand it.

Again with Entropy prove the universe is an enclosed system.

Using Einstein't discovery of General Relativity, we can see that the universe is compised of time, space, and matter. That is our realm of existence. If the universe is comprised of time, space, and matter and they are all related, then the universe's matter expanded at a certain rate, initially caused by the Big Bang. As we can observe, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, which indicates that it will not collapse on top of itself. This means that it will fall victim to Entropy and die out. If you say that Entropy is not a universal law, you are at odds with the scientific community, with little evidence to convince them otherwise.

Therefore, if the universe is comprised of matter expanding (enclosed but expanding space) of a course of time, and it has been observed to be expanding at an increasing rate, then it started at one place. Therefore, the Big Bang comes into play. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing, since our universe was not yet existent. Therefore, the universe is an enclosed system.

Can you prove it does not interact with any other universes (especially as it is expanding at an increasing rate).