Stupid Design


This is an from a presentation by Neil deGrasse Tyson at the 2006 Beyond Belief conference. Neil is the director of the Hayden Planetarium in the Rose Center For Earth and Space at the American Museum of Natural History. In this Powerpoint entitled "Stupid Design" Tyson points out some of the glaring evidence for a universe without a designer.







Channel: Howto
Uploaded: December 1, 2006 at 10:46 am
Author: tolka

Length: 00:05:03
Rating: 4.7317905
Views: 144046

Tags: atheism intelligent stupid design Neil deGrasse Tyson 2006 Beyond Belief science religion skepticism

Embed Code:
Video Comments:
cerickNY (March 22, 2010 at 2:20 am)
lol he spellt crocodiles "crockodiles". Clear evidence that Creationism is totts right (note: JUST KIDDING, that would be borderline brain-dead of me to say with sincerity).
maddtappin (March 20, 2010 at 5:48 pm)
@MichaelGabrielR I'm not interested in only peer reviewed stuff. That is biased, agreed. I've seen two "Creationist Peers" both review each other's work and say...hm yeah that works, yet have no actual evidence or it has been also been disproved in a lab for example "irreducible complexity." I'm interested in scientific evidence. The same kind that saved my friend and cured him of cancer. In which they had a hypothesis, made predictions, collected evidence and the predictions came true.
MichaelGabrielR (March 20, 2010 at 4:13 pm)
@maddtappin
I'm no expert in fairy tales (though you can look up Elasmotherium). Colorful mythology can develop even around an existent animal or person, if given enough time or distance. Therefore it's best to look to historical records that are closer in time to the actual events or multiple, independent accounts speaking the same thing. The Gospel of John is one example. Bible books make a long chain of historically accurate writings that predict one another. Peer review isn't free from bias.
maddtappin (March 20, 2010 at 12:27 am)
@MichaelGabrielR well, like i said before , unicorns, fairies, ghosts, gods, myths, etc are non-existent...save that for they live in the human imagination. ...I have reasonable doubt in all of them...now far be it from me to keep anyone else from scientifically proving them, I mean please if you have actual peer to peer reviewed, replicable evidence of any of the above then please let me see too.
MichaelGabrielR (March 19, 2010 at 11:48 pm)
@maddtappin
I didn't meant to point a finger at anyone specific, but, since you're so eager to know more, I say that all of us are superstitious to some lesser or greater degree. This results from ignorance, which is itself the lack of either knowledge, education or awareness. It's a good thing to reduce those to bare minimum if possible. Therefore, setting up artificial limits to your understanding (like assuming something not-existent) works against discovery, but the truth makes one free.
maddtappin (March 19, 2010 at 11:20 pm)
@MichaelGabrielR okay...what gave you the idea that I am superstitious in anyway? Or that I don't study evidence?
MichaelGabrielR (March 19, 2010 at 11:17 pm)
@maddtappin
You see, there is no reason to believe anything if it cannot be checked whether it's true or not. Myths are many these days. Having too few data only leads to speculations and superstition - certainly not a thing for a rational thinker. Instead of conforming to society's delusions, we must study the available evidence to investigate the distant past we haven't seen. Something real always leaves a trace in history. The question really is - are we willing to learn or remain ignorant?
maddtappin (March 19, 2010 at 10:53 pm)
@MichaelGabrielR agree we must not just trust historians blindly....as the saying goes it's HIStory but, history to certain degrees show truth, like the Historical fact that two planes ran into the Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001. ....I'd call that a "historical fact"if someone said.."No No...."it didn't happen at all it was fabricated and shown on tv to make us believe" a person who's seen the evidence would call you irrational or nutz...what are you getting at anyway?
MichaelGabrielR (March 19, 2010 at 6:45 pm)
@maddtappin
Says nothing of the truth?
You mean that they aren't based on reality or are self-refuting? If so, why must we trust those historians (unless you're willing to believe a lie)? Doesn't a historical account claim to be true? They're unbiased, perhaps?
As for the Christ, you can't choose to be born into anything (age, family bloodline, culture, or religion). Archeology proves the NT correct. The account itself is too real, portraying disciples in negative light and spreading controversy
patchmack2 (March 19, 2010 at 7:01 am)
this dude's a major bummer.

1