@Labetolol45 Of course I'm not judging the arguments based on whether they are obscure. I can understand your confusion, though, if English is not your first language. The point is that creationists go looking for things that they themselves have little or no understanding of - things they perceive their audiences will not be knowledgeable about - and then choose to say something stupid in it. The arguments are not wrong because they are obscure; they're wrong because they're counter-factual.
@TheFallibleFiend if their audience is not knowledgable in the subject (and I am assuming you are not either) then how do you know they are wrong? Like I said, you are judging arguments on whether they are obscure or not. In other words, if you have no idea what they are talking about, you assume they are wrong.
@Labetolol45 I'm not judging the arguments wrong because they are obscure. Nor am I saying I don't know anything about the arguments. I have researched some of those topics, but am already familiar with some of them (I studied thermo in engineering school, e.g.) Creationists pick those subjects, because they themselves perceive nobody in the room will realize they're full of crap.
hey nice video..but please tell me about energy..our bodies have energy and are made of somewhat this energy..and when we die where does that energy go?...it does not just dissappear. you know what im talking about...how energy can not be destroyed.
IT DOES NOT DISSIPATE THAT MAKES NO SENSE YOU Are going against the laws of energy by saying that...man your smart...energy doesnt just dissipate...geez..your a whiz..for sure.
The energy does not just "go away." The energy is still there, but we are not energy. We are energy and matter in a particular arrangement. Without the arrangement, even with the matter and energy still 'around somewhere', we cease to exist.
There's a better series called "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" by Aronra. If you're not subscribed or haven't seen his stuff, you may want to check them out.
The basic problem is that NONE of the people who attack evolution have actually studied it. If they did, they would of course see that there's nothing TO attack. It isn't a Satanic Conspiracy, it's simply the description of a process, providing a very useful taxonomy and a way to understand relationships. I see no way around this problem of ignorance. And it will become far worse if we allow these untutored people to drag our science education back into the bronze age.
Being a victim of cyberstalking can be a common and painful experience. Some who cyberstalk: Spread lies and rumors about victims, Revealing personal information Post mean comments Film victims/use info without their consent
Prevent cyberstalking on YouTube: Refuse to post or pass along cyberbullying videos
This presents a focus area of my research. it is nice to see the comments on your videos... very telling. Right now I'm pressed for time, but I'm glad to see an intelligent voice speaking to and aptly defending one of my favorite topics! I'll be back to watch all of your posted videos shortly. Good work! Carry on!
Could you tell me a place where science and the Bible conflict on facts? I am honest in the question. I am a minister and I believe the King James Bible is literally true. Just wanted your thoughts. Thanks for your time.
And many, many more. This, of course, ignores scientific errors that are specifically miracles that left no evidence to be contradicted by science, and also ignores historical and continuity errors. I can add those in another post if you'd like.
Very nice videos. I really like the way you don't just analyze the arguments but also evaluate the kind of argumentation. What you say about how creationists argue is also true in debates in other topics.
Looked at some of the videos in your playlist. You're yet another creationist know-nothing creationist who hasn't done one iota of homework on the subject - and who in fact doesn't even know what real homework looks like.
You did make a statement of fact, you said and I quote "however, the fact is that among the two intelligentsias, the creationists are guilty without fail". You also dais "Sandage's comments about cosmology are pertinent." His comments on cosmology are creationist by nature. You you negate your own assertions.
1. the creationists ARE guilty of the applying these methods without fail.
2. I ought to have said, "Sandage's comments about cosmology are pertinent to the extent that he sticks to actual science." Science does not address the existence or non-existence of god.
1. I have given numerous, but clearly not an exhaustive list of examples. I intend to give many more.
2. As near as I can tell, Sandage is a "creationist" only in the sense that he believes in god. He seems to support his believe by an argument from ignorance (which is fine for his personal belief). however, I can't see anywhere where he claims that science proves god.
It strikes me that you have a very broad view of what constitutes a creationist. It's not clear to me that Sandage is either a YEC or an IDer. Further, it's not clear to me that he has ever said that science proves that god exists. Many evolutionists are "creationists" of this sort, including Francis Collins, among others.
I fabricated nothing, a quick view of the post history reveals that you made a statement of fact that was indeed false. I believe your reasoning was faulty because it was proven so with facts. What other "Facts" have you asserted in your video that could be off the cuff conjurations to further your point?
No sir, you made an absolute statement. I proved this statement false. It's pretty straight forward and clear. You then ignore the evidence or try to dismiss it with a ridiculous assertion. Further, given Sandage's pedigree, he is not ignorant in the realities of cosmological theory. Yo uare fairly typical, when it comes to hardcore objections, you are logically all hat and no cattle.
You proved a statement false that I did not make. His argument is an argument from ignorance. I don't care about his pedigree. You make a mistake common to creationists; namely, asserting that an argument is correct, because of the pedigree of the person making it. Like most creationists, you are better at talking about logic than practicing it.
Further, I have not made any claims as to what theory I hold to. You called me a creationist without basis, proving again that you speak about things you know nothing about in a matter of fact manner. So, are you in the habit of making up the facts as you go along? Yes or no.
I'm not in the habit of making up facts. Occasionally, like most people, I make mistakes. When I make mistakes I acknowledge my error, if I recognize it. I did not say that you were a creationist. I said that you make the same mistakes they make and that like them you are better at talking about logic than practicing it.
Once again, you stated " His argument is an argument from ignorance." I have already shown that he is not igonrant in the realm of cosmological theory so, no sir, again you are wrong, he does not argue from ignorance, he is one of the leading authorities on the subject of the origin and dirction of the universe. I would put more wight in what Allan Rex Sandage has to say on the subject than you any day of the week.
I did not say he was ignorant of cosmology. I said his argument is an "argument from ignorance." That is not the same thing. Look up the term "argument from ignorance." His argument is that "we have no explanation and we will never have an explanation, therefore we need a god to explain it." That is the a prototypical "argument from ignorance." Don't argue with me. Look it up.
That smacks a little of changing the subject. Again, you made a statement of fact. That statement of fact was false. The fact is, his scientific conclusion on the origin of the universe is a creationist one.
Your own reasoning is faulty. Just because a guy is a scientist doesn't mean that every statement he makes is a scientific conclusion. To the extent that Savage, et. al., are clear that some of their opinions are personal opinions and not scientific opinions, there is no issue. If his science has inspired his faith, there is no issue.
Further still, you are still trying to argue from a "no true Scotsman" vantage point. This IS faulty reasoning regardless of what you and I both believe. Also, you dismiss an idea as stupid because it contradicts evolutionary theory. This IS an appeal to authority and faulty reasoning as well.
That you believe that my reasoning was faulty does not mean that it was, in fact, faulty. I have said in a number of different places EXPLICITLY that there are a very few real scientists who have made significant contributions to science who are creationists. What you claim is my "essential intellectual assertion" is a pure fabrication.
Let me see if I understand correctly, if a scientist buys evolutionary theory without question he is orthodox in his thinking, if a scientist disagrees he must be a mental defective? The is a no true Scotsman argument, and a fallacy. Tell me again, who is intellecutally dishonest in this equation?
Your argument is false. There is a huge gap between saying questioning evolution and denying evolution or saying that creationism is legitimate science. If Sandage is personally persuaded by an argument from ignorance, that's one thing. If he says it actually supports creationism, yes, he's wrong.
But to the extent that he maintains that his science provides scientific evidence for his convictions, he is wrong. Great scientists are wrong all the time. His error doesn't negate his positive achievements; but neither do his achievements lend credence to false reasoning. His argument for god is fundamentally an argument from ignorance - and all the credentials in the world don't turn a stupid argument into a brilliant one.
I have serious scientific objections to evolutionary theory, but I don't strictly default to creationist theory either. To be fair, and intellectually honest, strict evolutionists are guilty of the same fallacies and faulty syllogisms as creationists.
To be fair, some non-scientific evolutionists might make commit some of these fallacies; however, the fact is that among the two intelligentsias, the creationists are guilty without fail, and the evolutionists only exceptionally so.
I would have to disagree with the term "without fail". Because it isn't a fact. Allan Rex Sandage, no lightweight in cosmology would disagree as well. I would be careful to paint with such a broad brush.
Sandage's comments about cosmology are pertinent. His comments about creationism are non-scientific hokum at best. Frankly, it seems like he's gone off the deep end.
Great vid. Great point on abscure scientific data. occasionally you'll have an expert in the field to step in and streighten the facts out leaving the creationist to look like a douche. Penn Gillette said it best " if you're going to get involved with speaking about science, be careful, because ther'll be real scientists there to check your facts."
I can't hear it, but I'm going deaf (no kidding). However, I could definitely hear a buzzing sound in some of my other videos. I'll have to experiment a little to figure it out. I do place the mic close to the built-in speakers.
That would very likely contribute to clipping if you're monitoring through those speakers as you record. I've noticed that most people using the headsets are getting good results - minimal feedback into the mic, and consistent mic placement on the voice.
Good video and great points. I find Creationists' behavior to be similar to "psychics'" behavior: they both spew bullshit so fast and furiously that one cannot keep up with refuting them. It can take ten minutes to refute a lie a Creationist can spew in five seconds.
So you are judging arguments on the basis of whether they are obscure or not? No wonder you are an evolutionist.
Labetolol45 3 months ago
@Labetolol45 Of course I'm not judging the arguments based on whether they are obscure. I can understand your confusion, though, if English is not your first language. The point is that creationists go looking for things that they themselves have little or no understanding of - things they perceive their audiences will not be knowledgeable about - and then choose to say something stupid in it. The arguments are not wrong because they are obscure; they're wrong because they're counter-factual.
TheFallibleFiend 3 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend if their audience is not knowledgable in the subject (and I am assuming you are not either) then how do you know they are wrong? Like I said, you are judging arguments on whether they are obscure or not. In other words, if you have no idea what they are talking about, you assume they are wrong.
Labetolol45 3 months ago
@Labetolol45 I'm not judging the arguments wrong because they are obscure. Nor am I saying I don't know anything about the arguments. I have researched some of those topics, but am already familiar with some of them (I studied thermo in engineering school, e.g.) Creationists pick those subjects, because they themselves perceive nobody in the room will realize they're full of crap.
TheFallibleFiend 3 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend thermodynamics is not an obscure subject, it is covered in grade 9. Maybe it is an obscure subject in the US educational system.
Labetolol45 3 months ago
@Labetolol45 Then creationists shouldn't be making obviously stupid statements about the second law.
TheFallibleFiend 3 months ago
hey nice video..but please tell me about energy..our bodies have energy and are made of somewhat this energy..and when we die where does that energy go?...it does not just dissappear. you know what im talking about...how energy can not be destroyed.
gloverage 2 years ago
Humans are more than just energy. We are energy organized in a particular way. When we die, that organization is lost, but the energy remains.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
and when we die there is no energy left..it is proven that the energy we have is not lost but has to have changed form...it simply just doesnt stay
gloverage 2 years ago
The "energy" is still in our bodies, but eventually dissipates. We retain the energy long after we're actually dead, but the organization is lost.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
IT DOES NOT DISSIPATE THAT MAKES NO SENSE YOU Are going against the laws of energy by saying that...man your smart...energy doesnt just dissipate...geez..your a whiz..for sure.
gloverage 2 years ago
if our energy just goes away..that would throw off the whole fuckin universes energy..
gloverage 2 years ago
The energy does not just "go away." The energy is still there, but we are not energy. We are energy and matter in a particular arrangement. Without the arrangement, even with the matter and energy still 'around somewhere', we cease to exist.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Stumbled onto your page and really enjoy your videos, I am going to try to make my way through all of them. Thank you for these.
CountCaffeine 2 years ago
There's a better series called "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" by Aronra. If you're not subscribed or haven't seen his stuff, you may want to check them out.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
I enjoy Aronras videos as well. I think your videos appeared on my reccommended links because I watch his.
CountCaffeine 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
RETARD!!!
graphattic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cyber harassment and stalking
United States National Crime Prevention Council:
Being a victim of cyberstalking can be a common and painful experience. Some who cyberstalk: Spread lies and rumors about victims, Revealing personal information Post mean comments Film victims/use info without their consent
Prevent cyberstalking on YouTube: Refuse to post or pass along cyberbullying videos
The National Crime Prevention Council
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You made a video that used my name without my permission. You are a cyber-stalker and you have been reported as such...
You need help.
You are a little fat, bald, Cyber - stalking wierdo who lives in his parents basement and has no life.
GET A LIFE...
You are a cyber-stalker!!!
I FORGIVE YOU- NOW STOP IT!
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
This presents a focus area of my research. it is nice to see the comments on your videos... very telling. Right now I'm pressed for time, but I'm glad to see an intelligent voice speaking to and aptly defending one of my favorite topics! I'll be back to watch all of your posted videos shortly. Good work! Carry on!
sandybyrum 3 years ago
Could you tell me a place where science and the Bible conflict on facts? I am honest in the question. I am a minister and I believe the King James Bible is literally true. Just wanted your thoughts. Thanks for your time.
JSA1957 3 years ago
JSA: Always glad to oblige:
Leviticus 14:50 (cure for leprosy)
Genesis 30:38 (how to make striped cattle)
Genesis 1 (unless you take it *really* liberally)
Genesis 6 (...Noah... yeah.)
Leviticus 11:20 (god bans 4-legged birds...)
And many, many more. This, of course, ignores scientific errors that are specifically miracles that left no evidence to be contradicted by science, and also ignores historical and continuity errors. I can add those in another post if you'd like.
mediusnacht 3 years ago
Very nice videos. I really like the way you don't just analyze the arguments but also evaluate the kind of argumentation. What you say about how creationists argue is also true in debates in other topics.
SIMEIB 4 years ago
you sure love to slander and stereotype, that's you're method, check out my playlists for the facts your kind keeps running from
kyleain 4 years ago
Neither slander nor stereotype. It's true. Creationists use irrational techniques and pretend logic to mislead.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
I'll check out your vids, but get this - facts aren't facts, just because you say they are.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Looked at some of the videos in your playlist. You're yet another creationist know-nothing creationist who hasn't done one iota of homework on the subject - and who in fact doesn't even know what real homework looks like.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Your videos are excellent. Thank you for posting!
justsmit 4 years ago
You did make a statement of fact, you said and I quote "however, the fact is that among the two intelligentsias, the creationists are guilty without fail". You also dais "Sandage's comments about cosmology are pertinent." His comments on cosmology are creationist by nature. You you negate your own assertions.
guitarstankmonkey 4 years ago
1. the creationists ARE guilty of the applying these methods without fail.
2. I ought to have said, "Sandage's comments about cosmology are pertinent to the extent that he sticks to actual science." Science does not address the existence or non-existence of god.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
1. An absolute statement that you cannot prove, stated as fact. Sounds familiar.
2. What definition of science? Nobody it says that it does. Another example of changing the subject and a not too clever attempot at deflection.
guitarstankmonkey 4 years ago
1. I have given numerous, but clearly not an exhaustive list of examples. I intend to give many more.
2. As near as I can tell, Sandage is a "creationist" only in the sense that he believes in god. He seems to support his believe by an argument from ignorance (which is fine for his personal belief). however, I can't see anywhere where he claims that science proves god.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
I wrote: " Science does not address the existence or non-existence of god."
You responded: "Nobody it says that it does. (sic)"
Creationism is exactly the attempt to "prove god" by refuting evolution.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
It strikes me that you have a very broad view of what constitutes a creationist. It's not clear to me that Sandage is either a YEC or an IDer. Further, it's not clear to me that he has ever said that science proves that god exists. Many evolutionists are "creationists" of this sort, including Francis Collins, among others.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
I fabricated nothing, a quick view of the post history reveals that you made a statement of fact that was indeed false. I believe your reasoning was faulty because it was proven so with facts. What other "Facts" have you asserted in your video that could be off the cuff conjurations to further your point?
guitarstankmonkey 4 years ago
A quick view of the post history shows exactly that you have fabricated this.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
No sir, you made an absolute statement. I proved this statement false. It's pretty straight forward and clear. You then ignore the evidence or try to dismiss it with a ridiculous assertion. Further, given Sandage's pedigree, he is not ignorant in the realities of cosmological theory. Yo uare fairly typical, when it comes to hardcore objections, you are logically all hat and no cattle.
guitarstankmonkey 4 years ago
You proved a statement false that I did not make. His argument is an argument from ignorance. I don't care about his pedigree. You make a mistake common to creationists; namely, asserting that an argument is correct, because of the pedigree of the person making it. Like most creationists, you are better at talking about logic than practicing it.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Further, I have not made any claims as to what theory I hold to. You called me a creationist without basis, proving again that you speak about things you know nothing about in a matter of fact manner. So, are you in the habit of making up the facts as you go along? Yes or no.
guitarstankmonkey 4 years ago
I'm not in the habit of making up facts. Occasionally, like most people, I make mistakes. When I make mistakes I acknowledge my error, if I recognize it. I did not say that you were a creationist. I said that you make the same mistakes they make and that like them you are better at talking about logic than practicing it.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Once again, you stated " His argument is an argument from ignorance." I have already shown that he is not igonrant in the realm of cosmological theory so, no sir, again you are wrong, he does not argue from ignorance, he is one of the leading authorities on the subject of the origin and dirction of the universe. I would put more wight in what Allan Rex Sandage has to say on the subject than you any day of the week.
guitarstankmonkey 4 years ago
I did not say he was ignorant of cosmology. I said his argument is an "argument from ignorance." That is not the same thing. Look up the term "argument from ignorance." His argument is that "we have no explanation and we will never have an explanation, therefore we need a god to explain it." That is the a prototypical "argument from ignorance." Don't argue with me. Look it up.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Ah, I see. That isn't exactly what he said, but I can make consession there.
guitarstankmonkey 4 years ago
That smacks a little of changing the subject. Again, you made a statement of fact. That statement of fact was false. The fact is, his scientific conclusion on the origin of the universe is a creationist one.
guitarstankmonkey 4 years ago
See. My perception is that you are changing the subject. His "scientific opinion" in this matter is derived from an argument from ignorance.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Your own reasoning is faulty. Just because a guy is a scientist doesn't mean that every statement he makes is a scientific conclusion. To the extent that Savage, et. al., are clear that some of their opinions are personal opinions and not scientific opinions, there is no issue. If his science has inspired his faith, there is no issue.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Further still, you are still trying to argue from a "no true Scotsman" vantage point. This IS faulty reasoning regardless of what you and I both believe. Also, you dismiss an idea as stupid because it contradicts evolutionary theory. This IS an appeal to authority and faulty reasoning as well.
guitarstankmonkey 4 years ago
No. It's not that kind of argument at all. Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy regardless of the credentials of the person making it.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
That you believe that my reasoning was faulty does not mean that it was, in fact, faulty. I have said in a number of different places EXPLICITLY that there are a very few real scientists who have made significant contributions to science who are creationists. What you claim is my "essential intellectual assertion" is a pure fabrication.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Let me see if I understand correctly, if a scientist buys evolutionary theory without question he is orthodox in his thinking, if a scientist disagrees he must be a mental defective? The is a no true Scotsman argument, and a fallacy. Tell me again, who is intellecutally dishonest in this equation?
guitarstankmonkey 4 years ago
Your argument is false. There is a huge gap between saying questioning evolution and denying evolution or saying that creationism is legitimate science. If Sandage is personally persuaded by an argument from ignorance, that's one thing. If he says it actually supports creationism, yes, he's wrong.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
But to the extent that he maintains that his science provides scientific evidence for his convictions, he is wrong. Great scientists are wrong all the time. His error doesn't negate his positive achievements; but neither do his achievements lend credence to false reasoning. His argument for god is fundamentally an argument from ignorance - and all the credentials in the world don't turn a stupid argument into a brilliant one.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
I have serious scientific objections to evolutionary theory, but I don't strictly default to creationist theory either. To be fair, and intellectually honest, strict evolutionists are guilty of the same fallacies and faulty syllogisms as creationists.
guitarstankmonkey 4 years ago
To be fair, some non-scientific evolutionists might make commit some of these fallacies; however, the fact is that among the two intelligentsias, the creationists are guilty without fail, and the evolutionists only exceptionally so.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
I would have to disagree with the term "without fail". Because it isn't a fact. Allan Rex Sandage, no lightweight in cosmology would disagree as well. I would be careful to paint with such a broad brush.
guitarstankmonkey 4 years ago
Sandage's comments about cosmology are pertinent. His comments about creationism are non-scientific hokum at best. Frankly, it seems like he's gone off the deep end.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Yep, the typical mindset of a theist is that unanswered questions default to creation as the answer.
Brainmold 4 years ago
Great vid. Great point on abscure scientific data. occasionally you'll have an expert in the field to step in and streighten the facts out leaving the creationist to look like a douche. Penn Gillette said it best " if you're going to get involved with speaking about science, be careful, because ther'll be real scientists there to check your facts."
busymartian 4 years ago
just watched a second time. Man, you really hit on a lot of the subtler points. Awesome, except for the audio quality.
vantraveler 4 years ago
I can't hear it, but I'm going deaf (no kidding). However, I could definitely hear a buzzing sound in some of my other videos. I'll have to experiment a little to figure it out. I do place the mic close to the built-in speakers.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
That would very likely contribute to clipping if you're monitoring through those speakers as you record. I've noticed that most people using the headsets are getting good results - minimal feedback into the mic, and consistent mic placement on the voice.
vantraveler 4 years ago
Good video and great points. I find Creationists' behavior to be similar to "psychics'" behavior: they both spew bullshit so fast and furiously that one cannot keep up with refuting them. It can take ten minutes to refute a lie a Creationist can spew in five seconds.
Desertphile 4 years ago 3
"spew bullshit "
Yes. It's kinda like the shell game.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Good vid and nice analysis of creationist dishonesty.
Grimlore 4 years ago