So far as observed, the theory of evolution, the change of lifeforms over generations changing has proven itself as much more evidential than a sentient super being.
@BeBoBli My observations render the conclusion that change and growth in all forms is evidential of Divine manifestation. Evolution is His method. Free will in action.
If you believe in creationism, then you must believe God made everything with extraneous parts and flaws. If this is the best God can do, then he is an idiot. If you accept this as perfect, then you are as big an idiot.
People have died refuting the Bible. Legally, the burden of proof is accepted as :beyond a reasonable doubt, NOT beyond a "shadow of a doubt". As an atheist, I don't want to prove my point to you on religion, aka creationism. I just don't want to allow you to throw your "beyond a shadow of a doubt' standard at me, while you complain if a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is considered rude to expect from you, before you're allowed to demand a forum in the public schools.
I know this, regarding the Bible, there is nothing in it relating any facts other than what was known by the people in the particular time and place where it was written. That's a clue I cannot ignore. There are many more ridiculous, contradictory things to be noted about it, but that fact is the one most glaring coincidence that, to me, allows me to see it as it is. A poorly edited, though poetic, stage play.
and please any that still believe the moon landing was a hoax(yes there are millions that still think Nasa staged the whole thing and rocks on earth where "disguised"to fool the public) need not respond.
what is "star stuff" Sagan and Tyson bring it up in fact Tyson said "i am amazed when i look up in the sky in wonder knowing we are made of star stuff" quote not exact but close,i thought he meant in the beginning when earth was formed the elements in space are on earth as well but moon rocks do not match exactly what we have on earth the isotopes and nuclear energy formed them are different as well,anyway if anyone knows what he meant by the statements help would be appreciated, cont.
@johndebbra Have you ever heard of metaphor? Do you not think the Earth is at one with the universe? In it? On it? Affected by it? It affected by the Earth?
@johndebbra Just refering to the heavier elements created from a supernova. The early universe was mostly hydrogen & helium, supernovae "seeded" the universe with carbon, oxygen, iron etc. The stuff we're made of.
Sorry but spending ANY time at all thinking about, and trying to rationalize anything VenomFangX (Shawn) says is a waste of your time and considerable intellect. He is a troll who lives to waste your time and take you away from your family.
Do not give in to siren's song, no matter how seductive it may be.
Anytime sometime counters an argument with, "...but you can't deny the possibility of..." whatever it is that they're claiming is really laying a argumentative trap.
That's because they are not asserting a possibility -- but an actuality.
Existence consists of countless possibilities, most of them consequenceless, untestable, and ignored.
It's possible that Yahweh created the world 6000 years ago in 6 days.
(cont'd) (2) It's also possible that there's a planet of 100 ft. tall Amazon women somewhere in a galaxy a 100 million light years away.
Sure -- if one is simply asserting that any of the above is *a possibility* -- something without any supporting evidence but which can't be ruled out, then we're on the same page.
But the debater isn't saying that the Yahweh claim is simply possible -- he's saying that it's true.
For something to be possible, it's only necessary for it *not* to have been affirmatively shown to be impossible -- and that really only applies to claims that are logically absurd or meaningless.
For something to be accepted as true, as an empirical claim, it has to be "possible" for it to be shown to be true, and the claimant has to *show* that there are good reasons, in evidence and inference to accept his claim as true.
It is Truth (note the capital T). Even more so than any philosophical truth, precisely for the reasons you've cited. It isn't rational to expect a limited, imperfect animal like Man to be able to know ALL truth but science WILL give us the best we can get and much more than philosophy EVER can.
For all practical purposes, theory of evolution IS PROVED beyond any shade of doubt. You can talk about the principles of science and how "nothing is ever proved beyond shade of doubt in science" when you are dealing with intelligent people. But it doesn't work for masses. You need to use simplified version when you talk to retards who are capable of believing in creationism. And simplified version is, "evolution IS proved, perdiod".
THANK YOU! You cannot prove an inductive model such as evolution. Just like you cannot know that all swans are white. But if you observe more and more white swans and none of other colors, the probability you are correct rises.
But there are black swans also...so you just need to see ONE of them to realize that "all swans are white" is wrong, no matter how many white swans you observe.
@NKA23 It was an example of an inductive argument used in textbooks for logic classes. I am aware of black swans. But for the sake of the argument, assume you saw 10 million white swans and not a single black one over many many years in all conditions in which one would observe swans. One could assume that all other swans are white, but it would not be 100% certain deductive proof. That was my point :)
VFX is not the only person who has a prior commitment to his faith. I have heard from other creationists on YT. Some are extreme enough to disbelieve what they can see and measure with their own eyes if they think it conflicts with scripture. The argument is over before it has begun. Sad really.
@Fudmottin: “Some [creationists] are extreme enough to disbelieve what they can see and measure with their own eyes if they think it conflicts with scripture.”
That’s actually stated outright, practically in those very words, in the Statements of Faith of creationist websites such as AiG, CRI, etc. (usually as the last item on the page). NO evidence in ANY field can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
Evolution may be wrong. We atheists will admit that. However, it does help to explain the observations we have made in nature thus far. Creationism helps to explain nothing but human arrogance and stupidity.
You mistake a strawman for theism, and also fail to understand the history of philosophy and science and distinguish the ancient's metaphysics from their physics. Of course you are right about evolution, but your idea of inductive logic in science is a purely modern and fallacious idea (see Hume) which rests on a mechanistic metaphysics. Science only really starts working when we go back to some sort of Aristotelian system of essence. See Feser's "The Last Superstition" for alongerexplanation
@zipppy2006 Lol! This is one of the longer comments here, yet you've said absolutely nothing. You object, yet you give no specific objections, you just throw around a bunch of philosophical references. Basically, you disagree without explaining exactly why you disagree, but you use references that would make people assume you know what you are talking about. How fucking pretentious of you.
@tamicha1 Your "explanation" is grounded in the idea that science is purely (and therefore fallaciously) inductive. Which is to say you did exactly what you accuse me of: claimed to say something while saying nothing at all. Pure induction is a simple fallacy, which your metaphysic is necessarily bound to.
@tamicha1 You don't, and that's the point. You just say "science is based on inductive logic." By itself your concept is simply fallacious. If you address the *actual* metaphysical roots of science rather than simply claiming that it is inductive and that's that, you will find yourself back at theism, at least that is my claim. Your anti-fundamentalist arguments are quite sound so far as they go, but the deeper philosophy grounding your view--evidenced by your words--is simply untenable.
@tamicha1 note that when you substancelessly criticize my criticism I assume you are actually taking the author's viewpoint and not just being a troll.
Philosophy can't give you that either. In fact, if you wan't to learn as much as possible about important things we don't really have a clue about, then you should go to the philosophy section. If you want absolute certainty, you shouldn't be in a library at all. You should be in your bed with your eyes and ears closed.
All I see are a bunch of dudes that never get laid, arguing over bullshit. There is no god, evolution is definitely correct, we cant account for every single second of life and who in the fuck cares other than idiots that think we just appeared one day when some random space scientist "invented" us...
whatever happened to the idea of NEVER debating a creationist? Oil and water, apples and oranges they don't mix and don't compare. If its for entertainment value then its a bit like critiquing the flaws of superman's ability to fly.
Blah... I'm sad this channel is getting more and more into the ridiculous "debate" between creationists and everybody else that is not stupid. It may seem an interesting opportunity to talk about the principles of science, but that has been done countless times already in youtube and elsewhere.
Discussing with creationists is just ego boosting.
I agree with sean that evolution and Christianity are diametrically opposed, that if you accept the age of the earth and evolution, you can't accept Christianity, Judaism or Islam. I know that there are a lot of Christians that accept the age of the earth and evolution, but they are dishonest with themselves about their religion. How can you possibly reconcile the bible and old earth and evolution while maintaining integrity?
VFX is being a hypocrite and an idiot. He has different standards of evidence for creationism and evolution. He wants evolution proved to the exclusion of all other possibilities, but is willing to take creationism on the concept that it can't be disproved. If he turned that same skepticism to his own beliefs, they would fall apart like the house of cards that they are.
and so while I definitely agree with you that VFX has little understanding of the use of simple inductive reasoning and that he needs to first get an idea of what these are before he fails miserably fighting them. However it just seems like it all boils down to what facts they want to believe and what facts they choose to ignore, it is about them wanting you to agree with them and gain equivalent ideological recognition for a morally repugnant system.
C0nc0rdance, I'm sure you already know this, but VFX and the like argue from the epistemological side of philosophy. This of course means the argument is ALWAYS about whether or not you can 'PROVE' it not just beyond doubt, but completely - as if that were somehow possible. Ultimately it boils down to, 'since you cannot completely prove your claim, anything I claim is just as valid' - this is an argument from an epistemological perspective, not a functional one.
Im sorry Concordance, normally I enjoy your videos, but I have to say that the Feynman quote you put in there makes you look extremely ignorant of what philosophy is and does.
Whether you like it or not, philosophy as a "whole" is dead. There are some exceptions just like experimental philosophy mind, however, in general science is taking over (for good).
Seeing how philosophy is mainly just critical thinking and reasoning, no philosophy is not dead. Im assuming you got that idea from Hawking bc its almost word for word, but I could be wrong. Nevertheless, philosophy reigns in all disciplines bc that's where all academics stem from. This is why the category youre referring to is neurophilosophy, where neuroscience is trying to understand the vast complexities of the brain. Cont....
"seeing how philosophy is mainly just critical thinking and reasoning, no philosophy is no dead"
Critical thinking and reasoning, even motivation itself to engage in such endeavors are powerful models of utility. It doesnt matter how you label them. All you are doing there is looking for "justification" and eventually even get lost in an infinite regress. (Yes, justificationism is running in vicious circles, too.)
I dont understand what you mean by that. Neurophilosophy has not much in common with "classical philosophy" anymore. Its moving on into the direction of the "scientific mode", too.
Professor David Miller (oh, a philosopher of science! d*mn...) disagrees with the mistake of "mistake on your end". Critical rationalism is evidently a much better solution there. Evidence? Look what sc has accomplished since.
"to think that NP isnt P"
It doesnt seem to resemble to "classical philosophy" at all. On the contrary, it looks like its becoming more and more "science-like" - becoming a powerful model of utility.
Umm I hope you know that I could quote a professor as well that disagrees. Where would that get us? And you do realize youre trying to justify your position, right? Kinda shooting yourself in the foot there buddy. Sorry but neurophilosophy is philosophy; its a philosophy course; its taught by philosophers; its not becoming 'science-like' (whatever that means). Just so were clear, are you really trying to say that neurophilosophy isnt philosophy???
"you know that I could quote a professor as well that disagrees"
Sure you could! The problem is, "you" simply dont reap the "fruits".
"justifying your position"
If at all, then its because of usefulness of the "fruits" themselves, not because of some transcending need for justification (again, likely leading to an infinite regress). In addition, it doesnt matter how much you justify, its "one" experiment only that proves you wrong. And that says it all.
Also if philosophy were dead, then I guess a comprehensive theory of justice has been found? Civic responsibility and obligation as well? Not to mention current moral standards for all, and perhaps for sentient machines in the future? Environmental ethics? ....No, philosophy is not dead and this is just a scratch on the surface of what philosophy encompasses.
2. No we arent and Im not sure who this 'we' is. If youre referring to first world society the term youre looking for is egalitarian, not utilitarian.
3. HIs book is HIGHLY controversial, to say the least.
4. All Im doing is looking for justification? Well, I hope you do know that THAT is a requirement for knowledge, right? I hope you look to justify your beliefs as well. Also, not sure where the whole infinite regress came from
1. For example neuroscience, optogenetics, memetics, information theory, etc.
2. Nix egalitarian. You asked about a theory of civic responsibility and obligation. I answered that we were moving in the direction of (scientific) models of utility. Those will eventually be pinned down in a more precise manner, directly rooted in biology, neurology, etc.
3. Which one? Moral Landscape? Yes, its controversial, yet again, his hypothesis is in principle a scientific one.
4. Powerful scientific models of utility are justified by the utility itself. No need to justify "them" once again. How do you justify justification? And so on? Thats where the infinite regress (potentially) comes from. Since this is obviously unnecessary and even a counterproductive endeavor, we can scrap justificationism altogether. Instead, critical rationalism does a much better service (again, a powerful model of utility) here.
Sean - Notice the absence of emotional appeals, leading questions, begging the question arguments and other logical fallacies. I've never heard such clarity from your vids. Care to up the quality of your debate?
Ad hoc mean "for this", meaning the argument is tailored for the conclusion you are trying to reach. It's best restated as "after the fact rationalization" rather than predictive and consistent logic.
You may be thinking of "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, which is a fallacy of assuming causation for two co-incident events. Like saying "children are diagnosed with autism shortly after vaccination... therefore vaccines cause autism".
@C0nc0rdance i thought ad hoc was the needless addition of clauses. like the idea of theistic evolution, identical to the modern understanding of evolution, but with "except god was responsible for it" tacked onto the end...
Hi C0nc0rdance, I just wanted to say (if you get a chance to read this) that I really like your videos and you have a really calming voice. I was in a bit of a bad mood but after this video, I realise not everyone is a moron and I am much more (excuse the hippy phrase, old habits die hard.) centred, thanks for making these videos. Keep up the good work.
@gaving2 Yeah. I was saying to my flatmate yesterday that his voice would be nice to listen to in class. You pay attention but it's not intrusive, doesn't hurt your ears and doesn't put you off what you're supposed to be learning.
Common designer, common design? Then how come the different designs for e.g. eyes? It's an ad hoc hypothesis to answer on question that logically fails when it comes to other questions.
VFX wants prove beyond doubt? Even a court just wants prove beyond *reasonable* doubt. It's funny that he rejects science because it can't prove stuff with 100% certainty (does he reject the justice system, too?) and then turns to *religion*.
Xavier Lumens? Hmmn..Is that the real name of tf. Why reveal it just now and through that debate? He forgot or it's not real? xD Still I don't see the reason either way.
And, I have yet to find a creationist who will not immediately attempt to equate the science discussed with atheism and attempt to turn the conversation into a debate about religious faith versus atheism.
@WildwoodClaire1 That's what always gets me. The evilutionist atheist. The godless cosmologist. Whenever I ask Nephi what does evolution or cosmology have to do with atheism, I get blocked from his channel. VXF will attempt to answer usually in some long winded circular logic fashion that leaves me looking on line for the sources of his argument, but at least he tries.
We (atheists) go about arguing with them (theists) in the wrong way. We're trying to use logic and reasoning and that won't work
"Debating" creationists is folly for a variety of reasons. For one thing, it implies that their position and science are merely alternative products in a great market of ideas. Secondly, as you point out, one cannot stop and go fact check creationists in a debate. And fact checking is crucial because there is not one single creationist who does not distort and misrepresent information and unashamedly resort to out and out lies to support their shoddy belief system.
That's a bullshit quote by Popper. Popper was paraphrasing Einstein to demonstrate the flaws of Positivism, but everybody attributes this to Popper as if that's actually how he thought! I get so sick of seeing this fucking quote mine repeated as a meme when it was really part of an attack on Wittgenstein's philosophy and originally from Albert Einstein.
Minor point. The Ptolemaic system was quite accurate, even more so than the original Copernican model. but it was horribly inelegant. If was full of arbitrary constants and baroque mechanisms of spheres on sphere and in other sphere and unexplained forces. The Copernican system was somewhat less accurate but far simpler so many people including Galileo favored it as the basis for a new system. Finally Kepler tweaked it with his laws of motion and elliptical orbits and it became more accurate.
Even though I agreed with practically everything in this video, I was disappointed to see this silly notion that capitalizing the first letter of a common noun in English changes the meaning of the word. What is the point of this? If we assume that "truth" always means "truth" regardless of capital letters, are we missing out on something? What's the value of "Truth with a capital 'T'" concept?
@TheStephenation Usually the distinction implies the difference between the common descriptive use of a term and its metaphysical embodiment. That is, truth refers to instances where a statment is made that is correct to the best of our knowlege or to all practical purposes. While Truth refers to the idea that there is some ultimate unique reality of which there is no interpretation necessary and that we may never know. I don't really believe in "Truth"
5:52 "If it can't be falsified, it's not science anymore." So then - how do you falsify the evolutionary claim that humans are genetic descendants of Sarcopterygii fish? No really... entertain me with a guess C0nman.
Embryology studies that show that pharyngeal slits are not present in human embryos would suggest that the lobe-fins and humans are of a polyphyletic clade and therefore do share a common ancestor, but it would not be a Devonian Sarcopterygii. This information is of the high school advanced placement biology level.
@michalchik The information I presented is in the Pearson AP Biology textbook. The studies are obviously nonexistent and purely hypothetical to prove that the claim is falsifiable and therefore scientific.
@theDracoIX If they appeared at the same times or later than humans in the fossil record. If modern versions showed little or no molecular, anatomical, physiological homology or less homology than other lines. If there were ample fossils but a distinct lack of transitional forms between us. If the general principles of evolution were falsified by a variety of means. If the lobed fishes could not use their lobes for ambulation. If the lobed fishes had major paraphyletic traits like hemocyanin.
Science being "all or nothing" to VFX is equal to his Bible being "all or nothing." Science and scientists disprove: they do not prove; science and scientists deal with levels of uncertainty, never certainty. These traits are the exact opposite of theist faith, and fundamentalist religionists project their beliefs on to what they believe scientists "should be" or even are doing. It is an expression of infantile immature behavior.
Sigh. It’s the old non sequitur about about how science has to be honest enough to acknowledge the inherent fallibility of human understanding, therefore there must be a god... somehow... and only one who just happens to be the cosmic, Jewish zombie who is His own father.
Is it true what I’ve heard that PCS is blocking critical commentors again?
@lazyperfectionist1 I've heard that, hes dissallowed Thumbs up and down on his videos, and he still hasn't unblocked me.
It's a shame though, he's clearly maturing in SOME way, his philosphy is amateurish at best, but he does make slick videos that deserve a thumbs up anda nice comment for there production values alone.
I caught Shawn's double-talk right away. He's had that one explained to him already. Shawn knows that he's wrong. He simply repeats stuff like that because he wants to win the argument. There's no point in arguing with someone who isn't interested in learning.
Gorgeous video...again. Well done. I have one small misgiving with it, however. You state that in order to examine truth with the cap T one needs to look to philosophy to do so. Given that we are still discovering sciences, especially those of the brain, it is folly to concede such domain of inquiry to philosophy alone. There may still be answers found in science for what many people consider the "interesting questions" – it's possible that we just don't know how to ask them properly yet.
@magreggins With science we can "prove" things as truth or not truth till the point that it is basically stupid to question it anymore.
We can't PROVE it though, we can only ,,, prove it, as Concordance said, Absolute truth is the realm of philsophy, not science, and nothing we learn about science will change this.
This isn't a weakness though, it's just a part of the way science works.
@busby3141592 Right right. I get you, busby. But, as far as I can discern, science isn't about proving anything. Science is about explaining the universe and its phenomena as reliably as possible. This makes science the best avenue we have thus far for viewing and understanding reality. I agree with you that this is not a weakness of science – I'm am, however, weary of people apologizing for it not being a weakness of science.
Actually, VenomX's philosophical idea of the possibility of a perfect illusion - of something appearing in every way as if it was true while not being true - was extensively dismissed within the field of philosophy. Few accessible examples would be papers like:
"Descartes' Evil Genius" by OK Bouwsma
"Brains in a vat" by Hilary Putnam
"Systematically misleading expressions" by Gilbert Ryle
So the field of philosophy isn't to be blamed for raising fallacies, because its job is to tackle them.
I really like the example of Ptolemy's model. Ptolemy lasted so long because his measurements would not be bested until Tycho Brahe. While Anaxamander and Copernican models are actually more close to being correct, Ptolemy's models were so good at prediction that it stood the test of time. This was a testament to the precision of his measurement, and it's adherence to "common sense."
If you were to use Ptolemy's model to navigate from Europe or Africa to the US, you could land within 40 miles of your destination. It was a remarkably predictive system, despite it's flaws. It took better measurements AND a rejection of our dogmatic adherence to "common sense" to finally cast away Ptolemy.
I was at that debate, and it was sad to see someone have his ass handed to him so repeatedly without ever being able to acknowledge, not that his ship was sinking, but had rather completely sunk! Reminded of the beating of Jesus in Mel Gibson's Passion ! he he he ;-)
The last part reminds me of Ken Ham (I think it's him) going on about how you have to view the world through the filter of the bible. What bad advice to give people.
Towards the beginning you quoted Feynman saying 'Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong.' Then you go on to quote Popper (a philosopher) whose impact on science was extraordinary through the concept of falsifiability. I wonder, then, did you quote Feynman to show how wrong he is?
I find it hilarious that devout Christians speak of the possibility of errors in science's current consensus and are constantly asking for "More proof". Well, let's weigh the evidence shall we? The general consensus of millions of people who have performed millions of hours of research and reproduceable testing over the course of at least 2000 years (Although mostly during the last 200, no thanks to christianity) VS. A 2000 Year old BOOK written by people who would have worshipped a flashlight.
@nightmathzombieethan Hey man, leave flashlights out of this. They're awesome. I've got 6 of them and if someone gave me a new one, I'd be "thanks, I appreciate it".
Indiana Jones said "Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. " at the start of The Last Crusade.
@toppledgod Fantastic sequence of words that. Can't believe the tub of lard that is George Lucas wrote or let that be in there. Judging by his latest "works" all respect for that guy flew out the window with Star Wars Episode I. At least I think so :D
Funny that the solipsism proposed by the 'we can't know for sure' plea is never quite carried through into action by its proponents. When they start turning that solipsism against *all* theories of reality beyond the self, then I might credit them with some sincerity. While they use it as a cheap move to try and discredit a theory they don't like, and push some have-it-all-ways metaphysical bullshit they do like, I'll call that for what it is: utterly disingenuous.
Why are you worried about the Censor Monkey, he is an asset to reason, his ideas are bankrupt, he is afraid of real debate and is to all intents and purposes he is the best reason for a lack of belief in a Deity we have. Let the Creatard have full reign, encourage him in his ministry, for every convert he makes to religion he makes 50 rational people, keep up the good work Sean, long may you broadcast on the Tube.
IMO the problem with talking to creationists in real time is that they can make more scientifically erroneous assertions in 1 minute than you can possibly correct in the same amount of time. As long as creationists arguments consist of assertions, all the burden is on the person arguing from facts. This inequity exists because of the lack of facts to support creationism. If you try to explain it, they interrupt, make 10 more assertions, and the infinite regression begins.
In short; science requires neither belief nor faith! When religion can say the same it will become a science. How much intellect is required to realize that simple fact and how much deception is used to hide that fact?
No, Dr. Concordance Jones, I will not enroll in Dr. Tyree's philosophy class right down the hall! Furthermore, venomfang"X" never, EVER marks the spot. (A bit on the nose, sure, but at least it will be as excruciating to read as it was to type)
It is often that the delusional christian will bring forth the argument of "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics". But I say to them, what of the rest of Thermodynamics? Is there no other laws of Thermodynamics? No third or first even? I haven't even finished highschool and I know jesus cannot stand the heat and must get out of the kitchen.
Philosophy doesn't try to give us capital T truth either, and anyone who says it does is mistaken or lying.
Daruqe 2 weeks ago
5:21 The Matrix has you :)
MisterTutor2010 3 weeks ago
I wonder if creationists can delineate the "theory of evolution" and the "fact of evolution"
MrShyguy0 1 month ago
Evolution is God's method of creation.
samdon815 4 months ago
@samdon815
If a god were to exist, then yes! It would be.
BeBoBli 2 months ago
@BeBoBli Sure of that are you ?
samdon815 2 months ago
@samdon815
So far as observed, the theory of evolution, the change of lifeforms over generations changing has proven itself as much more evidential than a sentient super being.
BeBoBli 2 months ago
@BeBoBli My observations render the conclusion that change and growth in all forms is evidential of Divine manifestation. Evolution is His method. Free will in action.
samdon815 2 months ago
@samdon815 We found raptor Jesus's bones!
bbenally88 1 month ago
@bbenally88 Please elucidate .
samdon815 1 month ago
If you believe in creationism, then you must believe God made everything with extraneous parts and flaws. If this is the best God can do, then he is an idiot. If you accept this as perfect, then you are as big an idiot.
MunkyDrag0n 5 months ago
99,5% approval rating. Not too shabby.
Snagabott 5 months ago
"Xavier Lumens" Aka Bright Light, nice of thunder to mess with them like that.
Pyropardus 9 months ago
People have died refuting the Bible. Legally, the burden of proof is accepted as :beyond a reasonable doubt, NOT beyond a "shadow of a doubt". As an atheist, I don't want to prove my point to you on religion, aka creationism. I just don't want to allow you to throw your "beyond a shadow of a doubt' standard at me, while you complain if a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is considered rude to expect from you, before you're allowed to demand a forum in the public schools.
unabnats 9 months ago
I know this, regarding the Bible, there is nothing in it relating any facts other than what was known by the people in the particular time and place where it was written. That's a clue I cannot ignore. There are many more ridiculous, contradictory things to be noted about it, but that fact is the one most glaring coincidence that, to me, allows me to see it as it is. A poorly edited, though poetic, stage play.
unabnats 9 months ago
surely one of your best C0nc...
Hardryv 10 months ago
and please any that still believe the moon landing was a hoax(yes there are millions that still think Nasa staged the whole thing and rocks on earth where "disguised"to fool the public) need not respond.
johndebbra 10 months ago
what is "star stuff" Sagan and Tyson bring it up in fact Tyson said "i am amazed when i look up in the sky in wonder knowing we are made of star stuff" quote not exact but close,i thought he meant in the beginning when earth was formed the elements in space are on earth as well but moon rocks do not match exactly what we have on earth the isotopes and nuclear energy formed them are different as well,anyway if anyone knows what he meant by the statements help would be appreciated, cont.
johndebbra 10 months ago
@johndebbra Have you ever heard of metaphor? Do you not think the Earth is at one with the universe? In it? On it? Affected by it? It affected by the Earth?
unabnats 9 months ago
@unabnats read meucunt1's response to me obviously was not metaphor.
johndebbra 9 months ago
@johndebbra Just refering to the heavier elements created from a supernova. The early universe was mostly hydrogen & helium, supernovae "seeded" the universe with carbon, oxygen, iron etc. The stuff we're made of.
But what does this have to do with the vid?
meucunt1 9 months ago
@meucunt1 i could not find a video of yours that had something my question refers to was not meaning to disrupt topic, sorry for being off topic.
johndebbra 9 months ago
@meucunt1 meant his vid sorry
johndebbra 9 months ago
@meucunt1 if you read below i typed i was not able to find one of concordance vids that related to the question,look below.
johndebbra 9 months ago
Sorry but spending ANY time at all thinking about, and trying to rationalize anything VenomFangX (Shawn) says is a waste of your time and considerable intellect. He is a troll who lives to waste your time and take you away from your family.
Do not give in to siren's song, no matter how seductive it may be.
mafarmerga 10 months ago
Anytime sometime counters an argument with, "...but you can't deny the possibility of..." whatever it is that they're claiming is really laying a argumentative trap.
That's because they are not asserting a possibility -- but an actuality.
Existence consists of countless possibilities, most of them consequenceless, untestable, and ignored.
It's possible that Yahweh created the world 6000 years ago in 6 days.
prodprod 10 months ago
(cont'd) (2) It's also possible that there's a planet of 100 ft. tall Amazon women somewhere in a galaxy a 100 million light years away.
Sure -- if one is simply asserting that any of the above is *a possibility* -- something without any supporting evidence but which can't be ruled out, then we're on the same page.
But the debater isn't saying that the Yahweh claim is simply possible -- he's saying that it's true.
That's a completely different thing.
prodprod 10 months ago
(cont'd) (3)
For something to be possible, it's only necessary for it *not* to have been affirmatively shown to be impossible -- and that really only applies to claims that are logically absurd or meaningless.
For something to be accepted as true, as an empirical claim, it has to be "possible" for it to be shown to be true, and the claimant has to *show* that there are good reasons, in evidence and inference to accept his claim as true.
"Possibly true" doesn't get you anywhere.
prodprod 10 months ago
It is Truth (note the capital T). Even more so than any philosophical truth, precisely for the reasons you've cited. It isn't rational to expect a limited, imperfect animal like Man to be able to know ALL truth but science WILL give us the best we can get and much more than philosophy EVER can.
MrMZaccone 10 months ago
For all practical purposes, theory of evolution IS PROVED beyond any shade of doubt. You can talk about the principles of science and how "nothing is ever proved beyond shade of doubt in science" when you are dealing with intelligent people. But it doesn't work for masses. You need to use simplified version when you talk to retards who are capable of believing in creationism. And simplified version is, "evolution IS proved, perdiod".
ImmaterialChildren 10 months ago
THANK YOU! You cannot prove an inductive model such as evolution. Just like you cannot know that all swans are white. But if you observe more and more white swans and none of other colors, the probability you are correct rises.
kville105125 10 months ago
@kville105125
But there are black swans also...so you just need to see ONE of them to realize that "all swans are white" is wrong, no matter how many white swans you observe.
NKA23 10 months ago
@NKA23 It was an example of an inductive argument used in textbooks for logic classes. I am aware of black swans. But for the sake of the argument, assume you saw 10 million white swans and not a single black one over many many years in all conditions in which one would observe swans. One could assume that all other swans are white, but it would not be 100% certain deductive proof. That was my point :)
kville105125 10 months ago
VFX is not the only person who has a prior commitment to his faith. I have heard from other creationists on YT. Some are extreme enough to disbelieve what they can see and measure with their own eyes if they think it conflicts with scripture. The argument is over before it has begun. Sad really.
Fudmottin 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fudmottin: “Some [creationists] are extreme enough to disbelieve what they can see and measure with their own eyes if they think it conflicts with scripture.”
That’s actually stated outright, practically in those very words, in the Statements of Faith of creationist websites such as AiG, CRI, etc. (usually as the last item on the page). NO evidence in ANY field can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
COMALiteJ 10 months ago
Evolution may be wrong. We atheists will admit that. However, it does help to explain the observations we have made in nature thus far. Creationism helps to explain nothing but human arrogance and stupidity.
MunkyDrag0n 10 months ago
this is one of the most thought provoking videos i have seen on here in a while. I'm a happy new subscriber!
Ninjaculation 10 months ago
Shawn should go fine a cliff and try to disprove the theory of Gravity.
no1saphead 10 months ago
@no1saphead
Oh, no...I don´t want him to die, he´s WAY to young...there is so much he might be able to discover if he just opens his eyes and his mind.
And though he´s really annoying I just LOVE to see videos mocking him for being the arrogant, ignorant TWAT he is.
NKA23 10 months ago
@NKA23 Just disprove the theory is all I want him to do.Does anyone think he gets it.
no1saphead 10 months ago
Another one for the favs list!
evilotakuneko 10 months ago
You mistake a strawman for theism, and also fail to understand the history of philosophy and science and distinguish the ancient's metaphysics from their physics. Of course you are right about evolution, but your idea of inductive logic in science is a purely modern and fallacious idea (see Hume) which rests on a mechanistic metaphysics. Science only really starts working when we go back to some sort of Aristotelian system of essence. See Feser's "The Last Superstition" for alongerexplanation
zipppy2006 10 months ago
@zipppy2006 Lol! This is one of the longer comments here, yet you've said absolutely nothing. You object, yet you give no specific objections, you just throw around a bunch of philosophical references. Basically, you disagree without explaining exactly why you disagree, but you use references that would make people assume you know what you are talking about. How fucking pretentious of you.
tamicha1 10 months ago
@tamicha1 Your "explanation" is grounded in the idea that science is purely (and therefore fallaciously) inductive. Which is to say you did exactly what you accuse me of: claimed to say something while saying nothing at all. Pure induction is a simple fallacy, which your metaphysic is necessarily bound to.
zipppy2006 10 months ago
@zipppy2006 What "explanation" did I give?
tamicha1 10 months ago
@tamicha1 You don't, and that's the point. You just say "science is based on inductive logic." By itself your concept is simply fallacious. If you address the *actual* metaphysical roots of science rather than simply claiming that it is inductive and that's that, you will find yourself back at theism, at least that is my claim. Your anti-fundamentalist arguments are quite sound so far as they go, but the deeper philosophy grounding your view--evidenced by your words--is simply untenable.
zipppy2006 10 months ago
@tamicha1 note that when you substancelessly criticize my criticism I assume you are actually taking the author's viewpoint and not just being a troll.
zipppy2006 10 months ago
1:56
Philosophy can't give you that either. In fact, if you wan't to learn as much as possible about important things we don't really have a clue about, then you should go to the philosophy section. If you want absolute certainty, you shouldn't be in a library at all. You should be in your bed with your eyes and ears closed.
Evilanious 10 months ago
Thunderf00t's name is Xavier? As in... PROFESSOR XAVIER!? Oh shi-
shadowsguise 10 months ago
good vid!
merjemke 10 months ago
Nice video again, thx.
makaralaatikko 10 months ago
Its possible this is just the MATRIX. so theres no god. So shut the fuck up, shawn.
grendelee 10 months ago
All I see are a bunch of dudes that never get laid, arguing over bullshit. There is no god, evolution is definitely correct, we cant account for every single second of life and who in the fuck cares other than idiots that think we just appeared one day when some random space scientist "invented" us...
AvatarOfAvatar 10 months ago
whatever happened to the idea of NEVER debating a creationist? Oil and water, apples and oranges they don't mix and don't compare. If its for entertainment value then its a bit like critiquing the flaws of superman's ability to fly.
gobblegobblechew 10 months ago
@gobblegobblechew
BTW thanks for all the great videos and responses I know its a lot of work.
gobblegobblechew 10 months ago
Blah... I'm sad this channel is getting more and more into the ridiculous "debate" between creationists and everybody else that is not stupid. It may seem an interesting opportunity to talk about the principles of science, but that has been done countless times already in youtube and elsewhere.
Discussing with creationists is just ego boosting.
welwitschia 10 months ago
I agree with sean that evolution and Christianity are diametrically opposed, that if you accept the age of the earth and evolution, you can't accept Christianity, Judaism or Islam. I know that there are a lot of Christians that accept the age of the earth and evolution, but they are dishonest with themselves about their religion. How can you possibly reconcile the bible and old earth and evolution while maintaining integrity?
christo930 10 months ago
VFX is being a hypocrite and an idiot. He has different standards of evidence for creationism and evolution. He wants evolution proved to the exclusion of all other possibilities, but is willing to take creationism on the concept that it can't be disproved. If he turned that same skepticism to his own beliefs, they would fall apart like the house of cards that they are.
christo930 10 months ago 40
and so while I definitely agree with you that VFX has little understanding of the use of simple inductive reasoning and that he needs to first get an idea of what these are before he fails miserably fighting them. However it just seems like it all boils down to what facts they want to believe and what facts they choose to ignore, it is about them wanting you to agree with them and gain equivalent ideological recognition for a morally repugnant system.
illumined1 10 months ago
C0nc0rdance, I'm sure you already know this, but VFX and the like argue from the epistemological side of philosophy. This of course means the argument is ALWAYS about whether or not you can 'PROVE' it not just beyond doubt, but completely - as if that were somehow possible. Ultimately it boils down to, 'since you cannot completely prove your claim, anything I claim is just as valid' - this is an argument from an epistemological perspective, not a functional one.
illumined1 10 months ago
Indeed, "god did it" is never predictive. In the end, God has no responsibilities.
ndjarnag 10 months ago
Well, I think this video is great after seeing that Tennessee's Anti-Evolution Bill made it through the House.
TrillianAlice 10 months ago
Im sorry Concordance, normally I enjoy your videos, but I have to say that the Feynman quote you put in there makes you look extremely ignorant of what philosophy is and does.
KieIicious 10 months ago
@KieIicious How does adding a quote in a video make someone "look" ignorant? Lmao.
TheLegendarySkeptic 10 months ago
@KieIicious
Whether you like it or not, philosophy as a "whole" is dead. There are some exceptions just like experimental philosophy mind, however, in general science is taking over (for good).
Wrath0fKhan 10 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan
Seeing how philosophy is mainly just critical thinking and reasoning, no philosophy is not dead. Im assuming you got that idea from Hawking bc its almost word for word, but I could be wrong. Nevertheless, philosophy reigns in all disciplines bc that's where all academics stem from. This is why the category youre referring to is neurophilosophy, where neuroscience is trying to understand the vast complexities of the brain. Cont....
KieIicious 10 months ago
@KieIicious
"seeing how philosophy is mainly just critical thinking and reasoning, no philosophy is no dead"
Critical thinking and reasoning, even motivation itself to engage in such endeavors are powerful models of utility. It doesnt matter how you label them. All you are doing there is looking for "justification" and eventually even get lost in an infinite regress. (Yes, justificationism is running in vicious circles, too.)
"philosophy reigns in all disciplines"
Id strongly dispute that.
Wrath0fKhan 10 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan
5. You'd be wrong. I just showed you an example too, borrowed from you: neurophilosophy from neuroscience.
KieIicious 10 months ago
@KieIicious
5. "Youd be wrong .. from neuroscience"
I dont understand what you mean by that. Neurophilosophy has not much in common with "classical philosophy" anymore. Its moving on into the direction of the "scientific mode", too.
Wrath0fKhan 10 months ago 2
@Wrath0fKhan
4. Scrap justification altogether? I hope that was a mistake on your end
5. It seems you have a skewed interpretation of philosophy to think that neurophilosophy isnt philosophy. :\
KieIicious 10 months ago
@KieIicious
"mistake on your end"
Professor David Miller (oh, a philosopher of science! d*mn...) disagrees with the mistake of "mistake on your end". Critical rationalism is evidently a much better solution there. Evidence? Look what sc has accomplished since.
"to think that NP isnt P"
It doesnt seem to resemble to "classical philosophy" at all. On the contrary, it looks like its becoming more and more "science-like" - becoming a powerful model of utility.
Wrath0fKhan 10 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan
Umm I hope you know that I could quote a professor as well that disagrees. Where would that get us? And you do realize youre trying to justify your position, right? Kinda shooting yourself in the foot there buddy. Sorry but neurophilosophy is philosophy; its a philosophy course; its taught by philosophers; its not becoming 'science-like' (whatever that means). Just so were clear, are you really trying to say that neurophilosophy isnt philosophy???
KieIicious 10 months ago
@KieIicious
"you know that I could quote a professor as well that disagrees"
Sure you could! The problem is, "you" simply dont reap the "fruits".
"justifying your position"
If at all, then its because of usefulness of the "fruits" themselves, not because of some transcending need for justification (again, likely leading to an infinite regress). In addition, it doesnt matter how much you justify, its "one" experiment only that proves you wrong. And that says it all.
Wrath0fKhan 10 months ago 2
@Wrath0fKhan
lol ya were done here. I thought you knew what you were talking about but I guess not.
/wasteotime
KieIicious 10 months ago
@KieIicious
Keep justifying... And dont forget to justify why you keep justifying. That justifying needs to get justified, too. Have fun!
lol
Wrath0fKhan 10 months ago
@KieIicious
"N is P; its a philosophy course, its taught by philosophers; its not becoming "science-like"
Lets have a look then:
plato.stanford(.)edu/entries/neuroscience/#RecDevNeu
One is "dead", the other is becoming "science-like".
Wrath0fKhan 10 months ago
@KieIicious
Last but not least;
"Im assuming you got that idea from Hawking bc its almost word for word"
Your assumption is incorrect. Neither was Hawking the first one to utter such a claim verbatim, nor in broader meaning.
Wrath0fKhan 10 months ago
Comment removed
KieIicious 10 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan
Also if philosophy were dead, then I guess a comprehensive theory of justice has been found? Civic responsibility and obligation as well? Not to mention current moral standards for all, and perhaps for sentient machines in the future? Environmental ethics? ....No, philosophy is not dead and this is just a scratch on the surface of what philosophy encompasses.
KieIicious 10 months ago
@KieIicious
"comprehensive theory of justice has been found?"
Dear friend, who says that it has to be or ultimately will be philosophy "who" will find a comprehensive theory of justice?
"Civic responsibility and obligation as well"
Well, here we slowly but surely are moving in something like the utilitarian experimental direction, too, arent we.
"moral standards for all"
Dr. Harris seems to be working in such a field, again, more or less pulling off the scientific move, too.
Wrath0fKhan 10 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan
1. What other discipline did you have in mind?
2. No we arent and Im not sure who this 'we' is. If youre referring to first world society the term youre looking for is egalitarian, not utilitarian.
3. HIs book is HIGHLY controversial, to say the least.
4. All Im doing is looking for justification? Well, I hope you do know that THAT is a requirement for knowledge, right? I hope you look to justify your beliefs as well. Also, not sure where the whole infinite regress came from
KieIicious 10 months ago
@KieIicious
1. For example neuroscience, optogenetics, memetics, information theory, etc.
2. Nix egalitarian. You asked about a theory of civic responsibility and obligation. I answered that we were moving in the direction of (scientific) models of utility. Those will eventually be pinned down in a more precise manner, directly rooted in biology, neurology, etc.
3. Which one? Moral Landscape? Yes, its controversial, yet again, his hypothesis is in principle a scientific one.
Wrath0fKhan 10 months ago
@KieIicious
4. Powerful scientific models of utility are justified by the utility itself. No need to justify "them" once again. How do you justify justification? And so on? Thats where the infinite regress (potentially) comes from. Since this is obviously unnecessary and even a counterproductive endeavor, we can scrap justificationism altogether. Instead, critical rationalism does a much better service (again, a powerful model of utility) here.
Wrath0fKhan 10 months ago
Where'd you get that image at 6:04? I want it!
thebigJ1er 10 months ago
VenomFangX is always wrong, I need no more proof.
yourcamden 10 months ago
Very well done!
rockyabq 10 months ago
We have truth in math in form of theorems, although one would be pressed to call math a science, rather it is a tool.
DanishAtheist 10 months ago
Why don't these Creationists ever prove scientists wrong by finding a bunny-fossil in the Pre-Cambrian rocks? Why does this never happen?
Dracopol 10 months ago
Sean - Notice the absence of emotional appeals, leading questions, begging the question arguments and other logical fallacies. I've never heard such clarity from your vids. Care to up the quality of your debate?
bjjolley 10 months ago
hmmm, i thought ad hoc meant subjective and changing like a no-true scotsman.
post-hoc seems like the correct terminology.
it could simply be that i've got the fallacies confused...
types10000 10 months ago
@types10000
Ad hoc mean "for this", meaning the argument is tailored for the conclusion you are trying to reach. It's best restated as "after the fact rationalization" rather than predictive and consistent logic.
You may be thinking of "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, which is a fallacy of assuming causation for two co-incident events. Like saying "children are diagnosed with autism shortly after vaccination... therefore vaccines cause autism".
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago 10
@C0nc0rdance
thanks for the correction -)
types10000 10 months ago
@C0nc0rdance i thought ad hoc was the needless addition of clauses. like the idea of theistic evolution, identical to the modern understanding of evolution, but with "except god was responsible for it" tacked onto the end...
BIGgourami 10 months ago
All cheers to VFX for entertainment
Sunhawk7ajj 10 months ago
I always get the deductive / inductive thing confused. I guess that's why shockofgod is always asking for "proof and evidence"..
8DX 10 months ago
Hi C0nc0rdance, I just wanted to say (if you get a chance to read this) that I really like your videos and you have a really calming voice. I was in a bit of a bad mood but after this video, I realise not everyone is a moron and I am much more (excuse the hippy phrase, old habits die hard.) centred, thanks for making these videos. Keep up the good work.
gaving2 10 months ago 31
@gaving2 Yeah. I was saying to my flatmate yesterday that his voice would be nice to listen to in class. You pay attention but it's not intrusive, doesn't hurt your ears and doesn't put you off what you're supposed to be learning.
tammyscotland 10 months ago
Common designer, common design? Then how come the different designs for e.g. eyes? It's an ad hoc hypothesis to answer on question that logically fails when it comes to other questions.
VFX wants prove beyond doubt? Even a court just wants prove beyond *reasonable* doubt. It's funny that he rejects science because it can't prove stuff with 100% certainty (does he reject the justice system, too?) and then turns to *religion*.
NoNiceNameFound 10 months ago
Xavier Lumens? Hmmn..Is that the real name of tf. Why reveal it just now and through that debate? He forgot or it's not real? xD Still I don't see the reason either way.
bebeLUVnardo 10 months ago
And, I have yet to find a creationist who will not immediately attempt to equate the science discussed with atheism and attempt to turn the conversation into a debate about religious faith versus atheism.
WildwoodClaire1 10 months ago
@WildwoodClaire1 That's what always gets me. The evilutionist atheist. The godless cosmologist. Whenever I ask Nephi what does evolution or cosmology have to do with atheism, I get blocked from his channel. VXF will attempt to answer usually in some long winded circular logic fashion that leaves me looking on line for the sources of his argument, but at least he tries.
We (atheists) go about arguing with them (theists) in the wrong way. We're trying to use logic and reasoning and that won't work
tommy605 10 months ago
"Debating" creationists is folly for a variety of reasons. For one thing, it implies that their position and science are merely alternative products in a great market of ideas. Secondly, as you point out, one cannot stop and go fact check creationists in a debate. And fact checking is crucial because there is not one single creationist who does not distort and misrepresent information and unashamedly resort to out and out lies to support their shoddy belief system.
WildwoodClaire1 10 months ago
What hardware and software are you using? Your videos have louder voice than other videos on YT. Thanks.
neokanzler 10 months ago
Creationists know this, they simply don't care. They'd rather use this to their advantage dishonestly
ProcInc 10 months ago
That's a bullshit quote by Popper. Popper was paraphrasing Einstein to demonstrate the flaws of Positivism, but everybody attributes this to Popper as if that's actually how he thought! I get so sick of seeing this fucking quote mine repeated as a meme when it was really part of an attack on Wittgenstein's philosophy and originally from Albert Einstein.
FlowCell 10 months ago
well said. +1000 thumbs up.
viicISrotcib 10 months ago
Favorited. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Aresftfun 10 months ago
Raptor Jesus FTW!!! lol
sarkerm2 10 months ago
Minor point. The Ptolemaic system was quite accurate, even more so than the original Copernican model. but it was horribly inelegant. If was full of arbitrary constants and baroque mechanisms of spheres on sphere and in other sphere and unexplained forces. The Copernican system was somewhat less accurate but far simpler so many people including Galileo favored it as the basis for a new system. Finally Kepler tweaked it with his laws of motion and elliptical orbits and it became more accurate.
michalchik 10 months ago
The Theory of Gravity hasn't been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt either. I wonder what Shawn has to say about that....
Violent2aShadow 10 months ago
@Violent2aShadow "God done it" :)
XenogeneGray 10 months ago
Why are we even arguing with these people?
Krauserowns 10 months ago
Occam's razor also shows us which hypothesis is true.
BlowDevilUp 10 months ago
@BlowDevilUp Occam razor is great but a methodological guideline not a proof of anything.
michalchik 10 months ago
@michalchik It is great and is also the reason why 'goddidit' can be discarded.
BlowDevilUp 10 months ago
Thanks for posting. Well said.
mrfinn99 10 months ago
Are you still working on your negative health effects of alcohol video?
hhfleury 10 months ago
Even though I agreed with practically everything in this video, I was disappointed to see this silly notion that capitalizing the first letter of a common noun in English changes the meaning of the word. What is the point of this? If we assume that "truth" always means "truth" regardless of capital letters, are we missing out on something? What's the value of "Truth with a capital 'T'" concept?
TheStephenation 10 months ago
@TheStephenation Usually the distinction implies the difference between the common descriptive use of a term and its metaphysical embodiment. That is, truth refers to instances where a statment is made that is correct to the best of our knowlege or to all practical purposes. While Truth refers to the idea that there is some ultimate unique reality of which there is no interpretation necessary and that we may never know. I don't really believe in "Truth"
michalchik 10 months ago
5:52 "If it can't be falsified, it's not science anymore." So then - how do you falsify the evolutionary claim that humans are genetic descendants of Sarcopterygii fish? No really... entertain me with a guess C0nman.
theDracoIX 10 months ago
Embryology studies that show that pharyngeal slits are not present in human embryos would suggest that the lobe-fins and humans are of a polyphyletic clade and therefore do share a common ancestor, but it would not be a Devonian Sarcopterygii. This information is of the high school advanced placement biology level.
Spherical3 10 months ago
@Spherical3 reference please
michalchik 10 months ago
@michalchik The information I presented is in the Pearson AP Biology textbook. The studies are obviously nonexistent and purely hypothetical to prove that the claim is falsifiable and therefore scientific.
Spherical3 10 months ago
@theDracoIX If they appeared at the same times or later than humans in the fossil record. If modern versions showed little or no molecular, anatomical, physiological homology or less homology than other lines. If there were ample fossils but a distinct lack of transitional forms between us. If the general principles of evolution were falsified by a variety of means. If the lobed fishes could not use their lobes for ambulation. If the lobed fishes had major paraphyletic traits like hemocyanin.
michalchik 10 months ago
I just barely did a whole video along these exact lines. Falsifiability is essential!
AntiCitizenX 10 months ago
Science being "all or nothing" to VFX is equal to his Bible being "all or nothing." Science and scientists disprove: they do not prove; science and scientists deal with levels of uncertainty, never certainty. These traits are the exact opposite of theist faith, and fundamentalist religionists project their beliefs on to what they believe scientists "should be" or even are doing. It is an expression of infantile immature behavior.
Desertphile 10 months ago 18
Sigh. It’s the old non sequitur about about how science has to be honest enough to acknowledge the inherent fallibility of human understanding, therefore there must be a god... somehow... and only one who just happens to be the cosmic, Jewish zombie who is His own father.
Is it true what I’ve heard that PCS is blocking critical commentors again?
lazyperfectionist1 10 months ago
@lazyperfectionist1 I've heard that, hes dissallowed Thumbs up and down on his videos, and he still hasn't unblocked me.
It's a shame though, he's clearly maturing in SOME way, his philosphy is amateurish at best, but he does make slick videos that deserve a thumbs up anda nice comment for there production values alone.
Just a shame his ideas are tripe.
busby3141592 10 months ago
What was the science vs faith flowchart? It was hard to read in the video.
logicbloke 10 months ago
Two of venomfangx's body guards/gay lovers disliked this video.
skeletonmf 10 months ago
Why does Tfoot give himself such odd nicknames on the magic sandwich?
Moussyed 10 months ago
Why should the possibility of God's existence be considered if one can't him for a prediction? It's about as useful as nonexistence.
HybridD91 10 months ago
I caught Shawn's double-talk right away. He's had that one explained to him already. Shawn knows that he's wrong. He simply repeats stuff like that because he wants to win the argument. There's no point in arguing with someone who isn't interested in learning.
Neilsama 10 months ago
@Neilsama He's a creationists, that's what they do. He's not cut out for anything outside of creationism.
HybridD91 10 months ago
Gorgeous video...again. Well done. I have one small misgiving with it, however. You state that in order to examine truth with the cap T one needs to look to philosophy to do so. Given that we are still discovering sciences, especially those of the brain, it is folly to concede such domain of inquiry to philosophy alone. There may still be answers found in science for what many people consider the "interesting questions" – it's possible that we just don't know how to ask them properly yet.
magreggins 10 months ago
@magreggins With science we can "prove" things as truth or not truth till the point that it is basically stupid to question it anymore.
We can't PROVE it though, we can only ,,, prove it, as Concordance said, Absolute truth is the realm of philsophy, not science, and nothing we learn about science will change this.
This isn't a weakness though, it's just a part of the way science works.
busby3141592 10 months ago
@busby3141592 Right right. I get you, busby. But, as far as I can discern, science isn't about proving anything. Science is about explaining the universe and its phenomena as reliably as possible. This makes science the best avenue we have thus far for viewing and understanding reality. I agree with you that this is not a weakness of science – I'm am, however, weary of people apologizing for it not being a weakness of science.
magreggins 10 months ago
Actually, VenomX's philosophical idea of the possibility of a perfect illusion - of something appearing in every way as if it was true while not being true - was extensively dismissed within the field of philosophy. Few accessible examples would be papers like:
"Descartes' Evil Genius" by OK Bouwsma
"Brains in a vat" by Hilary Putnam
"Systematically misleading expressions" by Gilbert Ryle
So the field of philosophy isn't to be blamed for raising fallacies, because its job is to tackle them.
vessel0of0light 10 months ago
I really like the example of Ptolemy's model. Ptolemy lasted so long because his measurements would not be bested until Tycho Brahe. While Anaxamander and Copernican models are actually more close to being correct, Ptolemy's models were so good at prediction that it stood the test of time. This was a testament to the precision of his measurement, and it's adherence to "common sense."
quinndiesel1977 10 months ago
If you were to use Ptolemy's model to navigate from Europe or Africa to the US, you could land within 40 miles of your destination. It was a remarkably predictive system, despite it's flaws. It took better measurements AND a rejection of our dogmatic adherence to "common sense" to finally cast away Ptolemy.
quinndiesel1977 10 months ago
This is one of the best explaining of the difference between truth and Truth I've ever heard! Thumbed up and added to favorites!
OtherGonzo 10 months ago
T-Rex can kill Raptor Jesus with surprising ease.
watch?v=XspsJACj8WY
MinervaInTheBrain 10 months ago
Hey! My mouse malfunctioned! I accidentally clicked the thumbs down button.Damn it!
grieske 10 months ago
@grieske Where is the problem - you can correct this ad libitum. Just try!
kleenex3000 10 months ago
@kleenex3000 Thanks. No one overboard anyway, but it was annoying.
grieske 10 months ago
I was at that debate, and it was sad to see someone have his ass handed to him so repeatedly without ever being able to acknowledge, not that his ship was sinking, but had rather completely sunk! Reminded of the beating of Jesus in Mel Gibson's Passion ! he he he ;-)
metalskinstudios 10 months ago
The last part reminds me of Ken Ham (I think it's him) going on about how you have to view the world through the filter of the bible. What bad advice to give people.
Sadochrist 10 months ago
@Sadochrist
Yep, Ken Ham. Mr "Put on your bible glasses, kids" and Mr. "Always trust God before the scientists"
SeruQuik 10 months ago
raptor jesus is the most accurate form of jesus. some of them lizards are capable of virgin birth after all.
Iopipimps 10 months ago
Theres a problem here concordance.
Towards the beginning you quoted Feynman saying 'Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong.' Then you go on to quote Popper (a philosopher) whose impact on science was extraordinary through the concept of falsifiability. I wonder, then, did you quote Feynman to show how wrong he is?
KieIicious 10 months ago
"nowhere in the bibel does it say jesus was not a raptor "!ahqah aha ahaha aa
managarm1349 10 months ago
I personally do not find VFX entertaining. Dishonesty is never entertaining to me.
saxmanchiro 10 months ago
I find it hilarious that devout Christians speak of the possibility of errors in science's current consensus and are constantly asking for "More proof". Well, let's weigh the evidence shall we? The general consensus of millions of people who have performed millions of hours of research and reproduceable testing over the course of at least 2000 years (Although mostly during the last 200, no thanks to christianity) VS. A 2000 Year old BOOK written by people who would have worshipped a flashlight.
nightmathzombieethan 10 months ago 20
@nightmathzombieethan Hey man, leave flashlights out of this. They're awesome. I've got 6 of them and if someone gave me a new one, I'd be "thanks, I appreciate it".
wearealltubes 10 months ago
Indiana Jones said "Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. " at the start of The Last Crusade.
toppledgod 10 months ago
@toppledgod Fantastic sequence of words that. Can't believe the tub of lard that is George Lucas wrote or let that be in there. Judging by his latest "works" all respect for that guy flew out the window with Star Wars Episode I. At least I think so :D
Schneboll 10 months ago
Xavier is an awesome name.
vintis88 10 months ago
Funny that the solipsism proposed by the 'we can't know for sure' plea is never quite carried through into action by its proponents. When they start turning that solipsism against *all* theories of reality beyond the self, then I might credit them with some sincerity. While they use it as a cheap move to try and discredit a theory they don't like, and push some have-it-all-ways metaphysical bullshit they do like, I'll call that for what it is: utterly disingenuous.
TheraminTrees 10 months ago 2
Why are you worried about the Censor Monkey, he is an asset to reason, his ideas are bankrupt, he is afraid of real debate and is to all intents and purposes he is the best reason for a lack of belief in a Deity we have. Let the Creatard have full reign, encourage him in his ministry, for every convert he makes to religion he makes 50 rational people, keep up the good work Sean, long may you broadcast on the Tube.
TheTomtompiper 10 months ago
IMO the problem with talking to creationists in real time is that they can make more scientifically erroneous assertions in 1 minute than you can possibly correct in the same amount of time. As long as creationists arguments consist of assertions, all the burden is on the person arguing from facts. This inequity exists because of the lack of facts to support creationism. If you try to explain it, they interrupt, make 10 more assertions, and the infinite regression begins.
th30r3m 10 months ago
In short; science requires neither belief nor faith! When religion can say the same it will become a science. How much intellect is required to realize that simple fact and how much deception is used to hide that fact?
MsWanderer1 10 months ago
No, Dr. Concordance Jones, I will not enroll in Dr. Tyree's philosophy class right down the hall! Furthermore, venomfang"X" never, EVER marks the spot. (A bit on the nose, sure, but at least it will be as excruciating to read as it was to type)
alabamamanable 10 months ago
It is often that the delusional christian will bring forth the argument of "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics". But I say to them, what of the rest of Thermodynamics? Is there no other laws of Thermodynamics? No third or first even? I haven't even finished highschool and I know jesus cannot stand the heat and must get out of the kitchen.
mrblacksheep1o1 10 months ago
@mrblacksheep1o1
I don't think you'd even have to go that far. I think all you would have to ask is, "What's thermodynamics?" and they would be stumped.
CzarAdam2009 10 months ago
The thing is, though, I think, that folks like Shawn regard reading the bible as experimental observation.
Now, I didn't see all of the show, but in my opinion Shawn is a better debater than RC.
Cheers
ekhaat 10 months ago
If your looking for big T Truth you'd better head to the mathematics section of the library.
shaedies 10 months ago 54