"There's nothing to link Apes to humans" Well besides DNA. Creationists need to make more videos like this such silly comedy! Actor and con artist banana man vs scientists.. I've never seen these guys convince anyone. But they're good tricksters.
The easier it becomes to depict the scientific enterprise as a special interest immersed in the culture wars, the easier it becomes to reject scientific findings.
Creationism has never gained any influence among scientists or in universities-- it is a con-game aimed at followers of certain religious sects in the American Bible Belt-- a region known for the ignorance, prejudice and small-mindedness of its natives.
@thetruth3574 “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.”—Sir Isaac Newton
@dmarvin811 Newton was right about some things, but he was wrong about this and a lot of other things, including alchemy and end-of-the-world prophecies. Science has no "prophets" or patriarchs whose words must be dogmatically accepted.
I'm sure you are consumed with Crationism, ust as UFO nuts are consumed by how the government is suppressing "evidence" of flying saucers, conspiracy nuts are consumed with their story about 9/11, and talk radio nuts are consumed with Obama being a Kenyan-Muslim-Marxist. Lots of fringe sub-cultures have their own insular narratives, but none of it has anything to do with reality.
If Creationists like Kirk Cameron were as well-respected as they think they are, then candidates like Rick Perry and Rick Santorum would be popular too-- instead the Religious Right has about the same reputation for buffoonery as the Ku Klux Klan.
Creationists have used laws to suppress knowledge of evolution because they want to cut people off from knowlede of their own origins, to trap them in a bubble of ignorance and mythology.
Fundamentalists want to discredit science for the same reason they want to discredit the news media: they want to cut their followers off from all sources of information except that whicfh flows from the leaders of their own religious cult.
When anti-intellectuals like Kirk Cameron and his groupies attack science, they only make themselves look stupid. Science is more influential than ever, while fundamentalist religion has earned itself a miserable reputation.
@dmarvin811 If 99% of scientists and other educated people support evolution, and less than 1% of people even remotely connected to science support Creationism, it is more than a case of "popularity."
I've figured these guys out. I wondered why their videos are always so short on facts; they seem dishonest. Then it hit me, they are dishonest. These guys are making their living by providing fake science to those who need it in support of their religion. They know it is nonsense, this video is produced for people who have no knowledge of science, but need an anti-science message for their belief systems.
Scientists the world over recognize evolution as the process by which all animal species have developed. It is hardly a "controversial" theory, except among professional hucksters like those in this video. Creationism is the province of ignorant and/or dishonest religious fanatics, and has no influence on real science.
Notice tht Dmarvin only takes potshots at accepted biological science-- he's afraid to argue FOR his real beliefs: Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the sun and stars created AFTER the Earth, the whole human race descended from generations of incest, etc.
How exactly can you argue there are no transitional forms when 1000s have been found. How do creationists explain the fossil record with mammels only on top then, birds, dinasaurs, reptiles, etc. Do they think that one species just disappears without a trace and then another better adapted one simply pops out of nowhere. Why are there no mammels in early rock sediments? Your demostrably false assertions are on level with your flat earth predecessors.
@dmarvin811 Though no one can be "absolutely" certain of anything, it is possible to be HONESTLY certain, as sceintists strive to be, unlike Creationists and other religious hucksters who are pushing an ulterior ideological agenda under the guise of science.
@dmarvin811 Erm well there's these guys called paleontologists and they publish their work and then it's peer reviewed and then articles are written about it that can be viewed in scientific journals. I know it's not as good a source as iron age scriblings of desert savages who made a very poor attempt to destroy their polytheistic roots but it's good enough for me.
But if your going to challenge me why not answer my question?
@mancno1 "The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities." ~bit[dot]ly/3gUcsN
We all have faith. You in fallible man, and I the infallible Creator of all.
@dmarvin811 I have faith in the best system we have available for finding truth, it's discoveries impact every aspect of our lives. From medicine to machinery it's the reason we live a life of luxury and the life expectancy has tripled. It's ability to change is what makes it so good because it realises it is fallible ideas like Germ Theory went against everything known at the time but it was excepted because of EVIDENCE. Something Creationism has never had and that's why you avoided my question
@mancno1 Remember, Christians allowed the scientific method, and the universities to teach it, to come to fruition. What I have a problem with is naturalism. Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence for one. Do you agree there are real dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this? Naturalism has not been scientifically evidenced, simply its taken as a philosophical paradigm.
@dmarvin811 QUOTE:"Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. "
What a lie. NOTHING is ruled out in science-- but you have to provide evidence FIRST. You want us to accept your supernatural explanation and THEN try to disprove it, and that is superstition, not science.
@dmarvin811 "Christians allowed the scientific method, and the universities to teach it" yes they did up to the point it started disproving their dogmas after which they imprisoned scientists and baned their books from being published for 300 years.
"Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence for one"
Unless you're a deist you believe your god interferes with the natural world provide evidence of this..(cont)
@mancno1 ...(cont) and you'll have proved there is intelligent design in the natural world.
"Do you agree there are real dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this?"
Not at all this is exactly what is required for scientists, at least in their professional lives since science deals with finding the best explaination for natural phenomenon and a natural one is provable whereas supernatural ones have never been more than attempting to rule out alternatives.
@dmarvin811 If any gods exist they are part of the natural world by definition-- nature and universe both mean "everything that exists" as opposed to things that are purely imaginary such as ghosts, unicorns, fairies, etc. which are called "supernatural." Scientists are perfectly willing to accept the existence of anything-- but not merely on faith.
@dmarvin811 Evolution is based on evidence, not faith. Ever heard of the fossil record or DNA? There is no evidence for Creationism, only rutted ideology and weird mind games -- that is why Creationists are a tiny minority with no hope of getting the respect they so desperately crave.
@dmarvin811 Speaking of "popularity," how many major universities in the world take Creationism seriously? Answer: NONE. How many major universities fail to acknowledge evolution as the foundational concept of all the life sciences? Answer: NONE.
@dmarvin811 You have faith that primitive savages can receive and understand god's word, that they couldn't be mistaken or adapt scripture for their own benefit. That the correct books are in the bible, that the many translations still contain gods word and that current humans can correctly interpret, this is false because there are 1000s of religions and christian denominations with contradictory views. And no matter how infallible your god is you still need fallible humans to receive the word.
@mancno1 I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?
It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
@dmarvin811 Creationism at it's finest, The belief that you don't need evidence to support the rejection of the one of the most solid scientific theories in exchange for religious dogma. And anyone with half a brain cell that calls you out on your BS is "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God"
Admit you can't answer my original question because your beliefs are not in concordance with reality.
@pwnUgood Do your use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular. Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.
That being said I do not hate science.I do not like secular scientists pushing their dogma of naturalism. Howard Huge difference
Let's assume for the sake of argument that genesine creation is 100% true. At no time wilevolution be evidenced to be a fraud. Never. Why? Because even if it is untrue, those who accept the theory do not have deception as an intent. I, for one, do accept the fact of evoluution annd the theory of nnatural selection, and there is no intent to deceive in my acceptance..
@jymbo1969 I have a blog post called "still no evidence" in it I attempt to reveal the reason for your denial for it. Bahnsen said, "In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism."
@dmarvin811 Of course the existence of God could be proven in a way acceptable to science-- by performing a miracle or supernatural act in front of witnesses who can verify that it really happened. But no, all supernatural miracles happen in the shadows, out of sight, revealed only through hearsay. this is the way stage magicians work. Natural phenomena can be proven by observation and analysis, religious beliefs exist only in cloud cuckooland.
@eatmylogic God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.
All evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence. Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.
@eatmylogic How can you make an appeal to science? Would you grant this, that your worldview only allows for time and chance acting on matter, that its just the material universe, that its just random, there is no guidance, there is no governance, no sovereign, no purpose or plan over the universe?
Giving those starting points: randomness, no God, no governance, you reject all of that. How are you making an appeal to science that has at its core the uniformity in nature and the principle of induction (tomorrow will be like today)? How are you appealing to science, when you believe the universe is only random. But in order to do science, you have to believe in the uniformity of nature and the rational integrability of the universe.
Of course we all take philosophical positions that have no basis in evidence. One of the basic of such positions is that we can explain nature in its own terms. You can't accused of dogmatic to somebody who holds a philosophical position. There is no danger on taking the naturalistic position, on the contrary it makes science to advance. Theistic explanaitions for rain, thunders, stars, life, etc, have existed for thousands of years. Only naturalism has provided explanations for what we see...
"This is a perfect example of knowledge claims for us to examine. Are you absolutely certain of this? If so, how?"
- logical absolutes.
if your trying to use this as an argument for god then i have a question for you:
- is it possible for your god to be 'god' and 'not god' simultaneously? if it is not possible then he is subject to logical absolutes (specifically the law of non-contradiction) and hence could not have authored them.
@alvaroefj We need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.
Evolution is really not the problem as some Christians be3lieve in evolution (theistic evolution) The true problem is the dogmatic, and unfounded, position of naturalism
@dmarvin811 First: When I talk about a "proven fact" I am talking about the phenomenon of evolution, which is as true as the fact that the earth is round. Most people (like the guys in the video) do not even know the difference between the fact of evolution, and the "Theory of Evolution" which is the theoretical explanation of the things observed, like the diversity of the life on earth.
@alvaroefj So evidence CAN overturn evolution in the future? Right? Its possible that evidence has not yet presented itself that shows that naturalism is indeed false and falsified. There is plenty of evidence for God, but how are you certain there is not one? Denial of evidence is all you have. My question to narrow things for you now is this, how do you KNOW your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?
@types10000, you are not justifying your ability to reason, you are telling us where you learned things. For the sake of this argument, I could not care less where you learned anything. I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid? Could you, for instance, be wrong about EVERYTHING that you know?
Since God is absolute, the absolute laws of logic have always existed. How do you account for things that are absolute in your worldview?
"the absolute laws of logic have always existed. How do you account for things that are absolute in your worldview?"
well actually i dont need to: i could quite happily follow the intellectually honest route of regarding their origin as unknown (more logical than asserting a god is responsible), but since you ask i'd simply posit that they are a product of existence itself.
@types10000 I agree that there are laws of logic, please tell me how your adopted worldview accounts for those laws, how you know they are valid, how you know they are universal, and on what basis you expect them to hold 2 seconds from now?
@dmarvin811 Only ignorarant fundamentalists suggest that without their gods, the universe must be "random.' Scientists know that there are random elements in the universe, but the universe as a whole is a single process, therefore ultimately unified-- and with no need of a Father, King or other authority figure to "keep it in line."
@eatmylogic Would you grant this, that your worldview only allows for time and chance acting on matter, that its just the material universe, there is no guidance, there is no governance, no sovereign, no purpose or plan over the universe?
@dmarvin811 Matter/energy interacts with itself forming patterns of action and inaction, it needs no outside causal agents. Your use of the quaint term "sovereign" shows that you are mired in Medeival ideas about kings, lords and other primitive chieftans. That's why scientists pay no attention to you.
@dmarvin811 No one knows yet how the universe began, but all evidence points to a particular beginning. That doesn't mean that the beginning can only be explained in terms of ancient superstition or modern ideological movements such as "Born-Again" Christianism.
@dmarvin811 It is not necessary to be "absolutely" certain of anything to make a solid scientific case-- in fact "absolute" certainty is impossible outside of pure mathematics. That you would continually harp on "absolute" certainty means you are either a dimwit or a computer program-- you're certaintly not a thinking person.
@dmarvin811 Once the principles of physics come about, the universe runs itself-- matter and energy are on automatic, with no exceptions to the flow of cause and effect, no sign of interference, no supernatural events. The only room for an "outside agent" is before the Big Bang, to kick it into motion-- after that, nature takes it's course.
@dmarvin811 Your repeated pleadings of, "Are you absolutely certain about that?" ahve been rebutted by a dozen people in this thread alone. Are you a parrot?
The unfavorable ratings for this video outnumber the favorable by over 3 to 1-- which, despite Creationist propaganda to the contrary, accurately reflects what the general public thinks of Creationism in general.
Why don't Creationists object to theories about the formation of planets and stars, mountains and oceans-- all of which are equally at odds with literal interpretations of the bible?
The Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination with over a billion members, officially accepts evolution as the the only scientifically valid explanation for the divergence of animal species on earth. Only a few extremist Protestant sects think that evolution somehow threatens the authority of Scripture.
dmarvin811 has been out-argued again by the defenders of reason, and the Creationists are in full retreat with tails tucked firmly between their legs.
We're still waiting for any evidence that nature is designed or controlled by supernatural intelligence-- and "Divine Revelation" is simply not good enough to count as any kind of evidence at all.
Did stars form long before the earth existed, or instead, is the Bible correct in claiming that the stars and the sun were created after the earth? Don't hedge on this question-- either the stars are older or younger than the earth, and either the Bible is correct or incorrect when it states that the sun and stars were not made until the earth was already here.
Christianity tried to strangle science in its cradle, but science survived to dominate modern thought. Christianity has degenerated into a thousand different sects, each warring with one another, of which Creationism is perhaps the least respectable.
May I ask you a straight question? Why do you Christians have a crusade against a simple theory about the change in species over time? Even if you prove it to be completely false (which you wont) it still does not do anything to validate your crazy beliefs does it? What about Genetics that prove Adam + Eve is false or Geology that tells us the earth is 4.54 billion years old and not 6,000 LOL or Astrophysics that tell us the Universe is 13.5 billion years old? You must realize your time is up?
@greeny202a The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.
>>What about Genetics that prove Adam + Eve is false...
We need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.
Answer this, How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
@dmarvin811 But even if my reasoning on everything is proved invalid it still does not mean yours is valid does it? The simple fact is if someone thinks you are a deluded religious fool how does proving his theory on evolution mean that you are not a deluded religious fool? BTW genetics has proved that humans descend from a long line of older species not created from a bit of clay and a rib!
@greeny202a The claim is that I can account for my knowledge and you cannot. My worldview does not appeal to a viciously circular reasoning, as your does. Problem is, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular. With that line of thought, no one's reasoning could be invalid.
You have no avenue to your knowledge without borrowing from my worldview. My worldview is true do to the impossibility of the contrary.
@dmarvin811 LOL I see so your worldview is correct and true because you don't have to subject it to examination! Well thats a new one! So if i told you "Evolution is true because the great god Thor told me it was in a dream" you would have to accept evolution is true because i can account for my knowledge?
@greeny202a First I refuse to give you evidence so you can, as a criminal, judge God. That is unBiblical. Again, you as a criminal is attempting to judge God, the Judge of all. I should add 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 here. The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.
@dmarvin811 I have told you the great god Thor revealed to us that Evolution is true and correct in the book of Bullshitians 69:69 and anyone who does not fully accept evolution is to be cast into the underworld to watch Kirk Cameron soaps for ALL eternity. Now explain how your silly claims stand up to the word of Thor???
@greeny202a mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). Mere assertion of a mere logical possibility. If we accept mere assertions of bare logical possibilities as grounds for truth we should believe all mere assertions. I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?
@dmarvin811 Yes sure, so are we in agreement then that the mighty omniscient and omnipotent being Thor tells us Evolution is true and correct so therefore is true and correct because as you say we can be certain of it?
@greeny202a What I find hilarious, read sad, is that in order to account for your atheistic worldview that you use a outside source, Thor. You cannot account for anything otherwise. But like I already said mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). There is plenty adequate justification for God. We say that all evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence.
@dmarvin811 And what I find hilarious is you simply cannot see that there is as much evidence for my claim about Thor as there is for yours about jeebus! But neither have any credible justification in rationality or reality other than what you and your crazy group BELIEVES!
@greeny202a We have different views, so how do you know who has the right view? You see, everything following the above sentence appealed to YOUR view of reality, and you have yet to establish that YOUR view is the RIGHT view. We could easily counter by saying that we “don’t think your view is coherent, much less justified,” but that does not get us anywhere.
Surely you would admit that God could reveal to us the right view of reality? How do YOU know which view is right?
@dmarvin811 As i am trying to make you see the idea of your non-existent deity revealing anything to you is as provable or justifiable as Thor revealing anything to me, before you or your deluded group attempt to attack any scientific theory you must acknowledge this. I ask you is your belief in your deity any more justifiable than my belief in Thor? Because I find your belief in Jesus to be completely incoherent and illogical because it disagrees with the teachings of Thor.
@dmarvin811 HEY HEY HEY EUREKA ha ha ha ha EXACTLY.... I am doing EXACTLY what you and your group are doing and I quote you "make up things in order to deflect from your worldview that you cannot account for" ha ha ha
@dmarvin811 EH?!?!?!?! Have we not just been around this barbecue???? I have just demonstrated to you that you and your group of "theists" have bought into a delusion invented by a bunch of bronze age nomads who knew absolutely nothing about the world to explain what they saw around them. No matter how many times you attack any scientific theory it does not deflect from the fact that everything you believe in is just a story.
@dmarvin811 LOL I can see your well used to circular reasoning!!!!! We have gone right back round to your very first statement. just like you justify your belief in an unprovable being. It is like a little latch on the side of your frontal lobe you get just far enough to understand you beliefs are being questioned and then snap a trap door opens and you logic drops into your ass and you have to start all over again.
@greeny202a Never said it wasn’t circular, just that it is not viciously circular, as your view is. Intellectual honesty would force you to admit that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain. You, on the other hand, have no avenue to certainty.
@dmarvin811 HA HA HA you say you reasoning is not viciously circular when you keep asking me to admit the revelation of truth from a being that simply does not exist! LOL I told you that at the beginning but your programmed brainwashed mind keeps coming around to the little latch on your frontal lobe doesn't it and snap down into your ass your reason goes. LOL
@greeny202a ”In the Christian worldview, however, the Christian is not engaged in viciously circular argument, a circular argument on the same plane. We appeal above and beyond the temporal realm. God’s self-revelation in nature and in Scripture informs us of the two-level universe. God is not a fact like other facts in the world. He is the Creator and Establisher of all else. His existence alone makes the universe, and reason, and human experience possible…
@dmarvin811 Scientists are perfectly willing to entertain the idea of gods as a causal agents, but they would have to be backed by tangible evidence, not just faith. Creationists try to hide their real motives behind phony statistics, tricky reasoning and misleading innuendo-- they have not earned public trust.
@MRobert2l Your ability to reason about evidence is evidence of God. I don't expect you to like what I write. Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God. Also, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
@dmarvin811 You are arguing for "god"-- which is a slippery, vague concept whose definition varies subjectively. This does not qualify as an argument against evolution, which is a well-defined concept with tangible parameters for which much data is available for analysis, not rooted in nebulous, mystical mumbo-jumbo.
@greeny202a [cont'd] … The “circularity” of a transcendental argument is not at all the same as the fallacious ‘circularity’ of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement (in one form or another) of one of its premises.” ~ (Pushing the Antithesis pg.) 124.
Just because you do not understand what is necessary to defeat a transcendental argument, does not change the fact that you cannot defeat it.
@dmarvin811 There is no evidence that any natural process is designed/controlled by an intellegent being, and the only people who diagree are those who have an emotional investment in believing there is. Scientists don't care either way, they're only interested in what the evidence actually supports.
@dmarvin811 Take your "divine revelation theory" and apply for a professorship at any major university in the world. They will have security escort you off campus.
@luvdomus Truth is frightening. I understand why they feel threatened enough to escort a different view, other then the paradigm, off the campus. Sure sounds like Science to me. No wait, am I confusing that term with "secular dogma"? Jim Jones only wanted his followers at the camp after all.
@dmarvin811 the idea that all knowlege is suspect except that which is "Divinely Revealed" gives the religious fanatic carte blanc permission to believe any fool idea that comes into his head, no matter how narcissistic, malicious or destructive.
@MrDominex I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?
It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain. You, on the other hand have no such rescuing device for your circularity.
Are you certain that God cannot reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, if so, how are you certain of this?
@dmarvin811 You are the one who is confusing evolution with some kind of philosophical statement. Evolution is a physical process, it is how living things diverge into species. Germ, theory, plate tectonics atomic theory also dont refer to your favorite gods, nor rely on them as explanations, but that doesn't make these branches of science into philosophy any more than in the case of evolution.
@eatmylogic You're confusing evolution with naturalism. There are plenty of Christians, many scientists, that believe in a theistic evolution. Its the naturalism that we have a problem with. Its your dogma, its your religion, its your master. Its your blinders. Evolutionary naturalism is incoherent. watch some of Alvin Plantinga's work. Google: Science and Religion: Where the Real Conflict Lies
@dmarvin811 If you want to believe that some sort of "god" is behind evolution (or earthquakes, or the weather or any other natural process) to ahead. Science isn't making any pronouncements about what is "behind" nature, only how nature itself operates.
@HPoelzig Is it your claim that science stopped searching? Otherwise, You're wrong. Science (method) and the universities were created by Christians silly. Its just your dogma about evolution naturalism that we have a problem with. Its your dogma, its your religion, its your master. Its your blinders. Evolutionary naturalism is incoherent. Watch some of Alvin Plantinga's work. Google: Science and Religion: Where the Real Conflict Lies
@dmarvin811 Evolution isn't any more "atheistic" than any other scientific fact. You're just trying to overcome your own doubts about your supernatural beliefs by choosing evolution as an "enemy' .
@MRobert2l Never said it was. Nice quote mine though. Evolutionary naturalism is incoherent and the pushed dogma of the atheistic worldview. You can go to the bank on that one. Again Google: Science and Religion: Where the Real Conflict Lies If you are interested in something that challenges your dogma.
@dmarvin811 By trying to prop up their superstitions with a false veneer of scientific respectability, Creationists only dig themselves deeper into the pit of public ridicule. Science doesn't need to ride piggyback on religion to verify itself.
@dmarvin811 Is there any other pseudo-scientific "theory" as thoroghly discredited as Creationism? UFOs and other tin foil hat conspiracies take a backseat to Creationists' failed attacks on education.
@TheShinedownfan21 Is it your claim that Creationism is falsifiable, therefore scientific? Please show me one peer review that discredits Creationism? Pretty please. Its your claim, show the evidence.
@dmarvin811 There is a huge difference between ideas that are arrived at thorugh careful observation and honest reasoning, as opposed to those which simply pop into your head, or are acquired through "holy writings" or the claims of authoritarian leaders. The former are trustworthy, the latter are not.
@dmarvin811 "Divine Revelation" has about as much to do with biology as the Zodiac has to do with astronomy. That nonsese will never be taught in schools, even in the American Bible Belt.
We need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.
What it does though is expose your "agenda" in your search for "truth" Truth being that what conforms to, will comport with, your worldview as an naturalist, or an atheist.Thanks for revealing that to everyone here though. That truth is welcomed.
@dmarvin811 In exactly the same way as I know whether it is night time or day time.. I open my eyes and look, is it light outside = yes is it dark outside = no therefore it is daytime...Similarly - Evidence for Evolution on one side and evidence for the man with the white beard and his stone tablets on the other therefore are these to guy deluded intellectual pygmies who are hiding behind magic sky daddy = YES.
@greeny202a you are not justifying your ability to reason, you are telling us where you learned things. For the sake of this argument, I could not care less where you learned anything. I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid? Could you, for instance, be wrong about EVERYTHING that you know?
@dmarvin811 I don't need to justify my ability to reason but even if I had no ability to reason that does not give me the right to invent a benevolent magic creator to reason for me, does it? And peer review of course is not infallible but asserting something exists without evidence is infallibly wrong! Even if evolution is false it still does not of course prove the existence of Yahweh... Or do you say that it does?
@greeny202a your very ability to reason about evidence is evidence of God.
I don't expect you to like what I write. Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.
Its clear 1 Corinthians 1: 18-20, 1 Corinthians 2: 14 says where you are.
@eatmylogic You might be confusing evolution with naturalism. There is theistic evolution after all. Re: evidence of God "In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism." ~Bahnsen
@dmarvin811 Claiming that "revelation from God" is true because God says so is known as proving your assumptions by your conclusions. You seem to be awfully bothered by the fact that most people would consider you to be mentally defective.
@thetruth3574 Problem is, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular. Also, I do not care what people consider me, as long as they get on the right path towards salvation. Hell is the enemy here.
@dmarvin811 Science uses observation and experience to arrive at conclusions, but never takes its conclusions as dogma which cannot be reconsidered. that's why scientific institutions are respected and people like you are treated like loners who mutter to themselves on the street.
@dmarvin811 As of today, evolution has established itself as one of the most well-supported theories in the lexicon of human knowledge, along with germ theory, plate techtonics and the laws of motion. All human institutions from law to education to religion support it, and the life sciences take evolution to be its foundation and central organizing principle. It will remain so for as long as our civilization exists. Of course, you are free to put in with the minority, if you like.
@dmarvin811 You're obviously not professionally involved in the sciences. Probably not an academic. You've read a few theological declarations from some evangelical preacher and figure you've found the royal road to winning any argument without having to know anything else.
@dmarvin811 You don't need to invent any pseudo-logical excuses for clinging to your favorite deities. If it makes you feel good to do so, by all means, feel free to indulge yourself in whatever gets you through the day. But you are never going to overthrow science, no matter how hard you beat your head against the wall.
@MRobert2l pseudo-logical? Your worldview cannot account for logic even. The laws of logic are universal, how can an atheist know anything to be universally true? The laws of logic are invariant, how do unchanging entities make sense in a constantly changing universe? The laws of logic are not made of matter, how do things which are not made of matter make sense in ANY atheistic worldview?
@dmarvin811 Folks, all this guy's posts are simply regurgitations from the videos of one William Lane Craig, a fundamentalist with absolutely no standing in science or academia. He is even ignored in philosophy circles, a complete non-entity. Strictly 700 Cub and Old Time Gospel Hour, pretending to be an "intellectual."
@luvdomus We have different views, so how do you know who has the right view? You see, everything following the above sentence appealed to YOUR view of reality, and you have yet to establish that YOUR view is the RIGHT view. We could easily counter by saying that we “don’t think your view is coherent, much less justified,” but that does not get us anywhere.
Surely you would admit that God could reveal to us the right view of reality? How do YOU know which view is right?
@greeny202a The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.
Now, your turn. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?
@dmarvin811 I neither like what you write nor dislike it because its delusional nonsense I give it very little store. But I do think it is very rude and bad debating tactics to invite a response from someone and then start proselytizing!!! You must know when you quote bible verses you may as well be reading from "The Lord Of The Rings", it has just as much value. Nobody knows anything for certain but we know some things like religion are less certain than others.
@greeny202a Did you use your reasoning to make this determination? I cannot tell you how many times supposed learned people have set to me: “Okay, I can’t know anything, but neither can you.” Problem is, if they can’t know anything, then they cannot know what I can or cannot know, yet the very first thing out of their mouths after denying knowledge, is a knowledge claim.
"There's nothing to link Apes to humans" Well besides DNA. Creationists need to make more videos like this such silly comedy! Actor and con artist banana man vs scientists.. I've never seen these guys convince anyone. But they're good tricksters.
GodKillerAtheist 1 week ago
The easier it becomes to depict the scientific enterprise as a special interest immersed in the culture wars, the easier it becomes to reject scientific findings.
HPoelzig 2 weeks ago 2
Creationism has never gained any influence among scientists or in universities-- it is a con-game aimed at followers of certain religious sects in the American Bible Belt-- a region known for the ignorance, prejudice and small-mindedness of its natives.
thetruth3574 3 weeks ago 2
@thetruth3574 “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.”—Sir Isaac Newton
dmarvin811 3 weeks ago
@dmarvin811 Newton was right about some things, but he was wrong about this and a lot of other things, including alchemy and end-of-the-world prophecies. Science has no "prophets" or patriarchs whose words must be dogmatically accepted.
thetruth3574 2 weeks ago
@dmarvin811
I'm sure you are consumed with Crationism, ust as UFO nuts are consumed by how the government is suppressing "evidence" of flying saucers, conspiracy nuts are consumed with their story about 9/11, and talk radio nuts are consumed with Obama being a Kenyan-Muslim-Marxist. Lots of fringe sub-cultures have their own insular narratives, but none of it has anything to do with reality.
luvdomus 1 week ago
@luvdomus Speaking of reality, I am sure you're aware that your entire argument is a fallacy. Its called ad hominem.
dmarvin811 1 week ago
If Creationists like Kirk Cameron were as well-respected as they think they are, then candidates like Rick Perry and Rick Santorum would be popular too-- instead the Religious Right has about the same reputation for buffoonery as the Ku Klux Klan.
HPoelzig 4 weeks ago 4
Creationists have used laws to suppress knowledge of evolution because they want to cut people off from knowlede of their own origins, to trap them in a bubble of ignorance and mythology.
pwnUgood 4 weeks ago 4
Fundamentalists want to discredit science for the same reason they want to discredit the news media: they want to cut their followers off from all sources of information except that whicfh flows from the leaders of their own religious cult.
eatmylogic 4 weeks ago 5
When anti-intellectuals like Kirk Cameron and his groupies attack science, they only make themselves look stupid. Science is more influential than ever, while fundamentalist religion has earned itself a miserable reputation.
eatmylogic 1 month ago 4
@eatmylogic Reputation? Appeal to popularity -FTW
dmarvin811 1 month ago
@dmarvin811 If 99% of scientists and other educated people support evolution, and less than 1% of people even remotely connected to science support Creationism, it is more than a case of "popularity."
luvdomus 1 month ago
I've figured these guys out. I wondered why their videos are always so short on facts; they seem dishonest. Then it hit me, they are dishonest. These guys are making their living by providing fake science to those who need it in support of their religion. They know it is nonsense, this video is produced for people who have no knowledge of science, but need an anti-science message for their belief systems.
memphisapplegate 1 month ago
Scientists the world over recognize evolution as the process by which all animal species have developed. It is hardly a "controversial" theory, except among professional hucksters like those in this video. Creationism is the province of ignorant and/or dishonest religious fanatics, and has no influence on real science.
pwnUgood 1 month ago
Is Kirk Cameron the stupidist guy on the planet? Why can't these creotards just shut the fuck up!! Idiots.
MrJohndl 1 month ago
These guys are the Ace and Gary of creatard nutjobs. What a pair of schmucks.
ManKnowYourself 1 month ago
Notice tht Dmarvin only takes potshots at accepted biological science-- he's afraid to argue FOR his real beliefs: Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the sun and stars created AFTER the Earth, the whole human race descended from generations of incest, etc.
thetruth3574 1 month ago
How exactly can you argue there are no transitional forms when 1000s have been found. How do creationists explain the fossil record with mammels only on top then, birds, dinasaurs, reptiles, etc. Do they think that one species just disappears without a trace and then another better adapted one simply pops out of nowhere. Why are there no mammels in early rock sediments? Your demostrably false assertions are on level with your flat earth predecessors.
mancno1 1 month ago
@mancno1 Are you absolutely certain of that? If so, how are you certain?
dmarvin811 1 month ago
@dmarvin811 Though no one can be "absolutely" certain of anything, it is possible to be HONESTLY certain, as sceintists strive to be, unlike Creationists and other religious hucksters who are pushing an ulterior ideological agenda under the guise of science.
MrDominex 1 month ago
@MrDominex >>Though no one can be "absolutely" certain of anything,
Are you certain that it is impossible, if so how? If not, it follows that you must concede the possibility. And round round we go.
dmarvin811 1 month ago
@dmarvin811 Erm well there's these guys called paleontologists and they publish their work and then it's peer reviewed and then articles are written about it that can be viewed in scientific journals. I know it's not as good a source as iron age scriblings of desert savages who made a very poor attempt to destroy their polytheistic roots but it's good enough for me.
But if your going to challenge me why not answer my question?
mancno1 1 month ago
@mancno1 "The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities." ~bit[dot]ly/3gUcsN
We all have faith. You in fallible man, and I the infallible Creator of all.
dmarvin811 1 month ago
@dmarvin811 I have faith in the best system we have available for finding truth, it's discoveries impact every aspect of our lives. From medicine to machinery it's the reason we live a life of luxury and the life expectancy has tripled. It's ability to change is what makes it so good because it realises it is fallible ideas like Germ Theory went against everything known at the time but it was excepted because of EVIDENCE. Something Creationism has never had and that's why you avoided my question
mancno1 1 month ago
@mancno1 Remember, Christians allowed the scientific method, and the universities to teach it, to come to fruition. What I have a problem with is naturalism. Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence for one. Do you agree there are real dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this? Naturalism has not been scientifically evidenced, simply its taken as a philosophical paradigm.
dmarvin811 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmarvin811 QUOTE:"Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. "
What a lie. NOTHING is ruled out in science-- but you have to provide evidence FIRST. You want us to accept your supernatural explanation and THEN try to disprove it, and that is superstition, not science.
TheShinedownfan21 1 month ago
@dmarvin811 "Christians allowed the scientific method, and the universities to teach it" yes they did up to the point it started disproving their dogmas after which they imprisoned scientists and baned their books from being published for 300 years.
"Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence for one"
Unless you're a deist you believe your god interferes with the natural world provide evidence of this..(cont)
mancno1 1 month ago
@mancno1 ...(cont) and you'll have proved there is intelligent design in the natural world.
"Do you agree there are real dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this?"
Not at all this is exactly what is required for scientists, at least in their professional lives since science deals with finding the best explaination for natural phenomenon and a natural one is provable whereas supernatural ones have never been more than attempting to rule out alternatives.
mancno1 1 month ago
@dmarvin811 If any gods exist they are part of the natural world by definition-- nature and universe both mean "everything that exists" as opposed to things that are purely imaginary such as ghosts, unicorns, fairies, etc. which are called "supernatural." Scientists are perfectly willing to accept the existence of anything-- but not merely on faith.
luvdomus 1 month ago
@luvdomus >>Scientists are perfectly willing to accept the existence of anything-- but not merely on faith.
Naturalism and evolution is taken on faith.
dmarvin811 1 month ago
@dmarvin811 Evolution is based on evidence, not faith. Ever heard of the fossil record or DNA? There is no evidence for Creationism, only rutted ideology and weird mind games -- that is why Creationists are a tiny minority with no hope of getting the respect they so desperately crave.
HPoelzig 1 month ago
@HPoelzig >>Evolution is based on evidence, not faith. Ever heard of the fossil record or DNA?
Ever watch this video? /watch?v=mbjX-NsxDfI
dmarvin811 1 month ago
@dmarvin811 Speaking of "popularity," how many major universities in the world take Creationism seriously? Answer: NONE. How many major universities fail to acknowledge evolution as the foundational concept of all the life sciences? Answer: NONE.
pwnUgood 3 weeks ago
@dmarvin811 You have faith that primitive savages can receive and understand god's word, that they couldn't be mistaken or adapt scripture for their own benefit. That the correct books are in the bible, that the many translations still contain gods word and that current humans can correctly interpret, this is false because there are 1000s of religions and christian denominations with contradictory views. And no matter how infallible your god is you still need fallible humans to receive the word.
mancno1 1 month ago
@mancno1 I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?
It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
dmarvin811 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmarvin811 Creationism at it's finest, The belief that you don't need evidence to support the rejection of the one of the most solid scientific theories in exchange for religious dogma. And anyone with half a brain cell that calls you out on your BS is "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God"
Admit you can't answer my original question because your beliefs are not in concordance with reality.
mancno1 1 month ago
@dmarvin811 Anti-science ideologues like dmarvin811 are in the minority and it's a good thing, otherwise we'd be headed back to the dark ages.
pwnUgood 1 month ago
@pwnUgood Do your use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular. Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.
That being said I do not hate science.I do not like secular scientists pushing their dogma of naturalism. Howard Huge difference
dmarvin811 1 month ago
Let's assume for the sake of argument that genesine creation is 100% true. At no time wilevolution be evidenced to be a fraud. Never. Why? Because even if it is untrue, those who accept the theory do not have deception as an intent. I, for one, do accept the fact of evoluution annd the theory of nnatural selection, and there is no intent to deceive in my acceptance..
jymbo1969 1 month ago
@jymbo1969 I have a blog post called "still no evidence" in it I attempt to reveal the reason for your denial for it. Bahnsen said, "In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism."
dmarvin811 1 month ago
@dmarvin811 Of course the existence of God could be proven in a way acceptable to science-- by performing a miracle or supernatural act in front of witnesses who can verify that it really happened. But no, all supernatural miracles happen in the shadows, out of sight, revealed only through hearsay. this is the way stage magicians work. Natural phenomena can be proven by observation and analysis, religious beliefs exist only in cloud cuckooland.
eatmylogic 1 month ago
@eatmylogic God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.
All evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence. Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.
dmarvin811 1 month ago
@eatmylogic How can you make an appeal to science? Would you grant this, that your worldview only allows for time and chance acting on matter, that its just the material universe, that its just random, there is no guidance, there is no governance, no sovereign, no purpose or plan over the universe?
[to be cont'd]
dmarvin811 1 month ago
@eatmylogic [cont'd]
Giving those starting points: randomness, no God, no governance, you reject all of that. How are you making an appeal to science that has at its core the uniformity in nature and the principle of induction (tomorrow will be like today)? How are you appealing to science, when you believe the universe is only random. But in order to do science, you have to believe in the uniformity of nature and the rational integrability of the universe.
dmarvin811 1 month ago
Of course we all take philosophical positions that have no basis in evidence. One of the basic of such positions is that we can explain nature in its own terms. You can't accused of dogmatic to somebody who holds a philosophical position. There is no danger on taking the naturalistic position, on the contrary it makes science to advance. Theistic explanaitions for rain, thunders, stars, life, etc, have existed for thousands of years. Only naturalism has provided explanations for what we see...
alvaroefj 1 month ago
@alvaroefj This is a perfect example of knowledge claims for us to examine. Are you absolutely certain of this? If so, how?
dmarvin811 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmarvin811
"This is a perfect example of knowledge claims for us to examine. Are you absolutely certain of this? If so, how?"
- logical absolutes.
if your trying to use this as an argument for god then i have a question for you:
- is it possible for your god to be 'god' and 'not god' simultaneously? if it is not possible then he is subject to logical absolutes (specifically the law of non-contradiction) and hence could not have authored them.
types10000 1 month ago
This atempts to disprove a PROVEN FACT, are just pathetic. Christians would do a favor to themselves not saying this kind of non-sense.
alvaroefj 1 month ago
@alvaroefj We need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.
Evolution is really not the problem as some Christians be3lieve in evolution (theistic evolution) The true problem is the dogmatic, and unfounded, position of naturalism
dmarvin811 1 month ago
@dmarvin811 First: When I talk about a "proven fact" I am talking about the phenomenon of evolution, which is as true as the fact that the earth is round. Most people (like the guys in the video) do not even know the difference between the fact of evolution, and the "Theory of Evolution" which is the theoretical explanation of the things observed, like the diversity of the life on earth.
alvaroefj 1 month ago
@alvaroefj So evidence CAN overturn evolution in the future? Right? Its possible that evidence has not yet presented itself that shows that naturalism is indeed false and falsified. There is plenty of evidence for God, but how are you certain there is not one? Denial of evidence is all you have. My question to narrow things for you now is this, how do you KNOW your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?
dmarvin811 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmarvin811
"So evidence CAN overturn evolution in the future?"
- sure.
"Its possible that evidence has not yet presented itself that shows that naturalism is indeed false and falsified"
- sure.
"There is plenty of evidence for God"
- no, although feel free to present some.
"but how are you certain there is not one"
- rejection is the logical default until evidence is presented
types10000 1 month ago
@dmarvin811
"how do you KNOW your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?"
- we make deductions based on logic which is inturn based on logical absolutes.
- we can assess the credibility of these deductions by testing them in various ways.
types10000 1 month ago
@types10000, you are not justifying your ability to reason, you are telling us where you learned things. For the sake of this argument, I could not care less where you learned anything. I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid? Could you, for instance, be wrong about EVERYTHING that you know?
Since God is absolute, the absolute laws of logic have always existed. How do you account for things that are absolute in your worldview?
dmarvin811 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmarvin811
"you are not justifying your ability to reason, you are telling us where you learned things."
- no, i have presented the arguments (not where i learned them)
" I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid"
- i already did ie. through testing.
"Could you, for instance, be wrong about EVERYTHING that you know?"
- ofcourse, but that's not what the evidence supports.
"Since God is absolute"
- incorrect, god is a word that is synonym for deity.
types10000 1 month ago
@dmarvin811
"the absolute laws of logic have always existed. How do you account for things that are absolute in your worldview?"
well actually i dont need to: i could quite happily follow the intellectually honest route of regarding their origin as unknown (more logical than asserting a god is responsible), but since you ask i'd simply posit that they are a product of existence itself.
types10000 1 month ago
@types10000 I agree that there are laws of logic, please tell me how your adopted worldview accounts for those laws, how you know they are valid, how you know they are universal, and on what basis you expect them to hold 2 seconds from now?
dmarvin811 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmarvin811
"agree that there are laws of logic, please tell me how your adopted worldview accounts for those laws"
as i already said:
a). i dont need an explanation to regard their origin as an unknown is quite alright
b). i can just as easily claim they are simply a product of existance
"how you know they are valid...how you know they are universal...and on what basis you expect them to hold 2 seconds from now"
- already answered: they are testable and logically consistent
types10000 1 month ago
@dmarvin811 Only ignorarant fundamentalists suggest that without their gods, the universe must be "random.' Scientists know that there are random elements in the universe, but the universe as a whole is a single process, therefore ultimately unified-- and with no need of a Father, King or other authority figure to "keep it in line."
eatmylogic 1 month ago
@eatmylogic Would you grant this, that your worldview only allows for time and chance acting on matter, that its just the material universe, there is no guidance, there is no governance, no sovereign, no purpose or plan over the universe?
dmarvin811 1 month ago
@dmarvin811 Matter/energy interacts with itself forming patterns of action and inaction, it needs no outside causal agents. Your use of the quaint term "sovereign" shows that you are mired in Medeival ideas about kings, lords and other primitive chieftans. That's why scientists pay no attention to you.
eatmylogic 1 month ago
@dmarvin811 No one knows yet how the universe began, but all evidence points to a particular beginning. That doesn't mean that the beginning can only be explained in terms of ancient superstition or modern ideological movements such as "Born-Again" Christianism.
luvdomus 1 month ago
@luvdomus >>No one knows yet how the universe began, but all evidence points to a particular beginning.
Are you absolutely certain of this? If so, how are you certain?
dmarvin811 1 month ago
@dmarvin811 It is not necessary to be "absolutely" certain of anything to make a solid scientific case-- in fact "absolute" certainty is impossible outside of pure mathematics. That you would continually harp on "absolute" certainty means you are either a dimwit or a computer program-- you're certaintly not a thinking person.
luvdomus 1 month ago
@luvdomus >>in fact "absolute" certainty is impossible outside of pure mathematics.
Are you absolutely certain about that? If so, how?
dmarvin811 1 month ago
@dmarvin811 Once the principles of physics come about, the universe runs itself-- matter and energy are on automatic, with no exceptions to the flow of cause and effect, no sign of interference, no supernatural events. The only room for an "outside agent" is before the Big Bang, to kick it into motion-- after that, nature takes it's course.
pwnUgood 1 month ago
@pwnUgood Are you absolutely certain about that? If so, how are you certain?
dmarvin811 1 month ago
@dmarvin811 Your repeated pleadings of, "Are you absolutely certain about that?" ahve been rebutted by a dozen people in this thread alone. Are you a parrot?
pwnUgood 1 month ago
@pwnUgood I asked how you are certain that it is impossible for a person to have certainty? IT should be obvious by now
(Resume ducking - with obfuscation).
I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid? Could you, for instance, be wrong about EVERYTHING that you know?
dmarvin811 1 month ago
The unfavorable ratings for this video outnumber the favorable by over 3 to 1-- which, despite Creationist propaganda to the contrary, accurately reflects what the general public thinks of Creationism in general.
eatmylogic 2 months ago 3
Why don't Creationists object to theories about the formation of planets and stars, mountains and oceans-- all of which are equally at odds with literal interpretations of the bible?
pwnUgood 2 months ago 15
The Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination with over a billion members, officially accepts evolution as the the only scientifically valid explanation for the divergence of animal species on earth. Only a few extremist Protestant sects think that evolution somehow threatens the authority of Scripture.
MrDominex 2 months ago 12
dmarvin811 has been out-argued again by the defenders of reason, and the Creationists are in full retreat with tails tucked firmly between their legs.
TheShinedownfan21 2 months ago 3
@TheShinedownfan21 How do you know your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?
dmarvin811 1 month ago
We're still waiting for any evidence that nature is designed or controlled by supernatural intelligence-- and "Divine Revelation" is simply not good enough to count as any kind of evidence at all.
thetruth3574 2 months ago
Typical of Creationists, Marvin cannot answer scientific questions put to him directly.
HPoelzig 2 months ago
Did stars form long before the earth existed, or instead, is the Bible correct in claiming that the stars and the sun were created after the earth? Don't hedge on this question-- either the stars are older or younger than the earth, and either the Bible is correct or incorrect when it states that the sun and stars were not made until the earth was already here.
eatmylogic 2 months ago
Christianity tried to strangle science in its cradle, but science survived to dominate modern thought. Christianity has degenerated into a thousand different sects, each warring with one another, of which Creationism is perhaps the least respectable.
pwnUgood 2 months ago 2
Science is the study of nature, whereas Creationism is the promotion of superstition.
MrDominex 2 months ago 2
During the Bush administration the Religious Right launched a war against science. Science won.
luvdomus 2 months ago
Nature is very tolerant; she has no creed.
Hogagger 2 months ago
You don't sound like a human. Sure you're not a program?
MrDominex 2 months ago
May I ask you a straight question? Why do you Christians have a crusade against a simple theory about the change in species over time? Even if you prove it to be completely false (which you wont) it still does not do anything to validate your crazy beliefs does it? What about Genetics that prove Adam + Eve is false or Geology that tells us the earth is 4.54 billion years old and not 6,000 LOL or Astrophysics that tell us the Universe is 13.5 billion years old? You must realize your time is up?
greeny202a 2 months ago
@greeny202a The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.
>>What about Genetics that prove Adam + Eve is false...
We need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.
Answer this, How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 But even if my reasoning on everything is proved invalid it still does not mean yours is valid does it? The simple fact is if someone thinks you are a deluded religious fool how does proving his theory on evolution mean that you are not a deluded religious fool? BTW genetics has proved that humans descend from a long line of older species not created from a bit of clay and a rib!
greeny202a 2 months ago
@greeny202a The claim is that I can account for my knowledge and you cannot. My worldview does not appeal to a viciously circular reasoning, as your does. Problem is, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular. With that line of thought, no one's reasoning could be invalid.
You have no avenue to your knowledge without borrowing from my worldview. My worldview is true do to the impossibility of the contrary.
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 LOL I see so your worldview is correct and true because you don't have to subject it to examination! Well thats a new one! So if i told you "Evolution is true because the great god Thor told me it was in a dream" you would have to accept evolution is true because i can account for my knowledge?
greeny202a 2 months ago
@greeny202a First I refuse to give you evidence so you can, as a criminal, judge God. That is unBiblical. Again, you as a criminal is attempting to judge God, the Judge of all. I should add 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 here. The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.
Now, your turn. How do you know anything?
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 I have told you the great god Thor revealed to us that Evolution is true and correct in the book of Bullshitians 69:69 and anyone who does not fully accept evolution is to be cast into the underworld to watch Kirk Cameron soaps for ALL eternity. Now explain how your silly claims stand up to the word of Thor???
greeny202a 2 months ago
@greeny202a mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). Mere assertion of a mere logical possibility. If we accept mere assertions of bare logical possibilities as grounds for truth we should believe all mere assertions. I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 Yes sure, so are we in agreement then that the mighty omniscient and omnipotent being Thor tells us Evolution is true and correct so therefore is true and correct because as you say we can be certain of it?
greeny202a 2 months ago
@greeny202a What I find hilarious, read sad, is that in order to account for your atheistic worldview that you use a outside source, Thor. You cannot account for anything otherwise. But like I already said mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). There is plenty adequate justification for God. We say that all evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence.
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 And what I find hilarious is you simply cannot see that there is as much evidence for my claim about Thor as there is for yours about jeebus! But neither have any credible justification in rationality or reality other than what you and your crazy group BELIEVES!
greeny202a 2 months ago
@greeny202a We have different views, so how do you know who has the right view? You see, everything following the above sentence appealed to YOUR view of reality, and you have yet to establish that YOUR view is the RIGHT view. We could easily counter by saying that we “don’t think your view is coherent, much less justified,” but that does not get us anywhere.
Surely you would admit that God could reveal to us the right view of reality? How do YOU know which view is right?
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 As i am trying to make you see the idea of your non-existent deity revealing anything to you is as provable or justifiable as Thor revealing anything to me, before you or your deluded group attempt to attack any scientific theory you must acknowledge this. I ask you is your belief in your deity any more justifiable than my belief in Thor? Because I find your belief in Jesus to be completely incoherent and illogical because it disagrees with the teachings of Thor.
greeny202a 2 months ago
@greeny202a Yes, we understand that you must make up things in order to deflect from your worldview that you cannot account for. Got it.
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 HEY HEY HEY EUREKA ha ha ha ha EXACTLY.... I am doing EXACTLY what you and your group are doing and I quote you "make up things in order to deflect from your worldview that you cannot account for" ha ha ha
greeny202a 2 months ago
@greeny202a Ever hear of a tu quoque fallacy?
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 EH?!?!?!?! Have we not just been around this barbecue???? I have just demonstrated to you that you and your group of "theists" have bought into a delusion invented by a bunch of bronze age nomads who knew absolutely nothing about the world to explain what they saw around them. No matter how many times you attack any scientific theory it does not deflect from the fact that everything you believe in is just a story.
greeny202a 2 months ago
@greeny202a Are you absolutely certain about this? If so, how?
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 LOL I can see your well used to circular reasoning!!!!! We have gone right back round to your very first statement. just like you justify your belief in an unprovable being. It is like a little latch on the side of your frontal lobe you get just far enough to understand you beliefs are being questioned and then snap a trap door opens and you logic drops into your ass and you have to start all over again.
greeny202a 2 months ago
@greeny202a Never said it wasn’t circular, just that it is not viciously circular, as your view is. Intellectual honesty would force you to admit that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain. You, on the other hand, have no avenue to certainty.
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 HA HA HA you say you reasoning is not viciously circular when you keep asking me to admit the revelation of truth from a being that simply does not exist! LOL I told you that at the beginning but your programmed brainwashed mind keeps coming around to the little latch on your frontal lobe doesn't it and snap down into your ass your reason goes. LOL
greeny202a 2 months ago
@greeny202a ”In the Christian worldview, however, the Christian is not engaged in viciously circular argument, a circular argument on the same plane. We appeal above and beyond the temporal realm. God’s self-revelation in nature and in Scripture informs us of the two-level universe. God is not a fact like other facts in the world. He is the Creator and Establisher of all else. His existence alone makes the universe, and reason, and human experience possible…
[to be cont'd]
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 Fundamentalists like yourself can talk themselves into anything. That's why they are ignored by civilized people.
MrDominex 2 months ago
@MrDominex Are you absolutely certain about this? If so, how?
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 This "person" is either a robot or a mental case.
pwnUgood 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 Scientists are perfectly willing to entertain the idea of gods as a causal agents, but they would have to be backed by tangible evidence, not just faith. Creationists try to hide their real motives behind phony statistics, tricky reasoning and misleading innuendo-- they have not earned public trust.
MRobert2l 2 months ago
@MRobert2l Your ability to reason about evidence is evidence of God. I don't expect you to like what I write. Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God. Also, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
Science is not the problem, naturalism is.
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 You are arguing for "god"-- which is a slippery, vague concept whose definition varies subjectively. This does not qualify as an argument against evolution, which is a well-defined concept with tangible parameters for which much data is available for analysis, not rooted in nebulous, mystical mumbo-jumbo.
MRobert2l 2 months ago 3
@greeny202a [cont'd] … The “circularity” of a transcendental argument is not at all the same as the fallacious ‘circularity’ of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement (in one form or another) of one of its premises.” ~ (Pushing the Antithesis pg.) 124.
Just because you do not understand what is necessary to defeat a transcendental argument, does not change the fact that you cannot defeat it.
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 =O !!!!!!!!
greeny202a 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 There is no evidence that any natural process is designed/controlled by an intellegent being, and the only people who diagree are those who have an emotional investment in believing there is. Scientists don't care either way, they're only interested in what the evidence actually supports.
HPoelzig 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 Take your "divine revelation theory" and apply for a professorship at any major university in the world. They will have security escort you off campus.
luvdomus 2 months ago
@luvdomus Truth is frightening. I understand why they feel threatened enough to escort a different view, other then the paradigm, off the campus. Sure sounds like Science to me. No wait, am I confusing that term with "secular dogma"? Jim Jones only wanted his followers at the camp after all.
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 the idea that all knowlege is suspect except that which is "Divinely Revealed" gives the religious fanatic carte blanc permission to believe any fool idea that comes into his head, no matter how narcissistic, malicious or destructive.
MrDominex 2 months ago
@MrDominex I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?
It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain. You, on the other hand have no such rescuing device for your circularity.
Are you certain that God cannot reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, if so, how are you certain of this?
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 You are the one who is confusing evolution with some kind of philosophical statement. Evolution is a physical process, it is how living things diverge into species. Germ, theory, plate tectonics atomic theory also dont refer to your favorite gods, nor rely on them as explanations, but that doesn't make these branches of science into philosophy any more than in the case of evolution.
eatmylogic 2 months ago
@eatmylogic You're confusing evolution with naturalism. There are plenty of Christians, many scientists, that believe in a theistic evolution. Its the naturalism that we have a problem with. Its your dogma, its your religion, its your master. Its your blinders. Evolutionary naturalism is incoherent. watch some of Alvin Plantinga's work. Google: Science and Religion: Where the Real Conflict Lies
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 If you want to believe that some sort of "god" is behind evolution (or earthquakes, or the weather or any other natural process) to ahead. Science isn't making any pronouncements about what is "behind" nature, only how nature itself operates.
eatmylogic 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 Fundamentalists declared war on science and science won. I guess you haven't heard the news.
HPoelzig 2 months ago
@HPoelzig Is it your claim that science stopped searching? Otherwise, You're wrong. Science (method) and the universities were created by Christians silly. Its just your dogma about evolution naturalism that we have a problem with. Its your dogma, its your religion, its your master. Its your blinders. Evolutionary naturalism is incoherent. Watch some of Alvin Plantinga's work. Google: Science and Religion: Where the Real Conflict Lies
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 Evolution isn't any more "atheistic" than any other scientific fact. You're just trying to overcome your own doubts about your supernatural beliefs by choosing evolution as an "enemy' .
MRobert2l 2 months ago
@MRobert2l Never said it was. Nice quote mine though. Evolutionary naturalism is incoherent and the pushed dogma of the atheistic worldview. You can go to the bank on that one. Again Google: Science and Religion: Where the Real Conflict Lies If you are interested in something that challenges your dogma.
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 By trying to prop up their superstitions with a false veneer of scientific respectability, Creationists only dig themselves deeper into the pit of public ridicule. Science doesn't need to ride piggyback on religion to verify itself.
Hogagger 2 months ago
@Hogagger Never said it did. Thanks for the straw man though. He's pretty.
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 Is there any other pseudo-scientific "theory" as thoroghly discredited as Creationism? UFOs and other tin foil hat conspiracies take a backseat to Creationists' failed attacks on education.
TheShinedownfan21 2 months ago
@TheShinedownfan21 Is it your claim that Creationism is falsifiable, therefore scientific? Please show me one peer review that discredits Creationism? Pretty please. Its your claim, show the evidence.
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 There is a huge difference between ideas that are arrived at thorugh careful observation and honest reasoning, as opposed to those which simply pop into your head, or are acquired through "holy writings" or the claims of authoritarian leaders. The former are trustworthy, the latter are not.
pwnUgood 2 months ago
@pwnUgood Are you absolutely certain of this? If so, how? If not, you have no argument.
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 "Divine Revelation" has about as much to do with biology as the Zodiac has to do with astronomy. That nonsese will never be taught in schools, even in the American Bible Belt.
thetruth3574 2 months ago
@thetruth3574 How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@greeny202a >>genetics has proved...
We need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.
What it does though is expose your "agenda" in your search for "truth" Truth being that what conforms to, will comport with, your worldview as an naturalist, or an atheist.Thanks for revealing that to everyone here though. That truth is welcomed.
dmarvin811 2 months ago
WOW! This cannot be real?!?!?!?!?! If it is America will be gone within 20 years.
greeny202a 2 months ago
@greeny202a How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 In exactly the same way as I know whether it is night time or day time.. I open my eyes and look, is it light outside = yes is it dark outside = no therefore it is daytime...Similarly - Evidence for Evolution on one side and evidence for the man with the white beard and his stone tablets on the other therefore are these to guy deluded intellectual pygmies who are hiding behind magic sky daddy = YES.
greeny202a 2 months ago
@greeny202a you are not justifying your ability to reason, you are telling us where you learned things. For the sake of this argument, I could not care less where you learned anything. I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid? Could you, for instance, be wrong about EVERYTHING that you know?
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 I don't need to justify my ability to reason but even if I had no ability to reason that does not give me the right to invent a benevolent magic creator to reason for me, does it? And peer review of course is not infallible but asserting something exists without evidence is infallibly wrong! Even if evolution is false it still does not of course prove the existence of Yahweh... Or do you say that it does?
greeny202a 2 months ago
@greeny202a your very ability to reason about evidence is evidence of God.
I don't expect you to like what I write. Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.
Its clear 1 Corinthians 1: 18-20, 1 Corinthians 2: 14 says where you are.
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 The fact evolution is accepted science is not a denial of the existence of any god.
eatmylogic 2 months ago
@eatmylogic You might be confusing evolution with naturalism. There is theistic evolution after all. Re: evidence of God "In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism." ~Bahnsen
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 Claiming that "revelation from God" is true because God says so is known as proving your assumptions by your conclusions. You seem to be awfully bothered by the fact that most people would consider you to be mentally defective.
thetruth3574 2 months ago
@thetruth3574 Problem is, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular. Also, I do not care what people consider me, as long as they get on the right path towards salvation. Hell is the enemy here.
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 Science uses observation and experience to arrive at conclusions, but never takes its conclusions as dogma which cannot be reconsidered. that's why scientific institutions are respected and people like you are treated like loners who mutter to themselves on the street.
TheShinedownfan21 2 months ago
@TheShinedownfan21 >>and people like you are treated like loners who mutter to themselves on the street.
That is called a relativist fallacy. Need a mirror?
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 As of today, evolution has established itself as one of the most well-supported theories in the lexicon of human knowledge, along with germ theory, plate techtonics and the laws of motion. All human institutions from law to education to religion support it, and the life sciences take evolution to be its foundation and central organizing principle. It will remain so for as long as our civilization exists. Of course, you are free to put in with the minority, if you like.
MrDominex 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 You seem to be working overtime to convince yourself of how "certain" you are.
pwnUgood 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 You're obviously not professionally involved in the sciences. Probably not an academic. You've read a few theological declarations from some evangelical preacher and figure you've found the royal road to winning any argument without having to know anything else.
Hogagger 2 months ago
@Hogagger You have still not answered my question although the deflection is noted.
How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?
(Resume ducking - with obfuscation).
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 You don't need to invent any pseudo-logical excuses for clinging to your favorite deities. If it makes you feel good to do so, by all means, feel free to indulge yourself in whatever gets you through the day. But you are never going to overthrow science, no matter how hard you beat your head against the wall.
MRobert2l 2 months ago
@MRobert2l Beautiful straw man you have there. You must be proud of it.
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 You're getting the crap beat out of you, Marvin! You must have a compulsion to submit yourself to public ridicule.
MRobert2l 2 months ago
@MRobert2l How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@MRobert2l Wait, I should of said:
How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
(Resume ducking - with obfuscation).
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@MRobert2l pseudo-logical? Your worldview cannot account for logic even. The laws of logic are universal, how can an atheist know anything to be universally true? The laws of logic are invariant, how do unchanging entities make sense in a constantly changing universe? The laws of logic are not made of matter, how do things which are not made of matter make sense in ANY atheistic worldview?
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 Folks, all this guy's posts are simply regurgitations from the videos of one William Lane Craig, a fundamentalist with absolutely no standing in science or academia. He is even ignored in philosophy circles, a complete non-entity. Strictly 700 Cub and Old Time Gospel Hour, pretending to be an "intellectual."
luvdomus 2 months ago
@luvdomus We have different views, so how do you know who has the right view? You see, everything following the above sentence appealed to YOUR view of reality, and you have yet to establish that YOUR view is the RIGHT view. We could easily counter by saying that we “don’t think your view is coherent, much less justified,” but that does not get us anywhere.
Surely you would admit that God could reveal to us the right view of reality? How do YOU know which view is right?
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@greeny202a The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.
Now, your turn. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?
dmarvin811 2 months ago
@dmarvin811 I neither like what you write nor dislike it because its delusional nonsense I give it very little store. But I do think it is very rude and bad debating tactics to invite a response from someone and then start proselytizing!!! You must know when you quote bible verses you may as well be reading from "The Lord Of The Rings", it has just as much value. Nobody knows anything for certain but we know some things like religion are less certain than others.
greeny202a 2 months ago
@greeny202a Did you use your reasoning to make this determination? I cannot tell you how many times supposed learned people have set to me: “Okay, I can’t know anything, but neither can you.” Problem is, if they can’t know anything, then they cannot know what I can or cannot know, yet the very first thing out of their mouths after denying knowledge, is a knowledge claim.
dmarvin811 2 months ago