I don't mean to be incendiary, but is this junk really convincing anybody ? ... I mean, is the audience even aware how prodigiously wrong this guy is...? I'm partially convinced this has to be a satire of some sort. People this ignorant on their subject of critique don't really do entire presentations showcasing their lack of erudition? Do they?
Could you be any more broad. When making remarks like that you need to be specific. And if you are refering to the whole video then I am sure it wouldn't matter what he said cause you already had your mind up
Broad... and rightfully so. As such I would argue that this forum itself (500-char windows) is inappropriate. Science is thorough, meticulous, open. It requires prerequisite knowledge, and careful listening. For instance, I don't even know if listening parties are literate in the notion of "empiricism" itself, or basic principles of logic. So, no. Being specific is a fruitless endeavor. If you want to comprehend a point by point rebuttal, then be genuinely interested in science itself.
I just stumbled on this by accident and was taken aback by it. Our understanding of allele variation (the mechanics of population genetics) i.e. "evolution" is very thorough.
It is one logical point to say "evolution could not have produced this, or that.."
It's an entirely different matter to say "it was created / designed intelligently"
These creationists seem to presume a bridge between the two - a false paradigm, a corruption of basic argumentative logic.
Although numbers don't mean anything, maybe someone should create a list of all the scientists and non-scientists and lawyers and everyone who supports evolution. That way they'll be beaten at their own game.
Have you heard of "project Steve?" They have more scientists named Steve who accept the theory of evolution than the ID people have scientists who reject it.
God of the gaps, we don't know everything about evolution, therefore god did it. He takes ancient myths and ideas that reveal their origins over the knowledge of the modern age.
Rev Mortenson here appears to have never met a scientist, let alone knows what scientists do, let alone knows what science is.
Darwin was right about an astonishing number of things; he was also wrong about many things. This is why the Theory of Evolution has grown vastly ever since Darwin. Rev Mortenson appears to falsely believe scientists embrace what Charls Darwin wrote 149 years ago as if it were gospel.
If Darwin was wrong, evolution would still be the fact that it is.
Great Video!!
ChristianHillbilly 1 year ago 2
that man is right
Benzkopf 1 year ago 2
I don't mean to be incendiary, but is this junk really convincing anybody ? ... I mean, is the audience even aware how prodigiously wrong this guy is...? I'm partially convinced this has to be a satire of some sort. People this ignorant on their subject of critique don't really do entire presentations showcasing their lack of erudition? Do they?
abyssquick 2 years ago 2
Could you be any more broad. When making remarks like that you need to be specific. And if you are refering to the whole video then I am sure it wouldn't matter what he said cause you already had your mind up
yugihoo 2 years ago
Broad... and rightfully so. As such I would argue that this forum itself (500-char windows) is inappropriate. Science is thorough, meticulous, open. It requires prerequisite knowledge, and careful listening. For instance, I don't even know if listening parties are literate in the notion of "empiricism" itself, or basic principles of logic. So, no. Being specific is a fruitless endeavor. If you want to comprehend a point by point rebuttal, then be genuinely interested in science itself.
abyssquick 2 years ago
I just stumbled on this by accident and was taken aback by it. Our understanding of allele variation (the mechanics of population genetics) i.e. "evolution" is very thorough.
It is one logical point to say "evolution could not have produced this, or that.."
It's an entirely different matter to say "it was created / designed intelligently"
These creationists seem to presume a bridge between the two - a false paradigm, a corruption of basic argumentative logic.
For starters.
abyssquick 2 years ago
@abyssquick keep dreaming nub
GWmaximus 2 months ago
Who cares how we get here,lets work on making it better !
sn9696 2 years ago
Dr of History ... supposedly
michalchik 2 years ago
It is amazing to me that people like this can get a doctoral degree. I wonder if his comes from the same place as "Dr." Kent Hovind?
adamredwine 2 years ago
@adamredwine how did darwin get one? its all about perpective
GWmaximus 2 months ago
of course darwin was right
peugeot211 2 years ago 2
lightning at the beginning=god(500years+ ago) now its loads that get free, blablabla.
XXX we dont know yet=god
In YYY years its ZZZ
Londron 3 years ago
The claim 2 on naturalistic philosophy is ultimate strawman.
I would rather believe I descend from the great apes, than made from a grain of dust. - :)
LordImmolation 3 years ago
I agree very strawman, but there are two sides this is just the other side.
I also agree, just opposite I come from dust :P
yugihoo 3 years ago
Although numbers don't mean anything, maybe someone should create a list of all the scientists and non-scientists and lawyers and everyone who supports evolution. That way they'll be beaten at their own game.
Evalsrewop 3 years ago
Have you heard of "project Steve?" They have more scientists named Steve who accept the theory of evolution than the ID people have scientists who reject it.
adamredwine 2 years ago
God of the gaps, we don't know everything about evolution, therefore god did it. He takes ancient myths and ideas that reveal their origins over the knowledge of the modern age.
killerbandit 3 years ago
Mortenson is himself not a scientist. His evidence consists of quotes out of context.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
Where is it stated that he is a scientist?
yugihoo 3 years ago
Doesn't state it, but I do - clearly. Mortenson is talking about stuff he doesn't understand.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
so i take it you believe geology isn't a science?
yugihoo 3 years ago
You may take it that
1. Majoring in a science does not make one a scientist, and
2. Majoring in the HISTORY of a science makes one an historian, not a scientist.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago 2
I see thanks for the clarification. What makes one a scientist? if you be so kind
yugihoo 3 years ago
In this instance, the wiki definition is sufficient.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
Rev Mortenson here appears to have never met a scientist, let alone knows what scientists do, let alone knows what science is.
Darwin was right about an astonishing number of things; he was also wrong about many things. This is why the Theory of Evolution has grown vastly ever since Darwin. Rev Mortenson appears to falsely believe scientists embrace what Charls Darwin wrote 149 years ago as if it were gospel.
If Darwin was wrong, evolution would still be the fact that it is.
Desertphile 3 years ago