Logical Fallacies Explained

[drtydznutz]

get a better camera and use a fuckin background! Fuckin idjits!

[FearsEdge]

@drtydznutz

Look at the date of this video, idjit.

[drtydznutz]

@FearsEdge Holy shit! Delete this old ass crap.

[FearsEdge]

@drtydznutz

yes, old=bad

[Pablovlopez]

And who racked up the most logical fallacies?.... Religion!

[S2niS2]

Wait a second

were you guys drunk that dude has a drink in his hand!

[jetsfan3161]

im on vid 46 , rating them up bro. fuck the votebot asshole.

[DevotionLotion]

LOL, love the last line! Great vid.

[kingnebster]

you're an empiricist arguing for the use of logic. funny stuff.

[FearsEdge]

I thought you were going to fuck off. Dammit. I retract my thanks to you. You still refuse to answer any of my questions. Typical.

Remember when we talked about "argumentation"?

Even Hume himself advocated "practical skepticism". Do you know what that might be? Could it be....... empiricism? No........

[LotusGreenX]

"you're an empiricist arguing for the use of logic. funny stuff."

A lot of Christian philosophers are empiricists, so are they wrong as well?

[FearsEdge]

I had a three video conversation with this fuck. Of course when cornered he turned and ran. He doesn't even understand the problem of induction, and wants to say I am the hypocrite.

[LotusGreenX]

So do you still have these videos?

[FearsEdge]

watch?v=j-hUv5w37Qg

[FearsEdge]

Then we had like a 90 comment long conversation on his last video to me. That's when he was really cornered.

[LotusGreenX]

This video is about empericism not evolution.

[FearsEdge]

That's what we were talking about. This is a whole other flavor of creationist. These are the types who do not even attempt to hijack science, like the discovery institute, no, these are the type of creationists who deny science outright in favor of dogma.

[LotusGreenX]

What? I was talking about common descent and the implications of evolution. What the hell is wrong with empericism anyways? I see many Christians upholding.

[FearsEdge]

You just quoted kingnebster, talking about me as an empiricist arguing for the use of logic. That's what I was referring to when I spoke of my three videos and our conversation.

Like I said, this is a creationist who does not try and bend science to say what they want, they dismiss it outright because it contradicts their dogma.

[LotusGreenX]

Oh, I'm sorry I mixed this channel with another one. I was talking about common descent and I must of responded thinking this was another video.

[FearsEdge]

No problem, I almost did that with a different conversation while I was talking to you.

[LotusGreenX]

So how do you defend against attacks that the legistics of evolution, such as certain genes that are too improbable or have to come all at the same time in order to do anthing beneficial at all? I guess it kind of goes along the lines of Behee, but I keep on hearing the argument that this "information" has to be ordered in such as way that it is extremely unlikely that natural selection could account for these sequences of proteins in only like a couple million years for example.

[FearsEdge]

They are talking out of their ass. They cannot even define "information". This whole "improbable" argument is ridiculous for the reasons I already gave.

[LotusGreenX]

"This whole "improbable" argument is ridiculous for the reasons I already gave."

I meant statistically improbable. Behee for example claims that certain mutations would have to accur simotaneously in order for evolution to account for certain protein sequences. Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought this is what the argument was. And so basically there such a slim chance that the probability that this mutation could occur, along with other similar ones, over a period of the needed time is impossible.

[FearsEdge]

It doesn't matter. If you are going to try and disprove even part of evolution, something supported by demonstrable evidence, with a mental exorcise like figuring the odds of it happening(a fools errand in the first place), saying that it is "improbable" gets you nowhere because improbable is not impossible, and we have the evidence to support it. So saying something supported by evidence is improbable is a pretty silly thing to do in the first place.

[LotusGreenX]

But if they argue that common ancestry is supported by evidence, but not how these animals came about it seems like perhaps your claim is a little weaker?

[FearsEdge]

We know how these animals came about. That is the point. We understand the mechanisms: natural selection, genetic mutations, genetic drift, these are all phenomena that we have studied in detail. The information is there. Just denying it is not a valid argument.

[LotusGreenX]

I know, but it is a non sequitor to say that because we know how things change now, we know that all of life must have changed by this process. The argument that if you can go a step then why can't you go a mile is fine, but the IDer is saying that these mechanisms are insufficient for the diversity of life based on certain problems in genetics and there is not enough evidence to assume that it did.

[FearsEdge]

They are just asserting it is insufficient without having any reasoning to support it. Unless they have some evidence or a reasoned argument to interpret some evidence, what what reason is there to deny the mechanisms we know exist are enough, when we know that the mechanisms were working for immense periods of time that has allowed for all sorts of variation. The emergence of new species has been documented already, so there is more than enough time to account for all diversity.

[LotusGreenX]

"...so there is more than enough time to account for all diversity."

True, but could you also use hominid fossils as evidence for evolution showing that their cornerstone objection shows signs of successive evolution? I'm just not sure how to approach it.

Just to make it clear I accept evolution fully and I am an atheist. I just have this sick addiction to being a skeptic through other people's perspective in order to make my arguments stronger.

[LotusGreenX]

I realize in scientific terms there really is no ulternative, but from a God of the gaps theistic perspective is there any way to actually go beyond this barrier?

[LotusGreenX]

The reason I don't have a good response is I know a piss poor amout of the legistics of evolution and how certain genes have to mutate or some systems have to form and the probability for these to form.

[kingnebster]

yes, they are wrong for starting with empiricism.

btw, i stopped my videos with fearsedge because he doesn't understand what a contradiction is.

[FearsEdge]

So starting with the bible(whether you agree or not, rife with contradictions and demonstrable falsehoods) because the bible says to (circular reasoning, mister logic), is the proper method? You are a joke.

[kingnebster]

have you taken that course in logic yet?

[FearsEdge]

Have you found reality yet?

[evospecies]

Very good contribution. And the website is helpful. Thanks.

[tsummerlee]

Well done!

[jebus6kryst]

Good video. Have you seen the ExtantDodo version of this? Their video about logical fallacies was my favorite video of theirs. It would have to be one of my favorite videos on youtube.

I love calling logical fallacies out when I watch videos.

[FearsEdge]

I love pointing out logical fallacies. It usually kills a conversation.

[mattblackcat]

So you can say Ad hominem but not Ad ignorantiam,

Dudes your reasoning for this is an argument from laziness.

Oh the irony :-)

[FearsEdge]

For me, it's always argument from laziness.