I get creationists bringing up names of 'scientists' to prove their points at times.
However they call any comment on the people ad hominem attacks. They usually fail to distinguish disputing someones authority if the claim is one FROM authority and actually ignoring the claim itself by ONLY attacking that person.
If that someone is not actually a scientist, or is not from the relevant field, his 'authority' is not worth as much as someone who knows what they are talking about.
I tend to slightly disagree with your definition though (although I do concede that I may be mistaken - neither English nor Latin is a first language for me).
An Ad Hominem argument is not trying to *evade* someone else's point/argument as much as it attempts to *invalidate* the other person's statement by focusing on a character flaw (which obviously has no bearing on the argument), i.o.w. it really just goes off on a tangent to focus on something irrelevant to attempt to disprove an argument.
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Hey guy got a question for you, did Dawkins in your def of Ad Hominem attack when he said William Craig is a professional debater and thats why he didnt want to debate him, that hes too busy? How about when he said while it would help Craigs resume but not his. He know he would get owned by Craig. Craig is on another level quick on his feet and way more intelligent, thats why Dawkins runs.
@SuperGolfing1 Nobody can become "owned" by Mr.Craig. He might prove a "Creator principle" from OntO'- and CosmO'-Pseudologic arguments, but he cannot identify this principle with the mono G-D of the Scripture. The actual number of Creators is totally unknown (0,1,100s,1000s...?) as well as their Properties totally unknown.
@SuperGolfing1 (2)Pseudologic: He ascribed in the first place already, some properties to the Creator, that he cannot provide evidence for. It is obvious, that from the start off, he is inclined and biased towards a certain Creator with certain properties. This is very wrong.
A bunch of angry evolutionists, that's all I see on the boards typically bashing christianity for some reason, not that i am christian or evolutionist.
@ CheekiShit "bunch of angry evolutionists". let's analyze that statement. you're basically victimizing creationists and talking about 'bashing' them, whereas it's clearly a two way arguments going on, so that tells us which side you are on. also you're saying "angry evolutionists" as that in itself would be an insult, which is obviously what you're trying to do here - insult evolutionists and protect creationists AND lie about not being one. way to thinly veil a lightly worded ad-hominem there
@yamimakaiz I only see evolutionists bitching and playing the victim card, nearly all the time. Bashing religion is somewhat of popular thing now and it's uneducated kids in America who think they're educated when they're are obviously not considering they lack respect for anothers beliefs. I'm not insulting the theory of evolution or arguing against it as I am still learning about it, I'm talking about bashing christianity which evolutionist and atheists seem to love doing,
@CheekiShit "I only see evolutionists bitching " No
"it's uneducated kids in America who think they're educated when they're are obviously not considering they lack respect for another beliefs." Again, no. I have never seen an atheist out side with signs telling people to convert. And search youtube a little bit if you want examples of bitching Christians.
In the case of the video this is a response to, few people were bashing Christianity. Most were bashing how the stupid women was .
@PacGamer My point was people were bashing her when she spoke about people bashing Christianity and religion. Yes religious people who "try" and "force" people to convert is a lack of belief in oneself religion. There is no compulsion in belief in God. Free will.
@CheekiShit Yes, but people bashed her for that because she is too stupid the talk. She kept claiming ad hominem, but she was the one doing all the logic fallacies. She never said anything but a strawman, or misdirected a point with concentrated stupid.
She argued that Darwinist hate crippled people. She kept insisting evolutionist can't value human life. She clearly had no idea how basic genetics worked. Proof isn't proof because there isn't enough proof to prove the proof counts as proof.
@PacGamer I ran out of space. 1 last point. If I ever hear her say teach the controversies again, I will go insane. She clearly just googled hardcore christian websites and memorized 4 really shitty examples before going to the interview.
The controversy is taught... at higher levels of education! You don't teach a high school student theoretical physics, why bio?
Evolution is around us. It is like gravity. No scientist argues against its existence. The arguments are about how exactly it works
should be more discussion of the roll played by what is called "involution" and "emanation"- in esoteric terms-, concerning the cosmic cycles, or cosmograph.. not just evolution...
@HerlockSholmes123 And as far as these 'primitive men' you mentioned...oh, I'm writing to the next step beyond homo sapien, am I? Many philosophers, writers, scientists, all far smarter than you or I, have believed in God. Is that proof? Certainly not. Did I say somewhere I claimed proof of something? You labeled all their beliefs, not just their arguments, as ad ignorantiam. That's dismissive and beyond you, and that's what I called you out on, junior.
@HerlockSholmes123 I'll address the question in your final sentence as if it really was one, and not an attempt to mock me: those names don't mean much to me. I don't subscribe to any formal religion. I believe there's some force in the universe, more than capable of what we call a consciousness, that has guided me. I don't know if I believe it's the Creator or not. I don't care about an 'afterlife', or particularly want one. Oh...you actually don't give a shit what I believe? Sorry.
physics have reached a limit. Josephson has also pointed out that the so-called Theory of Everything (TOE) has collapsed and our science has "entered a new phase." Also, the Nobel laureate in physics, B. Josephson, would have to be a "fake and a charlatan," according to Dawkins..
@TwoPointsUp Exactly. I'm sure a few hundred years from now the tight-eyed image of the universe that professional skeptics like Dawkins and Michael Shermer, both men I have respect for in certain ways, will seem as outdated as the portrayal of God in the book of Genesis. There are far too many science groupies out there. Science is a wonderful thing, but my life and my heart need more than that. And as Nietzsche wrote, skepticism can become its own dogma.
@MckyMseNTarotCrds -Before S. Hawking said (western) science does not necessarily deny or preclude the existence of an *anthropomophic" , extra-cosmic God as the cause of the Big Bang..But then recently he declared there's no such thing as Heaven, Devachan, whatever u want to call IT.. That seems to negate the earlier statement..He seems to be a gifted physicist, but not metaphysician, I'm sorry to say..Does he ever even discuss philosophical polytheism, for instance? Also, there (con't)
I admire Dawkins for attitudes about mainstream religious superstition..But when he pronounces "the paranormal is bunk, and those that try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans" he has gone too far. There is no evidence for ghosts, precognition, astrology? He has diametrically opposing himself the Cambridge U Professor, Director of Cavendish Laboratories, who considers that the discovery of various paranomal phenomenon has shown that the conventional scientific world view and othodox (con't)
@HerlockSholmes123 Congrats on the unintentional win of proving my statement. The dismissiveness you show toward the spiritual questions that have intrigued mankind for thousands of years is so typical as to be astounding. I'm quite surprised you didn't add that it's all based on fear, as well. No one uses the argument from ignorance as much as atheists. Since God hasn't opened the sky and yelled "Hey, you!", he must therefore not exist.
First let me say that I do believe in evolution. But I've noticed myself how often atheists, and not just when discussing evolution, resort to ad hominem attacks when dealing w/ religious people.
But this has more to do w/ the lack of patience/respect in our society than it does w/ atheists specifically. Christians go right to scripture when disagreed w/, atheists go right to insulting the person's IQ, family background, wages, etc. Dawkins has been as dismissive as any.
Well I respect you for watching some of it. However the problem that occurs when you only watch a part of it is that you don't get a chance to understand the big picture of the creation theory. You just see one point that disagrees with something you see as true. His point is like taking a round peg to a board of square holes.
do you have an example of something you thought was pseudo? please be specific and don't say all of it.
and i'm winking at your illustration of Ad hominem
in the rest of this video, Dawkins admits minor mistakes that people like to magnify. Then boldly claims that there is minor disagreement among scientists today. He Boldly claims that he is right because he knows he can't back up anything if he was up against the wrong person. Knowing where he had to bluff made it easy to tell when he was bluffing. And in all of these cases, he tries to use his strong know it all tone. And this is why she just looked back at him trying not to laugh.
evolution requires time and effort to understand and appreciate. 'God of the gaps' is 4 syllables and requires as little time to implement as it does to say.
@nakedapedude You've "always understood" it that way, because that's what it means, haha. You're correct. Seriously, don't let this guy make you doubt your education because he can hook up a friggin' camera. The only thing "interesting" about it is the arrogance w/ which he makes his misstatements. I wonder if he's part Bush, haha.
The proof for macroevolution took place over 3.5 billion years acording to the data based on fossils radio carbon dating, etc. The biblical world view is on 4,000 or around 6,000 years ago. The scientific world view is exponentially older than the biblical quaran's or torah's . I think this could be a port of the problem convincing people that there is evidence. The DNA phylogenetic family tree for sure. Specifics are harder because macroevolution takes place over long periods of time.
I could well be missing something, but shouldn't that say
"Deism Because Life and the Natural Universe Aren't Wondeful Enough" ?
Dawkins has unbelivable restraint it really his one of his most admirable features.
Everytime he tells her that the evidance is there and she responds back with her stupid smily face that it isn't...I just couldn't stop my self from shouting at her "Just because you do not understand the evidance doesn't mean it's not there...you rediculous idiot!"
@Pook365 QUOTE: "I could well be missing something, but shouldn't that say
'Deism Because Life and the Natural Universe Aren't Wondeful Enough' ?"
No, because for the deists, spirituality is based on strictly on the natural universe. If Dawkins really understood it when he wrote the God Delusion, he would have called it what he called Pantheism: Sexed up atheism.
@Pook365 I think her response was because both she and Dawkins know that evolution has lost credibility in almost every theory backing it, and that his constant retreat back to genetics as his mountain of evidence was his covert way of admitting that evolution has lost on all its other points. Now this great last stand is being made on genetics based on a hopeful assumption that because species have similar genetic makeup we MUST assume it is because they have evolved.
As it is now more credible than it has ever been I can't even begin to imagine why you would think that.
"Now this great last stand is being made on genetics based"
I think you should probably read more about the subject, the genetic basis for evolution is the the main subject of Dawkins 1976 book "The Selfish Gene".
As evolution is demonstrably a fact, there is no really any debate to have.
@Pook365 yes, go and watch walter Veith on youtube, genesis conflict series. He is a zoologist, one of the ex evolutionist now creationists who compiles a lot of solid science that has come out which has discredited every single theory of evolution as unscientific. Most evolutionists just want to get spitting angry at this possibility rather than doing the diligence of watching him. do what you want.
Has it escaped your notice that Veith is a complete wacko?
He is not a scientist, he may have been at one point but he certainly isn't now. He cares nothing for the scientific method, everything he does is just to push forward is fanciful agenda.
Not all of it no, in fact only about a 1/3. There is only so much pseudo-science I can take, especially from a man no one in their right mind would respect.
@Pook365 Well I respect you for watching some of it. However the problem that occurs when you only watch a part of it is that you don't get a chance to understand the big picture of the creation theory. You just see one point that disagrees with something you see as true. His point is like taking a round peg to a board of square holes.
do you have an example of something you thought was pseudo? please be specific and don't say all of it.
and i'm winking at your illustration of Ad hominem
@Pook365 Well I respect you for watching some of it. However the problem that occurs when you only watch a part of it is that you don't get a chance to understand the big picture of the creation theory. You just see one point that disagrees with something you see as true. His point is like taking a round peg to a board of square holes.
do you have an example of something you thought was pseudo? please be specific and don't say all of it.
and i'm winking at your illustration of Ad hominem
Well, Dawkins isn't always a gentleman and scholar. In his debate with Lennox on "Has Science Buried God?" his opening speech poisons the well to try and discredit Christianity just to win the debate. And as for scholarship, he isn't a scholar in philosophy/theology, he's just a layman. No-one in their right mind should believe the philosophical vile he spews imo. His main argument is an argument from ignorance and a non-sequitiur.
There's a brilliant transcript around of her ignoring Richard Dawkins time and time again when he tries to inform her about evolution. She just flatly ignores him as if he hasn't contributed to the conversation or isn't even in the room.
I had the pleasure of watching a Wendy Wright interview recently. I can't imagine someone more uneducated, misinformed, closed minded and frankly as stupid as this woman.
What really adds insult to injury is that she has the 'plastic surgeon smile' or the 'Croydon Facelift' as we call it around here, so even of you want to you can't take her seriously.
Well, yes, and that was partly my point, that Christian apologists are fond of bandying about these terms without really understanding what they mean.
@Surhotchaperchlorome You're correct in explaining the differences between a red herring and an ad hominem. But why are you blaming the woman you want to face palm? This guy in the video is the one who explains an ad hominem incorrectly. He's the one who needs to check the definition. If he's going to make videos where he takes a tone of 'enlightening the masses', he should at least know his friggin' terms, haha. Face palm to the uploader, dude.
@MckyMseNTarotCrds Actually, I looked up several definitions. The Ad Hominem is attacking the person and implying that the argument must be wrong. It is, as I've said, often used as an evasion tactic. You attack the person instead of addressing the argument.
So it looks like a face palm for you, you idiot! There, see, I addressed the topic and insulted you, so that's not an ad hominem.
@DeistPaladin ::sigh:: Well, the one thing you've proven is you can't admit when you've made a mistake. Try it some time. You can follow me around for awhile. I have to do it at least a few times a week.
Whether or not AH is used as an evasion technique, which I agree it often is, has nothing to do w/ what makes an insult AH. And what makes an insult AH is what your video purports to address. Dude, you're wrong. Get over it. And you're seriously going to label other people unreasonable? Jeesh.
@MckyMseNTarotCrds Whatever. If you watched my video, you know the purpose is to dispel the misunderstanding that an AH is any insult, that it's classification as a fallacy is an admonishment to be nice. It is when you use the insult in place of an argument. In that respect, it is an evasion tactic.
@DeistPaladin Well, perhaps I was nitpicking. There's just something about your face and manner that annoy me, which is a shortcoming of mine, not yours. I don't see anything being gained by continuing to split hairs. Take care.
You may want to review your grasp of the english language.
While I agree with the idea behind this whole video & any attempt to show that ghoulish woman some sense you are confusing cause & effect.
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise." - wikipedia
it's just a beneficial side effect for politicians to use this technique to avoid a good question.
Ad Hominem relates to attacking a person INSTEAD of his argument. It's an evasive method which has nothing to do humiliation itself and by itself. An idiot should be called by his right name as long as his "argument" has been adressed :)
Christianity is like malaria, it's an ancient mental virus that is difficult to erradicate, but we have a treatment that mainly works, unfortunately only 17% of the population have the (mental) resources to access the cure.
There's even more of Dawkins interview with her in his book "The greatest show on earth". This woman is singularly the creepiest, oddest person I've watched in a long time.
Hey Kal, I think I said this to you before but I often visited their website in the research for my book. She perfectly represents her organization "Concerned Women for America". It's like visiting the asylum of Christianity.
Dude, what's up with this? Dawkins IS a scholar and a gentleman. And the only difference between atheism and deism is some abstract philosophy. There's no reason we shouldn't all be in the same camp, working together for a more rational world.
What is the problem with atheists and deist being in the same category? What we need is for people to overthrow religion (by reason), the best way to achieve this is by combing the efforts of everyone together who sees religion as a degradation of society.
By the way, what is so bad with sucking penises? I would take that as a compliment.
Indeed, it's best known as "the ultimate kiss". It's a good thing to do for women too, to show your love for her, though the mechanics are obviously different.
I'm trying to watch the entire 7 part series, I'm only in the first 5 minutes of the 1st video. But it's astounding that someone is that skeptical about evolution, but is so trusting of the humans that wrote, altered, wrote some more, altered... compiled, and then altered a book.
I'm surprised she trust any CSI to collect facts of a crimescene. Large time scales confuse too many people.
i've noticed how when looking at a "believer" when they're discussing religion that they have this dazed almost drugged look and vocal tone about them. It's hard to explain but they look and sound either drugged or hypnotized like in a sedated dream state. I c it a lot when i run across sunday morning church shows on tv too.... has any else noticed that???
For those who don't know, an ad hominem attack (mainly used my atheists) is an attempt to falsify someone by attacking their personality instead of the argument or message that the person is trying to convey.
Thanks for the link to the interview. Wow..that woman is a delusional idiot. I just sat there completely amazed by her stupidity. I just can't get over it.
I often visited the Concerned Women for America website as I was doing research for my book. It was like walking through an insane asylum. I felt like I had to shake myself down every time I finished.
Can that woman be ANY MORE condescending in her tone? She's not talking to a kindergartner! Now Now, Dicky, don't touch the Darwin Stove, It's hot honey. You might get burned. I love how she accuses him of having a CLOSED mind. HAHAHAHAHAHA
I couldn't watch more than 10 minutes of her, her voice is like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard and you can tell within 2 minutes no matter WHAT Dawkins says, she's got her agenda and no amount of evidence will EVER change her mind. She is closed to all but GOD and even if YAWEH made an appearance in her office, bitch slaps her, and says SCIENCE IS RIGHT, SCIENCE IS GOOD! EVOLUTION IS GOOD! She's going to still say her schtick! "EVO IS GOD! NO MONKEYS! GOD DID IT!
i watched that entire interview between dawkins and wendy wright. yes, he showed the patience of a saint. i would have wanted to wring her scrawny, smug little neck (yea, i know a neck can't be smug per se). but i notice that is a tactic they employ -- trying to goad you into becoming angry or annoyed and then leap upon it to show what an angry little atheist you are (or that you hate god). dawkins had more patience than i could have shown...
"Actually, an ad hominem attack works more like this:"
The former is an insult followed with an addressing of the arguments.
The latter is an insult, and an ad hominem is an insult in place of a rebuttal. Since we're describing a logical fallacy, it shouldn't really be necessary to list the "therefor. . ." part, since you can't really have a logical fallacy without some sort of discussion going on.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
I understand. The absolutely only thing missing from my original comment that is here is the "therefore claim x is false", which considering it's a logical fallacy shouldn't have to be inserted, because a logical fallacy can only be used in an argument... Put it this way, I was just trying to make a statement that didn't take up an entire page while doing so. Not that it succeeded.
What frustrates me about people who say the things that she does is that they have not LOOKED at the evidence. There is 5000 friggin' SUPERTANKERS full of evidence for evolution that is OVERWHELMINGLY convincing. Those who say "show me the evidence" have obviously already done whatever they could to AVOID the evidence.
We do show the proof for evolution, these people just refuse to acknowledge it. If they can't admit that the geological structures that we know are WAY to complex for a single flood to have laid it all down, then yes; it is all well and good to call them idiots.
@grungefreak10 When you have to resort to calling someone names it shows that you have become frustrated not being able to defend the weakness of the THEORY of evolution. Proof is in a partially evolved creature...Period....otherwise you practice a faith based religion yourself. And thats ok...you have the right to do it just like a Christian does. Oh, and please don't call me a name....I am not sure if I could endure it from someone named grungefreak.....LOL! Have a nice day.
@rleer1234 I'd be curious to know what evolution deniers think is going on in the scientific community. Is Satan controlling things here or is there some grand international cabal that makes money off foisting a "Darwinistic" faith onto an unsuspecting world for over a hundred years? What's their motivation? Is there money to be made in promoting evolution? And how have they pulled this off? How has the peer review process utterly broken down in this one area?
@grungefreak10 BTW, I'm honored to be one of the first to view your channel, friend. And I'll thank you not to make fun of my name. If rleer wins you a rock and roll girlfriend or two, we'll talk, so have a nice day yourself.
You're wrong. She's not claiming ad hominem; she's claiming ad hominin...
How Dawkins kept so much of his cool, I'll never know.
jumpinjohnnyruss 3 days ago
I get creationists bringing up names of 'scientists' to prove their points at times.
However they call any comment on the people ad hominem attacks. They usually fail to distinguish disputing someones authority if the claim is one FROM authority and actually ignoring the claim itself by ONLY attacking that person.
If that someone is not actually a scientist, or is not from the relevant field, his 'authority' is not worth as much as someone who knows what they are talking about.
AMomentOfClarity2011 1 week ago
I tend to slightly disagree with your definition though (although I do concede that I may be mistaken - neither English nor Latin is a first language for me).
An Ad Hominem argument is not trying to *evade* someone else's point/argument as much as it attempts to *invalidate* the other person's statement by focusing on a character flaw (which obviously has no bearing on the argument), i.o.w. it really just goes off on a tangent to focus on something irrelevant to attempt to disprove an argument.
UrielCorinthian 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
Hey guy got a question for you, did Dawkins in your def of Ad Hominem attack when he said William Craig is a professional debater and thats why he didnt want to debate him, that hes too busy? How about when he said while it would help Craigs resume but not his. He know he would get owned by Craig. Craig is on another level quick on his feet and way more intelligent, thats why Dawkins runs.
SuperGolfing1 5 months ago
@SuperGolfing1 Nobody can become "owned" by Mr.Craig. He might prove a "Creator principle" from OntO'- and CosmO'-Pseudologic arguments, but he cannot identify this principle with the mono G-D of the Scripture. The actual number of Creators is totally unknown (0,1,100s,1000s...?) as well as their Properties totally unknown.
kleenex3000 4 months ago
@kleenex3000 So what did Craig omit to reach a false conclusion? When you say Pseudologic thats what Im referring to.
SuperGolfing1 4 months ago
@SuperGolfing1 He omitted, to admit, that the unknown Creators, the existence of whose he "proves" are neither G-D nor Allah.
kleenex3000 4 months ago
@SuperGolfing1 (2)Pseudologic: He ascribed in the first place already, some properties to the Creator, that he cannot provide evidence for. It is obvious, that from the start off, he is inclined and biased towards a certain Creator with certain properties. This is very wrong.
kleenex3000 4 months ago
@SuperGolfing1 TAG Argument:
1. Without Yahweh, there can be no absolute morals (false dilemma fallacy)
2. Absolute morality exists (bare assertion fallacy)
3. (unspoken) And of course this god MUST be Yahweh (bare assertion fallacy)
4. Therefore, Yahweh exists
ONT Argument
1. Yahweh is the greatest thing that can be conceived. (Disputed. I can think of better gods)
2. What exists is greater than what does not.
3. Therefore Yahweh exists (non sequitur fallacy, reality doesn't care)
DeistPaladin 4 months ago
She spoke the truth.
A bunch of angry evolutionists, that's all I see on the boards typically bashing christianity for some reason, not that i am christian or evolutionist.
CheekiShit 6 months ago
@ CheekiShit "bunch of angry evolutionists". let's analyze that statement. you're basically victimizing creationists and talking about 'bashing' them, whereas it's clearly a two way arguments going on, so that tells us which side you are on. also you're saying "angry evolutionists" as that in itself would be an insult, which is obviously what you're trying to do here - insult evolutionists and protect creationists AND lie about not being one. way to thinly veil a lightly worded ad-hominem there
yamimakaiz 5 months ago
@yamimakaiz I only see evolutionists bitching and playing the victim card, nearly all the time. Bashing religion is somewhat of popular thing now and it's uneducated kids in America who think they're educated when they're are obviously not considering they lack respect for anothers beliefs. I'm not insulting the theory of evolution or arguing against it as I am still learning about it, I'm talking about bashing christianity which evolutionist and atheists seem to love doing,
CheekiShit 5 months ago
@CheekiShit "I only see evolutionists bitching " No
"it's uneducated kids in America who think they're educated when they're are obviously not considering they lack respect for another beliefs." Again, no. I have never seen an atheist out side with signs telling people to convert. And search youtube a little bit if you want examples of bitching Christians.
In the case of the video this is a response to, few people were bashing Christianity. Most were bashing how the stupid women was .
PacGamer 5 months ago
@PacGamer My point was people were bashing her when she spoke about people bashing Christianity and religion. Yes religious people who "try" and "force" people to convert is a lack of belief in oneself religion. There is no compulsion in belief in God. Free will.
CheekiShit 5 months ago
@CheekiShit Yes, but people bashed her for that because she is too stupid the talk. She kept claiming ad hominem, but she was the one doing all the logic fallacies. She never said anything but a strawman, or misdirected a point with concentrated stupid.
She argued that Darwinist hate crippled people. She kept insisting evolutionist can't value human life. She clearly had no idea how basic genetics worked. Proof isn't proof because there isn't enough proof to prove the proof counts as proof.
PacGamer 5 months ago
@PacGamer I ran out of space. 1 last point. If I ever hear her say teach the controversies again, I will go insane. She clearly just googled hardcore christian websites and memorized 4 really shitty examples before going to the interview.
The controversy is taught... at higher levels of education! You don't teach a high school student theoretical physics, why bio?
Evolution is around us. It is like gravity. No scientist argues against its existence. The arguments are about how exactly it works
PacGamer 5 months ago
"A scholar and a gentleman."
Oh, you so classy. We all so classy.
fizzypopism 7 months ago
should be more discussion of the roll played by what is called "involution" and "emanation"- in esoteric terms-, concerning the cosmic cycles, or cosmograph.. not just evolution...
TwoPointsUp 7 months ago
@HerlockSholmes123 And as far as these 'primitive men' you mentioned...oh, I'm writing to the next step beyond homo sapien, am I? Many philosophers, writers, scientists, all far smarter than you or I, have believed in God. Is that proof? Certainly not. Did I say somewhere I claimed proof of something? You labeled all their beliefs, not just their arguments, as ad ignorantiam. That's dismissive and beyond you, and that's what I called you out on, junior.
MckyMseNTarotCrds 7 months ago
@HerlockSholmes123 I'll address the question in your final sentence as if it really was one, and not an attempt to mock me: those names don't mean much to me. I don't subscribe to any formal religion. I believe there's some force in the universe, more than capable of what we call a consciousness, that has guided me. I don't know if I believe it's the Creator or not. I don't care about an 'afterlife', or particularly want one. Oh...you actually don't give a shit what I believe? Sorry.
MckyMseNTarotCrds 7 months ago
physics have reached a limit. Josephson has also pointed out that the so-called Theory of Everything (TOE) has collapsed and our science has "entered a new phase." Also, the Nobel laureate in physics, B. Josephson, would have to be a "fake and a charlatan," according to Dawkins..
TwoPointsUp 7 months ago
@TwoPointsUp Exactly. I'm sure a few hundred years from now the tight-eyed image of the universe that professional skeptics like Dawkins and Michael Shermer, both men I have respect for in certain ways, will seem as outdated as the portrayal of God in the book of Genesis. There are far too many science groupies out there. Science is a wonderful thing, but my life and my heart need more than that. And as Nietzsche wrote, skepticism can become its own dogma.
MckyMseNTarotCrds 7 months ago
@MckyMseNTarotCrds -Before S. Hawking said (western) science does not necessarily deny or preclude the existence of an *anthropomophic" , extra-cosmic God as the cause of the Big Bang..But then recently he declared there's no such thing as Heaven, Devachan, whatever u want to call IT.. That seems to negate the earlier statement..He seems to be a gifted physicist, but not metaphysician, I'm sorry to say..Does he ever even discuss philosophical polytheism, for instance? Also, there (con't)
TwoPointsUp 7 months ago
@TwoPointsUp oops...that men like Dawkins and Shermer HAVE*. I'm typing too fast here, haha.
MckyMseNTarotCrds 7 months ago
I admire Dawkins for attitudes about mainstream religious superstition..But when he pronounces "the paranormal is bunk, and those that try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans" he has gone too far. There is no evidence for ghosts, precognition, astrology? He has diametrically opposing himself the Cambridge U Professor, Director of Cavendish Laboratories, who considers that the discovery of various paranomal phenomenon has shown that the conventional scientific world view and othodox (con't)
TwoPointsUp 7 months ago
@HerlockSholmes123 Congrats on the unintentional win of proving my statement. The dismissiveness you show toward the spiritual questions that have intrigued mankind for thousands of years is so typical as to be astounding. I'm quite surprised you didn't add that it's all based on fear, as well. No one uses the argument from ignorance as much as atheists. Since God hasn't opened the sky and yelled "Hey, you!", he must therefore not exist.
MckyMseNTarotCrds 7 months ago
First let me say that I do believe in evolution. But I've noticed myself how often atheists, and not just when discussing evolution, resort to ad hominem attacks when dealing w/ religious people.
But this has more to do w/ the lack of patience/respect in our society than it does w/ atheists specifically. Christians go right to scripture when disagreed w/, atheists go right to insulting the person's IQ, family background, wages, etc. Dawkins has been as dismissive as any.
MckyMseNTarotCrds 7 months ago
Well I respect you for watching some of it. However the problem that occurs when you only watch a part of it is that you don't get a chance to understand the big picture of the creation theory. You just see one point that disagrees with something you see as true. His point is like taking a round peg to a board of square holes.
do you have an example of something you thought was pseudo? please be specific and don't say all of it.
and i'm winking at your illustration of Ad hominem
Denemoore 11 months ago
in the rest of this video, Dawkins admits minor mistakes that people like to magnify. Then boldly claims that there is minor disagreement among scientists today. He Boldly claims that he is right because he knows he can't back up anything if he was up against the wrong person. Knowing where he had to bluff made it easy to tell when he was bluffing. And in all of these cases, he tries to use his strong know it all tone. And this is why she just looked back at him trying not to laugh.
Denemoore 11 months ago
Do all you folks keep up to date on the latest news/studies/debates/panels?
1) Carbon dating has proven inaccurate beyond 16,000 years
2) the K constant in the carbon dating equation is effected by both heat and pressure.
3) The geological column does in no way represent the progress of evolution and relies on carbon dating for its timeline
4) No proof or plausible theory as to how phenotype can effect genotype
5) No idea how life formed from an inanimate object
Richard lied continually to her
Denemoore 11 months ago
Here's a simple guide:
"You're wrong because you're an idiot." - Ad Hominem
"You're an idiot, and here is your stupid argument." - Poisoning the Well
"This is why your argument is wrong, you idiot." - Argument + Insult
SexyMelon 1 year ago 2
evolution requires time and effort to understand and appreciate. 'God of the gaps' is 4 syllables and requires as little time to implement as it does to say.
ultimatumjs 1 year ago
@DeistPaladin
Interesting I have always understood that an ad hominem fallacy could be explained in the following way:
Ad hominem fallacy
Your argument is flawed BECAUSE you're a dick.
Not ad hominem fallacies
You're a dick
or
Your argument is flawed AND you're a dick
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@nakedapedude You've "always understood" it that way, because that's what it means, haha. You're correct. Seriously, don't let this guy make you doubt your education because he can hook up a friggin' camera. The only thing "interesting" about it is the arrogance w/ which he makes his misstatements. I wonder if he's part Bush, haha.
MckyMseNTarotCrds 7 months ago
The proof for macroevolution took place over 3.5 billion years acording to the data based on fossils radio carbon dating, etc. The biblical world view is on 4,000 or around 6,000 years ago. The scientific world view is exponentially older than the biblical quaran's or torah's . I think this could be a port of the problem convincing people that there is evidence. The DNA phylogenetic family tree for sure. Specifics are harder because macroevolution takes place over long periods of time.
mattamal1 1 year ago
I could well be missing something, but shouldn't that say
"Deism Because Life and the Natural Universe Aren't Wondeful Enough" ?
Dawkins has unbelivable restraint it really his one of his most admirable features.
Everytime he tells her that the evidance is there and she responds back with her stupid smily face that it isn't...I just couldn't stop my self from shouting at her "Just because you do not understand the evidance doesn't mean it's not there...you rediculous idiot!"
Pook365 1 year ago 7
@Pook365 QUOTE: "I could well be missing something, but shouldn't that say
'Deism Because Life and the Natural Universe Aren't Wondeful Enough' ?"
No, because for the deists, spirituality is based on strictly on the natural universe. If Dawkins really understood it when he wrote the God Delusion, he would have called it what he called Pantheism: Sexed up atheism.
DeistPaladin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeistPaladin
My point was rather that I see the universe and the existance of life as being wonderous enough.
Where as you seem to feel the need for a god in addition to it.
Pook365 1 year ago
@Pook365 I think her response was because both she and Dawkins know that evolution has lost credibility in almost every theory backing it, and that his constant retreat back to genetics as his mountain of evidence was his covert way of admitting that evolution has lost on all its other points. Now this great last stand is being made on genetics based on a hopeful assumption that because species have similar genetic makeup we MUST assume it is because they have evolved.
Denemoore 11 months ago
@Denemoore
"that evolution has lost credibility"
As it is now more credible than it has ever been I can't even begin to imagine why you would think that.
"Now this great last stand is being made on genetics based"
I think you should probably read more about the subject, the genetic basis for evolution is the the main subject of Dawkins 1976 book "The Selfish Gene".
As evolution is demonstrably a fact, there is no really any debate to have.
Pook365 11 months ago
@Pook365 yes, go and watch walter Veith on youtube, genesis conflict series. He is a zoologist, one of the ex evolutionist now creationists who compiles a lot of solid science that has come out which has discredited every single theory of evolution as unscientific. Most evolutionists just want to get spitting angry at this possibility rather than doing the diligence of watching him. do what you want.
Denemoore 11 months ago
Has it escaped your notice that Veith is a complete wacko?
He is not a scientist, he may have been at one point but he certainly isn't now. He cares nothing for the scientific method, everything he does is just to push forward is fanciful agenda.
NWO...lols.
Pook365 11 months ago
@Pook365 so i'm assuming you've seen his genesis series then?
Denemoore 11 months ago
@Denemoore
Not all of it no, in fact only about a 1/3. There is only so much pseudo-science I can take, especially from a man no one in their right mind would respect.
Pook365 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pook365 Well I respect you for watching some of it. However the problem that occurs when you only watch a part of it is that you don't get a chance to understand the big picture of the creation theory. You just see one point that disagrees with something you see as true. His point is like taking a round peg to a board of square holes.
do you have an example of something you thought was pseudo? please be specific and don't say all of it.
and i'm winking at your illustration of Ad hominem
Denemoore 11 months ago
@Pook365 Well I respect you for watching some of it. However the problem that occurs when you only watch a part of it is that you don't get a chance to understand the big picture of the creation theory. You just see one point that disagrees with something you see as true. His point is like taking a round peg to a board of square holes.
do you have an example of something you thought was pseudo? please be specific and don't say all of it.
and i'm winking at your illustration of Ad hominem
Denemoore 11 months ago
Well, Dawkins isn't always a gentleman and scholar. In his debate with Lennox on "Has Science Buried God?" his opening speech poisons the well to try and discredit Christianity just to win the debate. And as for scholarship, he isn't a scholar in philosophy/theology, he's just a layman. No-one in their right mind should believe the philosophical vile he spews imo. His main argument is an argument from ignorance and a non-sequitiur.
TheVodkaHaze 1 year ago
THANK YOU FOR EDUCATING ME ON LOGICAL FALLACIES, GROWN NERD IN BASEMENT!
olimario 1 year ago
There's a brilliant transcript around of her ignoring Richard Dawkins time and time again when he tries to inform her about evolution. She just flatly ignores him as if he hasn't contributed to the conversation or isn't even in the room.
andnoreligiontoo 1 year ago 2
I had the pleasure of watching a Wendy Wright interview recently. I can't imagine someone more uneducated, misinformed, closed minded and frankly as stupid as this woman.
What really adds insult to injury is that she has the 'plastic surgeon smile' or the 'Croydon Facelift' as we call it around here, so even of you want to you can't take her seriously.
andnoreligiontoo 1 year ago 2
isn't a deist just an atheist without balls?
ronaldosronaldos 1 year ago
*facepalms@ woman talking in the beginning*
Actually, what you're describing sounds more like a red herring (and in fact the fallacies aren't mutually exclusive).
But A.H. is when personal characteristics of the arguer are used as evidence of their position's falsehood.
As for Ad Hominem not being insults/personal attacks...
But it seems the woman in question can't even check the damn Wikipedia article which clearly explains this as well...
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Well, yes, and that was partly my point, that Christian apologists are fond of bandying about these terms without really understanding what they mean.
DeistPaladin 1 year ago 2
@Surhotchaperchlorome Wikipedia.....lol! yeah right get real.
rleer1234 11 months ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome You're correct in explaining the differences between a red herring and an ad hominem. But why are you blaming the woman you want to face palm? This guy in the video is the one who explains an ad hominem incorrectly. He's the one who needs to check the definition. If he's going to make videos where he takes a tone of 'enlightening the masses', he should at least know his friggin' terms, haha. Face palm to the uploader, dude.
MckyMseNTarotCrds 7 months ago
@MckyMseNTarotCrds Actually, I looked up several definitions. The Ad Hominem is attacking the person and implying that the argument must be wrong. It is, as I've said, often used as an evasion tactic. You attack the person instead of addressing the argument.
So it looks like a face palm for you, you idiot! There, see, I addressed the topic and insulted you, so that's not an ad hominem.
DeistPaladin 7 months ago
@DeistPaladin ::sigh:: Well, the one thing you've proven is you can't admit when you've made a mistake. Try it some time. You can follow me around for awhile. I have to do it at least a few times a week.
Whether or not AH is used as an evasion technique, which I agree it often is, has nothing to do w/ what makes an insult AH. And what makes an insult AH is what your video purports to address. Dude, you're wrong. Get over it. And you're seriously going to label other people unreasonable? Jeesh.
MckyMseNTarotCrds 7 months ago
@MckyMseNTarotCrds Whatever. If you watched my video, you know the purpose is to dispel the misunderstanding that an AH is any insult, that it's classification as a fallacy is an admonishment to be nice. It is when you use the insult in place of an argument. In that respect, it is an evasion tactic.
DeistPaladin 7 months ago
@DeistPaladin Well, perhaps I was nitpicking. There's just something about your face and manner that annoy me, which is a shortcoming of mine, not yours. I don't see anything being gained by continuing to split hairs. Take care.
MckyMseNTarotCrds 7 months ago
Glad to see you back!
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
You may want to review your grasp of the english language.
While I agree with the idea behind this whole video & any attempt to show that ghoulish woman some sense you are confusing cause & effect.
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise." - wikipedia
it's just a beneficial side effect for politicians to use this technique to avoid a good question.
sponsoredwalk1 1 year ago 2
Wendy Wrong!
theogore 1 year ago
add-hominin attax!
Pelonetillo 1 year ago
Oh man! This woman is a moron! It hurts my brain to hear her cut off an intellectual superior......ugh!
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
You should see the interview with her and Dawkins
MrMohjong 1 year ago
LOL, at least you've actually seen her and know she's a real person that exists.
SykoChiipmunK 2 years ago
5 stars!
if I could figure out how to ...
TheDeadApple 2 years ago
short and sweet :)
anthonzi 2 years ago
You've got 5 stars from me, as usual :)
armelix73 2 years ago
Ad Hominem relates to attacking a person INSTEAD of his argument. It's an evasive method which has nothing to do humiliation itself and by itself. An idiot should be called by his right name as long as his "argument" has been adressed :)
armelix73 2 years ago 8
No Sound???
justtwentyoeight 2 years ago
D'Oh! That dang mute key!
Always enjoy your vids! When I can hear them! ;-)
justtwentyoeight 2 years ago
Cheers.
You could've shown an example of an ad hominen from the same video yes?
I'm certain Wendy (not so)Wright made loads.
QuarkyGideon 2 years ago
Christianity is like malaria, it's an ancient mental virus that is difficult to erradicate, but we have a treatment that mainly works, unfortunately only 17% of the population have the (mental) resources to access the cure.
formless777 2 years ago 3
About time! Someone who has given the correct defintion of an ad hominem, thanks!
EwePeopleRsheeple 2 years ago
There's even more of Dawkins interview with her in his book "The greatest show on earth". This woman is singularly the creepiest, oddest person I've watched in a long time.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
Hey Kal, I think I said this to you before but I often visited their website in the research for my book. She perfectly represents her organization "Concerned Women for America". It's like visiting the asylum of Christianity.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
I gonna head over to that website right now....its gotta be worth a few laughs. I just hope I don't end up leaving it in tears instead.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
OK, picture Wendy Wright.
Now imagine a whole website full of articles written by people just like her.
Brace yourself.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
True!!!!
iDeist 2 years ago
you should just be an Atheist John, you suck their cocks in every vid. It's pretty pathetic. No Ad Homs.
iDeist 2 years ago
Dude, what's up with this? Dawkins IS a scholar and a gentleman. And the only difference between atheism and deism is some abstract philosophy. There's no reason we shouldn't all be in the same camp, working together for a more rational world.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
What is the problem with atheists and deist being in the same category? What we need is for people to overthrow religion (by reason), the best way to achieve this is by combing the efforts of everyone together who sees religion as a degradation of society.
By the way, what is so bad with sucking penises? I would take that as a compliment.
ArtinEmil 2 years ago
Indeed, it's best known as "the ultimate kiss". It's a good thing to do for women too, to show your love for her, though the mechanics are obviously different.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
I thought sucking cock was a theistic thing....?
1n354a 2 years ago
Really ? I thought Theists were most famous for dreaming up and performing sodomy ?
formless777 2 years ago
Wow, I couldnt watch past 2 parts of that woman talking..
Brianswers 2 years ago
I'm trying to watch the entire 7 part series, I'm only in the first 5 minutes of the 1st video. But it's astounding that someone is that skeptical about evolution, but is so trusting of the humans that wrote, altered, wrote some more, altered... compiled, and then altered a book.
I'm surprised she trust any CSI to collect facts of a crimescene. Large time scales confuse too many people.
MinervaInTheBrain 2 years ago 3
"THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU" (swings sledge hammer at John's keyboard smashing it into 1000 pieces)
Crappy synth is the work of the devil, trust me.
myjizzureye 2 years ago
i've noticed how when looking at a "believer" when they're discussing religion that they have this dazed almost drugged look and vocal tone about them. It's hard to explain but they look and sound either drugged or hypnotized like in a sedated dream state. I c it a lot when i run across sunday morning church shows on tv too.... has any else noticed that???
SykoChiipmunK 2 years ago
I would've hung her by her entrails:
Ad hominem: you are a stupid twat, therefore your argument about X must be invalid.
NOT Ad Hominem: you are a stupid twat, your stupidity impairs you from understanding X, therefore your argument about X must be invalid.
Iced1992 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins is a true gentleman. I would have smacked her within the first 30 seconds!!
KyleGodfrey1 2 years ago 2
@KyleGodfrey1
For those who don't know, an ad hominem attack (mainly used my atheists) is an attempt to falsify someone by attacking their personality instead of the argument or message that the person is trying to convey.
TruthfulChristian 2 years ago
"TruthfulChristian"
Best oxymoron I've seen in a long time.
Oh wait, maybe that was somewhat Ad Hominem.... Give me an example of Christian "truth" so I can be specific.
4312ton 1 year ago 3
Shut up and go back to your book of mythology called the holy bible!
KyleGodfrey1 1 year ago
Let's see if I got this right.
Ad Hominem: Wendy is wrong because she's a stupid twat.
Not Ad Hominem: Wendy is a stupid twat because (provide evidence).
Arikiel 2 years ago 3
Thanks for the link to the interview. Wow..that woman is a delusional idiot. I just sat there completely amazed by her stupidity. I just can't get over it.
Roseybaby63 2 years ago
I often visited the Concerned Women for America website as I was doing research for my book. It was like walking through an insane asylum. I felt like I had to shake myself down every time I finished.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Wendy Wright deserves hell, solely at the basis that ther voice is horrible and her brain the size a peanut
saaitar 2 years ago 3
Can that woman be ANY MORE condescending in her tone? She's not talking to a kindergartner! Now Now, Dicky, don't touch the Darwin Stove, It's hot honey. You might get burned. I love how she accuses him of having a CLOSED mind. HAHAHAHAHAHA
fablespinner 2 years ago 3
And did you notice how when she said the words "lacked confidence" (quote in this video) her voice betrayed a lack of confidence.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
I couldn't watch more than 10 minutes of her, her voice is like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard and you can tell within 2 minutes no matter WHAT Dawkins says, she's got her agenda and no amount of evidence will EVER change her mind. She is closed to all but GOD and even if YAWEH made an appearance in her office, bitch slaps her, and says SCIENCE IS RIGHT, SCIENCE IS GOOD! EVOLUTION IS GOOD! She's going to still say her schtick! "EVO IS GOD! NO MONKEYS! GOD DID IT!
fablespinner 2 years ago
i watched that entire interview between dawkins and wendy wright. yes, he showed the patience of a saint. i would have wanted to wring her scrawny, smug little neck (yea, i know a neck can't be smug per se). but i notice that is a tactic they employ -- trying to goad you into becoming angry or annoyed and then leap upon it to show what an angry little atheist you are (or that you hate god). dawkins had more patience than i could have shown...
isaachaze1 2 years ago
@isaachaze1
Oh, her neck was smug... fact.
jussts 2 years ago
lol :)
isaachaze1 2 years ago
"You're a fucking retard, and here's why [go on to explain why]" is not an ad hominem.
"You're a fucking retard." is an ad hominem.
They're both a little crude, and possibly unnecessary and even counter productive, but only one is an ad hominem.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Actually, an ad hominem attack works more like this:
My opponent is a thief, therefore his argument about evolution is wrong.
Asking someone what sort of science degree they have in a discussion about science, yeah, doesn't qualify.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
"Actually, an ad hominem attack works more like this:"
The former is an insult followed with an addressing of the arguments.
The latter is an insult, and an ad hominem is an insult in place of a rebuttal. Since we're describing a logical fallacy, it shouldn't really be necessary to list the "therefor. . ." part, since you can't really have a logical fallacy without some sort of discussion going on.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
@cyrathil
Let's try it this way:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
"Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false"
I understand. The absolutely only thing missing from my original comment that is here is the "therefore claim x is false", which considering it's a logical fallacy shouldn't have to be inserted, because a logical fallacy can only be used in an argument... Put it this way, I was just trying to make a statement that didn't take up an entire page while doing so. Not that it succeeded.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Ah yes I remember chapter 1 of my science book called 'creationists are morons so evolution must be true'
adrenacrumb 2 years ago 2
Falsely accusing someone of using an ad hom instead of addressing the argument is an ad hom.
8WholeThing 2 years ago 3
Good reminder.
RonDeKiller 2 years ago
Your video is an ad hom :p
joking
supercrevolution 2 years ago
When I saw that interview it went like this:
WW: show me the evidence for evolution
RD: go here, check out this, and look that up
WW: show me the evidence for evolution
RD: I said god here and check out this and look that up
WW: show me the evidence for evolution
RD: Oh my!
HonestTechnoAtheist 2 years ago 2
I'd never even Claim ad hominem in a conversation since Theist retards think its a way to say "fuck you"
Normally I say "your inability to prove your point and only make personal attacks shows your point to be invalid" or something like that
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
Thanks for the clarity.
BigTopBrain 2 years ago
What frustrates me about people who say the things that she does is that they have not LOOKED at the evidence. There is 5000 friggin' SUPERTANKERS full of evidence for evolution that is OVERWHELMINGLY convincing. Those who say "show me the evidence" have obviously already done whatever they could to AVOID the evidence.
GetMeThere1 2 years ago 4
agreed.
Zentz29 2 years ago
@smarterthanyoulook
Your a saint because I want to do it a lot.
adolthitler 2 years ago
We do show the proof for evolution, these people just refuse to acknowledge it. If they can't admit that the geological structures that we know are WAY to complex for a single flood to have laid it all down, then yes; it is all well and good to call them idiots.
grungefreak10 2 years ago 13
@grungefreak10 When you have to resort to calling someone names it shows that you have become frustrated not being able to defend the weakness of the THEORY of evolution. Proof is in a partially evolved creature...Period....otherwise you practice a faith based religion yourself. And thats ok...you have the right to do it just like a Christian does. Oh, and please don't call me a name....I am not sure if I could endure it from someone named grungefreak.....LOL! Have a nice day.
rleer1234 11 months ago
@rleer1234 I'd be curious to know what evolution deniers think is going on in the scientific community. Is Satan controlling things here or is there some grand international cabal that makes money off foisting a "Darwinistic" faith onto an unsuspecting world for over a hundred years? What's their motivation? Is there money to be made in promoting evolution? And how have they pulled this off? How has the peer review process utterly broken down in this one area?
DeistPaladin 11 months ago
@rleer1234 Ooooooooo-kay.
grungefreak10 11 months ago
@grungefreak10 BTW, I'm honored to be one of the first to view your channel, friend. And I'll thank you not to make fun of my name. If rleer wins you a rock and roll girlfriend or two, we'll talk, so have a nice day yourself.
grungefreak10 11 months ago
I want to see the interview. Do you have a link to that? Cheers in advance
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
Good suggestion. I added the link to the text description.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Thanks for explaining that. I fear throwing around the accusation of ad hominem hehe
tattooskin72 2 years ago
next time someone cries ad hominem because i tell them theyre retarded, im
sendin em your way.
Pelonetillo 2 years ago
great explanation John. great vid, hope you and the wife are in great health. much love and respect.
freethinker3161 2 years ago