In the mind of a Creationalist the real question is not how did it evolve? Its where did all of the ingredience for life come from to begin with? You cant get to the other side of a river in a boat by starting in the middle. This fool in this video and Richard Dawkins are staring in the middle of the river and are not explaining how it could have all started to begin with. How did the Universe come into being own its own? How could inanimate energy and matter create life? Dawkins is an idiot!
@TheRgordon16 That logical fallacy is called ''Moving the goal posts'' You can't prove evolution is wrong so you try to prove Abiogenesis wrong and when you can't you say the big bang is wrong.
''How could inanimate energy and matter create life?'' Easy, read a science book and find out.
@kissntellen You might want to look up abiogenesis if you're going to argue against it. Amino acids and proteins aren't considered to be the first self-replicating molecules, that title belongs to RNA. RNA is able to store information, catalyze reactions, aid in protein synthesis, form more complex molecules with proteins, and self-replicate.
Well its true isnt it, that the experiment with the car in the empty garage gradual changes, if you had nothing in your garage then gradual changes could make the nothing into gradually something like a mercedes benz. OK cool, when that happens , which it wont or cant , let us know, I will give you a hug, a handshake, and a friendship band.
@theageofgrace We evil "believers" in science and reality should really thank you fundie christians and muslims. You help us very much more than you'll obviously ever understand yourselves. : )
I believe in God, and I ALSO believe in evolution... however, your delving into gaining a better understanding of criticism is wonderful and you should keep it up... remember to include the other position's positive points as well!
People like me end up negative and then go off on so many rants they need to sign up for a new youtube account!!!
there are bad creationists, but that doesn't mean that creationism is full of logical fallacies. u presuppose matter is eternal. theists presuppose God is eternal. but both of you must prove how either can be eternal. The argument you use for matter can equally be given to God. Just google learnlogicalfallacies for clarity.
@casanovakreg: Having just said that creationism is *not* full of logical fallacies the next thing you do is walk away from any attempt at evidence, and bump over into unanswerable philosophy. actually, most scientists admit to nothing eternal. Your manner of treating an argument doesn't even rise to fallacy; it is only to make assertions.
God doesn't follow man's rules, He can do whatever he wants.
If He wants 2+2 to equal 5 it will. This is what atheists can't understand. God can do ANYTHING. He can create a world in 7 days that looks like its been here billions of years.
@aarondavid826: No, I don't think he can, at least not without changing the meaning of either 2, or 4, or +, or =. Likewise, god cannot create a world in which PI is always 3.0. these aren't man's rules, these are the universe's rules. And yes, he could create a billion year old world in 7 days, but who'd want to worship the sort of charlatan that act represents? I don't know about you, but that sort of chicanery doesn't pass my scientific, evolutionist's moral sense.
Hell is a vile, abusive, disgusting concept. God buys love & loyalty with torture? A Gandhi, Teresa, Mandela would never think of torturing their enemies, whereas a Saddam, Hitler, Stalin would. This is the company that God keeps? Karma & Rebirth is the better, non-violent way. You are not punished, nor are you simply forgiven because you groveled enough. The most important aspect of Karma is that you are held accountable for your actions, you are reborn, given another chance to make amends.
@ramaraksha01: Ummm, well, Beatified Teresa came pretty close. She encouraged suffering as something that had to be faced in this life, even as she used donations to spread her religious ideas and her own comfort at the expense of curing and/or comforting those in her hospitals. That seems pretty abusive to me.
There is only one problem you need to overcome, the Fossil Record. It does not show a gradual evolution of life, fossils of animals appear of a sudden in the layers of rock and remain unchanged for millions of years then disappear and other more advanced fossils of animals appear and remain unchanged for millions of years. Ask Dawkins to lay out the fossils showing the gradual steps of evolution of animals from basic to complex life forms. He can't, show me facts please.
The facts are there, you just deny them. How about the fossils showing the migration of the nasal ridge on whales? Shows it moving from the snout to up near the top of the head.
How about tiktalik? Which was a predicted intermediary found on the basis of its predicted existence, like how the gaps in the periodic table were predicted to be elements which were later found. THAT is science!
Scientists are honest about the fact that the fossil record is incomplete and that fossilisation is not a perfect process. You want perfection? You want every creature to have fossilised? Tough, that is impossible. The fossil record is completely consistent with the theory of evolution, this line that is a problem to be overcome is false.
Will we hear you denialists talking about the multiple overlapping phylogenetic trees? Or the iron clad DNA evidence? No. its always fossils isnt it? Because that is the easiest gap for them to hide in to fester in ignorance.
You act like your position is 100% fact, its not and you now it. Its full of guesses and assumptions and beliefs. Phylogenetic Tree is a best guess and is always changing, DNA that too is guess work as there are no DNA samples greater than a 100,000 years, so you make a leap of faith on what you think is right until you change your mind for another theory. You laugh at us for our belief in God while you are full of your own doubts.
If you'd care to try to understand what I actually think I would say that I require evidence for the things I believe. Evolution has more than enough evidence for me to believe in it's provisional truth, until another theory comes along.
And I have no doubts. That book you apparently cherish has a few choice things to say about telling lies.
@ArgusEyes there r many evidence to support a deity. abiogenesis which is basicly a hypothesis for the orgin of the first self replicating synthetic cell which supposedly arose from lower chemical compounds from the primordial ocean. there r a considerable amount of problem with this theory, starting with amino acids not having properties of attraction to assemble the first active protein molecule. genetic information accommodated the instrution necessary to form the first protein.
@ArgusEyes there r many evidence to support a deity. abiogenesis which is basicly a hypothesis for the orgin of the first self replicating synthetic cell which supposedly arose from lower chemical compounds from the primordial ocean. there r a considerable amount of problem with this theory, starting with amino acids not having properties of attraction to assemble the first active protein molecule. genetic information accommodated the instrution necessary to form the first protein.
Actually rualscoob they have recovered DNA samples from T-Rex. So that would place the date at 67 MA. ALSO, having a DNA sample from 100,000 years ago refutes the creationist claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Be careful when you cherry pick science to support your creationist argument, you may shoot yourself in the foot.
@PliestoceneDreams: Actually, no, they haven't. I'm an evolutionist, but I've investigated this claim, and what happened is that they found a T rex leg bone that appears to have some preserved soft tissue in it, and what appeared to possibly be blood cells. The blood cells didn't pan out, and besides, blood cells do not have nuclei in them (they never undergo mitosis), so there seems to be no possibility of seeing any DNA from T rex. Even amber has never yielded mosquito DNA, let alone dinosaur.
@puncheex Sorry, but claiming to be an "evolutionist" doesn't lend any credence to your claims there buddy. Also, I don't know anyone who self-identifies as an "evolutionist", which leads me to believe you're actually a creationist. Do you have any links for your claim? Any?
@PliestoceneDreams: Sorry for your intuits, but you're wrong (about me and the DNA). The place to find that out is in Dr. Mary Schweitzer's own papers:
"Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present". Proc Biol Sci 274 (1607): 183–97 (rspb(.)royalsocietypublishing(.)org/content/274/1607/183). 2007
"Biomolecule Preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex". Jnl of Vert Paleo 13: 56A. 1993
Google her name; lots of pop articles with quotes.
... At this time, no DNA older than about 60,000 years has ever been recovered in sufficient quality to build a genome. That oldest DNA is from Neandertals, and you can read about it in Svante Paabo's paper:
"A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome". Science 328 (5979): 710–722 (dx(.)doi(.)org/10.1126%2Fscience.1188021) 2010.
OK, an oops moment. Bacterial DNA possibly as old as 419 million years has been found embedded in salt crystals, and also some forest DNA in Greenland at 80,000 years. The bacterial DNA is probably viable, in fact the whole bacteria is, but the tree DNA is small fragments. So I guess I'll have to change my claim:
At this time, no DNA older than about 60,000 years, other than bacterial DNA, has ever been recovered in sufficient quality to build a genome.
@raulscoob: You're right about the oldest sample of non-bacterial DNA, but there is bacterial DNA from 419 million years back; in fact, whole bacteria, encapsulated in water sealed within salt crystals. Sure the phylogenetic tree keeps changing; it was only conceived in the 1950s. Give it a couple of hundred years, but it's not guesswork; it is based on precise morphological measurements and math. DNA is not guesswork. I'm not laughing, but I don't believe, either.
How rude of you to just say creationists are pompous assholes. Give credit to some, you know, my argument on how Christianity is true is flawless. Message me and I will give you the best argument on how Creationism is true.
Many intelligent people have debated on the mere existence of a deistic god. Yet you have a flawless argument for the Christian god? Brilliant, then that would make you the brightest person on earth? Spill it, bring your amazing argument.
Its too lengthy to put on this page, and what good will it do if I recieve stupid people answering me. Anyone who is willing to have an intelligent debate and who isn't one of those assholes who gives the fallacy of "God is a spaghetti monster!" argument. So, if you want me to give you the argument message me. I will actually use science to prove athiesm wrong.
@DudeYourSOSTUPID: With regard to the research I discussed just above, the discoverer is Mary Schweitzer, a Montanan paleontologist. She is a Christian, but here is what she says about creationists: "She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. 'They treat you really bad,' she says. 'They twist your words and they manipulate your data.'"
"And wait for a car to spontaneously generate for 250 000 000 years". Hmm, seems like TIME would have to exist for it to TAKE 250 000 000 years. Major fail. Pre-big bang, there was no TIME. Stupid creationist strawmen.
No we don't say "we don't understand how it happened therfore it didn't happen". we say, "we don't understand how it happened therfore it MAY not have happened because what we see is variation". Isn't that one of your logical fallacies? lol Arrogance! Trusting liars, and parroting them.
We only observe varation. The whole idea of evolution has become a logical faliaeie. Because it is logical that we should call varation variation, not evolution. you are making a leap of faith when you say evolution is fact. Only varaiation is a fact of the 2. I choose observation, you choose imagination. Which is science?
Another arrogant know it all. to believe a cell could assemble itself from basic matter is just as stupid as the car. We know what evolution says, a lot of us were Atheists. We just think your parroting what you were taught and are not thinking. So keep telling yourself how much you know.
Firstly Atheist does not equal understanding evolution. So there's a Fallacy right there
Secondly If you really knew what Evolution says you'd know it only explains the diversity of life, not origin of life(which is abiogenesis). Evolution has mountains of evidence & would be easily disprovable if creationism was true. Abiogenesis is very much less certain & is often what Creationists pick on to disprove evolution(Which is another fallacy as they are different things).
If we all came from a single cell like evlolution says we must, Then evolutionists can't just discard their chicken and egg problem, nor can they say there are mountains of evidence when the origin of their of their Hypothesis is impossible naturalistcally. Life only comes from life. When you Atheists solve the origins question, then and only then you can say you might have a good theory. Then all your evidence would come into play. And I'm the stupid one. lol
OK more Fallacies. For starters "life only comes from life" is not a fact & only your opinion. Same as "when the origin of their of their Hypothesis is impossible naturalistcally".
Also "When you Atheists solve the origins question" should be "When you Scientists solve the origins question". We actually have many valuable hypothesis(Learn Abiogenesis) which have far more evidence than creationism. We just don't know for certain which method it happened by for certain.
& just to add. The Chicken before the Egg problem is not really a problem of which came first. It's actually a problem of what you define as a Chicken.
& I agree with you being the stupid one(among many though, so you're not alone:P)
If I could post links I'd show you evidence & explanations.
Life comes from life is empirical. You can say there are hypothesis that show it is not, you need proof, since the proof is life from life. If a chicken is not a chicken, then a human is not a human. Now you have to lower yourself to play games. I'm not saying Creationism is a fact like your saying evolution is a fact. And you calling me stupid when we both don't know, puts you in the in a losing position philosophically and empirically. And you call yourself a scientist! Shame on you.
Well that's just a stupid thing to say. Again Evolution doesn't contradict your statement, but if you want to talk abiogenesis that's a different matter. All accepted scientific theories are based on empirical evidence, though they may not necessarily be 100% shown empirically due to constraints like time etc. Creationism has very little evidence & is actually shown false by a lot of evidence, so I'd rather go for the theory that has best evidence.
Why would you need someone else to tell me what's wrong with my statement? I'll tell you what's wrong. To say the first chicken came from a non chicken needs more than what you call evidence. And since you have nothing to prove me wrong, you send me to a psychobabblist?
He has no proof, just hopeful words. Life comes from life, I'd think you would have learned from Pasteur. When you guys do the opposite, you guys can flaunt your theory. Until then, life comes from life. Evolution suffers.
I sent you there as it explains what a "Scientific Theory" is & the involvement of empirical evidence. Both concepts that you clearly don't understand.
You are right though nothing I can say/type will prove to you that you are wrong. I could spend a lot of time taking you round performing a number of experiments & analysing primary evidence to prove you wrong, but that's a bit unrealistic & I doubt you'd be interested in any sort of actual research & understanding.
Also it's entirely possible in evolutionary theory, though unlikely in reality, for a creator to have created cells & designed their environment to guide life using evolution to what we have today. So Evolution does not suffer at all from your wrong statement, even in the extremely unlikely situation you were right.
Even the flying Spaghetti monster is more likely than current I.D. hypothesis.
the point of this video is not so much about the logical fallacies often presented by creationists, but rather logical fallacies. He presented one example.
I think his point about logical fallacies is well conveyed. good video man. off course creationists will not agree, and probably use another strawman with this video.
I'd say social issues are your forte. In constructing your argument against a claimed to be strawman, you presented a strawman. The Mercedes analogy was in regards to the "Big Bang". Your argument spoke of Biological evolution. That would imply that what you've argued against was something like "no transitionals in fossil record". Presenting the theory of Evolution's explanation for the diversity of biological organisms, in no way addresses the question of the origins of the universe.
Any way you slice it, chance must be a part of evolutionary theory. Since any process which produces complex, ordered results, can not be simultaneously devoid of both intelligence and chance. Believing otherwise, defies logic. Also, since illogic is marked by contradiction, the algorithm program argument is also illogical. In attempting to prove purely naturalistic processes, devoid of intelligence. You present an analogical process which can not execute devoid of intelligence. Aside from
the intelligence required to produce a computer and a program. Still, the program must be directed in knowing which particular "desirable", random chance occurrences(mutations) to select for retainment. Although merely a matter of semantics, its also illogical for you to say "a creature doesn't assemble itself just like that". Since "creature" means created. However, semantics aside, arguing against special creation does unavoidably postulate "spontaneous generation" of life. "Just like that"!
Yet another strawman is constructed in your "personal incredulity" argument. First from your own personal incredulity. Since incredulity means "disbelief" or a reluctance to "believe". The illogical double standard is born from your assertion of that yours should be believed, having cited the incredulity of creationists. Also, your claim of that the incredulity stems from lacking an understanding of whats being argued against, is put to rest by this entire post. Improbable = no proof = belief???
doesnt the bible say the universe came from nothing? ohh wait, it came from god and god came from nothing, he is the equivalent to the conservation of mass, only he cant be tested or observed.
No, it doesn't. The Greek term used in the Bible to describe creation has an architectural connotation, therefore implying that God created the universe out of pre-existing material.
"Who cares what Darwin thought..."+"bacteria would never come from anything anyway"?!? plzz ArgusEyes be serious a bit!!! I should have known there's no real debate indeed. However, go check the video"Creation / Evolution debate on Michael Coren Show".
Saw it ages ago. And you're right about there being no debate, evolution is a strong well supported commonly accepted science with tons of evidence behind it, whilst creationism is religious extremism. Damn right there is no debate.
P.S. You didn't say anything, you just repeated what I said in a mocking tone, maling you a classic troll. Evolution is not Darwin's anymore, it's the result of generations of scientists who have contributed to it.
That's exactly the problem of Darwin: 8'39-8'43,"let say at the bottom we have the simple bacterial begining of life on earth" 1-we are entitle to ask where does that "simple" bacteria come from cuz logically, out of nothing, nothing can come! 2-It is a fact that Darwin had a false assumption in considering a bacteria,one of the simplest form of life among others,a simple organism.We understand that cuz,at that time, he couldn't study the cells like we do now.His theory starts with serious flaws
Who cares what Darwin thought? Seriously, it's been 150 years since Darwin. And you can see that things evolved without having to account for where they came from. The questions of origins is always being looked into, bacteria would never come from anything anyway. They would come from simple replicating polymers hidden in clay substrate layers or some such thing.. We still don't know yet.
o called creationists are pompus asses that he has complete disdain for, which he states with seething negative emotion, indicating his lack of objectivity in his arguments.
If either side had the absolute answers - there would be no debate.
Cloning requires an original.
AngusEyes videos are nothing more than rantings from another self convinced intellectual high on his own ego.
The Old Testament account is not evidence of any kind to begin with.
It is a recounting a myths which preceded and were adapted by the people who wrote it.
So, rejecting the Old Testament account does not put an overarching belief in creationism on shakier ground that acceptance of the Old Testament would: quite the opposite, since the Old Testament account bogs down any creationist's argument with scientifically disprovable deadweight.
It is very hard to explain the theory of evolution. More because there are many factors that are included. However, the "theory of evolution" is education, while "creationism" retards critical thinking.
Excellent Video. Can you suggest a good book explaining logical fallacies, how to recognize fallicies in an argument and how to uitilize logic to support an argument. Thanks.
I don't use that term to describe myself (like we are not gravityi-sts) but it doesn't rub me the wrong way. "darwinist" is the one that gets me seeing red.
I consider the first part to be a mighty compliment by the way, thanks.
However, all these Creationist buzz words such as Darwinist, Evolutionist and also Micro/Macro-evolution DO touch me the wrong way.
Usually when refuting these buzz words I occasionally say; "If you want to label someone who accepts Evolution you should also critisize their sanity and ability to think"
A guy on another video tried to take me to task for having a "evolutionist upbringing", it's the standard game them play of saying "hey, you believe this and I believe this" in this case, "I had a religious upbringing and you had an evolutionist upbringing".
No. I had a normal upbriniging by rational parents who shoved no particular scientific theory down my throat. The first time I even cared about evolution was when I discovered what creationists think.
Whereas he had an upbringing where is was brainwashed to reject modern science and rationality because it conflicts with his partiicular bronze age texts. "evolutionist upbringing" indeed.
"Praise gene drift and the almighty power of mutation and all loving natual selection!" hahaha, that's pretty funny.
I once heard someone call people who support the Big Bang to be Big Bang-ists.
I've never met anyone who denies Evolution that isn't under Religious influence. However, in my experience we learn about something more when someone tries to oppose it. So in a way Creationists are encouraging people to learn more about Creationism, Evolution, Abiogenesis etc.
And when they learn about how Creationism is a fairy tale and Science is a method of learning and discovery, people will stop taking the Bible literally.
Creationism wont leave quietly, they will try and use every argument they have to oppose knowledge. I once heard a woman say she doesn't need proof for her Religion and then claimed she HAd proof. She didn't even read the articles she supplied.
THEN she said "Hey, you believe whatever you want and I'll do the same"
would you be able to give an example of a natural selection process observable today,can you show me a gradual step,and wat makes the body change?does the dna change itself?you mentioned tracing evolution thru animals,can you give me an example
Here is a start: Go to google, enter "observed instances of speciation" and hit "I'm feeling lucky" and evoila! You have just discovered something for yourself (well, not really, but I'm sure you can take it from here).
I'm not here to answer the inane questions of the willfully ignorant who have made up their minds already and won't learn from it. You know you didn't ask those questions with the intent of learning anything.
hello ArgusEyes,just would like to comment on your video,im a creationist,a person who believes the creation account of genesis,not blindly though,thru logic,commonsense,and by observing recorded history,expansion of man thruout the earth and our population levels
So you're saying to me that you were raised in a completely irreligious manner and then when you were of a an age when you were deciding your life beliefs you looked at the bible and said to yourself:
"hmm.. this genesis thing seems to be a reasonable account of the world, even though it is completely uncorroborated and the only thing which supports it indirectly are Christian apologetic arguments based on bas science, faulty logic and false premises.. I think I'm a creationist now!"
well following that line of thought only religiously raised people follow religion and God, and evolutionary raised people follow evolution,thats fanatiscm
"low tolerance against opinions differing your own, another sign of fanatiscm[sic]"
YOU came HERE. And picked a fight with ME. Replying back and defending my point of view.. Is that not something you wanted me to do?
Excuse me sir. But you respond to my points with points. If all you've got is to label me with disgusting terms then you have truly marked yourself as a man with unsophisticated views and low morality.
What a truly stupid statement. People like me accept evolution because we have no reason not to accept the current strong scientific theories vise a vise species, origins, whatever. Talking about someone being evolutionarily raised makes as much sense as them being "gravitationally raised". I accept reality. You deny it. You are the one with the insidious upbringing needed to raise one so twisted.
heres some reality for u,there was a protest against the opening of the creation museum held by people sitting out the front of the musem,one family there had children who were bought up evolutionist,evolutionary raised,i bet there some gravitationally raised kids out there somewhere LOL
And once again.. YOU came HERE. Anmd started shit with ME. You don't seem to undertsnd that. And being religious I don't expect much understanding from you so let me say.. that you are just another in a long line of religious idiots who have picked a fight with me and were simply incapable of decency. People like you are immoral worthless cunts who claim to inhabit the moral high ground.
lol,your right in casting doubt on this side of christianity,eternal suffering is not in Gods plans believe me,but as for losing the side of logic,their postion sits more comfortably than yours
if you look at it from the biblical perspective it is logical,although there are differences in interpretation of scripture,i personally dont believe the eternal suffering part
I'm afraid I had to give my "stupidest statement of the century" award to a commenter yesterday. So maybe you would settle with the "stupidest statement of the year" instead?
Why would scientists use the bible for historical facts???? You don't know and, you know what?
You don't care, because you are ignorance and stupid and have a festering mental disorder called religion in your brain. Not all religious have it as bad as you but you have it bad.
I've seen a few evolution vs. creation debates in my time and usually, the auditorium is packed with religious people who have made their minds up. Like you have.
Since you are so dishonest to the point of mendacity, listen and learn to honesty now.
These "debates" were probably won by the creationist since the creationist position is ignorance.
And all the creationist needs to do is chuck out a constant stream of lies and falsehoods to throw doubt on science to win the minds and hearts of the ignorant pigs in the audience. And it works. The scientist needs hours to undo the lies that the creationist spouts in 5 minutes.
Forums like these is not how you find truth. It's not science. It's propaganda, which is how you guys go about things. Very Christian by the way.
Evolutionist say that everything evolved from somthing, somthing can't come from nothing.
"God is the beginning"
the very beginning IS GOD.
All you atheists out there:
Where did matter come from? It is agreed by scientists that energy (and in turn matter), cannot be created or destroyed. How then was there matter? Before the big bang, where did the matter come from?
It simply could not just appear. There had to be a Creator...
Creationists love ignorance. They Clutch it close to them and adore it like a mother will clutch her baby to her breast. People like this do murder to rational thought.
God of the gaps.. How original. One problem, there have been innumerable gaps used over the course of human history to justify God. Gaps that have been closed. Ignorance is not evidence.
Where did matter come from? It is agreed by scientists that energy (and in turn matter), cannot be created or destroyed. How then was there matter? Before the big bang, where did the matter come from?
It simply could not just appear. There had to be a Creator...
I have a idea. Are We One and same Energy, God, Intelligent designer? Maybe!?! What kind of power/force it is force of mind? You can move your muscle with your power/force of thought/mind/idea.
Maybe intelligent designer, i mean we maked that Universe with power of mind!?!
We just dont remember that. Maybe we design that way. Maybe it is time to found ourself?
Lets take a look my video!
Are We One and same Energy, God, intelligent Designer?
That statment makes no logical sense. If it is not designed then it has no order. If it has no order then it came into being on a method other than design. Non-design I guess or randomly as I would call it. Either way it put itself together, which is illogical.
i often wonder how creationists deal with the concept, in quantum mechanics, of the idea that "something occurs from nothing". that effect can pre-date the CAUSE of that effect. given this philosophy, there can be no rational argument for suggesting that simply because we are here, we MUST have been created. Cause and Effect. by this argument, it is quite possible that we created Him!
Strawman is the most common one that gets used on me. Fucking annoying as hell, partly because they're argueing against something I never said, and partly because they actually BELIEVE that's what I believe. I never said we evolved from apes, from rocks, or from nothing, but that's what creationists think evolutionists believe...grr.
any intellegent person uses anology to prove a point. Evolution does state that everything came together by radom chance. From the big bang to biogenesis...ect. It states it all happend without design. Evolution is the most absurd belief every created by man's imagination. Even more ridiculous than the flat earth theory, because the earth does appear to be flat when observed from earth. No one has ever observed an ape become a human, ever. It is faith based not logical.
whoa there! Evolution does NOT state that "everything" "came together," evolution is a change in alleles frequencies over time, and it's clearly a proven fact. Evolution has nothing to do with the ORIGINS of life! And it's more ethical to say "we don't know that, yet" than to say "it's a miracle."
omg im so afraid of that woman, with her dead eyes and her confidence to say bullshit with such passion. That is a witch. For real. I m afraid, i go sleep in my parents bed tonight. :(
God is absolutely unprovable but YOU want to act like you understand the nature of the supposed God. God is beyond logic is he? How would you know, because you think it? Because you feel it?
The object(s) of your faith are likewise, unprovable. We have here a faith vs. faith argument- not science versus faith. You choose a different source to abide by than the Christians, this is your choice not to be confused with logic.
I'll assume that by "your faith" you mean the theory of evolution (otherwise the rest of this comment is, of course, invalidated for strawmannishness), so I'd like to know: How is "In populations of living beings allelic frequencies change due to mutation and selection" not a valid theory to explain the data collected on said beings?
"In populations of living beings allelic frequencies change due to mutation and selection" No new information-only parent to daughter information takes place. Take climate change for example, Climate change brings a process of selection, but no new genetic information will aid the survival of these said beings-only the means by which they already have present in their genetic code.
"faith": You suppose a theory to be true based on other people's information that you process on "good faith".
I bet the flavobacteria which developed nylonase through a frame shift mutation would love to learn that they don't exist. Except, of course, if you deem that to be "no new information" along with point mutation and all the other (documented) possibilities in which DNA can mutate, in which case, of course, that "no new information" claim would become "no non-genetic information", which I'd actually find plausible... So, where do you see a hard limit for genetic mutations?
New genetic information is created by mutation - the miscoding of DNA base pairs during the meiosis process. The DNA code was misread in the source cell structure creating a mutant or a retro-virus managed to insert itself into the code. All humans are mutants - my code is different from my brothers, despite having the same parents. Most mutations are inert - no changes. Some are harmful - sickle cell is the result of one of these. Sometimes they are beneficial - HIV immunity. All are new data.
You are correct, ArgusEyes. Science is a process of investigation. It does not require faith in the unseen or leaps of logic to work. It does not dogmatically preach a set group of facts that cannot be impeached. It is an evolving process that re-evaluates itself constantly to ensure credibility.
Yet what is a hypotheses a guess a theory a philos of a certain belief of what you think the experiment will conclude to. you go at it thinking that the hypotheses is true right? is that not a leap of faith? sure if your wrong you change your hypothesis but still to the point its a matter of faith in your stated hypothesis!
Actually, a scientist makesa hypothesis and then trys his hards to prove it false. That is the method of science; one can always find a stray fact that will prove a mad theory - this is precisely how conspiracy theories gain momentum. The scientific method demands that a hypothesis be assaulted from all sides in an attempt to MAKE it false. If it can withstand that kind of scrutiny, then it is on its way to becoming a candidate for a theory.
so its vice versa what I said sorry I'm not a scientist but its still a leap of faith to call something wrong just as much to call it right. Its still a degree of philos in its approach.
Science does not use "leaps of faith to call something wrong."
Someone has an idea about how something works (a hypothesis). They test it. The evidence either supports or contradicts the hypothesis. The evidence is evaluated. We all all learn something. No faith required.
Whereas with religion, it runs like this:
Someone has an idea. They state it as fact. No one is allowed to question it. In some cases, anyone who does is killed. The End.
It is like TheboyPaj says - science does not require and actually shuns anything to do with belief or faith. These are not evidence. All hypothesis are treated as false until they withstand scrutiny of scientific inquiry. Evidence is required to prompt the transformation from hypothesis to theory and not just one simple piece, it must be multiple pieces of evidence - all independently verified.
In the mind of a Creationalist the real question is not how did it evolve? Its where did all of the ingredience for life come from to begin with? You cant get to the other side of a river in a boat by starting in the middle. This fool in this video and Richard Dawkins are staring in the middle of the river and are not explaining how it could have all started to begin with. How did the Universe come into being own its own? How could inanimate energy and matter create life? Dawkins is an idiot!
TheRgordon16 11 months ago
@TheRgordon16 That logical fallacy is called ''Moving the goal posts'' You can't prove evolution is wrong so you try to prove Abiogenesis wrong and when you can't you say the big bang is wrong.
''How could inanimate energy and matter create life?'' Easy, read a science book and find out.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@kissntellen You might want to look up abiogenesis if you're going to argue against it. Amino acids and proteins aren't considered to be the first self-replicating molecules, that title belongs to RNA. RNA is able to store information, catalyze reactions, aid in protein synthesis, form more complex molecules with proteins, and self-replicate.
Pokarot 1 year ago
Comment removed
theageofgrace 1 year ago
Well its true isnt it, that the experiment with the car in the empty garage gradual changes, if you had nothing in your garage then gradual changes could make the nothing into gradually something like a mercedes benz. OK cool, when that happens , which it wont or cant , let us know, I will give you a hug, a handshake, and a friendship band.
theageofgrace 1 year ago
@theageofgrace cars don't reproduce..
basic science fail!
eddygoombah 1 year ago
@theageofgrace We evil "believers" in science and reality should really thank you fundie christians and muslims. You help us very much more than you'll obviously ever understand yourselves. : )
winterstellar 1 year ago
I believe in God, and I ALSO believe in evolution... however, your delving into gaining a better understanding of criticism is wonderful and you should keep it up... remember to include the other position's positive points as well!
People like me end up negative and then go off on so many rants they need to sign up for a new youtube account!!!
Good luck my English friend.
Absolutecha0s121212 1 year ago
there are bad creationists, but that doesn't mean that creationism is full of logical fallacies. u presuppose matter is eternal. theists presuppose God is eternal. but both of you must prove how either can be eternal. The argument you use for matter can equally be given to God. Just google learnlogicalfallacies for clarity.
casanovakreg 1 year ago
@casanovakreg: Having just said that creationism is *not* full of logical fallacies the next thing you do is walk away from any attempt at evidence, and bump over into unanswerable philosophy. actually, most scientists admit to nothing eternal. Your manner of treating an argument doesn't even rise to fallacy; it is only to make assertions.
puncheex 1 year ago
Creationism. Keeping America full of inbred, low IQ'd, science-denying dimwits.
TheDarkLordLucifer 1 year ago
God doesn't follow man's rules, He can do whatever he wants.
If He wants 2+2 to equal 5 it will. This is what atheists can't understand. God can do ANYTHING. He can create a world in 7 days that looks like its been here billions of years.
aarondavid826 1 year ago
@aarondavid826 lol, we don't even know what "god" is, stop pretending like you do ignoramus!
GtheMVP 1 year ago
@aarondavid826: No, I don't think he can, at least not without changing the meaning of either 2, or 4, or +, or =. Likewise, god cannot create a world in which PI is always 3.0. these aren't man's rules, these are the universe's rules. And yes, he could create a billion year old world in 7 days, but who'd want to worship the sort of charlatan that act represents? I don't know about you, but that sort of chicanery doesn't pass my scientific, evolutionist's moral sense.
puncheex 1 year ago
Hell is a vile, abusive, disgusting concept. God buys love & loyalty with torture? A Gandhi, Teresa, Mandela would never think of torturing their enemies, whereas a Saddam, Hitler, Stalin would. This is the company that God keeps? Karma & Rebirth is the better, non-violent way. You are not punished, nor are you simply forgiven because you groveled enough. The most important aspect of Karma is that you are held accountable for your actions, you are reborn, given another chance to make amends.
ramaraksha01 1 year ago
@ramaraksha01: Ummm, well, Beatified Teresa came pretty close. She encouraged suffering as something that had to be faced in this life, even as she used donations to spread her religious ideas and her own comfort at the expense of curing and/or comforting those in her hospitals. That seems pretty abusive to me.
puncheex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Question: Why is the kettle boiling?
Atheist answer: Because the water's been heated to 100 degrees centigrade resulting in a change in state from liquid to gas.
Christian answer: Because I want to have some tea.
For more about how Atheists and Christians interpret evidence very differently, check out my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
There is only one problem you need to overcome, the Fossil Record. It does not show a gradual evolution of life, fossils of animals appear of a sudden in the layers of rock and remain unchanged for millions of years then disappear and other more advanced fossils of animals appear and remain unchanged for millions of years. Ask Dawkins to lay out the fossils showing the gradual steps of evolution of animals from basic to complex life forms. He can't, show me facts please.
raulscoob 2 years ago
The facts are there, you just deny them. How about the fossils showing the migration of the nasal ridge on whales? Shows it moving from the snout to up near the top of the head.
How about tiktalik? Which was a predicted intermediary found on the basis of its predicted existence, like how the gaps in the periodic table were predicted to be elements which were later found. THAT is science!
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Scientists are honest about the fact that the fossil record is incomplete and that fossilisation is not a perfect process. You want perfection? You want every creature to have fossilised? Tough, that is impossible. The fossil record is completely consistent with the theory of evolution, this line that is a problem to be overcome is false.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Will we hear you denialists talking about the multiple overlapping phylogenetic trees? Or the iron clad DNA evidence? No. its always fossils isnt it? Because that is the easiest gap for them to hide in to fester in ignorance.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
You act like your position is 100% fact, its not and you now it. Its full of guesses and assumptions and beliefs. Phylogenetic Tree is a best guess and is always changing, DNA that too is guess work as there are no DNA samples greater than a 100,000 years, so you make a leap of faith on what you think is right until you change your mind for another theory. You laugh at us for our belief in God while you are full of your own doubts.
raulscoob 2 years ago
If you'd care to try to understand what I actually think I would say that I require evidence for the things I believe. Evolution has more than enough evidence for me to believe in it's provisional truth, until another theory comes along.
And I have no doubts. That book you apparently cherish has a few choice things to say about telling lies.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Hey, kudos to you man. People like you are an encouragement to us atheists living in the bible-belt of America.
AuntJermimah 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArgusEyes there r many evidence to support a deity. abiogenesis which is basicly a hypothesis for the orgin of the first self replicating synthetic cell which supposedly arose from lower chemical compounds from the primordial ocean. there r a considerable amount of problem with this theory, starting with amino acids not having properties of attraction to assemble the first active protein molecule. genetic information accommodated the instrution necessary to form the first protein.
kissntellen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArgusEyes there r many evidence to support a deity. abiogenesis which is basicly a hypothesis for the orgin of the first self replicating synthetic cell which supposedly arose from lower chemical compounds from the primordial ocean. there r a considerable amount of problem with this theory, starting with amino acids not having properties of attraction to assemble the first active protein molecule. genetic information accommodated the instrution necessary to form the first protein.
kissntellen 1 year ago
@raulscoob
July 5th, 2007 (a lot before you post) DNA found that is 800,000 years old, factor 8 difference between that and your statement.
Also, Evolution is FACT.
How Evolution happened is theory, yes, but even if Evolutionary Theory was wrong (highly unlikely), Evolution is still true.
Gravity is also both fact and theory. Things fall down, thats a fact, but why they do so is still "just" theory.
Intelligent Design and Creationism are absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, false.
mhrby1985 1 year ago
Actually rualscoob they have recovered DNA samples from T-Rex. So that would place the date at 67 MA. ALSO, having a DNA sample from 100,000 years ago refutes the creationist claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Be careful when you cherry pick science to support your creationist argument, you may shoot yourself in the foot.
PliestoceneDreams 1 year ago
@PliestoceneDreams: Actually, no, they haven't. I'm an evolutionist, but I've investigated this claim, and what happened is that they found a T rex leg bone that appears to have some preserved soft tissue in it, and what appeared to possibly be blood cells. The blood cells didn't pan out, and besides, blood cells do not have nuclei in them (they never undergo mitosis), so there seems to be no possibility of seeing any DNA from T rex. Even amber has never yielded mosquito DNA, let alone dinosaur.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Sorry, but claiming to be an "evolutionist" doesn't lend any credence to your claims there buddy. Also, I don't know anyone who self-identifies as an "evolutionist", which leads me to believe you're actually a creationist. Do you have any links for your claim? Any?
PliestoceneDreams 1 year ago
@PliestoceneDreams: Sorry for your intuits, but you're wrong (about me and the DNA). The place to find that out is in Dr. Mary Schweitzer's own papers:
"Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present". Proc Biol Sci 274 (1607): 183–97 (rspb(.)royalsocietypublishing(.)org/content/274/1607/183). 2007
"Biomolecule Preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex". Jnl of Vert Paleo 13: 56A. 1993
Google her name; lots of pop articles with quotes.
puncheex 1 year ago
... At this time, no DNA older than about 60,000 years has ever been recovered in sufficient quality to build a genome. That oldest DNA is from Neandertals, and you can read about it in Svante Paabo's paper:
"A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome". Science 328 (5979): 710–722 (dx(.)doi(.)org/10.1126%2Fscience.1188021) 2010.
puncheex 1 year ago
Comment removed
puncheex 1 year ago
OK, an oops moment. Bacterial DNA possibly as old as 419 million years has been found embedded in salt crystals, and also some forest DNA in Greenland at 80,000 years. The bacterial DNA is probably viable, in fact the whole bacteria is, but the tree DNA is small fragments. So I guess I'll have to change my claim:
At this time, no DNA older than about 60,000 years, other than bacterial DNA, has ever been recovered in sufficient quality to build a genome.
puncheex 1 year ago
@raulscoob: You're right about the oldest sample of non-bacterial DNA, but there is bacterial DNA from 419 million years back; in fact, whole bacteria, encapsulated in water sealed within salt crystals. Sure the phylogenetic tree keeps changing; it was only conceived in the 1950s. Give it a couple of hundred years, but it's not guesswork; it is based on precise morphological measurements and math. DNA is not guesswork. I'm not laughing, but I don't believe, either.
puncheex 1 year ago
How rude of you to just say creationists are pompous assholes. Give credit to some, you know, my argument on how Christianity is true is flawless. Message me and I will give you the best argument on how Creationism is true.
DudeYourSOSTUPID 2 years ago
Why not put it here?
Many intelligent people have debated on the mere existence of a deistic god. Yet you have a flawless argument for the Christian god? Brilliant, then that would make you the brightest person on earth? Spill it, bring your amazing argument.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Its too lengthy to put on this page, and what good will it do if I recieve stupid people answering me. Anyone who is willing to have an intelligent debate and who isn't one of those assholes who gives the fallacy of "God is a spaghetti monster!" argument. So, if you want me to give you the argument message me. I will actually use science to prove athiesm wrong.
Tinzert 2 years ago
Well, what's the point of me messaging you asking for you to send me the argument? Why not just send it straight to me?
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Wasn't sure whether you really cared. =P Messaging you now.
Tinzert 2 years ago
Thanks but you have a lock on your account that stops people who are not on your friends list from messaging you.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Changed.
Tinzert 2 years ago
Thank you, you're not going to like the answer though.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
@DudeYourSOSTUPID: With regard to the research I discussed just above, the discoverer is Mary Schweitzer, a Montanan paleontologist. She is a Christian, but here is what she says about creationists: "She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. 'They treat you really bad,' she says. 'They twist your words and they manipulate your data.'"
See smithsonianmagDOT
com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=3#ixzz13CgjyfZE
puncheex 1 year ago
"And wait for a car to spontaneously generate for 250 000 000 years". Hmm, seems like TIME would have to exist for it to TAKE 250 000 000 years. Major fail. Pre-big bang, there was no TIME. Stupid creationist strawmen.
TheFifthApes 2 years ago
Genius
Intelligent
Averige
Below Averige
Retarded
Creationist
AtheistChase 3 years ago
The next time you use that, you should remember that it's "Average" not "Averige".
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Thank you.
AtheistChase 2 years ago
No we don't say "we don't understand how it happened therfore it didn't happen". we say, "we don't understand how it happened therfore it MAY not have happened because what we see is variation". Isn't that one of your logical fallacies? lol Arrogance! Trusting liars, and parroting them.
easymoney4ever 3 years ago
We only observe varation. The whole idea of evolution has become a logical faliaeie. Because it is logical that we should call varation variation, not evolution. you are making a leap of faith when you say evolution is fact. Only varaiation is a fact of the 2. I choose observation, you choose imagination. Which is science?
easymoney4ever 3 years ago
"Only varaiation[sic] is a fact"
Youre almost there. Now. What is the scientific word for variation?
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
Another arrogant know it all. to believe a cell could assemble itself from basic matter is just as stupid as the car. We know what evolution says, a lot of us were Atheists. We just think your parroting what you were taught and are not thinking. So keep telling yourself how much you know.
easymoney4ever 3 years ago
Argument from personal incredulity.
Ad-hominem attack.
Creationist arguments are full of logical fallacies.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
Firstly Atheist does not equal understanding evolution. So there's a Fallacy right there
Secondly If you really knew what Evolution says you'd know it only explains the diversity of life, not origin of life(which is abiogenesis). Evolution has mountains of evidence & would be easily disprovable if creationism was true. Abiogenesis is very much less certain & is often what Creationists pick on to disprove evolution(Which is another fallacy as they are different things).
You're the one parroting!
OlympicRudi 2 years ago
If we all came from a single cell like evlolution says we must, Then evolutionists can't just discard their chicken and egg problem, nor can they say there are mountains of evidence when the origin of their of their Hypothesis is impossible naturalistcally. Life only comes from life. When you Atheists solve the origins question, then and only then you can say you might have a good theory. Then all your evidence would come into play. And I'm the stupid one. lol
easymoney4ever 2 years ago
OK more Fallacies. For starters "life only comes from life" is not a fact & only your opinion. Same as "when the origin of their of their Hypothesis is impossible naturalistcally".
Also "When you Atheists solve the origins question" should be "When you Scientists solve the origins question". We actually have many valuable hypothesis(Learn Abiogenesis) which have far more evidence than creationism. We just don't know for certain which method it happened by for certain.
OlympicRudi 2 years ago
& just to add. The Chicken before the Egg problem is not really a problem of which came first. It's actually a problem of what you define as a Chicken.
& I agree with you being the stupid one(among many though, so you're not alone:P)
If I could post links I'd show you evidence & explanations.
OlympicRudi 2 years ago
Life comes from life is empirical. You can say there are hypothesis that show it is not, you need proof, since the proof is life from life. If a chicken is not a chicken, then a human is not a human. Now you have to lower yourself to play games. I'm not saying Creationism is a fact like your saying evolution is a fact. And you calling me stupid when we both don't know, puts you in the in a losing position philosophically and empirically. And you call yourself a scientist! Shame on you.
easymoney4ever 2 years ago
"Life comes from life is Empirical"
Well that's just a stupid thing to say. Again Evolution doesn't contradict your statement, but if you want to talk abiogenesis that's a different matter. All accepted scientific theories are based on empirical evidence, though they may not necessarily be 100% shown empirically due to constraints like time etc. Creationism has very little evidence & is actually shown false by a lot of evidence, so I'd rather go for the theory that has best evidence.
OlympicRudi 2 years ago
Oh & please watch AronRa's latest vid for a better explanation of what is wrong with your statement.
OlympicRudi 2 years ago
Why would you need someone else to tell me what's wrong with my statement? I'll tell you what's wrong. To say the first chicken came from a non chicken needs more than what you call evidence. And since you have nothing to prove me wrong, you send me to a psychobabblist?
He has no proof, just hopeful words. Life comes from life, I'd think you would have learned from Pasteur. When you guys do the opposite, you guys can flaunt your theory. Until then, life comes from life. Evolution suffers.
easymoney4ever 2 years ago
I sent you there as it explains what a "Scientific Theory" is & the involvement of empirical evidence. Both concepts that you clearly don't understand.
You are right though nothing I can say/type will prove to you that you are wrong. I could spend a lot of time taking you round performing a number of experiments & analysing primary evidence to prove you wrong, but that's a bit unrealistic & I doubt you'd be interested in any sort of actual research & understanding.
OlympicRudi 2 years ago
Also it's entirely possible in evolutionary theory, though unlikely in reality, for a creator to have created cells & designed their environment to guide life using evolution to what we have today. So Evolution does not suffer at all from your wrong statement, even in the extremely unlikely situation you were right.
Even the flying Spaghetti monster is more likely than current I.D. hypothesis.
OlympicRudi 2 years ago
Oh & "you send me to a psychobabblist?" is another fallacy:P
OlympicRudi 2 years ago
psshh, i learned all this in a philosophy class about argueing. It was an awesome class and this is a good video!
FockerTheLopper 3 years ago
Cheers
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
the point of this video is not so much about the logical fallacies often presented by creationists, but rather logical fallacies. He presented one example.
I think his point about logical fallacies is well conveyed. good video man. off course creationists will not agree, and probably use another strawman with this video.
jrev37 3 years ago
I'd say social issues are your forte. In constructing your argument against a claimed to be strawman, you presented a strawman. The Mercedes analogy was in regards to the "Big Bang". Your argument spoke of Biological evolution. That would imply that what you've argued against was something like "no transitionals in fossil record". Presenting the theory of Evolution's explanation for the diversity of biological organisms, in no way addresses the question of the origins of the universe.
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
Any way you slice it, chance must be a part of evolutionary theory. Since any process which produces complex, ordered results, can not be simultaneously devoid of both intelligence and chance. Believing otherwise, defies logic. Also, since illogic is marked by contradiction, the algorithm program argument is also illogical. In attempting to prove purely naturalistic processes, devoid of intelligence. You present an analogical process which can not execute devoid of intelligence. Aside from
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
the intelligence required to produce a computer and a program. Still, the program must be directed in knowing which particular "desirable", random chance occurrences(mutations) to select for retainment. Although merely a matter of semantics, its also illogical for you to say "a creature doesn't assemble itself just like that". Since "creature" means created. However, semantics aside, arguing against special creation does unavoidably postulate "spontaneous generation" of life. "Just like that"!
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
Yet another strawman is constructed in your "personal incredulity" argument. First from your own personal incredulity. Since incredulity means "disbelief" or a reluctance to "believe". The illogical double standard is born from your assertion of that yours should be believed, having cited the incredulity of creationists. Also, your claim of that the incredulity stems from lacking an understanding of whats being argued against, is put to rest by this entire post. Improbable = no proof = belief???
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
Yeah, like the universe's coming from nothing. You think thats logical?
GenesesIsreal 3 years ago
Nope, it's a good thing no one is suggesting that isn't it?
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
We never say that. Stop saying we say that. We don't.
k87jury 3 years ago
Genesesisreal. What you are now saying is a straw man.
k87jury 3 years ago
doesnt the bible say the universe came from nothing? ohh wait, it came from god and god came from nothing, he is the equivalent to the conservation of mass, only he cant be tested or observed.
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
No, it doesn't. The Greek term used in the Bible to describe creation has an architectural connotation, therefore implying that God created the universe out of pre-existing material.
loqutor 3 years ago
"therefore implying that God created the universe out of pre-existing material. "
ohh good...so when i said "he is the equivalent to the conservation of mass, only he cant be tested or observed. "
you agree right?
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
Well, yes. I am a creationist, but I'm more reasonable than most.
loqutor 3 years ago
ok then...the concepts are similar...so you should agree that it is very well possible that the universe has always existed? just as god may have?
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
"Who cares what Darwin thought..."+"bacteria would never come from anything anyway"?!? plzz ArgusEyes be serious a bit!!! I should have known there's no real debate indeed. However, go check the video"Creation / Evolution debate on Michael Coren Show".
flypejose 3 years ago
Saw it ages ago. And you're right about there being no debate, evolution is a strong well supported commonly accepted science with tons of evidence behind it, whilst creationism is religious extremism. Damn right there is no debate.
P.S. You didn't say anything, you just repeated what I said in a mocking tone, maling you a classic troll. Evolution is not Darwin's anymore, it's the result of generations of scientists who have contributed to it.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
That's exactly the problem of Darwin: 8'39-8'43,"let say at the bottom we have the simple bacterial begining of life on earth" 1-we are entitle to ask where does that "simple" bacteria come from cuz logically, out of nothing, nothing can come! 2-It is a fact that Darwin had a false assumption in considering a bacteria,one of the simplest form of life among others,a simple organism.We understand that cuz,at that time, he couldn't study the cells like we do now.His theory starts with serious flaws
flypejose 3 years ago
Who cares what Darwin thought? Seriously, it's been 150 years since Darwin. And you can see that things evolved without having to account for where they came from. The questions of origins is always being looked into, bacteria would never come from anything anyway. They would come from simple replicating polymers hidden in clay substrate layers or some such thing.. We still don't know yet.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
o called creationists are pompus asses that he has complete disdain for, which he states with seething negative emotion, indicating his lack of objectivity in his arguments.
If either side had the absolute answers - there would be no debate.
Cloning requires an original.
AngusEyes videos are nothing more than rantings from another self convinced intellectual high on his own ego.
GloVermont2 3 years ago
Two comments on creationism:
1. A person can believe in a Creator without accepting the old testament account thereof
2. A greater, better, deeper account of Creation would not be in any way at odds with science
OmniNorth 3 years ago
But if you reject the old testament account, what basis do you have for believing in creation? Why would you believe it?
You've gone from bad evidence to no evidence at all.
AThagoras 3 years ago
The Old Testament account is not evidence of any kind to begin with.
It is a recounting a myths which preceded and were adapted by the people who wrote it.
So, rejecting the Old Testament account does not put an overarching belief in creationism on shakier ground that acceptance of the Old Testament would: quite the opposite, since the Old Testament account bogs down any creationist's argument with scientifically disprovable deadweight.
OmniNorth 3 years ago
It is very hard to explain the theory of evolution. More because there are many factors that are included. However, the "theory of evolution" is education, while "creationism" retards critical thinking.
omiteru 3 years ago
Excellent Video. Can you suggest a good book explaining logical fallacies, how to recognize fallicies in an argument and how to uitilize logic to support an argument. Thanks.
BIOLOGICALSCUM 3 years ago
You could start with the granddaddy - Carl Sagan's "the demon haunted world".
Apparently Kenneth Miller's "Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul" is good at debunking creationist claims.
For logical fallacies. Consult the NESS's "top 25 logical fallacies" list.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
Awesome video. I completely agree. there are still many more fallacies in the creationists arguments.
necronized 3 years ago
if i happen to enjoy the consumption of excessively-large quantities of alcohol does that make me a "drink-ist"?
(i hope it does, incidentally, as it's proving to be enormous fun!)
Winedarkseas 3 years ago
I can't believe someone who sounds better than the almightly documentary host David Attenborough and still use the term "Evolutionist"
Tisk, tisk, tisk. Slap your hand in shame.
themanwhoknew 3 years ago
I don't use that term to describe myself (like we are not gravityi-sts) but it doesn't rub me the wrong way. "darwinist" is the one that gets me seeing red.
I consider the first part to be a mighty compliment by the way, thanks.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
Or Atomists, Gravitationists, tectonicist etc.
However, all these Creationist buzz words such as Darwinist, Evolutionist and also Micro/Macro-evolution DO touch me the wrong way.
Usually when refuting these buzz words I occasionally say; "If you want to label someone who accepts Evolution you should also critisize their sanity and ability to think"
themanwhoknew 3 years ago
Oh shit, I should've proof read that responce.
Oh well, I'm drunk so that means it's alright.
themanwhoknew 3 years ago
A guy on another video tried to take me to task for having a "evolutionist upbringing", it's the standard game them play of saying "hey, you believe this and I believe this" in this case, "I had a religious upbringing and you had an evolutionist upbringing".
No. I had a normal upbriniging by rational parents who shoved no particular scientific theory down my throat. The first time I even cared about evolution was when I discovered what creationists think.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
Whereas he had an upbringing where is was brainwashed to reject modern science and rationality because it conflicts with his partiicular bronze age texts. "evolutionist upbringing" indeed.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
"Praise gene drift and the almighty power of mutation and all loving natual selection!" hahaha, that's pretty funny.
I once heard someone call people who support the Big Bang to be Big Bang-ists.
I've never met anyone who denies Evolution that isn't under Religious influence. However, in my experience we learn about something more when someone tries to oppose it. So in a way Creationists are encouraging people to learn more about Creationism, Evolution, Abiogenesis etc.
themanwhoknew 3 years ago
And when they learn about how Creationism is a fairy tale and Science is a method of learning and discovery, people will stop taking the Bible literally.
Creationism wont leave quietly, they will try and use every argument they have to oppose knowledge. I once heard a woman say she doesn't need proof for her Religion and then claimed she HAd proof. She didn't even read the articles she supplied.
THEN she said "Hey, you believe whatever you want and I'll do the same"
*sigh*
themanwhoknew 3 years ago
would you be able to give an example of a natural selection process observable today,can you show me a gradual step,and wat makes the body change?does the dna change itself?you mentioned tracing evolution thru animals,can you give me an example
sliew72 3 years ago
Here is a start: Go to google, enter "observed instances of speciation" and hit "I'm feeling lucky" and evoila! You have just discovered something for yourself (well, not really, but I'm sure you can take it from here).
I'm not here to answer the inane questions of the willfully ignorant who have made up their minds already and won't learn from it. You know you didn't ask those questions with the intent of learning anything.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
hello ArgusEyes,just would like to comment on your video,im a creationist,a person who believes the creation account of genesis,not blindly though,thru logic,commonsense,and by observing recorded history,expansion of man thruout the earth and our population levels
sliew72 3 years ago
O.K. Here is a question. Were you raised in a religious manner?
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
who you talking to Argus?
sliew72 3 years ago
you
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
no,were u raised in a evolutionist manner?
sliew72 3 years ago
So you're saying to me that you were raised in a completely irreligious manner and then when you were of a an age when you were deciding your life beliefs you looked at the bible and said to yourself:
"hmm.. this genesis thing seems to be a reasonable account of the world, even though it is completely uncorroborated and the only thing which supports it indirectly are Christian apologetic arguments based on bas science, faulty logic and false premises.. I think I'm a creationist now!"
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
Bullshit. I think you're lying to me. I think you were raised religiously and that is why you believe it.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
low tolerance against opinions differing your own,another sign of fanatiscm
sliew72 3 years ago
well following that line of thought only religiously raised people follow religion and God, and evolutionary raised people follow evolution,thats fanatiscm
sliew72 3 years ago
"low tolerance against opinions differing your own, another sign of fanatiscm[sic]"
YOU came HERE. And picked a fight with ME. Replying back and defending my point of view.. Is that not something you wanted me to do?
Excuse me sir. But you respond to my points with points. If all you've got is to label me with disgusting terms then you have truly marked yourself as a man with unsophisticated views and low morality.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
"evolutionary raised"
What a truly stupid statement. People like me accept evolution because we have no reason not to accept the current strong scientific theories vise a vise species, origins, whatever. Talking about someone being evolutionarily raised makes as much sense as them being "gravitationally raised". I accept reality. You deny it. You are the one with the insidious upbringing needed to raise one so twisted.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
yes i agree its a stupid statement,its a stupid line of thought,wondered how you would react to a question given to me in similiar fashion
sliew72 3 years ago
heres some reality for u,there was a protest against the opening of the creation museum held by people sitting out the front of the musem,one family there had children who were bought up evolutionist,evolutionary raised,i bet there some gravitationally raised kids out there somewhere LOL
sliew72 3 years ago
when you have children i bet your gonna let them read the bible and accept its teaching
sliew72 3 years ago
yes,your a fanatic,a zealot,no one can have a discussion with you,putting this video up here is a waste of time,youve waisted my time
sliew72 3 years ago
ditto
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
And once again.. YOU came HERE. Anmd started shit with ME. You don't seem to undertsnd that. And being religious I don't expect much understanding from you so let me say.. that you are just another in a long line of religious idiots who have picked a fight with me and were simply incapable of decency. People like you are immoral worthless cunts who claim to inhabit the moral high ground.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
You will find out who is right when you die. have fun burning.. ;)
Joel12965 3 years ago
And when the theist loses the game of logic they fall back to delighting in the eternal suffering of others.
Very Christian of you.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
lol,your right in casting doubt on this side of christianity,eternal suffering is not in Gods plans believe me,but as for losing the side of logic,their postion sits more comfortably than yours
sliew72 3 years ago
His position is:
"You gonna burn"
There is not logic to that. Jesus Christ man... think!
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
if you look at it from the biblical perspective it is logical,although there are differences in interpretation of scripture,i personally dont believe the eternal suffering part
sliew72 3 years ago
By the way, you DO know that scientist use the Bible for historical facts, the Bible has NEVER been proved un reliable, NEVER.
Joel12965 3 years ago
I'm afraid I had to give my "stupidest statement of the century" award to a commenter yesterday. So maybe you would settle with the "stupidest statement of the year" instead?
Why would scientists use the bible for historical facts???? You don't know and, you know what?
You don't care, because you are ignorance and stupid and have a festering mental disorder called religion in your brain. Not all religious have it as bad as you but you have it bad.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
Your attempts to terrorise rational thought is not worlds apart from the radical Muslims attempt to terrorise us physically.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
Evolutionist have never beat A good Creationist
in a debate.
the Creationist theory has never been disproven
PERIOD.
Keep trying..
Joel12965 3 years ago
I've seen a few evolution vs. creation debates in my time and usually, the auditorium is packed with religious people who have made their minds up. Like you have.
Since you are so dishonest to the point of mendacity, listen and learn to honesty now.
These "debates" were probably won by the creationist since the creationist position is ignorance.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
And all the creationist needs to do is chuck out a constant stream of lies and falsehoods to throw doubt on science to win the minds and hearts of the ignorant pigs in the audience. And it works. The scientist needs hours to undo the lies that the creationist spouts in 5 minutes.
Forums like these is not how you find truth. It's not science. It's propaganda, which is how you guys go about things. Very Christian by the way.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
Evolutionist say that everything evolved from somthing, somthing can't come from nothing.
"God is the beginning"
the very beginning IS GOD.
All you atheists out there:
Where did matter come from? It is agreed by scientists that energy (and in turn matter), cannot be created or destroyed. How then was there matter? Before the big bang, where did the matter come from?
It simply could not just appear. There had to be a Creator...
Joel12965 3 years ago
Creationists love ignorance. They Clutch it close to them and adore it like a mother will clutch her baby to her breast. People like this do murder to rational thought.
God of the gaps.. How original. One problem, there have been innumerable gaps used over the course of human history to justify God. Gaps that have been closed. Ignorance is not evidence.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
All you atheists out there:
Where did matter come from? It is agreed by scientists that energy (and in turn matter), cannot be created or destroyed. How then was there matter? Before the big bang, where did the matter come from?
It simply could not just appear. There had to be a Creator...
Joel12965 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have a idea. Are We One and same Energy, God, Intelligent designer? Maybe!?! What kind of power/force it is force of mind? You can move your muscle with your power/force of thought/mind/idea.
Maybe intelligent designer, i mean we maked that Universe with power of mind!?!
We just dont remember that. Maybe we design that way. Maybe it is time to found ourself?
Lets take a look my video!
Are We One and same Energy, God, intelligent Designer?
Maybe we are!
Etimespace 3 years ago
That statment makes no logical sense. If it is not designed then it has no order. If it has no order then it came into being on a method other than design. Non-design I guess or randomly as I would call it. Either way it put itself together, which is illogical.
tedted33 3 years ago
i often wonder how creationists deal with the concept, in quantum mechanics, of the idea that "something occurs from nothing". that effect can pre-date the CAUSE of that effect. given this philosophy, there can be no rational argument for suggesting that simply because we are here, we MUST have been created. Cause and Effect. by this argument, it is quite possible that we created Him!
Winedarkseas 3 years ago
P-Branes!!!
firegiver 3 years ago
Strawman is the most common one that gets used on me. Fucking annoying as hell, partly because they're argueing against something I never said, and partly because they actually BELIEVE that's what I believe. I never said we evolved from apes, from rocks, or from nothing, but that's what creationists think evolutionists believe...grr.
NusquamNihil 3 years ago
i wonder, did god create the japanese and them told them to beleive in buddah? or however its spelled im not english
mariekish 3 years ago
well beleive what you beleive
since there are a ton of other religions, I guess that they must not be wrong either
religion is a part of evolution by the way
mariekish 3 years ago
great vid ArgusEyes
fegu 3 years ago
any intellegent person uses anology to prove a point. Evolution does state that everything came together by radom chance. From the big bang to biogenesis...ect. It states it all happend without design. Evolution is the most absurd belief every created by man's imagination. Even more ridiculous than the flat earth theory, because the earth does appear to be flat when observed from earth. No one has ever observed an ape become a human, ever. It is faith based not logical.
tedted33 3 years ago
whoa there! Evolution does NOT state that "everything" "came together," evolution is a change in alleles frequencies over time, and it's clearly a proven fact. Evolution has nothing to do with the ORIGINS of life! And it's more ethical to say "we don't know that, yet" than to say "it's a miracle."
Go back to school please.
fegu 3 years ago
tedted33:
"Evolution does state that everything came together by radom chance. From the big bang to biogenesis...ect. It states it all happend without design."
now that's what i call a classic example of the "strawman attack". so predictable...
lukeatmadik 3 years ago
SCIENCE!! Jimmy neutron salutes you!
ricklonghi909 4 years ago
Its good to see someone who can think logically about these arguements...more people need to be exposed to material illustrating logigal fallacies...
frosty956 4 years ago
the "proof by analogy" is usually a gross over-simplification of the opposing standpoint.
DADShadowFox 4 years ago
omg im so afraid of that woman, with her dead eyes and her confidence to say bullshit with such passion. That is a witch. For real. I m afraid, i go sleep in my parents bed tonight. :(
Punicalol 4 years ago
lol...a man who likes to hear his own voice too much!!!
Psionicman2000 4 years ago
LOL@ "logical fallacies."
God is beyond human logic.
RyanLeeParis 4 years ago
Wow, what an illogical statement.
God is absolutely unprovable but YOU want to act like you understand the nature of the supposed God. God is beyond logic is he? How would you know, because you think it? Because you feel it?
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
The object(s) of your faith are likewise, unprovable. We have here a faith vs. faith argument- not science versus faith. You choose a different source to abide by than the Christians, this is your choice not to be confused with logic.
ThisIDig 4 years ago
I'll assume that by "your faith" you mean the theory of evolution (otherwise the rest of this comment is, of course, invalidated for strawmannishness), so I'd like to know: How is "In populations of living beings allelic frequencies change due to mutation and selection" not a valid theory to explain the data collected on said beings?
garouHH 3 years ago
"In populations of living beings allelic frequencies change due to mutation and selection" No new information-only parent to daughter information takes place. Take climate change for example, Climate change brings a process of selection, but no new genetic information will aid the survival of these said beings-only the means by which they already have present in their genetic code.
"faith": You suppose a theory to be true based on other people's information that you process on "good faith".
ThisIDig 3 years ago
I bet the flavobacteria which developed nylonase through a frame shift mutation would love to learn that they don't exist. Except, of course, if you deem that to be "no new information" along with point mutation and all the other (documented) possibilities in which DNA can mutate, in which case, of course, that "no new information" claim would become "no non-genetic information", which I'd actually find plausible... So, where do you see a hard limit for genetic mutations?
garouHH 3 years ago
New genetic information is created by mutation - the miscoding of DNA base pairs during the meiosis process. The DNA code was misread in the source cell structure creating a mutant or a retro-virus managed to insert itself into the code. All humans are mutants - my code is different from my brothers, despite having the same parents. Most mutations are inert - no changes. Some are harmful - sickle cell is the result of one of these. Sometimes they are beneficial - HIV immunity. All are new data.
AzmodanKijur 3 years ago
RyanLeeParis, "God is beyond human logic"?! God was made with human logic, more comfortable to control the mass I'd say
woestijnvis07 4 years ago
God is easy, its the FSM that's beyond human logic. Your mind is too small to comprehend the greatness of the FSM.
artyfarty2 4 years ago
evolution......SORRY. lol
SCD4 4 years ago
Btw why has a person who believes in creation got to be a christain. You really a typical cliche of creation vs evoulition denial.
SCD4 4 years ago
You're right.. I'm sorry.
They can also be a Muslim, a mormon or a Thor worshipper. All different strands of the same disease.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
Apology excepted, your disease and God is science.
You have just swapped one for the other. Not really that enlightened are you.
Lie* Who said anything about having a religion. I hope you dont do reseach by taking so many things for granted.
SCD4 4 years ago
Science is a method, nothing more.
Kinda like, y'know, Wash then Rinse then Repeat. I would like to know how a method is in any way comparable to God.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
Got ya I remember that at school.
Method and observe, thats where the problems start.....................nothing to observe.
;-]
So if I keep washing, what a money comes out?
SCD4 4 years ago
U sir are a complete idiot, why would god be science? U cant even prove he excists?!
woestijnvis07 4 years ago
You are correct, ArgusEyes. Science is a process of investigation. It does not require faith in the unseen or leaps of logic to work. It does not dogmatically preach a set group of facts that cannot be impeached. It is an evolving process that re-evaluates itself constantly to ensure credibility.
AzmodanKijur 4 years ago
Yet what is a hypotheses a guess a theory a philos of a certain belief of what you think the experiment will conclude to. you go at it thinking that the hypotheses is true right? is that not a leap of faith? sure if your wrong you change your hypothesis but still to the point its a matter of faith in your stated hypothesis!
MattRivers22 3 years ago
Matt Rivers:
Actually, a scientist makesa hypothesis and then trys his hards to prove it false. That is the method of science; one can always find a stray fact that will prove a mad theory - this is precisely how conspiracy theories gain momentum. The scientific method demands that a hypothesis be assaulted from all sides in an attempt to MAKE it false. If it can withstand that kind of scrutiny, then it is on its way to becoming a candidate for a theory.
AzmodanKijur 3 years ago
so its vice versa what I said sorry I'm not a scientist but its still a leap of faith to call something wrong just as much to call it right. Its still a degree of philos in its approach.
MattRivers22 3 years ago
Science does not use "leaps of faith to call something wrong."
Someone has an idea about how something works (a hypothesis). They test it. The evidence either supports or contradicts the hypothesis. The evidence is evaluated. We all all learn something. No faith required.
Whereas with religion, it runs like this:
Someone has an idea. They state it as fact. No one is allowed to question it. In some cases, anyone who does is killed. The End.
TheboyPaj 3 years ago
It is like TheboyPaj says - science does not require and actually shuns anything to do with belief or faith. These are not evidence. All hypothesis are treated as false until they withstand scrutiny of scientific inquiry. Evidence is required to prompt the transformation from hypothesis to theory and not just one simple piece, it must be multiple pieces of evidence - all independently verified.
AzmodanKijur 3 years ago
You are right. Science is not comparable to mythology.
artyfarty2 4 years ago