I know that Christianity sounds silly to someone who doesn't know the Holy Spirit. The Bible will sound absolutely ridiculous if Christ isn't in you illuminating the scriptures.
Dear God, I pray that you will send your Holy Spirit to this man. I pray that you will give him Peace that transcends all Understanding, and I pray that you will prove yourself real to him. For only you know his heart.
Amen.
Sorry I couldn't answer your question. But I know that the Jesus thing isn't phony.
In this video, you say that the evidence for evolution is great. Could you could do a video on a few bits of evidence you believe supports evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. I find that so many people have such a poor understanding of what evolution is (I didn't learn it until 1st year uni) because teachers are afraid to teach it. I was a creationist until I actually saw the evidence for myself and realized it was overwhelming and that the creationists were misrepresenting facts.
If you check back through my videos for one entitled something like 'Jezuzfreek gets it wrong', or something similar.
This is the nearest I've gotten round to doing a video showing my favourite arguments for evolutionary theory. I have planned, at times, to do a more definitive video but there are so many already out there that I prefer to do stuff like 'from noah to abraham' , or my 'soul' video that are much less trodden ground
Your allegory is quite silly it appeals to nothing more than an emotive reaction from your subscribers. As an aside have you read all those books in the background? Lastly, you mentioned cosmology which modern theory do you subscribe to with regards to the beginning of this universe? Kind and warm regards,
My wife is a teacher, most of those books are hers - she keeps her books in the study and mine are in our drawing room.
Can i suggest that if my mother was killed my emotional reaction would be to see the guilty party punished to the fullest extent of the law and beyond - I would not wish to see an innocent man punished.
Last point: a fairly standard (inflationary) big bang model. Why do you ask?
Not at all just some run of the mill questions. What are your views with regards to Penrose and his view of a cyclical model for the evolutionary development and lifespan of the universe(s). I actually think you have a cool video character a kind of mix between Jonny ball and a Birmingham drone. However, the allegory in this video is still quite shitlol. Kind regards to you and the wife ;).
AFAIK some versions of a cyclical universe are based on some kind of collision, or slapping together , of branes which doesn't gel with an inflationary model (nor would inflation be required). I'm not sure if this is the version Roger Penrose is interested in, that is beyond my knowledge base on this.
Penrose (Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College OXFORD and PhD supervisor to Hawking). Well, very quickly, it ascribes and resembles in many ways to the theories that generally was at the fore of 1960s cosmological theory. It is interesting that mathematical physics is returning in some ways to some former theories.
All this fits rather nicely with a model of the universe that is eternal an infinite. I think in some way it also addresses some of the problems with infinites in the math. Roger Penrose writes some very cool pop science books. Just your sort of thing I imagine :). As an aside your allegory is still shit ;). Kind and warm regards
Well, I know you do but I don't think you've really backed it up. Involvong someones mother makes it emotional but so what? If the police came to you and told you they were prosecuting someone for your mothers murder because they 'don't like the look of him' I think most people would be enraged that potentially the real killer was getting away with it. Peoples reactions to this example, in my view, demonstrate whether they genuinely think such things class as evidence ... or not as some claim.
Hey relax yourself who rattled your fucking cage?. In ordinary life one must accept artistic criticism. I one cannot do this well we might drown in our own quagmire of contempt and arrogance. Look I am sub to you mate, which means I rather like your videos. So chillax you fuck! This allegory is still shit. Kind and warm regards,
I am not interested either way in your sub, you sub if you want to watch my videos you don't if you don't: it's not for my benefit.
With regard to rattled cages, almost every cooment you make you end with how shit my allegory is. Given that I disagree am I not allowed to debate you on it on my own video thread?
Imo YOU sound like the one who is rattled, swearing and unwilling to accept criticism. If the best you can muster is immature criticism you cannot/will not back up then feel free to unsub
Multiverses may be proven one day too. If there are numerouse versions of me all slightly different, I wonder at what variation I become unrecognisable as me. It depends on my many observers I suppose. That's a lot of witness accounts, all slightly different of course.
Personally I would not waste the effort trying to reason with religious people. They will believe what they want to and it is impossible to convince them otherwise.
I agree with your point, but you tripped a pet peeve of mine. I find this type of argument from example tends to be annoying. After about a minute, I understood your counterargument fully; the 'were you there?' argument would be laughed out of a court of law, because eyewitnesses aren't necessary to determine truth. I much prefer when people simply state their case and give a quick example. Drawing it out so long belabors the point and, to be honest, feels sorta condescending.
Yes, but you'd be surprised how many allegedly intelligent people don't get such a simple argument. I had to agonisingly explain this very type of example to someone recently, and they had a PhD in physics. They alleged you can't infer something unless you personally measure it. The same person said "radiocarbon dating is unreliable because it can be out by milllions of years", even though it cannot and is not used to date things millions of years old.
I take your point inasmuch as analogies can easily be made, and made very badly, to prop up pretty much anything. The point I wanted to make with this analogy was that their is an inconsistency in view point and to do so I wanted to do two things :
a) use similar kinds of evidence to that which we have for evolution
b) most importantly show an array of evidences all pointing toward the same suspect, which is an important feature with evolution
I'm not so sure a quick example would have done that
It also depends what you mean by theistic evolution. Their are theists who accept evolution in it's entirety, such as Ken Miller for example, and then their are some of the ID guys such as Michael Behe who claim that evolution does most of the work but requires external help on a couple of biological issues.
My biggest problem with theistic evolution, though, is where does a soul fit in to it?
I meant your thoughts on theistic evolution in general: would you consider it to be a reasonable position to take and would it be hypocritical for Christians or Muslims to believe in evolution and still maintaining their faith etc. And probably I'll be very interested if you make a devil's advocate sort of video and present a case for theistic evolution.
I think there are some problems with such a position (like I mentioned regarding souls and amplify on in my video 'i know you haven't got soul) but I certainly don't regard theistic evolution as entirely nonsensical and it certainly is a more reasonable position to take than creationism imo.
Islamic account of creation contradicts with the current scientific explanation of how life originated. I do not accept evolution as an accurate theory of the origin of life. This is not based on my scientific knowledge. I know you are gonna hate me for this :(
BTW, whats wrong with this wisemonkey person? I felt like punching my computer screen after reading his comments.
Hey Saqib, at least you are honest with yourself and others as to the basis for your beliefs.
I am sure that some people have reconciled their muslim faith with evolution, though I'm not sure exactly what that has involved.
With regard to Wisemonkey, I used to, as a matter of principle, put up with people like that with a policy of never banning. I've grown a bit tired of people like him though - so now i NEVER ban for criticism but baiting and trolling I have no time for.
Why should we hate you for your opinions? Granted there will be people who will hate you for such being of opposing view points (these types of people are always foolish) but not all of us Atheists will.
The ones we dislike are the ones who are vocally abusive towards others for choosing to think something contrary to what they believe in. I think that's something we can all agree on.
Naturally we will always defend ourselves when attacked, but most of us follow the golden rule.
2nd: The Theory of Evolution is the current incarnation of Darwin's theory, which was lacking in some ways and needed to be corrected. It states that over time all biological life undergoes adaptive mutations in response to the stimuli provided by the environment around it. It doesn't tell us where life came from, just how it developed over the millenia.
3rd: Abiogensis is the theory that life emerged from complex organic chemicals that combined in such a manner to produce the first cells. Scientists have had a few successes in replicated certain components of this, but have yet to actually produce definitive results.
Hey saqib09, it's no problem because evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. It only explains the change of genetic material from one generation to the next.
There are some common misconceptions about the various scientific theories on the structure of the universe and the existance of life.
1st: The Big Bang Theory is actually the working model of the universe as it relates to the observed movement of all matter in the known universe. It states that at one point 13.7 Billions years ago all matter and energy were confined into a very dense and hot space, and for reasons unknown, suddenly expanded along with space and time.
I like your argument. Very concise though I think it is a bit over a christians head. I say this because most would fall back on your attacking christians because you do not have blah blah blah.
Most can't handle a straight discussion but as for mature people with the ability to think as adults and have good conversations without feeling attacked it is a great argument.
(argument = discussion ) Not the other meaning of fighting.
I wish I could remember where, but I remember reading once something along the lines of:
A creationist is the sort of person who watches the OJ Simpson trial, weighs all of the testimony and evidence, notes that the prosecuting lawyers and defense lawyers disagree on where the evidence points, and therefore conclude that Nicole and Ron must still be alive.
Their just jealous because in the last 2000 years all religion has accomplished is oppression, ignorance, slavery, wars, a tiny bit of good, mass murders... etc. On top of all that, they've had 2000 years to provide evidence for their beliefs.
While science has accomplished curing many diseases, injuries, prolonged life, increased knowledge, produced some nasty weapons, reduced famines, made the quality life better for more than just the rich... etc. And science has provided evidence.
Google Ivan Milat. An Australian serial killer convicted on evidence with no witness testimony. To promote the were you there argument is to plea for his release.
Everything that you described is circumstantial evidence and the possibility that the man was framed cannot be ruled out. My question is: do you seek truth or just something that fits? Imagine that you were that man AND were innocent.
Indeed, we can never prove anything absolutely. If an eye witness had been present they could be part of the same deception. Even if I witnessed the crime myself I could have hallucinated or dreamt what i believed i had seen.
So the choice is yours: Do we refuse to ever convict anyone; do we convict the neighbour who may have been involved in a dispute involving the hedge: or do we go where the majority of the evidence points?
Your seeking of 'truth' sounds like you want me to convict the...
...poor neighbour just on the off-chance they may have fell out over the hedge and the whole thing got out of control and IGNORE almost the entire bulk of the evidence which points to the defendant. What kind of a search for the truth is that??
Just because you have no evidence of something's existence, don't be so quick to rule it out Noel. You should understand the concepts of multiple dimensions. Keep an open mind mate. Not everything is revealed to us by our senses. My seeking of truth is untiring: I don't rest until I've found it.
This video is not about the existence of God so your point is irrelevant. We are discussing the dismissal of the evidence for such things as evolution, the geological record and TBB on the basis that they do not form part of directly observed recorded history.
I will be the first to tell you that I never rule things out purely on the basis of no evidence but this is not the same as believing something on the basis of faith and wishful thinking.
But would your first thought be that "This man was clearly framed!"?
Noel does mention reasonable doubt, which seems to be what you're implying here.
However, the logical conclusion of your argument here would be that God has - with his creation - tricked us all by making the universe and Earth look older than the Bible supposedly claims, according to some.
You are quite right and of course the same applies to the extraordinary claims made in the Bible, "were they there" for which there is little or no evidence other than some manuscripts cobbled together by the Catholic Church a few hundred years after Jesus (if he ever existed) died. The same is true for the Koran which was put together long after its leader died.
Seems the fundies are ok with pushing this ridiculous position of 'Were you there?' all the time with the topic of TofE, Big Bang,. But when it comes to the justice system and proof of guilt or innocence, they expect science from the authorities. So sad isn't it? If they were on trial for their very freedom, they would want all of what science can muster to save their ass. Oh but when their sky daddy or holy books are attacked and analyzed by the same process, it's all wrong. Laughable
You can always raise the requisite standard of proof for things you don't want to believe in. This strategy used not only by creationists, but also by holocaust and climate change deniers.
There are japanese nationalists who deny that germ warfare experimentation and vivisection on humans ever took place at Unit 731. Even though the buildings remain and the "veterans" who worked there have an annual reunion!
He's not asking for evidence for god or for anything at all. Some of you seem to have misunderstood that in the comments.
This is Kent Hovind's favorite line which he used all the time (when preaching to the choir) before he was imprisoned for fraud. Something tells me such arguments do NOT hold up in court.
Observation of an event is not required for knowledge of an event.
Hm... I think it would be better if it wasn't "my" mother that had been killed, because there's an emotional investment there that shouldn't be there with things like the age of the earth. It would be better if it were just a woman on the street. That said, very good point.
I would bring a note saying the guy didn't do it and that doubting in the note is punishable by eternal damnation. That would destroy all the evidence the police presented and reveal it as a satanic lie by people that hates Jesus!!!
How people feel about evidence depends on what the evidence can do for them.
If it supports their argument they love it, if it doesn't they ignore it or try to discredit it.
If your house is robbed you want to preserve the evidence, if you robbed the house you want to destroy it.
Evidence is the great human being bullshit fucker. Always be wary of people who don't like the evidence, it'll always be because it doesn't help them.
I think you'll find most people here have long argued for logical EVIDENCE of god and all they get is imagination (or a lack of it) dressed up as revelation and we don't buy it .
But hey!
Take it away. Your logical evidence for god is....??
I would use exactly the same line when reviewing the evidence FOR God, of course I would.
In fact it is impossible to compare and contrast historical and scientific claims properly unless you accept all types of evidence and weight them appropriately.
"Would you be willing to use the same kind of logic when looking at the evidence for God? Very few atheist are willing to do this."
Are you claiming that a majority of atheists, when presented with evidence for God (please, show us what you have, btw), they would respond by saying: "were you there"?
It was that very line, "were you there?", in a kid's book, D is for Dinosaur by Ken Ham, given to my kids by a family member, that was the straw that broke the camel's back of that particular relationship.
In the book Ham calls on kids to challenge their science and history teachers with that line when their teaching contradicts the bible.
It was, ironically, a great object lesson for my kids about the intellectual dishonesty of those that would use such an immature and spurious argument.
A Brief History of Eternity: A considered response to Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" by Roy Peacock.
In it the author quote mines just about every notable scientist from history for references to god before concluding that the age of the universe etc are accurately described by science but on evolution we have it all wrong. -
- He cites the lack two particular fossils - flat fish intermediates (a Darwin misquote) and unicorns (an intermediate between creatures with no horns and two horns!!)
(AiG claim to have unicorn fossils to support their existence in the bible!!)
there is even a Ken Ham video out there where he suggwests creationists use it in answer to anyone discussing evolution or suggesting the biblical flood never happened etc.
I agree with the argument about a lot of things. The truth is that no one was there for many things, and even I who have been to Iraq with the U.S. Army can not prove yay or nay about the actual purpose of it. There are so many theories that people have, but since the government keeps things secret, everyone will never know the truth about it, unless they were directly involved. In the proposed cased death of my mother, I would be happy she is no longer in pain from the physical world.
Excellent video, but ... creationists are immune to evidence.
Look up the video for Rachel Maddow's interview of Frank Schaeffer about the evangelical subculture. "We have a subculture which is literally a 5th column of insanity that is bred from birth ... to reject facts."
Nobody has ever SEEN the internal parts of a Gun-type fission weapon operate! HOW CAN U ATHEISTS KNOW THAT IT WORKS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT DIRECTLY? It isn't like you can measure the effects of what was once an amazingly dense superheated ball of gas... oh wait.
How creationists can claim this is a valid argument I'll never know. There is no-one over 120 years old alive now, so I wonder if they would dismiss the american civil war, the battle of waterloo or even the resurrection of je...oh, wait, they believe that one don't they?
New Rule: 'if you believe that DNA evidence is unquestionable then you cannot hold the position that evolution is wrong.'
This is because you would be a hypocrite if you reject evolution yet believe in DNA evidence (for example used in a murder case). It could also be argued that by accepting DNA you therefore have to reject the 'god' concept, because DNA provides the strongest evidence for evolution (and not the fossil record). But I'd like to see them work their way round that one.
Great video as always Noel. You have a great ability to challange people into thinking about these things and counter some of the fundie arguments...well done mate!
The big irony is that no one was there during the alleged resurrection of Jesus and certainly no one was there when Adam and Eve were created and no one was there to witness Noah's Ark..
Wonderful argument Noelplum. Also, most Americans know the forensic investigators as "CSI" due to the name shortening and several popular TV shows. :P Doctor Who is still better though.
Your court metaphor may actually understate the kind of evidence we have for evolution. Evolutionary theories are developing predictive aspects, you don't get that from the kind of evidence presented in a criminal case.
The point goes more towards the fact that reasonable descriptions of events which you haven't yourself seen, or in some cases, weren't witnessed by anyone to verify a claim, are still valid. The same people claiming "you weren't there" as a refutation for evolution don't do it for anything outside of evolution. Not all analogies are perfect, but it is spot-on for what the analogy is trying to do.
"It still leaves creationists with a hope that some new line of evidence will save their world view"
There is some new line of evidence that will save their world view. We made it into a joke, because it is so ridiculous, but it still exists. "Last-thursday-ism" is one of my favorites. A deity, sufficiently powerful enough to create the universe can cover his tracks, and Yahweh might be keeping Armaggedon until we discover it. Ridiculous but not impossible.
As for the evidence thing, there is a threshold of evidence where there can be no doubt what happened. Not all cases have the same amount of valid evidence, and not all valid evidence is able to be used, especially in the U.S. trial system. A prosecutor would kill for the amount of quality evidence provided by Mr. Plum here. The only way it could have been better was had the killer taken a digital picture and put it on Myspace...
I think that was the point, there is so much evidence against the creationists idea of history. so to say the evidence for things like evolution and the big bang theory is not good enough so would the evidence in this made up case.
I've been thinking lately of starting a charity group to help steer Christians away from God awful arguments such as these. Truly, it is the non-believers health that is at stake:
"Won't you please give to the Christian God Awful Argumentation Eradication Fund? It might just be your peace of mind and hypertension that benefits." :)
Balance of evidence applies to civil trials. So an alternative scenario would be suing someone that conned you. Presenting the evidence to the judge and then after the judge rules on the balance of evidence you say to the judge 'were you there?'
Agreed Skooby, but the point is that if this kind of evidence is acceptable for a criminal trial, with its higher requirement for evidence, then it is more than adequate for a civil trial (or a scientific standpoint).
They have rejected logic because the result conflicts with their beliefs. They also have no idea what evidence is - they believe what scripture tells them and if that's good enough for them so by golly, it should be good enough for you as well. Even though it's merely somebody else's religion.
great job [as usual], noel. i get so tired of being asked "were you there," that i've taken to saying "yes, i was -- now bow down and worship your god!"
Must say that is a brilliant argument. Err well I think this whole "Were you there?" swings both ways, 100% of all Christians/Catholics/Whoever today, weren't there when Jesus was supposedly born, nor were they there upon the day of his apparent crucifixion, the uprising, so on and so forth, the difference however is that the evidence beyond reasonable doubt supports what we know scientifically, so thus I think religion is at quite a loss for any supporting evidence!
In some ways, asserting that one was there is the proper response, as it anticipates absurd and unsupported claims of "personal experiences".
Not that it matters. No theist from the Abrahamic superstitions has earned the right to go back to the big bang. Their own mythologies contradict reality far earlier.
How much of what you believe have you actually wiitnessed
cunnidvd 1 year ago
@cunnidvd
That's a very difficult answer to quantify. If I said between 25% and 75% that would probably be about the best I could give you.
noelplum99 1 year ago
I know that Christianity sounds silly to someone who doesn't know the Holy Spirit. The Bible will sound absolutely ridiculous if Christ isn't in you illuminating the scriptures.
Dear God, I pray that you will send your Holy Spirit to this man. I pray that you will give him Peace that transcends all Understanding, and I pray that you will prove yourself real to him. For only you know his heart.
Amen.
Sorry I couldn't answer your question. But I know that the Jesus thing isn't phony.
SocialMisfit9 1 year ago
Wonderful explanation. I wish I had thought of it.
lc237 2 years ago
Hi Noel,
In this video, you say that the evidence for evolution is great. Could you could do a video on a few bits of evidence you believe supports evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. I find that so many people have such a poor understanding of what evolution is (I didn't learn it until 1st year uni) because teachers are afraid to teach it. I was a creationist until I actually saw the evidence for myself and realized it was overwhelming and that the creationists were misrepresenting facts.
PlantPirate 2 years ago
If you check back through my videos for one entitled something like 'Jezuzfreek gets it wrong', or something similar.
This is the nearest I've gotten round to doing a video showing my favourite arguments for evolutionary theory. I have planned, at times, to do a more definitive video but there are so many already out there that I prefer to do stuff like 'from noah to abraham' , or my 'soul' video that are much less trodden ground
noelplum99 2 years ago
My response is too long to fit into 500 characters. Mind if I message you?
PlantPirate 2 years ago
ofc not, would welcome it
noelplum99 2 years ago
Noel, you've just said exactly what I've always wanted to say, and have put it so nicely and neatly. Thanks.
htoontube 2 years ago
Your allegory is quite silly it appeals to nothing more than an emotive reaction from your subscribers. As an aside have you read all those books in the background? Lastly, you mentioned cosmology which modern theory do you subscribe to with regards to the beginning of this universe? Kind and warm regards,
TheWisemonkey8 2 years ago
My wife is a teacher, most of those books are hers - she keeps her books in the study and mine are in our drawing room.
Can i suggest that if my mother was killed my emotional reaction would be to see the guilty party punished to the fullest extent of the law and beyond - I would not wish to see an innocent man punished.
Last point: a fairly standard (inflationary) big bang model. Why do you ask?
noelplum99 2 years ago
you married? really?
TheWisemonkey8 2 years ago
..are we heading down the personal insult route Wwisemonkey?
noelplum99 2 years ago
Not at all just some run of the mill questions. What are your views with regards to Penrose and his view of a cyclical model for the evolutionary development and lifespan of the universe(s). I actually think you have a cool video character a kind of mix between Jonny ball and a Birmingham drone. However, the allegory in this video is still quite shitlol. Kind regards to you and the wife ;).
TheWisemonkey8 2 years ago
AFAIK some versions of a cyclical universe are based on some kind of collision, or slapping together , of branes which doesn't gel with an inflationary model (nor would inflation be required). I'm not sure if this is the version Roger Penrose is interested in, that is beyond my knowledge base on this.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Penrose (Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College OXFORD and PhD supervisor to Hawking). Well, very quickly, it ascribes and resembles in many ways to the theories that generally was at the fore of 1960s cosmological theory. It is interesting that mathematical physics is returning in some ways to some former theories.
TheWisemonkey8 2 years ago
All this fits rather nicely with a model of the universe that is eternal an infinite. I think in some way it also addresses some of the problems with infinites in the math. Roger Penrose writes some very cool pop science books. Just your sort of thing I imagine :). As an aside your allegory is still shit ;). Kind and warm regards
TheWisemonkey8 2 years ago
Well, I know you do but I don't think you've really backed it up. Involvong someones mother makes it emotional but so what? If the police came to you and told you they were prosecuting someone for your mothers murder because they 'don't like the look of him' I think most people would be enraged that potentially the real killer was getting away with it. Peoples reactions to this example, in my view, demonstrate whether they genuinely think such things class as evidence ... or not as some claim.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Hey relax yourself who rattled your fucking cage?. In ordinary life one must accept artistic criticism. I one cannot do this well we might drown in our own quagmire of contempt and arrogance. Look I am sub to you mate, which means I rather like your videos. So chillax you fuck! This allegory is still shit. Kind and warm regards,
TheWisemonkey8 2 years ago
I am not interested either way in your sub, you sub if you want to watch my videos you don't if you don't: it's not for my benefit.
With regard to rattled cages, almost every cooment you make you end with how shit my allegory is. Given that I disagree am I not allowed to debate you on it on my own video thread?
Imo YOU sound like the one who is rattled, swearing and unwilling to accept criticism. If the best you can muster is immature criticism you cannot/will not back up then feel free to unsub
noelplum99 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I have a feeling the vanity of mediocrity is coming to the fore here? Yes?
TheWisemonkey8 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
As an aside... your allegory is still pig shit. Kind and warm regards,
TheWisemonkey8 2 years ago
You're blocked. Kind and warm regards.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Maybe he/she is disappointed that you're not single, and they wanted to make absolutely certain?
Gnug215 2 years ago 2
lol... cheeky. ;).
TheWisemonkey8 2 years ago
Multiverses may be proven one day too. If there are numerouse versions of me all slightly different, I wonder at what variation I become unrecognisable as me. It depends on my many observers I suppose. That's a lot of witness accounts, all slightly different of course.
stevepalmerssolid 2 years ago
About time! NoelPlum rules. Make much more videos way more often.
jacobromu 2 years ago
Personally I would not waste the effort trying to reason with religious people. They will believe what they want to and it is impossible to convince them otherwise.
CMO999 2 years ago
I agree with your point, but you tripped a pet peeve of mine. I find this type of argument from example tends to be annoying. After about a minute, I understood your counterargument fully; the 'were you there?' argument would be laughed out of a court of law, because eyewitnesses aren't necessary to determine truth. I much prefer when people simply state their case and give a quick example. Drawing it out so long belabors the point and, to be honest, feels sorta condescending.
4 stars.
Hooya2 2 years ago
Yes, but you'd be surprised how many allegedly intelligent people don't get such a simple argument. I had to agonisingly explain this very type of example to someone recently, and they had a PhD in physics. They alleged you can't infer something unless you personally measure it. The same person said "radiocarbon dating is unreliable because it can be out by milllions of years", even though it cannot and is not used to date things millions of years old.
Yep, PhD in Physics. I kid you not.
dutchroll 2 years ago
I take your point inasmuch as analogies can easily be made, and made very badly, to prop up pretty much anything. The point I wanted to make with this analogy was that their is an inconsistency in view point and to do so I wanted to do two things :
a) use similar kinds of evidence to that which we have for evolution
b) most importantly show an array of evidences all pointing toward the same suspect, which is an important feature with evolution
I'm not so sure a quick example would have done that
noelplum99 2 years ago
The same thing could apply to the crucifixion.
M0THERKN0WSBEST 2 years ago
It could indeed, though I have never known anyone question it on those grounds.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Jim, do you have any video where you talked about theistic evolution?
saqib09 2 years ago
I can't recall making any specifically Saqib.
It also depends what you mean by theistic evolution. Their are theists who accept evolution in it's entirety, such as Ken Miller for example, and then their are some of the ID guys such as Michael Behe who claim that evolution does most of the work but requires external help on a couple of biological issues.
My biggest problem with theistic evolution, though, is where does a soul fit in to it?
noelplum99 2 years ago
I meant your thoughts on theistic evolution in general: would you consider it to be a reasonable position to take and would it be hypocritical for Christians or Muslims to believe in evolution and still maintaining their faith etc. And probably I'll be very interested if you make a devil's advocate sort of video and present a case for theistic evolution.
saqib09 2 years ago
I think there are some problems with such a position (like I mentioned regarding souls and amplify on in my video 'i know you haven't got soul) but I certainly don't regard theistic evolution as entirely nonsensical and it certainly is a more reasonable position to take than creationism imo.
What is your position Saqib?
noelplum99 2 years ago
Islamic account of creation contradicts with the current scientific explanation of how life originated. I do not accept evolution as an accurate theory of the origin of life. This is not based on my scientific knowledge. I know you are gonna hate me for this :(
BTW, whats wrong with this wisemonkey person? I felt like punching my computer screen after reading his comments.
saqib09 2 years ago
Hey Saqib, at least you are honest with yourself and others as to the basis for your beliefs.
I am sure that some people have reconciled their muslim faith with evolution, though I'm not sure exactly what that has involved.
With regard to Wisemonkey, I used to, as a matter of principle, put up with people like that with a policy of never banning. I've grown a bit tired of people like him though - so now i NEVER ban for criticism but baiting and trolling I have no time for.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Why should we hate you for your opinions? Granted there will be people who will hate you for such being of opposing view points (these types of people are always foolish) but not all of us Atheists will.
The ones we dislike are the ones who are vocally abusive towards others for choosing to think something contrary to what they believe in. I think that's something we can all agree on.
Naturally we will always defend ourselves when attacked, but most of us follow the golden rule.
Grospoliner 2 years ago
It is for people like you I still have hope for our race.
saqib09 2 years ago
2nd: The Theory of Evolution is the current incarnation of Darwin's theory, which was lacking in some ways and needed to be corrected. It states that over time all biological life undergoes adaptive mutations in response to the stimuli provided by the environment around it. It doesn't tell us where life came from, just how it developed over the millenia.
Grospoliner 2 years ago
3rd: Abiogensis is the theory that life emerged from complex organic chemicals that combined in such a manner to produce the first cells. Scientists have had a few successes in replicated certain components of this, but have yet to actually produce definitive results.
Grospoliner 2 years ago
Hey saqib09, it's no problem because evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. It only explains the change of genetic material from one generation to the next.
dcinstinct 2 years ago
I'm actually quite illiterate in respect of the evolutionary theory. :) But hey, thanks for the reply man.
saqib09 2 years ago
There are some common misconceptions about the various scientific theories on the structure of the universe and the existance of life.
1st: The Big Bang Theory is actually the working model of the universe as it relates to the observed movement of all matter in the known universe. It states that at one point 13.7 Billions years ago all matter and energy were confined into a very dense and hot space, and for reasons unknown, suddenly expanded along with space and time.
Grospoliner 2 years ago
Thanks :)
saqib09 2 years ago
Just ask them back when they talk about Jesus dieing for your sins... "WERE YOU THERE"
DoogieTalons 2 years ago
I like your argument. Very concise though I think it is a bit over a christians head. I say this because most would fall back on your attacking christians because you do not have blah blah blah.
Most can't handle a straight discussion but as for mature people with the ability to think as adults and have good conversations without feeling attacked it is a great argument.
(argument = discussion ) Not the other meaning of fighting.
Just clearing up for the christians.
oblufire 2 years ago
I wish I could remember where, but I remember reading once something along the lines of:
A creationist is the sort of person who watches the OJ Simpson trial, weighs all of the testimony and evidence, notes that the prosecuting lawyers and defense lawyers disagree on where the evidence points, and therefore conclude that Nicole and Ron must still be alive.
roentgen571 2 years ago
Comment removed
Octamed 2 years ago
I tend to just ask them if they were there 'In The Beginning' when 'God created the heavens and the earth.'
Then when they say no, I tell them 'well, my version of events has a lot more evidence for it than yours... which is more likely to be true?'
rhettboy 2 years ago
lol I think the "were you there?" thing was started by Kent Hovind...
DisforDubby 2 years ago
Maybe the appropriate reply to the "Were there witnesses?" is, "No need to look for anything, there's plenty of evidence", and that's that.
n3rdm4n 2 years ago
Their just jealous because in the last 2000 years all religion has accomplished is oppression, ignorance, slavery, wars, a tiny bit of good, mass murders... etc. On top of all that, they've had 2000 years to provide evidence for their beliefs.
While science has accomplished curing many diseases, injuries, prolonged life, increased knowledge, produced some nasty weapons, reduced famines, made the quality life better for more than just the rich... etc. And science has provided evidence.
DavinCreed 2 years ago
O.J. Simpson...
That pretty much sums it up.
Draw whatever conclusion you like from it.
You're probably right in doing so.
Good to see you're back. I hope all is well, and that you stick around.
ravenslaves 2 years ago
Google Ivan Milat. An Australian serial killer convicted on evidence with no witness testimony. To promote the were you there argument is to plea for his release.
grenangle 2 years ago
Good to have you back Jim. Always love your videos.
trifelgeputinage 2 years ago
Everything that you described is circumstantial evidence and the possibility that the man was framed cannot be ruled out. My question is: do you seek truth or just something that fits? Imagine that you were that man AND were innocent.
SonistheFatherofMan 2 years ago
Indeed, we can never prove anything absolutely. If an eye witness had been present they could be part of the same deception. Even if I witnessed the crime myself I could have hallucinated or dreamt what i believed i had seen.
So the choice is yours: Do we refuse to ever convict anyone; do we convict the neighbour who may have been involved in a dispute involving the hedge: or do we go where the majority of the evidence points?
Your seeking of 'truth' sounds like you want me to convict the...
noelplum99 2 years ago
...poor neighbour just on the off-chance they may have fell out over the hedge and the whole thing got out of control and IGNORE almost the entire bulk of the evidence which points to the defendant. What kind of a search for the truth is that??
noelplum99 2 years ago
Just because you have no evidence of something's existence, don't be so quick to rule it out Noel. You should understand the concepts of multiple dimensions. Keep an open mind mate. Not everything is revealed to us by our senses. My seeking of truth is untiring: I don't rest until I've found it.
SonistheFatherofMan 2 years ago
This video is not about the existence of God so your point is irrelevant. We are discussing the dismissal of the evidence for such things as evolution, the geological record and TBB on the basis that they do not form part of directly observed recorded history.
I will be the first to tell you that I never rule things out purely on the basis of no evidence but this is not the same as believing something on the basis of faith and wishful thinking.
noelplum99 2 years ago
But would your first thought be that "This man was clearly framed!"?
Noel does mention reasonable doubt, which seems to be what you're implying here.
However, the logical conclusion of your argument here would be that God has - with his creation - tricked us all by making the universe and Earth look older than the Bible supposedly claims, according to some.
So is God a trickster?
Gnug215 2 years ago 2
You are quite right and of course the same applies to the extraordinary claims made in the Bible, "were they there" for which there is little or no evidence other than some manuscripts cobbled together by the Catholic Church a few hundred years after Jesus (if he ever existed) died. The same is true for the Koran which was put together long after its leader died.
Tridhos 2 years ago
Brilliant video!
DeletedDelusion 2 years ago
Great
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Nice to see another video by you again, Noelplum
zaneshark 2 years ago
Seems the fundies are ok with pushing this ridiculous position of 'Were you there?' all the time with the topic of TofE, Big Bang,. But when it comes to the justice system and proof of guilt or innocence, they expect science from the authorities. So sad isn't it? If they were on trial for their very freedom, they would want all of what science can muster to save their ass. Oh but when their sky daddy or holy books are attacked and analyzed by the same process, it's all wrong. Laughable
saxmanchiro 2 years ago
Well put Saxmanchiro. That's exactly it!
trifelgeputinage 2 years ago
You can always raise the requisite standard of proof for things you don't want to believe in. This strategy used not only by creationists, but also by holocaust and climate change deniers.
There are japanese nationalists who deny that germ warfare experimentation and vivisection on humans ever took place at Unit 731. Even though the buildings remain and the "veterans" who worked there have an annual reunion!
Maybe we could call it "implausible deniability".
cristop5 2 years ago
He's not asking for evidence for god or for anything at all. Some of you seem to have misunderstood that in the comments.
This is Kent Hovind's favorite line which he used all the time (when preaching to the choir) before he was imprisoned for fraud. Something tells me such arguments do NOT hold up in court.
Observation of an event is not required for knowledge of an event.
newexperiment 2 years ago
its been too long since your last on, glad you're back
thisis3d 2 years ago
If you didn't see a car go by, but later see tire tracks, then god did it.
Sav3TheWorld 2 years ago 8
If no one saw it, it didn't happen.
Ost Rich theory.
x246869 2 years ago
Really good video, this.
dewonthegrass 2 years ago 3
And let's not forget that they have even LESS evidence for the existence of god.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Hm... I think it would be better if it wasn't "my" mother that had been killed, because there's an emotional investment there that shouldn't be there with things like the age of the earth. It would be better if it were just a woman on the street. That said, very good point.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 2 years ago
I always enjoy your videos, noelplum.
antybu86 2 years ago
great video Jim, good angle to take on this.
gothatfunk 2 years ago
I don`t understand what you meant at all ~
chrissyshalom 2 years ago
Excellent point Noel!
h8uall66 2 years ago
I would bring a note saying the guy didn't do it and that doubting in the note is punishable by eternal damnation. That would destroy all the evidence the police presented and reveal it as a satanic lie by people that hates Jesus!!!
ADF203 2 years ago 2
How people feel about evidence depends on what the evidence can do for them.
If it supports their argument they love it, if it doesn't they ignore it or try to discredit it.
If your house is robbed you want to preserve the evidence, if you robbed the house you want to destroy it.
Evidence is the great human being bullshit fucker. Always be wary of people who don't like the evidence, it'll always be because it doesn't help them.
oldeubank 2 years ago
Were you there?
-No, but it's still here.
SAsgarters 2 years ago
awesome.
gothatfunk 2 years ago
Y.E.creationist claims god made the earth.... WHERE THEY THERE??? noo?! ok, case closed.
Paxmax 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You a pretty good arguement. In fact, I've made the same kind of arguement for evidence of God.
Would you be willing to use the same kind of logic when looking at the evidence for God? Very few atheist are willing to do this.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
I think you'll find most people here have long argued for logical EVIDENCE of god and all they get is imagination (or a lack of it) dressed up as revelation and we don't buy it .
But hey!
Take it away. Your logical evidence for god is....??
bakedbean37 2 years ago
I would use exactly the same line when reviewing the evidence FOR God, of course I would.
In fact it is impossible to compare and contrast historical and scientific claims properly unless you accept all types of evidence and weight them appropriately.
noelplum99 2 years ago
"Would you be willing to use the same kind of logic when looking at the evidence for God? Very few atheist are willing to do this."
Are you claiming that a majority of atheists, when presented with evidence for God (please, show us what you have, btw), they would respond by saying: "were you there"?
Gnug215 2 years ago
@Gnug215
Evidence for god. That is laughable.
List some please.
oblufire 2 years ago
Uhm, yes, quite.
Which is why I was asking TrustinJC for evidence for God.
Go YT comment system! ;)
Gnug215 2 years ago
I think Oblufire misunderstood the point you were trying to make there gnug.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Indeed. And perhaps he also didn't see to whom I was responding.
Good vid, though. This "argument" was in dire need of some good debunkage. :)
Gnug215 2 years ago
Sorry about that missed it because I can'T see the comment made by TrustinJC.
But if I can ever read it I will point out his biggest mistake.
Walmart is better than JC Penny
;)
oblufire 2 years ago
Quite alright. Like I said; yay for the YT comment system!
You might be able to see it if you show all comments and look for them there.
And well, it seems he really likes his JC Penny, so you'll have a hard time convincing him of the joys of Walmart.
Good luck! :)
Gnug215 2 years ago
It was that very line, "were you there?", in a kid's book, D is for Dinosaur by Ken Ham, given to my kids by a family member, that was the straw that broke the camel's back of that particular relationship.
In the book Ham calls on kids to challenge their science and history teachers with that line when their teaching contradicts the bible.
It was, ironically, a great object lesson for my kids about the intellectual dishonesty of those that would use such an immature and spurious argument.
bakedbean37 2 years ago 2
very interesting that it had that effect - pretty much precisely the opposite of what it was supposed to do.
noelplum99 2 years ago
You'd have loved the book she gave me.
A Brief History of Eternity: A considered response to Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" by Roy Peacock.
In it the author quote mines just about every notable scientist from history for references to god before concluding that the age of the universe etc are accurately described by science but on evolution we have it all wrong. -
bakedbean37 2 years ago
- He cites the lack two particular fossils - flat fish intermediates (a Darwin misquote) and unicorns (an intermediate between creatures with no horns and two horns!!)
(AiG claim to have unicorn fossils to support their existence in the bible!!)
Both books were returned with detailed critisism.
bakedbean37 2 years ago
They actually use that?
Orygyn 2 years ago
They do.
there is even a Ken Ham video out there where he suggwests creationists use it in answer to anyone discussing evolution or suggesting the biblical flood never happened etc.
noelplum99 2 years ago
MONKEY!!!
Geraldon1 2 years ago
I agree with the argument about a lot of things. The truth is that no one was there for many things, and even I who have been to Iraq with the U.S. Army can not prove yay or nay about the actual purpose of it. There are so many theories that people have, but since the government keeps things secret, everyone will never know the truth about it, unless they were directly involved. In the proposed cased death of my mother, I would be happy she is no longer in pain from the physical world.
IntiHehlua 2 years ago
nice vid. We need a seperaton of church & state here in the UK,the sooner the better.
chrisbuxton1958 2 years ago
Excellent video, but ... creationists are immune to evidence.
Look up the video for Rachel Maddow's interview of Frank Schaeffer about the evangelical subculture. "We have a subculture which is literally a 5th column of insanity that is bred from birth ... to reject facts."
papafox 2 years ago
Nobody has ever SEEN the internal parts of a Gun-type fission weapon operate! HOW CAN U ATHEISTS KNOW THAT IT WORKS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT DIRECTLY? It isn't like you can measure the effects of what was once an amazingly dense superheated ball of gas... oh wait.
generaleskimo 2 years ago
How creationists can claim this is a valid argument I'll never know. There is no-one over 120 years old alive now, so I wonder if they would dismiss the american civil war, the battle of waterloo or even the resurrection of je...oh, wait, they believe that one don't they?
StanMarsh1 2 years ago 3
New Rule: 'if you believe that DNA evidence is unquestionable then you cannot hold the position that evolution is wrong.'
This is because you would be a hypocrite if you reject evolution yet believe in DNA evidence (for example used in a murder case). It could also be argued that by accepting DNA you therefore have to reject the 'god' concept, because DNA provides the strongest evidence for evolution (and not the fossil record). But I'd like to see them work their way round that one.
MaJoRMJR 2 years ago
insightful and smart as usual....(BTW luv the monkey behind u on the book case), so glad to have u back mate
woolsey2000 2 years ago
Great video as always Noel. You have a great ability to challange people into thinking about these things and counter some of the fundie arguments...well done mate!
REDFTW 2 years ago
The big irony is that no one was there during the alleged resurrection of Jesus and certainly no one was there when Adam and Eve were created and no one was there to witness Noah's Ark..
pilgrimpater 2 years ago 8
Because they were all made up mate :P. No one was there at harry potters birth. Shockhorror.
roltthehunter 2 years ago 2
*sigh*
Were you there?
I am everywhere at every time and I know everything, now sod off.
ContinuumXT 2 years ago 4
Good video Noel, but one question. where the hell have you been lately?
MortalTodd 2 years ago
Oddly, I do not yet see any religious rebuttals. I wonder why. LOL!
Great video!
tecnoblix 2 years ago
Wonderful argument Noelplum. Also, most Americans know the forensic investigators as "CSI" due to the name shortening and several popular TV shows. :P Doctor Who is still better though.
AntiChristAntiFail 2 years ago
Your court metaphor may actually understate the kind of evidence we have for evolution. Evolutionary theories are developing predictive aspects, you don't get that from the kind of evidence presented in a criminal case.
zarkoff45 2 years ago
The point goes more towards the fact that reasonable descriptions of events which you haven't yourself seen, or in some cases, weren't witnessed by anyone to verify a claim, are still valid. The same people claiming "you weren't there" as a refutation for evolution don't do it for anything outside of evolution. Not all analogies are perfect, but it is spot-on for what the analogy is trying to do.
Cyrathil 2 years ago 2
"Not all analogies are perfect, but it is spot-on for what the analogy is trying to do."
I tried using Plum's argument a few years ago. I was introduced the information that many people have been wrongly convicted.
Google: "DNA tests tell us half of all deathrow inmates are innocent"
It still leaves creationists with a hope that some new line of evidence will save their world view. This is actually impossible now.
zarkoff45 2 years ago 3
"It still leaves creationists with a hope that some new line of evidence will save their world view"
There is some new line of evidence that will save their world view. We made it into a joke, because it is so ridiculous, but it still exists. "Last-thursday-ism" is one of my favorites. A deity, sufficiently powerful enough to create the universe can cover his tracks, and Yahweh might be keeping Armaggedon until we discover it. Ridiculous but not impossible.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Stupid limits...
As for the evidence thing, there is a threshold of evidence where there can be no doubt what happened. Not all cases have the same amount of valid evidence, and not all valid evidence is able to be used, especially in the U.S. trial system. A prosecutor would kill for the amount of quality evidence provided by Mr. Plum here. The only way it could have been better was had the killer taken a digital picture and put it on Myspace...
Cyrathil 2 years ago
I think that was the point, there is so much evidence against the creationists idea of history. so to say the evidence for things like evolution and the big bang theory is not good enough so would the evidence in this made up case.
fireflygirl246 2 years ago
"where you there!" just like in jesus camp lol, they teach them young. :P
SucculentJuniper 2 years ago
God that wasn't a documentary that was a horror movie.
AntiChristAntiFail 2 years ago 2
"Were You There?"
I've been thinking lately of starting a charity group to help steer Christians away from God awful arguments such as these. Truly, it is the non-believers health that is at stake:
"Won't you please give to the Christian God Awful Argumentation Eradication Fund? It might just be your peace of mind and hypertension that benefits." :)
Edella 2 years ago
Balance of evidence applies to civil trials. So an alternative scenario would be suing someone that conned you. Presenting the evidence to the judge and then after the judge rules on the balance of evidence you say to the judge 'were you there?'
theoriginalSkooby 2 years ago
Agreed Skooby, but the point is that if this kind of evidence is acceptable for a criminal trial, with its higher requirement for evidence, then it is more than adequate for a civil trial (or a scientific standpoint).
noelplum99 2 years ago
CGAAEF? I prefer the Safe Allocation of Teaching Applications for Numbskulls fund, for SATAN.
AntiChristAntiFail 2 years ago
For Satan!
Nice work Plum.
Glacies12 2 years ago
They have rejected logic because the result conflicts with their beliefs. They also have no idea what evidence is - they believe what scripture tells them and if that's good enough for them so by golly, it should be good enough for you as well. Even though it's merely somebody else's religion.
GWR3440 2 years ago 3
great job [as usual], noel. i get so tired of being asked "were you there," that i've taken to saying "yes, i was -- now bow down and worship your god!"
mrgeniusontv 2 years ago
ditto! as always a great vid!
nagchampafreak 2 years ago
Great to have you back Noel =) Missed your beautiful, shiny head ^^
seseon 2 years ago
Must say that is a brilliant argument. Err well I think this whole "Were you there?" swings both ways, 100% of all Christians/Catholics/Whoever today, weren't there when Jesus was supposedly born, nor were they there upon the day of his apparent crucifixion, the uprising, so on and so forth, the difference however is that the evidence beyond reasonable doubt supports what we know scientifically, so thus I think religion is at quite a loss for any supporting evidence!
DanceWithStrangers 2 years ago 3
Very enjoyable!
jround93 2 years ago
Why'd you do it? :p
premed2 2 years ago
Oh, outstanding!
GriffinPilgrim 2 years ago
my thoughts are:
1) you'd make an excellent barrister
2) I think I'd really enjoy having a conversation with you over a few pints at the local pub
another fine video NP!
AbdultheImpailler 2 years ago
...I would too if you were buying Abdul hehe!!
noelplum99 2 years ago
Good to see a video from you, been a while.
Krygeryo 2 years ago
Reasoning > Dogma
Atheistprimate 2 years ago
Brilliantly done!
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
I was indeed there.
Nashy119 2 years ago
In some ways, asserting that one was there is the proper response, as it anticipates absurd and unsupported claims of "personal experiences".
Not that it matters. No theist from the Abrahamic superstitions has earned the right to go back to the big bang. Their own mythologies contradict reality far earlier.
Gnomefro 2 years ago
How come their heresay evidence is better than our heresay evidence?
malestrithe 2 years ago
It isn't. Our evidence is better in terms of quality and quantity. In fact they don't have much which in scientific terms would qualify as evidence.
phaexus 2 years ago