Creationist Stupidity, Misconceptions, and Outright Lies Part VI

[lna1102]

Fuck you're smart.

[quote55]

@pearlsb4swine1969 awwe is he moving to quickly for you

[MrMLabi]

@pearlsb4swine1969 "They can't learn"? What? One of the biggest parts of science is LEARNING. That's why science is so great, it just gets better and better everytime we discover something new. The bible is just a book, it can't "update" but science can.

[romney27]

I like how you "pick and choose" what science you cite. Science uses conjuncture to say that the universe was a "singularity". They say that this "singularity" transcended "time and space" . They say that the "singularity" began expanding spontaneously and that everything in the universe is evolved from a hand full of light gases. This is main stream science, and if truly correct, then the "transcendent omni potent" nature of this "singularity" would be exactly what some call god. next.lo

[Strangerinasland]

@romney27 "then the "transcendent omni potent" nature of this "singularity" would be exactly what some call god"

What purpose can be served by calling that god??? It has no intelligence or will. If you can call that god, I can call the moon god.

[romney27]

@Strangerinasland the purpose is self prescribed. Why did man evolve such an ability? I hardly think it must have no purpose. Besides I think "moon god" is already taken. : )

[bignastydragon]

@pearlsb4swine1969 If your god exists then I should be able to find evidence in every bit of the universe. Not conveniently hiding in the bits I know nothing of. Furthermore, if your god exists, science would be impossible as the laws of nature would be constantly broken by this being, and even more I would expect the universe to be much more like the Harry Potter universe with wizards and mythical beings alive today.

[romney27]

@bignastydragon science can not quantify "dark energy", it is unquantifiable. The only way to observe it is by its "effect". It is supposed that it exist because its effect is observed. Science can't quantify why "matter" has "mass" either, but it's effect can observed. Math can't quantify the "observer" but the effect of "observation" can be tested in the lad.... Religion can't quantify "god" but its effect can be observed. if science can do this then religion can do it. fact

[bignastydragon]

@romney27 Why are you talking about quantifiblity? The 'quantity' of dark matter is quantified, but this is useless until we know what it is. Why matter has mass is not quantitative. Math can't quantify 'the effect of the observer' but physics does, and it can easily be understood because it is only the effect of matter/energy interacting with other matter/energy.

I would love to see evidence for the effect of a god or gods, but I have seen none, zero, ziltch, zip, nada.

[bignastydragon]

@pearlsb4swine1969 Learn some undergraduate genetics for the facts, then read through On The Origin Of Species, preferably a 1st Ed. It is quite clear that the general conclussion of natural selection is a logical neccesity. It requires no concensus.

[TheCaptainLulz]

@pearlsb4swine1969 as opposed to the hocus pocus of a "god dun it"? Your inability to understand evolution and abiogenesis does not change the fact that it works.

[njintau]

Awesome vids man!

[bignastydragon]

@GsliMaIiy

1) Jesus has not been shown to exist, never mind have fulfilled any prophesy. Any proposed fulfillment could just as easily be chalked up to the NT writers having access to the OT and filling in the blanks.

2) The statements are hearsay written at least 30 years after the supposed death of Jesus by anonymous authors.

3) No contempory secular sources (or non-secular for that matter) comment on the life of Jesus. Most of the writers are commenting on Christians, not Jesus.

[MisterClassified]

@bignastydragon Mayby the Jesus happening was alien conspiracy.

Mary got a child without sex - Aliens planting infants to grow inside women today for their experiments.

Star leads wise guys to barn - UFO ships look like moving stars at night.

And what else...

Just thoughts.

[tubewatch59]

Realize also, that in the title of your film, you accuse creationists (some of them) of having stupidity, misconceptions and outright lies. (I'm bringing this up because you said it first.)

Without having demonstrated the hypothesis at 1:18 (which you said had been demonstrated numerous times, and which is neccessary for your argument to have any force) - it could be argued that you've also been guilty of stupidity, misconceptions, and outright lies.

Perhaps you should redo this section.

[tubewatch59]

But if you did correct it (by substituting "hypothesized" instead of "demonstrated") you'd be losing the force of the argument.

Where you're going wrong here, is in trying to claim that a hypothetical scenario is truth, by claiming the hypothesis has been demonstrated to be a fact, numerous times. But of course, it hasn't even been demonstrated once, being merely a hypothesis which itself is merely a restatement of one of the axioms of your philosophical position.

You shouldn't do that.

[tubewatch59]

But you know, you can't just eqivocate the neccessary hypothesis of the philosophy of naturalism with a demonstration of that hypothesis. Since (it seems to me at the moment - correct me if I'm wrong) there is no demonstration yet in the scientific literature that life grew from simple self replicating molecules, becoming more complex and eventually forming cells - you should correct that statement at 1:18 to say "As has been hypothesized many times" instead of "... demonstrated many times".

[tubewatch59]

The hypothesis that -

"life grew from very basic self replicating molecules, and became more complex, eventually forming cells..." is really just a restatement of one of the axioms of the philosophy of naturalism.

Naturalism assumes that there is no creator / designer who in the past created life from non-life. So if we hypothesize that is true, then obviously life must have indeed formed from the laws of chemistry alone, with no intelligent design involved.

[Vincentaneous]

@tubewatch59 This is a reasonable position because 1) we have never observed anything being created from nothing, 2) we have never observed a mind that existed outside of a electrochemical device, and 3) everything that we have seen created has been created by a natural, physical process - e.g., watches are complex and are designed by humans, whose minds are electrochemical machines ... a natural, physical process.

[tubewatch59]

@Vincentaneous

You cannot say that. It would be the equivalent of my saying something like this: "As has been demonstrated numerous times, we were created by Eternal God." And then my claiming that such a statement was reasonable, since we have never observed mindless natural chemistry forming life from simple chemicals. I think it's reasonable, but it's certainly never been demonstrated. While my inference to God is logical enough, if I claimed it's been demonstrated, thats wrong. See?

[Vincentaneous]

@tubewatch59 What I'm trying to say is: even if you prove that life cannot develop by a natural process, that still doesn't indicate that a God did the deed. You first have to show that a mind can exist outside of a physical device, and then show that this disembodied mind can interact with matter. The only minds we know of are physical computers of various kinds. Showing that the origin of life requires some sort of organizing force that we don't understand does not show that God exists.

[tubewatch59]

@Vincentaneous

Sure.  We certainly can't prove God did it. But we can infer that some kind of an intelligence did. All possible explanations involving mindless natural processes (MNP) have only one set of alternatives, which is MNP + some kind of intelligent design. There are no other alternatives. So as long as no MNP seems to be able to do the job, we can reasonably infer (by extrapolation from what human intelligence manages to achieve) that intelligent design likely got the job done.

[Vincentaneous]

@tubewatch59 Let's say you prove that natural selection could not create life from non-life. This doesn't prove than an intelligence is required because there may be another form of MNP that could do that job. Also, using human intelligence as a model for intelligent design is not a good idea because human intelligence comes from physical computation. You are proposing a supernatural disembodied mind, which is not a chemical process like human intelligence.

[tubewatch59]

@Vincentaneous

You're saying - assuming we ever did demonstrate that NS cannot do such things, perhaps another kind of mindless natural process could. Sure, there might be such a process. Or maybe not. But we'd need to first discover such a process before it can be used to falsify the ID inference. Since we've already discovered the "intelligence process" (which can easily get this kind of thing done) then it is reasonable to TENTATIVELY infer ID, until a natural solution is discovered.

[Vincentaneous]

@tubewatch59 ID will have to explain how a mind can exist without a physical mechanism to create that mind. ID implies that there is something more to intelligence than just a complex arrangement of matter, and that contradicts what we observe. We have conclusive evidence that minds are made of matter, and zero evidence to the contrary. So you see, ID is not a default position. It asserts something contrary to what we observe in the universe.

[tubewatch59]

@Vincentaneous

ID doesn't claim that intelligence existed without matter. That's a religious concept, but it's something ID doesn't make any claims about. ID is concerned with differences between mindless natural processes and processes involving intelligence. I wouldn't deny that your observation is evidence that observed intelligence is so far always known to be associated with physical matter. But you're taking the discussion out of science. We don't know enough about such things.

[tubewatch59]

Firstly I disagree with what you said at 1:18. You said: "As has been demonstrated numerous times, life grew from very basic self replicating molecules, and became more complex, eventually forming cells..."

What you really meant to say I'd think, is: "As has been HYPOTHESIZED (not DEMONSTRATED) numerous times ..." Now perhaps I've missed some key studies, but I know of no research that actually demonstrated that "life grew from very basic self replicating molecules". Do you disagree?

[tubewatch59]

I have some criticisms. Just as a side note I wish to add that we creationists have the initial motivation (thelogical) to critique naturalistic hypotheses, and see if they hold up OK. But any objections of a naturalistic hypothesis must of course be scientifically based, not theologically based.

[mrtruthfinder1975]

great series....i like alot

[Pinage]

diagnoras, it's not fair of you to continually pick on Hovind. Surely there's one intelligent creationist out there who is a better representation of creationists in general... Actually scratch that - props to you! :D

[Copsweet]

Curious,do you think you'll change someones mind when you call them a stupid liar? Way to reach the masses

[diagoras54]

EXPLAIN THE "FALLACIES OF ARGUMENT"! If you can't do so, then they don't exist. And while the concept may be difficult for you to understand, one does not equal two, regardless of the argument.

[shaun365]

You can lead a horse to water, my friend....

Meanwhile, the rest of us applaud your effort and appreciate it.

[diagoras54]

"Science babble"? You mean "scientific fact"? If you can't provide any evidence and explain why the analogies are flawed, then you're simply an idiot blindly flailing against that which you don't understand.

[diagoras54]

How is associating myself with a "we", meaning scientists and those who understand what they're talking about, two logical fallacies? You really are incompetent, aren't you?

[diagoras54]

I don't think for myself? I greatly appreciate that you would judge me without having met me; it's extremely ironic that YOU criticize ME of arrogance. I don't care about the majority: the majority used to believe the plague was caused by Jews and that earthquakes were god's judgement. Science draws out the truth, regardless of the interpretation of a few people who don't understand the direction in which the evidence points.

[diagoras54]

Why is my analogy ridiculous? Present the intellectual fallacies. You haven't made an argument, merely spewed rhetoric without backing it up. I'm skeptical of literally everything I hear and I don't accept anything I hear with "blind faith". I didn't learn about evolution through "the propagandic media".

[diagoras54]

Present the evidence for god. If you watch some of my other videos, you'll find that I used to be a devout Christian, and stopped believing because the evidence points in the exact opposite direction. I didn't lose my faith because of my "ego" or "arrogance". Put up or shut up.

[bttsstewart]

WE'VE GOT TO GET EVERY CREATIONIST OUT THERE TO WATCH THIS VIDEO SERIES. But, alas, it will not happen... :-(

[AEVautomatic]

bonanas are proof of god because he created them to fit in your hand and mouth perfectly.

[bttsstewart]

@AEVautomatic Haha... XD! Ray COmfort is never gonna live that down.

[TheAtheistSwede]

Excellent series. And *woefully* under-viewed.

[Danmill23]

Yeah nice work dude!

[Cyrathil]

My favorite response to the "it's too improbable to have happened" is to just reference our own lives. With so many choices going on each day, just limiting it to one person, the fact that the choices which occurred are so "improbable" we must be controlled. There goes free will... Add in entire civilizations, and whatever deity there is must love to micro-manage.

[BionicDance]

I wish I had more to say beyond, "I dug this vid like a backhoe."

I mean, I can't argue with it; I agree with it.

You keep makin' 'em, I'll keep watchin' 'em. :)