Creationism Top 25 Logical Fallacies 1of3

[Livy8ful]

I actually believed in evolution for years - and I really want to believe in evolution!! But every stone I uncover leads me to seriously doubt it. Every word you used in the beginning of this you tube video I could easily use about the theory of evolution. Your video was an embarrassment to the theory of evolution and you are completely blind to the fact that the arguments you use are exactly the arguments that one could easily use against evolution.

[Yaddrasile]

Now, isn't this series a form of the fallacy Poisoning the Well?

[PlseDontDeleteThis]

fellatious ...

[scudder91]

1 word, archaeopteryx ;-)

[digger629]

You are mistaken sir>

Micro evolution is> variations within a species. That does happen.

Macro evolution is> One species changing into another.  That does not happen.

[Cihl280777]

This one came in the "recommended for you" section for me. And entertaining it certainly is. :-)

[digger629]

Micro evolution does happen...No argument... Macro and all the other kinds of evolution that you support does not. Case closed!

Belief in evolution calls God a liar. Scripture says, "after their kind". Evolution says, "living things evolved into other living things" Believe that or Scripture...You can't believe both!

[FiverBeyond]

Ho...boy.

Macroevolution does happen, and has been observed. Observed speciation is a great example of this. Creationists are very careful to avoid defining what they'd accept as a "kind" because one of these is always true:

1. Man and (other) apes are the same kind.

2. One kind has been know to split into two. Not only that, but there is no boundary between macro and micro evolution. Macro evolution is simply micro-evolution over time.

[digger629]

Really..."The eye is not that complicated"

Try producing one yourself.

Write me back when you finish.

[digger629]

To SchecterxGuitars:

Your right...evolution IS proven...PROVEN WRONG!

[RockSmithStudio]

@digger629

If evolution is proven wrong, why is it taught in classrooms in all of the most powerful/intellectual nations? Just list some of the flaws in biological evolution. I bet all of them will either be misinterpreted information or flaws that have already been solved, and since when is accepting evolution casting aside God's existence? How does accepting evolution reject Jesus Christ's Resurrection? Evolution has nothing to do with Jesus so it doesn't disprove him!

[digger629]

Anyone and I mean ANYONE who can look at what God created and how complex, and beautiful things are and say that they just evolved that way is just mind boggeling. Consider just how complicated the eye is...It couldn't evolve. All the components had to be there in the beginning or it could not function, improve or evolve in any way. My God is a Great Wonderful Creator, Full of Wisdom. Praise His Name Forever.

[Velox415]

Wow how ignorant are you. The eye is not that complicated, there are many animals living TODAY that don't have all the components (a lens, for example, or a light sensitive patch without a cup). There are many models of eye evolution, but you instead choose to hide your head in the sand.

Here, I did the work for you, watch these:

/watch?v=g7j8QL3Z6qg From about 8:00 on, and continues on in the next part at /watch?v=dfj3z2L8V0A&feature=P­layList&p=B1DC9BC69A8C5753&ind­ex=6

Or Google

[digger629]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black....

Everything in this video can be reversed and applied to the evolutionists argument.

[SchecterxGuitars]

No...it can't.

Evolution is proven, stop being so dumb.

[rainbowcicak]

@SchecterxGuitars Evolution is proven ? Oh really , tell me.

[xxDaemonGirlxx]

@rainbowcicak Yes, it is. 

[MrGunnnah]

@rainbowcicak If you really want him to prove to you that evolution is real your gonna have to read the whole book about Natural selection, evolution and adaptation.

[UnoriginalMind]

Evolution does not in any way explain how the world began, and people who say it does, or that people who believe that it does, know nothing of evolution. Evolution is merely the explanation of how species change over time.

[ShilohX1]

has this vid been votebotted???

[JoseEatsAirplane]

I think so.. -.-

[Boognish64]

That comment about Darwin being a racist was pretty bold. Anyone who understands context would realize that 'races' in that comment was synonomous with 'species'.

[gguilford72]

in any case, even if darwin was a racist, that has nothing to do with the science of evolution.

[GodSpeed1969]

Your video is a blatant, conspicuous, flagrant, glaring, gross, obvious, patent, pronounced, rank, striking, distinct, evident, notable, outstanding, plain, salient; absolute, arrant, downright, out-and-out, outright, sheer, stark, utter; abominable, atrocious, awful, deplorable, execrable, heinous, monstrous, outrageous, preposterous, and shameful joke. Using the very same "tactics" that you are accusing the creationists of using. Try using evidence instead of accusations. PATHETIC!!!

[Mithcoriel]

What, this video? So you say ExtantDodo was using fallacies? Care to point out where?

And yes, it doesn't include evidence for creationism, as this isn't what the movie is about. It's about fallacies creationists use. Or would you say the examples weren't fallacies?

[clericalerror]

Pathetic? For every fallacy he used an example of a creationist (except the last one) using that fallacy to get their views across, which were wrong. Isn't that evidence? maybe you're not like that but people like kent hovind are.

[GodSpeed1969]

The reason I chose the word pathetic is because the examples given are skewed and often taken out of context. By its very nature, it is making the exact same "logical fallacies" to tear down the creationists argument.

I don't care which side of any debate you are on, accusing your opponent of using questionable tactics and then employing the very same tactics is deplorable and pathetic.

[clericalerror]

you can see both videos of kent hovin and the other guy with side burns, both of them actually used the fallacies they werent taken out of contents, for example when the guy with side burns said that Darwin was a racist.

[GodSpeed1969]

Having watched videos of both Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, their arguments are not fallacies but commonly taught debate practices. If you go to any Ivy League school and learn to debate they will teach you the same practices as these two men employ. That does not make their argument true but it does not make them false either.

As far as Charles Darwin, read his book The Descent of Man. By the time you get through chapter 7 you will have no doubt that he was a racist.

[golddigger159]

I'm so embarrased to realise Ken Ham is of Australian origin. I feel I need to apologise to the rest of the world for this. We had him deported to N. America so that he can't do any further harm in Oz.

Good video. Keep up the good work.

Education cures religion.

[G11EM2]

@golddigger159 So you shipped him off to us? What are we supposed to do with him? You guys need to take him back, we have enough real American idiots already. Seriously man. Why do we get all the stupid people?

[lastgospel]

this is why you guys get no visits to this video, is so silly the way extant dodo tryies to refute creationist arguments. instead of refuting by displaying actual scientific proofs of evolutionism they spend time bringing on stupid comments. God bless you all.

[redvision350]

It seems you either have not watched the videos, have not bothered to look up the sources he cites, or are just extremely ignorant. Though this is beside the point because this video is not about disproving evolution, it is about common logical fallacies used by creationists. What is there to prove? The video segments are the "proofs" or examples of the fallacies. Please to try to actually watch the videos before spouting off nonsense.

[lastgospel]

maybe you don't pay attention, Im criticizing this video, not others. please try to read carefully and understand my comments before coming up with this nonse comments.

[redvision350]

But you do criticize others; "...so silly the way extant dodo tries to refute creationist arguments". I would consider that criticism.

[Mithcoriel]

I would have hoped they'd explain each fallacy a bit more in detail so everyone understands WHY the specific examples are wrong, and judging by your comment I was right. Which of these arguments did you think made no sense? Which of these creationist quotes did you think was NOT a fallacy?

[warren52nz]

I love the way Kirk Cameron criticizes the idea that there was a Big Bang and "poof" suddenly there they were.

That's not how Science describes it... THAT'S HOW CREATIONISTS DESCRIBE THE BEGINNING! Losers!

But very VERY entertaining!  ROFLMAO!

[sneakytanderson]

so how do youuu describe how the world came together??? Evolutionists think the world came from the big bang. Nothing comes from Nothing!

[warren52nz]

Go get an education God Boy! Evolution describes the mechanism whereby life diversified from simple organisms to what we see today. It says NOTHING about the origins of the Universe. You're thinking about Cosmology.

And anyway, Cosmologists do NOT say that the Universe came from nothing... that's what CREATIONISTS say. God came from nothing, He was always there.

Kinda ironic you accusing Scientists of the very thing YOU'RE guilty of... LOL

[warren52nz]

Oh I forgot to answer your question:

The world came together by (cue drum roll)

........ GRAVITY!!!

[sneakytanderson]

annddddddd........ who told you that??

[warren52nz]

Sorry I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man (or woman).

[hank1972]

Evolution and the Big Bang are 2 different things. The Big Bang released all the matter and energy that was trapped in a particle, so your statement that it came from nothing is not right since all of it was released. Abiogenisis was started when complex proteins started to self replicate, this has been duplicated too. Make alot more sense to me that a Guy in the sky made all of this, so how made the man in the sky, remember your rule nothing can't come from nothing.

[lovetoeatallthefood]

Love the intro text :)

[wolfwing1]

Do you or anyone else go into some of these and disprove, or explain in greater details? ABout 60% I've seen and had explained, but the rest you say it's a fallacy and then don't explain what the mistake is beyond that. Like the red herring, I would like to know a bit more info on what that actually was.

[Mithcoriel]

I think I understood most of em. Which one do you have a question about? Maybe I can help.

[wolfwing1]

I would have to look into it again, though red herring might be a good start how does it work exactly?

[DarwynJackson]

I think red herring is just like a distraction, having nothing to do with the actual argument at hand.

[fitedeltachi]

Love the video! Keep up the good work!

[VenomFangXD]

I WANT EXTANTDODO BACK!!!

[NightOfImmortality]

I love these videos. I watch them rather frequently. Its a shame ExtantDodo was suspended. D:

[Friendo1231]

Dodo's account has been suspended... why...?

[lennyhipp]

The first time it was the Discovery Institute, this time their account was suspended because CSE (Hovind's asshole organization) filed DMCA take down notices. E.D. filed a counter notice back on June 25th. Hopefully their account will be restored soon.

I can't/wont encourage you to spam their channel but the YT community shouldn't take this bullshit lying down. There's a LOT of fans of E.D., thunderf00t, DonE, AronRa, CDK, Potholer, etc. on YouTube. We should let our voices be heard!

[Friendo1231]

He never preached hate... he could sue YouTube for infringing his right to free speech and he could also attack the CSE.

Has he set up a petition? Because I'll sign it without question.

[lennyhipp]

he would have to sue Hovind's org. they are the ones that filed the false DMCA take down notices. YT did nothing wrong, they are protecting themselves from being sued if CSE actual DID own the copyright as they claimed!

[Friendo1231]

That's true. All I know is someone has the potential to be sued in this conundrum.

[djarm67]

This is a philosophical religious position. That is fine. It is not science and should not be taught in science classrooms. If your world view or belief system (like mine) sees something behind this universe, it does not automatically make it a testable claim via the process of methodological naturalism (the scientific method). When these people make testable claims which are clearly wrong when tested or dishonestly wrong when they lie about the evidence, their true motives come into question.

[Thundralight]

The bible says God can be clearly seen by his creation. Look around at all the things than men have made- cities, cars, roads, houses, computers, space rockets ect and you can see the hand of a creator behind these things, just as you can see the hand of a creator behind this universe.

[Gnug215]

Does a car remind you of a tree?

Does a rock look designed? Does mud?

I can see man made things because I have experienced and learnt it, not because I can see it out of my inherent human nature.

The universe looks rather messy if you ask me, although governed by certain laws, which usually exhibit both chaotic and orderly properties.

[srb1369]

No. That is a terrible analogy worn thing by creationists. And it's completely fallacious. When you look at cities, cars, roads, houses, etc. you KNOW they were made by humans. When you look at the universe you can only GUESS.

[TBTabby]

I just discovered that Extant Dodo's account was suspended. Take a wild guess as to why. Thanks for the mirror, but watch out the same hting doesn't happen to you.

[ProcInc]

I am extremely revlieved that this video (now series) remains. I discovered to my horror that it disappeared recently

[RedneckkRudy]

Great video, glad it's back up.

[PurushaDesa]

I like the God Delusion tribute at the start.