Fivepointbaptist Drop Kicks Evolutionary Dogma

No description available.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• evolution
• God
• bible
• truth
• open air
• preaching
• promenade
• fivepointbaptist

[CorrosionX3]

Can you just refute or confirm the 6000 year earth argument? Or if you talked about it previously just send me the video id...

[1tmoch]

@CorrosionX3 I respond to this question in a video called "shane dawson pretends to be a christian." I start explaining it at 2:45.

[JustAnotherMutant]

1) Flat earth, geocentrism, heavy objects falling faster than light ones weren't findings of science.

2) Newtonian mechanics, while incorrect, are so close to correct that we still teach them in schools.

3) Yes, the child of 2 parents of a species is always the same species as the parent. Common Descent/Theory of Evolution doesn't disagree with that.

4) Frogs "turning into" something else is a fallacy of equivocation about "turns into", so yes, his logical fallacy is ridiculous.

[1tmoch]

@JustAnotherMutant 1) People engage in scientific processes and figure out things. All findings are findings of people. "Science" doesn't find or do anything.

2) Explain

3) He is speaking in a drawn out sense over time, but then again there is S.J. Gould with his punctuated equilibrium.

4) It is not equivocating. It is what is claimed, and he is saying what i just explained in #3. You are simply misunderstanding, but i won't accuse you of logical fallacies on account of that.

[2row777]

Chris is wearing his favorite shirt.

[MolecularBioVids2]

“A frog turning into a prince… [is taught] as science.”

Although I understand the idea behind this rhetoric, I should point out that not only are amphibians the cousins of mammals, branching from tetrapods along with amniotes around 350mya, but even the synapsid/sauropsid split (at around 300mya) predates the evolution of frogs (around 250mya) by about 50 million years. In fact, therapsids evolved around the same time frogs did. So no, therapsids such as mammals did not evolve from frogs.

[MolecularBioVids2]

“It was fact that the Earth was flat… [and] that the universe revolved around the Erath—going from Newtonian mechanistic physics to an [Einsteinian] view or relativity.”

These ideas regarding the shape of the Earth and behavior of the other stars/galaxies were based on very small amounts of data, and as such were highly presumptive. As usual, it was consistent application of the scientific method that zeroed in on the truth. Also, relativity merely exceeded Newtonian mechanics in precision.

[LegbaBogui]

I like how your videos cut out after the main poin. God has edified me, using you.

Thanks.

[JustAnotherMutant]

3) Dr Gould is also speaking in a long drawn out sense of time. In common descent/theory of evolution, at no point is the "everything gives birth to it's own kind" violated.

4) It is not what is claimed using the definition of "turns into" on the left. That is what makes it the fallacy of equivocation. It's also not "a frog", in that "a" would be a group instead of a single creature, and they wouldn't be frogs.

[JustAnotherMutant]

1tmoch,

1) "Science", because "findings of people following the scientific method" is too long for character limit. Those are not findings of the scientific method, so unimportant in regards to it's accuracy.

2) For example, the momentum of a particle isn't the Newtonian mass*velocity, it's actually (Mass*velocity)/sqrt(1-velocit­y^2/c^2). However at low speeds the difference is so slight as to be unimportant for most purposes, so we still teach the mass*velocity in school.