ID/creationism: Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy [repost2]

Better quality and slight changes of the video.

*Small error: protein odds should be 20^10, not 10^20.*

Anyways, this video addresses all creationist/ID arguments that the ODDS of "such and such event" happening by chance is so small, it must have happened by non-randomly (by design). (eg, abiogenesis, fine tuned universe, protein sequences, genes, big bang, etc) All these arguments commit the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, and you'll see them all debunked here.

Take special note that I'm not debating the actual probabilities that these people have calculated, regardless how dubiously done. The fallacy occurs independent of how small/large the actual probability is.

MUSIC- Linkin Park-Shadow of the day, and Hydroponikz featuring Chester from Linkin Park-Hard to Breathe

**In case you can't read the notes:**
to those who are thinking "well, somebody has to draw the raffle, right?" Well, that's a false analogy. The raffle was merely an example of a random event. The primordial soup from which proteins form needs nothing but the currents to churn it and make the raffle draw. The dust/air/water molecules that form clouds need nothing more than the wind to move it around. As I've shown with the cloud, leaf, and the gravity example, the TSF doesn't just apply to raffles and cards. It applies to any random event, whether caused by "someone" or not. The only point I'm trying to convey is that it's illogical to say that an outcome was caused by non-random means simply because the odds of it happening by random were small. (Whether those random means is a raffle, deck of cards, wind blowing a leaf, or the pressure systems making a cloud, it doesn't matter)
-reiterating, notice that I never once argued against the odds that were calculated. Whether you want to argue what the odds of a protein forming or our universe forming are, that's up to you. DON'T ARGUE IT HERE! If a billion people participated in the raffle and Judy's chances were a billion to one, it would still be illogical to accuse her of cheating. If a trillion people participated in the raffle and Judy's chances were a trillion to one, it would still be illogical to accuse her of cheating. The TSF is committed regardless how small you calculate the odds to be.

-Also note that I'm saying these arguments are "illogical," and I'm not saying these arguments are "untrue." The raffle could've been rigged, but it's illogical to claim so with this irrational reasoning. God could've created the universe, but it's illogical to claim so with this reasoning (or any other kinds of arguments that I've addressed in my other videos). You can never disprove that God is intelligently designing clouds. However, you can show that it's illogical to claim so.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Evolution
• creationism
• intelligent
• design
• ID
• logic
• fallacy
• texas
• sharpshooter
• probability
• chance
• abiogenesis
• big
• bang

[evilotakuneko]

@wickedlady4180 There is no evidence that I do not have an invisible dragon in my garage. See how silly that is?

[wickedlady4180]

@evilotakuneko I understand that there is tangible evidence to prove that evolution did indeed happen. But there is absolutely no evidence that intelligent design didn't have a hand in that process. Anything further you wanna add?????

[evilotakuneko]

@wickedlady4180 Sure it does. Disproving creationist arguments also disproves creationism itself. Oh, and then there's also all the evidence against it, too...

[Nerusai]

I resent the use of using monkeys and typewriters! This was recently scientifically and experimentally dealt with!!! Turns out if you give monkeys typewriters, they won't at all produce much variation, if memory serves they produced only a few pages of work. And those pages were mostly covered by the letter s.

[wickedlady4180]

none of this actually disproves creationism either.....

[Lallapalalable]

very nice video. Reiterates itself a lot, but I guess the ultimate target audience would need that.

[ozredneck22]

@leswades

(creationists).. . ". in challenging improbability if they don't go on to say that is PROOF of a designer"

Exactly, creationists don't say it's "proof" of a designer, they say it is a fact that supports their "faith" in a designer conversely a huge amount of faith on the non IDist's part is requiredto believe it could happen by "chance".

Which then places this video in the category of STRAWMAN.

[powerstone2]

5 main thing is-I AM only challenging ID/creationism. You thought that my challenge in this video was invalid b/c of "org/zil improbab". I think I've shown that the fallacy stands regardless: low prob can't logically point to non-random(TSF)

My vids have little to do with evo and its relations with sci/random,so I'm always puzzled when you steer that way. Frankly,I don't feel competent enough to discuss it. BUT logic is the base of sci,so I focus on it. Without it,you simply don't do sci

[powerstone2]

4 'zil improbabilities' (as you put it). And yet,you can see that it's STILL illogical to accuse ANY of the zil raffles of being rigged. 2 wrongs don't make a right, and neither do a zil wrongs. This is the beauty of logic fallacies,wouldn't you agree? They don't suddenly "stop working" after committing it a certain arbitrary huge number of times. You commit circular reasoning once or a zil times, and it's still circ reasoning. You commit TSF a zil time,it's still illogical.

[powerstone2]

3) Fact is,most people WOULD accuse you of cheating if you got a 12345678910JQK hand of cards. But as I've shown,it's not logical to conclude a rigged deal. That's why this ID argument is so specious to people who don't understand logic. Furthermore you seem to think that committing a fallacy a zil times somehow cancels out the fallacy. The winner of the raffle had a 1 in 2 mil chance of winning. If you held a zil raffles, each raffle winner would also have had a 1 in 2 mil chance. That's a