Fallacy of ID/creationism-Argument from Ignorance[test]

Well, I feel a couple more videos were needed. But this is just a test video, I may remake it since I feel I can explain things better. We'll see. Also, excuse the crap quality. I'm on a different computer, using Hypercam, different movie maker, etc.

This video shows why creationism/intelligent design inherently based upon ignorance. It will also show why it's irrational for creationists to find flaws with evolution. It's because of the argument from ignorance fallacy. You will also know this fallacy as the god of the gaps fallacy.

music-silent hill-theme of laura (reprise)

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• evolution
• creationism
• intelligent
• design
• logic
• fallacy
• argument
• ignorance

[Crumkins]

You say it's illogical to attribute the existatnce of the universe to a God. But i'm saying it's illogical to attribute the existance of the universe to anything but a God. Where is the confusion?

[powerstone2]

That's mutually exclusive though. There's a difference between logic and "right/wrong/truth/etc."

If I say 'Mary is good at math because I said so',obviously,this is a circular reasoning logic fallacy. Mary will never pass math with that argument. However,I'm saying that it's illogical to conclude that simply because "you said so." However that doesn't prove that Mary is bad at math. She may very well be good at math. However,the argument is irrational.

[powerstone2]

The existence of the universe has a cause,of course. However,just as with any other cause(clouds/ball/stars/etc.),­it's not logical (but not necessarily wrong) to claim that some deity is the cause. Instead of circular reasoning,it's an AFI. The purpose of all my videos is to show that creationism is not logical (not necessarily wrong) and thus no irrational ideas belong in a science classroom.

[powerstone2]

This is sort of where theistic evolution comes in. If you want to say that God guides the process of evo(which should totally be possible-He's said to be omnipotent),that's fine

I don't understand why people even deny T. evo. To deny that is to deny God's omnipotence

If you want to say that God guides the ball to the ground when I drop it,fine. (again,possible). However,from a logic/science POV,the idea that "God causes XYZ by guiding" is an AFI,thus doesn't belong. Only evo/gravity belongs

[FamiliarThoughts]

Can every human practice equality? If so will the planet, and its inhabitants change. Remember, prayer has proven to change things.

[FamiliarThoughts]

1+1= the answer. The answer is derived at the moment a person finds inner peace and can search for the truth. Some will arrive at a fork in the road when the truth is hidden. To arrive at an answer a person must use every known ( to them) avenue of scientific reasoning. The mind itself will doubt, unless the person is religious To provide an answer with no question, it is unheard of and should be seen as unfounded. I do have a question, one that you may not like or have an answer.

[ashesinthewax]

Could have been accomplished in under 3 minutes. This horse is dead. Aside from excess length, good video.

[matt4787]

He said it is illogical for someone to use something we don't know and bridge it into being god as the answer of it. Their will always be questions science will ask. So therefore they will always have something to point that god did that.

[powerstone2]

So, so how did molecules/atoms of water/phosphate/nitrogen/etc. start off as that point A, and end up as life, point B? Again, we can only logically use things we know to exist in order to get them from point A to point B.

[powerstone2]

It's quite simple. A ball starts at point A. You turn your back and now it's at point B. How did it get there? It's logical to hypothesize that things we know to exist moved it: the wind, some bird,gravity,etc. But it's an AFI to claim that something whose existence we're unsure of, moved it. (God,fairies,magic pixie dust)-I don't mean to be insulting by grouping those together either.