Evolution Dishonesty and Immorality

Comment Policy for this video (see link below for details)
1. Keep on topic
2. Support your claims
3. Be civil
4. Keep it clean
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJtF-gfRjTA

This is a video response to Don Exodus' video, "Creationism Dishonesty and Immorality." C.S. and Wild Bill examine some questionable debate tactics and portrayals that reverse the accusation and suggest improvement for future debate.

Link for 99.98% reference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyWqCYes9HI

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Feduccia
• archaeopteryx
• expelled
• ben
• stein
• creationism
• evolution
• Christianity
• religion
• science
• logic
• debate
• honesty

[Atriviality]

Just becaus we seemed to get off track, you still need to prove Rumplestiltskin did not spin straw into gold.

I would accept as a substitute, the reason why you think that someone should prove something doesn't exist or didn't happen, instead of someone needing to prove something does exist or did happen.

[wildbill1240]

@Atriviality "I would accept as a substitute"

This has come full circle. I provided a line of reasoning that a demand for the proof of supernatural could equally be countered with a demand for a disproof. Like our other conversation about the supernatural, I said that neither proof would be a question SOLELY of science but of history as well. That is the nature of the debate on origins. You are demanding an empirical answer to a question has metaphysical, historical and scientific explanations.

[Atriviality]

@wildbill1240

"I provided a line of reasoning that a demand for the proof of supernatural could equally be countered with a demand for a disproof"

- Yet you were unable to disprove that Rumplestiltskin spun straw into gold, which was the entire reason I asked you to do it.

Positive claims require positive evidence.

Negative claims require no evidence at all.

If I said there is a God, I'd need to provide evidence.

If I said there isn't a God, those saying there is one need to provide evidence.

[wildbill1240]

@Atriviality Ok, so we shall go back to square one. I am going to ask you a question. Based on what man has studied in the history of science and all of the observations that we have thus made on Earth, Mars and the Moon, a purple-striped rock has never been found. Are you willing to say with certainty that there are no purple-striped rocks in the universe?

[hojoapp]

So some "creationists" no longer dare use certain arguments, because they routinely FAIL and are embarrassing. But other creationists haven't read the memos and still use the same old failed arguments - and those are the ones Don was arguing against.

[Reerrpad5515]

"Creationists aren't real scientists because they don't ..."

It is only circular reasoning because you miss the point of peer reviewed scientific publishing: data. The reason creationists/ID scientists aren't publishing creation/ID "science" papers in peer reviewed journals is because there's nothing to publish(no data).

If such data existed, it would have been published; if it hasn't been found, why do you think you have a "theory" at all? Did god tell you you have a theory?

[D1emon]

@wildbill1240 Science doesn't know everything , it openly admits it . But just because you do not know something yet, it is not a valid reason to jump to "magic" , aka "God did it" . For example ,someone( lets call him Bob) could come and tell you that he believes in supernatural being that created your (the christian) GOD . Are you willing to say with certainty that your god was not created by the supernatural being that Bob believes in ? That is why your way of looking at things is wrong .

[Atriviality]

@wildbill1240

"The idea of popularity and early Christianity is incongruous with history."

- There were many different versions of the Gospels written (Luke 1:1-4), but 3 centuries later the most popular ones were selected to be put in the Bible.

"And their claims could be verified to be false"

- How? The Gospels were written when the eyewitnesses were old or dead.

"but somehow the veracity of their claims gave rise to centuries of martyrs"

- Just like every other religion on the planet.

[wildbill1240]

@Atriviality "Then their Gospels were selected for the Bible because they were popular."

The idea of popularity and early Christianity is incongruous with history. The Gospels were presented to hostile audiences who wanted to kill the apostles for the blasphemy they spoke.

"eyewitness reports can be unreliable,"

And their claims could be verified to be false, but somehow the veracity of their claims gave rise to centuries of martyrs.