Loading icon Loading...

This video is unavailable.

Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 29)

Sign in to YouTube

Sign in with your Google Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to like Thunderf00t's video.

Sign in to YouTube

Sign in with your Google Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to dislike Thunderf00t's video.

Sign in to YouTube

Sign in with your Google Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to add Thunderf00t's video to your playlist.

Uploaded on Feb 12, 2009

This video is copyright free for educational purposes.
Feel free to copy mirror or distribute these videos with or without accreditation.

Why do people laugh at creationists (WDPLAC) is a series of videos exposing the funny stupidity of creationists and why they deserve to be laughed at. Typically creationist statements are shown to be outrageously stupid by even the most rudimentary knowledge of science.

In this episode the origin of morality is addressed, particularly with respect to arguments of the big time Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias. Zach is notably called out on his dishonest techniques.
These notably include the favorite of the creationist, the conversation with the Ivy League professor. Zach, just like the convicted frauster Hovind loves using this device.

-Naturally the honest approach would simply be to present ones argument.

However if your argument is shite, then this approach will likely be ineffective.

People like Zach make the play on the argument from authority. It is therefore essential to establish himself as an authority figure. This is why in the full interview Zach spends minutes building up the picture of how all these university students were keen to see him, and how electric the atmosphere was etc. Basically the only purpose of the story is to suggest to the audience that the man is an authority and his argument therefore probably has credibility- its basically a diversion to prevent harsh examination of his argument. Given the audience response the technique is clearly quite effective.

Zach is again called on his use of diversion when delivering his proof (basically listing points of agreement, saying god did it, then re-listing off the points of agreement). On close inspection it turns out that his entire argument is basically there are morals, so god must have made them.

This is of course a hopeless argument from ignorance, and EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE, its a immoral proposition that a divine being allows evil as a contrast agent.

It is then described how societies cannot exist without some form of morals (basically behavior towards other members of the society).
It doesnt take a very long look at nature to see these behaviors in other animals, or why such behaviors are naturally selected for.

For other videos of this genre check out


  • Category

  • License

    Standard YouTube License

Loading icon Loading...

Loading icon Loading...

Loading icon Loading...

The interactive transcript could not be loaded.

Loading icon Loading...

Loading icon Loading...

Ratings have been disabled for this video.
Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.

Loading icon Loading...

to add this to Watch Later

Add to