Science falsely so called documentary

[OldWiseGuy]

And you base that proclamation on your vast knowledge if geology, right?

Sorta, yeah.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Isn't it perplexing then that you seem 100% unable to present even one example that is not premised on your ignorance of the relevant science.

Molecules = tissues?
Gut sends motor impulses to the larynx by design?


LOL!

"Perplexing" to who?

"Relevant science" = "strong delusion".

 

[Subduction Zone]

No need for religion. Just read any book on anatomy. The complexity and elegance bespeaks design and purpose; elements missing in evolution.

Sorry, but that is merely an argument from ignorance fallacy. You can't even properly define "design" how are you going to even begin to find evidence for it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sorry, but that is merely an argument from ignorance fallacy. You can't even properly define "design" how are you going to even begin to find evidence for it?

I knows it when I sees it. No need for anyone to 'splain it to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I knows it when I sees it. No need for anyone to 'splain it to me.

Actually you don't. Knowledge is demonstrable. If you can't show it, you don't know it. All you have is belief.

 

[USincognito]

It gets children to believe they are more evolved than others and have the right to shoot them in the head...... after all, they are just animals and it is survival of the fittest.....

To believe in evolution, then believe one human can not evolve into a better human than another would be contradictory, yes?

Wow. Every time I think I've read the most ridiculous assertions about evolution there's another one a day or so later.

 

[USincognito]

Another drive-by post which consists of an hour and a half of gish galopping.


Here's an idea: pick a subject, communicate your argument for that specific point and post the video as a reference. Preferably with a timestamp that takes us right to the specific point you want to discuss.

Otherwise, what is the point of this? You want us to waste our time watching this whole clip, and then what?

This is a discussion forum, not a propaganda channel or movie sharing channel.

It seems that the majority of Creationists can't present their case in their own words and have nothing more than "Watch This YouTube".

 

[JackRT]

Wow. Every time I think I've read the most ridiculous assertions about evolution there's another one a day or so later.

Almost always it is because the people making these assertions do not know what the theory of evolution actually proposes.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Almost always it is because the people making these assertions do not know what the theory of evolution actually proposes.

Most of the world doesn't know what evolution 'proposes'. Why don't you explain it better.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Actually you don't. Knowledge is demonstrable. If you can't show it, you don't know it. All you have is belief.

Science has turned their 'belief' into 'knowledge' that is so off-the-charts complicated that I don't think they believe it themselves much less understand it. When I read the 'science' I see more brainstorming than anything else.

My take from the cheap seats.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It seems that the majority of Creationists can't present their case in their own words and have nothing more than "Watch This YouTube".

Creationists, or those who just don't swallow evolution, can't keep up with the ready answers science always pulls out of their...pockets, when faced with a difficult question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science has turned their 'belief' into 'knowledge' that is so off-the-charts complicated that I don't think they believe it themselves much less understand it. When I read the 'science' I see more brainstorming than anything else.

My take from the cheap seats.

It is not that hard to understand if one has an education. The only defense of creationists and other science deniers is to keep themselves totally ignorant. This is why you only have belief. You have no knowledge. Scientists can support their claims. Your sort of belief without evidence is simply not allowed in the sciences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most of the world doesn't know what evolution 'proposes'. Why don't you explain it better.

If you ask questions politely and properly people here will gladly explain the concept to you. Please, no leading questions. You won't be able to refute the theory with "gotcha questions".

 

[USincognito]

I've got some time so I'm going to breeze through what doubtlessly will a PRATTfest.

5:00 Kent Hovind relying on the ignorance of his audience. Darwin was an abolitionist and no more racist than your average 19th Century Englishman. He certainly was less racist than the American Southern Baptists who split with the Northern Baptists because they wanted to keep their slaves. And no Kent, most editors don't include the full title not because of embarrassment, but because the ignorant won't know that "races" didn't refer to humans, but to species or breeds/varieties. Origin doesn't even mention human evolution.

6:25 A supposed quote by Haeckel, ""Spontaneous generation MUST BE TRUE. Not because it had been proven in the laboratory: but because otherwise it would be necessary to believe in a creation" (Ernst Haeckel). I can't find any source for this quote and it only seems to exist on Creationist websites. And Haeckel wasn't the "cofounder" of evolution.

9:20 A known bogus quote falsely attributed to Sir Arthur Keith. The supposed source of this "quote" is the 100th anniversary edition of Origin published in 1959, but Keith died in 1955.

25:30 Kent lies when he claims that he "taught earth science for 15 years". According to his own court records, he was a teacher in Christian academies most of which were founded and/or ran by him and his family.

He then lies about so-called "polystrate trees" which exist only in the minds of Creationists. The dude in the black suit (Pastor Dan or whatever) then talks to some dude and shows him a photo of a supposed polystrate tree. There's just one problem, this is a piece of artwork, not an actual fossilized tree.

You can see that it's a piece of artwork based on a location in Tennessee.
There's a few neat things to see outside as well. - Picture of Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose - TripAdvisor

31:20 Pastor Dan says an asteroid can't have killed off the dinosaurs because there are animals alive today as big as the dinosaurs and then shows a giraffe next to a sauropod as if they were the same size.

 

[USincognito]

38:00 The use a popular press article from Tech Times to draw conclusions about the barcode analysis. The false conclusions about the paper are even being presented wrong. They're claiming that 90% of animals (meaning all animals) evolved in the last 100-200,000 years. The paper actually would have shown that 90% of all animals alive today evolved in the last 100-200,000 years. The paper, however, doesn't conclude that.
Did 90% of Animal Species Appear about the Same Time as Human Beings?

39:00 Pastor Dan and his crew imitate the slow-motion walk scene from Reservoir Dogs.

44:50 "I want to see nothing turning into a single celled organism". Since no one claims that "nothing" turned into the first primordial life, this is at best a straw man.

47:20 Bald Dude mentions sea shells on Mount Everest. Again, there aren't sea shells "on" Mount Everest. There are crushed up bits of trilobites, crinoids and ostracods that make up the sedimentary rock in one layer of Mount Everest attesting to orogeny, not a Flood.

47:40 Bald Dude claims "atheists" don't address arguments like marine fossils on Mount Everest, but as you can see I easily addressed it.

 

[Radagast]

Anything good? I don't watch video much becasue of it's propaganda potential.

99.99% of YouTube videos are rubbish, anyway.

 

[SkyWriting]

44:50 "I want to see nothing turning into a single celled organism". Since no one claims that "nothing" turned into the first primordial life, this is at best a straw man.

A better wording would be "anything not living anywhere, become something living."
Or perhaps a theory of why something non-living would turn into something living.
Or perhaps a scientific theory or idea or model that non-living material would follow
that would cause it to become living.

I imagine there are hundreds of influencing factors that would cause chemicals to become living material. (Lets exclude "lightning" from the Frankenstein movies, just for now)
So has anyone made up the list yet?

 

[SkyWriting]

47:20 Bald Dude mentions sea shells on Mount Everest. Again, there aren't sea shells "on" Mount Everest. There are crushed up bits of trilobites, crinoids and ostracods that make up the sedimentary rock in one layer of Mount Everest attesting to orogeny, not a Flood.

47:40 Bald Dude claims "atheists" don't address arguments like marine fossils on Mount Everest, but as you can see I easily addressed it.

You are correct that the speaker is making a false claim. Flood geology was a short lived idea that has not shown to be a valid model.

 

[Jimmy D]

You are correct that the speaker is making a false claim.

I know you haven’t watched it but the whole thing is a festival of false claims and emotional appeals.

Who is the atheist fellow who gets interviewed? He doesn’t seem to be an expert on any of the subjects he’s questioned on.

 

[SkyWriting]

Who is the atheist fellow who gets interviewed? He doesn’t seem to be an expert on any of the subjects he’s questioned on.

So I'm thinking a good president of the United States then?