Tags vuoo:

Categories:

4th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism



Envoye par: AronRa
Video Description:
My attempt to explain empiricle inquiry as a rational alternative to the false propaganda propugated on faith.
Here's the script http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/4thFFoC.html


Tags pour cette video: creationism crevo darwin design evolution intelligent

Voir plus de video de "Education" category
Voir plus de videos de AronRa

En relation
Even more bizarre than Young Earth CreationismKirk Cameron gets Owned. Evolution is a myth!Its Just Not Science!
even-more-bizarre-than-young-earth-creationism.htmleven-more-bizarre-than-young-earth-creationism.htmleven-more-bizarre-than-young-earth-creationism.html
Young Earth Creationism, what happens next?Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution RabidApe's challengeThe Real Message in the movie, Stigmata
even-more-bizarre-than-young-earth-creationism.htmleven-more-bizarre-than-young-earth-creationism.htmleven-more-bizarre-than-young-earth-creationism.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Commentaire pour cette video: Voir || Cacher
Comments for this video on YouTube
"Not considered but ... ( 2 weeks ago by AronRa)
"Not considered but still possible. You can deny the possiblity all you want it is still possible."
Not in this case. We're talking scientifically now. And in that context, for something to be considered possible, there must be some precedent or parallel in nature indicating this or illustrating how it could be. So whatcha got?
You can not use the ... ( 2 weeks ago by AnnymsVoice)
You can not use the term ALL you do not have knowledge of ALL. You may be careful but you make mistakes, mistakes cause contridictions and the usage of ALL is an assumption.
I have said based ... ( 2 weeks ago by AnnymsVoice)
I have said based on all given evidence we simply choose to believe different conclusions. But as long as we both accept the others as possiblities that is all that matters. Just remember do not claim evolution as absolute truth. Or mistake evidence for proof.
What science ... ( 2 weeks ago by AronRa)
What science considers physically impossible is obviously not a possibility within the realm of science.
I don't believe anything absolutely. My mind remains open. But neither am I gullible. I do not mistake evidence for proof. But I know what can be proven, (in the sense you imply) and evolution has been and is still being proved. As a geoscience major, I also know what has been DIS-proved (in the
scientific sense) and creationism has been.
Having the position ... ( 2 weeks ago by AnnymsVoice)
Having the position you do makes you arrogant. Evolution had been proven if this is so why would it need to continue to be proven, and arrogant statement. And creationism has not been dis proven. You do not know if new experiments will give more evidence for God. YOU DO NOT HAVE ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE. Such a prideful man.
Are you claiming ... ( 2 weeks ago by AnnymsVoice)
Are you claiming absolute knowledge of a term.
"I have said based ... ( 2 weeks ago by AronRa)
"I have said based on all given evidence we simply choose to believe different conclusions." But you chose a position not supported by any evidence, and maintain that position regardless of all evidence to the contrary.
"But as long as we ... ( 2 weeks ago by AronRa)
"But as long as we both accept the others as possiblities that is all that matters." We don't. What you propose is logically inconsistent contradiction. "Just remember do not claim evolution as absolute truth." I don't. But it is obviously basically true even if it not "absolutely" so. Likewise Biblical creationism is at least fundamentally wrong if not absolutely so.
"Or mistake ... ( 2 weeks ago by AronRa)
"Or mistake evidence for proof." Not a problem. I define evidence as: Factual circumstances which are accounted for, or supported by, one available explanation over any other. (so we can't both be looking at the same evidence); While proof (in the legal sense) is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence showing beyond reasonable doubt that a particular point or explanation is at least mostly true especially oncce compared to competing concepts.
In the scientific ... ( 2 weeks ago by AronRa)
In the scientific sense, positive proof only exists in mathematics. Nothing can be proved positively because that would imply complete knowledge which science considers to be impossible. Likewise, it isnt possible to prove anything in the negative, such as the claim that there are no little green men in space. However there are no restrictions against dis-proving any proposed scientific explanation: Example, phlogiston theory was disproved by the discovery Oxygen by Joseph Priestly in 1771.
"You can not use ... ( 2 weeks ago by AronRa)
"You can not use the term ALL you do not have knowledge of ALL." Yes I do. In the case of the holy books, (for example) I have knowledge enough to know that my statement applies to "all" eight of them. "You may be careful but you make mistakes," Name one, and be specific. "the usage of ALL is an assumption." No it isn't. In the above example, it is the result of study to see if there were adherents to each of those doctrines out there making the claims that I suggest. I found there are.
"Are you claiming ... ( 2 weeks ago by AronRa)
"Are you claiming absolute knowledge of a term." Of course not. How idiotic. What does that even mean? There is only whether the terms are being used correctly or the way you use them. I can show that the definitions I use are defensibly accurate according to a concensus of definitive sources. You keep mis-using your terms the same way no matter how many times you've seen that your definitions are wrong. What's the point in even talking to you then?
"Evolution had been ... ( 2 weeks ago by AronRa)
"Evolution had been proven if this is so why would it need to continue to be proven," It doesn't 'need' to; it just is. You're using the word "proof" in the wrong sense for this context, and that you don't know what theories are or how they relate to facts. This will be the subject of my last video -if I ever get the time to finish this series. Evolution is a fact, and the theory explains the fact. Your argument is similar to saying gravity doesn't exist because it's "just" an unproven theory.
"creationism has ... ( 2 weeks ago by AronRa)
"creationism has not been dis proven." Yes it has. If a god exists, then it would be possible that it could have manipulated natural forces and used evolution as a tool. But creationism is defined by its rejection of evolution. And every claim made by creationists is either untestable or has already been proven wrong. Noah's flood and the tower of Babel were both evidently based on a kernel of truth, but were since distorted to falsehood and both have been utterly disproved beyond defense.
Therizinosaurus! ... ( 2 weeks ago by pienipaha)
Therizinosaurus! It's my fave ^_^
How come I can't ... ( 1 week ago by devote)
How come I can't embed this particular video..?
Aww you poke fun at ... ( 1 week ago by Otokogoroshi)
Aww you poke fun at pagans T_T I'm a pagan! But I love your vids so for man. Very rational you don't throw insults around and you have a very pleasant voice. Though I have my own religion I don't think for a moment that the stories of Ceridwen are truth but mere tales much like what is contained in the bible.
You haven't ... ( 1 week ago by airandfingers)
You haven't finished? Good news :) I thought I had seen them all already!
embedding is ... ( 1 week ago by damianpoirier)
embedding is disabled for it. I think AronRa wants to keep comments about this video consolidated. Disallowing embedding is one sure way to do that.
'Critical thinking' ... ( 1 week ago by Sorastor)
'Critical thinking' is now a meme.
It's fine I was ... ( 1 week ago by devote)
It's fine I was just adding some vids to my blog so I just put the first one up and gave a link to his play list for the rest
Array ( 1 week ago by Yujifanik)
Its alright.
He doesn't mean that believing in God or the supernatural is bad by definition. He's simply saying that if you believe in something & KNOW that there is no logical, naturalistic means to test or measure it, than you shouldn't tell people that its truth if faith is the only means for it to exist or even observe it.
Believe whatever you want, just don't impose it on everyone, I'm basically summarizing some of AronRas' videos here.
:) :3 :) :3 ( 4 days ago by espadakatsuki)
:) :3 :) :3
"If you want to be ... ( 5 hours ago by AronRa)
"If you want to be really accurate about gravity, not only is it an unproven theory, it is demonstrably false,"
Very good point. I must bring that up when I can get back to making these.



Tell a friend:


URL 
Embed Code