Jason Lisle has openly stated that he was raised creationist and starts with the assumption that the Bible is infallible and that it is sinful to do otherwise.
@@markwildt5728 Because he starts with the assumption that the Bible is true. But if you start with the assumption evolution is true, he says that's fallacious. How is that not a painfully obvious double standard?
Presumption assertion circular apologetics buttressed with special pleading and ignorance are the oldest most rebuked form of apologetics out there. Unfortunately they still keep running them out there believing they now can own the evil atheists. Low hanging fruit not even fit for composting.
@@markwildt5728 "in what way is that a double standard?" Did you even watch the video? In the video he uses the example of the logical fallacy of begging the question (ie, assuming that your conclusion is correct), so complaining that Richard Dawkins did so,* when he does so with the bible, is clearly a double standard. But gross hypocrisy is what we've come to expect from such creationists. * And misunderstanding what he actually said, although that's not relevant here.
The Scopes monkey trial didn't concern the "ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE" but the the theory of evolution by natural selection. When the level of confusion is this basic, there's no point in continuing the conversation.
There was so much wrong with what was presented by the theists. When they were not creating straw men of their own, they were lying by omission on other topics, and thirdly, as you pointed out, straight up being dishonest. There is not a single apologist or piece of theistic propaganda that can be honest. The last thing a theist wants their flock to be is educated.
@rboland2173 - The same story that had the day/night cycle going for 3 days before the sun was created. Clearly written by a very special idiot since even back then it was common knowledge the sun was responsible for day and night.
It didn't even really touch on Evolution, except as a detour by the defense trying to show that the law in question was stupid by showing evolution was good science. It was about a teacher breaking a law prohibiting this classroom content and Mr Scopes, the teacher that got charged with breaking the law, lost the court case... The trial that more or less DID judge on the scientific credibility of Creationism and it's Groucho Marx glasses wearing younger sibling "Intelligent Design" was the Kitzmiller v. Dover area School District trial ... also just known as Kitzmiller or Kitzmiller v Dover, where Creationism was declared a pseudoscience and ID described as a variant of it that therefore has no place in a classroom. Weird that "Doctor" Lisle does not mention THAT one, isn't it?
You can be a very rational person In every other aspect of your life but the problem is when it comes to religion they throw out rationality out the window.
Jason Lisle doesn't believe an ancient book. He believes the mangled and twisted reinterpretation of it his cult have invented and pays no heed to the author's own intended meaning.
So they are claiming that the Begging the Question Fallacy is OK if you THINK it is necessary. They use the Laws of Logic as an example. The so-called "laws of logic" are also known as Boolean Algebra and Propositional Calculus. The "laws" are the axioms of these systems. You cannot prove the axioms of any system within the system. There are ways of proving axioms. The most common is by asserting the inverses of an axiom and showing they all leads to a contradiction, leaving the axiom as the only consistent answer. This proof by contradiction was tried not only with Euclid's Parallel Postulate (where the alternatives turned out to be consistent and led to Elliptical and Hyperbolic geometry), but with all the axioms of Logic (where the alternatives to each axiom also turned out to be consistent and led to different types of logic, like multivalued logic where True and False are not the only values). Tgis demonstrated the the "laws of logic" aren't necessary for logic, but merely define ONE type of logic (and one that fails to map well with reality because reality rarely has the type of exclusive duality proposed by Boolean Logic. Light is BOTH a wave and a particle at the same time) So, even where it is "necessary", begging the question is a fallacy, and invalidates the entire argument. This is well known in Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy.
To say the Christian God makes rationality possible is of course question-begging. Even if God exists, it doesn't _necessarily_ follow that its actions were responsible for the emergence of rationality.
According to the Bible God confused the people of the first civilization foreseeing that their cooperation would cause them to "gain the ability to achieve anything." According to their own religion God does not want us doing that.
Pro editor tip: Don't print a syllogism from bottom to the conclusion at the top. Western readers have an expectation that text goes left/right, top/bottom. Why did they even do that???
"Western readers have an expectation that text goes left/right, top/bottom. Why did they even do that???" -- That was done on purpose. Theists are taught to start from the conclusion and find evidence that leads to the question. By presenting the syllogism in that manner it confirms their bias that they are thinking "logically" because they read it from the top down.
Christianity is so very rational that it allows Evangelicals to accept Donald Trump as a Holy savior chosen by God to lead the world. I said the "world" and not America because they also believe that America is the world.
Atheist are so rational they accept "transwomen are women" and propagate that false dichomoty as a fact. The truth is, it's not a fact it's a belief, or opinion representing a faction which makes it bigotry and they love to call Donald Trump supporters antilgbtq bigots which isn't even a real thing. Donald Trump isn't the one trying to takeover the world. America isn't the worlds slave. We have to stop engaging in foreign affairs and only engage in diplomacy. You see the pride flag represents the Nationalist movement but nationalist will never admit it, but their proudly admitting it through their actions they're just to ignorant to comprehend them. They know not what they do. Maybe you should look up Genesis 37 and you will see the story about Joseph and his coat of many colours. His Father Jacob renamed Israel, made it for him.
What I have said is that it's like someone admitting that there can be curved lines (like these brackets/parentheses) but that there can't be any such thing as a circle o ...
Matt, I actually don’t believe the premise of ordinary people suffering pains and torments for eternity. However, what you asked sounded to me like asking “if my phone is not connected by a wire to your phone, how can you send me a text message?”. Are there everyday things that are real, which are not casually observed? Could one of those things be a part of a person called a spirit? If there’s not, then you’re right, no pain or torture.
God who whoever tortures you by playing Kanye West or East or whatever he calls himself these days, for hours. Or, if he is really really mad he will force you to watch all seasons of Paradise Hotel ….
@@Soundbrigade Worse, lectures by (fingers down a blackboard voiced) Todd Friel, or Kent Hovind, Kenneth Copeland "speaking in tongues", Ray Comfort lying to young people, and similar bollocks, BUT if you don't have eyes or ears, how will you see and hear the horrors?
Your argument is not only erroneous at face value, but it asserts that you're morally superior to God, and don't understand a simple basic concept. First of all, you don't seem to understand the actual definition of "evil" and second, if God didn't "allow" evil, there would be no free will... And removing our free will to choose would be the most evil thing anyone could do... Thanks for sharing your total lack of critical thinking.
Just like the Olympics committee doesn't have complete authority over the Olympics so long as the athletes are still forced to compete, when the committee could just remove any adversity and give everybody medals.
Atheist are so rational they accept "transwomen are women" and propagate that false dichomoty as a fact. The truth is, it's not a fact it's a belief, or opinion representing a faction which makes it bigotry and they love to call Donald Trump supporters antilgbtq bigots which isn't even a real thing. Donald Trump isn't the one trying to takeover the world. America isn't the worlds slave. We have to stop engaging in foreign affairs and only engage in diplomacy. You see the pride flag represents the Nationalist movement but nationalist will never admit it, but their proudly admitting it through their actions they're just to ignorant to comprehend them. They know not what they do. Maybe you should look up Genesis 37 and you will see the story about Joseph and his coat of many colours. His Father Jacob renamed Israel, made it for him.
@@markwildt5728 No, their example is crocoduck. Where a crocodile lays an egg that hatches into a duck. And Alex Jones said it was chemtrails that turns frogs gay. If you're being a hardass he's wrong, but you know what he means.
The Bible is true because God says it's true. In the Bible God says he lies. so is he lying about being a lier, or is he lying about the Bible being true? Or is it all just a lie? One thing is for sure. There's a lot of lying going on.
@@GoneJoka 2 Thessalonians 2:11: "And for this cause god shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:" For a start. And Ezekiel, 14:9: "And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel."
If god has a commendable reason for the evil that happens in the world, then why do we stop people? Why do Christians try to stop sinners from sinning?
Actually, why separate good from evil at all, if everything that happens is good anyway and we just can't see it? Are people who try to do good by fighting evil actually fighting against god's perfect will? Did god not know that this would happen? Why would he not explain himself better to keep us from doing things we now think are good.
Creationists accusing scientists of misrepresentation of their ideas and beliefs is the best example of the pot calling the kettle black, I think I've ever heard of.
Regarding abortions: according to Jewish mythology (which is where the bulk of the Old Testament comes from) people acquire their soul with their first breath, so - according to their own holy teachings - a fetus technically isn't a "person", only the potential for one.
Not only that, but theists tend to picture the unborn as pure and innocent and therefore allowed in heaven immediately. Aborting a fetus is the most glorious and kind gesture for the unborn as they never have to experience any hardship and go straight to a perfect pony park in heaven.
Those people are so sad. They are so intensely desperate to defend something that deep in their heart they know it isn't true, because if they stop believing, they would be left empty inside, without anything at all, just emptiness. All life loses meaning if they stop believing these myths. They are so terrified of being their true selves.
The point of the problem of evil is that there is some possible world that God could have created, given omnipotence and omnibenevolence, where there was _no need_ for any morally commendable reasons to allow evil. It just wouldn't exist in that possible world at all.
"The Bible is the word of God" and "God wouldn't lie" don't even follow because within the Bible God intentionally sends lying spirits to the prophets of Ahab (1 Kings 22:23); and according to Paul, God allows Satan to appear to people as an angel of light to deceive them (2 Corinthians 11:14). So according to the "word of God," God allows AND commands divine spirits to lie to us. Edit: And this guy says Jesus was the only person who never did wrong, though the entire point of the book of Job is that God and Satan punish Job for being "blameless." So wouldn't *that* be the greatest evil ever committed, because God and Satan both knew for certain that Job was innocent, whereas the people of Earth couldn't have that same certainty about Jesus?
Not only that, but Jesus would, according to the biblical narrative, have known about the plan in advance,* whereas poor Job wouldn't have. * Actually, this is contradicted by Matthew 19:28 “And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." So he didn't know at that point that Judas would betray him.
@@pineapplepenumbra Interesting points. Yeah, Jesus supposedly knowing he's coming down to Earth specifically to be sacrificed kind of takes away the "crime" aspect of it because he's actually consenting to it (in that framework at least). The 12 disciples thing is weird in general, but I do think it was meant to be like one disciple from each tribe, which is why it always seems to be 12, even in Revelations which is long after Judas. I also strongly suspect that Judas was invented by the author of Mark as a scapegoat as part of his Jewish conspiracy narrative (featuring omniscient-narrator scenes which none of the disciples witness). The genuine Pauline epistles have no reference to Judas specifically, and merely say he was "handed over" on the night of his crucifixion. That might be another part of the inconsistency in the 12 disciples thing, because some traditions didn't have any betrayal by a disciple.
@@sparrowthesissy2186 "I also strongly suspect that Judas was invented by the author of Mark as a scapegoat as part of his Jewish conspiracy narrativ" You make interesting points, too. Food for thought.
"Dude, who stole my savior?" and Jesus preaching from the top of a sedan driving through the American Southwest - this is probably the best thumbnail I've seen all day, and I today I saw that wild thumbnail of I-don't-know-what with Friel (I imagine you must have used "death cult" or "evil temple" as a prompt in the AI image generator).
A fact is an OBSERVATION. So, when Dawkins said that we know evolution is true because it is a fact, what he was saying was that we know evolution is true because evolution has bee been observed
A young earth creationist complaining about YEC being straw manned is such mind shattering hypocrisy. I think I can count on one hand the amount of times I've seen a YECist accurately describe evolution, period.
My Service Frog helps me with swimming pool anxiety.. Ofc pools have so much bleach, he comes out very light green and is all self conscious for days.. Poor Flippy 😥
I also have a service frog, but it keeps me awake at night barking at the moon and has chewed my slippers into atoms … Next time I gonna get me a service kangaroo.
They build entire careers picking apart science and biology down to the molecule while scientists and biologists dont even consider creationism. Its almost like one side has ALL the actual evidence. 😂
The "two sides": science and a very specific religion's very specific sect's tiny group of propagators' "literal" interpretation which even they can't agree on between themselves and "literal" requires a lot of hand waving and unwritten assumptions not from the tell-you-what-to-think religious text and cherry picking which creation story and other details to leave out.
It's not even about asking Him what the good of most bad things are. The answer is obvious in the statement and still he misses it! All good and all powerful All good means not tolerating bad and all powerful means making whatever you want. You can't have the power to change things but choose to make a universe where a child loses her eye to a parasite before the age of 5 this is to say that child has been in pains for a while before losing that eye and claim to be good. Good God!!! Come on!
It's his top evil because he had to sacrifice himself to himself to save everyone else from himself. Of course, there was no need for any of that because he could have simply created a universe with no evil and no way to do evil. However, we know he's an angry, vengeful god that is willing to trick and lie to his followers as is written in the book that says he's totally real and not a made up god like all the other ones. ¬¸¬
If Jesus had not been crucified, how would Christianity ever have started? So this "most horrible thing ever" was indispensable for the entire drama to play out and humanity to be "saved". These Christians make no sense.
I heard some where form like the Bible that one of the disciples said something along the lines of: "if Jesus didn't risen from the grave then we would be the most pity people on earth."
The reason you never see YEC apologists who really understand evolution is because if you really understand evolution you didn't argue against it, because you realize it's true.
There apparently has been a risen in Christians or catholics (I my self don't know the difference) as atheist are turn to God as well as other religious people turning to Christians.
When you want to vouch for a “perfect god”, You should NEVER produce a single fallacious sentence. …just to perfect your position, you know, for a perfect god, whatever that fictional being is.
When was the last time that Dr Lisle saw a talking snake, saw a demon, saw an angel, or saw a god? Maybe he has a special kaleidoscope telescope? I'm sure that there are chemicals that would help him see gravity, too.
@@markwildt5728 Yes, that's a very sad argument. That's why OP used it ironically - to show how ridiculous it is to argue like that. Because that's exactly the way the guys in this video argued. It's sad that you can't see that through your dogmatic glasses.
Guess he called Kat Kerr, who’s been to wonder-heaven-land multiple times to get the latest report. And Kat is a true-worthy and powerful person that can stop hurricanes with a stick.
I believe microevolution happens but macroevolution isn't a thing = I believe in inches and feet but miles just aren't a real thing. I think it's just hysterical that an astrophysicist who is also an ardent creationist is trying to school atheists about evolutionary science.
I think it's bizarre that an astrophysicist, who KNOWS that the Universe cannot be a mere few thousand years old, believes in the myths of Genesis as literally true. That's one definition of insanity.
12:50"...there are some situations, where you must assume the thing that you are trying to proove..." This scentence alone disqualifies him as a scientist. Doubt is the main principle that drives science to higher levels of certainty, not the assumption of knowing something beforehand aka belief. Most experiments are targetted to disproove the working theory by checking out alternatives. Whenever an alternative fails, then we are narrowing in.
Bifurcation is essentially splitting something into two parts. I'm not sure what is being split to produce Belief and Rationality. But making shit up after the fact is creationists' specialty. Their whole list of fallacies is an exercise in projection. It's hilarious. He calls out Dawkins for begging the question, which as said can be refuted, then *immediately* says we know God is real because the Bible tells him so. Look up "presupposition" in the dictionary, Lisle. SMH
It's funny how these fallacies seem to be like proverbial boomerangs, they pick them up, throw them back and then notice that they still come flying back at them... my favourite is when you call god skydaddy and they seriously tell you he's actually a being that exists outside of time (never) and also outside of space (nowhere) and who loves you, because nothing spells love than a natural world filled to the brim with disease, parasites and carnivores...
Personally, can any "God" who has committed morally deplorable acts, ie: Flood to drown all evil humans or raining fire down on Sodom and Gamora, be one who should truly be classified a morally commendable individual?
So bifurcation, like when Christians say believe in their god or I'm going to hell? So there can be a third option there too, right? I can not believe in your god and still not go to hell. Thanks for clearing that up.
Samuel Wilberforce The Bishop of Winchester would be surprised to hear he wasn't debating evolution in 1860 at a British Association meeting. An how a young earth creationist manages to be an astrophysicist is beyond me. Since the creationist position has changed when it became obvious that you couldn't fit the entire diversity of terrestrial life on an Ark so they had ditch their complete denial of evolution, they have been changing their position every time science cuts the ground from beneath them.
Dawkins was probably saying that evolution as a phenomenon is a fact, not the theory of evolution; these are often conflated by creationists as it makes easier to argue with scientific theories then hard data. Mostly because evolution as phenomenon true, we have observed speciation events, we have seen that organisms do change to the point where they cannot breed with the original population (one that did not change as much). That's why organizations like Answers in Genesis must contort their "kinds" into some really wild shapes, so they can say that that doesn't count as evolution because its still the same kind and the macroevolution should be between kinds. Purposefully misrepresenting what speciation is, and ignoring that this whole idea of "kinds" is of their own creation, with no bearing on actual biology.
Re swearing, I'm British, many of us swear a lot as part of our normal, everyday parlance, it's a basic part of our lexicon. However, as I have pointed out in the past (and someone even used what I originally posted as a quote on their home page, which was quite a compliment), short of actual physical violence, or enacting oppressive laws (both of which the religious have engaged in regularly over the millennia), *there is nothing more offensive than being told that the creator of the Universe hates us non believers enough to torture us for eternity!* The religious cannot imagine how grossly offensive their belief systems are; there are some things infinitely worse than a few swear words (and this is something the grossly hypocritical UA-cam needs to learn).
That has to be worse attempt to describe the Epicurus paradox I've heard. If God knows about our suffering (all-knowing), cares about our suffering (all-loving), and can do something about our suffering (all-powerful), then there shouldn't be any suffering. As to the crucifixion being the worst evil ever is nonsense, as that would mean by comparison the murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazi's was just fine. Jesus was already facing a stoning to death by the Jews for violating the Sabbath law (by healing on the Sabbath); threatening to destroy the Jewish Temple; practicing sorcery, exorcising people by the power of demons; and claiming to be the Messiah.
If there is a morally commendable reason for evil to exist then that means there is a morally commendable reason for people to be evil. If there is a reason, then someone could convince themselves that it is moral to be evil.
According to the book, jeebus ordered his guys to steal a donkey. That counters dudes lie that jeebus was the most innocent man. Also there is flipping over the tables he did in the book. No so innocent
14:25 it is word play, he uses "exist" incorrectly, there is difference between "be" and "exist", something is in our imagination, like ideas, dreams, god, musical genres, and something exists like cats and dogs. Some categories we only think, because it is comfortable for us, but they do not float around somewhere, invisible. And he is doing this only to sell circular reasoning of god. Mathematical logic is designed to avoid inner contradictions and search possible conclusions, it starts from axioms and doesn't prove own existence. Normal people don't "know", but they trust to experience, they think, predict, periodically fail and improve models and if succeed they become sure. But he doesn't want to play on field of assumptions and axioms, because his creator looks like hella a big stretch. So we have to listen this mambo-jambo about knowing of existence of laws and other nonsense. But for example cup doesn't exist (or does it?), cup is what we decide to drink from, atoms exist, and cups are what we decide. So take it easy, dont play "logical" inside figurative speech.
If we are all descended from Adam & Eve are we all not Jewish ? & why are people all different colours ? Why do people keep finding animal fossils dating back millions of years ?
It’s a reference to Final Fantasy VII. There is a character named Aerith that got changed to Aeris in the original US release. And in case you got the reference, then I sorely missed yours. Which in beginning to think is more likely.
So, I want to ask a question to test your critical thinking, and bias. Is there anything about evolution you believe may not be correct, or needs more scrutiny? Could you give any examples?
@@danger.snakes It's not a trick question. There are many fields of study in science particularly in the theoretical sectors that are adjusting upon new evidence, or discrepancies of missing information which opens up for scientists to form varying hypothesis and form experiments to test. Like quantum field theories, some theories work off each other, while others propose alternative information that isn't congruent with the rest, and these discoveries happen over time. String theory would be an example of that. Or the big bang and our understanding of the expansion of the universe, we though we had such a solid understanding, but then James Webb gave us contradictory information which left us to re-evaluate our preconceptions and build upon our current theories. Or intersectionality studies, there are theories upon race, sexuality, gender, multitude of social class structures. Evolution there are a lot of things grounded in replicable science, however it has also developed over time, as new hypothesis have been proposed, tested, and validated. An example of the development of evolutionary theory would be evolutionary psychology. Or Abiogenesis, there is a theory that life came from extraterrestrial meteor, or primordial soup model, and it is still very much a work in progress. So, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask such a question, nor would I think it's unreasonable for someone to question some of the details of evolution.
The phrase "begging the question" is the name for the fallacy of circular reasoning. They aren't two different things. They are the same. What you are hearing is "raising the question", but that wasn't what he meant.
@@markwildt57281 Kings 22: 21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. 22 And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. 23 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
🙄 4:00 No that isn't what "belief" means. Belief: what one holds to be true. Faith: belief without evidence Knowledge: (conclusive) evidence based belief. Stop confusing "faith" with "belief"
Wait a minute, right at the beginning he gets the origins of the Universe mixed up with Scopes? That chucks any credibility he might have had, right out of the window, in the first few seconds.
DId he say Poodles could not have survived in the wild? I thought he was talking about "the garden of Eden" (aka paradise). What "wild" was there supposed to be?
Jason Lisle was the "famous" Answers In Genesis and Creation Magazine astrophysicists who was always about to come up with a definitive solution to the "Starlight Problem". Dr. Lisle is the founder of the "Biblical Science Institute". Which appears to just be his "one man band" website to host his current personal science blog, and sell his books and creationist home school resources. While advertising for probably well paid personal "guest speaker" appearances.
Wait, they talked about begging the question or circular reasoning, and how sometimes it's necessary (which I think twists what's going on with the 'laws of logic'), but never explained what that had to do with the question at hand, viz., proving or disproving God, evolution, whatever. They just instantly moved on to enthymemes.
Well, no... That's a bit broad. Instead I might say: if you disagree with the objective facts of reality upon which science is based, you don't have a 'different point of view', you're just wrong.
If you disagree with a scientist, the scientist might tell you to copy the experiments, look at the data, come to your own conclusions, and publish and then see if it gains acceptance or not. But yeah, if you tell a scientist that gravity doesn't exist, he will chuckle. Or she will chuckle, and then might suggest that you don't test that hypothesis by skydiving without parachutes. With Evolution, you aren't just arguing with one scientist. You are arguing with whole lifetimes, hundreds of scientists, who have collected data on it and have looked for other explanations but haven't found any. God done it...we can all go home now...just doesn't suffice.
Scientists are people. People can be, and often are, wrong. That one can have a justified, broad, confidence in science, does NOT mean one should be so with scientists.
Well, "A morally commendable reason." That explains everything. "Bright black", "Justifiable murder", "Dry water", "A still wind". Just put two opposite and mutually exclusive words together and you have "logical irrationality".
The “fertile offspring” metric doesn’t really work. Cows and Buffalo are clearly very different species but the Buffalo on Catalina Island have some percentage of cow DNA in them. Heck the descendants of polar bear and grizzly bears crossbreeding have been known to reproduce.
And he even lies about what _The Problem of Evil_ is. _The Problem of Evil_ stems from the claimed *tri-omni* nature of the biblical god. The argument goes, that if god is omniscient (so it knows evil exists), is omnipotent (so it has the ability to prevent it from happening) and is omnibenevolent (has the desire to prevent evil) the existence of evil proves that at least one of those three "omnis" is wrong.
So somewhat adjacent to my other comment about BioLogos, Michael Jones, a youtuber whose channel is called Inspiring Philosophy, has made at least one video that gives a BioLogos style point of view & several of his cohorts seem to share a similar opinion Believe it or not William Lane Craig & Frank Turek seem to look favorably on the BioLogos position but aren't quite as open about it interestingly enough Michael Jones holds a peculiar theological position where he defends a different version of the afterlife other than eternal reward vs eternal punishment. I think it's called extinction or consumption but he also states that he hopes that universalists are correct The real issue with Michael Jones is that he takes a rather strange position on bible scholarship & both Mythvision & Paulogia have been making videos to counter him
This has nothing to do with the subject of this video, but I just noticed that London Storm (If that really is your name) pronounces "often" with an audible t sound. I had recently done an Internet search about the history of the silent t in English. Apparently the word "often" is about the only English word that is still commonly pronounced both ways, some people as a silent letter like in "soften" or "listen", or voiced like in "softly" or "lastly". I merely point this out as a linguistic curiosity, not as a matter of any import (or importance 😉).
The title of your video is spot-on, although I have to assume (perhaps mistakenly) that they *DO* understand evolution and fallacies as neither are particularly complex to understand and both are easily understood with a couple of Google searches. If I'm right, that would mean that they are *liars* rather than *accidentally ignorant,* which seems to tie-in better with their twisted relationship with the truth. So to summarise: apologists are liars, ignorant or some combination of the two. I'm not even arguing that there isn't a god!
I’m confused. You attacked the guy for being an astrophysicist, not a biologist. I guess the implication is he doesn’t have the educational authority to speak outside his field. By the same logic what educational authority do you have to rebut him? Serious question. Are you a biologist or an astrophysicist? Can we stick to debating the topic using logic and science and not attack a person because of their background. His degree should be irrelevant. Or are you suggesting you need a paid for piece of paper to be highly educated?
The first logical fallacy in this video is thinking that "public debate for THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE" has anything to do with evolution or monkeys or trials. Evolution is not Astronomy (perhaps abiogenesis can linked to astronomy).
It’s just horrible if people use bad language to make people think emotionally. But it’s fine to tell people they will go to hell and burn forever if they don’t accept Jesus. No emotionality there I guess.
The projection is strong in these ones. That's always been handy. Accuse your interlocutors of the all the same bad habits you possess and rely on instead of, oh, I don't know, actually trying to argue in good faith and truly examine your positions for actual fallacious reasoning and attempt actual bridge-building via consensus making the world a better, more factual place. I see why some of our cohort have just simply given up trying to talk to theists but the struggle continues.
Talk about Projection. Nobody is more illogical and unreasonable than an atheist, which is ironic for a group of people who pride themselves on facts, logic and reason. The problem with Atheists, is they lack basic critical thinking skills, hold God to arbitrary human standards such as his ridiculous child leukemia argument, and simply regurgitate what they've been told to think rather than learning how to think.
Where in the Bible does Jesus or anyone say Jesus' death will somehow free all of mankind from "sin"--BEFORE he's crucified? You can make up all sorts of junk after it happens, but where is the essential, necessary expression, "I'm agreeing to be executed so that all people can be cleansed of sin"? In fact, where does Jesus agree to die? This is critical to the whole story. If i just missed it, somebody please tell me.
18:47 If god has a morally commendable reason for evil, then if a person is the instrument of that evil they're doing god's will and thus shouldn't be punished for it. Any act perceived by us as evil isn't really evil, we just lack the background information to see the good in it. Talk about moral relativism.
It is logically impossible for a all-powerful, all-knowing and loving being to allow evil. Put in another way: if god can achieve his goals without using or allowing evil, but chooses not to, then he is evil. If he can not achieve his goals without using or allowing evil, what makes him a god?
Jason Lisle has openly stated that he was raised creationist and starts with the assumption that the Bible is infallible and that it is sinful to do otherwise.
Gotta have them double standards.
@@iluvtacos1231 in what way is that a double standard? Do you even understand what a double standard is?
@@markwildt5728
Because he starts with the assumption that the Bible is true.
But if you start with the assumption evolution is true, he says that's fallacious.
How is that not a painfully obvious double standard?
Presumption assertion circular apologetics buttressed with special pleading and ignorance are the oldest most rebuked form of apologetics out there. Unfortunately they still keep running them out there believing they now can own the evil atheists. Low hanging fruit not even fit for composting.
@@markwildt5728 "in what way is that a double standard?"
Did you even watch the video?
In the video he uses the example of the logical fallacy of begging the question (ie, assuming that your conclusion is correct), so complaining that Richard Dawkins did so,* when he does so with the bible, is clearly a double standard. But gross hypocrisy is what we've come to expect from such creationists.
* And misunderstanding what he actually said, although that's not relevant here.
The Scopes monkey trial didn't concern the "ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE" but the the theory of evolution by natural selection.
When the level of confusion is this basic, there's no point in continuing the conversation.
There was so much wrong with what was presented by the theists. When they were not creating straw men of their own, they were lying by omission on other topics, and thirdly, as you pointed out, straight up being dishonest.
There is not a single apologist or piece of theistic propaganda that can be honest. The last thing a theist wants their flock to be is educated.
@rboland2173 - The same story that had the day/night cycle going for 3 days before the sun was created. Clearly written by a very special idiot since even back then it was common knowledge the sun was responsible for day and night.
Good video on UA-cam about the trial.
It didn't even really touch on Evolution, except as a detour by the defense trying to show that the law in question was stupid by showing evolution was good science. It was about a teacher breaking a law prohibiting this classroom content and Mr Scopes, the teacher that got charged with breaking the law, lost the court case...
The trial that more or less DID judge on the scientific credibility of Creationism and it's Groucho Marx glasses wearing younger sibling "Intelligent Design" was the Kitzmiller v. Dover area School District trial ... also just known as Kitzmiller or Kitzmiller v Dover, where Creationism was declared a pseudoscience and ID described as a variant of it that therefore has no place in a classroom. Weird that "Doctor" Lisle does not mention THAT one, isn't it?
You can be a very rational person In every other aspect of your life but the problem is when it comes to religion they throw out rationality out the window.
Jason Lisle doesn't believe an ancient book. He believes the mangled and twisted reinterpretation of it his cult have invented and pays no heed to the author's own intended meaning.
Which author? Are you talking about the one who brought the seperate books together or the ones who made the individual books?
@@Lobsterwithinternet The ones who wrote the separate books.
"Circular reasoning isn't fallacious if there's no other way to prove the statement." OK, that's a new one for me.
Yeah, he doesn't understand the idea in logic that, if there is no way to prove a concept other than a fallacy, then you haven't proven the concept.
@@rikk319
Exactly 💯
The problem is that we're listening to midwits (i.e. IQ
So they are claiming that the Begging the Question Fallacy is OK if you THINK it is necessary.
They use the Laws of Logic as an example.
The so-called "laws of logic" are also known as Boolean Algebra and Propositional Calculus.
The "laws" are the axioms of these systems. You cannot prove the axioms of any system within the system.
There are ways of proving axioms. The most common is by asserting the inverses of an axiom and showing they all leads to a contradiction, leaving the axiom as the only consistent answer.
This proof by contradiction was tried not only with Euclid's Parallel Postulate (where the alternatives turned out to be consistent and led to Elliptical and Hyperbolic geometry), but with all the axioms of Logic (where the alternatives to each axiom also turned out to be consistent and led to different types of logic, like multivalued logic where True and False are not the only values). Tgis demonstrated the the "laws of logic" aren't necessary for logic, but merely define ONE type of logic (and one that fails to map well with reality because reality rarely has the type of exclusive duality proposed by Boolean Logic. Light is BOTH a wave and a particle at the same time)
So, even where it is "necessary", begging the question is a fallacy, and invalidates the entire argument.
This is well known in Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy.
To say the Christian God makes rationality possible is of course question-begging.
Even if God exists, it doesn't _necessarily_ follow that its actions were responsible for the emergence of rationality.
It would also be an anachronism.
How could a rational god exist before rationality even exists?
According to the Bible God confused the people of the first civilization foreseeing that their cooperation would cause them to "gain the ability to achieve anything." According to their own religion God does not want us doing that.
Pro editor tip: Don't print a syllogism from bottom to the conclusion at the top. Western readers have an expectation that text goes left/right, top/bottom. Why did they even do that???
"Western readers have an expectation that text goes left/right, top/bottom. Why did they even do that???" --
That was done on purpose. Theists are taught to start from the conclusion and find evidence that leads to the question. By presenting the syllogism in that manner it confirms their bias that they are thinking "logically" because they read it from the top down.
Christianity is so very rational that it allows Evangelicals to accept Donald Trump as a Holy savior chosen by God to lead the world. I said the "world" and not America because they also believe that America is the world.
Atheist are so rational they accept "transwomen are women" and propagate that false dichomoty as a fact. The truth is, it's not a fact it's a belief, or opinion representing a faction which makes it bigotry and they love to call Donald Trump supporters antilgbtq bigots which isn't even a real thing. Donald Trump isn't the one trying to takeover the world. America isn't the worlds slave. We have to stop engaging in foreign affairs and only engage in diplomacy. You see the pride flag represents the Nationalist movement but nationalist will never admit it, but their proudly admitting it through their actions they're just to ignorant to comprehend them. They know not what they do.
Maybe you should look up Genesis 37 and you will see the story about Joseph and his coat of many colours. His Father Jacob renamed Israel, made it for him.
To be fair... Trump would be the best thing to happen to America if he gets elected again. Biden is scary bad. Or even worse... Kamala 🤮
" America is the shining city on a hill " - Ronald Reagan
@@RobertStambaugh-l5r
Ah yes, Saint Reagan. He sent America racing for the bottom.
@sicktodeath0_0 St Reagan who set the stage for non factual right-wing extremist media by destroying fairness in media laws.
Theists don't give reasons for their faith; they make excuses.
How do you figure?
“Excusegetics” - Mr. Deity
Athiests don't make arguements, they play semantic word games.
Excuserobatics.
@markwildt5728 a reason is usually based in sound and valid arguments. An excuse isn't.
I heard someone say something like, "Microevolution is an inch and macroevolution is a foot."
What I have said is that it's like someone admitting that there can be curved lines (like these brackets/parentheses) but that there can't be any such thing as a circle o ...
More like mm and Km.
So is I die and my "soul" leaves my body so no nerves or pain receptors no brain how would I get tortured ?
Sorry for my grammer
Matt, I actually don’t believe the premise of ordinary people suffering pains and torments for eternity. However, what you asked sounded to me like asking “if my phone is not connected by a wire to your phone, how can you send me a text message?”. Are there everyday things that are real, which are not casually observed? Could one of those things be a part of a person called a spirit? If there’s not, then you’re right, no pain or torture.
@@chadclca1 "Could one of those things be a part of a person called a spirit?"
No. Thanks for watching my TED talk!
God who whoever tortures you by playing Kanye West or East or whatever he calls himself these days, for hours. Or, if he is really really mad he will force you to watch all seasons of Paradise Hotel ….
@@Soundbrigade Worse, lectures by (fingers down a blackboard voiced) Todd Friel, or Kent Hovind, Kenneth Copeland "speaking in tongues", Ray Comfort lying to young people, and similar bollocks, BUT if you don't have eyes or ears, how will you see and hear the horrors?
Saying that God has a moral reason to allow evil to exist is just a different way of saying that God is not all powerful.
Or, just an asshole.
Your argument is not only erroneous at face value, but it asserts that you're morally superior to God, and don't understand a simple basic concept. First of all, you don't seem to understand the actual definition of "evil" and second, if God didn't "allow" evil, there would be no free will... And removing our free will to choose would be the most evil thing anyone could do... Thanks for sharing your total lack of critical thinking.
@@markwildt5728 So basically, God can't give us free will and stop evil, so he is not all powerful.
@@markwildt5728translation: cope.
Just like the Olympics committee doesn't have complete authority over the Olympics so long as the athletes are still forced to compete, when the committee could just remove any adversity and give everybody medals.
A lot of people don't accept their Bronze and Iron Age fairy tales and myths. And that's a good thing.
Unfortunately so many still do cling to these myths.
Atheist are so rational they accept "transwomen are women" and propagate that false dichomoty as a fact. The truth is, it's not a fact it's a belief, or opinion representing a faction which makes it bigotry and they love to call Donald Trump supporters antilgbtq bigots which isn't even a real thing. Donald Trump isn't the one trying to takeover the world. America isn't the worlds slave. We have to stop engaging in foreign affairs and only engage in diplomacy. You see the pride flag represents the Nationalist movement but nationalist will never admit it, but their proudly admitting it through their actions they're just to ignorant to comprehend them. They know not what they do.
Maybe you should look up Genesis 37 and you will see the story about Joseph and his coat of many colours. His Father Jacob renamed Israel, made it for him.
Funny seeing all these fallacious comments from atheists on a video that claims christians don't understand logical fallacies.
@@markwildt5728
Thanks for helpfully illustrating yourself as someone who doesn't understand logical fallacies. (Or irony either, evidently.)
@@markwildt5728
I don't think so. He seems to understand irony just fine.
He lays it out and descibes exactly what makes it ironic in his comment.
Creationist: You don't see a dog giving birth to a frog. *chuckle*
Alex Jones: Evolution makes the frogs gay!!!!!!! 🐸
Things creationists and Alex Jones never said...
5tvuvh b9?5
@@markwildt5728 No, their example is crocoduck. Where a crocodile lays an egg that hatches into a duck. And Alex Jones said it was chemtrails that turns frogs gay. If you're being a hardass he's wrong, but you know what he means.
@@markwildt5728Kent Hovind says exactly that.
Alex Jones: Evolution makes the frogs gay!!!!!!!
Biologist: Sort of...
The Bible is true because God says it's true. In the Bible God says he lies. so is he lying about being a lier, or is he lying about the Bible being true? Or is it all just a lie? One thing is for sure. There's a lot of lying going on.
"so is he lying about being a lier,"
Ah, the old paradox.
Verse ?
@@GoneJoka 2 Thessalonians 2:11:
"And for this cause god shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"
For a start.
And Ezekiel, 14:9:
"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel."
The Bible is true in parts and false in parts and some parts are just metaphors or allegories. Its use as a moral guide can be used for good or bad.
If god has a commendable reason for the evil that happens in the world, then why do we stop people? Why do Christians try to stop sinners from sinning?
Actually, why separate good from evil at all, if everything that happens is good anyway and we just can't see it? Are people who try to do good by fighting evil actually fighting against god's perfect will?
Did god not know that this would happen? Why would he not explain himself better to keep us from doing things we now think are good.
Creationists accusing scientists of misrepresentation of their ideas and beliefs is the best example of the pot calling the kettle black, I think I've ever heard of.
More like the pot calling the silverware black.
Regarding abortions: according to Jewish mythology (which is where the bulk of the Old Testament comes from) people acquire their soul with their first breath, so - according to their own holy teachings - a fetus technically isn't a "person", only the potential for one.
Not only that, but theists tend to picture the unborn as pure and innocent and therefore allowed in heaven immediately. Aborting a fetus is the most glorious and kind gesture for the unborn as they never have to experience any hardship and go straight to a perfect pony park in heaven.
Those people are so sad. They are so intensely desperate to defend something that deep in their heart they know it isn't true, because if they stop believing, they would be left empty inside, without anything at all, just emptiness. All life loses meaning if they stop believing these myths. They are so terrified of being their true selves.
It makes the fallacy so obvious when there is such a variety of desperately believed myths to choose from depending only on culture and era.
Besides the Buybull endorses their hatred of "others"
Funny though its atheists that are the most depressed .So who's really sad?
@@GoneJoka where did you get that from? Any other silly notions about atheists you care to reveal?
The point of the problem of evil is that there is some possible world that God could have created, given omnipotence and omnibenevolence, where there was _no need_ for any morally commendable reasons to allow evil. It just wouldn't exist in that possible world at all.
I frequently make exactly this argument. Theist responses typically betray a lack of belief in omnipotence, _i.e._ “That’s impossible!”
"The Bible is the word of God" and "God wouldn't lie" don't even follow because within the Bible God intentionally sends lying spirits to the prophets of Ahab (1 Kings 22:23); and according to Paul, God allows Satan to appear to people as an angel of light to deceive them (2 Corinthians 11:14). So according to the "word of God," God allows AND commands divine spirits to lie to us.
Edit: And this guy says Jesus was the only person who never did wrong, though the entire point of the book of Job is that God and Satan punish Job for being "blameless." So wouldn't *that* be the greatest evil ever committed, because God and Satan both knew for certain that Job was innocent, whereas the people of Earth couldn't have that same certainty about Jesus?
And Enoch
Not only that, but Jesus would, according to the biblical narrative, have known about the plan in advance,* whereas poor Job wouldn't have.
* Actually, this is contradicted by Matthew 19:28 “And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
So he didn't know at that point that Judas would betray him.
@@pineapplepenumbra Interesting points. Yeah, Jesus supposedly knowing he's coming down to Earth specifically to be sacrificed kind of takes away the "crime" aspect of it because he's actually consenting to it (in that framework at least).
The 12 disciples thing is weird in general, but I do think it was meant to be like one disciple from each tribe, which is why it always seems to be 12, even in Revelations which is long after Judas.
I also strongly suspect that Judas was invented by the author of Mark as a scapegoat as part of his Jewish conspiracy narrative (featuring omniscient-narrator scenes which none of the disciples witness). The genuine Pauline epistles have no reference to Judas specifically, and merely say he was "handed over" on the night of his crucifixion. That might be another part of the inconsistency in the 12 disciples thing, because some traditions didn't have any betrayal by a disciple.
@@sparrowthesissy2186 "I also strongly suspect that Judas was invented by the author of Mark as a scapegoat as part of his Jewish conspiracy narrativ"
You make interesting points, too. Food for thought.
it all makes much more sense when you look at it understanding the the OT was written by jews and christians impose their stuff afterwards onto it
"Dude, who stole my savior?" and Jesus preaching from the top of a sedan driving through the American Southwest - this is probably the best thumbnail I've seen all day, and I today I saw that wild thumbnail of I-don't-know-what with Friel (I imagine you must have used "death cult" or "evil temple" as a prompt in the AI image generator).
I had a lot of fun making them
A fact is an OBSERVATION.
So, when Dawkins said that we know evolution is true because it is a fact, what he was saying was that we know evolution is true because evolution has bee been observed
Haven't watched this yet, but that thumbnail is hilarious, so kudos.
The origin of the universe just got a huge jolt in interest after Brian Cox's presentation.
A young earth creationist complaining about YEC being straw manned is such mind shattering hypocrisy.
I think I can count on one hand the amount of times I've seen a YECist accurately describe evolution, period.
I’d be happy if just once they didn’t tie it in with Big Bang cosmology you know that explosion thingy! 🙄
I can count on the fingers of one foot the number of times that I've seen a Young Earth Creationist accurately describe evolution ;-)
@@IanM-id8oryeah, I just wanted to say that I can count on no hands how often I've seen it be accurately described by YECs :D
@@Jcs57 *Rapid expansion, not explosion.
@@pigpuke As opposed to pigpuke...
My Service Frog helps me with swimming pool anxiety..
Ofc pools have so much bleach, he comes out very light green and is all self conscious for days.. Poor Flippy 😥
I also have a service frog, but it keeps me awake at night barking at the moon and has chewed my slippers into atoms … Next time I gonna get me a service kangaroo.
@@Soundbrigade _"Next time I gonna get me a service kangaroo."_
You'll need higher ceilings, or get it a helmet..
@@Dr_Wrong I dropped the idea after the darn bastard broke me nose and knocked me out in third round ...
@@Soundbrigade
Well! That's just roo'd! I blame the parents, living in a pocket just isn't right!
Continuing the “real life Fallout ghoul” thing has me rolling.
They build entire careers picking apart science and biology down to the molecule while scientists and biologists dont even consider creationism. Its almost like one side has ALL the actual evidence. 😂
The "two sides": science and a very specific religion's very specific sect's tiny group of propagators' "literal" interpretation which even they can't agree on between themselves and "literal" requires a lot of hand waving and unwritten assumptions not from the tell-you-what-to-think religious text and cherry picking which creation story and other details to leave out.
"Well, yeah !" . . . "Sounds exhausting." The Dude
It's not even about asking Him what the good of most bad things are.
The answer is obvious in the statement and still he misses it!
All good and all powerful
All good means not tolerating bad and all powerful means making whatever you want. You can't have the power to change things but choose to make a universe where a child loses her eye to a parasite before the age of 5 this is to say that child has been in pains for a while before losing that eye and claim to be good. Good God!!! Come on!
How is the crucifixion his top evil? Without it there'd be nobody saved, no not one, as they say. I wish they'd make up their minds.
Make up their minds about what? Sounds like you don't understand the basic concept.
@@markwildt5728It's you who didn't understand the basic concept, though.
It's his top evil because he had to sacrifice himself to himself to save everyone else from himself. Of course, there was no need for any of that because he could have simply created a universe with no evil and no way to do evil. However, we know he's an angry, vengeful god that is willing to trick and lie to his followers as is written in the book that says he's totally real and not a made up god like all the other ones. ¬¸¬
@@pigpuke Yeahp. Summs it up nicely.
If Jesus had not been crucified, how would Christianity ever have started? So this "most horrible thing ever" was indispensable for the entire drama to play out and humanity to be "saved". These Christians make no sense.
The crazier it is the more it must be true . . . , right? 🤔
I heard some where form like the Bible that one of the disciples said something along the lines of: "if Jesus didn't risen from the grave then we would be the most pity people on earth."
Does Professor Dave know about Jason Lisle?
there wouldn't be much for him to cover
The reason you never see YEC apologists who really understand evolution is because if you really understand evolution you didn't argue against it, because you realize it's true.
One-day the Christian God will be nothing but a memory just as so many other God are now mere memories
There apparently has been a risen in Christians or catholics (I my self don't know the difference) as atheist are turn to God as well as other religious people turning to Christians.
When you want to vouch for a “perfect god”,
You should NEVER produce a single fallacious sentence.
…just to perfect your position, you know, for a perfect god, whatever that fictional being is.
When was the last time that Dr Lisle saw a talking snake, saw a demon, saw an angel, or saw a god? Maybe he has a special kaleidoscope telescope? I'm sure that there are chemicals that would help him see gravity, too.
What's sad is that you think this was an actual argument.
@@markwildt5728 Yes, that's a very sad argument. That's why OP used it ironically - to show how ridiculous it is to argue like that. Because that's exactly the way the guys in this video argued. It's sad that you can't see that through your dogmatic glasses.
Guess he called Kat Kerr, who’s been to wonder-heaven-land multiple times to get the latest report. And Kat is a true-worthy and powerful person that can stop hurricanes with a stick.
Naughty language? Why have emotional expression when you can adopt our thought-terminating clichés?
I believe microevolution happens but macroevolution isn't a thing = I believe in inches and feet but miles just aren't a real thing. I think it's just hysterical that an astrophysicist who is also an ardent creationist is trying to school atheists about evolutionary science.
I think it's bizarre that an astrophysicist, who KNOWS that the Universe cannot be a mere few thousand years old, believes in the myths of Genesis as literally true.
That's one definition of insanity.
12:50"...there are some situations, where you must assume the thing that you are trying to proove..."
This scentence alone disqualifies him as a scientist. Doubt is the main principle that drives science to higher levels of certainty, not the assumption of knowing something beforehand aka belief. Most experiments are targetted to disproove the working theory by checking out alternatives. Whenever an alternative fails, then we are narrowing in.
Bifurcation is essentially splitting something into two parts.
I'm not sure what is being split to produce Belief and Rationality.
But making shit up after the fact is creationists' specialty.
Their whole list of fallacies is an exercise in projection.
It's hilarious. He calls out Dawkins for begging the question, which as said can be refuted, then *immediately* says we know God is real because the Bible tells him so.
Look up "presupposition" in the dictionary, Lisle.
SMH
@0:55 Why are they using shaky cam? No one like shaky cam, and there aren't even any subpar special effects it needs to cover up. WHY?!
Great presentation and commentary. Thanks for posting.
It's funny how these fallacies seem to be like proverbial boomerangs, they pick them up, throw them back and then notice that they still come flying back at them... my favourite is when you call god skydaddy and they seriously tell you he's actually a being that exists outside of time (never) and also outside of space (nowhere) and who loves you, because nothing spells love than a natural world filled to the brim with disease, parasites and carnivores...
Personally, can any "God" who has committed morally deplorable acts, ie: Flood to drown all evil humans or raining fire down on Sodom and Gamora, be one who should truly be classified a morally commendable individual?
They can't find truth so I doubt they will be able to find an audio engineer.
dErP!
So bifurcation, like when Christians say believe in their god or I'm going to hell? So there can be a third option there too, right? I can not believe in your god and still not go to hell. Thanks for clearing that up.
Samuel Wilberforce The Bishop of Winchester would be surprised to hear he wasn't debating evolution in 1860 at a British Association meeting. An how a young earth creationist manages to be an astrophysicist is beyond me. Since the creationist position has changed when it became obvious that you couldn't fit the entire diversity of terrestrial life on an Ark so they had ditch their complete denial of evolution, they have been changing their position every time science cuts the ground from beneath them.
Dawkins was probably saying that evolution as a phenomenon is a fact, not the theory of evolution; these are often conflated by creationists as it makes easier to argue with scientific theories then hard data.
Mostly because evolution as phenomenon true, we have observed speciation events, we have seen that organisms do change to the point where they cannot breed with the original population (one that did not change as much). That's why organizations like Answers in Genesis must contort their "kinds" into some really wild shapes, so they can say that that doesn't count as evolution because its still the same kind and the macroevolution should be between kinds. Purposefully misrepresenting what speciation is, and ignoring that this whole idea of "kinds" is of their own creation, with no bearing on actual biology.
Re swearing, I'm British, many of us swear a lot as part of our normal, everyday parlance, it's a basic part of our lexicon.
However, as I have pointed out in the past (and someone even used what I originally posted as a quote on their home page, which was quite a compliment), short of actual physical violence, or enacting oppressive laws (both of which the religious have engaged in regularly over the millennia), *there is nothing more offensive than being told that the creator of the Universe hates us non believers enough to torture us for eternity!*
The religious cannot imagine how grossly offensive their belief systems are; there are some things infinitely worse than a few swear words (and this is something the grossly hypocritical UA-cam needs to learn).
That has to be worse attempt to describe the Epicurus paradox I've heard.
If God knows about our suffering (all-knowing), cares about our suffering (all-loving), and can do something about our suffering (all-powerful), then there shouldn't be any suffering.
As to the crucifixion being the worst evil ever is nonsense, as that would mean by comparison the murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazi's was just fine.
Jesus was already facing a stoning to death by the Jews for violating the Sabbath law (by healing on the Sabbath); threatening to destroy the Jewish Temple; practicing sorcery, exorcising people by the power of demons; and claiming to be the Messiah.
If there is a morally commendable reason for evil to exist then that means there is a morally commendable reason for people to be evil.
If there is a reason, then someone could convince themselves that it is moral to be evil.
According to the book, jeebus ordered his guys to steal a donkey. That counters dudes lie that jeebus was the most innocent man. Also there is flipping over the tables he did in the book. No so innocent
14:25 it is word play, he uses "exist" incorrectly, there is difference between "be" and "exist", something is in our imagination, like ideas, dreams, god, musical genres, and something exists like cats and dogs. Some categories we only think, because it is comfortable for us, but they do not float around somewhere, invisible.
And he is doing this only to sell circular reasoning of god.
Mathematical logic is designed to avoid inner contradictions and search possible conclusions, it starts from axioms and doesn't prove own existence.
Normal people don't "know", but they trust to experience, they think, predict, periodically fail and improve models and if succeed they become sure.
But he doesn't want to play on field of assumptions and axioms, because his creator looks like hella a big stretch.
So we have to listen this mambo-jambo about knowing of existence of laws and other nonsense. But for example cup doesn't exist (or does it?), cup is what we decide to drink from, atoms exist, and cups are what we decide. So take it easy, dont play "logical" inside figurative speech.
Are you Owen Morgan’s long-lost brother?
nah but he is the reason I started doing this
If we are all descended from Adam & Eve are we all not Jewish ? & why are people all different colours ? Why do people keep finding animal fossils dating back millions of years ?
Why are they filming in a vacant house??
It symbolizes their minds.
If I get home from work today and my dog has become a frog I’m coming after you.
"Because i said so" - this guys entire argument
... But aren't dogs fish?
Well yeah. But so are we.
Walks like a fish, smells like a fish, bark like a fish, looks like a fish …. Yeah, dogs are fishy.
It’s a reference to Final Fantasy VII. There is a character named Aerith that got changed to Aeris in the original US release. And in case you got the reference, then I sorely missed yours. Which in beginning to think is more likely.
No surprises here, they don't see the fallacy of their own religion, that being the circular argument.
That was the joke. The op used Eris, so I riffed on that. At least someone appreciated it.
So, I want to ask a question to test your critical thinking, and bias. Is there anything about evolution you believe may not be correct, or needs more scrutiny? Could you give any examples?
I reject your premise entirely
@@danger.snakes It's not a trick question. There are many fields of study in science particularly in the theoretical sectors that are adjusting upon new evidence, or discrepancies of missing information which opens up for scientists to form varying hypothesis and form experiments to test.
Like quantum field theories, some theories work off each other, while others propose alternative information that isn't congruent with the rest, and these discoveries happen over time. String theory would be an example of that.
Or the big bang and our understanding of the expansion of the universe, we though we had such a solid understanding, but then James Webb gave us contradictory information which left us to re-evaluate our preconceptions and build upon our current theories.
Or intersectionality studies, there are theories upon race, sexuality, gender, multitude of social class structures.
Evolution there are a lot of things grounded in replicable science, however it has also developed over time, as new hypothesis have been proposed, tested, and validated. An example of the development of evolutionary theory would be evolutionary psychology.
Or Abiogenesis, there is a theory that life came from extraterrestrial meteor, or primordial soup model, and it is still very much a work in progress.
So, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask such a question, nor would I think it's unreasonable for someone to question some of the details of evolution.
The phrase "begging the question" is the name for the fallacy of circular reasoning. They aren't two different things. They are the same. What you are hearing is "raising the question", but that wasn't what he meant.
19:20 Ooh ooh!!! I know the answer! "God works in mysterious ways! "
The amazing 1800 year old thought terminated cliché.
What about NUB theory?
In the Bible stories, the character Christians call God does lie.
In the bible stories, god says he can, and will promulgate falsehood. Just to test the faithful😂
What? Not even close.
@@twcnz3570 cite me chapter and verse please...
@@markwildt57281 Kings 22: 21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
🙄 4:00 No that isn't what "belief" means.
Belief: what one holds to be true.
Faith: belief without evidence
Knowledge: (conclusive) evidence based belief.
Stop confusing "faith" with "belief"
Wait a minute, right at the beginning he gets the origins of the Universe mixed up with Scopes?
That chucks any credibility he might have had, right out of the window, in the first few seconds.
DId he say Poodles could not have survived in the wild? I thought he was talking about "the garden of Eden" (aka paradise). What "wild" was there supposed to be?
Jason Lisle was the "famous" Answers In Genesis and Creation Magazine astrophysicists who was always about to come up with a definitive solution to the "Starlight Problem". Dr. Lisle is the founder of the "Biblical Science Institute". Which appears to just be his "one man band" website to host his current personal science blog, and sell his books and creationist home school resources. While advertising for probably well paid personal "guest speaker" appearances.
Biblical WHAT???!!! 😳😳😳😳😳
Ah, yes, the apologetics video that utterly fails to ascend into daylight. There's no better way to say bye to it than a clip from Jacob's Ladder :D
Wait, they talked about begging the question or circular reasoning, and how sometimes it's necessary (which I think twists what's going on with the 'laws of logic'), but never explained what that had to do with the question at hand, viz., proving or disproving God, evolution, whatever. They just instantly moved on to enthymemes.
If you disagree with a scientist you don't have a different point of view you're just wrong.
Well, no... That's a bit broad. Instead I might say: if you disagree with the objective facts of reality upon which science is based, you don't have a 'different point of view', you're just wrong.
@@turboguppy3748 that actually sounds better tbh
If you disagree with a scientist, the scientist might tell you to copy the experiments, look at the data, come to your own conclusions, and publish and then see if it gains acceptance or not. But yeah, if you tell a scientist that gravity doesn't exist, he will chuckle. Or she will chuckle, and then might suggest that you don't test that hypothesis by skydiving without parachutes. With Evolution, you aren't just arguing with one scientist. You are arguing with whole lifetimes, hundreds of scientists, who have collected data on it and have looked for other explanations but haven't found any. God done it...we can all go home now...just doesn't suffice.
Scientists are people. People can be, and often are, wrong. That one can have a justified, broad, confidence in science, does NOT mean one should be so with scientists.
Well, "A morally commendable reason." That explains everything. "Bright black", "Justifiable murder", "Dry water", "A still wind". Just put two opposite and mutually exclusive words together and you have "logical irrationality".
The Christian God isn't beholden to the standard he expects of Christians. The Christian God doesn’t need salvation.
The “fertile offspring” metric doesn’t really work. Cows and Buffalo are clearly very different species but the Buffalo on Catalina Island have some percentage of cow DNA in them. Heck the descendants of polar bear and grizzly bears crossbreeding have been known to reproduce.
You were there at the Creation Museum? Cool.
holy hell! yeah! I did another video about that, actually and mentioned you in it: ua-cam.com/video/z9-9b4NdFVQ/v-deo.html
And he even lies about what _The Problem of Evil_ is.
_The Problem of Evil_ stems from the claimed *tri-omni* nature of the biblical god. The argument goes, that if god is omniscient (so it knows evil exists), is omnipotent (so it has the ability to prevent it from happening) and is omnibenevolent (has the desire to prevent evil) the existence of evil proves that at least one of those three "omnis" is wrong.
So somewhat adjacent to my other comment about BioLogos, Michael Jones, a youtuber whose channel is called Inspiring Philosophy, has made at least one video that gives a BioLogos style point of view & several of his cohorts seem to share a similar opinion
Believe it or not William Lane Craig & Frank Turek seem to look favorably on the BioLogos position but aren't quite as open about it
interestingly enough Michael Jones holds a peculiar theological position where he defends a different version of the afterlife other than eternal reward vs eternal punishment. I think it's called extinction or consumption but he also states that he hopes that universalists are correct
The real issue with Michael Jones is that he takes a rather strange position on bible scholarship & both Mythvision & Paulogia have been making videos to counter him
"Both the Bible and the Quran claim to be the true word of God, but the Quran isn't."
There you have it.
Well, no one knows logical fallacies like jason lisle.
This has nothing to do with the subject of this video, but I just noticed that London Storm (If that really is your name) pronounces "often" with an audible t sound. I had recently done an Internet search about the history of the silent t in English. Apparently the word "often" is about the only English word that is still commonly pronounced both ways, some people as a silent letter like in "soften" or "listen", or voiced like in "softly" or "lastly". I merely point this out as a linguistic curiosity, not as a matter of any import (or importance 😉).
The title of your video is spot-on, although I have to assume (perhaps mistakenly) that they *DO* understand evolution and fallacies as neither are particularly complex to understand and both are easily understood with a couple of Google searches. If I'm right, that would mean that they are *liars* rather than *accidentally ignorant,* which seems to tie-in better with their twisted relationship with the truth. So to summarise: apologists are liars, ignorant or some combination of the two. I'm not even arguing that there isn't a god!
If you burn in Hell every day, you will get use to it. After 1000 billions year, you don't remember why the fire start each morning after breakfast.
I’m confused. You attacked the guy for being an astrophysicist, not a biologist. I guess the implication is he doesn’t have the educational authority to speak outside his field. By the same logic what educational authority do you have to rebut him? Serious question. Are you a biologist or an astrophysicist?
Can we stick to debating the topic using logic and science and not attack a person because of their background. His degree should be irrelevant. Or are you suggesting you need a paid for piece of paper to be highly educated?
Creationists are like flat earthers, they seem to think that their refusal to accept evolution is relevant to whether it's real or not.
The first logical fallacy in this video is thinking that "public debate for THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE" has anything to do with evolution or monkeys or trials. Evolution is not Astronomy (perhaps abiogenesis can linked to astronomy).
It’s just horrible if people use bad language to make people think emotionally. But it’s fine to tell people they will go to hell and burn forever if they don’t accept Jesus. No emotionality there I guess.
Gotta LIE to preach...
The projection is strong in these ones. That's always been handy. Accuse your interlocutors of the all the same bad habits you possess and rely on instead of, oh, I don't know, actually trying to argue in good faith and truly examine your positions for actual fallacious reasoning and attempt actual bridge-building via consensus making the world a better, more factual place. I see why some of our cohort have just simply given up trying to talk to theists but the struggle continues.
Don't upvote yourself, man.
Talk about Projection. Nobody is more illogical and unreasonable than an atheist, which is ironic for a group of people who pride themselves on facts, logic and reason. The problem with Atheists, is they lack basic critical thinking skills, hold God to arbitrary human standards such as his ridiculous child leukemia argument, and simply regurgitate what they've been told to think rather than learning how to think.
Jason Lisle was born in 1950.
Where in the Bible does Jesus or anyone say Jesus' death will somehow free all of mankind from "sin"--BEFORE he's crucified?
You can make up all sorts of junk after it happens, but where is the essential, necessary expression, "I'm agreeing to be executed so that all people can be cleansed of sin"?
In fact, where does Jesus agree to die? This is critical to the whole story.
If i just missed it, somebody please tell me.
18:47 If god has a morally commendable reason for evil, then if a person is the instrument of that evil they're doing god's will and thus shouldn't be punished for it.
Any act perceived by us as evil isn't really evil, we just lack the background information to see the good in it. Talk about moral relativism.
It is logically impossible for a all-powerful, all-knowing and loving being to allow evil. Put in another way: if god can achieve his goals without using or allowing evil, but chooses not to, then he is evil. If he can not achieve his goals without using or allowing evil, what makes him a god?
Isn’t that the first guy you see get murdered by Tony soprano
Love the brilliant ending ! 😎🤗