Evolution and Logical Fallacies - Dr. Jason Lisle

In this informative presentation, Dr. Lisle gives viewers a fast-paced course on logic. In addition to reviewing numerous "logical fallacies," Dr. Lisle gives examples of how evolutionists (and creationists) often use fallacious arguments in arguing for their position. Learning to recognize these fallacies provides a whole new opportunity for defending the faith and contending for the truth of creation.

[@Glejsaren]

I’m so grateful to God for Jason Lisle! 👍💐

[@pallabailey]

just found him and feel the same way!!!

[@xTriad]

So am I! Very grateful for Jason Lisle.

[@ozowen]

I think his stuff is rubbish

[@Glejsaren]

@@ozowen based on facts?

[@ozowen]

@@Glejsaren Yes 1) He doesn't point those fallacies at Creationists 2) He makes false claims about evolutionary arguments. For example, the claim that evolution is observed is true. But not only is it observed on a daily basis- as he points out, it is also observed in compared sequenced genomes both inter-species and intra-species and over time as well as over geographical locations. It is also observed in compared sequences in the fossil record of lineages and related lineages. He omits significant portions of the evolutionary argument/ evidence for evolution- which is him committing a strawman fallacy.

[@showbizbalita9949]

lol. so many atheist arguing Christians here. They don't like Christianity and yet they're here. I'll just love God with all my heart anyway. Not because Christians told me. Not because athiest told me not to, But because i felt his presence in the stillness of my consciousness. I love you God, I'll scream it to the entire universe. I'll let them mock me and call me stupid. That's what all they can do. Science couldn't make me feel alive like this anyway. I love you God. I love you all💞

[@gejost]

It would be interesting if there were christians here arguing but tgere arent. Lisle isnt either. His argument amounts to this, listen to me because ive a phd i refuse to use and because god is logic so atheism is impossible. this is called circular reasoning. Some christians have arguments, he doesnt. Kalam may not be full proof but it is at least an argument. So is Paley's watch.

[@dco8886]

Hahahaha is what they do best. It’s consistent among them. Let them just ramble and feel happy about it 😂

[@TheHeartOfTheHour1]

@b1itsjustme What a dumb assumption. You're a liar. Are you seriously suggesting a rational belief is the same as a heroin addiction in the brain? What a dumb comment.

[@ob1coyote]

gejost someone didnt watch the video.... you just used so many logical fallacies to make your case...

[@ForeverBleedinGreen]

@b1itsjustme I beg to differ. You are just the proverbial kettle calling the pot black. Evolution is based exclusively on fraud and lies, from the geologic column, to radiometric dating, to Lucy, and everywhere in between.

[@joycegreer9391]

Great information. I see all of this all the time in comments from evolutionists. This was very helpful in understanding the errors in their thinking. Thank you, Dr Lisle. I love your teaching and your style.

[@sizwemlangeni9158]

I don't know how many times I've watched this lecture and I thoroughly enjoy it everytime I do. God bless Dr Lisle and may God increase him in grace, wisdom, knowledge and understanding 🇿🇦.

[@jerrylong6238]

It's a shame he is wrong about all of it though.

[@athb4hu]

Really sharp guy. Glad he's on our (God's) side.

[@gejost]

why glad? while his phd is actually impressive, his circular reasoning isnt.

[@nunyabisnass1141]

He isn't describing what makes a valid argument correctly. He's just talking too fast to catch the subtle incinsistencies in his own descriptions.

[@rationalsceptic7634]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKTEg4R6rdJ_p7s

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Lisle is a moron who has no training in Evolutionary Science...he is a joke who has been soundly refuted:

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Adrian Bury kzbin.info/www/bejne/hZnHZqinr9Gqqbc

[@paulczar]

I’m a life long atheist and this guy is pretty good. Makes a lot of good points and arguments and does so in a convincing fashion. I at least consider myself spiritual now. We’re all searching for the same thing... truth. We all seek answers. We all seek a greater understanding. I believe we’re all searching for the same thing. Different mandifeststions of the same thing, something that is embedded into every inch and galaxy size piece of the universe. Written into the fabric of the universe.

[@ibeamy]

paulczar I actually rediscovered Christianity because I listened to a lecture by a paleontologist and he made a nonchalant comment that “it’s true, there’s no proof of evolution.” And I was like WAIT, WHAT? During a seminar explaining evolution, mind you. So I went down the rabbit hole. Even in many volumes of books on the subject it reiterated the same fact. Then I discovered carbon dating was inaccurate, and that fossilization can happen instantly. Well, now I’m not sure if the world is “young,” but it does make me wonder.

[@johnc.8298]

Paulczar, what a great post! Much appreciated.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Great post. Only part I disagree with is "we're all searching for the same thing... truth." YOU may be, but unfortunately many Atheists are not seeking truth genuinely. They're seeking validation their "side" is the truth instead. Any Theist / Christian / Creationist who debates an Atheist knows this to be the case. I recommend looking into the academic studies on atheism and dogmatism, all of which show Atheists tend to claim they're less dogmatic than Theists but are actually much more so in reality. Many Atheists even think they cannot possibly be dogmatic.

[@davidgraham2673]

paulczar, We have that in common. I wanted to know the truth, more than I wanted to believe in science. When I opened my mind, it also opened my heart. After much time, I could not deny that I had found the truth in Jesus Christ. I remember at times being very angry at Christians, because I knew they had me in a discussion. My end didn't hold water. Remember this: God says the time is now, to decide. If you wait, and a car accident kills you, before your acceptance of Jesus as your Lord, and Savior, it won't help you at all to say "I was considering about accepting you as my God". Best wishes Brother. I'll be praying for you.

[@jerrylong6238]

SUPERNATURAL IS JUST SOMETHING NATURAL THAT WE HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT YET, BECAUSE WHEN WE DO FIGURE IT OUT (AND WE WILL) IT WILL THEN BECOME NATURAL. THEN SUPERNATURAL IS A TEMPORARY THING. SCIENCE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DESTROYING SUPERNATURAL THINGS.

[@kennetharmbruster]

Whether you believe in Creationism or not, this man has the best, most complete and comprehensive understanding and explanation of concepts in logic I have ever seen. I don’t even watch this for the religious aspect-I watch it to brush up on logic.

[@ozowen]

It was certainly a wonderful recital of the primary logical fallacies employed extensively by creationists.

[@billbrock8547]

At thirty-one minutes into the video, every criticism Lisle has leveled applies equally theists and atheists.

[@tonyabrown7796]

I noticed Lisle made a logical fallacy. He said "why has everything been designed".😅

[@PedanticPlanner]

Regardless of your position, we can ALL agree.... 42 Minutes in with the bit about the moon... soooo funny! XD

[@VaughanMcCue]

This was a very informative event, and it clarified a few things for me. I also sincerely appreciate the effort that numerous people have made to highlight this teacher's double standards of fallacious reasoning.

[@SonoftheLivingGod7]

It's interesting seeing all these atheists spit, moan and groan all the time. Every single one in the comment section did that, yet nobody has provided a shred of evidence to defend themselves against the claims of this video. I also find it interesting how unintelligent they are and how little they know of science and logic. It's also really amusing how they try to use logic to prove there is no God, that is affirming the existence of God. They are using logic = God exists.

[@aidanr8353]

If you seriously think no evidence was given you need to start looking.

[@dogmahacker8278]

Name one atheist who "tries" to prove there is no god. I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find one, but you would need to look for a bit. It's not every atheist, very few actually talk that way. I'll grant that many do talk about believing there is no god and some will claim no god exists. I disagree with those atheist's statements who claim "no God exists". No one can with 100% certainty claim there is no god. Even if we knew everything about the universe and that universe had no god in it, it still can be said something exists outside of everything. Sure the burden of proof would be on the one making the claim, but it's still possible and thus no atheist can ever say "there is absolutely no creator." That would be a logical fallacy on the atheists part. But to this day I have never hear of a single atheist who said there is proof no god exists, they only say that the reasons provided are not convincing enough to make a case for a god, at least not for them. If one said with certainty "I can prove there is no god" they would be wrong to state it and would a special case among the atheist community. Logic does not = God exists Gods exists = Gods exists Logic is the relationship between the attributes of reality god or no god. Merely defining the word God to be synonymous with word logic is a fallacy in and of itself. You have to first demonstrate that a god is synonymous with logic, not just assert it based on your intuition or playing with semantics. The laws of this universe have established properties with variations of those properties creating a systematic causal relationships between them, since the law of non contradiction is foundational this creates what we perceive as logic. Did the universe always exist or was it created? I don't know. Either would need to be first demonstrated. So right off the bat we cannot claim god = logic until it's shown that this is the case. I know people like to believe that god = logic. But that's a belief, not a demonstration. So you cannot call out atheists for proving god by using logic, it doesn't work that way. You can't make a word synonymous with another and then claim anyone who uses the former is therefore proving the latter based on your definition. One day we may discover a god and may find out that God is logical. But god being logical is not the same as logic = God. It could be argued that logic preceeds God, since it was reality that decided that a God and his inherit attributes would eternally exist outside of space and time and be logically consistent in the first place. I know people like to argue that God created his own reality and likeness, but from what? God needed a reality to inhabit to created himself within reality to begin with, even if that reality is spaceless and only God himself. Something dictated that reality to be would spaceless and be just God itself. God can't dictate his own default state of reality, because to do so he would need a default state to dictate his default state and so on. Logic in this God's reality always precedes him by actions of what is the default state of reality. Reality can exist without anything, but nothing can exist without reality. Reality in this way is Gods master, because God can potentially not exist, but reality cannot not exist. Is God by definition still synonymous with logic? Given that a God hasen't yet been demonstrated to be synonymous with logic and logic can exist apart from God, I don't see how the God = logic argument flies. Don't get me wrong. I think there are some potential good arguments for a creator, but God = logic is not one of them. It's a semantics word game at best. It's like saying Mother Earth deniers try to argue that Mother Earth doesn't exist, but they are proving Mother Earth by using the breath they use to speak of Her non existence. If I define Mother Earth to be synonymous with breath of nature and then argue that every time someone talks they are proving Mother Earth, is that not silly reasoning? That is essentially what is being done with the God = logic argument. I understand that God can be defined as "the ground of all being" which necessitates that God then must therefore = logic. While this is true and consistent, it is only internally consistent, the conclusion is true because the premises are assumed true and logically follow, but only logically follow in this model. Outside of this model however, we have to first demonstrate that God is in fact the ground of all being, which hasen't yet been done, so the first premise has only been assumed, thus the conclusion is assumed. So here too we are not yet free to claim that God = logic. Only in the sense of semantic word play can we do that and that is a fallacy.

[@davidbutler1857]

It's because you don't read anything. Anytime anyone replies to you, you bombard the thread with copypasta. You never discuss anything, and you do this because you know that nobody is going to spend 20 hours refuting the crap you've assembled.

[@GODHATESADOPTION]

Andre Danielz how much does logic weigh?

[@dogmahacker8278]

Tommy Dolan It weighs the same as mathematics, abstract concepts, and a bullshit argument. No point given.

[@steakslapn9724]

I love logic, it's so fun to talk about because it's such a rich topic yet it is always easy to understand, Because it's always logical. Lol.

[@sacredtruth3136]

Thank you for your incisive and interesting analysis. Indeed, evolutionists often appeal to logical fallacies to try and make their case. Let us seek to persuade our listeners of the truth of the Christian faith via sound reasoning and persuasive evidence. May the Lord continue to use you to promote His glory. Best wishes, RFS

[@stevepierce6467]

As far as I have been able to discern, evolutionists appeal most frequently to solid concrete evidence that supports their ideas. I draw your attention to Ashfall Fossil Beds State Historical Park in northeast Nebraska. Proof positive! No logical fallacies or correct shots, just evidence.

[@williamdehner3968]

I Believe that Dr Lisle is one of the Better Teachers of the Gospel! 😊👍❤️, Thanks Man! Jesus Said You will know My Disciples by their Fruits! I Believe that Dr.Lisle is a Harvester of Good Fruits,(Information from the Gospel)👍🐎😊...

[@owenscomputering9778]

thanks for sharing this video. I am looking for ways to bring the unbelievers to Christ, especially those who are prejudiced against faith. One of the biggest things I see is believers saying stupid and false things all the time, and I don't want to do the same things. Finding falsehoods from other believers almost had me out the door. I believe there are others like me who need to be reached even intellectually.

[@dece870717]

+Owens Computering This 5 min video has some good information in it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/opWvenqIptFqq7M Know this, true, faithful, dedicated Christianity has amazing depth and sophistication. The older theologians of past centuries were absolutely brilliant and today we still have some, though very rare they may be. We have a moral imperative to think rationally because God thinks rationally. We are to discover and know the deep things of God, which requires MUCH thinking, much studying. The overall state of modern Christianity is anti-intellectualism, which is sad because our God is beyond what any mind could comprehend, we should seek out the deepest knowledge of God thats attainable, and then we should have that knowledge drive our emotions so as to serve and glorify God rightly, just having one or the other is worthless. -------------- This is taken from an awesome sermon in a sermon series that the whole of the Christian Church can really use by Dr. MacArthur - www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/50-41/spiritual-stability-part-5-godly-thinking Audio of the following starts at 32:56. "Psalm 32 verse 9 - verse 8 actually, “I will instruct you,” says God, “I will teach you in the way which you should go, I will counsel you with My eye upon you.” In other words, “I’ll give you all the truth, all the instruction, all the teaching, all the counseling.” Verse 9: “Do not be as the horse or as the mule which have no understanding.” Think. Don’t be like a horse or a mule; think and you’ll have access to My truth. Psalm 73:22, the Psalmist admits, “I was senseless and ignorant, I was like a beast.” Don’t be like that. Think. Listen now, careful thinking is the distinctive of our revealed faith. Let me say that again. Careful thinking is the distinctive of our revealed faith. Orr wrote a book called The Christian View of God and the World. In one paragraph, he says this very insightfully: “If there is a religion in the world which exalts the office of teaching, it is safe to say that it is the religion of Jesus Christ. It has been frequently remarked that in pagan religions, the doctrinal element is at a minimum. The chief thing there is the performance of a ritual. But this is precisely where Christianity distinguishes itself from other religions - it does contain doctrine. It comes to men with definite, positive teaching. It claims to be the truth. It bases religion on knowledge, though a knowledge which is only obtainable under moral conditions. A religion divorced from earnest and lofty thought has always, down through the whole history of the church, tended to become weak, jejune, and unwholesome while the intellect deprived of its rights within religion has sought its satisfaction without and developed into godless rationalism,” end quote. Boy, that is a great statement. To sum up what he says, if there’s any religion in the world that exalts the office of teaching and, therefore, the idea of thinking, it is the Christian religion because it is propositional, it is written. It is not a ritual. It is not an experience. It is a revelation of truth. And then he says, “When the church ceases to think and reason and divorces itself from lofty thought, then,” he says, “the mind or the intellect, deprived of its rights in religion, will pursue something outside of religion to fulfill itself and thus comes the rise of godless rationalism.” So maybe the church contributes to rationalism because it offers nothing to the mind when it is weak and witless as it so often is." And this is another good one! Audio of the following starts at 42:12. "Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in his classic The Sermon on the Mount, writes this little paragraph on that section - I think it’s worthy of repeating. He says, “Faith, according to our Lord’s teaching in this paragraph, is primarily thinking, and the whole trouble with a man of little faith is that he doesn’t think. He allows circumstances to bludgeon him. We must spend more time in studying our Lord’s lessons in observation and deduction. The Bible,” he says, “is full of logic, and we must never think of faith as something purely mystical. We do not just sit down in an armchair and expect marvelous things to happen to us. This is not Christian faith. Christian faith is essentially thinking. Look at the birds. Think about them and draw your deductions. Look at the grass. Look at the lilies of the field, consider them. Faith, if you like, can be defined like this: It is a man insisting upon thinking when everything seems determined to bludgeon and knock him down in an intellectual sense. The trouble with the person of little faith is that instead of controlling his own thought, his thought is being controlled by something else, and as we put it, he goes round and round in circles. That is the essence of worry.” Now, get this: “That is not thought, that is the absence of thought,” end quote. Great. What does he mean by that? He means if you worry, it’s because you’re not thinking; you’re being bludgeoned by your circumstances. If you rise above them and think about your God and think about His purposes and think about His promises and think about His plans, you won’t worry. Right? Remember that when you worry. That’s - people say, “You worry. You think too much.” No, you think too little. You think far too little in the right direction. Faith is not optimism. Faith is not psychological self-hypnosis. Faith is not wishful thinking. Faith is a reasoned response to revealed truth."

[@gejost]

if you are, this is the wrong place. Try thomas aquinas, mere christianit, rational faith. They try to have arguments. Here? Nothing but circular reasoning.

[@fogboquiz5700]

@@gejost I note you seem insistent the Dr here is attempting to prove Christianity. To the best of my knowledge (about 15 mins in) he is clearly not. He is offering understanding of logical fallacies and is offering polemics against evolution. I do not see him concluding 'therefore Christianity is true' which is what you suggest.

[@cjurg2423]

@@fogboquiz5700 you should see his other videos. This one is specific on logical fallacies, which sets the conditions and primes the audience for his other lectures.

[@jimhughes1070]

​@@fogboquiz5700 I'm pretty sure that, from beginning to end... That is precisely what he was doing... Disproving, via logic, that evolutionary theory is a very bad "joke". Its adherents are deceived through false narratives, poorly worded😂... And the way to defeat those narratives (not necessarily the initiate), it's through the Truth. The logical word of God, (also manifested in the flesh)...ie. true Christianity is based on those Words. Plus they're all at a Christian educational convention😅(I'm just practicing. Not actually trying to be contentious😂)

[@813infinityfilms123]

Great info! God bless you! Thanks!

[@SeanMichaelShowalter]

Interesting how all these antagonists on this thread are so offended. Why are they even bothering to say anything? Did Dr. Lisle threaten their world view? Or do they feel they must somehow inform the world that he is wrong? And if he is wrong, then what is their faith? Do they all have a faith in common? Maybe they should go create their own channel and stop being so rude and leave us "idiots" alone. And if they are so smart, I think they should go argue with Jason Lisle and have a debate with someone more intelligent than us simpletons. I don't see Dr. Lisle bombasting evolutionist threads. Why? Because he is invited to debates all over the world, and place where people want to hear what he has to say. These guys on this thread? Has anyone invited them anywhere to speak? Maybe so. If that be the case, then how pathetic. If not, then maybe they need to look in the mirror and really dig deep as to why they feel the need to post their views. Maybe deep down they want to know Jesus but can't. And so they are angry. Maybe what the really need is an open mind, but how can someone so intelligent and have all the answers ever look beyond what they already know to be true? I'll pray for them. Jesus loves them all. Be blessed.

[@davidbutler1857]

////Why are they even bothering to say anything? Did Dr. Lisle threaten their world view? Or do they feel they must somehow inform the world that he is wrong? /// Because he misleads children. He doesn't threaten my 'worldview'. He threatens to discredit science that leads to JOBs, and a productive society. He's an anti-education speaker. He goes around to churches and tries to make secular institutions of learning sound like the enemy, when they are likely the only hope for many people to get an education and get real jobs in real society.

[@SeanMichaelShowalter]

I encourage you to read his book 'The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving The Origins Debate' to get a better perspective on what he is trying to convey. You can buy it on amazon here: read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=B002A9JOTM&preview=newtab&linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_yrIMybQ4RAD46&tag=wwwbookgeeksn-20

[@davidbutler1857]

I have no interest in funding Lisle's career, thank you.

[@markryan3018]

Young Earth Creationism is garbage. Are you offended by that truth? Maybe you should stay out of the KZbin comment section if you can't handle the truth.

[@brettslaathaug4704]

Awesome statement. You proved everything in that well laid out argument.

[@ibeamy]

Logic is a basic introductory college course. It’s very common and is usually offered next to or interchangeably with philosophy. If you never took logic, it’s because it’s 1) a college subject and 2) most people choose philosophy instead.

[@danhimes1858]

Brilliant snippet from Dr. Lisle ,once again proving evolutionism is but a poorly argued religion.

[@davidholloway3852]

Dr. Lisle did no such thing. Dr. Lisle said people can argue poorly and barely touched upon evolution in particular.

[@pastorart1974]

What baffles me most is how some organizations who claim to be Christian, yet they deny the Bible & what the Bible says. We have 2 "Christian" high schools in my suburb of Chicago. One follows the Bible & teaches creation, the other is Roman Catholic and teaches evolution just like the public schools. I was very surprised to learn that at a public high school, School Board Meeting, which was attended by many students from this Roman Catholic high school. I really had thought that Catholics & Protestants at least agreed about Creation.

[@dece870717]

That's just another one of those issues you end up with when one makes 'The Roman Catholic Church' the ultimate authority. In the end, their system is really 'Sola Ecclesia'. So if the Pope and/or Roman Catholic Church body has accepted the molecules to man concept, then most Roman Catholics will follow suit, technically, to be a good Roman Catholic, they must. Because their system is, in practice, not really about what the Bible says, it's what the 'Church' has said/declared. If you ever ask Roman Catholic Priests about doctrine/theology, the majority of their answers will probably begin or sound like this, "Well, the Church has said,...". In every "Christian" worldview that does not accept the straightforward historical narrative of the Biblical creation account, it is because that worldview has a fundamentally tainted ultimate authority/standard (Biblical God/Bible), because in their worldview, man's (specifically secular) ideas about the past are influencing their ultimate authority/standard that causes a warped understanding.

[@jimhughes1070]

​@@dece870717 all day long brother😅

[@ceedee873]

It's the Catholics who invented evolution and the big bang theory and heliocentric model etc. anything that contradicts the word of God behind the label of "science" will usually have Catholics closely associated with the foundations of said subjects. They want to control via church, that's why they contradict the bible without admitting it.

[@robertb4274]

I find it interesting that Atheist's who don't believe in God can spend so much time investigating and commenting on the things of God. If I didn't believe in something, I could care less about it and wouldn't bother spending time with it and instead spend more time on things I do care about. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God make it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Romans 1:18-23

[@brabbelbeest]

This is so ironic, it's funny :) You're literally commenting under a video of a creationist challenging the theory of natural evolution, complaining why atheïsts feel the need to challnge the idea of the existance of a god... So: "I find it interesting that theist's who don't believe in evolution can spend so much time investigating and commenting on the things of evolution."

[@aidanr8353]

I love you brabbelbeest.

[@DeconvertedMan]

we care about facts so we tend to say when something is not a fact.

[@gilmana1]

robert m The bible is the truth. Why do you assert the bible is truth? Because, it’s in the bible. Flawless.

[@gejost]

christians make other claims; e.g., the eartg is 6000 years old.

[@gjsterp]

One of the best videos I've seen on logical fallacies. The only logical fallacy blatantly included in this wonderful video is the Christian God premise, which excludes all the other God premises of which there are thousands.

[@jimreimer6140]

Good stuff!! I love it!!

[@garywalker447]

Jimmy, why do you enjoy being lied to?

[@skrelentless]

Brilliant guy.

[@pocadon]

@@gregrutz good argument for a video about arguments! Impressive...🙄

[@qaz-fi1id]

He is man, I love listening to him, very informative and flows like water.

[@thomasmartinscott]

Just a thought. "The Carnal mind is enmity against God. It is not subject to the Laws of God, neither indeed CAN be!" So you CANNOT bring anyone to the Saving KNOWLEDGE of Jesus Christ, by "Convincing" their Carnal mind! Jesus Christ is REAL!!! He is ALIVE, and YOU can KNOW HIM!!! Once you MEET Him as YOUR Personal Savior, none of this means ANYTHING! NO ONE has to convince you that He is REAL, after You have MET HIM!!!

[@myleslawless6594]

Thomas Scott You are deluded.

[@jesuscanplayguitar1214]

Myles Lawless you are a talking cartoon car. See, I can make a claim as well, it doesn’t mean it’s true.

[@steakslapn9724]

This guy would tear up the debate floor.

[@Ixiah27]

I wonder why he never does...oh wait, because anyone with a Biology degree would tear him up ?

[@NoPlaceLikePizza]

@@Ixiah27Are you sure about that?

[@hwd7]

30:00. I love the No True Scotsman Fallacy, because I like using Scotsman, Dr. Jonathan McLatchie ,who has a Ph. D. in evolutionary biology, yet is a Young Earth Creationist as an example of it.

[@biochemist1661]

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6 TODAY is the day of salvation!

[@gejost]

Nothing wrong with that but like lisle's one long lecture, no real apologetics tgere. You believe, sure. You are loyal sure . Why? You provide no more and no less reason that lisle.

[@aprylb808]

Brian Almond the Easter bunny is real Hail the easter bunny Please give me strength, oh mighty Easter bunny

[@gejost]

@stringypeteonce, i was a believer.a story exists.

[@Ghryst]

a simple riddle: is a scarecrow a strawman?

[@Jersey-towncrier]

Man I love the crisp clarity with which he provides a crash course on ACTUAL logic and correct reasoning before going on to dismantle the "logic" of evolutionary theory. I do wish, however, he would go on to expose the way in which the theory of evolution was imported into the West by our philosophers that became enamored by the mysticism of the East. The thing that bothers me about it is that scientists who put their FAITH in evolution often either do not realize that it comes from the Hindu doctrine of the transmigration of the soul, or they are not sincere enough to acknowledge or admit that. I prefer intellectual honesty. If you want to have faith in the doctrines of an Eastern mystic religion, well that's fine. Just don't pretend that you're wholly secular and that your Eastern eligious doctrines are not merely dressed up in the language of scientific jargon and thereby cloaked in objectivity. God gave me not just the power to spot a liar, but also enough courage to call it out when I see or hear it.

[@ozowen]

Load of tosh

[@Jersey-towncrier]

@@ozowen well damn, that was a deep and substantive rebuttal. You've really persuaded me with that one!!

[@ozowen]

Was I supposed to be persuading you? I felt no such obligation. I observed only. Would you like rebuttal?

[@americanconservativeuniver860]

Great material Daniel. We will feature this in our podcast with full credits to you. Thanks. Keep up the good work. American Conservative University Podcast.

[@genac74]

Great video! Keep fighting the good fight.

[@Moshugaani]

22:12 _"Laws of nature are not a replacement for God's power; they are God's power! They're an example of God's power."_ Profoundly put!

[@myleslawless6594]

Moshugaani "Profoundly put! " With nothing to back it up !

[@Moshugaani]

@@myleslawless6594 - The notion is a profound understanding of the fact that _if the God of the Bible exists_ then the workings of the natural world are not powers _independent_ of God but that God is working _through_ them. Of course you have to believe in God in the first place to accept this.

[@Moshugaani]

That is, the natural laws are not independent powers that God has to "break" in order to "intervene" in the natural world and do miracles, but rather when God performs a miracle he simply makes _a break_ in the way he usually handles the universe.

[@myleslawless6594]

@@Moshugaani All you have to dois prove god exists. All else is speculation.

[@Moshugaani]

@@myleslawless6594 No one can _prove_ that God exists, at least not empirically. (Although there is empirical _evidence_ for God if you have an open mind. Proof and evidence are two different concepts.) But let's assume that God is eternal, infinite and a "maximally great being", i.e. personal, omniscient, omnipotent, good etc. In other words, God is not contingent. God is a necessary being, existing in and of itself, out of necessity, having no cause or beginning. God is the ultimate existence, existing unconditionally and without the possibility of ceasing to exist. From this almost exhaustive definition we can see that God is unlike anything that exists in our material universe, neither is he identical to the universe because the universe itself is contingent, finite and temporal according to all of our best knowledge. God therefore isn't like any being that exists in the natural world. God _does not exist_ in the *_same way_* as a coffee cup or the universe itself exists, because God is not composed of matter nor is he contingent. Likewise, the coffee cup or the universe do not exist in the same way as God does, because they don't have an existence of their own but are simply configurations of other particles and forces and are subject to change or annihilation. So the existence of God is not subject to arbitrary belief nor is it equally probable that he exists or not. If it is possible for God to exist, then it is necessary that he exists. The only way God would not exist is if it was impossible for him to exist. In conclusion, until it is shown that God cannot possibly exist, then it is highly probable that he does.

[@rikkiwest8449]

There is a movie being relieced this month called Genesis 3D, in the USA.

[@mikewilliams6025]

This is a nice lesson on logic. Even Dr. Lisle commits a few logical fallacies himself. But this doesn't actually prove, disprove young-earth, old-earth, 6-day creation, or evolution. I think if you use these tools, you could find that evolution and creation are able to complement each other quite nicely. Either way, logic is always a good tool and should be used exhaustively as we continue to seek the truth both in the Word of God and out in the world.

[@dece870717]

One of the strongest cases that I believe show the problematic nature of old-earth creationism is that it stands on a circular argument. All Old Earth arguments are based on the presuppositions of uniformitarianism and naturalism, both of which are clearly unbiblical when one holds to the Bible as their ultimate authority, and both of those presuppositions inherently deny a literal Genesis. So, all Old Earthers must start with Genesis as something that can not be read/understood in a straightforward fashion in order to be able to argue that Genesis cannot be read/understood in a straightforward fashion. If you accept/start with the presuppositions on which all old earth arguments depend, you are already concluding that Genesis can not be literal. Circular reasoning is the only way you can even begin to argue against a literal Genesis and if circular reasoning is your starting point to make a case against a literal Genesis, then you have no case. The issue is not over the evidence, it never was/is, the issue is what is your ultimate authority, because that creates a worldview and that worldview tells you what to make of the evidence, the only way to come up with arguments against a literal Genesis is to make secular/naturalistic based philosophies/presuppositions (that were specifically conjured up to get rid of God) a higher authority than God speaking. The abandonment of the authority/sufficiency of Scripture in the evangelical world, and the replacing it with and/or adding to it philosophies specifically designed to explain away God/that are vehemently anti-God by their very nature and purpose, I think can be rightfully to be said to be diabolical.

[@mikewilliams6025]

@@dece870717 Yes, I've heard Dr. Lisle's points before. But they don't hold water. Assuming the modem reading unhinged from ancient Hebrew culture add being straightforward is just as "circular" as assuming uniformitism, which is in no way unbiblical. Of course, Dr. Lisle's use of circular is specious here. God is the ultimate authority, not my reading of His word. And not Dr. Lisle's. What is the straightforward reading that there are the days without a sun? Dr. Lisle says the obvious reading is that there is a temporary light source and that the Earth rotated. Tell that to an ancient Hebrew and ask them if that's straightforward. Straightforward is in the eye of the beholder and certainly straightforward doesn't mean "correct". To come to Genesis 1 with the arrogance I see from either side is the diabolical attitude. Genesis 1 is clearly filled with mystery and both sides seem to want to deny God of that. In conclusion, I think Dr. Lisle's argument is weak and he is guilty of many of the same fallacies he lays out.

[@dece870717]

@@mikewilliams6025The book of Genesis was always understood to be historical narrative by the Jews and the Church, it wasn't until guys like James Hutton and German higher criticism came along that compromise on this started. It was foreign concepts, concepts specifically designed to undermine and give an alternative to the Genesis account, that started all this. Historical narrative is by its very nature supposed to be straight forward. Uniformitarianism can not be biblical if Genesis is historical narrative. "What is the straightforward reading that there are days with out the sun?" Well, God's first action was creating the Earth, which at this time is just water (Genesis 1:2), then continuing on to the second action, He creates light, and separates light and darkness, He specifically calls the light Day, and the darkness Night, both of these realities, and them being created as direct opposites of each other, only make sense in relation to/on a planet, and then it continues on to say there was an evening and a morning on the first day. So not only do you the word 'day' mentioned, but 'day' is qualified by a number, a specific time frame, and on top of that God creates light, separates it to create darkness, names both the separations in such a way that must reference a planet, and quite logically it makes sense that He would do that so that when you start to read there was evening and morning, you can understand what that means. If He did not do those acts on the first day, but a later day, but still added, and there was evening and morning, you would have no clue what that would mean, because it's not possible without light and darkness and a planet being there.

[@jimreimer6140]

Written deep in the heart of every human being is the knowledge that God exists!!

[@garywalker447]

Sorry Jimmy but I know that your god is a phony god just like every other.

[@garywalker447]

@LOOK FAT What guilt? I do not believe in phony gods and they are all phony.

[@stevepierce6467]

If we say that something we have dreamed up exists, then yes, god exists. Unicorns exist in our imaginations too.

[@stevepierce6467]

@@williampinestone431 I personally vote for Astarte, Canaanite goddess of love, fertility and...wait for it...war! Her sacred life and deeds are immortalized in the most revered collection of writings, "Skinny Legs and All," by Tom Robbins. Lo, I say unto thee, as the holy bumper sticker proclaimeth, "God is coming, and She is pissed!"

[@NoPlaceLikePizza]

@@stevepierce6467Unicorns do exists just not the made up atheistic ones.

[@genac74]

The fact we can comprehend the universe ,which is science, fits the Christian worldview.

[@ForeverBleedinGreen]

...and all but proves creation...

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

No it does not fit the Bible as the universe can be completely arbitrary based on the Bible. Christians have simply taken the scientific view and pretend that its theirs.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@ForeverBleedinGreen No its does not prove creation. It does not fit the Christian world view. That was NOT the Christian view for over a thousand years. Later, when science began THEN Christians began to understand the universe is may be understandable. You two, failed to learn a very important aspect of logic. You cannot reach a valid conclusion from an invalid premise. The view is scientific and not Christian.

[@claytonmcminn1121]

I love how there is video i want to watch but the audio sucks...

[@JacobNinan]

I think that the modern argument that in order to understand the Old Testament we have to understand what the Hebrews of those days would have understood is a logical fallacy. We need to understand what is written, because the Hebrews could have been wrong in their understanding, if they were influenced by pagan influences around them.

[@senseijuan3230]

God is real not because I think he is real, but because he is real.

[@aprylb808]

Sensei Juan dream on buddy. Unfortunately when you die, you can’t take your dream into the eternal void of non existence. Sucks.

[@senseijuan3230]

@@aprylb808 according to who??

[@colindickson8034]

Show me?

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

There was no Great Flood thus the god of the Bible does not exist. Actual logic that Lisle refuses to use.

[@davidbutler1857]

Randomly listening to sections of this.... at 36:00 he starts talking about natural selection not being the reason why animals are suited to their environment (and instead are created by God that way), where by contrast we factually know that mutations arise that are then acted upon by natural selection to 'select' those animals that are best suited to the environment. This is seen most especially in agriculture, in the war against weeds, and pest insects. Farmers are constantly fighting a battle against fast adapting insects and weeds that are being selected for and as a result of the mutations they experience in their populations. Ugh...Lisle is a such a simplistic buffoon.

[@dece870717]

"(and instead are created by God that way)" God has front-loaded the DNA of organisms with massive amounts of genetic potential. Nature has been created to be able to modify itself and fitting the circumstances where living organisms are, we see a lot of variation potential in nature but real novelties are not there. Mutations are not creating novel structures/novel information, mutations in textbook examples are always due to a breaking of existing features and that breaking of a particular feature happens to be adaptive. I see natural selection causing more and more gene deletions/isolation of genes as families of organisms continue concentrating certain parts of their genes/genetic traits for specific environments and those genes can never be gained back unless one organism in that family mixes back into the population with another organism of that family that has not had that gene deletion/trait loss occur. Natural selection/mutation-selection is for fine tuning systems, this process also happens to cause them to lose novel structures, like eyes, teeth, etc that happen to be adaptive, it is not an upward creative process. If mutations really were the engine of evolution we should have hundreds of examples of today of mutations increasing genetic information/novelties. The observable evidence on mutations and natural selection is such great evidence AGAINST the Darwinian theory.

[@davidbutler1857]

LOL.... front loading is such biological bullshit. Not a shred of support for it dude. What exactly is a 'real novelty'? Would that be something like natural immunity against Ebola that some humans have? Nobody has ever suggested that evolution is an upward creative process. This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is. Define 'information'. You're full of nothing but standard creationist claptrap.

[@dece870717]

God front loading organisms with great genetic potential is my explanation for the diversity of life, of where the variation ability of life came from. That is the reasonable conclusion based on the creation model. I can give an example of novelty, an organism has no eyes, has never had eyes, over time gains eyes, that would be a gain of a novel structure and all the things making up that eye would also be technically novel structures. I know evolutionists don't like this word because they can't argue with it like they can when someone uses the word 'new'. "Nobody has ever suggested that evolution is an upward creative process" You're not equivocating, are you? The Darwinian evolution/molecules to man concept is supposed to be the explanation of how you get a single cell to 'evolve' into every organism more complex than that original single cell, of how a single cell eventually gained the potential to be more than what it was, to go from only having the potential to be itself, to then be more than itself. How is going from something like an ameba to a human, not involve an upward process? What are we even talking about if this is not an upward process? It can't be a downward process because that doesn't do anybody any good in explaining the diversity of life, and it can't be a straight line process because you can't get variety out of sameness. Documentaries, textbooks, media, teachers in public schools, and etc. all portray this Darwinian evolutionary concept as being an upward process, do you know something they don't? Scientifically, we can define information as a coded message containing an expected action and intended purpose. The words of an instruction manual would qualify as information under this definition. They are encoded, the words represent ideas. The expected action is that the reader will read and act upon the words, and the intended purpose is that the reader would know how to operate whatever it is that the manual is intended for. DNA also qualifies under the definition of information: it contains an encoded message (the base pair triplets represent amino acids) and has an expected action (the formation of proteins) and an intended purpose (life). And of course you can get more specific as in these genes (the encoded message) has an expected action (creating the heart) and the intended purpose (circulate blood). You need to repent of your sins and trust in Christ alone for your salvation. Stop fighting Him and instead cry out for mercy. Ever felt guilty about anything ever, you know that terrible feeling you get? That's Gods way of telling you that judgment will come, your conscience acknowledges the law of God, it affirms that you deserve punishment and like all sinners you are trying to jump to and cling to any explanation that can silence that gnawing conscience so as to allow you to live in the sin you love with some kind of peace.

[@davidbutler1857]

///The Darwinian evolution/molecules to man concept is supposed to be the explanation of how you get a single cell to 'evolve' into every organism more complex than that original single cell, of how a single cell eventually gained the potential to be more than what it was, to go from only having the potential to be itself, to then be more than itself. How is going from something like an ameba to a human, not involve an upward process? /// Well simply put, that's just one possible avenue. Naturally all life didn't take that route, as evidenced by the diversity of life you see. You guys always ask why there are still monkeys or bacteria...that's the answer. Evolution has no goal. Certain life finds niches by happenstances of geography, climate, etc, and adapt to those. The paths they take are dictated entirely by those factors. Sometimes this means gaining wings, other times it means losing them, and so on. I think what's amazing is that after what must be years of arguing, you're just figuring this out. You must not read very much. Indeed, what ARE we talking about? You creationists have spent all your time dreaming up strawmen that were never correct to begin with. A child in a high school biology class knows this about evolution. I must congratulate you though...because at least you stumbled onto a creationist strawman by your own actions. Welcome to the world of evolutionists....dealing with wholesale misrepresentations of what evolution is, day after day.

[@davidbutler1857]

////You need to repent of your sins and trust in Christ alone for your salvation. Stop fighting Him and instead cry out for mercy. Ever felt guilty about anything ever, you know that terrible feeling you get?//// No, it's called hindsight. New information that you learn from. It' often makes you a better person. It's actually a mistaken idea to believe that its something you should 'repent' for. you people and your fantasy bullshit are just amazing to me. It's like some adult who decides to open up a passage to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and attempt to curse you with something the dark lord Sauron said. And it's always about some sort of threat "believe what I do or 'else'. Fucking simpleton shit dude.

[@dece870717]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/gmGcenhobpKFi80 Dr. Jason Lisle discussing some of what is found in his new book "Keeping Faith in an Age of Reason" where he deals with over 400 supposed Bible contradictions, many of which are explained by exposing the logical fallacies of the critic in the supposed contradiction. Also, and not surprisingly, the majority of the supposed contradictions he found listed by critics were due to a kind of sloppy/lazy reading of the text.

[@MainframeSupertasker]

28:34 HAHAHHHHAHAhAha That was funny xD. "The title is a logical fallacy" xD hHAAHaHhAhaha well found!

[@grahamclarke8986]

Here is a question for the anti creationists. Isn’t ad hominem attacks a type of logical fallacy?

[@travis6977]

In short, yes, but mostly if it is the argument against a claim (otherwise it is should be considered just rude) examples.yourdictionary.com/ad-hominem-examples.html Please note how some of the examples are horribly present from all sides of these debates, such as the “Of course you would say that, because you believe _____.” Discussions should be kept to what is discussed and presented and not place assertions based on assertions of another persons perspective.

[@senseijuan3230]

On this planet we see that life comes from life. Please present evidence in real time that life can come from nothing or non-life.

[@gejost]

Why in real time? If life came from non-life, an iterative process caused it. the process cannot have been "in real time". What you need is a process producing more complex molecules that replicTE

[@brucemulvey9948]

Sensei Juan as Christians, we believe that life came from non-life through faith, because God’s Word says it happened that way. However, none of us can prove it, because we weren’t there when it happened and it can’t be repeated. That said, all the (true) scientific facts point to a reasonable belief that there is a Creator. Evolution on the other hand is so improbable as to be ridiculous. The random construction of a single protein, much less a 100-150 protein single called organism. There’s much denial going on in the minds of informed evolutionists. The rest are just woefully ignorant.

[@brucemulvey9948]

Jacare 1 Apparently you haven’t read the book of Genesis. God Created all things in 6 consecutive 24 hour days, and yes, He created man in one day. Perhaps you are not familiar with cosmological concepts (true science), like “everything came from nothing”. Stephen Hawking reluctantly admitted this before he passed. It is considered “settled science”. The information sciences (I. T. ) will tell you that the DNA that you are made of is so mathematically complex, that to be done randomly is beyond the most exhaustive improbability conceivable. Yes, true science points to a Creator. Any other explanation is “illogical”.

[@brucemulvey9948]

Jacare 1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/jpLXoHeKob2Fnbs

[@brucemulvey9948]

Jacare 1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/a2bTlKOKn8lmeLs

[@ineedmondayoff]

I would like to know if this gentleman understands the Euthyphro dilemma.

[@ForeverBleedinGreen]

From www.philosophy-index.com/plato/euthyphro/dilemma/ "The Euthyphro Dilemma is a philosophical problem concerned with a view of morality related to theism. [And asks]: Do the gods love good action because it is good, or is good action good because it is loved by the gods? The problem comes from Plato's Euthyphro, and is asked by Socrates to Euthyphro." I would say, "Why does it matter that God loves good things (as opposed to bad)? And then I'd say, "If evolutionists love their fairy tale because their fake evidence suggests it's right, or do they love it just because it denies the theory of creation?"

[@sonofperdition1719]

humanity must learn to argue righteousness..and in anger do not $in

[@liganjinxeseverything3174]

I have an argument that might interest creationists. It is not so much for atheists, but if they do wish to challenge the conclusion, then they should falsify the premises. The following premises relate to *a creator and the object created*. Please note that an object can refer to a single unit or something taken as a whole. A creator also does not need to refer to a human being. A creator can also be something that brings another thing into being. Basically, it's the subject that creates or makes the object. Premise 1. The creator of an object is not a physical property of the object, for the creator doesn't merge with the object and neither does the object merge with the creator. In other words, the creator and object remain separate entities as opposed to becoming one inseparable unit. Premise 2. The creator's existence is not dependent on the object's existence. If it was, then the object should already have existed before it was made, which is obviously impossible. Premise 3. The object's existence, in addition to the raw materials, is always dependent on the creator's existence, for the object cannot come into existence without the creator. Premise 4. The creator always exists before the object. Therefore, if the universe had a creator, then that 1. Creator is separate from the universe and He can also never be physically verified from within the universe via the scientific method as He is not a physical or chemical property thereof. (premise 1) 2. Creator is independent from the universe (premises 2 & 3), and 3. Creator existed before the universe (premise 4) This conclusion was arrived at via deductive reasoning and the conclusion is either valid or invalid. Also note that the if-statement is a conditional notation, which means that, if it is a true that the universe was made by a creator, then the conclusion logically follows. If the universe did *not* have a creator, then the conclusion would *not* follow. I.e. Modus Ponens - method of affirming. So, if P is true, then Q must be true also.

[@liganjinxeseverything3174]

Mundo LaE Okay, but that's not an argument and neither can much be done with it. This argument is based on what we actually find in real life and not on someone's perspective. I mean, looking at things literally and physically, humans can clearly exist without a car and neither can they become one with a car as if their life and existence is somehow tied to or dependent on it. But thanks for sharing though. I'll keep it mind when I come across someone with such a view of things.

[@bobpolo2964]

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. Hebrews 11:1-3

[@liganjinxeseverything3174]

bob polo Yes, I fully agree with you, but try to explain to evolutionists and atheists that they also believe things without seeing and you get some stupid answer like: there are different believes than faith... In other words, they'll try everything and hold onto anything to avoid confronting the issue...

[@bobpolo2964]

Ferdinandt This is precisely why the Christian worldview is the logical worldview. We don't pretend to know anything. We freely admit that our presuppositions are based on the Word of God. And we assert that without God, you can't logically explain... anything. Everything becomes subjective. Sure, there are objective facts. The sun rises everyday, light comes from the sun etc. But there is NO objective meaning to anything. How can murder be morally wrong on an atheistic naturalistic worldview? To them, we're just talking animals. Don't animals kill, well... other animals? I still enjoy talking to them though. It's humorous, right until the point it becomes really sad. Hardened hearts

[@liganjinxeseverything3174]

bob polo exactly. We creationists actually have such an argument against atheists. Like, where does their morality come from in the first place and how can they determine whether something or some action is right or wrong? If it's simply about survival, then why are humans the only ones who care about technology and advancement and why do *all* other species lag so spectacularly behind? There's a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense if we're simply products of natural forces... Yesh, I've argued with them enough to know it's quite futile. So, I've kind of given up on trying to convince them. Now I just pray for them.

[@sweetpeabrown261]

I have never heard an atheist argue that 'evolution happens every day' (around 14:40). But I have heard apologists say that micro evolution happens but macro evolution doesn't, when the only difference between the two is in reference to the time frame being discussed. Listened a bit further, this man is presenting straw man arguments so that he can point out his fallacies. I have rarely seen anything as unhelpful as his dishonest assertions. What he needs to do is listen to some professional debates between atheist debaters and apologists. He needs to use some real names and some real examples as they are plentiful.

[@dece870717]

+SweetPea Brown "when the only difference between the two is in reference to the time frame being discussed." There are a few big differences, only one is scientifically verifiable. Another difference is that macro is an extrapolation of a small amount of data taken to way beyond what is reasonable. Micro is taking already existing dna information and having the DNA slightly scrambled/varied with what is there. Macro requires completely new information to be added, another scientifically unverifiable claim. The fact that most evolutionists can't tell much of a difference is troubling, they are vastly different and work based on a very different mechanism.

[@MalletFace9898]

In which way is only one verifiable? In what way is the extrapolation of data beyond reason? In what way does "macro" require new information? If one takes the position of the current neo-Darwinian synthesis, macroevolution is nothing more than the compounding of the effects of microevolution. As such, one would only require a number of examples of microevolution compounding to form things such as speciation to sufficiently evidence macroevolution for scientific verification. One could even suggest that the similarities found between taxa using comparative biology would be indicative of this, but you would likely not accept that as evidence considering you likely desire proof. As it would happen, though, numerous examples of allopatric speciation, paraptric speciation, and peripatric speciation exist within the fossil record, and examples of artificial speciation exist within the lab and farm. Even more, however, one would expect a scientifically verifiable idea to be predictive, and evolution (macro, micro, or what-have-you) is exactly that. Darwin and other early evolutionary biologists made predictions about speciation that we have recently discovered to be correct. I am, yet, concerned that you believe macroevolution requires 'new information' to be added to what I assume you mean to be the gene pool in order for macroevolution to take place. To hold this idea means one of many things, but one is more concerning than the rest. It may mean you dismiss all mutations as point mutations - a mutation changing a purine for a purine, a purine for a pyrimidine, or a pyrimidine for a pyrimidine. This would mean that you deny the existence of deletions, insertions, duplications, interstitial deletions, inversions, or chromosomal translocations. All of these "add information" to a gene or genes, and many of them would likely change a phenotypic trait. Many of these "additions" are essential to the ideas involved in creating modern vaccines and antibiotics, and the invalidation of these would require a new theory to describe the phenomena involved. If you dismiss the existence of these types of mutations and their ability to introduce or remove "information," you are denying the validity of a large number of experiments and ideas that have been "scientifically verified." It only takes a few moments searching to find even a small number of them. (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003; Prijambada et al. 1995; Zhang et al. 2002; Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996; Brown et al. 1998; Adami et al. 2000; Lang et al. 2000) Are these studies invalid? By what reasoning are they invalid? What number of these studies would be required for validity if they are each valid in their own?

[@sweetpeabrown261]

Mallet Face Fuck! That was great! Thanks for posting. (Pardon my exclamation, but people often don't take the time to provide professional input.)

[@dece870717]

Mallet Face​​​​ Micro evolution can not account for macro as micro speciation is causing a constant loss of information or bottleneck, it is constantly limiting genes into a specified specie. A wolf micro evolving into a dog is a perfect example of how microevolution simply selects for what is already there and in its selections it is getting rid of genetic code that it can never gain back, this is the worst possible way of explaining something like a fish type creature eventually turning into a human. (Macro evolution) Similarities found between taxa confirms that God uses a similar blueprint for creating life. Similar gene sequences between animals and humans is because we use some of the same protein creating pathways and etc., this is what we would expect if the same designer created life. The evidence is not in question, but the interpretation of the evidence is. The fossils in the fossil record requires an interpretation of evidence, usually done based on an already existing assumption. The only thing the fossil record proves to me is the worldwide flood, because it is exactly what I'd expect if such an event happened, billions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all of the earth. Microevolution is what we would expect from the creation model, that God created everything and produced animals that reproduce according to their kind(what some would consider Family) and you can't get one to cross into another, that there is a barrier and the observable evidence confirms this. I agree that mutations exist, but I think they utterly fail to explain the creation of or changing of a family to another family, or explaining something like a dinosaur changing into a bird. 

[@MalletFace9898]

You are arguing based on definitions that are not used in biology. I do not know where your definitions come from, but even Answers in Genesis tells Christians not to use these definitions because they are not what is used. As such, I can't actually discuss these things with you because you will find my arguments fundamentally flawed, and that's a shame. I can ask you questions about your definitions, though. What is, to you, "micro speciation?" Can you provide a method by which this occurs or a method by which to predict changes? What is , to you, "loss of information or bottleneck?" Can you provide a method by which to calculate information loss or provide a method by which to predict information loss? What is, to you, a "gene sequence?" Can you provide a method by which to identify separate gene sequences or provide a method by which to predict possible gene sequences? What is, to you, a "kind?" Can you provide a method by which to identify separate kinds or provide a method by which to predict what type of kinds will be discovered? What is, to you, a "mutation?" Can you provide a method by which to identify separate types of mutation or provide a method by which to predict what types of mutations will occur?

[@matthausrex5973]

How do we know God doesn't lie and can not be wrong?

[@Joe-bx4wn]

About time.

[@DavidBadilloMusic]

LOL at 20:33... So, in order to prove that Jesus' quote "you are either for me or against me" is not a bifurcation fallacy, your explanation is "... it's not a fallacy because god can't commit fallacies..." Are you kidding me!? LOL...

[@dece870717]

+David Badillo If Jesus is God and God can not commit a fallacy because He is the very source of the Laws of Logic, is unchanging in nature and knows all things, then Dr. Lisle's reasoning is correct. Sometimes what you determine to be fallacious or even proof of something is dependent upon your worldview. I recommend watching the video "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" as that is a jump off point to this video and the "Nuclear Strength Apologetics" videos. You need to follow the arguments/reasoning from the beginning otherwise you can easily misunderstand or fail to see how his reasoning is correct.

[@DavidBadilloMusic]

Sure, everybody has the right to his/her own worldviews, but if this is what this presentation is, then the title is deceptive... it should be called 'christian interpretations of logical fallacies' or something along those lines. And I would absolutely dispute the use of the word proof. The word proof is something that requires such a high degree of exactitude, rigorous scrutiny and removal of all ambiguity that even in mathematics, only few things can be said to be proven. I'd say try your hand at bringing up anyone's worldviews as any sort of evidence in a court of law and you'll get a bit closer to what following arguments, reasoning and rigorous scrutiny from the beginning really means. An argument can be completely sound internally and yet completely fictitious... So, the full christian worldview could be internally sound in all of its most fundamental claims (which is not, but that's another debate), yet that doesn't make it true or causes it to automatically be in accordance to reality. The bare bones concept of what a fallacy is or isn't doesn't have anything to do with any particular worldview so, it's completely invalid to pretend to explain why a certain statement is not fallacious only because it would contradict some fundamental belief in some particular worldview.

[@dece870717]

I was merely pointing out that Dr. Lisle's chain of reasoning was correct when his arguments are followed back to his starting point video (Ultimate proof of Creation). In that video and "Nuclear Strength Apologetics Part 1" he also explains why his premises must be true. What I meant by the word "fallacious" was the definition of "based on a mistaken belief", such as a faulty/false premise, and sometimes what appears to be a false premise is dependant upon your worldview. I guess I should have said, sometimes what you consider to be evidence can be very dependant upon your worldview/presuppositions. The topic at hand is origins and origins is a worldview discussion. In the case of a court of law, everyone most likely agrees to/has the same rules of interpretation, but when you deal with origins presuppositions are very different and so both sides will interpret the data/evidence very differently. The debate over origins is not about evidence but about how that evidence ought to be interpreted. Through Dr. Lisles presentation in the "Ultimate proof of Creation" he demonstrates those very things very clearly.

[@inthearmsofsheep.7518]

There is a difference between a false dichotomy and a true dichotomy. When there are more than two options it would be a false dichotomy. The law of con-contradiction states that something that is is a its value and that the opposite can not exist at the same time. Check your logical fallacies buddy.

[@DavidBadilloMusic]

Daniel, sure I could give you that the chain of reasoning is 'internally' correct, but that would be exactly the same as me saying the following: "Watermelons are navy blue in the inside until they are cut open, then they turn red. See, what happens is that when any part of the watermelon is touched by light, there's a photo-chemical reaction in which light triggers the inside of the watermelon to become red". The statement seems to make perfect logical sense internally, but... does that mean that it is true? Can I prove to you that it is true? Can you prove to me that it is NOT true? In other words, things that make even perfect sense internally, aren't necessarily true. They might be. But they aren't until there's a valid way of proving them. That's why the falsifiability of something is so important when it comes to proving something true.

[@whatistruth8507]

What the heck is Creation College 3?

[@LawrenceKennard]

Why don't I hear more of this

[@TheMoravians]

Because virtually every lie being pushed (on all kinds of topics) over the past several years can be overthrown simply by applying a little logic, and too many people in authoritative positions (in "the church" as well as the world) have invested themselves in beliefs that require lies to sustain them.

[@kimberiedema6951]

@@TheMoravians question are youself a believer or non believer?

[@jimhughes1070]

If you back out of the comments. And scroll up, the algorithm will feed you more of his lectures. Clear your mind first. He doesn't take any prisoners!🤣🤣🤣

[@sonofperdition1719]

blessed are peacemakers.

[@faustofernandez2971]

Could you explain to me why we swing our arms when we walk?

[@brucegordon5312]

Darwin would say that it we swing our arms when we walk because it is a through back to when we walked on all fours.

[@faustofernandez2971]

@@brucegordon5312 EVOLUTION says that. Quadripedal involuntary movements are still hard-wired in the basal ganglia of the human encephalon. People who have Parkinson's disease don't swing their arms; Parkinson;s disease is a degeneration of the basal ganglia. BTW, I am an MD

[@zellerized]

I tend to not believe anything an evolution believer says as they negate the very basis for logic with their worldview. A mind that is the result of chance random processes.. yea buddy!! Please don't pretend to use the non-material laws of logic to argue for materialism.

[@ibeamy]

Because you’d look insane if you didn’t.

[@cjurg2423]

@@faustofernandez2971 but does it? In fact: “Arm swing in human bipedal walking is a natural motion wherein each arm swings with the motion of the opposing leg. Swinging arms in an opposing direction with respect to the lower limb reduces the angular momentum of the body, balancing the rotational motion produced during walking.” In simple terms, we do it because it is the most natural and efficient way to balance our bodies during movement. It is to consume energy, to maintain balance, to set conditions for the next movement, etc. Our arm swing doesn’t prove that we evolved from an accidental and randomly occurring singular basic cell over the course of millions and millions of years.

[@patrickedgington5827]

I enjoyed this lecture very much, but I have a pet peeve, that being the miss use of the word faith. This is all but universally common and was the case at +/- the 34 minuet mark of this presentation. Dr. Lisle can you address the origins of the term? Does faith have a biblical origin and if so its context. If not does its common use today agree with the context were it is found biblically. I purpose that faith is the functioning aspect of salvation, sanctification, and ultimately relationship with God. Where the rubber meets the road, while its most common use today as belief or affirmation thereof is not consistent with its biblical use, and leads to its denigration. Faith has become a dirty word and we contend for it in that light, or rather darkness. I would further purpose that faith is more consistent seen similar to the five senses and also demonstrates an external quality both in origin, and experience. Meaning plainly it comes from God, always from God, only from God, is a change in the spiritual nature of man, and without which relationship with God is impossible even if belief is affirmed. Just as you could describe color to a blind person or a scent to one that had never experienced such; a man might know about God by any numbers of means but that same man could only know God by or through faith. There is an actual transformation of a Christian, this is not just poetic language and by no means have all people that self-identify as Christian experienced that change. When we speak of faith as belief we do the world and the body of Christ a disservice because there is a difference between God and church. Men have beliefs they hold very often with reverence. The evolutionist is doubtless as passionate as a Christian were his beliefs are in view but they won’t save him. Though it might seem controversial I would say exactly the same is true of the man that claims a belief in Jesus that won’t save him, it is Jesus that saves and faith is the means of that salvation which has come from God. When Jesus says believe on Me He is not saying believe in Me. This is not semantics, there is a separation of man and God (sin) that has taken place in belief, in the mind of a man a natural man that has his own belief, his own knowledge, his own, a separation from everything else, making him autonomous, and there is an overwhelming resistance to change. Faith is belief that comes from and connects us to the mind of God, accruing through personal encounter. So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word (Greek, the spoken word not written) Faith exhibited is accompanied by these attributes, belief, trust, hope, prayer, peace, love, in other words the fruits of the Spirit; so can a person rightly say they have faith in a pilot or a plain. In limiting the qualities of the term we make it appear quite common and very easy to apprehend. Is it any wonder the church is in such a state? Again I enjoyed the lecture but we as church should understand first the faith we contend for and then how to fight.

[@dece870717]

+Patrick Edgington This episode explains the varying kinds of faith that exist kzbin.info/www/bejne/oYbLcniMhsZmjcU

[@patrickedgington5827]

Thank you for the response and the suggested video, but unfortunately they gave no better an account of faith than that to which I was objecting. A truly sad commentary on Christianity, no wonder the church flaps in the wind.

[@patrickedgington5827]

I would also add at +/- 40 you spoke of faulty appeals bring up the bible as an infallible source which I would argue on at least two grounds? First even if the bible as written today were without any errors the readers of said book are not? But of greater cause for concern is that the translation we have is not perfect? The word of God as delivered I would contend is, and we can prove the word we have now is not because of the variants. I bring this up as it speaks directly to my first comment on faith?

[@josephluis5801]

Do people pay to hear this? Just curious...how much does it cost?

[@PortmanRd]

"They recite their sacred books, although the fact informs me that these are a fiction from first to last. Oh Reason thou (alone) speakest the truth. Then perish the fools who forged the (religious) traditions or interpreted them." Al-Ma'arri Philosopher and Poet 973-1058 AD

[@netelsg]

By examining metamorphosis of frog, you see how a tiny little tadpole with tail slowly grows into a larger size adult frog with hind and front legs with the tail disappeared and its gills disappear. Its a dramatic change in size, shape and form. The tadpole lives in water evolves into a adult frog that can live on land. This change of tadpole (water living creature) into frog (land living creature) is an example proof of short-span evolution.............. "designed ???"... When something is designed or created, the product designed is fixed in size, shape & form and there is no process of transformation or growth. Designed or created product does not self-replicate..... For example, a watch or aeroplane that were designed and created will not grow bigger in size or change in its designed form. Metamorphosis of frog illustrates trace of evidence of evolution which defies creationism or "design". of evolution which defies creationism or "design".

[@netelsg]

Cells can self-replicate itself. Have you seen a robot or aeroplane or watch self-replicate itself...? ............................... Human & animals are NOT designed nor created because they grow from eggs. Products being designed or created like watch, aeroplane or robot does NOT grow from egg. There is no change in size, shape or form nor self-replicate. ..... see below : 。。。。。。。 Frog --------- egg ..... Tadpole..... froglet ..... frog Human -------- embryo ..... baby .... teenager .... adult (human) Watch -------- No egg .... No baby watch ..... No medium watch .... adult watch Aeroplane ------- No egg ..... No baby plane ..... No medium plane ...... complete aeroplane Robot ------- No egg ..... No baby Robot ..... No medium Robot ..... designed Robot

[@africandaisy.3]

From 13:31.

[@MichaelSmith420fu]

Funny how you can find a paradox everywhere you look

[@gremlinsarered5259]

I've never seen someone abuse modal logic and deductive reasoning so badly. So...just to screw about. 1. Mathematics is a method of explaining observed phenomena. 2. A theorem is the most axiomatic form of mathematics. 3. A theorem by definition cannot be wrong, false, or invalid and remain a theorem. 4. THEREFORE a mathematical theorem explaining evolution by natural selection would be absolute. The question is of course when will evolutionary biologists produce such absolute proof of evolution? What Price would they pay for such a theorem? Well we can investigate by simply typing Price Theorem into Google.

[@ExtantFrodo2]

"A *scientific theory* is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force. The strength of a *scientific theory* is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a *scientific theory* may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light). *Scientific theories* are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. *Scientific theories* are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative)." In short they are not as are mathematical theorems "proofs".

[@NotRealButReal]

Why was I recommended this video? I believe in evolution.

[@frankmoore7024]

Isn't belief in something Fairh?

[@NotRealButReal]

@@frankmoore7024 Ehh not exactly. I believe in evolution, but it's more like I accept the massive amount of evidence supporting it than just place my faith in it, as with religion.

[@brucegordon5312]

@@NotRealButReal Massive evidence. Who was there millions of years ago you can call on as a witness to prove animals evolved from a four legged creature into ocean mammal? Millions of fossils have been found but absolutely no transitional fossils.

[@NotRealButReal]

@@brucegordon5312 What are you talking about? There are loads of transitional fossils showing the transition between land animals into ocean mammals (dolphins, whales, etc.). There are also loads of transitional fossils that show the progression of other types of animals. Of course, we don't have the transitional fossils for every animal, because there are literally too many to count and catalog (many go extinct before we find them) and we haven't yet explored every single part of Earth's surface and below. Transitional fossils are one of the proofs for the theory of evolution. This is basic, high-school-level scientific knowledge. Witness testimony is the lowest form of scientific evidence. People can lie, actual, physical evidence can't. If I told you that, in some past lives, I was there and watched animals evolve, would you believe me? Hopefully, no, because that's absolutely ridiculous. If you gave me completely undeniable, testable and provable evidence (beyond moving the goalpost and the like and drawing conclusions based on that) that there is a god, I'd gladly believe it, because that's solid evidence that you can use to actually scientifically prove God's existence. But, unsurprisingly, there is none. Also, what makes your god more real than the probably millions of others?

[@brucegordon5312]

@@NotRealButReal Michael, you have been conned. The find a jawbone, then construct the rest of the skull...refer to comparative anatomy, to construct a drawing or model to what they imagine the animal could possibly have looked like. Don't believe how books and Hollywood depicts dinosaurs...no one knows what colour they were. T-rex...resembles a kangaroo. Kangaroos are herbivors. Long, sharp teeth, along with silly little forearms would have been more useful for eating vegetation. Dinosaurs are actually referred to in the bible. The word dinosaur is not used though, but the passage describes an animal with a tail like a pine tree, maybe a cedar, I forget which one.

[@jillphilips3788]

Please why are Christians using Cremation for Love Ones😟

[@achillestheheel5695]

Dr. Lisle, what logical fallacy does the mountains of evidence argument fall under?

[@dennishagans6339]

I have to say that I like these videos on creation science where Christian scientists use science to show evolution has many problems. but I am wondering if this is valid to do so, yes these Christians went into science as their occupation but I am thinking that scientist vs scientist is not the way it should. Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. *1Co **1:18** For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.* 1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 1Co 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1Co 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 1Co 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Pro 11:30 The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise. It is the preaching of The Word of God that the Holy Ghost uses to convict the sinner not science vs science. as much as I like these videos I am wondering if we should be trying to debunk evolution but rather preaching nothing but the Gospel of Jesus Christ where the person then must make a choice based on The Gospel alone. I know Spike Psarris came from evolution to creation after considering the evidence and that is great but we were not commanded to take science to the world but rather the Gospel.

[@travelrn672]

Great video

[@chrisgary4109]

Praise Jesus.

[@josephreynolds7395]

Why don't people make this quality Christian content anymore?

[@emileshlemon2929]

Is it possible that a being with exactly the same powers as the god of the Bible minus one power is the true explanation for the origin of our universe? Would this cause any logical fallacies?

[@travis6977]

Decent explanation of many of these fallacies. *However*, it seems that many of his examples are based on statements made in a discussion form, not statements made in a logical argument. This ironically makes a number of his examples of fallacies themselves fallacious, as he has bate and switched the type of statement as pointed out. He even recognizes it to a degree when he mentions the bible's use of poetic language, but then fails to recognize this during other situations. That all being said, some of the fallacies he points out should be re-worded, even if just so that it avoids some of the confusion stated.

[@travis6977]

An example of clarification that no one would want to listen to because it is lengthy and hard to follow might be at 23:36. The change could go as follows. Example given: "We know evolution is true because evolution is a scientific fact." One scientific definition of the theory of evolution is a "change of allele frequency in a population over time", of which the evidence would be finding cases where these changes are proven to have taken place, such as the higher rates of sickle cell anemia were it its beneficial due to its effect against malaria. Making the pedantic sentence: We know evolution *being the change of allele frequency in a population over time* is true because *evidence of the allele frequency in a populations changing over time is found, making this* a scientific fact.

[@dece870717]

"...many of his examples are based on statements made in a discussion form, not statements made in a logical argument." I can attest to the fact that quite a few people are using many of these examples as their logical argument, that's the problem. Your second comment can be a good example of equivocation if the terms were not properly defined/understood at the outset by both parties but his example is already assuming the General Theory of Evolution because that's what the debate is really over.

[@travis6977]

Daniel Skupien Context is everything, the 3 words before your quote matter for intellectual honesty. It can be difficult to know when to start a quote, but the words "It seems that.." changes the quote from an assertion of knowledge to an observation based on what I see in the video. As for people making these arguments to you, I was addressing the apparent context in the video as that is how many of these read. Jason even mentions messages and email, leaving the circumstance of these quotes being ambiguous. Though it is still disappointing to catch these flaws in the arguments on both sides of theocratic discussions. As for the comment on assumptions made to break down the quote I used, that is exactly the problem with the examples. Without more context nothing can be assumed. Assuming nothing, I gave a possible solution with what I saw with the statement as displayed, just as anyone should. After all, there is a saying about assuming.

[@dece870717]

Ah, I see what you mean. Well, in defense of Dr. Lisle, these presentations (all of the ones in the Creation College playlist) were all done in and for a specific context, so everyone to whom he's speaking already understands the context, so to constantly specify context in every or most examples would eat up too much time. Now, if this presentation was done in a more general/broad teaching environment, let's say, a secular classroom or the like, then your cautionary/friendly criticism would be fully justifiable.

[@travis6977]

Daniel Skupien That's fair. And not holding similar beliefs aside, I do think he does a good job of explaining the logical fallacies.

[@raymondquinn4529]

Hi Everyone, I worked at the University in Townsville Australia in the mail and freight section for 25years. I've probably handled more science than most people. The science, IE test tubes DNA ETC never said anything to me only scientists said anything. Science say nothing scientists do. The people who buck the system weren't treated kindly.

[@lucmalafarina1807]

I'm christian, and I believe God isn't an illusionist, so from scientific measures, both the Universe and the Earth seem (are) very old. I go with that which is simple, for which we have measurable evidence, and from what anyone can see in their personal observations. To say otherwise is very conterintuitive and goes against common sense.

[@jamessuits3876]

Can you give us an example of that" measurable evidence"?

[@jamessuits3876]

So you claim to be a Christian but you refuse to believe his word. Interesting ..... do you believe in any of the other "Illusions"in the Bible ie Jonah and the whale, parting of the Red Sea, walls of Jericho falling, oh yeah and the Son of God raising himself from the dead in three days

[@sonofperdition1719]

be ye perfect/un$inkable before the lord? or be ye vain mortal$ who are divided and $wept too ea$ily away with ignorance, into the eternal di$grace of darkne$$, death & defeati$m? it's a legit question😕

[@johnlavender242]

People like Hugh Ross and Wm L. Craig etc. will explain away the clear teaching of Scripture. If they were to publicly change their minds on Genesis, they would have to admit that they were wrong and everything that taught had a negative impact on the Church.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

One day you will learn how to logically consistently mathematically model the world. Only then will you learn that natural human language - e.g. English, Chinese - is insufficient to model, yes, model, describe, the real world. You need math. You need numbers to quantify things. Until then, your human-language modeling will always only be a poor approximation, or, more accurately, a poor model with vague terms that could mean/imply wildly different events.

[@ericworiax1277]

The Ultimate Reductionist , that’s why I like John Lennox. He’s a mathematician at Oxford who is a Christian

[@sonofperdition1719]

those who have their reward do err, do not have life, and thus do not know what they do, with pride, $ubtlety & religiou$ zeal, for nothing😩.. ..but blessed are the meek..do unto others as you will have done unto you..be meek..live and let live and love the 💩 out of your enemy..with truth☝✌ so..do not be decieved..by any mean$ of iniquity..anything ye loo$e on earth would be loo$ed in heaven..so blessed are the faithful.

[@RosannaMiller]

We can't Appeal to the Authority of the Bible/God because those from other religions could use the same argument. I completely understand, as a Christian, since I believe in God and there's no God beside Him. No if's, and's, or but's BUT in this world, where we are trying to reason with those who do believe in other gods, it is important to refrain from this Appeal to Authority.

[@dece870717]

You really need to watch these videos kzbin.info/aero/PLfq81iBrWtlRfcGHDfGxdBc7u6Qn7RND_ You need to understand that this video is the 3rd presentation that he's done that is part of a series, in the first 2 he explains very clearly why you MUST appeal to the Bible, he goes into a good amount of depth to explain why, but one simple reason, there is no such thing as neutral ground.

[@fallen1world294]

That's when historical, and archaological evidence, not to mention it being the ONLY religious text with not just one prophecy that was fulfilled, but 100s, can narrow it down easily.

[@Justwantahover]

Here is proof of an obvious creationist logical fallacy: I can prove to you that creationists lie about genetics. Genetics functions as a science and we all know that it's not based on creation science, it's based on what geneticists are taught at university. And cos genetics functions with what geneticists were taught, it proves creation science to be wrong and therefore a logical fallacy.

[@IsaacNussbaum]

It is my understanding that skeptics of Darwinism take the same courses as devotees of the standard theory. They take the same exams, and have to achieve the same grade standards. Their professors are satisfied that they understand the Darwinian hypotheses thoroughly or else they would not have been graduated. After school they do science using the same techniques, methods and equipment, and look at the same data and evidence as do the Darwinists. So I ask, what is this _"creation science"_ of which you speak?

[@Justwantahover]

+Isaac What you said was said by several creationists and it's a complete lie and a logical fallacy. The Creationist Genetic Model (two genetic discipline examples): 1) Creationists maintain that mutations can never be beneficial and never get passed down the line and can't cause hybrid populations. 2) Creationists deny gene inheritance all the way back to the amoeba, and say that all the genes that the geneticists call "inherited" was 'really' created by God on the "6 day creation". Secular genetic model (two genetic discipline examples): 1) Geneticists are taught that (rarely) mutations can be beneficial and can be passed down the line, sometimes causing vast hybrid populations. And they say it's the initial driving force to evolution (along with environmental conditions and natural selection). Also it's been observed with microbes becoming resistant to medication. And they say it's caused by a mutation. 2) Geneticists reckon that we have all the residual genes in all of us going right back to the amoeba. You know as well as I do that the creationists genetic model is way different to the secular model and why did you try to tell me it's the same? Is it because (logically) I'm getting through, so you make a silly claim that there is no difference to the two genetic models? If the creationist genetic model was the same than how come there is separate creation science genetics? And if you dispute what the geneticists are saying, ask them, not me (I'm not a geneticist). Well I'm only showing you that creationists think they know more about genetics than the actual geneticist who actually practice genetics. But logic stands in the creationists way (and science is self correcting) and exposes creationist lies about genetics (by asking witch model does genetics actually work on)? Creationist opinions about genetics is different so you are wrong, but you are HALF RIGHT! Because YES, creationists who practice paid secular genetics are taught exactly the same stuff as all geneticists and creationist genetic students may have to endorse stuff in their exams that they (personally) disagree with (if they want to graduate). Tell me if you disagree and elaborate (if you come back). Looking forward to your reply.

[@VoteCliffHutchison]

Irrelevant thesis fallacy: 1. Genetics is not based on creation science. 2. Genetics functions (as a science) with what geneticists were taught (at university). Therefore creation science is wrong (and creationists lie about genetics).

[@IsaacNussbaum]

*Q.* Why do believers in universal common descent use logical fallacies instead of presenting evidence that unguided mistakes in gene transcription can engineer and build organic structures and systems? *A.* Because _they ain't got no stinkin' evidence._

[@gejost]

they don't use logical fallacies. they dont say errors have "creative abilities". darwin presented lots of evidence for his theory. subsequent scientific knowkede seems to confirm it. the amount of evidence is insane. That does not mean, scientists have all the answers. they dont,

[@IsaacNussbaum]

@@gejost *"the (sic) amount of evidence is insane. "* I have never encountered anyone who had any evidence whatsoever that unguided mistakes in gene transcription could engineer and build so much as an eyelash or a toenail. So far, everyone has ASSUMED that mutations can build organic structures and systems. If you have discovered that kind of evidence, I see a Nobel Prize in your future. Let me be the first to congratulate you.

[@gejost]

@@IsaacNussbaum Well, ,my fellow taoist, you saw but refused to acknowledge what you saw. they saw the trail of bread crumbs and concluded. They saw evidence of specofic kinds of mutations. Most of the evidence is indeed at the macro level. You see the fossil revord, with similar morphologis etc. later genes identified producing such things. we know some specific mutations. Are there details missing? Of course. But so far, everything comes back to the same story. Now, the mutations dont actually emgineer anything. But most are minor and in a certain direction. Weve lots of evidence of what creationists call micro-eveolution. Darwin was familar with agricuktural breeding and the result of centuries of this. The manmade selection made changes. Also the time scales are insane. Centiries of breeding to get a range of produce and livestock, of dogs and cats. Drop in pacific ocean compared to the billions of years many physical processes suggest happened.

[@IsaacNussbaum]

@@gejost *"Now, the mutations dont (sic) actually emgineer (sic) anything."* I agree 100%, gejost.

[@gejost]

@@IsaacNussbaum Well, without knowing whether lao-tse existed or not, we can agree on something. The bread crumbs do suggest something. The whole story will never be deduced. Still something mysterious is at plsy.\

[@wade5941]

I have been reading, thinking, contemplating on the topic of origin of life, creationism, evolution, etc. We really don't know.

[@wade5941]

Correct. Creationism has no proof. Incorrect: Evolution does. There is evidence for both, but no proof.

[@wade5941]

I agree. There is evidence for evolution, but no definitive proof as of this point in time. Disagree that there is 0 evidence for creationism. I believe there is evidence and it is all around us. Is it credible evidence? To some yes, to others no. There are some really smart people/scientists on both sides of the issue, but there is no proof for creationism. So, these smart people just keep on searching for the truth. The way it should be.

[@wade5941]

I agree. Creationism is not science by the definition of science as it is defined. But, that doesn't preclude the possibility of "science' providing evidence for creationism. Many argue that there is scientific evidence for creationism. Hence, we have all these videos that provide fodder to ponder. Nothing is served by people getting emotional and mad at others because they have a different opinion than ours. Pretty minor in the grand scheme (whatever that is). It would be a sad thing for the world if "free thought" (no matter how mucked up) was to be criminalized. I am amazed at how many absolutely believe the earth is flat and will go to their graves KNOWING that it is true. They all claim to have science on their side.

[@wade5941]

Sorry ROAD, but no way can I sit through a Bill Nye video. He is the poster boy for politicized science (climate science in particular) and I no longer have time for him. Ken Ham not much better.

[@wade5941]

I'll take your word for it. Seriously. Not trying to be snarky. I just can't stand Bill Nye.

[@barlart]

Rationalwiki on Jason Lisle: Creationism and starlight Given his qualifications in astrophysics, Lisle has become an authority on the "starlight problem" in creationist circles. However, his explanation for how distant starlight is compatible with a 6 day creation only a few thousand years ago is very, very weak. It essentially consists of immediately throwing out the conventional science just because it conflicts with scripture and then proposing that "creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically".[8] Most of Lisle's points just begin with the claim that the Bible must be true, cannot change and so can explain everything[9] and he's no stranger to wall-bangingly circular logic.[10] It shouldn't need to be stated that this is the opposite of what a good scientist should do. So, while he may be a published and qualified scientist, the remarks he makes regarding creationism aren't actually very scientific - indeed, for AiG to use him as a leading scientist is practically a sham, as it leads their audiences to think that his ideas - which aren't really his ideas, just the same old tired arguments - automatically have credibility due to his real PhD. Although he has done research with genuine merit into the sun's heliosphere, Lisle has yet to perform, let alone publish, credible work into starlight or creationism. Utterly pathetic especially when the US has genuine scientists like Neil de Grasse Tyson to correct Dr Hovind, Dr Lisle and Ken Ham .

[@dece870717]

barlart If more people knew history they wouldn't say what you just said in your last line, because some "genuine" men of science in past history would be regarded today as not genuine according to your standard. "Considering that the so-called science is constantly changing and it seems to be the rule for scientific men to contradict all who have gone before them, and that if you take up a book on almost any science, you will find that it largely consists of repudiations of all former theories... " - Charles Spurgeon Although the man was a preacher and theologian, what he said is exactly correct. Some day what the men of science believe today about the universe will one day be regarded as ignorant/foolish or need severe correction. So to say so and so is a "genuine" scientist and others are not because the "genuine" scientist has a theory or theories that has a consensus, means nothing, it is a standard for "genuine" that has no merit, because history is full of consensus theories that are then overturned later by other men of science. If anything your statement commits the no true Scotsman fallacy. You need to repent of/forsake your sins and put your faith on the unchanging Lord Jesus Christ for your salvation.

[@barlart]

I said very little. I simply quoted wiki. To tell me that I "need" to put my "faith" in a man I have no idea whether he existed or not is absurd. Orthodox Jews don't believe the messiah has come yet and it is their god. Who am I to argue with them?

[@davidbutler1857]

/// Some day what the men of science believe today about the universe will one day be regarded as ignorant/foolish or need severe correction. /// Not really very true. It's more a matter of areas that we don't know anything about that will be filled. The known melting points of lead or other metals aren't going to change. How an atomic bomb works won't change. Nothing we will learn in the future will change that either. Nor will the fundamentals of much of what our technology is or does. Evolution will still be factually true, even if we might later learn more about how it works. What we know about atomic theory will still be true, even if we might later learn more about how it works. Certainly efficiencies will improve. This argument of yours is largely predicated on the guesswork used in past centuries where people made pretty broad correlation as causation deductions, using poor methods, like their emotions, or the intervention of deities.They weren't using anything approaching scientific methods to deduce these things. But, some stuff was. Architecture, and architectural principles are one example. Mathematics. Nothing about what we've learned of these have fundamentally changed, nor will they. More efficiency, sure, but these will be provided by advanced tools more than likely any sort of time dependent paradigm shift as you are suggesting.

[@forgiven36511]

barlart I would like to point out that the doctrine of humors was once conventional science.

[@forgiven36511]

David Butler what fact supports evolutionism?

[@josephscala6707]

There's an actual "Creation College"? Jason Lisle actually majored in astronomy. Where's the credibility??

[@bryansphere6359]

He spoke way too fast and flew through material which takes time to process and evaluate. Good stuff, he just needs to slow it down

[@ForeverBleedinGreen]

@b1itsjustme On the contrary. I'm not sure what "gish galloping" is but there's a logical reason why they talk so fast - they have gobs and gobs of evidence to get in in a short amount of time - a "luxury" evolutionists don't have, and have to deal with. They don't talk very fast simply because they have no real evidence. Calling it "gish galloping" is simply envy oozing to its ugly surface.

[@fmbidataservices5769]

Logical fallacies are based on logic. Logic can't exist without the preconditions of 1. being immaterial (not consisting of matter), 2. being omnipresent (present everywhere at the same time) and 3. being absolute (universally valid). Some of the characteristics of God is being immaterial (spirit), omnipresent (everywhere i.e. every prayer is heard) and absolute (God is God and no other). So the character of God among other things is logic. Evolution has none of these properties because its naturalistic (matter based i.e. matter is not incorporeal and not absolute because evolution is change over time). Atheists has no justification for logic and atheists have to be inconsistent and use it to argue i.e. using air to argue against air.

[@livinglifeoutdoorstv6550]

I have two absolute proofs that evolution is correct and it comes from transitional phases. These proofs are: 1- ex wife #1 2- ex wife #2 Neither can be called quite human (or humane). They may look human but .... I say this in jest, but wow they act the same, think the same, are abusive in the same ways. The only difference is place of origin.

[@truthseeker6369]

HAHAHAHA! NICE! Love it

[@netelsg]

Jesus warned his disciples to be beware of false teachers and false prophets. Below are some of questions regarding Genesis 1 about God created the universe in 6 days and mankind................ Question #1 : Genesis 1 stated God created Earth, heavens, Sun, Moon and stars. But on which day did God create Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Mercury, Saturn, & other sister planets...?................ Question #2 : If Eve was created by GOD from Adam's rib, was Eve's DNA the same as Adam's DNA...?................... Question #3 : In Genesis 1:16 God made the Sun and moon on 4th day but why there is morning and evening on the 1st 2nd and 3rd. If God's light created morning and evening on 1st 2nd & 3rd, then is this God's light still exist today...? If this light still exist, pls identify where this God's light is...?....................... Question #4 : God made two large lights. But the Moon is not a large light as it does not emits it's own light. if Moon is considered as large lights, Jupiter has at least 67 moons. Uranus has 27。Saturn has 62 moons.... so there are more than 2 large lights.............. Question #4 : God created Adam & Eve from dust and Adam's rib, how could both be human beings without blood in their body.......

[@jeremiah42day]

Appealing to the Bible as God's Book, as if it's verifiable, seems incredibly unreasonable in an otherwise incredibly reasonable presentation about reasoning. Why can't we all just agree that, foundationally, the big questions about existence are still cloaked in mystery? We may have degrees of confidence in particular theories (versus others), but claims of absolute certainty regarding suppositions that cannot be verified only devalue everything connected to them. Appeals to revelation fall into this category when we consider how many varying and contradictory appeals to revelation there have always been in the world and how similar they are in history and content. Let's be reasonable. About everything.

[@IsaacNussbaum]

Thank you for a post that is assertive without being aggressive, smolderinsmithy. That is a rare thing on these kinds of sites. I appreciate your comments, and am glad that you made them. I would differ with you only slightly. Dr. Lisle has certain worldviews and interpretations of the evidence that he believes very strongly. I would not ask him, nor expect him, to put those beliefs aside and to act and speak as though he believes as his detractors believe. It seems to me only fair that I let Dr. Lisle be Dr. Lisle.

[@dece870717]

If you would like to see Dr. Lisle's presentation on how we can know the Bible MUST be true, you can start with this kzbin.info/www/bejne/p5OpequMf5irh7s and then continue on with this one kzbin.info/www/bejne/jXayimeCg7eAmpo Essentially his argument is that the Biblical worldview is the only worldview that is consistent within itself, it is the only worldview that makes knowledge possible and has a self-attesting ultimate standard, those may seem like pretty extravagent claims but you may watch it at your leisure and decide for yourself, it may help you better understand a few things, especially in regards to the origins debate, as he gets to the heart of the issue of all of this.

[@jimhughes1070]

Galileo was the goat!!🤣🤣🤣

[@jesusm.candelario2859]

:I'm perturbed, why would an intelligent being desire to create humans? Y'all been watching the News lately? This country (USA) continues to downwards spiral straight to Hek.

[@cliftonmelissaalston2233]

There was a beginning we know this, in the beginning there was GOD and HE created or in the beginning there was nothing and nothing created the super complexity we can see not to mention what we can’t see......... 🤔

[@MrRobtwothirds]

Neo Darwinism and creation by a single God are equally unsatisfactory explanations. Is that the only choice we have? it's more absurd than the US elections.

[@iain5615]

One can state that the origin of the universe and life is by God but many Christians believe in the theory of evolution but not the neo-darwinian models which have been refuted by epigenetics.

[@mtbee9641]

Daniel Skupien Just finished watching. I like the logic education. It's a pity Jason Lisle doesn't apply it to religious arguments for the existence of god. That would be fun! There's a big premise in all religious arguments - that a god (whatever that is ) exists! The main problem in this video is the premise. Most Biologists don't make the argument for Evolution the way that Lisle does. Misrepresentation? The typical creationist argument is basically this: 'Evolution cannot be true (insert a reason here), therefore god.' 47:47 The fact that we do find similarities in the DNA DOES support Evolution. That is not to say some 'creator' didn't create these differences. However there is no supporting evidence for a creator, so unless you can provide any or an alternative explanation the DNA similarities does support Evolution. The last line "Therefore Evolution is true" is incorrect as a conclusion. It should be stated that the DNA relationships support Evolution as being true and as there is no logical alternative being presented it is just one more factor that supports the Theory of Evolution. 48:54 "If there is an order in the fossil record then Evolution must be true." Again the word must should not be there. The order in the fossil record supports Evolution as being true. Again there is no alternative explanation being presented so in light of no alternative and with lots of other supporting evidence it all indicates Evolution is true. So the order doesn't on it's own indicate that evolution is true. The order of the fossil record indicates that life that existed previously on Earth has progressed from simple to complex. That is a fact. Where did this life come from? How come later life is based on earlier life? And of course we have the DNA relationships to support the evolution of one from another. So yes there are Biologists who may say things incorrectly. However, the evidence and what it indicates is enormous for the support of Evolution. The evidence certainly doesn't support the biblical account of creation no matter how you twist it. No creationist has yet to be able to explain the order in the fossil record if Evolution is not true.

[@dece870717]

+Mtbee9 Ignorance of Creation material or rather complete and total Creation illiteracy is the biggest reason for just about every objection you've raised. When you say "No creationist has yet to be able to explain the order in the fossil record if Evolution is not true" is an example of ignorance because we have and do. I have yet to find someone against the Creation position that can accurately represent our position which means that most people against Creation don't know what evidence we use to support our position, so you end up saying there is no evidence when you have no idea what the evidence is, and this I say stems from willful ignorance on the part of many.

[@dece870717]

+Mtbee9 Forgot to add this link creation.com/order-in-the-fossil-record

[@mtbee9641]

Daniel Skupien "because we have and do." OK. Please link me to any such site that explains the fossil record in a way that matches the evidence. "most people... don't know what evidence we use to support our position" Again, point me to such a site that lists the evidence. Most that I have found on creationist sites boil down to 'it looks designed, therefore god' I ask for links to these specific questions because I have not found them on any creationist site and I have looked at a lot!

[@mtbee9641]

Daniel Skupien I replied before I saw your second comment. The link refers to the flood which has no geological evidence. and has been refuted many times. Even if there was a single world wide flood (lots of reasons why this is impossible) it could not have created the order and timescale we see in the fossil record. I can support these claims with evidence if you wish to see it. The order of the fossils is spread over 4BY of time and shows a general progression from simple to complex. No modern animals are found in older rocks. This is shown time and time again over the course of time with later forms showing similarities to earlier ones but never the other way around. Life (once started) always comes from it's parents whether plant or animals. The fossil record is a history of some of the ancestors that have once lived. The mere fact that we don't see modern animals in the older rocks is explained by evolution. What is the creationist answer to where the animals today (or in the fossil record) came from? What evidence supports your answer?

[@mtbee9641]

Daniel Skupien Daniel, the biggest issue with creationists arguments, like the flood causing all the fossils in the order we see them, is that they argue from the false premise that some creator was involved. They then come up with all sorts of made up ideas on how this could possibly have happened. These ideas cannot be supported with evidenece. This is the conclusion before evidence problem most creationists suffer from. To argue against the flood idea (which is a scientific discussion) you need to present the scientific evidence first and then draw logical conclusions from it. This is how science works. To argue from religion you are NOT arguing from the evidence up (Science), but from conclusion (God) down. In other words you are trying to fit the evidence into your preconceived idea that a god exists. It's why when I ask for you to explain how the creation idea fits the evidence, you can't do it. When Science says they have a theory of Evolution it is developed from the evidence, so I CAN provide the answers to how Evolution is supported by the evidence. The evidence came first, not the conclusion. If creationist can take the evidence and develop a conclusion from it that supports some sort of creation idea, we can discuss it. Until you can explain the physical process to match the evidence, creationism is just wishful thinking. In the case of the flood, that means showing world wide evidence that the flood occurred. Explain when this happened. (And if you disagree with Radio metric dating you need to offer another scientific dating method to support the date) You need to explain where the waters came from using evidence. Also explain where the waters went using some evidence. When you can do all this and have it accepted by peer reviewed Geologists you may have a case for a flood.

[@colonalklink14]

God is one Spirit being eternally present as three distinct centers of consciousness within God (hence the godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). One being, one essence, yet three distinct persons. God standard is absolute perfection. Not even one sin is allowed to be in Heaven. God says that all of our good deeds are as filthy rags before Him. It gets worse. The book of James says that if you follow the whole law and offend in one point you are guilty of all. Jesus is the Son of God, also called the Son of Man, His name means Jehovah Saviour, In Him dwells all the fullness of the godhead bodily (God Himself clothed in unfallen humanity, born of a Virgin, lived a perfectly sinless life, was crucified, shed His innocent blood, physically died, was buried, and physically rose again from the dead). Thereby Jesus Christ paid for all the sins of all the world (past, present, and future). That payment is put to your account when you have believed on Christ alone for salvation. When you have believed you have repented unto life!!!! Jesus Christ gets all the glory for saving anyone and as such He will not save anyone who is trusting partially in their good works and partially in Him. To have Everlasting life you must admit that you are a hopelessly lost sinner and turn (repent) from whatever you trusted in before and trust Jesus Christ as your only hope of getting to Heaven. You are trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation. Most professing Christians believe that Jesus was necessary but not sufficient to save them. They treat Jesus as a supplement to their righteousness. True Christians know that Jesus is our righteousness. PERIOD! False gospel messages are basically the same, they all teach a different mixture of faith plus works equals salvation nonsense. Examples include : make a commitment, promise to follow Jesus, repent of your sins, give your life to Christ for, surrender your will, make Jesus Lord and Master of your life, pick up your cross daily, etc. To be sure all these things are good things that already saved people should be doing, but none of them saves you or can contribute in any way to salvation. The repentance that saves is turning from whatever you trusted in before and trust Jesus Christ as your only hope of getting to Heaven. To have Everlasting life you must admit that you are a hopelessly lost sinner and turn (repent) from whatever you trusted in before and trust Jesus Christ as your only hope of getting to Heaven. You are trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation.

[@tfk0527]

Pot calling the kettle black. This guy is allegedly an astrophysicist. The entire astrophysics community KNOWS that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old and that the earth is about 4.56 billion years old. There is zero question about these two dates within the community. Yet he asserts a 6000 year old earth & universe.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

Dr Lisle does not know jack about evolution by natural selection and has never been able to distort astronomy to support a young Earth.

[@gejost]

14:58 is a nice strawman example. When people say they see evolution happening all the time, they are referring to natural selection combined with mutations producing adaption to the environment. It IS the same mevhanism postulated by darwin. Of course Darwin was well aware of man made selection which is also known as breeding. Now, when we say we see it, quite different than taking that isolated fact and conckuding darwin's theory is true. Most ppl were indeed aware of these thinfs. But combine with the fissil record, with genetic analysis, you have a lot of evidence suggesting its true. Could it still be false? of course.

[@VoteCliffHutchison]

Yes, "It IS the same mechanism postulated by Darwin", so why do you say it is a "strawman"? In the Origin of Species, Darwin describes pigeon breeders changing pigeons into different varieties of pigeons and then claims Nature can do the same thing, except between all creatures that have ever existed (molecules to man). It isn't a "strawman" to correctly give the argument of your opponent.

[@AnthonyCarrier]

You might as well go get a law degree too...! :)