God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yep.

The denier fools can't publish any science.

So they make monetized youtube videos instead.

Speaking of monetized videos and whakos:

Professor Dave Explains

Welcome! I have a knack for explaining stuff and I want to share some knowledge with you. I received a BA in chemistry from Carleton College, and performed graduate studies in both synthetic organic chemistry and science education at Cal State Northridge, receiving an MA in the latter. Prior to...

www.youtube.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Speaking of monetized videos and whakos:

Professor Dave Explains

Welcome! I have a knack for explaining stuff and I want to share some knowledge with you. I received a BA in chemistry from Carleton College, and performed graduate studies in both synthetic organic chemistry and science education at Cal State Northridge, receiving an MA in the latter. Prior to...

www.youtube.com

I'm not sure what bearing this has on your postings of youtube videos by denier fools that you didn't watch.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm not sure what bearing this has on your postings of youtube videos by denier fools that you didn't watch.

You're not sure? I thought it was rather obvious, there are hordes of people making money from Youtube, some are competent and some are not.

Watch, here "Professor" Dave does his typical ad-hominem act and even calls the entire audience stupid (22:22) when they react to his cheap disparaging tactics:



This is not science yet many (and probably you) admire these kinds of people.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You're not sure? I thought it was rather obvious, there are hordes of people making money from Youtube, some are competent and some are not.

Of course, the point is that they are not publishing science on the material.

So I will let you start over and address the actual point.

That's now several time you have made this same error.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Of course, the point is that they are not publishing science on the material.

So I will let you start over and address the actual point.

That's now several time you have made this same error.

So any scientists appearing in a video discussion must not be listened to? must be telling lies?

So this must be a dufus speaking then:

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So any scientists appearing in a video discussion must not be listened to?

If they are spreading silly denial about evolution, no, unless it's an exercise to debunk their nonsense.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If they are spreading silly denial about evolution, no, unless it's an exercise to debunk their nonsense.

How do you know someone is wrong if the deny some claim? If the deny something you believe that doesn't make them wrong, if they deny some claim lots of people believe that doesn't make them wrong. If they deny something you also deny, that doesn't make them right.

Get some books on logic, metaphysics and philosophy, I say that because this is what you're discussing mostly, not science.

 

[BackAgain]

If they are spreading silly denial about evolution, no, unless it's an exercise to debunk their nonsense.

iow: if they disagree with you, they shouldn’t be allowed to speak?

Out of curiosity, the theory of evolution either is “settled” science or it is not?

Right?

So, which is it?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Fort Fun Indiana Have you ever held an erroneous belief? every believed something was true then found out it was actually false? have you ever experienced that?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How do you know someone is wrong if the deny some claim? I

Not what I am saying. I am saying they can be ignored. One disputes such an overwhelming. Consensus of the evidence by publishing science. Not with monetized youtube videos.

But I would definitely bet they were wrong without even watching. And I would win that bet.

Once again you retreat to overly general nonsense that sows doubt in any and all knowledge. Which is absurd and useless.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Not what I am saying. I am saying they can be ignored.

What if they were right though? you'd never know would you?

One disputes such an overwhelming consensus of the evidence by publishing science. Not with monetized youtube videos.

Does consensus always prove a belief is true?

But I would definitely bet they were wrong without even watching. And I would win that bet.

Everyone who bets believes they'll win the bet, so what?

Once again you retreat to overly general nonsense that sows doubt in any and all knowledge. Which is absurd and useless.

There is doubt in all knowledge, you'd grasp that if you studied the subjects I mentioned.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's Feynman, showing how consensus can be wrong, the challenger disaster ensued when Thiokol management reached a position of consensus on the reliability of the O-ring seals in cold temperatures.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What if they were right though?

What if you jump off your roof and fall up?

What if you stay underwater for 20 minutes and learn to breathe water instead of air?

I don't spend much time worrying about these things.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What if you jump off your roof and fall up?

What if you stay underwater for 20 minutes and learn to breathe water instead of air?

I don't spend much time worrying about these things.

You chose to skip over this (and other) questions:

Does consensus always prove a belief is true?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You chose to skip over this (and other) questions:

Does consensus always prove a belief is true?

Indeed, I ignore irrelevant questions that waste my time.

You can prop up your strawman dolly and play with it, I won't be paying any attention to it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Indeed, I ignore irrelevant questions that waste my time.

You can prop up your strawman dolly and play with it, I won't be paying any attention to it.

So you don't know how to answer such a simple straightforward question, my word, you are struggling aren't you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you don't know how to answer such a simple straightforward question, my word, you are struggling aren't you.

What terrible illogic.

If you see a dog that hasn't bitten you yet, do you conclude it doesn't bite people?

This low grade trolling just embarrasses you, because the logic is so poor. Do better.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What terrible illogic.

If you see a dog that hasn't bitten you yet, do you conclude it doesn't bite people?

I'll answer that question after you answer mine, is that not fair?

Does consensus always prove a belief is true?

This low grade trolling just embarrasses you, because the logic is so poor. Do better.

Trolling? why post if you do not want people to respond?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'll answer that question after you answer mine, is that not fair?

I don't need an answer from you. It was rhetorical.

I am ignoring your red herring, sorry.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Many thousands of scientists, statisticians, physicists, biochemists, and biologists dissent from Darwinism. They have prepared a petition and have hundreds and hundreds of signatures expressing their positions that Darwinism is an abject failure. This breadth and depth of disagreement COULD NOT BE POSSIBLE if Darwinism were remotely as "factual" as its bitter, hateful proponents claim.

I have updated my website for many years and it contains a great deal of scientific and historical evidence which refute the archaic notions of the admittedly mediocre Charles Darwin who had not the slightest clue of proteins and DNA, which could not possibly have been synthesized by any naturalistic means. The quotations I cite in this website should be sufficient by themselves to continue promoting Darwin's fantasy. "It should not be taught in schools." - One scientist says

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

theevolutionfraud.wordpress.com

__________________________