Creationism Isn't a Conspiracy Theory and Enabling a Precocious Child is Not Exploitation!

Creationism Isn't a Conspiracy Theory and Enabling a Precocious Child is Not Exploitation! · Continuing with CallMeConvay · Some More Threads Under Emma Thorne's Video about "Helen"

Child Exploitation on YouTube
Emma Thorne, 25 Jan. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWIL39ZEnQU

0:45 Chimneys, factories, mines, popular media ...

One of the things is not like the other ...

Kelly Family - David's Song (Who'll Come With Me) Official Music Video
Ingo Schmit, 22 Aug 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIHVyP-57U4

2:00 The child is arguably having a youtube account by parental permission - or acting in the parents' account.

4:15 You are basically presuming:

• the parents are driving this, rather than the girl simply nagging till she got it
• and therefore the girl could be driven too far by such exploitative parents
• and therefore the girl could have a genuine and undetected burnout

The probabilities are, the girl nagged, the girl does what she wants on the youtube (except what parents forbid) and the parents are in fact preventing her from developing a burnout.

If the 11 year old had been peddling Atheism or Scepticism or Big Bang astronomy (I could have been delighted to do that at 8, after gramp died, before ma took sole care of me and was able to raise me as Christian, had youtube existed then), you would probably have realised what the probabilities were a lot quicker.

There were two children, two boys, who had a channel in French, the older could have been 11* or maybe even 13 when he started, the younger was clearly a very young child. You know, did facepalm when the older brother did facepalm and such. I commented under their channel - and I also asked the boy to forward to parents or to the father.

CallMeConvay

No, Emma isn't "presuming" that this girl didn't want to make videos, she's "presuming" that the hate speech, conspiracy theories, and adult debate sphere that ended up putting her in situations that no 11-year-old should be in.

And no, it is NOT likely that the girl chose to make videos discussing conspiracy theories in which the real concepts would be going over her head, forget the convuluted bullshit conspiracy versions of them. I'm sure the hamster videos and such are something the girl is quite interested in, no complaints there other than she needs to wait a couple years.

I find it [...] hilarious that you thing it is MOST LIKELY that an 11-year-old is "peddling" or at all discussing complicated questions of science and history at all, forget on a YouTube channel while they're at it not just because they have to but because they [...] want to. That's a warped world view, at fucking best.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay She is very definitely presuming this when discussing burning out.

Why would Creationism be an "adult debate sphere" and a "situation no 11-year-old should be in"?

A French Evolution believer allowed two boys to lambaste Creationists as "conspiracy theorists" and other things, while the younger of them was obviously barely more than a toddler - doing facepalms when his older brother did.

"NOT likely that the girl chose to make videos discussing conspiracy theories"

Why are you speaking of "conspiracy theories" in the first place?

"in which the real concepts would be going over her head,"

Not more than Evolution for eleven or thirteen year old Evolutionists.

"forget the convuluted bullshit conspiracy versions of them."

Again, what is "convoluted" and "conspiracy" even doing in your criticism?

Is that your standard way of maligning Creationists?

"not just because they have to but because they [...] want to."

So, discussing science and history at all is reserved for males of what minimum age, on your view?

CallMeConvay

An 11-year-old doesn't understand much of anything related to history, the past, and science. Just saying "she was definitely interested in it" isn't an argument, especially when there's no reasoning for it, and the majority of the kid's content is on regular 11-year-old stuff. And no, calling a child a kid isn't suddenly rude, buddy. Work on your English.

Evolution isn't a belief system, it's the only reasonable explanation for how life works in its current state. It is required for how life exists today. Period. Shut the [...] up with your conspiracy theories, they're not even comparable.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "An 11-year-old doesn't understand much of anything related to history, the past, and science."

I don't find that resonates with my own life experience. Perhaps you are a guy to whom that is roughly speaking marginal even now, and obviously then way out of your radar back then, I am not.

"Just saying "she was definitely interested in it" isn't an argument,"

So, how much exactly do you want 11 year olds to be stifled by your prejudices?

"especially when there's no reasoning for it,"

The reasoning is, I refuse to be a hysteric about other peoples' children the way you are.

"and the majority of the kid's content is on regular 11-year-old stuff."

Never said she wasn't interested in that.

"And no, calling a child a kid isn't suddenly rude, buddy. Work on your English."

Work on yours. I didn't say "rude" but my exact word was "capricious" - if you had had a fashion of calling children "kittens" I would have said "feline" - get it?

"It is required for how life exists today. Period."

So I have heard people of your belief system claim ... the overemphasis on adding "period" makes pretty certain you were not the kind of eleven year old who would have been precocious in science or theology, and hardly encourages me to take you as a genius in either of them now either ...

"Shut the [...] up with your conspiracy theories, they're not even comparable."

Further underlining:

• your thoroughly plebeian outlook, making it barbaric to consider your opinion about someone else's child, when it comes to culture (including science)
• and your barbaric determination to shout to all winds your lie that Creationism is a "conspiracy theory"

Your honesty is definitely wanting.

CallMeConvay

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Presuming burnout isn't a presumption when it's the commonplace result.

YEC is a conspiracy theory discussing in-depth aspects of religion and science. 0% of 11-year-olds are interested in it by coincidence.

You still haven't figured it out bud. YEC is a conspiracy theory. Plain and fucking simple.

Creationists are Conspiracy Theorists, by definition. They disavow science (at least the applicable fields) as an attack on their beliefs. That's a Conspiracy Theory.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Your life, no matter how "real", isn't a good sample size. I don't give a shit about your specific circumstances, you were in a similar situation to this little girl yourself. All available data backs me up, and your argument from Personal Experience isn't exactly sturdy.

Ah yes, let the 50-year-old Swede try to discuss the intricaties of my native language. I'm not an English teacher, so I won't go into specifics, but I know more about that than you, 100% guaranteed. Don't try to argue that shit, at the very least.

I will discuss you're "understanding" of Capricious, since you're being a bit of a moron about it. Capricious: given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior. Calling a child a kid is interchangeable, it isn't a change of behavior or mood.

Again buddy, calling my (correct) understanding Plebian because I like curse words and you don't understand that YEC is a conspiracy theory isn't my fucking problem. You being under the impression that I'm some deranged maniac for wanting a child to not be abused and exploited by her parents is.

And no, I'm not being hysteric because a random kid doesn't believe what I believe, I'm pissed off at you for supporting the brainwashing of young children for financial gain. If any of these thoughts were obviously genuine and from herself, I wouldn't give a shit other than pointing out that they're incorrect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "when it's the commonplace result."

Of certain working conditions that aren't verified in this case and far from probable.

"YEC is a conspiracy theory"

No.

"discussing in-depth aspects of religion and science. 0% of 11-year-olds are interested in it by coincidence."

While zero may be interested by coincidence, quite a lot actually are interested.

I was.

"YEC is a conspiracy theory."

Apart from you obviously conspiring to stamp it as such, what conspiracy does it make me believe?

A conspiracy means when different people:

• agree on an enterprise
• that they know other people will find shady
• and therefore take measures to hide.

Stating that Evolutionism spreads incompetence into the ranks of scientists is not a statement a conspiracy is ongoing.

" They disavow science (at least the applicable fields) as an attack on their beliefs."

Big distinction between disavowing science simply, and disavowing the fields that would apply to attacking their beliefs.

You seem to miss that.

"That's a Conspiracy Theory."

No. A conspiracy is what I already explained, and a conspiracy theory is a theory that such a thing is ongoing - for instance a theory that either of the two parties in Ukraine is lying about who is doing a shooting to make the other party look bad.

"Your life, no matter how "real", isn't a good sample size."

Which means, in its turn, that the sample size isn't a good way to judge my life. Therefore it is not a good way to judge everyone's life. Why would it be a good way to judge hers?

"you were in a similar situation to this little girl yourself."

Yes and no. No, insofar as you get her wrong and applying that wrong to me is wronging me too. Yes insofar as we are both similarily maligned by people like you.

"I'm not an English teacher, so I won't go into specifics,"

Like "capricious" having to do with "goats" and "kids" having to do with "goats"?

"Don't try to argue that shit, at the very least."

With your level of culture, I don't find you believable. You have the kind of few books and lots of football fields education where even a foreigner can know more about the language of your land's literature than you do.

"calling my (correct) understanding Plebian because I like curse words and you don't understand that YEC is a conspiracy theory isn't my fucking problem."

It's clearly a problem with your credibility in judging either situation. Of people who are not plebeian, and do not accept the slogans you repeat without analysis.

"under the impression that I'm some deranged maniac for wanting a child to not be abused and exploited by her parents is."

I'm under the impression you are a hysteric for thinking her abused and exploited.

"I'm pissed off at you for supporting the brainwashing of young children for financial gain."

In that case, why do you not make a row about science teacher who brainwash in Evolutionism for their gain on taxpayers' expense?

"If any of these thoughts were obviously genuine and from herself,"

Being genuine and being "from herself" (and no one else) are two different things.

If for a thought to be genuine, you have to invent it with no support from anyone else, you don't find much genuine thought ever. Most people take over thoughts from others and most prefer parents over teachers when there is a conflict.

CallMeConvay

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Commonplace Result" = "Probable". Most people who make YT videos, especially to the degree this girl was, leads to burnout. Especially when you consider that she's an 11-year-old, it's more than likely enough to deserve a mention.

Young Earth Creation is a Conspiracy Theory. You keep bitching about this, so I'll make it extremely clear. Conspiracy Theory: a belief that some secret but influential organization is responsible for an event or phenomenon. Young Earth Creation peddles the idea that a secret portion of worldwide governments, scientists, mainstream religious organizations, etc., have colluded to cover up the "fact" that the Earth (and universe, but we don't need to get into that) was created by the Christian God ~6,000 years ago, for some villainous purpose. It's a conspiracy theory. Get over it.

You were interested in it because your mum brainwashed/indoctrinated you, the same as this girl's parents did. It's pretty clear you were taught similar things to a similar degree.

Your "definition" of a Conspiracy is far-removed from the mainstream definition, and that's on you. A conspiracy is far from that simple, and Conspiracy != Conspiracy Theory.

"Stating that Evolutionism spreads incompetence into the ranks of scientists is not a statement a conspiracy is ongoing." This is a perfect example of your, ahem, lacking English. "Evolutionism" isn't a common term, and it certainly isn't used in this way. Evolutionism also doesn't spread anything, it's science. It's the result of experiments, not an ideology or opinion. ". . . is not a statement a conspiracy is ongoing" is poor and unclear English, we use punctuation here. "'Evolutionism spreads incompetence into the ranks of scientists' isn't a statement THAT a conspiracy is ongoing." would be much better English. Your sentence would lose you points on a middle school essay. Back to its substance, no. Stating that this "Evolutionism" subject "spreads incompetence among scientists" IS a conspiracy theory. You're stating that "Evolutionism", or in English, the people who peddle Evolutionism, is responsible for spreading disinformation among scientists. That's a conspiracy theory.

"Big distinction between disavowing science simply, and disavowing the fields that would apply to attacking their beliefs. You seem to miss that". I obviously didn't, considering that, you know, I brought it up myself. The idea that you can disavow exclusive "portions of science" proves your idiocy. Science is a process that reaches conclusions via experimentation. You can't disavow science, or even particular theories in general. You can (theoretically) disprove them, but this requires engaging in science. The moment you say "I disagree with gravity" you lose all credibility towards anything else covered by science, because all science is predicated by the rest of it. You can't get evolution without gravity, or planets, or the universe, or language for that matter, because saying "gravity is wrong" destroys any experiment ever done.

Again, a conspiracy theory requires a secret group (or secret members of a larger group) to be causing some event or phenomenon. YEC is a Conspiracy Theory, because it peddles that secret members of the scientific community, governments, and mainstream religion cause disinformation to teach that the Earth is actually billions of years old, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, etc.

Okay buddy you really need to understand the Argument from Personal Experience before you can engage in meaningful discussions. When I say "11-year-olds don't care about religious and scientific conspiracy theories unless they're taught too", I'm arguing from the huge base group of 11-year-olds who are in their 5th or 6th year of school, who care more about playing tag then engaging in such adult "debates". When you say "I was interested", you aren't discrediting my argument because the experience of a single person doesn't scale to a significant rebuttal. One outlier doesn't affect the data - in fact, it gets thrown out immediately.

No, you're similar to the little girl in that you were indoctrinated to believe batshit conspiracy theories with such vigor that you would expose yourself to bullying and abuse to defend them. The only real difference is 40 years, a different country, and that you didn't have YT, and you admitted yourself that you would have used it if you had the opportunity.

Are you using Google Translate? "Goat" isn't anywhere in my comments, and none of them are edited. Again, get a hold of English before trying to make reasonably complicated debate in English. Since you seem to really need it, here is the Definition of Capricious. Again. Capricious: given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior.

Are you legitimately under the impression that we learn how the English language works. . . in schools? We speak the language every day, we only need English classes to learn about non-regular English like poetry, and to learn how to read and write. You didn't learn Swedish in school, you learned at home and in the real world. And thinking that your shitty, 30 years out of date English compares to a single American's is pretty funny.

For example, I present your next "paragraph": "It's clearly a problem with your credibility in judging either situation. Of people who are not plebeian, and do not accept the slogans you repeat without analysis." English rarely uses "Of X Group" anymore to begin with, and your use of it makes the subjects entirely vague, as does every other part of the paragraph. I legitimately don't know what each part is referring to because you don't make any effort to name a subject anywhere at all, and the above subject doesn't follow grammatically.

This next paragraph is arguably worse, but I think I can decode it. First of all, Hysteric as a noun refers to someone with Hysteria, not to someone who is currently acting in a hysterical way. Again, your English is lacking enough to make this conversation confusing, and it's pretty low-level. Oh, and it's outdated as shit. And yes, you are exploited when you are used to voice conspiracy theories. And you are abused when you aren't taught how to engage in these things safely, and your health is held in no meaningful regard by your parents. All of the above applies here.

I don't give a shit about some fairytale French teacher "brainwashing" people with "evolutionism", that's a non-sequitur - it's not in the field of play here. I have been and will continue to ignore off-topic talking points you've copy-pasted straight from some crackpot religious hustler.

This last sentence is the cream of the crop of your stupidity. Genuine doesn't require uniqueness. Genuine and From Herself are similar requirements that hones in on the specifics, but unique never had to be involved. Having unique ideas from your parents is involved in the discussion, but considering you're parroting the same disinformation as YECs have been for decades, a lack of uniqueness on your part is no fucking surprise.

TLDR: Shut the fuck up, you don't know what you're talking about, and your English makes even the slightest intricacies major points of contention due to your general incompetence in the matters at hand. Don't get me wrong, it's (somehow) more than enough for general conversation, but don't go around thinking it's pretty good or anything.

@CallMeConvay "Conspiracy Theory: a belief that some secret but influential organization is responsible for an event or phenomenon."

Yes exactly.

"Young Earth Creation peddles the idea that a secret portion of worldwide governments, scientists, mainstream religious organizations, etc., have colluded to cover up the "fact" that the Earth (and universe, but we don't need to get into that) was created by the Christian God ~6,000 years ago, for some villainous purpose. It's a conspiracy theory."

Would be if we were peddling it. We aren't.

"You were interested in it because your mum brainwashed/indoctrinated you,"

And you call me brainwashed by my mum because I am not brainwashed by the likes of you.

"It's pretty clear you were taught similar things to a similar degree."

Yes, but not by brainwashing.

"Your "definition" of a Conspiracy is far-removed from the mainstream definition,"

It's even basically identical to yours.

"This is a perfect example of your, ahem, lacking English. "Evolutionism" isn't a common term, and it certainly isn't used in this way."

No. It's an example of my adapting my English after what I want to express and not after what you want to be expressable.

Evolutionism may not be a common term, but it is a term.

If it were more common, certain discussions would be ended sooner and for the better.

"Evolutionism also doesn't spread anything, it's science. It's the result of experiments, not an ideology or opinion."

This is a category mistake on your part. Experiments cannot be conducted in one celled creatures (you know, one celled in all stages of the lifecycle) becoming manycelled. A carbon 14 test showing a human skeleton has 0.894 pmC isn't automatically it being 39 000 years old, let alone it having evolved from Homo erectus soloensis. Or worse, from Australopithecus.

""'Evolutionism spreads incompetence into the ranks of scientists' isn't a statement THAT a conspiracy is ongoing." would be much better English."

Perhaps, but I am aware that "that" can be omitted. It's what I did.

"Back to its substance, no. Stating that this "Evolutionism" subject "spreads incompetence among scientists" IS a conspiracy theory. You're stating that "Evolutionism", or in English, the people who peddle Evolutionism, is responsible for spreading disinformation among scientists. That's a conspiracy theory."

Well, I didn't say "spread disinformation" as in deliberate disinformation. By the way, if you think we creationists do so, that is a conspiracy theory on your part.

I said "spread incompetence" - that's a different thing. Accept one false statement, and you get more incompetent. Accept ten false statements and you get even more incompetent than that. So false statements that get accepted spread incompetence. One set of false statements is called Evolutionism. I said "Evolutionism" and not "the people who peddle Evolutionism" because I meant "Evolutionism" and not "Evolustionists"

And if you find a compulsive, possibly pathological, need to reinterpret my actual statements to suit your agenda, perhaps that degrades your view of my English, as my word choices better suite what points I was actually making than the ones you want me to make.

"I obviously didn't, considering that, you know, I brought it up myself. The idea that you can disavow exclusive "portions of science" proves your idiocy."

Fair point. You brought it up - to dismiss it. First as irrelevant, now as impossible.

" Science is a process that reaches conclusions via experimentation."

That definition straight away means what we dismiss is not science. You cannot experiment in past events. You can experiment in processes that could be relevant for past events. Like Guy Berthault did. You know the wharves interpreted as yearly layers? Instant stratification.

"You can (theoretically) disprove them, but this requires engaging in science."

Which is what creation science does.

"because all science is predicated by the rest of it."

Ooops - now you are treating SCIENCE as a kind of Bible.

A kind of Papacy. You are trying to argue against Creationism, as I against Protestantism, who pretend they base their beliefs on the Bible and miss they got the NT canon from two councils of the Church held centuries after the Apostles and which wouldn't have had authority, unless the Apostles had handed theirs on.

Sorry, but there is not SCIENCE in that sense, there are scienceS - in the plural.

"because saying "gravity is wrong" destroys any experiment ever done."

It doesn't destroy experiments of chemistry or electromagnetism.

"because it peddles that secret members of the scientific community, governments, and mainstream religion cause disinformation to teach that the Earth is actually billions of years old, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, etc."

No, we do not peddle that. We peddle that open members are involved in usually unintentional misinformation, also known as incompetence. Which unlike your version is not a conspiracy theory.

"When I say "11-year-olds don't care about religious and scientific conspiracy theories unless they're taught too", I'm arguing from the huge base group of 11-year-olds who are in their 5th or 6th year of school, who care more about playing tag then engaging in such adult "debates"."

And even for that huge base group, you may be misjudging them, but either way, no matter how huge, it is not something you judge niche children with niche interests from niche homes (also known as cultured) by.

You don't judge a Western minority by the huge base group who have to walk to fetch water in Africa.

"One outlier doesn't affect the data - in fact, it gets thrown out immediately."

Well, if you speak of data, you are pretending there is some kind of science of this - there isn't. If you mean psychology, that is a sham science, and it is also a conspiracy to dominate people like right wingers, nationalists, Christians, sexists and other people you dislike.

The logical consequence of "one outlier doesn't affect the base group" is "the base group doesn't affect one outlier" - and that logically means you should quit speaking on the topic.

"that you would expose yourself to bullying and abuse to defend them."

I was exposed to bullying by the likes of you. My mother had me homeschooled as long as the Swedish tyranny didn't stop that. Arguably the girl in America is way better protected, because her parents are not forced to stop homeschooling.

Sweden was under the second government of Social Democrat Palme. So, Swedish Socialist tyranny at that. Malmö was also in the hands of Social Democrats.

THEY, not I, is what exposed me to being bullied for my beliefs.

""Goat" isn't anywhere in my comments,"

No, but "kid" and "capricious" have to do with goat, and neither has to do with "rude" which was your comment.

I think it is a caprice in the sense you speak of to call children after the young of goats. I didn't say it was rude. But I also know that the word comes from goats behaving that way.

"Are you using Google Translate?"

I know better than that. I know language better than you do, and am a better judge of when a real misunderstanding is due to a real lack of language comprehension. It doesn't count as one to be too benighted to know where "caprice" and "capricious" come from ...

"Are you legitimately under the impression that we learn how the English language works. . . in schools?"

I was mentioning books.

" We speak the language every day,"

Sure. And everyday language is a limited amount of the language available in books. Which would include access to etymology of capricious.

"we only need English classes to learn about non-regular English like poetry,"

Again, I wasn't mentioning classes, I mentioned books. There is such a thing as private reading. And an English beyond everyday isn't automatically "non-regular" and not even poetry is that - if anything, the reverse. It's more regular, because it has more rules to obey.

"English rarely uses "Of X Group" anymore to begin with, and your use of it makes the subjects entirely vague,"

It so happens, the part beginning "Of people who ..." is an added extension of previous. It so happens, if I hadn't paused, it would have read:

... your judging of the situation of people who ...

Is it clearer now?

"because you don't make any effort to name a subject anywhere at all, and the above subject doesn't follow grammatically."

Well, the subject is in a previous sentence. The subject is "it's clearly a problem" ...

"First of all, Hysteric as a noun refers to someone with Hysteria, not to someone who is currently acting in a hysterical way."

And hysteric as an adjective? And referring to you as someone with Hysteria as a hyperbole? You definitely were acting in a hysterical way.

Or, wait, doesn't "hysterics" also as a noun refer to "fit of hysteria" or (by extension) "momentary acting in a hysteric way"?

"And yes, you are exploited when you are used to voice conspiracy theories."

By whom? By myself?

I am the one using myself to voice Young Earth Creationism, which is also not a conspiracy theory, and you are the one engaging in a real conspiracy theory of me being used or exploited by someone else!

"I don't give a shit about some fairytale French teacher "brainwashing" people with "evolutionism", that's a non-sequitur - it's not in the field of play here."

Motorsport Gigantoraptor was clearly in middle school when making videos seven years ago. They involve peddling exactly your stuff. He's not the least a fairy tale, he is annoyingly boring except as someone to debunk ... or for those that share his (and your) blind fury against "Creationism the goofy conspiracy theory" ...

Do you ever feel used? Or are you fine with Creationists getting bullied and only worried about the 11 year old girl, because it's an excuse to attack her even more Creationist parents?

For the last part, is there a specific reason that I should care what you think of my English?

A post "Continuing with CallMeConvay" is planned for here on 4.II.2023, the debate didn't end at above place.

Continuing with CallMeConvay

It also contains continuing threads on some of the other comments from here.

4:33 Do you know for a fact the channel is even monetised?

If it is, how do you know the parents aren't dividing the money between extra pocket money (with a requirement to share with brothers) and an account she can touch when older?

Is it because you are presuming that anyone who's creationist is basically a poor gypsy or other type of person Enid Blyton would have considered a likely candidate for abusive parenting?

5:05 OK. The family are fans of Kent Hovind.

Well, where is the conspiracy theory?

Is it simply misclassifying Young Earth Creationism as "conspiracy theory"?

I just debated under a youtube with a person with the handle "meow meow meow" and mentioned the Overton window of peer reviewers at Nature, and the cat loving pseudonym went on to ask if I believed NASA was lying about their data - how is that not a non sequitur of precisely that kind? (Which by the way was peddled by the Gigantoraptor* French Evolutionist youtube boy).

6:03 Your enumeration of possibilities ...

• they are greedy
• they are cowardly

What about option 3:

• they weren't the ones into the youtube business anyway, they just allowed a precocious 11 year old girl to do that? And that's why it's her face on it.

6:11 Neither the child, nor the parents are considering that the Creationist content is "embarrassing" - and who are you to make "embarrassing" some kind of objective "fact" over their heads and behind their backs?

If I were into certain words ... you over that.

6:29 So, apart from the sheer presumption in saying "all of Kent Hovind's arguments have been disproven" - you also seem to imply that families with "ignorant" parents should somehow be "protected against themselves" ... the NS did that about procreation from early 1934 to 1945 (thank you Patton!) and certain democratic régimes started earlier (like Per Albin's in my own Sweden!) and only ended in the 70's ...

If someone had been saying such a thing about allowing LGBT getting into education, you would have been the first to cry out against the oppressive paternising, but when the "ignorance" is creationism, you are the one doing it.

For the record, three of Kent Hovind's positions, and these not necessarily share by other Creationists, I have had the honour to fine tune a bit. These:

• inflated carbon dates are due to carbon 14 having been lower and still on the rise back then
• the geological column (meaning the palaeontological aspect, the fossils) only exists in text books (yes, I know GC is an exception, so are some other fossil marine environments, like quite a few drill holes)
• the palaeolithic was a Gilligan's Island situation just after the Flood.

6:39 "On a divisive adult topic that this kid doesn't have any interest in ..."

Apart from "kid" which is a rather capricious way of adressing children, why wouldn't she?

I was a huge evolution geek (for my age) before gramp died and even more somewhat after, when I got a book about the ancestry of man (all the way from Olduway to Iron Age Britain) and continued to take interest in the book after discarding its belief system.

The boys on Gigantoraptor* were interested in Evolution. Why would this girl not be interested in Creation?

Hm Grraarrpffrzz

It's kind of sad to hear that you were once interested in evolution and then fell for creationist nonsense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz I am still interested in evolution.

Being interested in refuting a thing is also an interest.

7:13 So, when you were 11, you were making no arguments about any theoretical matters?

I mean, I am not saying she is a very independent thinker, ready to brave all of her surroundings, very few people are even in mature adult life, she is making arguments her parents would approve, sure, but it's not a proof she is not genuinely understanding the points (barring lacunas, which her disapproval of Evolution doesn't prove).

If I loved my guinea pigs, does that prove I loathed the Bible or the book on human evolution I no longer fully believed in? No.

7:19 "who already believe in this conspiracy theory"

By now it is glaringly obvious that the only "conspiracy" you mean she is detecting is a culture of materialistic assumptions peddled as "science" ... by scientists who incompetent in philosophy and history and therefore also theology as they are unfortunately believe that.

In normal parlance, "culture" is not called "conspiracy" even when it's incompetent.

Hm Grraarrpffrzz

Well, as of now there is no good evidence that any spiritual world or whatnot exists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz You have a language and showed yourself concerned with what I meant by certain words?

That sounds like one major locality of proof for it ...

7:35 Being 11 doesn't stop one from having thoughts on evolution.

7:52 It's pretty common for parents to tell their children what to believe.

Obviously, at a certain point in time, KKK was very much against Catholic parents doing so, so they wanted teachers to protect children from their parents' ignorance ...

Credits to Candace Owen for bringing this up.

So, the children who aren't told what to believe by their parents are usually told what to believe by their teachers instead, which is not preferrable.

Hm Grraarrpffrzz

And that's why a public school is a good idea, where kids are ensured that they receive an objective point of view and get a break from religious brainwashing at home.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz Because people like KKK who disapprove of Catholicism can run the public schools (yes, KKK was heavily into Democrat Party and heavily into planning the ministry of education, Candace Owen made a nice video about what the KKK are up to now).

8:00 As I recall, the conspiracy theories you grew up with genuinely were conspiracy theories.

Whether true or false, a government doing chemtrails is conspiring, and a person believing these is believing a conspiracy theory. So, chemtrails is a conspiracy theory, which doesn't prove it right, also doesn't prove it wrong, but it is one.

Creationism isn't.

9:37 Have you seen any abuse under this girl's channel?

I see you speaking of the abuse she could get.

Are you, for instance, sure her mother doesn't filter out unpleasant or directly unsavoury comments before she's allowed to go to the comments that are left?

Are you even sure anyone would leave an unpleasant comment to an eleven year old girl?

What if the exact point is, this would make Evolutionists listen without pulling out the usual arsenal of unpleasant things like "cr...rd" ... because, even while being Evolutionist, they have too good manners to do that to her?

10:39 "most Evolutionists aren't very nice"

OK, you haven't seen abuse, but you assume she has.

What was the most abusive thing she answered?

And how can you be sure it's not about her ma telling her "there are ten comments left, I had to delete 20 because they are too rude"?

And how can you be sure she's not simply resenting a patronising tone?

I mean, I am a male of 54, going on 55, and I get patronising from Evolutionists more than just once every leap year. That's the one kind of unpleasantness she realistically could be facing.

11:00 What exact long standing teacher ("high school science for 15 years") doesn't know how easy it is to manipulate children?

Even teens are easy to manipulate. I was outspoken creationist in the teens, and at least once a teacher was manipulative about arguments in the classroom, shutting down the discussion just before I could make the decisive reply, but ... how was it not manipulative to have me face bullying which he defended me against, and then in an actual discussion cut me short himself?

It can be added to this, my mother and I genuinely did have interest and capacity for homeschooling. It was not my choice, not my mother's, for me to face a classroom in ninth grade. Tenth, yes, that's another matter, I could have taken a senior high school "line" with likeminded teens very unlikely to be a problem, but ninth grade, before that splitup, no.

But a total (though not unrelieved) misery in grades 9 and 10, and a sham improvement (I was not bullied in return for not standing on my dignity, but offering self irony galore) in grades 11 and 12 - I had to face that, not by the choice of a Creationist mother, but by the choice of people who - like you - classified a Creationist mother as objectively abusive, while she definitely wasn't.

11:05 Apart from "high school education" (is that as far as you got in Evolution?) and "bullshitter" - what about an Atheist saying "God knows ..."?

11:34 "their favourite criminal conspiracy theorist"

I lobbied to get him out of prison. But apart from whether he's innocent or criminal, his charges were not about his "conspiracy theory" and your phrasing make it sound like there is a connexion between "conspiracy theorist" and "criminal" over and above possible coincidences in the same person ...

12:03 The 11 year old girl is not a "mini version of Kent Hovind" because she shares his Creationism or even the bad parts of his theology (Baptism, Anti-Catholicism, Teetotalism read into the Bible ....).

I was not a mini version of my mother because I shared her theology, more or less. Including Creationism.

If it looked like that to certain Evolutionists who had and criminally exercised power in Sweden, about me, or if it looks like that to you, about the girl of 11, it's because some Evolutionists are so totally incapable of seing Creationism as an intellectual position that they see it as a marked "character trait" - my character was in fact very much the same, barring quick maturation in such years, when my Evolutionist gramp educated me at 7 and into 8 years of my age, and when my Creationist mum educated me from 8 going on nine to when the boarding school tried to "protect" me from her influence.

12:40 No, my dear patronising wimp, we don't have to do sth!

People of your level of hysteria ruined my teens.

12:54 Realistically, they are far better aware of what their child is feeling than you are.

You are only concerned with what she might be feeling, could be feeling years from now or should be feeling.

They can observe what she actually feels.

12:57 No, my dear manipulated exploited young adult youtuber.

People are not unable to think rationally because they disagree with you, and also not because they disagree with "Science"

Hm Grraarrpffrzz

Where did she say that people disagreeing with her means they can't think rationally?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz She said the creationist parents of that 11 year old girl couldn't.

Just around 12:57, arguably a few seconds before, that's why I made the time stamp.

Hm Grraarrpffrzz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl But there is a huge difference between saying "those two people can not think rationally" and "anyone who disagrees with me is unable to think rationally". Don't you see that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz Not if the only reason that she said "they cannot think rationally" is them disagreeing with her.

B Y ... T H E ... W A Y ... I gave an alternative possible rationale for her, namely their disagreeing with "Science" (you know, the Registered Trademark).

Hm Grraarrpffrzz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Where did she say "people can't think rationally when they disagree with me"? You are just making bs up to slander her.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz Here is a long quote for you:

"... appeal to someone like Kent Hovind or the parents is not going to work, because they are already deeply entrenched in conspiracy thinking. They probably think they are saving their child by doing what is right. The parents likely believe they have God on their side. Nothing is gonna change their minds. ... We have to change something in the law to protect children from this kind of exploitation, because we cannot rely on parents to make these correct choices, when they can so often be completely ignorant of the work they are making their child do, completely ignorant of what their child is feeling, when they are entrenched in conspiracy beliefs and unable to think rationally."

Every single thing she said about those parents either is about them disagreeing about their daughter which they know better than she does, or about them being Creationist, which means they disagree with her or with "Science."

Hm Grraarrpffrzz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Nowhere did she say that people are irrational because they disagree with her. :D Stop making up nonsense.
When you would say that Earth is flat and I say that Earth is roughly spherical, then you are wrong. But you are not wrong because you disagree with me, you are wrong because the evidence shows that you are wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz Which one of her reasons are not

• either identic to disagreeing with her
• or to disagreeing with "Science"?

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz Plus, you missed the distinction between being wrong and being uncapable of thinking rationally.

14:54 No, "we" have not legally recognised it's harmful for children to be seen when in factories or chimneys, "we" (well, Sweden too) have legally recognised:

• coal particles (both chimneys and mines)
• hot furnaces in factories
• heavy machinery falling down in factories

are all harmful for children's bodies.

15:40 Could it be that far bigger channels resent family vloggers simply because they are often Christian and making Christianity attractive?

Hm Grraarrpffrzz

Considering that there is no shortage of Christians spreading insane bs on YouTube, there wouldn't be any need to focus on Christian vloggers when you got much juicier Christian targets.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz Well, perhaps the "juicier ones" are already targetted in other ways, so certain people want to target this one too in a new way.

Hm Grraarrpffrzz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So, just that I get you right: a person talks about how they are unhappy to see what they see as child exploitation. And they talk about the parents of a child who has a channel might exploit her.

And you say none of that has to do with the child at all? Then 90% of the video would have nothing to do with what the video is about. That's just absurd. It seems that you are grasping for straws here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz I would say quite a few have made it a bandwagon and made the children and their welfare a convenient excuse.

Emma jumped onto the bandwaggon, she is perhaps honest, but not very lucid about the question.

Hm Grraarrpffrzz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl But you don't need the welfare of children as an excuse. :D Both are on their own legitimate subjects. The very idea that this video is not about children even though most of the content is about children is just absurd. It's like when a guy robs a gas station, and a cop catches him and arrests him, and the robber says "yeah you are not really arresting me because of the robbery, you use that as an excuse, you really arrest me because you hate men". It's absurd.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz Well, I have rebutted the pretended concerns for the child's welfare more than once in my comments.

16:07 "from the perspective of a conspiracy theorist"

Correction, from the perspective of a Creationist. Those are not coextensive.

Hm Grraarrpffrzz

Is that such a big difference? As a Creationist, if you have a very basic education in science, you know that by far the most scientists are not Creationists. How does a Creationist explain that? Well, either by pretending that laymen creationists are the real experts and that the scientists don't know their field of expertise, or by imagining a huge conspiracy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz "How does a Creationist explain that?"

How about checking, instead of presuming? Here is how I explain that:

1) Being a real expert and knowing better are not the same thing.
2) Not knowing one's field and not knowing as well about one particular field within it is also not the same thing.
3) In the case of scientists who specialise specifically on millions of years, specifically on molecules to man evolution, I deny it is a legitimate field, especially as run in only one direction - as I would do about astrology. And I don't accuse astrologists of being conspiring to gain huge money. Do you think I should?

I don't see Hovind's words about it as being radically different from my view.

Hm Grraarrpffrzz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The real experts are the ones who studied that field and have a lot of work experience in that field. It's not just the people who agree with you. And yes, a lot of Creationist laymen think they know more than the experts. It's quite a sad sight to hear often about this global flood nonsense for example, even though we know for certain that humans were never killed by a global flood. But you can tell those religious nuts whatever you want and present any evidence and they will ignore it, because for them what matters is not what is true but rather what seemingly confirms their believes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz "The real experts are the ones who studied that field and have a lot of work experience in that field. It's not just the people who agree with you."

You still don't get the idea that real experts can be really wrong?

"And yes, a lot of Creationist laymen think they know more than the experts."

Well, on certain issues perhaps we do. Like historicity of the Bible being reasonable to uphold.

"they will ignore it, because for them what matters is not what is true"

Why this demonising or infantilising?

Evidence is one thing, appeal to the experts something different.

"but rather what seemingly confirms their believes."

The whole point being, experts aren't immune to confirmation bias.

PLUS your comment ignores the numbers, small in percent, but not negligible in actual numbers of experts who are creationists.

PLUS your comment ignores the distinction between experts with expert status and amateur experts.

Hm Grraarrpffrzz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Of course experts can be really wrong. I mean, that is what religious people often think is a flaw: to accept the possibility that you could be wrong. Often I've heard the argument "yeah science always changes but my religion is always the same". That's not a virtue, it's a flaw.
However, when the huge majority of scientists is convinced that something is a fact because of the evidence that supports it, and some religious people claim to know better than those scientists but don't have good evidence for their claims, then they are just irrational.

"Well, on certain issues perhaps we do. Like historicity of the Bible being reasonable to uphold"
I've seen a lot of debates between Christians and atheists and often atheists know the Bible better, because they can read it all, while most Christians just read the parts that are spoon-fed to them. I mean how many Christians know that the Bible states that it's ok to beat your slave with a sticks (as long as the slave doesn't immediately die afterwards) because the slave is your property? Many don't know those parts.

Studying something because you are interested in it gives you often better insights than being spoonfed select parts every now and then in church.

"The whole point being, experts aren't immune to confirmation bias."
And that's why the scientific method works: the new findings are published and peer reviewed.

"PLUS your comment ignores the numbers, small in percent, but not negligible in actual numbers of experts who are creationists."
I never said that there are no scientists who are not creationists. :D But they are a tiny minority, and creationism in science plays no role because it's not scientific, it's a religious myth. And you can find among the millions of scientists people who have all kinds of believes. You can surely find a couple people who believe that bigfoot exists or maybe even one who thinks that Earth is flat. That's irrelevant. What is relevant is what scientific research produces.

Just to drive that point home: most of the creationists who disagree with scientists, especially on matters like evolution, are just victims of the dunning-kruger effect. They know so little about the subjects they are talking about that they don't even grasp how wrong they are.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "You still don't get the idea that real experts can be really wrong?"
It seems that you haven't read my reply. I don't see the point in repeating exactly what I said when. you can just read my previous reply again.

"Well, on certain issues perhaps we do. Like historicity of the Bible being reasonable to uphold."
How did you come to that conclusion?

"Why this demonising or infantilising?"
Calling an accurate description demonising or infantilising doesn't show that it's false.

"Evidence is one thing, appeal to the experts something different."
Creationists tend to ignore that scientific theories are supported by evidence, and that there is good reason why there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists among a number of subjects such as evolution or the origins of mankind.

"PLUS your comment ignores the numbers, small in percent, but not negligible in actual numbers of experts who are creationists."
I specifically touched that subject. Read my comment again.

"PLUS your comment ignores the distinction between experts with expert status and amateur experts."
I described accurately what experts I'm talking about. Stop talking nonsense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz "It seems that you haven't read my reply."

I did. I came across a reference to "the real experts" but not to any realisation that "the real experts" can be really wrong. You didn't state in so many words "the real experts are automatically right, if they agree" but you also never contradicted it with as much as a qualification.

"How did you come to that conclusion?"

Personal biography : my mother told me. Several decades of attempts later to prove her wrong has left me with the impression those trying to prove her wrong are wrong.

Or, if you prefer ...

Reasoned philosophical approach : a historic document is a thing which is accepted as a historic document by the community of which it purports to be the history. It could still be a fake, but that's not the default but remains to be proven true or likely.

"Creationists tend to ignore that scientific theories are supported by evidence,"

You tend to ignore that you are here not appealing to any specific piece of evidence, but only to science, as supposedly "supported by evidence" ...

You equally tend to ignore that historic documents are supported by eyewitness within the communities accepting them.

"there is good reason"

Reminds me of my comment about the successor of August of Poland "his name was never famous" and my history teacher saying "can't you remember it, Hans" - admittedly, Stanisław Leszczyński is Polish, of which I had not yet learned the pronunciation.

"I specifically touched that subject. Read my comment again."

You mean this? Here:
"Well, either by pretending that laymen creationists are the real experts"

No, you didn't touch on creationists who are scientific experts, you touched on laymen creationists.

The next one exactly does the same.

"a lot of Creationist laymen think they know more than the experts."

STILL ignoring people like the Geologist Tas Walker.

"I described accurately what experts I'm talking about."

But you did not respond about the experts I was talking about.

"Stop talking nonsense."

Stop being dishonest about what you said, or, if it's your bad memory, try to actually check it.

I am republishing these dialogues, with my initial comments and link to your video, on a blog of mine. I can check the post for what you previously said, I don't need to take your word for it.

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz Oh, wait, there was a previous comment I hadn't seen yet.

Responding to that.

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz "Of course experts can be really wrong."

You said "experts" and not "the real experts" as a collective.

"However, when the huge majority of scientists is convinced that something is a fact because of the evidence that supports it,"

Your sole claim to getting "the evidence that supports it" is so far belief in that majority of scientists.

"and some religious people claim to know better than those scientists but don't have good evidence for their claims, then they are just irrational."

No, they are not.

And your claim that they don't have good evidence is flawed by an atheist bias in evaluation.

But thanks for at least stating "good" evidence - you admit they have some kind of evidence which cancels out the charge of being "just irrational" ...

"I mean how many Christians know that the Bible states that it's ok to beat your slave with a sticks (as long as the slave doesn't immediately die afterwards)"

The Bible doesn't say "it is OK" it says there is not an actual murder in such a case. Yes, I am one of the Christians who read it.

"Studying something because you are interested in it gives you often better insights than being spoonfed select parts every now and then in church."

Or on science channels ...

I agree. I do study the parts of the Bible that interest me from the pov or historical reliability and specifically Resurrection and YEC. So does Kent Hovind and lots of his fans.

"the new findings are published and peer reviewed."

Pre-publication peer review is a kind of censorship, and any peer review you find in those journals has a deep confirmation bias to basic paradigms, including on topics we Creationists find contestable.

"But they are a tiny minority, and creationism in science plays no role because it's not scientific, it's a religious myth."

We deny that origins questions and questions about the past are primarily scientific. They are historic.

Most of what you call "myths" is here history observed by men if true. And accepted as such by the Hebrew community in branches like Christian, Jewish, Samaritan.

"What is relevant is what scientific research produces."

Not on subjects where history is likelier to be true than reconstructive research.

"most of the creationists who disagree with scientists, especially on matters like evolution, are just victims of the dunning-kruger effect."

So are most Evolutionists who disagree with Creation Science and with Flood Geology.

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz "Calling an accurate description demonising or infantilising doesn't show that it's false."

Calling an infantilising or demonising description "accurate" doesn't prove it is.

When it is one about strangers, it is very likely to be inaccurate.

Hm Grraarrpffrzz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "You said "experts" and not "the real experts" as a collective."
How to you distinguish between "real experts" and "experts"?

"Your sole claim to getting "the evidence that supports it" is so far belief in that majority of scientists."
Yep. And we have good reasons to believe the scientists claims and not those of the creationists.

"No, they are not."
Why not? When a scientist says "this is the theory of evolution and here is the evidence" and a Creationist says "yeah duuuh I don't believe you but I am right and I don't have good evidence", then the creationists position is irrational.

"And your claim that they don't have good evidence is flawed by an atheist bias in evaluation."
So far in no debate that involved creationists have I heard any creationist provide good evidence that they are right, nor have I heard of any article or video that had such evidence. When they claimed to have such evidence and I checked it out, it was always silly nonsense.

Now for you to be right, there'd need to be good evidence that for some reason the better known apologists are not aware of.

Where is that evidence? Can you present it? No? If you don't have that evidence, and if the more well known apologists don't have it, who has it? Nobody?

"But thanks for at least stating "good" evidence - you admit they have some kind of evidence which cancels out the charge of being "just irrational""
There is evidence for about anything. When I say that a witch lives in the core of the Moon and I know that because somebody said so, then that is evidence. It's crappy evidence, but it's evidence. And yes, it would be irrational to believe in that witch based on such evidence, therefor your position of "any belief based on any sort of evidence is rational" is again nonsense, because you can have bad evidence for conflicting positions.

"The Bible doesn't say "it is OK" it says there is not an actual murder in such a case. Yes, I am one of the Christians who read it."
The Bible says that you will not get punished if you beat your slave with a rod (because the slaver is your property) unless the slave dies within a couple of days of that beating.
You better refresh your memory by reading that part again.

"I do study the parts of the Bible that interest me from the pov or historical reliability and specifically Resurrection and YEC. So does Kent Hovind and lots of his fans."
Ignoring Kent Hovind and all the ignorant bs he spreads, there simply isn't any good evidence that Jesus got resurrected. But it seems that we are jumping from one rabbit hole into the next.

"Pre-publication peer review is a kind of censorship, and any peer review you find in those journals has a deep confirmation bias to basic paradigms, including on topics we Creationists find contestable."
In other words: scientific journals won't publish any crazy nonsense anyone comes up with but do a quality filter. That's why we are not flooded with crazy Flatearth nonsense or articles how evolution is false because of the Quran or whatnot.

"We deny that origins questions and questions about the past are primarily scientific. They are historic."
How would the origin of mankind or the universe would not be a question for science to tackle? We are talking about subjects that are part of the natural world (mankind, the universe) and therefor are a good research target for natural sciences.

"Not on subjects where history is likelier to be true than reconstructive research."
But thanks to science we know that for example stories of a flood are simply not true. You might have the one or other historic text claiming that such a flood happened, but in the end anyone can write anything in a book. Good evidence is what counts. Saying "I have a book that claims that Jesus rose from the dead" is as much good evidence that this actually happened as when you have a Harry Potter novel telling a story about Harry Potter riding some flying lion or whatnot.

What in the end matters is to find out whether a claim is true or not, and "a book says so" doesn't help in that regard.

"So are most Evolutionists who disagree with Creation Science and with Flood Geology."
Unlikely, because they have good evidence that they are correct.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz "How to you distinguish between "real experts" and "experts"?"

I distinguish "experts" plural indefinite from "the real experts" by the fact that "the real experts" plural definite form seems to refer to an "all of them" and therefore a collective. If you add "real" it adds a subjective quality stamp.

"Yep. And we have good reasons to believe the scientists claims and not those of the creationists."

1) So far you don't show they are good reasons other than by referring to "scientist" = "the real experts"
2) You underline your "clan" misdefinition of experts by contrasting "the scientists" with "the creationists" - there are in fact four categories, creationists vs evolutionists, and scientists vs non-scientists or if you prefer "laymen" ...

"Why not? When a scientist says "this is the theory of evolution and here is the evidence" "

Then I take a look at whether his evidence is good or not.

"and a Creationist says "yeah duuuh I don't believe you but I am right and I don't have good evidence", then the creationists position is irrational."

What creationist ever said "and I don't have good evidence"? Lots have given evidence you don't consider good, or you haven't heard of, whichever is most typical, but in every case the creationist considered his evidence good.

This could in a given case be wrong, but being wrong and being irrational are very different.

"So far in no debate that involved creationists have I heard any creationist provide good evidence that they are right,"

Meaning, evidence you with your atheist bias consider as good.

If you don't realise they provide evidence they (we) consider as good, how about looking up a word like "empathy"?

"nor have I heard of any article or video that had such evidence. When they claimed to have such evidence and I checked it out, it was always silly nonsense."

I have not seen you very capable of distinguishing "good evidence" from "silly nonsense" other than by sociological factors - what your teacher would consider one way or the other, not what logically breaks down one way or the other.

"Now for you to be right, there'd need to be good evidence that for some reason the better known apologists are not aware of."

Or they are aware of it, and you misjudge it.

"Where is that evidence? Can you present it? No?"

Started on the "historic credibility of the Bible" issue - see you there.

"If you don't have that evidence, and if the more well known apologists don't have it, who has it? Nobody?"

If you don't look at the evidence it doesn't exist ....

"There is evidence for about anything. When I say that a witch lives in the core of the Moon and I know that because somebody said so, then that is evidence."

If you like ... or if you were sincere.

"It's crappy evidence, but it's evidence. And yes, it would be irrational to believe in that witch based on such evidence,"

To improve it, one would have to establish that person:

• went to the moon
• looked up the core of the moon
• was good at identifying witches.

"therefor your position of "any belief based on any sort of evidence is rational" is again nonsense, because you can have bad evidence for conflicting positions."

Even believing something for bad evidence

"The Bible says that you will not get punished"

I was aware of that.

"if you beat your slave with a rod (because the slaver is your property) unless the slave dies within a couple of days of that beating."

Which is lots better than the lot of slaves in the Roman Empire, prior to Augustus.

In Julius' time, you could feed a slave to the murenas to laugh while tyey ate him, and not get punished.

"You better refresh your memory by reading that part again."

Think I was on board with the actual facts.

"Ignoring Kent Hovind and all the ignorant bs he spreads, there simply isn't any good evidence that Jesus got resurrected."

Why not?

"But it seems that we are jumping from one rabbit hole into the next."

They have in common to have the religious p o v argue from evidence that is at the classic basis more historic than scientific.

"In other words: scientific journals won't publish any crazy nonsense anyone comes up with but do a quality filter."

What you call a "quality filter" I very much more realistically call an "ideology filter"

"That's why we are not flooded with crazy Flat earth nonsense or articles how evolution is false because of the Quran or whatnot."

Both exist. Rob Skiba did tolerable work on the pre-Flood world, but was unduly impressed by some arguments for flat earth.

However, earth being flat or round is actually fairly directly answerable by geography, hasn't much to do about science/

"How would the origin of mankind or the universe would not be a question for science to tackle?"

Because an "origin" by the fact of being that is a unique unrepeatable event in the past.

"We are talking about subjects that are part of the natural world (mankind, the universe) and therefor are a good research target for natural sciences."

Subjects that are not repeatable in the present and future and therefore are a bad research target for natural sciences. Unlike modelling dice throws, for instance.

"But thanks to science we know that for example stories of a flood are simply not true."

No, we don't.

"You might have the one or other historic text claiming that such a flood happened, but in the end anyone can write anything in a book."

But if you write anything in a book, how do you convince your children or grandchildren not to mention the rest of society it happened?

"Good evidence is what counts. Saying "I have a book that claims that Jesus rose from the dead" is as much good evidence that this actually happened as when you have a Harry Potter novel telling a story about Harry Potter riding some flying lion or whatnot."

No, it is not, since everyone agrees Harry Potter is for entertainment. It is made up.

The evidence is not just "the Gospels say so" but "the Gospels say so, and the Church take them and Acts as the beginning of its history" - you don't have any community either national or religious that claims to be grandsons of Harry Potter (considering the chronology of Philosopher's Stone, it would be very unlikely to find any, but if in thirty years there are any who claim that, they would need to point back to the children of HP, who would have been claiming hat now, in the present.

"What in the end matters is to find out whether a claim is true or not, and "a book says so" doesn't help in that regard."

Well, with claims about unrepeatable events, "a book says so" is half the road and "that book was taken as historic" the rest of the road - with a few provisos, about what honest mistakes or deliberate frauds involving others' honest mistakes can be realistically involved.

"Unlikely, because they have good evidence that they are correct."

Evidence which seems exceptionally good because they feel free to ignore the contrary one. A bit like Muslims "if it confirms the Quran, we don't need it, if it contradict it, it is false" - there were periods when that was how they acted and reasoned, and we don't know that from science, but from history. Including their own.

16:45 She might have been the person who dragged her parents to Dinosaur adventure land in the first place.

Just because she loved the swings doesn't mean she only cares about the rest bc told to!

Hm Grraarrpffrzz

And she probably also just heard by coincidence about Kent Hovinds bs and evolutionists being mean

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz I never mentioned any coincidence.

There is a difference between being raised a Creationist and rushing to Dinosaur Adventure land - I was so raised, and I am not rushing.

Hm Grraarrpffrzz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "I never mentioned any coincidence."
Ok, so it's not coincidence that Kent Hovind is associated with that dinosaur adventure nonsense. So... she looked up for Kent Hovind stuff, saw his adventure land, and wanted to go to the adventure land regardless of whether Kent Hovind is involved or not? Come on.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz She was raised among perhaps other creationist material partly with Kent Hovind videos, they sometimes do publicity for Dinosaur Adventure land, and she went "let's not miss the fun part"

I think this is perfectly realistic. Children do have fun there, it's not like it's a chore cultish parents have to drag them into.

Hm Grraarrpffrzz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl If the parents purposefully expose her to creationist nonsense in various ways then it is absurd to assume that visiting that dinosaur nonsense land has nothing to do with the parents agenda.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hm Grraarrpffrzz I didn't say it had nothing to do with the parents' agenda.

I did say it had very probably something to do with her own taste. The statements are not the same.

Amber Richards

Bet you haven't read the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Amber Richards Perhaps not all of it even yet, but pretty large parts.

* Footnote:

Évolutionnisme et Endoctrinement - l'ADLC#3
M - Gigantoraptor, 10 mai 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWaWGwQ2xDk

While comments have been disabled (even now, seven years later, when even the younger boy should at least be a teen and the older should be adult!) they weren't when I made this response post:

Deux arguments à propos l'évolutionnisme, entre moi et Motorsport Gigantoraptor
https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2015/05/deux-arguments-propos-levolutionnisme.html

And for some reason, the boy being poster child for his parents' (or one parent's?) pet peeve about the way other parents "indoctrinate" their children hasn't involved getting the youtube taken down ....

UPDATE:

Le fils de Carla Bruni, un YouTubeur à succès
6Medias, 18 mai 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfWJHSFlYRU

Dans le milieu de la vulgarisation scientifique, tout le monde connaît "C’est pas Sorcier", un peu moins "Motorsport Gigantoraptor". Derrière ce nom se cache la chaîne Youtube de deux adolescents, qui affiche un peu plus de 20 000 abonnés au compteur. L’un de ces scientifiques en herbe n’est autre que le fils de Carla Bruni et de Raphaël Enthoven, Aurélien, qui utilise le pseudo Giganto pour ses vidéos. A bientôt 15 ans, le jeune homme a créé sa chaîne en 2013 avec un ami. Dans leurs vidéos, le duo se penche sur plusieurs sujets scientifiques et animaliers.

He was less than 15 in early May 2016, so, less than 12 when he started ...

Et pour ce qui est de son orientation professionnelle, Aurélien a déjà choisi : "J’ai l’intention de faire de la paléontologie, ma passion depuis cinq ans".

So, palaeontology was his passion since he was less than 10 ...