Debate under Gutsick Gibbon's Video

Gutsick Gibbon Answers "Classroom" and I Answer Her · Debate under Gutsick Gibbon's Video

Same video, debate thread started by someone else.

K Hewett

Creationists can only win arguments when they are writing the script for the scientist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I could as easily say, science teachers can only win arguments when they can shut off a debate with a creationist when it suits them.

Gwit

@Hans-Georg Lundahl and you'd be wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Gwit Because I can still recall the occasion?

Gwit

@Hans-Georg Lundahl because your claim is not valid. any experience you may have does not represent every interaction. the original comment does this as well, but it is at least more accurate since theists almost never win arguments unless their opponent is unprepared, incompetent, or innacurately represented. they also tend to fabricate strawmen a lot more often.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Gwit It seems my replay got deleted.

You want a debate per the electronic and private version of the postal office, you can prepare as much as you like.

My three initials, and after a quirky sign in the middle, the extension some Med Drs have in the US, but I am not a Med Dr, nor trying to impersonate one, here in Europe that kind of email doesn't mean anything special.

Gwit

@Hans-Georg Lundahl yea i'll have to decline. as i said, theists only win arguments with unworthy opponents, and i am not a professional, nor will i pretend to be. if you wanna have an in-depth debate with someone, there are plenty of more qualified options than some guy in a youtube comments section. just send me the recording after you win.

daft wulli

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Quote :"I could as easily say, science teachers can only win arguments when they can shut off a debate with a creationist when it suits them."

you could not be more wrong, many creationistjsd boast how good they are at debates and how they win any debate. Butj as soon as you challenge them to an actually fair debate they run for the hills. It is exceptionally rare that they agree to a debate, and then they fall flat on their face and make shit up as they go along since they have no real argument and are notoriously dishonest. There is countless examples for that here on youtube.

I have been debating creationists for 2 decades, and countles times I proposed a simple challenge : show me a video of a creationists which is minimum 10 minutes long, and I bet I can show at least 5 lies in it. Usually I find at least double digits, i even had tripple digits before /tbf that was an hour long). I have yet to lose a single challenge in 20 years of doing this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@daft wulli "Butj as soon as you challenge them to an actually fair debate they run for the hills."

I didn't.

I challenged Kevin R. Henke to a debate, and kept it up until it became clear he clearly preferred misunderstanding my points, repeating points already answered, and exacting from me a separate answer on every single point he made, no matter how repetitive, no matter how many times I had already actually answered it, no matter how many answers of mine he had dismissed with "oh, that's a separate topic, we'll take the debate next year"

You can see my side of it if you go to the blog with "creavsevolu" in the unique redirection link and then search Kevin R. Henke.

If Gwit admits not being the kind of expert I should take a debate with, why does he (or she) even bother to answer?

Obviously not eager to get someone more honest than Henke, but as knowledgeable as he into a debate I could win by arguing well. More like some of those knowledgeable people have decided:

• to not confront me
• to get people like Gwit or you to do so
• to prepare them for the fight with pseudo-arguments on why I am not trying to get my arguments published as peer reviewed papers.

Tice Nits

@Hans-Georg Lundahl creationists aren’t debating science though, that’s the problem. It’s like arguing with me about the appearance of an apple while you are clearly holding an orange in your hand. The two are simply not the same and there’s no discussion to be had

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tice Nits Creationists are (and I'm one of them) debating about facts, usually considered as scientific facts.

For instance, if a carbon date from Göbekli Tepe is based on the sample having now 25 pmC left, which is a scientific fact for some of the samples, I argue about this, that instead of carbon 14 proportion being at originally c. 100 pmC and this depending on two halflives, the original carbon 14 proportion was in the 40's (below 50 pmC), and the time since then is less than one halflife.

You cannot say I am not arguing, you cannot say it's not about a carbon date based on 25 pmC in a sample, and you cannot say that 25 pmC in the sample is not a scientific fact.

theeddorian

The Creationist "theory of evolution" is always a straw man target, since it bears no obvious relationship to any science. The common debate tactic is to pose the straw man, and then demand an "evolutionist" defend it. Another, and very important point, is that Darwin rarely even used the word "evolution." Text versions of Origin can be downloaded and words counted using text analysis. I believe in the copy I have, variations of the word "evolution" appears around seven times. Darwin, IIRC, does describe his theory of natural selection as belonging to a class of common theories at the time, which I believe he describes as "evolutionary." It is worth recollecting that Lamarck also offered an "evolutionary" theory of biological change, which is unlike Darwin's. "Evolution" in Darwin's work is always used in a context where the usage is consistent with common Victorian use of the word, which has nothing to do with science, or theory. Essentially, it means "emerge." Darwin argues that natural selection, which is not a theory, but rather a subclass, can act on populations in much the same manner that human selection does. He applies "natural" as an adjective to differentiate one source from selection from that applied by humans to domestic plants and animals. No rational Victorian of the time would have argued against the effects of human selection on domesticated species.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@theeddorian Excuse me, you sound as if you were arguing about changes like Galapagos islands. We Creationists don't deny them, we just say finches are still finches.

The first finch on Galapagos had a beak, beaks didn't evolve as a new feature.

Andrew Watts

@Hans-Georg Lundahl A new feature? Wtf? See if you can stay on topic for the duration it takes to respond. “Finches are still finches”? That’s really profound and so entirely irrelevant. Raise your game. Oh hang on, that’s right, you’re a creationist. Presumably you’re eligible for some sort of government support for that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Andrew Watts I'm not applying for one.

Your words sound like if you thought you were in the Soviet Union, with its political psychiatry.

My point is entirely sound. Finches on Galapagos are still finches. Speciation is not even complete, since a new Galapagos finch species recently discovered was a hybrid from two or more of those Darwin discovered. You simply do not find similar support for dogs and cats to have same ancestry.

Matthew Langley

Yup, as someone who was raised a creationist and lived in that bubble until my mid 20s I agree 100%. Any real conversation with a scientist (or even my high school chemistry teacher in my case) the arguments fall apart.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Matthew Langley OK, what happened?

D O

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I didn't say it did. I said that people believed that INSTEAD of science because there was no science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@D O That's not what I consider as fact. The word "science" cannot mean "correct science only".

So, I am arguing that four humours are in fact a scientific position, if not entirely correct, also not useless for practical purposes.

The idea that at a given point in time, on a given topic:

• there was no science
• the back then position was believed instead of science

is absurd. That's not how things work.

Anything people believe on a topic is a kind of science, and especially, if it is in any way, even quirky, derived by logic from observations of recurring phenomena, it is natural science. In this sense the four humours is natural science, and if not a completely good one, at least a useful shortcut.

D O

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So they used the scientific method with control groups and manipulated variables? 🤣

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@D O Science does not depend on that version of the scientific method.

Over thousand five hundred years or so of use, I think the theory was sufficiently tested and refined to be useful, if not totally accurate.

They would not have used control groups with fake pills, for one thing because some of the substances used in herbal medicine have a good taste, and it is physically hard or impossible to get that taste without the active molecule.

But there would have been sufficient occasions of things not getting there in time or other mixups to provide de facto control groups.

@D O Btw, you can't do control groups for abiogenesis or for apes developing into men or non-speech into speech.

mhm

@hglundahl just get out, get help

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@mhm5712 who'll help me against a crowd of you?

No. I am not getting out of creationism, which is good history and which is not disproven as science.

If YOU want to get out of Evolutionism (but sects that big often don't feel like sects, even if they are), my blogs have some to offer.