Replacing Darwin "Show Me in My Book" (feat. Dr Herman Mays) - (Ken) Ham & AiG News
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- Instead of Ken Ham's regular "news" show, they brought on Answers in Genesis author Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson to lick his wounds over his recent debate against Dr. Herman Mays on The Non Sequitur Show over his genetics book called "Replacing Darwin".
Join Dr. Herman Mays, Steve McRae, Kyle Curtis, Jon Perry (of Stated Clearly) and Shannon Q as we talk through the Answers in Genesis' take of the pre-debate, debate and post-debate shows.
Answers News - September 13, 2018
• Answers News: Replacin...
Herman L Mays Jr, PhD
www.monofilia.org
Non-Sequitur Show
/ @nonsequiturshow
Pre-Debate - • Stated Clearly: The Sc...
Debate - • Replacing Darwin | Dr....
Post-Debate - • Post Podium: Mays vs J...
Jon Perry
Stated Clearly - / sciencestatedclearly
Stated Casually - / @statedcasually
Shannon Q
/ @shannonq
AronRa
/ aronra
Statistical models for common ancestry -
Larget et al. 2016 bioRxiv (doi.org/10.1101/036327)
Bontrager et al. 2016 bioRxiv (doi.org/10.1101/035915)
White et al 2013 @PLOSONE 8(8):e69924
Baum et al. 2016 Evolution 70(6):1354-1363
and Penny et al. J of Theoretical Biol. 223(3):377-385.
Follow me at
www.paypal.me/...
/ paulogia
teespring.com/...
/ discord
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
Hey, I know all those guys. :-)
Have we met?
*AronRa* Thanks for your contribution, looking forward to your next visit.
Wander in any time, good sir...
I posted my comment too soon. I think you are the exception.
Don't be silly Aron everyone knows me ;)
36:05 can I please get a T-shirt saying “Socrates did not walk around Athens saying - Did you read my book?” 😂😂😂
Fuggin high Larryuos!
Paul finding the clip of Georgia ridiculing flat earthers was beautiful. It really underlined the hypocrisy of the whole thing. They lecture people for ridiculing, suggesting when it is their ideas it is something beneath their dignity but it is apparently perfectly acceptable for them to ridicule ideas they happen to think are absurd (either warranted or unwarranted).
Great work Herman! I clapped when I she said, "You can't just throw away one model without another model to replace it" Paul is a master at finding just the right sound bite!
I know. Me too. That was genius on Paul's part.
Blush. I don't know if anyone at Answers in Genesis has more transcribed Answers in Genesis video than I do.
Well said, Dr Mays. Sadly having double standards is "not a bug but a feature" with them... or rather their basic M.O.
The Ken Ham groupies not only ridicule ideas, but also people. All the time! Listen to how much respect they treat trans people with… 🤬
My 13 year old daughter texted me from school that she had your theme song stuck in her head all day we love your show and watch it together keep up the great work
That's sad.
@@Greg-nf2ir What about it is sad, if you don't mind my asking?
I (19) also get the theme song stuck in my head
That's awesome!
@@Greg-nf2irare you still sad?
"What's your position?" "My position is clear in the book. Did you read the book? Please buy my book."
Not buying his book, I prefer toilet paper.
I've read the book. It's not. I'm waiting to buy the book explaining the book.
Obligatory Jay Sherman clip:
ruclips.net/video/aDTwO0TlwOU/видео.html
The Very Hungry Singularity. In a debate a person should learn their opponent's position.
@@Hamann9631 In a debate, a person should clearly state his position for the audience.
You killed it guy!
-signed "an atheist"
thanks, girl... for your appearance and all your endless support.
You deserve all the things!
Oh stop it!
😜
I thought you were the critic of AiG?
@@KainaX122 maybe I am lol they didn't elaborate.
*Ham and Aig News Jingle starts*
*clicks like button*
this is your well evidenced confirmation bias and i have followed your example
Every time!
I did the same thing. Perhaps we are in some kind of cult?
I don't know about you but not only do I want my daily bread I want my Ham and Aig news as well; daily would be nice but I'll have to settle for as often as Paul is able to produce one.
I think it's pronounced "Ham and Eggs", as in Ham and the eggs i.e. Georgia and co lol
That jingle is seriously catchy! 😄
Does anybody notice how a lot of the AiG people speak with a similar cadence? It seems like they generally talk as fast as auctioneers, but then occasionally pause and after a moment of silence interject something at regular speed. And then as they're wrapping up a thought they often speed up even faster (almost to the point of incoherence) and kind of trail off. Maybe it's just me, but it's very striking and weird.
And great video, BTW. I loved the way the guests kept popping in and out.
I have noticed something like that, but could not put it in words. I've noticed a similiar thing with conspiracy theorists (in general, I think a case could be made that AiG people show at least some tendencies towards at being conspiracy theorists), that they all have gone through the Kent Hovind school of argumentation: Fire claims at your opponent (present or future) at the RPM of a machine gun and not actually show evidence for a lot of the claims. And while they are being debunked, they start trailing off to a completely different direction.
Come to think about it, both AiG type creationist and conspiracy theorists in general have a massive persecution complex. How peculiar.
Prophet of Zod
could it be related to the way Kent Hovind has held his "seminars" since time immemorial? whenever he repeats stuff in his script and learned by heart he races along like a used insurance salesperson and when he needs to be creative and formulate his own thoughts there is a communication lag like ona Mars Mission... They also seem to be completely immune to the very apparent downside of this galloplike word-cataract, that is that it sounds artificial and dishonest af. Seems their usual audience equivocates talking fast and with a firm voice with authority and "being right". Cue matt powell rage-preaching on the top of his lungs... +rolleyes+
@bryon jackson you and daniel said just what I was thinking. This style also makes it so that the audience members don't have time to think about any particular point for very long. They _sound_ like they know what they're talking about, and present their stuff in such a matter-of-fact fashion that their audience won't be able to question things without losing out on what else is being said. It's easy to see where response videos to these guys could get quite long as they pack so much into such a short period.
I have noticed the same thing. Its like an infomercial or a telemarketer. Don't let your audience form a thought or get a word in or they are going to change the channel or hang up.
They sound as though they are on meth. Just a firehose of BS.
See, this is what happens when you leave your door open, Paul
People just wander in at random
Always cool people to. I tried it and wound up talking to tweeky the toothless for 3 f*cking hours. *sigh*
Cats and people who talk about creationists from a scientific point of view are all the same: they come when they hear the can opener.
germanvisitor2 or their name
So they are not the same as cats.
germanvisitor2 some of them
A young co-worker surprised me last week by saying she once met Ken Ham when she worked at a local restaurant (he was apparently in town preaching to the choir.) Much to my total lack of surprise, she said he acted like a nasty, condescending douchebag.
WildwoodClaire1 that doesn’t surprise me
I think the debate truly ended after the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. The very best arguments for creationism (an oxymoron in itself) were totally destroyed in the court of law. 1; the term Intelligent design, was proved in the trial to be creationism in disguise. 2; The debate truly ended the day Darwin released origins of species.
Mark I totally agree with you here. Discovery Institute probably was the shining night for the creationist movement. When they got caught in the lie over using MS Word global replace of "Creation" for Intelligent Design, followed by the crash of their design model for the cilia/ore evolution, they lost any place at the real table. But as usual, the christians keep repeating the lies.
cdesign proponentsists
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_"cdesign_proponentsists"
Mark, the problem is that they are set on their idea.
The argument about Kitzmuller Dover is that they now simply say that the judge was prejudiced. You simply cannot win when they start with the conclusion and work backwards.
Ironic as they thought the choice of judge was fantastic before the trial, hand picked by Bush, an idiot of a president who said ''teach the controversy''.
It was more a decision based upon the idea of creationism being scientific. It was deemed that it was not a scientific theory, rather it was a religious belief. Non-scientific beliefs do not belong in the science classroom.
I know you are awesome, Paul, because your background images and clips are sometimes the best part of the program. BTW, please tell Dr. Mayes that I appreciate the time and effort he has put into this!
I will. Thanks.
I'm listening to this while crocheting & not understanding a lot of the details of the subject of the original debate. But my late husband was a published mathematician outstanding in his field. I acted as his secretary after he retired coz he continued to publish (and also critique other papers up for possible publication) until he died. I also didn't understand the subjects of his papers, but I got very familiar with the rules & protocols of scientific publication. THIS is what I DO understand about the problems with the creationist's book as critiqued in this video. Thank you for this gripping review, I'm quite enjoying it!
Creationists and scientists don't have "debates", what happens during these "debates" is the creationist makes empty claims, misrepresentations and lies while the scientist spends all his/her time correcting those mistakes and lies while being interrupted and attacked by the creationist. That's not a debate.
One person hurling logical fallacies (like strawmen, _ad hominem_ attacks, Gish gallop, etc) while the other one spends all their time pointing out and correcting lies and misrepresentations isn't a "debate".
It's live-action proofreading.
Creation Science is pure Apologetics, which means it is composed of assertions, assertions, assertions.
Everytime i cook breakfast, i sing your theme song. Lol
@chad rocca
Good lord if I'm not careful I could end up doing the same. O_O
Its always depressing to watch AiG try to spin an encounter one of them has had with a scientist as unfair treatment. Dr Mays wasn't there to endorse the book, he had read it and noted the important things missing from it. That is not being unfair.
It is when "unfair" means "anything that makes me look bad". Dr. May's competence made the other guy look stupid. Unfortunate, but not unfair.
You always make me smile, Robert.
Dr Mays was the only one really discussing the book and it's handling / misunderstanding of evolutoinary theory. Jeansen just seeked to distract by bringing up page numbers and asking for citations when the subject wasn't what is IN the book but what he left out to make his point see more valid. Lying by omission is still lying and then trying to wave your keys around to distract from the lie is not a debate tactic one should use if you want to look "good" or honest.
O
Love these videos. Each one is a perfectly arranged meal of information paired with a balanced argumentation. And the dessert? That is the increasing number of Patron Cartoons you have at the end of the video.
Keep up the good work, Paul.
Has to be my favorite Paulogia video to date. Giggity!
Steve McRae me too
this has to be the longest video to date ....
Steve McRae I guess you trying to steal the limelight is the reason this is the longest video.😜
High praise from you, Steve. Thanks for everything, going all the way back.
Steve, I haven't seen the actual debate yet, but the clips from this video show how the production quality of the debate seems to have been phenomenal! Thanks for all the effort you and Kyle and all the other folks involved (including those 'behind the scenes', if there were any) have put into this debate. It looks like one of the best Non-Sequitur debates to date as well! "Giggity," indeed! 😁 Great work, man (& folks)!
10:00 If you came up with a theory that proves evolution wrong *AND* explains the evidence better than evolution (which is required to replace one theory with another) you would surely win a Nobel Prize and go down in history as one of the greatest scientists ever.
I'm not sure you need to "prove Evolution wrong"... just have the better explanation for the observed reality of multiple species showing strong indications of common ancestry.
ever EVER 😁
@@Ugly_German_Truths One thing a lot of these Creationists miss is, Darwin did not come up with the theory of evolution. The theroy of evolution goes way back to ancient times. It's doesn't take much observation to notices relationships in the animal kingdom.
What Darwin came up with was the theory of natural selection. The means by which evolution takes place.
@@Ugly_German_Truths Jesus loves you! Your life is precious! Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED!
@@MichaelAChristian1 Yeah Darth Vader and Ming the Merciless are in unending love with you too and want to run away with you to Gretna Green.
It's interesting how creationists know the answers to every topic. From evolution to cosmology and all kinds of specific fields. While actual scientists will always say: ' I don't know enough about a topic I haven't properly studied, so I can't answer this.'
Dunning-Kruger effect
Its a bit like the magic bullet…
If God isnt the answer to everything, how much of a God is it?
"He's a geneticist here at AIG"
Me: well that takes his credibility level down to the negative zone...
you need to expand the studio , looks pretty crowded with all these people in there ^^
You need a bigger boat. Ken Ham has one.
You'd have to cut it in half to move it.
*Tach* It's already only half a boat.
I'll need to start a cartoon fund raiser
Is that because 4 cartoon characters take up an entire screen?
Nonseq was shouted out on AiG News?!?! IT'S OFFICIAL, Steve, Kyle, you've MADE IT BABY!! It'll be all downhill from here, next thing you know you'll be most popular for flat earth dumpster-fires; delightful, flat-earth dumpster fires...
That they do, It hits the right balance between Batshit, crazy, and meaningful dialogue. One day it's physics and cosmology, later the same day, Jilly Juice. Both beigg enjoyable listening.
But I got early bumps from being mentioned on Steve's show. RUclips is a strange place.
37:55 and there it is. They can't win the argument honestly so they start whining. "He's making fun of us!"
At this point, can they really be surprised that we are rolling our eyes? This "debate" was just a joke to make him feel better about wasting all that paper.
And Georgia goes on to say that this is habitual on the science side of the issue. It's the old tactic of not merely lying, but saying something so opposite the truth that a bystander might be given pause by the sheer gall and wonder if you might be telling the truth after all.
Well of course "we" make fun of them... they want to play with the big boys by appealing to "we are a science too" but only imitating it like a Cargo cult imitates American forces activities on airfields to "appease the gods of flight"... They want to look like scientists, sound like scientists and be respected like scientists, but they have thrown the scientific method with all its checks and balances overboard and instead use a 3 step crayon "plan" as substitution.
Ugh watched this episode of Answers News the other day. My first thought was, "these guys are being so dishonest, I hope Paulogia does an episode about it."
"And my hope was that we could have a good scientific conversation instead of an insulting one" I just LOL'd so hard as Jeanson uttered those words... I thought "wtf?! How is it that you find insulting
a straight question?" So funny. Good squirming on his part.
Nathaniel didn't want an actual scientific conversation. He wanted Mays to talk about his book for him, and then argue his points for him also. Basically, Nathaniel wanted to watch Mays do a book review. Nathaniel didn't want to actually engage in conversation. That is why he just asked what was in his book the entire time. If that makes any sense.
“Would he block an atheist or someone critical of his work?”
Well, he blocked me, and I’m a hardcore christian. So I would guess ... both ;)
Are you still a hardcore Christian?
My comment from that episode Non Sequitur Show... "An eloquent brief lesson on the history of science in the opening from Dr Jeanson, but little to nothing on his idea or his evidence for it. Dr Mays presented some nice demonstrations of common ancestry and how it falsifies some main creationist claims. In the discussion that followed, rather that stating his idea clearly, Dr Jeanson kept on asking Dr Mays "What did I say in my book?" and yet when asked to explain it himself, kept refusing. Most responses from Dr Mays were met with "That's not in my book", "My book doesn't say that", "What else does it say in my book?" ...all an obvious tactic in play from Dr Jeanson to make Dr Mays do all the work, while he does none himself, almost like Dr Jeanson was condescendingly testing a struggling undergraduate student, rather than having an honest discussion with an accomplished and respected scientist. (Someone should count how many times Dr Jeanson said the phrase "My book".) This was Dr Jeanson's chance to explain his idea to the wider world, and he missed it. I won't be buying his book!"
Well you are right, it was on the AiG side of the "debate" a 45 minute advertisement session for his book, instead of honestly and factually dealing with the questions brought up by Mays. But I also suspect that Jeansen was loathe to explain his real views, as they then would have been dismantled just as easily, quickly and completely as the book's views already were. He tried to weasel out of being responsible for his opinions in an attempt to appear as if all critique peeled off of his "solid work" like rain froma Lotos Flower. Yet it made him look extremely dishonest and evasive despite having agreed upon the debate and laid out all the parameters before.
Almost an hour long, a great cast of people, and poor Aron told 'not today'.
Why am I not surprised Jeanson went back to AIG and boasted he won and that his opponent had no clue? And what was with the admission they can't make predictions? If you can't make predictions, you ain't doing science. If basing your 'knowledge' on the bible means you can't, then the bible is not the wondrous work of truth you pretend it to be!
Sibb Wolf the yec chess playing pigeon. True to form.
I have been trying to read his book. Very slow going as it starts to make my brain hurt after a short while. He seems to be one of those who start with the conclusion he wants, and then pick his facts or reinterprets them to fit his conclusions. Any data that does not support his conclusions has to be rejected. There was more hand waving going on in this book than in any of my quantum chemistry classes. He seems to say a lot “When you look at the evidence you can’t dispute it”. Yes, almost all of his evidence can be disputed. This is not science; as it seems that he get most of his data from other writers from AIG or ICR. I love his how many rates are a constant until he needs to change them to make his math work. Have problems with his correlation coefficients being less than 0.9. Also love it when he starts talking about Zebra and horses to how horses prove Intelligent Design (God). He leaves out the fact that there were camels in North America before humans ate them all. Happily I got the book though an inter-library loan and did not buy it.
I've been subscribed for I don't know how long and have been waiting for too long for a Paulogia video and I MUST say it was worth the wait. Fantastic! Thanks, Dr. Mays. Thanks, Non Sequitur. Blah blah blah. Thanks, Paul. Good on you all.
Also, I want to congratulate you and all the other participants on all the effort and organization you put into the debate and all the activities prior and following, including the whole production of the Non-Sequitur debate video (which looks great in the clips; though I haven't seen the actual debate yet), and this Ham & AiGs video as a response to Jeanson's follow-up on Answers News. What a phenomenal job you've all done! Congratulations!
Yay! 🤗💖🎉🎈🌈✨
Thank you Dr Mays for continuing to stay open to debating this topic (to put it kindly) even at risk of getting push back from the scientific community.
It needs to be continuously debunked whether they claim a “victory” or not.
Your voice is heard. It needs to be continually spoken. I appreciate your fortitude.
I was raised Christian and I always thought evolution made sense but kept being told that it was wrong. When Bill Nye debated Ken Ham I had solid answers for why the religious folks were wrong.
You should get a metal band to record your Ham and Aigs intro song (best jingle ever)
that'd be amazing
I'd be willing to hear it but I don't know. I really like the current jingle
@@Paulogia you ought to ask these guys: facebook.com/nekroitheoi/
@@Paulogia maybe Leo Moracholli (sp?), the guy that does remakes of all kinds of songs, turning them into metal songs. It's a thought anyway.
Dr. Mays is much more generous than I am, calling the AiG crew quasi-scientists.
The dishonesty of these Young Earth Creationists is both amazing and shocking, to be this dishonest means they know their position can not be defended so they are lying to the faithful for no other reason than to keep the good living they get from it.
The time and patience you took to break down the arguments was above and beyond.
When Jeanson was being questioned on mitochondrial mutation rates, you can see him blink like 20 times in only a few seconds. Is he okay?
did you check to see if it was morse code?
SOS
im sad i am not a researcher. i wish i could contribute more to society. great stuff Paul and Dr Mays.
Sharing their research is the next best thing ^_^
Thank you so much for this rebuttal! I am always amazed at the AIG team’s willingness to be deceitful. And the author of the book does the exact same thing! Where do they find these people!? There must be something about being a creationist that encourages you to become a professional lier! I would feel very guilty if i knowingly misrepresented my or other’s scientific findings!
Replacing Darwin "Show Me My Book." (feat. Everyone)
(feat. Kitchen Sink)
I love the clip with Georgia ridiculing flat-earthers.
a little too ironic, don't ya think?
Really good upload, Paul. Now if these pesky co-workers could figure out how to use a printer I could sit through the entire video without getting called away from my desk, lol...
My reaction to that episode of Non-Sequitur Show
"Am I the only one who keeps hearing Dr. Jeanson say "I'm not saying that I'm a creationist, but I am a creationist" "
Creationists attacking Flat Earthers => Christians attacking Mormons
Thanks for all the content Paul! Always happy to see a new video from you in my feed!
Thanks for the support, Chris
I for real LOL ed at the Oreilly "cant explain that" image... Well played.
I never miss an episode!!! Thanks for your hard work!!!
Took me a while to get around to viewing this, but it was well worth the time. Jeanson comes up in the new "Rocks Were There" book Jackson Wheat and I are writing (discussing one of his wacky papers claiming degeneration in human genome), and this fits in nicely.
So…(if I’ve worked it out correctly) the AuthorDoctor arrogantly kept asking if his interlocutor had read his book…but, what he was ultimately asking for was that his book be considered the Source for Truth and Facts, and the debate was supposed to be on people’s interpretation of the TRUE FACTS in the book…rather than allowing the debate to act as peer review, for which it seemed like Dr. Mayes thought the debate was supposed to be.
They do know that evolution is true; anyone who is not either stupid or deceived (and Hamm etc. are neither) knows it is true. In the same way a fortuneteller knows that there is no curse on a widow's bank-account but the only way she can get that money is tell the widow she needs to take it and bury in a graveyard overnight to remove the curse, the only way creationists can get money is by working as confidence tricksters.
Old joke:
A man storms into a church and yells "In the benches on the right sit the con artists! And at the left sit their dupes!"
A man on the right gets up and says "Hey! Why do you say I'm a con artist, I'm not a con artist!"
The man points to the left "Then you're sitting on the wrong side!"
I take issue with your claim that Ken Hamm is not stupid.
This is an extraordinary claim and therefore requires extraordinary evidence 😀
So...at least this way I still get my Ham and Aigs. I eat plant based now for my health--so I don't get to ingest Ham and Aigs normally! Thank you Paul!!!!
Christina BlackFeather I think they could get you some Green Ham and AiGs. :3
Hey, Chris... hope you're well.
Okra gets rather slimy like raw eggs when you cook it, so creationist reasoning proves that raw okra is just like scrambled eggs.
I think we can work this out, I'll start thinking about which plant is most like ham.
Is living forty more years really worth giving up on bacon? O.o Sounds like the shadowy existence of the disembodied Lord Voldemort to me...
Feno 3000 losing weight is worth it. I’m at 213 pounds from 250. :)
The cat at 52:43 had me laughing so hard. "I don't regret it."
I agree with the conclusion drawn at the end. That the harm is outweighed. As Thundef00t said, "The internet is where religions come to die."
Dr. Mays was really strong in that debate. The author seemed like he didn't know the science in his own book .He kept asking Dr Mays for a book report. Dr Mays would bring up a point & the other guy would say "What does my book say about that ?"
Aron Ra & Trevor Valle didn't want in the video?
I didnt notice any lag issues while viewing the debate.
That is a way to dodge Dr Mays criticisms & the gaps in his book.
There wasn't time in the video for them to weigh in, and the AiG slurs were against the guest I gave time to specifically. Trevor will be here one day... that's my mission.
Unrelated side note... your animation style makes everyone look really fit. Dig the content!
What astounds me about this character Nathaniel Jeanson is that he sounds like a snake oil salesman. He speaks at the velocity of a used car salesman who is about to sell you a "bomb" - you know the kind of car the dealership bought for $5 from a wrecker, tarted it up with some cheap paint and a few banana skins and is now telling you what a great bargain you are getting.
Is that how you get on Paulogia? Just wander in? Well I have my weekend planned.
Lee Lemon - Indeed. Now I just have to come up with a scheme to make Paul say my name.
Great video Paul! It was great to see all the perspectives in this video. Keep up the good work.
That is the most badass RUclips lineup since Aron Range clashed with Kent Hovind.
is Kent Hovind really part of a good group?
@@Paulogia well... I said badass - not good. And badass is wonderfully ambiguous in that sense, isn't it?
@@kajframke9423 Well, Kent Hovind is an ass with bad arguments so...
@@simongiles9749 I was thinking along those lines.
Woke up early just so i could enjoy this video while drinking my coffee on this lovely cloudy morn in okc!(: so excited to see another video paul!!!!
Glad to spend the morning with you, Jamie
Are these books available in a digital format?
Because it would be really useful to have it on your phone during a debate so that when someone in the future says "did you read my book", you could just pull up the book, type in the search parameters, find the relevant section, and read it to show that you are (in real time) discussing what's in the book.
After about three times, I'm sure they'd stop asking you if you'd read the book. (^o^)
Problem is that you would be participating in creating demand for the book and others of it's kind.
I watched that stream live. The active censorship of counter information to YEC'ism was just stunning!!
right?!? could have been productive, but no
I was just happy to have had Paulogia like one of my tweets to Ken Ham... which Ham didn't acknowledge at all, unfortunately.
There's no better time for Ham & AIG news than 6:30 in the morning
It is 16:30 here
it's always 6:30 somewhere
@@Paulogia not quite :-l
Your background clips are a work of art.
That awkward moment when your brand new book is derived entirely of pratt.
I remember seeing you pop up during the debate, I was hoping we would get a video. Thanks Paul.
here to fulfill your Paulogia hopes
Totally agree about the double standard for ridicule. Even back when I was a Young Earth Creationist, that started to annoy me. I had to teach out of a YEC physical science textbook once that kept making jabs at mainstream scientists. For example, they said that there's no way to prove whether the universe is expanding in general or expanding away from the Earth specifically (thus making it a geocentric universe and making the Earth special), but mainstream scientists prefer the former theory because the latter "makes them uncomfortable." I have no idea if it's true that we can't tell how the universe is expanding, but there was much eyerolling and informing my students that a geocentric universe is not necessary for Christianity to be true.
Steve looks like Gandalf.
so... an accurate depiction is what you're saying?
PERFECT response video for AIGs bullcrap narrative. All of my favorite content providers joining forces to combat AIGs dishonest response to the debate. This league of RUclips superheroes kicked ass. Glad you all exist!
I really think the debate over this book was/is VERY important. More scientist need to get involved in these debates/critiques. I enjoyed it very much (thankyou Non Seq and Dr. mays).
One of the reasons why challenging 'Replacing Darwins' was so important was the books potential to trigger creationist own confirmation cognitive bias. This potent bias will reinforce the crestionist already dogmstic belief. Mays makes a great case about the average person, creationist or not, not understanding the omissions and mistakes in it.
Great job Paul putting this together
Socrates did not go asking people "did you read my book", but more importantly, he did not go around forcing people into his truth, or his view of truth. He specifically asked questions to get new insight from his audience, and never even claimed that the resulting answer is the final truth. He specifically believed that the road to the truth in almost any issue never ended. Or was it in absolutely any issue?
I need a bigger screen with all these people guesting on this. XD
He doesn't want to test his work as he knows what it will show. He just wants to sell his bs book.
@Paulogia. I really like the animations and the comedic side of your videos.
Thank you!
I think I'd call young earth Creationism low art. There's a picture of dogs playing poker, therefore dogs clearly play poker.
I watched the entire debate. Jeanson owes me 2 hours of my life back. He never even attempted to answer any of Mays' questions with anything of substance. I didn't really notice the delay either. It was pretty obvious, to me at least, that Jeanson was way over his head - it wasn't clear that he understood Mays' questions which could be why he kept going back to his standard reply of "you didn't read my book".
I noticed something when listening to Dr. Jeanson and other people on Answers in Genesis, and it's a tactic that a lot of people who debate dishonestly take up: they talk very fast, and I think it's so they can inject as much of their opinion into the debate that they can before the opposition can inject anything contrary to what they have to say, which makes it very easy for them to flood the conversation with so many ideas that their opponent can't possibly hope to address them all. It's something that Ben Shapiro outright says is a legitimate debate tactic so that the side using this tactic can overwhelm the opposition and win the debate by forfeiture.
My favorite channel! Thanks for the videos Paul
thanks, David! means much
Answers in Genesis is the most ironic title ever. We know that because creationism can’t even justify the order of the Flood versus the distribution of animals worldwide. It’s a lie.
it's plain to see if you work for aig your dignity has been compromised. or rather bought. all the way down the line. perdum, jeanson, jason lisle not to mention bodie and his bad jokes. bodie did a video defending the slavery in the old testament as simply paid servitude. well ken signs the paycheck and family or not bodie and co would be out on their ass if they didn't tow the company line. it's just so sadly predictable.
The guest intros sound so sarcastic at .75 playback speed. Why was I on slow playback? Not sure. But the video started at 3/4 speed and I didn't notice until the NS show guys were introduced
Replacing Darwin... The only 'Science' book ever written in crayon.
AiG has a regular journal that I'm pretty sure is also in crayon.
The very fact Jeanson has enough of a command of the vocabulary to write a creationist text refuting evolution indicates he understands quite well he is peddling snake oil.
Atheism doesn’t mean being against religion... it means that you don’t believe in any religion or god, and that’s ALL it means.
Ughhhh I love this channel so much!!!!
ha. thanks, Juliaaa
Round 2? OH YEAH! Please! Moreover, take note how ALL of the "opponents" of Jeanson are calm and measured and charitable, whereas the Creationists are not as noble.
Paul your Lyle and Decieve art is so awesome.
Kyle and Steve?
This just showed up on screen...how did I miss this!!! Must watch now instead of video games lol
I Love You Guys!!! I'm a huge fan of all you guy's shows!!! ❤️😘
The Super Smash Bros of the Skeptic Community on RUclips: Some of the biggest names in the community coming together in one video.
Drama was so big this time that you had all this people in your video, AND IT WAS SO GOOD! I'd definitely attend a talk with all of you guys! Or another video like this one will do too! Aron Ra was basically Darth Vader in Rogue One from SW.
Aron Ra as RO Vader! love it
I hope we're all together in Dallas in April at Faithless Forum.
I see he's a gamer. Blaming the lack of quality on his side of the discussion in lag. Next time he'll rant on the framerate and the ping
HA!
Wow. Kyle and Steve... this is the craziest part of this video in 2021
Paulogia, that was great. Dr. Mays sounds like he's bending over backwards to be kind to the wannabe scientific, quasi truths, AIG is putting out. Of course they whip out that victim card every time they are called out on their bullpucky! And that's me trying to be nice. Now, you are an amazing animator, you get everyone so close, I can actually recognise them, except Shannon Q! She is much, MUCH prettier than you draw her. Especially her eyebrows! Now, I understand you might not want to 'bimbo' her looks, as she's uncommonly brilliant, but please, at least, give her the perfect brows, eyes and lips she really has! She would only risk bimboness,(is that a word? lol) if you did her figure more realistic. Hahaha! Love and Peace
Hahaha thanks Laura but I just love cartoon me!!!
Nothing compares to real Shannon.
Same here Shannon, I enjoy watching Paulogia and all his guests and how they are animated and how they react to Ken Ham and Bodie and PhD Giggles.
+Laura Jarrell
"Paulogia, that was great. Dr. Mays sounds like he's bending over backwards to be kind to the wannabe scientific, quasi truths, AIG is putting out. "
Well as one should be, if you go into a debate. That is not the place for preconceived notions, but to listen to your opponent's views and counter them as presented.
Which Jeansen btw failed epically to do. How is "show me where in my book i did *_not_* write X" a counter to "oh btw did you realize you forgot to mention Point 1 to 128 that are all important elements of the evolutionary body of proof", it outright refutes having heard your debate-opposite's words, trying to bring everything back to your last argument nstead of making a new one actually tackling the point presented.
Admittedly he wasn't quite as bad as that one Flat Earth guy that didn't even make a point of his own instead addressing Red's rhetoric imagined arguments before Red could make any, but it was close in uselessness as argumentative attempts to that.
@@Ugly_German_Truths What you say is true. My understanding is that our schools no longer teach debate, at least not much, nor the Socratic method. I believe Great Britain does. You must debate an issue and quite often you must debate from the opposite side. That also teaches whatever issue inside and out. We had little debates in Jr. High, but I only went 27 days,(tests, too just pass) and quit at 15, so I could be wrong. Love and Peace
Lol
I knew it was only a matter of time before you had Grover in a lab coat on this show
He gets everything he asks for and then he complains about it not being perfect! Yeah!
Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson and Dr. Georgia Purdom, need to have their PhD's revoked.
I agree completely!
49:00 I disagree. Creationists know that they lie. They do it consistently, and constantly.
One of the favorite quotes from Darwin Creationists love to use is from Chapter 6 of "Origin of Species, " First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" Which is deliberately and maliciously taken out of context.
This is not a question that Darwin himself asked. He is quoting an objection of his theory and he then goes on to answer this question.
You can't say that this quote was taken out of context by accident. It was done deliberately to make Darwin seem to say the exact opposite of what he meant.
Natural selection is not evolution. It is the means by which evolution takes place. Saying natural selection and evolution are the same thing is like saying gasoline and your car's engine are the same thing. You're car won't run without gasoline, and gasoline is useless (in making you car move) without an engine.
+Eric Taylor
One problem with your interpretation: MOst creationists do not quote Darwin directly, the yquote already prepicked quotes by other creationists. As R.J. Downard would say (whose TiP web project collects the nitty gritty about what they cite, how often and how correctly amongst other things he pays attention to) there are only a handful of actual content creators, primary sources for the whole creation (quasi) "science" movement, the rest feeds from their output and just regurgitates the lies. Which means that most of those quoting these lines are not even aware that there is more following after them in the actual book. How would they if they get the citation from resources like AiG or ICR?
This was really good, guys.