The more she speaks the more ridiculous she sounds. She's a hack and it doesn't take an awful lot of thinking to understand just how full of crap she is.
That doesn't mean he still wouldn't think Ann Coulter is either crazy or trolling. It's possible to be a Conservative who is critical of liberalism without being a nut job.
2nd best because Sarah Sanders is number 1 and an American hero. We love our patriots! Shut down leftist misogyny and jihad! President Donald J Trump 2020
To quote an honest English man from a century ago: G.K.Chesterton: “Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.” “These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.”
@@mrbump28 - I replied to you further down, but I'll reply here, too. Assuming you're speaking about evolution, it's not "widely accepted scientific fact". I'll grant it IS widely accepted, but it's called the "THEORY of evolution" for a reason. There's absolutely nothing about it that can actually be proven. What we have is a lot of conclusions being drawn from incomplete data. Unfortunately for its proponents, the closer one examines the theory of evolution, the more it falls apart.
@@Darrel_Owen you’ve made the classic mistake of confusing the meaning of the word ‘theory’ in science to the meaning of the word ‘theory’ in common parlance. For example, it’s called the ‘Theory of Gravity’. Is gravity not a fact?
@@Peter-dr9ch "Theory of Gravity".... What? LOL! it's called the "Law of Gravity". Gravity is a law, not a theory. So, you're right that gravity is a fact, but you're wrong in how the word "theory" is used in science. It goes: Hypothesis > Theory > Law.
@@Darrel_Owen yeah you clearly have no idea about actual scientific work. There are no laws in natural science. They dont exist. Everything you take for granted or may call a law is, when properly described, a theory. A theory in the sense of science is something that was proven again and again. And by the way, it is, infact, called the "Theory of Gravity", and the base of modern astro physics is called "the general THEORY of relativity".
Must have this amazing speaker in the White House listening to questions, thinking quickly, and responding with a kurt happy demeanor and conviction to the media... SOTH!
Pick carefully the newsman you want to take on Coulter. She is articulate and extremely sharp. She can be more sarcastic than I care for, but she seems to be successful at what she does.
Yes he is a very warm gentleman isn't he? Too bad he can't debate with real ideas. It's all about emotions and accusations. People are tired of the pretentious and pompous elitists talking down to us all day.
Yes, possibly because they think ordinary people can't think for themselves. I think many so called clever people cannot conceive that anyone less intelligent could have a better opinion than them. Arrogance. Life experience and mental attitude/imagination trump intelligence for me any day.
And elitist Ann has pretension and pomposity in all suits. Is that what you're referring to? She's a scrawny tall aging long-haired blonde who particularly American men slobber over.
The only thing we did not learn from the interview, was what the book main postulate was about, and what were the main 3 arguments substantiating it. The book title is not even introduced. Good job Paxman.
"so you also believe there is some sort of liberal hegemony in the mass media, do you?...I just don't see how this argument stacks up." This hasn't aged well for him.
Are you seriously suggesting, from any angle on planet Earth, that mass media in the United Kingdom is dominated by the left-wing? You cannot even say that jokingly (and before you call me a Satan worshipping Stalinist liberal gay rights activist, I have no political allegiance left or right).
@@alastair9894 HAHAHAHA, this I have to read. Let's go, Alastair. Tell me which of the mainstream media is _"left wing"_ and then tell me which is _"right wing"_ This I need to read just for the laughs. Go.
It’s amazing to see how people watching the same interview came up with such contradicting conclusions. Maybe it’s true that we can only what we wish to see. At least to me, Paxman did a wonderful job, letting the absurdity reveal itself.
@Christopher Gilbert When you can't refute the Truth. Acting disgusted is about the only thing you have to fall back on to attempt to save face. These people should realize by now that the Truth always trumps their lies.
@@scottscott232 Typical sexist full of hate for women. Leave your misogyny in demokkkratic comment section you bigot extremist. Women for President Donald J Trump 2020
I would love to have her calm demeanour. She runs rings around the Oxford educated, supremely arrogant, Jeremy Paxman. An amazing person! I've seen Paxman get really nasty, hyper-critical and condescending with those whom he interviews. It is such a refreshing change to see someone like Ann Coulter, handle Paxman with such ease and superior intelligence.
Imagine asking if the interviewed guest’s book gets better.. only a liberal could get away with saying that to a woman. Particularly if the woman is not liberal.
+Ifan Cooke um.......don't think so dude, paxman made her out to be the idiot that she is and made her answer questions as if the whole thing is a joke.
+Ifan Cooke If Paxman had so wished, he could have wiped the floor with her. She didn't even answer the questions. She just spouted her grandiose rhetoric.
Only in your eyes. To the sane people, she's bat crap crazy. He extremist views go down with the American right. But the 6.8 billion of the rest of the planet, thinking...what a nutter.
@@bakersteven3 The only people who view her negatively are misogynistic pigs who only express hate for our women and try to shut them down by degradation You sad little man doing the left's woman beating
@@poosnip typical leftist bigot expressing your misogyny and hate for our women. You are a disgraceful man. Women for President Donald Trump 2020! Keep the left from degrading our women and beating them down!
I like hearing Ann speak. She's sharp, quick-witted, and sticks to the facts. This interview definitely went in her favour, though I have to admit I'm disappointed at her unwillingness profess her beliefs about creation. I find it disheartening as a believer where she has the platform to bring glory to the Lord but instead hangs a cross around her neck and dodges the question about her faith.
Totally agree. She could easily say something like, "I don't know if it was a literal six days or not - maybe it was - but I do believe God created everything. I certainly don't believe in evolution." That would have been sufficient.
Shannon What? I see evolution by natural selection as the best theory to describe the forming of species. Do you have another theory? Obviously Darwin made errors, he didn’t have the technology we have today. But you’ll trust a 2000 year old work of fiction...ok.
🤣 🤣 🤣...yes yes it was the way the Christian god said it happened ..no no..the Jewish one had it right...definitely the Muslims got it...what about the zorostrians or pagans.....it is too bad she isnt courageous enough to admit she believes in fairy tales..🤣
She's great , she is sharp and quick and answers the questions.Follows logic and common sense so the BBC and the liberal establishment with its cringe worthy followers are bound to find her distasteful. Normal people don't.
In the UK everybody gets the same scrutiny. We have left wing and right wing media as well, but it's a bit more nuanced. Actually, Jeremy Paxman is often accused of being a right win Tory and therefore not impartial. Which is the whole point.
@@theotherone8036Oh please there are as many terrorists as new world creationists - they represent a tiny minority of the faith. The media doesn't do mediocrity, so we're always stuck discussing the periphery of any ideology. Religious or not. They only want extremists, for lack of a better word, to be involved in the debate. Centrists just get ignored.
This is not about "getting wrecked." It is an interview, not a debate. In a time when politics wasn't about "wrecking" people, both the interviewer and Ann Coulter understood this. But I guess today that is too much to ask.
@@bobbart4198 No one will buy that malarkey ! You should have said! "He actually [groupthinks] before he speaks." Which isn't "thinking" at all ! It's called "Parroting".
@@donnyhawk662 - She was caught manufacturing evidence for court presentation in 37 cases and was caught in legal plagiarism. A real piece of work. Virginia Bar gave her the option to surrender the license or face prosecution. She turned that fiction career into book writing, no book of which has a factual accuracy or veracity rating above 45%.
I've done my reading and there is 0 evidence for what justafinintexas claims. Ann Coulter was accused of plagiarising some content in her books, but she was cleared of all charges.
@@lpsp442 - I'm one of the attorneys who took her before the Virginia Bar. Perhaps we should wager, say $25,000? And the plagiarism you mention is not the plagiarism I refer to as it happened BEFORE she wrote a book. Good to have facts in-hand, eh? So why doesn't she practice law any more in your fiction-filled world?
Why on earth would Jeremy Paxman through away what could be an excellent interview on vacuous "gotcha!" questions that Coulter would never fall for and which just make him look foolish?
They've duped society to think evolution is supposed fact but it is definitely not, and only those who truly seek the counters the lie of evolution will realize it is mostly fantasy, while using some science to mask itself. The dinosaurs living with humans as historical fact alone destroys the lie of evolutionism, but mainstream media and school system won't talk about this history. Check out the videos I link below for more information: *The Bible is scientifically accurate!* ruclips.net/video/PAQ4nnKcnJA/видео.html *The Secret History of Dinosaurs* ruclips.net/video/czDpqyGutTs/видео.html *Dinosaur soft tissue found! Dinosaurs: NOT millions of years old!* ruclips.net/video/kEeIAzivSL8/видео.html *Living Fossils: Fossils that debunk evolution* m.ruclips.net/video/lsbRKq0tay8/видео.html *Footprints In Stone - Forbidden History II - restoringgenesis* ruclips.net/video/7xYyHU5mRFo/видео.html *Refuting Textbook Arguments for Evolution - Part 1* ruclips.net/video/QOl3UVt9cHQ/видео.html *Refuting Textbook Arguments for Evolution - Part 2* ruclips.net/video/PVSOA8SSXQY/видео.html *What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy - Vol. I (Our Created Solar System)* ruclips.net/video/CzyQbOQ0dv0/видео.html *What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy - Vol. II (Our Created Stars and Galaxies)* ruclips.net/video/E66409i-yn4/видео.html *The Great Dinosaur Deception Exposed - Dr Thomas Kindell* ruclips.net/video/1xdkONYsjZg/видео.html *Professor Exposes Impossibilities of Evolution* ruclips.net/video/xZn7tTdCm6U/видео.html *Gods existence - Documentary:* ruclips.net/video/EE2_2vuDTao/видео.html *Evolution Vs. God Movie - Ray Comfort (Living Waters)* ruclips.net/video/U0u3-2CGOMQ/видео.html *David Berlinski (atheist) -> Rebelious Intellectual Defies Darwinism* ruclips.net/video/KEXnq_tcM7c/видео.html *I don't have enough faith to be an atheist!* - Frank Turek ruclips.net/video/07WkzzYCpjo/видео.html *Many scientists convert from evolution to creationism, convinced by the evidence.* ruclips.net/video/owDOD7WZvEw/видео.html *Answering the Atheists: Stephen Hawking (Part 1) - Frank Turek* ruclips.net/video/1tVO0-zYAvE/видео.html *Theory of Everything - Trey Smith:* ruclips.net/video/mtBz1roiQR8/видео.html *Haeckel's Embryo FRAUD!* ruclips.net/video/41fmdhv1LRA/видео.html *William Lane Craig (Best Moments) - Watch These 5* ruclips.net/video/mP6NCNUZFoQ/видео.html *William Lane Craig vs Biased atheist Dogma (Presuppositional Apologetics)* ruclips.net/video/gmnRQ3P3Bwo/видео.html *Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance* ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html *Design in the Universe* ruclips.net/video/N4CgCtV4ixk/видео.html *Science confirms Creationism:* ruclips.net/video/ba5JN2NDI6A/видео.html&lc=z222zlwzjw3lxnxwv04t1aokgv32sutiam43lvoqaiq3bk0h00410.1526465924361236 *How the Fine-Tuning of the Universe Points to the Existence of God - J. Warner Wallace* ruclips.net/video/aT-Rdplb9A4/видео.html *How the Origin of Life Points to the Existence of God - J. Warner Wallace* ruclips.net/video/E4uRWk06Wo0/видео.html *How Consciousness Points to the Existence of God - J. Warner Wallace* ruclips.net/video/8Ff1jiRpjko/видео.html *How Free Agency Points to the Existence of God - J. Warner Wallace* ruclips.net/video/peSdVipifcg/видео.html *Why the Appearance of Design in Biology is Best Explained by the Existence of God* ruclips.net/video/9R7bdVcK0hk/видео.html *Richard Dawkins stumped by simple question by creationist:* ruclips.net/video/YddmGJofbL0/видео.html *Creationist (Mark Armitage) Wins Lawsuit and Crushes Evolution* ruclips.net/video/We_XIq-k66c/видео.html *Signature in the Cell: Stephen Meyer Faces his Critics, pt. 1: The Presentation:* ruclips.net/video/eW6egHV6jAw/видео.html *Signature in the Cell: Stephen Meyer Faces his Critics, pt. 2: Q&A and Debate:* ruclips.net/video/OQf29Pden30/видео.html *16 Nearly Impossible Issues for Evolutionists to Answer* ruclips.net/video/seGBTsLpMdI/видео.html *NOAH: the TRUTH is BIGGER than you thought - Trey Smith* ruclips.net/video/lktmmd7YnD8/видео.html *Nephilim: TRUE STORY of Satan, Fallen Angels, Giants, Aliens, Hybrids, Elongated Skulls & Nephilim - Trey Smith* ruclips.net/video/1zz8_MxcnzY/видео.html *Intelligent Design - It's In The Numbers!* ruclips.net/video/6i0PFdW7BXc/видео.html *101 Scientific Facts The Bible Declared* ruclips.net/video/dNj3xksWE38/видео.html *Answers in Genesis:* answersingenesis.org *Institute for Creation Research:* www.icr.org/homepage/ Creation Seminar 1 - The Age of the Earth ruclips.net/video/KK3eh4Z5Ko4/видео.html Creation Seminar 2 - The Garden of Eden ruclips.net/video/wth-zdYpX80/видео.html Creation Seminar 3 - Dinosaurs and the Bible (FULL) ruclips.net/video/UVTGcbNt4fU/видео.html Creation Seminar (4 of 7): Lies in the Textbooks ruclips.net/video/n_OlX7M5MLA/видео.html Creation Seminar (5 of 7): The Dangers of Evolution ruclips.net/video/WN31FCcUlLk/видео.html Creation Seminar (6 of 7) ruclips.net/video/cfffRl4RT4s/видео.html Creation Seminar (7a of 7): Questions & Answers ruclips.net/video/6cEUXYlc-Q0/видео.html Creation Seminar (7b of 7): Questions & Answers ruclips.net/video/Z2grShh4WDM/видео.html Creation Seminar (7c of 7): Questions & Answers ruclips.net/video/0ZQdT3KoKz0/видео.html Creation Seminar (7d of 7): Questions & Answers ruclips.net/video/B7O2nZtTNRs/видео.html Creation Seminar (7e of 7): Questions & Answers ruclips.net/video/z_CauOY-tiE/видео.html? --- *Science in the Bible - Ocean Currents* biblescienceguy.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/science-in-the-bible-ocean-currents/ Science in the Bible - Expanding Universe biblescienceguy.wordpress.com/2017/07/12/science-in-the-bible-expanding-universe/ --- _"Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. Atheism is a belief in non-belief. So you categorically deny something you have no evidence against. I’ll keep an open mind because I understand that human knowledge is limited."_ - *Marcelo Gleiser* (agnostic) *Some revealing quotes by atheist evolutionists:* _"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion, a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint - and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it - the literalists are absolutely right. _*_Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today._*_ Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."_ - *Michael Ruse* (atheist) _"I am talking about something much deeper - namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. _*_It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time._*_ One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to have a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world..."_ - *Thomas Nagel* (atheist) -- The Last Word (1997) p. 130-131 _"Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God’s existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably). Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."_ - *Todd, S.C.* correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999 _"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."_ - *Richard Lewontin* (atheist)
@Shannon - I think you tagged the wrong person. I wholeheartedly reject Darwinism, and I love Ann. If you want to argue with someone, maybe hit up mrbump28, because I think you and I are on the same side. :-)
You can hate Ann Coulter all you want. but the woman speaks facts. Poor bastards try to be smart asses and the way she retaliates is just amazing to hear.
Ann is a smart cookie I believe she has a good sense of reality, I wish we had more like her .we really need more people who can walk and chew gum at the same time. We now have to many people who have no idea what is really no idea what is going on in the world and are in the Government running our Countries.
@@giotto4321 tell me about it, just wait until China and India get going . Here in the west we are going full pin doing everything we can to get things done. Those of the third world haven't even started , most of their people don't have anything to call theirs. There's 6 + billion people out there waiting to have their chances to polute the world. Oh my we are in for a rough time a coming.
Wow. That was stupid of Paxman to demand critics of a false theory need to put out their own theory. It is ok to look for weaknesses in a theory or idea without knowing what the replacement would be.
Mind? FREE to think. Brain? SLAVE to physics. So the evolution of the brain can never make a species into a smarter or dumber one, as evolution is a physical thing whereas I proved the mind is free from and therefore not part of nor subject to physics. Darwin was a racist idiot who wanted all blacks dead, all Indians dead, all... etcetera. See the full quote from the pseudo-scientist and pseudo-intellectual in my series crushing atheist myths.
@@SumitBohra487 I mean we both have opposable thumbs, look kinda similar, use tools, share some similar social traits but are slightly more dynamic. Why is it so difficult to accept?
Yes, the parallel between this and the Jordan Peterson interview is interesting. If the world ever rids itself of political correctness, wokery and hatred of the west, perhaps we shall look back on these interviews as an important turning point.
So let me get this straight. She says that there are flaws in Darwin’s theory. But she’s completely alright with the ludicrous accounts within the Bible? Emmm ...
@Gary Gravy She did say that there were flaws in Darwin’s theory and she obviously is completely alright with the Bible. Nothing lazy nothing strawman you just can’t handle the truth.
@@pippipster6767 its called having religious faith. Its something billions of people around the world share. Perhaps you have heard of it. Or maybe not
@@cathalriordan6979 Faith, by very definition, is belief without evidence. I do not subscribe to such 🐑ery. Irrelevant to me how many 🐑 do. The simple fact that there are so many different ‘faiths’ each one declaring itself correct and all others wrong amply demonstrates it is indoctrinated fabricated nonsense. If you cannot see that you are not properly using that thing between your ears.
I was laughing at her inability to go deeper about Darwinism. "There is no proof". She is a very manipulative self-centered person. Her personal life must be a wreck. Would love to meet her parents
Genesis 1:1 is the TRUTH! It's so simple for those who accept the truth, and it's so hard to except the truth for those who believe in lies/evolution, so sad!
@Justin Time - Actually, it's not. It's a book of legitimate history as borne out by many archaeologists who have used biblical writings to discover towns and cities that were buried, or who have found ancient extra-biblical writings that corroborate biblical accounts. As someone who was agnostic for the first 41 years of my life (give or take), but who looked into these things, I came to fully believe that the Bible is true and God is real. Most people who don't believe in God do so on the basis that they don't believe there's evidence supporting the biblical accounts, but there actually is evidence if you open your mind and study to see if these things might be true. As a former unbeliever, I have a heart for those who reject God, so if you want to have a reasoned discussion about this, I'll do my best to answer whatever objections you may have. Sounds like you have many. LOL!
@Justin Time - That's true, but some of the locations found were not known for sure to exist until they were uncovered, and then findings validated what's in the Bible. But, to your point, you're exactly right that simply because something is where the Bible said it would be does not, in and of itself, prove God's existence. I'll even concede that there may not be any ONE thing to which I could point you that would be the silver bullet for anyone seeking to know if God is real. What ultimately convinced me was not any one thing, but rather the preponderance of things that all align and point to the Bible being true. Another thing to consider is that if things were NOT where the Bible said they'd be, then you could absolutely dismiss it, right? But, in fact, it has been so reliable in its recordings of verifiable things that even non-believers use it as a guide for discovery. My experience with matters of trust is that if a person or source is consistently right, it lends credibility to the other things that person or source is espousing. That doesn't mean they're always right, of course, but simply that it lends credibility. So if the Bible is right on archaeology, which it is, then you have to start looking at other things it describes to see if those are right, too. One of the things I will tell you right now is that this conversation can go as long and as deep as you're willing to entertain, because there's a LOT to the Bible. It's like an onion in the sense that there are many, many layers to it, and understanding the top layer starts to reveal the layer below that, and you can take that several layers deep. Another analogy is that it's like a swimming pool where there's a shallow end and a deep end. The message of the Gospel is so simple a child could understand it, and if someone receives faith in a simple way and chooses to believe based on that alone, they're welcome to stay in the shallow end of the pool and just know that God loves them. But if someone wants to understand more of the things of God, then there's a deep end, and they can go down as deep as they want to go. I honestly don't think that there's any one person who isn't Jesus who fully understands EVERYTHING in the Bible. Some things are left as mysteries, I think. Anyway, I'm more than glad to discuss things here, but I'm not going to dump everything at once (even as this comment is already getting too long), because there's just so much. One thing I'll give you to consider would be that of fulfilled prophecy. The Bible is full of this. Unfortunately, not much of it can be corroborated extra-biblically, and non-believers don't like the idea of the Bible testifying about itself, even if the prophecy in question was written over a thousand years before its fulfillment was recorded in a later book, written by someone else. That said, there are some we can examine. One comes from the book of Isaiah, which most scholars agree was started around 700 BC and completed around 681 BC. In Isaiah 44, God says “It is I who says of Cyrus, ‘He is My shepherd! And he will perform all My desire.’ And he declares of Jerusalem, ‘She will be built,’ And of the temple, ‘Your foundation will be laid.’” At the time of this prophecy, Jerusalem was thriving and it would have been inconceivable that the first temple would torn down, much less need to be rebuilt. God calls Cyrus, by name and before he was born, to fulfill His will. Cyrus wasn't born until 600 BC (give or take), and didn't begin his reign in Persia until 539 BC. He allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem in 538 BC so that they could rebuild the temple that Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar destroyed. So, that prophecy was recorded somewhere between 80 and 100 years before it came to pass, and this is confirmed extra-biblically. There's also Jesus stating in Mark 13 that "not one stone would be left upon another" in reference to that same rebuilt temple. He said this around 30 AD, it was recorded in Mark sometime around 64 AD, and it came to pass in 70 AD. You can go to the Temple Mount today and see absolutely nothing remaining of that temple. I think those are pretty compelling.
@Justin Time - Really? Prophecy is written down well before its fulfillment, and then it's fulfilled such that even extra-biblical sources can confirm it, and that's not compelling to you? Where else in history has someone given the first name of someone not yet born, along with what they're going to do, and then seen it fulfilled precisely later on? This doesn't even count the hundreds of prophecies that are recorded in the Bible where fulfillment is then recorded in later books of the Bible. While those are relevant to me, I don't count then because I know they're not relevant to an unbeliever. Do you have a naturalistic explanation for how these prophecies could be called and fulfilled like that? Also, to what do you attribute the origins of life? Just curious.
@Justin Time - That’s a very interesting statement you make, my friend: “I am astonished that a rational person can swallow all that nonsense!” Assuming that means you agree that there are rational people who believe in God, or who have “swallowed that nonsense”, I think the curious mind would turn that statement into a question and ask, “Why are there rational people who believe in this nonsense?” I could give you a long list of people who are brilliant theologians, or simply are brilliant believers whose expertise is in other disciplines (science, medicine, philosophy, math, law), and these would all be considered “reasonable people” by all impartial observers. A short list would include Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, RC Sproul, Ben Shapiro, Ben Stein, and Chuck Missler; these are all reasonable men of genius intellect, and they believe in God. A Pew Research poll done in 2009 found that 51% of scientists professed belief in a higher power, so it’s not just uneducated goat herders who are on board with God. Looking at the Gospels themselves, Luke was a physician and a historian, and Matthew was a tax collector (so he would have been very good with numbers). Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, was a “Pharisee of Pharisees”, and was not just brilliant, but highly educated, too. The Bible in its entirety is 66 books written by around 40 authors over the course of roughly 1500 years, and yet it has a consistent message throughout, and the Old and New Testaments fit together perfectly. Have you ever tried to get 40 people to agree on anything? 30? 20? Even 10? It’s hard, right? I think getting 40+ guys on the same page for writing all their books over hundreds of years so that they fit together perfectly can only be of God, because nothing else makes sense. Anyway, with all these smart and reasonable people believing in God, does it make more sense that they’re all wrong or that maybe you’re missing something? 🤔 My own journey from agnostic to believer included a co-worker with whom I became friends, and this guy was one of the smartest people I’ve ever met. He decided earlier in life that he wanted to do something difficult and challenging, so he thought learning Russian would be sufficiently hard. He not only learned it, but mastered it and started teaching it at the local community college. Anyway, whenever I asked him questions about the Bible, he always had good answers that made sense to me. I eventually came to faith for a lot of different reasons, but a major one was that my friend always had good answers. He later told me some spiritual truths that I found too incredible to believe at the time, but even those things have been borne out. I’ve seen and experienced literal miracles that have no explanation apart from God, and I’ve got close friends who’ve experienced greater things than I have. I simply have no choice not just to believe, but to KNOW God is real, given what I’ve experienced. As for the origins of life, they absolutely do matter. If you reject God’s existence, then an intelligent person must either construct or adopt an alternative view that explains our existence. Believing in God gives one a satisfactory answer to that question because everything looks designed, and having an omnipotent Designer explains the appearance of design. Rejecting Him simply doesn’t provide that satisfaction. How could life have started without divine intervention? It’s not possible. “Once upon a time there was nothing, and then it exploded. The end.” Come on, now. LOL!
He gave her enough rope to hang herself. She said all sorts of stupid and objectively nonsensical things here, like the idea that evolution and believing plastic is garbage are forms of religion and that somehow teaching children that plastic you throw away goes into a landfill is somehow evil or abusive. At the end of the interview, she really makes a fool of herself when she basically admits to being a sensationalist and says its OK because it sells a lot of books for her.
I think she rejects Neo-Darwinism. Which is also rejected by quite a few biologists and atheists. So, I don't think this is really THAT controversial. Biological evolution can still exist and be true without it being necessarily (Neo)Darwinian.
This woman is nuts. I think she is the perfect candidate for a satirical South Park episode.... BUT there is absolutely a liberal hegemony in the media.If you don’t think that’s the case, then you are delusional or in denial.
@@urbanimage in such low esteem and he was just not up to her game level. She had a perfect answer to every question. I think she did splendidly. I don’t agree with everything she says though.
I've heard this woman's name mentioned a lot recently. Knew nothing about her other than the impression she gives of being polemical. Now I know more, I find her compelling, brave, and very admirable.
No one believes that whales were once land dwelling animals. The fact that you think this is what evolution argues shows that you, like most of its critics, have never studied it and have no idea what it means.
I have to give it to Ann there. She stood strong on her points and even attacked back. Paxy had to lie to attack her and failed big time. He is everything that's wrong with the UK.
+preytec no, she's an extremist nut job who is closer to Hitler, Mussolini than she is British conservatism. In the uk she would be in the BNP. She's also a liar, as she's stated that the uk has " no go zones", he atleast has a brain. All he does here is let her hang herself. But hey, you're going to build a wall!!
she's not British, thank god for that. been on the other side of British conservatism puts me in a good place to be able to say that without delay. I've been to the no-go areas in the UK, not all, but a few and I can say that they are in fact no-areas. Even my partner has had terrible experiences within the UK. I know from 1st hand experience that she's talking the truth, something the BBC has failed to do. But I think your in the mind set to be brickingitforcanada. good luck with that.
_"And with a warm introduction like you just gave me... no, no liberal hegemony there."_ It seems dear Miss Coulter didn't know that she was dealing with Jeremy Paxman. Not unlike how Ben Shapiro would go on to seriously misjudge Andrew Neil years later. I'm starting to sense a trend here. Why do Americans appearing on British television all expect to be received with scones and tea? What a bunch of snowflakes. I suppose Coulter can count herself glad that the BBC didn't just 'hang up' on her like Adam Corolla did.
Some of her points are interesting as to be fair to her she does often use facts of some sort to back them up, even if completely turning a blind eye to opposing, more relevant ones. But to say there is no evidence for evolution. Come on now.
Can someone explain why the comments are (it seems) ninety percent pro-Coulter but the Newsnight/Paxman video has a fifteen to one 'like' ratio? Can it mean that the 'likes' appreciate Newsnight giving Ann the oppurtunity to speak, or are the figures being switched?
In interesting question, I guess most people seeing this like the intellectual exchange and the exposure of liberal ideology so they like the video in itself. At the same time most of the comments are from people who agree with Ann. I tend to agree with her too although I have noticed on RUclips the videos people watch are in essence suggested to you based on your watch history. This means the comments are more likely to be supportive or distorted one way or another. At the same time the truth is not a matter for democratic vote so the proportions of comments for or against any views are not an indicator of truth or right and wrong. Those are my observations anyway.
@@athought2256 Thanks for taking the time to reply. It is interesting how the same debate can, on the one hand, get agreement with Coulter and yet, on the other hand, get agreement with Paxman. It is often not the argument itself but the truth or bias that viewers begin with. This is so, irrespective of the subject or the contenders.
“Your publishers gave us chapter 1 Ann Coulter. I’ve read it. Does it get any better?”
Savage from Paxman there.
The more she speaks the more ridiculous she sounds. She's a hack and it doesn't take an awful lot of thinking to understand just how full of crap she is.
@Wyze Wildfire looks like you were watching a different interview.
@Wyze Wildfire are you serious??
@@barrykennedy8507 Nonsubstance to what you say...
Specifics?
😂
You wrote this book?
Ann: Umm yes lol 🤨
We had moments of silence in my school on certain occations but not everyday.
The irony is, since leaving the BBC, Paxman has stated the BBC was overwhelmingly liberal
Pity he felt obliged to indulge in it firing this clip; and probably why he got his fingers burned.
TELL PAXMAN TO GO INTERVIEW SAVILE IN HELL.
THATS MORE HIS SPEED ! 👎
Not any more
That doesn't mean he still wouldn't think Ann Coulter is either crazy or trolling. It's possible to be a Conservative who is critical of liberalism without being a nut job.
A lot of strawman arguments here
ann would make the best press secretary, shed have em all crying
2nd best because Sarah Sanders is number 1 and an American hero. We love our patriots!
Shut down leftist misogyny and jihad!
President Donald J Trump 2020
@@mikethompson8881 an American hero is someone who stands up and bends the truth everyday or avoids answering questions? How standards have slipped
@Boony Tooty well keep searching for that, because this isnt it. Paxman, if he really wanted to, would run circles around this woman.
To quote an honest English man from a century ago:
G.K.Chesterton:
“Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.”
“These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.”
You're free to believe your nice little stories but don't insist on reversing widely accepted scientific fact.
@@mrbump28 - I replied to you further down, but I'll reply here, too. Assuming you're speaking about evolution, it's not "widely accepted scientific fact". I'll grant it IS widely accepted, but it's called the "THEORY of evolution" for a reason. There's absolutely nothing about it that can actually be proven. What we have is a lot of conclusions being drawn from incomplete data. Unfortunately for its proponents, the closer one examines the theory of evolution, the more it falls apart.
@@Darrel_Owen you’ve made the classic mistake of confusing the meaning of the word ‘theory’ in science to the meaning of the word ‘theory’ in common parlance. For example, it’s called the ‘Theory of Gravity’. Is gravity not a fact?
@@Peter-dr9ch "Theory of Gravity".... What? LOL! it's called the "Law of Gravity". Gravity is a law, not a theory. So, you're right that gravity is a fact, but you're wrong in how the word "theory" is used in science. It goes: Hypothesis > Theory > Law.
@@Darrel_Owen yeah you clearly have no idea about actual scientific work. There are no laws in natural science. They dont exist. Everything you take for granted or may call a law is, when properly described, a theory. A theory in the sense of science is something that was proven again and again. And by the way, it is, infact, called the "Theory of Gravity", and the base of modern astro physics is called "the general THEORY of relativity".
Must have this amazing speaker in the White House listening to questions, thinking quickly, and responding with a kurt happy demeanor and conviction to the media... SOTH!
@Wakkad Sound What kind of 4rd world wak-koff filth is a "Wakkad"? HA, HA
@Wakkad Sound What kind of 4rd world subordinate peasant wak-koff filth is a "Wakkad"? HA, HA
I have to say one thing about channel 4, At least it allows you to comment below!
This is the *Cold Cold Cold Packed Faced BBC* and NOT Channel 4! Where (at time of writing) comments are currently open!
I love you Ann Coulter! Q: "Do you really believe that?" A: pause.... "Yes, I believe everything I wrote in my book." I love it!!
Pick carefully the newsman you want to take on Coulter. She is articulate and extremely sharp. She can be more sarcastic than I care for, but she seems to be successful at what she does.
oilhammer04 strawman and anecdotal arguments she is a fine debator.
Woe to the 100 IQ who tries to tackle the 180 IQ. It is never going to end well for the 100 IQ.
Plastic harming the environment is a religious belief? What an absurd ridiculous thing to say.
Ann replies as if she had 20 minutes to think her answers up. So quick, sarcastic and cutting.
Utah Raptor She reminds me of a teacher I had at school when I was a kid, she could smell bullshit from a mile away
...and looney...
Doesnt believe in Darwinism. Says it all really. Complete airhead.
@@bobbart4198 ~ The comedy here is that you & Blake839 missed the point of Utah Raptor.
@Blake839 Because all the questions were loaded so that her replies could be deliberately misinterpreted if she didn't answer carefully.
Yes he is a very warm gentleman isn't he? Too bad he can't debate with real ideas. It's all about emotions and accusations. People are tired of the pretentious and pompous elitists talking down to us all day.
It's an interview not a debate...
Yes, possibly because they think ordinary people can't think for themselves.
I think many so called clever people cannot conceive that anyone less intelligent could have a better opinion than them. Arrogance. Life experience and mental attitude/imagination trump intelligence for me any day.
And elitist Ann has pretension and pomposity in all suits. Is that what you're referring to? She's a scrawny tall aging long-haired blonde who particularly American men slobber over.
@@Longtack55 you suck 🤣
The only thing we did not learn from the interview, was what the book main postulate was about, and what were the main 3 arguments substantiating it.
The book title is not even introduced.
Good job Paxman.
Paxman should do her audiobooks
"The question really shouldn't be whether God overruled Darwinism, but did God _threaten_ to overrule Darwinism?"
@@fds7476 hahaha!
Or simply her.
"so you also believe there is some sort of liberal hegemony in the mass media, do you?...I just don't see how this argument stacks up." This hasn't aged well for him.
He is off the air. Even his fellow leftists realise how weak and pompous he is.
Are you seriously suggesting, from any angle on planet Earth, that mass media in the United Kingdom is dominated by the left-wing? You cannot even say that jokingly (and before you call me a Satan worshipping Stalinist liberal gay rights activist, I have no political allegiance left or right).
Tony England Of course it is you blind moron
Henry BishopThanks for that, I had a feeling he was up his arse.
@@alastair9894 HAHAHAHA, this I have to read. Let's go, Alastair. Tell me which of the mainstream media is _"left wing"_ and then tell me which is _"right wing"_
This I need to read just for the laughs. Go.
It’s amazing to see how people watching the same interview came up with such contradicting conclusions. Maybe it’s true that we can only what we wish to see. At least to me, Paxman did a wonderful job, letting the absurdity reveal itself.
Like you say; people see only what they want to see.
Ger closing statement was equal to “I’m getting attention and money right now so I win!” What’s she doing these days? Only fans? 🤮
@@nodescriptionavailable3842 She's still writing best sellers!
They both did well, and you can tell Paxman thought so too
That is a textbook example of "Eating Someone's Lunch"! And that bloke is so pig ignorant that he doesn't even realize it was happening.
@Christopher Gilbert When you can't refute the Truth. Acting disgusted is about the only thing you have to fall back on to attempt to save face. These people should realize by now that the Truth always trumps their lies.
What on earth are you lot talking about? Paxman is one of the most distinguished journalists out there. He has been interviewing people for decades.
@@flux88121 Go up against the best, get crushed like the rest. Ann leaves pompous interviewers bleeding in TV studios all over the planet.
Well said, SIXPACFISH :-)
She can hold her own
She would hold anyone's.
She scares the shit out of liberals, I love her 😎
Yeah, she can hold her own 5hit in, as Paxman made her 5h1t herself.
She can hold mine, too.
@@scottscott232 Typical sexist full of hate for women. Leave your misogyny in demokkkratic comment section you bigot extremist.
Women for President Donald J Trump 2020
Coulter is so brilliant the Fox News Hosts that use to have Coulter on as a regular no longer do, such as coward, Hannity with his Trump pom poms
#BoycotSeanTillAnnsBackOn
She doesn't get invited back to politico or The View much anymore either...she kicks lefty liberal arrogant backsides in those places as well.
That's because it's a fucking echo chamber
I would love to have her calm demeanour. She runs rings around the Oxford educated, supremely arrogant, Jeremy Paxman. An amazing person!
I've seen Paxman get really nasty, hyper-critical and condescending with those whom he interviews. It is such a refreshing change to see someone like Ann Coulter, handle Paxman with such ease and superior intelligence.
Keith Lynch Well said
"Does it get any better?" ROFL
Imagine asking if the interviewed guest’s book gets better.. only a liberal could get away with saying that to a woman. Particularly if the woman is not liberal.
@@Badbadbambi Paxman didn't do liberalism or any other ism except he grilled his guests as he should
He cannot knock her down no matter what ,she is brilliant!
hi anne!
“Your publishers gave us Chapter 1, Ann Coulter. I’ve read it - does it get any better?” Classic Paxman burn!!
“Apparently a lot of people think so”
Thing is tho, she's bright and she took a piss on Paxman's paperwork.
+Ifan Cooke um.......don't think so dude, paxman made her out to be the idiot that she is and made her answer questions as if the whole thing is a joke.
+Donald Trumps Trumpet No dude. That's not what I saw
+Ifan Cooke If Paxman had so wished, he could have wiped the floor with her. She didn't even answer the questions. She just spouted her grandiose rhetoric.
+Peter Zichau I don't know if you are agreeing with me or patronising me. Either way, I am a liberal progressive and a very proud one at that.
+Peter Zichau P.S. Please stop calling anyone "dude". It's not 1992.
She made him sound like a whiny teenager.
Only in your eyes. To the sane people, she's bat crap crazy. He extremist views go down with the American right. But the 6.8 billion of the rest of the planet, thinking...what a nutter.
Actually he made himself sound like a schoolboy who only knows how to play checkers while she is playing chess at masters level . LoL
No she sounds bat shit crazy to me. But it’s ok she is still she,king a work of fiction .... Jeremy is way past his best. He has since retired
@@bakersteven3 The only people who view her negatively are misogynistic pigs who only express hate for our women and try to shut them down by degradation
You sad little man doing the left's woman beating
@@poosnip typical leftist bigot expressing your misogyny and hate for our women. You are a disgraceful man.
Women for President Donald Trump 2020! Keep the left from degrading our women and beating them down!
I like hearing Ann speak. She's sharp, quick-witted, and sticks to the facts.
This interview definitely went in her favour, though I have to admit I'm disappointed at her unwillingness profess her beliefs about creation. I find it disheartening as a believer where she has the platform to bring glory to the Lord but instead hangs a cross around her neck and dodges the question about her faith.
Totally agree. She could easily say something like, "I don't know if it was a literal six days or not - maybe it was - but I do believe God created everything. I certainly don't believe in evolution." That would have been sufficient.
She knows how outlandish those beliefs are. She wouldn’t risk that damage to her reputation.
Shannon Some aspects of Darwinism may be wrong, everyone accepts that. If she discounted Darwin’s whole theory she’d be imbecilic.
Shannon What? I see evolution by natural selection as the best theory to describe the forming of species. Do you have another theory? Obviously Darwin made errors, he didn’t have the technology we have today. But you’ll trust a 2000 year old work of fiction...ok.
🤣 🤣 🤣...yes yes it was the way the Christian god said it happened ..no no..the Jewish one had it right...definitely the Muslims got it...what about the zorostrians or pagans.....it is too bad she isnt courageous enough to admit she believes in fairy tales..🤣
Is this guy considered a good journalist/interviewer? If so, that explains Piers Morgan.
Jeremy Paxman is a legendary british journalism
@@mohamedissa1729 He got beaten black and blue by Ann.
@@SumitBohra487 Ahahahahahahahahahahaahahaa. Do stupid people really see the world liek you. It must be just fascinating to be that stupid.
she looks like the lady on a cheech and chong film that snorts the ajax
Mohamed Issa *journalist*
"6hours a day, 12 days a week" not the sharpest knife is she
+theOKguy More of a daisy than a knife :)
+theOKguy if missed word is your only argument, no wonder everybody call you libtard and degenerate.
I suppose you think the Beatles were pretty stupid too. There aren’t eight days in a week either.
She's on live television; it's not like she had a prepared speech. A slip of tongue does not say anything about level of intelligence.
it says a lot about okguy's intelligence, which is not great
paxman got rolled
Paxman didn't get very far here. I can just imaging Coulter 'and you put that in your pipe and smoke it' !
She's so intelligently savage, I love her
She's an excellent example of The Dunning Kruger effect
She’s got such an amazing room temperature level iq. She can’t even provide evidence of Darwinism having contradictory evidence
to be honest she actually has a point
We in Britain are disparate for a good PM, please come and sort us out.
About......
She's great , she is sharp and quick and answers the questions.Follows logic and common sense so the BBC and the liberal establishment with its cringe worthy followers are bound to find her distasteful. Normal people don't.
She is fantastic.
Ann Coulter keeps me strong.Totally want women to have a strong voice.
She's known by her enemies.
The cries of pain are proof.
Ask Ann why she can't practice law any more. Give her the hint of manufacturing evidence and legal plagiarism and watch her face.
Ann Coulter makes me laugh and a little sick. She looks and sounds batshit crazy
@@justafanintexas7913 how many times are going to ask this question? Nobody gives a shit.
Is this guy more interested in interviewing AC or mocking her ideas?
In the UK everybody gets the same scrutiny. We have left wing and right wing media as well, but it's a bit more nuanced. Actually, Jeremy Paxman is often accused of being a right win Tory and therefore not impartial. Which is the whole point.
@@theotherone8036Oh please there are as many terrorists as new world creationists - they represent a tiny minority of the faith. The media doesn't do mediocrity, so we're always stuck discussing the periphery of any ideology. Religious or not. They only want extremists, for lack of a better word, to be involved in the debate. Centrists just get ignored.
Her ideas are laughable
Mocking her ideas it seems. Fair enough.
Mocking. He is a stuck-up, arrogant English.
TWELVE DAYS A WEEK 😂
I that a Beatles song! 😀 (Yes it was a funny slip up on Ann's part!)
Usually I'm a fan of Paxman, but he got wrecked!!!
This is not about "getting wrecked." It is an interview, not a debate. In a time when politics wasn't about "wrecking" people, both the interviewer and Ann Coulter understood this. But I guess today that is too much to ask.
@@Carpet_Carp Well, to me it looked like he did get wrecked.
@@Carpet_Carp You obviously don't comprehend the concept of "debate" - study up and come back soon, bub.
Ok religious nut job
Has anyone ever seen Coulter and Trump in the same room at the same time?
+Pfffffft Rumours have long persisted, stating, Trump is Coulter in drag, is this the reason he wears a toupee ?
+Pfffffft - Hotel room?? What a sex tape, man you could get rich with that hidden camera
+thomscn she's not tan enough she's descended from pilgrims
stupid question
pffft. Not a very original comment, is it? Try harder
I love hearing Ann Coulter speak!
Ann Coulter is AWESOME! Total Domination!
Paxman did no service to “liberal” ideas by coming off so arrogantly.
He's a bloody conservative. Why if someone doesn't agree with a right wing nutjob are they automatically a liberal?
like most liberals
That's his style, with everyone...since retiring he's on record criticising the BBC for liberal bias
@@bobbart4198 No one will buy that malarkey ! You should have said! "He actually [groupthinks] before he speaks." Which isn't "thinking" at all ! It's called "Parroting".
@@johnmulligan455 His job here, was to take Ann down! He failed miserably !
I remember watching this when it was first broadcast and being impressed at the only interview I'd seen where Paxman met his match.
no way
Paxman lost here. But Cymru economist served him too
I went to school with Paxman. Voted "not the sharpest knife in the draw". She makes him look much more stupid than he truly is
Brilliant Coulter, that’s the way to give to the bbc
So brilliant she can't practice law any more. Ask her why.
@@justafanintexas7913 why?
@@donnyhawk662 - She was caught manufacturing evidence for court presentation in 37 cases and was caught in legal plagiarism. A real piece of work. Virginia Bar gave her the option to surrender the license or face prosecution. She turned that fiction career into book writing, no book of which has a factual accuracy or veracity rating above 45%.
I've done my reading and there is 0 evidence for what justafinintexas claims. Ann Coulter was accused of plagiarising some content in her books, but she was cleared of all charges.
@@lpsp442 - I'm one of the attorneys who took her before the Virginia Bar. Perhaps we should wager, say $25,000? And the plagiarism you mention is not the plagiarism I refer to as it happened BEFORE she wrote a book. Good to have facts in-hand, eh? So why doesn't she practice law any more in your fiction-filled world?
Why on earth would Jeremy Paxman through away what could be an excellent interview on vacuous "gotcha!" questions that Coulter would never fall for and which just make him look foolish?
Evolution is unconvincing. Anne is sane and correct.
Evolution is a fact, with lots of evidence. Ask any biologist, not a politician.
They've duped society to think evolution is supposed fact but it is definitely not, and only those who truly seek the counters the lie of evolution will realize it is mostly fantasy, while using some science to mask itself. The dinosaurs living with humans as historical fact alone destroys the lie of evolutionism, but mainstream media and school system won't talk about this history. Check out the videos I link below for more information:
*The Bible is scientifically accurate!*
ruclips.net/video/PAQ4nnKcnJA/видео.html
*The Secret History of Dinosaurs*
ruclips.net/video/czDpqyGutTs/видео.html
*Dinosaur soft tissue found! Dinosaurs: NOT millions of years old!*
ruclips.net/video/kEeIAzivSL8/видео.html
*Living Fossils: Fossils that debunk evolution*
m.ruclips.net/video/lsbRKq0tay8/видео.html
*Footprints In Stone - Forbidden History II - restoringgenesis*
ruclips.net/video/7xYyHU5mRFo/видео.html
*Refuting Textbook Arguments for Evolution - Part 1*
ruclips.net/video/QOl3UVt9cHQ/видео.html
*Refuting Textbook Arguments for Evolution - Part 2*
ruclips.net/video/PVSOA8SSXQY/видео.html
*What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy - Vol. I (Our Created Solar System)*
ruclips.net/video/CzyQbOQ0dv0/видео.html
*What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy - Vol. II (Our Created Stars and Galaxies)*
ruclips.net/video/E66409i-yn4/видео.html
*The Great Dinosaur Deception Exposed - Dr Thomas Kindell*
ruclips.net/video/1xdkONYsjZg/видео.html
*Professor Exposes Impossibilities of Evolution*
ruclips.net/video/xZn7tTdCm6U/видео.html
*Gods existence - Documentary:* ruclips.net/video/EE2_2vuDTao/видео.html
*Evolution Vs. God Movie - Ray Comfort (Living Waters)*
ruclips.net/video/U0u3-2CGOMQ/видео.html
*David Berlinski (atheist) -> Rebelious Intellectual Defies Darwinism*
ruclips.net/video/KEXnq_tcM7c/видео.html
*I don't have enough faith to be an atheist!* - Frank Turek
ruclips.net/video/07WkzzYCpjo/видео.html
*Many scientists convert from evolution to creationism, convinced by the evidence.*
ruclips.net/video/owDOD7WZvEw/видео.html
*Answering the Atheists: Stephen Hawking (Part 1) - Frank Turek*
ruclips.net/video/1tVO0-zYAvE/видео.html
*Theory of Everything - Trey Smith:*
ruclips.net/video/mtBz1roiQR8/видео.html
*Haeckel's Embryo FRAUD!*
ruclips.net/video/41fmdhv1LRA/видео.html
*William Lane Craig (Best Moments) - Watch These 5*
ruclips.net/video/mP6NCNUZFoQ/видео.html
*William Lane Craig vs Biased atheist Dogma (Presuppositional Apologetics)*
ruclips.net/video/gmnRQ3P3Bwo/видео.html
*Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance*
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
*Design in the Universe*
ruclips.net/video/N4CgCtV4ixk/видео.html
*Science confirms Creationism:* ruclips.net/video/ba5JN2NDI6A/видео.html&lc=z222zlwzjw3lxnxwv04t1aokgv32sutiam43lvoqaiq3bk0h00410.1526465924361236
*How the Fine-Tuning of the Universe Points to the Existence of God - J. Warner Wallace*
ruclips.net/video/aT-Rdplb9A4/видео.html
*How the Origin of Life Points to the Existence of God - J. Warner Wallace*
ruclips.net/video/E4uRWk06Wo0/видео.html
*How Consciousness Points to the Existence of God - J. Warner Wallace*
ruclips.net/video/8Ff1jiRpjko/видео.html
*How Free Agency Points to the Existence of God - J. Warner Wallace*
ruclips.net/video/peSdVipifcg/видео.html
*Why the Appearance of Design in Biology is Best Explained by the Existence of God*
ruclips.net/video/9R7bdVcK0hk/видео.html
*Richard Dawkins stumped by simple question by creationist:*
ruclips.net/video/YddmGJofbL0/видео.html
*Creationist (Mark Armitage) Wins Lawsuit and Crushes Evolution*
ruclips.net/video/We_XIq-k66c/видео.html
*Signature in the Cell: Stephen Meyer Faces his Critics, pt. 1: The Presentation:*
ruclips.net/video/eW6egHV6jAw/видео.html
*Signature in the Cell: Stephen Meyer Faces his Critics, pt. 2: Q&A and Debate:*
ruclips.net/video/OQf29Pden30/видео.html
*16 Nearly Impossible Issues for Evolutionists to Answer* ruclips.net/video/seGBTsLpMdI/видео.html
*NOAH: the TRUTH is BIGGER than you thought - Trey Smith*
ruclips.net/video/lktmmd7YnD8/видео.html
*Nephilim: TRUE STORY of Satan, Fallen Angels, Giants, Aliens, Hybrids, Elongated Skulls & Nephilim - Trey Smith*
ruclips.net/video/1zz8_MxcnzY/видео.html
*Intelligent Design - It's In The Numbers!*
ruclips.net/video/6i0PFdW7BXc/видео.html
*101 Scientific Facts The Bible Declared*
ruclips.net/video/dNj3xksWE38/видео.html
*Answers in Genesis:* answersingenesis.org
*Institute for Creation Research:* www.icr.org/homepage/
Creation Seminar 1 - The Age of the Earth
ruclips.net/video/KK3eh4Z5Ko4/видео.html
Creation Seminar 2 - The Garden of Eden
ruclips.net/video/wth-zdYpX80/видео.html
Creation Seminar 3 - Dinosaurs and the Bible (FULL)
ruclips.net/video/UVTGcbNt4fU/видео.html
Creation Seminar (4 of 7): Lies in the Textbooks
ruclips.net/video/n_OlX7M5MLA/видео.html
Creation Seminar (5 of 7): The Dangers of Evolution
ruclips.net/video/WN31FCcUlLk/видео.html
Creation Seminar (6 of 7)
ruclips.net/video/cfffRl4RT4s/видео.html
Creation Seminar (7a of 7): Questions & Answers
ruclips.net/video/6cEUXYlc-Q0/видео.html
Creation Seminar (7b of 7): Questions & Answers
ruclips.net/video/Z2grShh4WDM/видео.html
Creation Seminar (7c of 7): Questions & Answers
ruclips.net/video/0ZQdT3KoKz0/видео.html
Creation Seminar (7d of 7): Questions & Answers
ruclips.net/video/B7O2nZtTNRs/видео.html
Creation Seminar (7e of 7): Questions & Answers
ruclips.net/video/z_CauOY-tiE/видео.html?
---
*Science in the Bible - Ocean Currents*
biblescienceguy.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/science-in-the-bible-ocean-currents/
Science in the Bible - Expanding Universe
biblescienceguy.wordpress.com/2017/07/12/science-in-the-bible-expanding-universe/
---
_"Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. Atheism is a belief in non-belief. So you categorically deny something you have no evidence against. I’ll keep an open mind because I understand that human knowledge is limited."_ - *Marcelo Gleiser* (agnostic)
*Some revealing quotes by atheist evolutionists:*
_"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion, a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint - and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it - the literalists are absolutely right. _*_Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today._*_ Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."_ - *Michael Ruse* (atheist)
_"I am talking about something much deeper - namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. _*_It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time._*_ One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to have a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world..."_ - *Thomas Nagel* (atheist) -- The Last Word (1997) p. 130-131
_"Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God’s existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably). Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."_ - *Todd, S.C.* correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999
_"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."_ - *Richard Lewontin* (atheist)
@@Harpazo_to_Yeshua RUclips videos are not science buddy!
@@Harpazo_to_Yeshua - Nice collection of links! Thanks for providing that.
@Shannon - I think you tagged the wrong person. I wholeheartedly reject Darwinism, and I love Ann. If you want to argue with someone, maybe hit up mrbump28, because I think you and I are on the same side. :-)
12 days a week?
her husband has never won an argument, ever!!!
Lol
be hard to win one when you don't exist
Probably doesn’t get any either 🤣
You can hate Ann Coulter all you want. but the woman speaks facts. Poor bastards try to be smart asses and the way she retaliates is just amazing to hear.
I think Ann more than held her own with Paxman
Say what you like about Ann but she is absolutely brilliant. As sharp as a tack.
Ann is a smart cookie I believe she has a good sense of reality, I wish we had more like her .we really need more people who can walk and chew gum at the same time. We now have to many people who have no idea what is really no idea what is going on in the world and are in the Government running our Countries.
12 days a week.… Great sense of reality! 🤣
That should be "...we now have TOO many people...".
@@giotto4321 tell me about it, just wait until China and India get going . Here in the west we are going full pin doing everything we can to get things done. Those of the third world haven't even started , most of their people don't have anything to call theirs. There's 6 + billion people out there waiting to have their chances to polute the world. Oh my we are in for a rough time a coming.
Wow. That was stupid of Paxman to demand critics of a false theory need to put out their own theory. It is ok to look for weaknesses in a theory or idea without knowing what the replacement would be.
Mind? FREE to think.
Brain? SLAVE to physics.
So the evolution of the brain can never make a species into a smarter or dumber one, as evolution is a physical thing whereas I proved the mind is free from and therefore not part of nor subject to physics.
Darwin was a racist idiot who wanted all blacks dead, all Indians dead, all... etcetera. See the full quote from the pseudo-scientist and pseudo-intellectual in my series crushing atheist myths.
She is so good at fielding the ideologies of nonsense; she's amazing!!
@@SumitBohra487 I mean we both have opposable thumbs, look kinda similar, use tools, share some similar social traits but are slightly more dynamic. Why is it so difficult to accept?
Nope. She has a book of talking points that she looks to.
SOME SAY ANN IS A MALE....
COULD THAT BE TRUE???
2:21 12 days a week?
God , I love this woman . Cathy Newman had a different look about her in 2006 and worked for BBC ?
Yes, the parallel between this and the Jordan Peterson interview is interesting. If the world ever rids itself of political correctness, wokery and hatred of the west, perhaps we shall look back on these interviews as an important turning point.
'The reasoned critiques aren't the number 1 book in America so I think I'm doing just fine.'
However, America obviously isn't doing just fine.
So let me get this straight. She says that there are flaws in Darwin’s theory. But she’s completely alright with the ludicrous accounts within the Bible? Emmm ...
no thats not what she implied. you are as big of a numbskull as the paxman
@@atombomb31458
I take that as high compliment. Thanks.
@Gary Gravy
She did say that there were flaws in Darwin’s theory and she obviously is completely alright with the Bible.
Nothing lazy nothing strawman you just can’t handle the truth.
@@pippipster6767 its called having religious faith. Its something billions of people around the world share. Perhaps you have heard of it. Or maybe not
@@cathalriordan6979
Faith, by very definition, is belief without evidence.
I do not subscribe to such 🐑ery.
Irrelevant to me how many 🐑 do.
The simple fact that there are so many different ‘faiths’ each one declaring itself correct and all others wrong amply demonstrates it is indoctrinated fabricated nonsense.
If you cannot see that you are not properly using that thing between your ears.
All my; " Dumber than a......." lines keep popping into my mind for some reason ...... Wonder why ?
Nor do we. But have a go at formulating an argument, James. We're all ears.
Paxman got owned
Yup as she states at the end, she's doing just fine!
She looks like she's about to burst out screaming at Paxman by the end :D
What a psychotic belief system she holds.
I was laughing at her inability to go deeper about Darwinism. "There is no proof". She is a very manipulative self-centered person. Her personal life must be a wreck. Would love to meet her parents
paxman being remarkably gentle with this lady-he knows she`s fiesty and dont want no smoke!!!.
B A S E D
Anne is obviously extremely intelligent. And a formidable debater. 🙂
Just seen this for the first time and this Paxman guy simply got CRUUUSHED! How embarrassing for him.
It wasn't a debate how could he get crushed?
Genesis 1:1 is the TRUTH!
It's so simple for those who accept the truth, and it's so hard to except the truth for those who believe in lies/evolution, so sad!
@Justin Time - Actually, it's not. It's a book of legitimate history as borne out by many archaeologists who have used biblical writings to discover towns and cities that were buried, or who have found ancient extra-biblical writings that corroborate biblical accounts. As someone who was agnostic for the first 41 years of my life (give or take), but who looked into these things, I came to fully believe that the Bible is true and God is real. Most people who don't believe in God do so on the basis that they don't believe there's evidence supporting the biblical accounts, but there actually is evidence if you open your mind and study to see if these things might be true. As a former unbeliever, I have a heart for those who reject God, so if you want to have a reasoned discussion about this, I'll do my best to answer whatever objections you may have. Sounds like you have many. LOL!
@Justin Time - That's true, but some of the locations found were not known for sure to exist until they were uncovered, and then findings validated what's in the Bible. But, to your point, you're exactly right that simply because something is where the Bible said it would be does not, in and of itself, prove God's existence. I'll even concede that there may not be any ONE thing to which I could point you that would be the silver bullet for anyone seeking to know if God is real. What ultimately convinced me was not any one thing, but rather the preponderance of things that all align and point to the Bible being true.
Another thing to consider is that if things were NOT where the Bible said they'd be, then you could absolutely dismiss it, right? But, in fact, it has been so reliable in its recordings of verifiable things that even non-believers use it as a guide for discovery. My experience with matters of trust is that if a person or source is consistently right, it lends credibility to the other things that person or source is espousing. That doesn't mean they're always right, of course, but simply that it lends credibility.
So if the Bible is right on archaeology, which it is, then you have to start looking at other things it describes to see if those are right, too. One of the things I will tell you right now is that this conversation can go as long and as deep as you're willing to entertain, because there's a LOT to the Bible. It's like an onion in the sense that there are many, many layers to it, and understanding the top layer starts to reveal the layer below that, and you can take that several layers deep. Another analogy is that it's like a swimming pool where there's a shallow end and a deep end. The message of the Gospel is so simple a child could understand it, and if someone receives faith in a simple way and chooses to believe based on that alone, they're welcome to stay in the shallow end of the pool and just know that God loves them. But if someone wants to understand more of the things of God, then there's a deep end, and they can go down as deep as they want to go. I honestly don't think that there's any one person who isn't Jesus who fully understands EVERYTHING in the Bible. Some things are left as mysteries, I think. Anyway, I'm more than glad to discuss things here, but I'm not going to dump everything at once (even as this comment is already getting too long), because there's just so much.
One thing I'll give you to consider would be that of fulfilled prophecy. The Bible is full of this. Unfortunately, not much of it can be corroborated extra-biblically, and non-believers don't like the idea of the Bible testifying about itself, even if the prophecy in question was written over a thousand years before its fulfillment was recorded in a later book, written by someone else. That said, there are some we can examine. One comes from the book of Isaiah, which most scholars agree was started around 700 BC and completed around 681 BC. In Isaiah 44, God says “It is I who says of Cyrus, ‘He is My shepherd! And he will perform all My desire.’ And he declares of Jerusalem, ‘She will be built,’ And of the temple, ‘Your foundation will be laid.’” At the time of this prophecy, Jerusalem was thriving and it would have been inconceivable that the first temple would torn down, much less need to be rebuilt. God calls Cyrus, by name and before he was born, to fulfill His will. Cyrus wasn't born until 600 BC (give or take), and didn't begin his reign in Persia until 539 BC. He allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem in 538 BC so that they could rebuild the temple that Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar destroyed. So, that prophecy was recorded somewhere between 80 and 100 years before it came to pass, and this is confirmed extra-biblically. There's also Jesus stating in Mark 13 that "not one stone would be left upon another" in reference to that same rebuilt temple. He said this around 30 AD, it was recorded in Mark sometime around 64 AD, and it came to pass in 70 AD. You can go to the Temple Mount today and see absolutely nothing remaining of that temple.
I think those are pretty compelling.
@Justin Time - Really? Prophecy is written down well before its fulfillment, and then it's fulfilled such that even extra-biblical sources can confirm it, and that's not compelling to you? Where else in history has someone given the first name of someone not yet born, along with what they're going to do, and then seen it fulfilled precisely later on? This doesn't even count the hundreds of prophecies that are recorded in the Bible where fulfillment is then recorded in later books of the Bible. While those are relevant to me, I don't count then because I know they're not relevant to an unbeliever. Do you have a naturalistic explanation for how these prophecies could be called and fulfilled like that?
Also, to what do you attribute the origins of life? Just curious.
@Justin Time - That’s a very interesting statement you make, my friend: “I am astonished that a rational person can swallow all that nonsense!” Assuming that means you agree that there are rational people who believe in God, or who have “swallowed that nonsense”, I think the curious mind would turn that statement into a question and ask, “Why are there rational people who believe in this nonsense?”
I could give you a long list of people who are brilliant theologians, or simply are brilliant believers whose expertise is in other disciplines (science, medicine, philosophy, math, law), and these would all be considered “reasonable people” by all impartial observers. A short list would include Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, RC Sproul, Ben Shapiro, Ben Stein, and Chuck Missler; these are all reasonable men of genius intellect, and they believe in God. A Pew Research poll done in 2009 found that 51% of scientists professed belief in a higher power, so it’s not just uneducated goat herders who are on board with God.
Looking at the Gospels themselves, Luke was a physician and a historian, and Matthew was a tax collector (so he would have been very good with numbers). Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, was a “Pharisee of Pharisees”, and was not just brilliant, but highly educated, too. The Bible in its entirety is 66 books written by around 40 authors over the course of roughly 1500 years, and yet it has a consistent message throughout, and the Old and New Testaments fit together perfectly. Have you ever tried to get 40 people to agree on anything? 30? 20? Even 10? It’s hard, right? I think getting 40+ guys on the same page for writing all their books over hundreds of years so that they fit together perfectly can only be of God, because nothing else makes sense.
Anyway, with all these smart and reasonable people believing in God, does it make more sense that they’re all wrong or that maybe you’re missing something?
🤔
My own journey from agnostic to believer included a co-worker with whom I became friends, and this guy was one of the smartest people I’ve ever met. He decided earlier in life that he wanted to do something difficult and challenging, so he thought learning Russian would be sufficiently hard. He not only learned it, but mastered it and started teaching it at the local community college. Anyway, whenever I asked him questions about the Bible, he always had good answers that made sense to me. I eventually came to faith for a lot of different reasons, but a major one was that my friend always had good answers. He later told me some spiritual truths that I found too incredible to believe at the time, but even those things have been borne out. I’ve seen and experienced literal miracles that have no explanation apart from God, and I’ve got close friends who’ve experienced greater things than I have. I simply have no choice not just to believe, but to KNOW God is real, given what I’ve experienced.
As for the origins of life, they absolutely do matter. If you reject God’s existence, then an intelligent person must either construct or adopt an alternative view that explains our existence. Believing in God gives one a satisfactory answer to that question because everything looks designed, and having an omnipotent Designer explains the appearance of design. Rejecting Him simply doesn’t provide that satisfaction. How could life have started without divine intervention? It’s not possible. “Once upon a time there was nothing, and then it exploded. The end.” Come on, now. LOL!
Ann Coulter you hit him right between the eyes @ 3.55 well done, you actually wiped the floor with him all thru out the interview.
Ann being interviewed in Wackyland.
Wow. Making Paxman look stupid isn't easy. Impressive.
Paxman made her look very stupid he didn't have to try very hard.
He gave her enough rope to hang herself. She said all sorts of stupid and objectively nonsensical things here, like the idea that evolution and believing plastic is garbage are forms of religion and that somehow teaching children that plastic you throw away goes into a landfill is somehow evil or abusive. At the end of the interview, she really makes a fool of herself when she basically admits to being a sensationalist and says its OK because it sells a lot of books for her.
Most Countries have free speech and religion, thank God
I love you too, Ann Coulter! I never tire of listening to you.
"That's just a crazy religious belief" Says the women who rejects the modern theory of evolution in the first minute of the interview....
I think she rejects Neo-Darwinism. Which is also rejected by quite a few biologists and atheists. So, I don't think this is really THAT controversial.
Biological evolution can still exist and be true without it being necessarily (Neo)Darwinian.
This woman is nuts. I think she is the perfect candidate for a satirical South Park episode....
BUT there is absolutely a liberal hegemony in the media.If you don’t think that’s the case, then you are delusional or in denial.
And then Ann drops the mic.....
You think she came out of this well? Paxman clearly held her is such low esteem that he couldn't even be bothered to give her his usual grilling.
@@urbanimage in such low esteem and he was just not up to her game level. She had a perfect answer to every question. I think she did splendidly. I don’t agree with everything she says though.
She is amazing she treat Paxman with the contempt he deserves
2006 interview - i was expecting a teenager!
I've heard this woman's name mentioned a lot recently. Knew nothing about her other than the impression she gives of being polemical. Now I know more, I find her compelling, brave, and very admirable.
Poor old Ann. Believes in nothing but greed. Where is she now?
*ZERO evidence exists that contradicts Darwinism* ! !!
No one believes that whales were once land dwelling animals. The fact that you think this is what evolution argues shows that you, like most of its critics, have never studied it and have no idea what it means.
And yet people argue all the time that all races of human somehow evolved to be exactly the same.
claronium 780
Animal camouflage.
ryan davis
Species are immutable. Evolution is delusion.
True but he who have to give
Paxman can throw very sordid questions but Coulter was very good answering them
...you honestly believe that?
2.23 Ann Coulter: 6 hours a day, 12 days a week lmaooo
Ann Coulter won this debate
@@sugs1191Funny joke kid
@@Killz4Dayz she clearly did btw
@@sugs1191 Stop man your making me Laugh
3:37 lmaooo
I think he liked her
Pac-Man takes a usual kicking and obviously thrives on it
I like Paxo but he did get owned on this.
Yes, and probably because he veered into emotion-based virtual signaling without trying to pick the real bones of an issue.
I have to give it to Ann there. She stood strong on her points and even attacked back. Paxy had to lie to attack her and failed big time.
He is everything that's wrong with the UK.
+preytec You are correct, he is a conservative.
bakersteven3 She's a conservative, He's just a sell out.
+preytec no, she's an extremist nut job who is closer to Hitler, Mussolini than she is British conservatism. In the uk she would be in the BNP. She's also a liar, as she's stated that the uk has " no go zones", he atleast has a brain. All he does here is let her hang herself. But hey, you're going to build a wall!!
she's not British, thank god for that. been on the other side of British conservatism puts me in a good place to be able to say that without delay. I've been to the no-go areas in the UK, not all, but a few and I can say that they are in fact no-areas. Even my partner has had terrible experiences within the UK. I know from 1st hand experience that she's talking the truth, something the BBC has failed to do.
But I think your in the mind set to be brickingitforcanada. good luck with that.
+preytec great you tell me where in London I ca not go and drink a beer. Now be precise, as your previous statement never mentioned a single place!!
Random comment for Google's algorithm.
Functional explanation isn't tautological. But it's still a very entertaining interview.
As always, Ann Coulter, you are a lady. I hope will ignore this Dork in the future...
She's great.
lol, Ann is pissed off! This guy is so close minded. He lives in a very small world. What a shame.
_"And with a warm introduction like you just gave me... no, no liberal hegemony there."_
It seems dear Miss Coulter didn't know that she was dealing with Jeremy Paxman. Not unlike how Ben Shapiro would go on to seriously misjudge Andrew Neil years later.
I'm starting to sense a trend here. Why do Americans appearing on British television all expect to be received with scones and tea? What a bunch of snowflakes.
I suppose Coulter can count herself glad that the BBC didn't just 'hang up' on her like Adam Corolla did.
Andrew Neil
@@domz232
Apologies.
Her reflection on the desk is killing me
Some of her points are interesting as to be fair to her she does often use facts of some sort to back them up, even if completely turning a blind eye to opposing, more relevant ones. But to say there is no evidence for evolution. Come on now.
@Henry Bishop I'm not. I credited her for some of her views. However, saying evolution isn't true is silly, and she underminds herself by doing it.
Can someone explain why the comments are (it seems) ninety percent pro-Coulter but the Newsnight/Paxman video has a fifteen to one 'like' ratio? Can it mean that the 'likes' appreciate Newsnight giving Ann the oppurtunity to speak, or are the figures being switched?
In interesting question, I guess most people seeing this like the intellectual exchange and the exposure of liberal ideology so they like the video in itself. At the same time most of the comments are from people who agree with Ann. I tend to agree with her too although I have noticed on RUclips the videos people watch are in essence suggested to you based on your watch history. This means the comments are more likely to be supportive or distorted one way or another. At the same time the truth is not a matter for democratic vote so the proportions of comments for or against any views are not an indicator of truth or right and wrong. Those are my observations anyway.
@@athought2256 Thanks for taking the time to reply. It is interesting how the same debate can, on the one hand, get agreement with Coulter and yet, on the other hand, get agreement with Paxman. It is often not the argument itself but the truth or bias that viewers begin with. This is so, irrespective of the subject or the contenders.