Darth bizarrely can't recognize that the Heliocentric model is pseudoscience despite knowing all this about the Evolutionary model. It reveals he doesn't really conceptually grasp the points he's talking about regarding the Philosophy of Science, but he has merely memorized a lot of debate points. Either that, or he stubbornly refuses to research the matter entirely. This seems likely given his narcissism combined with the fact he's already publicly taken a stance on it.
The way Darth and Parakeet always do short little drive-by attacks of Flat Earthers, like at the end of this video, combined with the COMPLETE absence of a substantive argument for Heliocentrism or against Flat Earth in the 100s of hours of audio they have online, I'm becoming truly suspicious of them. There's just no way to reconcile the way they're behaving EXACTLY like atheists do... with the fact they, of all people, ought to know better. And they, of all people, ought to be capable of recognizing their own bad behavior. It's not like they're unfamiliar with the tactics they're using in an intellectual sense. And it's not like they're unable to recognize the fallacies they're using to evade, obstruct, etc. It's just impossible to reconcile it with how angry they get atheists for the exact same thing.
@@porkyboy4226 That's arbitrary. This tillian view isn't. With the tillian view we're recognizing that the dependent facts about the universe, indicate the necessity of that which is the source of the dependency. The divine like "ground of all being" or the divine like, absolute.(definitionally upon examination) Not that we depend on our own reasoning for determining that the divine or a creator exists, I don't mean that. If I'm understanding correctly, we've learned from the late Dr. Till that we start with the transcendentals everybody presupposes. And that its a plethora of divine truths! Which constitutes our model of reality FOUNDATION from which we can reason coherently. BUT. It falls apart philosophically when the very first principle of a creator is excluded. Which is what atheists do. There are also problems even for believers in our creator, who haven't understood the fundamentals regarding the wisdom of God,(That was revealed starting with Dr. Till if I'm not mistaken, which is huge.) or the worldview level nature of the basic meaning of God, and the metaphysical necessity that applies powerfully to it. How that can be presented as the primary necessary principle, THEN all the other necessary metaphysical principles of dependency make sense! THEN we can have an internally coherent model of those principles! Or as I said earlier, its the foundation and our most fundamental beliefs we cannot be wrong about in our models of reality.
@@ChessArmyCommander what a load of tosh. Was van till a prophet? Did he get a vision from God to think that way? No! He just came up with a theory that can't be disproven! All it amounts to is saying there has to be one Fundamental absolute and then stick god in! Just circular assertions! I'm just glad that when Oliver Cromwell died all the puritan weirdos fu*ked off to America!
"Reality is reality" is probably the #1 dumbest thing anyone could possibly say in a paradigm-level debate (debate between competing models of reality)
@@PADE1RTW It's not dumb at all to ask what he means by "reality" in a paradigm-level debate between competing models of reality. Which model of reality is appealing to? His own particular non-theistic worldview? Or his interlocutor's Christian worldview? Or what?
@PADE1RTW The word "reality" can describe either an abstraction (a person's subjective model of reality, in which he/she unifies a set of particulars (presuppositions) - or, in other words, a person's worldview. OR It can be used to describe that which is concretely actual. Given that this is a paradigm-level debate, the context would entail that the first option is being used unless specified otherwise. But the way you guys say "reality is reality," when I've asked atheists to clarify what they mean by this, is always a begging-the-question fallacy so far. Because they're using the first use of "reality" the first time, then the second use the second time. So, it translates to "my particular non-theistic worldview is actual / true" when they say "reality is reality" which obviously just begs the question.
Couldn't a designer produce, say, what we now call gravity? Holding by an act of will everything in its place, in a consistent way that can be described mathematically, for as long as it wants to?
I don't see how Darth's criticisms of modern science should apply only to those disciplines that challenge his beliefs, rather than to ALL fields of research. After all, they're all materialistic and subject to error and incomplete knowledge; they all have "dogma"; they are all provisional; and all scientists are fallible human beings.
Don’t the people who accept theistic evolution think God created the mutations? So, that would mean they weren’t arbitrary or chance, they were “designed”. How does that make them wrong?
@@lukasrodriguez5864 I’m assuming that’s what people who accept theistic evolution believe. I’m talking about Darth. He misrepresented their position by saying they believe mutations are random, then said they were wrong.
Yeah, the atheistic presuppositions in play on the part of these skeptics is soo absurd upon examination! They have nothing foundational to stand on, philosophically. Its sad actually, for those skeptics who are at least sincere and say they care about truth. Due to how they are saddled with all the atheistic underlying assumptions.
@@PADE1RTW That's not a rebuttal. Its an appeal to ridicule fallacy. Your ridicule or mockery implies that you have a defeater against tillian theistic philosophy. What is it?
@@ChessArmyCommander when you say this is an appeal to ridicule fallacy, do you actually think that anyone is taking you seriously? first of all you have not presented an argument, so it cant be an appeal to ridicule fallacy dummy, he is just mocking you. Not only did you not make an argument, you just claimed a whole bunch of nonsense like atheists have nothing foundational blah blah which is something you cant possibly defend (again if you can, please present an argument). so yeah, that was a big fail on your part
![Wolfram Physics Project: Working Session Wednesday, May 6, 2020 [Finding Black Hole Structures]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qdVSOLL1mls/mqdefault.jpg)
Darth was right, I’m finally seeing the truth…
I bet that adam went straight to the biology lab and handed his notice in😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
That poor man "Darth" is extremely mentally ill.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT IOS IS IN THIS CONTEXT OF EVOLUTION??? YOU DONT KNOW???
Is anyone else allowed to talk for more than 2 seconds?
Darth bizarrely can't recognize that the Heliocentric model is pseudoscience despite knowing all this about the Evolutionary model. It reveals he doesn't really conceptually grasp the points he's talking about regarding the Philosophy of Science, but he has merely memorized a lot of debate points.
Either that, or he stubbornly refuses to research the matter entirely. This seems likely given his narcissism combined with the fact he's already publicly taken a stance on it.
"Heuriistic"?
The way Darth and Parakeet always do short little drive-by attacks of Flat Earthers, like at the end of this video, combined with the COMPLETE absence of a substantive argument for Heliocentrism or against Flat Earth in the 100s of hours of audio they have online, I'm becoming truly suspicious of them.
There's just no way to reconcile the way they're behaving EXACTLY like atheists do... with the fact they, of all people, ought to know better. And they, of all people, ought to be capable of recognizing their own bad behavior.
It's not like they're unfamiliar with the tactics they're using in an intellectual sense. And it's not like they're unable to recognize the fallacies they're using to evade, obstruct, etc.
It's just impossible to reconcile it with how angry they get atheists for the exact same thing.
Whats the probability of a god appearing out of nothing?
Less than basic life coming from something ffs!!
God is eternal. Doesn't "come from" or "appear out of" anything, since God is unconditionally non-contingent and self-contained.
@@lightbeforethetunnel then the universe is eternal and no god needed!
@@porkyboy4226 That's arbitrary. This tillian view isn't. With the tillian view we're recognizing that the dependent facts about the universe, indicate the necessity of that which is the source of the dependency. The divine like "ground of all being" or the divine like, absolute.(definitionally upon examination)
Not that we depend on our own reasoning for determining that the divine or a creator exists, I don't mean that. If I'm understanding correctly, we've learned from the late Dr. Till that we start with the transcendentals everybody presupposes. And that its a plethora of divine truths! Which constitutes our model of reality FOUNDATION from which we can reason coherently. BUT. It falls apart philosophically when the very first principle of a creator is excluded. Which is what atheists do.
There are also problems even for believers in our creator, who haven't understood the fundamentals regarding the wisdom of God,(That was revealed starting with Dr. Till if I'm not mistaken, which is huge.) or the worldview level nature of the basic meaning of God, and the metaphysical necessity that applies powerfully to it. How that can be presented as the primary necessary principle, THEN all the other necessary metaphysical principles of dependency make sense! THEN we can have an internally coherent model of those principles! Or as I said earlier, its the foundation and our most fundamental beliefs we cannot be wrong about in our models of reality.
@@ChessArmyCommander what a load of tosh. Was van till a prophet? Did he get a vision from God to think that way? No! He just came up with a theory that can't be disproven! All it amounts to is saying there has to be one Fundamental absolute and then stick god in! Just circular assertions! I'm just glad that when Oliver Cromwell died all the puritan weirdos fu*ked off to America!
@@lightbeforethetunnel
Before god created everything what was he doing? What was his point ?
DD is hitting that copium pretty hard here.
"Reality is reality" is probably the #1 dumbest thing anyone could possibly say in a paradigm-level debate (debate between competing models of reality)
What’s dumber is saying “reality, what’s that?”
@@PADE1RTW It's not dumb at all to ask what he means by "reality" in a paradigm-level debate between competing models of reality. Which model of reality is appealing to? His own particular non-theistic worldview? Or his interlocutor's Christian worldview? Or what?
@@lightbeforethetunnel reality isn’t a model. You are confusing ontology and epistemology.
Or the earth is flat.
@PADE1RTW The word "reality" can describe either an abstraction (a person's subjective model of reality, in which he/she unifies a set of particulars (presuppositions) - or, in other words, a person's worldview.
OR
It can be used to describe that which is concretely actual.
Given that this is a paradigm-level debate, the context would entail that the first option is being used unless specified otherwise.
But the way you guys say "reality is reality," when I've asked atheists to clarify what they mean by this, is always a begging-the-question fallacy so far. Because they're using the first use of "reality" the first time, then the second use the second time.
So, it translates to "my particular non-theistic worldview is actual / true" when they say "reality is reality" which obviously just begs the question.
I'm a christian but doesn't new information come by the A C G T's reconfiguring?
Couldn't a designer produce, say, what we now call gravity? Holding by an act of will everything in its place, in a consistent way that can be described mathematically, for as long as it wants to?
On which server was this debate?
Politics
I don't see how Darth's criticisms of modern science should apply only to those disciplines that challenge his beliefs, rather than to ALL fields of research. After all, they're all materialistic and subject to error and incomplete knowledge; they all have "dogma"; they are all provisional; and all scientists are fallible human beings.
Don’t the people who accept theistic evolution think God created the mutations? So, that would mean they weren’t arbitrary or chance, they were “designed”. How does that make them wrong?
Is only wrong when you remove God out of the equation
@@lukasrodriguez5864 I’m assuming that’s what people who accept theistic evolution believe. I’m talking about Darth. He misrepresented their position by saying they believe mutations are random, then said they were wrong.
@@donnamurphy8551 he does it because that's his script, he needs to find something to disagree to exploit it.
Does darth actually understand anything??
Is Darth even capable of understanding anything!?
Darth... more stupid than soup
Where’s Theresa?
I came here to say the same thing but you beat me to it. Lol
Signature of the cell has been thoroughly debunked by chemists such as Stephen Fletcher.
Yet another fail buddy
Cope and seethe
Lol, what a maroon.
Yeah, the atheistic presuppositions in play on the part of these skeptics is soo absurd upon examination! They have nothing foundational to stand on, philosophically. Its sad actually, for those skeptics who are at least sincere and say they care about truth. Due to how they are saddled with all the atheistic underlying assumptions.
@@ChessArmyCommander Maroon parroting maroon
@@PADE1RTW That's not a rebuttal. Its an appeal to ridicule fallacy. Your ridicule or mockery implies that you have a defeater against tillian theistic philosophy. What is it?
@@ChessArmyCommander okay what are my atheistic presuppositions and why do I need to identify what is foundational?
@@ChessArmyCommander when you say this is an appeal to ridicule fallacy, do you actually think that anyone is taking you seriously? first of all you have not presented an argument, so it cant be an appeal to ridicule fallacy dummy, he is just mocking you. Not only did you not make an argument, you just claimed a whole bunch of nonsense like atheists have nothing foundational blah blah which is something you cant possibly defend (again if you can, please present an argument). so yeah, that was a big fail on your part