Actually, I would tag most of youtube as rants/self gratification, wether it agrees with my standpoint or not. If I have to make a case for evolution I most certainly would never use youtube.
Your premise is defective. The arguments presented are either convincing or unconvincing.
Are either cogent or fallacious. The manner of transmission of these arguments be it via written word, tv, telephone, telegraph, email, snail-mail, fax or you tube is completely irrelevant. Neither does the person appearing on the youtube become less of a scientist just because he uses the youtube to get his point across.
Why do you assume all scientists who do not believe in ID are atheists? Most scientists are not, just like most of humanity is not. Many scientists are in fact devout Christians, just like the ones who postulated evolution in the first place.
Didn't say they al were. Sorry I gave the impression. However, please note that a believer in God is a believer in an ID. They are one and the same.
When I have to compare logic backed up by data with logic without data I go for the one with data. And no, I am not going to repeat Simon39759's work in refuting your video's, he did so well enough, proving that their logic is actually quite refutable.
all good and well. However,m you are missing te point. The point is that some truths need no extensive experimentation or documentation, Such truths are arrived at with pure logic.
If an idea is inherently flawed than experiments flowing from that idea should show these flaws. Newtons laws are flawed, and experiments proved this. The theories before plate tectonics were flawed, experiments showed this. Dalton's original theory of atoms was flawed.. etc. In each case the theory was discarded or updated. I'll happily admit that Darwin's original theory was far from perfect, and has been updated with new knowledge. But no evidence is known that shows that evolution does not take place or has unexplainable gaps.
Well, as you know that point is debatable and is debated often between evolutionists and creationists. I personally don't put my trust in theories that say one thing one moment and then turn around and come u with another idea the next. It weakens credibility and smacks of quackery.
When I was a kid I was taught Neanderthals were veritably apelike and wee not part of the human raced. I accepted that as fact and would have argued my head off with anyone who contradicted it. This was later buttressed by a DNA study which conclusively proved that Human DNA and Neanderthal DNA are different abd that no interbreeding could take place. Then Suddenly we have the neanderthals now with human appearance, the apelike hunch is gone, humans have interbred, and they too are homo sapiens Neanderthals. So much foir my certainty. This fiasco is repeated over and over ad nauseum. Others want to go along with this little game? Ok by me. But I prefer not to.
I was using your video's as the subject of discussion. While you post them, edge, 154 and DH all reference them from time to time.
Was unaware of that. But it';s not the videos as medium of communication per se but the arguments presented that are important.
