The Question: Are humans a product of evolution? The Answer: MacroevolutionisnottruebutMicroevolutionistrueAlsoevolutiondoesn'tallowforyoutohaveasenseofmoralityAlsoHitlerwasanatheistalsoifwecamefrommonkeyswhyaretherestillmonkeysAlsoevolutiononlydeletesinformationnotaddsAlsosubjectivemoralityisevil I tuned out after 7 minutes, the guy was just repeating basically every vaguely related apologetic position he could think of and threw them together, never truly answering the original question.
@John Smith No, he doesn't believe in what you're projecting. If you paid enough attention, you would've heard him argue why it's irrational to think there's no creator of the universe.
Me: I could do street epistemology. Me: *Watches this video* Superman guy: "We should remove macro evolution from our school textbooks because we have never observed a monkey actually turning into a human being" Me: eeeehhhhh...o...kay? Superman guy: "If macro evolution is real then we should have horses that can fly by now" Me: ....... *flat-line noise*
The horses example was perfect to show that he had NO idea what he was talking about lol! "How long have we had horses now 40-50 years?". Evolution is absurd to him because he thinks it happen over a couple thousand years
He has zero grasp on evolution. We can see evolution happening now in bacteria and even in animals. This guy is filled with so much creationist nonsense it's uncanny.
@@JD-fx1np What we have to remember here is that, every time we present evidence of observing evolution, they will dismiss it as being "merely" adaptation/variation/microevolution. Never mind that macroevolution and microevolution are actually the same thing, just on a different timescale.
"This was a good dialogue" he says several times. He needs to look up the definition of the word, this was a gish-galloping, brow-beating monologue. UGH, and at the end, he instagrams or whatever, STILL not letting the atheist get a single word in edgewise.
Personally I think you need to be more assertive in your question structure so that people like this are forced to examine their logic rather than going on a 20 min rant.
It's a dirty "debate" technique which is the equivalent of throwing sand in your opponent's eyes (even though Reid is clearly not being an opponent). Bring up a million points which may or may not be related, talk too quickly for the other person to respond, and ask obvious affirmative questions. In this way he can feel like he landed points without ever giving a chance for the other person to comment or ask him to clarify. He's avoided any burden of proof while also feeling like he's winning because he gets the other person to say "yes" to an inane, unrelated question. If you're ever asked a question that starts with "wouldn't you agree...", always feel confident saying "before I answer that, let's examine some of the points you made."
@@Rhewin Exactly. It’s known as Gish Galloping and was named after Duane Gish a famous Christian apologist who employed the strategy often in his debates.
Kudos? I'm sorry but this was one of the WORST "street epistemology" I've EVER heard - as there was NONE. Virtually ZERO pushback, he just sat there and let the guy steam roll him completely. I guarantee the guy left thinking "yep, I owned his ass" because he DID own his ass. What was the point of this anyway, to let a theist get a video on this channel that makes him look great and the host like a moron? Painful to listen to but even more painful that there was ZERO pushback. I'd almost say shameful.
someone decided to try arguing this with me last night. kept saying it's never been demonstrated that any species has turned into another, then said there's never been a cat turn into a bat. couldn't take him seriously at all, but this person has claimed pizzagate was a thing.
@@mantistoboggan5171 what species have turned into another species? And I don't know if pizzagate was real but it might've been, i mean Epstein owned a fucking island where big politicians like Bill Clinton went to have sex with minors...
Omg perfectly said i thought i was being sensitive, the part wemhere he said but anyways put that aside like hes setting a trap eg gotcha trap im right ur wrong ect lols...im so triggered by fast arrogant talkers like this now lols #let me explain to u like ur a five ur ols lolsjokesect 99-91% its int the nineties isnt better then 50%right lols his car analogy is bs lols
"man was made from dust" so why do we still have dust. these creationists can't even see they are making stuff up in their heads, "i am strong so why don't i just take what i want" and he can't even figure why he behaves socially, he might as well say "it's so good we have a god cos i really want to rape murder and steal stuff", this guys got it so bad he's practically psychotic.
Hi, Reid. I'm a fan of what you do, but this talk seemed like a waste of time. Why did you offer and then tell him your confidence level at the beginning? It seemed very unusual when I saw that, and I think it immediately set you up as an opponent, rather than an interlocutor, in his mind. My understanding of Street Epistemology is that it is designed to make people think about the foundations of their beliefs. Both during the conversation, and after they walk away. I think Daniel's only thought, during or after, was winning a debate with an evolutionist. What are your thoughts about this talk?
I think he was trying something new to measure the result. Remember, street epistemology is also experimentation. We learned something important by this example, don't you think?
@@turboguppy3748 don't think it worked for this guy as he's not an honest actor. I would probably have interrupted him a few times because not answering the question. Or at the end of one mini rant, would've asked "That's interesting but I'm not sure how it answers the question of..." repeat question"
Nathan, I agree with what you said. I too felt unusual when he gave his own confidence level in there. It just turned him into an opponent in this discussion. Better to give your thoughts on the matter after the talk. And the way I see it Reid kind of lost his focus on his goal here. Instead of focusing on finding this guy's methods, he seemed to be just debating this guy. If I were him, I too would lose focus because of that guy too.
He concocted a bogus etymology either out of ignorance, or as a way to look super well-read on the topic. 'Universe' is not derived from 'uni'+'verse', and if he cared whether what he believed was true or not he would have done at least that much research.
This guy totally has a misconception of the meaning of "Survival of the Fittest." It has to do with the species most fit for the environment being the species that survives... not the 1 individual who goes to the gym and is considered... a fit dude, bro.
I really think that there’s no point talking to some people. This is a case in point. If this guy changes his mind, it’ll take years for him to give up his beliefs.
Very much disagree! So what if it takes him years, even decades? The success of the talk should not be based on the answeres given at that moment, these things take time and has to be thought about. No person wants to admit loss, especially on camera.. this guy is probably not Thinking about it as he didn't really listen, but maybe there is hope :p
@@ultimategamer2669 I’ve actually come to agree with this point, or at least come to appreciate the importance of slow, gradual change. (Funnily enough, at a meta-level, I might have proved my previous self wrong with this very comment!)
The bad part here was that this wasn't really SE. It was just a soap box for this guy. None of the hundreds of claims he made were challenged at all. We never got to the meat of the typical SE conversation
Dunning kruger, as well as being so far up his own ass that he think's he's doing everyone a service as a messenger of god. Very condescending and drives his own monologue.
There's no way a fact could swim upstream to him against that torrent of bullshit, which is the point. The "arguments" are always pretext. He's religious; that's where the issue begins and ends. Everything in between is a farce.
Exactly. As PineCreek Doug and others often say, these aren't the reasons they believe. They already believe. These are actually the ways they convince themselves they aren't stupid.
This guy thanked you for having a proper dialogue, but he just preached at you the whole time. If you ever meet again, I hope he is more willing to have a two-way conversation.
And he seems sure that an outwardly aggressive strategy of individual behavior towards other organisms would necessarily increase one's likelihood of producing gene copies, apparently across any mix of environments and mix of other organism types and forms. Some species existing today ARE more aggressive, but many others are not, with each relatively well-suited, in many different ways, to the kinds of environments they tend to be born into.
What kills me is people with 0 knowledge of what they are talking about feel they know everything about said subject. The dude never ever read even a conclusion of a single article about Evolution.
Daniel’s interpretation of “survival of the fittest” isn’t the way biologists use it. It is the way many theists prefer to interpret it. Amusing that Daniel called this a conversation.
Why did this guy want to have a conversation? If he has to build so many layers of armor to protect his belief he might as well just stay in his fortress of solitude
This was interesting. When he started asking questions, I think it would have been better to ask him what he would need to change his mind instead of giving him answers he probably already had pre-planned answers for what he was expecting. He was asking questions for a different reason than you. He kind of hijacked the conversation with presuppositions rather than exploring the conclusion to which he came.
This interviewee was able to successfully knock the interviewer out of the socratic questioning mode, may be with mere rhetoric and illogical arguments alone.
"Information cannot randomly created", then goes to mentioning software code. Here's a fun info: there are evolution experiments with software, i.e. Code modifying itself randomly and creating new functions. Google that, it's real interesting.
@@sevensmith460 Humans. But still , it proves that the initial code can mutate itself and create new code. This can be called something like "theistic evolution", where God created an initial , primitive universe along with its natural laws, then the world kept developing from it. This ideology is accepted in religions like hinduism and budhism.
Gosh, Daniel has no idea what it means to think. No the dino tissue was not fresh tissue. Daniel seems to be a confused christian. He seems dangerous too! "Why should I care?" This is example of christianity run amok. Dangerous Dan. Thanks for the excellent interviews.
The indoctrination was so thick, it was suffocating. Seeing him regurgitate all of those apologetics actually made me a little sick as well as sad inside.
Elijah Gavin atheists are far more indoctrinated than Religious people and they are always quoting something said by another person not an original thought.. And then they think they are entitled to criticize religious people for doing what they themselves do, hypocrites..
The Hidden Passenger it’s ok to quote others support your argument, the only trouble is whether or not the information you’re citing is reliable. Which tends to be more reliable; the results from a scientific experiment that can be replicated over and over again, or a verse from a book from a prescientific era thousands of years ago that talks about virgin births, talking snakes, and invisible creators?
@@elijahgavin6706 you want to talk about reliable? Lol, the Bible is the most reliable book in the history of humanity! It has affected every single department of human activity! If you think there is no science in the Bible you are ignorant of it, and if you think the supernatural does not exist then explain what conciousness is , or the spirit! If you conclude this things are supernatural therefore the supernatural does exist and virgin births, talking snakes and the creator of all things is not only plausible but in fact exist...
I have to commend Reid on his respect and patience during this exchange. I also like how he is not condescending nor arrogant. He displays a deep respect for the humanity of the person in the chair. It's a shame we all do not follow his example. Thanks, Reid, for your example.
Daniel, The "fittest" doesn't actually mean "physically fit". "Fittest" in evolution refers to "able to best adapt". So the survival of the fittest is not the survival of the strongest, but of that which is able to best adapt to the environment. In a social environment, we select for those who are best fitted to play a part in society. So having a set of morals and caring for other humans is, in fact, being "the fittest". Being moral and socially collaborative will benefit you much more than being a brute who can temporarily overpower a weaker human for a short gain.
I think Daniel, on the most part, just assumed what your position was without even really asking. Sounded just like a William Lane Craig gish gallop. More of a sermon than a discussion. He made assertions about the fossil record without offering any evidence other than anecdotal. A lot of his arguments boiled down to "look at the trees" Amazing. Unfortunately, I think Daniel will walk away from this coversation thinking that he has given you something to think about.
I would love to see a video where you rewatch these interactions and give us a play by play of what you're thinking at that moment, things you had to keep inside for the sake of moving the conversation forward. I'd love to know what was going through your mind as this guy's spoke every cliche and fallacy in the book
As someone with both biology and chemistry degrees, im 2 mins in and this is hard to watch. Thank you for doing this because I would of had to stop him at "kinds", Im glad patient people like you exist.
Poor guy. You should interrupt every now and then and get him back on track. If you stick on a specific topic, it's easier to break down his confidence.
I soon as I heard the terms “macro” and “micro” evolution I knew I was wasting my time listening to this guy. He claims to be 100% confident humans aren’t a product of evolution yet he doesn’t even know what evolution actually is...
I graduated with a biology degree in the mid 90’s, so it was a while ago. I don’t t ever remember hearing the terms micro/macro. I taught biology for 14 years. Never used those terms. There was only evolution....or evolution with a time scale that you cannot wrap your brain around. In other words, the only difference between what he calls micro and macro is time.
@@deanlowdon8381 I figured an evangelical must have made them up now that “micro” evolution (as they put it) HAS been observed and confirmed. One more god gap closed, i suppose so they have to find more.
The first thing I like about this video is the affability of it. Neither party gets angry or offended. The second thing I like is that the gentleman on the right displays a very large number of fallacious arguments, all of which the gentleman on the left rebuts. I was listing them at one point, but I gave up. To use an example he makes claims about the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection that the theory does not claim. Repeatedly he says "evolutionists [sic] claim that something comes from nothing (referring to the theory of the big bang, which in itself doesn't say "something" comes from "nothing" either)" and the man on the left gently rebukes that claim, by pointing out that Evolution by Natural Selection is only a theory pertaining to the origin of life. However, the man on the right ignores that information and says the same thing at least two other times; where-upon the man on the left again refutes it in the same way. What this video demonstrates is similar to my own experience with apologists; that their claim of certainty of the existence of a god rests on fallacious arguments. That is the *best* they can come up with. For me, logic dictates that the creator of the universe *cannot* be supported by bad arguments. Any object or functional system in the real world is supported by good evidence. Just another interesting moment (of many) is when the man on the right tries to show a natural evolution was 'designed' by asking if one would assume cars were designed or evolved by chance. Now, we *know* cars are designed, so the solution to the question is in the question itself - another fallacious argument. I try to watch every apologist video I can by *renowned* apologists in hope that I may hear a good argument to suggest it may be possible that there is a god. I am still waiting to hear one. However, I have had heard many good counter-arguments to the existence of a god and none of them have been given an answer. If there is a new one that has been created in the last five years, I would like to hear it. :) Empathising with the gentleman on the right, I do feel some sorrow that his certainty is not actually certainty, but a game of bait and switch. There are three possibilities here. One is that he will never notice. The second is that he will, and it may lead him to pain, but he eventually overcomes the pain and finds joy in his understanding. The third is that he will notice, be subjected to terrible pain and not overcome it. I hope that the third will never happen to him.
Its sad to me how at the end this guy acts as though he is having a cordial debate/discussion to his followers, but he seemed to be preaching quite a bit and talked past Reid.
Wow... Great patience. Love how calm you stayed in that storm's eye. I don't know if he was listening as much as waiting to speak. I hate how he kept saying, "I'll leave you with this", as to say, I have answers you never thought of. It behoves me how smart people can defy logic and are so fearful to disprove theories they hold. So much to pick apart in this guy's logic or lack thereof.
So much to counter here, but I would have challenged him on a fundamental misunderstanding of the word “fittest”. It does not mean strongest. It means fittest for purpose.
I think giving your belief skewed his expectations of the conversation. He went a bit into debate mode and wanted you to present your arguments, which I dont think is productive for SE. I think at the end of a conversation would be best to reveal beliefs and staying neutral during the conversation leads to the most honest and reflective moments. Although this guy may have spun into talking about the big bang and the universe no matter what, hard to say.
His basketball analogy actually makes sense. Morality requires an agreement between parties on what is the goal or standard, in order to have something that is objectively right or wrong.
Reid, you did well with a guy who unexpectedly regurgitated the entire Kent Hovind script at double speed. In hindsight, it would have worked well to pull him out of that script but I know it was a Gish Gallop at double speed as well. Tough to even get a word in edgewise, let alone address each of the fallacies.
"Why should I care about your well being? I can steal a thousand dollars and it would benefit me and my family." The answer to this is really easy. For that value to be universally true, it would still have to work out fine if people steal from your family too, as that's the consequence of you stealing from others no rules applied. In order to survive by being stolen from, you'd have to do it yourself. Considering most people do not want to live in a world of constant fear of being stolen from or killed around every corner, they establish rules that everyone has to comply to if they don't want to be punished by the majority in order to combat such a rogue society that most people don't want to live in from happening. We've fought wars over many of these values to establish this over a long period of time, often _against_ the values of religion. It's a consensus decision based on something that is (objectively) true about most of us. If you just threw thousands of murder hungry psychopaths on an isolated planet, you'd likely have exactly this happen. But that's not the slate most people are born with. Most of us want to get along with others, because it benefits us and makes us feel better. It's the preference of a social species like we are to generally feel safe around others of our species.
Dude should google "dialogue". ^^ It's amazing how he took the time to learn all of these talking points well enough to vomit them out 200 miles/hour without pause, but apparently not to actually truly understand a single one of them.
You are, e.g., caring, because caring traits helped the caring genes and instincts to spread by caring for your offspring and help them survive instead of e.g. eating them because "survival of the fittes".
You might want to learn how street epistemology works. The point isn't to present counterarguments, its to get people to examine their beliefs and the reasons they hold them, to ensure they have good reasons. This guy clearly didn't want to do that and every time Reid tried to probe his reasons, he just blasted off with something unrelated
universe (n.) 1580s, "the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things," from Old French univers (12c.), from Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of neuter of adjective universus "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one," from unus "one" (from PIE root *oi-no- "one, unique") + versus, past participle of vertere "to turn, turn back, be turned; convert, transform, translate; be changed" (from PIE root *wer- (2) "to turn, bend").
@@Boomkop3 it's a copy paste from the etymology of the word "universe" that Reid's guests got totally wrong. It doesn't come from the English "verse". It comes plainly from Latin and means literally "turn into one"
Before putting this fellow down, we ought to recall that this isn't about what we believe but rather the methodology we use to get there. There are those who scorn flat-earthers and yet themselves believe in a risen saviour. Not a single one of us is immune to flawed reasoning, faulty thinking, and the erroneous beliefs that rise from them. We should be mindful of why these conversations are important in helping each of us become better thinkers.
Daniel appears to be someone that you'd have to constantly keep reminding "I'm not asking you what you think, but why", as shown in this interview. It'd be a challenge.
This guy was a great regurgitator of Prager U-isms and Hovindisms. Wonderful at making assertions about things he clearly has no real knowledge about and has also never contemplated outside of the context of the typical ID/creationist rhetoric echo chamber. He checked all the creationist and ID pseudoscience boxes in a wild gush with not much hope of anyone reaching him because he simply seemed not to hear anything that might call his worldview into question. Fascinating and a bit worrying.
He didn't let you talk for the most and yet He says it was a good conversation. I hope he sees this comment and reflect about it. This wasn't a conversation, this was a one way conversation
that's the definition of a good conversation for some people "hey, thanks for letting me waste your time by preaching at you, great guys aren't we" "the definition of a bore is someone who talks about themselves when you want to talk about yourself" oscar wilde.
Is this a new approach wherein you start by conceding the burden of proof and then endure regurgitated, patronizing, pointless questions for 20 minutes? For your sake, I hope not.
ncooty, in this case, I think they both had the burden of proof. they both revealed their confidence level on the topic before the whole questioning process began. If Ried wanted to keep the burden of proof on the side of his IL he should have waited till the end to reveal his position on the subject or maintained neutrality throughout
@John Caleb Kwawoo: I generally agree, which is part of my point. It's not clear to me why this approach would be preferable. Additionally, Reid seemed to accept the burden of proof even for some of the IL's assertions of false dichotomies and arguments from ignorance. (E.g., If you can't explain X, then God.) That said, the IL was all over the map. Allowing the IL to structure the conversation produced (i) no cogent structure and (ii) the IL's apparent impression that he had a fruitful discussion in which he ably advocated for his beliefs. All of that seems antithetical to the point. I heard virtually nothing explicit about the IL's epistemic perspective (though it's easy to discern it)... and certainly saw no hint of progress or reflection on that front.
@Aaron A Aaronson: See previous reply. Why put himself in the position of advocacy? SE ought not be a remedial biology lesson. The IL gets _nothing_ from that, as evidenced here.
@@Boomkop3 Except that his votes are very likely informed by his ridiculous belief structure. You need look no farther than America's current political status for an example.
Believes in microevolution because we can see it, does not believe in macroevolution because we can not see it. Macroevolution is just the compound effect of microevolution. Get me a chess board and a sack of rice and I will explain what compound means if that is the bit he is having a problem with.
This guy is every apologist played at 2.5x speed. It's terrifying.
Why the f*** would you do that to yourself LOL
Chet Play it at half speed and you can actually keep up with him. It’s still all nonsense though... 😂
Clear example of a Gish Gallop.
Hahahah precisely!
"Right?"
It's a bird. It's a plane. It's SUPER-Apologist!
But were the plane and bird designed by God since they share similarities? 😂
He burns the neurons of its interlocutors by its flow of words, I think it is a super power
did the bird evolve into a plane? was the arrival time a bzillion years after departure, was this a genetically modified horse fly?
Super Apologist Daniel Wright.
It's a bird, it's a plane, it's a race horse!
The Question: Are humans a product of evolution?
The Answer: MacroevolutionisnottruebutMicroevolutionistrueAlsoevolutiondoesn'tallowforyoutohaveasenseofmoralityAlsoHitlerwasanatheistalsoifwecamefrommonkeyswhyaretherestillmonkeysAlsoevolutiononlydeletesinformationnotaddsAlsosubjectivemoralityisevil
I tuned out after 7 minutes, the guy was just repeating basically every vaguely related apologetic position he could think of and threw them together, never truly answering the original question.
:)
What was the basketball part about?
@@ericmishima
Your guess is probably as good as his.
@@ericmishima basketballs evolved from this guys head.
@John Smith No, he doesn't believe in what you're projecting. If you paid enough attention, you would've heard him argue why it's irrational to think there's no creator of the universe.
Damn, where's my creationist bingo card, I think I would have won the jackpot playing with this guy.
Several times over.
@@HTYM Within 30 seconds
Haaaaaaa.... indeed
I would consider it as cheating ... This is not low hanging fruit this guy throws fruit in Your face and warns about it :D
goto hell
Nah, I prefer to play bingo with people that are a little bit less predictable, you know... To leave a bit of suspense and intrigue!
Me: I could do street epistemology.
Me: *Watches this video*
Superman guy: "We should remove macro evolution from our school textbooks because we have never observed a monkey actually turning into a human being"
Me: eeeehhhhh...o...kay?
Superman guy: "If macro evolution is real then we should have horses that can fly by now"
Me: ....... *flat-line noise*
The horses example was perfect to show that he had NO idea what he was talking about lol! "How long have we had horses now 40-50 years?". Evolution is absurd to him because he thinks it happen over a couple thousand years
He has zero grasp on evolution. We can see evolution happening now in bacteria and even in animals. This guy is filled with so much creationist nonsense it's uncanny.
This is a beautiful description.
I was having THOSE SAME THOUGHTS while watching this!
@@JD-fx1np What we have to remember here is that, every time we present evidence of observing evolution, they will dismiss it as being "merely" adaptation/variation/microevolution. Never mind that macroevolution and microevolution are actually the same thing, just on a different timescale.
He thinks it was a discussion or argument. It was a freaking monologue.
Just put him on a podium and play some new age religious music
"This was a good dialogue" he says several times. He needs to look up the definition of the word, this was a gish-galloping, brow-beating monologue.
UGH, and at the end, he instagrams or whatever, STILL not letting the atheist get a single word in edgewise.
Personally I think you need to be more assertive in your question structure so that people like this are forced to examine their logic rather than going on a 20 min rant.
Seconded. This is not a conversation, it's a boring monologue on speed.
Wow, I'm only 2 minutes in. This bro here is on fire. He's arguing against statements Reid didn't even make yet.
It's a dirty "debate" technique which is the equivalent of throwing sand in your opponent's eyes (even though Reid is clearly not being an opponent). Bring up a million points which may or may not be related, talk too quickly for the other person to respond, and ask obvious affirmative questions. In this way he can feel like he landed points without ever giving a chance for the other person to comment or ask him to clarify. He's avoided any burden of proof while also feeling like he's winning because he gets the other person to say "yes" to an inane, unrelated question. If you're ever asked a question that starts with "wouldn't you agree...", always feel confident saying "before I answer that, let's examine some of the points you made."
@@Rhewin Exactly. It’s known as Gish Galloping and was named after Duane Gish a famous Christian apologist who employed the strategy often in his debates.
D'Souza Jr.?
Dudes got the complete works of kent hovind memorized and on standby. Wonder if he's open to new information? Haha jk
I am what you got for new information
Only if that new info is against science's facts
@@honesty1234 that our species of man is older than what we previously had evidence to suggest by about 100,000 yrs.
I'd write that same post... Without the "jk"
Reid, if you could bottle your patience and sell it, you'd be an overnight billionaire. Kudos!
Kudos? I'm sorry but this was one of the WORST "street epistemology" I've EVER heard - as there was NONE. Virtually ZERO pushback, he just sat there and let the guy steam roll him completely. I guarantee the guy left thinking "yep, I owned his ass" because he DID own his ass. What was the point of this anyway, to let a theist get a video on this channel that makes him look great and the host like a moron?
Painful to listen to but even more painful that there was ZERO pushback. I'd almost say shameful.
epistemology isn’t supposed to own people…
"We've been racing horses for forty or fifty years." Somebody, please, give this man a library card.
Thanks. I came here to say the same thing. Geez.
@@Nickelini That makes his point more valid though, no flying horses.
@@simewn Why in the world do horses need to fly? Unless they're unicorns...
@@wiputjat I was sarcastic..
Simos haha that’s funny
I want Aron-ra to give this guy an intellectual uppercut
and suboor also
I would rather have Matt Dillahunty
@@wtfvladi Me too. I personally don't think Aron-ra is very impressive. I like him, I just don't think he's a very good debater.
aron has an online degree at 60 years old
@@wtfvladi matt is a fool
Wow this guy is so arrogant and so not into listening to anything but himself.
sorry if i'm harsh Daniel, please consider working on actual listening skills for the future, you might learn a lot.
Lol, you are doing the exact same thing you are criticizing him for!
someone decided to try arguing this with me last night.
kept saying it's never been demonstrated that any species has turned into another, then said there's never been a cat turn into a bat. couldn't take him seriously at all, but this person has claimed pizzagate was a thing.
@@mantistoboggan5171 what species have turned into another species?
And I don't know if pizzagate was real but it might've been, i mean Epstein owned a fucking island where big politicians like Bill Clinton went to have sex with minors...
Omg perfectly said i thought i was being sensitive, the part wemhere he said but anyways put that aside like hes setting a trap eg gotcha trap im right ur wrong ect lols...im so triggered by fast arrogant talkers like this now lols #let me explain to u like ur a five ur ols lolsjokesect 99-91% its int the nineties isnt better then 50%right lols his car analogy is bs lols
the moment he said the we don't have flying horses with 40 years of breeding, i knew that he does not know about what evolution is.
"man was made from dust" so why do we still have dust. these creationists can't even see they are making stuff up in their heads, "i am strong so why don't i just take what i want" and he can't even figure why he behaves socially, he might as well say "it's so good we have a god cos i really want to rape murder and steal stuff", this guys got it so bad he's practically psychotic.
Hi, Reid. I'm a fan of what you do, but this talk seemed like a waste of time. Why did you offer and then tell him your confidence level at the beginning? It seemed very unusual when I saw that, and I think it immediately set you up as an opponent, rather than an interlocutor, in his mind.
My understanding of Street Epistemology is that it is designed to make people think about the foundations of their beliefs. Both during the conversation, and after they walk away. I think Daniel's only thought, during or after, was winning a debate with an evolutionist.
What are your thoughts about this talk?
I think he was trying something new to measure the result. Remember, street epistemology is also experimentation. We learned something important by this example, don't you think?
@@turboguppy3748 I think so. I wonder what Reid thinks.
@@turboguppy3748 don't think it worked for this guy as he's not an honest actor. I would probably have interrupted him a few times because not answering the question. Or at the end of one mini rant, would've asked "That's interesting but I'm not sure how it answers the question of..." repeat question"
@@prigg88 You really don't think he's an honest actor? He seemed sincere to me. He seemed like he could convince himself of anything he wanted to.
Nathan, I agree with what you said. I too felt unusual when he gave his own confidence level in there. It just turned him into an opponent in this discussion. Better to give your thoughts on the matter after the talk. And the way I see it Reid kind of lost his focus on his goal here. Instead of focusing on finding this guy's methods, he seemed to be just debating this guy. If I were him, I too would lose focus because of that guy too.
19:58
“I admire your faith.”
This line is really the cherry on top of the whole interview.
This guy obviously was not designed intelligently.
"We live in a single spoken sentence." WOW! SO PROFOUND!
Except wait... We made up words and their definitions, so it means nothing.
He concocted a bogus etymology either out of ignorance, or as a way to look super well-read on the topic. 'Universe' is not derived from 'uni'+'verse', and if he cared whether what he believed was true or not he would have done at least that much research.
@@funstuff2006 haha, you're obviously right. I don't know if that occurred to me a year ago.
This guy totally has a misconception of the meaning of "Survival of the Fittest."
It has to do with the species most fit for the environment being the species that survives... not the 1 individual who goes to the gym and is considered... a fit dude, bro.
This was actually painful to watch
I really think that there’s no point talking to some people. This is a case in point. If this guy changes his mind, it’ll take years for him to give up his beliefs.
Very much disagree! So what if it takes him years, even decades? The success of the talk should not be based on the answeres given at that moment, these things take time and has to be thought about. No person wants to admit loss, especially on camera.. this guy is probably not Thinking about it as he didn't really listen, but maybe there is hope :p
But it might change the minds of the people watching the conversation.
@@ultimategamer2669 I’ve actually come to agree with this point, or at least come to appreciate the importance of slow, gradual change. (Funnily enough, at a meta-level, I might have proved my previous self wrong with this very comment!)
The bad part here was that this wasn't really SE. It was just a soap box for this guy. None of the hundreds of claims he made were challenged at all. We never got to the meat of the typical SE conversation
One minute in and I found him annoying because he has a condescending tone. Dunning Kruger much?
Anoj Kumar just another idiot who thinks talking fast makes him smart
@@KC-py5vq He's undeniably smart, although he's too patronizing, which I think is condescending. He knows his stuff.
You don’t have to be stupid just ignorant and highly motivated to protect a cherished belief.
John Smith why would you think I agreed with him? I said he was ignorant and desperate to protect his belief.
Dunning kruger, as well as being so far up his own ass that he think's he's doing everyone a service as a messenger of god. Very condescending and drives his own monologue.
There's no way a fact could swim upstream to him against that torrent of bullshit, which is the point.
The "arguments" are always pretext. He's religious; that's where the issue begins and ends. Everything in between is a farce.
It's impossible to win against him because much of what he says is blatantly erroneous. I'm typing this 3:30 into the video.
Exactly. As PineCreek Doug and others often say, these aren't the reasons they believe. They already believe. These are actually the ways they convince themselves they aren't stupid.
This guy thanked you for having a proper dialogue, but he just preached at you the whole time. If you ever meet again, I hope he is more willing to have a two-way conversation.
had to pause and take a breath many times throughout this video. Idk how you do it, but you are really composed.
He's confusing 'Darwinian fitness' with physical strength.
And he seems sure that an outwardly aggressive strategy of individual behavior towards other organisms would necessarily increase one's likelihood of producing gene copies, apparently across any mix of environments and mix of other organism types and forms. Some species existing today ARE more aggressive, but many others are not, with each relatively well-suited, in many different ways, to the kinds of environments they tend to be born into.
Imagine being this confident about something, yet so wrong...
Mad props for the respectful dialogue though.
What kills me is people with 0 knowledge of what they are talking about feel they know everything about said subject. The dude never ever read even a conclusion of a single article about Evolution.
Dunning-Kruger Effect buddy
Didn’t know this was going to be a one-sided conversation. This guy literally answers his own questions.
This guy's argument about the word "universe" made me face palm...
CC: “Define evolution”
Apologist: vomits word salad
I think he said its a changing of kind, that doesnt seem like a very complicated thing to understand
Daniel’s interpretation of “survival of the fittest” isn’t the way biologists use it. It is the way many theists prefer to interpret it. Amusing that Daniel called this a conversation.
He said “we’re having this conversation today” he is not having a conversation, he is preaching!
Why did this guy want to have a conversation? If he has to build so many layers of armor to protect his belief he might as well just stay in his fortress of solitude
This was interesting. When he started asking questions, I think it would have been better to ask him what he would need to change his mind instead of giving him answers he probably already had pre-planned answers for what he was expecting. He was asking questions for a different reason than you. He kind of hijacked the conversation with presuppositions rather than exploring the conclusion to which he came.
Prime example of Confirmation bias.
This interviewee was able to successfully knock the interviewer out of the socratic questioning mode, may be with mere rhetoric and illogical arguments alone.
"Information cannot randomly created", then goes to mentioning software code.
Here's a fun info: there are evolution experiments with software, i.e. Code modifying itself randomly and creating new functions.
Google that, it's real interesting.
Who created the initial code?
@@sevensmith460 depends on the research group. There's several projects.
@@sevensmith460 That's not an argument for a god.
Smith read the Urey Miller experiment..
@@sevensmith460 Humans. But still , it proves that the initial code can mutate itself and create new code. This can be called something like "theistic evolution", where God created an initial , primitive universe along with its natural laws, then the world kept developing from it. This ideology is accepted in religions like hinduism and budhism.
Gosh, Daniel has no idea what it means to think. No the dino tissue was not fresh tissue.
Daniel seems to be a confused christian. He seems dangerous too! "Why should I care?" This is example of christianity run amok. Dangerous Dan.
Thanks for the excellent interviews.
Daniel has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about. It’s stunning.
waste of an education
That was a debate? I must have missed something
The indoctrination was so thick, it was suffocating. Seeing him regurgitate all of those apologetics actually made me a little sick as well as sad inside.
Lol , this type of commet is so hypocritical
The Hidden Passenger how
Elijah Gavin atheists are far more indoctrinated than Religious people and they are always quoting something said by another person not an original thought.. And then they think they are entitled to criticize religious people for doing what they themselves do, hypocrites..
The Hidden Passenger it’s ok to quote others support your argument, the only trouble is whether or not the information you’re citing is reliable. Which tends to be more reliable; the results from a scientific experiment that can be replicated over and over again, or a verse from a book from a prescientific era thousands of years ago that talks about virgin births, talking snakes, and invisible creators?
@@elijahgavin6706 you want to talk about reliable? Lol, the Bible is the most reliable book in the history of humanity! It has affected every single department of human activity!
If you think there is no science in the Bible you are ignorant of it, and if you think the supernatural does not exist then explain what conciousness is , or the spirit!
If you conclude this things are supernatural therefore the supernatural does exist and virgin births, talking snakes and the creator of all things is not only plausible but in fact exist...
He said he admires reids faith in the end. I found that pretty condescending. He could not help himself. He was in defense mode from the beginning.
This guy really had his crockoducks lined up.
I have to commend Reid on his respect and patience during this exchange. I also like how he is not condescending nor arrogant. He displays a deep respect for the humanity of the person in the chair. It's a shame we all do not follow his example. Thanks, Reid, for your example.
Daniel, The "fittest" doesn't actually mean "physically fit". "Fittest" in evolution refers to "able to best adapt". So the survival of the fittest is not the survival of the strongest, but of that which is able to best adapt to the environment. In a social environment, we select for those who are best fitted to play a part in society. So having a set of morals and caring for other humans is, in fact, being "the fittest". Being moral and socially collaborative will benefit you much more than being a brute who can temporarily overpower a weaker human for a short gain.
Children, this is what happens when you do too much adderall.
More like what happens when cousins fuck.
If this guy gave this speech as part of a stand-up routine he would get a standing ovation :)...until people would realise he was being serious :(
Dude stay religious. This is one guy that should never become an atheist
I agree. His subconscious is trying to save him from killing everyone
Rape and murder would suddenly skyrocket in his home town.
I think Daniel, on the most part, just assumed what your position was without even really asking.
Sounded just like a William Lane Craig gish gallop. More of a sermon than a discussion.
He made assertions about the fossil record without offering any evidence other than anecdotal.
A lot of his arguments boiled down to "look at the trees"
Amazing.
Unfortunately, I think Daniel will walk away from this coversation thinking that he has given you something to think about.
I would love to see a video where you rewatch these interactions and give us a play by play of what you're thinking at that moment, things you had to keep inside for the sake of moving the conversation forward. I'd love to know what was going through your mind as this guy's spoke every cliche and fallacy in the book
This guy is the living proof that we can be the worst enemies of ourselves.
As someone with both biology and chemistry degrees, im 2 mins in and this is hard to watch. Thank you for doing this because I would of had to stop him at "kinds", Im glad patient people like you exist.
More like a one sided conversation. Lol slow down buddy
Poor guy. You should interrupt every now and then and get him back on track. If you stick on a specific topic, it's easier to break down his confidence.
Oh hey Daniel can I just leave you with this?
Did you learn anything at all about why Reid believes evolution today?
I thought not.
"Fossils don't talk to us" -- sooooo, animals do??
The "isn't that true?" question had me laughing out loud. From 5:10 to 6:03.
How on earth you, Reid, maintain a straight face in the presence of so confidently presented lack of education is the real miracle.
I soon as I heard the terms “macro” and “micro” evolution I knew I was wasting my time listening to this guy. He claims to be 100% confident humans aren’t a product of evolution yet he doesn’t even know what evolution actually is...
I graduated with a biology degree in the mid 90’s, so it was a while ago. I don’t t ever remember hearing the terms micro/macro. I taught biology for 14 years. Never used those terms. There was only evolution....or evolution with a time scale that you cannot wrap your brain around. In other words, the only difference between what he calls micro and macro is time.
@@howdoyouknow1218 Exactly, the terms ‘macro’ and ‘micro’ are made up by religious apologists to try cast doubt on evolution.
@@deanlowdon8381 I figured an evangelical must have made them up now that “micro” evolution (as they put it) HAS been observed and confirmed. One more god gap closed, i suppose so they have to find more.
The first thing I like about this video is the affability of it. Neither party gets angry or offended. The second thing I like is that the gentleman on the right displays a very large number of fallacious arguments, all of which the gentleman on the left rebuts. I was listing them at one point, but I gave up. To use an example he makes claims about the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection that the theory does not claim. Repeatedly he says "evolutionists [sic] claim that something comes from nothing (referring to the theory of the big bang, which in itself doesn't say "something" comes from "nothing" either)" and the man on the left gently rebukes that claim, by pointing out that Evolution by Natural Selection is only a theory pertaining to the origin of life. However, the man on the right ignores that information and says the same thing at least two other times; where-upon the man on the left again refutes it in the same way. What this video demonstrates is similar to my own experience with apologists; that their claim of certainty of the existence of a god rests on fallacious arguments. That is the *best* they can come up with. For me, logic dictates that the creator of the universe *cannot* be supported by bad arguments. Any object or functional system in the real world is supported by good evidence.
Just another interesting moment (of many) is when the man on the right tries to show a natural evolution was 'designed' by asking if one would assume cars were designed or evolved by chance. Now, we *know* cars are designed, so the solution to the question is in the question itself - another fallacious argument. I try to watch every apologist video I can by *renowned* apologists in hope that I may hear a good argument to suggest it may be possible that there is a god. I am still waiting to hear one. However, I have had heard many good counter-arguments to the existence of a god and none of them have been given an answer. If there is a new one that has been created in the last five years, I would like to hear it. :)
Empathising with the gentleman on the right, I do feel some sorrow that his certainty is not actually certainty, but a game of bait and switch. There are three possibilities here. One is that he will never notice. The second is that he will, and it may lead him to pain, but he eventually overcomes the pain and finds joy in his understanding. The third is that he will notice, be subjected to terrible pain and not overcome it. I hope that the third will never happen to him.
Its sad to me how at the end this guy acts as though he is having a cordial debate/discussion to his followers, but he seemed to be preaching quite a bit and talked past Reid.
By the way: "kind" doesn't mean anything in science.
D: I said Words faster. I Win!
Cc: This isn't a race
D: ok but I said More words. I win the Debate!
Cc: ThiS, ...was not a debate
So confident yet so mistaken.
I would LOVE to see this guy call into the Athirst Experience
Wow this guy just presented Moral argument , cosmological argument, Argument from design ,Fine tuning in this limited period of time
Posterboy for the Dunning -Kruger effect!
Wow... Great patience. Love how calm you stayed in that storm's eye.
I don't know if he was listening as much as waiting to speak. I hate how he kept saying, "I'll leave you with this", as to say, I have answers you never thought of.
It behoves me how smart people can defy logic and are so fearful to disprove theories they hold. So much to pick apart in this guy's logic or lack thereof.
So much to counter here, but I would have challenged him on a fundamental misunderstanding of the word “fittest”. It does not mean strongest. It means fittest for purpose.
This guy is a walking talking logical fallacy.
I think giving your belief skewed his expectations of the conversation. He went a bit into debate mode and wanted you to present your arguments, which I dont think is productive for SE. I think at the end of a conversation would be best to reveal beliefs and staying neutral during the conversation leads to the most honest and reflective moments.
Although this guy may have spun into talking about the big bang and the universe no matter what, hard to say.
His basketball analogy actually makes sense. Morality requires an agreement between parties on what is the goal or standard, in order to have something that is objectively right or wrong.
"If evolution is true, we'll just do whatever we want!!" How is that any different than the way things are for anyone who denies evolution?
the same is true of religion, if you do it in gods name, how can you possibly be wrong. believers just believe whatever.
Reid, you did well with a guy who unexpectedly regurgitated the entire Kent Hovind script at double speed. In hindsight, it would have worked well to pull him out of that script but I know it was a Gish Gallop at double speed as well. Tough to even get a word in edgewise, let alone address each of the fallacies.
When your pre-workout kicks in before your hike and you decide to participate in an interview....
Wow, huge kudos to you for not interrupting and sticking to your method of questioning.
"and apple turning into a dog, thats completely new information" - holy smokes this is Ray Comfort on LSD
Amphetamines
saying we have micro-evolution and not macro, is like saying we have inches but not feet.
I enjoyed hearing you reflect on the discussion at the end!
Reid.. my belief is that you do some of the most incredibly inspiring, impactful and important work that takes place on this planet right now
The sequence of the fossil record shows that life has evolved, even if you take the time out of the equation.
"Why should I care about your well being? I can steal a thousand dollars and it would benefit me and my family."
The answer to this is really easy. For that value to be universally true, it would still have to work out fine if people steal from your family too, as that's the consequence of you stealing from others no rules applied. In order to survive by being stolen from, you'd have to do it yourself.
Considering most people do not want to live in a world of constant fear of being stolen from or killed around every corner, they establish rules that everyone has to comply to if they don't want to be punished by the majority in order to combat such a rogue society that most people don't want to live in from happening. We've fought wars over many of these values to establish this over a long period of time, often _against_ the values of religion.
It's a consensus decision based on something that is (objectively) true about most of us. If you just threw thousands of murder hungry psychopaths on an isolated planet, you'd likely have exactly this happen. But that's not the slate most people are born with. Most of us want to get along with others, because it benefits us and makes us feel better.
It's the preference of a social species like we are to generally feel safe around others of our species.
H-E-L-P
Dude should google "dialogue". ^^
It's amazing how he took the time to learn all of these talking points well enough to vomit them out 200 miles/hour without pause, but apparently not to actually truly understand a single one of them.
Apologists love to ignore the fact that things like evolution can take millions of years.
You are, e.g., caring, because caring traits helped the caring genes and instincts to spread by caring for your offspring and help them survive instead of e.g. eating them because "survival of the fittes".
your patience is astounding ! I would been smacking this guy silly ...lol
This guy is great, he is just giving Cordial Curiosity a beat down, CC cant make an argument to save his life.
You might want to learn how street epistemology works. The point isn't to present counterarguments, its to get people to examine their beliefs and the reasons they hold them, to ensure they have good reasons. This guy clearly didn't want to do that and every time Reid tried to probe his reasons, he just blasted off with something unrelated
universe (n.)
1580s, "the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things," from Old French univers (12c.), from Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of neuter of adjective universus "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one," from unus "one" (from PIE root *oi-no- "one, unique") + versus, past participle of vertere "to turn, turn back, be turned; convert, transform, translate; be changed" (from PIE root *wer- (2) "to turn, bend").
@@Boomkop3 it's a copy paste from the etymology of the word "universe" that Reid's guests got totally wrong.
It doesn't come from the English "verse". It comes plainly from Latin and means literally "turn into one"
Can we please notice how the interviewer managed to not burst into laughter and appreciate his superhuman level power of self-control?
Wow this fool took the full Kent Hovind class on the art of the gish gallop.
It's so refreshing to have the pleasure of listening to such a measured, open minded, objective, clear thinking, well informed young man.
I agree, Reid is the best!
the guy Reid was interviewing is a pleasure, he made all valid points, Reid cant really make any sensible arguments
@@ceceroxy2227
He's doing street epistemology. He's not making arguments. He's just asking questions.
@@biggregg5 Well Daniel made the much better arguments
@@ceceroxy2227
Reid didn't make an argument.
Before putting this fellow down, we ought to recall that this isn't about what we believe but rather the methodology we use to get there. There are those who scorn flat-earthers and yet themselves believe in a risen saviour. Not a single one of us is immune to flawed reasoning, faulty thinking, and the erroneous beliefs that rise from them. We should be mindful of why these conversations are important in helping each of us become better thinkers.
You've got a point, but this level of willful ignorance cannot be compared to "normal" biases.
Daniel appears to be someone that you'd have to constantly keep reminding "I'm not asking you what you think, but why", as shown in this interview. It'd be a challenge.
This guy was a great regurgitator of Prager U-isms and Hovindisms. Wonderful at making assertions about things he clearly has no real knowledge about and has also never contemplated outside of the context of the typical ID/creationist rhetoric echo chamber. He checked all the creationist and ID pseudoscience boxes in a wild gush with not much hope of anyone reaching him because he simply seemed not to hear anything that might call his worldview into question. Fascinating and a bit worrying.
I wish I had patience like Reid 😂
He didn't let you talk for the most and yet He says it was a good conversation. I hope he sees this comment and reflect about it. This wasn't a conversation, this was a one way conversation
that's the definition of a good conversation for some people "hey, thanks for letting me waste your time by preaching at you, great guys aren't we"
"the definition of a bore is someone who talks about themselves when you want to talk about yourself" oscar wilde.
Is this a new approach wherein you start by conceding the burden of proof and then endure regurgitated, patronizing, pointless questions for 20 minutes?
For your sake, I hope not.
ncooty, in this case, I think they both had the burden of proof. they both revealed their confidence level on the topic before the whole questioning process began. If Ried wanted to keep the burden of proof on the side of his IL he should have waited till the end to reveal his position on the subject or maintained neutrality throughout
@John Caleb Kwawoo: I generally agree, which is part of my point. It's not clear to me why this approach would be preferable.
Additionally, Reid seemed to accept the burden of proof even for some of the IL's assertions of false dichotomies and arguments from ignorance. (E.g., If you can't explain X, then God.)
That said, the IL was all over the map. Allowing the IL to structure the conversation produced (i) no cogent structure and (ii) the IL's apparent impression that he had a fruitful discussion in which he ably advocated for his beliefs. All of that seems antithetical to the point.
I heard virtually nothing explicit about the IL's epistemic perspective (though it's easy to discern it)... and certainly saw no hint of progress or reflection on that front.
Evolution does have a burden of proof since it is a positive claim. As it happens the evidence for evolution is overwhelming so that's fine.
@Aaron A Aaronson: See previous reply. Why put himself in the position of advocacy? SE ought not be a remedial biology lesson. The IL gets _nothing_ from that, as evidenced here.
Props for the poker face!! I would have cringed 30 seconds after he started hahaha. You're a good role model haha
Damn. Could only watch 5 minutes. This Ben Shapiro clone is the classic know-nothing know-it-all.
How do you have the patience to listen to this kind of person? I meditate everyday and this guy still aggravates me. Genuinely curious.
Wow, this guy is so happy in his ignorance it's scary
@@Boomkop3
Because he probably votes
@@Boomkop3 Except that his votes are very likely informed by his ridiculous belief structure. You need look no farther than America's current political status for an example.
@@Boomkop3 Farce is more like it.
Believes in microevolution because we can see it, does not believe in macroevolution because we can not see it. Macroevolution is just the compound effect of microevolution. Get me a chess board and a sack of rice and I will explain what compound means if that is the bit he is having a problem with.