Here is an impressive blog, though I would probably class it as a video blog more than anything but as it has transcripts of said videos I'll class it as a blog. Ian Juby is no low hanging fruit - although at times he can be as fruity as his arguments and statements. When I first watched his Genesis series I was impressed and on the outside it seemed to make an awful lot of sense and, in fact, he is incredibly convincing. If you took at it on face value and did no research into his claims, you will probably be converted and kneel down before Christ and accept him as lord and savior.
But wait, lets investigate shall we. The great thing about the internet is that everything you need is at your finger tips and for right or for wrong, good or bad, the information is there.
But wait, lets investigate shall we. The great thing about the internet is that everything you need is at your finger tips and for right or for wrong, good or bad, the information is there.
The problem I have with his blog, not his problem but mine, is there are so many entries that I cannot possibly address every claim in everyone of his entries although I find myself watching with furrowed brow thinking "where do I start?" I can pick just one, and this is one of the more interesting entries.
Ian is a very good speaker, mesmerizing one could say, and he has the gift of the gab. He likes to throw around so many statements you could easily say he uses the Gish gallop to bend your mind to his way of thinking. There are so many statements to fact check that anyone watching could just about throw their hands in the air and say "OK, I give up! Tell me what to believe in!"
But I'm not just anyone.
Time to do an autopsy on said entry...
To save some time and effort I'll start with the latest video, at least it was latest at the time I wrote this blog, which he calls WHAT KIND OF EVOLUTION which is part of a video blog series he calls Genesis Week. This one is episode 10 of season 2. Like all his other videos this one starts off with the same intro for the blog and right out of the gate evokes the same myth that all other creationists vomit about creation vs evolution, calling it a controversy.
The first topic Ian covers is radiometric dating and he uses carbon 14 as his argument for a young earth saying that it can only be accurately to date things up to 100,000 years old and therefore the system is flawed and the 6000 young earth is the answer. That would be the post hoc ergo proptor hoc argument and I will cover this in more depth in a separate article but for now lets just say that carbon 14 is accurate at measuring the age of things that were once alive within the last 50,000 years. There are many other forms of radiometric dating which, basically, reads the breakdown (using the half life) of radioactive elements. He speaks of the R.A.T.E research which came up with all the problems of c14 dating. The RATE research was funded by three of the top creation science organisations so it could be a little biased and I'll cover that in a later article... in other words if you start with a premise and deconstruct the data you will, inevitably, get the answer you want. This research is bunk.
Ian then goes into the convergence theme and completely screws it up. Here we have a person that, ostensibly, has no idea on how evolution works. Sure, he has the terminology and definitely thinks he knows how it all works but to come up with some of the shit that he comes up with you know he has to be either kidding himself, trying to bullshit others or both. One way or another he is trying to make sure his entire belief system is not going to explode in a thousand pieces. In short, the pieces that make up the fossil record shape our understanding of evolution, not the other way around so anything he says after that (and you have to excuse my logical fallacy of muddying the waters) is total crap.
Evolution is a THEORY not a MYTH
Be very careful when describing a something as a theory - if it is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY as apposed to a HYPOTHESIS then it is scientific fact and calling evolution a myth is incredibly hypocritical.
Evolution IS falsifiable
WHAT WOULD DISPROVE EVOLUTION
It seems Ian is using an argument from personal incredulity and that is only because the door to his ark has closed. I know this because he cites two apparent problems with evolution and then evokes the ID (Intelligent Design) bullshit as a "by the way" side issue - the problem is, they are made up problems, they do not exist as problems. He is dealing in misinformation and he is doing it so quickly and covertly with such an air of creationist arrogance that it is hard to argue. On the face of it everything he says seems to make sense and you start to get lead by the hand down the creationists primrose path until you start to ask the questions.
Then he has the balls to misquote Darwin! The eye, also, is one of those layman arguments against evolution that all creationists bring up to the uninitiated and one to which I will devote an entire blog entry to... but not now. He is just spreading more misinformation and ignoring the facts.
Blah, blah, blah, more of the debunked ID crap... the ID crowd lead by Michael Behe of none other than the Discovery Institute has been widely discredited. Here is a great site outlining the basics of the BS of ID Creation Science Debunked.
There is more blah, blah that he regurgitates from other creationists of the same elk but the long and the short of this video blog is misdirection and misinformation. If you can't be bothered or don't know how to spend five minuets on the internet Googling his so called facts and debunking what this guy is saying you could very quickly become convinced by all his bullshit. Make no mistake, most of the information you are given by Ian is either cherry picked or false.
I'm not going to dive into his mail bag but I would like to see some more activity in mine!
I write this blog because it is a passion of mine to explore the myth of god and along the way even I learn some cool stuff but it takes a lot of time and energy to write this blog. If you enjoy reading this blog please make a donation by clicking the DONATE button on the right so I can put more time into creating a better blog.
Thank you all
Justin
To save some time and effort I'll start with the latest video, at least it was latest at the time I wrote this blog, which he calls WHAT KIND OF EVOLUTION which is part of a video blog series he calls Genesis Week. This one is episode 10 of season 2. Like all his other videos this one starts off with the same intro for the blog and right out of the gate evokes the same myth that all other creationists vomit about creation vs evolution, calling it a controversy.
The first topic Ian covers is radiometric dating and he uses carbon 14 as his argument for a young earth saying that it can only be accurately to date things up to 100,000 years old and therefore the system is flawed and the 6000 young earth is the answer. That would be the post hoc ergo proptor hoc argument and I will cover this in more depth in a separate article but for now lets just say that carbon 14 is accurate at measuring the age of things that were once alive within the last 50,000 years. There are many other forms of radiometric dating which, basically, reads the breakdown (using the half life) of radioactive elements. He speaks of the R.A.T.E research which came up with all the problems of c14 dating. The RATE research was funded by three of the top creation science organisations so it could be a little biased and I'll cover that in a later article... in other words if you start with a premise and deconstruct the data you will, inevitably, get the answer you want. This research is bunk.
Ian then goes into the convergence theme and completely screws it up. Here we have a person that, ostensibly, has no idea on how evolution works. Sure, he has the terminology and definitely thinks he knows how it all works but to come up with some of the shit that he comes up with you know he has to be either kidding himself, trying to bullshit others or both. One way or another he is trying to make sure his entire belief system is not going to explode in a thousand pieces. In short, the pieces that make up the fossil record shape our understanding of evolution, not the other way around so anything he says after that (and you have to excuse my logical fallacy of muddying the waters) is total crap.Evolution is a THEORY not a MYTH
Be very careful when describing a something as a theory - if it is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY as apposed to a HYPOTHESIS then it is scientific fact and calling evolution a myth is incredibly hypocritical.
Evolution IS falsifiable
WHAT WOULD DISPROVE EVOLUTION
It seems Ian is using an argument from personal incredulity and that is only because the door to his ark has closed. I know this because he cites two apparent problems with evolution and then evokes the ID (Intelligent Design) bullshit as a "by the way" side issue - the problem is, they are made up problems, they do not exist as problems. He is dealing in misinformation and he is doing it so quickly and covertly with such an air of creationist arrogance that it is hard to argue. On the face of it everything he says seems to make sense and you start to get lead by the hand down the creationists primrose path until you start to ask the questions.
Then he has the balls to misquote Darwin! The eye, also, is one of those layman arguments against evolution that all creationists bring up to the uninitiated and one to which I will devote an entire blog entry to... but not now. He is just spreading more misinformation and ignoring the facts.
Blah, blah, blah, more of the debunked ID crap... the ID crowd lead by Michael Behe of none other than the Discovery Institute has been widely discredited. Here is a great site outlining the basics of the BS of ID Creation Science Debunked.
There is more blah, blah that he regurgitates from other creationists of the same elk but the long and the short of this video blog is misdirection and misinformation. If you can't be bothered or don't know how to spend five minuets on the internet Googling his so called facts and debunking what this guy is saying you could very quickly become convinced by all his bullshit. Make no mistake, most of the information you are given by Ian is either cherry picked or false.
I'm not going to dive into his mail bag but I would like to see some more activity in mine!
I write this blog because it is a passion of mine to explore the myth of god and along the way even I learn some cool stuff but it takes a lot of time and energy to write this blog. If you enjoy reading this blog please make a donation by clicking the DONATE button on the right so I can put more time into creating a better blog.
Thank you all
Justin
No comments:
Post a Comment