G'day I've been NotJah Witness and we are going to do something very special today.
Many have suggested that this Aussie should do a take down of a certain other Aussie well
known as a popular young earth creationist, the dumb Kent himself, Ken Ham.
So here it is and as always this grading video is brought to you by XCLover666 also known
as the Great Anti-Theist who also has their own channel, I've linked them below and
would greatly appreciate it if you check them out and subscribe as they deserve all the
credit for doing the actual hard yards of actually assessing these videos.
I am just here for my good looks and unfettered charm.
So let's hit this, today we are watching Science Confirms the Bible a live stream on
the Answers in Genesis YouTube channel from March 2017.
It is an hour long and so this will be a lengthy debunk series going bit by bit, this will
be part one.
Make sure you have a drink ready to cope with all the stupid BS we are about to be put through!
Science confirms the bible?
Really Ken?
Well that right there is a -10% for a false and inaccurate statement.
So yeah you are at 90% before we even start.
If you start off this bad I hate to see how bad your presentation is.
But I also would like to give a special thanks to Mr Salazar for helping me with some of
the fact checking.
As well as subjecting himself to watching this video to help me.
I asked him to look over my points in order to make sure that I am accurate.
To quote him "How can a grown adult be so wrong so often.
His total of scientific knowledge would fail a 5th grade science class."
You were a science teacher?
Yeah that is a 10% deduction for presenting misleading information.
As I doubt you taught actual science.
You are as qualified to teach Science as Kent Hovind is to file your taxes.
So you are at 80% now.
AT this point I must interject and assure you that unfortunately Mr Kenneth Ham here
does have a legit background in education, he has completed a bachelor of applied science
with emphasis on environmental biology from QUT and a diploma of education from UQ and
after graduating went on to teach science in Dalby, a small town in Queensland.
However the remarks are still misleading on Ken's part and his one diploma of education
is only really a springboard for further studies, however from there he went the direction of
creating his own curriculum.
He is trying to sell himself as an authority on the subject when he has no real scientific
or academic peer-reviewed work published.
What makes this worse is that Kenneth SHOULD know better.
But I digress, we will get back on script.
Just for the record I am in a bad mood as of writing this as for the first time in 5
years the team I coach has not made it to Regionals in Cross Country.
So you know I am not in the best mood as of writing this grading script and I have also
just finished about 4 hours worth of Grading.
So I am tired and cranky so I am more then willing to deduct for even the slightest thing.
As well as you are a grown adult so you should know better then to pull the mistakes my students
might pull.
So yeah you are at 80% so watch it.
Yeah let's break down this bit piece by piece.
First there is now a 25% deduction for presenting a false statement as fact as well as failing
to provide citation, because I can guarantee you that no student asked you that.
And if they did I must ask why did you bring up religion?
So that right there is another 15% for failing to properly do your job as an educator.
Also you state that you are a Christian.
That is a 30% deduction now for failure to do your job again.
Your answer to that question should be That is irrelevant to the topic at hand and get
back to teaching science.
I will quickly interject to clarify this point.
As a science teacher in a science class, these things are not on topic however as a teacher
in a public school he can still share his religious beliefs if asked about it outside
of class or if he were in religion class.
It might not be what it used to be, but not that long ago at least there were full christian
religion classes in public schools here.
So despite having christian based publicly funded classes, these topics should not be
mixed in a teaching environment.
Ken would more than likely have been asked that question, however he still failed to
respond in a manner appropriate as a science teacher.
So that out of the way.
Again now you are at 45% for your failure to do your job as a teacher when the belief
about the bible was brought up.
Yes every time you admit you failed to do your job your deductions get larger by 15%
every time.
Next you get a 25% deduction for presenting a strawman of public schools with this student.
As you are trying to paint schools as telling students that the bible is not true cause
of Evolution.
So you are at -60% and we are only 37 seconds into this video.
Keep going like this for the hour and I think you might hold the new record of lowest grade
currently held by Dr Guyman.
Hear that Guyman you might actually have to work harder to get a lower grade then Mr Hammy
here.
ok another 60% for failure to do your job, 20% for lying to students, yes I said lying
here as this is a deliberate lie. and 20% for presenting false and inaccurate information
for claiming the bible must be false because of evolutionary science textbooks.
You just went down a nice 100% so you are now at -160%.
Ok you are now losing -75% for failure to do your job again.
I do not know how you can be so proud about not doing your job properly.
And you also get another 30% off for presenting false and inaccurate information to students
by saying Evolution has not been proven by science.
When in fact it has.
Congrats you are now down to a -265%.
I tell ya what, we are only a minute in and I really hope he doesn't break my BS counter.
"Observational Science does not exist.
That is just what we call science.
Now in this next part Kenneth tries to make a distinction between Historical and Observational
Science.
When in fact they are both just plain science.
I am here to let you know that what he calls historical we call science as we can see fossils
in the ground and date them using radiometric dating.
That we have shown that the constant decay rate does not change.
Now if Kenneth here can show them to be wrong and get it published, there is a Nobel Prize
waiting for him."
So for the deductions we will have 40% for lying about science and then 20% for a straw
manning science as they are trying to with the whole 2 different types of science.
So Kenneth you are now at -325%
"Ok sit down and listen you ignorant person.
The Big Bang was not an explosion.
It was just the rapid expansion of space.
That is it nothing more nothing less.
Now I am not going to lie this is a little bit beyond my field and there are others more
qualified for this.
I have just a pretty basic understanding of it.
So yeah you are completely lying about what The Big Bang is and what happened.
See we had some sort of fluctuation and this in turn gave way to the universe expanding
past the singularity.
A few seconds researching would show you that this is the case.
But the billions of years ago is about 13.7 Billion years ago is when it happened and
that is because we can see the cosmic microwave background radiation.
So we can see that just fine.
Then we have light from a star called MACS0647-JD and that is 13.3 billion light years away.
Now the speed of light is a constant.
That is why there is a C in the equation of E=MC^2.
We know the speed of light does not change so you need to explain how you can justify
changing C without messing up Energy Mass Conversion formula.
So unless you want to claim that all of physics and astrophysics are wrong be my guest but
you are sadly mistaken if you do.
Now your claim about things reaching back to a hundred thousand of years ago we can
show this by radiometric dating.
Now this is usually used by Potassium Argon or K-Ar dating.
K-Ar dating is done by checking the parent isotopes to that of the daughter isotopes.
Most people mistakenly only think of Carbon dating but that can only go to the most generous
I can be is 70,000 years.
Just please learn some basic science and pick up a science book before you make my head
hurt even more than it already does."
Ok so lets see from what I see that is 20% for misrepresenting sources.
50% for failure to cite sources for your outrageous claims.
It is 50% off for your multiple mistakes.
So that is 70% off and you are now at -395%
Ok no just no.
You are making claims that hold no water.
First you ask were you there.
That is just so wrong it is not even funny.
That is like saying you can't prove I farted 10 min ago cause you were not there.
Your whole claim here depends on your god.
You need to prove this god before you can claim him.
If not well my magical talking pixie said they created the universe 13.7 billion years
ago.
You have to believe me as they claim to be there so they were.
See with your line of reasoning you can never arrest anyone as well you were not there to
see them commit the crime.
So you can't say they did it.
Even when you have their blood hair and whatever other forensic evidence that you may have
that show it was them.
Not even security footage would count as well someone could of doctored the tapes.
See that is exactly what you are doing.
We have all this evidence for the universe being as old as it is yet you are denying
it.
As well the defendant said they are innocent and you were not at the crime scene when it
happened so how do you know it was them? you were not there so you deny the Blood, Hair,
DNA, ect.
So you lose 20% for a straw man.
20% for circular reasoning.
Next you claim that someone was there?
10% for false and inaccurate information.
As well as another 25% for failure to cite a source.
So that is 75% off you are now
at -470%.
"OK what you call 2 different kinds of science is what we just call science.
Paleontology is what you would call historical science yet we just call Paleontology science
in the real world.
See with things like Paleontology we can observe things such as fossils see how fossilization
happens.
How things where in the past.
Paleoclimatology deals with this exact thing.
See they study the climate and how things happened through different geological formations
and other methods.
Again this is a little out of my range."
Ok now let's get down to the deductions.
So first off 20% for false equivocation.
10% for presenting false and inaccurate information.
25% for failure to cite sources on the historical and observational science.
And that leads me to my final point of 20% for strawmanning science with trying to paint
science that does not even exist.
So that is a deduction of another 75% for a total of 545%.
From the mouth of Mr Salazar, "I am now going
to say I hate you XC as you told me this guy was wrong on science and needed my help to
get things right but you did not tell me he was this wrong and ignorant."
Yeah that sounds like an accurate reaction upon first discovering our Hammy here.
But ok let's break this down one by one.
First you say that observational science is what we observe and test.
Well that is again what we call science.
Next you say we can't test historical science.
But yet we can test rocks to find out how old they are.
Next you make the claim we can not repeat the past yet we can still find out how things
happened.
To use XC's forensic analogy that is like saying you cant know who killed a person even
though you find their DNA and everything else that points to the person doing it.
So you can never lock up a criminal.
Man am I glad you are not in charge of our police department.
As that is almost as incompetent as Trump is."
So ok that is 40% for a reuse of a false equivocation.
20% for presenting false and inaccurate information.
Also I know I am not one to go after grammar but 5% for saying evidences.
Evidence is not plural.
Just like Luggage is not plural even if I have 20 suitcases I would still just have
luggage so I must ask do you got it?
So you lose 65%.
you are now at -610%.
Ok as stated before historical science does not exist.
So that is again now 40% for repeating the same false and inaccurate statements.
False the Eiffel Tower is not 1,063 ft tall.
As there is a little known interesting fact about the Eiffel Tower is that it grows and
shrinks.
As it grows in the summer and shrinks in the winter.
Wow looking at it shape and it grows and shrinks?
No I won't say anything I do not want to be a dick and make that joke as well I think
the joke makes it self.
Also the Tower is actually only 984 feet tall.
What gives it the extra height is an antenna on top.
So really you are wrong on the actual height.
The antenna was added due to a dick measuring contest with the United States.
As in New York the Chrysler Building was constructed making it taller than the Eiffel Tower so
they added to it to make it bigger to surpass the Chrysler building 1046 feet tall.
So back to what I was saying the 1063 only is due to an antenna that was not part of
the Eiffel Tower really.
As well as you are wrong as it will depend on what time of year you measure it.
This is because of the fact that Steel when it gets cold it contracts and when it gets
warm it expands.
Think of it like a brass instrument.
When it is really cold the instrument actually contracts which really messes with the tone
and tuning of the instrument.
That is why you have to tune your instrument every time you play.
As due to cold and heat it will affect how the instrument sounds.
Trust me I know.
I played Trumpet in high school.
So your deductions are now at 60% off as you presented false and inaccurate information
due to calling the Eiffel Tower a building.
It is not.
It is classified as a free standing structure.
Trust me there is a difference.
So you are now at -680%
everything you just told me is true?
Sorry you are wrong on multiple counts as I showed.
So 40% for presenting the same false and inaccurate information as before.
You are now at -720
yes we can do that.
But again the height will be determined by what season it is when you measure it.
Next you call it a building again.
Again that is wrong so that is now 60% for both presentations of wrong and inaccurate
information.
So you now are at -780%
wrong again.
We can test these things that are in the past with things like blueprints that Eiffel had
made.
We can test the information of how many people visit each year by records kept at the tower.
Oh wait never mind I forgot you are allergic to factual reporting of people to attractions
as well we all know how much you like to inflate your numbers of people to your ark travesty.
Finally how do we know it was an entrance to the world's fair?
Well that is simple we have records of the worlds fair and we can see that.
Funny thing is we can figure that all our by just doing basic research and not taking
some books word for it.
So 25% for misrepresenting sources.
As far as going back to the historical science thing again.
You get 80% for that one.
So that is 105% deductions.
So you are at -885%
Ok yes we have to rely on accounts but we know they are trustworthy due to the reliability
of what we know already.
So yes they are accurate.
To the best of what we know.
But you again go with the whole historical and observational science.
So you get a -100% deduction for that.
So you are now at -985% and we are only 3:24 into this video.
Is the earth here?
Can you actually prove that.
You state we all agree with you yet there are people out there who will state that we
are not real but a simulation.
So I think you are wrong there.
No it does not.
As you still need to prove your god to claim your god.
See what you claim is that the bible is the proof of your god.
But the claim can not be used as evidence of the claim.
So you get 40% for circular reasoning.
Next I will point out that the bible is not trustworthy in all its claims.
One I have seen and love to bring up is when was Jesus born.
There is a 10 year problem with that claim.
25% for failure to provide a source.
120% for presenting false and inaccurate information.
As Secular scholars do not believe that.
Moses never existed.
The Exodus never happened.
The flood never happened.
So that is -145% for that claim now.
So you are at -1130%
the most trustworthy revelation from the most trustworthy eyewitness?
Really that is just so wrong.
Again you need to prove god to claim god.
Your eyewitness also says donkeys and snakes talk.
What an animal sees when it mates is that what the offspring will be.
Germs do not exist as you are not to wash your hands as it is sin that makes you sick.
So that is 3 things the bible go wrong so that is 140%, 160% and 180% off for for each
false and inaccurate claim so that is a grand total of 480% off bring your new total
to -1610%
First off no explosion happened.
How many times must I say that.
Next you claim that the universe is logical and orderly.
Please explain how galaxies colliding makes logical sense and is orderly.
If the universe was logical and orderly we would not see these things happening.
Now you claim how our minds were created to figure out the universe cause that is what
our minds are created for.
No I can put a Playstation or XBOX or even a PC disc in a skeet thrower and shoot it
with a shotgun does not make the disc designed for skeet shooting.
How many things can one person get wrong and how many fields of science can one person
mess up.
So let's see that is 200% for presenting wrong and inaccurate information.
Now you get 220% for another false and inaccurate statement.
That is 420% in deductions putting you at -2030% and we are not even at 5 mins yet.
You claim that our brains are a byproduct of chance.
Well that is a clear and complete strawman so 40% off for that.
Yes Ken I am adding on to each time you make the same mistake you mess up you get busted
for it.
Next we have 240 for presenting false and inaccurate information by saying we can not
trust our conclusions.
As yes we can as we can show them to be repeatable.
So we work off of past experiences.
So you are now at -280% off putting you at -2310%
ok the only reason things are repeatable is cause of god?
Really you know the laws that we have are just descriptions of what we observe.
But you are right on one point we do have law givers and that is scientists who make
the laws about the universe by describing what we see.
So no god needed.
Even if a god was needed it does not make your bible true.
Godless Cranium's invisible lazy eyed pink dragon is what started the universe and set
the laws so therefore it is true nuff said.
See I can make the same argument that you just did with as more evidence for my claim
as I can show you things with the Invisible pink dragon.
So a total of 4 false and inaccurate information claims so that is 260%, 280%, 300% and 320%
respectively.
So that puts your total deductions for this part at -1160 add that to your already outstanding
-2310 you are at for this part -3470% and we only just hit the 5 min mark.
Well Kenneth that is where we are going to leave this first part, if anyone has survived
'til the end thank you very much and I am sorry, but there is a lot more to come.
If you enjoyed make sure to like, subscribe and hit that bell button to catch every new
video and if you think I am worth a dollar consider becoming a patron, every dollar goes
a long way.
Well I am finished like an elder on a little boys face.
I've been NotJah Witness and remember, Faith is like a tick on a crocs dick; it's not very
important but extremely annoying!"
For more infomation >> Фитнес в зале и фитнес танцы это сексуальная фигура - Duration: 2:40. 
For more infomation >> Cách Trồng Hoa Thọ Hiệu Quả ,Hoa Cúc Bán Tết 2019 ,Cuộc Sống Dân Dã Son Doong ? - Duration: 10:10. 
For more infomation >> Anasuya Movie Scene Full HD || Telugu Movies Scenes || Bhumika Chawla || Abbas || Suresh Productions - Duration: 11:10. 
For more infomation >> «Не удивительно, почему Наполеон и Гитлер проиграли русским» - Запад об аномальных морозах в России - Duration: 5:34. 
For more infomation >> Фитнес бикинистки, фитнес мотивация для девушек - Duration: 2:09. 
For more infomation >> Фитнес мотивация для женщин, фитнес мотивация - Duration: 2:16. 
For more infomation >> Фитнес красивые девушки в фитнес зале - Duration: 2:12. 
For more infomation >> Чувство = эмоция + нравственная оценка - Duration: 6:41. 
For more infomation >> 【PewDiePie中文字幕】2018年YouTube回顾但实际上很不错 YouTube Rewind 2018 but it's actually good - Duration: 5:35. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét