Having lost our debate so badly, our critic, Patrick, who was an evolutionist very unfamiliar with logic and rhetoric, comes back at me for Round Two, only this time he tries to be more aggressive about it. This discussion was short-lived since what started off as a peaceful discussion between us, would end in hostility, and eventually landed Patrick from being banned from my YouTube channel.
Patrick's comments will be in red, while mine will be in blue, as before. I will present my Conclusion at the end of this post, which will be in black. Just a fair warning: Patrick will engage me in a most disrespectful way. What follows is the sad result of my second conversation with Patrick.
Patrick: I suppose humans aren't mammals either?
Brian: I wouldn't classified them as such in biblical terms, but, generally speaking, I usually don't debate the term on reference to humans. I have a problem with us being classified as "animals" as Charles Darwin, and modern evolutionists as well, did. Human beings are more than animals. We have a consciousness and conscience for example, we appear sentient and self-aware, something that no one would categorize animals as. We can think for ourselves, where animals act purely on instinct, and these instincts can be manipulated to train animals of intelligence. Although humans can be trained, it's in a different sense of the word. We can freely choose what we want, even if it violates are training. We can have beliefs, dreams, goals, etc. We have human judgments that flow from our problem-solving ability. Something that no animal has. These are concepts I think would be foreign to the animal kingdom. This is why humans, in general, even evolutionists (if we get real with it), think of themselves as "more than animals." We attribute a higher level of consciousness that no animal received.
At this point, I then address with him the fact that our conversation had ended on this, and we were just going around in circles on this. He doesn't respond to us ending this conversation. In fact, he never does address it.
Patrick: Your criteria for "animal" is way out of wack. Those issues are irrelevant.
Brian: No there not. Does he not think that these are major differences between human beings and animals? If I ask him what he would characterize what make a "mammal" a mammal, what would be his response? He'd probably give me a list of common characteristics, wouldn't he? So, these differences are major fundamental differences, thus, they're relevant.
Patrick: There is no reasonable justification for acknowledging mammal but not animal. Mammals are explicitly a type of animal. Such illogical thinking.
Brian: Here, Patrick is making a strawman argument. I never said I accepted the classification of mammals, I said I don't debate it which is not the same thing. Remember what I had said before, classification systems are conventional. They are simply labels we apply to specific animals by using a series of common criteria. We make up the labels in other words. There is nothing wrong with that, but sometimes its arbitrary and sometimes it isn't, but the classification system is conventional, no matter how much you slice the cake. Personally, because I follow the biblical classification system I don't classify humans as mammals. Rather, I just use the reference human beings, or humans. Mammals don't have consciousness and problem-solving abilities, and other things that I've mentioned. It wasn't illogical thinking on my part, he just wasn't hearing what I was saying, so Patrick was making a strawman argument, unintentionally of course, and due to his inattentiveness, but strawman nonetheless.
For the third time I asked him again if we were done with our conversation, but, once again, he never replied to this.
Patrick: Traits are determined by genetics. Genetics is predicated on heredity. Common traits with a verifiable common genetic basis as such have a common basis in heredity.
Brian: I agree that is predicated on heredity, but what does that have to do with anything unless he assumes that because something has common traits means that all life is related which is a really tall order. However, the null hypothesis automatically rules out it being used against us, since the Creation model also predicts common traits. Even though I have spelled it out for him, and stated it several times, he really didn't seem to understand my position very well. Either that, or he just didn't have much to use since the evidence for Darwinian evolution was lacking, or both. So, I agreed that's why the different kinds of creatures stay within their lanes.
Patrick: No, you have a wonky set up on your channel that auto deletes comments with links even though they appear to post without issue. I have been encouraging you to contact the chair of bio at Liberty university about his work. Look for the comment. I had to modify it so that it contained no links...Look up Dr. Seller's number and ask him what relevance experiments using African clawed frogs and fruit flies etc. have on human health and disease and why. Perhaps for someone so incapable of reading between the lines-do you remember the information from UTSW med school I posted about why THEY maintain that non human animals experiments are relevant to medicine?' perhaps you shouldn't opine on the topic so vehemently.
Brian: At this point one of Patrick's post was deleted from YouTube. He was forced to repeat it twice without the link. He accused me of having a problem in my settings on YouTube. However, whenever I did some checking and research, I had found out that wasn't a setting to turn links on and off, but rather, YouTube's algorithm was set up to delete posts with links in the case of spam being sent on the comments page. Sometimes it catches the link, sometimes it didn't. This is what really happened to my posts with links on the previous channel whenever I thought it was Michael Jones deleting my posts when it was actually happening by YouTube and it was happening automatically. He would end up denying that YouTube has this setup due to his ignorance of YouTube. As a platform, despite him being on it himself, he didn't seem to know much about it.
Patrick is urging to me contact Dr. Seller from Liberty University. It is unclear why he wants me to do this. He knows Dr. Seller isn't going to agree with Darwinian evolution. He also seems to be assuming a strawman argument. Does he think that I am against genetic research and advancements?
This last part seems to be confusing motivation with epistemology, therefore making a categorical error by conflating what drives a person to study a subject with the truthfulness, or the lack there of, of what drives them forward. Again, no problem with their experiments on fruit flies, clawed frogs, and other animals, nor do I have any problems with advancements along those lines in genetic research. I use genetic arguments all the time, I'm not against using the discipline of genetics. I can "read between the lines" but if his claim is X, but you go out and prove Y, I have to ask how does proving Y, which no one disputes anyway, prove X?
For example, much of the space program has been driven by the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, but what drives them forward on it, does not have anything to do with whether aliens are real or not. However, NASA has gained a lot of knowledge and technology from such advancements, but this would still have nothing to do with whether or not aliens are real. The concept of Darwinian evolution might have driven much of genetic research forward, but this would not have anything to do with what we know from it nor what we have discovered from it. However, his argument is that biology, not genetics anyway, was made possible because of Darwinian evolution. So, I have to ask, how does the idea that humans evolved into apes, something we never observed, have anything to do with the significance or predications of either biology or genetics?
Keep in mind, Patrick is doing what I call a shuffling trick. A type of red herring that tries to shuffle around the disciplines whenever we ask for evidence. It is always the other disciplines that have it. He claimed that it was central to biology, but then moved over into genetics which is a separate discipline. If biology is predicated by Darwinian evolution, then why not show evidence from biology?
Because of all this I told him that all he's done so far is appealed to authority and assumed his conclusion. He hasn't yet provided me with the actual evidence for Darwinian evolution. In the experiments with fruit flies, fruit flies still remain fruit flies, which I could've told him that. Where is the evidence for Darwinian evolution? Maybe, since he had refused to give me evidence for it, maybe I should re-ask this question another way: If evolution is true, then why aren't there millions of transitional fossils in the fossil record?
Patrick: Show me a verifiable, legitimate source that space exploration is predicated on the search for ETs and we'll go from there. That's the first wack a doodle [sic] thing you communicated abd so that's where I'll stop.
Brian: That last part was nonsensical. He blatant rejection of what I said does not make it a "wack a doodle" statement which seems to really border on childishness, so I will ignore it. The first part of his statement is simple him asking me for my source, which there is nothing wrong with.
By the way, he also was making a strawman. He misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't saying that the space program was predicated on it, only that it is the concept that drives much of it forward, and it is. Anyhow, I gave him my source for this. Dr. Jason Lisle, whose an astrophysicist had referenced this, but it is also true by experience. Since we know that is the reasons that radio telescopes search the skies, why SETI--the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence--was invented in the first place. Go to NASA's website and type in "aliens" or "search for extraterrestrial intelligence", you are going to find numerous articles along those lines. We know this is what motivated much of the space program, and even prompted the astronomer's Carl Sagan's book Contact which is about contacting alien life. This permutes nearly the entire space program. Ironically, this, itself, is motivated by Darwinian evolution to. Again, check out these articles on NASA's official website. At any rate, my point still stands: he is confusing motivation with epistemology. Does he not see how irrational that is? Assuming that the driving force of an issue proves the issue in question? We have to be rational about this, and that's incorrect thinking.
I then asked him to stop here for the forth time, and stop replying to me. He asked a question, and I answered it. We could've ended it here, but Patrick refused to stop, so now this was becoming harassments. I tried to end our conversation peacefully by wishing him well, telling him that I will pray for him, but he refused to stop.
Patrick: PS :Telling people "Dr Liar said this...' or go look at NASAs website are not examples of verifiable. The most direct route would be providing a link... you could do that if you weren't incompetent and could half ass manage your channel settings properly.
Brian: Patrick makes two abusive ad hominem fallacies in his reply to me. The first was an abusive ad hominem attack against my source by intentionally changing his name from Dr. Lisle to "Dr. Liar." Remember, Patrick's M.O. is to assume that everyone he disagrees with must be lying about what they, and referencing Dr. Lisle would be a source. Also, he was also doing the begging question epithet fallacy whereas he tried to use emotional language to persuade. NASA has hundreds of articles on their website on extraterrestrial life, or aliens, so my argument was to look at the wealth of articles on their website on this one topic matter, but he said he wanted a link, when he knew I would not include a link here because I was afraid it would be deleted.
Also, once again he blamed it on my settings. Has he even bothered to see if there is such a way to turn links acceptance on and off in YouTube? I have, and there was no way to do this. Also, again, whenever I researched it I had discovered it was YouTube's algorithm that was deleting posts with links, not my settings. We also see Patrick's second abusive ad hominem to me. He calls me incompetent, which his accusation was not only false, but it was based on a faulty assumption on his part, namely, that one can control such things from the settings in YouTube, when in truth, they cannot. An abusive ad hominem fallacy is where you attacked the person directly instead of dealing with his arguments.
I told him that I chose NASA because they are a big part of the space program, as is SETI, which he never even responded to. Carl Segan who wrote Contact was an atheistic astronomer, and a famous one at that. All he would've had to go do is go to NASA's official website and see hundreds of articles on this, but his refusal to do this might mean that under all of that resistance he knows that I'm right.
At any rate, I noticed that he was attempting to dodge the bullet. The point, which he has failed to respond to at every turn, is that he is conflating categories: he is conflating motivation with epistemology whereby he is confusing what drives a person within an issue for the truth of the issue at hand which are not the same things. He keeps on deviating away from the issue at hand. This is what's called a red herring. My point still remains, regardless if he accepts what drives the space program. At any rate, I told him, this has been fun, up until he started consistently attacking me. I think he needs some serious debate and rhetorical training, especially in the areas of logical reasoning and thinking. However, he had violated my one rule that I had given him--for us to respect each other while we are conversing on my channel--multiple times and I grow tired of this conversation. I told him for the fifth time to please stop replying to me, and I said this last part with the love of Christ in mind, for him to please get off my channel until he can learn how to treat and talk to people.
Patrick: Dipschmidt, [sic] youtube doesn't delete comments with links by default. That is an aspect administered BY YOU. If youtube didn't want that to work, they'd just do like Instagram and make it so they don't hyperlink.
Brian: This first word made no sense, especially since it isn't even a word. He might've been attempting another abusive ad hominem fallacy, but was unsuccessful in its delivery. In which case, he was calling me another name. He seems to think by insulting me he was going to get somewhere with those who reading our responses to each other.
Again, where on YouTube can you do this? I have been an adamant YouTuber for over a year. YouTube doesn't have in their settings, and Patrick failed to clarify. Could it be that he didn't know? He was taking a gamble at what he thought he knew without ever even checking himself out. In fact, after I told him, this initially he never even bother to check me out. He just assumed I was in error. This showed his level of argumentation.
This last part was partially correct. There are situations, such as within the video description, if it is not done right it can be made where it doesn't hyperlink. However, YouTube will also delete comments that have links in them as a way of deferring spam within the comments section of a YouTube video.
Patrick: [Next, he lays a bunch of information about Dr. Seller from the Internet, even personal information and education which had nothing to do with anything, but I won't be repeating it here. It didn't really make any sense. He had also called me "mental" but some how I couldn't find that post, although I did find my response to it.]
Brian: Calling me "mental" is known as the begging question epithet fallacy, which is where you use emotional language to persuade. This is usually done in the form of a loaded word like when a reporter calls a murder suspect a "murderer" instead. However, I do think something's wrong with him. I don't think he's an actual scientist. In fact, I think he might've even been lying about his degrees. I've been on his channel and Patrick's videos are made up of nothing but videos splicing together other stuff, and he don't seem to show his face, at least not in any of them that I saw. His videos seemed designed to bash young-earth creationists and Christians in general. I have seen more science stuff from an atheistic YouTuber named Science Side Up.
Next, on his list of attacks, is a strawman argument. I told him, repeatedly, that I had no problem with these fields of studies, but he raised it up, and said, "Did you contact the chair of the Liberty University bio department? Did you ask him how Xenopus and Drosophila research are relevant to human health if humans are a special unique creations. I'd suggest informing him that he is possibly making an error of category." I had said that you were making a categorical error bc you were conflating two different categories, namely, someone's motivation to move forward in a field of study and epistemology because what motivates them forward has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the claim. Also, vitellogenin is a substance found in yoke. Because the same substance is found in both yokes, you think they "evolved" from one another? This wouldn't prove Darwinian evolution since a common designer from the Creation model would predict similarities like this. This is called the null hypothesis. Does he even knows what that is? If he were a real scientist he would. Similarities between things is not evidence for Darwinian evolution, anymore than similarities between cars made by Ford proves that all of their cars evolved from their Model A (1903), it just proves a common designer.
I told him, OK, now stop replying. The next reply he sends me I will delete it from my channel, and will keep doing that until he finally leave me alone. Something is seriously wrong with him, and it's not just his lack of rhetorical training and illogical thinking. As far as prayer, it does work. I told him to please leave me alone! That was my final warning to him.
Patrick: I was able to place in a link on YouTube...so we were both wrong... "If it looks like a duck...its a chicken!" Great saying, you moron!
Brian: These last two replies by him I had to pull out of memory since they were deleted by me, and my notifications didn't go that far back. He is likely responding to what I said in the video above the comments. Again, you can find my video here. "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quakes like a duck, it's probably a duck" is an old saying to reference that something is what it is if it has certain characteristics marking it as such. Clearly, Patrick misunderstood what I was saying here.
The reference to links I didn't quite understand, but I had told him what would happen if he kept responding, and he kept responding so I quickly deleted his comment here. I wasn't wrong about YouTube's algorithm being set up that way. So, he was wrong, but I was right. Once again, we have him making an abusive ad hominem fallacy. This is also the one in which I reported to YouTube for harassment. The comment was instantly deleted and I haven't heard from him sense, but Patrick is banned from the comment sections of my YouTube videos. He is no longer allowed on my channel. I was sorry it had to come to this, but I gave him plenty of ways out of this, but he just wanted to attack me because I disagree with him.
My Conclusion: He clearly lost this debate just as Patrick had lost the last debate. Originally, I thought I was debating a scientists, but now I am thinking that he had lied to me about his degrees. I have one rule on my channel, for us to treat each other with respect. Patrick was told this at the beginning of our discussion before he moved to my channel to continue it. However, he violated this rule at every turn. It's OK if we disagree on something. That is to be expected. However, there is no reason we can't talk to each other in a respectable manner, without the insults and name-calling. Unfortunately, Patrick did not want to follow that, and he is now banned from it.
With that said, however, I will continue to pray for him, as should you. It is bad whenever poor argumentation can be persuasive to someone like Patrick. It is sad indeed.
Comments