Transcription
If I lined up a spoon, a spork, and a fork, would their shapes be evidence of one having evolved into another? Or would it be more likely evidence of them having been designed by the same creator?
You see, a little red wagon, a tricycle, a bicycle, a Honda Civic, and a Lamborghini are all quite different and yet all have various similar component parts as well. And that's because an intelligent designer would use similarly effective and useful parts in a wide variety of applications. So the whole similarity equals proof of evolution argument is dubious regardless. I'd bet good money that forks, spoons, and sporks all have different creators.
Well, hi there. So the question here is if this guy lined up a spoon, a spork, and a fork, would their shapes be evidence of one having evolved into the other? Or would it more likely be evidence of them having been designed by the same creator? Which is an interesting question. He points out that a little red wagon, a tricycle and a bicycle, a Honda Civic and a Lamborghini are all quite different and yet have similar component parts, which is true. The reason he suggests is because an intelligent designer would use similarly effective and useful parts in a wide variety of applications. So he says the similarity equals proof of evolution argument is dubious. Okay. So, uh, let's answer his question.
I want to start by acknowledging that the flatear and wheeled machines analogies are imperfect comparisons to biological evolution. All analogies break down at some point. But the most important difference here is that neither flatear nor wheeled vehicles produce imperfect copies of themselves. Organisms observably do. If organisms didn't produce imperfect copies of themselves, then we would all agree that our current model of biological evolution is false. The fact that organisms do produce imperfect copies of themselves is the very foundation of the entire theory. So these analogies are flawed in the single most important way possible if you were wanting to compare them to biological evolution.
Modern AI where the AI is building the next version of itself would be a much better comp. And somewhere down the road, you probably will be able to look at all of the AIs that exist and determine which AIS are the most closely related and where they each came from. But let's pretend for a second that spoons were observably made from spoons that made molds of themselves and then poured new spoons. Uh, same for forks and sporks. And that as a result, slight imperfections in the molds each time the molds are made their offspring a bit different from the flatear from once they were cast, which would allow flatear to change over generations in ways that are similar to what we observe in living organisms. Then would the existence of a spoon, a fork, and a spork be evidence that one evolved from the other? Potentially, there would at least be a mechanism. But would it be proof? No. Which is why the similarity equals proof of evolution argument doesn't exist. Just because two things that exist or existed are similar, that does not mean that they came from one another. It's possible they might be related, but it doesn't prove that they are. Science doesn't even work in proof. That's math. But this is an example of a straw man argument, which is when you assign a position to your opposition that they do not hold and then you destroy it. Which is a great way to get patted on the back by people that already agree with you, but is excessively unimpressive to people that do not agree with you since they know their own arguments and you didn't touch on them. Showing that you are either ignorant of their actual arguments, unimpressive, or you know them, but you chose to hide that you knew them and deliberately attacked something weak instead, which is even less impressive. We'll talk more about this later.
So, lining up flatear is not proof of their evolution, even if they could produce imperfect copies of themselves like organisms can. And just for the record, if they could produce imperfect copies of themselves, that would make evolution almost unavoidable, but it wouldn't prove that sporks, forks, and spoons are somehow related. It would just make that possibility tenable.
So, where do we go from here? Let's go ahead and pretend that sporks, forks, and spoons are all biological organisms that can do all of the things that biological organisms do. They have genetic material. They exist in the fossil record. At this point, could we find support for the idea that sporks, forks, and spoons are related? Potentially, yeah. There are a number of predictions that we could make if we thought that sporks, forks, and spoons are closely related. For one thing, we would predict that their genetic code should be similar to one another, more similar than it is to organisms that we don't think are closely related to them. And then we could find out if it is or is not. Golden moles look and act a lot like moles and marsupial moles, but similarity does not mean that they're closely related. Their genomes are very different. Golden moles have more genetic similarity to an elephant than they do to moles or marsupial moles. Marsupial moles are more genetically similar to kangaroos than they are to moles or golden moles. And moles are more genetically similar to whales than they are to marsupial moles or golden moles. Not proof but predicted. We also would be able to make predictions about the kinds of fossils that should exist in the world. Because if forks, sporks, and spoons are related, then a pattern should emerge. If we look for fossils of the most forklike things that we can find, the most spork-like things that we can find, and the most spoon-like things that we can find, then the older the fossils, the more similar to one another, the most forklike, spoon-like, and spork-like things that we can find should become. If we find that, again, it would support our hypothesis, not proof, but again, predicted. These are some of the ways that we can test hypotheses about the past. And these are some of the ways that we test hypotheses about the relationships among organisms. We don't just look at their basic shapes and conclude that similarity proves evolution.
And by the way, I would be shocked if spoons, forks, and sporks all have the same creator. Spoons and forks have existed for thousands of years. Sporks a couple of centuries. I would be much less surprised to discover that the first spork was a modified spoon than to discover that the same creator made both of them thousands of years apart. But that's neither here nor there.
So, what about his claim that an intelligent designer would use similarly effective and useful parts in a wide variety of applications? I think that's probably true, especially if that creator was working with limited creativity or resources. It's a fairly reasonable explanation for similarities between organisms like humans, gorillas, and macaks. Those organisms all have a lot in common. And deliberately using similar genetic code and morphological features to achieve the same basic outcomes is not unreasonable. Why reinvent the wheel? Especially if you have limited creativity or resources. But then it doesn't explain well why in situations like we saw with the golden mole, the marsupial mole and the mole essentially the same design is achieved using completely different genetic code and often different anatomical features or why their genetic code would be so much more similar to organisms not much like moles at all. Why reuse more genetic material from a moleike creature to produce a whale than to produce other moleike creatures? The creator doesn't reinvent the wheel except for all of the times when it completely and totally reinvents the wheel. Why is that? You can probably come up with some possible answers, but it would be hard to claim that this is the more likely explanation for the phenomenon. And I certainly wouldn't predict the patterns of similarity that we see in nature. That is often reflected in the genomes of organisms, morphology, and the fossil record. If the creator is involved, and I'm totally open to that possibility, it seems that that creator is likely creating organismal diversity by making small tweaks to existing organisms over time. That is the only explanation invoking a creator that accounts not only for the evidence that exists, but for all of the evidence that was predicted to exist based on the evolutionary model and later actually discovered to exist. In support of the evolutionary model. Like the evidence that we previously discussed about whales.
This video is sponsored by Cyber GhostVPN. Most of us spend a big chunk of the day online working, shopping, researching, emailing, and a surprising amount of that happens on networks we don't fully control. Work, school, airports, hotels, and public Wi-Fi. A lot of people assume incognito is private, but hackers, your internet provider, your work or school network, and the sites you visit can still track and collect data. Cyber GhostVPN protects you by encrypting your internet traffic and routing it through secure servers in 100 plus countries. You receive an additional layer of privacy with their no logs policy. Cyber Ghost also unlocks georestricted games and content from over 40 streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney Plus. And you can even score better deals online by simply changing your virtual location. It works on all major devices and operating systems. And you can protect up to seven devices at the same time. Perfect for sharing with friends and family. If you're ready to level up your online privacy, go to cyber ghostvpn.com/clintretiles. Right now, you can get two years for $2.3 a month, plus a 45day money back guarantee. So, it's totally risk-free to try it out.
Evolutionists did not expect this from the Kruian carp. Northern pike are fierce predators who love to eat Kruian carp, but these carp have a little trick to help them survive. When a pike eats a carp and then poops, the remaining carp detect the smell of their fallen friend and start morphing into a larger shape. The carp now have a better escape response and are harder to swallow for the pike. Two things make this unexpected. First, the change starts fast, within 24 hours. Evolutionists expect changes like this to happen within a generation or two. Second, these carp are full adults, but they can still make significant changes to their bodies. The Kruian carp demonstrates a god-given way for these fish to survive and multiply in a non-random way, unlike what the evolutionists would suggest. But what do you think? Feel free to leave your comments down below.
So, this guy is making several statements about what evolutionists would think. I'm not sure what he specifically means by evolutionist. It could possibly mean anyone who accepts evolution, including those that misunderstand evolutionary biology, but accept it anyway. But I'm going to assume that he means people with a correct understanding of the science of evolutionary biology, as their arguments would be of much more value to refute than the erroneous understandings of ignorant people. Guess what? People that don't understand your position are wrong. Isn't a very good gotcha. Anyway, he starts out by suggesting that evolutionists did not expect that in response to chemical signals in the water released by predators that have been feeding on crushian carp, the surviving carp would start to morph into a deeper bodied form, giving them a better escape response and making them more difficult to swallow, which I I can't confirm that part about the escape response. What I've read suggests the opposite, but the part about being more difficult to swallow is probably true. Northern pike are a gape limited predator. But the part about evolutionists not expecting this is probably true. I would be shocked if really anybody before this phenomenon was first observed and documented expected this to happen. They just saw a crucian carp and went, I bet those carp undergo a significant morphological change in response to the presence of predators that it doesn't undergo in their absence. I just bet that happens. Changes like this are not unprecedented, but they are fairly uncommon and thus probably wouldn't be expected by most, even by evolutionists. So, this is probably true.
He is saying that two things make this unexpected. First, the change starts within 24 hours of exposure to the chemical signals released by pike feeding on these carp. He says that evolutionists expect changes like this to happen within a generation or two. So, not this fast. And second, these carp are adults, but they can still make significant changes to their bodies. He suggests that the Kruian carp demonstrates a god-given way for these fish to survive and multiply in a non-random way, unlike what evolutionists would suggest. And pretty much all of that was false. It is true that evolutionists would expect evolutionary changes to occur over multiple generations, not during the lifetimes of individual fish, especially adult fish. Evolutionary changes occur in populations, not individuals. And are changes to the genetic composition of the population over the course of multiple generations. Seeing a predictable change in a genetic composition of a population occur in 24 hours would be most unexpected. It is just that this isn't what's going on here. This is not an example of a genetic change sweeping across the population. This is an example of a phenomenon called phenotypic plasticity, which basically means that two or more sets of genes exist in the genome, but all of them aren't always expressed. Some are turned on and others are turned off. And we all have some inactivated genes in our genomes, like the tooth producing genes in chickens. However, in some cases, environmental cues can cause some genes that are normally expressed, turned on, to stop being expressed, and other genes that are normally not expressed, turned off, to become expressed. For example, we see this in some species of grasshoppers. Grasshoppers usually produce the most offspring by investing as much energy as possible into babies. They come, they eat, they breed. And this is true unless there are tons and tons of grasshoppers around because then they come, they eat, they run out of food, and they die without breeding. Fortunately for these grasshoppers, many have tiny hair-like projections on their bodies. If these hairs are bumped at a certain frequency by other grasshoppers or by the paintbrush of a bored and exhausted graduate student, then a set of genes that is usually unexpressed becomes activated. And instead of molting into feeding and breeding machines, they mol into long-distance flying machines that can also breed. But mostly they come, they eat, they leave, and instead of starving in one place, they move from place to place as locusts until they finally have the energy stored up to breed. And guess what the offspring of these locusts will be? Nope, not locusts, just grasshoppers. Unless you bump them just enough because just like their parents, they have the genes to do either thing. Which phenotype you get depends only on which genes are activated. Phenotypic plasticity. And while those genes responsible for this phenotypic plasticity can be altered over successive generations just like any other genes, the environmental cues, whether it be grasshopper collisions or chemical indicators that pikes are eating members of their species, are not changing the genome in any way. This isn't an evolutionary change. They're just impacting which already existing genes are expressed. And there is no reason that this cannot happen rapidly or in fish that have reached sexual maturity. If the actual genome was changing, yes, that would be shocking, but it isn't. This change neither supports nor refutes evolutionary theory because this isn't biological evolution. The ability in the ancestors of these fish may have come by means of evolutionary change, but that isn't what's going on with these fish now. So suggesting that evolutionists think that this sort of a change should take a long time and shouldn't be possible in adult fish is not an accurate representation of the actual position of evolutionists. This is yet another straw man.
And I'd like to take a moment to talk about straw man arguments for a second. Since the beginning of this series, I've been trying to model a different approach to interacting with people that don't share your views. Particularly focusing on steelmanning instead of strawmanning your opposition. In many ways, I feel like this has been the most important part of this series and is much the reason that we're still making these videos because genuinely trying to steal man your opposition generally isn't how we converse with people that disagree with us. And there are many reasons for this. My hope is that the biggest reason is that people don't know how to do it or why it matters so much. That can easily be remedied. I pray that it isn't simply that people don't care. Though I'm sure that this is part of the problem, too. It's very comfortable to think of yourself as always right and all those that disagree with you as being stupid, ignorant, evil, or some combination of the three. It's very uncomfortable to really attempt to listen to alternative viewpoints, acknowledge their merits, and address them in their strongest form. For one thing, it takes time. Uh, it takes a charitable mind. It takes viewing your opposition as human, possibly intelligent, and well-intentioned. It takes patience. It takes humility because the risk of truly understanding perspectives that aren't your own is that you might find out that you were the one that was wrong. And humans hate that. Many people will never in their lives open themselves up to this sort of vulnerability. And don't get me started on how the people that agree with you now will likely treat you if you decide that their positions have flaws. It's scary. It's hard. It's uncomfortable. It's not going to happen unless you know why. And I can give you a few wise. First, would you rather feel right or be right? Because you aren't right about everything. None of us are. But if you're unwilling to really listen to people that think you're wrong, then you will never find your blind spots. You will always be wrong. You just won't know it. Second, you might be right and you might want your right ideas to spread. If you were only ever speaking to entirely naive audiences, then all you would ever have to do is clearly explain your perspective. But you are almost never speaking to entirely naive audiences. Most people know or at least think they know something about most of the issues that you might want to discuss. If you disagree and you turn out to be the one that's right, then they have some blind spots and likely some misconceptions. And the thing about misconceptions is that you generally can't fix them without first identifying them. Once you identify them, you need to help your audience recognize their flaws and then you can teach them the truth. This won't work if you guess incorrectly about what their misconceptions are. If you assign a position to them that they don't hold and then tear that position down, you will change nothing. All you will do is reveal to that person that you don't understand their perspective, which will entirely undermine your authority to teach them anything. Heck, they would be justified in thinking that the only reason that you disagree with them is because you don't understand. And going back to the first point, they might be right. So if you want to change minds, the first thing you have to do is identify the conceptions of your audience. If they are misconceptions, then you need to lay them out to your audience in such a way that they can agree that you have their position right. If they don't agree that you have them right, you have more listening to do. And you need to keep doing this until they confirm that you do understand correctly. In the first video in this series, I laid out a steel man of the young earth creationist position. I didn't just make that up. That is the result of literal years of listening, asking questions, presenting my understanding, asking for corrections, making those corrections, and trying again. I'm still asking for corrections. That video has been viewed over 3/4 of a million times with no doubt thousands of those views coming from creationists. And I haven't received any comments from creationists saying that I'm misrepresenting their views. And many, many creationists have told me that I have it right. In fact, many have told me that I said it better than they could. Do you think that I have at least a chance of getting through to some of those people? Do you think that I might change a few minds that I wouldn't have changed if I had revealed a complete misunderstanding of their positions? If I just come in there, attacked their faith, called them idiots, accused them of lying, and called them evil? And here's the thing, some creationists are evil, lying idiots. As are some people that accept evolution. But some are well-intentioned, sincere, intelligent, truth-seeking people. And I think that I have a lot to learn from them and probably a few things that they could learn from me. So, if you want to be persuasive to people that disagree with you, this is by far the best way that I know to make that possible. And I'm not speaking as a layman. My PhD research was all on how to teach controversial topics, specifically evolution, in such a way that it can actually change minds. You can watch my dissertation defense if you want to. I know that this is Clint's reptiles, but I have far more formal education on this subject than I do about reptiles. So, if you want to change minds, this is the best way I know to exist. It works. Not every time, but it works. Of course, it requires a certain amount of respect for the people that disagree with you. At the very least, you need to view them as humans with the potential to grow. I I have more to say, a lot more, but I want to give what we just discussed a moment to settle in with you first. So, let's watch another video.
Evolutionists believe dinosaurs turned into birds. Clint, you're training at a gnat and swallowing a camel, swallowing a an elephant. You think it's I should I shouldn't say, you know, threehorn a type some type of three-horned lizard turned into the triceratops just by growth. And you think they turned into a bird. Hello. Is anybody home? That's stupid. stupid. Okay, maybe one like this grew horns only at maturity. Could it be that like the elk, the deer, the moose, they don't grow horns till they reach maturity? Could it be the lizards we're seeing today aren't living long enough to even reach that stage where they grow the horns? I'm just pointing out I think everybody understands the dinosaurs like the threehorn triceratops had at some point was a baby. It might have looked very different. Maybe the gas grasping foot where they could, you know, you showed your Jackson chameleia could you toes two toes on one way and three the other could grab a branch and maybe that disappeared as they got older to just cuz they only walk on the ground. Many animals go through some pretty serious changes in life as they grow. So that was Ken Hovind uh talking to me. This looks like a clip of a longer video, but I can't seem to find the longer video. I'm hoping that I've been whacked again. I know I've been the subject of at least two Kentoven whack and atheist segments, but it looks like this might be a third. If if anybody can find the full video, I would love to see it. I really want to know the official number. I would imagine that it's probably a record for someone who is u not an atheist, though I used to be one, and Ken Hovind played a non-trivial role in turning me into an atheist. I bet I'm not alone in that. He had nothing to do with the reason that I am no longer an atheist today. But I'm going to tell you a little secret. I am not a fan of Kenhovven both as a scientist and a religious person. I think he is a destructive force in the world. I think he is destructive to both science literacy and faith. But that doesn't mean that he never has anything of merit to say. It would be a logical fallacy for me to reject what he is saying simply because he's the one saying it.
So what are his points? Well, this appears to be a response to an earlier video in this series where I was addressing his claim that dinosaurs are just lizards that live longer. Due to indeterminate growth, he claimed that Jackson's chameleons before the flood, when animals used to live longer, probably grew up to be some kind of triceratops. And I pointed out that there are some significant differences between sereratopsians and lizards, including chameleons. Differences already observably present in baby sereratopsians which are smaller than many lizards alive today. So not things that just appeared when they became very large. To which he is now responding that evolutionists believe that dinosaurs turned into birds, which is apparently a more extreme position than thinking that some sort of three-horned lizard grew into the triceratops. He says that this is stupid. I'm straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel or an elephant, which is not an expression that I had heard before, but I like it. He then hypothesizes that maybe they grew horns only at maturity, like what we see in many servid mammals, which have antlers, not horns. But point made, maybe modern lizards aren't even living long enough to reach the horn growing stage. He is just pointing out that the triceratops at some point was a baby and might have looked very different. Maybe their feet changed as they aged and began to walk on the ground instead of on branches. Many animals go through some pretty serious changes in life as they grow. And that's true. We don't see any extreme transitions like this in reptiles, but there are certainly animals that do exhibit massive ontogenetic changes. So, it isn't inconceivable that a lizard that lived for hundreds of years and continued to experience ontogenetic changes long after reaching sexual maturity could end up morphologically very different from the way that it was as a juvenile. It's not impossible, but again, it would be something very different from what we observe in any reptiles, including birds, which probably show the most extreme ontogenetic changes of any reptiles. So, you wouldn't predict this to be the case. There's no reason to think this would be the case. But it's not impossible. Of course, as I already said in my argument from the video he's responding to, there's one catastrophic shortcoming of this argument that seratopsians are giant lizards that grew into a form which looks nothing like a lizard. And that is that we have many fossils of baby sereratopsians and they have the morphologies of sereratopsians, not lizards. So, not only would this hypothesis require changes not seen in any other reptiles to occur in sereratopsians, but we have evidence demonstrating as clearly as is conceivably possible that this did not happen in sereratopsians. If that doesn't do it for you, well, you're just beyond reason. As I've said before, you can be on the right side of an argument and still make a terrible argument for your side. Young earth creationists could be right and you could still acknowledge that adult sereratopsians are grown-up versions of baby sereratopsians. Kent, you made a claim about them being big lizards. It turned out not to be true. You can acknowledge this and still think that there were sereratopsians on the ark. So I I think we squished the gnat.
But what about the elephant? Am I swallowing an elephant that dinosaurs turned into birds? And I'll start by clarifying my position just a bit. Not that he is saying this here, but I have heard many people like Tim from Jurassic Park insinuate that all dinosaurs turned into birds. And that is not my position, the position of Dr. Grant or the position of modern paleontology or evolutionary biology. My position is that birds are dinosaurs. One group among many that existed in the Mesazoic. And when most dinosaur lineages went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous, a few lineages of dinosaurs survived. All of them being bird lineages. It isn't that all dinosaurs turned into birds. It's that the birds were the only dinosaurs that survived. So, that was just for clarification. But yes, I do think that some non-bird dinosaurs turned into birds long before the other dinosaurs went extinct. But I do think that this happened. They're still dinosaurs, though. You can't evolve out of a cate, but diversification can occur within clays. And that is what I think happened here. One important differentiation between the gnat and the elephant is that I don't think that this happened as a result of ontogyny but evolution. I think that birds evolved over many generations in millions of years not during a single extended generation. I acknowledge that the accumulated changes that can occur in a population over millions of years may be greater than the ontogenetic changes possible in a single organism during its lifetime. And interestingly, birds exhibit the key diagnostic features of dinosaurs. Lizards don't. So even if we didn't accept the potential for evolution to change organisms more than ontogyny, well, birds, just like they are today, are more clearly identifiable as dinosaurs than dinosaurs are as lizards. Which again is one of those points that I think creationists could accept. Birds are dinosaurs. Generally, creationists don't think that all dinosaurs share common ancestors. There are many kinds of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are a grouping of similar but independently created lineages. So, why can't birds be one of them? I don't know. Birds can be dinosaurs and adult triceratopses can be grown-up baby triceratopses and you can still think that the earth is 6,000 years old. And uh, I guess I would way rather swallow a bird than a triceratops. But I need to get back to the point of seeing your opposition as truly human. Maybe flawed humans, but humans. People with the potential to learn and change. People who feel and experience a lot of the same things that you do. People who might have something of value to share with you. It is human nature to view only people we perceive as part of our in-roup this way. And to demonize, homogenize, and dehumanize people we perceive as not being part of our group. Even if those groups are randomly assigned, even if we know that they're randomly assigned, these tendencies are deeply entrenched in us. And we can discuss this in greater detail in the future if you would like, but this behavior is not new. It likely predates our species by a long way. But would seeing the humanity and others, even people you disagree with, not make the world a better place? And I'm not talking about agreeing with them. I I'm not talking about meeting them halfway. I'm not talking about supporting them in everything that they do. Just seeing the humanity in them.
Last time we showed a clip of a controversial figure steelmanning a person that disagreed with him and how the nature of that interaction totally changed the tone of that conversation. We shared this because it was such a rare example of such an interaction. I wish it wasn't rare, but it is. Especially when you can see not only the use of the steelman but the impact on the person being steelmanned. If you know of other examples, please share them. We would love to share them in the future. I'm very passionate about this. It might be the most important thing I can do with this platform. That said, many people commented fairly in my assessment that his response after the steelman didn't fully address the arguments of the person that he was talking to. And I agree his argument, which is separate from the steelman, a steel man is not an argument. But his argument was both slightly inaccurate on the facts and likely incomplete. But you know what? That's okay because the interaction was actually slightly better than what I highlighted. He didn't just steel man respond and drop the mic. He steelman. And it was a steelman. His his opponent acknowledged that he had it right. It's hard to ask much more than that from a person. Maybe it wasn't a steelman of your position, but he wasn't talking to you. And the person that he was talking to told him that he got it right, so it was a steelman. His subsequent argument doesn't undermine it either because when he made that argument, flawed as it was, he also invited the man he was talking to to offer his feedback when he was done. Frankly, you can be as wrong as you want to be as long as you ask others to weigh in and correct you if needed. It wasn't a perfect argument and the statistic that he cited was inaccurate in that what he cited was a slightly different statistic than what he claimed it to be. But he was talking about a real phenomenon that plausibly does explain some of the disparities that he was discussing, but probably not all. So it was a little bit inaccurate. It probably isn't a complete explanation for the disparity. And he didn't provide any explanation for why he thinks this phenomenon exists or what he thinks should be done about it in the here and now. So, there was a lot left to be discussed. I've actually spent some time thinking about how I would have responded if he'd asked me for my feedback, but that wasn't the point. The point is that he did ask for that feedback and Steelmanda's opposition. The way that this conversation played out was amazing, especially if at least one of the parties thought that it was going to be a hostile interaction at the start. Amazing. Or so it would seem. But I have spoken to many awesome people in the comments that have acknowledged that they assume that the speaker knew the weaknesses of his argument and was making it anyway, trying to sneak it by in a manipulative and disingenuous way. And as much as that may be true, they realized upon further inspection that there is nothing in that interaction that makes this obvious. It's just an assumption. And assuming malice or disingenuousness without reason closes the door to meaningful conversation. As it was, the door was wide open to a meaningful conversation where both participants could potentially learn from one another, shine light on some blind spots, and emerge edified and probably a bit less extreme in their positions. Now, I don't say this to suggest that all extreme positions are wrong. There are times when one extreme is totally right and the other totally wrong. The middle isn't where all truth resides. But if we actually care about the truth, then these are the exact kinds of conversations that we need to have.
Now, some of you have pointed out reasonably that disingenuous people can use these techniques to manipulate others. And you're right, they can. This may even be an example of that. So, do you want them to be the only ones doing so? Do you want benevolent, manipulative, disingenuous, hateful sociopaths to be the only ones changing people's minds? I don't. So if you don't like seeing people that disagree with you doing this to great effect, promote this kind of interaction on your side within your sphere of influence because people in your tribe will listen to you and maybe not to me. If we want to destroy bad ideas, we have rhetoric or violence with the former being the more challenging of the two. A child can fight, but it takes maturity to listen, to understand, and to see the humanity in those that don't share our values. What world do you want to live in?
As always, like and subscribe, and we hope to see you real soon. Don't forget to click the link in the description to grab the special Cyber GhostVPN discount available for our viewers. It keeps your data safe while you browse and unlock all blocked content online, all for just $2.3 a month. It's completely risk-f free. So check it out today.
>> Clint, is that what evolutionists think?
>> Not quite what evolutionists think.
>> Are you telling me he's presenting a straw man?
>> Really interesting.
>> It takes patience.
>> Takes trains.
>> Yeah. Sometimes a train's going to get in the way. Break your train of thought.
>> Response.