It inspires creativity, ingenuity, and strong problem-solving skills in everyone from children to young adults... which is very, very cool.

This is a debate, not a youtube free-for-all or a forum of shared thoughts. If you're going to make a point, prove it. If you think a point is wrong, dispute it. Mere comments are worthless.

http://www.wikihow.com/Debate

:P

Carbon dating itself has proven far too unreliable, and at best can only be used to prove the age of relatively young objects that have been buried in extremely stable environments. http://www.creationtoday.org/carbon-dating/

And we're not here to debate Noah's flood. Genesis may be relevant, due to its implications of creation and the corresponding Creator, against whom this video is arguing. Noah's flood has nothing to do with this.

This is a debate, not a youtube comment fest. If you're going to make a claim, back it up with evidence.

This comment is irrelevant to the truth of the video. It is pure conjecture and opinion, and provides nothing in support of its position.

This comment is irrelevant to the truth of the video. It is pure conjecture and opinion, and provides nothing in support of its position.

Theorem: All human reasoning is ultimately based on faith (not necessarily "religious" faith).

This comes in two parts: either human reasoning ultimately boils down to circular reasoning, or it is not based on anything at all.

If you doubt, this, find yourself a friend and ask them any question, followed by and endless number of "Why?" questions. Because humans are not infinite, and because there is ultimately nothing that all humans can agree on as absolute fact, at some point they will reach a foundational truth that simply must be true for everything else they've said to be true - their ultimate "cause". This "truth" may go hand-in-hand with other "truths" (the bible is true -> God says so -> they Bible says God says so -> etc), or it may be an ultimate truth by itself (the universe, in some understandable though perhaps infinite way, is ultimately self-creating/self-sufficient). Either way, though, at some point you can't ask "Why?" anymore, and an ultimate reason has been reached. Since in both cases, logic CANNOT justify this "truth" (to justify it would require a yet-further "truth", which we've already concluded doesn't exist at this point), then the "truth" must be accepted without logical, pre-existing proof. To accept a truth in this way is faith (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith, #1).

Now, back to the video. His ultimate premise lies in the fact that there is no way to know that an entity exists without proof - which he states, in his scenario, by trapping the object in a box. He notes that we cannot believe what anyone says about the contents of the box, because we have no proof that they are correct. If, however, we make that person's words our fundamental faith - our ultimate "cause" - then as long as they are completely correct, we can build a true and valid system of truths from what they have said.

Since all human reason is based on faith (as shown above), this method for discovering reality is as valid as any other, as long as the truths based on the fundamental faith are ultimately consistent with one another. Thus, the validity of the object of our fundamental faith can be tried, tested, and confirmed (or rejected) based on the consistency of truths derived from that most basic truth. Since the human mind is finite, we can expect that even in the case of invalid starting assumptions, a single human or group of humans may never discover the contradiction in their logical system, as long as the system is consistent in most areas.

Therefore, the video is incorrect. As long as the content of the box affects the non-contents, then someone can make a claim about the box, and that claim can be assumed, built upon, and verified or denied based on its implications for the universe outside of the box.

And what about if the content of the box doesn't affect the universe outside of it? Well then, my friend, you're talking about something that is not part of our universe, and is thus neither relevant nor possible for us to consider. We are creatures of this universe: how could we even begin to put bounds of any sort on an entity not belonging to our universe, when we ourselves are bound by our own universe? Since such a discussion is not relevant to our universe, and since the video is relevant to our universe, we can conclude that such a discussion would not affect the truth of this video.

Optimus Prime has saved all of humanity numerous times. Bender is nowhere near as significant to our history as Optimus