just to be clear, im not attacking you in any way nor am i saying that you shouldnt believe what you believe, but i do have some criticisms of the points you made here: 5. what determines when a species is “supposed” to go extinct? it is completely possible for a species to live for many millions of years. (ill focus on the goblin shark for the sake of simplicity.) the goblin shark was thought to be extinct because we couldn’t find any. we now know the reason for this is because they live very deep in the ocean and are extremely hard to find. they have in fact changed a little bit compared to the ones from long ago (“micro-evolution” as you call it), but they havent changed a whole lot because they have no reason to. there is nothing in their environment that is forcing them to adapt in order to survive, they have already adapted well enough to their environment. this is why some animals seem to have not evolved at all, while other animals change very quickly. the ones that haven’t changed dont need to, because they are already adapted pretty well to their environment. the ones that change a lot do so because they are not yet adapted to their environment, or their environment is changing. now dont misunderstand, im not saying that animals choose when to evolve in order to survive better. evolution happens when mutations happen, mutations are not controllable. lets look at the goblin shark for example. let’s say its body is not strong enough to withstand the depths it needs to go to in order to find more food. now lets say one of them gets a mutation (it’s usually a combination of multiple mutations, which is why evolution takes so long, but ill keep it at one for simplicity) that makes their body strong enough to go deeper. this goblin shark can now go hunt much more food than the others, which means it will thrive. a thriving animal will reproduce more than its non-thriving brethren, meaning it’s genetic mutation will be passed on to more offspring. these offspring will then outcompete the others for food, and again reproduce much more than the ones without the mutation. after many generations of this, every goblin shark will now have the mutation, and will survive better in their environment. now that they are adapted to their environment and dont need any huge change to survive better, the only mutations that will allow a goblin shark to thrive more than the others are small ones. if a large beneficial mutation does happen (i forgot to mention that most mutations are not beneficial, which is another reason why evolution takes so long), then they will change, but this gets rarer as they become more adapted to their environment. that was a pretty simplified explanation of the evolutionary process, so dont treat me like an expert, but hopefully you understand my point. 4. we didnt recently find dinosaur bones, they have been found long, long ago. the first ever recorded *description* of a dinosaur fossil was in 1677, but that doesnt mean they weren’t found long before then. for as long as we’ve dug deep underground, we’ve found fossils. people are prone to create stories, and when they see bones of a giant animal, they are most likely going to fantasize over what it was when it was alive. im not going to go in depth about how these stories come about and turn into beliefs, because it should be pretty obvious to anyone who studies history. the claim that dinosaurs and humans lived together has been debunked countless times by people much smarter than you or i, so if you are willing to, i suggest doing research on this topic with sources outside of the creationist circle. for example, look into the papers that have debunked the image you put on the top left of the anasazi dinosaur painting. also, id like to suggest learning what “pareidolia” is, since it can explain a lot of the things we think we see in cave paintings, hieroglyphics, etc. 3. ok, this one is probably the worst of your points so far. we didnt just find soft t-rex tissue laying around, that is blatant misinformation. what _really_ happened is we found a 107 cm long femur bone of a t-rex, which was turned into soft tissue after being treated with a solution designed to dissolve the mineral components of the bone. its pretty obvious that you got this one from another apologist and just believed it on face value (which is even more obvious when you look at the watermark on the top left of the bottom left image), you didn’t research this on your own. if you did honestly look into it, you wouldve very quickly found the real papers that documented what happened. the supposed “human” trails found with dinosaur trails were determined to not be human trails, but instead the trails of a dinosaur that looked similar to human trails. im not sure why that explanation sounds so outlandish to you, but if the only argument you have against it is “i dont like that,” i guess i dont have much to say i response to that. 2. this is probably your best point, but alas, you dont follow your own advice. evident by the fact that all of your previous points came from other creationists who are willing to lie for what they believe (notice how all of the images you provided just happen to be old news article papers, not actual scientific papers), while scientists are the ones who actually provide evidence and sources for their claims. news articles do not care about the truth, they care about whether or not you read them. you seem to like to claim that “evolutionists” are these hyper religious morons who will run away from any contradictory evidence, yet you dont seem to understand that science literally functions BECAUSE of contradictory evidence, thats how we learn new things. and i wont even get started on your reliance on creationist-biased sources. im not going to defend every single scientist on earth, there are bad actors, but scientists are generally trustworthy because their whole job relies on studying evidence on both sides of things. the scientific method works by creating a hypothesis based on observations, and then looking for evidence that contradicts that hypothesis. if no contradictory evidence is found, or if contradictory evidence is debunked, and the hypothesis explains what we observe better than other explanations (meaning it not only gives us answers, but can allow us to make predictions and learn more about the universe), it becomes a theory. nothing in science is ever claimed to be 100% a fact (by honest people), only an explanation. religion however, is claimed to be the absolute truth based on nothing but personal experience, flawed evidence, and stories. im sorry, but id rather have explanations that could be wrong, than explanations that are claimed to be true despite all contradictory evidence, and are so flawed that they require apologists to try their hardest to keep people believing it. 1. the population has not doubled every 150 years over 50,000 years, thats just an assumption. from when jesus was born to 1650, the population went from 300 million to 500 million. when we invented better technology, birth rates skyrocketed. its really not hard to understand. the last criticism i have is your lack of research. you dont seem to look at the opposite side when it comes to things like “living fossils”, dinosaur paintings, t-rex dna, etc. i am aware that social media algorithms are designed to feed you what you want to hear, but it isnt that hard to just google this stuff and look at a few papers about it that arent from biased creationists. and another thing: you seem to have started your “journey to creationism” (assuming you weren’t just indoctrinated as a kid into believing it) while already having your critical thinking skills damaged by being indoctrinated into a religion. i think we both know that religion is not the most reliable thing, but one of us wont say it.
Let me respond this way, this is what im talking about this made my day. I appreciate you tremendously. You went through my points and gave me your response. Thank you my brother in humanity. I'd love to have you on my channel or something like that and speak with you there of course are some points id like to raise back to you. Your always welcome here and God bless.
@@John2028Apologetics so, no answers though. i;m not as generous, either you're some kind of dimbo or you're some kind of liar. creationism makes no sense and it should make no sense to you as well, so something inside your head is wonky.
That's funny because I grew up watching documentaries about Dinosaurs and I loved watching them.. I really don't believe dinosaurs still exist, but if they did that would trip me out man. What I did always wondered is how close of a time period of when humans existed compared to Dinosaurs.. I've also watched recent documentaries and people think Giants still exist.. Can't say I believe that either but if one actually shows, as well as Sasquatch (lol) still exist I'd fall out man.haha
if you want facts about dinosaurs coming to this channel is really daft, creationism is a total lie, it was dreamed up purely to get another hour of god into schools - legally - it was shown to be false IN COURT by a christian prosecutor - the dover trials - the school board were trying to get more god taught and dressed it up as "science" when it is bollocks and not even related to science - and seriously THIS is the last place to come to for ANY scientific knowledge, the sole purpose of these channels is to get you into the god thing, not to educate you. there are plenty of great science channels - the test is if there is no mention AT ALL - not even denial of god - then that's a good place to start. creationism is false, it's stupid, it has no practical application, it's be proved - PROVED false in court - and try to find out how much aramco spent on finding oil and minerals last year, then see how much of those billions went to "creation science" nothing. it's not science at all.
@@John2028Apologetics do you really believe this crap? i find it so hard to take anyone who supports creationism seriously, even the majority of religists - of all kinds - know creationism is BS. how does your brain function that you can't evaluate information, and so much information that goes counter to creationism?
just to be clear, im not attacking you in any way nor am i saying that you shouldnt believe what you believe, but i do have some criticisms of the points you made here:
5. what determines when a species is “supposed” to go extinct? it is completely possible for a species to live for many millions of years. (ill focus on the goblin shark for the sake of simplicity.) the goblin shark was thought to be extinct because we couldn’t find any. we now know the reason for this is because they live very deep in the ocean and are extremely hard to find. they have in fact changed a little bit compared to the ones from long ago (“micro-evolution” as you call it), but they havent changed a whole lot because they have no reason to. there is nothing in their environment that is forcing them to adapt in order to survive, they have already adapted well enough to their environment. this is why some animals seem to have not evolved at all, while other animals change very quickly. the ones that haven’t changed dont need to, because they are already adapted pretty well to their environment. the ones that change a lot do so because they are not yet adapted to their environment, or their environment is changing. now dont misunderstand, im not saying that animals choose when to evolve in order to survive better. evolution happens when mutations happen, mutations are not controllable. lets look at the goblin shark for example. let’s say its body is not strong enough to withstand the depths it needs to go to in order to find more food. now lets say one of them gets a mutation (it’s usually a combination of multiple mutations, which is why evolution takes so long, but ill keep it at one for simplicity) that makes their body strong enough to go deeper. this goblin shark can now go hunt much more food than the others, which means it will thrive. a thriving animal will reproduce more than its non-thriving brethren, meaning it’s genetic mutation will be passed on to more offspring. these offspring will then outcompete the others for food, and again reproduce much more than the ones without the mutation. after many generations of this, every goblin shark will now have the mutation, and will survive better in their environment. now that they are adapted to their environment and dont need any huge change to survive better, the only mutations that will allow a goblin shark to thrive more than the others are small ones. if a large beneficial mutation does happen (i forgot to mention that most mutations are not beneficial, which is another reason why evolution takes so long), then they will change, but this gets rarer as they become more adapted to their environment. that was a pretty simplified explanation of the evolutionary process, so dont treat me like an expert, but hopefully you understand my point.
4. we didnt recently find dinosaur bones, they have been found long, long ago. the first ever recorded *description* of a dinosaur fossil was in 1677, but that doesnt mean they weren’t found long before then. for as long as we’ve dug deep underground, we’ve found fossils. people are prone to create stories, and when they see bones of a giant animal, they are most likely going to fantasize over what it was when it was alive. im not going to go in depth about how these stories come about and turn into beliefs, because it should be pretty obvious to anyone who studies history. the claim that dinosaurs and humans lived together has been debunked countless times by people much smarter than you or i, so if you are willing to, i suggest doing research on this topic with sources outside of the creationist circle. for example, look into the papers that have debunked the image you put on the top left of the anasazi dinosaur painting. also, id like to suggest learning what “pareidolia” is, since it can explain a lot of the things we think we see in cave paintings, hieroglyphics, etc.
3. ok, this one is probably the worst of your points so far. we didnt just find soft t-rex tissue laying around, that is blatant misinformation. what _really_ happened is we found a 107 cm long femur bone of a t-rex, which was turned into soft tissue after being treated with a solution designed to dissolve the mineral components of the bone. its pretty obvious that you got this one from another apologist and just believed it on face value (which is even more obvious when you look at the watermark on the top left of the bottom left image), you didn’t research this on your own. if you did honestly look into it, you wouldve very quickly found the real papers that documented what happened. the supposed “human” trails found with dinosaur trails were determined to not be human trails, but instead the trails of a dinosaur that looked similar to human trails. im not sure why that explanation sounds so outlandish to you, but if the only argument you have against it is “i dont like that,” i guess i dont have much to say i response to that.
2. this is probably your best point, but alas, you dont follow your own advice. evident by the fact that all of your previous points came from other creationists who are willing to lie for what they believe (notice how all of the images you provided just happen to be old news article papers, not actual scientific papers), while scientists are the ones who actually provide evidence and sources for their claims. news articles do not care about the truth, they care about whether or not you read them. you seem to like to claim that “evolutionists” are these hyper religious morons who will run away from any contradictory evidence, yet you dont seem to understand that science literally functions BECAUSE of contradictory evidence, thats how we learn new things. and i wont even get started on your reliance on creationist-biased sources. im not going to defend every single scientist on earth, there are bad actors, but scientists are generally trustworthy because their whole job relies on studying evidence on both sides of things. the scientific method works by creating a hypothesis based on observations, and then looking for evidence that contradicts that hypothesis. if no contradictory evidence is found, or if contradictory evidence is debunked, and the hypothesis explains what we observe better than other explanations (meaning it not only gives us answers, but can allow us to make predictions and learn more about the universe), it becomes a theory. nothing in science is ever claimed to be 100% a fact (by honest people), only an explanation. religion however, is claimed to be the absolute truth based on nothing but personal experience, flawed evidence, and stories. im sorry, but id rather have explanations that could be wrong, than explanations that are claimed to be true despite all contradictory evidence, and are so flawed that they require apologists to try their hardest to keep people believing it.
1. the population has not doubled every 150 years over 50,000 years, thats just an assumption. from when jesus was born to 1650, the population went from 300 million to 500 million. when we invented better technology, birth rates skyrocketed. its really not hard to understand.
the last criticism i have is your lack of research. you dont seem to look at the opposite side when it comes to things like “living fossils”, dinosaur paintings, t-rex dna, etc. i am aware that social media algorithms are designed to feed you what you want to hear, but it isnt that hard to just google this stuff and look at a few papers about it that arent from biased creationists. and another thing: you seem to have started your “journey to creationism” (assuming you weren’t just indoctrinated as a kid into believing it) while already having your critical thinking skills damaged by being indoctrinated into a religion. i think we both know that religion is not the most reliable thing, but one of us wont say it.
Let me respond this way, this is what im talking about this made my day. I appreciate you tremendously. You went through my points and gave me your response. Thank you my brother in humanity. I'd love to have you on my channel or something like that and speak with you there of course are some points id like to raise back to you. Your always welcome here and God bless.
If you are interested please let me know ill send you my email and we can get in touch that way
@@John2028Apologetics so, no answers though. i;m not as generous, either you're some kind of dimbo or you're some kind of liar. creationism makes no sense and it should make no sense to you as well, so something inside your head is wonky.
coming to a religist propaganda page for science information is dumb, but that religists for you, they want to be dumb.
That's funny because I grew up watching documentaries about Dinosaurs and I loved watching them.. I really don't believe dinosaurs still exist, but if they did that would trip me out man. What I did always wondered is how close of a time period of when humans existed compared to Dinosaurs.. I've also watched recent documentaries and people think Giants still exist.. Can't say I believe that either but if one actually shows, as well as Sasquatch (lol) still exist I'd fall out man.haha
Lol, ill be doing a giants video hopefully by spring time can't wait!
if you want facts about dinosaurs coming to this channel is really daft, creationism is a total lie, it was dreamed up purely to get another hour of god into schools - legally - it was shown to be false IN COURT by a christian prosecutor - the dover trials - the school board were trying to get more god taught and dressed it up as "science" when it is bollocks and not even related to science - and seriously THIS is the last place to come to for ANY scientific knowledge, the sole purpose of these channels is to get you into the god thing, not to educate you.
there are plenty of great science channels - the test is if there is no mention AT ALL - not even denial of god - then that's a good place to start.
creationism is false, it's stupid, it has no practical application, it's be proved - PROVED false in court - and try to find out how much aramco spent on finding oil and minerals last year, then see how much of those billions went to "creation science"
nothing. it's not science at all.
@@John2028Apologetics do you really believe this crap? i find it so hard to take anyone who supports creationism seriously, even the majority of religists - of all kinds - know creationism is BS. how does your brain function that you can't evaluate information, and so much information that goes counter to creationism?
Promo`SM 💪