La Brea Tar Pits: What 4,000 Dire Wolves Tell Us About Earth's History

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 8 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 192

  • @CharlesPayet
    @CharlesPayet 8 днів тому +17

    The “problems” that young earth creationists face really are insurmountable at every single step:
    - Heat Problem
    - Mud Problem
    - Localized Extreme Sedimentation Layering (such as the 6K feet of salt under the Red Sea)
    - Food/vegetation Problem: how did all the different ecosystems grow fast enough - in succession! - to support all the animals as they spread - even though the entire planet was covered in mud!
    - Animal Dispersal Problem
    - Fossil Placement Problem (depth in geologic column)
    - Fossil Placement Problem (overlapping species within same niche but apparently never encountering each other)
    - Hyper-reproduction Problem to create population sizes big enough to allow a small percentage to fossilize, combined with Hyper-speciation.
    All of those have to fit within 1 cohesive model, but they can’t even come up with a single cohesive model for one of them.

    • @antondovydaitis2261
      @antondovydaitis2261 8 днів тому +7

      It's like Flat Earth.
      As long as there is some ad hoc "answer" to each question, it doesn't matter if those "answers" contradict each other.
      Predictions aren't even a consideration.

    • @GhostScout42
      @GhostScout42 7 днів тому +2

      hydroplate theory you are welcome bye

    • @CharlesPayet
      @CharlesPayet 7 днів тому +1

      @ LOL you have to be kidding. The hydroplate theory doesn’t explain a single one of the issues I listed, and in fact it is one of the CAUSES of the Heat Problem. In fact, the people who came up with the HPT, are the ones who realized it’s impossible without direct miraculous intervention by god, because tectonic plate movement that fast would generate so much heat, it would melt the entire surface of the planet.

    • @dariolemos4583
      @dariolemos4583 7 днів тому +2

      The main problem they face, every day, is psychological. The amount of denial and self-repression of their own common sense they have to exert is pathological

    • @tomesplin4130
      @tomesplin4130 7 днів тому +4

      Not to mention light from distant galaxies

  • @danhoff4401
    @danhoff4401 8 днів тому +11

    When I was a kod I remember going to the mammoth dig in Hot Springs SD. We travelled the same way, lot of sandwhiches on the tailgate or whatever park was nearby. I can remember my mom not letting us read the displays because they mentioned millions of years. Too bad because she could have learned something.

  • @pmyou2
    @pmyou2 7 днів тому +4

    I would love to see an episode that just reviewed stats on how many creatures would have to be alive at the moment of the flood to account for the volume of fossils we have. Perhaps also comparing land based fossils vs water based fossils. If we get numbers like "there were 20 mammals per square foot alive at the time of the flood as implied by the geologic", that would be fascinating to hear.

    • @InquisitiveBible
      @InquisitiveBible 7 днів тому +3

      It's not quite the same thing, but I think Dr. Duff has a blog post about the *trillions* of stone tools that exist in Africa. I think he has one on the enormous volume of ancient footprints as well. There is no way under creationism to account for the number of human and animal remains that exist from prehistoric times.

    • @borisbauwens7133
      @borisbauwens7133 6 днів тому +2

      Dr Duff has made a video about this for highly abundant cephalopod fossils.

  • @InquisitiveBible
    @InquisitiveBible 7 днів тому +3

    The AIG timeline at 13:00 is ludicrous. How can there be forests in Antarctica the moment Noah steps off the Ark? It would take hundreds if not thousands of years for seeds to blow there and slowly establish an ecosystem.
    And Mastodons evolved in like 40 years? Do they understand what the pachyderm life cycle is like?

  • @Prometheus_Bound
    @Prometheus_Bound 8 днів тому +9

    "species don't change very much" did not used to be controversial in YEC circles.

    • @Fade2GrayOG
      @Fade2GrayOG 6 днів тому +1

      "species don't change" used to just be the default YEC stance.

    • @CJ-ik8qf
      @CJ-ik8qf 5 днів тому +1

      We see speciation

    • @Prometheus_Bound
      @Prometheus_Bound 5 днів тому

      @@CJ-ik8qf Precisely.

  • @mrJety89
    @mrJety89 8 днів тому +17

    It's a dire situation.

    • @big_dawg777
      @big_dawg777 7 днів тому +1

      Classic, lol !

    • @Animalmanager
      @Animalmanager 4 дні тому +1

      A dire situation only for an old
      Earth uniformitarianist.

    • @mrJety89
      @mrJety89 4 дні тому

      @@Animalmanager How so?

    • @Animalmanager
      @Animalmanager 3 дні тому +1

      Over the past year, I’ve been studying hydroplate theory and have used Joel ‘s videos to test Dr. Walter Brown’s theory. None of Joels’ lines of argumentation hold any water (pun intended) to what Dr. Walter Brown’s proposes.
      Read up on what HPT states in regards to liquefaction as the origin of strata and layered fossils.
      If you want a comprehensive overview set aside a few hours of your time and watch Brian Nickel’s overview of hydroplate theory on UA-cam.
      More information is present in the eighth and ninth edition of Dr. Walter Brown’s book as well

    • @mrJety89
      @mrJety89 3 дні тому

      @@Animalmanager Pls. listen. I am a fan of many professors as well. If you really meant what you said in your previous comment, and you actually studied this guy's work as you have stated, then you should be articulate enough to explain what you meant. If You cannot explain Yourself, then I will have Zero incentive, actually less than that, I will have Negative incentive to listen to anything he has to say.
      So don't make me repeat myself again pls.
      What do you mean?

  • @Prometheus_Bound
    @Prometheus_Bound 8 днів тому +5

    33:11 I think a video consisting of all these kinds of YEC inconsistencies would be great: e.g. "fossils can only be formed during a global flood" vs "all these fossils formed after the flood". I would love to know how many such inconsistencies are part of their model.

    • @danhoff4401
      @danhoff4401 8 днів тому

      Hundreds, more if you can actually get into the weeds with them. Part of the problem is you can't even identify the inconsistency because they never put forward a model that actually explains data. It's all dogma.

    • @GhostScout42
      @GhostScout42 7 днів тому

      Thats not how any creationist thinks. ill break it down for you though. thewe flood produced the vast majority of fossils because the conditions were perfect. after the flood 99.99% of all things that die dont get fossilized withoutvery specific conditions like a tar pit.
      you are welcome, let me know if you have any moree questions, i can see why you guys think we are dumb if you think we think that. lets stop using strawmen, i bet we could have more productive comments

    • @Prometheus_Bound
      @Prometheus_Bound 7 днів тому +2

      @GhostScout42 I've been part of the YEC community and know a lot of your talking points. There are glaring inconsistencies like these all over the place. I wish that many could be gathered into one video.

    • @CharlesPayet
      @CharlesPayet 7 днів тому

      @@GhostScout42 we know exactly what you think, and NONE of it works.

    • @Matoyak
      @Matoyak 2 дні тому

      Gutsick Gibbon might have a vid or series like that, and Prof Dave Explains has a series on it (though his tone is obnoxious as always, the data is good).

  • @dougmeeks
    @dougmeeks 7 днів тому +2

    Love your work

  • @Jo-JoandTaffy
    @Jo-JoandTaffy 7 днів тому +1

    There are more than 5 million coyotes alive right now. I still agree with you that only 2 or 3 will likely be preserved in a few thousand years.

  • @nebulan
    @nebulan 7 днів тому

    I like this database stuff. When you have fun, we have fun.

  • @bradfairchild8197
    @bradfairchild8197 3 дні тому

    @drjoelduff I'm very interested in the Wyoming trap cave you mentioned in this video. If you have the name of the location please share as I want to dig into that. Thanks for your excellent work!

    • @richarddavies7419
      @richarddavies7419 14 годин тому

      It's in the Bighorn Mountains NE of Lovell, WY on Forest Service land. The latter has placed a grate over the opening.

  • @Prometheus_Bound
    @Prometheus_Bound 8 днів тому +3

    17:44 Solution: Just as God led animals to the ark, he led all the Dire wolves to the tarpits.

    • @evilgingerminiatures5820
      @evilgingerminiatures5820 8 днів тому

      ad hoc solutions

    • @Prometheus_Bound
      @Prometheus_Bound 8 днів тому +1

      @evilgingerminiatures5820 exactly 🙂

    • @ryandaripper9937
      @ryandaripper9937 7 днів тому +1

      How did a Slug Native To Australia get to Noah’s ARK in the Middle East? Koala and Kangaroo😂cmon. Noah’s Ark is a flood myth

    • @Prometheus_Bound
      @Prometheus_Bound 7 днів тому

      @@ryandaripper9937 Don't take my solution too seriously! But it is the best solution to all the problems.

    • @CharlesPayet
      @CharlesPayet 7 днів тому +1

      @@Prometheus_Bound LOL but how did he lead hundreds of thousands of dire wolves, even if there were only 2? (Don’t worry - I’m just playing along).

  • @jakemartinez2525
    @jakemartinez2525 6 днів тому

    How do we know for sure that there are thousands of individual dire wolves and not just hundreds of 40headed wolf-like animals??

  • @CoreyLambrecht
    @CoreyLambrecht 7 днів тому +2

    Hovind Theory: …….(crickets..)…….

  • @winsomepickett7694
    @winsomepickett7694 8 днів тому +1

    I like how he pronounces *fauna* as "fana."

  • @Vehrec
    @Vehrec 6 днів тому

    I'm sure to creationists, what happens is that a founding pair of canines enter the Americas and start having puppies. They have 10 pups each year, with, let us say, each litter being 5 females and 5 males, who all spread out forming breeding pairs. After a year or two, each of those females begins whelping out 10 pups each year, so by year three you have around 500% increase puppies born each year, and all these wild dogs live to full 12-15 year 'life in domesticity lifespans and all their pups make it to adulthood. Exponential growth and assuming no infant mortality is clearly necessary for human populations to reach the numbers they claim, so why hold back for cannids?

  • @markvonwisco7369
    @markvonwisco7369 2 дні тому

    It sounds to me like every generation must birth a new species. Also, what about travel time? Some animals don't travel fast, or even much at all.

  • @JanosBanics
    @JanosBanics 4 дні тому

    I can.
    A herd of pissed off masterdon chased em in one direction and we chased em en the other so when they saw the tar pit the must have thought. "Fuck it we'll just get it over with quick and easy" and all just jumped in the pit.

  • @kennethswenson6214
    @kennethswenson6214 8 днів тому +2

    Ah yes, Mom & Dad trips. I got to go on a lot of them; and well my two sisters 2yrs older and 4 years older, decided at one point they were "too old" for such nonsense. I, on the other hand being an enterprising young lad, figured out very quickly, are they paying for it, yep, then I'm going.

  • @christopherwheeler5404
    @christopherwheeler5404 7 днів тому +5

    Remember....they say god put the dinosaur bones in the ground to test your faith.....lol

    • @Foolish188
      @Foolish188 7 днів тому +1

      Yup! The God is the Father Of All Lies Theory!

    • @christopherwheeler5404
      @christopherwheeler5404 7 днів тому +1

      @@Foolish188 soooo much more reliable than science....lol

  • @YepTriedToTellYou
    @YepTriedToTellYou 7 днів тому +1

    Ontology is a mixed bag. It’s like arguing the “best” barbecue sauce. You can’t test Darwinism in a lab (no, you really can’t) nor can you test intelligent design in a lab. It’s all just a twisting of facts to try and prove YOUR barbecue sauce is the best.

    • @Prometheus_Bound
      @Prometheus_Bound 6 днів тому +1

      @@YepTriedToTellYou You really can test predictions of natural selection and other Darwinian mechanisms. There are many examples.

    • @borisbauwens7133
      @borisbauwens7133 6 днів тому

      What do you mean by Darwinism? Evolution as conceived by Darwin? (So with gemmules, and no knowledge of Mendelian inheritance) Or evolution specifically by natural selection that produces adaptation?
      In the first sense, of course you can't, because variation doesn't arise because of changing environments, and gemmules don't exist.
      But in the second sense, you absolutely can.

  • @ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095
    @ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095 8 днів тому

    I wouldn't be surprised if they say the American dire wolves all drowned in "the flood".
    {:o:O:}

  • @harleyxxfabco
    @harleyxxfabco 6 днів тому +2

    Since the Hebrew word for "day" was flexible and used in the Bible for periods of time other than just 24 hrs, there is no reason to say that each creative day was only 24 hrs. Evidently, each creative day could have been millions of years.

    • @Animalmanager
      @Animalmanager 4 дні тому

      Is this interpretation from the New Pagan International version?

    • @Animalmanager
      @Animalmanager 4 дні тому

      How does Exodus 20:11 or 31:17 read in your version?

    • @Animalmanager
      @Animalmanager 4 дні тому

      Or what about Mark 10:6?

  • @claytonhenrickson9326
    @claytonhenrickson9326 8 днів тому +5

    YEC can't expian 2,500 years of data, nor can that model make accurate predictions.

    • @InquisitiveBible
      @InquisitiveBible 7 днів тому +3

      When creationists say they just interpret the same data differently, they're trying to distract you from the fact that science is about making testable predictions, and creationism fails miserably there.

    • @claytonhenrickson9326
      @claytonhenrickson9326 7 днів тому

      @InquisitiveBible yeah, but they also don't consider the same "evidences" that I do, that's a lie. It's also a lie that scientists "do" science like lawyers "do" law, or that one obvious "fact" renders an entire field of science baseless.

    • @big_dawg777
      @big_dawg777 7 днів тому +1

      No doubt !​@@InquisitiveBible

    • @JRRodriguez-nu7po
      @JRRodriguez-nu7po 7 днів тому

      Predicted continental drift. Predicted magnetic fields of 4 planets before measurement.
      Predicted that junk DNA is not junk.

    • @claytonhenrickson9326
      @claytonhenrickson9326 7 днів тому +2

      @JRRodriguez-nu7po dude, the most derp response ever. I see why you're a science denier.

  • @edgein8632
    @edgein8632 2 дні тому

    Hate to break it to you atheists but the Bible says nothing about the earth being 6,000 years old. One guy did some math based on assumptions of when people lived.

  • @Jo-JoandTaffy
    @Jo-JoandTaffy 7 днів тому

    Is it really pronounced, "D-hole"? I played that word in Scrabble last week, I pronounced it as "Dole" which I will continue to do. I am not saying, "D-hole" in front of my mother.

  • @dariolemos4583
    @dariolemos4583 7 днів тому +1

    Joel, you sound like a residual Christian on the verge of full de-conversion. I was one not long ago. Haven’t watched all of your stuff but I would bet good money that you don’t take the book of Genesis literally. In fact, you probably laugh when reading Genesis 1 and 2 and think who the heck can seriously believe in this..? Throughout my life, I realized I could admire and take some of the messages Jesus taught, without having to share his beliefs. Anyway, great work, congrats.

    • @Fade2GrayOG
      @Fade2GrayOG 6 днів тому

      I wouldn't put money on it. When biblical inerrantist, like I used to be, start seeing conflicts with the Bible we often tend to fully de-convert, again like I did; but plenty of Christian denominations don't have that rigid of a relationship with the Bible and can easily rip into YEC without any damage to their own faith.

  • @DanielWesleyKCK
    @DanielWesleyKCK 7 днів тому

    It, in fact, can not!

  • @JRRodriguez-nu7po
    @JRRodriguez-nu7po 7 днів тому

    All you show is microevolution together with assumptions of age. Plus there were 14 caniss on the ark. You know neither what YEC say nor Scripture.

    • @jakemartinez2525
      @jakemartinez2525 6 днів тому

      Canines would’ve been considered unclean so either 2 or 4 depending on how you interpret gen 7:2

    • @baneofbanes
      @baneofbanes 6 днів тому

      There’s no difference between so called micro and macro evolution. There’s also no evidence for the ark at all; let alone how many species of animals supposedly were on it.

    • @Prometheus_Bound
      @Prometheus_Bound 6 днів тому

      @@JRRodriguez-nu7po Really depends on your YEC model, since YECs can't agree on what a kind is.

    • @JRRodriguez-nu7po
      @JRRodriguez-nu7po 6 днів тому

      @@Prometheus_Bound There is disagreement on what a kind is, though most consider it roughly at the family level. There's more disagreement on what a species is. When I finally gave up on macroevolution as an agnostic, was when I saw a wolf-dog hybrid that happened spontaneously in the wild which is common. Yet the supposed definition for species was populations that do not interbreed to give fertile offspring. Consider all bears can and do interbreed in the wild and they are much farther apart on the macroevolutionatry taxonomy. None of this changes that the author straw mans YEC and directly misquotes the Bible. They went up 2 by 2, but there were more than 2 of any kind.

    • @JRRodriguez-nu7po
      @JRRodriguez-nu7po 6 днів тому

      @@jakemartinez2525 4 and rapid microevolution has been documented multiple times. Consider also epigenetics where differentiation can happen in a single generation.

  • @JungleJargon
    @JungleJargon 7 днів тому

    Looking for excuses doesn’t change the fact of Creation considering that no physical thing can ever make or direct itself.

    • @GhostScout42
      @GhostScout42 7 днів тому

      physical.

    • @CharlesPayet
      @CharlesPayet 7 днів тому +1

      @@JungleJargon you don’t actually have proof of that.

    • @JungleJargon
      @JungleJargon 7 днів тому

      @@GhostScout42 Yes, the Creator of physical things is not a physical thing. We are making progress.

    • @JungleJargon
      @JungleJargon 7 днів тому

      @@CharlesPayet That would be your positive assertion that you have failed to show.

    • @GhostScout42
      @GhostScout42 7 днів тому

      You do know how silly you sound to demand 3d proof of a multidimensional being. like what do you want? Do you want God Himself to come "down" in human form and die on a cross? that clearly wouldnt be enough for you so what would haha. its sad but we all know you guys arent looking for proof, you are looking for like minded peoplle that hate God because you arent him.