If you could ever get Robert Sapolsky on the human brain function & evolution, the applications it has on human morality & society and brain development, it would be amazing. Natalia is amazing on her scholarship & add in the information that Sapolsky provides, we have a well rounded basic understanding of our makeup/character. So cool💯
This is one of my favorite subjects since my deconstruction. One of my favorite “vacations” to take is to the DC Natural History Museum to take a walk through the Ancient Humans exhibit (plus the Evolution exhibit). Endlessly fascinating!
An excellent interview, indeed. I was especially happy to see her talk about morality, being force of byproduct of nurture through our cultures and nature through our biology‘s. Plus, she also made a good point when she discussed human s*xuality and how we are probably the only animal that associates shame with procreation. Much of that has come about because of religion and the dualism between things of the physical world and things of the “spiritual“ world. Her mention about watching monkeys mate while their young cling to the mother reminds me that while we would arrest parents in this day and age who had s*x in the presence of their children, that is probably a more recent moral development. Ancient peoples did not have a lot of privacy and many dwellings did not have a separate room for the mother and father, with a door that had a lock on it so it wouldn’t have been unusual for youngsters to occasionally witness s*x acts between their parents just as they did between their sheep, their cows, and/or their horses. 🐎 Not saying that’s something we should do today but it wasn’t that big of a deal when our ancestors lived in caves and huts.
At 22:22 "The line of human evolution" is mentioned. This is in reference to a 1960s drawing that quickly became an iconic meme. Aron Ra has an excellent detailed discussion of the pros and cons of this drawing, here: ua-cam.com/video/a7emXRqopWY/v-deo.html
I'm a fan of the idea that the reason modern humans survived is because our amounts of neuro diversity (I am completely biased). Our ancestors that would have what we call autism, likely would have been the only specialists and so would slowly develop in one area at a time (which might explain why material cultures seem to explode after 40k years ago), and then it might take an autistic knowledge gatherer (perhaps the origin of the concepts of sage or shaman). Then those of our ancestors that had ADHD, and the unholy, constant drive from the novel. In short, the gaps from the shortcomings of just those conditions (ASP difficulties in communication, ADHD extreme risk taking), would also explain why develop took so long (humans in one for or another lived in the "Fertile Cresent" for over 1 million years, yet "civilization" only developed 20k years ago, so either something dramatically changed with hybridization, or just luck)
I've been listening to your videos (cel is in my toolbox at work,only use buds), for about a year and half, this is one of the best . Bring her back soon.
Very good resume. She can choose to Believe, like us all what to believe, based on the evidence. I choose to B elieve. We all are destined for the Grave,, Don't go without Believing in CHRIST. PEACE TO ALL
Hey Derek, I really liked your interview on Antônio Miranda's channel, you showed your point of view in a great way! It was great that you mentioned the parable of the blind men and the elephant, I recommend you research the concept of Anekantavada in Jain doctrine.
I think I might be an outlier but the background music really gets to me--I just can't take it. I'm not finger wagging it in any way, it's just a bummer. Can we get a version without it? Presumably it's for a vibe or UA-cam analytics indicate people like music in the background...
1:05:30 my response to homophobic people talking about disease is that god must love and approve of lesbians because they have lower transmission rates than even straight people do. also the marriage to an individual for life as avoidance of stds would also work for gay people and also straight married people have also gotten hiv before. in africa, hiv is not prominent in gay people, but in straight people.
Nobody tells in that netflix show that the path they found to the site was the same path used by the people at that time. They could have buried their ones using other path.
I just can't get enough.....you have been helping me so much . I felt so lost for so long. You have to know many thanks 🙏 go to you I feel my zest for life returning.
@@MikeH-o7ma lot of brutal killings back then talking about circa 1850-1920 ish formation of North America and the differences between Canada, Central America and South America. I'm learning myself didn't know anything about Central America or Caribbean history. Slavery was obviously going on in South America and the West Indies. The slave ships I don't know but Slavery definitely occurred in the West Indies
Unfortunately, we're not animals which can fully rely on their specific instinct, so the evolution didn't shape our morality, but only gave us the ability to reason, or gradually develop, and individually choose amongst the various moral-systems, which have been developed by various civilizations, and passed to us in form of religious traditions.
I think it makes sense that women developed hidden ovulation so men would be cool towards children though it's likely a result of multiple selection pressures. I think it was the hidden ovulation that lead to monogamy rather than the other way around. When humans became more sedentary at the dawn of the agricultural revolution, men wanted to know that the territory they controlled was passed to THEIR children and so sought to control the sexuality of women so that they'd know that the children they were having were from them. Historically, only women were restricted to 1 penis (other sexual expressions were less controlled). Monogamy, meaning 1 man AND 1 woman is a very modern, western ideal.
Lost her when she pseudo-scientifically claimed that "races don't exist" & no biological difference exist between different races. The fact that there's a gradient doesn't debunk racial biological difference. And the fact that humans share 98% of their DNA with primates is such a dumb way to "debunk race". Humans also share 60% DNA with insects. Point is, even 0.001% DNA differences are highly significant.
It’s unfortunately on brand for people in this field. They all have to carry “the message”. These same people will also say race absolutely exists when it comes time for slavery reparations, or when it comes time to decide who gets preferential treatment in the hiring process or for scholarships, etc.
I think human used to be apes because we use to have 24 chromosomes from each parent for a total of 48 until 1 one them fused 2 into 1 giving us 23 chromosomes.
The Good: Excellent, knowledgeable, well-spoken guest that Dereck lets talk without interrupting much. The Bad: WTF amount of gratuitous and at times wildly inappropriate AI and stock footage. What's wrong with showing the guest? I had to leave the room and listen from another.
Back in the early 1970’s our high school home-ec/typing/health instructor had the following bumper sticker on her Plymouth coupe, “Clap.Clap. Clap. It’s not applause, it’s an epidemic.”
Love Mythvision. Long time subscriber & patreon. But, the AI generated images are atrocious, often inaccurate, distracting & detract from the video subject matter. Definitely needs adult human supervision. When the AI gets as much or more time than the guest & host, there might be a problem.
@@professorslideraudioI'm so glad to see this. I really thought I was too high or that my brain had melted. Reminds me of back in the day at raves when there'd be a big screen with random video that someone thought would work with the music. But it wouldn't really sync with the music and it'd jump around and instead of enjoying the music I'd stand there trying to figure out what it was supposed to mean.
That new kid species maybe he was sent in there to dig and got stuck and died and they couldn't get him out. He wasn't buried but died there? That's why there was a tool. Just a thought
maybe that's a reason why xians are so convinced that we do not come from animals .. they would have to admit to all kinds of sexual, relationship, societal dynamics. .. just thinkin' out loud
You're talking evangies and fundies to be clear. Plenty of us know evolution is real. I got my degree in physical anthropology. When I was a kid, the distinction between fundies and mainstream Christians was clear, but since the rise of tv evangelism and the subsequent rise of fundamentalism within the mainstream, we're lumped together, as if we all believe that we were evolved from two people and kangaroos learned to swim to avoid drowning. That's fine if you chose to do that, just know it's not really accurate.
Now have Stephen Myer on to explain how life could not start by accident and how at all levels, including the molecular level, we're operating on a fine tuned program. The big bang brought us matter, space, time, energy, all things that come into being have a cause, so the big bang had a cause, but it cannot be matter, space, time or energy. It can't make itself, so what made it? DNA is a literal code, somehow life finds a way, and evolution can only get you so far. The digital information in life must have a designer. This says nothing about who or what the designer is, though as more evidence comes out, its pointing to a mind, a Creator.
@@satie321 Professor Dave is a troll most of the time. He rejects any evidence on the origin of life and ID aside from pure naturalism, he's been completely debunked by James Tour over and over. Myer on the "Big Bang" simply turns science against itself, because everyone knows if something has a beginning, it has to have a cause, and the cause can't be itself. Like Joe Rogan said, even atheist have to believe in "one miracle", when they take that stance, Rogan an atheist, clearly understood Myer's case, as its common sense, not just science.
This is as absurd as it gets. I have repeatedly challenged Derek and many of his guests to answer the moral argument and they always obfuscate. If morality is nothing more than the product of our evolution, then it is not objective. If it was simply sculpted over millions of years, then it could have been sculpted very differently had circumstances been even slightly different. Therefore, what we think is right and wrong, is not actually truly right and wrong. It is merely what our instincts tell us is right and wrong. Had we evolved differently, we could think that many things are permissible that we do not currently think are permissible. Animals do all sorts of bizarre things in the wild. Many eat their mates. Many eat or kill their own offspring. Many are terribly tribal. Many treat orphans horribly. We love to say that we evolved past all of this, but who is to say that we have not actually devolved in these areas and that these activities in the wild actually serve a good evolutionary purpose. Many love to respond that this misses the point of evolution. Evolution is always moving forward. Yes, I fully understand that according to the theory, species always move forward in an overarching sense. But, the theory also recognizes that there are ebbs and flows. And the Atheist certainly cannot deny this because most of humanity was deeply religious throughout our history. But, now they say that we should move past this. Why? Perhaps religion is completely incorrect from a factual standpoint, but still has tremendous evolutionary value. If that is the case, why should we give it up? If you say that it had that value for a time, but it no longer has that value, how on earth do you know this for sure? If you say that it did not have any evolutionary value and thus we should get rid of it, you have just admitted to ebbs and flows. You have just said that evolution plainly does not get everything correct. Therefore, you have no way of saying that you know for sure that things such as empathy and altruism are actual goods for humanity in the long term. Perhaps we evolved these instincts for bad reasons and we need to move past them for the full evolution of our species. This is the utter incoherence of Atheism. And don't come back at me with how Derek and his guests have such great answers for the moral argument. Derek never addresses it, but just deletes my comments. He will probably delete this one. Some of his guests have tried to answer me, but they only ever present the lame canard answers presented by Atheist apologists. Such as saying that most Atheists are moral people, as if that answers squat. That is not the issue. No knowledgeable person is denying that many Atheists are indeed moral people. Both of my brothers are die-hard Atheists and are great people. The point is how do you account for objective morality from an Atheist perspective? It cannot be done. This is why most Atheist apologists fully recognize the problem and adopt moral relativism. But, if moral relativism is true, then I can continue to hold to Biblical Christianity and you cannot say anything to counter that.
I don't think you really understand the subjects you're talking about. No one says that evolution is "always moving forward", it's just adapting to your environmemt. Secondly, your entire point is that morality being a product of evolution means there is no objective morality. Which is true but I'm not sure why you think that disproves anything
@@brettjohnson536 Actually, I have been studying all of the relevant topics with tenacity for almost 25 years now, with multiple fully accredited degrees to boot, one from one of the top universities on the planet. I have formally debated one of the top scholars from Princeton and I have been informally debating with some of the top Atheists for years as well, including many of Derek's guests. And evolutionists do say that evolution is always moving forward all of the time. Dawkins has repeatedly talked about how evolution always gets things right in the end. They often marvel at how far evolution has come. It is not just adapting to the environment. This shows your utter ignorance of the subject. Adapting to the environment is merely the mechanism by which species do in fact move forward. The very term "evolution" means to change and it is almost always used in the sense of to change in an upward direction. Again, I understand that there are tons of ebbs and flows, as I stated. Many species die out and lots of ugliness happens along the way, but there is in general always an upward trajectory. And it disproves Atheism because everyone believes in objective morality. Some like yourself are just dishonest about this. Even Dawkins, who often talks about how in the Atheist evolutionary worldview there is no such thing as purpose, right, wrong, good, or evil, constantly then turns around and rails against all the things he says are wrong and evil. For instance, he says that we should not punish criminals in the traditional manner because there is no objective morality. He says that this is like punishing a faulty car. He says that rehabilitation is the only option. But, this implies that there is an objective standard by which we can say who is a faulty car and who is not. It also implies that it is unjust to punish someone for something for which they are not genuinely morally culpable. But, that implies that there is justice and injustice, the very thing he is denying with his faulty car analogy. Who is to say that Dawkins isn't the faulty car? Who is to say that perhaps we have punished criminals according to a false sense of justice because this serves a strong evolutionary purpose for our species? And who is to say that we should be giving this up at this time? Who is to make these judgments? Dawkins never answers these questions because his entire worldview is incoherent. The same nonsense is found littered all throughout the works of Atheist apologists. Derek's entire channel is about mocking Biblical Christianity. His constant implication is that we are intellectually dishonest and should leave the faith. And don't come back at me (as so many do) with any nonsense about how he is not demanding we leave the faith. All he's doing is just presenting the evidence and letting it stand. Hogwash. Derek is highly selective in what he presents and he often toys with the most fringe elements of scholarship. I'm not saying he is demanding anything, but the repeated implication is that orthodox Christians are not honest with themselves. But, if morality is relativistic, so what? If Biblical Christianity makes me happy, why should anyone under such a rubric want me to leave it? Why is truth a virtue to you when virtue does not actually exist in the first place?
@@danjensen8412 I don't know why you feel the need to lie to strangers on the internet, if you're going to at least make them somewhat believable. You can spout whatever nonsense you want but when what you say shows lack of understanding on the subject it will backfire. Especially when you're just straight up dishonest
What in particular was said that you disagree with? There was certainly some untested hypothesis thrown about but I think it was clearly labelled as such.
@@derekallen4568languages were weird back then and depending on the region of the world you lived in that is the faith or beliefs people adopt. Talking before Jesus after Jesus many cover ups in the world
This dude actually thinks he is accomplishing something with these videos. He holds a mistranslated book in his hands ,supposedly a translation of the 2000 year old letters letters and thinks he has done something. In all actuality he knows nothing about any of the characters in the Bible. A book,translated without the letters it was supposed to be translating. You prove nothing and in actuality say nothing. Any person listening to this and takes it seriously,any of it is a fool. Lol. Nothing but opinion made to look as facts with hundreds of different different views than those he pawns off as fact.
If only a deity could have forseen such a discord as to which translation was appropriate. I assume gods main motive was actually to force everyone to learn at least three ancient languages to comprehend His words. Ah it's the wrong translation. Then we agree on that and it's ah well actually let us know debate use cases. Then there's the literal vs metaphorical debate. If that's what you want to stand on fine, but if you want us to learn several languages and study for a decade on top of reading the Bible in English then you sure as shit better convince us he isn't as much of an ass after we comprehend your approved version as he appears to be in English. I've been to Italy but barely comprehend any Italian. I could still pick up enough to figure out who the assholes were.
If you could ever get Robert Sapolsky on the human brain function & evolution, the applications it has on human morality & society and brain development, it would be amazing. Natalia is amazing on her scholarship & add in the information that Sapolsky provides, we have a well rounded basic understanding of our makeup/character. So cool💯
🐶 🐶 🐶
@@MandyMoorehol my raspberries & vanilla rum date🤘😉
@@kariannecrysler640 🍷 🍷 🍷
This is one of my favorite subjects since my deconstruction. One of my favorite “vacations” to take is to the DC Natural History Museum to take a walk through the Ancient Humans exhibit (plus the Evolution exhibit). Endlessly fascinating!
simply one of the best and funniest interviews of all time. Congratulations, Derek! excellent guest.
An excellent interview, indeed. I was especially happy to see her talk about morality, being force of byproduct of nurture through our cultures and nature through our biology‘s. Plus, she also made a good point when she discussed human s*xuality and how we are probably the only animal that associates shame with procreation. Much of that has come about because of religion and the dualism between things of the physical world and things of the “spiritual“ world. Her mention about watching monkeys mate while their young cling to the mother reminds me that while we would arrest parents in this day and age who had s*x in the presence of their children, that is probably a more recent moral development. Ancient peoples did not have a lot of privacy and many dwellings did not have a separate room for the mother and father, with a door that had a lock on it so it wouldn’t have been unusual for youngsters to occasionally witness s*x acts between their parents just as they did between their sheep, their cows, and/or their horses. 🐎 Not saying that’s something we should do today but it wasn’t that big of a deal when our ancestors lived in caves and huts.
Just came from Antonio's channel where you gave an interview. I guess you'll have a chunk of new subscribers from Brazil.
At 22:22 "The line of human evolution" is mentioned. This is in reference to a 1960s drawing that quickly became an iconic meme. Aron Ra has an excellent detailed discussion of the pros and cons of this drawing, here: ua-cam.com/video/a7emXRqopWY/v-deo.html
Thanks.
This was entertaining and informative.
Will totally check out her channel. Knowledge of evolution can change your entire perspective - so can comparisons with whale testicles.
I'm a fan of the idea that the reason modern humans survived is because our amounts of neuro diversity (I am completely biased).
Our ancestors that would have what we call autism, likely would have been the only specialists and so would slowly develop in one area at a time (which might explain why material cultures seem to explode after 40k years ago), and then it might take an autistic knowledge gatherer (perhaps the origin of the concepts of sage or shaman).
Then those of our ancestors that had ADHD, and the unholy, constant drive from the novel.
In short, the gaps from the shortcomings of just those conditions (ASP difficulties in communication, ADHD extreme risk taking), would also explain why develop took so long (humans in one for or another lived in the "Fertile Cresent" for over 1 million years, yet "civilization" only developed 20k years ago, so either something dramatically changed with hybridization, or just luck)
I've been listening to your videos (cel is in my toolbox at work,only use buds), for about a year and half, this is one of the best . Bring her back soon.
Very good resume. She can choose to Believe, like us all what to believe, based on the evidence. I choose to B elieve.
We all are destined for the Grave,, Don't go without Believing in CHRIST. PEACE TO ALL
My favorite channel. I live for your videos. Kind suggestion, kill the music. The content is good enough and doesn't need it. ❤❤❤❤
This woman is seriously hilarious.
Hey Derek, I really liked your interview on Antônio Miranda's channel, you showed your point of view in a great way! It was great that you mentioned the parable of the blind men and the elephant, I recommend you research the concept of Anekantavada in Jain doctrine.
On top of all her skills she is a poet, 'I was at the LA zoo. I was 21 or 22.'
Nice to see some new content on archaeology and anthropology in the mix Derek.
Very informative, congrats.
I think I might be an outlier but the background music really gets to me--I just can't take it. I'm not finger wagging it in any way, it's just a bummer. Can we get a version without it? Presumably it's for a vibe or UA-cam analytics indicate people like music in the background...
This is going to be interesting ❤😂
Outstanding.
1:05:30
my response to homophobic people talking about disease is that god must love and approve of lesbians because they have lower transmission rates than even straight people do. also the marriage to an individual for life as avoidance of stds would also work for gay people and also straight married people have also gotten hiv before. in africa, hiv is not prominent in gay people, but in straight people.
What is up with the weird background music??
I like your videos a lot but the music lasting for the entire video makes it feel like an intro the entire time.
She's great 😃👍.
👍🏼
Nobody tells in that netflix show that the path they found to the site was the same path used by the people at that time. They could have buried their ones using other path.
I think she used every euphemism for testicals there is inside of a couple sentences. Well done!
1:07 1:13 goodnight, Brazil...
Yeah ......let the women of the world talk with us men.... Thank You Mythvision I love your content.....keep it up Kid..!
I just can't get enough.....you have been helping me so much . I felt so lost for so long. You have to know many thanks 🙏 go to you I feel my zest for life returning.
@@MikeH-o7ma lot of brutal killings back then talking about circa 1850-1920 ish formation of North America and the differences between Canada, Central America and South America. I'm learning myself didn't know anything about Central America or Caribbean history. Slavery was obviously going on in South America and the West Indies. The slave ships I don't know but Slavery definitely occurred in the West Indies
“monkey chasing weirdo”.
You’re in trouble now, Derek, head for the trees.
book by ryan and jetha about the old days --- sex at dawn ...
What about geoengineering?
Unfortunately, we're not animals which can fully rely on their specific instinct, so the evolution didn't shape our morality, but only gave us the ability to reason, or gradually develop, and individually choose amongst the various moral-systems, which have been developed by various civilizations, and passed to us in form of religious traditions.
I think it makes sense that women developed hidden ovulation so men would be cool towards children though it's likely a result of multiple selection pressures. I think it was the hidden ovulation that lead to monogamy rather than the other way around. When humans became more sedentary at the dawn of the agricultural revolution, men wanted to know that the territory they controlled was passed to THEIR children and so sought to control the sexuality of women so that they'd know that the children they were having were from them. Historically, only women were restricted to 1 penis (other sexual expressions were less controlled). Monogamy, meaning 1 man AND 1 woman is a very modern, western ideal.
The pic for this video 😂😂😂
Lost her when she pseudo-scientifically claimed that "races don't exist" & no biological difference exist between different races.
The fact that there's a gradient doesn't debunk racial biological difference. And the fact that humans share 98% of their DNA with primates is such a dumb way to "debunk race". Humans also share 60% DNA with insects. Point is, even 0.001% DNA differences are highly significant.
It’s unfortunately on brand for people in this field. They all have to carry “the message”. These same people will also say race absolutely exists when it comes time for slavery reparations, or when it comes time to decide who gets preferential treatment in the hiring process or for scholarships, etc.
I think human used to be apes because we use to have 24 chromosomes from each parent for a total of 48 until 1 one them fused 2 into 1 giving us 23 chromosomes.
The Good: Excellent, knowledgeable, well-spoken guest that Dereck lets talk without interrupting much.
The Bad: WTF amount of gratuitous and at times wildly inappropriate AI and stock footage. What's wrong with showing the guest? I had to leave the room and listen from another.
TIL learned Gonorrhea = clap.
👏 👏 👏
Back in the early 1970’s our high school home-ec/typing/health instructor had the following bumper sticker on her Plymouth coupe, “Clap.Clap. Clap. It’s not applause, it’s an epidemic.”
Love Mythvision. Long time subscriber & patreon. But, the AI generated images are atrocious, often inaccurate, distracting & detract from the video subject matter. Definitely needs adult human supervision. When the AI gets as much or more time than the guest & host, there might be a problem.
Agree.
The visual of the burger and fries when she was talking a person got me
Let the man cook. Derek does what Derek wants, and we love him for it.
I found them off-putting at first, now I think they're hilarious.
@@professorslideraudioI'm so glad to see this. I really thought I was too high or that my brain had melted.
Reminds me of back in the day at raves when there'd be a big screen with random video that someone thought would work with the music. But it wouldn't really sync with the music and it'd jump around and instead of enjoying the music I'd stand there trying to figure out what it was supposed to mean.
That new kid species maybe he was sent in there to dig and got stuck and died and they couldn't get him out. He wasn't buried but died there? That's why there was a tool. Just a thought
maybe that's a reason why xians are so convinced that we do not come from animals .. they would have to admit to all kinds of sexual, relationship, societal dynamics.
.. just thinkin' out loud
Most like they would have to admit they murdered millions in the name of a liar.
You're talking evangies and fundies to be clear. Plenty of us know evolution is real. I got my degree in physical anthropology. When I was a kid, the distinction between fundies and mainstream Christians was clear, but since the rise of tv evangelism and the subsequent rise of fundamentalism within the mainstream, we're lumped together, as if we all believe that we were evolved from two people and kangaroos learned to swim to avoid drowning. That's fine if you chose to do that, just know it's not really accurate.
@@krw5723 correct on all points
Covid was a bad example
Brick wall and an invert?
hmm wonder what humans will split into
Try The Future of Humanity by Vox Occulta.
Now have Stephen Myer on to explain how life could not start by accident and how at all levels, including the molecular level, we're operating on a fine tuned program. The big bang brought us matter, space, time, energy, all things that come into being have a cause, so the big bang had a cause, but it cannot be matter, space, time or energy. It can't make itself, so what made it?
DNA is a literal code, somehow life finds a way, and evolution can only get you so far. The digital information in life must have a designer. This says nothing about who or what the designer is, though as more evidence comes out, its pointing to a mind, a Creator.
🌷
Please watch Professor Dave's takedown of Stephen Myers ID nonsense. " Exposing Discovery Institute Part 2: Stephen Meyer."
@@satie321 شكرا
Brahma is the creator and Vishnu maintains it or fine tunes it and one day Shiva is going to destroy it.
@@satie321 Professor Dave is a troll most of the time. He rejects any evidence on the origin of life and ID aside from pure naturalism, he's been completely debunked by James Tour over and over.
Myer on the "Big Bang" simply turns science against itself, because everyone knows if something has a beginning, it has to have a cause, and the cause can't be itself. Like Joe Rogan said, even atheist have to believe in "one miracle", when they take that stance, Rogan an atheist, clearly understood Myer's case, as its common sense, not just science.
what a load of b.s
This is as absurd as it gets. I have repeatedly challenged Derek and many of his guests to answer the moral argument and they always obfuscate. If morality is nothing more than the product of our evolution, then it is not objective. If it was simply sculpted over millions of years, then it could have been sculpted very differently had circumstances been even slightly different. Therefore, what we think is right and wrong, is not actually truly right and wrong. It is merely what our instincts tell us is right and wrong. Had we evolved differently, we could think that many things are permissible that we do not currently think are permissible. Animals do all sorts of bizarre things in the wild. Many eat their mates. Many eat or kill their own offspring. Many are terribly tribal. Many treat orphans horribly. We love to say that we evolved past all of this, but who is to say that we have not actually devolved in these areas and that these activities in the wild actually serve a good evolutionary purpose.
Many love to respond that this misses the point of evolution. Evolution is always moving forward. Yes, I fully understand that according to the theory, species always move forward in an overarching sense. But, the theory also recognizes that there are ebbs and flows. And the Atheist certainly cannot deny this because most of humanity was deeply religious throughout our history. But, now they say that we should move past this. Why? Perhaps religion is completely incorrect from a factual standpoint, but still has tremendous evolutionary value. If that is the case, why should we give it up? If you say that it had that value for a time, but it no longer has that value, how on earth do you know this for sure? If you say that it did not have any evolutionary value and thus we should get rid of it, you have just admitted to ebbs and flows. You have just said that evolution plainly does not get everything correct. Therefore, you have no way of saying that you know for sure that things such as empathy and altruism are actual goods for humanity in the long term. Perhaps we evolved these instincts for bad reasons and we need to move past them for the full evolution of our species. This is the utter incoherence of Atheism.
And don't come back at me with how Derek and his guests have such great answers for the moral argument. Derek never addresses it, but just deletes my comments. He will probably delete this one. Some of his guests have tried to answer me, but they only ever present the lame canard answers presented by Atheist apologists. Such as saying that most Atheists are moral people, as if that answers squat. That is not the issue. No knowledgeable person is denying that many Atheists are indeed moral people. Both of my brothers are die-hard Atheists and are great people. The point is how do you account for objective morality from an Atheist perspective? It cannot be done. This is why most Atheist apologists fully recognize the problem and adopt moral relativism. But, if moral relativism is true, then I can continue to hold to Biblical Christianity and you cannot say anything to counter that.
Can you show me there is such a thing as objective morality? Because I am quite comfortable with relativistic morals.
I don't think you really understand the subjects you're talking about. No one says that evolution is "always moving forward", it's just adapting to your environmemt. Secondly, your entire point is that morality being a product of evolution means there is no objective morality. Which is true but I'm not sure why you think that disproves anything
@@brettjohnson536 Actually, I have been studying all of the relevant topics with tenacity for almost 25 years now, with multiple fully accredited degrees to boot, one from one of the top universities on the planet. I have formally debated one of the top scholars from Princeton and I have been informally debating with some of the top Atheists for years as well, including many of Derek's guests. And evolutionists do say that evolution is always moving forward all of the time. Dawkins has repeatedly talked about how evolution always gets things right in the end. They often marvel at how far evolution has come. It is not just adapting to the environment. This shows your utter ignorance of the subject. Adapting to the environment is merely the mechanism by which species do in fact move forward. The very term "evolution" means to change and it is almost always used in the sense of to change in an upward direction. Again, I understand that there are tons of ebbs and flows, as I stated. Many species die out and lots of ugliness happens along the way, but there is in general always an upward trajectory.
And it disproves Atheism because everyone believes in objective morality. Some like yourself are just dishonest about this. Even Dawkins, who often talks about how in the Atheist evolutionary worldview there is no such thing as purpose, right, wrong, good, or evil, constantly then turns around and rails against all the things he says are wrong and evil. For instance, he says that we should not punish criminals in the traditional manner because there is no objective morality. He says that this is like punishing a faulty car. He says that rehabilitation is the only option. But, this implies that there is an objective standard by which we can say who is a faulty car and who is not. It also implies that it is unjust to punish someone for something for which they are not genuinely morally culpable. But, that implies that there is justice and injustice, the very thing he is denying with his faulty car analogy. Who is to say that Dawkins isn't the faulty car? Who is to say that perhaps we have punished criminals according to a false sense of justice because this serves a strong evolutionary purpose for our species? And who is to say that we should be giving this up at this time? Who is to make these judgments? Dawkins never answers these questions because his entire worldview is incoherent. The same nonsense is found littered all throughout the works of Atheist apologists.
Derek's entire channel is about mocking Biblical Christianity. His constant implication is that we are intellectually dishonest and should leave the faith. And don't come back at me (as so many do) with any nonsense about how he is not demanding we leave the faith. All he's doing is just presenting the evidence and letting it stand. Hogwash. Derek is highly selective in what he presents and he often toys with the most fringe elements of scholarship. I'm not saying he is demanding anything, but the repeated implication is that orthodox Christians are not honest with themselves. But, if morality is relativistic, so what? If Biblical Christianity makes me happy, why should anyone under such a rubric want me to leave it? Why is truth a virtue to you when virtue does not actually exist in the first place?
@@danjensen8412 I don't know why you feel the need to lie to strangers on the internet, if you're going to at least make them somewhat believable. You can spout whatever nonsense you want but when what you say shows lack of understanding on the subject it will backfire. Especially when you're just straight up dishonest
@@brettjohnson536 Point out to me one single lie I made.
Planet of the Apes are you serious lol
There going backwards, as of approximately 1966-2024
Maybe 1920 the plan started
Kalergie plan I think it’s called
Nothing like a worldview masquerading as science Mythguy. It ought to salve your conscience awhile.
Are you talking about the discovery institute?
What in particular was said that you disagree with? There was certainly some untested hypothesis thrown about but I think it was clearly labelled as such.
@@derekallen4568languages were weird back then and depending on the region of the world you lived in that is the faith or beliefs people adopt. Talking before Jesus after Jesus many cover ups in the world
This dude actually thinks he is accomplishing something with these videos. He holds a mistranslated book in his hands ,supposedly a translation of the 2000 year old letters letters and thinks he has done something. In all actuality he knows nothing about any of the characters in the Bible. A book,translated without the letters it was supposed to be translating. You prove nothing and in actuality say nothing. Any person listening to this and takes it seriously,any of it is a fool. Lol. Nothing but opinion made to look as facts with hundreds of different different views than those he pawns off as fact.
If only a deity could have forseen such a discord as to which translation was appropriate. I assume gods main motive was actually to force everyone to learn at least three ancient languages to comprehend His words.
Ah it's the wrong translation. Then we agree on that and it's ah well actually let us know debate use cases. Then there's the literal vs metaphorical debate.
If that's what you want to stand on fine, but if you want us to learn several languages and study for a decade on top of reading the Bible in English then you sure as shit better convince us he isn't as much of an ass after we comprehend your approved version as he appears to be in English.
I've been to Italy but barely comprehend any Italian. I could still pick up enough to figure out who the assholes were.
Yr proof 😂Starting Jesus energy wash 😅
That cults a cancer and the reason we have so much wrong today.:(
@@xaviersxmen1735 well it's spreading better chop off something