Stay informed on the latest in science and breaking news from around the world. Subscribe through my link ground.news/clint to get 40% off unlimited access with the Vantage Subscription this month.
Hey Clint Laidlaw, Why don't you get to think of a suggestion and creating a UA-cam Videos all about the 🪲Phylogeny Group Of Beetles🪲on the next Clint's Reptiles on the next Saturday coming up next?!⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️👍👍👍👍
Hey Clint Laidlaw, Why don't you get to think of a suggestion and creating a UA-cam Videos all about the 🪼Phylogeny Group Of Jellyfish🪼on the next Clint's Reptiles on the next Saturday coming up next?!⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️👍👍👍👍👍
I recently joined a facebook group focused on this “debate”, and I had to leave almost immediately. As a molecular biologist, it grinds my gears to hear people adamantly deny the absolute BASICS of my field. I admire people like Clint who can engage in these conversations - because I can’t do it.
You should try talking to flat earthers, who literally deny that gravity exists. Young earth Creationists are scientific geniuses, compared to the flatties, god bless em.
@@baconsarny-geddon8298actually no they're not, gravity doesn't even have a fraction of the evidence for its existence that evolution does. So no flat earthers are absolutely not geniuses in comparison to flat earthers.
As you may know, our most popular video in recent memory was recently demonitized by UA-cam because of supposedly graphic content. This came as quite a blow to our channel. We have recently discovered which TikTok video was the reason for the flag. We will be re-releasing this video on October 2nd with the offending video removed and THREE new videos in its place! Please mark this date on your calendars if you want to help us fight back against this arbitrary censorship. Thank you!
Hey Clint Laidlaw, Why don't you get to think of a suggestion and creating a UA-cam Videos all about the 🪲Phylogeny Group Of Beetles🪲on the next Clint's Reptiles on the next Saturday coming up next?!⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️👍👍👍👍
Hey Clint Laidlaw, Why don't you get to think of a suggestion and creating a UA-cam Videos all about the 🪼Phylogeny Group Of Jellyfish🪼on the next Clint's Reptiles on the next Saturday coming up next?!⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️👍👍👍👍👍
Brandolini's Law: The amount of energy needed to refute bullsh*t is always an order of magnitude higher than that needed to create it. Creationist talks for 1 minute. Clint has to explain the basics of science for 10m to give you enough background to understand the claim.
The oldest tree discovered is dated to around the same time as the flood. Sheer coincidence, or creation? Also, the oldest writings are less than 6000 years old while according to the Biblical timeline humanity is also less than 6000 years ago. Sheer coincidence, or creattion? Archeological findings shows art depicting dinosaurs, even humans riding on them. Once again, sheer coincidence or creation? You simply have to see reason here. Criminals gets sentenced on the basis on less amount of evidence against them, than there is for creation.
It’s stupid that he put you on a show called “whack an atheist” when you’ve been very open about believing in God. These people really don’t care to research their arguments much, do they?
Mat Powell, one of Kent's students once made a video, responding to the video of a woman explaining why she believes that there is a god ( but more as a primordial force than a person) just to cut out all the parts of the video where she explains just that, to then hyperfocus on the parts of the video where she talked about the big bang. He then called her an atheist.
@@ciarz_ Matt Powell once responded to a video from Aron Ra where Aron called him a liar, going to a great deal of effort to edit out all the specific allegations, and then claimed that there were no specific allegations. Powell is no more a Christian than I am. Indeed, I'd say he's less a Christian than I am, and I am an atheist. Powell, like Hovind, worships money. I'm sure if he actually believed in God he wouldn't so easily cast aside the Ninth Commandment
19:33 Explaining in detail how diagnostic traits can be lost by later members of a clade only to point out that birds actually still have that diagnostic characteristic is such a perfect setup and punchline, even if it was unintentional. I love it.
Yeah, that guy could have just LOOKED at a modern bird skeleton to see the truth. And to be honest I think he knows the truth, but is being paid to lie about bird skeletons to support the cause
Yeah an argument can be made that birds don’t have a dinosaur hip, if such a thing even exists (we in fact differentiate dinosaurs frequently by their hip, bird hipped dinosaurs funnily don’t include birds) because bird hips are quite different from dinosaurs in some regards. But as Clint explained still quite similar in some regards. And that should be what we expect if evolution was true. 65 million years have passed since mist dinosaurs went bye bye, at least another 100 million since birds split from the rest of dinosaurs. You would expect different but in some aspects similar hips.
No other person ever, to my knowledge, has so thoroughly explained radiometric dating while at the same time making it so easy to understand. You are an incredible educator, Clint
My schools science program taught it incredibly too. I can’t even imagine it being a complicated concept due to how simple my science class and Clint made it sound.
@@TheMilkMan8008I second Erika as well. Sooo good. Also, Age of Rocks is run by someone who dates rocks in his career so I totally recommend him as well.
I have never, ever heard Kent Hovind honestly steelman, or even attempt to honestly steelman, any argument or position of science. His whole shtick relies on strawmanning.
@ClintsReptiles It sure would! The thing is, I suspect that he's capable of doing it. I suspect he willfully and knowingly constructs strawman versions of theories and arguments to suit his responses. I have to say I only suspect it, tho, because it would be dishonest of me to act like I can read his mind, and I try not to assume intent.
@@Pohgrey I've seen enough of him to assume intent at this point. He shrugged off a kid dying at his park due to inadequate safety measures, he has physically and mentally abused at least two of his previous three wives and is probably doing the same to his fourth, not to mention the way he treats his employees. I don't need to remind anyone that he served time for tax evasion. His "god" is money and always has been.
@DavidSmith-vr1nb oh, I don't think it's outrageous or controversial to make that assumption, lol. I just try to be careful about stating things like that as if I know it's a fact. On general principle, tho? I agree with you.
The relabeling of Upright Fossil is not an accident. It helps with mis information. When the listener searches the term they will only find creationist articles and not the real science.
As a nonreligious person who lives in a very religious community filled with people who thinks everything was intelligently crafted by a higher intelligence, it's comforting to watch an expert talk about evolution despite also being religious himself. Keep up the good work Clint, I love your videos
What my parents taught me about evolution was different to how most christians see it: - God made the Big Bang - This lead to everything happening as it did, as he made the universe capable of supporting life That’s really it. The “7 days” thing was interpreted as God experiencing time differently to mortals.
@@LordCrate-du8zm christians didn't acknowledge it all through my lifetime. I went to public schools and it wasn't even taught. Even though I was in advanced placement bio and anatomy.
@LordCrate-du8zm yes, most Christians (at least outside of America) see it this way. The Hebrew word for Day (yom?) can be translated as period, stage, eon, epic etc. In fact calling it a literal day is silly since even in literal biblicalism, God didn't even make the Sun in the first "day", so the literal concept of a day doesn't make sense.
Edit: I wont be replying to this thread anymore. None of you cultists are getting the point of what I said and now it's just devolving into insults. Grow up.
Well, I see what you are trying to say . . . But I wouldn't REJECT the term if it was applied to me. It is, after all, another way of saying Evolutionary Science Supporter.
@@Halberds8122 Well, it isn't an insult is it?. But do you call yourself a Newton-ist, or a Leibniz-ist just because you use the calculus ?. Nope. You would laugh and look strangely at the strange person who suggested it. You are a Mathematician. I am a Scientist. They are the real thing, and we their "professors" *, we can offer ( profess ) proof. THEY are "creationists" with their "faith" in a redundant "creation". They can only claim belief, there is no "proof" that has ever been offered, that held up too scrutiny. Because it is false. There are no gods. * Profess : agent noun. lay claim to, declare openly
@@uncletiggermclaren7592 They only ever use "evolutionist" in bad faith and with zero understanding of our position as people who take evolution as fact. It'd be like if we started calling ourselves Gravitationists or something because we know gravity exists. It's a fact and we don't need a label for it. You either accept fact or you don't. The "don't" person should have the label.
Oh no, would it be preferable if I called you by your ancestral name, placoderm, or perhaps Psychrolutes marcidus, or simply blobfish? So, Mr. Blobfish, I’m curious about this evolution conspiracy theory. Do you maintain contact with your relatives? Is there a fish tank at your home where you keep them confined, and if so, what’s the reason for such cruelty? Lastly, can you communicate in fish language? Thanks!
Sphecomyrma freyi was an ant living in Cretaceous era, about 80 millions years ago. While it was undeniably an ant, it preserved multiple primitive traits making her a transitional form between wasps and ants. It's even in the name, literally translating as "wasp-ant". We know this, because we found multiple individuals encased in ancient amber. Another example of transitional form is the extant Australian termite Mastotermes darwinensis. It is a very primitive termite, and like Sphecomyrma it retains many primitive traits linking it to cockroaches. Which are closest relatives of termites.
Just because a 34 million year old ant trapped in amber seems to have the same three visual characteristics as an ant today, doesn't mean they are the same and without evolutionary change. We don't know if the internal structure of the 34 million year old ant is identical. We don't know whether one was venomous and the other not. We don't know whether one's brain caused them to function or socialize the same, or not. Comparing an organism to a man made machine (which we should never do. lol ), one might say that an older ICE vehicle looks the same as a modern EV from simple visual exterior inspection. They both have headlights, windshield wipers, painted exterior coatings and four wheels, but they are designed and function on totally different operational platforms and each display different advantages and disadvantages.
Me too, but I hate how he pretends to feel respect for that lier piece of garbage that is Kent. It's not possible as an educated person, to not notice his absolute lack of honesty.
@@hansoharrigen6958I think Clint could clearly point out that sexuality is extremely important to propagate a species and that if a species got 'confused' then that species would have gone extinct. Science says only male and female exist. Only recently popularized religions believe outside of that binary
You are the most articulate, polite, educated, and inspiring educator I've ever had the pleasure to listen to. Thank you for all you do. I only wish I get the chance to get out to Utah to come visit.
if you're interested in learning about optics and photography while seeing flat-earthers and space-deniers crushed, i can recommend "Dave McKeegan". I'd say his videos are on par in style and substance to Clints, but Dave is also petting a Dog while teaching, so clearly superior.
@@LukeMcGuireoides if that was in reply to my suggestion, then no, not Prof. Dave. His full name is Dave Farina. Dave McKeegan is someone completely different. And no, Prof. Dave is a lot of things, but "kind" is definitely not among them ;)
@@imightbelieveinfaeries7563Ironically enough, I think that mentality comes from a lot of atheists who grew up around religion or were religious themselves and ultimately rejected it but didn't properly put work into their deconstruction. I even make jokes about the "girl flavor" and "boy flavor" of leaving christianity but not actually deconstructing your beliefs and just applying those same thoughts to a new worldview.(I personally believe that everyone should deconstruct the views they were raised with, whether or not they intend to leave the belief system and ultimately put the pieces together on their own to decide what they believe.) Seeing groups as a monolith is rarely a safe bet. When it comes to religious or spiritual people, I prefer to interact with those who don't think these things have to contest with science(people who have a logical worldview and look at their belief system through that) than people who think that their beliefs mean science is wrong(people who look at the world through their beliefs and allow only them while disallowing new/contradicting information) Conversely, I prefer when skeptics and athiests and the like can if nothing else understand that supernatural beliefs in and of themselves are often not harmful and can often be beneficial to some people, or even have a healthy amount of curiosity themselves about unexplained phenomena even if they don't fully believe in them/don't have enough proof to be comfortable believing in something.(something like shared dreams comes to mind. Something that verges on being a coincidence or being supernatural that you can find countless stories on) And I dislike the entirely close minded who think all systems of belief are bad and religion should be outlawed and that there's absolutely zero possibility that any of our current understanding of the supernatural could change as science and technology advance. Being shut down and condescending just isn't a good look on anyone IMO. Sorry for the long barely related rant, LMAO.
I see your Pink Panther, and raise you Super Mario Bros. Underworld Theme! "Dead ant, dead ant, dead ant... Dead ant, dead ant, dead ant... Dead-dead-dead-dead ant. Dead ant. Dead ant. Dededededede-dead ant dead ant dead ant."
Atheist and former fundamentalist here. I appreciate that you debunk creationist claims even as a theist because a lot of fundies need that permission to let go of creationism. In my mind, young earth creationism breeds extreme conspiratorial mindset that we down rabbit holes like QAnon other nonsense like that. Your videos are also entertaining and enjoyable to watch so thank you Edit: I don’t care what religion someone holds so long as they don’t push it on others (ie through legislation). I only mentioned my position so as to contextualize my comment about YEC/ fundamentalism.
I don't know where people get the idea that adhering to a religion is incompatible with being a scientist. Newton would rather have been known for his contributions to theology than for his contributions to physics. The Big Bang model came from an ordained Roman Catholic priest (note the "priest" part--white collar and everything, we're not talking a Christmas and Easter Catholic) who also had a PhD in physics. Einstein is quoted as saying about quantum theory "God does not play at dice with the universe". Darwin himself was originally planning on becoming a member of the clergy although by the time the Beagle returned to England he had pretty much tossed the idea of Biblical literalism and was starting to question the under pinnings of Anglicanism.
@@johnbrobston1334 because they are incompatible. science is an always changing, self correcting system. religion never changes even in the face of undeniable evidence. thats is as anti scientific as you can possibly be. it doesnt matter if some of the greatest scientists were religious. were they ever able to provide any evidence for the god they believe in? no. so none of them made any contributions to religion. einstein was very much an atheist. he used "god" colloquially. just like we still do today. i say oh my god all the time. and bless you every time someone sneezes. despite the fact that i know that im not actually requesting that god bless someone who sneezes so that they dont die from the common cold. if i believe in a magical invisible island filled with unicorns that is located in the clouds, and i also create the cure to cancer, what does that tell us about the invisible island i believe in? absolutely nothing. just because a scientist was religious, doesnt make his religion true. not a single one of them concluded that their was a god, due to science and evidence. not 1.
@@johnbrobston1334same with person who headed human genome project. I read a book by him who was a geneticist and a person of faith. It's a more advanced understanding than where many of commenters are at right now. Rejection of literalism and dogma is early part of one's eventual spiritual development
Its very annoying when creationists admit that animals can adapt but not become other species so evolution isnt real. Like they just admitted evolulution is true! Prolly has nothing to do with this vid but just wanted to say it
Just like they claim "you can't make something from nothing" yet claim that's exactly what "God" did. Which begs the question, "Where did God come from?".
@@94DeathAngelReptile Bob Ross is catchier tbh "Every piece of misguided information in your mind needs a friend. Everybody deserves a friend, so here, let me give you some good information too. Have a great day, take care!"
I haven't posted a comment on one of your videos yet, but I couldn't help myself this time. I'm a big fan of your humility, fairness and careful responses; it is hard nowadays to find researchers with such virtues, so good job! You're awesome!
@@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307 to be fair, a vast majority of them do. and while clint hasn't demonstrated a rejection in science, to my knowledge, that doesn't exclude someone from holding baseless beliefs, we all do. i certainly haven't seen any convincing evidence of a god presented by clint or any other theist, but he has demonstrated his understanding of his own field of expertise. i think it is pretty silly to point at a minority in the space, and act as if it exonerates the group as a whole, as clint himself demonstrated there are some very bad actors that (in my opinion) make up the bulk of the theist influence. with that being said, i have no issue at all with clint and i think he's a great source of education, and hope i don't end up disagreeing with him morally in future, which has unfortunately happened with other religious creators such as shadiversity, who revealed himself to be a bigot, despite having interesting and informed content that i enjoyed in the past.
@@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307 What's really absurd is those non-theist that ignore science for a baseless belief that men can just become women by saying they are. Talk about belief in magic. Crazy uh?
Yup, they start with the assumption that everything was created by a thinking person. They can never seem to break out of that mindset even when trying to refute other claims. "If this animal wasn't designed by an intelligent deity then why did evolution intelligently design it this way?" - Creationist "What the hell are you talking about? Evolution isn't a living thinking being..." - Anyone with any clue about Evolution "But then why did it design everything that way if it's not intelligent?" - Creationist again..
@@GaianEntertainment Best reductio ad absurdum I have found to refute this way of thinking: "The ultra-fine dust particles inside my computer were clearly crafted by an invisible, intelligent designer! How else could only these tiny particles, small enough to pass through the case fan filters, have ended up there?"
Belief in God is not the problem, disbelief against evolution is. Here's a question to Creationists: Why can't evolution happen? Why is evolution so bad that you have to constantly refute it?
Which is especially hilarious given that their proposed start to life IS spontaneous generation. Something is being created out of nothing within their tale.
I like how humble Clint is, and how reasonable and open he is to learning. He admits when he got something wrong or he doesn't know enough to give a full opinion on it. We need more people like Clint
I'm confused as to what a 34 million year old ant is _supposed_ to look like. Huge tusks? Giant spikes? A dramatic volcano in the background? "34 million years in amber gives you such a crick in the neck!" 🤣🤣🤣
they have this delusion that evolution is just random crap happening, so nothing can ever look like their ancient ancestors. Of course experts on ants will point out dozens of differences between those ants and modern day species, but what's more: evolution doesn't necessarily change looks.
Atheist here. Saying "science does not deny the possibility of the supernatural" is correct. Science doesn't concern itself at all with the supernatural.
What is really telling is that science progresses so well without once having to turn to the supernatural...in fact it ONLY progresses by ignoring it. If the supernatural were an important part of existence in any way, that ought not to be possible.
@@njhoepner to be honest, that's why i kind of feel like the idea that science is compatible with the supernatural is silly. the only supernatural thing i could see theoretically being allowed within the realm of science and objective reality is the idea that a god could exist and have created the universe or something, and even then, that's purely because we can't ever know how it really worked. there's no more reason to believe in anything like that, though, than, say, leprechauns. but i'd be called a fool by even flat earthers were i to earnestly tell them i believe a tribe of leprechauns formed the universe. the reason science does not concern itself with the supernatural is because it overwhelmingly clearly has no bearing on our reality whatsoever. there is simply no evidence of any kind for magic and deities that isn't "god of the gaps" (which, well, isn't really "evidence" at all anyway). to be clear, i don't necessarily have anything against religion. just, you know... you got to admit, the whole idea of anything supernatural affecting our material existence in any way seems pretty absurd at this point in human history. but, hey, as long as it isn't harming anyone, i don't really care if someone DOES choose to believe in leprechauns.
I don’t get hardcore atheists or the whole debunking of fantasy concepts. By taking those lunatics serious you’re giving them legitimacy. I don’t see any videos like “evolutionary biologist debunks the existence of pixies” so why would this be any different? Clint got a PhD in convincing people that science is real. Seriously?! They give away biology degrees in such basic topics? Any thirdgrader in a civilised country (apparently not including USA or at least Utah) knows about evolution. Normal, sane, enlightened people don’t believe in magical beings up in the sky. The fact that a desert tribe came up with this story 2000 years ago which was subsequently adopted and spread by a Roman dictator a few centuries later to control his subjects doesn’t grant it any more credibility.
I don’t think that works, as a lot of creationists seem to be fine with what they call micro-evolution. Like god created ant-kind and all these different ants are still ants. Which is close to the “you can’t evolve out of a clade”, but generally don’t acknowledge higher up (earlier) clades. If someone thinks Bees and Ants are different kinds/creations, than they Aculeata or Hymenoptera as a created kind.
@@Bas-TBexcept "Created kinds" is a nonsensical idea. No one can even give a consistent explanation of what composes a "kind". Where is the hard line where a member of a "kind" can no longer change? Many people who believe in creationism don't believe humans are animals, or at least apes, despite humans being more genetically close to the other apes than most things they would say are the same "kind". They can't have it both ways. Either humans are part of the "ape kind" or at the barest minimum the "panin kind" or they will have to admit that "created kinds" don't hold up.
Without denying that the variety of ants makes them a great creature for offering evidence, I will suggest that the monotremes are even better. They are a seemingly random mix of reptile, bird and mammalian characteristic features. I have heard them termed the "Creationists Nightmare"... So of course the creationists ignore their existence.
I had a beloved uncle that as a kid said “in the moon there is no gravity”. I tried to explain to him that there was just very weak. But his answer was “I saw that in the tv I was watching when they got to the moon. There is no gravity, kid” and that was it. This is no different. 🤷🏻♂️ I don’t want to disrespect his memory (tho I have no qualms with those religious nuts) but some people are nearer to the cleverest primates than to the cleverest humans and that’s the way it is.
This is exactly how creationists are. They get their arguments from a terrible source, then don’t even bother to listen to -evolutionists- normal people’s arguments
As an atheist I really appreciate your videos. It is my hope that we don’t fall into the trap of: “If we can’t agree how it all began, we can’t agree on anything!” We should respect each others beliefs as long as we separate that from our common understandings of the scientific method! 😉👍🏼
Fellow atheist here 👋🏼 The issue with a lot of religion is that science = religion so theres no separation at all which is where 'creationism' comes from. The church loves to teach creationism in bible school and camps. I was an animal planet kid though so i questioned everything and thats where the church gets people. They dont like having their teachings questioned. 🥂(apple cider)
@@hobbithabits Who's "the church"? Because I know The Church doesn't teach creationism. Actually, most sciences these days have been discovered by the Catholic church.
@@Hunterr8 Not by the catholic church, but by catholic people (including some priests). And that's not very surprising, because at that time and that place, that's the only thing you could be.
@@juanausensi499 What time and what place? And the people of Catholicism is the Catholic church, so the Catholic church has made many discoveries. I'm just a little confused on what you think is meant by the Catholic Church.
@@Hunterr8 European renaissance, mostly. You have a pretty explansive view of what a church is. I bet that includes me, as a baptized catholic atheist.
"Let them come"... as an atheist and scientist I think we can agree on some things and not others. We can share information and still be compassionate. I don't believe in absolutes but I do believe in being kind. Love that you're sharing your knowledge on here and now with courses! I am pro information for people to make up their own minds, irrespective of it aligns with mine. Great work!
I simply rely on the belief that we don't know what we don't know, If millions of years given the right circumstances, volcanic waters might sprout life which might adapt into fish which might sprout legs over millions of years given chance and then might go on to conquer the land and so on and so forth of many "maybes", and "might's" or "given this long". Then I see absolutely no problem with people believing an Intelligent God outside of our understanding simply deciding everything that has been should be and making it so. Any argument of reason coming after would not effect such a Gods existence as creationism as well as evolution, neither prove nor disprove that Gods existence. Myself as a Christian I see both arguments at least in a theological setting completely pointless. Both arguments actually historically originate from Christian attempts to prove Gods existence, and biology itself was spearheaded by Christianity attempting to grasp an understanding of life and how organisms function. In fact the only reason why "evolution" specifically Darwinism has progressively become more of an atheist pseudo religion which attempts to convert others from Religion is because Charles Darwin specifically was looking for a reason to support his atheist beliefs which many atheists of the time rallied under and still do today. Inherently evolution does not support either atheism or any religion as it is inherently absent of any belief that being the absence or existence of a God it does not matter.
Well not that I’m at all a fan of him, but Ben Shapiro has been called a n@zi and a devote Jew. So the internet will label anyone anything to demonize them if they don’t agree with them.
Lol. As an atheist...I have zero concerns about Clint's claim that science does not preclude the possibility of the supernatural. Science is a method of understanding; not itself a magic path to human omniscience.
I am a Christian, for the record. Yes, I do agree natural science cannot tell us much about certain topics like mathematics. Disciplines do cross, I love math as well as history, but the latter is my profession. Natural science is a useful tool to help historians, but some things are outside of it. As for the supernatural, I think that those fall more into the realm of pure philosophy and logic, unless those claims do affect measurable things in the real world. For example, if someone claims a soul, which is supernatural, leaves some sort of heat imprint on a body or removes such a thing when it exits a body.
@@davitz77the supernatural claim is the existence of a soul. If you could show the existence of a soul just by the presence and then absence of body heat, the claim that soul exists would not longer be supernatural. It would be a part of the natural world. True supernatural claim are outside the realm of science and laws of nature. Jus in case (I'm not saying you believe in souls because of it) if soul had a heat imprint you would expect that as soon as you die your body will drop in temperature drastically (because of the soul leaving), but the body gradually losses temperature according to Newtown law.
Clint I always appreciate how you take the time to calmly and precisely restate the arguments of anyone you are reacting to. There's a sort of...dogmatic tone of voice (I dont know else how to describe it) that puts so much energy into many of these presenters. As someone who grew up fundamentalist, that tone instantly creates so much anxiety and you just want certainty again and the person speaking the dogma is offering it to you. It's a very strong pull. Having you restate things calmly and factually helps so much with being able to be curious about these things, and feel free to actually think. Thank you.
There is an awful lot of emotional manipulation that gets confused for practicing religion or for being devout, and I think that you pointed that out here. In less respectful discussions, there is often an initial kind of fear-generating emotion followed by an effortless solution, which is to place your trust (and often your money) in the person who caused the fear in the first place. With that in mind, it is important to note that the fear can come from a valid source. Many people genuinely struggle with accepting or reconciling the idea that a person can practice and sincerely believe the core doctrine of a religion while fully embracing modern scientific understanding. This generally stems from the fact that fundamental, or overly-literal, interpretations from EITHER side produce ideas that contradict the opposite extreme. Furthermore, it requires a lot of mental discipline, a lot of discomfort, and a lot of hard work to research, reason, and restructure something that can be so deeply foundational to your understanding of the world. It hurts to sit in an unsure and uncomfortable position, and it is really hard to admit when you are wrong on something you are deeply invested in, and not become irreparably callous. For myself, I try very hard to maintain that balance because I genuinely believe there is a higher power, but I also am fully convinced that how we have come to exist at this point in time follows the processes of nature as we have observed them. On one hand, it is easy to say "God claims to have made the world, wouldn't it be cool if He gave us the skills to see HOW?" On the other hand, when approached with the Adam question or anything else interpreted literally in some scripture, I have to admit that I don't know the details, or to what extent I SHOULD accept literal interpretation, despite other strong doctrine that further implies a potential contradiction. That generally leaves the person challenging me completely baffled. I stew on these things CONSTANTLY, and though I don't have all the answers, I'm trying to be like Dr. Laidlaw, who is an excellent example of thinking critically, but not overly cynically.
I know, the dogma of Covid denial is also very real and is contributing to the suffering and death of four times as many folks who die from flu. Because science says Covid is a neurovascular disease, nothing like flu. But the denial is strong because people are terrified to protect themselves. Someone might make fun of them for trying, so they hide away and don't bother. They let over 1000 people die every week (that's a Vietman war every month, people). Covid is airborne AIDS, and people want SO desperately to believe it's harmless even while after acute infection it is damaging their organs and brains -- months after what they thought was a cold or flu because they can't logic their way around how terrible illnesses can begin with flu-like symptoms and NOT BE A FLU. Like AIDS, which also starts with flulike symptoms. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/
I can't help but feel like the "birds can't be dinosaurs" arguments tend to focus around comparing features of birds to the average person's mental image of a T-Rex and then saying "but these things are different!" while completely missing the point that birds didn't evolve from the heavily popularized dinosaurs of the Cretaceous and evolution suggests these changes happened over a very long time, long enough for those changes to happen.
Your average joe has a hard time understanding the time scale of human civilization, let alone the time scale of life on earth. To people who can't or don't want to understand, evolution must be instantaneous and dramatic. They simply can't conceptualize how subtle evolution is in long-lived species.
@@alexanderadams6628 Because I am allowed to post an opinion on the content that was being reacted to in the video I watched in the comments section of said reaction video
@danielfitzpatrick4873 not just Ken. The whole of the creationists movement is based on lying for their version of God. They are incapable of ever telling the truth as it means admitting that they lied.
@@danielfitzpatrick4873agreed. When i went to college to get into ministry, i found that a shocking and detrimental fact. The level of dishonesty amongst ministers taught to those why wanted to know the truth shook me
The Old Testament portrays his god, so no mercy from him before he croaks. In other terms, he's 2030+ years behind Jesus (yeah, the A.D. we have as a fact is not correct), so no progress from him should ever be expected. BTW he knows exactly what he does. Despicable.
I just discovered this channel. AWESOME!! Some one that actually explains holes in this very polarized conversation. I feel like most channels don't address my curiosities or hard straw-man the opposition to make themselves look right. Thank you.
The fact that Kent insists on Clint being an atheist who is ignorant of biology tells you everything you need to know about him. Thanks for always taking the high road Clint! YOU are stinkin rad!!! 😎
These types of theists are the embodiment of the no true Scotsman. Any deviation from what they say is doctrine will have you labeled an atheist or Satanist. I was accused of being an atheist long before I gave up religion simply for believing in treating other with respect. Jesus from the sermon on the mount would be accused of being a liberal atheist to these guys.
It is confusing why someone that thinks parts of the bible are silly is a theist. Progressive xtians are still silly people. They are far better than conservative xtians but at least they are more close to their lore than the progressive people
Dude, I love you so much. You’re such an articulate, caring person. The respect that you show to those with whom you disagree is truly remarkable. Your way of steel-manning the arguments of others before critiquing them - **chef’s kiss**. You’re a paragon of intellectual integrity. Never change. The world NEEDS more people like this.
I never thought that Clint reacting to people reacting to Clint reacting to people would make such an entertaining video. But hey, you learn something new everyday.
As an atheist, i really appreciate your content. Ultimately god can not be proven or disproven by the scientific method, so it doesn't matter to me. But evolution can be proven. I just want most people to accept the scientific method and understand its results, and accept that the results of the scientific method are real and accurate. Evolutionary theory is one the most successful theories and applications of the scientific method.
Depends on what you define as God. St John the Evangelist defined the second person of the Trinity as Logos, the first principle of reason (of causality) and the Holy Spirit as Knowledge and Life (John 1:1-4). That reason exists and that we know are the only things we do actually know with certainty. They cannot be proven from first principles because they are the first principles. However, to deny reason (e.g. deductive inference) and knowledge will not get us very far with ever getting to know anything at all.
@@hobbithabits I think the term "observation" is part of the definition of the scientific method. Besides, making observations is the reason we have senses and a brain.
@@nikolaosaggelopoulos8113 I prefer the ancient Greek Pantheon. More straightforward and easier to understand. I like what Epicurus had to say about defining God. That looks like something Jordan Peterson might say. He often opens a statement with "Depends on how you define..."
and then what "whacking an atheist" is is being absolutely wrong about everything you say, constantly debunked, never engaging with the other side beyond reaction videos and banning anybody who disagrees with you lmao.
Hey Clint, I'm one of those atheists that they warned you about at the end of the video! Except I won't string ya up, because I see absolutely nothing wrong with your argument. I just happened to fall on the other side of the coin of personal belief. It actually looks like you and I went through a pretty similar journey in life when it comes to religion meshing with science. Started as a Christian, then I began asking questions to my church members and families and their answers always felt...unsatisfactory. To the point where the purposeful rejection of science eventually drove me away from the church. I really appreciate your sheer honesty and integrity as a science communicator, and as a Christian. If I had grown up with someone like you answering all my questions, I could see a world where I might still be a Christian myself.
Both of my parents were atheists, so I never had an innate understanding of "God" as a concept. I learned about the idea through other families that were religious. I always enjoyed the idea of worship, of rituals, of the community religion provides. I memorized "Our Father" because I like mantras. In adult life I like to say the Moola mantras even though I'm not even close to Indian, lol. I am an atheist, but I understand the role religion plays in human society and more importantly in the human psyche. I think it's ok to believe in god even if there is no god, because the idea that people can die in peace with their beliefs fills me with joy. I have no beliefs so I can only be sad at the idea of death, of the end of me and the end of my role in the story of our world. I think it's beautiful that others have created meaning from that.
@@trenaareen1216 the idea of atheists having no belief seem to be misinformed tbh. Atheists just don't believe in god/gods, u could technically still be an atheist and believe in spirits, ancestors, witchcraft etc. If you were a skeptic however, that would be a different case.
Wow. THIS. THIS is the way that people should communicate in scientific debate. Like you, I was driven away from church because of their rejection of science, as well as lgbtq people.
@@SithMamiI find it kinda sad that a lot of churches completely reject science. I learned, at least in my church, that science isn't a bad thing for christians or for anyone. Science is hardly ever a rejection of god. But rather, it is a way to study and understand how God's beautiful creation works. I feel very sad and sorry for those who have lost faith because of the false belief that all of science rejects God :(
Clint's journey from aethist to a scientist of faith is something im super interested in hearing. It might not be youtube worthy/agreeable. But as someone that was raised in a more agnostic approach, then became an aethist but recently has become more interested in faith. I would definantly want to hear Clints story.
As an atheist, I would like to hear about it, too I don’t see how anyone would go from no faith to faith (even including positive life changing life events like having children), but he is one differing opinion I would respect. I’d have to assume he’s a believer now because he was raised as one - he was never able to completely shake it That said, he makes great educational vids.
0:44: If these three character states (# of legs, presence or absence of segmentation, mouthpart type) are all that creationists use to distinguish insect “kinds”, there are at most about four or five “kinds” of insects: hemipterans/fleas/lice/mosquitoes/horseflies with piercing beak, all other flies with sponging mouth, lepidopterans with proboscis, bees/hornets with combined lapping tongue and mandibles, and everything else with just mandibles (which are scientifically understood to be ancestral to all insects, as Clint says with the Mandibulata). This would make ants, beetles, and grasshoppers are all the same thing. Of course, last time they did say that “kinds” do evolve (without using that term for the process), but wouldn’t that just make it so that ants and sawflies are related to cockroaches and dragonflies but not to hymenopterans with chewing-lapping mouthparts? Last I checked, most young-Earthers recognized traditional Linnaean orders like Hymenoptera as kinds. This just goes to show how nonsensical these intelligent-design claims are.
Literallllyyy. They are fucking ignoring the obvious differences to fit their argument! These ants have a totally different color and different size body segements
I love this series so much. It's easy for debunking to turn into just dunking, and while that can be cathartic, it's not as persuasive. As someone who used to believe in creationism just out of a lack of scientific education, the way you respectfully address creationist arguments and break down the details here is exactly the kind of explanations that helped me move past my misconceptions as a young adult, and something I wish I had access to when I was a kid.
As a Christian AND a scientist- thanks for what you do here. Biblical literalists who champion ID are in the minority of our faith, they're just very loud.
@@mathewritchie Because nobody should listen to misinformation written thousands of years ago, designed by clever manipulators, con artists and misogynists who desired control and conformity. those who appoint themselves as purveyors of it's so called will and message simply replace the letter/word 'I' & 'my opinion' with 'god' Most rational people know 'God' is just wishful thinking and comforting self delusion, like a security blanket, or favorite cuddly toy as a child.
Don't know about that. I am surrounded by 6000 year old Earth, evolution is fake and Trex was on a boat with humans during the flood believers everywhere.
@Brokefootchuck True arrogance is believing a mortal could know the thoughts or aims of something like a god. It is even worse to assume that only YOUR interpretation is the correct one.
As a Biology and Geology teacher, I want to thank you. You've inspired me with many of your videos, but I now have new ideas on how to talk about dating rocks to my students ! Always striving to get better and teach better, and your videos definitely help ! Also appreciate a lot the way you construct your videos :)
I love this channel. Not only is it awesome to watch educational content by someone who is so clearly thoughtful and passionate about life on this planet, but also shows that you can love science AND be a person of faith. Thank you.
I've never understood why religious people view scientific knowledge and religion incompatible. It was one of the things that led to the loss of my faith. It's purely irrational
@@LukeMcGuireoidesMaybe reconsider faith. You probably grew up in a science denial church. I think the ultimate reason for their denial is Biblical literalism.
i dont know if i would ever describe myself as being a christian, but i remember as a kid asking people "why couldnt of god made humans not by poofing them fully formed, but by creating the building blocks and the patterns that would lead to humans evolving?" And they didnt like that. But surely if God was so Grand so powerful and so on, such a feat of planning would of been possible? i still have spiritual beliefs but have long been turned off of christianity and organised religion because of reasons like that.
@@avlaenamnell6994 How old were you then? I was shocked when I was in grade 11 or 12 (of 13) and a girl who had a crush on me turned out to be a creationist. I had never personally met one irl since I live in Germany. The girl was of Russo German (ethnic Germans from the USSR) heritage and numerous of them belong to a form of Baptists. I knew her older sister first and she was really dishonest. After graduation, I was severely depressive and she acted like she was a friend online. I eventually found out that she didn't care about me but used my psychological problems so she could eventually convert me. It was as if she saw it as a points game where she'd earn favour with God. That was just manipulative.
I was unfortunately indoctrinated with a lot of Kent Hovind as a kid. I appreciate the work that you do. He was literally the reason that I believed that "the devil buried dinosaur bones to trick us."
One thing that has always bothered me is the inconsistency of that viewpoint. God is supposed to have created the universe. The devil is supposed to be a lesser being than God. So which is more plausible, that the devil tampered with the universe to cause us to question God's word, or that the devil tampered with a book to cause us to question God's universe?
As a believer I absolutely love these videos. There’s a quote from the show The Expanse when someone is trying to disparage a Christian scientist. The Christian’s reply is “I came here aboard a rocket propelled spacecraft, not the wings of an angel. I am able to appreciate the difference”
Some of the sect's of the faith really give Christians a bad name (looking at you baptists). Though, I have never seen a religion in modern times as regressive as some of the Muslims. Some guy made a modern day sundial and thought he found some profound truth of the world...like holy hell. Then again, the atheist version of this is flat earth, so there's that..
I find that last guy kinda ridicculous. "You can't compare the stages of the eye in a fetus with the eyes in moluscs!" Like... why not? Is it just because it proves our point? Sounds like that would be the only reason why we shouldn't. We see that the stages of the growth of the human eye match with different functional molusc eyes, it's pretty reasonable to point that out and use it to draw conclusions. It shows that, when we say our eyes could have evolved from less complex structures, it's a reasonable assumption because we can see those less complex structures both in our own growth, which means we can generate them, and on some living creatures, wich means they can work just fine. It's a clear sign that the eye is a structure that can absolutely evolve over time. It doesn't mean that it does evolve, it's not a definitive proof, but it shows it can absolutely be the case. And when he says that "we have the information to grow a full eye"... yeah, we do, but the point of the comparison is to precisely show that we ALSO have the information to grow those previous stages and that they would be usable. Either he just ignores that fact willingly, or he just misses the whole point of that comparison. Don't know which option is worse. Anyway, if your only argument against the comparison between those different stages of growth and creatures that use them is "the human eye is inimaginably complex", maybe you don't have an argument at all. That comparison is actual proof that the eye is precisely anything but "inimaginably complex". You can't just claim your conclusion as a rebuttal, that's not how arguments work. If it breaks your argument of the irreductible complexity of the eye, sorry, but that's on you.
@@juanausensi499 They tend to also believe in the idea of human supremacy over other animals (usually with the belief that we somehow aren't even animals) so I think they're just biased to mostly think about us
@@juanausensi499 It comes down to the argument of "irreductible complexity". They say that some structures are too complex to evolve, point at something that they believe has that complexity, and claim that this proves evolution isn't real. Answering your question, they're obsessed with the eye because it's the example that "proves their theory" and thus they flat out refuse to accept any prove against their claims. Animals with better eyes mean that our eyes aren't that great and thus could improve, and animals with worse eyes that match those in our fetus growth mean the eye could evolve and be functional throughout the process. Accepting those premises invalidates their "proof" and, thus, they need to keep defending there's no point in comparing our eyes with those of other animals even though it doesn't actually make any sense. Wether you believe that we were created in our modern forms or that we evolved, both things should be somewhat visible while comparing living things, specially when comparing simmilar structures in different living beings. That comparison is undoubtedly a good start to know which one is right. It's like wanting to know if two persons are siblings without making comparisons. It doesn't make any sense. In my opinion, claiming that comparing living beings doesn't make sense is just proving that you already know who's right, and that it's not you. Otherwise, you'd insist in making that comparison.
Did the mazda miata evilve from Chevrolet corvettes or is this simply convergent evolution? There are fossilized corvettes from the seventies but Miatas dont appear until the nineties.
I think that you have set (multiple times now) the perfect example of how to make an effective argument. The kind that may actually change people's minds because it is so solid. The principles that you follow should be taken to every argument ever: making sure you have a solid understanding of the opposing argument, even restating it, validating all that is valid from that argument, and then presenting evidence for your argument. All free from hyperbole, disrespect, lies, or misrepresentations. Well done!
Hey Clint, I'm a staunch anti-theist (that is I'm opposed to religious systems and I think religion is deleterious). That being said, I think you are wonderful and the idiots calling you a secret creationist are way off base and not representative of atheists generally. I think your content is amazing, and I appreciate the value of a practicing theist advancing evolutionary education. Just wanted to throw this in against the pile of dumb hate comments. Here's to being able to disagree without being disagreeable. Cheers!
@@georgehenan853 so you're saying it shouldn't be hard to believe that even after such a thorough education, someone can still choose to indulge in some wishful thinking?
@@georgehenan853 yeah like irrelevant noob said, not everyone from utah is default religious. also im not even american so dont assume everyone knows stuff about utah. like whats byu? see, have no idea.
One can believe that religious systems are deleterious and still believe in God. Religions at their best are God filtered through the mind of man. Anyway, your comment made me curious where you stand on this.
As a former pastor turned atheist, I believe that most reasonable atheists wouldn't criticize the statement 'science doesn't deny the possibility of the supernatural.' It's true, even if it seems almost obvious. The real challenge lies in the fact that science has no way to test or falsify supernatural claims.
This is very true. It's not that science denies the possibility of the supernatural. It's that science has no way to consider it to begin with. There's no way to observe, examine, or test anything supernatural, and until there is, there's no way we can currently include or consider it as a possible explanation for anything. Now, if there is ever some sort of evidence presented for it, then of course we would include it as a possibility. We're just currently barred from doing so.
I honestly don't understand your rationale on the supernatural argument. Science as far as I know, defaults to not having to argue against the null. The existence of god is what has to be proven, not the non-existence. The null is the non -existence. We have no proof that there is a god outside of what we imagine it to be.
Yep. Supernatural claims, by definition, are outside the realm where science can really say ANYTHING, for or against, about them. At best, even if someone COULD produce supernatural acts, on demand, under proper scienctific observation (which obviously, nobody HAS done, to date... for some reason...) the best science could do, is say "We started with X, ended up with Y... And what happened in between is as yet, unexplained". That doesn't mean that science won't find a naturalistic explanation tomorrow... Or maybe science will NEVER find any explanation. All science is able to do, is say "we don't have an explanation, right NOW". For science to be able to verify whatever process, you'd need known mechanisms, so by definition, that process CAN'T be "supernatural", coz "supernatural" basically just means "UNKNOWN mechanisms (presumably mechanisms outside the purview of science-"God's will", or "magic", or whatever)". So science can definitionally NEVER say anything about the (real or imaginary) supernatural; It's a tool, limited to the naturalistic world. I believe the Catholics call this idea "non-overlapping majesteria"; That science, and religious/supernatural claims, are seperate realms, which may indirectly influence one-another, but can't ever directly overlap
30:00 I think the misunderstanding here is the idea that life is a thing. It is not. Life is not something that exists separate from the non-living world. It's the result of some chemicals composites being self-replicating and from then on, getting ever better at replicating. There is just nothing that needs to be "breathed in" to anything at any point. Of course, that also means there is no first lifeform, the same way there is no first human.
One COULD just see chemistry as a form of or a precursor to life. After all, it results in things forming...ie is creative. It can repeat processes. It irritates me when folks talk about life coming from 'random' or 'chaotic' nature. These are the same folks who believe God created the natural world and fine tuned it. I agree there is good reason to say the natural world appears fine tuned. Why would we then turn around and call it random and chaotic. As far as I know, nothing in the natural world happens randomly. Everything has a prior cause.
@@ClintsReptiles OOOoooo "Controversial topics don't need to be discussed in a controversial manner." Is such a poignant quote for the 2024 discourse landscape in general
I really enjoy Clint's presentation in these types of videos. I am agnostic and a scientist. I like the phrase "Magic is just science we haven't figured out yet" very much. So much is still to be learned. Neither science or religion have all the answers. :)
I once got into an argument with someone about index fossils, this person was convinced that relative dating was circular reason, I couldn’t articulate my argument very well but you explained it way better than I ever could.
Responding to the question depicted in the thumbnail, evolution doesn't have a mandatory speed rate that is the same for all living beings. That is an extension of the notion that evolution does not have a plan, and of course not an specific direction. Living things aren't supposed to stay the same, but neither to completely change. It's up to adaptation.
I've met someone in one of the comment sections under a video, they were Young Earth Creationist. They commented on someone else's comment explaining their concerns about how older creatures were terrifying. I thought they were joking when they explained their standing point and I immediatly stopped arguing with them and they thanked me for that. They were nice eventhough our views didn't allign. Honestly it was a 1 in a million encounter. Sadly this expression/saying becomes more and more true as more and more undereducated people find the internet as their main domain (I want to be nice to those because not all are idiots just has less knowledge on the topic or are misled by other people)
I find it amusing and disturbing when Creationists who know absolutely nothing about evolution, biology and the science behind them try to disprove evolution.
Evolution is very poorly taught. Very few people that I know have a great conception of how evolution works. A lot of people will believe in either the march of progress or Lamarckian evolution and think themselves a good science believer. That environment set a stage where it's a lot easier to be against it, and the main arguments you will hear for it are poorly conceived. I wish I had a good solution for this, but it's just a bigger problem than I can fix
As an atheist and biologist (though not evolutionary biologist) Clint is my hero. I share his videos whenever there's some misunderstanding of evolutionary processes on Facebook or wherever and people seem to love them because of his super enthusiastic and engaging style!
@@cyruslupercal9493 he's blatantly dishonest and certainly has an agenda. If his ignorance doesn't truly exist then he's even more dishonest. I think he probably believes much of what he says, but he definitely suspects the truth is real. He would call it demonic temptation, I'm sure.
Hello Clint, I figured out last year that your enclosure in Springville is less than 10 minutes away! I live in Spanish Fork which is the next town away and about a 10 minute drive and it’s awesome and I’ve been watching your channel since 2017 and it’s awesome Edit: I meant to say 2017
I grew up in the young earth Creationist camp, and since coming to accept evolution I had not heard an explanation for “polystrate” fossils until now. Thank you! Also, I am an atheist and completely agree with you that science does not speak on the question of whether the supernatural exists. As an atheist who accepts evolutionary science, thank you for what you are doing to hopefully increase everyone’s knowledge of this amazing world we live in, no matter their religious beliefs!
Scientists and philosophers are well aware that one cannot prove a negative. Science cannot disprove a fantasy, because there is no data. You need evidence to disprove the supernatural, gods, demons, unicorns, garden fairies and that thing that lives under your bed. On the other hand, there is zero evidence to support any of those fantasies. Nor can anyone calculate the probability of supernatural entities, or phenomenon existing, because probability cannot be calculated, or determined until either positive or negative data is available for the calculation. Finally, one should never form a belief in anything unless that belief can be supported by evidence which is verifiable, demonstrable and repeatable. Because no evidence, that meets that criteria exists, it is only rational to state that; "I don't hold a belief in the existence of the supernatural".
Great video. As a life-time atheist, I've always wondered how someone can be a scientist and believe in God at the same time. I know the Bible and all other religious texts are subject to interpenetration, so I suppose it wouldn't be too difficult to make compromises. That being said, one could also take the route of "The Bible isn't cannon, it was just an interpretation of God from the people of the time, and what God actually did is still not fully understood."
As an atheist, I would be interested to hear about what convinced you to return to religion. Would you consider making a video discussing that? I can certainly see how Kent Hovind would have convinced you to leave religion. He is, indeed, one of the greatest resources the atheist movement has ;-)
Someone told me a few days ago that since I stopped believing, I should not hold hopes of getting into heaven. Besides not liking harp music, I said that place would be like hell if the next gazillion years were of Ken Hovind exposing his ignorance and shouting from a soapbox. I should have mentioned to my companion the thought of sitting on a heavenly park bench looking into the eyes of a beautiful angel and Ray Discomfort slithering between you, like Eve's (now legless) python. Without hesitation, he offers your beautiful companion chocolates and interrogates her about her 'sinful' nocturnal activities. At least at the other place, the coffee is never cold, and the place is full of the naughtiest girls.
@@VaughanMcCue One benefit of believing is that one can believe that Ken Hovind has a _special_ Hell reserved for him, right next to the one reserved for people who talk in theaters . . .
Your videos are fantastic. Extremely sharp intellect and wonderfully articulated. Stating that you're not an expert in geology, and not laying out a stern critique, shows a high level of academic maturity (which is sorely missing in Kent Hovind.)
The crazy thing about people who dismiss evolution is that they don't see that dog breeds are evolution. You can evolve a species drastically within your own lifetime. Over millions of years, the results can be unrecognizable.
The creationists make a distinction between what they call "macroevolution" and what they call "microevolution", and accept changes within a species, such as dog breeds, as "microevolution". To use dog breeds to counter their claims using their own rules you would have to come up with a dog breed that is interfertile with other dogs of that breed but not with other breeds of dog, thus demonstrating what creationists call "macroevolution" in dogs. Of course the new species would still be dogs under the rules of cladistics . . .
@johnbrobston1334 Most of them consider true foxes to be a "dog kind," but true foxes cannot breed with dogs. Of course, then I suppose they could always just say, "Well, then there's a separate "fox kind," lol.
Religious documents are guidelines and stories meant to shape us as humans. I don’t agree with them being factual either, but you can see why people read them.
To be fair, and im saying this as an atheist, theres a suprising amount of facts that can be decyphered from holy texts, like the bible From cultures, foods, plants, religions, etc... it paints a good picture of that time period. You just have to sift trough the fairy tale parts
As an atheist with a science background, I APPRECIATE you stating that science does not negate the possibility of the supernatural. the problem with the supernatural hypothesis is the inability to replicate the event/test to eliminate or quantify variables.
I find it so unbelievably stupid when people think that you cant be religious if you're a scientist. As long as you're not basing scientific claims on your religious ideals i font see the problem. Like, Albert Einstein was devoutly Jewish
Never seen anyone that says it is impossible to be both. Only that it requires a degree of mental compartmentalization that seems rather hypocritical (or even deleterious). Also, Einstein wasn't "devoutly" Jewish, he was traditional. He didn't believe in a personal god but as something of a label for what we don't yet understand about the universe. Spinoza's god concept.
I imagine their response would be along the lines of, "Yes, but they're all still ants." It seems one of their main arguments is that variation can develop within a type of animal, but an animal can never evolve out of its "type". (I suppose as a disclaimer I should point out that I'm not endorsing that argument, just explaining it.)
But you see, God thoughtfully provided some "apparently" 34 million year old amber so creationists would be able to convince the heathen. Once you agree that the ant was made that way by God, you can start your journey of doublethink and dissonance until you too stop caring about internal consistency in your belief system. I've met scientifically literate and rigorous Christians in my life, but never have they been young Earth creationists.
When I saw the "whack an atheist" on Kent Hovind's video at the start, I was reminded that many of your detractors think you're an atheist, even though you've openly stated, more than once, that you are religious. That's wild
In order to know that Clint is religious, they would have to watch his videos instead of just fast-skipping it to find some points they want to strawman. Impossible for people like Hovind.
@@klausroxin4437 Is that what you do? I suppose you are an atheist when it comes to Allah, Zeus, Thor and others. Are there any comments on this page that use the strawman fallacy to support a position? If you read the comments from those who do not share Clint's superstition, you will see numerous supporters of his work. Almost 3000 comments to Sept 29 2024, and it has only been up two days! You might benefit from listening to what some atheists say because they will mostly be truthful, or at least not intentionally lie. If you find an intentional atheist deceiver, I am happy to correct them. You will remain wilfully misled if you get your biology and science information from a pastor or Christian apologist, but science is in good hands on this channel. I watched right through to the end because Clint is very informative, entertaining, and-bonus-does not tell lies. I think I am correct in saying that I saw one of Clint's videos where he tagged a correction because he recognised an error, as you would expect of a professional. How often would you see that sort of honesty from a religious apologist? Don't wear yourself out; it will be rare because the truth isn't part of their policy.
The main creationist fallacy is the belief that natural selection is some cosmic force that obliges change. Darwin succeeded because he took evolution out of that mindset. As Steven Jay Gould explained very clearly, natural selection is accident plus opertunity. There's no reason a species has to change- it's just a matter of some cosmic ray making a mutation that contributes to reproductive secess. This is all wrapped up with "survival of the fittest ", the notion that evolution is a perfecting process and the belief that origin of a species obsoletes😮 the predecessor species. Evolution is simply a black and white bear with a bone spur that got lucky. There's no mandate to change- it just happens.
@@WilliamSpoehr You have provided an excellent summary- thanks. For your information, I suggest it isn't wise to quote anybody, such as SJG, because the typical reaction from creationists would be. Dr Kent Hovind said jibber-jabber dribble, and he has a genuine *PhD. *Printed his document. Thanks for your interest and contribution. 6 ;10 20 Dec'24-G.M.T.
I dunno. The fact that we haven't all evolved into crab at this point is pretty depressing. Someone asked what ants ought to look like -- Crab. Crab is the ideal shape. You may not like it -- but Crab is peak life form.
Stay informed on the latest in science and breaking news from around the world. Subscribe through my link ground.news/clint to get 40% off unlimited access with the Vantage Subscription this month.
Hey Clint Laidlaw, Why don't you get to think of a suggestion and creating a UA-cam Videos all about the 🪲Phylogeny Group Of Beetles🪲on the next Clint's Reptiles on the next Saturday coming up next?!⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️👍👍👍👍
Hey Clint Laidlaw, Why don't you get to think of a suggestion and creating a UA-cam Videos all about the 🪼Phylogeny Group Of Jellyfish🪼on the next Clint's Reptiles on the next Saturday coming up next?!⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️👍👍👍👍👍
wow another one why can't you just say we can agree to disagree the Evolution VS Creation drama is getting boring
I have a problem with this video... I have but one like to give it. ;)
Clint would it be correct to say that closing temp is freezing temperatures?
Bc it goes from liquid phase to solid state
"You see that there's a segmented body, (6) legs, and mandibles."
Congrats dude. You just described all insects.
@@GrimAngel01100Ants do indeed belong to the Class Insecta.
Butterflies don’t 😝 (I know caterpeeps do but shh)
@@georgebee3090 i LITERALLY said "in so far as you mean bugs"
@@georgebee3090 fiiine MOST insects
@@GrimAngel01100 I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make?
Six legs is like, THE diagnostic trait of insects
I recently joined a facebook group focused on this “debate”, and I had to leave almost immediately. As a molecular biologist, it grinds my gears to hear people adamantly deny the absolute BASICS of my field.
I admire people like Clint who can engage in these conversations - because I can’t do it.
You should try talking to flat earthers, who literally deny that gravity exists.
Young earth Creationists are scientific geniuses, compared to the flatties, god bless em.
@@baconsarny-geddon8298 in my experience they are the same people
@@minderbart1Not every creationist is a flatearther but every flatearther is a young earth creationist
Lol it should honestly be a crime to be that gullible along with flat earthers haha
@@baconsarny-geddon8298actually no they're not, gravity doesn't even have a fraction of the evidence for its existence that evolution does. So no flat earthers are absolutely not geniuses in comparison to flat earthers.
As you may know, our most popular video in recent memory was recently demonitized by UA-cam because of supposedly graphic content. This came as quite a blow to our channel. We have recently discovered which TikTok video was the reason for the flag. We will be re-releasing this video on October 2nd with the offending video removed and THREE new videos in its place!
Please mark this date on your calendars if you want to help us fight back against this arbitrary censorship. Thank you!
Hey Clint can you please do a frog phylogeny video
There’s a bot under me
I bet it was that cow eating the baby chick.
Hey Clint Laidlaw, Why don't you get to think of a suggestion and creating a UA-cam Videos all about the 🪲Phylogeny Group Of Beetles🪲on the next Clint's Reptiles on the next Saturday coming up next?!⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️👍👍👍👍
Hey Clint Laidlaw, Why don't you get to think of a suggestion and creating a UA-cam Videos all about the 🪼Phylogeny Group Of Jellyfish🪼on the next Clint's Reptiles on the next Saturday coming up next?!⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️👍👍👍👍👍
@@HassanMohamed-rm1cbbot
Brandolini's Law: The amount of energy needed to refute bullsh*t is always an order of magnitude higher than that needed to create it.
Creationist talks for 1 minute. Clint has to explain the basics of science for 10m to give you enough background to understand the claim.
😂
Awesome! I didn't know about Bandolini's law, I'll definitely use it from now on. Like Poe's law, which is important as well.
It's always easier to make a mess than clean one...
Hey at least those of us who actually care are smarter for it tho
The oldest tree discovered is dated to around the same time as the flood. Sheer coincidence, or creation? Also, the oldest writings are less than 6000 years old while according to the Biblical timeline humanity is also less than 6000 years ago. Sheer coincidence, or creattion? Archeological findings shows art depicting dinosaurs, even humans riding on them. Once again, sheer coincidence or creation?
You simply have to see reason here. Criminals gets sentenced on the basis on less amount of evidence against them, than there is for creation.
It’s stupid that he put you on a show called “whack an atheist” when you’ve been very open about believing in God. These people really don’t care to research their arguments much, do they?
Mat Powell, one of Kent's students once made a video, responding to the video of a woman explaining why she believes that there is a god ( but more as a primordial force than a person) just to cut out all the parts of the video where she explains just that, to then hyperfocus on the parts of the video where she talked about the big bang.
He then called her an atheist.
@@ciarz_ What a jackass.
It was written by a scribe 3000 years ago, the scribe had no scientific evidence but he said God had told him, it must be true.
Kent probably considers Mormons to be atheists anyway. To him, they are the same "kind"
@@ciarz_ Matt Powell once responded to a video from Aron Ra where Aron called him a liar, going to a great deal of effort to edit out all the specific allegations, and then claimed that there were no specific allegations.
Powell is no more a Christian than I am. Indeed, I'd say he's less a Christian than I am, and I am an atheist. Powell, like Hovind, worships money.
I'm sure if he actually believed in God he wouldn't so easily cast aside the Ninth Commandment
19:33 Explaining in detail how diagnostic traits can be lost by later members of a clade only to point out that birds actually still have that diagnostic characteristic is such a perfect setup and punchline, even if it was unintentional. I love it.
Yeah, that guy could have just LOOKED at a modern bird skeleton to see the truth. And to be honest I think he knows the truth, but is being paid to lie about bird skeletons to support the cause
The guy goes, "birds don't have the dinosaur hip socket," and I go, "wait, don't they?"
Yeah an argument can be made that birds don’t have a dinosaur hip, if such a thing even exists (we in fact differentiate dinosaurs frequently by their hip, bird hipped dinosaurs funnily don’t include birds) because bird hips are quite different from dinosaurs in some regards. But as Clint explained still quite similar in some regards. And that should be what we expect if evolution was true. 65 million years have passed since mist dinosaurs went bye bye, at least another 100 million since birds split from the rest of dinosaurs. You would expect different but in some aspects similar hips.
@@justcallmeSheriffit’s a grift, these people don’t really believe their own bs.
It kind of made the point “yes, birds have dinosaur hip sockets, but that’s not the only reason I believe they’re dinosaurs”
No other person ever, to my knowledge, has so thoroughly explained radiometric dating while at the same time making it so easy to understand. You are an incredible educator, Clint
This!!!
My schools science program taught it incredibly too. I can’t even imagine it being a complicated concept due to how simple my science class and Clint made it sound.
Forrest Valkai and Erika(Gutsick Gibbon) do good jobs as well.
@@TheMilkMan8008I second Erika as well. Sooo good.
Also, Age of Rocks is run by someone who dates rocks in his career so I totally recommend him as well.
@@Dagmere-n7l huh
They are gonna freak out when they learn how long sharks have been around.
Especially when they believe Earth is only 4,000 years old, when bristlecone pines in California have been found at 5,000 years old
Depends on what you mean. Selachii, which is the group that contains modern sharks, has only been around since the Early Jurassic.
@@Krona-fb4dn Not as impressive as just sharks in general, but that's still a long time to be around for just modern sharks.
@@mantroll2891 I don't think you understand, cartilaginous fish before that weren't "true" sharks. They were their own distinct groups.
@@Krona-fb4dn oh thanks. im just dumb.
I have never, ever heard Kent Hovind honestly steelman, or even attempt to honestly steelman, any argument or position of science. His whole shtick relies on strawmanning.
Wouldn't it be refreshing if he did?
@ClintsReptiles It sure would! The thing is, I suspect that he's capable of doing it. I suspect he willfully and knowingly constructs strawman versions of theories and arguments to suit his responses. I have to say I only suspect it, tho, because it would be dishonest of me to act like I can read his mind, and I try not to assume intent.
@@Pohgrey I've seen enough of him to assume intent at this point. He shrugged off a kid dying at his park due to inadequate safety measures, he has physically and mentally abused at least two of his previous three wives and is probably doing the same to his fourth, not to mention the way he treats his employees. I don't need to remind anyone that he served time for tax evasion. His "god" is money and always has been.
@DavidSmith-vr1nb oh, I don't think it's outrageous or controversial to make that assumption, lol. I just try to be careful about stating things like that as if I know it's a fact. On general principle, tho? I agree with you.
@@ClintsReptiles I'd be less surprised to see the sun come up in the west.
The relabeling of Upright Fossil is not an accident. It helps with mis information. When the listener searches the term they will only find creationist articles and not the real science.
As a nonreligious person who lives in a very religious community filled with people who thinks everything was intelligently crafted by a higher intelligence, it's comforting to watch an expert talk about evolution despite also being religious himself.
Keep up the good work Clint, I love your videos
I feel your pain
Same here.
What my parents taught me about evolution was different to how most christians see it:
- God made the Big Bang
- This lead to everything happening as it did, as he made the universe capable of supporting life
That’s really it. The “7 days” thing was interpreted as God experiencing time differently to mortals.
@@LordCrate-du8zm christians didn't acknowledge it all through my lifetime. I went to public schools and it wasn't even taught. Even though I was in advanced placement bio and anatomy.
@LordCrate-du8zm yes, most Christians (at least outside of America) see it this way. The Hebrew word for Day (yom?) can be translated as period, stage, eon, epic etc. In fact calling it a literal day is silly since even in literal biblicalism, God didn't even make the Sun in the first "day", so the literal concept of a day doesn't make sense.
Edit: I wont be replying to this thread anymore. None of you cultists are getting the point of what I said and now it's just devolving into insults. Grow up.
Well, I see what you are trying to say . . .
But I wouldn't REJECT the term if it was applied to me. It is, after all, another way of saying Evolutionary Science Supporter.
What about Darwinist?
@@Halberds8122 Well, it isn't an insult is it?.
But do you call yourself a Newton-ist, or a Leibniz-ist just because you use the calculus ?.
Nope. You would laugh and look strangely at the strange person who suggested it.
You are a Mathematician. I am a Scientist. They are the real thing, and we their "professors" *, we can offer ( profess ) proof.
THEY are "creationists" with their "faith" in a redundant "creation". They can only claim belief, there is no "proof" that has ever been offered, that held up too scrutiny.
Because it is false. There are no gods.
* Profess : agent noun. lay claim to, declare openly
@@uncletiggermclaren7592 They only ever use "evolutionist" in bad faith and with zero understanding of our position as people who take evolution as fact. It'd be like if we started calling ourselves Gravitationists or something because we know gravity exists. It's a fact and we don't need a label for it. You either accept fact or you don't. The "don't" person should have the label.
Oh no, would it be preferable if I called you by your ancestral name, placoderm, or perhaps Psychrolutes marcidus, or simply blobfish? So, Mr. Blobfish, I’m curious about this evolution conspiracy theory. Do you maintain contact with your relatives? Is there a fish tank at your home where you keep them confined, and if so, what’s the reason for such cruelty? Lastly, can you communicate in fish language? Thanks!
Sphecomyrma freyi was an ant living in Cretaceous era, about 80 millions years ago. While it was undeniably an ant, it preserved multiple primitive traits making her a transitional form between wasps and ants. It's even in the name, literally translating as "wasp-ant". We know this, because we found multiple individuals encased in ancient amber.
Another example of transitional form is the extant Australian termite Mastotermes darwinensis. It is a very primitive termite, and like Sphecomyrma it retains many primitive traits linking it to cockroaches. Which are closest relatives of termites.
Just because a 34 million year old ant trapped in amber seems to have the same three visual characteristics as an ant today, doesn't mean they are the same and without evolutionary change. We don't know if the internal structure of the 34 million year old ant is identical. We don't know whether one was venomous and the other not. We don't know whether one's brain caused them to function or socialize the same, or not. Comparing an organism to a man made machine (which we should never do. lol ), one might say that an older ICE vehicle looks the same as a modern EV from simple visual exterior inspection. They both have headlights, windshield wipers, painted exterior coatings and four wheels, but they are designed and function on totally different operational platforms and each display different advantages and disadvantages.
❤❤❤
As a religious person, and a lover of science and philosophy, I love this series.
Me too, but I hate how he pretends to feel respect for that lier piece of garbage that is Kent. It's not possible as an educated person, to not notice his absolute lack of honesty.
Same except for the last part. Never really got into philosophy, but I’m glad you can enjoy it.
As long as you don't hate on people for their sexuality or having a different religion, all is cool
@@hansoharrigen6958 There's a difference between "being religious" and "using religion as an excuse to be hateful and cruel."
@@hansoharrigen6958I think Clint could clearly point out that sexuality is extremely important to propagate a species and that if a species got 'confused' then that species would have gone extinct. Science says only male and female exist. Only recently popularized religions believe outside of that binary
You are the most articulate, polite, educated, and inspiring educator I've ever had the pleasure to listen to. Thank you for all you do. I only wish I get the chance to get out to Utah to come visit.
What an incredibly kind thing to say. Thank you!
if you're interested in learning about optics and photography while seeing flat-earthers and space-deniers crushed, i can recommend "Dave McKeegan". I'd say his videos are on par in style and substance to Clints, but Dave is also petting a Dog while teaching, so clearly superior.
Professor Dave? Although I'm a fan, I don't think he qualifies as kind lol
Professor Dave? Although I'm a fan, I don't think he qualifies as kind lol
@@LukeMcGuireoides if that was in reply to my suggestion, then no, not Prof. Dave. His full name is Dave Farina. Dave McKeegan is someone completely different. And no, Prof. Dave is a lot of things, but "kind" is definitely not among them ;)
As a Catholic entomologist, I really appreciate these videos politely addressing young earth creationism. Thank you for doing this!
Oh, and yes, the athiests will come after you for allowing the possibility of the supernatural haha
@@imightbelieveinfaeries7563Ironically enough, I think that mentality comes from a lot of atheists who grew up around religion or were religious themselves and ultimately rejected it but didn't properly put work into their deconstruction. I even make jokes about the "girl flavor" and "boy flavor" of leaving christianity but not actually deconstructing your beliefs and just applying those same thoughts to a new worldview.(I personally believe that everyone should deconstruct the views they were raised with, whether or not they intend to leave the belief system and ultimately put the pieces together on their own to decide what they believe.)
Seeing groups as a monolith is rarely a safe bet. When it comes to religious or spiritual people, I prefer to interact with those who don't think these things have to contest with science(people who have a logical worldview and look at their belief system through that) than people who think that their beliefs mean science is wrong(people who look at the world through their beliefs and allow only them while disallowing new/contradicting information)
Conversely, I prefer when skeptics and athiests and the like can if nothing else understand that supernatural beliefs in and of themselves are often not harmful and can often be beneficial to some people, or even have a healthy amount of curiosity themselves about unexplained phenomena even if they don't fully believe in them/don't have enough proof to be comfortable believing in something.(something like shared dreams comes to mind. Something that verges on being a coincidence or being supernatural that you can find countless stories on) And I dislike the entirely close minded who think all systems of belief are bad and religion should be outlawed and that there's absolutely zero possibility that any of our current understanding of the supernatural could change as science and technology advance.
Being shut down and condescending just isn't a good look on anyone IMO. Sorry for the long barely related rant, LMAO.
Did you get a good CAtholic education including THE SCIENTIFIC MEYHOD? i DID.
@@TheDesertwalker I think you missed the spelling class.
I think it's more about them "coming after" your certainty, not whatever supernatural stuff you believe
In the tune of the Pink Panther..... "Dead ant, dead ant, dead ant, dead ant, dead ant, dead ant, dead annnnnnnnnnt"
"...ded-ded-ded ant-ant..."
At least that's how I'd finish it 😜
Thank you. I'll be singing this to myself the rest of the afternoon. LOL
I see your Pink Panther, and raise you Super Mario Bros. Underworld Theme! "Dead ant, dead ant, dead ant... Dead ant, dead ant, dead ant... Dead-dead-dead-dead ant. Dead ant. Dead ant. Dededededede-dead ant dead ant dead ant."
haha, my parents and i say that too.
lol !!! nice
Atheist and former fundamentalist here. I appreciate that you debunk creationist claims even as a theist because a lot of fundies need that permission to let go of creationism. In my mind, young earth creationism breeds extreme conspiratorial mindset that we down rabbit holes like QAnon other nonsense like that.
Your videos are also entertaining and enjoyable to watch so thank you
Edit: I don’t care what religion someone holds so long as they don’t push it on others (ie through legislation). I only mentioned my position so as to contextualize my comment about YEC/ fundamentalism.
you should have a proof reader go over your material before you post. maybe take time and reflect on your (lack of) rationality.
I agree.
I don't know where people get the idea that adhering to a religion is incompatible with being a scientist. Newton would rather have been known for his contributions to theology than for his contributions to physics. The Big Bang model came from an ordained Roman Catholic priest (note the "priest" part--white collar and everything, we're not talking a Christmas and Easter Catholic) who also had a PhD in physics. Einstein is quoted as saying about quantum theory "God does not play at dice with the universe". Darwin himself was originally planning on becoming a member of the clergy although by the time the Beagle returned to England he had pretty much tossed the idea of Biblical literalism and was starting to question the under pinnings of Anglicanism.
@@johnbrobston1334 because they are incompatible. science is an always changing, self correcting system. religion never changes even in the face of undeniable evidence. thats is as anti scientific as you can possibly be.
it doesnt matter if some of the greatest scientists were religious. were they ever able to provide any evidence for the god they believe in? no. so none of them made any contributions to religion.
einstein was very much an atheist. he used "god" colloquially. just like we still do today. i say oh my god all the time. and bless you every time someone sneezes. despite the fact that i know that im not actually requesting that god bless someone who sneezes so that they dont die from the common cold.
if i believe in a magical invisible island filled with unicorns that is located in the clouds, and i also create the cure to cancer, what does that tell us about the invisible island i believe in?
absolutely nothing. just because a scientist was religious, doesnt make his religion true. not a single one of them concluded that their was a god, due to science and evidence. not 1.
@@johnbrobston1334same with person who headed human genome project. I read a book by him who was a geneticist and a person of faith. It's a more advanced understanding than where many of commenters are at right now. Rejection of literalism and dogma is early part of one's eventual spiritual development
Its very annoying when creationists admit that animals can adapt but not become other species so evolution isnt real. Like they just admitted evolulution is true! Prolly has nothing to do with this vid but just wanted to say it
Yeah, I’m Christian, but I don’t believe in the creation story.
Just like they claim "you can't make something from nothing" yet claim that's exactly what "God" did. Which begs the question, "Where did God come from?".
@@jamesdietz29 god lives in a timeless area so he was always there
-believers
But it actually doesnt explain anything lol
To be honest, they had a point to some degree and that's why we now use monophylogenies.
@@theojames2581 which one, genesis 1 or 2? Bible has two contradictory creation myths.
"if it ain't broke, don't fix it" works well against that ant arguement.
I know one thing for certain. You do NOT SCREW WITH REPTILE BOB ROSS
He will shut you down with severe authority.
@@LukeMcGuireoides and kindness, but most importantly, a LISTENING EAR 🫢
that is the best descriptor for him, Dr. Clint is totally the Reptile Bob Ross. or maybe Herpetologist Mr. Rogers?
@@94DeathAngelReptile Bob Ross is catchier tbh
"Every piece of misguided information in your mind needs a friend. Everybody deserves a friend, so here, let me give you some good information too. Have a great day, take care!"
You got his celebrity twin wrong. Clint is the reptile Fred Rodgers.
I haven't posted a comment on one of your videos yet, but I couldn't help myself this time. I'm a big fan of your humility, fairness and careful responses; it is hard nowadays to find researchers with such virtues, so good job! You're awesome!
Thank you so much for taking the time to leave such an encouraging and kind comment!
@@ClintsReptiles Theists are just absurd right ?They way they all ignore science for a baseless belief in magic for no reason!
@@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307 to be fair, a vast majority of them do. and while clint hasn't demonstrated a rejection in science, to my knowledge, that doesn't exclude someone from holding baseless beliefs, we all do. i certainly haven't seen any convincing evidence of a god presented by clint or any other theist, but he has demonstrated his understanding of his own field of expertise. i think it is pretty silly to point at a minority in the space, and act as if it exonerates the group as a whole, as clint himself demonstrated there are some very bad actors that (in my opinion) make up the bulk of the theist influence. with that being said, i have no issue at all with clint and i think he's a great source of education, and hope i don't end up disagreeing with him morally in future, which has unfortunately happened with other religious creators such as shadiversity, who revealed himself to be a bigot, despite having interesting and informed content that i enjoyed in the past.
@@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307 What's really absurd is those non-theist that ignore science for a baseless belief that men can just become women by saying they are. Talk about belief in magic. Crazy uh?
@@KelliAnnWinkler Yup.
I just noticed how the replies deviated so quickly
Thanks for not actually including hovind speaking in this video. I didn't feel like killing braincells today.
Im a geology student , trying to specialise in paleontology and a devoute christian, thank you for the polite way you presented this video
"Look at the DESIGN of this ant."
Well there's the first problem with that guy ...
Yup, they start with the assumption that everything was created by a thinking person. They can never seem to break out of that mindset even when trying to refute other claims.
"If this animal wasn't designed by an intelligent deity then why did evolution intelligently design it this way?" - Creationist
"What the hell are you talking about? Evolution isn't a living thinking being..." - Anyone with any clue about Evolution
"But then why did it design everything that way if it's not intelligent?" - Creationist again..
@@GaianEntertainment Best reductio ad absurdum I have found to refute this way of thinking: "The ultra-fine dust particles inside my computer were clearly crafted by an invisible, intelligent designer! How else could only these tiny particles, small enough to pass through the case fan filters, have ended up there?"
@@nibs7252refute?
You have an alternate explanation, not a refutation.
Belief in God is not the problem, disbelief against evolution is.
Here's a question to Creationists: Why can't evolution happen? Why is evolution so bad that you have to constantly refute it?
@@HOLDENPOPE Because then god is an ape and we evolved out of his image into the lightly haired creatures we are today, perhaps?
Creationists constantly confuse abiogenesis with spontaneous generation. The refutation of the latter says nothing about the reality of the former.
Not nearly as bad as people confusing abiogenesis with evolution, which I have seen a saddening number of times.
Creationists should have tried to have better grades so they could have studied at a university after finishing school.
@joshuasgameplays9850 Some creationist confuse the big bang with evolution!
@@johnrichardson7629 And many others confuse evolution, abiogenesis and big bang with atheism.
Which is especially hilarious given that their proposed start to life IS spontaneous generation. Something is being created out of nothing within their tale.
I like how humble Clint is, and how reasonable and open he is to learning. He admits when he got something wrong or he doesn't know enough to give a full opinion on it. We need more people like Clint
0:59 Advice: If you use the name _Clint_ it is wise not to use sans serif capitals, especially with close kerning.
I'm confused as to what a 34 million year old ant is _supposed_ to look like. Huge tusks? Giant spikes? A dramatic volcano in the background?
"34 million years in amber gives you such a crick in the neck!" 🤣🤣🤣
A caveman riding on it
It's meant to wear a cheetah-spot loincloth, with zig-zag edges, and carry a big club.
Yeah, exactly
I would believe they must come across an uncle on occasion, too...
they have this delusion that evolution is just random crap happening, so nothing can ever look like their ancient ancestors. Of course experts on ants will point out dozens of differences between those ants and modern day species, but what's more: evolution doesn't necessarily change looks.
Atheist here. Saying "science does not deny the possibility of the supernatural" is correct. Science doesn't concern itself at all with the supernatural.
What is really telling is that science progresses so well without once having to turn to the supernatural...in fact it ONLY progresses by ignoring it. If the supernatural were an important part of existence in any way, that ought not to be possible.
@@njhoepner to be honest, that's why i kind of feel like the idea that science is compatible with the supernatural is silly. the only supernatural thing i could see theoretically being allowed within the realm of science and objective reality is the idea that a god could exist and have created the universe or something, and even then, that's purely because we can't ever know how it really worked. there's no more reason to believe in anything like that, though, than, say, leprechauns. but i'd be called a fool by even flat earthers were i to earnestly tell them i believe a tribe of leprechauns formed the universe. the reason science does not concern itself with the supernatural is because it overwhelmingly clearly has no bearing on our reality whatsoever. there is simply no evidence of any kind for magic and deities that isn't "god of the gaps" (which, well, isn't really "evidence" at all anyway).
to be clear, i don't necessarily have anything against religion. just, you know... you got to admit, the whole idea of anything supernatural affecting our material existence in any way seems pretty absurd at this point in human history. but, hey, as long as it isn't harming anyone, i don't really care if someone DOES choose to believe in leprechauns.
I don’t get hardcore atheists or the whole debunking of fantasy concepts. By taking those lunatics serious you’re giving them legitimacy. I don’t see any videos like “evolutionary biologist debunks the existence of pixies” so why would this be any different? Clint got a PhD in convincing people that science is real. Seriously?! They give away biology degrees in such basic topics? Any thirdgrader in a civilised country (apparently not including USA or at least Utah) knows about evolution. Normal, sane, enlightened people don’t believe in magical beings up in the sky. The fact that a desert tribe came up with this story 2000 years ago which was subsequently adopted and spread by a Roman dictator a few centuries later to control his subjects doesn’t grant it any more credibility.
Catholic here. Use science to explain where the Big Bang came from. I believe god made it happen.
I am no atheist and I agree. Science is methodologically naturalist. It helps us understand the natural world.
Ants have so much evolutionary variety that I can't think of a better creature to offer evidence against creationism.
How does that variety oppose creationism?
I don’t think that works, as a lot of creationists seem to be fine with what they call micro-evolution. Like god created ant-kind and all these different ants are still ants.
Which is close to the “you can’t evolve out of a clade”, but generally don’t acknowledge higher up (earlier) clades. If someone thinks Bees and Ants are different kinds/creations, than they Aculeata or Hymenoptera as a created kind.
@@Bas-TBexcept "Created kinds" is a nonsensical idea. No one can even give a consistent explanation of what composes a "kind". Where is the hard line where a member of a "kind" can no longer change? Many people who believe in creationism don't believe humans are animals, or at least apes, despite humans being more genetically close to the other apes than most things they would say are the same "kind". They can't have it both ways. Either humans are part of the "ape kind" or at the barest minimum the "panin kind" or they will have to admit that "created kinds" don't hold up.
Without denying that the variety of ants makes them a great creature for offering evidence, I will suggest that the monotremes are even better. They are a seemingly random mix of reptile, bird and mammalian characteristic features. I have heard them termed the "Creationists Nightmare"...
So of course the creationists ignore their existence.
@@John.0z How do monotremes provide evidence against creationism?
I had a beloved uncle that as a kid said “in the moon there is no gravity”. I tried to explain to him that there was just very weak. But his answer was “I saw that in the tv I was watching when they got to the moon. There is no gravity, kid” and that was it. This is no different. 🤷🏻♂️ I don’t want to disrespect his memory (tho I have no qualms with those religious nuts) but some people are nearer to the cleverest primates than to the cleverest humans and that’s the way it is.
This is exactly how creationists are. They get their arguments from a terrible source, then don’t even bother to listen to -evolutionists- normal people’s arguments
As an atheist I really appreciate your videos. It is my hope that we don’t fall into the trap of: “If we can’t agree how it all began, we can’t agree on anything!” We should respect each others beliefs as long as we separate that from our common understandings of the scientific method! 😉👍🏼
Fellow atheist here 👋🏼 The issue with a lot of religion is that science = religion so theres no separation at all which is where 'creationism' comes from. The church loves to teach creationism in bible school and camps. I was an animal planet kid though so i questioned everything and thats where the church gets people. They dont like having their teachings questioned. 🥂(apple cider)
@@hobbithabits Who's "the church"? Because I know The Church doesn't teach creationism. Actually, most sciences these days have been discovered by the Catholic church.
@@Hunterr8 Not by the catholic church, but by catholic people (including some priests). And that's not very surprising, because at that time and that place, that's the only thing you could be.
@@juanausensi499 What time and what place?
And the people of Catholicism is the Catholic church, so the Catholic church has made many discoveries. I'm just a little confused on what you think is meant by the Catholic Church.
@@Hunterr8 European renaissance, mostly.
You have a pretty explansive view of what a church is. I bet that includes me, as a baptized catholic atheist.
"Let them come"... as an atheist and scientist I think we can agree on some things and not others. We can share information and still be compassionate. I don't believe in absolutes but I do believe in being kind. Love that you're sharing your knowledge on here and now with courses! I am pro information for people to make up their own minds, irrespective of it aligns with mine. Great work!
I simply rely on the belief that we don't know what we don't know,
If millions of years given the right circumstances, volcanic waters might sprout life which might adapt into fish which might sprout legs over millions of years given chance and then might go on to conquer the land and so on and so forth of many "maybes", and "might's" or "given this long".
Then I see absolutely no problem with people believing an Intelligent God outside of our understanding simply deciding everything that has been should be and making it so.
Any argument of reason coming after would not effect such a Gods existence as creationism as well as evolution, neither prove nor disprove that Gods existence.
Myself as a Christian I see both arguments at least in a theological setting completely pointless.
Both arguments actually historically originate from Christian attempts to prove Gods existence, and biology itself was spearheaded by Christianity attempting to grasp an understanding of life and how organisms function. In fact the only reason why "evolution" specifically Darwinism has progressively become more of an atheist pseudo religion which attempts to convert others from Religion is because Charles Darwin specifically was looking for a reason to support his atheist beliefs which many atheists of the time rallied under and still do today.
Inherently evolution does not support either atheism or any religion as it is inherently absent of any belief that being the absence or existence of a God it does not matter.
Clint being called a dirty athiest AND spooky christian. Never knew a person could be both. But as we all know "Internet never lies"
Schrödinger's atheist?
Well not that I’m at all a fan of him, but Ben Shapiro has been called a n@zi and a devote Jew. So the internet will label anyone anything to demonize them if they don’t agree with them.
he maybe claim to be atheist, but they all worship satan. so ponder bout that.
Actually, being religious AND being a scientist requires cognitive dissonance and a malfunctioning brain.
@@sinenomine4540 This is a profoundly ignorant statement.
Lol. As an atheist...I have zero concerns about Clint's claim that science does not preclude the possibility of the supernatural. Science is a method of understanding; not itself a magic path to human omniscience.
I am a Christian, for the record. Yes, I do agree natural science cannot tell us much about certain topics like mathematics. Disciplines do cross, I love math as well as history, but the latter is my profession. Natural science is a useful tool to help historians, but some things are outside of it.
As for the supernatural, I think that those fall more into the realm of pure philosophy and logic, unless those claims do affect measurable things in the real world.
For example, if someone claims a soul, which is supernatural, leaves some sort of heat imprint on a body or removes such a thing when it exits a body.
@@davitz77the supernatural claim is the existence of a soul. If you could show the existence of a soul just by the presence and then absence of body heat, the claim that soul exists would not longer be supernatural. It would be a part of the natural world. True supernatural claim are outside the realm of science and laws of nature.
Jus in case (I'm not saying you believe in souls because of it) if soul had a heat imprint you would expect that as soon as you die your body will drop in temperature drastically (because of the soul leaving), but the body gradually losses temperature according to Newtown law.
Clint I always appreciate how you take the time to calmly and precisely restate the arguments of anyone you are reacting to. There's a sort of...dogmatic tone of voice (I dont know else how to describe it) that puts so much energy into many of these presenters. As someone who grew up fundamentalist, that tone instantly creates so much anxiety and you just want certainty again and the person speaking the dogma is offering it to you. It's a very strong pull. Having you restate things calmly and factually helps so much with being able to be curious about these things, and feel free to actually think. Thank you.
There is an awful lot of emotional manipulation that gets confused for practicing religion or for being devout, and I think that you pointed that out here. In less respectful discussions, there is often an initial kind of fear-generating emotion followed by an effortless solution, which is to place your trust (and often your money) in the person who caused the fear in the first place. With that in mind, it is important to note that the fear can come from a valid source. Many people genuinely struggle with accepting or reconciling the idea that a person can practice and sincerely believe the core doctrine of a religion while fully embracing modern scientific understanding. This generally stems from the fact that fundamental, or overly-literal, interpretations from EITHER side produce ideas that contradict the opposite extreme. Furthermore, it requires a lot of mental discipline, a lot of discomfort, and a lot of hard work to research, reason, and restructure something that can be so deeply foundational to your understanding of the world. It hurts to sit in an unsure and uncomfortable position, and it is really hard to admit when you are wrong on something you are deeply invested in, and not become irreparably callous.
For myself, I try very hard to maintain that balance because I genuinely believe there is a higher power, but I also am fully convinced that how we have come to exist at this point in time follows the processes of nature as we have observed them. On one hand, it is easy to say "God claims to have made the world, wouldn't it be cool if He gave us the skills to see HOW?" On the other hand, when approached with the Adam question or anything else interpreted literally in some scripture, I have to admit that I don't know the details, or to what extent I SHOULD accept literal interpretation, despite other strong doctrine that further implies a potential contradiction. That generally leaves the person challenging me completely baffled. I stew on these things CONSTANTLY, and though I don't have all the answers, I'm trying to be like Dr. Laidlaw, who is an excellent example of thinking critically, but not overly cynically.
I know, the dogma of Covid denial is also very real and is contributing to the suffering and death of four times as many folks who die from flu. Because science says Covid is a neurovascular disease, nothing like flu. But the denial is strong because people are terrified to protect themselves. Someone might make fun of them for trying, so they hide away and don't bother. They let over 1000 people die every week (that's a Vietman war every month, people). Covid is airborne AIDS, and people want SO desperately to believe it's harmless even while after acute infection it is damaging their organs and brains -- months after what they thought was a cold or flu because they can't logic their way around how terrible illnesses can begin with flu-like symptoms and NOT BE A FLU. Like AIDS, which also starts with flulike symptoms. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/
I can't help but feel like the "birds can't be dinosaurs" arguments tend to focus around comparing features of birds to the average person's mental image of a T-Rex and then saying "but these things are different!" while completely missing the point that birds didn't evolve from the heavily popularized dinosaurs of the Cretaceous and evolution suggests these changes happened over a very long time, long enough for those changes to happen.
Your average joe has a hard time understanding the time scale of human civilization, let alone the time scale of life on earth. To people who can't or don't want to understand, evolution must be instantaneous and dramatic. They simply can't conceptualize how subtle evolution is in long-lived species.
It's funny cause the guy that made the argument essentially admitted it was a 95% bird
Evolution is wrong, and you know it. That is the truth.
You are all sitting here reassuring yourselves? Why?
@@alexanderadams6628 Because I am allowed to post an opinion on the content that was being reacted to in the video I watched in the comments section of said reaction video
"Kent Hovind played a nontrivial role in turning me into an atheist in my youth."
SAVAGE
Yup, turns out lying for Jesus isn't the best strategy for keeping people believing in him.
@danielfitzpatrick4873 not just Ken. The whole of the creationists movement is based on lying for their version of God. They are incapable of ever telling the truth as it means admitting that they lied.
@@danielfitzpatrick4873agreed. When i went to college to get into ministry, i found that a shocking and detrimental fact. The level of dishonesty amongst ministers taught to those why wanted to know the truth shook me
The Old Testament portrays his god, so no mercy from him before he croaks. In other terms, he's 2030+ years behind Jesus (yeah, the A.D. we have as a fact is not correct), so no progress from him should ever be expected. BTW he knows exactly what he does. Despicable.
Key phrase being “in [his] youth.” Clint has matured since then and in case you missed it, he now believes in God.
I just discovered this channel. AWESOME!! Some one that actually explains holes in this very polarized conversation. I feel like most channels don't address my curiosities or hard straw-man the opposition to make themselves look right. Thank you.
If you came from your parents how come your cousins still exist huh? You ever think about that one Clint!?
It keeps me up most nights... 😳
I see what you did there 😂
They come from THEIR parents !
If Americans came from Europeans, why are there still Europeans? CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!
@@linmal2242bruh! 😅
you're a brilliant entertainer and an even better teacher.
Thank you for creating your content. I only wish this was around when I was young :)
Thank you so much ☺️
The fact that Kent insists on Clint being an atheist who is ignorant of biology tells you everything you need to know about him. Thanks for always taking the high road Clint! YOU are stinkin rad!!! 😎
These types of theists are the embodiment of the no true Scotsman. Any deviation from what they say is doctrine will have you labeled an atheist or Satanist. I was accused of being an atheist long before I gave up religion simply for believing in treating other with respect. Jesus from the sermon on the mount would be accused of being a liberal atheist to these guys.
It is confusing why someone that thinks parts of the bible are silly is a theist. Progressive xtians are still silly people. They are far better than conservative xtians but at least they are more close to their lore than the progressive people
Dude, I love you so much. You’re such an articulate, caring person. The respect that you show to those with whom you disagree is truly remarkable. Your way of steel-manning the arguments of others before critiquing them - **chef’s kiss**.
You’re a paragon of intellectual integrity. Never change. The world NEEDS more people like this.
I never thought that Clint reacting to people reacting to Clint reacting to people would make such an entertaining video. But hey, you learn something new everyday.
As an atheist, i really appreciate your content. Ultimately god can not be proven or disproven by the scientific method, so it doesn't matter to me. But evolution can be proven. I just want most people to accept the scientific method and understand its results, and accept that the results of the scientific method are real and accurate. Evolutionary theory is one the most successful theories and applications of the scientific method.
Does a supernatural explanation remain supernatural once it has been demonstrated with evidence from observation?
@@andywomack3414observation is not a scientific method.
Depends on what you define as God. St John the Evangelist defined the second person of the Trinity as Logos, the first principle of reason (of causality) and the Holy Spirit as Knowledge and Life (John 1:1-4). That reason exists and that we know are the only things we do actually know with certainty. They cannot be proven from first principles because they are the first principles. However, to deny reason (e.g. deductive inference) and knowledge will not get us very far with ever getting to know anything at all.
@@hobbithabits I think the term "observation" is part of the definition of the scientific method. Besides, making observations is the reason we have senses and a brain.
@@nikolaosaggelopoulos8113 I prefer the ancient Greek Pantheon. More straightforward and easier to understand. I like what Epicurus had to say about defining God.
That looks like something Jordan Peterson might say. He often opens a statement with "Depends on how you define..."
You: Genuine will to analyse Creationist Arguments
Him: WHACK an Atheist!
Each ways say a lot about each of you two...
Imagine calling a guy who directly states he believes in God an Atheiest.
I don't see genuine in the title
@@JaMeshuggah Yeah fair enough, but still, Clint title is way more amicable.
@@Juhnte I'll give ya that.. I'll give ya that.
and then what "whacking an atheist" is is being absolutely wrong about everything you say, constantly debunked, never engaging with the other side beyond reaction videos and banning anybody who disagrees with you lmao.
So glad you persist with these videos instead of giving up on making new ones. Appreciate you Clint God bless
Your good faith and compassion for people you don’t agree with is Inspirational.
Thank you!
Hey Clint, I'm one of those atheists that they warned you about at the end of the video! Except I won't string ya up, because I see absolutely nothing wrong with your argument. I just happened to fall on the other side of the coin of personal belief. It actually looks like you and I went through a pretty similar journey in life when it comes to religion meshing with science. Started as a Christian, then I began asking questions to my church members and families and their answers always felt...unsatisfactory. To the point where the purposeful rejection of science eventually drove me away from the church. I really appreciate your sheer honesty and integrity as a science communicator, and as a Christian. If I had grown up with someone like you answering all my questions, I could see a world where I might still be a Christian myself.
Both of my parents were atheists, so I never had an innate understanding of "God" as a concept. I learned about the idea through other families that were religious. I always enjoyed the idea of worship, of rituals, of the community religion provides. I memorized "Our Father" because I like mantras. In adult life I like to say the Moola mantras even though I'm not even close to Indian, lol.
I am an atheist, but I understand the role religion plays in human society and more importantly in the human psyche. I think it's ok to believe in god even if there is no god, because the idea that people can die in peace with their beliefs fills me with joy. I have no beliefs so I can only be sad at the idea of death, of the end of me and the end of my role in the story of our world. I think it's beautiful that others have created meaning from that.
@@trenaareen1216 the idea of atheists having no belief seem to be misinformed tbh.
Atheists just don't believe in god/gods, u could technically still be an atheist and believe in spirits, ancestors, witchcraft etc. If you were a skeptic however, that would be a different case.
Wow. THIS. THIS is the way that people should communicate in scientific debate. Like you, I was driven away from church because of their rejection of science, as well as lgbtq people.
Oh :(
@@SithMamiI find it kinda sad that a lot of churches completely reject science. I learned, at least in my church, that science isn't a bad thing for christians or for anyone. Science is hardly ever a rejection of god. But rather, it is a way to study and understand how God's beautiful creation works. I feel very sad and sorry for those who have lost faith because of the false belief that all of science rejects God :(
Clint's journey from aethist to a scientist of faith is something im super interested in hearing. It might not be youtube worthy/agreeable. But as someone that was raised in a more agnostic approach, then became an aethist but recently has become more interested in faith. I would definantly want to hear Clints story.
I am not a theist but I respect people who can be both believers AND scientists, and I know a fair few people who are.
As an atheist, I would like to hear about it, too
I don’t see how anyone would go from no faith to faith (even including positive life changing life events like having children), but he is one differing opinion I would respect.
I’d have to assume he’s a believer now because he was raised as one - he was never able to completely shake it
That said, he makes great educational vids.
Don't hold your breath waiting for Kent Hovid to discuss your arguments accurately or honestly. He doesn't know how to do that.
0:44: If these three character states (# of legs, presence or absence of segmentation, mouthpart type) are all that creationists use to distinguish insect “kinds”, there are at most about four or five “kinds” of insects: hemipterans/fleas/lice/mosquitoes/horseflies with piercing beak, all other flies with sponging mouth, lepidopterans with proboscis, bees/hornets with combined lapping tongue and mandibles, and everything else with just mandibles (which are scientifically understood to be ancestral to all insects, as Clint says with the Mandibulata). This would make ants, beetles, and grasshoppers are all the same thing. Of course, last time they did say that “kinds” do evolve (without using that term for the process), but wouldn’t that just make it so that ants and sawflies are related to cockroaches and dragonflies but not to hymenopterans with chewing-lapping mouthparts? Last I checked, most young-Earthers recognized traditional Linnaean orders like Hymenoptera as kinds. This just goes to show how nonsensical these intelligent-design claims are.
Literallllyyy. They are fucking ignoring the obvious differences to fit their argument! These ants have a totally different color and different size body segements
I love this series so much. It's easy for debunking to turn into just dunking, and while that can be cathartic, it's not as persuasive. As someone who used to believe in creationism just out of a lack of scientific education, the way you respectfully address creationist arguments and break down the details here is exactly the kind of explanations that helped me move past my misconceptions as a young adult, and something I wish I had access to when I was a kid.
Excellent comment
As a Christian AND a scientist- thanks for what you do here. Biblical literalists who champion ID are in the minority of our faith, they're just very loud.
They have to be loud,otherwise no one would listen.
Narrow is the path to salvation. But I'm sure that doesn't apply to your way of thinking. God didn't really mean it.
@@mathewritchie Because nobody should listen to misinformation written thousands of years ago, designed by clever manipulators, con artists and misogynists who desired control and conformity. those who appoint themselves as purveyors of it's so called will and message simply replace the letter/word 'I' & 'my opinion' with 'god'
Most rational people know 'God' is just wishful thinking and comforting self delusion, like a security blanket, or favorite cuddly toy as a child.
Don't know about that. I am surrounded by 6000 year old Earth, evolution is fake and Trex was on a boat with humans during the flood believers everywhere.
@Brokefootchuck True arrogance is believing a mortal could know the thoughts or aims of something like a god. It is even worse to assume that only YOUR interpretation is the correct one.
As a Biology and Geology teacher, I want to thank you. You've inspired me with many of your videos, but I now have new ideas on how to talk about dating rocks to my students !
Always striving to get better and teach better, and your videos definitely help ! Also appreciate a lot the way you construct your videos :)
I love this channel. Not only is it awesome to watch educational content by someone who is so clearly thoughtful and passionate about life on this planet, but also shows that you can love science AND be a person of faith. Thank you.
I've never understood why religious people view scientific knowledge and religion incompatible. It was one of the things that led to the loss of my faith. It's purely irrational
@@LukeMcGuireoidesMaybe reconsider faith. You probably grew up in a science denial church. I think the ultimate reason for their denial is Biblical literalism.
i dont know if i would ever describe myself as being a christian, but i remember as a kid asking people "why couldnt of god made humans not by poofing them fully formed, but by creating the building blocks and the patterns that would lead to humans evolving?"
And they didnt like that. But surely if God was so Grand so powerful and so on, such a feat of planning would of been possible?
i still have spiritual beliefs but have long been turned off of christianity and organised religion because of reasons like that.
@@avlaenamnell6994 How old were you then? I was shocked when I was in grade 11 or 12 (of 13) and a girl who had a crush on me turned out to be a creationist. I had never personally met one irl since I live in Germany. The girl was of Russo German (ethnic Germans from the USSR) heritage and numerous of them belong to a form of Baptists. I knew her older sister first and she was really dishonest. After graduation, I was severely depressive and she acted like she was a friend online. I eventually found out that she didn't care about me but used my psychological problems so she could eventually convert me. It was as if she saw it as a points game where she'd earn favour with God. That was just manipulative.
@@napoleonfeanor I was around 13-15 thats when i started questioning my RE teacher a lot, they didnt like it...
(im UK)
I was just thinking last night that I would love more of this series of you examining creationist arguments.
Your wish is my command!
@@ClintsReptiles I want to find out what led you back to Christianity. I'm an atheist BTW
@@IanM-id8or I am agnostic and I am also curious what convinced him to start believing in God again.
@@IanM-id8or I don't think this is the channel for that, but I'll also admit to some curiosity. Maybe a podcast?
If Clint starts a podcast I'll never have time again for anything else. It would still be a good idea though .
I was unfortunately indoctrinated with a lot of Kent Hovind as a kid. I appreciate the work that you do. He was literally the reason that I believed that "the devil buried dinosaur bones to trick us."
One thing that has always bothered me is the inconsistency of that viewpoint. God is supposed to have created the universe. The devil is supposed to be a lesser being than God. So which is more plausible, that the devil tampered with the universe to cause us to question God's word, or that the devil tampered with a book to cause us to question God's universe?
@@johnbrobston1334 it doesn't make sense. That's why they taught it to children before we had a chance to develop critical thinking skills
@@bennettnez4711i was taught the “created with age rhetoric in Bible college, and i respect that belief. It makes senses theologically i think
Creationists need to prove their side without mentioning evolution.
Cuz there's loads of evidence there 😂
They can't.
I appreciate how calm and respectful these videos are. Love this channel ❤
As a believer I absolutely love these videos.
There’s a quote from the show The Expanse when someone is trying to disparage a Christian scientist. The Christian’s reply is “I came here aboard a rocket propelled spacecraft, not the wings of an angel. I am able to appreciate the difference”
Some of the sect's of the faith really give Christians a bad name (looking at you baptists). Though, I have never seen a religion in modern times as regressive as some of the Muslims. Some guy made a modern day sundial and thought he found some profound truth of the world...like holy hell. Then again, the atheist version of this is flat earth, so there's that..
Exactly you can still be a believer and not be an ass about it.
10 thumbs up for the The Expanse reference! Elizabeth Mitchell as Reverend Doctor Anna Volovodov is a favorite character.
I find that last guy kinda ridicculous.
"You can't compare the stages of the eye in a fetus with the eyes in moluscs!" Like... why not? Is it just because it proves our point? Sounds like that would be the only reason why we shouldn't.
We see that the stages of the growth of the human eye match with different functional molusc eyes, it's pretty reasonable to point that out and use it to draw conclusions. It shows that, when we say our eyes could have evolved from less complex structures, it's a reasonable assumption because we can see those less complex structures both in our own growth, which means we can generate them, and on some living creatures, wich means they can work just fine. It's a clear sign that the eye is a structure that can absolutely evolve over time. It doesn't mean that it does evolve, it's not a definitive proof, but it shows it can absolutely be the case.
And when he says that "we have the information to grow a full eye"... yeah, we do, but the point of the comparison is to precisely show that we ALSO have the information to grow those previous stages and that they would be usable. Either he just ignores that fact willingly, or he just misses the whole point of that comparison. Don't know which option is worse.
Anyway, if your only argument against the comparison between those different stages of growth and creatures that use them is "the human eye is inimaginably complex", maybe you don't have an argument at all. That comparison is actual proof that the eye is precisely anything but "inimaginably complex". You can't just claim your conclusion as a rebuttal, that's not how arguments work. If it breaks your argument of the irreductible complexity of the eye, sorry, but that's on you.
Yeah, if it was unimaginably complex we wouldn't understand it all lol
And why are they so obsessed with human eyes? There are lots of animals with better eyes than ours.
@@juanausensi499 They tend to also believe in the idea of human supremacy over other animals (usually with the belief that we somehow aren't even animals) so I think they're just biased to mostly think about us
@@juanausensi499 It comes down to the argument of "irreductible complexity". They say that some structures are too complex to evolve, point at something that they believe has that complexity, and claim that this proves evolution isn't real.
Answering your question, they're obsessed with the eye because it's the example that "proves their theory" and thus they flat out refuse to accept any prove against their claims. Animals with better eyes mean that our eyes aren't that great and thus could improve, and animals with worse eyes that match those in our fetus growth mean the eye could evolve and be functional throughout the process.
Accepting those premises invalidates their "proof" and, thus, they need to keep defending there's no point in comparing our eyes with those of other animals even though it doesn't actually make any sense. Wether you believe that we were created in our modern forms or that we evolved, both things should be somewhat visible while comparing living things, specially when comparing simmilar structures in different living beings. That comparison is undoubtedly a good start to know which one is right. It's like wanting to know if two persons are siblings without making comparisons. It doesn't make any sense.
In my opinion, claiming that comparing living beings doesn't make sense is just proving that you already know who's right, and that it's not you. Otherwise, you'd insist in making that comparison.
Did the mazda miata evilve from Chevrolet corvettes or is this simply convergent evolution?
There are fossilized corvettes from the seventies but Miatas dont appear until the nineties.
I think that you have set (multiple times now) the perfect example of how to make an effective argument. The kind that may actually change people's minds because it is so solid. The principles that you follow should be taken to every argument ever: making sure you have a solid understanding of the opposing argument, even restating it, validating all that is valid from that argument, and then presenting evidence for your argument. All free from hyperbole, disrespect, lies, or misrepresentations. Well done!
this video is awesome, great job clint and crew!
Hey Clint, I'm a staunch anti-theist (that is I'm opposed to religious systems and I think religion is deleterious). That being said, I think you are wonderful and the idiots calling you a secret creationist are way off base and not representative of atheists generally. I think your content is amazing, and I appreciate the value of a practicing theist advancing evolutionary education.
Just wanted to throw this in against the pile of dumb hate comments. Here's to being able to disagree without being disagreeable. Cheers!
its so weird to discover that hes a theist! couldve never believed it if someone else told me lol.
@@KoiWrezwhy is that so hard to believe? He lives in Utah and teaches at byu lol.
@@georgehenan853 so you're saying it shouldn't be hard to believe that even after such a thorough education, someone can still choose to indulge in some wishful thinking?
@@georgehenan853 yeah like irrelevant noob said, not everyone from utah is default religious. also im not even american so dont assume everyone knows stuff about utah. like whats byu? see, have no idea.
One can believe that religious systems are deleterious and still believe in God. Religions at their best are God filtered through the mind of man. Anyway, your comment made me curious where you stand on this.
As a former pastor turned atheist, I believe that most reasonable atheists wouldn't criticize the statement 'science doesn't deny the possibility of the supernatural.' It's true, even if it seems almost obvious. The real challenge lies in the fact that science has no way to test or falsify supernatural claims.
This is very true. It's not that science denies the possibility of the supernatural. It's that science has no way to consider it to begin with. There's no way to observe, examine, or test anything supernatural, and until there is, there's no way we can currently include or consider it as a possible explanation for anything. Now, if there is ever some sort of evidence presented for it, then of course we would include it as a possibility. We're just currently barred from doing so.
I honestly don't understand your rationale on the supernatural argument. Science as far as I know, defaults to not having to argue against the null. The existence of god is what has to be proven, not the non-existence. The null is the non -existence. We have no proof that there is a god outside of what we imagine it to be.
Yep. Supernatural claims, by definition, are outside the realm where science can really say ANYTHING, for or against, about them.
At best, even if someone COULD produce supernatural acts, on demand, under proper scienctific observation (which obviously, nobody HAS done, to date... for some reason...) the best science could do, is say "We started with X, ended up with Y... And what happened in between is as yet, unexplained". That doesn't mean that science won't find a naturalistic explanation tomorrow... Or maybe science will NEVER find any explanation. All science is able to do, is say "we don't have an explanation, right NOW".
For science to be able to verify whatever process, you'd need known mechanisms, so by definition, that process CAN'T be "supernatural", coz "supernatural" basically just means "UNKNOWN mechanisms (presumably mechanisms outside the purview of science-"God's will", or "magic", or whatever)". So science can definitionally NEVER say anything about the (real or imaginary) supernatural; It's a tool, limited to the naturalistic world.
I believe the Catholics call this idea "non-overlapping majesteria"; That science, and religious/supernatural claims, are seperate realms, which may indirectly influence one-another, but can't ever directly overlap
@@Janeway1269how would the scientific method treat oxygen or bacteria in 200 AD?
I’m happy you made it out of the cuckoo’s nest :)
30:00 I think the misunderstanding here is the idea that life is a thing. It is not. Life is not something that exists separate from the non-living world. It's the result of some chemicals composites being self-replicating and from then on, getting ever better at replicating. There is just nothing that needs to be "breathed in" to anything at any point.
Of course, that also means there is no first lifeform, the same way there is no first human.
One COULD just see chemistry as a form of or a precursor to life. After all, it results in things forming...ie is creative. It can repeat processes. It irritates me when folks talk about life coming from 'random' or 'chaotic' nature. These are the same folks who believe God created the natural world and fine tuned it. I agree there is good reason to say the natural world appears fine tuned. Why would we then turn around and call it random and chaotic. As far as I know, nothing in the natural world happens randomly. Everything has a prior cause.
Thank you! It takes a lot courage to do this kind of content. You truly are an educator, much respect.
that first clip about the ant actually had me dumbfounded, the amount of differences shown between those two species was hilarous.
THANK YOU FOR THIS SERIES
I'm really excited about how it has been received. Controversial topics don't need to be discussed in a controversial manner.
@@ClintsReptiles OOOoooo "Controversial topics don't need to be discussed in a controversial manner." Is such a poignant quote for the 2024 discourse landscape in general
I really enjoy Clint's presentation in these types of videos. I am agnostic and a scientist. I like the phrase "Magic is just science we haven't figured out yet" very much. So much is still to be learned. Neither science or religion have all the answers. :)
I once got into an argument with someone about index fossils, this person was convinced that relative dating was circular reason, I couldn’t articulate my argument very well but you explained it way better than I ever could.
Responding to the question depicted in the thumbnail, evolution doesn't have a mandatory speed rate that is the same for all living beings. That is an extension of the notion that evolution does not have a plan, and of course not an specific direction. Living things aren't supposed to stay the same, but neither to completely change. It's up to adaptation.
I've met someone in one of the comment sections under a video, they were Young Earth Creationist. They commented on someone else's comment explaining their concerns about how older creatures were terrifying. I thought they were joking when they explained their standing point and I immediatly stopped arguing with them and they thanked me for that. They were nice eventhough our views didn't allign. Honestly it was a 1 in a million encounter. Sadly this expression/saying becomes more and more true as more and more undereducated people find the internet as their main domain (I want to be nice to those because not all are idiots just has less knowledge on the topic or are misled by other people)
Such an incredibly well done video, I will definitely be checking out the rest in the series
I find it amusing and disturbing when Creationists who know absolutely nothing about evolution, biology and the science behind them try to disprove evolution.
Exactly. It's purely counterintuitive
Evolution is very poorly taught. Very few people that I know have a great conception of how evolution works. A lot of people will believe in either the march of progress or Lamarckian evolution and think themselves a good science believer. That environment set a stage where it's a lot easier to be against it, and the main arguments you will hear for it are poorly conceived. I wish I had a good solution for this, but it's just a bigger problem than I can fix
Ignorance is strength.
@@wilhelmvonn9619 it is for the GOP
@@wilhelmvonn9619 It can be when someone like Trump influences people to vote for him through lie after lie that they blindly believe.
As an atheist and biologist (though not evolutionary biologist) Clint is my hero. I share his videos whenever there's some misunderstanding of evolutionary processes on Facebook or wherever and people seem to love them because of his super enthusiastic and engaging style!
Getting Kent to listen to the actual argument instead of what he wants might be an uphill struggle.
He may have heard the other part, realized he had no smart-aleck answer to it, and avoided platforming it.
@@JaniceinOR
Oh almost certainly. Kent has a history of dishonesty.
He listens to it, he just intentionally ignores it. He's a bad faith actor.
The guy may or may not be willfuly ignorat. But he certanly has an agenda to push.
@@cyruslupercal9493 he's blatantly dishonest and certainly has an agenda. If his ignorance doesn't truly exist then he's even more dishonest. I think he probably believes much of what he says, but he definitely suspects the truth is real. He would call it demonic temptation, I'm sure.
Creationists don’t have arguments. They have verbal diarrhea.
This debate is surely not evolving.
😂😂😂
This debate is as a result of all of gods work so need not evolve further…
Its wild 😂
Many of the arguments creationists used were literally debunked by Darwin himself.
Hello Clint, I figured out last year that your enclosure in Springville is less than 10 minutes away! I live in Spanish Fork which is the next town away and about a 10 minute drive and it’s awesome and I’ve been watching your channel since 2017 and it’s awesome
Edit: I meant to say 2017
Come visit! Our five year anniversary celebration is a week from today!
@@ClintsReptiles OOOHHHH yay I hope I can make it! It’s in the springville one right?
And what time is it?
There will be multiple events. VIP tickets are sold out unfortunately, but that's not the only event: clintsreptiles.com/birthday-bash/
I grew up in the young earth Creationist camp, and since coming to accept evolution I had not heard an explanation for “polystrate” fossils until now. Thank you! Also, I am an atheist and completely agree with you that science does not speak on the question of whether the supernatural exists. As an atheist who accepts evolutionary science, thank you for what you are doing to hopefully increase everyone’s knowledge of this amazing world we live in, no matter their religious beliefs!
Scientists and philosophers are well aware that one cannot prove a negative. Science cannot disprove a fantasy, because there is no data. You need evidence to disprove the supernatural, gods, demons, unicorns, garden fairies and that thing that lives under your bed. On the other hand, there is zero evidence to support any of those fantasies. Nor can anyone calculate the probability of supernatural entities, or phenomenon existing, because probability cannot be calculated, or determined until either positive or negative data is available for the calculation. Finally, one should never form a belief in anything unless that belief can be supported by evidence which is verifiable, demonstrable and repeatable. Because no evidence, that meets that criteria exists, it is only rational to state that; "I don't hold a belief in the existence of the supernatural".
Clint i gotta say.. i absolutely love these kinds of videos .. keep rocking it
"Let them come." So calm. So zen. So freaking badass.
Great video. As a life-time atheist, I've always wondered how someone can be a scientist and believe in God at the same time. I know the Bible and all other religious texts are subject to interpenetration, so I suppose it wouldn't be too difficult to make compromises. That being said, one could also take the route of "The Bible isn't cannon, it was just an interpretation of God from the people of the time, and what God actually did is still not fully understood."
One can believe in God outside of Christianity or any other religion
As an atheist, I would be interested to hear about what convinced you to return to religion. Would you consider making a video discussing that?
I can certainly see how Kent Hovind would have convinced you to leave religion. He is, indeed, one of the greatest resources the atheist movement has ;-)
Someone told me a few days ago that since I stopped believing, I should not hold hopes of getting into heaven.
Besides not liking harp music, I said that place would be like hell if the next gazillion years were of Ken Hovind exposing his ignorance and shouting from a soapbox.
I should have mentioned to my companion the thought of sitting on a heavenly park bench looking into the eyes of a beautiful angel and Ray Discomfort slithering between you, like Eve's (now legless) python.
Without hesitation, he offers your beautiful companion chocolates and interrogates her about her 'sinful' nocturnal activities.
At least at the other place, the coffee is never cold, and the place is full of the naughtiest girls.
@@VaughanMcCue One benefit of believing is that one can believe that Ken Hovind has a _special_ Hell reserved for him, right next to the one reserved for people who talk in theaters . . .
Your videos are fantastic. Extremely sharp intellect and wonderfully articulated. Stating that you're not an expert in geology, and not laying out a stern critique, shows a high level of academic maturity (which is sorely missing in Kent Hovind.)
The crazy thing about people who dismiss evolution is that they don't see that dog breeds are evolution. You can evolve a species drastically within your own lifetime. Over millions of years, the results can be unrecognizable.
A form of unnatural selection, but not speciation. Thus far, all domestic animals can still reproduce with their wild relatives.
The creationists make a distinction between what they call "macroevolution" and what they call "microevolution", and accept changes within a species, such as dog breeds, as "microevolution". To use dog breeds to counter their claims using their own rules you would have to come up with a dog breed that is interfertile with other dogs of that breed but not with other breeds of dog, thus demonstrating what creationists call "macroevolution" in dogs. Of course the new species would still be dogs under the rules of cladistics . . .
Over "millions" of years those ants are recognizable.
@johnbrobston1334 Most of them consider true foxes to be a "dog kind," but true foxes cannot breed with dogs. Of course, then I suppose they could always just say, "Well, then there's a separate "fox kind," lol.
@@Pohgrey "Most of them" believe that foxes are "dog kind"? Do you have a poll to present? I've never seen such a claim.
It's funny that the Creationists used to be the ones insisting that life COULD come from non-life, like Spontaneous Generation.
It's so hard to listen to these people's point of view. It's literally absurd to think religious documents are facts
Religious documents are guidelines and stories meant to shape us as humans. I don’t agree with them being factual either, but you can see why people read them.
Some people have the urge to feel like they aren't sheeps and for that they refuse believe in scientific evidences (when it's convenient to them).
To be fair, and im saying this as an atheist, theres a suprising amount of facts that can be decyphered from holy texts, like the bible
From cultures, foods, plants, religions, etc... it paints a good picture of that time period.
You just have to sift trough the fairy tale parts
As an atheist with a science background, I APPRECIATE you stating that science does not negate the possibility of the supernatural.
the problem with the supernatural hypothesis is the inability to replicate the event/test to eliminate or quantify variables.
I find it so unbelievably stupid when people think that you cant be religious if you're a scientist. As long as you're not basing scientific claims on your religious ideals i font see the problem. Like, Albert Einstein was devoutly Jewish
Never seen anyone that says it is impossible to be both. Only that it requires a degree of mental compartmentalization that seems rather hypocritical (or even deleterious). Also, Einstein wasn't "devoutly" Jewish, he was traditional. He didn't believe in a personal god but as something of a label for what we don't yet understand about the universe. Spinoza's god concept.
If I was confronted with that ant argument I would just point out all of the different ant species today.
Great point. As if God created each and every different species lmao
I imagine their response would be along the lines of, "Yes, but they're all still ants." It seems one of their main arguments is that variation can develop within a type of animal, but an animal can never evolve out of its "type".
(I suppose as a disclaimer I should point out that I'm not endorsing that argument, just explaining it.)
@@LukeMcGuireoides don't forget, Adam had to *_name_* them all. ;-) ... in a single day!
Not sure what to say but I love your videos so I'm commenting to boost them in the algorithm.
Hey Clint, just wanted to show some support and say thank you for this video.
He also claims the world is only 6,000 years old so the 34 million-year-old amber should not exist in his thesis
that's the beauty of conspiracies, it doesn't have to make sense :D
But you see, God thoughtfully provided some "apparently" 34 million year old amber so creationists would be able to convince the heathen. Once you agree that the ant was made that way by God, you can start your journey of doublethink and dissonance until you too stop caring about internal consistency in your belief system. I've met scientifically literate and rigorous Christians in my life, but never have they been young Earth creationists.
When I saw the "whack an atheist" on Kent Hovind's video at the start, I was reminded that many of your detractors think you're an atheist, even though you've openly stated, more than once, that you are religious. That's wild
It is a shock to our system to see a Christian presenter being truthful.
In order to know that Clint is religious, they would have to watch his videos instead of just fast-skipping it to find some points they want to strawman. Impossible for people like Hovind.
@@klausroxin4437
Is that what you do?
I suppose you are an atheist when it comes to Allah, Zeus, Thor and others.
Are there any comments on this page that use the strawman fallacy to support a position?
If you read the comments from those who do not share Clint's superstition, you will see numerous supporters of his work.
Almost 3000 comments to Sept 29 2024, and it has only been up two days!
You might benefit from listening to what some atheists say because they will mostly be truthful, or at least not intentionally lie. If you find an intentional atheist deceiver, I am happy to correct them.
You will remain wilfully misled if you get your biology and science information from a pastor or Christian apologist, but science is in good hands on this channel.
I watched right through to the end because Clint is very informative, entertaining, and-bonus-does not tell lies.
I think I am correct in saying that I saw one of Clint's videos where he tagged a correction because he recognised an error, as you would expect of a professional.
How often would you see that sort of honesty from a religious apologist?
Don't wear yourself out; it will be rare because the truth isn't part of their policy.
The main creationist fallacy is the belief that natural selection is some cosmic force that obliges change. Darwin succeeded because he took evolution out of that mindset. As Steven Jay Gould explained very clearly, natural selection is accident plus opertunity. There's no reason a species has to change- it's just a matter of some cosmic ray making a mutation that contributes to reproductive secess.
This is all wrapped up with "survival of the fittest ", the notion that evolution is a perfecting process and the belief that origin of a species obsoletes😮 the predecessor species. Evolution is simply a black and white bear with a bone spur that got lucky. There's no mandate to change- it just happens.
@@WilliamSpoehr
You have provided an excellent summary- thanks.
For your information, I suggest it isn't wise to quote anybody, such as SJG, because the typical reaction from creationists would be. Dr Kent Hovind said jibber-jabber dribble, and he has a genuine *PhD.
*Printed his document.
Thanks for your interest and contribution. 6 ;10 20 Dec'24-G.M.T.
I dunno. The fact that we haven't all evolved into crab at this point is pretty depressing.
Someone asked what ants ought to look like --
Crab.
Crab is the ideal shape.
You may not like it -- but Crab is peak life form.
Well, the creationists did evolve a crab brain for sure. It always walks backwards. ;-)