I was a teenage young Earth creationist. I am living evidence that creationists can change their minds. So, don't give up on the idea of making a difference for them.
Seems easier to find a former YEC than a former person who understood and accepted evolution to turn to YEC. So many times you hear creationists say they used to believe in evolution before finding god.
@@rs72098 if a man says 1+1=2 would I ask if he has a degree to back up that claim? Or can I simply look at what I've been provided and come to a conclusion that he is correct
@@rs72098 Aron Ra does indeed have a college degree. Matter of fact, he has two. He has an associate’s degree from Dallas College and a bachelor of science from Arizona State University.
When I was in the 6th grade in public school (Princeton Elementary, Orlando, FL, 1953) my teacher was a Creationist and dismissed Evolution. I was raised in a Southern Baptist family and had no opinion on that issue. My Sunday School teachers were all Creationists and their geology came from the Biblical account of Noah's Flood. It was just stories to me and I never thought about evidence or ever asked for evidence. The idea of asking for evidence was an alien idea to me. Until, one day a girl in my class did a show and tell on the Evolution of the Horse based on the discovery of the fossilized bones of ancestors of the horse in North America. That show and tell was a pivotal moment for me as it made me realize the importance of evidence and how beliefs totally lacked evidence and lacked the validity of their conclusions. It was like a light being turned on for me when Alice Smith, the girl who did the presentation, has the courage to defy the Creationist teacher and tell the class that we had the ability of determining what is the best explanation of reality.
@@MossyMozart She is my hero! Unfortunately I never told her that while we were still in school although we were in the same high school graduating class.
Me as an autistic person in Sunday School: this Noah story is bull. How did they fit everything? How are they feeding everything? How are they keeping the carnivores from killing? Or is this another water into wine or mead conjuring magic? No one gave me a good answer. If this story was so dang important, why wouldn’t the Bible give more details? I heard many “because God said so.” And “You just have to believe.” By the time I was 9, I put the Bible in the historical fiction category of books, which was only cemented when I read some of the books that were left out of the Christian Bible. I couldn’t ever figure out why the god of the Old Testament was so damn mean and violent. As a young g adult, I took the old and New Testament as an abuse cycle. One of the worst answers you can give to an autistic person: because I told you do. BUT WHY?! HOW?! Good for Alice! Gave the glass shades, so the light wouldn’t blind them from seeing all the evidence and details. That must’ve been really hard back then. At least now we have more advanced dating techniques and DNA.
The standard retort is that mineralogists and petroleum geologists simply use observation such as seismic measurements and cores to do what they do with the "millions of years" being only an after the fact window dressing. However my fb friend Kevin Donihoo (interviewed on Bill Ludlow's channel summer of 2019) developed software that relied on inputs of numerical information. After all you won't bake a cake using only a temp input.
Yes it is! And I have a box of cards that I haven't touched in seven years to prove it! ...oh, you were talking about the concept, not the trading card game. Sorry.
As someone who grew up a YEC Christian, this helps me so much to see the actual science. I grew up reading and "learning" about science from the Answers in Genisis books and the Creation Museum. Channels like yours, Aron Ra, Genetically Modified Skeptic, and Telltale's all have been helping me get through my deconstruction of the YEC/Christian views.
The greatest fundamental (pun?) flaw in all YEC nonsense, and indeed all creationist nonsense, is the fact of there being a total dearth of internal consistency. Ignoring that the bible is just a macabre compendium of plagiarized rambles, the source texts themselves are a collection of Hebrew mythology, largely based on what was the popular hilarious piffle pandered during the Babylonian enslavement... they dragged much of it West when 'freedom' was attained. It is rather baffling how the religious can stare at all this & not see the gigantic problem with it all. What's worse, the creationist folks surely understand that they've been 'blessed' with what is heretofore the greatest gift to mankind in the known Universe: A large brain.... Yet to the bewilderment of the combined might of all human intelligence, they've taken to ignoring, disregarding, castrating, taking for granted this fascinating organ, by seemingly not using it at all for the intended task. You gotta wonder if doing so might really piss off the Celestial Dictatorship. "I gave them all the tools they could need. But instead they choose to listen to a talking snake, a mumbling shrub that was set ablaze by an unruly youth, calling a nice Jewish girl getting knocked up by the neighbor a miracle & repeating incoherent nonsense on Sunday mornings. WTF?!" ---The Sky Wizard
@@thesunexpress 'Plagiarism' has been roundly refuted by Bible scholars with reason and evidence. They are published if you would read them. However, as the 98%+ group thinkers atheist are, they will NOT open any link with evidence against them. It shows atheists are emotional, not critical thinking intellectuals. If they were, they would learn what evidence the other side has and then decide after then. However, they have their mentors dictate the supposed 'truth' to them, not demonstrated as Christians look for. That is why we know more facts than atheists/skeptics/Christian cults do.
@@hwd7 It is clear you just come on here looking for comments to respond to rather than watch the video before even saying anything. No, I do not believe frogs turn into princes (which is not at all the theory of Evolution says or even suggests, rather that is a construct that YEC make it sound like by misinterpretating terms) that would be completely illogical and not scientifically sound. Anyways, I made my previous comment weeks ago and I'm quite busy. So this is my last response. Ciao
@@hwd7 WTF is wrong with you? A Jew was executed for what was at the time considered a crime worthy of capital punishment. Why in all screwy hell would anyone with half a brain follow some religious wacko, obsessed with deranged apocalyptic piffle? Organized religion has been nothing but the greatest deleterious scrounge to mankind.
@@martylawrence5532 The only thing in your entire stream of blather that I agree with is that "plagiarism" has been refuted. It's no more plagiarism for iron age Hebrews to appropriate the mythology of the Babylonians than it is plagiarism for the Greeks to appropriate Egyptian mythology. In both cases, once they appropriated the source mythology, they twisted it until the people they appropriated it from wouldn't recognize it. It still doesn't make any of it true, of course, any more than the ludicrous claim that Christians look for demonstrated truth. After all, that would require supporting evidence, and speaking as a former Assemblies of God ministerial student, the reason I am FORMER is because there is no evidence that supports any of the Christian claims made about matters of fact and science.
What you are doing is so helpful to people like me. My parents were founding members of Answers In Genesis and chatting with Ken Ham on the regular. I know the arguments inside and out but didn’t know anything else. Hearing a systematic critique of young earth creationism has helped me in my deconstruction process.
So in your "deconstruction process", do you consider your worldview closer to: an old age creationist, theistic evolutionist, deistic evolutionist, agnostic evolutionist, or atheistic evolutionist?
@@oreopagus2476 "evolutionist"? Evolution is simply a fact regardless of worldview and label, that's like saying accepting the fact that gravity exists makes you a Gravitist...
@@Cosmic_Cretin Evolution is a fact? How are defining evolution? Phillip Johnson: "If somebody asks, 'Do you believe in evolution?' the right reply is not 'Yes' or 'No.' It is: 'Precisely what do you mean by evolution?' My experience has been that the first definition I get will be so broad as to be indisputable--like 'There has been change in the course of life's history.' Later on a much more precise and controversial definition will be substituted without notice. That one word evolution can mean something so tiny it hardly matters, or so big it explains the whole history of the universe. Keep your baloney detector trained on that word. If it moves, zap it!" ("Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds", 1997)
@@bloodink9508 Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena. Athiest: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. Bob Dylan: "Ya either got faith or ya got unbelief and there ain't neutral ground" (in "Precious Angel")
@@johnnygraz4712 I was raised a Young Earth Creationist. I'm assuming you weren't raised that way, so you wouldn't understand the power of indoctrination. It took me, until 2 years ago to finally accept facts and forsake my nonsensical YEC beliefs. Trust me when I say it is very hard for the average fundamentalist, raised in a faith school to understand what you would probably consider basic science, like evolution, etc.
I have a different list from my long time debating these idiots: 1. C14 calibration curves. Much more challenging for them than regular radiometric dating where they can deny assumptions. The C14 calibration curve is C14 date plotted against SEVEN other dating methods (dendrochronology, speleothems, coral rings, sediment cores, varves, ice cores, etc.) The dates match up, therefore proving that the Earth is at least 50,000 years old and refuting any idea of a recent global flood (none of the dating methods are interrupted). If they are wrong, how are they ALL wrong and how are they all wrong but show the SAME dates???? YEC's cannot argue against this data because their "pick one method at a time and refute" approach doesn't address the whole curve and why the dates agree. 2. Limestone. Erika did a video on this but pretty much the existence of limestone in any strata refutes the hypothesis that a flood produced that layer. Why, because floods NEVER produced limestone and cannot produce them. It is a gradually produced rock, ranging from months to millions of years to accumulate depending on type. YEC's will never explain why there are different types of limestone in the same Grand Canyon strata, and why they change type and how they are laid. Why do they show shallow versus deepwater limestones, and grade in between. Why are there sandstones and shales in the strata but not mixed in with the limestone? How does a single flood produce pure beds of limestone in all the chaos and currents? Why aren't other types of sediment mixed in? How do coral reefs form so fast after a flood? Why are there no pre-flood coral reefs that mark the pre-flood/Flood boundary layer? Howe did corals survive the flood at all? YEC's cannot explain limestone in their flood model and never have. 3. Trap Volcanism. The large igneous provinces add to the heat problem described in this video. The Deccan and Siberian Traps occurred over many millions of years and extruded millions of cubic kilometers worth of basaltic magma all over the world. Add to that all the supervolcanoes. If this all happened in a single year, there would be tons of heat and poison gas that would have exterminated all life on Earth. How this is explained by a flood is unknown and the YEC's cannot explain the heat problem OR why God needed the Deccan Traps to happen when it would have boiled off the ocean God wanted to flood the planet. 4. Biogeography. YEC's cannot for the life of them explain biogeography of any clade of organisms. We can trace the migration and distribution of organisms using the fossil record and phylogenetics, and none of them trace their lineages to the area of Mt Ararat. And for the creatures not on the Ark, none of the distribution patterns fit vegetation mats or any other YEC model for species survival. The patterns of aquatic biogeography don't fit YEC models either, and can't explain the distribution of coral reefs or freshwater river fauna. They can't explain why we see certain plant species where we do, or relictual distributions. YEC's don't know anything about organisms to even realize the problems here. 5. Biostratigraphy. Easy, ask the YEC why we don't see modern species in the older layers, or shark teeth in the Cambrian, or humans/rabbits in the Devonian. But more devastating is the complete lack of POLLEN from trees in the flood layers. Pollen only exists in specific layers and is missing from all the older ones. If all trees and flowers were killed by the flood, there would be pollen grains buried in ALL layers of sedimentary rock. The pollen would not indicate seasonal layers because the flood started in ONE season.
You obviously posess a wealth of knowlege, and I'm a simple man, with a simple question. Where did all that additional water come from, and where did it go? Seems like too much to come from the atmosphere, then evaporate back into it.
@@fjalics I sh*t you not, the explanation is...it used to hover around the world, suspended above the sky, protecting the world from free radicals, letting people live for centuries, and it sank beneath the Earth's crust. You cannot logic with these people.
@@fjalics The water question always seemed to be one they invented rapid plate tectonics to solve, but I'm still not sure how they got all the water out of the underground to above ground, and then re-arranged the Earth without boiling that water off. Plus all that deep underground water is hot and salty to begin with
Obviously the coral, pollen, and freshwater fish all climbed to the higher mountain strata to escape the waters. God set up the c-14 calibration metrics to test your faith and you failed....
@@firebladetenn6633 I was taught that in Social Studies class in a public school in the 70s, I kid you not. I knew it wasn't really allowed, but I wasn't about to put a target on my back by trying to get my parents (who were already immigrants and misfits) to fight this.
0:00 intro 3:23 The Heat Problem (of accelerated radioactive decay) 8:36 Transitional Hominins 19:05 Statistics (analysis of alternatives to common ancestry) 24:57 The Energy industry (fossil fuels) 27:58 Comparative Genomics 31:38 outro
Genesis could say that humanity is 6000 thousand years old, I might be an heretic, the genesis days are not 24 hour literal days they are longer , they all happened instantaneous
Why does it make me so very happy when Gutsick calls me a "gentle and very modern ape"? Maybe it is because the only other time I am referred to as an ape is is by by wife and she proceeds it by the words "big" and "dumb".
I work with a young earth creationists, this is a beautiful video picking his misconceptions apart. That said he just either asserts that the devil laid the “fake” evidence to trick scientists into hating god… or he just snorts at the explanation and decides that since he doesn’t understand the answer given by science it is a lie. Either way he has decided I am beyond saving and no longer pushing his crazy ideas on the world onto me. Also all dinosaurs are fake to him which always makes me smile.
You are lucky he has given up on you. I lived in the USA for years, but chose to return home. Right up to the time I left I had two YECs spouting their nonsense at me. Not a lot, because I did defend my position when it was worth the effort. But they are impossible when they see it as their mission to save your soul.
And the bible God just allows Satan to deceive people that far? That's a real jerk move, doesn't make his God look that just. He might as well just pose as Zues to tell you Zues is God and the God of the Bible is not real, then send you to hell for believing in Zues and not him, the God of the bible.
It's like liberals when presented with evidence of race science. They divert. They avoid. They don't want to address the evidence of extreme racial differences. And eventually they just resort to name calling like "you're a raaaaaaacist".
@@ericdondero5810 like the race "science" that claimed racial intelligence based on skull size? Oops. Size of brain is not linked to intelligence. How about the genetics? Only two genes are different to give white people pale skin and eyes. The human genome project has mapped the entire genetic sequence for humans and we are all 99.9 percent the same genetically. No specific gene has been discovered for intelligence. IQ tests are often used but people can increase their iq with practice - environmental not genetic. Likewise poor nutrition leads to lower iq scores - environmental not genetic. Take your head out of the sand you have so firmly buried it in, take off your white hood and look at some real science.
I really appreciate these videos. I work in a pretty conservative school district and I see kids with Creation Museum and Ark Encounter merch all the time. I think it's important to have videos like this so there's at least more of a chance people raised in that belief can see the actual arguments, not just the Strawmen that Hovind and Ham tend to put up.
I grew up in a conservative school district as a little queer atheist, so I often felt like an outsider. I had a biology teacher who taught evolution and everyone but me and one other kid boycotted by not coming to class. Even though she was a Christian she was one of the most accepting people in that community. Her kindness and acceptance of me is still appreciated and remembered 15 years later.
I grew up YEC. I was always somewhat unconvinced, but the bubble I was in prevented me access in honest ways to science. Thank you for your persistence in educating people. Keep it up. People DO change!
Does YEC's and people like you derive your god from the same book? As a lifetime non-religious I did the exercise to write every age of the people written about in the bible into a spreadsheet and can't get to an age of the universe and a flat earth as described in the bible, that exceed 6000 years, So could you please give me a list of verses you hoop jump through but magically still are able to derive a god from? To me YEC's are at least somewhat honest to their book (except the flat earth descriptions) while Christians that claim to also embrace reality are dishonest to both their book and reality at the same time! Like, Superman exist! Of course he can't fly or turn back time or comes from Krypton, that's just metaphors and needs to be interpreted to fit reality , but Superman exist and has a side job as a journalist under the name Clark Kent for the Daily Planet (that isn't online or googleable).
@@jipersson Even the Bible has some difficulty keeping its story straight. God told Abram they'd have a child at very old ages, and Abram and wife thought it was hilariously absurd. Apparently they forgot their own family ancestry, which were still living unusually long spans.
@@jipersson Well, I would argue that there are a plethora of different ways that the early chapters of the Bible (specifically the first 11 chapters of the book of Genesis) and the references throughout the rest of Scripture pertaining to it. You have various interpretations like the gap theory, day-age creationism, progressive creationism, the literary framework etc. That YEC isn't warranted and as you rightfully point out, don't interpret all of the Bible through wooden literalism as they reject both flat earth and geocentrism. The particular view that I adhere to is what's generally called the cosmic temple inauguration. This is basically where the first two chapters of Genesis, similar like other ancient near-eastern texts, is linked to a temple in which the earth is existing but doesn't have function. That is to say, the natural processes (e.g. big bang, solar nebular, stellar nucleosynthesis, abiogenesis, evolution etc.) which brought about the material things within the earth (the sea, air, strata and even living creatures) were all already there, but so to say, didn't have a purpose. So, from there, God has functional creation in which he calls the existing things for his purpose. The seven days, including the day of rest, should be seen as symmetrical to one another. So, for example, days 1 and 4 which are the outermost circle concern the luminaries. In days 2 and 5, you have flying and swimming animals and finally on days 3 and 6, in the innermost circle or most intimate circle with God, are humans and the rest of the land animals. The authors of Genesis 1 are using the 7 days of Genesis in two ways. One being a symbol for temple inauguration and then the second purpose, dividing the work between six symmetrical days to explain that the cosmos which is now God’s temple, has been divided into three spheres of intimacy. In regards to humans, I accept mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal evidence that the LCA (last common ancestor) of humans was around 100,000-200,000 years ago out of Sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable to assert or use that as a form of argumentation for an Adam/Eve as our headship and progenitor. That relates to the timeline where I would argue that God gave purpose or likeness of image to humans in Gen 1 and in Gen 2, from humanity, God selects or uses Adam and Eve as our headship. Then I would point out or add to that there obviously gaps within the genealogies which one can then use to go from that point forward. For more information, I would recommend watching any of Inspiring Philosophy's videos on this topic (he has a UA-cam channel) or reading any of John Walton's works concerning this.
While its nice that you want to adhere to science, there's a Lot of problems trying to merge an old earth with the Bible. If you do an honest assessment I think you'll have no choice but to agree.
@@mouthpiece200 Well I would argue that there is time before the Bible and "in the beginning" mentioned in Gen. 1:1 isn't an absolute beginning point based upon principles of the Hebraic syntax. For more info, I defer you back to the references I mentioned with InspiringPhilosophy and John Walton's work. Really throughout the history of Christendom, there's been different interpretation of Genesis and there isn't a monolithic view concerning it. I may agree with you that a wooden literal interpretation of the Bible is not compatible with things like conventional geology, antiquity of the earth, biodiversity of life etc. But I would argue that such interpretation isn't warranted and the attestation of that can be seen throughout various theologians/apologists/scholars etc. of the Bible throughout the centuries.
I hadn't heard the term "preclusionary data" but it's always bugged me when people say things like "you can't prove a negative." Yeah, actually, you sometimes can. It's true that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but evidence that something is wrong is not _absence_ of evidence. It's evidence. Like the evidence that there was no global flood. It's evidence that the world was NOT flooded globally, not lack of evidence of a flood. So many people don't say it strongly enough. I often hear things like "There's no evidence of a global flood." True, but not enough. There is very clear incontrovertible evidence that there was no global flood. So thanks for clarifying several instances of that extra step, and thanks for sharing the term for it.
AronRa sums this up nicely. In relation to Noah's world-wide flood he says that not only can we prove it did not happen, we can also prove that it could not happen. (paraphrasing here)
@@Iamwrongbut If you can prove that no global flood happened, you have proved the negative of "There was a global flood." Or, as Isidore Aerys pointed out above, if you can prove that an omnipotent benevolent God is impossible, you have proved the negative of the Judeo-Christian God. It's only when the hypothesis is unfalsifiable, like any kind of interpretation of god/s, that you can't prove a negative.
Science: We have data, fossil records, historical records, advanced mathematical models, and loads of other evidence that shows this to be the case, indisputably. YEC: A wizard did it because a book said a wizard did it.
I used to argue with YEC's all the time until I got too old and don't have the time to waste anymore. They get really pissed off when you call him a wizard, magician or a magic man or a genie or something like that. It's the only thing I miss about arguing with those cretins.
Cite anything, from any of those fields, to prove your fairytale religion. You got jack. Fossilized tracks from animals, in strata "millions of years" before the actual animals appeared. Grand Canyon. "There’s no time between when somebody leaves a track and when somebody’s buried.” “This is a pattern we see in several different groups, where their footprints are first, and their body parts are later. For the trilobites, for the amphibians, for the dinosaurs-the first time I find evidence of them in the fossil record, it’s from trackways, not from hard parts. From an old-earth perspective, that’s really weird, and hard to grapple with, because you have MILLIONS OF YEARS of trackway production, then ultimately the animal that made it. But that obviously doesn’t make a whole lot of sense." -Dr Marcus Ross, vertebrate paleontologist PhD
@@shootingstarzz6161 In any field of science, there's always an outlier, a contrarian. I doubt he's the only one who's notice this, if it is indeed an accurate characterization. Is he implying that there's no explanation for this phenomenon? Is everyone else just perpetuating a conspiracy? No... I've dealt with YECs long enough to know that one of their favorite hobbies is cherry picking the writings and statements of legitimate scientists. I'd bet money that you're engaging in cherry picking and Dr. Ross does not mean, or is not drawing, the conclusion you want us to draw from this quote.
The hilarious amount of mental gymnastics for YEC is rediculous, they take all scientific inquiries on the age of the earth and throw it out the window.
I love that creationists constantly point out the very low possibility of Abiogenesis to happened but this paper proves that the possibility of spontaneous out of nothing creation is even lower.
@Sage yeah but believing in a magic unprovable unknowable person in the sky who creates all doesn’t make you sound insane and that two people populated the earth even though thats impossible
Whenever they present those astronomical odds, ask them how they know. How do you calculate odds of something that's never happened? Stops them in their tracks. Then, the coup de grace. Were you there?
I just wanna say that I really appreciate these videos. I was homeschooled with all my "science" textbooks being from Youth earth creationist organizations. I was once grounded for a month because I asked what evolution even was. Once I figured out how to get around the internet blocks my parents put on certain topics I fell hard into the atheist side of UA-cam as it was morphing into the anti-SJW side. It sent me down a bad path for a couple months but I came out of that pretty quickly. Now that I've grown up a bit I'm trying to learn everything I should have learned in school and these videos that actually outline the science against the things I was specifically taught is helping me get over the religious guilt I felt for years. These videos really do help people so thank you and good luck in your studies
@Sage um, huh? There are over 4000 organized religions on Earth and then there is science! Also, let's say for the sake of argument that Evolution is wrong. That would NOT in any way shape or form be proof of any one of those over 4000 organized religions "gawds" existing ... science would simply start all over again. Just as it was intended. Meanwhile, all religions will take centuries to catch up just to remain a century behind the rest of us!
My bf was homeschooled and i asked him what he was taught... "I was taught what evolution was but told not to believe it" wtf is up with homeschool parents???
@Sage Mutation. If you're interested in basic biology, I suggest taking remedial courses at your local community college. There are also many good resources available on the internet.
@Sage following a script handed down by the likes of AIG is no replacement for rigorous study. Had you done an academic course on evolution, you would understand that your question has been addressed.
These are really interesting points. For me as a physics person my one word rebuttal of young earth is stars, there's just no way for a young earth (which is normally also a young universe) to be able to have viable stars and creationists either have to break a fundamental rule of physics (even more ridiculous than the super fast radiation decay) and make light (and by consequence causality) billions of times faster (with no explanation, will sometimes a very misunderstood and butchered version of general relativity and time dilation) or magic and god just made it look like everything was old.
Bingo! I think you have just put your finger on their most current go-to explanation for everything prehistoric: it was created that way, looking old, with light from distant stars already well on its way to us (sounds way too complex? ah, but another proof of God's omnipotence -- and the mental gymnastics continues on and on)
Yup that's the problem they run into with a lot of this stuff. It just can't be explained scientifically, only miraculously but they dearly want to co-opt the legitimacy of science.
But God made the Earth old so it would be mature enough to support His Creation. Think about it. Adam and Eve were created as adults so they could care for themselves. If they were created as babies, they would be helpless. If the Earth were created new as a ball of fire, it wouldn't be able to support God's Creation. GOTCHA!
I think what weird me out the most about yec is that not once they stop to think "why no fish give milk? No mamal has feathers, no vertebrate has 6 members" if things were designed each animal would be a mosaic of traits.
Thanks for your work on this. I wouldn't even care, except I was raised YEC, and now there is a bit of a push in certain states to teach this BS in real schools. I don't care for people who lie to children.
@@dogwalker666 Agreed! Folks like that will eventually catch up to modern society, albeit kicking and screaming the whole way. Then they will take credit for the benefits that result lol. They always do.
6 states have removed all mention of evolution from their public school’s curriculum as a part of “Project Blitz” (yeah that’s their name) Christianity in it’s entirety is a lie and YEC is absolutely ridiculous and teaching it to children IS child abuse.
I love everything about your comment...you seem to be educated; I'm curious -- what are you studying? Also, were you homeschooled? Your grasp of the English language is remarkable -- you seem unusually intelligent.
It's called "The mind electrical " by miracle music. It's really catchy and the intro part we hear on Gibbon's video starts at about 1:46 part of the song. ua-cam.com/video/qaveHlGJYjI/v-deo.html link to the song. Sounds really awesome.
I had a YEC geology teacher in middle school who skipped over the chapters that talked about the Earth being very old. We learned about tectonic plate theory and how it's related to earthquakes and volcanoes for like 3 months, and it never dawned on him what a problem it is for YEC.
@@RobertMcBride-is-cool I don't think we could have for that in isolation, but yes, he did a lot of more crazy crap that could have gotten him in trouble. I heard years later he was eventually fired (or "retired" at age 55 or so), but nobody knew for what.
Which is even funnier because YECs also try to denigrate science because the Piltdown Man hoax was initially accepted (at a time when there had been no early hominid fossils found for comparison).
The BIble isn't a myth. I implore you to read it and cross examine it yourself. Read the book, "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. He was an atheist who set out to disprove the points of the Bible, only to convert himself.
"Nuh uh! Those aren't problems 😤And preclude isn't even a real word, it's made up by evil-atheist-lutionists to scoff at us. And if it means anything it's that you decided (clude) your results beforehand (pre)!" Is what I guess the creationistas will say about it. Awesome job 👌 Now I'm gonna go check on the proper etymology... [EDIT] I accidentally wrote "etiology", when I meant "etymology". Sorry. [/Edit]
Command Cyborg LOL!! Very funny, an excellent Troll/Poe. The best bit was when you said "preclude isn't even a real word", and it's been a word for 500 years :)
Except she's a total fraud who has zero evidence for the fairytale evolutionism religion "According to our experimental experience, only an intelligent source is capable of meeting just these requirements, for only intelligence is in a position to develop information, instructions, codes, languages, and code-conventions. The fact that only one single genetic language exists indicates that one single intelligent Source must have been responsible for the single genetic code of all polyphylogenetic biology. There is no other solution to the problem of the origin of the genetic code." Wilder-Smith earned three doctorates; his first PhD in 1941 in Physical ORGANIC CHEMISTRY from Reading University, England, his second in 1964 in Pharmacology from the University of Geneva, and his third from Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), Zurich.
@@shootingstarzz6161 Argument from authority, quoting a chemist about a well established fact and theory in biology. Does evolution offend your religion?
I wish you had been doing these videos when I was married to a young earth creationist... Instead, I have shared your channel with our teenagers so that they can counter their dad's insanity with data! 💓
Old thread, but one of the things I've found that helps is to realize that YEC 'science' isn't meant to convince actual science-educated people. It's only meant to keep creationist-educated people convinced.
“Look in the general direction of the data.” Lol, love your channel. You certainly do more than a cursory look. Thanks. I am a stay at home mother to a small toddler and nap time gives me a chance to catch up on your posts. I love keeping up with science by watching videos like yours, a way to keep me thinking scientifically (I have a MSc in Neuroscience). Keep it up!
She doesn't teach science. She teaches propaganda. She lied about what creationists think. The only way a "gradstudent" would tell such a lie is she is brainwashed instead of educated.
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 So why hasn't it been proven false in the 150+ years since it was put forward? Not only would you win a ton of prizes, grants, money and fame, but you'd open up new avenues of scientific inquiry and convert millions of people to your particular faith overnight. But nobody has done so. 150+ years not enough time? Why do you think the theory of evolution hasn't been disproved at all? Every time a creationist tries, they get schooled by an actual scientist with actual facts that comport with actual reality. Don't you think a multi-million $ outfit like AIG would love nothing more than to be able to show the world actual scientific evidence showing evolution to be false? They have the money, the time and the motivation, yet all they can do is build a ridiculous ark and fill it with oft debunked, unsupported nonsense? How do you account for this?
@@ufutz it has actually been shown wrong by actual scientists but the schools, museums colleges, etc. don’t want the evidence to be shown because they need to protect the sacred cow of evolution religion.
The thing that motivates me is that creationism is based on libelling thousands of scientists as either deluded or outright evil. This in the face of the 9th commandment which precludes bearing "false witness against thy neighbour". Also I come from a home where I faced serious opposition to even speaking about evolution.
YEC depends on a giant, 150 year old, worldwide conspiracy among virtually every scientist in the world, in every scientific field in the world, to hide fossil dinosaur saddles in an effort to disprove god, which they wouldn't be doing anyway. The problem is that YEC's don't know how scientists (or science) work. If evolution was disproved tomorrow and the earth was shown to be 6K years old, millions of scientists would jump for joy because they'd have the chance to formulate a new naturalistic theory and be as rich and world famous as the scientist who disproved evolution in the first place. And the YEC's want you to believe that they're all cooperating in a conspiracy to perpetuate old earth and evolutionary theory. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
The floor of Carlsbad Cavern in New Mexico is made of bat guano. There are places where the pile of bat guano is more than 60 feet deep. Bat droppings are excellent candidates for 14C dating, because they are freshly exchanged 14C samples until they drop, at which point, the 14C decays. Cores of bat guano from the floor of Carlsbad Cavern have been taken, and subjected to 14C analysis. What has been found is that the topmost layers date to about 6000 - 10000 years ago. Below that, the amount of 14C decreases at rate of about 1000 years per foot. So if you go down 15 ft, it dates to 15000 years. And this continues until it gets to about 30 feet, below which the amount of 14C was not measurable (it was using older, less sensitive methods). The scientific interpretation is that bats lived in the caves and added about 1 foot of guano every 1000 years or so. And this has been going on for more than 60 000 years, which is why the floor is more than 60 feet deep. If the earth was created 6000 years ago, why would their be a 14C gradient at all? Why would the 14C date from before 6000 years? Why isn't there any measurable 14C if you go below 30 feet? And how could it all have survived a flood 4000 years ago? There is no scientific explanation for how that could be, and the only option is to invoke a miracle. God created the pile of bat poop already there.
I've worked in Mammoth Cave System (Kentucky) and I wonder if that's been tried here. Our guano deposits aren't so thick, though: the thickest deposits were heavily disturbed (ammonium nitrate extraction) in the War of 1812 for saltpeter extraction. Even before that, I bet the deposits here were never as thick as Carlsbad (our bats are tiny, and far less numerous).
I first heard of the heat problem from Kurt Wise in a q&a after a lecture in 1998. They've been "working on it" and appealing to miraculous solutions for at least 24 years.
They have been lying since the 1920's when Edwin Hubble proved Andromeda was a Galaxy (only the Milky Way was know back then) and led to the Catholic Priest Le Metre to formulate the Big Bang theory that led to the discovery of the age of the Universe.
It’s so great someone who knows so much about primate evolution and just biology in general is here, free, on UA-cam, AND debunks creationism??? You’re such a unicorn, GG!! Thanks for being here 😇
Unfortunately young Earth creationists have imagined a magical anthropomorphic immortal who does not have to obey the laws of physics. Since it's a fictional being it doesn't have to comport with reality and they can just say "God did it that way" to any problem you point out.
They certainly do that a lot. But from back when I was very young I could not get past the "Made man in his image" line with anything like observable reality. Where is this human-looking creature? In the sky? No that does not work. How does an entity that looks like mankind also have all the power to create a universe, and live forever? It is a really silly concept, and it must have it's origins in the very oldest forms of religion. Later I realised that the "created everything in 6 days" element of their story sits so far outside known physics that it is even more preposterous.
That is why after the publication of "Origin of Species", when in 1878 the Archbishop of Canterbury invited Darwin to a meeting with Christian scientists and atheists on the possibility of reconciling science and religion, Darwin refused. With the motivation that he could not see what benefit could ever derive from it. Darwin was not fundamentalist about his views on anything, he also had doubts about his own theory, but he was wise enough to see that a debate like this is totally useless.
@@John.0z It's funny, isn't it. I've always had an issue with 'created in his image' too. Mainly because ... well .. we're bipedal omnivorous mammals. Where is he walking, what is he eating, and at whose teat did he suckle? In what other ways are we like him, by implication of his 'design'? He has gender - Adam was created first, but when he created Eve, reproduction was clearly part of that 'design'. Can god have sex? Is he a virgin? Can he reproduce? Adam was built with the kit to do so. Does he have siblings? Family? What does it say for this single god model if our god has peers? Parents? Are they more powerful or higher ranked, divinity wise? He could be the god equivalent of an unemployed post-teen child living in their parent's basement. I remember thinking this really early on too. In Sunday school I remember being told 'This is god's house' and just thinking, why would he live here? I meant that seriously at the time too ... like ... incorporeal being that creates the world, but only 'lives' in holy buildings and places man says he should. He would be everywhere, and nothing manmade would be 'holy' at all. It always struck me as too ... convenient. And yet, there is a part of me that is a bit disappointed that nobody can provide me anything as evidence of a creator.
@@icycooldrink6085 I did not think several of the things you did, because I found the whole religion thing impossible from the very first time I was sent to a sunday school. Therefore I am not disappointed, because I never had any expectations. What took me a long time to shake was the idea that this was a socially acceptable place to meet girls - yet none seemed interested in me. In retrospect, that is not a surprise. I did look elsewhere, but was too shy to make any connections until later. Eventually I gave up as I was clearly thinking very differently from all the others. They were just accepting what I continually questioned. Fortunately I met others who shared my lack of belief at school, so it all worked out well enough. I cannot imagine what life is like in those countries where religious belief is mandated by law.
All you really need to do here is play that logic out to it's furthest extent; it becomes something like the god of the gaps fallacies' logical conclusion. Basically, God is everything, but as a consequence, He is nothing. In effect, he is stretched so thin as to cover literally every single function in the universe, from the weak electron bonds between your shoes and the floor underneath them to the coalescence of hydrogen gas and other trace elements into a star capable of fusion. The problem comes when you apply Occam's razor (the answer with the least assumptions is the one most likely to be correct). At that point, why do we have to assume that God Himself is behind every single one of those functions? Drop the assumption and you will see that God wasn't really there to begin with. Another way of tacking this is to present a hypothetical: the shadow man. Tell your interlocutor that there is someone standing behind them. When they turn around, say "No there isn't.", and start wondering if you need to be committed to a mental ward because you're seeing visions of people who aren't there, say "Well he's invisible." When they reach out behind them only to find that he is, in fact, still not there and REALLY start questioning your sanity, tell them that the shadow man is also immaterial. You see where I am going here? This hypothetical shadow man is unfalsifiable, just like an omnipotent god is. Any opposition put up can be explained away. If you need something like that to make any of your ideas work, then that idea is built on nothing but a leap in logic.
I feel much more stupid...yet smarter at the same time. I feel stripped of my Dunning Kruger skills. Damn. I subbed to you so many months ago and this is the first video I have watched of yours. THANK YOU!!! What excellent content.
3 is my favorite. The consilience of all these in addition to them independently also makes this akin to jumping off a cliff and screaming about gravity causing things to go up as you fall.
It really is sad that billions of people have been gaslighted into believing we're in the middle of a cosmic war between a cloud wizard and an underground devil, like Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones or some other fantasy/sci-fi sht.
I love how there are old Earth creationists in here agreeing that young Earth creationists are delusional while still believing the magic beard in the sky poofed everything into existence
I love your content, it’s really interesting and cool to learn about evolution. It’s really fascinating. One thing I think kills YECs stone dead is cetaceans. Intelligent design, created fish, fish have gills so that they can effectively breath underwater but cetaceans have got to still breathe air despite living underwater. Why on earth would an intelligent designer give fish gills and make whales have to come up for air? Surely they would just give whales gills. It makes no sense. There’s lots of other examples of this kind of thing too.
Not only that but if god created marine mammals why did he create 4 different types of marine mammals, not only did he create cetaceans who are closest in relation to artiodactyls (and we have a pretty good idea of all the transitions between the 2) But we also have sirenians, who are also related to hooved animals but this time their closest relative is elephants. But we also have pinnipeds, which are sea lions and walruses and such, which are most closely related to dogs and bears. And then their are Otters which are in the mustelids family which also include badgers, weasels, and ferrets, of which are most closely related to cats. Why would a creator need to make so many different types of sea mammals, and on top of that if fish and sea mammals were perfectly fine for the water, why did he feel the need to also create birds that are also adapted to swimming instead of flying.
Why do human fetuses have fur, gill slits, tails, cells that make hair stand on end? Anatomy looks accidental in so many animals, because it is. Slapdash design. Nothing intelligent about it.
@@dbonk6264 Yeah, Kids these days! There's a nerve in giraffes that goes in a really stupid path down the neck, around the hear and back up. I think it's called the laryngeal nerve? It's a really dumb design but it makes perfect sense in light of the giraffe's evolution. It's an example of what I was saying about anatomy looking like it was ad-hoc. Whatever worked at the time just stayed and adapted to the organism..
I hadn’t heard the energy industry argument before but it makes perfect sense. I had come up with a variant of the heat argument in the existence of natural nuclear reactors like Oklo mine, and how there wasn’t enough time on a young earth for it to have consumed the fissile material. The heat problem as a whole is even more compelling. Thanks!
Fun fact , 100 years ago a creationist would've been hard pressed to find and atheist to debate with . Imagine 100 years from now , an atheist is going to be hard pressed to find a creationist to debate with . Moral of the story , we're going in the right direction .
Don't assume things will always trend this way. Afghanistan in the 1960s was a place where women could show their arms and attend school, and American hippies visited en masse to get high and explore the mountains
Creationist answer. 1: Miracles 2: Fake News 3: [Crickets Chirping] 4: [Tumbleweeds] 5: SCIENCE IS ALL LIES, UNLESS IT SUPPORTS MY CLAIM! Young Earth Reasoning, it's not like the real thing at all
The nail in the coffin for me is that creationism offers no predictive power, and has no application. Ok, sure, let’s say a god created everything. How can we apply that in a useful way? What can we predict with that?
@@Gossland52 - There was no resurrection. If Yeshu' lived and was executed by the Romans on a wooden pole, then he was also thrown into a mass pit after his bones were picked by raptors like all the other people they crucified. (The death was only half of the punishment, after all - the public humiliation of hanging there dead for days while being scavenged was ALSO the other half of it. - Gruesome, to say the least.)
@@MossyMozart That's good thinking. However, we still have to explain why Paul who was killing Christians decided to make up a resurrected Jesus. We also have to explain why James (1/2 brother of Jesus who thought Jesus was a fraud) decided to make up a resurrected Jesus. We also have to explain why the disciples changed their behavior and were all willing to suffer and die and most all of them did except John. Nobody dies for something they know is a lie. Name one. You should read about the Water Gate scandle and how quick people spilled the beans.
@@MossyMozart Short answer. Jesus body and the empty tomb are irrelevant. Paul was killing the first Christians and hated Jesus. Paul was a Pharisee, with money, power, and influence. Why would he give all of that up and make up some crazy story that Jesus came back to life. You must explain this change in behavior.
@@Gossland52 Paul never claimed to have seen Jesus in the flesh, even in the Book of Acts, his experience is merely described as a vision; hallucination is a real possibility, as some key pieces of the Pauline Letters further suggest epilepsy (hallucinated while having a seizure). He may not have known that he died for a lie. Moreover, that isn't true at all. Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon, and yet never recanted even as he was executed
All these answers are simple to answer. 1 God magic 2 God magic 3 God magic 4 God magic 5 ... God magic Every other question will also be answered with "God magic". I'm new to your channel and I think you're doing a awesome job here. Definitely subscribed
Your explanations have been helpful in my understanding of evolution. I thought i knew what it was, but i realize i barely knew anything. Thanks. Looking forward to going through your other videos.
This is beautifully done, and yes, I can tell that you have a lot of fun doing this, Erika. ❤❤ Keep having all the fun you want; we'll be here to watch it!
Yes she and other evolutionists like Moron Ra do a great job at making videos lying to people that evolution is in anyway true and there’s evidence it happened in the past
You've probably said this a THOUSAND TIMES but who made your awesome intro? Music? Animations? It's really top tier. Reminds me of a 90s TV series on science.
"i think it is fun, and i think it is funny" I used to think that too until ignorance became a cancer in this country leading to the social strife and direct threat to democracy we are seeing now.
yea well, she's still doing her part to point out their bullshit in her own way. Maybe she isnt a hateful person like you and me, so its difficult to make content expressing negative emotions, as you and i would probably be able to do. I am of the mindset that i consider all evangelicals, and MAGA terrorists to be traitors, the scum of the earth, and the enemies of all americans. I am somoene who find it easy to picture bible thumpers hanging from lampposts on philadelphia ave as visual warnings to the next group of traitors that try and overthrow our democracy on false pretenses. I hate them so much for what they did to our country. But, to put it inperspective, despite her apporaching it from a "ridicule" standpoint, its more than im doing, since i only get to vent my rage on social media, and random encounters in the public, but to each thheir own. Remember, she's also a teacher, so her students probably watch this and she has to set a good example to keep her job. She's probably already walkin on the edge depending on what district she teaches in.
@@raidermaxx2324 Hate is useless against people whose ideology thrives on it. In fact, they want to be hated; they want to be persecuted. They practically receive sexual gratification from the mere thought of it.
@@raidermaxx2324 definite;y have to say that their being worthy of hate does not make them worthy of your energy in gratifying them with the attention they thrive upon through their fetishizing of persecution.
@Atheist Biologist ok lets talk about it then. What exactly about MAGA do i not understand. Are you MAGA? Lets just get everything out inthe open first. Just so you know, im very much anti-MAGA, or you could say anti-fascist.. I think there is an acronym for that.. oh yea antifa. thats it. Anyways, its rare to find an atheist who is MAGA, i must say! this will be an interesting beat down!
I think creationists say to themselves "that objection is scientific. It does not count because science is lies from the devil." You need common sense unscientific objections.
As far as I can tell, the creationists start with the assertion that the Bible (or the Quran - there are Muslim creationists on UA-cam) is inerrant. Therefore, anything that contradicts their model _must_ be wrong. Since there are actual observable facts that cannot be denied, creationists 'reinterpret' those facts to conform with their worldview.
@@condorboss3339 As a former YEC, this is accurate. It is not true that YECs think science is from the devil. I’ve never met anyone who thought that… maybe that’s the more old fashioned ones.
I LOVE this! Each point was succinctly made yet packed with information. Unfortunately, anyone fool enough to believe creationist nonsense is just not going to be able to follow this video.
Each one of those five points, ALONE, all by themselves, preclude intelligent design, young earth creationism and old earth creationism. It's like Aaron Ra's 8 videos about why the biblical flood is impossible. ALL they have to counter that is denial, misrepresentation, misinterpretation and strawmaning.
@@Orthosaur7532 OEC is almost as bad as YEC. The only difference between the two is that one accept that the Earth is billions of years old, and the universe even older, and the other insist to claim that the whole universe is only about 6000 years old. Apart from that, they are the exact same thing.
Hey gutsick gibbon, I commented in your last premiere about being introduced to Hawaii II from your intro and you gave me some more music recommendations, so I thought I'd give you some of mine. I'd recommend looking into The Lemon Twigs, and Hiatus Kiyote. I apologize for this comment being so irrelevant to the video (I did in fact like the video).
This needs to be repeated often at interviles for new veiwers, teenagers leaning reality and just to counter YEC crap which runs on repeat anyway nothing ever new or right. Love your work Erica. Kiss kiss ♥♥
Except you have zero evidence whatsoever for your fairytale religion evolutionism "According to our experimental experience, only an intelligent source is capable of meeting just these requirements, for only intelligence is in a position to develop information, instructions, codes, languages, and code-conventions. The fact that only one single genetic language exists indicates that one single intelligent Source must have been responsible for the single genetic code of all polyphylogenetic biology. There is no other solution to the problem of the origin of the genetic code." Wilder-Smith earned three doctorates; his first PhD in 1941 in Physical ORGANIC CHEMISTRY from Reading University, England, his second in 1964 in Pharmacology from the University of Geneva, and his third from Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), Zurich.
@@shootingstarzz6161 well I'm an agnostic so I don't make claims about whether gods are or are not real because I think the simple answer is that I don't know but evolution is a different subject from do gods exist. In fact I know there are theists out there that believe the evolution process was inspired by a god.
@Atheist Biologist Cite any example for your fairytale right here and now and get destroyed chumpp. Emergency LOL. Octopus are so complex you have to say their eggs flew in from outer space on comets, with zero evidence whatsoever for that Fairytale lol. Sure babe. "A second focus is the remarkable evolution of intelligent complexity (Cephalopods)" "Living organisms such as space-resistant and space-hardy fertilised ova and seeds have been continuously delivered to Earth"
@Atheist Biologist Wow what a speech. Now cite any evidence whatsoever for your fairytale evolutionism religion. Million of years never happened. Oops. Fossilized tracks from animals, in strata "millions of years" before the actual animals appeared. Grand Canyon. "There’s no time between when somebody leaves a track and when somebody’s buried.” “This is a pattern we see in several different groups, where their footprints are first, and their body parts are later. For the trilobites, for the amphibians, for the dinosaurs-the first time I find evidence of them in the fossil record, it’s from trackways, not from hard parts. From an old-earth perspective, that’s really weird, and hard to grapple with, because you have MILLIONS OF YEARS of trackway production, then ultimately the animal that made it. But that obviously doesn’t make a whole lot of sense." -Dr Marcus Ross, vertebrate paleontologist PhD
In a recent debate with David McQueen on SFT, McQueen said “the water gushing up from the deep was 2000C.” (3632F) So, it was death steam so hot that it has begun to ionize… and somehow the Ark floated on 2000C steam, and the super-steam didn’t instantly kill everything. 🤔
@@Tenebris_Sint Yeah, the "survivors" of the flood got insta-cooked in a global pressure cooker! :D Every time, EVERY TIME you force a flood-believer to actually work through the data, the magic wand comes out! "Oh, but God could have done that by miracle!" Never fails, unless the believer gets to use the "data" from a religious website, data that is equal parts self-contradictory, cherry-picked, creatively misunderstood and misapplied, and just plain made up.
@@graydanerasmussen4071 My favorite part… Jews don’t believe Genesis is literal, it’s apostasy (I was raised Jewish, now atheist). Jesus was a Jew, ergo Jesus didn’t believe Genesis was literal. Thus, Christians who believe Genesis is literal hold beliefs which directly contradict those of their god Jesus.
Yes, there was supposedly a lot of water, yet no one knows where it could have come from, or where it went after and the "heat problem" would have vaporized the oceans and the vapor would have been ejected into space and then the Earth would have looked like Mars or our moon.
Lolz as if evolution isn’t a cult with no dissenters allowed…. Just like with all the Covid stuff in times of forced “science” it’s not usually the tyrants who are the good guys.
@@the-not-bigkuhrbowsky4869 where are you getting that it isn't "allowed"? it's allowed, it's just stupid and gets called out as stupid. the dissent of random people with no credentials or knowledge in those areas (covid, evolution, etc) is not legitimate or helpful. if you're upset that people don't take uneducated and educated opinions equally seriously, you're going to spend the rest of your life mad.
To be fair, creationism in itself is a complex idea, far more complex than most animals could comprehend. Takes a big brain to create it, and a big brain to understand it, takes an even bigger brain to understand why it's wrong.
The Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis: our big brains evolved to help us better lie to ourselves and others, navigate the social jungle, etc. Not to reason rationally about scientific questions.
People will say being an athiest or accepting truth is scary or sad. I beg to differ. I find it absolutely fascinating to be able to explain reasonably to my child how things happen. To stop and ponder the absolutely astounding universe and existence of things in general is beautiful. Looking and knowing is truly what we are meant for. It's a weird concept but we are surely apart of the universe just as much as a star. Yet unlike a star we are aware of our existing. We are the consciousness of the universe. The non living inorganic becoming organic and examining itself. Understanding what we are and where we come from. Not having all the answers doesn't mean jumping to assumptions as the only reason science exists is because we chose to stop doing that.
You ain't no monkey you just come from originaly nothing ( or energy if you prefer) that creates a big bang which expands creates are earth it rains on the earth lightning hits it and life starts...so no you come from a rock...or if you prefer you come from nothing..or if you don't like that...you come from heat and lightning and water...but hey atleast it's not a crazy as god right? Oh wait....( Couldn't tell which side you were for so I decided to make a joke here )
@Aπωφις Aπωφις well then you better do what you want now otherwise you'll miss your chance.( Ingoreing that would mean life is pointless and meaningless.) ( Objectively of course )
@Aπωφις Aπωφις see the problem with that is.in your world veiw when everyone around you is dead and returns to dirt.an you don't believe in the after life.where will you love be then.or how about this.when you die and go back to a blank nothening.what did you love accomplish.what value did it have? even if love and save billions for a 1000 years through your actions they will all eventually die anyway and return to nothing.and you'll be forgotten.by everything and everyone an it eventually will be as if you never existed at all.nor anyone who knew you.and neither them or you will even know yourselves exsisted either..so I ask again.without god to give you a life after this one..what's the point? I'll answer it for you..no matter what answer you give your life will always be pointless and meaningless unless god exsist.. otherwise your life is futile..and this is a absolute truth.because even if we find a way to live forever are universe will die or will run out of resources to sustain things needed to keep us alive so eventually we will die no matter what we do or how long we can make are self live.and even is we find a forever energy..the universe will kill us eventually by itself.
Tim the Skeptic, As someone who believes in divine magic dirt and bones, I freely admit that there is no scientifically admissible evidence for it whatsoever. Can you prove me wrong because there is no evidence of what I believe? No. Can I prove the millions of scientists and the untold tons of scientific papers wrong? Of course not. The difference between me and YEC people is that they are not honest enough to admit that they lack scientific evidence. "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Because YEC refuse to admit that they can't prove their beliefs, they are imprisoned by their own egos, anger and fear. It's sad. They have as their manual for living such a simple and plain guide to happiness, but they reject its teachings and use it as a weapon.
I actually think it worth bothering with YEC arguments because there are young enough people who could avoid the lost time of climbing out of the pit that they could otherwise fall into without what I think is good guidance, here. So I guess the counter question would be, are those young people worth the effort. I think so. Thanks for your effort...even if you do enjoy it. I find good enthusiasm spill over to the student. ^.=.^
1. The heat problem 3:22 2. Transitional hominins 8:35 3. Statistics (& common ancestry) 19:05 4. The energy industry 24:56 5. Comparative genomics 27:58
There is no problem to explain every one of them. 1. There is no heat problem, because it is radio-active. Turn off the radio bit, you have no problem. We can see that saltwater reduces the radio activeness from Fukoshima powerplant and stop it from reaching the US. 2. There are none, they are made up by art graduates 3. Statistics of the unknown is bad science and building it up on likeness is not a valid argument. 4. They say anything to make it look more problematic than it is. Heat created by electric and/or magnetic movement inside stones extract oil. 5. There are more difference in DNA between men and women than between human and apes. And we consider ourselves to have a soul, and animals don't. There are several origin stories of the making of humans. One made from wood, one made from mud.
A thousand morons show up on January 6th and the USA is under attack? What a crock of crap. During Nam we had much larger and more violent protests and some how chande occurred.
@@odd-arnedahle2173 1. Saltwater doesn't make radioactivity go away, it just absorbs it. The presence of saltwater also has no effect on radiometric dating. You can't just make heat go away. 2. The transitional hominids are in the fossil record. The Piltdown man was made by someone and in the '50s when we had better dating methods at our disposal it was debunked. Everything is dated using various techniques nowadays. They weren't made by art school grads. 3. I am unsure what you mean by "statistics of the unknown" since the statistics were based on things we know. 4. I'm going to have to correct your understanding of heat, electricity, and radioactivity. They are all the same thing in different forms. Also, I don't believe you know how we get oil. 5. I think you might be referring to the X and Y chromosomes? I don't really know what you mean by "difference in DNA between men and women" First of all, humans are apes. Secondly, "we consider ourselves to have a soul, and animals don't" is like bringing a finger pistol to a gunfight; it's imaginary. There is no evidence for souls.
@@odd-arnedahle2173 Also, you are implicating a lot of people in a conspiracy theory, which is notoriously bad for an argument. It would take a single person to be like "I just found out that we make oil, and here's how" for this whole thing to collapse. It only would take one whistleblower for it to all come crashing down.
@@odd-arnedahle2173 I don't think you are going to actually refute the evidence she provided in a few sentences. Especially when the bulk of your counterpoints are "nuh uh"
My view of this is that if a person is buying into the young earth fiction it’s usually due to a serious educational and reasoning disability that is not often casually mitigated. At my age I don’t bother to spend much time on it.
Recently I saw a video about dating stalactites. It was an obvious refutation of a 6000 year old earth. Love the videos. Keep up the great work. Jim from Mexico
Haven’t you seen those pictures where stalactites grew on a pipe in an abandoned building or where a boot with the foot in it was found that had turned to rock. They might be anomalies but it just means that not everything is always exactly how we know it to be.
@@napaea9460 read a little bit more about stalactites and how they form. There are many different types of stalactites, and they form differently and at different speeds depending on the chemical composition of the water, what the water is flowing through, Etc. Stalactites that form in caves for example, are different from the ones you are talking about. Please use your internet access to learn why. It will help you in future discussions, and prevent you from making the same errors again and again 👍
@@napaea9460 no one is dating fossiles based on an assumption of how long they take to form, various factors can change that. What is instead done is a combination of dating methods such as radiometric dating and Relative dating for example.
5:25 On this subject: Andy Weir tried to write his book "The Martian" (and, of course, the film Ridley Scott made of it) to be as hard-science based as possible, and between detailed research and talking to readers with expertise as he published it online in serial form. He has said that he was very proud of how grounded his story was with one exception. After Mark Watney is abandoned on Mars he doesn't have enough water to survive himself and also grow crops. He gets around that by taking some of the left over rocket fuel and burning it as a source of hydrogen, which then combined with the oxygen in his habitat to create water vapor. A while after the book was published an actual rocket scientist got in touch. He told Weir that he loved the book, it was very accurate, but... if you burn 1/50th of a tank of rocket fuel you release like a tera-joule of energy. That's what the fuel is for. It burns extremely exothermically. Best case scenario, it heats up his habitat to ~500°C, worst case scenario, you've essentially brought 200 tons of TNT into your Mars house. Weir has said that it was the only thing he would go back and change if he could.
Oh, I loved that book! I loved all the crazy things this man did to survive in a Martian habitat about as well as Opportunity survived after its 90 day mission. The flexible fabric-like habitat exploding after so many uses was my favorite "dose of reality" part of the whole thing, and I _never_ considered the amount of heat the burning of rocket fuel would have produced, while trying to produce enough water for those very hardy potatoes. So cool! Maybe I should give it another read.
Heat problem was a surprise to me. When I grew up as a YEC (incl science class in Christian school), the only answer I ever came across was the global flood contaminated all possible samples. I discovered that was wrong when I learned about correlations in various radiometric tests and across labs.
With all the knowledge we have now, and the incredible ease of access to it, it's sad that some people are still ignorant enough to believe the Earth is only thousands of years old.
There are also people who believe in astrology, flat Earth, faked moon landing, JFK assassination conspiracy, the Bermuda Triangle, Feng shui, biorythms, telepathy, telekinesis, and so on. I've participated in online discussions with people who believe Velikovsky's planetary "collisions" actually happened, who deny the existence of the (so called) greenhouse effect, or who think only infrared radiation (not visible light) can transfer heat. Young Earth Creationists are made from the same mold.
An interesting confirmation that radioactive decay occurred the same in the distant past as it does today can be seen in the light curve and high energy spectrum of supernova remnants. 1987a has light curves that match the half life of expected short lived isotopes and the gamma ray spectrum for those decays. 1987a was located in the Large Magellanic Cloud that is 168,000 light years away so this sort of decay was happening as physics, and experiments, would predict that long ago. The distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud is well know and determined though a few techniques these days.
@@bobbychuckles8764 Perhaps you could explain your comment? I personally know people that saw 1987a. I know people that have watched the development of the remnant that 1987a produced. I'm not sure how a real observed thing is a "concept". Surely an observed thing is a fact.
Sure thing. No one but God knows what that light (or any other light) is in the firmament (the sky). Scientists see a unique phenomenon of light and they conceptualize its mechanisms and what it is..... We observe phenomenon and we conceptualize explanations. Science NEVER proves anything. Its a method of explanation that strengthens our or weakens our concepts.
I appreciate the quality of your videos. As some have said, some will be incapable at a given time to process this material. But there are those in the middle or others with open minds who can. I’ve come to realize that creationism, as with seemingly all apologetics, seem to exist to give the illusion that literalist-based religion lines with reality and has the virtue of openness to evidence. But openness ends when it crosses their assumptions. In the end, a destructive enterprise. All this to say you do a good work. 🙌🏻
The best part of the heat problem is that every planet made of heavier elements would have it's own "flood" event. If the decay rate change spreads out from Earth at the speed of light, we should still see exoplanets blowing up in an expanding sphere.
No you would not see any "exoplanets". Creationists believe the Universe is made of water and there is a solid roof over the Earth that keeps the water from falling on their heads. The lights on the sky like the sun and the moon are just that. Galileo almost got burned at the stake for heresy back in 1600's for pointing a telescope up.
@@elingeniero9117 I think most of them are globe earthers these days. I'm not sure they are completely OK with the speed of light stuff though. (Creation took literally 6 days in what frame of reference?)
First time here and that intro is 10/10. 👌 The problem is creationists, and most religious people, don't care about truth. They just want to believe what they want to believe. Great video tho love the way you present information. Thx.
It's very simple: I personally created the universe, this morning just before breakfast. Including billions years of cosmological history, our solar system, our Earth including all fossils and living stuff, yes also UA-cam with all videos. Prove me wrong if you want.
I went to a fundamentalist Bible College for a little while and really all apologetics were shot to pieces by the Appearance of Age argument, that God created it all to appear old. That was the beginning of the end of my belief in any of it. What is the point in anything of any science or research if everything could have been created last Tuesday? Further, is God not deceitful in so doing? They would counter that it is not a deception since the Bible tells us what happened on one hand and then give all kinds of evidence for a young earth on the other. I gave up.
you are a jewel a gem, I love your well spoken and very knowledgeable comments on every topic you take: I hope you will live very very long and you are definitely very wise
I was a teenage young Earth creationist. I am living evidence that creationists can change their minds. So, don't give up on the idea of making a difference for them.
Seems easier to find a former YEC than a former person who understood and accepted evolution to turn to YEC. So many times you hear creationists say they used to believe in evolution before finding god.
@SeaPin that's because they're all moving to the US like Ken Ham did
Can you imagine how much of an impact it would have made if videos like this or renegadescienceteacher's reactieria series existed years ago 🤯
ua-cam.com/video/C2xAOz__Quc/v-deo.html
@SeaPin That made my day😂
Like Aron Ra said: Once you understand these things, you can either be honest or a creationist, but you cannot be both.
Aron Ra likely doesn't even have a college degree. 😂 Have you researched his credentials?
@@rs72098 have you researched his facts?
@@rs72098 if a man says 1+1=2 would I ask if he has a degree to back up that claim? Or can I simply look at what I've been provided and come to a conclusion that he is correct
@@rs72098
Aron Ra does indeed have a college degree. Matter of fact, he has two. He has an associate’s degree from Dallas College and a bachelor of science from Arizona State University.
@@rs72098
Have yoooouuuuuuuuuu researched his credentials?
Bwhwhshhahahhahahahahaha! Creationists are so goddamn lame!
When I was in the 6th grade in public school (Princeton Elementary, Orlando, FL, 1953) my teacher was a Creationist and dismissed Evolution. I was raised in a Southern Baptist family and had no opinion on that issue. My Sunday School teachers were all Creationists and their geology came from the Biblical account of Noah's Flood. It was just stories to me and I never thought about evidence or ever asked for evidence. The idea of asking for evidence was an alien idea to me. Until, one day a girl in my class did a show and tell on the Evolution of the Horse based on the discovery of the fossilized bones of ancestors of the horse in North America. That show and tell was a pivotal moment for me as it made me realize the importance of evidence and how beliefs totally lacked evidence and lacked the validity of their conclusions. It was like a light being turned on for me when Alice Smith, the girl who did the presentation, has the courage to defy the Creationist teacher and tell the class that we had the ability of determining what is the best explanation of reality.
Hoooray for Alice Smith!
@@MossyMozart She is my hero! Unfortunately I never told her that while we were still in school although we were in the same high school graduating class.
I went toSilver Star elementary 1953 3rd grade.
Lived across the road (Rio Grande Ave) from Lake Silver Elementary.
Me as an autistic person in Sunday School: this Noah story is bull. How did they fit everything? How are they feeding everything? How are they keeping the carnivores from killing? Or is this another water into wine or mead conjuring magic?
No one gave me a good answer. If this story was so dang important, why wouldn’t the Bible give more details? I heard many “because God said so.” And “You just have to believe.” By the time I was 9, I put the Bible in the historical fiction category of books, which was only cemented when I read some of the books that were left out of the Christian Bible. I couldn’t ever figure out why the god of the Old Testament was so damn mean and violent. As a young g adult, I took the old and New Testament as an abuse cycle.
One of the worst answers you can give to an autistic person: because I told you do. BUT WHY?! HOW?!
Good for Alice! Gave the glass shades, so the light wouldn’t blind them from seeing all the evidence and details. That must’ve been really hard back then. At least now we have more advanced dating techniques and DNA.
creationists have made me despise the world "kind" it's such a simplistic, vague, unscientific term that just irritates me whenever I hear it.
I do like the energy industry point. After all, it's not like the oil companies go to Answers in Genesis for geological advice.
That is a pretty crushing blow to YEC.
Completely agree.
The standard retort is that mineralogists and petroleum geologists simply use observation such as seismic measurements and cores to do what they do with the "millions of years" being only an after the fact window dressing. However my fb friend Kevin Donihoo (interviewed on Bill Ludlow's channel summer of 2019) developed software that relied on inputs of numerical information. After all you won't bake a cake using only a temp input.
But oil is just a gift from god right?
@@patldennis Kevin has wonderfully in-depth posts in a Facebook group of mine detailing many impossibilities YEC’s face.
YEC answer to your challenge: *Magic*; *Mysterious Ways*; *Satan's lies*; *you took it out of context*; *Darwin converted on his death bed* 😉
Darwin did NOT convert - he remained staunchly non-Christian to his death.
@@kevinrtres He never said the anwsers they give have proff
Devastating fact against YEC #0: Magic isn't real.
@Sage Those are three scientifically accurate statements! Who says YECcers can't learn?
Yes it is! And I have a box of cards that I haven't touched in seven years to prove it!
...oh, you were talking about the concept, not the trading card game. Sorry.
@Sage Considering humans are apes then yes, talking apes are real.
Don't lie pls, magic is real. We know as psilocybin. 🤣✌️
Correction: "Real magic is fake, and fake magic is real." -James Randi
As someone who grew up a YEC Christian, this helps me so much to see the actual science. I grew up reading and "learning" about science from the Answers in Genisis books and the Creation Museum. Channels like yours, Aron Ra, Genetically Modified Skeptic, and Telltale's all have been helping me get through my deconstruction of the YEC/Christian views.
The greatest fundamental (pun?) flaw in all YEC nonsense, and indeed all creationist nonsense, is the fact of there being a total dearth of internal consistency. Ignoring that the bible is just a macabre compendium of plagiarized rambles, the source texts themselves are a collection of Hebrew mythology, largely based on what was the popular hilarious piffle pandered during the Babylonian enslavement... they dragged much of it West when 'freedom' was attained. It is rather baffling how the religious can stare at all this & not see the gigantic problem with it all. What's worse, the creationist folks surely understand that they've been 'blessed' with what is heretofore the greatest gift to mankind in the known Universe: A large brain.... Yet to the bewilderment of the combined might of all human intelligence, they've taken to ignoring, disregarding, castrating, taking for granted this fascinating organ, by seemingly not using it at all for the intended task. You gotta wonder if doing so might really piss off the Celestial Dictatorship. "I gave them all the tools they could need. But instead they choose to listen to a talking snake, a mumbling shrub that was set ablaze by an unruly youth, calling a nice Jewish girl getting knocked up by the neighbor a miracle & repeating incoherent nonsense on Sunday mornings. WTF?!" ---The Sky Wizard
@@thesunexpress 'Plagiarism' has been roundly refuted by Bible scholars with reason and evidence. They are published if you would read them. However, as the 98%+ group thinkers atheist are, they will NOT open any link with evidence against them. It shows atheists are emotional, not critical thinking intellectuals. If they were, they would learn what evidence the other side has and then decide after then. However, they have their mentors dictate the supposed 'truth' to them, not demonstrated as Christians look for. That is why we know more facts than atheists/skeptics/Christian cults do.
@@hwd7 It is clear you just come on here looking for comments to respond to rather than watch the video before even saying anything. No, I do not believe frogs turn into princes (which is not at all the theory of Evolution says or even suggests, rather that is a construct that YEC make it sound like by misinterpretating terms) that would be completely illogical and not scientifically sound.
Anyways, I made my previous comment weeks ago and I'm quite busy. So this is my last response. Ciao
@@hwd7 WTF is wrong with you? A Jew was executed for what was at the time considered a crime worthy of capital punishment. Why in all screwy hell would anyone with half a brain follow some religious wacko, obsessed with deranged apocalyptic piffle? Organized religion has been nothing but the greatest deleterious scrounge to mankind.
@@martylawrence5532 The only thing in your entire stream of blather that I agree with is that "plagiarism" has been refuted. It's no more plagiarism for iron age Hebrews to appropriate the mythology of the Babylonians than it is plagiarism for the Greeks to appropriate Egyptian mythology. In both cases, once they appropriated the source mythology, they twisted it until the people they appropriated it from wouldn't recognize it.
It still doesn't make any of it true, of course, any more than the ludicrous claim that Christians look for demonstrated truth. After all, that would require supporting evidence, and speaking as a former Assemblies of God ministerial student, the reason I am FORMER is because there is no evidence that supports any of the Christian claims made about matters of fact and science.
What you are doing is so helpful to people like me. My parents were founding members of Answers In Genesis and chatting with Ken Ham on the regular. I know the arguments inside and out but didn’t know anything else. Hearing a systematic critique of young earth creationism has helped me in my deconstruction process.
So in your "deconstruction process", do you consider your worldview closer to: an old age creationist, theistic evolutionist, deistic evolutionist, agnostic evolutionist, or atheistic evolutionist?
@@oreopagus2476 "evolutionist"? Evolution is simply a fact regardless of worldview and label, that's like saying accepting the fact that gravity exists makes you a Gravitist...
@@oreopagus2476 agnostic and atheist are not separating lines.
@@Cosmic_Cretin Evolution is a fact? How are defining evolution? Phillip Johnson: "If somebody asks, 'Do you believe in evolution?' the right reply is not 'Yes' or 'No.' It is: 'Precisely what do you mean by evolution?' My experience has been that the first definition I get will be so broad as to be indisputable--like 'There has been change in the course of life's history.' Later on a much more precise and controversial definition will be substituted without notice. That one word evolution can mean something so tiny it hardly matters, or so big it explains the whole history of the universe. Keep your baloney detector trained on that word. If it moves, zap it!" ("Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds", 1997)
@@bloodink9508 Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena. Athiest: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. Bob Dylan: "Ya either got faith or ya got unbelief and there ain't neutral ground" (in "Precious Angel")
Behind every creationist is a liar who made them that way, directly or indirectly.
That's why it's important to debunk creationism.
Why "behind"? Every creationist is a liar, even if only to themselves.
@@johnnygraz4712 Not fair. Some people just don't have the information they need.
To the side of every creationist liar is a bank to hold their ill gotten gains.
@@mouthpiece200 What grown-ass adult in 2022 doesn't have access to this information? There's no excuse for this level of ignorance.
@@johnnygraz4712 I was raised a Young Earth Creationist. I'm assuming you weren't raised that way, so you wouldn't understand the power of indoctrination. It took me, until 2 years ago to finally accept facts and forsake my nonsensical YEC beliefs. Trust me when I say it is very hard for the average fundamentalist, raised in a faith school to understand what you would probably consider basic science, like evolution, etc.
I have a different list from my long time debating these idiots:
1. C14 calibration curves. Much more challenging for them than regular radiometric dating where they can deny assumptions. The C14 calibration curve is C14 date plotted against SEVEN other dating methods (dendrochronology, speleothems, coral rings, sediment cores, varves, ice cores, etc.) The dates match up, therefore proving that the Earth is at least 50,000 years old and refuting any idea of a recent global flood (none of the dating methods are interrupted). If they are wrong, how are they ALL wrong and how are they all wrong but show the SAME dates???? YEC's cannot argue against this data because their "pick one method at a time and refute" approach doesn't address the whole curve and why the dates agree.
2. Limestone. Erika did a video on this but pretty much the existence of limestone in any strata refutes the hypothesis that a flood produced that layer. Why, because floods NEVER produced limestone and cannot produce them. It is a gradually produced rock, ranging from months to millions of years to accumulate depending on type. YEC's will never explain why there are different types of limestone in the same Grand Canyon strata, and why they change type and how they are laid. Why do they show shallow versus deepwater limestones, and grade in between. Why are there sandstones and shales in the strata but not mixed in with the limestone? How does a single flood produce pure beds of limestone in all the chaos and currents? Why aren't other types of sediment mixed in? How do coral reefs form so fast after a flood? Why are there no pre-flood coral reefs that mark the pre-flood/Flood boundary layer? Howe did corals survive the flood at all? YEC's cannot explain limestone in their flood model and never have.
3. Trap Volcanism. The large igneous provinces add to the heat problem described in this video. The Deccan and Siberian Traps occurred over many millions of years and extruded millions of cubic kilometers worth of basaltic magma all over the world. Add to that all the supervolcanoes. If this all happened in a single year, there would be tons of heat and poison gas that would have exterminated all life on Earth. How this is explained by a flood is unknown and the YEC's cannot explain the heat problem OR why God needed the Deccan Traps to happen when it would have boiled off the ocean God wanted to flood the planet.
4. Biogeography. YEC's cannot for the life of them explain biogeography of any clade of organisms. We can trace the migration and distribution of organisms using the fossil record and phylogenetics, and none of them trace their lineages to the area of Mt Ararat. And for the creatures not on the Ark, none of the distribution patterns fit vegetation mats or any other YEC model for species survival. The patterns of aquatic biogeography don't fit YEC models either, and can't explain the distribution of coral reefs or freshwater river fauna. They can't explain why we see certain plant species where we do, or relictual distributions. YEC's don't know anything about organisms to even realize the problems here.
5. Biostratigraphy. Easy, ask the YEC why we don't see modern species in the older layers, or shark teeth in the Cambrian, or humans/rabbits in the Devonian. But more devastating is the complete lack of POLLEN from trees in the flood layers. Pollen only exists in specific layers and is missing from all the older ones. If all trees and flowers were killed by the flood, there would be pollen grains buried in ALL layers of sedimentary rock. The pollen would not indicate seasonal layers because the flood started in ONE season.
You obviously posess a wealth of knowlege, and I'm a simple man, with a simple question. Where did all that additional water come from, and where did it go? Seems like too much to come from the atmosphere, then evaporate back into it.
@@fjalics I sh*t you not, the explanation is...it used to hover around the world, suspended above the sky, protecting the world from free radicals, letting people live for centuries, and it sank beneath the Earth's crust. You cannot logic with these people.
@@fjalics The water question always seemed to be one they invented rapid plate tectonics to solve, but I'm still not sure how they got all the water out of the underground to above ground, and then re-arranged the Earth without boiling that water off. Plus all that deep underground water is hot and salty to begin with
Obviously the coral, pollen, and freshwater fish all climbed to the higher mountain strata to escape the waters. God set up the c-14 calibration metrics to test your faith and you failed....
@@firebladetenn6633 I was taught that in Social Studies class in a public school in the 70s, I kid you not. I knew it wasn't really allowed, but I wasn't about to put a target on my back by trying to get my parents (who were already immigrants and misfits) to fight this.
0:00 intro
3:23 The Heat Problem (of accelerated radioactive decay)
8:36 Transitional Hominins
19:05 Statistics (analysis of alternatives to common ancestry)
24:57 The Energy industry (fossil fuels)
27:58 Comparative Genomics
31:38 outro
Genesis could say that humanity is 6000 thousand years old, I might be an heretic, the genesis days are not 24 hour literal days they are longer , they all happened instantaneous
So you're telling me that God can't make an perfect climate, when creating the earth? Smh
Too bad she can't provide any evidence of transition fossils
@@EasternOrthodoxChristian he can't even bother to pretend that he exists anymore, so there's LOTS of stuff he can't do.
@@irrelevant_noob not an argument, an insult towards Christianity, blasphemist blasphemer
Why does it make me so very happy when Gutsick calls me a "gentle and very modern ape"? Maybe it is because the only other time I am referred to as an ape is is by by wife and she proceeds it by the words "big" and "dumb".
Lol
I work with a young earth creationists, this is a beautiful video picking his misconceptions apart. That said he just either asserts that the devil laid the “fake” evidence to trick scientists into hating god… or he just snorts at the explanation and decides that since he doesn’t understand the answer given by science it is a lie. Either way he has decided I am beyond saving and no longer pushing his crazy ideas on the world onto me. Also all dinosaurs are fake to him which always makes me smile.
You are lucky he has given up on you. I lived in the USA for years, but chose to return home. Right up to the time I left I had two YECs spouting their nonsense at me. Not a lot, because I did defend my position when it was worth the effort. But they are impossible when they see it as their mission to save your soul.
A christian gave upon saving you? Tell me your secrets...
And the bible God just allows Satan to deceive people that far? That's a real jerk move, doesn't make his God look that just. He might as well just pose as Zues to tell you Zues is God and the God of the Bible is not real, then send you to hell for believing in Zues and not him, the God of the bible.
It's like liberals when presented with evidence of race science. They divert. They avoid. They don't want to address the evidence of extreme racial differences. And eventually they just resort to name calling like "you're a raaaaaaacist".
@@ericdondero5810 like the race "science" that claimed racial intelligence based on skull size? Oops. Size of brain is not linked to intelligence.
How about the genetics? Only two genes are different to give white people pale skin and eyes. The human genome project has mapped the entire genetic sequence for humans and we are all 99.9 percent the same genetically. No specific gene has been discovered for intelligence. IQ tests are often used but people can increase their iq with practice - environmental not genetic. Likewise poor nutrition leads to lower iq scores - environmental not genetic. Take your head out of the sand you have so firmly buried it in, take off your white hood and look at some real science.
I really appreciate these videos. I work in a pretty conservative school district and I see kids with Creation Museum and Ark Encounter merch all the time. I think it's important to have videos like this so there's at least more of a chance people raised in that belief can see the actual arguments, not just the Strawmen that Hovind and Ham tend to put up.
That's all the more reason to enjoy many Atheist-Channel and Science-UA-camrs!
Especially those that 'teach with humor'.
May i recommend some?
So God can be overcome by debate fallacy arguments...okaaaayyyy. ua-cam.com/video/BwSts2s4ba4/v-deo.html
I grew up in a conservative school district as a little queer atheist, so I often felt like an outsider. I had a biology teacher who taught evolution and everyone but me and one other kid boycotted by not coming to class. Even though she was a Christian she was one of the most accepting people in that community. Her kindness and acceptance of me is still appreciated and remembered 15 years later.
ua-cam.com/video/C2xAOz__Quc/v-deo.html
Do you follow #ForrestValkai
I grew up YEC. I was always somewhat unconvinced, but the bubble I was in prevented me access in honest ways to science. Thank you for your persistence in educating people. Keep it up. People DO change!
Science always questions everything.
It doesn’t determine truth. It tests, observes and analyses.
Then it comes up with more questions. Repeats.
Great video as always, Erika!
As a Christian and geologist, I find YEC both scripturally unwarranted and scientifically untenable!
Love your work!
Does YEC's and people like you derive your god from the same book? As a lifetime non-religious I did the exercise to write every age of the people written about in the bible into a spreadsheet and can't get to an age of the universe and a flat earth as described in the bible, that exceed 6000 years, So could you please give me a list of verses you hoop jump through but magically still are able to derive a god from?
To me YEC's are at least somewhat honest to their book (except the flat earth descriptions) while Christians that claim to also embrace reality are dishonest to both their book and reality at the same time!
Like, Superman exist! Of course he can't fly or turn back time or comes from Krypton, that's just metaphors and needs to be interpreted to fit reality , but Superman exist and has a side job as a journalist under the name Clark Kent for the Daily Planet (that isn't online or googleable).
@@jipersson Even the Bible has some difficulty keeping its story straight. God told Abram they'd have a child at very old ages, and Abram and wife thought it was hilariously absurd. Apparently they forgot their own family ancestry, which were still living unusually long spans.
@@jipersson Well, I would argue that there are a plethora of different ways that the early chapters of the Bible (specifically the first 11 chapters of the book of Genesis) and the references throughout the rest of Scripture pertaining to it. You have various interpretations like the gap theory, day-age creationism, progressive creationism, the literary framework etc. That YEC isn't warranted and as you rightfully point out, don't interpret all of the Bible through wooden literalism as they reject both flat earth and geocentrism.
The particular view that I adhere to is what's generally called the cosmic temple inauguration. This is basically where the first two chapters of Genesis, similar like other ancient near-eastern texts, is linked to a temple in which the earth is existing but doesn't have function. That is to say, the natural processes (e.g. big bang, solar nebular, stellar nucleosynthesis, abiogenesis, evolution etc.) which brought about the material things within the earth (the sea, air, strata and even living creatures) were all already there, but so to say, didn't have a purpose.
So, from there, God has functional creation in which he calls the existing things for his purpose. The seven days, including the day of rest, should be seen as symmetrical to one another. So, for example, days 1 and 4 which are the outermost circle concern the luminaries. In days 2 and 5, you have flying and swimming animals and finally on days 3 and 6, in the innermost circle or most intimate circle with God, are humans and the rest of the land animals.
The authors of Genesis 1 are using the 7 days of Genesis in two ways. One being a symbol for temple inauguration and then the second purpose, dividing the work between six symmetrical days to explain that the cosmos which is now God’s temple, has been divided into three spheres of intimacy.
In regards to humans, I accept mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal evidence that the LCA (last common ancestor) of humans was around 100,000-200,000 years ago out of Sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable to assert or use that as a form of argumentation for an Adam/Eve as our headship and progenitor.
That relates to the timeline where I would argue that God gave purpose or likeness of image to humans in Gen 1 and in Gen 2, from humanity, God selects or uses Adam and Eve as our headship. Then I would point out or add to that there obviously gaps within the genealogies which one can then use to go from that point forward.
For more information, I would recommend watching any of Inspiring Philosophy's videos on this topic (he has a UA-cam channel) or reading any of John Walton's works concerning this.
While its nice that you want to adhere to science, there's a Lot of problems trying to merge an old earth with the Bible. If you do an honest assessment I think you'll have no choice but to agree.
@@mouthpiece200 Well I would argue that there is time before the Bible and "in the beginning" mentioned in Gen. 1:1 isn't an absolute beginning point based upon principles of the Hebraic syntax. For more info, I defer you back to the references I mentioned with InspiringPhilosophy and John Walton's work.
Really throughout the history of Christendom, there's been different interpretation of Genesis and there isn't a monolithic view concerning it. I may agree with you that a wooden literal interpretation of the Bible is not compatible with things like conventional geology, antiquity of the earth, biodiversity of life etc. But I would argue that such interpretation isn't warranted and the attestation of that can be seen throughout various theologians/apologists/scholars etc. of the Bible throughout the centuries.
I hadn't heard the term "preclusionary data" but it's always bugged me when people say things like "you can't prove a negative." Yeah, actually, you sometimes can. It's true that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but evidence that something is wrong is not _absence_ of evidence. It's evidence. Like the evidence that there was no global flood. It's evidence that the world was NOT flooded globally, not lack of evidence of a flood. So many people don't say it strongly enough. I often hear things like "There's no evidence of a global flood." True, but not enough. There is very clear incontrovertible evidence that there was no global flood. So thanks for clarifying several instances of that extra step, and thanks for sharing the term for it.
Yes. We are agnostic Atheist about wether or not the god of Spinoza/Einstein exists however the god of the Bible very clearly does not exist.
I think their “hypothesises” are “precluded with infinitesimal P values” is my new favourite stats burn. Those guys don’t pull any punches.
AronRa sums this up nicely. In relation to Noah's world-wide flood he says that not only can we prove it did not happen, we can also prove that it could not happen. (paraphrasing here)
This isn’t proving a negative, it’s proving a positive claim (YEC) wrong.
@@Iamwrongbut If you can prove that no global flood happened, you have proved the negative of "There was a global flood." Or, as Isidore Aerys pointed out above, if you can prove that an omnipotent benevolent God is impossible, you have proved the negative of the Judeo-Christian God. It's only when the hypothesis is unfalsifiable, like any kind of interpretation of god/s, that you can't prove a negative.
Science: We have data, fossil records, historical records, advanced mathematical models, and loads of other evidence that shows this to be the case, indisputably.
YEC: A wizard did it because a book said a wizard did it.
A wonderfully concise summary of the situation.
But their book is written by an omniscient infallible GOD. So says theur book. So they are pretty convinced by that.
I used to argue with YEC's all the time until I got too old and don't have the time to waste anymore. They get really pissed off when you call him a wizard, magician or a magic man or a genie or something like that. It's the only thing I miss about arguing with those cretins.
Cite anything, from any of those fields, to prove your fairytale religion.
You got jack.
Fossilized tracks from animals, in strata "millions of years" before the actual animals appeared. Grand Canyon.
"There’s no time between when somebody leaves a track and when somebody’s buried.”
“This is a pattern we see in several different groups, where their footprints are first, and their body parts are later. For the trilobites, for the amphibians, for the dinosaurs-the first time I find evidence of them in the fossil record, it’s from trackways, not from hard parts. From an old-earth perspective, that’s really weird, and hard to grapple with, because you have MILLIONS OF YEARS of trackway production, then ultimately the animal that made it. But that obviously doesn’t make a whole lot of sense."
-Dr Marcus Ross, vertebrate paleontologist PhD
@@shootingstarzz6161 In any field of science, there's always an outlier, a contrarian. I doubt he's the only one who's notice this, if it is indeed an accurate characterization. Is he implying that there's no explanation for this phenomenon? Is everyone else just perpetuating a conspiracy? No... I've dealt with YECs long enough to know that one of their favorite hobbies is cherry picking the writings and statements of legitimate scientists. I'd bet money that you're engaging in cherry picking and Dr. Ross does not mean, or is not drawing, the conclusion you want us to draw from this quote.
The hilarious amount of mental gymnastics for YEC is rediculous, they take all scientific inquiries on the age of the earth and throw it out the window.
To be a YEC first you must throw intelligence out the window and be prepared to lower your IQ to single figures.
I love that creationists constantly point out the very low possibility of Abiogenesis to happened but this paper proves that the possibility of spontaneous out of nothing creation is even lower.
yes. nature creates life somehow.
or
magic creates life somehow.
the crucial thing to consider: nature IS proven to exist
A short proof of abiogenesis:
1. We exist.
2. Magic isn't real
Q.E.D.
@Sage Yes, empirical reality is "off the deep end" for you YECcers. Thanks for telling on yourself.
@Sage yeah but believing in a magic unprovable unknowable person in the sky who creates all doesn’t make you sound insane and that two people populated the earth even though thats impossible
Whenever they present those astronomical odds, ask them how they know. How do you calculate odds of something that's never happened? Stops them in their tracks. Then, the coup de grace. Were you there?
I just wanna say that I really appreciate these videos. I was homeschooled with all my "science" textbooks being from Youth earth creationist organizations. I was once grounded for a month because I asked what evolution even was.
Once I figured out how to get around the internet blocks my parents put on certain topics I fell hard into the atheist side of UA-cam as it was morphing into the anti-SJW side. It sent me down a bad path for a couple months but I came out of that pretty quickly.
Now that I've grown up a bit I'm trying to learn everything I should have learned in school and these videos that actually outline the science against the things I was specifically taught is helping me get over the religious guilt I felt for years.
These videos really do help people so thank you and good luck in your studies
@Sage um, huh? There are over 4000 organized religions on Earth and then there is science! Also, let's say for the sake of argument that Evolution is wrong. That would NOT in any way shape or form be proof of any one of those over 4000 organized religions "gawds" existing ... science would simply start all over again. Just as it was intended. Meanwhile, all religions will take centuries to catch up just to remain a century behind the rest of us!
@Sage See above re: magic isn't real.
My bf was homeschooled and i asked him what he was taught... "I was taught what evolution was but told not to believe it" wtf is up with homeschool parents???
@Sage Mutation.
If you're interested in basic biology, I suggest taking remedial courses at your local community college. There are also many good resources available on the internet.
@Sage following a script handed down by the likes of AIG is no replacement for rigorous study. Had you done an academic course on evolution, you would understand that your question has been addressed.
These are really interesting points. For me as a physics person my one word rebuttal of young earth is stars, there's just no way for a young earth (which is normally also a young universe) to be able to have viable stars and creationists either have to break a fundamental rule of physics (even more ridiculous than the super fast radiation decay) and make light (and by consequence causality) billions of times faster (with no explanation, will sometimes a very misunderstood and butchered version of general relativity and time dilation) or magic and god just made it look like everything was old.
Bingo! I think you have just put your finger on their most current go-to explanation for everything prehistoric: it was created that way, looking old, with light from distant stars already well on its way to us (sounds way too complex? ah, but another proof of God's omnipotence -- and the mental gymnastics continues on and on)
Yup that's the problem they run into with a lot of this stuff. It just can't be explained scientifically, only miraculously but they dearly want to co-opt the legitimacy of science.
But God made the Earth old so it would be mature enough to support His Creation.
Think about it.
Adam and Eve were created as adults so they could care for themselves.
If they were created as babies, they would be helpless.
If the Earth were created new as a ball of fire, it wouldn't be able to support God's Creation.
GOTCHA!
@@kinglyzard holy cow, I didn't see that coming! I'm sold here's my money 💰
@@kinglyzard While recognizing this as sarcasm, it still prompts the question. Why not just create it completely done then?
I usually skip long intros for anything, but yours is so well done that I always watch it all the way through
I think what weird me out the most about yec is that not once they stop to think "why no fish give milk? No mamal has feathers, no vertebrate has 6 members" if things were designed each animal would be a mosaic of traits.
Thanks for your work on this. I wouldn't even care, except I was raised YEC, and now there is a bit of a push in certain states to teach this BS in real schools. I don't care for people who lie to children.
You don’t care for people who lie to children yet you want them to be taught evolution, which is a lie.
That should be criminal to teach young earth in schools. It's scary that in the 21st century, Its possible to have faulty schools like that.
@@dogwalker666 Agreed! Folks like that will eventually catch up to modern society, albeit kicking and screaming the whole way. Then they will take credit for the benefits that result lol. They always do.
@@Juiceboxdan72 indeed.
6 states have removed all mention of evolution from their public school’s curriculum as a part of “Project Blitz” (yeah that’s their name) Christianity in it’s entirety is a lie and YEC is absolutely ridiculous and teaching it to children IS child abuse.
Only Christians, or at least those hellbent on a literal Bible, would claim that there is a way to “break physics!”
Love your theme song, by the way.
fundamentalist's Muslims do it to
I'm sure there are others, but in the US its def fundy Christians who are the most common
I love everything about your comment...you seem to be educated; I'm curious -- what are you studying? Also, were you homeschooled? Your grasp of the English language is remarkable -- you seem unusually intelligent.
It's called "The mind electrical " by miracle music. It's really catchy and the intro part we hear on Gibbon's video starts at about 1:46 part of the song. ua-cam.com/video/qaveHlGJYjI/v-deo.html link to the song. Sounds really awesome.
@@proculusjulius7035 Thanks, I was looking for this, but at this point I was afraid to ask 🤣
@@proculusjulius7035 Cool. Thanks!
Gutsick always has the most informative videos. Keep up the good work.
I had a YEC geology teacher in middle school who skipped over the chapters that talked about the Earth being very old. We learned about tectonic plate theory and how it's related to earthquakes and volcanoes for like 3 months, and it never dawned on him what a problem it is for YEC.
I'm pretty sure you can report them for that.
@@RobertMcBride-is-cool I don't think we could have for that in isolation, but yes, he did a lot of more crazy crap that could have gotten him in trouble. I heard years later he was eventually fired (or "retired" at age 55 or so), but nobody knew for what.
@@unamejames word probably spread?
@@unamejames probabably a pedo
It should be illegal for a geology teacher to be a YEC proponent lol
As a former YEC I’m so glad for your videos, so that is good reason for you to keep these videos going!
What made you change your mind, if I may ask?
I mean… she’s easily proven wrong on all five points so…
@@stellarjayatkins4749 so I take it that you don’t believe in the stupid evolution religion.
@@stellarjayatkins4749 Soooo....?
@@ambulocetusnatans reason? Sanity? There's many to choose from
"This half of the back is human and
This half of the back is Ape." Sounds like Creationists are praying for another piltdown man
It would be one of their wettest dreams come true, wouldn't it...
Which is even funnier because YECs also try to denigrate science because the Piltdown Man hoax was initially accepted (at a time when there had been no early hominid fossils found for comparison).
I have a very VERY simple solution to all of creationist's dilemmas: stop using a 2000 year old myth as the basis of your 'science'. Done.
The BIble isn't a myth. I implore you to read it and cross examine it yourself. Read the book, "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. He was an atheist who set out to disprove the points of the Bible, only to convert himself.
@@adampainter103 I've read the bible. I was Christian. It's mostly nonsense to me now. I've moved on.
@@lexdeobesean I'll be praying for you.
@@adampainter103 thank you, but you don't need to. After all, you cannot change god's plan, can you?
@@lexdeobesean I feel sorry for you.
"Nuh uh! Those aren't problems 😤And preclude isn't even a real word, it's made up by evil-atheist-lutionists to scoff at us. And if it means anything it's that you decided (clude) your results beforehand (pre)!"
Is what I guess the creationistas will say about it.
Awesome job 👌
Now I'm gonna go check on the proper etymology...
[EDIT] I accidentally wrote "etiology", when I meant "etymology". Sorry. [/Edit]
Command Cyborg
LOL!!
Very funny, an excellent Troll/Poe.
The best bit was when you said "preclude isn't even a real word", and it's been a word for 500 years :)
You have a gift for speaking off the cuff without ever losing your pace.
Except she's a total fraud who has zero evidence for the fairytale evolutionism religion
"According to our experimental experience, only an intelligent source is capable of meeting just these requirements, for only intelligence is in a position to develop information, instructions, codes, languages, and code-conventions. The fact that only one single genetic language exists indicates that one single intelligent Source must have been responsible for the single genetic code of all polyphylogenetic biology. There is no other solution to the problem of the origin of the genetic code."
Wilder-Smith earned three doctorates; his first PhD in 1941 in Physical ORGANIC CHEMISTRY from Reading University, England, his second in 1964 in Pharmacology from the University of Geneva, and his third from Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), Zurich.
@@shootingstarzz6161 Argument from authority, quoting a chemist about a well established fact and theory in biology. Does evolution offend your religion?
@@shootingstarzz6161 awwww... you're annoyed...
Your title sequence is wonderful!
I wish you had been doing these videos when I was married to a young earth creationist... Instead, I have shared your channel with our teenagers so that they can counter their dad's insanity with data! 💓
Old thread, but one of the things I've found that helps is to realize that YEC 'science' isn't meant to convince actual science-educated people. It's only meant to keep creationist-educated people convinced.
@@kelliepatrick519 To keep them from asking those pesky questions!
"That's not how this works! I TELL you something, and you BELIEVE that!"
I like big brains and I cannot lie.
Are you a Zombie?
“Look in the general direction of the data.” Lol, love your channel. You certainly do more than a cursory look. Thanks. I am a stay at home mother to a small toddler and nap time gives me a chance to catch up on your posts. I love keeping up with science by watching videos like yours, a way to keep me thinking scientifically (I have a MSc in Neuroscience). Keep it up!
She doesn't teach science. She teaches propaganda. She lied about what creationists think. The only way a "gradstudent" would tell such a lie is she is brainwashed instead of educated.
@@notstayinsdowns well that’s all what evolution is anyway, a lie , one of if not the biggest lie in history.
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 So why hasn't it been proven false in the 150+ years since it was put forward? Not only would you win a ton of prizes, grants, money and fame, but you'd open up new avenues of scientific inquiry and convert millions of people to your particular faith overnight. But nobody has done so. 150+ years not enough time? Why do you think the theory of evolution hasn't been disproved at all?
Every time a creationist tries, they get schooled by an actual scientist with actual facts that comport with actual reality. Don't you think a multi-million $ outfit like AIG would love nothing more than to be able to show the world actual scientific evidence showing evolution to be false? They have the money, the time and the motivation, yet all they can do is build a ridiculous ark and fill it with oft debunked, unsupported nonsense? How do you account for this?
@@ufutz it has actually been shown wrong by actual scientists but the schools, museums colleges, etc. don’t want the evidence to be shown because they need to protect the sacred cow of evolution religion.
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 Citation needed
The thing that motivates me is that creationism is based on libelling thousands of scientists as either deluded or outright evil. This in the face of the 9th commandment which precludes bearing "false witness against thy neighbour". Also I come from a home where I faced serious opposition to even speaking about evolution.
How naive can you be? You don't know their 11th Commandment? Thou Shalt Lie For God Whenever It Is Deemed Needed
Have u never heard of hypocrisy? Its wrong to lie unless it benefits them & their religion.
@@totalstrangerthing7419 They can't even keep the rules they set for themselves.
YEC depends on a giant, 150 year old, worldwide conspiracy among virtually every scientist in the world, in every scientific field in the world, to hide fossil dinosaur saddles in an effort to disprove god, which they wouldn't be doing anyway. The problem is that YEC's don't know how scientists (or science) work. If evolution was disproved tomorrow and the earth was shown to be 6K years old, millions of scientists would jump for joy because they'd have the chance to formulate a new naturalistic theory and be as rich and world famous as the scientist who disproved evolution in the first place. And the YEC's want you to believe that they're all cooperating in a conspiracy to perpetuate old earth and evolutionary theory. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
@@leeshackelford7517 That and their #1 most observed sacrament, Lyin' for Jeebus.
You won my subscription with your clear, analytical approach. Great work 👍
It's telling that Creationists are required to lie about Australiopithicus physiology to support their claims
*to support their businesses.
@@johnnygraz4712 Yes and their businesses 👏
They lie about almost everything if it goes against their beliefs.
@@penguincommando4737 which is almost everything 😂
There was a video where Kent Hovind claimed experts had stated 'Lucy' was an ape.
He was pressed to name the supposed experts, did he squirm or what.
The floor of Carlsbad Cavern in New Mexico is made of bat guano. There are places where the pile of bat guano is more than 60 feet deep.
Bat droppings are excellent candidates for 14C dating, because they are freshly exchanged 14C samples until they drop, at which point, the 14C decays.
Cores of bat guano from the floor of Carlsbad Cavern have been taken, and subjected to 14C analysis. What has been found is that the topmost layers date to about 6000 - 10000 years ago. Below that, the amount of 14C decreases at rate of about 1000 years per foot. So if you go down 15 ft, it dates to 15000 years. And this continues until it gets to about 30 feet, below which the amount of 14C was not measurable (it was using older, less sensitive methods). The scientific interpretation is that bats lived in the caves and added about 1 foot of guano every 1000 years or so. And this has been going on for more than 60 000 years, which is why the floor is more than 60 feet deep.
If the earth was created 6000 years ago, why would their be a 14C gradient at all? Why would the 14C date from before 6000 years? Why isn't there any measurable 14C if you go below 30 feet? And how could it all have survived a flood 4000 years ago?
There is no scientific explanation for how that could be, and the only option is to invoke a miracle. God created the pile of bat poop already there.
Praise God from who all bat poop flows
Praise him all shit-stained caves below
Praise him above ye scientist bros
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
god work in mysterious ways as they say lol
Yes indeed brothers and sisters, Abrahamic religions provide some deep shit to ponder.
I've worked in Mammoth Cave System (Kentucky) and I wonder if that's been tried here. Our guano deposits aren't so thick, though: the thickest deposits were heavily disturbed (ammonium nitrate extraction) in the War of 1812 for saltpeter extraction. Even before that, I bet the deposits here were never as thick as Carlsbad (our bats are tiny, and far less numerous).
I would love to read the literature you got this from so I can learn more about this process.
Could you provide a source?
I first heard of the heat problem from Kurt Wise in a q&a after a lecture in 1998. They've been "working on it" and appealing to miraculous solutions for at least 24 years.
They have been lying since the 1920's when Edwin Hubble proved Andromeda was a Galaxy (only the Milky Way was know back then) and led to the Catholic Priest Le Metre to formulate the Big Bang theory that led to the discovery of the age of the Universe.
Wrong
ua-cam.com/video/C2xAOz__Quc/v-deo.html
At this stage they effectively admit to Noah having plot armour.
@@salvadoremarinaro6350hmm intresting that comments are turned off
It’s so great someone who knows so much about primate evolution and just biology in general is here, free, on UA-cam, AND debunks creationism??? You’re such a unicorn, GG!!
Thanks for being here 😇
Unfortunately young Earth creationists have imagined a magical anthropomorphic immortal who does not have to obey the laws of physics. Since it's a fictional being it doesn't have to comport with reality and they can just say "God did it that way" to any problem you point out.
They certainly do that a lot.
But from back when I was very young I could not get past the "Made man in his image" line with anything like observable reality. Where is this human-looking creature? In the sky? No that does not work. How does an entity that looks like mankind also have all the power to create a universe, and live forever? It is a really silly concept, and it must have it's origins in the very oldest forms of religion.
Later I realised that the "created everything in 6 days" element of their story sits so far outside known physics that it is even more preposterous.
That is why after the publication of "Origin of Species", when in 1878 the Archbishop of Canterbury invited Darwin to a meeting with Christian scientists and atheists on the possibility of reconciling science and religion, Darwin refused. With the motivation that he could not see what benefit could ever derive from it. Darwin was not fundamentalist about his views on anything, he also had doubts about his own theory, but he was wise enough to see that a debate like this is totally useless.
@@John.0z It's funny, isn't it. I've always had an issue with 'created in his image' too. Mainly because ... well .. we're bipedal omnivorous mammals. Where is he walking, what is he eating, and at whose teat did he suckle? In what other ways are we like him, by implication of his 'design'? He has gender - Adam was created first, but when he created Eve, reproduction was clearly part of that 'design'. Can god have sex? Is he a virgin? Can he reproduce? Adam was built with the kit to do so. Does he have siblings? Family? What does it say for this single god model if our god has peers? Parents? Are they more powerful or higher ranked, divinity wise? He could be the god equivalent of an unemployed post-teen child living in their parent's basement.
I remember thinking this really early on too. In Sunday school I remember being told 'This is god's house' and just thinking, why would he live here? I meant that seriously at the time too ... like ... incorporeal being that creates the world, but only 'lives' in holy buildings and places man says he should. He would be everywhere, and nothing manmade would be 'holy' at all.
It always struck me as too ... convenient.
And yet, there is a part of me that is a bit disappointed that nobody can provide me anything as evidence of a creator.
@@icycooldrink6085 I did not think several of the things you did, because I found the whole religion thing impossible from the very first time I was sent to a sunday school. Therefore I am not disappointed, because I never had any expectations.
What took me a long time to shake was the idea that this was a socially acceptable place to meet girls - yet none seemed interested in me. In retrospect, that is not a surprise. I did look elsewhere, but was too shy to make any connections until later.
Eventually I gave up as I was clearly thinking very differently from all the others. They were just accepting what I continually questioned.
Fortunately I met others who shared my lack of belief at school, so it all worked out well enough. I cannot imagine what life is like in those countries where religious belief is mandated by law.
All you really need to do here is play that logic out to it's furthest extent; it becomes something like the god of the gaps fallacies' logical conclusion. Basically, God is everything, but as a consequence, He is nothing. In effect, he is stretched so thin as to cover literally every single function in the universe, from the weak electron bonds between your shoes and the floor underneath them to the coalescence of hydrogen gas and other trace elements into a star capable of fusion. The problem comes when you apply Occam's razor (the answer with the least assumptions is the one most likely to be correct). At that point, why do we have to assume that God Himself is behind every single one of those functions? Drop the assumption and you will see that God wasn't really there to begin with. Another way of tacking this is to present a hypothetical: the shadow man. Tell your interlocutor that there is someone standing behind them. When they turn around, say "No there isn't.", and start wondering if you need to be committed to a mental ward because you're seeing visions of people who aren't there, say "Well he's invisible." When they reach out behind them only to find that he is, in fact, still not there and REALLY start questioning your sanity, tell them that the shadow man is also immaterial. You see where I am going here? This hypothetical shadow man is unfalsifiable, just like an omnipotent god is. Any opposition put up can be explained away. If you need something like that to make any of your ideas work, then that idea is built on nothing but a leap in logic.
I feel much more stupid...yet smarter at the same time. I feel stripped of my Dunning Kruger skills. Damn.
I subbed to you so many months ago and this is the first video I have watched of yours. THANK YOU!!! What excellent content.
3 is my favorite. The consilience of all these in addition to them independently also makes this akin to jumping off a cliff and screaming about gravity causing things to go up as you fall.
...Oh ,nice, this channel here is like a smaller version
of Belief it Or Not!
I just picked the same proton randomly from all the protons in the universe twice in a row. NOT
It really is sad that billions of people have been gaslighted into believing we're in the middle of a cosmic war between a cloud wizard and an underground devil, like Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones or some other fantasy/sci-fi sht.
I love how there are old Earth creationists in here agreeing that young Earth creationists are delusional while still believing the magic beard in the sky poofed everything into existence
Oh ,nice, this channel here is like a smaller version
of Belief it Or Not, Viced Rhino, GMS, Holy Koolaid and Sci Man Dan! I like it!
I love your content, it’s really interesting and cool to learn about evolution. It’s really fascinating.
One thing I think kills YECs stone dead is cetaceans. Intelligent design, created fish, fish have gills so that they can effectively breath underwater but cetaceans have got to still breathe air despite living underwater. Why on earth would an intelligent designer give fish gills and make whales have to come up for air? Surely they would just give whales gills. It makes no sense. There’s lots of other examples of this kind of thing too.
Not only that but if god created marine mammals why did he create 4 different types of marine mammals, not only did he create cetaceans who are closest in relation to artiodactyls (and we have a pretty good idea of all the transitions between the 2)
But we also have sirenians, who are also related to hooved animals but this time their closest relative is elephants. But we also have pinnipeds, which are sea lions and walruses and such, which are most closely related to dogs and bears. And then their are Otters which are in the mustelids family which also include badgers, weasels, and ferrets, of which are most closely related to cats.
Why would a creator need to make so many different types of sea mammals, and on top of that if fish and sea mammals were perfectly fine for the water, why did he feel the need to also create birds that are also adapted to swimming instead of flying.
Why do human fetuses have fur, gill slits, tails, cells that make hair stand on end?
Anatomy looks accidental in so many animals, because it is. Slapdash design. Nothing intelligent about it.
@@petem.3719 I want fur, gill slits and tails! Why do foetuses get all the fun stuff? How do they misplace body parts? They need to grow up!
@@dbonk6264 Yeah, Kids these days!
There's a nerve in giraffes that goes in a really stupid path down the neck, around the hear and back up. I think it's called the laryngeal nerve? It's a really dumb design but it makes perfect sense in light of the giraffe's evolution. It's an example of what I was saying about anatomy looking like it was ad-hoc. Whatever worked at the time just stayed and adapted to the organism..
@@dbonk6264 WHALES ARE WARM BLOODED, they would drown if they had to rely on gills !
Came for the science, stayed for the gentle and kind approach!
great video though most of it went over my head
@Ye Ye but i am thick
@Ye Ye i am a pro gambler(horses) so i dont need to be intelligent.....just have a good grasp of mathematics...
Came for the comments 👌
I hadn’t heard the energy industry argument before but it makes perfect sense. I had come up with a variant of the heat argument in the existence of natural nuclear reactors like Oklo mine, and how there wasn’t enough time on a young earth for it to have consumed the fissile material. The heat problem as a whole is even more compelling. Thanks!
Fun fact , 100 years ago a creationist would've been hard pressed to find and atheist to debate with .
Imagine 100 years from now , an atheist is going to be hard pressed to find a creationist to debate with .
Moral of the story , we're going in the right direction .
Love it!
Youre comment is real good but lacks in grammar, so a quick edit would do Wonders.
I do so agree here, but there is the problem of two steps forward... One step back. And sometime that step back is really big.
Don't assume things will always trend this way. Afghanistan in the 1960s was a place where women could show their arms and attend school, and American hippies visited en masse to get high and explore the mountains
@@slevinchannel7589 your* 🤣
Creationist answer.
1: Miracles
2: Fake News
3: [Crickets Chirping]
4: [Tumbleweeds]
5: SCIENCE IS ALL LIES, UNLESS IT SUPPORTS MY CLAIM!
Young Earth Reasoning, it's not like the real thing at all
you forgot bible…
No, Science.
The nail in the coffin for me is that creationism offers no predictive power, and has no application. Ok, sure, let’s say a god created everything. How can we apply that in a useful way? What can we predict with that?
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
Voltaire
Can you disprove that Jesus was resurrected? What is your best naturalist explanation for the resurrection?
@@Gossland52 - There was no resurrection. If Yeshu' lived and was executed by the Romans on a wooden pole, then he was also thrown into a mass pit after his bones were picked by raptors like all the other people they crucified. (The death was only half of the punishment, after all - the public humiliation of hanging there dead for days while being scavenged was ALSO the other half of it. - Gruesome, to say the least.)
@@MossyMozart That's good thinking. However, we still have to explain why Paul who was killing Christians decided to make up a resurrected Jesus. We also have to explain why James (1/2 brother of Jesus who thought Jesus was a fraud) decided to make up a resurrected Jesus. We also have to explain why the disciples changed their behavior and were all willing to suffer and die and most all of them did except John. Nobody dies for something they know is a lie. Name one. You should read about the Water Gate scandle and how quick people spilled the beans.
@@MossyMozart Short answer. Jesus body and the empty tomb are irrelevant. Paul was killing the first Christians and hated Jesus. Paul was a Pharisee, with money, power, and influence. Why would he give all of that up and make up some crazy story that Jesus came back to life. You must explain this change in behavior.
@@Gossland52 Paul never claimed to have seen Jesus in the flesh, even in the Book of Acts, his experience is merely described as a vision; hallucination is a real possibility, as some key pieces of the Pauline Letters further suggest epilepsy (hallucinated while having a seizure). He may not have known that he died for a lie. Moreover, that isn't true at all. Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon, and yet never recanted even as he was executed
"I think it's fun and I think it's funny" I LOVE it! Also, I love all your videos and style!
All these answers are simple to answer.
1 God magic
2 God magic
3 God magic
4 God magic
5 ... God magic
Every other question will also be answered with "God magic".
I'm new to your channel and I think you're doing a awesome job here. Definitely subscribed
You forgot......."God done it"
Im really glad you did that video with Forrest Valkai. I've never seen your videos before you're awesome and really funny!
Your explanations have been helpful in my understanding of evolution. I thought i knew what it was, but i realize i barely knew anything. Thanks. Looking forward to going through your other videos.
You know the creationist's rebuttal to all of this will be Jesus magic...
This is beautifully done, and yes, I can tell that you have a lot of fun doing this, Erika. ❤❤ Keep having all the fun you want; we'll be here to watch it!
Yes she and other evolutionists like Moron Ra do a great job at making videos lying to people that evolution is in anyway true and there’s evidence it happened in the past
You've probably said this a THOUSAND TIMES but who made your awesome intro? Music? Animations? It's really top tier. Reminds me of a 90s TV series on science.
She did the animations herself.
@@Kyeudo Now that's talent.
The song is "The mind electric" by miracle musical :)
I love this channel! Thank you for having fun with it. Keep on :)
"i think it is fun, and i think it is funny"
I used to think that too until ignorance became a cancer in this country leading to the social strife and direct threat to democracy we are seeing now.
yea well, she's still doing her part to point out their bullshit in her own way. Maybe she isnt a hateful person like you and me, so its difficult to make content expressing negative emotions, as you and i would probably be able to do. I am of the mindset that i consider all evangelicals, and MAGA terrorists to be traitors, the scum of the earth, and the enemies of all americans. I am somoene who find it easy to picture bible thumpers hanging from lampposts on philadelphia ave as visual warnings to the next group of traitors that try and overthrow our democracy on false pretenses. I hate them so much for what they did to our country. But, to put it inperspective, despite her apporaching it from a "ridicule" standpoint, its more than im doing, since i only get to vent my rage on social media, and random encounters in the public, but to each thheir own. Remember, she's also a teacher, so her students probably watch this and she has to set a good example to keep her job. She's probably already walkin on the edge depending on what district she teaches in.
@@raidermaxx2324 Hate is useless against people whose ideology thrives on it. In fact, they want to be hated; they want to be persecuted. They practically receive sexual gratification from the mere thought of it.
@@raidermaxx2324 definite;y have to say that their being worthy of hate does not make them worthy of your energy in gratifying them with the attention they thrive upon through their fetishizing of persecution.
@@ominous-omnipresent-they so then we will oblige them with their deaths.
@Atheist Biologist ok lets talk about it then. What exactly about MAGA do i not understand. Are you MAGA? Lets just get everything out inthe open first. Just so you know, im very much anti-MAGA, or you could say anti-fascist.. I think there is an acronym for that.. oh yea antifa. thats it. Anyways, its rare to find an atheist who is MAGA, i must say! this will be an interesting beat down!
I think creationists say to themselves "that objection is scientific. It does not count because science is lies from the devil." You need common sense unscientific objections.
As far as I can tell, the creationists start with the assertion that the Bible (or the Quran - there are Muslim creationists on UA-cam) is inerrant. Therefore, anything that contradicts their model _must_ be wrong.
Since there are actual observable facts that cannot be denied, creationists 'reinterpret' those facts to conform with their worldview.
@@condorboss3339 As a former YEC, this is accurate. It is not true that YECs think science is from the devil. I’ve never met anyone who thought that… maybe that’s the more old fashioned ones.
I LOVE this! Each point was succinctly made yet packed with information. Unfortunately, anyone fool enough to believe creationist nonsense is just not going to be able to follow this video.
Each one of those five points, ALONE, all by themselves, preclude intelligent design, young earth creationism and old earth creationism.
It's like Aaron Ra's 8 videos about why the biblical flood is impossible.
ALL they have to counter that is denial, misrepresentation, misinterpretation and strawmaning.
Also false analogies and arguments from ignorance ;)
@@pavel9652 - And arguments from (very questionable) authorities AND the good old "God of the gaps".
Why OEC?
@@Orthosaur7532 OEC is still creationism. They are still utterly wrong even if they accept that the Earth is a lot older than 10 000 years.
@@Orthosaur7532 OEC is almost as bad as YEC. The only difference between the two is that one accept that the Earth is billions of years old, and the universe even older, and the other insist to claim that the whole universe is only about 6000 years old.
Apart from that, they are the exact same thing.
Hey gutsick gibbon, I commented in your last premiere about being introduced to Hawaii II from your intro and you gave me some more music recommendations, so I thought I'd give you some of mine. I'd recommend looking into The Lemon Twigs, and Hiatus Kiyote. I apologize for this comment being so irrelevant to the video (I did in fact like the video).
Damn, I am in love with that intro, it's so good!
I know. I wish there was an animated GIF of it.
This needs to be repeated often at interviles for new veiwers, teenagers leaning reality and just to counter YEC crap which runs on repeat anyway nothing ever new or right.
Love your work Erica. Kiss kiss ♥♥
Opinion statement with zero proof. Sad. Non-scientific.
Your intro animation is ridiculously awesome.
Brilliantly done. This video breaks down and explains in comprehensive way and I really appreciate it.
Except you have zero evidence whatsoever for your fairytale religion evolutionism
"According to our experimental experience, only an intelligent source is capable of meeting just these requirements, for only intelligence is in a position to develop information, instructions, codes, languages, and code-conventions. The fact that only one single genetic language exists indicates that one single intelligent Source must have been responsible for the single genetic code of all polyphylogenetic biology. There is no other solution to the problem of the origin of the genetic code."
Wilder-Smith earned three doctorates; his first PhD in 1941 in Physical ORGANIC CHEMISTRY from Reading University, England, his second in 1964 in Pharmacology from the University of Geneva, and his third from Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), Zurich.
@@shootingstarzz6161 well I'm an agnostic so I don't make claims about whether gods are or are not real because I think the simple answer is that I don't know but evolution is a different subject from do gods exist. In fact I know there are theists out there that believe the evolution process was inspired by a god.
@Atheist Biologist
Cite any example for your fairytale right here and now and get destroyed chumpp.
Emergency LOL. Octopus are so complex you have to say their eggs flew in from outer space on comets, with zero evidence whatsoever for that Fairytale lol.
Sure babe.
"A second focus is the remarkable evolution of intelligent complexity (Cephalopods)"
"Living organisms such as space-resistant and space-hardy fertilised ova and seeds have been continuously delivered to Earth"
@Atheist Biologist
Wow what a speech. Now cite any evidence whatsoever for your fairytale evolutionism religion.
Million of years never happened. Oops.
Fossilized tracks from animals, in strata "millions of years" before the actual animals appeared. Grand Canyon.
"There’s no time between when somebody leaves a track and when somebody’s buried.”
“This is a pattern we see in several different groups, where their footprints are first, and their body parts are later. For the trilobites, for the amphibians, for the dinosaurs-the first time I find evidence of them in the fossil record, it’s from trackways, not from hard parts. From an old-earth perspective, that’s really weird, and hard to grapple with, because you have MILLIONS OF YEARS of trackway production, then ultimately the animal that made it. But that obviously doesn’t make a whole lot of sense."
-Dr Marcus Ross, vertebrate paleontologist PhD
@Atheist Biologist Did mammals evolve from single cell life form ?
I would argue that not all of our species has big brains. My evidence? Young Earth Creationists.
...and Flerthers.
My favorite YEC counter to the heat problem:
“But there was lots of water.”
😆
In a recent debate with David McQueen on SFT, McQueen said “the water gushing up from the deep was 2000C.” (3632F)
So, it was death steam so hot that it has begun to ionize… and somehow the Ark floated on 2000C steam, and the super-steam didn’t instantly kill everything.
🤔
@@Tenebris_Sint They'll just say it was a miracle
@@Tenebris_Sint Yeah, the "survivors" of the flood got insta-cooked in a global pressure cooker! :D Every time, EVERY TIME you force a flood-believer to actually work through the data, the magic wand comes out! "Oh, but God could have done that by miracle!" Never fails, unless the believer gets to use the "data" from a religious website, data that is equal parts self-contradictory, cherry-picked, creatively misunderstood and misapplied, and just plain made up.
@@graydanerasmussen4071 My favorite part…
Jews don’t believe Genesis is literal, it’s apostasy (I was raised Jewish, now atheist).
Jesus was a Jew, ergo Jesus didn’t believe Genesis was literal.
Thus, Christians who believe Genesis is literal hold beliefs which directly contradict those of their god Jesus.
Yes, there was supposedly a lot of water, yet no one knows where it could have come from, or where it went after and the "heat problem" would have vaporized the oceans and the vapor would have been ejected into space and then the Earth would have looked like Mars or our moon.
Thanks so much for taking the time to make these videos!
this is really fun to watch as someone who was homeschooled and taught a lot of that YEC stuff in lieu of a legitimate science education.
Lolz as if evolution isn’t a cult with no dissenters allowed…. Just like with all the Covid stuff in times of forced “science” it’s not usually the tyrants who are the good guys.
@@the-not-bigkuhrbowsky4869 where are you getting that it isn't "allowed"? it's allowed, it's just stupid and gets called out as stupid. the dissent of random people with no credentials or knowledge in those areas (covid, evolution, etc) is not legitimate or helpful. if you're upset that people don't take uneducated and educated opinions equally seriously, you're going to spend the rest of your life mad.
Never stop sharing your views! Science will prevail, always. Thanks for sharing with us! :)
If we have such big brains, why are there still creationists? Checkmate, paleoanthropologist!
Is that you, Edward?
To be fair, creationism in itself is a complex idea, far more complex than most animals could comprehend. Takes a big brain to create it, and a big brain to understand it, takes an even bigger brain to understand why it's wrong.
@@fisharepeopletoo9653 There also needs to be a lot of RAM available to constantly keep the Mental Gymnastics running...
The Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis: our big brains evolved to help us better lie to ourselves and others, navigate the social jungle, etc. Not to reason rationally about scientific questions.
We are creationalists because we have had an encounter with the living JESUS, and you need to have the same experience. JESUS taught about creation.
People will say being an athiest or accepting truth is scary or sad. I beg to differ. I find it absolutely fascinating to be able to explain reasonably to my child how things happen. To stop and ponder the absolutely astounding universe and existence of things in general is beautiful. Looking and knowing is truly what we are meant for. It's a weird concept but we are surely apart of the universe just as much as a star. Yet unlike a star we are aware of our existing. We are the consciousness of the universe. The non living inorganic becoming organic and examining itself. Understanding what we are and where we come from. Not having all the answers doesn't mean jumping to assumptions as the only reason science exists is because we chose to stop doing that.
"I ain't no monkey! I come from magic dirt and/or a rib bone!"
also,
"Life can't come from inorganic material!"
Dirt is mostly silicates and aluminum oxide! A desktop computer has more in common with dirt than a human.
You ain't no monkey you just come from originaly nothing ( or energy if you prefer) that creates a big bang which expands creates are earth it rains on the earth lightning hits it and life starts...so no you come from a rock...or if you prefer you come from nothing..or if you don't like that...you come from heat and lightning and water...but hey atleast it's not a crazy as god right? Oh wait....( Couldn't tell which side you were for so I decided to make a joke here )
@Aπωφις Aπωφις well then you better do what you want now otherwise you'll miss your chance.( Ingoreing that would mean life is pointless and meaningless.) ( Objectively of course )
@Aπωφις Aπωφις see the problem with that is.in your world veiw when everyone around you is dead and returns to dirt.an you don't believe in the after life.where will you love be then.or how about this.when you die and go back to a blank nothening.what did you love accomplish.what value did it have? even if love and save billions for a 1000 years through your actions they will all eventually die anyway and return to nothing.and you'll be forgotten.by everything and everyone an it eventually will be as if you never existed at all.nor anyone who knew you.and neither them or you will even know yourselves exsisted either..so I ask again.without god to give you a life after this one..what's the point? I'll answer it for you..no matter what answer you give your life will always be pointless and meaningless unless god exsist.. otherwise your life is futile..and this is a absolute truth.because even if we find a way to live forever are universe will die or will run out of resources to sustain things needed to keep us alive so eventually we will die no matter what we do or how long we can make are self live.and even is we find a forever energy..the universe will kill us eventually by itself.
Tim the Skeptic, As someone who believes in divine magic dirt and bones, I freely admit that there is no scientifically admissible evidence for it whatsoever. Can you prove me wrong because there is no evidence of what I believe? No. Can I prove the millions of scientists and the untold tons of scientific papers wrong? Of course not. The difference between me and YEC people is that they are not honest enough to admit that they lack scientific evidence.
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Because YEC refuse to admit that they can't prove their beliefs, they are imprisoned by their own egos, anger and fear. It's sad. They have as their manual for living such a simple and plain guide to happiness, but they reject its teachings and use it as a weapon.
I actually think it worth bothering with YEC arguments because there are young enough people who could avoid the lost time of climbing out of the pit that they could otherwise fall into without what I think is good guidance, here. So I guess the counter question would be, are those young people worth the effort. I think so. Thanks for your effort...even if you do enjoy it. I find good enthusiasm spill over to the student. ^.=.^
Hi. As someone who managed to climb oh so slowly "out of the pit" in pre-Internet days, I AGREE!
1. The heat problem 3:22
2. Transitional hominins 8:35
3. Statistics (& common ancestry) 19:05
4. The energy industry 24:56
5. Comparative genomics 27:58
There is no problem to explain every one of them.
1. There is no heat problem, because it is radio-active. Turn off the radio bit, you have no problem. We can see that saltwater reduces the radio activeness from Fukoshima powerplant and stop it from reaching the US.
2. There are none, they are made up by art graduates
3. Statistics of the unknown is bad science and building it up on likeness is not a valid argument.
4. They say anything to make it look more problematic than it is. Heat created by electric and/or magnetic movement inside stones extract oil.
5. There are more difference in DNA between men and women than between human and apes. And we consider ourselves to have a soul, and animals don't.
There are several origin stories of the making of humans. One made from wood, one made from mud.
A thousand morons show up on January 6th and the USA is under attack? What a crock of crap. During Nam we had much larger and more violent protests and some how chande occurred.
@@odd-arnedahle2173 1. Saltwater doesn't make radioactivity go away, it just absorbs it. The presence of saltwater also has no effect on radiometric dating. You can't just make heat go away.
2. The transitional hominids are in the fossil record. The Piltdown man was made by someone and in the '50s when we had better dating methods at our disposal it was debunked. Everything is dated using various techniques nowadays. They weren't made by art school grads.
3. I am unsure what you mean by "statistics of the unknown" since the statistics were based on things we know.
4. I'm going to have to correct your understanding of heat, electricity, and radioactivity. They are all the same thing in different forms. Also, I don't believe you know how we get oil.
5. I think you might be referring to the X and Y chromosomes? I don't really know what you mean by "difference in DNA between men and women" First of all, humans are apes. Secondly, "we consider ourselves to have a soul, and animals don't" is like bringing a finger pistol to a gunfight; it's imaginary. There is no evidence for souls.
@@odd-arnedahle2173 Also, you are implicating a lot of people in a conspiracy theory, which is notoriously bad for an argument. It would take a single person to be like "I just found out that we make oil, and here's how" for this whole thing to collapse. It only would take one whistleblower for it to all come crashing down.
@@odd-arnedahle2173 I don't think you are going to actually refute the evidence she provided in a few sentences. Especially when the bulk of your counterpoints are "nuh uh"
My view of this is that if a person is buying into the young earth fiction it’s usually due to a serious educational and reasoning disability that is not often casually mitigated. At my age I don’t bother to spend much time on it.
Indeed, I am currently reading a book called 'Virus of the mind'. This is an analogy of how memes affect thinking. Check it out.
Recently I saw a video about dating stalactites. It was an obvious refutation of a 6000 year old earth. Love the videos. Keep up the great work. Jim from Mexico
Haven’t you seen those pictures where stalactites grew on a pipe in an abandoned building or where a boot with the foot in it was found that had turned to rock. They might be anomalies but it just means that not everything is always exactly how we know it to be.
@@napaea9460 read a little bit more about stalactites and how they form. There are many different types of stalactites, and they form differently and at different speeds depending on the chemical composition of the water, what the water is flowing through, Etc.
Stalactites that form in caves for example, are different from the ones you are talking about. Please use your internet access to learn why. It will help you in future discussions, and prevent you from making the same errors again and again 👍
@@napaea9460 no one is dating fossiles based on an assumption of how long they take to form, various factors can change that. What is instead done is a combination of dating methods such as radiometric dating and Relative dating for example.
5:25 On this subject:
Andy Weir tried to write his book "The Martian" (and, of course, the film Ridley Scott made of it) to be as hard-science based as possible, and between detailed research and talking to readers with expertise as he published it online in serial form.
He has said that he was very proud of how grounded his story was with one exception. After Mark Watney is abandoned on Mars he doesn't have enough water to survive himself and also grow crops. He gets around that by taking some of the left over rocket fuel and burning it as a source of hydrogen, which then combined with the oxygen in his habitat to create water vapor.
A while after the book was published an actual rocket scientist got in touch. He told Weir that he loved the book, it was very accurate, but... if you burn 1/50th of a tank of rocket fuel you release like a tera-joule of energy.
That's what the fuel is for. It burns extremely exothermically. Best case scenario, it heats up his habitat to ~500°C, worst case scenario, you've essentially brought 200 tons of TNT into your Mars house.
Weir has said that it was the only thing he would go back and change if he could.
Oh, I loved that book! I loved all the crazy things this man did to survive in a Martian habitat about as well as Opportunity survived after its 90 day mission. The flexible fabric-like habitat exploding after so many uses was my favorite "dose of reality" part of the whole thing, and I _never_ considered the amount of heat the burning of rocket fuel would have produced, while trying to produce enough water for those very hardy potatoes. So cool! Maybe I should give it another read.
Meh, he could have built a heat exchanger.
Young earth creationist have one answer for everything. Miracle man.
Heat problem was a surprise to me. When I grew up as a YEC (incl science class in Christian school), the only answer I ever came across was the global flood contaminated all possible samples.
I discovered that was wrong when I learned about correlations in various radiometric tests and across labs.
With all the knowledge we have now, and the incredible ease of access to it, it's sad that some people are still ignorant enough to believe the Earth is only thousands of years old.
There are also people who believe in astrology, flat Earth, faked moon landing, JFK assassination conspiracy, the Bermuda Triangle, Feng shui, biorythms, telepathy, telekinesis, and so on. I've participated in online discussions with people who believe Velikovsky's planetary "collisions" actually happened, who deny the existence of the (so called) greenhouse effect, or who think only infrared radiation (not visible light) can transfer heat. Young Earth Creationists are made from the same mold.
An interesting confirmation that radioactive decay occurred the same in the distant past as it does today can be seen in the light curve and high energy spectrum of supernova remnants. 1987a has light curves that match the half life of expected short lived isotopes and the gamma ray spectrum for those decays. 1987a was located in the Large Magellanic Cloud that is 168,000 light years away so this sort of decay was happening as physics, and experiments, would predict that long ago. The distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud is well know and determined though a few techniques these days.
LOL supernova remnants.... stop using concepts as facts to confirm other concepts. .. Scientism on full display.
@@bobbychuckles8764 Perhaps you could explain your comment? I personally know people that saw 1987a. I know people that have watched the development of the remnant that 1987a produced. I'm not sure how a real observed thing is a "concept". Surely an observed thing is a fact.
Sure thing. No one but God knows what that light (or any other light) is in the firmament (the sky). Scientists see a unique phenomenon of light and they conceptualize its mechanisms and what it is.....
We observe phenomenon and we conceptualize explanations. Science NEVER proves anything. Its a method of explanation that strengthens our or weakens our concepts.
The intro animation is heavily underrated
How do you only have 50k subscribers? Your videos are great and you should have way more. I for one will spread the word.
I appreciate the quality of your videos.
As some have said, some will be incapable at a given time to process this material. But there are those in the middle or others with open minds who can.
I’ve come to realize that creationism, as with seemingly all apologetics, seem to exist to give the illusion that literalist-based religion lines with reality and has the virtue of openness to evidence. But openness ends when it crosses their assumptions. In the end, a destructive enterprise. All this to say you do a good work. 🙌🏻
The best part of the heat problem is that every planet made of heavier elements would have it's own "flood" event. If the decay rate change spreads out from Earth at the speed of light, we should still see exoplanets blowing up in an expanding sphere.
No you would not see any "exoplanets". Creationists believe the Universe is made of water and there is a solid roof over the Earth that keeps the water from falling on their heads. The lights on the sky like the sun and the moon are just that.
Galileo almost got burned at the stake for heresy back in 1600's for pointing a telescope up.
@@elingeniero9117 I think most of them are globe earthers these days. I'm not sure they are completely OK with the speed of light stuff though. (Creation took literally 6 days in what frame of reference?)
First time here and that intro is 10/10. 👌 The problem is creationists, and most religious people, don't care about truth. They just want to believe what they want to believe. Great video tho love the way you present information. Thx.
This is more for people who are already beginning to have doubts. It's never going to convince the hard-liners; nothing will.
I can’t wait to catch up! Thanks very much for having the time and patience!
Boy I wish I had you as a science teacher when I was in school..... Thanks for the video , I just subscribed to your channel
It's very simple: I personally created the universe, this morning just before breakfast. Including billions years of cosmological history, our solar system, our Earth including all fossils and living stuff, yes also UA-cam with all videos.
Prove me wrong if you want.
Sounds plausible 😏
I went to a fundamentalist Bible College for a little while and really all apologetics were shot to pieces by the Appearance of Age argument, that God created it all to appear old. That was the beginning of the end of my belief in any of it. What is the point in anything of any science or research if everything could have been created last Tuesday? Further, is God not deceitful in so doing? They would counter that it is not a deception since the Bible tells us what happened on one hand and then give all kinds of evidence for a young earth on the other. I gave up.
you are a jewel a gem, I love your well spoken and very knowledgeable comments on every topic you take: I hope you will live very very long and you are definitely very wise