"Dismantled" is the Most Dishonest Documentary I've Ever Seen
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 кві 2022
- Today we are summarizing the coverage of "Dismantled, A Scientific Deconstruction of Evolution" which is a documentary put out by Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research employees.
Myself, The Dapper Dinosaur and Dan of Creation Myths have been working through this thing for the past several weeks, and the episodes can be found below.
Dapper
/ dapperdinosaur
Dan
/ creationmyths
Intro: The Mind Electric by Miracle Musical
www.hawaiipartii.com/
Outro: Point Pleasant by Brock Berrigan
www.brockberrigan.com/
EPISODES:
Chimpanzee/Human Genome Similarity:
• Busting "Dismantled"| ...
The "Waiting Time Problem":
• Busting "Dismantled"| ...
Mitochondrial Eve
• Busting "Dismantled" P...
"Created Heterozygosity"
• Created Heterozygosity...
Out of Africa Vs "Out of the Middle East"
• Busting "Dismantled" P...
The FULL PLAYLIST:
• Busting "Dismantled"
Socials:
gutsickgibbon@gmail.com
@Gutsick_Gibbon
Support the channel!
/ gutsickgibbon
www.redbubble.com/people/Guts... - Розваги
It blows my mind to think that just 6 months ago I believed all that garbage I'm glad there are people like Erika out there telling the truth of the matter
@@rognavaldrtheskald6652 idk what they said but welcome to the other side. You're not alone. Be safe. It's not easy for me we've a church on most roads in town but online we're all here together.
@@cammij7595 I get in I'm from alabama so basicly everyone is Christian
@@rognavaldrtheskald6652 🤣 ditto lower Alabama here.
@@cammij7595 hell ya yee yee lol
Really? Six months ago? Would love to talk to you about that while it's fresh in your mind. But that is amazing. Just when we all want to quit youtube someone like you comes along and makes us feel like it's worth it.
Dr. Dan is absolutely correct: apologetics are a retention tool, not a conversion tool.
Why are they called apologetics? They start with an assumption that has no correlation with reality and no reason to believe so, and then bend everything in furtherance of supporting the original fallacy. The sole reason that homo became so dominant in the environment is the tool of culture. It preserves the work of the brightest and the rest copies that. That's what CRT is designed to destroy. It's effective psyops.
The best part was when they argued "even if we gave it 30 billion years, mutations are WAY too slow to account for all this diversity!" then two minutes were like "mutation is WAY too fast, it had to have happened in 6000 years!" that part actually broke me, that gave me whiplash
Or saying that humans should have been doomed since their population was just 10,000 according to evolutionists. But it was completely ok to have a population of TWO.
There is a delineation between random mutations (copying errors) that are too slow to account for diversity and the random shuffling of alleles to form a new set of dominant and recessive traits in the genotype of an embryo. Further, these random copying errors in the genome accumulate and there are not enough for humanity to be billions of years old -- it fits a shorter time span of 6-10 thousand years. But we are not claiming these copying errors create diversity, you are. That's why it's helpful to learn from the source and not base your knowledge from skeptics who don't understand the subject matter.
@@earthlyskeptic4539 Maybe you don't know a lot about why bottlenecks are bad. It has to do with dramatic loss of variety and resources available in the genome. A long consistent bottlenecking would wreck a population. One that cuts off some of that variability but the population makes a dramatic increase in size will have less long term effect. Our model can account for the bottleneck because diversity isn't dependent on random mutations.
@@wesleycolemanmusic Humans are not billions of years old, you're making a straw man. Humans diverged from our common ancestor with chimps 8 millions years ago. Also, Dr Dan Already addressed, by doing proper genetic math, how creationist are wrong about their hypothesis to explain human diversity
@@wesleycolemanmusic "it fits a shorter time span of 6-10 thousand" Stop lying.
They're all problematic, but it's Georgia that bothers me the most. She has openly stated that in getting her PhD, she just "told them what they wanted to hear" and that she doesn't believe it.
That level of intellectual dishonesty really grinds my gears.
Seriously? Where can I find that? Because wow.
@@CreationMyths - it was in one of the "Ham and AIG news" episodes on Paulogia, where he covered stuff on Answers News. I don't remember which one it was though, sorry.
@@Luubelaar That's okay, I'll find it. Thank you.
She should get her PhD revoked.
she now uses her title to establish an authoritative position that directly contradicts the science who’s integrity she swore an oath to uphold!
I mean, what even is a practical punishment for breaking the oath?
@@breakingboundaries3950 “the science she swore to uphold”, even though evolution is not science or is supported by science.
It always makes me smh to see people justify breaking their own 8th commandment by saying, "it's OK to lie if you're lying for God".
@@zogwort1522 Thou shalt not commit murder. I haven't killed anyone yet.
@@zogwort1522 You cannot murder anything that is not human.
@@zogwort1522 Look up the definition of murder, genius. I'm not interested in your definist fallacy. When you have to use a fallacy right from the start, you lose.
@@jdlech well in the name of " christianity " murder was a Nr 1 pasttime though
Not the first time I've heard this before, I heard the same thing when I was a kid.
Erika is the GOAT of intoning sarcastic quotation marks, never was there a question if she was saying scientist or "scientist"
I can't get over "Professional Creationists". Dr. Dan is too kind. Let's just call them what they are. Scam artists. Con men. And if they aren't _knowingly_ that, they're people who have fallen for it like an MLM scheme and are just clueless people who are unwittingly continuing on with the scam.
If any people are con men and scam artists are evolutionists for for forcing their religion to be taught in tax supported schools while lying to the students and tricking them to believe that there’s evidence for evolution.
"I can't get over "Professional Creationists"."
They're making a living off it, aren't they? That makes them professionals.
oh, they know.
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."
(Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)
@@jaydelgado1994 "There is no God."
Psalm 14:1
The creationists always do that thing of showing a problem stated in a book or paper, and pretending there isn't a solution. They do it with Darwin FFS, and they never stop trying to deceive their intended audience.
and then they stop. IF we granted all their arguments, we would be at square 0. Not understanding biodiversity on Earth, because they never explain magic, not even micro magic.
"Just because you can ask a question, doesn't mean there isn't an answer." - Forrest Valkai
Yes. The answer is "you're a conspiratorial, racist fucking moron if you think there's a 'problem' with the Jewish people."
I would argue that every question has an answer. Sometimes the answer is to slap a piece of bread either side of the persons head and call them an idiot sandwich "Ramsay style" for asking a question provoking the idea that a nonsensical "problem" exists with a potentially inhumane answer to said nonsensical "problem."
Sometimes, like when you ask someone something well outside of their field of knowledge, for example asking a run of the mill auto-mechanic about the biochemistry of a horses intestines, the answer should however be "I dont know."
It feels weird that back then (2 years ago to be exact), I used to avoid content like Erika’s because my peers believe in creationism and this topic isn’t something any of us can question or openly discuss. Lol given the circumstances that whatever I learned in school was basically a combination of creationism as indisputable and evolution stuff is just supplementary knowledge that function as just that. There was always a disclaimer given by the teachers, peers and even on university level, lecturers who currently teach me on postgrad level say “We believe in Allah, hence why we’re his creations but here’s evolution, we accept that but we have to believe the former”. It was weird but now I’m atheist anyways haha but I usually distance myself from this kind of topic. Knowing people in my grad school are still in denial and if I say anything to support evolution and stuff, I have to be very careful but usually it comes off as insensitive. Thanks to Erika for her continuing efforts to educate people like myself :)
I live in Morocco where almost no one, including doctors and chemists that I have met, accepts evolution.
@@jingolinx8665 yikes…that can be tough to deal with at times. I learnt that the best thing to do is to remain silent although I know it’s not a good attitude to have but knowing the people… I think it’s best to avoid conflict irl. But wish you all the best in morroco!
@@jingolinx8665 the greatest irony since the derivation of vaccines is based on evolution. Are medical schools there teaching alchemy & phrenology ? 😁
@@jingolinx8665 😱
@@lolaz.3485 I've been here 17 years. It's great and I show folks my fossil collection and gently explain my beliefs. It's okay, a few have even come round.
The reason creationists can't just accept conventional science is that it would mean their god is attempting to deceive us.
Vast majority of Christians believe evolution. No one thinks God is deceiving anyone. (Except Muslims… Quran 3:54)
@@richardhouseplantagenet6004 The reason >creationists< can't just accept conventional science.
@@richardhouseplantagenet6004 "The unbelievers planned, but God is the best of planners"? It doesn't say anything about deception.
So it's particularly fun when they make a claim that involves god being deceptive - can't imagine asynchronous speed of light coming about any other way, for example.
I had a revelation two decades ago when I asked a creationist why he kept using such unconvincing claims and arguments and he replied: "That's only because you're not convinced yet." I realized that Creationists don't care about the truth or validity of their claims, but only how convincing they sounded. As a result, not only do they never even think of trying to validate a claim, but will also continue to use a false claim WHICH THEY KNOW TO BE FALSE as long as they still think that it sounds convincing. True to form, that same creationist continued to use a false claim (sodium in the oceans) on a new forum member despite having conceded it to be false when I disproved it to him.
How exactly did you disprove the salinity in the ocean argument?
@@CaptainAbmerica The various elements and minerals in the ocean are in equilibrium, not continuing to increase indefinitely. The figures creationists used were RESIDENCE TIMES, how long a substance remains in the ocean before precipitating out, but they misinterpreted that as how long it took to get to the present levels. Even Dr. Henry Morris (co-founder of the ICR, "Father of Flood Geology", co-creator of "scientific creationism") in presenting this argument briefly regarded aluminum's residence time of one hundred (100) years, vocally wondered what that is supposed to mean, and then disregarded it since that would mean the oceans are only 100 years old and left it off his list of residence times.
This claim has been around since before 1980 and has been refuted repeatedly for just as long. And please note that it was enough for that creationist to voluntarily agree that it was false, though that didn't keep him for continuing to use it despite knowing it to be false (hence deliberately lying).
this is why aig funds 'research', so that they can say 'research show' or 'scientists say' semi honestly. they have some qualified people who are willing to use their knowledge to fabricate whatever their funder wants.
You can be honest and you can be an apologist, but you can’t be both at the same time.
Hmmm... to me, this sounds like something Aron Ra would say.
@The wanderer if you maker public statements and are routinely corrected yet still repeat the falsehood, it's a lie. Either to yourself or others.
I use a simpler version of the same fact: "all apologists are liars"
Erika, I find you adorably brilliant. Your humor infused with an incredibly high command of the English language make your posts so informative and entertaining. This is all in addition to your scientific acumen. Thank you!
50:05 What gets me is seeing the audience listening and not suspecting they're being lied to and the fact that this is literally what she can see, she is looking at those people who are trusting her to tell them the truth, while blatantly deceiving them and telling them to NOT check the sources.
I also think HER hair in that clip is the worst in Creation Science. It looks like a Lego snap-on
Creationists think they have to be sciencey because people are more educated and don't go just the "miracle" route.
More likely they do it because the sciencey words sound more convincing to the less educated.
This is evidence that science is winning. The enemies of science are forced to use the language of science to avoid looking like complete fools.
Would be great to see someone just do the genetics math in a video. Who cares how many folks can follow it, but I think more folks than we think could.
Raises hand.
All these Science v. Creationism channels NEED a math video every once in a while just for rigor. And of course to laugh at the math from "creation scientists".
@@chaotickreg7024 On my educational channel I just posted stuff on conditional probability. Bayes'Theorem is next. Hoping Godless Engineer watches and maybe a Collab regarding how Dr. Carrier's using it for mythicism.
I do a bit of math from time to time. Nothing super complicated, but just to check to see if the creationist claims check out. They never do.
Gibbons has obviously never done the math, or has and flat out lied to all of you because a human's genome is 12% longer than a chimps genome. Her "we are 95-98% genetically similar" claim literally can't be true. No matter how much she complains, she's still wrong!
It's simple.
If peer-reviewed science supported the YEC hypothesis and biblical literalism - then that would be the position adopted by ALMOST ALL scientists.
In reality, we observe that ALMOST ALL scientists vigorously dispute and actively oppose these positions.
The initial claim is thus disproved by reductio ad absurdum.
Peer-review science supports YEC models and hypotheses. There's no reason to suggest that it would be true that almost all the scientific community would adopt it. Absolutely not.
If a YEC is discovered in academia they are discriminated against.
YECs do not get funding.
YECs are lambasted in the media.
YECs are not given charity.
YEC directly relates to one's faith convictions, so there is more than merely scientific commitments and resistance.
@@wesleycolemanmusic YEC gets lambasted BECAUSE it is completely unsupported by the peer-reviewed literature.
Have you actually read any literature on the subject of geochronology in reputable journals?
I have.
@@PhDTony_original It's unsupported by the establishment peer-review processes because it is lambasted.
@@wesleycolemanmusic nonsense - and save your deranged conspiracy theories for the gullible and ignorant.
@@wesleycolemanmusic the YEC narrative is no different to the geocentric or FE narrative in the levels of scientific denialism. It's just arguing with Galileo instead of Darwin.
I think the reason they try to avoid saying "it's a miracle," is because they know the appearance of scientific backing makes their ideas more appealing. The power and popularity of science is understood even by those who wish to deny its conclusions.
I think it is because they still want to get their crap into schools, and to do that they have to pretend it is somehow related to science. They're dishonest scum.
I think it's to insert themselves into the education system. They assert that they're the ones getting the science right, therefore they have a legitimate right to be taught in classrooms. If they relied on miracles that would mean their teaching religion, not science, and the courts don't allow that to be taught. But if they can snow school boards and a few judges into believing creationism is an alternative scientific theory then they can demand that schools teach the controversy. That really raises the stakes and makes debunking the creationists an urgent project to protect our education system.
The thing that is so ridiculous is one only has to be an interested amateur, such as myself, to see how problematic 6 day creationism is. There are human cities and civilizations that date older than 6,000 CE. Jericho date back to approximately 9000 CE.
*BCE
Well, they claim that all geological dating methods are flawed and inaccurate. They don't really have any good arguments as to how that is possible, but that's their justification nonetheless. They can obfuscate all the scientific evidence that supports geologic dating methods by misrepresenting it to their viewers, but there's no way to explain how the most essential and profitable industry in the word (fossil fuel industry) manages to reliably supply oil and gas to us without any method to predict where fossil fuel deposits are. They would have to resort to a global conspiracy involving every person who works in the fossil fuel industry, so instead, they just refuse to answer any questions about it and avoid the topic entirely.
@@lewsouth1539 maybe he meant commen era and not before common era?
Yes i respond to 2 year old comments, this is funny to me
Erika's face when Dan is describing the "line drawing" method was priceless.
I swear, that's exactly how he does it. Review is Wednesday, 4/13, 9pm EDT. I'll show y'all.
I watched that part three times
These folks are ludicrous. Thank you for pointing out the sleazy tactics of these awful people.
I've never seen Lying For Jesus as a tactic worth pursuing. Why would anyone want to be persuaded by someone who has no integrity? No wonder there's a backlash, the stereotypical 'angry atheist', when people discover they've been lied to by those supposedly there to set an example of moral probity and personal honesty.
we do what we can :)
@@DapperDinosaur ,
no doubt atheists will continue to lie about this film. Liars always make up more stories to cover themselves.
@@notstayinsdowns If you see any doing so let me know! I haven't yet, but I also haven't been looking for it.
@@DapperDinosaur ,
your post proves me right.
"Creation science" now there's an oxymoron.
Ooh, the "read just the first sentence of an abstract" bit of dishonesty really gets my goat.
It's like the truncated Darwin's eye quote business.
Maddening.
>.
If they didn't have quote mines they wouldn't have any quotes. Don't be too harsh on the Lil fellas at AiG and elsewhere.
"The most dishonest creationist..." is a bold claim when there are people like Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort walking about.
FYI, night diving does require a separate certification.
But I wouldn't exactly call it impressive. 12 year olds can get certified for night dives.
Most places won't even check an adult.
So it's just, really pathetic to try and use it as a flex of any kind.
Actually as long as you have an open water cert or above you can go night diving but a specialist course is recommended for safety purposes but it is really just 3 night dives with an instructor so not exactly difficult if you're already open water certified
"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it." -- Brandolini's law.
This series has been terrific. Each of you do such a good job.
42:10 I might be off the mark here, but I have a hypothesis on why they didn’t want to make it excessively clear his involvement in GMOs. I would guess that the target audience of their documentary probably does not have fond opinions of GMOs. They could be hedging their transparency of his research in order to prevent that conflict.
I always love these factual breakdowns you share with us. I can’t help but mention the serious “Ring” vibes from the thumbnail. Made me hesitate to click before I remembered supernatural is another word for nonsense.
I want researchers to start suing young earth publications if their work is cited and thus misrepresented in any YEC publications. That’s libel.
This can backfire and there should be protections against it. "scientists" who are funded by industry do this sometimes as an intimidation tactic to silence activists.
Paternity leave is awesome because... I get to watch entire livestreams... and oh yeah I have a baby now... lmao
Congrats. Welcome to the “years fly by but the days crawl on forever” part of your life. Cherish the moments. 😀
congrats on the little one
Yeah I remember my oldest being 2 ! Then 12 , he’s 42 now . I have no idea where the time went !
..how can you be sure theres still a Baby when yiu watch streams all the time 😅
@@herzkine that's a good question! He's still in the NICU but he'll be home in a month or so. I took my paternity leave now though because I was concerned about my partner being home all day by herself without the baby SOOO here I am lol
Subscribed to these two fine channels to show them the love they deserve. Thank you very much again, Ericka for alerting us to these fine gentlemen, and for another great video.
Excellently presented! Thank you. 😊
This is Important work you are doing here! Thank you so much for taking the time.
01:28:31 I have to appreciate the fact that not only does _"Gish Gallop"_ come across to the listener as exactly what it is without them having to know anything about YEC or Duane Gish, but probably more than that is the fact that even creationists regularly (incorrectly) use the term as well.
They've tried to fire back with no ammo. My favorite is the _"Dillahunty Dodge"_ which is when you directly answer the question that they asked, but they don't like the answer so accuse you of being as dishonest as they are. It's an aspect of what I call _Cargo Cult Apologetics_ where they've seen their claims get shot down, but don't understand why and try to mime the win.
I’m loving that the ads I’m getting, during your video is for the Dismantled (not) documentary that you are systematically debunking. So your advert revenue is coming from them. That’s hilarious I’ve watched it every time it pops up. Watched in its entirety. No skipping the ads for me, not this time.
Your intro genuinely makes me unironically giggle, I love it so much, makes my day, just like your videos!
I love the intro .... love your work ... keep doing what you do plz
Just recently did the +pGLO/GFP/glowing E. Coli demo for my genetics unit (the fluorescent gene bit reminded me) and I gotta say finally getting to do some actual mad scientist shit was fun af.
Its the dishonesty of these people that bothers me the most. I grew up with many dishonest people, so I have a special contempt for such people. You basically can't have a conversation with such people.
Oh, sweet, you've got it all on a playlist, now! I can play it all together, and catch up on bits and bobs I missed the first time. Yay!
Thanks, you three! I appreciate this so very much! Give 'em hell!
I love all three channels. You guys need to get together more often.
Super stoked to be off work for this. Oodles of fun ahead
A scientist investigates the evidence to try to figure out what caused it to be there. A creationist looks at evidence to see how they can make is support the conclusion they already have. For this reason there are no creationist scientists - there are at best creationists who are highly trained in a scientific field. Can we please all stop calling them scientists?
Humans belong to the Ape kind.
Edit: Not one single like in 2 months? I thought it was pretty clever, I guess I was wrong.
Wow, I was very impressed with the discussion of the one way vs two way speed of light. The first time i heard of that proposal, it struck me as unlikely that it is indeed an unfalsifiable proposition, and I was half expecting to hear a scoffing tone that "of COURSE we've proven the speed of light is synchronous". But no! You accurately (as far as i know) indicated that the synchronous convention is equally unfalsifiable, illustrating a familiarity with the subject I did not expect from non-physicists.
Well done. I award you one Van de Graaff.
Thank you so much, all of you. It's the efforts like this that are dismantling the YEC supports. Science communicators such as yourselves are doing amazing work. It's something that will benefit society so greatly. Very much appreciated. Also, Erika, still waiting patiently for your new intro. ^.=.^
Pff we all know dinosaurs are mad up by the CIA to dissuade time travel.
and koalas.
Creationists forget that Jesus himself said "God isn't real and you're all idiots for believing in him."
Source: trust me bro, it's in the bible
LOL, that was great.
Ah yes, the book of judas.
If you're going to make a claim like that, you should include the bible verses you're referring to so people can go see for themselves. As the old saying goes, "if I had a nickel for every time someone made the claim that 'it's in the bible' I'd be a millionaire"
It's in Bophades 6:9.
you dont have to make up dumb lies, just quote the bible where Jesus says not to believe in zealots and pseudo religious Con artists in for the money alone.
Been watching you for a while now, finally decided to subscribe. thanks for what you do
Video idea: How graecopithecus does and doesn’t relate to humans
Someone saw the new phylogeny paper!
@@GutsickGibbon a link to that paper please.
hoping it is not behind a pay wall, I am just an intrested amateur, who want to keep up with the frequent new vieuws.
when I don't I get stuck with the level where Ramapithecus was still an ancester.
( featuring very prominent in the Multi-Coloured Land by Julian May)
@@kamion53 - Oh wow, I read those books in the 80s! They're great. I'm glad they are still finding an audience.
@@NotGoodAtNamingThings I read those in the 80-ties too, inprired me to find out more about the Messine saltcrisis and the Miocene/ Pliocene fauna.
@@kamion53 - I enjoyed how the Mediterranean basin was the silvery plain in that series. There was so much interesting actual history in that series.
Oh great, if you follow the Dwight / Taupin reference, I’m here for another glimpse of the madman across the water.
As an Englishman with a science education, I don’t know anybody at all who goes to church, other than for weddings and funerals, and I have never met a creationist. Do they really exist and do they actually believe this ludicrous garbage?
Yes they do exist and yes they believe what they say (or at least put up such an effective smoke screen of denial that you can't tell if they don't or not). Some of the billboards/signs you see going down the road here in the US are ridiculous.
@@TheRaptorOfGaming bro Illinois is bad they have giant crosses and shit
America is getting overrun with them. Which explains as to how and why so much is currently wrong with everything over here.
When I started university, I sincerely believed the universe was 6000 years old. I was raised in an Evangelical family in the southern part of Georgia (US.)
@@justinwatson1510 same, just WI not GA.
Regarding Dr. Sanford being titled as Plant Breeder, I believe that there could well be a large crossover between the YEC community and the anti-GMO community, so they have wanted to avoid possible connections to GMO development.
I can confirm I grew up in that insanity and they’re the cure autism with goat milk crowd a lot of the time🙄
You look so menacing in the thumbnail 0-0
I love it
It would be satisfying if THIS VIDEO received more views than the video being debunked.
One thing I appreciate is that where the creationists may have a point, you all do give them credit, but I don't think they would do the same for you and admit where you are right.
i laugh EVERY SINGLE TIME Dan says "Nathaniel Jeanson, Harvard PHD." it is never not funny.
This thumbnail is priceless! Great video again!
your intro is perfect, I love it, I've sought it out for its own merits.
To debunk or rather disprove a scientific paper, you write a new scientific paper, get it published and accepted by scientists not make a brain dead creationist lying video. Just sayin'. Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design is as much science as flat earth.
Yeah.
Actual Scientists have to present their evidence and then face peer review.
These are things that make Science a successful tool for determining physical truths.
Some Creationists have ZERO understanding of how Science ACTUALLY works.
Other Creationists are just liars.
Both types are extremely irresponsible and destructive.
Many Creationists are both things: both ignorant AND dishonest.
@@UTU49 "Many Creationists are both things: both ignorant AND dishonest." - I'd say 11 out of 10 creationists are both ignorant and dishonest.
It says two replies, but I don't see any? 🤔
@@StoutShako The algorithm is broken, and have been for a couple of months.
That is not correct. Acceptance by other scientists has nothing to do with it. Your paper is accepted when either
a) other individuals find evidence that you are correct. For example when Arno Allan Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation providing evidence of the Big Bang.
or
b) Other individuals can replicate your procedure and obtain the same results.
Creationists produce propaganda the likes of which would have made Joseph Stalin and Joseph Goebbles proud.
They are lying because they are getting paid.
Thanks for all you do!
It's kinda fun watching these three geeking out so enthusiastically.
This makes me so angry. I almost feel guilty listening to it. This must be what my mom feels like listening to Fox News
Naw u mad bc u know why it's silliness most of my family who watch fox get angry bc they see people getting 😠. Sometimes anger is the justifyably appropriate response.
@@cammij7595 Fox covers issues that anger sane people. Other news buries their heads in sand rather than cover the insanity in our public schools…
It's simple.
No evolution?. So all existing creatures were on the ark. Just how big was that thing?.
And you would need a second and third, Ark following behind to store all the food required. + All the water required.
@@earthlingandextra
Yes I realise that LOL
I’m sorry if you thought I was getting at you. I was just adding more sh*t onto their pile (not yours)
@Wolf-dog Cat-dog
Another excellent point. I’m beginning to think that maybe the whole story is made up? 🤣
Is it weird that I watch these as much for the opening? Still. Thank you GG.
Awesome work Erika and co.!! Rationality and reason ftw! :)
One thing I could recommend is maybe some sound deadening/absorption panels to cut down the echo of your voice in the audio. Just some friendly critique. Keep up the great work!
I'm ready to see Dr Dan "dismantle" the book Traced. I found out my parents have a copy
As a long retired biologist I like to see folks step up like you all and challenge in a way that would be a certain career death in my day.
Congratulations on reaching the ripe old age of three hundred?
41:05 Dr. John C Sanford's masters and doctorate are stated to be in "Plant Breeding/Plant Genetics" in his resume. Looking at this publications his doctorate work at the University of Wisconsin-Madison appears to have involved potato breeding, for example Sanford & Hanneman (1981) "The use of bees for the purpose of inter-mating in potato" American Potato Journal 58:481-485. He was also involved in a number of cultivar patents for varieties of strawberry and raspberry while at Cornell. This is unsurprising since plant breeding is the main commercial application of plant genetics.
Dr. Sanford reveals an important, or should I say devastating blow to evolution. The human genome is devolving, as each generation mutations are increasing.
American Potato Journal is exactly where I would expect Sanford to be publishing.
@interrobang8645 - There are not too many of us who know about the very useful interrobang, unfortunately.
Dear God, I love Dapper Dinosaur's cam.
I loved the thing about Dr. Snelling hiding cracks in the folds of rock formations, because it brings up one of my favorite contradictions in creationist arguments.
According to Ken Ham, there were 85 "kinds" of dinosaurs on the ark. But when were those dinosaurs fossilized, and when did they diverge into the 700+ named species known today (with more being discovered regularly, now that fossil beds in China are being explored)?
Because, if I'm remembering correctly, AiG claims that everything older than what we recognize as 2.4 billion years ago is considered to be flood geology. Which means that ALL KNOWN DINOSAUR SPECIES were buried in the flood. Even CMI, who states everything below the K-T boundary is flood geology, would have to admit this. Assuming, of course, that they were actually willing to do something other than ignoring the issue by addressing each issue in isolation and refusing to look at the overall context.
So yeah, that's just my thought on creationist contradictions.
My guess is they'd say they diversified before the flood, were fossilised in the flood, and then went extinct shortly after the flood. That way they can throw all the fossil taxa before the flood and all the current ones after.
@@Hailfire08 Problem is, that runs directly counter to Ken Ham's assertion that there were 85 dinosaur "kinds" on the ark. If they diversified before the flood then every one of the now 1,000+ (yes, the number has grown since I last looked) had to have been on the ark.
But the whole point of using "kinds" is Ken wants to limit the number of dinosaurs on the ark. He thinks he can get away with 170 (85 pairs), but not 2,000 or more.
To do that, though, he literally has to ignore his own teachings regarding the flood boundaries.
"Dapper, it's going to make you want to tear your feathers out!" - LOL! :)
Watching as one of you speaks and the other two start smiling so hard your face is about to break while nodding enthusiastically like “I KNOW! I PICKED UP ON THAT TWO!”… It warms the cockles of my heart.
When it comes to contradictory solutions for the same problems, it goes back to the old saw that one of the best reasons to tell the truth is because it's so much easier than trying to remember all your lies.
As a former Young Earth Creationist who used to follow ICR & Dr Carl Baugh, I do not really understand why AIG has boxed themselves into agreeing with the actual order of the fossil record & saying specifically which layers were created in the flood.
You guys crack me up.
Pure unabashed glee. A wink 😉,a nod,
and 3 Doctors...what could go wrong.🔮
Am i the only one who can't unsee the "dapper dan" displayed before us?
Love all three of you guys!
Thanks team, I appreciate a good dismantling.
Yeah, but can you really dismantle something that's never been properly - um - mantled?
Jason Lisle, the University of Colorado called and they want their PhD back.
You are 3 of my favorite fellow primate peeps! OK, Dapper still freaks me out a bit, probably because I can't yet rule out if he may be an alien shape-shifting lizard freak thing! (
So I was raised/homeschooled in YEC, and iirc Back 2 Genesis is a production company affiliated with AIG who sells their video materials at homeschool fairs. I remember looking at their booth at my state’s homeschool fair back in 2004-ish.
Yeah my twin brother believes that god made a flat earth by putting a firmament in-between the waters of earth and the heavens therefore no space with no kinda evidence wow.i shut him down every time by asking for one prediction using flat earth..he's also a young earth creationist.
It blows my mind that some people believe the earth is flat.
He is consistent. You got to appreciate that.
Ask him how accretion forms flat objects in space
Ask him how it can be dark in England and light in Washington state on a flat earth if the sun is above the earth.
@@drsatan9617 I told him how is the earth flat and every other planet in the solar system be spherical how..
Lack of links to actual papers as references is a instant Red Flag.
I always come for the Intro music and stay fir the content
Brilliant, informed, and hilarious!
As a huge Homestar Runner nerd, literally every time one of you mentions Dr. Tomkins, I say (out loud) "Tomkins, how do you be so short?" in the voice of the Teen Girl Squad.
BOATING MISHAP!!!1
They ALL have to resort to lying. And they know their flock won't research anything and just swallow their lies whole.
For Mr Lisle.
The more distant a galaxy is, obviously it will look younger because the light you see comes from further back in time.
The only problem with the speed of light is that galaxies aren't moving away from us faster than the speed of light, rather the space between galaxies is expanding faster than the speed of light.
When I was a kid it was explicitly stated: Teach this stuff to protect your kids from the evolutionists that long to lead them astray.
Good work, Alliteration Squad.
Adding a comment to feed the UA-cam algorithm 🙆🏼♀️💁🏼♀️🙋🏼♀️
This was great!
I really like your intro music
TL;DW YEC be crazy
To dismantle evolution one would need to prove that mutations and genetic recombination don't occur, which would then mean that all off springs are perfect clones and that all cases of mitosis are perfect. ... Which would mean that all life would go extinct in a matter of decades. I don't really understand why they want this to be the case, or maybe they just don't understand what lack of evolution would actually mean.
Thank you for this!
14:10 Hey, nice sign language use Dr. Dan! I'm close to finishing ASL 5 this semester and that is legitimately how I would describe that in ASL
Wait, so they called a thing the "Rate Project"? They should really reconsider the name. I kept hearing the T as a P. Of course that is condoned or only mildly condemned in several parts of the bible so I wouldn't put it past them.