Dunking on Frank Turek for Filler Content

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 3 тра 2022
  • He's not worth non-filler content honestly.
    Intro: The Mind Electric by Miracle Musical
    www.hawaiipartii.com/
    Outro: Point Pleasant by Brock Berrigan
    www.brockberrigan.com/
    Socials:
    gutsickgibbon@gmail.com
    @Gutsick_Gibbon
    Support the channel!
    / gutsickgibbon​
    www.redbubble.com/shop/gutsic...
  • Розваги

КОМЕНТАРІ • 764

  • @davee.9906
    @davee.9906 2 роки тому +268

    Does Frank realize that if Scientists had to consider a Supernatural being every time they did a study they would have to first figure out how many different Supernatural beings their are and that is impossible so they can only study things there is actual evidence for?

    • @thedude0000
      @thedude0000 2 роки тому +43

      All Franky thinks about is selling more books and scheduling more lectures. 💰💰💰💰

    • @proculusjulius7035
      @proculusjulius7035 2 роки тому +13

      @@thedude0000 gotta pay the bills 🙄

    • @angrydoggy9170
      @angrydoggy9170 2 роки тому +18

      I’m guessing the answer to that is 42. That’s been established.

    • @UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana
      @UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana 2 роки тому +3

      The transmissible cancers are the best candidate for the supernatural. They require multiple beliefs Frank won't like though.

    • @grrsss8335
      @grrsss8335 2 роки тому +12

      If there were supernatural creatures we would be able to study them ala ghostbusters or supernatural.

  • @shroud1390
    @shroud1390 2 роки тому +57

    I used to talk to the evangelicals. Once a guy at work exclaimed,” but Jesus loves you”. I replied, “ listen, we were both drunk and said a bunch of things we didn’t mean”.

    • @keenirr5332
      @keenirr5332 2 роки тому +6

      next time, say "Jesus loves everyone. there's a word for that"

    • @shroud1390
      @shroud1390 2 роки тому +3

      @@keenirr5332 he sees everything too and there is a word for that as well

  • @Scarecrow_Crane
    @Scarecrow_Crane 2 роки тому +117

    Erika dunking on people clears my skin and gives me life.

    • @johndemeritt3460
      @johndemeritt3460 2 роки тому

      Does that make her a goddess now? I'm sure she'll be happy to know . . . .

    • @BigFatWedge
      @BigFatWedge Рік тому

      @@johndemeritt3460 She always has been one. 😇

  • @johnnygraz4712
    @johnnygraz4712 2 роки тому +102

    We care for a number of injured and disabled parrots in my house, so the "half a wing" argument hits pretty close to home. What good is half a wing, Frank? Well, it can save you from a fall or help you jump away from a predator even if you can't achieve powered flight.
    Of course, Frank knows this. But he's got bills to pay.

    • @pi172
      @pi172 2 роки тому +4

      Omg, as a kid I loved parrots so much that I wished I could have my own one. You are living the dream of 8-year-old-me

    • @hairymcnipples
      @hairymcnipples 2 роки тому +9

      Yep. Turns out "half an eye" is just a less useful eye, which will probably become more and more useful over time. And that less useful eye is probably metabolically cheaper to grow and maybe even to use, so you may not evolve away from your half eye if it does the trick - hence the spectacular array of light sensing organs in the world.

    • @hannajung7512
      @hannajung7512 2 роки тому +3

      And it even can help, under other circumstances help to run up trees. Some ground nesting birds can do this while still baby birds.

    • @johnnygraz4712
      @johnnygraz4712 2 роки тому

      @@hannajung7512 The real story here is how absolutely dishonest scammers like Turek are. He's preying on the ignorance of his audience and hoping that they're all too lazy to do a simple google search.
      Sadly, most of them are.

    • @TheScotsalan
      @TheScotsalan 2 роки тому

      Do you have a norwegian blue non dead parrot 😂👍. Ha ha, but seriously, thats quite a commitment. I heard parrots can live for a long long time 👍

  • @alflyle9955
    @alflyle9955 2 роки тому +87

    Time to trot out one of my favorite Upton Sinclair quotes:
    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

    • @Roxor128
      @Roxor128 2 роки тому +1

      If your salary depends on you not understanding something, you should not HAVE a salary!
      Tax apologists at 200% of income.

    • @aloeidae7190
      @aloeidae7190 2 роки тому

      Oooh that's a good one.

    • @brentwalker3300
      @brentwalker3300 Рік тому

      Does that not apply to every priest or apologist?

  • @wesleypitts3787
    @wesleypitts3787 2 роки тому +72

    So he doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist, but has enough faith that all of science is wrong?
    Thats totally logical

    • @perujones2
      @perujones2 2 роки тому +8

      Also, since when does more faith = bad? I thought faith was a good thing?

    • @Raiden-the-Goat32
      @Raiden-the-Goat32 2 роки тому +4

      @@perujones2 Yeah he is actually admitted faith is bad without saying it directly.

  • @wondrousinquiry
    @wondrousinquiry 2 роки тому +37

    i think this is the only intro i genuinely watch every time

  • @EmiSuess
    @EmiSuess 2 роки тому +59

    As somebody in a same sex marriage, I can definitely say that uh... I'm not being hurt by this arrangement.
    Even love and chosen commitment aside, my marriage allows us to be financially stable in case one of us dies. Allows us rights in medical emergencies. Allows us both to be on the birth certificate in my state. The list goes on and on.
    Just... Eff off with that. We aren't hurting anyone. I'm so... Exhausted

    • @furiousfemmeyazeth3362
      @furiousfemmeyazeth3362 Рік тому

      I really despise the fallacious "arguments" Cringetians throw out. (#NotAllChristians)
      Not only have I seen it in others, but myself as well since being engaged to the love of my life has bolstered me through so many hard times.
      Let alone folks *choosing* their own gender; or so how they think at least. But that's a whole other rant that could be made ugh.

    • @weschilton
      @weschilton 11 місяців тому +2

      What Christians forget is that marriage is essentially a LEGAL arrangement. That they consider it a spiritual one is just because they co-opted it centuries ago. but of course that does not change the facts. Legal marriage should be equal and available to anyone.

    • @mhm77887
      @mhm77887 7 місяців тому +1

      @@furiousfemmeyazeth3362 I'm confused as to what you're saying

  • @michaelberman4478
    @michaelberman4478 2 роки тому +84

    I will never forget a Turek V Christopher Hitchens debate where Turek asked Hitchens, "Where does evil come from?". In less than a second Hitchens answered, "RELIGION." I don't think that Turek has brought up the subject of evil since, and that was over 10 years ago.

    • @llongone2
      @llongone2 2 роки тому +12

      I remember that! That was a two-handed, tomahawk, windmill dunk on Turek's face. Ahhhh...I miss Hitch.

    • @andydonnelly8677
      @andydonnelly8677 2 роки тому +5

      I remember that too, he once not long ago said he'd been in and won many debates, bet he forgot about that one.

    • @danielsnyder2288
      @danielsnyder2288 2 роки тому +5

      The reality is, according the "christian" worldview, religion is exactly where evil comes from. Because in their worldview, morality has to come from God, therefor evil can also only come from God or his representatives ie religion

    • @SC-vq4zc
      @SC-vq4zc 2 роки тому +8

      "I'm getting my sail from that same place you're getting your wind, sir." It was a killer blow, and Turek didn't seem to have the wit to notice.

    • @Strange9952
      @Strange9952 2 роки тому

      Um pretty sure evil exists regardless of religion, unless you think the soviets weren't evil.

  • @Sableagle
    @Sableagle 2 роки тому +84

    Turek: "Scientists presuppose that there's no intelligence out there."
    SETI: "Then what the heck are we doing here? Oh, wait. I know. We're *not presupposing that* at all. That's what we're doing here."

    • @VaughanMcCue
      @VaughanMcCue 2 роки тому

      Seti is a waste of time.
      We pay insurance as we hope we don't need it but do not presuppose we will require a payout. Could I be wrong?

    • @williamchamberlain2263
      @williamchamberlain2263 2 роки тому +5

      @@VaughanMcCue yes, you are wrong.

    • @VaughanMcCue
      @VaughanMcCue 2 роки тому

      @@williamchamberlain2263
      thanks
      what part?

    • @williamchamberlain2263
      @williamchamberlain2263 2 роки тому

      @@VaughanMcCue for insurance we _know_ that we'll require a payout _if_ the event insured against comes to pass.
      I'm not sure how the analogy relates to SETI because it's not clear whether you think that there are any alien civs out there, or whether contacting any that do exist is good or bad.

    • @VaughanMcCue
      @VaughanMcCue 2 роки тому

      @@williamchamberlain2263
      I see your point. I meant that we presuppose the payment but do not presuppose the event. I was responding to @sableagle.
      I guess SETI presups there will be an identifiable signal, so I stand corrected. I haven't considered that presup could be measured by degrees.
      I think SETI is a waste because the nearest possible source is gazillions distance.

  • @kairoshs
    @kairoshs 2 роки тому +11

    "Manga apologetics", I want to die

  • @rodneytgap5340
    @rodneytgap5340 2 роки тому +46

    God doesn't say anything. Apologists say things (and preachers and holy men). There, we're back to even, Frank. For your next verbal trick on the uneven bars, could you actually stick a landing?

  • @EdwardHowton
    @EdwardHowton 2 роки тому +25

    Dunking on charlatans like Turek is _never_ filler, except in the sense that it's a filling, hearty meal.

  • @cybitner6159
    @cybitner6159 2 роки тому +39

    I've heard lots of creationists "nail" the definition of evolution, they just won't call it evolution. They ofcourse want to see a Pine tree turn into a penguin or something like that 🤣 strange line to draw if you ask me

    • @jhill4874
      @jhill4874 2 роки тому +2

      That's because they like (need?) to redefine terms or processes to meet their own needs, not how things are.

    • @cybitner6159
      @cybitner6159 2 роки тому

      @@jhill4874 agreed, these theories are to defined, they are obvious and indisputable, the only way to fight them is to redefine them as something they are not. I'd be comical If it wasn't such a problem

  • @myoneblackfriend3151
    @myoneblackfriend3151 2 роки тому +94

    Frank: “People said that stuff in the 1970s.”
    Me: “People have been saying Jesus would come back for two thousand years.”
    Frank: “That isn’t the point.”

    • @andystokes8702
      @andystokes8702 2 роки тому +10

      Jesus himself allegedly told his disciples that he would return in their lifetime. How's that working out.

    • @keenirr5332
      @keenirr5332 2 роки тому +1

      @@andystokes8702 to be fair, God's family members (adopted and otherwise) have a very long lifespan

    • @andystokes8702
      @andystokes8702 2 роки тому +4

      @@keenirr5332 Yes, I know. Sailor boy Noah made it to over 900 and Methuselah died just 20 years shy pf making the millennium but it's been a couple of thousand years now.

    • @kamion53
      @kamion53 2 роки тому +1

      @@andystokes8702 but still they were mere babies compaired with the antediluvian kings of Sumeria, whose reigns varied between 43.000 and 18.600 years, the last was the reign of the father of the Sumerian Noah.

    • @weschilton
      @weschilton 11 місяців тому

      @@kamion53 Says WHO? Myth? PROVE IT.

  • @cathe8282
    @cathe8282 2 роки тому +35

    If we could harness the energy of the semantic gymnastics this guy does with his "Science doesn't say anything; scientists do", we'd have another global-saving energy source!

    • @RichWoods23
      @RichWoods23 2 роки тому +3

      Turek displays such wilful ignorance that in some ways it's fortunate that so many great thinkers are dead. Just think of the energy we could harness from Charles Darwin and Bertrand Russell spinning in their graves.

    • @rembrandt972ify
      @rembrandt972ify 2 роки тому +1

      If scientists could harness the energy expended in eye-rolls, the world would be a much cleaner and more sarcastic place.

    • @AnonEyeMouse
      @AnonEyeMouse 2 роки тому

      Sadly, though the twists and turns are impressively energetic, they can't carry any weight. The only reason they can behave the way they do is because they lack real substance.

  • @liarspeaksthetruth
    @liarspeaksthetruth 2 роки тому +32

    I can't bear the intellectual laziness and disohnesty of the majority of apologists. I'm convinced apologists aren't even trying to convert "unbelievers." It's all just shoring up their own entrenched position (while the sand walls keep falling in).

    • @trigonzobob
      @trigonzobob 2 роки тому +5

      and selling their books and merch

    • @freddan6fly
      @freddan6fly 2 роки тому +1

      That is where the money is, and they are only in it for the money.

    • @moloko5
      @moloko5 2 роки тому +2

      Religion offers community and belonging to sad, lonely or troubled people. The apologetics is to keep the absurd claims from alienating those already converted to the faith or having the faith forced on them as children. Almost no one is converted by thinking about it logically, and those that claim they were are usually charlatans selling books. Like this guy. The audience is folks who found a place to hang out, but are starting to suffer cognitive dissonance about talking snakes and a dude surviving being eaten by a fish. That's just scratching the surface, because if you read the parts they don't in church, this imaginary friends seems very petty, evil and outright genocidal.

  • @chiveshorses9459
    @chiveshorses9459 2 роки тому +13

    When he says marriage civilizes men, it just makes me think that his wife and the significance of marriage to his faith are the only things keeping him from being a complete garbage human being. Even then he’s still not a great human

  • @kermitthorson9719
    @kermitthorson9719 2 роки тому +7

    i went to a kinda sad petting zoo this weekend. what was cool was the emu. got just out of pecking distance from a damn therapod. anyone that can look closely at a Emu and not see a dinosaur is willfully deceiving themselves.

  • @Thoron_of_Neto
    @Thoron_of_Neto 2 роки тому +64

    I'm curious... which of the Cambrian animals was a rabbit, Frank? If 90% of body plans came into existence, surely Frank can find me something that can be called a Rabbit kind?

    • @js1423
      @js1423 2 роки тому +1

      He just reuses Meyer’s points

    • @seivaDsugnA
      @seivaDsugnA 2 роки тому

      Rabbits are inherently shifty. They play all timid, then go straight for the throat. I've seen a bunny rabbit rip a grown man's head off. That's probably Satan, or something. No one can explain it. Avoid rabbits, or anything to do with them, including study of rabbit type.

    • @Cat_Woods
      @Cat_Woods 2 роки тому

      As stupid as all creationist arguments are, that's the point I always find so shockingly counter to their own view that I can never believe they have the gall to make it. So the Cambrian explosion was the 7 days of creation, eh? Which of those Cambrian fossils is your ancestor then? The worm-like one? The sponge-like one? Was Adam a trilobite and Eve an anomalocaris? And what made Precambrian fossils in that case? Were those already in the Deep before God got there to create the heavens and the earth?

    • @rembrandt972ify
      @rembrandt972ify 2 роки тому +3

      The body plan which eventually came to include rabbits, chordata, appeared during the Cambrian. I mean there weren't even fish with jaws then or vertebrates, much less land animals, but the body plan did exist.

    • @Cat_Woods
      @Cat_Woods 2 роки тому +5

      @@rembrandt972ify "The body plan which eventually came to include rabbits, chordata, appeared during the Cambrian."
      I know. But the creationists quote that as if it's evidence for a 6-day creation. The fact so completely contradicts their narrative that their gall in making the argument is positively stunning. Yet that never stops them from further repetitions. Crystal clear proof that the only way they can continue their "world view" is by willfully avoiding any attempt to understand the science they're supposedly debunking.

  • @edgarsnake2857
    @edgarsnake2857 2 роки тому +48

    Thanks GG. Your energy for pulling these guys apart is marvelous.

    • @trigonzobob
      @trigonzobob 2 роки тому +1

      Maybe even miraculous :)

  • @RexCalliber
    @RexCalliber 2 роки тому +56

    If his point of view were accepted then no research would be done. Scientists would enter the lab, ponder the question, bump into the first problem then quit by claiming that’s where god intervened. Turek is one of the most overrated apologists in an otherwise mediocre field. There’s too many of these vids where after lecturing’ people he does the QnA where his 7th grade points are supposed to be owning his interlocutor. His micro/macro issue = of course you can walk a mile but 100 miles, that’s unpossible!! It’s all for cash, buy my merch & make Darwin cry. (Gag reflex).

    • @nenmaster5218
      @nenmaster5218 2 роки тому

      Wow, Karen-Group 'GOP' was completly destroyed by 'Some More News' just now in his newest video.

    • @matspatpc
      @matspatpc 2 роки тому +1

      Of course it is fairly common among some religious groups to use the Bible as the font of all knowledge, and "if it's not in the bible, there's no need to know it - if there was, it would be in the bibel".

    • @BGBTech
      @BGBTech 2 роки тому +2

      @@matspatpc Yeah, the harder part of being both religious and believing in science is not so much necessarily in trying to reconcile ones' views... It is trying to deal with the people that demand that everyone else take it all as literal fact, or demand that one has to believe the text is itself of supernatural origin, ..., as opposed to being what it appears to be at face value: a collection of stories, letters, and people writing about stuff they saw and experienced (with much of the rest left up to interpretation). Does lead to a certain level of uncertainty in terms of ones' own identity...

    • @andystokes8702
      @andystokes8702 2 роки тому +2

      ''Turek is one of the most overrated apologists in an otherwise mediocre field.'' Quite possibly one of the truest things ever written.

    • @BGBTech
      @BGBTech 2 роки тому

      @@andystokes8702 Yeah. From what little I saw, his arguments were... kinda pathetic.

  • @jamesdownard1510
    @jamesdownard1510 2 роки тому +12

    @43:00 the "half a wing" trope shows how inept and shallow Frank's conception is here, channeling the ID apologetics. At no point were there theropods with half an arm, and all birds are are theropods whose feathered arms takes on increased flight capacity. If he's wanted to study a new aspect, it would be the development of powerful sternum muscles that eventually allowed the evolved birds to take off from the ground in one flap.

    • @ethelredhardrede1838
      @ethelredhardrede1838 2 роки тому

      Half a weeg half a weeg half a weeg onwawed woad the six hundwed - Lowd Cawdigan

  • @timtechdude4339
    @timtechdude4339 2 роки тому +13

    Creationist scientist is an oxymoron.

    • @Cat_Woods
      @Cat_Woods 2 роки тому

      "Creationist scientist is an oxymoron."
      Only in practice, not inherently. What I mean is that if you take creationism as a hypothesis, there _could_ -- hypothetically -- be evidence for it. But this is historically what happened as science developed. Creationism was assumed, then treated as a valid hypothesis, which has since been repeatedly ruled out by the evidence. So creationist scientist is an oxymoron in practice, because of the evidence we have. But hypothetically there could have been evidence supporting creationism and ruling out evolution. There just happens to be none supporting creationism, plenty ruling out a young earth and a global flood, and overwhelming evidence supporting common descent and evolutionary mechanisms.

  • @dethspud
    @dethspud 2 роки тому +34

    Turek has never made an original argument in his life. The odds that he could come up with an original meme are astronomical.

    • @christopherknight4908
      @christopherknight4908 2 роки тому +3

      If he ever does, it could be evidence for fine-tuning.

    • @trigonzobob
      @trigonzobob 2 роки тому +5

      Frank coming up with an original meme would be a miracle.

    • @maynardmckillen9228
      @maynardmckillen9228 7 місяців тому

      ​@@trigonzobobWhich is why a belief in miracles is futile. 😂

  • @friendlyneighbourhoodsteve4087
    @friendlyneighbourhoodsteve4087 2 роки тому +34

    Yeah, scientists did get it wrong with climate change, it's happening FAR quicker than expected. We are experiencing now, what when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, was predicted to occur in 100 years time!
    So technically Frank, you are correct but it doesn't add up in favour of your argument.

    • @EdwardHowton
      @EdwardHowton 2 роки тому +4

      "Scientists are so stupid, 50 years ago they said we had a century, we ignored them because they were stupid and then we made everything worse, and now they're saying we have a decade or two! Pick a number, guys! Amirite, churchysheep LOLOLO" -Frank

    • @johndemeritt3460
      @johndemeritt3460 2 роки тому

      Better observations, measurements and models . . . it's a wonder to see what they do to the accuracy of predictions based on earlier models that didn't account for all the interconnections we observe in the real world, isn't it?

    • @friendlyneighbourhoodsteve4087
      @friendlyneighbourhoodsteve4087 2 роки тому

      @@johndemeritt3460 To Edwards point (I think), unfortunately, as a species, and global society, we did largely ignore those earlier warnings from scientists, and certainly made the situation worse for ourselves. It is one of those things that's difficult to determine empirically exactly how much worse, even so, we f@#%ed things up.
      To Johns point (I think),as good a job as scientists did with what they had decades ago, we certainly have better technologies now, better methods, better understanding, more experience, and generally better capabilities to make even more accurate predictions now.
      Apologies if I misunderstood your comment.

    • @johndemeritt3460
      @johndemeritt3460 2 роки тому +1

      @@friendlyneighbourhoodsteve4087, I think you understood my somewhat sarcastically stated point pretty well. I originally read about anthropocentric global climate change in my work toward my Master of Science degree in Studies of the Future back in the late 1990s/early 2000s. The study was written by Stanford Research Institute (SRI) back in 1983. And, of course, we had to discuss both "The Limits to Growth" and "Beyond the Limits".
      Another thing that's gotten me interest in the issue is my continuing interest in tropical cyclones. I've been influenced by them all my life. We moved from Texas City, Texas to Dickinson, Texas in 1962 -- after Hurricane Carla (which actually went ashore about 100 - 150 miles southwest) filled our house in Texas City with eight feet of mud. During my 20 years of US Air Force service, I spent 12 years as a Disaster Preparedness Technician. I later went on to serve the Heart of Texas Area Chapter of the American Red Cross as the Emergency Services Director. During my tenure, we hosted over 3500 clients in 30 shelters across five counties -- and that was just in ONE storm. Seeing how NOAA was collecting information about global sea surface temperatures had not only consistently gone up, but down as well -- the depth to which those warm waters had descended was astounding.
      In short, I'm convinced: anthropocentric global warming is real, and I'm just glad that I don't have children who're going live with the consequences of our choices.

    • @naldorgarnier
      @naldorgarnier 2 роки тому

      No it's not

  • @snaptrap5558
    @snaptrap5558 2 роки тому +6

    6:25 "Marriage civilizes men"
    Ah yes, I was a total barbarian until I hung up the reclaimed wood art in my kitchen that spells "Live Laugh Love"

    • @jackmcglion8337
      @jackmcglion8337 Рік тому +1

      Lol. Even though i do love marriage, that was a dumb argument.

    • @dolfuny
      @dolfuny 3 місяці тому +2

      How else would you know that you need to live laugh love without the sign

  • @karlazeen
    @karlazeen 2 роки тому +23

    "science can prove everything"
    "really? can you prove that statement with science"
    The laziest philosophical argument against any given position ever.

    • @stevewebber707
      @stevewebber707 2 роки тому +5

      It is lazy. But I think I can oneup it. "nuh-uh"
      It's arguably as useful and intelligent as Frank's gem of a meme.

    • @chickenpants
      @chickenpants 2 роки тому +1

      Not even an argument, just rhetorical shenanigans. He put that idea in his book with giesler. It's an awful read.
      Edit: stupid thumbs misspelling words.

    • @ethelredhardrede1838
      @ethelredhardrede1838 2 роки тому +2

      It is not even Philophan BS, its a strawman.

    • @j.c.5528
      @j.c.5528 2 роки тому

      Really? Can you make the laziest philosophical argument against any position ever with it?

    • @karlazeen
      @karlazeen 2 роки тому +5

      I'm gonna be a little bit more specific, it just really annoys me whenever someone postulates an empirical view of the world they say "well how can you prove that with itself? you can't therefore I win and have invalidated your worldview" its like c'mon man you and I both know its more complicated than a cheap shot like that.

  • @godlessrecovery8880
    @godlessrecovery8880 2 роки тому +13

    Thanks for reminding me why I mock Frank every time he posts on Twitter. He clearly failed High School chemistry when he included miracles in his methodology.

  • @Deadbloke-dk6zc
    @Deadbloke-dk6zc 2 роки тому +5

    This fucking joker's career highlight was sharing a stage with Hitchens, then getting absolutely monstered in the debate. Keep up the strong work GG.

  • @jaebird3077
    @jaebird3077 2 роки тому +6

    You seem like the smart kid in high-school that was quirky but still talked to the weird stoner kids. I mean this in a really good way haha love your videos.

  • @johnnyrepine937
    @johnnyrepine937 2 роки тому +6

    They were saying it was going to be the end times due to climate in the '70s.
    Yeah and the newly formed EPA helped offset a lot of that.
    But for some reason, conservatives want to get rid of environmental regulation because somehow that hurts big businesses, something something trickle down, something something outsourcing pollution.

  • @dethspud
    @dethspud 2 роки тому +5

    Frank Turek doesn't understand evolution for a living.

  • @simongaudin2506
    @simongaudin2506 2 роки тому +11

    Frank is funny, more funny peculiar rather than amusing mind you.

  • @Captain_Gargoyle
    @Captain_Gargoyle 2 роки тому +22

    When Frank was talking about climate change predictions being wrong, i couldn't help but think about the end time and Jesus' return.
    People have believed they see the signs of the end times since the time of Jesus....but here we still are.
    I wonder what Frank would think of that.

    • @williamchamberlain2263
      @williamchamberlain2263 2 роки тому +8

      _Jesus_ got the predictions of his return wrong, so false predictions of the second coming have an immaculate pedigree.

    • @Captain_Gargoyle
      @Captain_Gargoyle 2 роки тому +2

      @@williamchamberlain2263 lol true

    • @jimmyh6601
      @jimmyh6601 2 роки тому

      Climate change actually exists though 😉

    • @rootsnootthnute8598
      @rootsnootthnute8598 2 роки тому +3

      8 day old comment on an hour old video, what strange power do you hold, Gargoyle?

    • @angrydoggy9170
      @angrydoggy9170 2 роки тому

      Isn’t the claim made about a thousand years somewhere in the bible?

  • @thesunexpress
    @thesunexpress 2 роки тому +5

    Turek always looks & sounds like he's in way over his head.

  • @justinwatson1510
    @justinwatson1510 2 роки тому +3

    I don’t know if I’ve already commented this, but I love everything about your intro. Thank you for sharing your education with the world.

  • @erniemathews5085
    @erniemathews5085 2 роки тому +8

    Frank doesn't even steal from the best, and then misunderstands what he stole: it gets really confusing. Thanks for taking
    the time to mock this melonhead, Erika. You continue to be my favorite.

  • @mr.zafner8295
    @mr.zafner8295 6 місяців тому +1

    You had me at "dunking on Frank Turek"
    That frickin' guy

  • @spidertheateo4344
    @spidertheateo4344 2 роки тому +4

    They always shoving the God of the gaps you can’t explain it God did it

  • @destroslash321
    @destroslash321 2 роки тому +1

    Your intro song makes me so emotional every time haha I can't help but get misty eyed

  • @UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana
    @UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana 2 роки тому +4

    I remember him from his "Legion did not know" explanation video as if a demon that can control human can be bested by pigs. Dogs I would believe because of their determination and iron will, but what powers do pigs have to resist him?

  • @KianaWolf
    @KianaWolf 2 роки тому +5

    12:30 The sacrifices you have to make to tear these idiots apart... You're taking a bullet for all of our sanity, Gibs, and it's appreciated.

  • @kylejf2108
    @kylejf2108 2 роки тому

    Dang algo. I needed this three days ago. Hitting that bell

  • @archivist17
    @archivist17 2 роки тому +4

    Thanks Erika! Seems like you had a lot of fun with this one, and I did too. 😀

  • @stevewebber707
    @stevewebber707 2 роки тому +8

    Frank Turek: "scientists might be wrong."
    With the unspoken implication that he can somehow analyse the evidence and get things more right than the scientists.
    I'm with you about not wanting to dive into philosophy too deeply, But from what I've seen, I don't think Frank even gets the philosophy right.
    Oh, at 27:00 I noticed the youtube algorithm recommended a viced Rhino vid. Shoutout to the Rhino!
    As to whether it's hard to argue with Frank, debatably yes. Or at least I've seen a couple cases where someone was making a good point, and Frank cuts them short, because not enough time, or similar excuse. Frank is fairly skilled at controlling the mic to his benefit. But his venue means he gets last word I guess.

    • @warcam2592
      @warcam2592 2 роки тому

      and who proves the scientists wrong? is it preachers or *gasp* other scientists

  • @dethspud
    @dethspud 2 роки тому +4

    Ah, irreducible complexity...
    Like life never evolves from simple to complex ever.

  • @jamesdownard1510
    @jamesdownard1510 2 роки тому +2

    @31:00 Frank has to use "type" because the ID sorts run like scared rabbits from YEC baraminology, so the closest they can get is the vague fluff on typology by Michael Denton (see Evolution Slam Dunk).

  • @andresvillarreal9271
    @andresvillarreal9271 2 роки тому +4

    Correct me if I am wrong, but out of the top of my head, I have examples of breeders who have caused macro-evolution to happen, contradicting what Turek said at about 36:00. Even Wikipedia has a very long list of these experiments. The only detail is that we tend to use the word "breeder" for breeders of some species, and the word "experimenter" for breeders of other species.

  • @davecannabis
    @davecannabis 2 роки тому +2

    marriage does not make you live longer, it just makes time drag on so that it feels so much longer

  • @Saurischian
    @Saurischian 2 роки тому +6

    Early Bird Club

  • @whatshappening708
    @whatshappening708 Рік тому +1

    I literally just bought that inner fish book at half price book store!! I also got another book on paleoanthropology because your channel is so fascinating!

  • @the-nick-of-time
    @the-nick-of-time 2 роки тому +16

    It really would be a nightmare to be locked in a room with Turek and Shapiro. Just imagine all that stubborn willful ignorance concentrated in one place.
    Also the only good thing I have to say about Frank is that he's not Todd Friel.

    • @bluecollarred6912
      @bluecollarred6912 2 роки тому +4

      they're not ignorant, they're dishonest

    • @bluecollarred6912
      @bluecollarred6912 2 роки тому +2

      and probably born wealthy

    • @Lintpop
      @Lintpop 2 роки тому

      Shapiro would destroy you in any debate.

    • @js1423
      @js1423 2 роки тому +2

      Frank Turek was once in Todd Friel’s studio to promote one of his books

    • @the-nick-of-time
      @the-nick-of-time 2 роки тому +1

      @@bluecollarred6912 Agreed, *willful* ignorance is a form of dishonesty.

  • @thormunable
    @thormunable 2 роки тому +6

    ill agree it would be hard to argue with frank since he is unwilling or unable to understand evolution or science

  • @strings2864
    @strings2864 2 роки тому

    I appreciate the candor of the vid title

  • @jamesdownard1510
    @jamesdownard1510 2 роки тому +24

    Poor Frank imagines Intelligent Design is a viable and competitive model in the sciences because he takes IDers word for it, just as he does his religious Fan Fiction he channels.

  • @John.0z
    @John.0z 2 роки тому +5

    Six minutes in and Frank has made a claim that even I know to be wrong.
    The effects on lifespan of marriage has been well-studied. The confirmed conclusion is the marriage is good for men (ie longer lives) and bad for women (ie shorter lives). Associated with that study were the findings about divorce: Divorced women tend to live longer. Divorced men tend to live shorter lives.
    So bad luck Frank - the data do not support your rosy claims.

    • @chiveshorses9459
      @chiveshorses9459 2 роки тому +1

      I thought the same thing when he said that! Of course yet another Christian system only benefits men

  • @WorkingFromHomeToday452
    @WorkingFromHomeToday452 2 роки тому +1

    We need a video on this Easter bbq bonanza

  • @randolphphillips3104
    @randolphphillips3104 2 роки тому +3

    Small moment of concern when you said the party got rowdy then followed with "I was charged with...". Took a moment to realize the day and a half was about recovering from the party, not drumming up bail money. LOL.

  • @nicolasandre9886
    @nicolasandre9886 2 роки тому +2

    "Why are so many scientists evolutionists?"
    Same reason that explains so many scientists are gravitationists, or globe-Earthers for example. It just works.

  • @kensurridge9631
    @kensurridge9631 2 роки тому

    I would watch just for the intro!

  • @arndnaj
    @arndnaj 2 роки тому

    I love the honesty of the title.

  • @caleberwin65
    @caleberwin65 2 роки тому

    Gosh we love you gibbon person.

  • @JeffreyFoley1
    @JeffreyFoley1 2 роки тому +12

    You have great content!! As an evolutionary creationist--aka theistic evolutionist--I cringe when non-scientists explain science.

    • @coweatsman
      @coweatsman 2 роки тому +1

      How can you be a theistic evolutionist? OK, you don't believe in a 6 day creation or a global flood but you believe in a god and a man who came back from the dead and was seen by lots of people after he died just like Elvis was. How can a scientist believe in a soul?

    • @doloreslehmann8628
      @doloreslehmann8628 2 роки тому +5

      @@coweatsman You hear "theist" and automatically think "Christian". And from "Christian" you move on to assume specific content to it. That's a lot of preassumptions there that come out of your mind, not out the post you're commenting on.

    • @iseriver3982
      @iseriver3982 2 роки тому

      @@doloreslehmann8628 the comment literally says evolution creationist.
      Your persecution complex is showing.

    • @doloreslehmann8628
      @doloreslehmann8628 2 роки тому

      @@iseriver3982 the comment literally says "theistic evolutionist". That doesn't specify any religion nor doctrine. And the commentator referring to the 6 day creation, global flood, Jesus' resurrection and the belief in a soul clearly shows that he's assuming the original commentator to be a Christian with a certain set of beliefs that he's presupposing without the OP even mentioning it.

    • @iseriver3982
      @iseriver3982 2 роки тому

      @@doloreslehmann8628 you're a joke.

  • @OXSkuldream
    @OXSkuldream 2 роки тому

    Love this channel for the education and of course the meme humor 😅

  • @chrispitchforth621
    @chrispitchforth621 2 роки тому +3

    Frank: "they're just presupposing that god isn't real"
    Yeah, all those scientists of multiple different faiths will want to have words with you about that Fank.

  • @brianmulholland2467
    @brianmulholland2467 Рік тому +3

    I think Erika's reaction to Frank's climate change claim needs some supplementing because this strikes me as an age-thing that caused her to miss his point (such as it was). Turek is older and is talking to other older people. As an older person, let me try to fill in some gaps.
    In the mid 20th century we had a pretty strong cold cycle. This was mostly just natural cycles, but some climatologists sounded the alarm in the late 70s and early 80s that sulfates released into the atmosphere were BLOCKING incoming solar radiation and that this might be causing the cold trend. The media (yeah those guys) immediately grabbed this idea and published some VERY hyperbolic claims about how we were headed into a new ICE AGE. IIRC, the cover of Time or Newsweek had a big splash about it. It was VERY talked about. They didn't realize that even as they talked about it, the cycles were already reversing to a warming trend...one accelerated by anthropogenic forcing.
    Starting in the mid to late 80s, climatologists started trying to tell people about carbon and it's warming effect. But the ice age prediction of less than a decade earlier was still very well remembered...even though it really wasn't the consensus of climatology as a field, and was mostly the media getting out over it's skis. This was a BIG contributor to early climate skepticism. Not the only problem to be sure, but it was on alot of people's minds. Now, the good faith skeptics (I was one) kept looking at the evidence and as it improved, they came around. The bad faith skeptics (evidently including Turek) continue to flog this incident to 'prove' that these climatology people were incompetent buffoons prone to apocalyptic alarmism, when in fact it's really the media being incompetent buffoons.

  • @lightningfirst689
    @lightningfirst689 2 роки тому +2

    The Manga Apologetics shirt couldn't even get the order of the panels correct.
    Manga reads from right to left.

  • @markusbaker1161
    @markusbaker1161 20 днів тому

    Your intro is so underrated. It’s very well done 😊 the cartoons are so good. Did you draw them? If not then whoever did the editing deserved a good pay check for creativity.

  • @twalt
    @twalt 2 роки тому

    i will be sure to put this video on in the background while i do other stuff

  • @anubis63000jd
    @anubis63000jd 2 роки тому

    I love this channel.

  • @jorgerangel2390
    @jorgerangel2390 2 роки тому

    Loving the title

  • @curiousnerdkitteh
    @curiousnerdkitteh 2 роки тому +2

    "On the internet, meme theft is a serious crime." Oh damn, please team up with Legal Eagle. Seriously though, could creation scientists touting unproven theories as proven be liable for any kind of misinformation (particularly if it's in educational materials aimed at children)?

  • @phoebe_ophie
    @phoebe_ophie Рік тому

    3:13 "Vintage Easter recipes ... Oh God is that aspic? That's disgusting"
    Very relatable moment

  • @karldunnegan2689
    @karldunnegan2689 2 роки тому

    I'd never heard of the ediacaran period. I love learning stuff like that. How cool and interesting.

  • @jamesdownard1510
    @jamesdownard1510 2 роки тому +3

    I follow Turek's dithering on Twitter and make comments on his views as relevant, which usually involve him authority quoting unreliable sources as confirmation bias.

  • @dethspud
    @dethspud 2 роки тому +2

    Micro yes, Macro no?
    It's a freaking gradient, for crying out loud.
    See: Erika's color gradient chart analogy.

  • @merbst
    @merbst 2 роки тому

    Me reading title "Dunking on Frank Turek":
    Oh hell yeah I am watching!

  • @johnfinch8173
    @johnfinch8173 2 роки тому +1

    In your first video the lady asking a question is non other than the wife of Aron Ra, Lilandra Ra who asked a pertinent question only to be given a fairy dust vague untrue answer.

  • @kaylastarr7863
    @kaylastarr7863 2 роки тому

    The DeviantArt shade 😭 i wonder what the my immortal phase was

  • @jscullane1
    @jscullane1 2 роки тому +1

    CLEARLY, the universe was created when Sky Daddy ate too many hot peppers and got explosive diarrhea.

  • @Griexxt
    @Griexxt 2 роки тому +2

    According to apologists like FT here, reality is divided into two realms: the natural, and the supernatural.
    The natural is the realm where things happen in a way that is apparently bound by some fundamental rules. The supernatural realm is where apologists can just make shit up when it's convenient for their arguments.

  • @micbroc6435
    @micbroc6435 2 роки тому

    A squid that jumps out of the water. Well now I know what my next nightmare will be about.

  • @matspatpc
    @matspatpc 2 роки тому

    Pretty funny! Thanks for a few giggles on a late evening after failing to get.some computer code to do what I want it to do [I'm sure I'll get there eventually]

  • @Ruthy101
    @Ruthy101 2 роки тому +1

    Yaaas we love filler content, comments for the algorithm!!

  • @tonyhinderman
    @tonyhinderman 7 місяців тому

    I LOVE that Hoodie and the fact that you own it 😂

  • @leonmayne797
    @leonmayne797 2 роки тому

    Frank Turek's brain is evolution free in more ways than one.

  • @johndickstapleton
    @johndickstapleton Рік тому +1

    My parents had this same "these crazy people say the world is going to end from global warming in 12 years. How manipulative and evil do you have to be to tell someone the world is going to end if you don't join their belief system?" while simultaneously mentioning the tribulation every other sentence

    • @williamchamberlain2263
      @williamchamberlain2263 Місяць тому

      Basic bigotry is basic, whichever form it's expressed in
      Edit: you can see why Facebook and TokTok and etc get their hooks into those folks like that with no self-awareness. To be fair they get to all of us, just not so much so quickly

  • @Timbo6669
    @Timbo6669 2 роки тому

    Cool video...FYI - _Only_ 60% of the great barrier reef is bleached. The southern sector pretty remains untouched but the central sector suffered catastrophic bleaching. Though its still a sight to see!! Everyone should see it whilst they still can.

  • @theoutsiderhumanist8159
    @theoutsiderhumanist8159 2 роки тому

    This title's a banger.

  • @DutchJoan
    @DutchJoan 2 роки тому

    This was fun! 😃👍🏼

  • @wolfgangallanalhazred802
    @wolfgangallanalhazred802 2 роки тому +1

    25:26 That's what the kids call "epic fail"

  • @freddan6fly
    @freddan6fly 2 роки тому

    Even the most iconic apologetic is low hanging fruit.

  • @johnnyrepine937
    @johnnyrepine937 2 роки тому +1

    Just the other day I was showing hallucinogenia to a buddy because the machine race in the video game he was playing looked similar.

  • @uncleanunicorn4571
    @uncleanunicorn4571 2 роки тому +4

    So Frank, is it just biology that should factor in magical beings?, or do physicists and chemists need to put up Wards against the evil eye during their lab work?

  • @DeeDeeBaldwin
    @DeeDeeBaldwin 2 роки тому

    "10 out of 10, would hug and protect him with my life." This is why I love you, Erika.

  • @Wilsoul
    @Wilsoul 2 роки тому

    The tim allen edit kills me 😂

  • @RobertTempleton64
    @RobertTempleton64 2 роки тому +2

    Irreducible Complexity was roundly destroyed during the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial in PA (as well as being successfully shown to be incorrect by various fields of science over decades). I read Michael Behe's book. What good is part of an eye? It's good as not being any part of an eye. Plus, there are no goals. Skin flaps that lead to gliding that (may) lead to flying are not a directed evolution. It happens or doesn't.

  • @psychologicalprojectionist
    @psychologicalprojectionist 2 роки тому +2

    “Science assumes that miracles don’t happen” is priceless.
    Normal, sane people assume that miracles don’t happen. Can you imagine a defence lawyer standing up in a murder trial and saying “Did the police assume that the death of X was not just another miracle?”
    Assuming miracles happen is the gateway to madness!
    Great stuff as per usual Erika!

  • @RichardRoy2
    @RichardRoy2 2 роки тому +1

    Wait, What?! @27:25 Easter Celebration got rowdy? There'll be a video on this, right? LOL