Bad Arguments For A Young Earth | RJ-CO | Talk Heathen 04.43
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 тра 2024
- SHOW TIME-STAMPS
00:00:00 Intro
10:13 Caitlin-NE | Are Believers Happier Than Atheists?
20:34 RJ-CO | Bad Arguments For A Young Earth
43:21 Jamie-WI | How Does DNA Create Neural Pathways?
55:21 Jacob-CA | Atheist's Aren't Honest About Their Confirmation Bias
1:03:07 Amanda-(NL) | Afraid Of Dying After Experiencing Horrifying NDE's
1:18:33 Michael-MA | Remaining A Friendly Atheist And Advocate For Science
SHOW NOTES
Greetings Heathens! Hope you all are doing well, please continue to be safe out there. In today’s episode of Talk Heathen, Vi La Bianca is joined today by Dr. Darrel Ray. It’s going to be a great show!
Let’s get to calls! Caitlin in Nebraska is studying psychology and has some specific questions for Dr. Ray regarding happiness. Who as a group are the most happy, is it the religious, is it the spiritual? Dr. Ray responds, folks within a community seem to be the most happy.
RJ in Colorado is up next, claims that if you look at manmade structures, the oldest tree, and human demographics, all point to a young earth and not evolution. Why do we care and how does this prove theism is real? And he doesn’t think carbon dating is an acceptable way to gauge age. And doesn’t think it's necessary to cite sources. This is a fun call.
Jamie in Wisconsin, is curious about DNA and how it can be encoded or programs our brain development. Dr. Ray attempts to set him straight with facts!
Jacob in California wants to clear up a couple things from his previous call and wanted to call about the Atheist confirmation bias. He is just as condescending as before… but take a listen and make your own conclusions.
Amanda in the Netherlands, is wondering about the fear of hell after deconverting and experiencing some NDEs. She is hopeful we can help her with this fear and how to work through it.
Michael in Maryland would like to talk about being an anti-theist and how he is trying to not incite anger with his stance on religion. Vi breaks it down for him on how to proceed and be an ally in secular humanism to folks within religion.
That’s our show for this week, please continue to be safe in your area, wear your mask, and VOTE! The world is better with you in it. See you next week!
Call the show on Sundays 1:00pm-2:30pm CDT:
-Use your ☎ and call 1-512-991-9242
-Or use your 💻 and click tiny.cc/callth
Don't like commercials? Become a patron & get ad-free episodes & more:
/ talkheathentome
The podcast may be found at:
www.spreaker.com/show/talkhea...
Talk Heathen merch can be found at: bit.ly/aenmerch
-------
WHAT IS TALK HEATHEN?
Talk Heathen is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared toward long-form and on-going dialogue with theists & atheists about religion, theism, & secularism. Talk Heathen is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
Talk Heathen is filmed in front of a live studio audience every week at the Freethought Library of the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop & support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing & friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of government-religion separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists & to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
CONTACTS & SOCIAL MEDIA
Instagram:
Eric Murphy: Erictheheathen
Vi La Bianca: vilabianca
Twitter:
Eric Murphy: @dirtyheathen
Vi La Bianca: @AuthorConfusion
Facebook.com/talkheathen
Reddit.com/r/talkheathen
NOTES
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Ethan Meixsell "Takeoff"
/ talkheathen is the official channel of Talk Heathen. "Talk Heathen" is a trademark of the ACA.
Copyright © 2020 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
"Humans are smarter than dogs..."
Not all of them, evidently.
Chaser could've outsmarted RJ in competition.
@@UltraCasualPenguin I think RJ is more stiff competition for hamsters.
Waltham1892 pretty sure my Shiba is MUUUUUCH smarter than RJ
@@mjallen1308 granted...
It really makes me laugh when these people say I didn’t come from no monkey. They don’t do a good job of proving it.
RJ is as sharp as a bowling ball.
OUCH!!!!!!
I just cut myself on that bowling ball's sharp edge....
Lol love the expression, I'm keeping it ;)
Boy I say boy you're doing it all wrong!
@Toughen Up, Fluffy 😁
This boy’s more mixed up than a feather in a whirlwind :)
more like a medium sized asteroid :D
The oldest man-made structures we still see today doesn't make them the "first" man-made structures. It just means those are the oldest that still survived the earthquakes, floods, fires, tornados, volcanos, wars, and erosion.
or made from wood, bones, or animal hides
The first ones are bound to have been considerably smaller and more fragile, too.
@@mackhomie6 Yeah exactly. Most likely the oldest man made structure was a lean-to made out of wood and sinew. I forgive them not catching everything because he was a game of whack-a-mole.
Not to mention cave paintings and living sites that predate the earliest remaining human structures by like… tens of thousands of years
@@franktheexpertstrenchclub9025ave painting predates those structures by tens of thousands of years. Not even all were done by homosapiens.
What I learned from RJ's call is it's very important to stay in school
Or to stay as far away from HIS school as you can.
@Sean Jones same here.
@@ApostateAlloy hell yeah.
Harvard and the rest of the Ivy league schools were all founded by Protestants or Catholics. Darwin went to bible school and held no scientific degree throughout his life.
What I learned from RJ's call is that it's important to stop the Q-tip when there is resistance.
Australian aborigines have been in Australia 50,000 years. They're still waiting for the flood to arrive.
Actually there is a fascinating paper about Aboriginal stories from the Dreamtime related to sea level rise after the last ice age. It seems the stories passed down through generations mention more than once large parts of the Australian continent lost to the rising sea.
The aboriginal unbroken culture argument is dependent on oral tradition, not science. If you believe oral passdown than you should also believe in the Greek pantheon.
@@rs72098 I'm sorry. Your response to my ironic dig at creationists has passed me by?
@@minhearg8331 I think you're arguing that aborigines have been on Australia for 50,000 years, when that's based off of mere folklore. They haven't been there that long, or they would have been far more advanced and would have a huge population.
@@rs72098 No, I'm arguing that creationism is a pseudo-science dreamed up by the gullible for gullible.
I like when he says "the creationist myth makes more sense". This guy needs to record himself and play it back.
You assume he would "get it" even if he listened back ;)
"I'm just guessing" should be the way every theist call begins.
Or, "When I was a child, I had a dog..."
Evolutionists are also guessing, that's why they can't necessarily agree on an exact date that humans appeared. Their estimates are 200,000 to 400,000 years. So your idolized evolutionists are guessing as well.
@@rs72098 no they aren't. Guessing is not how science works.
@@rs72098 and you fail once again on any understanding of science.
@@rs72098 lol are you the caller?
I am awestruck by the level of patience these people have! I can't believe how uneducated otherwise functioning modern man is.
Patience is key for a discussion to be held with mental tree stumps
I doesn't appear that RJ is functioning, so this is a cicrular argument. :-)
Information overload and a lack of critical thinking is a bad possibly dangerous combination,
this is why we need to keep nationalist out of state and government and out of the school board
"They all centre 'round that Middle East area."
(Except the ones in China, India, and Central America...)
Also a lot of them center around the Middle East because it’s the “Fertile Crescent.” It’s called that for a reason, of course people wnould settle in areas with good prospects
@@lulolie China, India, and Central America societies are younger than the fertile crescent according to archeologists. That includes written languages and building structures. So you basically missed the entire point of the argument.
@@rs72098 the argument was that because most of the earliest societies were centered around the Middle East and Noah landed in the Middle East. I said that people would naturally settle in the Fertile Crescent. Your response is that Chinese, Indian, and Central American societies are younger than the Fertile Crescent, which, I will say if you meant that Fertile Crescent societies are older than other ones, then no f*cking duh, humans originated in Africa and the Fertile Crescent would have been one of the closest more arable places to settle. If you meant the actual piece of land then I’m offended that you would think I wouldn’t realize that the land and its topographical features came before societies in other places established after there were societies established in that place. The argument is only really addressing the origins of humans and society anyways, not the origin of the world.
@@lulolie The argument was for human societies, and the oldest human societies are centered around the middle east. Sumeria is in the middle east and is considered the oldest. The original post said "except for India, China" so they missed the point of the argument.
China, India and Central American societies are not older than the middle east societies. That's even according to your own atheist archeologists.
“RJ, you need to go back to school.” Couldn’t have said better.
Going back to school won't help RJ.
Some people are just beyond help, and incapable of intelligent thought.
Schools can only teach, but if the words go in one ear and out of the other, there is nothing more that schooling can do. (The words need to hit brain matter to stay in the head)
Let's face it, he would have to quadruple his IQ just to qualify as an halfwit.
The arrogance. LOL. RJ probably hung up and said, "That went well."
Many universities teach that males can become females, and there are no differences between genders. Schools can teach blatantly false science in the name of atheistic ideology.
Kinderagrten ?
His population doubling math hinges on everybody born NOT dying EVER.
And no wars, no genocide, no infertility, no homosexuality, no pandemics, no natural disasters, no food shortages and birth rates remaining consistent for thousands of years.
Nope he's actually ONLY counting living offspring. 4 children is effectively doubling the parents population, hence 4 is 2 x 2. If you count the parents it would be 6 people. Please learn how to do math.
@@rs72098 vicarbradors comment still stands then
Raise your hand if you believe that Noah was 600 years old when he built the ark.
@@adonaiabaddon93 True, but KingJustice wasn't replying to VicarBrador, so I don't see why you brought it up. I was actually going to write the same thing. It's a well established, if inaccurate, postulate that a population without limiting factors increases exponentially. What VicarBrador pointed out was that there are indeed limiting factors, so an exponential increase should not be assumed.
“Human’s ability to measure how old something is can be flawed ... but the information I found on a creationist is incontestable”
He is right on the carbon dating except.....
The study in question was INTENDED to show carbon dating doesn't work with living/recently deceased organisms. There's a reason we only use carbon dating for a certain age range, and the same for radioactive dating across the board, different half-lives mean different elements are more useful for certain time periods. The "carbon dating doesn't work" argument is based on leaving out the part that sometimes we test the limits of our tools so we figure out how to use them.
They have no idea what dating methods exist, what they test, how they work, and why they’re used. He thinks carbon dating is the only dating method.
And when you know nothing you’re saying is demonstrably true you’ve desperately got to find a way to destroy anything that could be used for said demonstration.
So, in his small mind, if he can lie and throw out the entirety of a scientific field then his emotional entitlement can be validated.
It’s like how psychics, ghost hunters, palm readers and other cons that deal in mysticism tell you that they’re the only ones to be trusted. Which is why they hated James Randy and Darren Brown. They demonstrate that these people are frauds.
RJ the creationist: "human are the smartest mammals on the planet"
Oh the irony.
naturalists will tell you that isnt a correct statement. there are different types of "intelligence," humans being highest in one form, but other animmals higher in differing kinds of intelligence.
And just imagine, this guy and people like him actually vote.
explains a lot, doesn't it?
And breed...a lot.
Interesting the Christian majority democracies have always been technologically far ahead of Atheist communist countries. Perhaps you should move to atheist North Korea, I'm sure they'll let you vote there.
@@rs72098
Except that’s not true. Most of Europe is majority secular as is the scientific community of places like the US, Israel and Japan. These places produce far more scientific break throughs than say the Islamic republicans, all of Catholic central and South America or Eastern Europe which is still mostly religious or places like North Korea which is more of a state religion of worshipping its leaders. The belief in an god or god like leader is negatively associated with free inquiry or scientific breakthroughs. Has been thruout history.
And don't allow athiests to vote in some states.
"If you times it by 2" Yup, this guy's a mathematical prodigy.
Text book example of Dunning Kruger.
Not as textbook as this one guy I talked with! He literally said that he “knew everything there is to know about evolution”, but he was so uneducated that he thought that theories turn into laws, and that the 2nd law pf thermodynamics disproves the evolutionary theory. If I had known as much as I know now, He would have lost that argument.
"I'm just guessing" the absolute best answer I've heard a theist give.
This was like VI talking to a 3 year old who swears that they did not steal the cookies from the jar whilst having cookie crumbs on their face , cookies in their hand whilst chewing cookies, cookies, cookies, and cookies everywhere and the cookie monster.
COOOOKIES!!!!!
Dang it, now I want a cookie.
lol, I like to think of it as the 3 year old explaining to its parents that Santa Claus exists and the parents trying desperately to keep a straight face
I think RJ is a perfect example of the lower band of the dunning kruger effect.
Given that the "lower band" of the Dunning-Kruger *GRAPH* is where you find the self-aware, competent individuals, there's a certain irony in *YOU* pointing the Dunning-Kruger finger at anyone, lolololol
Here's the cool thing about mistakes: they make you better. Whether you are an individual, or a concept like science; Mistakes make you learn. Mistakes means that you didn't know something, and now you do. I love mistakes.
True, and carbon dating is full of mistakes, so is modern science, which is why people should question scientists as well because they're not always correct. Especially when the math doesn't hold up.
@@rs72098 nice try. out of curiosity, by what metric are you questioning "the math," whatever "the math" means lol?
"The greatest teacher, failure is."
- Yoda
And always best to learn from other's mistakes!😊
@@rs72098 Go back to school.
"The creationist *myth* makes more sense than that..." and here we are, it's just a myth.
The isotopes of several elements are used to date different ages: Potassium 40 is for more than 20,000 years, and Uranium 238 is used for dating of more than 1 million years.
Radiocarbon dating is limited to age of less than about 60,000 years.
I'm surprised that you say 20,000 years for K-40, it has a half life of about 1000 million.
For anyone who's wondering: the snail shells thing was explained by the snails munching on plants that got their carbon from stones that had a high concentration of the wrong kind of carbon isotope, so when it got incorporated into the shells it gave the wrong ages.
Caller:
Self confidence : 10,
Basic Knowledge: 2.
Edit: "2" may be overly generous.
RJ's argument is one huge argument from ignorance and incredulity fallacy
The way he says, if you times it by two!! 😂 just shows his level of education. I believe you mean if you multiply it by two.
RJ, this was just painful. Kent Hovind, AiG, these aren't actual scientific sources. It doesn't mean they are wrong, but on their own, their claims are utter crap.
Please, educate yourself on the claims you're making because they are just so damned bad.
Indeed, Kent and AiG are Wrong in and of themselves.
You follow Charles Darwin who went to bible college with no scientific degree. Your big bang theory comes from a Catholic Priest. There are plenty of scientists and mathematicians that don't buy into the evolution theory. There are many more that don't believe it but say they do because they're afraid the atheist cult will try to snatch their degrees from them.
@@rs72098 Charles Darwin went to school to become a priest, however, that doesn't mean that his findings weren't correct. And his degree is far more relevant than Kent's diploma mill degree. But Darwin's degree is irrelevant because it is the facts that he discovered that support evolution, and we've moved far beyond what he found in his day.
And again, who cares about who discovered the Big Bang, its the evidence that is important.
And a tiny percent of scientists reject evolution.
@@rs72098 unlike others here (this is pointing at you), I dont like to paint with a broad brush. So while I dont speak for every atheist, I don't "follow" Darwin. The Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection is something I do believe, however Darwin was wrong on a fair number of things, but given the time frame we understand he didn't have the tools or knowledge we do now.
Also, a couple more rapid fire points: 1) you don't need to believe in Evolution to be an atheist. Atheism is the position on a God claim, not one's scientific beliefs 2) the current catholic Pope said that the Big Bang and Evolution are true, sounds like you need to fight the Pope first, not us. 3) the vast majority of accredited scientists believe in Evolution. 4) plain Atheism is not a belief system, therefore it literally can not be a cult.
My favorite part about the fairy tale of Noah is that his descendants, despite having first hand experience of “the one true god” would immediately abandon this “truth” and adopt the “false gods” of the dead cultures and pick up where they left off without the slightest hiccup.
Alongside the other sheer ridiculousness of nearly every aspect of that tall tale, that’s really unbelievable, considering that people’s faith in a god tends to be unshakable.
“If you could reason with religious people, they wouldn’t be religious.”-House MD
I want a TV show called Noah: The Next Generation. All of the characters would be siblings who need to fuck each other to maintain the existence of their species.
"Humans are smarter than dogs"
Listening to you is really making me question that one, RJ.
I see RJ has never heard of the issues with saltwater and freshwater fish, in addition to drowned vegetation covered with brackish water.
An excellent rebuttal to this argument about the oldest structures is to point to currently existing aboriginal tribes that still have yet to build lasting permanent structures. By the logic he gives, those primitive tribes shouldn't exist since mankind has been around for 6000 years
Are you referring to the aborigines in Australia? If you are, have you considered that they may not have reached Australia until a few thousand years prior? Their supposed unbroken culture of 75,000 years is based on ORAL PASSDOWN, not based on any scientific facts or written record keeping. They very well could've migrated from India a 1,000 years prior. If you want to use carbon dating on bones, that system has serious flaws.
@@rs72098 The logic the caller presents is that "Since the first human structures we find are only 6000 years old, then that must be how old mankind is". This of course only works on the two premises: 1. mankind inherently builds things out of stone or brick that can last forever' and 2. 'We have found the earliest of these structures.' The first premise if contradicted by the fact that there are still indigenous tribes today that haven't progressed beyond the hunter-gatherer stage and still haven't made long lasting structures. The excuse that a tribe having just moved there a few hundreds years ago wouldn't support this premise. The second premise is also unfalsifiable because its impossible to know if we have found the first building ever built. An earlier one might still be hidden somewhere or have been destroyed since then.
@@rs72098 We can use molecular data to determine when populations split from one another, either through non coding random repeats, the molecular clock which tracks single nucleotide changes on Mitochondrial DNA or Nuclear DNA.
@Josh Ash degrees mean nothing if the argument can be completely disproven by basic math.
@@rs72098 If it could be disproved with "basic math", someone smarter than you would have done so.
Did you even watch the video? None of what you are saying is original, or unique. You're basically repeating what the other guy in the video was saying.
You need to go back to school, son.
"Carbon dating is flawed." - confident about the age of man made structures in the middle East.
Assumed the oldest building found was the first building there was. Way more logical to assume prototypes and primitive buildings did not stand up to the elements for epochs.
Assumed the earliest writings founds were the earliest writings that occurred. Way more rational to think that other writing methods of basic pigments, clay, carvings etc did not survive the elements, waters and wildfires. The things that the same primitive shelters probably couldn't protect them from.
@Me Smith Those are dated off faulty carbon dating.
@wiggmortem and we have not even spoken about how Gobelki even survived, it was buried so people could not use the material to build other buildings. Gobelki was just lucky that it was buried, i suspect if it was not buried it would have gone the way other structures went, using the material to build later buildings.
I should point out: The Twin Towers were once the tallest buildings in the world. They're gone now. Does that mean they never existed?
The oldest building simply means it's the oldest one that still exists.
Yep😍
I made a birdhouse 20 years ago. It no longer exists. Its not a hard concept to comprehend but there are many defence mechanisms at work here.
"I added up all the people on a calculator and its way more than 8 billion in 2000 years."
He multiplied every generation by double, as in, every 2 parents have 4 kids one time and nobody ever dies. 😂😂😂
Wow... Just wow... This is so bad... My forehead is red from all the facepalms... "Go back to school" is right!!! Thank you, Dr. Darrel!!!
Lol this Dr. Darrel completely checked out towards the end of this call. I don't blame him; this was painful. Lmao, just heard him say Matt hung up on him, YoU DoNt SaY.
I think RJ should Google the “Dunning-Kruger effect” and attempt to develop some of that humility his faith talks about.
He's clearly conflating "oldest" man made structures with being the first made structures.
Dunning & Kruger going strong here
22:17 "My doctoral dissertation was actually on population issues" 🤣
Young Earher " I was told/read about some stuff and believed it so much so that I disagree with science because it contradicts what I want to believe."
When RJ talks about snail shells being carbon dated to 12k years makes me thing of Potholer54 when he says "oi Hovind! You can't carbon date that, theres no fking carbon in it!"
Wow....😳This guy has totally dug his head beneath the sand and goes "lalalallalalalallalalalalalalalalalalala" when actual facts and logic is being used. Unbelievable🤣🤣🤣
"Do you think all the experts in the field are mistaken and whatever you guess is somehow better"
"Exactly! You're finally getting it..."
That's pretty much the other way around. When demographic math is mentioned atheists want to pretend it doesn't exist and try to come up with reasons as to why the human race population would remain stagnant for over 300,000 years.
@@rs72098 Too bad math dont help creatards to the point your proponents have to lie about how they got the results.
Of course, that is pretending things like sickness, famine and wars didnt exist, which is totally how reality works.
I always know if someone use the "If you times it" instead of mutiply it by that they probably never took any type of college courses. And that they dont really know what they are talking about at which point I don't take them seriously. Case in point RJ from Colorado
There are trees older than the “young earth”
Dated by rings, the oldest is around 4500 years. Trees dated by carbon dating (which is faulty) is less than 9,000. Still closer to the creation story than the evolutionists view that trees are over a billion years old.
@@rs72098 Much older than your flood.
@@kathryngeeslin9509 Much younger than the evolutionists view of when tree life started.
@@rs72098 who said there are trees that are a billion years old, no one?
@@rs72098 As trees never die, and fossils are not real?
I got unbelievably happy when she mentioned Viced Rhino. I love that guy so so much. He totally deserves more subscribers.
Human progress occurred when we threw off the influence of clerics and started investigating science! The enlightenment is 300 years old, but biblical literalists are still living in the medieval period.
I made it through this video......almost gave up......This level of ignorance doesn't even surprise me anymore
You’ve done better than me. 2 minutes in and I’m losing the will to live.
One thing is ignorance.... it is the f***ing arrogance that gets me.
Believing that humans have been around for 400,000 years with a population of 7.5 billion, doubling on average every 12,000 years is *Absolute Ignorance.* You lefties probably also believe men can become women. You are the anti-science crowd, not creationists.
@@rs72098 And you believing that the earth was created I'm 6 days by some magical being, the light was there before the sun, a man was made from clay, and woman from his rib, had 2 sons and used incest (I'm assuming since there is no other logical explanation) to populate the earth, have it destroyed and flooded by this same being, leaving a family of 8 to incest the population back into existence, with only a pair of each animal on this planet that also have to incest their populations back into existence, to come all the way to a virgin to be impregnated by a "spirit" to have a savior who cannot be proven even existed but he died for your "sins" and somehow resurrected to witnesses and someday he's coming back, is the truth? I skipped a lot but the gist of it is there. If you want to trash science, you can pretty much throw out your whole life worth of possessions including the device that you used to type that response. You know, since you don't believe on science and all. Fuck outta here. Keep your faith and holy books. We'll keep our logic and reasoning
@@T_WILL77 Typical atheist response, all I read was "yip, yap I'm an atheist and blah blah blah, we're smarter than you even though we believe rocks came to life, and the universe exploded from nothing with no divine intelligent intervention whatsoever." My phone was designed with mathmatics and science, and a creator, not by evolution theory. According to evolution theory my phone could've just randomly been formed over billions of years by random metals and plastics crashing into eachother.
There's a German phrase that roughly translates to "A face in need of a fist."
Replace "face" with "voice" and you have him to a T.
Backpfeifengesicht?
@@derwolf9670 YIS, I just had to think about that specific Ärzte-song XD and now it's stuck in my head...
@@derwolf9670
That's the one
Gesicht wie ein Feuermelder? Reinschlagen und wegrennen?
Nazi, Germany had lots of phrases I suppose, they got beat down badly by American Christian war machines in WW2.
Sweet ❤️ Love Vi & Dr. Ray 😍🤩
I like this Darrel Ray guy.
US Navy Shipbuilders estimate that Noah would need a "Fleet of Arc's" the size and strength of US Air Craft Carriers in order to even fathom the task.
But God magic can't be explained by science obviously
Arks
Just imagine the 350,000 pairs of beetles that somehow managed not to get eaten or squished.
Evangelista Torricelli,whose parents at least were evidently quite Christian, proved that the weight of the entire atmosphere was less than the weight of one metre of mercury over the whole surface. This means that a global flood more than 40 feet deep couldn't happen if the entire atmosphere was water vapour.
Dunning Krueger is strong in this one!
Wow, a real genius.
Lmao at Dr. Ray's yawn at the beginning 😆
There you go...we have all learnt something.
That tone in Vi’s voice when this numpty says “carbon dating has a lot of flaws” and she responds with “oh nooo...”
i admire Vi lot!
Wow, the mental dishonesty: "Yes, I can accept with no question the dates that agree with me. Those other ones though?"
Definitely not the sharpest tool in the box
"Do you think it really took us that long to build structures or start writing?" I think it took us a long time to get to a point where we weren't constantly trying to survive and had enough free time to build "fancier" buildings and create written languages and artwork.
Right, so were we being chased by bears, lions and wolves for 190,000 years? Do you realize that even the dumbest human can create a spear out of tree branch and can outsmart and kill a lion or bear. Humans were likely everywhere in tribes. Food and land were more plentiful everywhere as well.
@@rs72098 no we were trying to find food water and not freeze to death for that long. Fancy houses and writing aren't needed for that. A cave with a fire will do.
@@nzrbroadcasting1421 Freeze to death? In Africa, Australia, Latin America and the middle east? What planet are you talking about?
@@rs72098 wow you actually think the worlds climate was the same back then as it is today? And i suppose you never heard of an ice age. During an ice age the entire planet is stuck in a constant state of winter. Not just the regions that are cold now.
@@rs72098 also noticed how you conveniently glossed over the food and water part. No wait let me guess. You think supermarkets were a thing back then as well right?
I feel ya Darrell and Vi.
Dunning-Kruger Effect, hard at work.
Fun fact:
Even at our peak, the growth rate for humanity was less than 2%, and we've tapered off since then.
We don't double up every generation, we don't even double every FIFTY generations.
Human population remained roughly unchanged for thousands of years but in the recent past century has more than doubled. Only the most uneducated people would think population growth has been at a steady rate.
Fact: The world population has doubled in the past 60 years.
@@rs72098 Thanks. I corrected my reply accordingly.
@@waxberry4 Last I checked the population is doubling every thirty years or less.
At least he acknowledged that humans are mammals. He got one tiny thing right.
I used to have high school students who openly denied that humans are animals.
@@stevepierce6467I've seen people say humans are mammals, but not animals
@@tiedeman39 And aren't mammals animals?
The caller is a magnificent example of the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon.
I just heard a grown man use the word "overtooken" and "argument from authority" in the same 10 seconds.
My drugs are better than I THOUGHT!
Holy shit.
P.S. Dr Darrel, the next time that your doctoral dissertation applies directly to the conversation being had... How "out of date" could your knowledge BE of shit that old, man?!? My primary degree is from 1991 in Telecommunications. Theory, mostly. With some 'systems analysis'- as the classes approached 500.
Have I mentioned when- effectively- my education in the field ended?
Anyway, I appreciate your humility and doubt but, deep down, I wanted to push you into him.
You were wonderful BEFORE I learned you'd been biting your tongue into mince for the previous 4 minutes!
;)
Did any of the people in his calculations die or are some of them still alive from the time of the flood?
Fun fact: Viced Rhino is an anagram for Eric Hovind. 🤫 Don't tell the Rhino you know.
I enjoy the respect between both parties.
This guy's a genius. He should be in charge of people.
This is the prime example of why good education is the potential cure for religion.
@MTB-Fritz
It's usually not. Indoctrination is a powerful thing and a high education won't necessarily throw it off without appropriate exposure to new ideas, Scepticism and atheist discussion etc.
@MTB-Fritz But to a much, much lesser degree. If you're educated, you're making money out of your "belief". If you're uneducated, you're paying money for your belief.
Education and indoctrination are 2 different things. Being highly skeptical of evolution doesn't imply that someone is uneducated.
@@rs72098 Applying things like being "skeptical" doesn't really work on things like gravity, earth not being flat and evolution. That's called ignorant.
"It's just common sense that I'm the only one to understand this" XD
I don't recall him saying he was "the only one". There are plenty of other people who understand this.
@@rs72098 Obviously my statement was about the "common sense" part. If only you and a handful of people in the world interpret reality in a certain way, contrary to science, it's extremely idiotic to call it "common sense".
It's like saying: "I use common sense to determin that the Earth is flat". No, you're using your limited perspective, ignoring thousands of years of evidence and thinking that the whole scientific community is hiding the truth to believe this absurdity. It's not common sense, it's idiotic sense.
I love this hahaha.
But telling somebody to go back to school neeever works. Haha
It's amazing that with so many resources available, a person can believe that the Earth is under ten thousand years old.
Its when your view is so blinkered nothing else makes sense.
RJ is dreaming about his Nobel Prize.🙄
"What are the other options" is a shifting of the burden of proof.
Vi: "Oh no 🤦🏻♂️"
😆🤣😆🤣😆🤣
"if you look at the oldest tree, man-made structures, and the human demographic, all of them point to a young Earth vs a... evolutionist view"
Uh, no.
First of all, drop the term "evolutionist".
Second, if you want to say evolutionary view, it can't be determined by manmade structures. Evolution is not concerned with things man has built.
Other than carbon dating, ice core in Antarctic give an insight on ancient co2 in the atmosphere.
Wow RJ didn’t even consider that those older man made structures might have not survived or maybe just maybe man used them to make their structures that did survive as the Sphinx is believed to be nowadays as it’s base seems much older than the rest of it
"R.J., have you ever read this book...?"
If there ever was an unnecessary question...
15:27 the best line😂😂😂
I’m do glad she brought up viced rhino. I love his channel. Also the argument from authority is that “something is true simply by virtue of that person being an authority”. Referring to an authority figure is not this fallacy if that authority has the data to back up their statement . Small semantic differences
Indeed there IS a God and you will kneel before Him on Judgment Day. You need to fear God if you do not believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
@@pastorpeteonthestreet3112 I will fear him once you prove he exists.
@matthew johnson you are correct. The fallacy she named was the argument from FALSE authority. It was a simple misspeak on her part but insignificant in her overall point.
@@pastorpeteonthestreet3112
You contradict your own teachings..
Is God good! If so there's nothing to fear.
Is Jesus forgivness a gift! If so then there's nothing to fear. Gifts per definition are given "freely" so if it's a gift i don't have any responsebility or even need to have to accept it.
So unless you tell me you theists got it all wrong we don't have anything to talk about.
Darwin had no scientific degree, was racist, and you atheists follow him like sheep. 🤣 THAT'S AN ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY.
Ricky Gervais wisely said “being dead is like being stupid, you don’t know about it and it’s only painful for others.” RJ was extremely painful listening.
"The Norse believe stone dwarves farted us into existence" that's a new one. And while it made me chuckle, I encourage you to look a little bit more into Asetro of you're going to use it :)
Why? Playfully describing nonsensical beliefs is good necessary fun. We must ridicule ridiculous things.
@@davidlee4903 I agree, but I also find a difference between ridicule and inaccuracy.
Let’s all forget about all the tens of thousands of scientists over the last several hundred years who have worked extensively in the fields of biology. RJ is here and has unfounded claims about how the population of humans has double every 30 years over the last five thousand years.
I have to point out that I think the caller had a point when he countered V's argument about the worldwide lack of knowledge with one about a christian majority. Not because he was right, but because i think V couldve fleshed out the meaning of a scientific consensus a little better. Its not the fact that a lot of scientists believe something, its because they have verified it independently with repeatable methods that a scientific consensus is correct. If we dont point that out, then I guess saying that" all the christians in the world cant all be wrong", is a valid rebuttal
What the hell is wrong with our education system?
“Times it by two”. Definite math genius.
I pity the poor penguins who had to travel all the way to Antarctica, collecting the bones of their fallen comrades, to not be found by archeologists in the modern age.
I'm not Professor, but presumably the oldest 'man-made structures' were made of easily destroyed materials. Wood, for example, doesn't last that long in my experience.
Exactly. And probably smaller, too. I can’t imagine human beings started out building massive structures, they were surely on the level of huts, at best.
Wood and mud, too, were likely building materials.
I doubt RJ heard himself, "creation myth".
I'm actually glad that I NEVER in my life had to bend over backwards to convince anyone of anything and make myself look like a fool. Keeping an open mind has always been my way. How do these people not feel utterly ashamed by the bullshit they're saying is beyond me
One of my favorite videos is called "Science Saved my Soul".
Carbon dating doesn't determine the age of living animals.
It actually has to do with them dating the shell of an aquatic animal, the carbon in the ocean is isolated from the source of carbon14 in the upper atmosphere as a result the amount of C14 is much much lower.
Which was the point of the paper, they didn't show carbon dating didn't work they showed that standard assumptions for C14 reservoir are not valid if the sample acquired large amounts of carbon from aquatic food sources.
Its one of those cherry picked quote mines out of context creationists love.
@@AvNotasian nice. Thanks for the info. I'll look it up. Always fascinated by science. Cheers!
The real question is: "How hard do you have to swing a hammer to cook a turkey?"
At least the answer to this question could be mathematically calculated and proved through experimentation.
Oh Jeez! Some people are so clueless, but think they have a clue... or even all the clues.
Argument from authority is also appealing to an authority and asserting theyre right because they're an authority.
That’s a tough problem to overcome. We can’t each replicate the whole scientific corpus so we have to accept the findings of authorities at least provisionally.
@@Detson404 saying they're right because they're an authority isn't the same as they're right or most likely right because their work shows them to be right or mostlikely right through positive peer review.