Things have been pretty stable lately, BUT THATS NO FUN IS IT!! I want to grow into an amorphous mass and smother the entirety of UA-cam, so please, like, share, comment, subscribe, click the bell icon and everything else that you can to get the word of sir sic out there CHEERS!
What gets me about these smug, self-righteous apologists is their dumb lack of any self-awareness. They have De Troof, and you cannot talk them into reason. At least not in a single sitting. Took me years to outgrow my Catholic Christian indoctrination, and Christians have been at each other's throats for almost 2000 years. If their religion were that obvious, why that be? Jesus allegedly called Peter his Rock, possibly meaning "dumb as."
I've come to notice that a lot of annoying Christians who go around preaching in random places haven't even encountered rudimentary levels of scrutiny. They fold when confronted with the simplest questions and start spouting vague gibberish.
It’s so funny yet so embarrassing that they are so hypocritical to say they’ve “answered” these questions and are willing to listen to these other answers atheists have given while ignoring the several good points and answers atheists have already been giving them for decades.
One of creationists favorite tricks is to ask a question whose answer is so involved that the average person can't produce the answer on their own or perhaps even understand it when it is given. Then the creationists produce their own "simple" answer: God did it. For instance, I could ask how the heart, with all its complex mechanisms, could be explained as an evolutionary process. Because the answer is very involved and difficult to understand in its full explication, I could claim that there is no plausible explanation except for "God did it." Of course, "God did it" is not an explanation at all, as it provides no account of how God did it, any more than the simplistic answer "evolution did it" provides a detailed account of how evolution did it. We can actually provide a fairly detailed explanation of the evolutionary history of the mammalian heart, but it will not be understood by the average dwerp, who may well claim that the heart is "irreducibly complex." Actually, "irreducibly complex" really means "too complex for me to understand."
@@ZoneTelevisionWe're not the ones insisting that other people grovel before our god. It's incredibly insulting, but to mention the core basis for colonialism. You can't just insult every other faith, and those without it, and then demand we treat you with respect.
Isnt zonetv a famous h-channel? I thought that lust was forbidden for you hive-minded folks who share 3 braincells between the entire hive @@ZoneTelevision
I don't understand how the atheist position of "I don't know, I don't pretend to and I'm not going to accept your answer just because you believe in it without proper proof" is so hard to comprehend for some religious people.
They never seem to get that. I just tell them, If you want to convince me your god exists, then YOU will have to convince ME. They barely ever even try because they know they don’t ANY convincing evidence. As far as they are concerned, “I don’t know?” means they automatically win, and get to declare “GAWD DID IT!” The constant fallacies and ignorance make me very sad!
so i saw SirSicCrusader with "hehe" and there was a 'translate to english' so I pressed that to see what it would do, and it became "haha" ..... LOL seriously? HeheHahahHeHA
Tbf, he says atheists must answer these questions "to be consistent"... having watched almost none of the video, I'm guessing he's going to go with some presupp bullshit. Maybe not, we'll see.
Another fact of the Cambrian explosion is that it took TEN MILLION YEARS. It wasn't a literal explosion where everything evolved in an instant, it's a long 10,000,000 year period that we called a metaphorical explosion because it was fast only relative to other evolutionary epochs.
Yep, and while when we first discovered it, many things seemed to come up then with little to nothing before that seemed related. Now, we have pre cambrain fossils of pretty much everything that pops up there. We see forms that are clearly earlier versions of the life that pops up there.
@@zogar8526 True, but after the boring billion the "explosion" itself hasn't stopped to the present day. I think (this is not my day job) scientists are discovering a lot of the "exposition" of different body types seem to have occurred in the Precambrian. Regardless we both agree it took a long time and many generation of critters.
@tomschmidt381 you seem to be confusing ideas here to some degree. Yes, evolution obviously still continues to this day. And there have been several other instances where there seem to have been fast evolutionary change. But the cambrian explosion is a specific event, and in no way continues on to this day. No way of looking at it allows that interputation. And yes, again, as I said, there are traces of what would lead to the forms we see in the cambrian before it. Though it is also true that many groups emerged in the cambrian. They didn't come from nothing obviously, but they also didn't exist as the types we know before. We can just trace their evolution and see what led to them.
When I heard the last question my first response was to think: what if you are wrong? What makes you think with the multitude of gods worshiped over the years and even within a single notion of god there are numerous sects with very different understandings of what god is and wants. What makes you sure you have managed to pick the correct one?
Yep, every time. “Submit your life to jeebus” Crimpians are all about dominance and submission. They will only ever be happy when everyone SUBMITS so they can DOMINATE THE WORLD! Well, them and Muslims. They even claim that humans are the SLAVES of their version of the Abrahamic tyrant. And make no mistake, it is a tyrant, clearly modeled on ancient human tyrants.
They always have to resort to threats and intimidation when their nonsense ""arguments"" fail as they inevitably do. It's almost as if their beliefs are ancient babble made by violent neanderthals that somehow convinced another neanderthal of it being true. 😂
I am so tired of theists claiming that it's ""blind faith"" to ""believe"" in evolution. Blind faith is what RELIGION IS. (Also, ChewTube keeps censoring my reasonable comment).
or better yet... Atheist: "I don't believe your claim in god." Christian: "Okay, then answer all of these complex questions that you need to hold five different PHD degrees in order to properly answer and make sure that you do all of my work for me..."
I can't generate any willingness to treat this apologist's arguments with any seriousness. Because... 1. He did not make a single valid argument. 2. It's fairly straightforward to demonstrate why every one of his arguments is invalid... but it would take some time... time I am unwilling to spend... on illegitimate arguments. 3. He did not raise a single argument that I have not already seen. If he doesn't like this, that's too bad.
@@UTU49 Sometimes, it seems to me, that most of the world will happily accept any argument stated as : "Because," *_*random 'blah blah blah' noises from the mouth*_* Somehow any random vocalization is taken as the last word in convincing arguments for any topic whatsoever.
They have had thousands of years to come up with evidence, good arguments and questions and they still don't have anything. They should accept the obvious already..
I just posted the same thing! I haven't seen a new question from a creationist in DECADES!!! NONE of them ever watch debates or watch or read media where every single one of these questions are refuted and answered! It's like they ask these questions and then put ear plugs in their ears and blinders on their eyes so they don't hear the answers!!! It's infuriating! It's ALWAYS the same questions!
That's because they work on people who are already Christian. So they think it's a strong argument. These aren't genuine questions. They are attempts at "gatcha". And they are very poor attempts, if I would add.
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” -- Richard Feynman
“Just because I don’t understand something, that doesn’t mean I’m willing to chalk it up to some fairy tale.” -- (TV Matt Murdoch/ Daredevil) (This is one of my all-time favorite quotes!)
It's always funny when theists bring up "murdering babies" because the old testament god was quite enamored with having his "chosen people" do that repeatedly.
Also the bible contains a recipe for inducing an abortion and instructions in how to carry out the act. It doesn't work, it's ancient superstition, but it does contain instructions on how to supposedly carry out this act. So the idea that it's forbidden is pretty ludicrous.
@@NomadSoul76 I have argued this with theists, at no point is Christianity or the "Wholly Fable" anti abortion. I personally as a long time ex Christian Atheist am pro choice but my choice is pro life so again, Atheism proves to be more moral than Theism.
He’s so serious, like he is trying to explain to his kid why mommy and daddy are going to live in two houses because mommy caught daddy and his buddy Jeff “wrestling.” The goats were there for atmosphere, they’re innocent.
Apologists are walking dunning-kreuger charts. "I'm gonna learn just enough about a bunch of sciences so that I can twist the science to support my idea and sound smart to dumb people. As long as nobody bothers to learn anything more than I did, I'm golden."
Or hell, FINISH learning the actual thing they act like they know. Like reading past a headline or completing a quotemine where they conveniently left several words out that completely changes the quote. Like how Matt Powell has been arguing the same fraction of an article for several years, deliberately ignoring all the parts that make him sound like the dribbling moron he is.
@@julietfischer5056 Or they've just gleaned these arguments from other apologists or apologist websites. The people they got their ideas from are also either ignorant or dishonest or both.
This brings up a big problem in society, in that "I don't know" is often perceived as unacceptable. You wouldn't expect a proctologist to be able to derive mass equivalency equations, so why would I expect someone who might have no formal education to define the Big Bang
I think it stems from "I don't know" is unacceptable in school tests and quizzes. Problem is, in those instances, there are correct answers. Granted depending on the subject , test writer, knowledge of the times, and other external factors on top of that the answers change over time, but I digress. The point is that the real world is not like school, "I don't know" is far more common than an actual answer if not the most common answer in general.
@@tomokolovecraft3792further more, usually they're connected. You fail a math exam, you fail math class. Does not mean "ergo the best part of Gym Class is running laps"- like what, where did that come from? What question am I exactly answering here for you?!
@@tomokolovecraft3792 There's a good reason for "I don't know" being unacceptable in school, they already taught you! I think I get what you mean though, it puts them in the mindset that they're always supposed to have answers as they're always asked questions they're supposed to already have the answers for. Add to this that religion reinforces that by telling people that they have all the answers, it literally gives them the default answer for all unknown questions: God did it.
I forget where I originally heard this, I believe it was Aron Ra or might have been Matt Dillahunty but...."Its better to be arrogant and right than to be gullible and wrong, but to be arrogant and wrong is just pathetic" To me this describes Theists, especially Young earth creationists, perfectly.
The last two brain cells trying to run in opposite directions but run in parallel and never fire off because even the internal conflict has cognitive dissonance
For me, I think the funniest/saddest part is when the guy argues that wings show "irreducible complexity", when wings are one of the strongest pieces of evidence we have that complex biological structures can evolve gradually and are not irreducible.
My favorite responses to "irreducible complexity" is "Evidently, you have never played with Lego." I cannot say whether or not it is a good response, but it is my favorite.
It’s really not even that hard to arrive to it, being upright is good, hollows bones can be good, feathers are very good on hollow bones, and generally are good, not falling fast is good, flight is very good. And that’s one of the like 3 paths to flight, one being the “flying squirrel path” that was in the video, being even simpler.
They not only fail to understand what Atheism is but how it is not by any stretch of the imagination a "World view" I personally know and know of other Atheists that believe all kinds of irrational nonsense. Does that mean belief in Bigfoot, ghosts, Chrystal power, numerology, astrology, or any number of demonstrably nonsensical notions are "World views"? Theists like this guy can't comprehend that Atheism does not have a set of tenants or rules that we are all obliged to follow. They can't even follow their own religions rules but expect us to follow some set of rules that they make up and assign to us because they want to hide their own inconsistencies by claiming we are being inconsistent regarding complete nonsense that they just pull out of their self righteous asses. Just my 2 cents on the subject.
Thats exactly why every iteration of this video uses the same ten questions, they are too stupid to understand that we have already answered them,...ad nauseum.
1:01 Why does this look like it was filmed on a soundstage dressed to look home-y, in the early 90’s, recorded on VHS?! What a flash back! I feel like I’m 10 again. 😂
If Bo Derek were back to how she was in the movie *10* ... 🤔 ... 🤤 ... 😳 ... what was the question? I had to take a sudden urgent quick ice cold shower 🫠
Stephen Jay Gould was an advocate of "punctuated equilibrium," a model of how evolution proceeds, with extended periods of little change punctuated by periods of rapid development of varieties of species, e.g., the "Cambrian Explosion." Some have suggested visualizing the idea as pumping air into a basketball. It may look like nothing is happening, but as the pressure builds there actually are small changes occurring in the structure until at some point the structure breaks and the ball bursts in a dramatic, rapid change. Gould did NOT reject, deny, or dispute evolution, just questioned the precise model in play and could be quite harsh with those who tried to suggest otherwise..
My favorite Gould qoutemine. "creationist say, "there are no transitional fossil."" They left out "creationist say," and the next sentence Gould says there are transitional fossils.
We need to have ridiculous disputes in front of them to help them see how absurd their mythological beliefs are. Like that episode of The Big Bang Theory when Penny, Bernadette, & Amy are arguing about the transitive properties in a scenario involving Thor & Hulk. "If Jesus turns water into wine, and communion wine is Jesus' blood, but Moses parts water and Jesus walks on water... then doesn’t that mean that Jesus was actually just walking on land except not really because we're all living in the matrix?!" (But use way better talking points than that.)
That last question, the arrogant assumption that if his warmed over arguments somehow convinced me there's a god that I'm going to believe it's his god. No, dude, that's a whole other hill for you to climb. And I'd argue, a much harder one.
I was raised christian and one of the big things that made me question was learning that there are wayyyyyy older religions than christianity or judaism.
Hes possibly tried that before and been hit with the numerous bible passages of God either killing, or ordering the killing, of kids for a variety of reasons. Reasons that get as petty as calling one of his buddies "Baldy".
I guess when even the teachers down there fear the invisible sky spook and all life came off a floating zoo a few thousand years ago in it's current form we can't exactly expect a lot of genius to result.
Him: "Don't attack people and just try to discredit people." Well I'll give him credit. He didn't directly attack anyone. Only misrepresented numerous topics, acted condescendingly and gaslit people, but he didn't directly attack anyone.
Forget Dogma. I don't know why any atheist ever trots that one out, because it's definitively pro-God. It just pokes fun at, well, dogma, but then says it's arrogant to question God, which it hasn't demonstrated in the first place.
@@dannyslag And the proof of God is always in the positive, beautiful things, A field of blooming flowers,Butterflies, Waterfalls etc so is he the God of Motor Neurone Disease as well? Famine? Child Pornography??
I have always found that question to be ridiculous. As far as I can tell nothing isn't even an option and the same can be said about God. Why is there God? They will say God is necessary. We can say the same about existence itself, which is basically what they are calling God anyway, they just assume it has to be conscious.
@@brianharper1611 They understand the concept of "uncreated", bc this dude said that that is how he defines god. Why can't they apply that with the universe? It's not a big leap. They want to believe, evidence doesn't matter to them.
the reducibility of bird wings comes from the fact that their immediate ancestors were tree climbers and jumpers, and would greatly benefit from a small amount of lift
Actually, there is speculation that feathered wings may have had a function in sheltering eggs and keeping them warm before they began also being used for gliding and ultimately flying. Birds often keep their eggs warm in this manner to this day. Sitting on the nest, they lower their wings to cover the sides of the nest. This nest-warming function would have been adaptive at every stage of the development of wings. Thus, the "irreducible complexity" argument about wings can be abrogated. "Irreducible complexity" really means that "I don't know what the developmental history of some trait may have been, so I'm going to say that God did it."
Actually, there is a thing that happens without a cause, sort of: radioactive decay. There is no way to tell which particle is going to decay, we just know that, for a certain mass, a certain amount of them will.
@@kellydalstok8900 "Special pleading" is one of the most pathetic examples of apologist arguments. Imagine if we tried to use special pleading in Science? "I don't have any evidence for this next part, but I DO have a little piece of cardboard, on which I have written 'This piece of cardboard awards the bearer one Free Pass in any argument.' so I'm sure you will all agree that this issue is settled." Any time someone tries to use "Because I say so" as an argument, you are well within your right to dismiss that argument. "And why exactly is God an exception? Because YOU say so? Bye, we're done here."
Funny that an atheist must be an astrophysicist, a biologist, a paleontologist, a geologist and a sociologist, but all a believer needs to do is appeal to an invisible sky man.
The thing that amuses me about these guys is that even if there was a higher power that created all this, there is no evidence it is their god that did it.
Here's another argument I like. Even if we grant them it is POSSIBLE for a benevolent creator to exist, ask them to provide evidence that all of existence was created by a SINGLE entity, rather than more than one creator. I could claim that there are 4 benevolent creators, each of which created a different part of reality. I would have no more and no less direct evidence of that claim than they do.
@@kellydalstok8900 God sounds like the brain eating amoeba. God blew into Adams nostrils "to give life", the amoeba goes through your nostrils to your brain..
Ostriches and penguins have wings, and they can't fly. Yet penguins can "fly" through the water and ostriches can scare off larger predators by appearing larger to predators.
Tbh, I have to applaud this guy, because his question about evolution showed that he actually knew what evolution is. Other apologists would shout "Have you ever seen a monkey give birth to a human?" or some similar bullshit.
Dear Mister Christian. I don't recognize you having any special authority to demand or expect me to answer your rather meaningless question. Meaningless because none of them have a thing to do with my position as an atheist. I have only one question to ask that is entirely relevant to the topic (and to which I never expect a worthwhile response): can you convince me the god you believe in actually exists?
Convincing you isn't in our power. Only you can allow yourself to be convinced and if your desire to maintain your current worldview is stronger then the strength of the arguments for God then you will never be convinced, even if they do in fact demonstrate the truth of the claim. Its a fine question but that is the correct answer.
@@blusheep2 -- I can no more convince myself than I can just randomly choose what to believe as true. I am convinced by evidence. If someone claims their god exists, and wants me to accept that claim, then they bear the burden of ponying up sufficient evidence that is so strong and stands on its own merits that it causes a paradigm shift in my view. It's not about who presents whatever evidence they think is true or sufficient that matters. It's what they can demonstrate is factual. It is sufficient if it convinces. Your response, above, is a relatively weak, preemptive excuse I have heard too many times before. It smells of an accusation of dishonesty with no reason to suspect it.
The burden of proof is on those making the claim, telling you how to live your life, stating they have all the answees, and refuse to be questioned upon pain of eternal punisnment.
One of the issues that has honestly been shocking to me - though I should have known this - is how little thought people who claim they believe in some religion (and think everyone else should follow their religion) yet know almost nothing about their own tradition and how its present iteration differs from its much earlier forms. I am focusing primarily on .christians here even though it applies to other faiths but Protestant Christians in particular hyper fixate on the “word” yet 99.8% of them have never read through the Bible. It’s painfully obvious as when they are confronted with the detritus of the Old Testament they fall apart or make vague references to the idea that certain things are just symbolic somehow… They have never long and hard about a god that issues laws that outline the acceptability of slavery and order the slaughter of babies and pregnant women that belong to the wrong group etc etc as well as declare the SA of very young women who are taken in war as long as they aren’t pregnant already perfectly acceptable. Yet they plod through their lives like robots while repeating silly old refrains yet never stopping to THINK about it (and don’t get me started on how they twist themselves into excusing the vileness of a god of “love” that does nada to alleviate suffering…
I bet you don't get many christians at your front door trying to convert you. I don't. Without sounding like I am up myself (which may be true) I am extremely intelligent and have read all of the translated holy books I could. They don't like it when you quote their own words back at them especially if you reinforce it with extraneous data (such as the conviction of John Smith as a con man). Mormons have real problems with convincing me because of a teaching they conveniently forget where there are only 100,000 places in heaven for each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The last time I was visited by them I asked how any places could be left for me or them. ''See you in hell'' I said. After I closed my front door on them I was VERY amused as they stood on my front porch for twenty minutes trying to find something in their literature that could reassure them. Then they left, and I appear to be a religious no-go zone.
This guy is clearly listening to the Discovery Institute. He names "Irreducable Complexity" from Behe, the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" from the DI... guy clearly views "Argument from Authority" as top tier stuff.
This is quite an old video, and I've seen it debunked before on other channels. However, I'm glad you covered it, as it is still making the rounds in many Christian circles. Regardless of the age, bad ideas are bad ideas, and they need to be brought to the forefront and shown for what they truly are. They are bad ideas. Plus, you make it entertaining. Thanx.
One small thing about the cambrian explosion is that the "all at once" "explosion" happened over 13 to 25 *million* years. If goddidit, he sure wasn't in a hurry.
This one is a classic. From the early days of youtube. Many atheist youtubers have made fun of it... I think Thunderf00t did it as one of his earliest wdplac videos.
Exaptation. It's literally just exaptation. Take some structure initially selected to perform one function and use it to perform a different function. As long as each step in that sequence of changes is useful _for some function,_ selection can continue to act and modify it. We literally see exactly this with bird wings in the fossil record, with feathers initially providing insulation, then allowing gliding, and eventually powered flight.
I have 10 questions every *YOUR MOM* has to answer, hah, gottem. Thanks sir sic for my roast ed 14:20 woah! I need to train way more to meet your level of roasting
14:50 He may not mention details but if he referring to what I think he is... counter with Project Steve. Project Steve also collects the signatures of scientists but only those with variations of the name Steve and who affirm evolution. The list is over half actual biologists and much longer than the creationist list.
Gould called it punctuated evolution. That’s what he meant. His hypothesis and thesis was that the fossil record showed steady states for long periods, then there were periods of rapid adaptation and change. That’s the same thing as standard evolution except with some non-linearity is in it.
I'm glad to see that someone else pointed this out. Yeah, it was a super dishonest quotemine, pretending that he was saying evolution didn't happen when he was really saying that it happened a little differently. And I tend to think he knows that he's lying, because if you look up Gould the first thing you see if "punctuated equilibria". One of the first things you see is what this was all about.
Atheists need to say and demonstrate X. How about YOU need to provide evidence that any god exists, then we can go specifically to YOUR god existing. Even if we didn't have any answers to any of these questions (And we do), it still doesn't mean sky daddy exists.
@@michaelburk9171 Probably. Not that it matters. I've seen some horrible atheist arguments as well, so I'm sure lots of those questions would fall into that category.
I love that creationists always harp on the Cambrian "Explosion" meaning so many varieties of life emerged "at the same time" but neglect to continue reading and realize that 'same time' was really over about 13 - 25 MILLION years. It's only a brief amount of time in the frame of reference to the overall existence of the earth itself.
Here's how birds became a thing First small dinosaurs evolve feathers for warmth, Then they become arboreal and have to move from tree to tree The ones with better feathers for jumping get selected They begin to glide Ones who are better at gliding survive and learn to flap Flying birds Oversimplified but still
As in the first song to use autotune? Shit drives me up the wall. Fun fact,the technologies used in autotune were originally developed for oil exploration. And that's were it shoulda stayed 😫
I love how apologists line up their "proof" as a series of questions that they don't understand. "Here's something I don't know, but seems inconsistent with my beliefs, and if you can't explain it to me, you have to admit I am right. Gotcha!"
If they allowed themselves to acknowledge, even for a moment, that what they believe might not be true, their heads would explode, and that would be messy. Also, their beliefs are what justifies their existence, and we wouldn't want to take that away from them now would we?
@@williamgreenfield9991 On the other hand questioning one's existence can lead to the kind of personal growth that turns garbage humans into almost tolerable ones. That might be worth cleaning up the occasional bloody mess. And we have whiskey to help with either outcome.
I would definitely look into this before parroting it elsewhere, but I believe it’s how Hawking radiation functions; two pairs spawn in at the event horizon, one is far enough away that it can escape the black hole, and the other is too close and gets sucked in.
Actually there is a likely explanation: The first apex-predators appeared and the Cambrian Explosion happened because of in defense against the apex-predators.
Good day to you Sir Sic. I have just discovered your channel and I'm loving it. I have also subscribed to Lady Sic's channel as well, only watched episode 1, also brilliant. Keep it up brave Night. 👍
The entire argument assumes that Atheism is a believe system. It is in fact the lack of a specific belief, in this case, belief in a deity. You really don't need to define a belief system when it doesn't exist as a belief system.
The rebuttal to the "God has always existed" answer is simple. So has all the matter of the universe. If they ask "Where did it come from?" you can answer "It didn't have to come from anywhere since it was already there" and your answer will be exactly the same level as theirs.
There are lots of complicated answer you can give about how non life becomes life. But the simplest is to just explain that life isn't anything special. It is just chemistry. It is a bit more advanced then a lot of other chemistry, but it is still just chemistry in action. Nothing about life requires anything other then chemistry to explain. They ask this thinking life is special and different, it isn't.
Elements combined into simple sugars that combined into peptides that combined into polypeptides that combined into simple proteins that combined into complex proteins such as capsomeres that combined into something a lot like virii, a nucleic acid surrounded by a protein coat called a capsid. Bingo, life! It all started there. Actually, speaking as an industrial organic chemist, it isn't all that complex to me as I would expect early life to be pretty simple.
Religious type: Do you believe in god? Me: Nop. Religious type: Then yo need to answer these questions. Me: I am most certainly not your teacher, go educate your self. Also me: Walks away.
The issue is, a lot of us wanted to believe at one point in our lives. I wanted to believe in a deity, but wanting to believe isn't enough. You either believe, or you don't. It's not a choice. I wanted to believe the Egyptians were right, because their gods were awesome. But alas, I couldn't just make myself believe.
10:00 actually, no we don't. We just need to be able to show that the changes weren't detrimental. Cause that's the neat thing about evolution: it only phases things out if they decrease survival rates.
I've never heard the "killing babies" issue posed as a food source solution before; one could write an essay on that. The basic problem is the numbers don't add up. It takes 1 woman (plus some jackass) 9 months to produce 1 baby, but the meat on that baby wouldn't feed that woman (plus the jackass) for the next 9 months while she works on the next. So you're going to need another source to supplement the baby meat. So even assuming a perfect 1 baby per woman per 9 months scenario (which is very unrealistic) it doesn't add up. Where humans have adopted cannibalism it's rarely their only sustenance. In the lost at sea/crashed airplane examples, it's a stopgap measure for desperate people, and the one eaten is usually an adult, and already dead. In cannibalistic cultures it's more a ritual about asserting dominance over a defeated enemy or consuming their courage/spirit than intended as a serious food ongoing source. In weekly cannibalistic rituals, Christians will "consume" the flesh of Christ, Catholics are told it's actually turning into flesh and blood, but then they go home and have Sunday lunch, and eat other stuff the rest of the week. Of course most of us DO eat babies, born and unborn, but of other animals. That's a whole different discussion. So ignoring the issues he thought it raised over morals and emotions, you have to crunch the numbers.
Here are the only two questions atheists must answer: Q: "Do you believe in my god(s)?" A: "Nope." Q: "Why do you not believe in my god(s)?" A: "Doesn't match reality and seems pretty silly if you think about it for more than a minute." DONE!
15:41 Oh no, Sir Sic, you seem to be unaware of the petition that this guy is referencing. He's talking about the Dissent from Darwin list which poses the statement, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Seeing those are known not to be the only two mechanisms involved, and because any scientist would agree to carefully examining evidence, it was easy for them to hook in a number of Phds in Biology who later tried to get their names removed but were ignored. Of course there are a lot of names from unrelated fields on that list, too. And a competing petition which could only be signed by Phds in the related fields with a name related to the name "Steve" has about 40% more signatures.
To be fair, it is a good idea before asking a series of stupid questions, to establish that turning those stupid questions back at you is against the rules because you say so.
Loved the accountant fixing the wall analogy 16:00... so much of an attack on me, I ducked... Yes, i'm an accountant... and yes, Sir Sic, I admit it, i ring my brother to fix the wall... but he's a carpenter. Stop attacking me mate. I know i'm an easy target, but its not cool.
Things have been pretty stable lately, BUT THATS NO FUN IS IT!! I want to grow into an amorphous mass and smother the entirety of UA-cam, so please, like, share, comment, subscribe, click the bell icon and everything else that you can to get the word of sir sic out there CHEERS!
Ah the Nugget Hypothesis, im sure its on the verge of becoming a theory
Seriously?! Do you WANT me to tank my reputation?!
Okay 😊
Amorphous mass and smothering... Have you ever read "Phantoms" by Dean Koontz? A book worth reading
You already smothered all of "Christian UA-cam" thoroughly!!!! One thing at a time mate! Oh, and I'll have a single malt with local well water please!
What gets me about these smug, self-righteous apologists is their dumb lack of any self-awareness. They have De Troof, and you cannot talk them into reason. At least not in a single sitting. Took me years to outgrow my Catholic Christian indoctrination, and Christians have been at each other's throats for almost 2000 years. If their religion were that obvious, why that be? Jesus allegedly called Peter his Rock, possibly meaning "dumb as."
Top 10 questions creationists keep asking because they pretend nobody answered them yet.
This makes me think of a series from a particular cartoon villain look in
I've come to notice that a lot of annoying Christians who go around preaching in random places haven't even encountered rudimentary levels of scrutiny. They fold when confronted with the simplest questions and start spouting vague gibberish.
It’s so funny yet so embarrassing that they are so hypocritical to say they’ve “answered” these questions and are willing to listen to these other answers atheists have given while ignoring the several good points and answers atheists have already been giving them for decades.
One of creationists favorite tricks is to ask a question whose answer is so involved that the average person can't produce the answer on their own or perhaps even understand it when it is given. Then the creationists produce their own "simple" answer: God did it.
For instance, I could ask how the heart, with all its complex mechanisms, could be explained as an evolutionary process. Because the answer is very involved and difficult to understand in its full explication, I could claim that there is no plausible explanation except for "God did it." Of course, "God did it" is not an explanation at all, as it provides no account of how God did it, any more than the simplistic answer "evolution did it" provides a detailed account of how evolution did it.
We can actually provide a fairly detailed explanation of the evolutionary history of the mammalian heart, but it will not be understood by the average dwerp, who may well claim that the heart is "irreducibly complex." Actually, "irreducibly complex" really means "too complex for me to understand."
“Don’t disrespect my disrespect for you!” -every apologist
OUCH
Funny how that works both ways.
Yea, funny how human human.
@@ZoneTelevisionWe're not the ones insisting that other people grovel before our god.
It's incredibly insulting, but to mention the core basis for colonialism.
You can't just insult every other faith, and those without it, and then demand we treat you with respect.
Isnt zonetv a famous h-channel? I thought that lust was forbidden for you hive-minded folks who share 3 braincells between the entire hive @@ZoneTelevision
I don't understand how the atheist position of "I don't know, I don't pretend to and I'm not going to accept your answer just because you believe in it without proper proof" is so hard to comprehend for some religious people.
No no, for ALL cultists, not all of them admit it
Why do they insist I answer their questions? They're the ones with proof of God, convince me.
hehe
Proof? Claims!
They never seem to get that. I just tell them, If you want to convince me your god exists, then YOU will have to convince ME.
They barely ever even try because they know they don’t ANY convincing evidence.
As far as they are concerned, “I don’t know?” means they automatically win, and get to declare “GAWD DID IT!”
The constant fallacies and ignorance make me very sad!
so i saw SirSicCrusader with "hehe" and there was a 'translate to english' so I pressed that to see what it would do, and it became "haha" ..... LOL seriously? HeheHahahHeHA
Tbf, he says atheists must answer these questions "to be consistent"... having watched almost none of the video, I'm guessing he's going to go with some presupp bullshit.
Maybe not, we'll see.
Another fact of the Cambrian explosion is that it took TEN MILLION YEARS. It wasn't a literal explosion where everything evolved in an instant, it's a long 10,000,000 year period that we called a metaphorical explosion because it was fast only relative to other evolutionary epochs.
Yep, and while when we first discovered it, many things seemed to come up then with little to nothing before that seemed related. Now, we have pre cambrain fossils of pretty much everything that pops up there. We see forms that are clearly earlier versions of the life that pops up there.
I don't disagree with your comment but just to nitpick a little it was more like 530 million years.
@@tomschmidt381 it happened 530 million years ago. The event itself lasted over around 10 million years. Two different things.
@@zogar8526 True, but after the boring billion the "explosion" itself hasn't stopped to the present day. I think (this is not my day job) scientists are discovering a lot of the "exposition" of different body types seem to have occurred in the Precambrian. Regardless we both agree it took a long time and many generation of critters.
@tomschmidt381 you seem to be confusing ideas here to some degree. Yes, evolution obviously still continues to this day. And there have been several other instances where there seem to have been fast evolutionary change. But the cambrian explosion is a specific event, and in no way continues on to this day. No way of looking at it allows that interputation.
And yes, again, as I said, there are traces of what would lead to the forms we see in the cambrian before it. Though it is also true that many groups emerged in the cambrian. They didn't come from nothing obviously, but they also didn't exist as the types we know before. We can just trace their evolution and see what led to them.
Im afraid you're wrong. It isn't a chicken nugget. It's Lisa the rainbow giraffe. Leaves be upon her. 😂
:0
Leaf be upon her
More hem
@@Stimps1983 MORE HEN!
@megatronjenkins2473 no I want more hemp
Their final 'argument' is always a threat.
When I heard the last question my first response was to think: what if you are wrong? What makes you think with the multitude of gods worshiped over the years and even within a single notion of god there are numerous sects with very different understandings of what god is and wants. What makes you sure you have managed to pick the correct one?
@@tomschmidt381 cause the Buy-bull says so! 🤤CHECKMATE ATHEISTS! Now watch me knock over the chess board.
Yep, every time.
“Submit your life to jeebus”
Crimpians are all about dominance and submission.
They will only ever be happy when everyone SUBMITS so they can DOMINATE THE WORLD!
Well, them and Muslims. They even claim that humans are the SLAVES of their version of the Abrahamic tyrant.
And make no mistake, it is a tyrant, clearly modeled on ancient human tyrants.
They always have to resort to threats and intimidation when their nonsense ""arguments"" fail as they inevitably do.
It's almost as if their beliefs are ancient babble made by violent neanderthals that somehow convinced another neanderthal of it being true. 😂
I am so tired of theists claiming that it's ""blind faith"" to ""believe"" in evolution.
Blind faith is what RELIGION IS.
(Also, ChewTube keeps censoring my reasonable comment).
Christian : If I answered all your questions satisfactorily, would you blah blah?
Atheist : Idk, do it even once for a change, and let's see.
or better yet...
Atheist: "I don't believe your claim in god."
Christian: "Okay, then answer all of these complex questions that you need to hold five different PHD degrees in order to properly answer and make sure that you do all of my work for me..."
@@dieseljester _"..."_
Atheist : "I've already done all that work, can't find god(s) anywhere.. If He wants me, he knows where to find me.."
😂🤣
@@Dr_Wrong LOL. I know, right? 😆
I can't generate any willingness to treat this apologist's arguments with any seriousness.
Because...
1. He did not make a single valid argument.
2. It's fairly straightforward to demonstrate why every one of his arguments is invalid... but it would take some time... time I am unwilling to spend... on illegitimate arguments.
3. He did not raise a single argument that I have not already seen.
If he doesn't like this, that's too bad.
@@UTU49
Sometimes, it seems to me, that most of the world will happily accept any argument stated as : "Because," *_*random 'blah blah blah' noises from the mouth*_*
Somehow any random vocalization is taken as the last word in convincing arguments for any topic whatsoever.
The same 10 questions that believers keep trot ad nausaum from someone who has never thought for himself ever
shonk
They have had thousands of years to come up with evidence, good arguments and questions and they still don't have anything. They should accept the obvious already..
@@SirSicCrusader cront?
I just posted the same thing! I haven't seen a new question from a creationist in DECADES!!! NONE of them ever watch debates or watch or read media where every single one of these questions are refuted and answered! It's like they ask these questions and then put ear plugs in their ears and blinders on their eyes so they don't hear the answers!!! It's infuriating! It's ALWAYS the same questions!
That's because they work on people who are already Christian. So they think it's a strong argument. These aren't genuine questions. They are attempts at "gatcha". And they are very poor attempts, if I would add.
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” -- Richard Feynman
“Just because I don’t understand something, that doesn’t mean I’m willing to chalk it up to some fairy tale.” -- (TV Matt Murdoch/ Daredevil) (This is one of my all-time favorite quotes!)
So great that I screen shot your comment. Call me a copycat 🙀 😂
It's always funny when theists bring up "murdering babies" because the old testament god was quite enamored with having his "chosen people" do that repeatedly.
No, they say, "murdering babies for fun," which indicates that sometimes it's okay, so long as you're not just doing it for fun. Strange.
During the biblical flood Gawd killed every child on earth as there were no children on the ark.
Also the bible contains a recipe for inducing an abortion and instructions in how to carry out the act. It doesn't work, it's ancient superstition, but it does contain instructions on how to supposedly carry out this act. So the idea that it's forbidden is pretty ludicrous.
@@NomadSoul76 I have argued this with theists, at no point is Christianity or the "Wholly Fable" anti abortion. I personally as a long time ex Christian Atheist am pro choice but my choice is pro life so again, Atheism proves to be more moral than Theism.
If you read from the Bible, it calls for people to be killed for even the smallest of things like thinking for yourself and questioning everything.
He’s so serious, like he is trying to explain to his kid why mommy and daddy are going to live in two houses because mommy caught daddy and his buddy Jeff “wrestling.”
The goats were there for atmosphere, they’re innocent.
I see
They're just normal goats. Just innocent goats.
@@bobunyun now they are fainting goats, sadly
@@4Mr.Crowley2 And one became a screaming goat for some odd reason.
No goat is ever truly innocent, not with eyes like that.
Apologists are walking dunning-kreuger charts. "I'm gonna learn just enough about a bunch of sciences so that I can twist the science to support my idea and sound smart to dumb people. As long as nobody bothers to learn anything more than I did, I'm golden."
I see
For a faith based religion they always seem to be trying to prove something...to themselves at least. *shrug*
Or hell, FINISH learning the actual thing they act like they know. Like reading past a headline or completing a quotemine where they conveniently left several words out that completely changes the quote. Like how Matt Powell has been arguing the same fraction of an article for several years, deliberately ignoring all the parts that make him sound like the dribbling moron he is.
I think a lot of them are just running on what they barely recall from high school science and health classes.
@@julietfischer5056
Or they've just gleaned these arguments from other apologists or apologist websites. The people they got their ideas from are also either ignorant or dishonest or both.
Another day, another God of the Gaps, slathered in chunky Arguments From Ignorance sauce.
weeeeeeeeeeeeeee
With a big splash of arrogance.
The microwave dinner version, it seems 👍🏽
@snooganslestat2030 and smugness like their soooo better than anyone. It's always existed a flipping war with da religious decepticons believers.
Evolution is a population event, not a member event. These geniuses just don't get it.
SHONK
One would think that they hadn't actually studied the subject. Ooof! shut my mouth!
Right?! I've heard so many apologists who seem to think that evolution occurs with individuals within the lifetime of that individual.
They don't want to get it. They can't risk losing their "divine" security blanket and magical immortality.
So you're trying to tell me that a duck can't just become a crocoduck? But Kirk Cameron said....😅
This brings up a big problem in society, in that "I don't know" is often perceived as unacceptable. You wouldn't expect a proctologist to be able to derive mass equivalency equations, so why would I expect someone who might have no formal education to define the Big Bang
shonk
I think it stems from "I don't know" is unacceptable in school tests and quizzes. Problem is, in those instances, there are correct answers. Granted depending on the subject , test writer, knowledge of the times, and other external factors on top of that the answers change over time, but I digress.
The point is that the real world is not like school, "I don't know" is far more common than an actual answer if not the most common answer in general.
@@tomokolovecraft3792further more, usually they're connected. You fail a math exam, you fail math class. Does not mean "ergo the best part of Gym Class is running laps"- like what, where did that come from? What question am I exactly answering here for you?!
@@tomokolovecraft3792 There's a good reason for "I don't know" being unacceptable in school, they already taught you!
I think I get what you mean though, it puts them in the mindset that they're always supposed to have answers as they're always asked questions they're supposed to already have the answers for.
Add to this that religion reinforces that by telling people that they have all the answers, it literally gives them the default answer for all unknown questions: God did it.
@@xipheonj yup, that's what I was trying to get across, thanks for clarifying my words.
Smugness isn’t education.
OUCH
It is when you are a theist.
@@birdieerdie2349 lol
Damn, I should change my major
I forget where I originally heard this, I believe it was Aron Ra or might have been Matt Dillahunty but...."Its better to be arrogant and right than to be gullible and wrong, but to be arrogant and wrong is just pathetic" To me this describes Theists, especially Young earth creationists, perfectly.
Although it looks like his brain cells are dying, they are, in fact, just trying to run away from the Stupid.
I see
The last two brain cells trying to run in opposite directions but run in parallel and never fire off because even the internal conflict has cognitive dissonance
@@SirSicCrusader "I see"
That might be a result of the whisky wearing off. The solution to that would be to drink more whisky.
@@UlshaRS Lol.
@@UlshaRS The theist's last two brain cells are fighting for 3rd place
I love how "GOD" can be self existing, or created himself, or always existed.... but the universe cannot.
Because magic is magical and matter is matter of fact.
@@Jcs57 lol
Hypocrites believers lol
Special pleading.
For me, I think the funniest/saddest part is when the guy argues that wings show "irreducible complexity", when wings are one of the strongest pieces of evidence we have that complex biological structures can evolve gradually and are not irreducible.
Yup. That and the eye.
My favorite responses to "irreducible complexity" is "Evidently, you have never played with Lego."
I cannot say whether or not it is a good response, but it is my favorite.
It’s really not even that hard to arrive to it, being upright is good, hollows bones can be good, feathers are very good on hollow bones, and generally are good, not falling fast is good, flight is very good. And that’s one of the like 3 paths to flight, one being the “flying squirrel path” that was in the video, being even simpler.
Wings are just fluffy fins for sky-fish.
@@hayuseen6683some great band names there
"Be consistent in what they believe"
Ooooh boy, this is already starting so strong.
Are you suggesting there is perhaps an issue with the consistency of their beliefs?!
Well I never. 🤣
They not only fail to understand what Atheism is but how it is not by any stretch of the imagination a "World view" I personally know and know of other Atheists that believe all kinds of irrational nonsense. Does that mean belief in Bigfoot, ghosts, Chrystal power, numerology, astrology, or any number of demonstrably nonsensical notions are "World views"? Theists like this guy can't comprehend that Atheism does not have a set of tenants or rules that we are all obliged to follow. They can't even follow their own religions rules but expect us to follow some set of rules that they make up and assign to us because they want to hide their own inconsistencies by claiming we are being inconsistent regarding complete nonsense that they just pull out of their self righteous asses. Just my 2 cents on the subject.
So, 10 questions "you must answer..." but you won't accept any answer we give. Got it.
Thats exactly why every iteration of this video uses the same ten questions, they are too stupid to understand that we have already answered them,...ad nauseum.
1:01 Why does this look like it was filmed on a soundstage dressed to look home-y, in the early 90’s, recorded on VHS?!
What a flash back! I feel like I’m 10 again. 😂
:0
I just made a similar comment before scrolling down to yours! It seriously looks like it was recorded on VHS. 🤣
There is another about a retiree going back to college to fix the professors, it plays like a crap porno
If Bo Derek were back to how she was in the movie *10* ... 🤔 ... 🤤 ...
😳 ... what was the question? I had to take a sudden urgent quick ice cold shower 🫠
The arguments predate VHS, so they’re probably just trying to feel modern.
Stephen Jay Gould was an advocate of "punctuated equilibrium," a model of how evolution proceeds, with extended periods of little change punctuated by periods of rapid development of varieties of species, e.g., the "Cambrian Explosion." Some have suggested visualizing the idea as pumping air into a basketball. It may look like nothing is happening, but as the pressure builds there actually are small changes occurring in the structure until at some point the structure breaks and the ball bursts in a dramatic, rapid change.
Gould did NOT reject, deny, or dispute evolution, just questioned the precise model in play and could be quite harsh with those who tried to suggest otherwise..
My favorite Gould qoutemine. "creationist say, "there are no transitional fossil."" They left out "creationist say," and the next sentence Gould says there are transitional fossils.
ah
:0
Thats the thing with quote mining, its only done by demonstrably dishonest people.
They figure it's safe to misquote someone who can't argue back.
2:53 “At relative levels of completion” sounds like something someone not good at the sex would say.
hah
"Thinkus Interruptus"?
@@inyobill 🤣
I like how these religious boys think we have to answer any of their questions about their fantasy.
I see
I bet this 🤡practiced saying "irreducible complexity" about a hundred times in front of a mirror to gear up for this video. Change my mind!
Ten questions Christybobs must answer:
1) If SUPERGOD doesn't exist, where did God come from?
Etc.
We need to have ridiculous disputes in front of them to help them see how absurd their mythological beliefs are. Like that episode of The Big Bang Theory when Penny, Bernadette, & Amy are arguing about the transitive properties in a scenario involving Thor & Hulk.
"If Jesus turns water into wine, and communion wine is Jesus' blood, but Moses parts water and Jesus walks on water... then doesn’t that mean that Jesus was actually just walking on land except not really because we're all living in the matrix?!" (But use way better talking points than that.)
@@FerrariKing "you have to explain my delusions to me. I won't listen though, but I will complain".
That last question, the arrogant assumption that if his warmed over arguments somehow convinced me there's a god that I'm going to believe it's his god. No, dude, that's a whole other hill for you to climb. And I'd argue, a much harder one.
inded
At 18:33 he makes a weak-ass attempt to preempt this argument by saying , "we'll get to that later." But he never does.
I was raised christian and one of the big things that made me question was learning that there are wayyyyyy older religions than christianity or judaism.
At least he didn't qualify the "killing babies" part with "for fun." So there's that. lol
Hes possibly tried that before and been hit with the numerous bible passages of God either killing, or ordering the killing, of kids for a variety of reasons. Reasons that get as petty as calling one of his buddies "Baldy".
Stupid doesn’t necessarily require a southern US accent but golly it sure seems to help
😂
I guess when even the teachers down there fear the invisible sky spook and all life came off a floating zoo a few thousand years ago in it's current form we can't exactly expect a lot of genius to result.
When you're not even educated enough to be wrong...
Southern American accent has been voted one of the least intelligent sounding accents in the world
Him: "Don't attack people and just try to discredit people."
Well I'll give him credit. He didn't directly attack anyone. Only misrepresented numerous topics, acted condescendingly and gaslit people, but he didn't directly attack anyone.
He needs a forced watch of Dogma and Airplane, because he's SHIRLEY SERIOUS!
I see
Forget Dogma. I don't know why any atheist ever trots that one out, because it's definitively pro-God. It just pokes fun at, well, dogma, but then says it's arrogant to question God, which it hasn't demonstrated in the first place.
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks It targets dogma. That's why people like Dogma. Woman-God is practically as effective a theism as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Oh we can answer their questions they just won't like the answers😂
oof
And, I have seen all of these NEW QUESTIONS answered.
The question "if there is no god, why is there anything" is gibberish. It's like asking, "If bananas are yellow, then why are oceans?"
Exactly 💯 Makes zero sense.
@@dannyslag And the proof of God is always in the positive, beautiful things, A field of blooming flowers,Butterflies, Waterfalls etc so is he the God of Motor Neurone Disease as well? Famine? Child Pornography??
I have always found that question to be ridiculous. As far as I can tell nothing isn't even an option and the same can be said about God. Why is there God? They will say God is necessary. We can say the same about existence itself, which is basically what they are calling God anyway, they just assume it has to be conscious.
@@brianharper1611 They understand the concept of "uncreated", bc this dude said that that is how he defines god. Why can't they apply that with the universe? It's not a big leap. They want to believe, evidence doesn't matter to them.
@@einienj3281
I agree.
the reducibility of bird wings comes from the fact that their immediate ancestors were tree climbers and jumpers, and would greatly benefit from a small amount of lift
Actually, there is speculation that feathered wings may have had a function in sheltering eggs and keeping them warm before they began also being used for gliding and ultimately flying. Birds often keep their eggs warm in this manner to this day. Sitting on the nest, they lower their wings to cover the sides of the nest. This nest-warming function would have been adaptive at every stage of the development of wings. Thus, the "irreducible complexity" argument about wings can be abrogated. "Irreducible complexity" really means that "I don't know what the developmental history of some trait may have been, so I'm going to say that God did it."
@donnievance1942 that's genuinely really interesting. I shall now proceed to research this for the next several hours. Thank you
Kid gloves, not kit gloves - stems from when using kid (young goat) leather for super soft gloves was a thing… hence treating someone softly.
"Anything ever happen without a cause," except for my chosen deity?
Actually, there is a thing that happens without a cause, sort of: radioactive decay. There is no way to tell which particle is going to decay, we just know that, for a certain mass, a certain amount of them will.
@@aderi31415 We do actually know why there is decay.
Special pleading.
@@TheEnterthedreaming I'm not disputing that. We don't know why a particular atom in a given sample decays. One of them just does.
@@kellydalstok8900
"Special pleading" is one of the most pathetic examples of apologist arguments.
Imagine if we tried to use special pleading in Science?
"I don't have any evidence for this next part, but I DO have a little piece of cardboard, on which I have written 'This piece of cardboard awards the bearer one Free Pass in any argument.' so I'm sure you will all agree that this issue is settled."
Any time someone tries to use "Because I say so" as an argument, you are well within your right to dismiss that argument.
"And why exactly is God an exception? Because YOU say so? Bye, we're done here."
Funny that an atheist must be an astrophysicist, a biologist, a paleontologist, a geologist and a sociologist, but all a believer needs to do is appeal to an invisible sky man.
The thing that amuses me about these guys is that even if there was a higher power that created all this, there is no evidence it is their god that did it.
ah
Almighty purple unicorn creator iz da ultimate truth
It's awful that these people do not recognise the power of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and His Noodly Appendages.
@@daedalus6796 fake. Only almighty purple unicorn creator iz da ultimate truth 🦄🟣✝️. Friendship iz magic. Lol
Here's another argument I like.
Even if we grant them it is POSSIBLE for a benevolent creator to exist, ask them to provide evidence that all of existence was created by a SINGLE entity, rather than more than one creator.
I could claim that there are 4 benevolent creators, each of which created a different part of reality. I would have no more and no less direct evidence of that claim than they do.
So infinite power means unable to get rid of childhood cancer
of course...
God created insects that burrow into eyeballs. Now isn’t that the most loving thing.
Cancer…? Fuck the dude can’t even build a boat it required a bipedal ape with opposable thumbs!
@@pain51 And Satan. Satan must be more powerful than god.
@@kellydalstok8900 God sounds like the brain eating amoeba. God blew into Adams nostrils "to give life", the amoeba goes through your nostrils to your brain..
Love it when apologists claim that a claim is an argument: it's almost as if dishonest bullshit is all they've got
Ostriches and penguins have wings, and they can't fly. Yet penguins can "fly" through the water and ostriches can scare off larger predators by appearing larger to predators.
Very meta script. Seems you had exactly the right amount of whiskey when you wrote this one. 👍Thanks
Tbh, I have to applaud this guy, because his question about evolution showed that he actually knew what evolution is. Other apologists would shout "Have you ever seen a monkey give birth to a human?" or some similar bullshit.
And he seemed to have vague notion of what came before the Big Bang.
But he blew it with, " (My) God did that ! "
He knows only a little bit about Evolution. He's still mischaracterizing it and saying things that are completely incorrect.
9:10 i was expecting a picture of Matty Powell!🤣🤣🤣🤣
heh
Before even watching i guess these questions are new, original and really smart ones.
:0
Another "10 things I could have easily googled" or "10 misunderstandings of atheism said out loud in a video" video
heh
"How did that creature whos legs began to become wings not die out vs the creatures with good legs?"
One word:
Jump.
we literally have birds that cannot fly but still have useful wings
Dear Mister Christian. I don't recognize you having any special authority to demand or expect me to answer your rather meaningless question. Meaningless because none of them have a thing to do with my position as an atheist. I have only one question to ask that is entirely relevant to the topic (and to which I never expect a worthwhile response): can you convince me the god you believe in actually exists?
ah
:0
The intelligent reply.
Convincing you isn't in our power. Only you can allow yourself to be convinced and if your desire to maintain your current worldview is stronger then the strength of the arguments for God then you will never be convinced, even if they do in fact demonstrate the truth of the claim.
Its a fine question but that is the correct answer.
@@blusheep2 -- I can no more convince myself than I can just randomly choose what to believe as true. I am convinced by evidence.
If someone claims their god exists, and wants me to accept that claim, then they bear the burden of ponying up sufficient evidence that is so strong and stands on its own merits that it causes a paradigm shift in my view.
It's not about who presents whatever evidence they think is true or sufficient that matters. It's what they can demonstrate is factual. It is sufficient if it convinces.
Your response, above, is a relatively weak, preemptive excuse I have heard too many times before. It smells of an accusation of dishonesty with no reason to suspect it.
The burden of proof is on those making the claim, telling you how to live your life, stating they have all the answees, and refuse to be questioned upon pain of eternal punisnment.
One of the issues that has honestly been shocking to me - though I should have known this - is how little thought people who claim they believe in some religion (and think everyone else should follow their religion) yet know almost nothing about their own tradition and how its present iteration differs from its much earlier forms. I am focusing primarily on .christians here even though it applies to other faiths but Protestant Christians in particular hyper fixate on the “word” yet 99.8% of them have never read through the Bible. It’s painfully obvious as when they are confronted with the detritus of the Old Testament they fall apart or make vague references to the idea that certain things are just symbolic somehow…
They have never long and hard about a god that issues laws that outline the acceptability of slavery and order the slaughter of babies and pregnant women that belong to the wrong group etc etc as well as declare the SA of very young women who are taken in war as long as they aren’t pregnant already perfectly acceptable. Yet they plod through their lives like robots while repeating silly old refrains yet never stopping to THINK about it (and don’t get me started on how they twist themselves into excusing the vileness of a god of “love” that does nada to alleviate suffering…
I bet you don't get many christians at your front door trying to convert you. I don't.
Without sounding like I am up myself (which may be true) I am extremely intelligent and have read all of the translated holy books I could.
They don't like it when you quote their own words back at them especially if you reinforce it with extraneous data (such as the conviction of John Smith as a con man). Mormons have real problems with convincing me because of a teaching they conveniently forget where there are only 100,000 places in heaven for each of the twelve tribes of Israel.
The last time I was visited by them I asked how any places could be left for me or them. ''See you in hell'' I said.
After I closed my front door on them I was VERY amused as they stood on my front porch for twenty minutes trying to find something in their literature that could reassure them. Then they left, and I appear to be a religious no-go zone.
This guy is clearly listening to the Discovery Institute. He names "Irreducable Complexity" from Behe, the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" from the DI... guy clearly views "Argument from Authority" as top tier stuff.
This is quite an old video, and I've seen it debunked before on other channels. However, I'm glad you covered it, as it is still making the rounds in many Christian circles.
Regardless of the age, bad ideas are bad ideas, and they need to be brought to the forefront and shown for what they truly are. They are bad ideas.
Plus, you make it entertaining. Thanx.
What's especially amusing is that this video could just as easily be made today as a decade ago. The arguments never seem to change.
One small thing about the cambrian explosion is that the "all at once" "explosion" happened over 13 to 25 *million* years.
If goddidit, he sure wasn't in a hurry.
This one is a classic. From the early days of youtube. Many atheist youtubers have made fun of it... I think Thunderf00t did it as one of his earliest wdplac videos.
Yup, I love the oldies but good... ok Badies :P
Oh my, what next, VenomFangX?
If you don't believe in Unicorns you just haven't drunk enough whiskey.
Lack of belief in lack of belief.
i see
Exaptation. It's literally just exaptation. Take some structure initially selected to perform one function and use it to perform a different function. As long as each step in that sequence of changes is useful _for some function,_ selection can continue to act and modify it. We literally see exactly this with bird wings in the fossil record, with feathers initially providing insulation, then allowing gliding, and eventually powered flight.
I have 10 questions every *YOUR MOM* has to answer, hah, gottem.
Thanks sir sic for my roast ed
14:20 woah! I need to train way more to meet your level of roasting
funny!
@@SirSicCrusaderありがと、せんせい
14:50 He may not mention details but if he referring to what I think he is... counter with Project Steve. Project Steve also collects the signatures of scientists but only those with variations of the name Steve and who affirm evolution. The list is over half actual biologists and much longer than the creationist list.
I only need to answer one question.
Why do people believe in magic? Idiocy!
I see
Because they are childish.
@@squiremcexactly
Gould called it punctuated evolution. That’s what he meant. His hypothesis and thesis was that the fossil record showed steady states for long periods, then there were periods of rapid adaptation and change. That’s the same thing as standard evolution except with some non-linearity is in it.
I'm glad to see that someone else pointed this out. Yeah, it was a super dishonest quotemine, pretending that he was saying evolution didn't happen when he was really saying that it happened a little differently. And I tend to think he knows that he's lying, because if you look up Gould the first thing you see if "punctuated equilibria". One of the first things you see is what this was all about.
Atheists need to say and demonstrate X. How about YOU need to provide evidence that any god exists, then we can go specifically to YOUR god existing.
Even if we didn't have any answers to any of these questions (And we do), it still doesn't mean sky daddy exists.
Has any atheists ever issued 10 questions that theist MUST answer?
@@michaelburk9171 Probably. Not that it matters.
I've seen some horrible atheist arguments as well, so I'm sure lots of those questions would fall into that category.
I love that creationists always harp on the Cambrian "Explosion" meaning so many varieties of life emerged "at the same time" but neglect to continue reading and realize that 'same time' was really over about 13 - 25 MILLION years. It's only a brief amount of time in the frame of reference to the overall existence of the earth itself.
we have to take it seriously, but we can't ask difficult questions?
so much for an honest discussion. now where is my whisky
shonkle
You seem to be making longer videos lately, and I love it.
“Science cannot be true because I don’t understand it, and my ignorance is just as valid as any expert with decades of experience.”
Here's how birds became a thing
First small dinosaurs evolve feathers for warmth,
Then they become arboreal and have to move from tree to tree
The ones with better feathers for jumping get selected
They begin to glide
Ones who are better at gliding survive and learn to flap
Flying birds
Oversimplified but still
evolve basically feathers* ik u said over simplified but i find the evolution of feathers interesting
Fascinating how these Creationists always know that Evolution is done... before all the Scientists and the Nobelprize Committee know...
:0
"People feared [past tense!?] to publicly question [evolution]..."
......*laughs hysterically*
I thought the most important question would be,
Do you believe in love after love? after love? after love? after love?
:0
@@SirSicCrusader :O
As in the first song to use autotune? Shit drives me up the wall. Fun fact,the technologies used in autotune were originally developed for oil exploration. And that's were it shoulda stayed 😫
I love how apologists line up their "proof" as a series of questions that they don't understand. "Here's something I don't know, but seems inconsistent with my beliefs, and if you can't explain it to me, you have to admit I am right. Gotcha!"
19:39 got to love their “heat death of the universe” argument will prove my awesome guy really cares
It's like they just can't even wrap their brain around the idea that maybe what they believe isn't actually true.
If they allowed themselves to acknowledge, even for a moment, that what they believe might not be true, their heads would explode, and that would be messy. Also, their beliefs are what justifies their existence, and we wouldn't want to take that away from them now would we?
@@williamgreenfield9991 On the other hand questioning one's existence can lead to the kind of personal growth that turns garbage humans into almost tolerable ones. That might be worth cleaning up the occasional bloody mess. And we have whiskey to help with either outcome.
4:51 have we not literally observed virtual particles pop into and out of existence with, near as we can tell, no discernible reason whatsoever?
GAHASP
I would definitely look into this before parroting it elsewhere, but I believe it’s how Hawking radiation functions; two pairs spawn in at the event horizon, one is far enough away that it can escape the black hole, and the other is too close and gets sucked in.
@@zacharysieg2305 That explanation is not correct but Hawking liked it anyways.
The steady state theory of the universe suggested the possibility of this, but there is much to still be learned.
Actually there is a likely explanation: The first apex-predators appeared and the Cambrian Explosion happened because of in defense against the apex-predators.
For some reason these people think the burden of proof is on us that there is no god.
Good day to you Sir Sic. I have just discovered your channel and I'm loving it. I have also subscribed to Lady Sic's channel as well, only watched episode 1, also brilliant. Keep it up brave Night. 👍
The entire argument assumes that Atheism is a believe system. It is in fact the lack of a specific belief, in this case, belief in a deity. You really don't need to define a belief system when it doesn't exist as a belief system.
It is a worldview whether you define it as a belief that God doesn't exist or a lack of belief in God's existence.
He stole CC's hair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The rebuttal to the "God has always existed" answer is simple. So has all the matter of the universe. If they ask "Where did it come from?" you can answer "It didn't have to come from anywhere since it was already there" and your answer will be exactly the same level as theirs.
8:09 "Where do am life?" 😂
I am honestly surprised that he was able to count to ten considering how stupid his points were.
It did take him a moment to remember 'five'. So, you aren't too far off.
He would have had more points but he ran out of fingers
@@ChristophBrinkmann Here you go, assuming he doesn't have any of that famous Hovind hexadecimalism.
Thanks for uploading, Sir Sic. I really needed a good laugh today.
There are lots of complicated answer you can give about how non life becomes life. But the simplest is to just explain that life isn't anything special. It is just chemistry. It is a bit more advanced then a lot of other chemistry, but it is still just chemistry in action. Nothing about life requires anything other then chemistry to explain. They ask this thinking life is special and different, it isn't.
Elements combined into simple sugars that combined into peptides that combined into polypeptides that combined into simple proteins that combined into complex proteins such as capsomeres that combined into something a lot like virii, a nucleic acid surrounded by a protein coat called a capsid. Bingo, life!
It all started there.
Actually, speaking as an industrial organic chemist, it isn't all that complex to me as I would expect early life to be pretty simple.
Religious type: Do you believe in god?
Me: Nop.
Religious type: Then yo need to answer these questions.
Me: I am most certainly not your teacher, go educate your self.
Also me: Walks away.
I listened to this all the way through and if I had to do a shot every time this guy committed a logical fallacy I'd need my stomach pumped out.
8:25 - "Irreducible Complexity"...? The Kitzmiller vs. Dover case sank that rotten boat in 2005.
I dont know the questions, but i refuse to answer.
Give me Whiskey.
ah
The issue is, a lot of us wanted to believe at one point in our lives.
I wanted to believe in a deity, but wanting to believe isn't enough. You either believe, or you don't. It's not a choice.
I wanted to believe the Egyptians were right, because their gods were awesome. But alas, I couldn't just make myself believe.
Come on, his only argument is "I do not understand so, God"
10:00 actually, no we don't. We just need to be able to show that the changes weren't detrimental. Cause that's the neat thing about evolution: it only phases things out if they decrease survival rates.
Ahhh yes....
"The PhD level scientists from U-Name-It University n such"
Who can argue with them. 😂
I've never heard the "killing babies" issue posed as a food source solution before; one could write an essay on that.
The basic problem is the numbers don't add up. It takes 1 woman (plus some jackass) 9 months to produce 1 baby, but the meat on that baby wouldn't feed that woman (plus the jackass) for the next 9 months while she works on the next. So you're going to need another source to supplement the baby meat.
So even assuming a perfect 1 baby per woman per 9 months scenario (which is very unrealistic) it doesn't add up.
Where humans have adopted cannibalism it's rarely their only sustenance. In the lost at sea/crashed airplane examples, it's a stopgap measure for desperate people, and the one eaten is usually an adult, and already dead.
In cannibalistic cultures it's more a ritual about asserting dominance over a defeated enemy or consuming their courage/spirit than intended as a serious food ongoing source.
In weekly cannibalistic rituals, Christians will "consume" the flesh of Christ, Catholics are told it's actually turning into flesh and blood, but then they go home and have Sunday lunch, and eat other stuff the rest of the week.
Of course most of us DO eat babies, born and unborn, but of other animals. That's a whole different discussion.
So ignoring the issues he thought it raised over morals and emotions, you have to crunch the numbers.
Some animals will eat extra babies. If the mother is already starving, the baby will die, too.
Here are the only two questions atheists must answer:
Q: "Do you believe in my god(s)?" A: "Nope."
Q: "Why do you not believe in my god(s)?" A: "Doesn't match reality and seems pretty silly if you think about it for more than a minute."
DONE!
really dont even have to answer the second question
@@michaelbrazelton5132,
No... but the second question is a logical follow up question.
Do you then believe "a" God exists?
@@blusheep2 No. None of them. Doesn't match reality and seems pretty silly if you think about it for more than a minute.
@@blusheep2,
I _know_ gods do not exist. Unless you want to make a case for why Gandalf and Harry Potter are real?
15:41 Oh no, Sir Sic, you seem to be unaware of the petition that this guy is referencing.
He's talking about the Dissent from Darwin list which poses the statement, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Seeing those are known not to be the only two mechanisms involved, and because any scientist would agree to carefully examining evidence, it was easy for them to hook in a number of Phds in Biology who later tried to get their names removed but were ignored.
Of course there are a lot of names from unrelated fields on that list, too. And a competing petition which could only be signed by Phds in the related fields with a name related to the name "Steve" has about 40% more signatures.
To be fair, it is a good idea before asking a series of stupid questions, to establish that turning those stupid questions back at you is against the rules because you say so.
Loved the accountant fixing the wall analogy 16:00... so much of an attack on me, I ducked... Yes, i'm an accountant... and yes, Sir Sic, I admit it, i ring my brother to fix the wall... but he's a carpenter. Stop attacking me mate. I know i'm an easy target, but its not cool.