Have you ever seen 'Father Ted'? He explained it pretty much the same way to Father Dougal [ff to about 35 secs if you're short of time] ua-cam.com/video/GFTgkibl7DU/v-deo.html
@@redcandi01 the name of the clip is "the shortest scientist versus creationist debate ever." If you take it literally, it means the shortest scientist versus a creationist debate. I read it as how it was supposed to be and then started reading the comments, LOL and wondered what the heck I was missing 😂
@@davidhoffman6980 Second law of thermodynamics is a problem for evolution because the law stipulates that entropy always increases, whereas evolution into complex beings constitutes a decrease in entropy.
@@elguapo2831 so when you said "the law of thermodynamics" you actually meant the second law. Unfortunately you're not only wrong about what the second law of thermodynamics says, you're also wrong about its application. The second law describes entropy in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system; it constantly receives energy from the sun. The Change in allele frequencies over time doesn't go against the second law of thermodynamics any more than the population increasing, you cleaning your room, or us building cities.
@iadatoroboto8427 You give them eyes yet they cannot see. Funny how the answers are staring everyone in their faces and they can't see it. Remember the story of the pea in the mattress? Now look at the canyon walls. 6,000 feet of flat strata layers, not including another 2,000 feet on the Grand Staircase. Each layer supposedly took millions of years to form, but there are no valleys, hills, roots, burrows, or a pea in-between them.
you didn't see jesus moving some dirt around then ? or his daddy , laying down dinosaur bones everywhere ? or was that Mr. Satan , i can't keep up with all the nonsense these religious people throw out in to the world ... should stop watching these clips and videos , cause they piss me the F off , just can't help myself ignorant hopeless people , that couldn't tie their own freaking shoes , if it wasn't written down as a decree in that horrible atrocious immoral ''book'' they call the bible ... absolute idiots with no life to speak off LIFE is the ''guide TO life'' , not some antiquated pieces of parchment with stories older then 11.000+ years , that have absolutely nothing to do with people of this day and age ... but they just keep on pushing their views on the world and tell you ... you're going to hell ... f*ck em ... and f*ck their ''god'' that guy is a pervert and a predator in MY book , nothing else
@@ThermaL-ty7bw Bruh I'm not going to defend the Bible cause your mind is already closed. All I'm going to say is that the Bible has everything to do with the day and age. Just like the constitution tells us how to live out our lives so does the Bible. Because the truth isn't subjective it's objective
@@ikhuemoseokojie911 people forget all the atrocities that have been done in the name of religion and of trying to force one's beliefs onto others; colonialism, conversion therapy for homosexuals, the complete destruction of cultures, major wars and maybe bllions of deaths all throughout history, the loss of identity and free thought for many individuals. Organized thought keeps people seperate and stop us from actually finding common ground. Religion tells one truth and conceals many others.I left Christianity after the first 20 years of my life and never looked back.
The geologist must be an idiot. Why should he waste his time considering evidence from people he disagrees with when it's so easy to just casually dismiss them categorically like a complete bigot, since evidence will never convince him anyway?
It is hard to win an argument with a tall person, but it's impossible to win an argument against a short person, they will just bring you down to their height and beat you with their experience.
This is actually probably the best scientist vs creationist debate ever, because it acknowledges the fundamental problem: if you can't even agree on basic premises, you can't actually have a debate to start with. At best, you just talk at each other forever, with neither side conceding any significant points to the other, and both declaring victory at the end.
This is why almost every debate we see is pointless. People pretend to be debating while they cant even agree on basic initial definitions that would be required to make proper arguments.
Which is why the scientific method exists to begin with. If the person you are arguing with can't even acknowledge objective, observable, reproducable evidence they are no more worth talking to than a farm animal.
@@lieslceleste3395 By proof? God can't contradict himself, so if you find God contradicting himself then you have proof. It's not like you can't prove supernatural things wrong, it's just that you have to think about what it is you're trying to disprove rather than what you know about everything else. Very simple stuff there.
"It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's impossible to win an argument against a stupid person." Edit: And the next thing you know, shitloads of comments
Yeah, it's so hard to win an argument with someone who things they can from a dot of nothing exploding. And someone who thinks life somehow magically came from rock soup. And who think all life is magically related. So stupid. Oh wait, that's most scientists. Such idiots 🙄
+Agent1W I know we all wanted to see that spicy creationist comeback where he just straight roasts the guy for a full hour with his Tai Lopez knowledge of the world and ability to spew facts it would've been real. But I see these so called scientists refuse to show it, maybe they have something to hide, unlike the mighty Lord Jesus who saved us all from dying for our sins, papa bless and don't subscrab to such a biased channel.
***** You should probably seek psychiatric therapy. Persuasion is not a requirement in science. You accept it, or you don't. Science doesn't start with an absurd assumption; it's about looking at the evidence and coming to a logical conclusion based on that evidence, not pre-conceived bullshit. You might as well believe in invisible pink unicorns or something. At least you'd be a more creative insane person, then.
***** Let me ask you a question you've probably never thought about: if god exists at all (nevermind your god), what did god make the universe out of? :^)
Automotive industry: Well, building a car is quite complex, of course, but in simplest terms, you need an engine, a body, transmission, basic electronics, breaks, and internal furnishings that would let an operator to reside in. Me: I reckon you could just use a hamster in a wheel to power the whole thing, and have a jet engine mounted on a front to use as breaks. Make my thing equal to the thing they said, it's just as valid, I am now as qualified as automotive industry because I had an opinion and I reckoned.
Disassemble a simple computer and put the parts in a dryer If they can't put themselves together how do you expect the world to coincidentally be in place including the DNA code Exactly Not a coincidence, God made everything
@@Maicon-b1b Thank you for the false equivalence, pal. Nobody assembles machines like that, and no scientist or well-equipped nonbeliever posits that biomolecules were formed like that. Also, life is a chemical system, and we have a robust understanding of chemistry. The origin of life research has also come far since the Miller-Urey experiment. The abundance of eventually biotic material on prebiotic Earth and the self-replicating nature of DNA (RNA, even, if you go with the RNA world hypothesis) was more than enough as a base from which life sprang. You know what we don't have? A robust understanding of God, if he exists at all. Arguments from design are convincing at face value but crumble when you scrutinize assumptions and simply admit ignorance. "We don't know," is still a million times more honest than "It must have been God," when God hasn't even been established as a possibility. If I may borrow your line of argument, we have always observed mind as a product of matter, but never a disembodied mind or a anything that resembles a spirit, on which the God assumption often relies on. I know it is a clichéd question that is often mocked among the believers' group, but if complex things must be created intentionally, who created God, given his all-powerful nature and alike? If your answer requires exempting God from the premise that complex things need a creator, then you have my answer. I do not accept that complexity implies intentional creation. I do not buy your argument from incredulity. Argue the possibility of God, if you must. Just know that even if I don't know everything, it increases not at all the chance that God exists or do anything. Unless you need to presuppose God before doing anything, of course, since then it's best that we don't talk.
I can't tell if you're being facetious but: life is not like random parts falling together. That's called "clockmaker" and there are plenty of videos on why it's fallacious. The short version is life has pressure put upon it over time and slowly shapes into what it is. DNA didn't bang together and spring forth a fully formed human like your analogy.
@@NucularRobit Very good! You could also say that a weathered stone has an an extremely particular shape and arrangement of it's atoms to produce that *exact* stone. Whose to say that it's 'arrangement' of atoms is more 'complicated' then the atoms of a watch? It would still require nothing short of a miracle to get those atoms positioned in exactly that fashion to produce exactly that object. God? Of course not, just pressure...and time. Life is like that too. And we can see the imperfections and weird genetic 'baggage' of our early ancestors littered throughout our genome. Why would god leave genetic 'baggage' and imperfections in any life form's DNA?
No there is nothing he should have said, this was perfectly fine. If you have listened to to many creationists you know why, because it hurts, how bad those arguments are.
It’s at least a good 15,000. Most people don’t realize that there were cities by the time Cain killed Able, or that Adam and Eve were not just two people.
Creationist: Sea is wet... Bible said sea is wet.. Therefore God Creationist: Birds fly.. Therefore God Creationist: My dog... Therefore God Creationist: Science... Therefore Satan
young BLOCKA is love to believe but whether people like this fact or not the original bible was the Jewish Torah then it was edited then Jesus popped up then it was added to then edited or bits of tablets went missing then king James had his own version that’s used today. In what way can that possibly be the word of god, an edited abridged directories cut with added bonus scenes?!
lol creationists have issues with reality. They don’t understand the universe because they “believe” in a book written before iPhones & electricity…. Btw: the word “belief” shares a definition with “delusion”…
I've said this many times in my entire existence. No need to believe in something, anything or everything if it was reality. Like why should I believe that the Earth is round if that was the reality? Do I really have to believe that the Sun is hot in order to get its energy? I've had so many debate with this many any other existence so called theism. It's pretty pathetic how a text from thousand years ago written by an ooga booga kind of brain (that was modified millionth time by any other low tier brain) have this many impact on this entire planet. How pathetic that could be? It impacts keep getting pushed right above or maybe it will slowly fade away. But I've never doubt the power of human will to willingly live in illusion & delusion that will greatly push it impact even more. Resulting many any other brain getting brainwashed in the washing machine and stuck in the death trap never-ending rabbit hole. There is also so many any other word that was completely useless that I hope I won't never ever see them again on the Internet or real life such as soul, spirit, heart, believe, god and so many more. They're just literally non-existent. It gives me brain damage every time I read them.
Uniformitarinism in geology refers to strict gradualism, which many modern geologist don't hold to anymore and now accept many catosphism events. The scientist here is wrong to claim that all scientists are uniformiterianism. That doesnt mean creation is right, but the "scientist" is wrong.
he's saying that this 1 video showed all the other videos he has seen in a very short amount of time. aka - the past videos he saw were like....20 min/1hour long debates, while this one took less than a minute.
and i'd like to think they'd be embarrassed by descendants who ignored millennia of progress, to cling to some story they made up, just to stop people from asking questions they didn't know the answer to
+Michael smith Yes, because we should silence all theories and notions that don't agree with our own. That's how we grow and learn. Acting like know it all pricks.
Jose Canusee when your right your right, no amount of debate will change the facts that religious nonsense has not been right on one scientific matter, or has met the burden of proof that is required for such extraordinary claims.
+Michael smith Well let's focus on this issue which I assume you are in agreement is the age of Earth. Let me re-post a comment I made on this video in hopes to get my point across. Forgive the laziness but I just don't feel like typing it all again." Is time not relative to the universal laws that the universe is expanding and speeding up? Therefore, as we exist and record our experience on the timeline, does our concept of time and it's relationship with history speed up? Meaning, A recorded year to man's concept of time 1 million years ago would be longer than it would in the current day. I am so amazed that scientist and the vast majority of the so called "intellectual" community are still theorizing time as a linear concept when it has been proven that it is cyclical in nature. My point is when someone says the Earth is thousands of years old or Millions of years old, they are both right and both wrong. The funniest part is we can only begin to imagine these things so instead of acting like we have all the answers, maybe we should stop being so arrogant and learn from one another." I mean even Albert Einstein considered his theories just that, theories. Sure, some are more predominantly rooted in fact and obvious as others are open to interpretation. Regardless of this, the reality is nobody knows without a shadow of a doubt anything so to silence debate and shun or criticize others for having opposing views is not only wrong but dangerous. I suggest you do some research on who is in charge of determining what scientific theories are considered facts throughout history and the damage that has done to the masses those theories were meant to use for control. I'm not saying your right, or I'm wrong, that's the point, we don't know. I'm not even a "creationist" as I think labeling oneself only puts yourself into a box were ideas and realizations go to die.
Jose Canusee I disagree on nearly everything you say. A scientific theory is not just a theory, but the excepted explanation for a phenomenon, so I doubt very much that Einstein said that. Nobody claims to have all the answers, but religion has none, science gives us a good basis to work from. I will mock and shun any nonsense that religious indoctrination and brainwashing has claimed is true.
+Michael smith Then why is it called a theory? I mean how much more could you contradict yourself? So as far as your bogus definition of what theory means, how about we use the actual definition. the·o·ry ˈTHēərē/ noun a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. Let me give you the definition for what a supposition is before you make up another meaning for that as well. sup·po·si·tion ˌsəpəˈziSH(ə)n/ noun an uncertain belief. So, I find it rather amusing that someone who is so certain of the how the mysteries of science and the universe work can't even grasp the reality of what simple definitions of words in the English language mean. UNCERTAIN, do you know what that means? As for Albert Einstein, I believe these quotes should solidify my argument "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." "We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know." "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.". Lastly, as far as being indoctrinated and brainwashed, what do you think is happened to our youth as we speak with the new religion man is dominating the poor and underprivileged masses with? Think about that.
Scientist : - Take a rock and some water. - Observe how many time it takes for half a milimeter to be eroded. - Use math to calculate the aproximatif age of the grand cayon based on actual observations of nature. Creationist : - "Wait, is he allowed to do that ?''
@Robert Loeder no, no, no, you have to ignore the possibility of any cataclysmic events and ASSUME that the processes observed present day is how it happened from the beginning of time and forever after. There is a surprising amount of willful ignorance in the belief of a 14B year old cosmic oopsie-daisy.
@@carportshenanigans5918 you can tell the difference between a cataclysmic event and a slow process. A flood that lasts a few days leaves different signs than a stream that flows for a thousand years. And then there's the nuclear chemistry, which is probably the best way to date things. It isn't that scientists ignore signs, the fact is that the simplest explanation that fits all the evidence is an old universe and an old earth.
that's not the whole story though. Atrocities have been committed for lots of reasons, like bombing a ww2 factory that happens to be in a highly populated area (collateral damage) or bombing/shelling a city to make way for invading troops.
@@sunblaze8931 It's an absence of belief in a deity. There's a difference there. I know, I know. There there Put on a lullaby vid. You'll be much better off
Rational, logical evidence is what WINS every time. And only ONE of them here was using that at all. We have ZERO reasons to support a book that PROMOTES SLAVERY: Leviticus 25:44-46 King James Version 44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
@@mrbrandonbrown7072 Would you rather support Russia? Learn to separate a COUNTRY from the POLITICIANS you vote for. It's gonna be REALLY IMPORTANT Nov. 5th.
@@brianmi40 Let's not forget that the slavery in Ancient Isreal is by no means comparable to the brutal slave trade. Evidence? Firstly, it was punishable by death to kidnap a man and sell him, in essence forced slavery, God gave this law Genesis 21:16, it's clear in any online or physical copy of scripture you may read. Secondly, one might think how could God institute slavery, that's not caring? Keep in mind that by the time the first books of the Bible were written, mankind had already settled social structures where abusive slavery had taken place. All of the Hebrew scriptures referring to slavery if you read are in the context of God tolerating slavery, under his circumstances though. Evidence? Leviticus 25:39-41, slaves were to be treated as hired workers and would be set free at the seventh year. All of this is just to understand what Hebrew scripture set forth, Christians that respect God's word as a whole know that the new covenant made through Christ set principles for people to live without the implementation of slavery Evidence?treat others as equal and treat them in kind Matthew 7:12, also 1st John 5:19. The slavery that you're thinking of is not loving, we certainly agree on that, but the Bible does not promote oppressive slavery now and never did even in Hebrew scripture
@@cloudycrisps7290 You are aware that the mechanism of " creation science " is magic/incantations. Being that it was spoken, that makes it just that. But there's a problem with that. There was no air before this act. Nor did the non-corporeal entity have a mouth from which to speak. No vocal chords or lungs. None of the things needed for speech was in place before the incantation was used. So, how did that work? More magic? Creation was also put up against evolutionary processes in court. The ruling is why evolution is taught in schools and creation isn't, accept those schools that indoctrinates children into the cult before they can think for themselves. Calling it science doesn't make it science. And if this religious crap was real there wouldn't be any need for apologist's. There would be no holes or slack to pull it it were real and not mere fantasy. Creation Science, what a laugh.
@@tyrionlannister9273 okay, First of the Bible said humanity was made in Gods own image therefore it can be assumed that they have a mouth. Second, Just because a court has a certain ruling does not make it true or the best. Other wise explain why innocent people are convicted and guilty are set free. What may seem right is not always the case. And finally Evolution also has apologists, people who keep finding evidence and using it to support their views. However I do agree that calling something science does not make it science, so tell me, if evolution is classified as a theory why do we teach it as scientific fact? Just because we can use evidence to point at it? You can do that with the creationist viewpoint as well. Perhaps it would be better if these theories were taught separately from factual science so we can more accurately test them. If creation science really was this laugh as you say, then surely you have all the answers to make this belief obsolete? Explain to me them how life could arise from non living Matter and then proceed to never do it again on this planet. Explain the origins of human morality, of Logic, explain consciousness. The Truth is neither of us have all the answers therefore neither side should be taken as more than an opinion with a spew of evidence at the table trying to make it all fit. It is also impossible to simply take information and just “find the results” because there will always be bias. A creationist will use it to point to God and a non-creationist will use it to point towards Not God. Just finding evidence is not what you are doing at all. Everyone is DELIBERATELY using the evidence to support their view.
@@cloudycrisps7290 Evidence points only one way. Evolution doesn't have apologist's. And the Torah, the old testament, doesn't say that man was made in the image of god. It says that humans were re-created in the image of the gods, Elohim is a pluralism and also includes female. And it also says that Jehovah sits in the seat of judge amongst the gods. So the text clearly states a plurality. And about this assumption. Why would a being living in null space, devoid of everything have need of a mouth? There's nothing to eat, nothing to speak upon because sound travels on the particles of gas in waves to the ear that has bones in it that rattle and send the signals to the brain to be deciphered... The people that wrote the religious texts literally knew nothing and assumed everything. That's why it's rife with inconsistentancies and nonsensical ideas. Plants were created before the sun. The sun and moon exist inside of the dome above the flat earth and are the same size. There's water outside the dome. Snakes and donkey talk. Eating fruit is a crime that humans are guilty of even though they didn't even eat the fruit themselves. Then later, god takes human form. To be a sacrifice of itself to itself to appease itself for rules it made up in the first place. From a scenario it made. It also placed the talking snake in the garden. What kind of idiot thinks this makes sense? You do.
Certain people worship their own interests and dress them up as devotion to a noble, higher cause. We will always have these debates as long as weak-minded, self-obsessed people want to spread their fears and beliefs.
Of course there are. Don't be silly. What might really blow your mind is that the modern scientific method was essentially invented (or "created") by creationists.
Problem 1: Which of the following is the best way to answer questions and discover the truth. A.) Read many books and use the scientific method B.) Read one book and ask your imaginary friend
***** , creationists do not search for the best way to answer questions ( "o, you of little faith ") and do not want to discover the truth (they don't "discover" , they are teached, told, showed.....) Slave mentallity. So , yeah, one book and one shepard.. easy and not al all confusing. And the best part , if fallowing THAT shepard makes you do bad things ( like sacrificing your own kid on an altar ) it is NOT YOUR FAULT.
Tim, 1., I was not talking about God and the origin of life, but about the BIBLE- wich is a BOOK, stories told and interpreted for hundreds of years by hundreds of ppl (HUMANS) before beeing written, and then copyed hundreds of times and then TRANSLATED for 3-4 times... and then copyed again... and then SELECTED... and interpreted...and "completed' ... It is really stupid to belive in theese conditions that the Bible is 100 % true. Even if Moses heard the word of God, it is certain that what you have in your hands today it is not what Moses heard. 2.Stereotype... hm..I'm sorry , is something I said NOT from your Bible ? Maybe I am wrong and chistianity is all for the science and discoverys ... and the Dark Ages was just a big misunderstand... wait , aren't creationist rejecting with out explaination ALL the evidence against their theory - bones, geografie, geologie,biologie, ancient civilization, carbon dating etc... , refusing even to look at it ??? How else can you reamain a creationist (again it is not about beliving in God , but in the Bible) if you really look at the facts ?
***** Scientists use a lot of methods to estimate the age of something. C14 is only one of them. What's more, every scientist theory is refutable. You know why ? Because it was made to be refutable. It is the basis of the scientific method. Seriously, if you pay more attention to something that has been written in a book by some men, rather than paying attention to theories which has been tested and validated following a clear, precise and refutable method, then I can't do anything for you.
Pork Sword the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform It still works great in the USA
Ruby Honey Survival of the fittest. Hitler's actions are very Darwinian . Stalin's actions are very Darwinian. Any situation where people in control are taking advantage of the less fortunate is Darwinian. If you don't understand that, well then you should further investigate Darwinian.
That’s the “no true Scotsman fallacy”, you’re basically saying “they aren’t true scientist because they don’t agree with me”. I’m personally not a young earth creationist, but this is objectively stupid.
@@charles21137 Real scientists are scientists who listen to science. Creationists listen to a particular interpretation of a millennia old text and make it dogma. Creationists aren't real scientists.
@@oliverjkulig7373 fair enough, but I would rather them actually look at the claims that creationist with degrees in science make and disprove it with science, then go “you make a claim I disagree with, thus false”
@@oliverjkulig7373 You are aware that there is no such thing as listening to science right? Science isnt some magical beam that sends information to anyone with a bachelors in physics. The very basic purpose of scientific knowledge is for it to be challenged and either rewritten or reaffirmed based on analytical, experimental and observational data. And considering there is no physical way for us to test certain things there is plenty of things in scientific fields open to interpretation and theory, many of which would very much be wrong. This stupid "bElIeVe tHe SciEncE dOod" is just as ignorant and annoying as creationism "because bible said so".
@@charles21137 Thats not how science works. Science is that everything is wrong until you test it and record the data and how you got it and loads of people replicate it. So a creationist would need some scientific evidence that they cant have because theres no test they can make. We do have tests that show the Earth is millions of years old though, so anyone saying the contrary, a scientist can just say "Thats wrong."
You wanna know what makes scientist better than creationist? Their not afraid to admit when they're wrong. as we learn more, previous beliefs and theories change or are proven wrong and scientist are ok with admitting that. Religious ppl refuse to even consider the fact that they might be wrong
You wanna know what makes a creationist better than a scientist? We can deal with the horribleness of the world that None of Us can escape. Because at the end of the day, when we see the beauty and perfection of planetary systems, the designs of mother nature, and complexity of the human mind, we know that something that stands the test of time has created all of it, and That Creator is inviting us to be held through all of eternity. (You can say it as unrealistic as Santa, but to me, so is a perfect solar system forming from some Random explosion of Nothingness) To us Creationists, there is an artist for this unknown painting. & I gotta tell ya, on a personal note, as a former atheist, Its more rewarding and joyous to believe this way. It definitely kicks the sh*t out of my old mindset, which to sum up in a sentence, was me cursing a God that I thought I didn't believe in and wanting to leave an earth that I was living on.,. But I guess im just another close-minded dumbass that doesn't think like you. You can call me hopeless, but that would be the most amazing irony of all the ages.
MyThousandYearOldWisdom WillHelpYouGrow I mean yeah it's nice to believe that we go to a eternal paradise when we die and it's nice to think that there is a creator watching over and us and stuff but when all this claims have little to no evidence to back them up, what's the point.
The difference between a person of science and a person of faith is one values evidence, logic, and truth over desperate hope, and the other doesn't. I think when it comes down to it, a creationist is really just someone who can't cope with the idea of an end to consciousness ... Which although I am an atheist, I can understand to some degree. Death is terrifying. The way I approach death personally, is with the understanding that we have all been dead for an infinite amount of time before we were born, and we will be dead for an infinite amount of time after we die. Between those two events however, we are privileged to have just under a century of time to connect with people, learn about our universe, and find happiness. And I think that is a wonderful gift that I don't intend to waste....
Glokib you're conflating a belief in creationism with a a reason for religion. Simply put if there is a God then creationism isn't far fetched it doesn't matter what God or if you believe it on a purely hypothetical basis it makes more sense that any god that might exist would be involved in some manner.
Believing that some being greater than us can live outside of the rules of science, physics, etc and that being created everything is more believable to me than the theory that nothingness became so concentrated that it became… something. That’s impossible, matter cannot be created or destroyed right?
RandomSnot Because regardless of what this guy believes, the creationists, that he does not count as scientists, studied at the same universities and got their Ph.d, MA’s and BA’s etc. just like the evolutionists did. To say they are not real scientists is to say the universities don’t know what they are on about and just give these degrees out to any old fool. This guys argument was just prejudice and pathetic. The following people are Christian. Try telling them they are not real scientists. Professor Andy McIntosh DSc, FIMA, CMath, FEI, CEng, FInstP, MIGEM, FRAeS has lectured and researched in Combustion and Thermodynamics for over 30 years. He is a visiting research professor at the University of Leeds, UK, and an adjunct professor at Mississippi State University, USA. He has published over 195 papers on aerodynamics, thermodynamics, combustion, biomimetics, and the bombardier beetle research, which has led to a patented spray device for applications of this technology to pharmaceuticals, fuel injectors, and fire extinguishers. Dr. Georgia Purdom holds a PhD in molecular genetics from The Ohio State University. She formerly served as an assistant and associate professor of biology at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University. Dr. Purdom is the director of Educational Content. Professor Stuart Burgess Biomimetics, Engineering (UK) Professor Burgess has held academic posts at Bristol University, Cambridge University and Liberty University in the USA. At Bristol University he was appointed Head of Department three times between 2004 and 2011. He has worked for the European Space Agency and was the lead designer for the solar array on the world’s largest civilian earth-observation spacecraft (Envisat). He also led the design and testing of the chain drive for the British Olympic Cycling Team who won a record six gold medals at the 2016 Rio Olympics. He was invited to exhibit this work at the Royal Society (National Academy of Sciences) in the UK in 2017 where it received national publicity. He has published over 160 scientific papers on the science of design in engineering and nature. Paul Garner is a full-time researcher and lecturer for Biblical Creation Trust. He has an MSc in Geoscience from University College London, where he specialised in palaeobiology. He is a Fellow of the Geological Society of London and a member of several other scientific societies. His first book, The New Creationism: Building Scientific Theories on a Biblical Foundation, was published by Evangelical Press in 2009. And my absolute favourite. No one dares to even talk about evolution to this guy because he just destroys every argument they have. JAMES M. TOUR, Ph.D. Synthetic chemist. T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry Professor of Computer Science Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering Rice University Smalley-Curl Institute and the NanoCarbon Center James M. Tour, a synthetic organic chemist, received his Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from Syracuse University, his Ph.D. in synthetic organic and organometallic chemistry from Purdue University, and postdoctoral training in synthetic organic chemistry at the University of Wisconsin and Stanford University. After spending 11 years on the faculty of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of South Carolina, he joined the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at Rice University in 1999 where he is presently the T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering. Tour’s scientific research areas include nanoelectronics, graphene electronics, silicon oxide electronics, carbon nanovectors for medical applications, green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction, graphene photovoltaics, carbon supercapacitors, lithium ion batteries, CO2 capture, water splitting to H2 and O2, water purification, carbon nanotube and graphene synthetic modifications, graphene oxide, carbon composites, hydrogen storage on nanoengineered carbon scaffolds, and synthesis of single-molecule nanomachines which includes molecular motors and nanocars. He has also developed strategies for retarding chemical terrorist attacks. For pre-college education, Tour developed the NanoKids concept for K-12 education in nanoscale science, and also Dance Dance Revolution and Guitar Hero science packages for elementary and middle school education: SciRave (www.scirave.org) which later expanded to a Stemscopes-based SciRave. The SciRave program has risen to be the #1 most widely adopted program in Texas to complement science instruction, and it is currently used by over 450 school districts and 40,000 teachers with over 1 million student downloads. Tour has over 680 research publications and over 120 patents, with an H-index = 140 and i10 index = 630 with total citations over 94,120 (Google Scholar). He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015. Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2014; listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014; and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014; and was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014. Tour was named “Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013. And the list goes on and on. All these scientists are Christians.
@@briemuss05 Uh huh, so if I press you to show me examples of scientifically peer reviewed papers submitted by any of these people dealing with creationism you will be able to provide them? Don't worry I wont hold you to that we all know what the results will be, nothing! Personally I don't care wherever a scientist is Christian or not Kenneth Miller is a Christian but given the fact that he accepts the theory of evolution I somehow suspect that you would consider him to be not a true Scotsman, uh I mean Christian. Interesting how scientists are remembered for their contributions our knowledge of he natural world and not their religious views isn't it. As for that James Tour guy, well turns out what you said about him (aside from what's blatant copypasta) is wrong. You pass him off as a great demolisher of evolution when he has simply got reservations even then given that he is a scientist he should know disagreeing with a theory isn't enough. He would have to come up with an alternative.
RandomSnot Dr Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering Dr Ron Neller, fluvial geomorphology Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical science Dr David Oderberg, Philosophy Professor Douglas Oliver, Professor of Biology Prof. John Oller, Linguistics Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botany Dr Gary E. Parker, Biology, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology) Dr Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University Dr Jules H. Poirier, Aeronautics, Electronics Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics Dr Graeme Quick, Engineering, former Principle Research Scientist with CSIRO (Australia) Dr Dan Reynolds, Organic Chemistry Dr Chad Rodekohr, Engineering, Physics Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology Dr David Rodda, PhD, Population Genetics Dr David Rosevear, Chemistry Dr Marcus Ross, Paleontology Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology Dr Ronald G. Samec, Astronomy Dr John Sanford, Plant science / genetics Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemistry / spectroscopy Dr Alicia (Lisa) Schaffner, Associate Professor of Biology, Cedarville University Dr Joachim Scheven Paleontology Dr Ian Scott, Education Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic Physics Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics Dr Emil Silvestru, Geology/karstology Dr Roger Simpson, Engineering Dr Horace D. (‘Skip’) Skipper, Professor Emeritus Soil microbiology, College of Agriculture, Forestry and Life Sciences, Clemson University, SC, USA Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoology Dr Andrew Snelling, Geology Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry Dr Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University Dr Greg Tate, Plant Pathology Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering Dr Larry Thaete, Molecular and Cellular Biology and Pathobiology Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry Dr S.H. ‘Wally’ Tow (Tow Siang Hwa), retired chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Singapore Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemistry Dr Brandon van der Ventel, Nuclear scientist Dr Gerald Van Dyke, Ph.D. and Professor Emeritus in Botany, North Carolina State University Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science Prof. Walter Veith, Zoology Dr Joachim Vetter, Biology Dr Erich Vorpagel, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology; computational protein function. Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineering and Geology Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineering Dr Keith Wanser, Physics Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Near-East History (also has B.Sc. in Zoology) Dr Carl Werner, Biologist Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics Dr John Whitmore, Geology/Paleontology Dr Kurt Wise, Paleontology Dr Bryant Wood, Archaeology Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology Dr Patrick Young, Chemistry and Materials Science Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography Dr Daiqing Yuan, Theoretical Physics Dr Henry Zuill, Biology
Why do people even bother debating with creationists? If creationists had any interests in logic, evidence or reasoning they wouldn't be creationists in the fist place.
Because of childhood indoctrination they truly believe that it is the truth, and many will want to learn more about the truth with logic and reasoning. The people I'm talking about are teenageers and people who are new to what atheism actually is that see these debates. You won't convince the person you're debating against, but you're planting a seed of doubt to others that do use reason and logic but never saw the illogical side of their belief. The debates aren't for the person you're debating against, it's for the bystanders that see it.
For some years 'serious scientists' ignored Intelligent Design, expecting it to 'just go away'... but by neglecting the debate Intelligent Design began to appear in children's school textbooks (in America). So it has since become important, especially via social media, to encourage the debate. from Sweden, the most godless country in the World.
If the text with the highest authority in your field of study is a religious text and absolute faith despite any evidence is paramount, then by very definition that is not science. Believe what you want but stay in your lane.
Reading the video title, for a second I thought the scientist was going to be 4 feet tall or something. Edit: Looking through comments it's clear I wasn't the only one who thought that :)
Let reasonable disposition move reasonable disposition. - Marcus Aurelius. This single piece of advice has saved my sanity from arguing with the ignorant, uninformed, and the scientifically illiterate.
There's a canyon at the base of St Helens that was created in a couple of months that made geologists rethink how long it takes to create of a canyon. He's not ontop of the subject as he thinks he is.
@@readhistory2023 lol Creating a Canyon takes days..Creating the Bedrock and Stratified structure that the Canyon is Comprised of, Takes Millennia. Your critical thinking skills and application of relatable information in support of a perspective, needs improvement.
At that point, the dude just lost all credibility because he can't even acknowledge another person's point because they don't believe the same thing he did. That kind of sounds like fascism to me.
@@flaming_ice5220 You might have a point if the creationists had a shred of evidence to support their arguments, but as they don't... Also, fascism 1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. He's not a governmental leader, not a dictator, doesn't have complete power, is not suppressing opposition (though he is mocking it), not regimenting the infrastructure of a nation, not emphasizing nationalism, nor saying anything racist. I don't think you know what that word means. You're just saying words that you think make him look bad.
@@flaming_ice5220 Fascism? lmao. He acknowledge the other person point but that doesn't mean they are scientists. Look it's simple af, a scientist is someone who follow the scientific method, a creationist doesn't follow the scientific method, therefore...
Creationist scientists? That is like saying Devil worshipping christians. Creationists are creationists because they do not know any science, or just about anything else. They are severely retarded.
It's a moot argument: if one believes God exists and created the earth, then He “obviously” created the deposits and the erosion as they lay (I personally believed this for the first 35 years of my life). The real question then is “if 'The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands' and if '...the stones will cry out', then why pray tell, would God craft a world with a misleading narrative? Does that sound like “the way, the truth, and the life”, like the great “I Am? Of course it's only one of the many conflicts that ultimately convinced me to call the game.
Or the giant flood that covered the whole earth caused erosion and mineral deposits because that's what water does. Every single culture on Earth has their own narrative mirroring the biblical deluge for a reason. Take a half dozen different minerals of various densities a couple tablespoons of each put them in a bottle of water and shake It up and dump it into a graduated cylinder and watch what happens. It is an elementary science experiment that is perfectly represented by the reality of how the mineral layers settled; that is to say the densest minerals on the bottom, lightest at the top. Deluge also explains the skewed fossil record and why animals that were supposed to have lived millions of years apart will occur in the same mineral layer. Have a look at the Grand canyon and the mountain plateau that a river supposedly run up one side and down the other to form the canyon. Behind the canyon and the plateau is the portion of America that is well known by scientists to have once been a giant freshwater sea. The answer is glaringly obvious that a river did not flow up one side of a plateau and down the other. The layers were largely formed by a flood, and the draining of the freshwater seas through a weak point in the mountain range cause the canyon to form likely in a matter of days or weeks rather than the millions of years purported by so called scientists.
Sure it is. in their own little messed up world it is...where a guy can be made out of dirt and can pull out his rib and make a woman. And if a snake tells you to eat a fruit,don't eat it!For some reason eating that one fruit in the ENTIRE GARDEN will make Earth a hellish place,with starvation,wars,etc etc.
TheCommunistDragon51 True. In their crazy imagination. I had hard time believing their bullshit even when I was a child but boy did they make me. I am lucky to no longer be brainwashed Bible thumper.
Robert Eli Funny enough they say Atheists are just indoctrinated. When infact Christians are the ones that do that,as well as many other religious people. Take India for example. or the Middle east. As well my parents ARE CHRISTIAN. And funny enough even though I have not gone to church since I was 5-6,(okay I did decide to go out one day 4-3 years ago just to check it out,itwasfuckinghorriblebtw,but then I was just an agnostic,not an Atheist.Now I am)
TheCommunistDragon51 So true. For some reason they think that a lack of belief in a claim is somehow a claim in itself. And about indoctrination. My entire and school are all Christian. My parents had taught me since I knew how to speak that God and the Bible was true. It sucks.
***** We can observe it,kinda. You like at stars and judge their distances,one light year=one year for it's light to reach you. Not only that but Radiometric dating is observable and can be repeated.
I like it when people call naturalism an assumption. I was going to try a supernatural hypothesis but it turns out I couldn’t test it so I gave natural a try and it just kept working. Edit: I understand strictly speaking naturalism is an assumption. This is mainly about methodological naturalism which is the relevant one to the world of science. Philosophical naturalism is not really the concern here. In the pursuit of knowledge methodological naturalism is the only available tool.
I mean, you are literally describing naturalism as an assumption, 'natural' observations can be repeated and therefore tested. That's a reason to 'assume' naturalism - b/c it's practical for corroborating scientific theories
both are assumptions. One can't test whether or not all events are governed by physical laws. That would be necessary for naturalism to be more than an assumption.
@@helvete_ingres4717 the problem is that naturalism is the belief that "All" events are governed by natural laws. That's the part that can't be tested.
Over the last 500 years science has come forward leaps and bounds, innovating and showing things to be facts, countless things. Religion has yet to prove ONE thing that is says to be truthful. Just ONE and it can't even manage that because all they have to go back on is that book that has been re-written countless times by countless people. It's a story, an early form of policing, that's it. I find it shocking that people of this age still believe in angels and miracles and a magic man in the sky. It's really, really disheartening.
THANKS FOR saying science not evolution cause evolution is not science and the bible claims Jesus rose up and indeed he did as any historian would tell. you check your facts fella
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Issac Asimov
Intellectuals tend to be the people most lacking wisdom. Go ahead and research it. Government think tanks have been the source of the world's greatest blunders time and time again.
@@jackasschicken5922 ... and also some of the world's greatest achievements! It's hard to mess anything up on a large scale by sitting around driving farts into a couch while watching OW MY BALLS on tv.
@@jackasschicken5922 so government think-tanks are the representation of science now, lol. While I may agree with a nuanced criticism of scientific institutions today; you, sir, represent a terminal case of cultural stupidity.
Attacking modern uniformitarianism is an odd choice. If you don't accept that the same basic physical laws were present in the past, you don't have a good argument for *ANYTHING* until you find strong evidence as to what physical laws actually were like in the past. And ideally how and why that changed. E.G. "in the past, nuclear reactors could form abiotically." is clearly differentiating the behavior from the present, but we know full well this is because of differences in the halflife of the isotopes of Uranium found in nature. The law didn't really change. Only how it affects the world. Even if we did find an example where an important physical constant relevant to Earth changed (which would also completely dismantle the idea of fine-tuning), that usually would encourage us to seek a higher level of theory for how that might've happened.
Except that most rates are not fundamental physical constants such as say, the magnitude of the strong nuclear force, but rather values dependent on conditional factors. Nuclear decay for example has been shown to be dramatically faster immediately succeeding the formation of a heavy element through the z-pinch. Catastrophism simply doesn't require the alteration of any fundamental constants, merely the presence of conditions directly implied by scripture.
Because at a certain point it's just irrefutable? If I asked you to prove mathematically that 2+2=4 could you do it? No, but we both know it's true because it's irrefutable. Evolution is missing like 2 things in order to become a scientific law instead of scientific theory and it's missing those things not because the science is bad but because we just haven't found the fossils to 100% prove it yet.
Honestly though? Kudos to the creationist guy for not just flying into a rage-fueled tangent at the end, they both had different views and they didn't clash with them any more than was necessary. EDIT: most of the replies have just ended up proving my point. Nice going, fellas.
@@arcguardian Wrong that creationism is a science. Science is a process. You gather evidence. You ponder on their meaning and elaborate an hypothesis on a question about the evidence: Why is this here, how did it get to this point, how does that work. With the question you ask, you gather more evidence to confirm your hypothesis, and if the evidence shows something that doesn't fit, you change your hypothesis until you arrive at a satisfying theory that explains the phenomenon you're studying. Creationists fail at this, because they start with their assessment (hypothesis) without any evidence and are unable to prove their axiom: That there is a creator. They give no satisfying evidence for it because the notion of a God is metaphysical, not physical and therefore not scientific. In science, when you disagree with someone else's findings, you must not only demonstrate that the evidence they gathered don't prove their theory, you must also elaborate a new hypothesis and test it. Creationists fail at both. They cherrypick or misrepresent scientists' evidence to try and disprove real science, wich they don't even succeed, and they fail to provide any evidence for their competing thesis. So, in a debate wether creationists are scientists or not, there is a clear right and wrong here: Creationists are not scientists. And I'll go further than that. I'm born and raised catholic. I don't agree with all of my original church's dogma, but I still believe in god. What I'm about to say will be controversial but here I come: Creationists even fail at their religion. Faith is about what is beyond our ability to understand and to learn. Faith can not and should not be proven and try to compete with science. If faith is about how we came to be, it can't exist because we can learn this. Faith is about something that can't be put into words. Creationists, when they desperately try to "prove" god, demonstrate how insecure they are in their own faith, because for them, each scientific gain of knowledge gives them smaller and smaller things to have faith into.
@@maaderllin I don't believe creationism asserts a different method for science. When gathering a hypothesis, you do so with evidence and then test, then it becomes a theory when it becomes more confirmed over time. What I would accuse young earth creationist of doing is cherry picking possibly scripture to fit a narrative when the words themselves carry less historical exactness and are meant (early hebrew for example) more on meaning. Just to put out there, I use to lean more young earth creationist now its old earth, but I'm still a creationist. I see the issue with consciousness being unanswerable within the current framework of pure naturalism and that evolution itself requires a dependency (perfectly timed insertion from an ultimate mind) to start an effective self replicating, robust structure such as DNA to yield the result we recognize as the mind. I further claim that Christianity as the most consistent philosophically and the most satisfying framework for solving internal struggles - not the external/religious perception. I digress though. There are holes I see with the current dating methods, and I do see potential blocks from scientists attempting to protect their stake in posterity (abroad in academia). I see some manner of skepticism as good for academia because, well that's the sane thing to do. Climate science for example is hugely political yet supposed scientists and talking heads run their mouths like they know what they are talking about. Anyone is possibly shamed for pointing out that they are not even reading their own papers when making claims. Point is, we ought to be respectful of those with fundamental differences sometimes because sometimes they are proved correct and our assumptions were actually wrong.
@@FanboyFilms Actually the real quote goes like this: "In that case,” said Napoleon, “let us wait twenty minutes; when the enemy is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him.”
What sucks is that most people assume all creationists think the earth is young. The Bible does not state how old the earth is; it could easily be millions of years.
could be. However, the bible is CRYSTAL CLEAR on SLAVERY: Leviticus 25:44 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession." Exodus 21:20 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
Weirdly, the YEC thing appears to be a recent enthusiasm of the evangelicals. They were pretty relaxed about it, though dead set against evolution of course. Apparently,they only got medieval about abortion since Reagan. Fifty years ago most would not own more firearms than their lifestyles required: e.g, a farmer would have a .22 and a shotgun for vermin. Now they own arsenals. They have become so extreme that eventually they will just become irrelevant. Vote blue.
well the problem comes when the "world is only 6000 years old" gets added into the argument, I think this is where this video started to explain that the world has to be millions of years old instead of just 6000.
It does challenge the establishment of Christianity and The Bible. If one thing is false, other things could be too, and going further down that road leads (potentially) to completely disregarding the bible. There are, of course, other systems of belief that take that stance, e.g. Deism
Flying Pig Broadcasting the bible is pretty abstract and unclear. to disprove religious beliefs would be interesting though. however, it would be still irrelevant to the existence of god
yeah, but that's a slippery slope, because if you get "all science-y" next it's acknowledging Evolution, which then means NO Garden of Eden, which then means no original SIN, and no need for Jesus to be god taking human form to act out a loophole to rules he himself had made... HOC: house of cards.
Prakash, that is a great point that I wish I could easily answer, but I cannot. Perhaps some of that thinking comes from the concept that God cannot make a mistake...so let's say that's true, then who are we as humans to judge some of the dead ends in evolution as mistakes? If you follow my thinking then what you'll find is the sheer arrogance on the part of those who oppose evolution who claim to understand what God does or does not do. I'll leave you with this to consider. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life (9 years) for suggesting that the earth was not the center of the Universe, and instead revolved around the Sun, which was. His works were banned thereafter. This underlines my point about religious perfection and God never making mistakes...according to very fallible religious authorities. Galileo is remembered today as the father of modern astronomy and physics. Those religious authorities from that time are nothing more than dust. Think about it. -Peace
Arthur Dent I agree a 100%. I think most of the conflict arises from the method rather than the outcome. Evolution talks about how life changes and progresses. It doesn't even try to attempt to explain how life started so it doesn't try to deny God in any way. According to the Bible, however, God created the world in 6 days and people were created as they are in Gods image. Since they believe that people are created as they are, as opposed to have evolved from monkeys, there is conflict between evolutionist and creationist belief. Besides the church made plenty of blunders in the name of God. It makes sense that people have lost their trust in them.
***** I agree but most of the nonsense that's being said is not even in the Bible to begin with. The Bible never states that the Earth is flat or that the Earth is at the center of the solar system. It's all bullshit, that the church said at the time.
Prakash Cherian Partner, I hear you and agree. All joking aside, that's what I call Monkey Business from the far Christian Right. Evolution never stated that...in fact the 'missing link' has yet to be found, but that does not mean it is not there. Darwin himself expressed concerns regarding his 'Origin of species' paper after publishing it saying that at some point it may be seriously challenged...instead science caught up with him providing a clear fossil record and embraced what continued to make scientific sense and went on to become scientific theory. What I admire about Charles Darwin the most, was his humility. You'll not find that in any religion as they never make mistakes. Don't get me wrong here as I believe in God. I also believe in the teachings of Christ. Modern, and older religion leaves me numb...in America as you may know the KKK (klu,klux,klan) were Christian...need I say more? Thank you for posting your single, original, sentence. -Peace
I think this is actually a really tall scientist. He's not standing on the edge of the canyon, he's standing on the bottom.
Laughed out loud, nice
Underrated comment.
explain that, atheists!
Have you ever seen 'Father Ted'? He explained it pretty much the same way to Father Dougal [ff to about 35 secs if you're short of time] ua-cam.com/video/GFTgkibl7DU/v-deo.html
People can't even write a video title properly these days
My God.
Imagine if the tallest scientist and creationist had a debate
Username checks out.
Take my upvote and leave
Bruh I just understood it
this comment would only be better if upvotes stopped at 666
😁👍
I'm smacking myself in the head for how long it took me to get why everybody's talking about the geologists height.
Hi. Me too! I guess some folk like us are just s bit more serene. Nice to meet ya!
I'm confused, can you explain🤷🏾♀️
@@redcandi01 the name of the clip is "the shortest scientist versus creationist debate ever." If you take it literally, it means the shortest scientist versus a creationist debate.
I read it as how it was supposed to be and then started reading the comments, LOL and wondered what the heck I was missing 😂
@@joshuahoover6841 oooooooooo hahahaha 😅👍🏽 ...thanks 💁🏾♀️😂
Don't be so short with yourself.
Creationist: "You're assuming uniformitarianism."
Me: "Should I assume the laws of physics change every now and then?"
Evolution seems to go against the 2nd law of thermal dynamics.
Real science should always be questioned and tested.
It's never set in stone.
@@elguapo2831 what is the law of thermodynamics?
@@davidhoffman6980 Second law of thermodynamics is a problem for evolution because the law stipulates that entropy always increases, whereas evolution into complex beings constitutes a decrease in entropy.
@@elguapo2831 so when you said "the law of thermodynamics" you actually meant the second law. Unfortunately you're not only wrong about what the second law of thermodynamics says, you're also wrong about its application. The second law describes entropy in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system; it constantly receives energy from the sun. The Change in allele frequencies over time doesn't go against the second law of thermodynamics any more than the population increasing, you cleaning your room, or us building cities.
@iadatoroboto8427 You give them eyes yet they cannot see.
Funny how the answers are staring everyone in their faces and they can't see it.
Remember the story of the pea in the mattress?
Now look at the canyon walls.
6,000 feet of flat strata layers, not including another 2,000 feet on the Grand Staircase.
Each layer supposedly took millions of years to form, but there are no valleys, hills, roots, burrows, or a pea in-between them.
I was at the Grand Canyon last may. They’re still just standing there.
you didn't see jesus moving some dirt around then ?
or his daddy , laying down dinosaur bones everywhere ?
or was that Mr. Satan , i can't keep up with all the nonsense these religious people throw out in to the world ...
should stop watching these clips and videos , cause they piss me the F off , just can't help myself
ignorant hopeless people , that couldn't tie their own freaking shoes , if it wasn't written down as a decree in that horrible atrocious immoral ''book'' they call the bible ...
absolute idiots with no life to speak off
LIFE is the ''guide TO life'' , not some antiquated pieces of parchment with stories older then 11.000+ years , that have absolutely nothing to do with people of this day and age ...
but they just keep on pushing their views on the world and tell you ... you're going to hell ...
f*ck em ... and f*ck their ''god''
that guy is a pervert and a predator in MY book , nothing else
@@ThermaL-ty7bw Bruh I'm not going to defend the Bible cause your mind is already closed. All I'm going to say is that the Bible has everything to do with the day and age. Just like the constitution tells us how to live out our lives so does the Bible.
Because the truth isn't subjective it's objective
@@ikhuemoseokojie911 people forget all the atrocities that have been done in the name of religion and of trying to force one's beliefs onto others; colonialism, conversion therapy for homosexuals, the complete destruction of cultures, major wars and maybe bllions of deaths all throughout history, the loss of identity and free thought for many individuals. Organized thought keeps people seperate and stop us from actually finding common ground. Religion tells one truth and conceals many others.I left Christianity after the first 20 years of my life and never looked back.
I am sure there will be statues depicting this impressive memorable event there.
Haha, that made me really laugh loud...
"Shortest Scientist vs Creationist debate ever."
Disappointing, I was expecting a 2 or 3 foot tall Scientist.
😆😂🤣
What were you expecting they'd drag a leprechaun out of the woods to give a Harvard education?
And that is exactly what you got
You, my man, made my day.
@@01Sunshine234 Exactly. This guy gets it.
"Oh, I read them. I don't count them as scientists."
"Ah, OK!"
Crickets.
Crickets is the sound inside the head of someone so stubborn that they can't see the obvious flaws of creationism... that's crickets.
@@mnn1265You interrupted the sound of nature to make such a silly comment? God forgive you.
@@TheLeastNegativeBasedWokie Which god? There are so many to choose from.
@@mnn1265 Only one lived on Earth.
@@DanteSimoncini OH, so Zeus! Oh, wait, Mohammad? Could be Isis? Hmmm, again so many to choose from.
I met a microbiologist today, he was much larger than I expected..
😐
Makes me wonder where all the macrobiologists are
@@ethanethanethawhipwhorpFuck you, it was good.
Classic
"No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot." - Mark Twain.
Ditto
In the words of a creationist.... Amen 🙏🏻🤣
Me scrolling through the comments looking for someone to quote Mark Twain. BRUTAL!!!! 😂😂😂😂
I LOVE that quote! Mark Twain is still my favorite author.
The geologist must be an idiot. Why should he waste his time considering evidence from people he disagrees with when it's so easy to just casually dismiss them categorically like a complete bigot, since evidence will never convince him anyway?
Thats a bold statement to say to a creationist when your standing near the edge of the Grand Canyon
😂😂😂
Like a boss👍!
Yeah I reckon they can be potentially dangerous.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
We never did see what happened next
What will change your mind?
Ken Ham: “Nothing.”
Bill Nye: “Evidence.”
Ken Ham has his answer.
Bill Nye is still looking.
@@Kuhtlass It's better to forever search for the truth than to start believing in a lie
@@Kuhtlass Ken Ham - "Banana's are designed to fit the hand."
Bill Nye - "Miss me with that shit."
bill nye is an idiot who admitted evolution is a belief
Don't know where you got that from, ken ham is very factual.
It is hard to win an argument with a tall person, but it's impossible to win an argument against a short person, they will just bring you down to their height and beat you with their experience.
This made me chuckle
@@hiq7137 How did you see that comment on the other chat?
@@Oysters176 it’s the notification
Underrated comment
As a short person, he's right. Check mate, tallists.
We can agree, however, that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell
I don't know but I have the feeling that you like it's ok to be smart
Damn straight
ATP baby!
I remember my Bio teacher saying that that’s not specific enough so F’s all around
Is mitochondria a dinosaur that wrote the bible?
Surprise! Surprise! If you don't use scientific methods, you aren't a scientist.
ur right
And if you're not a moron then you're not a creationist. ;)
@@Graeme_Lastname horrible joke
Who would've guessed.
@@tjseries3057 Yes indeed. Totally horrible. Unfortunately, not a joke, just a fact. ;)
This is actually probably the best scientist vs creationist debate ever, because it acknowledges the fundamental problem: if you can't even agree on basic premises, you can't actually have a debate to start with. At best, you just talk at each other forever, with neither side conceding any significant points to the other, and both declaring victory at the end.
This is why almost every debate we see is pointless. People pretend to be debating while they cant even agree on basic initial definitions that would be required to make proper arguments.
Which is why the scientific method exists to begin with. If the person you are arguing with can't even acknowledge objective, observable, reproducable evidence they are no more worth talking to than a farm animal.
@@ToastybeesAnd if they can't think outside the box of naturalism they're not worth taking to either
@@onionsansFor example, miracles by deities ? Fairies? Simulacrum? How is anything other than naturalism falsifiable?
@@lieslceleste3395 By proof? God can't contradict himself, so if you find God contradicting himself then you have proof. It's not like you can't prove supernatural things wrong, it's just that you have to think about what it is you're trying to disprove rather than what you know about everything else. Very simple stuff there.
"It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's impossible to win an argument against a stupid person."
Edit: And the next thing you know, shitloads of comments
Never argue with an idiot. They always drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Yeah, it's so hard to win an argument with someone who things they can from a dot of nothing exploding. And someone who thinks life somehow magically came from rock soup. And who think all life is magically related. So stupid. Oh wait, that's most scientists. Such idiots 🙄
But were can I learn stoopid????
@@stadtbekanntertunichtgut From evolutionists
@@ezekielanderson9055 I'm bad at reading and easy impresed will that be a problem?
Where's the short scientist?
Bravo.
Where's also the creationist debate?
+Agent1W I know we all wanted to see that spicy creationist comeback where he just straight roasts the guy for a full hour with his Tai Lopez knowledge of the world and ability to spew facts it would've been real. But I see these so called scientists refuse to show it, maybe they have something to hide, unlike the mighty Lord Jesus who saved us all from dying for our sins, papa bless and don't subscrab to such a biased channel.
dylan morgan your an idiot. But i like it!
he looked regular sized to me too
Clicked on this hoping the conversation would end with someone getting thrown into the Grand Canyon.... disappointment.
the irish twat
Average Alien English fucker
***** So do you, so how are you different except that you believe in unsubstantiated bullshit?
***** You should probably seek psychiatric therapy. Persuasion is not a requirement in science. You accept it, or you don't. Science doesn't start with an absurd assumption; it's about looking at the evidence and coming to a logical conclusion based on that evidence, not pre-conceived bullshit.
You might as well believe in invisible pink unicorns or something. At least you'd be a more creative insane person, then.
***** Let me ask you a question you've probably never thought about: if god exists at all (nevermind your god), what did god make the universe out of? :^)
Legend has it that he has maintained a vow of silence until he thinks of a comeback and has still not spoken to this day
Automotive industry: Well, building a car is quite complex, of course, but in simplest terms, you need an engine, a body, transmission, basic electronics, breaks, and internal furnishings that would let an operator to reside in.
Me: I reckon you could just use a hamster in a wheel to power the whole thing, and have a jet engine mounted on a front to use as breaks. Make my thing equal to the thing they said, it's just as valid, I am now as qualified as automotive industry because I had an opinion and I reckoned.
Disassemble a simple computer and put the parts in a dryer
If they can't put themselves together how do you expect the world to coincidentally be in place including the DNA code
Exactly
Not a coincidence,
God made everything
@@Maicon-b1b Thank you for the false equivalence, pal. Nobody assembles machines like that, and no scientist or well-equipped nonbeliever posits that biomolecules were formed like that.
Also, life is a chemical system, and we have a robust understanding of chemistry. The origin of life research has also come far since the Miller-Urey experiment. The abundance of eventually biotic material on prebiotic Earth and the self-replicating nature of DNA (RNA, even, if you go with the RNA world hypothesis) was more than enough as a base from which life sprang.
You know what we don't have? A robust understanding of God, if he exists at all.
Arguments from design are convincing at face value but crumble when you scrutinize assumptions and simply admit ignorance. "We don't know," is still a million times more honest than "It must have been God," when God hasn't even been established as a possibility. If I may borrow your line of argument, we have always observed mind as a product of matter, but never a disembodied mind or a anything that resembles a spirit, on which the God assumption often relies on.
I know it is a clichéd question that is often mocked among the believers' group, but if complex things must be created intentionally, who created God, given his all-powerful nature and alike? If your answer requires exempting God from the premise that complex things need a creator, then you have my answer. I do not accept that complexity implies intentional creation. I do not buy your argument from incredulity.
Argue the possibility of God, if you must. Just know that even if I don't know everything, it increases not at all the chance that God exists or do anything.
Unless you need to presuppose God before doing anything, of course, since then it's best that we don't talk.
I can't tell if you're being facetious but: life is not like random parts falling together. That's called "clockmaker" and there are plenty of videos on why it's fallacious. The short version is life has pressure put upon it over time and slowly shapes into what it is. DNA didn't bang together and spring forth a fully formed human like your analogy.
@@NucularRobit Very good! You could also say that a weathered stone has an an extremely particular shape and arrangement of it's atoms to produce that *exact* stone. Whose to say that it's 'arrangement' of atoms is more 'complicated' then the atoms of a watch?
It would still require nothing short of a miracle to get those atoms positioned in exactly that fashion to produce exactly that object. God? Of course not, just pressure...and time.
Life is like that too. And we can see the imperfections and weird genetic 'baggage' of our early ancestors littered throughout our genome. Why would god leave genetic 'baggage' and imperfections in any life form's DNA?
@@Maicon-b1b The worst thing? I'm not even sure if you're being serious. Just to be safe; that is nonsense
This may be one of the funniest moments in grand canyon history
top 10 at least
All 5-6 million years of its history!
@@ZringMalti Correctly stated.
In the video if you listen closely you can actually here the Canyon laughing at the creationist.
you weren't there when I took my wife there.
Him today in the shower “damn, I should’ve said...”
No there is nothing he should have said, this was perfectly fine. If you have listened to to many creationists you know why, because it hurts, how bad those arguments are.
... and while enjoying the hot water made possible by the work of inventors, scientists, and engineers.
@Lactose Intolerant Cow I am an atheist lol. I think you thought I said that the scientist arguements would be bad, I meant the creationist ones.
@@tomwanders6022 according to the Bible Earth already existed and it was only water in it. Soo... yes, BRUH
@Lactose Intolerant Cow the big bang doesn't explain time and sound, surely there's a God who created those things and dimensions
At age 15 my father tried to tell me the earth was 6000 years old.
I burst out laughing...he never mentioned it again. 😂
He didn’t even give you a reason? Lol
Proving the idea that most 15 year olds are dumbasses
That's a sad story.
It’s at least a good 15,000. Most people don’t realize that there were cities by the time Cain killed Able, or that Adam and Eve were not just two people.
@@matthew8153 wait really? How do you come to that conclusion?
Gotta love when they act like what they subjectively "count as valid" affects the debate in any way.
The scientific method isn’t subjective, and the age of earth isn’t determined in the debate club, only the lab-and definitely not at your church
I don't know. Therefore God.
End of discussion.
Creationist: Sea is wet... Bible said sea is wet.. Therefore God
Creationist: Birds fly.. Therefore God
Creationist: My dog... Therefore God
Creationist: Science... Therefore Satan
@Patrick McCarthy This comment... Therefore God
God hides in the cracks in the monolith of scientific understanding
young BLOCKA is love to believe but whether people like this fact or not the original bible was the Jewish Torah then it was edited then Jesus popped up then it was added to then edited or bits of tablets went missing then king James had his own version that’s used today. In what way can that possibly be the word of god, an edited abridged directories cut with added bonus scenes?!
God can't be detected or demonstrated to exist. Making claims about how you think that God invented science is a completely baseless assertion.
I misread this. I was expecting a midget scientist. I'm disappointed.
"Midget Scientist!" Next, on TLC!
Same here 😂
You are a pioneer
who's to say he isn't the shortest scientist!? Are you assuming naturalism?
hahaha
lol creationists have issues with reality. They don’t understand the universe because they “believe” in a book written before iPhones & electricity….
Btw: the word “belief” shares a definition with “delusion”…
I've said this many times in my entire existence.
No need to believe in something, anything or everything if it was reality. Like why should I believe that the Earth is round if that was the reality? Do I really have to believe that the Sun is hot in order to get its energy? I've had so many debate with this many any other existence so called theism.
It's pretty pathetic how a text from thousand years ago written by an ooga booga kind of brain (that was modified millionth time by any other low tier brain) have this many impact on this entire planet. How pathetic that could be? It impacts keep getting pushed right above or maybe it will slowly fade away. But I've never doubt the power of human will to willingly live in illusion & delusion that will greatly push it impact even more. Resulting many any other brain getting brainwashed in the washing machine and stuck in the death trap never-ending rabbit hole.
There is also so many any other word that was completely useless that I hope I won't never ever see them again on the Internet or real life such as soul, spirit, heart, believe, god and so many more. They're just literally non-existent. It gives me brain damage every time I read them.
That scientinst doesn't seem to be that short. I'm sure there are shorter scientists than him.
Oh there are, I just don't count them as scientists
William CowenBreen
Just like how scientists don't count Pluto to be a planet.
I thought the same thing when I read the title
gold
Szkarad gold
They haven’t moved from that spot to this very day.
The world's longest awkward silence moment. Guinness confirmed 👍
Wow XD 😂😂
Are they still there? Their legs must hurt
They still there
I like that a significant amount of people, me included, first read the title as "shortest scientist..."
I'm curious, what were you expecting when you clicked on the video?
@@misteraskman3668 I would imagine it would be a scientist who was a midget.
@@misteraskman3668 a scientist who was 4 feet tall
Uniformitarinism in geology refers to strict gradualism, which many modern geologist don't hold to anymore and now accept many catosphism events. The scientist here is wrong to claim that all scientists are uniformiterianism. That doesnt mean creation is right, but the "scientist" is wrong.
it means the laws of science haven't changed
You can ignore AMC.
I don't know why I thought reading this comment section would be a good idea.
Why not. I'm having a very good time down here.
Not sure if it was a good or a bad idea.
Either way I’m kinda enjoying it.
Well, we all enjoy a good train wreck don't we?
Because you like to read people expressing their stupid opinions
Funniest shit I’ve ever seen.
I feel like I've been watching this at 0.00001x speed for the past 20 years
I totally know what you mean.
nice way of putting it :)
i don't get it
he's saying that this 1 video showed all the other videos he has seen in a very short amount of time.
aka - the past videos he saw were like....20 min/1hour long debates, while this one took less than a minute.
Uh...not long at all...?
What does that have to do with what I'm saying?
Intresting, I don't understand though the need to bodyshame the guy, even little people can science.
Yeah when someone goes right to someone’s physical characteristics it tells me what I need to know
As in short. He meant “this is the shortest argument.”
The Bible was written by people who didn't know where the Sun went at night.
and i'd like to think they'd be embarrassed by descendants who ignored millennia of progress, to cling to some story they made up, just to stop people from asking questions they didn't know the answer to
well where do baby's come from, tell me.
@@TC-be7kxSperm plus egg. Cook for 9 months.
@@TC-be7kx Sexual intercourse
Praying for y’all
this is how long every "debate" with a creationist should last.
+Michael smith Yes, because we should silence all theories and notions that don't agree with our own. That's how we grow and learn. Acting like know it all pricks.
Jose Canusee when your right your right, no amount of debate will change the facts that religious nonsense has not been right on one scientific matter, or has met the burden of proof that is required for such extraordinary claims.
+Michael smith Well let's focus on this issue which I assume you are in agreement is the age of Earth. Let me re-post a comment I made on this video in hopes to get my point across. Forgive the laziness but I just don't feel like typing it all again." Is time not relative to the universal laws that the universe is expanding and speeding up? Therefore, as we exist and record our experience on the timeline, does our concept of time and it's relationship with history speed up? Meaning, A recorded year to man's concept of time 1 million years ago would be longer than it would in the current day. I am so amazed that scientist and the vast majority of the so called "intellectual" community are still theorizing time as a linear concept when it has been proven that it is cyclical in nature. My point is when someone says the Earth is thousands of years old or Millions of years old, they are both right and both wrong. The funniest part is we can only begin to imagine these things so instead of acting like we have all the answers, maybe we should stop being so arrogant and learn from one another." I mean even Albert Einstein considered his theories just that, theories. Sure, some are more predominantly rooted in fact and obvious as others are open to interpretation. Regardless of this, the reality is nobody knows without a shadow of a doubt anything so to silence debate and shun or criticize others for having opposing views is not only wrong but dangerous. I suggest you do some research on who is in charge of determining what scientific theories are considered facts throughout history and the damage that has done to the masses those theories were meant to use for control. I'm not saying your right, or I'm wrong, that's the point, we don't know. I'm not even a "creationist" as I think labeling oneself only puts yourself into a box were ideas and realizations go to die.
Jose Canusee I disagree on nearly everything you say.
A scientific theory is not just a theory, but the excepted explanation for a phenomenon, so I doubt very much that Einstein said that.
Nobody claims to have all the answers, but religion has none, science gives us a good basis to work from.
I will mock and shun any nonsense that religious indoctrination and brainwashing has claimed is true.
+Michael smith Then why is it called a theory? I mean how much more could you contradict yourself? So as far as your bogus definition of what theory means, how about we use the actual definition. the·o·ry
ˈTHēərē/
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
Let me give you the definition for what a supposition is before you make up another meaning for that as well.
sup·po·si·tion
ˌsəpəˈziSH(ə)n/
noun
an uncertain belief.
So, I find it rather amusing that someone who is so certain of the how the mysteries of science and the universe work can't even grasp the reality of what simple definitions of words in the English language mean. UNCERTAIN, do you know what that means? As for Albert Einstein, I believe these quotes should solidify my argument "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
"We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know." "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.". Lastly, as far as being indoctrinated and brainwashed, what do you think is happened to our youth as we speak with the new religion man is dominating the poor and underprivileged masses with? Think about that.
It's always fun to see a comment section with atheists and creationists endlessly insulting each other with nothing productive happening.
I haven't seen any of those for now
Comment Sections aren’t known for being productive.
I like how they both listened to each other and tried to understand each others beliefs and the justifications thereof.
I like to think the "stalemate" it ended on continued for a while, just the two men exchanging awkward looks not saying anything for 10 minutes.
Scientist :
- Take a rock and some water.
- Observe how many time it takes for half a milimeter to be eroded.
- Use math to calculate the aproximatif age of the grand cayon based on actual observations of nature.
Creationist :
- "Wait, is he allowed to do that ?''
I think they observed the rock at the grand canyon THAT IS STILL ERODING lmao
@@ImperialMasterRace yeah, even simplier 😄
Then try the same experiment with muddy sediment to simulate the runoff after a flood.
@Robert Loeder no, no, no, you have to ignore the possibility of any cataclysmic events and ASSUME that the processes observed present day is how it happened from the beginning of time and forever after. There is a surprising amount of willful ignorance in the belief of a 14B year old cosmic oopsie-daisy.
@@carportshenanigans5918 you can tell the difference between a cataclysmic event and a slow process. A flood that lasts a few days leaves different signs than a stream that flows for a thousand years.
And then there's the nuclear chemistry, which is probably the best way to date things. It isn't that scientists ignore signs, the fact is that the simplest explanation that fits all the evidence is an old universe and an old earth.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
---Voltaire 1765
that's not the whole story though. Atrocities have been committed for lots of reasons, like bombing a ww2 factory that happens to be in a highly populated area (collateral damage) or bombing/shelling a city to make way for invading troops.
TWSTF 8 Yes, that’s why I don’t believe in atheism. Such an absurdity has caused many atrocities.
@@sunblaze8931 Atheism is not a belief.
Best of luck moron
Sean O Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.
@@sunblaze8931 It's an absence of belief in a deity. There's a difference there.
I know, I know. There there
Put on a lullaby vid. You'll be much better off
"It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's impossible to win an argument against a really really short person."
The sad part is that both of them think they won that argument.
Rational, logical evidence is what WINS every time. And only ONE of them here was using that at all.
We have ZERO reasons to support a book that PROMOTES SLAVERY:
Leviticus 25:44-46
King James Version
44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
@@brianmi40 Yet we support a country that promotes Wage Slavery. GG
@@mrbrandonbrown7072 Would you rather support Russia?
Learn to separate a COUNTRY from the POLITICIANS you vote for. It's gonna be REALLY IMPORTANT Nov. 5th.
@@brianmi40what’s nov 5th?
@@brianmi40 Let's not forget that the slavery in Ancient Isreal is by no means comparable to the brutal slave trade. Evidence? Firstly, it was punishable by death to kidnap a man and sell him, in essence forced slavery, God gave this law Genesis 21:16, it's clear in any online or physical copy of scripture you may read.
Secondly, one might think how could God institute slavery, that's not caring? Keep in mind that by the time the first books of the Bible were written, mankind had already settled social structures where abusive slavery had taken place. All of the Hebrew scriptures referring to slavery if you read are in the context of God tolerating slavery, under his circumstances though. Evidence? Leviticus 25:39-41, slaves were to be treated as hired workers and would be set free at the seventh year.
All of this is just to understand what Hebrew scripture set forth, Christians that respect God's word as a whole know that the new covenant made through Christ set principles for people to live without the implementation of slavery Evidence?treat others as equal and treat them in kind Matthew 7:12, also 1st John 5:19. The slavery that you're thinking of is not loving, we certainly agree on that, but the Bible does not promote oppressive slavery now and never did even in Hebrew scripture
“Have you heard what the creationists have to say?”
“Yeah but I said scientists tho”
🤣🤬😂😆🤭✅🖖
*Stare*
@@cloudycrisps7290
You are aware that the mechanism of " creation science " is magic/incantations.
Being that it was spoken, that makes it just that.
But there's a problem with that.
There was no air before this act.
Nor did the non-corporeal entity have a mouth from which to speak.
No vocal chords or lungs.
None of the things needed for speech was in place before the incantation was used.
So, how did that work? More magic?
Creation was also put up against evolutionary processes in court.
The ruling is why evolution is taught in schools and creation isn't, accept those schools that indoctrinates children into the cult before they can think for themselves.
Calling it science doesn't make it science.
And if this religious crap was real there wouldn't be any need for apologist's. There would be no holes or slack to pull it it were real and not mere fantasy.
Creation Science, what a laugh.
@@tyrionlannister9273 okay, First of the Bible said humanity was made in Gods own image therefore it can be assumed that they have a mouth. Second, Just because a court has a certain ruling does not make it true or the best. Other wise explain why innocent people are convicted and guilty are set free. What may seem right is not always the case. And finally Evolution also has apologists, people who keep finding evidence and using it to support their views. However I do agree that calling something science does not make it science, so tell me, if evolution is classified as a theory why do we teach it as scientific fact? Just because we can use evidence to point at it? You can do that with the creationist viewpoint as well. Perhaps it would be better if these theories were taught separately from factual science so we can more accurately test them. If creation science really was this laugh as you say, then surely you have all the answers to make this belief obsolete? Explain to me them how life could arise from non living Matter and then proceed to never do it again on this planet. Explain the origins of human morality, of Logic, explain consciousness. The Truth is neither of us have all the answers therefore neither side should be taken as more than an opinion with a spew of evidence at the table trying to make it all fit. It is also impossible to simply take information and just “find the results” because there will always be bias. A creationist will use it to point to God and a non-creationist will use it to point towards Not God. Just finding evidence is not what you are doing at all. Everyone is DELIBERATELY using the evidence to support their view.
@@cloudycrisps7290
Evidence points only one way.
Evolution doesn't have apologist's.
And the Torah, the old testament, doesn't say that man was made in the image of god.
It says that humans were re-created in the image of the gods, Elohim is a pluralism and also includes female.
And it also says that Jehovah sits in the seat of judge amongst the gods.
So the text clearly states a plurality.
And about this assumption.
Why would a being living in null space, devoid of everything have need of a mouth?
There's nothing to eat, nothing to speak upon because sound travels on the particles of gas in waves to the ear that has bones in it that rattle and send the signals to the brain to be deciphered...
The people that wrote the religious texts literally knew nothing and assumed everything. That's why it's rife with inconsistentancies and nonsensical ideas.
Plants were created before the sun.
The sun and moon exist inside of the dome above the flat earth and are the same size.
There's water outside the dome.
Snakes and donkey talk.
Eating fruit is a crime that humans are guilty of even though they didn't even eat the fruit themselves.
Then later, god takes human form. To be a sacrifice of itself to itself to appease itself for rules it made up in the first place. From a scenario it made.
It also placed the talking snake in the garden.
What kind of idiot thinks this makes sense?
You do.
I can't believe we're still having these kinds of "debates" in this century...
Don't worry. I met a guy who believed Men and Women have a different number of ribs.
Suboptimal Constructor ribs are Zionist new world order Kabal propaganda wake up you sheeple
Luftwaffe 2 Electric Bogaloo I have awoken
Chad Chadington my third eye is open to the spiritual chakra
Certain people worship their own interests and dress them up as devotion to a noble, higher cause.
We will always have these debates as long as weak-minded, self-obsessed people want to spread their fears and beliefs.
There's no such thing as creationists scientists
Of course there are. Don't be silly. What might really blow your mind is that the modern scientific method was essentially invented (or "created") by creationists.
@@222ableVelo go peddle your religinut bullshit to someone less educated.
@@222ableVelo No, the scientific method was created when people started rejecting God as an explanation for anything.
If there are any im sure they arent the brightest people
Yeah just a little guy called Einstein. I'm not sure if you've heard of him
That's a snub. "OOh, I've read them. I don't count them as scientists.".
Cretardisim isnt a field of science and it’s not supported by any science what so ever, therefore it’s not science.
Problem 1:
Which of the following is the best way to answer questions and discover the truth.
A.) Read many books and use the scientific method
B.) Read one book and ask your imaginary friend
***** , creationists do not search for the best way to answer questions ( "o, you of little faith ") and do not want to discover the truth (they don't "discover" , they are teached, told, showed.....) Slave mentallity.
So , yeah, one book and one shepard.. easy and not al all confusing. And the best part , if fallowing THAT shepard makes you do bad things ( like sacrificing your own kid on an altar ) it is NOT YOUR FAULT.
speedy Stereotype much? Did you figure out the origin of life apart from God? If you ever do, the rest of the world will worship you. Ironic,huh?
Tim,
1., I was not talking about God and the origin of life, but about the BIBLE- wich is a BOOK, stories told and interpreted for hundreds of years by hundreds of ppl (HUMANS) before beeing written, and then copyed hundreds of times and then TRANSLATED for 3-4 times... and then copyed again... and then SELECTED... and interpreted...and "completed' ...
It is really stupid to belive in theese conditions that the Bible is 100 % true. Even if Moses heard the word of God, it is certain that what you have in your hands today it is not what Moses heard.
2.Stereotype... hm..I'm sorry , is something I said NOT from your Bible ?
Maybe I am wrong and chistianity is all for the science and discoverys ... and the Dark Ages was just a big misunderstand...
wait , aren't creationist rejecting with out explaination ALL the evidence against their theory - bones, geografie, geologie,biologie, ancient civilization, carbon dating etc... , refusing even to look at it ???
How else can you reamain a creationist (again it is not about beliving in God , but in the Bible) if you really look at the facts ?
***** Scientists use a lot of methods to estimate the age of something. C14 is only one of them. What's more, every scientist theory is refutable. You know why ? Because it was made to be refutable. It is the basis of the scientific method. Seriously, if you pay more attention to something that has been written in a book by some men, rather than paying attention to theories which has been tested and validated following a clear, precise and refutable method, then I can't do anything for you.
in my book ***** atheists are but children trying to understand their own conception without someone teaching it to them
“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
― Napoleon
Religion is just as much as a deterrent as the death penalty. Its not good.
Good one Napoleon, wait, what does Darwism do again? Oh yea that's right, rich murdering the poor
leon scott what has murdering the poor got to do with Darwin ?
Pork Sword the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform
It still works great in the USA
Ruby Honey Survival of the fittest. Hitler's actions are very Darwinian . Stalin's actions are very Darwinian. Any situation where people in control are taking advantage of the less fortunate is Darwinian. If you don't understand that, well then you should further investigate Darwinian.
"But but, many scientists believe the earth is only 6,000 years old."
"Sorry I meant REAL scientists."
That’s the “no true Scotsman fallacy”, you’re basically saying “they aren’t true scientist because they don’t agree with me”. I’m personally not a young earth creationist, but this is objectively stupid.
@@charles21137
Real scientists are scientists who listen to science.
Creationists listen to a particular interpretation of a millennia old text and make it dogma.
Creationists aren't real scientists.
@@oliverjkulig7373 fair enough, but I would rather them actually look at the claims that creationist with degrees in science make and disprove it with science, then go “you make a claim I disagree with, thus false”
@@oliverjkulig7373 You are aware that there is no such thing as listening to science right? Science isnt some magical beam that sends information to anyone with a bachelors in physics. The very basic purpose of scientific knowledge is for it to be challenged and either rewritten or reaffirmed based on analytical, experimental and observational data. And considering there is no physical way for us to test certain things there is plenty of things in scientific fields open to interpretation and theory, many of which would very much be wrong. This stupid "bElIeVe tHe SciEncE dOod" is just as ignorant and annoying as creationism "because bible said so".
@@charles21137 Thats not how science works. Science is that everything is wrong until you test it and record the data and how you got it and loads of people replicate it. So a creationist would need some scientific evidence that they cant have because theres no test they can make. We do have tests that show the Earth is millions of years old though, so anyone saying the contrary, a scientist can just say "Thats wrong."
If only debates were like this.
If god isn't real then who tangled my headphones? God: 1 Atheists: 0
I hope you're not being serious.
Liam Dye
1985: In 2017 we will have flying cars!
2017: *reads your comment*
Liam, don't feed the trolls.
:(
Rob Hatch Because a joke these days can only be a troll wanting attention apparently.
You wanna know what makes scientist better than creationist? Their not afraid to admit when they're wrong. as we learn more, previous beliefs and theories change or are proven wrong and scientist are ok with admitting that. Religious ppl refuse to even consider the fact that they might be wrong
You wanna know what makes a creationist better than a scientist? We can deal with the horribleness of the world that None of Us can escape. Because at the end of the day, when we see the beauty and perfection of planetary systems, the designs of mother nature, and complexity of the human mind, we know that something that stands the test of time has created all of it, and That Creator is inviting us to be held through all of eternity. (You can say it as unrealistic as Santa, but to me, so is a perfect solar system forming from some Random explosion of Nothingness) To us Creationists, there is an artist for this unknown painting. & I gotta tell ya, on a personal note, as a former atheist, Its more rewarding and joyous to believe this way. It definitely kicks the sh*t out of my old mindset, which to sum up in a sentence, was me cursing a God that I thought I didn't believe in and wanting to leave an earth that I was living on.,. But I guess im just another close-minded dumbass that doesn't think like you. You can call me hopeless, but that would be the most amazing irony of all the ages.
+MyThousandYearOldWisdom WillHelpYouGrow im sorry, but all that is the exact opposite of dealing with the horribleness of the world.
MyThousandYearOldWisdom WillHelpYouGrow I mean yeah it's nice to believe that we go to a eternal paradise when we die and it's nice to think that there is a creator watching over and us and stuff but when all this claims have little to no evidence to back them up, what's the point.
The difference between a person of science and a person of faith is one values evidence, logic, and truth over desperate hope, and the other doesn't.
I think when it comes down to it, a creationist is really just someone who can't cope with the idea of an end to consciousness ... Which although I am an atheist, I can understand to some degree. Death is terrifying.
The way I approach death personally, is with the understanding that we have all been dead for an infinite amount of time before we were born, and we will be dead for an infinite amount of time after we die. Between those two events however, we are privileged to have just under a century of time to connect with people, learn about our universe, and find happiness.
And I think that is a wonderful gift that I don't intend to waste....
Glokib you're conflating a belief in creationism with a a reason for religion.
Simply put if there is a God then creationism isn't far fetched it doesn't matter what God or if you believe it on a purely hypothetical basis it makes more sense that any god that might exist would be involved in some manner.
Believing that some being greater than us can live outside of the rules of science, physics, etc and that being created everything is more believable to me than the theory that nothingness became so concentrated that it became… something. That’s impossible, matter cannot be created or destroyed right?
@@AMC2283 But you do have to acknowledge and explain what there is evidence for.
What created god?
Creationist: _Have you read any creationist literature?_
Scientist: _Yes._
Scientist: _Have you read any science literature?_
Creationist: 😶
"Did you read anything in the past years?"
"Ah, right. Ok."
@Joseph Krystek-Walton *"I am told ..."* 🙄
@Joseph Krystek-Walton It’s because you’re an intellectual moron. Go back and read your fairytale book.
Okay but have YOU ever read any creationist literature?
Of course they have, they just don't agree with the origins science part of it because it's completely biased.
Oh, I’ve read them. I don’t count them as scientists. 🖐〽️🎤
Yes that really was a short pathetic argument
@@briemuss05 Why?
RandomSnot Because regardless of what this guy believes, the creationists, that he does not count as scientists, studied at the same universities and got their Ph.d, MA’s and BA’s etc. just like the evolutionists did. To say they are not real scientists is to say the universities don’t know what they are on about and just give these degrees out to any old fool. This guys argument was just prejudice and pathetic. The following people are Christian. Try telling them they are not real scientists.
Professor Andy McIntosh DSc, FIMA, CMath, FEI, CEng, FInstP, MIGEM, FRAeS has lectured and researched in Combustion and Thermodynamics for over 30 years. He is a visiting research professor at the University of Leeds, UK, and an adjunct professor at Mississippi State University, USA. He has published over 195 papers on aerodynamics, thermodynamics, combustion, biomimetics, and the bombardier beetle research, which has led to a patented spray device for applications of this technology to pharmaceuticals, fuel injectors, and fire extinguishers.
Dr. Georgia Purdom holds a PhD in molecular genetics from The Ohio State University. She formerly served as an assistant and associate professor of biology at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University. Dr. Purdom is the director of Educational Content.
Professor Stuart Burgess
Biomimetics, Engineering (UK)
Professor Burgess has held academic posts at Bristol University, Cambridge University and Liberty University in the USA. At Bristol University he was appointed Head of Department three times between 2004 and 2011. He has worked for the European Space Agency and was the lead designer for the solar array on the world’s largest civilian earth-observation spacecraft (Envisat). He also led the design and testing of the chain drive for the British Olympic Cycling Team who won a record six gold medals at the 2016 Rio Olympics. He was invited to exhibit this work at the Royal Society (National Academy of Sciences) in the UK in 2017 where it received national publicity. He has published over 160 scientific papers on the science of design in engineering and nature.
Paul Garner is a full-time researcher and lecturer for Biblical Creation Trust. He has an MSc in Geoscience from University College London, where he specialised in palaeobiology. He is a Fellow of the Geological Society of London and a member of several other scientific societies. His first book, The New Creationism: Building Scientific Theories on a Biblical Foundation, was published by Evangelical Press in 2009.
And my absolute favourite. No one dares to even talk about evolution to this guy because he just destroys every argument they have.
JAMES M. TOUR, Ph.D. Synthetic chemist.
T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry Professor of Computer Science Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering Rice University Smalley-Curl Institute and the NanoCarbon Center
James M. Tour, a synthetic organic chemist, received his Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from Syracuse University, his Ph.D. in synthetic organic and organometallic chemistry from Purdue University, and postdoctoral training in synthetic organic chemistry at the University of Wisconsin and Stanford University. After spending 11 years on the faculty of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of South Carolina, he joined the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at Rice University in 1999 where he is presently the T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering. Tour’s scientific research areas include nanoelectronics, graphene electronics, silicon oxide electronics, carbon nanovectors for medical applications, green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction, graphene photovoltaics, carbon supercapacitors, lithium ion batteries, CO2 capture, water splitting to H2 and O2, water purification, carbon nanotube and graphene synthetic modifications, graphene oxide, carbon composites, hydrogen storage on nanoengineered carbon scaffolds, and synthesis of single-molecule nanomachines which includes molecular motors and nanocars. He has also developed strategies for retarding chemical terrorist attacks. For pre-college education, Tour developed the NanoKids concept for K-12 education in nanoscale science, and also Dance Dance Revolution and Guitar Hero science packages for elementary and middle school education: SciRave (www.scirave.org) which later expanded to a Stemscopes-based SciRave. The SciRave program has risen to be the #1 most widely adopted program in Texas to complement science instruction, and it is currently used by over 450 school districts and 40,000 teachers with over 1 million student downloads.
Tour has over 680 research publications and over 120 patents, with an H-index = 140 and i10 index = 630 with total citations over 94,120 (Google Scholar). He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015. Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2014; listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014; and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014; and was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014. Tour was named “Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013.
And the list goes on and on. All these scientists are Christians.
@@briemuss05 Uh huh, so if I press you to show me examples of scientifically peer reviewed papers submitted by any of these people dealing with creationism you will be able to provide them? Don't worry I wont hold you to that we all know what the results will be, nothing!
Personally I don't care wherever a scientist is Christian or not Kenneth Miller is a Christian but given the fact that he accepts the theory of evolution I somehow suspect that you would consider him to be not a true Scotsman, uh I mean Christian. Interesting how scientists are remembered for their contributions our knowledge of he natural world and not their religious views isn't it.
As for that James Tour guy, well turns out what you said about him (aside from what's blatant copypasta) is wrong. You pass him off as a great demolisher of evolution when he has simply got reservations even then given that he is a scientist he should know disagreeing with a theory isn't enough. He would have to come up with an alternative.
RandomSnot Dr Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Dr Ron Neller, fluvial geomorphology
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical science
Dr David Oderberg, Philosophy
Professor Douglas Oliver, Professor of Biology
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botany
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biology, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Jules H. Poirier, Aeronautics, Electronics
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr Graeme Quick, Engineering, former Principle Research Scientist with CSIRO (Australia)
Dr Dan Reynolds, Organic Chemistry
Dr Chad Rodekohr, Engineering, Physics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rodda, PhD, Population Genetics
Dr David Rosevear, Chemistry
Dr Marcus Ross, Paleontology
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr Ronald G. Samec, Astronomy
Dr John Sanford, Plant science / genetics
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemistry / spectroscopy
Dr Alicia (Lisa) Schaffner, Associate Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Joachim Scheven Paleontology
Dr Ian Scott, Education
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic Physics
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geology/karstology
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineering
Dr Horace D. (‘Skip’) Skipper, Professor Emeritus Soil microbiology, College of Agriculture, Forestry and Life Sciences, Clemson University, SC, USA
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoology
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geology
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Greg Tate, Plant Pathology
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Larry Thaete, Molecular and Cellular Biology and Pathobiology
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr S.H. ‘Wally’ Tow (Tow Siang Hwa), retired chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Singapore
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemistry
Dr Brandon van der Ventel, Nuclear scientist
Dr Gerald Van Dyke, Ph.D. and Professor Emeritus in Botany, North Carolina State University
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoology
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biology
Dr Erich Vorpagel, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology; computational protein function.
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineering and Geology
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Keith Wanser, Physics
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Near-East History (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr Carl Werner, Biologist
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geology/Paleontology
Dr Kurt Wise, Paleontology
Dr Bryant Wood, Archaeology
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemistry and Materials Science
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Daiqing Yuan, Theoretical Physics
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology
Why do people even bother debating with creationists? If creationists had any interests in logic, evidence or reasoning they wouldn't be creationists in the fist place.
Because of childhood indoctrination they truly believe that it is the truth, and many will want to learn more about the truth with logic and reasoning. The people I'm talking about are teenageers and people who are new to what atheism actually is that see these debates. You won't convince the person you're debating against, but you're planting a seed of doubt to others that do use reason and logic but never saw the illogical side of their belief. The debates aren't for the person you're debating against, it's for the bystanders that see it.
For some years 'serious scientists' ignored Intelligent Design, expecting it to 'just go away'... but by neglecting the debate Intelligent Design began to appear in children's school textbooks (in America). So it has since become important, especially via social media, to encourage the debate.
from Sweden, the most godless country in the World.
If the text with the highest authority in your field of study is a religious text and absolute faith despite any evidence is paramount, then by very definition that is not science. Believe what you want but stay in your lane.
Lol, so awkward at the end. "Uhh, what do we talk about now"
Dammit, he had a whole notebook of comebacks but he left it in the motel room...
He had no comeback whatsoever for that line. Checkmate!
In the drawer next to the Holy Bible???
"...assumptions of naturalism..."
So, why bother with science when we can just look for supernatural/magical explanations for mysteries instead?
Because they don't exist. We've proven them wrong.
Reading the video title, for a second I thought the scientist was going to be 4 feet tall or something. Edit: Looking through comments it's clear I wasn't the only one who thought that :)
Let reasonable disposition move reasonable disposition. - Marcus Aurelius.
This single piece of advice has saved my sanity from arguing with the ignorant, uninformed, and the scientifically illiterate.
Got a feeling it might take hundreds of millions of years for that guy to cement his comeback into something solid.
There's a canyon at the base of St Helens that was created in a couple of months that made geologists rethink how long it takes to create of a canyon. He's not ontop of the subject as he thinks he is.
@@readhistory2023 Did the geologists think that it could happen in a few days? If not, then the creationist "theory" is still bunk.
@@readhistory2023 lol Creating a Canyon takes days..Creating the Bedrock and Stratified structure that the Canyon is Comprised of, Takes Millennia. Your critical thinking skills and application of relatable information in support of a perspective, needs improvement.
@@redneckhippiefreak Said the "redneckhippiefreak". Hm.
@@gunslingergirl2579 Said the "Gunslinger Girl". Hm.
The Scientist seemed average height to me
Lol.
That is the interpreter. The scientist is too small to be seen.
Well you seemed of average intelligence to me, guess we were both wrong
"Oh, I've read them, I just don't count them as scientists."
Damn, that's a burn that aloe can't help.
At that point, the dude just lost all credibility because he can't even acknowledge another person's point because they don't believe the same thing he did. That kind of sounds like fascism to me.
@@flaming_ice5220 You might have a point if the creationists had a shred of evidence to support their arguments, but as they don't... Also,
fascism
1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
He's not a governmental leader, not a dictator, doesn't have complete power, is not suppressing opposition (though he is mocking it), not regimenting the infrastructure of a nation, not emphasizing nationalism, nor saying anything racist. I don't think you know what that word means. You're just saying words that you think make him look bad.
@@flaming_ice5220 Science is evidence based. Your opinion is worthless when not backed up by evidence and experimentation.
@@flaming_ice5220 if you don’t use the scientific method, you aren’t a scientist.
@@flaming_ice5220 Fascism? lmao. He acknowledge the other person point but that doesn't mean they are scientists. Look it's simple af, a scientist is someone who follow the scientific method, a creationist doesn't follow the scientific method, therefore...
we are all disappointed as we wanted to see the short scientist
I thought by the title I was going to watch a very short scientist debate with a Creationist.
***** Nicely done, sir.
too funny!
+Andrew Heard I know right?! I was expecting a midget scientists talking to a creationist lol
WHERE IS MY MIDGET!!!!
Creationist scientists? That is like saying Devil worshipping christians. Creationists are creationists because they do not know any science, or just about anything else. They are severely retarded.
+Andrew Heard Thank you for helping me catch that lol
That scientist was NOT short. I feel cheated and butthurt
tefras14 lmao I thought the same thing
its funny cause thats what creationists do lol
I think they meant the DURATION of the video, NOT how short the scientist is.
tefras14 The word ever is at the end by the way.
Andy Lara I think he was JOKING.
It's a moot argument: if one believes God exists and created the earth, then He “obviously” created the deposits and the erosion as they lay (I personally believed this for the first 35 years of my life).
The real question then is “if 'The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands' and if '...the stones will cry out', then why pray tell, would God craft a world with a misleading narrative? Does that sound like “the way, the truth, and the life”, like the great “I Am? Of course it's only one of the many conflicts that ultimately convinced me to call the game.
Or the giant flood that covered the whole earth caused erosion and mineral deposits because that's what water does. Every single culture on Earth has their own narrative mirroring the biblical deluge for a reason. Take a half dozen different minerals of various densities a couple tablespoons of each put them in a bottle of water and shake It up and dump it into a graduated cylinder and watch what happens. It is an elementary science experiment that is perfectly represented by the reality of how the mineral layers settled; that is to say the densest minerals on the bottom, lightest at the top. Deluge also explains the skewed fossil record and why animals that were supposed to have lived millions of years apart will occur in the same mineral layer. Have a look at the Grand canyon and the mountain plateau that a river supposedly run up one side and down the other to form the canyon. Behind the canyon and the plateau is the portion of America that is well known by scientists to have once been a giant freshwater sea. The answer is glaringly obvious that a river did not flow up one side of a plateau and down the other. The layers were largely formed by a flood, and the draining of the freshwater seas through a weak point in the mountain range cause the canyon to form likely in a matter of days or weeks rather than the millions of years purported by so called scientists.
I like how awkward the conversation becomes after "Ah, right, okay..."
Creationism is not science.
Sure it is.
in their own little messed up world it is...where a guy can be made out of dirt and can pull out his rib and make a woman.
And if a snake tells you to eat a fruit,don't eat it!For some reason eating that one fruit in the ENTIRE GARDEN will make Earth a hellish place,with starvation,wars,etc etc.
TheCommunistDragon51 True. In their crazy imagination. I had hard time believing their bullshit even when I was a child but boy did they make me. I am lucky to no longer be brainwashed Bible thumper.
Robert Eli
Funny enough they say Atheists are just indoctrinated.
When infact Christians are the ones that do that,as well as many other religious people.
Take India for example.
or the Middle east.
As well my parents ARE CHRISTIAN.
And funny enough even though I have not gone to church since I was 5-6,(okay I did decide to go out one day 4-3 years ago just to check it out,itwasfuckinghorriblebtw,but then I was just an agnostic,not an Atheist.Now I am)
TheCommunistDragon51 So true. For some reason they think that a lack of belief in a claim is somehow a claim in itself.
And about indoctrination. My entire and school are all Christian. My parents had taught me since I knew how to speak that God and the Bible was true. It sucks.
*****
We can observe it,kinda.
You like at stars and judge their distances,one light year=one year for it's light to reach you.
Not only that but Radiometric dating is observable and can be repeated.
“Ah right. Okay.” Wins debates every time.
@Tel Aviv How does that make a difference?
Bollocks
Check mate athiests
Or "Oh right yeah" as Father Dougal would say.
@@FrowningIke Okay... for the last time: these toy cows are small. But the ones outside are far away. 😂
I don't count them as scientists....10yrs on n it never gets old!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🌋🌋🤣🤣
Not sure if all the short jokes make me fear for the future of humanity or relish in it.
I like it when people call naturalism an assumption. I was going to try a supernatural hypothesis but it turns out I couldn’t test it so I gave natural a try and it just kept working.
Edit: I understand strictly speaking naturalism is an assumption. This is mainly about methodological naturalism which is the relevant one to the world of science. Philosophical naturalism is not really the concern here. In the pursuit of knowledge methodological naturalism is the only available tool.
This philosophy is called “provisional methodological naturalism” and is the kind of methodnat I subscribe to.
I mean, you are literally describing naturalism as an assumption, 'natural' observations can be repeated and therefore tested. That's a reason to 'assume' naturalism - b/c it's practical for corroborating scientific theories
Naturalism is an assumption, because it can not be proved. It assumes that there is no supernatural.
both are assumptions. One can't test whether or not all events are governed by physical laws. That would be necessary for naturalism to be more than an assumption.
@@helvete_ingres4717 the problem is that naturalism is the belief that "All" events are governed by natural laws. That's the part that can't be tested.
Over the last 500 years science has come forward leaps and bounds, innovating and showing things to be facts, countless things. Religion has yet to prove ONE thing that is says to be truthful. Just ONE and it can't even manage that because all they have to go back on is that book that has been re-written countless times by countless people. It's a story, an early form of policing, that's it. I find it shocking that people of this age still believe in angels and miracles and a magic man in the sky. It's really, really disheartening.
I call that magic man, their imaginary-sky-daddy.
Nice copy/paste opinion you have there.
(╭ರ_•́), nice name sir.
(╭ರ_•́) Nice monocle U___U
THANKS FOR saying science not evolution cause evolution is not science
and the bible claims Jesus rose up and indeed he did as any historian would tell. you check your facts fella
When two guys bring a peanut butter sandwich to a knife fight
I'm no creationist, but this gives the impression they're both arguing in bad faith.
I agree haha
What is a scientist? Wikipedia defines them as, "an individual who uses the scientific method." Welp, looks like he's right. That was a short debate.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Issac Asimov
So much more than just a Sci Fi author.
@@monstertrucktennis mostly a chemist. wrote over 300 books on the subject.
taught chemistry too.
a brilliant mind.
Intellectuals tend to be the people most lacking wisdom. Go ahead and research it. Government think tanks have been the source of the world's greatest blunders time and time again.
@@jackasschicken5922 ... and also some of the world's greatest achievements! It's hard to mess anything up on a large scale by sitting around driving farts into a couch while watching OW MY BALLS on tv.
@@jackasschicken5922 so government think-tanks are the representation of science now, lol. While I may agree with a nuanced criticism of scientific institutions today; you, sir, represent a terminal case of cultural stupidity.
Attacking modern uniformitarianism is an odd choice. If you don't accept that the same basic physical laws were present in the past, you don't have a good argument for *ANYTHING* until you find strong evidence as to what physical laws actually were like in the past. And ideally how and why that changed.
E.G. "in the past, nuclear reactors could form abiotically." is clearly differentiating the behavior from the present, but we know full well this is because of differences in the halflife of the isotopes of Uranium found in nature. The law didn't really change. Only how it affects the world.
Even if we did find an example where an important physical constant relevant to Earth changed (which would also completely dismantle the idea of fine-tuning), that usually would encourage us to seek a higher level of theory for how that might've happened.
Except that most rates are not fundamental physical constants such as say, the magnitude of the strong nuclear force, but rather values dependent on conditional factors. Nuclear decay for example has been shown to be dramatically faster immediately succeeding the formation of a heavy element through the z-pinch. Catastrophism simply doesn't require the alteration of any fundamental constants, merely the presence of conditions directly implied by scripture.
You never get scientists telling us evolution can't happen. Still no creationist can find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix.
Because at a certain point it's just irrefutable? If I asked you to prove mathematically that 2+2=4 could you do it? No, but we both know it's true because it's irrefutable. Evolution is missing like 2 things in order to become a scientific law instead of scientific theory and it's missing those things not because the science is bad but because we just haven't found the fossils to 100% prove it yet.
Honestly though? Kudos to the creationist guy for not just flying into a rage-fueled tangent at the end, they both had different views and they didn't clash with them any more than was necessary.
EDIT: most of the replies have just ended up proving my point. Nice going, fellas.
The problem is that one of them (the creationist) is clearly wrong, while the other (the scientist) is undoubtedly right.
Well we don't really see what happens beyond the 31-second mark
@@maaderllin wrong about what exactly?
@@arcguardian Wrong that creationism is a science.
Science is a process. You gather evidence. You ponder on their meaning and elaborate an hypothesis on a question about the evidence: Why is this here, how did it get to this point, how does that work.
With the question you ask, you gather more evidence to confirm your hypothesis, and if the evidence shows something that doesn't fit, you change your hypothesis until you arrive at a satisfying theory that explains the phenomenon you're studying.
Creationists fail at this, because they start with their assessment (hypothesis) without any evidence and are unable to prove their axiom: That there is a creator. They give no satisfying evidence for it because the notion of a God is metaphysical, not physical and therefore not scientific.
In science, when you disagree with someone else's findings, you must not only demonstrate that the evidence they gathered don't prove their theory, you must also elaborate a new hypothesis and test it.
Creationists fail at both. They cherrypick or misrepresent scientists' evidence to try and disprove real science, wich they don't even succeed, and they fail to provide any evidence for their competing thesis.
So, in a debate wether creationists are scientists or not, there is a clear right and wrong here: Creationists are not scientists.
And I'll go further than that. I'm born and raised catholic. I don't agree with all of my original church's dogma, but I still believe in god. What I'm about to say will be controversial but here I come: Creationists even fail at their religion.
Faith is about what is beyond our ability to understand and to learn. Faith can not and should not be proven and try to compete with science. If faith is about how we came to be, it can't exist because we can learn this. Faith is about something that can't be put into words.
Creationists, when they desperately try to "prove" god, demonstrate how insecure they are in their own faith, because for them, each scientific gain of knowledge gives them smaller and smaller things to have faith into.
@@maaderllin I don't believe creationism asserts a different method for science. When gathering a hypothesis, you do so with evidence and then test, then it becomes a theory when it becomes more confirmed over time. What I would accuse young earth creationist of doing is cherry picking possibly scripture to fit a narrative when the words themselves carry less historical exactness and are meant (early hebrew for example) more on meaning.
Just to put out there, I use to lean more young earth creationist now its old earth, but I'm still a creationist. I see the issue with consciousness being unanswerable within the current framework of pure naturalism and that evolution itself requires a dependency (perfectly timed insertion from an ultimate mind) to start an effective self replicating, robust structure such as DNA to yield the result we recognize as the mind. I further claim that Christianity as the most consistent philosophically and the most satisfying framework for solving internal struggles - not the external/religious perception. I digress though.
There are holes I see with the current dating methods, and I do see potential blocks from scientists attempting to protect their stake in posterity (abroad in academia). I see some manner of skepticism as good for academia because, well that's the sane thing to do. Climate science for example is hugely political yet supposed scientists and talking heads run their mouths like they know what they are talking about. Anyone is possibly shamed for pointing out that they are not even reading their own papers when making claims. Point is, we ought to be respectful of those with fundamental differences sometimes because sometimes they are proved correct and our assumptions were actually wrong.
_"Thick people are very good at arguments. Because they're too stupid to realize they've lost."_ -Chris Morris.
@@lukasbrucas3027 It's a different thick/thicc. 'Thick' as in 'thick-skulled', dumb, stupid, etc.
Yeah you can throw all the facts at them but they’ll just denied it
Question, who do you is better at arguing in this instance?
@@rhysf.505 You wanna finish that sentence there, buddy?
Rez, hurrrrrrrrrrrrrr
I'd say don't read the comment section but unless you're sorting by new this will most likely never be read lmao
Na these comments are fun. Creationists are fun to debate with
By-stander: “You just threw that scientist off the Grand Canyon!!”
Creationist: “Wanna go next? ... “I didn’t think so!!"
Kill people that smarter than you, so you can be the smartest man in the area
@@user-jh5dq9vc1v sigma rule #5000
@@user-jh5dq9vc1v gotta keep up that sigma male grindset 💪😤
he can't do that. You can't throw things inside, having them eroded takes at minimum hundreds of millions of years.
@@cristian-bull is that based on science or millions of years Creation?😁
Why do I watch videos like these? It's like I'm seeking out something to hear that makes me angry.
I think I have this problem as well...
same here its like i wanna get pissed off
E. Ras i didn't even know that, thats really annoying, i need to check that out hahaha
You folks are taking the wrong attitude. It's surreal comedy! :-)
guess so hahaha
"Never interrupt one's enemy whilst they blunder."
Napoleon Bonaparte
@@diegotavel5872 I thought that was a Sun Tzu. Live and learn.
@@FanboyFilms
Actually the real quote goes like this:
"In that case,” said Napoleon, “let us wait twenty minutes; when the enemy is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him.”
In the spirit of Mikhail Tal.
Creationism is not science. It's Faith.
Blind faith.
And bs
Evolution is not science. It's Faith.
@@222ableVelo says the mf who never went to school
@@222ableVelo Evolution has proof, however. Proof that employs the scientific method. Creationism is full of ambiguity and fallacies, however.
What sucks is that most people assume all creationists think the earth is young. The Bible does not state how old the earth is; it could easily be millions of years.
Creationism is the belief in the young Earth theory, the literal 6 days for creation. It's not supported by scripture or science
could be. However, the bible is CRYSTAL CLEAR on SLAVERY:
Leviticus 25:44 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."
Exodus 21:20 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
Weirdly, the YEC thing appears to be a recent enthusiasm of the evangelicals. They were pretty relaxed about it, though dead set against evolution of course. Apparently,they only got medieval about abortion since Reagan. Fifty years ago most would not own more firearms than their lifestyles required: e.g, a farmer would have a .22 and a shotgun for vermin. Now they own arsenals.
They have become so extreme that eventually they will just become irrelevant.
Vote blue.
Oh, I've read them. I don't count them as scientists.
I thought video was going to be a debate between a creationist and a short scientist. I was disappointed.
Then you're definitely going to be disappointed by the story of the 20 foot doctors getting the podiatry award.
And one of my favorite newspaper article titles of all time is "Dentist Receives Plaque".
LMAO
I actually clicked because of that xD
lmao same
evolution just explains the path of our existence. it doesn't prove or disprove the existence of god. thats something out of the box
Pete Zack Well put, but the trouble is that many creationists aren't as astute as you. :)
well the problem comes when the "world is only 6000 years old" gets added into the argument, I think this is where this video started to explain that the world has to be millions of years old instead of just 6000.
+iiiDartsiii
"The world" is an historical construct, and as such it started around 6000 years ago. The planet is another question of course.
It does challenge the establishment of Christianity and The Bible. If one thing is false, other things could be too, and going further down that road leads (potentially) to completely disregarding the bible. There are, of course, other systems of belief that take that stance, e.g. Deism
Flying Pig Broadcasting the bible is pretty abstract and unclear. to disprove religious beliefs would be interesting though. however, it would be still irrelevant to the existence of god
Imagine if scientists went around trying to convince people they were priests and then start giving lectures on science to prove it.
you can be a creationist and still acknowledge erosion. It’s not contradictory in any way
yeah, but that's a slippery slope, because if you get "all science-y" next it's acknowledging Evolution, which then means NO Garden of Eden, which then means no original SIN, and no need for Jesus to be god taking human form to act out a loophole to rules he himself had made...
HOC: house of cards.
Creationists shouldn't exist. Evolution is directly observed.
Evolution does not try to deny the existence of God, why don't people get it?
Prakash, that is a great point that I wish I could easily answer, but I cannot. Perhaps some of that thinking comes from the concept that God cannot make a mistake...so let's say that's true, then who are we as humans to judge some of the dead ends in evolution as mistakes? If you follow my thinking then what you'll find is the sheer arrogance on the part of those who oppose evolution who claim to understand what God does or does not do.
I'll leave you with this to consider. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life (9 years) for suggesting that the earth was not the center of the Universe, and instead revolved around the Sun, which was. His works were banned thereafter. This underlines my point about religious perfection and God never making mistakes...according to very fallible religious authorities.
Galileo is remembered today as the father of modern astronomy and physics. Those religious authorities from that time are nothing more than dust. Think about it.
-Peace
Arthur Dent
I agree a 100%. I think most of the conflict arises from the method rather than the outcome.
Evolution talks about how life changes and progresses. It doesn't even try to attempt to explain how life started so it doesn't try to deny God in any way.
According to the Bible, however, God created the world in 6 days and people were created as they are in Gods image. Since they believe that people are created as they are, as opposed to have evolved from monkeys, there is conflict between evolutionist and creationist belief.
Besides the church made plenty of blunders in the name of God. It makes sense that people have lost their trust in them.
***** I agree but most of the nonsense that's being said is not even in the Bible to begin with. The Bible never states that the Earth is flat or that the Earth is at the center of the solar system. It's all bullshit, that the church said at the time.
Prakash Cherian Partner, I hear you and agree. All joking aside, that's what I call Monkey Business from the far Christian Right. Evolution never stated that...in fact the 'missing link' has yet to be found, but that does not mean it is not there. Darwin himself expressed concerns regarding his 'Origin of species' paper after publishing it saying that at some point it may be seriously challenged...instead science caught up with him providing a clear fossil record and embraced what continued to make scientific sense and went on to become scientific theory. What I admire about Charles Darwin the most, was his humility. You'll not find that in any religion as they never make mistakes.
Don't get me wrong here as I believe in God. I also believe in the teachings of Christ. Modern, and older religion leaves me numb...in America as you may know the KKK (klu,klux,klan) were Christian...need I say more?
Thank you for posting your single, original, sentence.
-Peace
The fear is that evolution disproves the creation myth which destroys all religions with creation myths
I met a 3 foot scientist before, that guy was at least 4' 10 minimum
hahahah the title
Hahahahaha
fububalla - A scientist with three feet? IT'S A MIRACLE!
Put him on the cross. Eye level achieved.
humans are becoming taller- evolution
No true Scottsman likes this video.
nope, the scientific method doesn't let you start with the conclusion and make sure the evidence supports it, but nice try
@@AMC2283 Good job beating up that argument that you made up lmao
@@dited358I didn’t make it up, it’s a fact
It never gets old...