Scientist Reacts to Anti-Evolution Conspiracy Video | Reacteria
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 вер 2021
- Forrest Valkai, an evolutionary biologist who teaches science on the internet, embarks on a quest to endure videos from people who claim everything he studied in college is wrong. Will he be convinced by creationist claims? Or will he remain steadfast in his study of science? Let's find out!
Subscribe at / renegadescienceteacher
Need more science in your life? Follow Forrest!
RenegadeScienceTeacher.com
TikTok - TikTok.com/@RenegadeScienceTeacher
Instagram - RenegadeScienceTeacher Twitter -
ProfForrest Facebook-
Facebook.com/TulsasScienceTeacher
Don't miss Forrest's terrible weekly podcast "I'm Not Comfortable with This" on UA-cam, Spotify, Breaker, Google Podcasts, Radio Public, and Pocketcasts!
/ imnotcomfortablewiththis
Want to send Forrest something? Send your letters, artwork, science kits, or other surprises to
P.O. Box 1810
Broken Arrow, OK
74013
Want to help fund more shows like this?
Become a patron at Patreon.com/RenegadeScienceTeacher
or
Donate with Venmo - @ProfForrest
CashApp - $ProfForrest
PayPal.me/YourScienceTeacher
Have an awesome day and never stop learning!
"The human eye is so complex, we could never design something like that!" Yes we can. It's called a lens.
you are clueless. But I'm coming to expect an underinformed audience to this low level channel.
@@jon__doe are you saying the human eye is not a lens?
@@SD11729 The human eye is not merely a lens. The lens is only one component. But I think it was the absurdity of the argument that led me to comment.
@@jon__doe the original commenter was being intentionally facetious
It's called every modern camera. We just used a few extra elements.
I have never once in my life heard the argument that abortion is fine because human embryos have gills at one point, that's a strawman for the record books
Most people aren't familiar enough with embryonic development to even know about the gill slits. So it's a moot point.
Yes the strawman about gill slits was incredibly stupid. And not about evolution.
What in the...
That argument just came so far out of left field, I was like dafuq?
Magilla gorilla , fairy theory of the evolution revolution , Arbort Mission 😀😁😨 👐👐👐👎👎
Every anti-science and pro-creationists argument..."I don't understand this thing therefore this thing must not be true"
there was literally the argument I saw someone making on one of these videos, was "I don't understand consciousness, so its ok to reject evolution."
Yea. If you gave an 8th grade math paper to a preschooler with the answers under each equation, does that mean that the math is not correct? I mean, sure, there is a possibility, but many other people understand the math paper much better than the preschooler does.
Funny thing is evolutionists don't even understand what they themselves believe in.
@@marblox9300 and how do you figure? Examples? Or you just flailing and spouting nonsense like a creationist
@@marblox9300 and you creationists blindly believe only in 2000 yr old book and nothing else regardless of all the evidence that's been gathered throughout the years. Pure ignorance.
I love when they imply humans are some perfect species. Bruh, glasses, braces, inhalers, wheel chairs. All pretty damn normal things people need.
If you're in a wheelchair, they'll just tell you you don't believe in god enough, cause Jesus made a blind man see, he can make a lame man walk. You can't really argue with blind faith.
@@Drak_Thedp blind faith is kinda a redundent saying. faith is literally "belief without evidence". it's already blind.
@@Drak_Thedp that or they'll say it's a "challenge from god to test your faith", depending if theyre going for derogatory ableism or fetishistic ableism 🙃
I've been informed that the human body being able to drown itself standing up 100 miles from water is just free will...
I need glasses and I sleep attached to a breather, because I am perfectly designed
That professor's face was like "we literally discussed all of these points in class, Sandy, maybe if you payed attention you'd know that"
Right? I hate that "I don't understand" line. Like, yeah, you don't. That's why you have asinine questions about it. Maybe if you went to look up some answers you'd understand.
Wow! It's so rare for a UA-cam comment to actually use the vocative comma, and this is the first time I've ever seen a properly used double vocative comma! (I know that has nothing to do with your point, but I felt that you deserved recognition.)
That's also not the way asking questions in a real class works.
Students ask questions, teacher answers questions.
Student running on and on is what appears to be a prewritten script attacking science, is unlikely to go on that far. Not without the teacher pausing her and either answering the questions, or just assigning her remedial homework to learn all the curriculum she somehow failed to understand.
Being a fictional case we can't point fingers at who's fault her massive lack of understanding is.
I will say it was smart putting that role onto a student. Because it makes it more plausible and acceptable for her to question in such a way. Sadly, we have all too many adults making very similar, and very ignorant claims about evolution.
@@neuronaut6456 That line is particularly irritating because it rarely means literally what it says.
Almost inevitably in this sort of context, it's a passive aggressive assertion (or at least implication), that they really do know. And that everyone should pay rapt attention to their instructions.
Though I'm not sure whether it's more, or less annoying than the once who openly assert they do know things that they have no clue about.
I bet he's dreading that parent teacher meeting. "You failed our daughter because she's a creationist." "I'm sorry mam but I failed her because she's an idiot. She told me that all transitional fossils could fit in her Prius. So I designed a lesson around that. I asked her to classify and describe all these transitional fossils. Her answer was that these couldn't be transitional because all the transitional fossils could fit in her Prius. You see the problem?" "So you did fail her because she's a creationist." "... Uh Huh... So that's where she gets it."
As an astronomer myself, the moment she talked about astronomy and got it wrong makes me finally understand how frustrated you were watching these arguments
As a guy who knows like entry level knowledge about the big bang what she said pissed me off (especially since I am an aspiring astrophysicist)
Yeah, that 'something out of nothing' argument really pisses me off too.
shut up and worship me.
Disclaimer: what i just said was actually a joke but many many MANY people actually believes this kind of crap
@@flabermaber2239 13.8 billion years of existence and no heat death? Come on now get real, you don`t really have a reliable witness to that, now do you?
The fool has said in his heart that there is no GOD. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works. There is none who does good. No not one.
I actually hate you after you fully trolled me on the embryos.
I literally exclaimed with joy when you revealed the first one.
"Well you'd be wrong. That's a chicken."
You win this round, science man...
please tell me this is satire
@@rithvikkona8922 i think it is
@@rithvikkona8922 jesus christ
You’ve heard of Bill Nye the Science Guy. Now get ready for…
Valkai the Science Guy
Valkai the Evolution Guy is better.
I love how she kept saying "I don't understand" like her lack of understanding means that something can't be true. Not understanding means you ask questions and seek answers rather than writing things off as false.
It's the same logic as "if you can't do trigonometry very well, you throw all geometry out the window."
She got that neanderthal logic
Creationists: "I don't understand. Therefore God."
Me: "I think you might have skipped some steps in your logic."
I tried to prove polynomial theorem can't be true because I couldn't understand it and all I got was a failing grade from my math teacher.
This is the foundation of conspiracy thinking along with "their kind lie so we can ignore information on that basis".
“If Ted Bundy said 2 + 2 is 4, we don’t get to throw out mathematics now.”
My favorite line
Ah another fine quote in my collection
Who's Ted Bundy?
@@TheNitrop Infamous US serial murderer, kidnapper, and necrophiliac with around 25 identified victims. (He admitted to 30)
And of course, religions have never done atrocious things. Claiming some imaginary moral high ground doesn't make anyone correct.
@@nathanmiller9918 Even if they have the moral high ground, even if religions didn't do any atrocious things, that argument would still be invalid.
It's crazy that mentioning the suffering of black people, they forget to mention that they also used religion to uphold some of the same beliefs
@Terrence Lockett
As a Black person who is a Christian, tell me about it. I find it interesting how my ancestors didn't know about Exodus or any scripture that would validate their rights as humans.
@@DemonicRemption From what I've heard they gave the slaves edited versions of the bible.
@@DemonicRemption
Slaves also weren't really allowed to read either
@@terrencelockett4072
Yeah, so being given bibles seems iffy, unless they were spoon fed dumb rhetorics... Which wouldn't surprise me.
They raped the Africans up north and converted them to Islam and took the other Africans away from their homeland and taught them Christianity. I never understood why ppl never looked up this type of history. Especially around the time ppl had to convert into Catholic
It was actually Christian missionaries that brought the "specimens" back for the human zoos. Samuel Verner, the man responsible for bringing Ota Benga, and others, to be exhibits in the human zoo, was a Christian missionary.
Color me unsurprised. 😐
Not shocked
That would have been so good to include in the video!
Those exhibitions were hugely popular at the time. If anyone wants to ruin their day, they should look up the history of those 'human zoos'.
Of course he was, what else could he be?
A: "The drawings were proven not accurate, so science was lying to us."
S: "The Bible has been proven not accurate, so what does that say about religion?"
A: "Umm. That's different!"
And y'know what proved those drawings to be inaccurate? Science.
Science also proved that Piltdown man was a fraud, and a bunch of other hoaxes. Including shite like the Shroud of Turin.
Facts. And please don't share Ezekiel 18:20 with them. BTW if you don't know that verse then do yourself a favor and look it up. Pretty much discredits the entire new testament all by itself.
@@lloydlineske2642 Or the spots where Paul declares god decided who would accept Jesus and who couldn't... so any missionarising or condemning of non christians is pointless. It was all decided before already... (Romans 8, Ephesians 1)
Jesus says a very similar thing in John 6... “Because of this I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has allowed him to come.”
didn't satan take jesus to a mountain and he saw the entire earth from there ? cough cough Flat earth .
@@lloydlineske2642 I did and I don't see how ``the son shall not be punished for the sins of the father, nor shall the father be punished for the sins of the son.' discredits anything. Seems like a pretty good idea. When a man dies, his children don't inherit his debt, thanks for that idea. Sure took humanity a long time to get to that one. But that's just because 1% just hate not being able to collect on debt.
What am I missing, Lloyd Lineske?
"Science is wrong because believing God made it all is a lot simpler!" all the questions she poses are literally just "I don't know the answer, so it must be wrong"
Science has facts and science has hypotheses. The entire story of the molecule to man is a huge unconfirmed hypothesis. Science should teach facts as facts but not teach hypotheses as facts.
@@celestecapielano4679 What does that have to do with anything I said? Are you suggesting we should be teaching that "God did it" when we don't have the facts?
Also "science" doesn't teach anything...science is an inanimate concept. Teachers who do not teach properly, and people who do not share information properly are to blame for what you are saying. Not Science.
@@celestecapielano4679 I assent your correct use of the term hypothesis - how ever "the journey from molecule to man" is not just a hypothesis.
I'm not sure what you mean by ''journey from molecule to man", but I'll assume it is broken down into two stages:
* Development of first organism
* Evolution
The development of the first organism is still a contended scientific topic, so you could argue that it is not yet a theory.
However, evolution is a certified theory. There is a very large quantity of evidence for evolution, from many different scientific disciplines.
If you want to debunk evolution, you would have to debunk:
*Radiometric dating - radioactive elements slowly decay overtime. By looking at the amount of an element in a material, we can date it.
*Common descent - there are many patterns in anatomy and DNA of organisms.
*Observed evolution - we have actually observed evolution, for example the long-term e coli-experiment en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
And more...
I'm assuming you're a creationist - if you're not please correct me.
There are many problems with creationism:
*Why are there vestigial organs? - there are cave organisms that have eyes. These eyes are very weak, and are blind, yet they still exist - why would a creator create an organism with a vestigial organ.
@@speltincorrectyl1844 I don't have to debunk evolution because universal common ancestry -- the molecules to man narrative, is an unconfirmed hypothesis without any way of testing it empirically. It cannot therefore be a fact. The only way it could be declared a fact would be if major evolutionary transitions were observable but they are not. So no one knows for sure if major macroevolution happens. Scientific facts are facts and it does not matter what the consensus of opinion is. Opinions cannot be considered facts as th;ey are hypotheses.
@@celestecapielano4679 You are claiming that evolution does not meet any burden of proof, so you do not need to debunk it.
You say "[Evolution] is an unconfirmed hypothesis with no way of testing it empirically", however this is untrue.
Evolution is a very easily testable hypothesis. Many experiments have been conducted that have directly observed evolution, such as the long-term E-coli experiment - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment - which ran a few decades, and observed the evolution of different strains of E-coli.
Since there are countless experiments studying evolution, it meets the burden of proof for you to have to debunk it. Even if - for the sake of argument - every experiment was wrong in some way, you would still have to debunk evolution by explaining how the experiments were wrong.
You can't just claim that something is false, without sufficiently debunking it.
"nobody could every create something as complex as the eye!"
Huh, they must be using some sort of magic to display the video then
The "we can't do it therefore god" is ridiculous. Back in the day someone could have used the same argument for flight. "Humans can't fly therefore god made birds". But then the Wright brothers came along. What will the creationist argument be when we create prothetic eyes that can do things our eyes can't? What if we had an interface with the occipital lobe that communicated wirelessly with a prosthetic eye? The eye could recharge via the sun. It could have the ability to see more of the color spectrum. Eyes that can see infrared like a flir camera would be awesome. I can conceive of a better eye. So you would think that god could do better than me.
@@jennoscura2381 god fled earth because he was scared of what he created
@@wolfetteplays8894 He gave us different languages to keep us from opposing him, and ran away when we started learning them for fun.
@@jennoscura2381 what’s interesting is we could see into the ultraviolet spectrum but humans have a part of the eye that filters it out to protect our eyes from damage.
@@wolfetteplays8894 Nah, just the shoddy work of a midnight school project to get a passing grade never to ever again be pulled from the attic because one is quite embarrased at how the teacher did not slam you for it.
Loved the “marvelous design” comment 😂. Horses, for example, practically stand on giant fingers and their digestive system is practically designed to cause life-threatening problems (at least certain parts of it).
ETA they also can’t lay down for more than 30 mins or they’ll damage their organs.
Also that’s way more likes than I expected, thanks everyone!
Horses don’t have a gag reflex, right? Something like that
@@twinostrich8045
Close. They can’t throw up unless their stomach ruptures. That’s one of the many flaws in their digestive system.
Forrest, please. Please make a video about the Dont-say-Gay-Bill and about Transitioning-Science.
People are confused, right now. Fake-News get shared, Fake-Facts and Pseudoscience gets celebrated.
If ever was a time to talk to discuss Transgender and Transitioning, it's now, cause now it saves Lifes.
@@loturzelrestaurant
He has a video where he discusses that.
@@someonesomewhere9115 Cant find it!
Judging evolution by the cruel acts perpetrated by scientists mean we also have to judge creationism by the cruel acts perpetrated by creationists. If you're a creationist, this is the absolute worst argument to make.
"How big is your Prius?" I absolutely died.
Then how did you write that comment?
SAME! LMFAO!!!! 😂🤣💀💀💀
Nobody asked lmao
@@toxin6584 nobody asked your mom to use birth control which was clearly a mistake
@@Schockmetamorphose must have been necromancy
The professor's face at the end was like "I don't get paid enough for this"
He just finished a unit on evolution, and she retained zero, so no wonder he's confused. Bio 101 (on the chalk board) indicates to me that this would be a college course. Just a trivial point of how little the film makers know or care about biology.
More likely He's thinking... 'I could answer each of the points you raise. It would take all night and by the end, your fundie parents would already have 100,000 signatures from some mega church somewhere, on a petition to have me fired. My car would get vandalised, my family would get death threats and you would retain nothing of what I explained to you... because you weren't asking anything, you were preaching.'
@@AnonEyeMouse exactly
the more "slower" students are usually placed in remedial classes, to "help them catch up"
that guy is as much a professor as i am a rocket surgeon
"Any idiot can design a better eye" We did. Consumer-grade 4k-resolution cameras can run at 60 FPS these days. No blind spot, auto-focus, no need to blink, automatic brightness compensation, no risk of systemic failure from infection if a speck of dirt gets near them, no "ghost" images if they look at something too bright, and all at a size that can fit inside a phone.
Humn eye is definitely better than 4k tbf, but yeah, pretty stupid arguments, mostly just "I don't understand, therefore... gOd."
@@stupiditiusmaximus OK but there are 16k sensors around. And don't even get me started on slowmo 🙃
@@darkSorceror Yeah OK lol, I don't know anything about cameras sorry, all all I know is that the 4k part is definitely not relevant, because a human with good vision (no glasses, no blur, no blindness etc.), can definitely see better than 4k.
@@stupiditiusmaximusReally depends on the distance to the object though 🙃
@@darkSorceror I agree.
it’s impressive how many times they can repeat “i don’t understand” while being handed the information on a silver platter
"if evolution was true we would have millions of in-between creatures running around."
Well. Yes. We actually do have, because every living and dead animal is a transitional form. Most lines just have gone extinct.
They are stuck with this idea that evolution has a goal, it just shows they have no idea of what they are talking about.
Really, every single fossil that's ever been found is an in-between species because they're always from animals that are adapted well for their current situation.
I wonder if they are aware that their parent is a transitional form between their grandparent and themselves.
Every species is a transitional species, including us.
I'm in the mood of splitting hairs. Is a form transitional if it doesn't have descendants? It's probably more accurate to say that every living thing on this planet is an in-between creature if it has or is going to have children. Which means that representatives of extinct species are not transitional.
I feel like half of the arguments extreme creationists make can be countered with one sentence: "scientists are bad at naming things, get over it"
100% Especially physicists.
Pretty much. That's why IUPAC had to come up with systematic names in chemistry (my main field of interest). And even those I wouldn't call "good" so much as "accurate and descriptive". There's a reason we still tend to use acronyms and common names, though. (2,2)-bromo-3-ethyl-1-cyclohexanol might allow me to reconstruct the molecule in question, but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. And that's not even a particularly complicated or large molecule.
After breaking your brain finding and researching you don't want to break it naming things. That is what my teacher always said XDXD
Wow, I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to teach biology in a US high school!😱 Every year starts and you're probably just like, "ugh who you got for me this year? 🤦♂️"
Try teaching science in a local community college where the melting pot boils over with all kinds of backgrounds from foreign countries. Witches, spirits, ancestors, psychics, and others all competing with the usual Jesus nonsense!
I feel like the more frustrating parts would be the laws/administration which forced you to teach things that were wrong. In some places, teachers are literally forced to teach creationism alongside evolution. You can teach children to have an open mind appreciate the wonders of our world, but only when the government doesn't stop you from doing so.
@@idrabohm3678 I just checked the wikipedia page for "creationism in US education" or whatever I typed in.
tbh it's fucking scary.
I am so lucky my science teachers did their jobs
My 10th grade science teacher (that year was Biology) somewhat apologized for the evo segment. He didn't say "I'm sorry, but we have to cover it" or anything, but he did make a statement before the block began that you didn't have to believe it, you just had to learn it. I was, unfortunately, one of the kids who thought they knew better (I ended up tutoring though, so learning it wasn't a problem, just my attitude. Tangent: while I was tutoring fellow students in biology, my Z-tier doctors entered into my med records that I was failing all my senior classes... 2 years early).
Can't actually believe I guessed the embryo thing right.
Also upon hearing the argument that vestigial pouches existing means people want abortions more often almost made me yell wtf out loud.
I was wrong on all of the embryos.
REACT HYSTERIA 😲 DEFETUS ATTITUDE . 😨😭👎👎
I watched this video twice and I still picked the chicken.
She stole that from Kent Hovind iirc. Somehow Haeckel's (now outdated) notion of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was part of a liberal conspiracy to normalise abortion by dehumanizing the fetus(?)
I got the embryo right too. Also, I just couldn’t help myself at shaking my head about the abortion argument. Only true psychos would purposely run over a cat or dog. Seriously, how cruel do they think people are? It would be a tough decision for me to kill that sapling I have growing in a pot outside, but if no one would take it in, my yard isn’t big enough and I would have to throw away the beautiful thing away anyway, essentially killing it. It’s tough for most Mothers to get an abortion because there is still an attachment to the kid anyway. Seriously, people just aren’t that cruel. They do it for specific reasons.
I genuinely had a classmate of mine tell me that “we aren’t animals, we’re humans” because “the Bible said so” and he proceeded to call me names and slurs when I tried to ask if he was joking.
We are not "as" the animals. To judge the Bible on the actions and understandings of a child is... childish. I hope you are better than that.
@@jon__doe I mean, there's far worse things in the Bible to judge it on
@@shanewilson7994 If you say so.
@@jon__doe the endorsement of slavery, the commandments of justice in the Bible (stoning of unruly children, gay people, etc), are garbage and all from the Bible.
@@jon__doe The Bible is God's My Kampf.
"ok, so, we don't have gill slits and that is why abortion is wrong" well, that is a waterproof argument
I see what you did there;)
@@pikestance4219 hm?
While they don’t care about humans without Gill slits after they are born.
@@paolob.5667 Gill/ waterproof, enjoying the pun.
@@pikestance4219 oh, lol, that was completely unintentional
‘Everything can’t come out of nothing’
Meanwhile, five seconds later, ‘I believe a god thing made everything including us walk out of a pile of mud or something’
Who created God if something can't come from nothing
“Everything can’t come out of nothing UNLESS a magical incomprehensible being is involved”
I love how accordibg to those people, killing LITERALLY ANYTHING other than a human is completely fine
I mean no one cares if humans deliberately murder spiders
Love how the video at the end is just a power fantasy of a student telling her whole class off with no one interrupting and she gets everything so right the teacher has nothing to say and all the other students rethink their beliefs cause she's so smart and unopposed.
As opposed to the teacher not just clarifying for her as well as pointing out she's clearly not studying the material they are covering
It's like they took the proverbial copypasta of the marine owning the college professor and actually filmed it.
If it was me I would let her have her rant then clarify and to let her know that if there was anything she doesn’t understand about it she can come in after class to get a further explanation. Mostly because the things she was saying would take time to explain and most are just touched on in most basic high school biology classes.
all it's missing is the "and everyone clapped" moment
Seriously. Especially at the part where she said that mutation only loses information. The teacher would be like "I didnt teach you that, Nicky. Please re-read the section about DNA. No skimming this time."
Power fantasy was the exact term that came to my mind, too. Really gross and pathetic.
This is a great series, you should react to one of Mr. Kent Hovind's anti-evolution rants. He is full of misinformation and blatantly misrepresents science. I would love to see you react to his buffoonery.
That would be interesting, but also very frustrating. I just don’t like Kent. He’s the worst thing
AronRa's already got that handled.
@@kirayoshikage1491 He's also a criminal.
@Buster Scruggs just watch the aron-ra hovind debate videos: ua-cam.com/play/PLXJ4dsU0oGMJ1JjthJsWoNPIFY7CcTZ3Z.html
@Buster Scruggs Well, to start off with: he calls himself a "Dr." which he isn't. He got it from a so called "diploma mill", a non-accredited fictional "educational" institution. In his case, literally a camper van. Proof is all over the internet.
It’s interesting how anti-science people go back to old stuff and shout “Ha! This is wrong!” And scientists say, yeah but we have moved on and here’s our current theory based on better data.
That's because, for them (assuming you're referring to most religious anti-science people), their position crumbles if any part of their past is proven false. If any of their scriptures or history or ideology is wrong, it all crumbles, whereas if that happens to scientists, it's Tuesday.
@@dawn8293 I’m old enough to remember when the shroud of Turin was revealed to be a fake. It’s interesting how quickly these revelations are quickly left behind and ignored by such people.
@@stevenredpath9332 definitely. I should clarify, I mean when people see that it is proven false, and are intellectually honest. That has happened to me and many people. If the folks in this video admitted "we used to hypothesize that the Bible only contains historical fact, but now we see that any given claim in the Bible must be proven separately, and many of the claims are false," it wouldn't just be intellectual progress and an improved religious understanding, it would be a really deep blow for them, which makes them fight against it.
Did anyone else notice that a kid in the promo for the John and Jane DVD had out a math textbook... in Biology.
Kid, your Biology class has just started. Why are you working on math now?
They were trying to do their homework before going home every school child has done this
It is a standard tactic for creationists to appeal to emotion by making evolution seem evil.
When you have no real arguments appeal to emotion and try to scare people.
It ain’t workin on me.
Churches are businesses and you are the product. They need people in the pews to tithe.
That's why Christianity is rooted in guilt, shame and fear. They plead to those emotions because it works. And they get tax free money
@auritone
Well you can see where they're coming from, because evolutionists dismiss creationism and ridicule those who have religious beliefs. It's not about scaring people
@@AndySmith4501 Well, when you criticize something from a selfappointed state of authority, and in doing so reveal your utter lack of knowledge on the subject you deserve ridicule - even more so when you're flat out lying as we also often see from creationists.
Saying that evolution is evil is not an attempt to scare people away from it?
Really...!?
@@auritone
But you would react in exactly the same way towards an education system that promotes creationism over evolution. You would claim it's dangerous misinformation, essentially saying that it's evil in a more subtle way. Your stance is no different. You are also self appointing yourselves as the authority.
The lady at the end: "I don't understand". Yes that's it. Guess what? You can do something about it! Get yourself a f...ing science book AND LEARN!
But I already have a "science" book. There's no science in it but that's how I use it anyway.
The problem is that even if she reads the proper material, she may not be able to understand it and the guidance that she needs comes from the older generation of idiots. So the show goes on.
Possibly you will learn why you have one of a kind [unique]DNA, and how it excludes evolution by forming a fence between species.
Yep, using the 'I don't understand therefore is must be wrong' argument. Works every time. 🤦♂
I absolutely loved that biology teacher's expression. It just screams "I need to be extremely careful about my next words."
The biology teacher is a raving creationist.
It also screams "oh no, no this crap again"
I have floaters, anxiety, and a failing comedy career. I absolutely worry about my humors.
Minor correction: the notochord is a flexible, but semi-rigid rod of cartilage-like tissue, not nervous tissue. In vertebrates, the notochord tissue is replaced with the tissue that goes on to become the vertebral discs. Very few chordates normally retain notochord tissue into adulthood.
I was wondering about that
@@armydillo1013 Yeah. It's been bothering me too.
I was more interested when he pointed out that we need a new phylogeny.
If "Gill slits " are the criteria for being a chordate and we don't have them.. then we are not chordates. And we need to be reclassified.
@@fistbump8550 Then you weren't paying attention. "Gill slits at *any* point in their development" is the criterion, where 'gill slits' is to be understood as 'pharyngeal clefts' during the embryonic stages and/or 'proper gill slits' after birth/hatching (depending on species). Humans have pharyngeal clefts during embryonic development and then lose them during a later stage of embryonic development when the jaw begins to develop. So we have notochords and "gill slits" (pharyngeal clefts) at some point in our development and are therefore chordates.
Whoops! I just double checked and you are completely correct! A notochord is a part of the definition of a chordate, but it is not a nerve chord. I totally misspoke there and I should have caught it. Thank you so much for pointing that out!
If anyone was wondering, the first something in Russian at 0:47 says, "The word of God gives a clear explanation for everything. The bible is accurate." And the second one talks about how people stay people no matter how they behave and it's important to stay in the holy spirit so you don't get led into error.
Thanks
You're doing a great service to this community. Appreciate it, kind sir.
Thanks sir.
How did you know can you read Russian
@@randomperson2540 That would be a good hypothesis ;)
I have been a high school science teacher nearly 40 years now. Forrest, your videos are the best examples of you can simultaneously debunk religious pseudoscientific nonsense and crack-up an audience. You, and other UA-cam science communicators have been doing an excellent job, but scientific ignorance is growing in this country partially due to evangelical influence in politics and education. Though my time as an educator is coming to an end; I am frightened for the future because this growing ignorance is costing lives.
Kent Hovind has turned "I'm a high school science teacher" into a red flag, thank you for being a real one and for your 4 decades of expanding young minds.
"I don't understand this this, so it must be a common designer." "Look how beautiful and complex everything is, common designer BAM!" It's like Kent Hovind groomed her to make his exact same arguments.
Alterantive title: Biologist roasts biology
I'm talking about the "any idiot could design a better eye" and "what idiot would put the eating tube and breathing tube right next to each other?"
Forget that. What about the funhouse next to the sewer?!?
@@jursamaj or the funhouse *in* the sewer
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Also, what idiot decided we should have two holes to breathe through in case one gets blocked by something, and then put them right next to each other? How did that get past the design committee?
Birds have it figured out
@@jursamaj that, it really isnt a funhouse, not even slightly.
What the girl in the trailer was doing is called a Gish Gallup: make as many claims as possible in your allotted time, so the opposition would need a semester of class to answer all of it.
So narcissism but a few extra steps
@@MysteryGeek2006 I don't see how it's narcissistic. Just a dishonest debate tactic.
It's also a logical fallacy called 'Argument by personal incredulity', aka "I don't understand or don't want to so therefore it is not true"
Classic example of using loaded questions. Someone who is the master of doing this is former president Donald Trump. That's why he could sound as convincing as he did, despite the fact that he had no idea what he was talking about. It's a genius tactic to use on anyone who wouldn't be able to call you out, you make your opponents look dumb by asking questions are supposed to confuse and bewilder them.
@@Bored_Overthinker
Yeah, Gish Gallup is essentially a debate filibuster, YECs do that all the damn time, so did former POTUS Orange Julius Ceaser Pongo tapanuliensis.
Haha...poor Valkai. "All while slowly being driven insane by them." I feel you, Forrest, I really do. Thank you for all you do man, you're a riot and I love your educational videos.
Oh wow - I knew we had fish in our ancient ancestry, but didn't know about the pouch/gill relation. That's really cool. Thank you for teaching me things 😁
"I just don't understand how evolution works, therefore, it must not be true."
Ooooh, I LOVE it when people use the "but eyes" argument. Our eyes are so shoddily built it's amazing they work at all. Creationists think it's some perfect design? Tell that to the MAJORITY of people on this planet, who suffer from some kind of vision problems.
It's even better when the person making that argument is wearing glasses!
Even if you're not specifically talking about just needing glasses, what about cataracts? "More than half of all Americans age 80 and older either have cataracts or have had surgery to correct cataracts" straight from the website for the National Eye Institute. Cataracts are responsible for a third of worldwide blindness. I worked in an eye clinic for 4+ years and was told by multiple doctors that cataracts are practically inevitable as you get older. But yeah, no, good design.
I can relate. Just like SOOO many other people, I have glasses. It's astonishing that most people I see use glasses or at least contacts. I don't understand why creationists chose the eyes as their main zinger, but I really, really, really don't like my eyes. One of the weirdest parts is that one of my eyes is actually weaker than the other, so they're not even equally messed up, one of them actually almost works just fine, while the other one can barely see a thing.
My favorite counter to intelligent design is still just "ballsack". Testicles are the perfect design decision for literally nothing, lol! If I'd design mammals, I'd make sperm cells be able to survive the mammal's internal temperature, bang, done!
Edit: I do realize now that in this context "bang, done" was a poor choice of words
@@squishykotetsu As a dude (at least biologically speaking), I'd say yeah, you have a point there.
She describes Samuel Verner as an “evolutionist”, when in reality he went to Africa as a Presbyterian missionary.
The word "evolution" doesn't even appear on his Wiki page.
One could be presbyterian and believe in evolution it is a Scottish church not an American one lol plus it's a very wide range of people from Mr Rogers to Donald Trump it's very Broad politically lol. presbyterianism is really more about and liberal power structure among the clergy no central authority figure like anglicanism or Catholicism so it could have been worse Missionaries anyway we have doctors without borders Microsoft crops and all sorts of goodies now lol the more things change
@@ridanann “I like your funny words magic man!”
@@MysteryGeek2006 lol jfk was catholic smart for a president but didn't believe in car roofs should have stayed in school
oof, that one should burn.
"I just don't understand." Is the tagline for every creationist argument I've ever heard.
That end portion was my favorite lol
I’m a high schooler and all those arguments still sounded dumb as all hell, like I’ve heard that planet one so many times. The reason you are the right distance from the sun is because *in any reality where you aren’t you wouldn’t be alive*.
^ Meaning that the only situations you could be alive in to make that argument, are when you’re in the right distance from the sun.
Like trial and error but a lot more advanced, which you learn about in like 8th grade?? How are these people full grown and working adults
"How are these people full grown and working adults"
Well that's the neat part, they aren't!
That's called the Anthropic Principle. For there to be an observer, conditions must be such that the observer can exist. There are countless planets that are not suitable for life to exist, let along for intelligent life to evolve and ask questions about the universe. The assumption that this planet is finely tuned for us implies an enormous selection bias.
Love it when they say humans and animals not understanding that humans are animals
"why would they be running around?"
Aren't there plenty of transitional creatures running around? Isn't all life transitional compared to the forms to come since evolution is ongoing?
Exactly.
yup
No, the point is that they're transitional, so they evolved into more efficient and successful forms. Some are still around in some ways, but the whole point of the term is that there is permanent change, right? That's why they're observed in the fossil record and not in current study.
@@kylezo There are
many transitional forms around today but we don't know which they are because they haven't transitioned yet. So we can't study them as 'transitional forms'. We can study past transitional forms because we see the evolutionary sequence in the fossil record. We would need a time machine to find out which current species are transitional to what future species. Skyler is correct - many existing species are transitional. Others will go extinct without descendants, and a few will stay the way they are (and have been for a long time) because they have evolved to fit a very specific niche
Nunca dejes de aprender
Love your enthusiasm and I'm inspired by the way you teach.
I work as a environmental education teacher in Cozumel, México and I tend to work with children a lot.
You're right they are awesome to work, teach and challenge ideas.
You will never find a scientist who lied to promote evolution. Conversely, you will never find a creationist who did *not* lie to promote creationism over evolution.
- Aron Ra.
I love the creationist argument of "this science thing that's over 100 years old was wrong therefore evolution don't real". Maybe they should try debunking things that scientists haven't already debunked. But that would make it harder for them to push creationism. So of course they go for low hanging fruit. Funny how they don't make the same argument for over avenues of science. Like the humors you mentioned. Using creationist logic; chemistry is bunk because phlogiston isn't real.
And even if their beliefs reflected how the world actually works by observation, that would be because they accidentally discovered some deeper truth about two soon-to-be related things, not because their debunking means anything. Interestingly, using phlogiston again, that would be like how theories using phlogiston somehow correctly describe things burning in oxygen and creating oxides. (And even then, while it did lead to discovering oxygen, the process was the exact opposite of forming oxides.)
I wonder if it's because they approach attacking science like one would attack a religion. With a religion, its origins matter, supremely. But science self-corrects constantly, that's kind of the point.
@@platinumdragon3007 good point.
@@platinumdragon3007 that's like the best explanation in this whole ass comment section
GOD made the water that is essential for life, and you can`t copy that.
Saying Piltdown Man disproves evolution is like saying magic tricks disprove thermodynamics
They just love ignoring the fact that the same scientists proved the faking of piltdown
And with what we know now, it would be regarded with a lot of suspicion if something like it turned up today.
Or that faked holy relics disprove their faith, and there are tons of fake remains of different saints...
@@Slum0vsky
ua-cam.com/video/OHA_Y1jKfo4/v-deo.html
"The marvelous design" of putting a waste reclaimation facility right next to an amusement park.
"Life cannot come from non-life."
Why not? Why can't an arrangement of matter not metabolise, grow, etc., and then come to do those things in a different arrangement? Why don't they ever explain this?
Noticed that the fist video is literally directly ripping off Kent Hovind’s sermons that AronRa is currently responding to. Perfect example of how people prefer to stay in their own circles of belief rather than having them challenged.
yet somehow they managed to sound even dumber
They call us the sheep.
wait so r u against this man or the video he is reacting to? im so genuinely confused bc i have no context LMAOOOAwop;OAI
@@emodamemo5131 they are saying that the people in the first video are simply repeating things they heard other people say almost word for word.
Creationist arguments generally trace back to Kent Hovind or Ken Ham.
"Every single one of these names comes from an actual human being."
Poor Jack Cox.
at least it wasn’t Hughe Jass
Bruh I know 2 ppl irl called Jack Cox 😂
I don't get it, what's wrong with Jack Cox?
Sharon Peters
Ben Dover
To me it seems like the reason why things like creationism are still prevalent within society is because of the lack of education and understanding a lot of the general public has about evolution. I mean even if it wasn’t intentional the girl in the promo video made it clear. Her words were “I just don’t understand.” This is why channels like yours are important. If our schools aren’t going to teach us this because of “controversy”, then the internet will do it.
the human eye, so marvelously complex and perfect that I'm near-sighted bc my eyes are just a little bit too squished.
I'm not an animal, I'm quite a fungi.
I'll see myself out.
What you are, Mr. Moth, is a fricking comedy legend. Well done, good sir
Lol
I thought you were a moth...
*remembers that cordyceps exists* OH NO
Please do.
That last video was so cringe, if it weren't for Forrest's commentary, I don't think I could've made it to the end!
What about the Famous Hyper-Dummy Kent.John-Doe.Hovind?!?
The one and only?
That promo for the John & Jane Tumble Down the Hill series had me laughing almost the whole time as that "student" was saying "I don't understand this plethora of evidence that clearly supports evolution" while looking as though she is about to break down into tears. "Well, young lady... Princess Gertrude, is it? Princess Gertrude, why do you think you're in this class? This is intro to Biology. That's what the '101' means. If you don't understand Biology and wish to, you're in the right place. If you think you already know everything you need to know about Biology, why are you enrolled here? Why are you not teaching Biology some... nevermind. Disregard that. I'm sure Liberty University is looking for professors."
It seems to me that the major difference between Christians and Biologists (or scientists in general) is this. Scientists LIVE for change in their theories. That is why we continually devise experiments to find answers to recognized gaps in our understanding. WE LIVE FOR THIS! Christians, on the other hand bend over backwards to make sure that their ideas are permanent and never change. It is the cornerstone of their belief systems. They lacck the capacity to trust scientific evidence because it shoots down many, many beliefs the cling to.their beliefs because their
book threatens them with dire consequences evenif they question those beliefs, let alone change those beliefs. Beliefs are precious things to adhere to especially if some "higher authority" threatens you with them.
I have a feeling that everyone in that classroom who raised their hand at the end had the question: "Are you in the right class girl? We learnt about all of this in this class a year ago. Sounds like you're behind".
Nah, buddy, sorry but thats wrong. The abortion-discussion IS about when life starts: Partially. Its partially about that too.
@@slevinchannel7589 Umm... what? I'm not even talking about abortion. Did you respond to the right comment?
What about the Famous Hyper-Dummy Kent.John-Doe.Hovind?!?
The one and only?
@@slevinchannel7589 Alright you're just trolling me aren't you
Given covid and functioning adult peoples professed ignorance of 5th grade topics (otherwise relevant around climate change too) have had an impact on me, American education mandating no such thing really shook some of my perspectives
I love how they thought that 'Australopithecus' meaning 'Southern Ape' discredits evolution.
There's a fungus called Histoplasma capsulatum that doesn't have a capsule even though it's in its name.
Names aren't literal descriptions.
@@idkidk7650 Exactly.
Also, nature doesn't care what humans call it. It's just words we made up to put things in categories.
Dinosaurs mean terrible lizards so they cannot be related to birds:p
Mountain chicken
@@YEs69th420 Chicken of The Woods
I just discovered you on the Atheist Experience and I am hooked. I love listening to you!
16:56 "...or how the human body can heal itself"
Chop of your arm lady. Did you regrow it? No? Well, a frog would. In fact, we as humans are so darn lame when it comes to regenerative powers in comparison to other animals, not to mention plants. Hell, our body starts dwindling away after hitting 25, meanwhile dozens of species like crocodiles or clams are virtually immune to the ageing process.
As for the second video, any decent biology teacher would tear that student's argument apart. Mainly because it's the same old arguments that have been torn apart years ago.
Like Forrest pointed out, what does the Big Bang theory have to do with evolution?
I couldn't be a biology teacher simply because I couldn't handle trying to educate a bunch of 15 year olds that trust their parents more than they trust professionals that spend their entire lives studying biology.
If big bang could be shown to work insufficiently within a naturalistic framework, a supernaturalistic one would be more plausible. This, in turn, would make supernatural explanations for the origins of life more plausible.
It's a long shot tho. More likely the production team was given a certain time the trailer would have to run for, and they ran out of anti-evolution arguments and had to fill the rest with generic anti-science pro-religion rhetoric.
Yeah, but the teacher would need the whole semester to debunk all that nonsense, plus the additional nonsense she'd bring in during the explanation.
@@jaakkovuori9616 "a supernaturalistic one would be more plausible"
lol no it wouldn't. This is literally the god of the gaps fallacy.
that video comes down on just: "I am too dumb to learn what's in this curriculium so I use a lot of random words to argue I don't believe in learning."
That's not the word of my dad.
Edit: for those who want to know, we stopped talking to humans after the time travel incident that has yet to happen.
Epic
I have several questions Jesus.
First one being why do I exist just to suffer of not sleeping!?
Why didn't you reveal anything of mathematical or scientific truth that would later validate your position? Why didn't you dispell any superstitions about illness? Why did you allow the belief that influenza is demonic possession to continue?
If prayers ended with "wash your hands" rather than "Amen," I might believe in you...
@@nathanmiller9918 because why would I care? I only come down to earth every once in a while for vacation. Humans decided to end prayers with "Amen", not me.
@@Dumbass717 Fair enough. Enjoy your resurrection. ;)
What is better. Build a house brick by brick or build the same house using automated machines or a house that could assemble it self using machines that become part of the house when they become inactive or pouring something into a mold to make parts for the house. Why do people keep think that if you could make any choice you would not remove as much work for yourself as you can.
"No they couldnt. Well, maybe they could. Hoe big is your prius?" Is my favorite line in this video.
Finally, he's getting more likes and subscribers. Forrest definitely still deserves more
This! I actually found him by accident today, and by his production quality I was sure hes over 100k easily, if not more. Only later when I subscribed I noticed how low he is. Its a crime to be honest.
So happy i found this channel. It popped up in my feed while watching Genetically Modified Skeptic
Oh I wanna watch that to.. what's that? A documentary?
@@mayanlogos92 no. It's an atheist youtube channel. The guy is respectful towards everyone and he covers interesting topics
GM Skeptic is great 👌
@@austinlee9347 indeed
I got this channel reccomended after I started watching AronRa's videos on Kent Hovind. Also a great watch to anyone who hasn't seen it.
You mean the glorious design of having a blood vessel come up and over the heart? A standover from when we were quadrupedal
7:54 WTF, that statement makes the narrator sound like an absolute psychopath.
For the second part, fun fact there are actually 3 planets in our solar system in the habitable zone, if Venus had a thinner atmosphere it would actually be habitable and if mars had a thicker atmosphere and was larger it would also be habitable
Both were probably habitable in the distant past. Life on Earth has always found a way to "hang on" (extremophils).
It is possible that something might still be on Mars clinging on underground. All assuming life is common.
Mars is bigger than Earth though?
@@wintergray1221 mars is approximately half the size of the earth
The very idea of an universal habitable zone is erroneous in the first place.
Venus could very well have the right temperature with its current atmosphere if it was placed further away, and even something as distant as Europe could very well host life due to circumstances.
Earth just happens to be of the right composition, with the right environment, at the right distance.
That is true. And it goes to show that habitability isn’t just the distance from the sun.
The students in the second video are in Biology 101, but I counted 5 different textbooks.
I get it, though. Doing things can be hard.
The argument from absurdity in the promo clip is infuriating "I don't understand this so it must be wrong". Also- that teacher is too weak to wrangle twenty-somethings pretending to be teenagers.
7:31 WOW! That took a pretty hard left turn really quick
It is so entertaining to see these Anti-evolution-videos.
I absolutely agree.
I love them because they make me feel smart in comparison to them.
Yes yes yes yes
Y E S
Sometimes I feel dumb as fuck. Because I probably am.
But watching creationists, behaving like fish on dry land, makes me feel much better.
@@OzkanArac Why do you think you are "dumb as fuck"?
"Why aren't there millions of in-between creatures running around?"
There are. Every animal is an in-between creature. **WE** are one of those in-between creatures.
"Girl gish-gallops in class, nobody interrupted them to help clear up her confusion and then they all stood up and clapped."
Ugh..... that, sadly, was me in high school 🙈... I should really send my biology teacher a box of chocolates. I made her life very difficult 😅
Same. Actually, me in community college, too. In fact, during my public speaking class one of the speeches had to be a persuasive speech, and I chose to give a persuasive speech on "the evils of evolution". I keep the original .doc file because I want to remind myself how cringy it is to equate evolution with evil.
Love that promo vid. The whole thing is a gish gallop under the guise of "bravely asking questions" in a completely controlled environment devoid of opposition.
Hahaha the best part I'd their quick shot of the teacher standing there like 😮 as if this girl was making good points and he had nothing to throw back
@@Thoron_of_Neto There's an implication after that he kicked her out of the class, which plays into the typical Christian persecution complex narrative.
@@YEs69th420 oh, yeah, was that the shot of the person walking out the door at the end? Fuckin he'll they only get more and more pathetic by the day, eh?
@@Thoron_of_Neto Anything to avoid an honest discussion.
@@Thoron_of_Neto I don't think that is her. Wrong shirt from the one she was wearing.
Loving Reacteria. Forrest gives some deeper insights than I really expected from reacting content. And I get to learn a bit from it. So like. Woo-hoo
this exactly
Totally agree. I feel like I'm learning way more from these reaction videos than some other similar ones on UA-cam. I do enjoy these kinds of debunking videos in general but getting more than just entertainment out of these means I'm always eager to check out the newest one.
@@sluxi Don`t forget the exclusivity of DNA [each one receives it`s one of a kind copy, and there are no duplicates.]
Mr Doney but they inherited that from ancestors that weren’t in Genus Homo . And ultimately weren’t Primates , weren’t Mammals , weren’t Reptilomorpha, weren’t Amphibians weren’t Sarcopterygii weren’t Chordata ..... and weren’t Eucarya . We humans are still members of each of those ancestral groups as you don’t evolve out of your lineage .
@@dancingnature How did you come to that conclusion? Sounds like a whole lot of mumbo jumbo, with NO PROOF!! PS 14 says that the fool has said in his heart that there is no GOD. They are corrupt. They have done abominable works, there is none who does good NO not one!!
What a diverse bunch of students! There were people with ancestry all over northern Europe there.
These videos should have more views. The more I watch, the more I realize just how many people are misinformed and how detrimental it is to society.
Something about the scene of jumping from a passionate evangelical ranting about creationism with music in the background, to a quick explanation about something that proves evolution from you, is really entertaining
I can't wrap my head around how people can't believe that science changes
I know. Like......that's literally one of the main things that makes science what it is
@@LuckyOwI777 they believe anything even if they know its stupid so long as they think it proves their religion
I have literally heard folks say "You can't trust science, because it sometimes changes what it said earlier".
My usual response is "...so you would prefer if they learned if something was incorrect, that they would just keep saying it still was correct, instead? Isn't that called lying?"
@@jzjzjzj I really hate when they bring up the Piltdown Man. Becuase it was science that proved it was a fraud. But creationists don't mind that, since they are able to twist that in a way to "disprove" evolution. But that same science when used to prove evolution? Nope. Now it's false, all based on lies or whatnot.
And they always act like they have won when they point out that science was wrong in the past. Like, yeah, no duh? Technology is constantly evolving, and we are discovering new things. when we learn that we were wrong in the past, we change. Why would we continue believing in something that was proved wrong? Like, that's the reason you get prescribed medication at the doctor, instead of them chanting and rubbing flowers on your head, becuase we've learned that doesn't do anything.
The thing about religion is that it relies on faith. So any apologist will tell you to just believe on blind faith alone, never waver in your conviction and don't let anything deter you. Basically the exact opposite of science. You can't prove a religion, and everything we CAN check has always turned out to be wrong 100% of the time, so you literally cannot be religious based on facts. So religions live of making changing your mind seem like a weakness, because they NEED you to think that changing your mind is a sign of weakness. Because once you figure out that you're allowed to change your mind when it turns out you were wrong, they wouldn't be religious anymore.
Forrest throwing that teacher under the bus at the end instead of considering that student is just stupid.
Because he's not an actual teacher, he's an AiG or one of those groups pretending to be a teacher.
Imagine having to go back to science from 200 years ago to “prove” you are right about evolution.
Ugh, how misleaded are all these anti-evolutionists! Whenever I see people having such awfully inaccurate idea about evolution, I do not even know where to start with! And thank you Forrest for not letting people deceive themselves, that is great and deserves admiration. Long live science!
The best thing to do is ask questions. Try to learn exactly what they believe and why, and as you learn about their position you can ask questions that prompt them to think about missing pieces in their evidence and reasoning. Science thrives on curiosity, so if people are resistant to learning about science they first need to be given the necessary curiosity by giving them curious questions so that they might want to learn for themselves. There's very little point in giving a biology lecture to someone who doesn't care to listen.
@@Ansatz66 I mean, that’d be the ideal way to talk to a creationist, but many of them aren’t asking these questions to learn more, most of them ask these questions to try an overwhelm you (Gish Gallop) or as a “Gotcha” moment.
Almost every time you answer their questions, they’ll either change the subject by asking more stupid questions that most people probably wouldn’t know how to answer, ignore your answers or simply tel, you that you are wrong and that creationism has disproved that.
The tactic of misdirection and changing subjects is a favorite amongst creationists, specially professional ones.
@@laserfan17 : This is exactly why we should be _asking_ questions, not _answering_ questions. The questions that the creationist asks don't matter, unless we've reached the point where the creationist might actually be asking a real question and interested in hearing the answer. It may be worth answering every question because it's hard to reliably determine whether a question is honest, but for anyone who is stuck deep in creationism it is far more important to ask them questions rather than try to answer their questions.
It's counter-intuitive. It can be a bit of a tricky idea, because we're trying to help them learn, and so naturally the first idea will be to try to tell them the things we'd like them to learn. So when we hear advice to ask the creationist questions, it's tempting to do a mental auto-correct and flip it around to where we're suppose to answer the creationist's questions, but that's not the strategy. Seriously, the best strategy is to _ask_ questions _to_ the creationist, as if the creationist were the teacher and we're the students. As crazy as it seems, it actually works on multiple levels.
@@Ansatz66 I think you are right, however, I have tried asking questions before and you do have a point.
It’s often where they get stumped and sometimes it actually leads them to opening their minds, just a bit.
That being said, most creationists that I encountered have never even showed a sign that they could have their minds changed and don’t even care about having conversations, not in a million years.
@@laserfan17 "Most creationists that I encountered have never even showed a sign that they could have their minds changed."
That's a deliberate front that the creationist puts up. Creationists tend to grow up in a community where doubt is socially unacceptable. Any sign of doubt would have been scolded by their parents and their teachers and every adult they knew, and even by their young friends. The creationist therefore naturally grows to fear any sign of doubt, because as a child it would have risked losing everything important in their lives. Don't expect a creationist to ever show any sign of doubt, regardless of whether they feel doubt or not.
It's almost impossible for any person to have no doubts. Religious people usually just fear their doubts and shove the doubts far into the backs of their minds and pretend that their doubts don't exist. But the people who are most energetic in trying the prove their beliefs are also the ones who are most likely to be seriously struggling with their doubts. They are likely trying to use reason and evidence to cure themselves of doubt, and especially they want to live in a world where no one doubts, because if everyone else would stop doubting, then maybe their own doubts could finally go away.
"...don’t even care about having conversations."
Conversations are very helpful, but they're not necessary. One of the great things about asking questions is that we don't need the creationists to give us answers in order for the questions to be effective. All we're trying to do is put the spark of curiosity into people, and even if the creationist never responds to our questions, the questions still entered her mind. It's almost impossible for anyone to read or hear a question without reflexively trying to think of the answer, and every time we can get a creationist to think we've won a little victory.
"I don't understand how-" ok. I don't care. You not understanding a reasonably complicated concept after having a crap teacher doesn't mean it's wrong
Exactly. The answers are in the books, you just dont understand, or didnt actually try to learn. Either way....
It isnt a book problem.
It isnt a fact problem.
Its a YOU problem. Fix yourself, or shut the fuck up
Just recently discovered your videos. Highly enjoyable, educational, and entertaining. Please continue!
"Why would they be running round?" I scared my cats laughing at that
Trying to “disprove” evolution is like trying to disprove gravity or sunlight.
"disproving gravity" DUUUH its bouyancy! And Sunlight is heavenly energy! (/s just in case)
Flat Eart Society:
"So... What? I don't understand"
@@CathrineMacNiel their buoyancy argument is so stupid! doesn't buoyancy rely on gravity to then determine what the fuck floats and to which direction? lmao, flat earthers are wild
@@djl12100 Buoyancy and density are commonly used in their “arguments”. Problem here is that neither of those 2 are forces, unlike gravity.
@@djl12100 it really is. "things fall down due to buoyancy!" ... yeah, but if Gravity isn't real, how do you define "down"?
Now, I'm curious, and would want a video about his stance in abortion in a biologist's perspective.
Same. I actually posted a comment about that in his Atheist video. I think I know where he stands when he started talking about body autonomy rights though. Regardless, it's a timely topic with the new bill in Texas.
samee
I think even among biologists there are a lot of differing opinions. He would be able to give his personal opinion at most
It isn't exactly like there is some "objective" answer tho. It's really more of a question of philosophy and ethics than biology.
Well he said it’s all about rights
“Life cannot come from non life” says someone who thinks that something that isn’t life created all life
I was so excited you pointed at the one that said, if you pick this one you're wrong. I picked that one. Damn it