Actually, if science proves that science is wrong, then it is wrong. This is simple logic, because if science where true, then it would be wrong, but if it is wrong, then you can deduce everything from it including that it is wrong. Of course this all falls apart, if science happens to be something other than one single statement
@@matthewfors114 That is not a statement, because it's neither false nor true. But it is also not the same as what I said. Let me explain: A := Science B := "Science is true" = A (In words: A is defined as science, while B is the statement that science is true) Before we where talking about from A follows not B. In formulas: A => !B Now let C be your statement. Then we have: C = "C is not true" = !C Which is different from "A => !B = !B" (Yeah, I admit, it's complicated, but that is not surprising, since some people do logic as their job)
I can imagine this woman today saying "ok, they told us there was no vaccine for COVID in 2020. Then in 2021, they tell us they DO have a vaccine. The story keeps changing!"
To be fair they are understanding it exactly the same way as it works in Pokemon. They think that evolution works in clear separate steps just like it does in the game. In fact I think Pokemon may bear a little bit of responsibility for confusing people into believing that evolution is a set of steps instead of a gradient.
@@Mouse_Librarian I know that the greater majority of people do not get scientific facts confused because of a children's game. I was just pointing out that a small percentage may.
27:14 they basically said "these old textbooks don't address new evidence, lets look at a much much much older book" and that seems like a not so great way to work
Creationists always ALWAYS use outdated or inaccurate accounts/data to attempt debunking evolution. Some Creationists are intentionally disingenuous (lying) and some are just regurgitating what they've heard/read other Creationists have said. Thank you Forrest for doing what you do!
I like it. To me it kinda shows how she understands nothing of fasion just like she understands nothing of evolution. Also she says old thing is bad but the bible is older then evolution
PLEASE they really said "the bible says that god made humans and animals..... wow that really DOES sum it up! welp, looks like the christian god is empirically proven!"
That entire theory relies on the belief that bible is absolutely true. Why is it absolutely true? Because bible says so. Why would we believe it? Because bible is absolutely true. See the fallacy?
Eh the bible is actually a lot more complicated than that honestly. Yes the bible is the word of god for those who believe in it, but even God says to test him, his word and all things you see and hear. I see it as God wants us to have a scientific mindset, especially when it comes to our everyday world, and to come to him with our spiritual matters in life.
@@rojack79er a lot of issues with religion just ends up with people not actually reading the text or believing misinterpretations of others. It’s a shame, really.
Him whipping out the Bible and pointing out SO MANY contradictions had me laughing so hard, and I couldn’t believe he just kept going 😂 10/10 you gotta throw their logic right back at them
So? No one said the Bible was perfect. It was written by man not by God. And besides why should we only look at the wrongs of the Bible when there is so much wrong with science?
@@justinwhaley1288so is science , the purpose of science is to make us less wrong about the world . The difference is that science changes when it’s wrong while the Bibleap and it’s symbolisms dont
@@vodachan4458 you didn’t know that Darwinian model of evolution has been proven wrong even during its time? Even according to mainstream science. You don’t know who ted gunderson is either apparently.
Love the logic at 27:07 "if this 40 year old middle school textbook doesn't address the newest evidence, what about a roughly 2000 year old religious text?"
WORD!!! (See Also: Logical Fallacy; Special Pleading) They'll never hold themselves to the same standards they want to impose on others...because their faith couldn't survive it.
@@OmniphonProductions you just need to look at some thread here. They are poking holes, nibbling at littles thing, citing Darwin like his book was holy. All the while they refuse to see the crater in their book.
"You're presenting them in such a way that your lack of understanding proves that there is no understanding to be had...and that just makes no sense." -- Loved that line!
Notice how she went from Australopithecus afarensis in one book and gave its timeline. To Australopithecus in another book and gave a different timeline. She used both the genus and species in the first book and then used just the genus in the second book. Gutsick Gibbons pointed this out in one of her videos
@@CWFpresentes even if he knows whats does it it hurt to prove a point would it have been better if God said he knew Abraham would do it or better to demonstrate he would ?actions speak louder than words.whether he knew or not is irrelevant we arrived at the same conclusion regardless.
I love when Christians say Piltdown man disproves science, yet ignore that it was science that disproved Piltdown man. Their argument against science is, in itself, an argument for it.
I know....it is so funny when people say things like : there are fake fossils, that shows you science can be wrong". well, sherlocks, what do you think we used to find those fossils were fake?
This x💯. It’s exactly what I was going to say. Religion has never disproved anything about science. Science epistemology is designed to be inherently self correcting. Being wrong and updating the record is exactly why science should be seen as trustworthy and religion not.
Being conservative just seems to mean you are fascinated with proving yourself wrong. Kinda like how ads for Republican politicians work wonderfully as ads against them.
I remember learning about Lucy and even in public school my teacher was so skeptical about evolution, and made a point to tell us Lucy was "just an animal". Like we aren't animals ourselves. I became fascinated though and had a science poster with all of most well known skulls, including Lucy. She might not be the most complete but she's special to me. She sparked curiosity in little me.
An analogy I think works against the "science is always changing!" complainers is the idea of a jigsaw puzzle. As you're completing a jigsaw puzzle, you can begin to get a good sense of how the whole picture looks. Science is like working on the puzzle without the completed reference picture on the box. Sometimes you may later discover that a piece was incorrectly jammed in where it doesn't actually belong, but this doesn't invalidate the entire puzzle, nor does it mean that you had no idea what you were doing before - it just means that now you have a slightly more accurate overall picture.
“Is it just me or does the evolutionary story keep changing?” This opening sentence tells me a lot about this video and the people who made it. Literalist and fundamentalists don’t like the concept of science changing.
@@robinsondicoca1059 I was once ask: "why would they lie and bullshit their way around ?" (regarding Christians, the bible and Jesus) *Me looking at how the popes were the most powerful and richest men for almost two thousands years* I don't know...it's a mystery why they would lie and invent stories.
"It's not like some monkey leveled up and became a human." Is the best and frankly funniest analogy i've ever heard and i'll definitely be using that one.
Okay, i dont know if anybody will ever see this. But i went from atheist as a kid, to theist as a teenager, to now im questioning everything again. I really appreciate these kinds of videos. Ive been bamboozled
@@shanewilson7994 Learning is very awesome :)! Its beautiful when I find something with a previously unknown cause that was said to be caused by god, and there is a natural explanation found for it. It feels empowering
Jesus is the way the truth and the life. But that doesn’t mean you have to deny evolution, as although it may seem like it, it doesn’t contradict the Bible. Anyway, I’ll be praying for you! ❤
@@n4ttyyyWhen I was a kid (cough…in the 70s and 80s…cough), I was mesmerized by shows like “In search Of” with Leonard Nemoy, and a little later, “Unsolved Mysteries”. These two shows in particular seemingly made real the things I so loved: monsters, aliens and fantasy. The shows kept asking “why why WHY” and would answer with “suppose…” or “imagine…”. Then one day I discovered another show. It was called COSMOS, and this nerdy guy Carl Sagan would ask questions of his own. And he had real answers. I began to find more interest in science than I did the science fiction. I found I was more enthralled by Sagan explaining Evolution than I was about a mysterious (ALWAYS “mysterious”) creature living in a huge lake that no one ever seemed to…just…quite…PROVE existed. I started picking up general science books (one I would recommend is “A Short History of Nearly Everything” by Bryson. Another is “The Fact of Evolution” by Smith: The single best explanation for Evolution I have ever heard…) and I couldn’t get enough of it! Long story short, I’m 51 now and have been an Atheist for about 30 years now. Learning new things gets harder, takes a lot of work and becomes less appealing for many, the older you get. Many just give up. I say keep at it. Forever.
I always get the feeling with these sort of creationist videos, that the most common emotion is that they're afraid. It's fear of the method of science and what's been discovered. It's like "I don't want my fantasyworld that I've been brought up to believe from childhood to be shattered by some other story, because that would make me depressed". It's all very self-centred, ideological and discourages curiosity
They have to be dishonest. They're pushing a religious agenda, which can't explain any science. So, they lie. I find it difficult to accept they really believe this gibberish-they all really believe in Darwin behind our backs or when we're asleep😊🙃😊
@Gary Allen yeah I mean it's kinda sad, cause people think they're incredibly charismatic, very knowledgeable guys who were born to know it all, when in fact, most of them are smug, uncharismatic serial liars who just get by on people's ignorance...
I see a lot of skeptics and atheists misuse the Dunning-Kruger effect against apologists and religious people. The effect just shows that people with particularly low ability at a certain task have a hard time evaluating their actual ability. It doesn't say anything about ignorant people being arrogant, smug or seeing themselves as more intelligent. Also, the effect is not a consensus among academics because it can be largely explained by a combination of data artifacts and the better-than-average effect.
Yeah, and this is talking from experience. I have commented on 2 of hovind's videos, 1 about taking the formation of the missisipi delta out of context, and 1 about evolution. I've noticed that he comments to users who don't provide him evidence of evolution, or support his message...but he hasn't commented to me to this day when I did call him out.
As a Christian boi who does believe in evolution, this is legitimately a good learning source for me. Not only do I get answers but also tells me what lines of thought just aren't useful
@@abel3557 Maybe because true Christianity is concerned more on the wisdom and teachings of its prophets and less on the creation of the universe and what forms everything? Living well is a higher priority to a real Christian because the universe is so massive and largely unknown that they are willing to accept new facts about reality. If you’re going to use the Big G in a response, please keep in mind that in the estimated 4.5 billion years that Earth has existed, there was plenty of time for some overlap in the Christian creation story that began over 6000 years ago.
That means you’re not good at giving anyone a chance. That means you’re stuck in your ways and won’t listen to any side but the side you agree on. Believe it or not I’m not against or for macro evolution. So I’m not on either side.
"Science keeps changing based on new discoveries and knowledge. Clearly this shows that scientists are wrong." They literally take the whole purpose and importance of scientific studies and try use it as a way to disprove science. It's pretty incredible.
Scientific explanations routinely change from bad explanations to better explanations, but it’s incredibly rare to see science take a good explanation and replace that with a worse one. Science changes, but the good explanations almost never do change.
But you have to admit that they act very good and also natural, regarding this crappy script (The Bible): He is patronizing as s... and she fulfills her role as a prop with uterus like they had studied and practiced it many times before. They even show dedication. More than the other "soul-pretenders". That's talent! Hehehehehhee
They act like Piltdown Man is a dirty little secret science has hidden away. In my freshman biology class in 1981 there was a whole page in my textbook dedicated to it. Maybe in earlier grades too.
Thank you. From the bottom of my heart thank you. I went to fundie Christian schools my whole life and my science education was that it's 100% possible all dog breeds came from the 2 dogs on the ark because of recessive genes. I got robbed of some of the most intriguing and wonderful parts of knowing my lineage. Our lineage. I've been dealing with severe illness lately and trying to discover my own existential issues but without that fundamental knowledge, until now I've felt so blind. I'm so curious and excited to keep learning about our history. The real history. Thank you for doing what you do. I wish you great things in your life 💕 You've earned yourself a new fan for sure!
@@rplatt9829 after being threatened with execution by the god loving magic book of fairytale believers. And being under house arrest with every move monitored. So yeah no coercion there right ,you also completely ignore the recanting that occurred on his deathbed . How dishonest of you.
@@felpshehe And there's a lot more where that came from. How about an easy NT example? Try the four gospels. I mean, read them, not one after the other, but more like side-by-side. You'll notice lots and lots of discrepancies between these four stories.
@@KaiHenningsen yeah like how jesus was born during the reign of a different king, getting mad and flipping tables etc. People argue about what's canonical in the MCU, meanwhile the Bible is soooo much worse lmao.
@@KaiHenningsen I'd also recommend one right after the other in the order they were written, Mark, Matthew, Luke/Acts, and John. This really shows the legend as it grew over the decades
@@rplatt9829 God's plural reference? Shows what you know REALLY!!! You are reffering to Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man", it so happens he was talking to Logos whom later became Jesus and the Holy Spirit. There's the us in that verse. As far as the Gospels being different no two people will give the exact same account of what occurred, that by no means the accounts are in contradict, the reader gets a more complete view of what was happening. Jesus turned the tables over because those who ran the temple were selling and ripping buyers off to make money, learn the whole story okay and get your knowledge right? Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-18, John 2:13-17.
Pluto is a good analog for this. Pluto is not longer a planet. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It just means we classify it differently based on new analysis and information.
I should show this video to my old maths teacher - he once told us in class that he does not belive in evolution since his "grandpa wasn't a monkey". That was maybe 5 years ago - not in the 1960s.
This is one of my new favorite channels. I love how Forrest can get visibly frustrated and sometimes angry while at the same time never straying from the actual facts and science. No hyperbole or ad hominem here. Just the facts. I love it!
Ironic, science is good cause it changes cause people make mistakes, but if Christianity changes because people may have made a mistake... Tut tut gotta be restarted idiots.
I wish we could go back in time when the catholic priests like Saint Nichloas Steno were uncovering the truths through scientific progress... nowadays most christians are just miracle and mystery fanatics which is annoying knowing that they benefit from scientific breakthroughs... such hypocrites...
@Johannes There are many different things that claim to be Christianity, and most all of them are not. When someone decides to rewrite the Bible to his or her own distorted view point it is no longer Christianity. It is a cult. There are many so called Bibles where entire books of the Bible are removed, or new books added, sentences and even chapters rewritten, etc. All to deliberately pervert the meaning and support the beliefs of an individual who is building their own cult. That person still claims to be Christian, but their cult is in direct opposition to the Bible, therefore it can not be Christian. But true Christians are hammered constantly because of the false teachings from those cults. Someone made mention of the Pope changing the long established and accepted meaning of Biblical scripture earlier, no Christian has the Right to rewrite the Bible to support their philosophy, sexuality, or whatever other purpose. Once you start doing this you have perverted Christianity into a cult. All that said, think about this. How do you explain a future concept or device to a man who has no technology? Explaining near instantaneous global communication via satellites to a man living in a cave for instance. So the understanding of the man even if speaking directly to God would contain some flaws. Not because of God, but because of Man's inability to comprehend God's concept. Here's an example, 'animal guard'. Does this mean a dog catcher protecting people from rabid animals? a guard dog? a sheep dog or even the herdsman in the field protecting his flock? I am certain you can come up with even more of your own interpretations. Now imagine translating this from a dead language no one speaks with only another long unused nearly forgotten language as the translation key. Parts of the Bible were written in Ancient Aramaic, converted to old Latin via an Ancient Greek translation key of only a few passages written on a stone, and then was again converted from Latin to middle English. With this many translators involved of course there will be inaccuracies due to linguistic differences, or even just plain errors in handwriting / reading. Remember this was all done by hand, long before the printing press. And this was also done in inks that would easily smear, run, or bleed using writing utensils that were not as good as even the cheapest disposable pen of today.
It bothers me immensely that we as a society have benefited so much from what science has produced, and there are people out there who also benefit from it, but dismiss it out of hand when it conflicts with their beliefs.
Agreed. The flat earthers though. I just can't understand why people disagree with such obvious simple physics. I can kind of understand some people not understanding evolution I mean it can be a little complicated, but to say that the Earth is flat just makes me think that they have to be trolls, they can't actually believe that right. But the same people will believe in a sky daddy just based on their feelings. What is going on? is this just a failure of high school education?
@@alorr4uz yeah I 100% get what your saying. It’s hard for humans to comprehend something like evolution that takes place over hundreds of millions of years, which we also struggle to comprehend that amount of time, so yeah I can at least understand why people might not exactly be able to get it. Flat earth though I think is multifaceted l, yes failure of the education system is part of it, but also religious indoctrination, many times it seems that flat earthers are deeply religious. Not always, but most of the time. Also, and this is the one that depresses me the most, anti-intellectualism. It’s very common now that people are far more willing to believe whatever they want, rather than listen to what a consensus of experts say about something.
@@kevind6723 yeah I agree with that summary too I figured religion is part of the anti-intellectual movement I mean that's why they want to infiltrate our education system, I think they're afraid they're young people are going to see the truth so they keep them in the dark. I really can't comprehend why somebody doesn't want to learn something new, gain new knowledge and understanding. I feel like asking questions is my default.
I never understood that whole "There's disagreements about a factor of this thing therefore it is entirely fake." Like imagine: Person 1: The glass is half full. Person 2: The glass is half empty. Person 3: AHA!! You disagree so the glass doesn't exist!
And then there's the realists: Are you filling it up or drinking out of it? Filling it up means it's half full. Drinking from it means it's half empty. *duh* lol
As an engineering technician (yeah, ik, kill me I don't have a degree) it is obvious that the glass has two times the volume it has to have to fulfill its function.
If you need to go after the scientific community at large (not just one or two individual scientists but against most of them) in order to make your case... then you never had a case to begin with. I mean, at that point you're lying in defense of your truth and still call it truth.
the thing is, their not the ones building computers, coming up with new technologies and medicines... ITs the scientists. In the last 200 years we've advanced more then they did in the last 2000 years.
The funny part is the bible and science coexist quite well together already, but since many christians were taught the two have something against each other they try and disprove science for really no reason.
But the YEC does not want to refute science, but wants to justify the truth of the Bible with science. The point is that science makes so many mistakes about evolution because of erroneous assumptions. But after all, the scientific education of creationism is forbidden, so it is utterly impossible for science to say anything other than evolution.
I would say that colour gives a very good analogy to the problem of defining and naming things that evolve very slowly: Imagine a bright yellow patch of colour next to a green patch of colour next to a deep blue patch of colour. It wouldn't be difficult for any group of persons to consent that one is yellow, the next is green and the other one is blue. But there is an infinite amount of colours between those colours. If you take for example 10 colours in between every of those patches, you might still be able to define them in a way that a group of people could consent and you could name them turquoise, sea green, etc. But after that it becomes more and more difficult, because if you add another 10 colours between sea green and turquoise it will be so hard to agree, if one patch is to be defined as turquoise or not. So you would have to come up with a solution to define those colours, for example you could measure the amount of blue pigment and based on that you would have to find a definition of how much and how little blue pigment need to be in a specific patch of colours for it to be classified as turquoise. And then somebody comes around and finds another colour that is so close to turquoise that it fits the definition, but the amount of blue pigment is just inside the defined boarders. The problem is: you can still see a difference and you don't want different colours to have the same name, so you have to change the boarders of turquoise to distinguish it by definition from the other colour. This is how I imagine evolutionary science to be, and this is why the "Story of Evolution" is changing and evolving all the time. There are so many new colours found over the years and every time you have to figure out how it fits into the story. And this is why it never can be perfectly finished because in the end it's humans who come up with definitions for species and names and it just gets more complicated with every fossil found.
I felt that at 27:37 I had my Catholic grandmother tell me that fish aren't animals (as an excuse to eat fish during lent) and my sister and I were dumbfounded.
@@airplanes_aren.t_real AS A TEACHER; i hope so much the School's-issue-adressing new GOP Video that "Some More News" made will be at least watched, if not endorsed and reacted-to, by Forrest. We all know him as the Idol-Version of the Job of Teacher, so i really hope he sees my comment and his Protect-the-Kiddos-Instincts kick-in. !!!!
"God's word never changes!" Cool, so which Bible will we be reading from today? KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT, ESV, NRSV... Oh, and what denomination are we in? Pentecostal, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, AME... Y'know, Christianity sure did evolve into many different forms.
It’s not just religious texts. Think about languages too, or how quick technology evolves. Evolution is all around us , it’s just in different forms and going at very different speeds
@Donna Clark life is complicated. It always has been and always will be. And there’s nothing wrong with gay marriage or gay Bibles. Also that’s not how evolution works. At least think logically. It’s not like an ant will turn to an elephant in a day. Evolution take years , centuries or even millennia.
28:58-30:55 I love this section of the video, especially since I am a Catholic Christian. It is one of those things that you never think about as a child since you are only taught your parents’ understanding and very few actually read the Bible for themselves. The face and tone as well as the carnival-ish music he plays is also very funny.
@@mayosmayo4738let’s agree to disagree, because you making that statement in my opinion shows how little you actually know about Catholicism and it’s beliefs. All I am going to say is that I made a statement about the video in good taste about something I found funny and you decided to respond with something that is hurtful and offensive. Try to be a better person please!
In the discworld series by Terry Pratchette there are magicians who are so afraid of water that they unconsciously levitate above water, these hydrophobic people fly vehicles powered by prayer lol
Really? The bible is the best evidence against creationists. That's why in a debate they never want to discuss the bible because it cannot be defended. That's also why people go to church. so they don't have the read it and rely on preachers to tell them what it says.
@@heatedpants8437 Nope, Not as many as you think actually read the bible or know about the passages their preachers don't tell them. Its the most stolen/purchased book in the world. so obviously the base number is higher, but my point was you talk to many Christians and mention stuff that's in the bible and they look at you like you're just pulling stories out your ass. The best part is when you try to show them. They just don't want to hear it and assume you're twisting its meaning. Even if you read it word for word. Not that it matters you get completely different reasonings and meaning depending on which version you read. because unlike what preachers want you to believe Gods word changes depending on what bible you read 🤣
@@FR099Y Hm, being Protestant myself I have seen Christians taking words from preachers for granted. Even though personally I have never seen them rejecting obscure verses from Bible, but I have seen them interpreting in different way just to fit narrative. At the same time it's difficult to read every verse from a thick book like Bible, so you need to rely on preachers but cross-checking is important. I know, that's the sad thing translating a book into another language has drawbacks like loosing meaning of many words.
The best thing about Piltdown Man is that we learned a lot from the fraud, and how to reduce the chances of more frauds like that being introduced again.
Christian too… I never knew there were Christians that didn’t believe in evolution. Always thought that the beginning of Genesis just pointed to evolution tbh.
I love the “if they can breed, they’re the same species” notion. Like, lions and tigers can mate and reproduce. Zebras and horses can mate and reproduce.
The offspring of lions and tigers are sterile, however, which prevents the definition from applying. The offspring of polar bears and grizzly bears *are* fertile though, what's more is that this has happened naturally.
I love them saying they found multiple Lucy fossils. That's like if a palaeontologist was digging for tyrannosaurs and was like "aye we've got some good Sues in this fossil bed"
"We've got some good Sues in this fossil bed" sounds like something an Australian paleontologist would say on a documentary. (Probably prefixed by "Crikey", so the audience knows they're Australian.)
I would pay for you to go thru the ENTIRE bible the way you did while pointing the inconsistencies just in the first couple of chapters here lol that was amazing.
_"You're asking great questions, but you're presenting them in such a way as if your lack of understanding proves that there is no understanding to possibly be had"_ 🤘 🔥 🔥 🔥 🤘
"God's word never changes" That is so wrong it's not even funny. There have been so many changes to the bible over the centuries, saying it hasn't changed is just ridiculous.
@@franktorres7963 "What changes?" "With the potential exception of the Septuagint, the apostles did not leave a defined set of scriptures; *_instead the canon of both the Old Testament and the New Testament developed over time_* . Different denominations recognize different lists of books as canonical, following various church councils and the decisions of leaders of various churches." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canons en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon
@@franktorres7963 the interpretations change all the time too. The ark: number of animals, which were clean, the definition of kinds, the tower: the origin of language, architecture. From a group of neanderthals that would clean their asses, eat, then die, and not figure out washing your hands could add 50 years to your life, you are going to chose their wisdom over someone who can genetically engineer glow in the dark, phosphorescent cyanobacteria, nevermind identify the difference skulls of long dead iterations of early humans?
>some guy makes a change while translating the Bible >some other guy later notices the change and uses an older translation to correct the change >third guy makes a copy based of the one from the second guy >third guy notices the second guy’s change >”corrects it” to back to the first guys change >adds asterisk >”Heathen and fool, do not change the text!”
13:00 Erika at Gutsick Gibbon said that if we had fossils for every minute change in our ancestors, it would be impossible to actually identify individual species. That has really stuck with me.
Gotta love how Oxner was skeptical of Lucy walking bipedal, changed his mind, and now these 2 creationists are using his old words to “debunk” the Lucy species or whatever
I love how you acknowledged that some of their broader points and questions were actually legitimate. If only they were actually interested in the answers
The thing is, many middle school textbooks are wrong. My 6th grade science textbook taught that electrons orbited around the nucleus in perfect circles at fixed distances with the valence electrons being locked between the two nuclei for covalent bonding. It doesn't take a genius to see the problem there, what about polyatomic molecules, how do they keep the electrons spinning while also being locked between two nuclei? What about triple bonded nitrogen, since the electrons like to hang out in pairs, how are you gonna get 6 of them in the dead center? The answer is clearly that the model taught is an approximation, that the true nuances of quantum subatomic physics is incommunicable to a 12 year old, but conspiracy theorists take it to mean that "they" are lying or wrong or unsure. So the real question is, why do the YECs or conspiracy theorists keep quoting oversimplified explanations for 12 year olds as if it were the pinnacle of science?
@@Squeekysquid I was not intending to be an ass, it is a meme on reddit, I thought it would have added a little humor to saying "yes, it was sarcasm" in a low effort way. Genuinely sorry if it was not taken that way.
@@phillyphakename1255 I mean I get the joke, I just feel the joke is at the expense of me is all I'm saying. I even heard it in my head with Morgan Freeman's voice. I just heard in a tone that sounded like I was an outright idiot. I guess that's just my insecurities talking.
I love the puddle analogy: A puddle forms in a pot hole in the road… this puddle looks around and is amazed. “Wow! This pothole is my perfect shape, down to every crevice. It must have been made just for me!” When in reality, the obvious answer is that that puddle adapted to the environment it ended up in by chance. That’s how life and this universe works inherently from observing other natural processes. Idk what these people are on 😅
According to my wife, there was water before rain… The water came from the ground. So I guess like a volcano. The water came out of the mountains, turned to snow, then melted so we had rivers. But she still can’t explain the meaning of “ he made man out of our image”! Who is our??? All non-thinking people she has an explanation for everything but she can’t explain that. BTW, I love you channel. My wife refuses to listen to it. Anything that goes against her beliefs she runs and hides. Guess which one of us is the atheist?
When I was having a debate with someone about evolution they actually said: “well you don’t see a human just walking out of the forest do you?”. My jaw dropped, I mean you hear that people say stuff like this but when someone actually says it to you in person, it’s a completely different experience. It’s actually more interesting how dogma works than evolution itself but it’s also very sad, these people have been brainwashed their whole life and when we’re talking to them, we need to take that in to account and have some compassion.
The language example to evolution is the best most perfect example I have ever heard. You sir are a genius, I'm subscribing, and stealing that for myself.
Its a really good explanation that I've been using for years. But I tend to go a bit further showing splits. Basically google Evolution of the English language, go to images and you see some really cool trees showing all of the branches from the Germanic language down to 16 different modern languages
I’ve also used the language example before. Much of the logic works a lot like evolution, but it takes place on a shorter time scale that’s easier for many people to understand. You can run into some problems if they start talking about Tower of Babel but that’s a different discussion.
It is a really good example. I have also been pulling out a colour spectrum to basically show the same thing like you can zoom between yellow and red to see orange but when does the red change to orange is hard to tell cause like name of colours are just human invention that doesn’t mean that the colours doesn’t change gradually
I don't know why but god moving upon the face of the water made me laugh. I just had this image of god hovering slightly above the ocean and just gliding along, moving upon the waters face 😂😂😂😂
Oh wow, it's almost like the Bible doesn't answer questions about biology, anthropology, geology, etc. Almost like the people who wrote it were more concerned about spiritual and philosophical matters, and that they also came from a culture that wrote heavily in metaphors, parables, and symbolism that can't always be taken literally.... hmmm...... Makes ya think....
Not one textbook talks about how President Lincoln died, down to the second. in the same way God is all knowing he knew not to tell them things that would absolutely confuse them. Hebrews 11:3 "By faith we understand that the universe was for made at gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what is visible" (New International Version)
Creationist: “I just proved that [noun] didn’t actually [verb]” The rest of Science: “Cool, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and we’ll change textbooks” Creationist: “wait I thought I just proved the whole theory wrong” Science: “we alter theories to fit new evidence all the time”
I guess what he is trying to say is how creationists think their assumptions and proclaimations immeadiately count as evidence instead of using the scientific method and actually showing evidence of their claims. They thus expect the science community to change with lack of evidence.
@@bigmoniesponge A creationist is used to the idea that if I find out that a biblical fact is wrong, it reduces the trust in the Bible as a whole as a source of truth. This is reasonable, as any wrong _fact_ is an issue when you claim that the book is divinely inspired by an omniscient God and it has to be interpreted literally. The issue is that they often transfer the same reasoning to science. However the idea fails dramatically when applied to science: scientific method thrives on errors. A scientific theory is the best possible fit for all the experimental data we have today, and a new data that forces us to change the theory is a source of scientific progress, it does not reduce our trust in the method or the theory unless it attack to the core the theory itself. If we were to find fossil evidence of australopithecines riding dinosaurs, it would be indeed an issue. If we find out that there were three branches of australopithecines instead of two, we have just enriched the theory. If you believe instead your book is divinely inspired, anything that is not exactly like the book is a problem.
@@bigmoniesponge it's because they think that science is simply an athiest tool to disregard the bible, and they think that counter-position is perceived (on our end) as "black and white" because *they* only understand 'yes' and 'no', absolute binary opposition. Shades of grey and the possibility of the unknown scare them. Essentially they don't understand that science is simply the maths of the universe attempting to logically ground all of it's anomalies and phenomenon in units of measurement to establish a set of working truths that could be modified at any moment. It's willing to accept and accomodate any finding if evidence supports it. That's what creationists don't get. But unfortunately for them it's yet to green-light boats that can fit 2 of every animal species, folks living for 600 years, giants and.. well, creation.
Creationists: "You can't believe what science says about evolution, they are making it all up" also Creationists: "This pastor says that God has anointed him as his prophet, let's unquestionably believe and do whatever he says!"
@@Gravewave808 Scientific Theory is the highest level of scientific understanding and I don't think you have the cerebral power to understand just how much Evidence is required to reach that level.
"Is it just me or does science keep changing?" TRANSLATION: I am too lazy and/or dense to bother learning new things from time to time and would rather sit in the muck of my bronze age fireside stories.
you hit the nail on the head. Why learning science and keep learning what is new when you can just lean back and "believe" in something. Maybe asking questions is just to much effort for them.
Reminds me of vaccine sceptics. If a vaccine is not saving 100% and has zero side effects, they prefer to die instead of use rationality and look at the numbers.
I think Forrest could have given a better answer on the thing of science changing. Because, the meme often is that science is regularly _thrown out_ and written over from scratch. And that's what the "debunking" video alludes to too. But in fact, when we're following the scientific method, we are progressively gaining confidence in particular models (at the same time as those models are proving useful practically). So, while scientists' more speculative hypotheses may of course be wrong, and while we will of course *add* to our knowledge of evolution, the idea that all of evolution may be thrown out one day, with all scientists admitting "We wuz wrong" is stupendously unlikely at this point. Because it would mean all of the many predictions that evolution has made over all this time (about genetics, homology etc) were right just by random chance.
This feels a bit like looking at skeletons of humans and grouping it into children and adults and thereby claiming that there is only adults and children. Thereby proving that adults and children must be different species as there is nothing in between 😂
@hiooxkrmagkis9323 That is because there aren't any. If you think there are, please share with us the peer-reviewed scientific paper that explains problems with the established theory of evolution.
“Evolution isn’t a ladder” To build on that, I like to say evolution is like a ramp, no steps, no easy to distinguish “sections” it’s just a smooth change in gradient.
I like your use of Latin to Spanish as an illustration of the slow pace of change in evolution. One could add that French, Italian, and Portuguese, as well as Spanish, all evolved from a common Latin language ancestor much as multiple species have evolved from a common human ancestor.
And loanwords are equivalent to interbreeding events. Estonian stole the Old German word "kuningas" for king, and Slavic languages stole Old Turkic arslan(lion) and made it mean "elephant", which they call slon. Very similar to how neanderthals, denisovans, and possibly other human species interbred with us and changed our own genetics.
@@ethanrayment8157 back in the day (medieval I think) apparently 'nice' meant something was bad or wrong or horrible. Just as today 'sick' means something is good or excellent, awesome etc. "Fully sick dude" does not mean someone is on deaths door. Language changes constantly.
@@ethanrayment8157 wdym? Languages die out, new languages are created, and languages definitely change. Do you mean language as whole never changes? Even then I'd think you're wrong because language has evolved to be more precise in what is said to the point that we have multiple words that mean the same thing with the only difference being the tone people intend to use. I'd say language vastly changed
"This theory about other animals that look really similar to us having a common ancestor with us is complete bullocks, but this Bronze-age book about humans coming from mud makes much more sense"
Speaking as an author that dive into the bible at the end made me laugh so hard. Just hearing you point out all those places where the original authors and translators clearly forgot their own mythology and storyline just reminds me of all the times I've had to rewrite and edit a story because I forgot or misremembered shit. DO NOT PUBLISH YOUR FIRST DRAFT!!! Thousands of years later you'll be called out on a UA-cam channel!
Kinda makes me want to read it so I can see how poorly written it is overall. Because, you can do a multi-author story and have it be amazing, but something tells me the people, over the course of history, who worked on it, didn't give a crap about those who wrote before, or those who read after they were done with it.
@ArmanAditya Basu That's correct for neanderthals, but Lucy was still the oldest known hominid at the time of her discovery. Homo Floresiensis was found after Lucy.
Lucy was more famous because that species showed traits almost halfway between apes and humans - the classic "missing link" that was predicted by evolution and the lack was used to try to disclaim evolution.
Hey man, thanks for doing these videos. I love the style and the restrain you demonstrate in treating the arguments at face value and debunk in good fait, it must be so tempting to just laugh and call them stupid.
Watching them try to "debunk" evolution by pointing to stuff from over 100 years ago is like somebody claiming the Holocaust never happened and only pointing to textbooks from the 1920s
@@stephenolan5539 I agree with that. Most religious people I meet tend to have some egos. And be really condescending with their holier than thou shit.
I loved the twist at the end. these two went a whole video nitpicking discrepancies in dates on children textbooks and then ended with "but the bible says man was made of earth and the breath of God!!" WOW! Now I'm convinced! Solid argument!!
I talked with some Atheists online and we came to an interesting Result: Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word', which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects, evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than Church-channel. So i think we should all self-reflect and ask us if Atheists shouldnt recommend-each-other more often stuff. So i offer here and now some Atheist-UA-camr, and on that note, also Science-Channel.
@@slevinchannel7589 i think atheist channels are smaller because there is less atheists. Also, a lot of atheists don't talk about this topic because they can have really big consequences is theirs social life, like being kicked out of theirs own family or even be murdered. And religion gives meaning for a lot of people, so some atheists don't like to take that meaning out of other people's lives. For example, my grandma is a devout catholic. I'm not gonna sit down and explain to her why I think she believes in something untrue, because that faith gives meaning for her life and a lot of hers social interactions are made through the church. Summarizing, I don't think that is simply because "atheists don't desire to talk about their beliefs". It is much more deeper
@@filipe.sm31 I have another idea about why its smaller. Im from Sweden and most people I know are agnostic/atheist. I am the only one who watches stuff like this, or for example AronRa, on youtube because I find it amusing. People here don’t have the problem with fundamentalists trying to control the country or education like in the US. This whole thing seems to be mostly a US problem. Not saying it doesn’t happen here, it does, but it such a small group of people and nobody takes them seriously. I really feel sorry for America, I genuinely do.
The real crux of their argument, "This book is complicated, and this book is simple and laid out so I get it so clearly, so the easy answer must be the right answer" This wishful thinking at best, because they must be the smartest people ever, and only non-believers could get it wrong
I'm not seeing a simple book. If anything, grasping evolution is much simpler than getting the basics of biblical theology but that is relative. Evolution is based on basic logic. Theology is permeated with philosophy and iffy representations of history.
@@swordboy58 That goes both ways. Believing something doesn't require understanding it and most people are satisfied with blankly nodding at authority figures. For a science based example of this, I present the idea of wearing a mask during the pandemic. Dr. Fauci initially stated that people shouldn't wear masks and that they have not been shown to work. In reality, and according to him, he was just trying to avoid a shortage. I was amazed at how many people accepted the true statement, that masks hadn't been proven effective at preventing Covid-19 infections, as evidence for masks not preventing the spread of the disease. Recently, with the knowledge of a newer form of covid, Fauci suggested that healthy people who have been vaccinated may not need to wear a mask. Now a not insignificant number of vaccinated people are getting covid and spreading it while following the advice of one of our top doctors. It is easy to settle on a "fact" or appeal to authority. I am guilty of it myself simply because I cant have a reasonable understanding of everything. That just doesn't speak to the complexity of a subject.
They most certainly have a simple and laid out book, but most certainly it is not a Bible :D Their religion probably has a manual, that cites Bible but never gets into weird and spiritual things you find there ;)
@@Deailon man this sounds like a joke but it is _so_ true that it shocks me. Back when I was a child, the Adventist Church had this thing called a "Biblical Year" (which I never understood, because EVERY year was "Biblical Year", but whatever), it was a list of verses and chapters of books you should read every day, in order to have read "the whole Bible" at the end of the year. They also had "the lesson", which was (and is) this magazine-like deal. It basically compiles a lot of theology and philosophy regarding the verses someone doing their Biblical Year will be reading at a given time. The first cracks on my belief started when I, an absolutely avid reader, decided that for the 3rd year I did a "Biblical Year" I wasn't gonna read just the verses cited there. Most days it only summed up to some 10 seconds of reading anyways, boring. I got some resources on how many verses the Bible had, did some calculations and decided to read 86 verses every day, without skipping anything. On Genesis, I almost regretted that choice; I could honestly see how verses had been filtered out of the Biblical Year recommendation because they were just boring and absolutely pointless. But I had a plan and I stuck out as I walked into Exodus and onwards and, _oh man._ The amount of godly mandated rape, the amount of godly mandated unprovoked genocide, the amount of blatantly wrong advice, the amount of absolutely backwards moral laws spoken as direct quotes from God, the amount of contradictory repetitions of the same story being stated as equally true... I am 50% sure I might still be a Christian if I had never stopped to read the Bible
On top of all that, anthropologists now aren’t even sure her name was actually “Lucy.”
Checkmate, science.
This is great 😆
Her name was actually Bob. What?! Are you gonna deny her the right to choose her gender?!
How are you sure that Adam's name wasn't actually Steve and Eve's name wasn't actually Amanda.
ChEcKmAtE, creationist
@@user-xq4py3fq2y I saw Adam in the Mythbusters show and Eve in WALL-E with my own two eyes
@@sholahverassa8582 I remember seeing Eve in The Croods movie
Favorite creationist blunder: Science proved science was wrong, so we can't trust it.
This is like saying “Aristotle said the sun revolves around the earth, therefore current theories in cosmology are false”
@@quantumrobin4627 i take it u havent watched many flat earth videos yet? lol get ready for pure idiocy
Actually, if science proves that science is wrong, then it is wrong. This is simple logic, because if science where true, then it would be wrong, but if it is wrong, then you can deduce everything from it including that it is wrong.
Of course this all falls apart, if science happens to be something other than one single statement
@@ulrichbrodowsky5016 this sentence is false ;)
@@matthewfors114 That is not a statement, because it's neither false nor true. But it is also not the same as what I said. Let me explain:
A := Science
B := "Science is true" = A
(In words: A is defined as science, while B is the statement that science is true)
Before we where talking about from A follows not B. In formulas:
A => !B
Now let C be your statement. Then we have:
C = "C is not true" = !C
Which is different from "A => !B = !B"
(Yeah, I admit, it's complicated, but that is not surprising, since some people do logic as their job)
My favorite creationist argument is
"Have you ever witnessed a monkey give birth to a human?"
Same.
"nah, but your mom saw the opposite"
No one ever made that claim
@@UA-cam_is_Trashdid* the opposite
best response is "Have you ever witnessed a virgin give birth to a human?"
“Last year, Abe said he was 15 years old. Now he claims to be 16. Which is it, Abe? Better keep your story straight.”
I have the same issue with my fiance, one year she was one age, now she's a year older, like wtf? How can I trust her when her story is changing.
Talk to God .!!; HE Doesn't Change!!
@@williamkelly5567There is no evidence of anything like a God. Spirits...yes.
@@user-gy3yf9hy6h back in 2017 I died. God let me come back to life. I saw this as it happened. There is a God.
What did you see when you died?
I can imagine this woman today saying "ok, they told us there was no vaccine for COVID in 2020. Then in 2021, they tell us they DO have a vaccine. The story keeps changing!"
Okay an the vaccine sucks so?
@@michaelb6510 it does? Elaborate!
@@MrGoesnuts It didn’t give me any super powers… 😔
@@noahduncan126 it gave me the super power of *autism*
I have literally heard people say that kind of thing to my face.
"Debunking evolution: with two people that have a worse understanding of evolution than the average Pokémon player"
To be fair they are understanding it exactly the same way as it works in Pokemon.
They think that evolution works in clear separate steps just like it does in the game. In fact I think Pokemon may bear a little bit of responsibility for confusing people into believing that evolution is a set of steps instead of a gradient.
That's a bit harsh on Pokemon players. I've been playing Pokemon for 20 years and I never considered it remotely similar to real life evolution.
@@Mouse_Librarian I know that the greater majority of people do not get scientific facts confused because of a children's game. I was just pointing out that a small percentage may.
Love it!
@@Mouse_Librarian lol same brother, though i did mistakenly call a jellyfish a tentacool when i was 12 lol
27:14 they basically said "these old textbooks don't address new evidence, lets look at a much much much older book" and that seems like a not so great way to work
well, I guess they are used to get all their knowledge out of ancient books
LMAO@@raymondhartmeijer9300
This book claims that its own claims are true. Q.E.D.
*fingers in ears* LALALALALALALALALA
@@Kenjuudo LOL, accurate tho...
Creationists always ALWAYS use outdated or inaccurate accounts/data to attempt debunking evolution. Some Creationists are intentionally disingenuous (lying) and some are just regurgitating what they've heard/read other Creationists have said.
Thank you Forrest for doing what you do!
All the modern information is manipulated!!!!!!
@@mayosmayo4738by who? Name the group
@@kingmenelaus7083 Satan :
I heard someone quote a study. I looked it up it was from the early 1900
@@Bulldog_65_2 See, just like this. Outdated. ... like they're bible based beliefs.
The blonde girl mocking the 50s drip while dressed like a sad curtain is pretty hilarious
When “sad curtain” describes your aesthetic in a sentence that contains “50s drip”, you know you messed up
Idk why but I love the description “sad curtain” it’s just really funny to me.
Now I know we're my grandma's curtains went
I like it. To me it kinda shows how she understands nothing of fasion just like she understands nothing of evolution.
Also she says old thing is bad but the bible is older then evolution
made me think of my grandma's old oven mitts
They really just said “science changes and is complicated, bible doesn’t make my brain hurt. Must be right”
PLEASE they really said "the bible says that god made humans and animals..... wow that really DOES sum it up! welp, looks like the christian god is empirically proven!"
That entire theory relies on the belief that bible is absolutely true. Why is it absolutely true? Because bible says so. Why would we believe it? Because bible is absolutely true.
See the fallacy?
Eh the bible is actually a lot more complicated than that honestly. Yes the bible is the word of god for those who believe in it, but even God says to test him, his word and all things you see and hear. I see it as God wants us to have a scientific mindset, especially when it comes to our everyday world, and to come to him with our spiritual matters in life.
@@rojack79er a lot of issues with religion just ends up with people not actually reading the text or believing misinterpretations of others. It’s a shame, really.
The bible is full of lies, a time traveler went back in time and gave some dude the book he wrote, then it became popular
‘What does the Bible say?’
‘And so it begins’
That deadass got a loud chuckle outta me.
No extinct human species is mentioned in the bible.
Yet clearly existed.
And their existence disproves the bible
Him whipping out the Bible and pointing out SO MANY contradictions had me laughing so hard, and I couldn’t believe he just kept going 😂 10/10 you gotta throw their logic right back at them
Its laughable when atheists grab low hanging fruit, thinking it to be a victory, when infact the low hanging fruit was a decoy for your stupidity.
So? No one said the Bible was perfect. It was written by man not by God. And besides why should we only look at the wrongs of the Bible when there is so much wrong with science?
@@justinwhaley1288It's funny because they're pointing out contradictions in science to prove it's not real when the bible has more contradictions
@@honeystly_disgusting6393 Science points to the Bible.
@@justinwhaley1288so is science , the purpose of science is to make us less wrong about the world . The difference is that science changes when it’s wrong while the Bibleap and it’s symbolisms dont
Grandpa clearly believed in evolution, since he kept all of these things. He must be very sad about the ignorance of his grandchildren.
Ok this is funny
Darwinian evolution has been disproven over 100 years ago though.
Lol, funniest comment here !
@@tedgunderson67 so funny Ted when's your next movie coming out?
@@vodachan4458 you didn’t know that Darwinian model of evolution has been proven wrong even during its time? Even according to mainstream science. You don’t know who ted gunderson is either apparently.
Love the logic at 27:07 "if this 40 year old middle school textbook doesn't address the newest evidence, what about a roughly 2000 year old religious text?"
Lol
WORD!!! (See Also: Logical Fallacy; Special Pleading) They'll never hold themselves to the same standards they want to impose on others...because their faith couldn't survive it.
THANK YOU!!!!
2000 year old religious text that has been altered throughout the course of history as propaganda, and can be interpreted in many ways*
@@OmniphonProductions you just need to look at some thread here.
They are poking holes, nibbling at littles thing, citing Darwin like his book was holy.
All the while they refuse to see the crater in their book.
"You're presenting them in such a way that your lack of understanding proves that there is no understanding to be had...and that just makes no sense." -- Loved that line!
"Kinda makes you think, doesn't it?"
"It should. It sure should. But it doesn't sound like you did." 🤣😆
Notice how she went from Australopithecus afarensis in one book and gave its timeline. To Australopithecus in another book and gave a different timeline. She used both the genus and species in the first book and then used just the genus in the second book.
Gutsick Gibbons pointed this out in one of her videos
Yeah, I missed that too and loved it when Gutstick caught it.
“Gods word never changes”
Meanwhile god: “yo Isaac, I was just kidding when I said kill your son”
Abraham*. He believed that even if he offered Isaac (as a holocaust), God would resurrect him. The test was made to prove Abraham's faith.
Yes, but isnt he oniscient? So, would not he already know the Abraham is a faithtfull servent?
Yeah and for some reason God had to write a whole New Testament cause the old one wasn’t complete enough? So much for omniscient and all knowing. 😅
@@CWFpresentes even if he knows whats does it it hurt to prove a point would it have been better if God said he knew Abraham would do it or better to demonstrate he would ?actions speak louder than words.whether he knew or not is irrelevant we arrived at the same conclusion regardless.
@@natalyrausch shut up woman your being emotional again.
I love when Christians say Piltdown man disproves science, yet ignore that it was science that disproved Piltdown man. Their argument against science is, in itself, an argument for it.
And that since Piltdown there have been thousands of fossils of our human ancestors.
I know....it is so funny when people say things like : there are fake fossils, that shows you science can be wrong". well, sherlocks, what do you think we used to find those fossils were fake?
This x💯. It’s exactly what I was going to say. Religion has never disproved anything about science. Science epistemology is designed to be inherently self correcting. Being wrong and updating the record is exactly why science should be seen as trustworthy and religion not.
Being conservative just seems to mean you are fascinated with proving yourself wrong.
Kinda like how ads for Republican politicians work wonderfully as ads against them.
It’s like poetry, it rhymes
I remember learning about Lucy and even in public school my teacher was so skeptical about evolution, and made a point to tell us Lucy was "just an animal". Like we aren't animals ourselves. I became fascinated though and had a science poster with all of most well known skulls, including Lucy. She might not be the most complete but she's special to me. She sparked curiosity in little me.
Lucy has some splainin to do .
We are not animals , we are humans .
Humans are animals, what - are we plants?@@user-ki1un4jg2d
@@user-ki1un4jg2d what`s the difference between humans and animals?
@@user-ki1un4jg2d Humans are animals. The most intelligent ones.
An analogy I think works against the "science is always changing!" complainers is the idea of a jigsaw puzzle. As you're completing a jigsaw puzzle, you can begin to get a good sense of how the whole picture looks. Science is like working on the puzzle without the completed reference picture on the box. Sometimes you may later discover that a piece was incorrectly jammed in where it doesn't actually belong, but this doesn't invalidate the entire puzzle, nor does it mean that you had no idea what you were doing before - it just means that now you have a slightly more accurate overall picture.
“Is it just me or does the evolutionary story keep changing?”
This opening sentence tells me a lot about this video and the people who made it. Literalist and fundamentalists don’t like the concept of science changing.
You might say the evolution story is... evolving.
@@robinsondicoca1059 I was once ask: "why would they lie and bullshit their way around ?" (regarding Christians, the bible and Jesus)
*Me looking at how the popes were the most powerful and richest men for almost two thousands years* I don't know...it's a mystery why they would lie and invent stories.
And their stories change wildly all the time
The concept of progress is terrifying for these people They are like Dolores Umbridge in Harry Potter
@@filipe.sm31 I'm glad I never had to deal with someone of that caliber, hopefully I'll stay lucky.
"It's not like some monkey leveled up and became a human." Is the best and frankly funniest analogy i've ever heard and i'll definitely be using that one.
I really want to see him do a collab with TierZoo!
What’s funny is that we didn’t evolve from monkeys or apes we just share a common ancestor with them and we don’t know what this relative actually is.
Oh man! That's always been my excuse when I failed!
Like 100 :D
Not sure its a level up though ??
Okay, i dont know if anybody will ever see this. But i went from atheist as a kid, to theist as a teenager, to now im questioning everything again. I really appreciate these kinds of videos. Ive been bamboozled
It can be an interesting journey, and I'm glad you're questioning things and more importantly, learning. Because learning is awesome.
@@shanewilson7994 Learning is very awesome :)! Its beautiful when I find something with a previously unknown cause that was said to be caused by god, and there is a natural explanation found for it. It feels empowering
I would look into islam if i were you. It has explanations for any questions i had and rationally makes the most sense@@n4ttyyy
Jesus is the way the truth and the life. But that doesn’t mean you have to deny evolution, as although it may seem like it, it doesn’t contradict the Bible. Anyway, I’ll be praying for you! ❤
@@n4ttyyyWhen I was a kid (cough…in the 70s and 80s…cough), I was mesmerized by shows like “In search Of” with Leonard Nemoy, and a little later, “Unsolved Mysteries”. These two shows in particular seemingly made real the things I so loved: monsters, aliens and fantasy. The shows kept asking “why why WHY” and would answer with “suppose…” or “imagine…”.
Then one day I discovered another show. It was called COSMOS, and this nerdy guy Carl Sagan would ask questions of his own.
And he had real answers.
I began to find more interest in science than I did the science fiction. I found I was more enthralled by Sagan explaining Evolution than I was about a mysterious (ALWAYS “mysterious”) creature living in a huge lake that no one ever seemed to…just…quite…PROVE existed.
I started picking up general science books (one I would recommend is “A Short History of Nearly Everything” by Bryson. Another is “The Fact of Evolution” by Smith: The single best explanation for Evolution I have ever heard…) and I couldn’t get enough of it!
Long story short, I’m 51 now and have been an Atheist for about 30 years now.
Learning new things gets harder, takes a lot of work and becomes less appealing for many, the older you get. Many just give up. I say keep at it. Forever.
Not only are Creationists misinformed, they are very dishonest.
I always get the feeling with these sort of creationist videos, that the most common emotion is that they're afraid. It's fear of the method of science and what's been discovered. It's like "I don't want my fantasyworld that I've been brought up to believe from childhood to be shattered by some other story, because that would make me depressed". It's all very self-centred, ideological and discourages curiosity
Darwin was the lying , dishonest con man .
@@raymondhartmeijer9300 That’s exactly what it is, inability to face reality
They have to be dishonest.
They're pushing a religious agenda, which can't explain any science. So, they lie.
I find it difficult to accept they really believe this gibberish-they all really believe in Darwin behind our backs or when we're asleep😊🙃😊
"Jane" may be a shitty actor, but "John" has that deep-down smug ignorance that you just can't fake. He's the Dunning-Kruger effect made flesh.
Him and Kent Hovind are
Made "human" flesh or "fish" flesh?
@@whatwecalllife7034 How about chordate flesh… assuming that guy has a backbone.
@Gary Allen yeah I mean it's kinda sad, cause people think they're incredibly charismatic, very knowledgeable guys who were born to know it all, when in fact, most of them are smug, uncharismatic serial liars who just get by on people's ignorance...
I see a lot of skeptics and atheists misuse the Dunning-Kruger effect against apologists and religious people. The effect just shows that people with particularly low ability at a certain task have a hard time evaluating their actual ability. It doesn't say anything about ignorant people being arrogant, smug or seeing themselves as more intelligent. Also, the effect is not a consensus among academics because it can be largely explained by a combination of data artifacts and the better-than-average effect.
"You cannot be sure therefore you are wrong" is the most toddler argument I've ever heard and they made an entire video around it
Comming from a religion with a god that cannot be proven... x)
Strange that most of these ' creationist ' youtube channels don't allow ' reactions '. Scared the truth might reach some of their followers?
In this case, it’s because they’re targeting kids. Content marked as “for kids” turns off comments and reactions and stuff.
@@Leith_Crowther that's some fatherless behavior they're doing
Yeah, and this is talking from experience. I have commented on 2 of hovind's videos, 1 about taking the formation of the missisipi delta out of context, and 1 about evolution. I've noticed that he comments to users who don't provide him evidence of evolution, or support his message...but he hasn't commented to me to this day when I did call him out.
As a Christian boi who does believe in evolution, this is legitimately a good learning source for me. Not only do I get answers but also tells me what lines of thought just aren't useful
yay! another christian who believes in evolution :)
How does a Christian believe in the evolution of humans and Christianity at the same time??
@@abel3557 Maybe because true Christianity is concerned more on the wisdom and teachings of its prophets and less on the creation of the universe and what forms everything? Living well is a higher priority to a real Christian because the universe is so massive and largely unknown that they are willing to accept new facts about reality. If you’re going to use the Big G in a response, please keep in mind that in the estimated 4.5 billion years that Earth has existed, there was plenty of time for some overlap in the Christian creation story that began over 6000 years ago.
@Just A Fan overlap?!👀how even
@@abel3557 because many Christians look at the Bible as using metaphorical language, not literally describing the creation of the universe.
You're a hero for reacting to their whole video. I'm at minute 7 of yours and I already can't keep listening to them
Yes, the acting is really cringe
That means you’re not good at giving anyone a chance. That means you’re stuck in your ways and won’t listen to any side but the side you agree on. Believe it or not I’m not against or for macro evolution. So I’m not on either side.
Ah I see what you mean
@@rosealexander9007 um, ok but they have no evidence, as science dhas a lot
@Georg Tolstoj I understand what you’re saying. I just try to give people a chance I guess
"Science keeps changing based on new discoveries and knowledge. Clearly this shows that scientists are wrong." They literally take the whole purpose and importance of scientific studies and try use it as a way to disprove science. It's pretty incredible.
Scientific explanations routinely change from bad explanations to better explanations, but it’s incredibly rare to see science take a good explanation and replace that with a worse one. Science changes, but the good explanations almost never do change.
T.H.Huxley "to the seeker after knowledge of Nature, the one unpardonable sin is Faith"
But you have to admit that they act very good and also natural, regarding this crappy script (The Bible):
He is patronizing as s... and she fulfills her role as a prop with uterus like they had studied and practiced it many times before.
They even show dedication. More than the other "soul-pretenders". That's talent!
Hehehehehhee
Except, they don't disprove anything, they just make stuff up or handwave something away.
@@petergaskin1811 handwave away things that don't have any proof, which would then only make those things beliefs if someone believe in them.
They act like Piltdown Man is a dirty little secret science has hidden away. In my freshman biology class in 1981 there was a whole page in my textbook dedicated to it. Maybe in earlier grades too.
Yup, but so many apologists are used to stuff debunking them being swept under the rug, rather than being used to improve their arguments.
Thank you. From the bottom of my heart thank you. I went to fundie Christian schools my whole life and my science education was that it's 100% possible all dog breeds came from the 2 dogs on the ark because of recessive genes.
I got robbed of some of the most intriguing and wonderful parts of knowing my lineage. Our lineage.
I've been dealing with severe illness lately and trying to discover my own existential issues but without that fundamental knowledge, until now I've felt so blind.
I'm so curious and excited to keep learning about our history. The real history. Thank you for doing what you do.
I wish you great things in your life 💕
You've earned yourself a new fan for sure!
I wish you the best health in future. Also, you must have a great intellect to break those barriers that were there to deny you.
Their attempt to debunk science using outdated books shows how dishonest they are.
Their whole reason for being is an Outdated book!
@@rplatt9829 after being threatened with execution by the god loving magic book of fairytale believers. And being under house arrest with every move monitored. So yeah no coercion there right ,you also completely ignore the recanting that occurred on his deathbed . How dishonest of you.
@@michaeldautel7568 I don't think you got the sarcasm
@@roojackaroo8517 sarcasm was my answer.
You are dishonest to the core kid
"*deep heavy sigh* Let me get my bible" I'm SCREAMING
This was gold LMAO
@@felpshehe And there's a lot more where that came from. How about an easy NT example? Try the four gospels. I mean, read them, not one after the other, but more like side-by-side. You'll notice lots and lots of discrepancies between these four stories.
@@KaiHenningsen yeah like how jesus was born during the reign of a different king, getting mad and flipping tables etc. People argue about what's canonical in the MCU, meanwhile the Bible is soooo much worse lmao.
@@KaiHenningsen I'd also recommend one right after the other in the order they were written, Mark, Matthew, Luke/Acts, and John. This really shows the legend as it grew over the decades
@@rplatt9829 God's plural reference? Shows what you know REALLY!!! You are reffering to Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man", it so happens he was talking to Logos whom later became Jesus and the Holy Spirit. There's the us in that verse.
As far as the Gospels being different no two people will give the exact same account of what occurred, that by no means the accounts are in contradict, the reader gets a more complete view of what was happening. Jesus turned the tables over because those who ran the temple were selling and ripping buyers off to make money, learn the whole story okay and get your knowledge right? Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-18, John 2:13-17.
Pluto is a good analog for this. Pluto is not longer a planet. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It just means we classify it differently based on new analysis and information.
I should show this video to my old maths teacher - he once told us in class that he does not belive in evolution since his "grandpa wasn't a monkey". That was maybe 5 years ago - not in the 1960s.
"I'd rather be wrong some of the time, than to be wrong all of the time." I love it!!
ua-cam.com/video/e5qJYwfAju8/v-deo.html
@@jaydenp904 He is a charlatan
@Scott Scotty Lloyd Pie did extensive research to find his conclusions.
@Scott Scotty ua-cam.com/video/WnNlwNTH5ec/v-deo.html
This would make a fine tshirt, and I would like to place an order
the "Lucy" thing is like if you met a cat named Oreo and started calling every cat Oreo
🎶My cat's name is Maceo🎶
Jane's Addiction
Maceo, blow your horn! ( James Brown reference)
Alex would like for it to be known that he will not answer to that name.
Ah. So this is why dogs ignore me when I call them all "Fido".
Lol exactly even if it was a goddamn Jaguar...
The fact that they used something from 1922 is actually terrifying
and then go on to use something from the first century
Hey I mean you gotta sell the "god" propaganda somehow
This is one of my new favorite channels. I love how Forrest can get visibly frustrated and sometimes angry while at the same time never straying from the actual facts and science. No hyperbole or ad hominem here. Just the facts. I love it!
“Gods word never changes”
Except it does when ever a new pope gets picked and decides stuff is wrong or “interpreted” differently
"Nooo, that's wrong, that's only Catholics, my religion does do that at all!" -one person from the 1,000+ versions of Christianity.
Ironic, science is good cause it changes cause people make mistakes, but if Christianity changes because people may have made a mistake... Tut tut gotta be restarted idiots.
I wish we could go back in time when the catholic priests like Saint Nichloas Steno were uncovering the truths through scientific progress... nowadays most christians are just miracle and mystery fanatics which is annoying knowing that they benefit from scientific breakthroughs... such hypocrites...
@Johannes There are many different things that claim to be Christianity, and most all of them are not. When someone decides to rewrite the Bible to his or her own distorted view point it is no longer Christianity. It is a cult.
There are many so called Bibles where entire books of the Bible are removed, or new books added, sentences and even chapters rewritten, etc. All to deliberately pervert the meaning and support the beliefs of an individual who is building their own cult. That person still claims to be Christian, but their cult is in direct opposition to the Bible, therefore it can not be Christian. But true Christians are hammered constantly because of the false teachings from those cults.
Someone made mention of the Pope changing the long established and accepted meaning of Biblical scripture earlier, no Christian has the Right to rewrite the Bible to support their philosophy, sexuality, or whatever other purpose. Once you start doing this you have perverted Christianity into a cult.
All that said, think about this. How do you explain a future concept or device to a man who has no technology? Explaining near instantaneous global communication via satellites to a man living in a cave for instance. So the understanding of the man even if speaking directly to God would contain some flaws. Not because of God, but because of Man's inability to comprehend God's concept.
Here's an example, 'animal guard'. Does this mean a dog catcher protecting people from rabid animals? a guard dog? a sheep dog or even the herdsman in the field protecting his flock? I am certain you can come up with even more of your own interpretations.
Now imagine translating this from a dead language no one speaks with only another long unused nearly forgotten language as the translation key. Parts of the Bible were written in Ancient Aramaic, converted to old Latin via an Ancient Greek translation key of only a few passages written on a stone, and then was again converted from Latin to middle English.
With this many translators involved of course there will be inaccuracies due to linguistic differences, or even just plain errors in handwriting / reading. Remember this was all done by hand, long before the printing press. And this was also done in inks that would easily smear, run, or bleed using writing utensils that were not as good as even the cheapest disposable pen of today.
@@TheEarlofBronze1 Huh?
It bothers me immensely that we as a society have benefited so much from what science has produced, and there are people out there who also benefit from it, but dismiss it out of hand when it conflicts with their beliefs.
@@nenmaster5218I'm all for watching Some More News, but why randomly put this into the replies here
Agreed. The flat earthers though. I just can't understand why people disagree with such obvious simple physics. I can kind of understand some people not understanding evolution I mean it can be a little complicated, but to say that the Earth is flat just makes me think that they have to be trolls, they can't actually believe that right. But the same people will believe in a sky daddy just based on their feelings. What is going on? is this just a failure of high school education?
@@alorr4uz yeah I 100% get what your saying. It’s hard for humans to comprehend something like evolution that takes place over hundreds of millions of years, which we also struggle to comprehend that amount of time, so yeah I can at least understand why people might not exactly be able to get it. Flat earth though I think is multifaceted l, yes failure of the education system is part of it, but also religious indoctrination, many times it seems that flat earthers are deeply religious. Not always, but most of the time. Also, and this is the one that depresses me the most, anti-intellectualism. It’s very common now that people are far more willing to believe whatever they want, rather than listen to what a consensus of experts say about something.
@@kevind6723 yeah I agree with that summary too I figured religion is part of the anti-intellectual movement I mean that's why they want to infiltrate our education system, I think they're afraid they're young people are going to see the truth so they keep them in the dark. I really can't comprehend why somebody doesn't want to learn something new, gain new knowledge and understanding. I feel like asking questions is my default.
@@alorr4uz flat earthers are more about antisemitism than physics
Airplane powered by chanting and prayers sounds very warhammer 40k
Forrest’s hair makes me happy
same.
his eyebrows too. they just look so kind.
I never understood that whole "There's disagreements about a factor of this thing therefore it is entirely fake."
Like imagine:
Person 1: The glass is half full.
Person 2: The glass is half empty.
Person 3: AHA!! You disagree so the glass doesn't exist!
And then there's the realists: Are you filling it up or drinking out of it? Filling it up means it's half full. Drinking from it means it's half empty. *duh* lol
Clearly person 3 has some sick intentions .. most likely stole the glass and to hide the act made the theory that glass doesn't exist..
Pretty good analogy
Or y'know, "half a glass of water".
As an engineering technician (yeah, ik, kill me I don't have a degree) it is obvious that the glass has two times the volume it has to have to fulfill its function.
It’s a shame that people are so entrenched in their views that they try to debunk science while indirectly proving it themselves. Ironic
If you need to go after the scientific community at large (not just one or two individual scientists but against most of them) in order to make your case... then you never had a case to begin with. I mean, at that point you're lying in defense of your truth and still call it truth.
the thing is, their not the ones building computers, coming up with new technologies and medicines... ITs the scientists.
In the last 200 years we've advanced more then they did in the last 2000 years.
@@AngelEmfrbl "They're"
The funny part is the bible and science coexist quite well together already, but since many christians were taught the two have something against each other they try and disprove science for really no reason.
But the YEC does not want to refute science, but wants to justify the truth of the Bible with science. The point is that science makes so many mistakes about evolution because of erroneous assumptions.
But after all, the scientific education of creationism is forbidden, so it is utterly impossible for science to say anything other than evolution.
I would say that colour gives a very good analogy to the problem of defining and naming things that evolve very slowly:
Imagine a bright yellow patch of colour next to a green patch of colour next to a deep blue patch of colour. It wouldn't be difficult for any group of persons to consent that one is yellow, the next is green and the other one is blue. But there is an infinite amount of colours between those colours. If you take for example 10 colours in between every of those patches, you might still be able to define them in a way that a group of people could consent and you could name them turquoise, sea green, etc. But after that it becomes more and more difficult, because if you add another 10 colours between sea green and turquoise it will be so hard to agree, if one patch is to be defined as turquoise or not. So you would have to come up with a solution to define those colours, for example you could measure the amount of blue pigment and based on that you would have to find a definition of how much and how little blue pigment need to be in a specific patch of colours for it to be classified as turquoise. And then somebody comes around and finds another colour that is so close to turquoise that it fits the definition, but the amount of blue pigment is just inside the defined boarders. The problem is: you can still see a difference and you don't want different colours to have the same name, so you have to change the boarders of turquoise to distinguish it by definition from the other colour.
This is how I imagine evolutionary science to be, and this is why the "Story of Evolution" is changing and evolving all the time. There are so many new colours found over the years and every time you have to figure out how it fits into the story. And this is why it never can be perfectly finished because in the end it's humans who come up with definitions for species and names and it just gets more complicated with every fossil found.
I felt that at 27:37
I had my Catholic grandmother tell me that fish aren't animals (as an excuse to eat fish during lent) and my sister and I were dumbfounded.
I love how at 7:24 he just says "this is a magazine from 70 years ago" and continues to try to use it as proof lmao
He doesnt use it....the fuck are you talking about?
It's because the magazine from the 70's won't ever change and conforms to their world view
@@airplanes_aren.t_real AS A TEACHER; i hope so much the School's-issue-adressing new GOP Video that
"Some More News" made will be at least watched, if not endorsed and reacted-to, by Forrest. We all know him as the Idol-Version of the Job of Teacher, so i really hope he sees my comment and his Protect-the-Kiddos-Instincts kick-in.
!!!!
@@slevinchannel7589 ok I'm gonna need a lot more context
@@airplanes_aren.t_real That was the Context though? Theres a video
adressing the massive Lack of School-Quality.
"God's word never changes!"
Cool, so which Bible will we be reading from today? KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT, ESV, NRSV...
Oh, and what denomination are we in? Pentecostal, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, AME...
Y'know, Christianity sure did evolve into many different forms.
Omg we could literally use the Bible to teach these people evolution 💀
0_0!!
It’s not just religious texts. Think about languages too, or how quick technology evolves. Evolution is all around us , it’s just in different forms and going at very different speeds
@@therealspeedwagon1451 And cultures too would change
@Donna Clark life is complicated. It always has been and always will be. And there’s nothing wrong with gay marriage or gay Bibles.
Also that’s not how evolution works. At least think logically. It’s not like an ant will turn to an elephant in a day. Evolution take years , centuries or even millennia.
A year later and that "Whaddya doin? Whaddya doin here?" Still gets me cackling.
28:58-30:55 I love this section of the video, especially since I am a Catholic Christian. It is one of those things that you never think about as a child since you are only taught your parents’ understanding and very few actually read the Bible for themselves. The face and tone as well as the carnival-ish music he plays is also very funny.
People don’t believe in God, they believe in the priests
@@mayosmayo4738let’s agree to disagree, because you making that statement in my opinion shows how little you actually know about Catholicism and it’s beliefs. All I am going to say is that I made a statement about the video in good taste about something I found funny and you decided to respond with something that is hurtful and offensive. Try to be a better person please!
"Do you want your airplanes to be powered by chanting and prayers?"
Adeptus Mechanicus intensifies.
the machine spirit won't work without the prayers
In the discworld series by Terry Pratchette there are magicians who are so afraid of water that they unconsciously levitate above water, these hydrophobic people fly vehicles powered by prayer lol
No matter where i go on the internet, i still find warhammer fans without fail.
HERETIC!
@@Chotensai I've been wanting to get into that series. Every time I hear about it, it just reinforces that desire. But damn does it look daunting.
“But I’ve actually read your book.”
This has me dying, I was not expecting you to pull out a bible lmao
Really? The bible is the best evidence against creationists. That's why in a debate they never want to discuss the bible because it cannot be defended. That's also why people go to church. so they don't have the read it and rely on preachers to tell them what it says.
@@FR099Y ikr they gonna cry when they read the description of the angels lmfaoo
@@FR099Y "That's also why people go to church. so they don't have the read it"
...
It's literally the most read book
@@heatedpants8437 Nope, Not as many as you think actually read the bible or know about the passages their preachers don't tell them.
Its the most stolen/purchased book in the world. so obviously the base number is higher, but my point was you talk to many Christians and mention stuff that's in the bible and they look at you like you're just pulling stories out your ass.
The best part is when you try to show them. They just don't want to hear it and assume you're twisting its meaning. Even if you read it word for word.
Not that it matters you get completely different reasonings and meaning depending on which version you read. because unlike what preachers want you to believe Gods word changes depending on what bible you read 🤣
@@FR099Y Hm, being Protestant myself I have seen Christians taking words from preachers for granted. Even though personally I have never seen them rejecting obscure verses from Bible, but I have seen them interpreting in different way just to fit narrative.
At the same time it's difficult to read every verse from a thick book like Bible, so you need to rely on preachers but cross-checking is important.
I know, that's the sad thing translating a book into another language has drawbacks like loosing meaning of many words.
The best thing about Piltdown Man is that we learned a lot from the fraud, and how to reduce the chances of more frauds like that being introduced again.
As a Christian, I hated what those two dumb@sees were talking about. The fish and bird argument got me dying 💀💀💀
Christian too… I never knew there were Christians that didn’t believe in evolution. Always thought that the beginning of Genesis just pointed to evolution tbh.
I love the “if they can breed, they’re the same species” notion. Like, lions and tigers can mate and reproduce. Zebras and horses can mate and reproduce.
Horses and Donkeys can reproduce and make Mules, which cant breed with eachother
The offspring of lions and tigers are sterile, however, which prevents the definition from applying. The offspring of polar bears and grizzly bears *are* fertile though, what's more is that this has happened naturally.
Who tf put a tiger and lion together to see if they would smash is the question we should ask here
@@haka-katyt7439 probably napoleon dynamite
@@haka-katyt7439 happens naturally, rarely ofc
I love them saying they found multiple Lucy fossils. That's like if a palaeontologist was digging for tyrannosaurs and was like "aye we've got some good Sues in this fossil bed"
Or a French historian referring to all French political leaders as Napoleons.
@@lnsflare1 or if you called all youtubers Markipliers
"We've got some good Sues in this fossil bed" sounds like something an Australian paleontologist would say on a documentary. (Probably prefixed by "Crikey", so the audience knows they're Australian.)
@@noyz-anything Or if anyone would refer to all gaming consoles as playstations.
wait no some people do that
More like saying, "we found some good 'Brad Pitts from the movie Ocean Eleven' in this fossil bed."
I would pay for you to go thru the ENTIRE bible the way you did while pointing the inconsistencies just in the first couple of chapters here lol that was amazing.
There's a Bible for that!
The annotated Bible.
_"You're asking great questions, but you're presenting them in such a way as if your lack of understanding proves that there is no understanding to possibly be had"_
🤘 🔥 🔥 🔥 🤘
"God's word never changes"
That is so wrong it's not even funny. There have been so many changes to the bible over the centuries, saying it hasn't changed is just ridiculous.
Hello! What changes?
@@franktorres7963 well there was that whole New Testament thing
@@franktorres7963
"What changes?"
"With the potential exception of the Septuagint, the apostles did not leave a defined set of scriptures; *_instead the canon of both the Old Testament and the New Testament developed over time_* . Different denominations recognize different lists of books as canonical, following various church councils and the decisions of leaders of various churches."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canons
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon
@@franktorres7963 the interpretations change all the time too. The ark: number of animals, which were clean, the definition of kinds, the tower: the origin of language, architecture. From a group of neanderthals that would clean their asses, eat, then die, and not figure out washing your hands could add 50 years to your life, you are going to chose their wisdom over someone who can genetically engineer glow in the dark, phosphorescent cyanobacteria, nevermind identify the difference skulls of long dead iterations of early humans?
>some guy makes a change while translating the Bible
>some other guy later notices the change and uses an older translation to correct the change
>third guy makes a copy based of the one from the second guy
>third guy notices the second guy’s change
>”corrects it” to back to the first guys change
>adds asterisk
>”Heathen and fool, do not change the text!”
12:58 "Its not like some monkey just leveled up and became a human"
Well I'm picking Chimchar as my starter anyway!
Chimchar was my first starter too. Good memories of Pokemon Diamond.
im just picturing a monkey standing up, looking at other monkeys "Later, loosers!" and walking off hahah
Hell yeah, Chimchar!
Snivy superiority
13:00 Erika at Gutsick Gibbon said that if we had fossils for every minute change in our ancestors, it would be impossible to actually identify individual species. That has really stuck with me.
Gotta love how Oxner was skeptical of Lucy walking bipedal, changed his mind, and now these 2 creationists are using his old words to “debunk” the Lucy species or whatever
I love how you acknowledged that some of their broader points and questions were actually legitimate. If only they were actually interested in the answers
The thing is, many middle school textbooks are wrong. My 6th grade science textbook taught that electrons orbited around the nucleus in perfect circles at fixed distances with the valence electrons being locked between the two nuclei for covalent bonding.
It doesn't take a genius to see the problem there, what about polyatomic molecules, how do they keep the electrons spinning while also being locked between two nuclei? What about triple bonded nitrogen, since the electrons like to hang out in pairs, how are you gonna get 6 of them in the dead center?
The answer is clearly that the model taught is an approximation, that the true nuances of quantum subatomic physics is incommunicable to a 12 year old, but conspiracy theorists take it to mean that "they" are lying or wrong or unsure.
So the real question is, why do the YECs or conspiracy theorists keep quoting oversimplified explanations for 12 year olds as if it were the pinnacle of science?
@@Squeekysquid
Narrator: It was rhetorical.
@@Squeekysquid I was not intending to be an ass, it is a meme on reddit, I thought it would have added a little humor to saying "yes, it was sarcasm" in a low effort way.
Genuinely sorry if it was not taken that way.
@@phillyphakename1255 I mean I get the joke, I just feel the joke is at the expense of me is all I'm saying. I even heard it in my head with Morgan Freeman's voice. I just heard in a tone that sounded like I was an outright idiot. I guess that's just my insecurities talking.
I love the puddle analogy:
A puddle forms in a pot hole in the road… this puddle looks around and is amazed. “Wow! This pothole is my perfect shape, down to every crevice. It must have been made just for me!”
When in reality, the obvious answer is that that puddle adapted to the environment it ended up in by chance. That’s how life and this universe works inherently from observing other natural processes.
Idk what these people are on 😅
doesnt explain the sun or the moon
@@patrickderp1044 yes it does... wtf...
@@patrickderp1044 well, no, but that is a totally unrelated nonsequiter.
@@patrickderp1044 yes because the sun isn’t a living creature nor is the moon
A thinking puddle and this satisfies only a no thinking person!
These videos are the definition of “(blatantly true statement) you know that right? It’s important to me that you know that.” And I’m living for it
According to my wife, there was water before rain… The water came from the ground. So I guess like a volcano. The water came out of the mountains, turned to snow, then melted so we had rivers.
But she still can’t explain the meaning of “ he made man out of our image”! Who is our??? All non-thinking people she has an explanation for everything but she can’t explain that.
BTW, I love you channel. My wife refuses to listen to it. Anything that goes against her beliefs she runs and hides.
Guess which one of us is the atheist?
When I was having a debate with someone about evolution they actually said: “well you don’t see a human just walking out of the forest do you?”. My jaw dropped, I mean you hear that people say stuff like this but when someone actually says it to you in person, it’s a completely different experience. It’s actually more interesting how dogma works than evolution itself but it’s also very sad, these people have been brainwashed their whole life and when we’re talking to them, we need to take that in to account and have some compassion.
What did they even mean by that? Lots of humans have lived in forests both throughout history and pre-history, but also in the current day.
@@thawhiteazn his understanding of evolution was like how Pokémon evolution works 😂 that’s how they misconstrue it
Well it's on the same lines as if humans evolved from "monkeys" (they don't even say apes) why do we still have monkeys?
@@karishmakhan2083 hahaha so true 😂
Cottagecore gals leaving the forest to go to their monthly trip to the supermarket: 😳?
The language example to evolution is the best most perfect example I have ever heard.
You sir are a genius, I'm subscribing, and stealing that for myself.
Its a really good explanation that I've been using for years. But I tend to go a bit further showing splits.
Basically google Evolution of the English language, go to images and you see some really cool trees showing all of the branches from the Germanic language down to 16 different modern languages
timestamp please?
@@nancykira717 around 12:56
I’ve also used the language example before. Much of the logic works a lot like evolution, but it takes place on a shorter time scale that’s easier for many people to understand. You can run into some problems if they start talking about Tower of Babel but that’s a different discussion.
It is a really good example. I have also been pulling out a colour spectrum to basically show the same thing like you can zoom between yellow and red to see orange but when does the red change to orange is hard to tell cause like name of colours are just human invention that doesn’t mean that the colours doesn’t change gradually
I don't know why but god moving upon the face of the water made me laugh. I just had this image of god hovering slightly above the ocean and just gliding along, moving upon the waters face 😂😂😂😂
Oh wow, it's almost like the Bible doesn't answer questions about biology, anthropology, geology, etc. Almost like the people who wrote it were more concerned about spiritual and philosophical matters, and that they also came from a culture that wrote heavily in metaphors, parables, and symbolism that can't always be taken literally.... hmmm...... Makes ya think....
Not one textbook talks about how President Lincoln died, down to the second. in the same way God is all knowing he knew not to tell them things that would absolutely confuse them. Hebrews 11:3 "By faith we understand that the universe was for made at gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what is visible" (New International Version)
@@IvanTriedReallyHard exactly
@@theWildWaffleRead harder gods talking about atoms
@@IvanTriedReallyHardWas ein aufen Unsinn
Creationist: “I just proved that [noun] didn’t actually [verb]”
The rest of Science: “Cool, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and we’ll change textbooks”
Creationist: “wait I thought I just proved the whole theory wrong”
Science: “we alter theories to fit new evidence all the time”
I guess what he is trying to say is how creationists think their assumptions and proclaimations immeadiately count as evidence instead of using the scientific method and actually showing evidence of their claims. They thus expect the science community to change with lack of evidence.
@@bigmoniesponge A creationist is used to the idea that if I find out that a biblical fact is wrong, it reduces the trust in the Bible as a whole as a source of truth. This is reasonable, as any wrong _fact_ is an issue when you claim that the book is divinely inspired by an omniscient God and it has to be interpreted literally. The issue is that they often transfer the same reasoning to science. However the idea fails dramatically when applied to science: scientific method thrives on errors. A scientific theory is the best possible fit for all the experimental data we have today, and a new data that forces us to change the theory is a source of scientific progress, it does not reduce our trust in the method or the theory unless it attack to the core the theory itself.
If we were to find fossil evidence of australopithecines riding dinosaurs, it would be indeed an issue. If we find out that there were three branches of australopithecines instead of two, we have just enriched the theory. If you believe instead your book is divinely inspired, anything that is not exactly like the book is a problem.
@@bigmoniesponge it's because they think that science is simply an athiest tool to disregard the bible, and they think that counter-position is perceived (on our end) as "black and white" because *they* only understand 'yes' and 'no', absolute binary opposition. Shades of grey and the possibility of the unknown scare them. Essentially they don't understand that science is simply the maths of the universe attempting to logically ground all of it's anomalies and phenomenon in units of measurement to establish a set of working truths that could be modified at any moment. It's willing to accept and accomodate any finding if evidence supports it. That's what creationists don't get. But unfortunately for them it's yet to green-light boats that can fit 2 of every animal species, folks living for 600 years, giants and.. well, creation.
The missing last line says: Nothing happens. The end. ;)
@@HAYDS510 very well put my dude
Creationists: "You can't believe what science says about evolution, they are making it all up"
also Creationists: "This pastor says that God has anointed him as his prophet, let's unquestionably believe and do whatever he says!"
you mean the THEORYY of evolution?
@@Gravewave808 please tell me you're joking
@@Gravewave808 you're just craving attention. Shut up
@@Gravewave808 look up the difference between Theory and Hypothesis
@@Gravewave808
Scientific Theory is the highest level of scientific understanding and I don't think you have the cerebral power to understand just how much Evidence is required to reach that level.
Thank you for taking your time to do these
Aron Ra has a Playlist where he debunks this whole series. It's great. As was this.
"Is it just me or does science keep changing?"
TRANSLATION: I am too lazy and/or dense to bother learning new things from time to time and would rather sit in the muck of my bronze age fireside stories.
you hit the nail on the head. Why learning science and keep learning what is new when you can just lean back and "believe" in something. Maybe asking questions is just to much effort for them.
@@peppr115 seems like every time a Christian begins to question the Bible.. they end up not a Christian
Reminds me of vaccine sceptics. If a vaccine is not saving 100% and has zero side effects, they prefer to die instead of use rationality and look at the numbers.
I think Forrest could have given a better answer on the thing of science changing. Because, the meme often is that science is regularly _thrown out_ and written over from scratch. And that's what the "debunking" video alludes to too.
But in fact, when we're following the scientific method, we are progressively gaining confidence in particular models (at the same time as those models are proving useful practically). So, while scientists' more speculative hypotheses may of course be wrong, and while we will of course *add* to our knowledge of evolution, the idea that all of evolution may be thrown out one day, with all scientists admitting "We wuz wrong" is stupendously unlikely at this point. Because it would mean all of the many predictions that evolution has made over all this time (about genetics, homology etc) were right just by random chance.
You could say the evolution story is... evolving.
This feels a bit like looking at skeletons of humans and grouping it into children and adults and thereby claiming that there is only adults and children. Thereby proving that adults and children must be different species as there is nothing in between 😂
Teens
@@Nai_101 i don't think you get what he means
@@javierhillier4252 i do. Just saying there's obviously something between monkey and modern human. It's an analogy
Strawman argument, yes you lose
@@Nai_101 ok so there are 3 species? Children, teens and adults..
2:20 - “Do you want your airplane to be powered by chanting and prayers?”
Praise be to the Omnissiah.
i think.... they think lucy is the species name
Pretty much. They can't wrap their head around the fact that Lucy isn't even the only example of her species we've found.
I think I learn more by hearing people correct incorrect information than I do from hearing educational lectures
It’s more interesting to learn something you’re already wrong about than something you don’t have a position on.
that is true of a lot of people. my best teachers try to do that as much as possible.
@hiooxkrmagkis9323 That is because there aren't any. If you think there are, please share with us the peer-reviewed scientific paper that explains problems with the established theory of evolution.
@hiooxkrmagkis9323 I'd be more than happy to look at said arguments.
@hiooxkrmagkis9323give an example of that evidence please.
"plans powered by chants or by engines"
Me a 40k fan: "both, both is good."
Genes for the gene god!
Engines POWERED by chants.
Ahh the “I’m a tank “ tale come true
@@Plazmasoldier Ooga chaca ooga chaca ooga ooga ooga chaca
ALL HAIL THE OMNISSIAH
New to your channel. Found you on Athiest Experience. How you talk about this topic is so refreshing. Thank you.
“Evolution isn’t a ladder”
To build on that, I like to say evolution is like a ramp, no steps, no easy to distinguish “sections” it’s just a smooth change in gradient.
If dentists know what they're talking about why do only 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest?
One of them is a creationist.
😂
Then another 4 out of 5 recommend Colgate
@@atlas2296 wait hol up😳
@@atlas2296 and yet ANOTHER group except this time 9/10 dentists endorse oral-b 🤔🤔🤔
I like your use of Latin to Spanish as an illustration of the slow pace of change in evolution. One could add that French, Italian, and Portuguese, as well as Spanish, all evolved from a common Latin language ancestor much as multiple species have evolved from a common human ancestor.
And loanwords are equivalent to interbreeding events. Estonian stole the Old German word "kuningas" for king, and Slavic languages stole Old Turkic arslan(lion) and made it mean "elephant", which they call slon. Very similar to how neanderthals, denisovans, and possibly other human species interbred with us and changed our own genetics.
Yes language changes as humans and cultures adapt but language never fundamentally changes it is language.
@@ethanrayment8157 back in the day (medieval I think) apparently 'nice' meant something was bad or wrong or horrible. Just as today 'sick' means something is good or excellent, awesome etc. "Fully sick dude" does not mean someone is on deaths door. Language changes constantly.
@@ethanrayment8157 wdym? Languages die out, new languages are created, and languages definitely change. Do you mean language as whole never changes? Even then I'd think you're wrong because language has evolved to be more precise in what is said to the point that we have multiple words that mean the same thing with the only difference being the tone people intend to use. I'd say language vastly changed
@@imtae5577 ikr, we literally invented the word yeet and the letter æ and þ have no uses anymore
"This theory about other animals that look really similar to us having a common ancestor with us is complete bullocks, but this Bronze-age book about humans coming from mud makes much more sense"
Love this series. Was enjoying my popcorn the whole time. Thanks Forrest.
Speaking as an author that dive into the bible at the end made me laugh so hard. Just hearing you point out all those places where the original authors and translators clearly forgot their own mythology and storyline just reminds me of all the times I've had to rewrite and edit a story because I forgot or misremembered shit. DO NOT PUBLISH YOUR FIRST DRAFT!!! Thousands of years later you'll be called out on a UA-cam channel!
They didn't forget their own story. The "story" didn't exist yet, but, well, evolved.
The bible contradicts itself more than a politician does. Damn that's a lot.
Kinda makes me want to read it so I can see how poorly written it is overall. Because, you can do a multi-author story and have it be amazing, but something tells me the people, over the course of history, who worked on it, didn't give a crap about those who wrote before, or those who read after they were done with it.
@@Fearsia It's quite funny in places.
@@vinnyganzano1930 Indeed...and quite, well, horrific & depraved in other places. Many many other places.
Lucy was more famous because she was, at the time of her discovery, the oldest hominid found. Since then they've discovered older ones, though.
@ArmanAditya Basu Lucy was older than those two.
@ArmanAditya Basu That's correct for neanderthals, but Lucy was still the oldest known hominid at the time of her discovery. Homo Floresiensis was found after Lucy.
@ArmanAditya Basu Yes. I'm sorry if I was being too fussy. It's boring here in lockdown.
@@jimihendrix3143 holy shit Jimi? Where you been man?
Lucy was more famous because that species showed traits almost halfway between apes and humans - the classic "missing link" that was predicted by evolution and the lack was used to try to disclaim evolution.
Hey man, thanks for doing these videos. I love the style and the restrain you demonstrate in treating the arguments at face value and debunk in good fait, it must be so tempting to just laugh and call them stupid.
Watching them try to "debunk" evolution by pointing to stuff from over 100 years ago is like somebody claiming the Holocaust never happened and only pointing to textbooks from the 1920s
It's really impressive how evolution bothers the creationists, they try everything to debunk it.
Personally I think it is because Evolution cannot explain us as being intended.
They need to feel like they are on purpose.
Evolution will put religious priests and pastors out of business.
@@stephenolan5539 I agree with that. Most religious people I meet tend to have some egos. And be really condescending with their holier than thou shit.
And it makes since wouldn't be more impressive if god set up a cosmic line of Dominos that made adam and eve?
@@stephenolan5539 honestly it's fairly easy to argue we're intended through evolution. Just say God influenced our evolution to get us.
"Is it just me or does the evolutionary story keep on changing?" *Face Palm.
Science changes when new evidence are discovered. That’s how it works and how it should work.
@@jaymz1999 true
If science didn’t change doctors would still preform lobotomies and blood letting and shit like that
I guess you could say that science... keeps evolving.
@@TheByQQ Yeah, isn't it amazing how evolution keeps evolving!
Sorry. I couldn't help myself.
When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?
-John Maynard Keyes
A Christian telling an Atheist that he’s going to Hell is like a kid telling you Santa’s not bringing you any presents
I loved the twist at the end. these two went a whole video nitpicking discrepancies in dates on children textbooks and then ended with "but the bible says man was made of earth and the breath of God!!" WOW! Now I'm convinced! Solid argument!!
I talked with some Atheists online and we came to an
interesting Result: Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word',
which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects,
evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than Church-channel. So i think we should all self-reflect and ask us if Atheists shouldnt recommend-each-other more often stuff.
So i offer here and now some Atheist-UA-camr, and on that note, also Science-Channel.
@@slevinchannel7589 i think atheist channels are smaller because there is less atheists. Also, a lot of atheists don't talk about this topic because they can have really big consequences is theirs social life, like being kicked out of theirs own family or even be murdered. And religion gives meaning for a lot of people, so some atheists don't like to take that meaning out of other people's lives. For example, my grandma is a devout catholic. I'm not gonna sit down and explain to her why I think she believes in something untrue, because that faith gives meaning for her life and a lot of hers social interactions are made through the church.
Summarizing, I don't think that is simply because "atheists don't desire to talk about their beliefs". It is much more deeper
@@filipe.sm31 Well, yes and no.
@@slevinchannel7589 what u mean?
@@filipe.sm31 I have another idea about why its smaller.
Im from Sweden and most people I know are agnostic/atheist.
I am the only one who watches stuff like this, or for example AronRa, on youtube because I find it amusing.
People here don’t have the problem with fundamentalists trying to control the country or education like in the US. This whole thing seems to be mostly a US problem. Not saying it doesn’t happen here, it does, but it such a small group of people and nobody takes them seriously.
I really feel sorry for America, I genuinely do.
The real crux of their argument, "This book is complicated, and this book is simple and laid out so I get it so clearly, so the easy answer must be the right answer" This wishful thinking at best, because they must be the smartest people ever, and only non-believers could get it wrong
I'm not seeing a simple book. If anything, grasping evolution is much simpler than getting the basics of biblical theology but that is relative. Evolution is based on basic logic. Theology is permeated with philosophy and iffy representations of history.
@@dee5298 not when you boil it down, the bible is "god did it" evolution requires basic understanding of many fields to grasp.
@@swordboy58 That goes both ways. Believing something doesn't require understanding it and most people are satisfied with blankly nodding at authority figures. For a science based example of this, I present the idea of wearing a mask during the pandemic. Dr. Fauci initially stated that people shouldn't wear masks and that they have not been shown to work. In reality, and according to him, he was just trying to avoid a shortage. I was amazed at how many people accepted the true statement, that masks hadn't been proven effective at preventing Covid-19 infections, as evidence for masks not preventing the spread of the disease. Recently, with the knowledge of a newer form of covid, Fauci suggested that healthy people who have been vaccinated may not need to wear a mask. Now a not insignificant number of vaccinated people are getting covid and spreading it while following the advice of one of our top doctors.
It is easy to settle on a "fact" or appeal to authority. I am guilty of it myself simply because I cant have a reasonable understanding of everything. That just doesn't speak to the complexity of a subject.
They most certainly have a simple and laid out book, but most certainly it is not a Bible :D Their religion probably has a manual, that cites Bible but never gets into weird and spiritual things you find there ;)
@@Deailon man this sounds like a joke but it is _so_ true that it shocks me.
Back when I was a child, the Adventist Church had this thing called a "Biblical Year" (which I never understood, because EVERY year was "Biblical Year", but whatever), it was a list of verses and chapters of books you should read every day, in order to have read "the whole Bible" at the end of the year. They also had "the lesson", which was (and is) this magazine-like deal. It basically compiles a lot of theology and philosophy regarding the verses someone doing their Biblical Year will be reading at a given time.
The first cracks on my belief started when I, an absolutely avid reader, decided that for the 3rd year I did a "Biblical Year" I wasn't gonna read just the verses cited there. Most days it only summed up to some 10 seconds of reading anyways, boring. I got some resources on how many verses the Bible had, did some calculations and decided to read 86 verses every day, without skipping anything.
On Genesis, I almost regretted that choice; I could honestly see how verses had been filtered out of the Biblical Year recommendation because they were just boring and absolutely pointless. But I had a plan and I stuck out as I walked into Exodus and onwards and, _oh man._
The amount of godly mandated rape, the amount of godly mandated unprovoked genocide, the amount of blatantly wrong advice, the amount of absolutely backwards moral laws spoken as direct quotes from God, the amount of contradictory repetitions of the same story being stated as equally true... I am 50% sure I might still be a Christian if I had never stopped to read the Bible
thank goodness they were in a prerecorded video, or those smirks would have been wiped off their faces quite quickly
we need more people to think like you.