Of course. These guys come from a tradition in which religious figures are hired and fired like workers at the Taco Bell. They're there to serve up something simple and consistent and they have to uphold and defend their conservative-to-fundamentalist viewpoints at all costs or else their congregations or "followers" will turn on them and they'll lose their paychecks.
Whilst you're not gonna convince the poster, the grift is too sweet, I think that there are always people in the audience who come away realising that their the grifters schtick is not impregnable, that there are answers. I always think about the time Bill Nye was arguing with Ken Hamm (I think) live, with a bunch of kids around them and Nye says "There are trees older than 6000yrs" or something similar, and this kid looks straight at Nye, stunned, challenged, perplexed, and one might hope, on the road to a different set of suppositions about the world.
If person 1 in a debate flagrantly lies and person 2 accuses that person of being a liar (and hopefully can provide good evidence), then calling person 1 a liar is not an ad hominem attack. If person 1 makes an argument and person 2 says that person 1 is stupid and _therefore_ his argument is wrong, that's an ad hominem fallacy. It's also an ad hominem fallacy, as Dan says, to engage in a personal attack and not address the substance of the argument. 5:50 I just typed "sand dune collapse" into Google. Numerous articles came up about sand dune collapses killing people. That's just in the last 2 years.
@@horrovaceven if you call someone who isn't lying a liar, it still isn't ad hominem lol. A statement cannot be fallacious, only an argument can be fallacious.
It's even funnier, as the creater basically engages in the "moving the goalposts" fallacy. Instead of admitting that the "no explanations" point has been refuted, they instead move on to the point that the sand dunes explanation is, in their view, not a rational explanation.
Dear Dan: Please don't get distracted by dumbbells with an agenda. Your work stands on its own merits. His followers will find you in the providence of God.
@@KaiHenningsen Yes but l try to be charitable. The guy was clearly out of his intellectual depth. Painfully so. But he does need a good mentor if he is ever to be able to express credibility.
Wrong. When lying apologists lie they need to be called out - every time, with specificity and particularity. This response was completely necessary and perfectly executed.
I commented last time Dan responded to this guy, but I'm a geologist and the most annoying part of this video is the tirade about sand dune collapse. Dan is absolutely right, sand dunes collapse all the time, but although not specified, I think the paper was referring to a geologic feature called a turbidite. Turbidites form where sediment being dumped into a water body falls down a slope. These occur in the deep ocean as sediment from the continent falls off the continental shelf and it can also happen in lakes where local sediment ends up. Turbidites are characterized by coarser sediment interlayed with finer seds. I did not find any research in whether or not any depositional features were preserved in the fossil slab (I didn't look very hard though), but I did find that the slab was a shale/limestone. This sounds like it could be a lake turbidite, with a very fine limestone formed from carbonate mud and a slightly coarser shale mud falling on top of it. Turbidite gravity flows ("sand collapse") are very good at capturing organisms😂 Furthermore, most of the research I've seen on this particular fossil slab is focused on the biology and behavior of the fish, not the geologic setting. However, there are papers that look at fossils like these through a geologic point of view. AND... even though this particular slab of rock got a lot of attention in the media bavk in 2019, it is not the only one of its kind. The creator Dan is responding to is cherry picking data.
You don't even have to be a geologist to know about sand collapsing. I grew up on the shore of a fast-flowing, big river, with a lot of natural flow. Eroded, undercut banks were a standard feature. Regular floods deposited a lot of debris in the river bed, and the normal flow then gradually carried it away. Sometimes the river would meander and start devouring soil that has been there for centuries. Everybody there knew better than to step on any bank that ended suddenly, like cut off with a knife - otherwise you might find yourself in the water, buried in sand or sand-packed gravel - fortunately just partially most of the time. It wasn't all that dangerous, and I can't remember ever being told or taught or warned about that, but everybody just knew that river banks collapse occasionally, and kept their distance if it looked dangerous.
@@horrovac Absolutely! Eroded riverbanks are super dangerous. But I will add that cutbank erosion and underwater turbidite flows are separate things. I was pointing out that "sand collapse" may not have been the appropriate term, even though it was used in the paper. The rock was not sandstone, it was shale and limestone and underwater turbidites are known to bury aquatic animals all the time. As a geologist, sand collapse is more indicative of a terrestrial environment to me, rather than aquatic. There is a famous fossil of a Velociraptor and Protoceratops locked in combat that occurred when a sand dune fell on them, for example. I think a lot of people instantly think of cutbank erosion like you mentioned when reading/hearing "sand collapse" but when it's happening underwater, "turbidite flow" makes more sense. It's mostly just technical jargon though. The important thing is that this Luke guy was deliberately trying to mislead people😂
@@gideonsstuff Ah yes, should have been more clear about the fact I was talking about what immediately sprung to my mind rather than the effect you were describing. What I imagine the turbidite to be like is another particulate flow - a pyroclastic flow from a volcano. Those are also notably and notoriously very good at capturing live organisms at an instant, as anyone can witness in Pompeji. If I'm correct, this might be a better explanation for what happened there. At least for those who know about Pompeji.
"Yeah, see, when I claimed 'science doesn't have an explanation,' I didn't really mean 'science doesn't have an explanation,' what I meant was that I don't like the scientific explanation. Even though I'm not a scientist and and I really don't know a lot about the field, I still can say that the science must be wrong, because I believe in God and Noah's flood." That works for the followers and believers. He never meant for anyone honest to see it.
I lived in Texas most of my life, and the first thing people thought when they heard a creator with a worldwide flood belief was "is this the proof I've been waiting for??". I moved to Oregon and most folks here usually think, "Does this guy have a mental health condition?" Seriously, these guys need to be called out - they are grifters. This sort of "biblical perspective" is wildly dishonest and, unfortunately, quite common. Keep at it Dan.
One of the strongest contributors to me abandoning my christian beliefs was watching apologists and fellow christians resort to lying, deception and bad-faith tactics to prove their points. The more they double down with this, the faster people will leave these religions. It isn't atheists or science that's driving ppl from the religion. It's fellow believers
So you left Christianity because people were lying and that hurt your feelings 💀💀💀💀I have not seen and apologist lie yet tell me your other reasons so me can debunk 😊😊
@Holyservant123 i said it was one of the contributors to me abandoning my faith. Your comment is a great example of what i mean. Debating with you is a waste of time. Find better reasons to hold onto your faith. I'm very clear and sure on why I abandoned mine. I've never been happier and had more clarity in my life since leaving christianity behind
????? me would like to know buddy just to see if I can debunk it don't be scared for your views to change like I'm not scared for my faith to be challenged and debating gives people greater learnings of their selves thank you very much@@andrew_9875
If religious people have to lie to protect their faith from reality, and creationists knowingly lie constantly, then their faith is built upon lies. Why would you follow a faith built upon lies?
All Christian apologists owe everyone an apology. When It was explained to me how Mary was deemed a virgin due to a Hebrew to Greek translation, I got mad at the nuns in the Catholic Church that lied to me. When I passed on what I learned about the phony virginity, Some people get mad at me because Truth threatened their Hand me down fantasy. Carl Sagan said something like “that which can be destroyed by Truth should be destroyed by Truth.”
@@adrianvargas1380yes, and if they were all as reality focused and understanding as Dan maybe more people would stay Christians. The madness, deceit and hatred displayed by many so called ‘Christian’s’ these days is something many of us do not want to be associated with.
I find that very often these people do not understand the ad hominem fallacy. It's almost like every time there's even a hint of ire or accusation of the recipient being dishonest or not doing something they should, they call it an ad hominem. No folks, an ad hominem is saying "Person X's argument is wrong, because why should we listen to him, he only goes to shower once a week and is smelly!".
@schwadevivre4158 people are quick to use the names of logical fallacies just to demonstrate that they know these terms.... but they often do not understand the terms. Like quoting data is an appeal to authority.
I like how a sand dune collapsing is too wild a speculation for this chucklenut but a globe-spanning flood kicked off by an invisible space unicorn's hurt feefees isn't.
Dan, you're rational and lucid, and you actually address the points under discussion rather than dancing around them. I can see why you didn't advance further in politics. I'm sad for whatever disappointment you might have felt, but it kind of looks to me like you saved your soul. From a selfish perspective, I'm glad you're doing this rather than being buried under the sand dune of politics
That guy has clearly not thought how his own paradigm accounts for those fish fossils. He might mock the idea of a sudden sand dune collapse - but if that isn't what actually happened, how does 'the flood' account for them? The one thing I know for sure about fish is that they really don't mind being covered in water. In fact they love it.
I love the fact that not only is Dan's response better informed/supported but also that his demeanor throughout just points to who has the more solid basis for what they are presenting. Embarassing to think I used to hang around guys like that years ago.
There are many riverbanks with warning signs to the swallowing sands that have recently engulfed and killed children. Personally, while bottle digging along the Mississippi, I have encountered these sugar sands, and it is terrifying how once disturbed, a 12 foot river bank can just empty like an hourglass leaving the sod above it intact for someone to fall through and have the remaining walls possibly envelope them when disturbed by the fall.
To be fair, theism and religious belief are not the same thing. I lean toward theism philosophically, but don't swear loyalty to any religion or religious belief (such as Christianity and their belief in an eternal hell).
Many arguments presented by many theists. Not theistic argument itself. Some would say I am a theist and I am totally opposed to your "quote". I also think the tortured forever thing is absurd.
I think I would rather like getting into an argument with him. I wouldn't expect to win, but I might learn something. I also think that if (by some chance) I had the better, more well supported arguments, that he might change his position.
As others have stated this was probably an underwater collapse so the following anecdotal information is not completely apropos but addresses the attack that sand dunes don’t collapse all the time. When I was a 5ton instructor in the Marines I was teaching young marines how to drive in dunes in the southwestern United States and dunes normally have a steep side and a longer less steep slope. As we were driving through the dunes the guy I was training asked if we could make it up that slope and I said yeah but…(and he immediately turned into the dune and hit it squarely at the base) I was going to say you have to slowly climb it diagonally at the base so the tire lifts the cab because if the steel bumper hits the dune before the tires do then your gonna get stuck. He didn’t listen and hit the dunes steep face going about 10 mph and the 300 foot tall dune collapsed and buried the truck cab completely. It didn’t bury the whole truck or crunch the cab roof so we were able to get out through the back sliding window into the covered bed of the truck and get out the back. That was a 300 foot dune, there are dunes thousands of meters high, if there weren’t other trucks with us and and that was a bigger dune it would have completely buried the truck and crushed the cab and a million years from now an archeologist would dig up our fossils with a guy still at the steering wheel of a truck and a guy siting next to him with his middle finger sticking up. We spent 6 hours trying to dig the truck out and got 3 more trucks buried to the axles trying to pull the truck out and we ended up having to get a sea knight helicopter to airlift the truck out. The dune collapsed in seconds and we had no time to back out or run so yeah sand dunes can bury animals so fast it preserves them in the position they were basically in. Again, not the same situation but it speaks to the validity that the religious guy trying to claim dunes don’t trap animals in place is absolutely wrong. If we were two dinosaurs fighting at the base of that dune and we disturbed the supporting sand at the base of the dune, it would immediately bury us and pin us to the ground under tons of sand exactly in the position we were fighting in. And as an added bonus the steep sides of dunes normally have food or water available so animals commonly compete for resources where they collect on the steep face, either small animals that fell of the top of the dune or wind blown seeds that settle there attract dune mice which larger predators hunt and fight over which make it likely that they get trapped in that way. If the religious zealot (trying to convince you that a 600 year old man and his family built a boat with copper and stone tools, bigger than the largest wooden boat ever built even with modern equipment and filled it with 2 of all kinds of animals on the planet to escape a flood he knew was coming decades later is the only explanation for some fish trapped in the ground) if he ever left his computer and actually studied how the world works he wouldn’t be so quick to make those absurd claims.
"There is a cult of ignorance in the US, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding it's way through our political and cultural life, nutured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Isaac Asimov
Poor boy he doesn't know the difference between evidence and a claim and he doesn't like being told that he's wrong because he has a belief that doesn't want to be challenged. Great job Dan. 👏 I want to see more debunking like this Dan absolutely great when you have someone like yourself who actually knows a few things about the world compared to people who think that they do
The promise of the early internet was that it could give a voice to the voiceless. The problem with the modern internet is that it gives a stage to dismal comedians like Bongo over there.
For those insisting that Dan (and others) not waste this kind of time and effort on creationists, hear me. I used to affirm YECism, and brought forward all kinds of "creation science" to refute evolution and an ancient universe. It was irenic, patient, thoughtful opponents that brought multiple lines of undeniable evidence that brought me to the place I finally understood that to continue asserting things now shown to in fact be false, would amount to bearing false witness against the truth, which was against both my conscience and my faith. This principle has now brought me to agnosticism, but following the truth has it's consequences I guess.
His other videos approaching the sand dune hypothesis also fall under what is known as Argument from Incredulity. He doesn't personally see sand dune fossilization as intuitive, and since he is incredulous, he thinks the hypothesis doesn't work. It's similar to how flat Earthers will deny star formation because gas eventually coalescing and undergoing fusion to form a star seems unintuitive to them, and they don't understand that even gas has gravity.
An appeal to authority means you point to a person and say “they must be right because they are an authority”. Referencing the work of an authority to support a position is called referencing not an appeal to authority. I think the creator has reading comprehension issues, which he has demonstrated multiple times now.
personally, I like the story where god created all mankind and told them to go forth and multiply in chapter one, then, by chapter 6, god hated everyone so much that he killed them all in a global flood. That story has to be true because it's so logical and believable.
Wow! That dude is really bad at this, and should probably just stop because I doubt he's capable of getting better at it. He exemplifies "the arrogance of ignorance."
You know how some dumb people say apologizing makes you look weak or...... Whatever? This video makes you look awesome and trustworthy. You admitted to a small mistake not once but 3 or 4 times, while STILL correcting him. I also thought he hadn't read the paper, it's a hard conclusion to not come to. Bingo bongo!
Dan is a true scholar and a gentleman. How he maintains his cool in the face of such ignorance is remarkable. I do also love his righteous indignation. ❤ And yes, I love the way he lays out so clearly, that the apologist made his own ignorance or dishonesty so glaringly obvious. But will that guy just keep digging his own hole even deeper? I can’t wait to find out!
I've yet to meet a layman who disputes Evolution because he's impartial and weighed the evidence. To a man, everyone I've encountered who does so, does because he's wedded to a literal interpretation of a Bronze Age Creation myth that he's decided is revealed truth.
Interesting that he gets so upset about the accusation that he didn’t read the paper yet is happy to admit that he read it and then lied about what was in it. He is clearly unable to comprehend that ignorance on a topic is more excusable (and rectifiable) than misrepresenting that subject.
The Irony that the guy quoting logical fallacies at Dan can make no argument without them. A quick googling gives a name to the fallacy he wants to use about the collapsing sand dune theory: "The fallacy of personal incredulity occurs when one finds a concept difficult to understand, or simply does not fathom how it works, then they conclude that it is likely untrue."
@@FaptainCalcon750 When I started watching his videos I thought he was saying “fragrant” and assumed that Dan was calling the incorrect claims bullshit or that they were so bad that you could smell it. I dunno, I was dumb 🤷♂️
I'm a little taken aback by how he sat there and said explaining what a paper he misrepresented actually says and showing where it says it is in his mind an appeal to authority. Especially when he tried to use that paper's authority as evidence of a *global* flood.
There is no way that guy is going to win against you. You seem logical, well informed and with good intentions. I liked the way you smirked at some point, and it was very subtle but still there 😂 Congratulations 🎉for the award you just got. You deserve it!
There is a video from RUclipsr Fabiana of Ribiernha channel who shows exactly how sand moved during a flood cleaves of the bluufs during the droughts and collapses into the river. As she was filming in her little boat the cliff cleaved twice into the river. I will try to get the video link here for anyone interested. She has some great stuff from the Amazon basin.
4:49 This shows the problem. He says “rapid fossilization”, but the paper is not about rapid fossilization, it is about rapid burial. He thinks he is right because he is conflating the two. But rapid burial is a key aspect of most fossils, and that includes not only sand dunes, but mud slides, volcanic ash, avalanche, and yes, even floods.
I love that Dan cuts himself off stbthecend of the video. I'm imagining him sitting at his computer, editing, and saying to himself, "That about sums it up." I do love brevity. Thanks, Dan!
Dan does pretty good job of calling out bad logic and attacking an argument vs name calling. I don't know if I can ever recall Dan lowering himself to an ad hominem attack.
Kinda surprised this voicesofREASONS guy doesn't use the sand dune collapse as evidence for the flood. "What caused all these sand dunes to collapse? The Flood of course!" I can hear the apologist saying.
Luke's self-described bona fides: "entrepreneur at 16, professional snowboarder at 17, golf professional / golf course manager @ 25, recording / performing musician @ 29 and content creator @ 40." Luke should live his life as he sees fit, but he should also understand that unless one puts in the scholarly work, you will just embarrass yourself when trying to match wits with someone who clearly has, like Dan. Luke, perhaps the golf course is hiring again?
Also, regarding the claims about how there are sand dune collapses happening everywhere, it's a survivors bias. We see a lot of fossil evidence for sand dune collapses because those are good events for fossilization. Events that do not create fossils aren't easy to find by looking at fossils. It's not surprising that a lot of the fossils we have found result from sand dunes collapsing. Because those are good events for making fossils.
So, first it was denial, and now it's mockery. I guess the next step in the stages of ignorance is going to be bargaining. Expect the "but, but, but" arguments.
In the summer of 2019 a cliff collapsed onto the beach in San Diego County and killed 2 sunbathers. RUclips has several videos of cliffs or rocks collapsing into bodies of water. It goes without saying that this is a highly common event. Does it bury fish while in formation however, it is certainly plausible.
dan, what does your shirt say? Is it Truth? Like the inscription that brings the gollum alive? I don't speak or read hebrew, but I think that's what I recognize there. Just curious.
Underwater thermal vents would rapidly change the chemical composition of dissolved molecules in sea water and cause an entire school of fish to die quite suddenly.
I don't understand how that guy thinks a common sediment burial is a silly idea yet a worldwide flood better explains that fossil. Even in a worldwide flood the fish in that fossil would still have been rapidly buried in a local sediment influx or collapse. What could possibly be the thinking there other than deliberate dishonesty?
We can't comment on Luke's appearance and speech but can we comment on Luke's use of Charlie Sheen to emphasize his intellect? Nothing demonstrates absurdity quite like, using an undereducated drug addict to say, "I'm correct, you're mistaken".
Proverbs 26:4-5 - Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Still trying to determine which half of the verse is better of the two.
We have lake Michigan and 1,000's of miles of rivers and streams where I live. Lake currents and river or stream currents commonly fill in holes and troughs between sand bars and in weeks, days or hours an area can be filled in with several feet of sand, mud or other sediment. This often happens because of storms. This happens all the time. It doesn't need to be a sand dune collapsing.
How are those kids like the one in the video graduating from High School? He didn’t comprehend the paper, he doesn’t understand what is an Ad Hominem and , not understanding fossilization, he defaults to the Flood? Because when there is no scientific explanation then it has to be a super natural one.
That dude should stick with apologetics and theology because he knows jack shit about science nor how to apply it. I am so sick of religious people trying to use science to bolster their holy books. This happens with all the religions and the reason it does is science threatens their existence. I look forward to the day that people stop lying for their deities.
Sounds like that creator went to the seaside as a boy and played in little sand dunes and has no concept of how unstable big ones can be. Quite apart from the point this was more likely caused by under water slippage and he has no concept of that either.
Does that guy have any qualifications or does he just have a mic and camera? Has he never heard of an earthquake? A mud slide? He is simply a bad faith interlocutor. Period.
He misinformed because he relies on the people listening to him to accept without thinking or research his explanation. He believes anything he can do to support their wishful thinking is acceptable weather he thinks it is in their or his interests only he knows. Yes, he has an agenda.
Also these fossil have been formed over millions of years, so a landslide trapping fish could have formed once every 100 years and you’d still have a very big number. I still don’t understand how lots of water from a biblical flood would cause the fish to fossilise while swimming. Wouldn’t the water just recede slowly therefore allowing the fish to swim away?
The fish could not slowly swim away because they were covered in material too dense for them to swim through. For the fish to all be in the same layer they had to be covered at the same time. Repeated coverings over hundreds of years would distribute them differently.
What I don’t get. If the guy thinks science can’t explain the fossils because rapid burial like sand dune collapse doesn’t happen. How did the flood bury the fossils?
![Gucci Mane & Sexyy Red - You Don't Love Me [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/j7IBqyFKT4c/mqdefault.jpg)
Dan demonstrates the futility of attempting a rational, good faith conversation with these types of people.
Yep, the original guy keeps moving the goalposts.
That's what I get out of this too. People of faith didn't reason themselves into faith, and they're not gonna be reasoned out of it.
Of course. These guys come from a tradition in which religious figures are hired and fired like workers at the Taco Bell. They're there to serve up something simple and consistent and they have to uphold and defend their conservative-to-fundamentalist viewpoints at all costs or else their congregations or "followers" will turn on them and they'll lose their paychecks.
Whilst you're not gonna convince the poster, the grift is too sweet, I think that there are always people in the audience who come away realising that their the grifters schtick is not impregnable, that there are answers. I always think about the time Bill Nye was arguing with Ken Hamm (I think) live, with a bunch of kids around them and Nye says "There are trees older than 6000yrs" or something similar, and this kid looks straight at Nye, stunned, challenged, perplexed, and one might hope, on the road to a different set of suppositions about the world.
@@NoWay1969well said!!
Dan McClellan: The Credible Hulk
"You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources."
If a sand dune collapses, and no one is around, does it make a bingo bongo?
If person 1 in a debate flagrantly lies and person 2 accuses that person of being a liar (and hopefully can provide good evidence), then calling person 1 a liar is not an ad hominem attack.
If person 1 makes an argument and person 2 says that person 1 is stupid and _therefore_ his argument is wrong, that's an ad hominem fallacy. It's also an ad hominem fallacy, as Dan says, to engage in a personal attack and not address the substance of the argument.
5:50 I just typed "sand dune collapse" into Google. Numerous articles came up about sand dune collapses killing people. That's just in the last 2 years.
If you call a liar a liar, that's not an ad hominem, that's just truth.
Hi there 💯
@@horrovaceven if you call someone who isn't lying a liar, it still isn't ad hominem lol. A statement cannot be fallacious, only an argument can be fallacious.
It's even funnier, as the creater basically engages in the "moving the goalposts" fallacy. Instead of admitting that the "no explanations" point has been refuted, they instead move on to the point that the sand dunes explanation is, in their view, not a rational explanation.
Words cannot express how much I love Dan's appropriation of the phrase 'bingo bongo' 😂
Dear Dan: Please don't get distracted by dumbbells with an agenda. Your work stands on its own merits. His followers will find you in the providence of God.
It nice to see these dumbbells exposed though.
Everyone has an agenda. Even when they claim not to. No one is immune.
@@colinsmith1288There are agendas, and then there are agendas.
@@KaiHenningsen Yes but l try to be charitable. The guy was clearly out of his intellectual depth. Painfully so. But he does need a good mentor if he is ever to be able to express credibility.
Wrong. When lying apologists lie they need to be called out - every time, with specificity and particularity. This response was completely necessary and perfectly executed.
I commented last time Dan responded to this guy, but I'm a geologist and the most annoying part of this video is the tirade about sand dune collapse. Dan is absolutely right, sand dunes collapse all the time, but although not specified, I think the paper was referring to a geologic feature called a turbidite.
Turbidites form where sediment being dumped into a water body falls down a slope. These occur in the deep ocean as sediment from the continent falls off the continental shelf and it can also happen in lakes where local sediment ends up.
Turbidites are characterized by coarser sediment interlayed with finer seds. I did not find any research in whether or not any depositional features were preserved in the fossil slab (I didn't look very hard though), but I did find that the slab was a shale/limestone. This sounds like it could be a lake turbidite, with a very fine limestone formed from carbonate mud and a slightly coarser shale mud falling on top of it. Turbidite gravity flows ("sand collapse") are very good at capturing organisms😂
Furthermore, most of the research I've seen on this particular fossil slab is focused on the biology and behavior of the fish, not the geologic setting. However, there are papers that look at fossils like these through a geologic point of view. AND... even though this particular slab of rock got a lot of attention in the media bavk in 2019, it is not the only one of its kind. The creator Dan is responding to is cherry picking data.
You don't even have to be a geologist to know about sand collapsing. I grew up on the shore of a fast-flowing, big river, with a lot of natural flow. Eroded, undercut banks were a standard feature. Regular floods deposited a lot of debris in the river bed, and the normal flow then gradually carried it away. Sometimes the river would meander and start devouring soil that has been there for centuries. Everybody there knew better than to step on any bank that ended suddenly, like cut off with a knife - otherwise you might find yourself in the water, buried in sand or sand-packed gravel - fortunately just partially most of the time. It wasn't all that dangerous, and I can't remember ever being told or taught or warned about that, but everybody just knew that river banks collapse occasionally, and kept their distance if it looked dangerous.
@@horrovac Absolutely! Eroded riverbanks are super dangerous.
But I will add that cutbank erosion and underwater turbidite flows are separate things. I was pointing out that "sand collapse" may not have been the appropriate term, even though it was used in the paper. The rock was not sandstone, it was shale and limestone and underwater turbidites are known to bury aquatic animals all the time. As a geologist, sand collapse is more indicative of a terrestrial environment to me, rather than aquatic. There is a famous fossil of a Velociraptor and Protoceratops locked in combat that occurred when a sand dune fell on them, for example. I think a lot of people instantly think of cutbank erosion like you mentioned when reading/hearing "sand collapse" but when it's happening underwater, "turbidite flow" makes more sense. It's mostly just technical jargon though. The important thing is that this Luke guy was deliberately trying to mislead people😂
@@gideonsstuff Ah yes, should have been more clear about the fact I was talking about what immediately sprung to my mind rather than the effect you were describing.
What I imagine the turbidite to be like is another particulate flow - a pyroclastic flow from a volcano. Those are also notably and notoriously very good at capturing live organisms at an instant, as anyone can witness in Pompeji. If I'm correct, this might be a better explanation for what happened there. At least for those who know about Pompeji.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this-fascinating!
Thank you for sharing your knowledge! Very interesting.
"Yeah, see, when I claimed 'science doesn't have an explanation,' I didn't really mean 'science doesn't have an explanation,' what I meant was that I don't like the scientific explanation. Even though I'm not a scientist and and I really don't know a lot about the field, I still can say that the science must be wrong, because I believe in God and Noah's flood."
That works for the followers and believers. He never meant for anyone honest to see it.
My direct experiences with evangelical apologists showed arrogant bullies who serve a dogma that doesn't hold water.
I lived in Texas most of my life, and the first thing people thought when they heard a creator with a worldwide flood belief was "is this the proof I've been waiting for??". I moved to Oregon and most folks here usually think, "Does this guy have a mental health condition?" Seriously, these guys need to be called out - they are grifters. This sort of "biblical perspective" is wildly dishonest and, unfortunately, quite common. Keep at it Dan.
One of the strongest contributors to me abandoning my christian beliefs was watching apologists and fellow christians resort to lying, deception and bad-faith tactics to prove their points. The more they double down with this, the faster people will leave these religions. It isn't atheists or science that's driving ppl from the religion. It's fellow believers
So you left Christianity because people were lying and that hurt your feelings 💀💀💀💀I have not seen and apologist lie yet tell me your other reasons so me can debunk 😊😊
@Holyservant123 i said it was one of the contributors to me abandoning my faith. Your comment is a great example of what i mean. Debating with you is a waste of time. Find better reasons to hold onto your faith. I'm very clear and sure on why I abandoned mine. I've never been happier and had more clarity in my life since leaving christianity behind
????? me would like to know buddy just to see if I can debunk it don't be scared for your views to change like I'm not scared for my faith to be challenged and debating gives people greater learnings of their selves thank you very much@@andrew_9875
If religious people have to lie to protect their faith from reality, and creationists knowingly lie constantly, then their faith is built upon lies. Why would you follow a faith built upon lies?
All Christian apologists owe everyone an apology.
When It was explained to me how Mary was deemed a virgin due to a Hebrew to Greek translation, I got mad at the nuns in the Catholic Church that lied to me.
When I passed on what I learned about the phony virginity, Some people get mad at me because Truth threatened their Hand me down fantasy.
Carl Sagan said something like “that which can be destroyed by Truth should be destroyed by Truth.”
“The reality is far worse…” I feel like that’s a sentence that could apply to a lot of folks who are identifying as Christians now a days…
Hhahah, I get your point but, Dan is a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints xd.
@@adrianvargas1380yes, and if they were all as reality focused and understanding as Dan maybe more people would stay Christians. The madness, deceit and hatred displayed by many so called ‘Christian’s’ these days is something many of us do not want to be associated with.
@@glossypots Totally agree
I find that very often these people do not understand the ad hominem fallacy. It's almost like every time there's even a hint of ire or accusation of the recipient being dishonest or not doing something they should, they call it an ad hominem.
No folks, an ad hominem is saying "Person X's argument is wrong, because why should we listen to him, he only goes to shower once a week and is smelly!".
They assume that anything they perceive as an insult is an ad hom. They are ignorant of rhetorical principles as well as the finer points of logic
@schwadevivre4158 people are quick to use the names of logical fallacies just to demonstrate that they know these terms.... but they often do not understand the terms.
Like quoting data is an appeal to authority.
I like how a sand dune collapsing is too wild a speculation for this chucklenut but a globe-spanning flood kicked off by an invisible space unicorn's hurt feefees isn't.
Please....never stop doing this. We need more entertaining debate in this world.
Dan, you're rational and lucid, and you actually address the points under discussion rather than dancing around them. I can see why you didn't advance further in politics. I'm sad for whatever disappointment you might have felt, but it kind of looks to me like you saved your soul. From a selfish perspective, I'm glad you're doing this rather than being buried under the sand dune of politics
That guy has clearly not thought how his own paradigm accounts for those fish fossils.
He might mock the idea of a sudden sand dune collapse - but if that isn't what actually happened, how does 'the flood' account for them? The one thing I know for sure about fish is that they really don't mind being covered in water. In fact they love it.
I love the fact that not only is Dan's response better informed/supported but also that his demeanor throughout just points to who has the more solid basis for what they are presenting. Embarassing to think I used to hang around guys like that years ago.
There are many riverbanks with warning signs to the swallowing sands that have recently engulfed and killed children. Personally, while bottle digging along the Mississippi, I have encountered these sugar sands, and it is terrifying how once disturbed, a 12 foot river bank can just empty like an hourglass leaving the sod above it intact for someone to fall through and have the remaining walls possibly envelope them when disturbed by the fall.
The theist argument ultimately comes down to - "believe as we say and obey, or be tortured forever."
To be fair, theism and religious belief are not the same thing. I lean toward theism philosophically, but don't swear loyalty to any religion or religious belief (such as Christianity and their belief in an eternal hell).
@@SolemnPhilosopher Ok, your not one of the horrible theists. Congrats. You're not a National Security Threat - Cult-45 Evangelicals are.
Many arguments presented by many theists. Not theistic argument itself.
Some would say I am a theist and I am totally opposed to your "quote". I also think the tortured forever thing is absurd.
I learned many things from this. Thank you Dan, you wiped the floor with his argument and then threw it into the trashcan.
Note to self: Never get into an argument with Dan.
I think I would rather like getting into an argument with him. I wouldn't expect to win, but I might learn something. I also think that if (by some chance) I had the better, more well supported arguments, that he might change his position.
As others have stated this was probably an underwater collapse so the following anecdotal information is not completely apropos but addresses the attack that sand dunes don’t collapse all the time.
When I was a 5ton instructor in the Marines I was teaching young marines how to drive in dunes in the southwestern United States and dunes normally have a steep side and a longer less steep slope. As we were driving through the dunes the guy I was training asked if we could make it up that slope and I said yeah but…(and he immediately turned into the dune and hit it squarely at the base) I was going to say you have to slowly climb it diagonally at the base so the tire lifts the cab because if the steel bumper hits the dune before the tires do then your gonna get stuck. He didn’t listen and hit the dunes steep face going about 10 mph and the 300 foot tall dune collapsed and buried the truck cab completely. It didn’t bury the whole truck or crunch the cab roof so we were able to get out through the back sliding window into the covered bed of the truck and get out the back. That was a 300 foot dune, there are dunes thousands of meters high, if there weren’t other trucks with us and and that was a bigger dune it would have completely buried the truck and crushed the cab and a million years from now an archeologist would dig up our fossils with a guy still at the steering wheel of a truck and a guy siting next to him with his middle finger sticking up.
We spent 6 hours trying to dig the truck out and got 3 more trucks buried to the axles trying to pull the truck out and we ended up having to get a sea knight helicopter to airlift the truck out.
The dune collapsed in seconds and we had no time to back out or run so yeah sand dunes can bury animals so fast it preserves them in the position they were basically in.
Again, not the same situation but it speaks to the validity that the religious guy trying to claim dunes don’t trap animals in place is absolutely wrong. If we were two dinosaurs fighting at the base of that dune and we disturbed the supporting sand at the base of the dune, it would immediately bury us and pin us to the ground under tons of sand exactly in the position we were fighting in. And as an added bonus the steep sides of dunes normally have food or water available so animals commonly compete for resources where they collect on the steep face, either small animals that fell of the top of the dune or wind blown seeds that settle there attract dune mice which larger predators hunt and fight over which make it likely that they get trapped in that way.
If the religious zealot (trying to convince you that a 600 year old man and his family built a boat with copper and stone tools, bigger than the largest wooden boat ever built even with modern equipment and filled it with 2 of all kinds of animals on the planet to escape a flood he knew was coming decades later is the only explanation for some fish trapped in the ground) if he ever left his computer and actually studied how the world works he wouldn’t be so quick to make those absurd claims.
"There is a cult of ignorance in the US, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding it's way through our political and cultural life, nutured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Isaac Asimov
Poor boy he doesn't know the difference between evidence and a claim and he doesn't like being told that he's wrong because he has a belief that doesn't want to be challenged. Great job Dan. 👏 I want to see more debunking like this Dan absolutely great when you have someone like yourself who actually knows a few things about the world compared to people who think that they do
Congratulations on the award you got. I saw in the SBL email that you have gotten the Richards Award for Public Scholarship. Good job.
Thank you, Dan. It can't be easy to be bombarded with this level of stubborn dishonesty and stupidity.
The promise of the early internet was that it could give a voice to the voiceless.
The problem with the modern internet is that it gives a stage to dismal comedians like Bongo over there.
That smirk at 5:07 is my favorite part. It summarizes the video in about a second.
Given how often people are buried in landslides every year I find it surprising that anyone would even argue about this.
For those insisting that Dan (and others) not waste this kind of time and effort on creationists, hear me. I used to affirm YECism, and brought forward all kinds of "creation science" to refute evolution and an ancient universe. It was irenic, patient, thoughtful opponents that brought multiple lines of undeniable evidence that brought me to the place I finally understood that to continue asserting things now shown to in fact be false, would amount to bearing false witness against the truth, which was against both my conscience and my faith. This principle has now brought me to agnosticism, but following the truth has it's consequences I guess.
Wow, this dude might be the most insufferable TikTok apologist yet 😖😂
I only wish this were true
Sadly, not the case.
Nah, debunking_dan is waaaay worse. Not only his arguments don't make much sense, he thinks he's funny.
@thraden487 sure sure......what about the girl that went off on Dan not long ago...man I wish I could recall her name.
His other videos approaching the sand dune hypothesis also fall under what is known as Argument from Incredulity.
He doesn't personally see sand dune fossilization as intuitive, and since he is incredulous, he thinks the hypothesis doesn't work. It's similar to how flat Earthers will deny star formation because gas eventually coalescing and undergoing fusion to form a star seems unintuitive to them, and they don't understand that even gas has gravity.
An appeal to authority means you point to a person and say “they must be right because they are an authority”. Referencing the work of an authority to support a position is called referencing not an appeal to authority. I think the creator has reading comprehension issues, which he has demonstrated multiple times now.
personally, I like the story where god created all mankind and told them to go forth and multiply in chapter one, then, by chapter 6, god hated everyone so much that he killed them all in a global flood. That story has to be true because it's so logical and believable.
Wow! That dude is really bad at this, and should probably just stop because I doubt he's capable of getting better at it. He exemplifies "the arrogance of ignorance."
You know how some dumb people say apologizing makes you look weak or...... Whatever? This video makes you look awesome and trustworthy. You admitted to a small mistake not once but 3 or 4 times, while STILL correcting him. I also thought he hadn't read the paper, it's a hard conclusion to not come to. Bingo bongo!
Dan is a true scholar and a gentleman. How he maintains his cool in the face of such ignorance is remarkable. I do also love his righteous indignation. ❤
And yes, I love the way he lays out so clearly, that the apologist made his own ignorance or dishonesty so glaringly obvious.
But will that guy just keep digging his own hole even deeper? I can’t wait to find out!
I know many don’t love the debate/back and forth here, but I find this deep dive very insightful and also educational for when talking to Creationists
I've yet to meet a layman who disputes Evolution because he's impartial and weighed the evidence. To a man, everyone I've encountered who does so, does because he's wedded to a literal interpretation of a Bronze Age Creation myth that he's decided is revealed truth.
It's a pity that the people who most need to see it won't actually watch Dan's response.
Interesting that he gets so upset about the accusation that he didn’t read the paper yet is happy to admit that he read it and then lied about what was in it.
He is clearly unable to comprehend that ignorance on a topic is more excusable (and rectifiable) than misrepresenting that subject.
The Irony that the guy quoting logical fallacies at Dan can make no argument without them. A quick googling gives a name to the fallacy he wants to use about the collapsing sand dune theory: "The fallacy of personal incredulity occurs when one finds a concept difficult to understand, or simply does not fathom how it works, then they conclude that it is likely untrue."
the few seconds at 5:07 where dan has to compose himself is just.... perfection
How exactly does a world wise flood explain the fossilization of the fish. With a flood, wouldn’t the fish just keep swimming?
Love the video, why did it cut off at the end?(I've noticed it happens in some of Dan's videos)
Dan, I appreciate your content and your goals. Thank you!
Its like watching a kindergartener debating a PhD.
Dan and his followers love the word “flagrant”.
He really does like that word lol
@@FaptainCalcon750 When I started watching his videos I thought he was saying “fragrant” and assumed that Dan was calling the incorrect claims bullshit or that they were so bad that you could smell it.
I dunno, I was dumb 🤷♂️
I'm a little taken aback by how he sat there and said explaining what a paper he misrepresented actually says and showing where it says it is in his mind an appeal to authority.
Especially when he tried to use that paper's authority as evidence of a *global* flood.
How does a 'global flood' fossilize a school of fish? My understanding is that fish can swim.
Bingo bongo, of course!
There is no way that guy is going to win against you. You seem logical, well informed and with good intentions. I liked the way you smirked at some point, and it was very subtle but still there 😂
Congratulations 🎉for the award you just got. You deserve it!
There is a video from RUclipsr Fabiana of Ribiernha channel who shows exactly how sand moved during a flood cleaves of the bluufs during the droughts and collapses into the river. As she was filming in her little boat the cliff cleaved twice into the river. I will try to get the video link here for anyone interested. She has some great stuff from the Amazon basin.
4:49 This shows the problem. He says “rapid fossilization”, but the paper is not about rapid fossilization, it is about rapid burial. He thinks he is right because he is conflating the two. But rapid burial is a key aspect of most fossils, and that includes not only sand dunes, but mud slides, volcanic ash, avalanche, and yes, even floods.
Reading something and comprehending something are two wildly different things...
How many times do you have to dunk on these guys, before they get out of the paint?
I love that Dan cuts himself off stbthecend of the video. I'm imagining him sitting at his computer, editing, and saying to himself, "That about sums it up." I do love brevity. Thanks, Dan!
It’s funny how he thinks that GIANT WORLDWIDE FLOODS are more probable than a sand dune collapse.
Dan does pretty good job of calling out bad logic and attacking an argument vs name calling. I don't know if I can ever recall Dan lowering himself to an ad hominem attack.
Once again your rhetoric is seriously informed, Dan. I thoroughly enjoy every single one of your videos.
I love and admire Dan's honesty, patience, and intellectual prowess.
I wish everyone in faith communities were like Dan, but I can only wish.
I'm pretty sure creationism is 100% bingo bongo.
Kinda surprised this voicesofREASONS guy doesn't use the sand dune collapse as evidence for the flood. "What caused all these sand dunes to collapse? The Flood of course!" I can hear the apologist saying.
That’s what I was wondering. He mocks the very idea that could’ve supported his flood idea. Unless he’s a fossil denier.
"God did it" is more plausible than a sand dune did it...got it! 🥴
Luke's self-described bona fides: "entrepreneur at 16, professional snowboarder at 17, golf professional / golf course manager @ 25, recording / performing musician @ 29 and content creator @ 40."
Luke should live his life as he sees fit, but he should also understand that unless one puts in the scholarly work, you will just embarrass yourself when trying to match wits with someone who clearly has, like Dan.
Luke, perhaps the golf course is hiring again?
Dan one of your greatest gifts you bring to the world is that you refuse to share these, god help us, “Influencers” social media details.
This was fun. Luke is clearly sub-intelligent.
Theists never evolved. They were created by their God, and their brain cells are limited.
Also, regarding the claims about how there are sand dune collapses happening everywhere, it's a survivors bias. We see a lot of fossil evidence for sand dune collapses because those are good events for fossilization. Events that do not create fossils aren't easy to find by looking at fossils.
It's not surprising that a lot of the fossils we have found result from sand dunes collapsing. Because those are good events for making fossils.
So, first it was denial, and now it's mockery. I guess the next step in the stages of ignorance is going to be bargaining. Expect the "but, but, but" arguments.
In the summer of 2019 a cliff collapsed onto the beach in San Diego County and killed 2 sunbathers. RUclips has several videos of cliffs or rocks collapsing into bodies of water. It goes without saying that this is a highly common event. Does it bury fish while in formation however, it is certainly plausible.
Bingo bongo
The apologist is wrongo
dan, what does your shirt say? Is it Truth? Like the inscription that brings the gollum alive? I don't speak or read hebrew, but I think that's what I recognize there. Just curious.
Dan: "I'm sorry, I thought you were a fool. I was wrong. You're both a fool and a liar!"
Tik Tok is becoming the hub for Dollar Tree apologists.
Underwater thermal vents would rapidly change the chemical composition of dissolved molecules in sea water and cause an entire school of fish to die quite suddenly.
I don't understand how that guy thinks a common sediment burial is a silly idea yet a worldwide flood better explains that fossil.
Even in a worldwide flood the fish in that fossil would still have been rapidly buried in a local sediment influx or collapse.
What could possibly be the thinking there other than deliberate dishonesty?
Argumentum ad absurdum--what the other guy did to the collapsing dune hypothesis.
Apologists will go to any length and stretch to massage history and science to fit the scriptures. It's always obvious and pathetic.
Mad/Annoyed Dan is the best Dan! 🤣
We can't comment on Luke's appearance and speech but can we comment on Luke's use of Charlie Sheen to emphasize his intellect? Nothing demonstrates absurdity quite like, using an undereducated drug addict to say, "I'm correct, you're mistaken".
1:37 Annnnnd mic drop. Love this channel. Dan, keep fighting the good fight. We're with you, man.
Dan, you should charge this guy. Last time I got spanked like him, I had to pay for it.
Proverbs 26:4-5 - Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Still trying to determine which half of the verse is better of the two.
Bingo! Bongo! Dang, Dan, you are priceless.
We have lake Michigan and 1,000's of miles of rivers and streams where I live. Lake currents and river or stream currents commonly fill in holes and troughs between sand bars and in weeks, days or hours an area can be filled in with several feet of sand, mud or other sediment. This often happens because of storms. This happens all the time. It doesn't need to be a sand dune collapsing.
You can explain it for him, but you can't understand it for him
How are those kids like the one in the video graduating from High School? He didn’t comprehend the paper, he doesn’t understand what is an Ad Hominem and , not understanding fossilization, he defaults to the Flood? Because when there is no scientific explanation then it has to be a super natural one.
Why would a global flood freeze fish? They’re already in the water.
It’s like arguing with a toddler…
That dude should stick with apologetics and theology because he knows jack shit about science nor how to apply it. I am so sick of religious people trying to use science to bolster their holy books. This happens with all the religions and the reason it does is science threatens their existence. I look forward to the day that people stop lying for their deities.
Sounds like that creator went to the seaside as a boy and played in little sand dunes and has no concept of how unstable big ones can be. Quite apart from the point this was more likely caused by under water slippage and he has no concept of that either.
5:07 Gotcha! You know how to smile! 🤣
Dan is getting feisty. I like it.
Does that guy have any qualifications or does he just have a mic and camera? Has he never heard of an earthquake? A mud slide?
He is simply a bad faith interlocutor. Period.
An apologist misrepresenting science? I am shocked! 😱
The guy from the first video just seems to be supremely arrogant 😂 Thank you for the response!
He misinformed because he relies on the people listening to him to accept without thinking or research his explanation. He believes anything he can do to support their wishful thinking is acceptable weather he thinks it is in their or his interests only he knows. Yes, he has an agenda.
Why are so many people so terribly confused about the ad-hom fallacy?
Also these fossil have been formed over millions of years, so a landslide trapping fish could have formed once every 100 years and you’d still have a very big number. I still don’t understand how lots of water from a biblical flood would cause the fish to fossilise while swimming. Wouldn’t the water just recede slowly therefore allowing the fish to swim away?
The fish could not slowly swim away because they were covered in material too dense for them to swim through.
For the fish to all be in the same layer they had to be covered at the same time. Repeated coverings over hundreds of years would distribute them differently.
What I don’t get. If the guy thinks science can’t explain the fossils because rapid burial like sand dune collapse doesn’t happen. How did the flood bury the fossils?