Hey everyone, it has come to my attention that some people are having trouble with the audio for the PBS Nova doc segments. This is very confusing to me, it works just fine on every single one of my devices. Luckily I later show the transcript for these sections so you can read that, or the subtitles, but I think if you mess around with headphones and/or plug in speakers and/or try other devices everyone should be able to get it to work one way or another. I'm not sure how to fix this, otherwise I would delete and reupload. Sorry for the inconvenience!
Hey Dave, just wanted to say that I'm with you on everything but minimize the character and motive analysis. Many people who disagree with you use this as an excuse to accuse you of Ad hominem attacks and thereby discard your objections. Others just call you arrogant or rude. Regardless of whether they are even remotely correct, I suggest you just focus on the argumentation, as that is the main show in their circus and flood them (no pun intended) with evidence. I just think it's unjust for such content to be unappreciated because people find it "mean". Thanks for everything you've done.
Dave, I did indeed hear very little when playing those segments. My device is a simple tablet. But after plugging in headphones the audio was acceptable. Perhaps the 2 audio channels were merged on the (single) speaker on my tablet, and they canceled each other out.
I am a recovering evangelical christian. I believed them hook, line, and sinker. To escape, I actually had to get divorced. I am so appreciative of channels like this. Thanks for helping to keep me sane and educating me.
There are many more that combine science and education with refuting religious claims, for instance Aron Ra, Pauologia, Viced Rhino, Gutsick Gibbon, Forrest Valkai, Conspiracy Catz, SciManDan (on tinfoil tuesday), Emma Thorne, Skep Tick, Thunderf00t.
@@jordan7634 "all of these people are cringe. Their arguements are weak" - ha ha ha. You believe in god, without any evidence. That is cringe. You don't even have an argument, not even a weak one. That is super cringe. You did not dare to watch this video. That is pathetic.
My high school biology teacher said about evolution "I have to teach this but we all know where we really come from." Then we spent one hour "learning" about evolution.
Thank you, Dave. A friend of mine had become a full creationist again after finding Discovery Institute, and when I showed this video, he immediately apologized for falling for the lies and promised to check sources the next time. I just wanted to type this so you knew that your video does have an affect, even on people formerly part of their fanbase.
What does your friend flip flop world views every time he watches a RUclips video? Sounds like it. I'd hate for him to see a debate, his head will be spinning believing both people after each response!
@@SoulDelSol Uh, no? He was sucked into Discovery Institute over the course of months, watching every video they made as far back as 2020. Then when I showed him this video proving all of those videos did nothing but lie blatantly to his face, he realized truth. This is completely normal, and happens all the time. Want an example? You meet a Wing Chun "master" who says Wing Chun is the best martial art ever. He shows you several demonstrations where his paid actors fly across the room with slight little slaps to the neck, and then when Xu Xiaodong comes along and TKOs him in three hits, you realize you were lied to and move on a bit smarter. It really just seems like you wanted to insult my friend more than anything, though, so I doubt you care about what I typed.
Your friend sounds fairly untethered to a rational assessment of reality. Would not be surprised if your friend invests in the next multilevel marketing scheme to pass by.
@@flyfree78644 Most people don't have a rational assessment of reality, especially nowadays, but unlike most he at least tries to better himself. As for investing anything, he doesn't trust the stock market at all.
Creationists not agreeing on whether a fossil is a human or ape is the funniest thing in the world. They are basically admitting that the find is transitional.
@@nemanjalazarevic9249 The human/ape argument among creationists is: I define human like this; I define ape like this; this does/doesn't meet my definition. Membership in a broadly defined category doesn't mean anything, especially one defined the way creationists define it - based on what they want to say are humans or apes.
How? When a fossil is almost completely destroyed how are to tell if it belongs to one animal or another? You do realize that almost all animals on earth share some similarities to one degree or another depending on the species.
Speaking to a Catholic priest many years ago, he cautioned me to beware a new version of creationism. He literally said "You'll hear it as Intelligent Design and they will pretend it's science. It an attempt by evangelicals to repackage creationism. It is neither Intelligent nor God's design...it's bullshit" I was left rather stunned by this most vehement denial of ID by a man of the cloth.
@@lsrpjune3500 There is a lot of us Catholics that do not believe in hell or the devil. We believe in good and evil and a higher power ,science and human evolution. Many Catholics could give a shit about the pope. Much of this new religion is a cult. Woke is a cult also.
I'm an evolutionary biologist and behavioral ecologist - I like to read DI articles just to keep tabs on what these people are saying so I can keep on top of rebutting them when students bring it up. I appreciate the work you've put into this, this will be a great resource to point people towards if they're DI fans.
I do the same. I'm a scientific literacy and biology professor. My students quite often come to me with arguments that they have heard and I already know where they get them from. Sometimes, students will send me links directly to DI or AIG. It's very upsetting but I keep my cool and take the time to show them how they are being deceived.
it is utterly disgraceful to admit that this kind of content is actually vitally important to be produced, in this day and era. thank you for stepping up and doing it so brilliantly. no mercy, Dave. go for them!
@@Csizzorhandz ditto. I would also add that this context not only applies to some random religious nuts, it is much wider than that. disinformation is a plague. combine it with illiteracy and apathy, and all you need to pave the road to political extremism (far left or far right - same shyte different flies) is a moderately charismatic "leader". so, YES. I would say that accurate, unbiased information based on good, sound data is vital, in order to make informed decisions. as is exposing any sorts of snake oil salesmen. it's common sense. and it does not require, at all, to abandon any given faith.
I appreciate your work. I used to be an evangelical pastor. The road out of the religion was costly and painful in many ways. Towards the end you are trying to encapsulate the motives and goals of these people. That is hard to do as it is so multifaceted. Certainly fear of mortality is a major tool they work with. You are doing something valuable and for some will give a huge gift of joy. Let me explain that with a personal anecdote: Not long after departing the faith, I took my binoculars out one night and for the first time spotted the Andromeda Galaxy. I suppose for any astronomy lover that can be a great moment. For me is was symbolic: I was able to embrace the truth: that the light travelled 2.5 million years to get here, unaided by a deity lying about creating an fakely-old universe 6,000 years ago. It was an emotional high for me, similar to the "come to Jesus moment" the evangelicals promote. The difference being that falling in love with curiosity and truth starts a life full of many such joys. I think you are an enabler of this joy for many. Humans thrive in curiosity and truth: you help bring this to people.
Come back to Jesus. Don’t let Science cause you to go away from him. The Bible is not a Science book, it’s not important whether he created the Earth 4 billion years ago or 6000. He still loves you and wants to save you. That’s why he came to Earth and die for your sins. But death could not hold him, in 3 days he ressurected from the dead and appeared to his disciples and many other people. His disciples went around the world preaching the Gospel, living in poverty and enduring persecution, and finally getting killed for their faith just so you and me can hear this beautiful message of love and salvation. So please I beg you to come back to Jesus Christ. He loves you and wants to save you, not to make you believe in 6000 ur old earth. If you have any questions please feel free to ask me Peace✌️
For the most part you could contact the actual scientists yourself and when you mention that you are not a scientist but rather just some random person that has questions the overwhelming reaction from the scientist is going to be excitement that you contacted them.
@@vestafreyja yeah, I really like letting people info dump to me about something they’re really passionate about. I’d imagine it’d be even more exciting for a scientist to both educate a lay person and also get to ramble about something they’ve put so much time into without having to use a certain type of language. It’s just so fun to see that sparkle in their eye or the enthusiastic way they speak or punctuate their sentences. Tangents are a plus, so much extra info I didn’t ask for and yet am always to happy to receive. And when people let me info dump to them about biology? It’s one of my favorite things! I’m not formally educated in it, I’ve just learned a lot through RUclips and looking up random scientific papers for fun! I’m actually 15 years old, and I’m not enough of a prodigy to already be in a university. However, I do plan to become a biology teacher after I get a PhD in basically any type of biology. I might even minor in paleoanthropology or something similar. Just any science, really. It’s so intriguing to me, and I love that anyone who studies hard and works harder could become a big name in any scientific field. Equal opportunity for all! But yeah, I’d love to get in contact with any scientist. It’d be such a great chance to learn, as well as give me a stronger starting point when I go into formally studying science. I try my best to not be the most lay lay person, if that makes any sense. I know this comment wasn’t towards me, but it just got me really excited to see and I decided to throw in my own two cents, for fun.
@@Limepopsicle07 EFF YEAH BIOLOGY!!! A friend I made while nerding out with them about marine biology and realistic mermaids has just started work into a job that, if everything goes well, is going to do GMO stuff to create antigens and things!!! I love to hear about their new job and all the funky things they know, and I may be using their academic access to get to a bunch of research papers just to fuel my science nerdery so I kind of drag them along on my adventures. Best of luck to you about achieving your dream, kiddo! (i'm 35 let me be old) (in case you wonder: one of my story settings has "deep-sea" (technically they can go anywhere including survive space for a few hours, like bigger and slightly less indestructible tardigrades) merfolk who were engineered from ancient sea-butterfly-like gastropods about 250 million years ago by an alien war bioweapons designer who turned her DNA and RNA-editing skills to creating basically a "mega-keystone" species who instinctively step in as stopgaps to reverse human destruction of species and habitats and mitigate environmental disasters)
@@Limepopsicle07 I'm 66, in my youth I was considered to be a child prodigy having completed my primary school education in 9 years, started university when I was 15 and for the next 13 years earned BSc in Psychology with a minor in Biochemistry, BSc & MSc in Computer Science and PhD in Computer Science and Engineering. When I was earning my BSc's I took courses ranging literally from A to Z (Anthropology, Archaeology, Astronomy, Biology, Classics (Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman history and mythology), Chemistry, Genetics, Geology, Geophysics, Logic, Mathematics, and Zoology). Being 15 when I started university was bit of a bummer as I could not legally head to the campus pub until I was half way thru my final semester of my first degree. ;-) I truly envy you as you start out on your academic journey, based upon what we have learned over the last 50 years and trying to project what we will know in the next 50 years is truly stupefying. For example you having a smart phone the computing power in such a common place device has more computing power that all the computers used on all the Apollo missions. When I was 15 we had no evidence of other planets around distant stars; now we have a huge catalog of planets orbiting distance stars. The image of dinosaurs from 50 years ago was that they were little more than cold blooded reptiles; now the image has been radically updated. When talking or interacting with Scientists you will often get some of the most interesting information when they go off on a tangent. The passion the scientist has for their particular field is almost contagious and when they are interacting with a interested lay person it is like the cherry on top of a Sundae.
What I love about Professor Dave is that he does not even try to hide his contempt for these absolute charlatans, fraudsters, grifters, and outright criminals. He straight up calls them what they are, and you can hear his seriousness in his vocal inflection. So many debunkers of these liars shy away from outright labeling them as the criminals they are. Fight on, Dave. You're doing amazing work with academic outreach and combating disinformation on this platform.
I agree. The creationist content creators, as the flat earth content creators, as all the science deniers, are crooks, whose only purpose is to rob ignorant people. To the end, they also seek to ensure that as many people as possible are ignorant, and they are quite successful in that regard in places such as the USA. (I use "content creator" without prejudice.)
@@Cheepchipsable The people he's talking about deserve the "abuse" though. For the record I don't find it to be abuse in my opinion, but a perfectly reasonable response to these liars and grifters. Do you think that every view carries the same weight and should be given the same amount of consideration? We can't give these charlatans any leniency, because their views are stupid and destructive and have no place in an educated world.
@@Cheepchipsable people who purposely lie, spread misinformation and look to stall the progression of humanity by demonizing science deserve to be dealt with swiftly and harshly, being that this seems to be the only methodology that affects them and their followers
it's the concept of AUTHORITY that poisons the well. Once a person is considered an authority, especially in religious circles, they're deemed unquestionable. They're the most powerful entity that has ever existed. This is exactly what they think of their deity, the ultimate AUTHORITY. This basic concept and required tenet of their ideology corrupts their thought processes which infect most of their day-to-day lives
Prof. Dave, I’m a conservation biology undergrad who sometimes has a hard time formulating my rebuttals to this type of absolutely ridiculous anti-science argumentation. Thank you so much for helping me organize these points! You’re awesome!
The problem with this is they go around prepared to get into an argument and typically dance all around people because you're not trained to fight that because your learning to be a scientist not a buricrat
Take some philosophy courses. Science and philosophy are wonderful together because A) it gets you thinking, and B) you’ll get really good at forming arguments
Honestly, if you wanna get good at these kind of debates, start beefing with people on forums. Topic doesn't matter, but you get a free "debate" opponent and some of them will argue in circles forever, which is also great for learning how to control the overall discussion and how to cut through BS and get to the point. They could be anyone, so it also forces you to practise articulating your thoughts such that most people could understand them Trust me i was as average as anyone, then i moderated a large forum for like 8 years and occasionally trolled people on RUclips and now ill argue about anything with anyone
I love how you contact the actual researchers for these videos. Not only does it support everything you’re saying and show the dishonesty of creationists, but it also helps your audience see that science is accessible and open. I really love all the work you do with science literacy
I know right! It’s one of my favorite things to see. Having things be open and accessible is useful to so many people, especially something as crucial as science! You don’t need a formal education to learn about science (although that’s always a plus), you just need a drive to learn. And boy howdy is it fun when you finally do get to. Science is one of my personal passions, but I’m not old enough to get a formal education, so I stick to studying hard in my science class, taking good notes, and listening to videos about science on RUclips. Hell, might as well start taking notes on science videos, too! I go to a private Christian school and, since Creationism is being pushed on Christian youth more and more, most of my friends and pretty much every Christian who goes there isn’t being given fully correct information. Luckily, the science teachers aren’t pushing *Young* Earth Creationism, and I’ve had a couple of good conversations with them when trying to correct the more dogmatic things that they teach due to their somewhat misplaced trust in their church leaders and online sources (seriously, my biology teacher showed a Genesis Apologetics anti-human evolution movie clip in class and I wrote so many criticisms on a sheet of notebook paper that I ran out of space in the margins, and I’m a lay person). When I become a biology teacher, I’m gonna try my best to fight against the rampant Creationist dogma in Christian circles. I’m not personally a Christian, but so many of my friends are (I’m in the United States’ Deep South) and so are most people I’m acquainted with, and it’s sad that they are fed misinformation and form incorrect views about the world based on that “education.” I’ve been trying to have more productive conversations about their misinformed opinions, and it’s actually working in most cases. I’m trying to get one of my friends into Gutsick Gibbon’s channel, since she has quite a few good anti-YEC videos that I find very informative, and soon I’m gonna send her Professor Dave’s biology series, since it was really informative to me in places where my school education either hasn’t reached or hasn’t covered very well. Being able to help others with their personal scientific literacy is very rewarding for me, since teaching has always been somewhat of a passion of mine, and seeing the gears in their head turning and their eyes lighting up when they start to understand what I’m trying to say always makes me happy. That reaction may take a little while, but some of my friends have gotten into things like workers’ rights and general equality because of my urging. One of my friends even wants to try starting a big tech business and be the CEO while also not stealing from their paychecks to line his own pockets. He’s very passionate about it. We recently had a career day at our school, and he started talking to the guy who was telling us about IT work about his tech business dream. Just hearing him talk about it made me so happy, since there was that little selfish happiness of “I taught him that.” I know that was off-topic, I’m just trying to say that Prof. Dave here has inspired me to actually pursue teaching as a future job rather than just having it as a hobby, since I want to do some of what he does in helping inform lots of people. I urge anyone reading this to also watch more of his content, it’s so good and always very informative. His slight hostility towards people he is debunking is simply because they are lying, and, in science specifically, that is possibly the worst thing you can do. Spreading misinformation and causing scientific illiteracy is a horrible thing, and he is right in going after their fraudulent behavior while also correcting the things they are lying about. Prime example: his videos on James Tour. Some of the things he says don’t make a ton of sense to us lay people, but he does a very good job explaining those concepts through examples. Anyways, sorry for the rant, I tend to get super enthusiastic about something and then I go way off topic. TLDR: I 100% agree and Prof. Dave’s videos inspire me to teach and inform others with things I learn from his and similar creators’ content.
@@Limepopsicle07 with your goal in mind you would be helped by also learning about the Hellenistic influence on Christianity and how embedded parables limit the ability for biblical sources being literal. Getting some good exposure to history and development of theology will also help you wean people onto a scientific approach without directly challenging their ability to retain a core faith. The old adage about leading horses to water but not being able to make them drink can be resolved if you take the horse on a long walk in the sun of enlightenment. The trick is to make them thirsty by the time you arrive at the trough.
@@baconghoti You know about the Hellenistic stuff too! You have no idea how hype I am to see people address that-- there's a LOT of stuff that comes from Aristotle's ideas on how things work that got co-opted into Christian "logic". I only know it in vague passing (I'm researching christianity for a fantasy story) because a lot of Christian and Hellenistic philosophy is present in Alchemy, and cracking the code on that's accidentally caused me to stumble on a bunch of doors my possible ADHD couldn't resist opening.
there more to the influence than just how they thought about things as it influenced how they disseminated 'truth'. Hellenic mysticism has the concept of outer and inner and secret knowledge. Outsiders can be shown a 'diluted' truth obscured by wrapping it as a parable or fable. As one gets closer to the centre one would shown a different way to understand the parable bringing one closer to the truth until eventually the parable was removed and the 'truth' was stated clearly. By quizzing someone on their understanding of a parable the differing answers would reveal how initiated the queried was without revealing the core mystery. Another aspect can be seen in the bible and that is the evolution of the Christian god itself. At the beginning it is a personal humanesque god of the tribe, one among others. Then it becomes the only true God amongst godlings and finally the one and only contending against incarnations and agents of it's lesser adversary - Satan. This happens at a time when Greco-Roman expansion occurs. For them other gods and religions are not squashed, but some gods are elevated and certain gods must be honored at certain times. Sometimes certain gods are demonized to weaken sociopolitical power of opponents giving rise to state and public gods and household or personal gods. However they do not deny other gods exist, just their relative power and influence. The Abrahamic faith during the Roman Empire goes one further and enforces that followers must not only foreswear loyalty to all other gods, but also deny they are really gods at all or ever have been. This elevation to a singular supreme being dramatically improves the religion's uptake and reduces apostasy. If you are researching a religion's implementation I would recommend Aron Ra's Quran for the Infidel series. It is a walkthrough of Islam in order of revelation where he is helped to understand it mainly by atheists and apostates raised in Islam. Some of the apologists involved can be quite difficult to deal with, but they only last a couple of episodes before being dropped. I recommend it as it is not only is it essentially Christianity 2.0, but should also give you an insight on how to look at Christianity yourself in a critical mein for your story. GL in your research.
My physical anthropology 101 prof walked into class on day 1 and before introducing himself said "I will not answer any questions regarding creationism, you have 30 seconds to pack up your things and drop this class if you can't accept these terms, I will not repeat myself." He waited 30 seconds, noone left so he introduced himself and started class.
@@Terminator550 so an astronomy professor that has his class interrupted by a flat earther every year has no right to address his class that if you don't believe the earth is a globe you are wasting everyone's time and should drop the class, has no right to do that?
@@akiblue A professor does not have that right. You cannot dismiss ideas you disagree with and ask those that have those ideas to drop out of the class. A professional professor will establish the rules in the classroom. Part of that clarification would be to inform every student that no interruptions will be tolerated. If such interruptions occur, the disruptor will be asked to leave the classroom. Having the tile "professor" does not give permission to ask students to drop out of the class simply because they might disagree with the professor. Higher level of education is supposed to allow disagreeing opinions to be discussed, within reason.
@@Terminator550 you can absolutely, as a professor, tell somebody that they are not qualified for their class and they will fail if they continue. If you have a challenge to the science, that you wish to hypothesize, you will do it in your thesis to be scrutinized by experts in the field, probably in a post doc not in a 101 anthropology class. You have to know the science before you can challenge it. Two virgins aren't going to "experiment" the very first time they have sex. They'll do it till they find limitations to what they are doing then experiment.
@@akiblue The discussion is if a professor should tell students to drop out of his class if they disagree with some of the topics taught. Your first comment stated that you had a professor that told your class that anyone that believes in creationism must drop out of the class-such arrogant behavior that indicates a lack of understanding of the science supporting that claim. Now you are going off on a tangent stating that students that disagree will have to writes a thesis and have it evaluated by those that likely share the same bias as the professor you have mentioned in your comments. Students should be allowed to ask questions about creationism when the class allows for open class discussion. A student should not be excluded from the class for having a few opinions that goes against a professor’s stance on certain subjects in science. Nothing mentioned above gives reason that students that have different opinions are somehow not qualified to take a class in one of the many disciplines of science. If the tables were turned, and a professor of astrology told his class that all atheists that did not agree with any of the creationist models should leave and drop out of the class-that would be wrong for that professor to do so.
I've actually had a creationist cite the Lucy pelvis alteration as evidence for pseudoscience. He also portrayed Lucy as the only specimen found to support claims. Thank you for this.
While I agree the DI is optimizing deceptive knowledge tactics indicating epistemic injustice, it is equally inappropriate to claim there are no dogmas in science. Science has dogmas and this has been explored in a variety of academic scholarship on the philosophy of science. Popularly, it is Thomas Kuhn who is attributed for developing the 4 phases model of scientific progress in which he explicates scientific progress by the stages of pre-paradigmatic science, normal science, crisis, and scientific revolution. Leaving aside later scholarship and the developments in the problem of demarcation, it is similarly a lie to claim science cannot be dogmatic. We rely on theoretical dogmas to make reliable predictions until they have been exhausted; there are no perfect theories. Therefore, some of the utterances are similarly biased towards mainstream positivism but it is nonetheless interesting
While I agree the DI is optimizing deceptive knowledge tactics indicating epistemic injustice, it is equally inappropriate to claim there are no dogmas in science. Science has dogmas and this has been explored in a variety of academic scholarship on the philosophy of science.
Popularly, it is Thomas Kuhn who is attributed for developing the 4 phases model of scientific progress in which he explicates scientific progress by the stages of pre-paradigmatic science, normal science, crisis, and scientific revolution.
Leaving aside later scholarship and the developments in the problem of demarcation, it is similarly a lie to claim science cannot be dogmatic. We rely on theoretical dogmas to make reliable predictions until they have been exhausted; there are no perfect theories.
Crazy that you made this video... in the early 1990s, having made my professional start building internet tech (coding applications, servers, etc...) I built a small internet radio show, in which I literally argued with Alex Jones re: his conspiracy theories. I started this show BECAUSE of the Wedge Document aka Wedge Strategy, authored by who else but The Discovery Institute. I had been warning everyone since that day of EXACTLY what you explained in this video... no joke, every single person I explained this entire thing to, thought I was insane. They thought I was the conspiracist... at that point, the conspiracies we see normalized today were nothing but a few thousand followers on late-night radio like Art Bell, etc... I'd love to talk with you, and discuss this stuff, as I was doing this back in the day, I may have a lot to offer you insofar as connectivity because it goes far deeper than anything you mentioned in here.
Thanks for fighting them early on. And on. And on. I used to laugh at them back in the 1980s-late 1990s in my Presbyterian church, where I was actually taught that the greatest miracle and word of God was learning how science says a leaf works, for example. Now when I think of them, I don't even have the energy to cry! I think of Jesus getting angry at the money changers in the temple. I also think of a video I saw, somewhere on RUclips, of a _Catholic priest_ who belonged to some astronomical wing of the Holy See, getting SO ANGRY at one of them that his bald head shone red against his white, shaking fringe! Sigh. I wish you well.
Seriously internet friend contact Professor Dave as well as the gentlemen of the popular podcast Knowledge Fight (Dan in particular) as Dan has spent years debunking Alex’s absurd claims, and he assisted in the recent lawsuits
@@geekdivaherself " I also think of a video I saw, somewhere on RUclips, of a Catholic priest who belonged to some astronomical wing of the Holy See, getting SO ANGRY at one of them that his bald head shone red against his white, shaking fringe!" Be careful when you accuse someone of having a bald head. Remember 2 Kings 2:23-24. ;-P
Hey Professor Dave, you might not see this, but I just wanted to tell you how important your work is. I'm in high school but, at least i'd like to think, never really believed in any pseudoscience (though my relatives and even my science teachers on facebook would post misinformation about science especially evolutionary biology), but after seeing your videos, I began reflecting about how it's easy for someone unknowledgble to fall for these cults, and how this is much more common than I thought. I even remember watching someone with almost 20 MILLION subs (and most of his fans were young teenagers including myself) who made a video about conspiracy theories and in that video was someone talking about the flat earth "theory". I checked that video now and it currently has 40 MILLION views and all of the comments were supportive; people who didn't even believe in it originally began to believe it after just one relatively short video of nonsense. They were even begging him to start making conspiracy videos about COVID and the vaccines etc (though he didn't probably only because he was taking a break from youtube because he was exposed for being a pedophile, but that's irrelevant here.) I know you probably already know that many people fall for this shit, but I just wanted to say how much more common this is becoming almost everywhere in the world, which is terrifying. Edit: Just some grammar mistakes. I also just realized that the heart gets removed if I edit the comment so there's that lol.
Yeah, Shane and his conspiracy videos are very harmful. As someone old enough to be your parent, it makes me very happy to see our youth embracing the truth and discarding magical thinking. You have a great head on your shoulders, keep it up!
@@Megan-cd6sh You took the words out of my mouth. At Shane's age, I wish I was as informed as this wise person. People like him give us hope for the world.
All of the comments are supportive because they delete ever comment that calls them out on their B.S and they do that while complaining about censorship
The craziest idea is that of any anthropologist, no matter how insanely fraudulent, going whole-ass with a powertool at some fossils, while an onlooker glares at them, and a cinematic camera records them. A fraud would be *careful*, not just jam a grinder into the bone like he's slicing stale bread.
Dave, reading through the comments, it’s uplifting and encouraging to note the number of folks who were rescued from the abyss of anti-science fundamentalism. The world needs more of you, Dave.
@Matt Finish You are a condescending jerk who still believe in God science makes way more sense and yes scientists can make mistakes. Also you know who else can make mistakes creationists and people that believe in God you guys do it all the time half of you don't even live in reality.
@Matt Finish So what is it you don't understand 🤔 Is "leaving an poorly defined Apriori belief system based off watching incredibly clear and coherent demonstrations of people heading such belief, be shown objectively lying in an undeniable, unambiguous and clear way" somehow irrational to you. Was it the side by side clips of the overt Lie and the original PBS original that somehow didn't compute with you 🤔 Also Which one of the countless examples of lying, cheating scientists you have in mind are you specifically thinking of?. Obviously the scientific community is flooding with falsified evidence and scientists are losing their positions left and right as the remaining ones are all corrupt millionares that only pretend to have a school teachers salary for show and only fake live in apartments to hide the thousands of mansions they all own where we can't see them. Surely you would never make these assertions without objective examples to convince me by. No no don't over extend yourself with deep history research, objective examples from just the last 50 years forwards is enough. I'll be waiting in strained excitement 😆
@Matt Finish We don't believe in science. We got education. We accept science. We got evidence. You don't have any education. You don't accept science. You don't have any evidence.
I love how you don't stop at just debunking the fake science but also go into the political implications of this farce of a movement. Stay based, Dave.
As a molecular biologist, I really admire your efforts to debunk all this non-sense that continues to be propagated in our society. These individuals show not only complete misunderstanding of basic evolutionary biology but more importantly, poor understanding of very basic biology. I would be surprised if any of them ever read even introductory textbooks on evolutionary biology, let alone spending some time in the lab doing hands on experiments.
Want your mind blown? Most of them don't even read the Bible either. They're just told this stuff. I've never argued with a single Christian that was using their own thoughts. It's always just the same old rhetoric. They can't even figure out why there's still chimpanzees.
I still remember when I was early in my Anthropology degree, one of my first physical anth classes there were a group of people who sat in the back and didn't talk much. When we went over modern examples of adaptation, the professor was explaining the Peppered moth adaptation during the industrial revolution and one of the guys blurted out "but doesn't that... doesn't that prove evolution then?" I won't ever forget his voice, he was astonished, vulnerable and completely serious. My professor was so great, she calmly and kindly glossed over it with, "Yes, yes it does" and launched right back into her lecture like 😎💅 I know what it's like to grow up being lied to, but I'm very grateful I wasn't taught a visceral fear and hatred of scientific exploration.
@@DartNoobo lol 😆 I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that, but the general idea is the same: 1. everything is accidents and variable mutations; 2. some of those mutations end up being advantageous; 3. If those advantageous mutations end up allowing some members of a species to survive to reproductive age while other members of the species without the mutation don't, then that mutation survives with the majority of the population and members without it can die out. If/when this happens over a long enough period of time and results in a new "species," the species is said to "evolve." (Again, a drastic oversimplification that ignores lots of untidy things like "where are the arbitrary lines drawn that define a species" and "what about when populations are separated and both survive but become different") If you're interested in how cells developed, you might find it fun and useful to look up the hot springs hypothesis on origins of life, which discusses the necessity of lipids. The cliffs notes is that cooperative, dynamic actions by substances with flexible barriers in fluctuating warm/cool/moist/dry areas ultimately resulted in the emergence necessary for pre-life groupings of substances to eventually pave the way toward the first cells. The flexibility of those groups of lipids with their flexible membranes contained the characteristics needed for "sharing" information and change over time which could allow future processes of our earliest cells to change over time to became the cells we now know about on the planet. Again, DRASTIC oversimplification here. But a good place to start! And very interesting stuff. Further reading: David Deamer
@@arich20 i don not think you oversimplified it that much. I get the idea of mutations and advantages. The question is where does complexity come from. Every advantageous mutation i was presented with thus far is caused by damage to DNA, not development of new genes. Like sickle anemia allowing some people to resist malaria. It is a loss of function, rather than gain. So the question is where do new genes come from, and how did simple cell become more complex. Please give me some links to that. As for the theories of how life began, i am more in interested in creating life in laboratory from scratch. Is there any successful experiments with creating life from lipids or w/e, without involvement of more complex already existing molecules?
@@DartNoobo also for the thing you're looking for, I already recommended Deamer - look up his work with Bruce Damer lol I'm not going to curate Google for you but have fun , peace and love fam.
As someone who recently graduated with a BA in Geology, let me just say that Luskin does not represent us as a whole. Considering that he participated in deliberate slander, personally he should have his pHD revoked for participating in slander with religious institution that is known for lying.
Honestly, who knows the best route from here? I could definitely see him getting his credentials revoked as a rallying cry (that tired "IM BEING CENSORED!! line). Ugh. This is exhausting.
What makes Darwin the more remarkable is precisely that he crystallized the early concepts of natural selection on speciation and adaptation before the modern understanding of evolutionary biology and the molecular basis of genetics. In essence he described the machine and predicted it’s behavior before the hood was lifted.
Not only that, he was aware about the limits of his theory, so he wrote on flaws and gaps and anticipated it would need a lot of refinement in the future and space for alternative models. He was the opposite of a bigot.
And what's amazing is that in 150 years of research - including in fields like molecular biology and genetic, that didn't even exist at the time - there has been zero evidence AGAINST his theory. Sure, there have been modifications and improvements to the theory, but in essence it's still valid. That did not have to be the case. It takes a wilful and desperate ignorance to understand that multiple fields of science and 150 years of discoveries all corroborate the theory... and yet still pretend that it's not true.
Yes, I think Darwin was as great a mind as Newton or Einstein. He saw through to the core systems dynamics of biological survival and development without knowing anything about the mechanism of inheritance or the chemistry of living creatures, and without extrapolating stuff to fill in the gaps of his own ignorance.
I think it more amazing that other ppl didnt come to such conclusions before. But, i have heard it say that a true genius isnt someone who invents something new, but someone that sees what is in front of them that others take for granted.
I live with purpose, without a "soul." I'm an emergency dispatch operator, veteran, father, and husband. I wake up every single day hoping I can help ONE person, and I end every day knowing I have. I'm an atheist. I just do that shit to help people. WEIRD, RIGHT?!?
@@wolfetteplays8894 According to many variants of Christianity, good deeds won't get you to heaven - only worshipping the "proper" version of God and following the "proper" rituals (going to church, tithing, etc.) will work. It's nice that your version says that being a good person and helping others, regardless of personal religion, will "likely" get someone into heaven but how do you know your version is the correct one? Maybe our only chance at heaven involves not eating meat on Fridays or not working on the Sabbath (not that there's clear agreement on which day that is).
"They don't let just anyone write a book." - Prof. Dave giving an example of what ordinary people would think. As the people who say that don't realize, it was never true because there have always been "vanity presses" that will print anything if you pay them. Now, with Amazon's e-book Kindle and the ability for anyone to upload a book for publication, essentially anyone can be a published author for zero or almost no cost.
Recently in biology we started going on about human biology, and the first class was about evolution. Loved that the teacher had to say (paraphrasing and translating) "Evolution might not go with your religious beliefs, I am not forcing you to believe it, but you'll at least have to understand it assuming you want to pass."
I might add: since the broader topic of geology embraces a certain amount of paleontology, Dave is incorrect when he says that geology and evolution are unrelated. Understanding fossil evidence in rock strata is an important topic, and a grasp of evolution is essential for that.
@@sandem4515 Geology and Paleontology are not the same thing. Yes, paleontology has principles pulled from geology, but to say that having a PhD in Geology gives you prerequisite knowledge that is equal to or more than a PhD in Paleontology would be stupid.
@@Lamster66 You and @Lunch Trey appear to be responding indignantly to something I did not say. Might I point out that none of the sciences preclude the ability to understand others, nor do they prevent someone from graspIng the principles of reading comprehension.
Belief + snowflake self importance = the "my god beats your god" back and forth that causes wars. They will attack anything that doesn't mimic their own ideologies. It's always shocking to see.
I like the people who insist that the dinosaurs were a pre-human sentient race that sided with the fallen angels. If you're gonna do the wacky, I say go all out!
The ill-named “Discovery Institute” where one of it’s founders Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy. He told the Orange County Register in 1985: "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives." He stated since that "I may have had 'a plan to change American society' once....Now I'm just trying to be faithful with what I have." 1) but given that he pays for the lies the DI pumps out, I doubt this. 1)"Avenging angel of the religious right" By Max BlumenthalPublished January 6, 2004
Dave is like the Doomslayer except instead of demons he mows down pseudoscientific shills, and instead of the Crucible and a chainsaw he wields research and common sense
LMAO TRUE, but people who push pseudoscientific beliefs (wether they really believe in them or are doing it to deepen their pockets) are no different than literal demons, thanks for the analogy it had me laughing for like a striaght minute xD
"The coupling of religious institutions with political ones can turn any religion, even one that preaches peace and love, into a murdering machine." - Professor Dave This is the most concise and accurate statement for the continuation of the separation of Church and state I have ever come across. As a scientist with degrees in Nuclear Engineering and Materials Science, and as a catholic, I would never consent to a state or country run by ANY religious institution, even my own. What the DI is doing here, in stark contrast to their states purpose, is evil. This type of behavior makes me want to scream at the top of my lungs, the sheer denial of demonstrable facts put forward by these charlatans of all stripes, is deplorable and hurts so many people. I know that the stated purpose on your channel is to educate people about science, and that the destruction of science denying institutions is not your primary goal, but I thank you for every one of these videos that you produce. I'll end with a quote, as I began: "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
May I ask how you became catholic? Were you raised in it or convert later in life? I am very curious how someone can be a scientist while also being a theist, I used to be a very devout Christian myself but as I learned more and more about science I had to abandon my religious beliefs, would love to hear your thoughts and beliefs
@@smears6039 I don't mind at all. I was raised in the Catholic faith and had always had an inclination to discovering how things worked. I never felt that the knowledge and information that I gained from my education was forcing me to reexamine my beliefs or to abandon my beliefs as a Christian. I've always felt that in the massive universe that we live in, with the knowledge that we have, the knowledge of what we don't know, and the understanding that there may be some things which we might never understand, there is no reason why there couldn't be a God. It's rather akin to things like dark matter and string theory. These things have inferred to exist, but we don't actually know. I suppose the point is, maybe there are levels of existence that we haven't thought of and aren't aware of, but affect our reality. I just happen to believe in a God, and follow a certain set of beliefs, the core of them being "love your neighbor as yourself". It seems to me that if everyone could do more of that, we'd all be better off. Certainly better off than the people in this video want us to be.
yes, Russia and China is disgusting, as nationalism is disgusting Nationalism, the main dividing factors among men alongside religion. Very very dangerous indeed indeed indeed I wouldn't be surprised this ID thing turns out to be state funded just to exploit American society(which is the literal easiest society to exploit mainly due to the lack of societal deterrence such as nationalism)
I was a creationist for a few years, was really into it too. then one day I just decided to google how radioisotope dating works and the whole charade just fell apart. Love this content!
I was never a creationist, but some 20 years ago I figured that the best way to check the validity of radiometric dating was to see if any industries used it in any practical way... and voila... I found even a helpful website by several Nuclear related groups (IAEA, etc) that outlined the uses of the method.
Used to be a hardline creationist back in the day. Just letting you know that the work you do does make an impact. Keep up the good work! An angle that I’d encourage you to take is to show how a belief in religion does not require a belief in creationism. The reason why so many creationists are hard to reach is because they see an attack on creationism as an attack on their religion.
I think one of the things people struggle with is that they want to consider the Bible inerrant and then conclude they must take it literally. The irony is that the Bible, when taken literally, not only contradicts physical reality in many respects, it also contradicts itself. Whereas if they would view it as a text that is more poetry than prose, where the meaning is between the lines, they could avoid both layers of contradictions. They can't do that, though, because then they would not be able to differentiate it from the holy books of any other religious traditions.
@@fepeerreview3150 I forget who said this, but a well known paleontologist once said, “to take the Bible as literal history is to dilute its eternal meaning.”
@@TheNightWatcher1385 Eternal meaning. Cute. So, tell me, what is the eternal meaning of the story of Lot, or of Romans 1. Anyway, is encouraging/requiring faith loving? I think the eternal meaning is valuable, like our history lessons of WWII and what lead up to it.
Or you can tune your religious friend's to Atheist Experience and learn how there is no god... And then start getting billions of dollars back into the pockets of our society who are struggling praying for something that is never going to happen, and we can have a better chance of saving ourselves on this planet.
I had to stop the video because I lost it laughing when Dave said "In science when you prove a pillar of science wrong you get a Nobel prize." I can't tell you how many times I've tried to explain this sentiment to people who think "science" is trying to cover up "truth". When, in fact, the opposite is true. Want a Nobel prize? Prove something wrong or discover something new. Hahaha, I will be paraphrasing Dave's quote from now on. Edit: I lost it laughing because what Dave said is so undeniably true that's it funny to think anyone thinks otherwise.
Yup. That's why Bednorz and Müller received there Nobel Price within a year after publishing. I have told YECers several times to find me a Cambrian rabbit.
20 minutes in and this is probably my favorite debunking video you’ve ever done. Dave can now join the Creationist Debunking Avengers, other members being Aron Ra, Thunderf00t, GutSick Gibbon, and Emma Thorne. Amazing job as always! Edit: Holy crap that final segment about what Creationists really want and Iran was super compelling. Shows in perfectly simple terms why Creationism is such a threat today.
@@kennethkho7165 I have, though personally I’d say this is WAY more scathing towards creationism than that entire little series with James. It’s either this, or that 15 part series Aron Ra made about David C Pack about the existence of god.
Hi Dave! I love your videos, and am excited to see every new one. I find you to be credible, honest, wildly entertaining, and just plain likeable! I'm an Anti-theist, published author in trucking information, I'm educated, and a debater in Atheist areas. I hold a Bachelor in Psychology, but mostly I'm a trucker, biker, family man, lover of truth and honesty, and have used your information to make points in debates, ROCK ON BROTHER!
It is so horrifying how there are people who are so well funded just blatantly gaslighting the public. Also I just want to say thank you so much for putting all of this together. This is so important.
@@kingjames104 Can you do me favour and exactly tell me what part of the video was pseudo intellectual...? Like the part where he exposes the fact that the DI completely slandered and misrepresented Lovejoy. Or the part where they try to manipulate their audience...? Or the part where they ignore all the evidence...? (Like little foot.) Exactly WHAT part of this video made by Dave was "pseudo intellectual"? Was it the part where he calls out the clear and obvious part of the DI misrepresenting science? Or are you making an accusation (like how luskin made an accusation on Lovejoy, with no evidence and a complete misrepresentation?) that is completely bogus and made in bad faith? This is the exact reason this video was made. To stop fundamental creationist from misrepresenting science and slander. I request, you go to Dave's arguments in the video, and check them. And about the "independent research", you did not specify where and what website to use, or the fact that scientists use complex terminologies to describe things, doing "independent research" is only smart if you know what you are doing. If you dont, you will get idioticly confused in pseudo science like the DI. And thats truly dangerous. You are dangerous.
Your debunking/exposing videos are one of the best things to have ever appear on youtube. Your tone, your deliveries and points are just too good. Sometimes I find myself coming back to these videos just to watch again you demolishing these people, videos that I've watched multiple times.
As a recovering Christian I can tell you that Professor Dave is 💯% spot on. In that spirit, I offer the words of another professor: "He's not afraid of your judgement He knows of horrors worse than your hell He's a little bit afraid of dying But he's a lot more afraid of your lying" -Neil "The Professor" Peart From the song: "The Weapon (Pt. II of Fear)" by Rush. #RushLyricsForEverything🤘🇨🇦😉
I had no idea that Neil Peart was a supporter of secularism until reading this comment, only listened to Rush growing up so I didn't understand the lyrics back then. Though I've considered myself atheist for a while, I hadn't really started exploring these thoughts until recently, and I've felt distant from a lot of (christian) things I was close to growing up. It's really cool and comforting learning that one of my role models growing up had similar beliefs to me!
Truly a peak reference. I can respond only by adding: "Fools and thieves are well disguised In the temple and marketplace" -The Professor From "Faithless" by Rush
I’ve noticed over the years frauds are getting more clever with the angles & psychology they use, hearing they have a institute tho training people to be this way & that it’s becoming main stream , these frauds have never really worried me til now! More than ever the World needs more guys like you Dave, keep up theGood work
To be fair, the whole ruse is so closely connected to 'why people want to believe what', that once you're capable of seeing this from an outside perspective it feels extremely transparent. Like, I haven't watched this whole video, but the moment I see the first excerpt with a guy wearing the V For Vendetta mask and all the visual effects and fake glitches, it all instantly seems so ridiculously naif and childish to me that I could never imagine myself watching that with a straight face. It is honestly like their target is not just people with an anti-authority bias, but among those the ones that see the world in such terms of black and white that even the most ridiculous symbols do not stand out to them as cheap tricks. I don't want to sound elitist or pretentious, but I think that in order to be duped by these shams you probably have to be a person who really wants to believe in them to begin with. Otherwise, you would have to reason that if you distrust authority so much that you could believe in massively bizarre and vague conspiracies involving half the world's population, you should at least apply the same skepticism to the Internet rando who, while speaking completely freely, is weirdly going out of his way to look like a persecuted truth teller even before he starts speaking.
"We are the silent majority, and we will be silent no more." Have you noticed how, the more extreme positions people hold, the more they believe that are representing a HUGE, but somehow silent, majority?
I suspect they have a lot of trouble grasping that not everyone thinks the way they do. That's why a lot of them project their own flaws onto their opposition, hard.
Im from Iran, and I once thought before all this social media that the US being so advanced in every way must have such an intelligent and logical and science minded population to have brought on this advancement, in comparison to my own population which were majorly superstitious stuck in the ways of the past lacking critical thinking skills and so on, after all this social media and getting the feel and news like somebody actually living in the us that image in my mind shattered to a million pieces, I found out (Being completely unbiased) that the US population was not only not superior in those criteria stated, but maybe even inferior. And that baffled my mind, then how come Iran is stuck in such a shitty place and the US is one of the most advanced? And the answer after many hours of thinking, I have come to the conclusion that each of the populations has idiots and has geniuses, only in the US 300 years ago the people who founded it were not idiots and by separating state and religion in the constitution, guaranteed that mostly the idiot part of the population does not get to make decisions for the whole country, but in Iran due to some circumstances like rapid change and historical context among others the population was duped into thinking the idiots were actually the geniuses, and after that the theocratic regime having the experience of a recent revolution clinged on like a serpent wrapping onto its prey and squeezing it firmly so it had no way out and used religion as a tool to first deceive and if that doesn’t work to use it as an excuse to use excessive force on its own population and justify that. That I think is the biggest difference in how the US and Iran turned out to be. Dont try to test what has already been tested. Theocracy leads to destruction and misery, it has been seen in europe and now the middle east and it mostly lead to shit, getting religion the fuk out of government is a recent human achievement, do not let lies convince you otherwise, read history so you wont have to experience it yourself.
This is very simplified cuz I couldn’t write for pages, of course there are many other factors involved, but in my opinion most of those factors also factor into what I have said so I boiled it down.
@@bob_the_bomb4508 lol you mean Donald the atheist who pretends to be religious so his backwards followers will kneel. I wonder what part of the Bible tells you to steal from your own fake charity and run a scam university? 😂🤣😂🤣 Oh and to try and destroy democracy.
@Skydaddy Myth-Busters There is no digital translator that can come remotely close to the cogent, well expressed post that M.G. made. Such translators are very stupid robots that cannot comprehend different meanings of a single word, or actually meaning at all. If you don't know that, then you haven't watched the myriads of robo translations on YT videos.
But trojan horse was able to get in due to blind believers, so iD should not be able to get into science, given science is being performed by qualified scientists 🤔🤔🤔
Do you feel comfortable perhaps doing those of us who admittedly don't understand how those two beliefs can be simultaneously held with a legitimate degree of intellectual honesty? I certainly don't want to come across in any way as if I believed myself somehow capable and/or qualified in any way,or entitled, or, or, or?..to look down my nose at you from high upon mynivory tower climbing high horse, ibdoht
@@jasonmethystine6516 If you buy intelligent design bullshit you are not anti-religious, you're just a very poor liar. Your religion must have taught you that shit.
Your work exposing these liars is incredibly important. We now live in a time where we are more at risk then ever of slipping back to the dark ages or even worse , the Stone Age Thank you you for your service Dave Keep up your incredibly important work . ❤it
Although education is super important, these videos exposing the misinformation and the frauds are equally important. Its good to have people, like you, who point out their bullshit and show why its bullshit. Thank you for your hard work Dave, big fan.
As a teacher in High School Biology, I have been a subscriber to your channel for a long time, both 'Explains' and 'Debunkings' and this video maintains the high standards that I would like my students to emulate. Especially appreciated: your research, evidence and patient, pointed exposition.
Not sure if you'll see this, but since I've started university you've taught me topics related to my course but more than that you've taught me critical thinking and to appreciate what science is for human kind. For that, I thank you
It's so absurd for me, that after everything we learned and accomplished as a species, there are still ppl who are trying to "debunk" science with their mumbo jumbo "evidence"
@@glennpearson9348 yeah, that's true. Personally I would never want to be "special" for a small percentage of ppl, if it would make me a laughable clown for the rest of society. Definitely not worth making a fool out of myself imo
@@Raviell87 That's probably because you already have a circle of friends. From my perspective, most of these whack jobs who are in it to feel special probably don't have many friends outside of their little ring of like-minded whack jobs. They've got nothing to lose, whereas you probably do.
@@OldSchoolZ-wy2yx What's really interesting to me is that many who are preying on the gullible are, themselves, gullible. They've fallen into a rabbit hole, likely led there by someone else, and now they're trying to pull other equally gullible people into the rabbit hole with them. Idiocy, like misery, loves company.
I’m a landscape contractor. If I wrote a book on botany I’d be more in my field than this creationist who wrote a book on evolution. Bet I know more about botany than he does about biology.
As a Christian myself, It’s really interesting to me how many people take the Creation story so literally. All it takes is a few hours worth of study and research on the origin of the Hebrew Bible to know that it was not written as a history book. Numbers have symbolic meaning. Names have symbolic meaning. It was never meant to be a rote description of every step that led to mankind’s existence. Plus, the Hebrew words used in Genesis has been the subject of a LOT of debate among Biblical scholars. Three different words are used, bara (create), asah (make), and yatsar (form). There’s been a lot of debate on were these words used intentionally, to spell out what God created vs what he simply organized, or are they used as synonyms. We don’t really know, but in my opinion it further speaks to the Creation story being a rhetorical device used to communicate a theological idea (what is our relationship with God) and not be a science textbook. It’s intended to communicate that there is a purpose for our being here beyond just simply existing. I’m very proud of the fact that I went to a Christian University that taught evolutionary biology as part of the undergraduate curriculum. It ended up being one of my favorite courses with one of my favorite professors.
Oh, even top Young Earth Creacrapper Ol'Hambo from Answers in Genesis recognizes that the Bible can't always be taken literally. His "logic" is: if the Biblical creation story is not literal history neither is Original Sin and Jesus was crucified for nothing. As a staunch atheist I'll leave it to theologists to rip that apart. I only wish they would that do more often in public. CaseyL though doesn't take the creation story literally. He's okay with a 13,6 billion years old universe and a 4,5 billion years old Earth. He merely rejects evolution theory but never refers to the Bible when doing so.
As an ex-young eather creationist and now an atheist, I can understand why many christains take the creation story literally. If one doesnt, then there are issues to be resolved like "What was the original sin", "Death is necessary for evolution. That being the case, how could death have existed before Adam and Eve if death was the result of their sin", "If its the case that there wasnt actually an original sin, then what was the purpose of Jesus' death". Im not saying there arent answers for these questions, but its these very questions (and some) that kept me a young earth creationist for so long. But, I am glad that you have been able to balance your beliefs with the science. I'll I want is people to accept the science.
I’m blown away by the amount of work that went into what could have been a simple rebuke: you actually emailed the people whose work had been represented, provided clear and concise explanations for every one of your counter-points… Great content, thank you!
When I was a believer I always hated it when so called christians would lie in the name of God. If what we believe is the truth, why lie about it? I no longer believe in any of this religious nonsense, but I look back and I know I would have felt ashamed to see these guys call themselves Christian. I adore these videos! I love seeing these charlatans have their credibility eviscerated. I won't even give them the respect of calling them scientists.
Great, most atheists have no trouble with peoples personal beliefs, but when they lie to "prove" those beliefs and try to stop others it's a problem. Sounds like you have far more integrity than your former fellow Christians.
Professor Dave’s tone is awesome. I love how much shade he can put in normal sentences that are simply laying out facts. Keep up the great and important work!!
I was searching for something like this channel. Most debunkers using only hard science to confront this scourge but, in most cases, completely avoid talking about ideological background and propagandistic methods these ID people rely upon. I like very much what Prof.Dave doing here and especially the unrelenting tone ! I am all for aggressive, attack-mode approach in confronting these fundamentalists and their aggressive agit-prop, conspiracies and deceptions. Well done!
This is the part that most people miss. Those at the top of religious groups don't really have to believe to wield the power of belief. It's disgusting.
The saddest part is religion is such a great coping strategy as it allows for hope in a hopeless world. Just wish the lying would stop. Why not embrace science and move on? They would have so many more followers. I know I'm clumping as a whole and some may embrace but just saying it would be nice to have a majority that did.
4:24 As a writer myself, I can say (with whatever minute amount of authority that gives me on the matter) that there’s plenty of published morons and unpublished geniuses. One of the most deeply mentally unwell and irrational people I’ve ever met was a published author of several books. Crazy people write books all the time! Hell, *most* writers are probably nuts, myself included!
A lot of famous authors had serious mental disorders, and some probably couldn't have been as influential without them. H.P. Lovecraft is likely the most glaring example.
@@wolfetteplays8894 People have been dissing religion for ages, it's just that nowadays those people aren't as likely to be executed by religious institutions. Most religions think they have historical evidence to prove their god/gods to have existed, so is every religion true?
"Everyone in science is trying to prove something wrong." An absolutely necessary point that every single layperson and doubter of science should drill into their brains.
While I'm no lawyer, I _do_ know that slander lawsuits are typically hard to pursue, as you need to prove 'actual malice,' which, in legal terms, basically means that the defendant knew that their statements were false and damaging to the plaintiff's work or reputation, but deliberately did so regardless. In this instance, however, the proof is in the pudding; I think actual malice would be easily proven, should this turn into a legal battle. The question is if it's fiscally worth it.
The "actual malice" standard only applies if the plaintiff is a public figure (like Casey Luskin and Prof Dave). If the plaintiff is a private citizen, like that scientist was, then they only need to show negligence. Source: LegalEagle
@@balam314 Ah, I had forgotten the different stipulations for private peoples. Though I don't know; would the scientist not classify as a public figure?
A close friend of mine had become an evangelist, fundamental Christian and at the same time I had become an agnostic atheist. He has stated multiple times that he’s unwilling to change his mind and when I asked why he said “I just know I’m correct” We would argue a bunch over the course of a couple months (it’s less occurrent now) and I don’t think I will ever get through to him. I’ve presented him with mountains of evidence against creationism and he thinks that it’s all fake, no joke. He thinks that fossils are fake and were either synthetically created or put there by Satan or something. It’s even more frustrating bc he thinks that I’m the stubborn one, even though I’ve stated multiple times that I’m willing to change my mind given evidence. And then he says that I “think too physically and not spiritually” Its so especially frustrating bc we’ve been friends for so long and we’re only in high school and we have all the same friends, some of whom are also tired of his mentioning of Christianity. Even the other Christians in our friend group have to explain basic science to him. I feel like it’s not even worth my time to talk to him about it anymore.
When I took a look at the natural world surrounding us, and the evidence that we came from it, and are still part of it, I realized that the only possible God that could exist would have to be God level depraved. What else could you call a being that created a universe sized snuff flick that it could endlessly wallow In? Experiencing both the terror and pain of the captured prey, and the exultant predator swallowing the hot blood and the quivering flesh in it's jaws? That's what they want to worship? Human beings have done what we can to wall that off. Let us fervently hope that there is no God behind what we see.
This is really outstanding content. You really nailed these charlatans, and I'm really happy with your "big picture" reasoning for doing so. You're right: Nothing stops destructive religious ideas from regressing society to violent "rule by theocratic false authority," except for the fact that, thus far, they've been losing the war for "hearts and minds" to actual science. That should continue, and your work is one of the reasons it is. Kudos.
i do not think they have been losing the war. The religious rather than scientific grounds for the us' roe v. wade ruling is one example of many of what seems to be a massive and horrifying backslide. i've got a ton of anecdotes about idiots coming out of the woodwork in my own life, weaponizing their religious madness with politics, but i know my personal experience doesn't prove anything about the collective.
@@bikeshop2002 I like Norbert Wiener's "Cybernetics" framework. Wiener pointed out that there are all kinds of agency-driven phenomena that use feedback and correction to pursue goals. One thing religious people love to do (it's why many of them are religious, and why many more con-men pretend to be religious) is point out that Christians often obtain good outcomes from either positive thinking or Christian cybernetic networks. (I.e.: "Praise the lord, for he has given Bob a new house after Bob's house burned down" ...but wait...Bob was a member of the church and the church members pitched in and all went to Bob's business and donated to his relief fund...the fact that your cybernetic network bailed Bob out says nothing about the existence of God...it merely says something about the types of people who form Christian cybernetic networks.) One thing Wiener and others have pointed out is that physical reality is governed by different rules than cybernetic networks are governed by, and that the scientist who conducts himself by trying to detect and outsmart devils that don't exist is wasting his time, but that the detective, campaign manager, military strategist, or lawyer who does the same is the only one who prevails, and sometimes the only one who survives. From a cybernetic perspective, your personal experience is valid, and useful for analysis. From a scientific or "physics only" perspective, it's not as useful or valid. ...From a cybernetic perspective, it would be surprising if cybernetics-based heuristics didn't apply to your anecdotes. For example, we can expect religious entities to use feedback and correction to attain goals, and for the nodes in christian networks to have certain kinds of communication that organize their efforts and future beliefs, as well for them to be weak in certain ways... (I.e. "how much do the network nodes refer to the Bible?" ...Are they subject to communications that better reference the Bible, or better reference their feelings of conscience?) Also, I should mention that anecdotes are politically powerful, and that the king of using anecdotes for political gain was Ronald Reagan. (Most were never corroborated, but were "highly realistic." The man lied without compunction, because he knew that "anecdotes force someone who thinks you are 80% honest to believe your anecdote words are 100% honest." ...They either happened[100%], or they didn't happen at all and you're 0% honest. It forces a binary judgment. ...And...usually...people keep listening.) My aunt actually verified a similar event to Reagan's "welfare queen" apocryphal anecdote...but she was in Chicago, working with people on welfare at the time...Reagan only ever passed through...and couldn't give any date or other corroborating evidence for his claims. ...But did he say, "I have hazily updated my worldview with thousands of partial events that have a similar overall theme"? No. He told a story. I hope what I've said is of some use to you. Religion is a great force for evil in this world. Not so much in what the individuals in the churches are doing, but because the churches will never fight the prison profiteers and incumbent government ...lest they lose their tax-exempt status. Why stand for right when you can enrich yourself and win personal comfort? It's a very common problem among the churches. ...And, as you've noted...they're often more corrupt in extremely overt ways that directly contradict the best scientific and medical information that's available.
With a reason. Creationists are fundamentalists - their notions of religion and morality are closely interlinked. To them, all good things stem from God - and without God, there can be no morality. So a materialist world view, to them, is simply /evil./ It's a rejection of God, of the very notion of right and wrong. Non-belief threatens civilisation itself. If materialism 'wins' then it would mean a time when the bible is ignored and everything is permissible and the world shall fall to a chaos of savagery and violence. If people don't believe in the bible, how will they even know that murder is wrong? It's the sort of view that can only exist to people who never actually talk to a non-believer. And are proud of never having dirtied themselves in such a manner.
@@vylbird8014 Totally agree with your comments. And that is why "lying for Jesus" doesn't seem to bother them. The ends seem to justify the means, regardless of what the Eighth Commandment says. And to think they accuse non-believers of moral relativism.
As someone who holds a PhD (in geophysics for anyone interested) - it simply does NOT matter what ANYONE says - PhD or not. What matters is what they can get published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. There is quite simply no support in the scientific literature or the available observational evidence for: Young Earth Creationism Flat Earth Intelligent design Climate denialism The existence of the human soul As such, these hypotheses can be discarded.
Wow Dave, thank you so much for covering this. I cannot imagine how Dr. Lovejoy must feel upon this revelation. Thank you for including his comment on the matter. I always find it hard to wrap my mind around people's willingness to engage in magical thinking past a certain age. Although I suppose that the fear of being insignificant and essentially pointless leads these fools to all sorts of strange conclusions. Being so willing to lie and slander, and for what? For what? As an aside, I absolutely love your videos, Dave. Not only your debunking videos but also your straightforward educational ones where you don't have to eviscerate anyone. You remind me very much of my brother. He too is insanely sharp, wry and very very funny. Thank you for providing such quality content and educational information for free for anyone willing to listen and learn.
@@johnboettcher1962 Yes, appreciate the difference, but the man in question did discuss - and even held a seminar on - the double-think he needed to be a Christian evolutionist. As I said, a very good man all round, but I had already dropped the religious mindset I was raised with in Wales. And note that there are geologically trained creationists out there. Steve Austin comes to mind.
Pride and willful ignorance. The human mind is incredibly capable of compartmentalization, and it's hard to find a better example of this than with highly educated, conservative religious people. They may be erudite and highly capable of critical thought in a narrow field, but when it comes to matters that challenge what they consider sacred, their minds become endarkened and their behavior abominably zealous.
Professor Dave debunks creationism: a blessing from the lord. Jokes aside, this was a very detailed and onest video and I can't wait for Dave to debunk the next "internet revolutionary"👍.
@@WilsonFox123 How would you describe a conspiracy video? I imagine the essential foundation of a conspiracy would require secrecy. Suppose you and I made a video to conspire a delivery of Baskins-Robbins ice cream to Vladdy-the-Baddy in Russia, and it was seen by 49,000 viewers. I am sure you would agree that ambitious haft-wits could remain, but we should remove competent conspirators from our Personal Résumé.
An age taken from the margin of the Bible, not even from the body of the text. To be a Young Earth Creationist, you have to believe that The Almighty waited until the 16th C CE before "inspiring" John Lightfoot of Cambridge and Bishop Ussher of Armagh to calculate the date of Creation. (Ussher gets the credit, even though Lightfoot got there first!). You also need to believe that the publication of these dates in subsequent printings of the King James' (Authorised) Version elevated them to "Gospel Truth". Ironically, by all accounts, neither Ussher or Lightfoot were charlatans; they did not take all those BC genealogies through arcane twists and turns to prove a point (something modern Creationists are quite good at). They were not trying to disprove science. No doubt there were errors of interpretation, and perhaps errors of omission. There were certainly difficulties in aligning events according to the Julian, Gregorian, and Hebrew calendars, as other scholars have pointed out. We often think of the Enlightenment as the beginning of modern science, but in the 17th century it was still nascent, and in a state of almost continuous tension with approved church doctrine. Ussher and Lightfoot may have been sympathetic with the emerging science (I’m not sure historians really know this), but they were also immersed in theological tradition. They took the information that was available and used it in a scholarly fashion.
@@alanthompson8515i think it should be added that back then religion was seen as scientific and all scientists perceived themselves as operating within religious scope when doing said science. Might be a bit of an oversimplification, but you get my point. Not that it makes them any less credible though. As Dave has also previously said, they were operating at a time when we didn't yet have an idea of the modern day laws of nature. Not to mention it was in the past, so it requires a careful, considerate approach.
I just remembered that I actually have seen the actual fossil specimen in Ethiopia of Lucy. It's just mind boggling how someone would completely fabricate something like that. Discovery Institute needs to be charged and sued.
Your conclusion is so important. Every time religion and government become the same, horrible things happen. It is irrefutable history. Thank you for what you do, and keep up the good work.
Something very unrelated to the video conclusion and unneeded info: The mask (Guy Fawkes mask) comes from the franchise 'V for Vendetta' and not the hacker group anonymous (they in turn based it on 'V for Vendetta') but it was popularized by the hacker group and is therefore sometimes refereed to as 'anonymous mask'. I guess Casey Luskin sees himself as Guy Fawkes, here to "blow up" the 'evolution biology community'.
All in all that is quite fitting given that Guy Fawkes was basically a fundamentalist who wanted to reestablish Cathlic rule over England by blowing up the house of lords including King James, the senior judges of the English legal system and most of the Protestant aristocracy. If anyone made a poor choice in regards to masks, it was Alan Moore.
Well, all theistic religions are faith based, which intrinsically means it relies on and encourages rationalizations of wishful thinking in the place of arguments, so indoctrination isn't considered abusive in religion, which is it. Religion paints it as helpful, which it isn't; it's still abusive. Anyway, I'm too lazy to preach or write a book. Please just think about it and try and prove me wrong. Sure, in the clinical sense, something isn't considered pathological when it's culturally normalized, just as religious delusions are not counted as delusions because they're expected to be widespread. A clinical diagnosis isn't based purely on facts, but on context, but when a person leaves a religion and then talks to a psychiatrist, psychologist, or therapist suddenly their experience _is_ considered delusional and abusive. An abusive god that gaslights, love bombs - the perfect narcissistic partner. So let's just stick with what we would find abusive and not limit ourselves to professional views of someone in our out of a religion.
Do you know what’s proper sad? In order for people like Luskin to find all these mined quotes, they have to have read through tons of material, and must therefore know at least some of the content. They must know that they’re wrong. It just makes their lies that much more brazen.
Actual scientists have to do that as well before starting their research. So their work is not that hard. But of course they're lying. When pointed out that they get something wrong they never correct it. Never. And willfully repeating an error equals lying.
@@therru5943 They're already being accused of hiding the truth and their work is being deliberately misrepresented in order for their accusers to *actually* hide the truth. Put a couple of apologists in the poorhouse and watch the rest of these con-artist cockroaches decide that this is too dangerous a route to go down.
What I like most about Dave's debunking videos is that ultimately his point is always to just not force your own ideas onto science. This includes Religion, Pseudoscience, thought leaders, and other things. You can believe whatever you want, but if you try to force science to change to match your beliefs, that's when the hammer comes down.
@@blastfromthepast7119 Is that the reason? Or was it more likely that ignorant tools took their ignorance to the comment section? I'm guessing it's the latter. For the record, I've seen enough of Jesse to know that he's a fucking moron of epic proportions, so anything he says is pure bullshit. He's either stupid, a liar or both.
No, I turned off the comments because I got tired of explaining basic logic to the dumbest people alive. That's you. People dumb enough to defend an Uncle Tom who grew up in the Jim Crow south but says that racism doesn't exist. You're as dumb as flat earthers and you need to know that about yourself so that you shut the fuck up forever. You're scum.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains idk but when You say things like this, it really hits, knowing that You taught people. So um yeah, thats probably cause i would never expect that from my teacher for instance
The 'Burn' of DI contributors was amazing. I found particularly interesting, the 'extra' commentary giving clarity (and the terrible history) about separation of Church & State, especially in these divided times - Lest We Forget ! Amazingly comprehensive , I share the gratitude of your many viewers for all your tremendous efforts.
To be fair, paleontology and geology are actually pretty closely related. Fossils are remains that have mineralized, and a huge part of understanding the timeline of our earth requires a knowledge of geoscience. The rock layers of earth are what we use to learn about the evolutionary history of life on earth. Frankly I can’t fathom learning so much about geology and still being a creationist, you’d really have to plug your ears and sing loudly to avoid overwhelming evidence of evolution. (Not as many schools offer specific paleontology programs and degrees as ones that offer geology. Many paleontologists have geo degrees)
You know, the usage of a Guy Fawkes-inspired mask is oddly fitting. The historical Guy Fawkes’ motivation in trying to blow up Parliament was to institute a theocratic absolute monarchy, a motivation that aligns well with the long-term goal of the astroturf movement the DI represents.
Professor Dave continually puts out the simultaneously most entertaining AND educating debunk videos on RUclips. Keep the hits coming, Dave. If you save just one person from the poison that is religion and its lies, it was all worth it.
We need to change more than one person from religion to save democracy. The US Supreme Court is going to overturn Roe v Wade. Where does that come from?
@@wandasimpson1656 Zealotry. I'm not suggesting that saving one person saves us from that zealotry. Rather, I'm suggesting that Dave's efforts here are worth it if just one person adopts reality instead of fantasy. Plus, you know, Professor Dave is hardly the only purveyor of hard truths that those who live in magic land hate to hear. It's a concerted effort on all out parts to eradicate irrationality from public domains.
Please take on some big names like Michael Behe (irreducible complexity) and William Dembski (specified complexity). Always fun to watch them get ripped apart.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Excellent. Keep up the good work! Don’t let anyone tell you minds can’t be changed on these topics. I used to believe in creationism and was argued out of it. It can be done!
Behe and Dembski absolutely merit some attention. At least these two have backgrounds appropriate to the sorts of issues they discuss. They are wrong, of course; because of their academic qualifications, they should know better. Behe is more problematic, IMO, because he's pretty good at writing for popular audiences.
If evolution is so wrong then why do these creationists always have to cherry-pick, omit, or just straight up lie? If their evidence of creationism was so overwhelmingly obvious then why would they do that? Maybe cuz they’re wrong? Hmm 🤔
Woah Prof Dave manages to pack maximum damage into all his debunking videos!! Straightforward, concise and easy to understand! I'm impressed and grateful for you!
I find it incredibly strange that a geologist, though he may not have specialized knowledge in evolutionary biology, would still be willing to believe in some of the consequences that are necessarily implied by intelligent design. It reminds me of that PhD paleontologist who believed in young earth creationism. Of course, it is strange that someone with a PhD in any field of science could believe in such things, although for a geologist to do so is particularly strange, moreso than a synthetic chemist, perhaps.
Most PhD people actually don't understand how SCIENCE work (they don't know history of science of humans in general ==> They are busy with their daily "life" ==> Most of them know and understand some math so i believe they still would "choose" science, but they usually don't think like "scientists" (idk if it make sense for you). ==> Dave has this scientific approach, also Dr Joscha Bach (cognitive science, most coherent storyteller), Dr Michael Levin (Bioelectricity - really great "new" things, wouldn't surprise if this guy would win Nobel prize in future for this), with physic and math you can really make sense of this madness ¯\_(ツ)_/¯¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@Hecarim420 "Most PhD people actually don't understand how SCIENCE work (they don't know history of science of humans in general " - I think you are referring to pretend universities. All PhD at my university, even the stupid lying theologians got a mandatory science 101 course. Granted they did not understand it, but most other students did.
Most IDiots don't have any problem with an old earth. Luskin is one of them. They have a problem with "Darwinian evolution", ie evolutionism. Don't ask what the difference is with their own brand of evolution. IDiots never clarify. These people are such big liars that they even claim that they accept evolution. Mickey Behe, famous for the Kitzmiller-Dover trial and the irreducable mousetrap, even accepts common descent. Everything is OK with them as long as you reject evolution theory.
As a Catholic biology & evolution nerd, I feel obliged to say many - perhaps most - Christians aren't this ignorant to science. Science and faith often work hand-in-hand when referring to the objective reality; the discrepancies lie in the fact that most science does not deal with philosophy, mythology, symbolism, or metaphysics, but rather is as you referred to it: materialism. Interesting video btw! 🙌
In Canada, most European countries and the USA it's definitely most. I'd appreciate it if more christians spoke out against creacrap, like Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller and Judge Jones. Creacrappers are just loud mouthed fanaticals.
The thing is, Most often religion and science do not go hand in hand. And more things we discover more they will diverge, trying to imply that religion specifically christianity fits into science is just blatant ignorance
@@erinys2 you might find the majority of the religious and scientists will disagree, because most fo not accept pure materialism - to do so is considered "blatant ignorance" in the regards of many. I hope we can come to have fair discourse on the objective matters and not throw insults. How would you feel about that?
@jamesm.9285 I did not mention what they believe, I simply stated that religion and science do not go hand in hand, Its interpretation could be but whats objectively Known Generally doesent hint at anything religious, simply stating that theres no material evidence And they are completely different fields, Also i am not insulting you personally In any way just stating what this sort of thinking is to me (also many things from the bible actively go against Scientific theories, Creationism for example,but if we're reffering to general faith and using bible as a metaphor the previous point stands)
I think a lot of folks (myself included) mostly considered the religious right sidelined back in the late 2000s when their biggest political win in the US, George Bush's 2 terms in the presidency, was soundly rejected. But if the past few years have taught us anything, the religious right isn't a problem that goes away when they lose a couple of presidential elections. Their political power is strongest on the state level in fact as we've seen with the waves of right wing religious bills on abortion, trans rights, and what kind of history can be taught in schools (which is something they have more leverage on atm but should just be seen as the opening salvo in a broader assault on secular education). My one suggestion though is when speaking to an anglophone audience, don't give them an out by only citing countries this audience tends to view as "others" as the potential bad trends we can head towards. While Iran and Afghanistan are bad theocracies, I think it's a bit easy for those in the west to go "they're underdeveloped" or "haven't gone throw an enlightenment" (the 2nd one being flat out wrong of course, but commonly believed) and therefore think the threat isn't as real in the West. Example like Poland's gay-free zones and increasing authoritarianism, the return of influence and oppression of the Russian Orthodox church in modern Russia, and vitally, the slew of state level bills in the US are hard, inescapable evidence that even developed, post-Western enlightenment faces threats of returned theocracy. I'd encourage using local examples where possible to make sure folks can't fall back on lazy tropes about other cultures to dismiss the problems of their own societies.
oh for sure, our "chrisitian nationalism" here in America is by an order of magnitude, more dangerous to our country than any muslim country or jihadist organization. The enemy is in our midst.
As a Christian, these folks have always bothered me. I mainly just wish they would stop marketing themselves as scientists and instead as “natural theologians”. It’s obviously not science and it’s a bit offensive to claim to be so.
It's not natural theology either. Not anymore at least. All modern academic theology (institutes like Biola don't count) accepts evolution theory. I write this as a staunch atheist.
Hey everyone, it has come to my attention that some people are having trouble with the audio for the PBS Nova doc segments. This is very confusing to me, it works just fine on every single one of my devices. Luckily I later show the transcript for these sections so you can read that, or the subtitles, but I think if you mess around with headphones and/or plug in speakers and/or try other devices everyone should be able to get it to work one way or another. I'm not sure how to fix this, otherwise I would delete and reupload. Sorry for the inconvenience!
Hey Dave, just wanted to say that I'm with you on everything but minimize the character and motive analysis. Many people who disagree with you use this as an excuse to accuse you of Ad hominem attacks and thereby discard your objections. Others just call you arrogant or rude.
Regardless of whether they are even remotely correct, I suggest you just focus on the argumentation, as that is the main show in their circus and flood them (no pun intended) with evidence. I just think it's unjust for such content to be unappreciated because people find it "mean". Thanks for everything you've done.
If you give people a mirror, some will turn away and hide, but some will have the courage to look and change.
Awesome video !
@@Gxlto unfortunately, cherry picking is a common trope of YEC argumentation.
It needs to be called out for what it is whenever it happens.
Dave, I did indeed hear very little when playing those segments. My device is a simple tablet. But after plugging in headphones the audio was acceptable.
Perhaps the 2 audio channels were merged on the (single) speaker on my tablet, and they canceled each other out.
I am a recovering evangelical christian. I believed them hook, line, and sinker. To escape, I actually had to get divorced. I am so appreciative of channels like this. Thanks for helping to keep me sane and educating me.
wow.. religion can really suck :(
There are many more that combine science and education with refuting religious claims, for instance Aron Ra, Pauologia, Viced Rhino, Gutsick Gibbon, Forrest Valkai, Conspiracy Catz, SciManDan (on tinfoil tuesday), Emma Thorne, Skep Tick, Thunderf00t.
@@jordan7634 "all of these people are cringe. Their arguements are weak" - ha ha ha. You believe in god, without any evidence. That is cringe. You don't even have an argument, not even a weak one. That is super cringe. You did not dare to watch this video. That is pathetic.
@@jordan7634 Nah scimandan is nice
@@jordan7634 Why?
Had a high school biology teacher who said" You enter my class naive. You leave either informed or belligerently stupid " .Love that guy.
Sounds like Mr. Sutcliffe. My 10th grade bio teacher. 😂
Hard to argue against that. Just as long as he backed up with facts his position.
i call it intentional ignorance, but i think i like his phrasing better 🤣🤣
Haha
My high school biology teacher said about evolution "I have to teach this but we all know where we really come from." Then we spent one hour "learning" about evolution.
Thank you, Dave.
A friend of mine had become a full creationist again after finding Discovery Institute, and when I showed this video, he immediately apologized for falling for the lies and promised to check sources the next time. I just wanted to type this so you knew that your video does have an affect, even on people formerly part of their fanbase.
Now that's what I call progress!
What does your friend flip flop world views every time he watches a RUclips video? Sounds like it. I'd hate for him to see a debate, his head will be spinning believing both people after each response!
@@SoulDelSol Uh, no? He was sucked into Discovery Institute over the course of months, watching every video they made as far back as 2020. Then when I showed him this video proving all of those videos did nothing but lie blatantly to his face, he realized truth. This is completely normal, and happens all the time. Want an example?
You meet a Wing Chun "master" who says Wing Chun is the best martial art ever. He shows you several demonstrations where his paid actors fly across the room with slight little slaps to the neck, and then when Xu Xiaodong comes along and TKOs him in three hits, you realize you were lied to and move on a bit smarter.
It really just seems like you wanted to insult my friend more than anything, though, so I doubt you care about what I typed.
Your friend sounds fairly untethered to a rational assessment of reality. Would not be surprised if your friend invests in the next multilevel marketing scheme to pass by.
@@flyfree78644 Most people don't have a rational assessment of reality, especially nowadays, but unlike most he at least tries to better himself. As for investing anything, he doesn't trust the stock market at all.
Creationists not agreeing on whether a fossil is a human or ape is the funniest thing in the world. They are basically admitting that the find is transitional.
That's a linguistic argument.
@@ballasog How?
@@nemanjalazarevic9249 The human/ape argument among creationists is: I define human like this; I define ape like this; this does/doesn't meet my definition. Membership in a broadly defined category doesn't mean anything, especially one defined the way creationists define it - based on what they want to say are humans or apes.
How? When a fossil is almost completely destroyed how are to tell if it belongs to one animal or another? You do realize that almost all animals on earth share some similarities to one degree or another depending on the species.
@@kingjames104Genetics, Phisiology, Biology and other sciences work together to get a possible idea. The nearest to reality.
Speaking to a Catholic priest many years ago, he cautioned me to beware a new version of creationism. He literally said "You'll hear it as Intelligent Design and they will pretend it's science. It an attempt by evangelicals to repackage creationism. It is neither Intelligent nor God's design...it's bullshit" I was left rather stunned by this most vehement denial of ID by a man of the cloth.
Is it though? The pope has said that the devil isn’t real. Neither is hell. This has been said by men of cloth
Maybe you were stunned however, it isn’t that stunning when you look into the Vatican and prior behaviors of prior popes
@@lsrpjune3500 This is true.
Damn son
@@lsrpjune3500 There is a lot of us Catholics that do not believe in hell or the devil. We believe in good and evil and a higher power ,science and human evolution. Many Catholics could give a shit about the pope. Much of this new religion is a cult. Woke is a cult also.
I'm an evolutionary biologist and behavioral ecologist - I like to read DI articles just to keep tabs on what these people are saying so I can keep on top of rebutting them when students bring it up. I appreciate the work you've put into this, this will be a great resource to point people towards if they're DI fans.
-Knowing your opponent, you can fight 100'ths of battles without loosing.
@@qurkatimilaz3787 👌
Have you listened to Stephen C Meyer’s videos? He has a good one with Michael Shermer.
I do the same. I'm a scientific literacy and biology professor. My students quite often come to me with arguments that they have heard and I already know where they get them from. Sometimes, students will send me links directly to DI or AIG. It's very upsetting but I keep my cool and take the time to show them how they are being deceived.
@@DrReginaldFinleySr respect+
Loosing your mind is not worth it.
it is utterly disgraceful to admit that this kind of content is actually vitally important to be produced, in this day and era. thank you for stepping up and doing it so brilliantly.
no mercy, Dave. go for them!
@Hellfire LWD And Occam's razor!
*Gimli voice* “…AND MY AXSHE”
What makes it vital in your eyes? What are the potential repercussions you see?
@@milesmungo The answer to your question is pretty clearly stated near the end of the video (about 34:30 )… did you watch the whole thing?
@@Csizzorhandz ditto.
I would also add that this context not only applies to some random religious nuts, it is much wider than that. disinformation is a plague. combine it with illiteracy and apathy, and all you need to pave the road to political extremism (far left or far right - same shyte different flies) is a moderately charismatic "leader".
so, YES. I would say that accurate, unbiased information based on good, sound data is vital, in order to make informed decisions. as is exposing any sorts of snake oil salesmen. it's common sense. and it does not require, at all, to abandon any given faith.
I appreciate your work. I used to be an evangelical pastor. The road out of the religion was costly and painful in many ways.
Towards the end you are trying to encapsulate the motives and goals of these people. That is hard to do as it is so multifaceted. Certainly fear of mortality is a major tool they work with.
You are doing something valuable and for some will give a huge gift of joy. Let me explain that with a personal anecdote:
Not long after departing the faith, I took my binoculars out one night and for the first time spotted the Andromeda Galaxy. I suppose for any astronomy lover that can be a great moment. For me is was symbolic: I was able to embrace the truth: that the light travelled 2.5 million years to get here, unaided by a deity lying about creating an fakely-old universe 6,000 years ago.
It was an emotional high for me, similar to the "come to Jesus moment" the evangelicals promote. The difference being that falling in love with curiosity and truth starts a life full of many such joys.
I think you are an enabler of this joy for many. Humans thrive in curiosity and truth: you help bring this to people.
When even you, an ex pastor agree, its a clear sign this is a masterpiece
I really love your comment. It's a great thing to find the beauty and joy of the world as it is.
Are you still Christian though?
Congratulations man. Welcome to the beautiful world of the truth :)
Come back to Jesus. Don’t let Science cause you to go away from him. The Bible is not a Science book, it’s not important whether he created the Earth 4 billion years ago or 6000. He still loves you and wants to save you. That’s why he came to Earth and die for your sins. But death could not hold him, in 3 days he ressurected from the dead and appeared to his disciples and many other people.
His disciples went around the world preaching the Gospel, living in poverty and enduring persecution, and finally getting killed for their faith just so you and me can hear this beautiful message of love and salvation.
So please I beg you to come back to Jesus Christ. He loves you and wants to save you, not to make you believe in 6000 ur old earth.
If you have any questions please feel free to ask me
Peace✌️
Really cool how you managed to get in contact with the misrepresented scientists and gave them a chance to correct the record!
For the most part you could contact the actual scientists yourself and when you mention that you are not a scientist but rather just some random person that has questions the overwhelming reaction from the scientist is going to be excitement that you contacted them.
@@vestafreyja yeah, I really like letting people info dump to me about something they’re really passionate about. I’d imagine it’d be even more exciting for a scientist to both educate a lay person and also get to ramble about something they’ve put so much time into without having to use a certain type of language. It’s just so fun to see that sparkle in their eye or the enthusiastic way they speak or punctuate their sentences. Tangents are a plus, so much extra info I didn’t ask for and yet am always to happy to receive.
And when people let me info dump to them about biology? It’s one of my favorite things! I’m not formally educated in it, I’ve just learned a lot through RUclips and looking up random scientific papers for fun! I’m actually 15 years old, and I’m not enough of a prodigy to already be in a university. However, I do plan to become a biology teacher after I get a PhD in basically any type of biology. I might even minor in paleoanthropology or something similar. Just any science, really. It’s so intriguing to me, and I love that anyone who studies hard and works harder could become a big name in any scientific field. Equal opportunity for all!
But yeah, I’d love to get in contact with any scientist. It’d be such a great chance to learn, as well as give me a stronger starting point when I go into formally studying science. I try my best to not be the most lay lay person, if that makes any sense. I know this comment wasn’t towards me, but it just got me really excited to see and I decided to throw in my own two cents, for fun.
@@Limepopsicle07 EFF YEAH BIOLOGY!!!
A friend I made while nerding out with them about marine biology and realistic mermaids has just started work into a job that, if everything goes well, is going to do GMO stuff to create antigens and things!!! I love to hear about their new job and all the funky things they know, and I may be using their academic access to get to a bunch of research papers just to fuel my science nerdery so I kind of drag them along on my adventures.
Best of luck to you about achieving your dream, kiddo! (i'm 35 let me be old)
(in case you wonder: one of my story settings has "deep-sea" (technically they can go anywhere including survive space for a few hours, like bigger and slightly less indestructible tardigrades) merfolk who were engineered from ancient sea-butterfly-like gastropods about 250 million years ago by an alien war bioweapons designer who turned her DNA and RNA-editing skills to creating basically a "mega-keystone" species who instinctively step in as stopgaps to reverse human destruction of species and habitats and mitigate environmental disasters)
That's always my fav bit of what Dave does.
@@Limepopsicle07 I'm 66, in my youth I was considered to be a child prodigy having completed my primary school education in 9 years, started university when I was 15 and for the next 13 years earned BSc in Psychology with a minor in Biochemistry, BSc & MSc in Computer Science and PhD in Computer Science and Engineering. When I was earning my BSc's I took courses ranging literally from A to Z (Anthropology, Archaeology, Astronomy, Biology, Classics (Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman history and mythology), Chemistry, Genetics, Geology, Geophysics, Logic, Mathematics, and Zoology). Being 15 when I started university was bit of a bummer as I could not legally head to the campus pub until I was half way thru my final semester of my first degree. ;-)
I truly envy you as you start out on your academic journey, based upon what we have learned over the last 50 years and trying to project what we will know in the next 50 years is truly stupefying. For example you having a smart phone the computing power in such a common place device has more computing power that all the computers used on all the Apollo missions. When I was 15 we had no evidence of other planets around distant stars; now we have a huge catalog of planets orbiting distance stars. The image of dinosaurs from 50 years ago was that they were little more than cold blooded reptiles; now the image has been radically updated.
When talking or interacting with Scientists you will often get some of the most interesting information when they go off on a tangent. The passion the scientist has for their particular field is almost contagious and when they are interacting with a interested lay person it is like the cherry on top of a Sundae.
- So, Casey, what's your favorite lie?
- I don't lie!
- Yeah, that's my favorite as well....
:)))))))))
😂😂🤣
What I love about Professor Dave is that he does not even try to hide his contempt for these absolute charlatans, fraudsters, grifters, and outright criminals. He straight up calls them what they are, and you can hear his seriousness in his vocal inflection. So many debunkers of these liars shy away from outright labeling them as the criminals they are.
Fight on, Dave. You're doing amazing work with academic outreach and combating disinformation on this platform.
True, but sometimes it just comes across as borderline abuse, and that doesn't make him look good.
@@Cheepchipsable That's a question of strategy. Dave's strategy is mostly appropriate.
I agree. The creationist content creators, as the flat earth content creators, as all the science deniers, are crooks, whose only purpose is to rob ignorant people. To the end, they also seek to ensure that as many people as possible are ignorant, and they are quite successful in that regard in places such as the USA.
(I use "content creator" without prejudice.)
@@Cheepchipsable The people he's talking about deserve the "abuse" though. For the record I don't find it to be abuse in my opinion, but a perfectly reasonable response to these liars and grifters. Do you think that every view carries the same weight and should be given the same amount of consideration? We can't give these charlatans any leniency, because their views are stupid and destructive and have no place in an educated world.
@@Cheepchipsable people who purposely lie, spread misinformation and look to stall the progression of humanity by demonizing science deserve to be dealt with swiftly and harshly, being that this seems to be the only methodology that affects them and their followers
I'm always amazed that a group of people who hold themselves out to be moral authorities are constantly lying.
Pretty sure God didn't like defamation. His son had some choice words about that are probably against terms of service.
@@thunderflare59 Noone knows if this deity actually exists, but you know what the deity thinks about a certain topic? How does that make any sense?
Amen!
@@volker2714
I think he was taking the theist perspective in jest. That is, the bible says lying is bad.
it's the concept of AUTHORITY that poisons the well. Once a person is considered an authority, especially in religious circles, they're deemed unquestionable. They're the most powerful entity that has ever existed. This is exactly what they think of their deity, the ultimate AUTHORITY.
This basic concept and required tenet of their ideology corrupts their thought processes which infect most of their day-to-day lives
Prof. Dave, I’m a conservation biology undergrad who sometimes has a hard time formulating my rebuttals to this type of absolutely ridiculous anti-science argumentation. Thank you so much for helping me organize these points! You’re awesome!
The problem with this is they go around prepared to get into an argument and typically dance all around people because you're not trained to fight that because your learning to be a scientist not a buricrat
Take some philosophy courses. Science and philosophy are wonderful together because A) it gets you thinking, and B) you’ll get really good at forming arguments
Honestly, if you wanna get good at these kind of debates, start beefing with people on forums. Topic doesn't matter, but you get a free "debate" opponent and some of them will argue in circles forever, which is also great for learning how to control the overall discussion and how to cut through BS and get to the point. They could be anyone, so it also forces you to practise articulating your thoughts such that most people could understand them
Trust me i was as average as anyone, then i moderated a large forum for like 8 years and occasionally trolled people on RUclips and now ill argue about anything with anyone
@lukev4613 That is actually a really good idea. I basically do the same thing in RUclips comments
@@mingledingle1556 Science is the daughter of philosophy, so of course they go well together, totally agree
I love how you contact the actual researchers for these videos. Not only does it support everything you’re saying and show the dishonesty of creationists, but it also helps your audience see that science is accessible and open. I really love all the work you do with science literacy
I know right! It’s one of my favorite things to see. Having things be open and accessible is useful to so many people, especially something as crucial as science! You don’t need a formal education to learn about science (although that’s always a plus), you just need a drive to learn. And boy howdy is it fun when you finally do get to.
Science is one of my personal passions, but I’m not old enough to get a formal education, so I stick to studying hard in my science class, taking good notes, and listening to videos about science on RUclips. Hell, might as well start taking notes on science videos, too! I go to a private Christian school and, since Creationism is being pushed on Christian youth more and more, most of my friends and pretty much every Christian who goes there isn’t being given fully correct information. Luckily, the science teachers aren’t pushing *Young* Earth Creationism, and I’ve had a couple of good conversations with them when trying to correct the more dogmatic things that they teach due to their somewhat misplaced trust in their church leaders and online sources (seriously, my biology teacher showed a Genesis Apologetics anti-human evolution movie clip in class and I wrote so many criticisms on a sheet of notebook paper that I ran out of space in the margins, and I’m a lay person).
When I become a biology teacher, I’m gonna try my best to fight against the rampant Creationist dogma in Christian circles. I’m not personally a Christian, but so many of my friends are (I’m in the United States’ Deep South) and so are most people I’m acquainted with, and it’s sad that they are fed misinformation and form incorrect views about the world based on that “education.” I’ve been trying to have more productive conversations about their misinformed opinions, and it’s actually working in most cases. I’m trying to get one of my friends into Gutsick Gibbon’s channel, since she has quite a few good anti-YEC videos that I find very informative, and soon I’m gonna send her Professor Dave’s biology series, since it was really informative to me in places where my school education either hasn’t reached or hasn’t covered very well.
Being able to help others with their personal scientific literacy is very rewarding for me, since teaching has always been somewhat of a passion of mine, and seeing the gears in their head turning and their eyes lighting up when they start to understand what I’m trying to say always makes me happy. That reaction may take a little while, but some of my friends have gotten into things like workers’ rights and general equality because of my urging.
One of my friends even wants to try starting a big tech business and be the CEO while also not stealing from their paychecks to line his own pockets. He’s very passionate about it. We recently had a career day at our school, and he started talking to the guy who was telling us about IT work about his tech business dream. Just hearing him talk about it made me so happy, since there was that little selfish happiness of “I taught him that.”
I know that was off-topic, I’m just trying to say that Prof. Dave here has inspired me to actually pursue teaching as a future job rather than just having it as a hobby, since I want to do some of what he does in helping inform lots of people. I urge anyone reading this to also watch more of his content, it’s so good and always very informative. His slight hostility towards people he is debunking is simply because they are lying, and, in science specifically, that is possibly the worst thing you can do. Spreading misinformation and causing scientific illiteracy is a horrible thing, and he is right in going after their fraudulent behavior while also correcting the things they are lying about. Prime example: his videos on James Tour. Some of the things he says don’t make a ton of sense to us lay people, but he does a very good job explaining those concepts through examples.
Anyways, sorry for the rant, I tend to get super enthusiastic about something and then I go way off topic. TLDR: I 100% agree and Prof. Dave’s videos inspire me to teach and inform others with things I learn from his and similar creators’ content.
@@Limepopsicle07 with your goal in mind you would be helped by also learning about the Hellenistic influence on Christianity and how embedded parables limit the ability for biblical sources being literal. Getting some good exposure to history and development of theology will also help you wean people onto a scientific approach without directly challenging their ability to retain a core faith. The old adage about leading horses to water but not being able to make them drink can be resolved if you take the horse on a long walk in the sun of enlightenment. The trick is to make them thirsty by the time you arrive at the trough.
@@baconghoti You know about the Hellenistic stuff too! You have no idea how hype I am to see people address that-- there's a LOT of stuff that comes from Aristotle's ideas on how things work that got co-opted into Christian "logic".
I only know it in vague passing (I'm researching christianity for a fantasy story) because a lot of Christian and Hellenistic philosophy is present in Alchemy, and cracking the code on that's accidentally caused me to stumble on a bunch of doors my possible ADHD couldn't resist opening.
there more to the influence than just how they thought about things as it influenced how they disseminated 'truth'. Hellenic mysticism has the concept of outer and inner and secret knowledge. Outsiders can be shown a 'diluted' truth obscured by wrapping it as a parable or fable. As one gets closer to the centre one would shown a different way to understand the parable bringing one closer to the truth until eventually the parable was removed and the 'truth' was stated clearly. By quizzing someone on their understanding of a parable the differing answers would reveal how initiated the queried was without revealing the core mystery. Another aspect can be seen in the bible and that is the evolution of the Christian god itself. At the beginning it is a personal humanesque god of the tribe, one among others. Then it becomes the only true God amongst godlings and finally the one and only contending against incarnations and agents of it's lesser adversary - Satan. This happens at a time when Greco-Roman expansion occurs. For them other gods and religions are not squashed, but some gods are elevated and certain gods must be honored at certain times. Sometimes certain gods are demonized to weaken sociopolitical power of opponents giving rise to state and public gods and household or personal gods. However they do not deny other gods exist, just their relative power and influence. The Abrahamic faith during the Roman Empire goes one further and enforces that followers must not only foreswear loyalty to all other gods, but also deny they are really gods at all or ever have been. This elevation to a singular supreme being dramatically improves the religion's uptake and reduces apostasy.
If you are researching a religion's implementation I would recommend Aron Ra's Quran for the Infidel series. It is a walkthrough of Islam in order of revelation where he is helped to understand it mainly by atheists and apostates raised in Islam. Some of the apologists involved can be quite difficult to deal with, but they only last a couple of episodes before being dropped. I recommend it as it is not only is it essentially Christianity 2.0, but should also give you an insight on how to look at Christianity yourself in a critical mein for your story. GL in your research.
@@WilsonFox123 er,.clearly no.
My physical anthropology 101 prof walked into class on day 1 and before introducing himself said "I will not answer any questions regarding creationism, you have 30 seconds to pack up your things and drop this class if you can't accept these terms, I will not repeat myself." He waited 30 seconds, noone left so he introduced himself and started class.
Then he is not a true professor, if he is not going to accept someone that disagrees.
@@Terminator550 so an astronomy professor that has his class interrupted by a flat earther every year has no right to address his class that if you don't believe the earth is a globe you are wasting everyone's time and should drop the class, has no right to do that?
@@akiblue A professor does not have that right. You cannot dismiss ideas you disagree with and ask those that have those ideas to drop out of the class.
A professional professor will establish the rules in the classroom.
Part of that clarification would be to inform every student that no interruptions will be tolerated. If such interruptions occur, the disruptor will be asked to leave the classroom.
Having the tile "professor" does not give permission to ask students to drop out of the class simply because they might disagree with the professor. Higher level of education is supposed to allow disagreeing opinions to be discussed, within reason.
@@Terminator550 you can absolutely, as a professor, tell somebody that they are not qualified for their class and they will fail if they continue. If you have a challenge to the science, that you wish to hypothesize, you will do it in your thesis to be scrutinized by experts in the field, probably in a post doc not in a 101 anthropology class. You have to know the science before you can challenge it. Two virgins aren't going to "experiment" the very first time they have sex. They'll do it till they find limitations to what they are doing then experiment.
@@akiblue The discussion is if a professor should tell students to drop out of his class if they disagree with some of the topics taught.
Your first comment stated that you had a professor that told your class that anyone that believes in creationism must drop out of the class-such arrogant behavior that indicates a lack of understanding of the science supporting that claim.
Now you are going off on a tangent stating that students that disagree will have to writes a thesis and have it evaluated by those that likely share the same bias as the professor you have mentioned in your comments.
Students should be allowed to ask questions about creationism when the class allows for open class discussion.
A student should not be excluded from the class for having a few opinions that goes against a professor’s stance on certain subjects in science.
Nothing mentioned above gives reason that students that have different opinions are somehow not qualified to take a class in one of the many disciplines of science.
If the tables were turned, and a professor of astrology told his class that all atheists that did not agree with any of the creationist models should leave and drop out of the class-that would be wrong for that professor to do so.
I've actually had a creationist cite the Lucy pelvis alteration as evidence for pseudoscience. He also portrayed Lucy as the only specimen found to support claims. Thank you for this.
While I agree the DI is optimizing deceptive knowledge tactics indicating epistemic injustice, it is equally inappropriate to claim there are no dogmas in science. Science has dogmas and this has been explored in a variety of academic scholarship on the philosophy of science. Popularly, it is Thomas Kuhn who is attributed for developing the 4 phases model of scientific progress in which he explicates scientific progress by the stages of pre-paradigmatic science, normal science, crisis, and scientific revolution. Leaving aside later scholarship and the developments in the problem of demarcation, it is similarly a lie to claim science cannot be dogmatic. We rely on theoretical dogmas to make reliable predictions until they have been exhausted; there are no perfect theories. Therefore, some of the utterances are similarly biased towards mainstream positivism but it is nonetheless interesting
While I agree the DI is optimizing deceptive knowledge tactics indicating epistemic injustice, it is equally inappropriate to claim there are no dogmas in science. Science has dogmas and this has been explored in a variety of academic scholarship on the philosophy of science.
Popularly, it is Thomas Kuhn who is attributed for developing the 4 phases model of scientific progress in which he explicates scientific progress by the stages of pre-paradigmatic science, normal science, crisis, and scientific revolution.
Leaving aside later scholarship and the developments in the problem of demarcation, it is similarly a lie to claim science cannot be dogmatic. We rely on theoretical dogmas to make reliable predictions until they have been exhausted; there are no perfect theories.
Therefore, some of the utterances are similarly biased towards mainstream positivism but it is nonetheless interesting
Crazy that you made this video... in the early 1990s, having made my professional start building internet tech (coding applications, servers, etc...) I built a small internet radio show, in which I literally argued with Alex Jones re: his conspiracy theories.
I started this show BECAUSE of the Wedge Document aka Wedge Strategy, authored by who else but The Discovery Institute.
I had been warning everyone since that day of EXACTLY what you explained in this video... no joke, every single person I explained this entire thing to, thought I was insane. They thought I was the conspiracist...
at that point, the conspiracies we see normalized today were nothing but a few thousand followers on late-night radio like Art Bell, etc...
I'd love to talk with you, and discuss this stuff, as I was doing this back in the day, I may have a lot to offer you insofar as connectivity because it goes far deeper than anything you mentioned in here.
Please email me and give me all the details! professordaveexplains@gmail.com
Thanks for fighting them early on. And on. And on.
I used to laugh at them back in the 1980s-late 1990s in my Presbyterian church, where I was actually taught that the greatest miracle and word of God was learning how science says a leaf works, for example.
Now when I think of them, I don't even have the energy to cry! I think of Jesus getting angry at the money changers in the temple. I also think of a video I saw, somewhere on RUclips, of a _Catholic priest_ who belonged to some astronomical wing of the Holy See, getting SO ANGRY at one of them that his
bald head shone red against his white, shaking fringe!
Sigh. I wish you well.
Seriously internet friend contact Professor Dave as well as the gentlemen of the popular podcast Knowledge Fight (Dan in particular) as Dan has spent years debunking Alex’s absurd claims, and he assisted in the recent lawsuits
@@geekdivaherself " I also think of a video I saw, somewhere on RUclips, of a Catholic priest who belonged to some astronomical wing of the Holy See, getting SO ANGRY at one of them that his bald head shone red against his white, shaking fringe!"
Be careful when you accuse someone of having a bald head. Remember 2 Kings 2:23-24. ;-P
@@ralphreinert HAH! Yeah, you don't want wild bears ripping you apart. However, I think that only happens if you call a prophet a baldy.
Hey Professor Dave, you might not see this, but I just wanted to tell you how important your work is. I'm in high school but, at least i'd like to think, never really believed in any pseudoscience (though my relatives and even my science teachers on facebook would post misinformation about science especially evolutionary biology), but after seeing your videos, I began reflecting about how it's easy for someone unknowledgble to fall for these cults, and how this is much more common than I thought. I even remember watching someone with almost 20 MILLION subs (and most of his fans were young teenagers including myself) who made a video about conspiracy theories and in that video was someone talking about the flat earth "theory". I checked that video now and it currently has 40 MILLION views and all of the comments were supportive; people who didn't even believe in it originally began to believe it after just one relatively short video of nonsense. They were even begging him to start making conspiracy videos about COVID and the vaccines etc (though he didn't probably only because he was taking a break from youtube because he was exposed for being a pedophile, but that's irrelevant here.) I know you probably already know that many people fall for this shit, but I just wanted to say how much more common this is becoming almost everywhere in the world, which is terrifying.
Edit: Just some grammar mistakes. I also just realized that the heart gets removed if I edit the comment so there's that lol.
Yeah, Shane and his conspiracy videos are very harmful. As someone old enough to be your parent, it makes me very happy to see our youth embracing the truth and discarding magical thinking. You have a great head on your shoulders, keep it up!
@@Megan-cd6sh
You took the words out of my mouth. At Shane's age, I wish I was as informed as this wise person. People like him give us hope for the world.
All of the comments are supportive because they delete ever comment that calls them out on their B.S and they do that while complaining about censorship
This is nice to read.
Use quilbot to correct grammar
I used to think the Discovery Institute was just clownish and dumb. Now I'm convinced they are truly sinister.
All three. Plus dishonest, hypocrite and stupid.
They've been sinister from the getgo just read the wedge document thier goal is outright tyrannical christofascist theocracy.
The craziest idea is that of any anthropologist, no matter how insanely fraudulent, going whole-ass with a powertool at some fossils, while an onlooker glares at them, and a cinematic camera records them. A fraud would be *careful*, not just jam a grinder into the bone like he's slicing stale bread.
It certainly feeds their projection.
That gave me a good laugh.
Dave, reading through the comments, it’s uplifting and encouraging to note the number of folks who were rescued from the abyss of anti-science fundamentalism. The world needs more of you, Dave.
@Matt Finish You are a condescending jerk who still believe in God science makes way more sense and yes scientists can make mistakes. Also you know who else can make mistakes creationists and people that believe in God you guys do it all the time half of you don't even live in reality.
@Matt Finish
So what is it you don't understand 🤔
Is "leaving an poorly defined Apriori belief system based off watching incredibly clear and coherent demonstrations of people heading such belief, be shown objectively lying in an undeniable, unambiguous and clear way" somehow irrational to you.
Was it the side by side clips of the overt Lie and the original PBS original that somehow didn't compute with you 🤔
Also Which one of the countless examples of lying, cheating scientists you have in mind are you specifically thinking of?. Obviously the scientific community is flooding with falsified evidence and scientists are losing their positions left and right as the remaining ones are all corrupt millionares that only pretend to have a school teachers salary for show and only fake live in apartments to hide the thousands of mansions they all own where we can't see them.
Surely you would never make these assertions without objective examples to convince me by. No no don't over extend yourself with deep history research, objective examples from just the last 50 years forwards is enough. I'll be waiting in strained excitement 😆
@Matt Finish That is quite a ridiculous statement and no one in the scientific community thinks that way
@Matt Finish Don't project your insecurities onto others.
@Matt Finish We don't believe in science. We got education. We accept science. We got evidence. You don't have any education. You don't accept science. You don't have any evidence.
I love how you don't stop at just debunking the fake science but also go into the political implications of this farce of a movement. Stay based, Dave.
As a molecular biologist, I really admire your efforts to debunk all this non-sense that continues to be propagated in our society. These individuals show not only complete misunderstanding of basic evolutionary biology but more importantly, poor understanding of very basic biology. I would be surprised if any of them ever read even introductory textbooks on evolutionary biology, let alone spending some time in the lab doing hands on experiments.
They’ll tell you they don’t need to understand because it’s Gods will…
Want your mind blown? Most of them don't even read the Bible either. They're just told this stuff. I've never argued with a single Christian that was using their own thoughts. It's always just the same old rhetoric. They can't even figure out why there's still chimpanzees.
@@rachelnyn5543they'd still burn ppl at the stake if you let them.
I just realized I've only been telling everyone that Luskin is a godawful liar for about 16 years. I hope this finally sinks in.
Well there's a name I haven't seen in a while...
Thank you for your work, professor!!!
Nice to see you PZ! Keep up the good fight, sir. - Formerly, The Infidel Guy, now Biology Professor. 🙂
Great work Mr Myers..thanks for your efforts.
@@brettvv7475 Like ebola, every now and again it pops up.
oh boy, Professor Dave debunking biblical literalists on Easter.
Stop. I can only get so hard
You beat me to it. Lol I wonder of he timed this on purpose lol
You mean THE FEAST OF ISHTAR!?
This is good friday. Easter is coming sunday
@@EdwardHowton
Yes. And I’m making fun of the crackpots.
I still remember when I was early in my Anthropology degree, one of my first physical anth classes there were a group of people who sat in the back and didn't talk much. When we went over modern examples of adaptation, the professor was explaining the Peppered moth adaptation during the industrial revolution and one of the guys blurted out "but doesn't that... doesn't that prove evolution then?" I won't ever forget his voice, he was astonished, vulnerable and completely serious.
My professor was so great, she calmly and kindly glossed over it with, "Yes, yes it does" and launched right back into her lecture like 😎💅
I know what it's like to grow up being lied to, but I'm very grateful I wasn't taught a visceral fear and hatred of scientific exploration.
So moth can change ıt's color and this is how single cell evolved into the world we got today?
@@DartNoobo lol 😆 I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that, but the general idea is the same: 1. everything is accidents and variable mutations; 2. some of those mutations end up being advantageous; 3. If those advantageous mutations end up allowing some members of a species to survive to reproductive age while other members of the species without the mutation don't, then that mutation survives with the majority of the population and members without it can die out. If/when this happens over a long enough period of time and results in a new "species," the species is said to "evolve." (Again, a drastic oversimplification that ignores lots of untidy things like "where are the arbitrary lines drawn that define a species" and "what about when populations are separated and both survive but become different") If you're interested in how cells developed, you might find it fun and useful to look up the hot springs hypothesis on origins of life, which discusses the necessity of lipids. The cliffs notes is that cooperative, dynamic actions by substances with flexible barriers in fluctuating warm/cool/moist/dry areas ultimately resulted in the emergence necessary for pre-life groupings of substances to eventually pave the way toward the first cells. The flexibility of those groups of lipids with their flexible membranes contained the characteristics needed for "sharing" information and change over time which could allow future processes of our earliest cells to change over time to became the cells we now know about on the planet. Again, DRASTIC oversimplification here. But a good place to start! And very interesting stuff. Further reading: David Deamer
@@arich20 i don not think you oversimplified it that much. I get the idea of mutations and advantages.
The question is where does complexity come from. Every advantageous mutation i was presented with thus far is caused by damage to DNA, not development of new genes. Like sickle anemia allowing some people to resist malaria. It is a loss of function, rather than gain.
So the question is where do new genes come from, and how did simple cell become more complex. Please give me some links to that.
As for the theories of how life began, i am more in interested in creating life in laboratory from scratch. Is there any successful experiments with creating life from lipids or w/e, without involvement of more complex already existing molecules?
@@DartNoobo why do you think all mutation is about damage?
@@DartNoobo also for the thing you're looking for, I already recommended Deamer - look up his work with Bruce Damer lol I'm not going to curate Google for you but have fun , peace and love fam.
As someone who recently graduated with a BA in Geology, let me just say that Luskin does not represent us as a whole. Considering that he participated in deliberate slander, personally he should have his pHD revoked for participating in slander with religious institution that is known for lying.
Honestly, who knows the best route from here? I could definitely see him getting his credentials revoked as a rallying cry (that tired "IM BEING CENSORED!! line). Ugh. This is exhausting.
An undergrad? Wow aren't u special.
What makes Darwin the more remarkable is precisely that he crystallized the early concepts of natural selection on speciation and adaptation before the modern understanding of evolutionary biology and the molecular basis of genetics. In essence he described the machine and predicted it’s behavior before the hood was lifted.
Not only that, he was aware about the limits of his theory, so he wrote on flaws and gaps and anticipated it would need a lot of refinement in the future and space for alternative models. He was the opposite of a bigot.
And what's amazing is that in 150 years of research - including in fields like molecular biology and genetic, that didn't even exist at the time - there has been zero evidence AGAINST his theory. Sure, there have been modifications and improvements to the theory, but in essence it's still valid.
That did not have to be the case. It takes a wilful and desperate ignorance to understand that multiple fields of science and 150 years of discoveries all corroborate the theory... and yet still pretend that it's not true.
A great thinker, indeed.
Yes, I think Darwin was as great a mind as Newton or Einstein. He saw through to the core systems dynamics of biological survival and development without knowing anything about the mechanism of inheritance or the chemistry of living creatures, and without extrapolating stuff to fill in the gaps of his own ignorance.
I think it more amazing that other ppl didnt come to such conclusions before.
But, i have heard it say that a true genius isnt someone who invents something new, but someone that sees what is in front of them that others take for granted.
I live with purpose, without a "soul." I'm an emergency dispatch operator, veteran, father, and husband. I wake up every single day hoping I can help ONE person, and I end every day knowing I have. I'm an atheist. I just do that shit to help people. WEIRD, RIGHT?!?
Perhaps. I am as weird as you.
Doesn’t matter, atheist or not, you will still have judgement day nonetheless. You likely will still get into heaven though with all you’ve done.
@@wolfetteplays8894 Oh thank God. Wolflette Plays says I'm getting in to heaven. (triumphet kazoo)
@@Sagan_Blandard20XX haha that had me cracking up 😄
@@wolfetteplays8894 According to many variants of Christianity, good deeds won't get you to heaven - only worshipping the "proper" version of God and following the "proper" rituals (going to church, tithing, etc.) will work. It's nice that your version says that being a good person and helping others, regardless of personal religion, will "likely" get someone into heaven but how do you know your version is the correct one? Maybe our only chance at heaven involves not eating meat on Fridays or not working on the Sabbath (not that there's clear agreement on which day that is).
"They don't let just anyone write a book." - Prof. Dave giving an example of what ordinary people would think. As the people who say that don't realize, it was never true because there have always been "vanity presses" that will print anything if you pay them. Now, with Amazon's e-book Kindle and the ability for anyone to upload a book for publication, essentially anyone can be a published author for zero or almost no cost.
Sure enough the IDiots from Seattle have their own vanity press.
Yea well that's the point he was making... It was sarcasm
Recently in biology we started going on about human biology, and the first class was about evolution. Loved that the teacher had to say (paraphrasing and translating) "Evolution might not go with your religious beliefs, I am not forcing you to believe it, but you'll at least have to understand it assuming you want to pass."
My daughter is a geology professor in a bible belt state, and that's exactly what she has to tell the undergraduate classes.
I might add: since the broader topic of geology embraces a certain amount of paleontology, Dave is incorrect when he says that geology and evolution are unrelated. Understanding fossil evidence in rock strata is an important topic, and a grasp of evolution is essential for that.
@@annk.8750 Fossils came to my mind as well when I said that it didn't involve evolution.
@@sandem4515 Geology and Paleontology are not the same thing. Yes, paleontology has principles pulled from geology, but to say that having a PhD in Geology gives you prerequisite knowledge that is equal to or more than a PhD in Paleontology would be stupid.
@@Lamster66 You and @Lunch Trey appear to be responding indignantly to something I did not say. Might I point out that none of the sciences preclude the ability to understand others, nor do they prevent someone from graspIng the principles of reading comprehension.
These creationists can’t even agree among themselves on a single lie. They attack each other on whose version is the Biblically correct version.
Hilarious isn't it? Looool 😭😭😂😂😂
@@jaymac7203 It'd be way funnier if they didn't have a following and more people joined us in the laughter.
Belief + snowflake self importance = the "my god beats your god" back and forth that causes wars. They will attack anything that doesn't mimic their own ideologies. It's always shocking to see.
@@jaymac7203 would be if they didn't control the government
I like the people who insist that the dinosaurs were a pre-human sentient race that sided with the fallen angels. If you're gonna do the wacky, I say go all out!
The ill-named “Discovery Institute” where one of it’s founders Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy. He told the Orange County Register in 1985: "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives." He stated since that "I may have had 'a plan to change American society' once....Now I'm just trying to be faithful with what I have." 1) but given that he pays for the lies the DI pumps out, I doubt this.
1)"Avenging angel of the religious right"
By Max BlumenthalPublished January 6, 2004
It is this terrifying push by radical fundamentalists that keeps me active trying to counter their theocratic propaganda.
Thank you for bringing this person out of the shadows he's been standing in.
@@jefftheriault3914 Thanks, but I did basically nothing. Dave Farina is doing all the work.
Dave is like the Doomslayer except instead of demons he mows down pseudoscientific shills, and instead of the Crucible and a chainsaw he wields research and common sense
It wouldn't hurt for for him to wield a B.F.G.!
LMAO TRUE, but people who push pseudoscientific beliefs (wether they really believe in them or are doing it to deepen their pockets) are no different than literal demons, thanks for the analogy it had me laughing for like a striaght minute xD
@@robertjackson1813 well, it wouldnt hurt *him*
Teach and Expose, until it is done~
"The coupling of religious institutions with political ones can turn any religion, even one that preaches peace and love, into a murdering machine." - Professor Dave
This is the most concise and accurate statement for the continuation of the separation of Church and state I have ever come across. As a scientist with degrees in Nuclear Engineering and Materials Science, and as a catholic, I would never consent to a state or country run by ANY religious institution, even my own. What the DI is doing here, in stark contrast to their states purpose, is evil. This type of behavior makes me want to scream at the top of my lungs, the sheer denial of demonstrable facts put forward by these charlatans of all stripes, is deplorable and hurts so many people.
I know that the stated purpose on your channel is to educate people about science, and that the destruction of science denying institutions is not your primary goal, but I thank you for every one of these videos that you produce. I'll end with a quote, as I began:
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
May I ask how you became catholic? Were you raised in it or convert later in life? I am very curious how someone can be a scientist while also being a theist, I used to be a very devout Christian myself but as I learned more and more about science I had to abandon my religious beliefs, would love to hear your thoughts and beliefs
@@smears6039 I don't mind at all. I was raised in the Catholic faith and had always had an inclination to discovering how things worked. I never felt that the knowledge and information that I gained from my education was forcing me to reexamine my beliefs or to abandon my beliefs as a Christian. I've always felt that in the massive universe that we live in, with the knowledge that we have, the knowledge of what we don't know, and the understanding that there may be some things which we might never understand, there is no reason why there couldn't be a God. It's rather akin to things like dark matter and string theory. These things have inferred to exist, but we don't actually know. I suppose the point is, maybe there are levels of existence that we haven't thought of and aren't aware of, but affect our reality. I just happen to believe in a God, and follow a certain set of beliefs, the core of them being "love your neighbor as yourself". It seems to me that if everyone could do more of that, we'd all be better off. Certainly better off than the people in this video want us to be.
yes, Russia and China is disgusting, as nationalism is disgusting
Nationalism, the main dividing factors among men alongside religion. Very very dangerous indeed indeed indeed
I wouldn't be surprised this ID thing turns out to be state funded just to exploit American society(which is the literal easiest society to exploit mainly due to the lack of societal deterrence such as nationalism)
I was a creationist for a few years, was really into it too. then one day I just decided to google how radioisotope dating works and the whole charade just fell apart. Love this content!
I was never a creationist, but some 20 years ago I figured that the best way to check the validity of radiometric dating was to see if any industries used it in any practical way... and voila... I found even a helpful website by several Nuclear related groups (IAEA, etc) that outlined the uses of the method.
@@davidbutler1857 what's the link?
God youre pathetic, hahaha
Yeah, carbon dating has been a topic of complaining for many decades, in the 1970's Josh McDowell "debated" using the argument that it's not accurate.
@@2degucitas Only by creationists
Used to be a hardline creationist back in the day. Just letting you know that the work you do does make an impact. Keep up the good work! An angle that I’d encourage you to take is to show how a belief in religion does not require a belief in creationism. The reason why so many creationists are hard to reach is because they see an attack on creationism as an attack on their religion.
I think one of the things people struggle with is that they want to consider the Bible inerrant and then conclude they must take it literally.
The irony is that the Bible, when taken literally, not only contradicts physical reality in many respects, it also contradicts itself. Whereas if they would view it as a text that is more poetry than prose, where the meaning is between the lines, they could avoid both layers of contradictions.
They can't do that, though, because then they would not be able to differentiate it from the holy books of any other religious traditions.
@@fepeerreview3150 I forget who said this, but a well known paleontologist once said, “to take the Bible as literal history is to dilute its eternal meaning.”
@@TheNightWatcher1385 Eternal meaning. Cute. So, tell me, what is the eternal meaning of the story of Lot, or of Romans 1.
Anyway, is encouraging/requiring faith loving?
I think the eternal meaning is valuable, like our history lessons of WWII and what lead up to it.
@@stylis666 WWI and WWII and the upcoming WWIII are largely the result of the death of the concept of objective moral truth.
Or you can tune your religious friend's to Atheist Experience and learn how there is no god... And then start getting billions of dollars back into the pockets of our society who are struggling praying for something that is never going to happen, and we can have a better chance of saving ourselves on this planet.
I had to stop the video because I lost it laughing when Dave said "In science when you prove a pillar of science wrong you get a Nobel prize."
I can't tell you how many times I've tried to explain this sentiment to people who think "science" is trying to cover up "truth". When, in fact, the opposite is true. Want a Nobel prize? Prove something wrong or discover something new.
Hahaha, I will be paraphrasing Dave's quote from now on.
Edit: I lost it laughing because what Dave said is so undeniably true that's it funny to think anyone thinks otherwise.
Yup. That's why Bednorz and Müller received there Nobel Price within a year after publishing.
I have told YECers several times to find me a Cambrian rabbit.
The Nobel prize that thing they gave to Obama while he was droning women and children the day.
20 minutes in and this is probably my favorite debunking video you’ve ever done. Dave can now join the Creationist Debunking Avengers, other members being Aron Ra, Thunderf00t, GutSick Gibbon, and Emma Thorne. Amazing job as always!
Edit: Holy crap that final segment about what Creationists really want and Iran was super compelling. Shows in perfectly simple terms why Creationism is such a threat today.
@@thefrznrose me too, he's one of my favorites
@@kennethkho7165 Try Sir Sic for an added dose of irreverent humor
@@kennethkho7165 I have, though personally I’d say this is WAY more scathing towards creationism than that entire little series with James. It’s either this, or that 15 part series Aron Ra made about David C Pack about the existence of god.
How Could you not mention potholer54 🤨
Potholer54 is the true elite.
Hi Dave! I love your videos, and am excited to see every new one. I find you to be credible, honest, wildly entertaining, and just plain likeable! I'm an Anti-theist, published author in trucking information, I'm educated, and a debater in Atheist areas. I hold a Bachelor in Psychology, but mostly I'm a trucker, biker, family man, lover of truth and honesty, and have used your information to make points in debates, ROCK ON BROTHER!
I'm also a trucker 26 years now. Nice to meet yo
Keep on truckin'
Thank you so much for doing this entire series.
I regret clicking on your channel
@Emre Yeşildağ Hey, good to see you!
It is so horrifying how there are people who are so well funded just blatantly gaslighting the public. Also I just want to say thank you so much for putting all of this together. This is so important.
I suggest you do your own research not this pseudo intellectual clickbait.
@@kingjames104
Can you do me favour and exactly tell me what part of the video was pseudo intellectual...?
Like the part where he exposes the fact that the DI completely slandered and misrepresented Lovejoy.
Or the part where they try to manipulate their audience...?
Or the part where they ignore all the evidence...? (Like little foot.)
Exactly WHAT part of this video made by Dave was "pseudo intellectual"? Was it the part where he calls out the clear and obvious part of the DI misrepresenting science?
Or are you making an accusation (like how luskin made an accusation on Lovejoy, with no evidence and a complete misrepresentation?) that is completely bogus and made in bad faith?
This is the exact reason this video was made.
To stop fundamental creationist from misrepresenting science and slander.
I request, you go to Dave's arguments in the video, and check them.
And about the "independent research", you did not specify where and what website to use, or the fact that scientists use complex terminologies to describe things, doing "independent research" is only smart if you know what you are doing.
If you dont, you will get idioticly confused in pseudo science like the DI.
And thats truly dangerous.
You are dangerous.
@@kingjames104I certainly did. I'm sorry I didn't get back to you earlier to reveal the truth. God bless you for proving evolution is true.
If creationists cared about the truth, they wouldn't be creationists.
Well put
The only honest theists I’ve met are ex-theist.
@Michael Gerard that’s why they are ex theist duhhrr
Your debunking/exposing videos are one of the best things to have ever appear on youtube. Your tone, your deliveries and points are just too good. Sometimes I find myself coming back to these videos just to watch again you demolishing these people, videos that I've watched multiple times.
@@williamduke2743 I'll rephrase. DEMOLISHING them.
As a recovering Christian I can tell you that Professor Dave is 💯% spot on. In that spirit, I offer the words of another professor:
"He's not afraid of your judgement
He knows of horrors worse than your hell
He's a little bit afraid of dying
But he's a lot more afraid of your lying"
-Neil "The Professor" Peart
From the song: "The Weapon (Pt. II of Fear)" by Rush.
#RushLyricsForEverything🤘🇨🇦😉
I had no idea that Neil Peart was a supporter of secularism until reading this comment, only listened to Rush growing up so I didn't understand the lyrics back then. Though I've considered myself atheist for a while, I hadn't really started exploring these thoughts until recently, and I've felt distant from a lot of (christian) things I was close to growing up. It's really cool and comforting learning that one of my role models growing up had similar beliefs to me!
Did you recover back to Christianity or what?
Truly a peak reference. I can respond only by adding:
"Fools and thieves are well disguised
In the temple and marketplace"
-The Professor
From "Faithless" by Rush
So how are you recovering alongside science? I assume not too well lol. Science and Christianity are two different things. Keep religion out.
Great shout out to 'The Professor on the drumkit'. RIP...
I’ve noticed over the years frauds are getting more clever with the angles & psychology they use, hearing they have a institute tho training people to be this way & that it’s becoming main stream , these frauds have never really worried me til now!
More than ever the World needs more guys like you Dave, keep up theGood work
To be fair, the whole ruse is so closely connected to 'why people want to believe what', that once you're capable of seeing this from an outside perspective it feels extremely transparent.
Like, I haven't watched this whole video, but the moment I see the first excerpt with a guy wearing the V For Vendetta mask and all the visual effects and fake glitches, it all instantly seems so ridiculously naif and childish to me that I could never imagine myself watching that with a straight face. It is honestly like their target is not just people with an anti-authority bias, but among those the ones that see the world in such terms of black and white that even the most ridiculous symbols do not stand out to them as cheap tricks.
I don't want to sound elitist or pretentious, but I think that in order to be duped by these shams you probably have to be a person who really wants to believe in them to begin with. Otherwise, you would have to reason that if you distrust authority so much that you could believe in massively bizarre and vague conspiracies involving half the world's population, you should at least apply the same skepticism to the Internet rando who, while speaking completely freely, is weirdly going out of his way to look like a persecuted truth teller even before he starts speaking.
"We are the silent majority, and we will be silent no more."
Have you noticed how, the more extreme positions people hold, the more they believe that are representing a HUGE, but somehow silent, majority?
I suspect they have a lot of trouble grasping that not everyone thinks the way they do. That's why a lot of them project their own flaws onto their opposition, hard.
Im from Iran, and I once thought before all this social media that the US being so advanced in every way must have such an intelligent and logical and science minded population to have brought on this advancement, in comparison to my own population which were majorly superstitious stuck in the ways of the past lacking critical thinking skills and so on, after all this social media and getting the feel and news like somebody actually living in the us that image in my mind shattered to a million pieces, I found out (Being completely unbiased) that the US population was not only not superior in those criteria stated, but maybe even inferior. And that baffled my mind, then how come Iran is stuck in such a shitty place and the US is one of the most advanced? And the answer after many hours of thinking, I have come to the conclusion that each of the populations has idiots and has geniuses, only in the US 300 years ago the people who founded it were not idiots and by separating state and religion in the constitution, guaranteed that mostly the idiot part of the population does not get to make decisions for the whole country, but in Iran due to some circumstances like rapid change and historical context among others the population was duped into thinking the idiots were actually the geniuses, and after that the theocratic regime having the experience of a recent revolution clinged on like a serpent wrapping onto its prey and squeezing it firmly so it had no way out and used religion as a tool to first deceive and if that doesn’t work to use it as an excuse to use excessive force on its own population and justify that. That I think is the biggest difference in how the US and Iran turned out to be. Dont try to test what has already been tested. Theocracy leads to destruction and misery, it has been seen in europe and now the middle east and it mostly lead to shit, getting religion the fuk out of government is a recent human achievement, do not let lies convince you otherwise, read history so you wont have to experience it yourself.
This is very simplified cuz I couldn’t write for pages, of course there are many other factors involved, but in my opinion most of those factors also factor into what I have said so I boiled it down.
Meanwhile: Donald Trump says “Hold my beer…”
@@bob_the_bomb4508 lol you mean Donald the atheist who pretends to be religious so his backwards followers will kneel. I wonder what part of the Bible tells you to steal from your own fake charity and run a scam university? 😂🤣😂🤣 Oh and to try and destroy democracy.
@Skydaddy Myth-Busters thanks, what for english?
@Skydaddy Myth-Busters There is no digital translator that can come remotely close to the cogent, well expressed post that M.G. made. Such translators are very stupid robots that cannot comprehend different meanings of a single word, or actually meaning at all. If you don't know that, then you haven't watched the myriads of robo translations on YT videos.
*"intelligent design is not science, it is religion trying to Trojan horse it's way into science"* sir I have to clap 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
I'm pretty irreligious but believe in intelligent design
Won't deny it's difficult to reconcile the two 😩
But trojan horse was able to get in due to blind believers, so iD should not be able to get into science, given science is being performed by qualified scientists 🤔🤔🤔
@@jasonmethystine6516 how can you not be religious but believe we are made by a deity?
Do you feel comfortable perhaps doing those of us who admittedly don't understand how those two beliefs can be simultaneously held with a legitimate degree of intellectual honesty? I certainly don't want to come across in any way as if I believed myself somehow capable and/or qualified in any way,or entitled, or, or, or?..to look down my nose at you from high upon mynivory tower climbing high horse, ibdoht
@@jasonmethystine6516 If you buy intelligent design bullshit you are not anti-religious, you're just a very poor liar. Your religion must
have taught you that shit.
Your work exposing these liars is incredibly important. We now live in a time where we are more at risk then ever of slipping back to the dark ages or even worse , the Stone Age
Thank you you for your service Dave
Keep up your incredibly important work .
❤it
call me intolerant but i feel like religion can genuinely be a hinderance to scientific progress
@@mhm77887 yeah, hating gays, women, and people of different races and loving slavery also do harm
Although education is super important, these videos exposing the misinformation and the frauds are equally important. Its good to have people, like you, who point out their bullshit and show why its bullshit. Thank you for your hard work Dave, big fan.
As a teacher in High School Biology, I have been a subscriber to your channel for a long time, both 'Explains' and 'Debunkings' and this video maintains the high standards that I would like my students to emulate.
Especially appreciated: your research, evidence and patient, pointed exposition.
Professor Dave’s debunking videos get better with every single one uploaded
Not sure if you'll see this, but since I've started university you've taught me topics related to my course but more than that you've taught me critical thinking and to appreciate what science is for human kind.
For that, I thank you
My old Dad said 'If you want to make the world a better place, get rid of religion and corruption.' I miss him.
It's so absurd for me, that after everything we learned and accomplished as a species, there are still ppl who are trying to "debunk" science with their mumbo jumbo "evidence"
Attracting attention to yourself, making money, and feeling special or important are all powerful motivators.
@@glennpearson9348 Preying on the ignorant and the gullible. There's no limit to how low some people would go for money.
@@glennpearson9348 yeah, that's true. Personally I would never want to be "special" for a small percentage of ppl, if it would make me a laughable clown for the rest of society. Definitely not worth making a fool out of myself imo
@@Raviell87 That's probably because you already have a circle of friends. From my perspective, most of these whack jobs who are in it to feel special probably don't have many friends outside of their little ring of like-minded whack jobs. They've got nothing to lose, whereas you probably do.
@@OldSchoolZ-wy2yx What's really interesting to me is that many who are preying on the gullible are, themselves, gullible. They've fallen into a rabbit hole, likely led there by someone else, and now they're trying to pull other equally gullible people into the rabbit hole with them.
Idiocy, like misery, loves company.
I’m a landscape contractor. If I wrote a book on botany I’d be more in my field than this creationist who wrote a book on evolution. Bet I know more about botany than he does about biology.
As a Christian myself, It’s really interesting to me how many people take the Creation story so literally. All it takes is a few hours worth of study and research on the origin of the Hebrew Bible to know that it was not written as a history book. Numbers have symbolic meaning. Names have symbolic meaning. It was never meant to be a rote description of every step that led to mankind’s existence.
Plus, the Hebrew words used in Genesis has been the subject of a LOT of debate among Biblical scholars. Three different words are used, bara (create), asah (make), and yatsar (form). There’s been a lot of debate on were these words used intentionally, to spell out what God created vs what he simply organized, or are they used as synonyms. We don’t really know, but in my opinion it further speaks to the Creation story being a rhetorical device used to communicate a theological idea (what is our relationship with God) and not be a science textbook. It’s intended to communicate that there is a purpose for our being here beyond just simply existing.
I’m very proud of the fact that I went to a Christian University that taught evolutionary biology as part of the undergraduate curriculum. It ended up being one of my favorite courses with one of my favorite professors.
Oh, even top Young Earth Creacrapper Ol'Hambo from Answers in Genesis recognizes that the Bible can't always be taken literally. His "logic" is: if the Biblical creation story is not literal history neither is Original Sin and Jesus was crucified for nothing. As a staunch atheist I'll leave it to theologists to rip that apart. I only wish they would that do more often in public.
CaseyL though doesn't take the creation story literally. He's okay with a 13,6 billion years old universe and a 4,5 billion years old Earth. He merely rejects evolution theory but never refers to the Bible when doing so.
Good for you sir! I' m glad you can find the best of two worlds.
As an ex-young eather creationist and now an atheist, I can understand why many christains take the creation story literally. If one doesnt, then there are issues to be resolved like "What was the original sin", "Death is necessary for evolution. That being the case, how could death have existed before Adam and Eve if death was the result of their sin", "If its the case that there wasnt actually an original sin, then what was the purpose of Jesus' death". Im not saying there arent answers for these questions, but its these very questions (and some) that kept me a young earth creationist for so long. But, I am glad that you have been able to balance your beliefs with the science. I'll I want is people to accept the science.
I’m blown away by the amount of work that went into what could have been a simple rebuke: you actually emailed the people whose work had been represented, provided clear and concise explanations for every one of your counter-points… Great content, thank you!
When I was a believer I always hated it when so called christians would lie in the name of God. If what we believe is the truth, why lie about it?
I no longer believe in any of this religious nonsense, but I look back and I know I would have felt ashamed to see these guys call themselves Christian.
I adore these videos! I love seeing these charlatans have their credibility eviscerated. I won't even give them the respect of calling them scientists.
Good for u for getting out of the god delusion religion is nothing more than a pernicious cult
Great, most atheists have no trouble with peoples personal beliefs, but when they lie to "prove" those beliefs and try to stop others it's a problem.
Sounds like you have far more integrity than your former fellow Christians.
“Religious nonsense”
I’m sure you subjective naturalist world view is super sound
Professor Dave’s tone is awesome. I love how much shade he can put in normal sentences that are simply laying out facts. Keep up the great and important work!!
I was searching for something like this channel. Most debunkers using only hard science to confront this scourge but, in most cases, completely avoid talking about ideological background and propagandistic methods these ID people rely upon. I like very much what Prof.Dave doing here and especially the unrelenting tone ! I am all for aggressive, attack-mode approach in confronting these fundamentalists and their aggressive agit-prop, conspiracies and deceptions. Well done!
I'm not sure what's worse: the delusions they have, or that they HAVE TO KNOW THEYRE LYING, because they're editing the video.
This is the part that most people miss. Those at the top of religious groups don't really have to believe to wield the power of belief. It's disgusting.
The saddest part is religion is such a great coping strategy as it allows for hope in a hopeless world. Just wish the lying would stop. Why not embrace science and move on? They would have so many more followers. I know I'm clumping as a whole and some may embrace but just saying it would be nice to have a majority that did.
4:24 As a writer myself, I can say (with whatever minute amount of authority that gives me on the matter) that there’s plenty of published morons and unpublished geniuses. One of the most deeply mentally unwell and irrational people I’ve ever met was a published author of several books. Crazy people write books all the time! Hell, *most* writers are probably nuts, myself included!
A lot of famous authors had serious mental disorders, and some probably couldn't have been as influential without them. H.P. Lovecraft is likely the most glaring example.
Which was the crazy writer jk Rowling?
@@mythicalducky she’s not just crazy, she’s deliberately evil. Fuck terfs!
The amount of anti-intellectualism happening in modern times is an embarrassment to our species. 🤦♂️
Yeah, like people suddenly dissing religion despite literal historic evidence suggesting the existence of a god
@@wolfetteplays8894
There is 0 evidence anywhere or at any time in favor of the existence of a deity of any type.
@@wolfetteplays8894 People have been dissing religion for ages, it's just that nowadays those people aren't as likely to be executed by religious institutions. Most religions think they have historical evidence to prove their god/gods to have existed, so is every religion true?
agreed.
@@wolfetteplays8894
Quote: " Literal historic evidence"
Can you please produce some and amuse the rest of us?
Thanks!
"Everyone in science is trying to prove something wrong."
An absolutely necessary point that every single layperson and doubter of science should drill into their brains.
While I'm no lawyer, I _do_ know that slander lawsuits are typically hard to pursue, as you need to prove 'actual malice,' which, in legal terms, basically means that the defendant knew that their statements were false and damaging to the plaintiff's work or reputation, but deliberately did so regardless.
In this instance, however, the proof is in the pudding; I think actual malice would be easily proven, should this turn into a legal battle. The question is if it's fiscally worth it.
The "actual malice" standard only applies if the plaintiff is a public figure (like Casey Luskin and Prof Dave). If the plaintiff is a private citizen, like that scientist was, then they only need to show negligence. Source: LegalEagle
@@balam314 Ah, I had forgotten the different stipulations for private peoples. Though I don't know; would the scientist not classify as a public figure?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Sorry, I just don't like the short form of this saying.
A close friend of mine had become an evangelist, fundamental Christian and at the same time I had become an agnostic atheist. He has stated multiple times that he’s unwilling to change his mind and when I asked why he said “I just know I’m correct” We would argue a bunch over the course of a couple months (it’s less occurrent now) and I don’t think I will ever get through to him. I’ve presented him with mountains of evidence against creationism and he thinks that it’s all fake, no joke. He thinks that fossils are fake and were either synthetically created or put there by Satan or something. It’s even more frustrating bc he thinks that I’m the stubborn one, even though I’ve stated multiple times that I’m willing to change my mind given evidence. And then he says that I “think too physically and not spiritually” Its so especially frustrating bc we’ve been friends for so long and we’re only in high school and we have all the same friends, some of whom are also tired of his mentioning of Christianity. Even the other Christians in our friend group have to explain basic science to him. I feel like it’s not even worth my time to talk to him about it anymore.
Believe me, it's not worth your time.
When I took a look at the natural world surrounding us, and the evidence that we came from it, and are still part of it, I realized that the only possible God that could exist would have to be God level depraved. What else could you call a being that created a universe sized snuff flick that it could endlessly wallow In? Experiencing both the terror and pain of the captured prey, and the exultant predator swallowing the hot blood and the quivering flesh in it's jaws? That's what they want to worship? Human beings have done what we can to wall that off. Let us fervently hope that there is no God behind what we see.
This is really outstanding content. You really nailed these charlatans, and I'm really happy with your "big picture" reasoning for doing so. You're right: Nothing stops destructive religious ideas from regressing society to violent "rule by theocratic false authority," except for the fact that, thus far, they've been losing the war for "hearts and minds" to actual science. That should continue, and your work is one of the reasons it is. Kudos.
i do not think they have been losing the war. The religious rather than scientific grounds for the us' roe v. wade ruling is one example of many of what seems to be a massive and horrifying backslide. i've got a ton of anecdotes about idiots coming out of the woodwork in my own life, weaponizing their religious madness with politics, but i know my personal experience doesn't prove anything about the collective.
@@bikeshop2002 I like Norbert Wiener's "Cybernetics" framework. Wiener pointed out that there are all kinds of agency-driven phenomena that use feedback and correction to pursue goals. One thing religious people love to do (it's why many of them are religious, and why many more con-men pretend to be religious) is point out that Christians often obtain good outcomes from either positive thinking or Christian cybernetic networks. (I.e.: "Praise the lord, for he has given Bob a new house after Bob's house burned down" ...but wait...Bob was a member of the church and the church members pitched in and all went to Bob's business and donated to his relief fund...the fact that your cybernetic network bailed Bob out says nothing about the existence of God...it merely says something about the types of people who form Christian cybernetic networks.) One thing Wiener and others have pointed out is that physical reality is governed by different rules than cybernetic networks are governed by, and that the scientist who conducts himself by trying to detect and outsmart devils that don't exist is wasting his time, but that the detective, campaign manager, military strategist, or lawyer who does the same is the only one who prevails, and sometimes the only one who survives.
From a cybernetic perspective, your personal experience is valid, and useful for analysis. From a scientific or "physics only" perspective, it's not as useful or valid. ...From a cybernetic perspective, it would be surprising if cybernetics-based heuristics didn't apply to your anecdotes. For example, we can expect religious entities to use feedback and correction to attain goals, and for the nodes in christian networks to have certain kinds of communication that organize their efforts and future beliefs, as well for them to be weak in certain ways... (I.e. "how much do the network nodes refer to the Bible?" ...Are they subject to communications that better reference the Bible, or better reference their feelings of conscience?)
Also, I should mention that anecdotes are politically powerful, and that the king of using anecdotes for political gain was Ronald Reagan. (Most were never corroborated, but were "highly realistic." The man lied without compunction, because he knew that "anecdotes force someone who thinks you are 80% honest to believe your anecdote words are 100% honest." ...They either happened[100%], or they didn't happen at all and you're 0% honest. It forces a binary judgment. ...And...usually...people keep listening.) My aunt actually verified a similar event to Reagan's "welfare queen" apocryphal anecdote...but she was in Chicago, working with people on welfare at the time...Reagan only ever passed through...and couldn't give any date or other corroborating evidence for his claims. ...But did he say, "I have hazily updated my worldview with thousands of partial events that have a similar overall theme"? No. He told a story.
I hope what I've said is of some use to you. Religion is a great force for evil in this world. Not so much in what the individuals in the churches are doing, but because the churches will never fight the prison profiteers and incumbent government ...lest they lose their tax-exempt status.
Why stand for right when you can enrich yourself and win personal comfort? It's a very common problem among the churches. ...And, as you've noted...they're often more corrupt in extremely overt ways that directly contradict the best scientific and medical information that's available.
Casey Luskin is the intellectual equivalent of a 10 year old having a temper tantrum because his mommy won't buy him candy.
Man, how many times have we heard creationists talk about their materialist, secularist and naturalistic boogeymen?
Because that is all they've got......imaginary boogeymen.
With a reason. Creationists are fundamentalists - their notions of religion and morality are closely interlinked. To them, all good things stem from God - and without God, there can be no morality. So a materialist world view, to them, is simply /evil./ It's a rejection of God, of the very notion of right and wrong. Non-belief threatens civilisation itself. If materialism 'wins' then it would mean a time when the bible is ignored and everything is permissible and the world shall fall to a chaos of savagery and violence. If people don't believe in the bible, how will they even know that murder is wrong?
It's the sort of view that can only exist to people who never actually talk to a non-believer. And are proud of never having dirtied themselves in such a manner.
@@vylbird8014 Totally agree with your comments. And that is why "lying for Jesus" doesn't seem to bother them. The ends seem to justify the means, regardless of what the Eighth Commandment says. And to think they accuse non-believers of moral relativism.
As someone who holds a PhD (in geophysics for anyone interested) - it simply does NOT matter what ANYONE says - PhD or not. What matters is what they can get published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.
There is quite simply no support in the scientific literature or the available observational evidence for:
Young Earth Creationism
Flat Earth
Intelligent design
Climate denialism
The existence of the human soul
As such, these hypotheses can be discarded.
Wow Dave, thank you so much for covering this. I cannot imagine how Dr. Lovejoy must feel upon this revelation. Thank you for including his comment on the matter. I always find it hard to wrap my mind around people's willingness to engage in magical thinking past a certain age. Although I suppose that the fear of being insignificant and essentially pointless leads these fools to all sorts of strange conclusions. Being so willing to lie and slander, and for what? For what? As an aside, I absolutely love your videos, Dave. Not only your debunking videos but also your straightforward educational ones where you don't have to eviscerate anyone. You remind me very much of my brother. He too is insanely sharp, wry and very very funny. Thank you for providing such quality content and educational information for free for anyone willing to listen and learn.
I left christiannity 6 months ago, and it's partly because of you, thanks man
Welcome back to reality.
My degree’s in geology. I have no idea how he could get through his first year as a creationist.
True.
One of the staff back in London/Chelsea (not there, anymore) was a palaeobotanist and a Christian.
And a damn good teacher.
aye kinda ironic given the major geologic divisions were originally distinguished by their fossils (which clearly evolve in complexity).
@@OnASeasideMission
Sure. I was a Christian until way after I graduated. But a young earther? I don’t see how…
@@johnboettcher1962 Yes, appreciate the difference, but the man in question did discuss - and even held a seminar on - the double-think he needed to be a Christian evolutionist.
As I said, a very good man all round, but I had already dropped the religious mindset I was raised with in Wales.
And note that there are geologically trained creationists out there. Steve Austin comes to mind.
Pride and willful ignorance. The human mind is incredibly capable of compartmentalization, and it's hard to find a better example of this than with highly educated, conservative religious people. They may be erudite and highly capable of critical thought in a narrow field, but when it comes to matters that challenge what they consider sacred, their minds become endarkened and their behavior abominably zealous.
Professor Dave debunks creationism: a blessing from the lord. Jokes aside, this was a very detailed and onest video and I can't wait for Dave to debunk the next "internet revolutionary"👍.
If there was that JC guy who wanted people to be honest, he would appoint Prof Dave as his good and faithful servant.
@@WilsonFox123
How would you describe a conspiracy video? I imagine the essential foundation of a conspiracy would require secrecy.
Suppose you and I made a video to conspire a delivery of Baskins-Robbins ice cream to Vladdy-the-Baddy in Russia, and it was seen by 49,000 viewers. I am sure you would agree that ambitious haft-wits could remain, but we should remove competent conspirators from our Personal Résumé.
Being a geologist, how does he sit with the 6,000 year age of the Earth as taken from the Bible? Maybe he is living his life as a total lie.
His bank account speaks the truth.
An age taken from the margin of the Bible, not even from the body of the text.
To be a Young Earth Creationist, you have to believe that The Almighty waited until the 16th C CE before "inspiring" John Lightfoot of Cambridge and Bishop Ussher of Armagh to calculate the date of Creation. (Ussher gets the credit, even though Lightfoot got there first!). You also need to believe that the publication of these dates in subsequent printings of the King James' (Authorised) Version elevated them to "Gospel Truth".
Ironically, by all accounts, neither Ussher or Lightfoot were charlatans; they did not take all those BC genealogies through arcane twists and turns to prove a point (something modern Creationists are quite good at). They were not trying to disprove science. No doubt there were errors of interpretation, and perhaps errors of omission. There were certainly difficulties in aligning events according to the Julian, Gregorian, and Hebrew calendars, as other scholars have pointed out.
We often think of the Enlightenment as the beginning of modern science, but in the 17th century it was still nascent, and in a state of almost continuous tension with approved church doctrine. Ussher and Lightfoot may have been sympathetic with the emerging science (I’m not sure historians really know this), but they were also immersed in theological tradition. They took the information that was available and used it in a scholarly fashion.
@@alanthompson8515i think it should be added that back then religion was seen as scientific and all scientists perceived themselves as operating within religious scope when doing said science. Might be a bit of an oversimplification, but you get my point. Not that it makes them any less credible though. As Dave has also previously said, they were operating at a time when we didn't yet have an idea of the modern day laws of nature. Not to mention it was in the past, so it requires a careful, considerate approach.
@@nostur4984 Good point. The first modern scientists, aka the natural philosophers, were all creationists.
I just remembered that I actually have seen the actual fossil specimen in Ethiopia of Lucy. It's just mind boggling how someone would completely fabricate something like that. Discovery Institute needs to be charged and sued.
Your conclusion is so important. Every time religion and government become the same, horrible things happen. It is irrefutable history.
Thank you for what you do, and keep up the good work.
ruclips.net/video/LPBdaz0n094/видео.html reconsider that statement
Something very unrelated to the video conclusion and unneeded info:
The mask (Guy Fawkes mask) comes from the franchise 'V for Vendetta' and not the hacker group anonymous (they in turn based it on 'V for Vendetta') but it was popularized by the hacker group and is therefore sometimes refereed to as 'anonymous mask'.
I guess Casey Luskin sees himself as Guy Fawkes, here to "blow up" the 'evolution biology community'.
All in all that is quite fitting given that Guy Fawkes was basically a fundamentalist who wanted to reestablish Cathlic rule over England by blowing up the house of lords including King James, the senior judges of the English legal system and most of the Protestant aristocracy.
If anyone made a poor choice in regards to masks, it was Alan Moore.
I wish there was no such thing as enforcing any religion onto children. They are being taken advantage of. I hate it so much.
It should be like alcohol: not allowed to kids under 18.
Indoctrination is a powerful tool...
You have to start the indoctrination early, before they find they can think for themselves.
It would be near impossible to enforce that, even if I do agree.
Well, all theistic religions are faith based, which intrinsically means it relies on and encourages rationalizations of wishful thinking in the place of arguments, so indoctrination isn't considered abusive in religion, which is it. Religion paints it as helpful, which it isn't; it's still abusive. Anyway, I'm too lazy to preach or write a book. Please just think about it and try and prove me wrong.
Sure, in the clinical sense, something isn't considered pathological when it's culturally normalized, just as religious delusions are not counted as delusions because they're expected to be widespread. A clinical diagnosis isn't based purely on facts, but on context, but when a person leaves a religion and then talks to a psychiatrist, psychologist, or therapist suddenly their experience _is_ considered delusional and abusive. An abusive god that gaslights, love bombs - the perfect narcissistic partner. So let's just stick with what we would find abusive and not limit ourselves to professional views of someone in our out of a religion.
Do you know what’s proper sad? In order for people like Luskin to find all these mined quotes, they have to have read through tons of material, and must therefore know at least some of the content. They must know that they’re wrong.
It just makes their lies that much more brazen.
Actual scientists have to do that as well before starting their research. So their work is not that hard.
But of course they're lying. When pointed out that they get something wrong they never correct it. Never. And willfully repeating an error equals lying.
I wish that scientists actually started suing people for these kinds of misrepresentations of their research and works.
We can't sue people just cause they are dumb
then they'll just be accused of trying to silence "the truth". better they ignore these people and do science.
@@therru5943 They're already being accused of hiding the truth and their work is being deliberately misrepresented in order for their accusers to *actually* hide the truth.
Put a couple of apologists in the poorhouse and watch the rest of these con-artist cockroaches decide that this is too dangerous a route to go down.
NGL, I was excited to see this in my feed. I love the detail that Dave goes into to break things down.
What I like most about Dave's debunking videos is that ultimately his point is always to just not force your own ideas onto science. This includes Religion, Pseudoscience, thought leaders, and other things. You can believe whatever you want, but if you try to force science to change to match your beliefs, that's when the hammer comes down.
Well, it's a lot more than that. They don't have "ideas". They're liars. I'm exposing their lies.
@@blastfromthepast7119
Jesse Lee peterson? How did it go bad for him?
@@blastfromthepast7119 Is that the reason? Or was it more likely that ignorant tools took their ignorance to the comment section? I'm guessing it's the latter.
For the record, I've seen enough of Jesse to know that he's a fucking moron of epic proportions, so anything he says is pure bullshit. He's either stupid, a liar or both.
No, I turned off the comments because I got tired of explaining basic logic to the dumbest people alive. That's you. People dumb enough to defend an Uncle Tom who grew up in the Jim Crow south but says that racism doesn't exist. You're as dumb as flat earthers and you need to know that about yourself so that you shut the fuck up forever. You're scum.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains idk but when You say things like this, it really hits, knowing that You taught people. So um yeah, thats probably cause i would never expect that from my teacher for instance
The 'Burn' of DI contributors was amazing. I found particularly interesting, the 'extra' commentary giving clarity (and the terrible history) about separation of Church & State, especially in these divided times - Lest We Forget ! Amazingly comprehensive , I share the gratitude of your many viewers for all your tremendous efforts.
To be fair, paleontology and geology are actually pretty closely related. Fossils are remains that have mineralized, and a huge part of understanding the timeline of our earth requires a knowledge of geoscience. The rock layers of earth are what we use to learn about the evolutionary history of life on earth.
Frankly I can’t fathom learning so much about geology and still being a creationist, you’d really have to plug your ears and sing loudly to avoid overwhelming evidence of evolution.
(Not as many schools offer specific paleontology programs and degrees as ones that offer geology. Many paleontologists have geo degrees)
You know, the usage of a Guy Fawkes-inspired mask is oddly fitting. The historical Guy Fawkes’ motivation in trying to blow up Parliament was to institute a theocratic absolute monarchy, a motivation that aligns well with the long-term goal of the astroturf movement the DI represents.
Kent recently did a "Whack-an-atheist" on Dave, demonstrating that Kent still hasn't learned anything.
Good to see something like this
I love how theists constantly shout that atheists always ignore "context"...and then do that very thing themselves everytime
Professor Dave continually puts out the simultaneously most entertaining AND educating debunk videos on RUclips. Keep the hits coming, Dave. If you save just one person from the poison that is religion and its lies, it was all worth it.
We need to change more than one person from religion to save democracy. The US Supreme Court is going to overturn Roe v Wade. Where does that come from?
@@wandasimpson1656 Zealotry.
I'm not suggesting that saving one person saves us from that zealotry. Rather, I'm suggesting that Dave's efforts here are worth it if just one person adopts reality instead of fantasy.
Plus, you know, Professor Dave is hardly the only purveyor of hard truths that those who live in magic land hate to hear. It's a concerted effort on all out parts to eradicate irrationality from public domains.
Please take on some big names like Michael Behe (irreducible complexity) and William Dembski (specified complexity). Always fun to watch them get ripped apart.
Don't worry, they will both get their turn!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains
Excellent. Keep up the good work! Don’t let anyone tell you minds can’t be changed on these topics. I used to believe in creationism and was argued out of it. It can be done!
Behe and Dembski absolutely merit some attention. At least these two have backgrounds appropriate to the sorts of issues they discuss. They are wrong, of course; because of their academic qualifications, they should know better. Behe is more problematic, IMO, because he's pretty good at writing for popular audiences.
@@williamduke2743 yo, the PragerU one?
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Can't wait for the Behe and Dembski take downs.
If evolution is so wrong then why do these creationists always have to cherry-pick, omit, or just straight up lie? If their evidence of creationism was so overwhelmingly obvious then why would they do that? Maybe cuz they’re wrong? Hmm 🤔
Woah Prof Dave manages to pack maximum damage into all his debunking videos!! Straightforward, concise and easy to understand! I'm impressed and grateful for you!
I find it incredibly strange that a geologist, though he may not have specialized knowledge in evolutionary biology, would still be willing to believe in some of the consequences that are necessarily implied by intelligent design. It reminds me of that PhD paleontologist who believed in young earth creationism. Of course, it is strange that someone with a PhD in any field of science could believe in such things, although for a geologist to do so is particularly strange, moreso than a synthetic chemist, perhaps.
Cognitive dissonance at display with this creatard.
I'm not surprised if he's on the payroll of religious cons. It leans more to dishonesty..not belief.
Most PhD people actually don't understand how SCIENCE work (they don't know history of science of humans in general
==>
They are busy with their daily "life"
==>
Most of them know and understand some math so i believe they still would "choose" science, but they usually don't think like "scientists" (idk if it make sense for you).
==>
Dave has this scientific approach, also Dr Joscha Bach (cognitive science, most coherent storyteller), Dr Michael Levin (Bioelectricity - really great "new" things, wouldn't surprise if this guy would win Nobel prize in future for this), with physic and math you can really make sense of this madness
¯\_(ツ)_/¯¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@Hecarim420 "Most PhD people actually don't understand how SCIENCE work (they don't know history of science of humans in general " - I think you are referring to pretend universities. All PhD at my university, even the stupid lying theologians got a mandatory science 101 course. Granted they did not understand it, but most other students did.
Most IDiots don't have any problem with an old earth. Luskin is one of them. They have a problem with "Darwinian evolution", ie evolutionism. Don't ask what the difference is with their own brand of evolution. IDiots never clarify.
These people are such big liars that they even claim that they accept evolution. Mickey Behe, famous for the Kitzmiller-Dover trial and the irreducable mousetrap, even accepts common descent. Everything is OK with them as long as you reject evolution theory.
As a Catholic biology & evolution nerd, I feel obliged to say many - perhaps most - Christians aren't this ignorant to science. Science and faith often work hand-in-hand when referring to the objective reality; the discrepancies lie in the fact that most science does not deal with philosophy, mythology, symbolism, or metaphysics, but rather is as you referred to it: materialism. Interesting video btw! 🙌
In Canada, most European countries and the USA it's definitely most. I'd appreciate it if more christians spoke out against creacrap, like Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller and Judge Jones. Creacrappers are just loud mouthed fanaticals.
@@marknieuweboer8099 Exactly. 💯 It's sad because they set a poor reputation and often gross misunderstanding upon the rest of us.
The thing is, Most often religion and science do not go hand in hand. And more things we discover more they will diverge, trying to imply that religion specifically christianity fits into science is just blatant ignorance
@@erinys2 you might find the majority of the religious and scientists will disagree, because most fo not accept pure materialism - to do so is considered "blatant ignorance" in the regards of many. I hope we can come to have fair discourse on the objective matters and not throw insults. How would you feel about that?
@jamesm.9285 I did not mention what they believe, I simply stated that religion and science do not go hand in hand, Its interpretation could be but whats objectively Known Generally doesent hint at anything religious, simply stating that theres no material evidence And they are completely different fields, Also i am not insulting you personally In any way just stating what this sort of thinking is to me
(also many things from the bible actively go against Scientific theories, Creationism for example,but if we're reffering to general faith and using bible as a metaphor the previous point stands)
Dude you’re crushing it - keep taking these frauds to task. Love it!
I think a lot of folks (myself included) mostly considered the religious right sidelined back in the late 2000s when their biggest political win in the US, George Bush's 2 terms in the presidency, was soundly rejected. But if the past few years have taught us anything, the religious right isn't a problem that goes away when they lose a couple of presidential elections. Their political power is strongest on the state level in fact as we've seen with the waves of right wing religious bills on abortion, trans rights, and what kind of history can be taught in schools (which is something they have more leverage on atm but should just be seen as the opening salvo in a broader assault on secular education).
My one suggestion though is when speaking to an anglophone audience, don't give them an out by only citing countries this audience tends to view as "others" as the potential bad trends we can head towards. While Iran and Afghanistan are bad theocracies, I think it's a bit easy for those in the west to go "they're underdeveloped" or "haven't gone throw an enlightenment" (the 2nd one being flat out wrong of course, but commonly believed) and therefore think the threat isn't as real in the West. Example like Poland's gay-free zones and increasing authoritarianism, the return of influence and oppression of the Russian Orthodox church in modern Russia, and vitally, the slew of state level bills in the US are hard, inescapable evidence that even developed, post-Western enlightenment faces threats of returned theocracy. I'd encourage using local examples where possible to make sure folks can't fall back on lazy tropes about other cultures to dismiss the problems of their own societies.
❤🙌🏻
Your comment is much more enlightened than most "enlightened" countries in the west.
Edit: bad grammar.
oh for sure, our "chrisitian nationalism" here in America is by an order of magnitude, more dangerous to our country than any muslim country or jihadist organization. The enemy is in our midst.
As if Communist Atheism and their oppression wasn't a thing...Hahaa🤣🤣
@@beewithab6122 I didn't know there even was communist atheism oppression, do present some examples please.
As a Christian, these folks have always bothered me. I mainly just wish they would stop marketing themselves as scientists and instead as “natural theologians”. It’s obviously not science and it’s a bit offensive to claim to be so.
It's not natural theology either. Not anymore at least. All modern academic theology (institutes like Biola don't count) accepts evolution theory. I write this as a staunch atheist.