You can watch the full video using the link below or on my Reacteria playlist (it's called "Is Evolution a FACT or a FARCE?") • Is Evolution a FACT or...
Clearly it is he who is enlightened... For a channel trying to embody rationality and objectivity, he's very skimpy on facts and evidence and very heavy on teenage snark. He's just propagating the atheist stereotype.
@@kraigthorne3549 the way he said it he clearly used the word or to present an alternative, as there would be no point saying that otherwise because its clearly scripturally correct whats the point of adding in the or scientific it doesn't clarify whether its scientific or not.
@Kraig Thorne No, you absolutely do not have to agree with him. For both cases, he is wrong. He needs to clarify what "the beginning" is. And because he doesn't, then he's is ignored
The moment they say "The 1st law of thermodynamics..." I'm like "STOP! Before you continue, explain, in your own words, what the 1st law is" and they ALWAYS slightly reword it to work in their favor.
@@GRAHFXENO I remember Bill Nye debated a creationist. When asked “what would make you change your mind?” Bill Nye just said “Evidence”. The Creationist said “there is nothing that can change my mind”. That totally sums up the debate between Science and Creation.
@@wild_lee_coyote Yeah, or in that same debate, the 500 times Ken Ham answered a question from the moderator starting with "You see, there's this book called the Bible..." in that smug, condescending voice of his
@@GRAHFXENO take away the Bible and Christian’s have nothing to stand on. Take away all the science text books and they can be rewritten and will say the same things.
@@wild_lee_coyote i watched that debate live with my youth group when i was liek 12. I can thank Ken Ham for killing my faith with that one idiotic response .
A religion is not scientific unless it for some reason teaches you the scientific method and tells you to accept your ignorance and search for knowledge because this religion is not THE truth, it's the way to find truth. But I don't see any religion like that.
Please post the clip from that video where they argued that dna is like computer code where you went “MOTHER!! MOTHER!!!! I HAVE AWAKENED!!!” That clip was hilarious
"I HAVE TOUCHED THE BEARD OF ODIN!" We also need the clip of one of Forrest's best quotes: "Koala bears aren't bears, a tit mouse is neither a breast nor a rodent, and I don't have to praise the Pope of Poop simply because I've said "holy crap", Matt!"
That's exactly my sentiment, we just need to ignore them and stop giving them the time of day otherwise they are going to think that what they "believe" and it is "faith" is worth debating because it is not, it is an antiquated, outdated frame of mind and our species has moved on since superstitious times..
@@wesley6442 that won't work, that will cause religion to spread again if it's left unchecked. It's like in the nutrition sphere how low carb and Paleo crowds grow because the research scientists and those that actually have a well read understanding of the the science aren't going around explaining why they're bat shit crazy because they have jobs and don't care for debate because the science is so clear debating it is beneath them, like how debating religion is beneath the atheist as you say. You can't let inane BS go left unchecked or it will brainwash the population.
@@wesley6442 I can completely understand your position, unfortunately the masses are very stupid and gullible. It's very easy to gain followers if you can tell them what they want to hear. We can't just let these psychos manipulate vulnerable people, we have to give the fact to their lies.
@@paulmadryga it’s all there ignorant man. Think with your brain. Fake scientists will ignore any evidence that’s the point. You have evidence that code can code itself mr. strawman? Computers? Morse code? Digital? Anything? You want to be willingly ignorant and show that you actually hate true science? Because you’re the one that actually claims this because you believe DNA CODE assembled itself WITH NO OBSERVED EVIDENCE 🤦♂️🤦♂️
My five-year-old takes offense to that. He requires evidence to support a claim, as all rational people should. He dispensed with the Santa Claus myth when he was five (b/c I refuse to lie to my children, unlike all religious parents seeking to indoctrinate), and this old bag of bigotry doesn’t understand the difference between what is true and what he’d like to be true. This guy’s outlived his usefulness, and should put his money where his mouth is and see if he goes to “heaven.”
As Christian this stuff makes me grind my teeth, many scientists throughout history were religious and they never spouted this nonsense. They never saw a conflict. To be truly religious (whatever that is) is to question and seek.
That's because they HAD to be religious. A staggering amount of scientists nowadays simply doesn't believe in these fairy tales anymore. Because they're not threatened with torture and murder anymore. Once religion loses its monopoly on violence, people stop pretending to believe in this nonsense. It's also a factor as to why most scientists are from the west. Here they're not restrained by bronze age myths and being murdered by the adherents of them.
Scientifics were going low profile before18th century. For safety or money donations they were "believers". Atheism is growing at the speed of a galloping horse because it's based on logic and not on invisible reincarnated unicorn.
Thank you Forest, I just watched the “Witch” video and now this one and I’m so happy to hear you respond to them they way I always do in my head…”ARE YOU HIGH?”
I went to a town the other day and a nice old man gave me a small booklet. It explained why evolution is just a "theory" but, surprisingly, also why religion is as well. It explained why religion and evolution both require "faith." Unfortunately, people don't seem to know what "theory" means. They think it's "a random idea" VS "a scientific fact." Edit: I wrote "down" instead of "town." That's all I've corrected.
The Enlightenment is defined by the increased scientific understanding that replies upon observation, experimentation, and rational thinking; _not_ religious argumentation and dogma. What this religious guy is arguing for is a return to the dark ages, which precede the Encouragement.
The hypocrisy is that if science and religion got along with each other we would be striving for a much better age, instead of having bickering wars. Keep up the good work Forrest!
LMAO. That made me laugh a good second. I had not thought about that... it's like comparing trump to animals... it's insulting to animals, don't do it. Animals are awesome and we can coexist with them. Trump? If we were all him, we'd kill each other at a higher rate than any genocide in history to pretend we are "all that" when, in fact, we'd be nothing more than parasites. Btw trump has npd and it's nearly untreatable -_-
The creationist that he's responding to will not care. And I don't think its sinking to anyone's level to treat the ludicrous claims in this more casual manner. These are not claims to be taken seriously, pretending like they should be is perpetuating the idea that there is value in them.
"It's hard to light a candle, easy to curse the dark instead". However if you have people constantly trying to blow out the candle (of true knowledge), you should not be surprised if the people trying to light the candle (e.g. Forrest) at some point are not trying to convince anymore, but whack those people. See Matt Dillahunty over the years
See what happens when you’re an adult with imaginary friends and gods that you worship and talk to daily? Being in love with ancient stories can stump your brain power.
I'm quite alright with "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", but I usually follow up with "and he used the big bang and cosmic evolution to do it"
Ok, define the terms, then. The scientific method is a process of making a hypothesis, designing an experiment to test the hypothesis, recording results, and finding out if the results support or detract from that hypothesis. The scientific method is not intrinsically atheistic. Scientific is an adjective to describe information derived using the scientific method. Enlightenment means acquiring a significant amount of additional knowledge than before. I take him as saying that the more people have used the scientific method to acquire more knowledge about the world, the less likely the hypothesis for evolution has been supported. The amount of mental gymnastics that proponents of evolutionary theory have to go through to explain how things happened by accident grows over time.
@@luish1498 Smithsonian magazine January 13, 2016. "Life and Rocks may have Co-evolved on earth." It's such a great read. Many textbooks teach the same thing. You see, I have to tell you what you believe, because most of you don't know.
@@bradynutzman4488So you say we came from rocks and the quote you provide as evidence debunks that by saying we co-evolved. You didnt even read one sentence correctly lol.
Okay, so "In the beginning God" is scientific. I'd like to see the scientific study you are basing that claim on. The existence of the Christian God and "him" creating the Universe is your hypothesis, right? What was your experiment to test that hypothesis? Did you have a control? Where did you publish that study? Was it peer reviewed by people who didn't insist on the conclusion before the review process?
That is the point. It is a general habit used by many fanatic religious believers to "highjack" scientific terms and simply use them for something completely different. By this adding weight to their unfounded claims. The same is done with the term "truth" or "fact".
"In the beginning...god created the heavens and the earth" is scientific? Then I guess "Once upon a time there were 3 bears, who lived in a house together...." is scientific too!
I have the answers to your questions 1 enlightenment (in) (light) (an) (ment) - is the state of mind reached after a giant blunt is smoked 2 Scientific (sigh) (and)(tif) (ick)-is the sound made as a giant blunt is smoked 3 🥴 what was your question again?
This guy is right, technically. "We can safely say". Freedom of speech, we can safely say it. We'd be wrong, but there's no personal danger to us in saying it. "There's nothing more scientific or scripturally correct than 'in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth'" is technically correct if one of the two following is true. There's nothing more scientific than 'in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth' OR There's nothing more scripturally correct than 'in the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth'. The second I think is true. I don't recall anything in the scriptures contradicting it at least.
So, his syntax with the or operator is a bit confusing, but what he's saying is not "(nothing is more scientific) or (not is more scriptural)" but rather "nothing is (more scientific or more scriptural.)" Its the difference between !a | !b and !(a | b). The former is equivalent to !(a+b), aka "it is not true that a and b are both correct," while the latter is equivalent to !a + !b, aka "a is false and b is false." This is what he means to say. It is syntactically confusing, though. He wouldve been better off if he said "neither... nor..." instead of "nothing is... or...." That being said, I approve of trying to iron man your opposition... even when the opposition is being a goober!
@@peppermintgal4302 yup, the 'technically' in that sentence is doing a lot of heavy lifting. I did indeed not apply formal logic rules to grammar. Otherwise my joke wouldn't have worked.
I find it funny that he says scientific enlightenment while advocating for a religion that was started prior to that enlightenment in the same sentence.
I think a lot of us have no business worrying about this, I understand us as humans there’s natural curiosity. However, none of us in the comments are making a feesible argument, it’s all just insults and bandwagon against the man who expressed his beliefs. Which is understandable, we’re bred to believe what we hear whether it’s evolution or creation. Experience it for yourself do your own research and come to your own conclusion.
See, its a trick question of the "mathematicians answer variety." He says there is "nothing more scientific OR scriptually correct than 'In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." Since that statement IS scriptually correct, it completes one of the two halves of the or statement, meaning the statement is true, regardless of how scientifically inaccurate it is.
Lets be real, he's using an odd, colloquial definition of or where what you mean is and. (Yes, this is a thing people do, and all the time. Yes, it is ironic. Its kind of like people using literally in a metaphorical way.) The way it works is that theres an assumed either bundled up in the or. "There is nothing that is either more scientific or scripturally correct..." See how that changes the meaning? Language will sometimes take efficiency over clarity, and this is a case of that. But I mean your point is still a funny point lol
@@peppermintgal4302 yeah, language is pretty weird that way. I know what he really meant, I just enjoy being literal and pedantic, especially to make fun of people.
@@Fade2Dark I'm not the one who wrote Genesis though. Maybe you should have read Genesis before leaving this pointless comment (especially since I don't worship Darwin SMH).
"In the beginning" is a bit of a mistranslation. The original phrase means something closer to "When Time came into existence", which changes the context completely.
It’s simple, really. He doesn’t actually understand what the word “science” means. As is so often the case when dealing with fundies, climate deniers, flat earthers, etc., etc.
LOL! The amount of things there's scientifically wrong with that "and" 8 words into the bible, connecting heaven and earth is staggering! 9.2 billion years, 2 trillion galaxies, and the entire periodic table of elements!
I am Christian and I believe that God did indeed crate the heavens and the earth. But that is philosophical debate, not a scientific one. In my opinion science points to God, and I enjoy it’s intricacy and ability to be studied in awe of its creator. No matter what can we not all share a love of science and it’s beauty (and disgustingness) no matter how it came to be? Though I do pose to any materialist here the question of how they suppose the world they study came to be. I empathise with the fact that you think that man is insane as I once would have but also, is not such a flamboyant claim aimed at scientists (for decades I may add, this principle of science being God’s creation kickstarted modern science) something to be investigated? You say “are you high?” as a joke but at some point this must be addressed as a serious matter…
@@AnonYmous-yj9ibthere is one aspect of science that can indirectly prove god by proving atheism is false and that is chemistry. Life cannot, by any means, come from non-life by natural conditions. Atheism remains in checkmate for over 2,000 years.
things take time to change. Religious people, especially catholics and even the pope, are beginning to believe in evolution. People have believe in god for thousands of years, but evolution concept has only been around a couple hundred years.
Since people do believe creationism is fact and are beyond change, you could Always Show them that fact. Ask them If something could Change their mind and If they dont have anything, that in fact means that the whole reasoning process is useless, since they will just See their own argument validated in every form there is
Honestly that creationist make sense. There must be something inmaterial that brought the material world. Its quite correct no matter how much you scream in disgust.
@@degew9367The proof is all the things around you having the Baker of the gaps or the chef of the gaps. there isnt just any alternative to this conclusion though. Not to mention there is no proof for macroevolution . (And that was not even an alternative) everything material needs to have a cause. Except the first cause, for the first cause is immaterial that brought the material to be.
@@Oksure1234 so you don't have any empirical evidence that says something material can't come from something immaterial? Just because material things can come from material things doesn't mean they can't come from the immaterial. Do you have any actual evidence or not? We observe bakers and chefs making food. It's testable and repeatable. Have you observed God making the universe? Macroevolution has been observed and repeated multiple times
@@degew9367 the evidence is the food that is cooked. For we have observed and tested that food does not come out of another food suddenly, It requires a cook . What evidence suggests that material(time space and mass) doesn't come out of the inmaterial? In fact the evidence is that everything has a cause that lead to the one first cause which is God. No but even if you haven't observed that the chef cooks that food on the table, you would still know it comes from a cook, even if you see some odd shaped art you first ask who created this ?? Not how can this be?. What proof do you suggest about macroevolution???
It is actually most mathematically probable that this universe is a simulation, so another material world brought this world into existence, not a supernatural creator
Nope they never use the same definition. They will always use it vaguely so they can quickly change ot when they start loosing the argument or get back into a corner with questions.
Is it demonstrable? Is it directly observable? Is it repeatable? Is it testable? Does the data collected lead in only one direction, or in this hypothesis, could the origin be literally any creator god and not just this fellow's personally preferred version of a deity?
Can you please do a reacteria to the Evolution episode of Futurama? I know that is not usually the type of thing you react to, but it could be cool to point out what they got right or wrong or you could explain some of the jokes better. I recently re-watched that episode and I couldn't help but think if you.
😂😂😂 Christians always out here speaking like it's opposite day. So when he said, "there is nothing more scientific", I'm translating it as "there is nothing less" 💅🏾
Are we using the same definition of enlightenment? Apparently not because materialism does not equate per se to "enlightenment" so let's play a game called "Aristotle" shall we? Also, he very well could have been high and his arguments still valid. That's why it's called an "abusive ad him". He could be high and right. He could be high and wrong. The validity argument ( not that I believed his to be good) in and of itself , exists independently of his state of mind ( high or not). That's like saying Biblical Creation is contingent upon your testosterone levels. The truth or falsity of the claim is independent of your "T" levels. In a non-sequitur.
The science he's referring to is the evidence of a universal timeline. Everything is in decay and the universe appears to have a point of origin, this would suggest a "beginning" to the universe. According to science, matter can neither be created nor destroyed, thus the reconciliation between those two facts is that there must be something outside of our universe that we cannot observe and that does not abide by the laws of this universe that brought about the universe in said beginning. A name commonly given to that thing is "God." Thus, the Bible actually supplies the same answer to the origins of the universe as science does, but does so with a greater detail of explanation. The rejection of theism is not the pursuit of science, it's the pursuit of senselessness.
Nothing is in decay. As the universe expands, energy is spread out thinner through all of it, which leads to the heat death of the universe when the universe expands too much. The point of origin has all the same energy and matter as it does now, just infinitely more dense. The universe doesn’t need a cause to have a beginning.
@@DoggishPrince34 Your closing statement is unrelated to your body of evidence. The universe appearing to be in a state of decay suggests that the universe has a beginning. A beginning demands a cause. Arguing against a state of decay is to argue against the claim that the entire matter of the universe does not have a beginning. If the argument that you're making is that the universe has always existed, then in that case yes, the universe does not have a cause, but if anyone concedes to the universe having a beginning, they concede to the universe having a cause by default.
As someone who was raised Christian and who has family members who are and not do I hate the idea of a god but it’s when one beings to use that hypothesis that belive without proof to justify immoral actions is were I draw the line luckily this video isn’t about that this is just a misunderstanding of the scientific conensus of the universe beginnings vs religion. Is religion itself bad? No hardly some of my core values as a person came from being raised Christian it becomes a issue however when someone uses their reglious belives to justify harm as stated in the beginning of this comment (yes I realize the redundancy of mentioning it twice no I’m not gonna fix it I’m far to tired. ) But to say that Christianity and science agree on the origin of the universe and that it’s the most scientific and faith based belive is just plain misinformation.
Religiousness is fundamentally bad. Both for society as it creates unnecessary divides, with one side percieiving themselves as ultimate good with 5he justification for any atrocity against anyone they deem demonic and Individually as once youre ready to believe one thing only on faith, you are ready to believe other things without good Reason, it poisons the ability to think straight
Not just that, but if you actually read the Bible and not just read the really fucked-up shock passages, the creationist is dead wrong about how to read Genesis. Genesis is very explicitly designed to be an allegory about the human experience (hence why there are humans who created the limited lifespan, the different regional languages and unrelated languages, the settlement of the Fertile Crescent and the delineation of Israelites and everybody else, and the Israel tribal system), not an actual by-the-minutes historical testimony written by God himself. I know there's a lot to be said about religion poisoning everything, but Biblical literalism is the gotdanged strychnine.
Let me start by saying that I respect everyone's opinion. I do wonder, though, how we are able to believe that something as complex as life and nature just happened. Imagine if I tell you that the latest modern car just happened by accident or evolved into what it is now (with all its features in the right place for the right purpose), or my latest iPhone/computer just happened, you would laugh at me. Because there is no way something organized and with purpose can just create itself. Everything we know in life was made by somebody, so wouldn't it be logical to at least acknowledge the fact that the earth and every organized, complex and purposeful thing on it could have been made by someone, too?
@@landajb6878 For one, it wasn't an explosion. Secondly we don't know what came before it. It is as far back as we can see. Scientists don't just want to make something up you know. They require proof. Also, why does it have to have been triggered by a person? Earth quakes aren't triggered by anyone. Mountains aren't made by anyone. Why do you act like everything is?
Can any creationist explain how did all the marsupials traveled from Australia to the middle east to board the noha ark and travel back to Australia after the great flood??? Did they hop back with 0 evidence of migration ?? Or did they swim back to Australia??? Or did the unicorn carry them back to Australia???
". . . Are you high?"😂😂😂
Hi how are
Now THAT one I want an answer to please.
@@catzkeet4860The answer is simple: Yes.
Clearly it is he who is enlightened...
For a channel trying to embody rationality and objectivity, he's very skimpy on facts and evidence and very heavy on teenage snark.
He's just propagating the atheist stereotype.
@@dustyh5599 who cares what you think?
"Nothing more scientific, or scripturally correct" now that's an oxymoron. So moronic you'll have to take oxy for the pain.
😂😂
You win!
yeah those two are quite literally opposites. the only thing scientifically correct about scriptures is that they are written on paper😂
I always think when people like this use the word scientific they actually mean "What I understand as scientific".
Eh, it's ONE of those two things. (Hint; not the first.)
So glad you posted this as a short. There are so many moments from these videos I want to share with friends, and this makes it so much easier.
Idk if its avaliable on his videos but the scissors icon lets you cut out a clip and gives you a link to share jsut the clip
@@hadenhelms9184oh god that's actually helpful. Thank u for that
@@Brruhmine yep lol. I clipped the ending lol
Well, it is easier to laugh at the ignorance in small bites.
Just cut it all out because this is not scientific or factually correct
I was rolling my eyes so hard before I realized it was actually this channel and not some creationist nonsense in my feed
If you listen to the first guy and understand the definition of the word "or" you will have to agree with him. It looks like the second guy doesn't.
Please clarify, thank you.
@@kraigthorne3549 the way he said it he clearly used the word or to present an alternative, as there would be no point saying that otherwise because its clearly scripturally correct whats the point of adding in the or scientific it doesn't clarify whether its scientific or not.
@@kraigthorne3549 apologists not using words correctly is a staple
@Kraig Thorne No, you absolutely do not have to agree with him. For both cases, he is wrong. He needs to clarify what "the beginning" is. And because he doesn't, then he's is ignored
It amazes me how often those who have no idea how science works try and use scientific words to prove their points.
The moment they say "The 1st law of thermodynamics..." I'm like "STOP! Before you continue, explain, in your own words, what the 1st law is" and they ALWAYS slightly reword it to work in their favor.
@@GRAHFXENO I remember Bill Nye debated a creationist. When asked “what would make you change your mind?” Bill Nye just said “Evidence”. The Creationist said “there is nothing that can change my mind”. That totally sums up the debate between Science and Creation.
@@wild_lee_coyote Yeah, or in that same debate, the 500 times Ken Ham answered a question from the moderator starting with "You see, there's this book called the Bible..." in that smug, condescending voice of his
@@GRAHFXENO take away the Bible and Christian’s have nothing to stand on. Take away all the science text books and they can be rewritten and will say the same things.
@@wild_lee_coyote i watched that debate live with my youth group when i was liek 12. I can thank Ken Ham for killing my faith with that one idiotic response .
Forrest I just wanted to let you know I’ve just been accepted to study evolutionary biology and you were a huge inspiration for me to even try
As a non religious person I think it's fine to believe in a creator unless you ignore the facts but don't say god is scientific cuz it's just not.
Ikr! It's just so annoying. Those religious fanatics always keep finding ways to prove God created earth in so called scientific ways.
Godzilla, on the other hand, is ultra-scientific. Especially the Mecha version.
I know my creators personally and I call them mom and dad lol 😂 and those are the only creators who I believe in and that actually exist
A religion is not scientific unless it for some reason teaches you the scientific method and tells you to accept your ignorance and search for knowledge because this religion is not THE truth, it's the way to find truth. But I don't see any religion like that.
@@aditilokhande6633 they can't even proof their god exists,
Please post the clip from that video where they argued that dna is like computer code where you went
“MOTHER!! MOTHER!!!! I HAVE AWAKENED!!!”
That clip was hilarious
truly the best forrest clip
"I HAVE TOUCHED THE BEARD OF ODIN!"
We also need the clip of one of Forrest's best quotes: "Koala bears aren't bears, a tit mouse is neither a breast nor a rodent, and I don't have to praise the Pope of Poop simply because I've said "holy crap", Matt!"
I just saw it a couple days ago and posted it to my social media because that shit is HILARIOUS.
He did!
The fact that we even have to spend time on this in 2023
That's exactly my sentiment, we just need to ignore them and stop giving them the time of day otherwise they are going to think that what they "believe" and it is "faith" is worth debating because it is not, it is an antiquated, outdated frame of mind and our species has moved on since superstitious times..
@@wesley6442 that won't work, that will cause religion to spread again if it's left unchecked. It's like in the nutrition sphere how low carb and Paleo crowds grow because the research scientists and those that actually have a well read understanding of the the science aren't going around explaining why they're bat shit crazy because they have jobs and don't care for debate because the science is so clear debating it is beneath them, like how debating religion is beneath the atheist as you say. You can't let inane BS go left unchecked or it will brainwash the population.
The fact that we have to spend time on this in 2023, 4 weeks after you said, “the fact that we even have to spend time on this in 2033.”
@@wesley6442 I can completely understand your position, unfortunately the masses are very stupid and gullible. It's very easy to gain followers if you can tell them what they want to hear. We can't just let these psychos manipulate vulnerable people, we have to give the fact to their lies.
@@wesley6442Darwinian evolution is a 4,000 year old religion invented by the ancient Hindus. Deal with it.
Education of biology replaces mysticism with the physical aspects of our reality and precious existence.
He is so high, he left his hair behind
😂🤣😂
😆😂🤣
I was 🤦🏻♂️ until you spoke! Then I was 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Forest, whenever you're in Denver I'll buy you a drink. So good.
And I’ll buy you one in Cincinnati!
That's the epistimological equivalent of saying "There's no safer statement in science than that Spongebob cleanses the oceans of plastic"
I think he meant “gullible” instead of “scientific”
"Are you high?"
Forrest, you rock!
You must be high to believe code can code itself…
@@godloves9163 - Valiant effort at strawmanning. Show us the scientist who advocates for that.
@@paulmadryga it’s all there ignorant man. Think with your brain. Fake scientists will ignore any evidence that’s the point.
You have evidence that code can code itself mr. strawman? Computers? Morse code? Digital? Anything?
You want to be willingly ignorant and show that you actually hate true science? Because you’re the one that actually claims this because you believe DNA CODE assembled itself WITH NO OBSERVED EVIDENCE 🤦♂️🤦♂️
"My magic book is above everything and says I win, so there."
Creationist logic = five year old logic.
Life doesn’t come from non-life, so atheistic religions lose by default.
My five-year-old takes offense to that. He requires evidence to support a claim, as all rational people should. He dispensed with the Santa Claus myth when he was five (b/c I refuse to lie to my children, unlike all religious parents seeking to indoctrinate), and this old bag of bigotry doesn’t understand the difference between what is true and what he’d like to be true.
This guy’s outlived his usefulness, and should put his money where his mouth is and see if he goes to “heaven.”
*heretic logic
'Scripturally correct'? What does that even mean? Correct doesn't need a qualifier. It is or it isn't. Scripture has nothing to do with it.
As Christian this stuff makes me grind my teeth, many scientists throughout history were religious and they never spouted this nonsense.
They never saw a conflict. To be truly religious (whatever that is) is to question and seek.
That's because they HAD to be religious. A staggering amount of scientists nowadays simply doesn't believe in these fairy tales anymore.
Because they're not threatened with torture and murder anymore. Once religion loses its monopoly on violence, people stop pretending to believe in this nonsense.
It's also a factor as to why most scientists are from the west. Here they're not restrained by bronze age myths and being murdered by the adherents of them.
Scientifics were going low profile before18th century. For safety or money donations they were "believers". Atheism is growing at the speed of a galloping horse because it's based on logic and not on invisible reincarnated unicorn.
Thank you Forest, I just watched the “Witch” video and now this one and I’m so happy to hear you respond to them they way I always do in my head…”ARE YOU HIGH?”
The conflict behind his eyes yells me that he doesnt really believe it but he knows he has to convince people he does.
The thing to remember about creationists is that creationists aren't just wrong, they are liars, and they will always lie.
You are ignorant . You do not even searh about it
I went to a town the other day and a nice old man gave me a small booklet. It explained why evolution is just a "theory" but, surprisingly, also why religion is as well. It explained why religion and evolution both require "faith." Unfortunately, people don't seem to know what "theory" means. They think it's "a random idea" VS "a scientific fact."
Edit: I wrote "down" instead of "town." That's all I've corrected.
HA. Calling religion a theory is like my ex-boyfriend calling himself “big.”
@@Leith_Crowther the booklet meant "evolution is just a theory, but the same can be said for religion."
@@Leith_Crowther lmao
It's a decades-old creationist lie, trying to pull science down to the faith level of religion because then it couldn't be taught in public schools
@@Leith_Crowther XD rip your ex, that was a serious burn!
"Are you high?" That´s the sad part: they aren´t
Reminds me of that scene from That 70`s Show.
A: "Are you on drugs?"
B: "I am high... on G.O.D."
A: "..virgin.." "
Yay! I found it!
ruclips.net/video/ANtmJ_W3OQw/видео.html
They are, high on "make believe".
He looks like if you asked him that he'd say "hi , fine thank you"
"are you high?"
this made me laugh out loud as few things do, thank you.
The Enlightenment is defined by the increased scientific understanding that replies upon observation, experimentation, and rational thinking; _not_ religious argumentation and dogma. What this religious guy is arguing for is a return to the dark ages, which precede the Encouragement.
It’s embarrassing to be the same species as these people
Every time a theist utters the word "science", science vomits in its mouth a little.
As soon as I hear the word enlightenment I check out because I know some religious BS will follow.
Firmament is another one of those words
The hypocrisy is that if science and religion got along with each other we would be striving for a much better age, instead of having bickering wars. Keep up the good work Forrest!
"Are you high?"
LMAO. Don't insult us stoners :)
Yes because you must be stoned to believe code can code itself when it’s never been observed ever in science.
LMAO. That made me laugh a good second. I had not thought about that... it's like comparing trump to animals... it's insulting to animals, don't do it. Animals are awesome and we can coexist with them. Trump? If we were all him, we'd kill each other at a higher rate than any genocide in history to pretend we are "all that" when, in fact, we'd be nothing more than parasites. Btw trump has npd and it's nearly untreatable -_-
I’m high, but I’ll never be high enough for that guys nonsense to sound legit.
WOOO! STONED MONKEY! The BEST kind! oh shit. I'm a stoned monkey myself... ... ... ... ...
...
...
...
...
...
...YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!
As much as I love your videos, and am on your side, please don't sink to the level of insults - you're better than that.
The creationist that he's responding to will not care. And I don't think its sinking to anyone's level to treat the ludicrous claims in this more casual manner. These are not claims to be taken seriously, pretending like they should be is perpetuating the idea that there is value in them.
Are we using the same definition of "insult"?
@@jaropekpawel9139lol 😂
Since when is being high an insult? 😅
Well creationists think they’re smarter than everyone else. _Ironically speaking_
Christian: makes assertion without evidence.
Wow. How unexpected
Maybe if he got high, he'd come to a realization about himself and the universe. And he'd stop lying.
"It's hard to light a candle, easy to curse the dark instead". However if you have people constantly trying to blow out the candle (of true knowledge), you should not be surprised if the people trying to light the candle (e.g. Forrest) at some point are not trying to convince anymore, but whack those people.
See Matt Dillahunty over the years
Most likely the last option.
See what happens when you’re an adult with imaginary friends and gods that you worship and talk to daily? Being in love with ancient stories can stump your brain power.
No, no, yes
It's ok if you wanna say "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth", as long as you never say anything else about it, ever again.
I'm quite alright with "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", but I usually follow up with "and he used the big bang and cosmic evolution to do it"
Heck it can even be broken up into 6 days like the Bible says if you use the extinction periods as day markers instead of 6, 24 hour periods.
Def high on whatever they put into that incense burner they swing around the church 😂
Words can mean whatever you want them to if said with conviction.
No.
No,
And yes, high on Christian delusion.
The question isn't is he high. It's what is he high on? My guess is spray paint and modeling glue.
But...Bible is true! Because it says so! I have tried the same logic with my wife--'cause I say so! Has not worked yet for some reason.
I used to listen to this guy's radio show religiously. Man, was I lost. Hail Sagan.
Another liar for Jesus
Ok, define the terms, then. The scientific method is a process of making a hypothesis, designing an experiment to test the hypothesis, recording results, and finding out if the results support or detract from that hypothesis. The scientific method is not intrinsically atheistic. Scientific is an adjective to describe information derived using the scientific method. Enlightenment means acquiring a significant amount of additional knowledge than before. I take him as saying that the more people have used the scientific method to acquire more knowledge about the world, the less likely the hypothesis for evolution has been supported. The amount of mental gymnastics that proponents of evolutionary theory have to go through to explain how things happened by accident grows over time.
Accident implies intent. Evolution has been observed, creation has not
Science: You came from a rock 3.5 billion years ago.
Also Science: You guys worship a sky magician.
«Science: You came from a rock 3.5 billion years ago.»
in what science book tell that?
@@luish1498 Smithsonian magazine January 13, 2016.
"Life and Rocks may have Co-evolved on earth."
It's such a great read. Many textbooks teach the same thing. You see, I have to tell you what you believe, because most of you don't know.
@@bradynutzman4488So you say we came from rocks and the quote you provide as evidence debunks that by saying we co-evolved. You didnt even read one sentence correctly lol.
@@elhartzer1639 Read the article. It's very short.
@@elhartzer1639 That's the title. Not a quote
🎶I know you
I know you
I know you
You know me better than you think you do
As you get high
As you get high
As you get high
As you get high🎶
Okay, so "In the beginning God" is scientific. I'd like to see the scientific study you are basing that claim on.
The existence of the Christian God and "him" creating the Universe is your hypothesis, right? What was your experiment to test that hypothesis? Did you have a control? Where did you publish that study? Was it peer reviewed by people who didn't insist on the conclusion before the review process?
Oh my dog, the way he says "are. You. High?"😂
I think the creationist is correct. He is saying that the Hindu religion is correct and is the only one true religion.
That is the point.
It is a general habit used by many fanatic religious believers to "highjack" scientific terms and simply use them for something completely different. By this adding weight to their unfounded claims. The same is done with the term "truth" or "fact".
It’s not only a definition problem. It’s an epistemology problem aswell. How we “know” things and come to justified true beliefs. And so much more .
"In the beginning...god created the heavens and the earth" is scientific?
Then I guess "Once upon a time there were 3 bears, who lived in a house together...." is scientific too!
I have the answers to your questions
1 enlightenment (in) (light) (an) (ment) - is the state of mind reached after a giant blunt is smoked
2 Scientific (sigh) (and)(tif) (ick)-is the sound made as a giant blunt is smoked
3 🥴 what was your question again?
;)
Yes, you can safely say it, meaning that saying it isn't going to get you physically harmed. But it still isn't true.
"Are you high?" Is my favorite ender
This guy is right, technically.
"We can safely say". Freedom of speech, we can safely say it. We'd be wrong, but there's no personal danger to us in saying it.
"There's nothing more scientific or scripturally correct than 'in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth'" is technically correct if one of the two following is true.
There's nothing more scientific than 'in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth' OR
There's nothing more scripturally correct than 'in the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth'.
The second I think is true. I don't recall anything in the scriptures contradicting it at least.
So, his syntax with the or operator is a bit confusing, but what he's saying is not "(nothing is more scientific) or (not is more scriptural)" but rather "nothing is (more scientific or more scriptural.)" Its the difference between !a | !b and !(a | b). The former is equivalent to !(a+b), aka "it is not true that a and b are both correct," while the latter is equivalent to !a + !b, aka "a is false and b is false."
This is what he means to say. It is syntactically confusing, though. He wouldve been better off if he said "neither... nor..." instead of "nothing is... or...."
That being said, I approve of trying to iron man your opposition... even when the opposition is being a goober!
@@peppermintgal4302 yup, the 'technically' in that sentence is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
I did indeed not apply formal logic rules to grammar. Otherwise my joke wouldn't have worked.
I find it funny that he says scientific enlightenment while advocating for a religion that was started prior to that enlightenment in the same sentence.
He can’t be high. If he was high, he’d be admitting that he doesn’t actually believe any of the bullshit he peddles.
You’re right Forrest this guy is wasted of the opium of masses. The addiction can keep people in a fantasy world their entire lives.
I think a lot of us have no business worrying about this, I understand us as humans there’s natural curiosity. However, none of us in the comments are making a feesible argument, it’s all just insults and bandwagon against the man who expressed his beliefs. Which is understandable, we’re bred to believe what we hear whether it’s evolution or creation. Experience it for yourself do your own research and come to your own conclusion.
See, its a trick question of the "mathematicians answer variety."
He says there is "nothing more scientific OR scriptually correct than 'In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth."
Since that statement IS scriptually correct, it completes one of the two halves of the or statement, meaning the statement is true, regardless of how scientifically inaccurate it is.
Lets be real, he's using an odd, colloquial definition of or where what you mean is and. (Yes, this is a thing people do, and all the time. Yes, it is ironic. Its kind of like people using literally in a metaphorical way.)
The way it works is that theres an assumed either bundled up in the or. "There is nothing that is either more scientific or scripturally correct..." See how that changes the meaning? Language will sometimes take efficiency over clarity, and this is a case of that.
But I mean your point is still a funny point lol
@@peppermintgal4302 yeah, language is pretty weird that way. I know what he really meant, I just enjoy being literal and pedantic, especially to make fun of people.
How Dare you suggest he is _High_ ?
Being _High_ makes you _cool_
😏😏
Hell yeah!
Why do people like this even bother to debate fundamentalists at this lebel. They’re not going to change. Especially old ones.
It's not so much trying to change their minds, but to show their followers that they're being lied to
How is it a debate when one is wrong by every objective measure and unprovable because it is complete fantasy?
"Daytime is at least 4 days older than the sun."
-The Bible
Since we’re making up quotes, “maggots come from raw meat” -Charles Darwin
@@Fade2Dark I'm not the one who wrote Genesis though. Maybe you should have read Genesis before leaving this pointless comment (especially since I don't worship Darwin SMH).
@@AGNOSTIC_incomprehensibleXIV nature is your creator lol
@@AGNOSTIC_incomprehensibleXIV btw, I think you’re confusing days as in 24 hour periods with day time 12 hour periods. So yeah. You made up a quote.
"In the beginning" is a bit of a mistranslation.
The original phrase means something closer to "When Time came into existence", which changes the context completely.
You are not, in fact, using the same definitions.
It’s simple, really. He doesn’t actually understand what the word “science” means. As is so often the case when dealing with fundies, climate deniers, flat earthers, etc., etc.
LOL! The amount of things there's scientifically wrong with that "and" 8 words into the bible, connecting heaven and earth is staggering! 9.2 billion years, 2 trillion galaxies, and the entire periodic table of elements!
I am Christian and I believe that God did indeed crate the heavens and the earth. But that is philosophical debate, not a scientific one. In my opinion science points to God, and I enjoy it’s intricacy and ability to be studied in awe of its creator. No matter what can we not all share a love of science and it’s beauty (and disgustingness) no matter how it came to be? Though I do pose to any materialist here the question of how they suppose the world they study came to be. I empathise with the fact that you think that man is insane as I once would have but also, is not such a flamboyant claim aimed at scientists (for decades I may add, this principle of science being God’s creation kickstarted modern science) something to be investigated? You say “are you high?” as a joke but at some point this must be addressed as a serious matter…
@@AnonYmous-yj9ibthere is one aspect of science that can indirectly prove god by proving atheism is false and that is chemistry. Life cannot, by any means, come from non-life by natural conditions. Atheism remains in checkmate for over 2,000 years.
things take time to change. Religious people, especially catholics and even the pope, are beginning to believe in evolution. People have believe in god for thousands of years, but evolution concept has only been around a couple hundred years.
Since people do believe creationism is fact and are beyond change, you could Always Show them that fact. Ask them If something could Change their mind and If they dont have anything, that in fact means that the whole reasoning process is useless, since they will just See their own argument validated in every form there is
I think the confusion is with the word 'more'. He meant 'less'.
Honestly that creationist make sense.
There must be something inmaterial that brought the material world. Its quite correct no matter how much you scream in disgust.
Prove it
@@degew9367The proof is all the things around you having the Baker of the gaps or the chef of the gaps. there isnt just any alternative to this conclusion though. Not to mention there is no proof for macroevolution . (And that was not even an alternative)
everything material needs to have a cause. Except the first cause, for the first cause is immaterial that brought the material to be.
@@Oksure1234 so you don't have any empirical evidence that says something material can't come from something immaterial? Just because material things can come from material things doesn't mean they can't come from the immaterial. Do you have any actual evidence or not?
We observe bakers and chefs making food. It's testable and repeatable. Have you observed God making the universe?
Macroevolution has been observed and repeated multiple times
@@degew9367 the evidence is the food that is cooked. For we have observed and tested that food does not come out of another food suddenly, It requires a cook .
What evidence suggests that material(time space and mass) doesn't come out of the inmaterial? In fact the evidence is that everything has a cause that lead to the one first cause which is God.
No but even if you haven't observed that the chef cooks that food on the table, you would still know it comes from a cook, even if you see some odd shaped art you first ask who created this ?? Not how can this be?.
What proof do you suggest about macroevolution???
It is actually most mathematically probable that this universe is a simulation, so another material world brought this world into existence, not a supernatural creator
Creationists grasping at straws at this point.
Either something is "scripturally correct" OR it is scientific.
Nope they never use the same definition. They will always use it vaguely so they can quickly change ot when they start loosing the argument or get back into a corner with questions.
Oh man I love Forrest, I saw this vid before. He was absolutely baffled by this guy.
I guess when your religion states, in the beginning Nothing made everything. Very enlightening
Is it demonstrable? Is it directly observable? Is it repeatable? Is it testable? Does the data collected lead in only one direction, or in this hypothesis, could the origin be literally any creator god and not just this fellow's personally preferred version of a deity?
Can you please do a reacteria to the Evolution episode of Futurama? I know that is not usually the type of thing you react to, but it could be cool to point out what they got right or wrong or you could explain some of the jokes better. I recently re-watched that episode and I couldn't help but think if you.
“Are you high” took me out the game 😂😂😂
What's exactly unscientific about the claim?
Where is the argument?
There is no argument , he is just stating that god exists
If he uses any argument it only be circular
Lmao. Forrest usually gets into specifics and really proves his point so it's nice to see him just poke fun for once😂
I love the not-so-subtle equivocation between science and what counts as scripturally correct
😂😂😂 Christians always out here speaking like it's opposite day. So when he said, "there is nothing more scientific", I'm translating it as "there is nothing less" 💅🏾
do you have full video link?
Are we using the same definition of enlightenment? Apparently not because materialism does not equate per se to "enlightenment" so let's play a game called "Aristotle" shall we? Also, he very well could have been high and his arguments still valid. That's why it's called an "abusive ad him". He could be high and right. He could be high and wrong. The validity argument ( not that I believed his to be good) in and of itself , exists independently of his state of mind ( high or not). That's like saying Biblical Creation is contingent upon your testosterone levels. The truth or falsity of the claim is independent of your "T" levels. In a non-sequitur.
The science he's referring to is the evidence of a universal timeline. Everything is in decay and the universe appears to have a point of origin, this would suggest a "beginning" to the universe. According to science, matter can neither be created nor destroyed, thus the reconciliation between those two facts is that there must be something outside of our universe that we cannot observe and that does not abide by the laws of this universe that brought about the universe in said beginning. A name commonly given to that thing is "God." Thus, the Bible actually supplies the same answer to the origins of the universe as science does, but does so with a greater detail of explanation. The rejection of theism is not the pursuit of science, it's the pursuit of senselessness.
Nothing is in decay. As the universe expands, energy is spread out thinner through all of it, which leads to the heat death of the universe when the universe expands too much. The point of origin has all the same energy and matter as it does now, just infinitely more dense. The universe doesn’t need a cause to have a beginning.
@@DoggishPrince34 Your closing statement is unrelated to your body of evidence. The universe appearing to be in a state of decay suggests that the universe has a beginning. A beginning demands a cause. Arguing against a state of decay is to argue against the claim that the entire matter of the universe does not have a beginning. If the argument that you're making is that the universe has always existed, then in that case yes, the universe does not have a cause, but if anyone concedes to the universe having a beginning, they concede to the universe having a cause by default.
Out of curiosity what are the odds of a cell spontaneously coming into existence and then just curious what are the odds of that happening?
A legitimate question? Then define "sponatanious coming into existence"
He's definitely on something.
As someone who was raised Christian and who has family members who are and not do I hate the idea of a god but it’s when one beings to use that hypothesis that belive without proof to justify immoral actions is were I draw the line luckily this video isn’t about that this is just a misunderstanding of the scientific conensus of the universe beginnings vs religion. Is religion itself bad? No hardly some of my core values as a person came from being raised Christian it becomes a issue however when someone uses their reglious belives to justify harm as stated in the beginning of this comment (yes I realize the redundancy of mentioning it twice no I’m not gonna fix it I’m far to tired. )
But to say that Christianity and science agree on the origin of the universe and that it’s the most scientific and faith based belive is just plain misinformation.
Religiousness is fundamentally bad. Both for society as it creates unnecessary divides, with one side percieiving themselves as ultimate good with 5he justification for any atrocity against anyone they deem demonic and
Individually as once youre ready to believe one thing only on faith, you are ready to believe other things without good Reason, it poisons the ability to think straight
Not just that, but if you actually read the Bible and not just read the really fucked-up shock passages, the creationist is dead wrong about how to read Genesis. Genesis is very explicitly designed to be an allegory about the human experience (hence why there are humans who created the limited lifespan, the different regional languages and unrelated languages, the settlement of the Fertile Crescent and the delineation of Israelites and everybody else, and the Israel tribal system), not an actual by-the-minutes historical testimony written by God himself. I know there's a lot to be said about religion poisoning everything, but Biblical literalism is the gotdanged strychnine.
Yep
Let me start by saying that I respect everyone's opinion. I do wonder, though, how we are able to believe that something as complex as life and nature just happened. Imagine if I tell you that the latest modern car just happened by accident or evolved into what it is now (with all its features in the right place for the right purpose), or my latest iPhone/computer just happened, you would laugh at me. Because there is no way something organized and with purpose can just create itself. Everything we know in life was made by somebody, so wouldn't it be logical to at least acknowledge the fact that the earth and every organized, complex and purposeful thing on it could have been made by someone, too?
What do you mean "just happened". No one has ever said that life "just" happen. It's waaaaay more complicated than that. And you must know that.
@@SilverEye91 How do you explain the "big explosion" in the beginning? Who made it happen?
@@landajb6878 For one, it wasn't an explosion. Secondly we don't know what came before it. It is as far back as we can see. Scientists don't just want to make something up you know. They require proof.
Also, why does it have to have been triggered by a person? Earth quakes aren't triggered by anyone. Mountains aren't made by anyone. Why do you act like everything is?
@@landajb6878You don't have a response to that?
What about the talking donkey in the Bible? Can you explain that one to me Shrek?
Can any creationist explain how did all the marsupials traveled from Australia to the middle east to board the noha ark and travel back to Australia after the great flood??? Did they hop back with 0 evidence of migration ?? Or did they swim back to Australia??? Or did the unicorn carry them back to Australia???
That was almost as cringe inducing as every single song ever played on the radio after 1999