@@amosburton0612 Dave never "shadowbanned" anyone. It's just that Gunter Bechly is such a bit player that this response to him has generated more interaction than most of the content that bills him center stage, so now the algorithm promotes this over any of Bechly's junk. And science isn't decided by 'engaging' people with opposite views. It's decided in the primary literature where scientists disclose their experimental findings. When Bechly publishes a paper showing some vital part of evolution cannot happen in a peer-reviewed biology journal, then he's worth taking seriously as a scientist, and his ideas will have real weight in science. Until he does that, all that needs to be done is to show where he contradicts the actual science that's being done.
@@locutus4763 I took a look at the *whole* section with the time codes you mentioned to see what you were talking about. You know what your post left out? Where he mentioned "people who [he's] debunked using sock accounts" and "legitimate trolls/spam accounts". Hmmm, it's almost as if you quotemined him to lie about what he said. Furthermore, even if they get blocked, it doesn't mean their comments that they made will be hidden. Case in point, Amos up there.
I strongly believe that in addition to teaching science in schools, we also need to teach the history of that science. Not only it can be taught earlier than actual science giving the preview of what kids will be learning in depth later, it also completely removes the "science dogma" bias all non-scientists have. Knowing what scientists went through to prove their new discoveries and to validate their opinion, no one would ever say that "science" is being pushed to the kids in schools as a form of a "religious dogmas" that everyone is just too scared to oppose. Great video as always, Prof Dave!
The methodology is even more important. If most people had been properly taught about the tools like experimental methodology, proper research skills, how to think in terms of concrete and falsifiable claims, etc., then they would know that the claims about biology are nonsense.
We learned history of science but it was taught in such a dry way none of it stuck. So incredibly boring when all you want to see if chemicals go boom or flash. It's important to learn the nitty gritty but should be engaging.
@@fredericchristie3472 I think teaching students some about the reasons that science has the methodology it does would help students understand science and how it's reliable as well. For instance I think teaching students the reason that it's important to make a prediction before performing an experiment or observation would help more than simply telling students that they should make a prediction before performing an experiment or observation.
As far as I remember that's exactly how it went back in school for my age range in Portugal: when a new subject was being introduced we had a brief "history of" explaining how it started and how it changed before we dived into how it is now. In biology we discussed spontaneous generation, Pasteur's experiments to disprove it, Lamarckian evolution and Mendel's experiments with peas before we talked about Darwin, his theory, and the modern version of the theory. In physics we learned how the model has changed from the cartoonish "solar system" analog to the modern probability cloud or however it's called and why the model changed, before we were taught the physics themselves. It's really strange to me that there are places that don't bother providing context to the subjects before teaching them, other than languages. Heck, I think even in Math we were explained the history of some of the concepts like the pithagorian theorem and even of some areas we didn't study like sphere geometry. History is incredibly important, and not just national history. History is everything that happens, and how, and why. No need to be a historian to understand important context, but we need to know the context.
@@Person-ef4xj Exactly. That's the relevant part. It's also cross-disciplinary, because it lets you talk a little about p-hacking and math and such, and it's actually really useful information for them even if they never go into science. In the real world, it is incredibly useful for topics ranging from nutrition to social issues to know that small sample size studies that did not pre-state a prediction should be treated as incredibly tentative.
That “I used to believe but I had an awakening,” trope is *the oldest and most well recognized propaganda technique in history.* The fact that some people can’t recognize that is arguably more dangerous than blindly believing things that have been disproven over and over again, just because a German accent sounds smart.
"a German accent sounds smart" Interesting. As a German myself, whenever i hear a German(-ic person) speaking English with a thick accent the speaker loses some IQ points in my mind. I didn´t know that it makes you seem smarter for others. Dang it, i should work an my th... this is ... dis is ... sis is ... Sis is my German accent! Nailed it.
Every Christian "Conversion" story be like "Yeah I was a staunch Atheist for 30 years and I had a PHD in Evolutionary biology, but then I heard the kalam argument one time and instantly converted over to Christianity right there on the spot, invalidating my years of study"
Let me first say that I'm not a young earth Creationist, I accept evolution as a Christian, but in all fairness, many atheists on social media will do the opposite of this where they claim they were a pastor of a church for 20 or 30 years before their eyes were opened etc. People make up these lies to act like they're an authority and have the "dirty little secrets" on the people their ideological group hates
@@boatcaptain6288Except that they verifiably were. Most of the bigger atheists were evangelicals of some kind or another, several of them studying the gospel which when looked at critically is the easiest way to become an atheist. My parents were never big on church and the one we ended up joining when I was older was excessively progressive to a point where the most recent pastor pushed back on the idea of being an atheistic church preferring the term post- theistic which is almost better. It is the kind of church that annoys Matt in a sense except that it explicitly and deliberately cherry picks the best of the bible acknowledging both that it is the product of man and that much of it is insane and essentially a documentation of various crimes against humanity if they ever happened. So there are different flavours of atheist out there, the axiom still stands that the quickest way to become an atheist is to read the bible. All of it.
@@zippydebrain Uh huh. Then how do you explain the two thousand years worth of theologians who have studied the Scriptures over and over and remained Christian? Irenaeus, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Horatius Bonar, Thomas Watson, Matthew Henry, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, Robert Lewis Dabney, the list goes on and on and on. And you can't just say because they profit and benefit from it in some way: most of these people didn't make a profitable living doing this nor did they enjoy much power and influence
Yeah man I was a staunch atheist for like 300 thousand years living off of the blood of infants but after I heard the watchmaker argument I instantly converted to Christianity right there on the spot, invalidating a lifetime of scientific study and careful consideration of apologist arguments. This is totally real you guys, this really happened to me
Honestly, prof Dave debunk is always insta-click for me. I never have to ask myself, “am I in the mood for this?”. The best time for prof Dave is all the time.
Fun fact: After Professor Dave posted this (4 Nov 2022), Gunter Bechly posted yet another response on Evolution News, after another series of articles dunking on Dave for his tearing into Stephen Meyer (13 Dec 2022) "Yesterday I concluded my lengthy response to “Professor Dave” (aka Mr. Dave Farina) and his attack on Stephen Meyer and Darwin’s Doubt. See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. [links to his other articles on Professor Dave] Farina has meanwhile also published a RUclips video responding to my earlier article series, which debunked his video against Casey Luskin. However, he failed to refute any of my substantial points and ignored that I already addressed most of his shallow arguments in my published articles and public presentations. Otherwise, he just spills his usual poison with rude ad hominems, falsehoods, misinformation, and red herrings. It is quite obvious that his delicate ego was hurt by my factual destruction of his sloppy propaganda nonsense. While it was an affair of honor to defend others, I personally do not consider Farina to be a worthy opponent. Therefore, I will certainly not waste further precious time to respond to his silly new hit piece, but will instead follow the good Internet practice of not feeding the trolls unnecessarily. Of course, I do appreciate the welcome additional publicity that he is drawing to my work on ID theory with his channel. I also find it very revealing that guys like this have nothing more substantial to offer. We must be onto something!" Yes that's it. This is literally the entire content of the article. I'm no Discovery Institute member or expert, but I think I can give a speculation as to what happened behind the scenes: Bechly: Well, looks like Dave just published a video debunking me and all of my points! He's roasted me so thoroughly that I can't properly respond! What will I do! DI Member: Quick! Act like you're a based gigachad and just say that Dave is not worthy of you, and shut down the conversation there in a pseudo-honorable way! Bechly: Great idea! On top of that, I'll turn Dave's message around and call him a troll, and accuse him of what I do! Big brain time!
It's a typical creatonist trick. They've studied Goebbels' propaganda and/or Soviet propaganda and/or Orwell's 1984 too. It's easy to recognize the moment you know how: they never ever give one single example as evidence.
i love how these supposedly legit scientists repeatedly fall back to the criteria of whether or not things make sense to them as if they are not fully aware that human intuition is not scientifically reliable.
They are doubling their hypocrisy, bc tho I am not among the faithful, I grew up in a Catholic family & I don’t remember lying being something the Xtian God’s wild about. Pretty sure someone with theological background could make a faith case against “lying with intent to bring God more souls” bc conversion is supposedly a matter of free will to consent to the points of the creed. Can’t consent if you’re being lied to, & I wonder if the God they believe in is likely to take kindly to these hubristic humans putting their liar thumbs on the scales.
@@aldunlop4622 Man, i have never seen so accurate and easy to understand description! Hope your comment reach more people! I would also add that it's not the people who define what's "common sense", it's the universe. We don't impose our opinion onto the universe, we build it based on what the universe shows us.
so u don't trust ur own mind or that of human kind at large. omg its gonna be super easy to fool u thn. bruhhh. ok my dear brother before these atheists fool you let me guide you Im Jesus i help wandering souls like u. but u have to show some merit that u r not a lazy man asking for heaven without any work. so for a very small fee of 200 dollars i can sell u a legit to spot in heaven before the atheists corrupt ur mind. once u buy this spot just like real estate on this earth this spot will always be available to even after atheists manage to corrupt ur mind. hurry before ur mind is corrupt. reserve an eternal guaranteed spot in paradise. u can pay in installments 2k to 20k per month
@@aldunlop4622 Yeah, and that's the thing: these people never go beyond their intuition. They just assume it's correct, and then make up ad hoc explanations to defend the conclusion they already had in mind.
I wonder if they ever sit down for five minutes to ask themselves what they are arguing for instead of only focusing on what they are arguing against... Well explained Prof Dave! Keep up the good work.
I doubt it. I know nothing about the people the talks about here but their message, and ideas, seem to be a bit like Kent Hovind. Many of these charlatans, like Hovind, are narcissists, or can’t accept that their wrong overall. That said, they can’t admit that they’re wrong. They don’t want to face the wrath of their sheep. They can’t look bad or worse, wrong. Therefore they have to waffle, build straw men, and Ad-Hoc like crazy to discredit science
They definitely don't. They're con artists, they know exactly what they're doing. And what they're doing is selling a lie by sowing doubt about reality to people who already believe the lie. Affirmative arguments of any kind are both unnecessary and detrimental to their overall cause, as it opens them up to refutation. So the "best" we can hope to get out of these people is "I'm right because you're wrong because ."
Sometimes it's about keeping the faith, sometimes it's about culture, a lot of the time it probably comes down to money and power. Maybe they've figured out that this life is all that's guaranteed to them, maybe they think there's gonna be someone there to give them a pass into paradise.
It’s sad that debunking a lie takes 10 times the time it takes to tell the lie. Deep respect for people like Dave who take time out of their lives to do this invaluable service to humanity. 👍
Yep - and the creationist 'spokesmen' are well aware of this, which is why we get things like the 'Gish Gallop' and Kunt Hovind's insistence that he should be given equal time in debates.
As someone that grew up knee deep in the church, I can’t thank you enough for what you do man. It took a while for me to put two and two together about religion but I’m glad I’m out. I also appreciate the fact that you go straight for the jugular and hold their feet straight to the fire. I come from a very religious and conservative part of west Africa where the Abrahamic faiths are fully woven into our psyche and therefore, heavily slow down much needed growth. The DI idiots are the foundation upon which many charlatans run their schemes to exploit the poor and desperate among us. Please never stop tearing them a new one. 💪🏿
How, precisely, is "religion" holding back progress in Africa? Don't you think the incessant wars and insurgencies have more to do with it? The most destructive war since World War II in terms of lives lost--six million dead--was the Second Congo War, and that wasn't over religion.
@@bartonpaullevenson3427 the flawed ideas do more harm than good and are often used as tools to maintain the status quo. When people are told the meek shall inherit the earth and a saviour god will come and right the wrongs one day, bad people get away unchecked, time and time again.
@@bartonpaullevenson3427 having lived in West, Central and South Africa for a number of years, religion (or local interpretations of religion) is certainly in the mix for things hindering progress and development. Things like polygamy, child brides, extreme homophobia, FGM, often stem from religious interpretations. Not to mention obvious examples like boko haram and al-shabab.
@@osassabi2202 But some of the best work against oppressive regimes has come from people who were thoroughgoing believers--William Wilberforce, the Mahatma, Martin Luther King Jr., and Desmond Tutu come to mind.
"My whole life, I didn't believe in magical thinking. But then I noticed, if you stack the 7 Harry Potter books on top of each other, they weigh more than this post-it that says, 'Magic isn't real'. Now I'm a Hufflepuff" A nonreligious person would never mention baptism
Even if all of science was proven wrong today, it still doesn’t make “a genie did it” a rational solution, and no sane person would ever jump to that as an answer.
And amongst the panoply of sky wizards out there who's worshippers claim are responsible, they have to eliminate each other's as credible, in order for their favourite genie to claim the prize. It's sad that supposedly mature adults waste so much energy and time kow-towing to their fearful superstitions and adopt the dumbest and most disingenuous tactics to get sane people on board their carousel of stupidity.
Religious fundamentalists completely misunderstand that correcting past assumptions or mistakes in the sciences happens by design. If Science opperates based on absolutes, it fails to be science.
@@tripolarmdisorder7696 even if fundamentalist christians were to somehow prove that god exists, it still doesn't prove *their* god exists. they always neglect that part of the argument, as if just proving that god created the universe is any evidence that the entity of their choosing did it.
I'm glad you're here. We all know that the real target of these frauds, aren't people like you, or your followers, but the gullible, the under educated, or otherwise vulnerable. Hearing your concise logic and clarity is refreshing. Thank you.
@@robbicox3850 I never said anything about ignoring them. I hate it when people try to put words in my mouth. I also don't like it when people try to project THEIR thoughts onto me. 😕
Indeed. It’s great isn’t it? On another subject, I accidentally had Google translate your message and it states you are 4 years old and you love being that age. Translation programs are funny.
@@angrydoggy9170 I love it when it sees comments like "fjsynshyshd that's is the TD gig fd to j GG d" And asks me if I want to translate it. Yes Google, please translate forehead+keyboard into english for me, I'm sure it's a earth-shattering statement.
@@connorboyle2585 I’ve been teaching foreign languages to kids (as a substitute in emergency situations) and when asked about the usefulness about learning language (after all, we’ve got Google translate right?), I would take a simple short sentence and translate it 2 to 4 time into different tongues before translating it to the original language. Sometimes hilarious, sometimes outright offensive but never accurate. It’s basically a modern version of a game of telephone.
I had just finished watching the third installment of the series so the timing of the upload was perfect:D By the way. Completely unrelated to the video but I wanted to thank you for helping me save Calculus this semester, your videos are awesome
A lot of times, these debunks serve as excellent contrasts and comparisons of science one doesn't really get a chance to study. My own understanding is quite superficial by comparison, but having a contrast often helps to frame an idea. Of course, the entertainment value of watching someone who presents unabashed confidence in lies get squashed has a certain satisfying component as well. Thanks for your work here, Professor. I'll be going back to watch the previous ones again, over time. Nice to have them available.
@@charliemichaels452 "neo-Darwinian Taliban" Wow. With all the lols I have to conclude you're easily, and strangely, amused. But you've pretty much exposed yourself as a conspiracy theory driven hack. I think you've dunked yourself sufficiently. No need for me to go over it.
My understanding is that although the 1949 Constitution of West Germany made religious studies compulsory in public school, many states began offering a secular alternative (Ethics) from the 70s onward. I don’t know the details of Bechley’s life, but it is at least plausible that he didn’t study religion at school.
I like these debunk videos, in part because it is clear Dave enjoys making them, too. You shine a light on these ghouls, Dave, and they all hiss at you in disgust and terror. It's entertaining on top of being informative.
Claiming to have once been a redeemed atheist, satanist, drug user, sexual "deviant," ect. has been a favorite of religious charlatans for at least centuries. It's not actually convincing to even the most slightly skeptical person, but it reassures the true believers.
he himself discovered over 160 new species from different ages. there is even a whole family of small dragon flies from the carboniferous named after him (Bechlyidae). he was quite the renowned paleontologist until he must have hit his head in 2016. sadly his english wikipedia article got deleted, but the german version is still online (if you wanna have a look).
"..when I watched those RUclips videos and the discussions on intelligent design.." The fact he fell for the "RUclips University" trap says a lot about his actual relationship to science and its principles IMO.
Dude I gotta say this is actually cathartic in a way. I grew up being taught young earth creationism, before creationism was ever rebranded as "intelligent design". When I was young, I really did believe in God. I was really afraid believing scientific truths about evolution was the morally wrong thing to do and that that was the propaganda. It goes so deep. Eventually I did finally just throw in the towel when it was so goddamn obvious the creationists had no science to go on. I decided that ID was fine from a philosophical stand point and believed it in that way, but decided to just start educating myself about what actual science says with regards to evolution. I never looked back. I'm not religious anymore, but I'm still pretty pissed that my time was wasted with so many damn lies growing up. I wonder how far ahead I could have gotten in life if I hadn't had to waste time unpacking propaganda I'd been taught and learning things for myself. I'm actually in my 30s now and have believed the big bang since college, but only recently have been able to go back and learn more about how organisms evolved. I feel like a 5th grader learning biology for the first time and I realize I never really got an education about any of this stuff. It was all religious propaganda. Watching people debunk these frauds and speak out against them is everything. I always thought I just sucked at and hated biology, but most of what I'm learning is pretty interesting. Maybe it's just all the religious propaganda I hated.
Prof Dave you are absolutely awesome. Your science content is so top notch, but you are really quite SKILLED and EXCELLENT at... THIS. The amount of cited papers and clear understandable explanations without having to wade through the harder scientific terminology (not to mention the vocal tone you have through the entire video) just make these the absolute top tier content. Thanks again.
Oh great, will watch later. Really hope you will check out Forrest Valkai! He's super fun and motivated in debunking creationists and explaining science to people. You guys would make an amazing collab!
ID used to make a prediction: Irreducibly complex structures cannot evolve. They even had a reasonably rigorous definition for "irreducible complexity". It didn't turn out well for them... My favorite (because I was minorly involved with it) was clearly showing "irreducible complex" structures arising in a computational evolution system where we could observe every single step. That was fun.
Why? There is politically motivated misinformation in all subjects at all levels already? Why does anyone care about ID and not the misinformation already peddled?
@@dogwalker666 ooo yeah I'm afraid there's tons of misinformation and half truths in American education. Surely you walked right past the part where Abraham Lincoln imprisoned journalists that spoke out against him before the Civil War and straight the the great emancipator narrative yes?
It's also telling about the motives of ID proponents by how they want to do a complete end-run around the peer review process, therefore avoiding the scrutiny of the scientific community, and then present their untested and unscientific ideas directly to the classroom.
This is beautiful! Not only is it a point-for-point debunking but a clear view of just what sort of person we're dealing with. Also glad to know that anytime someone googles his name, This video will be one of the results.
Saying "The Disco toot" was so unexpected that I choked on my Gatorade. That's two videos now with Dave saying "Disco" in a disappointed tone, i need more
I love how they always fall back on the argument: Origin of Species is dumb and incorrect, therefore Jesus. It's almost as if they know that we've progressed since Darwin and don't accept everything he said as fact because it's not, but he inspired others to do their research, and that if they were to acknowledge that fact their system would fall to bits immediately.
So many science-deniers (rather than the conmen that Prof Dave is debunking) rely on science decades or even centuries old, as if nothing has changed or advanced since then. This kind of thinking makes sense when their ideology requires them to pick a book and stick with it no matter what happens, so they think we're all doing the same thing too. No matter how many times we tell them that we don't revere Darwin, don't try to emulate his life, don't consider ourselves Darwinists, and don't adhere slavishly to the contents of a single book... they never change their script.
I, as a child (12) think it’s funny how whenever Dave says a child could understand it, I do actually have a pretty solid level of comprehension about the topic or debunk in mind
I just looked up James Tour’s channel. He’s planning on doing ANOTHER video series talking about Professor Dave. He also plans on “debunking” the people Dave invited to speak when he did his “700 papers” series on Tour. In his own words: “not only does Dr. Tour thwart a RUclipsr’s misguided understanding of chemistry, but he scrutinizes the details of chemists selected by the RUclipsr for engagement.” He then goes out of his way to call people like Cronin “experts” with quotation marks. It’s almost like Tour’s true god is his ego. Makes me wonder if Rice University knows what he’s doing in his spare time. They should given how public he’s making it.
I've become quite convinced in my old age that _all_ full time apologists are slaves to their ego, and are desperately trying to convince themselves and others that it is actually intellectually justified, despite all reason, to keep wishing REALLY hard that they're special, so special in fact, that a literal god wants to spend forever and ever and ever with them specifically. And they don't seem to care how much damage they cause with their disingenuous BS, cherry picked BS, toxic othering rhetoric, or ass-pulled wild assertions about the inner thoughts and motivations of an unobservable, unexaminable, literally fantastical, creator of everything god. Either that or they're just delusional, and literally incapable of engaging hypothetically about what their ideas would necessitate about reality, never mind getting them willingly engaging with objectively verifiable facts about actual reality, beliefs be damned.
They are so desperate to comfort their insecurities regarding their beliefs being utterly wrong. They attempt to force their ideas on others not only for financial gain, but also so they get the great EVOLUTIONARY comfort of “if I’m not alone in this I’m safe”. It’s so ironic.
I really like these debunking videos. Not only are they very teaching, educating people, but they're also fun to watch. The entertainment value is high, and sometimes a bit horrifying due to the fraud being exposed! It's like watching good movies full of action! 🙂
We can only hope they are teaching but in reality they are only teaching us that accept that science is learned progress for people that aren't sponges for bullshit that support lazy learners or actual easily mislead retarded mentally handicapped people.
The thing is that reiligious people believe there is one book written at one point that has all the answers. They don't understand that things change, especially not that they evolve. Which is pretty stupid considering even religious people will say that Christianity came to be in a place dominated by Judaism, and more importantly when the protestant church branched off from catholicism.
Many thanks. You do a great service with these videos, and demonstrate our culture's need for scrupulous attention to verifiable data, and clarity of exposition.
“ finally settling on the Catholic Church.” Lol 😂 That made me genuinely laugh loudly! He obviously doesn’t realise that the Pope accepts the science of evolution by natural selection.
One problem with creationists is that they think that knowing HOW something evolved is equivalent to the question of whether it evolved in the first place. The answer is that no, even if we don't know how evolution works (of course we know a lot about how it works), we still can gather a lot of evidence that it actually happened.
@@DrWhom Yes, The theory of evolution explains the mechanisms that are responsible for the phenomenon of evolution that we see in the fossil record and genetics...etc.
Thanks for your well-made exposé about Günter Bechly. You are right, he's a sad figure. What he tells about the misrepresentation of anti-evolutionistic arguments and their allegedly argumentative weight, is just ridiculous. We dissect his and others ID arguments since years (e.g. the flagella evolution in some extensive papers), but he never felt obliged to discuss any of them in a proper way. Every clear-headed human realizes that the arguments he representes are a mixture of fallacies and junk-science. It's embarrassing that he can't admit that his "conversion" has pure religious reasons. I hope at least he believes what he says instead of lying.
The irony is that, if "immaterial" was well defined and could be used to make testable predictions (even if only indirectly), then it would be perfectly within the scope of science. And, sorry to say Gunter, but it isn't the fault of science that your "immaterial" speculation fails to meet these basic criteria, it's a _you_ problem.
Your education videos are great, but these debunk videos are what I live for (even though I understand they're a hell of a lot more work for you). Thanks Dave, keep up the great work!
That resurrection of the flagellum article is an absolute nail in the coffin against any claims of legitimacy from the ID crew. Especially after they admitted that would falsify irreducible complexity.
"The flagellum is IRREDUCIBLY complex, disproving evolution." "What about the type 3 secretion needle complex?" "Well, that is just a REDUCED form of the flagellum, that developed after the flagellum." Ehhh... In a parallel world: "Swans can only be white" "What about this black swan?" "Well, that is just a black version of a swan that developed after the white swan."
Hey Dave, you may remember me from your part 2 video. I recently defended my PhD working with Dr. Shuhai Xiao. I was very intrigued to see Scott Evans' stuff show up here. He was a post doc of Shuhai's until recently and so I'm a buddy of his. Another compelling vid.
Mark, you have given the world Hitler and Bechly. But you also gave us Bach, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Schumann, Handel, Einstein, Planck, Gutenberg, Kant, Leibniz, Nietzsche and many, many others. We forgive you 😊
@@galileog8945 :D Hitler was actually born in Austria, but that fact wont change history and "we" were the ones that listened to him. Thanks for weighting all those other good people over a few very bad ones
@@galileog8945 ...Humboldt, von Braun, Heisenberg, Hahn, Schwarzschild, Born, Kafka, Grass, Mann, Marx, Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Schumann, Beethoven, Bach, van der Rohe, Beuys, Gropius, Schinkel, Thonet, Dürer, Dix, Cranach, Ernst, Holbein, Franz Xaver Messerschmidt... Get ready to meet Günther Bechly, newest addition to the product line of "famous Germans"! We've finally decided to show that we actually have a sense of humour and this is our contribution to the field of comedy. 🤡 Enjoy!
@@galileog8945 ... not to mention Werner von Braun's invaluable contributions (& his passionately supportive arguments) for the US entering what would become the Space Race, leading to the formation of NASA & all its accomplishments in space travel, orbital technology & astronomical research.
Dave, is there anything you can share about the next part in this series? Or will your next video on the DI be the response to Tour's new conniption fit? Happy 2023 in advance, by the way!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Hi Dave! Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to me. I'm happy to see that there's plenty more bad news for the DI on the horizon. Serves them right for their organized intellectual vandalism and societal parasitism, imo. Rest assured I'm eagerly awaiting either video. Take care!
Lmao when you said he is an "invertebrate scientist" for a second I thought it was a clever dig on somebody for being spineless, then realized you meant that he's literally just a scientist that studies invertebrates ;D
What always gets me the most about these 'sudden evolutionary change' arguments is they make it sound like it happened overnight. No, there are at least 100,000 year gaps, usually longer. That's short on the geologic timescale but that's room for hundreds of thousands of generations of potential mutations and adaptations, particularly in the older, simpler creatures that likely had relatively short generational timescales.
Dave, your last statement here was a home run. 😮 I hadn’t even considered the ramifications of these posted vids until now. Each of these guys will have to live with the fact that these will be their number one search results from this day forward. 😂 thank you for being a literal genius.
Search results cater to the user's search history and subscriptions. When I am completely signed out, he is only the third search. It'll get to the top sometime, but it is not there yet.
the claim that established facts are "tired" is one of the most hilarious things to me. you might as well say "i'm tired of putting 1+1 in my calculator and seeing it say 2, i'm gonna go invent my own math system" and then right after i commented, i resumed the video and heard basically the same thing in fewer words. thanks, dave
Bechly: The flagellum is irreducibly complex! Also Bechly: The Type 3 Secretion Needle complex is just a *reduced* flagellum, not a precursor. It’s funny how creationists can debunk themselves, literally admitting to reduced forms of “irreducible” features, and yet their audience doesn’t even notice. Even when they say it back to back.
@@arthapeterson5239 1. I don't care whether he knows. 2. Correcting misinformation and outright lies with the truth is not a "schtick". 3. It's not about convincing true believers in what DI teaches. It's about teaching their dishonest tactics so people won't ever believe the DI's "schtick" in the first place.
@@arthapeterson5239 you keep spouting absolute bullshit. Who in yec is going to be convinced by any non-believer argument on RUclips? You are just looking for reasons to be offended on behalf of idiots who can't think for themselves.
@@arthapeterson5239 no yec is going to go to a RUclips debunk channel of any type to see why they are wrong. You are an idiot. All of your comments come off as concern trolling in defence of yec. Again you are an idiot. You can be a cunt but I'm going to call you out every time. Plus it helps the algorithm.
One thing that I have learned from this series so far, in order to be a creationist you have to either be totally ignorant of evolution or you have to be a liar. The four people covered thus far are most definitely the latter.
I have loved science my entire life and am grateful for your exposition of these concepts. I have become addicted to your series on the Discovery Institute and appreciate your hard work and diligent research on ID and its proponents. I have only read one book by the ID proponents and came to similar conclusions as you have. That book was Darwin's Black Box. I never read anything else from them since. It is funny but when I read that book it came with a disclaimer from the University the author (Michael Behe) was employed at at that time. They basically were distancing themselves from his views. Lol you just can't write this shit!
Unlikely to happen for the same reason they deny debates on neutral channels and they won't publish material in peer review journals. Anything that would put them in a complete public forum in a way that they can be exposed is a death sentence. Goal 1 is to be JUST public enough that people on the fringes spread them by word of mouth. Goal 2 is never let the truth be exposed.
Imagine being like, an engineer, and being identified as a 'follower' of a prominent engineer from 150 years ago, even though you probably know things that that engineer couldn't dream of, because it was 150 years ago.
23:10 - Most people make the mistake in thinking that Darwin was a phyletic gradualist. Anyone who has bothered to read On The Origin Of Species can see clearly in black and white that Darwin didn't see the entire history of evolution as constant gradual change. Here's a quote from the 6th edition: "...although each species must have passed through numerous transitional stages, it is probable that the periods, during which each underwent modification, though many and long as measured by years, have been short in comparison with the periods during which each remained in an unchanged condition." So there you go, Niles Eldredge and Stephen J Gould were not the first to come up with the idea of periods of stasis, Darwin wrote about a hundred years earlier, so claiming that Darwin saw the history of evolution as this non-stop conveyor-belt of gradual change is completely wrong. Yes, Gould was wrong about this too. Maybe he should have read On The Origin Of Species a bit more closely.
@@arthapeterson5239 you act like any YECsters are going to change their mind watching anyways, you don’t reach the status of a YEC without being deliberately dishonest. They aren’t going to change their mind anyways it doesn’t matter. Either way the target is destroyed and they can’t come back from it. And I personally enjoy the childish shit he throws at them
@@arthapeterson5239 Young Earth Creationists are specifically taught to automatically reject anything, and everything, that even potentially casts the slightest doubt on what they are indoctrinated to believe. If they aren't already starting to have doubts because of the lack of any substance in what creationists are 'teaching' them, they won't give any consideration to any arguments against evolution. Videos like this are intended for people who have already come to the realisation that creationism is a lie.
15:23 "Who defines science?" Really? When they were doing actual work in a science field, some of these guys knew how to define science. They published their work for peer review. But as soon as they started working for DI, they stopped publishing papers, started writing blogs and books, and suddenly asked questions like "who defines science". As soon as you join the DI you do so knowing you can never publish in papers and more. Pretending that you have no clue how science is defined after actually getting paid to do that for a few years is beyond childish.
Acting indignant while denying Lucy walked upright, so you can pretend a god made humans, doesn't rhetorically impress anyone, the way our buddy Gunter thinks it does. Referring to every evolutionary theory as "Darwinism" is equally rhetorically unimpressive.
It's always nice to see an expert take off the gloves and pummel these creeps. It's important to call a liar a liar after they have shamelessly repeated their lies for years.
23:36 He also ignores the whole punctuated equilibrium thing. When reasources suddenly become more or less available or in other situations where evolutionary pressure increases species evolve more rapidly.
Even if I could understand how a scientist becomes sceptic towards evolution, like Günter Bechly, after reading some nonsense anti-evolution books (yes, sometines the mind plays weired games), but how does an alleged (former) scientist simultaneously turn into a believer of virgin birth, resurrection, Adam & Eve etc...? Thanks for the great video...
They say ID isn't "creation science" and expect to be taken seriously. "Creation science" is literally not a thing, it's something almost exclusively said by creationists
Bechly also quotes papers saying the exact opposite of what he claims they would say open to read them yourself, while he is being sure the flock he preaches to are never gonna crosscheck as they are usually too lazy and anti-intellectual for that type of stuff. It is all about the feelings and vibes and what preachers as authorities command them to believe.
Erika (Gutsick Gibbon) ruclips.net/video/sJsLCSwHsz4/видео.html offers a revealing chat where Bechly shows just how gratuitously vague he is on what he thinks happened in the past regarding exactly what was designed or not regarding the common ancestry he sort of accepts (Denton & Behe operate likewise, as are those IDers who don’t accept CE, such as Meyer, Luskin & Wells, as I know directly as I have asked them on various occasions over the years). Btw one of the coming attractions we’re still waiting for (Erika’s talk with him was on 14 May 2021!) is Bechly’s promised paper on whale origins, assailing their natural evolution.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm starting to think that Prof. Dave doesn't really think too highly of the Discovery Institute.
@Awesome Wrench I think I’m gonna have to 3rd that.
Competing in the race for the title "understatement of the year"?
What have they actually discovered anyway?
@@Akira625 probably better ways to lie
@@Akira625 word salads are more tastier now
Here to say: You did it, Professor. This video is the first one that appears when you search Gunter Bechly's name on youtube.
Woohoo!
@@amosburton0612 Dave never "shadowbanned" anyone. It's just that Gunter Bechly is such a bit player that this response to him has generated more interaction than most of the content that bills him center stage, so now the algorithm promotes this over any of Bechly's junk. And science isn't decided by 'engaging' people with opposite views. It's decided in the primary literature where scientists disclose their experimental findings. When Bechly publishes a paper showing some vital part of evolution cannot happen in a peer-reviewed biology journal, then he's worth taking seriously as a scientist, and his ideas will have real weight in science. Until he does that, all that needs to be done is to show where he contradicts the actual science that's being done.
@@amosburton0612 Dave doesn't shadowban anything. More than likely, it's RUclips eating comments.
@@locutus4763 Citation needed. I still see that post by Amos Burton. Provide the citation that Dave banned Amos or enjoy your new title of liar.
@@locutus4763 I took a look at the *whole* section with the time codes you mentioned to see what you were talking about. You know what your post left out? Where he mentioned "people who [he's] debunked using sock accounts" and "legitimate trolls/spam accounts". Hmmm, it's almost as if you quotemined him to lie about what he said. Furthermore, even if they get blocked, it doesn't mean their comments that they made will be hidden. Case in point, Amos up there.
I strongly believe that in addition to teaching science in schools, we also need to teach the history of that science. Not only it can be taught earlier than actual science giving the preview of what kids will be learning in depth later, it also completely removes the "science dogma" bias all non-scientists have. Knowing what scientists went through to prove their new discoveries and to validate their opinion, no one would ever say that "science" is being pushed to the kids in schools as a form of a "religious dogmas" that everyone is just too scared to oppose.
Great video as always, Prof Dave!
The methodology is even more important. If most people had been properly taught about the tools like experimental methodology, proper research skills, how to think in terms of concrete and falsifiable claims, etc., then they would know that the claims about biology are nonsense.
We learned history of science but it was taught in such a dry way none of it stuck. So incredibly boring when all you want to see if chemicals go boom or flash. It's important to learn the nitty gritty but should be engaging.
@@fredericchristie3472 I think teaching students some about the reasons that science has the methodology it does would help students understand science and how it's reliable as well. For instance I think teaching students the reason that it's important to make a prediction before performing an experiment or observation would help more than simply telling students that they should make a prediction before performing an experiment or observation.
As far as I remember that's exactly how it went back in school for my age range in Portugal: when a new subject was being introduced we had a brief "history of" explaining how it started and how it changed before we dived into how it is now. In biology we discussed spontaneous generation, Pasteur's experiments to disprove it, Lamarckian evolution and Mendel's experiments with peas before we talked about Darwin, his theory, and the modern version of the theory. In physics we learned how the model has changed from the cartoonish "solar system" analog to the modern probability cloud or however it's called and why the model changed, before we were taught the physics themselves. It's really strange to me that there are places that don't bother providing context to the subjects before teaching them, other than languages. Heck, I think even in Math we were explained the history of some of the concepts like the pithagorian theorem and even of some areas we didn't study like sphere geometry. History is incredibly important, and not just national history. History is everything that happens, and how, and why. No need to be a historian to understand important context, but we need to know the context.
@@Person-ef4xj Exactly. That's the relevant part. It's also cross-disciplinary, because it lets you talk a little about p-hacking and math and such, and it's actually really useful information for them even if they never go into science. In the real world, it is incredibly useful for topics ranging from nutrition to social issues to know that small sample size studies that did not pre-state a prediction should be treated as incredibly tentative.
That “I used to believe but I had an awakening,” trope is *the oldest and most well recognized propaganda technique in history.* The fact that some people can’t recognize that is arguably more dangerous than blindly believing things that have been disproven over and over again, just because a German accent sounds smart.
To sound smart it has to sound like a kindly old Swiss-German explaining how a Cuckoo Clock works to his grandson.🤣🤣
tired shill script cliche
I thought a German accent automatically makes you a villan.
(Sorry Sabine Hossenfelder 😋)
"a German accent sounds smart" Interesting.
As a German myself, whenever i hear a German(-ic person) speaking English with a thick accent the speaker loses some IQ points in my mind. I didn´t know that it makes you seem smarter for others.
Dang it, i should work an my th... this is ... dis is ... sis is ... Sis is my German accent!
Nailed it.
@@lenoigel2626 I’m also German and I had this same revelation when one of my friends told me lol. Apparently it’s a North American thing.
Every Christian "Conversion" story be like "Yeah I was a staunch Atheist for 30 years and I had a PHD in Evolutionary biology, but then I heard the kalam argument one time and instantly converted over to Christianity right there on the spot, invalidating my years of study"
It's freaking hilarious that he then became Catholic... which has no issue with evolution. I'm just straight up astounded at this point.
Let me first say that I'm not a young earth Creationist, I accept evolution as a Christian, but in all fairness, many atheists on social media will do the opposite of this where they claim they were a pastor of a church for 20 or 30 years before their eyes were opened etc.
People make up these lies to act like they're an authority and have the "dirty little secrets" on the people their ideological group hates
@@boatcaptain6288Except that they verifiably were. Most of the bigger atheists were evangelicals of some kind or another, several of them studying the gospel which when looked at critically is the easiest way to become an atheist. My parents were never big on church and the one we ended up joining when I was older was excessively progressive to a point where the most recent pastor pushed back on the idea of being an atheistic church preferring the term post- theistic which is almost better.
It is the kind of church that annoys Matt in a sense except that it explicitly and deliberately cherry picks the best of the bible acknowledging both that it is the product of man and that much of it is insane and essentially a documentation of various crimes against humanity if they ever happened.
So there are different flavours of atheist out there, the axiom still stands that the quickest way to become an atheist is to read the bible. All of it.
@@zippydebrain Uh huh. Then how do you explain the two thousand years worth of theologians who have studied the Scriptures over and over and remained Christian?
Irenaeus, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Horatius Bonar, Thomas Watson, Matthew Henry, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, Robert Lewis Dabney, the list goes on and on and on.
And you can't just say because they profit and benefit from it in some way: most of these people didn't make a profitable living doing this nor did they enjoy much power and influence
The poor oppressed Christians being lied about when they literally have a trio of churches in every town to spread their message
Yeah man I was a staunch atheist for like 300 thousand years living off of the blood of infants but after I heard the watchmaker argument I instantly converted to Christianity right there on the spot, invalidating a lifetime of scientific study and careful consideration of apologist arguments.
This is totally real you guys, this really happened to me
The best conversion story I ever read.
Actually more believable than what most creationists say.
DAVE, YOU COULD NOT HAVE PICKED A BETTER TIMING FOR THIS MAN. Got my snacks ready, time to watch...
I see a Professor Dave debunk, and I instantly click. It's a good day! Thanks Dave.
Damn straight, I've been hoping someone covered these hacks for years and Dave has blessed us indeed
Just saw the video and saw your comment. You beat me to it lmao. Dave is the man!
I love his condescending way against these scum suckers! I bet their blood boils and they have sleepless nights of stress at being outed so! Hahaha 😂
Indeed!
Professor Dave is just such a badass with these idiots.
Love his Flatderpia annihilations.
Honestly, prof Dave debunk is always insta-click for me. I never have to ask myself, “am I in the mood for this?”. The best time for prof Dave is all the time.
Fun fact: After Professor Dave posted this (4 Nov 2022), Gunter Bechly posted yet another response on Evolution News, after another series of articles dunking on Dave for his tearing into Stephen Meyer (13 Dec 2022)
"Yesterday I concluded my lengthy response to “Professor Dave” (aka Mr. Dave Farina) and his attack on Stephen Meyer and Darwin’s Doubt. See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. [links to his other articles on Professor Dave] Farina has meanwhile also published a RUclips video responding to my earlier article series, which debunked his video against Casey Luskin. However, he failed to refute any of my substantial points and ignored that I already addressed most of his shallow arguments in my published articles and public presentations. Otherwise, he just spills his usual poison with rude ad hominems, falsehoods, misinformation, and red herrings. It is quite obvious that his delicate ego was hurt by my factual destruction of his sloppy propaganda nonsense.
While it was an affair of honor to defend others, I personally do not consider Farina to be a worthy opponent. Therefore, I will certainly not waste further precious time to respond to his silly new hit piece, but will instead follow the good Internet practice of not feeding the trolls unnecessarily. Of course, I do appreciate the welcome additional publicity that he is drawing to my work on ID theory with his channel. I also find it very revealing that guys like this have nothing more substantial to offer. We must be onto something!"
Yes that's it. This is literally the entire content of the article. I'm no Discovery Institute member or expert, but I think I can give a speculation as to what happened behind the scenes:
Bechly: Well, looks like Dave just published a video debunking me and all of my points! He's roasted me so thoroughly that I can't properly respond! What will I do!
DI Member: Quick! Act like you're a based gigachad and just say that Dave is not worthy of you, and shut down the conversation there in a pseudo-honorable way!
Bechly: Great idea! On top of that, I'll turn Dave's message around and call him a troll, and accuse him of what I do! Big brain time!
And I’m working on another one to tear his new shit apart as well. Don’t you worry!
It's a typical creatonist trick. They've studied Goebbels' propaganda and/or Soviet propaganda and/or Orwell's 1984 too. It's easy to recognize the moment you know how: they never ever give one single example as evidence.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Really?
Does Gunter deserve round 2, I thought you have bigger DI fish to fry?
@@jonathanchow561Yes to both questions.
i love how these supposedly legit scientists repeatedly fall back to the criteria of whether or not things make sense to them as if they are not fully aware that human intuition is not scientifically reliable.
They are doubling their hypocrisy, bc tho I am not among the faithful, I grew up in a Catholic family & I don’t remember lying being something the Xtian God’s wild about.
Pretty sure someone with theological background could make a faith case against “lying with intent to bring God more souls” bc conversion is supposedly a matter of free will to consent to the points of the creed. Can’t consent if you’re being lied to, & I wonder if the God they believe in is likely to take kindly to these hubristic humans putting their liar thumbs on the scales.
@@aldunlop4622 Man, i have never seen so accurate and easy to understand description! Hope your comment reach more people! I would also add that it's not the people who define what's "common sense", it's the universe. We don't impose our opinion onto the universe, we build it based on what the universe shows us.
@@alexnik1181 I hate the term common sense because it isn't common. It's all based off personal experience.
so u don't trust ur own mind or that of human kind at large. omg its gonna be super easy to fool u thn. bruhhh. ok my dear brother before these atheists fool you let me guide you Im Jesus i help wandering souls like u. but u have to show some merit that u r not a lazy man asking for heaven without any work. so for a very small fee of 200 dollars i can sell u a legit to spot in heaven before the atheists corrupt ur mind. once u buy this spot just like real estate on this earth this spot will always be available to even after atheists manage to corrupt ur mind. hurry before ur mind is corrupt. reserve an eternal guaranteed spot in paradise. u can pay in installments 2k to 20k per month
@@aldunlop4622 Yeah, and that's the thing: these people never go beyond their intuition. They just assume it's correct, and then make up ad hoc explanations to defend the conclusion they already had in mind.
I wonder if they ever sit down for five minutes to ask themselves what they are arguing for instead of only focusing on what they are arguing against...
Well explained Prof Dave! Keep up the good work.
I doubt it. I know nothing about the people the talks about here but their message, and ideas, seem to be a bit like Kent Hovind. Many of these charlatans, like Hovind, are narcissists, or can’t accept that their wrong overall.
That said, they can’t admit that they’re wrong. They don’t want to face the wrath of their sheep. They can’t look bad or worse, wrong. Therefore they have to waffle, build straw men, and Ad-Hoc like crazy to discredit science
They definitely don't. They're con artists, they know exactly what they're doing. And what they're doing is selling a lie by sowing doubt about reality to people who already believe the lie. Affirmative arguments of any kind are both unnecessary and detrimental to their overall cause, as it opens them up to refutation.
So the "best" we can hope to get out of these people is "I'm right because you're wrong because ."
Lying is good if it's for Jesus.
I am guessing more than one does it for money.
Sometimes it's about keeping the faith, sometimes it's about culture, a lot of the time it probably comes down to money and power.
Maybe they've figured out that this life is all that's guaranteed to them, maybe they think there's gonna be someone there to give them a pass into paradise.
It’s sad that debunking a lie takes 10 times the time it takes to tell the lie.
Deep respect for people like Dave who take time out of their lives to do this invaluable service to humanity. 👍
Yep - and the creationist 'spokesmen' are well aware of this, which is why we get things like the 'Gish Gallop' and Kunt Hovind's insistence that he should be given equal time in debates.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on."
You have just made a critical point. There are several important corollaries, some good, some bad.
> debunking a lie takes 10 times the time it takes to tell the lie.
Support the debunkers any way you can
As someone that grew up knee deep in the church, I can’t thank you enough for what you do man.
It took a while for me to put two and two together about religion but I’m glad I’m out.
I also appreciate the fact that you go straight for the jugular and hold their feet straight to the fire.
I come from a very religious and conservative part of west Africa where the Abrahamic faiths are fully woven into our psyche and therefore, heavily slow down much needed growth.
The DI idiots are the foundation upon which many charlatans run their schemes to exploit the poor and desperate among us.
Please never stop tearing them a new one. 💪🏿
The hold that religions have over west Africa's progression is tragic
How, precisely, is "religion" holding back progress in Africa? Don't you think the incessant wars and insurgencies have more to do with it? The most destructive war since World War II in terms of lives lost--six million dead--was the Second Congo War, and that wasn't over religion.
@@bartonpaullevenson3427 the flawed ideas do more harm than good and are often used as tools to maintain the status quo. When people are told the meek shall inherit the earth and a saviour god will come and right the wrongs one day, bad people get away unchecked, time and time again.
@@bartonpaullevenson3427 having lived in West, Central and South Africa for a number of years, religion (or local interpretations of religion) is certainly in the mix for things hindering progress and development. Things like polygamy, child brides, extreme homophobia, FGM, often stem from religious interpretations.
Not to mention obvious examples like boko haram and al-shabab.
@@osassabi2202 But some of the best work against oppressive regimes has come from people who were thoroughgoing believers--William Wilberforce, the Mahatma, Martin Luther King Jr., and Desmond Tutu come to mind.
"Your reward is this humiliating video which will hopefully be the top search result for your name for the rest of the lifetime of RUclips."
Awesome.
"My whole life, I didn't believe in magical thinking. But then I noticed, if you stack the 7 Harry Potter books on top of each other, they weigh more than this post-it that says, 'Magic isn't real'. Now I'm a Hufflepuff"
A nonreligious person would never mention baptism
Even if all of science was proven wrong today, it still doesn’t make “a genie did it” a rational solution, and no sane person would ever jump to that as an answer.
And amongst the panoply of sky wizards out there who's worshippers claim are responsible, they have to eliminate each other's as credible, in order for their favourite genie to claim the prize.
It's sad that supposedly mature adults waste so much energy and time kow-towing to their fearful superstitions
and adopt the dumbest and most disingenuous tactics to get sane people on board their carousel of stupidity.
A genie would make more sense than rhe capricious bloodthirsty tyrannical regionally specific tribal sky wizard of Abraham.
Religious fundamentalists completely misunderstand that correcting past assumptions or mistakes in the sciences happens by design. If Science opperates based on absolutes, it fails to be science.
@@tripolarmdisorder7696 even if fundamentalist christians were to somehow prove that god exists, it still doesn't prove *their* god exists. they always neglect that part of the argument, as if just proving that god created the universe is any evidence that the entity of their choosing did it.
Sadly recent years have shown 40% of people are not sane.
this video alone has discovered more than the discovery institute has
Oh come on, be fair now, the DI has discovered a lot of stuff, namely a lot of money from conservative Christians.
I'm glad you're here. We all know that the real target of these frauds, aren't people like you, or your followers, but the gullible, the under educated, or otherwise vulnerable. Hearing your concise logic and clarity is refreshing. Thank you.
Don't forget those that are deliberately and willfully ignorant.
@@MrStringybark Those people are on their own. No sympathy from this girl.
@@DrWhom And your point is?
@@kathleenmccrory9883 that we can't just wash our hands of their nonsense and ignore them, because they will do more harm if we let them.
@@robbicox3850 I never said anything about ignoring them. I hate it when people try to put words in my mouth. I also don't like it when people try to project THEIR thoughts onto me. 😕
Love the straight up science lessons too, but these debunking videos are gold
Anti-scientist: *attacks Dave unprovoked*
Dave: (slow turn with Terminator music) "So you choose... death."
I never thought I'd enjoy such a thorough, nay, colonoscopic examination of an organization I already despised, but I'm four parts in and loving it.
Indeed. It’s great isn’t it?
On another subject, I accidentally had Google translate your message and it states you are 4 years old and you love being that age. Translation programs are funny.
@@angrydoggy9170 I love it when it sees comments like "fjsynshyshd that's is the TD gig fd to j GG d" And asks me if I want to translate it.
Yes Google, please translate forehead+keyboard into english for me, I'm sure it's a earth-shattering statement.
@@connorboyle2585 I’ve been teaching foreign languages to kids (as a substitute in emergency situations) and when asked about the usefulness about learning language (after all, we’ve got Google translate right?), I would take a simple short sentence and translate it 2 to 4 time into different tongues before translating it to the original language. Sometimes hilarious, sometimes outright offensive but never accurate. It’s basically a modern version of a game of telephone.
Well put! :)
I had just finished watching the third installment of the series so the timing of the upload was perfect:D
By the way. Completely unrelated to the video but I wanted to thank you for helping me save Calculus this semester, your videos are awesome
You're a god damn nightmare dude. Downright brutal to anti-science people and I LOVE IT SO MUCH IT'S SO GOOD!
Here are the TOP TEN Scientific Theories that have been subsequently replaced by a supernatural explanation:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Every time I hear a Creationist use the term "Darwinist" or "Evolitionist", I know I'm about to hear a load of bullsh*t from them.
A lot of times, these debunks serve as excellent contrasts and comparisons of science one doesn't really get a chance to study. My own understanding is quite superficial by comparison, but having a contrast often helps to frame an idea. Of course, the entertainment value of watching someone who presents unabashed confidence in lies get squashed has a certain satisfying component as well. Thanks for your work here, Professor. I'll be going back to watch the previous ones again, over time. Nice to have them available.
@@charliemichaels452 "neo-Darwinian Taliban" Wow. With all the lols I have to conclude you're easily, and strangely, amused. But you've pretty much exposed yourself as a conspiracy theory driven hack. I think you've dunked yourself sufficiently. No need for me to go over it.
Another point of argument (at 6:41): Bechly said he never joined any type of religious education, but RE was a mandatory school subject in Germany.
Got him once again
My understanding is that although the 1949 Constitution of West Germany made religious studies compulsory in public school, many states began offering a secular alternative (Ethics) from the 70s onward. I don’t know the details of Bechley’s life, but it is at least plausible that he didn’t study religion at school.
I like these debunk videos, in part because it is clear Dave enjoys making them, too. You shine a light on these ghouls, Dave, and they all hiss at you in disgust and terror. It's entertaining on top of being informative.
Claiming to have once been a redeemed atheist, satanist, drug user, sexual "deviant," ect. has been a favorite of religious charlatans for at least centuries. It's not actually convincing to even the most slightly skeptical person, but it reassures the true believers.
he himself discovered over 160 new species from different ages. there is even a whole family of small dragon flies from the carboniferous named after him (Bechlyidae).
he was quite the renowned paleontologist until he must have hit his head in 2016.
sadly his english wikipedia article got deleted, but the german version is still online (if you wanna have a look).
QUOTE: "...he must have hit his head..."
Or he saw the incredible amount of money in creationism.
Goes to show how religion, and possibly a very large paycheck, can turn an otherwise intelligent persons brain to mush.
They were not dragon flies yet, but the ancestors of them and damsel flies. Even Bechly's own research supports evolution.
Thank you for what you do Professor Dave! Great breakdown!
"..when I watched those RUclips videos and the discussions on intelligent design.."
The fact he fell for the "RUclips University" trap says a lot about his actual relationship to science and its principles IMO.
34:32 I fucking died when he said "Lucy's pelivs. As in, The pelvis." for some reason.
Dude I gotta say this is actually cathartic in a way. I grew up being taught young earth creationism, before creationism was ever rebranded as "intelligent design". When I was young, I really did believe in God. I was really afraid believing scientific truths about evolution was the morally wrong thing to do and that that was the propaganda. It goes so deep. Eventually I did finally just throw in the towel when it was so goddamn obvious the creationists had no science to go on. I decided that ID was fine from a philosophical stand point and believed it in that way, but decided to just start educating myself about what actual science says with regards to evolution. I never looked back. I'm not religious anymore, but I'm still pretty pissed that my time was wasted with so many damn lies growing up. I wonder how far ahead I could have gotten in life if I hadn't had to waste time unpacking propaganda I'd been taught and learning things for myself. I'm actually in my 30s now and have believed the big bang since college, but only recently have been able to go back and learn more about how organisms evolved. I feel like a 5th grader learning biology for the first time and I realize I never really got an education about any of this stuff. It was all religious propaganda. Watching people debunk these frauds and speak out against them is everything. I always thought I just sucked at and hated biology, but most of what I'm learning is pretty interesting. Maybe it's just all the religious propaganda I hated.
Goddamn Dave. Did you leave enough of Gunter intact for an open casket funeral? Great work as always!
Probably not. At least poor guy is so badly burned as to be unrecognisable...
Prof Dave you are absolutely awesome. Your science content is so top notch, but you are really quite SKILLED and EXCELLENT at... THIS. The amount of cited papers and clear understandable explanations without having to wade through the harder scientific terminology (not to mention the vocal tone you have through the entire video) just make these the absolute top tier content. Thanks again.
Oh great, will watch later. Really hope you will check out Forrest Valkai! He's super fun and motivated in debunking creationists and explaining science to people. You guys would make an amazing collab!
If a collab happens, I could die in peace
I would love to see Dave and Forrest collab!
Love Forrest! I just started watching his Light on Evolution series. These two are so much fun to watch. I learn something new with every episode.
ID used to make a prediction: Irreducibly complex structures cannot evolve. They even had a reasonably rigorous definition for "irreducible complexity". It didn't turn out well for them... My favorite (because I was minorly involved with it) was clearly showing "irreducible complex" structures arising in a computational evolution system where we could observe every single step. That was fun.
to be clear, that is not a prediction of ID, just a prediction of ID proponents.
Their goal to get ID taught in schools is low-key terrifying.
Why? There is politically motivated misinformation in all subjects at all levels already? Why does anyone care about ID and not the misinformation already peddled?
@@bilbusbungledore7222 no there isn't, Teaching things that are blatant lies is not only illegal but also immoral.
@@dogwalker666 ooo yeah I'm afraid there's tons of misinformation and half truths in American education. Surely you walked right past the part where Abraham Lincoln imprisoned journalists that spoke out against him before the Civil War and straight the the great emancipator narrative yes?
It's also telling about the motives of ID proponents by how they want to do a complete end-run around the peer review process, therefore avoiding the scrutiny of the scientific community, and then present their untested and unscientific ideas directly to the classroom.
In my opinion it's actually high-key terrifying
All we need now is some one of them being so stupid that they sue for slander and lose catastrophically in a public court case.
"Let's hear it straight from the horse's mouth."
Um, Dave, the mouth is at the other end of the horse.
As someone who's Jehova's Witness step dad is an evolutionary "skeptic" and won't shut up about it, this video is deeply cathartic.
This is beautiful! Not only is it a point-for-point debunking but a clear view of just what sort of person we're dealing with.
Also glad to know that anytime someone googles his name, This video will be one of the results.
Saying "The Disco toot" was so unexpected that I choked on my Gatorade. That's two videos now with Dave saying "Disco" in a disappointed tone, i need more
I love how they always fall back on the argument: Origin of Species is dumb and incorrect, therefore Jesus. It's almost as if they know that we've progressed since Darwin and don't accept everything he said as fact because it's not, but he inspired others to do their research, and that if they were to acknowledge that fact their system would fall to bits immediately.
So many science-deniers (rather than the conmen that Prof Dave is debunking) rely on science decades or even centuries old, as if nothing has changed or advanced since then. This kind of thinking makes sense when their ideology requires them to pick a book and stick with it no matter what happens, so they think we're all doing the same thing too. No matter how many times we tell them that we don't revere Darwin, don't try to emulate his life, don't consider ourselves Darwinists, and don't adhere slavishly to the contents of a single book... they never change their script.
"Bechly is a invertebrate palaeontologist" - you mean he has no backbone?
Actually made me laugh
I, as a child (12) think it’s funny how whenever Dave says a child could understand it, I do actually have a pretty solid level of comprehension about the topic or debunk in mind
You're based
I just looked up James Tour’s channel. He’s planning on doing ANOTHER video series talking about Professor Dave. He also plans on “debunking” the people Dave invited to speak when he did his “700 papers” series on Tour. In his own words: “not only does Dr. Tour thwart a RUclipsr’s misguided understanding of chemistry, but he scrutinizes the details of chemists selected by the RUclipsr for engagement.” He then goes out of his way to call people like Cronin “experts” with quotation marks.
It’s almost like Tour’s true god is his ego. Makes me wonder if Rice University knows what he’s doing in his spare time. They should given how public he’s making it.
I've become quite convinced in my old age that _all_ full time apologists are slaves to their ego, and are desperately trying to convince themselves and others that it is actually intellectually justified, despite all reason, to keep wishing REALLY hard that they're special, so special in fact, that a literal god wants to spend forever and ever and ever with them specifically.
And they don't seem to care how much damage they cause with their disingenuous BS, cherry picked BS, toxic othering rhetoric, or ass-pulled wild assertions about the inner thoughts and motivations of an unobservable, unexaminable, literally fantastical, creator of everything god.
Either that or they're just delusional, and literally incapable of engaging hypothetically about what their ideas would necessitate about reality, never mind getting them willingly engaging with objectively verifiable facts about actual reality, beliefs be damned.
They are so desperate to comfort their insecurities regarding their beliefs being utterly wrong. They attempt to force their ideas on others not only for financial gain, but also so they get the great EVOLUTIONARY comfort of “if I’m not alone in this I’m safe”. It’s so ironic.
I really like these debunking videos. Not only are they very teaching, educating people, but they're also fun to watch. The entertainment value is high, and sometimes a bit horrifying due to the fraud being exposed! It's like watching good movies full of action! 🙂
We can only hope they are teaching but in reality they are only teaching us that accept that science is learned progress for people that aren't sponges for bullshit that support lazy learners or actual easily mislead retarded mentally handicapped people.
Absolutely agree. I used to watch some of those even more times.
@UC4AoB8_RWR8KeoIPnfZ8Dsw in your dreams. And sorry for having Dave demolished them. I know it hurts, but get over it, more of that will come. 🙂
The thing is that reiligious people believe there is one book written at one point that has all the answers. They don't understand that things change, especially not that they evolve. Which is pretty stupid considering even religious people will say that Christianity came to be in a place dominated by Judaism, and more importantly when the protestant church branched off from catholicism.
Many thanks. You do a great service with these videos, and demonstrate our culture's need for scrupulous attention to verifiable data, and clarity of exposition.
Thanks! This series is detailed and soooo helpful!
“ finally settling on the Catholic Church.” Lol 😂 That made me genuinely laugh loudly!
He obviously doesn’t realise that the Pope accepts the science of evolution by natural selection.
One problem with creationists is that they think that knowing HOW something evolved is equivalent to the question of whether it evolved in the first place. The answer is that no, even if we don't know how evolution works (of course we know a lot about how it works), we still can gather a lot of evidence that it actually happened.
@@DrWhom Yes, The theory of evolution explains the mechanisms that are responsible for the phenomenon of evolution that we see in the fossil record and genetics...etc.
You do the right thing
And here I thinked he was doing the left thing.
me thonkth him do de middle thong
@Jenaf Buh dup tsss
Thanks for your well-made exposé about Günter Bechly. You are right, he's a sad figure. What he tells about the misrepresentation of anti-evolutionistic arguments and their allegedly argumentative weight, is just ridiculous. We dissect his and others ID arguments since years (e.g. the flagella evolution in some extensive papers), but he never felt obliged to discuss any of them in a proper way. Every clear-headed human realizes that the arguments he representes are a mixture of fallacies and junk-science. It's embarrassing that he can't admit that his "conversion" has pure religious reasons. I hope at least he believes what he says instead of lying.
The irony is that, if "immaterial" was well defined and could be used to make testable predictions (even if only indirectly), then it would be perfectly within the scope of science. And, sorry to say Gunter, but it isn't the fault of science that your "immaterial" speculation fails to meet these basic criteria, it's a _you_ problem.
Your education videos are great, but these debunk videos are what I live for (even though I understand they're a hell of a lot more work for you). Thanks Dave, keep up the great work!
Great video, Dave! I love your content so much, I hope you never stop at crushing these clowns one at a time!
That resurrection of the flagellum article is an absolute nail in the coffin against any claims of legitimacy from the ID crew. Especially after they admitted that would falsify irreducible complexity.
He didn't read creationist books so much as he googled how much money they made.
Bingo…
"The flagellum is IRREDUCIBLY complex, disproving evolution."
"What about the type 3 secretion needle complex?"
"Well, that is just a REDUCED form of the flagellum, that developed after the flagellum."
Ehhh...
In a parallel world:
"Swans can only be white"
"What about this black swan?"
"Well, that is just a black version of a swan that developed after the white swan."
Hey Dave, you may remember me from your part 2 video. I recently defended my PhD working with Dr. Shuhai Xiao. I was very intrigued to see Scott Evans' stuff show up here. He was a post doc of Shuhai's until recently and so I'm a buddy of his. Another compelling vid.
The Name, the Face, the Accent, the Origin, the Ideas: Günter Bechly is a perfect example of a James Bond Villain. And I say this as a German
Mark, you have given the world Hitler and Bechly. But you also gave us Bach, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Schumann, Handel, Einstein, Planck, Gutenberg, Kant, Leibniz, Nietzsche and many, many others. We forgive you 😊
@@galileog8945 :D Hitler was actually born in Austria, but that fact wont change history and "we" were the ones that listened to him. Thanks for weighting all those other good people over a few very bad ones
@@galileog8945 ...Humboldt, von Braun, Heisenberg, Hahn, Schwarzschild, Born, Kafka, Grass, Mann, Marx, Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Schumann, Beethoven, Bach, van der Rohe, Beuys, Gropius, Schinkel, Thonet, Dürer, Dix, Cranach, Ernst, Holbein, Franz Xaver Messerschmidt...
Get ready to meet Günther Bechly, newest addition to the product line of "famous Germans"! We've finally decided to show that we actually have a sense of humour and this is our contribution to the field of comedy. 🤡
Enjoy!
@@galileog8945 ... not to mention Werner von Braun's invaluable contributions (& his passionately supportive arguments) for the US entering what would become the Space Race, leading to the formation of NASA & all its accomplishments in space travel, orbital technology & astronomical research.
Dave, is there anything you can share about the next part in this series? Or will your next video on the DI be the response to Tour's new conniption fit? Happy 2023 in advance, by the way!
The Tour stuff is separate. Next for DI may just be responding to more bullshit from Bechly.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Hi Dave! Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to me. I'm happy to see that there's plenty more bad news for the DI on the horizon. Serves them right for their organized intellectual vandalism and societal parasitism, imo. Rest assured I'm eagerly awaiting either video. Take care!
Lmao when you said he is an "invertebrate scientist" for a second I thought it was a clever dig on somebody for being spineless, then realized you meant that he's literally just a scientist that studies invertebrates ;D
What always gets me the most about these 'sudden evolutionary change' arguments is they make it sound like it happened overnight. No, there are at least 100,000 year gaps, usually longer. That's short on the geologic timescale but that's room for hundreds of thousands of generations of potential mutations and adaptations, particularly in the older, simpler creatures that likely had relatively short generational timescales.
Indeed I once met an IDiot who didn't understand the difference in timescales between the Cambrian Explosion and a bomb explosion.
Dave, your last statement here was a home run. 😮 I hadn’t even considered the ramifications of these posted vids until now. Each of these guys will have to live with the fact that these will be their number one search results from this day forward. 😂 thank you for being a literal genius.
It IS the top search, this Chanel deserves to be in the RUclips hall of greatness
Yes! I get #1 now as well! Success!
Günter Bechly is exposed! Success!
Search results cater to the user's search history and subscriptions. When I am completely signed out, he is only the third search. It'll get to the top sometime, but it is not there yet.
(2:58) "They will never give up this lie no matter how many times they are called out on it"
This pretty much sums it up 👊
Absolutely love the unrelentless attack tone in this series. Keep it up!
the claim that established facts are "tired" is one of the most hilarious things to me. you might as well say "i'm tired of putting 1+1 in my calculator and seeing it say 2, i'm gonna go invent my own math system"
and then right after i commented, i resumed the video and heard basically the same thing in fewer words. thanks, dave
Bechly: The flagellum is irreducibly complex!
Also Bechly: The Type 3 Secretion Needle complex is just a *reduced* flagellum, not a precursor.
It’s funny how creationists can debunk themselves, literally admitting to reduced forms of “irreducible” features, and yet their audience doesn’t even notice. Even when they say it back to back.
Danke!
Last time, I came this early was when Prof Dave destroyed Globebusters beyond recognition
OMG you eviscerated him. This was a work of art, Dave.
@@arthapeterson5239 1. I don't care whether he knows.
2. Correcting misinformation and outright lies with the truth is not a "schtick".
3. It's not about convincing true believers in what DI teaches. It's about teaching their dishonest tactics so people won't ever believe the DI's "schtick" in the first place.
@@arthapeterson5239 you keep spouting absolute bullshit. Who in yec is going to be convinced by any non-believer argument on RUclips? You are just looking for reasons to be offended on behalf of idiots who can't think for themselves.
@@arthapeterson5239 I did read the articles of the shit heads he debunked. Did you? Why are you defending yec? What's your agenda?
@@arthapeterson5239 no yec is going to go to a RUclips debunk channel of any type to see why they are wrong. You are an idiot.
All of your comments come off as concern trolling in defence of yec. Again you are an idiot.
You can be a cunt but I'm going to call you out every time. Plus it helps the algorithm.
@Artha Cry more creationist.
Discovery Institute. Discovering new ways to be in institutionalized since the beginning.
One thing that I have learned from this series so far, in order to be a creationist you have to either be totally ignorant of evolution or you have to be a liar. The four people covered thus far are most definitely the latter.
Both. Plus stupid.
Thanks for making this video, Dave! Fighting the good fight.
I have loved science my entire life and am grateful for your exposition of these concepts. I have become addicted to your series on the Discovery Institute and appreciate your hard work and diligent research on ID and its proponents. I have only read one book by the ID proponents and came to similar conclusions as you have. That book was Darwin's Black Box. I never read anything else from them since. It is funny but when I read that book it came with a disclaimer from the University the author (Michael Behe) was employed at at that time. They basically were distancing themselves from his views. Lol you just can't write this shit!
Impeccably done Prof Dave, you are doing a monumental service debunking these con- artists.
Your videos were super helpful to me while I was in college. Now I come for these videos and the Andrew Gold stuff. Keep it up, great content!
Unlikely to happen for the same reason they deny debates on neutral channels and they won't publish material in peer review journals. Anything that would put them in a complete public forum in a way that they can be exposed is a death sentence. Goal 1 is to be JUST public enough that people on the fringes spread them by word of mouth. Goal 2 is never let the truth be exposed.
Keep up the great work.
The old "I used to be one of the opposition" routine is so boring now. Every flat earther uses it.
It's also kinda counter-intuitive to use it when a large majority of atheists were previously aligned with a faith.
Imagine being like, an engineer, and being identified as a 'follower' of a prominent engineer from 150 years ago, even though you probably know things that that engineer couldn't dream of, because it was 150 years ago.
Are you mocking my Brunellian faith? May all your bridges fall, ships sink and tunnels collapse for such blasphemous heresy!
23:10 - Most people make the mistake in thinking that Darwin was a phyletic gradualist. Anyone who has bothered to read On The Origin Of Species can see clearly in black and white that Darwin didn't see the entire history of evolution as constant gradual change. Here's a quote from the 6th edition:
"...although each species must have passed through numerous transitional stages, it is probable that the periods, during which each underwent modification, though many and long as measured by years, have been short in comparison with the periods during which each remained in an unchanged condition."
So there you go, Niles Eldredge and Stephen J Gould were not the first to come up with the idea of periods of stasis, Darwin wrote about a hundred years earlier, so claiming that Darwin saw the history of evolution as this non-stop conveyor-belt of gradual change is completely wrong. Yes, Gould was wrong about this too. Maybe he should have read On The Origin Of Species a bit more closely.
You are absolutely right, you are shining the brightest spotlight on these frauds that has ever been shined on them.
@@arthapeterson5239 you act like any YECsters are going to change their mind watching anyways, you don’t reach the status of a YEC without being deliberately dishonest. They aren’t going to change their mind anyways it doesn’t matter. Either way the target is destroyed and they can’t come back from it. And I personally enjoy the childish shit he throws at them
@@arthapeterson5239
Young Earth Creationists are specifically taught to automatically reject anything, and everything, that even potentially casts the slightest doubt on what they are indoctrinated to believe.
If they aren't already starting to have doubts because of the lack of any substance in what creationists are 'teaching' them, they won't give any consideration to any arguments against evolution.
Videos like this are intended for people who have already come to the realisation that creationism is a lie.
@@arthapeterson5239 cry more little kid. Yeah I'm insulting you because you just wrote a whole lot of "boohoo".
@@arthapeterson5239 you say i have no respect for you while accusing someone of being childish i think there's a word for that
@Artha Keep crying. You're just feeding the algorithm......lol.
i need to not be spending money right now but the last odd 5 minutes or so... holy shit.
15:23 "Who defines science?" Really? When they were doing actual work in a science field, some of these guys knew how to define science. They published their work for peer review. But as soon as they started working for DI, they stopped publishing papers, started writing blogs and books, and suddenly asked questions like "who defines science". As soon as you join the DI you do so knowing you can never publish in papers and more. Pretending that you have no clue how science is defined after actually getting paid to do that for a few years is beyond childish.
Acting indignant while denying Lucy walked upright, so you can pretend a god made humans, doesn't rhetorically impress anyone, the way our buddy Gunter thinks it does. Referring to every evolutionary theory as "Darwinism" is equally rhetorically unimpressive.
If this guy did even a little research into Dave he would of kept his mouth shut haha. Awesome stuff.
It's always nice to see an expert take off the gloves and pummel these creeps. It's important to call a liar a liar after they have shamelessly repeated their lies for years.
23:36 He also ignores the whole punctuated equilibrium thing. When reasources suddenly become more or less available or in other situations where evolutionary pressure increases species evolve more rapidly.
His education and work should contradict intelligent design and creationism. The cognitive dissonance is staggering.
Even if I could understand how a scientist becomes sceptic towards evolution, like Günter Bechly, after reading some nonsense anti-evolution books (yes, sometines the mind plays weired games), but how does an alleged (former) scientist simultaneously turn into a believer of virgin birth, resurrection, Adam & Eve etc...? Thanks for the great video...
since it's Discovery can't discount Noah's flood from their core beliefs too.
They say ID isn't "creation science" and expect to be taken seriously. "Creation science" is literally not a thing, it's something almost exclusively said by creationists
I really enjoy they act like everything isn't based on their holy book
Another video i'll love and then have recommended to me by youtube for months to come! Great stuff as always Dave!
So he doesn't agree with the science but somehow just agrees with religious views that have 0 proof of creation or god
Bechly also quotes papers saying the exact opposite of what he claims they would say open to read them yourself, while he is being sure the flock he preaches to are never gonna crosscheck as they are usually too lazy and anti-intellectual for that type of stuff. It is all about the feelings and vibes and what preachers as authorities command them to believe.
Erika (Gutsick Gibbon) ruclips.net/video/sJsLCSwHsz4/видео.html offers a revealing chat where Bechly shows just how gratuitously vague he is on what he thinks happened in the past regarding exactly what was designed or not regarding the common ancestry he sort of accepts (Denton & Behe operate likewise, as are those IDers who don’t accept CE, such as Meyer, Luskin & Wells, as I know directly as I have asked them on various occasions over the years).
Btw one of the coming attractions we’re still waiting for (Erika’s talk with him was on 14 May 2021!) is Bechly’s promised paper on whale origins, assailing their natural evolution.