It is largely irrelevant if Neanderthals are classified as "Homo neanderthalensis" or "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis." One of the problems one has in discussing evolution with creationists is their assumption that classification systems are reality, a series of inviolable boxes created by their imaginary deity of choice. In fact, such classifications are just human constructs, convenient and highly simplified models of biodiversity. That the history of a species is actually a continuum with no specific point in time where one species becomes another is not only beyond their comprehension, such an idea, were they able to grasp it, would very likely be profoundly corrosive to their faith.
I agree. In fact, the arguments I’ve heard about the classification of Neanderthals has been neither from Creationists nor from actual paleoanthropologists, but rather from some nerdy paleontology enthusiasts hung up on the oversimplified and outdated definition of “species” that they learned in high school. Once it was discovered that most people, especially Europeans have about 2% Neanderthal DNA they rush to the conclusion that this means we are one species. But geneticists are learning that the definition of “species” is a bit more fluid than once thought.
@@ruthbaker5281 that's what annoys me about Creationists: there is so much to criticize modern and historic science for, but they get the criticism so absolutely wrong. What IS a species? Two organisms that can have sex? Seems like a pretty clear line, but it isn't. I don't know where to actually, you don't know, scientists don't exactly know both with modern organisms and with fossils. We don't know if there is even a line, or if it is a probabilistic smear based on compatibility of genes. But Kent Hovind is over here saying that everyone knows what a Kind is, in fact, he defines it by what a 5 year old would think. He says that anyone who rejects such obvious reality is just a "scoffer".
Hmmm. I thought you should use safewords, who are distinctive and different from the normal stuff you say during... now when you theoretically would need safewords. And 'coaxial gear box grease nipple plug' sounds like serious dirty talking to me...
Hovind's hypothesis; house cat brain (30g) and lion brain (240g), totally possible in just a few hundred years {800% difference). australopithecus afarensis (~400g estimate) to modern human (1300g) in several million years {325% difference}. Unpossible!
@@rachelray3250 all of physics only makes any sense in an ancient universe and an old earth. Your examples either do nothing to support your position, or (in the case of dino blood vessels and DNA) are so vastly incorrect that I suspect you have been mislead about them.
Just a little nitpick, there's currently a new system of taxonomy emerging that is far more detailed and accurate that takes the entire evolutionary development into account. Aronra is currently doing an excellent video series on that called "Systemic classification of life". He's at episode 12 right now and we are still "fish" (although the word "fish" has no meaning in taxonomy). ^^
KingQwertzlbrmpf I have nothing to add other than to say that it's a fantastic series of videos and anyone who hasn't yet watched it should go and do so.
Eric and his ilk always base their assumptions on children's books from the 1950s about dinosaurs (which typically derived their presentations from ideas about dinosaurs from the 1920s or earlier). It is, of course, now well understood that sauropods didn't slog around in swampy environs, where they would have quickly gotten bogged down in a fatal, dinosaurian slough of despond.
19:09 _"Since there was no Adam and Eve. Oh and since there's no Adam and Eve, well then there was no fall into sin and that means we don't need a savior"_ That's right! There's no such thing as sin so we don't need a savior! Good job! :)
I have always wondered why they call him a savior when he is "saving" you from himself. By that logic, the mafia regularly "saves" businesses all the time.
Ah yes, Jesus saves us from himself. He saves us so he doesn't torture us forever in fire. And all we have to do is become his eternal, mindless servants... Gee, thanks.
Its time, after Cain killed Abel who was this woman of NOD he had sex with? By the way, I don't consider teeth being thrown at me as an answer. Hilarious, but not an answer.
+Its Time Tell me, how do you know Jesus is the good guy? How do you know your God is the good guy? Do you have any evidence besides the book written by your god? Perhaps your god is the actual devil, and Christianity is a truly long con? Can you prove otherwise?
Well, considering god's behavior & Jesus' on a few occasions, they definitely aren't in the running for nice guy of the week ever. I prefer THOR! He goes around in his chariot pulled by goats. I like goats. One time, he was helping some people that were starving, he said, "Kill the goats, but do not break the bones, they will be alive in the morning." The son, broke the goat's leg & sucked out the marrow. In the morning, Thor, said, "Who disobeyed my instructions?" The boy timidly said, "I did." If it had been god or Jesus, they would have struck him dead. Thor just sighed & said, "don't do that again, or I shall have to smite you with my mighty hammer." They ate the goats again, & the next morning Thor & his goats went their merry way.
"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity." - Ecclesiastes 3:18-19 Hey, if they're allowed to quote mine, so can I. Bible says humans are animals, or at the very least no different to animals. Your serve, theists.
Paul is talking about how man is temporary, just like animals are, unless God is manifested inside of them. You're twisting scripture, just like Satan.
Ecclesiastes wasn't written by Paul, it's attributed to Solomon. It's annoying, isn't it, when people take stuff out of context and try to make it mean what they want.
Jimmy, time to go back to Sunday school. Ecclesiastes is a book of the Old Testament. The first verse reads "These are the words of the Teacher, son of David, King of Jerusalem." i.e. Solomon. Are you perhaps getting confused with the apocrypha Ecclesaiasticus? In which case, wrong as well because this is written by the Jewish scribe Ben Sira some 200 BCE. Or are you thinking of Ephesians, which is a Pauline Epistle beginning with the letter "E"?
That would require reading the bible. Not going to catch a christian doing that! Everyone knows it's the biggest cause of atheism ever. Or as my favorite author Isaac Asimov said: “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
I'm not a paleontologist and I'm frustrated too. Even when I was a Christian, I believed in evolution. But I guess that's the difference between school in Australia and school in the USA. They're not allowed to teach creationism in science class here. My son went to a Christian school and even he was taught evolution. The willful ignorance of people like the Hovinds really makes me sad.
I'm assuming you're all humiliating some creationist missrepresenting the Liger, because it's a genuine hybrid between a male lion and female tiger. .. I'd be thankfull though for any Clarification on the correct context of this thread posted my way.
What I love about Paulogia is that he is able to do the research that most of us don’t have time to do. The game the Creationists play is that they seek out and glom onto some obscure “fact” or quote, knowing that most people listening to them have not heard it before and can therefore be convinced by it. I’ve seen even real scientists derailed by this sort of thing in “debates” with creationists because the field of evolutionary biology is so big that a specialist in one area isn’t likely to know, offhand, a detail from another area of study.
+Phillip Phillips "Quotes don't just mine themselves. It takes research." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......I am plagiarizing this quote and no research required :-)
Childhood indoctrination is a powerful thing. It is natural to trust your parents and if they are telling you to ignore the science and that it is all deception from The Enemy or some such, that can be a tough worldview for even an otherwise rational person to find their way out of. Especially when you consider how family relationships and so on will be impacted.
Did you know there are individuals that follow the Jedi code? How about Draginkin? Furrys? There are people who believe some weird shit. It's not just creationists. LOL
Mike J, Furries are people who like anthropomorphic animals. We don't believe anything, we just like the character design of Zootopia. The Jedi Code, the Knight's Code, the Wizard's rules, and other sets of moral guides similarly don't have beliefs about reality attached, they're just guides for living your life. The only thing that might be a belief here is otherkin/dragonkin; people who seriously identify as some kind of animal. It could be a belief that they were that animal in a past life, or that they have the soul of that animal, or they just think it's another word for fursona. A fursona has a similar role to a username, but it works as your online face instead of your name.
Doesn't surprise me, I saw a vid ad for some spiritual bunk (rather like 'spirit science'...) appear on Martymer 81's site - was watching an old vid of his which debunks pseudoscience. The big ad on the top right was for a free copy of a messianic bible!
Lol. Yeah Mam, I see the Prager U commercials a lot on atheist channels. They usually highlight some right-wing issues like "Be nice to Israel" or "What is the Alt-right?". Not sure if they know that we ain't buying their shit; they should save their advertising on religious channels. They even have a petition on their website about RUclips restricting them.
ajs1031 my bad I had not seen your response until just now haha. Late as all get out in typical cornlips fashion. I have been doing well. The holiday season is always stressful though haha.
I am new to your site and have subscribed. This video is brilliant. It is easy to see how well-researched, logical and intelligent it is done. Thanks so much for sharing.
@IT Correct, the bible and religious types are illogical and deceive the uneducated every day. I suspect they have an agenda, which concerns making money. A simple test would be to go to Church , but never donate money.
4:15 Same here. Though my personal favorites among primates are the different macaque species. Some of the species are sometimes mistakenly called apes because they lack tails.
Never heard of your channel till just now, I click on this video and hear Radiance by Zedion in the first half second. Subscribed immediately. XD also like the subjects you work on and your style, but the intro song got me as much as anything. Memories, man... Glad I came across your channel. Will be watching everything on it soon.
I was indeed scientifically convinced of both evolution and an earth older than 6k years long before the last vestiges of my childhood indoctrination evaporated. It wasn't science which de-converted me (I was damn good at rationalization and compartmentalization). It was actually studying the Bible and having one too many WTF moments. Twenty years on looking back - I think that ability to completely compartmentalize cognitive dissonance is the largest factor as to how I stayed with it for as long as I did.
Hey, did I read an article in the CBC earlier this week interviewing you? Can't be too many other Paul's in a critical story about Ken Ham in Alberta. LOL
Its Time I am a Christian... i believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Just because you don't understand HOW something can be, doesn't mean it can't be. Have you considered that perhaps your understanding of things isn't exactly right? I have, which is why I've come to God saying 'ok, I believe you're powerful enough to create everything in an instant or use evolution, who am I to suggest only my understanding of Genesis is correct?' Also, I never understand Christians saying the big bang isn't true... it's literally a scientific description of creation from nothing. We do Christendom a disservice to suggest otherwise. Finally, do you believe in physics? Quantum mechanics? The Bible doesn't give us a full treatise off either, yet both are accurate. I don't believe God asks us to abandon our reasoning when we become Christians.
Its Time I was raised independent fundamental Baptist, and I'm assuming you will probably still believe I'm somehow lost and not 'really a Christian', and that's ok. I know I am.
Its Time again... I'm a Christian. I believe Jesus is the son of God, died and rose from the grave, and I've accepted Him as my Savior. It sounds like the issue is really you can't understand how I could be a Christian and be open to science, so you just assume I'm lying. I believe you're being honest and trying to help me because I have no reason to think otherwise. I don't care if you think evolution is wrong or right because it doesn't affect me; ask yourself why it is I absolutely MUST be lying in your mind.
Its Time also, the big bang is the idea that the universe sprang instantaneously from an infinitely small point, before which science can't determine what existed--in other words, nothing existed then BANG everything exploded into being. As a Christian, I believe nothing existed then God spoke and BANG everything exploded into being. I don't see how either of these points proves the other wrong.
Its Time did you read my comments above? I'm going to quote myself in the above comment; "again... I'm a Christian. I believe Jesus is the son of God, died and rose from the grave, and I've accepted Him as my Savior." Yes, for the third time, I BELIEVE JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD, HAVE REPENTED AND ACCEPTED HIM AS MY SAVIOR. like I said, the issue seems to be you can't understand how I could 1) be a Christian, and 2) accept science. As I've said multiple times now, I am a Christian. I can't show you my soul to prove it, this is all I can do. Again, ask yourself why it is you can't accept I'm a Christian AND believe in science?
Am I the only one who thought, the first frames in the background were from this six minute footage, Paul mentioned? Things like - oh wow this strange human/dog thing looks awesome.... the screenplay is amazing!... Tie Fighters. Wait? What?
I searched both creationist and evolutionist. Both are words from when the sciences was new. The word evolutionist stopped being used when more scientists accepted evolution.
Are you and Sci-Strike going to do another collaboration to debunk "Genesis: Paradise" lost like you did "Is Genesis History?" if/when it's finally released? I know it's probably a lot like flogging a dead horse that's been reanimated with a zombie virus to death, but really like that series I think you two do some excellent work together.
This "movie" is going to have more holes in it than the Noah story. If the ark had so many holes it would have sunk in a day (and no, I don't believe the ark ever existed! This is metaphorical. Just in case any creationists read this). Epic case of breaking the 9th commandment.
As expected, the level of deception of Eric et al go to in this movie is clearly tailored to just "re-affirm" the beliefs of those who already believe in his B.S....it isn't to "convince the non-believer" or be a conversion tool. Unlike the usual YEC who will never bother to actually data fact check any of this...most non-believers probably would and find out just how much of a con YEC truly is...as this is epic level lying right here.
Well to be fair, Eric lacks either the education / knowledge base or the Charisma to have produced anything else. His father at least makes a somewhat presentable Snakesoil salesman, Eric just can't match up to that.
Someone, I think it's potholer54, has some great juxtaposition of Eric using the same routine as his father, but fluffing the delivery so it's a lot less effective. I think its the one about the moon getting further away and thus disproving an old Earth, because to Creationists all extrapolations are linear.
It were both Potholer54 (in one of the Golden Crocoduck videos from 2012) and King Crocoduck that pointed it out (KC has got a six part Series on Eric's version of the same Talk Logicked had already disseminated as presented by Kent)
I think the "beasts" you were struggling to identify in the video clip are Aetosaurs. Possibly Scutarx. Aetosaurs are armored reptiles that are not dinosaurs, but do look a lot like them. They lived during the Triassic. The animated taxonomic tree of life you showed is very outdated. Birds and Reptiles are no longer considered separate Classes, and Fish is paraphyletic.
Hey Paulogia, Ken Ham was mentioned on CBC this morning about his trip to Alberta to speak with homeschoolers. I cringed when I heard his voice repeat "Where you there?" CBC seemed to have a pretty negative tone when talking about him so that is good.
I feel another film like "The Principle" coming on. Dozens of people will see it (apart from the ones that worked on it) and Eric will be able to add "filmmaker" to his resume.
I especially couldn't resist adding Charles Jackson's rambling (and false) claim on Homo sapiens neanderthalensis: “in all of the ah, the the newer ah classification books and magazines and research paper articles and uh museums..." creationist eloquence (and "accuracy") at its pithiest!
It's important to realize that paleontologists and paleoanthropologists on the one hand and biologists who study living animals on the other have different notions of 'species'. The former base their classifications largely on morphology, because that's all they have, while the latter base their classifications at least in part on the ability to interbreed. Were Neanderthals around today, they would probably be considered the same species as us, because we could (and did) interbreed.
Funny how YECs love to point to conceptual art based on real scientific data and say, "you can't possibly know that's what they looked like." Well I don't think I've yet seen the conclusive paper describing the liontiger.
I want to add something to the Noah's ark problem that no one's ever brought up before. At least where I've checked. I've recently started reading the Bible from cover to cover again, but this time I'm reading four different Bibles side by side by side by side, chapter by chapter to see where their differences are. I'm doing it for a project I'm writing that hopes to show how much aspect changing details in the Bible have changed. Surprise I haven't even gotten halfway through Genesis and already writers are removing and changing stuff. What I came across also brings up a great point against the Noah's Ark story. So in Genesis in the Old and New King James versions and the Gideon Bible it explicitly says that all the animals entered into ark "two by two" Genesis 7:9. For the longest time I thought that this wasn't actually in the Bible, but was just inserted for a child's telling of the story to sound cute or teach them to count or wtv, but I found it is in fact in the Bible. This is important, because if we do the simple math, with an estimated half a billion land dwelling species that have every existed, if we assume that each creature entered the ark 1 pair of species per second, which is still too fast, but we'll give them 1 second to do it, that would still take at least 15 years for all animals to enter the ark, and this is assuming there was no traffic and consistent movement. Even if we reduce that number to Ken Ham's "kinds" we still have the problem of "two by two" math, cut that number in half and it takes 7.5 years for all animals to enter the ark, again assuming there is no traffic and each animal is entering one second at a time. If we're really going to be generous with Ken Hams "kinds" it would still take 3 full years for all the animals to enter the ark and this is still granting them 1 second per animal and assuming there is no traffic. Realistically, with the margin of different movement speeds of each animal, assuming we have non-stop consistent movement, each animals should take a more reasonable 5-10 seconds to enter the ark. This gives us at least 150 years to board all the animals and 75 years if i'm considering Ken Ham's "kinds" and that's still being generous assuming there was no traffic or stalling or stopping to eat or poop. Now move to newer versions of the Bible and the "two by two" verse in the New International Version, CEV Bible, and New International Catholic addition are completely removed. The two by two narrative doesn't exist in newer versions of the Bible. Why? Did someone figure the math was too great so they blanked out this verse? Either way this is just too good to be true, I definitely want to make something out of this project. I'm not even through Genesis yet.
To be fair, most creationists have abandoned the completely indefensible idea that Noah literally loaded every single species of animal onto the Ark. Instead, they've switched to the idea that Noah loaded up a few thousand animals that were basal to the ones we have now and that the creatures went into some kind of super-hyper overdrive evolution the second they got off the boat.
Yeah, they borrow and use the data they need from Darwin's research and then turn around and lie about and criticize the man for "proving nothing." Even with a few thousand species, we still run into time issues if they entered "two by two." Remember we have to account for extinct species as well. Plus they like to say "kinds" were on the ark. Like "bird kind" in order to reduce the number of species. But if they want to have it that way, then what were both a raven and a dove as mentioned in the Bible both doing on the ark if they're considered the same "kind"? If those two animals were on the ark and they're genetically not that far off, then "kinds" even by creationists standards must still be a large number, as most animals that Ken Ham defines as a single kind are more genetically separate than a raven and a dove. So if a raven and a dove were both on the ark, then "kinds" is not as generic as Ken Ham likes to make it out to be. Must we now assume an exception for only doves and ravens? Even by their own rules there is no way around it. They're always shifting the rules so that their story stays internally consistent. This is the problem with beginning with a conclusion and creating evidence to fit it. * Bring up evolution, evolution is a lie. * Bring up data to prove it, the data is a lie. * Point out space issues on the ark, well evolution is now okay and the data is not a lie, but is stops exactly where it's convenient for our story and the rest is a lie. * Show the time rate problems with evolution by their model, now we're going to step outside of the data zone and assume super fast evolution to make the time limitations fit too. * Point out a raven and dove were on the ark, well that's an exception to our "kinds". If we make a special exception, then our assumed model still fits. Making up data to fit a conclusion is not evidence. This should be so obvious to grown adults, but it's not. This is something that should be taught in schools as early as possible and reinforced thoughout a child's education.
Hi Paul. Did I hear someone sounding suspiciously like you on a recent national radio broadcast about Ken Ham's upcoming speech at an Alberta Home Schooling organization? If that was you, great job!
I'll have you know, Paul, that I am a proud and recently-converted thermodynamicist. I say my prayer "E=mc^2" daily, and also convert energy into work as much as I can. It has to do with our capacity as systems. Shit, I better not say that too loud, Eric's dumb enough to think I'm being serious. He's not altogether very bright.
So the liger was the original created kind, so that would mean the tiger and lion split from that. So would that mean that modern ligers are more related to the original created kind? Does that mean tigers and lions are the same kind but not the same kind as a puma or leopard? I don't see any spots. How exactly do you have a single creature with all the genes of all subsequent species in it? That's not how speciation works by simply splitting up morphologically similar cats of the same species and waving a magic wand at them.
Something I am shocked doesn't get more coverage is that the Adam and Eve story is thousands of years older than Christianity and even Judaism. Versions of the story exist in Mesopotamia and ancient Sumer. Also baffling, is that the obvious story is about the constellations. You have Atohm (which just means man) represented by Bootes a farmer hunter, joined by Eve a virgin represented by Virgo and Draco the dragon all occupying the same part of sky. They all "enter the garden in the East" I mean if you thought the world was flat, you would say it like that as the constellations enter the tree line in the East if positioned in Sumeria. Eve assumes the prone position in the equinox and there you have all the necessary components of a good story complete with sex and serpents. Once I heard this theory, and it became the most obvious pro genesis of such a story, I lost whatever fragment of percentage chance I could muster that the Christian interpretation of reality could be the least bit correct.
Why would a desert be a post sin thing? A desert is not a "bad" environment, it is just a different environment, with it's own challenges. And it has it's own beauty.
Two errors I caught: 1. Evolution and adaptation are not exactly the same. 2. Junk DNA has never included regulatory DNA. Finding functional regulatory regions does not imply that a function has been found for junk DNA.
Michael Dowd is a nice guy. I don't share his deism at all, but OK, at least he's not antiscience. His critic says some stupid things. "Embracing evolution has led many Christians to abandon their faith completely" True! "or to suffer despair and depression because God suddenly seems so powerless and un-involved." This is un-sourced. I don't think it's true. Those I've known who leave the faith are generally happier for it. "The theory of evolution is constantly changing" No, the core theory has been stable for decades. It gets refined, and new examples and details are constantly discovered. It is a positive that it responds to changing evidence. "and contradicting the laws of science," Nope. Evolutionary theory is science. Name something in the theory that contradicts any principle of science. "whereas the Bible remains trustworthy and true. " Heh. Only by definition, where people set it as the unchanging standard. It's discordance with the evidence has been increasing for centuries. "Please don’t “exchange the truth of God for a lie” (Romans 1:25)." I think "truth of God" is a synonym for "lie".
TO ALL ATHEISTS HERE: PLEASE DON'T PAY TO WATCH THIS MOVIE. I know it may be tempting to watch it and then give your critic to boost ur channel views...but fuck it, it's not worth it. You're giving ur money to Eric if u do so.
"And one by one, ALL of the different so-called missing link fossils have been reclassified as either over to the human side or over to the monkey side." So being that monkeys have tails, doesn't he confirm all the missing link fossils are human as long as they don't have tails? He's basically saying that, for example, Lucy was human. Even people who accept evolution don't typically go that far.
Evolutionist is actually a word you can find in dictionaries online, even including oxford. I agree it's silly that it has a name, but other than the fact it shouldn't have to exist there doesn't seem to be anything actually wrong with that claim.
great talk by Aron Ra, slight different look at life classification, you said we're mammals, primates and apews, we're also monkeys... and technically fish... I think it's about 8 minutes in if you want to jump ahead but the whole thing is pretty cool ruclips.net/video/rW6R9RHvVew/видео.html
What caused the big bang? Where did the matter pre- big bang come from? How did stars develop in space? How do we go from nothing to everything even though the laws of thermodynamics claim it to be impossible?
"What caused the big bang?" *Who says it had a cause?* "Where did the matter pre- big bang come from?" *We have no idea. It may very well be "eternal" (in as much as the term can apply in a situation where time itself doesn't actually exist).* "How did stars develop in space?" *When clouds of interstellar gas/dust became dense enough, which we call "molecular clouds", they formed quite naturally thanks to the other natural forces... like gravity.* *That is an incredibly simplified explanation, google it if you want to know more.* "How do we go from nothing to everything even though the laws of thermodynamics claim it to be impossible?" *When was there "nothing"?* *And the laws of thermodynamics only apply in specific situations, like closed systems, and we simply don't know if the Universe is actually a closed system.* *So we need to be careful when discussing thermodynamics.*
I think junk DNA is still a pretty good argument against design. Yes, we know that some non-coding DNA has function - that's been known for decades - but the rough estimate of the human genome that serves any kind of function, regulatory or otherwise, is about 10%, Say 20% to be generous, it's still clear that there's a whole lot of leftovers and parasitic elements like transposons.
I couldn't take the no animal ate meat until sin came along seriously. I cant visualize a bunch of humans sitting around a table with the T Rex's from next door munching on a bowl of fruit.
Saw a trailer for this yesterday when I saw Thor: Ragnarok in Imax. Wish I had known it was going to show, I would have tried to record it on my phone. It was pretty short, and I honestly don't remember much. But I was left with the impression that it will be a good dose of BS.
Hey there! Love your content, but heard some things that need correction. New world monkeys have tails, some old world monkeys do not have tails. It's from the latter that apes came about, sorta. I say sorta because apes are still monkeys too, all be it a very specific type of monkey. Think humans are apes, apes are monkeys, in the same way macaws are parrots, parrots are birds. The daughter species still remain in the the same clade as the parent species all the way up, even if they have lost some of the defining features of their predecessors. So humans are still old world monkeys.
Paul, you say you are hoping to see "the best arguments" in the movie. Looks to me as if they ARE using their best arguments. And their best science, which just happens to be cherrypicked and over 20 years old. So the six minute preview took you 21 minutes to debunk. I'm looking forward to the 7 hour video debunking the entire film!
"I have a problem with the idea that apelike creatures became humans" This guy does realize humans are great apes, right? We're already apelike creatures. No wait, humans are super special and we're not animals at all, got it.
They haven't abandoned reason. They just reason in ways that normal people don't, i.e., "If I tell this passel of idiots this passel of lies, they'll give me TONS of tax-free money". And lo, it came to pass...
Except that the Israelites unquestionably _were_ Canaanites, not only geographically, but also genetically, linguistically, and culturally; in fact, but for the postexilic evolution of their religion, Israelites were utterly indistinguishable from the Canaanites among whom they arose. Thus the answer to your rhetorical question is, yes, biblical scholars should still take you seriously if you refer to Israelites as Canaanites.
There are some humans today who are only 3 feet tall. The human body design works reasonably even at that size. Further, there are human children who function just fine at 3 feet tall. In all animals, size is one of the most elastic features. All you need to do is put any animals on an island and they start to shrink generation by generation. Put them on a plain with lots of food and predator-prey start an arms race in size.
neanderthal separate species or not is simply a label. We can tell the difference of their artifacts & bones generally, but they also could mate with modern man. These are the facts not the labels...we also neednt discuss "kinds".
Prebunking means that you won't accept the evidence of the other side even if it does turn out to be more probable. “Those who know nothing of foreign languages know nothing of their own.” - Goethe
I come across evolutionary propaganda on a daily basis, even in kid's shows. Also, you don't have evidence to provide for evolution that does not require faith. You're welcome to present some but you and I both know where that'll go.
See, the fundamental difference between creationist propaganda and talking about the Theory of Evolution is the existence of evidence for the Theory of Evolution. That is a pretty important distinction. And the Theory of Evolution does, in fact, have plenty of evidence... it wouldn't be a scientific theory if it didn't. But you are clearly correct that there is no point in me presenting any anyway, your comments make it abundantly clear that you are unwilling to accept anything that doesn't corroborate your pre-existing suppositions. In layman's terms... if it doesn't agree with you, it isn't true. If it does, it is true.
> "the fundamental difference between creationist propaganda and talking about the Theory of Evolution is the existence of evidence for the Theory of Evolution." You're going to have to do better than merely talking as if there's evidence. As I see it, the same evidence leads to entirely different conclusions, hence why creationists have real evidence as well. This is also why I stated that you can't present any evidence that does not first require faith in evolution, just like the evidence I can present will require faith in creation. > "And the Theory of Evolution does, in fact, have plenty of evidence... it wouldn't be a scientific theory if it didn't." You'd be surprised how little evidence is needed when you only have one naturalistic explanation for something, as any plausible explanation will become a theory by default if it is the only explanation. For example, the big bang is a theory as well, but the only evidence for it is that observations about the universe can be explained through it, and this is only because it has been made to fit the evidence. The 2004 open letter to the scientific community, written and signed by scientists, explains how it was made to fit: www.plasma-universe.com/An_Open_Letter_to_the_Scientific_Community > "But you are clearly correct that there is no point in me presenting any anyway, your comments make it abundantly clear that you are unwilling to accept anything that doesn't corroborate your pre-existing suppositions." I asked this because I know the real reason why almost every atheist is extremely reluctant in presenting evidence for evolution. > "if it doesn't agree with you, it isn't true. If it does, it is true." This mantra is prevalent among people of all convictions, including yourself.
"You're going to have to do better than merely talking as if there's evidence. As I see it, the same evidence leads to entirely different conclusions, hence why creationists have real evidence as well. This is also why I stated that you can't present any evidence that does not first require faith in evolution, just like the evidence I can present will require faith in creation." *Why would I bother? You have made it clear you won't listen to anything I have with your "your evidence requires faith in evolution" nonsense.* "You'd be surprised how little evidence is needed when you only have one naturalistic explanation for something, as any plausible explanation will become a theory by default if it is the only explanation." *This is literally how science **_doesn't_** work.* "For example, the big bang is a theory as well, but the only evidence for it is that observations about the universe can be explained through it, and this is only because it has been made to fit the evidence. The 2004 open letter to the scientific community, written and signed by scientists, explains how it was made to fit: www.plasma-universe.com/An_Open_Letter_to_the_Scientific_Community" *A letter from a handful of scientists does not invalidate the real work and real evidence that supports the Big Bang Theory.* "I asked this because I know the real reason why almost every atheist is extremely reluctant in presenting evidence for evolution." *I know precious few Atheists who are reluctant in presenting evidence for the Theory of Evolution.* *And you are confusing someone not wanting to waste time on someone who obviously won't listen with reluctance to present evidence.* "This mantra is prevalent among people of all convictions, including yourself." *That mantra is the mantra of the religious, like you. I, however, follow a different ideology. I seek the truth, regardless of whether or not it is palatable.*
It is largely irrelevant if Neanderthals are classified as "Homo neanderthalensis" or "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis." One of the problems one has in discussing evolution with creationists is their assumption that classification systems are reality, a series of inviolable boxes created by their imaginary deity of choice. In fact, such classifications are just human constructs, convenient and highly simplified models of biodiversity. That the history of a species is actually a continuum with no specific point in time where one species becomes another is not only beyond their comprehension, such an idea, were they able to grasp it, would very likely be profoundly corrosive to their faith.
WildwodClair1, YAY! I was worried you were dead or something.
I agree. In fact, the arguments I’ve heard about the classification of Neanderthals has been neither from Creationists nor from actual paleoanthropologists, but rather from some nerdy paleontology enthusiasts hung up on the oversimplified and outdated definition of “species” that they learned in high school. Once it was discovered that most people, especially Europeans have about 2% Neanderthal DNA they rush to the conclusion that this means we are one species. But geneticists are learning that the definition of “species” is a bit more fluid than once thought.
@@ruthbaker5281 that's what annoys me about Creationists: there is so much to criticize modern and historic science for, but they get the criticism so absolutely wrong.
What IS a species? Two organisms that can have sex? Seems like a pretty clear line, but it isn't. I don't know where to actually, you don't know, scientists don't exactly know both with modern organisms and with fossils. We don't know if there is even a line, or if it is a probabilistic smear based on compatibility of genes.
But Kent Hovind is over here saying that everyone knows what a Kind is, in fact, he defines it by what a 5 year old would think. He says that anyone who rejects such obvious reality is just a "scoffer".
"Do we need a safe word?"
Well, I do, Paul, and how dare you ignore me screaming PINEAPPLE SMOOTHIE over and over again.
Candice LoL You just triggered my appetite.
But on the "Safeword of the day calendar" today is reserved for "coaxial gear box grease nipple plug" ... you were off by four full weeks Candice!
Hmmm. I thought you should use safewords, who are distinctive and different from the normal stuff you say during... now when you theoretically would need safewords.
And 'coaxial gear box grease nipple plug' sounds like serious dirty talking to me...
Nerds! I love it! :D
@@brendarua01 like the Sunstone comic say, BDSM adepts are basically sex nerds
Hovind's hypothesis; house cat brain (30g) and lion brain (240g), totally possible in just a few hundred years {800% difference).
australopithecus afarensis (~400g estimate) to modern human (1300g) in several million years {325% difference}. Unpossible!
@@rachelray3250 all of physics only makes any sense in an ancient universe and an old earth.
Your examples either do nothing to support your position, or (in the case of dino blood vessels and DNA) are so vastly incorrect that I suspect you have been mislead about them.
Just a little nitpick, there's currently a new system of taxonomy emerging that is far more detailed and accurate that takes the entire evolutionary development into account. Aronra is currently doing an excellent video series on that called "Systemic classification of life". He's at episode 12 right now and we are still "fish" (although the word "fish" has no meaning in taxonomy). ^^
KingQwertzlbrmpf I have nothing to add other than to say that it's a fantastic series of videos and anyone who hasn't yet watched it should go and do so.
It's up to 17 now.
Eric and his ilk always base their assumptions on children's books from the 1950s about dinosaurs (which typically derived their presentations from ideas about dinosaurs from the 1920s or earlier). It is, of course, now well understood that sauropods didn't slog around in swampy environs, where they would have quickly gotten bogged down in a fatal, dinosaurian slough of despond.
19:09 _"Since there was no Adam and Eve. Oh and since there's no Adam and Eve, well then there was no fall into sin and that means we don't need a savior"_
That's right! There's no such thing as sin so we don't need a savior! Good job! :)
I have always wondered why they call him a savior when he is "saving" you from himself.
By that logic, the mafia regularly "saves" businesses all the time.
Ah yes, Jesus saves us from himself. He saves us so he doesn't torture us forever in fire. And all we have to do is become his eternal, mindless servants...
Gee, thanks.
Its time, after Cain killed Abel who was this woman of NOD he had sex with? By the way, I don't consider teeth being thrown at me as an answer. Hilarious, but not an answer.
+Its Time
Tell me, how do you know Jesus is the good guy? How do you know your God is the good guy? Do you have any evidence besides the book written by your god?
Perhaps your god is the actual devil, and Christianity is a truly long con? Can you prove otherwise?
Well, considering god's behavior & Jesus' on a few occasions, they definitely aren't in the running for nice guy of the week ever.
I prefer THOR! He goes around in his chariot pulled by goats. I like goats. One time, he was helping some people that were starving, he said, "Kill the goats, but do not break the bones, they will be alive in the morning." The son, broke the goat's leg & sucked out the marrow. In the morning, Thor, said, "Who disobeyed my instructions?" The boy timidly said, "I did."
If it had been god or Jesus, they would have struck him dead. Thor just sighed & said, "don't do that again, or I shall have to smite you with my mighty hammer." They ate the goats again, & the next morning Thor & his goats went their merry way.
"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity."
- Ecclesiastes 3:18-19
Hey, if they're allowed to quote mine, so can I. Bible says humans are animals, or at the very least no different to animals. Your serve, theists.
Paul is talking about how man is temporary, just like animals are, unless God is manifested inside of them. You're twisting scripture, just like Satan.
Ecclesiastes wasn't written by Paul, it's attributed to Solomon. It's annoying, isn't it, when people take stuff out of context and try to make it mean what they want.
Simon Giles are you being serious right now? It's literally a letter Paul wrote to one of the churches. Quit making things up.
Jimmy, time to go back to Sunday school. Ecclesiastes is a book of the Old Testament. The first verse reads "These are the words of the Teacher, son of David, King of Jerusalem." i.e. Solomon.
Are you perhaps getting confused with the apocrypha Ecclesaiasticus? In which case, wrong as well because this is written by the Jewish scribe Ben Sira some 200 BCE.
Or are you thinking of Ephesians, which is a Pauline Epistle beginning with the letter "E"?
That would require reading the bible. Not going to catch a christian doing that! Everyone knows it's the biggest cause of atheism ever.
Or as my favorite author Isaac Asimov said: “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
A “safe word”? I nearly spewed ny cereal in my laptop!
As a ppaleontologist... everything I just heard that wasn't your voice Paul, was infuriating.
I'm not a paleontologist and I'm frustrated too. Even when I was a Christian, I believed in evolution. But I guess that's the difference between school in Australia and school in the USA. They're not allowed to teach creationism in science class here. My son went to a Christian school and even he was taught evolution.
The willful ignorance of people like the Hovinds really makes me sad.
"A liger - it's pretty much my favorite animal. It's like a lion and a tiger mixed... bred for its skills in magic." - napoleon dynamite
so good
:D
Does it come with blades? Or maybe a shield generator?
And for those that don't get it. I'm trying to make a reference to Zoids.
I'm assuming you're all humiliating some creationist missrepresenting the Liger, because it's a genuine hybrid between a male lion and female tiger.
..
I'd be thankfull though for any Clarification on the correct context of this thread posted my way.
Guy, it's from napoleon Dynamite, a movie.
We don't need to humiliate creationists - they do a great job on their own.
What I love about Paulogia is that he is able to do the research that most of us don’t have time to do. The game the Creationists play is that they seek out and glom onto some obscure “fact” or quote, knowing that most people listening to them have not heard it before and can therefore be convinced by it. I’ve seen even real scientists derailed by this sort of thing in “debates” with creationists because the field of evolutionary biology is so big that a specialist in one area isn’t likely to know, offhand, a detail from another area of study.
The "Israelites" were sub-group of the Canaanite tribes
You claim to be against Presuppositions, and yet you assume they did "research". I mean come on.
lol Ok Ohm :P
+Phillip Phillips
"Quotes don't just mine themselves. It takes research."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......I am plagiarizing this quote and no research required :-)
eric made it plainly clear ub all the prebunking videos that his team did "exhausting" research
+Phillip Phillips
More like "Quicksearch" or "google biblequotes"...
AntiReligious, you used quotes, so it wasn't plagiarizing. It was merely another anonymous source... :)
At 2:38: *_"...important to this lion of thinking..."_* comedy gold, loved it.
Creationists being dishonest? I'm shocked 😂
Y'know, I was just thinking, "Man, I wish I had more Paulogia videos to watch."
*new video - posted 20 minutes ago*
INSTA-CLICK
oTTer God did it! He likes to watch these videos too 😉
the elementary school teacher was reverting to elementary school back biting when he was getting emotional.
You know to this day I am still surprised to hear people believe in creationism
Childhood indoctrination is a powerful thing. It is natural to trust your parents and if they are telling you to ignore the science and that it is all deception from The Enemy or some such, that can be a tough worldview for even an otherwise rational person to find their way out of. Especially when you consider how family relationships and so on will be impacted.
Child abuse
Did you know there are individuals that follow the Jedi code? How about Draginkin? Furrys? There are people who believe some weird shit. It's not just creationists. LOL
Mike J, Furries are people who like anthropomorphic animals. We don't believe anything, we just like the character design of Zootopia. The Jedi Code, the Knight's Code, the Wizard's rules, and other sets of moral guides similarly don't have beliefs about reality attached, they're just guides for living your life. The only thing that might be a belief here is otherkin/dragonkin; people who seriously identify as some kind of animal. It could be a belief that they were that animal in a past life, or that they have the soul of that animal, or they just think it's another word for fursona.
A fursona has a similar role to a username, but it works as your online face instead of your name.
Furries:
watch?v=gcW3vTgCtNU
lol, they show the Genesis movie ad when i launch Paulogia's video debunking and mocking the Genesis movie.
perfect!
Doesn't surprise me, I saw a vid ad for some spiritual bunk (rather like 'spirit science'...) appear on Martymer 81's site - was watching an old vid of his which debunks pseudoscience. The big ad on the top right was for a free copy of a messianic bible!
Lol. Yeah Mam, I see the Prager U commercials a lot on atheist channels. They usually highlight some right-wing issues like "Be nice to Israel" or "What is the Alt-right?". Not sure if they know that we ain't buying their shit; they should save their advertising on religious channels. They even have a petition on their website about RUclips restricting them.
@@GuitarDog_atx Adblock works wonders
@@MasterCedar hey now, Paul deserves the money for his work
The quality of your work and research is always a joy to behold.
thanks for all your support, cornlips.
ajs1031 lol hey! How ya been?
I hope you meant quit or fired. Not dead.
ajs1031 my bad I had not seen your response until just now haha. Late as all get out in typical cornlips fashion. I have been doing well. The holiday season is always stressful though haha.
Wow ur voice is so soothing makes the whole debunking even more fun to listen to 👂👌👌🤘
Out-STANDING, my good Sir! Well done and EXCELLENTLY cited! You are an inspiration to educators and lecturers! Thank you for sharing this!
RIP 90's Discovery Channel
I love the analogy about a human walking across a state. So simple, yet succinct.
Its Time you assume I don't already know your arguments. I do. They aren't convincing.
Its Time, no.
+1 for mentioning and employing the Principle of Charity.
That trapezoid example was spot on. Well done!
I am new to your site and have subscribed.
This video is brilliant. It is easy to see how well-researched, logical and intelligent it is done. Thanks so much for sharing.
@IT
Correct, the bible and religious types are illogical and deceive the uneducated every day. I suspect they have an agenda, which concerns making money.
A simple test would be to go to Church , but never donate money.
4:15 Same here. Though my personal favorites among primates are the different macaque species. Some of the species are sometimes mistakenly called apes because they lack tails.
Another great post..keep up the good work Paul..
Fucking maddening how people ignore or can't admit what is actually factual truth, evidence...
Never heard of your channel till just now, I click on this video and hear Radiance by Zedion in the first half second. Subscribed immediately. XD also like the subjects you work on and your style, but the intro song got me as much as anything. Memories, man... Glad I came across your channel. Will be watching everything on it soon.
Clearly presented. Another great production.
Paulogia for life!!!!
I was indeed scientifically convinced of both evolution and an earth older than 6k years long before the last vestiges of my childhood indoctrination evaporated. It wasn't science which de-converted me (I was damn good at rationalization and compartmentalization). It was actually studying the Bible and having one too many WTF moments. Twenty years on looking back - I think that ability to completely compartmentalize cognitive dissonance is the largest factor as to how I stayed with it for as long as I did.
I love it when Bodie shows up. He is so like an amateur clown at his first gig, a kid's birthday party.
loved your breakdown of what we are....keep up the good work.
Hey, did I read an article in the CBC earlier this week interviewing you? Can't be too many other Paul's in a critical story about Ken Ham in Alberta. LOL
That was me.
Fantastic research! Good job.
Good program Paul we still fighting the parasite lucrative religious
I'm one of those Christians you mentioned that accepts evolution and is still a Christian--thank you for this review!!!
Its Time I am a Christian... i believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Just because you don't understand HOW something can be, doesn't mean it can't be. Have you considered that perhaps your understanding of things isn't exactly right? I have, which is why I've come to God saying 'ok, I believe you're powerful enough to create everything in an instant or use evolution, who am I to suggest only my understanding of Genesis is correct?'
Also, I never understand Christians saying the big bang isn't true... it's literally a scientific description of creation from nothing. We do Christendom a disservice to suggest otherwise.
Finally, do you believe in physics? Quantum mechanics? The Bible doesn't give us a full treatise off either, yet both are accurate. I don't believe God asks us to abandon our reasoning when we become Christians.
Its Time I was raised independent fundamental Baptist, and I'm assuming you will probably still believe I'm somehow lost and not 'really a Christian', and that's ok. I know I am.
Its Time again... I'm a Christian. I believe Jesus is the son of God, died and rose from the grave, and I've accepted Him as my Savior. It sounds like the issue is really you can't understand how I could be a Christian and be open to science, so you just assume I'm lying. I believe you're being honest and trying to help me because I have no reason to think otherwise. I don't care if you think evolution is wrong or right because it doesn't affect me; ask yourself why it is I absolutely MUST be lying in your mind.
Its Time also, the big bang is the idea that the universe sprang instantaneously from an infinitely small point, before which science can't determine what existed--in other words, nothing existed then BANG everything exploded into being.
As a Christian, I believe nothing existed then God spoke and BANG everything exploded into being.
I don't see how either of these points proves the other wrong.
Its Time did you read my comments above? I'm going to quote myself in the above comment;
"again... I'm a Christian. I believe Jesus is the son of God, died and rose from the grave, and I've accepted Him as my Savior."
Yes, for the third time, I BELIEVE JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD, HAVE REPENTED AND ACCEPTED HIM AS MY SAVIOR. like I said, the issue seems to be you can't understand how I could 1) be a Christian, and 2) accept science. As I've said multiple times now, I am a Christian. I can't show you my soul to prove it, this is all I can do.
Again, ask yourself why it is you can't accept I'm a Christian AND believe in science?
Those lumbering beasts are Eric Hovind and Bodie Hodge
Dooooohhhh, Poul it is the dinosaur KIND, no need to be specific :-)
Well technically the Israelites were Canaanites. However Christian's don't want to have that discussion.
"Do we need a safe word?"
I am dying 😂😂😂
Am I the only one who thought, the first frames in the background were from this six minute footage, Paul mentioned?
Things like - oh wow this strange human/dog thing looks awesome.... the screenplay is amazing!... Tie Fighters. Wait? What?
It might be fun to review this one with GoodNight Kevin.
I searched both creationist and evolutionist. Both are words from when the sciences was new. The word evolutionist stopped being used when more scientists accepted evolution.
Are you and Sci-Strike going to do another collaboration to debunk "Genesis: Paradise" lost like you did "Is Genesis History?" if/when it's finally released? I know it's probably a lot like flogging a dead horse that's been reanimated with a zombie virus to death, but really like that series I think you two do some excellent work together.
I really dig your channel!
This "movie" is going to have more holes in it than the Noah story. If the ark had so many holes it would have sunk in a day (and no, I don't believe the ark ever existed! This is metaphorical. Just in case any creationists read this). Epic case of breaking the 9th commandment.
This "Movie" should be banned for purposely attempting to brainwash children. At very least a warning to parents.
Cro-Magnons are Homo sapiens sapiens. Cro-Magnon refers to early modern humans that lived in Europe.
meleagrisfelis Which is different than the Cromags, dimension-hopping psychopaths bent on conquering the various alternate earths in _Sliders_.
ajs1031 I mean, *they aren't wrong.*
ajs1031 damn sliders.
I call Dr. J a poopy head ! I'm right, because I said it. I don't need evidence.
I can’t wait for the review so I don’t have to sit through that “movie “. Keep up the great work
As expected, the level of deception of Eric et al go to in this movie is clearly tailored to just "re-affirm" the beliefs of those who already believe in his B.S....it isn't to "convince the non-believer" or be a conversion tool. Unlike the usual YEC who will never bother to actually data fact check any of this...most non-believers probably would and find out just how much of a con YEC truly is...as this is epic level lying right here.
Well to be fair, Eric lacks either the education / knowledge base or the Charisma to have produced anything else. His father at least makes a somewhat presentable Snakesoil salesman, Eric just can't match up to that.
Someone, I think it's potholer54, has some great juxtaposition of Eric using the same routine as his father, but fluffing the delivery so it's a lot less effective. I think its the one about the moon getting further away and thus disproving an old Earth, because to Creationists all extrapolations are linear.
It were both Potholer54 (in one of the Golden Crocoduck videos from 2012) and King Crocoduck that pointed it out (KC has got a six part Series on Eric's version of the same Talk Logicked had already disseminated as presented by Kent)
I think the "beasts" you were struggling to identify in the video clip are Aetosaurs. Possibly Scutarx. Aetosaurs are armored reptiles that are not dinosaurs, but do look a lot like them. They lived during the Triassic.
The animated taxonomic tree of life you showed is very outdated. Birds and Reptiles are no longer considered separate Classes, and Fish is paraphyletic.
Hey Paulogia, Ken Ham was mentioned on CBC this morning about his trip to Alberta to speak with homeschoolers. I cringed when I heard his voice repeat "Where you there?"
CBC seemed to have a pretty negative tone when talking about him so that is good.
That was me they were interviewing about it.
Oh cool, I only caught a bit of it on my drive to work. I'll have to look it up and listen the rest now that I know you were interviewed!
For this interested:
www.cbc.ca/listen/search/?query=ken%20ham&
www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/listen.html?autoPlay=true&mediaIds=1093227587534
I feel another film like "The Principle" coming on. Dozens of people will see it (apart from the ones that worked on it) and Eric will be able to add "filmmaker" to his resume.
I especially couldn't resist adding Charles Jackson's rambling (and false) claim on Homo sapiens neanderthalensis: “in all of the ah, the the newer ah classification books and magazines and research paper articles and uh museums..." creationist eloquence (and "accuracy") at its pithiest!
ha!
Jackson has been reclassified as Discount Jeff Goldblum
It's important to realize that paleontologists and paleoanthropologists on the one hand and biologists who study living animals on the other have different notions of 'species'. The former base their classifications largely on morphology, because that's all they have, while the latter base their classifications at least in part on the ability to interbreed. Were Neanderthals around today, they would probably be considered the same species as us, because we could (and did) interbreed.
From the video description:
"...lets take at some leaked footage..."
It looks like the words "a look" should be between "take" and "at."
Yay new vid~
yeah yeah yeah! my favorite show on yt!
Was that SpringbokASMR at 8:31?
Funny how YECs love to point to conceptual art based on real scientific data and say, "you can't possibly know that's what they looked like." Well I don't think I've yet seen the conclusive paper describing the liontiger.
Anyone else thought he was going to say '...with a bachelor's degree in Agreeing with Kent Ham'?
I want to add something to the Noah's ark problem that no one's ever brought up before. At least where I've checked.
I've recently started reading the Bible from cover to cover again, but this time I'm reading four different Bibles side by side by side by side, chapter by chapter to see where their differences are. I'm doing it for a project I'm writing that hopes to show how much aspect changing details in the Bible have changed.
Surprise I haven't even gotten halfway through Genesis and already writers are removing and changing stuff. What I came across also brings up a great point against the Noah's Ark story.
So in Genesis in the Old and New King James versions and the Gideon Bible it explicitly says that all the animals entered into ark "two by two" Genesis 7:9. For the longest time I thought that this wasn't actually in the Bible, but was just inserted for a child's telling of the story to sound cute or teach them to count or wtv, but I found it is in fact in the Bible. This is important, because if we do the simple math, with an estimated half a billion land dwelling species that have every existed, if we assume that each creature entered the ark 1 pair of species per second, which is still too fast, but we'll give them 1 second to do it, that would still take at least 15 years for all animals to enter the ark, and this is assuming there was no traffic and consistent movement. Even if we reduce that number to Ken Ham's "kinds" we still have the problem of "two by two" math, cut that number in half and it takes 7.5 years for all animals to enter the ark, again assuming there is no traffic and each animal is entering one second at a time. If we're really going to be generous with Ken Hams "kinds" it would still take 3 full years for all the animals to enter the ark and this is still granting them 1 second per animal and assuming there is no traffic.
Realistically, with the margin of different movement speeds of each animal, assuming we have non-stop consistent movement, each animals should take a more reasonable 5-10 seconds to enter the ark. This gives us at least 150 years to board all the animals and 75 years if i'm considering Ken Ham's "kinds" and that's still being generous assuming there was no traffic or stalling or stopping to eat or poop.
Now move to newer versions of the Bible and the "two by two" verse in the New International Version, CEV Bible, and New International Catholic addition are completely removed. The two by two narrative doesn't exist in newer versions of the Bible. Why? Did someone figure the math was too great so they blanked out this verse?
Either way this is just too good to be true, I definitely want to make something out of this project. I'm not even through Genesis yet.
To be fair, most creationists have abandoned the completely indefensible idea that Noah literally loaded every single species of animal onto the Ark. Instead, they've switched to the idea that Noah loaded up a few thousand animals that were basal to the ones we have now and that the creatures went into some kind of super-hyper overdrive evolution the second they got off the boat.
Yeah, they borrow and use the data they need from Darwin's research and then turn around and lie about and criticize the man for "proving nothing."
Even with a few thousand species, we still run into time issues if they entered "two by two." Remember we have to account for extinct species as well.
Plus they like to say "kinds" were on the ark. Like "bird kind" in order to reduce the number of species.
But if they want to have it that way, then what were both a raven and a dove as mentioned in the Bible both doing on the ark if they're considered the same "kind"?
If those two animals were on the ark and they're genetically not that far off, then "kinds" even by creationists standards must still be a large number, as most animals that Ken Ham defines as a single kind are more genetically separate than a raven and a dove. So if a raven and a dove were both on the ark, then "kinds" is not as generic as Ken Ham likes to make it out to be. Must we now assume an exception for only doves and ravens?
Even by their own rules there is no way around it. They're always shifting the rules so that their story stays internally consistent. This is the problem with beginning with a conclusion and creating evidence to fit it.
* Bring up evolution, evolution is a lie.
* Bring up data to prove it, the data is a lie.
* Point out space issues on the ark, well evolution is now okay and the data is not a lie, but is stops exactly where it's convenient for our story and the rest is a lie.
* Show the time rate problems with evolution by their model, now we're going to step outside of the data zone and assume super fast evolution to make the time limitations fit too.
* Point out a raven and dove were on the ark, well that's an exception to our "kinds". If we make a special exception, then our assumed model still fits.
Making up data to fit a conclusion is not evidence. This should be so obvious to grown adults, but it's not. This is something that should be taught in schools as early as possible and reinforced thoughout a child's education.
Thank you, Paul! Thank you for all the work you do the show what a dolts Eric and his cronies are.
Hi Paul. Did I hear someone sounding suspiciously like you on a recent national radio broadcast about Ken Ham's upcoming speech at an Alberta Home Schooling organization?
If that was you, great job!
Paul, what notification bell? Must be it doesn't exist on an iPhone.
I'll have you know, Paul, that I am a proud and recently-converted thermodynamicist. I say my prayer "E=mc^2" daily, and also convert energy into work as much as I can. It has to do with our capacity as systems.
Shit, I better not say that too loud, Eric's dumb enough to think I'm being serious. He's not altogether very bright.
So the liger was the original created kind, so that would mean the tiger and lion split from that. So would that mean that modern ligers are more related to the original created kind? Does that mean tigers and lions are the same kind but not the same kind as a puma or leopard? I don't see any spots.
How exactly do you have a single creature with all the genes of all subsequent species in it? That's not how speciation works by simply splitting up morphologically similar cats of the same species and waving a magic wand at them.
Dude! Was that a Mog at the beginning??? You've proven evolution!
Omg! A tamagotchi! I had was as a kid! Loved it!(;
Excellent! However, I also watched Trailer Park Boys so I know that not all Canadians are as brilliant as you. !:-)
Something I am shocked doesn't get more coverage is that the Adam and Eve story is thousands of years older than Christianity and even Judaism. Versions of the story exist in Mesopotamia and ancient Sumer. Also baffling, is that the obvious story is about the constellations. You have Atohm (which just means man) represented by Bootes a farmer hunter, joined by Eve a virgin represented by Virgo and Draco the dragon all occupying the same part of sky. They all "enter the garden in the East" I mean if you thought the world was flat, you would say it like that as the constellations enter the tree line in the East if positioned in Sumeria. Eve assumes the prone position in the equinox and there you have all the necessary components of a good story complete with sex and serpents. Once I heard this theory, and it became the most obvious pro genesis of such a story, I lost whatever fragment of percentage chance I could muster that the Christian interpretation of reality could be the least bit correct.
Why would a desert be a post sin thing? A desert is not a "bad" environment, it is just a different environment, with it's own challenges. And it has it's own beauty.
Two errors I caught:
1. Evolution and adaptation are not exactly the same.
2. Junk DNA has never included regulatory DNA. Finding functional regulatory regions does not imply that a function has been found for junk DNA.
Michael Dowd is a nice guy. I don't share his deism at all, but OK, at least he's not antiscience. His critic says some stupid things.
"Embracing evolution has led many Christians to abandon their faith completely"
True!
"or to suffer despair and depression because God suddenly seems so powerless and un-involved."
This is un-sourced. I don't think it's true. Those I've known who leave the faith are generally happier for it.
"The theory of evolution is constantly changing"
No, the core theory has been stable for decades. It gets refined, and new examples and details are constantly discovered. It is a positive that it responds to changing evidence.
"and contradicting the laws of science,"
Nope. Evolutionary theory is science. Name something in the theory that contradicts any principle of science.
"whereas the Bible remains trustworthy and true. "
Heh. Only by definition, where people set it as the unchanging standard. It's discordance with the evidence has been increasing for centuries.
"Please don’t “exchange the truth of God for a lie” (Romans 1:25)."
I think "truth of God" is a synonym for "lie".
Would you say that adaptation is a subset of evolution?
TO ALL ATHEISTS HERE: PLEASE DON'T PAY TO WATCH THIS MOVIE.
I know it may be tempting to watch it and then give your critic to boost ur channel views...but fuck it, it's not worth it. You're giving ur money to Eric if u do so.
"And one by one, ALL of the different so-called missing link fossils have been reclassified as either over to the human side or over to the monkey side."
So being that monkeys have tails, doesn't he confirm all the missing link fossils are human as long as they don't have tails? He's basically saying that, for example, Lucy was human. Even people who accept evolution don't typically go that far.
I want to know if they're also young Marsists.
does anyone have a link to the video clip that starts at 13:27?
Evolutionist is actually a word you can find in dictionaries online, even including oxford. I agree it's silly that it has a name, but other than the fact it shouldn't have to exist there doesn't seem to be anything actually wrong with that claim.
great talk by Aron Ra, slight different look at life classification, you said we're mammals, primates and apews, we're also monkeys... and technically fish... I think it's about 8 minutes in if you want to jump ahead but the whole thing is pretty cool
ruclips.net/video/rW6R9RHvVew/видео.html
What caused the big bang? Where did the matter pre- big bang come from? How did stars develop in space? How do we go from nothing to everything even though the laws of thermodynamics claim it to be impossible?
"What caused the big bang?"
*Who says it had a cause?*
"Where did the matter pre- big bang come from?"
*We have no idea. It may very well be "eternal" (in as much as the term can apply in a situation where time itself doesn't actually exist).*
"How did stars develop in space?"
*When clouds of interstellar gas/dust became dense enough, which we call "molecular clouds", they formed quite naturally thanks to the other natural forces... like gravity.*
*That is an incredibly simplified explanation, google it if you want to know more.*
"How do we go from nothing to everything even though the laws of thermodynamics claim it to be impossible?"
*When was there "nothing"?*
*And the laws of thermodynamics only apply in specific situations, like closed systems, and we simply don't know if the Universe is actually a closed system.*
*So we need to be careful when discussing thermodynamics.*
⭐️
Not a former Christmas, I thought it was always shit? Fuck I might’ve been right 🤔
I think junk DNA is still a pretty good argument against design. Yes, we know that some non-coding DNA has function - that's been known for decades - but the rough estimate of the human genome that serves any kind of function, regulatory or otherwise, is about 10%, Say 20% to be generous, it's still clear that there's a whole lot of leftovers and parasitic elements like transposons.
"Discovery channel information." do they still do Information? hahahaha
I couldn't take the no animal ate meat until sin came along seriously. I cant visualize a bunch of humans sitting around a table with the T Rex's from next door munching on a bowl of fruit.
It is amazing how often that “faith” can so screw up the neural paths that reason becomes nigh unto impossible!
Saw a trailer for this yesterday when I saw Thor: Ragnarok in Imax. Wish I had known it was going to show, I would have tried to record it on my phone. It was pretty short, and I honestly don't remember much. But I was left with the impression that it will be a good dose of BS.
In the movie Lucy, she has an IQ of 100,000, and she kicked some major ass. Before further evolving into a computer.
Hey there! Love your content, but heard some things that need correction. New world monkeys have tails, some old world monkeys do not have tails. It's from the latter that apes came about, sorta. I say sorta because apes are still monkeys too, all be it a very specific type of monkey. Think humans are apes, apes are monkeys, in the same way macaws are parrots, parrots are birds. The daughter species still remain in the the same clade as the parent species all the way up, even if they have lost some of the defining features of their predecessors. So humans are still old world monkeys.
DiRaled I was going to say that. Very well put.
Clade Starfish yes I did. Poor rereading my edited comment. Corrected. :)
Clade Starfish keeping each other honest is what seperates us from those who use faith to build their models of reality
And fish. Still fish.
Paul, you say you are hoping to see "the best arguments" in the movie. Looks to me as if they ARE using their best arguments. And their best science, which just happens to be cherrypicked and over 20 years old.
So the six minute preview took you 21 minutes to debunk. I'm looking forward to the 7 hour video debunking the entire film!
"I have a problem with the idea that apelike creatures became humans"
This guy does realize humans are great apes, right? We're already apelike creatures.
No wait, humans are super special and we're not animals at all, got it.
I almost feel sorry for them... nah nevermind. Lol. Rip them to shreds!
Well that's not very Blue Lantern of you. :)
Mike J When they have abandoned reason, they have abandoned all hope.
They haven't abandoned reason. They just reason in ways that normal people don't, i.e., "If I tell this passel of idiots this passel of lies, they'll give me TONS of tax-free money". And lo, it came to pass...
Except that the Israelites unquestionably _were_ Canaanites, not only geographically, but also genetically, linguistically, and culturally; in fact, but for the postexilic evolution of their religion, Israelites were utterly indistinguishable from the Canaanites among whom they arose. Thus the answer to your rhetorical question is, yes, biblical scholars should still take you seriously if you refer to Israelites as Canaanites.
There are some humans today who are only 3 feet tall. The human body design works reasonably even at that size. Further, there are human children who function just fine at 3 feet tall. In all animals, size is one of the most elastic features. All you need to do is put any animals on an island and they start to shrink generation by generation. Put them on a plain with lots of food and predator-prey start an arms race in size.
neanderthal separate species or not is simply a label. We can tell the difference of their artifacts & bones generally, but they also could mate with modern man. These are the facts not the labels...we also neednt discuss "kinds".
Prebunking means that you won't accept the evidence of the other side even if it does turn out to be more probable.
“Those who know nothing of foreign languages know nothing of their own.” - Goethe
If the "other side" had any scientific evidence, scientists would be all over it. They wouldn't need to make propaganda films about their hypotheses.
I come across evolutionary propaganda on a daily basis, even in kid's shows. Also, you don't have evidence to provide for evolution that does not require faith. You're welcome to present some but you and I both know where that'll go.
See, the fundamental difference between creationist propaganda and talking about the Theory of Evolution is the existence of evidence for the Theory of Evolution. That is a pretty important distinction.
And the Theory of Evolution does, in fact, have plenty of evidence... it wouldn't be a scientific theory if it didn't. But you are clearly correct that there is no point in me presenting any anyway, your comments make it abundantly clear that you are unwilling to accept anything that doesn't corroborate your pre-existing suppositions.
In layman's terms... if it doesn't agree with you, it isn't true. If it does, it is true.
> "the fundamental difference between creationist propaganda and talking about the Theory of Evolution is the existence of evidence for the Theory of Evolution."
You're going to have to do better than merely talking as if there's evidence. As I see it, the same evidence leads to entirely different conclusions, hence why creationists have real evidence as well. This is also why I stated that you can't present any evidence that does not first require faith in evolution, just like the evidence I can present will require faith in creation.
> "And the Theory of Evolution does, in fact, have plenty of evidence... it wouldn't be a scientific theory if it didn't."
You'd be surprised how little evidence is needed when you only have one naturalistic explanation for something, as any plausible explanation will become a theory by default if it is the only explanation. For example, the big bang is a theory as well, but the only evidence for it is that observations about the universe can be explained through it, and this is only because it has been made to fit the evidence. The 2004 open letter to the scientific community, written and signed by scientists, explains how it was made to fit: www.plasma-universe.com/An_Open_Letter_to_the_Scientific_Community
> "But you are clearly correct that there is no point in me presenting any anyway, your comments make it abundantly clear that you are unwilling to accept anything that doesn't corroborate your pre-existing suppositions."
I asked this because I know the real reason why almost every atheist is extremely reluctant in presenting evidence for evolution.
> "if it doesn't agree with you, it isn't true. If it does, it is true."
This mantra is prevalent among people of all convictions, including yourself.
"You're going to have to do better than merely talking as if there's evidence. As I see it, the same evidence leads to entirely different conclusions, hence why creationists have real evidence as well. This is also why I stated that you can't present any evidence that does not first require faith in evolution, just like the evidence I can present will require faith in creation."
*Why would I bother? You have made it clear you won't listen to anything I have with your "your evidence requires faith in evolution" nonsense.*
"You'd be surprised how little evidence is needed when you only have one naturalistic explanation for something, as any plausible explanation will become a theory by default if it is the only explanation."
*This is literally how science **_doesn't_** work.*
"For example, the big bang is a theory as well, but the only evidence for it is that observations about the universe can be explained through it, and this is only because it has been made to fit the evidence. The 2004 open letter to the scientific community, written and signed by scientists, explains how it was made to fit: www.plasma-universe.com/An_Open_Letter_to_the_Scientific_Community"
*A letter from a handful of scientists does not invalidate the real work and real evidence that supports the Big Bang Theory.*
"I asked this because I know the real reason why almost every atheist is extremely reluctant in presenting evidence for evolution."
*I know precious few Atheists who are reluctant in presenting evidence for the Theory of Evolution.*
*And you are confusing someone not wanting to waste time on someone who obviously won't listen with reluctance to present evidence.*
"This mantra is prevalent among people of all convictions, including yourself."
*That mantra is the mantra of the religious, like you. I, however, follow a different ideology. I seek the truth, regardless of whether or not it is palatable.*