you were absolutely convincing: i now believe the universe... no, the matrix was poofed into existence last thursday and everyone knows this, and they just try to fool me into voting for reptiles. 4.5B years and 6000 years are both only ever stated and therefore wrong, which makes anything i can make up true by default.
@@chezeus1672 This explains why I can't remember what I had for breakfast last Wednesday. I am now also a believer, sibling in the faith. (And thus was born the Cult of che zus) 😇
I dunno, I think I'd prefer a cybernetic skeptic to a genetically modified one. Though we could combine the two to create the ultimate debunking machine... Hey GMS, come over here! I need to replace your arm with this robot one! It's gonna hurt a lot but you'll be better! You'll see!
Your selection of background photos and videos is worth watching alone. I find myself cracking up often and wonder how many others may or may not understand your references. I for one, get them all. Great stuff.
Oooo, Paulogia has a video out, so that means Happy Dance! Proud to support you! This one is good, and I'll need to listen to it again because it is so rich.
I’m glad somebody comprehends this stuff cuz I sure as hell don’t. Radio, shmadio, the fact that light travels at a consistent rate and all the stars in the universe is more than sufficient proof for me. 6,000 years indeed...
Paul, your work is amazing. This channel knows AIG betrer than AIG themselves. This video series is awards worthy. I nominate your for 'Best counter apologetic educational documentary series on RUclips'. Nothing gets by you Paul, and your work has not by us! Very appreciated.
These people are well aware that they are presenting dated, misleading and out of context information. It's all about the money. Enjoyed this series and learned quite a bit.
Paul, You're so good at staying calm. I get mad when people attack science in order to support their fairy tales. I have been better about that, though. Of course, you're upbringing could have something to do with it (both Canadian and Mennonite)
I just love when creatards claim that the rate of radioactive decay may have not been constant. Then the next day they claim how Universe's basic physical constants have been fine-tuned for us. Someone should tell them that rate of radioactive decay depends on those same constants. If the rate of radioactive decay was different in the past, The Universe was uninhabitable back then too.
You are right. Universes with different physics may be able to support life. But not us. I should have wrote "uninhabitable for us" instead of plain "uninhabitable". So my point still applies. If laws of physics allowed super-fast radioactive decay around 5000 years ago (like creationists believe), there wouldn't have been human life 5000 years ago.
Paul - Your videos keep getting better. And I am becoming increasingly convinced that Creationist leaders are deliberately lying in order to sustain their business model, rather than making honest mistakes. Which is ironic, because the book they worship frowns on lying.
It's quite disingenuous for them to explain the misconceptions about carbon dating _as if carbon dating were used by science to demonstrate evolution_ (which obviously it doesn't). The fact that carbon dating is only usable to measure things up to some tens of thousands of years has absolutely no relevance to the field of biological evolution or the age of the Earth. However, they present it as if it did.
Are you suggesting "professional" creationist are dishonest? They are all honest as the day is long, and none of them have amassed a small fortune out of lying to the vulnerable , ignorant and stupid. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair
Maybe that's why the flood happened? Also need to consider Noah's Ark, in which it becomes not only Noah's family, but with only two of each, there's no other choice than that or go extinct. Welcome aboard the S.S. Incest?
Damn, this was well done. You certainly work hard on detailing the science. Keep up this important work. We must continue and do our best to pull these knuckle draggers into the 21st century. Thank you muchly 🙂🇨🇦
That was a lot of science about elements you threw at me...I think I should study about it some more. I still have trouble understanding all that info.
Normally I don't comment on your "illustrative" background visuals. But the "no girls allowed sign" @ 10:07 illustrating "contamination?" I actually LOLed. Well done. :-D
Hahahaha! Initially I was just listening to this in the car and not watching it. Then I read the title where it said GMS wasn't it, and it was like "really?" so I rewatched the first couple of minutes. Nicely done, gentlemen.
This is pretty cool. I did not know about this series when I made my assessment clip. I apologize. I endorsed your channel as the cartoon news network.
Thanks. That was a very informative video. I'm not a theist, but I'm also not a scientist, just an attentive layman, and this may be some of the best, concise descriptions of dating methods.
Paul, you put so much effort into these videos. Very informative and entertaining. It would be nice to know if any creationists have dared produce counter arguments.
As I understood it, the rate of production of C14 and the ratio of C12 to C14 in the atmosphere are not constant. They are known to have varied over time because of factors like the increased presence of CO2 since the industrial revolution and the increased amount of radiation in the atmosphere since the nuclear tests in the 1950s and 60s. But as with all of the other "problems", scientists know about these variations and try to account for them by cross-checking C14 dates with dendochronology and other methods. Furthermore, the variability is small, not nearly enough to account for the difference between 6000 and 4.5 billion years....
14:20 There actually is a way to see if radioactive decay rates are inconstant. Radioactive decay plays an important roll is stellar evolution (aging of stars). Because of this, if decay rates are not constant we would know at once, because the stars would look different. In fact, the farthest stars we can see are about 13 billion light years away. They show no sign at all of a changing decay rate. We can be very sure indeed that the decay rates of radioactive elements has been constant for at least 13 billion years. This is nearly 3 times as long as Earth itself formed.
Somehow, Genetically Modified Skeptic made a more convincing "creationist" argument than the actual creationists using the same argument... When creationists even need seculars and skeptics to help them in their own cause...
Creationism turns more and more into "Projection: the Cult". Calling scientists liars and fakers, while literally lying about it and faking their "evidencessses". So disgraceful how they deal with reality (or don't).
6:14 "For carbon-14, it takes 5700 years for half of the parent, carbon-14, to change to the daughter, carbon-12." According to wikipedia, carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14. In effect, carbon-14 is really nitrogen that is temporarily pretending to be carbon. It starts as nitrogen, it becomes carbon, and eventually it goes back to being nitrogen.
I'd like for just ONE young earth creation research organization to make integrating themselves into the scientific community through peer-reviewed publication a major organizational mission. I understand they have a much smaller pool of literature to work with (and they read more like newspaper level op-eds than scientific discussion), but I genuinely believe that if realistic falsifiable hypothesis testing using some mathematics and statistics were used and submitted to some smaller yet respectable science journal (no self-publishing!) they would at least begin a discourse with the scientific community. Right now, the only consequences of this creation research is severe miscommunication and educational abuse. Of course, a true YEC would take the ultimate rejection of their papers to mean persecution, I guess; but, it's still something I believe any honest organization would attempt.
They would have to use proper sampling methods, double-blind tests, include all data points, rigorous statistical methods and a model consistent with known results. They can't do any of this, so they can't get published in the major journals. This of course, is evidence of a 'conspiracy' against 'Creation Research.'
Won't happen because they would have to be honest, and use the Scientific method correctly. "This of course, is evidence of a 'conspiracy' against 'Creation Research.'" The same lame arse argument as "teach the controversy" and "teach the alternatives". You can't when there isn't a credible alternative or a controversy.
that would be interesting, but they would never do that. they seem to have at least some understanding that the scientific evidence does not support their claims, and that if they did their own experiments(assumming they did them correctly, and honestly) that they would get the same results as secular(i.e. non-creationist) scientists.
Loving this series. I get to learn new stuff AND laugh at creationism at teh same time :D At 4:58 when you state that the ratio between c12 and c14 is constant could use a clarification that the ratio may change as we move back in time due to different atmospheres and whatnot but that that is taken into consideration when doing the calculations. You did use a red panda picture at that point though so I may have ben distracted ;)
Ever thing made of physical of the physical elements will eventually decay over time Only the spirit last forever the spiritual is meant to last from everlasting to everlasting
Just look at Noah myth, there's MANY ways it would be impossible to happen. I highly suggest checking out AronRa's video on Evolution of Genesis and his various videos of "How _____ disproves the flood myth" I made a 'blank' there because he has various videos like how palentology ... or how something else disproves.
Whenever I hear of carbon dating rocks, I always get in my mind... "Oi.. Hohvind! we can't carbon date this. There's no F**KING CARBON IN IT!" * waits to see who gets the source first.
Kudos to you Paul, for slyly slipping in the image of the donkey at "assumptions"---"Never assume. When you assume, you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me". Excellent.
What I find most interesting is Creationists do not make predictions derived from their "Theory." The "Science" of Genesis does little more than attempt to poke holes in the evidence which has been universally accepted by the scientific world for decades, and they are not even successful at that. Paul does a great job in this video of debunking the critical analysis of accepted scientific by the ridiculous pseudo-scientists showcased in the film. If Evangelical Creationists are so sure their theory is correct, why have they not made a single prediction based on it?
It's strange to see how many people have no moral scruples to lie for their presumably all powerful god, cause truth and reality do not convince anybody such a thing even could exist anymore... Do they think "YHWH" would be proud of them to convert with douple speak? I've heard the argument more than once that Ham and others like him CANNOT possibly believe in the god they preach, cause then they'd be scared shitless when behaving like they do. I'm not quite sure about that, especially in protestantism a lot of ideas have been dealing with the separation of deeds being necessary for either damnation or salvation from "sola Fide" or faith alone serving as ticket for paradise, so it might be just CogDis that they think they know _better_ than god how to go about this... Still. Why would god even "let them"?
At 14 or 15 minutes in you said that certain kinds of evidence are more reliable in a court of law than eyewitness testimony. I fully agree - HOWEVER - the courts are behind the time. For example, a cop can't submit his report as evidence, but he can use the report to "refresh his memory" then testify to what he remembers. If someone said that his testimony disagreed with his report, he could still testify that he remembered better now.
So.... Just like young Earth after Yahweh "aspirated" dry land out from under the Waters, which even Genesis does not attempt to explain where they came from... Amirite? :D
I'm sure it'll all be explained in the prequels. Big cartoonish CGI waves doing a song-and-dance number because one of the executives thought it would grab the teen demographic..
I got the funniest advertisement yet. A limited theatrical release of a live recording of a stage play about Moses. Mosesevent(dotcom). I was rolling on the floor laughing. . . now on to Genesis Paradise Lost. Weeeeeeee!
Paulogia! Wow, that must have taken a lot of study. At the end of all this, you should just submit it and be credentialed in all the sciences! Actually, you're becoming more a 'jack of all sciences, master of none!' But surely, more than most other educators have to learn. Great job, too much work!! Love and Peace
How do creationists ever expect to win their battle with science? Science has facts, evidence, research, studies, and predictive models. Creationists have an ancient book.
My first thought was that this would be a video about premarital sex! 😀 However, I thought this is more in line with Eric Hovind's usual videos right before I started watching it. Great video and debunking, as usual.
Why is it every Christian video seems to have the same low quality interview shots, whether it was filmed in the 1980s or the 2010s? Did Eric hire some out of work guy from Jeremiah Films or something?
"If we're going to have a debate about science, can you please just be honest about it." If Eric or Ralph said this, it has to be the high mark of hypocracy. They are totally dishonest, misleading, sowing confusion and probably reference horseshit creationist websites and have talking head nonexpert creationists go on about wrong or discredited ideas. Eric and Ralph should heed their own advice.
One correction: the rate of production of C-14 isn't constant. It's nearly constant, but there is some variation dependent upon the flux of cosmic rays. That's why we have to use tree ring dating to calibrate C-14 levels.
Yeah, you did mention it fluctuated, but that was quite a long time after you'd said it was constant, and you covered other things in between. See 4:51. Yeah, I know, it was a minor slip. I know you know better. But it's the sort of things morons like Ken Ham pick up on and use to discredit you. That's because their arguments about their faith are made in bad faith. One is meant to give a charitable interpretation in cases of doubt, but these wankers never do. Basically because they have to clutch at straws to have any hope of making a plausible case.
The misrepresentations in GPL are obvious so I watch these videos to guess the connections of the clips to the script. I got "Under pressure" and "oops I did it again" :-) This "nominated documentary" too often relies on the "Argument by nee-ner nee-ner fallacy".
There's a Jewish scholar who I believe it was either contemporaneously with or prior to archbishop usher who used the same genesis-based genealogy but use the a day as a thousand years and a thousand years is a day to calculate the universe at being roughly the same age that science has concluded based on the evidence.
We don't even need to observe the decay rates for a long time to know that if they ever changed, it was not by much : radioactivity produces beta or alpha particles and/or gamma rays and heat. Something commonly used in electricity production and bombs. Condensing billions of years worth of radioactive decay into a mere 6000 years would lead to a few little problems ...
I’m finally in my favorite skeptic series on youtube! I think this is my best work yet too
You were perfect.... above-and-beyond the call of duty. Thanks again!
you were absolutely convincing: i now believe the universe... no, the matrix was poofed into existence last thursday and everyone knows this, and they just try to fool me into voting for reptiles.
4.5B years and 6000 years are both only ever stated and therefore wrong, which makes anything i can make up true by default.
Your acting skills, are woefully under used. Perhaps you could wear a giant egg costume, for the next episode, of Ham and Egg News.
@@chezeus1672 This explains why I can't remember what I had for breakfast last Wednesday. I am now also a believer, sibling in the faith.
(And thus was born the Cult of che zus) 😇
I dunno, I think I'd prefer a cybernetic skeptic to a genetically modified one.
Though we could combine the two to create the ultimate debunking machine...
Hey GMS, come over here! I need to replace your arm with this robot one! It's gonna hurt a lot but you'll be better! You'll see!
Your selection of background photos and videos is worth watching alone. I find myself cracking up often and wonder how many others may or may not understand your references. I for one, get them all. Great stuff.
If you get them all, then you're my new favorite, Craig.
I usually just listen.
This comment will cause me to watch, at least occasionally, on the outro.
At least for the "stable" horse pics.
@@Paulogia Also, I hope you're not picking on Brittney.
😑
No no no, earth only 49 years old. You can't prove the universe existed before I was born! :p
Thanks again Paul. Love this series.
Actually it's only 157 years old and its age does not change.
thanks, Joseph.
But what if you're just a brain in a vat. Then how old is the earth?
@@comishcraig As old as the vat.
It's only 19 years old
I know so, because it can't be more than my age 😏
Hey Paul (and Shannon and Tony)
Thank you so much for your hard work and dedication. Always a pleasure!
Oooo, Paulogia has a video out, so that means Happy Dance! Proud to support you! This one is good, and I'll need to listen to it again because it is so rich.
Under Pressure kept playing in my head for the last quarter of the video. Nice plant, Paul :)
I’m glad somebody comprehends this stuff cuz I sure as hell don’t. Radio, shmadio, the fact that light travels at a consistent rate and all the stars in the universe is more than sufficient proof for me. 6,000 years indeed...
Paul, your work is amazing. This channel knows AIG betrer than AIG themselves. This video series is awards worthy. I nominate your for 'Best counter apologetic educational documentary series on RUclips'.
Nothing gets by you Paul, and your work has not by us! Very appreciated.
These people are well aware that they are presenting dated, misleading and out of context information. It's all about the money. Enjoyed this series and learned quite a bit.
I always love your videos and I love your graphics. I know this is superficial but that water falling on the left side of the screen is great!
Paul, You're so good at staying calm. I get mad when people attack science in order to support their fairy tales. I have been better about that, though. Of course, you're upbringing could have something to do with it (both Canadian and Mennonite)
Canadian Mennonite is bound to be mild mannered.
I just love when creatards claim that the rate of radioactive decay may have not been constant. Then the next day they claim how Universe's basic physical constants have been fine-tuned for us.
Someone should tell them that rate of radioactive decay depends on those same constants. If the rate of radioactive decay was different in the past, The Universe was uninhabitable back then too.
You are right. Universes with different physics may be able to support life. But not us. I should have wrote "uninhabitable for us" instead of plain "uninhabitable".
So my point still applies. If laws of physics allowed super-fast radioactive decay around 5000 years ago (like creationists believe), there wouldn't have been human life 5000 years ago.
Paul - Your videos keep getting better. And I am becoming increasingly convinced that Creationist leaders are deliberately lying in order to sustain their business model, rather than making honest mistakes. Which is ironic, because the book they worship frowns on lying.
As Potholer54 has said over and over again, "BECAUSE THERE'S NO F*CKING CARBON IN IT!"
It's quite disingenuous for them to explain the misconceptions about carbon dating _as if carbon dating were used by science to demonstrate evolution_ (which obviously it doesn't). The fact that carbon dating is only usable to measure things up to some tens of thousands of years has absolutely no relevance to the field of biological evolution or the age of the Earth. However, they present it as if it did.
It's almost like they know that, but want to keep their audience confused.
Their only job is to spew some specious reasoning at their flock, it doesn't have to be correct - not that it ever could be anyway.
Are you suggesting "professional" creationist are dishonest?
They are all honest as the day is long, and none of them have amassed a small fortune out of lying to the vulnerable , ignorant and stupid.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair
Beautiful quote
@@kobusleach6026
And very accurate at that 😎👌
When it said dating I thought you were going to bring up that Adam and Eve’s children would have to date each other.
Adam DID have children, with his daughters according to the inherent Bible......
Of course, some denominations are still practicing some of these methods
I do not know if I should love your deadpan delivery or be disgusted by the concept behind it... so shame on you Paul, you are awesome! :D
Maybe that's why the flood happened? Also need to consider Noah's Ark, in which it becomes not only Noah's family, but with only two of each, there's no other choice than that or go extinct. Welcome aboard the S.S. Incest?
David H. , Noah’s ark would have starved to death.
Damn, this was well done. You certainly work hard on detailing the science. Keep up this important work. We must continue and do our best to pull these knuckle draggers into the 21st century. Thank you muchly 🙂🇨🇦
For people who say they have a commandment from their god to not lie, Christians sure must disappoint their god because carpets don't lie as much.
That's because carpet hell is even worse than human hell!
That was a lot of science about elements you threw at me...I think I should study about it some more. I still have trouble understanding all that info.
Hello to Tony Reed. I'm looking forward to more HCTMRS on October 26!!!
Paulogia. I am loving this series. Thank you, I wonder how you keep so upbeat when dealing with so many wilfully ignorant creationists ?
There's a reason I do it in small chunks. Gives me time to recover.
Normally I don't comment on your "illustrative" background visuals. But the "no girls allowed sign" @ 10:07 illustrating "contamination?" I actually LOLed. Well done. :-D
Cooties ARE a serious and ongoing health crisis!
I'm so pleased when people get the reference.
Cheers man. Your channel is on my short list of old school "just atheism debunking things" channels. Glad you guys are still active.
lol. i got a chuckle out of that too.
Hahahaha! Initially I was just listening to this in the car and not watching it. Then I read the title where it said GMS wasn't it, and it was like "really?" so I rewatched the first couple of minutes. Nicely done, gentlemen.
This is pretty cool. I did not know about this series when I made my assessment clip. I apologize. I endorsed your channel as the cartoon news network.
Hey Paul, it was cool seeing you pop up in the Mays debate. Keep up the good work!
Thanks. That was a very informative video. I'm not a theist, but I'm also not a scientist, just an attentive layman, and this may be some of the best, concise descriptions of dating methods.
Thanks, James.
You're welcome.
You're welcome.
Paul, you put so much effort into these videos. Very informative and entertaining. It would be nice to know if any creationists have dared produce counter arguments.
None that I am aware of.
@@Paulogia clearly your evidence is irrefutable and arguments very sound. I've really learned a lot from your channel. Thanks.
So clear and didactic even a creationist may understand it.
Within the half life of Carbon 14...
As I understood it, the rate of production of C14 and the ratio of C12 to C14 in the atmosphere are not constant. They are known to have varied over time because of factors like the increased presence of CO2 since the industrial revolution and the increased amount of radiation in the atmosphere since the nuclear tests in the 1950s and 60s. But as with all of the other "problems", scientists know about these variations and try to account for them by cross-checking C14 dates with dendochronology and other methods. Furthermore, the variability is small, not nearly enough to account for the difference between 6000 and 4.5 billion years....
14:20 There actually is a way to see if radioactive decay rates are inconstant.
Radioactive decay plays an important roll is stellar evolution (aging of stars). Because of this, if decay rates are not constant we would know at once, because the stars would look different.
In fact, the farthest stars we can see are about 13 billion light years away. They show no sign at all of a changing decay rate. We can be very sure indeed that the decay rates of radioactive elements has been constant for at least 13 billion years. This is nearly 3 times as long as Earth itself formed.
Somehow, Genetically Modified Skeptic made a more convincing "creationist" argument than the actual creationists using the same argument... When creationists even need seculars and skeptics to help them in their own cause...
Creationism turns more and more into "Projection: the Cult".
Calling scientists liars and fakers, while literally lying about it and faking their "evidencessses". So disgraceful how they deal with reality (or don't).
GMS is a chameleon
@Paulogia
One of his Genetic Modifications is to have chameleon DNA grafted to his own.
Paulogia I’m gonna need some evidencessesesesesses for that claim buddy
@@CaseyShontz
He's obviously one of the shapeshifting reptilians ruling the world from within Trumps ass. Evidence, Trump excretes his dumps oraly. 😜
6:14 "For carbon-14, it takes 5700 years for half of the parent, carbon-14, to change to the daughter, carbon-12."
According to wikipedia, carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14. In effect, carbon-14 is really nitrogen that is temporarily pretending to be carbon. It starts as nitrogen, it becomes carbon, and eventually it goes back to being nitrogen.
Loved the Queen clip very clever, can never go wrong with some footage of Freddie Mercury
I'd like for just ONE young earth creation research organization to make integrating themselves into the scientific community through peer-reviewed publication a major organizational mission. I understand they have a much smaller pool of literature to work with (and they read more like newspaper level op-eds than scientific discussion), but I genuinely believe that if realistic falsifiable hypothesis testing using some mathematics and statistics were used and submitted to some smaller yet respectable science journal (no self-publishing!) they would at least begin a discourse with the scientific community. Right now, the only consequences of this creation research is severe miscommunication and educational abuse. Of course, a true YEC would take the ultimate rejection of their papers to mean persecution, I guess; but, it's still something I believe any honest organization would attempt.
They would have to use proper sampling methods, double-blind tests, include all data points, rigorous statistical methods and a model consistent with known results. They can't do any of this, so they can't get published in the major journals. This of course, is evidence of a 'conspiracy' against 'Creation Research.'
Won't happen because they would have to be honest, and use the Scientific method correctly.
"This of course, is evidence of a 'conspiracy' against 'Creation Research.'"
The same lame arse argument as "teach the controversy" and "teach the alternatives". You can't when there isn't a credible alternative or a controversy.
that would be interesting, but they would never do that. they seem to have at least some understanding that the scientific evidence does not support their claims, and that if they did their own experiments(assumming they did them correctly, and honestly) that they would get the same results as secular(i.e. non-creationist) scientists.
Thank the non-existent invisible being in the sky for another episode of Paulogia.
Still missing my daily laugh at Ham & Aigs.
Excellent!!! Thorough, articulate and well researched. Great work. Thanks for posting.
Your videos are like full on science lessons.
🎓☢🔭🔬⚗👨🏼🔬📚 Awesome. 🤓👌🏼
Where were you for my grade 12 Physics, Chemistry and Biology classes?
Where was this Paul for my own high school sciences?
Loving this series. I get to learn new stuff AND laugh at creationism at teh same time :D
At 4:58 when you state that the ratio between c12 and c14 is constant could use a clarification that the ratio may change as we move back in time due to different atmospheres and whatnot but that that is taken into consideration when doing the calculations.
You did use a red panda picture at that point though so I may have ben distracted ;)
Ever thing made of physical of the physical elements will eventually decay over time Only the spirit last forever the spiritual is meant to last from everlasting to everlasting
I love the clues you gave, absolutely hilarious
Another great video and proof once again you can't trust a creationist!
"Argument from funny voices".... a new logical fallacy!!!
I don't believe the Bible anymore, but even the Bible never says the earth is 6,000 years old
Lisa For Truth yes, if you add the ages, that is approximately what you get
but it never SPECIFICALLY says it; that's my point
Just look at Noah myth, there's MANY ways it would be impossible to happen. I highly suggest checking out AronRa's video on Evolution of Genesis and his various videos of "How _____ disproves the flood myth" I made a 'blank' there because he has various videos like how palentology ... or how something else disproves.
I've watched "...Flood series" but I didn't see the evolution of Genesis video. Thanks! I'll check it out!
It never says it isn't 6000 years old, either! So there!!
Wow... a Noahic flood of information. Thanks for all your hard work, Paul.
Whenever I hear of carbon dating rocks, I always get in my mind...
"Oi.. Hohvind! we can't carbon date this. There's no F**KING CARBON IN IT!"
* waits to see who gets the source first.
potholer doesn't quite fit the tone I was trying to set with this series, otherwise I might have included.
Oooh of course I get that. It Potholer!
And, because this is potholer54 we're talking about:
ruclips.net/video/APEpwkXatbY/видео.html
5:20
Kudos to you Paul, for slyly slipping in the image of the donkey at "assumptions"---"Never assume. When you assume, you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me". Excellent.
Ah, I can hear potholer54 saying it again, ''There's no f*ckin' Carbon in it!''.
Paul, you are AWESOME!!!!
What I find most interesting is Creationists do not make predictions derived from their "Theory." The "Science" of Genesis does little more than attempt to poke holes in the evidence which has been universally accepted by the scientific world for decades, and they are not even successful at that. Paul does a great job in this video of debunking the critical analysis of accepted scientific by the ridiculous pseudo-scientists showcased in the film. If Evangelical Creationists are so sure their theory is correct, why have they not made a single prediction based on it?
Very nice work, Paul.
Outta the park Paul , Kudos.
I like how the video begins with the Ladder of Babel.
Very good Paul, brilliant as always. Missing my Ham and Eggs though, as if you didn't have enough work to do :)
soon
Drew is looking spiffy 😜.
It’s strange to think how many people make a living misrepresenting science.
It's strange to see how many people have no moral scruples to lie for their presumably all powerful god, cause truth and reality do not convince anybody such a thing even could exist anymore... Do they think "YHWH" would be proud of them to convert with douple speak?
I've heard the argument more than once that Ham and others like him CANNOT possibly believe in the god they preach, cause then they'd be scared shitless when behaving like they do. I'm not quite sure about that, especially in protestantism a lot of ideas have been dealing with the separation of deeds being necessary for either damnation or salvation from "sola Fide" or faith alone serving as ticket for paradise, so it might be just CogDis that they think they know _better_ than god how to go about this... Still. Why would god even "let them"?
He's always spiffy.
The vast majority of Creationists truly believe. The leaders are just fleecing the flock.
If god really is god, why does he need people to lie? And you know these people know they're lying. They're what I call "scientific prostitutes"
I know I looked just irresistible in that getup
At 14 or 15 minutes in you said that certain kinds of evidence are more reliable in a court of law than eyewitness testimony. I fully agree - HOWEVER - the courts are behind the time. For example, a cop can't submit his report as evidence, but he can use the report to "refresh his memory" then testify to what he remembers. If someone said that his testimony disagreed with his report, he could still testify that he remembered better now.
Wondersul series Paul. 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Hahaha I thought you meant like people dating. But 2 seconds of thought and I figured it out. Also Drew should be a method actor
Tetrahydrocannabinol exe I thought this would be about inbreeding, since that is a huge issue with Judaism/Christianity/Islam.
good thing Adam and Eve got along.
Temperature and pressure have both been shown to affect decay rates
..inside implosion-type nuclear bombs.
So.... Just like young Earth after Yahweh "aspirated" dry land out from under the Waters, which even Genesis does not attempt to explain where they came from... Amirite? :D
I'm sure it'll all be explained in the prequels.
Big cartoonish CGI waves doing a song-and-dance number because one of the executives thought it would grab the teen demographic..
Further studies are needed. I have a few ideas about where to carry them out
I got the funniest advertisement yet. A limited theatrical release of a live recording of a stage play about Moses. Mosesevent(dotcom). I was rolling on the floor laughing. . . now on to Genesis Paradise Lost. Weeeeeeee!
3:33 Love the reference about Jack Tripper in Three's Company! I wonder who else caught the reference. Lol.
Fantastic. So excited.
Paulogia! Wow, that must have taken a lot of study. At the end of all this, you should just submit it and be credentialed in all the sciences! Actually, you're becoming more a 'jack of all sciences, master of none!' But surely, more than most other educators have to learn. Great job, too much work!! Love and Peace
Can you link me to the bound state decay articles you researched? They kinda peaked my interest.
How do creationists ever expect to win their battle with science? Science has facts, evidence, research, studies, and predictive models. Creationists have an ancient book.
"If we're going to have a debate about science, can you just be honest about it?" Bwa ha ha ha ha!
Ow that actually hurt my jaw.
The guy saying that is on his 2nd career built on lies.
Charles sounds so much like Eric Hovind it gives me nightmares. 😳
Great video as always Paul
Of course, as soon as someone is mentioning dead things, there just HAS to be a certain norwegian blue parrot included (5:18). Wonderful :)
Sweet cameo! Almost like I'm watching a Marvel movie!
Would love to see an explanation how the new TIMS instrument measures isotopes. Because we do this stuff
And conversations about isotopes, the periodic table is simply too simple and keeps folks ignorant
Great stuff, as usual. I originally posted a longer comment but I should have known you'd get to my quibble later in the video. :)
Hey! I see that dead parrot sketch.
And applaud your taste.
I can only ever think of potholer54 when Carbon dating comes up. "Oi Hovind! We can't Carbon date this! There's no fucking Carbon in it!"
My first thought was that this would be a video about premarital sex! 😀
However, I thought this is more in line with Eric Hovind's usual videos right before I started watching it.
Great video and debunking, as usual.
This was a very good video, keep it up. It would be nice if more creationists watched it. If they did there would be less than them.
Why is it every Christian video seems to have the same low quality interview shots, whether it was filmed in the 1980s or the 2010s? Did Eric hire some out of work guy from Jeremiah Films or something?
"If we're going to have a debate about science, can you please just be honest about it." If Eric or Ralph said this, it has to be the high mark of hypocracy. They are totally dishonest, misleading, sowing confusion and probably reference horseshit creationist websites and have talking head nonexpert creationists go on about wrong or discredited ideas. Eric and Ralph should heed their own advice.
Could you do a video on the Bhagavad Gita? In reference to Christian of course.
Dude, this is so fucking legit, my jaw is literally on the floor
This video has an ad offering to help me find out who my guardian angel is. It says it's 100% free, but that seems suspicious to me, lol.
WHOA! GMSkeptic cameo!
boom
One correction: the rate of production of C-14 isn't constant. It's nearly constant, but there is some variation dependent upon the flux of cosmic rays. That's why we have to use tree ring dating to calibrate C-14 levels.
I think I mentioned that it fluctuates, but can be calibrated to external measures like dendrochronology
Yeah, you did mention it fluctuated, but that was quite a long time after you'd said it was constant, and you covered other things in between. See 4:51.
Yeah, I know, it was a minor slip. I know you know better. But it's the sort of things morons like Ken Ham pick up on and use to discredit you. That's because their arguments about their faith are made in bad faith. One is meant to give a charitable interpretation in cases of doubt, but these wankers never do. Basically because they have to clutch at straws to have any hope of making a plausible case.
Talk about change of decay rate under pressure, show Freddy: argument won, period! (the rest is fine too, but needless at that point ;) )
Underrated channel!
appreciated, Brian. spread the word.
@@Paulogia yeah sure, thanks for good content!
You know you're old when, instead of asking for your ID, the bar tender asks for your Carbon14 results... OK, I tried...
The likes are holding at 666....I just can't add my like yet!
The misrepresentations in GPL are obvious so I watch these videos to guess the connections of the clips to the script. I got "Under pressure" and "oops I did it again" :-) This "nominated documentary" too often relies on the "Argument by nee-ner nee-ner fallacy".
Genesis... Dating... Am I the only one who thought this was going to be about who Adam and Eve's kids ended up hooking up with?
Where is Ham's pic? That looks more like Dobie.
Hi Paul!
Hi Taleah!
Well done.
Criminally undersubbed.
Good job.
Thanks again for a great video
thanks for watching, Nepocrates
science is hard! therefore god!
i so wish i had 3+ years of "new" videos for me to watch of paulogia's...
There's a Jewish scholar who I believe it was either contemporaneously with or prior to archbishop usher who used the same genesis-based genealogy but use the a day as a thousand years and a thousand years is a day to calculate the universe at being roughly the same age that science has concluded based on the evidence.
5:41
110K years max. Even if he was telling the truth, how is that supposed to prove that the Earth is only 6,400 years old?
We don't even need to observe the decay rates for a long time to know that if they ever changed, it was not by much : radioactivity produces beta or alpha particles and/or gamma rays and heat. Something commonly used in electricity production and bombs. Condensing billions of years worth of radioactive decay into a mere 6000 years would lead to a few little problems ...