Funny thing: a couple years ago, I interned in a lab that worked with and "bred" marbled crayfish, the species you mentioned, among other things. In order to keep track of the lineages, they used a naming scheme kind of like your folder analogy. They'd have IDs like 2/a/b/c/a/a/c/b/d/a. The offspring would then be named 2/a/b/c/a/a/c/b/d/a/a and so on.
What a great analogy using the file folders. It would be so great if more creationists could see that explanation. Maybe evolution would be more easily understood.
but not explained in that way. I really liked the file folder analogy as I vastly prefer nested filing systems, yet I see so many people refuse to use them. I had a devilish time trying to convince a former boss that a nested filing system on Google drive was far superior to just dumping all the files into a single main folder, and giving each file mile long names to differentiate one from another. I mean seriously how hard is it to create a 'Spanish' folder with a 'Professor Name' sub-folder that contained ''fall 2012' and 'spring 2013' sub-sub-folders that would each then have 'SPN 111', 'SPN 112' ... etc. that would then contain the video and audio files unique to that class. So much easier to find a specific video used by a specific professor in a specific class then to try and cram all that into the file name of a file that is one amongst thousands.
I was confused about theories and laws, so thank you for that clip!! I thought I was scientifically literate, but apparently I wasn't as literate as I thought, but I always love being corrected when I'm truly wrong, it's how I learn best. Honestly, it makes me sad that the people being told they're wrong so often don't want to learn and grow to be more knowledgeable in whatever they're arguing about.
Ugh, I hate the "kinds" thing. I once heard Ken Ham say something like "the dog kind, the cat kind, the _fish_ kind"... this means that "kind" is a genus in some cases and a class in another. Apparently, he thinks that the variation in all fish is the same as between dogs... I hate dishonesty, and this "kind" thing is one of the most dishonest dodges that creationists use.
You should hear the deflective squirming Kent Hovind does when anyone tries to pin him down on what a "Kind" is. For example he'll mention a squirrel "Kind" so then some asks him do all squirrel's belong to one Kind, Kent Hovind then squirms around by saying, "Well, I don't know how many "Kinds" of Squirrels god made nobody does, there could be one Kind there could be 11 Kinds there could be more, nobody knows"
spamfilter32 Yeah I just don't get Kent Hovind what he saying just doesn't make sense scientifically. We know for a fact there are millions of species of animal life But only about several different kinds of animals like " mammals", " reptiles," " marsupials, " etc There are also millions of species of insects but only several different kinds of insects. And there seems to be more different kinds of birds them there are animals and insects.
@@jcr65566 I get Kent, he simply has to avoid as much as possible saying anything falsifiable to sooth the doubts and reinforced the faith of his followers, then proceed to collect their donations
Yet another example of "I said it so it's true." My kids learned in kindergarten the difference between fact and opinion (if they weren't clear before that). These are adults who don't know the difference, and who think that it's okay to either ignore or make up facts. The immaturity and lack of any reason is horrifying.
I kind of like that definition, though I must disagree a bit. To me, science cannot answer the question "why" since the word "why" has a underlying assumption of motivation to do something or a purpose (to my knowledge). Example you could ask "how the baryogenesis came to be/started" instead of "why the baryogenesis came to be/started" as the latter questions the reasons more than the mechanics when comparing them side by side. I know I'm using why in very strict manner here and it obviously doesn't translate well to loosely spoken language. I must admit that English is my 3rd language and I'm not completely sure if this makes that much sense but this is how I have tried to articulate to people what science is. I still like your definition since it is neat and clearly separates these two confusing terms, and I probably would use that in a coffee table conversation with non-scientists. :)
Req - Then you might like this explanation: Laws tell you "what" (you observe) while theories explain (are the best known explanation for) "how" that happens.
I'll also add my disagreement. Conservation of momentum, for instance doesn't answer any "how" questions, it's just an universal observation (at least on the classical level) that can be enumerated.
I think this is splitting hairs here. I think the OP wanted to point out the difference between laws and theories. You can read the 'how' as in how we see things happen for the laws and the 'why' as in why things happen for the theories.
9:47 Another example of nested hierarchies: Dewey Decimal System for classifying books. All books about mathematics and science are classified under "500". Within that group, you can look at the 570s for books on biology. Within that sub-section, you can find the 576 group if you're looking for books about evolution and genetics. A book about evolution would belong to the 576.8 "species", and it also belongs to the 576 "genus", and therefore also to the 57x "family", and therefore also to the 5xx "order". Nested hierarchies of increasing specificity are fun!
This is a battle only time can win. I admire the work you do on this channel. I too am an ex Christian who was raised to accept a literal genesis. I was also raised to think..... Literal genesis was a thorn in my parents side. They made the biggest mistake any religious parent could possibly make of they want their child to remain in their indoctrination... They taught me to think.
he also (like many that use the phrase) doesn't realise that quantum doesn't mean big. it just means something that can be measured with discrete quantities.
A quantum in physics is the smallest possible parcel of energy possessing a specific wavelength and may also be viewed as the amount of information it imparts. The AIG movie possesses not a single quantum of information.
I appreciate the point that facts don't explain anything. That I think is a key statement that needs to be part of these discussions in order to really emphasize what science actually does.
I had an ad for daily bible verses wonder whether they would send me some about the joy of bathing our feet in our enemies blood or dashing infant skulls upon rocks
Yes, YEC and other conservative Think Tanks and party boss's are specifically targeting you using Google's analytics. I don't think very many of the brainwashed actually see those (PragerU, AIG, Lying-Mud Slinging political attack) ads.
Paulogia, again, beautiful job. That charles guy is as much a liar as the rest of AIG. Their organization, with it's top cons are just getting wealthier off of ignorance. The true explanation of theory was the best, since Aron Ra did his on a PRAT video. Love and Peace
hey paul, french is spoken in southern Louisiana in the usa, and due to it being only spoken here it has changed to a point where a Canadian french speaker could not comprehend a cajun french speaker.
This works for Spanish as well. The Spanish spoken in Central America is different then the Spanish spoken if South America which is different from the Spanish spoken in Spain.
Man I got this ad about this “super smart” pathologist who was an atheist his whole life and now he is a Christian. I was like I guess not as smart as we thought
7:17 Correction: The marbled crayfish (Marmorkrebs) was actually discovered in the 90s, in many aquariums. Details are unclear, but at one point a sloughing crayfish mutation resulted in a female that would become the mother of a new subspecies or even species, which is triploid and reproduces itself via parthenogenesis, basically cloning itself over and over. There is little genetic variation among these critters. They are popular as pets, though the EU and even a few US states iutlawed them. Some were released into the wild and are now found all over the place. In Madagascar, they're highly invasive and are replacing local crayfish. It was last year that they sequenced their genome.
Thanks for another great video Paul, I like the way your channel has evolved over time. I actually used to live in Pensacola a short walking distance from one of the Hovinds Creation bookstore and “museum”. Trying to collect on Kent Hovinds quarter million dollar reward about twenty years ago both served as a launching point for my love of science and my dislike of the dishonesty that accompanies con men and pseudoscience.
"Here is why we believe this and it's NOT JUST FAITH!" LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Who does he think he's fooling with that crap. You are a true hero for calling these frauds out Paul.
It's relevant to remind all that creationists DO NOT come anywhere close to dealing with the detailed mutations involved in macroevolutionary change (I delved into that comprehensively regarding the reptile-mammal transition in "Evolution Slam Dunk"). Jackson Wheat and I are also tackling the AiG end of things in "The Rocks Are Still There" book we're coauthoring, including Georgia Purdom's gymnastic avoidance of acknowledging that beneficial mutations do in fact occur, and new "information" has arisen in that new functions are involved. Btw the folder analogy is an excellent one for how cladistic-based systematics runs these days. Bravo! May I use it in my TIP efforts, Paul?
when i say i have faith in a scientific claim what i'm saying is i am lazy. if there is a science claim i can look up the journal it is in, see who else tried the experiment, who confirmed the experiment worked and what way it was verified, i have faith that the experiment has been tested to destruction. when a believer says they have faith they mean they believe whatever they are told, regardless of the source, cos, god.
so how do they explain something like Archeopteryx? is it of the dinosaur KIND or the bird KIND? because thats a animal that shows a clear transsition. or how bout the Ichtyostega? Tectalis? Mudskippers? lungfish? Platypusses?
The correct answer to all of that is: "YES - and pray as hard as you can, till you believe it." Believe me. It works. (With a bit lobotomy and drugs, though)
@Robet Payne, I don't know if all the creationists share this view, but @Bible Flock Box believes that at some point in the future Tiktaalik will be disproven ... some how. I think, he's intimating that it is a hoax, but anyway he likes to skip it since he can't readily explain it.
Markus Nävergård Creationists sea-saw on Archeopteryx. Some claim its a bird, some a dinosaur. They do the same thing with early human ancestors, they say they are either fully human or fully ape... and they can't decide among themselves which is which sometimes. All while Ken Ham looks like the missing link himself :)
Being a preachers kid, my atheism has not come easy for me. My father knows I have doubts, and has told me many times to “doubt until I doubt my doubts”. I have used the phrase “why are there still monkeys” on many occasions. I still find it hard to believe that I used to believe all this stuff. I still haven’t found the courage to outright say that I’m an atheist to my family. Anyway, sorry for the weird rant. Just wanted to say thank you for your videos. They have helped me come to terms a great deal. I’m really looking forward to your videos on the documentary hypothesis. It’s the nitty gritty of when you do videos on the Bible that I enjoy the most since it shows me things that I used to miss, or gloss over when I was an active Christian.
Hi Howard, great comment. I was a Christian for almost 40 years and I have tried to put a few video together to describe my transformation. I was even a deacon at one point of my life and now I honestly can't believe how anyone could believe in a personal deity. It is enlightening once you see the history of religion, and almost amazing to me how people spend gobs of money on perpetuating the myth.
I received an ad about daily bible verses before this video wonder whether or not they would send me some about the joy that can brought by bathing your feet in thy enemies blood
Paulogia l, I liked your analogy on the evolution of latin to the modern romantic languages. Its clear and concise and is easy to grasp. I get so frusterated when discussing with creationists and their "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" (funny story my 8 year old son over heard that remark while i was listening to a podcast, to which he interjected "What?" He yells. "Thats not how evolution works! Didnt everyone at school get taught thisbin school???") Anyway, sorry to blab, but thanks for latin example. I'll use it in the future if I have a chance.
The first link after the advert on the top left that's usually there was a recommendation to pay to watch Genesis... Guess what I clicked on! (Hint, I didn't pay a penny LOL). Great work, as ever.
That was freaky, I was just coming over here to check out Arkonimics again, and this popped up. Guess I'm going to have to watch it now. Oh the hardship.
How are they allowed to watch that movie? The hero is a Divorced (big bad sin there) criminal (forgiveness? what is that?) and the movie itself is seen promoting an anti-corporatist agenda? the last part being the greatest sin for Ken Ham and his ilk, which only the understanding of even a modicum of scientific principles exceeds in seriousness and scope.
I like how they repeatedly assert things about "kinds" without ever seeming to feel uncomfortable with not being able to define the original kinds. Well, except with those silhouettes in their orchard of life. Just amazing. Funny, I don't see a human in that orchard. Would it just be a straight line with no branches, or are there branches for the human kind? Wait. Did I just stumble onto something? Do they think all of these other kinds have variations within them, but with humans, they are just like, "Hell no. Straight line!" ?
Continuing with what Eugenie Scott was saying at 11:52, I strongly recommend Bernard Forscher's 1963 Letters to Science titled Chaos in the Brickyard. It's not perfect, but it goes with what she was discussing.
"If we're going to have a discussion about science, can we please just be honest about it?" Well, you can try to be honest, but I don't think being honest about science will help the YEC agenda.
We all want honesty in the discussion. Sadly the Flat... oh I keep mixing them up with the young earthers (same thing just about)... earthers seem to have a different definition of honest then the rest of us.
dogs will always be dogs, and humans will always be humans in the same way that dogs will always be wolves and humans will always be apes. So whatever species arises from dogs will be dogs, and a species descending from humans will always be human.
Paulogia The part about humans being apes. Because that implies we’re animals and therefore not special. Ironic as we like to say how cool and special other animals are, and even make stories about animals being allegories to human behavior.
Paul, Re: boundaries to evolution See Michael Behe’s book, “The Edge of Evolution.” It’s a good read and convincingly argues for boundaries. Plus, (information) entropy would limit the “walk of evolution” as well. Also, your step analogy “cuts” both ways. Geographical boundaries would limit the “walk” at the Pacific Ocean or an insurmountable mountain range. I think nature would suggest to us that all things have natural boundaries, even the universe itself. (This principle could be helpful in that while theoretically our universe is most likely a level 1 multiverse, we are still naturally bounded by our light cone. So, theoretically, the “walk of evolution” could be limitless, but there is most likely a bounding mechanism within the system. One for sure would be entropy.) On another issue, I really think that you need to bring to light the fundamental hypocrisy of YECism and evolution. They ARE evolutionists, but they call everyone else “evil-utionist.” This hypocrisy drives me crazy! I would be more than happy to have my “cartoon” tell you all about it on your show. AND, another little known fact, the Bible DOES define what a kind is. It’s very close to our own idea of species. Actually, an non-myopic look at Scripture makes YECism impossible.
I'm not an atheist, but I am against the larger religions who think these FICTIONAL STORIES ARE DAMN HISTORY!!! If anyone is going to ask my beliefs, I consider myself a spiritualist who has no worshipped "God" but I do believe in some form of higher being or beings who created us. However these creators have either moved on or died a long time ago since they don't really do anything for us in the current time. If anyone has questions for me I'll gladly have a civil conversation.
Damian Hi I have to ask what it exactly means to be a higher being? I know they’re supposed to be better in some sense, but the concept seems pretty vague to me could you elaborate
@@diobrando6716 I kinda struggle to answer the question myself. I was taught by a man who was open to all ideas about faith, as long as you don't force it upon other people. He was the head of a club where many people of various beliefs could share thoughts and learn more about the world through other's minds. I am considered a Seeker, for I am still trying to find the true path for me to follow. While However one thing I know I believe is that the one creator "God" shouldn't (not that it can't) have so much power and creativity to build everything on a world. I like to think that one creator made plants, one made animals, one made humans, ect. That probably doesn't answer the question fully, but that's all I am able to answer right now.
The big question is why believe in things without evidence? It's always possible that there might have been higher beings in the past, but that's just a guess, not a belief. There could be all sorts of things in the past, but only some of them have left fossils behind for us to discover. The ones that didn't leave fossils are fairly lost to history, so what could cause us to believe in them?
@@Ansatz66 I suppose you have an excellent point. I can't prove my beliefs almost at all. Beliefs are mostly for comfort and explaining what can't be explained to their believers. Yes I believe in some form of creator(s), but I understand that life has evolved over however many years. My biggest issue is, because of the club I was talking about before, that faiths which try to conform non members to see things through their God's supposedly perfect ways are, in kinda blunt terms, my enemy. Also, since I can see science alongside my personal faith, I see that many claims that religions say can be confirmed just can't. I can't, and most likely will never be able to, prove my beliefs. But I still believe.
The creationist term "kind" is nebulous and malleable, and can be easily extended to cover everything. As lineages and genetic relationships between species become demonstrably larger and larger, likewise the term "kind" covers more and more. Even creationists can't give a consistent definition of "kind".
Ken and his cult of religioscientists have been shown the facts over and over again for decades and they continue to regurgitate the same creationist dogma. They've hijacked the science method and hold the lazy followers hostage with the notion of eternal damnation as ransom. Almost criminal and surely intelectually dishonest they will continue selling their poison.
*An appeal to **_"A Bigger Mystery"_** .* Science *increases our knowledge* by giving us explanations of _"how things work"_ *But God as an **_"explanation",_** is a dead end, as no one has any idea **_"how God works or creates anything"_** .*
GPL: Science is on our side. What? Why? Because we have facts. Facts, I say! Like what? Uh, like what, like what... Like the incredible Handwavium! And the discovery of the Misdirectionicon. And... and... And I'll tell you tomorrow. Wha... oops! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain counting your money. And remember to buy an official Garden of Eden t-shirt on your way out.
You dont have to go to mars in 500 years to find two groups of French speakers who wouldnt understand one another. The colloquial French spoken in some Parisian suburbs bears little resemblence to the colloquial French spoken in parts of Quebec. Both languages are french, but they have evolved differently Same goes for English spoken in Scotland versus English spoke in England.
Paulogia LOL.. I know Charles and Eric aren’t actually brothers I just think they must pal around a lot because they seem to have a lot of the same inflection and bravado in their voice.
The argument that a dog never gives birth to a non dog is best tackled by understanding the limitation is not with evolution but with language. Fixing a name to a species is like fixing a name to a colour. Take a tin of red paint and add just one drop of blue paint at a time whilst stirring continuously. The paint will become a bluer and bluer shade of red until at some point it will no longer be suitable to call the paint red but instead burgundy. At what stage does the red turn to burgundy? Which drop of blue tipped the balance? Now take a sample of that paint just before that last drop of blue and compare it to the one just after and what do you have? An elegant demonstration of how a change of kinds is nothing to do with an inability of a species to change but merely a barrier created by language itself! If two almost identical shades of paint can be called different colours then two practically identical animals could be named as different species.
I am still not over the hilarity of Creationists who believe in "kinds" positing rates of evolutionary change that would make Stephen J. Gould tell them to slow down. I just want to ask them if a couple thousand years can do that, what could millions of years do?
I love these, but at the same time it makes me so angry, not just misrepresenting and quote mining, but just making shit up. A thing said without evidence can be dismissed with, nearly 200 years of bloody science, arrrrrrrrrr, so angry. Surly there must be some religious edict about lying ?
Let's call it what it is.. Mental illness.. Religion harbors the mentality ill and those with social disorders, I've read several case studies where around 70% of religious followers are mentally ill..It's nothing more than a midevil cult mentality..
I wonder what these folk make of horizontal exchange of genetic information between genes and proteins. This is documented to happen, even across orders. It may happen often enough to impact the evolution of the parties.
It doesn't help the simplistic and label-worshipping creationists that modern taxonomy has more specific clade labels as you get to the species. So while most people understand that we are "still vertebrates" or even "still mammals", when we use the exact same argument for terminal clades ("dog will always remain in the dog clade") they get confused. Simply put, the way for a dog to become a non-dog a million years from now is for one of the canid species to be labeled something other than a dog. For example, a dog is a non-wolf and a fox is neither a dog or a wolf. The redundant nature of "dog" for the domestic dog AND the family name (Canidae = dogs) only makes the creationist's brains explode and complicates them understanding the nested nature of clades. It only gets worse when the fossil record fails to show "dog kind" persisting in the fossil record since creation.
I was told by one that kinds are what "families" are. Of course, they keep switching the definitions, so I wouldn't take that as fact. But if it truly means family, then they must believing in a super fast type of evolution.
+DB Cisco It is easy to nail any creationist with the self declared holy scripture. Leviticus 11 : 22-23 _Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you_ Grasshoppers, bald locusts (sometimes translated with katydid) and regular locusts are "kinds" alongside "the beetle". Which have according to the scripture 4 feet not 6 like in reality. However they are in reality insects and _variations_ of orthoptera locusts. In the hebrew original they are actually "kinds" of swarm locust in the bible - because the farmers and goatherders had to differentiate the swarm locust behavior to survive. It is in hebrew: Arbe, Solam and Hargol "kind" of locusts.
The problem: even IF they give an exact definition of "kind", that means more than just examples, they will change it as soon as with the next sentence... the biblical "kind" is something constantly changing. Typical for a wildcard.
So sad to see a person like Georgia, who is actually well educated, being so sneaky and dishonest. She knows good and well that there is no such thing as a "kind."
Young earth creationists don’t agree with macroevolution, but they are all for turbo-charged, super-uber, hyper-caffeinated, electra-mega evolution. ~ AronRa
The funniest thing about Creationists when they insist that all speciation events happened after the flood they have to believe in super-evolution! That's where speciation events are happening constantly until all the species are accounted for and then it needs to stop suddenly when we have everything.
Isn’t it really interesting and informative to listen to real scientists like Eugenie Scott explain things properly. ‘Survival of the fittest’ does not mean survival of the biggest, strongest, meanest or most aggressive which is how the Nazis adopted it, it means the best adaptation fit for a particular purpose or environment. Sometimes as in the great white shark this does turn out to be the biggest, strongest, meanest and most aggressive but giraffes with long neck also meet the criteria.
Hey this is cool. So by Genesis Paradise Lost standards all we have to do is make a movie and say the science is on our side and we win? Can we make one about how Ken is secretly a puppet of Xenu? If we say the science is on our side it must be true... by their logic. and anything he says to counter it obviously is just Xenu using him.
I wouldn't go that far. For example, lets say a person, lets call him/her "A"; A goes to a Music Conservatory and earns a PhD in Music Composition. Then A spends the rest of A's life in a profession that has nothing to do with Music, and never writes a song, even for fun. Does A still deserve A's PhD in Music Composition? I'd say yes because they went to the school and put in the academic work necessary to get it, even if, Like Georgia Purdom the Skills and Knowledge of the PhD are never again used.
I'd agree, except that she misleads the public using the phd as credential. Science should fight for its interests and reputation - hence revoking the title would make sense
The problem you get into is who gets to decide who's credentials get taken away? Is she using her credentials to mislead people? Yes, but she did still go to college and did submit a Thesis paper that was approved by a Thesis committee, so if groups start going around taking away the PhD's then others will respond that they are being treated unfairly because those organizations taking away the PhD's don't have arguments so resort to such tactics. Going down that rabbit whole only places people like Georgia Purdom in a sympathetic light. For the best way to counter those Creationist PhD holders see King Crocoducks' exposition on Creationist "scientists" with real degree's and how the body of their scientific work marks them as failed scientists. That is the argument to make, Georgia Purdom is a failed scientist, not that she doesn't deserve her PhD.
I don’t know if I’d go so far as to revoke her doctorate, but she doesn’t use it in the spirit it was likely given in. Hence imo she doesn’t deserve to have it
Grant Martin but by that logic, one could argue that Sam Harris doesn’t deserve his PhD in neuroscience, no? Sam doesn’t use his PhD, not in the spirit of the degree or at all, really. He uses his philosophy degree, but does he use it in the spirit of how it’s meant to be used? I’d actually like to know what you mean by that, by “not using a degree in the spirit it’s intended”, bc in that case I may not deserve my degree, and I know many folks who maybe don’t deserve their’s either. I hate to defend her, bc I hate what she does, but why shouldn’t working for a degree be all that’s required to deserve it? I just think these kind of subjective things get us into some murky waters. I can imagine cases arising where someone is doing actually good work that’s considered a misuse of a degree by some, but then they end up proving some established theories wrong, or make some new discoveries. (I realize this is wildly hypothetical, but I feel like this whole question is built on some really subjective and imprecise ground.) ✌🏼
That lady’s explanation of Theory, etc was one of the best and most lucid I’ve ever heard. Thanks Paul!
Eugenie Scott is amazing. Just a wonderful teacher who has faught important fights against these zealous cretins.
That lady is fantastic her name is Eugene Scott amazing too
Funny thing: a couple years ago, I interned in a lab that worked with and "bred" marbled crayfish, the species you mentioned, among other things. In order to keep track of the lineages, they used a naming scheme kind of like your folder analogy. They'd have IDs like 2/a/b/c/a/a/c/b/d/a. The offspring would then be named 2/a/b/c/a/a/c/b/d/a/a and so on.
cool!
11:22 - I was paying imperfect attention, and heard "Nudist Coveries."
That seems a bit counterproductive.
fancy phrase for clothes
Oh man! What does that say about me that I split that up the same way? Don't forget, Ken Thovind is innocent. Kent Hovind though...not so much.
You're not alone in hearing that, kinda funny I had to repeat it in my head to figure out what was really said.
hehehe; bet that perked up your ears, VR!
Nudist Coveries = Fig Leaves.
What a great analogy using the file folders. It would be so great if more creationists could see that explanation. Maybe evolution would be more easily understood.
That folder system is something Aron Ra has been working on for years.
but not explained in that way. I really liked the file folder analogy as I vastly prefer nested filing systems, yet I see so many people refuse to use them. I had a devilish time trying to convince a former boss that a nested filing system on Google drive was far superior to just dumping all the files into a single main folder, and giving each file mile long names to differentiate one from another.
I mean seriously how hard is it to create a 'Spanish' folder with a 'Professor Name' sub-folder that contained ''fall 2012' and 'spring 2013' sub-sub-folders that would each then have 'SPN 111', 'SPN 112' ... etc. that would then contain the video and audio files unique to that class. So much easier to find a specific video used by a specific professor in a specific class then to try and cram all that into the file name of a file that is one amongst thousands.
"Flatists" and their outdated "Flatism". We need more "Hierarchists" to make videos to counter this!
Agree
I was confused about theories and laws, so thank you for that clip!! I thought I was scientifically literate, but apparently I wasn't as literate as I thought, but I always love being corrected when I'm truly wrong, it's how I learn best. Honestly, it makes me sad that the people being told they're wrong so often don't want to learn and grow to be more knowledgeable in whatever they're arguing about.
Ugh, I hate the "kinds" thing. I once heard Ken Ham say something like "the dog kind, the cat kind, the _fish_ kind"... this means that "kind" is a genus in some cases and a class in another. Apparently, he thinks that the variation in all fish is the same as between dogs... I hate dishonesty, and this "kind" thing is one of the most dishonest dodges that creationists use.
You should hear the deflective squirming Kent Hovind does when anyone tries to pin him down on what a "Kind" is. For example he'll mention a squirrel "Kind" so then some asks him do all squirrel's belong to one Kind, Kent Hovind then squirms around by saying, "Well, I don't know how many "Kinds" of Squirrels god made nobody does, there could be one Kind there could be 11 Kinds there could be more, nobody knows"
spamfilter32 Yeah I just don't get Kent Hovind what he saying just doesn't make sense scientifically. We know for a fact there are millions of species of animal life But only about several different kinds of animals like " mammals", " reptiles," " marsupials, " etc There are also millions of species of insects but only several different kinds of insects. And there seems to be more different kinds of birds them there are animals and insects.
spamfilter32: yeah ken and kent: two of a kind.
@@jcr65566 I get Kent, he simply has to avoid as much as possible saying anything falsifiable to sooth the doubts and reinforced the faith of his followers, then proceed to collect their donations
the dishonest kind ...
Yet another example of "I said it so it's true." My kids learned in kindergarten the difference between fact and opinion (if they weren't clear before that). These are adults who don't know the difference, and who think that it's okay to either ignore or make up facts. The immaturity and lack of any reason is horrifying.
Laws tell you the "how", while theories tell you the "why"
I kind of like that definition, though I must disagree a bit. To me, science cannot answer the question "why" since the word "why" has a underlying assumption of motivation to do something or a purpose (to my knowledge). Example you could ask "how the baryogenesis came to be/started" instead of "why the baryogenesis came to be/started" as the latter questions the reasons more than the mechanics when comparing them side by side. I know I'm using why in very strict manner here and it obviously doesn't translate well to loosely spoken language. I must admit that English is my 3rd language and I'm not completely sure if this makes that much sense but this is how I have tried to articulate to people what science is.
I still like your definition since it is neat and clearly separates these two confusing terms, and I probably would use that in a coffee table conversation with non-scientists. :)
Req - Then you might like this explanation:
Laws tell you "what" (you observe) while theories explain (are the best known explanation for) "how" that happens.
I'll also add my disagreement. Conservation of momentum, for instance doesn't answer any "how" questions, it's just an universal observation (at least on the classical level) that can be enumerated.
I think this is splitting hairs here. I think the OP wanted to point out the difference between laws and theories.
You can read the 'how' as in how we see things happen for the laws and the 'why' as in why things happen for the theories.
Fair enough, I may have misread the OP. :)
9:47 Another example of nested hierarchies: Dewey Decimal System for classifying books. All books about mathematics and science are classified under "500". Within that group, you can look at the 570s for books on biology. Within that sub-section, you can find the 576 group if you're looking for books about evolution and genetics.
A book about evolution would belong to the 576.8 "species", and it also belongs to the 576 "genus", and therefore also to the 57x "family", and therefore also to the 5xx "order".
Nested hierarchies of increasing specificity are fun!
Your example of language is funny because i believe they have the same idea about languages as they do about kinds.
+J B
Good point! Tower of Babel baby!
Linguistic proof against god
Philip Jose Farmer, “The Lovers”
@@jeffreyspratlin5894 thanks Phil
This is a battle only time can win. I admire the work you do on this channel. I too am an ex Christian who was raised to accept a literal genesis. I was also raised to think..... Literal genesis was a thorn in my parents side. They made the biggest mistake any religious parent could possibly make of they want their child to remain in their indoctrination... They taught me to think.
That sandwich analogy is pure gold lol
but now we all want a sandwich
Time to open Ken&Eggs Sandwich shop
Good episode again. I'm glad you're talking the time to pick apart their lies and nonsense piece by piece.
exhausting, but hopefully worth it
A quantum jump? 11:20
Is he just adding quantum to his sentences to try and make himself sound smart? Deepak want's his shtick back.
Lord Srednuas Is it the remake of Quantum leap? :3
Oh boy.
well, charles is an elementary school teacher.
he also (like many that use the phrase) doesn't realise that quantum doesn't mean big. it just means something that can be measured with discrete quantities.
A quantum in physics is the smallest possible parcel of energy possessing a specific wavelength and may also be viewed as the amount of information it imparts. The AIG movie possesses not a single quantum of information.
I appreciate the point that facts don't explain anything. That I think is a key statement that needs to be part of these discussions in order to really emphasize what science actually does.
Mormon ad before this, but really targeted one I think, "If an atheist like me could come to believe in the Gospel..."
TThere was another Christian ad on GE's new video as well
".....then atheists are not that smart after all (at least some of them)"
I had an ad for "Fabletics" exercise leggings. What are they trying to insinuate?
I had an ad for daily bible verses wonder whether they would send me some about the joy of bathing our feet in our enemies blood or dashing infant skulls upon rocks
Yes, YEC and other conservative Think Tanks and party boss's are specifically targeting you using Google's analytics. I don't think very many of the brainwashed actually see those (PragerU, AIG, Lying-Mud Slinging political attack) ads.
Paulogia, again, beautiful job. That charles guy is as much a liar as the rest of AIG. Their organization, with it's top cons are just getting wealthier off of ignorance. The true explanation of theory was the best, since Aron Ra did his on a PRAT video. Love and Peace
hey paul, french is spoken in southern Louisiana in the usa, and due to it being only spoken here it has changed to a point where a Canadian french speaker could not comprehend a cajun french speaker.
Where in LA are ya? I moved to Oklahoma from Alexandria last year
Theoretically, the Scots speak English - but try understanding them - especially those in the north of Scotland!
I actually recorded myself talking about the North American french variations, but cut it for time. Great minds?
This works for Spanish as well. The Spanish spoken in Central America is different then the Spanish spoken if South America which is different from the Spanish spoken in Spain.
fab u: cantonese and mandarin as i understand it, are usually not understood to one another.
Man I got this ad about this “super smart” pathologist who was an atheist his whole life and now he is a Christian. I was like I guess not as smart as we thought
I love the use of the scene from Willow. Well played sir
7:17 Correction: The marbled crayfish (Marmorkrebs) was actually discovered in the 90s, in many aquariums. Details are unclear, but at one point a sloughing crayfish mutation resulted in a female that would become the mother of a new subspecies or even species, which is triploid and reproduces itself via parthenogenesis, basically cloning itself over and over. There is little genetic variation among these critters. They are popular as pets, though the EU and even a few US states iutlawed them. Some were released into the wild and are now found all over the place. In Madagascar, they're highly invasive and are replacing local crayfish.
It was last year that they sequenced their genome.
"Theory means explanation", simply elegant !🥰 That is all you need to say to these creationists.
I must say I didn't expect an advert for the Israel institute of biblical studies before this video!!
Thanks for another great video Paul, I like the way your channel has evolved over time. I actually used to live in Pensacola a short walking distance from one of the Hovinds Creation bookstore and “museum”. Trying to collect on Kent Hovinds quarter million dollar reward about twenty years ago both served as a launching point for my love of science and my dislike of the dishonesty that accompanies con men and pseudoscience.
"Here is why we believe this and it's NOT JUST FAITH!" LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Who does he think he's fooling with that crap. You are a true hero for calling these frauds out Paul.
It's relevant to remind all that creationists DO NOT come anywhere close to dealing with the detailed mutations involved in macroevolutionary change (I delved into that comprehensively regarding the reptile-mammal transition in "Evolution Slam Dunk"). Jackson Wheat and I are also tackling the AiG end of things in "The Rocks Are Still There" book we're coauthoring, including Georgia Purdom's gymnastic avoidance of acknowledging that beneficial mutations do in fact occur, and new "information" has arisen in that new functions are involved.
Btw the folder analogy is an excellent one for how cladistic-based systematics runs these days. Bravo! May I use it in my TIP efforts, Paul?
Easily my favorite videos.
thank you, Jonathan
Life is trial and error, science is just keeping track of the errors. Apologetics is the deification of error.
If we're going to have a debate about science could you at least please believe what we say because of reasons please...no no don't look at
ha, Adam
when i say i have faith in a scientific claim what i'm saying is i am lazy. if there is a science claim i can look up the journal it
is in, see who else tried the experiment, who confirmed the experiment worked and what way it was verified, i have faith that the
experiment has been tested to destruction. when a believer says they have faith they mean they believe whatever they are told,
regardless of the source, cos, god.
1:34 VERY well said, sir. Well played indeed.
I've heard of a crocoduck, of course, but now we have a flying coneuirrel (doesn't sound that good, but at least there's a photo at 02:45).
Hey 20K 👍😁
Congrats Paul! Here's to the next 20K! 🥂
thanks, Michael.
so how do they explain something like Archeopteryx? is it of the dinosaur KIND or the bird KIND? because thats a animal that shows a clear transsition. or how bout the Ichtyostega? Tectalis? Mudskippers? lungfish? Platypusses?
Archeopterix is the Dinobird kind. Mudskippers are the walky-swimmy kind. Platypuses are the weird-spare-parts kind and Tiktaalik is the clock kind.
is there a Kind kind? what are humans and our relatives then?
The correct answer to all of that is: "YES - and pray as hard as you can, till you believe it."
Believe me. It works. (With a bit lobotomy and drugs, though)
@Robet Payne, I don't know if all the creationists share this view, but @Bible Flock Box believes that at some point in the future Tiktaalik will be disproven ... some how. I think, he's intimating that it is a hoax, but anyway he likes to skip it since he can't readily explain it.
Markus Nävergård
Creationists sea-saw on Archeopteryx. Some claim its a bird, some a dinosaur. They do the same thing with early human ancestors, they say they are either fully human or fully ape... and they can't decide among themselves which is which sometimes. All while Ken Ham looks like the missing link himself :)
nice: i particularly liked the explanation of a theory. how many times have we seen the words, "just a theory."
Being a preachers kid, my atheism has not come easy for me. My father knows I have doubts, and has told me many times to “doubt until I doubt my doubts”. I have used the phrase “why are there still monkeys” on many occasions. I still find it hard to believe that I used to believe all this stuff. I still haven’t found the courage to outright say that I’m an atheist to my family. Anyway, sorry for the weird rant. Just wanted to say thank you for your videos. They have helped me come to terms a great deal. I’m really looking forward to your videos on the documentary hypothesis. It’s the nitty gritty of when you do videos on the Bible that I enjoy the most since it shows me things that I used to miss, or gloss over when I was an active Christian.
Thanks for the kind words, Howard. So glad you've found your way out of the maze.
Hi Howard, great comment. I was a Christian for almost 40 years and I have tried to put a few video together to describe my transformation. I was even a deacon at one point of my life and now I honestly can't believe how anyone could believe in a personal deity. It is enlightening once you see the history of religion, and almost amazing to me how people spend gobs of money on perpetuating the myth.
Fantastic and I love Eugene Scott
Great video Paul! Thank you as always
I received an ad about daily bible verses before this video wonder whether or not they would send me some about the joy that can brought by bathing your feet in thy enemies blood
Hello to Tony Reed! Looking forward to the new season of "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science" starting Oct 26!!
Paulogia l, I liked your analogy on the evolution of latin to the modern romantic languages. Its clear and concise and is easy to grasp. I get so frusterated when discussing with creationists and their "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" (funny story my 8 year old son over heard that remark while i was listening to a podcast, to which he interjected "What?" He yells. "Thats not how evolution works! Didnt everyone at school get taught thisbin school???")
Anyway, sorry to blab, but thanks for latin example. I'll use it in the future if I have a chance.
It’s a tribute to your work that your comment section has the wittiest and most intelligent comments.(Present company excepted, of course.)
I like the bread/sandwich analogy; it’ll be useful.✌🏼
Creationists do define 'kind.'
It's 'whatever it needs to be to prove evolution wrong, right now.'
If we're going to have a debate about science could you at least have a debate about science?
right?!?
I'm very interested in hearing your ideas on this french-derived Martien language. "Jowjow" sounds like a wonderful, colorful word. Please, tell more!
Stop with the adorable baby bunny and chicks! I can't handle the cuteness 😍
The first link after the advert on the top left that's usually there was a recommendation to pay to watch Genesis... Guess what I clicked on! (Hint, I didn't pay a penny LOL).
Great work, as ever.
you make it sound so simple. How can they not get it?
That was freaky, I was just coming over here to check out Arkonimics again, and this popped up.
Guess I'm going to have to watch it now. Oh the hardship.
i love these
Did he say a quantum... jump? Why can't they get anything correct?
that's a line from the last Ant-Man movie... if I'd have been allowing this series to be snarky, I'd have included that.
How are they allowed to watch that movie? The hero is a Divorced (big bad sin there) criminal (forgiveness? what is that?) and the movie itself is seen promoting an anti-corporatist agenda? the last part being the greatest sin for Ken Ham and his ilk, which only the understanding of even a modicum of scientific principles exceeds in seriousness and scope.
I like how they repeatedly assert things about "kinds" without ever seeming to feel uncomfortable with not being able to define the original kinds. Well, except with those silhouettes in their orchard of life. Just amazing. Funny, I don't see a human in that orchard. Would it just be a straight line with no branches, or are there branches for the human kind? Wait. Did I just stumble onto something? Do they think all of these other kinds have variations within them, but with humans, they are just like, "Hell no. Straight line!" ?
Continuing with what Eugenie Scott was saying at 11:52, I strongly recommend Bernard Forscher's 1963 Letters to Science titled Chaos in the Brickyard. It's not perfect, but it goes with what she was discussing.
Where do you find the info on the new species that have been recorded?
"If we're going to have a discussion about science, can we please just be honest about it?"
Well, you can try to be honest, but I don't think being honest about science will help the YEC agenda.
agree!
Why did they even put that in there?
We all want honesty in the discussion. Sadly the Flat... oh I keep mixing them up with the young earthers (same thing just about)... earthers seem to have a different definition of honest then the rest of us.
If they tell a lie, that is not dishonest, but if you tell the truth it is.
That isn't a different definition, it is just more dishonesty.
Shrugs either way its a warped as hell idea of honesty on their part.
Both my parents are human and I'm a Mole so...Lol
Holey moley! wait, my parents are humans but I'm a shark! I never thought about that before. 😲
Hm. Both my parents are human - but I sexually identify as orange (mostly because I think, the LGBQT-community direly needs some vocals, but still)...
@@timeshark8727
Are you friends with reggae shark?
Look him up
I am a crazy cat lady, so i guess i am a transitional kind?
Robert Nett I think the LGBT community got some good vocals, but can you play guitar? :3
dogs will always be dogs, and humans will always be humans in the same way that dogs will always be wolves and humans will always be apes. So whatever species arises from dogs will be dogs, and a species descending from humans will always be human.
right? what's so hard to understand?
Paulogia The part about humans being apes. Because that implies we’re animals and therefore not special. Ironic as we like to say how cool and special other animals are, and even make stories about animals being allegories to human behavior.
Paul,
Re: boundaries to evolution
See Michael Behe’s book, “The Edge of Evolution.” It’s a good read and convincingly argues for boundaries.
Plus, (information) entropy would limit the “walk of evolution” as well.
Also, your step analogy “cuts” both ways. Geographical boundaries would limit the “walk” at the Pacific Ocean or an insurmountable mountain range. I think nature would suggest to us that all things have natural boundaries, even the universe itself.
(This principle could be helpful in that while theoretically our universe is most likely a level 1 multiverse, we are still naturally bounded by our light cone. So, theoretically, the “walk of evolution” could be limitless, but there is most likely a bounding mechanism within the system. One for sure would be entropy.)
On another issue, I really think that you need to bring to light the fundamental hypocrisy of YECism and evolution. They ARE evolutionists, but they call everyone else “evil-utionist.” This hypocrisy drives me crazy! I would be more than happy to have my “cartoon” tell you all about it on your show. AND, another little known fact, the Bible DOES define what a kind is. It’s very close to our own idea of species. Actually, an non-myopic look at Scripture makes YECism impossible.
I'm not an atheist, but I am against the larger religions who think these FICTIONAL STORIES ARE DAMN HISTORY!!! If anyone is going to ask my beliefs, I consider myself a spiritualist who has no worshipped "God" but I do believe in some form of higher being or beings who created us. However these creators have either moved on or died a long time ago since they don't really do anything for us in the current time. If anyone has questions for me I'll gladly have a civil conversation.
Damian Hi
I have to ask what it exactly means to be a higher being? I know they’re supposed to be better in some sense, but the concept seems pretty vague to me could you elaborate
@@diobrando6716 I kinda struggle to answer the question myself. I was taught by a man who was open to all ideas about faith, as long as you don't force it upon other people. He was the head of a club where many people of various beliefs could share thoughts and learn more about the world through other's minds. I am considered a Seeker, for I am still trying to find the true path for me to follow. While However one thing I know I believe is that the one creator "God" shouldn't (not that it can't) have so much power and creativity to build everything on a world. I like to think that one creator made plants, one made animals, one made humans, ect. That probably doesn't answer the question fully, but that's all I am able to answer right now.
Damian ok cool thanks for the reply
The big question is why believe in things without evidence? It's always possible that there might have been higher beings in the past, but that's just a guess, not a belief. There could be all sorts of things in the past, but only some of them have left fossils behind for us to discover. The ones that didn't leave fossils are fairly lost to history, so what could cause us to believe in them?
@@Ansatz66 I suppose you have an excellent point. I can't prove my beliefs almost at all. Beliefs are mostly for comfort and explaining what can't be explained to their believers. Yes I believe in some form of creator(s), but I understand that life has evolved over however many years. My biggest issue is, because of the club I was talking about before, that faiths which try to conform non members to see things through their God's supposedly perfect ways are, in kinda blunt terms, my enemy. Also, since I can see science alongside my personal faith, I see that many claims that religions say can be confirmed just can't. I can't, and most likely will never be able to, prove my beliefs. But I still believe.
What is with the pine cone bat?
It is a flying (actually gliding) squirrel.
@@DBCisco but what's with the pine cone? :)
oh it gliding and carrying a pine cone wish I could just pick up pine cone and have free pignoli nuts.
They eat the seeds in the pine cone (pine nuts)
I'm surprised that they don't refer to "Of Moths and Men" by Judith Hooper which questions the validity of the peppered moth data & conclusions.
If they don't believe in Evolution, why do they talk about it so much?!?
The creationist term "kind" is nebulous and malleable, and can be easily extended to cover everything. As lineages and genetic relationships between species become demonstrably larger and larger, likewise the term "kind" covers more and more.
Even creationists can't give a consistent definition of "kind".
If we're going to have a debate about science could you at least please be honest about it? lol
Ken and his cult of religioscientists have been shown the facts over and over again for decades and they continue to regurgitate the same creationist dogma. They've hijacked the science method and hold the lazy followers hostage with the notion of eternal damnation as ransom.
Almost criminal and surely intelectually dishonest they will continue selling their poison.
Do not even call them with the slightest bit of ''scientist''! they don't deserve such a title.
You fon't address the most important question about the crayfish, how does it taste?
OHH ladders are so scientific !!!!
14:45-Nice dig, Paul :)
*An appeal to **_"A Bigger Mystery"_** .*
Science *increases our knowledge* by giving us explanations of _"how things work"_
*But God as an **_"explanation",_** is a dead end, as no one has any idea **_"how God works or creates anything"_** .*
All this work creationists have to do , God could've made it so much easier on them in any number of ways that would contradict evolution.
GPL: Science is on our side. What? Why? Because we have facts. Facts, I say! Like what? Uh, like what, like what... Like the incredible Handwavium! And the discovery of the Misdirectionicon. And... and... And I'll tell you tomorrow. Wha... oops! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain counting your money. And remember to buy an official Garden of Eden t-shirt on your way out.
Dude, great fucking analogy with the evolution of language. Well done!
💚 *quality content* 💚
You dont have to go to mars in 500 years to find two groups of French speakers who wouldnt understand one another. The colloquial French spoken in some Parisian suburbs bears little resemblence to the colloquial French spoken in parts of Quebec. Both languages are french, but they have evolved differently Same goes for English spoken in Scotland versus English spoke in England.
Charles and Eric Hovind must bro around quite a bit. If I’m not watching the screen I can’t tell who’s talking, they sound the same.
Eric's actual brother is in the movie later on, and they sound nothing alike.
Paulogia
LOL.. I know Charles and Eric aren’t actually brothers I just think they must pal around a lot because they seem to have a lot of the same inflection and bravado in their voice.
9:05 - To B, or not to B.
B patient with me B4 you judge my horrible joke, for I B a dad.
You said B a lot.
B.
I just set you right up.
Apoidea
The argument that a dog never gives birth to a non dog is best tackled by understanding the limitation is not with evolution but with language. Fixing a name to a species is like fixing a name to a colour.
Take a tin of red paint and add just one drop of blue paint at a time whilst stirring continuously. The paint will become a bluer and bluer shade of red until at some point it will no longer be suitable to call the paint red but instead burgundy. At what stage does the red turn to burgundy? Which drop of blue tipped the balance? Now take a sample of that paint just before that last drop of blue and compare it to the one just after and what do you have? An elegant demonstration of how a change of kinds is nothing to do with an inability of a species to change but merely a barrier created by language itself! If two almost identical shades of paint can be called different colours then two practically identical animals could be named as different species.
Paulogia is my favorite anime
11:37 Creationist Ammunition? you mean blanks?
I am still not over the hilarity of Creationists who believe in "kinds" positing rates of evolutionary change that would make Stephen J. Gould tell them to slow down. I just want to ask them if a couple thousand years can do that, what could millions of years do?
I love these, but at the same time it makes me so angry, not just misrepresenting and quote mining, but just making shit up. A thing said without evidence can be dismissed with, nearly 200 years of bloody science, arrrrrrrrrr, so angry. Surly there must be some religious edict about lying ?
lying FOR jesus is ok
does us law have definition, when lying becomes a criminal offence? just wondering.
You get away with it as free speech,
Let's call it what it is.. Mental illness.. Religion harbors the mentality ill and those with social disorders, I've read several case studies where around 70% of religious followers are mentally ill..It's nothing more than a midevil cult mentality..
Mark Fudge - Look - all those religious rules are meant for fellow believers. Infidels are fair game.
6:09: Cuteness overload!
I wonder what these folk make of horizontal exchange of genetic information between genes and proteins. This is documented to happen, even across orders. It may happen often enough to impact the evolution of the parties.
flying pine cone!!!
It doesn't help the simplistic and label-worshipping creationists that modern taxonomy has more specific clade labels as you get to the species. So while most people understand that we are "still vertebrates" or even "still mammals", when we use the exact same argument for terminal clades ("dog will always remain in the dog clade") they get confused. Simply put, the way for a dog to become a non-dog a million years from now is for one of the canid species to be labeled something other than a dog. For example, a dog is a non-wolf and a fox is neither a dog or a wolf. The redundant nature of "dog" for the domestic dog AND the family name (Canidae = dogs) only makes the creationist's brains explode and complicates them understanding the nested nature of clades. It only gets worse when the fossil record fails to show "dog kind" persisting in the fossil record since creation.
Lol. Read “The lovers” by Phillip Jose Farmer. With the off world French evolution
Still waiting for a clear definition of "kind" from a single Abrahamist.
I was told by one that kinds are what "families" are. Of course, they keep switching the definitions, so I wouldn't take that as fact. But if it truly means family, then they must believing in a super fast type of evolution.
Here's one explanation: www.kindsnacks.com/about-us
+DB Cisco
It is easy to nail any creationist with the self declared holy scripture.
Leviticus 11 : 22-23
_Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you_
Grasshoppers, bald locusts (sometimes translated with katydid) and regular locusts are "kinds" alongside "the beetle".
Which have according to the scripture 4 feet not 6 like in reality.
However they are in reality insects and _variations_ of orthoptera locusts.
In the hebrew original they are actually "kinds" of swarm locust in the bible - because the farmers and goatherders had to differentiate the swarm locust behavior to survive.
It is in hebrew: Arbe, Solam and Hargol "kind" of locusts.
The problem: even IF they give an exact definition of "kind", that means more than just examples, they will change it as soon as with the next sentence... the biblical "kind" is something constantly changing. Typical for a wildcard.
They won't say what a kind is? How unkind of them! What kind of people they are?
So sad to see a person like Georgia, who is actually well educated, being so sneaky and dishonest. She knows good and well that there is no such thing as a "kind."
Young earth creationists don’t agree with macroevolution, but they are all for turbo-charged, super-uber, hyper-caffeinated, electra-mega evolution.
~ AronRa
So the Crayfish God is knocking up crayfish? And they're inheriting the Earth?
#NailedIt
You know I have personal used that 'facts are a dime a dozen' statement a number of times now but I never really knew who said it lol.
That explains why I'm different from my parents. My awesome Gene has mutated
The funniest thing about Creationists when they insist that all speciation events happened after the flood they have to believe in super-evolution! That's where speciation events are happening constantly until all the species are accounted for and then it needs to stop suddenly when we have everything.
Isn’t it really interesting and informative to listen to real scientists like Eugenie Scott explain things properly.
‘Survival of the fittest’ does not mean survival of the biggest, strongest, meanest or most aggressive which is how the Nazis adopted it, it means the best adaptation fit for a particular purpose or environment. Sometimes as in the great white shark this does turn out to be the biggest, strongest, meanest and most aggressive but giraffes with long neck also meet the criteria.
You should have also pointed out that dogs evolved from wolves which from a creationist standpoint is its own 'kind'.
Hey this is cool. So by Genesis Paradise Lost standards all we have to do is make a movie and say the science is on our side and we win? Can we make one about how Ken is secretly a puppet of Xenu? If we say the science is on our side it must be true... by their logic. and anything he says to counter it obviously is just Xenu using him.
assert assert assert
Exactly
"there are limits" Ken there are no limits. either for nature or your idiocy. just gonna say that there are fungi feeding on gasoline
Georgia Purdom...Created in her gods image
yeah, watching Georgia's cognitive dissonance on her own face is one of my favorites.
Geoegia rocks that head like a twisted sand shoe hair do that defies any product. Styling by Dowdy 1960’s Salon.
11:21 What was that about nudist coveries?
they're called clothes
I still think Georgia doesn't deserve her PhD in Genetics ( i believe that's what she has)
I wouldn't go that far. For example, lets say a person, lets call him/her "A"; A goes to a Music Conservatory and earns a PhD in Music Composition. Then A spends the rest of A's life in a profession that has nothing to do with Music, and never writes a song, even for fun. Does A still deserve A's PhD in Music Composition? I'd say yes because they went to the school and put in the academic work necessary to get it, even if, Like Georgia Purdom the Skills and Knowledge of the PhD are never again used.
I'd agree, except that she misleads the public using the phd as credential. Science should fight for its interests and reputation - hence revoking the title would make sense
The problem you get into is who gets to decide who's credentials get taken away? Is she using her credentials to mislead people? Yes, but she did still go to college and did submit a Thesis paper that was approved by a Thesis committee, so if groups start going around taking away the PhD's then others will respond that they are being treated unfairly because those organizations taking away the PhD's don't have arguments so resort to such tactics. Going down that rabbit whole only places people like Georgia Purdom in a sympathetic light. For the best way to counter those Creationist PhD holders see King Crocoducks' exposition on Creationist "scientists" with real degree's and how the body of their scientific work marks them as failed scientists. That is the argument to make, Georgia Purdom is a failed scientist, not that she doesn't deserve her PhD.
I don’t know if I’d go so far as to revoke her doctorate, but she doesn’t use it in the spirit it was likely given in. Hence imo she doesn’t deserve to have it
Grant Martin but by that logic, one could argue that Sam Harris doesn’t deserve his PhD in neuroscience, no? Sam doesn’t use his PhD, not in the spirit of the degree or at all, really. He uses his philosophy degree, but does he use it in the spirit of how it’s meant to be used? I’d actually like to know what you mean by that, by “not using a degree in the spirit it’s intended”, bc in that case I may not deserve my degree, and I know many folks who maybe don’t deserve their’s either.
I hate to defend her, bc I hate what she does, but why shouldn’t working for a degree be all that’s required to deserve it? I just think these kind of subjective things get us into some murky waters. I can imagine cases arising where someone is doing actually good work that’s considered a misuse of a degree by some, but then they end up proving some established theories wrong, or make some new discoveries. (I realize this is wildly hypothetical, but I feel like this whole question is built on some really subjective and imprecise ground.) ✌🏼