If I had a nickel for every time a creationist thought that disproving evolution would somehow un-falsify biblical creationism, I would be rich enough to incite an insurrection and not be in prison.
The underlying issue with too many theists. THEIST You can't convince me, I'm right, even if I have to search for different reasoning, my conclusion is automatically the correct one. ATHEIST I don't accept your conclusions. But if you have verifiable evidence and good reasoning, I can be convinced.
Really well put. He's using a lot of terms and phrases that not everyone knows, but he doesn't show any signs that he's actually willing to understand everything for any other purpose other than to simply make half-baked arguments that prop up his beliefs.
I feel like this is how charlatans evolve. He knows he's wrong, yet continues to hold this belief so he doesn't have to evaluate everything else that he knows is wrong about his world view
To be fair, that's sort of the mindset of a lot of folks these days... Look at the anti-vax crowd, the anti-abortion crowd, the anti-socialist crowd, the anti-governement crowd, etc...
@@DvanderPluijm It is unfortunately expected though. When most people have common ground to agree with most things there'll be a growing opposition formed through an overlap of different disagreements. We're somewhat doomed by our social-driven instincts to have a fraction of people to always resort to tribalism no matter how much we have in common.
According to Robert's example: My cat used to like to go into the cabinets. Now he either was fighting off a rabid walrus or he was not fighting off a rabid walrus. The fact that I was never attacked by a rabid walrus is proof that he was victorious.
I'm simultaneously surprised and unsurprised that this seemed to go right over Robert's head. Not to say that monoatomic oxygen doesn't exist, but it doesn't exist in that form long enough to matter to formation of life on the planet. I really have to wonder if he's aware of that.
@@0okamino He seems to be parroting phrases that he doesn't understand, interrupting Forrest when he's in the midst of explaining some concept that the caller clearly hasn't grasped. It's painful. It's also painfully typical.
They’re sort of the same thing. O is a free oxygen atom and O2 is two oxygen atoms chemically bound to form an oxygen molecule. Water is H2O, not H2O2, that is Hydrogen Peroxide.
Forrest was the GOAT in this episode. Not only did he dismantle this guy's ego and blind faith, but he went on to completely crush a bigoted transphobe. Goodness me, what a cathartic episode.
@@blaise6981I mean maybe work on that. But that aside, what people generally mean when they say transphobe is someone whose actions and/or words seek to discriminate or harass trans people
Gross. That must be at the very end. I'm taking a break from the stupid to read through the comments 54 minutes into the video so I must not have gotten there yet. I absolutely love Forrest as a host, he doesn't let them get away with nonsense.
"I don't necessarily trust when somebody says 'yeah we found it'"... let me tell you some stories from my 1800-3500 year old instruction manual. Squaring that level of cognitive dissonance must physically hurt.
Remember that some parts were added more recently. For example, the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story was added about a millennia ago.
I mean, atheists do something similar when they refer us to research from scientists and to textbooks. I don't care what a scientist says or what textbook you refer me to, until you do the research for yourself and verify that the GULO gene is turned off in an identical way in all great apes, and that all great apes have the same retroviral invasion markers not shared by other species, you should be skeptical. Otherwise, you are just taking someone's word for it, and it's just literally, the technical definition of hearsay. And for the record, I'm a non-Christian theist, and I think the concept of evolution makes sense, and is freaking awesome, but, until I do the work myself, I'm just taking someone else's word for it.
That, yes, and also: I don't trust those people who says they found a thing, but trust me, I found a thing. And also it's repeatable because of these other people who found a completely different thing. And let's not talk about all the people who followed the same process and didn't find the thing, or thought they found the thing then later concluded otherwise. They must just not have tried long enough or correctly enough.
@@irrelevant_noob Ugh, I really did not listen well to that part, thanks for correcting me! In that case, sad to say, but yeah, probably can't teach the caller to use logic and rationality.
I knew Forrest was good. I didn't realize he was that good. Respect. Understanding and explaining complex relationships without any preparation requires deep understanding. Einstein once said: “If you can't explain it simply, you haven't understood it well enough”. I guess he was right.
And not listening in their high school chemistry class. Also a heaping serving of denial of anything that shows his claim is wrong. Forrest and GE explain to him several times in several different ways how he was wrong but Robert just refused to accept it..
Perhaps Robert grew up in an alternative timeline where "Evolutionists" were a dangerous group of zealots, attempting to spread their terrifying beliefs via terroristic acts and creation of pariah caliphates of atheism enforced with an iron fist. Or he at least thinks he did ;p
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, particularly in the hands of someone who's not intelligent enough to understand how little knowledge they're working with.
Caller: "Yeah I don't trust NASA when they just say they found X in space without going out there in person to collect and bring back a physical sample" Also caller: "Trust me, it's in the Bible"
I am so sick of people who think just because they don’t know something. The only other possibility is “God.” It amazes me how a few people are capable of saying “I don’t know.“
Exactly. If people want to seek out spiritually let them. Let THEM make the choice. Though we see how well that works. As most religious people I know we're only that because their parents made them that way.
I love Forrest's mind, you can see him searching for the relevant information , then goes into the bulldog mode, attacks Roberts ideas and destroys them to the delight of reasonable people worldwide. Sorry Robert you took a knife to a gunfight
Dude "read some articles" and based on that calls in to tell a biologist/science educator how he's all wrong about biochemistry. I bet he also goes around calling atheists "arrogant".
Same with alternative medicine. They will take anything deemed "natural" or "chemical free" with no insistence on proper testing while insisting that any real medicine be 100% effective with no long term side effects.
I love how Forrest explains step by step, how he fact checks his own statements, and then the caller goes "no all of those scientists that have spend their whole life, and have evidence for existence of things are all wrong"
Why callers can't stop behaving like kids that can't let other peoples talk more than 5sec... Edit: That was probably one of the most painful video i've watched.
To be fair, in my perspective I feel like Forrest speaks too much. I dont mean it in a bad way or disrespectfully, and he has never done it in that way but you can tell sometimes he even speaks so much he interrupts his cohosts. He is very smart but I would advice he musters some self control on thar regard. Usually callers trips on their own words rarely you need a full lecture to correct them.
@@Gradgar by his logic we should all be dead, As oxygen gets into blood for us to live Seems like he's ether home schooled and never did even standard grade level biology where you learn how vital oxygen is for living. That we wouldn't even have rain, as by his logic oxygen would pervert water from forming.
I had to give a book report on the Dunning-Krueger Effect, and so I brought this guy. I got an A++. Next week is “circular logic”, I’m hoping he’s free…
I was thinking the exact same thing, in the beginning Robert was pretty much word for word using the exact same arguments as Tour. I was half expecting him to start screaming "MR VALKAI!!!!"
Also, my absolute favorite moment of this call (maybe my favorite moment of this show ever) was Robert attempting: "Yeah, alright, well, it's been-" Forrest: "Muted. Literally no one was talking to you." ☠
"It happens to everyone who prays right." "It didn't happen to these guys who prayed a lot." " Well, that means they didn't pray right." Reasoning doesn't get more circular than that.
Robert came in trying to sound high-minded and scientifically informed and well reasoned, but when he was pushed to explain what actually informs his belief, his brain smoothened right up and started slipping out his ear. What a gradient of rationality between where he started and when he was forced to answer what in reality informs his belief.
Listening and watching Forrest explaining things is an absolute joy. He uses so many terms and words I’ve never heard before in the 71 years of my life, but it all seems to make sense. What a wonderful teacher.
I would have loved to have someone like Forrest teaching my biology classes at Uni. He's so excited by the subject and by the chance to teach the subject. Every class would have been a freaking joy.
@@Fluffykeith I agree and he was the gift of explaining a subject at a suitable level to a specific audience without sounding as if he’s talking down to them.
He is likely a reasonable gun owner and excellent father to his children. Just because he questions the events of billions of years ago doesn't mean the man doesn't deserve to live a healthy, normal, free life.
@glennthompson1971 I'm not sure how you can say that, considering he doesn't know basic bio facts and yet aggressively acts like what he's saying is true. Making bs up makes you worse than average.
@@glennthompson1971 This stuff was literally taught in every chemistry class in the country. He doesn't understand the difference between elemental O and O2. He doesn't even nderstand the basic concept that things react differently depending on what and how they are bonded. Heck even the table salt analogy went over his head. Then he tries to interrupt anytime that they try to explain something and push his own narrative even when what he says is 95% wrong. All he is doing is being a human parrot of something that he read or heard but clearly didn't understand yet he is so arrogant and confident that he is right that litterly nothing would change his view.
Back when I was a believer, there were MULTIPLE times when I was in serious prayers for 3, 4, 5 days! I NEVER heard back anything, and when other people said they did, I lied and said I did to fit in. I'm convinced that NONE of us heard jack shit. God isn't real. The only magic that is real is in Las Vegas
A similar experience is what led me out of Christianity. In my case it was a Southern Baptist Revival. My brother, all my cousins, friends, etc were going up to get 'saved'. I was always told I would get a calling, i'd known when the time to go up was, etc etc. In reality, i was just terrified of being left behind and not getting baptized with all the others. So I just went up. That experience, among other things, led me to start thinking it was all BS and we were all just lying to each other out of fear of not fitting in. Bye bye faith.
I mean it's also possible to induce experiences depending on the person and the situation. That's why I liked that forrest brought up lsd. Because you can have an experience that seems like God but is actually caused by something else. Psychedelics are one possibility, but stress, lack of sleep, and a number of other normal things can cause hallucination
@@thedudeamongmengs2051 Scientists have also induced spiritual feelings with medical wand next to a person's head. Literally just energy through the air can cause it. Music can cause a revival style fervor too.
@@kindredsoul79 I've never heard of the wand thing but it wouldn't surprise me. It probably depends a lot on the person though. Some people seem to be more prone to spiritual feelings than others.
@@thedudeamongmengs2051 That's the awesome thing. They were super scientific about it! They had wands with no energy as well, where the tech and subjects didn't know which was happening. 100% of the people with energy got a spiritual feeling, even people that said they were atheists.
This guy argues like my father. Once you have him on a point, he basically plugs his ears and refuses to hear you out and says "NOPE IM RIGHT, YOUR WRONG, I CANT HEEEEEAR YOUUUUU." What a joke.
Just enough high school chemistry to be dangerous. I'm only a little bit into this, but I'm already highly amused by the callers complete misapprehension of the entire topic. As to oxygen, is it not clear to the caller that at the time abiogenesis is supposed to have occurred, that the world was full of two very abundant oxygen-containing compounds...... Dihydrogen oxide and silicon dioxide, also known as water and sand? And that the cosmos itself has vast amounts of interstellar oxygen-containing compounds, including ethanol and acetic acid....... Interstellar vinegar? Compounds like these have favorable enthalpies and entropies of formation. They" want" to form. The issue isn't that abiogenesis could not have occurred in an oxidating environment. The issue rather is that abiogenesis DID occur in an anoxic environment. Molecular oxygen was not abundant in the atmosphere or oceans, and so primordial life forms needed a different final electron acceptor at the end of a primordial electron transport system whose purpose was to pump protons. No problem. There are other oxidants around in the putative abiotic nurseries.... Such as alkaline hydrothermal vents. Sulfur comes to mind. I'm just a few minutes in and it's absolutely clear. This dude has not done his homework.
The caller doesn't realize his logic falls apart when Forrest brings up table salt. Elemental forms of both those atoms react very differently than their ionic counterparts. And yeah there are lots of electron acceptors. In fact one hypothesis for abiogenesis stems around hydrothermal vents for that reason. Then once photosynthesis made a bunch of oxygen life figured out it was an even better electron acceptor.
@@jayrobbinstacks4574exactly. The biologist Nick Lane, and many others, believe that life cannot form in the presence of oxygen, and they are probably right, although with a sample of n = one I wouldn't want to be so categorical. But while it may very well be the case that abiogenesis cannot occur in the presence of molecular oxygen,, it absolutely cannot occur in the absence of an oxidant. That's what life does. It oxidizes things. It's a kind of very highly regulated stepwise combustion. That's what energy metabolism is.
"I read a couple books and handpicked the knowledge that supports my argument and mentally blocked out any other option and now think my knowledge from reading a couple scientific paper titles (of people who all believe and can support evolution) is better than the people who wrote the papers"
I agree but I think you need to be charitable and let these people show how bad their argument is. I think people like Matt dillahunty use the mute button too frequently and end up just refusing to hear the other person's answer to questions he asked.
@@thedudeamongmengs2051perhaps but that's largely because he's been doing this long enough to be weary of repeating patterns from callers. It's not a failure by him as such, but if you see it as that, then they have younger hosts who aren't yet fully cynical who are open to hearing out bullshit all the way.
@@ursidae97 I've heard that explanation before and I disagree. Sometimes that is the case, but sometimes he asks a question and hits mute before even trying to hear an answer. Sometimes questions that look simple actually aren't and require more than 3 words to answer. Sometimes you can disagree with the premise of the question in the first place, rendering any answer meaningless.
Dummies like Robert are my favorite kind of callers, he has no idea what he's talking about but still had the nerve to call in to talk about things he doesn't understand.
Oxygen is O, and O2 is an allotrope of oxygen. The common allotrope of elemental oxygen on Earth, O2, is generally known as oxygen, but may be called dioxygen, diatomic oxygen, molecular oxygen, dioxidene or oxygen gas to distinguish it from the element itself and from the triatomic allotrope ozone, O3. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but neither do you.
@@reefhog Why do you think that the OP doesn't know what he's talking about? It makes no sense to say that O2 is not "pure oxygen"? 100% diatomic oxygen WOULD be pure oxygen, so ROBERT was wrong and OP's comment was perfectly fine.
A perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect over here. It's absolutely wild that these guys think they know what they're talking about when they think that things like O2 and oxygen are different chemicals.
In the same way that graphite and diamond and graphene and charcoal are all pure carbon, ozone and O2 and monooxygen and tetraoxygen are still pure oxygen. Just different allotropes. All of these are still 100% of their respective element by mass, therefore pure. "Pure oxygen" does not have a chemical formula (I know you know this btw, this is just for the benefit of anyone reading who doesn't) (Also another edit after thinking about it a bit, technically the only allotrope of carbon that is truly 100% pure carbon will be fullerene because all the others like diamond and graphite will bond to random elements mainly hydrogen and oxygen when their lattice structure breaks, like on the surface of a diamond. You can get arbitrarily close to 100% as the size of the structure increases though, because the number of impurities increases by the square while the number of carbons increases by the cube. My point still stands despite that detail lol)
He sounds like Tour. He's read Tour's disinformation, and he probably saw the video between Professor Dave and Tour where Tour was acting like a raving loon. He's "read hundreds of Abiogenesis papers, but is not familiar with us finding precursors in space.
Maybe the "hundreds of abiogenesis papers" were all articles on apologist websites because it's hard to believe that he read even one actual research paper.
My favorite videos on the internet are theists trying to challenge Forrest with science and him getting all giddy and excited about how easily he can prove them wrong 😭
Creationists think they're so fucking smart because they've read a wikipedia article once or twice. This guy would never admit his god isn't necessary.
I mean this guy clearly took some chemistry courses and a few biology courses, the problem is he spent the whole time trying to rationalize what they were teaching him while keeping his god as the reason behind it all instead of learning to see how these processes occur.
See, the 25 minute mark is when this call should've ended. He admitted he wouldn't become an atheist even if natural means were proved completely and that his god was still involved. He's a dishonest interlocutor and has admitted his belief is unfalsifiable. This call should not go on for another 43 minutes.
well, if we didn't get an hour long call, we wouldn't get John's banger when he asked the caller to define Occam's Razor because he was called out for not know what the fuck he was talking about the entire call.
@@tomrace4586 I felt this way about a particularly unpleasant catholic in the RUclips comments. Everyone else gave up trying to interact with him, but I persisted and I'm glad I did, as he revealed the true depths of his depravity: he accused me of not taking into account mitigating circumstances with paedo priests SA children!
I've got into a debate about the abiogenesis point and when I pointed out even if disproven it doesn't mean there isn't another natural explanation, they refused to acknowledge that is possible and the entire convo stagnated. They have their talking points and once that goes against their script, they get stuck because they don't actually think, they just regurgitate.
They are such hypocrites; they criticise Scientists for not achieving in a couple of centuries (and that's being very generous, timewise) in a few small labs what nature had 10 to the power of 24 "test tubes" the size of planets, and billions of years to achieve, yet accept the nonsense of the bible with no evidence, whatsoever. They are like Ug, who believes in a volcano god. Ug says to Grok, "Why you not believe in Volcano God? You see Volcano go Bang, but you no explain WHY Volcano go Bang! You stupid to not believe in Volcano God when you no explain WHY Volcano go Bang!" They are why Brandolini's Law was made.
Underrated comment :3 I do wonder if these anti-evolution people take into account that even if we we're to disprove evolution, then every other religion's claims about the origin of life would as valid as their own. I couldn't live like that.
They have no evidence to back up their own claims, so instead of showing that their claims are true, they attack anyone that disagrees with them. They also see the world as a binary. There are only 2 choices. If your view is false, then by default, theirs is true. Even though that is not how reality works.
Creationists have somehow shifted their goalposts from "show that it's possible in nature" to "demonstrate that *humans* can replicate _every_ process from the big bang to abiogenesis to macro evolution". The God-shaped gap is now anything that *humans* can't do.
@@grantm6514 We need another Law to complement Brandolini's Law, to cover that. I would have suggested Grant's Law, but, tragically, it seems that's already a thing.
Seriously, if I'd been forced to pray for three days straight, I probably would've been hallucinating to the point that I'd accept the divinity of any kind of apparition that popped into existence before me - until I came back to my senses again. I've hallucinated enough from hunger and dehydration and stress and fever and exhaustion and sleep deprivation and grief and whatnot to know that weird shit appears to happen that isn't real when you're like that. And I don't drink much, and I've never done drugs.
I strongly suspect that if you get down on your knees and pray for three days, the only thing you're going to find is that the floor is painfully hard!
@@excalibur4394 I never thought of that possibility! I actually think that that might be how it works, what with the popularity of ecstatic practices in historical religious contexts
I wouldn't consider him a chemist in any way. He called oxygen molecules when he actually meant atoms. He also called RNA an atom. He shows that he has no knowledge of chemistry whatsoever.
At the end of the day…this is still just a more technical version of the “god of the gaps” argument. Here’s a step/thing that science can’t explain therefore god.
Robert picked up a chemistry textbook and now thinks he knows everything about chemistry and biology to make an argument AGAINST science. And THEN he came to argue with an actual SCIENTIST and an ENGINEER! 🤪
As a long time Washington State resident, I'd like to offer my apologies for this know-it-all-fool named "Robert". He's not representative of this state.
I can summarize this whole interaction really quickly: Robert: "This chemical can't do a thing." Forrest: "Here's a paper where scientists did that thing." Robert: "No, they didn't."
You know they're not educated on the topic if they use the word "Evolutionist" and attribute magical properties to atoms within molecules. Then he goes on to say that he'll never change his mind before an attempted roasting of the hosts by saying they don't want to believe…
@@ruleaus7664 Unfortunately shouting assertions doesn't make them true. His biases cloud him on this subject. Just watch prof. Dave's debunk series on JT. But AB is such a particular field, not every chemist can understand the subject well
@@BreakYourBubble I'll consider what other PhD chemists have to say instead of wasting time listening to someone who "dropped out of university twice, including from CSUN which is a low low tier state school." There are debunk videos on Professor Dave, too.
Worse than that, it's saying he can disprove something but even if he can't it doesn't matter "cuz god" anyway but still he disproved it but yeah it doesn't matter. 😅
I pray to Zeus this caller will never call back, talking to a wall would've been more productive, because at least it doesn't interrupt. This caller was just pure frustration.
This guy is so desperate for one of his kids to call him. You can tell he will say literally anything if he thinks it will keep someone younger than him on the line.
If I had a nickel for every time a creationist thought that disproving evolution would somehow un-falsify biblical creationism, I would be rich enough to incite an insurrection and not be in prison.
Ohhhh snap’ that made me laugh so hard I spit out my coffee! 😊
We all would, bud.
Like it.
So, a couple hundred million dollars in debt, overall?
You need 34 felony convictions to make any of this work
God Forrest is just a fucking gem for these channels. Amazing
Yes hes a great prophet for the trans religion! The religion approved of and promoted by the believers of this channel!
Forrest is a beast, (specifically a shiny pink magical unicorn), and I am 100% here for it.
@@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307do you ever get tired of being a pathetic weirdo
I’m 98 percent straight. Saving 2 for Forrest.
@@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307 wow four unfounded assertions in one sentence. Well done, spoken like a true selfish, ignorant religious person.
Robert: "I don't necessarily trust somebody who said 'we found it'."
Also Robert: "This collection of bronze age mythology has it all figured out!"
Robert: Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?
Forrest: Bro, I've been shaving you with it for like 45 minutes.
"You're not going to be able to convert me" ROBERT YOU CALLED THEM!
Also they're not trying to "convert" anyone
Robert is projecting.
The underlying issue with too many theists.
THEIST
You can't convince me, I'm right, even if I have to search for different reasoning, my conclusion is automatically the correct one.
ATHEIST
I don't accept your conclusions. But if you have verifiable evidence and good reasoning, I can be convinced.
This dude is the textbook definition of a crank.
“I’m only going to learn enough science to support my contrarian views and ignore everything else.”
Really well put. He's using a lot of terms and phrases that not everyone knows, but he doesn't show any signs that he's actually willing to understand everything for any other purpose other than to simply make half-baked arguments that prop up his beliefs.
I feel like this is how charlatans evolve. He knows he's wrong, yet continues to hold this belief so he doesn't have to evaluate everything else that he knows is wrong about his world view
To be fair, that's sort of the mindset of a lot of folks these days... Look at the anti-vax crowd, the anti-abortion crowd, the anti-socialist crowd, the anti-governement crowd, etc...
@@DvanderPluijm It is unfortunately expected though. When most people have common ground to agree with most things there'll be a growing opposition formed through an overlap of different disagreements.
We're somewhat doomed by our social-driven instincts to have a fraction of people to always resort to tribalism no matter how much we have in common.
Yep. Reminds of the quote you know enough to think you're right but not enough to know you're wrong.
According to Robert's example: My cat used to like to go into the cabinets. Now he either was fighting off a rabid walrus or he was not fighting off a rabid walrus. The fact that I was never attacked by a rabid walrus is proof that he was victorious.
Thank you for the chuckle
😂😂😂
Hope you gave him some treats for defeating that walrus 😂
@@mclovin6039 Oh yes. He lived fat and happy for the rest of his days. 😸
Your cat is awesome!
"what does O2 do to make life impossible to start"
"Not O2! Pure oxygen"
...they're the same thing
I'm simultaneously surprised and unsurprised that this seemed to go right over Robert's head. Not to say that monoatomic oxygen doesn't exist, but it doesn't exist in that form long enough to matter to formation of life on the planet. I really have to wonder if he's aware of that.
@@0okamino
He seems to be parroting phrases that he doesn't understand, interrupting Forrest when he's in the midst of explaining some concept that the caller clearly hasn't grasped. It's painful. It's also painfully typical.
They’re sort of the same thing.
O is a free oxygen atom and O2 is two oxygen atoms chemically bound to form an oxygen molecule.
Water is H2O, not H2O2, that is Hydrogen Peroxide.
He maybe had the James Tour chemistry course.
They are not, O is pure oxygen. O2 is molecular oxygen, but we commonly refer to it just as oxygen.
Forrest was the GOAT in this episode. Not only did he dismantle this guy's ego and blind faith, but he went on to completely crush a bigoted transphobe. Goodness me, what a cathartic episode.
@@blaise6981I mean maybe work on that.
But that aside, what people generally mean when they say transphobe is someone whose actions and/or words seek to discriminate or harass trans people
Gross. That must be at the very end. I'm taking a break from the stupid to read through the comments 54 minutes into the video so I must not have gotten there yet. I absolutely love Forrest as a host, he doesn't let them get away with nonsense.
Being bold enough to call up and try to lecture a biology professor as a layman comes from hubris only a creationist could possess.
Pure Dunning-Kruger. Too little knowledge mixed with arrogance. Additionally, Bob here mastered the art of goalpost shifting.
Dunning-Kruger brings Terry to mind 😂
I don't even think this caller understood where he had his goalposts to begin with to even move them.
What you jist wrote describes the average religious person, and it's such an awful thing to witness
'Mastered'? No just stumbling through it. But but...
Shifting the goal posts only to miss again.
"I don't necessarily trust when somebody says 'yeah we found it'"... let me tell you some stories from my 1800-3500 year old instruction manual. Squaring that level of cognitive dissonance must physically hurt.
Remember that some parts were added more recently. For example, the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story was added about a millennia ago.
@@pineapplepenumbra and? what's your point
@@happyninja42 The OP said,
"1800-3500 year old instruction manual"
So I'm just pointing out that some of it is more recent than 1,800 years.
I mean, atheists do something similar when they refer us to research from scientists and to textbooks. I don't care what a scientist says or what textbook you refer me to, until you do the research for yourself and verify that the GULO gene is turned off in an identical way in all great apes, and that all great apes have the same retroviral invasion markers not shared by other species, you should be skeptical. Otherwise, you are just taking someone's word for it, and it's just literally, the technical definition of hearsay.
And for the record, I'm a non-Christian theist, and I think the concept of evolution makes sense, and is freaking awesome, but, until I do the work myself, I'm just taking someone else's word for it.
That, yes, and also: I don't trust those people who says they found a thing, but trust me, I found a thing.
And also it's repeatable because of these other people who found a completely different thing.
And let's not talk about all the people who followed the same process and didn't find the thing, or thought they found the thing then later concluded otherwise. They must just not have tried long enough or correctly enough.
"You can't teach me anything" best line in the whole call
Ah, it's Forrest who said that. Yeah, he's completely right on that!
it was John not Forrest, in response to the statement at 34:16. :-)
@@irrelevant_noob Ugh, I really did not listen well to that part, thanks for correcting me! In that case, sad to say, but yeah, probably can't teach the caller to use logic and rationality.
The BALLS it takes to try to explain science to a biologist. It’s stunning.
I knew Forrest was good. I didn't realize he was that good. Respect. Understanding and explaining complex relationships without any preparation requires deep understanding. Einstein once said: “If you can't explain it simply, you haven't understood it well enough”. I guess he was right.
This is what happens when someone gets all of their information by speed reading creationist websites.
Nailed it.... Not to a cross or anything! Wouldn't want to be disrespectful to those 'speed readers'.
Don't you believe he read hundreds of scientific papers?
And not listening in their high school chemistry class. Also a heaping serving of denial of anything that shows his claim is wrong. Forrest and GE explain to him several times in several different ways how he was wrong but Robert just refused to accept it..
@@deedrabbit No
@@deedrabbit maybe some dozen abstracts, and some article with low impact factor. And he didn't understand half.
As soon as the caller uses the word, "Evolutionist", I know the reasoning is going to be spurious
or scientism 😂
They can't elevate religion to a science so they have to bring science down to a religion.
Yes, indeed. That's one of the words that gives them away.
Another big one is "evidences" when it's used as a plural noun
Perhaps Robert grew up in an alternative timeline where "Evolutionists" were a dangerous group of zealots, attempting to spread their terrifying beliefs via terroristic acts and creation of pariah caliphates of atheism enforced with an iron fist.
Or he at least thinks he did ;p
Eric. Absolutely.
This bloke knows enough to think he’s right but doesn’t know enough to realise how wrong he is!
He's conquered the heights of Mount Stupid.
Dunning - Kruger I believe it’s called.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, particularly in the hands of someone who's not intelligent enough to understand how little knowledge they're working with.
That's the Dunning Kruger effect.
All of his rambling can be refuted by a 5 min courtesy google scholar search. But no he just when on to spill some bs about things he doesn't grasp.
Caller: "Yeah I don't trust NASA when they just say they found X in space without going out there in person to collect and bring back a physical sample"
Also caller: "Trust me, it's in the Bible"
I am so sick of people who think just because they don’t know something. The only other possibility is “God.”
It amazes me how a few people are capable of saying “I don’t know.“
This is exactly why religion should be kept out of schools.
Exactly. If people want to seek out spiritually let them. Let THEM make the choice. Though we see how well that works. As most religious people I know we're only that because their parents made them that way.
I love Forrest's mind, you can see him searching for the relevant information , then goes into the bulldog mode, attacks Roberts ideas and destroys them to the delight of reasonable people worldwide. Sorry Robert you took a knife to a gunfight
He rolled up with the position, "Oxygen is harmful to life." He brought a spoon
A knife ? It looked more like a plastic spoon, then pretended it was a knife.
@@N.Bluesky I see you've played knifey spoony before.
@N.Bluesky I see you've played knifey spoony before
A knife? Robert brought a stick - and not even a sharpened one
This whole call boils down to "I'm an idiot and science is hard therefore god." And this is why people get beat up.
Dude "read some articles" and based on that calls in to tell a biologist/science educator how he's all wrong about biochemistry. I bet he also goes around calling atheists "arrogant".
😂
😂😂😂😂
There’s a quote, I don’t remember who it’s by but it goes something like;
“Theists want irrefutable proof for everything… except God”
Same with alternative medicine. They will take anything deemed "natural" or "chemical free" with no insistence on proper testing while insisting that any real medicine be 100% effective with no long term side effects.
I love how Forrest explains step by step, how he fact checks his own statements, and then the caller goes "no all of those scientists that have spend their whole life, and have evidence for existence of things are all wrong"
The caller is living proof of the old saw 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'.
"A fool is one who ignores evidence merely because it disagrees with their predetermined desired result."
Why callers can't stop behaving like kids that can't let other peoples talk more than 5sec...
Edit: That was probably one of the most painful video i've watched.
Well in order to to force your argument you need to quash all opposition before it’s starts .
Otherwise known as baffle them with bullshit !
Lol
not familiar with Otangelo I see
and long
To be fair, in my perspective I feel like Forrest speaks too much.
I dont mean it in a bad way or disrespectfully, and he has never done it in that way but you can tell sometimes he even speaks so much he interrupts his cohosts.
He is very smart but I would advice he musters some self control on thar regard.
Usually callers trips on their own words rarely you need a full lecture to correct them.
Don't let Robert near the red button!
I don't want to even drive on the same roads as Robert!
It's ok, the red button requires an oxygen environment to complete the circuit and Robert doesn't believe in oxygen.
@@Gradgar by his logic we should all be dead,
As oxygen gets into blood for us to live
Seems like he's ether home schooled and never did even standard grade level biology where you learn how vital oxygen is for living.
That we wouldn't even have rain, as by his logic oxygen would pervert water from forming.
Or too close to CERN
I wouldn't let him near a red burrito
I had to give a book report on the Dunning-Krueger Effect, and so I brought this guy. I got an A++. Next week is “circular logic”, I’m hoping he’s free…
Maybe this guy actually did read hundreds of scientific papers. The problem is that "reading" is not the same as "understanding".
We KNOW life exists. We have evidence. ATP exists. RNA exists. We can objectively observe it. ANYONE can. ANYONE cannot observe a supernatural being.
I’m sure the papers he read were specifically geared to convince creationist’s of their previously held creationist beliefs. Pseudoscience.
This sounds like James Tour nonsense. Prof. Dave would have an aneurysm if he were on the call.
No no, James Tour would have an aneurysm if MISTER FARINA!!! were on the call. :D
@@Philitron128 he starts out with James Tour, but the way he says Creator, reeks of Kent !
I was thinking the exact same thing, in the beginning Robert was pretty much word for word using the exact same arguments as Tour. I was half expecting him to start screaming "MR VALKAI!!!!"
I am sure that is where he got his sht from. Write the reaction!!!!
@@MikkoKuusirati
MISTER FARINA 🫵 GO 👉 GO 👉 GO👉
I feel like this dude got well past chem 101 without understanding chem 101, nor understanding that water contains oxygen
Everyone knows the O in H2O stands for orange juice
@@The_Worst_Guy_Everorange juice is OJ not O.
40:21 shame he didnt understand any of the papers he read
40:18 well if we cant create something obviously it cant be done
@@ChrisFerguson-zm4gt The juice is silent
The caller is the voice of pre-science, dressed up in scientific language, trying to drag us eventually back to the 17th century.
Well stated!
I think it's closer to the 7th century BCE.
I have NEVER seen a greater proof of Dunning Kruger than I have with the caller, Robert.
Also, my absolute favorite moment of this call (maybe my favorite moment of this show ever) was Robert attempting: "Yeah, alright, well, it's been-" Forrest: "Muted. Literally no one was talking to you." ☠
Listening to Robert explaining biochemistry is like watching a 3-year-old using an iPhone as a brick to smash things.
What else would you do with an iPhone?
"It happens to everyone who prays right."
"It didn't happen to these guys who prayed a lot."
" Well, that means they didn't pray right."
Reasoning doesn't get more circular than that.
“If sodium and chloride are bad for humans then why can we eat table salt?” Same energy.
That's true
I am a chemist and I learned redox by "oil rig"
Oxidation is loss (of electrons)
Reduction is gain
Good pneumonic. I’ll remember that.
Robert came in trying to sound high-minded and scientifically informed and well reasoned, but when he was pushed to explain what actually informs his belief, his brain smoothened right up and started slipping out his ear. What a gradient of rationality between where he started and when he was forced to answer what in reality informs his belief.
Forrest is the GOAT
no. He's not.
@@stevesinner3501 Womp womp
@@stevesinner3501who is then
Matt Dillahunty rightfully frowns...
@@urthosart doesn't he have an adorable pet goat as well? The GOAT with a goat.
Listening and watching Forrest explaining things is an absolute joy. He uses so many terms and words I’ve never heard before in the 71 years of my life, but it all seems to make sense. What a wonderful teacher.
I would have loved to have someone like Forrest teaching my biology classes at Uni. He's so excited by the subject and by the chance to teach the subject. Every class would have been a freaking joy.
@@Fluffykeith I agree and he was the gift of explaining a subject at a suitable level to a specific audience without sounding as if he’s talking down to them.
This is what happens when you learn chemistry in Sunday School surrounded by creationists.
Need some air-quotes around that "learn"... ;-)
@@irrelevant_noobmore like indoctri.... something something etc. 😉
Robert is perhaps the most dishonest, gaslighting, moving the goalposts, begging the question creationist.
holy shit forrest that "SCHLONG IN HAND" bit cracked me up, love when you start going off on people
Robert: (Insert James Tour talking point here)
MISTER FARINA!!!!
@@Boneworm852 SHOW. ME. THE-!!!!
@@Boneworm852 Ah, James, the louder I shout, the more right I am, Tour.
Tour's arguments but lack if basic science knowledge
SHOW ME THE CHEMISTRY
Robert is driving, voting, & maybe owns guns & has children. There should be a test for being allowed to be unsupervised.
He is likely a reasonable gun owner and excellent father to his children. Just because he questions the events of billions of years ago doesn't mean the man doesn't deserve to live a healthy, normal, free life.
He appears to understand more chemistry and biology than the vast majority of people. Just not PhD level. This stuff is not simple.
@glennthompson1971 I'm not sure how you can say that, considering he doesn't know basic bio facts and yet aggressively acts like what he's saying is true.
Making bs up makes you worse than average.
@@glennthompson1971 it's highschool chemistry. Everyone takes highschool chemistry.
@@glennthompson1971 This stuff was literally taught in every chemistry class in the country. He doesn't understand the difference between elemental O and O2. He doesn't even nderstand the basic concept that things react differently depending on what and how they are bonded. Heck even the table salt analogy went over his head. Then he tries to interrupt anytime that they try to explain something and push his own narrative even when what he says is 95% wrong. All he is doing is being a human parrot of something that he read or heard but clearly didn't understand yet he is so arrogant and confident that he is right that litterly nothing would change his view.
10:05 - if RNA is so unstable that it cannot persist how is it that it can be found in every cell of this caller's body???
Oh, thank you so much Robert for telling us what RNA stands for, "for those in your audience who might not know". Check out the brain on Robert.
There should be a word for failing to disprove one thing while simultaneously failing to prove another thing.
Robert must have powerful biceps, triceps, and forearm strength, with constantly having to move that goalpost.
Quite strong legs, too.
He's got a strong forearm alright, given that he's such a w*nker.
Forrest is such a great teacher :) I feel lucky to get to hear from him for free
Back when I was a believer, there were MULTIPLE times when I was in serious prayers for 3, 4, 5 days! I NEVER heard back anything, and when other people said they did, I lied and said I did to fit in.
I'm convinced that NONE of us heard jack shit. God isn't real. The only magic that is real is in Las Vegas
A similar experience is what led me out of Christianity. In my case it was a Southern Baptist Revival. My brother, all my cousins, friends, etc were going up to get 'saved'. I was always told I would get a calling, i'd known when the time to go up was, etc etc. In reality, i was just terrified of being left behind and not getting baptized with all the others. So I just went up. That experience, among other things, led me to start thinking it was all BS and we were all just lying to each other out of fear of not fitting in. Bye bye faith.
I mean it's also possible to induce experiences depending on the person and the situation. That's why I liked that forrest brought up lsd. Because you can have an experience that seems like God but is actually caused by something else. Psychedelics are one possibility, but stress, lack of sleep, and a number of other normal things can cause hallucination
@@thedudeamongmengs2051 Scientists have also induced spiritual feelings with medical wand next to a person's head. Literally just energy through the air can cause it. Music can cause a revival style fervor too.
@@kindredsoul79 I've never heard of the wand thing but it wouldn't surprise me. It probably depends a lot on the person though. Some people seem to be more prone to spiritual feelings than others.
@@thedudeamongmengs2051 That's the awesome thing. They were super scientific about it! They had wands with no energy as well, where the tech and subjects didn't know which was happening. 100% of the people with energy got a spiritual feeling, even people that said they were atheists.
This guy argues like my father. Once you have him on a point, he basically plugs his ears and refuses to hear you out and says "NOPE IM RIGHT, YOUR WRONG, I CANT HEEEEEAR YOUUUUU."
What a joke.
Step 1) assume I'm right
Step 2) step 2 doesn't matter
Step 3) assume I won
I prayed for 2 weeks. 2 weeks of nothing but sincere praying, reading the bible, and fasting the whole time. I nearly died.
Just enough high school chemistry to be dangerous.
I'm only a little bit into this, but I'm already highly amused by the callers complete misapprehension of the entire topic. As to oxygen, is it not clear to the caller that at the time abiogenesis is supposed to have occurred, that the world was full of two very abundant oxygen-containing compounds...... Dihydrogen oxide and silicon dioxide, also known as water and sand? And that the cosmos itself has vast amounts of interstellar oxygen-containing compounds, including ethanol and acetic acid....... Interstellar vinegar? Compounds like these have favorable enthalpies and entropies of formation. They" want" to form.
The issue isn't that abiogenesis could not have occurred in an oxidating environment. The issue rather is that abiogenesis DID occur in an anoxic environment. Molecular oxygen was not abundant in the atmosphere or oceans, and so primordial life forms needed a different final electron acceptor at the end of a primordial electron transport system whose purpose was to pump protons. No problem. There are other oxidants around in the putative abiotic nurseries.... Such as alkaline hydrothermal vents. Sulfur comes to mind.
I'm just a few minutes in and it's absolutely clear. This dude has not done his homework.
Thank you for making these points so clearly.
Thanks. You’ve given me a lot to think about and I must brush up on what I’ve forgotten, as well as research what I never knew 😂
The caller doesn't realize his logic falls apart when Forrest brings up table salt. Elemental forms of both those atoms react very differently than their ionic counterparts.
And yeah there are lots of electron acceptors. In fact one hypothesis for abiogenesis stems around hydrothermal vents for that reason. Then once photosynthesis made a bunch of oxygen life figured out it was an even better electron acceptor.
@@jayrobbinstacks4574exactly. The biologist Nick Lane, and many others, believe that life cannot form in the presence of oxygen, and they are probably right, although with a sample of n = one I wouldn't want to be so categorical. But while it may very well be the case that abiogenesis cannot occur in the presence of molecular oxygen,, it absolutely cannot occur in the absence of an oxidant. That's what life does. It oxidizes things. It's a kind of very highly regulated stepwise combustion. That's what energy metabolism is.
And given that anoxic bacteria that utilise, say, methane, still exist, its not even merely a hypothetical.
"I'm Bob. I'm smarter than the actual scientists that actually study this stuff, therefore God."
Ffs I'm soooo tired of these people.
"I read a couple books and handpicked the knowledge that supports my argument and mentally blocked out any other option and now think my knowledge from reading a couple scientific paper titles (of people who all believe and can support evolution) is better than the people who wrote the papers"
Don't forget, he read it from Wikipedia, so, he know better than anyone else
Yeah, and he probably has Kent Hovind lecturing (lying) on his computer 24/7. That’s likely the source for his hundreds of papers too.
To the hosts: There is a Mute button.
When someone refuses to stop talking or interrupting, or acknowledge what the hosts say, you need to use it.
I'm glad you're here to teach them the basics of the thing they've both been doing for years.
Yes! Discourage rudeness, please.
I agree but I think you need to be charitable and let these people show how bad their argument is. I think people like Matt dillahunty use the mute button too frequently and end up just refusing to hear the other person's answer to questions he asked.
@@thedudeamongmengs2051perhaps but that's largely because he's been doing this long enough to be weary of repeating patterns from callers. It's not a failure by him as such, but if you see it as that, then they have younger hosts who aren't yet fully cynical who are open to hearing out bullshit all the way.
@@ursidae97 I've heard that explanation before and I disagree. Sometimes that is the case, but sometimes he asks a question and hits mute before even trying to hear an answer. Sometimes questions that look simple actually aren't and require more than 3 words to answer. Sometimes you can disagree with the premise of the question in the first place, rendering any answer meaningless.
People who say "evolutionist" shouldn't be taken seriously
Dummies like Robert are my favorite kind of callers, he has no idea what he's talking about but still had the nerve to call in to talk about things he doesn't understand.
At 15:00 , Robert clarifies "No not O2, pure oxygen". Dude is clearly the greatest chemist of our age.
Oxygen is O, and O2 is an allotrope of oxygen.
The common allotrope of elemental oxygen on Earth, O2, is generally known as oxygen, but may be called dioxygen, diatomic oxygen, molecular oxygen, dioxidene or oxygen gas to distinguish it from the element itself and from the triatomic allotrope ozone, O3.
He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but neither do you.
Tbf… O2 isn’t free oxygen as Forrest was discussing, free oxygen is simply O and as he said, it’s inedibly rare.
@@reefhogthat's a mic drop right there
Not to defend the guy, but you clearly don't know the difference between O and O2.
@@reefhog Why do you think that the OP doesn't know what he's talking about? It makes no sense to say that O2 is not "pure oxygen"? 100% diatomic oxygen WOULD be pure oxygen, so ROBERT was wrong and OP's comment was perfectly fine.
“If I shout my script loud enough for long enough, I’ll WIN, RIGHT?!” 🤪🙄
🔊 NO!
@@SamualRobotham-IWasOnlyKidding Lol u got me for a sec, but u were kidding.
A fine example of the dangers of a little knowledge
It’s like a 5 yr old getting a 0 from a calculus exam, and accusing the professor who graded his exam don’t know math😂
Robert is what happens when arrogance and stupidity get together
Whataboutery at its finest. When you start with the conclusion and try a fit evidence to that conclusion 🤦🏼♂️
A perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect over here. It's absolutely wild that these guys think they know what they're talking about when they think that things like O2 and oxygen are different chemicals.
Isn't oxygen what the O in O2 stands for?
@@Apollorion Yes. The 2 represents the binding of 2 oxygen atoms to create an oxygen molecule.
In the same way that graphite and diamond and graphene and charcoal are all pure carbon, ozone and O2 and monooxygen and tetraoxygen are still pure oxygen. Just different allotropes. All of these are still 100% of their respective element by mass, therefore pure. "Pure oxygen" does not have a chemical formula
(I know you know this btw, this is just for the benefit of anyone reading who doesn't)
(Also another edit after thinking about it a bit, technically the only allotrope of carbon that is truly 100% pure carbon will be fullerene because all the others like diamond and graphite will bond to random elements mainly hydrogen and oxygen when their lattice structure breaks, like on the surface of a diamond. You can get arbitrarily close to 100% as the size of the structure increases though, because the number of impurities increases by the square while the number of carbons increases by the cube. My point still stands despite that detail lol)
"Not O², just pure oxyen"
I guessed others had misheard him actually utter that gem but.... he réally said it!😂
He sounds like Tour. He's read Tour's disinformation, and he probably saw the video between Professor Dave and Tour where Tour was acting like a raving loon. He's "read hundreds of Abiogenesis papers, but is not familiar with us finding precursors in space.
Maybe the "hundreds of abiogenesis papers" were all articles on apologist websites because it's hard to believe that he read even one actual research paper.
Anyone else started hearing, "MR. FARINA!" ?
My favorite quote from this clip… “That’s not how THINKING works”.
I think if you pray for 3 days without sleep, you might start seeing or hearing things.
Praying for 7 days without food and sleep makes one weak.
😂😂😂
I was looking for this comment. 3 days without sleep mumbling prayers to a god is going to get you seeing gods. It's not proof of anything.
$100 that cult member caller failed grade 10 biology and chemistry
Double or nothing. Caller skipped/never took grade 10 biology and chemistry
Can't fail a class if you're home schooled!
We have a new poster child for Dunning-Krugger. If you don't like the evidence, just deny the evidence.
Its truly embarrassing how self deceiving someone can be to hold on to a belief so ridiculous without a shred of proof.
My RNA is starting to oxidize, being I am 74 years old. I need parts for parts. But that is life.
My favorite videos on the internet are theists trying to challenge Forrest with science and him getting all giddy and excited about how easily he can prove them wrong 😭
Creationists think they're so fucking smart because they've read a wikipedia article once or twice. This guy would never admit his god isn't necessary.
I mean this guy clearly took some chemistry courses and a few biology courses, the problem is he spent the whole time trying to rationalize what they were teaching him while keeping his god as the reason behind it all instead of learning to see how these processes occur.
Dr Tour says that it happend somehow from nonliving to living but we don't have clue how and to say that they made life in glass is total bs.
Bro everybody reads the Wikipedia. Calm down
@@szalaytamas3184 So? Not because I read something from Wikipedia I could argue with an expert.
@@szalaytamas3184 take your own advice
This guy is the Terrance Howard of biochemistry...
…and terrence is the stephen segall of math
Don't mix Terrance with Terrence, please.
@@Apollorion Why is your name Terrance? 😂
@@Steven_DunbarSL My personal name is neither terr*nces, but Terrance is the name you yourself introduced to these comments.
@@Apollorion I see I'm so sorry my spelling error elicited a response I'll be sure not to make the mistake again 🤣
"The moon is cheese!"
"Did you just say that the moon is cheese?"
"I DID NOT SAY THAT!"
Someone trying to mansplain to Forrest about ATP was comedy gold.
See, the 25 minute mark is when this call should've ended. He admitted he wouldn't become an atheist even if natural means were proved completely and that his god was still involved. He's a dishonest interlocutor and has admitted his belief is unfalsifiable. This call should not go on for another 43 minutes.
"He's a dishonest interlocutor"
Aren't all religious callers, though?
well, if we didn't get an hour long call, we wouldn't get John's banger when he asked the caller to define Occam's Razor because he was called out for not know what the fuck he was talking about the entire call.
@@tomrace4586 true, and it is always nice to hear Forrest utterly destroy someone with science lol The more, the better.
It's "Tails you lose, heads I win" with people like that
@@tomrace4586 I felt this way about a particularly unpleasant catholic in the RUclips comments. Everyone else gave up trying to interact with him, but I persisted and I'm glad I did, as he revealed the true depths of his depravity: he accused me of not taking into account mitigating circumstances with paedo priests SA children!
Aw yeah, an hour of The Line, with Forrest Valkai!
I've got into a debate about the abiogenesis point and when I pointed out even if disproven it doesn't mean there isn't another natural explanation, they refused to acknowledge that is possible and the entire convo stagnated. They have their talking points and once that goes against their script, they get stuck because they don't actually think, they just regurgitate.
They are such hypocrites; they criticise Scientists for not achieving in a couple of centuries (and that's being very generous, timewise) in a few small labs what nature had 10 to the power of 24 "test tubes" the size of planets, and billions of years to achieve, yet accept the nonsense of the bible with no evidence, whatsoever.
They are like Ug, who believes in a volcano god. Ug says to Grok, "Why you not believe in Volcano God? You see Volcano go Bang, but you no explain WHY Volcano go Bang! You stupid to not believe in Volcano God when you no explain WHY Volcano go Bang!"
They are why Brandolini's Law was made.
Underrated comment :3 I do wonder if these anti-evolution people take into account that even if we we're to disprove evolution, then every other religion's claims about the origin of life would as valid as their own. I couldn't live like that.
They have no evidence to back up their own claims, so instead of showing that their claims are true, they attack anyone that disagrees with them.
They also see the world as a binary. There are only 2 choices. If your view is false, then by default, theirs is true. Even though that is not how reality works.
Creationists have somehow shifted their goalposts from "show that it's possible in nature" to "demonstrate that *humans* can replicate _every_ process from the big bang to abiogenesis to macro evolution". The God-shaped gap is now anything that *humans* can't do.
@@grantm6514 We need another Law to complement Brandolini's Law, to cover that.
I would have suggested Grant's Law, but, tragically, it seems that's already a thing.
Seriously, if I'd been forced to pray for three days straight, I probably would've been hallucinating to the point that I'd accept the divinity of any kind of apparition that popped into existence before me - until I came back to my senses again. I've hallucinated enough from hunger and dehydration and stress and fever and exhaustion and sleep deprivation and grief and whatnot to know that weird shit appears to happen that isn't real when you're like that. And I don't drink much, and I've never done drugs.
I strongly suspect that if you get down on your knees and pray for three days, the only thing you're going to find is that the floor is painfully hard!
@@coriolisjones9156 The sleep deprivation might be so bad that you do hallucinate some kind of god though.
@@excalibur4394 I never thought of that possibility!
I actually think that that might be how it works, what with the popularity of ecstatic practices in historical religious contexts
Trying to explain autocatalysis and systems chemistry to a diluted couch chemist is hilarious
@@coldloyalty as an diluted couch chemist I can say he's diluted to a point that it's an homeopathic couch chemist.
I wouldn't consider him a chemist in any way. He called oxygen molecules when he actually meant atoms. He also called RNA an atom. He shows that he has no knowledge of chemistry whatsoever.
Someone should remind Robert what the O in H2O stands for...
Obstinate?
At the end of the day…this is still just a more technical version of the “god of the gaps” argument.
Here’s a step/thing that science can’t explain therefore god.
Yah he could’ve started with gotg argument and the call will be done in 5min😂
It wasn't even technical. It was word salad using words he saw on a biology Wikipedia page.
Robert picked up a chemistry textbook and now thinks he knows everything about chemistry and biology to make an argument AGAINST science. And THEN he came to argue with an actual SCIENTIST and an ENGINEER! 🤪
As a scientist, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the control group in Robert's experiment...and I'm listening to this for the 4th time!!!
"You're not gonna convert me."
..."Now let me convince you you're wrong."
As a long time Washington State resident, I'd like to offer my apologies for this know-it-all-fool named "Robert". He's not representative of this state.
the WA after his name doesn't stand for his state initials, it stands for "Wrong, Always."
I think his chemistry knowledge has been meth-odically different from what we were expecting
i think the meth part is accurate
I can summarize this whole interaction really quickly:
Robert: "This chemical can't do a thing."
Forrest: "Here's a paper where scientists did that thing."
Robert: "No, they didn't."
You know they're not educated on the topic if they use the word "Evolutionist" and attribute magical properties to atoms within molecules. Then he goes on to say that he'll never change his mind before an attempted roasting of the hosts by saying they don't want to believe…
I love theses guys who think they have found something that thousands of chemists and biochemists have missed over the last one hundred years
years .
Robert sounds like James Tour here
They have the same Cre A Tor
Give me a break. Tour is a PhD chemist.
@@ruleaus7664 Unfortunately shouting assertions doesn't make them true. His biases cloud him on this subject. Just watch prof. Dave's debunk series on JT. But AB is such a particular field, not every chemist can understand the subject well
@@BreakYourBubble I'll consider what other PhD chemists have to say instead of wasting time listening to someone who "dropped out of university twice, including from CSUN which is a low low tier state school." There are debunk videos on Professor Dave, too.
@@ruleaus7664🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
This clowns whole argument is disproving something else while having NO evidence for his claim.
Worse than that, it's saying he can disprove something but even if he can't it doesn't matter "cuz god" anyway but still he disproved it but yeah it doesn't matter. 😅
I pray to Zeus this caller will never call back, talking to a wall would've been more productive, because at least it doesn't interrupt.
This caller was just pure frustration.
This guy is so desperate for one of his kids to call him. You can tell he will say literally anything if he thinks it will keep someone younger than him on the line.