How To Ignore The Evidence For Evolution Like A Creationist
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ค. 2024
- What did you say? There's tons of evidence for evolution? but creationists pretend it isn't there? NO WAY! Well, apparently, Calvin from Answers in Genesis completely ignores most of the evidence that supports evolution, and focuses on things that aren't even related to evolution in an attempt to dismiss it and prove that, in fact, humans are made of dirt and ribs and came from a god...
Highly doubtful
The original video is here - • Exposing the Absurd LA...
More Evolutionary nonsense - • Creationists Say There...
Playlist with an abundance of evolutionary nonsense - • Evolutionary Nonsense
** T-Shirts Are Here - my-store-cf9db1.creator-sprin... **
Patreon - / theskeptick
Facebook - / theskeptick
Instagram - / theskeptick
Twitter - / the_skeptick
Threads - www.threads.net/@theskeptick
TikTok - tiktok.com/theskeptick
Everything in this video is just an opinion, and should be treated as such - though it is important to ask questions. Any humour or sarcasm is aimed towards the words and actions of the individuals, and not intended to be a personal attack on any individual themselves, under the act of free speech
Title - How To Ignore The Evidence For Evolution Like A Creationist
Tags - evolution,creationism,religion,creationist,atheist vs creationist,why evolution is a lie,ignoring the evidence for evolution,how to ignore evolution,is evolution true,human evolution,evidence for evolution,human evolution evidence,atheism,atheist,atheists,atheist reacts,atheists reaction,are creationists real,yec,young earth,young earth creation,young earth creationist,did god make man,did god make evolution,proof of god,how to prove god,atheism is wrong
![มองหน้ากันไม่ติด (Awkward) - โอ๊ต ปราโมทย์ FEAT. MAIYARAP [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4b02SY_r6Gw/mqdefault.jpg)
To be fair, them dumping a ton of money into a video instead of feeding and clothing the less fortunate is how you know that they're Christians.
Ouch...
No, in fairness; it is how you know they are fundamentalist Christians.
Dunno how it is elsewhere, but even as a kid in elementary, before and after, I looked at the "Help Africa" billboards here in Germany. I never understood why an organisation as wealthy as the catholic church or any other has to ask for money, when it should be their mission statement to spend the money they have amassed. And if you ask how I, a kid, knew of that wealth, you just have to watch the TV broadcasts from churches or the Vatican itself.
As cold as it may be, but I always had this "You go first" mentality, before giving to a charity run by any church.
@tos100returns
The cost of a video is nothing compared to what nasa spent on the apollo missions and are spending today on pie in the sky space fantasies. How does that benefit the starving millions. But you stick to condemning someone for spending a few hundred on a video. Hypocrite
Amen
I can't stop laughing. A blind man speaking to a blind audience about why colours are a myth.
an excellent analogy.
I'm using this next time I'm in an argument
Bad analogy.
Blind people (generally...) don't choose to be blind.
More like a kid playing peek-a-boo than a blind man.
10:20 And once again, the creationist glosses over the fact that a hoax was uncovered by scientists using science, not creationists using the Bible.
Ouuf, that was surgically on point 😂
and X amount of decades ago, most of the information he says is outdated by more than 50 years, he really can't user modern information because all of ti would show he is wrong
@@naruarthur We had scientists saying Piltdown man was dodgy right from the start. The problem was proving it was actually fake.
@@mattm8870 piltdown man was the one from the tooth right? that one was just an actual miscommunication, even the guy who found it was not sure, a journal just jumped the gun and skip all the analysis and made the report just to be the first one, their guess was wrong
and it was not a problem to prove it, just further analysis of the teeth showed it to be not human
@@naruarthurNo, that was Nebraska Man.
Creationists complaining about scientific ignorance is quite comical 😂😂😂
It's just a theory, huyuk huyuk!
@@bladerunner3314 I actually heard that objection last week; from a twelve-year-old schoolboy. So I told him what "Theory" means in scientific terms. He understood the difference. _That's_ how hard it is.
@@joshuakohlmann9731 That's why I call believers intentional ignorant. The moment you are willing to learn - remain believer or not - you can not not understand it.
Of course there are people like Hovind or other grifters whose livelyhood depends on their sheeps stupidity.
I am sick of my people being persecuted. Us atheists have got to stick together considering we have been violated throughout the centuries for being the only sane ones. This is OUR age and it's time we get these religious b@stards out of here.
These Creationists where do ice ages fit in
I imagine Calvin's ideal museum exhibit of the origins of humans would consist of a pile of dirt and a rib.
But the rib must have been made from dirt in the first place.
"Someone doesn't understand how evolution works," SkepTick inadvertently describing all creationists.
Not just evolution, but apparently science in general. They are always saying things like "The science turned out to be wrong so they changed it." Uh, yeah that's how science works, we use the best potential evidence available at the time until it is disproven or better evidence comes along. Then we throw out the old information that doesn't fit, and replace it with the new evidence that fits better. That's literally the point of scientific inquiry 🤦🏼♀️
Hey now, there's lots of people who don't understand how evolution works who still accept evolution.
"And by inadvertently I mean COMPLETELY VERTENTLY!!!"
Actually describing most of the adult population of the world
Some creationists know how evolution works, but since they are unethical immoral grifters, they lie about it for money.
OMG - the lack of self-awareness is hilarious. Spends the fist 5 minutes literally describing exactly what theists do and then accusing atheists of doing it.
It's a common trait I've seen in creationists. Question anything? Creationists accuse you of the same things they're accused of.
@@stylesrjput simply: projection
That's assuming it's not on purpose but out of sheer ignorance. No, this is the Big Lie that nazi's were so proud of using. Accuse your opponent of what you're guilty of.
It's their copium for cognitive dissonance.
I think it's more like lying. These creationists are intentionally ignoring evidence that they have been repeatedly showed. If they don't actually know that they are intentionally deceiving, they are usually reading off PRATTs from other creationists that know better. Creationists cannot admit any evidence disproves their "theories", or they might be wrong, and they just cannot be wrong!
I love how creationists keep talking about "man descending from an ape like ancestor", completely ignoring that humans are apes.
Actually, no, we are not. We are Hominids. Hominids split off from the ape line about 7 - 8 million years ago. Is it correct that Hominids and apes are, in evolutionary terms, closely related? Absolutely, but we are NOT apes.
Take it from me, I am an Evolutionary Ecologist, it is what I do for a living. It is very important to understand that while both apes and hominids evolved from the same ape like ancestor, we are not apes, and apes are not hominids. 7 -8 million years of evolution separate us.
That we are well said you scratch my back I will scratch yours lol
@@alganhar1 Let's say i believe you are a evolutionary ecologist. Why you aren't following modern cladistics, the one that say "apes", including humans, are Hominoidea, and "great apes", including humans, are Hominidae?
@@alganhar1
Actually, no. I hope you aren't actually an evolutionary ecologist, or were just having a brain fart.
Hominids are members of Hominidae, which are the "great apes". Also included in hominids are orangutans, gorillas, and chimps.
You might have mistaken it for hominin (with an n) which is the more strict classification of modern humans and our evolutionary ancestors.
Although when i googled it to make sure i wasn't going to accidentally say a wrong animal included in hominids, i did see an article from a museum that gave a caveat that hominid and hominin used to be the same but the meaning has changed and not all texts have been updated to show this so things like textbooks could be misleading, with hominid meaning only humans and our ancestors being an out of date term.
@@alganhar1 no? Hominids are part of the "great apes" so we are still apes.
AIG loves to play on the "science keeps changing therefore it is false" argument.
Which is it's strength, unlike unchanging dogma which remains incorrect.
But remind them that theology keeps changing and they'll deny that two thousand years of biblical reinterpretation, heresies, church schisms and new ecclesiastic traditions ever happened. Well, no, of course they won't. That would be too stupid even for them. They'll just carry on with the blinkered doublethink.
@@SecularFelinistBible thumpers twist the Bible and the science until they meet. Like the six day creation being reinterpret as each “day” being “some period of time, averaging approximately 2.25 billion years”
More like some scientists were wrong 200 years ago so science they must still be wrong.
Of course it never happened because those others are not true Christians, duh/s
I gotta laugh whenever I hear someone say "the bible is clear."
So clear that it’s spawned thousands of versions of Christianity.
Clearly wrong
It is clear -so clear that a rational individual can see through it.
It is clear. Clear bullshit for any rational person who hasn't been indoctrinated with it as a child
As clear as water. You can see right through it.
If an entire scholarly community has to agree on every point exactly, and each point has to have been correct from the beginning, or the entire discipline is false and fraudulent, what does that say about Christianity?
Damn
Ouch!
It’s (also) funny how nearly every human-evolution-debunking video brings up Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, and Lucy, almost always in that order, like a bunch of kids that copied someone else’s homework.
And just as often call out the hoaxes, but absolutely refuse to mention, much less acknowledge, who uncovered the hoax, and by what method.
@@denverarnold6210 My favorite way of putting it was uttered by Forrest Valkai, when, in one of his own videos, he had to say, TWICE, “Science corrected science.”
@@zacharysieg2305 and that is the long and short of it, isn't it?
Lucy isn't even a hoax, but Creationists always pretend we have no other examples of her species when in fact we have hundreds.
@@stefanlaskowski6660 RIGHT?!
At this point it’s like, “Okay fine. Debunk Lucy. You can’t, not really, but go ahead and try. We have many other examples of this particular transitional species.”
"How is he not grasping this?"
Well, as you can see, he is paid to not grasp it.
All of religion relies on not grasping things. If people were sensitive to reason, they'd be atheists, as many ex-theists are. That doesn't mean that atheists are necessarily sensitive to reason, but to be a theists and to stay a theist you have to rely on a whole lot of rationalizing. "Luckily" for them, that's exactly what churches, apologists, society, and religious media teaches and encourages them to do. Strangely enough though, if a secular teacher or a parent does that with children, it would be called abuse because it is and when a theists does it it's called virtuous and matter of faith.
He doesn't have opposable thumbs.
@@stylis666wait , im a little confused about your comment. i read it as if you said teaching critical thinking to kids is child abuse .
@@cliftongaither6642 Look up rationalizing in the dicrionary, that should fix things. It's like the word nationalizing, making something national that isn't. So rationalizing is making something rational that isn't. If we constantly encourage our children to do that in spite of evidence, it's abuse. But when religious parents do that, which they have to because it's the only way to have and encourage religious faith, it's freedom of religion and considered virtuous. Religions have successfully normalized mental and emotional abuse and we all endorse it by respecting people's religions.
@@stylis666 but critical thinking is not in spite of evidence. critical thinking looks for the evidence. im still confused as to what you mean . hahaha
Trying to teach a creationist actual science is like trying to teach a blue heeler to play trombone. The best possible outcome is still gonna be really disappointing.
What in rainbow Lisa's name is a blue heeler? I would google it, but I'm worried about what I would find.
It's closer to trying to teach a flat worm how to play a grand organ.
@@PabloSanchez-qu6ib Australian cattle dog. Smart, stubborn, all pranksters.
@@PabloSanchez-qu6ib A Blue Heeler is the iconic Australian cattle dog. There are blue and red varieties but the red ones are mostly called a red cattle dog rather than a red heeler. The now world famous TV kid's show 'Bluey' is about a family of cattle dogs of both colours.
@@Kim_Miller "The now world famous TV kid's show 'Bluey'
Is it really world famous? I've never heard of it.
Oh man ... I just love how smart he thinks he's being despite the fact that regardless of how he tries to spin it, there is still no proof of God. "Hey look at what my right hand is doing. Pay little attention to my left hand."
The fossil had no feet… so god exists.
@@TheSkepTick What? I didn't know proving something was so easy.
@@TheSkepTick Lucy had no feet, but lots of other A afarensis did have feet.
That reminds me of working at Lake Hotel in Y.N.P. It was illegal to keep fish from the lake that were over 15 inches. (Bigger fish produce more offspring.) So several folks cut off the heads and tails to show that the fish were under 15 and therefore keepies. The fish cop was never amused but was always startled by human stupidity.
@@TheSkepTick Personally I think both theists and atheists are going about it the wrong way. You see NEITHER of you can prove, or disprove the existence of god or gods. It cannot be proven one way or another.
It is why I have chosen the path of the Agnostic, BECAUSE I cannot prove the question either way, and it is, unlike Scientific Questions, one that is inherently not provable, at least while living! Thus I do not know if God exists, there is no, and can never be any proof, thus I frankly do not care.
I'll leave my questioning to those hypothesis that can approached via the Scientific method.
And just to point something out, to forestall any accusations of' fence sitting or other such nonsense, I am an Evolutionary Ecologist by trade. It is literally what I do for a living. My approach to dealing with Creationists? I ignore them. They are irrelevant, I certainly do not waste time and energy arguing with them. Argument and discussion is best used for those who may be swayed, or learn something valuable from the process.
It is a waste of time employing either against those not interested in learning.
Weird how Creationists best examples of how Evolution "failed" is decades to centuries out of date AND examples of science policing itself.
There's literally no winning with these people.
"Why didn't science correct this one clearly wrong theory?! That means Science is fallible and Evolution is wrong!"
"They did. People looked into the evidence and the scientific consensus stopped using that theory when better ones came around."
"B- But then that means science can be wrong! So Evolution is wrong!"
Unfortunately, since science works in the realm of actual reality, that means it can't just handwave any problems in our theories with "because magic", so we have to actually deal with actually finding evidence and drawing the most likely logical conclusions we have at the time. You know, as opposed to just saying "Shut up, it makes sense, God has a plan, just stop asking questions about it."
i love how creationists latch on a few actual frauds and ignores the whole bigger pictures that shows evolution to be true, but gets angry when EVERYTHING they do is shown to be fraudulent
They also ignore that the people who proved those frauds *were scientists.* They didn't disprove it with the bible, they did it with evidence.
They are basically describing how science is willing to change if provided enough proof, and to aknowledge the mistakes, as if it's a bad thing
Very telling
Yes you have it and they do not read their own bible they cherry pick
Tell me what is true about it? The bigger picture is you are calling something true that tomorrow is not true, but maybe, possibly, probably, might have, you aren't certain, you don't know but....
@@moorek1967 what? evolution? a lot is true about it, everything that ahs been demonstrated to be true about it
yeah, things may change, but you are mistaking our understanding of true and actually true, evolution happened before we even started understanding it, and it most likely will keep being true, just because we are open for being wrong if shown wrong, does not mean we are wrong
yes, i will accept a good evidence evolution is not true, but the evidence evolution is true is already here, is like waiting for gravity to suddenly turn off, things wont change like that, and evolution will keep happening while there is still live, regardless if we understand it or not
"Evolution isn't real because this thing is too similar to the other thing"
"Evolution isn't real because this thing is not the same as this thing"
That pretty much covers them for the whole "Evolution isn't real!" argument.
It's so damn funny that one of the main points of their religion is "Don't tell lies.", yet they all seem very VERY keen to lie about literally everything when it suits them.
He’s all good, St. Augustine said it was ok to lie if you’re talking to sinners in service to “the greater good”
He’s all good, St. Augustine said it was ok to lie if you’re talking to sinners in service to “the greater good”
He’s all good, St. Augustine said it was ok to lie if you’re talking to sinners in service to “the greater good”
Yep. Don't lie, made into the ten commandments but don't rape and don't enslave your neighbors missed the list. What a loving perfect god!
Well actually is not give false witness. They talk out of their ass no witnessing needed
Gotta love how he says APE LIKE CREATURE and conveniently leaves out that it is also a HUMAN like creature.
Good point. I find that I don't know enough about the differences between humans and other apes to quickly think of an example where human-like or (other)-ape-like would be a useful distinction.
@@jimroberts1943If I recall right, there isn't a significant difference in structure between us and other great apes. I think the biggest difference is our tool making and problem solving that our ancestors developed that got us to where we are today.
@@jimroberts1943 I know a lot can be found in the bones ( fossils ) . Like they will have a hip and knee structure that is for walking at an upright angle, but they still have the apposable feet like gorilla's. Or they'll still have the disproportionate arm length with a skull that looks much more on the humanside. That kind of thing. Though they would more than likely have a much more wild ape like outward appearance.
@@denverarnold6210 We are not apes.
I am speaking as an Evolutionary Ecologist here, not a Creationist. Humans are not Apes. Humans are the last surviving Hominids, Hominids and apes evolved from the same ape like ancestor around 7 - 8 million years ago.
Calling humans apes is as incorrect in its own way as denying Evolution, because by calling us apes you are ignoring the 7- 8 million years of diverging evolution between hominids and apes.
Are hominids and apes closely related on an evolutionary scale? Absolutely. I will never even consider correcting anyone who states that as they are absolutely correct.
But I WILL correct people who make the mistake of thinking Hominids are Apes, or vice versa, because they are wrong. We are not, we are Hominids, and there ARE differences.
@@alganhar1 define hominidae for me.
I’m surprised he doesn’t argue that since the fossils were all found lying down that none of them walked upright.
it's about as intelligent as the rest of his arguments so it wouldn't suprise me
People were very sleepy back in those days.
His ability to lie so casually is pretty amazing.
It's the craft of the preacher.
To a theist it's just sincerely saying things you know to be true. It's all just a matter of personal belief until you need something from another human and then you go back to pretending god gave it to you and that humans have the potential but we always fall short. Stupid is as stupid does.
@@stylis666 Struggling to believe there's much sincerity to him.
You mean "bear false witness."
Piltdown man was disputed almost from the moment it was 'discovered'. And part of the reason that it took 40 years to uncover the hoax (other than two world wars intervening which basically shut down all non-war related science) was that the director of the British Museum fought against efforts to have it independently examined.
Stephen J Gould discissed the entire affair in one of his essays relating to the politics of science.
I also love how creationists and many other christians always say that atheists choose to not believe in their god because they don't want to be judged by a higher power. But that would mean that we know that their god exists and WILL judge us BECAUSE we don't believe in it! That DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!
Religion in a nutshell
Because religion is about emotions, not logic.
@@Angel-nl1hp true dat
Fucking romans 1:20, that one stupid passage has convinced too many theist to treat atheist like petty children.
Their god needs to carry on hiding, in case we judge him.
So you're asking me to choose between science that always corrects itself and religion that always gets corrected by science. The choice is obvious
A creationist has to decide one of two things: whether to become honest or stay a creationist because he can't do both. Creationism is just religious extremism, not science.
I usually say that it is impossible to be informed, honest, and a creationist. You can be any two but not all three. I think a lot of creationists are just really ill informed about the evidence. This guy however is just lying.
@@rabbitpirateI love it! Coming from an automotive engineering background, it reminds me of the axiom, "Fast, cheap, reliable... pick two."
Pantheism believes the Universe is a big chemical laboratory which creates all life including us. That makes it prima facie God. It doesn't exclude the idea of a Godhead however. It just says the Universe is infinite in the three dimensions of space and one of time so did not begin and wasn't therefore created. But it's also like science open to new ideas. As a pantheist l could even be persuaded there is a God, I'm not denying that. I just have a problem with the religionist's description of a benevolent omnipotent God who permits all the suffering l see. Pantheism says the creator universe is neither good nor evil, it does what it does. It creates people, it creates pathogens. We humans are as much created by virus attack as anything else. Doctrinaire religions don't like too many questions so seem to have something to hide. They tend to fall back on 'faith' if they can't provide proof. Science looks for evidence, but still isn't generally too arrogant to deny the possibility of a Godhead.
Don't go against the evolutionist dogma or else you'll be misrepresented by the secular guy of the church of scientism.
@@TaxEvasi0nexcept "evolutionism" is not a religion, it won't punish you for disbelieving in it, nor is it based off faith, it's ironic that you used this analogy, it's basically admitting that religion is dogmatic and irrational.
Darwin this, Darwin that. Do creationists know that more than one person is involved with evolution?
I don’t think they do
I'm so glad that I'm not a creationist anymore. They are so annoying and don't want to leave people alone.
Of course they don't.
They assume Darwin must be like the god/prophet of Atheism/Evolution and thus if you can disprove that, the rest of the "religion" will collapse.
Calvin isn’t just from AIG, he’s from AIG, Canada. It’s somehow comforting (yet still frightening) to know that this stupidity isn’t confined to the USA.
The US does keep telling the rest of the world that its borders are porous, but not that this is the contaminant that leaks out.
There is a creation 'museum' in the UK in Portsmouth. I've seen it, it is very small and rather pathetic.
Several years ago I was into AIG. They claim dna was far more "perfect" 2000 years ago. Therefore people could live much much longer. Because of the fall from sin it has been in continual decline since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. So man has only about a hundred years before the decline becomes very serious. That birth deformities will become wide spread and life spans will just plummet to very low levels. Now I think back to all those assertions and just shake my head. But hey, when you're convinced there is a struggle between good and evil, and the ungodly is pushing lies and cloak it very cleverly to make it seem true, there isn't much of a way out. Everything you have to guard against because it deceives you and will lead you to hell and distruction. There's almost no way out of that mindset. The only reason I made it out is I quit going to church and for years I took long walks realizing a lot of things weren't adding up about it. Then one day a light swicth flipped and I honestly faced the possibility all these people were full of bs. I freaked out, and found that very unsettling ( which they gaslight you so it is very unsettling, that's the goal) but once the dust settled, it was game over for me and claims of the supernatural in general.
So glad you made your way out. Out of curiosity, were you born into YEC or did you convert in later?
I ask because I read somewhere that, you cannot use logic to argue someone out of YEC, if they didn’t accept the YEC claims initially, because of logic.
However you seem to have used logic to dismantle their claims, but was it their skewed logic that drew you in initially?
@anthonyrobertson2011 - Not a AIG person, but I was a VERY religious Mormon until 19-20 when I got fed up and left the church. Shortly thereafter, I had the light switch moment when I realized that gods were fantasies. Thanks for coming online, pre-frontal cortez!
Calvin: "OMG all of evolution is wrong because people were wrong about it 100+ years ago"
Can't have footprints from the same species less than a thousand miles apart, but Noah got animals from all continents gathered in one place
There was that little scene dramatizing him opening up the case holding Lucy's bones, ready to re-examine them with a critical eye, no doubt.
If there'd been a following scene showing him trying to sneakily shove the bones down the garbage disposal, it would have been a bit more honest.
Regarding all the hoaxes back then. If I remember correctly there were two main reasons for it. One was the temptation to forge a finding to become famous. The other was racism, by then the idea that humans originated in Africa and we are all related was taking shape and a lot of people didn't like that. Some wanted thier prefered groups to be special but they lacked evidence so the motivation to forge it was born.
This is true. There was also an element of 'National Pride' in having a (supposed) human ancestor found in your country.
Answers In Genesis…nobody ever said they were _correct_ answers.
Lol. I like how he has to debunk 100 year old evidence, while admitting unset science adjusts as we learn. So there's sprinkles of truth, laced together in a way to device believers. This isn't about changing athiests' minds, it's about trying to further deceive believers. So sad, that people won't take the time to try and learn for themselves.
It's been my experience that young Earth creationists purposely go out of their way not to understand evolution.
Agree. They deliberately choose to ignore the evidence, which I find far worse than simple inability to understand it.
I just find it both funny and infuriating how high they are on the dunning kruger's graph first spike
and the switch from creationist to nist christian happens really fast when one is actually looking for answers when they have only been told wrong versions. i actually helped with some peoples deconvertion that way. just open the door for them and let them walk through it themselves
"Ignorance isn't just what you don't know, it's also what you won't know." -Aron Ra
This f-ing guy. I thought atheists were supposed to be the smug ones.
There's no smug like Christian love. :)
@@scottdelahunt586
Getting "smugged" by a flock of christ-stains is no fun ;) .
Funny...
I find it fascinating that AIG always goes after the fossil record. All our fossils could disappear tomorrow, and we'd still know evolution is real. The molecular evidence is blinding in its clarity. It's not at all suspicious that AIG doesn't touch this evidence.
And even if Evolution wasn't true, it still would not make their skydaddy real.
The interesting aspect of the DNA (and other molecules like insulin and cytochrome-c) evidence is that it was not possible to know about such bio-chemistry at the time Darwin and Wallace published. The actual work could not be done until a century later. The fact that the chemistry confirmed the main structure of the evolutionary branching was a critical test of evolutionary theory: If the relationships proposed by evolutionary biologists had not been confirmed by the DNA evidence, the theory would have been in deep trouble.
@@condorboss3339Evolutionists predicted NO genetic similarity left after millions of years. Falsified evolution.
This guy really demonstrated not only how he thinks humans are so great and special that anything that isn't the same as us must be "sub human", but that if we can't answer a question with a complete and perfect answer from day 1, his supernatural explanation must be right by default
let me guess. he is gonna talk about hoaxes and act like this is what the entire scientific community still thinks today.
Bingo! Piltdown man!
You see one creationist video, you've seen them all. These people are so embarrassingly predictable.
@@religionisevil8850 if i had an atom of a penny everytime a creationist said "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" it would be the cause of a whole fucking economic crisis
Their standards are literally hundreds of years old.
Calvin has been informed of this before. He is a deceiver.
Homo Erectus (upright man) has anatomical features indicating they walked upright? What a surprise...
It's funny how instead of going through the anatomy of the various species whoch they deny their bipedity in lrder to prove that they were not bipedal... they just go with "nuh huh"... almost as if they knew that if they did that that would inevitably lead to the conclusion that these animals indeed were bipedals
Monkeys, we love them!!! 🐒🙈🙊🐵🙉🐒🙈🙊🐵🙉🐒🙈🙊🐵🙉🐒🙈🙊🐵🙉🐒🙈🙊🐵🙉🐒🙈🙊🐵🙉🐒🙈🙊🐵🙉🐒🙈🙊🐵🙉🐒🙈🙊🐵🙉🐒🙈🙊
@@hackman669 - Sometimes I wished OUR lineage kept those nifty tails.
8:15
I love this part!
Cherry picks a single expert that agrees with what he wants to convey, while disregarding hundreds of other experts who wholly disagree.
What was that you said about “many are willing to believe a lie rather than the truth, if it suits their purpose. They become *compliant with error* and are *willing to be deceived* “?
"Many are willing to believe a lie instead of the truth if it suits their purpose." Again, do theists have no concept of self awareness when they say these things?
Believers never have any self awareness.
@@cjgroves4429 I would beg to differ. All (or at least most) theists are self aware. Self awareness is defined as conscious knowledge of one's own character, feelings, motives, and desires and I think just about every human fits this description. Many theists might not have great critical thinking skills probably due to indoctrination but that doesn't mean they suddenly aren't self aware. I used to be a believer and I was very much self aware at that time.
@@LisaTheRainbowGiraffe sure, sweetie...sure.
@@cjgroves4429 that's your response? Are you serious? You're doing exactly what most theists tend to do. Ignore the facts. By definition almost every human is self aware including theists. Perhaps a different word fits theists better than non-self aware.
@@LisaTheRainbowGiraffe as if a God botherer would understand what "facts" are...maybe get off the high horse
And what you listed, wasn't even fact in the first place...so maybe try again.
In the beginning of this idiotic presentation, Calvin shows he's not only deliberately deceptive, but antisemitic.
He used a term that is used as a derogatory term for a Jewish lawyer for circus sideshow barkers. He is old enough to know better, but his intended audience is deeply antisemitic, so throwing that in triggers their revulsion.
Age is no guarantee for knowledge :p Just saying :p
But yeah, it's probably a deliberate dog whistle. Calvin does that a lot. He gets away with it easily because his messages don't seem very political, even though they are.
I watched the creationist original of this several months ago. I enjoyed it because I was able to have a good laugh. I am smiling in agreement with the Skeptick’s version. It ever ceases to amaze me how creationists get it so wrong.
He’s saying the inner ear is what identify an upright walker. The real give away is where the spinal chord enters the skull, and how it enters!
He HAS to know that he is lying. He just has to. There is no way he doesn't. Which makes his claim that "people lie about that stuff" pretty ironic. At least I could understand someone saying that who is sincerely believing this BS. But you cannot sincerely believe it when you get corrected a thousand times, especially as a spokesman of an organization that gets corrected a million times.
He's a spokesman for an institute that promotes magic. He get paid to lie. Being honest might cost him his job
Among higher education those people either leave faith or make it a mission to lie about it.
Whether it's because they justify lying for Jesus to be morally good or just have no integrity whatsoever to get church money it's the same result in practice.
@@NewNecro Not entirely. I am an Evolutionary Ecologist, one of my colleagues is a devout Christian. The difference is she treats the bible as Allegory. A series of lessons rather than an absolute truth.
It is perhaps important in this kind of discussion to remember that the kind of religious diehards Calvin represents are actually a minority. I know many, many devout people of religion who do not question Evolution. Its just they are a quiet majority because they are busy with the important things in life.
@@alganhar1 I am curious, because I hear the claim that "the bible is allegory and a series of lessons" from many theists including friends (Creationism is almost non-existent in europe and the bible is not being taught as the absolute truth, not even by the catholics when I attended religious class and took part in communion/protestants here in germany are the way less extreme ones, contrary to the US) but I never understood that claim. The only good lesson I got told is the Samariter one, but other than that every story and "lesson" is either horrendous, useless, in fables that I don't need faith for or outright wrong.
What lessons are they talking about?
Just like TH-cam flat earthers, lying to the gullible for money.
Great video, as per usual! Saving to my "I wish i could share this with my dad" playlist in hopes of actually being able to have a rational conversation with him one day!
Answers in Genesis has stated on their home page that no matter how much evidence they get for evolution, they will dismiss it entirely. They are only interested in their religious extremism, not the discovery of science.
The same way that flat earthers automatically dismiss any pictures of earth with a simple "nuh huh" without any reasons... I genuinely don't understand how you could be against literal fucking learning.... LEARNING IS THE BEST THING IN THE FUCKING WORLD!
"When you choose to start from the premise that one person's guess is just as valid as another person's evidence, you have sacrificed the ability to learn." -Forrest Valkai
@@religionisevil8850 I see we are in front of a man of culture!
AIG's "scientific" body, "Answers Research Journal" includes this in their submittal instructions:
The following criteria will be used in judging papers:
1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
Absolutely, start with the conclusion, and then try to force-fit the evidence. And then make videos saying that _actual_ science is misleading, by giving examples of scientists debunking hoaxes.
@@christasimon9716 it's like antivaxxer trying to debunk current medicine by pointing out that medieval medicine sucked ass
Everyone knows the best place to find real science is at a carnival or in Geico commercials.
Calvin and AiG are masters of conveniently leaving out key points and including just enough to sound credible and intelligent. They say it with confidence and that way sell it to the gullible.
Lie to the flock so that they will continue to be fleeced.
Never appeared credible or intelligent to me....
@@nagranoth_ not to anyone with critical thinking skills. Only their gullible flock.
@@RichWoods23 Exactly. If you don't remind you abuse victims that the situation is completely normal and healthy and that the abusers are loving, they might start thinking rationally instead of rationalizing the abuse and we can't have that. Religiosity takes practice.
Can someone please explain how similar footprints found 900 miles from Lucy disqualifies the ones found near her?
I really want to support your channel so I'm leaving a comment. I'd love to give you the watch time too but damn, I can't sit through more than a couple minutes of answers in genesis before the misinformation gets my blood pressure up.
Watch on 2x speed 😊
It's like, you sort the evidence for evolution into a huge pile of viable evidence, and a tiny heap of mistakes, misinterpretations and a few frauds, and the creationists point at the tiny heap, and go, "See, we told you so!"
The Kipling quote is, in fact, a quote mine (quelle surprise!). The initial line of Kipling's poem contrasts East and West as geographical terms: however, he goes on to describe how they have no significance as cultural terms - "But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,/ When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!"
I have a science textbook that my grandfather had in the 1930s which is very skeptical about Piltdown Man. Scientists doubted it almost from the beginning.
Actaully we have David Waterston in 1913 saying that its a combination of ape jaw and human skull that right back at the start.
What's the title of this book?
@@Blablabla-ol2tr The Story of Man, by Mabel Cook Cole and Fay-Cooper Cole. University of Chicago Incorporated, 1937. It specifically describes Piltdown Man as "the most disputed of all discoveries of early man." p. 38.
@@Blablabla-ol2tr Just found out some interesting stuff! Fay Cooper Cole founded the Anthropology Department at the University of Chicago, and testified at the Scopes "Monkey Trial."
There's nothing in alligator anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual or linguistic abilities inferior to those of crocodiles.
Guess we better affirm that alligators are crocodiles. Because similar qualities to another species just means it's the same species apparently.
It's funny how they cite a literal "evolutionist" who would literaly fucking kill himself if he ever saw the video due to the sheer stupidity that it emits to make him say "HAHA they're the same species" when really all he said is "neanderthals where not dumb as shit"
And komodo dragons are just alligators who don't like to take quite as many baths.
Hail Lisa.
The rainbow giraffe
more hen
It always makes me laugh when these idiots say “ape-man”. Perhaps they should also say “mammal-man”, “vertebrate-man” or even “eukaryote-man”.
“People thought wrong things previously and science corrected it, therefore religion is correct”…. You can’t make up the sheer hubris and stupidity of these people. In their eyes a wrong belief held consistently throughout time (religion) is superior to a belief that corrects itself based on the latest evidence and that is openly held up to scrutiny.
What’s irritating is he presents himself like some sort of esteemed scientist while spouting complete nonsense.
Who's gonna tell this guy that bipedal walking has been around in our branch of apes for a long time...
Evidence?
Fossils? Fake. A bearded genie in the sky no one can see, hear, or detect in any way. Totally legit.
Wish other human species existed today!!! Come on science clone them back.😁
How to ignore?
Creationists: 🙈🙉🙊
But I like animals!😃
Creationists have to use stuff from hundreds of years ago because that's how old their arguments are. They never change. A bit like flerfs.
This guy realy says that going back and rechecking your work invalidates the answer because you got it wrong the first time Smh.
Regarding Piltdown man: I remember from over 70 years ago my father, who was a creationist but, unlike typical modern creationists an honest man, saying that "evolutionists" did not like Piltdown man, because he didn't fit in with the rest of what could then be interpreted as available evidence of human evolution. That was before the hoax was definitely exposed.
Having watched further, I lower my estimation of the honesty of modern creationists.
So his argument is... science changes as it learns new information and corrects its mistakes? 😂
Notice that he never got around to saying HOW OLD these fossils are?
Ape man!😄
The reason that Lucy is believed to have been bipedal is the location and shape of the connection between the skull & the spine. If she had tried to move quadripedally, she'd have had a permanent neckache. Gutsick Gibbon has repeatedly described this.
Sorry - I don't remember the technical terminology
Anterior foramen magnum! I've memorized her list of the bipedal characteristics.
All those evidence he shows, is exactly why i trust science. Science evolve, correct, comes with new theories when new evidence are found.
So God was a bloody ape. If man was made in his, it's image then Gid is a giant, hairy monkey 👨
@@hackman669 if u are christian yeah
Joking. Please don't take me seriously. Ever😃
@@hackman669 💀
@@hackman669life could be a dream, life could be a dream
I enjoy how they act all learned, as if they respect science.. only to be pushing magic as their answer.
I genuinely find it wild that there are adults who don’t “believe in” evolution. You’d think they’d surely have to wonder “well maybe there’s something to every scientist on earth saying this,” look into it, and obviously conclude it’s what the facts are. Like, how could you not do that? If you’re arguing creationism, and look at the other side’s evidence so you can back up your claim, in the case of evolution, how the actual fuck do you walk away going “yep they’re wrong”?!??
I have recently learned a bit about the history of Science and The Theory of Evolution keeps getting more impressive in my opinion.
Not only is it one of the oldest extant scientific theories (160 + years), but for at least the first 70 years it wasn’t universally accepted by Science. Physicists had not worked out how stars worked and consequently couldn’t conceive of how the earth could be as old as evolution said it had to be.
To my mind, Darwin’s theory was prescient of everything from Einstein’s theories, to quantum tunnelling, as well as plate tectonics and of course the flow of information in biology from DNA to RNA to protein synthesis.
AIG can cherry pick all the quotes about evolution it wants, but the truth is, Evolution stood up to Physics and won!
Wow this was a game of Creationists bingo .
It's really sad when you watch their videos for the first time & pretty much know where it's going to go.
I can only imagine the headache you must have had?
Love the videos by the way!
So his way of debunking evolution is stuff that science alrwady debunk and said it not part of evolution. Andndoesnt talk about any of the modern scientific evidence for evolution. This is like debunking modern medicine with the mad medicine done with doctors in the victorian area.
Could only make it halfway through AIG's sneering presentation before my blood pressure said nope!
You ok? Just enjoy the comedy show. 🤣
Lucy's bipedality was determined by the shape of the pelvis, NOT friggin' footprints 😒
Hi guys. Anyone who rejects evolution as the source of life's diversity should consider the Lake Taal snake. This fresh water sea snake didn't exist 450 years ago, as a volcanic eruption closed off a salt water bay (with salt water sea snakes), the bay became gradually fresh water over time, and now there are fresh water "sea" snakes that can't live or reproduce in salt water. So . . . we have a different species that is less than 500 years old. The Latin binomial is Hydrophis semperi, and they are horribly venomous (if anyone is curious).
@kevinmlevites8429 - I don't know if this is accurate, but I remember reading once where London mosquitos that found themselves trapped in the Underground, unable to find a way out, have evolved rapidly into a new species.
His cherry-picking and bias is so obvious that I don’t think Calvin is trying to credibly debunk evolution. I think he is trying to ensure believers will find information that will fulfill their confirmation bias because of the TH-cam algorithm.
Pretty much spot on. That's essentially entirely what they are doing.
"One person from 200 years ago was wrong once, therefore god" is a complete non sequitur
"... that drove false conclusions. All based on laughably flimsy evidence."
I am not at all convinced that he wasn't thinking of the claims and arguments from AIG when he said that.
Can they introduce an Oscar for best projector?
What I get from this AIG video is that a religious sucker is born every minute!
the bird analogy doesnt work against creationists because they have to believe all birds are the same "kind". so an eagle is the same thing as a penguin😂
True! 😅😅😅
I think Ken Ham would say that the penguin kind is different from the raptor kind, because for extant terrestrial vertebrates he likes to say that "kind" is about the taxonomic family level. Although for bacteria, the "kind" is a whole domain! His problem is to get few enough "kinds" to fit in the box described in Genesis and be cared for and fed for a year by only eight people, but many enough to evolve into the millions of species that existed a few centuries after the flood,
The evolution of corn through artificial selection is one of the greatest proofs of evolution, man, if you look at how the original plant and how the modern plant look like, THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, and that without genetic engineering, only through extreme evolutionary pressure, it proves how living beings can give origin to completely different things
THE EVOLUTION OF CORN IS A TRUE EXAMPLE OF WHAT THEY CALL MACROEVOLUTION
No, since it is still the same species. THe best evidence for macroevolution are the manyx examples where we have directly observed the evolution of a new species. WE did that both in the lab and in the wild. Once a species is split into 2 species (whbich in nature usually happens (which in nature usually hapens when one population gets bseparated from the rest opf the spcies and thus undergoes their own path) there is no going back since they can no longer exchange any changes between them. Thus they have to become even more different over time forming new genuses, new families etc.
It's so cute when these mythologists attempt to sound as if they understand science at all.
If the word of the Lord is absolute and eternal, and the Bible is the word of the Lord, why isn't this guy living like they did 2,000 years ago? He seems to be enjoying the comforts of a suit, a warm library, a lamp running on electricity, all these things SCIENCE created.
Love your videos!!!!!! Thanks skeptic!!
I appreciate that!
How can you tell a creationist is lying?
He's still breathing.
And their lips are moving😅
@@MarkJones-zh3ho it's an f-. Like take the "f" out of "breath of life," and you get the fundamentals of being a creationist.
But yeah a shortcut is to see moving lips.
20:20 we know that Autralopithecus was bipedal because pevial articulation and femur were similar to humans.
And we have also Laetoli footprints.
Calvin is terrible.
@17:10, is this guy deliberately being dishonest or does he really have no understanding of the topic he’s constantly trying to “debunk”? Nobody said those footprints were made by “Lucy”, they were dated to 400-500k years older than Lucy ffs! Please tell me this guy’s just trying to fool naive creationists & isn’t really this ignorant so I can stop feeling 2nd hand embarrassment for him. Does he really think Lucy is the only one of her species ever found? Or to ever walk the earth? Does he know how fossils and heat work? Oof!
Where to start…first of all more complete fossils than Lucy have been found and there’s absolutely no doubt that they were bipedal, none, zero, zip, zilch. The feet, knees, hips and foramen magnum make that abundantly clear…but if that wasn’t enough proof for willfully ignorant YECs, there’s two separate tracks of the Laetoli footprints and track A contains footprints of a bipedal hominin that’s clearly not human due to the obviously divergent big toe and abnormal gait! They’re not wide enough to fit a chimp but way too wide to fit a modern human or known homo species…you know, like exactly what you’d expect from a transitional or archaic bipedal hominin that lived millions of years ago🤦♀️ Those 3 sets of footprints were most likely made by two DIFFERENT hominin species. They date earlier than known homo species, and there’s no hand prints to go with those footprints so wtf kind of ridiculous argument is he trying to make?! Does he think 3 different apes just decided to walk bipedally for no reason, cuz he can’t say they’re all human with one set having such a divergent (aka protruding) big toe.
So Lucy was found and dated to 3.2 million years ago, then the Laetoli footprints were found and dated to 3.6 million years ago, then more complete fossils of Lucy’s species were found that confirmed everything paleoanthropologists hypothesized about Lucy (mainly the feet cuz despite what this guy’s claiming Lucy’s knee, hip, and foramen magnum clearly indicated she was bipedal) and he’s gonna try to argue against ALL of that evidence (and tons more he either doesn’t seem to know about or intentionally ignores) on the basis that the footprints were found too far away from Lucy?!!! WTAF 🤣🤣🤣 someone really needs to tell this guy that no scientists are claiming those footprints were made BY Lucy herself 😂 and that the oldest hominin fossils found - which date as far back as 7 million years ago - all have characteristics that indicate bipedality, not knuckle-walking…which is why most scientists no longer believe we evolved from knuckle-walkers but rather from arboreal bipedals and it was chimpanzees that evolved into terrestrial knuckle walkers! Seriously, does this guy read anything other than the Bible? Or any science textbook that was written this decade? I’m legit embarrassed for him, and if he knew how silly he sounded he’d prob be embarrassed too. What makes it worse is other creationists will repeat his bs cuz they don’t know any better. Yikes!
"Ape-like human fossils" is a really funny thing to say.
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
Voltaire
Nebraska Man only ever fooled one scientist - the guy who found the tooth. The drawing of the Nebraska Man family in that magazine was the product of the artists' imagination, and met with protests even from the scientist in question.
And if I am not mistaken, he actually was an amateur (or maybe it was another case of hoax but i am to lazy to look it up)
@@NeilDegrasseTysonWithAKatana,
It was heralded as the first higher primate of North America. It was originally described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922, on the basis of a tooth found by rancher and geologist Harold Cook in Nebraska in 1917. Although Nebraska man was not a deliberate hoax, the original classification proved to be a mistake, and was retracted in 1927. - Wikipedia the Font of All Knowledge and Propaganda
More details:
Further field work on the site in the summers of 1925 and 1926 uncovered other parts of the skeleton. These discoveries revealed that the tooth was incorrectly identified. According to these discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor an ape, but to a fossil of an extinct species of peccary called Prosthennops. The misidentification was attributed to the fact that the original specimen was severely weathered. The earlier identification as an ape was retracted in the journal Science in 1927. - Wikipedia
I like how he leaves out examples of the opposite process - teeth originally identified as non human primate then reassigned to hominids.
Neanderthals ARE human. They are not, however, Homo Sapiens.
Also, Neanderthals WERE apes. Just like Homo Sapiens.
I, for one, am proud to be an ape
We should bring our ape cousins back. Who is with me, clone the Neanderthal 😄
The reason we know Lucy walked upright has nothing to do with any footprints. It is because of her bowl shaped pelvis, something only upright walkers have, the valgus knee & the foramen magnus articulation. See, I pay attention to Gutsick Gibbon! This old dog can learn a new trick or 2.
This video was made for creationists. In an attempt to stem the tide of people leaving. It was not made with anybody scientifically literate in mind.
neanderthale where indeed fully human. because human is the name we call our entire genus. so yeah. human is not a species, it is a genus.