I am begging Creationists to Stop Saying This
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- NON-HUMAN HOMINIDS CAN HAVE WHITE SCLERA JUST GOOGLE IMAGE SEARCH IT YOU GUYS.
But cool new papers on the subject!
Sources:
www.sciencedir...
www.nature.com...
elifesciences....
Outro: Point Pleasant by Brock Berrigan
www.brockberrig...
open.spotify.c...
Socials:
gutsickgibbon@gmail.com
@Gutsick_Gibbon
Support the channel!
/ gutsickgibbon
www.redbubble....
The “soulful eyes” of renderings of early hominids remark was funny to me. I’ve never seen an ape that didn’t have soulful eyes! That’s one of the things that draws us to them. Sure, they look a lot like us, but when we look into their eyes, we can see that they are having thoughts. Probably quite similar to our thoughts.
My mother talks about seeing a gorilla at the Philadelphia Zoo back in the 60s that brought her to tears. She saw the desperation in his eyes.
I usually get depressed when I go to a zoo. Some of those animals KNOW that they don’t belong there. Mostly the apes, the big cats, and the elephants. It breaks my heart too much.
I remember watching a documentary decades ago where a male gorilla used sign language to describe the murder of his mother by poachers. It was fucking heartbreaking. You could absolutely see that he was traumatized by it.
Apes have eyes that just feel so deep and intelligent and aware...
I mean even invertebrates can have "soulful eyes", that make them appear pretty thoughtful and whatnot
They're basically committing the black swan fallacy. Which is sadly not surprising since they're Creationists.
If they didn't have fallacies, they wouldn't have anything at all.
@@ambulocetusnatans That's true. LOL Better a something that's nothing than nothing.
They struggle to comprehend that humans have a history back into the stone age.
Tarzan of the Hominids!
When Tarzan was written we didn't that there is no such animal as an ape--but rather a class of animals which includes hoomen, chimps, bonobos, and orangutans. WE are apes, right?
My dog has white sclera and blue eyes. I just assumed white sclera and eye colors other than brown just happen naturally with all animals. But then again, I also don't have a problem with accepting the fact that my dog is a VERY distant relative who shares a common ancestor with me.
Hell, even my cat has whites in her eyes. She has big irises (as cats often do) so you don't see them often, but you can see it when she looks to the side. It's not unique to humans or even primates. Lots of critters have them.
Horses can have white sclera so I guess that makes them human as well. If that is the criteria that creationists are using then most animals are human.
My dogs all have white scolera too.
@@stevenleonard7219 "pets are people too" confirmed by YECs 😂
It's all part of the variation in nature that makes evolution possible, giving life the flexibility to survive and adapt in a changing world. Go nature!
We have a rescue cat with an injury that pulled the corner of one of her eyes up and yes, there's the visible white sclera.
When I say rescue cat, we came downstairs one day to find a strange cat on our couch, covered in dried blood (we have a catflap for our own cats, so we think she got in to escape an attack). After having the vet clean and patch her up (we weren't sure at first she would make it) we she adopted us, and 4 years later she's upstairs sleeping on our bed.
I saw a creationist video in which the creationist claims [non-human] apes don't have white sclerae-with a picture of a gorilla with white sclerae in his own background. One hopes at least one person in his audience noticed and began to doubt.
@@nochancewithoutpasta7637 Agree. Anyone who seeks out nonsense like that is looking for reassurance, not truth.
@@sarahchristine2345 sometimes these videos are shown to kids to try to indoctrinate them. tho I will admit I do not know the majority demographic for that type of video.
The tried and true creationist argumentation technique: blatant lies.
Or simply being so certain of the truth (as they believe) that they see no reason to fact-check.
@@julietfischer5056.
AiG openly state that any evidence, which contradicts the words of the Bible, will be rejected. They have no intention of learning the truth.
@@grahvis- They believe they have the truth, which means rejecting anything that contradicts or questions their beliefs is wrong and should be rejected. Which is why they will never, ever, make any groundbreaking discoveries in the sciences. It will be better mousetraps forever and ever.
@@julietfischer5056 .
And why, no matter their qualifications, not one of them can claim to actually be a scientist.
@@grahvis- Their scientific careers are necessarily limited. A biologist or geologist who believes the Earth is only 6 to 10 thousand years old is not going into any specialty that requires acknowledging reality.
"Affectionate smiles" aren't unique to humans either.
This is not science denial on the creationist parts, it is reality denial.
Evolution is not reality. It's not mathematically possible for one, two, it can't explain the complexity we see in life, three, it can't be proved and never has been observed, four, you have to believe in it on faith, it's really a faith-based system, five, you always scream about "so much evidence, mountains of evidence", etc, but never show it, six, your dating techniques are faulty, all radiometric methods rely on assumptions to be able to calculate dates, but you can't verify the assumptions, it's all in the past, so how can you trust the dates that they give you? I'll stop with a quote, Dr William Stansfield, who wrote The Science of Evolution says on page 84, "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock"." At least he's honest, unlike some other evolutionists.
They are good at that
A simple Google search is enough to debunk every creationist claim.
The difference is with the other debunking you usually have to do some kind of reading, with this one you have to do nothing but look at a picture, that is what is so frustrating about this particular apologetic.
Agreed. It's a bit like the flerfers and photos of the earth.
Damn atheist Google! Always foiling their plans.
You're not wrong, but I suggest that Duckduckgo is way better than Google. If a creationist uses Google all the time, it's likely to tell them what they want to hear.
Because they haven't had a new thought in ages!
Creationists failing to even try is a hallmark of the genre
Of course they don't check if they are right. They have faith that they are right and faith is all they need to KNOW they are right.
Why try? Trust Jesus. /s
I don't think it's that they don't try. I think it's that it doesn't matter whether or not it's a lie. Lying for Jesus is A-OK because it's for Jesus.
@@ambulocetusnatans
It is more that they believe Faith = Knowledge but only for those who share their faith.
So many also think that if they somehow "prove" a piece of science wrong that proves THEIR religion right. It doesn't.
True that!
"This is accomplished by merely putting a white sclera in the eyes"
So, they admit that the only difference between a human's eyes and an ape's eyes is the color of the sclera*, and they think this is a point _against_ the argument that we evolved from an ape-like ancestor?
* Ignoring that apes can have white sclera
The lie is effective because they assume that everybody else is just as dishonest as they are. It's like the old saying "a thief is the first one to accuse others of stealing"
It's a real "checkmate atheists" moment
@@ambulocetusnatans Also they assume that all who might accept a creator are as llazy, intellectually dishonest and ignorant as they are. From everything I've read and studied over the years, humans are apes.
Proud of my ape ancestors!
@@anonymousjohnson976 Me, too! They survived under conditions that might have killed many modern humans, myself included.
I'm a Christian in the Bible belt who happens to also be just a tiny bit literate in Science, and I can tell you firsthand there's a whole demographic of people who desperately clutch at the kind of videos you highlight as validation for a super-traditional interpretation of the Bible. I'm part of a men's group currently 'investigating' the age of the Earth, and your videos are hugely helpful in combating misinformation and confirmation bias. Thanks for all you do and keep up the great work!
Have you checked out BioLogos? It might be easier for them to accept
There is also a channel called "Geo Girl" that may interest you. Like Erica, Rachel is PhD student, but her specialty is biomarkers in the geologic record. Just as I learn from Erica's videos on primatology, Rachel's videos are informative about how the evolution of life has changed the Earth's chemistry, even when the fossil evidence for life was very scarce in Precambrian Time.
@@maxdanielj Thanks! I'll check it out.
@@MichaelV34 Thanks for the recommendation! I'll check it out!
"Traditional" may be a misnomer here, since the people of the time this book was written would have read it considerably differently than these people do. Most of these so-called traditions are likely rather more recent than these people believe.
GG is giving creationists way too much credit for being honest about their intentions and arguments.
I’m sure she knows this though and is being charitable by pretending they’re just stupid and/or lazy rather than deceptive.
They are stupid, lazy, and deceptive because money and religious nonsense.
They're trying to use pseudoscience to proselytize (even coerce or manipulate people to convert to their religion). I've had many credible death threats from that crowd, because I regularly say or write something that they do NOT like. One even went to jail for the threats - as well as several months of internet stalking and constant online harassment.
@@RedHeart64 I’m sorry you had to deal with that. What flavor of mass delusion did the jailbird belong to?
@@sswwooppee He (and the team that helped him - very common) are Dominionists - they were of the New Apostolic Reformation movement. That's based on things he said that fit right in with that movement but not other similar ones.
@@RedHeart64 that’s super creepy.
My dog and cats have white scleras, you just don't see it often. Even if other apes didn't have white sclera, other animals do. For apes it just seems to depend on the individual
Evolutionary pressure can go both ways. It may be favorable to indicate directionality, while at other times it may be advantageous to conceal it.
@@DoctorZisIN I do find it interesting Other apes are starting to pick up the advantage of sight signaling though. I wonder if we'll see that 1/6 number shift towards a majority white sclera in a couple of generations
@@DoctorZisIN I think it's also easier to hide from predators and to stalk prey if an animal's sclera are brown or hidden.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a dog or cat without white sclera.
i've read an article some time ago, that the eyes of canis familiaris being similar to humans is the result of domestication by humans. having expressive human-like eyes gave dogs an easy means of communication among their human owners/companions.
also, i have never seen a cat with white sclera before..
Dishonesty is the hallmark of Creationism.
Not all creationists are YEC but there are many creationists that actually believe in evolution.
@@patrickhartsgrove9233 To "believe" in _any_ form of Creationism is dishonest because it can only be defended using dishonest means.
@@humbleevidenceaccepter7712 That was dishonest
@@humbleevidenceaccepter7712 For someone who calls himself "humble evidence accepter" you sure do not examine the evidence presented.
@@patrickhartsgrove9233 I'm sorry, what peer-reviewed published evidence did you present that I "did not examine?"
We'll wait right here.
Asking a young Earth creationists to be honest is like asking a chicken to not be a dinosaur
That thing you did there.... I saw that.
”The T-rex had these teeny tiny arms, and you expect us to believe that chickens are doing hand stands on them?”
No, Matt. Those teeny tiny arms became the chicken's wings, and they're *delicious.*
@@nochancewithoutpasta7637 Nope, get my license, an AR-15, and start the biggest chic fil a!
@@nochancewithoutpasta7637 No you’re right, an AR would only piss him off. Change of plans: I might need a 50 cal. or a mini gun.
@@nochancewithoutpasta7637 right?
I certainly wouldn't try to take down a bear with an AR-15, much less a T-Rex that could bite a bear in half.
One simply does not hunt dinosaurs with anything smaller than an M2.
Its not just creationists. Many people just vomit words without a care. Very few people TRY to understand what they're saying.
Hi. BUT, especially fanatical creationists who became confused right from the moment they started taking things like those miracles in the Bible on literal terms‼️😨😀
You see, Gibbon, the main problem with this argument is that although you are absolutely correct, young earth creationists would just claim that any evidence contrary to their position was fabricated, no matter how much mental gymnastics they must perform in order to do this.
"Satan put the white sclera there!"
God gave some apes and monkeys white sclera to test the faith of humanity, and also Satan gave some apes and monkeys white sclera to cast doubt within the heart of mankind as to the veracity of God's Truth of a literal 7-day creation where God created male and female simultaneously before taking a nap, followed by another couple days of creation because God forgot that he already made the universe and so hit the "New World" button in his Minecraft file.
@@onijester56 god is an evolutionist, that's why he is faking the evidence for creationism, obviously
Like these evidences? You mean like when they told us that the Peppered Moth was darkening due to the industrial revolution and showing evolution, but there had always been dark moths and it was exactly the same species as before the industrial revolution? And that they had glued them on the trees because they don't normally land on trees? the "extinct" Coelacanth as a "transition" between fish and tetrapods, and then a live ones were found and they were all nothing but 100% fish? You can see them swimming around on You Tube. See any "emerging" legs? And oh yeal, turns out the Coelacanth is a deep sea fish. Gee, that would be tough, going from the depths of the oceans to learning to walk on land. You mean like when they tell you that antibiotic resistant and nylon eating bacteria are showing evolution, but hey are still just bacteria. Or, if not, what nonbacterial type life form are they "evolving" into? You mean like when Richard Dawkins and others say you "evolved" from bacteria or bacterial colonies but all the data - you know, what real science uses - since 1670 shows that no matter how much they change bacteria always stay bacteria? You mean like when they told you that the tonsils and appendix were "vestigial" based on no evidence whatsoever? The children who were most likely to suffer from the polio epidemic last century were those who had their "useless, vestigial" tonsils removed. Real science has shown that the tonsils and the appendix are highly useful for immunological purposes, particularly for children. You mean like the peer reviews about the phony "horse evolution" series which shows animals from different continents that are somehow mysteriously all connected, with ribs and lumbar vertebrae whose numbers go back and forth, until we get to the modern day horse? - that Tiktaalik is a wonderful transition from fish to tetrapod? But check it out on Wiki. It is described as an extinct species of...lobe finned FISH. Period. the hailed Miller and Urey experiments for demonstrating that life can come from inorganic matter? It didn't matter that they didn't even get close to creating life. They created some amino acids, the kinds that KILL life. They never bothered to explain how even the right kinds of amino acids could gather the many other components needed for a single "simple" cell, put them together in statistically impossible ways if done by random chance, and then bring them to life. - when they try to explain why the countless billions of fossils of extinct, deep sea, creatures are found wrapped around mountain tops around the world, not uncommonly in almost mint condition. (Bing: Trilobites on mountains tops, for example.) They go on and on about how it certainly wasn't a Great Flood, but "plate tectonics" that moved the fossils for, they say, millions of years to the tops of those mountains from the depths of the sea. It's like they never even heard of something called erosion. Haeckel's embryos? Remember that classic lie? Junk DNA? 98% match with chimps? Pakicetus, Nebraska Man, the list goes on...How could anyone deny the “facts” of evolution? And, An evolutionary True Believer and educator, one Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE,3 proudly stated: "it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.’ “You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, (“non- overlapping magisteria” model, or NOMA) but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.” “If a student, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives. It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don’t you think?’ Once again, better to have them believe overt falsehoods than deny the evolutionary religion. (This article can be Googled and read at length or there is another one: Smith, Anika, Lying in the Name of Indoctrination, Evolution News and Views, Discovery Institute, 27 August 2008). evolutionnews.org/2008/08/ lying_in_the_name_of_indoctrin/ Oh and the Lucy statue, The St Louis Zoo when questioned why their Lucy statue had human hands and feet when none were found, they replied that "yes we know but we're not gonna change it because it gets the point we want to make across". And the show Nova showed where a "scientist" broke apart Lucy's pelvis and reassembled it into a more human configuration. Yeah some real honest scientific work there!
Would non-ape animals (for example canines) having white sclera enter this discussion? I’m in particular thinking of wolves and domesticated dogs which also both depend on social organization.
There are studies on wolves using white sclera for social communication. Ie showing submission/aggression.
But white sclera are sometimes found in solitary canids too (foxes, for example).
Some social ungulates have white sclera as part of natural variation (cows, horses).
But again, it is also found in hippos.
Horses have white sclera but I don’t think they would use it to track gaze, they’d watch where everyone else’s heads/ears were pointing. Maybe it’s more of a warning since horses don’t open their eyes wide enough to show sclera unless they’re scared?
I was a creationist, and a young earth one at that. I had two options in light of so much evidence....ignore it completely, or abandon my faith. Needless to say I abandoned my faith entirely. Science and creationism just don't mix. You can literally see the evolution of species in fossils, especially the human skull.
@Titil3223 That's a false dichotomy: the options also include abandoning the rigid YEC stance that isn't supported by any biblically competent theology while not throwing everything else out - like the vast majority of Christians outside the US, who accept evolutionary and big bang theories. Not trying to drag you back into the fold, just saying.
Compassion for all Christians. They are only one god away from being an atheist. We welcome you. Peace.
So at the time of viewing this video, it has 77 views. But only 22 likes. Does that mean that there are 55 butt hurt creationists. Who watched it, but didn’t like it?
Or there are lots of people enjoying the channel, but not hitting the like button before they leave?
Come on you guys, we have to feed the algorithm for Erica
Thats why we comment to.
@@UltrEgoVegeta
Absolutely 👍
The average youtube video gets one like for every ten views, so I'd say this video is doing well.
I don't usually like a video, I typically just forget to
To my knowledge most people don't press like on yt videos unless that video like changed their life, it's just part of yt culture
eye gaze cues are paramount for non verbal communication between me and my social group. we also point at things with our chin. thank you GG, great content as always. kudos.
Don’t forget about the pipe, which is also a useful tool to point with: th-cam.com/video/xARBjq_pZOw/w-d-xo.html (Danny Barker and Bill Bailey on QI)
I've seen it at the zoo... Not having even the most limited interactions with monkeys and apes available at a zoo might explain their inability to connect us with the other branches of our family tree.
Yeah, they should just go to the zoo. I have seen it as the zoo too.
Perhaps "don't try when you see the whites of their eyes" is the motto of these creationists.
Begging them to stop lying for Jesus is a bit like asking the wind to stop blowing. Making you/me/us get exasperated is how they keep score. NO evidence will be good enough, because, at its core, there's no money in it.
This argument from creationists is bizarre. Not only do other primates have white sclera, white sclera is reasonably common in the animal kingdom. My dog had fairly visible white sclera. Especially if he was scared or I had food he wanted but didn't feel confident enough to just take.
Dogs, cats, cows, horses, to name a few.
As a creationist, I agree. GG wants us to own this argument, so I'll happily comply. Of course other primates have white sclera. Not sure how this debunks creationism, not sure how the alternative would debunk evolution, but I also adopt the position that proving any singular origin theory is beyond the full scope of human capability. The whole debate just devolves into an intellectual arms race of sides trying to point out flaws in the others' arguments. We're always going to find a flaw in the alternative, but I'll admit, some of the things I see creationists claim are, quite frankly, ludicrous. I still believe in creationism, for a variety of different reasons, but this argument doesn't hold water.
@@ianodell2516 Evolution isn't an origin theory, though. It *requires* life to already exist and only explains what happens then. And compared to many other theories, the Theory of Evolution is well beyond reasonable doubt, while Creationism is not a theory to begin with. So there's no actual competition between the two.
@@Llortnerof my apologies, you are correct. I'm afraid I'm very used to less educated folks that dispute creation attacking my personal views while rolling their theories up with education, so it's a bad habit of mine to associate them. I will dispute that creationism isn't a theory, and I will argue that a theory that requires a deity to operate is still a theory, no matter how far-fetched it may seem. In my experience, most people in these comment sections aren't interested in changing their minds on their beliefs, so I will refrain from sharing my grievances with certain parts of the theory of evolution. I probably don't know enough about the theory to debate it with you anyway. Thank you for identifying my false association.
@@ianodell2516 I'd suggest you learn about the exact parameters for what a scientific theory is. That may help you understand why Creationism not only does not qualify, but cannot.
I'll note that the presence of a deity in and of itself is not a relevant factor, though Omnipotence is a rather significant hurdle. (It does not matter who possesses this omnipotence, although one could argue that any being that does would be a god by default)
"But all those pictures are photoshopped!" -Creationists, probably
That's O.K. All images of Christ are drawn or painted.
I forget who it was, but I saw it in a Sir Sic video. He thought Koalas didn't exist because their photos are too good.
They'll stop saying that when flerfs will stop saying that 'the Earth spins at 1000 MPH'...
Well, the Earth has to rotate at 900 knots (nautical miles per hour) at the Equator because of Babylonian maths wheter the innumerate flerts like it of not.
My biggest pet peeve is their question: "If we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?"
Mine is: why is your scientific theory more valid than my interpretation of a book of contradictory bronze age myths?
If we came from god why is there still god
These creationists DO NOT search up anything they are told by their apologists.
They don't want to learn and know.
They want to believe.
And they believe lies that affirm their assumed conclusions, wether they are honest lies, or sincere.
The most important thing in religion, is belief, faith, do NOT question, if there is doubt, you are in sin and are going to suffer eternal pain or be reborn as a worm or something along those lines...
Evidence be damned.
I've noticed that primatology and anthropology are particular areas where their arguments are weak.
Any -ology except theology.
i like the idea that the white of the eyes help emphasize where you are looking, for communicative purposes. my dog does exactly this. she has found that it works for her to tell me what she wants by staring in the direction of where it is. like looking up on the table where there is food she wants to taste, then looking back at me again, switching her gaze like this until i react. her head does not move at all, only her eyes. i like how we find different nonverbal ways to communicate with each other throughout the years like this, no matter how simple the goal. eye communication definitely has a huge impact. something we might not think much about too, is that dogs also have whites in their eyes, their pupils and irises are just much larger, but it can be seen when they look to the sides
Creationist dupe: *_"If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"_*
Anyone remotely competent in high school science: *"..."*
Millions of actual scientists: **
One gentle ape scientist: ** _"...What did you just say..!?"_
**
If humans came from humans, whe are there still humans?
Basically that.
Very well said. To speak an untruth out of ignorance is reckless but understandable. To continue to speak the untruth when the reality is right there for the seeing, indefensible.
Any young earth creationists out there? Speak up, I want to hear your response. Can you respond?
Even my dogs have white sclera, wolves do not - this has evolved in dogs since domestication, it obviously did not take that long to evolve
My breakthrough in understanding creationists came when I realized they aren't the least bit interested in Life on Earth.
I like Gutsick's vids, I usually don't click on the ones that address creationists. The thing is these people literally believe (at least some of them) that accepting that humans evolved from non humans sheds doubt on the Bible (or Quran etc) and is sending people to hell. It's hard to rationalize with one stuck in that mind set, and some 30 years ago when I was a teen I was there. I got over it over time because of my curiosity about our true origins.They won't wake up until they are read, and at least half or more of them never will be. Even among atheists/agnostics I am often surprised at the lack of interest in our now fairly well known origins.
Dehumanizing your opponents is pretty standard fare for cullts, but it's weirdly ironic when they dehumanize non-human apes like this. It's hard to explain how I feel about that. Amusement is part of it. I can't quite remember what the right word was and I came across a few trying to find it, but I still can't quite place it. It's one of those really old strange words long fallen out of common usage that you're reminded of sometimes in silly online lists and finally realize you'd seen before in a book decades before but couldn't figure out.
That's gonna bother me less than the tired five-seconds-of-google-proves-them-wrong lies from the cultists, but it's still irritating.
Schaden freude, perhaps?
@@harrietharlow9929 Naw it's one of those strange ones like sonder or whelmed or something. My brain is doing that annoying thing where it thinks "it's got a -chton sound in it" that's going to end up having nothing even close to that. Damn word feels like it's on the tip of my tongue but I'm blocked right there.
I'd _love_ for it to be schadenfreude because that would mean they're suffering as a consequence of the crap they're pushing and I'd get to enjoy them getting a proper comeuppance for once instead of _the opposite of that._
@@EdwardHowton I knew it wasn't schadenfreude. but I coudn't think of any other word at that moment. Sorry about that.
@@harrietharlow9929 I appreciate the attempt!
@@EdwardHowton Thank you!
Creationists don't really care about being right; they care more about being believed.
It occurs to me that we humans widen our eyes to display an intensity of emotion, usually fear or surprise but also to emphasise particular phrases when we are speaking. This exposes more of the white sclera of our eyes. Horses flatten their ears, widen their eyes, and expose their incisors to express anger. The whiteness of their sclera and teeth are alarming. Besides facilitating cooperation, perhaps our ancestors evolved white sclera also for emotive expression, as they lost the large canines of their ape relatives.
I also find the deceitfulness of the devout tiresome. Their rationalization for their false witnessing had its origin in the late-nineteenth century. Progress in archeology and the scholarship of ancient texts had resulted in the reinterpretation of the Bible as a collection of works of literature amongst academic theologians. Still to this day, Creationists would be as out of place in a theological seminar as they would be in a conference of biologists. Their irrational insistence on scriptural literalism from then until today was and is a backlash against a perceived loss of absolute certainty.
Paint horses and Appaloosas have white sclera. Does that mean Paint Horses and appaloosas are human?
impossible to guess because there are an insane amount of things they are either taught wrong on purpose. or they say it wrong on purpose wich really boils my freaking blood
you mean like these? : You mean like when they told us that the Peppered Moth was darkening due to the industrial revolution and showing evolution, but there had always been dark moths and it was exactly the same species as before the industrial revolution? And that they had glued them on the trees because they don't normally land on trees? the "extinct" Coelacanth as a "transition" between fish and tetrapods, and then a live ones were found and they were all nothing but 100% fish? You can see them swimming around on You Tube. See any "emerging" legs? And oh yeal, turns out the Coelacanth is a deep sea fish. Gee, that would be tough, going from the depths of the oceans to learning to walk on land. You mean like when they tell you that antibiotic resistant and nylon eating bacteria are showing evolution, but hey are still just bacteria. Or, if not, what nonbacterial type life form are they "evolving" into? You mean like when Richard Dawkins and others say you "evolved" from bacteria or bacterial colonies but all the data - you know, what real science uses - since 1670 shows that no matter how much they change bacteria always stay bacteria? You mean like when they told you that the tonsils and appendix were "vestigial" based on no evidence whatsoever? The children who were most likely to suffer from the polio epidemic last century were those who had their "useless, vestigial" tonsils removed. Real science has shown that the tonsils and the appendix are highly useful for immunological purposes, particularly for children. You mean like the peer reviews about the phony "horse evolution" series which shows animals from different continents that are somehow mysteriously all connected, with ribs and lumbar vertebrae whose numbers go back and forth, until we get to the modern day horse? - that Tiktaalik is a wonderful transition from fish to tetrapod? But check it out on Wiki. It is described as an extinct species of...lobe finned FISH. Period. the hailed Miller and Urey experiments for demonstrating that life can come from inorganic matter? It didn't matter that they didn't even get close to creating life. They created some amino acids, the kinds that KILL life. They never bothered to explain how even the right kinds of amino acids could gather the many other components needed for a single "simple" cell, put them together in statistically impossible ways if done by random chance, and then bring them to life. - when they try to explain why the countless billions of fossils of extinct, deep sea, creatures are found wrapped around mountain tops around the world, not uncommonly in almost mint condition. (Bing: Trilobites on mountains tops, for example.) They go on and on about how it certainly wasn't a Great Flood, but "plate tectonics" that moved the fossils for, they say, millions of years to the tops of those mountains from the depths of the sea. It's like they never even heard of something called erosion. Haeckel's embryos? Remember that classic lie? Junk DNA? 98% match with chimps? Pakicetus, Nebraska Man, the list goes on...How could anyone deny the “facts” of evolution? And, An evolutionary True Believer and educator, one Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE,3 proudly stated: "it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.’ “You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, (“non- overlapping magisteria” model, or NOMA) but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.” “If a student, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives. It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don’t you think?’ Once again, better to have them believe overt falsehoods than deny the evolutionary religion. (This article can be Googled and read at length or there is another one: Smith, Anika, Lying in the Name of Indoctrination, Evolution News and Views, Discovery Institute, 27 August 2008). evolutionnews.org/2008/08/ lying_in_the_name_of_indoctrin/ Oh and the Lucy statue, The St Louis Zoo when questioned why their Lucy statue had human hands and feet when none were found, they replied that "yes we know but we're not gonna change it because it gets the point we want to make across". And the show Nova showed where a "scientist" broke apart Lucy's pelvis and reassembled it into a more human configuration. Yeah some real honest scientific work there!
@@BillMurrey woah, the exact same gish gallop of talking points copied and pasted from the same 3 religious PR websites that have been tediously refuted over and over and over and over in videos and comment sections just like this one for like 20 years. Checkmate, atheists.
A quick Google image search also show many dogs with white sclera. Also other animals, like a rhino. Or a cow.
Yes, but those pooches are creepy.
Appaloosa horses have white sclera as well
I'm wondering if it's worth making the point that sclera are a natural part of mammal eyes (All? Certainly of primate eyes); all those apes supposedly without sclera actually have no _visible_ sclera normally. If you were to dissect an ape's eyeball, you'd find that most of the surface of the thing is sclera, still, it's just that a small - one might even say, a _micro_ - evolution in iris size and maybe eyelid is all that's required to make the eyeball's sclera routinely visible.
I think the shape of the eyelid evolved to make expressions easier to read or something
If I understand correctly the sclera is visible, but where it is visible it is dark.
It's not that the iris is larger, it's just that a band of the sclera around the iris is also brown, hiding the edge of the iris. For example with dogs, the white parts of the sclera are only visible in very widened eyes, like in a stress response, while the dark part is always visible.
This makes sense for a social hunting animal. Hiding the direction of their gaze when on a hunt, but indicating the direction of the danger when in distress.
Kinda made me wonder: many humans have limbal rings around their irises, would that be remnants of dark sclera?
But no, it appears that it is the edge of the cornea meeting the sclera. Too bad.
What?!? YECs didn’t even try and google what’s wrong with thinking magic made the entire world and all the creatures in it? I’m sooo shocked!
‘Real eyes realize real lies’ - Tupac
Evolutionists probably think we come from emojis; 🙄 Look! White scleræ! Check mate atheists!
😉
The ability of the human mind to deceive itself is terrifying!
If conspiracy nutters were capable of properly performing a simple Google search, we wouldn't have any conspiracy nutters.
Lyin' fer Jeezus.
I have so much admiration for you. I can't even make it through many of your videos becuase I get so mad (grew up having this crap shoved down my throat) I love u have the patience to sit and make these full videos. They drive me so crazy. I'm autistic and they (the creationism ppl) make me have a full blown meltdown at times. Their small brains make my computer brains short circuit) please never stop doing this. This is the REAL lords work. Thank you for your service!!
I wonder if there are any H. sapiens with brown or dark sclera? It seems to me that I met someone like that one time, but the memory is vague and if so, it was some time ago.
I tried googling, but just got a bunch of pictures of people with special contact lenses. There were some with dark spots or dark rings around their irises. If even a tiny proportion (ppm vs percent) has dark sclera, it also supports evolutionary pressures (although I know it's possible for genes like that to be removed from a population with the pressures as mentioned. The Creationists are trying to suggest that humans are NOT animals and are somehow special (and thus giving the believers the idea that they somehow have the right to 'rule' over others).
There have to be indicators of a species that makes it unique, so in some aspects, yes, modern humans are unique among hominins, but that doesn't mean we're not also apes, monkeys, primates, mammals, vertebrates, and animals.
@@DoctorZisIN Don't forget Eukaryotes lol!
Failing to try is bad, but at least understandable. The one that gets me is when someone points out to their face that some particular point is wrong, and then they go and advance that point again. Sometimes even in the same conversation.
Part of that might be an ego defense mechanism or simply the backfire effect because the information feels like a physical attack thanks to our amygdala.
But, why do a Google search when they can just blindly accept whatever pea-brained assertion the apologists can invent?
See, that's part of the problem. They might actually have done a Google, but Google tends to give you the results it thinks you want, not neccessarily the best results. Duckduckgo doesn't keep you stuck in a silo like Google does.
@@ambulocetusnatans Yeah maybe, but in her video, she sure was able to find good results immediately with very little effort...
@@Akira-jd2zr Because she isn't a creationist, so Google knows she doesn't want creationist BS. If she wanted BS every time she looked at Google, I'm sure Google would give it to her.
Try a little experiment. Google something controversial from your normal computer, then Google the exact same thing from the computer of someone you disagree with. Then compare the results.
@@ambulocetusnatans That's tough to do. I generally don't have access to someone else's computer. Especially someone who doesn't think like I do...
@@Akira-jd2zr If you wanted to be sure you could find a way. I guess you can either take my word for it, or be content with not knowing for sure.
The maddening thing is that most *creationist claims* can be *debunked* by a simple *Google search* :-/
Dang, all I had to do is a google search? What am I going to do with this phd now? PS: nice hat.
Not only many hominids, but many other animals have white sclera as well, such as dogs, cats, horses.
Trying to change a person’s belief system is next to impossible because of the backfire effect, normal humans are full of biases and that includes all categories such as religious beliefs, political views etc. etc.
Yes the Backfire Effect does make things trickier, but I wouldn't call it next to impossible. Now that we know about the Backfire Effect, we can use methods that avoid it. Two of my favorite methods that do this are #DeepCanvassing and #StreetEpistemology
I was LITERALLY researching this yesterday. Looking up confirmation bias led to the backfire effect which I didn't even know was a thing. I wonder what the solution is to get them to see the truth...
@@Ejaezy Here is a great podcast that talks about stuff like this all the time. www.youtube.com/@YouAreNotSoSmart
It’s based in feelings, not logic, so it’s impossible to sway them with well thought out arguments.
Creationists, destroying people's faith one lie at a time.
Very good point that variation doesn't have to confer a really large advantage to be selected, it just has to have enough advantage for differential reproduction. That can be a small difference, doesn't have to be large.
The variant only has to be more significant than the metabolic cost of the trait for it to be an advantage in terms of reproduction.
Oh no! I guessed it wrong! I looked at the thumbnail and I thought the thing driving you nuts is when they say Lucy was “just a chimp”. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard Georgia Purdom state such, and certain I’ve heard it on a Way of the Master vid with Banana Man and Crocoduck Boy. The WotM one was a hoot. They show a graphic of Lucy with her nickname up at the top, and her scientific designation at the bottom. At the same time they say experts agree that Lucy was a chimp, they’re showing a sign that says she definitely and definitively is not. 😂
Two thumbs up. One for the content - I didn't even know this was a thing, but it is pretty lazy to lose to GIS. Another for the excellent and subtle costuming - the white stocking cap is both a good look and a great way to highlight your sclera when talking about sclera.
“Don’t fire till you see the whites of their eyes!” You done ol' Colonel Putnam proud.
Erika! I loved seeing you on Modern Day Debate! It cracks me up when your opponents talk down to you like you couldn’t POSSIBLY understand where they’re coming from… until you tell them you grew up YEC and have been to the goofy ark encounter. Ohhh I hope I see more of you on there!
I love your videos, and you are smarter than I'll ever be, but you just don't understand creationists. It isn't that they are too lazy to look things up or that they just don't know any better; it's that it doesn't matter to them because lying for Jesus is A-OK and approved of in all cases. Look at the actors in that clip. They don't care whether or not they are lying, because it might trick some gullible kid into believing. Even when they are called out on it, they will continue to say it because they think it is for the greater good.
Another awesome video!!! I always learn so much from you! Please continue spreading scientific knowledge..
Myself, I definitely prefer the paleoanth videos. To a large extent we already had all these arguments with creationist wingnuts back in the 90s and aughts -- and I think it turns out to be quite pointless.
I kind of agree. But I feel like the new generation of fighters might be able to learn something from us old-timers.
And we old dogs can learn new tricks too. That's one big advantage we have. The wingnuts never learn.
YEC can't stop saying it because you gotta straw man to fit their crazy story.
Also: when giving an animal eyes "like a human" makes them look more human and not just super mega creepy, then its probably because they allready look so much like humans.
Try it, place human eyes on any other animal... its actually haunting, not giving the feeling of "oh, that looks actually kinda human now!"
If a tiger attacks me in the woods, I'll at least try to shoot it or something.
If it has my grandmother's eyes, I'ma shoot myself.
Anyone who thinks evolution is fake is too ignorant to take seriously. Like you really have to make an effort to be that ignorant in this day and age. The proof is in the DNA - & DNA doesn’t lie. Just let them live in their fantasy world…the people they’re able to persuade with such ridiculous claims aren’t looking for the truth anyways, they’re looking for someone to tell them what they want to hear.
The flerfs of biology.
Do you know the difference between a young earth creationist and a knife?
The knife has a point...
Man autocorrect got you good on this one
YECs are more like pizza cutters. All edge, no point
@@Ferretic 😆
@christopher warlick yes and you still figured it out. Means you're smarter than a fifth grader or in this case smarter than autocorrect and a stroke victim.
A knife is sharp....?
Somehow, Ericka working through dumb arguments is my safety blanket
My memory isn't perfect but as best I recall I've had at least one pet dog and one pet rabbit that each had white sclerae - they weren't always easy to see due to the size of their irises, but if they looked way to the side I remember noting that there were in fact whites on their eyes. A _dog_ and a _rabbit_ .
I didn't know this about apes before watching this video, but I sure would have checked if I was going to make it the crux of an argument supporting my entire worldview. Thanks for teaching me a thing!
Could this also be partly why most people have dark or brown eyes and very few people have blue or other colors comparatively speaking? Dark irises contrast better with the white sclera.
Maybe. From a genetic standpoint the genes associated with brown irises are dominant so they're more likely to manifest even if you have other color genes from one or both parents.
The blue eye gene is recessive (and makes the other non brown colors as well) and the brown eye gene is dominant.
God likes brown eyes best. Also, left handed people are probably demonic.
People with lighter coloured eyes are more likely to develop eye melanomas. This presumably be a disadvantage and thus cause natural selection to generally deselect blue eyes. Since exposure to sunlight is also a factor it probably explains why the non-human apes have brown eyes and why humans evolved lighter eyes as a variation in northern latitudes.
People with unusual eye colour are often perceived to be exotic. My dark green eyes were much commented on in Pakistan. As the contrast between the iris and sclera is no less for most (there is a tendency toward a darker ring around the iris of most people regardless of the colour of their eyes) and a pair of bright blue eyes will always attract attention, I imagine that we haven't had an evolutionary reason to move to more eye colour variety. On the other hand, many people wear coloured contact lenses to get the effect.
"Magic is a science" proponents depend on an echo chamber so they're not too worried about being called out for ignoring obvious facts.
It's because creationists are just dishonest. Not ignorant, not misinformed. Dishonest. As in LIARS.
My pet peeve, (in this area of discussion - I have MANY other pet peeves), is "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
A variant of that is if birds came from dinosaurs why are there bird fossils in the same strata as dinosaurs?
Checkmate atheists!
It’s like: if I exist, why do I have cousins.
Bill Nye: - Which scientific evidence would make you change your mind about god?
Ken Ham: - None.
Creationism in a nutshell.
I wonder if our stories of demon possession and black eyed children come from an ancestral memory of fellow humans having darker Scalera. I mean, humans to be crazy! Thank you so much for sharing your brilliant mind with us.
All-black eyes seem to be a recent, Hollywood-driven, idea. Across the world, until relatively recently, epilepsy, Tourette's, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other neurological and psychological problems were believed supernatural in origin. Depending upon the culture, they might be heralded as touched by the gods and trained for roles as intermediaries between deities and humans, or feared and rejected.
@@julietfischer5056 I absolutely agree! I’m thinking about how some of our innate fears, such as those of insects and snakes, have been thought to be “instinct“ driven. I’m postulating that the reason that find the current representation of the dark Scalera as Erie could be possibly also explain by. other hominids, precious harmonies?) May have had the darker Scalera, and we adapted to stay away from those who still there were not some of her own for protection. I really appreciate your insight, though, and I’m glad that we’re hopefully past that. I’m blind, and I know the stigma surrounding blind people has been, in the past and sun now, pretty horrific.
This is a really silly mistake. There's no reason for it except that creationists aren't bothering to look things up for themselves.
It wasn't in the buybull, that's as far as they go
I had a very animated discussion about white sclera with a creationist. When he ran out of arguments, he gave me two black eyes.
lol
How about the, "Why are there stiil monkeys?" question. It's all over Twitter, I wish they'd just Google it and shut up.
Hard to know if it's ignorance or smugness that characterises this sort of apologists. Splendid debunking that appreciably adds knowledge to the discussion. But then that's what GG does...
white eyes= soulful, dark eyes= soulless
Anybody noticing a pattern here??
White sclera in other mammals, you say?
*runs to check my shid tzu's eyes*
Yup! Her sclara are white! Granted, little sclera is visible... but still, she's got eye whites!
Creationism is magic not reality.
Love your content but your end credits music is always super sudden and loud and it scares the hell out of me sometimes. xD
Obviously not hindering my enjoyment of your content, but I figured you might want the feedback even if its not a huge issue. A gradual increase in volume or just lowering the max volume of it would completely fix this as well.
The deadline for nominations for the Golden Crocoduck award - an award for demonstrable breaches of the ninth commandment (ie: brazen falsehoods) by creationists - is the end of March. It's mostly a light-hearted and sassy exploration of their various oopsies. The criteria and so on are laid out here, if you'd like to make a nomination based on this video or otherwise: th-cam.com/video/OTIwS9uIGE8/w-d-xo.html
This was fascinating, thanks!
Surprised they didn't go Hans Wormhat on us and claimed that the pictures of gorillas, etc. we're all faked.
Creationist version of Google... google Apologist sites that confirm my presupposition.
They will never stop saying whatever will get them money and power and the attention of gullible ppl.
You’re being very charitable to assume that they are just being lazy and not mendacious.
You'll be begging for a long time. They'll never change. Change is evolution and they believe evolution isn't real.
If creationists researched what they are saying they wouldn't be creationists.