Daniel-NJ | Best Arguments Against Creationism | The Atheist Experience 26.29
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2024
- The Atheist Experience 26.29 for July 17, 2022 with Dave Warnock and Forrest Valkai.
Call the show on Sundays 4:30pm-6:00pm CT: 1-512-686-0279 or use your computer to save on long-distance charges: tiny.cc/calltheshow
► Don't like commercials? Become a patron for ad-free content & more: / theatheistexperience
► Podcast versions of the show may be found at:
www.spreaker.com/show/theathe...
► Atheist Experience merch can be found at: bit.ly/aenmerch
► Become a TH-cam member: / @theatheistexperience
► Join our discord:
tinyurl.com/TheACAdiscord
► Chat room rules:
atheist-experience.org/chat-ru...
► The most up to date Atheist Experience videos can be found by visiting
atheist-experience.com/archive/
-------
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
www.atheist-community.org (The Atheist Community of Austin)
www.atheist-experience.com (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
► More shows and video clips can be found in the archive:
www.atheist-experience.com/arc...
► DVDs of the Atheist Experience can be purchased via:
www.atheist-community.com/prod...
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Shelley Segal "Saved" www.shelleysegal.com/
Limited use license by Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal
Copyright © 1997 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
That's a flipping good argument actually: even if evolution is completely disproven, it doesn't prove the creation myth in the slightest.
Yeah cus creationist don't have a real argument, just claims and conjecture. If we disproved the moon was what we believe it to be, thsr doesn't make it a floating magic purple elephant does it? Basically the same thing, we know what we know and even if ee don't, magic isn't the explanation
The problem is this point has been brought up over and over for YEARS, and they still don't listen. They have it groomed into their brains by their religious handlers that the argument is Evolution vs Their Belief. And if they can disprove evolution, by default, they win. I honestly think they see it like some sports events, where it's literally a competition. So if one team loses, the other team naturally "wins". That's how they seem to have it framed in their heads. Because seriously, multiple hosts from every single one of these shows, has repeatedly said something to the effect of "even IF you could prove X false (which they never actually do), that doesn't mean your Y thing is true!" and their response is generally along the lines of "LALALALALALA! NOT LISTENING TO YOU!!"
OK, so then if evolution is not real, then how did the universe start? There can only be one answer.
According to you atheists, how was the universe made?
@@miguelchavez8347 I have plenty of arguments and possible answers I could share, but I get the feeling you've already made up your mind about this. Let me know if I'm wrong.
However, I can share this quickly:
Science is all about eliminating as many falsehoods as possible if it doesn't fit the evidence. That which remains is most likely to be the answer. They've tested the theory of evolution for nearly a century but it still holds... in fact it's helped us with medicine, agriculture and several other areas in life.
But if some scientist produces evidence that debunks the process of evolution somehow, then evolution will eventually just get scrapped and replaced with a better explanation. This is kind of happening in cosmology right now, on the issue of dark matter and dark energy and the bug bang itself, there are many possible explanations but many of them could get thrown out by what the JWT is finding.
But if a theory is thrown out, that doesn't mean all science can get thrown out. Science is the process by which it was thrown out in the first place. We elininate the nonsense.
But it also doesn't mean we can resort back to our ancient beliefs, it just means we need to look harder.
Think about it like this, if suddenly Christianity was irrefutably debunked for you, does that automatically mean Hinduism is the true religion? No, you're most likely going to investigate what alternate religious nonsense would work best to satisfy your need for purpose and meaning... or maybe like me, you continue without ancient myths and take on life with common sense and care.
You can compare it to a murder case: forensic detectives try piece together an explanation with the available evidence and present it to the court. If the judge and jury decide that the evidence is not enough to convict a suspect, do they then resort back to witchcraft and hang him because the chicken bones showed he was guilty?
I've probably said too much and wasted my time here, but there are also other people reading this that might find it useful.
Dave is way to modest. He is going through a terminal illness and still finds a to stay positive. He may not consider himself smart, but I think that's more impressive than reading a book and reciting the contents.
I have huge respect for him. Hope he is with us for the time being....
I hope David takes the same scientific evidence to his life as we do to their crazy God's. There's no free will and it couldn't be any other way.
While we wake
We must flourish in the breathtaking-awe,
Of all that we've touched, loved and saw.
Too
@@jasongallman2032 ty
@@epicurusstan3223 I'm here to serve.
Remember, modern natural science came about because Creationism turned out to not have the right answers. Not the other way around. If Creationism had a case, modern science, evolution included, wouldn't even have appeared. Much less developed.
No that isn't quite right. There are lots of creationists who fully accept the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution. Most Catholics and many protestants, including Francis Collins (head of the human genome project). They merely believe that 1.) The genesis creation account is metaphor or allegory (not literal), and 2.) Bio evolution is "guided evolution".
@@coffeetalk924 “There are lots”. It is an extremely small percentage of the science community. Also, those creationists come from religious families where they were indoctrinated severely throughout their childhoods. They are trying to keep religion in their lives and they will do insane mental gymnastics to justify it to themselves. The rest of the scientific community can see that they are being silly.
@@Anonymous-md2qp no! In fact, the exact opposite is true. Biblical creation account young earth literalists are the MINORITY!
@@coffeetalk924 "Guided evolution" - that never happened. There is no evidence for this insane hypothesis.
@@freddan6fly careful. No evidence? Correct. "That didn't happen" is slippery of you. Are you now taking an affirmative regarding unfalsifiable claims? That would be epistemologically unwarranted. We atheists typically avoid affirmatives. Agreed?
What a diamond forrest is he's so expressive, he exudes the lust for life. Such a beautiful human being.
Scientists look for answers, creationists look for excuses.
“Creationism” was the default explanation for the universe around us, but when people started to closely and carefully interrogate the Earth with a systematic methodology, the objective observations no longer agreed with the Biblical account
I have never met a Christian that had a real working knowledge of the sciences.
Maybe you meant Creationist. There are plenty of Christians who understand science very well.
To: Rex Williams aka' Tyrant`a•Sore.@$s Willi.ams But then again I've never met you) or-heard of you* you're a needle in a haystack" it's a big World out there read history and find out.
@@autonomouscollective2599
That doesn't mean he has _met_ one, though.
@@autonomouscollective2599 True, although in fairness, in my experience, even most average progressive & moderate Christians still seem to often generally *Want* to be Creationists (just Not outright complete Anti-Science ones, like Young-Earthers). And personally I still hold that most beliefs about a "Divinely-Guided Evolution" (for an Abrahamic Theist, whether technically Creationist or not) are still mostly irreconcilable; especially considering how [mostly] the entire basis for believing such a thing is still just wishful adherence to a more-metaphorical "Adam & Eve" Story (despite no real major indication or solid evidence of the biblical story deliberately having been written as a metaphor; & just about every indication that the people back in that time & place when it was written were heavily-inclined to believe something like that quite very literally).
@@TechySeven
I think you and I are pretty much in agreement. There are many Christians who have a firm grasp on how science works, but yet they do tend to cling to that divinely-guided evolution nonsense. I’m OK with that. To me that’s a very minor difference in opinion.
I'm enamored with Forrest. This dude just makes me really happy.
Ignorance is bliss.
"Enamoured" huh. We know what that really means 😉 and I agree.
You and me both
why?
@@jimdandy9118 Ironic
Both my parents believed in the Christian God and my mother was quite religious, however neither of them dismissed science and my father was a very sciency technical minded person. Both of them supported my choice to not be religious or believe in a god. I miss them.
LOL why would you think Christians dismiss science when Christians gave us modern science and everything else we see in the modern world.
It's Christians Western Civilization fighting against the atheistic humanist left who's completely ignoring science to the point where I have to pay taxes so I buy a logical man AKA a man can get a government-funded pregnancy test.
The atheistic left completely ignores logical reasoning if it doesn't fit inside their cult the atheistic left believes the scientific method is anyting their dictators tell them while wearing a white lab coat.
It was like pulling teeth trying to logically treason with the atheistic left when it came to the coronavirus response they threw logical reasoning right out the door.
Just look at the people living under atheistic humanist North Korea, if that was a Christian majority country with a constitutional republic created by at least mostly Christian's the North Koreans who are genetically high IQ wouldn't be living like barbarians with no computers and no electricity who knows maybe they could have found a cure for cancer. Look at how atheistic humanism and government retarded the East German people, 15.point IQ on average compared to Christian West German people and genetically their the same. After practically knocking down the wall with their head to live amongst the Christian West German people today their IQ is indistinguishable from the west Germans and again since IQ is mostly hereditary this is how bad Atheistic humanism retards people.
You're very fortunate to have had parents who supported you.
That's kind of hard to believe that they didn't dismiss science if they believe in god to be believe in god is too dismiss science
God and heaven is real if they in heaven now you will be with them there one day if you just believe in Jesus and commit your life to him 🙏 ❤
@@markwarne5049 Allah and Vishnu are very angry that you didn't mention them.
Way more than a mountain of evidence. Like an entire cosmos of evidence.
Kyle, can you show me ANY of this 'cosmos of evidence'?
@@beereaucrat3233 fucking read
@@beereaucrat3233 it's not the responsability of other to educate you on things you can easily find, especially because you people continue asking questions that only experts know the answer of, so find those experts and read what they have to say
@@bobemperorofbobkind6004 but but but you made a claim and the person is simply asking you for a source of your claim. Telling somebody to read because you can't provide evidence for your claim is evidence that you have no evidence for your claim.
Their best argument is basically "goddidit" so yeah
This is one of my favorite parts of the Genesis creation story:
"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done."
Was this book written by a five year old?
Wow an all powerful god needs to rest too? Seems legit.
The seventh day starts at Friday Sundown.
Believers don't even get the day right.
It's crazy how people actually believe this story as true.
A 5 year old? Probably more like 500 years old, if you believe how long the Bible claims early humans lived!
Regardless of their age, how could this person already exist to take notes about what happened on each day of creation? That alone reveals the story to be a myth.
@Rui Dias the main issue with the ages being actually months is if we convert the ages then it would mean that they had kids at like 5 years old lol
Religion; throw darts at the wall and paint the bull around it afterwards
Awesome analogy. I’m stealing it :)
Bullseye
Forrest shined like a lighthouse when he was listing different forms of dating.
Infectious and happy curiosity.
I really admire this guy's passion!
Oddly, he didn't mention me dating his mom. 🙂 Gottem.
to the caller; richard dawkins book, "the greatest show on earth; evidence for evolution" is a great place to learn the numerous scientific disciplines that prove evolution, 13 chapters on the best evidence and arguments, it's a great read too.
The ad i saw before this video was for 'Joyce Mayer TV'. I guess the algorithm really does have a sense of humor.
Even on fixed iincome, it's worth $12/month to not see ads.
Meyer. But yeah, it goes without saying that the algorithm is weird.
@@ringo666 Hell yeah!
My PhD dissertation is on phylogenetic trees (a statistical part of the study on them), and Forrest just inspired me to give my best effort!
Why go through all that trouble when you can just claim everything is magic?
Have you found anything to add to the hypothesis
When they say, "I don't believe the earth is millions of years old, therefore science is wrong,"
tell them that beliefs aren't what makes something true.
Well as a Christian, I believe the earth is around 6,000 years old. Who can possibly comprehend such a massive number as that?🤣
Well, well well congratulations you just performed and gigantic failure.
Beliefs is EXACTLY what Evolutionists "believe".
So define evolution for the creationist please.
@@Danny451 Question are you a Protestant?
@@christianorthodoxy4769 No, I'm an atheist. My comment was sarcasm.
@@Danny451 I see, alright. . . 🐈 💬 Ok.
I really am rooting for Daniel here. As a former member of that popular cult (Christianity, according to the B.I.T.E. model), it really is a difficult journey. It takes a lot of questioning, which absolutely translates into courage in that environment. Not just that, but also picking apart the emotional layers of being lied to for years, fill in the void with better stuff that is truthful, and practicing and speaking those new things despite the judgement against it and you. It's literally adopting a new life, when the people you know aren't accepting of it or any other worldview except their own. I believe in you, Daniel. Keep it up.
Oh my God you said you were a member of a popular cult and you got out hopefully you got out before you did any damage to yourself mentally and otherwise.
I'm assuming you're talkin about the atheistic communist leftistism cult. I hope for example you weren't brainwashed to believe you were born with a brain of a different gender in your body and then wind it up having yourself mutilated because of it. I've heard so many horrific stories of members of this atheistic humanist leftist cult even parents would mutilate their children including allowing they're underage teenage daughters to get a hysterectomy destroying them forever. They even give their toddlers hormone blockers.
What's sad is many of them don't even understand they believe it in faith they actually believed having a brain of a different gender in your body is proven by the scientific method. What makes it even more sad not only is there no scientific proof for this faith-based belief but it doesn't even have a philosophical criteria outside of simply saying the words you're a member of the cult ,tra..he...r.
What's even more upsetting is the fact this cult has gotten so far into our government institutions including in the courts to the point where our constitutional rights in America to free speech and practice religion is taken away as we're compelled in speech to acknowledge their gender faith as both a physical and moral reality.. the cult is so out of control in our government that we actually have to pay taxes so biological men AKA men who identify with this cult can get government-funded pregnancy test.
Unfortunately Christian civilization AKA modern Western Civilization which gave us modern science it almost everything we see in the modern world today is moving away from rational thinking and being compelled into this leftist atheistic cult.
Anyway I'm glad to hear that you got out of it.
And I hope that it didn't do too much damage to your life like physical irreversible damage.
PS according to a recent Pew research report fifty-seven percent of white women and 37% of white men that support the atheistic humanist equity AKA communist Democrat party have to take at least one medication for mental illness. Whereas 26% of white women and 12% of white men who support the Christian right take at least one medication for mental illness.
And yes while both white men and white women overwhelmingly support the Right you still have a dramatically higher percentage of white women that support the left compared to white men. This tells us no matter what gender more than fifty percent of white people who support the Democratic party have to take at least one medication for mental illness. This tells us this leftist atheistic humanist cult will turn you cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs
@@garlandantichristian , read with an open mind. No hostility is intended.
I think you misunderstood what I meant by "popular cult." I'll edit to clarify what I meant, and I thank you for showing me how it can be misinterpreted. I can sometimes struggle with words. Using the B.I.T.E. model in psychology (see Genetically Modified Skeptic's videos on cults and church music, where I remember it being featured), I see Christianity as a cult. In regards to the left? In the most extreme areas of the more left leaning political groups, I can see some controlling behaviors fitting that model; however, it's an extreme just like the right has extremes and their own controlling behaviors. Too much of anything can kill. Too much peace can lead to the complete removal of defense from outside forces, too much aggression and suppression can lead to catastrophic wars.
Do not assume I am seeking to insult you. Not at all, and your questions are valid, and do have valid answers (most likely in sources you may not like, though). Science is founded on and conducted by skepticism. You fail to disprove a claim, not assume a claim is true and bias your results. What is a big problem for science is the public misunderstanding of the word "theory." There's the every day use like a guess (a claim, for the most part), and then there's scientific theory. Scientific theory is when a claim has been tested if it is true or not so many times yet remaining true, that it is genuinely accepted (with proof) as true. The closest thing in the scientific process to the "guess" definition is "hypothesis", typically just a guess yet to be proven. So the theory of gravity, the theory of plate tectonics, germ theory, the theory of evolution (yes, there's an abundance of evidence, despite not aligning with creationism), etc are scientific theories, not guesses.
The world is complex, and no one simple explanation alone is adequate to describe it. It isn't a binary of 2 possibilities only, but a vast multitude of many possibilities. This includes gender, a social construct and different than sex. Several organisms are a mix genders, and humans don't get left out of the fun.
Life is full of exciting curiosities, and I don't think anyone should be left out of enjoying it to its fullest, including you.
I am so glad I came across this episode. Forrest shining so bright with something no theist seems to have....KNOWLEDGE! And his ability to break down information into easily digested & understood snippets of information shows just how far down creationists have gone in attempts to "prove the bible"......I call it UNFORMATION".
I think you do some theists a disservice. Many of them are very smart and have a good knowledge of many things. Unfortunately one stubborn belief taints some of it.
@@leglessinozin my opinion you are not smart if you believe in that imaginary sky daddy
The main reason we know anything about evolution is because people have always been fascinated by the animals trapped in the rocks. Theism had Nothing to do with that curiosity. Theism, however, does do a pretty effective job of making itself an impediment to the biological sciences.
No need to go looking for answers when you think you already have them.
Forest says : " I'll be succinct"... 🤣
"best argument against creationism" - reality.
👈Moron.
@@jimdandy9118 Irony.
@@69eddieD 👈Dip shit
@@jimdandy9118 Hypocrite
@@69eddieD Hypocrite? You obviously don’t understand the meaning of that word. It doesn’t apply.
For the record, the list Forrest summed up is not even a sliver of the methods that exist.
Compared to the creationist method: pointing to the bible saying gawd did it.....
You got nothing. Accept it for once...
I forgot to add to my point, We have Sea turtles and land turtles! Noah forgot to include a pygmy. How did a perfect creator make Sooooooo many mistakes. Religion was invented by egos that wanted attention. WE ARE VERY POWERFUL CREATIVE ANIMALS.
Ook ook...
One thing has always bother me about believing in creationism because "I don't understand naturalistic processes."
If you press the theist, they'll likely say they don't understand how creationism works either.
Can they explain the exact mechanism by which God created mankind? I bet they cannot.
So they'll reject naturalistic causes because they don't understand them, but they'll **accept** supernatural causes even though they don't understand them.
That's a double standard - special pleading essentially.
Yeah, there's one brain dead theist troll regularly SPAMS with his silly: " Atheists have no RATIONAL/POSSIBLE explanation" or words to that effect about reality...
When he has no THEIST " RATIONAL/POSSIBLE explanation " beyond a god did it, but he can't even show which God or gods...
My retort for "God offers an explanation" is "great. Have him explain how he pulled off being eternal."
magic!
That's always been my issue too. They say that we can't explain how the universe began or life began or whatever but they can't explain it either. They can claim that a god did it but they can't explain how and they can't even show that that god exists or that anything supernatural exists. We know for a fact that some things have natural causes so, until someone can show that anything does or even could have a supernatural cause, nature wins by default. I'm not going to say that everything MUST have a natural cause, but I'll operate on the assumption that it does until some evidence for the contrary is provided. That a creationist can't imagine something or understand something is evidence of nothing other than that that creationist lacks imagination or understanding.
The bible is a little flimsy on detail , in the beginning god created the earth and the heavens. Theists be like yep that’s me convinced lol
Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who have proven that they are committed to misunderstanding you. Don't let someone drag you into a debate about something when there is no chance that they are even really listening to what you're saying.
I don't argue with creationists with an aim to help them change their mind, but as an exercise or pastime.
Dave and Forrest are an awesome duo!!
Well done, Forrest. This dude is amazing.
For dating the age of the earth or the universe, people keep forgetting the most basic and irrefutable evidence. The speed of light! It’s a constant throughout the universe and it’s measurable. So, we can readily see that stars are billions not thousands of years away!
Damn Forrest, your presentation was just awesome!
Forrest is the new hero of atheism.
Been saying this for years. Creationists don't want to hear it lol. They always come back to evolution. I had a thread on debating Christianity that was updated for 3 years asking Creationists to prove creationism. Only got a handful of responses trying to debunk evolution.
They are so desperate and scared about evolution. It debunks the whole creation myth...
And we got 135.000+ peer reviewed studies, 750.000+ publications and 500.000+ scientific papers on the subject. Not to mention working medicines....
Ok genius. There are only two options….creation or spontaneous life. Because DNA, Ribosomes and Proteins cannot form outside of a living cell it is impossible for life to begin in its own. The simplest living cell capable of cell division which is the requirement for evolution to begin, requires 473 genes, hundreds of proteins, a functional cell membrane and a form of metabolism just to begin evolution. Ouch. You just got your education.
@@jimdandy9118 wrong. Aminonacids can form and have been found in space, in gas clouds, free floating and in/on meteors. Including some crashing on earth.
Then there are Aminonacids forming in early earth conditions as well.
Aminonacids are the start of a whole chain of Natural chemical reactions forming peptides, all the way to rna and dna and the first cells.
Creationist claims are flatout wrong and have Zero scientific evidence to back it up.
Ouch...
@@jimdandy9118 btw i Have an education. In biochemistry. And 25+ years of working experience.
I suggest you pick up a biology book, or google this stuff. It's even on wiki...
@@CyberBeep_kenshi wow dummy. Not a single amino acid used for life has been found coming from outer space. Get an education before running your mouth. An amino acid only means a double bond with carbon and Oxygen. Very few amino acids are used in life idiot.
Forrest, you are so marvelous and energetic I watched this twice.
Personally for me my best argument against Creationism is that I don`t feel ashamed to be naked, so I don`t think the whole Adam and Eve thing ever happened, lol
Oh, but of course they've got an easy handwave for something like that (and practically almost everything for that matter)...
"That's because you're listening to the whispers of The Devil!" or "Because you just want to sin!".
Creationism is often addressed in general terms of the universe having supernatural origins, but you must first determine which specific brand of creationism is being asserted, usually its Christian creationism, in that case the best arguments are that earth isn't 6000 years old, and life didn't suddenly appear in its modern form.
I still want a Dave Warnock shower curtain.
I've yet to meet a layman who disputes Evolution because he's impartial and weighed the evidence. To a man, everyone I've encountered who does so, does because he's wedded to a literal interpretation of a Bronze Age Creation myth that he's decided is revealed truth.
Ok dummy I’ll teach you. Evolution from a common ancestor is impossible because life beginning on its own is impossible. Life is DNA, Ribosomes and Proteins…..none of which can spontaneously form outside of a living cell that does not contain the other three. Understand? No spontaneous formation of life means creation and design.
Forrest and Dave are a hell of a combo. And they'd be a delight at a party too.
Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Evolution is a continuous process, albeit often on a time scale of millions of years.
These guys are spot on a pleasure to watch
I was going to say it, but Forrest did... the best argument against creationism is that there is no evidence for creationism.
Best arguments against creationism: 1. Open up your eyes 3. Stop searching for truths in fantasy books 3. Stop kidding yourself Christianity is good for anything
Indeed, the theory of evolution is more solidly confirmed and understood than gravity. We still don't really know what gravity is. We can see its effects, we know that it's tied to mass, we know it warps spacetime, but we don't really know what it is. We don't really have a mechanism for how gravity happens. We can't make gravity happen.
Evolution, on the other hand, has a mechanism (multiple mechanisms, in fact). We can make evolution happen.
That doesn't mean that there is nothing more to learn about evolution. We don't have a complete picture of all the nuances of how evolution happens, but we are on much more solid ground with regard to the foundations of what evolution is than we are with gravity.
Well said! May I please archive this for future reference?
@@carenome1 Don’t, it’s complete nonsense and wrong.
Wow. Evolution from a common ancestor is absolutely not confirmed….who told you that nonsense? I’m sure you didn’t know that the simplest living cell capable of cell division and beginning evolution requires 473 genes, hundreds of proteins and ribosomes to make the proteins. It requires and functional cell member and and a form of metabolism to power everything. There is not one single hypothesis are guess how all of this required complexity could spontaneously form all at once in the same place before evolution could be used to build it. I would take down your post it makes you seem uneducated.
@@jimdandy9118 Nothing of what you said is true.
Clearly you don't know that you don't need that many genes. Carsonella ruddii only has 182. And you seem to have confused evolution for abiogenesis. Evolution is compatible with all methods of the origin of life. So long as that life does not reproduce perfectly from one generation to the next, it will necessarily evolve.
On top of that, you seem to have fallen for the logical error of the false dichotomy. That one theory falls doesn't mean your pet fantasy is suddenly plausible let alone true. You need to show your evidence.
But you have a problem. Evolution is one of the most solidly justified theories we have. All the evidence points to it. It's why it's called the theory *OF* evolution: The fact of evolution has long been established. The theory of evolution explains how the fact of evolution happens.
As Dobzhansky said: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
@@carenome1 If you wish
Brilliant, just simply f...ing brilliant. There is no (NO) scientific evidence for creationism.
And this is in fact the main reason (among at least 30 or so) why I abandoned all religious belief altogether: there simply isn't any (ANY) evidence for it! And it should, could and would be so darn easy for a deity to prove itself!
People just choose to believe in their favorite fairy-tales.
And it always struck me that, when you ask any religious person for any evidence of their belief system, they nearly always point to the many still unknowns. This is a fallacy known as the ad ignorantum, the argument from ignorance or the unknown: "if you do not have all the answers, then my answer must be the right one, even without any evidence".
It is like saying: if you don't know how much 5^2 is, then it must be 7.
There's an inherent problem with creationists attempting to put forward their creation nonsense: Creationists (and theists in general) are incapable of establishing monotheism.
"You're telling me all this stuff was designed? If you insist, who am I to dispute your expertise in this subject... But wait, you're telling me that all of this stuff was done by a SINGLE creator?"
Look at the trees, they say. What aspect of the trees suggests it was done by only a single entity? Is it the leaves? The roots? What attributes/characteristics/properties/etc of these organisms rule out multiple designers?
Because if their goal is to put forward this argument for design, they need to establish how many designers were involved. This is a crucial part too, because if it turns out that this universe had multiple designers/creators working together, then christianity is false. Plain and Simple.
@@coffeetalk924 And there's only one of you responsible for all that? I don't believe you. That level of utter chaos could only be accomplished by multiple intelligent entities working together.
@@tan_x_dx how could you know that? Are you anthropomorphizing? Are you looking at examples on earth in order to draw your conclusion?
@@tan_x_dx if I built a video game with lots of chaos, would you deny that I invented it alone?
@@coffeetalk924 Of course! That's how "intelligent design" arose as a concept! Look at what human beings do. We create stuff. Therefore there must be somebody responsible for making the universe and all its contents, right?
I'm just applying the extra observation that humans work together to create stuff. After all, complex stuff can only be the result of multiple designers, right? Just a single designer is preposterous. You can't get something that complex and intricate from something as simple as "one guy did it".
@@coffeetalk924 How can I tell the difference between a game made by one guy, and a game made by a team of developers? I've seen incredibly complex and intricate games made by one person, and games made by multiple people. It seems that multiple developers is the norm, however. Thus I conclude by probability that there were multiple designers involved.
Forrest really love science, it shows.
Love of science doesn’t mean you understand it …..he does not.
@@jimdandy9118 Hypocrite! I have never seen you post any science; just lies and nonsense.
@@jimdandy9118 aight armchair geneticist. Tell the man who does research for a living he doesn't understand the topic. I'm talking about Forrest here, of course.
@@jimdandy9118 You funny. What are your credentials?
@@justincredible. Graduate degree in Biochemistry.
Once I hear " it's just a theory". I know the debate would be unfair( to the person who stated it) ,unproductive and depressing for the country's future. If you are wronh about what a theory in science is then there is no way one can have an honest debate.
It's also obvious when they say this that they are just parroting what someone else said. All the creationist leaders say this exact thing. And they fail to grasp that proving Evolution false still doesn't prove their god exists.
Creationism is a belief that an imaginary male creator god created everything from nothing.
Since there is no way to prove this claim it remains only a belief.
And, unlike evolution or the Big Expansion, there’s no way to test the god hypothesis.
Depending on the style of creationism though it is possible to falsify it. So that’s something I guess.
Forrest you are a treasure! Keep it up! Fellow Oklahoma atheist here 👊🏻…its a tough life as a non believer here in the bibles bible belt 🤪…Forrest gives me hope for humanity 🏆
Bella, the King James Bible is absolutely truth. Believe it or burn forever.
@@beereaucrat3233 It’s an absolute book of Bronze Age myths and fairytales.
@@beereaucrat3233 is that why the Bible says Jesus was born in two different years?
@@beereaucrat3233 Always the good Christian threats, what a load of nonsense
@@thomasmurrell6908 no answer for the first and second laws of Thermodynamics, huh?
Don't try to change the subject. Either respond appropriately to what I said or don't waste my time.
Some things are simply not down to two choices. By eliminating one possible explanation does not mean necessarily that there is only one alternative.
Damn! Forrest is a fantastic scholar.
👈Must not have much of an education
@@jimdandy9118 You should say that to pretty all the theist callers.
@@jakesmith5278 Nope. I say that about Forrest and any Moron that agrees with him? Are you one too?
@@jimdandy9118 You don't know diddly shit Goober.
@@jimdandy9118
You’re all hat, no cattle.
I'd say the best scientific argument about creationism is LSD.
One of my favorite go-to reveals of Biblical misunderstanding is the Genesis story of the creation of light/daytime a couple days before the sun. It has befuddled creationists into turning back flips, yet so easy to explain. It happens every morning. Dawn is the period before sunrise when the sky is lighting up. Once the sky is totally lit up, THEN the sun appears on the horizon. Many ancient civilizations had separate deities for the sun and for daylight, thinking they were separate phenomena. Lists of these deities can be found online.
You are clutching at straw.
The biggest problem with creationism ? It is not an explanation.
Brilliant
You can't argue with idiots and you shouldn't try.
You can, but I agree in some cases you shouldn't try.
@@WhoThisMonkey You won't be successful in any case. If you want to frustrate yourself, then by all means, it's your time to waste.
@@BitchspotBlog
That's not true, I've got through to even idiots before.
I won't argue with you! 😊
Ok
If it were not for science and technology we'd still be hunter gatherers living in fear.
And thank GOD for James Clerk Maxwell,Lord Kelvin,Sir Isaac Newton and Micheal Farady all bible believing Christians who led the way.
@williammackenzie6115
I hope you're not trying to claim only Christians can do or start science!
@@nealjroberts4050 I didn't claim that at all but many Christians are tired of the disrespect and put downs of their beliefs by Atheists.
@@williammackenzie6115 Many atheists are tired of the same by Christians.
As a non-atheist non-Christian scientist who knows the history of scientific discovery I'm rather tired of some Christians trying to appropriate science as something only Christianity can enable.
Your post was typical of that sort of ignorance.
My post was to point out to people who may read these comments that Christians are not anti science and that Christians contributed immensely to science and engineering,and my comment wasn't said in ignorance i was merely pointing out a fact.
The best argument against creationism is “Got proof?”.😈
Goes on a talk show instead of doing the research by himself. Good job!
What a shame God put so much evidence we are expected to fight against.
You could be forgiven for thinking he was trying to deceive us...
It’s the devil’s work!
You’d think that god wanted people to know the truth by literally putting the observable evolutionary process into the very rocks themselves….
Forrest will blow your mind on evolution and its effect on our world!👍
Manitoulin Island has fossilized sandstone that people buy samples of.
Manitoulin has falls you can stand behind, great on a hot summer day. 🍻 cheers
Daniel try watching Aron Ra he will answer all your questions and nore esp on evolution and the Flood. Another good one is Gutsick Gibbon.
Good luck with your researches.
This needs to be transcribed in writing.
Just look around the world and you find evolution everywhere.
The evolution of the species is a sequence. Son, parents, grandfathers, and so on so forth. Has the question if the sequence has a beginning or not been tackled? Is there a scientific consensus on whether evolution has a beginning or not?
A scientific theory can be compared to a file cabinet..... and all the files in the cabinet can be compared to the collection of demonstrable facts supporting the theory.
Setting aside religious notions, is it possible that our universe was created, that is, that it is a function?
The best arguments against creation. Started archaeology. To zoology on every ology in between. And there you have it. They all debunk creationism. Is creationism actually a word of my mispronouncing it.
9:30 At least some of the ancients were not as dumb as current Biblical Literalists. Back in the second century Greek philosopher Celsus critiqued Christianity (brilliantly on some points) One minor point was mocking the Great Flood of Noah saying the Ark was too small to fit all the animals. Early Church father Origen responded that he was being stupidly literal because of course it was a myth, a parable. Don't the Greeks also have mythical tales that they don't believe are literally true but are culturally and morally important he asked.
I really enjoy and appreciate all of the host's but Forrest is probably the best voice for the atheist community at this time.
The literary style of the bible is myth, not metaphor.
Forrest could you please please please debate the danger to society that is Kent Hovind????
Secundus!
Jesus clearly said God created everything
there is no argument against Him
Matthew 11:28 Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.
There is zero evidence that any so called god has ever existed and the bible was written by men, religion is brainwashing at it's very worst.
Although I agree there are mountains of evidence it is important to explain that the theory for evolution is better explain than the theory for Gravity but there was way more evidence for the fact of gravity than the fact of evolution. Every time you get up in the morning or drop something or a leaf falls is evidence of the fact of gravity. I don't think he understood that based on the way you said it
2022 we have come along way Lucy through the evolving brain i suppose amen
Dang! All the stuff that comes out of Forest's head! Lotta knowledge up there
Too bad it’s wrong.
@@jimdandy9118 NOPE
I usually ask what is the creationist answer to why all placental mammals are anapsids. If they have a way better answer to this question than the one based on evolution I will become creationist instantly.
So far not only they don't have an answer, but get this: they don't even know that mammals are synapsids, NOT anapsids. I ask the question wrong on purpose.
What an edgelord. My word.
One central theory of creationism is the ark story. Creationists cannot explain the current diversity of life without accepting that each kind produced new species.
Super accelerated evolution over 4400 years and yet no holy book has documented this.
Some animals mentioned in the Bible flood story are doves, donkeys, goats and humans. These creatures still exist which means that the dove must have laid eggs that created new species, a chicken for example, while being a dove. Humans never contributed to "creating" a new species? How lazy is that.
Koalas.
Mic drop.
Walk away.
I don't hear creationists explain how Joshua asked God to extend the day and the sun stood still.
His dad needs to realise, that the question is what aren’t the best things against creationism, what are the things in favour of creationism? When you ask that question you realise the answer is nothing. You don’t make one theory better by discounting the other. They are completely independent of each other. If I say I don’t like chocolate ice cream, that doesn’t mean that I am saying I love vanilla ice cream. Anyone with a basic understanding of proper logic understands this.
He made it that every different kind of animal fish, mammals, insects, birds etc have to kill to survive
Best argument against creationism? It makes no testable predictions.
Yeah I have a sister she's in really bad shape of a car can take care of herself she believes she will walk again she has oh she has God on her side. That's the danger of belief. She's never going to walk again.
I'm not a scientist, so much like the caller I struggle to debate evolution. The best I can do is provide links to articles that the theist will immediately dismiss, so I don't bother.
So instead I take the tactic Forrest suggests and inform them that even if evolution is debunked it still is not a case for god.
I am also careful never to claim science is "true" because that leaves me open to the accusation of taking science on "faith" since I myself am less educated on it and hence subject to taking someone else's word for it.
Instead I state that I believe science is our best understanding of how things work at the moment and that my beliefs are subject to change with new discoveries and evidence.
It's not the same thing since with science if given the tools necessary you could do the work yourself and see if you get the same results as the paper. You can't call that faith. That's simple verificationalism.
Even better: Science gives you a methodology to determine what’s undoubtedly false. Whatever is left over has the best chance of being true.
The scientific method of peer review and constant analysis of data is what gives us the confidence in it. The fact that it is always open to be challenged and modified when more or better evidence is offered is not a weakness as theists try to point out but it’s main strength.
Theists on the other hand think that a decree from authority is always right and can never be challenged because the person making the decree wears a purple robe and a pointy hat.
@@curbroadshow
To be fair, most creationists today take their marching orders from old white men sporting three-piece suits and a southern US accent.
The best method of determining how things work is the scientific method. It has produced so much that benefits mankind, unlike religion. Cars, computers, internet, electricity, the list goes on and on. It is a shame that theists dismiss the method when the results go against their ingrained belief.
Theists are so bothered by evolution because it's such profound evidence against their belief system.
It's called indoctrinated
If only ANY religious book had mentioned how the solar system is arranged, or just a word about microorganisms and how to prevent cholera or bubonic plague, or what stars actually are... ANYTHING accurate and real to hang our hats on, things might be very different. Poetry and stories about kings that may or may not have existed, or how this group enslaved this other group, etc., do nothing to give these books any value other than ancient literature. There are mountains of data from geography, paleontology, anthropology and genetics. So much that your average person will never be able to wade through it. There are plenty of mutations and genetic markers we can look at that as good as prove that humans are just fancy chimps. Some people will never accept that, and there's not much point in arguing with them.
I don't want to address any of the specifics in the evolution vs. creation debate, I just want to correct one point that popped up along the discussion:
It is not true that for millenia people have always understood the biblical narratives - especially the creation ones - as historical, and that now, "all of sudden", they're supposed to "always have been" metaphorical. It is rather true that throughout the ages - already in antiquity - there have always been metaphorical or even allegorical interpretations of the Bible, only that the mainstream view (the one of the less intelligent masses and their even less intelligent leaders, no different than today) has been a literalist one, what's easily understandable given that too "progressive" views usually resulted in persecution. Look up Origen as an example.
Having a creationist dad must be very sad...
A little but it’s fine lol
Mostly because it's bloody ridiculous.
Daniel, to.ha v a creation, you need to explain the and demonstrate existence of god or gods
We share a large amount of our DNA with both Slugs & Bananas, every organism on our planet has evolved from one single clump of cells.
What does god need with DNA anyway? Wouldn't you just be whatever he wanted you to be and not have to rely on genes passed down from previous humans?
Can't understand much of what Daniel said.
Is this really the best argument for atheism?, is this all it takes to satisfy an atheist?
Derppppppp
I think a better question is why do some people with an education in biology maintain that evolution is not true? Behe is a classic example.
At least in the case of some of ken hovland"s lackeys, they got a degree to have credentials to back their denial of the field they got the degree in.
Can you imagine the waste of money and time on such a motive?
Off the top of my head I can only think of two possibilities. Money or personal beliefs that aren’t willing to examine.
"Some people" would be how many as a percentage?
Wedge document.
Teach the controversy.
Follow the money, if the gov doesn't..
Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person holds conflicting beliefs. For example, creationism and a full understanding of evolution. Both can't be true so they do something to relieve the dissonance. In your example, the "people" lie to themselves and say that evolution can't be true. In this way they can hold that creationism is true and evolution is bad and wrong.