Evolutionary Biologist Reacts to Creationist Arguments
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- Biological evolution is broadly accepted by the scientific community. That said, a large number of people and organizations, especially the Young Earth Creationists, are highly skeptical of evolution. Creationists frequently challenge the assertions of evolution, and evolution's legitimacy as a scientific theory. But do they have a point? Let's take a look at some of their most common arguments and see if they are valid, or if they are not.
#clintsreptiles #evolution #creationism
===
Attribution: docs.google.co...
====
Clint is a professional biologist and educator, but above all, Clint LOVES reptiles and he loves to share that love with everyone he meets. Whether you're lover or a hater of reptiles, you can't help but get excited with Clint!
We post a new video every Saturday morning! So stay tuned!
Be sure to SUBSCRIBE: www.youtube.co...
====
PATREON: / clintsreptiles
MERCHANDISE: www.clintsrepti...
SUPPORT Clint's Reptiles by shopping AMAZON here: www.amazon.com...
Schedule a virtual ONE-ON-ONE with Clint! square.site/bo...
====
FACEBOOK: / clintsreptilevideos
INSTAGRAM: / clintsreptiles
TWITTER: / clintsreptiles
WEBSITE: www.clintsrepti...
DISCORD: / discord
====
To contact us for BUSINESS purposes: clintsreptiles+business@gmail.com
====
You guys are so RAD!
====
Fan mail? Yes Please!
Clint's Reptiles
770 East Main Street # 127
Lehi, UT 84043
If you would like to send a LIVE animal - FIRST: please send us an email to make sure we can take it in. clintsreptiles+LIVE@gmail.com
Guys, if any of you are into this and don't follow his Patreon yet, this is DEFINITELY the video to do it on!! If you've been waiting for the right time, idk, go for it. The extra video on this is incredible. Honestly it deserves to be its own video in its own right. You won't regret it!!
Thank you so much! Our supporters on Patreon truly are what makes content like this possible. We are so thankful for all that you do for us! www.patreon.com/clintsreptiles
@@lhamaseveramenteirritada9760 I can't afford it sadly :/
@@lhamaseveramenteirritada9760 Well, another way to look at it is as not just paying real money to watch a video but that you're donating money to a channel to help support them to continue to make awesome videos. The extra Patreon videos are a bonus or a thank-you-for-the-support gift. At least that's one way to see it! That's kind of how I see it, anyway.
If you spend real money to see a one-time movie, or to watch a TV show, how is that any different? Hell, this is cheaper than both of those things, and you get far more of the videos than you do for a movie, comparing by cost.
Anyway. That said... if it's not for you, it's not for you, that's cool. But I know others have actually commented in the past on a similar comment I made saying they finally decided to go for it after my comment, so it seems to be worth saying this for others on the fence.
@@ankhelsvery well said
@@lhamaseveramenteirritada9760fair
I could eat my distant ancestors but fossils aren't very nutritious and the museum won't let me come back anymore
this comment is underrated
Medieval/Renaissance europeans, eating embalmed and powdered corpses: "Modern problems require (not-so-)modern solutions."
Not ancestors, but every day we are eating our great-great(-great)*a bajillion-uncles/aunts/nieces/nephews, if we're merely counting the number of generations since we last shared a common ancestor.
You could always eat your descendants instead of your ancestors. They'd probably be nutritious. Just be like Cronus.
Okay I gotta say that I laughed pretty hard at that
For those of you who don't know, Clint did his PhD research on increasing acceptance of evolution in the classroom environment. He *literally did his PhD on this*, but he's so down to earth he just calls it "research".
It's a fascinating read if you're interested in philosophy or psychology too, not just evolutionary biology.
Me: casually saying I’ve “researched” something after reading about it a few times.
Clint: casually saying he’s researched something after spending years of work and writing a successful dissertation about it
🤣 He’s an icon and an inspiration
Any idea where to find that? I'd love to read it!
How would you dinf it? Like several others,mid love to reqd it!
@@tanyanguyen3704For those wanting to read it, google "BYU dissertation 8519" and a link to the Scholars Archive website should come up with a download button for the PDF. Links usually get removed by TH-cam sadly.
A lot of (normal/non-ahole) academics get a little shy/humble about our research. We could be working on something for like a decade or more and unless you directly ask us about it, most of us won’t bring it up. (Again, arrogant academics excluded). It’s not necessarily out of embarrassment, it’s more a self aware thing. For me, it’s like “I know myself, and if I start talking about this, I will not shut up. Best to keep it caged unless they really want to know.”
Saying that birds can’t be dinosaurs because they coexisted with other theropods sounds suspiciously similar to the “If Humans are descended from Apes, then why are Apes still around?”. Similar to humans and apes, Mesozoic birds are not descended from the Theropods they coexisted with, they share a *common ancestry* with them. Birds are just one group of Theropod. It’s a common misconception about Evolution.
Yup. Birds evolved during the Jurassic. So back in the creteceous, we had already modern birds flying around with primitive birds, bird like dinosaurs and dinosaur like birds and whatnot. And we have fossils of all of them. There's no clear CUT that divides birds from dinosaurs. They are the same thing.
trust me. this is exactly the way they think at answers in genesis. even tho they have a biologist who i think probably knows about evolution. but she just lies for her paycheck
“If white Americans descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?”
Its like saying, “how come english people still exist if america came from them”
That’s pretty much like saying that hawks couldn’t have evolved from birds because they prey upon other species of birds like pigeons. 😂
As Clint mentioned: similarly to how triceratops and T. rex were both different species of dinosaur, birds and those theropods that preyed upon them were at the time just different species of theropod dinosaur.
the level of patience and respect Clint has for these people despite their arguments as he debunks them is really something to behold
he's just such an intelligent, wholesome guy
The European Union functions much more the way the US Constitution says America is supposed to function:
US: 50 sovereign American states with a central Federal government to unite them.
EU: 27 sovereign countries with a central government in Brussels to unite them.
The European Union is much more than just a trade block; it's primarily an attempt to get countries to stop going to war against each other and to stop wasting money on militaries.
The EU attempts to do the OPPOSITE of "one countries’ bad actions then gets generalized into the whole continent."
The EU is more of an attempt to WEED OUT bad actions.
*Reply to:* _"they don’t really have sovereignty thanks to putting most of the power to a centralized EU so one countries’ bad actions then gets generalized into the whole continent"_
And yet every video (it seems)he gets called a hokey religious fraudster by someone and has to defend himself against them.
To me that indicates a someone misunderstanding statements, or intentionally looking for something to have a problem with.
In this one it was “humans aren’t descended from any other species” or something like that. And he does say that. But basically that means: the fist chicken didn’t come from a dinosaur egg (it’s something that gets passed around, I know it’s evolutionary absurdly inaccurate), it came from a chicken egg. And at the point at which it came into existence its genetic mutations were: this is not the species before it, it IS a chicken.
I sincerely appreciate the steel man argument. I’m still not convinced that mutation can give rise to new information. Actually, saying “information” is a straw man argument- we know the digital info can change but we don’t believe the resultant protein is ever new/viable/foldable.
@@NJ-ju8fr I've had plenty of creationists claim that "information" cannot be created to me so it's definitely not a strawman. If you want to use digital information as the benchmark and compare to the idea of viable proteins it's worth looking at the unicode standard. You can take a valid string and simply increment the number that represents a character and the character will change, but eventually you will hit a number which does not map to a character in the original language (or "species" in this metaphor). If you change the value of the number for a character randomly you'll quite likely get a character that is valid in a different language, which is effectively speciation. There are also non printable characters, which do a whole bunch of things behind the scenes, but in the wrong place will ruin your text output entirely. In this metaphor that represents natural selection, wiping away an unfit organism.
Or for a more visual example: behold the encrypted Penguin: words.filippo.io/the-ecb-penguin/
I know a lot of housecats who would not appreciate the assumption that they're *obviously* less complex than African lions
My two cats have watched this with me and also *strongly* disagree with that hypothesis as well. Lions have only managed to domesticate some animal keepers in zoos. House cats, on the other hands, were able to domesticate civilians all over the place and forced us to create so many companies to get their favourite food supplies in countless different flavours.
@@Spielkalb-von-Sparta
I have a dog. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. I'm an old soul and have loved dogs ever since wolves domesticated man.
My dog has a cat. He loves it and it loves him.
They both "act" like they love me, but I suspect it's because I feed them.
@@MichaelJonesC-4-7 Aha! Now it comes down to the old question, are dogs better in domesticating their owners or cats? I don't know the answer, but I think we can agree on the fact, both are much more successful in that matter than lions or wolves, can't we?
(Why can't I see my first comment you answered to? Has YT swallowed it?)
@@Spielkalb-von-Sparta
I don't think the answer lies in whether dogs or cats are better at domesticating humans. It lies within the variations in human nature.
Or the vicissitudes of individuals, which are not easily transferable to generalizations or classifications.
I see all of your comments. Try refreshing the page or restarting your system. ; )
@@MichaelJonesC-4-7*vicissitudes of individuals* - I've learned a new word for improving my non-native language, thanks!
But this vicissitudes of individuals goes both ways, I daresay dogs _and_ cats have their own respective ways to choose which human is more apt to provide them with an environment to their needs and wishes. Interesting though that two of those chose _you_ to conduct an elaborate experiment to find out if you're able to fit to both of cat and dog demands. Seemingly it works to their satisfaction, I'm happy for them.
(Now I see my previous comment as well)
"Not to Mock or ridicule but to be sure I accurately understand their arguments, and what they actually think." The heart of honest and open dialogue.
Alas honest and open dialogue requires all sides to be committed. YECers hardly ever are.
Yes! You can bet the creationists are not going to give Clint that same kind of respect.
I really appreciate Clint explaining the YEC view because I don't want to give YEC videos views, but I also want to understand their actual views. Not a parody of their views from people mocking them.
A lot of YEC beliefs fall into the "they're not wrong, but they're not right either." Like the circular reasoning example. On its face, it is circular reasoning, but when you dig into it, it isn't.
Agreed! That's how I handled it when my grandma told me she didn't believe in evolution...but the thing was, my grandma actually had a very smart observation: "If we came from 'monkeys,' then why aren't there other kinds of humans walking around?" As we now know, until the Floresians died (tens of thousands of years ago, but very recent evolutionarily speaking), there WERE other types of humans walking around but that is now no longer the case, meaning the present day is the aberration. Given what we can see with other major species groups, it IS an unusual phenomenon. The question showed that, FAR from her being stupid, she was thinking carefully.
We didn't know as much about what had happened to the Neanderthals or how accomplished they were, and I don't think we knew about the Floresians, or a lot of the other humanities. So I decided instead to agree to disagree but go for some fun humor: "But Grandma, there are Neanderthals EVERYWHERE!!!!" XD XD XD We had a good laugh about that, that is a treasured memory to this day. (Even though I now know Neanderthal doesn't mean "stupid person" and that as someone of non-African descent I AM part Neanderthal! XD )
@@marknieuweboer8099 It really depends on the person, especially on whether or not they have been radicalized by the internet and social media. See my other comment in this thread for a really funny story with my grandma (born around 1918), where we may not have gone in depth but we had a lot of fun. XD
> Eating chicken wings
> Gnawing on the bone
> Reality update, turns out there can't be vertebrates if humans evolved from vertebrates
> Hungy
Turns out there cant be life other than humans because humans evolved from LUCA
> Eats chicken nugget
>
>
>
> yum
@@Wobkereryou jest but the "aquatic ape" theory does actually exist lmao
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
@@GenesisTheKittyYes, but it is very, very different from what you are implying here.
"If you can't fight science, make them believe it's a religion." -Religious fundamentalists.
I mean the tribalism that you find in some scientific circles can certainly seem as dogmatic as what one might find in a religion. I'd say it can go both ways.
But I agree-whatever is going on is problematic.
It's easier for me to rationalize my faith If I convince myself all opposing viewpoints are equally reliant on faith. You see a lot of this is YEC apologetics.
@@stanleydog1454 Example?
"If Ross and Monica descended from the same parents, why does Ross, the largest of the friends, not simply eat the others? "
L'rrr had some good logic there
Maybe they're saving them for Sweeps?
Finally! Someone talking sense!
Oh wait, you're being sarcastic
Shark siblings frfr
Dawkins did a good job of explaining this
The story Kent Hovind made up about he and his daughter going to the museum is fascinating in so many ways. It's the ultimate "and then everybody clapped" kind of story. If it was a modern day TH-cam video, it would be titled "Genius Christian Child DESTROYS Evolutionist Ideology With One Simple Question, Immediately Converts Dumbfounded Museum Guide".
Complete with him quoting his child daughter saying words that no child ever says. It was such an obvious attempt to insinuate that people who believe in science are less intelligent than children who don't.
He makes up a lot of stuff... I was unfortunately shown his videos as fact... Well I realised at a certain age he was pulling information from the Void between his ears...😅
Think lower down Johann, we used to call that being rectally derived or rectal derivation, in other words, he’s pulling it straight out of his ass
He deserves a "didn't happen" award
Yup: in today’s episode of “Conversation That Never Happened”…
Straw man arguments work because their intention is not to convince the person being argued against but rather the audience or third party.
Yes, this is why they don't use these arguments in direct debates with evolutionary scientists - because they will be blown out of the water.
But cDesign Proponentists often lose fights against their (inert) straw golems.
Straw man arguments are incredibly effective against the uneducated and ignorant because they view everything as binary.
Well, they really only "work" if the third party is too ignorant to fact check.
@@TheBestAround131 right, so they will work most of the time. The point isn’t to convince scientists or academics or people with knowledge of the philosophy and practice of science - the point is to get as many people as possible to buy into their grift and give them money and/or allegiance. They don’t care about the truth, only influence and money, and they’re not picky about who they get that from.
As a european biologist I was flabbergasted, when I attended a conference @nih in Bethesda. During a group Visier at the Museum in Washington, Evolution and intelligent Design where presented to us as two equally relevant theories. This was so crazy for all the non-americans. Will never forget
Watch any video by Jubilee. If Americans are good at one thing. It’s presenting pseudoscience as equally valid as science, bigotry as valid as tolerance, etc etc etc
Which museum was this? I'm curious, as I've been to the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in DC, though some years back, and I don't recall anything there giving credence to creationism or ID.
@@klburt73 thx for asking. It was the smithsonian Museum. I'm sorry for not remembering in Detail. The incident is from 2013. I remember Entering the exibition via a short tunnel. One the left, our Origin (the correct one) was shown. On the right the "alternativ facts" were presented. I remember talking to a young Lady who worked for the Museum. She told me, that she was not allowed to Talk about her View on the subject. Maybe they changed it since then. Would Like it. :)
Really depends on the museum and it's affiliations/ownership. I've been to plenty of museums and have never seen anything like that, but I wouldn't be too surprised.
I've sometimes wondered if 'Creationism' is favoured over science by any groups in the non-English speaking world.
A Dino eating a bird is like a fish eating a smaller fish.
Yep, or a mammal eating a smaller mammal. These people are s t u p i d!
A shark eating salmon
@@tonyzed6831what the video didn’t tell you was the time given for bird evolution and the dating of the fossil. Big, big information not given right?
Fishes are actually further apart evolutionary to the degree that it doesn't make sense to call them all fishes, like one fish being closer related to mammals than to another type of fish
As a wise man once said: "There's always a bigger fish."
That museum story has major "and then everybody clapped" energy
Indeed. It sounds like total horse-leavings.
They sure love their "and everybody clapped" stories, to the point that a major religious film franchise is based entirely upon them.
The daughter's name? Albert Einstein.
@@DrachenGothik666 “horse-leavings” is a genius term!
With some embellishment and a not-very-informed museum guide, something like this could have happened. I can't really expect Hovind to report it accurately though.
As a mother, I wish people like you helped shape the education system, Clint.
As a mother, I want to take a course taught by Clint.
As a father. Me too
Instead it is young earth creationists who are doing that.
As a koala, I'm eating my eucalyptus leaves.
“As a mother my take holds more weight somehow” That’s how statements like that read to me.
This is great - steel-manning the opposing viewpoint and trying to be as accurate as possible is what we need in videos about controversies. Keep it up 👍
Except religious nutters who don't want to accept evolution aren't a controversy in civilised countries.
Dr. Clint - I can't thank you enough for what you've done here. I was an unwavering YEC, until my early 30's. Even went to the college that was founded by the guy who founded the Institute for Creation Research.
The single factor that began to change my understanding of evolution was learning that the YEC community was not honestly presenting the "beliefs" of scientists. THIS started the doors being opened. When I learned how different scientists actually were from the caricature, it began to erode so many of the straw man arguments. Then I married a man who was passionate about honest logical dialogue. Our conversations, even before marriage, began to help me understand the importance of starting from "steel man" positions of the other side. I was well-versed in the YEC side, enough to present as strong an argument as possible. Which wasn't nearly enough, once I learned what the scientific community actually had discovered.
The continuing learning process, over a couple of decades, has been brilliant and magnificent and constantly fascinating. But it has been propelled along by people like you. People who are willing to discuss these matters without snark, or belittling of their opponents. Alas, on the YEC side, it became harder and harder to stomach those very things. If you can't present your opponent without sarcasm or outright lies about what and who they are, I can't listen anymore. One of the organizations that has helped me work through matters of faith and science has been Biologos - because they never asked people like me to throw away my faith in order to learn to trust the scientific process. AND because they honestly introduced the YEC community to scientists that were passionate about both.
So, thank you! Thank you for continuing the dialogue in as honest and gracious a manner as possible. I loved your organization already, because you introduced me and my family to the world of reptile friends. You've only increased my respect for you with this video.
Wow, this is an amazing comment! Thank you so much for sharing your experience and for taking the time to write such an encouraging message.
@@ClintsReptiles It's the very least this video deserves. ☺
Compliments from this staunch atheist.
Thanks for sharing.
I had a similar experience a few years ago through psychology. The pastors of my church were using what I now know to be pop psychology to try to pigeon hole my wife into the special category of "broken". One of them had a doctorate in ministry, and was well respected by our church for his scholarship and knowledge of the Bible. Fortunately I was finishing up my bachelor's in psychology, learning how social scientists actually conduct empirical studies; I realized that those guys, despite their expertise in ministry, really had no idea what they were talking about when it came to psychology. Then is dawned on me to ask: How many other fields do pastors completely bastardize in the defense of Christianity? I found that being an expert in one field does NOT make you an expert in any other field, and to be wary of those who claim authority in areas that are well beyond their wheelhouse.
yeah but, maybe every scientist across all physical disciplines is involved in an elaborate conspiracry to lie about their own professions so they can sleep in on sundays and have cocaine orgies? Prove me wrong!
About the museum guide. One thing it took me far too long to learn in my life, is that just because I can't think of a way to refute someone's argument at the time they make it (or an answer to a "gotcha!" question)....doesn't mean they're right, or that said answer doesn't exist.
my point in that is that arguments are not proof. just because you made a seemingly watertight argument that doesn't mean you actually proved your point.
@@minderbart1consider that most Socratic dialogues were just stories written down, not even by the man himself.
His story is fake for sure. He made it up. “We set up a WHOLE CHAIR for him.” Yeah sure bro. And then Jesus came and told him that the scientists buried all the dinosaur bones. He’s lying so people will think he and his family are smart.
In fairness, given that it's Kent Hovind telling the story, in not convinced it actually happened.
plus they are just a tour guide, its not the same people who estimated the age of the fossil they just present it, that's their job, do these young earth creationists think that 1 specific person digs up a fossil, prepares it, estimates how old it is and ALSO present it to museum visitors?
I had an ex that couldn’t understand evolution and asked me “If humans evolved from apes, how are there still apes?”
I looked her dead in the eye and said “Because we share the same distant ancestors. If you exist how could that weird cousin of yours also exist? You two have the same grandma.” It instantly opened her eyes.
*These Hater of GOD DeMonics MAKE ME SICK!!!!!*
*He Kicked Out His Wife, so Swine couLd Have a Guy instead!!!*
*Swine is a Joe Biden DeMonicRat !!!! BUT->*
*Although I Hate ALL DeMonicRats, I have No Choice, but to Vote ALL DeMonicRats-->*
*=> Again Ukraine, TRUMP, the LIES & the Environment!!!!*
*Justin. James. Martyr (AT) G .c | Eugene, Oregon | March 7, 2024*
Commonality in DNA does not necessarily mean common ancestry.
@@opalthefox3955we do have evolved apes. The animals you called apes are not the same as the common ancestor that humans and other apes have. They have all evolved from that common ancestor.
@tribefanjames We are apes. We all evolved from the same ancestors. Humans are classified as great apes along with gorillas and orangutans and chimpanzees, etc.
If you follow the primate line all the way back to the beginning ... it's still a primate .
I genuinely appreciate your direct communication/honesty as well your pragmatism. I have always been a fan but it was great to have a glimpse into who you are as an educator. Well done yet again!
"steel man" argument is genius, first time hearing about it. just makes so much sense
If you can't argue your opponents points at least as well as they can how can you ever say your argument is the best after all! Steel manning is wonderful and I wish everyone understood its use.
Dear Atheists,
Can you prove Creation is wrong, on a single Science fact?
Show us your experiments and findings, you do have some right?
Or do you just Believe, whatever you were told to think?
You’re just like the old woman, who swallowed a fly and has to keep swallowing bigger and bigger lies, unto Death.
The Emperor’s new clothes fooled you and now you’re just following along, like the children of Hamlin, following the Pied Piper.
With Magical Evolution, you’ve got no explanation, for Gaining, New Genetic information, Beneficial mutations, or anything at all whatsoever.
And you certainly won’t Gain, Eternal Life through Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ = Gain Gain Gain, or WinWinWin!
Magical Evolution and Atheism = LoseLoseLose!
Don’t be a Fool! Get Jesus Coverage NOW! Tomorrow maybe too late and you can’t say you weren’t warned on Judgement day.
Micro Evolution is Horizontal Evolution, aka Diversity. Within, Chromosome Family Kinds of animals.
Magical Macro Evolution, is Vertical Evolution. Between the different, Chromosome Family Kinds of animals.
Smaller Horizontal steps don’t and can’t, add up to giant Vertical Leaps.
That’s the self debunking Fallacy, of Magical Evolution.
Checkmate Primates! Get your Jesus Coverage NOW! Tomorrow maybe too late.
Clint is a genius!
==========================
And this is precisely why I don't think AIG are arguing in good faith. I don't think they're trying to win over non-creationists, because strawman arguments won't do this.
I think they're trying to keep their flock in line; for what purpose, I don't know. They might believe in a higher purpose, or they might just want to keep their theme park in business. It's impossible to know.
Pretty common in debating, how you know who is good at debating.
It's a classic case of thinking you have enough information to know you're right, but not enough to know you're wrong
The Dunning-Krueger Effect.
I can debunk evolution w/ one question: is the COVID virus NATURAL or MAN-MADE? Have fun!
@@chrisgraham2904Precisely! And It's dangerous.
@@dead.inside.585 Exactly . Sometimes it happens because of lack of information, but it can also happen with misinformation and wrong theories can enter in and lead other misinformed/uninformed people in the wrong direction .
Imagine believing something that isn’t even observable. This belief helped Hitler justify his racism towards blacks. Evolution is vile, evil and is not demonstrable. You cannot take small observations and then extrapolate them to say that fish evolved into humans over billions of years. This is similar to me observing that my 3foot tall child grows 1 inch every year and then concluding that she must be 9 feet tall in 72 years. That’s nonsensical. There are LIMITATIONS to the change we observe. Any statistician would laugh at such an extreme extrapolation of data.
Europeans coexist with Americans, so Americans COULDN'T have come from Europeans
I absolutely love that you avoided hostility or belittlement. I'm sure many of the people in this video did not make their arguments in good faith, but you never once took it that way, and I respect that greatly. Great video.
Omg your sn scared me for a second. I thought you might have the same (extremely rare) name as I do until I realized it's Jordan Neal. I'm Jordanne. Coincidentally, I also once dated someone with the first name Neal and someone with the last name Neal haha. I'm sure you don't care, but I was so taken aback I had to say something haha.
@@sonicroachdoggjrraven3263 I want talking to you so... I was just telling the op that their sn had my real name in it and it's a rare name sooooo I was surprised to see it. I don't get that feeling of finding your name on things with people's names on them, or that moment of wondering if someone is talking to you if they are calling you a friend with the same name, so when I see my name in the wild, I get really excited.
@@paranoiarpincessi would too, the specific spelling of my name is basically extinct :3. ignore the person being rude
@@sonicroachdoggjrraven3263 Her paranoia?
@@paranoiarpincess "I want talking to you"????????? "WANT"??????
What is the point, the purpose of your utterly inane, undereducated, meaningless babble??
I am an ex-young earth creationist turned evolutionary (B.S. degree) and geomicrobiologist (PhD). Was a YEC until i was 26 years old and started coming across videos like this that allowed me to question what I thought I knew without feeling bullied. Started my B.S. degree at 28 years of age and graduated with my PhD last year at 37. I really want to start a youtube channel like this that discusses the science without belittling the other side. Its hard for me to find the time while also completing my postdoc. But, you've inspired me to stop using that excuse and start making videos. Thanks for what you do!
I'd love to see them! Please keep me in the loop.
@@ClintsReptiles Thanks! Will do!
*These Hater of GOD DeMonics MAKE ME SICK!!!!! BUT=>*
*Although I Hate ALL DeMonicRats, I have No Choice, but to Vote ALL DeMonicRats-->*
*=> Again Ukraine, TRUMP, the LIES & the Environment!!!!*
*Justin. James. Martyr (AT) G .c | Eugene, Oregon | March 7, 2024*
Good , then maybe you can start by doing a video with James tour . Michael Behee , Stephen Meyers or any of the hundreds of Phds that have come out against pseudoscience of evolution publically .
@@johnathanmiller3033 oh that's really cool, I didn't realize that they had peer-reviewed papers which demonstrate that intelligent design is a better explanation of the evidence then evolution. Could you please point me towards those peer-reviewed papers? Because the only thing I can find is the books that they have published that are not peer-reviewed and are for profit. But maybe I've overlooked something. Would you mind providing me with those papers?
wow. WOW! i was half expecting y'all to make this style of video after how hard Clint went during the "humans are monkeys" phylogeny video, BUT NOT THIS SOON! this is extremely welcome, and i would love to see more videos like this in the future. not to mention, you guys handled this with serious class.
it takes real courage to put your personal beliefs out there for the internet to prod at, especially within the scientific community - and i'm saying that as an agnostic/atheist scientist myself. i wish that weren't the case. it's really great seeing someone address creationist arguments with respect, and having the science come from someone of faith helps bridge the divide between the communities. well done.
this is also a significant departure from your guys' typical video style. i really enjoy the variety. i'm not sure who handles all the writing for scientific explanations, but the team has been doing an *OUTSTANDING* job at explaining concepts clearly and thoroughly in a way even a beginner can understand.
also, seeing Clint tackle misinformation head-on in his own style is AWESOME! Clint, you are a fantastic science educator/communicator, and people like you are making me genuinely consider pursuing a career as a professor after finishing my PhD.
Can we just talk about how kind and well thought-out this comment is? Some faith in humanity has been restored.
😎✊
I suppose that’s why all of those things include the word “Theory” and IMO the word Theory means nothing more than “My best guess”.
Your personal definition of a word doesn’t change the definition of Scientific Theory that everybody else uses.
It isn't a question of science OR religion, it's a question of fraud and defrauding their followers AND the US government (Churches don't pay tax). None of those guys even believe any of that nonsense, and neither does it even exist outside of the US Deep South. It's almost as if carpetbagging never stopped.
@@markb6978 i won't add what exactly this reminds me of to avoid getting too serious here... but man, this is so true.
"I want to understand not misrepresent"
You sir deserve all the respect
I love how every video "debunking" evolution just comes down to "I dont understand this therefore it never happened."
Edit: and now I have 180+ replies proving my point
Exactly. I'm from the bible belt. 100% of the arguments I've been exposed to were made in bad faith, either a deliberate misinterpretation of scientific evidence (the example of the intro in this video) or a vague citation of the Bible that's not really in the Bible (Satan buried the bones to test our faith).
I am terribly disappointed that he has chosen to use his platform to sell this scientific snake oil. I can't support this in good conscience, so I am unsubscribing.
False
@@lovesign7882 my brother in Satan, you're the one chugging snake oil here
@@lovesign7882bruh what were you doing subbed to a paleontology channel to begin with? Did you just cover your ears every time he said a date more than 10 thousand years ago?
Does that mean that we can exclude pigeons from "evolving from birds" because they get preyed upon by predatory birds like hawks? 😂
Creationists do believe in evolution within KINDS so birds evolving into other birds is not a contradiction for them either. Its the cross-species progress form dinosaur to bird they are arguing against. So, they would not exclude a pigeon turning into a hawk because that is still bird kind- but they do claim that a pigeon will never mutate into a mammal or lizard or fish etc. Creationists don't help themselves by making so many disengenuous claims that are easily proven, but this particular question they are putting a bit more thought into.
I took it as being a part of the 'If people evolved from monkey, why is there still monkey' or 'if dog evolved from wolf, why is there still wolf', so 'If the therapod became bird, how were therapods still around to eat birds'.
Though the other persons reply about it being 'related kinds' based is another good idea as to what was explained.
@@the_secret_arts I can see them thinking that if they weren’t aware of the many similar features that many of the non-avian theropods shared with modern birds like feathers otherwise they’re basically insinuating something similar to what I pointed out lol 😂
Chimpanzees eat monkeys so according to these people that would make them not primates.
That is a very good way to present this to Creationists- if they follow the biology they may begin to accept theropods evolved into birds, but they will then just say theropods are just also "Bird Kind" and maintain their main argument that "Kinds don't evolve into other kinds" and we are back to the start a again- but I do think we are getting closer to finding definitive physical evidence that inter-special evolution can happen (or not), but neither evolution or creation has quite found a perfect example to either prove or disprove the inter-species debate- but it may turn out both sides (at least the best minds on both sides) are now just arguing about names, labels and technicalities rather than the process of biology.@@brfisher1123
I personally am an atheist. But I really liked your steelman version of young earth creationism. I think one of the best ways to prove that you understand a perspective that you don't agree with is to state their argument to them and ask if that is correct. That last part is key to avoiding strawman arguments.
I personally lean towards apologetic theism, and Clint's approach is *exactly* how we can create discussions that are not loaded with condescension and disrespect right from the get-go.
@@frederikl.1642if it’s alright to ask, what is “apologetic theism?” Is that related to apologetics, or are you trying to say sorry for something? 😂 /hj
@@awkwardukulele6077 It's the form of faith related to apologetics 😅 but both "apologetics" and "apologize" share some distantly related linguistic meaning.
Thank you for this video! My dad has always been on the fence about evolution, and the more I've sat and listened to him and tried to understand the skepticism, I've realized most of his doubt is coming from misconceptions about evolution, and not arguments that are actually made by mainstream scientists.
I'm definitely going to have him watch this video. His experience with scientists seems to be only interactions with very rigid, inflexible people that don't take the time to really understand the skepticism and present arguments in a way that people would be receptive to. I've been able to get him to be more open to the possibility that evolution is true just by correcting the misconceptions and explaining it as clearly as I can, but I'm not a scientist, and I have a feeling this video will really help him to understand what he's skeptical of in the first place.
Sorry but at the end of the day, it's still nothing more than a theory.
@@m.c.murdoch6 when there's tons and tons of evidence that continues to be found that supports a theory, and no evidence found that disproves it, it becomes much more plausible than other theories that have virtually no evidence supporting them
@@m.c.murdoch6 tell me you don´t understand what the term theory means in science without telling you don´t understand what the term theory means in science. HOT TIP : there is nothing beyond theories in science , theories explain the how and why of the facts we observe.
Anna, I was wondering if we could have an update? What did your dad think?
"It's impossible that a dog killed a wolf because dogs evolved from wolfs" same vibes creationist argument
If they read your comment they're going to think it's a good argument and use it in the future. And I will laugh.
@@haole08067 nah thats a terrible argument, we have much better
@@elliesrose Then I look forward to hearing them.
So this guy better explain kangals
@@pierre-samuelroux9364 Which guy? What explanation is needed?
If the original Americans descended from the British, then why do we still have the British?
A brilliant metaphor I'm going to repeat!
Aww no.. you're going to eat us!
Never mind problems with the Russians... the Americans are turning cannibal! (Joke).
Original??
that's not an example of evolution 😂
@TH-camChan.-gv8pt yes it is. Animals can evolve from an earlier species, but the original species can still be around
The most frustrating thing is that I completely understand when someone is very skeptical about their beliefs being challenged, but the number of crazy knots young earth creationists tie themselves into, semantics and misinformation in order to justify their clearly, easily refutable beliefs.
Funny thing is they are skeptical when it comes to changing their beliefs, but not skeptical enough to understand how dumb they are in the first place.
Facts!
It shocks me how little research they do. If I don’t know the answer to something, I look it up. They seem to think of a “got yah” question and don’t even try to find the answer.
If you want to be objective, you need to look at both sides.
I read a lot about evolution and it never convinced me.
I haven't found any arguments for evolution that can win against Hugh Owen.
I truly never have heard a creationist theory that hold water to two seconds of thinking about it and these being their strongest arguments back that up.
Clint, PLEASE make more videos like this! Your perspective and presentation is so thoughtful and compassionate and reasonable. There are a lot of creators on TH-cam who tackle creationism and often end up doing so in a way that is only palatable to people who are already deconstructing or already agree with them. I love and appreciate those creators, but there is something so valuable and rare about the way you went about this. This is a video I will be sharing with creationist family members because it's one of the only videos of its kind that doesn't mock or belittle or dismiss creationism.
My parents are both incredibly intelligent people with multiple degrees, and they are also creationists, and I think too many people assume that creationist arguments are just silly and you'd need to be deficient in common sense to believe it. Thank you for presenting this in such a respectful way!
I watched SO MANY of your wonderful reptile videos a couple years ago to help me decide which snakes were right for me and your enthusiasm and detailed coverage was so helpful and I'm now delighted to have snakes! And I can't even tell you how excited I was to see you talking on this subject too.
Thank you so much, truly.
I admire the patience and the wholesome effort of actually engaging with these arguments. So positive and educational!
I was raised by christian parents, who both happened to hold science degrees (biology and robotics). I was frequently bullied by other kids at church, whose families supported YEC views. Later on I was mocked and pushed around by university students and professors alike for admitting that I was religious, and wound up changing my major because of it. We need more people encouraging kids from all religious backgrounds to think objectively, and feel confident pursuing scientific careers!
"We need more people encouraging kids from all religious backgrounds to think objectively, and feel confident pursuing scientific careers!" - That's fine, although I recommend seeking Lord Jesus instead of religions. No religion can save, not even Christianity - only Lord Jesus saves.
Christianity was the default in the uk. Sunday school, covenanters, bible club, scripture union. By 12 years old I was fed up with teachers telling me the opposite of what the church was. So I left the church (obviously). great decision. My quest for knowledge and truth far outweighed my need for an imaginary friend to worship.
c'mon:
- 5 loaves and 2 fish.
- An Ark with every species on (all no-doubt snuggled up like friends).
- Stone tablets (a guy goes into the mountains for months, comes back with stone tablets, says "god gave them to me")
- Earth-centric universe
- 6 days to create the heavens and earth including flora and fauna.
Yeah, sounded as plausible to me at 12yo as it does now.
Riddle me this? is "Christian Scientist" an oxymoron, or another way of saying "fence-sitter".
@@DJ-Eye It is neither. In most cases a person's career and their personal religious beliefs are completely separate. This is widely accepted across many scientific fields, including my own (pharmaceutical sciences) but not in evolutionary biology. I hope that people like Clint can help to change that for future generations of young scientists.
@@clara7517 Interesting point, but how would that apply to a geologist who knows the age of the earth approximately, but has to kid himself that I'll skip that bit about the six days of creation. Cherry picking facts, does not intelligent make.
@@DJ-Eye Science is objective and based upon observable evidence. It is very important for any scientist to be able to
Very funny to see people openly shocked in the comments about Clint's religious views. Wow, you're telling me an exceptionally polite and cheerful white guy from Utah is religious?! Imagine my surprise.
Jokes aside I really appreciate the more patient and respectful approach to this topic from your team. I grew up on the internet in the age of the creationist vs atheist debate lords and always came away from them wishing for something a bit more constructive.
He might be from Utah, but he's also an evolutionary biologist, so how can he resolve the cognitive dissonance of being religious and knowing the entire evolutionary history of our planet? How can you believe in a religion that teaches that we're the zenith of creation, meanwhile, we're clearly nothing more but a minute blip in this universe?
Yeah, I thought the same. Even BEFORE I knew he was from Utah, I was 99% sure Clint's a Mormon, just from the way he acts- The super-wholesome enthusiasm, the avoidance of swearing with words like "stinking".
I think a lot of people are unaware how many successful TH-camrs, of just about every genre and topic, are Mormons, who just rarely directly acknowledge their Mormonism. But there's a certain vibe they usually give off, once spot the pattern.
Not that this is a criticism; I'm not religious myself, but most Mormon creators, like Clint, seem incredibly likeable and genuine.
(I have seen a few exceptions, with Mormon creators who seem just as scummy as their non-Mormon peers. But these are FAR less common than more positive examples of religion, like Clint, who seem to disproportionately find success; which is a GOOD thing, IMO- a direct result of being so likeable and enthusiastic)
@@Whatever94-i4u I bet you’re fun at parties
@@markrempel453 Yes, I'm quite fun at nonreligious parties.
The hard part is that their perception of evolution is so far from what the theory proposed that you have to try to get into the same field before you can counter argument. And they never want to get into the same page
What Evolutionists Believe. A Very Very Very Brief Account.
There was nothing, no thing
From nothing, came an explosion, from the explosion that came from nothing came everything
This explosion, that came from nothing, contained everything including time
After some time, the time that came from the explosion of everything that came from nothing, came galaxies, stars, planets and moons. All the materials needed (the periodic table) for stars, planets and life came from the explosion of everything that came from nothing, as did time.
Now in a certain location of space, that came from nothing is a certain planet, that was perfectly the right size and right distance from the sun, it had the perfect sized moon that too was perfectly placed in an orbit around this peculiar planet, that came from nothing.
Interesting to note here, the universe of everything, that came from nothing operates with the sophistication and timing of a Rolex watch, also interesting to note is the manifestation of the "Fibonacci sequence" in both organic matter on earth as well as the spiral of a galaxy (incidentally from nothing.)
After some time, that came from nothing, on a planet that came from nothing, that had all the elements required for life, that came from nothing, arose a "primordial soup."
From this amazing soup, came an unknown cell that for some unbeknown reason replicated.
Life came from nothing.
After some time, well, quite a lot if time, this cell became, a trilobite in both male and female form.
What they ate, nobody knows?
How did they know they needed to eat, nobody knows?
How did they have the time to evolve the bone/muscle structures to eat, the digestive and waste system without dying of starvation, nobody knows?
The relationship between proteins, RNA bad DNA mysteriously appeared too
Then, they felt that they needed to become fish, both male and female realised this at precisely the same time!
They then went on land, both male and female. Now this raises questions, what did they eat?
They simultaneously became amphibians! (This happened instantaneously so as to avoid asphyxiation.
How did they know there was food on land to eat?
How did they know they were equipped to eat the find they did not know was there?
How did they know of all the vegetation that was there, what was good/bad to eat?
How did the food get there in the 1st place?
How did vegetation form?
How did photosynthesis evolve?
How did they pollinate without a pollinator?
How did seed bearing seed to its own kind evolve?
How did the none living seed know it needed to fall into the none living soil to germinate?
They then, after some time, that came from nothing and for no reason both male and female decided to become birds, reptiles and mammals!
Oh yeh, and two mammals (male and female) went back into the sea, this is how we get whales!
Now after some time, that came from nothing, in a universe that came from nothing, with mathematical precisions and numeric sequences that came from nothing, in a galaxy that came from nothing, in a solar system that came from nothing, on a planet that came from nothing, from a goo that came from nothing, living creatures that came from non living inanimate matter arose a creature called humans, both male and female, that came from nothing.
And all this is accepted as fact without 1 shred of evidence.
In other words, everything came from nothing, let’s take a closer look
0-0=0
0+0=0
0X0=0
0/0=0
0%0=0
Because out of nothing, comes nothing (that’s a scientific fact)
The word science means the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Now let’s see if evolution meets the above criteria?
The universe came from nothing? Does not fit criteria.
The contents of the universe (time/space/matter) appearing with no cause? Does not fit criteria
The universal laws? Does fit not criteria
Primordial soup? Does not fit criteria
The arising of a cell from soup? Does not fit criteria
Life coming from none life? Does not fit criteria
Transitional fossils? Does not fit criteria
Nothing has ever been observed as causing anything to come into existence
And evolutionists accuse those who accept ID as the only viable answer to life as,
Deluded
Dumb
Brainwashed
Mad
Insane
That a belief in ID is the same as the belief of unicorns, leprechauns flying horses and ghosts!
The evolutionist has blind faith on blind chance
The universe came from nothing = magic!
Life came from none life = miracle!
All creatures/plants evolved from 1 cell from goo with no/zero/nada transitional fossils = mystery!
Evolution has its own trinity!
Evolution, the fastest evolving elephant in the room.
That was me for several years.
I was afraid of my belief system crashing down. Non-deterministic Christianity requires sin before death.
I had to keep telling myself that reality exists regardless of my beliefs.
@@Weirdomanification that is tough. That’s is the reason I never go personal level when I argue about science and beliefs. Everyone has their struggles.
But I really hope that everything worked out for you.
It's always refreshing to hear from a Christian who actually understands science and evolution and is willing to speak out against young Earth creationists.
Agreed. I’m not really religious, but I heard something a while back that made me think different about creation theory. God is all powerful, right? When he made Adam and Eve, were they babies or many years old and fully grown? So why can’t both be correct; that God made the Earth 4,000 years ago, and he made it with billions of years of history and detailed evolving lifeforms and fossilised evidence? I reckon God is an evolution hobbyist at heart hahaha 👍
@@dustenekoes28 Simpler than putting billions of years of history into a planet that's much younger: Ask yourself if a "day" to God is truly the same as a "day" to humans? Probably not.
Also, the Bible math determining how many single-thousand years old Earth is is based on a passage with lineage that only mentions the important people. It skips a lot.
@@dustenekoes28Because there’s absolutely no point or positive outcome from building a gigantic “theme park” universe. Even the most powerful being or force possible in the universe has better things to do.
@@DoctorShocktor But if God is all powerful, he could do all that and literally everything else in the universe in an instant, too. The real answer to the question is “why not?” But again, I’m not part of any religion, just sharing a good point that made me think a little differently 👌
@@dustenekoes28Why stop there? What if you're a god, and we're all your creations. You created the universe so you could find out what it would be like to be mortal. You don't know this because your last act was to erase your own mind. When you die (or rather wake up), all of us will cease to exist, and you'll have a good laugh about it all. Or maybe I'm a god, you're my creation, and I decided to keep it hidden from you. Or maybe some other god created us both. And that god made you and I gods, but we don't know it yet. These things might be fun to think about, but none of them are falsifiable, so they aren't scientific. Or even good arguments.
5:57 “weird enough to make it” is my new survival mantra. Bless you
slap it on a t-shirt, i'll buy it lol
Thinking that birds can't be descendants of theropods because they lived together is actually completely logic, if your knowledge on evolution comes entirely from Pokémon.
They weren't allowed to watch/play Pokémon, they typically think it is evil. I used to be one of them. I watch videos like Clint's to learn all the things I wasn't allowed to learn growing up. I also enjoy Pokémon.
The funny thing is that Pokémon leans more into religion than evolution. Arceus is essentially God of the Pokémon universe universe, and the father of the deities of time and space Dialga and Palkia. Then there's Giratina, which is treated as the devil of the trio.
@samarnadra How about you try thinking for yourself instead of letting others tell you what to think.......
Neither theory can ever be proven. But one has a lot more holes in it than the other. You decide which one.
For me, there is just too much evidence to support an intelligent creator than there is for everything we see being brought on by mere chance.
@@CollinLutz-p9e If they are to think for themselves instead of letting others tell them what they think, then I am sure that they will not listen to you. They sound firm in their decision and are not changing. Neither do I believe in a creator either.
@@CollinLutz-p9ethere aren’t two theories. One critical criteria of creating a Theorie is, that a Theorie must be able to be falsified. There is always the possibility to find evidence that falsifies the evolution theory (however it’s extremely unlikely, which is why the theory is highly agreed to be true), but there will never be evidence that there is no god. But if you think about it, how many gods are there? If you Cristian, there is one. If you are Islamic, there is one. If you are Nordic, there are several, if you are Ancient Roman or Ancient Greek, there are several, if you are Buddhist, there are non. So, which believe is right? You can only base this decision on your subjective believes. In Science, there is evidence all over the globe and scientist from all around the world independently come to the same results. Or they prove theory’s to be wrong. However they work with evidence. Therefore, and that’s my conclusion here, you can’t really compare a religion to science, except you are searching for an easy solution to a complex problem.
Where were you all my life? I love how you able to break things down and explain things.
"Birds cant be dinosaurs because both existed at the same time"
Oh so is your whole family dead then?
Your parents dont die when you are born, most people have cousins and that similar to the relationship between dinosaurs and birds.
Non avian dinosaurs didn’t go extinct when birds first evolved. Non avian dinosaurs and birds coexisted for more than 100 million years before non avian dinosaurs ultimately went extinct. A better analogy would be if you and the rest of your family lived along side each other for most of your life before at some point a disaster killed your family with you as the only survivor.
no the argument is that because they claimed they did not live together, once we know they did., one more fallacy to evolution theory
@@ronniemillsapfortunately they don't know much about how evolution works, also it's not a theory it's a fact, treating evolution and creationism as theories is like comparing a paleontologist to a kid who loves dinosaurs
You're not wrong but this is a false equivalency. You and your family are still the same species.
originally it was the evolutionists saying they couldnt exist at the same time because of the fossile record, the people who made this video talk to that perspective. and they proved it wrong
Coming from a background as a former young earth creationist myself, I wholeheartedly concur with your thoughtful and respectful steel man approach to this discussion. Your choice to engage without resorting to ridicule or dismissiveness towards those who share these beliefs is both commendable and rare. Indeed, as you've astutely observed, constructing a straw man only serves to alienate rather than enlighten or persuade. Equally, your acknowledgment of the presence and contributions of theists within the scientific community as rational and reasonable individuals adds a much-needed nuance to this conversation. It's refreshing to see such a balanced and inclusive perspective. In solidarity and with appreciation, your brother in Christ, Preston.
Thank you so much for taking the time to leave such a thoughtful and encouraging comment.
quite so! Darwin trained as a clergyman and Mendel was a monk. I am an atheist myself, but the vulgar "new atheist" notion that religious or spiritual discourse is so toxic that it will "pollute" the intellect irretrievably is countered by the example of these giants of scientific knowledge, who somehow managed to escape degradation and come up with some really useful scientific theory.
Its sad that so many people pass the first hurdle of believing into the young earth creation because of overwhelming evidence against it but they fail to pass the hurdle of creationism, meaning they still believe in creation, just more earlier in the past...
As a Catholic and a dinosaur nerd, I can safely say none of us want to associate with creationists, and they are avoided at all costs.
For real, not that long ago, I was in Bible class talking about Georges Lemaître and Gregor Mendel.
I learned about evolution, natural selection, and artificial selection on Catholic school. That was on the freaking 90s.
Unfortunately even some catholics reject evolution theory. Michael Behe is the most famous one.
That's the irritating thing about Creationism: you don't need to be an atheist to believe in evolution, being christian(or religious in any other way ) and trusting science are not self excluding things. Why is that so hard to get for those people?
@@Eisenwulf666 I have no idea.
Exactly. I realized that religion & science can not only coexist - but even complete each other - when I was still a wee lad. I can't get why it's so difficult for many people to just accept that religion and science don't have to clash
Super grateful you were not condescending to their position but thought it out carefully.
It always amazes me how people, who base their lives on a book full of things that nobody observed happening, argue that if you didn't observe it happening, it didn't happen
A great point, well made... and now I also want pudding
@@octoBadger did you get pudding?
So much pudding @@XKathXgames
Yeah I was very confused with that too 😂
@@octoBadgeryay
Falcons and hawks are well-known birds of prey that effectively hunt smaller birds.
No,falcons and hawks are dinosaurs😂
This is exactly the kind of discussions we need. Very well done making your rebuttal with respect.
I read this in the comment section of one of AronRa’s videos I read this: “If Americans descended of Britain, why are there still British people?” That shows how that argument is ridiculous and that opposers of evolution have no idea of the concept or logic because that has been corrupted by dogma
MORE PLEASE!!!!! I’m a Christian evolutionist, and I would love to be able to better explain my position in the metered, calm way that you approach these arguments. I have enjoyed your content for a while now, but this was hands down my favorite. Also, thank you for not making the YECs look stupid. Because of your respect for them, I will be sending this video to my family without fear that they will think I am attacking them.
if you like but people can believe anything they want, ignore any evidence they want, you're not gonna end superstition and ignorance
That’s fair. However, I have heard for a long time that many of my fellow Christians think that there is an innate competition between “faith” and “science“. As if they are in opposition with each other. I do not feel this way at all. My faith is based on things that cannot be measured by science, but God also gave us these huge brains (through the process of evolution) to learn about the world around us. Because of my faith, everything I learn about science always makes me wonder more at the marvel that is the God that I believe in. I want to share this with my fellow believers, and nonbelievers alike…. Because it’s awesome. 😉
@@destryallgood3681 "Evolution" is contradictory to Genesis. Genesis tells that God created everything perfect so that there was no death or suffering. "Evolution" equals death and suffering.
And of course, while there now is death and suffering there is no evolution. Evolution would need unforeseen new genes to the existing species but there are no such new genes. Instead, there is speciation that occurs through gene loss.
We can observe that in the speciation process natural selection creates adaptation through gene loss, through devolution not evolution. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly. All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for any subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution.
@@destryallgood3681 I mean in no way do faith and science intrinsically have to compete. There's nothing stating that God didn't create the first sparks of life or the big bang that led to the creation of the universe.
So much of the bible is metaphor, and translated by man metaphor, and retranslated and retranslated and reinterpreted, etc etc. So I struggle to try and take any particular point extremely literally.
In fact I think some things directly point to things like evolution. "god breathed the breath of life into man" for instance, created from dirt. That sounds a lot like a really condensed version of evolution, albeit guided by an omnipotent being.
If you are a "christian evolutionist" you are clearly a fence sitter.
Creation and evolution are NOT different interpretations of the same thing!
As a non-bèliever who is often exasperated by the tone and even some of the content of my fellow non-believers in debate with YEC, I really feel that your voice is more valuable than even you may realize.
Hi Clint, I learned a lot from this video and would love to see more content like this. The respectful and educational manner in which you approached this topic was greatly appreciated.
You can find many videos like this, but shorter, in Clint Explains channel.
How can I as an American be descended from Europeans, when there are still Europeans around? Check and mate!
If you visit the land area called "Germany" you will find it's devoid of indigenous humans as I am an American and I "came from" Germans.
I really enjoyed the non judgemental tone of this video. Really appreciated that no criticism of either side of the argument occurred. Others, such as Professor Dave, make arguments that i agree with, but their condescending tone can make it hard for people who are sitting on the fence to agree.
Thank you. That was really important to me. I find that kind of a tone to be off-putting. It is just candy for people that already agree with you.
Just cause you're on the fence doesn't mean that creationist arguments are both scientifically incorrect but also logically incoherent. If you take that as a negative tone than that's on you
Big agree. I was actually thinking about how much I admire the sentiment of this video. It really is such a shining example of how (despite what the current social/political/religious climate would have you believe) you can truly respectfully disagree with people whose viewpoints are fundamentally opposed to yours.
Dumb ideas should be criticized. I've seen so many creationist ridicule scientific facts because they (quite obviously) simply don't know what they're talking about. Criticism doesn't have to be taken negatively.
If a "condescending tone" turns you away from facts, you need to ground yourself more in logic and less in emotion when it comes to stuff like this. Evolution isn't faith or belief, it is just fact.
I've seen museums used by a lot of YEC people as "gotchu" stories because either the guide or a drawing/presentation or a display may not be fully accurate or up to date. And my thought is always, guides aren't scientists, they are basically actors. They learn a script and some background information. Unless the script is updated or that guide has a lot of background information, what that guide knows is what they were told. The drawings and presentations also aren't done by scientists. They are done by artists working with the information given to them. If the information isn't up to date, neither will the presentations. And the displays aren't always update to date because we learn things so quickly and there are so many displays that it'd be impossible and expensive to update every display every time new information is gained.
It's also very possible that the museum story is made up as well. I have a hard time believing a museum guide would "convert" immediately based off the flimsy story.
@@bsears85 oh I agree
I've seen creationists present tales like this in comic book form. Truly.
There's one where an evolutionary biologist is doing biology 101, some kid shows up with the usual creationist claptrap and by the third panel the scientist/educator is sweating bricks because he knows "the gig is up" and he's about to be exposed by the heroic 19 year old who read a few creationists tracts.
The fact that this is presented as a cartoon ought to put people on their guard that it is a wishful thinking fantasy.
In real life, there was at least one evolutionary biology class the began brutally enough, that actually warned creationists types to drop the class. They said, "if you believe in creationism now, by the end of the term you won't." That's how these things really go.
Agreed. I’m sure some natural history museum guides could be tripped up by a young patron who repeatedly asks questions. Makes sense that creationist ministers would be looking for ways to proselytize.
About the age of fossils, it is possible that a museum guide would not know the difference between sedimentary rocks (where the fossils are) and molten rock which has cooled called igneous rock, or volcanic ash. Essentially it is the igneous rock/volcanic ash which has radioactive isotopes such as uranium-238 and uranium-235. When layers of radioactive isotopes are above and below a layer of sedimentary rock, those isotopes can give the age of the fossils.
@@curious968 I was a young earth creationist before I took biology. Now I'm a theistic evolutionist. Still a Christian, but I no longer think the earth was created in 6 literal days
this is the video that made me decide to become a patron. and i just want to say that i think THIS is the way to get people to change their minds. videos titled things like "scientist HUMILIATES creationist" full of mean spirited "dunks" on people who really don't understand what they're arguing against won't make anyone change their mind. they only further divide us, promote this idea of science as dogma, and encourage people to dig in their heels out of fear of embarrassment and losing and retreat to echo chambers where they won't feel like people are trying to make them look stupid.
i have immense respect for the way you handled this topic, Clint. I wish more science channels would handle these controversial topics with the same level of care and empathy. and as much as I absolutely adore these phylogeny videos you've been making, I think more pro-evolution videos with this kind of positive tone could really help educate a lot of people who have been turned off by all the videos which end up feeling like anti-creationist programming.
I think there's a line in terms of audiences. My spectrum would be Clint, Forrest Valkai and Professor Dave. This video is very good at being as fair and charitable as possible, giving a lot of leeway. It's the type of thing that would make people more open-minded about genuinely engaging with YEC's and might even change some YEC's minds with how willing it is to meet people eye to eye. The only downside is that maybe, potentially, more people will engage with YEC's in good faith and have that taken advantage of by bad faith actors who aren't willing to share the same genuine consideration.
Forrest Valkai does take a bit more of a confrontational approach, but his content seems more to be educating non-YEC's on evolution and expressing the amazing nature of science and how cool it is to learn about. He does directly talk to YEC's on some of his shows where they can call in to debate, but it's definitely more the type of thing for a non-YEC audience. This creates an audience of non-YEC learners, who learn more about evolution by contrasting scientific theory with evolution. Essentially, teaching by explaining why it's wrong. Though he titles his videos a bit like that, I'd say it actually clickbaits people who are there for meanspirited takedowns and instead makes them learn something. The downside is that it's not as open to a YEC audience.
Professor Dave... he's kind of the worst on these issues unfortunately. His educational videos are great but his debunks are incredibly hostile and his audience is filled with the type of angry atheists who generally go out of their way to be smarmy about religion as a whole. And when told he was being smug and hostile, his reaction was essentially "So what? They don't deserve respect, they're bad actors." Even if that's right, which it might be, it still turns off people who need education. He does get comments about people who've changed their minds from him, which I think is great, but I can't stand his attitude and don't think almost any YEC's could either. I eventually had to unsubscribe because he was just a bit too abrasive.
I agree though, this video is great and there should be more like it,
Creationists, as far as I know, never clearly defined "information".
But in computer science, information is a mathematical concept and its amount can be objectively measured. I think "genetic information" is a specific case.
Within the first 10 seconds "How can they have become birds if they were eating birds?"
Aaaargh. Where do I start ?
"How can birds be birds when birds eat birds?"
You are what you eat
Me,also watching a documentary: a falcon is eating a pigeon...thinking to myself: a falcon is not a bird,it's a dino. You learn something every day.
As someone who believes in God, I don't know why some religious ppl don't accept scientific consensus that is backed by overwhelming evidence. Belief in an almighty & evolution are NOT mutually exclusive!
I always wondered why they dont seem to think that it is offensive towards god to directly reject the results of studying his creation. If anything, that the only first-hand information we have that comes directly from him.
"#why some religious ppl don't accept scientific consensus that is backed by overwhelming evidence" - We should first get that "overwhelming" evidence.
God is omnipotent. God can make round planets, percieve billions of years as a week, create a microbe that would be the ancestor of all life, and so on.@@jounisuninen
@@HOLDENPOPEnot true. God cannot change his mind. Because if God is omniscient then God knows he is going to change is mind and so it is not really a change of mind.
So if God is omniscient, then God has no free will. God knows what will happen and is forced to live out what he knows will happen.
@@psibert ...you do know you just said a common argument against God's existence, right? The exact opposite of an argument for Flat Earth? (Since believing in Flat Earth requires believing in some sort of religion, though the inverse is not true) Like dude, no, the Earth is not fucking flat. All observation points to it being round, and adding an omnipotent being that could have made it round from the very fucking beginning only destroys the idea more.
The claim that the house cat shows a "clear loss of information" compared to a lion is quite telling. It tells us quite a lot about YEC arguments which are almost universally overly simplistic in nature, and I guess it's not that surprising given that all YEC advocates I ever encountered online were simpletons.
I've said it before, and I will say it again. Clint is a voice that the world needs right now. Full stop
I had a dear friend who always said "God is a big fan of science. He invented it "
@@Celmaimog it was her way of joking to make the point that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive. I can't speak for her beyond that as she passed away.
@@Celmaimog If you believe God created the earth and everything in it, he created it in a way in which it works. The study of the way things work is science. So, by that, God created the science we study.
We have become entrenched in a false dichotomy that science and religion can not coexist. There are scholars who look into how the two can mutually exist. I'm teaching a class at my church on this topic. But when you look at the topic, it is important to examine all potential views on the relationship between science and religion, not just the ones you agree with.
Just for reference, I am a Christian and a chemist. I do see science and religion as compatible.
@@Celmaimog The most remarkable scientists behind the birth of modern science, such as Galileo Galilei, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, James Maxwell, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal and Louis Pasteur all believed in the genuine planning which can be observed in nature.
”Though these bodies may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” - General Scholium to the Principia (Isaac Newton)
In the book Real Scientists, Real Faith twenty of today's top scientists, explain why they are believers. As Einstein wrote: "A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views." (Einstein)
Well. If a person squints hard enough, he can be made to see anything. If it’s comforting to you to believe that a spirit “created” the natural world, go ahead. Nothing scientific verifies that feeling. Robert Sapulsky explains very easily why theists create mythology: they have to.
@@BionicMilkaholic So if the bible said that water was made of 4 atoms, we'd just have to figure out a way to make that compatible with our experimental evidence that says water molecules are made of 1 oxygen and 2 hydrogen atoms. Maybe we could decide that oxygen atoms are more like 2 atoms to make it work. Everything can be compatible if you try hard enough.
I don’t understand why young earth creationists lie. Like, wouldn’t you try to make the most honest response since lying is a sin?
Then they'd have to acknowledge that their book is wrong.
There's quite a few members of the cloth out there that have discovered lying is a great deal more lucrative than being a good Christian
young earth creationists have a world view base off God’s word.
Evolutionists have a world view base off man’s word.
@wolfboy55xbox3
Young Earth Creationists have a world view based on whatever literal interpretation of their holy book they prefer.
People who accept evolution have a world view based on scientifically supported evidence.
Fixed it for you...
BTW, if a god did exist, it wouldn't change the fact that populations evolve, that the fossil record exists, and that life shares common ancestry. So that would be God's word, because we didn't make it up.
@@hylaherping9180 how do you know that’s your mind that’s evolve by random chance is actually looking at the evidence correct.
Fish eat other fish. Snakes eat other snakes.
Birds eat other birds.
The idea all birds appeared at the same time is like believing all cities were built at the same time.
Please please please keep making videos like these. "Debunking" content like this is so often very snide, sarcastic and dismissive, and although I can enjoy that content a good bit and I dont think it totally is devoid of value videos like this where the person comes from a genuine place of care, is respectful and faces the "steel man" of the argument are the things that will really change the minds of the people truly entrenched in YEC and similar things.
Great video, keep up the good work.
I appreciate this, but creatures like Ham & Hovind deserve no respect at all.
@@teleriferchnyfain and I would caution clint against engaging with those two, else he too will turn into the snide, sarcastic, dismissive debunker that the OP complains about
Exactly. The classic, condescending “debunking” videos are entertainment first and education second. The vast majority of people who watch those videos are only watching in order to validate their own beliefs or laugh at another group of people they deem as “stupid”. It’s videos like this that ACTUALLY educate people and change minds.
I remember thinking that Hovind's video series on "Lies in the Textbooks" was a real gem!! Only a year or so ago I stumbled across Aron Ra's rebuttal of Hovind's video series. It's Ra's rebuttal that's the real gem.
By Steel-Man-ing a creationist argument/ idea, you're doing what no creationist has EVER done for any scientific argument, ever!!
You're a genuine legend, dude!
It is always important to not get complacent. Even though evolution in broad conceptual terms may be scientifically undeniable, treating all criticism of it with disdain is counterproductive, because it stops us from scrutinizing the small stuff which very well *could* be wrong. Classic examples include stuff like the dismissal of punctuated equilibrium, or assumptions that a missing link between two species simply happened not to leave any discovered fossils, when in actuality those species weren't closely related at all and their similarities were from convergent evolution.
@@tudornaconecinii3609that is the scientific method. So yeah, hard agree. In science, there are no truths, just what we think might be the closest approximation to truth so far.
@@tudornaconecinii3609to be honest my understanding of punctuated equilibrium is that the theory is highly scrutinized because it assumes deviation always leads to speciation, which we have seen is not the case. Although I’m not entirely caught up on it. Phylogenetic gradualism or even punctuated gradualism seem more akin to what is observable over a wide range of organisms. That said it’s good to not be immediately dismissive and condescending about theories not our own. It’s a delicate balance of wanting to learn and critically assess the theories you subscribe to, while not wanting to make theories that are significantly flawed or otherwise unlikely to seem more credible than they are.
You know it makes sense that a young earth creationist might think that gaining new information through evolution isn't possible considering they are incapable of taking in any new information themselves
I find the "for something to be true it must be observable and repeatable" argument quite rich considering no one alive today ever met Jesus or saw any apostle writing any book
Never mind them praying to a white, blonde, blue-eyed, 1st Century middle-eastern man
Christians do admit that christanity is a religion, though.
History and science are two separate disciplines. And Jesus was a jew. Not white.
@@cjcarrizo42reminds me of some Austrian guy…Rudolf, was it? Something like that
@@theoriginalhowardhoMaybe I'm dumb, but aren't Jews a religion, and white a colour? I can imagine people being both. Maybe white is used as some synonym here though I don't know of.
I really appreciate how you're respectful of the points of view you debunk.
The central disconnect in the debate with creationists is they tend to see evolution/science as a rival religion, and thus as a threat (e.g. at 7:00 "it's a battle over two different religions"). That's why the points within the argument can't land; they feel any argument against creationism is an attack on them and their god. The two sides are simply not arguing from the same footing. It's no surprise that it's so rare that anyone in this debates ever changes sides, or can convince their opponent to.
Which is why YEC isn't logical. Even as a Christian who believes the Bible is the word of God, I look around at the universe God created and it TESTIFIES it is old, and animals evolved over time. Can't deny evidence in your face
The really sad thing is that it just doesn't have to be that way (full disclosure: Im pagan, not Christian or athiest). Take genesis: So YHWH shows one of his followers how the world came into being. The guy writes it down. What are the odds that this mortal guy in any way understood what he just saw? He couldn't watch it in real time even if it only took 500 years. If it took billions, how is he even going to comprehend that number?
It should be obvious to anyone that any ancient- or modern- explanation of anything is filtered through what the writer is actually able to comprehend, and might be further simplified for the sake of what the readers can comprehend. Assuming that the Bible contains anything more than the barest information needed to understand the God it's about is absurd.
There is no conflict between religion and science, no matter how much some Christains and athiests want there to be. It's two different fields. It's like claiming there's a conflict between chemistry and economics.
Why the young earth creationists try so hard to limit their God is beyond me. I'm offended on his behalf, and I don't even like him all that much!
It's also kinda weird how they call the theory of evolution a religion as if that's a bad thing, while they're literally making arguments in favor of a religion.
@purpletacofish
you wrote a lot about a wrong assumption, this is what most critics do.
God didn't show "a guy" something and left it for him to communicate. He told Moses WHAT to write.
@@purpletacofishatheists don't want there to be a disconnect. Atheists, generally, just seek truth. If something isn't true, then atheists who care about the truth will refute it and show exactly why it's wrong. You don't have atheists arguing that there's no such place as Jerusalem and when a theist points to it on a map start arguing with them and asking if they've ever been there or saying it's a fake map or something. Atheists, ironically, argue in good faith.
"lion evolving into a cat is a loss of information because lions are bigger so they have more DNA"
The murder example was probably the best I have heard yet for an argument against Ken's own arguments
I grew up in a small town in the Bible belt surrounded by creationist. Like, my highschool teachers told us evolution was a state-mandated lie. When I was in like middle school I found a book on evolution at a used book store and begged mom to buy it cause I liked the pictures and the idea that animals changed. I had to hide it from the rest of my family. Videos like this I feel are very important for young people, the way you politely correct misinformation without attacking the intelligence of the people who believe it is exactly what I needed in highschool and I can only hope that you are reaching the people who need it now. Great video, 10/10.
Videos like these are an invaluable resource. As someone who grew up in the church and was taught YEC principles from a young age, information as you present it here would have been a boon in my teenage years. Thank you for doing what you do! This is the first video of yours that I’ve watched but I’m excited to check out your other content.
I hope he does a follow up on his beliefs. It's always bothered me that people walk away from the faith based on things said by a YEC that later get debunked. That stuff isn't in the Bible so they need to stop speculating
Clint deserves a Nobel prize for patience
I really appreciate seeing the positive comments here from people who identify as YEC.
It seems like these commenters always get a reply asking why they still identify that way, or why they have not been convinced(to take the other side) by Clint’s video.
I don’t think we should expect or hope for an instant turnaround like that. People believe this because it’s the world that they have been taught that they live in, and the science they have been taught within that world. There are so many more components than just an acceptance of the theory of evolution, but because that ties into the education so closely, we shouldn’t expect people to be convinced of evolution through one video, either.
What Clint’s video should convince people of is that this science is worth exploring, questioning, and learning more about. This is an amazing video for opening that door, and while some people might not be ready to step through yet, that doesn’t mean they shut it.
I grew up in YEC, and for several years have been battling to reconcile science and YEC. I finally found my way in science maintaining my faith…And I’m so happy to have just found this channel
"battling to reconcile science and YEC" - That should be OK since both theoretical and empirical science confirm YEC.
Physics is the basis for all natural sciences. Robert Laughlin, professor of physics at Stanford University, and sharer in a Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect, describes evolution theory as ”an ideology, a logical dead end and an anti-theory”. Evolution theory is against the discoveries caught from empirical studies of natural science.
According to Laughlin, the observations which are used to justify evolution theory are questionable at best, and at worst they are completely false. Laughlin says that empirical natural science does not need the evolution theory and the evolution theory does not get support from empirical natural science.
I sincerely respect how well you balance your education with your religious beliefs.
I don't understand Clint's compartmentalising fiction from reality.
There's a key logical fallacy that I keep seeing in creationist arguments where in, essentially, if I can poke holes in your position (in this case evolution or science), then my position wins by default. But it doesn't work that way. Whether evolution is true, flawed, or complete bs, it doesn't validate creationism in the slightest. Disproving one theory and proving another are separate arguments. You still have to prove creationism on its own merits by some semblance of a standard. Just making (even valid, informed, good faith, which 99% aren't) critiques about evolution, do nothing to bolster creationism.
I guess I'm not the only person who noticed that.
I wonder how the dude at the start would feel when he learns about king snakes. A snake that eats other species of snakes.
wait till he finds out that most of his diet (well the meat part that is) is other mammals
@@daftwulli6145bro's a pescetarian
Or a black widow spider who mates with her lovely partner, then eats it.
Or a male grizzly bear who eats it's own fluffy babies.
Or sharks, alligators, tigers, seals, chimps, and of course, humans.
So is the king cobra , what of it besides it seems the appropriate food for a snake considering its shape .
@@DoctorZisINAgain what of it , it's called cannibalism .
I will never understand why people think that God and science are directly opposed. God gave us this incredible universe, he gave us a sense of curiosity. He wants us to explore and learn. The church used to be the biggest proponent of science, and people have warped themselves into thinking they cant coexisit.
That varied pope to pope, burning of the great library wasn't particularly good for science, setting us back at least 1,000 years that it took to recreate integral calculus, an excruciatingly vital field of mathematics. But yes, Catholicism generally views 'gods creation' itself as more reliable direct evidence of god's work than the bible. In the new testament 4 contradictory narratives of Jesus' life exist because the council of nicea thought they were most accurate but couldn't differentiate which was most accurate. At least one of them is very clearly a derivative work and with newer analysis can be essentially ignored for example.
The most interesting thing in my view is the bible clearly demonstrates God learning morality from humans, not the other way around.
Early god for example believes child sacrifice is just, until after abraham and Issac (Issac doesn't actually survive in the old texts) he believes in collective punishment (noah, lot) arbitrary torture tests of loyalty (job), lots of ethnic genocide.
If anything, sacrificing his own child is to absolve his own sin of demanding it from his believers in the past.
Then there's the other gods in the bible, angels which are much more like mechanical vehicles than creatures in most cases. But ah! I digress.
even religion evolves, in ideology and method or we whod still be burning anyone who desagree with it. im not religious, i just dont know if there is something, nothing to say yes, nothing to say no, but i respect those who can think and not blindly eat bs that are feed to them by these kind of oposits "forces". having a sence of doubt and question things is great, thats how we came so far as specie, but, and thats a big BUT, some people ask why, try to find and awser, find one they like, and blindly stick with it... that i dont respect, its not about religion, is about how small minded a person can be
TLDR: Yes, at any given time you can find religious beliefs that don’t contradict with science, but the concept of religion is definitely at odds with science.
(I know you say “God and science”, but later you reference the church so I’m assuming you mean religion as a whole.) Let’s not kid ourselves, Religion is basically an attempt at making up answers to questions, and then later science comes in and says “well actually”. Through all of history we see science debunking religious dogma, and never the other way around.
Unless religious beliefs are vague in nature they will eventually conflict with science. You just can’t randomly make up stuff about reality and the universe and expect it to hold up forever.
So yeah, if you are determined to make religion work with science sure you can always cobble something together. But if you really have an appreciation for what makes science so important then why would you go against that appreciation for facts and evidence and arbitrarily prescribe value to made up mysticism?
The problem with evolution is that it makes no sense in scientific terms.
It has never been observed, even after trying in labs for decades.
It lacks fossil evidence.
It goes against simple logic (you can't give what you don't have)
It presents itself as a religion, giving a false creation myth which lacks any sort of observable evidence. It takes something we all know to be true (species adaptation) and takes it to the most absurd extremes.
I'm not a Mormon anymore, but I grew up Mormon and I've long noticed your ctr ring. I actually had a sneaking suspicion for a long time that you were beforehand, but the ring was the smoking gun 😂.
I've had a lot of issues with the church and many people within it, but I've always appreciated the part of the culture that uplifts education and intellectual curiosity. Thank you for being a part of that and teaching folks that your faith doesn't have to conflict with that.
Faith in the supernatural directly contradicts the natural world. I don’t understand how one can be a religious naturalist. Cognitive dissonance? 🤔
@@KadenSlinker can I ask how you reconcile natural vs supernatural?
@@KadenSlinker if he exists in the natural world, it should be possible to prove his existence right?
@@KadenSlinker sorry your argument is circular and doesn’t say or mean anything worthwhile. You’re just proclaiming stuff to be true without evidence.
@@KadenSlinker we believe in evolution because there are mountains of evidence proving it to be true. If you believe in a god without the same kind of evidence, you are cognitively dissonant.
The problem with the ‘sudden catastrophic burial’ to become a fossil is usually meant to infer a ‘global flood’. However Not all fossils are buried in flood deposits.
Yes, that's the point I believe that person was trying to make, to use these fossils to "prove" there was a sudden "catastrophic, rapid" flood that buried these creatures "instantly".
I appreciate how, while you are entirely willing to point out the flaws and incorrect assumptions in their arguments, you are very polite and not at all nasty about it, which I think makes you all the more persuasive. There are some other science TH-camrs who could learn a thing or two from that.
My dude you have SO much more patience than me, I respect that 🫡
Ex-creationist and now going into evolutionary biology lol, I’m a little quick to dunk on these arguments out of spite since it feels like I’ve “heard it all” but you broke it all down in a way that’s probably easier for audiences less familiar with those arguments to understand.
It’s nice to see someone in the field who can reconcile their religion with the hard facts. If I had grown up in a less hardcore creationist, more accepting environment I might’ve still been religious. But oh well
My upbringing turned me into an atheist too. I'm just not anymore.
What changed that?@@ClintsReptiles
Great video! This video helped me understand YEC's beliefs better because unfortunately I have never spoken with anyone who could explain it well enough that I didnt just want to throw my hands up in the air or shake my head in frustration. I appreciate this video, and I hope it results in some real conversations instead of memorized bulletpoints and rehearsed catchphrases. Good job!
Oh wow. As if I needed Clint to diversify his already lovely content. Got Gutsick Gibbon hitting ape evolution out of the park, and now we got Clint on reptiles. ♥️
Thank you thank you for this video. I am an ex-evangelical and also an ex-young earth creationist. Early in my college years I went on my own journey and felt very deeply for a time that science and faith were not incompatible -- if you haven't read Francis Collin's book "The Language of God" I highly recommend it, it touches on this.
I am now pursuing a PhD in Genome Sciences with a focus on proteomics. While I no longer subscribe to the religion I once held, it is a salve to my soul to see someone hold in the same breath "this is wrong and here's why" with "here is the most charitable interpretation of my opponents' beliefs." Too many anti-creationist takes have the former but not the latter.
Given your journey, you might find the following interesting.
When I was a junior in college, a close friend and I went on a double date. For reasons I don't recall, the theory of evolution came up. During the discussion, my friend's date said, more or less, "We've been studying evolution. For a while, it really bothered me because evolution contradicts the Bible. I struggled. But I finally decided to believe in creation because evolution made me uncomfortable."
That date happened decades ago. Said coed ultimately married my friend and, to this day, "believes in creation" and rejects all "beliefs" related to the theory of evolution.
Last night, I was thinking about the "housecats have less information than lions" clip and realised that it doesn't even make sense within Answers in Genesis' logic. In their view, housecats and lions are both equally derived from the platonic ideal of a cat, so why would one have more Information™ than the other?
Yeah... yeah. A lot of the YEC clips showed off very weak arguments, I feel, but that one made me cringe even as I heard it. And that's coming from my own side!
My theory, they conflate (on purpose often enough) what "information" is. They assume that all information can be analogous missing the critical point that information depends heavily on what topic you are referring to. Like dipstick hovind talking about skateboards exploding into cars...like no you dimwit a man made object is not comparable to a natural one. A blade of grass wasn't designed, not by man at any rate or God either.
It really depends how you define information.
I would say being the larger animal, a lion has more information simply by the total cellular mass of its body.
@@libertyprime9307
That's a pretty weird way to define "information."
@@stickiedmin6508 Oh it's not the definition.
Just saying that if we include some definition which counts something like cells/molecules as information, well a larger animal has many more of those.
it's kind of sad because some of these would be genuinely good questions if they were actually phrased as QUESTIONS and not some god-in-the-gaps gotcha declaration
Which would be a good question if rephrased?
@@katkit4281 my point is that there's nothing wrong with asking questions because you're curious about science. he answered all of them, which is what anyone who is actually curious would expect and want, but the questions of the creationists were merely rhetorical--they didn't expect an answer because they don't believe there is one beyond a god.
@@obstipuit Oh I see. True.
Fun fact: nowhere in the Christian Bible does it say that evolution cannot happen / didn’t happen. Most fanatical people will quote genesis 1: 24 “ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.” Ok sure god creates the animals within this relative timeframe (for which we have no idea how long it lasts in God’s time) and there’s nothing saying the animals cannot change after he creates them? There is no reason science and religion cannot coexist. I am a devout Catholic, and within our own doctrine it states Catholics are free to believe the standard evolutionary model. The church has no stance on it. So do with that information what you will.
And also one thing I’d like to add. When the Bible says “let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind” it doesn’t have to mean god snapped his fingers and poof all the animals appeared out of a cloud of smoke like some genie. He simply says let it be so and it was. The nitty gritty details are left out. My point is that the scientific and evolutionary theory on how multicellular organisms originated isn’t in conflict with the creation story
@@Cdawg_6969 But the implication in the bible strongly hints at those animals coming about as they are, without undergoing billions of years of Evolution? Thats atleast what creationists tend to insist on.
@@Cdawg_6969 It's easy for the bible to be right all the time if you ignore all the times it's wrong
I most certainly agree. Nothing in the Bible says “there is no evolution”, so trying to fight against the evidence of evolution is a losing battle imo.
I think the biggest issue with arguments vs evolution is we can literally watch it 1st hand in bacteria under a microscope.
The typical response from creationists is to separate micro evolution (admitting it exists) and macro evolution (denying it exists).
Which is ignorant, since the only difference between the two is time. Convenient for them since they're relying on a young Earth to support their views.
@@libertyprime9307 You are wrong for several reasons.
First, time is not the only difference. Time is ASSUMED to be the only difference. Time (the age of the earth) is the thing that is in question. To appeal to time as a solution to the problem of evolution is begging the question.
Second, it is true that we can observe organism's systems adapt. That is not in question. However, to then say that the same system that results in adaptation must therefore also result in entirely new information, new systems, and new body plans over long periods of time (time which is in question) is just fallacious reasoning. That does not follow.
Third, Young earth creationists don't use the age of the earth to refute evolution. The argument young earth creationists make is if the earth is young, the evidence should support that. Then they present evidence that they think supports a young earth. It's the exact same argument that evolutionist and old earth believers use. No one was around to witness any of these events. Both groups of people are making inferences to the best explanation. They just differ on their best explanation. Remember, the presupposition that the earth was old and that evolution takes long periods of time predates the ability to measure the earth's age (though I would question whether or not age can be objectively measured in a lab).
Fourth, just taking this gentleman's first point, he is begging the question. He assumes that the earth is old when he assumes the coexistence of birds and dinosaurs for 80 millions years from the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. The person making the video would reject that interpretation of the evidence.
Fifth, you have to remember that the story of past macro-evolution is just that, a story. It's an attempt to piece together an unknown story from the evidence that's available. You can listen to this gentleman tell his story in real time: "Is it impossible to change a dinosaur into a bird? I certainly see no evidence that it is." The gentleman that made the video that's being commented on (and many prominent evolutionary biologists regardless of their religious convictions) think it is impossible. The Royal Society had a convention in 2016 that addressed this very thing. Gerd Müller said although "the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution, as represented by recent textbooks” it “has no theory of the generative.” If you think macro-evolution is an open and shut case, I'm sorry, you're just not caught up. It's far from open and shut.
The story of how systems and structures arise through time is only a story.
@@TheAaronYost You're gonna lose your mind when you learn about transitional fossils and carbon dating.
@@euglenaluvrApparently you didn't read my comment. Transitional forms don't help you. Not only are they very few and very far between, but transitional forms are highly disputed. They also don't show long gradual change over long periods of time, they show abrupt change. It's a comparison of complete organisms with complete functional body plans. It has never been observed that random mutation and natural selection can produce entirely new body plans. Transitional forms also assume an old Earth. You're assuming the very thing that's in question, which is question begging. Carbon 14 dating doesn't help you either. The formula for carbon dating has four variables, two of which are assumed. You give me a formula where I can assume two of the variables and I can give you any answer you want. Not to mention the mere existence of carbon 14 poses a major challenge for people who think the Earth is billions of years old, especially when we find carbon In diamonds and dinosaur bones. Of course, for the secular scientist there has to be some mechanism by which carbon enters and exits closed systems like dinosaur bones and diamonds, but can't enter a closed system like a dead organism. The entire thing is a story based on fallacious reasoning.
@@euglenaluvr two questions. Which transitional forms and what makes them transitional? And what is the formula for carbon 14 dating and can you explain where are the values assigned it to the variables come from?
This was lovely. Props to you for steel manning the other argument then methodically dismembering it. I hope your content reaches far because your delivery is great. Your explanation of radiometric dating was helpful.
I shared a bit of this with my parents. Sparked an overall healthy conversation
Arguing with a creationist is like aguing with a monkey amusing but a complete waste of time.
I mean, technically …
@@crow-dont-knowWell...even more technically ape and monkey aren't the same
Arguing with a monkey can actually be amusing and cute. Arguing with a creationist can make you lose hope in humanity. Just reading the 'arguments' from creationists in this comments section is proof enough of that
@@Emelefpi" And God sent them a strong delusion to believe a lie so they'd be dammed because they have no love of the truth " , that's the likes of you to a tee .