I like how he says the earth was created 7000 years ago, as creationists say 6000 years, and this is 1000 years in the future. Good attention to detail
@@mountkilimanjaro2982 short answer? Shut up and stop asking questions! Start believing in my superstitious nonsense or I’ll make you through legislation or violence! Also i love you. Please note, that wasnt a short answer
@@mountkilimanjaro2982 because they count the geneologies from adam-noah-jesus, and it arrived at a flood date of 4004 BC and 6-10,000 BC world beginning time from adam. So the flood would be 6000 years old, 1,000 in the future it would be 7,000... get it now?
There are some things that are outdated here. For one Homo habilis is not part of Homo and is not the ancestor of H. erectus. Homo habilis is now believed to belong in its own genus due to its ape-like appearance, said genus is said to be a sister taxa to Homo. And evidence found H. habilis was contemporanean with H. erectus, so it cannot be H. erectus' ancestor. The position of Australopithecus africanus is debated, because it is now believed that Australopithecus garhi is the one that would give rise to Homo. And Darwinius masillae is now classified as an Adapiforme.
@@Thunderblock7889well just because it was contemporary with Erectus doesn’t mean that its not its ancestor. Maybe the late surviving h. habilis were remnant population of habilis that didn’t need to transition into erectus because of their specific environment. Africa is huge so it had seceral environments. I could tell you a modern example. Grizzly bears are proven to be the ancestors of of the polar bear but yet they are still extant/contemporaries. Its just that polar bears are just grizzly bears that stayed in the arctic long enough to be considered a different species.
@@nicholasdigaetano That may be so but it wasn’t my point. Dr Banjo is being hypocritical because he says the link doesn’t exist just because Farnsworth believes it does, while at the same time believing in an all mighty space creature that he hasn’t seen. In Banjos mind things don’t exist just because you believe in them, except for when he himself believes in them. I don’t believe that has to do with religion in itself, but rather stupidity and a lack of self awareness. Banjos hypocrisy isn’t believing in a god, its believing in a god while saying what Farnsworth believes in, that he hasn’t seen, does not exist. I am not religious, and i do not hate religion, what i dislike is simply people being rude or stupid in the name of religion.
I go to a private christian school. Some young earth creationist came in to explain why evolution isn't true. Among other things, his views were exactly like this. He might have even said "things don't exist simply because you believe in them". It seems like creationist debate is an endless game of "chasing god", whereas a creationist will offer an argument, have it be disproved by science, and then ask another runaway question which is just splitting hairs off the first one, like with the progression of man thing going on here.
Did you see the rest of the episode? Farnsworth goes to live on his own planet and spills nanobots he created on the surface causing them to begin changing and adapting, causing the crew to experience dino-bots, cavemen bots, and finally a robot civilization that 'evolves' -- when Farnsworth insists they were created by him to the robots, they are horrifically offended that they didn't evolve by chance. At the end, Farnsworth agrees that there may possibly be an origin to humans other than sheer chance and Dr. Banjo is willing to concede that creatures may adapt and change into differing species over time.;)
I remember telling my religion teacher I was a pastafarian and believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. She called me a blasphemer (for like the 20th time probably), it was actually kinda funny how upset she got. He boiled for your sins. Don’t take that for granted
There are some things that are outdated here. For one Homo habilis is not part of Homo and is not the ancestor of H. erectus. Homo habilis is now believed to belong in its own genus due to its ape-like appearance, said genus is said to be a sister taxa to Homo. And evidence found H. habilis was contemporanean with H. erectus, so it cannot be H. erectus' ancestor. The position of Australopithecus africanus is debated, because it is now believed that Australopithecus Garhi is the one that would give rise to Homo. And Darwinius masillae is now classified as an Adapiforme.
@@Thunderblock7889 unfortunately that's the thing about evolution, it's not as simple as that stupid chart that everyone always refers to. It's not some ladder or conveyor belt, it's a tree, so there's always going to be coinciding branches throughout evolutionary history and we can hopefully get better and better at determining relations.
@@Dannybythebanana when its harming education then no creationists want to destroy education and replace it with basleess beliefs simply because it helps them sleep at night
I just find it funny that he asks a question of links in evolution by pressing one button, then Farnsworth answers that question by pressing another button. he had all these links stored, he's asking questions he already has answers for. Lol
Darwinius Masillae is a rather small primate and lived about 47 million years ago. If you’ve gone that far back, that’s all the links between man and ape.
I had a regular at the bar I used to work at who was a flat earther. He had the same debate strategy as Dr Banjo, just kept saying crap and moving the goalpost until he got to his age card: "how do you know if you've never been to space?'
The issue with the name scientific theory is the fact that religious and anti-scientific people tend to conflate "scientific theory" with "An idea not backed up by evidence.". The types of theories you come up with when you watch the new matrix movie is not even comparable to a scientific theory. And the theory people came up with a few thousand years ago to explain our existence is definitely not comprable to a scientific theory.
Some times I like to believe that I'm not related to the science deniers. Would be really nice if they were really created by something so that I can feel better about myself.
There are some things that are outdated here. For one Homo habilis is not part of Homo and is not the ancestor of H. erectus. Homo habilis is now believed to belong in its own genus due to its ape-like appearance, said genus is said to be a sister taxa to Homo. And evidence found H. habilis was contemporanean with H. erectus, so it cannot be H. erectus' ancestor. The position of Australopithecus africanus is debated, because it is now believed that Australopithecus Garhi is the one that would give rise to Homo. And Darwinius masillae is now classified as an Adapiforme.
well 18 now, but of course creationist's are all religious and religious people think ANYTHING inpure in any way is "of The Devil." they also have a giant stick up their ass about not indoctrinating their toddler's & supporting anyone aside from other Christian's hence the existence of sky-angel.
Thanks to my sixth form course in psychology, I know that one of the key features of science is falsifiability - the capacity for a hypothesis, theory or statement to be proven wrong. And beacuse of that, when Banjo describes creaturism as "undisprovable", he effectively calls it out as a pseudoscience.
"I don't understand evolution and I have to protect my kids from understanding it" is probably one of my favorite lines of any show. It applies to so much and is becoming more and more accurate over the years.
@@BigPapiCapone You've got zero idea of how science works. Copernicus didn't pray or use magic to get to his conclusions. To apply science is to be a secularist. In case of religious scientists they don't use their religious beliefs to do science. It's something that people point out about creationists too if they happen to have some scientific degree. You can see that their papers outside of creationist journals and in their respective fields of expertise they never mention god or religion or rely in any way. Also you're making an absolute statement when there's a huge amount of irreligious scientists, great ones too. Majority of scientific community today are not religious. But even if that wasn't the case it'd be irrelevant.
thank goodness my parents were normal, my mom is fascinated by paleontology i just can’t imagine growing up believing in the garden of eden and i pity whoever grew up like that, you just had no chance in life if your parents were crazy
I really didn't. My parents weren't absolutely psycho about it, but my dad is still a fundamentalist Christian who reads the Bible like it's a perfect historical document. Wasn't a great childhood.
There are some things that are outdated here. For one Homo habilis is not part of Homo and is not the ancestor of H. erectus. Homo habilis is now believed to belong in its own genus due to its ape-like appearance, said genus is said to be a sister taxa to Homo. And evidence found H. habilis was contemporanean with H. erectus, so it cannot be H. erectus' ancestor. The position of Australopithecus africanus is debated, because it is now believed that Australopithecus Garhi is the one that would give rise to Homo. And Darwinius masillae is now classified as an Adapiforme.
We did in fact evolve from filthy monkey men, then proceeds to argue that point with a filthy monkey man (just like any other human would be) hahaha this is gold.
There are some things that are outdated here. For one Homo habilis is not part of Homo and is not the ancestor of H. erectus. Homo habilis is now believed to belong in its own genus due to its ape-like appearance, said genus is said to be a sister taxa to Homo. And evidence found H. habilis was contemporanean with H. erectus, so it cannot be H. erectus' ancestor. The position of Australopithecus africanus is debated, because it is now believed that Australopithecus Garhi is the one that would give rise to Homo. And Darwinius masillae is now classified as an Adapiforme.
Not quite "Homo Erectus" but I believe this was the same episode with the line "I can't believe we even share the same genus; you make me ashamed to call myself 'homo'" (Though it might be a different episode - I'm not exactly sure where that line would fit into this story...)
I think there is a huge difference between science and religion people hardly mention. Religion is simply about informing someone about certain stories. Science is a giant competitive arena. When someone would propose a story or information, most genuine scientists are motivated to disprove it. When you're dealing with science is can be very difficult to propose certain answers to questions, especially the big ones. But, relatively speaking, it's quite easy to disprove. And every time we disprove, the answers is closer. I mean even Einstein could not understand quantum physics, but he was confronted with evidence. Instead of religion, just simply accepting that we "cant' accept it. Scientists state the fact we "don't" understand it, but we can.
I remember hearing this as a kid and thinking it was the most beautiful thing I’d heard. Stuck with me all these years, just shows how resonant music can be.
@@parker-boy98 I wouldn't say that we are going to be apes forever, we don't know what kind of evolutionary path our specie is going to take in the future, we literally can't know what's going to happen.
@@bitffald " I wouldn't say that we are going to be apes forever"But we will be."we don't know what kind of evolutionary path our specie is going to take in the future"This is irrelevant.You don't outgrow your ancestors.That means, in a million years, if humankind survived that long, we probably evolved to something different.No matter into what we evolved, we are then still apes and the humans in a billion years, that do not even look like humans, are still humans and are still apes.
@@bitffald Yes, me too. Humans will always be classified as apes, even in a million years. That is what is meant by 'you don't outgrow your ancestors'. Nothing will change that. The only reason for it to change, would be that we are not apes right now, which means we where neither in the past, so we will not be apes in the future. This is the only possibility for humans to not be apes in a million years. But if we are apes right now (which we are), we also will be in a billion years.
"But because we havent found it doesnt mean it doesn't exist". I show this to a lot of creaturists and east coast elites alike. At the end of the day, no matter what you believe, you're taking a leap of faith. Logical deduction is required on both sides of the street.
@@klas7988 Evidence... I'm not sure. Logical deduction perhaps. Evidence isn't the same as logical deduction and that isn't the same as reason. Here's the classical illustration: If an alien living on the moon looked down with his telescope on earth and noted, "Those human beings have two hands, two feet, two eyes and two ears" he would be quite correct. If he were to deduce then that humans have two lungs, two kidneys, etc, then he deduced correctly. However, if he deduced that humans have two spleens, a heart on each side, and two stomachs, then he's made a spurious deduction/logical fallacy. We have consistently mingled evidence with deduction. The more deduction that's based on previous deductions is the greater risk that its spurious. When these deductions get accepted as fact, it becomes incredibly difficult to reassess. Take for instance the scientist who discovered cocaine in the system of a mummified Egyptian, or maize in India. Laughing stocks of the scientific community.
@@unknownhero1785 it's hard to crunch those numbers. Looking at probability, how many occurrences have we seen of spontaneous life in a lifeless universe, and how many occurrences have we seen of a creator setting life in motion. 0:0 right? So then with equal odds there, it all comes down to believing what ultimately is an absence of evidence (though as Remy iconically states, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or in the words of the Professor here, because we havent found it yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist)
JVNemesis Edenia It’s a joke, but sadly, it’s not really exaggerated. Creationists really follow that logic in the real world, the cartoon is merely a reflection of what these imbeciles have said. That’s young earth creationists in a nutshell, specially the most famous.
That's the point. Just because you haven't found god doesn't mean god doesn't exist, but creations HAVE NO EVIDENCE, and they use manipulative and incredibly dishonest tactics to mislead people about the real evidence that science does have. You can not falsify god, so therefore god is irrelevant to science. Don't you notice how it's not a theological argument? They (religious fundamentalists) are arguing for their specific religions STORY, not the existence of god. There are people who believe in god who think god started evolution on earth from LUCA, almost half of christians think this. But the fundamentalists bark loudest. God is irrelevant to science
@@LaZanzaraAlbopictus I've been questioning and studying for almost a year now actually. I still can't prove or disprove that there's a God. Now I'm just open to there being one.
@@jackiejolie2748 same with me i was a Muslim but I became an atheist and im waiting for someone to prove to me that a specific god exists so that i can worship it yet all i hear is evolution is not true and my book is scientific blah blah blah
@@jackiejolie2748 Welcome to agnosticism. In so far as I had given any thought to religion I've always been an atheist, I never considered the existence of a god to be true. But show me proof and I'm convinced. Despite many debates, and many many many contextless quotes being thrown at me so far no proof has been presented. So I live my life on the most practical and logical assumption: that there isn't one. If I take up the opposite position I would have assume that ALL gods are real, and that becomes a confusing mess. But you do you. Be a caring and kind person, try to think critically and logically and we should all get along.
I was raised Roman Catholic, baptized, communed, and confirmed, but have identified as agnostic for nearly 20 years now. Science and theism can exist mutually in this life. There’s no way to prove or disprove a creator exists, so your belief in a higher power remains, and will always remain, valid alongside those without a belief in a god. But what can be proven or disproven is the structure of this existence, to include evolution. Christianity probably should back off evolution a little and hold the line a little further back, but whether evolution is to be ultimately proven true or not (which it’s looking like it eventually will) doesn’t prove or disprove the existence of an ultimate creator. So basically, believe whatever you feel is right to you, because whatever you believe in regards to the existence of a creator, it very well may be correct... and will never be disproven. Just because we weren’t made from clay by a god a few thousand years ago doesn’t mean there isn’t ultimately some entity beyond our comprehension.
There are some things that are outdated here. For one Homo habilis is not part of Homo and is not the ancestor of H. erectus. Homo habilis is now believed to belong in its own genus due to its ape-like appearance, said genus is said to be a sister taxa to Homo. And evidence found H. habilis was contemporanean with H. erectus, so it cannot be H. erectus' ancestor. The position of Australopithecus africanus is debated, because it is now believed that Australopithecus Garhi is the one that would give rise to Homo. And Darwinius masillae is now classified as an Adapiforme.
In some atheist and creationist argument creationist just question and question while us atheist just answer and answer there is google/ yahoo/ wikipedia why don't they try to find answers instead of asking and asking
Wikipedia is not a reliable source as it is biased. Also being an atheist does not make you superior to others as several atheists have been known to be toxic. Am not a creationist but still, but your attotude is unnaceptable. Also there are some things that are outdated here. For one Homo habilis is not part of Homo and is not the ancestor of H. erectus. Homo habilis is now believed to belong in its own genus due to its ape-like appearance, said genus is said to be a sister taxa to Homo. And evidence found H. habilis was contemporanean with H. erectus, so it cannot be H. erectus' ancestor. The position of Australopithecus africanus is debated, because it is now believed that Australopithecus Garhi is the one that would give rise to Homo. And Darwinius masillae is now classified as an Adapiforme.
@@Thunderblock7889 no, your info isn’t even accurate, homo habilis is in homo do to it’s face being flat, and Wikipedia shows it’s sources, you have zero proof, I even looked it up and it said nothing, Garhi might actually be a paranthropus, not an Australopithecus
I loved the conclusion this episode reaches. Evolution is almost certainly real (it being a theory, it can never be proven beyond a doubt), but who's to say it wasn't instigated by a higher being?
Scientific Theory is not a "Theory" Which is why they made fun of it with "Gravity" or "Shape of the earth". It's real and how modern medicine and our understanding of biology works. It's been proven. Scientific theory is an explanation of how things happen. Gravity is a Scientific theory (And a law) We know it happens. But how things fall at certain speeds and why is not fully understood, hence theory. But it's still a fact.
@@John231984 By the definition of science, nothing can be proven absolutely. Evolution and gravity are facts; able to be observed with no explanation. Certain formulae like the ideal gas law are laws; able to explain how something works, but not why. The mechanisms by which gravity and evolution occur are theories; consistent and repeatable hypotheses that explain how and why something works, yet are able to be modified or discarded.
There is no reason why the things we have observed in nature could not have been caused or guided by a higher being. But suppositions like that, which state that there is some unexplainable, supernatural explanation to natural processes, do not truly help us to understand natural processes. If we proceed from the assumption that everything we observe must follow some consistent natural law that governs its operation, we have a chance of learning what those laws are, how they work, and making use of them ourselves. If we instead assume that the things we understand must be governed by some process that is unknowable, unexplainable, then we will not find the explanation because we will not search for it. There is nothing about this assumption, that everything we can observe must be the product of explainable, understandable mechanisms and phenomena, which denies the possibility of a creator. If we accept the idea of a creator, a being who created the universe and everything in it, and gave us the ability to think and reason and understand, what better way could we pay tribute to that creator than to use our abilities, to think, and reason, and ultimately understand everything she has created and laid before us? The main reason the two ideas are at odds is because some proponents of religious ideas don't like the fact that science contradicts their favorite creation stories, or find that casting doubt on science is an effective tool for convincing people that religion is something they should accept. Science and religion are at odds because religious believers feel threatened and want to assert their beliefs - and attacking science, which the product of thousands of years of human observation and study is an easy way to do that, because many people simply do not understand enough about science to understand why we have so much confidence in the often surprising and counter-intuitive things we have discovered.
The Concrete Confessional blog guy just dropped a lighthearted article on apparent problems with evolutionary theory that covers porn, substance abuse, Cluster B disorders, and speed-freak bees. A lot of keyboard warrior controversy going on over it at the moment, but it was an interesting take and def worth checking out
There are some things that are outdated here. For one Homo habilis is not part of Homo and is not the ancestor of H. erectus. Homo habilis is now believed to belong in its own genus due to its ape-like appearance, said genus is said to be a sister taxa to Homo. And evidence found H. habilis was contemporanean with H. erectus, so it cannot be H. erectus' ancestor. The position of Australopithecus africanus is debated, because it is now believed that Australopithecus Garhi is the one that would give rise to Homo. And Darwinius masillae is now classified as an Adapiforme.
Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted for a while. Neanderthals would later interbreed so much with Homo Sapiens that they went extinct. Most people even have about 2% Neanderthal DNA in them.
To answer the question, the current understanding is that H. Erectus spread out of Africa first, long before H. Sapiens, and diversified into various other hominins. One of these Hominins was H. Heidelbergensis (though it's species-status is sometimes contested) which spread out of africa, and diversified into H. Sapiens and our closest relatives, like Neanderthals and Denisovans. And finally the African species of H. Sapiens spread out of Africa, and much farther than any other hominin, over the last ~50 000 years. The trouble with the "march of proggress"-imagery that's used here, and was previously in textbooks, is that it isn't a very good conceptualization of evolution in practise. Even though evolution used to be thought of as a straight "line", leading to modern humans, in reality what we know is more of a "bush", with different evolutionary lines branching out, stopping, or merging back with one another. For example, there is DNA-evidence of hybridization with H.Sapiens and H.Neanderthalensis, as well as H.Sapiens and H.Denisova.
"Just because we cant find it doesnt mean it doesnt exist" Hehe, I only realised now that even though the professor is right, in the end the ape does have a point. This is the art of sophist reasoning I guess
But one saying is based on science, predictable outcomes BECAUSE it uses the scientific method. Last time I checked you can’t say that line about gods or faith based beliefs, they definitely don’t exist, and if they do, they wouldn’t know you exist, Or care that you do. That’s the joke.
why does a god care that I dont care about him?? do you get offended if someone never knew you existed? the answer is probably no if you met a stranger and he said he doesnt know you will you gget angry and talk about how important you are and how everyone knows you? no same thing but this creator is a GOD he cares what I do with my body or what I believe when I am basically an isngifnicant isnect to him religion doesnt make any sense
The ape didn't have a point. He was being hypocritical. Also, the Professor's theory is backed up by actual scientific evidence and proof. Whereas, the theory of God is backed up by nothing but pure belief.
I like how he says the earth was created 7000 years ago, as creationists say 6000 years, and this is 1000 years in the future. Good attention to detail
Something I didn't notice until I was today years old.
I’m confused at 6,000 years since the story is as old as 3,500 years. So why isn’t it 9,500 years old now?
@@mountkilimanjaro2982 short answer? Shut up and stop asking questions! Start believing in my superstitious nonsense or I’ll make you through legislation or violence! Also i love you.
Please note, that wasnt a short answer
I love urr profile piccc
@@mountkilimanjaro2982 because they count the geneologies from adam-noah-jesus, and it arrived at a flood date of 4004 BC and 6-10,000 BC world beginning time from adam.
So the flood would be 6000 years old, 1,000 in the future it would be 7,000... get it now?
"I don't understand evolution and I have to protect my kids from understanding it!" - one of the best fragments ;)
That Missing Link part was really on the nose. But could you really expect anything less from hardworking patriotic orangutans
There are some things that are outdated here. For one Homo habilis is not part of Homo and is not the ancestor of H. erectus. Homo habilis is now believed to belong in its own genus due to its ape-like appearance, said genus is said to be a sister taxa to Homo. And evidence found H. habilis was contemporanean with H. erectus, so it cannot be H. erectus' ancestor. The position of Australopithecus africanus is debated, because it is now believed that Australopithecus garhi is the one that would give rise to Homo. And Darwinius masillae is now classified as an Adapiforme.
@@Thunderblock7889 well that's interesting
@@Thunderblock7889well just because it was contemporary with Erectus doesn’t mean that its not its ancestor. Maybe the late surviving h. habilis were remnant population of habilis that didn’t need to transition into erectus because of their specific environment. Africa is huge so it had seceral environments. I could tell you a modern example. Grizzly bears are proven to be the ancestors of of the polar bear but yet they are still extant/contemporaries. Its just that polar bears are just grizzly bears that stayed in the arctic long enough to be considered a different species.
"I dont understand evolution and i have to protect my kids from undertanding it" oh this one aged well
It didn't age at all. People like that are just never-changing fixture of society.
@@Pravdacz-tp8zuSays the people believing leftist ideology
“Things don’t exist simply because you believe in them. Thus sayeth the all mighty creature in the sky!”
The hypocrisy scanner is off the scale!
Well actually Abrahamic religions do have sources like the bible
@@nicholasdigaetano That may be so but it wasn’t my point.
Dr Banjo is being hypocritical because he says the link doesn’t exist just because Farnsworth believes it does, while at the same time believing in an all mighty space creature that he hasn’t seen. In Banjos mind things don’t exist just because you believe in them, except for when he himself believes in them. I don’t believe that has to do with religion in itself, but rather stupidity and a lack of self awareness.
Banjos hypocrisy isn’t believing in a god, its believing in a god while saying what Farnsworth believes in, that he hasn’t seen, does not exist. I am not religious, and i do not hate religion, what i dislike is simply people being rude or stupid in the name of religion.
😂😂
@@nicholasdigaetanoand the bible is a collection of stories written in the bronze age, the new testament being written some 20+ years after Jesus
I believe that's called "Hypocritical Humor".
"We will not give in to the thinkers!"
I made you a 💯 stay real
“You seriously believe I’m descended from some kinda flightless manicotti?” 😂
That flying spaghetti monster was actually an atheist creation to point out the absurdity of "Intelligent design". The original letter was hilarious.
"YES!"
@@muigokublack6487"Oh, please. A far more logical explanation is the undisprovable science of Creaturism!"
I go to a private christian school. Some young earth creationist came in to explain why evolution isn't true. Among other things, his views were exactly like this. He might have even said "things don't exist simply because you believe in them". It seems like creationist debate is an endless game of "chasing god", whereas a creationist will offer an argument, have it be disproved by science, and then ask another runaway question which is just splitting hairs off the first one, like with the progression of man thing going on here.
If they said that to me, I'd say "by that logic, maybe God doesn't exist!"
Did you see the rest of the episode? Farnsworth goes to live on his own planet and spills nanobots he created on the surface causing them to begin changing and adapting, causing the crew to experience dino-bots, cavemen bots, and finally a robot civilization that 'evolves' -- when Farnsworth insists they were created by him to the robots, they are horrifically offended that they didn't evolve by chance.
At the end, Farnsworth agrees that there may possibly be an origin to humans other than sheer chance and Dr. Banjo is willing to concede that creatures may adapt and change into differing species over time.;)
I remember telling my religion teacher I was a pastafarian and believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. She called me a blasphemer (for like the 20th time probably), it was actually kinda funny how upset she got.
He boiled for your sins. Don’t take that for granted
@@killerkitten7534 I’m very grated for his sacrifice 🙏
( I know my jokes shit just go with it )
@@_just_another_filthy_redcoat I thought it was a bit strained but also cheesy.
Keep practicing and you'll ketchup with the pun-masters.
Writing like this is what made reboot Futurama better than modern Simpsons.
There are some things that are outdated here. For one Homo habilis is not part of Homo and is not the ancestor of H. erectus. Homo habilis is now believed to belong in its own genus due to its ape-like appearance, said genus is said to be a sister taxa to Homo. And evidence found H. habilis was contemporanean with H. erectus, so it cannot be H. erectus' ancestor. The position of Australopithecus africanus is debated, because it is now believed that Australopithecus Garhi is the one that would give rise to Homo. And Darwinius masillae is now classified as an Adapiforme.
@@Thunderblock7889 unfortunately that's the thing about evolution, it's not as simple as that stupid chart that everyone always refers to. It's not some ladder or conveyor belt, it's a tree, so there's always going to be coinciding branches throughout evolutionary history and we can hopefully get better and better at determining relations.
Because there not bound and forced to be logical or be realistic
Watching a blank screen with the TV turned off is better than modern Simpsons.
“Just because you believe in something doesn’t make it true, thus sayeth the almighty creature in the sky!!”
Maybe you should repeat that, slowly..
I know it's supposed to be satire but honestly, let people believe what they want to believe in.
@@Dannybythebanana
Are you saying creationists don't care about the accuracy of their beliefs?
yes, you repeated the satirical quote written by people who think the same as you about this issue.
Dat's da joke
@@Dannybythebanana when its harming education then no creationists want to destroy education and replace it with basleess beliefs simply because it helps them sleep at night
I just find it funny that he asks a question of links in evolution by pressing one button, then Farnsworth answers that question by pressing another button. he had all these links stored, he's asking questions he already has answers for. Lol
That's what creationists do.
This is scarily accurate to real life in 2020
Change the topic of this video to people not wanting to wear masks and this is extremely accurate
Twitter: REEEEEEEEEEEEE
@@lazlo686 enjoy the harmful effect of wearing masks. Rebreathing your CO2 particles being one thing. You are all poisoning yourselves.
@@manoftruth0935 Dr Banjo! So nice of you to join us.
@@lazlo686 Now it’s the vaccine
Darwinius Masillae is a rather small primate and lived about 47 million years ago. If you’ve gone that far back, that’s all the links between man and ape.
True that evolution and gravity are both scientific theories, though it's interesting most people aren't as willing to attempt to disprove gravity
Gravity does a fine job of it on its own. Is it a force or is it waves, damn it?!
I had a regular at the bar I used to work at who was a flat earther. He had the same debate strategy as Dr Banjo, just kept saying crap and moving the goalpost until he got to his age card: "how do you know if you've never been to space?'
You forgot Flat earthers?
The issue with the name scientific theory is the fact that religious and anti-scientific people tend to conflate "scientific theory" with "An idea not backed up by evidence.".
The types of theories you come up with when you watch the new matrix movie is not even comparable to a scientific theory.
And the theory people came up with a few thousand years ago to explain our existence is definitely not comprable to a scientific theory.
The theories simply explain our observations. Evolution is an observable fact, in contrast to some invisible magical skydaddy.
The sad part is, the science denier is someone who clearly is related to monkeys and apes, just like us.
Thiat is part of the joke.
@@zakanyimen ik that's why i mentioned it
Some times I like to believe that I'm not related to the science deniers. Would be really nice if they were really created by something so that I can feel better about myself.
This is painfully accurate
There are some things that are outdated here. For one Homo habilis is not part of Homo and is not the ancestor of H. erectus. Homo habilis is now believed to belong in its own genus due to its ape-like appearance, said genus is said to be a sister taxa to Homo. And evidence found H. habilis was contemporanean with H. erectus, so it cannot be H. erectus' ancestor. The position of Australopithecus africanus is debated, because it is now believed that Australopithecus Garhi is the one that would give rise to Homo. And Darwinius masillae is now classified as an Adapiforme.
@@Thunderblock7889 I think he/she didn't mean the scientific part
Nah
This is the best part of futurama ever !
well 18 now, but of course creationist's are all religious and religious people think ANYTHING inpure in any way is "of The Devil."
they also have a giant stick up their ass about not indoctrinating their toddler's & supporting anyone aside from other Christian's hence the existence of sky-angel.
I love Futurama, I really miss it being on the air. One of my favorite shows ever.
At least we have 50 seasons of The Simpsons, eh?
Renewed by Hulu bestie
There will be a new season this year
It is now
Thanks to my sixth form course in psychology, I know that one of the key features of science is falsifiability - the capacity for a hypothesis, theory or statement to be proven wrong. And beacuse of that, when Banjo describes creaturism as "undisprovable", he effectively calls it out as a pseudoscience.
Creationist in a nutshell.
"I don't understand evolution and I have to protect my kids from understanding it" is probably one of my favorite lines of any show. It applies to so much and is becoming more and more accurate over the years.
"I dont understand evolution so I have to protect my kids from understanding it" conservatism/creationism in a nutshell
As a conservative Catholic that is currently studying evolution I may have to disagree
Only because of the success of science and secularism. Otherwise you'd be "studying" geocentricity and worse. @@peterstoric6560
@@mathiasrryba science yes, secularism no. Nicholas Copernicus was a devout Christian. Secularism has made zero contributions to science.
@@BigPapiCapone You've got zero idea of how science works.
Copernicus didn't pray or use magic to get to his conclusions. To apply science is to be a secularist. In case of religious scientists they don't use their religious beliefs to do science. It's something that people point out about creationists too if they happen to have some scientific degree. You can see that their papers outside of creationist journals and in their respective fields of expertise they never mention god or religion or rely in any way.
Also you're making an absolute statement when there's a huge amount of irreligious scientists, great ones too. Majority of scientific community today are not religious. But even if that wasn't the case it'd be irrelevant.
thank goodness my parents were normal, my mom is fascinated by paleontology i just can’t imagine growing up believing in the garden of eden and i pity whoever grew up like that, you just had no chance in life if your parents were crazy
I really didn't. My parents weren't absolutely psycho about it, but my dad is still a fundamentalist Christian who reads the Bible like it's a perfect historical document. Wasn't a great childhood.
Im religious yet also believe in evolution myself. I’m not going to into to much detail and talk your ear off, but they are not mutually exclusive
this aged beautifully Creationism Can Be Taught as Science in Arkansas - TH-cam
only 6 creationists watched this? amazing
59 now.
@@walterwhite8968 Back down to 0.
Flatearthers would love this
ROFL
i can't believe i did not truly appreciate this
golden & spot-on humor when i first saw it.
It’s always a losing argument presenting evidence to a creationist because no amount of evidence is ever enough evidence for them.
And Dr. Bango was using the tired old "God Of The Gaps" fallacy whereby because we can't immediately explain it therefore god.
The only definite thing we can get out of this is that humans will never unanimously agree on something.
Disturbingly accurate.
There are some things that are outdated here. For one Homo habilis is not part of Homo and is not the ancestor of H. erectus. Homo habilis is now believed to belong in its own genus due to its ape-like appearance, said genus is said to be a sister taxa to Homo. And evidence found H. habilis was contemporanean with H. erectus, so it cannot be H. erectus' ancestor. The position of Australopithecus africanus is debated, because it is now believed that Australopithecus Garhi is the one that would give rise to Homo. And Darwinius masillae is now classified as an Adapiforme.
This reply’s info is actually kind of inaccurate, we coexisted with H. Erectus, Homo Habilis is still contained in either Australopithecus or Homo.
We did in fact evolve from filthy monkey men, then proceeds to argue that point with a filthy monkey man (just like any other human would be) hahaha this is gold.
Very ironic
The moment they needed a time card that said 5 hours later
My favorite part of this is they’re both pressing the same device to progress the “slideshow” of adding missing links
There are some things that are outdated here. For one Homo habilis is not part of Homo and is not the ancestor of H. erectus. Homo habilis is now believed to belong in its own genus due to its ape-like appearance, said genus is said to be a sister taxa to Homo. And evidence found H. habilis was contemporanean with H. erectus, so it cannot be H. erectus' ancestor. The position of Australopithecus africanus is debated, because it is now believed that Australopithecus Garhi is the one that would give rise to Homo. And Darwinius masillae is now classified as an Adapiforme.
I just had a debate with someone and it went a whole lot like this.
0:09 "NOTHING EVER CHANGES", "FAKE SCIENCE IS REAL SCIENCE"
I like how Doctor Banjo says "Pah shaw" at the end. Ren and Stimpy easter egg.
This is pretty accurate in how Creationists think.
I cant believe they passed up the opportunity to do ANYTHING with "homo erectus"
Not quite "Homo Erectus" but I believe this was the same episode with the line "I can't believe we even share the same genus; you make me ashamed to call myself 'homo'"
(Though it might be a different episode - I'm not exactly sure where that line would fit into this story...)
@@tetsujin_144 That quote was from Bender's Game, according to Google at least (which has mostly never been wrong).
I'd imagine Fry giggling at it, but not the Professor.
There's an episode of The Simpsons in which they did.
@@search895I think that also happened in Friends too, when Ross was giving a palaeontology presentation and Joey laughs at the word 'erectus'
The only true god is the flying spaghetti monster who boiled for our sins
I think there is a huge difference between science and religion people hardly mention. Religion is simply about informing someone about certain stories. Science is a giant competitive arena. When someone would propose a story or information, most genuine scientists are motivated to disprove it. When you're dealing with science is can be very difficult to propose certain answers to questions, especially the big ones. But, relatively speaking, it's quite easy to disprove. And every time we disprove, the answers is closer.
I mean even Einstein could not understand quantum physics, but he was confronted with evidence. Instead of religion, just simply accepting that we "cant' accept it. Scientists state the fact we "don't" understand it, but we can.
Except so many religions make claims about external reality and try to explain it by positing God and the supernatural.
Season 7 episode 9 in case y'all are wondering. Plus the description said season 6
the most accurate think i have ever seen
Never give in to the thinkers!
Creationists arguing with evolutionists in an evolution video be like:
This is very accurate and the worst part is that, the video explains evolution and THE CREATIONISTS DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY TALKING ABOUT
@@bassmantjox1299 relatable they're the most toxic religious account in the paleo(prehistoric) community
23 creationists disliked
I remember hearing this as a kid and thinking it was the most beautiful thing I’d heard. Stuck with me all these years, just shows how resonant music can be.
R'amen!
0:54 the sight in the background be like
0:00 That moment where Futurama predicted Scott the Woz. Bravo, Matt!
One of my all-time favorites.
What was farnsworth's exact quote? I don't want to live on earth anymore?
Yes fucking gold!!
This planet*
This is so relevant today.
This episode title is a reference of my favourite film of all time.
The greatest film ever by the greatest director ever.. period.
True
Pastafairianism is a real religion. Pretty much if god was a giant floating spaghetti monster that looks EXACTLY like the pasta in this episode
it's not a real religion per se, it's a satirical religion made to mock theists
How dare you insult FSM like that. May His noodly appendage touch you and see the errors of your ways.@@zetexztt
@@mathiasrryba I apologize. Since writing this comment I have found my faith and am now a marinara-fearing Pastafarian.
@@zetexztt Ramen
The scene before this one is so absolutely on the nose and what I usually reference when people start talking nonsense
We are also still apes...for the record
Technically speaking, yes we are, and we forever will be. We might be evolved, but that won't change us being apes.
@@parker-boy98 I wouldn't say that we are going to be apes forever, we don't know what kind of evolutionary path our specie is going to take in the future, we literally can't know what's going to happen.
@@bitffald " I wouldn't say that we are going to be apes forever"But we will be."we don't know what kind of evolutionary path our specie is going to take in the future"This is irrelevant.You don't outgrow your ancestors.That means, in a million years, if humankind survived that long, we probably evolved to something different.No matter into what we evolved, we are then still apes and the humans in a billion years, that do not even look like humans, are still humans and are still apes.
@@BestAnimeFreak I talked in terms of taxonomical classification
@@bitffald Yes, me too.
Humans will always be classified as apes, even in a million years.
That is what is meant by 'you don't outgrow your ancestors'.
Nothing will change that.
The only reason for it to change, would be that we are not apes right now, which means we where neither in the past, so we will not be apes in the future.
This is the only possibility for humans to not be apes in a million years.
But if we are apes right now (which we are), we also will be in a billion years.
Fucking love that show! Brilliant!
„Ho ho I’ve got you now!“
Accurate Tucker Carlson on Joe Rogan depiction.
Both Carlson and Rogan are ape brained clowns but Carlson is way more racist... or at least acts it for money.
"But because we havent found it doesnt mean it doesn't exist". I show this to a lot of creaturists and east coast elites alike. At the end of the day, no matter what you believe, you're taking a leap of faith. Logical deduction is required on both sides of the street.
But one at least have alot of evidence. Your confidence should be in propotion to evidence
@@klas7988 Evidence... I'm not sure. Logical deduction perhaps. Evidence isn't the same as logical deduction and that isn't the same as reason.
Here's the classical illustration: If an alien living on the moon looked down with his telescope on earth and noted, "Those human beings have two hands, two feet, two eyes and two ears" he would be quite correct. If he were to deduce then that humans have two lungs, two kidneys, etc, then he deduced correctly. However, if he deduced that humans have two spleens, a heart on each side, and two stomachs, then he's made a spurious deduction/logical fallacy.
We have consistently mingled evidence with deduction. The more deduction that's based on previous deductions is the greater risk that its spurious.
When these deductions get accepted as fact, it becomes incredibly difficult to reassess. Take for instance the scientist who discovered cocaine in the system of a mummified Egyptian, or maize in India. Laughing stocks of the scientific community.
Faith is a hierarchy, there’s more probability to evolution than say creationism
@@unknownhero1785 it's hard to crunch those numbers. Looking at probability, how many occurrences have we seen of spontaneous life in a lifeless universe, and how many occurrences have we seen of a creator setting life in motion. 0:0 right? So then with equal odds there, it all comes down to believing what ultimately is an absence of evidence (though as Remy iconically states, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or in the words of the Professor here, because we havent found it yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist)
Every response I make here gets deleted.
I like how the crowd went home after a while Lmaoo
Creationists really do be that way though.
I don't understand aspect ratio and I had to protect my kids from understanding it.
@2:02 he unconsciously contradicts himself lol. Lack of self awareness at its finest.
Joke.
JVNemesis Edenia
It’s a joke, but sadly, it’s not really exaggerated.
Creationists really follow that logic in the real world, the cartoon is merely a reflection of what these imbeciles have said. That’s young earth creationists in a nutshell, specially the most famous.
Oh yeah, it definitely is accurate. I'm an athiest but it's a funny joke.
That's the point.
Just because you haven't found god doesn't mean god doesn't exist, but creations HAVE NO EVIDENCE, and they use manipulative and incredibly dishonest tactics to mislead people about the real evidence that science does have.
You can not falsify god, so therefore god is irrelevant to science.
Don't you notice how it's not a theological argument? They (religious fundamentalists) are arguing for their specific religions STORY, not the existence of god. There are people who believe in god who think god started evolution on earth from LUCA, almost half of christians think this. But the fundamentalists bark loudest.
God is irrelevant to science
At least it's better than the South Park version of evolution. A theory about evolution without using foul languages.
This joke has aged way to well
Anyone else wonder why the missing link they find later doesn't fit where they placed it on the chain?
I'm a Christian but I know that we evolved.. I'm in a real weird spot rn.
A lot of people went trough it, maybe it's about time to study in deep biology and to start questioning some of your beliefs :)
@@LaZanzaraAlbopictus I've been questioning and studying for almost a year now actually. I still can't prove or disprove that there's a God. Now I'm just open to there being one.
@@jackiejolie2748 same with me i was a Muslim but I became an atheist and im waiting for someone to prove to me that a specific god exists so that i can worship it yet all i hear is evolution is not true and my book is scientific blah blah blah
@@jackiejolie2748 Welcome to agnosticism.
In so far as I had given any thought to religion I've always been an atheist, I never considered the existence of a god to be true. But show me proof and I'm convinced. Despite many debates, and many many many contextless quotes being thrown at me so far no proof has been presented.
So I live my life on the most practical and logical assumption: that there isn't one. If I take up the opposite position I would have assume that ALL gods are real, and that becomes a confusing mess.
But you do you. Be a caring and kind person, try to think critically and logically and we should all get along.
I was raised Roman Catholic, baptized, communed, and confirmed, but have identified as agnostic for nearly 20 years now. Science and theism can exist mutually in this life. There’s no way to prove or disprove a creator exists, so your belief in a higher power remains, and will always remain, valid alongside those without a belief in a god. But what can be proven or disproven is the structure of this existence, to include evolution. Christianity probably should back off evolution a little and hold the line a little further back, but whether evolution is to be ultimately proven true or not (which it’s looking like it eventually will) doesn’t prove or disprove the existence of an ultimate creator. So basically, believe whatever you feel is right to you, because whatever you believe in regards to the existence of a creator, it very well may be correct... and will never be disproven. Just because we weren’t made from clay by a god a few thousand years ago doesn’t mean there isn’t ultimately some entity beyond our comprehension.
I believe Evolution
Ah so your belief requires believing everything happen trillions of years in order to make your bs possible.
@@EmperorofChinaItwillgrowlarger get our of here clown
Farnsworth and Banjo were bullshitting about evolution and missing links all day, literally!
Wow man the quality is great...
Isn't Darwinius masillae a lemur thing?
There are some things that are outdated here. For one Homo habilis is not part of Homo and is not the ancestor of H. erectus. Homo habilis is now believed to belong in its own genus due to its ape-like appearance, said genus is said to be a sister taxa to Homo. And evidence found H. habilis was contemporanean with H. erectus, so it cannot be H. erectus' ancestor. The position of Australopithecus africanus is debated, because it is now believed that Australopithecus Garhi is the one that would give rise to Homo. And Darwinius masillae is now classified as an Adapiforme.
@@Thunderblock7889I'm saying the D. masilae shown looks nothing like the real thing.
Dr Banjo: the doctor for your average American. Lol
Way too accurate
In some atheist and creationist argument creationist just question and question while us atheist just answer and answer there is google/ yahoo/ wikipedia why don't they try to find answers instead of asking and asking
Wikipedia is not a reliable source as it is biased. Also being an atheist does not make you superior to others as several atheists have been known to be toxic. Am not a creationist but still, but your attotude is unnaceptable. Also there are some things that are outdated here. For one Homo habilis is not part of Homo and is not the ancestor of H. erectus. Homo habilis is now believed to belong in its own genus due to its ape-like appearance, said genus is said to be a sister taxa to Homo. And evidence found H. habilis was contemporanean with H. erectus, so it cannot be H. erectus' ancestor. The position of Australopithecus africanus is debated, because it is now believed that Australopithecus Garhi is the one that would give rise to Homo. And Darwinius masillae is now classified as an Adapiforme.
@@Thunderblock7889 no, your info isn’t even accurate, homo habilis is in homo do to it’s face being flat, and Wikipedia shows it’s sources, you have zero proof, I even looked it up and it said nothing, Garhi might actually be a paranthropus, not an Australopithecus
Anyone else noticed the videolink ends in "Lies"
Anyone knows who coined the term "flying spaghetti monster"? It was Richard Dawkins and futurama borrowed from him right?
Bobby Henderson
ive seen this video so many times i wasnt expecting so few views lol
This sums up Anti-vaxxers in 2020 so well
How???
@@4scended498
Did you not watch the video?
@@Darksaviour I watched the video many times and I am still yet to find any connection
@@4scended498
People denying scientific fact, even though there is a shit ton of data to back up those findings.
@@Darksaviour im not an "anti masker" but recently with the whole fauci thing masks are now optional because they really are useless.
And we still have that
I loved the conclusion this episode reaches. Evolution is almost certainly real (it being a theory, it can never be proven beyond a doubt), but who's to say it wasn't instigated by a higher being?
Scientific Theory is not a "Theory" Which is why they made fun of it with "Gravity" or "Shape of the earth". It's real and how modern medicine and our understanding of biology works. It's been proven. Scientific theory is an explanation of how things happen. Gravity is a Scientific theory (And a law) We know it happens. But how things fall at certain speeds and why is not fully understood, hence theory. But it's still a fact.
@@John231984 By the definition of science, nothing can be proven absolutely. Evolution and gravity are facts; able to be observed with no explanation. Certain formulae like the ideal gas law are laws; able to explain how something works, but not why. The mechanisms by which gravity and evolution occur are theories; consistent and repeatable hypotheses that explain how and why something works, yet are able to be modified or discarded.
Is it rational to believe in something because it might be so without any actual evidence for it?
There is no reason why the things we have observed in nature could not have been caused or guided by a higher being. But suppositions like that, which state that there is some unexplainable, supernatural explanation to natural processes, do not truly help us to understand natural processes. If we proceed from the assumption that everything we observe must follow some consistent natural law that governs its operation, we have a chance of learning what those laws are, how they work, and making use of them ourselves. If we instead assume that the things we understand must be governed by some process that is unknowable, unexplainable, then we will not find the explanation because we will not search for it.
There is nothing about this assumption, that everything we can observe must be the product of explainable, understandable mechanisms and phenomena, which denies the possibility of a creator. If we accept the idea of a creator, a being who created the universe and everything in it, and gave us the ability to think and reason and understand, what better way could we pay tribute to that creator than to use our abilities, to think, and reason, and ultimately understand everything she has created and laid before us?
The main reason the two ideas are at odds is because some proponents of religious ideas don't like the fact that science contradicts their favorite creation stories, or find that casting doubt on science is an effective tool for convincing people that religion is something they should accept. Science and religion are at odds because religious believers feel threatened and want to assert their beliefs - and attacking science, which the product of thousands of years of human observation and study is an easy way to do that, because many people simply do not understand enough about science to understand why we have so much confidence in the often surprising and counter-intuitive things we have discovered.
Prove it
Questions are welcomed
0:06 every scientist would literally disagree with this girl
Neither have clearly never played Spore
Well I haven’t seen it yet so I guess I’ll do the honours
- clears throat -
“ hahaha homo erectus “
Why is this even a debate?
Childhood indoctrination... that’s why.
@kade 7263 yup
There is no debate. At least not among academics who know the subject.
The Discovery Institute and their concerted effort to sneak creationism into the classroom to indoctrinate kids.
The Concrete Confessional blog guy just dropped a lighthearted article on apparent problems with evolutionary theory that covers porn, substance abuse, Cluster B disorders, and speed-freak bees.
A lot of keyboard warrior controversy going on over it at the moment, but it was an interesting take and def worth checking out
Who's watching just before the 2022 midterm election? 😅
True true
I love how he said "Things don't exist simply because you believe in them . . ." Ahhm, how ironic and circular religion is 😂
🌏:"Homo Erectus?? That's your name? 🤣🥛"
🦍: "Shut up Uranus"
There are some things that are outdated here. For one Homo habilis is not part of Homo and is not the ancestor of H. erectus. Homo habilis is now believed to belong in its own genus due to its ape-like appearance, said genus is said to be a sister taxa to Homo. And evidence found H. habilis was contemporanean with H. erectus, so it cannot be H. erectus' ancestor. The position of Australopithecus africanus is debated, because it is now believed that Australopithecus Garhi is the one that would give rise to Homo. And Darwinius masillae is now classified as an Adapiforme.
The turnip sign on the truck might as well be a Trump flag
I hate this episode because they threw away the pizzas with pineapples on it.
Wait, I thought Homo Neanderthalensis was the successor of Homo Erectus. And Homo Sapiens came after the Neanderthals.
Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted for a while. Neanderthals would later interbreed so much with Homo Sapiens that they went extinct. Most people even have about 2% Neanderthal DNA in them.
To answer the question, the current understanding is that H. Erectus spread out of Africa first, long before H. Sapiens, and diversified into various other hominins. One of these Hominins was H. Heidelbergensis (though it's species-status is sometimes contested) which spread out of africa, and diversified into H. Sapiens and our closest relatives, like Neanderthals and Denisovans. And finally the African species of H. Sapiens spread out of Africa, and much farther than any other hominin, over the last ~50 000 years.
The trouble with the "march of proggress"-imagery that's used here, and was previously in textbooks, is that it isn't a very good conceptualization of evolution in practise. Even though evolution used to be thought of as a straight "line", leading to modern humans, in reality what we know is more of a "bush", with different evolutionary lines branching out, stopping, or merging back with one another. For example, there is DNA-evidence of hybridization with H.Sapiens and H.Neanderthalensis, as well as H.Sapiens and H.Denisova.
It is a line if you look backwards in time (at least if you pick one individual)
Evolution is a theory like gravity or shape of the earth - dr banjo.
You’re in space just look down. Earth is round.
My favorite best scene: 1:11 😂😂
there is transitional evidence tho
Mybestscene old Good days
"Just because we cant find it doesnt mean it doesnt exist"
Hehe, I only realised now that even though the professor is right, in the end the ape does have a point. This is the art of sophist reasoning I guess
But one saying is based on science, predictable outcomes BECAUSE it uses the scientific method.
Last time I checked you can’t say that line about gods or faith based beliefs, they definitely don’t exist, and if they do, they wouldn’t know you exist, Or care that you do.
That’s the joke.
I would have added "look at all these transitinal forms we have already found, why wouldn't there be more?"
why does a god care that I dont care about him??
do you get offended if someone never knew you existed?
the answer is probably no if you met a stranger and he said he doesnt know you
will you gget angry and talk about how important you are and how everyone knows you?
no
same thing but this creator is a GOD
he cares what I do with my body or what I believe when I am basically an isngifnicant isnect to him
religion doesnt make any sense
The ape didn't have a point. He was being hypocritical. Also, the Professor's theory is backed up by actual scientific evidence and proof. Whereas, the theory of God is backed up by nothing but pure belief.
Who watch this in 2024