Creationists Lack of Understanding is Mind Blowing
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ย. 2022
- Answers in Genesis has been showing on my feed thanks to a Paulogia 'Ham and AiG news' I appeared on with Emma Thorne. So what did Genesis have answers to? The James Webb Space Telescope 'disproving' big bang, and some evolutionary misunderstanding. It really is mind blowing how creationists don't understand things!
The original Answers in Genesis Video is here - • Evolutionists PANIC Ov...
the Paulogia 'Ham & AiG news Video with Emma Thorne - • Bad Advice for College...
Another Mind Blowing video (Eric Hovind) - • How To Blow An Atheist...
Atheist response Playlist - • Atheist Responses
James Webb Space Telescope Story - mindmatters.ai/2022/08/james-...
Panic! at the Disks Story - arxiv.org/abs/2207.09428
the problems with Evolution Story - www.sapiens.org/biology/evolu...
** T-Shirts Are Here - my-store-cf9db1.creator-sprin... **
Patreon - / theskeptick
Facebook - / theskeptick
Instagram - / theskeptick
Twitter - / the_skeptick
TikTok - tiktok.com/theskeptick
Everything in this video is just an opinion, and should be treated as such - though it is important to ask questions. Any humour or sarcasm is aimed towards the words and actions of the individuals, and not intended to be a personal attack on any individual themselves, under the act of free speech
Title - Creationists Lack of Understanding is Mind Blowing
tags - creationism,creationists,creationist,atheist,atheism,agnostic,evolution,religion,atheist responds,atheist response,atheist reacts,answers in genesis reaction,proof of a god,is there a god,how to argue with an atheist,are atheists right,is atheism right,how to stop atheism,are atheists wrong,lack of understanding,young earth creation,young earth creationist
![ช่วยพาฉันผ่านเวลา - วสันต์17 [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HFnntWoqc54/mqdefault.jpg)
Imagine 3 grown up persons sitting there on stage picking out lines from a Harry Potter book, and saying that all those NON-Potters are getting it all wrong... That's what I see here :)
...but the P R O P H E C Y
You won't get to hogwarts after you die?
Blasphemy.
It's just sad. All of the actual scientists with their formal education and expertise just can't figure it out like the brilliant believers in old fairytales 😒
Bloody Muggles. that's all we are, non-Potters consistently getting it wrong...
That would be more fun..
"God's word stays consistent"
The only consistent thing about the bible is how inconsistent it is.
I don't necessarily agree. The only thing consistent about the bible is how inconsistent people's interpretations of it are. If it were really the word of gawd, we'd not have so many conflicting biblical views. It's obvious that if they were to use the bible and only the bible they'd want genocide, youth marriages, and stoning people for such atrocities as loving the wrong person, getting divorced, sex before marriage (but only for the woman), and many more.
And the myriad of incompatible ways it is interpreted by those who believe it is true.
It's also consistently incorrect. Meanwhile science gets more and more accurate.
The bible is actually consistent wrong.
Turn the other cheek and give away your possessions...and beat your slaves and slaughter anyone who doesn't turn there cities over to you. No contradictions there....[white noise between ears]
I love that she let slip that she thinks observational evidence is a problem.
To her I'm sure it is.
since when did evo people care about observations.
@@bobdobbs943 yeah they weren't there to observe a banana giving birth to a crocoduck
@@bobdobbs943 From the point something like an "evo" person existed.
@@stevewebber707 Evo believers are evo people. I used to be one. Itsounds good but it doesnt hold up under the banner of biochemistry. Now there is natural selection which evo tries to hang itshat on. Biochemical evolution is the nuts and bolts of evo. I cant find anyone vesred in it to have a sane conversation with.
@@bobdobbs943 Since they observed that the entire fossil record supports evolution. And then there's the instances of evolution that have been observed in laboratory experiments.
One of my favorite observations is that some of the most exciting discoveries started with, "Huh, well we didn't expect THAT!" lol
Like experimenting on mice with diabetes drugs, only for them to literally start sweating their fat?
Post it notes, Penicillin to name my favourites.
@@dogwalker666 Chocolate chip cookies are another favorite of mine.
That sentence was probably the source of quite a few orgasms.
To be honest if i was an astrophysicist i would be extremely excited to learn that there was something new we didnt knew
The first guy to speak is literally a rocket scientist
ALL scientists are exited when they find something they don't expect or don't understand.
@@cosmictreason2242 He WAS a rocket scientist until he signed that profession of faith where he vowed to uphold the scriptures at any cost above all things, in particular against FACTS that contradict the scriptures.
@@Kualinar that’s not what they sign. That’s your spin
I've been sceptical that Tick was actually a floating circle for a while now, and his appearance on Paulogia proved the lie. We all now know that Tick is actually a cartoon pretending to be a floating circle. What else does Tick have hiding in his closet?
Copious amounts of porn
what hes not hiding is an enormous bloated ego.
Technically Tick isn't even a circle since he isn't filled in.
He's actually a ring!
@@bobdobbs943 Jesus, dude, are they handing out free guns at your church for every pathetic jab you throw at your intellectual superiors, or something? Or are you just another russian troll and working this hard is the only way you're not going to get shot dead in Ukraine with the other assholes?
Either way you're pretty pathetic, kid. Maybe rethink your life. Or at least stop eating all the lead paint.
@@VeraExora "A circle is a shape consisting of all points in a plane that are at a given distance from a given point, the centre." what you're thinking of is a disc
I recently joined a Flat Earth discord server (for entertainment purposes of course) and I’ve noticed a suspiciously high amount of similarities between them and Young Earth Creationists.
This is something they should probably think about
There's actually a large amount of crossover between the two groups, even though many creationists think flat Earthers are as ridiculous as we see creationists.
Flat earth is based on the Bible in many cases
my last girlfriend was schizophrenic and i got a carers certification for schizophrenia, and something i've noticed is that religists sounds awfully similar to schizophrenics who are hallucinating....
creationists believe in 99% flat earthers believe, the ONLY difference is the shape of the earth
They don't want to think about it.
This is really weird because I haven’t seen anything close to panic. I’ve read a lot of articles the past couple of months, and it’s not panic, it’s more like “Oh, wow that’s different!” It’s actually exciting to scientists, And the stuff that is different doesn’t disprove the Big Bang. Its just that we are finding out the earliest galaxies formed differently than we thought. They formed faster and were more massive than thought. They’re also finding confirmation about the Big Bang, such as that the earliest galaxies grew the way we’ve been theorizing.
Almost like these people don’t get that science changes over time you know like knowledge science can be wrong about stuff science is never afraid to grow and learn unlike people who are stuck in the past because a book told them so
There's a big misunderstanding what the Big Bang actually is. It's still happening, it's not the moment the universe started expanding, it's the fact that it is expanding, from the moment it started until now.
Please please let this disease, the rare "ignor-anus", spread through the united states. Funny how USA always thinks they are on top of things. Clearly not😂. Europeans are more intelligent and think americans are idiots.
Drives me nuts when headlines scream that James Webb 'scope has shown us something we've NEVER seen before. Duh - that was the point
Wut? Why???
I want space reruns!!
But, you see, you should get all your scientific knowledge from a book that was written thousands of years ago. Because those people knew everything about how the world works. I mean, you always ask fish how to climb trees, right?
@@derkylos A book that even says bats are birds and that a mustard seed is the smallest seed in existence.
@@-._.-KRiS-._.- it says neither of those things. Funny how the atheist accusations never evolve over time. Still the same ones I dealt with when I converted
@@cosmictreason2242 You don't need new arguments to refute the boble, because it doesn't change. That's its main problem. Adherence to outdated ideals and morals (the false science is just the icing on the cake).
I love how they are trying to use us changing our understanding of how the universe works as proof of God. They still haven't done anything to prove God.
And acting as if not changing is a good thing.
Not only have they never proved a god, they have utterly failed to prove THEIR god! It's a massive leap for a god to a specific god, and they never fill in the blanks. 🤦♂️
Turns out when scientists are trying to better understand how the universe came to be that by saying who did it doesn’t really solve the original problem/question. Plus retconning in a few choice verses doesn’t count because it’s not a fleshed out explanation.
You can’t prove God, we use evidence to say that there is a God that exist. Many things in life that we cannot prove but accept to be true.
@@AshleyOssantwhat evidence would that be ?
It's amazing how wrong some people can be. Good job SkepTick, you're doing god's work. Wait..
"You're not right. You're not even wrong."
🤣
IF there really is an intelligent, mature, caring god (unlikely though it might seem), it's not going to like these idiotic creationists.
😂
@@pineapplepenumbra If he had wanted them to interpret the bible literally then he would have written it in contemporary idiomatic English, doncha think?
I think this is the first time Bodie didn't pull out his fallacy card inappropriately. You've struck gold here Mr Tick.
Humans not writing articles for bacteria is such a stretch my hips felt it.
Lol
Sekci!
I do love the crushing irony of Bodie going " Man has dominion over the world... ah, I can't get PowerPoint to work..."
PowerPoint is the debil's work!
@@Dr.JustIsWrong I always thought Microsoft itself was! lol
@@NorgeDude _"I always thought Microsoft itself was! lol"_
Yep, dah debil's self employed... 😉🤣🤣
Creationists: "The book says we have dominion over the animals."
You heard them: next time you get a bacterial infection, you point to your book and tell those bacteria to get right out.
That’s exactly how it should work. Also, try washing in the blood of Jesus.
So we have some creationist apologists misrepresenting a scientific paper in order to dishonestly promote their beliefs and yet they're simultaneously whining about scientists (basing their views on evidence) not questioning their assumptions.
They're either being deliberately dishonest or are completely lacking in self-awareness, quite possibly both.
They have been doing that for 100yrs of years the internet has just made it much easier for them and gives them a wider target audience
Both.
This is what apologetics systemically does, they intentionally deceive their own flock. They're liars.
Getting $?
It's been my experience that creationists purplessly don't want to know anything about evolution. And refuse to learn anything about it.
They don't want to learn anything that it's not in the Bible, but call the atheist stupid because they learn new things (extra stuff that a creationist don't knows). We can see how good for their brain is to refuse everything new and then wake up and 30-40 putting "Dr." before your name and describing themselves as being a bad example while still saying that their approach towards reality is better.
If it sounds depression then think that the "Dr." on the stage didn't even bother to read beyond the title to see what's that article about because if she didn't need to do this to graduate that particular school where you pass by paying the grades then of course you don't need to do it after.
purplessly??????????????????????????????????????????????????????
@@ahall9839 well the people who understand it is what counts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*It's been my experience that creationists purplessly [sic] don't want to know anything. And refuse to learn anything.
ftfy
Are you sure creationist know nothing about evolution or are you just demonstrating your towering ignorant ego. Creationists are people kinda just like evo people. Some are educated in science and some arent. 99.5% of the evo people commenting here dont know the difference between a beta carbon and a hole in their head.
the amount of projecting from these 3 is astonishing.
I love that they are using evidence that they are wrong to try to prove themselves right.
I saw Prof Brian Cox, eminent astro physicist, at Manchester arena this week and he didn't seem panicked at all when he showed the 10,000 people in the room pictures from the James Webb telescope.
I might add that he's filling arenas across the world with his tour. Stick that in you pipe and smoke it YECs!!
Drugs.......
I listen to him on "the infinite monkey cage" on radio 4, YEC cult can never be taken seriously when they cling to the ludicrous 6K years.
Ohhhhhh.... So jelly! I've been a huge fan of his for so many years now, I hope i get to attend some day. 🤩
This takes some mental gymnastics to sit through and then review without loosing brain cells. You are HARD Skeptick. Good stuff.
Logic judo..
Thanks! It was fun to hear YEC talk about billions of light years, not realizing that means light took billions of years to get here. That is more than 6000 years!
How could they cover this? God created the red shifted photons in flight just 6000ly away so they are just now arriving. Why didn’t god disclose this in his book?
@@nigelm5777 mysterious!
@@nigelm5777 that makes sense, god created the photons from the distant galaxies most of the way to earth, since earth is the center of all things.
@@nigelm5777 no they don’t believe that. There’s several possibilities
• anisotropic synchrony: the one way travel speed of light is infinite (only the round trip speed can be measured)
• riemannian spacetime: the longest distance for light to travel interstellar distances is only a few light years due to the curvature of space
• gravitational time dilation: the earth is at the center of the universe. At the beginning, the stretching of space to create the cosmos placed earth into a gravity well which was inside an event horizon, resulting in billions of years of time passing in the outer reaches of the universe but only days on earth
Light in transit is a rejected view because that would make everything we see an illusion, and that’s not consistent with God’s purpose in creation
@@cosmictreason2242 Interesting. Which of these is in the Bible?
Funny how quickly they forget that the person who initially proposed the Big Bang Theory was a catholic priest
Any bets they think Catholics aren't "real Christians"?
The one who came up with the name Big Bang, was a Creationist named Sir Fred Hoyle an English Astronomer
I think OP means Georges Lemaître
@@NotGoodAtNamingThings or was it hubble. or even laplace. i wish they'd get sensible names.
That’s not quite correct. The Catholic priest coined the term to disparage the theory when he heard it.
I SO hate those people who make their living from tricking and swindling poor gullible lost souls.
And yet you use the word "soul". Ironic.
So do people when speaking about plane crashes so what's your point?
Hey, dont talk about us evo people who make a living telling the simple of mind that humans came from slime mold.
@@bobdobbs943 -- you seem to be having a time trolling the comments. Even insulted the SkepTick in one of your posts. If you're passing yourself off as a Christian, that's not a very Christ-like thing to do. Treat others as you want to be treated. Love even your enemy. Any of those words sound familiar? A tree is known by the fruit it produces.
That aside, who actually says humans came from slime mold other than creationists (or some other likewise ill-informed individual)?? Citations, please?
@@pigpuke hahaha. You're right. Good one.
I'm always amused at the idea that God cloned adam while also performing the first sex change. Its amazing that they were even able to have kids!
Thats amazing. You just disproved the entire bible in one shot. You need to go on a lecture tour. Call ABC news and let them know.
@@bobdobbs943 You can't really disprove the bible, since it's never been proven in the first place.
@@KyleAxington You act like everything in the bible either has been proved true or none of it is true. Your claim that none of it has been proven true demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge of what it has said. A number of thing cant be proven because of its distance in the past. But tone of it are obviously true. You just cant afford them to be true. thats your god given right not to believe it. I can sit here and show you lots of things that are true.
@@bobdobbs943 show us god.
@@Dr.JustIsWrong OK. Hold your breath until i god get god and show him to you. keep holding it.
Why does it always sound like they’re just trying to convince themselves?
Just like evolutionists, most creationists dont have any real knowledge of science. So both side tend to blurt out misconceptions. Funny thing is, evo people call their misconceptions science.
Good chance half the thiest out there are. They spent so much time basing their identity around this single idea that they can't picture not having it around.
@@Orsonfoe explains why these people can’t accept the fact that we atheists don’t believe in god and think we are just lying to ourselves
The second someone uses the term evolutionist you should immediately refer to them as a magicist.
Indeed.
My mind was blown by the amount of willful ignorance
One of those people made a very good point that is ubiquitous to play three.
"I wasn't thinking"
Can we make a law where people who put "Dr." before their name after graduating an unaccredited school to do one 2 weeks in community service? They go into a conversation throwing their "Dr." and then show that they are below the average person in intelligence.
Whenever I hear someone going to "school" for theology I respond with "yeah, I used to read comic books and have in invisible friend too; then I turned 5."
More like 2 years
+ 3yrs studies on the topic they claim to be a dr in, and have to pay for the studies.
We have enough laws..
@@Dr.JustIsWrong haha funni.
I'm coming after you
Where I live it's actually illegal to use a title you didn't earn.
More Ham and Aigs, thanks, always a laugh.
I definitely ‘enjoy’ what they have to say
I do not like ..
The Rig Veda has a Creation myth that heavily resembles a poetic description of an eternal Big Bang/Crunch model, as well as a Heliocentric model of the solar system, and Hinduism predates the Abrahamic religions, so I guess that we all need to start worshipping Indra as a Creator God.
It seems better than the God of Abraham
I'm in
Same happens in mesoamerican pantheons, the Mapuche creation myth is very similar to the one in the Rig Veda, so are the Selk'nam and Pehuenche. The ancient egyptian myth is also similar, though a bit more gods are involved. My favorite though is the Greek. In it, everything spawns from the primordial diety Chaos, a personification of just that, a void state where everything and nothing were one and the same, first light(Erebus) and dark(Nyx), then Gaia, Tartarus and Eros, Earth, the Underworld and Love respectively
I have a copy of some of the Vedas. Could you tell me where these two ideas are found? I also have the Book Of The Dead, some of the Avestas, the Bhagavad Vita, and a couple other "holy" books. I figure there is more truth in these than the Bible. That still isn't much.
@@gabriel199714 But then you get the religious logic of "Well, there are so many creation myths, that means that there must be some truth to it!1!! Also, the one I believe is the real one."
I wish I could say I've only heard that one a handful of times.
Budgie Bodgie shows us: They just don't WANT to understand.
In the case of those three, they aren't physically equipped to be able to understand several years of science leading up to it. By that I mean, they all obviously failed grade school.
The glasses bit is funny because they miss the actual point of glasses. Glasses don't warp your view, they correct it.
It's also interesting to think that because glasses were invented bad eyesight genes continued to be passed on. If glasses hadn't been invented perhaps bad eyesight genes would have been eventually eradicated.
@@-._.-KRiS-._.- by the time corrective eyeglasses were invented (1825, according to a google search), our environment wasnot as hostile as the thousands of years humans had already survived with bad eyesight.
I guess you need great eyesight for reading, but not as much to find food, mate, and avoid predators.
@@bguy510 I need glasses to find my bloody glasses.
I wish I was joking.
This is the one thing many Christians don’t seem to understand about science. When science and scientist find something that doesn’t fit the model and has been tested and peer reviewed to not fit the model, scientists don’t go “ahh doesn’t fit, than it can’t be right”, no. If we learn something new than it replaces the old knowledge. It’s strength of science, not a weakness.
Every time they say god imagine they're saying "that guy who wanted to control the masses with his story because he was a decent writer but it worked 100 trillion times better than he could have ever dreamed, like if the da Vinci code became the constitution of the Global New World Order the next 10,000 years, and people killed each other over different interpretations of Robert Langdon's behavior, and there were different denominations that believed he wore his mickey mouse watch seriously and those who believed he wore it ironically and others who believed he wore it nostalgically" ... Yeah imagine they're saying that every time they say god... Because that actually is what they're saying... Weird huh?
This doesn’t work since Christianity does not let one guy have control. Ffs why is China oppressing them if they want to have control over China, if the religion supports their goal? Your beliefs don’t make sense
Creationism is so, um, what's the word? Oh, yeah, "stupid".
It's funny how when you think you're right, everybody else must be wrong.
AiG is intentionally dumb as a bag of particularly stupid hammers. Because, like the saying goes, when all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, and BOY did AiG buy hammers on sale in bulk.
From my point of view, a "biblical worldview" looks very similar to the lining of my gut, when I take a self-colonoscopy with the naked eye.
Are you implying they have worst-case scenario HUBS?
Tick! Your so awesome 👌. Thanks for giving me some content today. Best channel on TH-cam!
The cognitive dissidence at work at AIG is mind-blowing!
These guys put more effort into remaining ignorant than would be required to actually learn how evolution actually works.
The Bible is so consistent that there are now countless different denominations all interpreting it in different ways.
Low information take
The no at 0:16 jump scared me... Haha
What baffles me about these people is they say we belive we come from rocks when genesis 3:19 explicitly says: "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
And they think we believe that people are related to galaxies. 🙄🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂
Yeah but that's magic dust full of god's breath. Totally different
I just really love how these people use science to disprove science. At 17:17, the guy says they wrote the article to people. TO WHOM WOULD YOU WRITE?? Also, I had a fellow tell me that the Grand Canyon is only 1,500 years old. He said this is because the world is only 6,000 years old. Another great video, SkepTick!
If I had to guess, People magazine. You know, that important source of scientific news.
@@denverarnold6210 Or those other highly scientific magazines, the National Enquirer and Globe. Such intelligent reading material.
Yeah, another great video Skeptic. Keep the ego Tick vids coming. Your devotees lap it up. To bad not one word of anything that smacks of an education in biochem is said in these pages by your devotees. Just smug insults. Keep up the good work.
So the Grand Canyon was forming at the same time the Norman's were building out local Castle interesting, YEC cult are so stupid.
Sounds like the fellow that told you that listen to mr Kent hovand
You can tell they’re still trying to find Answers in Genesis because if they found any, they’d already have moved on to Answers in Exodus or Deuteronomy by now
Hahahaha. Good point!
Do these fools not realize they're talking about themselves seeing the world through tinted glasses is exactly what creationist do they're literally making fun of themselves and they do not realize it this is hilarious thanks for the upload SkepTick this video made me laugh about 2/3 of the way through and I'm already on the ground laughing keep it up friend much love, Joker. All praises to Lisa the rainbow giraffe may leaves be upon you.
Hey! Would ask your friends there to tell us where the firmament is because it has not been seen yet, we could use some water to water our deserts.
Once you are fully invested in selling ignorance getting things 'right' is really hard. Edit: "rescuing devices" ... like "god's mysterious ways"
Naw, getting things right isn't hard for bullshit-peddlers like AiG. The hard part is having to tiptoe around the stuff that's true to construct lies. Sort of how like the 'god of the gaps' they keep trotting out becomes smaller and smaller when more and more gaps get filled in.
Or to put it another way, stepping on a landmine isn't hard. Avoiding them takes more effort. In this case it's just that a "landmine" is the same thing as "not being a stupid asshole". AiG would struggle with that part if it was their goal. Instead they've got their big ol' landmine-stompin' boots on.
What's the difference between the Genesis creation story and a fairytale?
A fairytale doesn't talk to us like we're stupid enough to believe the story actually happened.
Even if the big bang didn't happen that doesn't get them a millimeter closer to proving divine creation of the universe.
NO IT DIDN'T!!!! ARGHHH. also yay for you covering this. The disinformation of this idea is sadly being carryed by some big youtube channels.
Little side note: Some few women actually _can_ see part of the infrared spectrum (it's called tetrachromacy). It's pretty subtle and they can indeed only see part of the spectrum, and it's really only a tiny fraction of women, so your point absolutely stands, I just wanted to point this out for anyone interested 🙃
That is not, I believe, correct. Otherwise we'd have huge numbers of men seeing in infrared, too. This is going to get a little detailed, so bear with me...
In fact, it is the same genetic defect that causes common red-green color-blindness that also allows for tetrachromacy. As you know, our retinas have three populations of color cone receptors. These cones actually detect overlapping ranges of color, but each has a _peak_ sensitivity in wavelengths matching red, green, or blue light.
Now, if there's a defect in the gene that controls the formation of red cones, one of two conditions develops. _Protanopia_ is when the red cones simply fail to register adequate levels of red light, and _protanomaly_ is what you get when the cones' peak sensitivity is shifted a bit off from normal. It's that second one that is important here.
Now, it just so happens that the gene in question sits right on the X chromosome. And this is the main reason males experience color blindness much more often than females (approx. 1 in 12 vs. 1 in 200). If a man's X chromosome has a defective gene, then that's it. Game over. But if a woman's does, well, she has a second X chromosome to back it up. As long as the second one is good, then she will generally develop a decent set of working red cones.
And that's where it gets interesting. If a woman has one gene with protanomaly, and one with normal function, then she may very well get _two_ sets of red cones. One will peak at the frequency for normal vision, and the other will peak at a different, skewed wavelength. Add in the other two colors and bam, four-color vision. It's also why only women can develop tetrachromacy, while men have to suffer color blindness. Poor us.
A similar case exists for green (deutan) cones. In fact, it's theoretically possible for a woman to have pentachromacy because of this. I believe the gene for blue (tritan) cones exists on a different chromosome, however, so hexachromacy is off the table, at least through this route.
And finally, the actual infrared question. While protanomaly can shift the _peak_ detection wavelength of the red cones, I do not believe it can actually make the cones sense infrared light. At least a few minutes of searching failed to come up with any mention of human infrared vision by that mechanism.
However, in doing so I learned that there _is_ a mechanism by which _almost everyone_ can weakly see much farther into the infrared than normal. It seems that when cones absorb a double-dose of infrared photons at once, such as from an infrared laser, it can stimulate them into producing signals when they ordinarily wouldn't. Wavelengths of over 1000nm (as opposed to the usual ~720nm) were reported as being perceived (as a green light) in this way.
A fellow Brit who loves your channel. Yes, creationists give me a headache too.
Those 3 people are projecting so hard im afraid their brain might shrivel from the effort
I think these American comedy channels are hilarious 🤣
That’s a good way to look at it
It's all fun and games until you remember that them and their followers vote
@@markshort9098 and they have the biggest military and nuclear arsenal in the world that's scary
@@stephenhill8790 i think Russia accually has the most nukes but i see your point.. America maintains their nukes and Russia doesn't seem to maintain anything so as far as nukes go, America would have the largest operational nuclear inventory in the world
"Because it never change, it obviously must be right."
Yeah, because that's totally how reality works. Not like sh*t change all the f*cking time
My socks don't..
@@Dr.JustIsWrong Yes, they do. They break down their fibers ever so slightly every time you wear them and bacteria is constantly dying and being reborn on them, changing them imperceptively.
“A Naturalistic Assumption” I presume means based on what you can observe in the natural universe as opposed to what it says in his really old story book. That is the book he is talking about when he says he “knows” how things really work because it says so in his really old story book.
Just no words for how parents can do this to their children and think it a good thing.
It is funny to listen to their ideas. I'm glad you hunt this comedy out for us. The multiple gods who created man simply passed them by as they qouted the bible. That always gets me to smile or chuckle.
Thou shalt have no other pixie-unicorns before me.
Every word out of these people's mouths is wrong. On some level they have to know they're lying.
The trouble is they don’t, that’s how brainwashed these people are, they live in the world of stupid.
When a creationist's mind explodes, the tiny blast is barely noticeable.
Love how that guy called naturalism "assumptions" when they take everything their favorite book says at face value. Book fandoms are wild, yo.
Any god who demands worship isn't worthy of it.
More god of the gaps! This just reaffirms what Richard Dawkins said: religion is the arch nemesis of science.
Yea atheist religion
@@cosmictreason2242 Atheist religion? Explain.
@@anthonyharty1732 the oc is quite the opposite of scientific, it’s propagandistic. Or is the question “what is the definition of religion?”
Religion is your epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and politics. Everyone has all of these things, it’s impossible not to. Everyone has a religion.
Well done Sir.
I'm sitting here parsing the yec's talking about "billions of light years" with perfectly straight faces. . .
I have never seen such top shelf projection.
Then the second a fact is presented which they disagree with they just cite the bible. So stupid.
I argue creationist all the time. It is amazing how these arguments are used. They have to know they are using twisted logic
I have yet to see a valid atheist argument against the Bible
@@cosmictreason2242 besides the fact it's nonsense?
Way to prove my point
@@cosmictreason2242you haven't watch enough skeptick videos for saying that then. Everything from the bible contradicts itself.
Many stories are from other religions, incorporated into the bible, with more stories added to make it seem plausible. If bi le is the word of God, how come the same story with different characters were written as fantasy from previous civilizations? Doesn't that disprove that the bible is a word of god? Just because some text is talking about morals and perhaps that's the ancient way of writing a law and spreading that as a religion instead of law of recent days?
@@alioshapopovicius3352 there's one problem with your presumption: it's not true
I think the complaint “they’re not starting with God’s word” really sums up what this was about. They don’t look at the evidence first and see that it points to a God, they presuppose that this particular conclusion is correct, and then do a bunch of really sketchy gymnastics to make it look plausible.
The thing that gets me is that, when he said they don't build their worldview on shifting sands... he very nearly had a good point. We build our views of the world on the shifting sands of what we know about the world while these people... don't.
Minor correction. Adam would have had the genetic information to make a woman. The mythical sky daddy would only have to harvest an X chromosome from some unused cells. A male has an X and a Y. The progeny would have two identical X chromosomes if female. I do not know if that would have negative biological effects.
And one more point, if the myth was true then the mitochondrial DNA would have come from Adam as well. Which would mean that Mitochondrial Eve would actually have been Adam😵💫🙄
well this si the problem really, cos god OUGHT to be able to do anything, but apprently if he didn't follow the laws of physics (who wrote those i wonder?) then none of us would be here - even though god could have, and i feel ought to have made us blobs of hydrogen jelly communicating telepahically floating in space. although, really all he needs are the souls. oh well, it's all bollocks anyway.
Or he could have just said, "Let there be boobies!!"
Not a problem at all
@@cosmictreason2242 Since we know the story to be a myth, of course there is no problem.
As much as I love smooth brains for the pure entertainment they are, but it does feel like some sort of masochistic punishment at time’s to listen to them try to talk about thing’s they either know nothing about or misunderstand and try to get people to take them seriously and believe what they’re saying.
You the best thing that has evolved out of the floating circle.
And the problem with the panel is
that they want attention and money from people that are hurting.
"The JWT found things they didn't expect."
Yes. That's why we spent all that time, money, and effort to put it up there in the first place. If we KNEW we wouldn't find anything new, we wouldn't have done that, now would we?
A little further on, she says "they have to check their assumptions, and they don't do that."
"Check our assumptions" is LITERALLY what the JWT telescope was sent to do!
Bingo!
I like rainbow 🌈 Lisa giraffe 🦒
*Back in the days:* Atheists calling Big Bang christian propaganda
*Nowadays:* Christians calling Big Bang atheist propaganda
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's very telling when they talk about answers changing based on your starting view. If you can only reach your desired conclusion by assuming you're correct to begin with, your conclusion is worthless. What she's missing is that there is a neutral starting point where you go in with as few assumptions as possible and no desired conclusion, and this is, in fact, the scientific starting point.
Also missing that 'restart' is a option..
@@Dr.JustIsWrong A good point. One of the most important assumptions to avoid is the assumption that we have the entire picture, that there couldn't be something we've missed that recontextualizes everything. But of course, apologists embrace that assumption, and view avoiding it as a weakness.
@@Beacon80
I agree
Thanks!
"lisa the rainbow giraffe, leaves be up on her" every time you say it, i burst in laughter
Ex-Catholic here and I was stunned to find YEC was a thing outside the Simpsons nowadays in uni. In Catholic education, I never recall being taught that the YE view was true. In fact, they seemed perfectly fine with evolution and Big Bang cosmology (which my parents pushed me to understand even). Is that normal for a Catholic upbringing or was I just lucky? YEC is super alien to me, even more so than Ancient Aliens (pun intended) and the Knights Templar supposedly being in pre-colonial North America.
Catholicism is false religion so that’s not surprising
Unfortunately it exists and they try and try to indoctrinate anyone especially kids and poor and desperate people to their religion and hope to one day force the entire world to become Christians
Great video. You should have more subscribers. x
Thanks Zer0! I appreciate that.
"... made all the galaxies on day 4..." but needed a rib from Adam to make Eve. I suppose some bits of magic are harder than others.
@14:53 "They're not just like Hey the whole system is problematic. We have to go back and check our assumptions first, but they don't do that because they have a world view" ... the moment she realises she's completely projecting and her brain panic is like 'Cover that up!' ... "We all have a world view!"... 'Nice save. Nobody will notice!'
“A theory requires evidence”? But these same people continually bleat that evolution is just a theory because it doesn’t have “evidence”… then they scream you are twisting their words when you try to nail them to a single narrative, even more than if you used actual nails.
Bodie seems to not have the faintest clue what 'redshift' means. To begin with, 'redshift' is not a verb - and 'things' don't red-shift when 'they are really far away', and they certainly don't 'kinda shift,' as Bodie would have it, whatever that might possibly mean. Redshift is simply an increase in the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, typically light. In astronomy, this commonly occurs when objects are moving apart and at least one of the objects is emitting light (e.g., a star or galaxy), or other electromagnetic radiation. The best known instance of the use of redshift is the discovery that the velocity with which a given galaxy is moving away from us, as determined by the redshift in the light emitted by such galaxy, is proportional to its distance from us. This discovery was made nearly a century ago by astronomers Edwin Hubble and Georges Lemaitre, so obviously it has absolutely zero to do with the fact that the Webb telescope primarily 'sees' the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum. To reiterate, Zero! Nada! Niente! Nichevo! Rien! Bupkis! Zilch! Squat! And as usual, that is the beginning of Bodie and company's deep dive in pseudo-scientific babble.
Bodie claims to have a masters degree in mechanical engineering, but if so, it would appear that he managed to acquire it while avoiding basic physics. Or else he's forgotten it and simply relies on 'Jesus did it' for any complicated questions. 'Rocket' Rob (who according to AiG's website actually has a masters degree in aerospace engineering, which is nice no doubt, but is not academically related to cosmology or related fields such as astrophysics and astronomy, also thinks redshift is a verb, and somehow thinks that the fact that the Webb telescope can see objects that are more distant than Hubble telescope or any earth-based telescope has something to do with redshift. He's a bit vague on this, which makes a long-time AiG watcher ask, where is Dr. Jason Lisle when you need him? At least one could presume he would know what redshift is.
Despite fastening on redshift as something important, although they clearly don't seem to know why that might be so - my own honest opinion, is that 'redshift' and 'infrared' both have something to do with 'red', and so for no reason whatsoever they conflate the two things. Getting lost in all of that, they utterly fail to mention why the Webb telescope can see more than the Hubble or any earth-bound telescope. The principal reasons are, first, the Webb's mirror has a collecting area more than five times that of the Hubble, and thus can simply 'see' fainter objects than can the Hubble; second, the infrared spectrum is less obscured by cosmic dust and debris than is the visible light spectrum; and third, in the words of NASA, "because the ultraviolet and visible light emitted by the very first luminous objects that formed in the universe when it was young has been stretched by the expansion of the universe so that it reaches us today, over 13 billion years later, as infrared light." Perhaps this is what Bodie was groping for when he invoked the concept of redshift and said that when things are "really far away" they "kinda shift." But I think I'm giving him too much credit.
The team then drools off into an incoherent discussion of 'evolutionism', and slips into the usual nonsensical creationist hogwash that asks, if 'evolutionists' simply think we all came from pond scum, and believe that they are merely a collection of animated molecules, why do they care about global warming and what happens to the earth? (As SkepTick points out, they are oblivious to both irony and self-awareness.) And then Rocket Robb puts the final touch on the entire casserole of idiocy and twaddle by answering that question with what I personally believe is the single most moronic thing that creationists say about those who don't share their fundamentalist beliefs - and the candidates in this category are legion and the competition fierce - to wit, "they're borrowing from the biblical worldview." I have a hard time imagining what they even mean by this, but it's become a creationist mantra. The afore-mentioned Dr. Jason Lisle often uses is to describe what atheists, or presumably any non-Christians are doing when they employ logic or do mathematics, and I have never heard any of them demonstrate what they mean by this in anything approaching a coherent fashion, but of course uttering baseless nonsense with guileless sincerity as if they were intoning profundities is what they do best.
Hope this helps pick up the algorithm for you! I'll fall asleep with a playlist on too. Hope things pick up for you soon. Thoughts and prayers from across the pond 😂❤
If there were a god, we'll never find it in the cosmos. Rather, gods are found within the individual. The problem is no one can agree on what that internal god is, so there's an eternal external battle over nothing more than an idea. Man created, and continues to create, god in his image.
The issue is simple. They're starting with an answer and looking for questions to apply the answer to. That's all they've ever done. "The God of the gaps." What's really interesting is they're not even defending the existence of "God." They're defending their interpretation of a series of texts, arbitrarily broken up into verses about how `God` did things. They can't even accept that their interpretation of `that` can be wrong. "God's word stays consistent..." Oh the words may not change, but how you interpret it sure can and does, eveyday.
How great it would be if Answers in Genesis would invite a famous atheist to their show in a live show to be part of the discusson, they wont do that of course since they know they have no arguments that holds up.
Plus we in the states will always love your voice.
104: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology
"... first things to be added to consciousness are the personal contents, and I suggested that these contents, which have been repressed but are capable of becoming conscious, should be called the personal unconscious. also showed that to annex the deeper layers of the un conscious, which I have called the collective unconscious produces an enlargement of the personality leading to the state of inflation. This state is reached by simply con tinuing the analytical work, as in the case of the young woman discussed above. By continuing the analysis we add to the personal consciousness certain fundamental, general, and impersonal characteristics of humanity, thereby bringing about the inflation! I have just described, which might be regarded as one of the unpleasant con sequences of becoming fully conscious.
This phenomenon, which results from the extension of conscious ness, is in no sense specific to analytical treatment. It occurs when ever people are overpowered by knowledge or by some new realiztion. "Knowledge puffeth up," Paul writes to the Corinthians, for the new knowledge had turned the heads of many, as indeed con stantly happens. The inflation has nothing to do with the kind of knowledge, but simply and solely with the fact that any new know ledge can so seize hold of a weak head that he no longer sees and hears anything else. He is hypnotized by it, and instantly believes he has solved the riddle of the universe. But that is equivalent to almighty self-conceit. This process is such a general reaction that, in Genesis 2:17, eating of the tree of knowledge is represented as a deadly sin. It may not be immediately apparent why greater co sciousness followed by self-conceit should be such a dangerous things Genesis represents the act of becoming conscious as a taboo infringe ment, as though knowledge meant that a sacrosanct barrier had been impiously overstepped. I think that Genesis is right in so far as every step towards greater consciousness is a kind of Promethean through knowledge, the gods are as it were robbed of their fir that is, something that was the property of the unconscious power is torn out of its natural context and subordinated to the whims of the conscious mind. The man who has usurped the new knowledg suffers, however, a transformation or enlargement of consciousne which no longer resembles that of his fellow men. He has rais himself above the human level of his age ("ye shall become like unto God"), but in so doing has alienated himself from humanity The pain of this loneliness is the vengeance of the gods, for neve again can he return to mankind. He is, as the myth says, chained to the lonely cliffs of the Caucasus, forsaken of God and man."
The story of Adam and eve eating the apple should be told that they ate the cherry from the tree since christians are so good at picking cherrys
Three people using evidence from a multi million dollar project using the accumulated work of thousands of scientists and technicians to supposedly uphold a cosmology model written in a book thousands of years ago when there were no scientists, stone age technology and explaining everything in terms of mythical gods from unseen realms. Yep that sounds perfectly reasonable.
Good video
OMG, they're quoting Ray Comfort
Wow. I read the March of Progress article. They just grabbed one paragraph out of the middle of it, misrepresented what that paragraph said, and completely ignored the rest of the article aside from the couple of random keywords they picked up with no context. Such amazing reporting these guys do!
Though for an article claiming to be written for the purpose of correcting people who hold misconceptions about evolution, it was not well written for that purpose. I get the impression that the author of the article isn't familiar with how people actually defend those misconceptions. I'm kind of surprised that AiG didn't jump on the fact that the second paragraph says "Anthropologists have repeatedly explained that modern humans did not evolve from apes" MODERN. You need to put the word "modern" infront of the word "ape" if you don't want to confuse people who already don't understand the basics of evolution. Our common ancestor with modern apes was still an ape. Just not a chimp or gorilla.
JWST was still showing galaxies that existed THIRTEEN BILLION YEARS ago.
so if TBB may have been disproven, the universe is STILL at least THIRTEEN BILLION YEARS old.
Dominion is an interesting choice of words as it doesn’t necessarily imply accountability