Paulogia, you opened up with an inaccurate statement about me, and don't even have the decency to link to my film on TH-cam - specifically to my channel? This is the second time I've watched a video of yours where you made comments about me that weren't accurate or true. So if I can't even get a minute into your video without already finding falsehoods, why should someone spend any time on the rest of it? You make assumptions without doing the work to actually verify if you're correct.
Hi Ralph, I assume? Please let me know what comment I made that was inaccurate and I will note a correction. As for the link... I wasn't aware there was a preference between yourself and your partners. Happy to swap it out if that helps you.
@@Paulogia Well, right out the gate you said that "Eric and Ralph had a series of lawsuits." Which implies that I, Ralph, counter sued or filed suit against Eric in retaliation, which was not the case at all. I settled with him out of court to exactly avoid any lawsuits, simply because Paul tells us in the Bible that believers shouldn't sue one another. Granted, I wasn't the one filing the suit in the first place, but I certainly didn't want to partake in one either. There is also a correction that should be made on a previous video, but I'd have to go find it again and recall the mistakes made in your assumptions there too. I get that you're trying to summarize what you think may have occurred based on the little information you have, but do you see how one word here and there can make a big difference in what is implied? Secondly, the film is called "The" Ark and the Darkness, but that's obviously trivial. Never-the-less, when within the first minute you're already making those mistakes, I hope you can see how it lends to discrediting subsequent content to the viewer. Lastly, I would obviously object to countless points that you made in the film, and it's possible both myself and Shawn (who helped me make the film) will make our own video debunking your debunking. :) And yes, a link to my youtube film should have been the route you went since A) I made the film and your whole video is about my film. B) My comments section is open, whereas Genesis Apologetics is not. And C) You show a thumbnail of my youtube film right on your own video. So a reference to it would be ideal. P.S. If you ever want to zoom with us, we would be happy to speak with you. We are praying for you.
@@Paulogia Hi Paulogia, I'm Shawn, I worked on the film with Ralph. I watched your entire video, so please take the time to read my comment; you are very critical of the information presented in the film, but you (and your audience it seems) are far less critical of your own statements, and don't seem to be in the habit of being corrected or held accountable for the things you say. I for one have had enough of the days of the skeptic community going unchallenged and thinking they won the debate because the other side has not yet responded. If you were as critical of yourself and your current views, with the same level of scrutiny which you attacked "The Ark and the Darkness", I would be curious to see the result. Perhaps in a few years you will look back at this confident presentation of yours, and be deeply ashamed of the falsehoods contained therein, but even then, the blood on your hands for encouraging disbelief in the truth of God will remain. The day is coming, my friend, either by those of us who must now take the time to point out all the falsehoods in your presentation, or by God himself on the day of judgment, when you will have to reckon with the consequences of what you have put out into the world. If I was you, I would prefer the former, so I would accept Ralph's invitation to an open format discussion where we can address the things you said in your video and be corrected openly concerning them. As an example, saying something took "millions of years", despite how confidently you present it, does not make it so. At no point in your 2 hour review do you even attempt to argue or explain why you think anything took millions of years by way of the scientific method, you just seem to appeal to the evolutionary consensus, but consensus is not science. You never demonstrate anything to be millions of years old, you just assert it as an alternative explanation, and that seems to be enough to satisfy your intellectual curiosity and be applauded by your uncritical audience. We call that an echo chamber, where ideas go unchallenged, and those who already believe as you do simply clap because you are playing the song they like. Just because a story, like the story of evolution, is robust, having over 150 years of storytellers filling in all the intricate details, does not make it any more true. In our circles, we run into the same problem with others of false religions. People seem to think because a story has enough complexity, and anticipates objections and answers questions, that somehow that makes it true. If that was the bar for truth, the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and other fictions would deserve a second look. Thankfully those of us who are critical thinkers can see past a confident, well made presentation, and see it for what it is; storytelling. With all that being said, I have no ill will towards you, I just want to see you become a better man who embraces the truth of God rather than fables like evolution. Looking forward to interacting with you in the future and seeing what kind of man you will become.
@@SevenfoldFilmsFree this was the most underwhelming reply i have ever heard you didn't even begin to approach any of the points he made in the video concerning The science of the matter. What face you tried to save by refuting any serious dispute with your former compatriots is utterly moot backdropped against your Film's lies. Do better!
Hi. I do have a question. Your film incorrectly lists the schooner Wyoming as a U.S. Navy warship, USS Wyoming. In point of fact, the USN operated two other USS Wyoming’s in the period of the merchant ship’s service life, and does not concurrently use the same name for other ships. These being the Arkansas-class monitor launched in 1900 and the lead ship of the Wyoming class dreadnoughts (BB-32). Why should anyone take your film’s views on her seaworthiness seriously when it can’t even tell the difference between a merchant ship and a warship?
Drowning all life has to be one of the most sadistic acts a deity could perform. He spoke life into existence. He could have done the same to depopulate the planet. When Thanos proves to be kinder than the all loving God, there's a problem.
drowning must be more horrifying than burning alive, because at least burning would last a short time, as your nerves get cooked they stop working and the pain just fades before you die quickly, drowning would allow you to fight for your life until you get exhausted and them it would kill you slowly until losing consciousness
Not to mention that this supposedly all-powerful and all-knowing god is the main reason that life was the way it was to begin with. So he threw a tantrum that his shit didn't work out the way he wanted even though he knew it wouldn't and then flipped the board.
Yup. But discarding the absurdity of the creationist literal reading and seeing the story for what it is, it becomes clear that it was a mythologically symbolic act. What's clear from the Hebrew text but obscured from the translations is that he's not just drowning everyone and everything with generic water, he's specifically (re)unleashing Tehom upon the land. Tehom is a mythological feminine personification of primordial/primeval disorder and chaos, not something that Yahweh created, but a force that he does battle with and subdues earlier in the story. He allows her to temporarily retake and destroy the land, so as to reiterate that he is the one in control of her, the one ultimately protecting the world from her, which the reader is apparently supposed to be impressed by and thankful for.
@@Llortnerof We can do a number of things with that obviously gaping plot hole. We can assume that the authors were just terrible writers, which is possible. We can assume that they were, consciously or subconsciously, aware that they weren't actually writing a literal history, but rather just a mythological story that ultimately doesn't have to make sense, which I think is also possible. Or, most likely to me, we can recognize that this endowing of Yahweh with a timeless omniscience is entirely a modern imposition on the text, not something that the authors who invented the character believed.
@@WS-dd8ow so, basically a guy with a hungry lion, he released the lion to attack and eat some people just so everyone knows he is the one preventing it rom happening, is that it? funny how god's logic is always backward, no matter the original text or the later renditions
@@DeruwynArchmage Throw in the mankind intervention as well. We selectively breeded watermelons to actually be editable or palpabile? I guess depends on your tastes.
omg. with their scaling technique, they may as well drop a toy car scaled down by 24 from a 1 story building and conclude that a full sized car can be dropped from a 24 stories building and survive...
This whole scale model sequence reminds me of that Solar Freaking Roadways scam from a few years back - they demonstrated that the glass tiles were safe for vehicle braking by swinging a rubber mallet as a pendulum onto a tile to show that it would stop. Absolutely an abortion of mechanical engineering and physics.
Yeah, the big problem with their scaling is that in order to be even remotely accurate the materials need to be scaled to the same dimensions. So if your boat was 450-ish feet long with roughly 4 inch planking timbers (those are the ones that form the outside of the hull and keep the water out) and you were to make a 200th scale model, the exterior planking on their hull would need to be .02 inches thick (that's somewhere between 1/32 and 1/64th of an inch thick) I bet it's structural integrity isn't very good when the materials are actually scaled to the size they would be (and that's just the hull planking). What they did was throw a stick that was 2.5 feet long in the water and say "See a 1 inch wave didn't break it".
@@DavidSoucie I'd suggest that a heavy 'paper' skin on 1.5mm frames, with a paper spirketting and quickwork would if varnished, or PVA coated be adequately strong - though rather fiddly to build. This building technique would be improper for a bronze/iron age vessel though, with a typically 'frameless' construction of edge to edge planks joined by tenons and trenails. What interior seating and framing added after construction of the hull form, and not materially adding to the strength. A rope/cable used to girdle or internally tension the hull to avoid it breaking in tension by applying a compression force to the hull. This is rather harder to assemble correctly at small scales. This is an inherently weaker construction method, and even less suited to a large vessel than the iron knees and diagonal bracing of the mid C19th large sailing vessels (or even the previous generation with oak knees and no diagonal bracing).
Well to be fair, they made an attempt at experimenting. It is much more than YEC apologists usually do. That elevates them in my eyes to the level of flat earthers.
I constantly have to remind creationists that no, the billions of years is not a presupposition, it's a conclusion from the evidence. And they never get it
Forgive me for the long comment, but please read patiently before responding. There are calculations used in the dating of things that require inputs of conditions that are not known, and can not be known. To presume people don’t accept because they don’t understand is often missed and pointed out as a “gotcha” in error. It was when I discovered how the dating methods were calculated that I began to question the “facts” and “evidences” proposed in the scientific community at large regarding the age of things. This was long before I trusted in Christ and came to know the gracious and patient Creator. I learned about the many ways we date things, and found that many clever people used their intellect to persuade people using advanced models like the weather man does. Because, even when the results of a study show precise and consistent findings, the lack of knowing what the original composition of the radiometric isotopes were, skews the whole “science” part of it. Not knowing the initial amount of something makes the issue of decay rate extremely suspect. Imputing a constant can make the calculations precise and consistent, but that doesn’t make it accurate. It’s not an intellectual issue, it’s a heart issue. There are very smart people, who are very wicked. Pride lifts us up into thinking we know more than we really do. Pride also blinds us to the truth that is right in front of us. I humbly ask you to consider what is before you, instead of just casting it aside as foolishness. I know what it is like to think of people as silly or brainwashed for believing what I do. I probably made some mistakes in this comment, I’m sure I will have to answer, but first, have you considered: Rocks newly formed by the eruption of Mt st Helen were dated as millions of years old by the “evidence” people so openly follow. Why wasn’t the dating method questioned after this finding? Why do scientists, who hold to the evidence, ignore what was found? Fossils are found of fish, mid bite, eating other fish! Tropical trees found upright in the ice beds of the arctic, and mammoths with the remains of their last meal still in their stomach. If it takes so long to form fossils, why does chemistry tell us that tissues break down much quicker? Collagen breaks down very quickly, dna as well. Why have we found soft tissue from dinosaurs, and why was that finding hid hundreds of pages deep into a scientific journal and not on the front page? I encourage you to keep digging for the truth, and I pray you do with a heart open to it. This world is very deceived, because the ruler of it is the father of lies. I use to believe in science, but now I study it out and see what is really there. Many will use any and every argument to deny the God of the Bible, and many times because we have been hurt we build walls around our hearts to protect ourselves to our own destruction. Please don’t let emotions or preconceived notions hold you back from accepting what the evidence shows you. I studied for many years, seeking to find it evolution was really true. What I found was an amazing designer, and incredible design. A look into mitochondrial dna and the y chromosome will show that all mankind has a single relative that goes back a few thousand years. Mutational loading, and the rate of mutations is way too fast for evolution to take account for. They have found snakes wrapped around dinosaurs, and dinosaurs found with many present creatures, but the findings are not given to us in an honest or sincere manner. There is no mechanism I found that could answer how the machinery of the cell and dna could have evolved separately to work in unison. Life is extremely complex. More than anyone has any ability to mimick. We even use the design of creatures to make advanced machines for our own liking and wants. For something to just form because the environment allowed it to is one thing. For it to have the ability to self regulate and successfully divide while copying its own genetic makeup is a whole different thing. I personally don’t think billions of years is long enough for life to have come from goo. (Taking a look at the famous The miller Urey experiment shows how this thinking is extremely flawed. The difference between an amino acid and a protein is no small matter, though we like to minimize that fact. No way could a complex signaling protein form in such conditions, and what is a protein in the grand scheme of life! Proteins can’t do anything on their own. The unimaginably minuscule chances of life coming from non life never gave me any confidence (a teacher of math and student of biomedical sciences)…
My favorite cosplaying, lab coat wearing conspiracy theorist was John Morris Pendleton. The guy thought UFOs were from Satan who never appeared without his signature fake lab coat.
It's like a group of people with PhD's in comic book lore desperately trying to explain how Superman was the only survivor of Krypton's explosion, when the very obvious "this is fiction" is the massive elephant in the room next to them.
It seems to me (according to the assertions that I’ve heard) that all of these “believers” are lying about the “expected” fossil record. According to the mythology, it was “man’s sinning (starting with Adam & Eve) that brought death into the world”. Prior to this, virtually every animal (from humans to mayflies) were virtually immortal. So, at some point god made the decision to withdraw “immortality”. Prior to this decision, virtually ZERO animals would have died, and, therefore left ZERO fossils in all of the earth’s geological strata should have ZERO fossils in any of these layers. In the biblical chronologies that I’ve seen, there is a mysterious 1000 to 2000 year delay between the garden of Eden & Noah’s flood, presumably while god was trying to make up his mind over the WORLD’s appropriate punishment for (Man’s & Woman’s) alone’s sins. So, every other animal on the planet was destroyed for NOTHING that they actually did. Talk about unjust “Guilt by Association”. So, “fossilization” and it’s necessary precursor (“dying”) on the planet earth BEGAN on the date that god “withdrew immortality” and was complete one to two thousand years later at the START of Noah’s flood. In geological terms, a 2000 year period in NOT “a layer”, it is “A LINE” which possesses virtually zero thickness. Further, this line is also “within 2000 years of the creation of the earth”. This line should also be the deepest & oldest layer of earth… on earth. Therefore to accurately reflect this myth, there should be an infinitely thin line of earth’s (OLDEST) strata (presumably 6000 years old) that contains ALL of the fossils, EVERY SINGLE ONE of them, with zero strata (& ZERO fossils) before that time & nearly zero fossils after that time (only the fossils of the few animals brought on Noah’s ark & their descendants). This bares zero resemblance to the fossil record actually observed.
@@ruthie8785 T. Rex behavior was influenced by the behavior of bears, such as grizzlies and polar bears, which can swim long distances between islands following the smell of dead seals, whales and other dead marine animals.
I can't imagine being an adult with the ability to use logic and reason and still honestly believe in such stories. How many claim to believe it but really don't? 🤔
Why would you think they're adults with the ability to use logic and reason? I'm not even convinced they're one of those things, nevermind all of them.
Look at the faces and body language of the people in that movie: they act like grade schoolers who didn’t do the homework. They are lying and they know they’re lying. They are clearly in it for money and to enable christofascism
Creationists: Evolution isn't true! Also Creationists: Noah didn't have to bring EVERY animal on the ark thanks to super mega ultra evolution that happened at lightspeed after the flood
Ah, but you see, that wasn't _real_ evolution. That was just _micro_ evolution, which we have been forced to concede exists because we see it in real time all over today. _Macro_ evolution is purported to happen in the past, so scientific inquiry is useless for determining whether or happened. The only reliable evidence is thousands-of-years-old hearsay.
Yes indeed. They don't accept _"contemporary evolution"._ Instead of just proclaiming it to be "God magic", they trot out a quasi bastardised version of evolution. _Backed up by supposition & wishful thinking._
It helps to remember that these movies are out there to preach to the believers. Reinforcement of what they already believe. The movie is not there to convince anyone who seriously questions any of it. 💗
i mean you could tell them it's a non sequitur but it won't change a thing, if they can't use basic logic there's no way you'd get that through to them
It's amazing how a catastrophic flood was able to sort species into well-organized layers, to create a clear progression from simple to complex, and make sure to keep the dinosaurs away from the mammoths and apes.
Exactly! So much so that the early (i.e. late 17thC - early 18thC) natural philosophers (biblical creationists to a man), having observed a threefold division in the stratified rocks, named them Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic= Ancient, Middle and Recent Life.
Paulogia's channel has seriously grown! Back in the day, he used to have to make these debunk videos in short sections, released weekly or monthly. It's cool to see a full movie in one response. Well done!
@@PaulogiaIts the Dumb. This movie is like the Chernobyl of stupid. Stupid being measured in Powells. 😅 I'm very thankful for you and all the others for standing up to bullshit.
Paul, you must have REALLY gotten under Shawn and Ralph’s skin. They really seem butt hurt by this video. Shawn even pulled the “God’s going to get you” card. You really hit a nerve 😂😂
I'm once again reminded YEC and "Biblical literalists" don't inhabit the same reality the rest of humanity does. "Scientists are all conspiring to lie to you to surpress knowledge of magic because reasons. We're not crazy!"
They insist the upright fossil trees can't happen in normal geology because the rock layers around them take millions of years to form, but I think they're missing the part where "takes millions of years to form" refers to the lithification of the sediments, while the deposition of those sediments can take any amount of time, including very quickly
tbh i also think they forget about the "takes millions of years to form" when science says the earth is 4.5 billions of years old, the time is there regardless, it only contradicts *their* already flawed theory of a young earth
The other really important bit, is that fossilised trees that bisect multiple rock layers are an uncommon phenomenon which have explanations that conform to our understanding of geology, if the global flood actually happened and laid down all rock layers then these fossils should be incredible common, in fact they should be the norm. But they’re not, even if polystrate fossils couldn’t be explained that wouldn’t mean you get to insert whatever you want in place of standard geology, especially a model that doesn’t explain much of geology.
Given Mark Armitages absolutely awful methodology, failure to protect the fossil, and the blatant lie that it was a triceratops horn, I would've fired him too.
Let me sum up the creationist argument: "It's all scientifically reasonable. And if I don't have evidence for it, it's because God changed science for just that one part."
No, God doesn't "change science". It seems Paulogia, guests and you refuse to consider that there was a catastrophic event unless it's the meteor that produced the ice age billions of years ago. (You even think you can calculate the physics of that!) If the Great Deluge did indeed "open the fountains of the deep" can we repeat and test it like this mouth at 41:00 demands?
@@theol64 Sorry, you can actually find YEC researches publishing in YEC only journals saying that God had to have manipulated the fundamental physical forces to avoid the energy released in the flood releasing enough heat to kill everything on the planet (and even more!). When even YEC researches say God had to change science for the flood to be possible, I think it's reasonably fair for people who hold to higher levels of scientific scrutiny than YEC allows to note that the flood requires God to alter scientific laws to function. Interestingly enough, that claim itself can function as a proof by contradiction that at least some people's depiction of the Christian God can't exist. For example, they make the claim that he upholds the world in an unchanging manner, stable, consistent, just like he is stable and consistent, but then claim that he alters the very nature of the functioning of the world so that a story in the Bible can be true. Now, I don't know if you level the inconsistency, at that point, at the believers or the god, but at the very least the specific conceptualization of god that they have clearly isn't accurate. I mean, to be fair, given the evidence available, if you believe your god caused a global flood, we can materially demonstrate that that version of god doesn't exist due to the lack of evidence for said flood. How disprovable a god is really comes down to the claims made about it, if you tell me "My god did X" and I look and discover that X did not actually happen? Well, then that disproves your god, eh?
Myths aren't nonsense. If you try to equate them as literal historical events, sure. But myths are embedded with symbolic truths, which are usually philosophical or metaphysical principles.
"Occam's Razor would say it is more simple to believe in one flood than a dozen worldwide floods." Stated like that, yes, but if you were actually trying to compare these two positions, you would have to account for that fact that one position has processes that are occurring right now and can account for sea incursions and sea bed uplift as just a natural result of these processes occurring over time, while the other relies on God existing and doing multiple miraculous one-off things. Occam's Razor is not just about comparing the simplicity of two statements. Otherwise it would support the Tooth Fairy really existing over millions of people conspiring to pretend it exists.
The amount of projection from Dr. Jay in the start. "Embarassed". "Scared of looking stupid". They really do like the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument.
Nah, it wasn't "scared of looking silly" that made people pretend to be christian in the past, it was "scared of being burned alive as a heretic" that made people do that....
People with magical models of morality can simply claim that animals don't merit real moral consideration, as a supernatural being can simply remove or add this magical substance of moral consideration from or to any organism arbitrarily. If morality is completely arbitrary based on the whims of a particular agent, you don't need reason to justify the righteousness of any course of action. You just claim divine instruction and call it a day.
@@fieldrequired283 Oh idk maybe bc we were the creation that he held to a high standard? And oh idk maybe when evil was brought into the world we got hungry and there was only one way of gking about that?
@@JazzMaster01 You wrote this comment like someone who neither understood what I said nor watched the video we're responding to. My objection is that divine command foundations for morality are non-predictive and impossible to generalize, and your rebuttal is "uh, did you consider the possibility that it was divinely commanded???". It's a non-argument. It's nothing. You did not _begin_ to comprehend what I said but decided to start talking anyway. As for the second part: If biblical stories are to be believed, _Yaweh_ killed all of the earth's land animals during the flood. Your excuses completely missed the point of the discussion being had.
I always found it funny that on the one hand they claim that a huge tsunami sweep over whole continents, incredible destructive force, yet somehow some trees managed to withstand said force and even get buried standing.
Paul's ability to repeatedly and calmly explain why what the creationists are saying is batshit crazy without losing his cool amazes me over and over again
@@juanausensi499 It's a polemic against Sumerian tradition, which used votive statues. Votive statues were made as eyes of the gods, as Sumerians believed that the gods would forget about their creations if humans left their field of view and stopped making offerings. In fact, Sumer had its own flood story, with one god being angry that his sleep was disturbed by how many humans existed and were making noise. Another god saved a Noah analogue to prevent extinction. So many died that the Gods weren't receiving sufficient offerings to empower themselves, so they made a pact never to use such a catastrophe to depopulate humanity again. Instead, they would use things like plague and starvation. The meaning of the Image of God for the Yahwehist slaves was that they didn't need statues to worship God, for each Israelite was made to be a votive statue of God. "We [Israelites] are God's eyes and as long as we can recognize each other [as Israelites], He will not abandon us [the Israelites]." Something to that effect. Prior to their enslavement, there was already a monolatrous, aniconist Yahwehist cult who gained influence among the enslaved Israelites. The flood story is a good example of how the Yahwehists explained their God to be the source of both good and evil, by fulfilling the role of the evil God who flooded the world and the good God who preserved humanity. This was important, because if this God was responsible for both good and evil, the plight of the Israelites was part of his design and a result of other Yahwehists not following monolatry and aniconism. There were Yahwehists who worshiped Yahweh with bull imagery, which is why Moses destroys the golden calf. A lot of the Bible needs to be explained in historical context to understand the original meaning and how these texts were later reinterpreted in new contexts. For example, Adam was made both male and female initially, to explain that both men and women are made in God's image. Without this context, marriage between heterosexuals would not be a marriage between two images of God worshiping God through one another, but only the wife worshiping God through the husband. Which is how many traditions seem to have taken it in spirit.
The “scientists only started accepting catastrophism because it suited their needs to explain the demise of the dinosaurs” really got me! Haha Cause even if true, try applying that to any other discipline in science “Newton only accepted gravity because it suited his needs to explain the falling apple” Just unhinged.
@@robertadsett5273I would argue that it's more an accurate reading of the Bible, which has God often deliberately misleading even his own worshippers to test their faith, punish apparent transgressions, etc...
@@EatHoneyBeeHappy it's so frustrating hearing Dr Schweitzer talk. A mediocre scientist who was lucky enough to be part of a team that made a significant discovery and that's it. She constantly misuses scientific terms, assumes conclusions and keeps her brain firmly OFF when it comes to her presupposition of magical beings not of this world.
I’m going to really enjoy this from what I’ve seen in 1st 20mins. Paul I owe a huge debt to you and Derek Mythvision for bravery and honesty. I was frankly too scared to look facts in the face, but you & Derek having been Christians of similar stripe to where I was, allowed my guard to lower just enough for some of your materials to land safely in my brain. Today I draw immense comfort and satisfaction from these channels and videos, engaging my brain as to where these ideas came from and why I fell for them so passionately and totally. My great hope is for young people to secretly watch and learn to question before devoting years to these culturally approved cult myths and wed their identity to them. I was way too deferential then, but hopefully I’m developing a wee “rebellious streak” in my 40s of just being honest and speaking my mind about things that matter a little more. Unpacking this stuff is freedom
I was a solid Bible believer for a couple decades and then started to question exactly why I believed what I believed and realized it was only because I was told it was all true and I wanted it to be true. I was also scared to look into things and question because I was always told not to question God or his word and starting thinking why shouldn’t I. Why shouldn’t I question why I believe what my entire world view was based on and if it was all true then questioning things shouldn’t cause any problems. My world view collapsed when the evidence didn’t appear to support what I believed to be true and all available evidence was pointing in a different direction. It also didn’t make sense to me that I was told to not even listen to the things that went against my beliefs which shouldn’t matter if they could just be debunked. In the end I found the only evidence for the Bible being all true was because the Bible itself says the Bible is true. I’m much happier now even without knowing exactly how the universe came into existence.
@1:28:00 I think Paulogia is very polite here, but in doing so is giving them a benefit of the doubt the movie and presenters have not earned. The claim made was that we have found anatomically and phisiologically the same creatures as today alongside the dinosaurs. We very much have *not* . We have found things like the "jurassic beaver" which is *not* a beaver but looks *kind of* like one. This is the kind of thing these presenters (100% for certain the Answers in Genesis ones have been corrected for a decade or more on it) have been corrected on multiple times and they refuse to change how they talk about this information. There is another word besides "mistaken" and "misconception" that we use for people who knowingly peddle false information after having been corrected.
The problem with answering any unexplainable subset of the flood myth with "God did a god magic", is that it calls into question the need for the flood itself. A more plausible sequence of events would be: God gets big mad about humans not playing as he wanted them to play, so he Thanos-snapped them out of existence. Need for a floating menagerie, rains and very little conflicting evidence.
I had a nightmare last night about trying to keep a large, freshwater fish native to murky streams (a clown knife fish) alive after its display mysteriously drained of water. I had a large enough Rubbermaid bin and clean, temperature-adjustable tap water from a bath faucet. I was not optimistic, and this wasn't even a marine fish- much less a small marine invertebrate. As someone who has kept fish, this is a recurring theme of nightmare for me. Nobody who's ever managed a reef aquarium is going to buy a naturalistic narrative of our marine ecosystems surviving a global flood.
It's not only the mixing of fresh- and seawater, it's also the fact that raining down enough water to cover the highest mountains in just 40 days would mean the torrent of water crashing down would be so damn hot, it'd cook everything in the ocean good.
@shiroamakusa8075 That's true but also a lot harder for people to intuitively understand than basic water quality parameters. If I was going to argue the Heat Problem, I'd go with radioactive nuclear decay or plate tectonics. Those aren't as counterintuitive as the idea that rainfall could actually cause an increase in temperature. Shockingly, YECs struggle with concepts that take more than a layperson's "common sense" to understand 😂
@@PROtoss987 A quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion liters of water exploding out of the earth at once would be the equivalent of millions of nukes going off. Actually it would be even worse. It would be like several hundred Chicxulub impactors hitting at once. Yeah, Noah and his crew and the animals in their rickety cyprus-wood boat would simply be reduced to really fine paste in an instant. Also, the Bible says that it RAINED for 40 days straight, so those creationists would indulge in scriptural heterodoxy.
@@PROtoss987 Which is another fun bit of just not understanding things because given most of their conceptualizations and depictions of what it means for water to fountain up from the deep the only problem that actually solves is the fact that even approximations that move over *half* the water to the "deep" still come up with rainfall amounts that are like "you will be beaten to death before you have a chance to drown" quantities of water falling from the sky.
Marsupials were able to inflate their pouches with air and were blown to Australasia by the trade winds (or whatever the winds that blow down that way are called). OK? Done. Problem solved and no need to talk about it ever again.
I mean, it does say Noah was a drunk. God is an appalling decision-maker for a supreme being. He made some terrible hires. Perhaps that’s why the evangelicals think Trump was sent by God.
The reality is that young earth creationists should be given the Christopher Hitchens memorial atheism award. They have done more for atheism than the new atheists could ever dream of
I am a British guy and have been following the Young Earth, Creation vs Old Earth, Evolution(ist/ism) battle with keen interest for some time now, luckily in the UK, Europe and the rest of the industrialised world it is not such a battleground as the US but there is no room for complacency either. My own opinion, is that on the internet at least the advance of YEC has been halted and the battle has gone to trench warefare like the Western Front in WW1, in this case a bloody battle of fancy vs fact. I do not think YEC despite all their efforts have won many people over to their cause, and thanks to the likes of educators such as Paul, Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon many people have been convinced or stopped from believing this nonsense. YEC orgznisations like AIG, ICR, the Discovery Institute seem to be on ths defensive, listern to Ken Ham complaining. So well done & thankyou all.
Another good channel is clints reptiles, He covers evolution and debunks Christians arguments, While being a Christian him self only difference is he actually studies evolutionary biology, and agrees on the age of the earth.
@@paulglennie1991 Totally agree with you, I really like 'Clint's Reptiles', I am a big fan, the only reason I did not mention him was for the sake of brevity. Clint Laidlaw really knows his stuff, he is a great educator and his enthusiam is infectious, you can learn a lot from his channel, I highly recomend it. One thing I did learn was that black mambas make bad house pets ha! ha!
The thing that really annoys me about this silly argument with "species" and "kinds" is that it only works in English! According to my German Bible, Noah was told to bring all the "Arten" (kinds) of animals on board. And the German edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species" is called "Die Entstehung der Arten" (species). Same word in both cases, "Arten". Due to its linguistic history, English has a larger vocabulary than most European languages, with many synonyms, so jumping on this specifically English synonym pair as "proof" of anything just shows how little actual thought went into this argument.
dinosaurs are cool and all, but i would really not like to live in a world where smart predator exists, if dinos where as smart as bird, and could mimic sound like some can, they would for sure be predators of humans
What a weird comment. There used to be dangerous animals roaming around that were hunted to extinction. California used to have bears, now they don't anymore.
@@naruarthur Don't worry, we already lived in a world with powerful, smart and/or huge predators, and they had no chance. Being big is actually a disadvantage, because large animals can't reproduce quickly enough when we start to kill them. You can follow the advancing wave of humans colonizing the earth and find it doubles as a very reliable indicator of megafauna extinction.
"Putting the animals to sleep to avoid the logistics"... Why didn't god send them to heaven? That's just as impressive, and it avoids the logistics entirely. Now it's a small number of humans trying to survive on a boat... for a year. Once you introduce magic as a solution, you _can't_ just stop half-way through the problems!
The degree to which God uses magic is a minefield. Why didn’t he ‘magic’ all the humans from Earth, instead of a flood that killed the animals as well? The selective use of magic is a key component of God.
@@twowardrobeswardrobes1536I could imagine an argument about how animals have to be under the stewardship of humans and with only Noah's family surviving most of those animals would have just run wild - who knows what would have happened then?
There's a video here on YT by a guy who did the math of how much food the ark would have to carry to feed all the animals adequately for the duration of its voyage. Spoiler, it would require the ark to not only be much bigger than the measurements given by the Bible (too big to be stable with the building materials available to Noah), the lack of food preservation would render the entire enterprise futile anyway. Not to speak of all the giant mounds of animal poop Noah and his family would have to near constantly shovel overboard. And that's with the most generous interpretation of what the Bible means with "kinds" of animals.
The model ark argument is laughably irrelevant. It's like saying a hot wheels car wasn't damaged when tossed against a wall, so a real car should survive a 200mph crash.
It always cheeses my onions when someone says "evidences" when "evidence" is an uncountable singular, and the fact that nearly *ALL* Creationists do suggests to me that they're all pretty much regurgitating what one another are saying with little to no actual thought.
"Evidences" is a sign of incoming BS. A false expression used almost exclusively by creationists to describe something VERY different than scientific evidence.
After spending close to a year, maybe two, finding such content to torture myself with, I can say that yes, they are, or at least give the appearance that they are
It's extremely annoying how they continously say evolutionists make this and that clames. Geologists, paleontologists and other fields of science prove an old earth continously. The fact that most of them have concluded that evolution is the best theory is separate from the field of science they specialize in. How do these people not realize that?
Willful ignorance. For example, I've seen creationists try to deny the fact that oil and gas companies use mainstream geology to look for valuable resources like petroleum, even though this fact is common knowledge and is trivially easy to confirm for one's self. Facts and evidence mean nothing to fanatics and the charlatans who take advantage of them.
they totally forget that animals are not the same as dolls, the space they require is way bigger than they body volume, also the amount of food would surpass the animals mass by far, 1 year of food would be 3x the mass of almost any animal
It genuinely astonishes me that grown adults can still confuse obvious fables with reality. Given such a momentous event in such a relatively short historical time, if it were true there would be no disputing it, it would be scientifically obvious and irrefutable
It's very telling when you have to point out that researchers around the world and from multiple religions, including Christianity have all independently come to the conclusion through evidence that the earth is billions of years old. No one else has ever come to the conclusion that the world is 6000 years old except the one group of people who follow a book which claims you must believe it. It's almost as if the book is heavily influencing their ability to properly evaluate evidence.
I've had this same argument with apologists where I live and get this, I am being told that the world really is 6000 years old but God made it to appear to be billions of years old. That's what they literally told me. I was like oh, OK.
At 1:15:00 or so, the creationists subtly introduced the false idea that all sedimentary processes are claimed to occur at the same rate. Quite on the contrary, the speed at which sediments are deposited can vary by orders of magnitude from place to place. In the photos that were shown, each clearly visible layer could be deposited in a year, while in other places you can find almost no deposition in a single year. They implied that the burying of the tree would have to have happened in millions of years if geologists were right, but this is pure speculation on their part. I can imagine a geologist showing that the tree trunk was buried upright in a matter of centuries, not millions of years.
It really drives home for me that for many this is an intentional lie when you play that same clip of Mary over and over. I feel like I've watched 20 of your videos where your response is "I talked to her, here's what she said" like how can they not be lying?? At least some of them
The only inerrant record is the Geologic Column. I've been a fossil hunter for 20 years and all I see are layers deposted in relatively shallow calm conditions. My area records the mid Cretaceous about 90 to 100 million years ago. I've never found an 'out of place' fossil or layer.
The same Geologic Column that was pioneered by natural philosophers (biblical creationists to a man) who repeatedly failed to find evidence to support their hypothesis that the Genesis Flood would have left observable traces in the rocks. Instead they observed a three-fold division in stratified rocks which they named Palaeozoic (=Ancient life), Mesozoic (Middle) and Cenozoic (Recent), thus starting what would become the Geologic Column.
15:00 The main reason for the massive coal deposits it that trees on land evolved lignin *long* before anything else evolved the ability to break down lignin. So dead trees piles up without being broken down, then those piles get buried. *Modern* forests indeed could not produce coal deposits… because many modern organisms *can* break down lignin. 1:29:00 No, Mary didn't find elastic material. She found material that, after chemical baths to remove concretions, was eventually made elastic (altho nowhere near as elastic as the same material taken directly out of an animal).
No one has ever been able to rationally explain why god needed to drown the whole world in the first place, rather than just Thanos-Snapping the "bad" people away. When you look at it critically, no part of the Ark Story makes sense.
I have come a long way, thanks in part to you, Paul. I have watched your videos for years and between you and Viced Rhino, I now have much better answers for various arguments that I grew up listening to. I was amazed how quickly I was able to catch some of the misinformation from the creationists that would have likely convinced me before I went to college. So, thank you.
I have been deconstructing for about 15 years or so ( frmr evangelical). Paul, VR, Aron Ra, Prophet of Zod, Gutsick Gibbon and many others have been instrumental in helping with the on-going process.
@@bbeethe2 thanks, there is so much content i still want to get to. I'm not confused about evolution though, my de-conversion has involved recognizing and shedding the cognitive dissonance that my inquisitive and skeptical mind was experiencing. I have been a scientist (chemist) for over 35 years and I could just no longer push down the doubts that kept rising. I am much better now, mentally and emotionally.
you know putting the animals to sleep for a year is LESS problematic then trying to care for them for that year... I wonder why more apologetic doesn't take this rout. Also if humans coexisted with Dinosaurs why do we not find dinosaur fossils with spears in them?
Okay. The guy with the teeth. The guy who started talking about how people believe in science cuz they don't want to be seen as silly. Yeah the guy with the teeth. I'm pretty sure that he's unlocked a new nightmare for me. I don't know why anyone would talk like that. I'm pretty sure he's eating his own lips off. Which him being a Wendigo might make sense.
Great job, Paul! Mechanical eningeer here. Their scaling argument is nonsense. Wood is a material that does NOT scale well with size. It's rigidity and strength makes very large wooden ships difficult to build, even with modern techniques and supporting materials. The largest wooden ship ever built (Schooner Wyoming) had a 350 ft long deck (450 ft long with the sprite and spanker masts). It was made using iron bracing and rivets that would not have been available to Noah. And, as you noted, flexing in heavy seas caused planks to separate, allowing water in. The encounter ark is 45% longer than the Wyoming. Your research is outstanding.
I was also thinking of how wood does not scale. These creationists need to pick up a 16 foot board, and the same piece at scale. I’m sure you can just glue two pieces of the scale together, but the same pieces would have to be significantly braced and bolted or heavy screws to get the same bond.
I wish that Creationists would stop spoiling my challenge. Everytime I think that we have a candidate for, "State something that is so crazy that no one believes it.", they believe that.
*Local flood implied?* There’s no rule that says the authors (there are at least two stories combined), had to have a consistent view on the scope of the mythical flood. One piece of evidence (not proof) that they envisioned a local flood is the multiple-city kingdom of Nimrod 2 generations after the Flood. Or you could take it that the author of the Nimrod passage was unaware of, or even disbelieved in, a historical Flood.
So embarrassing that there are grown-ups making elaborate arguments for the truth of obvious fairy tales; I'm struck more by this all the time. Such a waste of mental effort!
My family's in it. Years of brain washing (plus confirmation bias) can take a toll especially if it's embedded in their identity and that's the only part they get positive reaffirmation. Anyways I just pretend it's a huge and very devoted book club.
"Museums are full they don't want any more fossils". Lol that depends on the fossil, maybe your donation would be turned away if it was a common mollusk fossil, and the museum would tell you to contact other museums to see if they would like another mollusk. You will eventually find one that will happily take it. There is not a museum in the world that would turn down a rare fossil. Most of the skeletons in museums are replicas because complete dinosaur skeletons are so rare.
That got me too. I can find lots of crinoids where I live, but if I found a nearly complete Quetzalcoatlus I am sure that would generate much interest.
The original flood story involved King Ziusudra, leader of Sumeria. Iraq always has been a flood plain, with 2 major rivers. All of the channel building with water gates is clearly outlined in the Code of Hamarabi. There were laws concerning gate upkeep and property rights for channels. It was a local flood.
Creationist should be able to create a scenario/test which shows that meters of layers can be formed quickly. Why did they not do that already? (including animals caught to become fossils in time)
@@gabberkooij The 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption created multiple distinct layers of volcanic deposits, including initial ashfall, pyroclastic flows, lahar (mudflow) deposits, and debris avalanche layers from the massive landslide. If you were to cut a segment from the top to the bottom and view it from the side, you might see several layers, each representing different stages of the eruption, including ash, rock fragments, mud, layers from air blasts, landslides, lake waves, and pyroclastic flows, which accumulated in a very short time and can add up to a detailed and intricate stratigraphy. The eruption produced up to 400 feet of stratified deposits, with multiple thin laminae and beds formed rapidly. This rapid formation of layers challenges traditional geological assumptions about sedimentation rates and time scales.
@@VFXShawn _["The 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption created multiple distinct layers of volcanic deposits, including initial ashfall, pyroclastic flows, lahar (mudflow) deposits, and debris avalanche layers from the massive landslide."]_ None of which are sedimentary rock. They remain unlithified sediment. Meanwhile, the quick formation of igneous layers has long been known about and aren't the sedimentary layers that need explained. For example, creationists need to explain the White Cliffs of Dover, made of the fossilized skeletons of trillions of coccolithophores. Chalk only forms at the bottom of calm seas at a rate of a few inches per thousand years. The famous 350 foot cliffs represent at least a hundred thousand years of calm seas followed by geological uplift. _["This rapid formation of layers challenges traditional geological assumptions about sedimentation rates and time scales."]_ Not in the least. Volcanism and its timescale is well understood. The geological assumptions that creationists need to challenge are those for sandstone, shale, limestone, and chalk.
Paulogia, you opened up with an inaccurate statement about me, and don't even have the decency to link to my film on TH-cam - specifically to my channel? This is the second time I've watched a video of yours where you made comments about me that weren't accurate or true. So if I can't even get a minute into your video without already finding falsehoods, why should someone spend any time on the rest of it? You make assumptions without doing the work to actually verify if you're correct.
Hi Ralph, I assume? Please let me know what comment I made that was inaccurate and I will note a correction. As for the link... I wasn't aware there was a preference between yourself and your partners. Happy to swap it out if that helps you.
@@Paulogia Well, right out the gate you said that "Eric and Ralph had a series of lawsuits." Which implies that I, Ralph, counter sued or filed suit against Eric in retaliation, which was not the case at all. I settled with him out of court to exactly avoid any lawsuits, simply because Paul tells us in the Bible that believers shouldn't sue one another. Granted, I wasn't the one filing the suit in the first place, but I certainly didn't want to partake in one either. There is also a correction that should be made on a previous video, but I'd have to go find it again and recall the mistakes made in your assumptions there too. I get that you're trying to summarize what you think may have occurred based on the little information you have, but do you see how one word here and there can make a big difference in what is implied? Secondly, the film is called "The" Ark and the Darkness, but that's obviously trivial. Never-the-less, when within the first minute you're already making those mistakes, I hope you can see how it lends to discrediting subsequent content to the viewer. Lastly, I would obviously object to countless points that you made in the film, and it's possible both myself and Shawn (who helped me make the film) will make our own video debunking your debunking. :) And yes, a link to my youtube film should have been the route you went since A) I made the film and your whole video is about my film. B) My comments section is open, whereas Genesis Apologetics is not. And C) You show a thumbnail of my youtube film right on your own video. So a reference to it would be ideal. P.S. If you ever want to zoom with us, we would be happy to speak with you. We are praying for you.
@@Paulogia Hi Paulogia, I'm Shawn, I worked on the film with Ralph. I watched your entire video, so please take the time to read my comment; you are very critical of the information presented in the film, but you (and your audience it seems) are far less critical of your own statements, and don't seem to be in the habit of being corrected or held accountable for the things you say.
I for one have had enough of the days of the skeptic community going unchallenged and thinking they won the debate because the other side has not yet responded. If you were as critical of yourself and your current views, with the same level of scrutiny which you attacked "The Ark and the Darkness", I would be curious to see the result. Perhaps in a few years you will look back at this confident presentation of yours, and be deeply ashamed of the falsehoods contained therein, but even then, the blood on your hands for encouraging disbelief in the truth of God will remain.
The day is coming, my friend, either by those of us who must now take the time to point out all the falsehoods in your presentation, or by God himself on the day of judgment, when you will have to reckon with the consequences of what you have put out into the world. If I was you, I would prefer the former, so I would accept Ralph's invitation to an open format discussion where we can address the things you said in your video and be corrected openly concerning them.
As an example, saying something took "millions of years", despite how confidently you present it, does not make it so. At no point in your 2 hour review do you even attempt to argue or explain why you think anything took millions of years by way of the scientific method, you just seem to appeal to the evolutionary consensus, but consensus is not science. You never demonstrate anything to be millions of years old, you just assert it as an alternative explanation, and that seems to be enough to satisfy your intellectual curiosity and be applauded by your uncritical audience. We call that an echo chamber, where ideas go unchallenged, and those who already believe as you do simply clap because you are playing the song they like.
Just because a story, like the story of evolution, is robust, having over 150 years of storytellers filling in all the intricate details, does not make it any more true. In our circles, we run into the same problem with others of false religions. People seem to think because a story has enough complexity, and anticipates objections and answers questions, that somehow that makes it true. If that was the bar for truth, the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and other fictions would deserve a second look. Thankfully those of us who are critical thinkers can see past a confident, well made presentation, and see it for what it is; storytelling.
With all that being said, I have no ill will towards you, I just want to see you become a better man who embraces the truth of God rather than fables like evolution. Looking forward to interacting with you in the future and seeing what kind of man you will become.
@@SevenfoldFilmsFree this was the most underwhelming reply i have ever heard you didn't even begin to approach any of the points he made in the video concerning The science of the matter. What face you tried to save by refuting any serious dispute with your former compatriots is utterly moot backdropped against your Film's lies. Do better!
Hi. I do have a question.
Your film incorrectly lists the schooner Wyoming as a U.S. Navy warship, USS Wyoming. In point of fact, the USN operated two other USS Wyoming’s in the period of the merchant ship’s service life, and does not concurrently use the same name for other ships. These being the Arkansas-class monitor launched in 1900 and the lead ship of the Wyoming class dreadnoughts (BB-32).
Why should anyone take your film’s views on her seaworthiness seriously when it can’t even tell the difference between a merchant ship and a warship?
Drowning all life has to be one of the most sadistic acts a deity could perform. He spoke life into existence. He could have done the same to depopulate the planet. When Thanos proves to be kinder than the all loving God, there's a problem.
drowning must be more horrifying than burning alive, because at least burning would last a short time, as your nerves get cooked they stop working and the pain just fades before you die quickly, drowning would allow you to fight for your life until you get exhausted and them it would kill you slowly until losing consciousness
Not to mention that this supposedly all-powerful and all-knowing god is the main reason that life was the way it was to begin with. So he threw a tantrum that his shit didn't work out the way he wanted even though he knew it wouldn't and then flipped the board.
Yup. But discarding the absurdity of the creationist literal reading and seeing the story for what it is, it becomes clear that it was a mythologically symbolic act. What's clear from the Hebrew text but obscured from the translations is that he's not just drowning everyone and everything with generic water, he's specifically (re)unleashing Tehom upon the land. Tehom is a mythological feminine personification of primordial/primeval disorder and chaos, not something that Yahweh created, but a force that he does battle with and subdues earlier in the story. He allows her to temporarily retake and destroy the land, so as to reiterate that he is the one in control of her, the one ultimately protecting the world from her, which the reader is apparently supposed to be impressed by and thankful for.
@@Llortnerof We can do a number of things with that obviously gaping plot hole. We can assume that the authors were just terrible writers, which is possible. We can assume that they were, consciously or subconsciously, aware that they weren't actually writing a literal history, but rather just a mythological story that ultimately doesn't have to make sense, which I think is also possible. Or, most likely to me, we can recognize that this endowing of Yahweh with a timeless omniscience is entirely a modern imposition on the text, not something that the authors who invented the character believed.
@@WS-dd8ow so, basically a guy with a hungry lion, he released the lion to attack and eat some people just so everyone knows he is the one preventing it rom happening, is that it? funny how god's logic is always backward, no matter the original text or the later renditions
"Inescapably plausible" is how I'm answering all questions from now on.
Brilliance!
You really just cannot get around the maybe!
OMG how did I not see that? In fully 100% of the cases it either is or isn't the case!
That T-Rex eating a MODERN watermelon is really something else
And growing on a tree, no less!LOL!
@@tomboughan2718 OMG YOU'RE RIGHT, I HAVEN'T EVEN NOTICED THIS CRIME AGAINST NATURE
also, he ate it whole, what is the point? why not bite it? really the strongest bite in land animals justo to almost choke on and oversized fruit
I didn’t even think about the fact that it didn’t look like the natural fruit or that it wasn’t on a vine. Nice catch.
@@DeruwynArchmage Throw in the mankind intervention as well. We selectively breeded watermelons to actually be editable or palpabile? I guess depends on your tastes.
omg. with their scaling technique, they may as well drop a toy car scaled down by 24 from a 1 story building and conclude that a full sized car can be dropped from a 24 stories building and survive...
Underrated comment
This whole scale model sequence reminds me of that Solar Freaking Roadways scam from a few years back - they demonstrated that the glass tiles were safe for vehicle braking by swinging a rubber mallet as a pendulum onto a tile to show that it would stop. Absolutely an abortion of mechanical engineering and physics.
Yeah, the big problem with their scaling is that in order to be even remotely accurate the materials need to be scaled to the same dimensions. So if your boat was 450-ish feet long with roughly 4 inch planking timbers (those are the ones that form the outside of the hull and keep the water out) and you were to make a 200th scale model, the exterior planking on their hull would need to be .02 inches thick (that's somewhere between 1/32 and 1/64th of an inch thick) I bet it's structural integrity isn't very good when the materials are actually scaled to the size they would be (and that's just the hull planking). What they did was throw a stick that was 2.5 feet long in the water and say "See a 1 inch wave didn't break it".
@@DavidSoucie I'd suggest that a heavy 'paper' skin on 1.5mm frames, with a paper spirketting and quickwork would if varnished, or PVA coated be adequately strong - though rather fiddly to build.
This building technique would be improper for a bronze/iron age vessel though, with a typically 'frameless' construction of edge to edge planks joined by tenons and trenails. What interior seating and framing added after construction of the hull form, and not materially adding to the strength. A rope/cable used to girdle or internally tension the hull to avoid it breaking in tension by applying a compression force to the hull. This is rather harder to assemble correctly at small scales.
This is an inherently weaker construction method, and even less suited to a large vessel than the iron knees and diagonal bracing of the mid C19th large sailing vessels (or even the previous generation with oak knees and no diagonal bracing).
Well to be fair, they made an attempt at experimenting. It is much more than YEC apologists usually do. That elevates them in my eyes to the level of flat earthers.
I constantly have to remind creationists that no, the billions of years is not a presupposition, it's a conclusion from the evidence. And they never get it
what you have experienced is called "psychological projection"
Forgive me for the long comment, but please read patiently before responding.
There are calculations used in the dating of things that require inputs of conditions that are not known, and can not be known. To presume people don’t accept because they don’t understand is often missed and pointed out as a “gotcha” in error. It was when I discovered how the dating methods were calculated that I began to question the “facts” and “evidences” proposed in the scientific community at large regarding the age of things. This was long before I trusted in Christ and came to know the gracious and patient Creator. I learned about the many ways we date things, and found that many clever people used their intellect to persuade people using advanced models like the weather man does. Because, even when the results of a study show precise and consistent findings, the lack of knowing what the original composition of the radiometric isotopes were, skews the whole “science” part of it. Not knowing the initial amount of something makes the issue of decay rate extremely suspect. Imputing a constant can make the calculations precise and consistent, but that doesn’t make it accurate.
It’s not an intellectual issue, it’s a heart issue. There are very smart people, who are very wicked. Pride lifts us up into thinking we know more than we really do. Pride also blinds us to the truth that is right in front of us. I humbly ask you to consider what is before you, instead of just casting it aside as foolishness. I know what it is like to think of people as silly or brainwashed for believing what I do. I probably made some mistakes in this comment, I’m sure I will have to answer, but first, have you considered:
Rocks newly formed by the eruption of Mt st Helen were dated as millions of years old by the “evidence” people so openly follow. Why wasn’t the dating method questioned after this finding? Why do scientists, who hold to the evidence, ignore what was found?
Fossils are found of fish, mid bite, eating other fish! Tropical trees found upright in the ice beds of the arctic, and mammoths with the remains of their last meal still in their stomach. If it takes so long to form fossils, why does chemistry tell us that tissues break down much quicker? Collagen breaks down very quickly, dna as well. Why have we found soft tissue from dinosaurs, and why was that finding hid hundreds of pages deep into a scientific journal and not on the front page?
I encourage you to keep digging for the truth, and I pray you do with a heart open to it. This world is very deceived, because the ruler of it is the father of lies. I use to believe in science, but now I study it out and see what is really there. Many will use any and every argument to deny the God of the Bible, and many times because we have been hurt we build walls around our hearts to protect ourselves to our own destruction.
Please don’t let emotions or preconceived notions hold you back from accepting what the evidence shows you. I studied for many years, seeking to find it evolution was really true. What I found was an amazing designer, and incredible design. A look into mitochondrial dna and the y chromosome will show that all mankind has a single relative that goes back a few thousand years. Mutational loading, and the rate of mutations is way too fast for evolution to take account for. They have found snakes wrapped around dinosaurs, and dinosaurs found with many present creatures, but the findings are not given to us in an honest or sincere manner.
There is no mechanism I found that could answer how the machinery of the cell and dna could have evolved separately to work in unison. Life is extremely complex. More than anyone has any ability to mimick. We even use the design of creatures to make advanced machines for our own liking and wants. For something to just form because the environment allowed it to is one thing. For it to have the ability to self regulate and successfully divide while copying its own genetic makeup is a whole different thing.
I personally don’t think billions of years is long enough for life to have come from goo. (Taking a look at the famous The miller Urey experiment shows how this thinking is extremely flawed. The difference between an amino acid and a protein is no small matter, though we like to minimize that fact. No way could a complex signaling protein form in such conditions, and what is a protein in the grand scheme of life! Proteins can’t do anything on their own.
The unimaginably minuscule chances of life coming from non life never gave me any confidence (a teacher of math and student of biomedical sciences)…
It’s the conclusion reached from the investigations of many of fields of science, like geology, physics, and cosmology.
Re: @@coryanderson5210 ‘s long comment - don’t waste your time on it. Typical apologist rubbish and personal incredulity.
It’s because they don’t want to. You’re doing a good job. Keep it up
The lab coats line is rich coming from creationists, who absolutely looooove their science man cosplay.
My favorite is when a flat earther makes a video and wears one such coat. There are three I can think of off the top of my head.
Every accusation is a confession with these folks.
My favorite cosplaying, lab coat wearing conspiracy theorist was John Morris Pendleton.
The guy thought UFOs were from Satan who never appeared without his signature fake lab coat.
@@cygnustspThree...so like 1/3 of a normal person?
Especially when he says it with such smugness and a condescending smile.
It's like a group of people with PhD's in comic book lore desperately trying to explain how Superman was the only survivor of Krypton's explosion, when the very obvious "this is fiction" is the massive elephant in the room next to them.
Didn't a niece of his end up on Earth too?
@@AdLockhorst-bf8pz a cousin, but it happened for the same reason kal-el came here
@@naruarthur narrative imperative?
@@AdLockhorst-bf8pz no, jor-el just warned his brother and he did the same thing, at least that is how some stories are told
Kneel before zod
Conspiracy theorists: *say something stupid*
Paul: "meanwhile, in reality..."
BAHAHAHAHA
The dumbest most hilarious thing is when Carl Werner claimed there’s no river channels. Dude doesn’t even know what a paleochannel is 💀
The Ark was designed to sink by a Hebrew god who left out the seamless hull and bilge pumps.
It looks a bit like an attempt at insurance fraud that failed because the Ark, cargo and crew, survived.
It seems to me (according to the assertions that I’ve heard) that all of these “believers” are lying about the “expected” fossil record. According to the mythology, it was “man’s sinning (starting with Adam & Eve) that brought death into the world”. Prior to this, virtually every animal (from humans to mayflies) were virtually immortal.
So, at some point god made the decision to withdraw “immortality”. Prior to this decision, virtually ZERO animals would have died, and, therefore left ZERO fossils in all of the earth’s geological strata should have ZERO fossils in any of these layers. In the biblical chronologies that I’ve seen, there is a mysterious 1000 to 2000 year delay between the garden of Eden & Noah’s flood, presumably while god was trying to make up his mind over the WORLD’s appropriate punishment for (Man’s & Woman’s) alone’s sins. So, every other animal on the planet was destroyed for NOTHING that they actually did. Talk about unjust “Guilt by Association”.
So, “fossilization” and it’s necessary precursor (“dying”) on the planet earth BEGAN on the date that god “withdrew immortality” and was complete one to two thousand years later at the START of Noah’s flood. In geological terms, a 2000 year period in NOT “a layer”, it is “A LINE” which possesses virtually zero thickness. Further, this line is also “within 2000 years of the creation of the earth”. This line should also be the deepest & oldest layer of earth… on earth. Therefore to accurately reflect this myth, there should be an infinitely thin line of earth’s (OLDEST) strata (presumably 6000 years old) that contains ALL of the fossils, EVERY SINGLE ONE of them, with zero strata (& ZERO fossils) before that time & nearly zero fossils after that time (only the fossils of the few animals brought on Noah’s ark & their descendants).
This bares zero resemblance to the fossil record actually observed.
If you believe the Ark Encounter, the Ark had a bulbous bow. Which is a feature only useful in a craft operating under power.
like his boat the creator is full of poop. hence the poop deck.
The Ark was just a really big reed boat lined with tar, still used my "marsh arabs" today. King Ziusudra was the real Noah
That swimming T-Rex must have been quite the sinner.
An amazing feat, considering that a T-rex can't reach his wiener with those little arms...
@@FullFrontalNerdity-e3z Nor blow each other with those sharp pointy teeth....
Does explain why they are all so angry all the time, mind.
They were actually pretty adept at swimming, apparently. Prehistoric Planet said so!
@@ruthie8785 T. Rex behavior was influenced by the behavior of bears, such as grizzlies and polar bears, which can swim long distances between islands following the smell of dead seals, whales and other dead marine animals.
@@whysoserious8666 They overrate the watermelon trees.
I can't imagine being an adult with the ability to use logic and reason and still honestly believe in such stories. How many claim to believe it but really don't? 🤔
What in the world would make you think that they have the ability to use logic and reason?
Why would you think they're adults with the ability to use logic and reason?
I'm not even convinced they're one of those things, nevermind all of them.
Look at the faces and body language of the people in that movie: they act like grade schoolers who didn’t do the homework. They are lying and they know they’re lying. They are clearly in it for money and to enable christofascism
I wonder about this a lot. Gotta wonder how many think it’s BS but don’t want to risk the social fall out.
@@erinelizabethmsw5137 Don't want to stop the gravy train, you mean.
Creationists: Evolution isn't true!
Also Creationists: Noah didn't have to bring EVERY animal on the ark thanks to super mega ultra evolution that happened at lightspeed after the flood
Just look at Australia... Also, how the hell did they get to Australia?
@@KidVolcano Magic Sky Man works in magically mysterious ways that are conveniently unfalsifiable.
Ah, but you see, that wasn't _real_ evolution. That was just _micro_ evolution, which we have been forced to concede exists because we see it in real time all over today.
_Macro_ evolution is purported to happen in the past, so scientific inquiry is useless for determining whether or happened. The only reliable evidence is thousands-of-years-old hearsay.
Yes indeed.
They don't accept _"contemporary evolution"._
Instead of just proclaiming it to be "God magic", they trot out a quasi bastardised version of evolution.
_Backed up by supposition & wishful thinking._
...you're confusing evolution with natural selection
It helps to remember that these movies are out there to preach to the believers. Reinforcement of what they already believe.
The movie is not there to convince anyone who seriously questions any of it.
💗
That's how they keep the money coming in.
@@rickmartin7596 there's a sucker born again, every minute.
😎
They do encourage people to "bring a friend" to watch the film. Preaching.
Or anyone that knows an inkling of science and math.
God requires donations
"We can't find the Garden of Eden, therefore the Flood was real."
... I mean, okay, you got me there.
i mean you could tell them it's a non sequitur but it won't change a thing, if they can't use basic logic there's no way you'd get that through to them
We can’t find the remains of Krypton either.
@@twowardrobeswardrobes1536Sure we can. Superman keeps them in a bottle in his Fortress of Solitude.
It's amazing how a catastrophic flood was able to sort species into well-organized layers, to create a clear progression from simple to complex, and make sure to keep the dinosaurs away from the mammoths and apes.
Exactly! So much so that the early (i.e. late 17thC - early 18thC) natural philosophers (biblical creationists to a man), having observed a threefold division in the stratified rocks, named them Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic= Ancient, Middle and Recent Life.
Paulogia's channel has seriously grown! Back in the day, he used to have to make these debunk videos in short sections, released weekly or monthly. It's cool to see a full movie in one response. Well done!
I don't know if that means I've grown. I think it just means I'm less sane.
@@Paulogia,
Definitely, less sane. Thank you for your sacrifice. :p
@@aralornwolf3140 Ditto. Your sacrifice gave me (like many of your viewers) the courage to be okay with putting christianity in the rearview mirror.
@@PaulogiaIts the Dumb. This movie is like the Chernobyl of stupid. Stupid being measured in Powells. 😅 I'm very thankful for you and all the others for standing up to bullshit.
@@Paulogia SANETEH is for the weak!
Paul, you must have REALLY gotten under Shawn and Ralph’s skin. They really seem butt hurt by this video. Shawn even pulled the “God’s going to get you” card. You really hit a nerve 😂😂
I'm once again reminded YEC and "Biblical literalists" don't inhabit the same reality the rest of humanity does.
"Scientists are all conspiring to lie to you to surpress knowledge of magic because reasons. We're not crazy!"
Biblical literalists don’t even inhabit the same religion as the rest of Christianism. It’s almost entirely an American Evangelical thing.
They insist the upright fossil trees can't happen in normal geology because the rock layers around them take millions of years to form, but I think they're missing the part where "takes millions of years to form" refers to the lithification of the sediments, while the deposition of those sediments can take any amount of time, including very quickly
ashfalls and some flood can deposit materials quickly, just they pick and chose what they want and claim it to be a rule
tbh i also think they forget about the "takes millions of years to form" when science says the earth is 4.5 billions of years old, the time is there regardless, it only contradicts *their* already flawed theory of a young earth
"They're missing the part" should be replaced with "intentionally ignoring the part"
The other really important bit, is that fossilised trees that bisect multiple rock layers are an uncommon phenomenon which have explanations that conform to our understanding of geology, if the global flood actually happened and laid down all rock layers then these fossils should be incredible common, in fact they should be the norm. But they’re not, even if polystrate fossils couldn’t be explained that wouldn’t mean you get to insert whatever you want in place of standard geology, especially a model that doesn’t explain much of geology.
Creationists thinking rocks and sediments are the same thing would explain why they're so obsessed with the Grand Canyon and Mt. St. Helens.
Given Mark Armitages absolutely awful methodology, failure to protect the fossil, and the blatant lie that it was a triceratops horn, I would've fired him too.
Let me sum up the creationist argument: "It's all scientifically reasonable. And if I don't have evidence for it, it's because God changed science for just that one part."
No, God doesn't "change science". It seems Paulogia, guests and you refuse to consider that there was a catastrophic event unless it's the meteor that produced the ice age billions of years ago. (You even think you can calculate the physics of that!)
If the Great Deluge did indeed "open the fountains of the deep" can we repeat and test it like this mouth at 41:00 demands?
Just say it was a miracle! It’s that simple, then we can discuss why the Christian god doesn’t exist, instead of this.
@SHDUStudios
Right. Like you think you have PROOF that God does not exist.
Seriously deranged.
@legendaryfrog4880
God didn't "change science". What kind of stupid statement is that???
@@theol64 Sorry, you can actually find YEC researches publishing in YEC only journals saying that God had to have manipulated the fundamental physical forces to avoid the energy released in the flood releasing enough heat to kill everything on the planet (and even more!). When even YEC researches say God had to change science for the flood to be possible, I think it's reasonably fair for people who hold to higher levels of scientific scrutiny than YEC allows to note that the flood requires God to alter scientific laws to function.
Interestingly enough, that claim itself can function as a proof by contradiction that at least some people's depiction of the Christian God can't exist. For example, they make the claim that he upholds the world in an unchanging manner, stable, consistent, just like he is stable and consistent, but then claim that he alters the very nature of the functioning of the world so that a story in the Bible can be true. Now, I don't know if you level the inconsistency, at that point, at the believers or the god, but at the very least the specific conceptualization of god that they have clearly isn't accurate.
I mean, to be fair, given the evidence available, if you believe your god caused a global flood, we can materially demonstrate that that version of god doesn't exist due to the lack of evidence for said flood. How disprovable a god is really comes down to the claims made about it, if you tell me "My god did X" and I look and discover that X did not actually happen? Well, then that disproves your god, eh?
It is scary that some people in this era of real science still believe in these ancient myths nonsense .😮
Indeed
More like the era of fake Western Blot data
It's even worse when Christians 200 years ago managed to accept the flood never actually happened but Christians today can't.
Myths aren't nonsense. If you try to equate them as literal historical events, sure. But myths are embedded with symbolic truths, which are usually philosophical or metaphysical principles.
@@chrisparker2118 Yep. Star Wars is totally embedded with symbolic truths. Don't kiss your sister.
"Occam's Razor would say it is more simple to believe in one flood than a dozen worldwide floods."
Stated like that, yes, but if you were actually trying to compare these two positions, you would have to account for that fact that one position has processes that are occurring right now and can account for sea incursions and sea bed uplift as just a natural result of these processes occurring over time, while the other relies on God existing and doing multiple miraculous one-off things.
Occam's Razor is not just about comparing the simplicity of two statements. Otherwise it would support the Tooth Fairy really existing over millions of people conspiring to pretend it exists.
Nuts! So T-Rex needed all of those 12 inch teeth to eat a watermelon?? Gotta be kiddin'!!
Exactly (laughs in biology)
The amount of projection from Dr. Jay in the start. "Embarassed". "Scared of looking stupid". They really do like the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument.
Nah, it wasn't "scared of looking silly" that made people pretend to be christian in the past, it was "scared of being burned alive as a heretic" that made people do that....
The only difference between rubber and glue is time and heat, plus some "filler". I guess you could say they're full of it.
@@markhackett2302 you're really busy in these comments! Good on ya.
The only question that need be asked is:
"How is it moral to kill animals even if all of humanity was wicked?"
People with magical models of morality can simply claim that animals don't merit real moral consideration, as a supernatural being can simply remove or add this magical substance of moral consideration from or to any organism arbitrarily.
If morality is completely arbitrary based on the whims of a particular agent, you don't need reason to justify the righteousness of any course of action. You just claim divine instruction and call it a day.
@@fieldrequired283 Oh idk maybe bc we were the creation that he held to a high standard? And oh idk maybe when evil was brought into the world we got hungry and there was only one way of gking about that?
@@JazzMaster01
You wrote this comment like someone who neither understood what I said nor watched the video we're responding to.
My objection is that divine command foundations for morality are non-predictive and impossible to generalize, and your rebuttal is "uh, did you consider the possibility that it was divinely commanded???". It's a non-argument. It's nothing. You did not _begin_ to comprehend what I said but decided to start talking anyway.
As for the second part: If biblical stories are to be believed, _Yaweh_ killed all of the earth's land animals during the flood. Your excuses completely missed the point of the discussion being had.
@@fieldrequired283True
Ah yes, regret. A common feeling amongst omnicient beings.
I always found it funny that on the one hand they claim that a huge tsunami sweep over whole continents, incredible destructive force, yet somehow some trees managed to withstand said force and even get buried standing.
Paul's ability to repeatedly and calmly explain why what the creationists are saying is batshit crazy without losing his cool amazes me over and over again
I love how God plunged us into darkness and then drowned us for being plunged into darkness.
I thought he made Adam and Eve in his image? But they were ignorant and naive. How does that work?
@johngavin1175 the divine council made man in their image it doesn't say God did it
@@Texasmade74 Still, the meaning of 'making man in their image' has never been explained.
@juanausensi499 Dan McLellan has explained it a few times and he's a biblical scholar
@@juanausensi499 It's a polemic against Sumerian tradition, which used votive statues. Votive statues were made as eyes of the gods, as Sumerians believed that the gods would forget about their creations if humans left their field of view and stopped making offerings.
In fact, Sumer had its own flood story, with one god being angry that his sleep was disturbed by how many humans existed and were making noise. Another god saved a Noah analogue to prevent extinction. So many died that the Gods weren't receiving sufficient offerings to empower themselves, so they made a pact never to use such a catastrophe to depopulate humanity again. Instead, they would use things like plague and starvation.
The meaning of the Image of God for the Yahwehist slaves was that they didn't need statues to worship God, for each Israelite was made to be a votive statue of God. "We [Israelites] are God's eyes and as long as we can recognize each other [as Israelites], He will not abandon us [the Israelites]." Something to that effect.
Prior to their enslavement, there was already a monolatrous, aniconist Yahwehist cult who gained influence among the enslaved Israelites.
The flood story is a good example of how the Yahwehists explained their God to be the source of both good and evil, by fulfilling the role of the evil God who flooded the world and the good God who preserved humanity. This was important, because if this God was responsible for both good and evil, the plight of the Israelites was part of his design and a result of other Yahwehists not following monolatry and aniconism. There were Yahwehists who worshiped Yahweh with bull imagery, which is why Moses destroys the golden calf.
A lot of the Bible needs to be explained in historical context to understand the original meaning and how these texts were later reinterpreted in new contexts. For example, Adam was made both male and female initially, to explain that both men and women are made in God's image. Without this context, marriage between heterosexuals would not be a marriage between two images of God worshiping God through one another, but only the wife worshiping God through the husband. Which is how many traditions seem to have taken it in spirit.
The “scientists only started accepting catastrophism because it suited their needs to explain the demise of the dinosaurs” really got me! Haha
Cause even if true, try applying that to any other discipline in science
“Newton only accepted gravity because it suited his needs to explain the falling apple”
Just unhinged.
Today I learned... the term 'taphonomy' = the study of how organisms decay and become fossilized or preserved in the paleontological record.
Mary Schweitzer asks, "why would God try to trick us?" To which I would simply answer because he is a trickster God, a God of confusion.
That’s a priori rejected though
Loki is a god, for example.
Creationists are worshipping Loki perhaps?
Every time a theist suggests creation with "apparent age", my response is "oh, so you believe in a trickster god who likes to plant false evidence?"
@@robertadsett5273I would argue that it's more an accurate reading of the Bible, which has God often deliberately misleading even his own worshippers to test their faith, punish apparent transgressions, etc...
@@EatHoneyBeeHappy it's so frustrating hearing Dr Schweitzer talk. A mediocre scientist who was lucky enough to be part of a team that made a significant discovery and that's it. She constantly misuses scientific terms, assumes conclusions and keeps her brain firmly OFF when it comes to her presupposition of magical beings not of this world.
I’m going to really enjoy this from what I’ve seen in 1st 20mins.
Paul I owe a huge debt to you and Derek Mythvision for bravery and honesty. I was frankly too scared to look facts in the face, but you & Derek having been Christians of similar stripe to where I was, allowed my guard to lower just enough for some of your materials to land safely in my brain.
Today I draw immense comfort and satisfaction from these channels and videos, engaging my brain as to where these ideas came from and why I fell for them so passionately and totally.
My great hope is for young people to secretly watch and learn to question before devoting years to these culturally approved cult myths and wed their identity to them. I was way too deferential then, but hopefully I’m developing a wee “rebellious streak” in my 40s of just being honest and speaking my mind about things that matter a little more. Unpacking this stuff is freedom
Those are very kind words. I'm so glad to have been some small part.
The T-Rex just gave them the bird. It was not super effective. Small arms.
I'm going to watch this with my semi-religious father while drinking beer.
As a comedy..
I was a solid Bible believer for a couple decades and then started to question exactly why I believed what I believed and realized it was only because I was told it was all true and I wanted it to be true. I was also scared to look into things and question because I was always told not to question God or his word and starting thinking why shouldn’t I. Why shouldn’t I question why I believe what my entire world view was based on and if it was all true then questioning things shouldn’t cause any problems. My world view collapsed when the evidence didn’t appear to support what I believed to be true and all available evidence was pointing in a different direction. It also didn’t make sense to me that I was told to not even listen to the things that went against my beliefs which shouldn’t matter if they could just be debunked. In the end I found the only evidence for the Bible being all true was because the Bible itself says the Bible is true. I’m much happier now even without knowing exactly how the universe came into existence.
My “rebellion” was reading Bart Ehrman while being a Southern Baptist.
@1:28:00 I think Paulogia is very polite here, but in doing so is giving them a benefit of the doubt the movie and presenters have not earned. The claim made was that we have found anatomically and phisiologically the same creatures as today alongside the dinosaurs. We very much have *not* . We have found things like the "jurassic beaver" which is *not* a beaver but looks *kind of* like one. This is the kind of thing these presenters (100% for certain the Answers in Genesis ones have been corrected for a decade or more on it) have been corrected on multiple times and they refuse to change how they talk about this information. There is another word besides "mistaken" and "misconception" that we use for people who knowingly peddle false information after having been corrected.
The problem with answering any unexplainable subset of the flood myth with "God did a god magic", is that it calls into question the need for the flood itself. A more plausible sequence of events would be: God gets big mad about humans not playing as he wanted them to play, so he Thanos-snapped them out of existence. Need for a floating menagerie, rains and very little conflicting evidence.
Exactly if it was that powerful why bother with a messy flood that would destroy all animal and vegetable life as well.
God, defined as all powerful, is a plot device so strong that everything else turns into a plot hole.
I had a nightmare last night about trying to keep a large, freshwater fish native to murky streams (a clown knife fish) alive after its display mysteriously drained of water. I had a large enough Rubbermaid bin and clean, temperature-adjustable tap water from a bath faucet. I was not optimistic, and this wasn't even a marine fish- much less a small marine invertebrate.
As someone who has kept fish, this is a recurring theme of nightmare for me. Nobody who's ever managed a reef aquarium is going to buy a naturalistic narrative of our marine ecosystems surviving a global flood.
It's not only the mixing of fresh- and seawater, it's also the fact that raining down enough water to cover the highest mountains in just 40 days would mean the torrent of water crashing down would be so damn hot, it'd cook everything in the ocean good.
@shiroamakusa8075 That's true but also a lot harder for people to intuitively understand than basic water quality parameters. If I was going to argue the Heat Problem, I'd go with radioactive nuclear decay or plate tectonics. Those aren't as counterintuitive as the idea that rainfall could actually cause an increase in temperature. Shockingly, YECs struggle with concepts that take more than a layperson's "common sense" to understand 😂
@@shiroamakusa8075 They'd say the main cause of the flood was the "fountains of the deep" opening up, which is mentioned in scripture.
@@PROtoss987 A quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion liters of water exploding out of the earth at once would be the equivalent of millions of nukes going off. Actually it would be even worse. It would be like several hundred Chicxulub impactors hitting at once. Yeah, Noah and his crew and the animals in their rickety cyprus-wood boat would simply be reduced to really fine paste in an instant.
Also, the Bible says that it RAINED for 40 days straight, so those creationists would indulge in scriptural heterodoxy.
@@PROtoss987 Which is another fun bit of just not understanding things because given most of their conceptualizations and depictions of what it means for water to fountain up from the deep the only problem that actually solves is the fact that even approximations that move over *half* the water to the "deep" still come up with rainfall amounts that are like "you will be beaten to death before you have a chance to drown" quantities of water falling from the sky.
Noah story doesn't explain alpacas not being in Europe but being in Americas and the whole damn Australia.
God gave kangaroos pouches so they could carry the koalas back to Australia. Inescapably plausible if you ask me.
Marsupials were able to inflate their pouches with air and were blown to Australasia by the trade winds (or whatever the winds that blow down that way are called). OK? Done. Problem solved and no need to talk about it ever again.
@@mikeyhauand the Tasmanian devils?
@@cmarkn They spin around very fast and fly to Australia.
@@mikeyhau Obviously. I shoulda known.
"In almost computer like fashion. The book of genesis..." I died laughing.
Same lol
It was very good
If the ark story explains dino extinction, then Noah fucked up?? Why would he even say that? It punched holes in his own story.
I mean, it does say Noah was a drunk. God is an appalling decision-maker for a supreme being. He made some terrible hires. Perhaps that’s why the evangelicals think Trump was sent by God.
@@twowardrobeswardrobes1536So it's a Trickster God then
@@twowardrobeswardrobes1536 true evangelicals do not believe that Trump was sent by God.
"Just a few years ago ..."
Your first videos about creationism appeared over seven years ago, Paul. Time marches forward faster than you think.
Jordan Eberle was still playing for the Oilers back then and the Penguins were just coming off their back-to-back cups. Just a few years ago indeed. 😂
@@Klepske the Hockey Gods do not exist.
The reality is that young earth creationists should be given the Christopher Hitchens memorial atheism award. They have done more for atheism than the new atheists could ever dream of
"The impact that created the moon wasn't even a 14." Was a great mic drop moment of evidence.
The Flintstones is a documentary😂
i don't care what scientist say Fred Flintstone was black.. with blue polka dots
Obviously, the ark had a Structural Integrity Field and a competent Starfleet engineer to maintain it
I am a British guy and have been following the Young Earth, Creation vs Old Earth, Evolution(ist/ism) battle with keen interest for some time now, luckily in the UK, Europe and the rest of the industrialised world it is not such a battleground as the US but there is no room for complacency either.
My own opinion, is that on the internet at least the advance of YEC has been halted and the battle has gone to trench warefare like the Western Front in WW1, in this case a bloody battle of fancy vs fact. I do not think YEC despite all their efforts have won many people over to their cause, and thanks to the likes of educators such as Paul, Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon many people have been convinced or stopped from believing this nonsense. YEC orgznisations like AIG, ICR, the Discovery Institute seem to be on ths defensive, listern to Ken Ham complaining. So well done & thankyou all.
Another good channel is clints reptiles,
He covers evolution and debunks Christians arguments,
While being a Christian him self only difference is he actually studies evolutionary biology, and agrees on the age of the earth.
@@paulglennie1991 Totally agree with you, I really like 'Clint's Reptiles', I am a big fan, the only reason I did not mention him was for the sake of brevity. Clint Laidlaw really knows his stuff, he is a great educator and his enthusiam is infectious, you can learn a lot from his channel, I highly recomend it. One thing I did learn was that black mambas make bad house pets ha! ha!
@@anthonycrumb5753 Joel Duff is very good too.
Whenever I hear evidence pluralized as "evidences" I know I'm in for some ignorant bullshit.
The thing that really annoys me about this silly argument with "species" and "kinds" is that it only works in English! According to my German Bible, Noah was told to bring all the "Arten" (kinds) of animals on board. And the German edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species" is called "Die Entstehung der Arten" (species). Same word in both cases, "Arten". Due to its linguistic history, English has a larger vocabulary than most European languages, with many synonyms, so jumping on this specifically English synonym pair as "proof" of anything just shows how little actual thought went into this argument.
A 'sequel'?! Oh no, will Paul be able to handle all that potential content? Of course he will and I can't wait.
Content gold mine,maybe the lord does work in mysterious ways after all😂
I witnessed a complete murder. 😂. Though AronRa's series on the flood is great too.
@@johngavin1175 more of a massacre😂
So we would still have dinosaurs if it wasn't for Adam and Eve?????
Now I hate those two more than ever!
We have birbs?😂 but I know what you mean. Could you imagine walking outside and seeing a Triceratops?
dinosaurs are cool and all, but i would really not like to live in a world where smart predator exists, if dinos where as smart as bird, and could mimic sound like some can, they would for sure be predators of humans
What a weird comment. There used to be dangerous animals roaming around that were hunted to extinction. California used to have bears, now they don't anymore.
@@dolyhariantoThere are bears in California.
@@naruarthur Don't worry, we already lived in a world with powerful, smart and/or huge predators, and they had no chance.
Being big is actually a disadvantage, because large animals can't reproduce quickly enough when we start to kill them. You can follow the advancing wave of humans colonizing the earth and find it doubles as a very reliable indicator of megafauna extinction.
"Putting the animals to sleep to avoid the logistics"... Why didn't god send them to heaven? That's just as impressive, and it avoids the logistics entirely. Now it's a small number of humans trying to survive on a boat... for a year.
Once you introduce magic as a solution, you _can't_ just stop half-way through the problems!
The degree to which God uses magic is a minefield. Why didn’t he ‘magic’ all the humans from Earth, instead of a flood that killed the animals as well? The selective use of magic is a key component of God.
@@twowardrobeswardrobes1536I could imagine an argument about how animals have to be under the stewardship of humans and with only Noah's family surviving most of those animals would have just run wild - who knows what would have happened then?
Ken Ham says we would not have evidence for the flood with "millions of dead things buried in rock layers all around the world".
Note that plants also "breathe" oxygen, for aerobic processes, as all eukaryotes do. Plants would literally drown in a long flood like this.
9:55 Oh hey, the guy who doesn't know if dogs came from wolves.
Good to see they're bringing in the talent.
There's a video here on YT by a guy who did the math of how much food the ark would have to carry to feed all the animals adequately for the duration of its voyage. Spoiler, it would require the ark to not only be much bigger than the measurements given by the Bible (too big to be stable with the building materials available to Noah), the lack of food preservation would render the entire enterprise futile anyway. Not to speak of all the giant mounds of animal poop Noah and his family would have to near constantly shovel overboard. And that's with the most generous interpretation of what the Bible means with "kinds" of animals.
Ohhh Can you send me the link or the title of the video ?
The model ark argument is laughably irrelevant. It's like saying a hot wheels car wasn't damaged when tossed against a wall, so a real car should survive a 200mph crash.
But he put 'a measurement device' on it in his backyard pool. Did you put sensors on your dinky car?
His ark model was 1:200, so it was 2.5 feet long. Hot Wheels are only scaled to 1:64!
@0:11
Wait... What. The young earth conspiracy includes the idea that watermelons grow in trees?
That's amazing, I had no idea.
We're now entering the Jurassic Arc of the manga Paulogia Debunks
Bankai!
Paul is like "all these memories will fade, like tears in rain"
Rutger Hauer is an underrated actor
2 hrs of Paulogia? Perfect
I can't wait for Dark Ark 2: The Darkening! That's the one in which the kangaroos go to Australia and the dinosaurs go extinct.
"Not accurate" .... explains religion perfectly
All. I heard during the geology section was Erica's voice describing the heat problem.
It always cheeses my onions when someone says "evidences" when "evidence" is an uncountable singular, and the fact that nearly *ALL* Creationists do suggests to me that they're all pretty much regurgitating what one another are saying with little to no actual thought.
yes, they literally do that with almost everything they say
My understanding is that "evidences" used to be acceptable and normal, and language has shifted, but creationists tend to be mired in tradition.
"Evidences" is a sign of incoming BS. A false expression used almost exclusively by creationists to describe something VERY different than scientific evidence.
@@stevewebber707 It's sometimes used that way in academia which leads me to think creationists are trying to sound smart.
After spending close to a year, maybe two, finding such content to torture myself with, I can say that yes, they are, or at least give the appearance that they are
It's extremely annoying how they continously say evolutionists make this and that clames.
Geologists, paleontologists and other fields of science prove an old earth continously.
The fact that most of them have concluded that evolution is the best theory is separate from the field of science they specialize in.
How do these people not realize that?
Willful ignorance. For example, I've seen creationists try to deny the fact that oil and gas companies use mainstream geology to look for valuable resources like petroleum, even though this fact is common knowledge and is trivially easy to confirm for one's self. Facts and evidence mean nothing to fanatics and the charlatans who take advantage of them.
If you have to worry that expressing your beliefs will sound silly to other people, there's probably a good reason for that...
Creationists try to rationalize the breeding pairs on the ark but fail to explain the number of “clean” animals required for sacrificing.
they totally forget that animals are not the same as dolls, the space they require is way bigger than they body volume, also the amount of food would surpass the animals mass by far, 1 year of food would be 3x the mass of almost any animal
It genuinely astonishes me that grown adults can still confuse obvious fables with reality. Given such a momentous event in such a relatively short historical time, if it were true there would be no disputing it, it would be scientifically obvious and irrefutable
Gotta lie to apologize for jesus
It's very telling when you have to point out that researchers around the world and from multiple religions, including Christianity have all independently come to the conclusion through evidence that the earth is billions of years old. No one else has ever come to the conclusion that the world is 6000 years old except the one group of people who follow a book which claims you must believe it.
It's almost as if the book is heavily influencing their ability to properly evaluate evidence.
Cognitive bias, maybe
I've had this same argument with apologists where I live and get this, I am being told that the world really is 6000 years old but God made it to appear to be billions of years old. That's what they literally told me. I was like oh, OK.
At 1:15:00 or so, the creationists subtly introduced the false idea that all sedimentary processes are claimed to occur at the same rate. Quite on the contrary, the speed at which sediments are deposited can vary by orders of magnitude from place to place. In the photos that were shown, each clearly visible layer could be deposited in a year, while in other places you can find almost no deposition in a single year. They implied that the burying of the tree would have to have happened in millions of years if geologists were right, but this is pure speculation on their part. I can imagine a geologist showing that the tree trunk was buried upright in a matter of centuries, not millions of years.
It really drives home for me that for many this is an intentional lie when you play that same clip of Mary over and over. I feel like I've watched 20 of your videos where your response is "I talked to her, here's what she said" like how can they not be lying?? At least some of them
The only inerrant record is the Geologic Column. I've been a fossil hunter for 20 years and all I see are layers deposted in relatively shallow calm conditions. My area records the mid Cretaceous about 90 to 100 million years ago. I've never found an 'out of place' fossil or layer.
The same Geologic Column that was pioneered by natural philosophers (biblical creationists to a man) who repeatedly failed to find evidence to support their hypothesis that the Genesis Flood would have left observable traces in the rocks. Instead they observed a three-fold division in stratified rocks which they named Palaeozoic (=Ancient life), Mesozoic (Middle) and Cenozoic (Recent), thus starting what would become the Geologic Column.
How is it possible that the flood waters didn't melt all the ice covering Antarctica?
the same magic spell that kept the planet from turning into plasma due to the heat problem, lol
There was not ice there before. It is fake science (1 Tim 6:20) that the glaciers are millions of years old.
15:00 The main reason for the massive coal deposits it that trees on land evolved lignin *long* before anything else evolved the ability to break down lignin. So dead trees piles up without being broken down, then those piles get buried. *Modern* forests indeed could not produce coal deposits… because many modern organisms *can* break down lignin.
1:29:00 No, Mary didn't find elastic material. She found material that, after chemical baths to remove concretions, was eventually made elastic (altho nowhere near as elastic as the same material taken directly out of an animal).
I love that T-Rexes were created with razor sharp teeth and claws for chopping up fresh fruit and veggies.
Wait, they said insects didn't need to be on the ark. Do they think all insects are aquatic?
No one has ever been able to rationally explain why god needed to drown the whole world in the first place, rather than just Thanos-Snapping the "bad" people away. When you look at it critically, no part of the Ark Story makes sense.
I have come a long way, thanks in part to you, Paul. I have watched your videos for years and between you and Viced Rhino, I now have much better answers for various arguments that I grew up listening to. I was amazed how quickly I was able to catch some of the misinformation from the creationists that would have likely convinced me before I went to college. So, thank you.
I have been deconstructing for about 15 years or so ( frmr evangelical). Paul, VR, Aron Ra, Prophet of Zod, Gutsick Gibbon and many others have been instrumental in helping with the on-going process.
@@recoveringbaptist2749 Aron Ra's cladistics series was so good! I highly recommend it to anyone confused about evolution.
@@bbeethe2 thanks, there is so much content i still want to get to. I'm not confused about evolution though, my de-conversion has involved recognizing and shedding the cognitive dissonance that my inquisitive and skeptical mind was experiencing. I have been a scientist (chemist) for over 35 years and I could just no longer push down the doubts that kept rising. I am much better now, mentally and emotionally.
@@recoveringbaptist2749
Good for you. I wish you all the best for your continuing journey
you know putting the animals to sleep for a year is LESS problematic then trying to care for them for that year... I wonder why more apologetic doesn't take this rout. Also if humans coexisted with Dinosaurs why do we not find dinosaur fossils with spears in them?
Okay. The guy with the teeth. The guy who started talking about how people believe in science cuz they don't want to be seen as silly. Yeah the guy with the teeth. I'm pretty sure that he's unlocked a new nightmare for me. I don't know why anyone would talk like that. I'm pretty sure he's eating his own lips off. Which him being a Wendigo might make sense.
The confidence in which they assert their nonsense is truly breathtaking.
It's called "acting".
Great job, Paul! Mechanical eningeer here. Their scaling argument is nonsense. Wood is a material that does NOT scale well with size. It's rigidity and strength makes very large wooden ships difficult to build, even with modern techniques and supporting materials. The largest wooden ship ever built (Schooner Wyoming) had a 350 ft long deck (450 ft long with the sprite and spanker masts). It was made using iron bracing and rivets that would not have been available to Noah. And, as you noted, flexing in heavy seas caused planks to separate, allowing water in. The encounter ark is 45% longer than the Wyoming. Your research is outstanding.
I was also thinking of how wood does not scale. These creationists need to pick up a 16 foot board, and the same piece at scale. I’m sure you can just glue two pieces of the scale together, but the same pieces would have to be significantly braced and bolted or heavy screws to get the same bond.
But, you could certainly stand an oil tanker 90 degrees stern over bow and it would be fine as it has the same God-given dimensions as the ark.
I wish that Creationists would stop spoiling my challenge. Everytime I think that we have a candidate for, "State something that is so crazy that no one believes it.", they believe that.
The runaway plate movements during the ridiculous flood would have boiled everything like a pressure cooker
Hi Paulo, I just spoke with my friend in Shanghai. I asked him about the flood and he said, "Flood? What flood? There was never a big flood here."
Honestly, this would be a lot more bearable if they had been able to get Voddie to narrate again
agree
"...so get out your popcorn" [pause]
pop
pop
pop pop pop pop
popopopoppitypopopoppoppitypopop
poppopopopopopopip
pop pop pop
*beeeeep*
[unpause]
Creationism becomes more and more pathetic with every discovery we make.
Every YEC is either scientifically illiterate or lying.
It's embarrassing.
*Local flood implied?*
There’s no rule that says the authors (there are at least two stories combined), had to have a consistent view on the scope of the mythical flood.
One piece of evidence (not proof) that they envisioned a local flood is the multiple-city kingdom of Nimrod 2 generations after the Flood.
Or you could take it that the author of the Nimrod passage was unaware of, or even disbelieved in, a historical Flood.
Apparently hardcore Christians thought Genesis wasn't literal long before evolution was a thought in anyone's head?
Long before the Young Earth fantasy too.
5:10 Apparently Eva had lipstick and Adam could keep his face shaved. Hmmmm.
So embarrassing that there are grown-ups making elaborate arguments for the truth of obvious fairy tales; I'm struck more by this all the time. Such a waste of mental effort!
My family's in it. Years of brain washing (plus confirmation bias) can take a toll especially if it's embedded in their identity and that's the only part they get positive reaffirmation. Anyways I just pretend it's a huge and very devoted book club.
@@Jae_McZel_Leigh An excellent attitude! :D
About 2M cubic feet, hundreds of animals minimum, food and water for a year, crew of 8, one window, and Ark means "box". It is to laugh.
"Museums are full they don't want any more fossils". Lol that depends on the fossil, maybe your donation would be turned away if it was a common mollusk fossil, and the museum would tell you to contact other museums to see if they would like another mollusk. You will eventually find one that will happily take it. There is not a museum in the world that would turn down a rare fossil. Most of the skeletons in museums are replicas because complete dinosaur skeletons are so rare.
Also, most of it are replicas because actual fossils are in labs where they can be studied.
That got me too. I can find lots of crinoids where I live, but if I found a nearly complete Quetzalcoatlus I am sure that would generate much interest.
The original flood story involved King Ziusudra, leader of Sumeria. Iraq always has been a flood plain, with 2 major rivers. All of the channel building with water gates is clearly outlined in the Code of Hamarabi. There were laws concerning gate upkeep and property rights for channels. It was a local flood.
6:26 yet again proving Dapper Dino's theory that Charles Jackson cannot be filmed in high resolution. He is perpetually blurry, or filmed on Potatoes.
Ha
People paid for and watched that movie... Grown up humans believe that stuff it seems. Incredible.
Creationist should be able to create a scenario/test which shows that meters of layers can be formed quickly. Why did they not do that already? (including animals caught to become fossils in time)
Mount Saint Helens.
@@VFXShawn How many layers were formed there?
@@gabberkooij The 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption created multiple distinct layers of volcanic deposits, including initial ashfall, pyroclastic flows, lahar (mudflow) deposits, and debris avalanche layers from the massive landslide. If you were to cut a segment from the top to the bottom and view it from the side, you might see several layers, each representing different stages of the eruption, including ash, rock fragments, mud, layers from air blasts, landslides, lake waves, and pyroclastic flows, which accumulated in a very short time and can add up to a detailed and intricate stratigraphy. The eruption produced up to 400 feet of stratified deposits, with multiple thin laminae and beds formed rapidly. This rapid formation of layers challenges traditional geological assumptions about sedimentation rates and time scales.
@@VFXShawn
_["The 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption created multiple distinct layers of volcanic deposits, including initial ashfall, pyroclastic flows, lahar (mudflow) deposits, and debris avalanche layers from the massive landslide."]_
None of which are sedimentary rock. They remain unlithified sediment. Meanwhile, the quick formation of igneous layers has long been known about and aren't the sedimentary layers that need explained. For example, creationists need to explain the White Cliffs of Dover, made of the fossilized skeletons of trillions of coccolithophores. Chalk only forms at the bottom of calm seas at a rate of a few inches per thousand years. The famous 350 foot cliffs represent at least a hundred thousand years of calm seas followed by geological uplift.
_["This rapid formation of layers challenges traditional geological assumptions about sedimentation rates and time scales."]_
Not in the least. Volcanism and its timescale is well understood. The geological assumptions that creationists need to challenge are those for sandstone, shale, limestone, and chalk.
@@Kyeudo Thanks for this, Kyeudo. It needed saying.
I'm sorry, can't keep watching, I lost it at the watermelon-eating T-Rex lmao
🤣 real