Have you ever seen 'Father Ted'? He explained it pretty much the same way to Father Dougal [ff to about 35 secs if you're short of time] th-cam.com/video/GFTgkibl7DU/w-d-xo.html
@@redcandi01 the name of the clip is "the shortest scientist versus creationist debate ever." If you take it literally, it means the shortest scientist versus a creationist debate. I read it as how it was supposed to be and then started reading the comments, LOL and wondered what the heck I was missing 😂
you didn't see jesus moving some dirt around then ? or his daddy , laying down dinosaur bones everywhere ? or was that Mr. Satan , i can't keep up with all the nonsense these religious people throw out in to the world ... should stop watching these clips and videos , cause they piss me the F off , just can't help myself ignorant hopeless people , that couldn't tie their own freaking shoes , if it wasn't written down as a decree in that horrible atrocious immoral ''book'' they call the bible ... absolute idiots with no life to speak off LIFE is the ''guide TO life'' , not some antiquated pieces of parchment with stories older then 11.000+ years , that have absolutely nothing to do with people of this day and age ... but they just keep on pushing their views on the world and tell you ... you're going to hell ... f*ck em ... and f*ck their ''god'' that guy is a pervert and a predator in MY book , nothing else
@@ThermaL-ty7bw Bruh I'm not going to defend the Bible cause your mind is already closed. All I'm going to say is that the Bible has everything to do with the day and age. Just like the constitution tells us how to live out our lives so does the Bible. Because the truth isn't subjective it's objective
@@ikhuemoseokojie911 people forget all the atrocities that have been done in the name of religion and of trying to force one's beliefs onto others; colonialism, conversion therapy for homosexuals, the complete destruction of cultures, major wars and maybe bllions of deaths all throughout history, the loss of identity and free thought for many individuals. Organized thought keeps people seperate and stop us from actually finding common ground. Religion tells one truth and conceals many others.I left Christianity after the first 20 years of my life and never looked back.
***** You should probably seek psychiatric therapy. Persuasion is not a requirement in science. You accept it, or you don't. Science doesn't start with an absurd assumption; it's about looking at the evidence and coming to a logical conclusion based on that evidence, not pre-conceived bullshit. You might as well believe in invisible pink unicorns or something. At least you'd be a more creative insane person, then.
***** Let me ask you a question you've probably never thought about: if god exists at all (nevermind your god), what did god make the universe out of? :^)
@@elguapo2831 so when you said "the law of thermodynamics" you actually meant the second law. Unfortunately you're not only wrong about what the second law of thermodynamics says, you're also wrong about its application. The second law describes entropy in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system; it constantly receives energy from the sun. The Change in allele frequencies over time doesn't go against the second law of thermodynamics any more than the population increasing, you cleaning your room, or us building cities.
@iadatoroboto8427 You give them eyes yet they cannot see. Funny how the answers are staring everyone in their faces and they can't see it. Remember the story of the pea in the mattress? Now look at the canyon walls. 6,000 feet of flat strata layers, not including another 2,000 feet on the Grand Staircase. Each layer supposedly took millions of years to form, but there are no valleys, hills, roots, burrows, or a pea in-between them.
t here are burrow fossils but they are produced by marine organisms because the grand canyon is an ancient dried seabed hence why it’s layers are relatively quite flat for miles across. I don’t know if you’ve ever looked ar photos of the ocean floor but its often very flat. Now you might try to argue that the presence of sea life is evidence of a flood, but there’s flaws in that claim. Number one, many of these marine animals left trackways on these respective layers .indicating that the layer was once the surface of the ground and solid enough for them to walk on. If it was all laid down at once in some catastrophic flood, we wouldn't be finding footprints laminated between the layers. You can’t leave trackways if you’ve been buried in a deluge after all. Number two, if it was rapidly carved by a flood, would we not see the destruction and debris of a flood? Ripped up trees and plant matter and the remains of terrestrial animals that got swept up, and drowned and buried in the flood? But no, that’s not what we see. We don't see chaos and destruction in the layers of the Grand Canyon. We thriving and orderly, undisturbed marine ecosystems with ancient arthropods skittering across a flat sea floor and generations after generations of mollusks preserved anchored to their life positions. All of this is demonstrable and available knowledge to anyone with enough curiosity to look it up. So don’t come at us with that “give them eyes yet they cannot see” nonsense. The people who are actually down in the canyon, studying it’s fossils and mapping its geology have put in the time and leg work to see things that you have purposely chosen to ignore and yet here you are with the nerve to stand here at your pulpit and claim that they’re the one’s who are blind. I would laugh at the irony if it was not so bleak.
The geologist must be an idiot. Why should he waste his time considering evidence from people he disagrees with when it's so easy to just casually dismiss them categorically like a complete bigot, since evidence will never convince him anyway?
+Agent1W I know we all wanted to see that spicy creationist comeback where he just straight roasts the guy for a full hour with his Tai Lopez knowledge of the world and ability to spew facts it would've been real. But I see these so called scientists refuse to show it, maybe they have something to hide, unlike the mighty Lord Jesus who saved us all from dying for our sins, papa bless and don't subscrab to such a biased channel.
This is actually probably the best scientist vs creationist debate ever, because it acknowledges the fundamental problem: if you can't even agree on basic premises, you can't actually have a debate to start with. At best, you just talk at each other forever, with neither side conceding any significant points to the other, and both declaring victory at the end.
This is why almost every debate we see is pointless. People pretend to be debating while they cant even agree on basic initial definitions that would be required to make proper arguments.
Which is why the scientific method exists to begin with. If the person you are arguing with can't even acknowledge objective, observable, reproducable evidence they are no more worth talking to than a farm animal.
@@lieslceleste3395 By proof? God can't contradict himself, so if you find God contradicting himself then you have proof. It's not like you can't prove supernatural things wrong, it's just that you have to think about what it is you're trying to disprove rather than what you know about everything else. Very simple stuff there.
Creationist: Sea is wet... Bible said sea is wet.. Therefore God Creationist: Birds fly.. Therefore God Creationist: My dog... Therefore God Creationist: Science... Therefore Satan
young BLOCKA is love to believe but whether people like this fact or not the original bible was the Jewish Torah then it was edited then Jesus popped up then it was added to then edited or bits of tablets went missing then king James had his own version that’s used today. In what way can that possibly be the word of god, an edited abridged directories cut with added bonus scenes?!
No there is nothing he should have said, this was perfectly fine. If you have listened to to many creationists you know why, because it hurts, how bad those arguments are.
he's saying that this 1 video showed all the other videos he has seen in a very short amount of time. aka - the past videos he saw were like....20 min/1hour long debates, while this one took less than a minute.
"It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's impossible to win an argument against a stupid person." Edit: And the next thing you know, shitloads of comments
Yeah, it's so hard to win an argument with someone who things they can from a dot of nothing exploding. And someone who thinks life somehow magically came from rock soup. And who think all life is magically related. So stupid. Oh wait, that's most scientists. Such idiots 🙄
Scientist : - Take a rock and some water. - Observe how many time it takes for half a milimeter to be eroded. - Use math to calculate the aproximatif age of the grand cayon based on actual observations of nature. Creationist : - "Wait, is he allowed to do that ?''
@Robert Loeder no, no, no, you have to ignore the possibility of any cataclysmic events and ASSUME that the processes observed present day is how it happened from the beginning of time and forever after. There is a surprising amount of willful ignorance in the belief of a 14B year old cosmic oopsie-daisy.
@@carportshenanigans5918 you can tell the difference between a cataclysmic event and a slow process. A flood that lasts a few days leaves different signs than a stream that flows for a thousand years. And then there's the nuclear chemistry, which is probably the best way to date things. It isn't that scientists ignore signs, the fact is that the simplest explanation that fits all the evidence is an old universe and an old earth.
that's not the whole story though. Atrocities have been committed for lots of reasons, like bombing a ww2 factory that happens to be in a highly populated area (collateral damage) or bombing/shelling a city to make way for invading troops.
@@sunblaze8931 It's an absence of belief in a deity. There's a difference there. I know, I know. There there Put on a lullaby vid. You'll be much better off
It is hard to win an argument with a tall person, but it's impossible to win an argument against a short person, they will just bring you down to their height and beat you with their experience.
Certain people worship their own interests and dress them up as devotion to a noble, higher cause. We will always have these debates as long as weak-minded, self-obsessed people want to spread their fears and beliefs.
@@cloudycrisps7290 You are aware that the mechanism of " creation science " is magic/incantations. Being that it was spoken, that makes it just that. But there's a problem with that. There was no air before this act. Nor did the non-corporeal entity have a mouth from which to speak. No vocal chords or lungs. None of the things needed for speech was in place before the incantation was used. So, how did that work? More magic? Creation was also put up against evolutionary processes in court. The ruling is why evolution is taught in schools and creation isn't, accept those schools that indoctrinates children into the cult before they can think for themselves. Calling it science doesn't make it science. And if this religious crap was real there wouldn't be any need for apologist's. There would be no holes or slack to pull it it were real and not mere fantasy. Creation Science, what a laugh.
@@tyrionlannister9273 okay, First of the Bible said humanity was made in Gods own image therefore it can be assumed that they have a mouth. Second, Just because a court has a certain ruling does not make it true or the best. Other wise explain why innocent people are convicted and guilty are set free. What may seem right is not always the case. And finally Evolution also has apologists, people who keep finding evidence and using it to support their views. However I do agree that calling something science does not make it science, so tell me, if evolution is classified as a theory why do we teach it as scientific fact? Just because we can use evidence to point at it? You can do that with the creationist viewpoint as well. Perhaps it would be better if these theories were taught separately from factual science so we can more accurately test them. If creation science really was this laugh as you say, then surely you have all the answers to make this belief obsolete? Explain to me them how life could arise from non living Matter and then proceed to never do it again on this planet. Explain the origins of human morality, of Logic, explain consciousness. The Truth is neither of us have all the answers therefore neither side should be taken as more than an opinion with a spew of evidence at the table trying to make it all fit. It is also impossible to simply take information and just “find the results” because there will always be bias. A creationist will use it to point to God and a non-creationist will use it to point towards Not God. Just finding evidence is not what you are doing at all. Everyone is DELIBERATELY using the evidence to support their view.
@@cloudycrisps7290 Evidence points only one way. Evolution doesn't have apologist's. And the Torah, the old testament, doesn't say that man was made in the image of god. It says that humans were re-created in the image of the gods, Elohim is a pluralism and also includes female. And it also says that Jehovah sits in the seat of judge amongst the gods. So the text clearly states a plurality. And about this assumption. Why would a being living in null space, devoid of everything have need of a mouth? There's nothing to eat, nothing to speak upon because sound travels on the particles of gas in waves to the ear that has bones in it that rattle and send the signals to the brain to be deciphered... The people that wrote the religious texts literally knew nothing and assumed everything. That's why it's rife with inconsistentancies and nonsensical ideas. Plants were created before the sun. The sun and moon exist inside of the dome above the flat earth and are the same size. There's water outside the dome. Snakes and donkey talk. Eating fruit is a crime that humans are guilty of even though they didn't even eat the fruit themselves. Then later, god takes human form. To be a sacrifice of itself to itself to appease itself for rules it made up in the first place. From a scenario it made. It also placed the talking snake in the garden. What kind of idiot thinks this makes sense? You do.
+Michael smith Yes, because we should silence all theories and notions that don't agree with our own. That's how we grow and learn. Acting like know it all pricks.
Jose Canusee when your right your right, no amount of debate will change the facts that religious nonsense has not been right on one scientific matter, or has met the burden of proof that is required for such extraordinary claims.
+Michael smith Well let's focus on this issue which I assume you are in agreement is the age of Earth. Let me re-post a comment I made on this video in hopes to get my point across. Forgive the laziness but I just don't feel like typing it all again." Is time not relative to the universal laws that the universe is expanding and speeding up? Therefore, as we exist and record our experience on the timeline, does our concept of time and it's relationship with history speed up? Meaning, A recorded year to man's concept of time 1 million years ago would be longer than it would in the current day. I am so amazed that scientist and the vast majority of the so called "intellectual" community are still theorizing time as a linear concept when it has been proven that it is cyclical in nature. My point is when someone says the Earth is thousands of years old or Millions of years old, they are both right and both wrong. The funniest part is we can only begin to imagine these things so instead of acting like we have all the answers, maybe we should stop being so arrogant and learn from one another." I mean even Albert Einstein considered his theories just that, theories. Sure, some are more predominantly rooted in fact and obvious as others are open to interpretation. Regardless of this, the reality is nobody knows without a shadow of a doubt anything so to silence debate and shun or criticize others for having opposing views is not only wrong but dangerous. I suggest you do some research on who is in charge of determining what scientific theories are considered facts throughout history and the damage that has done to the masses those theories were meant to use for control. I'm not saying your right, or I'm wrong, that's the point, we don't know. I'm not even a "creationist" as I think labeling oneself only puts yourself into a box were ideas and realizations go to die.
Jose Canusee I disagree on nearly everything you say. A scientific theory is not just a theory, but the excepted explanation for a phenomenon, so I doubt very much that Einstein said that. Nobody claims to have all the answers, but religion has none, science gives us a good basis to work from. I will mock and shun any nonsense that religious indoctrination and brainwashing has claimed is true.
+Michael smith Then why is it called a theory? I mean how much more could you contradict yourself? So as far as your bogus definition of what theory means, how about we use the actual definition. the·o·ry ˈTHēərē/ noun a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. Let me give you the definition for what a supposition is before you make up another meaning for that as well. sup·po·si·tion ˌsəpəˈziSH(ə)n/ noun an uncertain belief. So, I find it rather amusing that someone who is so certain of the how the mysteries of science and the universe work can't even grasp the reality of what simple definitions of words in the English language mean. UNCERTAIN, do you know what that means? As for Albert Einstein, I believe these quotes should solidify my argument "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." "We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know." "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.". Lastly, as far as being indoctrinated and brainwashed, what do you think is happened to our youth as we speak with the new religion man is dominating the poor and underprivileged masses with? Think about that.
Honestly though? Kudos to the creationist guy for not just flying into a rage-fueled tangent at the end, they both had different views and they didn't clash with them any more than was necessary. EDIT: most of the replies have just ended up proving my point. Nice going, fellas.
@@arcguardian Wrong that creationism is a science. Science is a process. You gather evidence. You ponder on their meaning and elaborate an hypothesis on a question about the evidence: Why is this here, how did it get to this point, how does that work. With the question you ask, you gather more evidence to confirm your hypothesis, and if the evidence shows something that doesn't fit, you change your hypothesis until you arrive at a satisfying theory that explains the phenomenon you're studying. Creationists fail at this, because they start with their assessment (hypothesis) without any evidence and are unable to prove their axiom: That there is a creator. They give no satisfying evidence for it because the notion of a God is metaphysical, not physical and therefore not scientific. In science, when you disagree with someone else's findings, you must not only demonstrate that the evidence they gathered don't prove their theory, you must also elaborate a new hypothesis and test it. Creationists fail at both. They cherrypick or misrepresent scientists' evidence to try and disprove real science, wich they don't even succeed, and they fail to provide any evidence for their competing thesis. So, in a debate wether creationists are scientists or not, there is a clear right and wrong here: Creationists are not scientists. And I'll go further than that. I'm born and raised catholic. I don't agree with all of my original church's dogma, but I still believe in god. What I'm about to say will be controversial but here I come: Creationists even fail at their religion. Faith is about what is beyond our ability to understand and to learn. Faith can not and should not be proven and try to compete with science. If faith is about how we came to be, it can't exist because we can learn this. Faith is about something that can't be put into words. Creationists, when they desperately try to "prove" god, demonstrate how insecure they are in their own faith, because for them, each scientific gain of knowledge gives them smaller and smaller things to have faith into.
@@maaderllin I don't believe creationism asserts a different method for science. When gathering a hypothesis, you do so with evidence and then test, then it becomes a theory when it becomes more confirmed over time. What I would accuse young earth creationist of doing is cherry picking possibly scripture to fit a narrative when the words themselves carry less historical exactness and are meant (early hebrew for example) more on meaning. Just to put out there, I use to lean more young earth creationist now its old earth, but I'm still a creationist. I see the issue with consciousness being unanswerable within the current framework of pure naturalism and that evolution itself requires a dependency (perfectly timed insertion from an ultimate mind) to start an effective self replicating, robust structure such as DNA to yield the result we recognize as the mind. I further claim that Christianity as the most consistent philosophically and the most satisfying framework for solving internal struggles - not the external/religious perception. I digress though. There are holes I see with the current dating methods, and I do see potential blocks from scientists attempting to protect their stake in posterity (abroad in academia). I see some manner of skepticism as good for academia because, well that's the sane thing to do. Climate science for example is hugely political yet supposed scientists and talking heads run their mouths like they know what they are talking about. Anyone is possibly shamed for pointing out that they are not even reading their own papers when making claims. Point is, we ought to be respectful of those with fundamental differences sometimes because sometimes they are proved correct and our assumptions were actually wrong.
Problem 1: Which of the following is the best way to answer questions and discover the truth. A.) Read many books and use the scientific method B.) Read one book and ask your imaginary friend
***** , creationists do not search for the best way to answer questions ( "o, you of little faith ") and do not want to discover the truth (they don't "discover" , they are teached, told, showed.....) Slave mentallity. So , yeah, one book and one shepard.. easy and not al all confusing. And the best part , if fallowing THAT shepard makes you do bad things ( like sacrificing your own kid on an altar ) it is NOT YOUR FAULT.
Tim, 1., I was not talking about God and the origin of life, but about the BIBLE- wich is a BOOK, stories told and interpreted for hundreds of years by hundreds of ppl (HUMANS) before beeing written, and then copyed hundreds of times and then TRANSLATED for 3-4 times... and then copyed again... and then SELECTED... and interpreted...and "completed' ... It is really stupid to belive in theese conditions that the Bible is 100 % true. Even if Moses heard the word of God, it is certain that what you have in your hands today it is not what Moses heard. 2.Stereotype... hm..I'm sorry , is something I said NOT from your Bible ? Maybe I am wrong and chistianity is all for the science and discoverys ... and the Dark Ages was just a big misunderstand... wait , aren't creationist rejecting with out explaination ALL the evidence against their theory - bones, geografie, geologie,biologie, ancient civilization, carbon dating etc... , refusing even to look at it ??? How else can you reamain a creationist (again it is not about beliving in God , but in the Bible) if you really look at the facts ?
***** Scientists use a lot of methods to estimate the age of something. C14 is only one of them. What's more, every scientist theory is refutable. You know why ? Because it was made to be refutable. It is the basis of the scientific method. Seriously, if you pay more attention to something that has been written in a book by some men, rather than paying attention to theories which has been tested and validated following a clear, precise and refutable method, then I can't do anything for you.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Issac Asimov
Intellectuals tend to be the people most lacking wisdom. Go ahead and research it. Government think tanks have been the source of the world's greatest blunders time and time again.
@@jackasschicken5922 ... and also some of the world's greatest achievements! It's hard to mess anything up on a large scale by sitting around driving farts into a couch while watching OW MY BALLS on tv.
@@jackasschicken5922 so government think-tanks are the representation of science now, lol. While I may agree with a nuanced criticism of scientific institutions today; you, sir, represent a terminal case of cultural stupidity.
Automotive industry: Well, building a car is quite complex, of course, but in simplest terms, you need an engine, a body, transmission, basic electronics, breaks, and internal furnishings that would let an operator to reside in. Me: I reckon you could just use a hamster in a wheel to power the whole thing, and have a jet engine mounted on a front to use as breaks. Make my thing equal to the thing they said, it's just as valid, I am now as qualified as automotive industry because I had an opinion and I reckoned.
Disassemble a simple computer and put the parts in a dryer If they can't put themselves together how do you expect the world to coincidentally be in place including the DNA code Exactly Not a coincidence, God made everything
@@Maicon-b1b Thank you for the false equivalence, pal. Nobody assembles machines like that, and no scientist or well-equipped nonbeliever posits that biomolecules were formed like that. Also, life is a chemical system, and we have a robust understanding of chemistry. The origin of life research has also come far since the Miller-Urey experiment. The abundance of eventually biotic material on prebiotic Earth and the self-replicating nature of DNA (RNA, even, if you go with the RNA world hypothesis) was more than enough as a base from which life sprang. You know what we don't have? A robust understanding of God, if he exists at all. Arguments from design are convincing at face value but crumble when you scrutinize assumptions and simply admit ignorance. "We don't know," is still a million times more honest than "It must have been God," when God hasn't even been established as a possibility. If I may borrow your line of argument, we have always observed mind as a product of matter, but never a disembodied mind or a anything that resembles a spirit, on which the God assumption often relies on. I know it is a clichéd question that is often mocked among the believers' group, but if complex things must be created intentionally, who created God, given his all-powerful nature and alike? If your answer requires exempting God from the premise that complex things need a creator, then you have my answer. I do not accept that complexity implies intentional creation. I do not buy your argument from incredulity. Argue the possibility of God, if you must. Just know that even if I don't know everything, it increases not at all the chance that God exists or do anything. Unless you need to presuppose God before doing anything, of course, since then it's best that we don't talk.
I can't tell if you're being facetious but: life is not like random parts falling together. That's called "clockmaker" and there are plenty of videos on why it's fallacious. The short version is life has pressure put upon it over time and slowly shapes into what it is. DNA didn't bang together and spring forth a fully formed human like your analogy.
@@NucularRobit Very good! You could also say that a weathered stone has an an extremely particular shape and arrangement of it's atoms to produce that *exact* stone. Whose to say that it's 'arrangement' of atoms is more 'complicated' then the atoms of a watch? It would still require nothing short of a miracle to get those atoms positioned in exactly that fashion to produce exactly that object. God? Of course not, just pressure...and time. Life is like that too. And we can see the imperfections and weird genetic 'baggage' of our early ancestors littered throughout our genome. Why would god leave genetic 'baggage' and imperfections in any life form's DNA?
I like it when people call naturalism an assumption. I was going to try a supernatural hypothesis but it turns out I couldn’t test it so I gave natural a try and it just kept working. Edit: I understand strictly speaking naturalism is an assumption. This is mainly about methodological naturalism which is the relevant one to the world of science. Philosophical naturalism is not really the concern here. In the pursuit of knowledge methodological naturalism is the only available tool.
I mean, you are literally describing naturalism as an assumption, 'natural' observations can be repeated and therefore tested. That's a reason to 'assume' naturalism - b/c it's practical for corroborating scientific theories
both are assumptions. One can't test whether or not all events are governed by physical laws. That would be necessary for naturalism to be more than an assumption.
@@helvete_ingres4717 the problem is that naturalism is the belief that "All" events are governed by natural laws. That's the part that can't be tested.
Pork Sword the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform It still works great in the USA
Ruby Honey Survival of the fittest. Hitler's actions are very Darwinian . Stalin's actions are very Darwinian. Any situation where people in control are taking advantage of the less fortunate is Darwinian. If you don't understand that, well then you should further investigate Darwinian.
At that point, the dude just lost all credibility because he can't even acknowledge another person's point because they don't believe the same thing he did. That kind of sounds like fascism to me.
@@flaming_ice5220 You might have a point if the creationists had a shred of evidence to support their arguments, but as they don't... Also, fascism 1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. He's not a governmental leader, not a dictator, doesn't have complete power, is not suppressing opposition (though he is mocking it), not regimenting the infrastructure of a nation, not emphasizing nationalism, nor saying anything racist. I don't think you know what that word means. You're just saying words that you think make him look bad.
@@flaming_ice5220 Fascism? lmao. He acknowledge the other person point but that doesn't mean they are scientists. Look it's simple af, a scientist is someone who follow the scientific method, a creationist doesn't follow the scientific method, therefore...
Sure it is. in their own little messed up world it is...where a guy can be made out of dirt and can pull out his rib and make a woman. And if a snake tells you to eat a fruit,don't eat it!For some reason eating that one fruit in the ENTIRE GARDEN will make Earth a hellish place,with starvation,wars,etc etc.
TheCommunistDragon51 True. In their crazy imagination. I had hard time believing their bullshit even when I was a child but boy did they make me. I am lucky to no longer be brainwashed Bible thumper.
Robert Eli Funny enough they say Atheists are just indoctrinated. When infact Christians are the ones that do that,as well as many other religious people. Take India for example. or the Middle east. As well my parents ARE CHRISTIAN. And funny enough even though I have not gone to church since I was 5-6,(okay I did decide to go out one day 4-3 years ago just to check it out,itwasfuckinghorriblebtw,but then I was just an agnostic,not an Atheist.Now I am)
TheCommunistDragon51 So true. For some reason they think that a lack of belief in a claim is somehow a claim in itself. And about indoctrination. My entire and school are all Christian. My parents had taught me since I knew how to speak that God and the Bible was true. It sucks.
***** We can observe it,kinda. You like at stars and judge their distances,one light year=one year for it's light to reach you. Not only that but Radiometric dating is observable and can be repeated.
You wanna know what makes scientist better than creationist? Their not afraid to admit when they're wrong. as we learn more, previous beliefs and theories change or are proven wrong and scientist are ok with admitting that. Religious ppl refuse to even consider the fact that they might be wrong
You wanna know what makes a creationist better than a scientist? We can deal with the horribleness of the world that None of Us can escape. Because at the end of the day, when we see the beauty and perfection of planetary systems, the designs of mother nature, and complexity of the human mind, we know that something that stands the test of time has created all of it, and That Creator is inviting us to be held through all of eternity. (You can say it as unrealistic as Santa, but to me, so is a perfect solar system forming from some Random explosion of Nothingness) To us Creationists, there is an artist for this unknown painting. & I gotta tell ya, on a personal note, as a former atheist, Its more rewarding and joyous to believe this way. It definitely kicks the sh*t out of my old mindset, which to sum up in a sentence, was me cursing a God that I thought I didn't believe in and wanting to leave an earth that I was living on.,. But I guess im just another close-minded dumbass that doesn't think like you. You can call me hopeless, but that would be the most amazing irony of all the ages.
MyThousandYearOldWisdom WillHelpYouGrow I mean yeah it's nice to believe that we go to a eternal paradise when we die and it's nice to think that there is a creator watching over and us and stuff but when all this claims have little to no evidence to back them up, what's the point.
The difference between a person of science and a person of faith is one values evidence, logic, and truth over desperate hope, and the other doesn't. I think when it comes down to it, a creationist is really just someone who can't cope with the idea of an end to consciousness ... Which although I am an atheist, I can understand to some degree. Death is terrifying. The way I approach death personally, is with the understanding that we have all been dead for an infinite amount of time before we were born, and we will be dead for an infinite amount of time after we die. Between those two events however, we are privileged to have just under a century of time to connect with people, learn about our universe, and find happiness. And I think that is a wonderful gift that I don't intend to waste....
Glokib you're conflating a belief in creationism with a a reason for religion. Simply put if there is a God then creationism isn't far fetched it doesn't matter what God or if you believe it on a purely hypothetical basis it makes more sense that any god that might exist would be involved in some manner.
As funny as this is, I understand why some people stick to religious beliefs when talking about subjects like geology. The average person knows very little about actual science, even the ones who trust scientific results. Actual science is incredibly complex and rarely certain in absolute terms. Literally everything is an estimate. In contrast, religion offers absolute answers, and many people find that comfortable even if those answers are wrong.
Religion and science don't clash is the thing though. God utilizes science. He knows it better than any scientist. It wasn't literally 7 days. He guided the process we've studied, but did not snap his fingers to make it all happen in a fashion that contradicts science. Going with the idea for a moment, it would deprive us of a lot of scientific discoveries and therefore limit our potential if he had. God wants us to discover and advance, in secular knowledge and faith.
@@ladywaffle2210 I have no idea what you are talking about. But if you didn’t realize how metaphorical the scriptures can be, particularly with some of the translations not sounding as literal when you dig into root meanings (not wrong here midnight you), then I don’t know what to say. Maybe go look at how Christ spoke in parables or in Revelation to see how metaphors work in the scriptures? And what are the monkey trials supposed to be?
@@lada8744 Back in the 1920s-ish, the southern states of the United States mandated "creationism" as required in public education- i.e. public school teachers had to teach that God created the world, and could not teach evolution as a result. Thanks to a quirk in the wording, however, teachers had to teach both evolution and creationism, which was against the law. A schoolteacher was arrested and tried for breaking the "no evolution" law. The ACLU stepped in, and the trial quickly became literal interpretation of the Bible versus metaphorical interpretation. One of the more memorable moments was when the prosecution was speaking. The transcript reads along these lines (forgive me for not knowing exactly what they said, but this is the gist of it): "Do you believe that God created the universe in seven days?" "Not seven days of 24 hours." It was called the Monkey Trial because of evolution- Humans were, at one point in our evolution many millions of years ago, essentially chimpanzees. People attending the trial would bring monkeys with them and hang signs that read "Can't Make A Monkey Out Of Me". So, some history!
paul morgan Actually, that's a quote from the late professor Victor J Stenger, author of the outstanding book "God: The Failed hypothesis". He grew up in a Catholic working-class neighborhood in Bayonne New Jersey, and became a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii.
There's a canyon at the base of St Helens that was created in a couple of months that made geologists rethink how long it takes to create of a canyon. He's not ontop of the subject as he thinks he is.
@@readhistory2023 lol Creating a Canyon takes days..Creating the Bedrock and Stratified structure that the Canyon is Comprised of, Takes Millennia. Your critical thinking skills and application of relatable information in support of a perspective, needs improvement.
That’s the “no true Scotsman fallacy”, you’re basically saying “they aren’t true scientist because they don’t agree with me”. I’m personally not a young earth creationist, but this is objectively stupid.
@@charles21137 Real scientists are scientists who listen to science. Creationists listen to a particular interpretation of a millennia old text and make it dogma. Creationists aren't real scientists.
@@oliverjkulig7373 fair enough, but I would rather them actually look at the claims that creationist with degrees in science make and disprove it with science, then go “you make a claim I disagree with, thus false”
@@oliverjkulig7373 You are aware that there is no such thing as listening to science right? Science isnt some magical beam that sends information to anyone with a bachelors in physics. The very basic purpose of scientific knowledge is for it to be challenged and either rewritten or reaffirmed based on analytical, experimental and observational data. And considering there is no physical way for us to test certain things there is plenty of things in scientific fields open to interpretation and theory, many of which would very much be wrong. This stupid "bElIeVe tHe SciEncE dOod" is just as ignorant and annoying as creationism "because bible said so".
@@charles21137 Thats not how science works. Science is that everything is wrong until you test it and record the data and how you got it and loads of people replicate it. So a creationist would need some scientific evidence that they cant have because theres no test they can make. We do have tests that show the Earth is millions of years old though, so anyone saying the contrary, a scientist can just say "Thats wrong."
Over the last 500 years science has come forward leaps and bounds, innovating and showing things to be facts, countless things. Religion has yet to prove ONE thing that is says to be truthful. Just ONE and it can't even manage that because all they have to go back on is that book that has been re-written countless times by countless people. It's a story, an early form of policing, that's it. I find it shocking that people of this age still believe in angels and miracles and a magic man in the sky. It's really, really disheartening.
THANKS FOR saying science not evolution cause evolution is not science and the bible claims Jesus rose up and indeed he did as any historian would tell. you check your facts fella
What really bothers me is how creationists always accuse non-creationists of "making assumptions", when they're the ones making the biggest assumptions of all... -_-;
tell someone that there is an invisible man in the sky watching over them and they'll believe you,tell someone that the paint on the wall is not dry and they'll need to touch it to believe it
DJ Pororo I guarantee that any "proof" you claim to have of the existence of God can be, and has been, attributed to other things around the world. If the fact that humans are conscious, the fact that we have a concept of love, the fact that we have food to eat on the earth etc. is what you consider to be evidence of God, then who's to say that, if there MUST be a god responsible for such things, that it's YOUR god? The Hindus, Shintos, Zoroastrians, and others all probably say that THEIR gods are the ones responsible for all the things you say yours is, so what are the chances that YOU are the one that's correct?
Believing in religion is one thing. Denying facts and ignoring logic is another thing entirely. Not knowing something and admitting it and admitting when you're wrong doesn't make you stupid. It makes you brave and smart. Ignoring the mistakes you make and refusing to acknowledge the it apologize for the wrongs you have committed doesn't make you stronger. It makes you weaker and an idiot. I believe this is what those old sayings meant when they said "When one makes a mistake and does not correct it, that is the second mistake." and "True men know what is right, inferior men know what sells." Regardless of any belief system you have, you must accept reality. You cannot deny logic. Because if you do, you will still have to answer for your actions. Because the rest of the universe doesn't stop for you when are uncomfortable with. In fact, it just runs over you as the rest of the world continues to move on just fine without you. And one way or another, wether you practice what you preach, you WILL reap what you sow.
you can still believe in creation and at the same time believe that it took millions or billions of years for the grand canyon to become what it is today. the only thing the bible contradicts is evolution since the "days" in Genesis are obviously not meant to be taken in a literal sense of ~24 hours. evolution is not a proven fact, that is why its called a theory
@@malachi4838 A scientific theory is not the same as a colloquial theory. A thesis is not proven, people often use the word "theory", but mean "thesis". A scientific theory is a system of reasoned statements based on scientific evidence. When the evidence is very strong, it becomes a scientific consensus, which means that you need extraordinary strong evidence to falsify the theory. Evolution is a proven fact, it exists, it is scientific consenus. The evidence so strong, that there are numerous sciences and humanities based on theory of evolution and named after it. The biologist Richard Lenski said: "Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change". Source: Lenski, Richard E. (September 2000). "Evolution: Fact and Theory". actionbioscience. Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Biological Sciences. Archived from the original on 2007-04-03. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
RandomSnot Because regardless of what this guy believes, the creationists, that he does not count as scientists, studied at the same universities and got their Ph.d, MA’s and BA’s etc. just like the evolutionists did. To say they are not real scientists is to say the universities don’t know what they are on about and just give these degrees out to any old fool. This guys argument was just prejudice and pathetic. The following people are Christian. Try telling them they are not real scientists. Professor Andy McIntosh DSc, FIMA, CMath, FEI, CEng, FInstP, MIGEM, FRAeS has lectured and researched in Combustion and Thermodynamics for over 30 years. He is a visiting research professor at the University of Leeds, UK, and an adjunct professor at Mississippi State University, USA. He has published over 195 papers on aerodynamics, thermodynamics, combustion, biomimetics, and the bombardier beetle research, which has led to a patented spray device for applications of this technology to pharmaceuticals, fuel injectors, and fire extinguishers. Dr. Georgia Purdom holds a PhD in molecular genetics from The Ohio State University. She formerly served as an assistant and associate professor of biology at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University. Dr. Purdom is the director of Educational Content. Professor Stuart Burgess Biomimetics, Engineering (UK) Professor Burgess has held academic posts at Bristol University, Cambridge University and Liberty University in the USA. At Bristol University he was appointed Head of Department three times between 2004 and 2011. He has worked for the European Space Agency and was the lead designer for the solar array on the world’s largest civilian earth-observation spacecraft (Envisat). He also led the design and testing of the chain drive for the British Olympic Cycling Team who won a record six gold medals at the 2016 Rio Olympics. He was invited to exhibit this work at the Royal Society (National Academy of Sciences) in the UK in 2017 where it received national publicity. He has published over 160 scientific papers on the science of design in engineering and nature. Paul Garner is a full-time researcher and lecturer for Biblical Creation Trust. He has an MSc in Geoscience from University College London, where he specialised in palaeobiology. He is a Fellow of the Geological Society of London and a member of several other scientific societies. His first book, The New Creationism: Building Scientific Theories on a Biblical Foundation, was published by Evangelical Press in 2009. And my absolute favourite. No one dares to even talk about evolution to this guy because he just destroys every argument they have. JAMES M. TOUR, Ph.D. Synthetic chemist. T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry Professor of Computer Science Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering Rice University Smalley-Curl Institute and the NanoCarbon Center James M. Tour, a synthetic organic chemist, received his Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from Syracuse University, his Ph.D. in synthetic organic and organometallic chemistry from Purdue University, and postdoctoral training in synthetic organic chemistry at the University of Wisconsin and Stanford University. After spending 11 years on the faculty of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of South Carolina, he joined the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at Rice University in 1999 where he is presently the T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering. Tour’s scientific research areas include nanoelectronics, graphene electronics, silicon oxide electronics, carbon nanovectors for medical applications, green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction, graphene photovoltaics, carbon supercapacitors, lithium ion batteries, CO2 capture, water splitting to H2 and O2, water purification, carbon nanotube and graphene synthetic modifications, graphene oxide, carbon composites, hydrogen storage on nanoengineered carbon scaffolds, and synthesis of single-molecule nanomachines which includes molecular motors and nanocars. He has also developed strategies for retarding chemical terrorist attacks. For pre-college education, Tour developed the NanoKids concept for K-12 education in nanoscale science, and also Dance Dance Revolution and Guitar Hero science packages for elementary and middle school education: SciRave (www.scirave.org) which later expanded to a Stemscopes-based SciRave. The SciRave program has risen to be the #1 most widely adopted program in Texas to complement science instruction, and it is currently used by over 450 school districts and 40,000 teachers with over 1 million student downloads. Tour has over 680 research publications and over 120 patents, with an H-index = 140 and i10 index = 630 with total citations over 94,120 (Google Scholar). He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015. Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2014; listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014; and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014; and was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014. Tour was named “Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013. And the list goes on and on. All these scientists are Christians.
@@briemuss05 Uh huh, so if I press you to show me examples of scientifically peer reviewed papers submitted by any of these people dealing with creationism you will be able to provide them? Don't worry I wont hold you to that we all know what the results will be, nothing! Personally I don't care wherever a scientist is Christian or not Kenneth Miller is a Christian but given the fact that he accepts the theory of evolution I somehow suspect that you would consider him to be not a true Scotsman, uh I mean Christian. Interesting how scientists are remembered for their contributions our knowledge of he natural world and not their religious views isn't it. As for that James Tour guy, well turns out what you said about him (aside from what's blatant copypasta) is wrong. You pass him off as a great demolisher of evolution when he has simply got reservations even then given that he is a scientist he should know disagreeing with a theory isn't enough. He would have to come up with an alternative.
RandomSnot Dr Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering Dr Ron Neller, fluvial geomorphology Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical science Dr David Oderberg, Philosophy Professor Douglas Oliver, Professor of Biology Prof. John Oller, Linguistics Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botany Dr Gary E. Parker, Biology, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology) Dr Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University Dr Jules H. Poirier, Aeronautics, Electronics Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics Dr Graeme Quick, Engineering, former Principle Research Scientist with CSIRO (Australia) Dr Dan Reynolds, Organic Chemistry Dr Chad Rodekohr, Engineering, Physics Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology Dr David Rodda, PhD, Population Genetics Dr David Rosevear, Chemistry Dr Marcus Ross, Paleontology Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology Dr Ronald G. Samec, Astronomy Dr John Sanford, Plant science / genetics Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemistry / spectroscopy Dr Alicia (Lisa) Schaffner, Associate Professor of Biology, Cedarville University Dr Joachim Scheven Paleontology Dr Ian Scott, Education Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic Physics Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics Dr Emil Silvestru, Geology/karstology Dr Roger Simpson, Engineering Dr Horace D. (‘Skip’) Skipper, Professor Emeritus Soil microbiology, College of Agriculture, Forestry and Life Sciences, Clemson University, SC, USA Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoology Dr Andrew Snelling, Geology Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry Dr Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University Dr Greg Tate, Plant Pathology Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering Dr Larry Thaete, Molecular and Cellular Biology and Pathobiology Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry Dr S.H. ‘Wally’ Tow (Tow Siang Hwa), retired chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Singapore Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemistry Dr Brandon van der Ventel, Nuclear scientist Dr Gerald Van Dyke, Ph.D. and Professor Emeritus in Botany, North Carolina State University Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science Prof. Walter Veith, Zoology Dr Joachim Vetter, Biology Dr Erich Vorpagel, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology; computational protein function. Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineering and Geology Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineering Dr Keith Wanser, Physics Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Near-East History (also has B.Sc. in Zoology) Dr Carl Werner, Biologist Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics Dr John Whitmore, Geology/Paleontology Dr Kurt Wise, Paleontology Dr Bryant Wood, Archaeology Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology Dr Patrick Young, Chemistry and Materials Science Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography Dr Daiqing Yuan, Theoretical Physics Dr Henry Zuill, Biology
Creationist scientists? That is like saying Devil worshipping christians. Creationists are creationists because they do not know any science, or just about anything else. They are severely retarded.
Not to take a side in the debate here, but this guy’s argument is entirely self-affirming. “All scientists agree with me, and those who don’t are not scientists.” Apply that to any other issue and the absurdity is obvious: “All economists agree with me, and if they don’t they’re not economists.” “All politicians agree with me, and those who don’t are not politicians.” I can’t think of too many arguments less scientific than that. Do better, Mr. Science!
But in a way, he's right. The only people who would argue with him in that regard are ignorants who havent studied science, so they are not scientists. Those who dont use sience to proove their theories cannot be called scientists, so until a creationist comes with factual evidence to support their claim, they cant be called a scientist, that'd be a philosopher
@@Xymage but in this case it's not a personal opinion, we're talking about scientific facts that have been proven for a long time and about the only people opposing it are idiots without a propper education. He is right in the other contexts, but science isnt about opinions, it's about proving hypothesis, and this one has already been proved
@@kristophesiem5336 Substantively, the scientist is right, but the way he pushed his argument is wrong. What he should have said was, "I read them, and here's what they got wrong." Not "If you disagree, then you are not a scientist." That's a bad faith way to present your position.
Suboptimal Constructor Why are creationists called creationists? We need names for these hugely different beliefs. Evolutionism is a worldview, as creationism is.
@@sunblaze8931 Well, a word view based on overwhelming evidence and reason. Thats like saying "eating" is a world view. I guess you can view the world in a way where you dont eat.
@@251rmartin Semantics is the study of meaning. So yes, semantics in that the video title says it's a debate but the fragment we see doesn't meet anybody's definition of debate.
well the problem comes when the "world is only 6000 years old" gets added into the argument, I think this is where this video started to explain that the world has to be millions of years old instead of just 6000.
It does challenge the establishment of Christianity and The Bible. If one thing is false, other things could be too, and going further down that road leads (potentially) to completely disregarding the bible. There are, of course, other systems of belief that take that stance, e.g. Deism
Flying Pig Broadcasting the bible is pretty abstract and unclear. to disprove religious beliefs would be interesting though. however, it would be still irrelevant to the existence of god
Prakash, that is a great point that I wish I could easily answer, but I cannot. Perhaps some of that thinking comes from the concept that God cannot make a mistake...so let's say that's true, then who are we as humans to judge some of the dead ends in evolution as mistakes? If you follow my thinking then what you'll find is the sheer arrogance on the part of those who oppose evolution who claim to understand what God does or does not do. I'll leave you with this to consider. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life (9 years) for suggesting that the earth was not the center of the Universe, and instead revolved around the Sun, which was. His works were banned thereafter. This underlines my point about religious perfection and God never making mistakes...according to very fallible religious authorities. Galileo is remembered today as the father of modern astronomy and physics. Those religious authorities from that time are nothing more than dust. Think about it. -Peace
Arthur Dent I agree a 100%. I think most of the conflict arises from the method rather than the outcome. Evolution talks about how life changes and progresses. It doesn't even try to attempt to explain how life started so it doesn't try to deny God in any way. According to the Bible, however, God created the world in 6 days and people were created as they are in Gods image. Since they believe that people are created as they are, as opposed to have evolved from monkeys, there is conflict between evolutionist and creationist belief. Besides the church made plenty of blunders in the name of God. It makes sense that people have lost their trust in them.
***** I agree but most of the nonsense that's being said is not even in the Bible to begin with. The Bible never states that the Earth is flat or that the Earth is at the center of the solar system. It's all bullshit, that the church said at the time.
Prakash Cherian Partner, I hear you and agree. All joking aside, that's what I call Monkey Business from the far Christian Right. Evolution never stated that...in fact the 'missing link' has yet to be found, but that does not mean it is not there. Darwin himself expressed concerns regarding his 'Origin of species' paper after publishing it saying that at some point it may be seriously challenged...instead science caught up with him providing a clear fossil record and embraced what continued to make scientific sense and went on to become scientific theory. What I admire about Charles Darwin the most, was his humility. You'll not find that in any religion as they never make mistakes. Don't get me wrong here as I believe in God. I also believe in the teachings of Christ. Modern, and older religion leaves me numb...in America as you may know the KKK (klu,klux,klan) were Christian...need I say more? Thank you for posting your single, original, sentence. -Peace
Uniformitarinism in geology refers to strict gradualism, which many modern geologist don't hold to anymore and now accept many catosphism events. The scientist here is wrong to claim that all scientists are uniformiterianism. That doesnt mean creation is right, but the "scientist" is wrong.
Reminded me of the Christopher Hitchens video where some 9/11 conspiracy crackpot was asking him about his position on the war on terror, and Hitches said "I'm not bothering with you."
Grizz Lee I swear if believing in god could actually grant you the powers of a paladin I would be so in. Although, if you use the rules of AD&D 2nd ed. (the only correct edition!) you could get the same powers believing in any deity.
Correct; it's called "The God of the Gaps" argument, and it's a classic logical fallacy. Another related logical fallacy is "We Don't Know Exactly How it Happened, so Evolution" (The Evolution of the Gaps Fallacy).
It's a logic used a lot in religion context : because you can't prove it -> god exists ! - I don't know what part of the brain should be missing, to follow this logic ... If you can't prove something, it means nothing is sure.
Numinous, evolution and god are in no way similar. God isn't proven and never was, evolution is proven. If i throw a rock into the air and it lands, we can assume that gravity caused it to fall to the ground, without knowing that it did. Is this a "gravity of the gaps fallacy"?
Sorry, Fritz, your faith in the "proof" of the theory of evolution (particularly macro-evolution) is entirely misplaced and predicated on inaccuracy and misunderstanding on your part. The fact of the matter is that macro-evolution is one of the most hotly contested theories of all time, right up there with anthropogenic climate change. But wait, there's more: what's confusing you is that micro-evolution, which is limited to short-term mutation and epigenetic adaptation, is demonstrable and easily seen readily, even within a generation or two. Nobody is disputing this. Your err is in having an unsophisticated, lacking view of the entirety of the theory, particularly the evolution-of-all-species-from-a-common-ancestor part (macro-), which has very little evidence (and most certainly zero "proof," which in the strictest, formal sense is a phenomenon relegated to the discipline of mathematics). Additionally, another fact you're ignoring is that many Christians have no problem with evolution (en total) at all, seeing it as a creative mechanism that God implemented in the creation of organisms. Accordingly, with a subset of the faithful, no dichotomy between God and macro-evolution exists. Sure, Andotech - the abject lack of intermediary lifeforms antecedent to the Cambrian Explosion, treated by the EOTG fallacy thusly: "Because yet-to-be proven evolution manifested in the heretofore unidentified, intermediary lifeforms. Even though we haven't found said lifeforms yet, we know conclusively they exist without evidence, because evolution." It's actually a form of circular reasoning too, which makes it even more embarrassing. Ludovic, I'm sorry, but you're quite ignorant if you believe sound logic of the first order is the exclusive intellectual property of atheists. Nothing could be further from the truth. Read up on C.S. Lewis and William Lane Craig if you disbelieve. Some Christians are world-class logicians. Your statement is unsubstantiated illusion, and easily demonstrably disproven.
You are all wrong. I have it on good authority that the universe and everything in it was created a week last Tuesday at 29 Acacia Rd, Elton Wellesby, Suffolk, England. It was created by Mr Eric Twinge.
RealYellowbeard So it begins. Somebody will be along in a while to explain how it was actually Mr Chorlton at Number 42 who created it and Mr Twinge only helped. Maybe they will offer more stuff.
Tim Webb He responded with buzzword “arguments” that he sees as fallacies, because he has nothing else to go on. There’s no stance to present. He can only make some dumb sophist point about naturalism and uniformitarianism. Meaninglessness, zero substance. I’d say it was a pretty balanced fight.
@Tim Webb they didn't use even the short time given to them. They were silent. So, I'd think adding extra silent seconds to the video doesn't make it a better argument...?
@Tim Webb My issue is with your first reply. All the subsequent replies you made were conversations with the op. Not me. And you already started a personal attack when you know next to nothing about me. Why? It's just rude, and not even rational. Besides that, how about addressing what I asked?
@@brendanbloomberg3283 lmao i love hearing ignorant comments like yours. did you know that creationists love claiming they know everything, by quoting the bible which was written by people who didnt even know what bacteria were? at least the sciences don't claim to know everything. we know when to say 'we dont know.' the big bang didnt come from nothing. we literally dont know yet. like we didnt know about bacteria at one point. there are scientific advancements every day. do religions ever find out new things? nope they believe in the same old outdated shit. please tell me how adam and eve populated the whole world through incest. please do. im love that story
@@brendanbloomberg3283 cant refute any of my points huh? i thought so. you're too dumb, so you resort to petty personal attacks? yup you're a typical creationist LMAOOOO i love that creastionists tout that they're smart and superior but when it actually comes down to it, they are like every other half brained nitwit out there. lol you fell for the biggest and oldest scam lol your brain has a lot growing up to do buddy
@@speciesspeciate6429 same people that told u this just found a star that, in order for it to be as old as it is now, it would be older than the entire creation of the universe, shows that they really dont know jack shit about when things were created and how long they took to get to what they are like now. Oh and I’ve seen rocks get carved out from water in such a short amount of time with small amounts of water, we believe the grand canyon got carved out with the flood, and thats the water from every ocean combined.
@@mobbarley1102 I know what the cosmologists are saying. You are wrong when you say that the star would have to be older than the age of the universe. It hasn't debunked the Big Bang at all.
It’s at least a good 15,000. Most people don’t realize that there were cities by the time Cain killed Able, or that Adam and Eve were not just two people.
+Nj Rh I suppose atheists do have faith that there is no God, since there is no evidence that he does NOT exist either. As for the definition... it is the same across all popular definition websites (likely including the atheist manifesto : ] ) as well as some little known names, like Merriam-webster, dictionary . com, Oxford dictionaries, Wikipedia, etc... Even the religious site "GotQuestions . org" says "Thankfully, the Bible contains a clear definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1: 'Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.' Simply put, the biblical definition of faith is 'trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove.'" I can go on and on but I'm too lazy, but it seems that some of those who possess faith (like yourself) seem to only want to reject supported claims (as you said, "I don't believe in it"), and believe in the unsupported. Look it up yourself, then deny and deny and deny away....
+Nj Rh If you're trying to argue that faith is based on proof and evidence rather than a lack of it then we better end this discussion right now, as we'll never agree. I follow the definitions of the official sources... you deny them and follow your interpretation of the Bible.
***** Blame gotquestions . org then. But even so... one out of five sources is off in your opinion... the majority supports my original claim: "Faith: confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof." My intent is simply to spread the definition of faith- the common definition, the majority definition. How can i deliberately misuse something that you say I don't even understand? I'm muting this post, cuz you'll go on and on talking about how the bible says that faith is based on proof of miracles... (zzzz...) while I quote the sources. We'll go on and on in circles until we die and find out the truth. Like I said, "We'll never agree. I follow the definitions of the official sources... while you follow the Bible" Enjoy your life, Nj! Good bye forever. : ]
@@FanboyFilms Actually the real quote goes like this: "In that case,” said Napoleon, “let us wait twenty minutes; when the enemy is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him.”
And he's right! A true creationist has already decided on the "answer" they would like and tries to find ways to bend their description of reality to meet it - that's not science, so they can't be scientists!
@@timothyvenable3336 To what extent? Sure, some people are *unaware* of bias and so let it could their decision making process, and others are *aware* of bias and so work hard to exclude it. But the creationist thing is absolutely deliberate and premeditated: these creationist "scientists" *must* at least have the good sense to understand that they are not using the scientific method ... so they are lying to themselves and to their fellow believers (either that or they are profoundly and unwittingly ignorant - neither is a very respectable scenario).
@@timothyvenable3336 I already did, Timothy - check the first comment. Creationists already "know" that god created the world 6000 years ago. That unshakeable conclusion renders their "scientific" investigations entirely pointless. They are not searching for an answer, they are searching for ways to justify an answer they have already accepted - that is not science. There is an overwhelming amount of solid scientific evidence to show that the world was not created as described in the bible, evidence we can all share in and verify ourselves provided we have the requisite skills.
@@joelonsdale I get what you’re saying. And to an extent I agree. But to be fair, naturalism does the same thing. They assume God doesn’t exist, so when they see the historical geological record, for instance, they say they it took hundreds of millions of years to develop. Now please don’t dismiss me for that, I’m not saying the current understanding is wrong. I’m saying I agree it takes hundreds of millions of years to get the fossil records of the rock layers we have, OR it could have happened due to a world wide catastrophic flood. The same evidence that says the mountains were in the oceans a billion years ago is the same evidence that says water covered the entire earth. If scientists are going to say it is a proven fact, they have to prove that it wasn’t the other option
"John thank you for your talk so far, your first assumption was naturalism, and second was uniformitarianism" "well not all scientists, thats a false statement" "so you've never read anything by a scientist like that?" "ahh okay" Those are the four sentences he says
If you consider yourself of above average intelligence you should immediately understand why you cannot prove God or creationism if you have a passing knowledge of Christianity/Judaism. As for the Christian, don't waste time trying to prove something you can't. Your job is to spread the gospel. If they refuse it, walk away.
As of October 1st, it will be ILLEGAL to smoke in a vehicle with children. Even as a smoker, I have to agree, it's a great law. But we allow extreme, religious indoctrination of children as if it's "harmless"? Hmm... P.S. I do agree with freedom of religion. When they become adults and are capable of choosing for themselves. (After important critical thinking skills have ALREADY been formed.) Extreme religiosity is a result of extreme indoctrination. (Proven to be a terrible thing. That CAN affect them for their entire life.)
***** Nope, I support the freedom of religion. (It shouldn't be forced.) I don't support extreme indoctrination of children with something that has NEVER been proven. Many are still trying to convince children that Dinosaurs lived with man, Earth is less than 6000 years old, Science is wrong (ALL of the evidence man has EVER gathered is wrong?), etc... Why not let children grow up and be mature enough to make a decision? That's what we do with EVERYTHING else that concerns our children... (I don't even care about Children going to church and stuff. I understand it's a family affair for some.) Just don't FORCE lies, that we KNOW with 100% certainty, are explicitly untrue... It's wrong on EVERY level.)
***** Evolution has 150 years of hard scrutiny against it and has COME OUT ON TOP!!! www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html (In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.) There is no "conspiracy" against God... EVERY culture on the planet had their own creation myths. (Christianities myth is no different than any other, just a different story from a different part of the world....) Nope, just show them ALL of the evidence and let them make the choice..... Oh, that's right.... Religion has no evidence.... Is that why you are scared? If you don't indoctrinate them, they will RARELY believe it? Yup, true colors are showing....
***** Longevity? Christianity? Nah, that's pretty new actually. (We know mankind has been around for over 200,000 years...) We even know where and when MEN decided on what to put into the Bible, and what to keep out... (Much of it comes from Greek philosophy{Secular}. That's why MUCH of the Second Testament was originally in Latin and not Hebrew...) So the Bible is full of Jewish Lore and philosophy, Greek Lore and philosophy, and even adopted many other beliefs "holidays" like CHRISTMAS (Originally a Pagan/Roman holiday that has NOTHING to do with Christ. No one KNOWS when Jesus was born...) The council of Nicaea is when it became accepted, the "lore" decided upon, and THEN adopted into the Roman Empire. Longevity is the megalith builders LONG before Christianity. (And they had their own creation myths.) Evolution is the obvious truth... 150 years worth of scrutiny against it and it STILL comes out on TOP!!! Your are a willful sinner lying like you do. According to your faith. There is NOTHING worse. P.S. I'm not an atheist.. (I'm just not religious.) It's sad that you FIGHT FOR INDOCTRINATING Children... You know your faith would perish without doing so...
***** It's sad, you PROMOTE indoctrination of children because you KNOW your religious beliefs would NEVER match up to the evidence mankind has collected over the last 500 years... It's disgusting... The Christian God is easily disputed.... A loving, omnipotent, and omniscient being.. Such a being knows EVERYTHING at EVERY moment of their existence. They know EVERYTHING that has/will EVER occur... (Time and Events mean NOTHING to such a being since they already know EVERYTHING... That means that change is 100% illogical. Why would they ever change? They know EVERYTHING at EVERY moment of their existence. Change is 100% illogical since time and events mean nothing...) The Bible is full of changes in covenants, ideas, beliefs, teachings AND full of contradictions, mistakes, and errors... Even God failing, wiping out life to start anew... AN ALL POWERFUL and ALL KNOWING being? Even a change in temperament is ILLOGICAL! 100000000% illogical!!! This proves, WITHOUT A DOUBT, that the Bible, as a whole, was NOT inspired by such a being. (Mankind is full of mistakes, errors, and change...) CLEARLY inspired by mankind!!! Simple, elementary logic destroys the validity of the Bible... ********* THIS IS WHY YOU DEMAND YOUR RIGHT TO INDOCTRINATE YOUR CHILDREN. BECAUSE YOU KNOW THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT IT ANY OTHER WAY*********** The Bible is a hodgepodge collection of stories and myths like EVERY other culture had on the planet... It's NO different.... it's NOT special...
***** Already said I'm NOT an atheist.... Do you even read? (Or because I don't believe in YOUR God you consider me Atheist?) I already LOGICALLY PROVED Christianity wrong in the other post... Change is illogical for such a being. (Since they know EVERYTHING at EVERY moment of their existence.) Bible is FULL of change and contradictions... Therefore it is NOT truth... Simple, elementary logic!!! As for the rest of your post. Education is enough for mankind. The Golden Rule was accepted, by many cultures, ALL over the world BEFORE Christianity. (Empathy) Because we KNOW this secular piece of philosophy was accepted by so many different cultures BEFORE Christianity. The rest of your post is meaningless... Everything should be about our Children and future Children. Religious fundamentalism has PROVEN to be terrible... And there is NO evidence supporting it...NONE... ZERO.... Why would we allow something so terrible to indoctrinate our children? You make no sense. Why would ANYONE support it? (Unless they are getting $$$ off it..) P.S. "If money is the root to all evil. Why do Churches continually ask for more of it?" WAKE THE FUCK UP!!! It's called a Pyramid Scheme..... They are outlawed in the USA but "religion" get's a free pass.
@@aspitube2515 There are 2 creation stories in Genesis and the first states clearly that god created the heavens and the earth. Water came after. I am not by any means asserting this is true. I'm an atheist, but you dont even know your own book! Smh
Future generations won’t understand how this footage was captured. “Teacher, Is this a reimagining? I ask because the conversation doesn’t match the era of the technology used to film it”
Teacher: It isn't a reimagining, this is an actual series of events that happened, it's one of the many many reasons that led to the Meme Wars of 2030-2040. During the late 2010s and early 2020s tribalism, fanaticism, and fundamentalism were rampant. The world was rapidly changing due to the events of the 4th Industrial revolution and new discoveries were throwing centuries old beliefs into question. To answer these questions we must understand the fundamentals of belief, the nature of memetics, and geography. It is well documented in pre-industrial history that people with different beliefs would end up fighting each other. We see ideological conflict as far back as the early Bronze Age, where those who worshipped different gods considered others to be sub-human. You can tell a lot about a culture by it's religion, artwork, and educational systems. This is because a culture is made of memes, (fragments of common thoughts, principles, and morals such as "do not kill" or " slavery is bad") and memes are essentially the genetics of the mind. They can be transmitted, passed down, mutate, and even come into conflict with each other. Thus you could think of a civilisation as a psychological organism. Back then there were people who believed in a certain way of life, in a certain codex of memes. These codecs were called names such as Bible, Koran, Talmud and the basis for several belief systems known as religions. Now I know that you've had to read those boring things in your mythology classes but you have to remember that there were people who thought that it contained the literal truth rather than the reimagining that it was. There were also those who believed that there would be certain consequences for experimenting with the human body, that the entire world would become a nuclear fireball, if such experiments took place. Until the turn of the millennium these religions were more or less confined to their respective geographical regions with one religion being dominant in a certain region by a large margin. However with the advent of highly accessible air travel and of course the Internet that changed, the world suddenly got connected globally in real time. Climate disasters and minor unrests as well as moves made by demagogues that had been elected to power solely for their charisma, and not their competence, caused mass migration. This along with industrial agriculture resulted in a population boom in nations all over the world. Soon various belief systems started filtering into each other and soon significant minority groups existed within the majority belief systems, in fact it's more accurate to say that there were no geographical majority belief systems at the time, the only real exceptions were the Arabian peninsula and China due to their strict religious rules and their complete authoritarianism respectively. The people who held onto these beliefs were starting to become a minority in a region of previous geographical dominance, there were multiple religions back then and all of them had one central tenet "We are right and everyone else is wrong". By eroding away the one form of central power a power vacuum was formed, I'm sure your studies on the Iraq Wars last semester covered what happens when a power vacuum is formed. Up until this point the governmental system had been based on the idea of the "rational man" that was developed in the Renaissance period. Democracy thrived under tolerance, open discussion, and rational evaluation. However the rapidly changing nature of the early 21st century caused people to panic, that soon their beliefs would become obsolete, and this drove people to fundamentalism, to defensiveness, it was essentially a global panic attack managed in the worst possible way. A sudden pandemic that destabilised the economy didn't help matters along with the ongoing climate crisis. This feeling of being attacked culturally resulted in the Meme Wars. In my opinion it should have been called the Global Civil War as social justice (the room of students lets out a gasp of horror), essentially rule by mob, was carried out by parties everywhere, in places like the USA it was full on gang violence as people shot each other in the name of being right. In China the Communist Party committed several acts of genocide after the COVID crisis caused companies to pull out of the country thus destabilising it's economy causing unrest. Eventually this turned into full on warfare after an extremist Chinese submarine captain sank a US aircraft carrier with a nuclear torpedo. We all know what happened from there. Now then I believe that's it for class today, tomorrow the Queen is visiting our school. Don't be late and go gets some sleep! You can ask her about that time period if it interests you, she lived through it after all. Everyone knew how the Queen stopped the war and ushered in the Space Age that had brought prosperity to mankind. She was a benevolent ruler, and usually didn't mess with the local affairs of the planets under her rule. When she did it was to avert a crisis that could have led to extinction. It was the reason why they were all part of the Interstellar British Empire under the Immortal Queen Elisabeth.
@@inventor121 Children: Teacher, is it true that Milenko fornicated with the Queen? What does that mean? Teacher: Shhh child, or we'll be all invited to attend Kawadoodoo RL .. Children: Yaaay!! Teacher: .. as contestants .. Children (cowering): Ohhhh! But teacher, only Corryans can survive the hungry Streamers! Teacher (whispering): We never ever speak of godforsaken Serbs again, understood? Children: Okay :( But he's so cool. Teacher: EVER. Now go and read your prayers for democracy.
Why do people even bother debating with creationists? If creationists had any interests in logic, evidence or reasoning they wouldn't be creationists in the fist place.
Because of childhood indoctrination they truly believe that it is the truth, and many will want to learn more about the truth with logic and reasoning. The people I'm talking about are teenageers and people who are new to what atheism actually is that see these debates. You won't convince the person you're debating against, but you're planting a seed of doubt to others that do use reason and logic but never saw the illogical side of their belief. The debates aren't for the person you're debating against, it's for the bystanders that see it.
For some years 'serious scientists' ignored Intelligent Design, expecting it to 'just go away'... but by neglecting the debate Intelligent Design began to appear in children's school textbooks (in America). So it has since become important, especially via social media, to encourage the debate. from Sweden, the most godless country in the World.
@@chatryna I don’t like the way I worded my original comment. Nowadays my answer would be because people believe what they do for a reason, and learning to understand why they believe it is useful, or rather this is how I’d ideally like it. Other times it is more for viewers who are on the fence or just because people always debate over everything.
@@chatryna id also like to ask for instances if you don’t mind. I know it’d probably be tedious having to explain so if you don’t want to that’s fine. I hope to read the bible some day (and different versions), but the thing preventing me right now is really bad ADHD, it makes any book or the like basically impossible to absorb, I end up missing like 75% of what I read (including audiobooks), so right now I’ve been trying to just improve that.
lol creationists have issues with reality. They don’t understand the universe because they “believe” in a book written before iPhones & electricity…. Btw: the word “belief” shares a definition with “delusion”…
I've said this many times in my entire existence. No need to believe in something, anything or everything if it was reality. Like why should I believe that the Earth is round if that was the reality? Do I really have to believe that the Sun is hot in order to get its energy? I've had so many debate with this many any other existence so called theism. It's pretty pathetic how a text from thousand years ago written by an ooga booga kind of brain (that was modified millionth time by any other low tier brain) have this many impact on this entire planet. How pathetic that could be? It impacts keep getting pushed right above or maybe it will slowly fade away. But I've never doubt the power of human will to willingly live in illusion & delusion that will greatly push it impact even more. Resulting many any other brain getting brainwashed in the washing machine and stuck in the death trap never-ending rabbit hole. There is also so many any other word that was completely useless that I hope I won't never ever see them again on the Internet or real life such as soul, spirit, heart, believe, god and so many more. They're just literally non-existent. It gives me brain damage every time I read them.
You're legitimately retarded if you believe you know more than the learned theologians of history. There is more to reality than that which is immediately interactable.
To creationists: You can't simultaneously try to invalidate science and at the same time try to establish legitimacy for yourself by calling yourself scientists. That's just called hypocrisy, plain and simple.
@@Thesavagesouls What Christianity says contradicts the theory of evolution and the big bang. Not every aspect of science. And let's be honest not all aspects of science are true
There are dumb creationists just as there are dumb scientists. The fact is that Creation theology and the science of evolution, etc have completely different goals. One is interested in understanding that which caused us to be, the other is interested in understanding how we physically got here. Neither one can really invalidate the other.
Name calling, always the sign of a well thought out argument. After spending a great deal of time listening to creationists over the past 35 years. I would say that there is no such thing as a creation scientist. I will use Ken Hamm and his "Answers in Genesis" group for my example. The key to being a scientist is the willingness to always look at new evidence and be willing to alter or abolish an existing theory if it does not fit the evidence. The "Answers in Genesis" group explicitly say on their web site that any evidence that is in contradiction to the Bible is, by definition, wrong. How it is wrong may not be understood, but it is wrong and no disagreement on that point is allowed. Scientists start with evidence and work towards a theory that is compatible with that evidence. Always being willing to change the theory if the evidence leads in a new direction. Creationism starts with a position and then ignores or modifies any evidence that does not fit their worldview. Creationists try to fit any evidence to their preconception. It is conceivable, (though extraordinarily unlikely) that evolution could be disproven someday by science on the basis of new evidence. It is not conceivable that it would be disproven by Creationism, as Creationism is not science. It is an authoritarian belief system, that says the world is the way it is, because I (or you or God or someone else) says that it is this way. Nothing to do with science.
@Rick Harrison Doesn't make a strong case when you have to back your argument by discounting an opposing argument simply on a basis of a contrived, or selective, definition of a term. It's a bullshit lingo maneuver, sort of like "assault weapon" or "destructive device". He might as well have just said "I don't listen to big stinky dumb-dumbs"- the level of intellectual maturity would be about the same.
@@animusauthor You have a base misunderstanding here. He detailed his argument before the creationist young man spoke. Informing him that creation "scientists" aren't actually scientists had no impact on the argument. There was no insult or ad hom in the statement, just the reality that creation is not a position you could reach scientifically
The guy I was dating and I visited the Grand Canyon and he stood there with tears in his eyes and said, "It's amazing that all of this formed in such a short time during the Great Flood!" That was the day I knew this was definitely not someone I could spend my life with. Seriously?????? SMH
@batu khan I believe Rodzilla was commenting on the inability of the observer to understand said sufficiently advanced technology, and therefore he calls it magic. In other words; if a person cannot explain something it is not natural, and is therefore magic. Same kinda argument used by religion and therefore relevant here, as people talk about how we don't understand what happened to create a singularity leading to the big bang and other such things- where there is a gap in human knowledge, God appears. Older religions such as the Hellenic & Roman deities attributed lightning to the wrath of Zeus/Jupiter, for example, as they could not understand the natural cause of it.
What Rodzilla means is that sufficiently advanced technology appears like magic to the average person. People use an iPhone and it just works, like magic. They have no concept of how it works or what is required to make it in the first place. Even a light switch is like magic to most people. Every electrician will tell you stories of how they get calls from people who have been to the DIY store and bought an electric socket and wondered why it didn't work when they put it in a hole in a wall. Of course, people who manufacture the products do understand them. However, advanced alien technology may appear like magic to all of us.
Stephen Whiddett no, they would appear like aliens. And what Christian has ever compared God to magic lol. God is not a mystical unicorn that appears when u rub a lamp. Using analogies like that are simply flawed and an "out"
I think this is actually a really tall scientist. He's not standing on the edge of the canyon, he's standing on the bottom.
Laughed out loud, nice
Underrated comment.
explain that, atheists!
Have you ever seen 'Father Ted'? He explained it pretty much the same way to Father Dougal [ff to about 35 secs if you're short of time] th-cam.com/video/GFTgkibl7DU/w-d-xo.html
People can't even write a video title properly these days
My God.
Imagine if the tallest scientist and creationist had a debate
Username checks out.
Take my upvote and leave
Bruh I just understood it
this comment would only be better if upvotes stopped at 666
😁👍
"Shortest Scientist vs Creationist debate ever."
Disappointing, I was expecting a 2 or 3 foot tall Scientist.
😆😂🤣
What were you expecting they'd drag a leprechaun out of the woods to give a Harvard education?
And that is exactly what you got
You, my man, made my day.
@@01Sunshine234 Exactly. This guy gets it.
I'm smacking myself in the head for how long it took me to get why everybody's talking about the geologists height.
Hi. Me too! I guess some folk like us are just s bit more serene. Nice to meet ya!
I'm confused, can you explain🤷🏾♀️
@@redcandi01 the name of the clip is "the shortest scientist versus creationist debate ever." If you take it literally, it means the shortest scientist versus a creationist debate.
I read it as how it was supposed to be and then started reading the comments, LOL and wondered what the heck I was missing 😂
@@joshuahoover6841 oooooooooo hahahaha 😅👍🏽 ...thanks 💁🏾♀️😂
Don't be so short with yourself.
I was at the Grand Canyon last may. They’re still just standing there.
you didn't see jesus moving some dirt around then ?
or his daddy , laying down dinosaur bones everywhere ?
or was that Mr. Satan , i can't keep up with all the nonsense these religious people throw out in to the world ...
should stop watching these clips and videos , cause they piss me the F off , just can't help myself
ignorant hopeless people , that couldn't tie their own freaking shoes , if it wasn't written down as a decree in that horrible atrocious immoral ''book'' they call the bible ...
absolute idiots with no life to speak off
LIFE is the ''guide TO life'' , not some antiquated pieces of parchment with stories older then 11.000+ years , that have absolutely nothing to do with people of this day and age ...
but they just keep on pushing their views on the world and tell you ... you're going to hell ...
f*ck em ... and f*ck their ''god''
that guy is a pervert and a predator in MY book , nothing else
@@ThermaL-ty7bw Bruh I'm not going to defend the Bible cause your mind is already closed. All I'm going to say is that the Bible has everything to do with the day and age. Just like the constitution tells us how to live out our lives so does the Bible.
Because the truth isn't subjective it's objective
@@ikhuemoseokojie911 people forget all the atrocities that have been done in the name of religion and of trying to force one's beliefs onto others; colonialism, conversion therapy for homosexuals, the complete destruction of cultures, major wars and maybe bllions of deaths all throughout history, the loss of identity and free thought for many individuals. Organized thought keeps people seperate and stop us from actually finding common ground. Religion tells one truth and conceals many others.I left Christianity after the first 20 years of my life and never looked back.
I am sure there will be statues depicting this impressive memorable event there.
Haha, that made me really laugh loud...
Thats a bold statement to say to a creationist when your standing near the edge of the Grand Canyon
😂😂😂
Like a boss👍!
Yeah I reckon they can be potentially dangerous.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
We never did see what happened next
Clicked on this hoping the conversation would end with someone getting thrown into the Grand Canyon.... disappointment.
the irish twat
Average Alien English fucker
***** So do you, so how are you different except that you believe in unsubstantiated bullshit?
***** You should probably seek psychiatric therapy. Persuasion is not a requirement in science. You accept it, or you don't. Science doesn't start with an absurd assumption; it's about looking at the evidence and coming to a logical conclusion based on that evidence, not pre-conceived bullshit.
You might as well believe in invisible pink unicorns or something. At least you'd be a more creative insane person, then.
***** Let me ask you a question you've probably never thought about: if god exists at all (nevermind your god), what did god make the universe out of? :^)
Creationist: "You're assuming uniformitarianism."
Me: "Should I assume the laws of physics change every now and then?"
Evolution seems to go against the 2nd law of thermal dynamics.
Real science should always be questioned and tested.
It's never set in stone.
@@elguapo2831 what is the law of thermodynamics?
@@elguapo2831 so when you said "the law of thermodynamics" you actually meant the second law. Unfortunately you're not only wrong about what the second law of thermodynamics says, you're also wrong about its application. The second law describes entropy in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system; it constantly receives energy from the sun. The Change in allele frequencies over time doesn't go against the second law of thermodynamics any more than the population increasing, you cleaning your room, or us building cities.
@iadatoroboto8427 You give them eyes yet they cannot see.
Funny how the answers are staring everyone in their faces and they can't see it.
Remember the story of the pea in the mattress?
Now look at the canyon walls.
6,000 feet of flat strata layers, not including another 2,000 feet on the Grand Staircase.
Each layer supposedly took millions of years to form, but there are no valleys, hills, roots, burrows, or a pea in-between them.
t here are burrow fossils but they are produced by marine organisms because the grand canyon is an ancient dried seabed hence why it’s layers are relatively quite flat for miles across. I don’t know if you’ve ever looked ar photos of the ocean floor but its often very flat.
Now you might try to argue that the presence of sea life is evidence of a flood, but there’s flaws in that claim. Number one, many of these marine animals left trackways on these respective layers .indicating that the layer was once the surface of the ground and solid enough for them to walk on. If it was all laid down at once in some catastrophic flood, we wouldn't be finding footprints laminated between the layers. You can’t leave trackways if you’ve been buried in a deluge after all.
Number two, if it was rapidly carved by a flood, would we not see the destruction and debris of a flood? Ripped up trees and plant matter and the remains of terrestrial animals that got swept up, and drowned and buried in the flood? But no, that’s not what we see. We don't see chaos and destruction in the layers of the Grand Canyon. We thriving and orderly, undisturbed marine ecosystems with ancient arthropods skittering across a flat sea floor and generations after generations of mollusks preserved anchored to their life positions.
All of this is demonstrable and available knowledge to anyone with enough curiosity to look it up. So don’t come at us with that “give them eyes yet they cannot see” nonsense. The people who are actually down in the canyon, studying it’s fossils and mapping its geology have put in the time and leg work to see things that you have purposely chosen to ignore and yet here you are with the nerve to stand here at your pulpit and claim that they’re the one’s who are blind. I would laugh at the irony if it was not so bleak.
We can agree, however, that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell
I don't know but I have the feeling that you like it's ok to be smart
Damn straight
ATP baby!
I remember my Bio teacher saying that that’s not specific enough so F’s all around
Is mitochondria a dinosaur that wrote the bible?
"No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot." - Mark Twain.
Ditto
In the words of a creationist.... Amen 🙏🏻🤣
Me scrolling through the comments looking for someone to quote Mark Twain. BRUTAL!!!! 😂😂😂😂
I LOVE that quote! Mark Twain is still my favorite author.
The geologist must be an idiot. Why should he waste his time considering evidence from people he disagrees with when it's so easy to just casually dismiss them categorically like a complete bigot, since evidence will never convince him anyway?
Where's the short scientist?
Bravo.
Where's also the creationist debate?
+Agent1W I know we all wanted to see that spicy creationist comeback where he just straight roasts the guy for a full hour with his Tai Lopez knowledge of the world and ability to spew facts it would've been real. But I see these so called scientists refuse to show it, maybe they have something to hide, unlike the mighty Lord Jesus who saved us all from dying for our sins, papa bless and don't subscrab to such a biased channel.
dylan morgan your an idiot. But i like it!
he looked regular sized to me too
"Oh, I read them. I don't count them as scientists."
"Ah, OK!"
Crickets.
Crickets is the sound inside the head of someone so stubborn that they can't see the obvious flaws of creationism... that's crickets.
@@mnn1265You interrupted the sound of nature to make such a silly comment? God forgive you.
@@TheLeastNegativeBasedWokie Which god? There are so many to choose from.
@@mnn1265 Only one lived on Earth.
@@DanteSimoncini OH, so Zeus! Oh, wait, Mohammad? Could be Isis? Hmmm, again so many to choose from.
This may be one of the funniest moments in grand canyon history
top 10 at least
All 5-6 million years of its history!
@@ZringMalti Correctly stated.
In the video if you listen closely you can actually here the Canyon laughing at the creationist.
you weren't there when I took my wife there.
Surprise! Surprise! If you don't use scientific methods, you aren't a scientist.
ur right
And if you're not a moron then you're not a creationist. ;)
@@Graeme_Lastname horrible joke
Who would've guessed.
@@tjseries3057 Yes indeed. Totally horrible. Unfortunately, not a joke, just a fact. ;)
I met a microbiologist today, he was much larger than I expected..
😐
Makes me wonder where all the macrobiologists are
@@ethanethanethawhipwhorpFuck you, it was good.
Classic
He had only competed 0.0001 % of the degree requirements; that's why he was a microbiologist.
This is actually probably the best scientist vs creationist debate ever, because it acknowledges the fundamental problem: if you can't even agree on basic premises, you can't actually have a debate to start with. At best, you just talk at each other forever, with neither side conceding any significant points to the other, and both declaring victory at the end.
This is why almost every debate we see is pointless. People pretend to be debating while they cant even agree on basic initial definitions that would be required to make proper arguments.
Which is why the scientific method exists to begin with. If the person you are arguing with can't even acknowledge objective, observable, reproducable evidence they are no more worth talking to than a farm animal.
@@ToastybeesAnd if they can't think outside the box of naturalism they're not worth taking to either
@@onionsansFor example, miracles by deities ? Fairies? Simulacrum? How is anything other than naturalism falsifiable?
@@lieslceleste3395 By proof? God can't contradict himself, so if you find God contradicting himself then you have proof. It's not like you can't prove supernatural things wrong, it's just that you have to think about what it is you're trying to disprove rather than what you know about everything else. Very simple stuff there.
I don't know. Therefore God.
End of discussion.
Creationist: Sea is wet... Bible said sea is wet.. Therefore God
Creationist: Birds fly.. Therefore God
Creationist: My dog... Therefore God
Creationist: Science... Therefore Satan
@Patrick McCarthy This comment... Therefore God
God hides in the cracks in the monolith of scientific understanding
young BLOCKA is love to believe but whether people like this fact or not the original bible was the Jewish Torah then it was edited then Jesus popped up then it was added to then edited or bits of tablets went missing then king James had his own version that’s used today. In what way can that possibly be the word of god, an edited abridged directories cut with added bonus scenes?!
God can't be detected or demonstrated to exist. Making claims about how you think that God invented science is a completely baseless assertion.
Him today in the shower “damn, I should’ve said...”
No there is nothing he should have said, this was perfectly fine. If you have listened to to many creationists you know why, because it hurts, how bad those arguments are.
... and while enjoying the hot water made possible by the work of inventors, scientists, and engineers.
@Lactose Intolerant Cow I am an atheist lol. I think you thought I said that the scientist arguements would be bad, I meant the creationist ones.
@@tomwanders6022 according to the Bible Earth already existed and it was only water in it. Soo... yes, BRUH
@Lactose Intolerant Cow the big bang doesn't explain time and sound, surely there's a God who created those things and dimensions
They haven’t moved from that spot to this very day.
The world's longest awkward silence moment. Guinness confirmed 👍
Wow XD 😂😂
Are they still there? Their legs must hurt
They still there
What will change your mind?
Ken Ham: “Nothing.”
Bill Nye: “Evidence.”
Ken Ham has his answer.
Bill Nye is still looking.
@@Kuhtlass It's better to forever search for the truth than to start believing in a lie
@@Kuhtlass Ken Ham - "Banana's are designed to fit the hand."
Bill Nye - "Miss me with that shit."
bill nye is an idiot who admitted evolution is a belief
Don't know where you got that from, ken ham is very factual.
I misread this. I was expecting a midget scientist. I'm disappointed.
"Midget Scientist!" Next, on TLC!
Same here 😂
You are a pioneer
who's to say he isn't the shortest scientist!? Are you assuming naturalism?
hahaha
I don't know why I thought reading this comment section would be a good idea.
Why not. I'm having a very good time down here.
Not sure if it was a good or a bad idea.
Either way I’m kinda enjoying it.
Well, we all enjoy a good train wreck don't we?
Because you like to read people expressing their stupid opinions
Funniest shit I’ve ever seen.
I feel like I've been watching this at 0.00001x speed for the past 20 years
I totally know what you mean.
nice way of putting it :)
i don't get it
he's saying that this 1 video showed all the other videos he has seen in a very short amount of time.
aka - the past videos he saw were like....20 min/1hour long debates, while this one took less than a minute.
Uh...not long at all...?
What does that have to do with what I'm saying?
"It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's impossible to win an argument against a stupid person."
Edit: And the next thing you know, shitloads of comments
Never argue with an idiot. They always drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Yeah, it's so hard to win an argument with someone who things they can from a dot of nothing exploding. And someone who thinks life somehow magically came from rock soup. And who think all life is magically related. So stupid. Oh wait, that's most scientists. Such idiots 🙄
But were can I learn stoopid????
@@stadtbekanntertunichtgut From evolutionists
@@ezekielanderson9055 I'm bad at reading and easy impresed will that be a problem?
That scientinst doesn't seem to be that short. I'm sure there are shorter scientists than him.
Oh there are, I just don't count them as scientists
William CowenBreen
Just like how scientists don't count Pluto to be a planet.
I thought the same thing when I read the title
gold
Szkarad gold
Scientist :
- Take a rock and some water.
- Observe how many time it takes for half a milimeter to be eroded.
- Use math to calculate the aproximatif age of the grand cayon based on actual observations of nature.
Creationist :
- "Wait, is he allowed to do that ?''
I think they observed the rock at the grand canyon THAT IS STILL ERODING lmao
@@ImperialMasterRace yeah, even simplier 😄
Then try the same experiment with muddy sediment to simulate the runoff after a flood.
@Robert Loeder no, no, no, you have to ignore the possibility of any cataclysmic events and ASSUME that the processes observed present day is how it happened from the beginning of time and forever after. There is a surprising amount of willful ignorance in the belief of a 14B year old cosmic oopsie-daisy.
@@carportshenanigans5918 you can tell the difference between a cataclysmic event and a slow process. A flood that lasts a few days leaves different signs than a stream that flows for a thousand years.
And then there's the nuclear chemistry, which is probably the best way to date things. It isn't that scientists ignore signs, the fact is that the simplest explanation that fits all the evidence is an old universe and an old earth.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
---Voltaire 1765
that's not the whole story though. Atrocities have been committed for lots of reasons, like bombing a ww2 factory that happens to be in a highly populated area (collateral damage) or bombing/shelling a city to make way for invading troops.
TWSTF 8 Yes, that’s why I don’t believe in atheism. Such an absurdity has caused many atrocities.
@@sunblaze8931 Atheism is not a belief.
Best of luck moron
Sean O Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.
@@sunblaze8931 It's an absence of belief in a deity. There's a difference there.
I know, I know. There there
Put on a lullaby vid. You'll be much better off
It is hard to win an argument with a tall person, but it's impossible to win an argument against a short person, they will just bring you down to their height and beat you with their experience.
This made me chuckle
@@hiq7137 How did you see that comment on the other chat?
@@Oysters176 it’s the notification
Underrated comment
As a short person, he's right. Check mate, tallists.
I can't believe we're still having these kinds of "debates" in this century...
Don't worry. I met a guy who believed Men and Women have a different number of ribs.
Suboptimal Constructor ribs are Zionist new world order Kabal propaganda wake up you sheeple
Luftwaffe 2 Electric Bogaloo I have awoken
Chad Chadington my third eye is open to the spiritual chakra
Certain people worship their own interests and dress them up as devotion to a noble, higher cause.
We will always have these debates as long as weak-minded, self-obsessed people want to spread their fears and beliefs.
“Have you heard what the creationists have to say?”
“Yeah but I said scientists tho”
🤣🤬😂😆🤭✅🖖
*Stare*
@@cloudycrisps7290
You are aware that the mechanism of " creation science " is magic/incantations.
Being that it was spoken, that makes it just that.
But there's a problem with that.
There was no air before this act.
Nor did the non-corporeal entity have a mouth from which to speak.
No vocal chords or lungs.
None of the things needed for speech was in place before the incantation was used.
So, how did that work? More magic?
Creation was also put up against evolutionary processes in court.
The ruling is why evolution is taught in schools and creation isn't, accept those schools that indoctrinates children into the cult before they can think for themselves.
Calling it science doesn't make it science.
And if this religious crap was real there wouldn't be any need for apologist's. There would be no holes or slack to pull it it were real and not mere fantasy.
Creation Science, what a laugh.
@@tyrionlannister9273 okay, First of the Bible said humanity was made in Gods own image therefore it can be assumed that they have a mouth. Second, Just because a court has a certain ruling does not make it true or the best. Other wise explain why innocent people are convicted and guilty are set free. What may seem right is not always the case. And finally Evolution also has apologists, people who keep finding evidence and using it to support their views. However I do agree that calling something science does not make it science, so tell me, if evolution is classified as a theory why do we teach it as scientific fact? Just because we can use evidence to point at it? You can do that with the creationist viewpoint as well. Perhaps it would be better if these theories were taught separately from factual science so we can more accurately test them. If creation science really was this laugh as you say, then surely you have all the answers to make this belief obsolete? Explain to me them how life could arise from non living Matter and then proceed to never do it again on this planet. Explain the origins of human morality, of Logic, explain consciousness. The Truth is neither of us have all the answers therefore neither side should be taken as more than an opinion with a spew of evidence at the table trying to make it all fit. It is also impossible to simply take information and just “find the results” because there will always be bias. A creationist will use it to point to God and a non-creationist will use it to point towards Not God. Just finding evidence is not what you are doing at all. Everyone is DELIBERATELY using the evidence to support their view.
@@cloudycrisps7290
Evidence points only one way.
Evolution doesn't have apologist's.
And the Torah, the old testament, doesn't say that man was made in the image of god.
It says that humans were re-created in the image of the gods, Elohim is a pluralism and also includes female.
And it also says that Jehovah sits in the seat of judge amongst the gods.
So the text clearly states a plurality.
And about this assumption.
Why would a being living in null space, devoid of everything have need of a mouth?
There's nothing to eat, nothing to speak upon because sound travels on the particles of gas in waves to the ear that has bones in it that rattle and send the signals to the brain to be deciphered...
The people that wrote the religious texts literally knew nothing and assumed everything. That's why it's rife with inconsistentancies and nonsensical ideas.
Plants were created before the sun.
The sun and moon exist inside of the dome above the flat earth and are the same size.
There's water outside the dome.
Snakes and donkey talk.
Eating fruit is a crime that humans are guilty of even though they didn't even eat the fruit themselves.
Then later, god takes human form. To be a sacrifice of itself to itself to appease itself for rules it made up in the first place. From a scenario it made.
It also placed the talking snake in the garden.
What kind of idiot thinks this makes sense?
You do.
this is how long every "debate" with a creationist should last.
+Michael smith Yes, because we should silence all theories and notions that don't agree with our own. That's how we grow and learn. Acting like know it all pricks.
Jose Canusee when your right your right, no amount of debate will change the facts that religious nonsense has not been right on one scientific matter, or has met the burden of proof that is required for such extraordinary claims.
+Michael smith Well let's focus on this issue which I assume you are in agreement is the age of Earth. Let me re-post a comment I made on this video in hopes to get my point across. Forgive the laziness but I just don't feel like typing it all again." Is time not relative to the universal laws that the universe is expanding and speeding up? Therefore, as we exist and record our experience on the timeline, does our concept of time and it's relationship with history speed up? Meaning, A recorded year to man's concept of time 1 million years ago would be longer than it would in the current day. I am so amazed that scientist and the vast majority of the so called "intellectual" community are still theorizing time as a linear concept when it has been proven that it is cyclical in nature. My point is when someone says the Earth is thousands of years old or Millions of years old, they are both right and both wrong. The funniest part is we can only begin to imagine these things so instead of acting like we have all the answers, maybe we should stop being so arrogant and learn from one another." I mean even Albert Einstein considered his theories just that, theories. Sure, some are more predominantly rooted in fact and obvious as others are open to interpretation. Regardless of this, the reality is nobody knows without a shadow of a doubt anything so to silence debate and shun or criticize others for having opposing views is not only wrong but dangerous. I suggest you do some research on who is in charge of determining what scientific theories are considered facts throughout history and the damage that has done to the masses those theories were meant to use for control. I'm not saying your right, or I'm wrong, that's the point, we don't know. I'm not even a "creationist" as I think labeling oneself only puts yourself into a box were ideas and realizations go to die.
Jose Canusee I disagree on nearly everything you say.
A scientific theory is not just a theory, but the excepted explanation for a phenomenon, so I doubt very much that Einstein said that.
Nobody claims to have all the answers, but religion has none, science gives us a good basis to work from.
I will mock and shun any nonsense that religious indoctrination and brainwashing has claimed is true.
+Michael smith Then why is it called a theory? I mean how much more could you contradict yourself? So as far as your bogus definition of what theory means, how about we use the actual definition. the·o·ry
ˈTHēərē/
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
Let me give you the definition for what a supposition is before you make up another meaning for that as well.
sup·po·si·tion
ˌsəpəˈziSH(ə)n/
noun
an uncertain belief.
So, I find it rather amusing that someone who is so certain of the how the mysteries of science and the universe work can't even grasp the reality of what simple definitions of words in the English language mean. UNCERTAIN, do you know what that means? As for Albert Einstein, I believe these quotes should solidify my argument "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
"We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know." "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.". Lastly, as far as being indoctrinated and brainwashed, what do you think is happened to our youth as we speak with the new religion man is dominating the poor and underprivileged masses with? Think about that.
Legend has it that he has maintained a vow of silence until he thinks of a comeback and has still not spoken to this day
Honestly though? Kudos to the creationist guy for not just flying into a rage-fueled tangent at the end, they both had different views and they didn't clash with them any more than was necessary.
EDIT: most of the replies have just ended up proving my point. Nice going, fellas.
The problem is that one of them (the creationist) is clearly wrong, while the other (the scientist) is undoubtedly right.
Well we don't really see what happens beyond the 31-second mark
@@maaderllin wrong about what exactly?
@@arcguardian Wrong that creationism is a science.
Science is a process. You gather evidence. You ponder on their meaning and elaborate an hypothesis on a question about the evidence: Why is this here, how did it get to this point, how does that work.
With the question you ask, you gather more evidence to confirm your hypothesis, and if the evidence shows something that doesn't fit, you change your hypothesis until you arrive at a satisfying theory that explains the phenomenon you're studying.
Creationists fail at this, because they start with their assessment (hypothesis) without any evidence and are unable to prove their axiom: That there is a creator. They give no satisfying evidence for it because the notion of a God is metaphysical, not physical and therefore not scientific.
In science, when you disagree with someone else's findings, you must not only demonstrate that the evidence they gathered don't prove their theory, you must also elaborate a new hypothesis and test it.
Creationists fail at both. They cherrypick or misrepresent scientists' evidence to try and disprove real science, wich they don't even succeed, and they fail to provide any evidence for their competing thesis.
So, in a debate wether creationists are scientists or not, there is a clear right and wrong here: Creationists are not scientists.
And I'll go further than that. I'm born and raised catholic. I don't agree with all of my original church's dogma, but I still believe in god. What I'm about to say will be controversial but here I come: Creationists even fail at their religion.
Faith is about what is beyond our ability to understand and to learn. Faith can not and should not be proven and try to compete with science. If faith is about how we came to be, it can't exist because we can learn this. Faith is about something that can't be put into words.
Creationists, when they desperately try to "prove" god, demonstrate how insecure they are in their own faith, because for them, each scientific gain of knowledge gives them smaller and smaller things to have faith into.
@@maaderllin I don't believe creationism asserts a different method for science. When gathering a hypothesis, you do so with evidence and then test, then it becomes a theory when it becomes more confirmed over time. What I would accuse young earth creationist of doing is cherry picking possibly scripture to fit a narrative when the words themselves carry less historical exactness and are meant (early hebrew for example) more on meaning.
Just to put out there, I use to lean more young earth creationist now its old earth, but I'm still a creationist. I see the issue with consciousness being unanswerable within the current framework of pure naturalism and that evolution itself requires a dependency (perfectly timed insertion from an ultimate mind) to start an effective self replicating, robust structure such as DNA to yield the result we recognize as the mind. I further claim that Christianity as the most consistent philosophically and the most satisfying framework for solving internal struggles - not the external/religious perception. I digress though.
There are holes I see with the current dating methods, and I do see potential blocks from scientists attempting to protect their stake in posterity (abroad in academia). I see some manner of skepticism as good for academia because, well that's the sane thing to do. Climate science for example is hugely political yet supposed scientists and talking heads run their mouths like they know what they are talking about. Anyone is possibly shamed for pointing out that they are not even reading their own papers when making claims. Point is, we ought to be respectful of those with fundamental differences sometimes because sometimes they are proved correct and our assumptions were actually wrong.
Problem 1:
Which of the following is the best way to answer questions and discover the truth.
A.) Read many books and use the scientific method
B.) Read one book and ask your imaginary friend
***** , creationists do not search for the best way to answer questions ( "o, you of little faith ") and do not want to discover the truth (they don't "discover" , they are teached, told, showed.....) Slave mentallity.
So , yeah, one book and one shepard.. easy and not al all confusing. And the best part , if fallowing THAT shepard makes you do bad things ( like sacrificing your own kid on an altar ) it is NOT YOUR FAULT.
speedy Stereotype much? Did you figure out the origin of life apart from God? If you ever do, the rest of the world will worship you. Ironic,huh?
Tim,
1., I was not talking about God and the origin of life, but about the BIBLE- wich is a BOOK, stories told and interpreted for hundreds of years by hundreds of ppl (HUMANS) before beeing written, and then copyed hundreds of times and then TRANSLATED for 3-4 times... and then copyed again... and then SELECTED... and interpreted...and "completed' ...
It is really stupid to belive in theese conditions that the Bible is 100 % true. Even if Moses heard the word of God, it is certain that what you have in your hands today it is not what Moses heard.
2.Stereotype... hm..I'm sorry , is something I said NOT from your Bible ?
Maybe I am wrong and chistianity is all for the science and discoverys ... and the Dark Ages was just a big misunderstand...
wait , aren't creationist rejecting with out explaination ALL the evidence against their theory - bones, geografie, geologie,biologie, ancient civilization, carbon dating etc... , refusing even to look at it ???
How else can you reamain a creationist (again it is not about beliving in God , but in the Bible) if you really look at the facts ?
***** Scientists use a lot of methods to estimate the age of something. C14 is only one of them. What's more, every scientist theory is refutable. You know why ? Because it was made to be refutable. It is the basis of the scientific method. Seriously, if you pay more attention to something that has been written in a book by some men, rather than paying attention to theories which has been tested and validated following a clear, precise and refutable method, then I can't do anything for you.
in my book ***** atheists are but children trying to understand their own conception without someone teaching it to them
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Issac Asimov
So much more than just a Sci Fi author.
@@monstertrucktennis mostly a chemist. wrote over 300 books on the subject.
taught chemistry too.
a brilliant mind.
Intellectuals tend to be the people most lacking wisdom. Go ahead and research it. Government think tanks have been the source of the world's greatest blunders time and time again.
@@jackasschicken5922 ... and also some of the world's greatest achievements! It's hard to mess anything up on a large scale by sitting around driving farts into a couch while watching OW MY BALLS on tv.
@@jackasschicken5922 so government think-tanks are the representation of science now, lol. While I may agree with a nuanced criticism of scientific institutions today; you, sir, represent a terminal case of cultural stupidity.
Automotive industry: Well, building a car is quite complex, of course, but in simplest terms, you need an engine, a body, transmission, basic electronics, breaks, and internal furnishings that would let an operator to reside in.
Me: I reckon you could just use a hamster in a wheel to power the whole thing, and have a jet engine mounted on a front to use as breaks. Make my thing equal to the thing they said, it's just as valid, I am now as qualified as automotive industry because I had an opinion and I reckoned.
Disassemble a simple computer and put the parts in a dryer
If they can't put themselves together how do you expect the world to coincidentally be in place including the DNA code
Exactly
Not a coincidence,
God made everything
@@Maicon-b1b Thank you for the false equivalence, pal. Nobody assembles machines like that, and no scientist or well-equipped nonbeliever posits that biomolecules were formed like that.
Also, life is a chemical system, and we have a robust understanding of chemistry. The origin of life research has also come far since the Miller-Urey experiment. The abundance of eventually biotic material on prebiotic Earth and the self-replicating nature of DNA (RNA, even, if you go with the RNA world hypothesis) was more than enough as a base from which life sprang.
You know what we don't have? A robust understanding of God, if he exists at all.
Arguments from design are convincing at face value but crumble when you scrutinize assumptions and simply admit ignorance. "We don't know," is still a million times more honest than "It must have been God," when God hasn't even been established as a possibility. If I may borrow your line of argument, we have always observed mind as a product of matter, but never a disembodied mind or a anything that resembles a spirit, on which the God assumption often relies on.
I know it is a clichéd question that is often mocked among the believers' group, but if complex things must be created intentionally, who created God, given his all-powerful nature and alike? If your answer requires exempting God from the premise that complex things need a creator, then you have my answer. I do not accept that complexity implies intentional creation. I do not buy your argument from incredulity.
Argue the possibility of God, if you must. Just know that even if I don't know everything, it increases not at all the chance that God exists or do anything.
Unless you need to presuppose God before doing anything, of course, since then it's best that we don't talk.
I can't tell if you're being facetious but: life is not like random parts falling together. That's called "clockmaker" and there are plenty of videos on why it's fallacious. The short version is life has pressure put upon it over time and slowly shapes into what it is. DNA didn't bang together and spring forth a fully formed human like your analogy.
@@NucularRobit Very good! You could also say that a weathered stone has an an extremely particular shape and arrangement of it's atoms to produce that *exact* stone. Whose to say that it's 'arrangement' of atoms is more 'complicated' then the atoms of a watch?
It would still require nothing short of a miracle to get those atoms positioned in exactly that fashion to produce exactly that object. God? Of course not, just pressure...and time.
Life is like that too. And we can see the imperfections and weird genetic 'baggage' of our early ancestors littered throughout our genome. Why would god leave genetic 'baggage' and imperfections in any life form's DNA?
@@Maicon-b1b The worst thing? I'm not even sure if you're being serious. Just to be safe; that is nonsense
I like it when people call naturalism an assumption. I was going to try a supernatural hypothesis but it turns out I couldn’t test it so I gave natural a try and it just kept working.
Edit: I understand strictly speaking naturalism is an assumption. This is mainly about methodological naturalism which is the relevant one to the world of science. Philosophical naturalism is not really the concern here. In the pursuit of knowledge methodological naturalism is the only available tool.
This philosophy is called “provisional methodological naturalism” and is the kind of methodnat I subscribe to.
I mean, you are literally describing naturalism as an assumption, 'natural' observations can be repeated and therefore tested. That's a reason to 'assume' naturalism - b/c it's practical for corroborating scientific theories
Naturalism is an assumption, because it can not be proved. It assumes that there is no supernatural.
both are assumptions. One can't test whether or not all events are governed by physical laws. That would be necessary for naturalism to be more than an assumption.
@@helvete_ingres4717 the problem is that naturalism is the belief that "All" events are governed by natural laws. That's the part that can't be tested.
If god isn't real then who tangled my headphones? God: 1 Atheists: 0
I hope you're not being serious.
Liam Dye
1985: In 2017 we will have flying cars!
2017: *reads your comment*
Liam, don't feed the trolls.
:(
Rob Hatch Because a joke these days can only be a troll wanting attention apparently.
“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
― Napoleon
Religion is just as much as a deterrent as the death penalty. Its not good.
Good one Napoleon, wait, what does Darwism do again? Oh yea that's right, rich murdering the poor
leon scott what has murdering the poor got to do with Darwin ?
Pork Sword the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform
It still works great in the USA
Ruby Honey Survival of the fittest. Hitler's actions are very Darwinian . Stalin's actions are very Darwinian. Any situation where people in control are taking advantage of the less fortunate is Darwinian. If you don't understand that, well then you should further investigate Darwinian.
"Oh, I've read them, I just don't count them as scientists."
Damn, that's a burn that aloe can't help.
At that point, the dude just lost all credibility because he can't even acknowledge another person's point because they don't believe the same thing he did. That kind of sounds like fascism to me.
@@flaming_ice5220 You might have a point if the creationists had a shred of evidence to support their arguments, but as they don't... Also,
fascism
1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
He's not a governmental leader, not a dictator, doesn't have complete power, is not suppressing opposition (though he is mocking it), not regimenting the infrastructure of a nation, not emphasizing nationalism, nor saying anything racist. I don't think you know what that word means. You're just saying words that you think make him look bad.
@@flaming_ice5220 Science is evidence based. Your opinion is worthless when not backed up by evidence and experimentation.
@@flaming_ice5220 if you don’t use the scientific method, you aren’t a scientist.
@@flaming_ice5220 Fascism? lmao. He acknowledge the other person point but that doesn't mean they are scientists. Look it's simple af, a scientist is someone who follow the scientific method, a creationist doesn't follow the scientific method, therefore...
It's always fun to see a comment section with atheists and creationists endlessly insulting each other with nothing productive happening.
I haven't seen any of those for now
Comment Sections aren’t known for being productive.
Implying that creationists are capable of productive discussion? All they can do is lie and be dishonest so what do you expect?
@@ExpertContrarianwhat would atheists have to prove anyway? Its a one sided argument this persons trying to paint as a both sides situation
Creationism is not science.
Sure it is.
in their own little messed up world it is...where a guy can be made out of dirt and can pull out his rib and make a woman.
And if a snake tells you to eat a fruit,don't eat it!For some reason eating that one fruit in the ENTIRE GARDEN will make Earth a hellish place,with starvation,wars,etc etc.
TheCommunistDragon51 True. In their crazy imagination. I had hard time believing their bullshit even when I was a child but boy did they make me. I am lucky to no longer be brainwashed Bible thumper.
Robert Eli
Funny enough they say Atheists are just indoctrinated.
When infact Christians are the ones that do that,as well as many other religious people.
Take India for example.
or the Middle east.
As well my parents ARE CHRISTIAN.
And funny enough even though I have not gone to church since I was 5-6,(okay I did decide to go out one day 4-3 years ago just to check it out,itwasfuckinghorriblebtw,but then I was just an agnostic,not an Atheist.Now I am)
TheCommunistDragon51 So true. For some reason they think that a lack of belief in a claim is somehow a claim in itself.
And about indoctrination. My entire and school are all Christian. My parents had taught me since I knew how to speak that God and the Bible was true. It sucks.
*****
We can observe it,kinda.
You like at stars and judge their distances,one light year=one year for it's light to reach you.
Not only that but Radiometric dating is observable and can be repeated.
You wanna know what makes scientist better than creationist? Their not afraid to admit when they're wrong. as we learn more, previous beliefs and theories change or are proven wrong and scientist are ok with admitting that. Religious ppl refuse to even consider the fact that they might be wrong
You wanna know what makes a creationist better than a scientist? We can deal with the horribleness of the world that None of Us can escape. Because at the end of the day, when we see the beauty and perfection of planetary systems, the designs of mother nature, and complexity of the human mind, we know that something that stands the test of time has created all of it, and That Creator is inviting us to be held through all of eternity. (You can say it as unrealistic as Santa, but to me, so is a perfect solar system forming from some Random explosion of Nothingness) To us Creationists, there is an artist for this unknown painting. & I gotta tell ya, on a personal note, as a former atheist, Its more rewarding and joyous to believe this way. It definitely kicks the sh*t out of my old mindset, which to sum up in a sentence, was me cursing a God that I thought I didn't believe in and wanting to leave an earth that I was living on.,. But I guess im just another close-minded dumbass that doesn't think like you. You can call me hopeless, but that would be the most amazing irony of all the ages.
+MyThousandYearOldWisdom WillHelpYouGrow im sorry, but all that is the exact opposite of dealing with the horribleness of the world.
MyThousandYearOldWisdom WillHelpYouGrow I mean yeah it's nice to believe that we go to a eternal paradise when we die and it's nice to think that there is a creator watching over and us and stuff but when all this claims have little to no evidence to back them up, what's the point.
The difference between a person of science and a person of faith is one values evidence, logic, and truth over desperate hope, and the other doesn't.
I think when it comes down to it, a creationist is really just someone who can't cope with the idea of an end to consciousness ... Which although I am an atheist, I can understand to some degree. Death is terrifying.
The way I approach death personally, is with the understanding that we have all been dead for an infinite amount of time before we were born, and we will be dead for an infinite amount of time after we die. Between those two events however, we are privileged to have just under a century of time to connect with people, learn about our universe, and find happiness.
And I think that is a wonderful gift that I don't intend to waste....
Glokib you're conflating a belief in creationism with a a reason for religion.
Simply put if there is a God then creationism isn't far fetched it doesn't matter what God or if you believe it on a purely hypothetical basis it makes more sense that any god that might exist would be involved in some manner.
As funny as this is, I understand why some people stick to religious beliefs when talking about subjects like geology. The average person knows very little about actual science, even the ones who trust scientific results. Actual science is incredibly complex and rarely certain in absolute terms. Literally everything is an estimate. In contrast, religion offers absolute answers, and many people find that comfortable even if those answers are wrong.
Religion and science don't clash is the thing though. God utilizes science. He knows it better than any scientist. It wasn't literally 7 days. He guided the process we've studied, but did not snap his fingers to make it all happen in a fashion that contradicts science. Going with the idea for a moment, it would deprive us of a lot of scientific discoveries and therefore limit our potential if he had. God wants us to discover and advance, in secular knowledge and faith.
@@lada8744 you may not realize it. But you just summarized God or Allah in Quran
@@lada8744 You really ripped the "Not 7 days of 24 hours" argument straight from the Scopes Monkey Trial, huh...
@@ladywaffle2210
I have no idea what you are talking about. But if you didn’t realize how metaphorical the scriptures can be, particularly with some of the translations not sounding as literal when you dig into root meanings (not wrong here midnight you), then I don’t know what to say. Maybe go look at how Christ spoke in parables or in Revelation to see how metaphors work in the scriptures?
And what are the monkey trials supposed to be?
@@lada8744 Back in the 1920s-ish, the southern states of the United States mandated "creationism" as required in public education- i.e. public school teachers had to teach that God created the world, and could not teach evolution as a result. Thanks to a quirk in the wording, however, teachers had to teach both evolution and creationism, which was against the law.
A schoolteacher was arrested and tried for breaking the "no evolution" law. The ACLU stepped in, and the trial quickly became literal interpretation of the Bible versus metaphorical interpretation.
One of the more memorable moments was when the prosecution was speaking. The transcript reads along these lines (forgive me for not knowing exactly what they said, but this is the gist of it):
"Do you believe that God created the universe in seven days?"
"Not seven days of 24 hours."
It was called the Monkey Trial because of evolution- Humans were, at one point in our evolution many millions of years ago, essentially chimpanzees. People attending the trial would bring monkeys with them and hang signs that read "Can't Make A Monkey Out Of Me".
So, some history!
“Ah right. Okay.” Wins debates every time.
@Tel Aviv How does that make a difference?
Bollocks
Check mate athiests
Or "Oh right yeah" as Father Dougal would say.
@@FrowningIke Okay... for the last time: these toy cows are small. But the ones outside are far away. 😂
Science flies men to the moon. Religion flies airplanes into buildings.
Dave Hansen loved that
paul morgan Actually, that's a quote from the late professor Victor J Stenger, author of the outstanding book "God: The Failed hypothesis".
He grew up in a Catholic working-class neighborhood in Bayonne New Jersey, and became a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii.
Dave Hansen Unfortunately very true.
Tony Droid Flying to the moon is evil ? LOL Fuck tard ? I can't stop laughing !
Tony Droid What's your point, troller boy ?
Got a feeling it might take hundreds of millions of years for that guy to cement his comeback into something solid.
There's a canyon at the base of St Helens that was created in a couple of months that made geologists rethink how long it takes to create of a canyon. He's not ontop of the subject as he thinks he is.
@@readhistory2023 Did the geologists think that it could happen in a few days? If not, then the creationist "theory" is still bunk.
@@readhistory2023 lol Creating a Canyon takes days..Creating the Bedrock and Stratified structure that the Canyon is Comprised of, Takes Millennia. Your critical thinking skills and application of relatable information in support of a perspective, needs improvement.
@@redneckhippiefreak Said the "redneckhippiefreak". Hm.
@@gunslingergirl2579 Said the "Gunslinger Girl". Hm.
"But but, many scientists believe the earth is only 6,000 years old."
"Sorry I meant REAL scientists."
That’s the “no true Scotsman fallacy”, you’re basically saying “they aren’t true scientist because they don’t agree with me”. I’m personally not a young earth creationist, but this is objectively stupid.
@@charles21137
Real scientists are scientists who listen to science.
Creationists listen to a particular interpretation of a millennia old text and make it dogma.
Creationists aren't real scientists.
@@oliverjkulig7373 fair enough, but I would rather them actually look at the claims that creationist with degrees in science make and disprove it with science, then go “you make a claim I disagree with, thus false”
@@oliverjkulig7373 You are aware that there is no such thing as listening to science right? Science isnt some magical beam that sends information to anyone with a bachelors in physics. The very basic purpose of scientific knowledge is for it to be challenged and either rewritten or reaffirmed based on analytical, experimental and observational data. And considering there is no physical way for us to test certain things there is plenty of things in scientific fields open to interpretation and theory, many of which would very much be wrong. This stupid "bElIeVe tHe SciEncE dOod" is just as ignorant and annoying as creationism "because bible said so".
@@charles21137 Thats not how science works. Science is that everything is wrong until you test it and record the data and how you got it and loads of people replicate it. So a creationist would need some scientific evidence that they cant have because theres no test they can make. We do have tests that show the Earth is millions of years old though, so anyone saying the contrary, a scientist can just say "Thats wrong."
Over the last 500 years science has come forward leaps and bounds, innovating and showing things to be facts, countless things. Religion has yet to prove ONE thing that is says to be truthful. Just ONE and it can't even manage that because all they have to go back on is that book that has been re-written countless times by countless people. It's a story, an early form of policing, that's it. I find it shocking that people of this age still believe in angels and miracles and a magic man in the sky. It's really, really disheartening.
I call that magic man, their imaginary-sky-daddy.
Nice copy/paste opinion you have there.
(╭ರ_•́), nice name sir.
(╭ರ_•́) Nice monocle U___U
THANKS FOR saying science not evolution cause evolution is not science
and the bible claims Jesus rose up and indeed he did as any historian would tell. you check your facts fella
What really bothers me is how creationists always accuse non-creationists of "making assumptions", when they're the ones making the biggest assumptions of all... -_-;
tell someone that there is an invisible man in the sky watching over them and they'll believe you,tell someone that the paint on the wall is not dry and they'll need to touch it to believe it
There is actual proof of god though and there is proof that the wall is not dry. Bad analogy dude.
there is absolutely no proof of the existence of god, seriously nothing.
DJ Pororo it's not an analogy,it's a quote.
And let me see your proof of god existence
DJ Pororo
I guarantee that any "proof" you claim to have of the existence of God can be, and has been, attributed to other things around the world. If the fact that humans are conscious, the fact that we have a concept of love, the fact that we have food to eat on the earth etc. is what you consider to be evidence of God, then who's to say that, if there MUST be a god responsible for such things, that it's YOUR god? The Hindus, Shintos, Zoroastrians, and others all probably say that THEIR gods are the ones responsible for all the things you say yours is, so what are the chances that YOU are the one that's correct?
Why do I watch videos like these? It's like I'm seeking out something to hear that makes me angry.
I think I have this problem as well...
same here its like i wanna get pissed off
E. Ras i didn't even know that, thats really annoying, i need to check that out hahaha
You folks are taking the wrong attitude. It's surreal comedy! :-)
guess so hahaha
Believing in religion is one thing. Denying facts and ignoring logic is another thing entirely.
Not knowing something and admitting it and admitting when you're wrong doesn't make you stupid. It makes you brave and smart.
Ignoring the mistakes you make and refusing to acknowledge the it apologize for the wrongs you have committed doesn't make you stronger. It makes you weaker and an idiot.
I believe this is what those old sayings meant when they said "When one makes a mistake and does not correct it, that is the second mistake." and "True men know what is right, inferior men know what sells."
Regardless of any belief system you have, you must accept reality. You cannot deny logic. Because if you do, you will still have to answer for your actions. Because the rest of the universe doesn't stop for you when are uncomfortable with. In fact, it just runs over you as the rest of the world continues to move on just fine without you.
And one way or another, wether you practice what you preach, you WILL reap what you sow.
you can still believe in creation and at the same time believe that it took millions or billions of years for the grand canyon to become what it is today. the only thing the bible contradicts is evolution since the "days" in Genesis are obviously not meant to be taken in a literal sense of ~24 hours.
evolution is not a proven fact, that is why its called a theory
@@malachi4838 A scientific theory is not the same as a colloquial theory. A thesis is not proven, people often use the word "theory", but mean "thesis". A scientific theory is a system of reasoned statements based on scientific evidence. When the evidence is very strong, it becomes a scientific consensus, which means that you need extraordinary strong evidence to falsify the theory. Evolution is a proven fact, it exists, it is scientific consenus. The evidence so strong, that there are numerous sciences and humanities based on theory of evolution and named after it.
The biologist Richard Lenski said: "Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change".
Source: Lenski, Richard E. (September 2000). "Evolution: Fact and Theory". actionbioscience. Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Biological Sciences. Archived from the original on 2007-04-03. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Amen!!
Believing in religion IS denying facts and ignoring logic
They are not entirely different things. They are closely related.
Oh, I’ve read them. I don’t count them as scientists. 🖐〽️🎤
Yes that really was a short pathetic argument
@@briemuss05 Why?
RandomSnot Because regardless of what this guy believes, the creationists, that he does not count as scientists, studied at the same universities and got their Ph.d, MA’s and BA’s etc. just like the evolutionists did. To say they are not real scientists is to say the universities don’t know what they are on about and just give these degrees out to any old fool. This guys argument was just prejudice and pathetic. The following people are Christian. Try telling them they are not real scientists.
Professor Andy McIntosh DSc, FIMA, CMath, FEI, CEng, FInstP, MIGEM, FRAeS has lectured and researched in Combustion and Thermodynamics for over 30 years. He is a visiting research professor at the University of Leeds, UK, and an adjunct professor at Mississippi State University, USA. He has published over 195 papers on aerodynamics, thermodynamics, combustion, biomimetics, and the bombardier beetle research, which has led to a patented spray device for applications of this technology to pharmaceuticals, fuel injectors, and fire extinguishers.
Dr. Georgia Purdom holds a PhD in molecular genetics from The Ohio State University. She formerly served as an assistant and associate professor of biology at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University. Dr. Purdom is the director of Educational Content.
Professor Stuart Burgess
Biomimetics, Engineering (UK)
Professor Burgess has held academic posts at Bristol University, Cambridge University and Liberty University in the USA. At Bristol University he was appointed Head of Department three times between 2004 and 2011. He has worked for the European Space Agency and was the lead designer for the solar array on the world’s largest civilian earth-observation spacecraft (Envisat). He also led the design and testing of the chain drive for the British Olympic Cycling Team who won a record six gold medals at the 2016 Rio Olympics. He was invited to exhibit this work at the Royal Society (National Academy of Sciences) in the UK in 2017 where it received national publicity. He has published over 160 scientific papers on the science of design in engineering and nature.
Paul Garner is a full-time researcher and lecturer for Biblical Creation Trust. He has an MSc in Geoscience from University College London, where he specialised in palaeobiology. He is a Fellow of the Geological Society of London and a member of several other scientific societies. His first book, The New Creationism: Building Scientific Theories on a Biblical Foundation, was published by Evangelical Press in 2009.
And my absolute favourite. No one dares to even talk about evolution to this guy because he just destroys every argument they have.
JAMES M. TOUR, Ph.D. Synthetic chemist.
T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry Professor of Computer Science Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering Rice University Smalley-Curl Institute and the NanoCarbon Center
James M. Tour, a synthetic organic chemist, received his Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from Syracuse University, his Ph.D. in synthetic organic and organometallic chemistry from Purdue University, and postdoctoral training in synthetic organic chemistry at the University of Wisconsin and Stanford University. After spending 11 years on the faculty of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of South Carolina, he joined the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at Rice University in 1999 where he is presently the T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering. Tour’s scientific research areas include nanoelectronics, graphene electronics, silicon oxide electronics, carbon nanovectors for medical applications, green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction, graphene photovoltaics, carbon supercapacitors, lithium ion batteries, CO2 capture, water splitting to H2 and O2, water purification, carbon nanotube and graphene synthetic modifications, graphene oxide, carbon composites, hydrogen storage on nanoengineered carbon scaffolds, and synthesis of single-molecule nanomachines which includes molecular motors and nanocars. He has also developed strategies for retarding chemical terrorist attacks. For pre-college education, Tour developed the NanoKids concept for K-12 education in nanoscale science, and also Dance Dance Revolution and Guitar Hero science packages for elementary and middle school education: SciRave (www.scirave.org) which later expanded to a Stemscopes-based SciRave. The SciRave program has risen to be the #1 most widely adopted program in Texas to complement science instruction, and it is currently used by over 450 school districts and 40,000 teachers with over 1 million student downloads.
Tour has over 680 research publications and over 120 patents, with an H-index = 140 and i10 index = 630 with total citations over 94,120 (Google Scholar). He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015. Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2014; listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014; and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014; and was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014. Tour was named “Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013.
And the list goes on and on. All these scientists are Christians.
@@briemuss05 Uh huh, so if I press you to show me examples of scientifically peer reviewed papers submitted by any of these people dealing with creationism you will be able to provide them? Don't worry I wont hold you to that we all know what the results will be, nothing!
Personally I don't care wherever a scientist is Christian or not Kenneth Miller is a Christian but given the fact that he accepts the theory of evolution I somehow suspect that you would consider him to be not a true Scotsman, uh I mean Christian. Interesting how scientists are remembered for their contributions our knowledge of he natural world and not their religious views isn't it.
As for that James Tour guy, well turns out what you said about him (aside from what's blatant copypasta) is wrong. You pass him off as a great demolisher of evolution when he has simply got reservations even then given that he is a scientist he should know disagreeing with a theory isn't enough. He would have to come up with an alternative.
RandomSnot Dr Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Dr Ron Neller, fluvial geomorphology
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical science
Dr David Oderberg, Philosophy
Professor Douglas Oliver, Professor of Biology
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botany
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biology, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Jules H. Poirier, Aeronautics, Electronics
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr Graeme Quick, Engineering, former Principle Research Scientist with CSIRO (Australia)
Dr Dan Reynolds, Organic Chemistry
Dr Chad Rodekohr, Engineering, Physics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rodda, PhD, Population Genetics
Dr David Rosevear, Chemistry
Dr Marcus Ross, Paleontology
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr Ronald G. Samec, Astronomy
Dr John Sanford, Plant science / genetics
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemistry / spectroscopy
Dr Alicia (Lisa) Schaffner, Associate Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Joachim Scheven Paleontology
Dr Ian Scott, Education
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic Physics
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geology/karstology
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineering
Dr Horace D. (‘Skip’) Skipper, Professor Emeritus Soil microbiology, College of Agriculture, Forestry and Life Sciences, Clemson University, SC, USA
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoology
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geology
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Greg Tate, Plant Pathology
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Larry Thaete, Molecular and Cellular Biology and Pathobiology
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr S.H. ‘Wally’ Tow (Tow Siang Hwa), retired chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Singapore
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemistry
Dr Brandon van der Ventel, Nuclear scientist
Dr Gerald Van Dyke, Ph.D. and Professor Emeritus in Botany, North Carolina State University
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoology
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biology
Dr Erich Vorpagel, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology; computational protein function.
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineering and Geology
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Keith Wanser, Physics
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Near-East History (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr Carl Werner, Biologist
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geology/Paleontology
Dr Kurt Wise, Paleontology
Dr Bryant Wood, Archaeology
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemistry and Materials Science
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Daiqing Yuan, Theoretical Physics
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology
I thought by the title I was going to watch a very short scientist debate with a Creationist.
***** Nicely done, sir.
too funny!
+Andrew Heard I know right?! I was expecting a midget scientists talking to a creationist lol
WHERE IS MY MIDGET!!!!
Creationist scientists? That is like saying Devil worshipping christians. Creationists are creationists because they do not know any science, or just about anything else. They are severely retarded.
+Andrew Heard Thank you for helping me catch that lol
That scientist was NOT short. I feel cheated and butthurt
tefras14 lmao I thought the same thing
its funny cause thats what creationists do lol
I think they meant the DURATION of the video, NOT how short the scientist is.
tefras14 The word ever is at the end by the way.
Andy Lara I think he was JOKING.
Not to take a side in the debate here, but this guy’s argument is entirely self-affirming. “All scientists agree with me, and those who don’t are not scientists.” Apply that to any other issue and the absurdity is obvious: “All economists agree with me, and if they don’t they’re not economists.” “All politicians agree with me, and those who don’t are not politicians.” I can’t think of too many arguments less scientific than that. Do better, Mr. Science!
But in a way, he's right. The only people who would argue with him in that regard are ignorants who havent studied science, so they are not scientists. Those who dont use sience to proove their theories cannot be called scientists, so until a creationist comes with factual evidence to support their claim, they cant be called a scientist, that'd be a philosopher
@@Xymage but in this case it's not a personal opinion, we're talking about scientific facts that have been proven for a long time and about the only people opposing it are idiots without a propper education. He is right in the other contexts, but science isnt about opinions, it's about proving hypothesis, and this one has already been proved
@@kristophesiem5336 Substantively, the scientist is right, but the way he pushed his argument is wrong. What he should have said was, "I read them, and here's what they got wrong." Not "If you disagree, then you are not a scientist." That's a bad faith way to present your position.
I live reading two random people fight in TH-cam comments. Please, keep wasting your life.
@@kristophesiem5336 creation scientists are the exact opposite of scientist. Trying to justify a belief with correlation is not science.
I still can't believe a word called "evolutionist" came up.
It's like calling someone an "earthist" because they believe that the earth is real.
Suboptimal Constructor Why are creationists called creationists?
We need names for these hugely different beliefs. Evolutionism is a worldview, as creationism is.
@@sunblaze8931 Well, a word view based on overwhelming evidence and reason. Thats like saying "eating" is a world view. I guess you can view the world in a way where you dont eat.
Jesus Christ “Evolutionism” isn’t a world view. It’s the truth.
Achyuthan Sanal Evolutionism is a worldview. It’s the worldview that humans evolved from animals.
Achyuthan Sanal Also, I don’t disagree with the validity of evolution, I just hold that it is a worldview.
Dammit, he had a whole notebook of comebacks but he left it in the motel room...
He had no comeback whatsoever for that line. Checkmate!
In the drawer next to the Holy Bible???
I actually give the creationist man credit for stopping right there. Most are so arrogant and just wont stop spouting ignorance.
Well, the video is cut off there and looks to be deceptively edited.
I think it's more likely that the guy, in that moment, began thinking "well in that case, being a scientist isn't all that great hmpf 😤😤"
@@251rmartin Considering the 'argument' in the video by the atheist was merely an assertion...
@@251rmartin There is no debate in the video. There's a fragment of a conversation.
@@251rmartin Semantics is the study of meaning. So yes, semantics in that the video title says it's a debate but the fragment we see doesn't meet anybody's definition of debate.
I like how they both listened to each other and tried to understand each others beliefs and the justifications thereof.
evolution just explains the path of our existence. it doesn't prove or disprove the existence of god. thats something out of the box
Pete Zack Well put, but the trouble is that many creationists aren't as astute as you. :)
well the problem comes when the "world is only 6000 years old" gets added into the argument, I think this is where this video started to explain that the world has to be millions of years old instead of just 6000.
+iiiDartsiii
"The world" is an historical construct, and as such it started around 6000 years ago. The planet is another question of course.
It does challenge the establishment of Christianity and The Bible. If one thing is false, other things could be too, and going further down that road leads (potentially) to completely disregarding the bible. There are, of course, other systems of belief that take that stance, e.g. Deism
Flying Pig Broadcasting the bible is pretty abstract and unclear. to disprove religious beliefs would be interesting though. however, it would be still irrelevant to the existence of god
Evolution does not try to deny the existence of God, why don't people get it?
Prakash, that is a great point that I wish I could easily answer, but I cannot. Perhaps some of that thinking comes from the concept that God cannot make a mistake...so let's say that's true, then who are we as humans to judge some of the dead ends in evolution as mistakes? If you follow my thinking then what you'll find is the sheer arrogance on the part of those who oppose evolution who claim to understand what God does or does not do.
I'll leave you with this to consider. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life (9 years) for suggesting that the earth was not the center of the Universe, and instead revolved around the Sun, which was. His works were banned thereafter. This underlines my point about religious perfection and God never making mistakes...according to very fallible religious authorities.
Galileo is remembered today as the father of modern astronomy and physics. Those religious authorities from that time are nothing more than dust. Think about it.
-Peace
Arthur Dent
I agree a 100%. I think most of the conflict arises from the method rather than the outcome.
Evolution talks about how life changes and progresses. It doesn't even try to attempt to explain how life started so it doesn't try to deny God in any way.
According to the Bible, however, God created the world in 6 days and people were created as they are in Gods image. Since they believe that people are created as they are, as opposed to have evolved from monkeys, there is conflict between evolutionist and creationist belief.
Besides the church made plenty of blunders in the name of God. It makes sense that people have lost their trust in them.
***** I agree but most of the nonsense that's being said is not even in the Bible to begin with. The Bible never states that the Earth is flat or that the Earth is at the center of the solar system. It's all bullshit, that the church said at the time.
Prakash Cherian Partner, I hear you and agree. All joking aside, that's what I call Monkey Business from the far Christian Right. Evolution never stated that...in fact the 'missing link' has yet to be found, but that does not mean it is not there. Darwin himself expressed concerns regarding his 'Origin of species' paper after publishing it saying that at some point it may be seriously challenged...instead science caught up with him providing a clear fossil record and embraced what continued to make scientific sense and went on to become scientific theory. What I admire about Charles Darwin the most, was his humility. You'll not find that in any religion as they never make mistakes.
Don't get me wrong here as I believe in God. I also believe in the teachings of Christ. Modern, and older religion leaves me numb...in America as you may know the KKK (klu,klux,klan) were Christian...need I say more?
Thank you for posting your single, original, sentence.
-Peace
The fear is that evolution disproves the creation myth which destroys all religions with creation myths
God obviously carved out the Grand Canyon with a spoon.
Thought it was Ben & Jerry's and was like "ah shit, oh well"
He took a few bites and quickly realized it was all rocks and sand
Erik Redeker and that's how "Rocky Road" was invented.
except there are no roads in the canyon you complete dipshit moron
absurdrhino Christ, he was only trying to make a joke
I saw it as a defamation of my character
Uniformitarinism in geology refers to strict gradualism, which many modern geologist don't hold to anymore and now accept many catosphism events. The scientist here is wrong to claim that all scientists are uniformiterianism. That doesnt mean creation is right, but the "scientist" is wrong.
it means the laws of science haven't changed
You can ignore AMC.
That awkward silence at the end was perfect.
Does the uncut version have him chasing him in a pick-up truck?.
@shaking like tremolo he's from Northern Ireland so it would be flute music.
@Paul Morgan I think we can deduce that he's a total bell end just from this 30 seconds.
@Paul Morgan Absolutely spot on Paul.
Reminded me of the Christopher Hitchens video where some 9/11 conspiracy crackpot was asking him about his position on the war on terror, and Hitches said "I'm not bothering with you."
if religion was a trait you could learn in an RPG it would give you:
+2 charisma (but only if you max out the priest tree)
-10 intelligence
+5 Rage
Grizz Lee lOL!!!!! love the rage attribute
Grizz Lee I swear if believing in god could actually grant you the powers of a paladin I would be so in. Although, if you use the rules of AD&D 2nd ed. (the only correct edition!) you could get the same powers believing in any deity.
Grizz Lee You left out
+ 10 Absolute conviction
Grizz Lee Special ability: Shield of Ignorance. Grants immunity against reason-based attacks.
*****
no, it's a scientific theory. Like gravity and electricity.
"You can't tell me how it happened so God did it" is not science.
Correct; it's called "The God of the Gaps" argument, and it's a classic logical fallacy. Another related logical fallacy is "We Don't Know Exactly How it Happened, so Evolution" (The Evolution of the Gaps Fallacy).
It's a logic used a lot in religion context : because you can't prove it -> god exists ! - I don't know what part of the brain should be missing, to follow this logic ... If you can't prove something, it means nothing is sure.
Numinous, evolution and god are in no way similar. God isn't proven and never was, evolution is proven. If i throw a rock into the air and it lands, we can assume that gravity caused it to fall to the ground, without knowing that it did. Is this a "gravity of the gaps fallacy"?
Numinous- can you give an example of someone using the Evolution of the Gaps Fallacy? I've not heard this before.
Sorry, Fritz, your faith in the "proof" of the theory of evolution (particularly macro-evolution) is entirely misplaced and predicated on inaccuracy and misunderstanding on your part. The fact of the matter is that macro-evolution is one of the most hotly contested theories of all time, right up there with anthropogenic climate change. But wait, there's more: what's confusing you is that micro-evolution, which is limited to short-term mutation and epigenetic adaptation, is demonstrable and easily seen readily, even within a generation or two. Nobody is disputing this. Your err is in having an unsophisticated, lacking view of the entirety of the theory, particularly the evolution-of-all-species-from-a-common-ancestor part (macro-), which has very little evidence (and most certainly zero "proof," which in the strictest, formal sense is a phenomenon relegated to the discipline of mathematics). Additionally, another fact you're ignoring is that many Christians have no problem with evolution (en total) at all, seeing it as a creative mechanism that God implemented in the creation of organisms. Accordingly, with a subset of the faithful, no dichotomy between God and macro-evolution exists.
Sure, Andotech - the abject lack of intermediary lifeforms antecedent to the Cambrian Explosion, treated by the EOTG fallacy thusly: "Because yet-to-be proven evolution manifested in the heretofore unidentified, intermediary lifeforms. Even though we haven't found said lifeforms yet, we know conclusively they exist without evidence, because evolution." It's actually a form of circular reasoning too, which makes it even more embarrassing.
Ludovic, I'm sorry, but you're quite ignorant if you believe sound logic of the first order is the exclusive intellectual property of atheists. Nothing could be further from the truth. Read up on C.S. Lewis and William Lane Craig if you disbelieve. Some Christians are world-class logicians. Your statement is unsubstantiated illusion, and easily demonstrably disproven.
The only way to respond to a Christian, especially a creationist, is to ignore them. They aren't to be taken seriously.
YOU aren't to be taken seriously.
@@Thebattler86 your opinion is worthless right now. Come back when you come to your senses.
@@luigi290 The less you say the better.
You are all wrong. I have it on good authority that the universe and everything in it was created a week last Tuesday at 29 Acacia Rd, Elton Wellesby, Suffolk, England. It was created by Mr Eric Twinge.
How would you know? YOU WEREN'T THERE!
I happen to know Mr. Twinge and he did take Sunday off .
Gianfranco Fronzi
That confirms it.
With all compliments to Mister Twinge, he could have given me more stuff.
I like stuff.
RealYellowbeard So it begins. Somebody will be along in a while to explain how it was actually Mr Chorlton at Number 42 who created it and Mr Twinge only helped. Maybe they will offer more stuff.
Well to be fair, the two guys were outclassed by the geologist, it does not say too much about their mutual positions.
Their positions were that he was standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon and disagreeing with them.
A very dangerous position I'd say.
Tim Webb He responded with buzzword “arguments” that he sees as fallacies, because he has nothing else to go on. There’s no stance to present. He can only make some dumb sophist point about naturalism and uniformitarianism. Meaninglessness, zero substance. I’d say it was a pretty balanced fight.
@Tim Webb they didn't use even the short time given to them.
They were silent. So, I'd think adding extra silent seconds to the video doesn't make it a better argument...?
@Tim Webb adding extra silent seconds to the video wouldn't make it worse?
(Although I personally don't think that it is bad at all.)
@Tim Webb
My issue is with your first reply. All the subsequent replies you made were conversations with the op. Not me.
And you already started a personal attack when you know next to nothing about me. Why? It's just rude, and not even rational.
Besides that, how about addressing what I asked?
I love to hear creationists and their arguments for how adam and eve created all of us through incest
i love hearing about how atheists have no clue about how the big bang happened.
@@brendanbloomberg3283 lmao i love hearing ignorant comments like yours. did you know that creationists love claiming they know everything, by quoting the bible which was written by people who didnt even know what bacteria were? at least the sciences don't claim to know everything. we know when to say 'we dont know.'
the big bang didnt come from nothing. we literally dont know yet. like we didnt know about bacteria at one point. there are scientific advancements every day. do religions ever find out new things? nope they believe in the same old outdated shit. please tell me how adam and eve populated the whole world through incest. please do. im love that story
@@bigwillchill you're a woman.
@@bigwillchill whyd you like your own comment?
@@brendanbloomberg3283 cant refute any of my points huh? i thought so. you're too dumb, so you resort to petty personal attacks? yup you're a typical creationist LMAOOOO i love that creastionists tout that they're smart and superior but when it actually comes down to it, they are like every other half brained nitwit out there. lol you fell for the biggest and oldest scam lol your brain has a lot growing up to do buddy
I would hardly call that a debate. Looks more like he was holding his tongue while the other was being disrespectful.
Thank you! I was looking for this comment
It is disrespectful to lie about scientists think, so it is good he got around to realize it is time shut his dumb trap.
One was right. The creationist wrong.
@@speciesspeciate6429 same people that told u this just found a star that, in order for it to be as old as it is now, it would be older than the entire creation of the universe, shows that they really dont know jack shit about when things were created and how long they took to get to what they are like now.
Oh and I’ve seen rocks get carved out from water in such a short amount of time with small amounts of water, we believe the grand canyon got carved out with the flood, and thats the water from every ocean combined.
@@mobbarley1102 I know what the cosmologists are saying. You are wrong when you say that the star would have to be older than the age of the universe. It hasn't debunked the Big Bang at all.
"...assumptions of naturalism..."
So, why bother with science when we can just look for supernatural/magical explanations for mysteries instead?
Because they don't exist. We've proven them wrong.
I met a 3 foot scientist before, that guy was at least 4' 10 minimum
hahahah the title
Hahahahaha
fububalla - A scientist with three feet? IT'S A MIRACLE!
Put him on the cross. Eye level achieved.
humans are becoming taller- evolution
The Scientist seemed average height to me
Lol.
That is the interpreter. The scientist is too small to be seen.
Well you seemed of average intelligence to me, guess we were both wrong
At age 15 my father tried to tell me the earth was 6000 years old.
I burst out laughing...he never mentioned it again. 😂
He didn’t even give you a reason? Lol
Proving the idea that most 15 year olds are dumbasses
That's a sad story.
It’s at least a good 15,000. Most people don’t realize that there were cities by the time Cain killed Able, or that Adam and Eve were not just two people.
@@matthew8153 wait really? How do you come to that conclusion?
"Faith: confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof."
+Nj Rh I suppose atheists do have faith that there is no God, since there is no evidence that he does NOT exist either.
As for the definition... it is the same across all popular definition websites (likely including the atheist manifesto : ] ) as well as some little known names, like Merriam-webster, dictionary . com, Oxford dictionaries, Wikipedia, etc...
Even the religious site "GotQuestions . org" says "Thankfully, the Bible contains a clear definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1: 'Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.' Simply put, the biblical definition of faith is 'trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove.'"
I can go on and on but I'm too lazy, but it seems that some of those who possess faith (like yourself) seem to only want to reject supported claims (as you said, "I don't believe in it"), and believe in the unsupported.
Look it up yourself, then deny and deny and deny away....
***** I'm just quoting the sources.
+Nj Rh If you're trying to argue that faith is based on proof and evidence rather than a lack of it then we better end this discussion right now, as we'll never agree. I follow the definitions of the official sources... you deny them and follow your interpretation of the Bible.
***** Blame gotquestions . org then. But even so... one out of five sources is off in your opinion... the majority supports my original claim: "Faith: confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof."
My intent is simply to spread the definition of faith- the common definition, the majority definition. How can i deliberately misuse something that you say I don't even understand?
I'm muting this post, cuz you'll go on and on talking about how the bible says that faith is based on proof of miracles... (zzzz...) while I quote the sources. We'll go on and on in circles until we die and find out the truth.
Like I said, "We'll never agree. I follow the definitions of the official sources... while you follow the Bible"
Enjoy your life, Nj! Good bye forever. : ]
Faith: belief in someone or something. You need a dictionary.
A true scientist always entertains the possibility that his/her beliefs might be contradicted by new evidence. Creationists fail that test.
Incorrect. But continue to make bold assumptions.
That's not the problem. The problem is what they will accept... err... I mean... reject as evidence.
Exactly! If it isn’t falsifiable, if it’s shielded from contradictory evidence, it isn’t science.
Your first sentence was correct; but you failed to address the right people, evolutionists!!
@@its1110 Yup, that's the problem with evolutionists.
"Never interrupt one's enemy whilst they blunder."
Napoleon Bonaparte
@@diegotavel5872 I thought that was a Sun Tzu. Live and learn.
@@FanboyFilms
Actually the real quote goes like this:
"In that case,” said Napoleon, “let us wait twenty minutes; when the enemy is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him.”
In the spirit of Mikhail Tal.
And he's right! A true creationist has already decided on the "answer" they would like and tries to find ways to bend their description of reality to meet it - that's not science, so they can't be scientists!
To an extent, everyone does that
@@timothyvenable3336 To what extent? Sure, some people are *unaware* of bias and so let it could their decision making process, and others are *aware* of bias and so work hard to exclude it. But the creationist thing is absolutely deliberate and premeditated: these creationist "scientists" *must* at least have the good sense to understand that they are not using the scientific method ... so they are lying to themselves and to their fellow believers (either that or they are profoundly and unwittingly ignorant - neither is a very respectable scenario).
@@joelonsdale can you give an example of Christian scientists not using the scientific method?
@@timothyvenable3336 I already did, Timothy - check the first comment. Creationists already "know" that god created the world 6000 years ago. That unshakeable conclusion renders their "scientific" investigations entirely pointless. They are not searching for an answer, they are searching for ways to justify an answer they have already accepted - that is not science. There is an overwhelming amount of solid scientific evidence to show that the world was not created as described in the bible, evidence we can all share in and verify ourselves provided we have the requisite skills.
@@joelonsdale I get what you’re saying. And to an extent I agree. But to be fair, naturalism does the same thing. They assume God doesn’t exist, so when they see the historical geological record, for instance, they say they it took hundreds of millions of years to develop.
Now please don’t dismiss me for that, I’m not saying the current understanding is wrong. I’m saying I agree it takes hundreds of millions of years to get the fossil records of the rock layers we have, OR it could have happened due to a world wide catastrophic flood. The same evidence that says the mountains were in the oceans a billion years ago is the same evidence that says water covered the entire earth.
If scientists are going to say it is a proven fact, they have to prove that it wasn’t the other option
_"Thick people are very good at arguments. Because they're too stupid to realize they've lost."_ -Chris Morris.
@@lukasbrucas3027 It's a different thick/thicc. 'Thick' as in 'thick-skulled', dumb, stupid, etc.
Yeah you can throw all the facts at them but they’ll just denied it
Question, who do you is better at arguing in this instance?
@@rhysf.505 You wanna finish that sentence there, buddy?
Rez, hurrrrrrrrrrrrrr
I thought video was going to be a debate between a creationist and a short scientist. I was disappointed.
Then you're definitely going to be disappointed by the story of the 20 foot doctors getting the podiatry award.
And one of my favorite newspaper article titles of all time is "Dentist Receives Plaque".
LMAO
I actually clicked because of that xD
lmao same
I don't get what the creationist says. He speaks without bothering moving his lips.
He's Irish lol
Czech your privilege
So anyone to tell me what is happening please ^^ ?
"John thank you for your talk so far, your first assumption was naturalism, and second was uniformitarianism"
"well not all scientists, thats a false statement"
"so you've never read anything by a scientist like that?"
"ahh okay"
Those are the four sentences he says
Czech your privilege
Thanks, everything is clearer now
Archibald Belanus No problem bud
If you consider yourself of above average intelligence you should immediately understand why you cannot prove God or creationism if you have a passing knowledge of Christianity/Judaism. As for the Christian, don't waste time trying to prove something you can't. Your job is to spread the gospel. If they refuse it, walk away.
Good wisdom that is, brother.
As of October 1st, it will be ILLEGAL to smoke in a vehicle with children.
Even as a smoker, I have to agree, it's a great law.
But we allow extreme, religious indoctrination of children as if it's "harmless"?
Hmm...
P.S. I do agree with freedom of religion. When they become adults and are capable of choosing for themselves. (After important critical thinking skills have ALREADY been formed.)
Extreme religiosity is a result of extreme indoctrination. (Proven to be a terrible thing. That CAN affect them for their entire life.)
*****
Nope, I support the freedom of religion. (It shouldn't be forced.)
I don't support extreme indoctrination of children with something that has NEVER been proven.
Many are still trying to convince children that Dinosaurs lived with man, Earth is less than 6000 years old, Science is wrong (ALL of the evidence man has EVER gathered is wrong?), etc...
Why not let children grow up and be mature enough to make a decision?
That's what we do with EVERYTHING else that concerns our children...
(I don't even care about Children going to church and stuff. I understand it's a family affair for some.)
Just don't FORCE lies, that we KNOW with 100% certainty, are explicitly untrue... It's wrong on EVERY level.)
*****
Evolution has 150 years of hard scrutiny against it and has COME OUT ON TOP!!!
www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html (In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.)
There is no "conspiracy" against God...
EVERY culture on the planet had their own creation myths. (Christianities myth is no different than any other, just a different story from a different part of the world....)
Nope, just show them ALL of the evidence and let them make the choice.....
Oh, that's right....
Religion has no evidence....
Is that why you are scared?
If you don't indoctrinate them, they will RARELY believe it?
Yup, true colors are showing....
*****
Longevity? Christianity?
Nah, that's pretty new actually. (We know mankind has been around for over 200,000 years...)
We even know where and when MEN decided on what to put into the Bible, and what to keep out... (Much of it comes from Greek philosophy{Secular}. That's why MUCH of the Second Testament was originally in Latin and not Hebrew...)
So the Bible is full of Jewish Lore and philosophy, Greek Lore and philosophy, and even adopted many other beliefs "holidays" like CHRISTMAS (Originally a Pagan/Roman holiday that has NOTHING to do with Christ. No one KNOWS when Jesus was born...)
The council of Nicaea is when it became accepted, the "lore" decided upon, and THEN adopted into the Roman Empire.
Longevity is the megalith builders LONG before Christianity. (And they had their own creation myths.)
Evolution is the obvious truth...
150 years worth of scrutiny against it and it STILL comes out on TOP!!!
Your are a willful sinner lying like you do. According to your faith. There is NOTHING worse.
P.S. I'm not an atheist.. (I'm just not religious.)
It's sad that you FIGHT FOR INDOCTRINATING Children...
You know your faith would perish without doing so...
*****
It's sad, you PROMOTE indoctrination of children because you KNOW your religious beliefs would NEVER match up to the evidence mankind has collected over the last 500 years...
It's disgusting...
The Christian God is easily disputed....
A loving, omnipotent, and omniscient being..
Such a being knows EVERYTHING at EVERY moment of their existence. They know EVERYTHING that has/will EVER occur... (Time and Events mean NOTHING to such a being since they already know EVERYTHING... That means that change is 100% illogical. Why would they ever change? They know EVERYTHING at EVERY moment of their existence. Change is 100% illogical since time and events mean nothing...)
The Bible is full of changes in covenants, ideas, beliefs, teachings AND full of contradictions, mistakes, and errors...
Even God failing, wiping out life to start anew...
AN ALL POWERFUL and ALL KNOWING being?
Even a change in temperament is ILLOGICAL!
100000000% illogical!!!
This proves, WITHOUT A DOUBT, that the Bible, as a whole, was NOT inspired by such a being.
(Mankind is full of mistakes, errors, and change...)
CLEARLY inspired by mankind!!!
Simple, elementary logic destroys the validity of the Bible...
********* THIS IS WHY YOU DEMAND YOUR RIGHT TO INDOCTRINATE YOUR CHILDREN. BECAUSE YOU KNOW THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT IT ANY OTHER WAY***********
The Bible is a hodgepodge collection of stories and myths like EVERY other culture had on the planet...
It's NO different.... it's NOT special...
*****
Already said I'm NOT an atheist....
Do you even read?
(Or because I don't believe in YOUR God you consider me Atheist?)
I already LOGICALLY PROVED Christianity wrong in the other post...
Change is illogical for such a being. (Since they know EVERYTHING at EVERY moment of their existence.)
Bible is FULL of change and contradictions...
Therefore it is NOT truth...
Simple, elementary logic!!!
As for the rest of your post.
Education is enough for mankind.
The Golden Rule was accepted, by many cultures, ALL over the world BEFORE Christianity. (Empathy)
Because we KNOW this secular piece of philosophy was accepted by so many different cultures BEFORE Christianity.
The rest of your post is meaningless...
Everything should be about our Children and future Children.
Religious fundamentalism has PROVEN to be terrible...
And there is NO evidence supporting it...NONE... ZERO....
Why would we allow something so terrible to indoctrinate our children?
You make no sense.
Why would ANYONE support it? (Unless they are getting $$$ off it..)
P.S. "If money is the root to all evil. Why do Churches continually ask for more of it?"
WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!
It's called a Pyramid Scheme.....
They are outlawed in the USA but "religion" get's a free pass.
Who else gets recommended these random 30 second videos from ages ago for no apparent reason? 😂
I love it though!
rubenvanbeesten yup, same here mate.
A short film about a short scientist--total class
Your right! How does this end up in my TH-cam feed? Haha.
Thankfully I do as well.
It happened again, 4 months later
Grand Canyon: Long-term, large scale erosion of rocks
Creationist: Short-term, small scale erosion of ability to comprehend
Long term erosion of ability to learn actually.
That was good
According to the Bible, Earth already existed, there was only water in Earth
A flood simply cannot form the intricacy of the layers in the Grand Canyon.
@@aspitube2515 There are 2 creation stories in Genesis and the first states clearly that god created the heavens and the earth. Water came after.
I am not by any means asserting this is true. I'm an atheist, but you dont even know your own book! Smh
Intresting, I don't understand though the need to bodyshame the guy, even little people can science.
Yeah when someone goes right to someone’s physical characteristics it tells me what I need to know
As in short. He meant “this is the shortest argument.”
Future generations won’t understand how this footage was captured.
“Teacher, Is this a reimagining? I ask because the conversation doesn’t match the era of the technology used to film it”
Teacher: It isn't a reimagining, this is an actual series of events that happened, it's one of the many many reasons that led to the Meme Wars of 2030-2040. During the late 2010s and early 2020s tribalism, fanaticism, and fundamentalism were rampant. The world was rapidly changing due to the events of the 4th Industrial revolution and new discoveries were throwing centuries old beliefs into question. To answer these questions we must understand the fundamentals of belief, the nature of memetics, and geography.
It is well documented in pre-industrial history that people with different beliefs would end up fighting each other. We see ideological conflict as far back as the early Bronze Age, where those who worshipped different gods considered others to be sub-human. You can tell a lot about a culture by it's religion, artwork, and educational systems. This is because a culture is made of memes, (fragments of common thoughts, principles, and morals such as "do not kill" or " slavery is bad") and memes are essentially the genetics of the mind. They can be transmitted, passed down, mutate, and even come into conflict with each other. Thus you could think of a civilisation as a psychological organism.
Back then there were people who believed in a certain way of life, in a certain codex of memes. These codecs were called names such as Bible, Koran, Talmud and the basis for several belief systems known as religions. Now I know that you've had to read those boring things in your mythology classes but you have to remember that there were people who thought that it contained the literal truth rather than the reimagining that it was. There were also those who believed that there would be certain consequences for experimenting with the human body, that the entire world would become a nuclear fireball, if such experiments took place.
Until the turn of the millennium these religions were more or less confined to their respective geographical regions with one religion being dominant in a certain region by a large margin. However with the advent of highly accessible air travel and of course the Internet that changed, the world suddenly got connected globally in real time. Climate disasters and minor unrests as well as moves made by demagogues that had been elected to power solely for their charisma, and not their competence, caused mass migration. This along with industrial agriculture resulted in a population boom in nations all over the world. Soon various belief systems started filtering into each other and soon significant minority groups existed within the majority belief systems, in fact it's more accurate to say that there were no geographical majority belief systems at the time, the only real exceptions were the Arabian peninsula and China due to their strict religious rules and their complete authoritarianism respectively. The people who held onto these beliefs were starting to become a minority in a region of previous geographical dominance, there were multiple religions back then and all of them had one central tenet "We are right and everyone else is wrong". By eroding away the one form of central power a power vacuum was formed, I'm sure your studies on the Iraq Wars last semester covered what happens when a power vacuum is formed.
Up until this point the governmental system had been based on the idea of the "rational man" that was developed in the Renaissance period. Democracy thrived under tolerance, open discussion, and rational evaluation. However the rapidly changing nature of the early 21st century caused people to panic, that soon their beliefs would become obsolete, and this drove people to fundamentalism, to defensiveness, it was essentially a global panic attack managed in the worst possible way. A sudden pandemic that destabilised the economy didn't help matters along with the ongoing climate crisis.
This feeling of being attacked culturally resulted in the Meme Wars. In my opinion it should have been called the Global Civil War as social justice (the room of students lets out a gasp of horror), essentially rule by mob, was carried out by parties everywhere, in places like the USA it was full on gang violence as people shot each other in the name of being right. In China the Communist Party committed several acts of genocide after the COVID crisis caused companies to pull out of the country thus destabilising it's economy causing unrest. Eventually this turned into full on warfare after an extremist Chinese submarine captain sank a US aircraft carrier with a nuclear torpedo. We all know what happened from there.
Now then I believe that's it for class today, tomorrow the Queen is visiting our school. Don't be late and go gets some sleep! You can ask her about that time period if it interests you, she lived through it after all.
Everyone knew how the Queen stopped the war and ushered in the Space Age that had brought prosperity to mankind. She was a benevolent ruler, and usually didn't mess with the local affairs of the planets under her rule. When she did it was to avert a crisis that could have led to extinction. It was the reason why they were all part of the Interstellar British Empire under the Immortal Queen Elisabeth.
@@inventor121 I need to remember to copy paste this epic comment when I get back to my computer
@@inventor121 I gotta say, I stopped and read the whole comment. : )
@@inventor121
Children: Teacher, is it true that Milenko fornicated with the Queen? What does that mean?
Teacher: Shhh child, or we'll be all invited to attend Kawadoodoo RL ..
Children: Yaaay!!
Teacher: .. as contestants ..
Children (cowering): Ohhhh! But teacher, only Corryans can survive the hungry Streamers!
Teacher (whispering): We never ever speak of godforsaken Serbs again, understood?
Children: Okay :( But he's so cool.
Teacher: EVER. Now go and read your prayers for democracy.
@@inventor121 I'm sorry I ... I couldn't resist finishing that beautiful saga with a stark realistic contrast.
Why do people even bother debating with creationists? If creationists had any interests in logic, evidence or reasoning they wouldn't be creationists in the fist place.
Because of childhood indoctrination they truly believe that it is the truth, and many will want to learn more about the truth with logic and reasoning. The people I'm talking about are teenageers and people who are new to what atheism actually is that see these debates. You won't convince the person you're debating against, but you're planting a seed of doubt to others that do use reason and logic but never saw the illogical side of their belief. The debates aren't for the person you're debating against, it's for the bystanders that see it.
For some years 'serious scientists' ignored Intelligent Design, expecting it to 'just go away'... but by neglecting the debate Intelligent Design began to appear in children's school textbooks (in America). So it has since become important, especially via social media, to encourage the debate.
from Sweden, the most godless country in the World.
@@HaydenTheEeeeeeeeevilEukaryote Read the Bible and look for the science. It was there long before the word "scientist" was ever in creation.
@@chatryna I don’t like the way I worded my original comment. Nowadays my answer would be because people believe what they do for a reason, and learning to understand why they believe it is useful, or rather this is how I’d ideally like it. Other times it is more for viewers who are on the fence or just because people always debate over everything.
@@chatryna id also like to ask for instances if you don’t mind. I know it’d probably be tedious having to explain so if you don’t want to that’s fine. I hope to read the bible some day (and different versions), but the thing preventing me right now is really bad ADHD, it makes any book or the like basically impossible to absorb, I end up missing like 75% of what I read (including audiobooks), so right now I’ve been trying to just improve that.
What is a scientist? Wikipedia defines them as, "an individual who uses the scientific method." Welp, looks like he's right. That was a short debate.
lol creationists have issues with reality. They don’t understand the universe because they “believe” in a book written before iPhones & electricity….
Btw: the word “belief” shares a definition with “delusion”…
I've said this many times in my entire existence.
No need to believe in something, anything or everything if it was reality. Like why should I believe that the Earth is round if that was the reality? Do I really have to believe that the Sun is hot in order to get its energy? I've had so many debate with this many any other existence so called theism.
It's pretty pathetic how a text from thousand years ago written by an ooga booga kind of brain (that was modified millionth time by any other low tier brain) have this many impact on this entire planet. How pathetic that could be? It impacts keep getting pushed right above or maybe it will slowly fade away. But I've never doubt the power of human will to willingly live in illusion & delusion that will greatly push it impact even more. Resulting many any other brain getting brainwashed in the washing machine and stuck in the death trap never-ending rabbit hole.
There is also so many any other word that was completely useless that I hope I won't never ever see them again on the Internet or real life such as soul, spirit, heart, believe, god and so many more. They're just literally non-existent. It gives me brain damage every time I read them.
You're legitimately retarded if you believe you know more than the learned theologians of history.
There is more to reality than that which is immediately interactable.
To creationists: You can't simultaneously try to invalidate science and at the same time try to establish legitimacy for yourself by calling yourself scientists. That's just called hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Why can't both be true?
@@spaceinvador1855 because what creationists says directly contradict science. You can't just bend the religion to fit your arguments.
@@Thesavagesouls What Christianity says contradicts the theory of evolution and the big bang. Not every aspect of science. And let's be honest not all aspects of science are true
There are dumb creationists just as there are dumb scientists. The fact is that Creation theology and the science of evolution, etc have completely different goals. One is interested in understanding that which caused us to be, the other is interested in understanding how we physically got here. Neither one can really invalidate the other.
@@CrazyStranger11 Thank you. Evolution and creation are two completely different topics.
Calling a foot, a hand, doesn't make it so.
Calling a creationist, a scientist, doesn't make it so.
There is such a thing as creation science you, idiot
Name calling, always the sign of a well thought out argument.
After spending a great deal of time listening to creationists over the past 35 years. I would say that there is no such thing as a creation scientist. I will use Ken Hamm and his "Answers in Genesis" group for my example.
The key to being a scientist is the willingness to always look at new evidence and be willing to alter or abolish an existing theory if it does not fit the evidence.
The "Answers in Genesis" group explicitly say on their web site that any evidence that is in contradiction to the Bible is, by definition, wrong. How it is wrong may not be understood, but it is wrong and no disagreement on that point is allowed.
Scientists start with evidence and work towards a theory that is compatible with that evidence. Always being willing to change the theory if the evidence leads in a new direction.
Creationism starts with a position and then ignores or modifies any evidence that does not fit their worldview. Creationists try to fit any evidence to their preconception.
It is conceivable, (though extraordinarily unlikely) that evolution could be disproven someday by science on the basis of new evidence.
It is not conceivable that it would be disproven by Creationism, as Creationism is not science.
It is an authoritarian belief system, that says the world is the way it is, because I (or you or God or someone else) says that it is this way.
Nothing to do with science.
RobynHarris too long, did not read.
>> Bob Butts -- too long, did not read.
258 words was too long for Mr. Butts to read.
I guess that's "Creation Science" in a nutshell.
RobynHarris lol. you're writing essays on youtube. your opinion really means nothing now. go get laid already.
"Oh I've read them, I just don't count them as scientists."
REKT
Rekt his own argument, you mean?
@Rick Harrison Doesn't make a strong case when you have to back your argument by discounting an opposing argument simply on a basis of a contrived, or selective, definition of a term. It's a bullshit lingo maneuver, sort of like "assault weapon" or "destructive device". He might as well have just said "I don't listen to big stinky dumb-dumbs"- the level of intellectual maturity would be about the same.
@@animusauthor You have a base misunderstanding here. He detailed his argument before the creationist young man spoke. Informing him that creation "scientists" aren't actually scientists had no impact on the argument. There was no insult or ad hom in the statement, just the reality that creation is not a position you could reach scientifically
@@animusauthor yeah cuz those who read the LOTR and are trying to prove the Hobbit is real are scientists too 😂
@@SeminarChauffeur Nowhere even close to my point in any of my responses on this thread. Are you one of those people?
So where is the short scientist?
MrDefective thats what i was looking for
MrDefective 0:29 there next to him
The scientist is that white dot on the interpreter's shoulder.
The guy I was dating and I visited the Grand Canyon and he stood there with tears in his eyes and said, "It's amazing that all of this formed in such a short time during the Great Flood!" That was the day I knew this was definitely not someone I could spend my life with. Seriously?????? SMH
You got played, he was actually testing if you were loyal, I know this because I'm him :'(
But at least you "de-flowered" him first? Then leaved him...
("Stop crying you creationist sinner and do it!!")
( just a bad joke)
Did you get your profile pic taken while you guys were there?
Downloading the AnswersInGenesis.org dating app was your first mistake. =)
+Godly NippleHair
You aren't bright enough to know that a "hoe" is a gardening tool.
And you're calling someone 'retarded'? Comedy gold.
Scientist looked at least average height....clickbait.
Jordan Almanzar Ikr
The debate is short, not the scientist. Use your brain
EternalCreator thanks Einstein
EternalCreator
ur
ar
a lejend!
Jordan Almanzar the debate was short not the scientists my dude
Actually the shortest scientist is the american mathematician Charles Proteus Steinmetz with an height of 4'0" (122 cm)
A goldfish in a bowl was asked if God exists. 'Of course God exists', it replied, 'Who do you think changes the water?'
Graham Black, that's a nice comparison I'll use that
@batu khan I believe Rodzilla was commenting on the inability of the observer to understand said sufficiently advanced technology, and therefore he calls it magic. In other words; if a person cannot explain something it is not natural, and is therefore magic. Same kinda argument used by religion and therefore relevant here, as people talk about how we don't understand what happened to create a singularity leading to the big bang and other such things- where there is a gap in human knowledge, God appears.
Older religions such as the Hellenic & Roman deities attributed lightning to the wrath of Zeus/Jupiter, for example, as they could not understand the natural cause of it.
But the goldfish could see him and he wasn't all powerful and all good. I don't quite understand this comparison... plus goldfish can't talk so, yeah
What Rodzilla means is that sufficiently advanced technology appears like magic to the average person. People use an iPhone and it just works, like magic. They have no concept of how it works or what is required to make it in the first place. Even a light switch is like magic to most people. Every electrician will tell you stories of how they get calls from people who have been to the DIY store and bought an electric socket and wondered why it didn't work when they put it in a hole in a wall. Of course, people who manufacture the products do understand them. However, advanced alien technology may appear like magic to all of us.
Stephen Whiddett no, they would appear like aliens. And what Christian has ever compared God to magic lol. God is not a mystical unicorn that appears when u rub a lamp. Using analogies like that are simply flawed and an "out"