Many good comments on church history, but some inaccuracies. Christians long before Ussher were dating the creation using the OT genealogies to a few thousand years before Christ. Byzantine historians would date things since the creation of the world. Also, the inspiration of scripture has been mainstream throughout history even if the meaning of inspiration was not agreed upon (much less the canon).
I would suggest asking the YEC crowd to “let go” of their beliefs that they hold so tightly. The act of kenosis, emptying oneself, as demonstrated by Christ, is what got me out of the YEC ideological possession.
I read in an old history book that Christopher Columbus knew the world was round, but he thought that it was smaller because God wouldn't make the world with so much water instead of land.
As he certainly will not apply a neutral test of probability to all testable hypotheses he's talking about, it's literally a weaponized "Argument from personal incredulity" he suggests there. If you FEEL it's not credible it's a conspiracy???
His Creterion of "did the church teach it historically" feels a pretty badly picked idea if you consider that most denominations did burn or drown witches just 350 years ago... and that there is hardly any point of doctrine that has not been disagreed upon, LEADING to the many modern denominations being so split up and unwilling to find a consensus.
If you believe in magic, sky fairies, and magical books, my advice is to grow up. There ain't no Santy, tooth fairies, free will , or gods except in the minds of many deluded folks.
Love that element around 1:45:00 about teleological thinking. It's something I'd noticed for a little while now that conspiracy theories and theology have in common that they think all events are the product of intent by some conscious agent. I needed to hear that.
1:51:48 He keeps saying "you can't have a conspiracy believed by millions of people" but he then goes on to talk about how many people would have to be IN on it, how can he confuse believing in a conspiracy theory with being a PART of the conspiracy?? 😂
1:43:50 he claims "we know" x, y, z scientific facts that would enable us to reach the moon. No, he doesn't know those things. He can't know them if the historical/observational science divide exists in the way he needs it to. If all science is pure speculation beyond direct eye witness testimony and we can't be certain the fundamental physics of the universe don't just change when we aren't looking then we can't extrapolate into the past OR the future. We don't know that all our "observational" science isn't going to be totally invalid tomorrow. Can he see the future?? Their attempts to pick and choose what counts as science do not work in practice. It's just typical anti-science deception to hide the one and only criteria that matters to them; science must conform to their faith based beliefs. On a slightly more positive note: wouldn't it be interesting to see a prominent YECist and a prominent "evolutionist" team up to produce some content on debunking popular secular psuedo-science? There's clearly plenty of common ground between Carter's advised approach to stuff like moon landing denial and the approach I'd expect anyone on this panel to take. I wonder what (if any) disagreements would appear if creationism was not being questioned at all and Carter wasn't feeling under pressure to do the cognitive dissonance dance?
Its true that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat. But the Church fathers (with the exception of Lactantius) did universally accept Greek science, that the earth was round (and the center of the solar system).
Who cares what Bible or other Christians said, the Earth has been round despite everyone's belief. As evolution is a fact despite ignorant fundamentalists accept it or not
Its not true that Ussher invented the idea that the earth is 6000 years old. Church fathers like Augustine said the earth was approximately 6000 years old in order to mock the contemporary Greek belief that the universe was eternal.
if you only regard the tiny number of grifters promoting it for personal gain it's probably BOTH. THEY conspire and exchange arguments and they FEED their audience the idea that science is involved in this mega conspiracy akin to the nonsense Flat Earthers propose about it. "THEY just want to hide the truth/our god"
Are there any studies that break down the young earth community? Guessing some don't have a cause to know better, nothing in their life knowingly depends on young earth being true or false. Some are too stubborn to know better, like folks that are driven by emotional ties to the community, or emotional reactions to outsiders. Some portion have to know better, but can't handle what they would loose by leaving the community.
@mormonskeptic6836 - Carter says that conspiracy theories fall apart when whistle-blowers come forward. ------------ However, with young Earth creationism, with the recanting of former YECs, Carter et al will not allow that to happen. They grab up all those crumbled pieces, tenderly hug them to the bosoms, and run away to glue them back together. A quick buffing, and YEC is as "good" as new. Cycle and recycled.
Usher, 10,000 years. Not sure who to blame for 6,000. It's useful to note the Lord Kalvin, the creationist scientist who first calculated the age of or the based on thermodynamics, a comtemporary of Darwin, was thrilled to get a date of 10 million to 200 million because he thought that evolution couldn't happen that fast. Of course once we factor in nuclear decay the age shoots up to billions of years. So his science with more facts kills YEC.
Those _comments_ were... chef's kiss. Just immaculate. This whole thing, as soon as I heard what the topic was, I was *STRAPPED. IN. for shenanigans* like oh boy.
A question for Maddie: how hard would you say it would be for a faked moon landing to be hidden from you specially? Secondary: what about a flat earth? What would it take to "fool you" into thinking the earth is a sphere if it were actually flat?
All the data that we currently have that proves that it’s round. If you can fake all of that, you’ve got us. These hypotheticals are always ridiculous. We examine the preponderance of data. That’s it. If there’s new data that supports a new theory and we have to reorient, great! But wondering if we’re being fooled? That’s what the scientific method is FOR. When you get right down to it, a good scientist is always asking that question and then they go out and test.
@@Direwolf1771 oh for sure, I'm under no illusion about the fact of the moon landing. I'd just love to hear Maddie talk through: how many people would have to have lied to her face, how much data she's seen would need to be faked, how that laser experiment would have to be "rigged" so she "thought" it worked, etc. Same for the flat earth. How much weather data that she uses daily would have to be gibberish, how many satellites gathering weather data would have to actually be impossibly fast weather balloons, and again how many people would have to lie to her face on the daily.
I wish you guys would be consistent when referring to conspiracies versus conspiracy theories. Evolutionism is the proposed conspiracy, Creationism is the proposer of the conspiracy theory. Biology is the innocent and maligned science.
_"Evolutionism is the proposed conspiracy"_ Evolution is proven science. _"Creationism is the proposer of the conspiracy theory"_ Creationism is an idea based on theology.
@@cathyharrop3348 No, I don't understand your point. That's why I tried to correct it. Looking back, I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. Creationists think that evolution is a conspiracy, but calling it a conspiracy theory basically means the same thing. And if you think that evolution is a conspiracy theory, then biology is obviously part of the conspiracy.
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime A conspiracy theory proposes a conspiracy. Calling evolution a proposed conspiracy is not my being the conspiracy theorist, it just recognizes that Evolution is proposed as a conspiracy. Saying that biology is innocent, as it is the parent science to the theory of evolution indicates I don't accept the creationists nonsense. do you get it now?
I find it pretty annoying that the panel interrupts or talk over each other constantly. let someone speak, we don't need to hear your affirmation of it...
First law of Creationists: A Creationists quote always contradict the creationists' claim, no exception. Stolen with pride from McToon, when talking about flat earthers.
27:15 "allegorical interpretetations" of specifically the six creation days have since the dawn of the Church been about history after Adam fell, not about the creation event as such. I have updated that allegorical view by stating there are overall _eight_ creation days, of the old and of the new creation. Jesus came the sixth millennium because Good Friday and Day Six are about man (creation and restauration). Jesus will likely come back in the eighth millennium (already ongoing), since He came back among His disciples on the eighth day, the repeat of the first day. That's what "allegory" is about, not about denying the historicity of the six days themselves!
27:43 Origen, Philo, checked briefly. St. Augustine tended to _not_ take creation days literally, but that's not allegoric interpretation, it's about one moment creation being implied by his reading of some different text. When it comes to history since that one moment creation, he was Young Earth Creationist, check out City of God, books 13 to 16. St. Thomas when arriving in Paris was enthusiastic for St. Augustine, but later on he warmed up for six literal days (in Summa Theologiae he tries to combine both).
Okay. Now find me data to support your claim. Make a claim, gotta have data. Because I can make stuff up too. And dollars to donuts, somebody’s already come up with your idea and the Orthodox Church named a heresy after it. I keep finding that every time somebody proposes a “new” way to interpret Scripture.
Who's gonna listen through hours and hours of this? Hi! That'd be me 😂 I love this content for when I'm doing something that doesn't require total focus. I love when members of the science friends do big streams together. Entertaining and informative, love love love it
@torreysauter8954 - These videos are always at least 50% _longer_ for me because of rewinding & rewinding to concentrate on what someone just said or trying to tease out what someone said when they were spoken over.
At 2:22:21 - This comment shows up the most important point I believe conspiracy theorists have missed and really need to have drummed into their heads! That point is this: A moment worth of critical thinking will tell you that the vast number of conspiracy theorys, in politics especially, *must* be false! Why? Because the number of people sitting at computers "just asking questions" on the internet far outnumbers the number of people working for governments in positions that would allow them to actually start a real conspiracy! There are at most a few tens of thousands of people who could start real conspiracies, whereas there are billions of people with access to the internet and the ability to make sh1t up. When you think about the percentage of people in the first group who really do start real conspiracies (and we know there actually *are* such people) and the percentage of people in the second group who actually do "just ask questions", rather than, say, spend their whole internet time watching cat videos, those percentages are probably roughly equal, but even if the percentage of people who "just ask questions" was two orders of magnitude lower than the percentage of people working in governments who could conspire and actually do that would still mean that people inventing false conspiracies outnumber people who actually conspire by 1000 to 1!!! So therefor, if you have no other information, the chances of your favorite conspiracy being false has to be incredibly low and it *cannot* be true that most conspiracies, political or otherwise, are true. Really the only time you should take a conspiracy theory seriously is after it has been published in newspapers of record or by a *serious* TV news organisation with a reputation for telling the truth that they would not like to lose, and an active fact checking department. For avoidance of doubt this means exactly the organisactions most conspiracy theorists hate, and top of the list of organisations you *should* take seriously if they publish something on conspiracies are: The Guardian newspaper, The BBC, and CNN.
Oh yes, the Van Allen belt (not to be confused with the Van Halen belt) is a completely impassable barrier. I mean, the astronauts recieved up to 1.2 REM passing through the Van Allen belt, and that's like 100 times less than the dose required for Acute Radiation Syndrome... (Or is that just a convenient lie made up to make it more believable. In which case, why did scientists even mention the belt, the public wouldn't have found out about it otherwise)
On what is the gateway conspiracy theory, in my experience, since at least 2015 most of the secular conspiracy theorists I have talked to in depth name 9/11 as the first conspiracy theory that they fell for. In fact I talked someone who was Moon Landing conspiracy curious out of falling for the Moon Landing conspiracy theory over a period of about half an hour, and when he finally agreed that I was probably right we talked about conspiracies in general and I mentioned 9/11, at which point he said "Well you are definitely wrong about that one! There are loads of engineers who are on record saying that the towers could not have been collapsed by the planes." and he then went on to tell me that the realization that democratic governments (including our Dutch government here in the Netherlands) could be that evil was the inspiration for him asking "What else have they lied to us about?".
well he's correct in as far as it was not "Planes" which collapsed the towers, it was a raging, uncontrollable fire that burned for 6 hours or so before the structure was weakened so much that the whole building pancaked one layer at a time. Had the planes been empty of fuel e.g. after crossing the Atlantic before hitting the Twin Towers or somehow the vaporized fuel had never ignited or the fire protection had not been scraped off of the girders etc, the Towers would have survived the plane impact and would have had to be demolished or at least razed and rebuilt to the point of impact later. You can count on the core of any conspiracy theory belief being an abject lack of understanding the subject matter and having unrealistic expectations of reality. Like with YEC (as this video is not about 9/11 or Flat Earth or Moon Hoax but about Creationism as a source of conspiracy theories) the ridiculous strawmanning of Crocoduck and other demands to show things happening that are explicitly excluded from being even possible by the actual science. No current animal can spontaneously turn into or give brth to another extant current animal.
Christianity isn't just a conspiracy theory. _It's also an isekai._ Think about it. People die and get reincarnated into another world, with a new, superior body, surrounded by people who love them. The worst part? Like all isekai today, christianity is _painfully derivative._
@@vontosmagicmurderbag2611 No. A brick is not a house. But this house is made of brick, and christianity is founded on the idea of creation by a magic space wizard. Young or Old Earth, christianity is creationist. So I don't see much point in nitpicking over irrelevant platitudes like yours. And before you bore me with more garbage, yes I'm fully aware that some christians are so ignorant of their own cult that they don't believe in creationism. Not my fault they suck at their faith, nor is it my problem.
@LanceHall - Shame on all the 100,000 of you global fossil hunters, working together in a vast silent cult to pull the mineralized wool over our eyes! I bet you have a fossil _at this moment_ of a Sapien *_RIDING_* a Brontosaurus! Further, I bet the Smithsonian is on its way to your house to take it away to hide in its sub-sub-sub basement forever!! Grrrr......... / .^_^.
Almost all flerfs are creationists. I won't say "all" because it's possible that there is a flerf out there that understands that evolution is a thing, but I haven't met one yet.
@@Kyeudo Even it that is a theoretical possibility, i would say you are going to find many examples of that. The same logic of 'i see no curve' applies to 'i'm not seeing this cat changing into a crocodile right now'
I heard someone suggest that life is a geological process. What do you think? I believe that if you call yourself a scientist-- and a christian you are firmly perched on a fence post. That is the way you avoid being rejected by family and friends and giving up the social and economic privileges afforded by attending church and identifying with the cultists.
on a long scale, kind of. it's an interesting and complex diversion that carbon and other stuff takes on the way between eruption/degassing to getting subducted back into the mantle. you could make the same argument for chemistry: biology is just a particularly rich and complex group of chemical processes that have some unexpected gestalt effects.
A Christian and scientist in the same person is totally doable. The problem with some Christians/“Christians,” take your pick, is the insistence on making ridiculous disprovable claims that aren’t necessary to Christianity. Following Christ doesn’t even need awareness of the Old Testament, really. These people are worshiping at the idol of their own knowledge and correctness. They’re seeking self-righteousness, rather than actual righteousness via humility and service to others.
@@user-qt1qw1dy5b Not disprovable. Not provable either. One can decide to believe. Insisting that one can prove Their existence is when one begins to look like a provable fool. And insisting that you can disprove the existence of deity does likewise. You can state that it’s more reasonable to disbelieve until deity is proven. That’s fine. That’s not the same as disproving deity. This has been hashed out by better minds than either of us, so let’s just agree to ignore each other and get on with our lives.